The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 4 I5/RTE 55 INTERCHG 02-6-84DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1984 New Business No. ,~' 'f 2-6-84 Inter-Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: INTERSTATE 5/ROUTE $5 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT BACKGROUND: 'The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) is proposing to improve Interstate 5 and Route 55 circulation to relieve traffic congestion during peak demand periods. The proposed improvements include reconstruction of the Interstate 5/Route 55 interchange in the City of Tustin. Alternatives studied range from low to moderate cost improvements to major reconstruction and the no project alternative. Impacts of the proposal include residential and business .displacement, aesthetics and circulation effects. CalTrans is required by Federal and State law to consider the environmental impact of the proposed project upon th6 local environment. Accordingly, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) since the project will include Federal funding and impact interstate circulation. The City of Tusttn, if it chooses to express an opinion, must respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prior to February 11, 1984. ANAI.YSIS OF DRJU:T ElS: Both the Departments of Community Development and Public Works/Engineering have reviewed the subject document to analyze alternatives proposed and resulting impacts upon the environment. In particular City Engineer, Bob Ledendecker, has analyzed the five alternatives with variations and submitted his recommendations. Mr. Ledendecker prepared attached Exhibit D, outlining the alternatives and resulting probable effects on private property. The City Council also toured the affected area on Saturday, January 21, 1984, to physically preview displacement locations adjoining the interchange. The Community Development Department has reviewed the Draft EIS in relation to its adequacy of projecting significant adverse impacts on the environment and proposed mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to a level of insignificance. Overall, CalTran$ Planners have adequately addressed the requirements of CEQA and NEPA in relation to this preliminary analysis of the proposed alternatives. However, Community Development staff will be addressing the lack of significantly detailed mitigation measures in the draft document. It is our opinion that greater emphasis should be given to requiring architectural treatment, construction of soundwall buffers, and project landscaping where appropriate. Unfortunately, such details are not available due to the present conceptual nature of the project. RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT INTERSTATE 5/ROUTE 55 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT FEBRUARY 6, 1984 PAGE 2 Each proposed alternative would have a varying degree of impact on the environment dependent upon the extent of construction. However, virtually all short-term construction impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance while over the long-term, the project itself is a mitigation to existing adverse impacts resulting from the congested interchange. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES: Given the choices of alternatives proposed, the "no project" Alternative No. I would actually produce the most significant impacts on the environment. Simply to allow continually increasing traffic congestion would produce the greatest environmental damage. Therefore, assuming that these transportation system improvements are undoubtedly necessary, the City Council should endorse, as a policy position, its preferred improvement alternative and respond accordingly. As recommended by Council and Staff, it appears the most community wide beneficial choice would be Alternative IV (Exhibit "A")* with design variations as outlined in Alternative III; Plan 1-N55 to NB (Exhibit "B") or Alternative III; Plan 5B (Exhibit "C"), which extends Newport Avenue to Edinger Street. This Alternative provides fQr braiding of the S5 to S55 connector road with southbound 55 movement exiting the McFadden off-ramp and a full service connector road between S55 to S5 freeways. All other design variations within Alternative III are unacceptable to the City due to the adverse traffic and economic impacts. Staff will prepare a formal response to CalTrans refle~tingCouncil's policy position and also address minor technical errors in the document. Staff believes additional emphasis in the final EIS should be given to proposing more specific mitigation measures where possible. RECOI~IEIJDATION: That the City Council direct Staff to respond to the CalTrans Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Interstate 5/Route 55 Interchange Improvement, endorsing Alternative IV with variations outlined in Alternative III; Plan 1-N55 to N5 or Alternative III, Plan 5B, which extends Newport Avenue to Edinger Street, subject to conditions and concerns of the City. Staff will be prepared at the meeting to address Council' Director of Community Development DDL:jr s specific concerns. Attachments: Alternative IV (Exhibit "A") Alternative III, variation Plan, 1-N55 to N5 (Exhibit "B") Alternative III, Plan 5B (Exhibit "C") Impact Comparison Chart (Exhibit "D") EXHIBIT A I i dORMANDY I ~ &TH SANT DUNTY SEAT POMONA L~ L ST ///-/~ EXHIBIT B &" 3 MONTEGo "~1 I . TO~/~ NORYANOY I 311 WJLS"&RE PL~' -- ' SA COUNTY SEAT ALTAD ENA m ///- e' POMONA EXPIIBI'r C ST : ST IlOf~ TEGO IrY,~ WlLSHiRI~ PL AV SANT ANA:: COUNTY SEAT POMONA ST ~. ,.,..'TUSTIN ~_ ORANG WOO0 MEDAL LION____ AV ///- EXHIBIT D C~ o c) o o o o 0 c~ o u ~) ~ ~) I I,M 0 o o o o ~ o r~l~ NEW BUSINESS NO. 4 2-6 -84 AGENDA I'~E~: RESPONSE TO 'IHE DRAFT ENVIRON~E#TAL IWlPACT STATEI~NT: 5/ROUTE 55 INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT INTERSTATE BACKGROUND: This item will be sent to you in a supplemental packet'.