Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutN.B. 4 E. TRANS CORR 01-06-92rY"N NEW BUSINESS N0. 4 U AGE -- (D i � 1-6-92 Y Al Inter -Com �US��� )ATE: December 23, 1991 TO: William A. Huston, City Manager FROM: public Works Department/Engineering Division SUBJECT: Eastern Transportation Corridor: Comments & Recommendations - Draft EIR/EIS & Supplemental Technical Documents RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting of January 6, 199 1. Support the construction of the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) as a necessary transportation facility which will directly and indirectly benefit the citizens of the City of Tustin and all of Orange County. 2. Support the City of Tustin's requested 21A-2 Modified Alignment for the west leg of the ETC in the Peters Canyon area which places the facility as far to the east as possible; limits impacts to existing landform and features; minimizes the amount of grading and earthwork required; and is least costly to construct. 3. Support the 2E Modified alignment alternative for the southerly terminus of the west leg of the ETC. This alignment provides a direct connection from the ETC to Walnut Avenue, and a continuous linkage from Jamboree Road to Harvard Avenue. 4. Review and approve the comments to the draft EIR/EIS, as discussed in the body of this staff report and the attached itemized list of draft EIR/EIS comments. 5. Forward a copy of the attached formal letter of response to the draft EIR/EIS, along with any attachments, to the Transportation Corridor Agencies. BACKGROUND The Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) is part of a major transportation facility being developed by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA). This facility is proposed as a grade -separated toll road, with three lanes of travel in each direction and provisions for high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. With the exception of the toll facilities, the physical and operational characteristics of the ETC will be similar to existing freeways in Orange County. The ETC originates to the north at the Page 1 of 9 Riverside (State Route 91) Freeway and splits into two legs at a proposed interchange near the existing intersection of Chapman Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road. The east leg of the ETC generally parallels the Santa Ana (Interstate 5) Freeway and terminates at the Santa Ana Freeway and Laguna (State Route 133). Freeway Interchange. The west leg of the ETC skirts the eastern limits of the City of Tustin, running generally parallel to Jamboree Road. The southerly extension of the west leg of the ETC is planned to terminate at the AT&SF railway in the vicinity of Jamboree Road and Irvine Center Drive. Exhibit 1 illustrates the ETC, the east and west leg alternatives, and the affected streets and highways system. Several issues of concern to the City of Tustin related to the construction of the proposed west leg of the ETC have been identified by staff. These issues include environmental impacts, economic impacts, and traffic impacts. In order to thoroughly address the myriad of technical issues involved with the ETC, within the timeframes specified by TCA, the City engaged the consulting services of KHR Associates, Irvine, California, to provide assistance on an "as needed" basis. In addition to the City of Tustin, the major parties involved in the technical discussion of the west leg of the ETC have included the Cities of Irvine, Orange, and Santa Ana; the County of Orange; the Irvine Company; and the TCA. DISCUSSION Peters Canvon Area Several alignment alternatives that fall between the TIOPAC and 21A alternatives for the west leg of the ETC have been identified and analyzed by the TCA. These alignments appear to be more economical and environmentally sound than either the 21A or TIOPAC alternatives. In the vicinity of Peters Canyon, between the future extension of Patriot Way and the future extension of Portola Parkway, the ETC is proposed to be constructed on an alignment which will lie approximately equidistance between the 21A and TIOPAC alternatives. Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate the alternatives under consideration in the Peters Canyon area. Staff and the consultant have reviewed the alternatives and have determined that an alignment which avoids existing landform, such as hills and gullies, is as vertically and horizontally straight as possible, minimizes the amount of grading required, and is the least costly to construct would best serve the interests of the City of Tustin. This alignment, referred to as 21A-2 Modified (21A -2M), was -developed by staff and the consultant, and proposed to the TCA for further technical analysis. The TCA dismissed this alternative, indicating that approximately 10 more acres of "developable" land would be required than other alternatives under consideration for the Peters Canyon area. However, the alternatives Page 2 of 9 under consideration by TCA would veer the north -south alignment of the ETC off a straight line and directly into an existing 125 -foot high hilltop which has had a history of geotechnical instability. Approximately 70 feet of the top of the hill would be removed to accommodate the ETC. In addition, over 2 million cubic yards of earthwork would be involved (1.3 million cubic yards more than the 21A -2M alternative). However, the 10 -acres of "developable" land that TCA alludes to would be gained by diverting the ETC through the subject hill. Staff prefers the 21A -2M alignment since it represents the least costly and most environmentally sound alternative. Some of the advantages of the 21A -2M alignment include: 1. Most direct connection between two fixed point of the ETC (i.e. , at future extensions of Portola Parkway and Patriot Way); 2. Reduction of noise and visual impacts on existing and future Tustin Ranch residences both during and after construction; 3. Least alteration of existing landform, including the subject hill, gullies, and vegetation; 4. Least amount of grading (earthwork cut and fill) required; 5. Reduced costs estimated at over 3 million dollars compared with other alignment alternatives; and 6. Avoidance of potential geotechnical problems associated with cutting into the subject hill. Exhibit 4 provides a comparison between the TCA -preferred 21A -1S, the TCAs -second choice 21A-2, and the City -proposed 21A -2M alternatives. West Leg Transition Area Three alternatives are currently under consideration for the west leg transition area - 2E Modified, 3A Modified, and 1C Modified (see attached Exhibit 5) . The 2E Modified alternative is favored by the City of Tustin since it provides for the greatest dispersement of traffic as the ETC connects to adjoining surface streets. The City of Irvine has proposed that the 3A Modified alignment be adopted -instead of 2E Modified, claiming that less land would be impacted and construction costs would be reduced. However, the consultant has determined that the Irvine -proposed alternative will adversely impact the City of Tustin - creating additional congestion and circuitous patterns of circulation. Staff agrees with this conclusion and endorses the 2E Modified alignment. It should be noted that the City of Irvine had previously (approximately 3 years ago) endorsed the 2E modified alignment along with the City of Tustin. Exhibit 6 illustrates a comparison Page 3 of 9 of the traf f is impacts associated with all three alternatives under consideration. TCA has suggested that 1C Modified could serve as a compromise between 3A Modified and 2E Modified. Staff disagrees with this conclusion since 1C Modified is also shown to result in greater adverse impacts to the City of Tustin than 2E Modified. 1C Modified could be supported by staff only if it does not preclude the possibility of adding the link between the ETC and Harvard Avenue/Irvine Center Drive (i.e., as featured in the 2E Modified design) . A detailed analysis is presented in the attached technical memorandum of the west leg transition area of the ETC (Exhibit 7). Draft EIRIEIS The draft EIR/EIS for the ETC has been released for public comment. The main body of the draft EIR/EIS contains over 400 pages of text and exhibits. For the west leg of the ETC, the two alternatives under consideration in the draft EIR/EIS are identified as the 21A and TIOPAC alignments. For purposes of environmental documentation, TCA considers any other alignment of the ETC that falls in between these two alternatives as being adequately addressed by the draft EIR/EIS. While the ETC is seen as a necessary transportation facility which will directly and indirectly benefit the citizens of the City of Tustin and all of Orange County, several concerns are raised regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR/EIS. Of particular concern are the visual screening of the ETC from existing and future homes in the Tustin Ranch, Cowan Heights, Lemon Heights, and East Tustin Hills areas; the impact on existing landform and features; the amount of grading and other earthwork involved; and the noise impacts during the construction and operational phases of the ETC. Screening is proposed by creating berms along either side of the ETC travel lanes wherever natural landform do not provide adequate visual barriers from surrounding residential areas. However, additional screening, in the form of landscaping, should be specifically mentioned and included as part of the mitigation measures for visual impacts. Existing landform and features, such as hills, gullies, and vegetation, should be left intact to the greatest extent possible. The ETC should therefore be aligned to avoid, or at least protect, these landform and features. The amount of grading and other earthwork required to construct the ETC will be of monumental proportion. Grading not only alters existing landform and features, bud creates other potential Page 4 of 9 problems, such as geotechnical instability. The ETC should therefore be aligned and designed to minimize grading and other earthwork. In addition to the above concerns with the proposed ETC project, detailed comments on the draft EIR/EIS are included as an attachment to this staff report (see Exhibit 8). Supplemental Technical Documents In addition to the draft EIR/EIS main body of work, there are also 10 separate supplemental reports covering the following technical areas: Noise Analysis; Peters Canyon Acoustical Studies; Air Quality Assessment; Biological Resources Analysis; Transportation Reports; Request for Finding Effect (for two properties included in the National Register of Historic Places and one property eligible for such a designation); Aesthetic Design Guidelines (for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor); Detailed Maps of the Build Alternatives; a Technical Memorandum on the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters; and a Historic Property Survey Report. The following comments are directed to these supplemental technical documents: Noise Analysis - FHWA and Caltrans noise mitigation criteria state that noise mitigation shall be considered if the projected Peak Hour noise level approaches or is greater than or equal to 67 dBA at residential receivers, using Level of Service C or projected Peak -Hour traffic assumptions. Noise mitigation will also be considered if the projected noise level increase is greater than or equal to 12 dBA over ambient and if the resulting total level is 65 dBA or higher. Other criteria exist however, such as county, and city. It appears that the section of the west leg between stations 2665 and 2740 is missing from the contour maps. This is an important section in that it is adjacent to the Tustin Ranch development. Noise contour maps C-26 and C-27 indicate that the 21A alignment offers superior noise mitigation in the Tustin Ranch area, where the TIOPAC alignment shows 60-70 dBA levels throughout the development and the 21-A alignment shows 60 dBA maximum. The following changes to the Noise Analysis section are suggested: • The accepted noise mitigation criteria should be stated. • A table should be included that gives locations that exceed the accepted noise criteria for mitigated conditions for each alternative. • A key map should be included with the noise contour