Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 4 FOOTHILL TRANS C. 06-01-81DATE: June 1, 1981 NE~ BU~INES~ ! nter- Corn TO: FROH: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Community Development Department Foothill Transportation Corridor BACKGROUND A presentation was made to the City Council on May 18, 1981 which described the study area for the Foothill Transportation Corridor. Draft EIR 123 has been reviewed by staff and a letter of response was forwarded to the Planning Commission on May 15, 1981. The City Council requested that a letter of response be prepared for the signature of the Mayor. DISCUSSION The capacity of a major arterial ranges from 36,000 to 54,000 everage daily vehicles (ADT). Exhibit 3-63 shows a ADT of 62 to 99 thousand vehicles on Irvine Boulevard with light rail transit, ihe ADT increases to 127 thousand on Irvine, as shown by Exhibit 3-64. The alternative "A" network, which deletes the corridor, also has a substantial traffic impact on the City of Tustin as shown by Exhibit 3-65. It is obvious that the traffic impacts of land use policies are adverse to the City of Tustin. No mitigating measures have been proposed to reduce these impacts on the City. As a minimum, the north-south corridor should be constructed prior to dumping more traffic on to the existing and proposed east-west circulation system. A letter has been prepared for the Mayor's signature that points out the inadequacy of the Draft EIR in proposing mitigating measures. RECOMMENDED ACTION ~ Minute Order authorizing the Mayor to forward a letter of Council concerns to the Board of Supervisors. RKF/dat Enclosure: Background Report Draft Letter Exhibits 3-63, 64, 65 Staff response, May 15, 1981 FACT SHEET FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY Background O :~nce 1§7~, county elected o¢~c~als and transportation planners have periodically considered a major transportation corridor in the foothills of Orange County. In 1979, the Multimodal Transportation Study (MMTS) was undertaken by Orange County to analyze multiple modes of transportation systems and present a comprehensive and integrative transportation plan for Orange County's future. The Orange County Transportation Commission recently adopted the MMTS and its recommended circulation system as basis for a long-range trans- portation plan for the County. The MMTS identified the need for an arterial highway in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains to accomodate traffic generated by existing and proposed land uses. In December, 1979, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requiring a proponent funded and county approved joint work program to determine the need, feasibility and conceptual route of a Foothill Transportation Corridor. Required with any change to the MPAH is an Environmental Impact Report. This report should provide ample information to allow the Board of Supervisors to address the amendment to the MPAH. Purpose of the Study To assess the potential environmental impacts and determine the feasibility of amending the Master Plan o~'Arterial ~H~ghways to reflect a conceptual alignment for the Foothill Transportation Corridor. Subsequent studies will identify more precise alignments, necessary right-of-way and the various transportation modes to be accomodated. Fact Sheet Foothill Transportation Corridor Study Page II Purpose of Workshops · TO integrate community concerns and ensure broad citizen awareness of the project. These workshops are timed to allow the citizen significant input into the study findings. Study Description The project location is indicated on the attached map. The sub-areas, designated A-F are to facilitate ease of study. · The precise Foothill Corridor alignment is expected to occur somewhere within this generalized study area. · The environmental document evaluated four scenarios.' Scenario 1 - This alternative represents the no-project approach whereby the MMTS recommended arterial highway designation is not upgraded to transportation corridor. Scenario 2 - Alternative 2 would provide a transportation corridor designation two to four miles northeasterly of, and parallel to, the Santa Ana Freeway. The corridor would be located south of Loma Ridge. Scenario'3 - This alternative would provide a transportation corridor designation approximately six to eight miles northeasterly of, and parallel to, the Santa Ana Freeway traversing north of Loma Ridge in the vicinity of Santiago Creek. Scenario 4 - Alternative 4 would provide a light rail, all-transit corridor with an alignment similar to that described for Alternative 2 above. o! May 26, 1981 CITY COUNCIL Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Richard B. Edgar, Mayor Pro-tem Ursula E. Kennedy James B. Sharp Ronald B. Hoesterey Honorable Chairman and Members Orange County Board of Supervisors Hall of Administration Building 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Subject: Draft EIR 123, Circulation