Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR*NEW FILE* SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR THE NEWPORT ENSIGN 12/5/79 Corridor San mquln (Continued from page 1) �? would wipe out 90 of the development's plan- Corridor ned 1,400-units, at an average cost of Faces Fight 000 apiece. The later complained that Harbor View residents would be forced to look Harbor out onto the freeway from their living rooms. most ambitious road proj- The supervisors approved the route, anyway, �The ect in Orange County history, a and were quick to point out that the meeting in proposed freeway from Newport progress was the 75th public heaing on the Beach to Mission Viejo, received matter since the corridor first went into the unanimous route approval from county general plan in 1976. the board of supervisors last The estimated $164 million freeway is, plan - week. ned to stretch 14 mills from the Corona del Completing "phase one" of the Mai Freeway termination near UCI along a San Joaquin Hills Transportation route skirting the Irvine city limits and contin- Corridor project, the supervisors ! they have no assur- uing across the coastal range to Laguna Beach, admitted Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano, meet- ances at all of state or federal ing Interstate, 5'near the Crown Valley funds for it and expect increased parkway opposition from environmental- Advocates say it will provide an important ists and homeowner groups liv- alternate route for Los Angeles -to -San Diego ' ing near the proposed route. traffic. Developers, principally the Aliso Viejo "Special interest groups could Co., Avcq Corporation and the Irvine Co., tie the road up for years,„ said acknowledge that it will be the, principal Al Hollinden, chairman of the hiahVlay used by future residents of develop" Orange County Transportation Commission. m»: is the companies plan for the area. "Phase two' is a "detailed Irvine's city council endorsed the road proj- act to February 1978, and count on it to alle- analysis of environmental impacts and technical aspects of viate'heavy beach traffic on Irvine surface the route." No date was set for it streets. The council re -affirmed this positon on a 3-2 vote last week, with Larry Agran and to begin. In the meantime, the Mary Ann Gaido dissenting. ' supervisors awarded a $76,000 contract to the research firm of "The roads will provide little or no benefits' Gruen & Gruen for detailing to the residents of Irvine," Agran said in an in - terview, "and it will be environmentally detri- and refining of the route. The principal opposition at mental to our city, particularly to those living last week's supervisors' meeting in or near the Turtle Rock area. "The proposed freeway is fundamentally de- in Santa Ana came from a plan- signed to serve the south county area and the Nellie Gail Ranch, and a those Who are urging it are doing so only be - cause the board of supervisors has behaved so Newport Beach subdivision, Har- bor View Knoll. The former irresponsibly in approving massive rapid devel- charged that the road route opment in the south county. In August, Irvine came out in favor of a corn- (Continued on page 3) --- - - dor route seaward of the Coyote Canyon dump along Bonita Canyon Road. Newport Beach ar- gued, however, for a route inland of the dump and well away from Harbor View Knoll and the other Irvine Co. developments nearby, where some residents had paid the company as much as $500,000 apiece.for their lots aaonC, Newport yvon the day with the supervisors, who voted for an inland route, Corridor Approved M a County` Backs' San Joaquin Routing A route for the proposed San Joaquin Hills Corridor was ap- proved by Orange County supervisors Wednesday after years of debate and scores of public hearings. I Supervisors supported a route recommended by the planning commission which would see the corridor beginning near the pro - DAILY PILOT - 11/29/79 e ' and 14 miles tott del Mar Freeway The route was approved ur Boulevard in despite the inisgiLs go -of a ma- 1. _ ' . jority of the members of the an - to e i g h t lane dierice at Wednesday s hearing. would cross the Opponents claimed that the ne, Laguna Beach eo�Cidog would ,add to ,conges- Capistrano;before ti0p, 'increase pollution' and th' the San Diego would, damage the environment Avery Parkway in the rolling hills of southern - - - - P•ruponents contended the cor- ridor ri,iuieded be to relieve already overtaxed transporta- tion systems. Dr. Gene Atherton of Laguna Beach -said the corridor will be challenged because increases in smog' will cause a .threat to health, He also declared the issue should 'be placed on the ballot for voters to decide whether a rail transit system or other alternatives to a freeway would ,e preferred. Former Laguna Beach Mayor Jon trand said,freeways do not 0 solve problems and that they soon become overwhelmed un- less there ;s proper land use 1 Irvine resident Wesley 'Marx declared that the corridor is in doubt Because of unwillingness by planners to come to grips f Witb afttixiing,plan. Otheill4p.th0 audience nclud- in re#ires8ntat-iv.es of the O w Cout►ty Chamber of Coiiterce,' the Mission Viejo Company and the Irvine Com- party, argued in favor of the cor- 'The transportation corridor is Projected to serve a volume of p 85,000 to 180,000 vehicles daily. Included in its planning is a 50doot-wide median to accom- modate -some form of rapid maps -transit is the•future. Cgnstrdction of the corridor is estimated to cost from $160 9 million to $210 million but there are no assurances of state or federal mo ey to finance the P project. Costs, which don't include land acquisition, are expected to escalate further because con- st'ruction is net expected to start for 10 to 75 vears. east .the Which Route for Corridor? s UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA e` TURTLEgf AT IF $ME I TA CANYON nc,oc,. 0 MME11 CANYONIR SYCAMORE @QQ SYCAMORE @QQ R065MOI! LEISURE S �PRROPER WORLD •b •�a 4; .4 N� c a • a- t :.$ CHAPMANCOLLECE PROPERTY I ♦••♦ GAIL RANCH qa its^i1 ♦+•1• • �# •�• BUSINESS �T�:. YWOOD CAN CENTER FEDEIIAL GSA FACILITY •• @ OR AERONUTRONICS lf•`OT++ECANYON LANDFILL 4 RECOMMENDED TO•BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEGMENT 5, WEST SECTOR BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCT. 29,1979 SEGMENT 17, CENTRAL SECTOR SEGMENT 19, EAST -CENTRAL SECTOR SEGMENT 24, EAST SECTOR I , pPotential Transportation Corridor ., vilift 's 'T i 5ARCRFEK ; OOIST�RANO l 4 � CORONADO > �NOMFS •J • i COUNTRY VILLAG • �NWL scrtwnas Broken line represents route recommended by. (solid lines). Hearing is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in coun- to the corridor, saying it will create havoc with coastal county Planning Commission for San Joaquin Corridor ty Hall of Administration in Santa Ana. The so-called hills and open up more land for development. in coastal hills between Corona del Mar and San Juan transportation corridor would be a six to eight -lane Transportation planners, on the other hand, say,the cor- Capistrano. Orange County Board of Supervisors is to' thoroughfare connecting Corona del Mar Freeway and ridor is needed to relieve traffic congestion in Orange conduct hearing on corridor route Wednesday and is ex- San Diego Freeway. At present there is no definite County's coastal area. petted to decide whether to accept planning commission timetable for construction and no funding for the cor- recommendation, or select from other potential routes ridor. Environmentalists and homeowners have objected Tuesday October30.1979 1 DA1LY PILOT , A; DOW PW SW rilf", ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS HEAR CORRIDOR TESTIMONY After Reviewing Maps, Documents and the Spoken Word, the Vote is 4Aya' Plan-mersOK Corridor �,' San Joaquin Transportation Route Backed By ROBERT BARKER Of Daily Pilot Staff Waving aside criticism on any new freeways, the Orange Coun- ty Planning Commission went on record Monday as favoring a route for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Commissioners endorsed a 9 route almost totally recom- mended by county staff mem- bers which would see the cor- ridor beginning near the Corona .del Mar Freeway and IMaeArthur Boulevard in The six -to -eight -lane thoroughfare would end 14 miles to the southeast near Avery Parkway near San Juan Capistrano. The recommendation will be forwarded to the board of supervisors who have final say in the route selection. a The action by the com- missioners followed years of study and nearly four hours of testimony from a large audience Commissioner Richard Light asked for more time to digest the comments and cast the only vote among the five com- missioners against the recom- mended route. Many residents protested the proposed freeway that would cost $160 to'$200 million and for ,which there is no money availa- ble. Tom Alexander, president of the, Laguna Beach Green Belt, said the study did. not address alternatives such as monorail or train transportation. He -said the route location study by Gruen and Associates Inc. of Los Angeles won't hold up because of "inadequate en- vironmental studies." He hinted that there may be court action. Ninety-five percent of the public disagrees with the con- cept," he declared. Belinda Blacketer, former Laguna Beach planning com- missioner and a vice president of Village Laguna, said she op- posed the corridor "because there is not enough government funds to handle the growth of population in South Orange County." "The corridor doesn't solve the problem. It will just add eight more lanes of concrete for people to sit on, bumper to bumper," she said. Dr. Gene Atherton of Laguna Beach claimed that the question of health has been ignored and that the increase in traffic will lead to more respiratory ill- nesses which he said is a major health problem: "We are obligated to replace the car as a transportation system;" he declared. The commission was urged to,, go ahead with the corridor by. representatives from the, - Greater Irvine Industrial., League, the Newport Center As- sociation, the Irvine Company.,, engineering department, Orange , Cnnntv traffic Engineers. Coun-,4 cil and memberaof the Newport- 1 Beach, Laguna Beach ands Orange County chambers of,F commerce. . • I The corridor is badly needed to relieve congestion and reduce overloads on the Pacific Coast.; Highway and San Diega•S Freeway, according to Todd Nicholson, of the Irvine In�,e dustrial League. 1 The corridor, which is prole t-'' ed to handle 85,000 to 1301 vehicles per day, is 10 to 15, t years in the future, officials said. A 50-foot-wide median is in- ., eluded in the plan to handle some type of rapid transit. The commission endorsed seg- ment 5 in the west sector of the corridor, segment 17 in the cen,, tral sector segment 19 in the t east -central and segment 24 in-, the east. a I Die IRVINE o �v ALTER 0 ~ lip � DY 11Cl SST ""R LEISURE 0% MISSION VIEJO C W.*LD F a� STA. r0 E �eox. RIDGE tEL Cnl San Joaquin Hills Saddleback - IRYINE GSA sup*.? College Auso Av 4Y COASTAL vialo AREA "� "8u 0� NEYYPORT BEACH 8 vswvx •f� 9� ' CSC _ LACUNA NIGUEL �n t7liCf�i�4_Qp- G%jn SANJUA CAN ANO ALTERNATE ROUTES FOR PROPOSED SAN JOAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR TO GET AIRING County Planning Commission Meets Tuesday to Hear CHI:ens' Vlews on Controversial Project �V� ere to Put Corridor? County Seeks Citizens' Opinions Tuesday Orange County residents will get a chance Tuesday to tell of- ficials what they think about the controversial San Joaquin Hills Trwportation Corridor. A public hearing on the pro• posed six to eight -lane highway through the hills of Southern Orange County will be held by the Orange County Planning Commission at 1_30 p.m. DAILY PILOT 10/8/79 The session will be conducted in the commission's hearing room in Room 119 on the first floor of the County Hall of Ad- ministration, 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana. The corridor has been separat- ed into four sectors— west, cen- tral, east central and east. Generally, three route alternatives have been proposed r P r I 77-riguna Beach favors a� southerly route through 1 Sycamore Hills, about three miles north of downtown areas. Meanwhile, San Juan Capistrano has expressed op- position to the terminus point near Avery Parkway. Officials would prefer an exit point farther north of city limits. I County staff engineer John i Fulton says that a 50-foot me. 1 dian is proposed to provide a light rail system in the future, such as a trolley or monorail. 