The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 7 I-5 FWY WIDENING 02-17-87 CONSENT CALENDAR ¢ Inter Com DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1987 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIA~4 HUSTON, CITY )IANA/~ER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) WIDENING FROH ROUTE 55 TO ROUTE 22 RECOMMENDATION: · For the City Council meeting of February 17, 1987. Authorize staff to respond to Caltrans on the Draft EIR-EIS for the Santa Aha Freeway widening (Rte. 55 to Rte. 22) per the attached letter. BACKGROUND: As a part of the overall Santa Aha Freeway Widening Project between 1-405 and 1-605, Caltrans held a public hearing on January 29, 1987 on that segment of proposed freeway improvements within Santa Aha between Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) and Route 22 (Garden Grove Freeway). This hearing was held at Rancho Santiago College and was attended by approximately 250-300 individuals. Additionally, Caltrans has circulated a copy of the Draft EIR-EIS. to Tustin for~ review and comment. All written comments pertaining to this project are due by March 15, lg87 at the Caltrans office in Los Angeles. DISCUSSION: · At a public hearing on January 29, 1987 three people responded verbally and did not directly oppose the proposed alternatives, but requested certain areas be responded to in the EIR-EIS and requested clarifications on various items. Additionally, about 10-12 written questions were directed to the Caltrans staff. The City of Santa Aha spoke in support of Alternative 3b and the project in its entirety. Alternative 3b. is the same alternative in which the Tustin City Council opposed in favor of Alternative 2A. It is my understanding that Caltrans is recommending Alternative 3b for the initial segment through Tustin and Irvine between 1-405 and Rte. 55. Staff is recommending that the attached letter be sent to Caltrans recommending that the same alternative be utilized on I-5 both northerly and southerly of Route 55 for consistency. This consistency would help eliminate potential traffic backups from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Attached, for the City Council's information, is a summary sheet on the proposed widening alternatives along the Santa Ana Freeway between Route 55 and Route 22. Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jm ~ Department of Public Works/Engineering February 17, 1987 Mr. Wayne Ballantine, Chief Environmental Planning Branch Caltrans, District 7 120 So. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: SANTA AtU& FREEWAY WIDENING - DRAFT EIR-EIS BEll~EEN ROU~ 55 AND ROUTE 22 FILE #892.5 Dear Mr. Ballantine: Thank you for the opportunity for the City of Tustin to review and comment on the Draft EIR-EIS for the subject freeway widening project. Our City has no specific concerns on the document, but requests that consistency be maintained on the selection of the alternatives throughout the entire widening project along I-5. It is our understanding that the alternative for the segment between 1-405 and Rte. 55 has not been finalized. We would request that the alternative selected for this current segment between Rte. 55 and Rte. 22 have the same or greater traffic capacity as the southerly segment through the cities of Tustin and Irvine. Very truly yours, Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jm 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 PUBLIC HEARING FOR FREEWAY WIDENING ON THE SANTA ANA (~OUTE 5) FREEWAY JANUARY 28, 1987 7:30 p.m.. RANCHO SANTIAGO COLLEGE 17TH AND BRISTOL STREETS CITY.OF SANTA ANA California Department of Transportation District 7 120 South SDring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 PUBLIC HEARING FOR FREEWAY WIDENING ON THE SANTA ANA (ROUTE 5) FREEWAY JANUARY 28, 1987 AGENDA Che.ster Shearer Clarence Ohara Ronald Kosinski Larry Stevens Introduction - Project Overview/Descriptions -- Environmental Considerations - Right of Way Considerations - Intermission Statements from elected officials and public agencies Statements from General Public Ouestions and Answers Closing Remarks Hearing moderator: Members of Panel: Chester Shearer Caltrans, District 7 Clarence Ohara, 'Project Development Branch B Ronald Kosinski, Environmental Planning Branch Larry Stevens, Right of Way Branch LOS ANGELES COUNTY. f'"'----' .. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ANAHEIM'~ WESTMINSTER SANTA ANA' BEACH NEWPORT BEACH COSTA ~NGE i"~. RIVERSIDE I%" COUNTY ;\ X'"""I LAGUNA BEACH JUAN .CAPIS'IRANO j SAN CLEMENT! SAN DIEGO COUNTY I. Proposal This study was undertaken to review the existing and future traffic conditions, develop transportati6n solutions, and consequences for widening the sepment of the Route 22/57 Interchange and Fourth Street. located in the City of santa Aha. See Figure 1. and evaluate alternative to determine environmental Route 5, between The study area is This report documents the fact that Route 5'is ~severely congested during peak periods and suffers from operational problems. These problems result in substantial vehicle delay and slow travel ~peeds. The Route 5 corridor has been identified by Caltrans, the Orange County Transportation Commission, and Orange County Transit District as needing capacity improvements. II. Environmental Setting The proposed project area is in the City of Santa Ana, along the Santa Aha (I-5) Freeway. Topography of ~he area has a gentle Slope.' The natural features have been modified by urbanization. The climate is mild and dry. Air quality is relatively poor; State and Federal standards are occasionally exceeded, particularly the ozone standard during the summer season. The transportation network consists of the Route 5, 55, 22, and 57 Freeways and a grid of local streets. Public transit on the network is by bus. There is an intercity train line in the area which shares the railroad right of way with freight operations. $-1 The project area located in Santa Aha is urbanized; land has been developed up to freeway right-of-way. The Santiago Creek flood plain and Santiago Park are