The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 2 I-5 WIDENING PROJ 04-21-86AG DATE: APRIL 16, 1986 NEW BUSINESS NO. 2 4-21-86 Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLXAI~ HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPART)lENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION DPdU:T EIR-EIS FOR THE SANTA ANA (I-5) FREEWAY WIDENING PROJECT BETWEEN ROUTE 405 AND ROUTE 55 - FILE J892 RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of April 21, 1986 or May 5, 1986, select Alternative 3B as the City's preferred alternative for the Santa Ana Freeway Widening Project and authorize staff to transmit the letter of City concerns and comments on the Draft EIR-EIS document to CalTrans. BACKGROUND: The subject document preparation and study was undertaken to address the existing and future traffic conditions, develop and evaluate alternative transportation solutions and to determine environmental consequences for widening the segment of the Santa Aha Freeway between Route 405 and Route 55. The Community Development Department and Engineering Division staffs have reviewed the draft document and have assembled a list of comments and questions, as outlined in the attached letter to CalTrans. It is intended to for~ard this letter to CalTrans after the City Council has had the opportunity to review its content, but prior to the deadline date of May 9, 1986 for written comments. CalTrans staff held a public hearing for the proposed freeway widening on March 31, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at the College Park Elementary School in Irvine. A total of nine people provided testimony at this hearing in favor of the widening but varied on which alternative/variation they preferred. Eight of the speakers were either Irvine residents, Irvine Company personnel, other governmental agencies, and one speaker from Tustin representing the Montessori School at 1776 Nisson Road. CalTrans is also seeking a recommendation from each affected local agency as to what their preferred alternative would be. It is staff's intent to include this recommendation within the attached letter after the City Council has taken an action on the item at their April 21, 1986 or May 5, 1986 meeting. This widening project on the south to Route are as follows: is Phase I of a four phase project extending from Route 405 605 (Los Angeles County) on the north. Limits of each phase Phase I - Route Phase II - Route Phase III - Route Phase IV - Route 405 (San Diego Freeway) to Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) 55 to Route 22 (Garden Grove Freeway) 22 to Route 91 (Riverside Freeway) 91 to Route 605 (San Gabriel Freeway) -APRIL 16, 1986 PAGE TWO DISCUSSION: The proposed freeway widening project includes a total~ of four alternatives. Three of these alternatives include freeway operational variations, with the fourth alternative being a No project. A description of each of the alternatives is outlined below: Alternative lA Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction for use by all traffic. Alternative lB Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction for use by high occupancy vehicles (HOV's) only. A two foot wide striped buffer area would be constructed to separate HOV traffic from mixed-flow traffic. Alternative 2A Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction, plus one auxiliary 'lane in each direction between Route 133 (Laguna Freeway) and Route 5/Route 55 interchange~ Alternative 2B Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction for use by high occupancy vehicles {HOV's) only, plus one auxiliary lane in each direction between Route 133 (Laguna Freeway) and Route 5/Route 55 interchange for use by all vehicles. A two foot wide striped buffer area would be constructed to separate HOV traffic from mixed-flow traffic. Alternative 3A Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction for use by all traffic, plus two auxiliary lanes in each direction between Route 133 (Laguna Freeway) and Route 5/Route 55 interchange. Alternative 3B Widen Route 5 by one lane in each direction, plus one auxiliary lane in each direction for use by all traffic. Additionally, construct one high occupancy vehicle {HOV) lane in each direction. A twelve foot wide buffer separating HOV traffic from mixed-flow traffic would be utilized. Alternative 4 No project. This alternative assumes maintenance of the existing facility with minor changes to operational movements. APRIL 16, 1986 PAGE THREE Basically the "A" variations exclude' HOV lanes and the "B" variations include provisions for HOV lanes. Attached, is a copy of the typical cross-sections for the existing freeway conditions as well as each of the alternatives and their