Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 1 TIO MOU 05-02-88DATE: ~ ~'.-..~ NEW BUSINESS ...... 5-2-88 APRIL 26, 1988 Inter- Com TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: TUSTIN-IRVINE-ORANGE (TIO) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR FOOTHILL EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council at their meeting of May 2, 1988, approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding between the cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Orange regarding the implementation of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor subject to final approval by the City Attorney. BACKGROUND: The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was previously adopted by the City Council on February 8, 1988 was not identical to the MOU adopted by the Cities of Irvine and Orange. The current revised MOU 'attached) reflects resolution of the differences between the three .ocuments. The County of Orange, Environmental Management Agency, is conducting a Route Location Study for the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC). Several route alignments have been analyzed for circulation and environmental impacts. In addition to the County study, the Cities of Tustin-Irvine-Orange have developed additional corridor alignments that address issues common to the three cities; Tustin staff as well as the other city staffs and the Homeowners Coalition Group have been active participants in the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor preferred route selection process. The Tustin City Council has expressed its support of the ETC on several occasions; however, a number of issues need resolution before these facilities are constructed. A coordinated -effort to resolve these issues among the TIO cities culminated in the previously approved MOU of February 8, 1988. DISCUSSION: The TIO cities' preferred Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor route as described in the revised MOU continues to attempt to implement Tustin's policies regarding transportation corridors. The preferred route incorporates circulation concepts that minimize impacts to existing residential communities of all the TIO Cities while providing ~ effective circulation system. ETC MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING APRIL 26, 1988 PAGE 2 The Cities of Irvine and Orange are scheduled to take action on the approval of this revised MOU on April 26, 1988. After approval by all of the TIO Cities, the executed MOU will be submitted to the Transportation Corridor Agency as a recommended preferred corridor route alignment to be considered with the other Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor alternative alignments. Bob Ledendecker ~irector of Public Works/City Engineer BL:mv A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES OF TUSTIN, IRVINE, AND ORANGE REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOTWII.I,/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR WHEREAS, .the foregoing Memorandum of Understanding supercedes the Memorandum of Understanding adopted by the City of Tustin on February 8, 1988 and by the Cities of h'vine and Orange on February 9, 1988; and 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, I_,wine and Orange (the "Cities") have identified specific concerns relating to the nature and location of the F/ETC; and WHEREAS, the resolution of environmental issues as they relate to Transportation Corridors is of major importance to the Cities, County, and Transportation Corridor Agency; and WHEREAS, the Cities recognize .that concerns identified by residents are an important consideration in establishing a corridor route location; and WHEREAS, the Cities have supported the establishment of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (the "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 Agency; and WHEREAS, the Cities 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 route location studies conducted up to date by the Cities in cooperation with the County and the Agency involved citizen participation; and WHEREAS, the concerns of citizens were a significant criteria in developing corridor alignment concepts; and WHEREAS, the Cities have been deeply concerned with traffic impacts related to the Bottleneck problem; and WHEREAS, ongoing studies indicate that the Bottleneck problem results in severe impacts to the Cities as well as other portions of Orange County; and 1HA521-06/PWD(3) 4/18/88. -1- WHEREAS, the Cities conclude that the foregoing'Memorandum of Understanding outlines the next best solution to the Bottleneck problem in the development of an environmentally superior alternative when compared to the Foothill Transportation Corridor -- Garden Grove Freeway "direct connector" as identified in the Bottleneck study; and WHEREAS, the Cities have shared technical information and have otherwise cooperated with the County in the analysis of route location alternatives for the ETC; and WHEREAS, the County of Orange and the Agency have circulated a draft Environmental Impact Report and a Route Location Study for the ETC which evaluates the environmental effects of alternative route locations for the ETC; and WHEREAS, the Cities 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 the 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; and WHEREAS, the State Streets and Highways Code paragraph 257 define "freeway" and "expressway" as follows: Freeway - "Shall mean a divided arterial highway for through traffic with full control of access and with grade separations at intersections;" Expressway - "Shall mean an arterial highway for through traffic which may have partial control of access but which may or may not be divided or have grade separations at intersections;" and WHEREAS, all expressways referred to in this Memorandum of Understanding are interpreted to be grade-separated. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITIES OF TUSTIN, IRVINE, AND ORANGE DO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: That this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") constitutes a portion of the comments of the Cities on the Eastern Transportation Corridor Draft EIR (Cleeringhouse No. 85041026), and provides advice to the County and the Agency regarding the Cities' preferred alignment of the Corridor. That the adoption of a preferred route location for the F/ETC should be subject to certification of environmental documentation by the County of Orange and the Agency. The final plans, specifications, and estimates (PSE) should be subject to conditions and 'approval by the appropriate agencies. That the Cities of Tustin, Irvine, and Orange have agreed upon concepts for the development of the F/ETC that are sensitive to residents' concerns regarding the 1HA521-06/PWD(3) -2- 6e 10. 11. 