maps. Page 5 of 9 Peters Canyon Acoustical Studies - The California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO) are used on this project. The TIOPAC alternative will exceed 60 dB community noise exposure levels (CNEL) in some areas. The 21A/Jamboree Road Alternative provides the greatest reduction of noise in the Santiago Hills development. Receivers opposite the Peters Canyon Bowl will experience less noise with the 21A alternative than with the TIOPAC alternative. Receivers at high elevations in Cowan Heights and Lemon Heights will experience slightly higher noise levels for the 21A alternative relative to the TIOPAC alternative. Truck noise from the TIOPAC alternative will be more audible than for the no -project or 21A alternatives at the northern end of Peters Canyon. Maximum truck noise will be approximately 30-35 dBA above ambient to nearest residences. A 10 dB or 20 dB increase is perceived as a doubling or quadrupling, respectively, of noise. Noise barriers are not very effective, providing only a 6 dB noise reduction or less in the Peters Canyon area. Temperature inversions occur frequently during night and early morning and reduce the effectiveness of noise barriers. Noise levels may be significantly higher than expected during periods of very low wind velocity. The following changes to the Peters Canyon Acoustical Studies section are suggested: • The accepted noise mitigation criteria should be stated. • A table should be included which gives locations that exceed the accepted noise criteria for mitigated conditions under each alternative. Air Quality Assessment - Short term construction impacts on air quality were identified as being caused primarily during earthwork -suggesting that grading and other activities which generate dust particles be kept to a minimum. Watering down potential sources of such particulates is prescribed as a mitigation measure. Other construction -related impacts to air quality include the emissions generated by diesel powered equipment used in grading. It is suggested that these emissions will be minor, based on the assumption that only 6 pieces of heavy equipment will be in operation at any given time. This assumption is not substantiated, and is believed to be unrealistically low given the magnitude of the project. A re-evaluation of the significance of diesel emissions is recommended. Haul trucks, which are also diesel powered, should also be -included in the estimate of short term air quality impacts. The section on Regional Air Quality identifies four different contaminants; TOG, CO, NOx, and particulates. Yet the only contaminant discussed is TOG which is said to have insignificant differences between all alternatives, including the no -build alternative. If the other contaminants are insignificant, it should be so stated. Page 6 of 9 Biological Resources Analysis - All alternatives for the west leg of the ETC impact primarily agricultural, and horticultural or ornamental vegetation. Some areas covered with sage scrub are affected as the west leg of the ETC interchanges with the east leg. The agricultural properties that lie adjacent to the City of Tustin have economic value which will be adversely impacted by the ETC. Due compensation to affected property owners are included in the mitigation measures. Both the "no project" and "no west leg" alternatives avoid any impact on vegetation. Mule deer are identified as the key specie of wildlife within the ETC area of potential effect. These animals are mainly confined to the canyons of the Santa Ana Foothills (e.g., Gypsum Canyon, Blind Canyon, Weir Canyon, etc.). Alternatives for the west leg of the ETC, including the "no west leg" alternative, will not directly impact the mule deer population. Transportation Reports - The transportation reports document, contains a series of technical memorandums and data on traffic forecasts, impacts, and mitigation measures associated with the ETC. The subject document includes the following forecasts of traffic on the Costa Mesa (State Route 55) Freeway, the Orange (State Route 57) Freeway, and various surface streets, including Jamboree Road and Newport Avenue, with and without the ETC; with and without the west leg of the ETC; and under the 21A and TIOPAC alternatives for the west leg of the ETC. ETC SCREENLINE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in 1,000s of Vehicles) Roadway 21A TIOPAC No West Leg No Project Costa Mesa Freeway 207 208 209 214 Orange Freeway 169 168 179 198 Newport Avenue 48 45 38 46 Jamboree Road 11 -- 47 65 ETC(West Leg) 63 72 --- --- Culver Drive 13 13 9 7 Jeffrey Road 20 19 30 31 ETC(Loma Ridge) 90 89 99 --- Santiago Canyon Road 21 19 31 20 TOTALS 640 635 630 592 As shown in the above table, construction of the ETC will result in additional overall traffic to the area as development opportunities are enhanced and traffic is drawn from other freeways and surface streets. However, the west leg of the ETC, under either the 21A or Page 7 of 9 TIOPAC alternatives, generates only slightly more traffic than the no west leg alternative. The major benefit of the west leg of the ETC is that it will significantly reduce future projected traffic on Jamboree Road, as well as reduce future projected traffic on the Costa Mesa Freeway. Request for Finding Effect - None of the three properties affected by the ETC lie within the City of Tustin. The Irvine Blacksmith Shop and the Irvine Bean and Growers Association Building are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) and are located on Sand Canyon Avenue, in the City of Irvine. The Irvine Agricultural Headquarters Complex is eligible for NRHP designation and is located along Old Irvine Boulevard near Jamboree Road, in the unincorporated area of the County. (Also see below under "Historic Property Survey Report".) Aesthetic Design Guidelines - The aesthetic guidelines for the ETC are proposed to be similar to those identif ied for . the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). Therefore, this document duplicates the SJHTC guidelines. If it is the intent of TCA that the ETC will adhere to the aesthetic guidelines established for the SJHTC, then the following statement of principles should be agreed upon by all participants: "The biggest and best contribution that the corridors can make is to emphasize the existing natural landscape; emphasize natural features, views and vistas; and, emphasize added landscape in areas that are dominated by built structure. The corridors should be experienced as an enjoyable passage through both urban and rural regions. They should reflect the highest regard for the need to experience open space and the natural environment." Additionally, under the guideline section, "Grading Design Goals," it is stated that the roadway should be fitted to existing topography to "retain the natural character of the slopes and to minimize cut and fill slopes." An important landscaping goal is to "preserve existing trees." The statement of principles and the above grading design and landscaping goals should be emphasized in the City's response to the subject EIR/EIS as critical in the Peters Canyon.area. It is further recommended that the various segments of the west leg of the ETC be precisely defined with respect to landscaping treatment (i.e., "rural," "transition," or "urban" segments), and that specific aesthetic guidelines be established for viewsheds from the Tustin Ranch, Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights residential areas. Detailed Maps of the Build Alternatives - This document provides detailed drawings of the ETC and requires no response. Various alternatives are illustrated in this document, including the 21A, TIOPAC, realigned Jamboree Road, and ETC with "no west leg" alternatives. Page 8 of 9 Technical Memorandum on the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters - See above under "Request for Finding Effect." Historic Property Survey Report - The purpose of this report is to ensure concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer on properties eligible for the NRHP (see above under "Request for Finding Effect") , the lack of eligibility for the register by other properties, and the presence of 10 archaeological sites within the area of potential effect for the ETC. Properties which are included in the NRHP or eligible for such designation are all within the City of Irvine, and none of the 10 archaeological sites are within the City of Tustin. Alternatives for the west leg of the ETC, including the "no west leg" alternative, will not impact the NRHP or eligible properties. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/ City Engineer RSL:kIb:ETC-EIR1 Attachments Dana R. Kasda Engineering Services Manager 'Page 9 of 9 PROPOSED EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR CRAWFORD CSN RD PROPOSED pplp- EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 'fR=ASPORTATION/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS 1W.s: Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300 • Irvine. California 92715 • (714) 756-6440 EXHIBIT 1 l ' 11.11 �•. � Y \ •�,\\ . � 1 � �, /t �,� \ V. ETC-2.DWG Soo T. - •t:l .a PORTOLA :11 �. V. W• PORTOLA PK*Y;-"IPROP!) 11 \• — _111 l• —. 4. r•=- fr t, .• , It WEST LEG OF pppp- EXHIBIT 2 EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR �'� �'� KHR QRROo ODATIP-8 (PETERS CANYON AREA) 1 TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS 5N Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300 • Irvine. California 02725 • ( 714) 758-8440 EXHIBIT 2 � II�� ddd • o cc ,� 1 ! V 1 0. 1 I m I N , I 11 ,1 1 •1 , , .w f 1.•'• VOY 00 A, _ f ' ��', " � •. • /fir �,� . •:; : � Q�� � II�� ddd • o cc ,� 1 ! LLL � I' ui 1 ti r - 0. 1 I m I N .w 1 ETC-3.DWG O SUO - WEST LEG OF �- 1=1 IMEXHIBIT 3 EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR bbb' MI hot., K`�R A0800DYR-ER (PETERS CANYON AREA) TRANSPORTATION/ENVIRONMENTAL/URBAN SYSTEMS 19500 Yon Karmen Avenue, Suite SCC • Imine. Ca:ilornie 02725 a (714) 756-6440 EXHIBIT 3 EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Peters Canyon Area Alignment Studies - Matrix Analysis (Including 21A-2 Modified) Prepared December 11, 1991 by K Assoc18ies 21A -1S 21A-2 23A:21V1: - - Southern Portion and and ?z` arid:::::;::::::;::::: STA 2603 to 2690 • 21A-50 21A-5• 27A= 21A -1S• 21A-2• :>2'IA=2M Features 1. Design F 5 0 0 LF Uphill 1 7 Grades es U ) P . <3% 11, 500 LF 11, 500 LF '���127�Q ��L�>� 6 500 LF , 6,500 LF '.0..:..:,.:... to % .3% 4 .4% to 6% 4,200 LF 4,200 LF :: <b00 :<::.3., :1.:::: 2.200 LF 2200 LF .Design Speed 70 mph 70 mph XXXXI `.. mpF 70 mph 70 mph P '7flm ........... P tur es 2. Utility Features A EOCWD Pi eline Reloc. P Pi eline Reloc. P : P�#�elitae::81oP? B. Cable TV Station Protect -in-place P Protect -in-place C. Water Pipelines Bridge Bridge `..... rage' Relocate Bridge #arid i and form s Aesthetic c L 3 A work A Earthwork .Total Cut (CY in millions) 3.0 2'.8 .....�.:::....... .9 .7 `.: 2 <:> .Total Fill (CY in millions) 2.5 2.3 s9> .7 .5 B. Berm/Split Profile Yes Yes Yes. Yes wa C Visibility of Roadway �bi Y Vehicles hic . From Lemon/Cowan Hts. Limited Limited ited>:<: Limited Limited ::.L...._ .::„: , . From N. Tustin Ranch None Nona :::::::Noris:::::::::::> None None . From North Irvine None Nona ` >'.'Nore None None :l`e< ..o...n.. :.:......... . w're ments 4 R ' ht- of -Wa Y Requirements A Total Corridor 146 acres 146 acres ���1�6 acres ;: 75 acres 75 acres 'i<Z5 acre. ... ..;, ;. B. Excess Land between 85 acres 95 acres s,.... e ETC & Jamboree or e Road s S. Construction Costs s lion s in millions) A Excavation ($M) $13.75 $12.7S 5 $10 50 $ 4.00 $ 3.00 $ .50 C Y (assume 2 / ) B. Utilities ($M) $0.40 $0.40 .. $.. _...........:.:: , C. Structures ($M) $4.10 $4.10 ::::;$:4:;1`0; $1.10 $1.10 >S1.,...... _.. . D. Summation A+B+C (SM) $18.25 $17.25 1:::;;:;3;5:00`:::::::; $5.10 $4.10 Information By Transportation Corridor Agencies EXHIBIT 4 u U- 93 r O 5 m U w zOY7 9 m J UYFVO ROAD Q,,, Pow o* ww , r LL � A Q < u L Q ce) w P YC Q � CLAM H IYFOftl) ROAD LVTLEY 2 U w Q Q W u O < s � m w N w` F Q w JtOAD EXHIBIT 5 EXHIBIT 6 � w, y W Hwa *MVO UIYC MVO LL > L � � p LM3Ai W O j r. � ; w i1117A� 0 ac w J i awArN CO : !