variations. Also attached, is a summary of costs and environmental impacts for each of the alternatives. The widening of Route 5 through the Tustin area is generally proposed as follows: Between Route 55 and Newport Avenue widening will generally be on the southerly side of the freeway except in the vicinity of Newport Avenue where the widening would occur on the northerly side. o Between Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue widening will generally occur on the northerly side of the freeway. ° Between Red Hill Avenue and approximately Browning Avenue widening generally occurs on the southerly side of the freeway. Southeasterly of Browning Avenue within Tustin widening generally oGcurs on both sides of the freeway with the majority of the widening directed to the northerly side. Table 15 from the Draft EIR-EIS summarizes the business establishments displaced by Alternatives 2 and 3. Staff feels that there are three areas of correction needed to this table as follows: ° Item I - Curtain Call Dinner Theater at 690 E1 Camino Real does not appear to be impacted and should be deleted from the list. o The proposed office structure at 730 E1 Camino Way has not been addressed and should be added to the list. ° The existing boat display area for Danchar Marine at 676 E1 Camino Real appears to be impacted and should be added to the list. Residential displacements have been identified to occur at the following locations: ° Montesilla Mobile Home Club, 15601 "B" Street ° Influential Square Condominiums, 17288 Nisson Road ° Pasadena Village Apartments, 15482 Pasadena Avenue ° Trail-A-Way Mobile Home Park, 1782 Nisson Road ° Six apartment units located at the corner of Pinebrook Avenue and Nisson Road ° Villa Valencia Mobile Home Park, 1402 Browning Avenue ° Laguna Gardens Apartment Complex, 1361 E1Camino Real {Laguna Road) · APRIL 16, 1986 PAGE FOUR In addition to the above mentioned business and residential displacements, an encroachment into the front lawn and parking lot area of Tustin High School would be required resulting in the loss of a temporary classroom and the loss of forty five parking spaces. A copy of the full Environmental Document is on file at the Engineering Division for the City Council's review. Staff is recommending that the City of Tustin support Alternative 3B as the preferred alternative for the proposed freeway widening within Phase I. This alternative would provide for the maximum relief to traffic congestion to the year 2010, when the freeway would again experience slight congestion and decreased levels of service. This recommendation is in line with the City Council's previous thoughts and desires as discussed in the scoping process for this project in 1984. City Council action is requested either on April 21, 1986 or May 5, 1986 so that all City concerns and responses can be returned to CalTrans by May 9, 1986. CalTrans will be selecting an alternative after all comments and data that have been gathered at the public hearing and received by mail in response to the Draft EIR-EIS have been analyzed. If a project is recommended, right-of-way acquis[tion activities would commence in late 1986 with Phase I construction tentatively scheduled for construction in the 1989-g0 fiscal year. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr Attachment LOS ANGELES COUNTY i I SAN BERNARDINO --~ --~% COUNTY FULLERTON ~, HUNTIN4 BEACN ANANI BANTA ANA Airport COSTA MESA NEWPORT! )RANGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AreaY MI8810N VIE JO PACIFIC OCEAN JUAN CAPISTRANO GLEMENTE SAN DIEGO COUNTY EXHI~I¥ 1 O. A- 5 WIDENING ]×.JTING !var._,_. 3.@t2'.3e' LMed:t-' 8' ~10' Exist. R/W - I~ Va[., _ Var. ~ ALT. : _Var. _, _ ~ ~ : :: -{ F"- 3'.% Min. ' ' ' Where Required ~ , '~ ~" 2' Buffer 19~ ,//3 r:~ 12'. 36' , ~Exist. R/W ALT. !var., ~2' I I ~ ~, '" ' ~ , $0' , i..~__.~3, Min. ~ 9'._ 12' ~ .= 4 ~ 12" 48' _. _tO'_,_ Var. R, ~W ALT.i ":lNOV I E..,., -- Ishld' l_ Alternative J 2B II . ~ I''" =ur,er I Ii.-SoundwoU .._ , I~ I ~"'1/- Mi.dF~owLo.,s I '~ Locations ~ ALT. ! t?' SA i-- Med':i-~ 102' Min. 4 (~ 12' = Mixed Flow Lanes AItemative R/W Soundwoll · I ~ Locations tO2' Min. 4 ('~, 12' = 48' Mixed Flow Lanes Alternative -- R/W Soundwoll --- j,~ Locations 12' 10' m.