The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDEIR_SJHTC_EIREIS, T R, "-, T A zo D /0 Draft Environmental. act Report/ Environme ,, al Impact Statement FEDERAL HIGHWmx 0 1 1 1 FHWA-CA-EIS-90- D SCH. No. 9001 0230 12-ORA-73 P.M. 0-15 E.A. 102%0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF STATE ROUTE 73 EXTENSION BETWEEN INTERSTATE ROUTE 5 IN THE CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO: AND JAMBOREE ROAD IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH KNOWN AS THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AND I-5 WIDENING BETWEEN SR-74 ORTEGA HIGHWAY AND THE CORRIDOR AND RAMP IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN JAMBOREE ROAD AND BIRCH STREET ON EXISTING STATE ROUTE 73 LOCATED IN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO: (State) Division 13, Public Resources Code (Federal) 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C), and 49 U.S.C. 303 BY THE U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration AND San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Orange County, California COOPERATING AGENCIES: California Department of Transportation California Public Utilities Commission U.S. Corps of Engineers California Coastal Commission U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service California Transportation Commission U.S. Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Fish and Game California Water Resources Control Board DATE WALT H. HAGEN Deputy District Director District 12 California Department of Transportation DATE BRUCE E. CANNON 11 Division Administrator Federal,_Highway Administration -7Z3 ?D e�� t,&--�It DAT9 WILLIAM WOOLETT Executive Director Transportation Corridor Agencies The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Judith L. Heyer James J. Bednar Steve Letterly Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration San Joaquin Hills 2501 Pullman Street California Division Transportation Corridor Agency Santa Ana, CA 92705 P. 0. Box 1915 345 Clinton Street (714) 724-2252 Sacramento, CA 95812-1915 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (916) 551-1310 (714) 557-3298 x297 Abstract This DEIS analyzes alternative transportation actions proposed to meet the need for north/south highway linkage between existing State Route 73 and Interstate 5 in Orange County, California. Alternatives include two build alternatives: The Demand Management Alternative and the Conventional Alternative. A No Build Alternative is also included. The Demand Management Alternative provides six general purpose lanes and sufficient median (881 to 1169) for expansion to reversible lanes, exclusive high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, or future forms of mass transit. The Conventional Alternative provides six to twelve general purpose lanes and sufficient median (641) for either exclusive HOV facilities or mass transit. The following features are.common to both Build Alternatives: initial operation as tollroads (until construction bands are retired), incorporation of maintenance facilities, and improvements which are phased based on financial and traffic considerations. Potential beneficial impacts include alleviating traffic congestion on Interstates 405 and 5 and State Route 11 an improved transportation network (including arterial highways), and improved access to UC Irvine and recreational areas in Orange County. Potential adverse impacts include impacts on sensitive plant species; riparian and animal habitat; public parkland; visual "resources; noise; open space; displacement of people and business; and changes in land use. Mitigations are proposed which reduce or avoid impacts. Under the No Build Alternative, no Corridor or associated facilities would be built. The traffic relief benefits of the Build Alternatives would not occur. Comments on this document are due by and should be sent to: Steve Letterly, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency, 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626. 1 SUMMARY PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC or Corridor) project involves constructing the SR-73 Freeway from the I-5 Freeway in the City of San Juan Capistrano to its existing terminus at Jamboree Road (Figure S-1). Depending on the I-5 connection, the Corridor is a 17.5 to 19.4 mile project. Portions of the proposed project are located within the cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San .Juan Capistrano, and unincorporated areas of Orange County, California. In addi- tion, ramp improvements on the existing SR-73 will be constructed between Birch Street and Jamboree Road as part of the project. The proposed project consists of two build alternatives: the Demand Man- agement Alternative and the Conventional Alternative. A No Build Alternative is also included. Both build alternatives would extend State Route 73 from Interstate 5 in San Juan Capistrano to Jamboree Road 1n Newport Beach.. Both build alternatives include associated facilities such as noise walls and a maintenance facility. Either build alternative would operate as a toll facil- ity until bonds are repaid. The Demand Management Alternative includes three general purpose lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes for weaving and steep grades, as well as an 88 to 116 foot median, for additional capacity, as 'warranted. The Conventional Alternative includes three to five general purpose lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes for weaving and steep grades, _as well as a 64 to 116 foot median for additional capacity. Figure S-2 shows cross sections for both build alternatives. It is anticipated that high occu- pancy vehicle (HOV) facilities will be implemented in the median when traffic demand warrants. The Demand Management median can be converted to concurrent HOV lanes and a fixed guideway rail/transit system. The Conventional Alterna-- tive allows for either transit or HOV in the median. Other alternatives considered are: • Non -alignment Alternatives • Alignment Alternatives • Cross Section Alternatives • Interchange Alternatives • Mainline Toll Plaza Location Alternatives • Wetlands Avoidance Alternatives The � 9 non -alignment, alignment and cross section alternatives will not 9 provide for carrying out the transportation objectives of the project. NEED FOR PROJECT The Corridor has been a central component of .a 14 year cooperative plan- ning process incorporating regional land use, transportation and open space planning concerns. The Corridor was adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in August 1976, as part of the Orange County Master -Plan of Arteri- al Highways (MPAH), based upon needs identified in the Southeast Orange ,County I i .BHA LIMIA LOCATION MAP FIGURE S-1 I 1 1 G a 0 m 0 m 0 oc 0 W J. J 0 H 0 H W z J z a H z w w Q a 0 z Q W 0 ol— J a z 0 z W z 0 C-V— L�1.— N Ch W m u. U) O 5 , LU a c a cc W z Z cQ i a a Circulation Study (SEOCCS). The Phase I Route Location Study commenced in August, 1977, concluding with EIR No. 267 approved by the County Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1979. The Corridor was officially placed on the State Highway system in Septem- ber of 1983, making it eligible for State and federal funding. Section 120 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1987 establishes a pilot program permitting federal participation in seven toll facilities, including a toll facility in Orange County, California. On October 12, 1987, the Orange County Transporta- tion commission designated the SJHTC as a pilot demonstration project autho- rized by the federal legislation. In December, 1987, the State of California passed legislation giving the Transportation Corridor Agencies of Orange County the authority to construct the Corridor as a toll facility. A Draft EIR (No. 494) was prepared prior to the designation as a toll road. That document has ' been superseded by this EIR/EIS which evaluates the Corridor as a toll facility highway. Present congestion problems in south Orange County create significant pressure on arterial highway systems located near or parallel to congested interstate freeways. Projected traffic conditions demonstrate significant increases of traffic on the existing circulation system. In many cases the existing levels of service on these highways and freeways are already at LOS F, forced flow conditions with operating speeds of less than 25 mph. Levels of service are expected to worsen in the future. Major increases of traffic are expected on I-5, I-405 and SR-1. Assuming a No Build scenario and no circulation improvements, I-5 will have to accommo- date an additional demand of 39,000 to 65,000 vehicles per day between the I-405 junction and Avery Parkway without the Corridor. This would mean freeway travel demands of up to 330,000 vehicles per day on I-5, which is currently operating at its capacity of approximately 145,000 vehicles per day. I-405 and SR-1 are also projected to be overloaded and severely congested by the year 2010. Travel demand on I-405 is projected to be 170,000 to 220,000 vehicles per day without the Corridor, compared to the capacity of between 165,000 and 205,000 vehicles per day. Demand will exceed this capacity by the year 2005. Travel demand on SR-1 (a planned four to six lane arterial) is projected to be 34,000 to 64,000 vehicles per day without the Corridor. This compares to a planned capacity of 50,000 vehicles per day. Thus, surface arterials would have to accommodate heavier traffic volumes and through traffic movements without construction of the project. As a result, motorists would experience major traffic congestion on these roadways. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED BENEFITS Primary Project ObiectiveslExpected Benefits 1. Alleviate existing and projected peak period traffic congestion on regional circulation system; 2. Minimize regional through traffic use of arterial highways. 1 I Secondary Project Objectives/Expected Benefits 3. Provide an alternative access route to the University of California., Irvine (UCI); 4. Relieve traffic impacts on SR -I, MacArthur Boulevard, and Laguna Canyon Road, and provide access from inland areas to the recreational areas along the coast and various open space and greenbelt areas. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED IF THE BUILD ALTERNATIVE IS CHOSEN The following agencies, in addition to Caltrans, the Federal Highway Administration, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation. Corridor Agency will use this EIR/EIS in decision making. AGENCY ROLE OF AGENCY TYPE OF DECISION U.S. Environmental Cooperating Agency Review and Comment on Protection Agency Air, Water Quality, 404 permit U.S. Dept. of Interior Cooperating Agency . Review and comment on Fish and Wildlife Service 404 permit affecting :Nat,ion's waters (Corps of Engineers), Endangered species U.S. Army Corps of Cooperating Agency Section 404 permit Engineers 1 Southern Californi-a Responsible Agency AQMP Conformity Association of Determination Governments California Department Responsible Agency 1601 Notification for of Fish and Game streambed alteration California Transporta- Responsible Agency Approve project and tion Commission funding California Coastal Responsible Agency Coastal consistency Commission determination California Public Responsible Agency PUC permit (railroad) Utilities Commission California Regional Responsible Agency Water discharge permit Water Quality Control ,Board - Santa Ana Region Cities of Newport Beach, Responsible Agencies Freeway Agreement - Irvine, Laguna Beach, in accordance with Joint 5 - 1 ri Laguna Niguel, Mission Exercise of Powers Agreement Viejo and San Juan Coastal permit - Irvine, Capistrano Newport Beach Board of Regents of UC Responsible Agency Use of UCI lands Irvine County of Orange Responsible Agency Coastal permit PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A major program of public participation and involvement occurred in past Phases of SJHTC studies (1977-1982). The public involvement process has con- tinued from 1982 to the present. Numerous meetings have been held with various citizens groups, interested parties, and the Traffic Technical Committee and Joint Policy Statement Task Force. In 1984 and 1988, environmental scoping meetings were held. Draft EIR No. 494 was circulated in June, 1988; however, it was never certified. Draft EIR No. 494 was prepared prior to the Corridor being designated as a toll facility. Draft EIR No. 494 has been superseded by this EIR/EIS, which evaluates the Corridor as a toll facility. A revised Notice of Intent for this EIR/EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1989. A Notice of Preparation was distributed on March 5, 1990. Responses to these notices have been considered in preparing this EIR/EIS. The original Notice of Intent was published on July 23, 1984. AREAS OF CONTROVERSYJISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The following is a summary list of the major areas of controversy as expressed through scoping meetings, section 4(f) coordination, and the public participation programs discussed above: -Need for the Project. -Size of the Project (e.g., number of general purpose lanes). -Allowance for truck use of the facility. -Phasing of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. -Effect of the Project on arterial traffic. -Visual effect of the Project on residential areas (e.g., Turtle Rock, Harbor Ridge) -Visual effect of the Project on open space and recreational areas (e.g., Bommer Canyon Park, Sycamore Hills Open Space). -Noise effects of the Project on residential and open space areas and visual effects of noise barriers. -Growth-inducing effects of the Project. -Air quality effects. -Construction effects. -Deletion of off road bicycle trail along a portion of Rancho Viejo Road. 1 Caltrans and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency are co -lead agencies for CEQA, and the Federal Highway Administration is the lead, agency for NEPA. The major issue to be resolved is determining the most suitable alterna- tive (i.e., Demand Management versus Conventional) to meet County transporta- tion needs in a manner which complies with the project objectives. A preferred alternative must be selected and indicated in the Final EIS. It must be determined and stated which alternative (or design variation) is environmentally preferred. All reasonable alternatives are under consider- ation. Final selection of an alternative or design variati-on will not be made until this DEIS is circulated for public review and alternatives' impacts and comments on the draft EIS and from the public hearing have been fully evaluated. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Implementation of either the Demand Management or Conventional Alternative will have a variety of environmental effects. These environmental impacts and other project information are summarized in Table A. While CEQA requires that each effect having a "significant impact" be identified in an EIR, NEPA does not. In this document, references to "signi- ficant impact" are made to fulfill this requirement under CEQA, pursuant to standards of California law. No representation as to significance made in this document represents an assessment as to the magnitude of such an impact under the requirements of Federal law. Under NEPA, no such determination need be made for each environmental effect. (The fact that an EIS is being prepared for this project represents FHWA's assessment that overall this project has "significant impacts" (beneficial and adverse] on the quality of the environ- ment.) This environmental evaluation is in response to those project features known at -this time. i i 1 I., TABLE A -•COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND MAJOR IMPACTS Description of Three general purpose'tanes each Three to five general purpose lanes' The Corridor would not be built. Mainline Section direction with auxiliary lanes for each di'rection with auxiliary lanes Realignment of I-5 would not occur. weaving and steep grades. An 88-116 for weaving and steep grades. A 64 Other transportation projects includ- foot wide median would provide for HOV foot wide median would provide for HOV ing the build out of the Master Plan lanes and possible transit fa ilities. lanes or possible transit facilities, of Arterial Highways and the Eastern'& Maximum width of roadway would., be 254 Maximum roadway width would be 376 Foothi.tl Transportation Corridors feet. feet. would be,U lt. Some of these improvements are also assumed to be Will operate as a toll -facility until Will operate as a toll facility until built under either build -alternative., bonds are repaid. bonds are repaid. However, to the extent the improve-•- ments would not meet the project de- mand, additional improvements to par- aLLel facilities (e.g., I-5, I-405, SR-1, Moulton Parkway and Laguna Can- yon Road) would be necessary. ,Interchanges Ten general purpose and seven exclu- Ten general purpose and seven exclu- None sive HOV interchanges. sive interchanges. Cost: Unidentified costs to construct Project Costs $108.1 million $112.1 million improvements to facilities such as Right -.of -Way Costs 768.3 million .70.0 million I-5, I-405, SR-1 and Moulton Parkway. Right -of -Way: Unknown -amount of right-of-way Acres 669.9 acres 682.1 acres required for potential improvements needed on arterial highways end I-5. Grading: Unknown quantity of excess material Excess Material 2.5-4 million cubic yards 3.5-5 million cubic yards related to potential improvements to arterial.highways and I-5. :i:;:::s,pl?c'E??''•#'E''":Ef>?E>`<st'''':EEE'�''•�t` ...... LD!':At ERNI►TIVE :::t:<"E'rs:::::...:......::....::: bEMAND .MANAGEMENY::`AL'•YERNAYIVt •::s:;:::>::»<::<::: ;:>s:. ......«::: ';>':;>:si> i.::::>;:g;;;i::?:?:;.;:;>;:.;:.;•:>.>:<::3>:.>:::::<;:;. :<: I tL ... Visual Visual impacts to existing residences Visual impacts to existing residences No visual impacts to existing resi- in portions of Nellie Gail and ALiso in portions of Paseo de Cdtinas-, dences or open space areas. Viejo and open space areas of Laguna Nellie Gail, and Atiso Viejo and open Laurel and Sycamore Hills. Would be space areas of Laguna laurel. Would partially mitigated, but significant. be partially mitigated, but signi-fi- cant. Streambed/Ftoodplain 12.7 acres of ftoodplain encroachment. 16.6 acres of ftoodplain encroachment. No encroachment into floodplains or Significant impact to natural and "Significant impact to natural and impacts to natural and beneficial beneficial floodplain values at: beneficial ftoodplain values at: ftoodplain values. • Bonita Creek • Oso Creek • Coyote Channel 0 Bonita Creek • Coyote.ChanneL Air Quality -Positive net impact to air-qUA 9-ty. '' Positive net impact --to air quality. 'No Build would result in higher regional CO, NO., and PM emissions. Noise Adverse noise impacts on a residential Adverse noise impacts on a residential Avoids impacts to areas adjacent to area (Spotted Butt Lane) and a area (Spotted Bull Lane) and a the Corridor route. Increase in noise commercial/residential area (Bristol commercial/residential area (Bristol levels on a number of arterial high - Street). Not mitigated. Street). Not mitigated. ways -in the area. - Housing and Business Housing: 12 partial/1 full takes Housing: 13 partial takes ' No impacts to properties along the Relocation Businesses: 14 partial/16 full takes- Businesses: 7 partial/7 full takes Corridor route. Impacts to properties adjacent to arteriaL'highways and 1-5/ I-405 that could be impacted by improvements to these facilities. Biological Resources Impacts 13.8 acres of wetlands. Impacts 15.2 acres of wetlands. No wetlands would be impacted. No Mitigated. Mitigated. impacts to vegetation and wildlife. Loss of coastal sage scrub and chapar- Loss of coastal sage scrub and•chapar- ral habitat; restriction of wildlife rat habitat., restriction of wildlife movement; fragmentation of wildlife movement; fragmentation of wildlife habitat; and reduction in wildlife habitat; and reduction in wildlife Population. Significant. population. Significant. Traffic/Circulation Relieves congestion on arterials and Relieves congestion on arterials and Peak period conditions on arterial I-5/•I-405. optimistic HOV scenario I-5/I"405. 'Provides level of service highways, 1-5, and I-405 would be provides level of service D or better b or better on all -links of the Cori- substantially impacted by the No Buidd on all links of the Corridor. Conser- dor: Alternative. Pacific Coast Highway, vative HOV scenario would experience Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive, congestion on some links for portions If improvements to SR-73 between Birch Laguna Canyon Road east of the of the day. and I-.465, the Corridor wil-t increase Corridor, University Drive, Bonita congestion on SR-73. Canyon Road, and I-5 would experience If improvements to SR-73 between Birch significant operational problems. and 1-405, the Corridor will increase congestion on SR-73. "4(f) Resource - -- -This alternative "wfit'l`substanfia[t"y --$ame effectes'Oetiiar�d'�tanagement -No a -feet: - impair the viewshed from the following Alternative. 4(f) resources: • Rancho Viejo and -County of Orange No. 72 Bicycle Traits • Niguel Equestrian Trails 0 ALiso Creek Trail System. • Sycamore Hills Open Space • Sommer Canyon Park There will also be substantial impair- ment of the noise environment At the following 4(f): • County of Orange -Bicycle Trail No. 72 • Niguel Equestrian Trail • ALiso Creek Trail System • Sycamore Hills Open Space Effects partially mitigated. Substan- tially impaired. - 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY ................................ 1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 PROJECT LIMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . 1 - 1 1.3 NEED FOR THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . 1 - 1 1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED BENEFITS • .1 - 10 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES. . . . 2 - 1 2.1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT BUILD ALTERNATIVES ... . . . . . . . 2 - 1 2.2 COMMON FEATURES OF THEBUILDALTERNATIVES . . . . 2,- 1 2.3 DESIGN FEATURES OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE (BUILD ALTERNATIVE) . . 2 - 18 2.4 DESIGN FEATURES OF CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE (BUILD 'ALTERNATIVE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 _ 25 2.5 PHASING . .... 2 27 2.6 RIGHT-OF-WAYANDPROJECTCOSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 28 2.7 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . 2 - 28 2.8 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . . 2 - 28 2.9 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . 2 - 51 2.10 RELATED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 53 ` 2.11 PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 57 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3 1 3.2 GEOTECHNICAL _ 3 2 3.3 WATER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 7 3.4 3.5 AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NOISE . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - . 3 11 22 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . 3 27 3.7 LAND USE 3 - 47 3.8 HOUSING AND BUSINESS*RELOCATION 3 - 53 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES . 3 - 55 3.10 HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . 3 - 56 3.11 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS . . .. . '. . . . . . . . . 3 - 57 3.12 PEDESTRIAN, EQUESTRIAN ANDBICYCLE-FACILITIES. . . . . . 3 - 61 3.13 VISUAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . ... 3 - 66 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . 4 - 1 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 1 4.2 GEOTECHNICAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 17 4.3 WATER RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 20 4.4 AIR QUALITY • _ 4 33 4.5 NOISE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 43 4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 -. 64 4.7 WETLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 74 4.8 LAND USE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 89 4.9 HOUSING AND BUSINESS RELOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 103 1 I � TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES 4.11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICh RESOURCES' . 4.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS . . 4.13 PEDESTRIAN, EQUESTRIAN AND BICYCLE*FACILITIES . 4.14 LANDFORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.15 VISUAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16 ENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.17 CONSTRUCTION�ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES . . . 10.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT ARE SENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION B GLOSSARY C FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT D ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT E CUMULATIVE IMPACTS F NOP/NOI G CORRESPONDENCE H TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT I HOUSING AND BUSINESS DISPLACEMENT CHART J VISUAL GRAPHICS PAGE 4 - 110 4 - 112 4 - 115 4 - 118 4 - 120 4 - 122 4 - 136 4 - 139 5-1 7-1 a � I � ITABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) ITECHNICAL STUDIES (BOUND SEPARATELY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 1 - GEOTECHNICAL STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 2 - HYDROLOGICAL TECHNICAL STUDIES: FLOODPLAIN HYDRAULIC STUDY CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE STUDY WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 3 - AIR QUALITY STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 4 - NOISE IMPACT STUDY TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 5 - BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL STUDIES: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT WILDLIFE CROSSING TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ANALYSIS OF AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES - WETLANDS IMPACTS SPRING 1990 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY RESULTS TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 6 - HAZARDOUS WASTE INITIAL SITE ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 7 - TRAFFIC TECHNICAL STUDIES TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDY TOLL AND TOLL FREE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS SOUTH END STUDY I 1 1 1 11 1 El ILIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure S-1 - Location Map . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure Figure S-2 1.3.1 - Typical Mainline Roadway Sections . . . . . . . . Existing and Projected ADT Volumes . . . . . . . .. 1 .9 _ 4 Figure 2.1 _ Location Map .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2 1 Figure 2.2 - General Purpose Interchange Locations.&Configurations2 - 4 Figure 2.3 - Exclusive HOV Interchanges/Access. . . . . . . . . 2 - 8 Figure 2.4 - Topographical Elevations 2 - 9 Figure 2.5 - Toll Plaza Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 12 Figure 2.6 Mainline Toll Plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 _ 14 Figure 2.7 _ Typical Ramp Toll Plaza 2 15 Figure 2.8 - Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 17 Figure 2.9 - Typical Mainline Roadway Sections— Demand Management and Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 19 Figure 2.10 - Lan Configurations 2 _ 21 Figure 2.11 - Possible Median Capacity Improvements . . . . . . 2 - 22 Figure 2.17- - I-5 Connection - Alignment #1 . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 24 Figure 2.13 - I-5 Connection - Alignment #2 2 - 26 Figure 2.14 - Routes Previously Studied . . .. . 2 - 41 Figure 2.15 - Alternative Alignments: "R"and "U", "L" and "S" 2 - 47 Figure 3.2.1 - Local and Regi-onal Fault Map . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3 Figure 3.2.2 - Geotechnical Constraints Map . . .. . . . . . 3 - 5 Figure 3.3.1 - Major Watersheds, Water Courses and Floodplain Areas 3 - 8 Figure 3.5.1 - Noise Receptor Locations . . .. . . . . . . . 3 - 23 Figure 3.6.1 - Plant Communities and Sensitive Resources 3 - 30 Figure 3.6.2 - Plant Communities and Sensitive Resources . . . . 3 - 31 Figure 3.6.3 - Plant Communities and Sensitive. Resources . . . . 3 - 32 Figure 3.6.4 - Plant Communities and Sensitive Resources . . . . 3 - 33 Figure 3.6.5 - Plant Communities and Sensitive Resources . . . . 3 - 34 Figure 3.6.6 - Wildlife Movement Corridors . . .. . . 3 - 46 Figure 3.7.1 - Existing Generalized Land Uses in the Corridor Vicinity ... 3 - 48 Figure 3.8.1 - Existing and Future ResidentialandCommercial Developments. . . ... . . . . . . . . 3 - 54 Figure 3.11.1 - Location of Potential HazardousWaste/Material- Sites 3 - 58 Figure 3.12.1 - Master Plan of Bicycle, Riding and Hiking Trails 3 - 62 Figure 4.3.1 - Streambed Modifications to Oso Creek . . . . 4. - 21 Figure 4.3.2 - Streambed Modifications to Coyote Canyon Channel and Bonita Canyon Reservoir . 4 - 21 Figure 4.3.3 - Base Floodplain Encroachment Locations 4 - 23 Figure 4.4.1 - Regional Air Quality Analysis Area . . . . . . . . 4 - 33 Figure 4.4.2 - Air Receptor Sites . . . . . 4 - 36 Figure 4.5.1 - Recommended Noise Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 51 Figure 4.7.1 - Impacts to Sensitive Resources - Oso Creek . . . . 4 = 75 Figure 4.7.2 - Impacts to Wetlands - Aliso Creek 4 - 76 Figure 4.7.3 - Impacts to Sensitive Resources - Pacific Park*Drive 4 - 77' 1 Figure 4.7.4 Figure 4.7.5 Figure 4.6.6 Figure 4.7.7 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED) PAGE - Impacts to Sensitive Resources - E1 Toro Road/ Laguna Canyon Road 4 -18 - Impacts to Sensitive Resources - Sand*Canyon Avenue 4 - 79 - Impacts to Sensitive Resources - East of Sand Canyon Avenue 4 - 80 - Impacts to Sensitive Resources - Bonita Creek, Bonita Reservoir and San Diego Creek . . . . . . . . 4 - 81 - 1995 Traffic Estimates (Toll Free) . . . . . . . . 5 - 3 - 2010 Toll Traffic Co5 - 4 - Toll/Toll Free Screenline mparisons 5 - 10 - Regional Statistical Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 4 - Area of Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 10 ILIST OF TABLES PAGE Table A - Comparison of Alternatives and Major Impacts . . . . . . Table Table 1.3.A 1.3.6 - Level of Service (LOS) Description . - Existing (1988/1989) and Estimated 2010�Traffic 1-6 (ADTS.in 1000s) and Traffic Operations (LOS) on I-405, SR-1 and I-5 for'With and Without the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor . . . . . . 1 - 5 Table 1.3.0 - Existing and Estimated Traffic (ADTS in 1000s) and Traffic Operations (LOS) on Selected Arterial Highways for With and Without the San Joaquin Hills Transportati.on Corridor . 1 - 8 Table 2.2.A - Proposed General Purpose Interchanges . . . . 2 - 5 Table Table 2.2.6 2.2.0 . - Proposed Exclusive Hov Interchanges/Access . . . . . Grading Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - 7 10 Table 2.2.D _ Corridor Grading Volumes . . . . . . . . 2 _ 11 Table 2.6.A - Right -of -Way and -Project Costs . . . . . 2 - 29 Table 2.8.A - Existing Freeway Improvements Associated With the No -Build Alternative. . . .. . . 2 - 36 Table 2.8.B - Existing Arterial Improvements Associated With the No -Build Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 37 Table 2.8.0 - EIR No. 267 Alignment Alternatives Evaluation 2 - 42 Table 2.8.D - EIR No. 267 Alignment Alternatives Evaluation . . . 2 - 43 Table 2.8.E - EIR No. 267 Alignment Alternatives Evaluation . . . 2 - 44 Table 3.2.A - Seismic Parameters Near the Proposed SJHTC . . . . . 3 - 4 Table 3.5.A - Measured Existing Noise Levels 3 - 24 Table 3.6.A - Potential Sensitive Species 3 - 28 Table 3.7.A - Summary Of Private Development Plans Along Proposed Corridor . . . . . 3 - 51 Table 4.1.A - Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures for Table 4.13 Build Alternatives . . . . . - Environmental Significance Checklist . . . . . 4 4 - 3 - 13 Table 4.3.A - Floodplain Encroachment Alternative Comparison . . . 4 - 24 Table 4.4.A - Direct Travel Impact Model (DTIM) 2010 . . . . . . 4 - 34 Table 4.4.B - Predicted Carbon Monoxide (CO) Levels . .. ... . 4 - 37 Table 4.4.0 - Comparison of Toll and Toll Free Operations CO Levels 4 - 41 Table 4.5.A - Predicted 2010 Traffic Noise Levels - CNEL/LEQ 4 - 44 Table 4.5.6 - Interior Land Use Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 50 Table 4.5.0 - Change in Noise Levels on Arterial Roadways with Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . �4 - 62 Table 4.6.A - Impacts to Plant Communities - Acreages Lost . . . . . 4 - 64 Table 4.6.B - Wildlife Environmental Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 68 Table 4.7.A - Wetlands Impacts in Acres for Design Alternatives 4 - 83 Table 4.9.A - Summary of Housing and Business Impacts . . . . . . 4 - 103 Table 4.12.A - Potential Hazardous Waste Sites . . . . 4 - 116 Table 4.15.A - Summary of Visual Impacts • 4 - 125 1 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) PAGE Table 4.16.A - San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor West End Capacity Analysis Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 190 Table 4.17.A - Construction Equipment Noise 4 - 141 Table 5.A - OCP-88 Projections for the Year2610 Countywide and South Orange County 6 - 5 Table 5.1 - Preliminary Park-and-Ride�Estimates 5 - 13 Table 11.1.A - Summary of NOP/NOI Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 3 I � 1. r� I 1 1 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The existing freeway system in south Orange County is inadequate to serve existing travel demands during AM and PM peak periods. By year 2010, it is projected the existing freeway system would be unable to handle the traffic from projected urban growth and travel patterns. Throughout_ south Orange County; congestion can be expected. Major freeway/highway capacity deficierici-es would occur for northwest/southwest oriented travel patterns on I-5, I-405 and SR-1. This congestion will spill over onto the arterial highway system, roads paralleling existing freeways, or those serving destinations to major activity centers. The primary objective of the San Joaquin H 1.ls Transportation Corridor (SJHTC or Corridor) is to alleviate existing and projected (without the Corridor) peak period traffic congestion on the regional' circulation system and to minimize regional through traffic use of arterial highways. Additional objectives of the Corridor are: to provide an alternative access route to the University of California, Irvine; and to relieve peak recreational traffic impacts on SR-1, MacArthur Boulevard, and Laguna Canyon Road, thus providing additional access from inland areas to the coast and various open space and greenbelt areas. 1.2 PROJECT LIMITS The proposed project involves the extension of SR-73 Freeway from the I=5 Freeway in the City of San Juan Capistrano to Jamboree Road in the City of Newport Beach. The project includes improvements to I-5 from Ortega Highway to either Crown Valley (Demand Management Alternative) or south of Avery Parkway (Conventional Alternative) and at the connection to SR-73 between Jamboree Road and Birch Avenue. 1.3 NEED FOR THE PROJECT Social Demands and Economic Development Orange County is an urbanized area of approximately 786 square miles contiguous to the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Dramatic changes in the County-'s economy, population, and housing market have occurred throughout its history. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has forecast signi- ficant growth and change to continue through the year 2010. The County's population, has increased from about 216,000 people i_n 1950 to over 1.9 million in 1980. In July, 1989, Orange County's population was esti- mated to be about 2.3 million, thus growing by more than ten -fold since 1950. The economic character of Orange County has changed dramatically over the past 20 years from predominantly rural and agricultural to an economy dominated by urban and industrial activity. Employment has broadened from a strictly retail base as found in the large shopping malls, to include light manu- facturings, as reflected in the County's many business and industrial complexes. High technology industries, biomedical facilities, service busi- 1 in- in - nesses, office facilities and tourism have become Orange County's major income producing businesses. Growth has also occurred in the southern portion of the County in the administrative, financial and retailing activities. Orange County employment is now creased from about 428,000 employees crease of about 180% during that 16 growing faster than housing, having in 1970, to 1.2 million in 1986, an near aeriod. Countv emolovment is The Corridor was added to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial High- ways (MPAH) by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in August, 1976, based upon needs identified in the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS). The Phase I Route Location Study for the SJHTC commenced in August, 1977, concluding with Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 267, which was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on November 28, 1979. At that time, the Board of Supervisors selected a project alignment. The Corridor was officially placed on the State Highway ber, 1983 by the State Legislature, making it eligible for funding. It is an extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway, Route 73 (SR-73). System in Septem- State and federal designated State Section 120 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1987 establishes a pilot program permitting federal participation in seven toll facilities, including a toll facility in Orange County, California. The location of two facilities is at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. The federal share of the construction cost shall not exceed 35%. On October 12, 1987, the Orange County Transportation Commission designated the SJHTC as a pilot demonstration project authorized by the federal legislation. In December, 1987, the State of California passed legislation giving the County of Orange the authority to construct the Corridor as a toll facility. 1-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 1 The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCAs) were established by joint power agreements among cities in Orange County and the County to cooperatively plan regional transportation facilities. There are two TCAs (Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridors Agency and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corri- dor Agency) with separate boards consisting of elected officials. They are responsible for the planning, financing, designing and constructing of the corridors. The SJHTC governing Board is comprised of representatives from the cities of Costa Mesa, Dana Point, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Niguel and Santa Ana and the County of Orange. Upon completion of construction, the State of California will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the corridors. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is involved in the planning process to help ensure that the design and construction of the transportation corridors are in accordance with Caltrans' standards and specifications. Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 494 (DEIR No. 494) was. prepared prior to the SJHTC being designated as a toll road. Draft EIR No. 494 was distributed for public review on July 1, 1988. Two public meetings were held to receive comments on DEIR(>Y>. Written comments were also submitted by a number of agencies, interest groups and individuals. Prior to the preparation of the Response to Comments and a final EIR, the decision was made to prepare another environmental document evaluating the Corridor as a toll facility. A separate Response to Comments to DEIR No. 494 is available for review at the TCA, 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, California. That document includes a matrix indicating where the responses to comments on DEIR No. 494 have been incorporated into this EIR/EIS. Existing Traffic Conditions. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) is shown in Figure 1..1 and Table 1. Daily traffic volumes are well above 200,000 vehicles on portions of I-405 and I-5. I-405 experiences ADT levels ranging from 218,000 near MacArthur Boulevard, to 150,000 west of I-5. I-5 ADT volumes range from 285,000 south of I-405, to 189,000 near Avery Parkway. Existing peak hour L r s >'>"' 05'. on the I-405 and I-5 Freeways are generally LOS"on E and F. Likewise ".SR-1 `during the peak hours is F. y 1-3 J i rltl� I A�, —3 164 (6f)JC8 14 fez ART4 1481 c 4, Aoug4 SPYGLAS>% Iko ALY—EL J— (32) 40 -10 A IV s4.7 4, Cb (0) -SPNC, 1(0)37 sia 21--- 11 pone) -a C) a a m G) m z ror%3 C) C) co —L —L 0:) C) C) 00 -0 -0 ---� 00 laco && M CL x 8 83 5- C) C) V) CA C2C) 0 cn 00 00 R'3. CL CL 0,0 4F 4tfi 'ZI (38) 1 1 i i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Ortega / 178 E 170 E 190 E +10.5 Junipero Serra Junipero Serra./ 180 E 175 E 210 E +16.7 SJHTC SJHTC / 189 F 185 E 150 E -18.9 Crown Valley Crown Valley / 214 F 200 E 170 F -15.0 Oso Parkway Oso Parkway / 207 F 210 E 185 F -11.9 La Paz Road La Paz Road / 220 F 230 F 200 F -13.0 Alicia Parkway Alicia Parkway / 235 F 270 F 235, F -13.0 El Toro Road El Toro Road / 248 F 305 F 270 F -11.5 Lake Forest Lake Forest / 285 F 315 F 285 F - 9.5 Bake Parkway Bake Parkway / 285 F 330 F 300' F - 9.1 I-405 1 All LOS estimates are based on 2010 ADT estimates shown (developed from Orange County Projections-88 Land use data) and capacities provided in the SJHTC Traffic and Circulation Study (TM-2-6). 2 The Foothill Transportation Corridor (FTC) was assumed in operation for both of these estimates. 2010 Traffic would be greater on I-405 and I-5 if the FTC were not constructed and in operation. 3 + Increase in ADT with Corridor - Decrease in ADT with Corridor * Assumes toll free condition on SJHTC Source: CDMG/County of Orange 1-5 peaK Brio is an a roxima a three our .................... pp pert od��niar nthemost'*`�sui t:ab`l'e conditions, Level A, traffic is in a free flow mode. As conditions worsen, traffic flow is slowed down by the increasing volume of vehicles and the level of service starts to deteriorate. Level of service F, the worst case, is characterized by a forced flow condition with operating speeds of less than 25 MPH (See Table 1.3.A). A B C r , D E F AHighest quality of service. Free traffic flow, low volumes and densities. Little or no restriction on maneuverability or speed. 55+ mph. No delay. BStable traffic flow, speed becoming slightly restricted. Low restriction on maneuverability. 50 mph. No delay. CStable traffic flow, but less freedom to select speed, change lanes, or pass. Density increasing. 45 mph. Minimal delay. DSpeeds tolerable but subject to sudden and considerable variation. 40 mph. Minimal delay. Unstable traffic flow with rapidly fluctuating speeds and flow rates. Short E headways, low maneuverability, and low driver comfort. 35 mph. Significant delay. FForced traffic flow. Less than 25 mph. Speed and flow may drop to zero with high densities. Considerable delay. TABLE 1.3.A A number of the freeways proposed in the State Freeway and Expressway System for Orange County have not been completed. These freeways include SR- 39, SR-57 extension, SR-55 extension, SR-73 extension and SR-74. According to the Orange County General Plan Transportation Element, failure to implement these planned freeways and removal of SR-1 from the freeway system has serious- ly impaired traffic carrying abilities of the transportation system in Orange County. 1-6 1 Transportation improvements are needed because the existing ctrculati.on system in south Orange County has inadequate capacity in the freeway system -to. serve the travel demands placed on the system during AM and. PM peak periods - During these peak commute periods, sections of the larger circulation system, particularly along I-5, I-405 and SR-55, operate at.l-evel of service F; charac- terized by low speeds, frequent stoppages and long delays. This condition prevails during the AM peak period in the northbound lanes on I-5, and I-405 between Alicia Parkway and SR-133, southbound on SR-55, a portion of SR-73 and on SR-1 near Laguna Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard. Congestion similar to the AM peak :period is evident in the PM period for southbound traffic on I-5 and I-405 and northbound SR-55. Likewise, portions of MacArthur Boulevard and SR-1 are operating at LOS F. Present congesti-on problems. in south Orange County create significant pressure on arterial highway systems located near or parallel., to congested interstate freeways as shown in Figure 1. .1 -and Table 1. `; Existin fta� arterials such as University Drive, Mou1 ton. `:Par. kway and the Pmoro . 7y�e are being utilized by trips diverted from congested regional facilities. Present traffic and projections of future ADT for Moulton Parkway (up to 64,000 ADT without the Corridor in 2010) demonstrate how traffic also shifts from freeways to parallel arterial highways. Thus, regional through traffic absorbs traffic capacity otherwise needed for local circulation needs. - Future Traffic Conditions. Anticipated levels of growth expected to occur by the year 2010 will add trips to the .daily traffic volumes on the County circulation system. Projected average daily traffic conditions in south Orange County with and without the Corridor are summarized in -Tables'l.r and 1. These estimates of future daily traffic volumes prepared by the""range County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) demonstrate significant in- -creases of traffic on the existing circulation system. In many cases, the existing levels of service on these highways and freeways are already LOS .F. Major increases of traffic are also expected on 1-5,._.I-405 and SR-1. Assuming no::' Corridor and no circulation improvements I d.... would have to accommodate an additiofiil- demand of 0 65 000 vehicles per da kirse:<:>kr .: thout the P Y :.:::::::::...::::J.....:..r.......:::::::::::::::.:.::: Corridor. This would mean freeway'�traver"demands oi' up t'o 330,000`vehicles per day on I-5, compared to its present capacity of approximately 145,000 vehicles per day. - an R 1 I 405 < :'.;::...<:::::.;::.:.:,: ................. tl .::cat...... # :.:.:.:. `: < 't .. :::;>;pt:.:..:;;Irfl.}: are also pro3ected to be over`Coaded' and ::...:...::.::.::.:.. ::.::.:::::.....:.. . severely congeste'"'by`th`e year 2OI0 Travel demand on I-405 is projected to be 170,000 to 22,000 vehicles per day without the Corridor, compared to the capacity of between 165,000 and 205,000 vehicles per day. Travel demand on SR- 1 (a planned four to six lane arterial) is projected to be 40,000 to 57,000 vehicles per day without the Corridor, compared to a current capacity of 30,000 vehicles per day. Thus, surface arterials s-uch as University Drive, San Joa- quin Hills Road, Pacific Park Drive extension, Bonita Canyon Drive, Irvine -Center Drive and Moulton Parkway would have to accommodate heavier traffic volumes and through traffic movements. As a result, motorists would experience major traffic congestion on these arterials. 1-7 ............ ..................... :...::. :. . 1-8 C 1 1 1 1-1 1 1 Fj I i I fl I I I I I i I I C 1 I I Imo'] r 1 Improvements planned by Caltrans to increase the capacity of I-5 and I-405, though beneficial, would not add sufficient capacity to reduce traffic congestion within the Corridor area. As a result of this congestion, total travel time in the area is expected to increase significantly. PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED BENEFITS , Primary Project Objectives/Expected Benefits Alleviate Existing and Projected Peak Period Traffic Congestion on Re- gional Circulation System (I-405.1 I-5, SR-1). A primary objective/near and long-term benefit of the Corridor is to alleviate existing andr~t projected (without the Corridor) peak period traffic congestion on the regional circulation system in south Orange County. In order to accommodate the signif- icant current and projected traffic demand, the Corridor is proposed to provide a , major ..::new northwesterly -southeasterly route through south Orange County. �Fi!' t%S'1:•i{IiY.YiMCiY�.T.•iiij'3':L'':ii:::/.�::I:::hi4'VL'Rfi�iy:::�Y4:fA'i:::1C1i4I7:!::ei:[.f'1'M:11T:i`�jMt •1'•il4fy:iiiti•Yk'tiiIA:%ti:[:YN:•i:v]i::i::�'.:i7:�:i:i Yibi:%{:!:1'i:::'!y(:;.�'iLiv:±i'H!s�:t.:•�.•avwa� ua �•i I•. P.j:!;jB -.,i- jigi AS snown in I aD I e 1.t, LUS wi I I continue to deteriorate in south Orange County over the next `20 years, indicating continued congestion and delay, unless the Corridor is built. As documented in Section 4.16 and as shown in Table 1.! and Figure 1..1, an expected near -term and long-term benefit of the Corridor is the reduction of peak hour congestion and the improvement of travel speeds in the regional circulation system. Minimize Regional Through Traffic Use of Arterial Highways. Another pri- mary objective of the Corridor is to help restore the arterial highway system to its intended function rather than serving as a freeway substitute. The objective of decreasing regional through traffic use of arterial highways is a fundamental concern of all communities relying on their arterial systems to , service local, as well as regional needs. An expected near -term and long-term benefit is that the Corridor would minimize regional through_.:traffic use of arterial highways as demonstrated in Figure 1..1 and Table 1.. Secondary Objectives/Expected Benefits ■ Provide an Alternative Access Route to the University of California, Irvine. The Corridor would provide an alternative access route to UCI, for academic purposes, employment and special events. Presently, there are two main access roads into the campus area (Campus and University Drives). As a result of through commuter traffic and campus generated traffic, University Drive is presently experiencing traffic congestion. University Drive traffic volumes, without the Corridor, would exceed capacity adjacent to UCI. Campus Drive volumes would increase by approximately 8,000 vehicles per day without the Corridor and the intersection of Campus and University would be severely' congested. Expected near and long-term benefits resulting from the Corridor include the reduction of traffic volumes on University and Campus Drives. Additionally, the Corridor will provide an alternative access to the heavily used MacArthur and Jamboree arterials for employees of the research and devel- opment activities associated with the campus. 1 - 10 1 i Ii C L i and Various ORen Space and Greenbelt Areas. On 'a long-term basis, the Corridor plays a central role in improving the function of SR-1 and several major arter- ial highways in providing access• to recreational areas located near and along the coast. }::•:1:':i':iii:: ii>:•C�i::: ��?<��i$��':i}i: � :>.:;{:;:ti:;}:;:jY:i>.:[:ii' �:Li$iiiiiiil isiti::':::::::?::+?f::::ii:::i>.'•:i<:::in::}{k:+: is:::.::�:::i::ii::•'.::: #«�'3::;:::a::�::::�:::<:>n�a::a:�►.r•..:.;::sty.*.:�t�.r...:�::��<::<;::r•��v��:x#::�:�r�:;:<:;��r.•.��rx:�:� �:::::�r�::::�+t�'t*r�+ �af:�`�:n:�'s'�::::::1t:�p:�:: <::i: r�:r::;�'::}k� REq€`€» Gi ven the recreati ona i neeas of an expanai ng county population; th'.`.Corridor provides an essential link between inland residential areas and these major recreational areas of the coast. 1 G 1 1 An expected near and 1 ong-term benef i t of the Corri dor i s that i t!' either provide direct access or enhance access to the following recreati-O areas: • Newport Beach Harbor and Beach Areas. • Corona del Mar Beaches; • 16,000 Acre Laguna Greenbelt Regional Open Space: Crystal Cove State Park; Buck Gully/Los Trancos Canyon Regional Open Space; Laurel Canyon/Irvine Coast Wilderness Park; Laguna Canyon Ridge Open Space; Aliso Greenbelt at E1 Toro Road; Aliso/Wood Canyon Regional Park; • Laguna Beach Recreational Areas; • Laguna Niguel Regional Park; • Aliso Creek State Beach and Salt Creek County Beach; and • Dana Point Harbor, Doheny State Park, Lantern Bay Regional Overlook. A detailed examination of the manner in which the Corridor would provide recreational access to these significant recreational attractions is included in Section 4.8, Land Use. 1 - 12 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION.AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTIONRYz '!r4. r .dirk `two Build Alternatives and a No i3#t1G<Al tern ati ve. In addition" t'o �`�descr �' ng "'these project alternatives, this `ct'apter discusses alternatives identified in EIR No. 257 (Romte Location Study for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor), and subsequently developed alignment alternatives, cross section alternatives and nonalignment alternatives for.'the Corridor. .::•:•:2::•:.ti•:•i:•:•:•:34}'•:{:v:i3•:•:4e3i:>::<:ii<:Si........................iv.1.:.:.:::::::::.......:..5......::....:: h.............:...............:....:::...::.1.::...:.:...::::.�:..i.:::...:::::}:!:.+.•::t::i1:.::Y!::?::::5$:}:•L'{:5!:{::£::X:!}.:{}: •..:"r. i::%�ii: ' :::i.' . ) 'yyy.:?;:' . CiiXii:'::::*':31t:.C•:i%t�:i'.:::<tiJiE::t::iG:�:71kiit::�{ry::•:3:tti .6:i%:if:Ci.Ut17�.t:krsy:iiii .:•:•:::ti:{�.i:?i::E::kii:l•E<i::al:ti:K::i2.{�r.:�%:: '::Y: �. � � C two Bu�1`'`aTfernatives for tbe;...^)t`...are (1�:..>a Gonventiona(; "Alternative, and (2) a Demand Management ATterriative. Development and design of these 'alternatives are the result of the public participation program described in- Chapter The alignment of the Corridor is a result of joint planning; of transportation and land use for over 15 years. A prefer -red alternative has not been i-dentifi-ed at this time. All reasonable alternatives a -re under consider- ation; a decision will be made after the alternatives' impacts and'comments on, the graft EIR/EIS and from the public hearing have been fully evaluated. The Build Alternatives have the following common characteristics: 1 They follow a common alignment except at the I=5 connection; (2) Include ten general purpose interchanges and seven excl-usive HOV interchanges; (3) Are designed at similar profile grades along their alignment; (4) Are designed to include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities; (5) Will operate as toll facilities until bonds are repaid at which point the Corridor will operate as a free facility and, include ramp toll plazas and a mainline plaza for the collection of tolls south of the interchange with Sand Canyon Avenue; O Include a maintenance facility. The two alternatives differ in their operational characteristics, cross section design, I-5 connection, and in their expected future operation. 2.2 COMMON FEATURES fI)tTNA'€ This section describes -features that are the same or differ only slightly for the two Build Alternatives. Following this subsection 2.2, there are descriptions of features which differ sign•ifi-cantly for the Demand Management and Conven,ti.onal alternatives. 2-1 1 Project Alignment The proposed alignment for both Build Alternatives is shown in Figure 2.1'-1. The project begins on I-5, near Ortega Highway, and extends north- ward with additional lanes being provided on I-5 to accommodate the major merge and diverge movements near Avery Parkway. The project then proceeds in a Interchanges The proposed interchanges are shown on Figure 2. with general purpose interchanges listed in Table 2.2.A. Three pairs of interchanges have been com- bined using collector distributor roadways. Proposed exclusive HOV inter- change/access locations and configurations ...:are::, shown.r.in.; Figure . 2.1:and, listed in Table 2.2. e. t#t} 1.irrer�r1 dettg... The differences"i'n'"interchanges"'between the demand"'Management and Convent b'a`i Alternatives are also shown in Table 2.2.A. Renderings illus- trating how the interchanges look in the future with adjacent development are provided in Profile Grades and Grading The profile grades for the SJHTC range from +0.3% to +6% (Figure 2.4). Six percent grades are found between Greenfield and Moulton, between Aliso Creek Road and El Toro Road, and between Laguna Canyon Road and Ford Road. The grading for the Corridor tl' be substantial because of the topo- graphical and geological character`of""the existing terrain. A topographic profile is provided in Figure 2.4 illustrating the range of elevations along the proposed SJHTC alignment. Grading widths are shown on Table 2.2.0 and grading volumes are described in Table 2.2.D. Toll Facilities The proposed system for collection of tolls is a closed barrier system, which includes one mainline barrier toll plaza near the center of the facility, and 12 ramp toll plazas located on only one side of certain interchanges (Figure 2.5). This system ensures that all motorists using the facility i+ pay a toll at some point, and also acts to reduce incentives for mainline plaza bypass diversions and increases the equity of per mile rates between respective movements. 2-2 L I 1 1 I 1 1 C 7 LJ 1 i LJ tUR9A LINOA PUIIi:R'10N PLACENTIA ANAHEIM •ANAHEIM - , .._ ._ �. .� VILLA i '� •� ' PARK i .�. An, GARDEN GROVE, µ~me., ;�• .. �:>- .: ,._ it \ — - ' N f^'n `,` ANA FOUNTAIN { 7US?IN b Vkt.t EY DIEOD _ .... • `�� INOTON J ' •+ 1 ?EACH (;OS`A .x •+�^"'" 1 \ ,.s�., = MESA a BIRC TRET ' Ewe ' r ; u c 'IRVINE 1 \ MISSION VIFJO I Z. IRVINE - \ LACUNA' EACH" \ O z :%-- Q�5 �OvAw _ `� - t SAN APISJUNTRANO _ D NA • '� --' �� w i . � �Y`e s • .,NT �S N CLEMENTE ��' `Y� I LOCATION ION -MAPS _ . FIGURE ,21- _ __-._ / BISON AVENUE-MACARTHUR BLVD: / JAMBOREE ROAD INTERCHANGE FORD ROAD/ BONITA CANYON DRIVE INTERCHANGE PELICAN HILL ROAD i- INTERCHANGE--- I SAND CANYON AVENUE i \ INTERCHANGE ELTORO ROAD- LAGUNA CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGE ALISO CREEK ROAD -PACIFIC PARK DRIVE/ GLENWOOD DRIVE INTERCHANGE MOULTON PARKWAY - LA PAZ ROAD INTERCHANGE GREENFIELD DRIVE INTERCHANGE AVERY PARKWAY _ INTERCHANGE N.T.S. NINE /a / \ f I-5 INTERCHANGE GENERAL PURPOSE INTERCHANGE LOCATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS I LEGEND 1� Indicates an interchange , complex where access to more than one arterial is provided Indicates Mainline Toll Plaza SOURCE: CDMG FIGURE 2.2 � TABLE 2-2-A - PROPOSED GENERAL PURPOSE INTERCHANGES (Figure 2.2) DIST. TO TOLL NORTHERLY LOCATION TYPE FACILITIES INTERCHANGE GENERAL COMMENTS I-5 Terminal Jct. None N/A Located in Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo and Fwy to Fwy San Juan Capistrano. Includes relocation, and reconstruction of I-5 in vicinity of interchange. Avery Pkwy Half None 5,900, Located in Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo and Diamond San Juan Capistrano. Existing under - (North side) crossing to be removed and replaced with new overcrossing connecting Avery Parkway to Paseo de Colinas Overcrossing. ::: �.::.:.:....:.::..:::..:•:.: on, enti�rra t: sE.,�ernatye�<t;:::::::;•;;:.>: Greenfield Half None 6,2001 Located in unincorporated -County. Arterial Drive Diamond existing, proposed equestrian trail adj- (North side) acent to arterial will be accommodated. Undercrossing. Moulton Combined Ramps to/ 5,100- Located in Laguna Niguel and unincorporated Parkway- La Diamond/Part. from South County. Arterials existing, Combined. Paz Rd. Interchange Cloverleaf interchange with collector -distributor roads. Corridor right-of-way established. Rough grading by developer of portion of interchange and within Corridor alignment. Auxiliary lanes, both directions, between La Paz Road and Atiso Creek Road. Under - crossings. Atiso Creek Combined Ramps to/ 5,7001 Located in Aliso Viejo development (unin- Rd.-Pacific Diamond/Part. from South corporated County). Arterials currently Pk/Glenwood Cloverleaf under construction. Combined interchange Dr. Inter- with collector -distributor roads. Adjacent change development under construction. Rough grading by developer of interchange and within Corridor alignment. Corridor right- of-way established. Auxiliary -Lanes, both direction, between La Paz and Atiso Creek Road, and ............. dgc1.:..amps:; between Pacific Park/Glenwood and El Toro Road. Overcrossings. El Toro Rd. Combined Ramps to/ 14,1001 Located in Atiso Viejo -development, Laguna to Laguna Diamond/Part. from South Beach and unincorporated County. Arterials Cyn. Rd. Cloverleaf existing. Combined interchange with Interchange collector -distributor roads. Adjacent development to the south under construc- tion. Rough grading of El Toro ramps and within Corridor alignment to south by developer. Corridor right-of-way between arterials and to south established. Auxiliary lanes .::: [..;.:aided:;�e:�.►...�:<.;;;:.>:.;:.;::::.;:.;:.:::;;.;::.;:•:::;::.>:::.:;;;:.»:.:�:.;>:.::.:;::: both directions, between Pacific Park/ Glenwood and El Toro. Climbing lane added northbound to mainline toll plaza., Note: Differences for conventional operations alternative are shaded. 