HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 EIR 83-1 10-05-83OATE:
October 5, 1983
~ONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
.~0. 3
10-5-83
nter- Corn
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
Community Development Department
Continued Consideration of EIR 83-1, Newport Avenue Extension
DISCUSSION
This agenda item was continued from the September 19, 1983 meeting to allow
Council the opportunity to submit techincal questions to staff for analysis
and review at the October 5, 1983 meeting. The continuation would also
permit a representative of the consulting traffic engineer to be in
attendance as well 'as the City Engineer, Bob Ledendecker. Council also
directed staff to research the original closure of Newport Avenue and
previous methods for rail car switching in the vicinity of the Newport
Avenue/Edinger Avenue intersection
Staff and the consultant will be prepared at the Council meeting to
verbally address this subject.
Director of Community Development
DOL:jh
RESOLUTION NO. 83-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
DF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 83-1 AND
AMENDMENTS AS FINAL EIR 83-1
The City Council of the City of Tustin, California does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
A. That an Environmental Impact Report would be
required due to potential effects identified in an
initial questionnaire done for the proposed Newport
Avenue extension.
B. That a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed project has been prepared by LSA, Inc. for the
City of Tustin.
C. That distribution of the Draft EIR was made to
interested public and private agencies with a
solicitation of comments and evaluation.
D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held on the Draft EIR.
E. That incorporated within the Draft EIR are the
comments of the public, commissions, staff and
responsible agencies.
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
F. That the Draft EIR and amendments were prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, State guidelines and the policies of the City of
Tustin.
G. That the Draft EIR and amendments have been reviewed
and considered, and that mitigating measures have been
incorporated into the project that eliminate or
substantially lessened the significant environmental
effects thereof as identified in the Dhaft EIR and
amendments; these environmental effects and mitigating
measures are listed in the attached document, Exhibit
"A". Mitigation measures are specified as conditions
contained in this resolution.
H. The Tustin Planning Commission has considered Draft
EIR 83-1 at its meeting of September 12, 1983, and
recommended by Minute Order that the City Council
certify Draft EIR 83-1, plus amendments as a final
83-1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 83-68
Page ~
II.
The City Council of the City of Tusttn does hereby
certify Draft EIR 83-1, plus amendments as a final EIR
83-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on
the . day of , 1983.
Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Mary E. Wynn
City C1 erk
DATE:
October 5, 1983
! nter - C om
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
Community Development Department
Continued Consideration of EIR 83-1, Newport Avenue Extension
As requested, enclosed is a history of the Newport Avenue closure, and
highway condtions at the time of closure. The report gives past, present
and estimated traffic counts. The chronological events leading to the
official closure of Newport Avenue are also documented.
Staff was unable to document the number and locations of rail switchings
at the time Newport Avenue was closed. The consultant traffic engineer
will continue to research this item and may be able to verbally address
this subject at the Council meeting.
Associate Planner
EMK:jh
Attachments
HISTORY
Pre-Freeway Conditions
Prior to construction of the Newport (Route 55) Freeway, Tustin
Avenue and Newport Avenue both crossed the Santa Fe Railroad
tracks. Tustin Avenue, at this point, was a federal aid primary
highway under the jurisdiction of the State of California, identi-
fied as State Route VII-Ora-43. Tustin Avenue intersected Newport
Avenue between Edinger Avenue and the Santa Fe Railroad. At that
point, Newport Avenue, southerly, was identified as Newport Boule-
vard, continuing as a State Route to Newport Beach.
Newport Avenue was a County arterial highway designated as a
federal aid secondary highway northerly from its intersection
with Tustin Avenue, continuing into and through the City of Tustin.
That portion of Newport Avenue containing the at-grade crossing of
the Santa Fe Railroad Was under the jurisdiction of the County of
Orange. Exhibit 1 shows pre-freeway conditions.
Newport Avenue and Red Hill Avenue were the only north-south through
streets crossing and interchanging with the Santa Aha (Route 5)
Freeway, in the City of Tustin. Newport Avenue, via E1 Camino Real,
served the central business area of the City of Tustin.
Construction of the Newport (Route 55) Freeway entailed the use of
Tustin Avenue right-of-way northerly to 1st Street from Newport
Boulevard. Newport Boulevard right-of-way southerly from Edinger
Avenue was required for freeway construction. As a result of the
freeway construction, access into the City of Tustin from Tustin
Avenue and Newport Boulevard was eliminated.
Interchange with the (Route 55) freeway was established at 4th
Street (Irvine Boulevard), Edinger Avenue and, indirectly to,
Newport Avenue/McFadden Street via Pasadena Avenue and Sycamore
Street.
Construction of a freeway overcrossing of the Santa Fe Railroad
resulted in two crossings at-grade being closed. The Tustin Ave-
nue crossing (P.U.C. No. 2-177.4) was eliminated due to the use of
Tustin Avenue right-of-way, the Newport Avenue crossing (P.U.C. No.
2-177.5) was also closed. This action was taken as a result of
application to the P.U.C. by the State of California, Department of
Public Works. The application, numbered 44917 and dated October 29,
1962, resulted in an order, Decision No. 6489, dated February 6,
1963, by the P.U.C. that abolished the two crossings.
The justification given for closure of the Newport Avenue crossing
was indicated as impaired sight distance due to the adjacent freeway
overcrossing structure. The freeway structure was completed in 1964
and the Newport Avenue crossing barricaded. The crossing protection,
consisting of flashing lights, signs, and associated control devices,
were removed.
Prior to the construction of the freeway, it was necessary to obtain
agreement from the County of Orange. In March of 1957, the Orange
County Board of Supervisors requested that the Newport Avenue cross-
ing remain open. Letter and resolution requesting this action were
sent to the P.U.C. The P.U.C. replied that it was their opinion
that the overcr~ssing to be provided by the freeway would preclude
the need to maintain the Newport Avenue crossing. In April, 1957,
a meeting was held with the P.U.C., California Division of High-
ways, Santa Fe Railroad, and County of Orange, at the P.U.C. offices
in Los Angeles. At that time, discussion was held relative to
maintaining Newport Avenue as a grade crossing or construction of
an overcrossing at Newport Avenue.
The P.U.C. personnel present refused to consider crossing gates as
adequate protection for the crossing. It was estimated that the
cost of an overcrossing at this location would be approximately
$500,000.00. If closure of the crossing was not approved by the
Board 6f Supervisors, indication was that it would require a hear-
ing by the P.U.C., and probably two years would elapse before a
decision was reached.