66 He said that 6 percent grades in some areas preclude heavy regular rail systems and could be a problem to heavy trucks. The planning commission may make a recommendation on pro- posed routes at the close of public hearings Tuesday. The recommendation will be sent to the Board of Supervisors which alsowill hold public hear- ings b0forticon" to a final de- cisiat$r for each sector. It has been estimated the highway would cost $160 to $200 million but there is no money currently set aside for it. County officials, however, are hoping that federal and state funds will be available once it is designated in the state highway system. The highway would begin in the vicinity of the Corona del Mar FreeWay and MacArthur Boµlevard near Newport Beach and end 14 miles to the east near Avery Parkway north of San Juan Capistrano. It would cut through hilly and frequently steep terrain. The proposed highway has created a great deal of con- troversy in its preliminary stages. Environmental groups have raised concerns about air pollu- tion and potential damage to plants, wildlife and open space. Some of these organizations have questioned whether a cor-,i, ridor is truly needed. They pro- posedead that widened toaaccom- tnodate traffic demands. County officials say this plan is not good, however, because it would overload arterial streets I, that feed into the freeway. Cities also have differing views on proposed routes. Newport Beach favors a northerly route in its sector, as far away from city, limits as possible. Irvine wants a route south of Coyote Canyon which would take i the corridor farther from its citvJ limits but closer to Newport L Beach _ SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ROUTE LOCATION "5" B L1W i EIR 267 AND STUDY REPORT PHASE I r r SuvnfA"q • Prepared For THE COUNTY OF ORANGE .. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY W By GRUEN ASSOCIATES, INC. Special Consultants ROBERTBEIN, WILLIAM FROST&ASSOCIATES LEIGHTON AND ASSOC!Al E:, • I • • ORANGECOUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Philip L. Anthony, Chairman Harriett M. Wieder Ralph A. Diedrich Ralph B. Clark Thomas F. Riley Rex Gaede, Chairman Charles C. Bennett William R. MacDougall Irving Pickier A. Earl Wooden ORANGECOUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION First District Second District Third District Fourth District Fifth District J �J TABLE OF CONTENTS COMMENTS AN!) ACTION ON THE DRAFT EIR (These items included only in the final EIR) 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.1 Organization of the EIR and Study Report 1.2 Background of the Route Location Study 1.3 Description of the Proposed Project 1.4 The Environmental Analysis Process 1.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts Page L Table No. 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 LIST OF TABLES Transportation Service Evaluation Socio-Economic Evaluation Environmental Evaluation Environmental Evaluation Costs and Implementation iii Page 1-21 1-23 1-25 1-27 1-29 J SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND.SUMMARY • G • • SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1. 1 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR AND STUDY REPORT This EIR and Study Report summarizes the evaluation of route location alternatives for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The Transportation Corridor is a proposed high -capacity transportation facility in southeast Orange County for which a specific location has not yet been established. It is an element of the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), extending from the future Route 73 Freeway near Bonita Canyon Drive to the San Diego Freeway near Avery Parkway (see Figure 1-1). The EIR and Study Report present the technical analysis of the Route Location Study, the environmental impact assessment and the results of the extensive public participation program carried out as part of the study process. The EIR and Study Report has been developed to present information on the Transportation Corridor alternatives for consideration by citizens and decision -makers. This report has been organized as a combined EIR and Study Report for Phase I of the San Joaquin Hill's Transportation Corridor Route Location Study. The document fulfills the basic EIR requirements established by the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) as amended and includes the necessary additional information to document the technical analysis of the Route Location Study. It will be circulated for public comment and review as provided under California law and Orange County regulations. Based on the analysis of route location alternatives and inputs from interested groups and individuals, the Orange County Board of Supervisors will act on the adequacy of the EIR and select a route location alternative. Following selection of a route location by the Board, Phase II of the study will refine and provide more detailed evaluation of the selected location, including supplementary environmental documentation. 1-1 4, i • 0000- - - -- �`iveRsIDe 0 40eco �CfA I ~4 I y� I 9� I MAN ANAMEIM MI ION VIEJO SANTA ANA �y y, IRVINE c / e •N of•f NJOPOU\N N\�. , ■ y SANJUAN Y 9lhGys(� . �RrSP.T'ON CORRIDOR APISTRANO \ ti 1 FIGURE 1-1 VICINITY MAP SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ROUTE LOCATION STUDY AND El 1-z .0 r W -I 1000 3000_ 5000 S 1. 2 BACKGROUND OF THE ROUTE LOCATION STUDY . 1. 2. 1 Previous SEOCCS Study In 1974, in response to the need to bring the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways into conformity with the Land Use Element of the County General Plan, the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study W (SEOCCS) was undertaken. The SEOCCS. study analyzed four land use - transportation alternatives for this rapidly growing sector of the County. The alternatives considered various levels of possible future growth, ranging from 711, 000 to 1, 250, 000 population in southeast Orange County. In conjunction with the population and land use alternatives, four circula- tion system concepts were analyzed, ranging from no new Transportation Corridors to 46 miles of new Transportation Corridors. The results of the SEOCCS analysis were presented in a Summary Reportl and • Technical Supplement. 2 1.2.2 Action Following SEOCCS Study Following completion of the SEOCCS study, the Orange County Board of Supervisors in September 1975 referred the study to the cities and major citizen associations within the area for review and recommendation. At the same time, the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) prepared an Environmental Impact Report on the SEOCCS study and proposed Circula- tion Amendment 76-1.. The EIR analyzed the impacts of the four land use plans and the circulation systems designed for each alternative. 1SEOCCS Summary Report, prepared for the County of Orange by VTN/AMV, 1975. • 2EEOCCS Technical Supplement, prepared for the County of Orange by VTN/AMV, 1975. 3SEOCCS Draft EIR 187, prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, 1976. 1-3 I The environmental analysis dealt with the overall regional impacts of long-range plans and policies. It concentrated on impacts of the alterna- tives as an areawide system, rather than evaluating impacts of specific alignment or development proposals, and was not intended to replace more detailed EIRs needed to establish an alignment or implement a project. Following a series of public meetings and hearings by the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, on June 21, 1976, submitted to the Board its analysis of the four SEOCCS alternatives, reconsidered an earlier recommendation of Alternative 4 (which provided no new Transportation Corridors), and forwarded the matter without a recommended alternative. The Board of Supervisors subsequently considered the SEOCCS land use and circulation alternatives, held a public hearing on June 30, 1976, and reviewed the record of public • comment. On July 21, 1976, the Board adopted Resolution No. 76-1105 directing the Planning Agency (EMA and the Planning Commission) to prepare a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment based on proposed r Circulation Element Amendment 76-1 incorporating the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and consistent with the then current ., Land Use Elements for County and City areas which reflected an ultimate 917, 000 population level for southeast Orange County. The Board also established a targeted population growth level of 711, 000 by the year 1995 for the southeast Orange County area and called for a development monitoring program providing regular review points to compare population trends, analyze air quality and determine the capabilities of essential services to cope with development demands. The full text of the Board Resolution is reproduced in Appendix Section 11.2. Circulation .+ • Amendment No. 76-2, including the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, was submitted and adopted by the Board of Supervisors on -� August 18, 1976. Subsequent circulation element amendments have been adopted by the County which incorporate other recommendations of SEOCCS. J 1-4 • 1 . 2. 3 Definition of the Corridor Route Location Study The San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor constituted the major new • transportation facility added to the MPAH in Circulation Amendment 76-2 as a result of SEOCCS. Based on the SEOCCS Study, the Corridor was incorporated into the overall system as a conceptually proposed location, rather than as an established alignment (see Figure 1-2). It was determined that a route location study was urgently needed to establish a more specific location for the Corridor, especially in light of rapid development and accelerated tract planning activities in the Corridor area which created the possibility of precluding various route location options. In response to the need, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency defined the technical requirements of the Route Location Study, issued a Request for Proposals and interviewed prospective consultants in • the spring of 1977. Following review of proposals by a broad -based screening committee and by EMA, the Board of Supervisors selected the firm of Gruen Associates to carry out the Route Location Study, with the assistance of Special Consultants Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates and Leighton Associates. A contract was executed by the County and Gruen Associates, and the Route Location Study was initiated on'August 30, 1977. This report presents the work of Phase I of the Study which includes the analysis of route location alternatives and preparation of an EIR to assist the Board of Supervisors in selecting a route location, In Phase II of the Study, following Board action, the selected route location will be refined and detailed with supplementary environmental documentation. The objective of the Study is to provide necessary engineering and environ- mental information for the process of selecting and reserving a route location for the Transportation Corridor. Actual construction of improvements will not be -undertaken until detailed project development and environmental studies are authorized and carried out. 1-5 16 0 FIGURE 1-2 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ORANGE COUNTY, JULY 2651978 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ROUTE LOCATION STUDY AND EIR 1-6 ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ESTABLISHED CONCEPTUALL ALIGNMENT PROPOSED' MAJOR PRIMARY ---- SECONDARY -- -------- COMMUTER THE LOCATION OF A CONCEPTUALLY PHOPOSW ARTERIAL INDICATES THAT ORIGIN -DESTINATION NEEDS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED RASED ON ADOPTED LAND USE PLANS PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CENTERLINE ALIGNMENTS OF THESE ARTERIALS ENVIRONMENTAL AND HIGHWAY EVAI UATIONS WILL BE NECESSARY SCENIC HIGHWAYS PROPOSED SCENIC ROUTES ..... TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROPOSED l 11 • • An overall schedule of approximately 15 months was projected for the Phase I technical analysis, preparation of the EIR and necessary processing and hearings. The following work tasks are included in Phase I of the Route Location Study: Task 1. 0 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Task 2. 0 TYPICAL SECTION ANALYSIS Task 3.0 LAND USE ANALYSIS Task 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Task 5.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAPS Task 5.2 PRELIMINARY LOCATION ANALYSIS Task 5.3 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE LOCATION ANALYSIS Task 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION Task 7. 1 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Task 7.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A comprehensive Public Participation Program was built into the Route Location Study. This essential element provided the opportunity for the public to make known their concerns and needs during the study process on a continuing basis, rather than after the route location analysis was complete. The Public Participation Program is described in detail in Section 3. 