� Uo U� � Y F W c:t1.J cc .O , Q Q nw7A. 7nw7A+ TNg711 TMm� ]Tr4 W W �_ U W LL 7Aw0 i7AV17 s all 7N10 WW a: poi } (n i 11.8 9 ��� O � OII�AYrM rvt sig � �yi Uv � "A� Q ` t") O � /"/ O w co 77ro««r W Cn ]7iO�r^R 01pr ...a. !— W < RA w 7 Z W N "° +7 zW cr J dO z FW-- jflMi.N "Mau NA17Ar T HCW p • +�• 7nA � 7TA W w LL s g W LL 7wa vu -M U— 7Nw uAim N O 3AM7A. O W ,,,�7A. w < .20 s � , uG GeV I'm C � " � a ar+AwN Z J � N O avoeWa co 7i0•'"• 1/� Q � al i � � S• N O fu�M ■.rCw i6 i _ < ty t1 < 7nh7A. rwa>, 7nw]Av Toa7� bl bl b b b b i �yyJ •0o EXHIBIT 6 bib._Mft,h._KHR ASSOCIATES TiiANSPORTAT10N /ENVIRONMENTAL/ URBAN SYSTEMS 16500 Von Kerman Avenue - Suite 300 - Irvine. California 92715 (714) 756-6440 - FAX (714) 756-6444 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 20, 1991 TO: Dana Kasdan, Engineering Services Manager, City of Tustin FROM: James Kawamura, KHR Associates SUBJECT: Eastern Transportation Corridor Issues Of Concern - Transition Area Several access and alignment alternatives have been proposed for the transition area of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC). The following is a description of each travel movement apparently possible for Alternative 3A Modified (hereinafter referred to as "3AM"), and Alternative 2E Modified (hereinafter referred to as "2EM"). Harvard Avenue access onto Northbound ETC: 3AM - To access northbound ETC from Harvard Avenue, vehicles must use Irvine Center Drive (ICD) northbound ramps onto ETC. No access onto the northbound ETC is provided from Walnut Avenue. This will result in addi- tional congestion on ICD between the ETC and Harvard Avenue. The inter- section of ICD and Harvard Avenue will be particularly congested by the additional northbound left turn movements from Harvard Avenue to ICD. 2EM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the Harvard Avenue can access the ETC directly without using ICD or Walnut Avenue. Southbound ETC access onto Harvard Avenue: 3AM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC must use the ICD off -ramp to ac- cess Harvard Avenue. No access is provided from the southbound ETC onto Walnut Avenue. This will result in additional congestion on ICD between the ETC and Harvard Avenue. This alternative requires a southbound loop off -ramp from the ETC onto eastbound ICD, which, in turn, would require additional right-of-way from the Tustin U.S. Marine Corps Air Station. 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC use the Walnut Avenue off -ramp, which transitions into the southbound leg of Harvard Avenue south of the Walnut Avenue/ETC southbound off -ramp intersection. Southbound Jamboree Road access onto Southbound ETC: 3AM - Since Jamboree Road will terminate and join the ETC at Walnut Avenue, vehicles traveling southbound on Jamboree Road will automatically transi- tion to the southbound ETC (or they may choose to exit onto Walnut Avenue). 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on Jamboree Road under this alternative will also automatically transition to the southbound ETC. (They may also choose to exit onto Walnut Avenue or transition onto southbound Harvard Avenue.) EXHIBIT 7 PAGE 1 Northbound ETC access onto Northbound Jamboree Road: 3AM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC will use the transition onto Jam- boree Road located at Walnut Avenue. This ramp is positioned beneath the Walnut Avenue overpass and does not form an intersection with Walnut Avenue; therefore, traffic from the ETC onto northbound Jamboree road is free-flowing. 2EM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC under this alternative will also use the transition onto Jamboree Road located at Walnut Avenue. Traffic from the ETC onto northbound Jamboree road is free-flowing. Walnut Avenue access onto Northbound ETC: 3AM - No access is provided from Walnut Avenue onto the northbound ETC. Vehicles traveling on Walnut Avenue must use alternate routes to access the northbound ETC, such as the ICD northbound on-ramp. This will result in unnecessary congestion along Walnut Avenue and roadways accessing the ETC. 2EM - Vehicles traveling on Walnut Avenue from both the eastbound and westbound directions will use the northbound on-ramp to the ETC. Walnut Avenue access onto Southbound ETC: 3AM - Vehicles traveling on Walnut Avenue from both the eastbound and westbound directions will use the southbound on-ramp to the ETC. 2EM - No access. is provided onto the southbound ETC from Walnut Avenue. Vehicles on Walnut Avenue will have to use alternate routes, such as the southbound ramp on ICD, or the southbound Jamboree road transition which may be accessed via Michelle Drive or the I-5 Freeway. Northbound ETC access onto Walnut Avenue: 3AM -Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC will use the northbound off -ramp onto ICD and proceed onto Jamboree Frontage Road to access Walnut Avenue. 2EM - No access is provided onto Walnut Avenue from the northbound ETC. Vehicles must use alternate routes, such as exiting onto the Jamboree Road transition and proceeding onto Michelle Drive and circling around, or using the ICD off -ramp and either Harvard Avenue or Tustin Ranch Road to ac- cess Walnut Avenue. Southbound ETC access onto Walnut Avenue: 3AM - No access is provided onto Walnut Avenue from the southbound ETC. Vehicles must use alternate routes, such as the ICD off -ramp and backtrack on Harvard Avenue, or the Irvine Boulevard off -ramp and either Culver Drive, Tustin Ranch Road or Jamboree Road to access Walnut Avenue. 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC will use the southbound off -ramp onto Walnut Avenue. EXHIBIT 7 PAGE 2 ICD access onto Northbound ETC: 3AM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC will use the northbound on-ramp from ICD. (same as 2EM) 2EM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC will use the northbound on-ramp from ICD. (same as 3AM) ICD access onto Southbound ETC: 3AM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC will use the southbound on-ramp from ICD. (same as 2EM) 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC will use the southbound on-ramp from ICD. (same as 3AM) Northbound ETC access onto ICD: 3AM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC will use the northbound off -ramp onto ICD. (same as 2EM) 2EM - Vehicles traveling northbound on the ETC will use the northbound off -ramp onto ICD. (same as 3AM) Southbound ETC access onto ICD: 3AM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC will use the southbound far -side loop off -ramp onto ICD. 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on the ETC will use the southbound near -side diamond off -ramp onto ICD. Walnut Avenue access onto Northbound Jamboree Road: 3AM - Vehicles traveling on Walnut Avenue will use the access to northbound Jam- boree Road located to the east of the ETC. 2EM - Vehicles traveling on Walnut Avenue will use the shared access to northbound Jamboree Road/ETC northbound on-ramp located to the east of the ETC. Southbound Jamboree Road access onto Walnut Avenue: 3AM - Vehicles traveling southbound on Jamboree Road will use the access to Wal- nut Avenue located to the west of the ETC. Jamboree Road terminates at Walnut Avenue. 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on Jamboree Road will use the access to Wal- nut Avenue located to the west of the ETC. Jamboree Road transitions into Harvard Avenue near Walnut Avenue. Harvard Avenue onto Jamboree Road: 3AM - To travel north on Jamboree Road from Harvard Avenue, vehicles must use either Jamboree Frontage Road from westbound ICD, or use the northbound Jamboree Road access via Walnut Avenue. This will result in ad - EXHIBIT 7 PAGE 3 ditional congestion on ICD between the Jamboree Frontage Road and Har- vard Avenue. The intersection of ICD and Harvard Avenue will be par- ticularly congested by the additional northbound left turn movements from Harvard Avenue to ICD. 2EM - To travel north on Jamboree Road from Harvard Avenue, vehicles must use the transition onto Jamboree Road. This transition is positioned beneath the Walnut Avenue overpass and does not form an intersection with Walnut Avenue; therefore, traffic from Harvard Avenue onto northbound Jamboree Road is free-flowing. Jamboree Road onto Harvard Avenue: 3AM - Vehicles traveling southbound on Jamboree Road must use the Walnut Avenue access (i.e., the Jamboree Road terminus), or transition onto the ETC and then exit onto the ICD off -ramp to access Harvard Avenue. This will result in additional congestion on ICD between the ETC and Harvard Avenue. 2EM - Vehicles traveling southbound on Jamboree Road will automatically transi- tion onto southbound Harvard Avenue, (unless they choose to exit onto Wal- nut Avenue, or transition onto the ETC and then exit onto ICD to access Harvard Avenue). From the above analysis of the various movements that are accommodated under Alter- natives 2E Modified and 3A Modified, it would appear that 3A Modified offers no dis- tinct advantages over 2E Modified, and in fact, could present several disadvantages with respect to additional congestion on Irvine Center Drive and Walnut Avenue. It should be noted that changes in levels of service (LOS), development opportunities, and cost factors have not been taken into consideration in the above analysis. EXHIBIT 7 PAGE 4 EXHIBIT 8 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DRAFT EIR/EIS SUMMARY SECTION 1) Project objectives/ Purpose ... (page S-1, 2nd to the last paragraph) "Based on the deficiencies on the existing freeway system..." Does this statement take into account the freeway improvements currently underway? 2) Table S-1, "Summary of Project Alternatives and Significant Environmental Impacts for the Build Alternatives" (page 2), "Water Quality" should either be labeled "Hydrology" or "Drainage". Also, the table should be modified to include Light and Glare Impacts, since the conclusion on page IV -13 is that the potential light and glare impacts represent a significant adverse impact. I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 3) Future Traffic Demand, (page I-3, 2nd paragraph), "Substantial growth" should be quantified with projected volumes or rate increase percentages. II. ALTERNATIVES 4) Toll Facilities (page II -7), "If determined, what will be the collected dollar amount for using the "toll road"? III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5) The discussion of Noise Criteria (page III -23) should include a review of noise standards in communities adjacent to the proposed corridor and all alignments since there is no indication in the document that County standards and noise criteria are consistent with those standards found in local communities impacted by any corridor alternative alignment. 6) Land Use Character - General Overview (page III -25), An illustration of land ownership boundaries within the ETC alignment would be helpful for reference. 7) Modify discussion on page III -26 (paragraph 1) to clarify that the Jamboree Road project is now completed. 8) Under the discussion of existing, committed and planned land uses, the EIR/EIS states (pages III 26-27) that there are no Exhibit 8 Page 1 of 7 committed uses in Anaheim within the Gypsum Canyon or Mountain Park area. The document should be modified to reflect the Anaheim City Council's adoption of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. The number of dwelling units authorized by the Plan as well as anticipated population should be identified in this discussion. In addition, the traffic/circulation analysis should also reflect projected traffic volumes generated by the development on all alignment alternatives and the impact without the corridor. 9) The discussion and information provided on the East Tustin Planned Community should be corrected as shown in Exhibit 9. 10) On page III -30 there is reference to boundaries not yet being established for the Peters Canyon Regional Park. While dedication has not yet been accepted by the County and there may be minor boundary adjustments, the park site boundary has been established with recordation of Final Map 13627. Boundaries, therefore, can be geographically described. 