Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 MOU EAST/FOOTHILL 2-8-88 NEW BUSINESS · 2-8-,,88 [f~'~'-DATE. FEBRUARY 5, 1988 TO: FROM- SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL WILLIAM A HUSTON, CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - EASTERN/FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR The City Council is scheduled to review the attached memorandum of understanding (MOU) at its February 8, 1988 meeting. The attached MOU is the latest draft considered by the cities of Tustin, Irvine and Orange. The cities of !rvine and Orange are scheduled to . approve the MOU at their February 10, 1988 City Council meetings. If you should have any questions regarding the MOU, please do not hesitate to contact Bob Ledendecker or myself. A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES OF TUS~rlN, IRVINE, AND ORANGE REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DRAFT REVISION FEBRUARY 4, 1988 DRAFT WHEREAS, the residents of Tustin, Irvine, Orange and unincorporated portions of Orange County within the affected area of the the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor (F/ETC) have voiced their concerns related to the route location of said Corridor; and WHEREAS, the residents of said communities have proposed F/ETC alignments that are sensitive to environmental and community impacts; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Tustin, Irvine and Orange (the "Cities") have identified specific concerns relating to the nature and location of the F/ETC; and WHEREAS, the Cities recognize that concerns identified by residents are an important consideration in establishing a corridor route location; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Orange have supported the establishment of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to study and adopt alignments and implement facilities within the F/ETC area of benefit by adopting the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program and voting to join the Transportation Corridor Agency; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Orange have conducted cooperative studies regarding the F/ETC route location as it relates to circulation and environmental issues that are common to the three Cities; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Orange have shared technical information and have otherwise, cooperated with the County in the analysis of route location alternatives for the ETC; and WHEREAS, the Coun{y of Orange and the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency have circulated a draft Environmental Impact Report and a Route Location Study 1HA$21-06/PWD(6) -1- DRAFT for the ETC which evaluates the environmental effects of alternative route locations for the ETC; and WHEREAS, the Cities of Tustin, Irvine and Orange have previously recognized the need for and supported the design and construction of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor as a means of meeting regional transportation demands; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange, and Transportation Corridor Agency, in cooperation with affected cities, have undertaken to conduct certain route location studies of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor (F/ETC); and -WHEREAS, the Cities of Tustin and Irvine have executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on March 13, 1986, regarding the route location of the Eastern Transportation Corridor within the proximity of I-5. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITIES OF TUSTIN, IRVINE, AND ORANGE DO HEREBY RESOLVE ~S FOLLOWS: ® ® That this Memorandum of Understan~ding ("MOU") constitutes a portion of the comments of the Cities on .the Eastern Transportation Corridor Draft EIR (Clearinghouse No. 85041026), and provides advice to the County and the Corridor Agency regarding the Cities' preferred alignment of the Corridor. That ;~he adoption of a preferred route location for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor described in this Memorandum of Understanding should be subject tO certification of environmental documentation. The final plans, specifications, and estimates (PSE) should be subject to conditions and approval by the appropriate agencies. 0 That the Cities of Tustin~ Irvine, and Orange have agreed upon concepts for the development of the F/ETC that meet the Cities' overall circulation objectives and Cities' policies on Transportation Corridors. ® That the Cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Orange agree to recommend a common preferred route location for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor within their City boundaries and sphere of influence areas. The preferred F/ETC route strives to reach at a common goal between affected public and agencies. 