0 of this report. 1-7 IZ 0 9 4 ;5 1. 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1. 3. 1 The Transportation Corridor • The Transportation Corridor is proposed as a high-speed, high -capacity facility which can accommodate both transit and vehicular traffic. The exact location of the Corridor has not been established. It will extend approximately 14 miles from a connection with the future Route 73 freeway near Bonita Canyon Drive to a connection with the San Diego Freeway near Avery Parkway. It will accommodate a projected ultimate volume of 85, 000 to 130, 000 vehicles per day on a basic 6-lane to 8-lane cross- section. The right-of-way will vary, depending upon the terrain, ranging from a minimum of approximately 250 feet in width for the basic route cross-section. Additional width will be necessary for slopes, interchanges, future transit terminals and other related elements. The route will be access -controlled and grade -separated, and will provide interchanges with • selected arterials which cross the Corridor. Because the terrain is rugged, a number of large cuts and fills will be necessary and grades of up to 6 percent will be required to achieve the necessary elevation changes with a reasonable balance between grading impacts and traffic operations on hills. The Transportation Corridor is being planned with enough space to accommo- date both transit and vehicular traffic needs. A minimum 50-foot median strip inside the paved roadway shoulders is proposed within the Transportation Corridor to provide options for various possible future transit services, including carpool, vanpool or other high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, express bus service, or other form of transit as warranted. Additional median space may be needed at locations where transit transfer or • interchange facilities are contemplated. 1-8 W W W W J �.i 4 1� The 'Transportation Corridor study area is defined for this analysis as the dl-L,x within which route location alternatives were studied, extending just . lwvnlld the alternative alignments shown in Figure 1-3. It is also referred to as the Transportation Corridor area and the Corridor area in this report. 1, 3.2 The Route Location Alternatives Figure 1-3 illustrates the route location alternatives analyzed in the EIR, established 'after review and initial evaluation of a wide range of possible locations. These route location alternatives were developed in conjunction with a comprehensive program of public involvement, following preliminary evaluation of a range of factors, including topographic opportunities and constraints, environmental resources, land use plans and traffic service requirements. This process is described in Section Z. 0. • For study purposes, the Transportation Corridor was divided into four sectors. Within each sector, a number of individual route segments were designated and identified by number, as schematically illustrated below. ♦�Po°��i oPP��J� oe ■ °P��o o ■ c�•o yP� ■ •_ ■ �1,P GJ2' ■ 1011 2 ■ S ; 26 27 ■ ■ d��P 1 15 ■ 19 ■ ■ 23 26 1'13 00 1 A ■ 131A 2324 ■ 2 5 8 76 17 1 2 22 25 24,27 g ■ ■ ,8369 ■ 252 ■ • ■ WEST SECTOfl CENTRALSECTOR EAST CENTRAL EAST SECTOR - SEGMENTS 1, 2, SEGMENTS 10, 11. 12, SECTOR SEGMENTS 23, 24, 3.4.5.6.7.8.9 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 SEGMENTS 19, 25, 26, 27. 28 20,21,22 1-9 1 Fi} urr 1-3 shows the 28 individual route segments in relationship to the existing major street system in the area. In the West Sector, nine • alternative Corridor route segments extending from the future Route 73 near Bonita Canyon Drive and around the Coyote Canyon landfill were identified and analyzed. In the Central Sector, nine alternative route locations are shown in the Sycamore Hills area, around or through Rossmoor Tentative Tract 7934 and through portions of the Irvine Company and Aliso Viejo properties. In the East-Central Sector, four alternative lines were identified around or through the Country Village and Aliso Viejo planned communities. In the East Sector, six alternative route locations are shown around or through portions of Laguna Niguel Tract 6518 and the Colinas de Capistrano, Country Village, Laguna Niguel and Nellie Gail Ranch planned communities. • Various combinations of these segments may be assembled into Corridor - wide alternatives. The EIR does not limit the possible combinations of route segments. However, not all route segments join with each other at sector boundaries. See Figure 1-3 for those which may be connected. 1. 4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PROCESS As a major circulation facility of the County General Plan which will be located, planned, designed and implemented over a period of perhaps 5 to 20 years, the Transportation Corridor will be studied in successively more detail as these planning steps occur. At each major step, environ- mental factors will be considered in keeping with the requirements of CEQA and as appropriate to the level of planning. The present level of planning is that of route location study, and this Phase I Study Report • and EIR is intended to facilitate the process of evaluating and selecting an alternative route location. As a result of the Phase I study, it is anticipated that the Orange County Board of Supervisors will select an alternative and authorize proceeding with Phase lI of the study. Phase H 1-10 rl r J J 1 3E'•ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER (MWDI AND AT' COSTA MESA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT SAND CANYON AVE TRANSMISSION MAIN i• UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT IRVINE TURTLE ROCK SOMMERCANYON W' EAST ORANGE COUNTY \CFO 'q♦iJ. kFEEDER�140.2(MWDI C `ry3^.h � CEP. \ �• -_� �C.Q•El \\\' A , \ _ .r,+`CC WsoR EAST BLUFF FORD AERONUTRONICS HARBOR VIEW KNOLL FIGURE 2•T ROUTE LOCATION ALTERNATIVES WITH CUT AND FILL SLOPES WEST HALF. OF CORRIDOR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ROUTE LOCATION STUDY AND EIR 0 ooa soon � CUTSLOPES FILLSLOPES SHAY ANYC 171 it will then study, detail and document the selected route, including the resolution of various specific questions which could not be addressed in • depth in the Phase I study. Subsequent environmental documentation will address more detailed planning, design, and project development issues as the Transportation Corridor implementation moves into those phases. In keeping with the approach of successive environmental assessment for General Plan elements as. plans are developed, this EIR is focused on analysis of route location alternatives for the Transportation Corridor. The "proposed project" thus consists of the analysis of alternatives leading to the selection of a route location for the Transportation Corridor at this current level of planning. Section 6. 0 of the EIR discusses the "no project" alternative, as well as other alternatives including the concept of widening the San Diego Freeway instead of constructing the San Joaquin • Hills Transportation Corridor. However, basic alternatives which would involve different land use and regional circulation patterns for southeast Orange County are not analyzed in detail in this EIR,, since the preceding SEOCCS study and EIR 187 examined these broader issues. r 1. 5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Tables 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5 summarize a range of transportation service, socioeconomic, environmental and cost data for the individual route segment alternatives shown in Figure 1-3. The evaluation data is organized by impact category within the four designated sectors of the Transportation Corridor to facilitate the comparative evaluation of alternative route segments. Some impact categories can be quantitatively • described while others, because of their nature, can only be described qualitatively. 1-13 0 • nrtailk-! discussion of environmental setting, impacts and mitigation _ measures for the route locations is contained in Section 4. 0. Alternatives including the "no project" are discussed in Section 6.0 and summarized in 1.5.2. 1. 5. 1 The Proposed Project -Route Location Alternatives The following tables provide a comprehensive summary of data and analytical findings for the individual route segment alternatives. The individual route segments and the evaluation data can be considered separately by sector, or can be combined into Corridorwide alternatives for evaluation. See Figure 1-3 for route segments which may be connected at sector boundaries. •Implications of various impact categories shown on the tables are described below. Table 1-1 - Transportation Service Evaluation • TOTAL SEGMENT LENGTH indicates the total length of each W Transportation Corridor segment within the particular sector for comparison purposes. Also noted in the table are the shortest and longest segments within each sector. For purposes of comparison, ,r all Corridor segment lengths in the East Sector were measured to a common terminus at the San Diego Freeway approximately 3,700 feet south of Avery Parkway. All Corridor segment lengths in the West Sector were measured from a common terminus at Route 73 • approximately 600 feet north of MacArthur Boulevard. _ 1-14 i • I • TOTAL LENGTH OF 6% GRADE indicates the accumulated total length of 6 percent grade within each segment. Also indicated are the segments with the least and the most distance of 6 percent grade. The desirable maximum grade is 3 percent along the Transportation Corridor. However, steeper grades of up to 6 percent were used where necessary in hilly terrain for the route location studies. The length of 6 percent grade is listed to indicate areas where the maximum grade was found to be necessary on the particular segment. Steep grades may relate directly or indirectly to travel time particularly for trucks, campers and trailers); traffic flow, noise and air emissions. Longer lengths of steep grade could result in conflict between slow moving truck traffic and automobile traffic, and tend to discourage truck traffic on the Corridor. • • RELATIONSHIP TO.CIRCULATION SYSTEM indicates the more significant features of each segment relative to the master planned circulation and highway system in the vicinity of the Transportation Corridor. This relationship can have implications relative to the level of transportation service, the possibility of certain interchange locations to provide ready access to the Corridor from certain adjoining arterial highways, the ease with which certain interchanges can be accomplished and physical effects on arterial highways. • PROXIMITY TO POTENTIAL TRANSIT GENERATORS indicates possible sources of transit users and areas for possible future transit stations -. which could influence the implementation of the Transportation Corridor median area for mass transit. Because of the general nature of this • parameter, there is little difference between various segments; except, possibly, in the Leisure World/Sycamore Hills area and the vicinity of the Federal GSA Building. I • • Table 1-2 - Socio-Economic Evaluation • PROXIMITY TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT indicates distances from the Corridor to existing developed areas which are closest to the various Corridor segments. This could relate directly or indirectly to noise sensitive areas and visual and aesthetic relationships between the corridor and surrounding areas. • POSSIBLE DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT indicates areas where there could be direct effects including possible displace- ment of existing development. Such effects could include a require- ment for complete removal of the structure, the need for acquisition of air rights and partial displacement, or the need for significant sound or visual attenuation measures. There is no expected displace- ment in the west, central or east -central sectors. In the east sector, there could be direct effects on or displacement of commercial struc- tures along the San Diego Freeway as indicated in the table. • PROXIMITY TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT indicates the areas where various Corridor segments cross, adjoin or pass between near -term development and long-term general planned land uses. This'factor may relate to future visual or noise -sensitive areas. • APPROXIMATE MILES THROUGH VARIOUS GENERAL PLANNED LAND USES indicates the estimated map distances through three land use categories included in various city and county general plans (residential, commercial -industrial -public and open space). See Figure 4-9. 