As a result of the meeting, it was determined that the two closings,
Tustin Avenue and Newport Avenue, were one problem. A letter was
to be sent to the Orange County Board of Supervisors requesting a
decision on the closure. If the supervisors decided that Newport
Avenue was to be maintained, a P.U.C. hearing would be convened.
The State Division of Highways indicated they would oppose approval
of an overcrossing at Newport Avenue, if it would be their respon-
sibility to construct such crossing.
A letter was sent by P.U.C. staff to the Board of Supervisors in
May 1960, requesting approval of Newport Avenue closure at the
Santa Fe Railroad. In June, 1960, the Board of Supervisors applied
to the P.U.C. for $500,000.00 from the crossing protection fund,
presumably to provide an overcrossing at Newport Avenue. Apparently
no action or follow-up on this application was taken. In March,
1962, another request was sent to the Board of Supervisors, by the
State, for resolution approving closure of Newport Avenue.
In February, 1960, a freeway agreement was completed between the
State of California and the County of Orange. This agreement con-
tained.reference to the closure of certain roads and construction
of others. Freeway construction proceeded and Newport Avenue was
closed, at the Santa Fe crossing. A plan map attached to the
freeway agreement does not indicate that Newport Avenue is to be
closed at the railroad crossing.
In February, 1962, a letter from the Orange County Road Department
to the California Division of Highways indicated that the Newport
Avenue grade crossing must be closed because of impaired sight
distance. This was followed up in September, 1962, by a Board of
Superwisors' resolution, Number 62-1071, authorizing the State to
apply for closure of the Newport Avenue grade crossing.
A letter was sent by the State to the City of Tustin in September,
1962, requesting resolution concurring with the closing of Newport
Avenue at the Santa Fe Railroad. On September 15, 1962, by Reso-
lution NO. 616, the City of Tustin authorized the State, on behalf
of the County, to apply for closure of the Newport Avenue grade
crossing.
In June, 1968, by Resolution No. 68-847, the Board of Supervisors
abandoned the portion of Newport Avenue between Edinger Avenue
and the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way.
At the time that the Route 55 Freeway was constructed, and the
crossings closed, average daily traffic volume on Newport Avenue,
across the railroad, was estimated at approximately 3500 vehicles
per day. Traffic volume on Red Hill Avenue, at that crossing of
the railroad, was estimated at about 2500 vehicles per day. The
average daily traffic near the railroad crossing on Tustin Avenue
and Newport Boulevard, the State Highway, was approximately 21,000
vehicles per day.
In 1962, the State Division of Highways estimated that the new
freeway overcrossing of the railroad would have an average daily
traffic volume of 45,000 vehicles in 1985. It was the contention
of the State Division of Highways that the proposed freeway over-
crossing could accommodate and provide circulation for the traffic
diversion caused by closing Tustin Avenue and Newport Avenue grade
crossings.
Post Freeway Conditions
In late 1964, the overcrossing of the Santa Fe Railroad, on the
Newport Freeway, was opened to traffic; and the Newport Avenue
crossing of the railroad closed. At about this same time, all of
Orange County began to experience tremendous development. Traffic
volumes increased on all major traffic facilities, far beyond the
expectations contained in earlier estimates.
The average daily traffic volume on the Newport Freeway, at the
present time, is about 175,000 vehicles, almost four times the
45,000 vehicles estimated for 1985. Red Hill Avenue has increased
from the approximately 2,500 vehicles daily to about 30,000 daily.
Other traffic facilities in the area have also increased in vol-
umes dramatically.
In the late 1960's, the "Santa Ana Freeway Coordinating Committee"
was formed to coordinate freeway improvements and prioritize mod-
ifications along the Santa Ana Freeway corridor. One of the pro-
jects discussed by the committee was the upgrading of the Newport-
Santa Aha freeway to freeway interchange, attendent connections,
and interchanges with local streets. One of the modifications
concerned better access and connection to Newport Avenue, including
overcrossing of the Santa Fe Railroad.
Due to the cutback in State funds for freeway projects, the com-
mittee has become inactive and the projects have not been pursued.
However, a plan was developed for improvement of access to Newport
Avenue and overcrossing of the Santa Fe Railroad. The plan is
feasible, with or without connection to the freeway. See Exhibit
III.
V,,/ALMU 1' AVP,..
, ,
~ SY'CAM01'2¢,,.. A~,'P-.-.
III III III II I III
¢_..g~,,;,J ~ &r). 5.-r.
VALE4qd. I A AVE..
E.X'H 11511' I
¥,/A L.M Ul" AVE.-.
AVE...
5AI',J T'A I¢¢- 12A I L.12OA'l:::)
IP ~ III Ill
111 I~ iff III #t
~.,1::)1M ~ ~,:12. 51.
5YC/~ k4OQ ~
Ill III III ltl ltl Ill
Ill III Iit I1!
C
VALEKICIA AV~...
E.x'N ii~l-r ~
CAL~I'2 A NI5
kl f..Wl:~f21' AVE..
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 19, 1983
PUBLIC HEARING
NO. 3
Inter-Com
Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
Community Development Department
EIR 83-1, Newport Avenue Extension
BACKgOUNO
In order to improve overall traffic circulation in the south Tustin area,
the City is proposing to extend Newport Avenue through to Edinger Avenue.
This connection was closed in the 1960's when the Newport Freeway was
constructed. At the time Newport Avenue was closed, traffic estimates
predicted that this Newport connection would never be needed. Expansive
development in the past twenty years has proved these estimates wrong, and
brought about the need to reopen this connection.
Due to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks, the City must
se&k approval from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to restore the
at-grade crossing. The PUC maintains regulatory power over public
utilities and is a responsible agency in that it holds discretionary
approval power over the proposed project. The City prepared an initial
study for the project and submitted this and a Negative Declaration to the
PUC. The PUC rejected the Negative Declaration and indicated that an
Environmental Impact Report be prepared to adequately address concerns over
significant vehicular and railroad traffic at the proposed crossing. The
City Council directed staff to prepare a Focused EIR for the proposed
project.
DISCUSSION
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 8.3-[ is the resUlt of the concerns and
comments of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This is a Focused EIR
which examines only those environmental issues that are specially relevant
to the project. The list of potential environmental impacts and mitigating
measures are included in the draft EIR from pages V to IX.
