HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 I-5 WIDENING 05-05-86AGENDA
~JATE:
APEIL 28, 1986
OLD BUSINESS
NO. 1
5-5-86
· Inter- Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIA)~ HURON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARll~EliT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
DI~AF~ EIR-EIS' FOR l)mE SAh'TA MiA (I-5) FREEWAY WIDEMING PROJECT BEll~EEN
ROUTE 405 AND ROUTE 55 - FILE ~892
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Tustin City Council, at their meeting of May 5, 1986, support 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:
On April 21, 1986, staff provided the City Council with a report on the Draft
EIR-EIS for the Santa Ana Freeway widening. A copy of this report is attached for
information.
At that meeting, the Council surfaced a concern as to the proposed impacts to the
Tustin High School site on E1 Camino Real (Laguna Road) and requested staff to
contact the School District and solicit their concerns and requirements.
DISCUSSION:
A letter was sent to the School District (copy attached) and a verbal response was
received as follows:
The District is not opposed to the widening project as proposed, but they
do have concerns with the loss of site acreage and the teacher/student
parking.
° Additionally, they are opposed to the proposed mitigation measure of
utilizing a portion of Lambert School as a parking area.
The District indicated they would be responding directly to CalTrans on their
concerns related to the widening project and expressed their gratitude for the
City Council's concern on these issues.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:jr
Attachment
April 23, 1986
Department of Public Works/Engineering
Mr. Larry Sutherland, Manager of Support Services
Tustin Unified School District
300 "C" Street
Tustin, CA 92680
RE: DRAFT EIR-EIS FOR SANTA ANA (I-S) FREEWAY WIDENING
Dear Larry:
At the April 21, 1986 Tustin City Council meeting, staff presented their
concerns/comments on the CalTrans Draft EIR-EIS and recommendation of a specific
alternative. A copy of the staff report is attached for your information.
The City Council raised a concern as to the proposed impacts to Tustin High School
as follows:
Loss of land/landscaping
Loss of parking spaces
Loss of portable classroom
Additionally, they have asked if the District has been apprised of said freeway
widening.
At your convenience and prior to April 30, 1986, please advise if the District
concurs with the CalTrans preferred Alternative 3B or advise of any other concerns
the District may have regarding this project. A copy of the Draft EIR-EIS
document is available at my office as well as maps showing the required
right-of-way needs.
Very truly yours,
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:jr
Attachment
300 Centennial Way 't Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890
.AGENDA .-
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIA/! HUSTON, CITY HANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTHENT/ENGINEERIN6 DIVISION
DRAFT EIR-EIS FOR THE SANTA ANA (I-5) FREE'gAY #IDENIRG PRO~IECT BETWEEN
ROUTE 405 AND ROUTE 55 - FILE #89~
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 Aha
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 undert'aken 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 Ana 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 forward this letter to CalTrans after the
City Council has had the opportunity to review its content, but prior to the
deadline date of May g, 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 Co~any personnel, other governmental agencies, and one
speaker from Tustin representing ~he 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
action on the item at
This widening project
on the south to Route
are as follows:
Phase I - Route
Phase II - Route
Phase III - Route
Phase IV - Route
the attached letter after the City Council has taken an
their April 21, 1986 or May 5, 1986 meeting.
is Phase I of a four phase project extending from Route 405
605 {Los Angeles County) on the north. Limits of each phase
405 (San Diego Freeway) to Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway)
55 to Route 22 (Garden Grove Freeway}
22 to Route 91 (Riverside Freeway)
g! to Route 605 {San Gabriel Freeway)
APRIL 16, 1986
PASE 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 $ by one lane in each direction, plus one auxiliary lane in each
direction between Route 133 (Laguna Freeway) and Route 5/Route 56 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
mi xed-fl ow 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.
Alternati.ve 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.
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 oqcurs
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 1 - Curtain Call Dinner Theater at 690 E1 Camino Real does not appear
to be impacted and should be deleted from the list.
° The proposed office structure at 730 E1Camino 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:
o Montesilla Mobile Home Club, 15601 "B" Street
o Influential Square Condominiums, 17288 Nisson Road
° Pasadena Village Apartments, 15482 Pasadena Avenue
o 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 Con~lex, 1361 E1Camino Real {Laguna Road)
APRIL 16, 1986
PAGE FOUR
In addition to the above mentioned business and residential displacements, an
encroachment tnto 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 parktng 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 Tusttn 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 co~,ents 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 acquisition
activities would con,hence in late 1986 with Phase I construction tentatively
scheduled for construction in the 1989-90 fiscal year.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:jr
Attachment
LOS ANGELES COUNTY : SAN BERNARDINO
~""' ._~kb COUNTY
· !"~1 FUI. LERTON %%
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
/ ANAH
EA NTA \ ~' ~
ANA
Are
BEA4
COST)
IRVINI
MI8810N
VIE JO
PACIFIC OCEAN
JUAN
CAPISTRANO
GLEMENTE
SAN DIEGO
COUNTY
EXHIBIY I
WIDENING
~tt'& ~t2'= 36' _,8'&10' Exist. R/W
Var. i - $ _
1A ~ ....'l '"' ............. I .... ~ Soundwo.s
Where Required
Ct-, "t J"' 2' Buffer
1 B k"'-I ",'.' I I ,.-...., ~,.-, .... I .... I~F'""' Soundwe,s
ia , .... , .,..=,~ r ,.,- ,-., ...... - Where Required
Ct' ' ' 4 12' · 48' ,,~, _ R/W
I 9' . 12' -, ~ _. ,~_,_ var. _]
, I
2B ~ I '"' I/' M,xed Flow Lanes I I~LOcati~s ~
Cf.. 102' Min.
I-
ALT.
3A L-Med.I Mixed FIowLenes
Alternative
R/W Soundwoll
· I ~ Locations
I'
Alternative --
R/W Soundwoll
, -i ~ Locations
NO SCALE EXHIBIT
Z
0
EXHIBIT 3
IV-49
I
I 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 g0012
RE:
07-ORA-$
DRAFT EIR-EIS FOR SANTA ANA FREEWAY
WIDENING FREEWAY ANO RECONSTRUCTION OF INTERCHANGES
SCH t: 84062706
FILE 1892
Dear Mr. Ballantine:
The City of Tustin staff has completed their review of the Draft EIR-EIS for the
Santa Ana 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 comment.
Page S-4, Interchange Reconstruction
The proposed constructionof 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 mentioned, 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 1 in Segment 2?
Page III-2$, Bottleneck Stud~
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.
Pag~ IV-34~ Housing Displacement and Page 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 IV-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 Co,~i~nity 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 if impacted by high school parking.
Page IV-66 and IV-6g, Impacts 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 Tustin 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 Aha (I-5) 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