11) Water (page III -31), the water filtration treatment plant operated by the East Orange County Water District in the vicinity of the northern Peters Canyon alignment area needs to be discussed including alternative alignments currently being reviewed and their impact on the plant and Handy Creek Road. 12) When fire and police services are discussed (pages III -33 & 34), the environmental analysis should identify the physical constraints to delivery of service as a result of a boundary constraint created by a facility such as the corridor (and any of its alternative alignments). Where the corridor is in proximity to existing jurisdictional boundaries which would make service delivery less costly, more efficient and provide greater protection to people and property, a recommended mitigation measure should require exploration by affected jurisdictions of boundary adjustments to be consistent with the selected corridor alignment. 13) School Districts (page III -34), under discussion of school facilities, please note that there have been dedicated school facility sites in East Tustin. These sites have been reserved with Final Tract Maps 12763, 12870, and 13627. A number of the sites could be significantly impacted by the TIOPAC alignment in both the noise impact category as well as the result of anticipated increased traffic along Tustin Ranch Road south of Portola Parkway. 14) Transportation Facilities (page III -35, last paragraph), "The existing freeway ranges between six and eight lanes in each direction..." - "each direction" should be replaced with "both directions". Exhibit 8 Page 2 of 7 15) On page*III-39 please note that a portion of Portola Parkway is existing within the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin at this time is concerned with the redesignation of Portola Parkway between Jeffrey Road and Jamboree Road from a primary arterial to a major arterial. 16) On page III -40, please note that Tustin Ranch Road has only been extended at this time to Walnut Avenue. While the City of Tustin's Master Plan shows its proposed future extension to Edinger Avenue, several funding constraints at this time seem to indicate that said extension may not be completed for some time. The existing and future traffic analysis and modeling needs to evaluate the scenario in which the Tustin Ranch Road extension would not be completed. 17) Typical view photos in the report (Figure III -2 thru Figure III -9) should be altered and inserted in the environmental setting and consequences portions of the EIR/EIS to show the visual impact (as an overlay) of all alignment alternatives. 18) Maps and graphics referenced within the text should immediately follow the text instead of having all graphics placed at the end of the section. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES 19) Discussion of environmental consequences and mitigation measures needs to be modified to identify specific (direct and indirect) impacts of all alignment alternatives being considered by the TCA and member agencies. 20) Mitigation measures under Landform/Aesthetics (page IV -2) should be expanded to require landscaping and berms at the Patriot Way and Portola Parkway interchanges. In addition, landscaping should be provided on both sides of the corridor in the vicinity of the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters complex in order to screen views to motorists entering the City of Tustin on Irvine Boulevard. This is a major entry point into the City and the agricultural character of the complex reinforces the early California theme of East Tustin Community. 21) The EIR/EIS does not adequately address the potential visual impact of all ETC alternatives to the East Tustin Planned Community. Additional cross-sections and photo exhibits should be provided showing the effects of all alignments on Jamboree Road and Tustin Ranch Road. The view analysis should use several view points from within the East Tustin Planned Community; including from higher hillside elevations proposed for residential development to the west of. Pioneer Way, Pioneer Road and Tustin Ranch Road, one near La Colina Drive and Tustin Ranch Road. Exhibit 8 Page 3 of 7 22) Figure IV -6 and IV -13 should be modified to more accurately show the view impacts from the TIOPAC and 21A alignments and all alternative alignments being considered by the TCA. The text compares the TIOPAC and 21-A alignments, however, it is unclear if Figure IV -13 shows the expressway option on the TIOPAC alignment or the corridor option on the TIOPAC alignment. 23 ) The visual impacts of the proposed flyover where TIOPAC and Jamboree Road alignments diverge has not been discussed in the EIR/EIS. A conceptual cross-section should be provided as well as a view -analysis of the structure as seen from within the East Tustin Planned Community. 24) The reduced vertical profile for that portion westerly of the corridor east of Jamboree Road and north of the I-5 shall be a required mitigation measure to reduce impacts on the East Tustin Planned Community. On page IV -6, 2nd paragraph, in addition to "berms to buffer views", landscaping should be mentioned to further reduce noise and viewshed impacts. 25) On pages IV -14 and IV -16 additional information should be included in the EIR/EIS describing all available technical information collected on slope failures which occurred during construction of Jamboree Road in the Peters Canyon Area. The underlying slope instability and geotechnical problems in this area should be considered in evaluating the direct and indirect impacts of all alternative alignments. 26) Landslides (page IV -141 last paragraph), mentions "stabilization measures" for unstable geologic conditions. What are some of the stabilization measures that can be implemented? 27) Impacts by Subarea (page IV -16, last paragraph), If . undesirable soils are encountered and removed, how will they be disposed of - where will they be dumped? 28) The EIR/EIS does not specifically address the light and glare impacts from either the TIOPAC or 21-A alignments or other alternatives currently being discussed on the East Tustin residential community. It is anticipated that the impacts to residential areas north of Portola Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road will be severely impacted by light and glare from the TIOPAC alignments. 29) The EIR discusses in detail the potential impacts of the ETC on the Historic Resources in the vicinity. Of interest to the City of Tustin, is the discussion relative to the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters Complex. Although this facility is outside the City of Tustin and included in Irvine's Sphere of Influence, the complex has some historic significance to Exhibit 8 Page 4 of 7 Tustin. In addition, the complex is located at a prominent entry point on the City's eastern boundary and reinforces the early California design theme for Tustin Ranch. For these reasons, the fully depressed design option should be required mitigation to ensure that the visual character of the area is maintained. 30) The noise measurement locations (pages IV -116 thru IV -130) do not include any of the residential sites within the East Tustin Planned community. Additional sites should be tested, particularly in the vicinity of Patriot Way and Pioneer Road, along Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road and Pioneer Way. Although the EIR/EIS recommends that new developments proposed adjacent to the ETC should include noise analysis and noise mitigation plans, it should not be the responsibility of future developments to provide noise control treatments for sites that are presently approved for residential development. 31) A noise mitigation measure should require field monitoring and noise testing at certain stages after construction completion of any selected corridor alignment. If mitigation has been found to be deficient in diffusing potential impacts and impacts are still above certain established noise criteria, the TCA shall be required to evaluate and implement additional noise mitigation measures. 32) Mitigation Measures (pages IV -130-131), This section mentions walls and berms for noise attenuation. Was/is landscaping a noise attenuation feature for this roadway? 33) Mitigation Measures (page IV -135, 3rd paragraph), Are porous roadways or open -graded asphalt more unstable and at greater risk in an unstable geologic area? 34) On page IV -138, please note that the Mountain Park Specific Plan has now been adopted. All traffic data and analysis should therefore include the build -out impact of the project. 35) Within the discussion on page IV -139, it is noted that the corridor may not directly impact land uses. However, there will be indirect impacts on value and marketability. Obviously the closer a project is to the corridor, the greater likely impacts on future residents and indirectly this can - affect value. 36) On pages IV -146 & IV -147, in discussion of law enforcement and fire protection, see comment No. 12 above in identifying indirect consequences on service provision. 37) On page IV -147, the next to the last sentence is not based on fact or supporting data. It is an overgeneralized assumption. Exhibit 8 Page 5 of 7 Noise impacts could be significant. Under the TIOPAC alternative and its interchange at Portola Parkway, traffic could have impacts on Tustin Ranch Road and other local streets on which school facilities are proposed. 38) On page IV -149, in discussing Fire Protection Services, see comment No. 12 above. 39) On page IV -154 in discussing Property Tax Losses/ Displacements, see comment No. 35 above. 40) General Comment: The easternmost alignment of the west leg of ETC will have the least amount of Carbon Monoxide and fugitive dust impacts in the Peters Canyon area. Additionally, the easternmost alignment of the west leg will have the least amount of viewshed and noise, impacts on existing developed areas to the north. V. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS 41) In evaluating traffic/circulation impacts, trip counts are needed for Tustin Ranch Road built to Walnut Avenue only. 42) On page V-8, the EIR/EIS needs to include impacts from the Mountain Park development. 43 ) In discussion of transition area south of the I-5 freeway, the impact and necessity of realignment and reconstruction of the El Modena flood control channel shall be identified for each alternative. 44) Three alternatives are under consideration for the west leg transition area of the ETC. They are identified as 2E modified, 3A modified, and 1C modified. A study commissioned by the TCA, and performed by Austin -Foust Associates, indicates that the levels of service (LOS) for critical intersections in the vicinity of the transition area are most adversely impacted by the 3A modified alternative, and least adversely impacted by the 2E modified alternative. In addition, Alternative 3A would have significant impacts on the Irvine Business Center development located within the City of Tustin, west of Myford Road in the vicinity. of Walnut Avenue. With no access to ramps under this alternative, trips would be forced to the west through established residential areas within the City of Tustin. The City has also reviewed traffic information for the IC alternative and do not believe that it is environmentally superior to the 2E alignment. Traffic capacity in the area is significantly negatively impacted by both the IC and 3A alignments particularly at the critical intersections of Jamboree Road/Edinger Avenue, and at EXHIBIT 8 Page 6 of 7 Harvard Avenue/Edinger Avenue/Irvine Center Drive. It is our belief that the direct linkage from the ETC to Walnut Avenue and the linkage from Jamboree Road to Harvard Avenue are essential to the integrity of the future transportation network in this area and need to be maintained as provided in the 2E modified alternative. An analysis of roadway link volumes must also be provided to fully address potential capacity deficiencies and mitigation measures. Of particular concern are the link impacts to Edinger Avenue/Irvine Center Drive, Tustin Ranch Road, Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road. In the "Moulton Parkway Superstreet Study" (commissioned by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and performed by P & D Technologies), a post -2010 average daily traffic volume of 80,000 vehicles per day is indicated for Edinger Avenue/Irvine Center Drive between Jamboree Road and Harvard Avenue. The level of service is "F" and the volume to capacity ratio is 1.42 (or 42% over the carrying capacity of the roadway). Alternatives 3A and 1C will exacerbate this already unacceptable projection of traffic. 