1HA5 21-0 6/PW D(6) -2- DRAFT That the adoption of a preferred route loe. ation for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor by the County of Orange and Transportation Corridor Agency may need concurring action by the respective Cities in processing General Plan Amendments. ge 8, , That there is a need for a dual facility corridor, namely the west leg and the east leg of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor (see Exhibit A). That there is a need for the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor to interchange with I-5. The location of a freeway-to-freeway type interchange should be at SR-133. The design and construction of the interchange should be subject to coordination between the City of Irvine, Transportation Corridor Agency, County of Orange, Caltrans, and FHWA. · That the Loma Ridge alignment for the east leg should be the 83-B alignment. This position is taken in recognition that the Loma Ridge alignment is the least environmentally damaging (noise, visual impact, etc.) to the communities of Northwood and East Tustin/Cowan Heights, when compared to the currently Master Planned Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor alignments. That the 83-B segment of the Corridor should be designed and constructed to freeway standards, not precluding provision for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and truck-climbing lanes as necessary. 10. That SR-133 should be extended from I-5 to link with alignment 8S-B at its junction with the Foothill Transportation Corridor. This segment of the Corridor, should parallel Sand Canyon Avenue on the east side. The east leg should be designed and constructed as a six-lane freeway, not precluding provision for multi-use such as HOV lanes and truck uses. The roadway design should be the least environmentally damaging. Screening with berms or a depressed alignment should be considered to mitigate visual and noise impacts to adjacent residential communities. 11. That the west leg of the Corridor is supported in recognition that a critical link in the regional circulation system which parallels SR-55 is needed to provide adequate capacity to the Irvine Business Complex/John Wayne Airport area. In addition, the 1HA521-06/PWD(6) -3- DRAFT west leg of the Corridor is needed to relieve congestion on SR-55 and adjacent arterial streets. 12. 13. 14. That the west leg of the Corridor should be designed and constructed as a six-lane~ (general purpose) grade separated expressway from its junction with alignment 83-B in the vicinity of Chapman Avenue to South of I-5, linking with the Jamboree Superstreet. The final decision regarding the design criteria should be deferred until subsequent environmental, engineering and financing studies are prepared by the Transportation Corridor Agencies, with participation from the Cities of Tustin, Irvine, Orange, affected public, and landowners. That the west leg of the Corridor should be screened with berms, or constructed below grade if additional screening of the roadway is needed. - That the west leg be built in conformance with the Browning Corridor Agreement between the cities of Irvi'ne and Tustin, The Irvine Company, and the Tustin Helicopter Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) which requires a helicopter emergency landing/clearance zone extending north of I-5 along the proposed ETC route. 15. 16. That a single facility through the Peters Canyon area should be constructed to follow the current alignment for the North-South Road from north of Tustin Ranch Road to approximately 3,000 feet south of Santiago Canyon Road/ Chapman Avenue where it would turn easterly to interchange with the 83-B alignment. This · position recognizes that a single grade separated facility through Peters Canyon has less impacts on the environment and adjacent communities. That a grade separated "direct connector" of the west leg with the 83-B alignment should be constructed, to include a half-diamond interchange for the East/West roadway in East Orange with the west leg of the Corridor. 17. That the west leg of the Corridor should have a grade separated interchange north of Tustin Ranch Road to provide access to development in the Peters Canyon area. The location of interchange or access points should be determined at a future time, when development occurs. 1HA521-06/PWD(6) -4- 18. 19. 20. That the construction of the North-South Road through Peters Canyon should continue as scheduled. The upgrade to an Expressway should occur concurrent with the Corridor development, and that provision be made to install utilities in the North-South Road, so that they are not in conflict with the operation of any access controlled facility to which it may be converted at a later date, or any required future relocations shall be at the cost of the conversion project. That the west leg of the Corridor from Tustin Ranch Road/Portola Parkway to Irvine Boulevard should be east of Jamboree Road and east of the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters. From Irvine Boulevard to I-5, the alignment should be on the east side of Jamboree Road and west of Peters Canyon Wash. That the City of Irvine should decide the location of ~ access to the west leg from Tustin Ranch Road to I-5, SubjeCt to no additional adverse impact to the Tustin arterial highway system. 