1-16 i� Table 1-3 - Environmental Evaluation • NUMBER OF LARGE CUTS AND FILLS indicates the cuts and fills • higher than 100 feet in height which may be required along segments of the Corridor. This information together with the earthwork quanti- ties which appear in the adjacent column may be used as an indicator _ of the general magnitude of terrain modification along the various seg- ments of the Corridor. However, adverse visual or aesthetic im- pacts may be more directly related to location and configuration of such cuts and fills, rather than the total number or volume of mater- ial moved. Large cuts and fills are often necessary in hilly terrain y to preclude excessively steep grades. • APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK (Grading) indicates the total volume of cut (excavation) and fill (embankment) for various Corridor segments in million cubic yards. Where feasible along the Corridor, cut and fill volumes will be approximately balanced in order to minimize the costs for earth moving. However, in certain locations such as the central sector, cut volumes will be substantially greater than fill volumes for all lines due to the need to avoid excessive grades through the rugged terrain of this sector. Such cases may require earth trans- port from one sector of the Corridor to another. Since cut material is generally placed in nearby fill areas, the larger of the two volumes in each segment represents the total volume of material moved within that segment. Estimated earthwork volumes relate directly to the estimated cost for each segment. • APPROXIMATE LAND REQUIRED indicates the preliminary estimated number of acres required for each segment including areas necessary for cut and fill slopes and interchanges. The land required for each • segment is an indication of the amount of land which will be required 1-17 for dedication for the Corridor and subsequently removed from the tax rolls. Purchase of land is generally expected only in the already • developed areas near the San Diego Freeway and in the east sector. The table also indicates the segments with the least and the most land requirements. _ • • GEOTECHNICAL RATING provides an indication of the various segments which are either least or most favorable based on an evaluation of major cut slopes with known or possible adverse .. geologic conditions, major landslide areas, possible or minor land- slide areas and major fill areas with unfavorable underlying geologic or soil conditions. This factor could relate indirectly to the cost of the Corridor. • AIR QUALITY indicates that there are no significant differences in .. regional air quality between the various Corridor segments or sectors. W • PROXIMITY TO EXISTING OR IMMINENT NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS indicates the areas where Corridor segments are near or adjoin noise - sensitive areas (residences, schools) which either exist, are under construction or are approved for near -term construction. This factor may be an indicator of the need for providing noise attenuation measures related to construction of the Transportation Corridor or in the design and construction of imminent nearby developments. 1-18 J Table 1-4 - Environmental Evaluation • • ESTIMATED AVERAGE FUEL CONSUMPTION indicates the compara- tive projected number of gallons per day of fuel which would be used on the Corridor at projected traffic volumes on various segments. This factor indicates the relative difference between corridor segments with regard to fuel consumption and relates directly to segment length. As noted in the body of the report, overall fuel consumption in southeast Orange County is expected to be reduced slightly (1. 3 -- percent) by the implementation of the Transportation Corridor. • BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS indicates direct and indirect impacts on signi- ficant vegetation and wildlife areas along various Corridor segments for comparison purposes. • • ARCHAEOLOGICAL indicates the number of archaeological sites which may be directly impacted by the various Transportation Corridor segments. • PALEONTOLOGICAL indicates an evaluation of any significant differ- ences between various route segments as they may affect paleontologi- cal resources based on surface evaluation of potential fossils resources in the study area. There is little significant difference indicated be- tween segments except where a particular segment is considered least favorable within a given sector. • VISUAL/AESTHETIC indicates existing communities or areas from which the Corridor will be visible or partially visible. Distances • listed vary from as little as 500 feet up to as much as 2, 200 feet. - Other areas not noted in the table may experience more distant views of the Corridor. 1-19 r' • PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE indicates the proximity of iltn Corridor to planned or designated park, recreation or open space • areas for each segment for evaluation of the relative interaction or possible impact on such areas. The Corridor segments cross no currently publicly owned park or recreation areas. Table 1-5 - Costs and Implementation • ESTIMATED COSTS indicate the preliminary estimated costs in 1979 dollars of the various Corridor segments for the purpose of evaluating alternative route locations. The figures include estimated costs of grading, paving, appurtenances, interchanges, and connections at Route 73 and the San Diego Freeway. Estimated costs of engineering and administration for the preparation of contract documents are included. Land acquisition costs are not included. • • STAGING OPPORTUNITIES indicates that there is no potential difference between various segments for stage development of the Corridor. • 1-20 z4 r y�N Tabie 1-1 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE EVALUATION C J cAm-innnuiN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORS AND ROUTE SEGMENTS TOTALSEGMENT LENGTH (MILES) (SECTION 2.6) TOTAL LENGTH OF 6%GRADE (MILES) (SECTION 4.1) WESTSECTOR 1 5.3 Least •' ..� T 2 Shortest 5.0 1.7 3 Longest 5.6 1.6 ' r4 5.3 1.0 5 Shortest 5.0 1.9 6 Longest 5.6 1.5 7 5.3 ). g Shortest 5.0 Most zo g 5.5 !.7 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR RELATIONSHIPTO SECTORS AND ROUTESEGMENTS CIRCULATION SYSTEM (SECTION4.1) 1 Bonita Coy..Dt. would not need relocation. Interchange with Bonita Cnyn, Dr. Lacks dleeet eonneetien to San Joaquin Hill. Road. 2 Bonita Cnyn.Dr. would notneed relocation. interchange wlth_anita Cnyn. Or- Lacks diracemno.etlon to San Joannln Hills Road. 3 Bonita Cnyn. Dr. would notated r,location. Interchange with Bonita Cnyn. Dr, Provides direct connection to San Joaquin Hill. Rd. at Culver Drive, 4 Bonita Cnyn. Dr. would need relocation taN or connection via Ford Rd.&San Miguel Dr. ' Interchange with Ford Rd. Lacks dlreeteannectlonto San Joaquin Hill. Road, WEST SECTOR 5 Bonita Cnye. Dr. would need relocation to N or connection via Ford Rd.&. San Miguel Dr. InterchaogewithFordRd. Lacks direeteonn.etiontoSanJvqul.Hill, Road. Bonita Cnyn. Dr. would need relocation to Nor connection via Ford Rd, h San Miguel Dr. Wertha?ge with Ford Rd. P... Idea direct oonection to San Joaquin Hills Rd. at Culver Dr. r87 Bonita Coyn.Dr. would notneed relocation. Interchange with Ford Rd. Lacksdir.ctconnKtion toSan Joaquin Hills Road. Bonita Cnyn. Dr. would not need relocation. interchang a with Ford Rd. Lack. dlrecteonneetlonto San Joaquin Hills Road. .9 BanIta Cayn. Dr. would not need reloe.H.n. Interchange with y ord Ad. Pnridestllraeteonneetlan to San Joaquin Hill. Rd. at Culwr. Dr. z.4 b E Table 1 1 (MWr-) TRANSPORTATION SERVICE EVALUATION SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORS AND ROUTE SEGMENTS PROXIMITY TO POTENTIAL TRANSIT GENERATORS (SECTION 4.1) WESTSECTOR Within= Campus. ' 2 Within UCIC.mpus. 3 Within UCI C.mpu.. 4 Adi.ln.UCI Camp... ^ 5 Adjoin. UCI Camp... 6 Adjoln.UCl Campus. Nurucl Campus. A N... UCI Campu.. N.ar UCI C.mpus. Table I-2 SOCIO-EC® ® QC EVALUATION `1 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROXIMITYTO POSSIBLE DISPLACEMENT SECTORS AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF SECTION STING DEVELOPMENT (SECTION 4.2) 1 ROUTE SEGMENTS 7 1 Appmx2200'fromTurtleRoek. Appmx 2209from Harbor View K. o1L n� None 2 Appmx 2200from Harbor V iew Kno1L Appms6000from Turtle Rock wwYY None 3 Appmx 2200from Harbor Ridge, Spyglass Hill&Harbor V iew KnolL None 4 Appmx 2200from Turtle Roek Appmx 1300from Harbor View Knoll, None 5 Appmx6000fromTurtleRoek Appnx 1300from Harbor View Knoll None WEST SECTOR 6 Appmx 1300Irom Harbor V iew Knoll Appnx2200frm,Harbor Ridge & S leas Hill. None ' 7 App.. 500[rom Harbor View KnolL Appmx 2200from Turtle Rock None 8 Appnx500fromHarbor View Kroll, Appnx 6000fram Turtle Roek None 9 Appnx 500' from Harbor View Knoll. Appmr. 2200' from Harbor Ridge & Spyglass Hill. None APPROX. MILES THROUGH VARIOUS • GENERAL PLANNED LAND USES (SECTION 4.2) COMMERCIAL OPEN PROXIMITY TO ;RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL SPACE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ;(MILES) PUBLIC (MILES) (SECTION 4.2) i (MILES) ro.sea UCl & Bommor Canyon high density eve opment&. Puaa. user high density Shady Canyon dev.Cruoses law & 1 3.7 • ,3 1.3 0.5 medum densrt restdent[al de+. 2 ..... UCI development. eves near igh density development. Crosses low & med. density residential j 1 Z.9 1.3 1.0 davalo ment. rit osses propose UGI .valopment. Crosses edge of &near low & density I 2.9 1.3 1.6 • 3high den. ity development.. The. medium development. Pules near high density Shady Oenyon evelopment, CrosAaa Crosse. lrw, h medium density I 3.7 0.8 1.0 4 Bommer Canyon development. ra.. and industrial development. fJ Pasaes then low & medium residential &Bonita Canyon tndus- high density development. I Z • 9 0.8 1.5 WEST SECTOR trial Jevetooment. Pesos near 6 roses. low 4 medium ern. ty reaidsn.ta on6a Canyon Industrial development- Crosa.s edge oL &near high density 2.8 0.7 ?.2 davelepment.. 7 Crosses Bonita Canyon industrial ov. r8 amity Bummer Canyon development. Cross.. low & medium don .Ity res. d&v. � 3.9 0.9 0.7 passes n r had Cann high density sae, dev. Ce..... Bonita Canyon industrial day.Pn ae. near high density I 3. 3 0.9 1.0 8 development. Paises thru low 1.med. density development. 1 Crosses Bonita Canyon Industrial devslopmant.Crc..e. edge al, density ' 3. Q 0. $ 1.8 9 ..it near high density deveicpment.Cros.es low,& mail. — 1 • Table 1-3 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 2-4 qAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORS AND ROUTE SEGMENTS NUMBER OF LARGE CUTSANDFILLS (SECTION 4.5) APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK (MILLION C.Y.)(SECTION4.6) CUTS FILLS CUT FILL WEST SECTOR 1 0 0 5.87 8.94 2 1 1 8.23 9.00 3 0 1 8.86 12.17 4 0 0 4.83 8.58 5 2 1 6.89 8.27 6 1 1 7.89 13.90 7 0 0 5.68 6.49 8 1 1 8.04 6.55 9 0 1 7.91 10. 01 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORS AND ROUTE SEGMENTS APPROXIMATE LAND REQUIRED (ACRES) (SECTION 4.5) GEOTECHNICAL RATING (SECTION 4.5) WESTSECTOR 1 293 2 292 3 Most 3Z4 4 292 5 Z91 ,6 315 Le.a Lwnbl. 7 Least 278 mo.t Uwr.bl. 8 Least 278 9 297 • C] 0 Ewe TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORS AND ROUTE SEGMENTS AIR QUALITY (SECTION 4.7) I PROXIMITY TO EXISTING OR IMMINENT NOISE -SENSITIVE AREAS (SECTION 4.8) 1Ne NQni[icantdHfvencls in ce glon.l air quality. Notncaxnciso-.endtive-sees. 2 Noslgnificantdiffereacesinregtomlair quality. Not near note-undtiv.anu. 3 No dgnific1ntdiffcrenc sin reglon.lair quality. Not near noise -sensitive areas. 4 No signlfJc.ntdiff.rcnc sin regional air quality. Notnear nofu-sen.ittv."*a@. WEST SECTOR 5 No.1gn10cantdlfferenc sl.regienalafr quality. Not ...... I ...... siltv.ar.as. 6, No significant differenc' in regional air quality. Not near noise -man -Rive areas. ' No significant differences lnregionalalr quality. Near existing Harborvl.w%nQU community (500'). 8 Nosigaiflcantdlffarencesinreglooalaie quality, Near existing Harborvi.wKoo11 now - munity (500% 9 No significant differences in regionalair quality. I Near exi.ti.g H.,bcrvisw Knell eom. munity (5001). 0 • Table I-4 Is EVALUATION o TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL (SEC4.11) PALEONTOLOGICAL SECTORS AND NUMBER OF SITES (SECTION 4.5) ROUTE SEGMENTS DIRECTLY IMPACTED 15 Fovigm6 antdiflrnncv 2 15 3 16 „ 4 10 „ WEST SECTOR 6 10 " 6 13 7 10 " 8 10 9 11 „ 26 `Table 1-4(c&K,.) ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SAN JOAOUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 41 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORS AND VISUAL/AESTHETIC (SECTION 4.12) ' PARKS, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE (SECTION 4.13) ROUTE SEGMENTS 1 Visible from Turtle Rork(2200'). Partially visible from Harbor View Knoll (22001). Cross'.. praPa.'d pa rYarua mBrtbn.er. Shady r. Bamla Ca"y ins. ez pe•twlly vul W. tram Harbor Vlew K.all(23-00') Ci gmnai sem,c vista from corridor. Criss,•' pri,p,scd pa.:. r,. In 11 mda CL.Y'n. 3 liarlially visible! tom Ha rb. r View Knnll(2200'). It.•pimtal x•me vtsla frrol corridor. Crnss••sryropvrvd pa•v ravmlf uuu C.aysn. rasa ea proposr pa r r a r r.a,r llmnn: - r an 4 Visible from Turtle Rock(2200'). Visible from Harbor View Knoll (U001). 