2-5 TABLE 2.2.A - PROPOSED GENERAL PURPOSE INTERCHANGES (Figure 2.9) DIST. TO TOLL NORTHERLY LOCATION TYPE FACILITIES INTERCHANGE GENERAL COMMENTS Sand Canyon Diamond Ramps to/ 10,500, Located in unincorporated County adjacent Ave. from North to proposed open space. No preliminary arterial design done; Interchange delayed (graded only) until future arterial con- struction. Undercrossing. Pelican Trumpet Ramps to/ 5,2001 Located in Irvine. Arterial currently Hill Rd, from North under design to construct Pelican Hill up to and along Corridor to MacArthur. Inter- change designed to accommodate future extension of Pelican Hill Road (Culver Drive). Climbing lane added southbound to Sand Canyon Avenue. Auxiliary Lane, NIB direction, between Pelican Hill and Ford/Bonita Canyon. C ma aux:Liairy ateto cohlremitmonel aEtdrha .: Undercrossing. Ford Rd./ Folded Ramps to/ 5,200- Located in Irvine. Bonita Canyon Drive Bonita Can- Diamond from North exists up to Corridor. Folded diamond on you Rd. west side to minimize wetland impacts. Auxiliary Lane, NIB Bison/ MacArthur/ Jamboree Interchange Undercrossing. Terminal None N/A Located in Irvine and Newport Beach. Transition to Arterials existing and MacArthur Blvd. to existing SR- be relocated. Provides ramps to and from 73 Bison Avenue, MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Road. Combined interchange with access to University Drive South via MacArthur Blvd. and access to University Drive north via collector -distributor roads. Existing direct connection ramp from NIB MacArthur to Corridor, near San Diego Creek, to remain with an auxiliary lane added at this ramp and extending north. Existing NIB Jamboree Road to NIB Corridor loop ramp is removed and replaced with direct connection (NIB to NIB). Existing Corridor NIB exit ramp to Birch Street to be removed. Over - crossings at Bison Avenue and MacArthur Blvd. Undercrossings at University Drive South and University Drive North. Over - crossing at Jamboree Road to remain. Note: Differences for conventional operations alternative are shaded. 2-6 I .J TABLE 2.2.B - PROPOSED EXCLUSIVE NOV INTERCHANGES/ACCESS (Figure 2.�) TOLL LOCATION TYPE FACILITIES GENERAL COMMENTS Between Crown Valley one way slip None Located in Laguna Niguel. Southern terminus & Greenfield R. (southern terminus) ramps to general pur- reversible HOV roadway. Serves traffic to and from north only. pose lanes Pacific Park Dr. Reversible None Located in Laguna Niguel and unincorporated (between Moulton Pkwy T-ramp County. Arterial existing. Serves traffic to and La Paz Rd.) and from north only. Undercrossing. Laguna Hills Dr. Reversible None Located in Aliso Viejo development. Arterial T-ramp existing east of Corridor. Serves traffic to and from north' -only. Undercrossing. Between El Toro Rd. & Reversible None Located in Laguna Beach. Connection between Laguna Canyon Rd. T-ramp northbound and southbound collector -distributor roads will be constructed to provide access to HOV lanes. Connector roadway will be 4-lane, undivided, 2-way roadway. Serves traffic to and from north only. Undercrossing. Between Sand Canyon One way slip None Located in unincorporated County and Irvine. Ave. & Pelican Hill ramps to Serve traffic to and from south only. Rd. (near San Joaquin general pur- Hills Road) pose lanes Between Ford Rd. & One way fly- None Located in Irvine. One way flyover ramps con - Bison Ave. (future) over ramps necting reversible HOV roadway to the ramps serv- ing Bison to and from the south. Serves traffic to and from south only. Accommodations made in median width. Current plans do not include con- struction of ramps. University Dr. Reversible None Located in Irvine and Newport Beach. Arterial (north) T-ramp planned to have at grade intersection with MacArthur. Serves traffic to and from south only. Undercrossing. Near Jamboree Road One way slip None Located in Newport Beach. Northern terminus of (northern terminus) ramps to reversible HOV roadway. Can accommodate odate future general pur- northerly extension of concurrent flow NOV lanes pose lanes along existing SR-73. Serves traffic to and from south only. 1 1 1 2-7 11 NORTHERN TERMINUS UNIVERSITY DRIVE (NORTH) BETWEEN SAND CANYON AVE AND PELICAN HILL ROAD BETWEEN ELTORO AND LAGUNA CANYON LAGUNA HILLS DRIVE PACIFIC PARK DRIVE SOUTHERN TERMINUS i 1�f m SOURCE:CDMG EXCLUSIVE HOV INTERCHANGE/ACCESS FIGURE 2.3 LOCATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 t 'AMd O031a NVSavou •:::.;. IIVH �''''..•'�' co 'au ZVd Vi ssen Jo %E' >133HO OSIIV .. . . ..... .. . 'aH OHOl 13 ... `.. 'aH NOANVO VNnJVI 3 AV NOANVO CINVS XX o 'aH IIIH Nvon3d 'aH aaOdcm co :. r y 'ame HnHlaVOVw s t cP N lu IY M W .�MM cc a J O m m z a z .o z a-i W W. WZ a0 �m a0 crCC m �O CL v oQ TABLE 2.2.0 - GRADING WIDTHS SEGMENT DEMAND MANAGEMENT CONVENTIONAL I-5/SR-74 to Junipero 15' beyond existing on 15' beyond existing on Serra each side. each side. I-5/Junipero Serra to 27' - 100' beyond exist- 27' - 100' beyond exist - Avery Parkway ing on each side. ing on each side. Avery Parkway to Moulton 200' - 600' 200' - 600' Parkway Moulton Parkway to 400' - 900' 400' - 900' Alicia Parkway Alicia Parkway to E1 200' - 11100' 200- - 1,100' Toro Road E1 Toro Road to Laguna 400' - 1,200' 400' - 1,200' Canyon Road Laguna Canyon Road to 200' - 1,200' 300' - 1,300' Pelican Hill Road Pelican Hill Road to 200' - 1,300' 300' - 1,300' Bison Avenue Bison Avenue to Jamboree 600' - 11000' 600' - 11000' Road Note: Grading widths include interchanges. 2 - 10 ITABLE 2.2.D - CORRIDOR GRADING VOLUMES Alternative Demand Management' Conventional' Total Excavation (cut) 24.5 27 Total Embankment (fill) 16 17.5 Previous Excavation 9 9 ' Previous Embankment 3 3 Future Excavation 15.5 18 Future Embankment3 13 14.5 Excess Material Used 4.5 4.5 ' Future Excess Material 'Approximate million cubic yards. 2Previous grading, completed in conjunction with development projects which had separate environmental review, primarily between E1 Toro Road and.Pacific Park and near Crown Valley Parkway. 3Area between Laguna Canyon Road and Ford/Bonita Canyon Road interchange requires nearly 60% of excavation and embankment. 4Excess material used by developers in their grading operations. 1 1 BIRCH STREET h / JAMBOREE ROAD i UNIVERSITY DRIVE MORTHI � MACARTHUR BOULEVARD UNNERSIIYDRNEfSOUTH) BISON AVENUE FORD ROAD/BONRA CANYON DRIVE --- FUTURE CULVER DRIVE PELICAN HILL ROAD SAND CANYON AVENUE T. MAINLINE TOLL PLAZA N.T.S. LAGUNA CANYON ROAD PACIFIC PARK DRNE/GLENWOOD DRIVE EL TORO ROAD LAGUNA HILLS DRIVE AUSO CREEK ROAD ALICIA PARKWAY PACIFIC PARK DRIVE -- LA PAZ ROAD MOULTON PARKWAY '� CROWN VALLEY PARKWAY GREENFIELD DRIVE H- i PASEO DE COLINAS , i - AVERY PARKWAY JUNIPERO SERRA YS ORTEGA HIGHWAY SOURCE:CDMG TOLL PLAZA LOCATIONS FIGURE 2.5 I I The mainline barrier and general purpose interchange ramp toll plazas include a combination of manual and automatic collection systems. The reversible HOV 1 anes ........ WP*:*'U:':..�:1":.a utilize automatic toll coil-ection systems exclusively. There attended lanes with manual toll col l-ection, change, receipts and iffdrmation available at all times. Therg... also be automatic coin machines to accept exact change, and there e lanes operating with automatic identification/collection capabiliti'es.Automatic Vehicle Identification (AVI) allows vehicles to be automatically identified under a non-stop or semi -stop condition. It significantly expedites the toll collection process, reducing slow down at collection, areas and reduces plaza operating costs. The configuration of the mainline toll plaza is shown in Figure 2.6. To minimize the width of the plaza and right-of-way, and to minimize deviations in the mainline alignments, a longitudinally staggered layout has been proposed, schematically shown on Figure 2.6. The mainline plaza will be divided into two areas: 1. AVI Only Area -- This area serve patrons utilizing the ** Auto matic Vehicle Identificatioh .... (AVI) system. AVI traffic n o t be required to make any horizontal -maneuvers from 06general travel 1 anes, and be able to pass through the plaza area without stq.p.p* The speed limit for AVI traffic through the plaza area be established on the basis of actual site condi- tions. 2. AVI/Manual Area -- The AVI/manual area serve all types.. of toll transactions, both automatic and manual', ..By signing well in advance of the plaza, AVI/manual trafficirt be separated from the general flow. Vehicles paying a t'611**.* manual ly be required to stop at the toll booth. AVI traffic using VI/ manual area may be required to stop if manual traffic is queued at the toll booth. Ramp toll plazas be located on the following general purpose inter- change ramps: Interchange(s) Ramps Moulton Parkway/La Paz Road To and, from the south Aliso Creek Road/Pacific Park Drive To and from the south El Toro Road/Laguna Canyon Road To and from the south Sand Canyon Avenue To and from the north Pelican Hill Road To and from the north Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive To and from the north In a typical ramp toll plaza (Figure 2.7), the configuration of exit and entrance ramp plazas are generally the same. Ramp plazas have separate lanes for AVI only traffic and combined AVI/manual traffic. Typically, one lane for each type of traffic is provided. 2 - 13 1 9 m N SHOULDEWSY-PASS LANE SHOULDEWBY•PASS LANE 15:1 APPROACWDEPARTURE I 300 FT. MIN. 1 15-1 APPROACWDEPARTURE MAINLINE TOLL PLAZA NOT TO SCALE J OUTUNE OF OVERHEAD CANOPY _w w 3 'a15 r�I1III LJI ILJI IL11 A o A K, I ATTENUATOR (TYP.) I 12.W 10- Wr A.V.I. A.V.UMANUAL LANES LANES NUMBER OF LANES AS NEEDED TYPICAL BOOTH LAYOUT Source: CDMG MAINLINE TOLL PLAZA FIGURE 2.6 ! cc ¢ § w § a A ) § (L( cL§ k kWLU \\ LU §§ E @ _ §.0 _cy § § § ) kl 7 §2 j \ . d�cc $ § § ' 2 a. t § @�7 m d § ± z E z k § k f ! 9 3 ¥ $�\ 1"t N W � � .� LL Truck Traffic Both alternatives allow trucks on the Corridor. Due to the nature of the Corridor facility, (i.e., toll, steep grades) it is anticipated that truck traffic would choose other alternative routes more conducive to truck use. (CDMG, 1988, Technical Memorandum 2-15, Truck Restrictions Special Study). Potential Future Median Use Options Both alternatives provide a mediantr}: 60 sufficient size to allow the development of future transit projects- ('e:`g•: ..1`ght rail) within the Corridor alignment. These transit options :are not proposed as part of the project. The cross sections ofa;`i Alternative however reserve sufficient area in the median"`to a1"ow `tile median to be converted to concurrent HOV lanes and a fixed guideway rail/transit system including transit platform stations. If reversible lanes are implemented and at a later date transit is added, some minor reconstruction or lane restriping may be required. Such a future system could be powered by a third rail system or an overhead catenary system, either of which are compatible with the median envelope. Alternatively, additional lanes constructed in the median could be used as an exclusive bus transitway, with bus loading and unloading operations taking, place off -site ..atbus : transit• facilities away from the Corridor. !:+�•ayi�.�..•`I:::,iE:�,�.wi.tu.•v.#.+.•.c.•.0::.w:'�a.i:.:.,.:,..af�.::.:,...�.]:L:•:..•�.....,'t:.:...�:.:.,.�s.�,.,,.._...,..inx.�..:.w.:::::...w...::.:..: «,..;.,,..r::::::.::. ::: ......:::.::::5::•:>:a:•::• Utilities The Corridor will cross a number of utility lines along the route. A list of the utilities affected follows. No significant impacts on utilities are expected; coordination between the TCA and affected utilities has begun, and will continue through construction. A detailed Public Utility Relocation Plan (PURP) shall be included in the Construction Specifications and utility relocations shall be designated on final design plans. Above and below ground utilities affected by the project tt1t be relocated or protected in place in um accordance with methods and designs coordinated with and approved by the utili- ty owners and the Public Utilities Commission. Water District Lines (includes sewer lines) Aliso Water Management Agency Capistrano Valley Water District City of Laguna Beach Costa Mesa County Water District Irvine Ranch Water District Laguna Beach County Water District Mesa Consolidated Water District Metropolitan Water District Moulton Niguel Water District Tri-Cities Municipal Water District Gas/ElectricJPhoneJCable AT&T Community Cablevision Pacific Bell San Diego Gas and Electric Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Co. 1 1 1 1 1 1 U Ll 1 2-16 1 I 1 f] r] I 1 r� 1 1 1 11 1 1 Railroad Facilities. The proposed 'Corridor (both Build Alternatives) would cross over the existing Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe Railway::_(AT&SF) at the confluence with 1-5. The confluence of the Corridor with I-5 W be an overhead diagonal bridge structure over the existing AT&SF railroad"'ks. Construction of the overhead will occur such that rail- service is not disrupt- ed. The TCA is coordinating with the .AT&SF Railroad to gai.n clearance for construction via 1) an agreement for Acquisition of Railroad Property Rights and 2) an agreement with the railroad for Physical Construction of the project. Associated Facilities In addition to the roadway and toll facility improvements, the Corridor WITH include a number of associated facilities. These' include a main- t"eriance facility, detention basins, signs, retaining walls noi-sewails and lighting. The impact of these associated facilities is assessed throughout this EIR/EIS. A maintenance facility for the Corridor is proposed near the I-5 inter- change, adjacent to the AT&SF Railroad (Figure 2.8). The, maintenance station would have a roadway maintenance and landscape maintenance crew. The 's would be approximately three acres with a building of approximately �5,CC0 square feet. The rest of the area would be paved parking for employees, visi- tors, equipment, and storage. Access would be provided by Crown Valley Parkway via Forbes Road. o� r+oarn .�P� O SQOP OQ' 90� -FORBES PO P OSO CREEK G CHANNEL <;: iv 'INr cE.: A.T. & S.F. RAILROAD y< F. A CILI TY; .:.: : CAMINO CAPISTRANO -o 1-5 MAINTENANCE- FACILITY 2 - 17 FIGURE 2.8 2.1 DESIGN FEATURES OF DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE Mainline Section responsive to travel demands as the _.___ P y are rea i ze whTl*e'-mi nmi zi ng the overall size of the facility. Three general purpose travel lanes are proposed in each direction, with auxiliary lanes provided for weaving and on steep grades `gt A standard median width of 88 feet is proposed, expanding up to 115 'feet....iri several locations to allow for HOV lanes and possible transit faci1it€; See Figure 2.9 for a cross section of this alternative. The width of the "demand Management Alternative at its widest point (including climbing and merging lanes) is 254 feet. Grading widths for the Corridor are shown on Table 2.2.C. The length of the Demand Management lternative is 19.4 miles (14.5 miles of new location construction,` 4.2 miles dif widening on Interstate 5, and 0.7 miles of improvements on SR-73 between Jamboree and Birch). The connection of the Corridor with I-5 will require additional lanes to the existing four lanes in each direction as shown below. I-5 Lane Additions I-5 Segment Additions Total Lanes Ortega Highway to +1 each 10 Junipero Serra direction Junipero Serra to +2 each 12 Corridor entrance/ direction exit ramps Notes: Existing I-5 median of 46 feet will be maintained. Applies to both build alternatives. The Corridor diverges from I-5 near Avery Parkway using direct connection ramps. At approximately Crown Valley Parkway, the separate horizontal and vertical alignments of the direct connections transition to the typical six lane section which includes the HOV/transit median width, as discussed below. 2 - 18 1 [1 u 1 J 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 z w 2 w Q z Q z Q W G ui uj— J Q z O z w z U WE C� CV w This section is maintained throughout the length of the Corridor, with auxili- ary lanes added where needed (Figure 2.). Auxiliary lanes are added to pro- vide additional capacity to accommodate the heavy weaving volume between inter- changes and as an added lane for climbing in areas with steep grades. The typical six lane section with HOV/transit median becomes an eight lane section with HOV/transit median at the north end of the Corridor where the new construction tt join existing SR-73 near Jamboree Road. The fourth southbound lane "extend from the existing::: SR-73 to the exit to University Drive North. The "fourth northbound lane t1t extend from the northern most entrance ramp from northbound MacArthur Boulevard. The eight lane section either transition to match the existing six lane section of SR-73 near tW'Birch Street overcrossing, or ztld match a future project on SR-73 continuing north of Birch Street to tKe_fL405 t HOV/Transit Median The proposed median configurations shown in Figure 2.1" would provide flexibility for the addition of several different capacity improvements to meet future demands. Provision of six general purpose travel lanes, with auxiliary lanes where required, is anticipated to meet short-term travel demands (approx- imately ten years). As travel demands increase, HOV lanes are expected to be phased in to increase capacity. Based on..:::c.urrent..,..pro.ject :ons::..:of a strong directional shift in traffic demand, tt ' ted:3;'*;>:.&g.,g t;j ::><:s=:: the Demand Management g ment Alternative . provide reversib7*e..HOV "1tines* Under s a a two lane reversible roadway would be provided in the median, begTrin`ing`letween Crown Valley Parkway and Greenfield Drive with access to and from the general. purpose lanes. The reversible roadway would continue to near Jamboree Road> end i with access to and from the general purpose lanes. The reversible road- way would consist of two 12 foot lanes with ten foot shoulders on each side. There would be concrete barriers along each side to separate the roadway from the general purpose lanes. The overcrossing bridges span the entire mainline, eliminating columns in the median. The proposed 88-foot wide median space would extend from Jamboree Road. From Jamboree Road to Birch Street. the median 1 h 7 I I-5 to near widthiu< ' R-73....o.f....Y.�. .ii�e "-nrri`rnr connection at I=5--- and ... the reconstructed Avery., interchange to accommodate construction of HOV direct connectors. The direct connectors would a separate environmental document in the future. future require Direct HOV access would be provided using reversible "HOV drop ramps" at the following locations: Pacific Park Drive (between Moulton Parkway and La Paz..,:Road:)., :..,Laguna:::H:i.,l..l_s Drive, between E1 Toro Road and Laguna Canyon Road, and f arr univers..ty.::::�r:i:V.e::::North.•......'�► tednd + t<. ::�:�.a:n:c��.r� rsk Access to and`'`from the general purpose lanes is provided`'us�ng one way 2-20 I e a 0 1 g=4 G) 01 6) 1 (D CL (D 0 � p1 ; � W c U2 a CD (D > 0 0< CD CDO + CD CD cl) CD cn CID ?I .......... .... ...... P, "0 4 CD C+O ca to Iz 0 CIA .5 CD _L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OPEN MEDIAN - BOTH BUILD ALTERNATIVES REVERSIBLE ROADWAY - DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL GENERAL PURPOSE LANES - BOTH BUILD ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATE HOV FOR CONVENTIONAL CONCURRENT HOV LANES - BOTH BUILD ALTERNATIVES POSSIBLE MEDIAN CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 2.11 "slip ramps" at the following locations: between Crown Valley Parkway and Greenfield Drive (southern terminus), between Sand Canyon Avenue and Pelican Hill Road :::and :: between.::University ;;Drive ::North :; and Jamboree Road (northern termi nus) . ti # i+etta:. as:<'s :ex .:.*. ..e::>::t.:.> I•:n: ': »:wn. r.: ;t.ne:::>: >:emaona i - :::::Y:ti::Si::•:::::::::::y:::•::•v:.{:�{?•3.: {.}•: :.::w:.n:.:::::::::y:..v.+...::iiiii::i::Y?jjr:^::'ii::.v::: •{?: :.:i..i:•:l: •rl Yn•: is .::.x::::•:ixY+:: •;:.:u•: :w:: .: ::i•::. ly, provisions in the median width have been made to accommodate ossible future "fly over ramps" from the ramps serving Bison Avenue to and from the south. All access points south of Sand Canyon Avenue serve traffic to and from the north only. All access points north of Sand Canyon Avenue serve traffic to and from the south only. The criterion used to determine exclusive HOV access locations was to utilize arterials that go not have general purpose interchanges with the Corridor. This minimizes impacts on the arterial system by reducing the number of signalized intersections within interchanges. Additionally, several of the locations have been identified as future park -and -ride facility locations. Since the reversible roadways'` consists of two lanes, no addi- tional lanes for climbing are added: The reversible roadway one toll plaza, co -located with the mainline plaza, and no ramp plazas. I-5 Connection 2-23 7� 1 I 11 1 1 1] I OR. GOLDE�jOgS�o l , � aCi J` f = —Sam z `Rp. _ i' RuLRO p �REEk - • •'� FORBES RANCHO VIEJO CAMW( l I-5 MARGUERITE (f 'P 1-5 CONNECTION - ALIGNMENT # 1 11 F 1 1 1 I I 2J DESIGN FEATURES OF CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE`A'`t�)1`Y Mainline Section The Conventional Alternative is designed to provide level of service (LOS) D at most locations for the projected traffic design year 2010. I � The conventional alternative lanes on I-5 are the same as was described for the Demand Management Alternative. The mainline width of the Conventional Alternative at its widest point (including climbing and merging lanes and collector -distributor roads) is 376 feet. The length of the conventional alternative is 17.5 miles (14.5 miles of new location construction, 2.2 miles 2-25 1 1 GOLDEN------ 'O4 _ `SF0 �q l qS ---3•-_ RD. - ''.rl-sx— _ oso RANRO p `REEKS - �•;a••` — - FORBE5 CAMI,NO C TRANO \ 1-5 MARGUERITE ,Y Q 1-5 CONNECTION - ALIGNMENT #2 FIGURE 2.13 1 of widening on I-5 and 0.7 miles of improvements on SR-73 from Jamboree to Birch). HOV/Transit Median The proposed median configurations shown in Figure 2.1 provide for the future operation of concurrent flow HOV lanes separated rr..fromthe mainline travel lanes by a four foot buffer. The minimum median width proposed of 64 feet I extend from I-5 to Jamboree Road. This width can accommodate one 12 foot",M lane in each direc- tion, and a ten foot shoulder. The two HOV lanes would be separated by a concrete median barrier. A six foot width on both sides of the centerline WOMi1lbe kept open for bridge columns . The concurrent flow HOV 1 anesC UT access to and from the general purpose lanes with merge and diverge areas at various locations throughout the length of the Corridor. I-5 Connection The Corridor will depart from I-5 generally in a westerly direction toward the intersection of Crown Valley Parkway and Cabot Road (see Figure 2.12). It is proposed that a bridge be constructed over the Crown Valley/Cabot Road intersection. Access to Crown Valley Parkway and Cabot Road tu be provided by the interchange at Greenfield Drive, west of Crown Valley"parkway. 2. PHASING The construction of the proposed project would be phased based on finan- cial and traffic considerations. Financial consultants to the TCA are develop- ing a financing plan for the Corridor. This EIR/EIS analyzes the Corridor assuming that the entire length of the Corridor is opened on the same day. Initial construction is expected to consist of four to six mixed flow lanes, and all toll and other facilities needed to operate the project. Con- struction of the HOV lanes would be initiated when traffic volumes indicate a 2-27 I 1 1 1 1 1 P 1 1 1 demand for the HOV. lanes. Potential future development scenarios for the median are described in Sections and and shown in Figure 2.1. 2. RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PROJECT COSTS Right-of-way acreages and project costs for both Build Alternatives are listed in Table 2.8-'.A. The majority of right-of-way needed for the proposed Corridor project will be offered for dedication. to the County/TCA a's .a condi- tion of development project approvals. Through the central and southern por- tions of the Corridor, offers of dedication have been made and the land is being reserved. Areas not acquired through these irrevocable offers of dedica- tion will be acquired by the TCA. The TCA will transfer the right-of-way to Caltrans when the facility opens. At this time, Caltrans will take-over main- tenance and ownership of the Corridor. TCA will retain ownership and main- tenance of the toll facilities. 2.7 NO NMLTERNATIVE 2.8 ALTERNATIVES WITHDRAWN FROM CONSIDERATION This Section discusses alternatives to the evaluated in earlier environmental documents., or the course of this EIR/EIS. These alternatives County of Orange or the TCA. They are evaluated proposed project which were which have been evaluated in have been considered by the in the following section. The alternatives are grouped into categories, as follows: • Non -Alignment Alternatives; • Alignment Alternatives; • Cross Section Alternatives; • Interchange Alternatives; • Mainline Plaza Location Alternatives; and Non -Alignment Alternatives a. Reduced Route Location Study. Orange County considered limiting the study of alternative route locations to certain specific alignments. wh-ich had been identified in the preliminary County analysis of topography and planned development. However, it was concluded that the route location issues were both highly complex and extremely important to the citizens of Orange County. It was, therefore, determined that a comprehensive analysis of a full range of route location alternatives was essential. 2-28 1 TABLE 2.1.A - PROJECT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS Demand Management Alternative Conventional Alternative PROJECT COSTS Initial Construction Ultimate Project Initial Construction Ultimate Project -- Cost $ Millions -- Earthwork 103.4 104.1 107.1 107.1 Drainage 20.9 32.3 20.6 32.1 Pavement 52.2 61.3 52.2 66.0 Structures 163.7 193.3 168.1 201.1 Miscellaneous (Mainte- nance Facilities 34.1 49.0 34.3 46.7 Right of Way & Utility Relocations 69.7 69.7 69.7 69.7 Toll Facilities 16.9 20.2 16.9 20.3 Landscaping & Habitat Restoration 14.5 14.6 16.6 17.2 Engineering (Design & Construction 92.4 108.1 95.4 112.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY COSTS Acres Cost $ Millions Acres Cost $ Millions Right -of -Way Dedica- tions No Cost 417 --- 402 --- Right-of-Way In lieu of fees 346 18.1 value 380 19.9 value Right -of -Way In Ownership) 47 --- 47 --- Right-of-Way (Requiring Acquisition) 162 64.32 165 64.79 Cost of Business Relocations --- 0.78 --- 0.21 Utility Relocations --- 4.60 --- 4.70 Total Acreage/Nominal Cost 972 69.70 922 69.70 Contingency 99.1 115.7 101.2 118.7 Total Project Cost 666.9 768.3 682.1 791.0 2-29 1 J 1 u 1 1 7 b. Expanded Route Location Study. The geographic scope of the route location study was defined by several key objectives: 1) the need to tie into 1 SR-73 and I-5, 2) the need to avoid cutting through large contiguous areas of existing development such as Rossmore Leisure World, Laguna Niguel, and devel- oped areas of Newport Beach, Irvine and Laguna Beach, and 3) the need to eval- uate route locations which could provide effective transportation service as a major element of the regional transportation system. Geographic expansion of the study scope produced Corridor alternatives which could not satisfactorily meet these objectives. c. Alternative Land Use Concepts. Land use .and circulation alternatives for southeast Orange County were anal,,yzed in detail in the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS). The SEOCCS analysis included one alterna- tive which did not include the Corridor. The fi.nd'ings of the study received extensive consideration and public discussion during 1975 and 1976, including public meetings and hearings before various city jurisdictions, the Orange County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The SEOCCS Summary Report, Technical Supplement and the Draft EIR No. 187 evaluated alternative land use patterns in detail. 1 1 1 Eliminating the demand for the Corridor by altering countywide land use is considered infeasible. Each General Plan relating to the SEOCCS area has been premised on the conclusions of the SEOCCS regarding overall population and the regional circulation system. These conclusions included the SJHTC as a significant regional transportation facility. Likewise, several major planned communities have been approved subsequent to the EIR No. 267 designation of a locally preferred route. Since local General Plans in the County are premised on a regional circu- lation system which included the SJHTC, transportation demand generated by planned land use can be reduced only by regional down zoning. significant concerns/issues make regional down zoning infeasible. First,�an effort to reverse over ten years of regional planning would undermi-ne the assumptions of General Plan law. California law requires the Circulation and Land Use Ele- ments of a General Plan to be correlated with one another. Th-is has been done by means of SEOCCS and EIR No. 267. A decision to delete the Corridor would result in inherent inconsistencies between the Land Use and Circulation Ele- ments of the General Plans. Second, because each city's General Plan reflects different functional and economic interrelationships, down zoning would probably have a greater socioeconomic effect on some jurisdictions than others. Therefore, a coordi- nated regionwide reduction in planned growth is unlikely. 2-30 1 k 20% of the traffic on the Corridor is expected to be regional through traffic which will traverse the entire Corridor. Reduction in these long-term traffic volumes would require down zoning in more than one county. It is unlikely that San Diego County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County and a multitude of local jurisdictions could act to eliminate the existing and future sources of regional through traffic. d. Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives. TSM measures include those facilities/activities which maximize the efficiency of the pres- ent transportation system. Such facilities/activities typically include high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, metered ramps, ridesharing, vanpooling and park and ride lots. These TSM facilities/activities are identified as a part of the proposed Corridor. Indeed, toll facilities are a type of TSM because they provide an economic incentive to vanpool and ride share. However, an alterna- tive of solely using TSM on the existing circulation system would not meet the project objectives. Numerous TSM facilities currently exist in Orange County. ExistingHOV facilities include the Route 55 (Costa Mesa Freeway) concurrent flow HOV lane extending from I-405 (San Diego Freeway) to Route 91 (Riverside Freeway), a total of 11 miles, and the I-405 (San Diego Freeway) concurrent flow HOV lane extending from the I-605 (San Gabriel River Freeway) to I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) for a total of 24 miles. HOV facilities (one lane in each direction) are also planned for all freeways within Orange County, with the possible exception of SR-22 (the Garden Grove Freeway). Concurrent flow HOV lanes on I-405 in Orange County have recently opened. The Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and Caltrans are also proposing a system of special HOV facilities in Orange County referred to as "transit - ways." These transitways are intended to provide premium service to HOV vehi- cles, and will consist of Barrier Separated priority lanes, either at -grade or elevated, located mostly within the freeway right-of-way. Access would be physically controlled and would occur only at specific locations. A 20 mile transitway system is currently being planned and designed along I-5, I-405, SR-57 and SR-55 in Orange County. However, the implementation of these TSM measures will not eliminate the r need for the Corridor. Both the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the Regional Mobility Plan Component of the Air Quality Management Plan indicate that even with implementation of feasible TSM measures on the existing , transportation network, and development of new TSM facilities, including the HOV facilities described above, construction of the Corridor will still be necessary.... to accommodate traffic demand. Even with an increase in vehicle ' under Regulation XV of the South Coast Air Quality Management Di s- trict� requiring employers to provide permanent ride -sharing and van -pooling, transportation demand remains high enough to require the addition of the Corri- dor to the Regional Transportation System. As discussed in of this �. EIR/EIS, even the very aggressive HOV policies of the Demand��M*anagemerit Alter- native will not eliminate the need for the Corridor. Under the most optimistic HOV ridership assumptions, with '' 1.5 a i?`:A::` on the Corridor, demand will remain for six general" "purpose 1`anes: "h*6 eMre, use of TSM mea- sures alone is not a feasible alternative to development of the Corridor. 2-31 1 I e. Mass Transit Alternatives. The development of light rail .or other mass transit facilities has been studied as an alternative to the Corridor, or ' as a means to reduce the demand for motor vehicle oriented facilities. The Transit Development Analysis for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, dated October 1982, analyzed several means of providing public transportation along the Corridor. Based on the potential levels of service, operational features and local access for alternatives, the study concluded that the use of HOV lanes was the best method of providing multi -passenger transportation opportunities along the Corridor. I 1 1 1 1 1 2-32 C 1 17, It should be noted that although a transit only alternative to the pro- posed Corridor is currently infeasible, future implementation of a fixed light rail transit system issby.. construction of the proposed Corridor. as d i scu s sed y." i n tf<'::.: the median envelope e accommo- p :. :... ,..:::::::<:.:.......:..:.. p dates future rail transit im leroentat'ion. ;5�t, the proposed median envelope will accommodate HOV lanes as part of the 6*6*.Hdor project. The eighty-eight foot median of the Design Management Alternative typical section would allow the median reversible roadways to be converted to concur- rent HOV lanes, and a twenty-four foot wide by sixteen and one-half foot high envelope for a fixed guideway transit system. The 64-foot median of the Con- ventional Alternative typical section provides space for either concurrent HOV ' lanes or a 32-foot wide by sixteen and one -half -foot envelope for a fixed guideway transit system. These envelopes are sufficient for a typical light rail system employing articulated cars approximately 90 feet long by 8 foot 9 inches wide by 11 feet high. This system could be powered by a third rail system, or an overhead catenary system; either of these two power supplies is compatible with the proposed envelope. The space being provided for direct access to the HOV lanes has suffi- cient room (109-1161) to allow the construction of a 24-foot wide center plat- form station for the fixed guideway transit system. Access to the station platform would be via an overhead walkway from park and ride and/or bus trans- fer facilities constructed adjacent to the highway. f. Widen SR-1. An alternative to constructing the Corridor is the widening of SR-1 from MacArthur Boulevard to I-5 in San Juan Capistrano to , accommodate projected travel demand. This alternative would have significant 2-33 1 1 .1 r.� I 1 1 L 1 N§Wwidened uses, intersecting arterials and paral1el routes.order to accommodate traffic volumes ro ected for 2by OffliffillMfour d`'::::o l:::<:lanes. This widening would likely have the significant community and recreation area impacts described below: (1) Impacts on Existing Development. A large number of existing dwelling units and businesses which front SR-1 would be impacted and/or totally displaced, spe- cifically through the City of Laguna Beach. Relocation would be required. Additional noise due to increased SR-1 traffic volumes would significantly impact any remaining residences and businesses. Arterials. By widening SR-1 to accommodate traffic volumes not placed on a Corridor, resultant impacts would occur on other parallel routes such, as the I-40,5 and I-5 and on arterials feeding into SR_-1. Many arterials would need to be expanded, thereby creating additional impacts on land uses along arterials other than SR-1. Q) Impacts on Public Open Space. Significant impacts created by implementation of this alternative will likely occur on publicly owned open space and recre- ation areas located adjacent to SR-1. By widening SR - I, Laguna Beach City Beach, and County beaches, includ- ing Bayside, Crescent Bay Point, Aliso, 1000 Steps-, Three Arch Cove, Salt Creek and Lantern Bay, and Crys- tal Cove State Park would be significantly affected-. (4) Relationship to Project Objectives. Widening of SR-1 does not meet the project objective of facilitat- ing access to recreational areas along the coast and Laguna Greenbelt area. Rather, it intensifies an already congested circulation system. The project objective of minimizing through traffic use of arterial roads also would not be met by the SR-1 widening alter- native. In fact, significant increases in through traffic would occur. g. Widen I-40511-5. An alternative to constructing the Corridor is the widening of I-405 (which becomes I-5 south of Irvine Center Drive), from SR-55 to Avery Parkway, to accommodate projected travel demand. This alternative has been analyzed in greater detail in order to identify specific impacts on adja- cent areas, intersecting arterials and parallel routes. Figure 1:5.1 depicts the projected 2010 traffic volumes if the Corridor is not constructed. In order to accommodate these vol6es, I-405/ 5 and various arterial highways 2-34 1 1 would need to be widened. Table 2.8.A shows the additional travel lanes re- quired for I-405 and I-5, and Table 2.83 shows the additional lanes necessary in several key arterial highway links. As shown on Table 2.8.A, I-405/I-5 would need up to an additional six lanes beyond the currently approved two HOV lanes in order to maintain travel service comparable to conditions on the freeway when the Corridor is assumed. Assuming the need for standards comparable to existing freeway conditions, such a widening would have the significant extraordinary community impacts described below: (1) Impacts on Existing Development from An I-405/I-5 Expansion. Approximately 28 single family, four multi- ple family dwelling units, and 14 businesses would be directly impacted by the widening and would require relocation. Noise impacts along the freeway would be magnified by the increased volumes and by adding travel lanes closer to existing development. Additionally, higher and aesthetically unpleasing noise walls along long reaches of the I-405 would be needed to mitigate freeway widening noise impacts. (2) Impacts on Existing Circulation System. Many interchange ramps and connecting arterial streets would be overloaded by the additional traffic utilizing I-405 if the Corridor were not constructed. Ramp volume increases could require major modifications to inter- changes (i.e., expensive braiding of on and off -ramps or new connections to meet service standards). Freeway widening::`< where existing bridge piers or abut- ments cannot accommodate the additional lanesx would require rebuilding entire interchanges and `.'bridge structures. Construction would seriously disrupt already very heavily congested freeway traffic for extended periods of time. Of particular concern are I- 405 freeway to freeway interchanges with SR-55, SR-133 and I-5. (3) Impacts on the Arterial Road System. As shown on Table 2.8., many local arterials would require widen- ing to handle projected traffic volumes. These expand- ed arterials generally fall into two categories. The first category includes arterials accessing I-405 and I-5 which would be severely congested by traffic attempting to get on and off the freeway. if the Corri- dor were deleted; for example,1`` The second category includes arteri"a't s 61"c"K ` act as parallel routes to the freeway or Corridor (i.e., Moulton Parkway, University Drive, Bonita Canyon Road 2-35 1 1 1 1 u 1 1 I I ITABLE 2.8.A .- Existing Req'd Req'd Lanes Lanes Lanes WiCorridor W10 Corridor 1-5 Crown Valley Parkway to Avery Pkwy 8 Oso Parkway to Crown Valley Pkwy 8. # La Paz Road to Oso Parkway 8 Alicia Parkway to La Paz Road 3-0 12 12 El Toro Road to Alicia Parkway 10 14 14 Lake Forest Drive to El Toro Road lU 14 16 Bake Parkway 1-405 to Bake Parkway* ..... 14 16 16 18 1-405 Irvine Center Drive to 1-5 i-Z 8 10 Route 133 to Irvine Center Drive 10 Sand Canyon Avenue to Route 133 8 10 12 University Dr. to Sand Canyon Ave. 8 10 12 1 Culver Drive to University Drive Jamboree Road to Culver Drive" 8 12 10 12 12 MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree Road 1-i"14 . 10 12 SR-55 to MacArthur Boulevard 16 10 12 Bristol Street to SR-55 8 SR-73 to Bristol Street 8 Note: Lane requirements based on a capacity of 20,000 ADT per lane. Source: OCEMA Transportation Planning Division I I I P 1 2 - 36 I 1 TABLE 2.83 - EXISTING ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NO -BUILD ' ALTERNATIVE eq Existing Lanes Lanes W/0 ' Arterial Limits Lanes WZCorridor Corridor Irvine Center Dr. Alton Pkwy to I-405 6 6 6 Irvine Center Dr. I-405 to Valencia Avenue 2 6 8 Irvine Center Dr. Valencia Ave. to Lake Forest Dr. 4 6 8 Jamboree Road Bison Ave. to SR-73 6 6 8 MacArthur Blvd. SR-1 to Ford Road 4 4 6 MacArthur Blvd. Ford Rd. to Bonita Canyon Dr. 5 6 8 MacArthur Blvd. Bonita Canyon Drive to University Drive North 4 6 8 Moulton Parkway Lake Forest Dr. to El Toro Rd. 6 6 Moulton Parkway El Toro Rd. to Indian Crk. Ln. 4 6 8 Moulton Parkway Indian Crk. Lane to Via Lomas 6 6 8 Moulton Parkway Via Lomas to La Paz Rd. 4 6 8 SR-1 MacArthur Blvd. to W. Laguna Beach City Limits 4 4 6 SR-1 West Laguna Beach City Limits to Crown Valley Parkway 4 6 8 Aliso Creek Road El Toro Road to Glenwood Dr. 4 4 6 Alton Parkway Culver Dr. to Laguna Canyon Rd 4 4 6 Bake Parkway Sand Cyn. Ave. to Lag. Cyn Rd. * 4 6 Bonita Canyon Dr. SR-73 to Sand Canyon Drive 2** 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. SR-55 to Tustin Ranch Road 4 4 8 Irvine Center Dr. Tustin Rn. Rd. to Harvard Ave. 4 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. Harvard Ave. to Culver Drive 5 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. Culver Drive to Jeffrey Road 6 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. Jeffrey Road to Orange Tree 5 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. Orange Tree to Sand Cyn. Ave. 4 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. Sand Cyn. Ave to Barranca Pkwy. 2 4 6 Irvine Center Dr. Barranca Pkwy. to Alton Pkwy. 6 4 6 " Unimproved ** Unimproved east of Sunnyhill Note: It is assumed that the above arterial highways would be widened symme- trically about their existing centerlines. 2-37 ' and SR-1). Widening of these roadways would cause significant community disruption, since many arterial highway sections have been built to their planned ultimate width and have existing development immediately adjacent to both sides of the roadways. (4) Impacts on Public Open Space. The I-405/I-5 ' widening alternative could directly or indirectly impact a number of publicly owned open spaces/parklands due to either widening of the freeways or the widening 11 1 i 1 L� of various arterial highways. Potentially significant impacts to the following areas would occur due to addi- tional right-of-way needs: I-40511-5 Freeway Widening: University Park Intermediate School' San Diego Creek Bicycle Trai12 Heritage Park' Sycamore Parke Aliso Creek Bicycle Trail' Aegan Hills Park' Mission Viejo Hiph School' Madrid Fore Park Granada_ Parke Linear Open Space n/ of I-4051 Arterial Highway Widenings: Jamboree Road - Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve' Bonita Canyon Drive - Turtle Rock Community Park MacArthur Boulevard - North Ford Public Parka Moulton Parkway - Aliso Creek.Bicycle Trai12 - Sheep Hills Park (nowprivate-future public)' - La Paz Road Open Space State Route 1 - Crystal Cove State Park' - Main Beach (City of Laguna Beach)' - Aliso County Beach 1 Direct impact to site by taking of additional right-of-way. 2 Indirect impact by taking additional right-of-way immediately adjacent to site. 3 Indirect impact by taking additional right-of-way immediately adjacent to site. (5) Relationship to Project Objectives. Similarly, reduction of through traffic use of arterial highways would not be accomplished with the widening alternative because significant increases in through traffic would occur on parallel routes to the freeway. Widening of I-405/I-5 does not meet the project objective of facil- itating recreational access from inland areas to the coast and to the Laguna Greenbelt Area by relieving traffic on SR-1, MacArthur Boulevard and Laguna Canyon Road. (6) Impact on Regional Traffic Movement at the I-51I- 405 Confluence. A major impact of concentrating most traffic in an expanded super freeway would be its im- pact on the I-5/I-405 confluence. I-405 volumes pro- jected to approach this confluence from the south on I- 5 would increase from 306,000 ADT to 354,000 ADT with the widening alternative. At present, the I-5/I-405 confluence has 12 lanes, re- flecting the merging of the six lane I-5 and the six lane I-405. It now experiences severe peak period congestion and high accident rates with today's traffic volumes. The I-405 widening alternative would aggra- vate these problems through increased traffic and ex- tended peak period congestion at the confluence and at existing nearby Lake Forest Drive/I-5, Alton/I-5 and Irvine Center Drive/I-405 interchanges. Increased confluence congestion would cause a bottleneck in in- gress to and egress from the I-405 and I-5. Based on the User Trip Analysis performed by the OCEMA, there are 43,000 daily trips that would travel on the Corridor between its interchange with I-405 and I-5. If the Corridor were not constructed, these trips would likely use I-405 for an average trip length approxi- mately 1.2 miles longer. Assuming all these trips diverted to the I-405 or to arterial routes which would be no shorter than the I-405 route, the I-405 widening alternative would add an additional 51,600 vehicles miles traveled per day. (8) Inconsistency with Air Quality Management Plan. Additional widening of I-405 beyond that proposed by Caltrans would be inconsistent with the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Based on the assessment of the factors summarized above, widening of the I-405 was removed from consideration due to the extraordinary magnitude of impacts to the remaining freeway and arterial system. 2-39 1 1 1 1 11 Ll 1 1 1 h. Downgrade the Corridor to a Surface Arterial. Initial consideration was given to downgrading the Corridor from a high capacity, limited access facility to a surface arterial route such as Crown Valley Parkway or San Joa- quin Hills Road. A downgrading of the Corridor would have provided an opport- unity to mitigate some -of the environmental impacts directly related to the location of the Corridor. This is due to greater flexibility in horizontal and vertical alignments associated with surface arterial design standards and a minimization of the visual impact of the Corridor. However, a surface arterial would not meet the basic objective of serving future travel demand. A six lane arterial route would handle only approximately 30% of the projected daily travel demand of 156,000 vehicles for the Corridor. In addition, a convent Ton- al arterial highway would not accommodate HOV lanes and would be inconsistent with the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan. i. Connect the Corridor to I-405 via Oso Parkway. A suggestion was made by Laguna Niguel residents and others to connect the Corridor to I7405 via an existing surface arterial, such as Oso Parkway, rather than extending the Corridor to connect with I-405 south of Oso Parkway. This concept was rejected by the County because the functions of Oso Parkway are incompatible with the high speed, high capacity, limited access provisions of the Corridor. Oso Parkway provides at -grade signalized intersection access at intervals to serve adjoining land areas, while the Corridor would have grade separated crossings with no stop signs or traffic signals. Mixi.ng the two functions by transi- tioning the Corridor into Oso Parkway would pose potentially serious traffic safety problems for users of both routes. It would force through traffic onto the surface arterial system, resulting in congestion and a loss of many of the traffic benefits expected from the Corridor, particularly for through traffic destined for I-405. Alignment Alternatives a. Phase I Alternatives (EIR No. 267). A Corridor route location study was initiated by Orange County in order to establish a specific Corridor route and to avoid preclusion of potential route options by rapid development in the Corridor area. Figure 2.14.. identifies the route location alternatives considered and analyzed in Phase I. A complete discussion and comprehensive evaluation of the level of service, costs, community and environmental impacts of each individual alternative is contained in EIR No. 267 incorporated by reference herein. The County adopted the present alignment of the Corridor as the environmentally superior alternative based on the greater environmental effects of other I<(ry 267 alternatives. A summary of the EIR No. 267 align- ment alternatives and their environmental effects is provided in Tables 2..8.C, 2.8.D and 2.8.E. b. Additional Site Specific Alignment-Alternati-ves. In addition to the 28 Phase I alignment alternatives, several site specific alignment alternatives to the proposed Project alignment were developed during the preparation of Draft EIR No. 494. 2-40 Cos N ■ Ill t ' � �.J , lgVpyF J � /`_ , + t \ � \\ ' 1 `\ °,� � i - •�' 1u 8 t, \ i CD BLVI) IL JI t �� ITI D R EASTBWF� : ✓_. �voN KARMA j Q g. I �`•'ti"R�:�� MBORFF // .AVF 11 _ , CD 41, ? % (Z M/GAF , fp N la i Jt9 SPYGLASS / ' \,p <� �4� 1\ �.i•' `o j� HILL 0�• c�+ i ,,�; 2 v �i/ `� // ir • � �•�<J. );�, i y� . �l'_ `` l 'M � \♦ rI IZ lm ; � �in2� 1 \ \•�.-_�� , ,' jj pr w" ,' I' `��'� '>f � r ��l,/ I,l� j 1 1< �'�'• '1' • � N \ 1 1 " � � •'' i �a`' �, ," I >� �• ' T' •► rs• - • , •• �I •' irk" ^ 1 ix/�/� \ \A� /r , .- \I a�j' ~" �i �:.Icr� . y�" ~.• � � ' � 'v � ' � JI.�, �' � �21y J �! �Sral�' I Ir,;. "'' � ► � �� ■ `!r `• .i �\\moo '�••:::"�C9 �! i 9`�� l ,.�� r �� 1 `i`` i 106 i ry IV ✓ \ t i� _ ((rr 1 cn + _ /� �' •�..�a)'f� Y I \ ! o /. ' �-��i-,._- if ,� i<�_` • \o>< Ilk G ZD f t 'ice-" (✓' o Y `� —J %' !% .\x'{. // 1— Cam" �.� � OI•�' ''•.,�f'1v �1--c._—_'•`"js, v �� i' ::\ - --. ( '•o.r' l 1`•�YIFyo � ••' :. ^il ice:' /////�•� / o, '-'�� ,�—� + ,p `, / — ,/� 12. .a _ }� � i / JJ "�• \l.. I _ -� �'�� 'v'• /•`fro �"-�-� -'�\ - -'�� '��,,, NU Cal AL JMZ i ^�_ � � � �� .N J' 'auntl � _. it/�, •' � - .\ . m MM 0 > rn cn m m z m z m Cn m Cl) Cl) 0 m cn --I 0 > C) co 0 rl m s m 0 m z CO) 0 �z M > 0 m 0 m > -4 z r - 0 L N3 co %J Cl) M CA) N CO 44 C) 01 N 0 Cc �4 0) Cif ph w N0 co cn cf) cn t7l Ch cn t' Cf) v w 0 0 0 0 0 w m 0 0 0 0 0 0 1— H 0 H O'Q w H H UQ H '-t. CO) m CD (D (D (D m CD (D CD CD CD G) U) to U) W cn M ril -C C+ C+ m z m Ul Ln LT I InU, Cal CD w ON 0 w t.--' t7' t--' 0 CD (D (D 0 0 CD (D 2 m > rn p co rn p p W cn m Is r C+ ED C-t- U) ri) cri rt F- C-t- rF C+ C-t- C-t- m z G) 0 C) O 0 C) p C) CD C) o c) N) F- rl) C) I-- uj LA) N N 00 00 M 00 -4 ---J V. Ln --J In M CD N CD �O fn --j m n CA 0 7 0 P, :c I L ru: n t- 0 0 w t' 0 0 1, 0 T T t" T rl t, t, 10 tu 10 W Oo to 0 m —M 0 6 " 0 10 0 P, 0 " o :3 m V 0 1, o P, 0 a 0 r o r ;:� , P, n n o u o o u u 6 5 n wn OD to) :01 :03 "0 :03, P,u 0, - �l — 0 a - n . , - w . F ? , _1 0. 5 n- M, �u , U 0 ol or n o PF 0 I :e r .0 PI �a v 0 1 P, M. 0 e: a w 91 o p C) 0 . p p ". 0 9 Gt" 0 0 C) :1 :1 M. 0 R - 0 9. - 0'� a o , . , . , 0-4 >0 n 0 nt, .4 1 oo ts S 0 o o 19 - a - 0 0 t� 0 0 0 r 0 r- , lq 0 c- �E t. 0 r A p n _ F n u ? m P tj 10 F n 0 —1 z Id o " 1E n r t- P) 0, m A 0 p Fr n u u a co P 15 p :� P 0 0 p o D p 0 P, P, :1 u Op 0. hl :E L� * 01, u v 0 a 0 z < o C) r :3 n- 0 Cl* M P. A 0 a. 0 -n 0 0 CA 0 0 P, to no tILI 0 g r r 'm It 0 o o, - 0 0 0� u o o -Z'.O �: u- cn �v 0 0 �a cn n 0 0 V , . 11 m o. n- 0 u- En U M Cn (D IJ zy �-- " o m r '2 m n o CL 0 0 u 0 0, o Ll CL 0 a. 0 1 0 g, 0-no A, M n a 0 o m n a oo p - , " a , m . 0 r , 'o- m n n Ij , an X m P, 0 P, 4 n Ln EA Fr cn (n 5' 0 U 0 n m o- 0 0 —0 - t In En u n S. lm n V P, !� n p 0 0 n -0 0 n o n n n n 0 m ro n Q CL 0 m 0 V - — n . m o �: B 7. - 2. 3 n a zr :3 P, 0 0 0 P, p- n p FL n- p 0 a. - p,- , :n P, Pu - P, z , n p o '() P, " , u n :3 n u- n o o r 0 n m m n r. q 0 , n v M n 0 , r) o �m o. ii . 0 V 0 lo 0 a r a :3 g 0 C EA :r 0 m m 0 0 m gr o 0 A o- L A- 0 u 01 01 '1 P, 'D N to 0 I 0 P) w - pj -- n P, U 01, or , q.- w 0 r — — P I n P n c r� p n n . 0. 0 0. 0 C� u p , 4 .0 E. U 9L '0 U :3 It n r o 0 V :' w " a 0. o :6 M o 0 a a In 0 �u Cn 9L 4 0 n :3 0 x n :r In P' En 0 0 I n 0 t' CL :3 fL r o'Kn n P, P, w o' P, P' 0, 7, U V • r a m -1 n > 0 I n fx Cn X -.< (n 'A4 En �l 14' � En :;,0 'mq a (A *< En '4 > a >0 z X 0 p I P, P, 91 I P w 0 1 A- A- V P P, n P, P , n P, 0 n W W P, w 0 0 0 01 o C& — :; X" En 2. N -u �j -0 'L v V V I U U u u u :u u :0 U. U. C. Cj c C: C6 9L 0. E a 0 V 0 a C) m w tr 0- cr m Q. 0 0 0 0 0., 0 0 0 0 0 P" Z n n n M CL > 0 IL > cn cn m 0 P7 P7 27 cn > (n u Q P, 0 n n n > 00 r r q 8m QQ —M a 0 o mz* -4 0 0 0 P u n CIO u n P, P, FL n n r Ol 9, 5' a P, 1 0 V 0 a 0 a V 1 0 Q. 91 V 1 0 0 CL 01 0 V, 0 01 0 0 > L IV GD ZO) > cn r7 > zZ' C�I) M, Oz M- - > 0 zq nm Om mz>Win M- m 44 0- z rr r �r r �r ii■r r � ri ri rr �r �r r� rr r� �r r� it m >_`-1 Om� -to m "�' Z m m D� Z g m , O' m --a- ITI C. m _f moo f� ozp m c� --4 m Oz r W m n & Z- �,� Maw CO 00 O n O � OCM C r z n Z O V) _ **i r N OD V O� Ul to W N -+ O w 00 V -i O -a -� .-► W. N .� -a -+ O O OD V O C71 P W N �' Qv roa - roaaroaaro•aa roa roN a 4 p �sbXXW ,wGGN w R•O NN roH 'oH b•oH% uN ro •°. H Hx •o rom'a Nle Hx N •ti ,ti •mvF vw v -oinv ''vG ro- uv .1 v '<w v a b 'D o nx un No o xH- •o ° GG o° O i a°• kaa a F a % K' a a a % a •k k-% a a a " a aNa a. a s a G a sw yv • N t"' N 'T r• N N V, %H - a• ut pt a• O N OD p ut p N OD p N O C ,P G N ! i. ` N << N G •W �C• N It CC ��•• �i << N Ut , O• Ut N N N N ,-. r O� ... N y G N O� N N N ��x 3 Z ,•+ a' .-• „ .'T, O: n r H r OD H m C H O O „ O O •� Q O Q 0 0 U O 0 0 S W O O W U O W ° O G eNj ° W °' S W O 0 0 O q N O O O N W .YTi D 0 ' O. O O W N N x O O N N N 0 0 z O.F o [n O F O o to o? O F O.O [n o? G O C In o „� F O u! M F y ,,,° ry O Q „ O M m H O O O G ,,; n O .M m H O H 4 p' ry H W 4 •� W 4 ti •� W 4 h _ �, 4 Fl. „ M 4 a M H H O,' q P• M H p a ry H '4 • a„ O O 0_ - :{ Q M M H H O o .� M H H O 4 4 M M H n 4 Q M M n n O O Q Q .-• 4. �° O O 4 4 4 4 •� '� �+!-� w ♦/� M O '� M ran U •� U O M M '� O O H '� 0 0 g H •� o q b 0 B p z p z O O 3 O 3 O 5 O B O ry p- g O 5 O 9 .j U ° g O •.� O '.� 3 D O 9 O O H H O 9 3 H O B H H U O R 8 o 0 a v m-1 rm E ? b° yy b a7' ° 0 ° x xa x Ha K n x Ha F„ xx a•w xH w F xH o-x Hx' xH w K CO O r<,r a <rL<r7. a w r a F < w < n m < G r A R m u N G N G N N N N N G0 N a H p• ^ w „ H " w•F H, o w H H F a• ,„ H n m -• OyHA O O- O It nwI.°CI nO O 9 Q 5D ^ O ryry Om pDdeOpDOE rym It groC w O U U U O O O UP O °N ,H p p ry ny p ri Hn'� •L' .nw�' •� H ' a 5 �xaIt„• ry H ^ N E- m^E F 7r4E EE E� .40 Gm•- ^ •i'i n xi n F 0 ry ory H o CL w •J.' , n a R -�l•, o ry 8 IV m 81 e om Y Ury yy 0 Yp m -n ry _ a r�C' _ Y° It It " N°"" Ita x R It 5 y F• R G ° a y ° Y C U 1 O 1 O t O t U t _ m O N N w N ;mq ^ O OM m M, Z `C T y •C N n •C `< P •< `wC 03 >. O, °' o w O a n ° a m r e a XW - n O 4 n n " - �m a a a "w n w P"a. w w n a w N G ^Z^� Y/ M' O 'n: Y H O F m O H N n O F N M O K N O M N V 0 U) .{ N FO' •< n N; CO" F G -n� '< n N n N K N n P �• 7 7 !4 7 7 !;4 7 t4 7 7 7 t4 7 7 � 7 z 7 7 7 _7 7 7 7 'H/ 7 7 m/ r� • Y Y n a N N A �I �` �4 !-1 �4 �4 !--•1 �••-i �•-1 �-1 �-Y �-1 •r--1 �-/ �-•1 �-1 m a �% G ' a a y ' a a N a N y° Yt O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. m 'r w ro• N w v Y a '° w, b• •'� w v, m v, � '�� '�� "� '17 '�J' r"S 1'�• . � r'� � - �'S � '�� = "1.j O 3 ' "� n (D (D (D (D (D (D D (D" (D (D M_ (D_ (D- `(D -- _ - CO- - .. (D ._ -(D ( CD- (D- (D W Z - -- m n" n N n" n n" V;A man O w n n O 3 l7 l7 w N a m ��--- h10 x M o Mo x. M o X. Mo x. �o x 1 E x. ry E 4 E H a a a w a 0 a m 'rymmaa O roarl r „ n on a9mear 0, O•,oO ra[Rn"i°n 0 nn1j nHa° a"RP° G Y, rowa aR° n a 0 n< n O H O n O On H „ o 0.Gpa ; a o p any Ym<eG o 1nH F Y G . 1. tp O7' GpngRO It It a It It V u W Y It oa u -{O <0 It :3 m- It - a " < s a .na m. 3 yym mc,a nc Cx. � " Eo It • 1 w 7 O n a 'm m°A ° R It mOo 0 0 0 aGaa ' oHn a W w En0 a-° O0-4 m 'n�„1f<yaV•1 p,� a.a, °• l. ^ -W ."roEaF• rtx O <uq a m ' n C 47U n W L Y Z y It o o " "oro"Garva • a <' a I It a M NG n O< A aaaaa r o o CL a IL •?aa .aHc o <anH o .n'nsr o Fa�n„ mmN a a �amw°n po mOo ^ww a N r O Fryaa Faa FIL0 .°NaH< • aroa aHCn '';mryGa 'OO m OC a It- a w na F N n a s O • '�<ron�am <O ' a s •Yz° m a O v.rt •an v.ar O 'o '-tieai 'an va^ CuYnH roa OoHn v O v� baaw NaR "wgab�i 'oO mb _. • Rw` , o ° ° m H.°R0 am.awa�a m 'O?,•tin o • V T -°.p9 °�a.O 0 OFC O� 0r0 `�<< ° n F It ZW MY Y R„O - R„O �ryRO a<W a<`a o � oa ^Y ^ a R a "`"`. 1i°,^< a.q- n .•< W wKw m .< fi A < n <n n •nm-'anG O" A < r_N ' : R �a O m a' a a. m•'< a O °• E n NN a y K-oo. p a cc a ro .o m a IL o w• - < 0 0 0 0 ro G o a. ro 10 v' It °, m y a s o'"p ° � �w 1w" Nw" °w"". a w""< z w R a a m ^'m �w a� K° �° am < •° t• E F m G n a .r•n 0 .'a moNA ' wa R°wryw ° < 0 a5 ,naa°1p ry m ww` so awan ItIVa Ot<1 90 a 1• 00 Ha K ••��P� uw. r •o0„ .n�Ytaw 'a w a aN•Oa< nt^�n �.a".. Ow° -�aMn a �n � a y a T° . N a H0. �yOw . p aN a os - ..nRY�p'` . S-0 _4. Pl.^ - -•aaA - - _' __ .- - _ - - _'- - --_.�._ �- - - —" a ._...`--ry . -•=<_.-._ y �e ' •t_. ..' • u . _ doemm) O O p O p O p .'O O Cl O O o O o O O O C W 'W W N' `'N :? W N N W MM• • .• . • • • • . • • • • !a > 00 V �P In 00 00 00 00 00' •00 W' O W �o 00 :' -�] : :D 11 X _I r ' 3 V r Dm 3cZ� W z-4 roo�3 -m=. mr(C3 G7o' O o 0 0 C 0 o 0 o O o 0 0• o O o -o o O- o o' o 0 0 o r- s5c2lm rO • • •. DC O W Ui U7 �1 W W U1 N O f+ it i.1 i� rP f-' -+ �P 00 '.O .0 - j CO0O Go W W W - D C9 = rr v ND - H� y� 3Dm rA C m.m Z r W W W W W W W W W o N r-+ N f- �-' O' V) Do 00 '1 f -1 W rP W 1? O F -+ W F-+ W �p O O. �I 00. O -J N U7 O D` o Ln r �■ M r M r M mca-04 0 m m m m m "{ zmz m m m m71 nn --> M OZ CA > mn > O z to n M O n O -Zi O y r 0 n 0 - o V CNT1 W N O �O 00 V v1 A W N O W -CO V C) CNf O W F p •-I W (n .- V -�-I Ul O r O O C N DZ In� M mom �r 0 in 9t. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O "mN-- y-. v z tP w N N N - N O oo �p .O Ln r- •.1 00 W -1 00 UZ -1 ON 4 00 - -0o U1 C r 0 *-J O� �1 O N -I1 O r- O� .0 %0 O' a` 00 QD 00 0o N 00 "�. OX O ON U7 U7 O �D W N W Ln -.0 In Ui N O ip� 00 W O, W •] D :gym. N w N p r.) LA)w w tP v, In tP � = o rn a� w 0o 00 - N' .0 00 T _ O% r+ Cn .1 Oo W �P �- O (n 0o N .O 004 p UZ ,p .O N � �- O �O r � - O` O� O N O 00 11 W 00 rP In - 3 W IN N In -J 00 -.1 O r M.' p V _ - 7no r r' r - r 'r m`-o , y X (D (D tU O _(D (F O v-n rt,m 03 m � r a z' W W N N W N N N W N N W N N W W N N O W D` tP Ln 00 W 1.+ p O t--j 00 'D O -.0 -1 --1 i ND 110 N -'o W •mil 4 00 00 .0 U" a- W Ui •-1 U-1 4 W' 00• (n -1 00 00 Ur- t r .• N ,p N W ' - r7 . m O 1 M R M a 0 a 0 w 0 o o a IV' a a z Q nz oz 0r G Pr yY 0 r. 0a•�• 7y o 7m 000 - G w c o w F a Y a. ao Y �"•' oc Fn• aY p o o -• o N aN N r .a' Y a✓ y Y b rar-• `G poN .ra-.•. b `S `G PN '< ,,., '< `,wS.. py `,�i.. N _.r< pH `aCwb M .avC wy M N H � `r<wb �~ w0b ,`r<w0r p �N wr0a+ w 4,w w <YY wN• p w r •� M ro `< y •< 7 ;< r ;< r •C q r r'•n C n n A n n A A n A_ �j - f1 n n f1 ff a (f w f1 w fl w n a (1 w n w a w N n n y f .ar P; .°.• P; .a. a m P• R P; R a M P; M a R a n a ,wa„ a .a. a K P; M a n a K P. T a K a M a �..-.H _ K a �...,.-M K a K a R w ..^ ='-;ry ._ R a "' •.�. n r a M ?: R a . r �..�- __ M � „_ „- "M .� � �ry.� -'ry -• _•� '---.,-n - ry.._ ��H _ _ _ „ _ �.M .- —..-ry - =M � �...�M ....-. „: ry �_ M � �..ry_ M „ „ M' ry n n n n ^ o n O ^ n ^ ^ n - n n n a a a a N •N - N p p a O a a rJ, q ^ p rJ ,d p p y H N d N p N 7 b N 7 N N N N 7 H Y10, P H ^ •� H ^ y H ^ - a °a P r p r p a F• p F• a F• a F• p r O !a-• b F• a Fwn p ra+ O F• y Y - 5 ra-. p ,w..• y F• O ✓ p f• 0 a �• 0 a r 0 a ♦a•• 0 r o Y e ra••• ra.. Ia•+ hw.. Ia•• P. H - H n w M H Y �• w w w a w. •z •y, •y .z' �^ •z ^ •H �x y z^ 9 ^:.a 9 a zY 9 s .a z 0 o -o z 0 �9 o a <:a o o <y 0 `'c o �•� aw �- cw "'m ci o_ _ o 0 0 0 o Omm 0 ^ .a, n B raj a O a'y P. .a, n� .a, 5cn , F a n a O a H n 0 O a H n a a a a H O a� H OY aH q a H° °m H OM dH a' H G^: �. H gn H -^: a w a °a a a a "w a "a a "a, Vi V m3/�� ^ ,° fD ro N K 7C b tea' w N n N y�' wH H H H P. b H �• �• 'k X X •H' H H H H H 3 r� a ° z ° a � a.-9aY o 0 0m 3 � M � w °H^w 0mwwt M-- z -_I w a pr, x ° °' E R'c 1 0 a ry n m.< Z ro n n< �: < a a ?R „0 „p o a O-a •Cm� O o ° w O ° 0 °a • mm' ro °G 90 < N a X D w 0a a � n° a o 0 o 0 ° o H� xa w Hoau0 CO)o G O a o "HH^a0 abno0 YRH^w^0 z< d 3 . O � O c- w^•O c n> 0 a •� O ^ r a ^ ^ R 9 N D`i Or•r ry ^ M n M ^ M n as ma •* a .a.y a »0 a Z-m r C. m oZN >0 IT1 Ci � .o Z0)d = Iy j r Wl >N r,� aZ om wZ �7 �a o,� om. m m z v> o� �i m cn m r C 0 Z rr r rr r i� � � r� ri rr �r rr �r ■r ■r r �w ri ii� m cc1 2 ZM'r Dm D ,Z m M -700 cn C.m Cl)-i cn 0 0. N m -i m- r m Z -� D 0 0 0Z cn 0 mvD e0i's m 0 0 C" .+� 70 Wo r 0 cn- Z . Z r- . _ CD �yN O' 00 V O fn Ab r O+ N N N N N N N N N' —� .• .a VJ� 00 V In LTI A W 00 V O a -Ah O r r r r vZ� � ry o CD cn, o cn o r ti— o 9) M_ P P) CO) P) m rJ= fn CA O ,+ - cn c-i- ,Z - - Z . --i . 0 0 �. _ Z �oM On N N N N N N N N N C'.: Z m O N p O .O O :O r f. cc ck N P r- W V7 N w O,L m U't W Or '{ a W i- r- W Ui N W F r- p OC — N v> O O ClN m. �. O O O O O' p tD ' O O O O p O O U Q C) O O O .J _- O O O O O O- O �1 O O O O O O C U U O p O O O U O O O O O O O U O O O O' �r —� m O ti ;' o. ti a ^1 +^ C' o. n c. n o• of U n u" n u n m o �: a o w a �: �( W .I: O w J ai a ,. V w U0.•O"o T-ro y O ro a m a m c m rt y r. y R V R y N a a o w w ^ w a a a a a s M p y a y a _ n n r rn N p• a a a r� W U, y :f. G VI C y ,V y pw. y y ro N .O• 5 -j Ci ."-, a F a E y V y m O ° ° a >_ 9 -•n v :a . •° v: v to v v.. .° o cn c to ❑ v, a a w u p 7 -tl K •° Ci °a a °° G% - p O r, ui m ri.•<'� w n^ r 'a ,-rzi a w o .wa. � u u u' .n. - a K p a tD '-F+ '+ o a a a• m H A o ° r a " w a 'r C a° a o a 0 _� a a'p o D = 't ail C .°j n a A. •7 a �. a r Z• " H r• 'n n R H � „ rz H r. H R O r. R to J y w H •� H R rt - n^ R V• ,f P o a J H R R urti R m b R iy i+. H -� � R x x x• �c T � x � x R T � ,:C ,� S S H_ a a �� R° y 0 ?' � a ➢.