21. That the west leg of the Corridor should connect to Jamboree Road south of I-5. The undercrossing at I-5 should be immediately adjacent to Jamboree Roach. The design and construction of the undercrossing should be sensitive to noise and visual impacts to affected communities. 22. That the City of Irvine should decide the location of arterial highways south of I-5 within the transition area, subject to engineering, circulation and environmental analysis and subject to no additional adverse impact to the Tustin arterial highway system. The City of Tustin and affected public should participate in a coordinated effort to develop an efficient circulation system for the transition area that is sensitive to engineering, environmental and community concerns. 23. That the City of Orange should participate in a cooperative effort with the Transportation Corridor Agency to design arterial interchanges in the Orange Bowl area. 24. That the Corridor provide adequate access to local arterials. The 83-B alignment should interchange with the following arterials: (a) 'Jeffrey Road 1HA521-06/PWD(6) -5- (b) Culver Drive South (Irvine Boulevard to 83-B) (c) Culver Drive North (83-B to Santiago Canyon Road) (d) Santiago Canyon Road/Chapman Avenue (e) Santiago Canyon Road/Katella Avenue (f) An east/west unnamed arterial along the north side of Irvine Lake 25. That the following roads should be constructed or extended to provide an adequate circulation system and should be subject to the requirements for inclusion in the County's Arterial Highway Financing Program: (a) North/South Road extension to SR-91 (b) Jeffrey Road extension from Irvine Boulevard to Santiago Canyon Road and beyond (c) Culver Drive South (Irvine BoUlevard to 83-B) (d) Culver Drive North (83-B t° Santiago Canyon Road) (e) Portola Parkway extension from the FTC east of Sand Canyon to Tustin Ranch Road (f-) Myford Road/I-5 overcrossing (g) Collector-distributor road between Tustin Ranch and Jamboree interchange with I-5 26. That the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor be continued from the junction of the east and west legs in the Orange Bowl area, to SR-91. 27. That the appropriate right-of-way be preserved to meet future transportation needs as determined by the Transportation Corridor Agency in accordance with the Corridor Phasing Study currently underway. 28. That the F/ETC be designed and constructed as a well-landscaped scenic-type highway. 29. That the data generated by the County of Orange and the Cities' consultants for the various route locations, be transmitted to the Transportation Corridor Agency. 30. That the Transportation Corridor Agency be requested that the pertinent technical data that has been generated for the Cities preferred corridor route be included in 1HA521-06/PWD(6) -6- 31. the Eastern Transportation Corridor Route Location Study Environmental Impact Report and other related documentation. Further, all the Cities agree that the development of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor is essential to the circular{on needs of the three Cities as well as the County and region. Therefore, the Cities support expeditious processing of the design and construction of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor. It is further supported that the various funding mechanisms be analyzed by the Transportation Corridor Agency to include toll road financing. 32. 33. NOTE: That the recommendations in this MOU are provided by the Cities subject to the completion of the EIR process for the Eastern Transportation Corridor Route Location Study, and any other necessary environmental documentation, and that these recommendations may be revised and supplemented by the Cities in response to any new information that may be developed during such EIR 'process or during the consideration of the route location alternatives by the Corridor Agency. To the extent that 'any of the recommendations in this MOU are at a level of detail greater than is evaluated in the ETc Draft EIR such recommendations are expressly subject to the completion of appropriate environmental documentation which will be necessary for the co_nstruction of the ETC. That the Cities understand that certain actions of the Cities, the County and the Corridor Agency, including but not limited to the selection of a route for the ETC, . require compliance with legal procedures, public hearings and discretionary decisions. Nothing in this MOU shall be interpreted to pre-commit the Cities individually or collectively in any manner contrary to such legal procedures or requirements, it being understood and agreed that all recommendations in this MOU are qualified by the necessity of compliance with any such applicable legal procedures and requirements. The MOU will be revised to incorporate an additional paragraph or paragraphs which address pending issues. Exhibit "A" will also be attached at this time. 1HA521-06/PWD(6) -7- DATED: CITY OF TUSTIN 1988. DATED: CITY OF ORANGE 1988 BY: MAYOR BY: MAYOR ATTEST: ATTEST: CITY OF TUSTIN CITY CLERK CITY OF ORANGE CITY CLERK DATED: CITY OF IRVINE 1988 BY: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY OF IRVINE CITY CLERK 1HA521-06/PWD(6) -8- EXHIBIT "A" (ATTACHMENT) 1HA521-06/PWD(5)