1Knoll SbadyC.nyans. Cros.,•s prep �s••d,p.rkan•afn B mit. Ca nv,m. WEST SECTOR Coss.apropa+•dparran•a1.Rion, Canyon. 5 Visible from Harbor View (1300q. Regional scenic vista from corridor. C,...es pr'pa.ndp.lkl"a In Bamla Canyon. 6Visible from Harbor Vlew'Knoll(1300'). Regional scenic vista from corridor. C roe+cs propmn psr•arn+s nBvmnnr an• Shady Canyoit..Crosnes prop,sed p.raanaio Bonita Canyon. 7Visible from Turtle Rock (2200'). Vi.iblo from Harbor View Knoll (500% F FVIsIbI.om Hatbor Vlaw Knoll (500'). I vista from corridor. Crosenapropasad parkarsa In Omits Cenyan.scenic Croues prop'.• d park q re a In Bsnita Canyon. om Harbor View Knoll(500'). rcenle vista from corridor. • • Table 1-5 COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION �' ceN-ineniuN Nu i_s TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR SECTORSAND ROUTE SEGMENTS ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTIONCOSTS MILLIONS) DOLLARS IN (SECTION 26) STAGING OPPORTUNITIES (SECTION 271 WEST SECTOR 1 $45. 6 Nn F gni flnm Du..... Between Allernativen 2 46.9 " " " 3 59.8 4 42.3 5 44.1 6 52.2 7 43.9 8 42. 6 9 49.3 CENTRAL SECTOR 10 69.9 No Signifleant Dlff.rrnoo. Between Alternative. 11 '91. 1 12 .85. 7 " 13 54.1 " 14 70.5 " 15 65.7 16 82. 17 64.2 1. 18 51•. 9 EAST -CENTRAL SECTOR 19 22.2 No Slgnifleant Difforene.. Between Alternative. 20 22.4 11 1' 11 21 24. 2 22 21.6 EAST SECTOR 23 33. 7 No SignifiLant Dill, rern', Between Alternate, 24 33.8 '1 " " 25 35.0 1. " 26 36.8 11 It 27 36.9 " 28 34.7 " 31 1.5.2 The No Project Alternative • The No Project alternative was analyzed as a benchmark for comparison with the Transportation Corridor alignment alternatives. The No Project alternative is not expected to significantly change the total amount of travel in southeast Orange County compared to the amount of travel with the Transportation Corridor, according to EMA traffic projections based on currently adopted County and City land use plans. However, the total time spent in traveling would increase by an estimated 91 percent with the No Project alternative, reflecting major concentrations of traffic congestion on the arterial system with the No Project alternative. Total fuel consump- tion would be increased approximately 1. 3 percent with the No Project alternative, while air pollutant emissions would increase 12.9 to 15.0 percent (CO and hydrocarbons) and decrease 1. 6 percent (NO ) in the southeast Orange County area. These projections reflect the underlying assumption • that public transit services and patronage will increase substantially in response to energy and cost considerations to a future level of approxi- mately 10 percent of total trips in southeast Orange County. Traffic volumes with the No Project alternative would be higher on many arterial routes as a result of the lack of Transportation Corridor traffic relief. However, not all arterial routes would carry heavier traffic; streets such as Laguna Canyon Road north of the Corridor and certain other routes would no longer carry traffic to and from the Transportation Corridor and would therefore experienced reduced overall traffic demands in the vicinity of the Corridor. The Transportation Corridor itself would accommodate a major volume of future travel demand in southeast Orange County, ranging from 85, 000 to 130, 000 vehicles per day. Without the • Transportation Corridor, the San Diego Freeway would experience increased congestion and traffic demands of up to 220, 000 vehicles per day, compared 1-31 to a design capacity of about 144, 000 vehicles per day for a typical 8-lane • , „•,•.v.. Pacific Coast Highway would alsobe overloaded and severely nngested without the Transportation Corridor, experiencing a projected demand of up to 100, 000 vehicles per day compared to a capacity of 40, 000 to 50, 000 vehicles per day for a 6-lane arterial. Based on these projections, it is clear that without the Transportation Corridor extensive and severe congestion would be experienced in this area and a major widening of arterial facilities would have to be considered to satisfy travel demands. 1. 5. 3 _Other Alternatives to the Proposed Project Other alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. They include alternatives to the Route Location Study, alternative land use concepts, widening of the • San Diego Freeway as an alternative to the Transportation Corridor, and downgrading the Corridor to surface arterial classification. Transit -only alternatives to the Corridor were not included within the scope of the Route Location Study because current County transit planning does not indicate a major transit -only corridor in this area. Transit alternatives are being studied on a countywide basis as part of the ongoing Orange County Multimodal Transportation Study under the auspices of the Orange County Transportation Commission. C J 1-32 HarborView Knob COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION September 7, 1979 Board of Supervisors County of Orange Hall of Administration Attention: Thomas F. Riley; District'5 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 • Re: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Gentlemen: As President of the Harbor View Knoll Community Association, and as a participant in many of the meetings of interested homeowners in neighboring associations, I feel it is my duty to make the following comments. It is the feeling of the majority that they would prefer no corridor at all. --'We wonder what will happen at each end when 85-135,000 additional vehicles daily 'enter the San Diego:Freeway in the west sector. We wonder if all of these vehicles are going to drive off the off -ramps and enter' -the residential areas of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar. However, if there is a great desire to open the unpopulated area in the proposed location of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor by land -developers and other interested parties and to develop housing and industry there, we wish to express our choice of Route #2.in the West Sector of the Draft EIR 267 and Study Report - Phase I, as the route that is least objectionable to us. Using the Tables in the Summary of the EIR 267 and Study Report Phase I of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Route Location Study, our reasons are as follows: In Table 1-1, Route #2 is one of the three shortest segment lengths in miles of all the nine routes. Table 1-l'also states Bonita Canyon Drive would not need relocation if Route #2 is chosen. This would save money. Table 1-1 also states'Route #2 is close to the potential transit generators, one of which is the University of California at Irvine. Table 1-2 states Route #2 is the greatest distance from existing developments, which certainly makes it seem fairest to people who have already purchased expen- sive homes and established their lives in this area. Table 1-3 states that of the nine route segments, Route #2 is one of the three that requires the.least land to -construct. Table 1-3 also states Route #2 is the greatest distance away from noise -sensitive areas, and if the air quality could be affected, it is the greatest distance away as well., With between 85-135,000 vehicles plus a rapid transit system using the corridor daily, it is difficult to believe the air quality.w.ould not be'affected. association manager, devine properties, p.o. box 687, corona del mar, ca 92625 `S. Board of Supervisors Page 2 September 7, 1979 Tabl'e.l-4 states Route #2 will be one of the least consumers of fuel, which should be of great importance to everyone in this time of shortages. . Table 1-4 also states there would be no biological or paleontological effect. Table 1-4 states all routes are visible from Harbor View Knoll, but-#2 is one of the two routes only partially visible, and it is not visible to any other homes already constructed. There are many more reasons why Route #2 would be the least objectionable route for the homeowners affected in the West Sector, but these are the most outstanding. Thank you for your time. Vie appreciate your interest. Sincerely, Dee Neece Perkins, President HARBOR VIEW KNOLL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 2712 Hilltop Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 640-6190 DNP/dy CC: Planning Commission G�PC�02�4 9� 11 OA GJ colm 4 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address: �rfQ� Date: 9�(D TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincere y, 0 Address: 2264— Date: q � ?11 o )hYle; TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, 60 Address: �7`f� Date:• "I 6 F, F,o �oapiryPiy O TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, J'► 0 5 . Address: Date: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address:,, P 7G -), / - Date: /'4 �71 • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address: �� W►dlp Date: 0 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ua J �0 9 E,G�,�onmant E�� �Q R ro 11 I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address:%ate /G� ✓%G. Date: /S -J2 71r a TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, i Address: Date: /7 IP71f r TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address: Date: N£w1d,4r BEAr� 92G�o 1 ocr 71 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address: IN7'''�'-,���� Date: v4g I ��"��� *m of 0 >''\4 �G n Plo N �9 of ex, QG c�t'�•, ow TO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, 1-c view 14ADLL Address: la—mT 2. 41trt..y1v,W %ve Date: JtS%4f'C2'j" µi C.L1Ljtx01rzw . �2• 0 <=k . rozez 1, ig 19 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR I am in total agreement with the attached letter written by the President of the Harbor View Knolls Community Association in Newport Beach regarding the choice of a route in the west sector of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Sincerely, Address: �A'.�98, Date: M COUNCILMEN Cj&Y OF NEWPORT BR#CH MINUTES �Q IlQ79 INDEX 12.66.080 TO THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICATION OF VEHICLE CODE TO PRIVATE STREETS IN HARBOR RIDGE, was prese led for second reading. Motion x Ordinance No. 1819 wa o ted. All Ayes F. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Motion x 1. A proposed resolution establishing the ad c� Highway Action Te All Ayes Highway Action. Team (HAT) was postponed to September 10, 1979. 41 2. A report was presented from the Public Works San Joaqu Department regarding the San Joaquin Hills Hills Tran Transportation Corridor, Phase One Route Location Corridor (3342) StucTy an�tlie Environmental Impact Report. ReRorts were presented from the Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and the. Environmental Quality Citizens Advisory Committee. The. following people addressed the Council: Frank Robinson, for Friends of the Bay, asked that a strong position on silt control be taken for either route; Jerry Davis asked that there be no connection with Ford Road or San Miguel; and Denise Perkins, President of the Harbor View Knolls Homeowners Association, and Agnes Day supported Route 2. The Council agreed to take straw voteson modifications to the proposed resolution regarding the Phase I Route Location Studv was follows: Motion. x Paragraph 3 was amended to read, "WHEREAS, the All Ayes City Council of the City of Newport Beach has previously expressed support for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as a way of directing traffic around Newport Beach; and" Motion x Mayor Pro Tern Williams made a motion to change No. 1 under the "NOW, THEREFORE" clause to designate Alternate 2 instead of Alternate 52 and in No. 5 to read Alternate 5 instead of Alternate 2. Motion, x Councilman Heather made a substitute motion for Ayes x x No. 5 to ask for further investigation of the Noes x x x x feasibility of both Alternate 2 and Alternate 59 which motion failed. Ayes x x x x x A vote was taken on Mayor Pro Tem Williams' Noes x motion, which motion carried. Motion Item No. 4 under the "NOW, THEREFORE" clause All Ayes was deleted. i i Volume 33 -Page 243 am in COUNCILMEN yG\ �i �,c ti��.x'ri� \tom 9 OT ti� S iN ROLL CALL �u'� � s CIDY OF NEWPORT 810CH ADJOURNED COUNCIL MEETING Mace: Council Chambers Time: 7.00 P.M. Date: August 28, 1979 MINUTES INDEX Present x x x x x x ROLL CALL. Absent D. HEARINGS: 5. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Parking Ordinance No. 1818,, being, Requirements 0-1818 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF (32F0 NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING SECTIONS 20.11.0309 20.14.0701 20.15.070, 20.16.075, 20,17.073, 20.33.030F OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AS THEY PERTAIN TO REQUIRED PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, Planning Commission Amendment No. 535, a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach to consider an amendment to Chapter 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as It pertains to required parking for residential uses, and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. A report was presented from the Community Development Department. Motion x The public hearing was continued to October 1, All Ayes 1979. 6. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing regarding Yellow the request of Orange Coast Yellow Cab Company, Inc. for approvii), 5% fuel Cab Co. of a surcharge. (666) A report was presented from the City Manager. Motion x The hearing was closed after it was determined that All Ayes no one desired to be heard. Motion x Resolution No. 9626, establishing rates for taxicabs, R-9626 Ayes x, x x x x establishing a fuel ,surcharge, and rescinding Noes x Resolution No. 9438, was adopted. 7. Mayor Ryckoff opened the public hearing BI Street concerning the amount of funds to be allocated to Lighting the Balboa Island Street Llghtl� District from the Special District Augmentation Find. (3334) Motion x The hearing ter it was that All Ayes has earddetermined no one desired to be Motion x Approximately $935.00 was allocated tq the Balboa All Ayes Island Street Lighting District. E. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 1. Ordinance No. 1819, being, �`,i Private AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY \OF Streets/ Harbor Ridge NEWPORT BEACH ADDING SECTI6N 0-1819 (3319) j I i i Volume 33 -Page 242 IROLL 3 COY OF NEWPORT BACH COUNCILMEN MINUTES yo�j �C, 9 n 9 i 9�0� y ctp CALL` ��� P August29. 1979 INDEX Motion x An Item (f) was added to No. 6 under the "NOW, All Ayes THEREFORE" clause, "Detailed assessment of the proposed project as a multi -modal transportation corridor. " Motion x A No. 7 was added under the "NOW,THEREFORE" Ayes x x x x x clause, "The westerly end of the corridor should be Noes x designed so neither Ford Road nor San Miguel Road are connected to it." Motion x A second sentence was added to Item No. 2 under Ayes x x x x x the "NOW, THEREFORE" clause, "This City Noes x reaffirms its previously expressed support for a National Urban Park in the Irvine Coastal Area." Motion x Item No. 6 (e) under the "NOW, THEREFORE" All Ayes clause was amended to include reference to a paleontological site. Motion x Resolution No. 9627, expressing to the Orange R-9627 Ayes x x x x x County Boara ol Supervisors the City s cow mments on Noes x the Phase I`Rodfe Locati'dWStrrdy anzYEnvironmental- Impact Report forthe 5an Joaquin Hills Transportatio��orr> or, was adopted to reflect the straw votes. 3.- Appointments to the Transportation Plan Citizens Trans P1 Advisory Committee: CAC /� (96 Motion x Councilman McInnis ' appointment of a member to All Ayes fill the unexpired term of R. H. Clucas for a term ending December 31, 1979 was postponed to September 10. Motion x Councilman Hummel's appointment of a memb to All Ayes fill the unexpired term of G. Edmund Si 1, Jr. ending December 31, 1979 was pos oned to September 10. Motion x ' tment of Barry 4. Mayor Pro Tern Williams'Yhe Local All Ayes Allen as a member of the Coastal Planning Coastal Advisory Committee to fil 'unexpired term of Plan CAC Harold Thomas ending ecember 31, 1979 was (709) confirmed. Motion x 5. Councilman Hun el's appointment of a member to Bicycle All Ayes the Bicycle T ils Citizens Advisory Committee to Trails fill the u xpired term of Dr. Sholkoff ending CAC Decemb 31, 1979 was postponed to September 10. (205F) intments to the Litter Control Citizens 6.4pdv Litter isory Committee: Control • CAC Motion x ncilman Hart's appointment of a member to fill (2046) All Ayes unexpired term of Hal Pinchin for a term ending December 31, 1979 was postponed to September 10. � f i I Volume 33 - Page 244 CIV OF NEWPORT BEECH COUNCILMEN C CALL Au ust 28 1979 MINUTES INDEX Motion x Councilman Hummel's appointment of a member to I All Ayes fill the unexpired term of Helen Anderson for a term ending December 31, 1979 was postponed to September 10. A letter dated August 61 1979 was presented from OrCo Joan S. Petty resigning as the City's representative Housing to the Advisory Committee of the Orange County Auth housing Authority. Adv Cmte (1272) j Motion x The Mayor's appointment of a replacement All Ayes epresentative was postponed to September 10, j 8. A report was presented from the Community Upper De De elopment Department regarding background and Npt Bay pres nt status of the NIWA program. NIWA Motion x ion No. 96280 supporting the declaration of R-9628 Ayes x x x x the San Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (355) Noes x x as the OS" Agency for the San Diego Creek Drainage asin, was adopted. 9. A report s presented from the City Manager Council regarding m ting times for the City Council and Procedures the Study Sess n. (1096) Motion x Councilman McI 's made a motion that the starting time #or the Stu Session be changed back to 1:30 p.m. and the regul r Council Meeting to 7:30 p.m. Councilman Strauss asked that the motion be amended to leave the tudy Session starting time at 2:00 p.m. and begin t e evening meetings at 7:30 p.m., which was acce ed by the maker of the motion. All Ayes Councilman McInnis' amend d motion was presented to Council as an ordinance for introduction, and Ordinance No. 1820, being, N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT EACH AMENDING SECTION 2.04.020 OF THE EWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE HE TIME OF THE EVENING COUNCIL MEETING T 7:30 P.M., was Introduced and passed to sec dreading on September 10, 1979, 10. A report was presented from the ty Attorney Elections regarding the proposed Charter Amendm nts. (12F) The Council agreed to take straw vot on the proposed Propositions, as follows: Motion x Councilman Strauss made a motion to ap ove Proposition 2 pertaining to the maximum am unts allowed as reimbursement for expenses incurre by the Mayor and Councilmen and delegating author ty to the City Council to adjust said maximum amounis based on the Consumer Price Index or an annual 59 increase, whichever is lesser. i Volume 33 - Page 245 r August 27, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 . TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR --PHASE I ROUTE LOCATION STUDY AND EIR RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution addressed to the Orange County Board of Supervisors expressing City comments on the Phase I study, with the principal comments as follows: 1. The alignment designated as Alternate 5 should be the route of the Corridor from the westerly terminus easterly to the proposed Culver Drive -interchange. 2. The alignment of the Corridor easterly of the proposed Culver Drive interchange should,be selected so as to minimize the impact • on the proposed National Urban Park. 3. Any of the proposed alignments •is preferable to the No Project alternative. 4. Regardless of the alternate that is chosen, San Joaquin Hills Road should ultimately be connected to the Corridor. 5. Further investigation,of the feasibility of Alternate 2 should be made. 6. In the preparation of the Phase II EIR and study report, particular attention should be directed to the following: v. a. Preparation of a construction phasing plan which wi%l minimize impacts on the existing arterial highway system. b. Develop specific data regarding noise impacts on Harbor View Knolls. • c. Assess traffic impacts of•potential connections•to Ford Road, San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Miguel Drive (if a Connection is considered to San Miguel). d. Runoff and siltation effect on Newport Bay. e. Assessment and mitigation of impacts on archaelogical sites, flora, and fauna. August 27, 1979 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor --Phase I Route Location Study and EIR Page 2 • BACKGROUND: Consideration of a major highway facility along the San Joaquin Hills extending between the Corona del Mar and San Diego Freeways to serve southeast Orange County was formally initiated by the County as a part of the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS). This study indicated that, without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, both Pacific Coast Highway and the San Diego Freeway would be severely overloaded in the future. The Alan M. Voorhees Study prepared for the City of Newport Beach in 1973 also indicated that Coast Highway would be severely overloaded without a major highway facility in the San Joaquin Hills parallel to the coastline. Subsequent to SEOCCS, the Board of Supervisors amended the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways to include the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Following a public hearing held on November 24, 1975, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 8640 recommending the inclusion of the Cor- ridor in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. On June 28, 1976, the City •Council, following a recommendation by the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee (TPCAC), adopted Resolution No. 8827 supporting the Corridor; and recommending a construction phasing plan designed to minimize traffic impacts on the existing highway system. On February 13, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9272 supporting the Corridor and endorsing an alignment for further study and environmental evaluation. On April 9, 1979, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9535 supporting the purchase of the Irvine Coastal Area as a national park, and supporting construction of the Corridor. DISCUSSION: Further evaluation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is being conducted by Orange County by means of a 2-phase technical and environ- mental study. Phase I is a route location study, intended to allow evaluation of a number of alternative alignments between the westerly terminus at the Corona del Mar Freeway and the easterly terminus at the San Diego Freeway. Phase II will be a detailed analysis of the environmental impacts and technical aspects of a specific route selected at the conclusion of the Phase I process. The Phase I EIR and Study Report has now been completed and is being • circulated by the County for review and comment. A copy of a summary of the report is attached for reference. Please refer to the summary for additional information regarding the design of the Corridor, alternative alignments studied, and environmental impacts. File copies of the full report, which is quite voluminous, are available for review in the Public Works And Community Development Departments. The Phase I report, in the evaluation of the No Project Alternative, again demonstrates the need for the Corridor. Without the Corridor, Pacific Coast Highway would experience a projected demand of up to 100,000 vehicles per day compared to a capacity of 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day for a 6-lane August 27, 1979 Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor --Phase I Route Location Study and EIR Page 3 . arterial. (Coast Highway in Corona del Mar is designated as a 4-lane arterial in the City's Circulation Element, with a lesser capacity.) The San Diego Freeway would experience a projected demand of up to 220,000 vehicles per day, compared to a design capacity of about 144,000 vehicles per day. Both the Transportation Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee (TPCAC) and the Environmental Quality Citizens' Advisory Committee (CEQAC) have consid- ered the Phase I EIR and Study Report. Reports from each of the committees have been transmitted to the Council. TPCAC has offered 4 specific recommendations for Council consideration, and CEQAC has expressed reservations about a number of environmental matters. Most of the CEQAC concerns will be addressed in the Phase II report (specific noise data, connections of arterial highways, detailed air quality effects, runoff and siltation effects on Newport Bay, cost analyses, flora and fauna assessments, detailed archeological assessments, etc.). Some of the CEQAC concerns (growth inducing impact of the Corridor, overall air quality impacts) were addressed in the SEOCCS study and environmental document. A resolution has been prepared for Council consideration containing a number of recommendations to the County. 