After the draft EIR was completed, it was distributed to either concerned
groups, individuals or Responsible Agencies. Each of the Council members
received a copy at this time. The State requires a forty-five (45) day
review period for draft EIR's before they can be considered for
certification. This period has passed and most of the connents received
were cursory, with the exception of letters from the PUC and Santa Fe
Railroad Company.
Both of these letters concentrated on railroad switching operations,
blocking the roadway, emergency access, and a grade separation either at
Newport Avenue or Red Hill Avenue. Essentially, the PUC feels that the
switching operations will block Newport and Red Hill for extended oeriods
of time and a grade separation at Red Hill will alleviate this. The PUC
only wants to consider the Newport extension after the grade separation is
comoleted.
EIR 83-1, Newport Avenue Extension
September 19, 1983
Page 2
The City's consultant, Basmacyan-Darnell, [nc., Engineering and P]annfng,
has prepared a response to these concerns and it is enclosed within. The
fact that the Newport Avenue extension disrupts switching operations for
the railroad does not represent an environmental impact, and can be
resolved. As long as the rat]road maintains observance of General Order
135 regulations, no impact will be observed. [n regard *co comments
concerning the grade separation at Red Hill Avenue, the draft E[R has
covered these points tn the Alternative Section. But fn regard tx)
constructing the grade separation at Red Hill prior to the Newport
extension, extensive and unforseen construction constraints at Red Hill may
cause its complete closure. Ntthout assurance of an alternative route,
traffic and circulation would be chaotic. The construction of the Newport
extension as Phase I will assure a reasonable traffic alternative if the
Red Hill grade separation is constructed.
With regard to the Red Hill Avenue grade separation, it is an alternative
described in the EIR and shown as a benefit to the overall circulation in
the area. It is, however, not necessary in order to construct the Ne~ort
Avenue extension. The EIR identifies mitigating measures for the Newport
at-grade crossing that are sufficient to allow both the Newport and Red
Hill crossings to operate at an acceptable safety level. The grade
separation at Red Hill is an item the City should study and consider but
not necessarily commit to as a requirement for the Newport crossing.
Each of the potential impacts identified in the draft EIR are either
beneficial or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. These impacts
are either empirically shown in the body of the EIR as being insignificant,
or will be mitigated as a result of the final design. Staff recommends to
the City Council that Draft EIR 83-1, plus amendments, is an acceptable
document and in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
State guidelines and the policies of the City Council.
The certification of EIR 83-1 is not in conjunction with a specific project
and does not guarantee that the Newport Avenue extension will occur. The
PUC has the discretionary authority over the proposed crossing, and the
City will have to submit an application and seek approval. This EIR will
be submitted along with an application, and will be the data base used in
granting or denying the project.
R£C~NDATIOIJ
Staff. recommends that the City Council accept the recommendation of the
Planning Commission and certify Draft EIR 83-1, plus amendments, by the
adoption of Resolution No. 83-68.
Associate Planner
EMK:jh
SUPPLEMENT TO
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-1
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO: 82070912
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sections
Notice of Public Hearing
Distribution List
List of Persons Commenting
September 12, 1983 Planning Commission Staff Report
September 12, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes
Comments to Draft EIR
a. Metropolitan Water District
b. County Sanitation District
c. Santa Fe Industries, July 26, 1983
d. City of Irvine
e. Public Utilities Commission (September 2, 1983)
f. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company
(September 2, 1983)
g. State of California State Clearinghouse Business and
Transportation Agency
Response to Public Utilities Commission and Atchison, Topeka
and Santa Fe Railroad Company (September 2, 1983) by
Basmaciyan-Darnall, Inc. (September 12, 1983)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TUSTIN CIl~f CDUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, will hold a public hearing on September 6, 1983 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin,
California, to consider the following:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT B3-1
A draft focused environmental impact report (83-1) for the extension
of ~ewportAvenue has been prepared for the City of Tustin in order
to make application to the Public Utilities Commission. The City of
Tustin proposes to extend Newport Avenue from cul-de-sac north Of
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad railway line across the tracks
to intersect with Edfnger Avenue, opposite the existing Route 55/
[dinger Avenue northbound off-ramp. The extended roadway will
consist of two travel l'anes in each direction with a painted
median. The project purpose is to alleviate congested traffic
conditions on Red Hill Avenue south of the I-S Freeway.
Copies of the draft [IR are available for public inspection at the
Orange County Library-Tustin Branch at 345 Main Street and in the
City Clerk's office at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin.
Additional information relative to this project is on file in the
Public Works/Engineering Department at City Hall.
Anyone interested in the above hearing may appear and be heard at
the time and place noted above.
Mary [. Wynn
City Clerk
Publish Tustin News
August 11, 18, 25, 1983
DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR EIR 83-1
Newport Avenue Extension
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24.
25.
Mayor Hoesterey
Mayor Pro-Tem Kennedy
Councilman Edgar
Councilman Greinke
Councilman Saltarelli
Chairman Sharp
Co~missioner Ainslee
Commissioner Puckett
Commissioner White
Commissioner Well
City Manager Huston
City Engineer, Bob Ledendecker
Community Development Director, Don La~ml
City Clerk, Mary Wynn
R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant
Mel Moore, Mutual Propane Gas
Tustin Branch, Orange County Library
Chief of Police, Charles Thayer
Joyce Bailey, Southern Cal. Edison Co.
Col. Mitchell, MCAS(H)
EMA, County of Orange
City of Irvine
City of Santa Ana
AT&SF Railway System
Irvine Co.
26. Public Utilities Commission
27. State of California (10 copies)
28. Cal Trans, Legal Div.
29. EMA Flood Control District
30. Orange County Fire Department
31. Case Swayne Co., Richard Kopel
32. Pantry Market, John Boukather
33. Tustin Co~uunity Hospital,
34.