45) Additional analysis needs to be included in the EIR/EIS to evaluate the impacts of phasing of the ETC including specific impacts on the operational capacity of existing and planned arterials in the vicinity of the corridor. 46) The CEQA required monitoring program shall be included in the environmental documentation for the project. 47) The recent announcement of the pending closure of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) and subsequent reuse of a major portion of the site for non-military development may significantly effect, and be effected by, the ETC and the overall regional transportation system. The cumulative impacts, as currently addressed in the EIR/EIS do not address this future base closure and redevelopment. It is requested that any additional impacts as a result of the base closure be addressed in the EIR/EIS. Expansion of the alternatives for the west leg transition area of the ETC should be investigated with respect to possible extension of the current ETC southerly terminus to a more southerly location within the base boundaries including any required interchange access to the site. EXHIBIT 8 Page 7 of 7 providing detailed development guidelines. Development of the EOPC is expected to begin in 1991 and would occur over a 15- to 20 -year buildout period. The City of Orange and The Irvine Company, the property owner, have an agreement regarding the annexation and later planning phases for the EOPC. Specific Plans and annexation requests will be developed for subareas of the entire EOPC. Each Specific Plan/ annexation request is expected to take approximately two years to process. The City and The Irvine Company recently began preparation of the first Specific Plan for the EOPC. The northern portion of the City of Orange Sphere -of -Influence, generally between Santiago Creek and the City of Anaheim Sphere -of -Influence, is not subject to any city General Plan designations. The County of Orange has established Community Profile areas which define planned land uses set forth in the County General Plan. These General Plan designations include open space and residential uses for the portion of the City of Orange Sphere -of -Influence which corresponds to the County's Community Profile Area Number 29. Based on adopted demographic projections, it is estimated that approximately 2,980 dwelling units could be developed in Community Profile Area Number 29 by 1995, with a population of approximately 8,500 residents. Tustin: Existing, Committed and Planned Land Uses The West Leg would be developed under either the Corridor with West Leg or the Corridor with TIOPAC Alternatives, with both West Leg alignments located in or very near the rapidly developing East Tustin Planned Community. The West Leg alignment would cross Loma Ridge and traverse existing orchards on the south facing slopes of the ridge as it enters Tustin. The TIOPAC alignment would coincide with the Jamboree Road alignment currently being built through the Peters Canyon area, and would traverse former orchards that have been cleared for development of the East Tustin Planned Community. At the south end of Peters Canyon, the TIOPAC alignment would swing east leaving Tustin and enter Village Number 1 in Irvine. A large commercial center, Tustin Marketplace, is being developed as part of the Planned Community, between I-5 and Bryan Avenue, just west of the proposed West Leg crossing at 1-5 near Jamboree Road. 1 Z-- 220 9,1 18 The East Tustin Planned Co munity is an approved project hat iso/currently under construction. At buildout, the ommunity will include approxintely-86,388-dwelling units l �an -4* acres of commercial, 444 acres of institutional and -2©# acres of open space and recreation uses. Buildout of the project could occur as early as 1992 or 1993. There are currently no other committed land uses in Tustin in the study area. Other than the East Tustin Planned Community, there are no planned land uses in Tustin in the study area. Irvine: Existing, Committed and Planned Land Uses Irvine and its Sphere -of -Influence are the southernmost areas traversed by the West and East Legs. Nearly all of the Irvine area to be traversed is currently unincorporated land in the City's Sphere-of-Iniluence, but not currently in the City boundary. The West Leg south of I-5 is in the City. The remainder of the West Leg, south of Tustin and the entire East Leg, is in the Sphere -of -Influence. Existing land use in the Sphere -of -Influence along the West Leg is dominated by orchards on the south facing slopes of Loma Ridge and on the Tustin Plain between the ridge and Irvine Boulevard. The Irvine Agricultural Headquarters Complex is located north of Irvine Boulevard. South of Irvine Boulevard, the principal existing land uses include row crops and 1-5. South of 1-5, the West Leg Transition Area to Jamboree Boulevard is currently used for agriculture. Existing land uses adjacent to the Transition Area include residential to the east in Irvine and light industrial to the west in Tustin. Existing land uses in the Sphere -of -Influence along the East Leg are open space along Loma Ridge and agricultural land immediately west of MCAS -El Toro. The East Leg also traverses citrus orchards in upper Rattlesnake Canyon and in the vicinity of Siphon Reservoir. 1I1-28 E.XHIBf T PG . 1 of: 2 1.59 Tustin. The East Tustin Planned Community includes three ommunity parks totaling �.a w-396acres, four neighborhood parks totaling 14 acres and a -acre golf course. The and have been planned adjacent to _ community parks range in size from 8 to 16 acres a p 1 other facilities such as schools or the golf course to increase their potential for joint use. Similarly, the 3- to 4 -acre neighborhood parks have been planned adjacent to elementary school sites to enhance joint use opportunities. Irvine. The Irvine General Plan conceptually identifies recreational land uses within the study area. These uses include the Peters Canyon Wash Open Space spine along the southern portion of the West Leg, a golf course in the Bee Canyon area near the East Leg and a City park in the Loma Ridge foothills to the east of the East Leg. In addition, it should be recognized that the Loma Ridge area within Irvine's sphere is a future open space dedication area. Existing and Planned Trails. There are a number of existing and planned bike, equestrian and hiking trails in the study area, which are included on the County Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails. Local trails have also been designated in the Irvine General Plan. The existing and planned trails in the study area are summarized on Table III -16 and are shown on Figures III -22 and III -23. Other Open Space The Resources Component of the Orange County General Plan identifies Santiago Creek . as a significant open space corridor. It is considered as the principal link between the existing and planned Irvine/Peters Canyon/Weir Canyon Regional Parks and the Limestone Canyon/Whiting Ranch Regional Parks. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES The study area covers a substantial portion of north central Orange .County. Several utility facilities are located in the area and several utility lines traverse the area. The utility lines carry water for domestic use and irrigation; electrical, telephone and cable television cables; gas and fuel pipelines and wastewater transmission lines. To evaluate the impact of the ETC on utilities, an inventory of existing and planned utilities in the study area was compiled. Public services with facilities or jurisdiction in the study area include solid waste disposal, local, county and state law enforcement and fire protection agencies and public school districts. The locations of major utility facilities are shown in detail on maps available for review at the TCA offices. ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION These utility facilities in the vicinity of the alignments are shown in Table III -17. WATER The majority of the utility lines and facilities in the study area are for water storage and distribution. Approximately 70 percent of the water consumed by Orange County is imported via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) facilities supplying six counties in southern California. These facilities include the Colorado River and the California Aqueducts. For Orange County, imported MWDSC water is purchased and distributed by five independent agencies, the Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana, the Coastal Municipal Water District (representing the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, and the coastline from Costa Mesa to San Clemente) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), representing the remaining 90 percent of Orange County. Together, these five MWDSC member agencies wholesale imported water to all retail water districts for storage and direct distribution to their customers. III -31 �xHigf T q PG�,2'OF 2 Office of the City Council City Of Tustin January 10, 1992 Mr. Steve Letterly, Manager of Environmental Impact Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 15222 Del Amo »venue Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 54-8890 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DRAFT EIR/EIS Sc SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS Dear Mr. Letterly: At the January 6, 1992 City Council meeting, the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) and the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) were discussed at length and in great detail. Prior to this meeting, the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and the City's consultant, KHR Associates, Irvine, California, carefully reviewed the Draft EIR/EIS and provided their input in the form of a staff report. The following is a summation of the discussion and actions taken by the City Council, as they relate to the ETC and the Draft EIR/EIS: 1. The City of Tustin supports the construction of the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) as a necessary transportation facility which will directly and indirectly benefit the citizens of the City of Tustin and all of Orange County. 2. The City supports an alignment alternative for the west leg of the ETC, in the Peters Canyon area, which a) limits impacts to existing landform and features; b) minimizes the amount of grading and earthwork required; and c) is least costly to construct and maintain. The City finds that the City -proposed 21A-2 Modified alignment alternative best meets these criteria. The City, therefore, supports the 21A-2 Modified alignment alternative above all other alternatives currently under consideration by the TCA. 3. The City supports the 2E Modified alternative (which provides a connection to the ETC from the intersection of Harvard Avenue and Irvine Center Drive) for the southerly terminus of the west leg of the ETC. In the process, the Charles Puckett Mayor Leslie Anne =ontious Mayo- :-ro Tem Richarc 3. Eaoar Counc -,iember - m Pcns Coun;: -nember Earl Prescott Counr` 7ember Mr. Steve Letterly January 10, 1992 Page 2 City rejects the 3A Modified alternative proposed by the City of Irvine, as being unsound and of adverse impact to the City's streets and highways system and the City's residents. 4. The City previously prepared a response to Draft EIR No. 451 in 1988 for a route location study for the ETC and FTC. In June 1988, the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) selected several alignments for further study. While the current Draft EIR/EIS includes the TIOPAC and 21-A alignment alternatives, which were originally identified as environmentally superior, it is our understanding that the TCA is currently studying and pursuing additional, more precise, alignments for both the southern and northern portions of the west leg in the Peters Canyon area. Apparently conversations with TCA staff have indicated the position that any alignment chosen between the TIOPAC and 21-A alignments would be adequately covered by the environmental analysis completed for the 21-A and TIOPAC Alignments. We believe, however, that the EIR/EIS must evaluate existing conditions and site specific impacts for all alternatives being reviewed and discussed by the TCA. This would include alternatives in the southern portion of the west leg, such as 21 -A -1S, 21 A-2 and the City of Tustin's proposal for a 21A-2 Modified alternative. This same level of analysis should also be undertaken for all alignment alternatives under consideration for the northern portion of the west leg, including any alternative modifications requested by the City of Orange. 