° R P• v F H n ^ x �' c' 'a• v j u: r w o- w ,u`� '` w v. a r�. w a u w w.. tlo o R' to r •� y O . w m w• W' y' y a G a b '• b ro ro a ro ,•.wi v a .e ? W y .a w' N y 7 A. a n w" a' a a a a a ? R 7 m 'R ^ u T •o u a w ° w 'w, •w, w- °m v a v v a a r. k m y w w w a a Y w H H H R F a a a F a W _, a• N' N _, a '° a •+. -< U o 0 0 o n o •o w a a rn- R � •� H w w am urzi u a�R D rn °a D C 030 W - r cy O Ur O O O U O O N W n 0 0 -1 r my ti v m n P. 'A O u D Z rp O co _ O a R U ro _ 0 r °• 0 0 P w °' a a °' r m 0 r RCD- -- - - - R c = = c - ❑ - �ii r„<r„e „'e w'<• b< < R O O .R 0. R• R !, R M a n � R' ry f•1 '•N y 7 a r 0 a ,°+r0 Y, w ny o w0 z a• 00 0 3a°�wV G - w.°°a m° a ° a ^o 0 0 - - - , cn. x H N x :rH ° x x -O- °H - -0-H- ' °H - O R a O N O N y 0 rL O O uu < O m V c Re a v a R a p 9 CI a 9 n P a° H H n o H 'o^ a w 'M R O a u ro a O Z 0 ro 0 w p °-° 0 c 0 (� w 0 n w m x n-n 0 ° 0 ro o• R R a ti r"o a ° w n y ro. a n o n y ,w-• w n n w P '• w u R H a x a O a 0 m w o :T O O O O p; a 0. W 0. 0. a a� a.� a R x ry a P• n-. R R H +D ,� Gn, W r• a M ` ,., ✓ ..- M H 3' n n ° o m o o 0 'l m? ° :i rno J- 5 o" 2 7 a a a ro a z m `• R a x. ° x < H o x x< H - °' ° y H `- H H < H a E < y •, 0. H m Cl e C1 a w a a w u .p o ao w o r a .°, a y ti G o w w r a x < a •,° O Oy O' O~ y E o .z � � :0 r .• y a O- a �1 E � oN- � 0 .-• 0 �' U• n` J U H a ti n n 7 n- O n O n O n O- n'u 3 H° n'0 m O U n H o o O 0 H 0 o' o , o ui '� o ".' o' "• W < u• E u ice, V p • u o • U H O M n a V° y U G d_ .-. r a R a H +° V H p < H W H O H H a O W • ui y a y a 9 10 9 a y a 9 t° D a .9 a ,9 ro " 9 ^ .b 9 r H n. m s n 7 ti ryr �� w n n 7 n a a r 'n Y ro a .-• ro a Y ro w r ° G r+' ° w F- a '-' a '-' a. "' y .-• a. r-• N w U uJi m a w /' ^' R w a- r0 w R -rw-• "R 'w- n '• N .w"• R ram- N y a Y W v a U. � '< v N 'u i s •° 'J u N y fi 7 :J 7 tHY N 7 r"5 ] N (f R 7 R 7 N y rD 7 G - w ° :• 5 '; '7 ', w w a w a w w w N w a N w _ N G N w w w N w N a u .> u ' • m m m �, � z•'N• a^ w R' N � � R. P.° a^- R �° ro m U a V •' a `'r a a a '!, 0 '1• m Z. r" 1 °i n- � o -n c � r. n r, n n ^ a ri w n w, n w n Y OV p O 0 O N O N O N C O N O N O N" a w a H w r F• pi r°il u H a N .w- ^• r- .w..•w w _ C q•e r. r_K n r_•< n c� n c•< n c w w w w a - u w r' ' n w N 0 0 0 0 rn U• 0° a - a ao aO ao ao ao ao 0 „ y R R R F w .G •, � w L •�. w rx �• H x H •x H .1. 5 ^ L � ': P '• .r n U 0- O O VI 1• r I u v n u R a r c i• o i. o r o c° n• o, a y a a ci ii 0 J n. o v a..: ri..o �•.o u - w w• i u p � ., w a w o w :ni w a „ o r. '.Ri 0 � •. - � � n a N C D r D m N m .=L A ZD> vX Oo y zm Dm m--- O Z 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 7 I .University of California, Irvine (UCI) Boundary. An alternative align- ment designated as Alignment "U" was considered at the Ford Road interchange. This alternative avoids taking property from the 'University. Alignment "U" would be shifted up to 25 feet west of Alignment "R", the original Phase I alternative. This shift moves the Corridor into the Bonita Canyon Reservoir and impacts an additional five acres of wetlands. For this reason, the Alignment "U" option was eliminated from consideration.. Bommer Canyon/Crystal Cove State Park-. In an effort to minimize poten- tial indirect effects of the Corridor on Bommer Canyon Park and the Turtle Rock residential community northerly of the Corridor, and Crystal Cove State Park and the Spyglass Hill community southerly of the Corridor, the S -and L site specific alternative alignments were developed (see Figure 2.1`). The S alter- native is situated on the south side of the San Joaquin Hills. It crosses an area adjacent to Coyote C-anyon Landfill and would intersect an area of the landfill. The "L" alignment is situated on the, north side of the San Joaquin Hills crossing Bommer Canyon. This alignment is visible from Bommer Canyon Park, and crosses complex landslide areas. Alternative L was considered in both a graded Alternative L and a tunnel Alternative LT. The tunnel alternative was dropped from further consideration because of the extreme costs for construction of the tunnel and because the tunnel presented very difficult geotechnical problems. The tunnel would al -so -require significantly higher ongoing maintenance costs because of required ventilation works. Subsurface exploration, surface geologic mapping and -.aerial photography interpretation have revealed significant landsliding associated with the promi- nent northwest -trending fault zone located along the "L" alignment. The fault zone acts to partially buttress these slides, hence their anomalous location at high elevations along the adjacent ridgeline. Fault related, jointing also provides a conduit for ground water, and contributes to the instability of the slides to the east of the fault zone. Because the "L" alignment would involve deep cut slopes above the land= slide area, and deep fill embankments sloping down onto the slide masses, it was eliminated from further consideration. Additionally, the L alignment would create* visual impacts within Bommer Canyon. Accordingly, it is consi'd-. ered environmentally inferior to the "S" alignment. Vertical Alignment Options. Several engineering studies have been performed to determine the feasibility of mainline profile grades that do not exceed three percent. Specifically, the Corridor was divided into three (3) segments - Greenfield Drive to La Paz Road, Alicia Parkway to Laguna Canyon Road and Laguna Canyon Road to MacArthur Boulevard. Each of these segments was analyzed for earthwork, right-of-way and potential environmental impacts. The -results of these studies indicate that significant additional' amounts of earthwork, right-of-way and area of potential environmental' impact result from the reduced grades. The Corridor, with profile grades greater than three percent, has approximately 13 million cubic yards of excess soil materials.- 2 - 46 1 �:. N �c r m Q to ,. ,.? � E � " ,,•y..,�. ✓",�, ' N1x^ « �AF� �,I)� .t rft rah, s 4 } IPA F I.A T N LLJ cc D a LL 71� 1 Using the reduced profile grades, the segment between Greenfield Drive and La Paz Road yields an additional 1.5 million cubic yards of excess material. The segment between Alicia Parkway and Laguna Canyon Road yields an additional 7.5 million cubic yards and the segment between Laguna Canyon Road and MacArthur Boulevard yields an additional 7 million cubic yards of excess material. The additional areas of right-of-way and potential environmental impacts increase nearly 12 acres for the area between Greenfield Drive, and La Paz Road, approx- imately 37 acres for Alicia Parkway to Laguna Canyon Road and approximately 1.90 acres for Laguna Canyon Road to MacArthur Boulevard. The reduced profile grade would significantly increase the grading effects of the Corridor (CDMG, 1988, Alternate Profile Grade Study, Laguna Canyon Road to Alicia Parkway). Grade lowering in some areas would require deep cut slopes with potential stability problems. Lowering grades would generally increase grading and slope stabilization, substantially increasing costs. The increased grading would also cause severe environmental damage, including loss of open space, biotic habitat and archaeological sites. The vertical alignment options were elimi- nated from further consideration due to the significant increase in grading and associated environmental effects necessary to reduce the roadway grade. Cross Section Alternatives Various roadway section were considered for the Corridor in Draft EIR No. 494. Several options included the reduction of design standards such as level of service criteria by limiting the number of through and auxiliary general purpose or HOV lanes. The purpose of these reduced cross sections was to -limit the width of the SJHTC in order to minimize potential environmental effects. Specifically, the following alternatives were considered: Alternative B1. This alternative included six to eight general purpose travel lanes and required a graded padway of 162 to 186 feet. A 64 foot land- scaped median was proposed. No HOV lanes were planned. Climbing lanes would be provided, but the truck traffic prohibited. Alternative B2. This alternative included six to eight general purpose 9 9 travel lanes and required a graded padway of 162 to 186 feet. A 64 foot land- scaped median was proposed. No climbing lanes or truck traffic would be included. Alternative C1. This alternative included six to eight general purpose travel lanes, and required a graded padway of 128 to 152 feet. A 30 foot median was provided. No truck traffic or HOV lanes were proposed. Climbing lanes would be included. Alternative C2. This alternative would vary from six to eight general purpose lanes, and would require a graded padway of 128 to 152 feet. A 30 foot median was included, however no HOV lanes, truck use or climbing lanes would be provided. When compared to the build alternatives, the smaller cross sections of Alternatives B1, B2, C1, and C2, would require somewhat less grading, slightly lower noise levels, lower construction costs, and somewhat less aesthetic, .� 2-48 impact. However, these cross section alternatives were rejected for the fol- lowing reasons: (1) failure to include HOV lanes in the alternative cross sections would not comply with the Regional Mobility Plan or South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, (2) the lack of climbing lanes in Alternatives B2 and C2 would increase congestion on the facility below Level of Service D in many areas and therefore not comply with Caltrans standards for new facilities, (3) the reduced median width of these cross section alternatives forecloses the possibility of potential future transit projects. Interchange Alternatives The West End Analysis, prepared as part of DEIR No. 494, examined the traffic demand for the portion of the Corridor between MacArthur Boulevard and Sand Canyon Avenue. The study was conducted to demonstrate the implications of deleting selected freeway interchanges or arterial connections to the Corridor within this section. Traffic forecasts for year 2010 were compared with resul- tant volumes when selected links or interchange connections are deleted. Base case for the analysis is the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways including the proposed configuration of the Corridor. The alternatiJ network configurations analyzed were as follows: • Deletion of Ford Road interchange (Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive as an undercrossing only). • Deletion of Ford Road connection to the Corridor (retaining a par- tial interchange to connect with Bonita Canyon Drive to the north). • Deletion of Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Drive connections to the Corridor (both interchange and undercrossing deleted). • Deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension from Pelican Hill Road to the Corridor. • Deletion of Ford Road interchange (as in Alternative A) and dele- tion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alternative D). • Deletion of Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive connection (as in Alter- native C) and deletion of San Joaquin Hills Road extension (as in Alternative D). • Deletion of Culver Drive/Pelican Hill Road connection. • Deletion of Culver Drive/Pelican Hill Road connection plus deletion of Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive connection (as in Alternative C). The study made the following conclusions: • Deletion of any one of the proposed interchanges would result in increased traffic at one or more of the other connections, with unacceptable levels of service at some locations as well as arter- ial segments to which traffic would be diverted. 2-49 1 • Primary impacts of deletion of connections would occur on. Bison Avenue, Pelican Hill Road, MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road.. If all proposed connections are provided, the overall circulation system and particularly the arterials, that access the Corridor would generally operate within acceptable levels if constructed at their master plan designations. La Paz Road and Moulton Parkway Interchanges. DE.IR No. 494 analyzed alternative interchange designs of constructing connections at either Moulton Parkway or. La Paz Road in pl-ace of connect ions at both locations as proposed. Del-etion of the La Paz Road interchange would cause significantly reduced traffic volumes on La Paz Road north and south of the Corridor and on the 4 Corridor between. La Paz and Aliso Creek Road. Ramp volumes would increase on the Moulton parkway and Aliso Creek interchanges but would remain within acceptable levels. Other types of effects would .i-nclude- reduction of local noise, light"and glare and construction impacts adjacent to La Paz Road. Removal of the Moulton Parkway interchange would sign.ificantly, increase westbound AM traffic volumes at La Paz Road, Aliso Creek Road and Crown Valley Parkway. It was concluded that deletion of this interchange would have a greater adverse effect on traffic flow at Crown Valley parkway and adjacent arterials. Other environmental effects of removal of the interchange at Moul- ton Parkway would include reduction of 1-ocalized noise, light and glare and construction impacts. Laguna Canyon and E1 Toro Road Interchanges.- Deletion of either inter- change was determined to result in rerouting of traffic to the other inter- change and adjacent arterials, although no adverse effects on level of service on these arterials would occur. Deletion of either interchange would result'in access to the Corridor being further away for either the Saddleback community area or Laguna Beach. Mainline Plaza Location Alternatives Five alternative mainline barrier toll plaza locations were studied (Technical Memorandum TM 3-17, CDMG) to determine the best location. The five locations studied were: 1. 1,000 feet north of Pacific Park Drive 2. 2,000 feet south of E1 Toro Road 3. 1,500 feet south of Laguna Canyon Road 4. 6,000 feet south of Sand Canyon Avenue 5. 1,100 feet south of Sand Canyon Avenue 1 Alternatives 1 - 4 were not selected for further study because they would have greater impacts than Alternative 5. These impacts include grading in- creases of 1 million to million cubic yards, impacts on planned or under construction development," and engineering constraints due to grades and roadway geometrics. 2-50 :::.;::.......;.:..............:.........:...::;.:<.;::::::..........:.:...:...........:...:..: 2 - 51 I I I I t I I 11 I p I 1 I n I 2 - 52 F1 I RELATED TRANSPORTATION -PROJECTS 2 - 53 I � I ri I � I t I 1 1'. I � u I � I I I 1 1 Improvements to State Route 74 (Ortega Highway) The project includes widening Ortega Highway between Aven'i'da Siega and Avenida La Pata in the City of San Juan Capistrano to four lanes and replacing the Lower San Juan Creek Bridge. Depending upon funding, future construction could occur in 1991. Interstate 5 The Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC), in cooperation with Caltrans, is preparing an environmental assessment for improvements to I-5 between I-405 and SR-1. With the exception of the no project alternative, each of the five alternatives propose to add additional _capacity by constructing either a general purpose or HOV lane. The proposed project is not in the existing State Transportation Improvement Plan and has no other funding source. Barranca Parkway/I-5 Overcrossi.ng A new six lane overcrossi.ng is under construction to accommodate the I-5 widening and construction of northbound HOV on -ramps and southbound HOV V off -ramps,..:.; Construction is scheduled to be comP1 eted i.n _. 7 ale 1990. ::.:::.:.:::.:::.::.::. the new Barranca <» 2-54 1 overcrossingt o.p,en.„,:a.:east/west arterial traversing the Irvine Spectrum business complex �p.7.'� The completed overcrossin p g will provide: additional capacity fo*'heiJ'r a and relieve congestion on Alton Parkway and :z`�;�'>��<�<t: I-5/SR-55 Interchange Reconstruction This interchange will be reconstructed in three phases. Completed Phase One consisted of widening the SR-55 Freeway between the interchange and Dyer Road to preparefor construction of fly over ramps to I-5. Phase Two ::.t..:.::..:..:: ?€' t consist?s; of the widening of SR north of the interchan e 9 g to`��th Street; as `well as widening portions of I-5 between Red Hill Avenue and 4th Street. Construction of Phase Two is scheduled to be completed in early. 1992. Construction of Phase Three ::flyover ramps, transit ways and soundwalls.** expected to be completed in ' 1994. SR-55/Costa Mesa Freeway Extension The Costa Mesa Freeway is being extended from Bristol to 19th Street in the City of Costa Mesa. Four mixed flow lanes will be constructed in each direction below grade. Extension of SR-55 will i;ifi to link between cen- tral Orange County and beach communities, and he`fo'ill' a"congest ion on New- port Boulevard. Phase One is scheduled for completion in the spring of 1991. Phase Two is scheduled for completion in "d::1992. SR-73/SR-55. I-405 Confluence Improvements A series of projects are proposed within this confluence area. tt< :these projects have received environmental clearance and are expecte""6'e Funded through cooperative efforts of the cities in the area, the County of Orange, Caltrans and the TCA. Improvements to I-405 between Harbor and SR-73 include restriping, adding one auxiliary lane in each direction and improving ramping. Improvements to SR-73 between I-405 and Birch Street include adding two mixed use lanes in each direction and widening the northbound SR-73 to northbound I-405 connector. Improvements to the SR-73/SR-55 connectors include construction of the two missing Route 55/73 connector ramps. 2-55 A 1 �1 11 1 I Ll 11 0 I r I 1 1 1 [1 I r r Ford Road Extension/Realignment This related project involves the extension of Ford Road from its present terminus to an interchange with the Corridor, and realignment of the existing road. The Ford Road project is a separate project, which will be the subject of a separate environmental document approval process. However, the Ford Road project also serves as mitigation for construction impacts of the Corridor. Technical Memorandum TM-2-65, "Construction and Traffic Conflicts Pelican Hill Road and SJHTC," prepared by CDMG, 1989, examined traffic management alterna- tives for construction of the Corridor through and around Pelican Hill Road. Four alternatives for detouring traffic from the Corridor right-of-way were examined. It was determined that the best option for handling Pelican Hill Road traffic during Corridor construction was to buil-d the Ford Road extension, 2-56 2-57 i n 1] ri i a I I 1 i 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 A AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter describes the existing. environmental setting for the Corridor project area. Information about the existing setting has been organized by resource topic, and these resource topi.cs are assigned separate sections within the Chapter. These sections typically address the resources within the Corri- dor alignment from its south terminus to the north terminus. 3-1 1 3.2 GEOTECHNICAL A geotechnical report was prepared for this project by Geofon, Inc. in September, 1989. The following summarizes this report. Topography The project area is the San Joaquin Hills and Sheep Hills, which together extend from Newport Beach to San Juan Capistrano. The typical topography con- sists of rolling hillsides, occasional steep ridges, narrow alluvial basins, and canyon bottoms. Major topographical relief ranges from 200 to 1,200 feet throughout the project area. Large canyons, arroyos and ridges are oriented in a north -south direction, and major watersheds drain towards the Pacific Ocean. Valleys and gently rolling hills are aligned in a northwest to southeast direc- tion. Seismic The proposed Corridor project is located within a regional area of seismic activity. There are several local faults, none of which are reported to be potentially active. The longest and most significant fault which crosses the Corridor alignment is the Shady Canyon fault. Other known faults located in the project area include the Laguna Canyon Fault, the Pelican Hill Fault and the Temple Hill Fault. The Shady Canyon and Laguna Canyon faults are illus- trated in Figure 3.2.1. The exact location of the Pelican Hill and Temple Hill Faults are in question, and therefore are not illustrated on the Figure. Important regional faults which are active or potentially active include: the Newport -Inglewood, Whittier -Elsinore, Sierra Madre, San Jacinto and San Andreas faults. These faults are also illustrated on Figure 3.2.1. Regional active faults and their seismic parameters are shown in Table 3.2.A. Soils and Bedrock Formation The project area is..generall.y composed of soils ranging from free draining sands and gravels tor? silty material and poor draining claysr..Cl:a ey .soil:sare'�found"'i6`..th6..northwestern portion of the project area, and »' f.:mand silty materials occur in the canyon bottom areas. Near` [:'aguna �anyon';...si 7ty soils are most common. These silty soils give way to UMA 1 I 1 1 U i 1 1 1 1 1 1 L Il 1 {1 r� 1 Cl LJ X a r a n= ¢ 4 >. OW wo N� Ya o< J O N G v a OZ wu z Z LL Z 1 t 1 Q� ow W w - C7 ¢ < ' vi a to �< • <N• n. 4 0 IA rn I J O u� (Ll4 0 O e �» 6 y O T N M Ill 0 M r�1 TABLE 3.2.A - SEISMIC PARAMETERS NEAR THE PROPOSED SJHTC I Maxis Maxi" Credible Historical Approximate Distance Frm Earthquake Magnitude Earthquake Magnitude Fault SJHTC (Miles) (Richter) (Richter) Newport -Inglewood (Active) 5.5 7.0 6.3 Whittier -Elsinore (Active) 25 7.5 6.0 Cucamonga - Sierra Madre 40 7.5 6.4 (Potentially Active) San Andreas (Active) 50 8.3 8.0 San Jacinto (Active) 42 7.5 7.1 Source: Geofon, Inc.; Zeiser GeotechnicaL, Inc., 1989 clays near Aliso Creek. As shown in Figure 3.2.2 expansive soils are found inthe northern project area near Bommer Canyon and throughout the southern project area on the south side of the proposed Corridor alignment. Com- pressible and collapsible soils are primarily located on the north side of the Corridor alignment in canyon bottoms and creek beds. ■ Artificial fills are primarily found along existing roads and in connec- tion with relatively minor checkdam or drainage embankments. Two major fills exist at the San Joaquin Reservoir (dam embankment) and the Coyote Canyon Landfill (cut and cover refuse disposal site). Sedimentary bedrock units along the alignment range in age from Paleocene to Pliocene. They include the Silverado Formation, San Onof re Breccia, Sespe Formation, Vaqueros Formation, Topanga Formation, Monterey Formation, Capis- trano Formation and Niguel Formation. Liquefaction The potential for liquefaction occurring along the Corridor is limited to the following areas: San Diego Creek, Bonita Creek and Canyon, Laguna Canyon and E1 Toro Crossing, Aliso Creek Crossing and Oso Creek Crossing (see Figure 3.2.2). These areas contain fine silts and sands which are located below the existing water table. Liquefaction may occur in these areas if a seismic event of sufficient magnitude occurs on a nearby fault. Slope Stability Mass movements in the project area include surficial zones of creep and several bedrock landslides. Creep, the slow downslope movement of topsoil and slope wash, is present on the steeper slopes, particularly the slopes with thick accumulations of soils underlain by the Los Trancos Member of the Topanga Formation and the Sespe Formation. 3-4 '190 , Wl/ z A"' Al i 41 RW- le CL Ll %l p 1 '44 (D cr Nil L-4 gin,C-3 f IGUY&VH /* A I I 0 cm th LLJ 0 LL r r As shown on Figure 3.2.2, : :.areas: of 1 andsl i di ng exist along the, north side of the ro'ect ali nmenty p tryd• :,.<. I he I ands 11 ae area near Laguna una anyon"id`..To:ro::Roa:ds:::i:s::an:::extens:i:::v:::e.:1'a.:n:dslide complex consisting of nine individual .landslides. These landslides vary in type from relatively minor, shallow soil zone slumps, mudflows and rockfalls, to very large, relatively stabl-e deep seated landslides. 1 f r 1 1 1 3-6 3.3 WATER RESOURCES A Surface Water Water resources in the project area consist of canyon streams, man-made reservoirs, natural lakes and marshes. The reservoirs and lakes which impound ' water throughout the year include: the San Joaquin Reservoir, Laguna Niguel Lake and the Laguna Lakes. The Laguna., .:Lakes are the onl,y,,;: natural lakes in Orange Count . Two of the lakes `:..." <::::: {. 3€..4:: are seasonal, depending upon winter rai ni~al 1 for accumul at�'on o lake water. Other significant water resources include Upper Newport Bay and the San Joaquin Marsh, both of which have wildlife and ecological importance. Surface water, in the form of precipitation, is drained through the many water- sheds in the vicinity of the Corridor. Figure 3.3.1 illustrates these water resources in addition to watersheds and tributaries adjacent to, but not crossed by, the Corridor. Mador Water Courses. Horno Creek crosses the I-5 Freewayapproximately PP Y 2,000 feet north of Ortega Highway. The main channel in the watershed flows southwesterly, from the Plano Trabuco where it joins San Juan Creek in the City 1 of San Juan Capistrano. Trabuco Creek crosses the I-5 Freeway in the City of San Juan Capistrano. A major tributary of Trabuco Creek which crosses the Corridor is Oso Creek Channel. The Aliso Creek watershed begins at the southwest facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountain range, and extends down into the developed areas of Laguna Hills. Steep upper canyons contain no drainage improvements, and are covered with brush and trees. Moderately sloping lower canyons contain extensive storm drain improvements and large residential and commercial developments. The major tributary within this watershed crossed by the Corridor is Narco Channel (North Sulfur Creek). The tributary area of the Laguna Canyon watershed is made up of steep canyons with fairly impervious soil. The area at present is mostly undevel- oped. The main channel flows north to south parallel to Laguna Canyon Road. The valley below is subject to regular flooding. The existing channel adjacent to Laguna Canyon Road (Route 133) is an earthen ditch. A major tributary within this watershed is the Niguel/El Toro Creek Channel. ' The San Diego Creek drainage basin begins in the San Joaquin Hills to the south and the Santiago Hills to the north. The main channel of the San Diego Creek watershed flows westerly into the Tustin Plain and then flows southerly and eventually discharges into upper Newport Bay. A major tributary within this watershed is Bonita Channel. Natural flow within these watersheds occurs almost entirely during the normal rainy season of December through March; however, irrigation return and rising waters contribute to surface flow throughout the year in several areas. 3-7 =mom 1, cost z 0 CMD '0 ca CDCDN CD < cn 0 =r =r =F CD CD ... ...... 0 0 It ..... . I"! " C 0 11 ;4� cn a ;T a CL A 0 -LBRD CD 0) ch Jil 0 > m mm OV 44 0 0 3- Z'/ ks; Y" ID L4, Nl. 0 "JI., z % z z ZO 0 A yj 1)0 Ti Z..z Xv U, < 0 0 z z 0 Cl) z M, —SAND 0-- z Z' x ,\Z 0 z z Z er 0 z 0 'nat/ ON Z r Y 0, 0 r 1 z r z z 2 L nt I41 : z 0 p .......... mg j O"m "PO M m '0' �, 00 m%Wv_mmmRmw ... ....... .. .... ... M W m /0'. ------- TO, Nq 0 /Z C_ CA 1 I r I Flood waters are generally of good quality except for sediment, and are low in soluble salts. Low irrigation return runoff is usually more saline and of poor quality. Channelized drainages in the area include North Sulphur Creek/Narco Chan- nel, E1 Toro Creek (partially channelized) and Sulphur Creek. Floodplains National Flood Insurance Program maps were used to determine the portions of the Corridor which encroach into the 100-year floodplain. The major flood - plain areas are shown in Figure 3.3.1. The Floodplain Hydraulic Study in the Hydraulic Technical Studies document contains the FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate) maps of each floodplain area along the Corridor alignment. These floodplain areas include: Horno Creek Trabuco Creek Channel Oso Creek Aliso Creek E1 Toro Canyon/Niguel Creek Laguna Canyon Channel Coyote Canyon Channel Bonito Creek San Diego Creek Channel 1 Below Jeffrey Road 3-9 1 Groundwater A number of small groundwater basins are found in the project area. The largest basins are found within the San Juan and Aliso Creek drainage systems. Abandoned wells are located in the Oso Creek, Aliso Creek, Laguna Creek and Bonita Creek watersheds. Wells located in the San Juan Creek area are used for , agricultural or back up (emergency) domestic supply only. Groundwater quality of the Aliso Creek watershed is generally poor because of irrigation return and the marine origin of the formations in the lower basin. The groundwater capacity of Oso Creek is small and of limited use because of contributions from base formations. Groundwater bearing formations in Laguna Canyon are small and shallow. The water is unsuitable for municipal needs in terms of quality, quantity and economic feasibility. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 - 10 A 11 J 3.4 AIR QUALITY The Corridor is located in the South Coast Air Basin in the southeastern portion of Orange County. The Corridor is wholly contained within the south- east Orange County subregion, as delineated in the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast lasin. The entire Orange County climate is gov- erned .by the strength and"" location of the semi -permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby oceanic heat reservoir. The local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, ' infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes and comfortable humidi- ties. Orange County receives an average of 12.8 inches of rainfall a year. The prevailing summer daytime winds in.the area are from the southwest at eight to twelve miles per hour. On summer nights, the pattern reverses with wind coming from the northeast at four to five miles per hour. In the winter months, daytime ocean winds come in at seven to nine miles per hour and night- time -winds are three to eight miles per hour. The net effect of the prevailing wind patterns is that locally generated air pollutants are rapidly pushed eastward toward Riverside County by day, and slowly drift back seaward at night. Ambient Air Quality Standards Two Federal statutes addresses transportation -related impacts on .air quality: The Clean Air Act of 1970 as amended (42 U.,S.C: 7401, et. seq.), and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C. 1090). The Clean Air Act -estab- lished national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), with each state retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other pollution standards. California established air quality standards prior to enactment o.f the federal AAQS. The California standards are typically more stringent than the Federal AAQS. The current federal and California standards which are relevant to transportation facilities are listed below: Pollutant Federal Standard State Standard Ozone (0,) .12 ppm 1-HR .10 ppm 1-HR Carbon Monoxide (CO) 9 ppm 8-HRs 4 ppm 8-HRs 35 ppm 1-HR 20 ppm 1-HR Particulates (TSP) 260 ug/m' - 24 HRs 100 ug/m' - 24 HRs Inhalable-Particulates 50 ug/m' - 24 HRs 150 ug/m' - 24 HRs ppm = Parts by volume per million parts of air ug/m' = Micrograms per cubic meter of air Baseline Air Qualit Local ambient air quality is monitored by the SCAQMD at several locations in Orange County including the E1 Toro and Costa Mesa stations which are in close proximity to the project area. Local ambient air quality -data recorded at the Costa Mesa and E1 Toro stations from 1986 to 1988 indicate the Ifollowing: 3 - 11 • Ozone levels exceeded both federal and State standards by a wide mar- gin in 1986, 1987 and 19887 Although ozone levels were exceeded in all three years, the trend over the three year period is an overall reduction in ozone levels. • Carbon monoxide, which has been decreasing due to automobile emission controls, exceeded the federal and State eight hour standard at the Costa Mesa monitoring :station in 1986 and 1988. The :federal and State 1 hour standard �rnot exceeded at either of the- monitoring stations for the three year period. • Particulate (TSP) levels exceeded the State standard in 1986, 1987 and 1988 but have not exceeded the national particulate standard during these years. • Inhalable particulates (PM10) have not exceeded the State standard for the three year period. However, the federal PM10 standard has been exceeded at the E1 Toro monitoring station in all three years. Background carbon monoxide (CO) levels were measured by Caltrans at three locations near the Corridor alignment in the City of Irvine. The CO levels were sampled for a six week period between November 13, 1989 and January 20, 1990 during the winter months when CO concentrations are highest. The CO levels, measured from hourly bag samples, were analyzed and the second maximum 1 hour and 8 hour levels were reported as follows: Time Period CO Level 1 hour 8 ppm 8 hour 3.4 ppm The measured background CO levels are used to determine the microscale CO concentrations at receptor locations along the Corridor (see the Air Quality Impacts discussion in Chapter 4). 1 1 I 1 1 3-12 1 1 pi 1 1 1 I I i I 1 3 - 13 1 3 - 14 u I 1 1 1 P, 1 1 'I 1 1 i 1 1 1 3 - 15 Fl I Ix. MA . ............ ............ ......... I.... x ...... . . . . . . ..... sit' .. . . .... ... gn awr ar ............ ......... ...... ........ . .... gy" WIN IX:............. ilin 1*.".......**'...-.**'t*'."P.'M.'."'....il."....'..."*.*"..*, ..... ... .. .. ... . II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lov ............. . .J. b ................. 0 3 - 16 I I I77 �J 1 1 1 1 '�j 1 ...ex: o � a ;x� e d t xi y ' A . � s ' . 9 ; • . tl�k ` 3 - 17 L 3 - 18 i fl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ll 11 1 1 I I 3 - 19 11 3-20 1 1 1 I I 1 1 11 1 u 11-1 1 1 L� 11 1 3 - 21 1 I 3.5 NOISE The following discussion provides a general description of the existing noise setting along the proposed Corridor alignment. Noise Criteria Two types of noise criteria were utilized to prepare the technical noise report, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and'the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Noise Abatement Criteria, and the County of Orange and local cities such as Irvine, Newport Beach, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano standards for compatibility of land use and noise. The FHWA and Cal trans criteria are expressed .i.n.: terms of..:Equ.i.val:entNoise Level or (Le . An Le `> q) q;;::.;::.::.;:.::::.:::.::: � � eTOga....... i repre sents the loudest one flour .........noise hour wfiin a 24-hour time period. The County of Orange and localcities` criteria are expressed in terms of Com- munity Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is similar to LEQ, however as opposed to a peak hour noise level, it is a 24 hour, time weighted average noise level. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise which occurs during certain sensitive time periods (e.g., night) is penalized for occurring at these times. Both Leq and CNEL are measured on the A -weighting scale in units of dBA. The County of Orange, Noise Element Advance Planning Program and the local cities have established an exterior residential noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL and an interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. Noise Survey of Existing Traffic Noise Existing noise measurements were made atIS,!Z noise sensitive receptor sites along the proposed corridor alignment (Figure`" 5.1). Short term sampling was taken at all of the ; sites to represent the one -hour Leq existing level. Twenty four hour measurements were taken at sites to represent the CNEL existing.:l:evel. Table 3.5.A• provides a listing of the recorded measurements ........ d>` ::<<`" ::i::i:: at e >:<.::.;;::<::.:;.::.;::.::<.:>:.::.:>:.;:.>;:.::;.;:::.:•:: ach of the receptor sites . 'i of the sides currently equal or exceed the not se c r i t e r i a <:: 4; HN sites where NI:� imeasurements were taken exceed i;he tountvwl�lmnge acid local cities 65 dO'CRL exterior standard for residences. 3-22 L 1 P r, r, 1 F1 1 z 0 ra m m 0 9. 0 r 0 0 z w I f7o,-- IT N CL SPYGLASS 61 cr lit - 3cl Irm CA v f 4- J fAc" o 'Gu —-, OP tAGUNAJ, # lop AUc oq 164 At R3 10 013 m —Opri 0 HARVARD 1 ii J I 1 L77 I TABLE 3.5.A - MEASURED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS SITE LOCATION fllixR?`•.311i 11StG TVA.: MEASURED NOISE LEVELS-dBA Leq CNEL R1 SAN JUAN SCHOOL E 61 R2 31601 AVENIDA LOS CERRITOS B 68 R3 SAN JUAN SCHOOL BASEBALL FIELD B 72 R4 RESIDENCES ALONG LA CALEBRA B 70 74 R5 RESIDENCES ALONG EL HORNO B 63 R6 RESIDENCES ALONG EL HORNO B 67 R7 31082 VIA SAN VICERITE B 69 R8 SERRA PARK B 66 R9 26731 PASEO LORETO B 64 68 R10 30264 CALLE CHUEGA B 66 R11 #26551 ROYALE DRIVE B 64 R12 VILLAGE SAN JUAN - E. OCEANA COURT B 65 67 R13 VILLAGE SAN JUAN - E COUNTRY COURT B 69 R14 SPOTTED BULL LANE B. 68 69 R15 #29582 SPOTTED BULL LANE B 73 76 R16 MONTESSORI SCHOOL E 70 R17 RANCHO CAPISTRANO COMMUNITY CHURCH E 59 R18 CAPISTRANO VALLEY H.S. CLASSROOM E 60 R19 CAPISTRANO VALLEY H.S. TENNIS COURTS B 64 R20 #28601 AVENIDO DEL CABALLO OPT#1 B 68 R20A #28603 AVENIDO DEL CABALLO OPT#2 B 67 R21 COUNTY PROPERTY AT PASEO DE COLINAS D 69 R22 #28273 RESIDENCE AT BRIDGEPORT PLAZA B 57 R23 #28081 MONTECITO-BRIDGEPORT PLAZA B 52 R24 LAGUNA NIGUEL TOWN HOMES B 65 67 R25 NIGUEL DEVELOPMENT D 49 R26 27751 HIDDEN TRAIL-NELLIE GAIL B 46 R27 DEL PRODO TOWNHOUSES B 47 R28 27151 WESTRIDGE STREET B 49 R29 LAGUNA GARDEN APARTMENTS B 42 * Activi-ty Categories: A Areas of serenity and quiet B Residential and recreational areas C Developed Lands not included in categories A or B D Undeveloped areas E Interior Land uses such as schools and churches 3-24 TABLE 3.5.A - MEASURED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (CONTINUED) SITE LOCATION MEASURED NOISE LEVELS-dBA Leq CNEL R30 LAGUNA HILLS HOSPITAL E 51 R31 QUAIL CREEK APARTMENTS B 51 R32 ALISO CREEK APARTMENTS 8 52 R33 MORNINGSIDE CONDOMINIUMS B 50 R34 ALISO VIEJO DEVELOPMENT D 54 R35 ALISO VIEJO DEVELOPMENT D 52 R36 ALISO VIEJO DEVELOPMENT D 51 R37 ALISO VIEJO DEVELOPMENT D 55 R38 ALISO VIEJO DEVELOPMENT D 51 R39 LAGUNA AUDUBON HOUSES B 54 R40 CLUB LAGUNA APARTMENTS B 55 R41 CLUB LAGUNA APARTMENTS 8 64 R42 CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK B 42 Rio 1�53:&R1k'1t'fC[t3t'4'1 B 54 E 50 it4k#3tJk+!►1C€ll#i B 50 R43 #2738 MILANO DR - NEWPORT NORTH B 54 R44 #3196 CORTE HERMOSA B 53 R45 BRISTOL STREET BUSINESS C 71 R46 BRISTOL STREET BUSINESSES C 68 R47 BRISTOL STREET BUSINESSES B 74 * Activity Categories: A Areas of serenity and quiet 8 Residential and recreational areas C Developed lands not included in categories A or B D Undeveloped areas E Interior land uses such as schools and churches 3-25 1 C I 1 Existing Aircraft Noise The project area is exposed to aircraft noise from operations at MCAS E1 Toro and John Wayne Airport. There are no existing noise sensitive receptors along the Corridor that are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL from either the MCAS E1 Toro or John Wayne aircraft operations. 1 1 1 I 1 3-26 I 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Ar'r"biological analysis was conducted by P&D Technologies (formerly PRC Engineering),i:n: 1984 for the area. The 1984 study has been:_.upd:LSA Associates, IncA. Additional biological surveysa> >&n included a survey for •`east Bel 1 ' s vireo in 1985, a bi of og:i:caI"""survey: 01 Boni t*a Canyon in 1981a mule deer s rve u in 9 1 85 >(::>:B<::'::::>dt:::::�::::t�re:t>::<'he assessment o. ro ec ::.;:.;>:.::.::..:..:..::>:::�:;;;.;::.:.:;.;..�:.;...............................p.......J..... t...�m acts :::<Ion bi of o i cal resources within the project `' 1� was based on vegetative mapping and wildlife surveys' w`tE' n ap.proxmaeY'y 114mile on either side of the proposed Corridor centerline. lb w The 1987 Endangered Species list was confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service (USFWS) as accurate to date (per telephone conversation between Sylvia Wells -Vega of Caltrans and Jack Fancher of USFWS, March 15, 1990). The biological resources present within the study area are summarized below. Definitions of Significance The Biological Technical Study Report provides definitions of significance for rare, threatened and endangered species per Federal, State and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) categories. Table 3.6.A describes the types of listings for each potentially sensitive species in the Corridor study area, and the significance of the listings in accordance with CEQA. Sensitive species are those species which are either listed by the federal, state or local gov- ernments and/or identified by local concerns (e.g. California Native Plant Society). Plant Communities The vegetation and habitats identified sis were based upon the Orange County (OCEMA's) Master Environmental Assessment 1 Wildlife Service (USFWS) Classification o Habitats of the United States, 1979. I1 communities and locations of sensitive natives within the study area. plant 3-27 and studied Environmental n the resource analy- Management Agency's and the U.S. Fish and itats and Deep Water f the existing plant species within the project alignment F.i.qures:3.6:..:1through, es documentincliid"es for both al ter- 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 L TABLE 3.6.A - POTENTIAL SENSITIVE SPECIES Within Corridor Area of Effect Species Type of Listing Not Sighted Sighted/Location PLANTS Braunton's milk -vetch C2 X Astraoalus brauntonii San Fernando Valley chorizanthe C1 X Chorizanthe narryi fernandina Los Angeles sunflower C1 X HeLianthus nuttaL`:':ii parishii Aphanisma C2 X ' Aphanisma blitoides Prickly poppy C2 X Argemone munita robusta Dense reed grass C2 X ' Calamagrostis densa Orange County Turkish Rugging CNPS 16, C2 X Aliso Viejo, Sycamore Chorizanthe staticoides chrysacantha Hills, Coyote Canyon Laguna Beach dudleya ST, CNPS 1B, C1 X Dudle a stolonifera Many -stemmed #udleya CNPS 16, C2 X Bonita Canyon Reservoir; Dudleva multcaulis Laurel Canyon, Laguna Canyon; Aliso Viejo, Sand Canyon Viscid dudleya C1 x Road Dudle a viscida Heart leaved pitcher•sage C2 x Leyechinia cardio0iiLLa San Diego button bush C2 X Tetracoccus dio^ icus Ashy (Mesa) zLubmoss CNPS 4 X Selaoinella"cinerascens INVERTEBRATES Monarch None X Sand Canyon Avenue Danaus plexiyous REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad C2 X Bufo microscaphus californicus California red -legged frog C2 X Rana aurora dravtoni Southwestern (Pacific) pond Turtle CSC, C2 X Bonita Creek Clenmvs marmorata laa Lida San Diego #orned tj zard CSC, C2 X Eastside of El Toro Road Phrynosome coronatum blainvillei and Moro Canyon Orange-throatedttiptail CSC, C2 X Sycamore Hills Cnemidophorus livoerythrus BIRDS Burrowing &L CSC2 X Athene cunicularia California (black -tailed) gnatcatcher CSC2, C2 X Bonita Canyon Reservoir Polioptila (melanura) californica and Aliso Viejo Central Ridge Cactus Wren None X Upper Laurel, Bonita Campylorhynchus brunneicapiLLus Canyons and Aliso Viejo Least Bell'! y.ireo SE, FE X Vireo beLLii"pusiLlus Yellow "rbler CSC2 X Bonita Canyon Dendroica tpe echia Yellow -breasted ?ghat CSC2 X Bonita Canyon Icteria virens Grasshopper #r p rrow NAS X Bonita Canyon Reservoir Ammodramus savannarum Tricolored blackbird C2 X 1988 X 1985 Survey Agetaius tricolor 1 3-28 I TABLE 3.6.A - POTENTIAL SENSITIVE SPECIES (Contimied) Within Corridor Area of Effect ' Species Type of Listing Not Sighted Sighted/Location PLANTS Golden "agle CSC3, CFP Aquila chrvsaetos X-No nesting X Observed in flight observed , Red -shouldered hawk CSC X-No nesting X Observed in flight Buteo lineatus observed Ferruginous hawk C2 X Buteo regalis Swainson's hawk C2 X ' Buteo swainsoni Barn twl None X-No nesting X Observed in flight Tvto'A-Ll a observed Great Horned 4 None X-No nesting X Observed in flight Bubo Virginians observed Screech QML None X-No nesting X Observed in flight Otus kerincottii observed oo Cper,-is hawk CSC3 X-No nesting X Observed in flight Accioiter cooper'i observed ' Black -shouldered kite CFP X Grassland habitat Elanus caeruleus'. Spotted bat C2 Eudurma maculatum X Greater mastiff bat C2 X ' Eumops perotis californicus Pacific pocket mouse C2 X Perognathus Long rti w pacificus Key CNPS1B - California Native Plant Society List of plants which are rare or endangered in California and , elsewhere - may be considered significant under CEQA CNPS4 - California Native Plant Society watch list of plants of limited distribution whose status should be monitored regularly - not significant under CEQA C1 - Federal Candidate for listing for which enough data exists to support listing - considered significant under CEQA C2 - Federal Candidate for listing for which insufficient data exists to support listing - may be ' considered significant under CEQA CSC - California Species of Special Concern - may be considered significant under CEQA CSC2 - California Species of Special Concern priority 2 - may be considered significant under CEQA I CFP - California Fully Protected - may be considered significant under CEQA ST - State Listed as threatened - considered significant under CEQA ' SE - State listed as endangered - considered significant under CEQA FE - Federally listed as endangered - considered significant under CEQA , NAS - National Audubon Society Blue List (Noted only where there are no other listings) - may be considered significant under CEQA depending on local status r Ll-7 3-29 1 o T■ a a W • LL = CM W J O U. �a �. as Q C 42 O Q 0 7 V; C cr (.o 5 :0 y1 i 1- 1 V U) Q T T T C .Q ' 2CO N .0 +. C t d cc 'a o 3 o cC *= p) Cco 3 d c w 1 . L° 1 cn cn 1 •-• •• P 1 MTM W MNM M .W 0) cc cc �• N co co X c U) � t 'c om fl, c cca - cc N cc U > o ca v cA Q y 0O K � w WC'3U BOO n �j O N th Rt _U) W cc O W it W W > V) aZ Za FW- W J Q Z-2 O ZLU ZZ OJ c.) a </ .s4< • _+= Fax ^� 18 '6 '� ��Cl o 1A Lf) Of O < CL —1 2 ca i5 0 0 o 5 .5-0 X CL D 0) U) 0) 0 0 o E (D cc cts c ca 0 0 > &'A C)) X ca a) r CL E ca uo- co LLJ W 'T'Y' oi C) OD 00 0) cc CFS Ckj co co it IV V CD cu 4) ctl CO cp CL r- cO M Cc C *0 (J) Cc 0 > o co 4) co 'if a. 0 as al be Lu o 00 o C4 C%l o -J T C'4 Cf) -cr to p 0 Im 114 0 cc 45 LO Ni f 91-L 0 co 4, col C\l Cl) C) U) � 0 cc R 75 -N * Mc L) (j) 0 0- 0 a cc cc L4 i,o 'a cc 0 .2 ct CL =3 0 = co Cal 00 C) CC M < m U 0 ul 4) cts 0 1- P = 5 75 0-90 Co M 0 — - cc (L V 0 C) 0) 0 V- T- -r - Cc yj ul cli co ffr% no;l Ts mCl) . . . . . . . . . 1"S 0 tD �CO ce) r ui 4� a) ca 2 cts a C\l V 4) CL (D w U) E co ui iz UO— OD, CD 0) ON co -Ca m C4 (D co LU Uj y ul Y vv j z a) cc$ w C V 0) CL a as M Cts (1) Cc Z 0 > o Fil co as X o C\l VIII 0 cu cc C\j z 010 LU LU > z Lu o N. c -J C\j (4) Wt Lf) ZQ .... ..... . CP cy NF, cli. co, 04 CM rA U J�V ..... - - - - - Ai co M 4� a co 8 CD 'D CD co 0 A .0 Z) +. co Ica < CM 4� cts to a) z co CC o N 0 0 0' r 4- C CL m =- M cts cts- L) co < U w U_ _r z W Ii M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cts LU co 4- cu :6 cc r_ 'a 4H to Cc 0 co Z CL C ca �N as Q r 2? uj 0 0. M LL LU C0 m C\1 cr) CC) CD 0) -co M _04 IN C\r_ LU LU C%j - M Plj, CM C% x LU U) LU 04 Cq _j CL a Cc CIS Co C Co 0 ear ES 0 cts ca co Co (D _V C\l �'5 0 25 co cts lz 0 2,,o o ED LU I C\l woNNoT > z cli cli cf) et Lf) Z cf) 0 .3 IL min m w LL Z_ w .D CL 0 M 4a 0o —C Cc ED cc0 EL D_ vt 0) 0 0 ca w crj cr. ca C U) cd CO Cl) -ZZ 0 CL 4) x I. w ccl w cli CL a) r E cc uo_ C/3 w Cl) OD CD ClJ co) Cl) cts cts z cm co co w w zo b W LU co j z ca r CO 0) CL a cU CO CIS a Z �o U) M 0 a 0 ca _,d Z o cii cc LL, c) o 0, W cy w cq N > Z —i C4 Co W) 0 _3 CL 1 1 0 H `1 ri . ... ...... ................ 1, Hl 1 3-35 5 The plant communities found in the Corridor area include: • Grassland • Coastal Sage Scrub -Mixed • Mixed Chaparral • Oak Woodland/Savannah • Forested Wetland/Scrub • Riparian Woodland • Riverine • Freshwater Marsh • Sand/Gravel Wash • Rock Outcrop • Disturbed Areas Grassland. Adventitious grassland is prominent on many areas within the APE. This association is especially prevalent in the Aliso Viejo, on the west- ern reaches of The Irvine Company property and in Camarillo Canyon. This community consists of many kinds of introduced annual grasses, including brome grasses, common and slender wild oats and foxtail barley. Mustards, filaree, wild radish, fiddleneck, lupine and western ragweed are common. Native grasses include foxtail fescue, which is widespread throughout, and bunchgrass in the Sycamore Hills, the mid and south reaches of The Irvine Ranch and near the E1 Toro cliff area. Coastal Sage Scrub - Mixed. The coastal sage scrub community is found throughout Southern California on low elevation hills and mountain slopes. It is found extensively in the San Joaquin Hills section of the project APE. The dominant plant species of the coastal sage scrub are aromatic, half woody shallow rooted shrubs, exhibiting drought tolerating strategies. Occupying the drier, rocky, or gravelly soils, the coastal sage scrub is an open shrub commu- nity that grows two to five feet in height. Little understory exists where coastal sage scrub is very dense. In more open areas, the understory consists of a variety of grassland species. Representative coastal sage scrub species found in the APE include: California sagebrush, California buckwheat, black sage, bush mallow, coastal goldenbush, pine bush, bush monkeyflower, prickly pear, Indian paintbrush and deerweed. Mixed Chaparral. Chaparral is composed mainly of evergreen sclerophyllous woody shrubs, which are fire adapted and drought tolerant. The chaparral present in the project APE is generally of a lower stature than normal chapar- ral. Most of the chaparral shrubs are four to six feet in height, with taller individuals in isolated areas and on the higher elevation north -facing slopes. Along the Corridor, chamise dominates the community in Upper Laurel Canyon (in Upper Sycamore Canyon in the Sycamore Hills and along Laguna Canyon). Commonly observed species in the APE chaparral habitat include: chamise laurel, sumac, lemonadeberry, poison oak, toyon and scrub oak. There were very few pure chamise stands (chamisal) in the APE. However, some limited chamisal is found just north of Upper Laurel Canyon along the north -facing slope separating it from Camarillo Canyon. Oak Woodland/Savannah. Oak woodlands are found along the APE on canyon floors and on north -facing slopes along Upper Laurel Canyon, Upper Bommer Canyon, Upper Shady Canyon, Camarillo Canyon and E1 Toro Canyon. The majority of tree and large shrub species in these areas include coast live oak, scrub oak, toyon, and laurel sumac along the perimeter of the plant community. The perimeter species often form the arboreal members of mixed chaparral. 3-36 1 1 1 [1 1 7 Understory species include miner's lettuce, poison oak, wild cucumber, fiesta flower, and common eucalyptus. ' The dominant indicator species of oak woodland is coast .live oak. Stands of this species range from dense closed canopied forest, such as in Upper Laurel Canyon, to yon. Oak savannah very open stands occurs where the such as those found oaks intergrade into along Upper Shady Can- the surrounding grass" lands creating the oak savannah. The understory of this plant community varies with the canopy density. Vegetative groundcover under dense oak forest canopy is very sparse to occa- sionally devoid of herbaceous species and shrub growth. The ground surface here is covered only with fallen leaf and twig litter. Areas devoid of vegeta- tive groundcover occur along Upper Laurel Canyon Creek. t 1, 3 a .ii �� i�� LForested Wetl and Scrub ----- �a' :'Ri veri ne . Riparian 1 1.. � woodland occurs in isolated locations throughout`th' ` E. ""I't consists of trees and shrubs with an open to dense canopy. Generally associated with stream courses, this vegetation type occurs near areas where the groundwater table is very shallow on a year round basis. In areas where the water table is high, .plant species within. this community include mulefat, mugwort, tree tobacco, arroyo, black and golden willow, and occasionally Mexican elderberry. This riparian plant community occurs in Bonita Canyon Reservoir, the unnamed drain- age, Laguna Canyon, El Toro Canyon, Aliso Creek and Oso Creek. There are few locations within the APE which support riparian woodlands. In these areas, the riparian vegetation is visually dominated by sycamore, coast live oak, and Mexican elderberry. Willows, both in shrub and arboreal form, occur in and along the stream bottoms, along with coast goldenbush, mulefat and tree tobacco in isolated places. This riparian area occurs predom- inantly in Upper Laurel Canyon and in Sycamore Canyon. 3-37 R 1 Freshwater Marshi3'i"s`f Freshwater marsh acreage is very limited within the.. APE.:..... Fresh--- r "marsl`es do occur in El Toro Canyon, adjacent to E1 Toro Road along Laguna Canyon. Indicator species for the freshwater marsh include extensive stands of birch and field sedge. The fluctuating nature of surface water and groundwater levels influences the extent of the marsh habitat. During years of high rain- fall, the cattails and other marsh vegetation expand the boundaries of the habitat. Sand/Gravel Wash. This linearly oriented habitat occurs in a small draw on the Aliso Viejo and along the center portion of Aliso Creek. These areas are subjected to scouring during periods of heavy rainfall. Rock Outcrop. Rock outcrops are plentiful within the APE. Rock outcrops are characterized by having thin gravelly soils that support unusual or limited distribution of plant species. Numerous cacti species occur within rock out- crops, as well as mariposa lilies, California plantain, California cottonweed, chalk lettuce, rock rose, Orange County Turkish rugging and many -stemmed dud- leya. Disturbed Areas. Within the APE, there is considerable acreage which has been altered for a variety of purposes. These designated developed areas correspond to the County's Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) as cultural disturbance or urban cultural altered. The majority of the Aliso Viejo is disturbed by dry farming activity and extensive vegetative removal. Portions of the Corridor along Coyote Canyon are barren due to landfill activities and are classified as cultural disturbance. Cultural disturbance is also repre- sented by the major paved roads within the project APE. Sensitive Plant Species Table 3.6.A lists potential sensitive plant species within the Corridor area. Two sensitive plant species found in the APE include the many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis) and Orange County Turkish ragging (Chorizanthe staticoides chrysacantha). A third species, Laguna Beach Dudleya (Dudleya stolonifera), occurs (in one of only five known population areas in existence) a short distance south of (outside of) the Corridor area of impact. Orange County Turkish rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides chrvsacantha). This low annual plant is a federal Category 2 Candidate species (indicating the probable appropriateness of listing as rare or endangered, but sufficient information to biolouically sunnort a nronnsed rule is not nrpcpntly availahlol Orange County. .. --- --- ----------. - - - - --- - - - - 7 . - .- . _...., ... The total historical range of Orange County Turkish rugging extends from the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and Bison Avenue in Newport Beach south to a now possibly obliterated population in the vicinity of the Dana Point 3-38 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 11 11 1 i Headland. The species appears to extend inland from the coast about five or six miles to Sand Canyon Reservoir, Irvine Ranch and the ridge east of E1 Toro Road on Aliso Viejo. A number of smaller, pocket populations exist in the vicinity of the Laguna Beach-Al'iso Viejo area. Within the project APE, this species has been located in the Aliso Viejo Planned Community near the proposed Pacific Park Road interchange, in the Sycamore Hills east of Laguna Canyon Road, and in the San Joaquin Hills between the proposed San Joaquin Hills Road and Sand Canyon Avenue. Many -stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaul W. This small annual dudleya i-s a federal Category 2 Candidate and is on the CNPS List 1B. In the vicinity of the Corridor, it is found -in coastal sage scrub habitat near the immediate coast. Many -stemmed dudleya occurs, or h.i_storically occurred, in Los Angeles County, western San Bernardino and Riverside County, Orange County and the extreme northwestern portion of San Diego County. Range extensions have been documented by Benner et al., 1981 (Fremont Canyon -Irvine Lake area, and Estelle Mountain in Rivers-ide County); by K. March et al., 1989 (Santiago Oaks -Regional Park in Santiago Canyon); and by the Museum of Systematic Biology,-U.C. Irvine, no date (University of California, Irvine campus area).. Popul ati o.ns of this species have been located, in the project APE around Bonita Canyon Reservoir, on the UCI Ecological Reserve, upper Laurel Canyon., along the east and west side of Laguna Canyon, in the Sycamore Hills and in the Aliso Viejo Planned Community. 3-39 1 Figures 3.6.1 through 3.6.5 show the locales of this species within the APE. These locales are mapped from north to south. In some cases, a "popula- tion" may be made up of several locales or groups, as in the Bonita Canyon Reservoir area and in Laguna Canyon. Laguna Beach dudleya (Dudleva stolonifera). This dudleya is a federal Category 1 Candidate species (indicating that enough data are on file to sup- port federal listing) and a California threatened species. It is found on steep cliffs in and near Laguna Canyon. Cliff habitat is marginal on the project site (low rock outcrops), and this species was not noted during any of the surveys. It is not found on the project site. Aquatic Resources Most of the wetlands crossed by the Corridor contain water for only part of the year and do not provide stable and long-term deep water habitats. Fish and most aquatic invertebrates cannot survive in areas where the water source is irregular and dependent upon stormflow and urban runoff. Bonita Canyon Reservoir may provide the only habitat that is suitable for aquatic and semi -aquatic wildlife. However, most of the reservoir is filled in with sediment and vegetation. It does not provide much deep water habitat. Bonita Canyon Creek provides a continual source of water due to drain Bonita Canyon and San Joaouin Hills Reservoirs. Sensitive Wildlife Species Wildlife species of concern are listed in Table 3.6.A. Of the sensitive species listed, only the following species were observed along the Corridor alignment: southwestern pond turtle, tricolored blackbird, San Diego horned lizard, California gnatcatcher, cactus wren and grasshopper sparrow. Only those species sighted within the alignment are discussed below. San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei). this lizard is a federal Category 2 Candidate species and a CSC. It is found in western Riverside County, Orange County, and western San Diego County. Sandy washes and other open, sandy areas in coastal sage scrub are this species' favored habitat. Low bushes are required for cover, as well as open spaces for sun- ning, and relatively flat patches of fine, loose soil for burial. Its primary 3-40 1 G' food source is harvester ants. The horned lizard was sighted alon El Toro 9 9 Road within the project APE. Orange -throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus _hvpervthrus). This reptile is a federal Category 2 Candidate species and a CDFG Species of Special Concern (CSC). CSCs are declining animals with no legal status which have been so named by the CDFG in order to help identify troubled species before they become endangered. Orange -throated whiptail is found in western Riverside County, Orange County, southwestern San Bernardino County and western San Diego County. It frequents dry, often rocky hillsides, ridges and valleys supporting broken coastal sage scrub habitats where it forages near the bases of shrubs and also underground for termites which are their main food source. This lizard also forages in dry, sandy washes. The whiptail was observed in the project APE 1n, Sycamore Hills. California anatcatcher (Polioatila californical This is a federal Cate- gory 2 Candidate species and a CSC It is found in coastal sage scrub habitat, generally containing Calfornla sagebrush as a dominant compo- nent. The gnatcatcher was observed along the Aliso Viejo central ridge and at Bonita Canyon Reservoir. golden -eagle (Aquila chrvsaetos). This 'is a California Fully Protected Species,. making it illegal to capture or collect individuals, -and a CSC, third priority, indicating the species is not in i-mmediate danger of extirpation. However, observation is warranted because of small population sizes. ' The ESA defines "take" very broadly, to include harassing, harming, wounding, killing, etc. Habitat destruction is interpreted to be included in this definition. 