82070913 ) ,
NewDort Avenue Extension
City o~ TusCan
300 Centenn~a] ~a~ ~b. cs~: TusCan
~: Oranqe ~. cs~/c~: Tustin
Q7 R~e]o~ A~ ~loym
(~u~ivislafl, Pm~el
~0 Use Pe~tt ~ ,. Mtneral ~ction: Ht~al
11 ~n~l Ag ~e Og PMr G~on: Wedge
~ X o~ Road extension Type:
~o X o~,e- ~ad extension
9. TOTAL AC~EN:
Bob Ledendecker
05 ¢oes~al 12 X Public Services
06 Ptre Hazard 13 Schools
07 X ~loadtng/Orainaqe 14 Septic Systems
~Z. FUttBIt~(approx.) Federal S S~te S
~9 X Trafftc/Ci~culation 26 Incc~m~attbJe Landuse
20 V~e~tton 27 C~lattva Eff~
21 ~ter Quality ZB X Other Public safety
To~l S
i3. PRESENT ~
Industrial and multiple-family residential - existing and zoned
i¢. PRO~ECT OESCRIPTION:
Extension of Newport Avenue from cul-de-sac north of AT & SF railway line across
the tracks to intersect with Edlnger Avenue opposite the existing Route 55/
Edinger Avenue northbound off-ramp. The extended roadway will consist of two
travel lanes in each direction with a painted median. Project purpose is
to alleviate congested traffic conditions on Red Hill Avenue south of the
SI~RE
~IQT~: Cl~rinq~ouse will assign iUen:ificacion ~Oers for all n~ orojects. If a SC~ ~er already exists for a proje::
(~, fr~ a [(otice of P~paration or pr~ious draft document) please fill it In.
11. PRO~Eb"r ISSUES OZ$CU~rn IN O0~t~ENT
O1 ~thett~Vts~l ~ G~logic/Set~c 15
~ ~rtcuT~l La~ ~ Jobs/Hausi~ 8ala~e I6
03 X Air Quality 10 ~lnerals 17
~ Arc~a~logtcal/Hls~ri~l ~I X Noise L8
Toxtc/Hizardous Z5 ~ Gr~ Induct~
LI~ OF PERSONS COtlNE#TIIIG
1. Metropolitan Water District
2. County Sanitation District
3. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company
4. City of Irvine
5. Public Utilities Commission
6. State of California State Clearinghouse Business and Transportation
Agency
Report to the
Planning Commission
SEPTE~ER 12, 1983
SUBdECT:
Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report 83-!
Newport Avenue Extension, At-Grade Crossing at Edtnger Avenue
BAC~GROUIm
In order to improve overall traffic circulation Tn the south Tustin area, the
City Is proposing to extend Newport Avenue through to Edtnger Avenue. This
connection was closed In the 1960's when the Newport Freeway was constructed.
At the time Newport Avenue was closed, traffic estimates predicted that this
Newport connection would never be needed.. Expansive development in the past
~en~y years have proved these estimates wrong, and brought about the need to
reopen this connection.
Due to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks, the City must seek
approval from the Public Utilities Comisston (PUC) to restore the at-grade
crossing. The PUC maintains regulatory power over public utilities and is a
responsible agency in that it holds discretionary approval power over the
proposed project. The City prepared an initial study for the project and
submitted this and a Negative Declaration to the PUC. The PUC rejected the
Negative Declaration and indicated that an Environmental Impact Report be
prepared to adequately address concerns over significant vehicular and railroad
traffic at the proposed crossing.
DICU$SIO#
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 83-1 is a result of the concerns and comments
of the PUC. This is a Focused EIR in that it addresses only those environmental
issues which are particularly relevant to the project. The list of potential
environmental impacts and mitigating measures are included in the draft EIR from
pages V to IX.
Each of the potential impacts identified in the draft EIR are either a
beneficial impact or can be mitigated to a level of instgnificanceJ These
impactsare eithe~ empirically shown in the body of the EIR as being
insigntfcant, or will be mitigated as a ~esult of the final design.
The certification of EIR 83-1 is not in conjunction with a specific project and
does not guarantee that the Newport Avenue extension will occur. The PUC has
the discretionary authority over the proposed crossing, and the City will have
to submit an application and seek approval. This EIR will be submitted a)ong
with an application, and will be the data base used in granting or denying the
project.
Community Development Depariment
Draft Environmental Impact Report
September 12, 1983
Page 2
Although this is not a formal public hearing, staff is recommending that the
Commission make a recommendation t~ the Council concerning EIR 83-1. This can
take the form of a Minute Order, with this staff memo and the minutes of the
Commission meeting incorporated into the final EIR.
RECOI~IE~DATXO#
That the Planning Commission, by Minute Order, recommend certification of Draft
EIR 83-1 to the City Council.
Associate P1 anner
Planning Coamtsston Mtnutes
September 2Z, L983
Page 2
After a brief ~lscuss(on/question-and-answer per(od, it was ~ved by
Well, seconded by White, to approve Use Permit 83-17 with concUttons
as p~esented in the staff report dated September 2Z. 1983 with the
exception of deleting condition #2 pertaining to perimeter
1 andscapt ng.
The motion carried. $ ayes to 0 noes.
2. USE P£RNIT 85-1g - ~ESOLUTION NO. 2115
Applicant: Tustena Animal Hospital on behalf of Grand Avenue Pet
~osp( tel
Location: 2292 Laguna Road
Request: Authorization to install a pele sign of 48 square feet
per face at 1192 Laguna Road
Associate Planner Chaa~oerlain presented staff's report and
recmmmndattons as contained in the report dated September 12,
lg83. A brief slide presentation was viewed by CoNtssion ~ers.
Chairman Sha~ opened ~ public hearing at 7:S2 p.m. Re following
persons spoke in favor of the matter:
David Crowley, Erwin Sign C~any, questioned if the conditions of
approval as stated in the staff report were required by Code. The
Associate Planner responded that they were.
Chairman Sharp closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.mr
Following a brief question-and-answer period, it was moved by Puck-
ett, seconded by Ainslie, to adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTOI4 NO. 2125 - A R£SOLUTIOtl OF THI: PLANNING CO~ISSION OF THE
CITY (~ TUSTIN, APPROVI~ USE PERMIT NO. 83-lg, FOR A POLE SIGN AT
llg2 LAGU~ ROAD
~otton carried, 5 ayes to 0 noes.
~. Old Busl~ess
~one.
~. ~ ~ust~ess
~. Extension of Yartance SZ-g (Offtce Building)
Robert ¥. and ~aralys ~. Nl~ls
27~ "~' Street
Otrector of Community Development Lam presented staff's report and
negattve reco~endatton as contained tn the report dated September
22, 2983.
Following a brief question-and-answer period, the CoNtsston
recognized Robert ¥. WtllS. applicant, ~no spoke in favor of the
extension and respon~e~ to ¢omlsston questions.
It was ~oved by White, seconded by Sharp, to extend Variance
for a periodo7 one year,
/ Morton care(ed, 4 ayes to 2 noes, Puckett opposed.