5. Several additional concerns are raised regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR/EIS. Of particular concern are the visual screening of the ETC from existing and future homes in the Tustin Ranch, Cowan Heights, Lemon Heights, and East Tustin Hills areas; the impact on existing landform and features; the amount of grading and other earthwork involved; and the noise impacts during the construction and operational phases of the ETC. Mr. Steve Letterly January 10, 1992 Page 3 Screening is proposed by creating berms along either side of the ETC travel lanes wherever natural landform do not provide adequate visual barriers from surrounding residential areas. However, additional screening, in the form of landscaping should be specifically mentioned and included as part of,the mitigation measures for visual impacts. Existing landform and features, such as hills, gullies, and vegetation, should be left intact to the extent possible. The ETC should therefore be aligned to avoid, or at least protect, these landform and features. The amount of grading and other earthwork required to construct the ETC will be of monumental proportion. Grading not only alters existing landform and features, but creates other potential problems, such as geotechnical instability. The ETC should therefore be aligned and designed to minimize grading and other earthwork. 6. In addition to the above concerns, Attachment A, lists additional comments from the City of Tustin Community Development and Public Works Departments regarding the Draft EIR/EIS and accompanying supplemental technical documents. These comments should be addressed and appropriate revisions made to the environmental document. Thank you for providing the City of Tustin with the opportunity to review and comment on the ETC and the Draft EIR/EIS. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Puckett Mayor DRK:CEP:kIb:LETTERLY Attachments ATTACHMENT A ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DRAFT EIR/EIS & SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL DOCUMENT SUMMARY SECTION 1) Project Objectives/Purpose ... (page S-1, 2nd to the last paragraph) "Based on the deficiencies on the existing freeway system..." Does this statement take into account the freeway improvements currently underway? 2) Table S-1, "Summary of Project Alternatives and Significant Environmental Impacts for the Build Alternatives" (page 2), "Water Quality" should either be labeled "Hydrology" or "Drainage". Also, the table should be modified to include Light and Glare Impacts, since the conclusion on page IV -13 is that the potential light and glare impacts represent a significant adverse impact. I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 3) Future Traffic Demand, (page I-3, 2nd paragraph) , "Substantial growth" should be quantified with projected volumes or rate increase percentages. II. ALTERNATIVES 4) Toll Facilities (page II -7), "If determined, what will be the collected dollar amount for using the "toll road"? III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5) The discussion of Noise Criteria (page III -23) should include a review of noise standards in communities adjacent to the proposed corridor and all alignments since there is no indication in the document that County standards and noise criteria are consistent with those standards found in local communities impacted by any corridor alternative alignment. 6) Land Use Character General Overview. (page III -25), An illustration of land ownership boundaries within the ETC alignment would be helpful for reference. 7) Modify discussion on page III -26 (paragraph 1) to clarify that the Jamboree Road project is now completed. 8) Under the discussion of existing, committed and planned land uses, the EIR/EIS states (pages III 26-27) that there are no Page 1 of 11 committed uses in Anaheim within the Gypsum Canyon or Mountain Park area. The document should be modified to reflect the Anaheim City Council's adoption of the Mountain Park Specific Plan. The number of dwelling units authorized by the Plan as well as anticipated population should be identified in this discussion. In addition, the traffic/circulation analysis should also reflect projected traffic volumes generated by the development on all alignment alternatives and the impact without the corridor. 9) The discussion and information provided on the East Tustin Planned Community should be corrected as shown in Exhibit A. 10) On page III -30 there is reference to boundaries not yet being established for the Peters Canyon Regional Park. While dedication has not yet been accepted by the County and there may be minor boundary adjustments, the park site boundary has been established with recordation of Final Map 13627. Boundaries, therefore, can be.geographically described. 11) Water (page III -31), the water filtration treatment plant operated by the East Orange County. Water District in the vicinity of the northern Peters Canyon alignment area needs to be discussed including alternative alignments currently being reviewed and their impact on the plant and Handy Creek Road. 12) When fire and police services are discussed (pages III -33 & 34), the environmental analysis should identify the physical constraints to delivery of service as a result of a boundary constraint created by a facility such as the corridor (and any of its alternative alignments). Where the corridor is in proximity to existing jurisdictional boundaries which would make service delivery less costly, more efficient and provide greater protection to people and property, a recommended mitigation measure should require exploration by affected jurisdictions of boundary adjustments to be consistent with the selected corridor alignment. 13) School Districts (page III -34), under discussion of school facilities, please note that there have been dedicated school facility sites in East Tustin. These sites have been reserved with Final Tract Maps 12763, 12870, and 13627. A number of the sites could be significantly impacted by the TIOPAC alignment- in both the noise impact category as well as the result of anticipated increased traffic along Tustin Ranch Road south of Portola Parkway. 14) Transportation Facilities (page III -35, last paragraph), "The existing freeway ranges between six and eight lanes in each direction..." - "each direction" should be replaced with "both directions". Page 2 of 11 15) On page III -39 please note that a portion of Portola Parkway is existing within the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin at this time is concerned with the redesignation of Portola Parkway between Jeffrey Road and Jamboree Road from a primary arterial to a major arterial. 16) On page III -40, please note that Tustin Ranch Road has only been extended at this time to Walnut Avenue. While the City of Tustin' s Master Plan shows its proposed future extension to Edinger Avenue, several funding constraints at this time seem to indicate that said extension may not be completed for some time. The existing and future traffic analysis and modeling needs to evaluate the scenario in which the Tustin Ranch Road extension would not be completed. 17) Typical view photos in the report (Figure III -2 thru Figure III -9) should be altered and inserted in the environmental setting and consequences portions of the EIR/EIS to show the visual impact (as an overlay) of all alignment alternatives. 18) Maps and graphics referenced within the text should immediately follow the text instead of having all graphics placed at the end of the section. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES 19) Discussion of environmental consequences and mitigation measures needs to be modified to identify specific (direct and indirect) impacts of all alignment alternatives being considered by the TCA and member agencies. 20) Mitigation measures under Landform/Aesthetics (page IV -2) should be expanded to require landscaping and berms at the Patriot Way and Portola Parkway interchanges. In addition, landscaping should be provided on both sides of the corridor in the vicinity of the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters complex in order to screen views to motorists entering the City of Tustin on Irvine Boulevard. This is a major entry point into the City and the agricultural character of the complex reinforces the early California theme of East Tustin Community. 21) The EIR/EIS does not adequately address the potential visual impact of all ETC alternatives to the East Tustin Planned Community. Additional cross-sections and photo exhibits should be provided showing the effects of all alignments on Jamboree Road and Tustin Ranch Road. The view analysis should use several view points from within the East Tustin Planned Community; including from higher hillside elevations proposed for residential development to the west of Pioneer Way, Pioneer Road and Tustin Ranch Road, one near La Colina Drive and Tustin Ranch Road. Page 3 of 11 22) Figure IV -6 and IV -13 should be modified to more accurately show the view impacts from the TIOPAC and 21A alignments and all alternative alignments being considered by the TCA. The text compares the TIOPAC and 21-A alignments, however, it is unclear if Figure IV -13 shows the expressway option on the TIOPAC alignment or the corridor option on the TIOPAC alignment. 23) The visual impacts of the proposed flyover where TIOPAC and Jamboree Road alignments diverge has not been discussed in the EIR/EIS. A conceptual cross-section should be provided as well as a view -analysis of the structure as seen from within the East Tustin Planned Community. 24 ) The reduced vertical profile for that portion westerly of the corridor east of Jamboree Road and north of the I-5 shall be a required mitigation measure to reduce impacts on the East Tustin Planned Community. On page IV -6, 2nd paragraph, in addition to "berms to buffer views", landscaping should be mentioned to further reduce noise and viewshed impacts. 25) On pages IV -14 and IV -16 additional information should be included in the EIR/EIS describing all available technical information collected on slope failures which occurred during construction of Jamboree Road in the Peters Canyon Area. The underlying slope instability and geotechnical problems in this area should be considered in evaluating the direct and indirect impacts of all alternative alignments. 26) Landslides (page IV -141 last paragraph), mentions "stabilization measures" for unstable geologic conditions. What are some of the stabilization measures that can be implemented? 27) Impacts by Subarea (page IV -16, last paragraph), If undesirable soils are encountered and removed, how will they be disposed of - where will they be dumped? 28) The EIR/EIS does not specifically address the light and glare impacts from either the TIOPAC or 21-A alignments or other alternatives currently being discussed on the East Tustin residential community. It is anticipated that the impacts to residential areas north of Portola Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road will be severely impacted by light and glare from the TIOPAC alignments. 29) The EIR discusses in detail the potential impacts of the ETC on the Historic Resources in the vicinity. Of interest to the City of Tustin, is the discussion relative to the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters Complex. Although this facility is outside the City of Tustin and included in Irvine's Sphere of Influence, the complex has some historic significance to Page 4 of 11 Tustin. In addition, the complex is located at a prominent entry point on the City's eastern boundary and reinforces the early California design theme for Tustin Ranch. For these reasons, the fully depressed design option should be required mitigation to ensure that the visual character of the area is maintained. 