'these are intended to constitute • the City's comments on the Phase I report and EIR. Comments 1 through 4 are essentially the same as the TPCAC recommendations. Comment 5 requests further investigation of route Alternate 2 (the most northerly alignment in the Harbor View Knoll area, traversing.U.C.I. property). Comment 6 requests that par- ticular attention in the Phase II study and EIR be directed to a number of con- cerns expressed previously by the City Council, by CEQAC, and by residents of the nearby communities. Following completion of the review period for the Phase I report and EIR, the County will schedule public hearings•before both the County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The dates for these hearings have not yet been set; however, they will probably be held in September and October. Interested parties will be able to appear and testify at the public hearings. After the hearings have been completed, the Board of Supervisors will select an alignment (or possibly 2 alignments) for the more detailed Phase II study and EIR. An extensive public participation program will be part of the Phase II effort. 6 !�'t'N'vl llG' . A Benjamin B. Nolan Public Works Director BBN:jd Att. for Council Members only • August 27, 1979 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F-2 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Transportation Plan Citizens Advisory Committee SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR The Transportation -Plan Citizens Advisory Committee has received the nine alternate alignments for the west sector of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as presented in EIR 267 prepared for the County of Orange. The Committee offers the following recommendations for your consideration: 1. The alignment designated in the County EIR as Alternate 5 should be the route of the Corridor from the western terminus easterly to the proposed Culver Drive interchange. 2. The alignment of the Corridor easterly of the proposed Culver Drive Interchange should be selected so as to minimize the impact on the proposed National Urban Park. 3. The Committee further feels that all of the proposed alignments are preferable to the No Project alternative. 4. Regardless of the alternate that is chosen, San Joaquin Hills Road should ultimately be connected to the Corridor. • Wfe(V4C6W11A1 RZ- 0. E. Schroeder Chairman - RME:ma 41t.T dr 0 0 DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AGENDA NO. F-2 August 8, 1979 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council: On August 2, 1979, there was a joint meeting of CEQAC and TPCAC to hear a presentation on the 'Orange County Environmental Impact Report drawn up for the proposed alternative routes of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. After having reviewed the presented summary of the EIR, we find there is a serious inadequacy of information with regards to the selection of a route • for the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. We, therefore, bring to your attention the following major concerns: 1. Noise to existing Newport Beach residents. 2. Increased traffic impacts - San Miguel and Ford Roads 3. Decrease in air quality. 4. Increased runoff and siltation to Newport Bay. 5. Unidentified costs to build an initial phase 2 lane segment. Other concerns: 6. Lost archaeological sites. 7. Unidentified loss of flora, fauna, and wildlife. Backoround on the Public Hearin The complete Phase I EIR 267 and the San Joaquin Hills Corridor Route Location Study was not available to the members at the meeting, but a summary was dis- tributed to those in attendance. The Phase I report was done according to CEQA regulations to provide technical and environmental data and to be circulated • to all affected agencies and the public for review and comment. Once this is done, it will then be the task, according to the summary, of the County Board of Supervisors to "act on the adequacy of the EIR and select a route location alternative." -1- City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 .. N TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the_ City Council Page 2. Findings • Based on the information presented to the two official reviewing bodies in Newport Beach, CEQAC and TPCAC, there is considerable doubt that sufficient data is available in the EIR to enable the County Board of Supervisors to make an environmentally sound decision. s Recommendation It is the recommendation of CEQAC that the Newport Beach City Council notify the County Board of Supervisors that the City does not believe the EIR is adequate to make a route selection'and that the City Council insist that the EIR be redone or amended to address the following concerns: 1. CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HARBOR KNOLLS DEVELOPMENT AND LACK OF SPECIFIC NOISE LEVEL DATA ON THE AREA. The most prominent concern expressed was the close proximity of the Corridor 'to Harbor Knolls, Harbor View Homes, and Harbor Ridge. At a distance of 500 feet from Harbor Knolls, the study predicts that the noise level would be below 65 CNEL, the level at which law requires sound mitigation measures. It also appears that the sound line may have been done on a flat projection with- out contours'factored into the calculations. No information was available . as to how far below 65 CNEL the noise level would be, even though the EIR included data on.the proximity of the development to the route and the volume of cars (85,000 to 130,000 vehicles per day) at build -out. Since the purpose of the EIR was to provide information to aid in the selection of a route, it seems very important here.to'know exactlyiwhat the noise impact would be to the existing development and that those who are living there should be.adequately informed as to the significant increase in noise in their area. This brings us to the next major concern expressed at'the meeting. 2. EXTENSION OF FORD ROAD AND SAN MIGUEL ROAD TO CONNECT TO CORRIDOR. It was the assumption of those presenting both Ford Road and San Miguel Road would'eventually be extended to connect to the proposed corridor by an on and off ramp at each connection point. When asked if the subsequent noise and traffic impacts to the two roads had been evaluated as part of the EIR review, the answer was "no." This information would be more than invaluable in determining the route selected for the corridor. Further, these traffic impacts would effect both Harbor Knolls and Harbor View Homes as well as homes on Harbor Ridge since the connection of the two roads to the corridor would significantly endanger the health, safety and welfare of these Newport Beach • residents, especially the children who live in these developments and use both roads to get to school and to the shopping centers. The noise levels from the increased traffic on Ford Road and San Miguel added to the undetermined CNEL from the corridor would create a considerable impact to the residents of these areas. EFFECTS TO AIR QUALITY. There was an assessment made.of the air quality in the region as a result of the construction of the corridor. In all of the three alignments the assessment was "no significant difference" even though an additional 85,000 - 130,000 cars per day would be traveling through the area: Surely no one development.would like I TO: Honorable Mayd and Members of the City Counci� Page 3. to be considered the straw that broke the "significant pollution's" back, but it seems that a corridor that would significantly contribute to the building expansion all along the route as well as the traffic on the route itself should take some "credit" for an increase in poor air quality to the region. In addition, the summary neglected to point out the growth inducing impacts sure to occur as a result of the corridor being built. s 4. RUNOFF AND SILTATION EFFECT ON UPPER NEWPORT BAY Complete data was presented on the movement of earth involved for each route choice. As one can see in the EIR, the amount of cut and fill for any of the choices would be sizable, with a number of the cuts more than 100 feet. And of course, the asphalt and cement poured would'be immense. Yet, no assessment was made as to the effects of the runn-off and siltation as a result of the construction of the corridor. The county staff member did state, however, that everything north of Laguna Canyon Road would drain into the Upper Newport Bay. This must be a major consideration in determining the route::sel:eoted. A map of the drainage patterns and basins should have been presented,;especially to the Newport Beach reviewing bodies. It is also incredulous that no assessment of the resultant water pollution is included in this phase EIR. 5. NO ASSESSMENT OF THE FIRST PHASE TWO LANE ROAD DEVELOPMENT COSTS. .Some discussion occurred regarding plans to begin construction. The staff expressed a preference to the completion of a two lane route the length of the selected corridor alignment rather than the construction of the route in segments. The EIR does not, however, assess the cost for two lanes of land acquisition, grading, and construction from MacArthur Boulevard to the Avery exit on the San Diego Freeway. Since funds are tight for roads these days and the gasoline scarce and the completion of the selected route 10 to 20 years away, it seems that financial assessment of a preliminary route would be most meaningful at this stage of the assessment process. 6. NO IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION 'OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES EFFECTED. Perhaps in Phase II EIR, after a route alignment has been selected, the sub- sequent CEQA required EIR may address mitigation measures for projected disruption of the 10-16 archaeological sites along its path, but it seems that prior to commitment to such a route, these archaeological sites which will be effected deserve consideration and identification now before they are condemned to be lost forever to human history. 7. NO FLORA, FAUNA AND WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT MADE isthe missing in the first phase EIR was also any description or assessment of the flora, fauna or extensive wildlife that would be disrupted by 6 to 8 lanes of freeway passing through it. 8. COST TO REROUTE BONITA CANYON ROAD. Of the three alternate routes presented at the meeting, one alignment would follow along Bonita Canyon Road and require the existing road to be rerouted. The costs of this rerouting were not factored into the EIR's alternate route cost assessment. Since these costs may be considerable, this information would be invaluable prior to the selection of a route. • • . I \n 1'' • TO: Honorable Mayolod Members of the City Council. Page 4. The purpose of the CEQA mandated EIR As stated in CEQA, the purpose of the EIR is td "provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment;.to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized and to indicate alternatives to such a project." Based upon this intent, the information made available to the public is inadequate to present a true picture of the resultant environmental effects should any of these corridor route alternatives be selected by the Board of Supervisors. It is thus the obligation of this reviewing body as well as that of the Newport Beach -City Council to insist that more complete data be - made available to the public prior to the Board's selection. THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF A CORRIDOR SELECTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE DESERVE THE MOST THOROUGH PUBLIC SCRUTINY'.. Sincerely, Ronald Linsky - Acting Chairman • Citizens' Environmental Quality Advisory Committee RL/dt 0 +' E ^ n 19378 3y i11� r"'Vt COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 9 27 p A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPORTING THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND ENDORSING THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT INDICATED ON EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, the Southeast Orange County Circulation a Study identified the need for a San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the"Orange County Board of Supervisors an, the Master Plan b`f Arterial Highways in August, 1976, incorporating a conceptually proposed alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS., the Orange County Board of Supervisors authorized a route location study for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in August, 1977; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the early construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection to relieve traffic congestion on the Pacific Coast Highway, San Diego Freeway and other affected arterial highways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the,City Council Of the City of Newport Beach endorses for further study and environ- mental evaluation the San Joaquin Hills Corridor alignment indicated on Exhibit A; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach does not support a construction phasing plan that would temporarily terminate the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor at Laguna Canyon Road; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council''the City of Newport Beach looks forward to continuing participation in -the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Route Location Study. ATTEST: City Clerk ADOPTED 13th day of February , 1978. a DDO/bc . 