located in the project limits. III. Al~.ernative Solutions Three alternatives, including freeway operational variations as well as the no project alternative, are being considered: Alternative lA Widen Route 5 traffic. Construction Cost: $25 milliOn Right-of-Way 'Cost: NOne by one lane in each direction for use by all Alternative lB. Construction Cost= $25 million Right-of-Wa~ Cost: None Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction for use by high occupancy .vehicles (HOVs) only. A two-foot buffer would be included to separate HOV traffic from mixed-flow traffic. Alternative 2A Construction Cost: $59 million Right-of-Way Cost: $41 million Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction. would also be constructed in each direction. An auxiliary lane Alternative 2B Construction Cost: $59 million Right-of-Way Cost: $41 million Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction to be reserved for Hors. A two-foo~ buffer would be included. An auxiliaFy lane would also be constructed in each direction. S-2 ~lternative 3A Construction Cost= $62 million Right-of-Way Cost= $46 million Wide~ Route 5 by one lane in each direction. would also be'constructed in each direction.. Two auxiliary lanes Alternative 3B Construction Cost= $62 million Right-of-Way Cost= $46 million Widen'Route 5 by one lane each direction. One auxiliary lane would' also be constructed in each direction. An HOV lane would' be constructed in the freeway median with. a 12-foot and variable width buffer separating HOV traffic from mixed-flow traffic. Alternativ~ 4 No Cost NO Project - assumes maintenance minor operational improvements. of the existing facility with See Figure 2 for an illustration of the proposed alternatives. Interchange Reconstruction The Grand Avenue, 17th Street, and Main Street interchanges will be reconstructed for Alternatives 2 and 3. IV. Environmental Consequences Implementation of the build alternatives would result in: - a co,mnitment from $25 million to $62 million for construction. - a commitment of up to $46 million for right-of-way costs. S-3 a co~itment of up to 40 acres converted to freeway and local interchange uses. displacement of living units from 0 for Alternative 1 to. 158 ~nd 178 for Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively. As many as. 450 residents would be disglaced. A maximum of 81 · business properties would also be displaced. numerous inconveniences to the traveling 9ubl~c and local. residents as a result of construction a~tivities, including~ increased temporary traffic congestion on adjacent local streets, increased air and noise pollution resulting from equipment operation, and adverse aesthetic impacts resulting from equipment storage sites. Night' work and lane clo~ures would also occur. approximately one quarter of an acre of Santiago Park would be utilized for the widening or replacement of the Santiago Creek Bridge and construction of new bridge piers. This portion of the park is located adjacent to the Santiago Creek and is not utilized for recreational purposes. A Section 4(f) Evaluation has been prepared discussing parkland impacts. See Chapter V in DEIS. Ambient noise levels, air quality, and energy usage are not signi- ficantly affected by the alternatives. Soundwalls which are reasonable and feasible will be constructed when Federal noise abatement criteria is approached or exceeded. $-4 All build alternatives would have a 'beneficial impact, on mobility and traffic safety on Route 5. Implementatioh pianning goals. of the .built alternatives would satisfy local. V. Pprmit Approvals for Proposed Action Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide for widening'the Santiago Creek Bridge over the Santiago Greek. Impacts tO the Santiago Creek will require a Section 404 'Nationwide Permit' from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Santiago Creek is a tributary to the Santa Aha' River, a major waterway in Southern California.. The Army Corps of Engineers has been consulted and declined the invitation to be a Cooperating Agency on this project. Caltrans will also coordinate with the Department of Fish and Game any impacts that may modify the channel of Santiago Creek. Impacts to the creek bed may require a Section 1601 permit from the Department of Fish and Game. VI. Consultation and Coordination The Orange County Transportation Commission, Orange County Transit Distr~ct, City of Tustin and the City of Santa Ana have been consulted during the preparation of this document. County, regional, state, and federal agencies have also been consulted. S-5 Agency and public input has been solicited throughout the Route 5 study. During project scoping, issues affecting the Cities of · Tustin and Santa Aha were identified. Scoping meetings were conducted in the summer of 1984. For a further discussion oZ' public involvement, See Chapter X in DEIS. Anti,Spared Timetable~ A final recommended alternative will be selected by Caltrans after comments and data gathered at this public hearing and received by mail .in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement have been analyzed. If a project is recommended, right-of-way activities could commence in late 1987. The project is presently proposed for construction in the 1989-90 ~iscal Year. S-6 All comments pertaining to this project are due by March 15, 1987 and should be' sent to= wayne Ballantine, Chief - Environmental Planning Branch Caltrans, District 7 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION= you may call the following Caltrans individuals= Clarence O'Hara, Senior Design Engineer (213) 620-3210 (regarding specific engineering design features) Ronald Kosinski, Senior Environmental Planner (213) 620-3755 (regarding environmental studies and mitigation measures) o Larry Stevens, Senior Right-of-Way Agent (213) 620-4208 (regarding property acquisition and relocation assistance) ALT. ~t'v~ 1 A ALT. lB _ £xist. R/W ,10., 3 Min. ShI(:L I~_..~ SOU~CIW(311$ Where Requital AlT. i" ~?' 4 @,a'. ~' ~A ~ Mixee Flow Lanes 102' I, ALT. is' M~/./I[ I ~ I Mix~ F~Lon~ ' I1' II II