30) The noise measurement locations (pages IV -116 thru IV -130) do not include any of the residential sites within the East Tustin Planned community. Additional sites should be tested, particularly in the vicinity of Patriot Way and Pioneer Road, along Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road and Pioneer Way. Although the EIR/EIS recommends that new developments proposed adjacent to the ETC should include noise analysis and noise mitigation plans, it should not be the responsibility of future developments to provide noise control treatments for sites that are presently approved for residential development. 31) A noise mitigation measure should require f ield monitoring and noise testing at certain stages after construction completion of any selected corridor alignment. If mitigation has been found to be deficient in diffusing potential impacts and impacts are still above certain established noise criteria, the TCA shall be required to evaluate and implement additional noise mitigation measures. 32) Mitigation Measures (pages IV -130-131), This section mentions walls and berms for noise attenuation. Was/is landscaping a noise attenuation feature for this roadway? 33) Mitigation Measures (page IV -135, 3rd paragraph), Are porous roadways or open -graded asphalt more unstable and at greater risk in an unstable geologic area? 34) On page IV -138, please note that the Mountain Park Specific Plan .has now been adopted. All traffic data and analysis should therefore include the build -out impact of the project. 35) Within the discussion on page IV -139, it is noted that the corridor may not directly impact land uses. However, there will be indirect impacts on value and marketability. Obviously the closer a project is to the corridor, the greater likely impacts on future residents and indirectly this can affect value. 36) On pages IV -146 & IV -147, in discussion of law enforcement and fire protection, see comment No. 12 above in identifying indirect consequences on service provision. 37) On page IV -147, the next to the last sentence is not based on fact or supporting data. It is an overgeneralized assumption. Page 5 of 11 Noise impacts could be significant. Under the TIOPAC alternative and its interchange at Portola Parkway, traffic could have impacts on Tustin Ranch Road and other local streets on which school facilities are proposed. 38) On page IV -149, in discussing Fire Protection Services, see comment No. 12 above. 39) On page IV -154 in discussing Property Tax Losses/ Displacements, see comment No. 35 above. 40) General Comment: The easternmost alignment of the west leg of ETC will have the least amount of Carbon Monoxide and fugitive dust impacts in the Peters Canyon area. Additionally, the easternmost alignment of the west leg will have the least amount of viewshed and noise impacts on existing developed areas to the north. V. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION IMPACTS 41) In evaluating traffic/circulation impacts, trip counts are needed for Tustin Ranch Road built to Walnut Avenue only. 42) On page V-8, the EIR/EIS needs to include impacts from the Mountain Park development. 43 ) In discussion of transition area south of the I-5 freeway, the impact and necessity of realignment and reconstruction of the E1 Modena flood control channel shall be identified for each alternative. 44) Three alternatives are under consideration for the west leg transition area of the ETC. They are identified as 2E modified, 3A modified, and 1C modified. A study commissioned by the TCA, and performed by Austin -Foust Associates, indicates that the levels of service (LOS) for critical intersections in the vicinity of the transition area are most adversely impacted by the 3A modified alternative, and least adversely impacted by the 2E modified alternative. In addition, Alternative 3A would have significant impacts on the Irvine Business Center development located within the City of Tustin, west of Myford Road in the vicinity of Walnut Avenue. With no access to ramps under this alternative, trips would be forced to the west through established residential areas within the City of Tustin. The City has also reviewed traffic information for the IC alternative and do not believe that it is environmentally superior to the 2E alignment. Traffic capacity in the area is significantly negatively impacted by both the IC and 3A alignments particularly at the critical intersections of Jamboree Road/Edinger Avenue, and at Page 6 of 11 Harvard Avenue/Edinger Avenue/Irvine Center Drive. It is our belief that the direct linkage from the ETC to Walnut Avenue, and the linkage from Jamboree Road to Harvard Avenue are essential to the integrity of the future transportation network in this area and need to be maintained as provided in the 2E modified alternative. An analysis of roadway link volumes must also be provided to fully address potential capacity deficiencies and mitigation measures. Of particular concern are the link impacts to Edinger Avenue/Irvine Center Drive, Tustin Ranch Road, Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road. In the "Moulton Parkway Superstreet Study" (commissioned by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and performed by P & D Technologies), a post -2010 average daily traffic volume of 80,000 vehicles per day is indicated for Edinger Avenue/Irvine Center Drive between Jamboree Road and Harvard Avenue. The level of service is "F" and the volume to capacity ratio is 1.42 (or 42% over the carrying capacity of the roadway). Alternatives 3A and 1C will exacerbate this already unacceptable projection of traffic. 45) Additional analysis needs to be included in the EIR/EIS -to evaluate the impacts of phasing of the ETC including specific impacts on the operational capacity of existing and planned arterials in the vicinity of the corridor. 46) The CEQA required monitoring program shall be included in the environmental documentation for the project. 47) The recent announcement of the pending closure of the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) and subsequent reuse of a major portion of the site for non-military development may significantly effect, and be effected by the ETC and the overall regional transportation system. The cumulative impacts, as currently addressed in the EIR/EIS do not address this future base closure and redevelopment. It is requested that any additional impacts as a result of the base closure be addressed in the EIR/EIS. Expansion of the alternatives for the west leg transition area of the ETC should be investigated with respect to possible extension of the current ETC southerly terminus to a more southerly location within the base boundaries including any required interchange access to the site. SUPPLEMENTAL TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS The following comments are directed to these supplemental technical documents: Noise Analysis - FHWA and Caltrans noise mitigation criteria state that noise mitigation shall be considered if the projected Peak Hour noise level approaches or is greater than or equal to 67 dBA Page 7 of 11 at residential receivers, using Level of Service C or projected Peak -Hour traffic assumptions. Noise mitigation will also be considered if the projected noise level increase is greater than or equal to 12 dBA over ambient and if the resulting total level is 65 dBA or higher. Other criteria exist however, such as county, and city. It appears that the section of the west leg between stations 2665 and 2740 is missing from the contour maps. This is an important section in that it is adjacent to the Tustin Ranch development. Noise contour maps C-26 and C-27 indicate that the 21A alignment offers superior noise mitigation in the Tustin Ranch area, where the TIOPAC alignment shows 60-70 dBA levels throughout the development and the 21-A alignment shows 60 dBA maximum. The following changes to the Noise Analysis section are suggested: 1. The accepted noise mitigation criteria should be stated. 2. A table should be included that gives locations that exceed the accepted noise criteria for mitigated conditions for each alternative. 3. A key map should be included with the noise contour maps. Peters Canyon Acoustical Studies - The California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO) are used on this project. The TIOPAC alternative will exceed 60 dB community noise exposure levels (CNEL) in some areas. The 21A/Jamboree Road Alternative provides the greatest reduction of noise in the Santiago Hills development. Receivers opposite the Peters Canyon Bowl will experience less noise with the 21A alternative than with the TIOPAC alternative. Receivers at high elevations in Cowan Heights and Lemon Heights will experience slightly higher noise levels for the 21A alternative relative to the TIOPAC alternative. Truck noise from the TIOPAC alternative will be more audible than for the no -project or 21A alternatives at the northern end of Peters Canyon. Maximum truck noise will be approximately 30-35 dBA above ambient to nearest residences. A 10 dB or 20 dB increase is perceived as a doubling or quadrupling, respectively, of noise. Noise barriers are not very effective, providing only a 6 dB noise reduction or less in the Peters Canyon area. Temperature inversions occur frequently during night and early morning and reduce the effectiveness of noise barriers. Noise levels may be significantly higher than expected during periods of very low wind velocity. The following changes to the Peters Canyon Acoustical Studies section are suggested: 1. The accepted noise mitigation criteria should be stated. Page 8 of 11 2. A table should be included which gives locations that exceed the accepted noise criteria for mitigated conditions under each alternative. Air Quality Assessment - Short term construction impacts on air quality were identified as being caused primarily during earthwork -suggesting that grading and other activities which generate dust particles be kept to a minimum. Watering down potential sources of such particulates is prescribed as a mitigation measure. Other construction -related impacts to air quality include the emissions generated by diesel powered equipment used in grading. It is suggested that these emissions will be minor, based on the assumption that only 6 pieces of heavy equipment will in operation at any given time. This assumption is not substantiated, and is believed to be unrealistically low given the magnitude of the project. A re-evaluation of the significance of diesel emissions is recommended. Haul trucks, which are also diesel powered, should also be included in the estimate of short term air quality impacts. The section on Regional Air Quality identifies four different contaminants; TOG, CO, NOx, and particulates. Yet the only contaminant discussed is TOG which is said to have insignificant differences between all alternatives, including the no -build alternative. If the other contaminants are insignificant, it should be so stated. Biological Resources Analysis - All alternatives for the west leg of the ETC impact primarily agricultural, and horticultural or ornamental vegetation. Some areas covered with sage scrub are affected as the west leg of the ETC interchanges with the east leg. The agricultural properties that lie adjacent to the City of Tustin have economic value which will be adversely impacted by the ETC. Due compensation to affected property owners are included in the mitigation measures. Both the "no project" and "no west leg" alternatives avoid any impact on vegetation. Mule deer are identified as the key specie of wildlife within the ETC area of potential effect. These animals are mainly confined to the canyons of the Santa Ana Foothills (e.g., Gypsum Canyon, Blind Canyon, Weir Canyon, etc.). Alternatives for the west leg of the ETC, including the "no west leg" alternative, will not directly impact the mule deer population. Transportation Reports - The transportation reports document contains a series of technical memorandums and data on traffic forecasts, impacts, and mitigation measures associated with the ETC. The subject document includes the following forecasts of traffic on the Costa Mesa (State Route 55) Freeway, the Orange (State Route 57) Freeway, and