3 - 41 An immature golden eagle was seen flying over the project site in a south- erly direction during the October 7, 1989 survey. This is a rare wintering species in coastal Orange County, and it is possible that the project site is part of this bird's winter territory. Golden eagles are not known or expected to breed in this part of the County. Black -shouldered kite (Elanus caeruleus). This is another California Fully Protected Species, and is increasing its numbers throughout most of its range. However, it has been on a decade long decline in Orange County, appar- ently as a result of habitat loss. It occurs in the lower elevations where it breeds in sites with riparian trees such as oaks, willows, and cottonwoods. An individual was noted foraging in the ruderal annual grassland and coastal sage scrub habitats at the west end of the project site throughout the non -breeding months, and was noted on the September 28, 1989, survey. Although the oak woodland on the site is marginally suitable breeding habitat, black - shouldered kite was not noted during the'Spring surveys. Therefore, it appears that the individual noted breeds elsewhere in the County and uses the project site as part of its winter territory. Cactus wren (Campvlorhvnchus brunneicapillus). While not listed as rare or endangered, the CDFG has proposed a study of coastal populations in order to determined their status. These populations are declining at an unknown rate as a result of coastal sage scrub habitat loss. In coastal Southern California this species is found in coastal sage scrub containing prickly pear cactus. Cactus wrens were noted in coastal sage scrub habitat Canyon and Bonita Canyon Reservoir. One nest was located, nests were suspected but not located during the Spring surveys. in Upper Laurel and three other Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). This sparrow is not listed by any State or federal agency, but is an increasingly rare summer resident in Orange County. Grasshopper sparrows are found in relatively undisturbed and expansive grasslands, building their nest on the ground. Most of the grassland habitat on and near the project site is ideal for this species. One grasshop- per sparrow was noted during the Winter surveys in Bonita Canyon Reservoir, and several were heard singing on the hillsides on and near the site during the Spring survey. Breeding occurs in the vicinity of the site, and may occur on the site as well. 3-42 1 I 1 ......v4::i. ;..;; ..; .{.::.::}?}; i•:};.}::4;.:; t:; :;•: •.S:'::: r...:::::::::r: •vv:: •{: :iw::: •:...•::.::{{: •::•:{:.•;:::::•{••: •.•r vx :vvxv: v: w.}':??: F••::::.i':: w:::::::.v: v; ..,;..:...:::::::.•?.• ::.::::. ;... ;;. ;... ; ..; ..:::::..:.•r: :. •. •... .44, ; ; :••4i;•i': •• '.i :::.::•: '•i ': •{:'?4::4:•i:{••., .;.,..::{ ::... :;.;{rf n.. ...: w• ::• :;: 4 :}?�;4> •:x• ::•::.v. :: •::::::: •:.ir::v :.::: •:::::::::::::::::. •:: ••:: i:•ii:.:{: ..... .. ... . .........:.....i.::{4:•:{••: ::: {•i•:{:: •:::.v: •:::::.....i: •:::...:.........:.:.:.::•::: .vv:•:4::.:.::.t::v::.v::.v.v: .v::.v :.:::::. .. ........ :'4::. 4::.????r•r.;.Yi+.•i:Gi:'v;•};4'F.?4:{i4;:::??4:??S4:ti?•:4iii:?4i:G}::.•:•:� '4i::•y:7;{n.: {ii.;;{{..:.: .... :. :.....::::::::::.v...::: ::.::: w:.•:.:v::: •.:x w:::::: :v.•:::::.•:.•: ••::.•.v.•:: :::::xu:••.v:.•::.:.: •::::::.:v:.; .. ;..:.:•. .�ltt:4vi,: ': , : ' "}::: .:!}��t,: }: .:1y.:y�. ..,t;: . . . .4:•i' ':j{�•j1�:j�y'4i: .. . ; : •: y ••:�'.'j:::{ •i :::i:� ..v.:.:.:...:$::: "'�I"�?•J'�-{: ,+.:}:;i"�.;:�:'{:' :i:•: :tii�.x..:. t..4..?::ii v: `:..:. r.:: •: ••{{{: ': •i: ::: r?: •::: vh.: . .:.:.; 1SL:;:: �:�{�::•i:.•]{•$j::iL3�i�'::I:.:i'i:"'�.::i$iif%'�/:::::::��:��:�i2:ii:�/�'Y•:�i?}T��'.2`"=i::�l:fikl'�:::i:iai.1('�Y-::ttv(j y.��j, i�j�. J��[/� �iy jQ�� ....................�......................�.....................................�.........:Y................ T... . ..... ....::...... M..:.T:v.. ��;kih;:;:;:�:i'}y�i��:;2.1'V��;:+,:,3i�,.�i:::{:i�"'}.�(• •.:.:• .t•::.•.•:.tvu::::.Y •.vw::.v:: nv:•: •:::::::.v::::::: •::::::::::: vw::::::::: v: x: v:::::: v:::y:.•::::::::.: v: w::.vnw:::::::::nv::.:v::::::.:::.:.:::.::::::::.•: w:::.::: •::::.v............. .. :::::: x:.h:::::::: : ::::.:v:::::.i: x:: •:::: 4 vv:::.v::: :•}:: }:::::::::::::: w:::..: :..:::.:::::•..::::n :- •:.•.F.::.:::::.F:::::.v::: i::::::::: i:•;.. v :::::.v::.:v ::::.•.v: x.v ;. VISA! nvG'•i:•i; '.y: n'x:: ni\?G ": � ••::i' iY.•:. iY.:t.: #,,' }: }i •. '•. is i:' iiii '.: i:: •: ..:4}:•: i •..: - iii: { :4:?: :i:•i ..::......:..: • .i::{:i'i:?j:{i ............................... :.IN .... swill., : AMR +�j1J IIF .Kii:S!'.:..::�:y?::�y,;. , ::: y:.�.�?: '::::i:.'•::�:$5::��:f'r:�:;::}"::,:.:�:'rSY.'.•�Y }::':ti:::ti::: ''',••'"t',":.:. :.::• : .:.:::.:: ...•.. :,::r:. :..'•," ti-'. ....a:.::.......:::::::::.:�:::::::.��::: �.:::::::::::::::.�.�.�:::::::::::.....::.�.�...................�..................................�............ ...our,:. • . �:a�:::t:: >:' :> " ��.... �d.ed...��wbi��:>::>a:��::::Ix�:: <:i�<�:�d::::t�<::>�-a:�r�:: � � �:�- :::::: '.::: ; .::>:: ...€ <t t ..........................................................................................................................................:.....:...........:::.:::::.::.::::..4.......................... :::::::::::::.:::::::::: RISE •::.,::::.;:?::..: :...:?:: • •:: ': :;:::•::::::?:;:.:::}>}"::' :'•i;4}x?::?;::{;:: •:.:.:{: ':: ":::• •:>".:::: ::::.:>;;:.;: •+::'::??.::.;"•:;SS:::::5:;:::....::':.i:::;tc{.:;::::::::i{{:..;:..:::t{,.:??e:.:;:r.::i4:::4.:::•:::.:::4 .:••t4, .:iiii;'::. " A iij:x'A#i r 4 '''��a7': `i•;':;��•::'::.... � . ...... � i .�� t��ii'.��:: �:::::::::::: t� iiii::: ix 1'i.•::::::::'+.:::;iiii;::: :. :�+.:;:;':;: .iy�. '::::.r.'•R: .:., .,�..•, .:y. F..+�::y�-� ':: SS.+�•::�k.. .x:•i:•: :•i\tiii:•i••.:: {:: •;:iiii::?::: w::: iiii :::.:>':?::>:<"':>:::::':;.:'::'",':<.: "':<:<:;�':.::}:: ":�"'..:.::ii:.iiii.:;:.;..;'.;.i:?.:,t,...;..:;j'.jt�::.:'.>:.::'{.;'.::/:��}:.:::.Y:t'•.:7y,.'.�:..�:.;:.;..::'(�:!.:.::.:y>�..:?'y::.;:.::.:.:,t::.;•:}.�:{{y:�.;�::i>:,4y..::.;'.:'4:.::.::.:.....:......t.::.....:::.:.....:.t............................,..:..:....r: ::>:::F+.<::.L•:::::Tia%:::i'.:i�Ftii:iiii"+i.:is�iS:::'•::::t:f'•,.[:::::::A'�i'Y'•:'•.:•L. a::r:R::'?ii•3:::GIi.i::<4'. :Y;:<:i<>' .::ti::iiiiiiii:•:rv:L:%:{::tiisti::riii:{isr:::::tiv::.....:...................t..:....:.: .....v.. n.......... .u............. . ..: . ..... .....:..............:...•.v.... ....:vvvx.....•: r::::'::..xv::::::.vv: ••.::v::.v::.:•.•:::ty v: •v::::::::: v: •:.v::..:::::::.:::: ••t•::::::•t••.:v,{ry>;: •4t}:;;:{::4:•:4vtv.. :..t;:4}.v: a.:.v:.,:•.••:.x:r,.•.•.irr.:•:::::.vxtt:t•v::•:.,:t•: v:�:v::nxv:::r::.....r.•r:. : •::•iY�y"{.,!.�}ji;...n...: 'iiii: •: ni}'.,.::: •{:i::.:.:..:.:.':. }j.�.: • •: • •: • •: •::• •iiii}{,'�'}t�:::? ':- :??.:y({��: •: ny{•..,t.. •. :..'�:s• .. .: •.::•.: ;�;,j��il:yj.�y(.:; •}• �•; . ":; ;:y:I•��•}�,y�}•� • ••� • •;� '`.:tii..: ..;...:..r: :.:-j.�..+'..: �n.{......�. Eri}.; .:. {;`.:a"3'.;l;. " :::;:;T;$:;:�$ it "i; ;:; J•..::.�r:.. £�#1 ♦".�i.3L x • i 4'`1ii±'F i?ix'i'• : :.. v::: Xiii. :::::::::::: w::: •w::::::::: w::::,v:::::.v:. •:n ............ tt••: v::::::::i{••.::::::wnv::::. w: v:::: m:: •:: •w:: w:::::::::::: nv.:::vv •:.v; v: v::•::.v:: :v:nv v: •:v. .. ;.;; .. y....................... + :: ?•i:{•i :4. .:::nv:::: ::::::::::::::::::::: iiii :v::. :. iiii}::::::::::::::nv:: x: ukv: F..:::: iiii: �v: •::: ii:: - :5.::: v..i�:biii:>.}•:: irii':?•ii:n: is '•i}:• :t:;:::i::r,' }::::::i:':; "::i'::::i{:::$n:}::{.;.. ":::. "iiii : ::•: •..: ":::� "'• ::." �. �.>>;:: �:::�� : � iiii: � ;:::� - .:�::t��ra��:>�:.: ;;�: •:: � • ':;: -:<:: < : ° �::� •:::• '� �<:: >: >: � • >:. � �> "' :: 'iiii;:..; .;.:.....:::::::: " ." .i:.i' :..:� ::' '.:4:.i:.:4>:.i.. '. ;:::.::? .: ': '.i:.i:::::>:::.., .. ; ;:.....i:.;:' ::.::.....: '.:.:::' •:.:;�:: � �::::: ':: {...:.. <" .::..:.::.:....:::::::;' ':' :: �t�:�:::.�€�u.: i::.i::��d:::::::�.:a:�::r:::>:::::<:':�:"::<:�-.�€:�:�::::::tb.::::;::a:: �": ':e::::: »:::��: •.::b:• "�: �: �: • ?:..::.::...::....:.::...:::.:.:: ::::::::::::.,::::•:: {{:•:::::•::: {:•:•:.vi.................. ....... .. iiii •iiii::::•. :.: }::•.i ::•::: i::.:::: •::::.v.:::: }.:•; r::fit:.. ...:.:.. .::.:.... . `�•:��<'��t�<>>�"':��::��:>�� °e�� : "�� • >:.:::::..::., ,:..:..:..:.::::< '�'i: ": ;iiii "�::::>�:::: ; iiii:.' • ;;;iiii:: '�.:: ' : •: ': ....v..:�.}.;..k;..;...,i.,..".:....v:': ::..:"j�".-•i..... ;.. ::•ii•., .;..:..;:.:... .y.v... ..,'i".,j�."�,: ..; ..4:•i :''{•': •Y'}::{.:........ ::4:i. i..y....:: i.; ..: ..:. :,i.; ..v.,.... .v..:.: :•:••iiiiiiiii.:.{:...:: i:. ::::.i :.4:::.i::.}•.:: : :...........8............:..................................................................................:..:.......:.:....:.:............::::... #:.::..: :::.:.:.......:.::.::::::.::::::.:.:::::::::::::..::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....::::.::::::......:..,.:.:.::::::..:::::.:::::::.,::.:::.:..........::..... .i::.::v.:J::. :::::.:::v v:::::::: iiii: •:::::::.v::::.v::::::.v::::::: •:::::.v:::. iiii :•:.i: :::::::::::::::: •:::::.v::. .: •::::::.v::::.v::::::::.. •..........•iiii:?.: :,:4 ...., :: ;<:>:. :: <:>: " :„:< . We ..: ...:.:.::: "::5:;:.r; ....,....: •::i:i::t:ii: ...: ..: ...::::..:.:.:.:.: ..iiii........; ..: ..;:iiii......:•'.:'•: ..; .; ..: .;:.:...::.: ..: ..: •iiii:.: .;.;;...:iy •: "•i::•:-: •••:4:•i:• :..: ..: :.{{.}:".:":: •iiii:• ::': i": :•i:•: .:.:::.:i:::.i..::.i, .:.:..:..::.:.:..:..�.. -'"-.:?>::::::.�::.:...::::<iiii:i::i:>::i::.:::.::::::•:.;::::::.;«:??.;<:'><:;r:.:;r"':::<:::";:?;-,::.:.:i: .....b :.�d:::<:. "had?.>:..;:::::::;:><::::::::e>':::><::a :� 'ii:iiii::i::i:•;{.i:•i:''•i:•i:•i:•:ii:.;{.;{.isi:•i:F:•ii4:•i:•i:•i:•i:•ii"• -ii:•:: .:: ':{.i:•i::•i:{<: '•:4:: .. ...i:•i:•i:{: :.•:••:.:.:•i:•i::•i:•is::•i:}•.vi:•i"•i:•i:.:{.}•:.i:: i::?.:::'iiii {•::: i:•i:•::•::• ••:i:::i:•:•:i:::::{.::ti?•i:'•iiii:?: :•iii'•i::{?•iY••::::• �a�3.;• ... :•i:• .. •. Y{•: ••;:•: .. • :::•> •i: i:•i:• •• :•:•:: •:4:•::•i:• .., ....:..:>:•. :: ..:i::ii::i:.,,...: .: {}•• ...: ; :'?:}::: ;{. :•::::•:•:: ..: .;.. »:•i-F:,....:•:::...:?•:- :...::..t; .... iii...>...;... :.::•: < : • >::��• ��#:1:1"::':::::::�#�#:::: :.:>:<�:�:::<::�:Ct:!�:::>::��..�� ::>:::;�� ::{: -:: � "iiii:; . ::.: :... ..:.:::::..:::.::::::.::,.:::::::::::::.::::::::::.::::::i.:::::::::.:::::.:::.:::::::.:::::::::.::::.:.:::.:.:..::..::....:::::..::.......:..:................:.........:......::::. Tricolored blackbird (Agelius tricolor). The tricolored blackbird is a federal Category 2 Candidate species. It is found in marsh habitats, especially in areas containing dense cattail stands. The tricolored blackbird 1 3-43 1 1 nests in cattail stands, foraging in the surrounding upland habitats. The blackbird was observed in the Bonita Canyon Reservoir and would be impacted by the removal of wetland habitat in that area. Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida). A population of southwestern pond turtle exists in the upper end of Bonita Canyon Creek in a pool formed at the base of the old spillway for Bonita Canyon Reservoir. Other populations are expected further downstream. The southwestern pond turtle is listed as a Category 2 species by the federal government and a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. The pond turtle is a semi -aquatic turtle that prefers deep pools with soft mud bottoms and cattails. The turtle spends much of its time basking, fre- quently on mats made of cattails and similar herbaceous material. When approached, it quickly dives into the water and hides on the bottom. The turtle prefers crayfish and similar invertebrates that occupy ponded water habitats. California mule deer (Odocoi1eus hemionus). Particular interest and analysis has been focused on the possible presence of the California mule deer in the Corridor area. An analysis of mule deer dispersion activity was com- pleted by P&D Technologies in November, 1985. The studies concluded that deer densities are generally lower in the San Joaquin Hills than previously suspected (approximately five deer per square mile). This mule deer dispersion analysis was conducted in four different resource areas that overlap the Corri- dor area. Specific findings for the four areas are as follows: Laurel Canyon Watershed Evidence of deer activity was found on the ridgeline between Upper Laurel Canyon and Upper Moro Canyon, in the Laurel Canyon riparian zone and on the northern ridgeline between Laurel and Shady Canyons. Upper Wood Canyon/El Toro Cliffs The E1 Toro cliff area is frequently used by mule deer. Mule deer have also been recorded in Wood Canyon. 3-44 1 r, u I L 1 L� 11 L 1 1 F, F11 Upper Moro.Canyon-Crystal Cove State Park Moro Canyon bottom shows sign of deer. However, the amount of deer activity is less than in Laurel or Wood Canyon. - Sycamore Hills This area experiences low deer activity. Wildlife Movement Corridors Wildlife movement corridors are used.by animals to travel between breeding and nesting sites and for foraging and watering. These corridors are -essential for increasing food opportunities allowing access to scarce supplies of water. There are several wildlife movement corridors which exist in the San Joaquin Hills because of the diverse vegetation, riparian/woodland canyon bottoms and water sources. The dispersion corridors allow the larger vertebrates (e.g.; mule deer, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, raccoon) to utilize areas in the San Joa- quin Hills and tributary canyons outside the immediate Corridor area. The major wildlife movement corridors within the Corridor area (see Fi.9-ure 3.6.6) and immediate vicinity outside of the 'Corridor area, include on aidierrie�< Upper Coyote Canyon, Upper Los Trancos Canyon, Upper Muddy Canyon; portions of the ridgel.ine -road, Upper Bommer Canyon, Upper Moro Canyon, Upper Shady Canyon, Upper Laurel Canyon, side canyons in, the. Sycamore Hills, and Upper Wood Canyon-. Aliso Creek is not considered a signif- icant wildlife dispersion corridor because of poor `habitat cover adjacent to the watercourse, nearby development, flood control improvement upstream and poor quality upstream vegetation. Wildlife movement corridors also exist in the Sycamore Hills and may link up with the Camarillo Canyon area. However, this requires crossing Laguna Canyon Road. Heavy and fast traffic makes the area very hazardous for wildlife crossings (Jones and Stokes 1975). Another nearby wildlife dispersion corridor is Upper Wood Canyon with access to the E1 Toro Canyon and ass-ociated cliffs. Crossing E1 Toro Road for entry to the Sycamore Hills is dangerous'for wild- life. The most important wildlife movement corridors include a combination of Upper Shady Canyon, the ridgeline road, Upper Laurel Canyon, Upper Bommer Canyon, and Upper Moro Canyon. The resources that make these are -as important include oak woodlands, arborescent .chaparral -covered slopes, .r:.surface water, . and occasional seeps.. outcr000inps. caves a a - �-.�...................................................... 3-45 c0 M W 0 M ,,,, • ,..,•y....r 4 F.� s CD 4: f tLU I 1 1 1 1 r.� 1 3.7 LAND USE is Existing Land Use Existing development in the Corridor area. is clustered at the termini of the proposed project, while the San Joaquin Hills, through which the proposed project will pass, are relatively undevel-oped. Figure 3.7.1 illustrates exist- ing generalized land uses in the Corridor vicinity. Although the majority of the project area is within unincorporated Orange County,, six cities (San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel:,Laguna Beach, Irvine and Newport Beach) are intersected by the proposed alignment. The Corridor is referenced in the General Plans of the County .of Orange, and the Cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, and San Juan Capistrano. The Corridor will be referenced in the City of Mission Viejo General Plan which is currently being prepared (telephone communication, Mary Annala, City of Mi-ssion Viejo, 4/10/90). The City of Mission Viejo relies upon interim Orange County General Plan land use designations until adoption of its General Plan. Also, the newly incorporated City of Laguna Niguel references the Corridor in its General Plan due to the City's adoption of the Orange County General Plan as its interim General Plan during preparation of its Final Plan. The Corridor is also referenced in the University of California, Irvine Long. Range Development Plan; the UC Regents have planning authority within the campus boundaries. Additional land use policies and regulations for areas in the Corridor vicinity are contained in'adopted Local Coastal Programs (LCPs-). Relevant LCPs include the Aliso Creek, Irvine Coast and the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine LCPs. Information regarding how the Corridor is referenced in each Plan is provided i-n Section 4.8, Land Use. Residential Development. While the majority of the existing residential development in the Corridor vicinity is low to medium density, high -density residential uses do exist between Laguna:. Canyon.:: Road and Alicia Parkway, -north of the proposed Corridor alignmentis DespiteWd residen- tial uses being located toward the southern project terminus, residential uses are i located near the northern project terminus. Most of the northern residential uses are low to medium density uses. Commercial jIndustrialjInstitutional. The majority of exi-sting commercial/ industrial- land uses are found clustered around the project termini. 3-47 47 ,a C 1 Co 1 •� 1 14.0 +► eO O N �+ co C 61 a1ao d d tT m L� Croama a1 urod) a , oQ ao`n >'c m m 4 M 19 NL C4'Or J C 904- Ed ro R dL VI 4"1 7 ro .r• /J °C O.rC- p•i C Cyr c C C N 0 O.d• N •07 4- s- o. CD S.ni .p r to y a QNOC�cgL c,1 61 S- \ I \G 'a to CM 4.VI •i S. C UU C C7 4J 4J0L U Cc Ij H dCi O10 0 r E E pE N_'L O \\ I\ '4O ro'C Ofa GI•J ro 0 E 0 4)— C \ / N 3 >}1_ ENE Q'W'o C C41 4. •a ccciS_edeto== Rac�E ca 0— y Cee_. C 44 CO C 44 ro CO N 'O e 0:2'0 " o r'�y •va ndi •- qy ro d•r cd _ _' aro4'_ci41 oaei e�600�c rx N O p 4J U, E CI E .C7 4JV N /�OO�OrOv'CC +•/CN4•-�Oy ri � ,+' 4J d V ro C. A ro i- co N C>- romp cfEE /nr s.a>>srocc r• ba rna„1W y s.. �d0 IV d tL r ro r /\r O r •y SO- —mo . a O J C^ y L >t C''i y•'• roO ti� •V y 0+a m3 C CN > E- OeSi C IL~ C rOj 0 O.C41 •O yam L d eti r O OItOt� 3 A C SfLd N C p°• ,\ O° a o ° IV to V •r C 41'C Ocm r O1 ro �� •r bo0o C 4- go•L d ro 0 VI (v 0 •2 cc en O4J 4J p O` OO'6 y C7a1SCNCC� `•ooO0c +� i•1 7 C QI C •O 0 0 3 0 QI O \ C N CC7 O•rr O+1 C C i•r •rr•r \ N O Qo( •r O�4-CG.1 •rC a roNCL S..yY X •rG CO Ci•1 w iZ r-N 0-ro OO dro W 4J V•r$•r ro EO d7roCC.)CI'OC d o 0 oco c o ° o°oo0 0000700 0- o° r- '4M1 se s;lam 1 l' d T 3 it.j i o loo0p00, O s q 0 � •s c o �4 9o°0( �d�o�obOo°o00 4j3�, KL,i;.�000000�0-°0000c _�pn,°�o00Dro�,0oo0o0a 0000 Opo- \Z _0"'�o°ap°O p°OO nO �°000 4 I �cJ\�voa�J JvaQ T i°J u0 \ vo � Jp ou ui LL '00000'. y \ 000 IQ 0 • ° , °op�� o�Ou. \\bo 0-00, -000' i000' \may° O Q O p O p O p •• O j p �( o O ° of oo 00 o O°0 a0�00oO o °06 0c 0 000 � o 0 000°00°�0 0 ° 0o �o010- '0 00' 00 0 00 O°o O O O° 00 �vp -0- 0 O°• O °00O Oo000o0 )0 Ps, 0 00 00 oO G' Jo po 00 0 O� f ° 00 00 Oo °0• _ _ , ° 000 p00 O°O O0o _• - 00 00°0o°0°q o°0000 0 0 °r o ° o°O ti U 0000 200000 ° � 00 ' 0 0"O o , I//ryyirr °o Jai; C Irk 000 004' - O (�j IQ n .- W F ,OOy .� C TT +l° E r cocu O �p 0 U) ,C W Co m C.)° N cc 0)_ co as _3 C G1 J +) .c Z C U C C Q C V cz C o ¢ > 65 ci W o � x � � O +i v LL � Q CO76 coa J C '+• J a c C N >,D W ll� a)`p NO x oc V 0 C c W �, cu E = c 2— ro im c� ` W 0 0 a)E T fV -- 3 -- E Q 2 J U Y Lli Z_j COO Z IExamples of this type of land use found in the Corridor vicinity include: • Airport Commercial (Irvine Office/Commercial); • Irvine Industrial Complex -West; • Irvine Industrial Complex -East; ' Newport Center; • UCI; • The Irvine Business Compl.ex:;:::.1'„ Schools. The proposed Corridor alignment traverses or is adjacent to the following school districts: iNewport -Mesa Unified School District • Laguna Beach Unified School District • Capistrano Unified School District • Saddleback Valley Unified School District • Irvine Unified School District • Santa Ana Unified School District. In addition, the campuses of the University of California at Irvine (UCI) and Saddleback College are in the project vicinity. :y► The following schools are situated within one-half mile of the proposed • UCI • Roston Montessori School, 29402 Rancho Viejo Road, San Juan Capis- trano. • Capistrano Valley High School, 26301 Via Escolar, Mission Viejo • Pre -School of the Coast Bible Church located on Via Escolar, Mission Viejo • Saddleback College, 28000:.Marguerite Parkway,Mission: Visej:o::::::::.:,::..,:::....... • San Juantt1�` Slittfi)`R,aCIsi<` • Marian Bergeson 7*ementary Sc'fiool'`**on tti`esouth`"side *6f " anc� o Nigue`I west of Greenfield Drive. Agricultural Lands. An additional land use occurring along the project alignment is agricultural use. According to the California Department of Con- servation's 1986 Orange County Important Farmland Map, there are 26,579 acres of Orange County land in agricultural use. The State Department of Conserva- tion classifies important farmland by four categories-: prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance and farmland of local importance. Of these four classifications, only prime farmland (approximately 5 acres within a 31 acre agricultural site near the 'Bonita Creek Reservoir [see Figure 3.7.1]) is found within the Corridor project area. Prime.farmland is defined below. • Prime farmland is land best suited for producing food, feed, forage, ' fiber, and oilseed crops. The California Department of Conservation estimates that nearly 19,700 acres of prime farmland existed in Orange County in 1986. 3-49 In addition to the four farmland categories, the State Department of Conservation also identifies lands used for grazing purposes. As of 1986, there were 27,477 acres of grazing land in Orange County. Approximately 6,000 acres of.:::grazi.ng 1 and are 1 o c a t e d i n the tk;}??Corri d o r ( i . e. , the area + bounded by the Pacific Ocean; 5R-55,....I.-405....and I-5). Existing Parks and Open Space. Existing park and dedicated open space land uses in the Corridor vicinity are. illustrated in Figure 3.7.1. Existing lands o >::;:<:::;•.:;:;::;:.::� :::>�::>;>: �<•.::::.:::::::: • �' ::.:�:.: •.;:>:::: ;.> •:>•:>•:::::::: �:::::<:::::;::•::::;:::<:::::>•:::;•::;::;::::<:>::. f this type include: • Aliso-Wood Canyon..: Regional Park; •i:J:B:•}:vii:f:•i:/•y.j�::.�1L:$�'••:j>Y�:j::::j:::.:i�:::�':y::�:iy:;.}y,'i��::::/ry��r::::. :..�iF:}•:: so�� ::•::t:'i::::::'.:':::i�!:.W..:1;1;,;Y<Fi;4F.:::::y�•1:}:.rY,.;.rM,l,.�,:::}I} ��1! �i pT i ,'Creek...Corr1 dor; • Sycamore Hills Open Space; • Crystal Cove State Park; Future Land Use Planned land uses in the Corridor area are presented in the Land Use Elements of the Orange County General Plan and the General Plans of the incor- porated jurisdictions intersected by the Corridor alignment (see Figure 3.7.1). Generally, planned land uses represent a continuation of existing land use patterns. To a significant extent, the future land uses adjacent to the Corri- dor have already been determined as a result of planning decisions by the County of Orange, and various cities. Future development in the Corridor vicinity is governed by the following plans and special programs: • The General Plans of the County of Orange, and the Cities of San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Beach, Irvine, and Newport'Beach; • The interim General Plans of the Cities of Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel; • The Aliso Creek Local Coastal Program; • The Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program; • The City of Irvine Local Coastal Program; • The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; • The Laguna Niguel Planned Community Development Plan; • The Aliso Viejo Planned Community Development Plan; • The Laguna Laurel Planned Community Area Plan; and • The University of California, Irvine Long Range Development Plan. ture devel tine aeveiopments summarized in table 3.7. Corridor, and provide Corridor right-of-way their plans. occur are presented in ::::;Table 3.7.A. Most of e construction of the n 1 F1 3-50 t 1 I I F I r 1 C 1 +) a) O •r- O t ) S_U C) a) L O C -C O O -C 4- o a) •r- 4- O L E a) S- u a) N 4- 0 N S- 4- G. E -0 C. -0 4- i >, O C O ro C co N O C.r i a) C 4- L O C E i +) cC O >> O >T O cm +3 o >, «) o c- C. r + 4- c 4- +3 N cC a) O C to c C 3 r 3 •N r = , = �N V) C - &V aa)) �v•� 0 0 N E 'OC 3 •0 $> N C >, > 0 O O i-> > O C. C o o C C. o I U cC O 4-3 () O O C L a) I o o () •� 4- C C•-0 S-• r C• • 3 •� O L to 'C r— 3 N > 3 -C > O a) a) a) o +> > G. i U a) a) a) 1 +3 L C C. L c L L L> -O L S_ 'CJ i L 44- N O S-• O C C. O O -C O O_ a) O C. a) O n. OI (A •r- t C• a) c •r- L (A cC 'C •r- i •r- i •� •r- C i +3 N> IM L O mO 3 L +) a) L C a) i C OC O i C r-+ a) O •r- i -" C I L i U N i c3 N L cc C.1 O O U r- .Or O cC Ri o- O O O O O r N O r U (A IV Rf U Er 04- U (A LYUCL �,Ua IT C •r r N i 0 -0-0 •IC "a C I I v' -C. -C cc (D O 1 a) I C a) • c ^ cC C E 0.0 V) r- C •r- "C •r)-C co "C O cC C >> cC r •r- O C> O 4-3 c cC O a) 'C O L c N a) 4•3 eC r U r a) r= C. 0 •r- •r- (V "E i-a L C r C. it cC +-) i •r- a) •r- M (A cc > cC E L_P c cc U co U x r c o c U +-J •r- a) r. •r- C tv C. cC O 'C c a) C -C r CL a) E O co c i V) r— i N 0 U U d-J a) C1 i t •r C a) E N E C. a) 44 C CC 4J C •r- E C i C. N cC c6 L N C. N E (N 'C (A •r- N a) 4-3 C >, a) 'C O O -C N ^ •r- = r O O O is C 4-J C +3 cC O 4-3 +) O C. r C a) r U N )t CC r r = U C N -C )t rC C -C x a) •r- •r- (A C. () to -0• co i a) •% —I •r- a) a) a) C -0 a) C U- L +i N >, 4- 0 > r •r- a) 0 > 4- -0 C. L. U i N 0 O a) 4•-) E C N co O O r o r C •r- ^ a) •.- a) -010 S_c E cc C C •II L ^ co N -C' +r L. L > U a) C a) co a) O a) O C •� O O 4- (A,r C. 4- a) C C U •r- C) co O C. 'C U U W C1 C ?, N 3 O (1) m o O S- co a) 'C N C C > O N •r- cC CC C74-3 c4 N •r- -r- E C K (D C 4- CC (A•r r CM V)^ =4-) _l cC •r- _= a)>, O U 4-3 >, C)r C. CO K G O S. a) N a) C a) r N L O c CL,S- 40 S- eo 4J C -CC O- L •i- C > •r L to O 'C 7 O O a) c a) a) (D •r- •r- r a) V) (1) a) 'C C C Q. a) E 4-3 N •r- co E i •r- 'C U a) U co •r7 +� -C C 4J 'O r i 0 a) 3 N C E N -r- L.c E U S- C L> cC a) rC •r- •r- +.3 % X C O O •r- C. a) O W O co a) cc i O a) cC r a) (1) C. L = N 3 V) K W O .0 4- 4-J O Z Mtn U -J .J > O U i > U C_-0t/) to > U •r- RS r cC > 4- 4-) t70 L 0 'C N • tt) a) 4- i O U a) > "!- a) O C N tY •� r I C O +-r 3 C •r- >, O. .0 V)O U to i. a) •r- E co 'C, N >, co 3 C -S-- to ccd rto D fir' C 01it-J� 41 cc 0=Q O 4- S_ rU 0 J O O i to U C C L C .0 -)•) COto C CC O- l � Q Z r_ U O N04- +I "Cr tAl V r- r ra Z 4-) 0 � C. >>. cis E 4-3 O .0 C Z� 4-- C > •r- •r- •r- •r- r > > b-4 = u i 3 N O (1) i— L 4- O W 'C i r N R1 cC eC O •r- r OrN CrLl•r- r 1�4- LCc ~ LO O U O1W C rU- a) O 3= W 4- a) J O 4-)Q (A� a) a) •a' O 'C r i •r- i Z C C O L C 4- a) -NL 4-) C +3 S r +J +) O O +.) (1) •� cA eC •� J a) V) a) r_ a) to a) E eC U cc (A U.ca)3-3 iOo ^J cC 'C +3 1 co U V) U O •n to L r- •n to • 'C i +J •r- i 10 -C O O C "C O 10 C cC C r 4- O c Q C=, U O Q m= R) o- W¢ O I— IV- +1 CD N M N O N a) C14 � S.-to SW_ S_ et•, Q t0 Q N Q U 4- .r- 0 C. o 3 O O S_ o a) � t; o E o O O�it N N N N i C N . - •r- •r- i cD d'J ¢ Q6.)C,. . N to N V) to N +j O a) i O O E O •r C rn rn c. a C.cc c O. � SO r-- N S. C 3 S- U SO. E -C m C1r- a to o C. co C. E m m (A 4- O •r o L •r r- L C. .0 L V) L L d� o •v S- U to +-) O -0 L 4- C a) 4- c -O 4- L C 4- C -O 4- C rn to 0 a) +. O r i. •r O 0 to •r a) r >) 4.) ct N C -Q 3 C_ 3 -0 3 -0 r- 3 •O 3 >> to V) O 3 >> a) •r O C -0 O C to -0 O -r CL -0 O C to O C r- C3. U L 3 r-- 3 S.. L -C 3 L 1 r- o co S-C o to c o rn C i cmr 4- V a) S-•r7 O r t •r r ._ r O 4-) •r -C t O O c 4-3 O. -O U 3 3 V) >-, 3 U •r 3 N >-, 3 N •r 41 +-3 E 4- S-cc-0 -0 L t0 -0 S- N 'Q -0 O -0 i N -0 S. a) t N •r O O -0 a) a) O C- O O O (1) a) E O O O a) O Z. Cn-r- X 'C7 O (A > 'a > 'C O > (A E > -0 O > "o C1 r V) O .0 •r 4-3 O L •r i •r •r L O O L •r •r L •r ce C S. •).•) i to = a7 L C a) L > O a. U a) L > a) S- o CL O i u 0 N L to N L a) N O N L (2) N L to Ci O. O O O L a) O r- a) O L a) L C a) O L a) 0 r- ¢ N U J C. cd u CL U CL 0-•r OG U C. CL' U CL 4- o .� E I -0 >! rn •-) 4-) cloo 1 0)-0 c W r-• c c0c a) r_ N 3 CC a) a) N tC •r •r u to -0 •r >) R7 C .X a) •r •i-) cc to CS.e- O •r r- \ -0 r- 4- C 3 O cc I 4J ,- +-) a) .0 r- 3 .0 a) to r- 0 (3) -114 •r E r- C a) c U r- rn (1) .tom 3 Cl- a) r i -0 4-3 o co a) 3 a) •r ro r 3 i i +. rn 3 N L N to C C U C E 4- •r • -p to o a) o r -p a) o (1) a co a) o r C3.4- 4-j N CL r_-0N t i 1 E -0 r- •r 0 r- C O O C a)-0 r- O r U C O >•t C -r-to 4J O m O r- a) V) C to to -0 >> O to to to L N co N U to S- -0 O to •r •r c ro 'II +J •r •r r- -0 a) O a) +J 4Cl -3 -N co 4-)C ' mr K i >>r- S- S-r- S-E a) S- r- E C •u r-t K +� r- tL7 O `. U ram- • O •r -0 ed (1) to O a) r- >y L O a) r-4 N •r ? ., a) •r .-) -p CL L C -0 CC cc to .-.a 4-2 a) E 4- N C r C, a) 3 CL -0 -0 •r -0 C O to C O a) to to a) v) N N r- -•r a) (A 4- Y cr- a) N C O C74- 3 N •r 4- E O k a)�tor-+-) Ea)Oic Ea)cca a) 1 0 >>Oir- CL ik imi I •r fo to S-. to O N L -0 L .r N r+ N CL }) co O N o Co r- U a) a) N •r r- r- O N a) +-) U L LO r- a. O >> +, r r-t G1 r u u tm N -04.) X N L U O O N 4J •r C, mr C 'fl i to 'p S. G> d •r •r O a) O •r C N O M -r C E ^ •r C to 0. C a) .r a) c = -C E L rl N) O O i J LO N a) rt V) to >- iN •r E to 'o M �G O E cc tb a) -C C r- 4- O L to a) a) i CL a) +•) cc a) C r- O O to i u o a) OC U •r + to a) = • 3 •-� o +� 0 >, C N •0 +-) L i U C O C a) to O. W .0 0 -0 C caa •0 Cl. •rN- r�Y a) 4-3 03 4j r - L L O tv V) i LO LLB O .IL S. "o LO to co to to o U � 1 S-U cc I V 4j QO cc ~ O 4- N) > CL O M- LY +-) CL 4- ..J 4- O a) C w L. 4- N 4- 4- O O >> tY 4- 3 O 3 0 0 O O •r to O N O O >> to O O .0 S +-) U r- J m N O t 3 +J L +J +-) -O +o3 r- +-) C +-) Q +3 CL +-) r- +) ,C O +J) U 0 S. c0 = N -0 N V) -C r- O L .0 (A a) O O co a) c a) >y c a) to a) c tO O m tO a) 4- 3 C to Z 3 O 3 -o co 3 J 3 to >- Ln G. u 3 0 +1 +I +1 +I +1 +I +1 4) N N M N 00 N Il� N N O (A N a) O M a) tV a) LO a) a) 00 a) •r to S. cn S•. N i M L. O L L -4 i.- tn fl- u LO u U U U Ln u U r-i C[ rt Q r-1 ¢ ri Q to ¢ rq Q. Q 0 (A a) c .y O C10 ZI cV O r- 4J L C cc a) Z U >>* +J C .I- V) C r- c o n. M E +) L O C CCU w cz E to d O •r C r- rU- tOC > Q CL CM u L a) 4-3 to * 4J 00 C r-i a) LO I- to 4J u a) •n 0 L C. 4- O N c 0 L O • p. O rn-v \ a) ri C. M O \r- M a) 4- a) 0-0 N O i a) O o r- C. to O S- u 44- c O -P .r.. C i r-- 4--) 4J (A •r O C U a) S- 4J O C C E 0 C1 .-0 4J r- U a) V) C a) O > U to t L -C7 U C •r 0t 3 N O V) cc V u m •r In C i r-t CL 3..8 HOUSING AND BUSINESS RELOCATION For purposes of describing the existing housing and business developments; ' the project study .area is divided into three segments: Northern (SR-73 to Pelican Hill Road), Central (Pelican Hill Road to Laguna Canyon Road) and Southern (Laguna Canyon Road to I-5/SR-74). ' Northern Project Area Property adjacent to the proposed Corridor .alignment within this segment is primarily in a rural state, and consists of land owned by the University of California, Irvine, and land owned by The Irvine Company which is currently used for cattle grazing, as well as for growing and selling Christmas trees. ' This segment is primarily located within the Cities.of Irvine and Newport 9 Beach and a small portion is in the County of Orange. There are several resi- dential communities, university facilities, and commercial areas in thi-s area. See Figure 3.8.1 for an illustration of existing and future development. 1 [1 1 1 I 1 Central Project Area The property in this segment primarily consists of land owned by the Irvine Company which is currently used for cattle grazing. Future residential and commercial development (Irvine Coast Planned Community) is proposed within this segment near Pelican Hill Road. Land whi-ch is currently owned by the State of California and designated as Crystal Cove State -Park i-s also located within this segment (Figure 3.8.1). North of Crystal Cove State Park is the Laguna Laurel Planned Community, a development area which is currently involved in litigation and remains in the County approval process. The majority of this land is located within the City of Irvine and the County of Orange boundaries. There is no existing residential or commercial development currently located within the study area for this segment. Southern Project Area This segment contains residential developments, business and, commercial centers, light industrial and rural land. Figure 3.8.1 illustrates these developments. The County of Orange, and the Cities of Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, and San Juan Capistrano are located i.n this segment. 'Existing residential and commercial developments are clustered -near E1 Toro Road, Aliso Creek Road, Glenwood Drive, La Paz Road and Pacific Park. Existing commercial and' light industrial developments are located near Crown Valley Parkway, Avery Parkway and I-5. 3-53 l J• _ bp_ t '+yee9. ♦ � - _ 7- M� V LL Q� Z zW W ,`4 a 0 WWM W id. Q 1- J U. G � a 5w zO p 0 N w Q 3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES The following discussion addresses the entire length of the project area. - Law Enforcement. Several law enforcement agencies serve the _proposed Corridor project area. Traffic and law enforcement for the highways 'and unin- ' corporated areas in the Corridor area are provided .by the California Highway :Patrol (CHP) and Orange County Sheriff's Department, respectively. The -incor- porated Cities of Newport Beach, Irvine and Laguna Beach maintain their own police departments, providing law enforcement services within each jurisdic- tion. The Cities of San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo and newly incorporated Laguna. Niguel, contract with the Orange County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services. ' Fire Protection Services. The Corridor traverses Orange County proposed 9 Fire Battalion Districts 4, 5 and 6. Fire protection services for unincor— porated areas and the Cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo and Laguna Niguel are provided by Orange County and the State Forestry Department. The City of Newport Beach maintains its own fire depart- ment. The Safety Element of the Orange County General Plan categorizes the Corridor area as a moderate to high fire hazard zone due to the large, undevel- oped areas of brush and grassland at the north end of the project which -become dry in� the summer months. ' Emergency Evacuation Services. In accordance with the San Onofre Nuclear Emergency Response Plans and Procedures, the area within ten miles of the San ' Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has been divided into districts. The Ameri- can Red Gross has established special reception and care centers in each dis- trict to provide food, shelter, and health services during an emergency. Five centers are located in the vicinity of the proposed Corridor: UCI, Santa Ana. High School, Orange Coast College, Edison High. School.and Tustin High School. According to the emergency plan, major evacuation routes to these centers are I-5, I-405, and SR-l. 1 1 3-55 3.10 HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for cultural studies was set by the FHWA. A Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) was prepared, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred in the ineligibility of two archaeological sites (SHPO letter in Appendix G). Phase II testing and evalua- tion of archaeological resources was conducted by the Chambers Group, Inc. (SHJTC Test Investigation Report and Determination of Eligibility, 1990). The Paleontology Study prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. in 1990, addresses paleon- tological resources within the APE. Historic Resources The cultural resources survey of the APE did not identify any buildings or structures as having architectural or historic significance. Archaeological Resources There are 26 archaeological sites identified within or adjacent to the APE. Two of the 26 recorded sites have been destroyed. Test excavations have been conducted on the remaining sites. Fifteen sites have been determined significant enough to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Appendix D lists each site; whether it is eligible for the National Regis- ter; and its location in relation to the APE. Paleontological Resources The APE for the Corridor passes through a variety of geological forma- tions, some with high sensitivity for fossil occurrences. Most of the area from E1 Toro Road to I-5 is considered to have a very high sensitivity. Previ- ous grading in the stratigraphic units in this area has resulted in high vol- umes of fossils. 3-56 I J I i� 1 L ' 3.11 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MATERIALS_ An Initial Site Assessment ISA was conducted b. Caltrans to identifyan known or potential hazardous waste!.- 4 sites in the vicinity of the proposed corridor. The ISA found > businesses located .e:i:ther within or adja- cent to the proposed right-of-way....with hazardous waste ;% potential. These businesses are illustrated on Figure 3.11.1 and described below....,::The numbers on Figure 3.11.1 correspond to the numbered businesses below. [>l! Potential Hazardous WasteJMaterial Sites ' Shell Gas and Car Wash Station located at 26815 La Pai Road. There are four double wall, fiberglass, underground tanks installed on this site in 1987. The tanks are about 10,000 gallons each equipped with leak detection devices, and have single wall piping systems. The tanks are used to store gasoline and diesel fuels. There are no records of tank testing on County of Orange files. ' « Sepulveda Building Materials located at 28092 Forbes. This is a truck repair and service shop. There are two underground tanks (10,000 gallons each; double wall tanks and pipings) at this facility used for storage of diesel and gasoline. These tanks were installed in November of 1989. Two underground storage tanks were removed in December of 1989. These tanks were installed in 1977. The lab analysis of a soil sample taken from one of the spoil piles by OCHCA indicated contamination. This case was referred for cleanup by OCHCA in January of 1990. The cleanup status is unknown at this time. 3 GKN Rental Center (Foothi11- Tool .and Equipment Rentals) located at 280321''torbes. This is an automotive equipment rentals, repair and service shop. There are two underground storage tanks used for storing waste oil (250 gallons) and gasoline (10,000 gallons) at this. facility. The tanks and the pipings are steel. OCHCA's last Inspection Report indicates that the own- er/operator does not have a permit to operate these tanks on -site and the tanks have not been monitored or tested for leaks in the past. There is a clarifier on this facility which is used for waste oil and' sludge separation/removal. Due to improper maintenance of the clarifier, potential contamination problems are expected. There are above ground storage .drums at this,facility, used for solvent storage, which have not been handled properly. Niguel Home Center (Auto Xperts) located.at 28002 Forbes. This is an automotive repair shop. All storage tanks are above ground (drums). and are used for storing carburetor cleaner, waste oil, solvent=brake cleaner, petro- leum distillant solvent and ethylene glycol. The facility was last inspected by .00HCA in August, 1989. Only minor violations were observed at that time. Waste disposal/manifests are currently handled properly at this facility. 3-57 li� >lilt > ��"_ � 9 •"� -ram t'��,.YJ�``;, �'' ' :' ', � I .� X �f/ � -I ; ..l_ _.._ •'il%�'�r., y.T . �(^\ I Y ^-•--II � .J� r�� •i �1' `i�` S � O • }--�`.`��"•7_, ^,fit � n..,a _ �.-r �.• .. • F. +.\\1�f C; 4`.. l>N'r.... i'C�'� � j� ~f " 3ry' �"ti.,. 4 L `•� � � � � ',, I uj H J a oc W a 2 W F- Ia 0 c a a J a W 0 U. 0 0 Q 0 -j Allen Cadillac Oldsmobile/GMC Trucks Dealership located at 28332 Camino Capistrano. This is a car dealership, auto service and.body[paint work, All storage tanks on this facility 'are above ground .(drums) and are used for storing waste oil, waste transmission fluid, spent solvent and sludge, waste brake fluid, spent cleaning fluids and sludge,, and waste_cool'ant. The facility was last inspected -by the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) in August, 1989. Violations regarding waste disposal handling -and man-ifesti-ng were noted at that time. Similar violations were recorded on file in 1987., Pass Shell Gas Station located at 28662 Camino Capistrano. Three gasoline,fibertanks were installed in 1980 to replace the old tanks after gasoline was reported leaking into the underground telephone vault adjacent to the ' Stati-on. Fourteen monitoring/recovery wells were installed on the station site in June of 1980 to determine the extent of free plume and to conduct gasoline recovery operations. In November of 1981, since no free product was observed in any of the, monitoring wells, the recovery operations ceased. The-quahtity of gasoline lost and recovered is unknown. In 1984, a double wall, fiberglass diesel tank was installed. -Later ' diesel was found leaking from a crack in the housing that held the leak detec- -tei on device. To investigate this leak, an observation, well was installed in the pea -gravel backfill area of the tank and evidence of diesel -product turned, up. Four additional observation wells were installed in the native soil around, the tank to see if diesel had escaped the tank hole space. It was later deter- mined that diesel appeared to be trapped in the tank hole. A total of 1,285 -gallons of diesel were recovered up to June of 1989.. The recovery operations are currently ongoing. This gas station currently has four fiberglass, underground tanks used for ' storage of gasoline and diesel fuels. These tanks were tested tight i-n Febru- ary of 1989. Apparently, the groundwater has been impacted by the diesel and earlier gasoline leaks. A recent sampling of the groundwater indicated low levels ,(levels are still above Action Levels of DHS Drinking Water Standards) of petroleum products and benzene i,n one of the four tank zone observation wells. ' Also, petroleum hydrocarbons and benzene were found in one of the original recovery wells. Sample results for the remaining five wells showed no detec- tion of petroleum hydrocarbons or benzene. x Exxon Gas and Service Station located at 28692 Camino Capistrano. This service station has three underground gasoline tanks and one underground waste oil tank. All tanks are fiberglass and were installed in 1984. On August, ' 1988, all gasoline tanks were tested and passed except for the super unleaded tank. Locations of the leaks in the super unleaded tank were identified and repaired. In September, 1988, this tank was retested and passed. In December, 1988, the waste oil tank tested .tight. 3-59 1 1 Earl's Plumbing located at 28922 Camino Capistrano. This is a retail store'""for plumbing parts and tools. The business stores propane in an above ground tank (approximately 500 gallons) for equipment fueling proposes. There is also a small area in the back of the store designated for pipe threading. In this area, the asphalt pavement beneath the threader is stained with lubri- cating oil. The stain appears to be minor and on the pavement surface only. No hazardous waste : problem was encountered. 6 Morena Tile located at chemicals (mainly all water bas include sealers which are stored are not used on the premises. No tered. ?9000 Camino Capistrano. This business uses d) for tile installation. These chemicals in containers on -site, however the chemicals hazardous waste-V.....' problem was encoun- (y`:: Western Exterminator Company -located _at29072 Camino Capistrano. This '6usiness stores packages and containers of hazardous and toxic chemicals in a closed, covered, and above ground storage area. On this site,. :::there is also a 500 gallon above ground propane tank. No hazardous waste.' problem was encountered. 3-60 L u i 11 1 1 1 1 Ll 1 1 11 1 3.12 PEDESTRIAN, EQUESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES This section discusses existing on -street pedestrian ,walkways and on - street bicycle lanes, future on -street bicycle and pedestrian walkways, and planned off-street bicycle, riding. d:i_n.g _, and hiking facilities. Appen- 'dT A; Section 4(f) Evaluation, discusses dd il` existing publicly owned bicycle and riding/ hiking trails. Pedestrian and Equestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include existing and future on -street sidewalks at proposed interchange/overpass locations and future off -road City and County riding and hiking trails. Equestrian trails have been included in this discus- sion as they are generally included with master planned off -road hiking facili- ties. Arterial Sidewalks. The following existing arterials with sidewalks are planned as future interchanges with the proposed Corridor. Paseo De Colinas/Avery Parkway Laguna Canyon Road Greenfield Drive Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive Moulton Parkway Un-iversity Drive GI-enwood Drive/Pacific Drive Bison Avenue La Paz Road Jamboree Road E1 Toro Road MacArthur Boulevard Several of the proposed interchanges/overpasses involve future arterials which will be constructed in conjunction with, or after construction of, the Corridor.- These future arterials include Pelican Hill Road, Sand Canyon Ave- nue, Greenwood Drive/Pacific Park Drive and Aliso Creek Drive. Public Riding and Hiking Trails. Fig master planned riding and hiking trails. would intersect the proposed Corridor 3.12.1 illustrates the Countywide Trail Jurisdictions Spotted Bull Trail City of San Juan Capistrano Oso Creek Trail County of Orange/ Irvine Coast Riding and Hiking Trail Bommer Canyon Equestrian and Hiking Trail Bonita Canyon Equestrian and Hiking Trail Santa Ana Heightsu Trail€;' 3 - 61 City 51 City of San Juan Capistrano County of Orange City of Irvine City of Irvine County of Orange 1 Q / "°e8k7n;N r s`i ��0 GpL�'CUB pR ° b M LLI Ar 00Jll� CC cc , 04�`�(•I�.YK ♦tee \�`, ii \ ® a A cc w� ♦� " . ■s 0-1 mmm+� -` no .I r ara� a a \ _• -aaai� ^^.,,�� ' " .: *;. e f4 .�A�v ♦�f • ~ € 7 i� ..�mVZr rmmmm � � "�'3��.©.J g v��p�,ta�A's'♦ei Asa®ts¢sAril�eAratr.. i� !$y P��P PP•, '♦� - . pot A a! s '00, 1\ • „ .'.� _`/ / � �,'� ,i- � ♦ rrrararart■rarra raa raw♦ ✓••u•w-w;,, Atf Avr Ay Aor ��.I:• egf .' as - -s,,, -. aeaw ^^*,,, °ee ,.,.,,w' ;: 4, /t Aram r/: I '`t � ••Os1,'� `ea.m..��y, ` e �%' '�•,,,..+�" AAe sa,a.■* ,_Iy. ., ., d ;' /. r�, -k ��:� �Q '" ♦gyp r,' � �� 6r' y� _....ate • , o� pp� Mtn .. _�.�� • '� ..,.'- -!� zt ! E . oo♦ 0Z.. �'>:; f / "' `n:• ObfO a�' ^ roc! �': , i :wc. ' J ;, }. t 1 `'mm..ra er �f•etei '• �° gL ,. � t�' �� agYCAMp�E ja\�.�-S aa,�®C•-DNA ._ ,. �.�.,.,,,�� s 4, # AW : 0,: ;R's rrsrasarrsar■asara - �'�%' i ® �`'� -N . 'EMERALD CANYON a°°" °QIfft :`A.♦ fix,•: : ? '� ." ' s��"`m► � 444+ �' ,•? SAND A O A E i i ;you ``*� .♦ 0 g. 0 }1 0 ♦ ♦. — i' IV ♦i . o i Q (� Q •�'�.;:, jyy _ /\/ 'P,, \•.. �w'� ,Y �,; t� ?.+< t/, .� r zca ui tag. :. N, � `/ fry H: `j i\ o� '�' �. � V, •�4 Z :fi W LU cr . � w....�y �hii';� - C�`SA,Pfs .yait�+�•.. � �' 4e.11.� \��' Qx� r:'' ��- - .✓a' ��'�!� O a� ..:. ~-f.,t / /. ' fFfF��AA��Lt $ \ 9 , - _ ,.` •'ate .: ;fie. �= 1 f 7: t o ': Hy �.�► 1 s W co at: T co LU co la LU rP `,"'\ _.- ;ar'`..+. -J, � \s •.,� ��%� � i•-��' .._.�� ` .�i.•lst. Qi fA fA fA � �\}�1:...,_1. - ,�c' �,�- d..:-<a -�', r� � :iY'i'�r�{, � ., a:, i ._..._ � C: ''�'.% L:; • � > d' � _ . y° � ' 1 C U� (/� fn L'�'7•_ _.- 'fit: ::.. -. - :...1'�.: �Mia��t .. `t �• , �" ... al w:'a '.^."� y at , ` MMMMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M-M P 'Spotted Bul:l Trail is a proposed feeder facility planned to be located along the eastern edge of Rancho Viejo Road, on the east side of I-5 between Trabuco Creek Road and Spotted Bull Lane. Rancho Viejo Road will be relocated easterly between Via Escolar and Village Road. ' Oso Creek Trail is planned to be located parallel and west of the AUSF Railway on the west side of I-5. The Corridor would bridge this fac.ility with either project alternative I-5 i-nterchange design. 1 F r The Trabuco Creek Hiking and Equestrian Trail is master planned to pass under I-5 just south of Trabuco Creek Road. On the north side of I--5, this trail is planned to connect with Spotted Bull Trail (a proposed feeder trail along Rancho Viejo Road) and an existing easement which would be a continuation of the Trabuco Creek trail.easterly from I-5. The Irvine Coast Riding and Hiking Trail is planned to extend through William R. Mason Regional Park and Bommer Canyon in the City of Irvine and terminate at the juncture of Wood Canyon and Emerald Canyon trails in the Irvine Coast Open Space area which would be dedicated to the County of Orange. 3-63 Bicycle Facilities Figure 3.12.1 illustrates county wide master planned bicycle facilities. Future Class I (off -road) bicycle trails within the Corridor area include: Class I Trail Jurisdictiod" Golf Club Drive City of San Juan Capistrano Junipera Serra Road City of San Juan Capistrano Rancho Viejo Road City of San Juan Capistrano (North of Highland Drive) Trabuco Creek Trail Count_y_LLofOrang.e. (Trail No. 81)/ Moulton Parkway Trail County "'o --Oran ..e.... Trai 1 No. 72 San aiJoaquin.:: H.i.l.l, s Road Trail County ofOrange (Trail No. 67) v.::::.i..:i::i::i::i::ii::i::i::i::}::i::::i::i::i::i::?::i::i::ij::i:::{:i::ii:•:::•::i::i:::•::i:•::':::iF ::: i.::::::::: ry::>'r>'<>»<>-g. <:>n Bon�i:a Canyon Trai 1 Co:inty:;::of Orange (Trail No. 63)/ 3-64 r k h 1 1 L k 1 H MacArthur Boulevard Trail (County Trail No. 66) is located between Univer- sity Drive and Ford Road (approximately 1.5 miles). The path is within ex fist- ing Caltrans right-of-way, along the west side of MacArthur Boulevard. The trail connects to the San Diego Creek system at University Drive. San Diego Creek Trail (County Trail No. 61) is located northeast of the proposed Corridor along the eastern levee of the San Diego Creek Channel, within the Orange County Flood Control District right-of-way. Future Class II (on -road) bicycle trails within the project area include the following: Class II Trail Jurisdiction`-11 bano canyon Avenue, i rai i countyot urange (i rai i No. MacArthur Boulevard Cy"`of-Newport Beach (San Diego Creek to Pacific Coast Highway) There are no existing or planned Class III (on -road bicycle route) facili- ties within the Corridor's area of potential. effect (APE). 3-65 1 u 3.13 VISUAL RESOURCES I-5 to E1 Toro Road. Existing low to high density residential and commercial/industrial uses adjacent to the Corridor alignment (Figure 3.7.1, Land Use) will have views of the Corridor. Rough grading for the Corridor has previously occurred from approximately I-5 to E1 Toro Road, except for the segment from Crown Valley Parkway to Moulton Parkway. The Corridor also traverses the Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park in two locations. In the devel- oped areas along the Corridor alignment, ornamental landscape vegetation has been introduced. In areas which remain undeveloped, prominent natural vege- tation consists of annual grassland, with wetland vegetation in Oso Creek near I-5 and Aliso Creek in the Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park. E1 Toro Road to Existing SR-73. The Corridor alignment passes through an undeveloped area from E1 Toro Road to MacArthur Boulevard. This area is char- acterized by ridge systems predominantly covered with coastal sage scrub and intervening grazed (disturbed) grassland covered canyons. In the vicinity of Bommer Canyon Park, the hillsides are interspersed with prominent rock outcrop- pings of the Bommer Formation. The topography begins to flatten near MacArthur Boulevard and Bonita and San Diego Creeks. The area adjacent to the Corridor alignment, north of MacArthur Boulevard, is developed with primarily high density residential and office/commercial uses (Figure 3.7.1, Land Use). Scenic Corridors. The visual resources and characteristics of the San Joaquin Hills are incorporated into Orange County's Master Plan of Scenic Highways (MPSH). The Corridor is not designated a scenic highway by the County of Orange MPSH. The MPSH designates certain arterials as either Viewscape or Landscape Corridors, or both. Viewscape Corridors are routes that traverse a defined visual corridor within which scenic resources and aesthetic values are found. According to the MPSH, any development within a Viewscape Corridor must maintain and enhance the scenic resources within the viewshed from the roadway. Within the Corridor alignment, the Sand Canyon Avenue extension, Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro Road (south of the Corridor to Laguna Canyon Road) are identified as Viewscape Corridors. Landscape Corridors are routes that traverse developed or developing areas and provide a landscaped, pleasant driving environment. Development within Landscape Corridors should serve to complement the scenic highway. The Land- scape Corridors in the vicinity of the Corridor alignment include: San Joaquin Hills Road, Alicia Parkway, La Paz Road, Pacific Park Drive, Moulton Parkway, Oso Parkway and Crown Valley Parkway. E1 Toro Road, from the Corridor to its northern terminus, is also designated as a Landscape Corridor along existing and future development areas, giving it a dual designation as both a Viewscape and Landscape Corridor. 3-66 1 u 1 -7- 0 H P I I 1 11 P 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following background and technical studies were prepared for the Corridor and used in the preparation of this EIR[EIS. All studies were pre- pared specifically for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, so the full project title is not always included below. Study Date Prepared By 1. Geotechnical Study September-, 1989 Geofon, .Inc. Z. Hydrologic Technical Studies a. floodplain Hydraulic Study -Tech. Memo 3-22 July 23, 1990- CDMG- b. Conceptual Drainage Study July 23, 1990 CDMG: c. Water Quality Analysis March 1988 LSA A-s-soc Cates, Inc. 3. Air Quality Technical Report February, 1990 CDMG 4. Noise Impact Technical Report March, 1990 CDMG 5. Biological Technical Studies April, 1990 LSA Associates, -Inc. Biological Assessment Report July 23, 1990 LSA Associates, Inc. Wildlife Crossing Tech. Mem. March 19, 1990 CDMG - Avoidance Alternatives Analysis July, 1990 LSA Associates, I-nc. - Wetlands Impacts Spring 1990 Biological Survey July 23, 1990 LSA Associates, Inc. Results 6. Initial Site Assessment (Hazard- 1989, 1990 Caltrans ous Waste) 7. Traffic Technical Studies a. Traffic and Circulation July 16, 1990 CDMG Study, Tech. Memo 2-60 b. Toll and Toll Free Traffic January 9, 1990 CDMG Projections, Tech. Memo 2-67 C. South End Study February, 1990 Austin -Foust Asso- ciates Copies of technical studies may be obtained from the Transportation Corri- dor Agency, 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. They are -also available for review at the office of the California Department of Transportation, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705. Phone numbers for these agencies are: Transportation Corridor Agency .:::::::::::::: Contact: Steve Letterly, laa_ Environmental (TDC S57-3298 4-1 F1 California Department of Transportation Contact: Judith Heyer, Environmental Branch Chief (714) 724-2252 Unless specifically designated otherwise, the San Joaquin Hills Transpor- tation Corridor Agency (TCA) is the agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures listed in this chapter. The mitigation measures are pre- sented as commitments and are part of the proposed project unless otherwise noted. Final design plans and contract specifications for construction will include those measures related to, but not limited to, design features, grad- ing, erosion control, landscaping, soundwalls and biotic habitat mitigation. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 210B1.6 and Part VIII of Chapter 7 of the TCA Administrative Code, a mitigation monitoring plan will be developed to insure the implementation of mitigation measures identified in this EIR/EIS. The mitigation monitoring plan will be adopted by the TCA Board of Directors, in conjunction with findings required by CEQA, at the time of project approval. As required by Part VIII of Chapter 7 of the TCA Administra- tive Code, the mitigation monitoring plan shall list all adopted mitigation measures, and set forth monitoring or reporting requirements appropriate to each measure. In addition, the monitoring plan will identify the party or parties responsible for implementation, monitoring and documentation of the measure, the point in the project development process at, or prior to which, the measure is to be implemented, and any standards or criteria necessary for determining the satisfactory implementation of the measure. 4-2 a I I r F 11 fl 1 1 I � Cie 4� 4.; 4� LLI 0 0 ca Cd U U44 (4-4 (44 LLJ IA •r4 -r4 2c dc 9b r4 bo r4 LL) W VJ w P-4 LL. 4.) 41 4-J 6-4 0 0 0 2c z z z ICA!CD b-I —j ca LAj 1.4 fi::: LLJ r-4 r-4 C� 0 41 H cl� cl� r-4 LLI 0 LLJ W 4) (1) 0 p >4 is Z rn sc Cd � Cd ca LLI 0 r4 .0 r-I 0 -A -W t-4 4-1 41 Cd Cd Cd cm bo bo bo -A mc 4j 41 4-J P 36- r-4 C-4 0- -4 (1) W bZ < Cd 0 0 V -A r4 4) a) 41 M A. 0 rn p > 0 0 r-i w . ca •r4 -r4 4) Q) (1) r. 0 0 Ad 0 4J 0 4J > p cd D, p (1) 0) v 0 4) p r4 0 V) u a) cz 13. Q) 0) 10 En w p >-P. 0 P r-4 �4 w, P. p u o u WLL" M r-4 (n 0 0 Cd 114 0p 0 V) r-4 4) u &0 -W -r4 4J a)' P U) 16 a) f-1 p M -W Aa) 0 A 0 0 4J a) P r-4 1 2 to }4 r-i S4 0 0 U W 'd 0 r 4 0 0 -W 0 �. r. Q) Q) P4J 4J -A . " cd 0 r-4 Cd I w FO rz V U 44 0 a P. 41 4J 0 r4 4) 0 r-I 0 4J -A 4 r-4 Q) '0 P 4J 0 CA Cd a) r. 4) � Ul WO > -A cd 4-) r. Cn 0) -r-4 to W W 0 Cd a) rn CA u p 04 0 4-) 4J m p .�4 �. rcod 0 0 :1 a) o - cd 10 W4J r-4 W 0 w (1) r4 �d 0 9 WM 34 Z 4) Cd P. r-I P 4J AD ca ..j -A P 4J P M E :3 4) U Q) bO -A TCD c P4 w 0 IL) -r4 rA :3 �1: 0 0 Q Q 0 CO W Cd r-4 44 U 1-.4 Cd r-4 0 Cd 0 bo 41 (v u kv -A ca 0 0 — �-1 4 .r4 0 u 44 4, CQ is a) o by p co U 0 S4 Cd 0 u u U) (1) 0 .> 41 cd 41(3) A a) 0 4j -A 0 " " w Cd 0 0 0 0 >-, tkO Ul �4 Pq U U 4J -4JA Cd �4 L4 0 E < a)cd Q) Cd PN .�4 r-4 Cd u -A Q) r-4 (1) r. 0 p Cd In 0 0 0 10 "IN r-4 ul :� cd ca ;> a) u 94 Q) 0 P64 �: 0 0 W cn W IC4 cn E-4 ul O. Cd r-4 C� 0 41 •r4 4J Cd m b6o 4J I c c}4 i U 1 4 :>v4i:,• H O a r4 •rl bo 1j Ul r4 41 :• :: •r4 O cd i'•'•'' i 4.) � ul •,4 ;:. cd r-I '#3 rl 0 cd :j O z ii+?#ii 11 C Ja G U r•a O +J d o G 4J a) 4-J 44 U cd a) a) :.::.:. :.. U O O43 •d ii;i 4J i;;�:k Cd In M 00 .;. i•1 i>�#iii id it�?ii cd 3d :ii. ::: !a"�iii U1 i :. U) ld :::�:.. cd cd ca Oiii O d O O:AI:i.� d cd +J (1) +-) 41 t Ei;i G 41 G ii bo p :Rkl:' cd i s U bo a) Rf O bOi.4:;- ;i•r1 O 54 •rl J..l 44 ;:; iii 4 'd 4J U 44 U ra G :::>: ra 0 (1) U a� 41 E x V) o 10co G , �1 0 o • a) r p u 4J 41 .0 r1.4 r-+ 0 rd G >, o d b al rd cd ra .r~ 0 0 cd w O O G 3 bO •r1 4 N r-+ 'd 44 'd U >, a) G O o cd cd p bo r •d cd d cd .W i 0 a) G 0 0 p 0 4j ra .x m c� �+ G p •r1 �+ a) d o w >, ?s a G m o o u u "4 41 U 44 (D> o •rl 0 z U P 3 bo 4J : O G r1 i•I J.j U 4J cd G U cd cd a) 4 •rl a) 10 0 U 0 G 4J a) •r1 rd r� O •d 4J G cd 4J a) a) •ra > a. q O. r-4 0 cd v •ra 4 4J cd O .,4fa a) p •d d rn 4-) b a) Ul � w r-I r-I cd 4J U •rl w (1) w cl : G G G •r+ .r.) U o G >, H O P �. 0 fl 'd 4 1.4 G N o G ul cd p rd •r1 O O 'd -A U) O U 0 U 4J r-♦ a) a) 0> ro O" a) �+ Im G a) 4J cd CQ U •d r-i 44 O JJ G 0� U 10 r-♦ rd w N U G a• .y a) r-+ rd a) •r1 J.J O cd G •0 m G -r-4 G O o - >, Z o G G 4 G 4 3 •n •d O +) cd 4.)0 O rO •ri U r-i 0 ; t a) r-I cd 4 w JJ •d -4 •ra G cd 1J U 0 a) G 3 rim r-4t :::Iw:i J G En cd G 4J cd >, 3 cd P bA �+ o G o �+ U) cd � i uEiii 44 G U u o d 4J r-+ N o G o r-+ G a� o •d (D G 4) :: :> 0 cd U U >, 3 r-+ d r-I bo a) r-1 P 44 •r1 10 44 cd > TS G G o a) i; t 1J cd 0) -4 ra r-I cd G 44 0 �I •r1 rz Ad •rl •rl cd r-1 •r•I W i:Af•i G � 0 4 Vr-4 4 -A U � 44 r-I d w a) u CD +j pcd 4J U ;144 o r-+ 44 4-) d 0 Cd •d p Ul d ca P r-I > G r 4 ri r-1 cd a) W rG .ia P+ a) U) G U) -r-I0 cd p u �. o 0 d cd a) +1 o 4 't eo � rr) 0)0 4j 4 G rx 41 U w G> 4 •Cd 4J G o •r cd Cl. (4 a) w d (L) 4) U Ul •r♦ U G 0 4) d o �u u o� a°) u a) O cGd api 'L7 adi aLr)! •O0 'p P a`r .)) u adi U a. � 4J CO r. a. A u o Cd Cd C'+ •r+ B 4 •r 4 o W V) 1_4 p. 7 L 1 1 1 t 1 t a W a Z O M 0 v a a J a Z W O d. 4. U Cd .t r-1 Cd •r1 U d 44 a) FA U) 1J Cd 0 cd cd :.•: E! 3+ 4U 4J •A co O U 44 b0 bA V (1) d o10r�-1 0 r-1 4 •� p 4 0 Cd 41 Q) IL) a) is a) ,.,,,,,•r1 to •n:::N:: 4J P $'W 4J cd a) U W1i�;s•r1 a) 0. a) KAK cd H "4 E-+ ; V 0 +J U 4) En -tk a) a) "A r-4 Cd cd v .t 1+ E $4 O w •r1 44 (1) cd O41 c w 1 ,'d 4J lJ 13 a) U U )4 U y W `'`?' s~ o ' 'o o : 43 o 43 Ni p 41 u w 41 U 41 Q w cd 4) o •rw1 0 m U 10 0 •r1 U) Cd a) Cd w a) a) a) J Sa ::Ai:i •r� U t? O (L) •r1 O •r.1 •r4 (1) :2}t#::i w bO o a.::ysi:::; to :2k#X •? :)!: w O r--I 13 'p G aa) 0 cd •r1 r-4 U 41 0 U 44 •r1 i~ b,o .,a M 4 . OO O uUi •r0 1 0 cd ar cd NO 'd N •r4 404 o cca cad cad 344 � ,4 O v cad 'cOd v o r+~ ro � r-I 4a r. O cd •r1 •r4 U :> r-1 b0 a) of r-c p .0 a) -A O E-+ P .3 44 LO 1 .d• I 44 44 4 boo bD ca 44 44 41 Cd b�0 bO ul i f3 i 41 co b0 41 Cd bO 4-J iJ A `�Ss; 41 1 z r-1 4 Cd +1 s_I Cd ;, » Cd pi :::: Cd 4J sa Cd w ca iJ w cd a b Ed bo •r+ 4 J .c �c %D un r-1 rn o� �O N M rl O O O 41 41 4.J •-1 r--1 � r-1 N � Ln l0 cd id R! cd Cd JOJ w O O O O O \D O ri -A .r4 •rl •rl -A Cd Cd Cd Cd , ca m ca W bO bO b0 I1 W I bO •,4 •rl •rq -A �O -A %D •rl 41 "J JJ 1J J.J J-J z z r-I ,%. r-d �. 4OJ z JOJ N O 41 4in 41�l1 CJJ to Cd U t U 0 a) •n •ri Cd a) 4J td rl Cd CA a) 44 O rn r-4 a..,4 to P+ x a CD 0 'r1 -A a o a o •o 1v r4 . cad •A m •A ? •A r-I •rl i"r O U a) H a ) O r-I r-1 4) 3 a) o a) -A a) a •r•I •rl CA O m 'Lj to U 'd CA m U 3 O 10 O 'd O O a) R O m cd cd •rt �+ cd O !~ cd P. Cd cd a) 44 44 r-I U J-) Cd U U td U w U 44 •r+ Cd "U 'Cj r 4 J.J 'b JJ 'd Cd 'd 41 -r4 tj r-� r4 Cd r-1 O O )-1 rl C r-1 r-4 '0 r-1 .,4 � : 11 O to O )-1 ,'j N ,'j O r-4 -A 41 11 O rl O r-I 3t Cd O rl Cd O •r4 $ 41 0 a P. S In. U 3 3 .rr o 14 Cd r-I ago �b4 P w w Ca 41 >4 4) o 'd Cd b b O U yJ bO W Ej 4JJ p 44 i•i U Cd )•a •rl 0 ,L' )-I �1 •rl w •rl •r-I to O bO )4 -A 04 W M •rl Cd U )-1 w rd bO p 0 41 0 i+ 11 O 44 C1) O R 'ty q M O P;P) 9 O G P, W 4J •rl •rl 4) N U bO N r-4 bO N 4) 4) W '0 bbD Q) Chi) -W 44 b0 44 �4) w O A a G+ w CO t+ t� 4JJ .A to M t� 4JJ t + 4OJ r-4 I a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 O -W oc 1d a>an lz 4 Q 4J -A ^ Q r-t W Ci 444 a ° n . u a� b 0 L . -A v 4J b, z cad m bo c7 4J .t4 1-4 to NZ �.A•� OH r4 d 4)a a t•+ ,a W b-4 •r1 CO r4 k� : W H 44 U •r1 J S H Ei 3 #:4> n � d tW •r1 bA cd cd U cd i e»t? ??? v 9 U d -W' bA a cd U .4 t~ $4 e-1 A 1J cd -W, CL •r1 d cd U cd N U 1~+ U d U Cd O •� d r. a 4 O 0 a. P. CO H 0) 'd p m -A O r 0 lJ U •r1 10 •rt I-- S•A V O U cd -A •r�l cd > IS o� SA•3 y H $4410Aa p •d U 0 0 W $4 cd cd —- N N N J a � d •4J H 1 p1.) (lei r1 t-4 41 14 Cl 0 m O N 0 cd cd t U 0� O U O P r. W m ,0 m ;4 m ~ pH N 41 d 0� cad O> 41 IU-1 C 06 r4 COCD 0 cd W 19 0 4J -4 Cdd 4 CU 8 d O W b6o 41 � •rt U �t � •rl O 'd �t 44 N Co � . >a 41 U 0.44 co m N U 'd p d :$ W cd to 4J Cd bD .,4 0 0 41 z H cn 0 W ta W C4 �4 z H Cd 0 i ,4 i:i�-t :K cd W. 4 -r4 :, ..... . .... . ..... . Cd .,.4 "4 rA w rA .0 0 :j 10 En cd w 0 0 m P. 44 rU n 29 Cd 0 0 C-4d r-4 -* r-4 tn "I I Cd p v -W 0 cd 44 �-4 4j W pw 0 w -W r-4 cd w r-I r-4 P. r-4 4J cdbO 0 0 Cd r-4 w 0 r. W 44 CN -H Qi > W m4 ca w r-4 w (d Cd %�o r-4 m u-H r-4 -4 f--4 Cd Cd :3 M -r0 4 A 0 . P 0 M 4j 44 0 -W M 11 r-i r. r-4 r4 0 0 o 0 0 W r. 44 U P m cd a) Q) M: 44 cd 44 0 cd .,q > 4-1 Q 11 '- (1) i 4.) w� 0 0 Q) � �4 U 44 0 Cd -,4 � -A 0 r-4 u Cd 4) f- 4H 0 144 cd 410 ta to to Cd M-4 a) 0) 114 CJ 0 Q) -r-4 }4 r4 0 > Cd 0 cd 0 p. ca p p r4 14 M -,4 44 � r. .0'::: 0 -,4 Z :::::§i �o W -A d :1 � Cd P p a) e 0 p 'm u) M a) )4 CO 0 -A p U 44 by 0 co I ul t n t 1 1 1 1 LLILU :i w Z •' :Otl bD •A U. H :; � z r-1 r. Vf O 0LL. 0-1 41 CD 4) JUG J 6a7 y by bO bO J Z W Z• i*+r O 4) 4 � � U cd y a3 O .