The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 5 E. TRANSP CORR. 02-06-89TO: FROM: WILLIAM'HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SCOPING MEETING ~ INFORMATION REPORT RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: Caltrans conducted two environmental Eastern Transportation Corridor Project. two locations as follows: scoping meetings regarding the These meetings were held at * January 10, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. at Sierra Vista Middle School, Irvine * January 12, 1989 at 7:00 P.M. at Foothill High School in the North Tustin area. Each of the meetings were proceeded with an open house from 6:00 P.M.'to 7:00 P.M. to provide the public the opportunity to express concerns and views to the Caltrans staff and have any questions answered. City staff attended the meeting on January 12, 1989 at Foothill High School. The following is a recap of that meeting. Staff Members Present: Rich Adler, Orange County Environmental Management Agency (opening remarks) Kari Rigoni, Orange County Environmental Management Agency (historical background) Howard Hoffman, Corridor Design Management Group (Scheduling) Paul Gonzales, Caltrans (Environmental considerations and process under CEQA/NEPA) The following individuals who spoke at the meeting are recapped as indicated below: Jim Brooks - Comments are summarized on document labeled Attachment "A". Alden Kelly - Expressed concerns on potential carbon dioxide levels. Robert Schoenberq - Expressed concern with southerly terminus near Peppertree homes at Walnut Avenue. Dangerous for school children. Potential for lowering home values. Indicated that terminus should connect to Edinger Avenue. 'EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SCOPING MEETING JAlq~JARY 31, 1989 PAGE 2. LaVerne Wilcox - Expressed concern with three facilities within the narrow canyon. Rosalind Rollins (Cowan Heights) - While we talk, the hills are coming down. Does it do any good to talk? Believes the meeting is a subterfuge. She asked what happened to rail? Mr. McDowell (Lemon Heights) - Felt that the project will help relieve traffic problems and is needed. Environmental considerations are important. James Brown - Feels TCA needs to address connections to SR 91 Freeway. (He is currently building a house in Lemon Heights area) Jean O'Toole (Peters Canyon) - Resents the proximity of the project when vacant land is plentiful to the East. Why not use tunnels? Michelle Brooks - Wants homeowners committee to. review detailed proposals. · It is my understanding that full certified transcripts of the meetings will be available from TCA in the near future. These will be made available to the City Council at that time. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv F, ASTEI:tN TRJ%NSPORTATION COk SCOPIN(~ · MEETIN(~ JANUARY 22 · '1989 COMI(ENTS BY r ,.zs ' c. ,R°O S · . AND MICH~LE L. BROOKS ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES, 1. · 1 . ..developed for release-..to the press o.f these existing areas· Once a draft project scope has been prepared (including draft Notice of Preparation or draft Notice of Intent), another public meeting should be held to receive comment as to scoping adequacy. The project report should call for an executive summary in comparative matrix format so as to allow the public to ~uick!y understand the relative impacts of the various significant report factors. These matrix factors should be significant issues such as cost, funding, noise,"air .... Pollution, traffic demands, etc. and not totally engineering issues such as geology, hydrology, etc. Public information and comment meetings should be frequently held d~ring the project development to allow public comment and critique. Accurate ~ress information should be Many of the newspapers have outdated maps that they continue to use. Improved notice mailings should be made (we were left off the mailing list for the notice of this meeting). PROJECT oBJECTIVES 1. The major objective for the ETC project should be the development of a road system that meets the regional needs for traffic demand with the least amount of cost and environmental disruption. The earlier study objectives which included relief for the SR55 and service to the Irvine Business Complex were too narrow, especially when other freeway projects closer to the IBC and SR55 could do more. (For example, SR55 widening, SR55 extension, SR57 extension, 1-405 widening, I-5 and 1-405 interchange expansion.) . , 2. The least Cost objective is' important. There is projected to be a $7 Billion shortfall in funding for Orange County needed roads over the next 20 years. A higher than necessary cost on the ETC will partially exhaust funding ..