Amendment 81.1 Honorable Chairman and Members: The City Council appreciates the opportunity to review the Draft EIR 123 and Circulation Element Amendment 81.1 which propose the Foothill Transportation Corridor. We recognize the necessity for transportation arterials as a condition of land development in Southeast Orange County. We find that the proposed mitigating measures contained within the Draft EIR are inadequate for both primary and secondary impacts as related to growth inducing and traffic impacts upon existing communities. As an example, Exhibit 3-63 indicates traffic volumes on Irvine Boulevard in the City of Tustin ranging from 62 to 99 thousand vehicles per day with the potential of 127 thousand vehicles shown by Exhibit 3-64. Alternative A on Exhibit 3-65 shows vehicle counts on Irvine Boulevard ranging to 122 thousand and 81 thousand on Bryan. There are no mitigating measures in Section 3.9.3 that address this impact nor provide alternatives. The assumption is made that the traffic will come in a matter of time and a resolution of the problem could be made by increasing arterial capacity and updating the circulation element. This is an unrealistic premise and the issue has not been addressed. As a bare minimum, the north-south link between the Santa Ana Freeway and the Riverside Freeway should be constructed prior to approving any element of the corridor southeasterly of the present urbanized area and prior to approving additional developments that adversely impact the existing arterial highways that have reached a saturation level. To reiterate, Draft EIR 123 is determined by the Tustin City Council to be inadequate for its failure to fully evaluate primary and secondary traffic impacts and the failure to provide mitigating measures. Respectfully yours, James B. Sharp Mayor JBS/dat City Center Centennial at Main Tustin, California 92680 (714) 544-8890 !0 LIN. y OF ORANGE May 15, 1981 Robert Rusby Enviromr~ntal MaD~gement Agency Environmental Services Division P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, C.~ 92702 Subject: Foothill Transportation Corridor DEIR 123 Gentlemen: A review of Draft Environmental Impact Re.tort has been completed. The following contents are su!~mitted: The p~operty within the study area for the Foothill Transportatiion Corridor has been recently annexed by the City of Tustin. The region is uniD~habited in both natural and cultivated state, with no public access or paved roads, and no capital ~provements. To the City of Tustin this area represents tl%e major growth region for the next ten to fifteen years. This entire area is under agricultural preserve status, witJ~ expiration dates ranging between !983 to 1987. No develcloment proposals have yet been submitted and no specific planning studies have been conducted. It is anticipated that planning studies will begin either this year or next. In 1980, the City extended it's sphere of influence and annexed approximately 639 acres easterly of the present City boundaries (See exhibits A, B, C). As part of the planning process to facilitate the sphere change and annexation, the City &~ended the land use_ and circulation elements of the General Plan. (Resolution LNb. 80-100 ). F?yford/Weir Can3on Road was designated as a major arterial northerly of Irvine Boulevard and would becc~e the ultimate eastern bounda~-y for the City. This road was also given a scenic highway status, subject to the specifications of the scenic highway el~ment. The c~nceptual alignment for a portion of the Foothill Corridor which travels north from the Santa Ana Fre~ay follows very closely to the alignment of the prcposed Myford/¢~eir Canyon Road. There would be a definite inconsistency between the stated purposes of a transportation corridor and the City of Tustin's designation of a major arterial for Myford/~eir Cars, on alignment. A transportation corridor is defined as a multimodal facility, providing high-speed n~ve~ent of vehioalar traffic where project volun~s exceed major arterial highway capacities. The proposed Myford/%geir Canyon Road is a major arterial, developed to scenic highway standards. It's intent is to serve the new developments proposed in this area, and as a scenic throughway to tl.]e Riverside Freeway and Santa ~na Freeway. 7~]e corridor wc~Id ~ limited access ~nd handle high volu~es of traffic, resulting in a limited capacity to serve the area as a neig ~hborhood transportation link. Robert Rusby May 15, 1981 Page 2 The inclusion of the transportation corridor would require an amendment to the City of Tustin's Circulation Element. Further, a d%ange to the Land Use Ele~nt may be required, since the corridor may affect proposed land uses by altering noise and air quality. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the environn~ntal impact report, and if you require any additional information, please contact the Development Department at 544-8890. Sincerely, Edward M. Knight Associate Planner E~/~c