12. integrity of established residential communities with respect to visual, noise, and traffic impacts, and meet the Cities' overall circulation objectives and Cities"- policies on Transportation Corridors. That the Cities agree to recommend a common preferred route location for the F/ETC within their City boundaries and sphere of influence areas. The preferred F/ETC route strives to reach at a common goal between affected agencies and affected public. That the adoption of a preferred route location for the F/ETC by the County of Orange and the Agency may need concurring action by the respective Cities in processing General Plan Amendments. That there is a need for a dual facility corridor, namely the west leg and the east leg of the F/ETC (see Exhibit A). That there is a need for the F/ETC to interchange with I-5. The recommended location of a freeway-to-freeway type interchange is at SR-133. The design and construction of the interchange should be subject to coordination between the City of Irvine, the Agency, County of Orange, Caltrans, and FHWA. That the recommended Loma Ridge alignment for the east leg is the 83-B alignment. This position is taken in recognition that based on studies, to date, 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. The 83-B alignment assumes the deletion of Foothill Transportation Corridor segments west of Sand Canyon Avenue. That the recommended 85-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. That extension of SR-133 from I-5 to link with alignment 83-B at its ]unction with the Foothill Transportation Corridor is recommended. It is further recommended that: this segment of the Corridor parallel Sand Canyon Avenue on the east side; that the east leg should be designed and constructed as a six-lane limited access, grade separated facility. The roadway should be phased and constructed to provide the needed capacity, subject to no adverse impact to the arterial highway system. That the west leg of the Corridor is recommended as a critical link in the regional circulation system which parallels SR-55 which is needed to provide adequate capacity to the Irvine Business Complex/John Wayne Airport area. In addition, the west leg of the Corridor is needed to relieve congestion on SR-55 and adjacent arterial streets. That the recommended west icg of the Corridor be designed and ultimately 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 [-5, linking with the Jamboree Superstreet; and that the final decision regarding the design criteria be deferred until subsequent environmental, engineering, financing and phasing studies are prepared by the Agency, with participation from the cities, affected public, and landowners. 1HA521-06/PWD(3) -3- 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. That the recommended east and west legs of the Corridor be constructed below grade or screened with berms where a depressed alignment is infeasible. The intent is to mitigate visual and noise impacts to adjacent residential communities. That the initial roadway sizing for the east and west legs of the Corridor should be based on demonstrated needs as determined by phasing studies. The ultimate widening to six lanes should not occur until the need is shown. " That all components of the ETC, including the 83-B alignment, the west leg, and the east leg, are critically important to serve anticipated regional traffic needs, and that all components be phased and constructed in concert with those needs as they evolve. That the recommended west leg of the Corridor be built in conformance with the Browning Corridor Agreement between the Cities of Irvine 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 Corridor route. That a single facility through the Peters Canyon area is recommended, 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 interehange 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 is recommended, to include a half-diamond interchange for the East/West roadway in East Orange with the west leg of the Corridor. That the west leg of the Corridor may have a grade separated interchange north of Tustin Raneh Road to provide access to local development in the Peters Canyon area. The location of interchange or access points should be determined at a future time, when development occurs. No arterial connection to the Corridor via this interchange should be extended to other County regional circulation facilities, including but not limited to'. Foothill Boulevard, Lower Lake Drive, and Raquet Hill. It is further noted that the County of Orange, EMA is undertaking a study process that may amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways for these roads. 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 recommended west leg of the Corridor from Tustin Ranch Road/Portola Parkway to Irvine Boulevard should be east of Jamboree Road and at least 3/4 miles west of Culver Drive. From Irvine Boulevard to I-5, the corridor alignment should be west of Peters Canyon Wash and as close to Jamboree Road as feasible. The recommended alignment should not require the removal of any historic structures at the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters. 1HA521-06/PWD(3) -4- 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. That the City of Irvine should decide the location of access to the west leg from Tustin Ranch Road to I-5, subjedt to no additional adverse impact to the Tustin arterial highway system. That the west leg of the Corridor should connect to Jamboree Road between I-5 and Walnut Avenue. The undercrossing at I-5 should be not less than 1,100 feet west of the centerline of Pete~s Canyon Wash and 700 feet east of the eentertine of Jamboree Road. The design and construction of the undercrossing should be sensitive to noise and visual impacts to affected communities. 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. That the City of Orange should participate in a cooperative effort with the Agency to design arterial interchanges in the Orange Bowl area. That the Corridor provide adequate access to local arterials and that the recommended 83-B alignment interchange with the following arterials: (a) Jeffrey Road (b) Culver Drive South (h'vine 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 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 to 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 Road and Jamboree interchange with I-5 That the Eastern Transportation Corridor be continued from the junction of the east and west legs in the Orange Bowl area, to SR-91. That the appropriate right-of-way be preserved to meet future transportation needs as determined by the Agency in accordance with the Corridor Phasing Study currently underway. That the F/ETC be designed and constructed as a well-landscaped scenic-type highway. 1HA521-06/PWD(3) -5- 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. That the data generated by the County of Orange and the Cities' consultants for the various route locations, be transmitted to the Agency; That the County and Agency be requested that the pertinent technical data that has been generated for the Cities preferred corridor route be included in the Eastern Transportation Corridor Route Location Study Environmental Impact Report and other related documentation. That the Cities further agree that the development of the F/ETC is essential to the circulation 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 F/ETC. It is further supported that the various funding mechanisms be pursued by the Agency to include financing by tolls, fees, County, State and other funds as appropriate. That the reeommendations 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 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 eompletion of appropriate environmental documentation which will be necessary for the construction of the ETC. That the Cities understand that certain actions of the Cities, the County and the 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, including, but not limited to all of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, 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. That the Cities agree to continue their separate and collective efforts to support the general concepts described in their Memorandum of Understanding and to assume a leadership role in working with citizens and public agencies through public meetings, workshops, and the public review process to reach and achieve resolution of the following pending issues: (a) Location and intended service area of an interchange with west leg of ETC in Peters Canyon. (b) Restriction of truck vehicular use on the Peters Canyon segment of the west leg. (c) The alignment and configuration of Portola Parkway east of Jamboree Road and the west leg of the Corridor in their confluence with Tustin Ranch Road and Jamboree Road. 1HA521-06/PWD(3) -6- DATED: 1988 DATED: 1988 CITY OF TUSTIN cITY OF ORANGE 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(3) -7- Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Analysis TUSTIN - IRVINE - ORANGE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE EXHIBIT A ['--] w,~