-necessary for other areas. For example, unused developer fees could be used on other proximity road projects and toll road commitments could be used elsewhere. ETC Brooks Page 2 FACiliTY TYPE ALTERNATIVES'' 1. .The -backbone ETC freeway" from SR91 to the FTC near the E1 Toro Marine Base appears appropriate. There are no immediately adjacent existing population areas. 2. ~There are ETC alignment areas which contain immediately adjacent existing population including Peter's Canyon, Tustin Plain, Walnut Villages (transition area)~ and the Groves (corner of Irvine Blvd. and Jeffery Road). There ..should be at least three facility type alternatives examined for these sensitive areas including: ao no project, MPAH fully developed- single facility expressway(s), 6 lane maximum, higher speed'; no signals, limited access, grade and curves sensitive to surrounding environment dual facility freeway(s), Peter's Canyon with 2la and Jamboree Road and/or Eastern Leg with 72a and Sand Canyon Road ~ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 1. For each of the environmental areas including air pollution, noise,.~ight, historical, biology, etc. ao bo all new-studies should be completed actual on-site 24 hour/4 season readings should be used where possible as ~ses for computer modeling or extrapolation (occasional factors such as E1 Toro and Orange County airport noise, Marine helicopter noise., etc. should be also included and truck traffic noise components should be segregated) all studies should include the cumulative effects of nearby other transportation projects, existing or proposed, Eastern and/or Western leg, if any, including the extensions of Culver, Jamboree, Jeffery, Sand Canyon, Portola, etc. ETC Brooks Page 3 key environmental factor impacts such as air, sound and sight should be described in terms of the number of homes within certain distances which have environmental deterioration e· mitigation investigations should be made for each alternative to include berms, walls, landscaping, recessing, cut-and-fills, etc. proposed road elevations need to be checked for accuracy · a three dimensional model of these areas would assist the visualization of the potential environmental PrOblems . Land use impacts should be evaluated considering the 1983 AQMD recommendations as to residentials, parks, and businesses near freeways or major roads · Interchange configurations should be at or below grade in most cases especially I-5 and East Orange Bowl to reduce the ¥isual and noise impac.t?. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS 1. The ETC transportation studies should include other major projects now planned for the region including SR55 widening, SR91, widening, SR57 widening, I-5 widening, 1-405 widening, light raT1 system, AMTRAK system, SR57 extension, SR55 extension, FTC, SJHC, MPAH including the extensions of Culver (6 lanes), Jeff·fy (6 lanes), Sand Canyon (6 lanes), and Jamboree (6 lanes), Irvine widening, and Newport widening (the cumulative of all these projects may reduce the need for one lane each way). 2. .The ETC "backbone" freeway should be modeled at two lanes greater than LOS D to further reduce the spillage over to adjacent arterials. 3. Local connectors to the ETC should be limited so as to reduce the surface street spillage. · The funneling effect ~f the Westernileg into the Tustin Plain and into the Transition area at the I-5 with inadequate relief on the lower Jamboree Road (which is planned as arterial level only) within.two miles of I-5 and SR55 interchange does not logically fit. Additional studies need to conclusively prove the need for such a funnel. ETC Brooks Page 4 e The modeling of traffic volumes needs close scrutiny because of the large variances as demonstrated in earlier work as 'presented by Austin Foust, The City of Irvine, and The County of Orange engineers. The public should be invited to critically review these models and only one set of traffic demands be used for any and all discussions on traffic. · The data base for modelling should be revised to new numbers that are available as of December 198S (OCTC is usin~ in their.20 year plan) whidh show a 20 year increase in the north county/south county of 400,000/400,000 new residents and 310,000/270,.000 new employment. The largest employment center is now projected to be the Anaheim Stadium area. Such equal growth along'with a suzl~rising major employment center casts some doubt on previous findings. · There appears to be significant changes in land use densities developing, for example, the East Orange Bowl may. be only half the density as originally planned. Such changes need to be included. · FINANCING 1. The method of financing will have a definite impact on traffic demands. If dual facilities are built, users will find methods to avoid the more costly tollways and use parallel ~rterials. This must be studied for the Eastern and Western Legs. Z o ..~ . .~,,..: :.~ ILl ,f.":~ .~,..., .~, . · ·".~'-' ~ ~ .'.'". ~! i,~:i ~'w .. · ..~ ! :. \, ,.,