~ 2. Consideration of Oraft Environmental Impact Report
~.m. ~/ewport Avenue Extension
// Assoc(ate Planner Kntght presented staff' $ report and
recoa~endations as contained in the the ~eport dated September 12.
2983.
September [2, [983
Page 3
Chatrman Sharp questfoned the procedum that would he followed ff
the Counctl certified the EIR.
Associate Planner Knight explained that ~e City ~ould ~e-apply
the Publtc Utilities Co,mlsston. who. he felt would most ltkely
table ~e request unttl resolution of the bullet ~ratn issue.
the Public Utilities ¢o,,,~ssten were Co approve the appltcatten, and
~e~port Avenue ~ePe ~ be ex~ended, tt weuld be necessary CO
redesign the route for the bullet tratn.
Chairman Sharp asked why the issue of the Newport Extension has
resurfeced.
Associate Planner Kntght stated that om £nvtronmental Impact Report
had been ¢omp]el~d and sent out CO concerned agencies fur the
required 4S-day revt~ and some ~ype of action was required.
Chetrman Sharp asked if the Commission could recmmend agatnst
certification of the the £ZR. The Associate Plenner responded that
the~ could.
Commissioner ~e~l stated that having Om exl~nston tn plece ~x~uld
force the bullet traln to deal wtth the cresstng as opposed to
havtng the Ctty bear the cost of trying CO deal wtth the bullet
train. She also explained that during construction of the Red Hill
underpass, an altornate reute would be necassar~ and extending
~a~port Avenue may provide that ~lteroatlve.
Commissioner ~htte asked if the Intent of the recommendation was to
certtfty adequacy of the £IR or of the project. Associate Planner
Knight responded that ~o specific pro~ect was tnvolved and the
recommndatton bealt only with the EIR. Commissioner ~htte ~$o
questioned a statomont in the document clatmtng the ex~enston would
alleviate traffic in the western part of me City, but that om
traffic diagram did not co,mleco support this claim. Associate
Planner Knight explained that traffic problems would be improved but
traffic ~rom the Costa ~qesa ;reewoy would he added trico the system.
It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Atnslte, ~o recommend
certification of Draft E~R 83-1 to the City Council.
Mutton carried 5 ayes to 0 noes.
Ortve-Thro Restaurants in C-[ Zone
Senior Planner ~arren presented staff"s roport da~ed September
[983.
After a brief discussion period, it was moved by ~etl, seconded by
~htte, CO determine as follows:
"Drive-thru restaurant service wtndows are authortzedtn the
District subject to use permit approval."
Motion carried, 5 ayes to 0 noes.
DEPART]4ENTAL PROJECT STATUS - MEEK OF AUGUST 29, [983
Director of Community Oevelopment La~ presented the Departmental
Status Report dated September [2, 1983, and responded to Co~mlsston
questions.
~?£:
FRQH:
SUS,/E:CT:
AUGUST 1, 1983
Inter-Corn
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -
NEWPORT AVE. EXTENSION (FILE #2500)
Attached is a response letter from the County Sanitation
Districts of Orange County.
The two sewer lines 21" and 36" within Red Hilt Ave. appear to
have been addressed on page 40 of the draft EIR. The 12" sewer
line has not been addresed; however, it does not appear that
there will be any impacts to the sewer with the at grade
alternatives.
b LedenclecKer
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
db
Attachment
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
~U~¢ 5 7983
Mr. Robert S. Ledendecker
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Mr. Ledendecker:
RECEIVE2
Newport Avenue Extension
Draft Environmental Impact Report
This is in response to your Notice of Completion and
Environmental Document Form dated July 21, 1.983, transmitting
your Draft Focused EIR. Metropolitan's staff has reviewed the
document for information germane to our statutory responsibil-
ities in connection with the proposed project.
Based on our review of the document, the Newport
Avenue Extension alternative would not affect Metropolitan's
facilities. Bowever, should the Newport Avenue Extension with
Grade Separation at Red Bill Avenue alternative be chosen,
Metropolitan's 79-inch-inside-diameter welded steel East
Orange County Feeder NO. 2 pipeline would be affected by the
project. As you have noted on Page 40 and on Figure 15 on
Page 42, relocation of our pipeline and appurtenant structures
within the street right of way would be required. We therefore
request that you furnish copies of preliminary drawings for any
construction within the vicinity of our pipeline. Plan and
profile drawings of our pipeline may be obtained by contacting
Mr. Jim Bale, telephone (213) 250-6000, extension 564.
we appreciate your cooperation in keeping us informed
of your activities that may affect us. If you have any questions,
please contact me on extension 568.
Very truly yours, /~ ,/_..
~,, .? .l
Edward J. Thornhill
Principal Administrative Analyst
Environmental Planning Section
DAM: asj
1111 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, Calif./Mailing address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, Calif. 90054 / Telephone: (213J 250-6000
¸II
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFOKNIA
P. O, BOX G12"'7, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, OALIFORNIA g2'7[3B
City of Tustin
City Center
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject:
jUL 26 i~J
TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
ElY
Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report
Newport Avenue Extension
In reviewing subject report, the Districts' staff did not find
any reference to the underground trunk sewers. Please be ad-
vised that this agency has three existing major trunk lines in
the project vicinity, Contract 7-4-2R Tustin-Newport Relief
Subtrunk Sewer, Contract 7-5-1R West Relief Trunk Sewer-Redhill
Avenue to Tustin, and Contract 7-5-2 West Trunk Sewer. It will
be necessary for these lines to be protected during construction.
Exact locations and proper protection methods should be discussed
with Mr. Tom Dawes, Deputy Chief Engineer for the Districts,
(714) 540-2910.
flilary J. Baker
Senior Engineering Aide
HJB/ddk
cc: Tom Dawes
~4J~iT'A FE INDU~T~:~IE$, IN(3.
LAW DEPARTMENT
114 Sansome Street P.O. Box 7931
San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94120
Phone 415/781-7600
July 26, 1983
Mr. Robert S. Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Attorney
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Re: Draft Focused Environmental Impact Report--
Newport Avenue Extension--Tustin, California
Dear Mr. Ledendecker:
I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the subject
report. That copy has been forwarded to Santa Fe
Railway engineers in Los Angeles for review. May I
please have an additional copy for my files.
Frederick G. Pfrommer
General Attorney
LEB/lm
LSA, Inc.