various surface streets, including Jamboree Road and Newport Avenue, with and without the ETC; with and without the west leg of the ETC; and under the 21A and TIOPAC alternatives for the west leg of the ETC. Page 9 of 11 ETC SCREENLINE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in 1,000s of Vehicles) Roadway 21A TIOPAC No West Leg No Project Costa Mesa Freeway 207 208 209 214 Orange Freeway 169 168 179 198 Newport Avenue 48 45 38 46 Jamboree Road 11 -- 47 65 ETC (West Leg) 63 72 --- --- Culver Drive 13 13 9 7 Jeffery Road 20 19 30 31 ETC (Loma Ridge) 90 89 99 -- Santiago Canyon Road 21 19 31 20 TOTALS 640 635 630 592 As shown in the above table, construction of the ETC will result in additional overall traffic to the area as development opportunities are enhanced and traffic is drawn from other freeways and surface streets. However, the west leg of the ETC, under either the 21A or TIOPAC alternatives, generates only slightly more traffic than the no west leg alternative. The major benefit of the west leg of the ETC is that it will significantly reduce future projected traffic on Jamboree Road, as well as reduce future projected traffic on the Costa Mesa Freeway. Request for Finding Effect - None of the three properties affected by the ETC lie within the City of Tustin. The Irvine Blacksmith Shop and the Irvine Bean and Growers Association Building are included in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) and are located on Sand Canyon Avenue, in the City of Irvine. The Irvine Agricultural Headquarters Complex is eligible for NRHP designation and is located along Old Irvine Boulevard near Jamboree Road, in the unincorporated area of the County. (Also see below under "Historic Property Survey Report".) Aesthetic Design Guidelines - The aesthetic guidelines for the ETC are proposed to be similar to those identified for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). Therefore, this document duplicates the SJHTC guidelines. If it is the intent of TCA that the ETC will adhere to the aesthetic guidelines established for the SJHTC, then the following statement of principles should be agreed upon by all participants: "The biggest and best contribution that the corridors can make is to emphasize the existing natural landscape; emphasize natural features, views and vistas; and, emphasize added landscape in areas that are dominated by built structure. The corridors should be Page 10 of 11 experienced as an enjoyable passage through both urban and rural regions. They should reflect the highest regard for the need to experience open space and the natural environment." Additionally, under the guideline section, "Grading Design Goals," it is stated that the roadway should be fitted to existing topography to "retain the natural character of the slopes and to minimize cut and fill slopes." An important landscaping goal is to "preserve existing trees." The statement of principles and the above grading design and landscaping goals should be emphasized in the City's response to the subject EIR/EIS as critical in the Peters Canyon area. It is further recommended that the various segments of the west leg of the ETC be precisely defined with respect to landscaping treatment (i.e., "rural," "transition," or "urban" segments), and that specific aesthetic guidelines be established for viewsheds from the Tustin Ranch, Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights residential areas. Detailed Maps of the Build Alternatives - This document provides detailed drawings of the ETC and requires no response. Various alternatives are illustrated in this document, including the 21A, TIOPAC, realigned Jamboree Road, and ETC with "no west leg" alternatives. Technical Memorandum on the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters - See above under "Request for Finding Effect." Historic Property Survey Report - The purpose of this report is to ensure concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer on properties eligible for the NRHP (see above under "Request for Finding Effect") , the lack of eligibility for the register by other properties, and the presence of 10 archaeological sites within the area of potential effect for the ETC. Properties which are included in the NRHP or eligible for such designation are all within the City of Irvine, and none of the 10 archaeological sites are within the City of Tustin. Alternatives for the west leg of the ETC, including the "no west leg" alternative, will not impact the NRHP or eligible properties. Page 11 of 11 providing detailed development guidelines. Development of the EOPC is expected to begin in 1991 and would occur over a 15- to 20 -year buildout period. The City of Orange and The Irvine Company, the property owner, have an agreement regarding the annexation and later planning phases for the EOPC. Specific Plans and annexation requests will be developed for subareas of the entire EOPC. Each Specific Plan/ annexation request is expected to take approximately two years to process. The City and The Irvine Company recently began preparation of the first Specific Plan for the EOPC. The northern portion of the City of Orange Sphere -of -Influence, generally between Santiago Creek and the City of Anaheim Sphere -of -Influence, is not subject to any city General Plan designations. The County of Orange has established Community Profile areas which define planned land uses set forth in the County General Plan. These General Plan designations include open space and residential uses for the portion of the City of Orange Sphere -of -Influence which corresponds to the County's Community Profile Area Number 29. Based on adopted demographic projections, it is estimated that approximately 2,980 dwelling units could be developed in Community Profile Area Number 29 by 1995, with a population of approximately 8,500 residents. Tustin: Existing, Committed and Planned Land Uses The West Leg would be developed under either the Corridor with West Leg or the Corridor with TIOPAC Alternatives, with both West Leg alignments located in or very near the rapidly developing East Tustin Planned Community. The West Leg alignment would cross Loma Ridge and traverse existing orchards on the south facing slopes of the ridge as it enters Tustin. The TIOPAC alignment would coincide with the Jamboree Road alignment currently being built through the Peters Canyon area, and would traverse former orchards that have been cleared for development of the East Tustin Planned Community. At the south end of Peters Canyon, the TIOPAC alignment would.swing east leaving Tustin and enter Village Number 1 in Irvine. A large commercial center, Tustin Marketplace, is being developed as part of the Planned Community, between 1-5 and Bryan Avenue, just west of the proposed West Leg crossing at I-5 near Jamboree Road. f2� 2zo 9,18 The East Tustin Planned Com unity is an approved pro ect that is currently under construction. At buildout, the ,(unity will include appr imately dwelling units l�► �a�n��44 acres of commercial,.4-4�-acres of institutional and til acres of open space and recreation uses. Buildout of the project could occur as early as 1992 or 1993. There are currently no other committed land uses in Tustin in the study area. Other than the East Tustin Planned Community, there are no planned land uses in Tustin in the study area. Irvine: Existing, Committed and Planned Land Uses Irvine and its Sphere -of -Influence are the southernmost areas traversed by the West and East Legs. Nearly all of the Irvine area to be traversed is currently unincorporated land in the City's Sphere -of -Influence, but not currently in the City boundary. The West Leg south of I-5 is in the City. The remainder of the West Leg, south of Tustin and the entire East Leg, is in the Sphere -of -Influence. Existing land use in the Sphere -of -Influence along the West Leg is dominated by orchards on the south facing slopes of Lorna Ridge and on the Tustin Plain between the ridge and Irvine Boulevard. The Irvine Agricultural Headquarters Complex is located north of Irvine Boulevard. South of Irvine Boulevard, the principal existing land uses include row crops and I-5. South of 1-5, the West Leg Transition Area to Jamboree Boulevard is currently used for agriculture. Existing land uses adjacent to the Transition Area include residential to the east in Irvine and light industrial to the west in Tustin. Existing land uses in the Sphere -of -influence along the East Leg are open space along Loma Ridge and agricultural land immediately west of MCAS -El Toro. The East Leg also traverses citrus orchards in upper Rattlesnake Canyon and in the vicinity of Siphon Reservoir. 111-28 EjcNI$1T A P1. 159 Tustin. The East Tustin Planned Community includes threetocommunity parks totaling The �j8�#tacres, four neighborhood parks totaling 14 acres and a #49 acre golf cours e. community parks range in size from 8 to 16 acres and have been planned adjacent to other facilities such as schools or the golf course to increase their potential for joint use. Similarly, the 3- to 4 -acre neighborhood parks have been planned adjacent to elementary school sites to enhance joint use opportunities. Irvine. The Irvine General Plan conceptually identifies recreational land uses within the study area. These uses include the Peters Canyon Wash Open Space spine along the southern portion of the West Leg, a golf course in the Bee Canyon area near the East Leg and a City park in the Loma Ridge foothills to the east of the East Leg. In addition, it should be recognized that the Loma Ridge area within Irvine's sphere is a future open space dedication area. Existing and Pianned Trails. There are a number of existing and planned bike, equestrian and hiking trails in the study area, which are included on the County Master Plan of Regional Riding and Hiking Trails. Local trails have also been designated in the Irvine General Plan. The existing and planned trails in the study area are summarized on Table III -16 and are shown on Figures III -22 and III=23. Other Open Space The Resources Component of the Orange County General Plan identifies Santiago Creek p as a significant open space corridor. It is considered as the principal link between the existing and planned Irvine/Peters Canyon/Weir Canyon Regional Parks and the Limestone Canyon/Whiting Ranch Regional Parks. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES The study area covers a substantial portion of north central Orange County. Several utility facilities are r located in the area and several utility lines traverse the area. The utility lines carry water for domestic use and irrigation; electrical, telephone and cable television cables; gas and fuel pipelines and wastewater transmission lines. To evaluate the impact of the ETC on utilities, an inventory of existing and planned utilities in the study area was compiled. Public services with facilities or jurisdiction in the study area include solid waste disposal, local, county and state law enforcement and fire protection agencies and public school districts. The locations of major utility facilities are shown in detail on maps available for review at the TCA offices. ELECTRICITY, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISION These utility facilities in the vicinity of the alignments are shown in Table III -17. WATER The majority of the utility lines and facilities in the study area are for water storage and distribution. Approximately 70 percent of the water consumed by Orange County is imported via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) facilities supplying six counties in southern California. These facilities include the Colorado River and the California Aqueducts. For Orange County, imported MWDSC water is purchased and distributed by five independent agencies, the Cities of Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana, the Coastal Municipal Water District (representing the Cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach, and the coastline from Costa Mesa to San Clemente) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), representing the remaining 90 percent of Orange County. Together, these five MWDSC member agencies wholesale imported water to all retail water districts for storage and direct distribution to their customers.