2/7/78 !I JUN 28 1976 RESOLUTION NO. 8827 9y the CITY COUNCIL CIT.. pp. &WPORT BaAQAA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXPRESSING TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE THE CITY'S RECOiIMENDATIONS REGARDING THE SOUTHEAST ORANGE COUNTY CIRCULATION STUDY (SEOCCS) WHEREAS, the•County of Orange has caused to be prepared the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study which considers the regional development of Southeast Orange County, the land uses therein, and transportation systems needed; and WHEREAS,'the'City Council held a public hearing on November 24, 1975, to consider the Southeast Orange -County Circulation Study; and-' WHEREAS,. on May 10, 1976, the City of Newport Beach Transportation Plan Citizents Advisory Committee made recommenda- tions to the City Council regarding the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council recommends the following: 1. That -the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be amended as soon as practicable to'incorporate- the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor with -direct connections to the Corona del Mar Freeway on.the westerly end and to the San Diego Freeway on the easterly end. The Corridor should include provision for transit facilities and special environmental treatment such as split level roadways and variable width landscaped medians. 2. That the plan provide for early implementation of the Corridor to accommodate current and future projected transportation needs for vehicles and other modes of transportation within this Corridor. 3. That the following phasing of the right-of-way acquisition and road construction be implemented. -1- First,_establish the Bonita Canyon Bypass connection with the Corona del Mar Freeway and protect the remainder of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor right-of-way to the San Diego Freeway. Second, extend acquisition and construction of the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor from Bonita Canyon to the San Diego Freeway in the vicinity of Avery Parkway. , Third, construct Culver Drive and San Canyon Drive between the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and Coast Highway.• Fourth, extendSanJoaquin Hills Road to connect with the Corridor_. •4. That the land use"developments in the Southeast "Orange County area be coordinated and synchronized with the construction"of roadways in order to avoid the imposi- tion of unnecessary traffic loads on existing roads. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk will cause a copy of this Resolution to be transmitted to,the County of Orange. ADOPTED this.. 28th day of June 1976. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DDO/bc 6/29/76 r • • RESOLUTION NO. 8641 5�Z,: . A::,-lA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOT APPROVE ZONE CHANGES OR COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS IN THE SEOCCS STUDY AREA IF THOSE CHANGES WOULD PRECLUDE THE IMPLEMEN- TATION OF ANY OF THE FOUR CIRCULATION ALTERNATIVES SHOWN IN THE SEOCCS REPORT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach is concerned with the impacts of development within the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study Area and the impacts said development might have on the City of Newport Beach; and* WHEREAS, the SEOCCS Study is a long range planning guide for the development of Southeast Orange County which requires -that all transportation options be Kept open until final conclusions are made; and WHEREAS, the City Council is concerned with regional development in -the SEOCCS Study Area, with the land uses therein, and'with the transportation systems as proposed in the Study; and WHEREAS, various proposals are presently pending which require General Plan amendments in the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study Area which will be considered by the Planning Commission of Orange County; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has considered.the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study and recommended that the Orange County Planning Commission not approve zone changes or county General Plan Amendments in the SEOCCS Study Area if those changes would preclude the implementation of any of the four circulation alternatives shown in the SEOCCS report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that the City Council recommends that the Orange County Planning Commission not approve zone changes or County General Plan Amendments in the SEOCCS Study Area if those changes would preclude.the implementation of any of the four. circulation alternatives shown in the SEOCCS Report. ADOPTED this 24th day of November 1975. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk i HCR/bc 11/21/75 11/24/75 S,yJ RESOLUTION NO. S 6 i 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH EXPRESSING TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE THE CITY'S RECOMMENDA- TIONS REGARDING THE SOUTHEAST ORANGE COUNTY CIRCULATION STUDY (SEOCCS) WHEREAS, the County of Orange has caused to be prepared the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study which considers the regional development of Southeast Orange County, the land uses therein, and transportation systems needed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of, the City of Newport Beach considered said study at its meeting of November 6, 1975; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at said meeting recommended: 1. The proposed San Joaguin Transportation Corridor should be included in the circulation.system, with direct connections to the Corona del Mar freeway on the westerly end and to the San Diego Freeway on the easterly end; 2. In the TICMAP area, the present County Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be followed except as it may be modified in the TICMAP hearing process.. The proposed loop system should not be incorporated in the Planning process at this time. 3. The proposed Foothill Transportation Corridor merits further investigation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on November 24, 1975 to consider the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council i• of the City of Newport Beach that the City of Newport Beach makes the following recommendations regarding the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study: 1. The County Master Plan of Arterial Highways shouldbe amended as soon as practicable to incorporate the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, with direct connections to the Corona del Mar Freeway on the westerly end and to the San Diego Freeway on the easterly end. The corridor should include provision for transit facilities, and special environmental treatment such as split level roadways and variable width landscaped medians. ' 2: In the TICMAP area, the present County Master Plan of Arterial Highways should be followed except as it may be modified in the TICMAP hearing process. The proposed loop system should not be incorporated in the planning process at this time. 3. The proposed Foothill Transportation Corridor merits further investigation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the -City Clerk will cause a copy of this Resolution to be transmitted to the County of Orange. ADOPTED this 24th' day of November, 1975. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk HRC:yz 11/25/75 0 • Resolution No. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach expressing to the Orange County Board of Supervisors City Comments on the Phase I Route Location Study and EIR for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors amended the Master Plan of Arterial Highways in August, 1976, incorporating a conceptually proposed alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has previously 71— a P 2 crJ v y expressed support for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and �rfll °� WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport,Beach continues to �pa � � I F VO'acr�! support construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and nitt ?i!',yl • WHEREAS, the County of Orange has had prepared a Phase I Route Location Study and EIR for the purpose of evaluating alternative alignments for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, and has requested comments on the document; NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach offers the following comments and recommendations; 1. The alignment designated as Alternate should be the route of the Corridor from the westerly terminus easterly to the proposed Culver Drive interchange. 2. The alignment of the Corridor easterly of the proposed Culver Drive • ter; Q interchange should be selected so as to miniTize thg impact on the A/cp&ririf lr` ' YPs�u�2�cwf � ts, a it ` proposed National Urban Park. i-r/-C-2_--/- j' `0� d Y-� ry A M t C�?r R' rr /%. J 1� ✓% 7 3. Any of the propose alignmen`s is preferable to the No �roject y, t alternative. 4. Regardless of the alternate that is chosen, San Joaquin Hills Road CrV ` �Lvv should ultimately be connected to the Corridor. . 5. Further investigation of the feasibility of Alternatl2 should be made. 6. In the preparation of the Phase II EIR and Study Report particular attention should be directed to the following: a. Preparation of a construction phasing plan which will minimize impacts on the existing arterial highway system. b. Develop specific data regarding noise impacts on Harbor View Knolls. c. Assess traffic impacts of potential connections to Ford Road,, San Joaquin Hills Road, and San Miguel Drive (if • a connection is considered to San Miguel). d. Runoff and siltation effect on Newport Bay. /�/, / e. Assessment and mitigation of impacts on archaelogical sites, U U Ift/ eaxr rrlor�cC flora'5a fauna. G ADOPTED this day of , 1979. /y®J'etq— a& 0-- P'-, trlr`j'_/'npwa/ 71--Qt't>, Mayor Attest: City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (714) 640-2110 February 6, 1979 Dr. Donald Wilson, Chairman South Coast Regional Commission 666 East Ocean Blvd. - Suite 3107 Long Beach, CA 90801 Re: City Position on San Joaquin Hills Transportation 'Corridor Dear Dr. Wilson: During our presentation of testimony at the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program hearing of January 31, 1979, the Coastal Commission inquired as to the position of the City of Newport Beach regarding the San Joaquin Hills Trans- portation Corridor. As set forth in City Council Resolution No. 9272, adopted February 13, 1978, the City of Newport.Beach has supported the early construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor and its connection to the Corona del Mar Free- way to relieve traffic congestion on Coast Highway and other arterial highways in this area. The City's previous correspondence on circulation -related issues in the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program has been consistent with this basic position. A copy of Resolution No. 9272 is attached for the Coastal Commission's informa- tion. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, PAUL RYCKOFF, Mayor v City of Newport Beach Attachment: Resolution No. 9272 PR/DD/gg City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 C Z f 1978t�lv RESOLUTION NO. 9 2.'7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPORTING THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND ENDORSING THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT INDICATED ON EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study identified the need for a San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors araended'the Master Plan bf Arterial Highways in August, 1976, incorporating a conceptually proposed alignment for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Supervisors authorized a route location study for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor in August, 1977; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the early construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and the Corona del Mar Freeway connection to relieve traffic congestion on the Pacific Coast Highway, San Diego Freeway and other affected arterial highways; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach endorses for further study and environ- mental evaluation the San Joaquin Fulls Corridor alignment indicated on Exhibit A; BE IT FURTN2R RESOLVED that the City Council of the CLty of Newport Beach does not support a construction phasing plan, that would temaora_ily terminate the San Zoaquin Hills '['Y,ansporLation Corridor at Laguna Canyon Road; 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Counci'1'of the " City of Newport Beach looks forward to continuing participation in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Route Location Study. ADOPTED 13th day of February , 1978. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk. DDO/bc Z/7/78