500 Newport Center Drive, S~ite 525
Newport Beach, CA 92660
August 12, 1983
RECEIVEL
Bob Ledendecker
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mr. Ledenbecker:
SUBJECT: DRAFT FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (83-1)
FOR THE EXTENSION OF NEWPORT AVENUE
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the above
mentioned EIR. The City of Irvine Community Development and
Transportation Services staff fully support the extension of
Newport Avenue to Edinger Avenue, with grade separation over
the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way line.
The proposed project should be coordinated with the Los Angeles
to San Diego high speed rail project (bullet train). A print
of the proposed track modifications in the project vicinity
(enclosed) indicates future track lowering to be approximately
five feet at Newport Avenue. Additional information should be
obtained from the American High Speed Rail Corporation, 2024
Century Park East, Suite 1010, Los Angeles, California, 90067.
Should you have any questions with regard to the comments
given above, please contact George Divine, Senior Engineer of
Transportation Services, City of Irvine, at 660-3638.
Se~.or Planner
E~Wironmental Services
EM/pj
Enclosures
cc: George Divine
John Murphy
SF TRACK
RC TRACKS
'~SF TRACKS
SCHOOb-MAINTENANCE YIa~RD [~ ::o
0 200' 400'
150'
100'
EXISTING NEWPORT FREEWAY
OVER-CROSSING
. ~ ........ PROPOSED REDHIH~-AVENUE
................ OVER-CROSSING
C
VERTICAL HORIZONTAL
0 20' 40' 0 200' 400'
~TA~ITM OIm CA LI ~'O~NIA
SeptemBer 2, 1983 ·
,.~, ~o 183-30/EIR
Dan Conaty
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street - Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
RECEIVE5
TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
BY [ ~
Dear Mr. Conaty:
This is in regard to the City of Tustin's Draft Focused Environ-
mental Impact Report for the Newport Avenue Extension, SCH %82070913.
In reviewing this document, we find that it leaves unanswered far
more questions concerning the effectiveness of a Newport Avenue
crossing of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company's
tracks than it answers. Not only is there considerable train
switching activity in the vicinity of the proposed Newport Avenue
Extension but consideration should be given to the impact which
such a crossing woul~'-hage on the use of the railroad's passing
track for passes and meets. Following is a more specific statement
of our concerns over the deficiencies which we perceive in the
focused ELR.
On page 11 of the EIR under Existing Conditions - Railroad Operations,
a description ~f the trackage and train activities in the vicinity
of the proposed Newport Avenue Extension is given. Any meaningful
information which would permit an analysis of the impact of the
extension on train activities and the impact of train activities
on the effectiveness of a railroad-highway grade crossing is,
however, sadly lacking.
For example, if switching operations at the site of the proposed
Newport Avenue crossing would block the roadway for significant
periods of time, the resultant traffic delays would render the
project ineffective for its intended use. Further, if passes and
meets of trains occur in this vicinity, as we would assume, either
the crossing would be blocked for extended periods of time or the
railroad would have to revise its operations to avoid being in
violation of the Commission's General Order No. 135 which governs
the occupancy of public grade crossings by railroads.
Dan Conaty -2-
September 2, 1983
On page 32 of the EIR, it is indicated that the proposed Newport
Avenue 'Extension would have a generally beneficial effect on a
variety~f co~%munity services. This may or may not be correct
subject to further analysis. The benefits to community services
are entirely dependent on the reliability of the route. If the
previously noted switching activities and train passes and meets
were to block the proposed crossing for inordinate periods, of
time, the proposed Newport Avenue Extension would not be a re-
liable route for emergency vehicles and emergency vehicles would,
of necessity, continue to use the more reliable Red Hill Avenue
crossing.
Due to the lack of a proper in-depth analysis, it is our opinion
that the EIR has reached erroneous conclusions regarding ~he
solution to what we recognize as being very real traffic circulation
problems. The ideal solution to the problem would be a. Newport
Avenue overcrossing and reconstruction of Edinger Avenue on/off-
ramps to Route 55.
If the California Department of Transportation had correctly
designed access to Route 55, we would not now be faced with the
Newport Avenue Extension problem and the very high costs for such
a resolution of the problem.
The more practical %olution, and the only one which the commission
staff believes would '~eet the requirements for publid convenience,
necessity and safety, is a modification of the project alternative.
If there is to be any realistic solution to t_he traffic circulation
problem, it must entail completion of a Red Hill Avenue grade
separation after which it would appear practical to consider cons-
truction of the Newport Avenue Extension and attendant grade
crossing.
In justification of this position and subject to further review by
the City and the railroad, we offer the following comments: At
the present time, railroad operations are tailored to the exis-
tence of the Red Hill Avenue grade crossing and ~he lack of a
Newport Avenue grade crossing. Passes, meets and switching acti-
vities may all now be freely performed northerly of Red Hill
Avenue without interference with or by vehicular traffic acitity.
As previously indicated, a Newport Avenue grade crossing would
require a substantial change in the mode of railroad operations.
And without a Red Hill Avenue grade separation, it would appear
that the railroad would be severely penalized by the reduction in
effective length of passing track and the impact of vehicular
traffic on its switching activities.
Assuming that a Red Hill Avenue grade separation is constructed,
we believe i~ would be possible for the railroad to shift many
of its operations southeasterly so as not to interfere undu~ with
a Newport Avenue grade crossing. While the necessary track
Dan Conaty -3-
September 2, 1983
modifications would come at some cost to the City, we would hope
that the costs would be within reason considering the magnitude
of the total project and the benefits provided in improved traffic
circulation to the City of Tustin.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIR and to apprise
all interested parties with the views and concerns which the staff
of the California Public Utilities ComMission has with regard to
tkis project.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT W. STICH~ P. E.
Supervisor.- Traffic Engineering
Transportation Division
cc:
Bob Leydendecker
Public Works Director
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Leland E. Butler
General Attorn%y ' '
Santa Fe Industries, Inc.
114 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
RECEIVES
TUSTINsy PUBL,~S DEPT.
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
September 2, i982
ATTENTION: Mr. D. Conaty
Subject: Proposed Extension of Newport Avenue,
City of Tustin--SCH NO. 820~0913
Gentlemen:
It is the opinion Of The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company that the Environmental Impact Report for
the extension of Newport Avenue within the City of Tustin
must be supplemented before it can be considered as a
thorough an.~ complete analysis o£ all impacts that would
result from an extension of Newport Avenue. It does
not adequately address the scope of railroad operations
at the site of the proposed extension, nor does it consider
the disruption an~ harm to such operations (and consequently,
to the railroad) that would result.
Railroad facilities at the site of the proposed
extension consist of two main tracks, a switching lead
track and various spur tracks. Operations for meets/
passes and for switches must be scheduled in a manner
that assures minim~ blockage of Red Hill Avenue, a
crossing at grade. An additional crossing at grade at
Newport Avenue would completely remove tPe ability of
the railroad to schedule meets and passes at the site
of the proposed extension. Switching operations would
require blocking Red Hill Avenue or the proposed Newport
Avenue for extended periods or would require breaking
of trains at the crossing during each switching operation;
that would result in an intolerable extension of time
necessary for conducting those operations, with a
considerable additional expense to the railroad. At the
present time, current operations result in train
occupancy of the proposed site of the crossinq for a
total of 1 hour 48 minutes per day on the average.
Some consideration is given in the report to an
alternative project of a grade separation at Red Hill
Avenue together with the proposed at grade crossing
of Newport Avenue. That would permit railroad operations
State Clearinghouse
Page 2
September 2, 1983
to continue more or less as today without the adverse
results herebefore mentioned. However, the report suggests
that under that alternative the Newport Avenue crossing
is tO be constructed and opened before the Red Hill Avenue
separation is undertaken. The railroad cannot agree to
that. The Red Hill Avenue separation must be completed
prior to the opening of a crossing at Newport Avenue.
Otherwise, those adverse results previously outlined
will exist until the separation of Red Hill Avenue has
been completed.
Very. truly yours,
E'
BUTLER
General Attorney
LEB/lm
CC:
Mr. Robert S. Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Attorney
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
of alif mia
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1~ TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
September 12, 1985
Mr. Bob Ledendecker
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: SCH# 82070913, Newport Avenue Extension/Tustin
Dear Mr. Ledendecker:
,~ £P 1 5 1983
TUSTINBv P~ DEPT.
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Enviror~ent~l Impact Report
(EIIQ to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the ccm-
ments of the individ,~l agency(les) is(are) attached. If you would like 'to discuss
their concerns and rec~m~mdations, please contact the staff from the appropriate
agency(les).
Wh4m preparing the final EIR, you must include all cc~ments and responses (C~QA
Guidelines, ~ection 15146). The certified ~'R must be considered in the decision-
-~king process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the
~.~..~ting agency(les) by writing to them, lncluRing the State Clearinghouse number on
all correspondence.
A 1981 Appellate Court decision in C. l ea~y v. C~,n~F of S~-nislaus (118 Ca]. App. 3d
348) clarified requir~aents for responding to review cc~aents. Specifically, the
court indicated that c~ents _~,~t be addressed in detail, giving reasons why the
specific cc~menta and suggestions were not accepted. The responses must show factors
of overriding significance which required the suggestion or c~t to be rejected.
Responses to o-..~ts must not be conclusory statements b~t must be supported by em-
pirical or experimental data, scienti£ic authority or explanatot'y info~aation of any
kind. The court further sa/d that the responses must be a good faith, reasoned
analysis.
In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant
effects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect and it
must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for
each unmitigated significant effect (CtgQA Guidelines Section 15088 and 15089).
If ~he project requires discretionary approval frcm any state agency, the Notice of
Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the
County Clerk. Please contact Dan Conaty at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions
about the enviror~.e~tal review process.
Si. ncerel, y, j
State Clearinghouse
cc: Resources Agency
attachment
r a n cl u ITl
Business ond Transpo~ation Agency
: RON BASS, F, xecutlve Director
Office of Planning & Research
State Clearinghouse
l~00 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA. 95814
August 8, 1983
A-95 REVIEW
SUSAN BROW/~ - District 7
From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Review Comments
SCH NU~IBER
82070913
Newport Avenue Extension.
Improvements to the I-5/SR-55 Interchange under examination by
Caltrans would not result in closure of the northbound Mcfadden/
SR-55 Off-ramp. Improvement could restrict traffic from the north-
bound Mcfadden On-ramp to northbound SR-55. Traffic from this
ramp would be allowed to go north and south on I-5 only. Closure
of the northbound McFadden/SR-55 Off-ramp would result only if
Newport Avenue is extended to Edinger.
Acquisition of right-of-way for the project may result in taking
only a portion of Case Swayne's facilities, however, it could
affect the operations of the business such that the result would
be the elimination of this business. The effect to access to this
facility is not discussed in the E.I.R.
SUSAN BROWN, Acting Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
Transportation District ?
Clearinghouse Coordinator
For infoPnxation, contact Darrell Wood
(ATSS) 6~0-22~6 or (213) 620-2246
Attachment:
U oFo
State
426~ Camp~ Drive, Suite
BAS MAC IYAN'DARN ELL, ! NC.
ENGINEERING AND PLANNING
~ Tmn~.ootlefion, Traffic, Munic/pII, Transit
Newport Beach, C~ifornia 92660 (714) 549-9940
September 12, 1983
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
City Engineer
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Subject:
Response to co.m~ents on Draft Focused Environmental Impact
Report for the extension of Newport Avenue across the Atchinson,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks to Edinger Avenue
Dear Mr. Ledendecker:
In accordance with your authorization comments received from the State
of California Public Utility Commission and the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railway Company have been reviewed and responses to comments
prepared. The following lists the comment and is followed by the
response to the comment.
State of California Public Utility Commission letter dated September 2,
1983 addressed to Mr. Dan Conaty, Office of Planning and Research signed
by Robert W. Stich, P.E.
1. Comment
On Page 11 of the EIR under Existing Conditions -
Railroad operations, a description of the trackage
and train activities in the vicinity of the proposed
Newport Avenue is given. Any meaningful information
which would permit an analysis of the impact of train
activities on the effectiveness of a railroad-highwaY
grade crossing is, however, sadly lacking.
Response
Detailed information relative to train activities at
Newport Avenue can be divided into three categories:
freight train activities, AMTRACK and switching
activities. Information regarding the extent of these
activities was provided by the AT&SF in correspondence
dated August 19, 1983 signed by Frederick G. Pfro, u,er
and September 3, 1982 signed by W. W. Toliver. In
addition to this data field review of the site were
performed. This data is presented on Page 11 of the
EIR and A-25 and A-38 in Appendix A. The ·data
provided was limited and would indicate that the pri-
mary impacts at the Newport Avenue crossing would be a
result of the switching operations and the railroad
pass and meet activities.
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
September 12, 1983
Page Two
2. Comment
Response
3. Comment
With regard to the pass and meet activities, it is
expected that the current plans to provide grade
separating of the AT&SF tracks with Myford Road,
Culver Drive and Jeffrey Road may result in a change
in these railroad activities at Red Hill Avenue and
at Newport Avenue. With regard to the'switching.
'activities discussions with railroad representatives
identified, at the time of the studies, minimal use
of the spur line immediately north of Newport Avenue.
At this time and during the study period the primary
user of the spur [former Lumber Yard) is no longer
active. In general it can be concluded that additional
data relative to switching operations etc. would be
desirable. However, due to the wide fluctuation of
activity and demand any conclusions other than an
impact will occur is not anticipated.
If switching operations at the site of the proposed
Newport Avenue crossing would block the roadway signi-
ficant periods of time, the resultant traffic delays
would render the project ineffective for its intended
use. Further if passes and meets of trains occur in
this vicinity, as we would assume, either the crossing
would be blocked for extended periods of time or the
railroad would have to revise its operations to avoid
being in violation of the Commissions General Order No.
135 which governs occupancy of public grade crossings
by railroads.
Review of the project area and the Red Hill Avenue at-
grade crossing identify that some of the concerns
identified by the PUC are currently occuring at Red
Hill Avenue. These concerns are monitored by the City
and over time have noticed the PUC and AT&SF relative
to the violations of General Order No. 135. The
introduction of an additional at-grade crossing at
Newport Avenue will add to this potential, however, the
addition of the second at-grade crossing for the area
is anticipated to increase the ability of motorists
to find an alternate route when either the Red Hill or
Newport crossing is impacted by railroad activity.
On Page 32 of the EIR, it is indicated that the
proposed Newport Avenue Extension would have a generally
beneficial effect on a variety of community services.
The benefits to c~,,aunity services are entirely dependent
on the reliability of the route. If the previously
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
SeptembeF 12, 1983
Page Three
noted switching activities and train passes and
meets were to block the proposed crossing for
inordinate periods of time, the proposed Newport
Avenue Extension would not be a reliable route for
emergency vehicles and emergency vehicles would of
necessity, continue to use the rm~e reliable Red
Hill Avenue crossing.
Response
The beneficial impacts on Community Services is based
on the addition of a crossing of the A.T._& SF as
well'as A.T. & SF observance of General Order 135
regulations. In the event General Order 135 regulations
are flagarantly violated, neither the Newport Avenue
or the Red Hill Avenue crossings would be considered
reliable routes.
Comment
The A.T. & SF states in their letter dated September 2,
1983 that the crossing area is occupied a total of
one {1~ hour and 48 minues a day on the average. This
means that more than 22 hours of the day is' not
impacted. Therefore, a positive %mpact of increased
access across the A.-T. & SF can be stated~
"It is our opinion that the EIR has reached erroneous
conclusions regarding the solution to what we
recognize as being very real traffic circulation
problems. The ideal solution to the problem would be
a Newport Avenue overcrossing and reconstruction of
Edinger Avenue on/off-ramps to Route 55,
Response
The solution identified by the PUC has previously been
reviewed in analyses for the Newport Avenue Extension.
To accomplish the solution suggested by the PUC was
investigated by Cal trans. The solution identified,
required a major reconstruction of the Edinger on/off
ramps and the carrying of Newport Avenue over Edinger
Avenue, and the on-off ramps with a final connection
of Newport Avenue to Del Amo Avenue located easterly
and southerly of Edinger Avenue. This alternative
'and resulting traffic service was determined to not
be feasible nor provide positive impacts for traffic
circulation.
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
September 12, 1983
Page Four
5. Comment
Response
In addition the extensive utilities in the area and
proximity of Route 55 and Edinger Avenue permit the
conclusions that have been made. Exhibits A-l, A-2,
B-1 and B-2'on pages B-35 thru B-38 of Appendix B
show the extensive grade differential.problems at
Edinger Avenue that w~uld be expected 'from an over-
crossing or undercrossing alternative.
The more practical solution, and the only one which
the Commission staff believes would meet the require-
ments for public convenience, necessity and safety,
is a modification of the project alternative.
If there is to be any realistic solution to the traffic
circulation problem, it must entail completion of a
Red Hill Avenue grade separation after which it would
appear practical to consider construction of the New-
port Avenue Extension and attendant grade crossing.
Other than constructing Newport Avenue after the Red
Rill Avenue grade separation structure is c~mpleted,
this recommendation is the same as the Newport Avenue
Extended with Grade Separation at Red Hill Avenue
alternative discusse~ on pages 39-49 of the EIR. This
alternative discusses the implications of constructing
the Red Hill Avenue separation in conjunction with the
Newport Avenue at-grade crossing with emphasis towards
constructing Newport Avenue first. This will permit
either a full closure of the Red Hill crossing or re-
duced traffic service on Red Hill-in order that the
extensive construction of utlities and underpass alter-
native could be constructed with minimal disruption.
Selection of this alternative would permit the resolution
of the various concerns identified by the PUC and
A.T. & SF.
6. Comment
Response
The EIR does not adequately address th~ scope of
railroad operatives provided at..the site of the
proposed extension, nor does it consider the disruption
and harm to such operations (and consequently~ to the
railroad), that would result.
See preceding responses to comments I and 2.
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
September 12, 1983
Page Five
7. Comment
Some consideration is given in the report to an
alternative project of a grade separation at Red
Hill Avenue together with the proposed at-grade
crossing of Newport Avenue. That would permit
railroad operations to continue more or less as
today without the adverse results'herebefore mentioned.
'However, the report suggests that under that alternative
the Newport Avenue crossing is to be constructed
before the Red Hill Avenue separation is undertaken.
The railroad cannot agree to that.
Response
This alternative is discussed on Pages 39 thru 49 of
the EIR. The reasoning behind the construction of the
Newport Avenue Extension as Phase 1 of the project is
that construction of the Red Hill Avenue grade separa-
tion is expected to be difficult as well as impact
vehicular and railroad operations. The extensive
utility relocations may actually necessitate full
closure of Red Hill Avenue. Therefore flexi~lity in
constructing the project will be necessary and the
construction of Newport Avenue Extension as Phase 1
will assume a timely completion of the project and
mini~Fize construction impacts.
We trust these responses adequately address the co~,~'~,ents in the project
received from the State of California Public Utilities Commission and
the Atchinson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company.
Sincerely,
BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC.
Bill E. Darnell, P.E.
BD/ddf
cc: Edward Knight, City of Tustin
Carolyn Lobell, Larry Seeman and Associates