� .r H 41 41 rq H d 0 J o Q � a' a C4 m o A •r4 �4-44'd 41 N r F— 41 rA 0 0 C U rd-I 'd ., It W :•y::.:: a �vi 0i a W 0 H t/)*3 cV d' H Q '� C a::: c 1s Cd Cd ca r♦ zi 71 O rl q 41 � p' bO bo b D D .4 .r1 •r1 -W 41 -W O � •r4 a) d N•W P: N 0 rq 4 d 3 r�1 -A W 0 �f3:i H U r-I 0 p w N Q41,' lV0'� � a d 0) cd p 4J O N 14 cd pU O W . 4J O 4a W 'd . Cd bO aD �+ N U ; i1! X. p r�(: 0 3 O 4) Er •rl :•.,hE p W rl r4 r-I Ay O W, W 4) -W briii:i d d W r-I O a U N bD U 'd �Q:;i 4J 4J :3 •rl d •r1 H •f r1 cd cd r—i ?;i(tl:r-1 •ri O 3 CO bO ro d 0 •r1 �+ p, d 't-t: Q, W 'd rz •r1 .i V W cd 6 O f of:i p O 1•d U 'H O N `k; cd :::i&::4J 0 •r1 U ro O O s~ ra cd 11 O id •�'i id '.T.• 4J 4J cd '� �.+ W •rl ii.;;yi .w ro o U 0 'd a0i 3� 3 A 4s ? U 4 ,C r1 d U 'd A W N U rA 'J 4-J U J d U •rl -W •ri cd U 44 N QI w > 4J W cd O d ii C, 4 W 4J U Cd. W .d .d 9 •f4 cd44 w z° .n to W H E4 Ei U N U � H PA W A U ?4 C � W ro 0) 1~ O z W J.1 U Cd 'd 44 cd •ri 41 cab U •r1 r♦ •wr1 N •a��o ,n W N z4 4J Cd bo -,4 41 r4 r4 Lt') �pjl iiji : pi'l -4 4J .P4 r-4 CO 9) -%10 :1 0 co 0 0 u 4J M 44 Ir4 A to (1) U) u U 4-1 41 a) 4) p ci rCd 4 $4 ca 41 0 :j 0 Cd tA ul -A 4J 4-) CN r-4 0 C.) W - Cd •r4 co p It 4.) 41 (a .�4 :j r-4 0 > s . CO 0 — 41 r4 ul m Ln Q t-4 0 Ifl4) 4j r. 0 Q) �; U 0 44 to % e 0 Ln rj) p4) U) 0 > cd 4J (1) r,4 r-4 0 A JJ cd W %D -r4 r-4 41 C� r-4 A A H rA 4) >4 :j cd W O "q 4J cl bD .r-4 4-1 ra 4J bO � .,.4 t W r-4 S4 P4 Q) Cl 41 10 4-) r. r. u ca Cd rN -4 ul tv 0 -r4 0 0 1d 4j I I ,r4 4) 0 r-4 4) •r4 u bo tko w W 10 Cr.d 10 0 9-00 � 11 a 1 1 t 1 1 0 O bo • +) r♦ 0 4J Q r♦ W W H E H H W .-4 N W co 41 O d41 i(t r4 a0 •rl i 41 � 0 •rl 00 z z r� t � � •rI •rl W 0 p 0 b cd 0 c sue: to d > 0 O cd i:: *`: G) p "4 O W H . ii. •rl C.)" "4 \ 4)i ; •rI • rl b0 to O .:.... 'J d •rl •rc U f+ ? •rl �'4a pj vI •r1 U cd ^ p (W cd S-I f~ d cd O J 0 p ii i $Z W -A •r1 i:S :?tii 1J i'U> 0 0 D +1 - irr s a� •r+ v1 i:V. .0 4J d U U .C;?;.; 0 ^ d cd cd s #: :.H 0 to u1 U :.:qk 41 O 0 cd !.c 0 d) d U 0 1J cd !f#:? 'd G b0 cd >~ r♦ O 'd p d) td jk<i4 m O r�-i rN-I tR# cd •r1 3 cd > 4 a) » d 'd 1j "4 'r0'1 In Cam, I U bD •r1 m 41:? d rn bO O •DC >~ F?j' CL N •rl N 44 -A 0 p rn 0 i n 'd :fiFii b0 un cdf?f s 14 4 0 U::. d N 0 •rl 1J O 0 'd O cn N d O O to U. S.a rl N U f3 'd 44, H Cd 3 41 N 1D v=4 O ra W d N » 6U � N cd O d 0 •rl V bD .r{ 1J r~ •rc U � RI •rwl d A 1 4 W N O 1� 41 .d ,cd r1 p cn 0 cd r` .n }-� 'J H 43 O b 'd ., 4 w cd 41 cd Ocn 'd -H 41 U S-r DC N 41 O to I I i I 0w O O 44 CD en cOC u r--I tq .r d V r-I bo i1 N cd V (n O 4 r~ 4) a bo -A O p •A p 10 a P. '0 a� � bo r4 o 'o :�::: I, a) O P.W. : O bQ U 44 ,L O Ycri : b a) o U) • •d cd M O d r r-1 i-1 N G O r N J.1 CD r 4 0 N N N •�O i Sa cad 4) D $' i4 N O 41 O a > 4J 44 •b1l o u m U N 44 En •rl O O 0410 u 4) a u to M 'd N r-1 bD d >4 N O 1.1 V O bA d U G U tad u .o a .0 0 44 I a)O o A P G d u Cd tn u N 4) •' i 1j vOi 3� ux cd 1 1 f 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 TABLE 4.1.B - ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST This checklist was used to identify physical, biological, social and economic factors which might be impacted by the proposed project. in many cases, the background studies performed in connection with this project clearly indicated the project would not affect a particular item. A "NO" answer in the first column documents this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, an asterisk is shown next to the answer. The discussion is in this section following the checklist. Mitigation is discussed for those issues marked with a double asterisk. IF YES, IS IT YES OR SIGNIFICANTV No I YES OR NO PHYSICAL. Will the proposal either directly or indirectly: 1. Appreciably change topography or ground surface Yes relief features? 2. Destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic or Yes physical features? 3. Result in unstable earth surfaces or increase No** the exposure of people or property to geologic or seismic hazards? 4. Result in or be affected by soil erosion or Yes siltation (whether by water or wind)? 5. Result in the increased use of fuel or energy Yes in large amounts or in a wasteful manner? 6. Result in an increase in the rate of use of any Yes natural resource? 7. Result in the substantial depletion of any non- Yes renewable resource? 8. Violate any published Federal, State or local No** standards pertaining to hazardous waste, solid waste or titter control? 9. Modify the channel or the bed of the ocean or Yes any bay, inlet or take? 10. Encroach upon a floodplain or result in or be Yes affected by, floodwaters or tidal waves? 11. Adversely affect the quantity or quality of Yes surface water, groundwater or public water SUP- PLY? 12. Result in the use of water in large amounts or No in a wasteful manner? 13. Affect wetlands or riparian vegetation? Yes 14. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State Yes* or local water quality standards? 15. Result in changes in air movement, moisture No temperature or any climatic conditions? 16. Result in an increase in air pollutant emiss- Yes ions, adverse effects on or deterioration of ambient air quality? 17. Result in the creation of objectionable odors? No Indicates significant impacts remaining after mitigation. 4 - 13 No** No** No** No No No EIR/EIS SECTION 4.14 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.16 9.0 9.0 4.12 Yes** 4.3 No** 4.3 No** 4.3 4,.17 No** 4.7 No** 4.3 4.4 No 4.4 4.4 TABLE 4.1.6 - ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) 18. Violate or be inconsistent with Federal, State YES OR No No* IF YES, IS IT SIGNIFICANT? YES OR NO EIR/EIS SECTION 4.4 or local air standards or control plans? 19. Result in an increase in noise Levels or vibra- Yes Yes** 4.5 tion for adjoining areas? 20. Result in any Federal, State or local noise Yes Yes** 4.5 criteria being equal or exceeded? 21. Produce new light, glare or shadows? Yes No 4.15 BIOLOGICAL. Will the proposal result in (either directly or indirectly): 22. Change in the diversity of species or number of Yes Yes** 4.6 any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? 23. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment Yes No** 4.6 upon the critical habitat of any unique, threatened or endangered species of plant? 24. Introduction of new species of plants into an Yes No 4.6 area, or result in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? 25. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop or Yes No 4.8 commercial timber stand or affect prime, unique or other farmland of State or local importance? 26. Removal or deterioration of existing fish or Yes Yes** 4.6 wildlife habitat? 27. Change in the diversity of species or numbers Yes Yes** 4.6 of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? 28. Reduction of the numbers of or encroachment Yes Yes** 4.6 upon the critical habitat of any unique, threa- tened or endangered species of animals? 29. Introduction of new species of animals into an Yes Yes** 4.6 area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC. Will the proposal directly or indirectly: 30. Cause disruption of orderly planned develop- No* 4.8 ment? 31. Be inconsistent with any elements of adopted No* 4.8 community plans, policies or goals or the Cali- fornia Urban Strategy? 32. Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management No* 4.8 Plan? 33. Affect the location, distribution, density or Yes No 6.0 growth rate of the human population of an area? ' Indicates significant impacts remaining after mitigation. 4 - 14 f 1 TABLE 4.1.8 - ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST (CONTINUED) YES OR No 34. Affect life-styles or neighborhood character or No IF YES, IS IT SIGNIFICANTV YES OR NO stability? 35. Affect minority, elderly, handicapped, transit- No dependent or other specific interest groups? 36. Divide or disrupt an established community? No* 4.9 37. Affect existing housing, require the acquisi- Yes No** 4.9 tion of residential improvements or the dis- placement of people or create a demand for ad- ditional housing? 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce or re- Yes No** 4.9 quire the displacement of businesses or farms? 39. Affect property values or the local tax base? Yes No 4.9 40. Affect any community facilities (including med- Yes No 4.8 ical, educational, scientific, recreational or religious institutions, ceremonial sites or sacred shrines)? 41. Affect public utilities, or police, fire, emer- Yes No 4.10 gency or other public services? 42. Have substantial impact on existing transporta- Yes Yes** 5.0 tion systems or alter present patterns of cir- culation or movement of people and/or goods? 43. Generate additional traffic? Yes No** 5.0 44. Affect or be affected by existing parking fa- Yes No 5.0 cilities or result in demand for new parking? 45. Involve a substantial risk of an explosion or No the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or otherwise adversely affect overall public safety? 46. Result in alterations to waterborne, rail or No air traffic? 47. Support large commercial or residential devel- Yes No 5.0 opment? 48. Affect a significant archaeological or historic Yes No** 4.11 site, structure, object or building? 49. Affect wild or scenic rivers or natural land- No marks? 50. Affect any scenic resources or result in the Yes Yes** 4.15 obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 51. Result insubstantial impacts associated with Yes Yes** 4.17 construction activities (e.g., noise, dust, temporary drainage, traffic detours and tem- porary access, etc.)? ' Indicates significant impacts remaining after mitigation. t During construction 4 - 15 EIR/EIS SECTION TABLE 4.1.B - ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST CCONTINUED) IF YES, IS IT YES OR SIGNIFICANT?' EIR/EIS No YES OR NO SECTION 52. Result in the use of any publicly -owned land Yes Yes**pXi'jc`::fY from a park, recreation area, or wildlife ands'""'""'" waterfowl refuge? MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 53. Does the project have the potential to substan- Yes tially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cal- ifornia history or prehistory? 54. Does the project have the potential to achieve Yes short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) 55. Does the project have environmental effects Yes which are individually limited, but cumulative- ly considerable? Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effect of an indi- vidual are considerable when viewed in connec- tion with the effects of other current pro- jects, and the effects of probable future pro- jects. It includes the effects of other pro- jects which interact with this project and, together, are considerable. 56. Does the project have environmental effects Yes which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Note: Items 53 through 56 are the basis for the determination to prepare an EIR/EIS. I ` Indicates significant impacts remaining after mitigation. 4 - 16 I � I � 4.2 GEOTECHNICAL This discussion addresses checklist item numbers 2, S and. in Table 4.1.E in Chapter 4. A Geotechnical Report was prepared by Geofon, Inc., in September, 1989. The following discussion summarizes this report and applies to both the Conventional and Demand Management Alternatives. Geotechnical impacts are essentially the same for both alternatives. Excavation and Embankment There are approximately 66 cut and fill slopes greater than 40 feet in, height. (See Chapter 2 for a detailed discussion of excavation and embankment activities required for project construction.) Approximately 50% of the cut slopes over 40 feet in height will require corrective measures such as slide removal or buttressing. All of the major fill slopes are expected to have satisfactory stability, although close to half of the fill slopes will require some removal of landslide material prior to placement of fill. Unstable slope areas or landslide areas are shown on Figure 3.2.2 in Chapter 3. Seismic Hazards Principal seismic considerations associated with faults and earthquakes include ground surface rupture, ground shaking, settlement and liquefaction. Due to -the absence of active faults along the proposed Corridor, the potential for ground rupture is considered negligible, while the potential for the other hazards is considered average for an area within a regional zone of seismic activity. The probability of a maximum credible earthquake occurring near the site during the design life of the proposed facility (50 to 100 years) is considered to be relatively low. Ground accelerations expected to affect the project area are considered average for the general Southern California.area, Secondary earthquake hazards, such as liquefaction and seismically induced settlement, are generally associated with relatively high intensities of groundshaking and the presence of loose sandy soils or alluvial deposits locat- ed below the water table. The occurrence and severity of these hazards are difficult to predict and equally difficult to mitigate. As discussed in Chap- ter 3, liquefaction prone areas include San Diego Creek, Bonita Creek and Canyon, Laguna Canyon and E1 Toro crossing, Ali,so Creek crossing and Oso Creek crossing. The Geofon report indicates that with maximum probable ground shak- ing, these sites (in particular the E1 Toro and Laguna Canyon Road crossing and San Diego Creek area) have a high potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement. CompressiblelExpansive Soils 1 1 4 - 17 [�J Slope StabilitylLandslides Areas of slope instability and landslides are shown on Figure 3.2.2 in Chapter 3. The majority of landslides in the project area are considered ancient and relatively stable. Existing landslides may impact proposed cut and fill slopes andrl`require either stabilization or removal of landslide material during proikf grading. $� Geotechnical Impacts Based upon the above discussion, the following are considered to be poten- tial significant geotechnical impacts; liquefaction or settlement due to seis- mic groundshaking or compressible soils; soil instability due to expansive soils; n a d cut and fill slope in stability ex isting due to e stin landslides `��'�'��'�� '�` ....: iR t 8t' a level consistent with...'current design standards. therefore, t}ere are no significant geotechnical impacts associated with this project. MITIGATION MEASURES Seismic The following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project to minimize seismic related hazards. 2-1 2-2 Seismically induced settlement of compressible soils beneath proposed fills will be minimized by removal, preconsolidation or pretreatment of unsuitable material. 2-3 Fill slopes will be constructed no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The placing of fill material shall be monitored by the soils engineer. 4 - 18 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7� 1, 1 2-4 Fault zones exposed in cut slopes will be avoided where feasible. 2-1 The Corridor will be designed in accordance with'Caltrans seismic design requirements in order to offset potentially adverse effects associated with ground shaking. Special. attention will be given to the seismic design of overpasses and/or bridge structures. Such designs will incorporate, where appropriate, the improved structural features listed below and state of the art seismic design standards. A. Hinge restrainers to hold together superstructure elements dur= ing extreme motions; B. Heavy keys to limit movement between the superstructures and - abutments; and C. Increased column spiral reinforcement in accordance with the most recent version of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). :3��t1:Y4:lSw::J�:::a:�;i4:3i�;i�:'•w:<t�iii:L�:i::•�:i�33:Ri$'isii2�$itiuii�:i��:i�:�ir•%:��3:�:Si:•`•':22'F�?::�i'i:`a:�'cl:%i:si?# Refer to Section 4.14 for additional mitigation related to adverse geolog- ic conditions and grading. NO ALTERNATIVE This alternative consists of no construction of the Corridor facility. Under this alternative, the geotechnical 'constraints which currently exist would remain in their current condi.tion. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse geotechnical impacts remaining after implementation of the above mitigation measures. r t 1 4 - 19 I Approximately 1,000 linear feet of Coyote Canyon Channel would require routing into an underground conduit or open channel. A small area of Bonita Canyon Reservoir would be encroached upon by embankment. These impacts are shown in Figure 4.3.2. These impacts are considered sign.i d be placed within the streambeds i 4-20 t as relocation or fill materials 4.3 WATER RESOURCES and num Except where noted, the study area is the same for both the Conventional Demand Manaqement alternatives. The section addresses rhprklict itan Streambed Modifications The watercourses crossed by the Corridor include Horno Creek, Trabuco Creek, Oso Creek, Aliso Creek, Laguna Canyon Channel, Coyote Canyon Channel, Bonita Creek, Bonita Canyon Reservoir, and San Diego Creek. Of these cross- ings, Oso Creek, Laguna Canyon Channel, Coyote Canyon Channel, Bonita Creek and Bonita Canyon Reservoir would require modifications. The Corridor would bridge Horno Creek, Trabuco Creek, Aliso Creek and San Diego Creek, and thus would not require modification of those streambeds. With the Conventional Alternative at the I-5 Interchange, approximately 1,700 linear feet of Oso Creek would require realignment, as shown in Figure 4.3.1. With the Demand Management Alternative, the Corridor would pass, over a currently channelized portion of the creek. H" eat r t tMMU* Impacts on Laguna Canyon Channel, Coyote Canyon Channel, Bonita Creek and Bonita Canyon Reservoir would be essentially the same for either of the project alternative bdesigns. Approximately... 8.,400... 1inear feet of Bonita Creek would require realignment 280 ENE, C I 11 11 a t� 1 1 C I' I I 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i� -- • •---"ram � —' . SJHTC l AFTER 1,700' REALIGNMENT STREAMBED MODIFICATIONS TO OSO CREEK FIGURE 4.3.1 ., AFTER 1,0001 �. - .- WCREEK ��_�_ BEFORE- NOMM r STREAMBED MODIFICATIONS TO COYOTE CANYON CHANNEL AND BONITA CANYON RESERVOIR FIGURE 4.3.2 - -- - -- - - Increased Runoff to Maior Drainage Crossings Roadway drainage from the Corridor surface would be discharged into sever- al major drainage crossings: San Diego Creek Bonita Creek Coyote Creek Laguna Canyon Creek E1 Toro Channel (Niguel Creek) Aliso Creek North Sulphur (Narco Sulphur Creeks Oso Creek Trabuco Creek Horno Creek Channel) and The Corridor surface would be paved which would increase total runoff. The effect of this increased runoff in channels with very large tributary areas will be insignificant. These channels include San Diego Creek, Coyote Creek, Aliso Creek, Oso Creek, Trabuco Creek and Horno Creek. For those watersheds with smaller drainage basins, the increased runoff may have a greater effect on the design discharge in the channel. The follow- ing drainage channels may receive additional flow as a result of the Corridor: Bonita Channel, Laguna Canyon Channel, Niguel Creek and Narco Channel. The increase in peak flow is estimated to be no more than five percent in these channels. This amount would not be significant. Floodplain Environment The Conventional Alternative would cause an encroachment into the base floodplain in five (5) locations. The Demand Management Alternative would cause an encroachment into the base floodplain in four (4) locations. Figure 4.3.3 illustrates the location of these encroachments. The types of encroach- ment and their locations are: Longitudinal Encroachments • Coyote Canyon Channel • Bonita Creek • Oso Creek 't`< Transverse Encroachments • Oso Creek Channel • Aliso Creek • Laguna Canyon Creek 4 - 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vil mi w . ............ ...... ........... .......................... IL C\J 0 f 1111ILLOW LWLI U LTU w 0 W Jz� "I ...... fb �e 0 ud 4 w UZ X U C\l -0) 0 L) wm W. 0 w >Zk., w z 0 V /Z (0 z M Lu LLI Uj cr -15 z >0 U > c 0 0 (10 Oz -=Z C) u z -i-, < 11 11 0 0 Z Z' 2 u 0 > m -woo, LU z z 6-2-�Z- >0F.-O Z Lu.* J-- 0 \) - >1 _j 2- L) 0 m CR CR JY 0) 0) ui Z OR z 0 cr 0 LLI -e IL ro- 0 , 0 0 0 co 0 0 a) t: Z, -6 w ftv z a ..... . ...... Z UJ LU Longitudinal encroachments into Coyote Canyon Channel, Bonita Creek, and Oso Creek (Conventional Alternative only) are considered significant because they would require major streambed relocations/modifications and containment of floodwaters in open channels and conduits. Transverse encroachments at Oso Creek (Demand Management Alternative), Aliso Creek and Laguna Canyon Creek floodplains are not considered significant because any necessary improvements are considered minor and do not require major relocation of facilities or placement of fill. Table 4.3.A provides the floodplain impacts in acreage for each of the encroachment locations. TABLE 4.3.A - FLOODPLAIN ENCROACHMENT ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON Area oT tncroacnmenZ [ACresi Floodplain Demand Management Alt. Conventional Operations Alt. Oso Creek (I-5 Interchange) 2.7* Aliso Creek 15 2.2 Laguna Canyon Creek 1.1 1.1 Coyote Canyon Channel 0.8* 0.8* Bonita Creek 8.8* 9.8* Total Acres of Encroachment 12. 16.6 Significant longitudinal encroachments The proposed project would not encroach into the identified 100-year base floodplain in a manner which will significantly raise the elevation of the 100- year base flood. In particular, any total increases in water surface eleva- tions would not exceed one (1) foot, where the project would or may encroach into 100-year floodplains. The proposed Corridor has been designed to with- stand the base flood, thereby preventing traffic interruption during this event'. Emergency access vehicles or evacuation procedures using the Corridor would not be affected by the 100-year storm. Risks Associated with Implementation. Pursuant to the Federal Highway Program Manual (FHPM) 6-7-3-2 and Caltrans requirements, a risk assessment has been performed as part of the Location Hydraulic Study. This risk assessment focused on the likelihood of upstream or downstream property damage, facility damage and traffic related risks. The Location Hydraulic Study determined that risks associated with implementation of the project would be insignificant. Floodplain Hydraulic Study, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Corridor Design Management Group, March 14, 1990. 4-24 1 Im acts on Natural and Beneficial Flood lain Values. Discussions in Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of this document describe impacts on biological resources and wetlands. These sections conclude that the proposed Corridor would have unavoidable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, spe- cifically wetland habitats. These impacts on the natural and beneficial flood - plain values would occur largely in the Oso Creek, Bonita Creek, and Coyote Canyon Channel areas. Either of the build alternatives would require realignment.;:of and fill within Bonita Channel floodplain. However, even with the No '�'<Alternative, this floodplain would still be significantly affected by construction of Peli- can Hill, Road. Construction of the Corridor would widen and replace the sec= tion' of Pelican Hill Road coincident with the Corridor. Within that section, Bonita Channel would be realigned again, and built per Cal -trans and local agency standards. Mitigation measures to minimize floodplain impacts are identified herein. Support of Probable Incompatible Floodplain Development. The project would not significantly contribute to incompatibl.e floodplain development. One reason for this is because the area is now partially developed. Furthermore, the cities of Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach and San Juan Capistrano, and the County of Orange, are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program and follow the policies and regulations governing implementation of all forms of development in or near base floodplains. All development within floodplain zones must be capable of withstanding inundation by floodwaters and not cause flooding damage to adjacent properties. �wwwi4 ww'14�.. nF +n Aa.n4d CN/.NA9 ni..nn N'I'c.' nv. Csinn^m+ Dm^kft l^ Incompatible Floodplain Development. The practicality of alignment alterna- tives to significant encroachment of the floodplain is constrained by a number of factors which include: existi-ng development, potential noise impacts, pres- ence of cultural resources, existing recreational areas, and planned open space/conservation areas. These various constraints are illustrated on Figures in Sections 3.5, 3.7 and 3.10 and in Appendix A. The analysis of alignment al-ternatives is discussed in Chapter 2.0. This analysis addresses whether there are feasible alternatives which can avoid the significant impacts associ- ated with the Tongitudinal encroachments of Coyote Canyon Channel, Oso Creek, and Bonita Creek. Between the, two build alternatives, the Demand Management Alternative encroaches into less area within the 100-year floodplain. Table 4.3.A shows that when compared to the Conventional Alternative, the Demand Management Alternative impacts less of the floodplain within €#t`Bonita Creek. It has the same impacts within the Coyote Canyon Channel: To further avoid encroachment in the Bonita Channel, the alignment would have to shift to the north or south. Moving the alignment to the north could significantly impact operations at the University of California. A shift of the alignment to the south would place the facility closer to existi-ng develop - Tent and the Coyote Canyon Landfill, and would cause significantly greater impacts to wetland resources with the Bonita Channel/Reservoir area. 4 - 25 Alternatives to encroachment into the Coyote Canyon floodplain include relocation of the Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive interchange or deletion of the interchange. In order to avoid the floodplain boundaries, relocation of the interchange to the south could place the Corridor and interchange ramps on a bridge over the channelized portion of Coyote Creek. The creek will ��<lchan- nelized as a result of the construction of Pelican Hill Road. However,` this alternative would require realignment of both Ford Road and Bonita Canyon Road at the Corridor. The location of the Ford Road interchange is constrained by several surface and subsurface features. The proposed interchange location is a balance which minimizes the environmental impacts given these constraints. In the northwesterly quadrant of the interchange, the abandoned agricultural reservoir (Bonita Canyon Reservoir) is a wetlands habitat to which impacts will be minimized. The interchange is constrained in the southwesterly direction by the need to avoid construction in the Coyote Canyon landfill. The interchange location is also constrained by major (lifeline) utili- ties. The Metropolitan Water District has a 54 inch feeder line providing water to the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir in this area. In addition, poor soil conditions enveloping this utility make it necessary to plan the Corridor/Ford Road interchange to bridge this utility, thus relieving it from unacceptable soil loads that could occur from the project. Deletion of the interchange would reduce the overall levels of service and would increase congestion on adjacent arterials. Inclusion of this inter- change, in conjunction with the other proposed interchanges along the Corridor, provides the optimum traffic levels of service on the Corridor and adjacent arterials. Therefore, elimination of this interchange would not be consistent with the objectives of the project. Wetlands. Impacts of drainage structures and facilities on wetland areas are addressed in this chapter in Section 4.7, Wetlands. Mitigation measures for those impacts are listed in that section. Water Ouality Study Methodology. A water quality analysis was conducted to determine impacts upon streams and water bodies downstream of the proposed Corridor alignment. The analysis was conducted pursuant to consultation with the Calif- ornia Regional Water Quality Control Board and the requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. The analysis is described in full in the Hydrologic Technical Studies document The :;.......: analysis.: following is a summary of that The water quality study analyzed the impacts potentially created by the Conventional Alternative, as this design incorporates the largest overall amount of pavement width (average pavement width of 210 feet). This alterna- tive represents a worst case analysis for potential water quality impacts to downstream drainages. The methodology for calculation of pollutant loadings was modeled from a 1985 Study, Forecasting Pollutant Loads From Highway Runoff (Kerri, et al.). The Hydrologic Technical Studies document provides detailed discussion of the methodology utilized by that study. Applicable standards are 4-26 presented in Table B of the Water Quality Analysis. Overall, pollutant load- ings from the Demand Management Alternative would be slightly less, given its smaller average pavement width in comparison to the Conventional Alternative. Findings. Operation of the Corridor woul-d add significant quantities of pollutants into drainage areas immediately adjacent to the proposed Corridor alignment. These pollutants will result from vehicular travel related to normal roadway/freeway operations (oil, gas, grease, lead, zinc, nitrogen, chemical oxygen demand, dust and filterable residue). The magnitude of the potential impact is a function of the pollutant concentration that reaches receiving waters during a storm event or the accumulation of pollutants in receiving waters over, a period of years. The sensitivity of biologic receptors also plays a role in determining the magnitude of potential impacts. The concentrations of pollutants would exceed State and federal critical levels of pollutants. However, the actual pollutant •:::loadings within .'each stream channel would. not be significant �#.I t$1�c�4�� #li �E.►3n�3��,��#� d� ri:�._::�...�.�:.::.t;:...,...,......,....r.._•s...:::�:►a#:...,_•::::...,..�::..E+..:....t........,..y..i.:::.rA,�:::::�::c_::z:t:::::::rtf:::r::::i:::::::•r•::�,::�::::;:.:•t�:y?•rs::..•......::::�::�:s.r►:�::::<:•::r:�:;x::ssi:bs:.....t Grading and construction work on the Corridor may result in potential erosion of temporarily exposed ground surfaces, particularly cut and fill slopes. Uncontrolled, exposed surfaces could produce increased amounts of sediment that would be transported by storm runoff to local water courses and to coastal beaches. This potential construction impactis discussed in Section 4.18. MoultonJI-5 .Segment. Within this segment of the Corridor, pollutant concentrations added to Sulfur and Oso creeks would not, in themselves, be significant. However,' the pollutant levels would i ncre- mentally add to degradation of"'tti'e"'existing water quality. With the Conventi-onal Alternative, Oso Creek would be significantly af- fected by a fill embankment for the Corridor such that the Creek would require realignment. Realignment and channelization of this portion of the 'Creek would not cause long-term significant water quality impacts due to the existing degraded water quality condition in the -Creek. The Demand Management Alternative at I-5 would bridge Oso Creek at a location where it is 'currently channelized. The creek and its surrounding floodplain and wetlands habitat would be subject to short-term impacts from sedimentation. Laguna Hills Segment. Within the Laguna Hills Segment, drainages which would receive runoff from the Corridor and additional pollutants and sediments include.Wood Canyon, Laguna Canyon, El Toro Channel/Niguel Creek and Laurel Canyon. Highway pollutant effects on these drainages would have significant concentrations immediately! adjacent to the Corridor, but would be reduced b"�<i��it:`<;�';'<:i��>:<�"<�'�":��throu h 1 4 - 27 1 1 Laguna Canyon Creek would be partially undergrounded (in conduit) for runoff collection and minimization of water quality impacts. San Joaquin Hills Segment. ated from the Corridor within Canyon drainages would be high non -significance downstream A large fill embankment across would be required to construct Initial pollution concentration levels gener- the Aliso Creek, North Sulfur Creek and Bommer however,.._ they would d be reduced to a level of a portion of the low lying area of Al-i the Corridor overpass at this drainage. Bonita Canyon Segment. Post construction degradation of water quality of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve/San Diego Creek Channel drainage system could occur from pollutants associated with Corridor runoff. Although concentrations of pollutants in watershed runoff immediately adjacent to the Corridor would exceed critical levels, actual pollutant loadings in water courses would not be significant and therefore would not be likely to adversely affect water quality in the Ecological Reserve. The proposed project would create significant pollutant concentrations into San Diego Creek and Bonita, Bommer and Coyote Canyons which drain into the Reserve via San Diego Creek. However, actual impacts to the Ecological Reserve are dependent upon dynamic storm factors such as intensity and duration. The more significant the storm event, the more diluted the pollutant concentration will be and the more rapi:d:- 1:,�...rthe.::runoff is flushed 3�through the drainages. However, ....... ..:.... a potential cumuY'ati ve i mpact may occur as a result t of i ncreme"" 1 degradation of water quality for pollutant loadings into the reserve from the proposed project and other roadway runoff. Analysis of Impacts to Beneficial Uses. An analysis was conducted to determine potential impacts to beneficial uses of water resources as determined by the RWQCB (Santa Ana and San Diego Regions). The complete analysis is contained in the Hydrologic Technical Studies document, and the results are summarized below. For the drainage courses affected by Corridor runoff, the water quality analysis has determined that although � if i J;' . 1r h#" oflutant concentra- tions would be significant, theb tii`rlti~ i` `i?Iiii<t ;t1 rr:li Mitigation measures are included which are designed to prevent concentra- tions of oil and grease from the highway entering downstream water courses and Upper Newport Bay. Implementation of these measures will reduce this potential impact to be within the levels of criteria established by the RWQCB Water Quality Plan. Therefore, the beneficial hydrological uses of these water resources would not be significantly affected by pollutant loadings into runoff from the pro- posed Corridor. 4 - 28 1 I L7 1 M 1 1 1 1 rl L� 1 1 1 Groundwater Impacts. The Corridor is consistent with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Construct ion and operation of the Corridor will.not si,g- nificantly impact groundwater resources. The groundwater quality in the Oso Creek basin is'poor and marginally poor in San Juan Creek. There are no other existing wells downstream from the Corridor that might be impacted by the proposed project. No principal or sole source aquifers are known to be located in the area. Marine Environment Impacts Major portions of the contaminants generated from the proposed Corridor would wash into the Pacific Ocean. These pollutants would be discharged to the ocean at the mouths of the various affected creeks. The total quantities of pollutants generated by the proposed project would have an insignificant effect upon the marine environment, and would be diluted to undetectable levels in the ocean. This conclusion is due to the fact that the estimated quantities of pollutant loading in runoff directly generated by the project which reach the ocean would be insignificant for the average storm period as discussed previ- ously in this section. In addition, a study by Dr. Ford (1987), "Potential Ecological Effects of Runoff from the Irvine Coast Planned- Community on the Adjacent Marine Environment", found that there is considerable mixing and transport of waterin.t the ::.nearshore.:::. region .:.,,of..,ci:rcul.ati:on.:...a1.9p9..ttheentire Irvine Coast.#�teS$*yf$i�ff$�lan...a'tlfti lex�i#` IMaintenance Facilit Streambed Modifications. The maintenance facility is proposed to .be located south of Crown Valley Parkway between the Oso Creek flood control channel and Camino Capistrano adjacent to I-5. The proposed three acre site is currently occupied with a building materials use. No expansi-ons of this site would be required for implementation of the facility, therefore, no modifica- tion to the Oso Creek Channel would occur. An existing open, drainage channel which crosses through the southeast portion of the site would require enclo- sure, however-, this would not entail realignment or significant modification. Floodplain Impacts. Adjacent to the proposed maintenance facility site, the Oso Creek floodplain is contained within the existing flood control channel. Transformation of the proposed site from its current use would not require expansion of the property. Therefore, no encroachment into the Oso Creek floodplain would occur. Water Quality Impacts. Operation of the maintenance facility will include activities such as storage, of equipment; an office and crew room, and parked maintenance vehicles. Runoff from the site will carry oil and grease collected on the paved surface from parked vehicles, however, the magnitude would not significantly exceed that of the existing land use. No domestic water supply or quality groundwater sources would be affected by drainage from the site. Therefore, no additional water quality impacts in off -site drainages would be created by the transfer of the site to the Corridor maintenance facility. 1 4-29 1 MITIGATION MEASURES Streambed Modifications. Mitigation Measure Nos. 6-6 through 6-9, 7-9 and 7-10 [from Sections 4.6 and...4.71__also apply to potential streambed impacts from 3-1 The project will comply with all applicable requirements and provi- sions of Regional Water Quality Control Boards 8 and 9 (Santa Ana and San Diego Districts), and applicable requirements of California De- partment of Fish and Game (1601 Agreement), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 Permit). Floodplain. Mitigation measures [from Sections 4.7 and 4.18] apply to the minimization of floodplain impacts and preservation of floodplain values. Measures to Minimize Floodplain Impacts. Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of this document, which address wetland and biological resources, contain extensive mitigation measures to minimize impacts to wetlands. Mitigation pertaining to erosion is outlined in Section 4.18 of this chapter. All of these measures will minimize floodplain impacts. The mitigation measures include bridging of watercourses and channels, construction of open channels and sub -surface con- duits, installation of local drainage facilities, installation of retarding basins, creek course realignment and floodplain modification (Bonita Creek and 0 s o Creek:. Other mi.ti.gation__.measures included are Caltrans' standard design or oo ing anfloodplain impacts an ins a a ion o necessary c u �1`�v e r t s';`:::::::: Measures to Restore and Preserve the Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Values. Mitigation measures stated in Sections 4.6 and 4.7 also apply to restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values. Feasible areas for wetland habitat replacement or enhancement include Oso Creek, Aliso Creek, acreage adjacent to Ford Road and an agricultural area downstream of Bonita Canyon Reservoir along Bonita Creek and easterly of San Diego Creek. Refer to Section 4.7 of this chapter for further discussions of wetland mitigation. Other mitigation measures include the following: 3-2 Retarding measures for additional runoff generated by the project will be incorporated into final project design as needed to maintain runoff velocity and quantity to be within County of Orange Flood Control District Standards. Refer also to measure 3-8 below for re- duction of sedimentation impacts. 3-3 Bridges will be designed and constructed to span 100-year base flood - plains without raising the 100-year base floodplain water surface elevation more than one (1) foot, or otherwise causing significant changes in the extent of the floodplain or the potential for detri- 4-30 I r, 1 1 I I� 1 1 1 1 1 1 F�j 1 mental lateral erosion. Bridge structures will be constructed or widened at Trabuco Creek Channel, Oso Creek Channel;*; Aliso Creek and San Diego Creek. 3-4 Open or underground channels will be designed,,and constructed to safely convey the 100-year base flood along or below the Corridor without raising 100-year base floodplain water surfaces more than one (1) foot or otherwise causing significant changes in the extent of the floodplain or the potential for detrimental lateral erosion. 3-5 Local highway drainage works will be designed and constructed along the Corridor in a manner to preclude any significant effects of the Corridor on 100-year base floodplai-ns. 3-6 Drainage facility modifications will be coordinated with affected City, County, State and federal agencies to be cons-istent with exist- ing watershed and floodplain management programs, including the -Na- tional Flood Insurance Program. plans(drainage ov nts will be 'coordinated with the 3 Pro ject laimprovements) eme 7 J P P ) cities :of Irvine, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach,1>>1< € San Juan Capistrano and the County of Urange to aYof `any adverse impacts on those agencies' facilities-, and the design of drainage facilities will be consistent with- hydraulic studies prepared by the OCEMA. Water Quality. Measures listed for erosion con��Al (Section 4.17) and floodplain impacts also apply to water quality impacts. In addition to"those measures, the following miti.gation measure will be implemented in order to minimize impacts to existing surface water resources. Full implementation of this measure will reduce project impacts below a level of significance. 3-8 Prior tofE`t# a pl an ,for runoff management wi 11 be submitted for approvalto ihe�Minager Flood Program Division, OCEMA. The pl.an will include facilities required.. to route and detain runoff for the ouraose of >>>: aof l utant downstream draina4es >taa i ni s p i an wi i i a a a r e s s stiaie or tine- arz techniques; and wily"'examine alternative methods of achieving this mitigation, to ensure that all feasible methods -are incorporated:.i.nto the nro.iect . 4 - 31 1 1 NO LTERNATIVE Streambed Modifications. The No # Alternative will maintain existing streambeds in their present form. Watercourses significantly impacted by the proposed project and project alternatives would not experience realignment or sub -surface channelization. F1 oodpl ai n. Under the No 44`iiili!�!Al tern ati ve, existing fl oodpl ai ns and natural drainages would remain in'the"r current condition. No longitudinal encroachments into the floodplain would occur which require stream modifica- tion. Water Ouality. The No 'Alternative assumes no construction of the proposed Corridor. This alternative would not generate increases in erosion or sedimentation in excess of existing amounts. Highway runoff contaminants would not occur. However, without the Corridor the effects of increased traffic volumes on other arterial roadways would incrementally increase the quantity of runoff pollutant levels in drainages adjacent to those roadways. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Streambed Modifications. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts would remain upon the following stream channels due to required realignments and/or placement into underground conduit and placement of fill material: Oso Creek, Laguna Canyon Creek, Bonita Creek/Bonita Reservoir and Coyote Canyon channel. Floodplain. The Corridor would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values including existing wildlife movement corridors, and sensitive and endangered species and vegeta- tive communities. Impacts to, beneficial floodplain values would occur largely in Oso creek ti?dry'°t' Bonita Creek and Coyote Canyon channel.areas. impacts to wetlands resources would be mitigated to a level of non -significance with complete and successful implementation of a Habitat Res- toration Plan (to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Corri- dor) . Water Oualit_y.Success ful implementation of the Runoff Management Plan :.f r the Corridor cusse �n ec ion 4.Yj would reduce the level of Corridor i�rripacts on surface water to below a level"of significance. However, the project could potentially contribute incrementally to cumulative water quality impacts in the form of residual materials such as heavy metal components in the Corridor runoff. The significance of the residual material would depend upon the implementation of mitigation measures for projects near the Corridor route and the characteris- tics of individual storm events, such as duration and intensity of rainfall. Those storm characteristics would determine the amount of materials which would settle in channel bottoms or remain suspended in the runoff to be flushed downstream to the ocean. 4-32 1 1 1 1 I �J L� 1 1 1 4.4 AIR QUALITY i 1� ll 1 1 1 1 The following section addresses checklist items 16 and 18 from Table 4.1.. An air ualit�>'anal sis was re ared for the Corridor. ...........................9...............Y...::::::.::::.....:::<:::.:.::..:::....:........x...........................P.....:P....:.::.:::.:::.::::::...::. Th i s l�l sections for the entireproject area Specific project subareas are referenced as appropri- ate and the i-mpacts are organized by project alternative when the impacts vary by alternative. Regional Air Quality Analysis. The Corridor is contained within the Southeastern Orange County Subregion;as'c{elineated by the 1989 AQMP. Within this Subregion, the analysis area is shown below (Figure 4.4.1) and was identified as containing, the trips generated -by the Corridor and the travel patterns of the existing arterials and selected as the appropriate "Corridor -level" region. The effects on regional air quality of the Corridor project were determined for the year 20-10 using a regional air emissions computer model, the Direct Travel Impact Model (DTIM), that considers changes in travel patterns, traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. pis Area idary REGIONAL AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS AREA FIGURE 4.4. y 4-33 1 FJ DTIM is the by Caltrans. The DTIM integrates the from the model used output Orange County Transportation Analysis odified for the Corridor sub -region (SOCTAM) and the latest California specific vehicular air pollution emission factor model (EMFAC7D) The DTIM model was run by Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) Transportation Planning staff for the Conventional Alternative and the No Build Alternative. The Conventional Alternative was modeled for eight lanes of mixed flow traffic without HOV lanes. This approach ' provides a conservative analysis of the emissions of the Demand Management Alternative because the emissions from the project will be less if HOV lanes replace mixed flow lanes as proposed in the Demand Management Alternative. The Demand Management Alternative would result in an increase in vehicle occupancy and a reduction in volume compared to the Conventional Alternative, and would result in a larger decrease in project air contaminant emissions. The results of the regional are shown in Table 4.4.A. This table :analysis indicates that the q # ""."M 01�i!Alternative, as com ared to the No ? ` t( -9.....:::.:::::.:.::: p Alternative, �� resul��"in��"a*'*�substantial regional reduction in emissions'`of "(CO) carbon monoxide and total organic gases (TOG), and a small reduction in emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), and particulate matter (PM). These emission reductions are due to an expected reduction in regional vehicle fuel usage and travel time, and an increase in regional average travel speed. A microscale carbon monoxide analysis was conducted for the year 2010, using the Caline 4 dispersion model. Traffic data for the CO analysis was based on data for the AM and PM peak hours and eight hour peak period for the following conditions: TABLE 4.4.A - DIRECT TRAVEL IMPACT MODEL (DTIM) 2010 ALTERNATIVES PERCENT OF DECREASE IN EMISSIONS AIR EMISSIONS NO CONVENTIONAL WITH THE (kilograms/year) ALTERNAtIVE` ALTERNATIVE PROJECT` CO 314,828 268,521 - 14.7% NOx 17,090 16,664 - 2.5% TOG 29,456 25,792 - 12.4% PM 6,545 6,518 - 0.4% `Assumes construction and operation of Eastern Transportation Corridor and Foothill Transportation Corridor. 'Percentages represent reduction (-) or increase (+) in air contaminant emissions over the No Build Alternative. 4-34 C� 1 Ll r� F1 1 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Analysis • 1995 initial operations with three mixed flow lanes in each direction and toll facilities. • 2010 Conventional Alternative with four mixed flow lanes in each direction, one HOV lane in each direction and toll facilities. • 2010 Demand Management Alternative operations with three mixed flow lanes in each direction, two reversible HOV lanes, and toll facili- ties. Traffic volumes are based on no -toll traffic projections at all Corridor, segments except the mainline toll plaza whi-ch is based on toll traffic projec- tions. Meteorological conditions were assumed to be worst case for purposes of this analysis. Twenty-nine .receptor sites throughout the study area were selected for detailed microscale CO analysis (see Figure 4.4.2). The selection of receptor sites was based upon the projected maximum- changes in carbon monoxide concen- trations due to future traffic conditions. Sites were also chosen to include receptors such as parks, schools, and residences, a-s well as other sensitive land use types. Receptors are located along the proposed project alignment. Where appropriate, receptor sites were placed at property limes of residences. A receptor site was chosen near the proposed toll plaza ramps based on the traffic conditions associated with each toll location. A receptor site was also selected near the proposed mainline toll plaza. To establish the CO concentrations at each receptor site, 'background CO concentrations were added to account for emission sources other than the Corri- dor. Existing CO concentrations measured along the Corridor were utilized to determine background concentrations. Caltrans measured CO concentrations during a six week period from November 1989 to January 1990. The second high- est CO concentrations measured were selected as background concentrations for this analysis. The measurements used include 8.0 ppm one hour CO level and 3.4 ppm eight hour CO level. Peak eight hour CO emission concentrations at each receptor were esta- blished by applying a persistence factor of 0.7 to the maximum predicted one hour CO values. This factor accounts for vehicle volumes fluctuating downwards from the peak one hour, vehicle speeds varying, and meteorological stability changing to some degree as compared to the very conservative assumptions used for the single one hour level. The predicted 1995 CO concentrations for Initial Operations and 20,10 CO concentrations for the Conventional and Demand Management Alternatives are shown in Table 4.4.B. All receptor sites are predicted to be in compliance t 4-35 1 i"..; Xi' F c T ol N, 7t ol uIv- -RA O� vu j '1611\ C18VAUVH 0 Z! 10 bwavx CO.- Znli� 11 vat . — - —.-A IVOA 7 --d1-- A, fe Alcl IS, ..... . .... 11.1.4., 0 LL ITABLE 4.4.B - PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) LEVELS (ppm) 1 1 C 1 1995 2010 2010 Initial Conventional Demand Operations Operations Management Alternative Alternative Recep- 1 8 1 8 1 8 for Location Hour* Hour** Hour* Hour** Hour* Hour** Site 1 San Juan School - 12 5.9 11 5.6 1.1 5.6 Playing Field at Spring Street 2 Playground/Little 11 5.6 11 5.5 11 5.5 League Field 3 Serra Park 10 4.6 10 4.5 10 4.5 4 Nearest Backyard to 11 5.3 11 5.3 11 5.3 Junipero Serra Interchange 5 Nearest Backyard in 11 5.2 11 5.2 11 5.2 Village of San Juan near Junipero Serra 6 Roston Montessori 12 6.0 11 5.7 11 5.7 School Entrance 7 Paseo de Colinas- 14 7.7 13 7.1 13 7.1 Nearest Development at Avenida del Cabello 7A Paseo de Colinas 14 7.7 13 6.7 13 6.7 8 C.V. Cabot/Cabot Road 12 6.1 14 7.7 14 7.8 Intersection 9 Greenfield Drive 10 4.6 11 5.6, 11 5.5 Interchange 10 Private Corral @ 10 5.1 12 6.5 13 6.6 Nellie Gail Road 11 Moulton Interchange 12 6.1 12 5.9 12 6.0 12 Nellie Gail Ranch- 11 5.5 11 5.4 1 11 5.5 Nearest Backyard 4'- 37 1 TABLE 4.43 - PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) LEVELS (CONTINUED) Recep- for Site Location 1995 Initial Operations 1 8 Hour* Hour** 2010 Conventional Operations Alternative 1 8 Hour* Hour** 2010 Demand Management Alternative 1 8 Hour* Hour** 13 Laguna Hills Hospital 12 6.3 12 6.2 12 6.2 - Entrance 14 Existing Development 11 5.8 11 5.4 11 5.5 @ Pacific Park Drive 15 La Paz Interchange at 11 5.7 12 6.1 12 6.0 Development 16 Alicia Pkwy-Develop- 10 5.0 11 5.7 11 5.7 ment and Tennis Court 17 Aliso Creek Road- 10 4.7 11 5.3 11 5.7 Aliso Viejo High Density Housing, nearest tract 18 Laguna Hills -Proposed 10 4.8 11 5.4 11 5.8 Development 19 E1 Toro Road Inter- 12 6.2 12 5.9 14 7.7 change and Toll Nearest Tract of Laguna Audubon Development and Nearest Backyard of Cal. Dove Development 20 Laguna Canyon- 12 6.1 12 6.2 13 6.9 Proposed Golf Course 21 Sand Canyon Road- 9 4.3 10 4.7 12 6.0 Crystal Cove Park 22 Mainline Toll 16 8.7 16 8.9 16 8.9 23 Bonita Canyon -Near 11 5.5 12 6.2 13 6.8 Wetland Area 24 Pelican Hill Road 9 4.3 10 4.7 11 5.7 Interchange 4-38 1 1 1 L 1 I 1 ri 1 n 1 1 TABLE 4.43 - PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) LEVELS (CONTINUED) 1995 2010 2010 Initial Conventional -Demand Operations Operations Management Alternative Alternative Recep- 1 8 1 8 1 8 for Location Hour* Hour** Hour* Hour** Hour* Hour** Site 25 Bison Avenue Inter- 11 5.4 11 5.5 11 5.5 change 26 MacArthur Interchange 11 5.2 10 5.0 -11 5.5 27 University Drive 12- 6.0 11 5.8 12 6.3 Interchange 28 Jamboree Road- 13 7.1 15 8.1 15 8.4 Proposed Building 29 Bristol St. Entrance 12 5.9 11 5.6 12 6.0 to Building * Maximum one hour concentrations based on either AM or PM peak values. ** Maximum eight hour concentrations based on either AM or PM peak values. 4-39 1 I � with both the State and federal one hour and eight hour CO standards at all locations. The Demand Management Alternative would result in lower CO levels at most locations due to higher average vehicle speeds. Therefore, there are no significant air quality impacts associated with either Build Alternative. Toll Versus Toll Free CO Levels An analysis of toll and toll free CO levels was conducted at selected locations along the Corridor. CO concentrations were modeled to determine what effect removing toll facilities would have on the proposed Corridor design. As shown in Table 4.4.C, the CO levels predicted MITIGATION MEASURES The project is anticipated to result in a positivp ..... pe on a i r - t ::.i.jMg quality by providing roadway capacity improvements that '*'*"'*"""'o *d**"a**'te local accommodate traffic increases without any adverse air quality impafts".:"`' In addition, the project is in conformity with the 1979 SIP and the 1989 AQMP and includes several Transportation Control Measures from the AQMP. No long-term air quali- ty mitigation measures are required. 4 - 40 F_ L 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4.4.0 - COMPARISON.OF TOLL AND TOLL FREE OPERATIONS CO LEVELS Maximum Concentrations* (ppm) Site Location Toll Toll Free 10 Private Corral at Nellie 6.6 6.6 Gail Road 11 Moulton Interchange 6.0 4.9 12 Nellie Gail Ranch -Nearest 5.5 4.7 Backyard 13 Laguna Hills Hospital- 6.2 4.9 Entrance 14 Existing Development at 5.5 5.1 Pacific Park Drive 17 Aliso Creek Road-Aliso 5.7 5.3 Viejo High Density Housing nearest Tract 19 El Toro Road Interchange 7.7 7.6 and Toll Nearest Tract of Laguna Audubon Develop- ment and Nearest Backyard of Cal. Cove Development 21 Sand Canyon Road -Crystal 6.0 6.0 Cove Park 22 Mainline Toll 8.8 6.5 23 Bonita Canyon -Near Wet- 6.8 6.8 land Area 24 Pelican Hill.Road Inter- 5.7 5.7 change * Maximum eight hour concentrations based on either AM or PM peak values for Demand Management operations. 4 - 41 1 NO LTERNATIVE As shown in Table 4.4.A, the No 1111ji-Al tern at i ve would result in higher regional CO, NOx, TOG and PM emissions"tfian either of the Build Alternatives. T h e No if-.1.)IIIAl tern at i ve would, however, result in lower CO emissions than the Build A'Iterriatives at locations immediately adjacent to the Corridor due to the addition of Corridor traffic movements to an area where only local arterial traffic generate a background CO level of 3.4 ppm for an eight hour period. The analysis of the Build Alternatives and the No ! Al tern at i ve ". assumed the operation of the Foothill and Eastern Corridors -. BY Ge year 2010. This assumption has the effect of reducing the predicted air quality benefits of the project because, if these other Corridors are not built, there would be greater congestion (and greater vehicle emissions) on 1-5 and 1-405 and major arterials than predicted with the No ON Alternative. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS I I There would be no significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with the proposed corridor project. I 4 - 42 I I I I I I I I I 4.5 NOISE This section addresses checklist items 19 and 20 in Table 4.1. A noise impact assessment was prepared for the Corridor by CDMG in March 19.90. Noise Prediction Methodology The noise impact analysis which follows was prepared in accordance with both the Orange County Noise Element and the FHWA Federal Highway Policy Manual 7-7-3, "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise." The predicted traffic noise levels for the Orange County and local pities are in terms of 24 hour CNEL levels. The FHWA assessment considers Leq noise level ttec<:i= tte dy...t>t$mOra irii ot1^s.: Future noise levels have been predicted for both Demand Management and Conventional Operations Alternatives using the FHWA Stamina 2.0 Highway Traffic Noise Modeling Program. These alternatives generally include 3 to 4 general purpose lanes in each direction, 1 HOV lane in each direction and toll facili- ties. The design year 2010 traffic volumes and speeds for these two al-terna- tives were used to predict future traffic noise levels at existing -and planned noise sensitive receptors. The parameters of this model include distance from source to receptor, topographical relationships, traffic volumes, truck per- centages, route speeds and highway design. CNEL 24 hour traffic noise level, and the peak one -hour Leq traffic noise levels were calculated for each of the receptor sites identified in Chapter 3, Figure 3.5.1. Long -Term Noise Impacts Long-term noise impacts for the Corridor have been determined by comparing ' the predicted 2010 traffic noise with the FHWA and Orange County criteria and the existing noise levels that are presented in Section 3.5. The difference in noise levels between existing and future conditions with the Corridor would be caused by the construction and operation of the Corridor. The discussion which follows assesses noise levels associated with operation of the Corridor. Con- struction noise impacts are discussed under Section 4.18. location om ' 2010 traffic noise predictions, roadway and the number and types tion are listed in Table 4.5.A. tnere are dot the nog se mode i i ng e abatement... cri teri ar<t <f'sC<iAM t.........�oi se.:..barri ers'::.:at ate `'the` noise" impact. The results locations of the receptors .relative of receptors impacted at each modeling oca- tnese of the to the 1oca- ' There are six receptor sites where the predominant land use is interior activity (FHWA Category E). At these locations, the traffic noise levels are predicted as interior noise levels by applying FHWA defined noise reduction values for different types of building construction to the 2010 predicted exterior traffic noise levels. These noise reduction values consider windows 4-43 1 WiJ M J W a �► W a � w cz W cc O cn 9w NE Wm .Z.j J 1 � � Ln In 10`� `O 'O 'O �O �O O `O 00 to p LOU`O N Ln � ti n 10 Ln w 10 y W I t7 1 N Lnn 1010 1 .p 1 A h G IOn i 10 ! ■+ 1 #pp pppp #0pp it in 1LA O M M 492 - "O fJ ~ v # v �O v v = 10 W W d W W W W W W W N d CL W W w Qp y W\ J O pn In O M It O O O 10 ..pp �n V1 In 1 VM1 1 IMA 1 1 IInn ILn u'1 1~n YO1 �O �+ ~ O N O N O N In N i O cm 1 00 N 1 O .t 1 O In 1 O 10 1 I� r 1 CDC7 N In In In In In In In In In In 10 8 w O J ^ P ti ti P2 r. ti F2 IM, Z8 100, 6. J 1-0 !Mj �.. O LW 1 ^ ~ �t zO 'O to I� I M t2 M O f2 1�V � 4 ��11JJ 1 py� 3 SO 67 w m m m Ca m m m m 07 01 W 8 y W O W to W W y i- y ffFF..ii ZW Z y rW. J y (AY N W r~.� O J J O a _ y� OL I.n m H a N Ln M M 1 G 1n N U, J ! J J W J W _ 1 p I.- 1 !� cO 1 y V1 < 1 d {y p C JLn O C y WM = In O! 000 M C7 �- 9 9 Z^ !� 1 9 w 9 1- Z C7 W s! y N y V y < 1- In O In !! y! Y ! O 0p J x U C] O ! 2 N OL w y ! _! y O. �O W- J E W -1 tts� Z W y !O Z y y y y y W t10 2 W 8y -2 "=7 J 2m WpA= 2pp20 cm 00� cz w�!„ 0..0 0 V ccw W CD ix Ic W LA y V M w y y W V W a tn � MC CM J_ 10 rJjj DC cc GC N O M N 0!0 � of ONC CIMC 9x ul CK 10 C9 Ix OTC ce O ^ Cd DC OC er t 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Une N N N O O M > > > a' 2 < Z J J J Ln C C O O 10 1 Z > W 1~L J 1 LA ti W W cy W 1p w W DC a ae v i N ti � i z z C9~ �O S O O O O 1- 1 r v m W F- i- '1F.- rW.� i7 Qp w NN ti WF- t 1 m 1O A in OC W.j W W W W W W 6 LL W W p y LU O�} CO to O O N N 6=. w � T a a 00 IA O O CD O LIJ y � .OJ} 10 10 P a O J ' N � �V �V �n u► �p pp pp M Gj LC) W O ti ti o 10 �$.I� C 1` 3 N 7 m m m W W W OD [a m G C LA. OcolW pJ W W LU C 8 W O O OIn LLI co< Ln U 0� NC 7 U 00 00 pip OIA p 8 G U J t J 99 O O N y� Z OW a '0 x ae oc Pm $tn ay <y z,� _0% W$g W$�o {oL i Zz`o < < W W W W o'Q O< U < t G < Z< J O< z O< a< H UU w U UZ UZ wF- W F- O Z to wJ F- " wZ F- 1--- W W <J 1- <.J!- U YN' 1- U _ F' LU Z< w J Z< ta U UI- J VI -I Z. OQ GCM OJ LU U .U.-. CAD �OOpppm .00Mp�pm {Uy U JN WO W O S D<C U!A Vy N� N� O C m = m = S N .M- cc OC .Ln- OC OC CIC OC .Q- OC GC N OC N OC �t W OU) Mad W N gx cc yce 0) OC .Z.. U) w W G U) Wm W C Wm W m .=iJ 1: XM W �O ^ v -4 Ln %O IInn W in W O==C oppp ILn pp �O 10 coLn W Ln W oe oe O a 1pn ^ Go inn H z I- i �^ _ l0 # 10 � # LLn n o Itt- ru p H `C IC ol v v = Z , O\C O\C W W w W W W P a a In Ln 10 O O 1 P 1 a 1 ol Q ol P N�11 f� a {1y N a O P O^ N M IInn P O a a a P P P 10 1 ti m 10 10 Ln to �r Ln Ln Ln 10 Z8 10 10 10 10 s s It kn� Ln 10 N 10 10 Ln m m m O 00 00 00 m W m to C y N y LU N U)y y ~ y O U)) H cn U, f.. W uj Z 2 Z 2 _ _ _ 2 O 2 In N co Z O co .- N S N 1 / i 1 W F- a ! 2 2 2 U)y 1~r oe 1 1 = a i i ►- �. I„ a = to CL co Z F- J = J I� aO < yy �M+n1 OC S Z I- O� 2 I- O, < O G In OI o C7 N O Q� a * ! O� �, I� 1 ! c1!LLI CW) �rWi! O< yyJWF!- 22 -)� W W W CW9y NCW7y W F JN JN 8U) J(A �_ _►!- L"N LUU) C r- W ,„ Of 09— fib"Cie yy = a Ln JO~C !N C7 C) m m LU Ix Z N W N d J N G ! < J MN GL OL OG OC w OC OL OC OMC K N cm PM M OC 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 yP.- I, S«>i OC H � W m 2 < r O O O. U1 04 U% M 10 U1 N. LAw C of Ut u1 10 O w G C J 1 1 O O Q F U. �O �O O �O �O LA In w O 101 �O �O 0: aC oC aWt yWJ S r i N N N U1 0, O O f► O O- O tJ 1 N a %0 Q 10 In z 1 z z z z ode 8 o Mo � � Q = _ LU W w CC w OC GC OC OC OC N M .�pp � .Opp O O J rr a �O �O M O O O O {1+ W O •p+ {{'yyid�� ti M f� n opN �O 10 0� 10 �O �O 10 10 �/ IOLL N s j �+ {n In U1 in In in U1 ItU% U1 In U1 In IXY J LU G N .p ppLn�} 10 O 10 in i(1j O•N Vpl i J LU j Q {y 1 pY� 3 N J m 0 O G 0 in co m co co m W y LL N G W M m d d d LL O N y O O O O O W �-. Y W W LU > O -1 ►<- O < O O C C > C > C > G z O O O. z z W r+ 99 co < 7 7 > > > 00 h [� a- 'O 1 N 1 I— 1 F to = 1 tJim a a 1� a a LOU, Z Z W -O 0 OC i d , a O'F O'F z z -C 0 c=ui .i � OSU1 OI<" O F<- O F<- C� OC N- �I<" 1-YO O t W of W UN W uJ W w W N z �Q < .Q < Np� W < U! U! z A C7zN >1- >H >1- >F >I- wOZ 40, W M z 0' N W W N W C r z z H ZO w QS, nN+ <Uf l<,,, `N I.- `N J ]L N OL ccw nn N < <O 60 <O 60 AC ►<-i N W Y$N � CW y W W W W W 0 m m u 7 m m O^ G C O C C < J J F- — '� U u M M In 00 O N N N 0: cc OMC � C9 W C9 w w OIL ag GEC .Z..W C9 cc 99 m m W W r 10 W rz J I I tY tY K OG 1 1 == == L6 J I <' W W W N p 3 ~ MM ^ rz N {{yy i ae OG Cie C9 1 r 1- 2 H Z 10 2 trNui ZZ v M 1 it z n W W " w tu w w y O tMo In to w ~ In to N In N to � IOA 10 d ti ti W p� IWWL 6 J u v � r N 1 J u _ L u0i u�i uNi uMi J 8 W � 10 ILA 1078 IN �L J 2 u N W C L eM -Id LU 1 L GI W m a I a+ t m m m m m ci u m o'E N Ea O tD u lY G 1+ C N ,a Qve W -i Cie C -� -O� � ~ NaS O O �li q = O Z -K tl O Z y W 1<-i W W S O< 4! rn 7 a0+ CI 01 W S 41 W �ia ti Nn. L > V N Y O O 1 O N 0,0! F d J OG O O 0� O lL' ! < QN F N N a-- N O W Z L d pE d L in Of.- ON d Z OC W �! W W 'O t0 O'Dm W301 H mt<- Ol W� Hy �< 1-(~/1 �N�� ►-ui .~C OIWWOGW We- mN !t- W�- yN yN yN� O 41 J .?! uC:J JO t..l< W� ~< Oy Oy L Omac <= S W t0 /0 'TpC J !- y W Z_ =Z !N uw H W NW (A (ny d V d d d •LL. N m O y MN .~. Z pew W = CEE L L L.L. L. OG dic JI f�'O N 2 P my my m� U t0 lO t0 N 10 m m m m m Nx N m M m m = O e W Z d I l i l l l L r-NM1 �r v v vv i► N M M S to 'o P. N 'Lana dt W W W W v we O � OC Owe cc Cke ce Ix L ' open or closed, depending on whether the building. is air conditioned. Mitiga- tion measures are required to these land uses if the interior noise levels l 1 L' 1 0 l 1 approach or exceed an Leq of 52 dBA. Site R16:, Montessori School, is the only interior land use that would require mitigation. The predicted exterior and interior traffic noise levels and types of building construction for these receptors are listed in Table 4.5.B. Noise Abatement An existing land use is considered for noise abatement i-f the predicted traffic noise level either equals or exceeds.the FHWA noise abatement criteria or County of Orange or local cities noise standards as outlined in Section 3.5. Feasible noise abatement measures that mitigate excessive traffic noise include 1) the installation of noise barriers within. or outside the highway right -of- iWiii:^:v:Sivii iitii: iw:•.�::•:•$:�:i:.Y:::S:v::.k::::::'L2<'LC......... Y...�Jfi:� i� _ f,. X..�:�: !F t.. :i: •:�.. t._ •::::•:•::1i:>::i::r �ii:�•?:�:�::L.i:i_ __G :ry:2:?l::if:•:i• Caltrans policy also requires that noise abatement. be considered if the of a level substanti-all increases 12 dBA or more the existing predicted n<.::;::.:<.;:.;:;;.:;r.:::;;:'.:;:<;:;.<� y( ) 9 noise levels"" :.; All developments which have filed a tentative tract map..with the appropri- ate jurisdiction prior to the public circulation of this DEIR/EIS and are located within an area that would require noise abatement, will be considered for freeway noise mitigation as a part of this project. Future residential developments which occur after circulation of the DEIR/EIS will have to incor- porate freeway mitigation measures into their site design and building plans at the time they apply for grading and building permits. This mitigation will be incumbent upon the developer of those areas. Mitigation measures provided by developers will be needed to reduce noise levels in outdoor and indoor residen- tial areas along the Corridor to acceptable levels per the jurisdiction in which the development is located. A noise barrier analysis was prepared at each of the locations impacted by the Corridor. Table 4.5.A is a summary of the noise impacted locations and the feasibility of a noise barrier to achieve the required noise reduction. As shown in this table, the bracketed numbers indicate the noise barrier height required to reduce the future noise levels to below the FHWA criteria or local standard. Also, the asterisk indicates the barrier height which would break the line of sight between a receiver and an 11.5' truck stack. Figure 4.5.1 illustrates the locations of these recommended noise barriers. MITIGATION MEASURES ' The feasibility of achieving the Caltrans criteria of providing a minimum, of 5 dBA reduction and reducing the traffic noise level to below Leq=67 dBA are considered in this analysis. Barrier heights are limited to 14 feet above.the 4-49 1 TABLE 4.5.6 - INTERIOR LAND USE ACTIVITIES PREDICTED 2010 NOISE LEVELS - Leq (dBA) SITE LOCATION TYPE OF BUILDING EXTERIOR INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION' R1 San Juan School Light Frame w/ 66 46 ordinary sash windows: closed R16 Montessori School Light Frame w/ 73 53 ordinary sash windows: closed R17 Rancho Capistrano Masonry w/ single 66 41 Community Church glazed windows: closed R18 Capistrano Valley Masonry w/ single 67 42 H.S. glazed windows: closed R30 Laguna Hills Hospital Masonry w/ single 69 44 glazed windows: closed R42b Liberty Baptist Masonry w/ single 60 35 Church glazed windows: closed 1 Building constructions are as defined by FHPM 7-7-3, which specifies the noise reduction due to different exterior building types. 4-50 00 z u—, Em m Z� n O rn rO �o m O n �o 10 m N. P Z. w m O Z m v 0 z v a c 1 O 0 z 00 < Z m m Z q M- 50 m .Z ma > > 0 M o 0 z M U) > Z� 01 m 0 0 m z m 0 a z a ED co r M z 'p NU % z ly PT 957— '1 CD Tf� 0), 0 CD JIR .1 (D F7.9648-29.72 0) O 91, 0 W os.s L :PARKWAY S4 9, oo-S lk. IH L V 4,1 PC 9-- z PT 9576�j 7 . el 0 m m m bo O so ■ oz 00 mm zM �M zM O aM mp n z� -�i o �z mU) Ol a coz v w r 'w ,n w • m z v avw G N l 2 sQ PC 9866.46.co 6 / t' / / \ CD CD N n N ' 00 mm � M 50 a° rp a� q p M 0 z mz � w a z v m m 0 0 m z v m v 0 c z v 00 a M m m In G) c �o m .p :A =maim mm =wo = 0 p 3-24 co Z 4" cl) �-K 03 SD CD NN. SI) /.XR sl- It PC 603-25. iA' Ll IN VA 1— JE jJ t L 9"� 03 wpj vau3sdl C- Wei PT 530,101 olli . 4—l"I" ;m aij . -l--;'sqr- -- .kVMH6 I H. P. K-, vz Kro am v� m a" z--I m� m za a R. /Z/�� VI V > z �v C m� m v v CA z v ui m N rj 76d: 7 Z pir :'t;G'iPY , CD w W m SD n -• 0 CD 7 :1r `yo_ `G` '•;'i ePARKWAY ,! T H% PW - y., •, v �i•-1-4ice_4/-fs. i V� CS ryr �' \ .4 S Y '�'• N fit,\ / '•,! ..• .'!. r ,>�, ♦ 0�`: n? PC 9604-06.99 Oh 166 i .l, p m — -.j Ibl •ram'\✓�t ' 1� :1,._��, PT 9576:14: •7 s 00' S6 C co n a r m O Z m m CD -� A O F _` _ _ -- 1 D z go z m m c 0 > m Z >o G) M m 0 z 0 > 0 Z M C*) 00 m z > z M 0 0 m z 0 m 0 a z 00 nT CO) - ---- -- - ' '- I m m o r)). z o CD r rn m m CD 0 z m Z : oc; s• ��r,� t. rn s' ;; CD• SAN.='�QASII��I`.�`` . 1s:s :.r` �9\`�� , 1• `\. ca Yf• ��' r/ el Ol Ti ''tr• , I,J "-i, w A O UZ, m 2 cly > M, vro Z 0. m 0, m 'CO CD Z- CD 00 -0 M, c 0 A) m 0 =$ z 0.� O ,r z M Z, a -17 > Z M,m 0 0 m z 'Cl) 0 c z w rn M, Lh O 1 1 1 1 I pavement surface when located within 15 feet of the traveled way and 16 feet when located, more than 15 feet from the traveled way. Barriers on roadway structures would be limited to a maximum height of 6 feet to be structurally feasible. 5-1 Prior to or i,n conjunction with construction of the Site R2 - Avenida Los Cerritos: A 16-foot barrier is recommended for both the mainline roadway and the northbound on ramp. Sites ;#R3 through R10 would require a continuous noise barrier at the' pavement pavement at varying heights based on the existing topo- graphy elevation of these receptors: Site nt;>:R3 -San Juan School t<:::at::;:< A 12- .:..:...........:.... . foot barrier i s recommended at the end of aavement. 'Iiseret Site R4 - La Callebra: A 10-foot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement. Site R5 - Residences along El Horno: An 8-foot barrier is recommend- ed at the end of pavement. Site R6 - Residences along E1 Horno: A 12-foot barrier is recommend- ed at the end of pavement. Site R7 - Via San Vicerite: A 16-foot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement. Site R8 - Serra Park: A 16-foot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement. Site R9 - Paseo Loreto: An 8-foot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement. Site R10 - Calle Chuega: An 8-foot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement of the southbound on ramp. Site R12 & R13 - San Juan Apartments: A 10-foot barrier is recom- mended at the end of pavement. S - ite R14 � R15 Spotted Bul l Lane: ...... .;;:.:.: a recep ors are up to 50 feet above the 'Corridor: A minimum 18=foot noise barrier would be required to break the line of 4 59 1� sight of an 11.5-foot truck stack and would still not meet Caltrans policy of reducing the traffic noise levels by 5 dBA or more due to the noise contribution from the Rancho Viejo Road traffic movements. A barrier at these sites is not recommended. Site R20 - Avenido Del Caballo: A 6-foot barrier is recommended at the elevated roadway structure for Option #1. For Option #2 the receptors are a further distance from the Corridor. With the Corri- dor mitigated with 6-foot noise barrier at the elevated roadway structure, other sources of traffic noise would exceed 67 dBA. Site R22 & R23 - Bridgeport Plaza: A barrier is recommended at the right of way varying in height from 10 to 16 feet. Site R24 - Laguna Niguel Town Homes: A barrier located at the end of pavement would need to be 18 feet high to break the line of sight. This height barrier would not be considered feasible and would not provide a 5 dBA or more noise reduction. As an alternative, a barri- er is recommended at the property line of Laguna Niguel Town Homes. The height of the barrier would be determined during preliminary design subject to approval of the property owners. Site R25 - Niguel Development: A -foot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement. Site R26 - Nellie Gail: There are existing noise barriers at this location. An 18-foot noise barrier at the right of way would provide 3 dBA reduction and is not recommended since it would not provide a 5 dBA or more noise reduction. A barrier at the Nellie Gail property line is recommended subject to approval of the property owners. Site R27 - Del Prodo Townhouses: An 8-foot barrier is recommended at the right of way. Site R28 - Nellie Gail: A 12-foot barrier is recommended at the right of way. Site R29 - Laguna Garden Apartments: An 8-foot barrier is recommend- ed at the end of pavement. 4-60 I 1 1 1 0 I 1 11 I I 5-2 Site R31 - Quail Creek Apartments: A 10-f6ot barrier is recommended at the end of pavement. Site R33 - Morningside Condominiums: An 8-foot barrier is recommend- ed at the right of way. Sites R34 through R38 - Aliso Viejo Development: A barrier is recom- mended for both sides of the Corridor varying in height from 8 to 12 feet at the right of way. Sites R40 S R41 - Club Laguna Apartments: These receptors are ele- vated above the. Corridor representing the Apartments which extend along the Corridor and are also set back along El Toro Road. An 8- foot barrier at the right of way would mitigate the portion of the Apartments along the Corridor-(R40) but would not mitigate the recep- tors at Site R41 where the topography away from the Corridor changes. An 8-foot barrier is recommended at the property line of the Club Laguna Apartments. Site R42 - State Park: A barrier would not be required at this 1•oca- tion because there would not be any human access through the park to the Corridor right of way. 's#is�5ia�:�:�:'i:]1::-:�:<.'•�?::[3C]f � ��i:%� ��,;Y�:'c':�.s:;i::: � %:.;•::::::::. �:::•:::::•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: �::::::•:::::•:::::::. �.�:::::::. ......................... �.:r::.x:.:r.:�.��.�::;Iri:•:��«:4��:i��-::t.��a�R.�.. �.:x��:.:t:4 �:;c..��•/::•k:•:.IrGY:'•:.:.::��1i-�.�:a:�i ;t:.:•3•:'��s:•i.��.:�!: ;»:.f�� ' NO ITALTERNATIVE Under the No 1>!!1<-Alternative, those sites adjacent to the proposed Corridor alignment whi=uld experience increased noise levels as a result of the Corridor would not be impacted. The No V � 1Altern ative would result in a change in travel patterns in the region on `surrounding arterials and fregnx which would in turn result in higher noise levels. As shown on Table certain. local arterial roadways the No „IAl ternati ve would result in an e noise level �.. :.:. increase in e 1 4 - -61 11 The change in local travel patterns generated by the Corridor would result in a decrease in traffic noise levels along most of these arterial roadways in the range of 0.3 dB to 6.3 dB (Table 4.5.Q . This is considered a barely noticeable to clearly noticeable change in noise level. At those roadway segments where traffic noise is expected to increase, the maximum change would be 3.8 dB, a barely noticeable change in level. TABLE 4.5.0 - CHANGE IN NOISE LEVELS ON ARTERIAL ROADYAYS BUILD AS COMPARED TO NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE CHANGE IN ROADWAY SEGMENT NO BUILD NOISE LEVEL Jamboree Road East of Corridor -1.6 West of Corridor -0.7 MacArthur Boulevard East of Corridor -0.7 West of Corridor -0.8 University Drive -1.3 Bonita Canyon Drive .2.6 Ford Road -0.3 Culver Road NONE Pelican Hill Road NONE Sand Canyon Road East of Corridor +0.4 West of Corridor +1.0 Laguna Canyon Road East of Corridor -0.9 West of Corridor +0.7 El Toro Road East of Corridor -1.0 West of Corridor +0.6 Glenwood Drive +3.8 Pacific Park Drive +2.6 Alicia Creek Road -5.1 Alicia Creek Parkway -1.2 La Paz Road East of Corridor +0.8 West of Corridor -6.3 Pacific Drive East of Corridor +1.6 West of Corridor +0.4 Moulton Parkway East of Corridor -1.3 West of Corridor -1.3 Crown Valley Parkway East of Corridor +0.6 West of Corridor +1.5 Note: A positive change (+) is an increase`lrDt1tnoise levels and a negative change (-) is a decrease in"No'"build Noise levels 4-62 I I 1 1 1 I SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There are significant unavoidable adverse nois.@ ..... j.!Pp associated development of the Corridor 4 - 63 1 4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The Demand Management Alternative differs from the Conventional Design Alternative in that the overall width is less. The slightly narrower design results in a minor reduction in wildlife habitat loss, however, this reduction is not significant. The other impacts___of the Corridor remain the same for both on 4./ addresses potentia ands habitat. Plant Communities mpacts Construction, operation and maintenance activities associated with the Corridor would result in the reduction of native plant communities and associ- ated wildlife habitat in the San Joaquin Hills. The most direct losses would occur as the result of grading and brush clearing. Increased sedimentation from construction runoff would also impact adjacent habitats. These impacts are potentially significant. However, the mitigation measures that will be implemented for these impact.s..:;will reduce them to below the level of si nifi- cance. cir ....�.. _ 0s . �it� ation offugitive dustarid"increased` "dire incidents `relate "to construction which can adversely affect vegetation adjacent to actual construction areas. Important types of native habitat adversely impacted by the proposed Cor- ridor include wetlands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral and oak woodland. The direct losses of plant communities resulting from grading of either the Conven- tional Alternative or the Demand Management Alternative are shown in Table 4.6.A. TABLE 4.6.A - IMPACTS TO PLANT COMMUNITIES - ACREAGES LOST ALTERNATIVES HABITATS IMPACTED Conventional Demand Management Grassland 301.4 acres 301.2 acres Coastal Sage Scrub 156.1 153.3 Mixed Chaparral 76.2 78.7 Oak Savannah 0.7 0.1 Oak Woodland 21.6 20.9 Wetlands 15.2 13.8 TOTALS 571.2 568.0 4-64 1 1 1 1 I I t 1 1 1 i� 1 1 1 1 I Sensitive Plant Species. The man -stemmed dudl e a :#t':#tf# and Oran a Count Turkish ru i n €oi :: are the two candidate plant species for F�edera i.."l i st:isn .:: as.: end:an9ered:::or fE're:atened status that occur within the ro'ect limits. isi€:t;iti:` P..............................................::::::::::::.::::::::.:: Can.. i..ate cane on es are dei±`� nedi n Sects on 3: 5� It is estimated that a y e <.plants of many --stemmed dudleya andpl ants of grange•County l'urki sh ruggi ng would be impacted due to the grading associated with Corridor construction. Populations affected by Corridor construction include many -stemmed dudleya and Turkish rugging in the Aliso Viejo Central Ridge and E1 Toro cliff area. One population of many - stemmed dudleya is in the UCI Ecology Reserve. The loss of these plants is a significant unavoidable adverse impact. Wildlife Direct impacts to wildlife include loss and fragmentation of habitat, barriers to wildlife # e and loss of individuals from road kills. In- direct impacts i ncl ude""•`'�`i sturbance to wildlife due to increased noise 1-evel s and increased light and glare. Loss and Fragmentation of Wildlife Habitat. As described in the plant communities section, the Corridor would remove approximately `acres of native plant communities (Conventional Alternative). Less mobile species such as reptiles and small rodents would- be eliminated along with their habitat as the result of construction. More mobile species .such as coyote and gray fox would possibly move off -site into adjacent habitats. Movement off -site will not necessarily ensure survival of the resident wildlife. Generally, wildlife populations in any given habitat are at carrying capacities. There is no available habitat for wildlife moving into an area. Therefore, although more mobile species may not be directly removed by construction, the resulting overcrowding in adjacent h.abi.tats... may....resul.tin an overallreduction in local wildlifepopulation. s . :::::ads€::t::::::��c <w::.........i.......�.€.....tm :car:.: `i:":t i(^1'` :'`i>i`>::re`:<`ems::>:'"€>:':id;:.;;. The foe s s ag :�pj .� 1 osson ace and wildlife habitat and probable loss of individuals constitutes a significant impact for the wildlife in the Corridor alignment. The reduction of wildlife habitat and populations is cumulatively significant for the County. Wildlife Movement. The construction of a major corridor in the San Joaquin Hills would create a•. physical barrier ::: that .:would reduce:.: wildlife „move- ment in this area.heiyren heed as ti .�*�;r::de:I`::;;t�:t:':,�:::�::'i`��t;�ed.::��:�!.:.. .<>�t:::�e� • �<*� F i u re B. b. 6 i n S e cti o 3d TM the series of wildlife it corm dots which exist along Upper Shady Canyon, Upper Bommer Canyon, Upper `Laurel Canyon and Upper Moro Canyon. The ridgeline that separates these canyons acts as a dispersion area in an east/west align- ment and provides access to the north/south aligned canyons. The Corridor alignment follows just south of this east/west ridgeline and within the north- erly watershed (south -facing slope) of Upper Laurel Canyon. The Corridor would create an artificial barrier that prohibits wildlife movement between Camaril- lo, Shady and Bommer Canyons in the north from the canyons to the south 1 4-65 I 1 (Laurel, Muddy, Los Trancos, Moro and Emerald Canyons). Upper Laurel Canyon is still accessible to those wildlife populations to the south. However the n- atural integrity of Upper Laurel Canyon will be reduced due to the presence of the Corridor and the accompanying increase in noise levels due to traffic, loss of wildlife habitat, fewer opportunities for wildlife dispersion and the reduc- tion in habitat quality. As part of the project design, a wildlife crossing feature has been in- cluded to partially mitigate the identified barrier effect of the Corridor to wildlife movement in the Shady/Bommer Canyon areas. This feature is in the form of an undercrossing or tunnel under the mainline travelway of the Cor- ridor. An investigation was conducted by CDMG to determine the feasibility of implementation of undercrossings at three locations along the Corridor align- ment. The locations were evaluated based on inputfrom the CDFG and the USFWS in addition to factors such as wildlife o %:: J corridors in the project vicinity, value of habitat areas, and planne&`T'and`"uses and permanent regional open space areas. An undercrossing design (as opposed to an overcrossing facility) was based on the recommendation of the CDFG. Caltrans does not believe that deer would venture onto an above grade crossing that rises above the road as a bridge. Undercrossing features have been utilized in other roadway projects, including State Route 52 (Caltrans District 11), Miramar Naval Base, and in the Reno area by Caltrans. Technical Memorandum No. 3-20 (CDMG, January 29, 1990), contained in the Biological Technical Studies docu- ment of this EIR/EIS, provides the complete evaluation of potential undercross- ing locations. The areas considered were Wood Canyon drainage, Sycamore Canyon and the head of Shady, and Emerald Canyon. The Wood Canyon location is not feasible due to the Corridor's placement at grade or on cut areas and the significant amount of cut work which would be required to construct a tunnel underneath the Corridor structure. In addition, there will be less than 100 acres of perma- nent open space remaining in the Wood Canyon vicinity after build out of Aliso Viejo. It is likely that due to the small size of open space and surrounding and development that deer and other large mammals may tend not to use an under- 4-66 r 1 A crossing in this area. Large mammals will only cross below an otherwise at - grade road if they are physically prevented from crossing the road. Generally large mammals tend to cross at grade unless more suitable crossings under or over the road can be located or made available. The Sycamore Canyon location is also infeasible due to the potential conflict of animals with traffic utilizing the at -grade ramps at both Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro Road interchanges. The Corridor is proposed to cross over both of these roadways via bridge structures. In addition, there would be limited access for animal movement through this canyon resulting from the com- bination of the two existing roadways and the Corridor forming a triangular barrier. The Shady/Emerald Canyon location was recommended by the study as pre- senting the most feasible opportunity to provide access for wildlife.across the Corridor due to the permanent open space areas surrounding the area and an increased likelihood of a tunnel at this location. In addition, the'Corrdor would be placed on fill material at this location, thereby facilitating con- struction of a tunnel underneath the mainline structure. The proposed location of the undercrossing at Station 9844+00 is illustrated in Technical Memorandum 3-20 in the Biological Technical Studies document. Road Kills. The development of the Corridor would create a road where none currently exists. Some wildlife would continue to cross the Corridor alignment after road construction, which would result in loss of wildlife from road kills. The major loss would be mammals and reptiles, because :birds ..would. not •:•:be•:::seri-ously, affected:by...automobil•es,...... f 11t " ' # 'Y' ds}r $4i b E ► •:+.a..: a ..r. •: : a:y.... cumul`ativ'ely significant"'for the region. Noise Exposure. According to a study 'conducted in the Lake Tahoe area, noise exceeding 75 dB(A) at a distance of 100 feet in relatively quiet, natural areas induces negative effects upon wildlife. The greatest effect of noise on sensitive wildlife species is indirect: the reduction of land area availabl-e for habitat resulting in a reduction of population size due to avoidance be- havior and preference for quieter territory. Secondary effects of noise may include interruptions in important life functions such as nesting, migration, and hibernation. The impacts on wildlife varies with the species. The larger mammals (e.g., mule deer, bobcat, coyote, skunk) will be most affected, influ- encing their distribution along the Corridor. Their occurrence north, of the Corridor would be reduced due to the limited open space available, while areas south of the Corridor would be less affected due to their proximity to more remote areas of Wood, Moro, Emerald and Los Trancos Canyons. This impact is not expected to be significant. Other Types of Disturbances. Table 4.6.B describes reasonable wildlife environmental tolerance to various types of disturbance. •Large mammals and most birds in the Corridor area are expected to have a low capability to with- stand disturbances associated with grading and clearing activities. Wildlife studies have found that foxes, raccoons, skunks and coyotes generally avoid 4-67 TABLE 4.63 - WILDLIFE ENVIRONMENTAL TOLERANCE WILDLIFE CATEGORY TYPE UPLAND OF LARGE SMALL FUR- GAME WATER- OTHER DISTURBANCE MAMMALS MAMMALS BEARERS BIRDS FOWL BIRDS SURFACE SOIL COMPACTION CLEARING L M L L L M GRADING L M L L L M IMPERVIOUS SURFACING NOISE L M L L M M MOTION L M L L M M CLIMATIC CHANGES M M H L M M INSECT AND DISEASE CONTROL OPERATIONS H M M L L L INTRODUCED VEGETATION USE OF CHEMICALS H M M L L L CONTROLLED BURNING L L L L H H LEGEND: H = HIGH CAPABILITY TO WITHSTAND THE DISTURBANCE. MOST SPECIES IN THIS CATEGORY SHOWED LITTLE OR NO RESPONSE TO THE DISTURBANCES. M = THE SPECIES CAN TOLERATE THE DISTURBANCE, BUT THE POPULATION TREND TURNS DOWNWARD. MOST SPECIES RECEIVING THIS RATING RESPONDED UNFAVORABLY TO THE DISTURBANCE BUT COULD ADJUST; THE EXCEPTIONS WERE SPECIES HAVING TERRITORIAL TRAITS. L = LOW CAPABILITY TO WITHSTAND DISTURBANCE. MOST SPECIES IN THIS CATEGORY REACT. POPULATION TREND IS DOWNWARD. Source: P&D Technologies, 1988 wide right-of-ways. Other studies have also shown that deer generally utilize habitat away from roadways more often than adjacent to them. However, the size of the road or vehicular volumes do not seem to be important factors. Cotton- tail rabbits are generally unaffected by right-of-way disturbance. For most species, habitat and water availability are the dominant limiting factors for survival of key species. Raptors are one of the most significant and sensitive types of wildlife within the Corridor area. Although some birds of prey such as the black - shouldered kite, American kestrel and turkey vulture can adapt to the presence of humans and human activities, raptors generally require large areas secluded from disturbance that contain suitable foraging and nesting habitats. Overall foraging habitat for raptors will be reduced by the Corridor. Some raptor nests within the Corridor area would be impacted by grading and site prepara- tion activities. This is a significant impact for all raptor species. Species anticipated to be impacted include the red-tailed hawk, barn owl, American kes- trel, and great horned owl. Available information on the effects of air pollution is life habitat is affected by certain pollutant concentrations, pollution can have an impact on the abundance and integrity 4-68 limited. Wild - and therefore, of associated wildlife species. Studies have shown that, for small mammals such as rats and mice, relatively high concentrations of hydrocarbons and sulfur .compounds can be harmful. Hydrocarbons or sulfur compounds in smog ,produce tissue damage, accompanying scarring, and interference with respiration. These impacts are likely to be true for larger mammals also. Because these impacts cannot be adequately determined, the level of significance of air pollution on wildlife is not known. The Tong -term effects on vegetation can be significant, as evidenced by the effects of air pollution on forest trees. The Corridor is expected to reduce regi-onal air pollution levels (refer to Section 4.4). However, air pollutant levels would increase adjacent, to the Corridor; these local increases are expected to have non -significant impacts upon. vegetation. The impact of light and glare on dawn and dusk -active species is a poten- tial impact. Nocturnal animal activity would be significantly impacted by nighttime lighting. Mitigation will be required to reduce the amount of light and glare to the minimum possible. Sensitive Wil dlife Species. The direct, local and cumulative regional loss of habitat and possible loss of individuals for the sensitive species identified in Section 3.6 due to the project are unavoidable adverse impacts upon those species. The sensitive t1=' species seen along the Corridor are: The California gnatcatcher Polio tila ca7iforn.ica ite>Z?ps`t the San Diego horned lizard Phr nosoma- coronatum bla�nv�lle�), orange throated whiptail(-Cnemidopho�rus:#aet�athr�us�` t:)�,s'�:'':�co°uth`r - ...::.. western pond turtle (ClemmYs marmorata aa11�da) . _ _ - ra;��r:-.�•:e:.r.•,�•�.:.+�.�:•: ir>ra: �.s.+etna:• •:w.?t:•+rrrt+t•..;r :•�.ow•.c:•.�..:v., - - :.ra.�.. •:rwv. >x: .;�•.. �..:. �::a::::.:•:::::.?:::•.::v..t?...........: :.. ,..................... Y•..: Y:• •i •i:?::.: A!:R!..:...T:.::•i::Y•:i•S:.i.......!,P:•:•::•:.. ...Y.... ::#...:.M:R? :��so�:��:�::':>•<:::><:��:�t:�:��:::::h:a��<�>�:::<:::::::�:�:�:::::�;��:>:::<: tr':;:o't•ored blackbird A erai�us �tri co for �'::��...��'< �•� �• :;..;{.:{,•,•.;::,.:,:.:,.�..::;;,••<..~..,,,.:,..,,., ..:..,.�.:..:. ...... ) � �:::-?.:,:_::.:.;:<::::;:.;:.;:?t�?�`:::> :��r�.�;��.:.;. ;,��:��:f��.�.:•�.:...c,actus wren (Cam y1 orhynchus brunne� sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). Wildlife sightings are dependent upon many factors, including.the time of the survey, the weather, the season and other variable factors. Also, most factors that dictate the size of habitat for a particular species is not well known. Therefore, the quant.ificati:on• of impacts to wildlife is not possible• at this time. ►`:`hretod esed b ed..:. ..... ; ...h:. , ......................................................1.:.........lt.. :.........:............................. i.......way.....d>:>r::r:h€:::�o�:�:��::::::::A Regional Open SpacelHabitat Areas. Orange County, in conjunction with major landowners and with the City of Laguna Beach, has for the last decade gained binding commitments of major blocks �of open space/habitat/recreation ` lands known as the Laguna Greenbelt. All of these 'lands have, been assembled with the intent of creating large blocks of contiguous open space lands. These large blocks of open space would provide a much greater degree of habitat protectiont than attempting to mitigate projects one by one with a resulting fragmentation of habitat/open space areas. 1 4-69 An example of such an approach is the creation of the 3,400-acre Aliso Greenbelt. Similarly, the Irvine Coast Open Space Dedication program will provide for the preservation of 2,666 acres of habitat and open space lands, which in combination with the 2,800-acre Crystal Cove State Park (created through State purchase and the Moro Ridge gift by The Irvine Company) will result in over 5,000 acres of contiguous open space/habitat areas. Another County action requiring the dedication of the Laurel Canyon area, which is contiguous with this 5,000-acre greenbelt, will add another 675 acres of open space/habitat. The individual open space dedications by area developments do not dis- count the fact that wildlife habitat continues to shrink in size in the south County. The County's Laguna Greenbelt open space preserve does not create more habitat. There is a net loss of wildlife habitat due to Corridor construction. As stated above, this is a significant impact and an unavoidable loss of open space/wildlife habitat. Cumulative Impacts With the continued urbanization of Orange County, and the expansion of urban infrastructure in northeast and southeast Orange County, considerable natural habitat and open space areas would be eliminated. The cumulative im- pacts associated with regional habitat destruction are as follows: a. The prime impact would be the construction of the Corridor, in particular, project related grading. This would impact wildlife productivity within the region. In turn, the fauna would undergo pressures to relocate to suitable habitat. No species would be permanently displaced, although some individuals would be eliminat- ed during construction. b. Some of the predators and prey with larger ranges and territories would be displaced into more remote areas. This is a disruptive force between predator -prey relationships. C. There would be a decrease in species diversity due to the decrease in variability of habitats within the Corridor's grading area. d. Total number of habitable acres available to wildlife would de- crease, causing increased competition for remaining resources. Summary of Significant Impacts The Corridor would significantly impact the following biological resourc- es/issues: Removal and fragmentation of wildlife habitat in general and forag- ing habitat for raptors. Direct and cumulative (regional) € of open space habitat and wildlife individuals. ........ ..:...... 4 - 70 • Unavoidable adverse impacts to sensitive resources: - Category 3 species: oak woodland, oak savannah, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, dudleya and Turkish rugging - Sensitive wildlife species • Disruption of wildlife dispersion patterns • Night-time facility lighting on nocturnal wildlife activity MITIGATION MEASURES P The construction and operation of the proposed Corridor would have a significant adverse impact on regional biol-ogical resources. However; there are opportunities for habitat enhancement in the remaining unaffected areas and mitigation techniques that can help to relieve constraints and pressures exerted by the -Corridor. Agency Requirements The USFWS and the County have developed or are in the process of develop- ing criteria for the preservation and/or mitigation of sensitive habitats. The requirements for wetland habitats are discussed in Section 4.7. Upland habitat requirements are discussed below. Resource Category Habitats. The USFWS has set. the mitigation goal for �► Resource Category 3 habitats (oak woodland, oak savannah, chaparral and coastal sage scrub) as follows: No net loss of habitat value while minimizing loss of in -kind habitat value. Replacement of habitat types will be conducted in appropriate sites along the Corridor alignment. Complete mitigation of the habitat impacted by the Corridor through revegetation would be difficult due to the large size of the impacted area and poor likelihood of successful regenera- tion. Therefore, the loss and fragmentation of Resource Category 3 habitats will only be partially mitigated and will remain significant adverse impacts. The mitigation goals for Resource Category 4 habitats (grassland) is to minimize loss of habitat value. Minimization of loss will be achieved through careful construction practices and reduction of disturbance to the extent possible. Resource Mitigation. Specific mitigation or compensation strategies for wetland habitats are discussed in detail in Sect ion 4.7. i 6-1 Project Biologist. A project biologist will be retained and would attend a pregrade meeting to establish and coordinate all necessary restrictions for grading operations and construction, and to pro- vide guidance on habitat reestablishment. The project biologist will be present on-s.ite periodi-cally during construction to monitor - implementation of the established restrictions. 4 - 71 0 The following measures shall be implemented to minimize the impacts due to construction of the Corridor: 6-2 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within the project right of way will be mapped. Protective fencing will be installed around the ESAs as deemed appropriate by the Project Biologists to prevent trespassing into the ESAs. 6-3 Unnecessary driving in sensitive or otherwise undisturbed areas shall be avoided. The creation of new construction roads where adequate access already exists will be avoided. 6-4 Removal of native shrub or brush shall be avoided, except where necessary. 6-5 Where possible, the above ground portion of vegetation will be crushed instead of blading or ripping the root zone. Roots of many' native shrubs will resprout, providing for quicker recovery of the vegetation. 6-6 Entry into drainages shall be avoided, except where required for construction. Activity within drainages will be limited to cross- ing drainages rather than using the lengths of drainage courses for access. 6-7 Excess fill shall not be dumped in washes. 6-8 Vehicles or equipment shall not be parked in washes or other drain- ages. 6-9 Overwatering shall be avoided in washes and other drainages. 6-10 Construction activities will be limited in nesting areas during raptor nesting season. These areas will be determined and mapped byar .qual,.i.fi.ed raptor .:special.i:st prior to construction. No .. ......... cat"tE.t will be conducted in identified nesting areas beirwe66... January 4Wd August. 6-11 Wildlife will not be harassed. Harassment includes chasing, shoot- ing, collection, etc. Enforcement of this measure will be coordi- nated by the Project Biologist. 6-12 Species of Concern. Mitigation options for the many -stemmed dud- leya (Dudleya multicaulis) and Orange County Turkish rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides chrysacantha) include a program of on -site and off -site transplantation of species.,.: The details of the miti- gati on pl an wi 11 be d e v e 1 o ��' ed 't <i'd `c € .as part of the overall mitigation plan for the Wildlife y-X.. Corridor Mitigation. The following planning techniques 1111, i„ 1; I and managementpract*iI,ces will help to reestablish and/or maintain dispersion corridors for wildlife and ameliorate impacts due to the projected changing 4-72 t i f 1 t I character of the area. The Project Biologist will be consulted for the most appropriate implementation of these measures: 6-13 A revegetation program will be instituted to� rehabi I i tate slopes of the Corridor cleared during grading. Drought tolerant, erosion resistant native plant materials will be employed along manufac- tured slopes. This will provide screening for wildlife and retain some of the natural character of the Corridor vicinity. To the maximum extent feasible, this vegetation will mimic the former habitats along the Corridor. 6-14 Gallinaceous guzzlers (catch basin/watering devices) will be con- structed for wildlife use in Upper Laurel Canyon and Wood- Canyon. The guzzlers will be designed to avoid acting as traps for smaller wildlife such as reptiles and small rodents. 6-15 A revegetation program will be implemented by the TCA to compensate for lost oak trees at an appropriate replacement ratio and spacing criteria to be determined by the Project Biologist and the County of Orange EMA. Replacement resources will likely include a combi- nation of plant sizes such as acorns, 5 gallon and 15 gallon trees and/or transplantation where feasi'bl'e. Details of this plan will be developed in co ' n unction with th e TCA< and the Project Biol ogist to ist t'<i<it' >e<tda ::> and : i ncl uded i n the .mi t ...b.it i ti on a monitoring program for the protectC. 6-16 A wildlife undercrossing (tunnel) will be included in- the project design in the Shady Canyon/Emerald Canyon area (Station'9844+00). This undercrossing is included in order to provide opportunity for free ranging mammals (mule deer [Odocoileus hemionus] in particu- lar) access to and from permanent open space areas on both sides of the Corridor in this area. Final project design plans will include specific plan and cross section illustrations and specifications of this feature. Nam, ?;ALTERNATIVE The NoAlternative assumes that construction of the proposed Corri- dor will not occur. Consequently, no significant impacts on vegetation and wildlife would occur. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE INPACTS 4-73 n 4.7 WETLANDS The assessment of project impacts on wetlands areas is based on the map- ping of plant communities within approximately 1/4 mile on either side of the proposed Corridor centerline. Wetlands habitats impacted by the Conventional Alternative are described by area in the following discussion. The Convention- al Alternative represents a worst case impact scenario based on its larger overall.... surface area in.___.compArison to the Demand Management Alternative. .we.....r....... .. T` ........�...R.......�I�':4�:•.. �3 A I I acreage i mpacts' to wet'1`ands h'ai tat'' are 'considered s'i`gn"i f cant`:") ''"'i'gures 4.7.1 through 4.7.:. illustrate areas where impacts will occur from the Conventional alterna- tivei` Bonita Creek, Bonita Canyon Reservoir, Pelican Hill Road/Culver Drive interchange, fens (marshes) near Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro Road, Aliso Creek and Oso Creek. The Corridor will bridge San Diego Creek and Aliso Creek, so that impacts to wetlands areas at those locations will be minimized. Conventional Alternative Oso Creek Impacts. Oso Creek has been channelized from south of the Corridor to north of Paseo de Colinas. Oso Creek does contain an established willow canopy near the proposed.:; Corridor. Wetlands (1.4 acres) occurring north of the channelized portion be impacted due to encroachment of the Corridor embankment (see Figure 4':7.1). Aliso Creek Impacts. Aliso Creek is a perennial stream, increasingly augmented by urban and irrigation runoff from upstream watershed development. A forested wetlands habitat exists west of Alicia Parkway along Aliso Creek. Impacts at this site are expected, to be minimal because the Corridor crosses a bridge over the creek i Within the actual crossing area, the band of riparian vegetati ori"""to" die" impacted is fairly narrow (0.7 acre) . El Toro Road Impacts. A narrow forested wetlands dominated by willow is located along E1 Toro Road, and broadens at the north edge of the proposed Corridor. The Corridor will cross E1 Toro Creek on a bridge. The bridge coverage and one of the interchange ramps WN impact 'acres of habitat. The section of E1 Toro Canyon through which the Corridor is proposed to cross has been significantly affected by urban development making wetlands determination within this area very complex. Recent road building associated with the flood retention structure to the east of the Creek has eliminated some wetlands. Downcutting of the stream has drained some areas. Although they are 4-74 1 1 t L t 1 I 1 1 r 1 J Corridor ROW SLOPE - LIMITS- - .-..��.. j4� rJ+• -�Y '✓ �✓?", �; „�\,�•��. +`" ".�y�u VCY pry, :� _, :.. _ a \ o . �� «i`r"^' T. ,,—ter..;.;+.:-'„: ` .` •( \ 4.8ac V. t: LEGEND 1 - Riverine intermittent Streambed 2 - Forested Wetland Area of Impact W��WSCALE IN FEET tU Potential Mitigation Site 0 420- 840 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - FIGURE 4.7.1 OSO CREEK CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE • RETAINING WALL 1 1.6ac 04 SLOPE LIMITS ..�0 U , �' •-- „ �" °'."�� •'._'"i. j F'''�� y . _ �� • ', MUNI" WALL 1 Corridor ROW &A Y� 1 1 4.1ac Aliso Creek �l S.Sac � ti LEGEND 2 - Forested Wetland ® Area of Impact HTE Potential Mitigation Site SCALE I N FEET 0 420 840 IMPACTS TO WETLANDS - FIGURE 4.7.2 ALISO CREEK 1� CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE LEGEND A - Dudleya Multicaulis C - Chorizanthe Staticoides Chrysacantha ® Area of Impact 'SCALE IN FEET rMl=:w" 0 420 840 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - FIGURE 4.7.3 PACIFIC PARK DRIVE CONVENTIONAL ' ALTERNATIVE Corridor ROW �O q�= X. —�_.��.♦..` ',:ems. .. •=o•",�.t z.i., , __. ,........ '��^';V-, ^••.,.w•:.:�`=�w •u x , OA' LEGEND g- 2 - Forested Wetlands 5 - Scrub/Shrub Wetland A - Dudleya Multicaulis Areas of Impact SCALE IN FEET 0 420 840 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - FIGURE 4.7.4 EL TORO ROAD/LAGUNA CANYON ROAD CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE 1 1 1 A 1 1 :C-1 co LEGEND A - Dudleya Multicaulis C - Chorizanthe Staticoides Chrysacantha SCALE IN FEET Area of Impact 0 420 Sao IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - FIGURE . 4.7.5 SAND CANYON AVENUE CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE Corridor ROW —^_ . . H.. .� ;Ho rA F LEGEND A - Dudleya Multicaulis E - Barn Owl F - Raptor Nesting Area H - California Gnatcatcher ® Area of Impact IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES EAST OF SAND CANYON AVENUE" CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE SCALE IN FEET Mmrmmml 0 420 840 FIGURE 4.7.6 190 NOT Ogg 0 Z V :0 Z 40 ZM ORO > pq,(I) m Z >O _U), qZE3 M rn z t> Mm m m ! (1)0(1) m 80 m CA C6 z rn 0 0 M m 0 z 25002. 0 cr a _ U) CD q CL Mm cr cD aCD 91) m (1) CD m m 03 cr CD CL r'o = > rn r-, 0 f7 0 w ID o=r p, l0 CD m CD CD < C/) SD+ F) .-* 0 0) 1 C 0 0 F; F . =r CL CD CD fi) 0 =r w IOD 51) m vo, Q Sol 0 0 rL =r Z 4, CD M CD 0 CD 0 -01 0 0 CD A'. 0 03 0 0 0 0) m CL 0 \V N", 0 =r CD CD CO) 0 CD 0 CL 0) 0 V_0 v CD T 0 v 0 Cl) CD r m CL 0 0 m m i still dominated by willow and such species as iris -leaved rush (Juncus xiphiodes), they no longer exhibit characteristics of wetlands hydrology. For this reason the remaining wetlands within the Canyon are restricted to the narrow band immediately. adjacent to the Creek and a small vegetated overflow channel Laguna Canyon Road Impacts. A narrow 1.1 acre band of scrub/shrub broad- leaved deciduous/.evergreen wetlands located along Laguna CanyonRoad inter- change will be impacted by the Corridor. This impacted area also be impacted by the proposed widening for Laguna Canyon Road. The -drainage has little flood control or groundwater recharge value; however, it is significant because of its relationship to the. drainage of Laguna Canyon and because,of its connection with the Laguna Lakes "'`;;x:. Bonita Canyon Reservoir Impacts. Grading #' remove approximately 1.0 acre of forested wetlands, 1.2 acres of scru6Jshrub..broad-leaved deciduous evergreen. wetlands, 0.4 acre of emergent/persistent marsh and 0.2 acre of riverine intermittent streambed for a total of approximately. 2.8 acres. Water in the wetlands of Bonita Canyon Reservoir'is derived from urban runoff' from Harbor View Knoll, San Joaquin Reservoir, Coyote Canyon drainage and upper Bonita Canyon. These wetlands provide a valuable vegetative com- munity and wildlife habitat, particularly for birds. An estimated ninety spe- cies of birds have been recorded at this location since 1.983. In addition, the reservoir traps sediments that otherwise would be deposited into San Diego Creek via Bonita Creek for ultimate disposal into the Newport Back Bay State Ecological Reserve. Bonita Canyon Reservoir is of significant value because of its functions, which include flood control, sediment control, groundwater recharge and wild- life habitat. The loss of wetlands habitats in the reservoir area is more significant than other habitat areas because of these significant habitat values, the historical size of the reservoir, its role in the watershed leading to Upper Newport Bay (a State Ecological .Reserve) and i.ts potential for enhan- cement and utilization as an educational/recreational resource. Bonita Creek Impacts. Approximately 0.3 acre of riverine intermittent streambed, 0.8 acre of forested wetlands and 0.1 acre scrub/shrub wetlands be removed from Bonita Creek. The riverine and scrub/shrub systems are disturbed and of lesser value than the forested wetlands habitat. The forested wetlands areas provide good habitat because of the mix of willow tree types. Bonita Creek provi.des some minor habitat and surface water for wildlife. San Diego Creek Channel Impacts. The Corridor z cross on a bridge over San Diego Creek. The lack of light beneath tie `bridge cause shading, impacting 4.1 acres of habitat underneath the bridge permanently. An additional 0.7 acre of forested wetlands would be impacted along Bonita Canyon Creek at its intersection with University Drive. Construction activity may also result in siltation flowing down San Diego Creek into Newport Back Bay. Refer to Section 4.18, Construction Impacts, for a discussion of siltation control for project construct ion areas. 4-82 Surface Runoff Effects. Storm water runoff coming from the Corridor t impact all wetlands cited above, as well as others not directly impacted during grading or construction. Collection systems W* *d" concentrate runoff in natural drainages or channels and storm drains along..fe*Corridor. Alteration of natural drainage from Corridor construction may modify the riparian plant communities by either reducing or increasing waterflow in certain drainages. Erosion in stream channels may be moderately increased due to runoff during periods of heavy rainfall, leading to scouring of vegetation in the water- course, drainage subarea or swale. Erosion impacts are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.12. Other runoff effects include pollutants as discussed in section 4.3. Demand Management Alternative The Demand Management Alternative has a slightly reduced cross section, but follows the same alignment' as the Conventional Alternative. Impacts of both alternatives on vegetation, wildlife and wildlife dispersion would be the same. The differences in acreage impacts are provided in Table 4.7.A, and impacts are illustrated in Figures 15 through 18 in the Biological Technical Studies document. TABLE 4.7.A - WETLANDS IMPACTS IN ACRES FOR DESIGN ALTERNATIVES LOCATION ALTERNATIVE Conventional Demand Management San Diego Creek Bonita Creek 4.8 acres 5.2 acres 1.2 0.8 Bonita Cyn. Reservoir3 2.8 2.9 Laguna Canyon Road 1.1 0.9 E1 Toro Road 3.2 3.3 Aliso Creek 0.7 0.7 Oso Creek 1.4 0.0 TOTALS 1 With exception of connection at I-5. r acres 13.8 acres Road. z Excludes 4.8 acres wetlands affected by construction of Pelican Hill 3 Excludes 4.0 acres of wetlands affected by construction of Pelican Hill Road. 4-83 11 a I I � The Demand Management Alternative crosses the concrete channel portion of Oso Creek which does not contain any significant wetlands areas. Therefore, the Demand Management Alternative does not impact any wetlands habitat at Oso Creek. Analysis of Feasible Alternatives As required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Biological Techni- cal Studies document contains alternatives analyses which have been conducted as part of both Phase I and Phase II of the Corridor project. These analyses are -also required by CEQA to determine whether any of the previously considered alternatives qualify as practicable alternatives which have less adverse impacts on wetlands habitat. The alternatives analysis is contained in the Biological Technical Studies document and summarized below. Phase I Non -Alignment Alternatives. EIR No. 267 analyzed non -alignment alternatives to the Corridor, concluding, that none of the alternatives are, considered practicable. These non -alignment alternatives included alternative land use concepts, widening of I-405, downgrading the Corridor to a surface arterial, and connection of the Corridor to I-5 via Oso Parkway. Phase I Alignment Alternatives. EIR No. 267 evaluated 28 alternative route segments in four sectors (west, central, east central, and east). Appen- dix B of DEIR No. 494 contains the results of the alignment analyses. Each of the alternative alignments failed to achieve the overall purposes of the pro- posed project, particularly -in terms of improved traffic congestion and mini- mization of impacts on existing developments. An area by area comparison of impacts to wetlands created by the alternative alignments is provided as follows. Bonita Creek/San Diego Creek Drainage. All alternative alignments would create similar impacts to Bonita Creek drainage. The Corridor will cross San Diego Creek via a bridge, however, impacts will occur to wetlands habitat during construction and as a result of the shadow effect of the bridge. Bonita Canyon Reservoir. The alternative alignments are considered to have much greater impacts and related costs than the proposed alignment. Pelican Hill Road. All but one alternative alignment would have identical impacts to 'intermittent wetlands resources adjacent to the proposed Pelican Hill Road/Culver Drive interchange with the Corridor. The other alter- native would be infeasible due to its closer proximity to Harbor Ridge and Spyglass Hill communities and its overlay into the Coyote Canyon Landfill. Laguna Canyon Road. Alignment alternatives would Intersect the Laguna ridgeline and planned permanent open space. areas and would be in close proximity to the Laguna Lakes. The proposed alignment minimizes impacts to areas to be dedicated as permanent open space. E1 Toro Road. Alignment alternatives would impact larger wetlands areas of greater quality than the proposed alignment. 1 4-84 1 Aliso Creek. All Phase I alignment alternatives and the proposed project alignment would avoid long-term impacts to Aliso Creek by the proposed bridge span of the Corridor over the creek. Oso Creek. Three alternatives in the Oso Creek area were analyzed in EIR No. 267. All three alternatives would include bridging of the creek, resulting in varying impacts to residential and commercial properties. Phase II Alignment Alternatives. Phase II alignment alternatives consist of refinements of the preferred alignment evaluated in the Phase I EIR. The proposed alignment through Bonita Canyon (termed Alternative R in DEIR No. 494) was developed to limit wetlands taking to the minimum amount feasible. The proposed alignment has been discussed and coordinated with CDFG, USFWS, FHWA, Caltrans, UCI, City of Irvine, City of Newport Beach and County of Orange, and the alignment reduces wetlands impacts at the Bonita Canyon Reservoir signifi- cantly (by 52%) compared to another alternative (Alternative U of DEIR No. 494) which would have reduced impacts to UCI property. In addition, the Demand Management Alternative would save an additional 1.7 acres of wetlands at Oso Creek. Given the proposed project, complete avoidance is not considered feasible and wetlands impacts are, therefore, unavoidable. Even with implementation of the Alternative R alignment through Bonita Canyon (DEIR No. 494) and the Demand Management alignment at I-5 remaining wetlands impacts are significant and will require mitigation. Alternative Cross Sections. Some of the alternative cross section desig- ns for the Corridor (DEIR No. 494) would have provided narrower medians than those currently proposed and were considered for reduction of impacts to wetlands areas. However, it was determined that the overall benefit from these design alterations would have been marginal in terms of avoiding wetlands acreage and resulting benefits in habitat value. Use of the term "marginal" here means that differences between the various designs are small relative to the overall total impact to wetlands. The amount of change in the total acre- age for all the wetlands would be too small to be accurately calculated. In comparison, the reduced capacity of these alternative designs would reduce the overall traffic operational capacity of the Corridor and, thus, would not meet the project goals and objectives. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Goals. Based on the USFWS' Mitigation Policy statement (Fed- eral Register Vol.46, No. 15, January 23, 1981) for Category 2 (wetlands) habi- tats, the concomitant mitigation goal is no net loss of in -kind habitat value. Coordination regarding 404 Permit Application and 1601 Agreement require- ments for the Corridor with USFWS and CDFG personnel was initiated in August, 1988. Additional coordination meetings will continue during public review of the DEIR/EIS. Acquisition of wetlands in fee title or easement with subsequent habitat improvements is one step toward offsetting wetlands losses. 4-85 t 1 i i I I t I Replacement Site Requirements. The applications for 1601 Agreement require a detailed Mitigation Plan. Resource to be contacted in conjunction with the design of the plan. acreage, location and value of the replacement site will be the 404 Permit and agencies will need Actual replacement determined through -, ................... t ................... I ..................................... z, pe1 evaluate the following options: 7-1 Impacts to wetlands areas within the Corridor will be replaced 7-2 Wetlands areas within the Corridor area, not impacted by project construction, will be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) on construction plans and fenced off as appropriate for pro- tection before any Corridor construction begins. 7-3 During the process of obtaining the required permits for encroach- ment into habitat areas (1601/404), the TCA will prepare a wetlands mitigation Plan and w�11 coordinate e with the affe cted resource c agencies CDFG USFWS and 9 ( �:J::::�.:.'�:Y::�:i#�*�;.��.:�.s�t� Mitigation replacement or enhancement will result in`iio net`loss of wetlands. Guidelines for site selection will include: 1. The sites selected will be evaluated for their suitability for use as riparian habitat mitigation areas. As described above, the parameters evaluated will include, but not be limited to, soil condition, hydro logy (current water avail- ability), geology and drainage considerations, level of dif- ficulty of site preparation, designation for particular land uses, and the archaeological and historical sensitivity of the site; a descri-ption of potential mitigation sites is included in the Alternatives Analysis in the Biological Tech- nical Studies document and illustrated in Figure 4.7.6; 2. Maintenance and monitoring goals will be established that are compatible with mitigation 3. The components and implementation of the wetlands mitigation plan will include the following: a) A set of objectives for site selection and habitat replacement; 4-86 1 11 b) Implementation specifications for vegetation types to be replaced, size and spacing of vegetation, irrigation techniques and soil treatments; and c) Maintenance and monitoring specifications including re- quirements for site maintenance, terms of maintenance, frequency of monitoring, financing mechanisms, perfor- mance standards and documentation of the implementation program. 7- 4 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within the project right of way will be mapped. Protective fencing will be installed around the ESAs as deemed appropriate by the Project Biologists to prevent trespassing into the ESAs. 7-5 Unnecessary driving in sensitive or otherwise undisturbed areas shall be avoided. The creation of new construction roads where adequate access already exists will be avoided. 7-6 Removal of native shrub or brush shall be avoided, except where necessary. 7-7 Where possible, the above ground portion of vegetation will be crushed instead of blading or ripping the root zone. Roots of many native shrubs will resprout, providing for quicker recovery of the vegetation. 7-8 Entry into drainages shall be avoided, except where required for construction. Activity within drainages will be limited to cross- ing drainages rather than using the lengths of drainage courses for access. 7-9 Excess fill shall not be dumped in washes. 7-10 Vehicles or equipment shall not be parked in washes or other drain- ages. 7-11 Overwatering shall be avoided in washes and other drainages. 7-12 Construction activities will be limited in nesting areas during raptor nesting season. These areas will be determined and mapped by a qualified raptor specialist prior to construction. No clearing will be conducted in identified nesting areas between January and August. 7-13 Wildlife will not be harassed. Harassment includes chasing, shoot- ing, collection, etc. Enforcement of this measure will be coordi- nated by the Project Biologist. 7-14 Coordination with personnel from CDFG, USFWS, COE, County of Or- ange, UCI and Caltrans will take place during the preparation of the plan. 4-87 III I ai 1 III �I I I I 1-1 1 7-15 Where cut and fill slopes encroach on wetlands habitats the slope P � P angles will be designed to be as steep as feasible to minimize ` lateral encroachment. 7-16 Graded material spoils will not be placed or stored near any ri_par- A ian woodland area. 7-17 Removal of streamside or bank vegetation will be avoided wherever possible, and the amount of habitat removed will be limited to the minimum required for construction. 7-18 Except where infeasible, construction improvements will be made along riparian areas during dry weather, and watercourses will be bisected at right angles to minimize damage to biotic resources. 7-19 Significant increases in peak downstream runoff rates caused by the - Corridor will be controlled through implementation of water control devices to decrease scouring effects in the environmentally sensi- tive areas of Bonita, Bommer, Laurel, _Laguna and Wood Canyons. 7-20 Project design measures will maintain water flow to all drain- age/wetlands areas downstream of the project. NO W. �ILTERNATIVE The No`iAl tern ati ve assumes that construction of the proposed Cor- ridor will not occur. Consequently, no significant impacts to_wetlands as - identified herein would occur. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Upon full and successful implementation of project mitigation, all im- pacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. t n 1 I i 1 4-88 R 4.8 LAND USE Except where noted, the following discussion applies to both build alter- natives, and addresses checklist item numbers 25, 30, 31, 32 and 40 as ref- erenced in Table 4.1.B. Analyses in this section are focused on the proposed Corridor's compati- bility with existing land uses in the project vicinity and the Corridor's con- sistency with planned land uses for the same area. Corridor consistency with planned land uses is assessed in light of the land use goals and policies con- tained in the applicable jurisdiction's General Plan or Special Program (i.e., a Local Coastal Program). Land use compatibility can be linked to other potential �>�'��: environmental impacts (i.e, air quality, noise and visual impacts).For.::exam- ::..:..:....::. p e, if an existing development located along the Corridor alignment .tt` exposed to noise levels above established standards, this ti ': 'i? bo d constitute a :sI>#;land use impact as well as a noise impact. For this reason, the reader is :#Preferred to Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.9, 4.15 and Appendix A (Air Quality;��Noise, Housing and Business Relocation, Visual Re- s:ources... and Section .4.(f.)..... respectively)___ for _detailed impact assessment. ' Generally, the proposed project involves the conversion of vacant land and some urban land uses to a transportation facility. City of San Juan Capistrano The proposed Corridor is referenced in the City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan as existing I-5. The t genera1 land use goals and policies indicate the desire to "preserve tfie"present character of a small self-con- tained village -like community". An indication of this desire is the City's commitment to developing primarily medium to low density new residential uses and buffering such uses from adverse affects such as noise and air quality impacts (Land Use Element, p. 10). Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. Existing land uses ad- jacent to the proposed Corridor include medium high density residential (8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)) and agriculture uses west of the Corridor alignment and medium/low density residential, open space and agriculture uses east of the Corridor alignment (see Figure 3.7.1). Potential land use impacts # be confined to the narrow right-of-way of existing I-5. Most of this area is designated by the City's General Plan as a "noise impact area", meaning existing conditions result in ongoing land use impacts to adjacent uses. Mitigation measures contained in Section 4.5, Noise:,,.. 01 ` existing and: .::reduce ., project:_. related noise levels to within standardseiR b i;heT saei�a The proposed Corridor wt` impact existing housing and businesses requiring relocation of such uses. These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.9, Housing and Business Relocation. 4-89 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I T The Corridor ;. ''` '`' .,. compatible ati bl a with existi-ng adjacent land uses, with the exception of th6ii im"p'acts discussed in Section 4.9, Housing and Business Relocation,. providing noise impact mitigation i-s implemented as discussed in Section 4.5 Noise. The compl:etetaki,ng.:ofthose businesses and a residence by theCorridori. as alignment10. 9...::::.:.::::::.:.:........:.....::....:..........::..:::.:..:.:::::::.:::..:..::::::::..:::....».<....::.:::::.,..:....:::.:..:..:. identified in Section 4.10,`taltd:;..;' ::...#t� considered i..............:.:....::::::::......... incompatible and represents sign ificant'unavoidable adverse 1`arid 'use impacts. Corridor Consistency with Future Land Uses. The planned land uses within portions of the City of San Juan Capistrano adjacent to the Corridor are illus- trated generally 1.1 Figure 3.7.1. Future land uses include the conversion of existing open space and agricultural land east and west of the Corridor to medium density residential and commercial/industri'a.l uses. The majority of the future commercial/industrial uses be located adjacent to the Corridor acting as a land use buffer between7*1*tieCorridor and future residential uses. The segment of the Corridor 1%`the City, of San Juan Capistrano is confined to the existing I-5 right-of-way: The City has determined that land adjacent to this right-of-way "does not favor a variety of 1-ower intensive uses, with the exception of medium to high density residential" uses (Land Use Element, p. 17). For this reason, the City has planned the -more intensive commercial/industrial and residential land uses for this area. The Corridor is consistent with these planned land uses in that its alignment and thus, poten= tial impacts coincide with the existing IS as identified_ in the City's General Plan Land Use Map.. City of Mission Viejo The City of Mission Viejo recently incorporated and has not yet completed its General Plan (Mary Annala, City of Mission Viejo, April 10, 1990). The City has adopted County of Orange land use designations -as an interim Land Use Plan which is augmented by the Mission Viejo Planned Community Development Plan (Component III, Orange County Land Use Element). It is expected that the Corridor will be referenced in the City's fi.nal,Gen.eral Plan as passing through the City of Mission Viejo along its western boundary until the Corridor diverg- es from I-5 and bridges Camino Capistrano, Oso Creek and the AT&SF Railroad. Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. sion Viejo, the CorridorJ. I`Ladjacent to exisi uses to the east. It is County po7`icy to locate major commercial and industria'1`centers Nellie Gail Ranch Within the City of Mis- North of Crown Valley Parkway, the Corridor passes through Nellie Gail Ranch. This area lies within unincorporated Orange County, and is currently built out. Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. The existing Nellie Gail residential community (low to medium density residential) is located north of Crown Valley Parkway and east of the proposed Corridor. The Corridor passes through a 250 foot right-of-way along the southwest edge of the Nellie Gail Ranch property, which has been designated for the proposed Corridor. The Tract Map and subsequent modifications to this map for the Nellie Gail Ranch were ap- proved by Orange County, showing the alignment of the proposed Corridor. In that the Nellie Gail Ranch Tract Map wasment,....approyed based on the Corridor ali n- .. .: :::i::: '''' ::. :: ': :^i;:' :i".:'•:ii;;r..., .; ..: .:. ..: {: ::'.:}:?•; :: i:':;•i;•i• ::.. r..i ?: ..:...: ..: ..: ..."{: •i:�?:::r:.: •f'':• •• ?:::::�: i;.;>:?tiff}{4.4• };p:.r. i:.?•iv'•;• y{vv: •.i {': }:4:', the Corrico4s1dered compaw1th ad3acent residential lane uses, despite the�•`si`gnifi'cant unavoidable adverse visual impact identified in Section 4.15. City of Laguna Niguel As Orange County's newest incorporated city, Laguna Niguel has not yet completed preparation of its General Plan. In the interim, the City has adopt- ed County of Orange land use designations, augmented by the adopted Laguna Niguel Planned Community Development Plan (telephone communication, Alan Rubin, City of Laguna Niguel, 3/23/90). Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses . ' "#'j'``'i'`'''the g............;:.;:.;,::g.....:::.::.:.. Corridor passes the Colinas de Capistrano residential`"66ifimunity.... southwest' of Crown Valley Parkway. The Colinas de Capistrano community plan for the 1,180 acre property provides for 2,807 dwelling units and provides right-of-way for the proposed Corridor to pass over the eastern edge of the property near Oso 4 - 91 I Creek. Providing noise:: mitigation measures contained in Section 4.5 are imple- mented, the Corridor tiird� compatible with the existing residential uses. The majority of this segment of the Corridor (i.e., from Crown Valley Parkway to Moulton Boulevard) passes through existing medium -low to medium density residential uses (see Figure 3.7.1). The Corridor'€`{compatible with these existing land uses providing mitigation measures' iri"Section 4.5, Noise, are implemented. Before entering the Aliso Viejo Planned Community, the Corridor passes through the remaining area of the Laguna Niguel Planned Community 9 consistin of existing commercial/industrial and high density residential uses. According to the Orange County Land Use Element, the Corridor >represent a compatible land ,use relative to the commercial/industrial uses"('Implementation Policies, LU-5-2.5) With implementation of appropriate noise and visual mitigation (see Sections 4.5 and 4.15) the Corridor also compatible -with the existing high density residential uses. North of the Corridor's interchange with Moulton Parkway, the project alignment passes through existing development in the Country Village Planned Community. A small developed parcel of medium density res,identi.al uses is found west of the Corridor, south of La Paz Road. Implementation of noise and visual mitigation measures contained in Sections 4.5 and 4.15,-respectively, go ensure project compatibility with existing residential uses. Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. As illustrated in Figure 3.7.1, the City's interim General Plan provides for , future commer- cial/industrial uses west of the proposed Corridor, approximately between Crown. Valley Parkway and Moulton Parkway. These planned land uses are part of the County Village Planned Community. The approved County Village Planned Communi- ty Area Plan includes the proposed Corridor and the development plan contains mitigation measures for noise and visual resources relative to the Corridor. Because of these development plan provisions, the proposed Corridor 501.`V<6 consistent with adjacent future land uses within the City of Laguna Niguel:°''` Aliso Viejo Planned Community North of Moulton Parkway and south of La Paz Road the Corridor enters the Aliso Viejo Planned Community. The County's General Plan and the adopted Aliso Viejo Planned Community Development Plan are the applicable planning documents for this area. The Corridor is referenced in the Development Plan as passing through or adjacent to Planning Areas 2, 3, 10, 11, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 41, 50, 51, 61 and 63. 11 Corridor Compatibility_With Existinq Land Uses. From south to north through this Planned Community, the Corridor passes through existing commer- cial/industrial, high density residential, dedicated open space.(Aliso Creek), more high density residential and. finally. commercial/industrial land uses. i 4-92 I The Corridor compatible with the urban development identified above (Orange County`Land` Use Element, Implementation Policies, LU-5-2.5), providing mitigation measures presented in Sections 4.5, Noise, and 4.15, Visual Resources, are implemented relative to the residential uses. Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. Future build out of the Aliso Viejo Planned Community includes the addition of low -medium density residential uses adjacent to the proposed Corridor (see Figure 3.7.1). Area Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract Maps have been approved for all development areas adjacent to the proposed Corridor in Aliso Viejo. As part of the approval process, these projects were subject to conditions of approval as outlined by individual Final Tentative Tract Map Reports on file with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. These conditions provide for future mitiga- tion of noise and visual impacts to ensure land use consistency with internal and surrounding land uses. Providing these previous conditions of approval are implemented as part of the future development of the Aliso Viejo Planned Commu- nity and because the Corridor alignment is included in the adopted Area Plan, the Corridor Om"consistent with the adjacent land uses planned for this area. City of Laguna Beach The Corridor grading limits are depicted in the City's General Plan as intersecting the City of Laguna Beach in the Sycamore Hills area between El Toro Road and Laguna Canyon Road for approximately3_,000 feet (see Figure 3.7.1) . Right-of-way for the Corridor alignment be obtained from the City as provided in an escrow agreement between tfii�tity and Orange County (acting as a member agency for the TCA). From the 130 acre option, the County #" create the right-of-way for the proposed Corridor and permanent open space west of the Corridor. Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. Existing land use in the Corridor vicinity is high density residential, located approximately 1,000 feet east of the project alignment and the Sycamore Hills Open Space. Impacts to the Sycamore Hills Open Space are discussed in Appendix A, 4(f). Because of the distance between the residential development and the proposed Corridor, and provided visual and noise mitigationmeasures contained in Sections 4.15 and ::: 4.5 are implemented, the Corridor compatible with the nearby resi- dential uses. Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. Future land uses for this area include commercial/industrial, located west of and adjacent to the Cor- ridor, north of E1 Toro Road and additional commercial/industrial uses east of the Corridor (see Figure 3.7.1). Due to the inclusion of the Corridor align- ment on the City's adopted General Plan Land Use Map, the proposed project @am consistent with planned land uses in this area. Unincorporated Orange County Between El Toro Road and Bonita Canyon Drive North of Laguna Canyon Road, the Corridor enters a large portion of unin- corporated Orange County land and does not exit this land until the Corridor interchange with future Bonita Canyon Drive. 4-93 I 0 Corridor ComRatibility With Existing Land Uses. Figure 3.7.1 shows that the existing land use adjacent to the Corridor in this area includes open space/recreational uses (i.e., Crystal Cove State Park and Bommer Canyon Park) and vacant land. Corridor compatibility with these existing uses is addressed - in Appendix A, 4(f). Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. Future land uses in this large area of unincorporated Orange County include the proposed Laguna Laurel Planned Community (low -medium density residential and Laguna Ridges and ,Laguna Canyon open spaces), the approved Irvine Coast Planned Community (low -medium density residential, tourist/commercial and Irvine Coast Wilderness Park open space uses) and low -medium density residential, open space and retail/commercial uses designated by the proposed San Joaquin Hills Planned Community. The portion of the proposed Laguna Laurel development adjacent to the Corridor, between Laguna: Canyon Road and future Sand Canyon Avenue includes only open space M. uses (i.e., Laguna Canyon Open Space to the west and Laguna Rid es to ' en S c t g g p pa a he east). It should -be noted that as a pro- posed condition of approval for the Laguna Laurel development, the County of Orange is to complete a.Park Implementation Plan (PIP) to determine the actual future use of the Laguna Laurel dedicated open space. In accordance with provisions contained in the Laguna Laurel Development Agreement (DA 88-7), Corridor right-of-way through this planned open space :t<irrevocably offered for dedication. Because the Corridor alignment is in=in the adopted Laguna Laurel Area Plan, the proposed,project considered consistent with future Laguna Laurel land uses. Future Irvine Coast Planned Community and proposed San Joaquin Hills Planned Community land uses in the Corridor vicinity include low -medium density residential uses and open space/recreational uses (i.e., Buck Gully, Los Tran- cos Canyon and City of Irvine Open Space). The Development Agreement (DA 87-16) for the approved Irvine Coast Planned Community contains provisions which require Corridor right-of-way dedication. Conditions of approval for this Planned Community include measures to mitigate potential Corridor land use impacts ,(i.e., noise and vi.sual mitigation). Pro- viding these conditions of approval are, implemented and because the project alignment is included in the Development Plan for this Planned Community, the Corridor i�t consistent with adjacent approved Irvine Coast Planned Com- munity land•' use designations. Regarding the proposed San Joaquin Hills Planned Community, an EIR is cur- rently being prepared which includes the Corridor in its analyses of environ- mental impacts (i.e., noise and visual impacts). Any inconsistencies between the proposed Corridor and adjacent medium density residential and open space uses be ameliorated with conditions placed upon the proposed Planned Commun'ty•per the County of Orange Standard Conditions of Approval. Assuming future implementation of appropriate Conditions of Approval (i.e., standard noise mitigation measures), the proposed Corridor €k consistent with the proposed San Joaquin Hills Planned Community land use•`designations. 4-94 V City of Irvine As referenced in the City's General Plan, the Corridor enters the City of Irvine south of the Coyote Canyon Landfill and continues north for three and one-half miles past UCI before leaving the City near the San Diego Creek Chan- nel (see Figure 3.7.1). The City's General Plan Land Use Element contains policies stating that "compatible land uses" shall be located adjacent to one another, but "compatibility" is not defined. The Land Use Element, instead, defers compatibility determination to policies contained in related elements (i.e., air quality and noise elements). corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. The proposed project WOO result in the following impacts to existing land uses: elimination of a portion of the Bonita Canyon Reservoir, conversion of a 31 acre agricultural area along Bonita Canyon Road containing approximately five acres of agri- cultural "prime farmland," elimination of Bonita Canyon Drive by the Corridor's proposed alignment and re -alignment of Ford Road northerly and MacArthur Boule- vard easterly (by crossing under the proposed Corridor). Bonita Canyon Reser- voir impacts are discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Impacts; the loss of farmland is discussed under the Agricultural Lands subheading of this Section; and the elimination of Bonita Canyon Drive and re -alignment of Ford Road and MacArthur Boulevard is discussed in Section 4.16, Circulation/Parking. Provid- ing mitigation measures contained in the above referenced discussions are implemented, the Corridor within the City of Irvine. Nowcompatible with adjacent existing land uses The east side of the Corridor from Fairchild Road to Jamboree Road is currently developed with office and business/industrial uses. Projected noise levels (with Corridor) at this site are consistent with the land use noise com- patibility criteria established by the City for this type of noise receptor (City Noise Element). The Corridor's consistency with the above criterion and the fact that the Corridor is included on the City's General Plan Land Use Map results in Corridor consistency .with the City's Land Use Implementing Action A- l.f. Thus, the Corridor v+ compatible with the land uses in this area. Corridor Consistency with Future Land Uses. Within the City of Irvine, the Corridor continues north through an area planned for future medium and medium -high density residential development (see Figure 3.7.1). Medium density residential uses (5 to 10 du/ac) are designated for the area along Ford Road west of the Corridor. With appropriate mitigation (i.e., application of the City's Standard Conditions of Approval) included in any future development of this land use (i.e., setbacks and berms to mitigate potential air quality, noise and visual resource impacts), the proposed project Vic' consistent with the proposed land uses in this area. Continuing north, the Corridor runs along the boundary of a proposed regional park in Bonita Canyon and an area designated for medium and medium - high density residential and general institutional uses. As discussed above, application of the City's Standard Conditions of Approval to future development in this area Old mitigate potential Corridor impacts (i.e., noise). For this reason and because the Corridor alignment is included on the City's adopted 4-95 F1 Genera l, Plan Land Use Map, the proposed Corridor consistent with future City of Irvine General Plan land use designations:````` University of California. Irvine (UCI) The University's Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) is expected to include a potential daytime population of 40,000 persons on the campus, including 30,000 students and 10,000 faculty and support staff, and the additional em- ployee base generated by the proposed research and development facilities. The proposed Corridor alignment is included in the University's LRDP and presented as a mitigation measure in the EIR (STA, Inc., 1989) prepared for the Plan. Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. Since UCI land adjacent to the Corridor is currently undeveloped, land use impacts to current uses t limited to the intrusion of the Corridor's alignment (approximately 2016-300 `feet) onto UCI property near the Bonita Canyon Reservoir. This align- ment adjustment is proposed in order to minimize impacts on the reservoir and wetland habitat (see Section 4.6, Biological Impacts) associated with the reservoir. The benefits of the Corridor providing a second major entry to the campus are reviewed in Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need. Because existing UCI land uses are not located near the Corridor and because the improved campus access provided by the CorridorV.#'t consistent with goals,of the University's LRDP, the proposed project compatible with existing UCI land uses. Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. Planned UCI land uses in the Corridor vicinity call for no development on the grassland and chaparral cov- ered hills interfacing with the proposed project. This open space buffer is provided by the LRDP in acknowledgement of the potential noise and visual impactsassociated with the proposed Corridor. Thus, the proposed project consistent with future UCI land uses. City of Newport Beach The Corridor project ends in the City of Newport Beach where SR-73 pres- ently intersects with Birch Street. Approximately 2,400 feet of the Corridor lies in the City of Newport Beach. The Corridor is included in the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways (MPSH). l$ga x. NrovIgi.pg..miaigation measures contained in Sections 4.5'and 4.15� IVoi se and' Ui sual f)"5, are implemented, the proposed Corridor 't'€'' compatible with this existing land use. Existing commercial, office and retail uses are on both sides of the proposed Corridor north of San Diego Creek. Since SR-73 currently exists along the project alignment in this area, the... P.m Corridort€ represent a "continuation" of an existing use and consi dered compatl bl a with the existing adjacent land uses. Now considered I At the boundary between the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine, the Corridor crosses over the San Diego Creek Channel. Potential impacts to the floodplain/riparian areas in the channel are discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.6 and 4.7 (Water Resources, Biological Resources and Wetlands). Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. North of the San Diego Creek Channel "Governmental, Educational and Institutional" uses are provided by the City's Land Use Plan. This area is reserved primarily for public works purpos- es (freeway loop ramp and/or park and ride facility) with secondary land uses of retail and service commercial and professional offices. The alignment and construction of the Corridor tik require right-of-way acquisition of much of this area. The use of the north side of San Diego Creek for the proposed Corridor ? compatible with the public works reserve. Applicable Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) The proposed Corridor t`-1intersect, or adjacent to three areas within the coastal zone boundary: These areas are"' s follows: • Corridor t€ adjacent to coastal zone boundary south of E1 Toro Road; ..... . • Corridor i'��` intrude into coastal zone adjacent to Crystal Cove State Park;:::rand • Corridor intrude into coastal zone at San Diego Creek near the southeasterly and of Upper Newport Bay (see Figure 3.7.1). These areas of the coastal zone fall under land use regulations contained in the following LCPs: the Aliso Creek LCP, the Irvine Coast LCP and the cities of Irvine and Newport Beach LCPs. Each LCP includes an adopted Land Use Plan (LUP) which designates land uses within the Planning Unit. For purposes of this discussion, Corridor consistency with applicable LCPs assessed against the relevant adopted LUP .................. Aliso Creek LUP. The Aliso Creek LCP Land Use Plan LUP was certified b the California Coastal Commission on September 25, 1984. The proposed Corridor # adjacent to the Aliso Creek coastal zone boundary near the Aliso Creed Planning Unit. The Corridor #'not intrude into the coastal zone (Source: Aliso Viejo Planned Community"`Development Plan, 3rd Revised Zone Change, 83-23P). Irvine Coast LUP. The Corridor Wi iintersect the northern limits of the coastal zone near Crystal Cove State""park"and y therefore, subject to policies contained in the Irvine Coast Local Co*astal*"**"Program (LCP). The Land Use Plan (LUP) for the LCP was adopted by Orange County in September, 1987. The LCP was adopted by Orange County in December, 1987, and subsequently certi- fied by the California Coastal Commission in January, 1988. The intersected portion of the coastal zone is designated by the LUP as "LD", low density residential (0-1 du/ac), and lies adjacent to Crystal Cove State Park. The LUP specifies that the LD category provide large lot single family residences, with emphasis on landscaping and minimal ground alteration. 4-97 r t The Circulation Element of the LCP or j ma acknowledges additions g � itions to the regional transportation network, including the Corridor. The LUP depicts the Corridor alignment as intersecting the northern limits of the Coastal Zone. Further, the LUP Development Policies (i.e., I-4.30.18a), accommodate the Corri- dor by allowing "grading and construction for the San Joaqui-n Hills Transporta- tion Corridor... located in PA2C and PA6..." In light of the LUP policy provision identified above, the Corridor ;tip consistent with the general goals and policies contained in the adopted Irvine Coast LCP. City of Irvine LUP. All Corridor alternatives 1�*"cross the portion of the San Diego Creek Channel which lies wi-thin the coastanone boundary between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, near the northeasterly end of Upper Newport Bay. The portion of the coastal zone within the City of Irvine is currently built out with office park uses which are consistent with the LCP land use designations. The City of Irvine addresses coastal zone development in its Zoning Ordinance (E.8.15), which states that the LCP -Land Use Plan is the same as the City's General Plan Land Use Map which includes the proposed Corridor. Therefore, the Corridor err consistent with the land uses within this portion of the coastal zone. City of Newport Beach LUP. The Corridor is included in the City's MPSH. The City of Newport Beach LCP (certified by the California Coastal Commission January, 1990) contains a circulation policy which states that the LCP Circula- tion System Plan is the same as the City of Newport Beach Master Plan of Streets and Highways. (MPSH).} The City's MPSH includes the Corridor alignment. As such, the proposed project 'r consistent with the City of Newport Beach LCP land use plan. Section 4:7,'"Wetland Impacts, indicates that a narrow portion of scrub/shrub wetland is impacted by the proposed Corridor alignment along Bonita Creek near the San Diego Creek Channel. Mitigation measures are presented in Section 4.7 which reduce this impact to a level below signifi- cance-. Agricultural Lands Figure 3.7.1 shows the proposed Corridor alignment with respect to exist- ing farmlands identified by the State Department of Conservation. The proposed Corridor passes over and adjacent to existing "prime farmland" near Bonita Canyon Drive (approximately 31 acre site, five acres of prime farmland). This farmland owned by The Irvine Company historically has been Teased for vegetable and strawberry crops. Approximately seven acres of this site are now leased by the Irvine Company and used to grow Christmas trees. The terms of the lease agreement include a clause that, upon commencement of the construction of the Corridor, any plantings made in this area will not be harvested. Although five acres of the 31 acres is designated by the State as prime farmland, the entire site is planned for manufacturing/research, regional park and estate density residential uses in the City of Irvine General Plan Land Use Element. There- fore, the identified agricultural area is anticipated to be developed with other uses" regardless of the proposed Corridor. This site t`be impacted by grading and construction associated with all of the propose"Ttern,atives, the necessary realignment of MacArthur Boulevard; construction of Bison Avenue and 4-98 5 I related on and off -ramps. The five acres of prime farmland lost represents approximately two percent of the average farm unit in Orange County. The size of the average farm unit in Orange ::County ::}is 288 acres (Soil Conservation Services). No other prime farmland ' impacted by the proposed align- ment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services (SCS) has been contacted to determine the suitability of the 31-acre area site for pro- tection under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). Guidelines for identifying prime, unique, State or locally important farmland were issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, effective August, 1984. Pursuant to these guidelines, a Farmland Conversion Impact rating form was completed determine -to the value of the prime farmland to be affected (see Appendix ). The SCS determined that the prime farmland had a relative value of 95 points on a scale from 0-100. Site assessment criteria were applied, and the site received a rating of 25 points out of a maximum of 160 points. Therefore, the entire site received a combined score of 120 points out of a possible combined total of 260 points. According to Section 658.4 of 7 CFR 658, "evaluations which receive a total score of less than 160 points will be given a minimal level of consider- ation for protection." Therefore, the farmland affected by the Corridorrt' j not a significant loss of prime agricultural soil under the prov'= lions of"the FPPA. The loss of agricultural land resulting from the Corridor go not 00 considered a significant adverse impact. Impacts on Access to Parks and Recreationiften Space Areas As noted in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, and Corridort#provide im- proved access to a number of park and recreation/open space' areas in south Orange County. The access benefits are discussed below. Newport Beach Harbor and Beach Areas. The Corridor ?1provide a new access route for south County and other inland residents IF" fie Newport Beach area via the San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boulevard connection and via Jamboree Road. For south County residents in particular, the San Joaquin Hills Road/MacArthur Boulevard connection @Wal1ow these residents to bypass weekend congestion on SR-1 or a long detour via I-405 to reach Newport Beach recreational areas. In turn, this use of the Corridor i#Whelp relieve congestion on SR-1. Corona del Mar Beaches. The Corridor '`enhance access for south County residents and residents of inland areas to...t`fi'e Corona del Mar beaches via the Pelican Hill Road connection. As in the case of the Newport Beach recreational access reviewed above, this connection d. allow for a bypass of congested areas on SR-1 without necessitating a long�'�detour via I-405, thereby reducing regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as well. 16.000 Acre Laguna Greenbelt Regional Open Space. This greenbelt in- cludes: existing Crystal Cove State Park, Aliso Greenbelt at El Toro Road and Aliso/Wood Canyon Regional Park; and planned Buck Gully/Los Trancos Canyon Regional Open Space, Laurel Canyon/Irvine Coast Wilderness Park and Laguna Canyon Ridge Open Space. The Corridor has been planned in such a way as to maximize public recreational access to each of the major components of this 4-99 1 I extensive regional open space system. This diverse greenbelt area is within a 9 P P Y one to two hour drive of over seven million -residents of the metropolitan area who will have the ability to access this recreational area by means of freeways linked to the Corridor. Laguna Beach. The City of Laguna Beach and its beaches are major - recreational attractions of regional significance. The -Corridor would provide for recreational access via Pelican Hill Road and Sand Canyon Avenue, bypassing severely congested portions of SR-1 through Corona del Mar. Simil.arly, the Corridor would provide a more direct link via Laguna Canyon Road without having to travel long distances on that road. Traffic impacts relative -to Laguna Canyon Road are discussed in Section 4.16, Circulation. Laguna Niguel Regional Park. This urban regional park provides active and passive recreational uses. The Corridor+tprovide access to these facilities via La Paz Road or Alicia Parkway, `tf�us' allowing potential recreational uses a more direct travel route, as well as a bypass of congestion on the I-5 and SR-1. Aliso Creek State Beach and Salt Creek County Beach. These two beach ar-eas#tbe more accessible than is presently the case because of use of the Corridor:` Access to these areas will be .provided v i4 Alicia Parkway and Crown Valley Parkway, which will allow recreational users to avoid congestion on SR-1 and I-405. Dana- Point HarborJDoheny State BeachJLantern Bay Overlook. This major recreational use complex, comprised of a large small craft harbor and associated commercial/recreational uses, a State Park with both extensive day use and overnight facilities, and large greenbelt, is presently accessible via SR-1 and I-405. The more direct access provided by the Corridor and the Street of the Golden Lantern �allow recreational users to avoid present SR-1 and I-405 congestions. Schools The proposed Corridor alignment would impact existing and proposed school sites in the school districts listed below: • Capistrano Unified School District; and • Small portion of Saddleback Valley Unified School District. Corridor Compatibility With Existing Land Uses. On the west side of I-5 north of Ortega Highway, the Capistrano Unified School District's San Juan Elementary School would be impacted by noise levels which exceed City; County, State and federal standards. Noise barriers are proposed- as a mitigation measure as discussed in Section 4.5, Noise. Current noise levels exceed stan- dards due to the existing proxim,ty of I-5. The installation of noise barriers as part of the Corridor project reduce noise levels below existing levels and within standards for this type 'of land use. The proposed Corridor alignmentiimpact the Roston Montessori School near the south end of the project. :::::::`Corridor realignment sJ:t� '� < req-' re 4 = 100 1 acquisition of a portion of the Roston Montessori School property containing the School's driveways and its entire parking lot of approximately 12 spaces. Mitigation measures#;offset the loss of parking at the Montessori School see Section 4.9, Housinand Business Relocation The Montessori School .::.. `also be impacted by noise levels in excess of set standards. As dis- <. cussed in Sect:ion.:4.5, Noise.,... mi.tig.ati.on for excessive noise levels at this W this reason the Corr wit�i the existing"Tand use of this site. atinie Corridor Consistency With Future Land Uses. The Capistrano Unified School District is proposing a school site to be located east of Rancho Viejo Road, south of Junipero Serra Road adjacent to existing I-5. It should be noted that the proposed future school site is designated by the City's General Plan Land Use Map as industrial use. According to the City's General Plan, this indus- trial use is consistent with the Corridor due to the Corridor's inclusion on the General Plan Map. MITIGATION MEASURES Please refer to the Reference Sections 4.4, 4.5, 4.9 and 4.15 and Appendix A for mitigation measure for related impacts. NO .00OLTERNATIVE IMPACTS The No ll A1ternative would avoid the land use compatibility impact between the Corridor and businesses '<<`< along P Camino Capistrano. The Montessori School parking lot woj%` hbi `'`be""'mpact'ed. Noise impacts result- ing from the Corridor on the San Juan Elementary School and Montessori School would be avoided. Conversion of about 31 acres of agriculture land (5 acres of which is prime farmland) would not occur. The No * I ternative could result in conflicts between existing future land uses and`'*congested arterial roadways. Without the Corridor, many arterial roadways t+become extremely congested, causing potential noise and air quality levels"which could be incompatible with adjacent residential, institu- tional and open space/recreational uses. The No `: tern ative may result in Orange County declining to purchase 130 acres of"sycamore Hills for right-of-way from the City of Laguna Beach. The reserved right-of-way would probably be designated as part of the Sycamore Hills open space. The No t;Al tern at i ve would be..I.hconsistent with the adopted General Plans for the. County of Orange, the Cities of Mission Viejo, Irvine, Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano and Laguna Niguel. All these documents designate an alignment for the Corridor which is integrated into the land use and circula- tion plans for these areas. 4 - 101 PI IUNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS I I r 1 I I I I I I I I From a land use compatibility perspecti-ve, the complete takes of busi- nesses and a residence as identified in Section 4.9 are consideredincompatible impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts would remain. 4 - 102 1 1 4.9 HOUSING AND BUSINESS RELOCATION The following section addresses checklist item numbers 36, 37, 38 and 39, as referenced in Table 4.1.. Dedication of Corridor Right of Wav Land developers have agreed to dedicate a portion of the land required to build the Corridor. Offers of vacant land dedication have been required by the County of Orange as conditions to filing tentative tract maps. However, the dedications have not been accepted by the County at this time, but rather will be accepted prior to project construction. The TCA will transfer ownership of the facility in fee to Caltrans when project construction has been completed and terms and conditions of the agreement between Caltrans and the TCA dated November 14, 1989 have been met. If the project is not constructed, the offers of dedication will not be accepted by the County, and the ownership of the dedicated land would remain with the current land owner. Land dedication ��>::not provide for all of the right-of-way required to build the Corridor. `the following section describes the impacts on property not covered by the land dedication. Potential Property Impacts uemana Management Alternative Business DisDlacements. The Demand Manage- ment Alternative would encroach upon 30 commercial 1i ht industrial properties along the project alignment. Approximately 14 of these encroachments are considered partial takes, which represent a taking of land and/or parking. The remaining 16 are considered full takes which would require relocation of the commercial structure(s) currently on the property. These commercial structures are identified in Table I in Appendix I. Demand Management Alternative Residential Impacts. The Demand Management Alternative would encroach upon 13 residential properties along the project alignment. Approximately 12 of these encroachments are considered partial takes, which represent a taking of land and/or parking facilities, such as carports. There is one full residential take under the Demand Management Alternative. Other Demand Management Alternative Impacts. The Demand Management Alter- native would encroach upon UCI property along the east side of University and near Bonita Canyon Road, an erosion control reservoir near Pelican Hill Road, a Moulton Niguel Water Pistrict water tank near Moulton and Pacific Park, and would impact the existing Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and Atchison, Topeka and the Santa Fe (AT&SF) Railway easements near Camino Capistrano. 4 - 103 1 1 1 E I 1 F, I I] 1 1 1 I. 1 Conventional Alternative Business Impacts. The Conventional Alternative would result in fewer commercial impacts than the Demand Management Alterna- tive. Approximately :14 commercial/light industrial properties would be en- croached upon by the Conventional Alternative. Seven of these encroachments are considered partial takes. The remaining seven are considered full takes. Conventional Alternative Residential Impacts. The Conventional Alterna- tive would partially encroach upon 13 residential properties. There are no full residential takes associated with this .alternative. Other Conventional Impacts. The Conventional Alternative will displace the same non-residential/commercial properties such as the Demand Management Alternative. Business Relocation Opportunities for Both Build Alternatives Because the majority of businesses to be relocated are located at the southern end of the alignment near I-5, the following discussion focuses on that area. The businesses to be relocated can generally be categorized into office type businesses, light industrial manufacturing/warehouse type business- es and commercial businesses. The following provides a discussion on the opportunities for relocating each type of business. The following table sum- marizes the approximate number of businesses requiring relocation by type and by alternative: Conventional Demand Management Alternative Alternative Office 1 1 Light Industrial/ 4 6 Warehouse Commercial 2 9 Office Market. The following table identifies vacancy rates for the four cities represented in the southern project area near I-5. This tabl-e also shows the number of office buildings which currently exist, the total square feet of office space which is built, and total square feet of office space currently available or vacant. For comparative purposes, the countywide statistics have also been included. 1 1 4 - 104 1 11 CITY VACANCY BUILDINGS EXISTING VACANT OFFICE RATE 30,000 SF OFFICE SPACE (SF) OR GREATER SPACE (SF) Mission Viejo 6.47% 11 584,052 37,787 Laguna Hills 18.71% 39 1,722,912 322,425 San Juan Capistrano 15.87% 6 383,528 60,868 Laguna Niguel 65.97% 3 267,124 176,219 Orange County 21.45% 683 48,603,463 10,416,163 Source: Coldwell Banker Commercial Division, Orange County Office and Indu- strial Market Reports, Fourth Quarter 1989. As shown in this table, there is a significant amount of office space available within the four city area. A very small portion (approximately one) of the businesses requiring relocation are office type. Due to the ample availability of business space, adequate relocation opportunities would exist for this displaced office type business. Industrial Market. The following table shows the amount of industrial space available for southern Orange County which includes the cities of E1 Toro, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, and Santa Margarita. Research and Development Manufacturing/ Warehouse Totals Source: AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL SPACE IN SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY EXISTING AVAILABLE SPACE FOR BUILDINGS WITH 10,000 SF OR GREATER 298,388 216,861 515,249 SPACE UNDER CONSTR- UCTION/CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR PRE - LEASING 253,395 23,293 276,688 TOTAL AVAIL- ABLE SPACE 551,783 240,154 791,937 it I I I I I I I I Coldwell Banker Commercial Division, Orange County Office and - Individual Market Reports, Fourth Quarter, 1989. 1 The majority of the businesses requiring relocation are light industrial, manufacturing and warehouse. As noted in the table, there is approximately 240,154 square feet q ....... us MAR space currently .::.::::.:;:::...... . available in the southern_0' nge County area. 4 - 105 1-1 I � The demand for industrial manufacturingp and warehouse space has experi- enced an overall decrease throughout Orange County from 1987to the present, while the demand for high technology research and development space has experi- enced an overall increase. Depending on the €):Alternative, between four or six of the business displacements requiringr61'6cat ton are light industrial manufacturing/warehouse type businesses. Based upon the current availability of industrial manufactur- ing/warehouse space, adequate relocation opportunities would exist for the displaced industrial type businesses. Commercial Market. As outlined above, there are approximately two commer- cial type businesses requiring relocation under the Conventional Alternative and nine under the Demand Management Alternative. The majority of these busi- nesses are currently located along Camino Capistrano and are visi-ble to people traveling along I-5. These businesses have high advertising visibility due to their proximity to I-5. Thus, the current location of these businesses con- tributes to their economic viability. Standard commercial vacancy rates or amount of space available was not provided, because this data would not be detailed enough to reflect the specif- ic needs.of these businesses and, therefore, an accurate assessment of reloca- tion opportunities could not be made. Rather, the individual cities within south Orange County (Laguna Ni-guel, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano) were contacted to determine the availability of similar types of commercial dis- tricts adjacent to freeway facilities. According to the cities contacted, such commercial sites are virtually non-existent in the Southern Orange County area. However, the City contacts did indicate that similar commercial sites include mini -malls and strip malls along major arterials, auto malls, and business parks which incorporate commercial/light industrial uses. The availability of space in these types of commercial sites is assumed to be adequate for the number of commercial businesses requiring relocation. However, it should be noted that such sites would not likely provide current levels of advertising visibility. Employment Impacts for Both Build Alternatives It is, anticipated that the majority of businesses which are displaced be relocated to sites within close proximity to their current location `rWto 15 miles). As such, it is likely that existing employees would adjust their commute patterns and remain with the business. However, for those dislo- cated industrial businesses, relocation opportunities may not be readily avail- able within southern Orange County. If such businesses were displaced to central or northern Orange County, individual employees may not relocate along with the businesses and therefore some jobs would ,be lost. Employment impacts associated with either of the build `alternatives are considered minimal. Residential Relocation Opportunities for the Demand Management Alternative. Under the Demand Management Alternative, one residential unit >req- uire relocation. This residential unit is located at the southern e" the alignment near I-5. Development of residential units in southern Orange County 4 - 106 E 1 is occurring opportunity dence. at a very rapid rate. Therefore, it is assumed that a relocation would be available within close proximity to the impacted resi- Impact to the Surrounding Communities The potential exists for >`'<''''`"'>" `:`' im acts P ...... �::.::.;•:::;:.•�,:;•.��.tl p which are both positive .:and :::ngati.ve .to,::t.he.: esta��:issi:ed.:communit:ises::along the Corridor align- ... :.:.::::::::!.::::.....::..5.......'.........................................n .............................:.::.::::..:.:.:::..:::::.:.........................................................:..: i>`<t>:::: Greater ccess ...,.•,,.,:��,��, a to the regional• 'stem'''be`'''rovided" c`rcul`aon'`'s to .`nearb communities. Access t ::>:; ....::. is P Y o the Corridor #<be for business poss'i�te residents and which otherwise would have to travel on I-405, I-5 or SR-1. Short-term and long-term disruptions, however, E#occur in the communities which border the proposed Corridor or are within`"close proximi:t.:::to the Corridor. Potential short-term impacts occurring in these areasi;<include construction activities such as traffic delays and detours, nois"" and` fugitive dust, while long-term impacts would include increased noise and light and glare. Other disruptive impacts to esta- blished lntjiinclude areas encroachment as discussed previously. The overall impacts to the surrounding communities are considered minimal when compared to the overall benefit the facility will provide to these commu- nities. The regional circulation system.::for the communities along the Corridor are currently limited. The Corridor :provide a needed link to the Coun- ty's circulation system as well as alTev*ate already congested freeways and arterials in south Orange County. MITIGATION MEASURES ................The._. Jollowing mitigation measures apply to both Build Alternatives: .a�:�Q�:;:��a:�:t�3��:..:,i1....:: ..:.atio::.:.f:.:..: ,i.:::�:�..s.:::.� ..:r:;:>::�i�::��'�:s ><:• , �:�:;: :::::;: 9-1 Federal and State relocation programs for the affected residents and businesses in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as amended will be implemented. Relocation advisory services and relocation payments shall be provided to eligible recipients, consistent with this Act. A relocation advisor shall contact each business and resident that is required to relocate to provide additional information, subsequent to a decision on the project. 9-2 Prior to beginning acquisition, in consultation with City or County staff, a Right -of -Way Stage Relocation Plan shall be developed for each City/County affected. Based on survey information, this plan will identify any relocation problems associated with minorities, elderly, handicapped, low income families, and owner/tenant status. A relocation plan will be developed to provide or assure comparable housing to the above -mentioned groups. No discrimination based on 4 - 107 1 race, sex, religion, national origin, a 9 e, handicap or other social status will occur as prohibited by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 9-3 Prior to acquisition and in consultation with City or County staff, a relocation program, consistent with TCA relocation policies, shall be prepared. Implementation of the program will ensure. relocation as- sistance to every business or provide just compensation, should no suitable site be located as provided by TCA procedures. 9-4 Prior to formulating the above relocation program; relocation assis- tance representatives shall meet with City or County staff and groups of affected property owners and business owners and operators to explain Caltrans relocation benefits, individual rights and reloca- tion assistance procedures. 9-5 Where possible, remnant parcels, created as a result of realignment of roadways within the project area, shall be utilized for potential relocation of displaced businesses or homes. 9-6 In order to carry out the project, displaced households shall be assisted in finding decent, safe and sanitary housing within their financial means and otherwise suitable to their needs. 9-7 Per TCA Right -of -Way Division, when a portion of a parking, lot is acquired which results in noncompli.ance with the governing parking code, one of the following mitigation measures are implemented: • Acquire the entire lot (full take), or; • Locate potential replacement parking which will satisfy the governing parking code. • Obtain a parking variance from the governing local agency, or; • Pay reasonable damages to the land owner. 9-8 Relocation resources shall be available to all residential and busi- ness relocates without discrimination. NO ALTERNATIVE The No Alternative would result in no relocation or displacement of housing units or businesses. The No "lEAlternative would preserve the existing neighborhood char- acter and lifestyles for the short term. However, over the long term, improved regional access would not occur, and congestion on the local arterial highway system would gradually increase. By the year 2010, the traffic conditions on local streets under the No Build Alternative would be more severe on existing and future neighborhoods than under either of the Build alternatives. Overall, communities would likely experience reduced levels of community quality. 4 - 108 1 1 The No 4 Alternative would not significantly change the total long- term Y g g term populati'on��giowth of the Corridor area, but would probably reduce the rate of growth until other circulation system improvements could be implemented to support the growth provided in the existing General Plans of the cities and Orange County. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Implementation of the relocation policies outlined in Section 4.9 miti- gates all significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Corridor housing and business relocations. fl 1 4 - 109 'J 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES Build Alternative The following section addresses checklist item No. 41 in Table 4.1.A. The project alternatives considered in this EIR/EIS would not have a significant impact on community services and facilities, fire and police pro- tection, or religious institutions. The following discussion applies to both Corridor build alternatives. Law and Traffic Enforcement. The proposed Corridor facility would improve access to various areas of Orange County providing faster connections between law enforcement/patrol stations in the Corridor area and reducing response times, thus making law enforcement and patrolling more efficient. Additional law enforcement/traffic control personnel and equipment would be#40.161J. < the Corridor. The existing level of service in other areas of OFange°County would not be affected.' Fire Protection. The Corridor build alternatives would provide a high speed facility improving access for fire protection services to -various sectors of south Orange County. Also, the Corridor may act as a firebreak several- hun- dred feet wide along those portions of the. Corridor where -grass or brush fires would most likely occur. During construction, there is a possibility of random brush and grass fires from sparks, hot exhausts or accidents. Proposed mitigation measures would reduce the potential for accidental fires during construction and con- tribute to overall fire prevention measures (see Section 4.18, Construction Related Impacts). Emergency Evacuation. The proposed Corridor alignment will benefit emer- gency evacuation procedures relative to the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant and major earthquake events. Once the Corridor is constructed and operational, evacuation plans will be revised to incorporate the Corridor as a major evacu- ation route. W Mitigation Measures Law Enforcement 10-1 The TCA shall coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Com- mission to ensure that the Corridor is included in the Orange County call box network. Telephone conversation, July 20, 1990, Captain Steven Malone, Capistrano Area. 4 - 110 J 11 No :• �,•• �:``� Alternative The No ( `IAltern ative would not improve access along and beyond the Corridor. Response time for emergency law enforcement personnel would also remain at present levels or worsen as a result of congestion on existing arter- ials and freeways. No beneficial law enforcement impacts to the area would occur under this alternative. The NoAlternative would not provide improved access for fire pro- tection services To south Orange County and would not provide a firebreak to check uncontrolled brush fires. The potential for brush fires would remain approximately equal to present hazard levels. Since the potential for brush and grass fires exists with or without the Corridor, the benefits of the pro- posed project (i.e., increased access and firebreaks) override the incremental short-term risk of increased fires related to construction activities. The No€`'tAlternative would not impact present emergency evacuation a procedures or requirements, but would adversely affect transportation system capacities in response to major disaster situations. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse public services impacts associated with the' project. I 1 1 1 LI F i 11, 1 i 1 1 1 iJ �L� 4.11 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section addresses checklist item number 48 from Table 4.1.C. Archaeological Resources The Area of Direct Impact (ADI) is the same for both the Demand Management Alternative and the Conventional Operations Alternative. Therefore, the im- pacts of the two alternatives are identical and discussed together in this section. Site numbers, location in relation to the Corridor APE, potential impacts, and recommendations are included in Appendix D of this EIR/EIS. There are 15 sites within or adjacent to the APE which have been deter- mined significant enough to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Of the 15 eligible sites, 6 sites will be directly impacted by construction. Nine sites that lie within or adjacent to the APE will not be directly impacted by construction but will be protected by designa- tion as Environmentally Sensitive Areas during construction. Native American monitors were present during the test excavations con- ducted by the Chambers Group, Inc. The Chambers Group has a signed burial agreement with the Juaneno and Gabrielino Indians for the Corridor project. o i s ocations are not included in the ublic EIR EIS Maps.,..,;:fste and their 1 Preservation Officer for this project. SHO Coordination with the State Historic El:?#.i`tl>i`> A endix G contains a copy of thee) Data recovery excavations wi i i be con ucte or sites wl .... ........ . include excavation, analysis, collections, and other steps Paleontological Resources ere warranted. The data recovery program will protective measures, reporting, curation of consistent. with federal guidelines. All data Grading for the proposed Corridor is expected to uncover numerous fossil specimens. There could potentially be dozens of localities invol-ving hundreds of specimens. However, this is not expected to be a significant impact because of the grading monitoring and recovery procedures outlined in the mitigated measures. Mitigation Measures Archaeological Resources 11-1 -'Prior to commencement of construction, a County certified archaeolo- gist will, be retained. The -archaeologist will be present at the pre - grading conference, will establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and will establish procedures for temporarily 4 - 112 r halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of previously undetected artifacts, as appropriate. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.11, if any archaeological resources are dis- covered during grading or construction, all work must be halted in that particular location until the archaeologist can be notified and an assessment of such finds is performed. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archaeologist will report such findings to the TCA. If the archaeological resources are significant, the archaeological observer will determine appropriate actions for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, will be subject to the approval of the TCA in coordination with the Manager, Open Space/Recreation/Special Districts Division (OCEMA). Paleontological Resources 11-3 Prior to commencement of construction, a County certified paleontolo- gist will be retained to conduct preconstruction salvage of any ex- posed paleontological resources. The paleontologist will submit a follow-up report on survey methodology and findings to the TCA or their designee, for review and approval. 