~ ~,~I.,._R/, t Ln. , .o q NO SCALE EXHIBIT 2 Z 0 EXHIBIT IV-49 Z IV-50 April 16, 1986 Department of Public Works/Engineering Mr. W. B. Ballantine, Chief CalTrans Environmental Planning Branch 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 RE: 07-OILR-B DRAFT EIR-EIS FOR SANTA AlIA FREEWAY WIDENING FREEWAY ANO RECONSTRUCTION OF INTERCILRNGES SCH ~: 84062706 F;LE ~892 Dear Mr. Ballantine: The City of Tustin staff has completed their review of the Draft EIR-EIS for the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) widening (Segment 1) between Route 405 and Route 55. The following are comments and/or questions which the City request additional clarification and/or con~nent. Page S-4~ Interchange Reconstruction The proposed construction of the Jamboree Blvd./I-5 interchange is proposed only by the City of Tustin, in lieu of Tustin and Irvine. Page I-3 and I-6 Any alternative which is selected in Segment 1 (Rte. 405 to Rte. 55) should be compatible and feasible to build within Segment 2 (Rte. 55 to Rte. 22) of the widening project, especially if alternatives with HOV lanes are selected for implementation. Page III-3 Alternative 2B indicates two auxiliary lanes between Route 133 and Route 55, but Figure 8B does not show the auxiliary lane for Alternative 2B. Could a clarification be made as to whether the auxiliary lane is included within the four lanes at 12 feet dimension. Page III-8~ Second Paragraph The City requests a more positive statement as follows: "Required soundwalls for mitigation purposes will be built concurrently with the project", in lieu of "soundwalls which are reasonable and feasible will.be built concurrently with the project". 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 ~ APRIL 16, 1986 PAGE TWO Page III-g Is it intended to include areas for traffic enforcement in Alternative 2B; and if so, .will additional right-of-way be required? Page' III-4 and III-9 There appears to be no discussion on the two foot wide buffer separating mixed flow lanes from the HOV lane on Alternatives lB and 2B. If this width is not acceptable, Alternative lB may not be viable as presented due to additional right-of-way needs. Page III-14~ Special Design Features It is assumed that the Newport Avenue undercrossing will be rebuilt with the I-5/Rte. 55 Interchange Project. If not, it should be included within this section. Page III-23~ Route 5 Widening (From Rte. 55 to Route 22) As previously mentionedj the widening of Segment 2 must be coordinated directly with the Segment 1 widening. Is it possible that Alternatives 2 or 3 could be selected in Segment 1 and Alternative I in Segment 2? Page III-25~ Bottleneck Study This section indicates that Route 5 between the proposed Eastern Corridor and Route 55 would experience additional future congestion. Does this indicate that Alternative 3A or 3B would be inadequate without a direct connection between Route 55 and the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors. Page IV-17~ Flood Plain Environment The document refers to improvement of existing culverts in order to pass flood waters underneath the freeway. In addition to these facilities, parallel freeway channels will require improvement to eliminate sheet flooding overtopping the freeway and flooding of adjacent property. Page IV-34, Housin9 Displacement and P.age. IV-48, Business Displacement Any right-of-way takes with respect to residential units, businesses or parking spaces will be required to conform to City of Tustin Zoning Codes and/or pre-project conditions as it relates to net parking spaces per dwelling unit or square footage of building area, etc. Page 1V-49, Table 15 and Page IV-51 It appears that this table may be in error as follows: Item 1, the Curtain Call Theater does not appear to be impacted by the project as a full take. A structure at 730 E1 Camino Way appears to be impacted, but not listed. The boat display area for Danchar Marine at 676 E1 Camino Real appears to be impacted, but not listed. APRIL 16, 1986 PAGE THREE Page IV-53, Affect on Community Facilities' Item b, replacement of parking at Lambert (Emerson) Elementary School does not appear to be a viable solution, in that it could preclude its use as an 'elementary school in the future tf impacted by high school parking. Page IV-66 and IV-69, I~acts on Aesthetics The Tustin Community Development Department requests mitigation measures to deal with the aesthetic impacts caused by the freeway widening in Tustin. A combination of earth berm, blockwall and landscaping wherever feasible should be used as a mitigation measure along the I-5 right-of-way. Additionally, landscaping replacement should be provided for parcels impacted as partial takes such as Tustin High School. The City of Tustln is in support of Alternative which will provide relief to traffic congestion until the year 2010 with slig~ngestion occuring thereafter. Thank you for the opportunity to participate and comment on the Draft EIR-EIS for the Santa Ana {I-$) Freeway Widening Project. Hopefully, the finalization of this · document and selection of a preferred alternative will help accelerate the construction phase of this project. Very truly yours, Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr