Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 3 NEWPORT EXTEN. 09-19-83DATE: September 19, 1983 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 3 9-19-83 Inter-Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members Community Development Department EIR 83-1, Newport Avenue Extension BACKGROUND 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 seek 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) 83-1 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 comments 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 periods 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 completed. EIR 83-1, Newport Avenue Extension September 19, 1983 Page 2 The City's consultant, Basmacyan-Darnell, Inc., Engineering and Planning, 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 railroad maintains observance of General Order 135 regulations, no impact will be observed. In regard to comments concerning the grade separation at Red Hill Avenue, the draft EIR has covered these points in the Alternative Section. But in regard to 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. Without 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 Newport 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. RECOt~IENDATION 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 83-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 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: 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. 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 Draft 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 EIR 83-1. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 83-68 Page 2 II. The City Council of the City of Tustin 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 Exhtbtt "A" Environmental Impact Findings As Required by CEQA and the City of Tustin Newport Avenue Extension EIR 83-1 September 19, 1983 Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local guidelines to implement CEQA, as amended, this document is intended to present findings and statements of facts, based on the public record, as to reasons the City Council is taking this action in light of significant environmental effects thereof and to show how these effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Significant Effect: Acquisition of right-of-way for the proposed extension would result in the displacement of a portion of an existing facility. Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate the significant effects thereof. Statement of Facts: The City will follow its adopted guidelines for the relocation of structures in the public right-of-way. e Significant Effect: The average daily traffic volumes along Newport Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the' proposed extension will increase from about 4,000 to 10,900 daily trips. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate the significant effects thereof. Statement of Facts: While there is an impact at this point, circulation in the western section of Tustin will be significantly improved overall, particularly traffic in a north-south direction. Significant Effect: Improvements to the I-5/SR-55 interchange presently under examination by Cal Trans may result in closure of the northbound McFadden/SR-55 off-ramp and relocation of the southbound on/off-ramps. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate the significant effects thereof. Statement of Facts: The proposed extension shall be designed such that, in the event Cal Trans elects to close the SR-55/McFadden northbound off-ramp, the proposed extension will be compatible with Cal Trans' needs for alternate SR-55 ramp access. Exhibit A Page 2 Significant Effect: Sight distance for eastbound trains is severely restricted at Newport Avenue as a result of the Route 55 freeway overcrossing, creating a potential safety concern. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate the significant effects thereof. Statement of Facts: Standard railroad safety equipment will be installed at the crossing at the time of the extension's construction. The proposed project shall conform to PUC General Order No. 75-C, Regulations Governing the Protection of Crossings at Grade of Roads, Highways and Streets with Railroads in the State of California and shall also conform to specifications for traffic signals at near-grade crossings as described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, 1978. Significant Effect: Traffic noise levels will significantly increase along the segment of Newport Avenue south of Sycamore Avenue. Construction noise will create a short-term increase in ambient noise level. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigates the significant effects thereof. Statement of Facts: At the time of final design for the extension, a more detailed acoustics study shall be completed which specifies dimensions for a noise barrier to be constructed along Newport Avenue in order to reduce noise impacts from the project to meet City standards. In order to control potential noise impacts from construction activities, the City's noise ordinance will be enforced. SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 83-1 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO: 82070912 T.~BLE 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) 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 CITY COUNCIL 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 83-1 A draft focused environmental impact report (83-1) for the extension of Newport Avenue 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 o~ Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad railway line across the tracks to intersect with Edinger 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. The project purpose is to alleviate congested traffic conditions on Red Hill Avenue south of the I-5 Freeway. Copies of the draft EIR 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. Maw E. Wynn City Clerk Publish Tustin News August 11, 18, 25, 1983 DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR EIR 83-1 Newport Avenue Extension 1. Mayor Hoesterey 2. Mayor Pro-Tem Kennedy 3. Councilman Edgar 4. Councilman Greinke 5. Councilman Saltarelli 6. Chairman Sharp 7. Commissioner Ainslee 8. Commissioner Puckett 9. Commissioner White 10. Commissioner Weil 11. City Manager Huston 12. City Engineer, Bob Ledendecker 13. Co~t~unity Development Director, Don La~t~ 14. City Clerk, Mary Wynn 15. R. Kenneth Fleagle, Consultant 16. Mel Moore, Mutual Propane Gas 17. Tustin Branch, Orange County Library 18. 19. 20. 21 22 23 24 25 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 Aha 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 Community Hospital, 34. NOT~CE OF G~gLETION ,~10 ENVZROI~ENTAL DOCUMENT 54. i. ProJect Title: Newpor~c Avenue Extension 2. ,oad A~.ncy:' City of Tustin ~. s~.t Ad~,ss: 300 Centennial Way 3c. Ceanty: Oranqe ~. zip: P~ ~ON 4. ~: Oranqe 4b.(op~lon~l) Ass~sor's Pa~ml Ne. C~ss s~: SR-55 and Sycamore ....... Q,- pla. uPda,p. 02 ~rly ~ns ~ Gm1 Plan ~ ~ D~ ~ Mas~ Plan 05 ~uppl~/ ~ ~p~f~c ) ~ R~one 05 N~A ~ La~ O?vJston 06 (Su~tv~s~ofl, Pa~e~ 06 Hottce of ~nt~t Tract ~p, e~.) 07 07 Eflvir. Ass~en~ 10 Use Pemtt FOHSZ ~1 Cancel Ag P~eseffe 09 O:HERr ~2 X o~ Road extension ~o X 09 Znfo~tton Only 9. TOTAL AC~ES: ~0 F~flal bent See NOTE Below 82070913 3. Can~ct Pe~on: 3b. ¢~ty: Tustin g~O 3e. PhQn,: (714) 544--8890 c~/c~: Tust~ n S~tt~ T~. ~nge FaF Rural ) Nea~st NA c. ~ NA 10. D~ 01 Ruid~tial: Unt~ Ac~ ~loy~s ~ Indus~al: Sq.Ft, Acr~ ~loy~ Watts ~ Trans~r~tlon: T~e. Mineral ~traGtlon: Mineral Type: Ot~e~- road exteflsio~ Bob Ledendecker il Ot~er 11. PROJECT ISSUES OISCU$$;n IH ~OCUMENT O1 Aesthetic/Visual Agricultural Land X Air Quality Archaeological/Historical 05 Coastal Fire Hazard 07 X Flooding/Orainage Geologic/Seismic 15 09 Jobs/Housing Balance 16 lO Minerals 11 X Noise 12 X Public Services 13 Schools 14 .... }optic Syst~'ns Sewer Capactty 2Z . .~ater Supply .... Soil Erosion 23., W~tland/Rtparian 17 Solid Waste Z4 Wildlife 18 Toxic/Hazardous Z5 ~ Growth Inducing t9 X Traffic/Circulation 25 Inc~attble Landuse ~0 Vegetation 27 Cumulative Effects 21 Water Quality 28 X Other Public safety IZ. ~dflOING(approx.) Federal S State $ Total S 13. PRESENT LArgO USE AND ZONING: Industrial and multiple-family residential - existing and zoned 14. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOI'I: Extension of Newport Avenue from cul-de-sac north of AT & SF railway line across the tracks to intersect with Edinger 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 I-5 freeway. ~~~.~~ 15. SXG~aTURE QF L~O AGENCY REPRESENTATF~E ~~at. ~/-- ~ NOTE: Cl~ringhouse will assign iden:ificacion n~mbers f~r all new orojects. If a $CH Number already exists for a project {~. fr~ a ~(ocice of Pr~araCion or previous drart Oocument) please fill it in. LIST OF PERSONS ~)I~ENTING 1. Metropolitan Water District 2. County Sanitation District 3. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company 4. City of Irvine 5. Public Utilities Commission Report to the Planning Commission NEW BUSINESS NO. 2 SEPTEMB£R lA, 1983 SUBdECT: Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report 83-1 Newport Avenue Extension, At-Grade Crossing at Edinger Avenue BACKGROUND In order to improve overall traffic circulation in the south Tustin area, the City is proposing to extend Newport Avenue through to Edinger Avenue. This connection was closed in the 1960's when the Newport Freeway was constructed. At the time Newport Avenue was closed, traffic estimates predicted that this Newport connection would never be needed.. Expansive development in the past twenty years have proved these estimates wrong, and brought about the need to reopen this connection. Due to the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad tracks, the City must seek approval from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to restore the at-grade crossing. The PUC maintains regulatory power over public utilities and is a responsible agency in that it holds discretionary approval power over the proposed project. The City prepared an initial study for the project and submitted this and a Negative Declaration to the PUC. The PUC rejected the Negative Declaration and indicated that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to adequately address concerns over significant vehicular and railroad traffic at the proposed crossing. DICU$SIOli 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 impaFt or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. These impacts are either empirically shown in the body of the EIR as being insignifcant, or will be mitigated as a result 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 along with an application, and will be the data base used in granting or denying the project. Community Development Department 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 to the Council concerning EIR B3-1. 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. RECO~E#DATIO# That the Planning Commission, by Minute Order, recommend certification of Draft EIR 83-1 to the City Council. Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes September [g, [983 Page g After a brief discussion/question-and-answer period, it was~ Well, seconded by White, to approve Use Permit 83-17 with condftlons as presented in the staff report dated September [2, 1983 with the exception of deleting condition #2 pertaining to perimeter landscaping. The motion carried, 5 ayes to 0 noes. 2. USE PERMIT 83-19 - RESOLUTION NO. 2115 Applicant: Tustana Animal Hospital on behalf of Grand Avenue Pet Hospital Location:119~ Laguna Road Request: Authorization to install a pole sign of ~8 square feet per face at [192 Laguna Road Associate Planner Chamberlain presented staff's report and recommendations as contained in the report dated Septen~oer 12, 1983. A brief slide presentation was viewed by Commission members. Chairman Sharp opened the public hearing at 7:5[ p.m. The following persons spoke in favor of the matter: Oavld Crowley, Erwtn Sign Company, 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.m. Following a brief question-and-answer period, it was moved by Puck- ett, seconded by Ainslie, to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTON NO. PIES - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO~4ISSION OF THE CITY OF TIJSTIN, APPROVING USE PEPJ4IT NO. 83-[9, FOR A POLE SIGN AT llg~ LAGUNA ROAD Motion carried, S ayes to 0 noes. ADMIMISTRATIV£ MR1TERS: ~. Old Business None. 2. #ew Bastness 1. Extension of Variance 82-g (Office Building) Robert V. and Maralys K. Wills 175 "C" Street Director of Community Development Lamm presented staff's report and negative recommendation as contained in the report dated Septe~er 12, 1983. Following a brief question-and-answer period, the Co~nission recognized Robert V. Wills, applicant, who spoke in favor of the extension and respond~ to Commission questions. It was moved by White, seconded by Sharp, to extend Variance 82-9 for a periodo~ one year. / Motion carried, 4 ayes to ! noes, Puckett opposed. ~ 2. Consideration of Draft Environmental Impact Report ~mmm~ Newport Avenue Extension // Associate Planner Knight presented staff's ~eport and recommendations as contained in the the report dated Septen~)er 1983. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, lg83 Page 3 Chatrman Sha~ questioned the procedure that would be followed tf the Council certified the EIR. Associate Planner Knight explained that the City would re-apply to the Publlc Utilities Commission, who, he felt would most ltkely table the request until resolution of the bullet tratn issue. the Publtc Utilities Commission were to approve the application, and Newport Avenue were to he extended, It would be necessary to redesign the route for the bullet train. Chairman Sharp asked why the issue of the Newport Extension has resurfaced. Associate Planner Knight stated that the Environmental Impact Report had been completed and sent out to concerned agencies for the required 45-day review and some type of action was required. Chairman Sharp asked if the C~tssion could recommend against certification of the the EIR. The Associate Planner responded that they could. Commissioner Well stated that having the extension in place weuld force the bullet train to deal with the crossing as opposed to having the City bear the cost of trying to deal with the bullet train. She also explained that during construction of the Red Hill underpass, an alternate route would he necessary and extending Newport Avenue may provide that alternative. Commissioner White asked if the intent of the recommendation was to certtfty adequacy of the EIR or of the project. Associate Planner Knight responded that no specific project was tnvolved and the recommendation dealt only with the EIR. Commissioner White also questioned a statement in the document clatmtng the extension would alleviate traffic in the western part of the City, but that the traffic diagram did not completo support this claim. Associate Planner Knight explained that traffic problems weuld he improved but traffic from the Costa Mesa Freew~ would be added into the system. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Atnslte, to recommend certification of Draft EIR 83-1 to the City Council. Motion carried 5 ayes to 0 noes. STAFF CONCERNS: 1. OETEI~IINRTIO# JIF USE Drive-Thru Restaurants in C-1 Zone Senior Plenner Warren presented staff's report dated September 12, 1983. After a brief discussion period, it was moved by Well, seconded by White, to determine as follows: "Drive-thru restaurant service windows are authortzedin the Oistrict subject to use permit approval ." Motion carried, 5 ayes to 0 noes. 2. DEPARTMENTAL PROJECT STATUS - WEEK OF AUGUST 29, 1983 Director of Community Development Lamm presented the Departmental Status Report dated September 12, 1983, and responded to Commission questions. DATE: FROH: SUBJECT: 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. edendecker Director of Public Works/ City Engineer db Attachment The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 5 1983 Mr. Robert S. Ledendecker City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Dear Mr. Ledendecker: Newport Avenue Extension Draft Environmental Impact Report This is in response to your Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Form dated July 21, 1983, 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. However, should the Newport Avenue Extension with Grade Separation at Red Hill 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 Hale, 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, Edward O~'Thornhill Principal Administrative Analyst Environmental Planning Section DAM:asj 1111 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, Ca[if./Mailing address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, Calif. 90054/Telephone: (213) 250-6000 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ~40-2910 P. ~. SOX 8~27, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, OALIFORNIA 927DB 10844 ELLIS AVENUE: (EUr~LID OFF-RAMP, SAN OIEOO FREEWAY) City of Tustin City Center 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Subject: TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 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. Hilary J. Baker Senior Engineering Aide HJB/ddk cc: Tom Dawes ICE IN~. 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 Tust£n, 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 cc: LSA, Inc. 500 Newport Center. Drive, S~ite 525 Newport Beach, CA 92660 August 12, 1983 RECEIVE5 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~ironmental Services EM/pj Enclosures cc: George Divine John Murphy SCHOOb-MAIN~NANCE 0 200' 400' 150'- 100' -- EXISTING NEWPORT FREEWAY OVER-CROSSING C .......... pROPOSED REDHILL- AVENUE- .,,. - OVER-CROSSING-- 50I- C VERTtCAL HORIZONTAL 0 20' 40' 0 200' 400' STATE OF CALIFORNIA September 2, 1983 · ...... 183-30/EIR Dan Conaty Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street - Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 RECEIVE5 SEF' 1983 Dear Mr. Conaty: TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPI'. 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~.-h~e 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 Of 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 community 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 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 cf 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 r.esolution of the problem. The more practical s.olut£on, and the only one which the Commission staff believes would '~eet the requirements 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 cons- truction of t~e 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 com.ments: At the present time, railroad operations are tailored to the exis- tence of the Red Hill Avenue grade crossing and the lack of a Newport Avenue grade crossing. Passes, meeks 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 it 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. 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 TIJSTINs¥ 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 and complete analysis oi 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 propcsed extension, nor does it consider the disruption a:~ harm to such operations (and consequently, to the railroad) that would result. Railroad facilities at the site of the proposed extension ccnsist of two main tracks, a switching lead track and various spur tracks. Operations for msets/ 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 the 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 gonducting 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 crossing for a total of 1 hour 48 minutes per day on the average. Some consideration is given in the report tc an alternative project of a grade separation at Red Hill Avenue ~ogether 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. Ver~ truly yours, tELAND E. BUTLER General Attorney LEB/lm Mr. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Attorney City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 4262 Campus Drive, Suite B-1 BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC. ENGINEERING AND PLANNING .. Tran~x)rtatton, Traffi~ Municipl~ TranSit Newpo~ Beach, C~llfornia 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.u,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 co,~,ent 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. itich, P.E. "1. Comment Response 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. Detailed information relative to train activities at Newport AVenue can be divided into three categories: freight train activities, AMTRACK and switching activities. Infoxmation regarding the extent of these activities was provided by the AT&SF in correspondence dated August 19, 1983 signed by Frederick G. Pfrommer 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 (fozmer 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 co~,~,unity 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 m~re 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 impact 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 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-I, 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 would be expected 'from an over- crossing or undercrossing alternative. Comment Response 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 Hill Avenue grade separation structure is c~mpleted, this recommendation is the same as the Newport Avenue Extended with Grade Separation at Red Rill Avenue -- alternative discussed 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. Comment ,Response The EIR does not adequately address the 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 co.'.'.%ents 1 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 flexiblity in constructing the project will be necessary ~nd the construction of Newport Avenue Extension as Phase 1 will assume a timely completion of the project and minimize construction impacts. We trust these responses adequately address the comments 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