11-1 Prior to commencement of construction, a County certified paleontolo- gist will be retained. The paleontologist will be present at the pregrading conference, will establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and will establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils, as appropriate. If any paleontological resources are discovered during grading or construction, all work must be halted in that particular location until the paleontologist can be notified and an assessment of such finds is performed. If major resources are discovered which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist will report such findings to the TCA, or their designee. 4 - 113 1 If the paleontological resources are significant, the paleontologist observer will determine appropriate actions for exploration and/or salvage. If significant resources are found, the paleontologist will submit a follow-up report to the TCA, which will include a descrip- tion of the period of inspection, an analysis of the fossils found, and repository and disposition of the resources, will be subject to the approval of the TCA in coordination with the Manager, Open Space/ Recreation/Special Districts Division (OCEMA). I - The TCA will provide funding to the-O.C. Natural History Foundation to assist them in obtaining a museum site. This assistance will be provided for a one year .period and will ensure that adequate curation space is available for the magnitude of material expected. NO M-,AALTERNATIVE The No #c Alternative assumes no construction of the Corridor. This Alternative would not entail the recovery of archaeological and paleontological resources and cultural resources would remain in place. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS With the inclusion of the project mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. IF1 1 u 15 4 - 114 t 1 4.12 HAZARDOUS WASTEIMATERIALS This section addresses checklist item number 8, as referenced in Table 4.1.$. There are 10 sites within the vicinity of the proposed Corridor alignment that could involve hazardous waste: � � i« '": sites �� '1' be impacted b P y 9 �::.:.. .:..,, the Demand Management Alternative w}i"le"`onfy sites`:.beimpacted by the Conventional Alternative. See Figure 3.1 .1 in Chapl;W" ��`�for an illustration - of the 10 sites. Table 4.12.A identifies those sites in which hazardous teii.j was ' 11 was encountered during the Initial Site Assessment (ISA) (as indicated"`"with a yes on Table 4.12.A). At sites where hazardous waste encountered during the ISA, construction of the Corridor may resu`It �n exposure displacement hazardous i or of materials. Further, whereright-of-way acquisition includes sites containing hazardous materials, clean-up may be even where Corridor construction does not d"I'spl ace the hazardous "Wateri al s . `the proposed Corridor alignment avoids the Coyote Canyon Landfill. The "S" aTignment previously analyzed in Draft EIR 494 did encroach upon the Land- fill. The Demand Management and Conventional Alternative Alignment currently proposed has been moved easterly, approximately 340 feet from the previous "S" alignment. Under the current Alignment, the westerly toe of slope clears the Landfill property boundary by approximately 20 feet. During construction of the Corridor, previously unidentified hazardous t►materials may be encountered. A PSI would be conducted upon identifying such"sites and clean up activities would follow if required. MITIGATION MEASURES 12-1 A preliminary site investigation (PSI) will be conducted for all sites where hazardous s".'materials were encountered during the ISA or where hazardous waste<:�`� are encountered during construction. The PSI will determ ne.the extent and type of contami- nants involved, and the procedures and cost of clean-up, if required. Work will be completed under the direction of the Transportation Corridor Agency Hazardous Waste....' PC'i Coordinator following pro- cedures outlined in the Transportation Corridor Hazardous .:: :. Wasted Management Plan. 12-2 If unknown waste';', or an underground tank, is discovered during con structson...bythe contractor which he believes may involve hazardousvmaterials, he shall: 1. Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contami- nant, remove workers and the public from the area; 2. Notify the Project Engineer; 3. Secure the area as directed by the Project Engineer; and 4 - 115 1 1 j I I I I I I I I I 7 I I i I I L TABLE 4..U----.A - POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTEM—MSITES POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE/ NATERIAL$ PROBLEM' NUMBER IDENTIFIED REFERENCE' SITES ALTERNATIVE2 DURING ISA3 Shell Gas/Car Wash DM/C YES Sepulveda Building/Ace Hardware DM YES GKN Rental Center DM YES Niguel Home Center DM YES Allen Cadillac/Oldsmobile GMC Trucks DM YES Shell Gas Station DM YES Exxon Gas Station DM YES Earl's Plumbing DM NO Morena Tile C NO Western Exterminator C NO .E., 11.1- "N' re 3.12.1 for location of sites. 2 Denotes Alternative which affects property 3 For all sites denoted with a yes, a PSI will be required prior to FEIR/EIS. 4 - 116 1 4. Not ifytheTransportation Corridor Agency Hazardous Waste., 1 Coordinator (HWC). In accordance with the Transportation Corridor Agency Hazardous Waste! Management Plan, the HWC shall follow procedures for site assessment, initiate coordination with local, State, and regula- tory agencies as required, and take remedial action as appropriate. 12-3 Identify all underground hazardous pipelines in the field prior to construction in order to locate any facilities and reduce the poten- tial risk of accidental rupture. 12-4 If the Transportation Corridor Agency assumes the responsibility for sites with hazardous waste# I through property acquisition, then the identified hazardous wasteshall be handled and disposed of in the manner specified by`tf�e Mate of California Hazar- dous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) standards established by the California Department of Health Services, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code,Title 30, Chapter . 22. In addition, all federal hazardous materials management regulations administered by the Envir- onmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall be followed through the course of the Corridor project. , NO hl ALTERNATIVE With the No I>t Alternative, those businesses generating or utilizing hazardous wastes would continue to follow the regulations established by the appropriate"reguatory agencies, and would not be affected and/or dis- placed by the proposed Corridor construction activities. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS I There would be no significant unavoidable adverse hazardous waste* a' impacts associated with the proposed Corridor project. 1 1 1 4 - 117 1 1 4.13 PEDESTRIAN. EQUESTRIAN AND BICYCLE -FACILITIES ' This section addresses checklist item number 52 in Table 4.1.9. Potential impacts to on -street and off-street pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities would be the same with impl-ementation of either the Demand Management or Conventional Alternatives. Pedestrian FacilitiesJRiding and Hiking Trails No significant long-term impacts to on=street pedestrian walkways or master planned riding./hiking: trails will occur as a result of project implemen- tation.MillCt`...i~10E..111i1�11...�'.:....r'W. o :v'4:.�::4:ii�l.isL:.�:iL:L"aJ.�:.Jai.':i•.!:..::,.•:f:.:a•�.iJ.!a:i�.:i:..:.�:�i:•�i=•i�iii:•�:•i}:•:i:•iY�i �:ii.:ii'•'L_�.._i:.Lr.Y:.Y:LY.i?...b!.:Y!:.•.L:.�.!9!::::::.!.!.:y::::•:1Ai•:.ti•}iiA•is4:•i:•iUi:•i:•iY^:Cti:tiiA.i:?i::.:L?:{.i:.iiiiiYi!r:• . �...-....�.... ...... .. .r.::::.w:nw:.:inn•nw.w...wy:>::�•.>:w•:�:N:7i•T'P:�]w•l:J: Tf�1T:1S•:1i:Rm•.':3I.IF:i.•Tf•:•f!i[.J. ::::. ...... .:.::::: rj<;::�:::.�y:.::y-y::�•.+:.�:::<.:::;�;:.:::::•::•x:�:::.:•::•::•:::•:::•:.�::.ai•::::::::::::::: •:::::: •::: •::..........................:...........................::.:::......................::::Ar,.,;.;:•::.;i;r,.wp�r;�,vr.::.,.. :�•:*csxs:..ye•+s :o3. . ":. ':::Yak..:a1v::a�i#`aii:i•':'•::ii•1�:. d:af.• ..• :.:G�' :;:;:; :f • . a .>::: • ' • : :• .: ....:•.::::..::.:�!.:<.;;:,:::.;::::.:::.::::.:::.;:.::::>::.:::::�:.;•;c�::<�s��,�:��:#. Refer to Section 4.1:�: for discussion o short=term` impacts to ori=street n`wal`kways and master planned riding and hiking trails which may occur during project construction. Bicycle Trail Facilities The Corridor has been designed to accommodate the planned bicycle trails at their crossings with either underpasses or overpasses. These trails will be constructed by the County and/or the local agencies in conjunction with the Corridor. Section 4.1 includes discussion of short-term impacts to bicycle trails which may occur during the project construction period. Arterials which are planned to cross the Corridor (see Section 3.13) will provide striped on -street bicycle lanes (Class II trails) as part of the full roadway improvements. Provis ion of bicycle trail connections from MacArthur Boulevard,south of Bison into the -Corridor interchange area and with surround- ing existing trails (Jamboree Road, San Diego Creek Trail (Class I), University Drive and MacArthur Boulevard (Class I) will be included as part of the final design stage of the Corridor. Therefore, no significant long-term impacts to Class I or Class II bicycle facilities will occur as a result of construction of the proposed Corridor. The Corridor will cause indirect, effects on persons using the on -street walkways, bicycle trails and iF future off -road bicycle and riding and hiking trails listed in ' SecU on....3`..13 . Indirect effects will include alteration of the viewshed, incremental increase in ambient noise levels, and degradation of air quality. Although users of the trails will experience the effects of the Corridor only momentarily, the trail environment would be 1 altered at the alignment area and will change the user's experience from that of the No M Alternative. These effects would be most noticeable in the San Joaquin Hills section of the Corridor (between Bommer Canyon and Aliso Woods Canyon) which will be adjacent to areas of permanent parks/open space as compared,to the more urban- 4 - 118 1 ized southerly and northerly sections of the alignment. While this adverse impact is not considered significant, the trail experience is subjective. Some trail users may feel that the Corridor crossing negatively affects that experi- ence. MITIGATION MEASURES NO MAMLTERNATIVE Temporary short-term impacts to on -street pedestrian and bicycle facili- ties would not occur if the Corridor were not built. Without the Corridor, incremental indirect adverse impacts on viewshed, noise levels and air quality would not occur. However, the No t''Al tern ati ve would require improvements to existing arterial highways and`-reeways to provide additional capacity to accommodate projected traffic volumes and peak hour levels of service. Widening., extension and other improvements to arterials in the vicinities of these toff -road bicycle and riding/hiking trails would result in negative effectssimilar to those of the Corridor upon trail users. Effects of the project will be much less noticeable in the more urbanized sections of the alignment. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS not cause any hiking trails. icycle, equestrian or r 1 C I 1 'J J I � 11 1 4 - 119 1 1 4.14 LANDFORN Grading required for the Corridor is described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2. Construction of the Corridor will require extensive cut- and fill earthwork activities. Total grading, including gradi-ng previously completed in conjunc- tion with development projects, involve between 24.5 to 27 million cubic yards of excavation and 16 to 17.5 cubic yards of embankment. Approximately 8.5 million cubic yards -of excess material may require off - site disposal with the Demand Management Alternative, and 9 milli.on-cubic yards for the Conventional Alternative. Approximately 4.5 milli -on cubic yards of this excess material has already been utilized by developers -during site grad- ing operations,: thereby reducing the total amount of excess materials to ap- pr.oximatea y to million cubic yards-. The TCA currently assumes that a portion of the remaining excess material will be dis-posed at various develop- ment project sites near the Corridor that need surplus material and are consis- tent with the adopted General Plans of the cities of Dana Point, Irvine, Mis- sion Viejo, Newport Beach, .Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel and San Juan Capistrano, and the County of Orange. Potential significant adverse effects of this grading i.nelude instability of cut and fill slopes and stockpiled materials, removal of excess material, landslides, constraints associated with 'compressible and expansive s-oils., and visual effects resulting from altering the existing topography. These effects �. are assessed in the geotechnical (4.2), construction (4.1) and visual resourc- es (4.15) sections of this EIR/EIS. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project to minimize impacts: 14-1 Final design and construction of cut and fill slopes shall be based on detailed geotechnical data collected prior to final design, and will conform to slope design criteria set forth in Volume III, Design Guidelines, TCA/CDMG Project Manual and Caltrans. standard specifica- tion. 14-2 Stock piled materials shall be reviewed on a geotechnical basis for stability problems. Judicious selection of stock piling locations will assist in the pre-consolidation.of embankment fills. 14-3 Prior to final project design, geotechnical data shall be obtained on material to be excavated to determine its -characteristics and feasi- ble excavation methods in order to minimize blasting. 14-4 Terrace drains shall be provided in those areas -as -recommended in the Geofon, Inc geotechnical report and in accordance with a design ap- proved by TCA/Caltrans. 4 - 120 14-5 The application of specialized stabilization techniques such as but- tress fills for relatively unstable cut slopes shall be applied as recommended by detailed geotechnical investigations conducted during final design. 14-6 Compressible and expansive soils, where found, shall be corrected through proper drainage and grading according to Caltrans criteria. 14-7 Unsuitable materials shall be removed and recompacted prior to place- ment of structural fills. The areas of recommended removal include collapsible alluvium, slope wash, and weathered bedrock. Slide material located within the alignment shall be removed and replaced with competent earth materials and shear key placed at the toe of the proposed fill slope. 14-8 All excess fill material shall be used either as aggregate for Corri- dor construction or disposed of in either an approved development site or a certified landfill. Additional mitigation measures are included in Sections 4.2, 4.15 and 5MVIN NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS The No Build Alternative will avoid potential impacts related to grading and landform alteration. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Potential significant adverse impacts related to instability of cut and fill slopes and stockpiled materials, removal of excess materials, landslides, and compressible and expansive soils would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Construction and visual impacts of landform alteration are discussed in Sections 4.15 and 4.18. 4 - 121 1 4.15 VISUAL RESOURCES This section addresses checklist item numbers 50, as referenced in Table 4.1.0 #"tTt of the Corridor t provide the general public views of exist �ng and`plarined development from��Ortega Highway to approximately El Toro Road. From this location, north to MacArthur Boulevard, the Corridor provide views of open space areas where currently none exist. From Jambbide Road to the northern terminus of the Corridor, the Corridor provide views of the existing urban development in the surrounding area. In developing the design of the Corridor, aesthetic principles and visual goals were developed by the project team (Aesthetics Guidelines and Standards Committee) to govern the treatment of aesthetics in project design. The Aesthetics Guidelines and Standards Committee is made up of representatives from the TCA, Caltrans, the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, the County of Orange, area landowners and members of the American Society of Landscape Archi- tects (ASLA). The aesthetic principles and visual goals, to be considered in the final design of the Corridor are available for review at the TCA. :;':;:y}:;::;:•:;;{:•;:y:>•'`i i[:t::5::i>.::::�. �::i:•::'i'i::•?:: v:•':i'::::•::::ii:::' ;:;:': ::•:y:':::':::: ti::i::: +i:::'::::::i;:':: i:':T':i::i �:::::v'�.::.::: �::::'.>'{i::i:::•:{:::•i:::i:•is:i:F:i:.nni::i::}:::::Y:::;''.:ir:::ti:::isjtii:?:::?•:}:rri::::::;:�:tii'•i'•. �.................. 4::::•i::..... :::.�:�� proJect�, d�dpend`i rig ��on ttie ��T�oca�i �on��of"`th�e��observer;"��:�"`�consi st o-f finished roadbed, overhead lighting, vehicles, ramps, interchanges; sound and retaining walls and cut and fill slopes due to grading. To determine the extent of the Corridor's visual impact on these sensitive resources and on the general public travelling through the project area, a visual impact analysis was conducted. ' A significant adverse visual impact is one which has a substantial and demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The term "significant" is interpreted differently in CEQA than in NEPA. Please refer to the Summary for a discussion of the usage of the term "significant" in this EIR/EIS. Determination of aesthetic value is a subjective process; however, development of a set of, criteria for analyzing impacts provides an adequate level of objectivity for purposes of determining, according to CEQA guidelines, whether or not visual/ aesthetic impacts be negative. The visual ' �*of the Corridor on adjacent sensitive resources t t been analyzed using the following set of criteria. • Distance from the Corridor - Resources can be categorized -as having ' short or long range views of the Corridor. Areas with short range views are located less than 2,000 feet from the Corridor and those with long range views are greater.than 2,000 feet. Resources with short range views have potentially significant visual, impacts, without mitigation',"'.." due to the Corridor; impacts on long range views be below the level of significance. 4 - 122 1 ' Elevation - Resources can be located at various heights in relation- ship to the Corridor. These heights range from lower than the Corri- dor, even with the Corridor or higher than the Corridor. Resources that are lower than or even with the Corridor ts€ €7 <<;poten- tially significant visual impacts, without mitigation; due to the Corridor; impacts to resources higher than the Corridor'be below the level of significance. It should be noted that ��t`hese determinations of significance assume that no intervening topography, landscaping or structures exist between the resource and the Corridor. , Landform Alteration - A variety of landform types occur in the vicin- ity of the Corridor, including level plains, hillsides and ridge- lines. Alteration of hillsides and ridgelines, due to Corridor '? tt result in potentially significant. visual impacts; .......O:. ... ,:. w�tt�out"mitigation; alteration of level plains t'i result in im- pacts below the level of significance. Grading - Cut and fill slopes due to construction of the facility which are visible from the sensitive resource. Grading of greater than 50 feet of cut or fill, due to Corridor construction, 0401 result in potentially significant visual impacts, without mitigation; grading of less than 50 feet 1rtt'`I, result in impacts below the level of significance. :.:....<..:..... Viewshed Ouality - Sensitive resources have existing views which are either of a rural or urbanized nature. Rural views are predominated by agricultural or undeveloped areas with limited development visi- ble. Urbanized views are predominated by residential and commercial development with a majority of the viewscape consisting of man-made ' structures. Resources with a rural viewshed experience poten- tially significant visual impacts, without mit`gaflon; while resourc- es with an urban viewshed tixa experience impacts below the level of significance. Screening - The Corridor alignment may be blocked by existing inter- vening topography, landscaping or structures. Resources which are not screened or are incompletely screened from the Corridor %t} experience potentially significant visual impacts, without mitga- tion; while resources which are completely screened from the Corridor ffif# experience impacts below the level of significance. It should *"i ted that these determinations of significance includes the ef- fect of existing intervening topography, landscaping and structures. Noise Barrier - Implementation of existing and proposed noise barri- erS......associated the may screen views of the Corridor. :with :.Corri:dor., ir.etiz d1 tttiiiyJ.� . . . C#...... 4 - 123 1 1 Views from sensitive resources along the Corridor before and after imple- mentation are provided. in Appendix J. These photographs, renderings and -cross ' sections represent the general visual impacts that the Corridor would have on existing views from sensitive resources along its alignment. The Corridor alignment is superimposed on a photograph of the existing condition in order to identify the location and impact of the Corridor. Identification of the Corri- dor alignment is based on conceptual engineering drawings, available for review at the TCA. In that the build alternatives follow the same alignment and ,differ only in number of lanes, right-of-way, and median widths, it is anticipated that the visual impacts to sensitive resources be approximately equal between these two alternatives. Where substantial 'differences between the two alterna- tives occur, they have been identified in the text. Implementation of measures, such as revegetation, slope rounding and contour grading, in the project design € reduce the visibility of the Corridor. The foll-owing is a discussion of the Corrido.r's visual impact on sensitive receptors. This discussion is summarized in Table 4.15..A. It should be noted that this table should be reviewed in conjunction with the text. South End. Spotted Bull QRMlocated on a hill adjacent to, the I-5 freeway in the vicinity of Avery .... Parkway. As shown in Table 4.15.A, the re- source has short range views of the I-5 freeway and long range views of the Corridor/I-5 confluence to the north which are predominated by an .existing urban viewshed (Figure J-7). As shown in Figure J-7, no grading be visible from the resource. The Corridor/I-5 confluence and the I-5 `improve- ments not significantly alter existing topography or the urbanized view - shed v isib7e from this sensitive resource. ' Figure J-8 shows the existing visual environment and Corridor alignments near the Paseo de Colinas/Avenida del Caball-o intersection, west of I-5. As shown in Figure J-8, this area presently experiences an urbanized viewshed, predominated by., strip commercial and the I-5 to the east. Figure J-8 illu- strates f the clb Demand Management Alternative and the „Conventional Alternative. # Hof the Conventional Alternative stf result in significant visualmpacts``'at this location due to the proximity"off the Corri- dor bridge structure alignment to the resource. There are no mitigat.ion.mea- sures included that # reduce the significance of this impact. )?i of the Demand Management`Alternative not substantially alter the"existing urbanized viewshed at this location; ••and not result in a significant impact. ' Exi.sting views from the facilities in the vicinity of the Corridor are comprised primarilji"oicommercial land uses to the east, and south and medium to high density residential development to, the west and north, as illustrated i.n Figures J-9 and J-10. Visual impacts of the -Corridor are unavoidable in this location due to the direct crossing -of the channel by the Corridor. However, t3 'b1 of either build alternative not substan- tially effect the existing degraded viewshed experienced a`(`ong"the tra.il in this location (figures J-9 and J-10). 1 4 - 124 1 fl fq. O • O O O O O y O 0 O O O O O O •Wi = 2 i Z y Z y 2 Z y 2 y 2 2 2 2 2 2 W N U. L \ \ \ \ < < 6 < < < < < < • L N N N me W 2 2 2 i A V A Z V Z Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 V m J+ Y 1+ Y L• Cr a1 Y <Y Y Y YppE,, <Y YEaa d 0) ppY yC 2 2 u u .-• 2 V Z C C C tCq tCp eCp tCp �CWp tCp m L. co L. ILO IO tCp ryCry tCp �C�pp tCp > > > > 7 > > .IIII .a > > > > 7 > OC OC S GC > Y r p W� < c 0< 0 t o< o 0 0 0< o 0 0 o t \ 2 Ln V Ln V \ 2 in A \ i Ln A \ 2 tn A in A Ln A Ln A \ i w% A Ln A vn V Ln V \ Z LU t: Ci 0. L. Y 2 S 2 2 S Z = Z OC OL OC x 2 w x J40 x 2 cL L L <L L L L L N • • L r t C 4! t ,t L .0 L .0 .L •9- d d C C C .0 C �y Ol 03 Ol Of O) Ol Ql O) Ol 9- 3 2 61 07 61 W > O S m O 0 O > > > > S W J = S S S = S y. _3 W W W S W N G L. Of L C7 L L. O) 9- 0)OCI OM L Of L t L t t L O L O L L O O C O U) Vl N N Vl J Vl J W fA J .L Vl J J ..J .0 V) J .0 (A Y L � a i NC lN1pp W C C i� N J C 0. 01 O Cto i*c :';;;; (A 0G OC :�; Co-W ; �.; t V1 W LLL777 O u 'O ... O y pc m O O O Y CA.x G 7 7 u S 'O C O •py -W _ _ �0 J 0u J O OL WO •; Z L > > Z O L 0 L. N a+ O u c Y Y O O 0 0 § C M OC .+ L m d m M O U U) 0. cnn O u Y 2 v 2 -Cl < < OC to J J u 7 1— N Y. 2 I � I 1 1 I � I � l u7 cli 3 M C O u 9-- ♦+ L i0• u �ovct o>a°1••°cs u 3 •L W c�urnc !�0 OG >C C ++v- E v u d ua+O u — 'd L c44 Olc O m c •! M yL , Y Lp .y U W III .E "7G .` 0.2 O L O O 0).�V- W L u > U) c > W Y Gl mu y W cM 1-- W i+ 2 N W O W C O -� —• a+ <m 00. W m # # < a V) W N O i 1 North of the Corridor/I-5 Confluence, residences in the vicinity of the Cabot Road/Crown Valley Parkway intersection have views of the Corridor, as illustrated :in Figure J-11. As shown in Figure J-11, the Demand Management Alternative be more visible, i.e., closer to residences to the north of Crown Valley* ... *Parkway; while residences south of Crown Valley r be more affected by the Conventional Alternative. Due to its current uffim zed view - shed, elevation and lack of visible landformalteration,:. this sensitive re- source not be significantly affected by t#t€€'of the Corridor. Nellie Gail Ranch. Residences within the Nellie Gail Ranch community currently experience an urbanized viewshed, predominated by the I-5 freeway and the City of Mission Viejo to the east, the City of Laguna Niguel to the west, the Aliso Viejo Planned Community to the north and the. Colinas de Capistrano Planned Community to the south (Figure 3.7.1, Land Use). Views from residences adjacent to the Corridor right-of-way are illustrated in Figure J-12.::.As shown in Figure J-12, residential areas adjacent to the Corridor alignment. have direct views of the Corridor mainline facility. The Corridor `si giofi- cantly alter the existing viewshed from residences adjacent to••�th`e Corridor alignment, due to its proximity to the.:: residences and the extensive landform •:i;:^{:S;:: :•?}:::i:{::i:.':::isj::•i:•iri:•Ki:::'ri::iii>:::ii::ii:'i modification and visible radin . 9...............9............::::::::::::::::..:.::::.:.......:......:::::..:......::.......:.:..:Ii..:..::.: Inese impacts can be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-1, 15-10, 15-13, 15-14, 15-17 and 15-18 outlined below; however#c, tli`e remaining impact after mitigation be significant. The Corridor not significantly alter the urbanized-vlews, of existing and planned development, from the Nellie Gail Community which are more distant from the Corridor and are in some instances blocked by intervening topography and/or structures. ' Aliso Viejo. The Corridor pass thro-ugh the northwestern tip of Aliso%Wood•Canyons Regional Park aC wn in Figure J-13. There are no exist- ing or planned recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Corridor thus publ is views of the Corridor be 1 imited. Potential views i`il be hindered by intervening topograohy and dense vegetation in the vicinity**•o.'the_ Corridor right-of-way. Thus, visual impacts due to the Corridor W. .not be significant; however, implementation of mitigation: measures 15-10.?,.".'I5:-11, 15- 12 15-14 15-15 15-16 15-19 - 15 20 and 15-22 �r��#�..::>::��>�.............. In the vicinity of the Corridor, the -Aliso Vi-ejo Planned Community -has been developed primarily with high density residential, commercial and indus- trial uses (Figure 3.7.1, Land Use). These same types of uses are planned for the undeveloped' areas of Aliso Viejo, in the ' vicinity of the Corridor. The right-of-way for the Corridor has been dedicated and graded as development has occurred. The existing urbanized viewshed from the residential development, adjacent to and in the vicinity of the Corridor, is predominated by res-i den- ' tial, commercial and industrial development and graded Corridor right-of-way associated with the build out of the Aliso Viejo Planned Community. The main- line Corridor facility, the Corridor interchanges at La Paz Road, Pacific Park ' Drive and Aliso Creek Road and the freeway overcrossings at Alicia Parkway and X. E1 Toro Road be visible from existing and proposed residential develop- ment adjacent'to••the Corridor right-of-way. Figure J-14 illustrates views of 4 - 126 1 the Corridor at Laguna Audubon development, an area within the Aliso V' ieo ' Planned Community adjacent to El Toro Road. v,�`�of the Corridor .;;. ..�� s�gn�ficantly alter the existing ,. vlewsli`ed from resi�erices erectly adjacerit**'to the Corridor alignment:..:: These impacts can be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-1, 15-8, 15-10, 15-13, 15-14, 15-16, 15-17,. 15-.18, 15-20 and 15-21;Kowever remaining visual impacts after mitigation be significant. The Corridor W : not significantly alter the bxisting urbanized viewshed of existing and planned development which are more distant from the Corridor and in some in- stances, blocked by intervening topography and/or structures. Sycamore Hills. Visual impacts to the Sycamore Hills Open Space is dis- cussed in Appendix A, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. The Corridor mainline and ' associated Laguna Canyon Road interchange significantly alter southern views from limited areas within the northern open space parcel after implemen- tation of Mitigation Measures 15-2, 15-8, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, , 15-16, 15-19, 15-20 and 15-22. Figure J-28 in Appendix 111illustrates the view of the Corridor from the Club Laguna Apartments north Wthe Corridor. An approximately 100 foot high cut slope t be visiblefrom..::these a .artments. and. �� significantly alter views at this'-location.l' F.:..:1:t�tl d nRt .;::>:.:::..:>:.::.:h 1 s f�ts:d... ::.:..:.:.::.::::.::.::::....:.' .: ...........:..::. `.:::.:.:::::::::fit::::::::::::::::..:.::::::...... .............::: :.these impacts can be reduced t:firough i`mpT`* ent`at�on of fiit�gat�on ' Measures 15-2, 15-8, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 15-16, 15-17, 15- 18, 15-197" -20 and 15-22, however remaining visual impacts after mitigation be significant. Laguna Laurel. The proposed Laguna Laurel Planned Community area is located west of Laguna Canyon Road. Two areas within the Planned Community ' have been designated public open space; the Laguna Ridges Dedication Area (LRDA) and the Laurel Canyon Dedication Area (LCDA). These two areas are illustrated in Figure 3.7.1, Land Use, and 1 be dedicated to the County of Orange by The Irvine Company, for preserved"bpen`space purposes, as a condition ' of project approvals. The southern boundary of the LRDA (approximately 2,300 feet) and the northern boundary of the LCDA (approximately 10,000 feet) are located adjacent to the Corridor. In addition, the area between the LRDA and Laguna Canyon Road W,* be a golf course associated with the proposed Laguna ... Laurel development., Th s area koltl. be protected as future open space through a scenic easement; a condition of"approval for the Laguna Laurel development. The Corridor 1N£ cross Laguna Canyon Road via a bridge structure and t significantly41t er existing views from undeveloped areas of Laurel Canyon and the golf course adjacent to the Corridor ' alignment along the road- way, at this location (Figure J-15). Impacts within this area would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-1, 15-8, 15-10, 15-11, 15-13, 15-14, 15-15, 15-16, 15-17, 15-18.1...::15-19, 15-20 and 15-22. However, remaining ' visual impacts after mitigation be significant. As shown in Figure J-16, the Corridor significantly alter southern , views from the LRDA in the vicinity of the Corridor alignment due to its prox- imity to sensitive resources, the resource's lower topographic location than 4 - 127 ' 1 i7 the Corridor and the extent of landform alteration and grading. These impacts can be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-2, 15-7, 15-8, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 15-16, 15-19, 15-20 and 15-22. However, the remainingimpacts after mitigation would be significant. The remainder of the LRDA be significantly visually impacted due to intervening topo- graphy.;.:..................... Crystal Cove State Park. The Corridors' not be visible from the uppermost trails within the State Park due to steep topography t that intervenes between the Park uses and the Corridor, as sho`igure J-17. Any potential impact is reduced to below the level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-1, 15-2, 15-7, 15-9, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 15-17, 15-18, and 15-20. Bommer Canyon. The Corridor's visual, impact at Bommer Canyon -Park is discussed in Appendix A, Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. In summary, the Corridor mainline `z significantly affect views from the existing ranch structures on -site after implementation of Mitigation Measures'15-4, 15-7, 15- 7.A.:..15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 1.5-16, 15-19, 15-20 and 15-22 (Figure Turtle Rock. Existing views from the Turtle Rock community are predomi- nated by the ridges and intervening hills and wall-eys of the San Joaquin Hills to the northeast south and, southwest. The Corridor is approximately 4,000 feet from Bonita Canyon Drive, the southern boundary of the Turtle Rock Community. As shown in Figure J-18, the Corridor is at split grade profile and '€ be visible from the southeastern portion of the community as it trave rses"'the upper elevations of Bommer Canyon. (The photograph is taken near the street -of Summit in the Turtle Rock community). However, the visual impact of the ' Corridor € be reduced as a result of the distance between it and the Turtle Rock community. Due to the distance, the varying topography that interrupts views, and implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-4, 15-7, 154, 15-10, 15- 11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 15-16, 15-19, 15-20 and 1.5-22, long-term visual impacts ::on residential development are not considered to be significant (Figure M) . ' Spyglass Hill. Existing views from the Spyglass Hill/Harbor Ridge commu- nities are predominated by the Coyote Canyon Landfill, San Joaquin Reservoir and undeveloped Bonita Canyon to the north and east as illustrated in Figure ' 3.7.1, Land Use. To the south, residential development within the City of New- port Beach and the Pacific Ocean is visible. Big Canyon and Newport Center predominate views to the west. ' The Corridor be visible from the Spyglass Hill/Harbor Ridge communi- ties as illustrateM Figure J-19. The Corridor alignment is approximately 4,500 to 6,000 feet to the east of El Capitan Drive, the eastern boundary of the Spyglass Hill Community. As shown in Figure J-19, the alignment traverses west across an existing ridge as it exits Bommer Canyon Park, near SignalPeak and crosses Coyote Canyon Landfill. The visibility of this alignment# ' vary depending on the elevations of the homes in the Spyglass Hill/Harbor Ridge area and the elevation of the intervening topography between these residenti-al communities and the Corridor. In some lower elevations of Spyglass Hill, for 4 - 128 1 example, views of this alignment # be partially obstructed by the hills on the east side of E1 Capitan Drive, which represents the eastward edge, of devel- opment in Newport Beach. As shown in Figure J-19, the Corridor "Jt� be visi- ble in the distance from residences at higher elevations. ImpI"eroentation of Mitigation Measures 15-4,..... 1.5-5, 15-7, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 15-16, 15-17, 15-18 and 15-20 t reduce visual impacts due to Corridor. Due to the distance of the Corridor;as well as intervening topography and structures, and implementation of mitigation measures, the long term visual impacts on these communities are not considered significant. North End. Near the terminus of Ford Road, the Harbor View Knoll resi- dences experience an existing urbanized viewshed to the south and west, predom- inated by single family residences. Views to the north and east are predomi- nated by the Coyote Canyon Landfill, Bonita Canyon Reservoir and undeveloped Bonita Canyon. Figure J-20 depicts the view from the terminus of Ford Road toward the Corridor alignment near the Bonita Canyon Reservoir. This alignment is located in the vicinity of existing Bonita Canyon Road. The nearest homes in the Harbor View Knoll community are located approximately 2,000 feet from the alignment of the Corridor. The terrain, between the first row of housing along Ford Road and the Corridor, is relatively gentle, as seen in Figure J-20, with the alignment of the Corridor located in a level area. As shown in Figure J-20, the Corridor W.H.) .. !,(d be visible in the distance from this location,:: which is at approximately 't�he""same elevation as the Corridor. The Corridor Wr t 1?0' not result in a significant visual impact at this location due to the level"'`topog- raphy of the area and the minimal visible grading impacts. Implementation of Mitigation: Measures 15-4, 15-5, 15-7, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-17, 15-18 and 15-20 0 reduce visual impacts of the Corridor to below the level of significance. The UC Irvine campus is located on a knoll, with the majority of the existing campus facilities situated in the lower elevations on the northern side of the knoll. The only exception to this is the faculty housing along Los Trancos Drive. Southern views from the UC Irvine campus are predominated by undeveloped University owned land except in high rise campus towers from which undeveloped Bonita Canyon, residential development and the Pacific Ocean can be seen. Figure J-21 illustrates views from the undeveloped western side of the campus. The Corridor is generally situated at a lower elevation than the adjacent UC Irvine property, therefore views of the Corridor from UC Irvine w3 be limited to elevated locations such as high rise campus towers and on - campus faculty housing adjacent to Los Trancos Drive. Located on the northern side of the knoll, most of the campus t not be significantly affected by the Corridor due to the topographic interference of the knoll feature. Imple- mentation of Mitigation: Measures 15-5, 15-6, 15-10, 15-11, 15-12, 15-14, 15-15, 15-17, 15-18 and 15-20 reduce potential visual impacts of the Corridor. Newport North is a high density residential community located west of MacArthur Boulevard and is bound by University Drive to the north, Bison Avenue to the south and Jamboree Road to the west. Figure 3.7.1, Land Use illustrates the community's location. Currently, views from residences along the eastern boundary of the community are of an urbanized nature and predominated by Mac- Arthur Boulevard, University Drive, Bonita Canyon Drive, Bonita Creek Park, San Diego Creek and undeveloped areas within U.C. Irvine and Bonita Canyon. Views 4 - 129 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i U 1 from western portions of the community and at lower elevations of the community are obstructed by existing structures. Residences along the eastern perimeter and at higher elevations in this communi-t g yr have views of the Corridor, approximately 750 feet from the residences." .figure J-22 illustrates the Cor- ridor's visual impact on residences along the southeastern perimeter -of the Newport North Community. As shown, these residences, which have existing urbanized views, would have views of the Corridor and, existing ,arterials, except Bonita Canyon Drive. The Corridor follows the approximate alignment of existing Bonita Canyon Drive and tl, require the removal of Bonita Canyon Drive from MacArthur Boulevard to can Hill Road. of the Corridor andba:o:::>::1r. -ji:=:> o #n t significantl,y alter the e`"ez...stng`viewsfi`e` experienced from' the `eastern''perimeter of Newport North due to its urbanized nature and lack of,landform alteration and grading. 7 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 15-6,A:15-10, 1.5-11, 15-12,.: 15-13., 15-14, 15-15, 15-1, 15-18, 15-20 ands=21t further reduce visual impacts due to the Corridor. MThe location of the mainline toll plaza is shown in Fi gure *.22 5...Pro ject Udi ri pt i on . This facility is located in an area where there are no adjacent sensitive receptors; however,.... Crystal. ,Cove State Park, Laguna Ridges Dedication Area, Bommer Canyon Park:'''`'# are in the i.:• ::....:...... y...8:: i:.i.: ... general vicinity of the mainline toll plaza. Due to'..:. intervening topography and distance from the mainline facility, the, toll- p;l aza,. t not be visible from these recreational o en s re / p pace areas �# �'1`fie split level grade design of the mainline toll plaza reduces tlie`amount of grading required, thus mi.nimizing potential visual impacts due to landform ,,al,teration. Maintenance Facility. The location of the maintenance facility is shown in P Ion re 2..8, Project Description, and is illustrated in Figure in Appen- dix This facility would be located where an existing commercial con- structimaterials company ::currently.::resides and is visible from residences to the west and northwest. r of the mai ntenance faci 1 i ty woul d not generate any additional visual "'impacts k`what currently occurs.. Imple- mentation of vegetation screening around' 1:66 perimeter of the maintenance facility would actually reduce the visual. impact to below what is currently experienced., Therefore, the visual impact of the maintenance facility is below the level of significance. Sceni-c Highways. The Corridor crosses several arterials designated as scenic highways (MPSH) on the County's,Master Plan of Scen-ic Highways. Two of the arterials have been identified as Viewscape Corridors.,. Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro Road, south of the Corridor. According to the MPSH, development within Viewscape Corridors must maintain and enhance -the scenic resources asso= ci.ated with the roadway. The intersection of the Corridor with both arterials t result in visual impacts to Viewscape Corridors. These impacts include t`fid" rridor bridge crossings and related grading and embankments. Implementa- tion of measures., such as construction of wider span bridge structures, revege- tation with native plant species, and contour grading W reduce 'potential impacts to the scenic quality of these Viewscape Corridors to below the level of significance. 4 - 130 The Corridor also intersects six arterials identified by the County MPSH as Landscape Corridors. (Please refer to Section 3.14 for a discussion of these arterials.) According to the MPSH, development within Landscape Corri- dors should complement the urban landscape palette of the arterial. The Corri- dor and related project improvements outlined below, t impact the visual integrity of these scenic highways: grading and embankments related to over - crossing construction, interchange ramps at La Paz Road and the park and ride facility at Alicia Parkway. Implementation of measures, such as revegetation of slopes with complimentary drought tolerant landscaping and contour grading reduce impacts to the scenic quality of these Landscape Corridors to 6e1ow the level of significance. Light and Glare. Lighting fixtures and signage for the Corridor #i.>t4 only be placed at proposed interchanges/ramp told, ..splazas and at the mainline toll plaza. Therefore, light and glare impactsbe produced only by auto- '?� mobiles and their headlights for a majority of the"at`ignment. The significance of light and glare impacts is related to the proximity of sensitive land uses to sources of niqhttime lighting or davtime reflectinnc_ Ma f`# `># glare impacts to humans along the Corridor alignment; light and glare impacts to wildlife are discussed in Section 4.6, Biological Resources. South of the Corridor/I-5 Confluence, existing development experiences 1ht and glare impacts associated with the existing I-5 facility. rti : tl of the I-5 improvements associated with the Corridor, resu'1 ' .i n **`the movement of existing sources of light and glare closer to sensiiive receptors. Implementation of measures to reduce potential light spillage . reduce impacts to below the level of significance. With appropriate landscaping along the Corridor and implementation of hooded lights and directing light away from existing development, the impacts discussed above can be reduced to below the level of significance. 4 - 131 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I Light and glare impacts 1-occur at residences where the proposed Corridor passes through existi.ng��`d veloped residential areas on right-of-way previously dedicated as part of -development project approval. Significant light and glare impacts would occur at some, residences adjacent to the La Paz Road, Aliso Creek Road and Pacific Park Drive interchanges With impl:ementa= tion of measures such as directional hooded lights. screening with veoetation Some residences adjacent to the Corridor crossing at E1 Toro Road may experience significant light and glare impacts. The Corridor would be elevated at this location, which increases the potential for headlight and street light effects to adjacent development. Implementation of.directional hooded lights and landscape ;.screening. .::-1 reduce this impact to below the level of signifi- ,: cancel=1fI: Potential lighting impacts due to the mainline toll plaza and glare im- pacts from vehicles using the Corridor are considered to be insignificant at Crystal Cove State Park and Bommer Canyon Park, due to the steep intervening topography and:***distance of activity areas from the Corridor. These potential impacts are ktithrough implementation of directional hooded lights :. at the mai nl"i,:n.e.:.to ��1.i"`"plaz'a"." The community of Turtle Rock, in the City of Irvine, is approximately 4,000 feet away from the Corridor alignment-. For residents of this community, the Corridor mainline s `° ould be distantlyv isibla at night. . >` l are:: mpacts on - .;;;;.:,.:.....,,.::..,................ p Turtle Rock are not considered sig nfcant"`because of itsdistance from the Corridor and intervening topography. These potential impacts MU"3 be further reduced through the use of directional hooded lights at the mainline toll plaza. The University of California at Irvine (UCI) is situated at a slightly higher topographical elevation than the proposed Corridor, which passes ad- jacent to the University on the southwest: Light and glare impacts on existing University facilities are considered below the level of significance given the relatively undeveloped western portion of the campus and the placement of a majority of the existing facilities on the.eastern side of the campus.. At the north end of the Corridor in and .near the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine, existing residential developments, are located at distances which effectively reduce light and glare impacts to. below the level of significance. For example, the closest community to the proposed Corridor in Newport Beach is Newport North, which is approximately 750 feet away. Other 'areas in Newport Beach such as Harbor View Knoll, Harbor Ridge sand Spyglass H111 are approxi- mately 2,000 and 5,000 feet away, respectively, from the Corridor alignment: 4 - 132 `Rn u The impact of light and glare from the Corridor traffic in this area t` be below the level of significance, although automobile lights may be noticeable depending on elevation, landscaping and exposure from the viewing location. 4.15.2 Mitigation Measures During final design, the project engineer and Aesthetics Guidelines Standards Committee shall provide evidence to the Executive Director of TCA, his designee, that the mitigation measures below have been implemented, that the Corridor design is compatible with and reflects the landform charac of the existlna surmundinas_ tt�lA:« eke►c 'i'kti< «"ti si t b+ :::'::: I: t:i!f:ii�ee�l"< itirif?atir::-: and or and ter 15-1 Crown Valley Park to Moulton Parkway: A maximum six percent grade will reduce the extent of required cut. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15-2 E1 Toro Road to Sand Canyon Avenue: A maximum six percent de- sign grade will reduce the extent of required cut. A curvilinear design feature of the alignment was incorporated to be more sensitive to existing topography. 15-3 Northerly of Sand Canyon Avenue: A maximum six percent design ' grade will reduce the extent of required cut. 15-4 North of Sand Canyon Avenue to Ford Road: A maximum six percent r design grade will reduce the extent of required cut. 15-5 East Ford Road to Bison Avenue: Southbound grade was designed at a maximum grade of three percent to eliminate need for climb- ing lanes. Northbound grade was designed at a grade of five percent to minimize grading impacts on UCI property. 15-6 Bison Avenue to Jamboree Road. Corridor profile was kept as low as possible to minimize noise and visual impacts. Alignment was depressed to screen Corridor from view where possible. 15-7 Split level design was incorporated from E1 Toro Road to Ford Road to minimize grading impacts and enhance scenic design qual- ities. 15-8 Within the Laguna Canyon, E1 Toro Road and Aliso Creek areas, a longer bridge span will be constructed to minimize loss of existing views within these areas. Longer bridges across other channel crossing shall be incorporated to the extent technically feasible to preserve existing views from sensitive resources. 15-9 The design of the mainline toll plazas reduces visual bulkiness through separation, by distance and elevation, of the northbound and southbound toll plazas. Also, the operations buildings �. 4 - 133 1 I ' associated with the mainline toll plaza will be recessed into the cut slope to reduce visual impacts, 15-10 Adjacent landforms where affected by Corridor improvements shall be recontoured to provide a smooth and gradual transition be- tween modified landforms and existing grade and to avoid the appearance of manufactured grading. 15-11 Some cut slopes shall be recontour.ed using a serrated technique and revegetated with compatible native or drought tolerant plant material. Serrating results in a more natural slope through implementation of small terraces and revegetation. This tech- nique can be used in cuts in rock surfaces, however, holes must ' 'be drilled for insertion with landscape material and soil amend- ments. 15-12 1In open space areas, select ion and use -of landscape materials will recognize the opportunities for enhancing slope landform variation. Natural vegetation shall be located in appropriate locations and densities to fit into the natural setting. Use of sculptured landscaping (i.e., varied height and species diversi- ty) will assist in disguising the manufactured slope appearance and will emphasize slope variation. Proper material selection and location of native plant materials, combined with sculptured grading, will emulate the adjacent natural setting. 15-13 In urban areas, the use of native species of vegetation is rec- ommended where feasible. However, nonnative, nonaggressive drought tolerant plants shall be utilized in landscaping wher- ever native species are not feasible. The Corridor landscaping shall be compatible with existing landscaping in the vicinity of the alignment. 15-14 Detailed landscape plans will be prepared and implemented for cut and fill slope areas. Such plans will include type and density of ground cover, seed or hydromulch mix, plant sizes soil compatibility with seeds and plants selected, and temporary irrigation systems during plant est,ablishme,nt 15-15 Trees shall be preserved and incorporated into- the Corridor revegetation and landscaping plan where feasibl.e by the Project Landscape Architect. Potential areas for placement of specimen trees include interchanges and overcrossing embankments, as well as park and ride lot landscaping. A tree survey shall be per- formed by the Project Biologist and the Project Landscape Archi- tect to determine specimen trees to be preserved for Corridor related landscaping purposes. Preservati-on of specimen trees will be determined using standards developed by the project biologist. These standards could include criteria such as: trunk width, conditiron of health and crown diameter. 1 4 - 134 ' 15-16 Benching of cut slopes will be incorporated only when necessary p Y Y for geotechnical slope stability. 15-17 To protect existing adjacent uses from possible light and glare impacts, hooded lights will be used along the Corridor. These lights shall be of a low grade quality, such as quartz -halogen and directed towards activities on the Corridor. 15-18 At interchanges, landscaping shall be used to shield existing adjacent residences from light and glare due to lighting fix- r tures and freeway signage. 15-19 During final design, rock outcroppings to be preserved shall be identified on design plans. 15-20 Where technically feasible, cut rock slopes shall be graded in such a manner as to encourage development of rock outcroppings to enhance the visual quality of these slopes. 15-21 Vegetation removal will be limited to the area required for 1 immediate construction operations. 15-22 During the final design, landscaping shall be added to soften retaining walls. The project landscape architect shall deter- mine the appropriate planting material and irrigation system for maintaining survival. 15- 23 Any proposed plantings shall maintain visibility of existing business signage as specified in Caltrans Outdoor Advertising Act. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No Build Alternative assumes construction of the proposed Corridor _ would not occur. Consequently, visual or light and glare impacts from the project would not be experienced by sensitive receptors. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS A significant unavoidable adverse visual impact #tt remain along the Corridor right-of-way at the following areas, after imoe"ientation of mitiga- tion: •1, 1.t'1` (Conventional Alternative) • U1 l i e Gai l panch • Aliso Viejo • Sycamore Hills • Laguna Ridges Dedication Area. Implementation of.::project..mitigation .: measures cannot reduce views of the CorridortV�p to below a level of significance. 4 - 135 �' 1 t t i ENERGY This section addresses checklist item number 5 from Table 4..1.. Assess- ment of this energy,impact has been divided into direct energy expended (i.e., gasoline used by automobiles, buses and trucks) and indirect energy expended (i.e., construction and maintenance of the facility). The energy requirements of a proposed freeway improvement project are typically compared to a no build alternative (i.e. no improvement). This comparison allows for identifying the energy requirements specific to the proposed improvements. Such a comparison would be ineffective for the Corridor project since there is no existing facility. Therefore, a quantitative compar- ison cannot be made to a no build alternati.ve. In order to provide a basis for comparison, a 1995 build condition has been developed. The 1995 build condi- tion would include three general purpose lanes in each direction and would follow the same alignment as the proposed Corridor. The following table shows the 15 year (1995 to 2010) energy use for each alternative. ENERGY CONSUMPTION ONS Conventional Demand Demand 1995 Build Operations Management- Management Condition Alternatives Conservative b Optimi-stic7 Indirect Energy 201 230 211 208 Direct Energy 413 440 415 409 Total Energy 614 669 627 617 Energy Efficiency Per Vehicle -Mile 6.52 6.35 6.40 6.41 Per Passenger Mile 3 5.49 5.16 4.83 4.52 As shown i amount of total amount of total operation. Th n e the above Table, the 1995 Build Condition requires the least energy, and the Conventional Alternative requires the greatest energy for facility construction, maintenance and vehicle Demand Management Alternative with conservative HOV use, 4 - 136 follows the Conventional Alternative in terms of total ener requirements The Demand Management Alternative, with optimistic HOV use, requires the least — amount of total energy of the build alternatives. However, it should also be noted that the optimistic option requires less direct energy (i.e. vehicle operation) than that of the 1995 build condition. This is due to the higher percentage of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) trips (15 to 30% of all trips) with the optimistic scenario. Energy efficiency is another means by which to measure the amount of energy a particular alternative t'I` require. Energy efficiency is measured in terms of British Thermal unit"TUs) per vehicle mile or passenger mile traveled. The greater the number of BTU's required per vehicle or passenger mile, the lower the efficiency of the facility. The Demand Management Optimistic Alternative is the most energy efficient of the build alternatives in terms of passenger miles traveled. This is due to the high percent (15-30%) of HOV trips associated with the Optimistic scenario. The Demand Management Conservative Alternative is the next most efficient alternative in terms of passenger miles traveled, followed by the Conventional - Operations Alternative. The Conventional Optimistic Alternative is the most energy efficient of all the build alternatives in terms of vehicle miles how- ever traveled. The Demand Management Conservative and Optimistic are less efficient than the Conventional Alternative and require approximately the same number of BTU's per vehicle mile traveled. The 1995 build condition is the least efficient of all the alternatives in terms of both vehicle and passenger miles traveled. MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the above analysis, the Corridor increase regional trans- portation efficiency in terms of vehicle miles"traveled and passenger miles traveled over the 1995 base condition. Although construction of the Corridor does represent an initial investment of energy, this energy investment would be offset by the increased transportation efficiency provided by the Corridor, therefore, no significant adverse energy impacts would occur from any of the Corridor Alternatives. No specific mitigation is required. Further, the Corridor provides an opportunity for energy impact mitigation measures by encouraging HOV use and limiting mixed flow lanes (with the Demand Management Alternative). If energy supplies decline or costs increase prohibi- tively, median facilities such as transit could be implemented incrementally over a period of time, as demand and resources warrant. NO MM ALTERNATIVE Under the No 1i Alternative, energy would also be expended. Improve- ments to other surrounding arterials and freeways would likely be required if the Corridor is not built. However, because these alternate projects have not been specifically proposed or designed at this time, the energy requirements of these projects have not been quantified for comparative purposes..:::: Also, as discussed in the Air Quality Section in Chapter 4, under the No ,;i;i�1� Alter- 4 - 137 I 1 Ell t 1 It !1 I native,. the average travel speed on surrounding facilities would decrease by 37% and daily fuel used would increase by approximately 10% in qualitative terms, representing an energy impact. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse energy impacts associ- ated with construction and operation of the Corridor. 4 - 138 11 w CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES This section addresses checklist item number 51, from Table 4.1.. Construction activities necessary for the proposed Corridor ltl` include vegetation clearing, excavation, grading, embankment placemen ;.".'drainage system construction, structures construction and surfacing. The construction impacts which would result from these activities would include a temporary in- crease in truck activity, fugitive dust and combustion emissions, noise, an increase in soil erosion, increased fire potential and view disruption. Traf- fic detours or delays may occur at 1) the interchanges with existing arterials and 2) the junctions of SR-73 and I-5. Disposal of Excess Material Construction of the Corridor generate approximately million cubic yards of excess material. Options for disposal include 1�disposal of the material at development sites within the project vicinity, 2) recycle that portion of the excess material which qualifies as aggregate for Corridor con- struction or 3) disposal of the material outside the project area. The materi- al which is disposed of outside the project: .area o become the responsi- bility of the contractor. The contractor �,lf be required to dispose of this material in an environmentally cleared location or certified landfill. All disposal options 101111* generate truck trips. The number of truck trips required to dispose of `tf`e material has not been determined at this time. Construction impacts associated with truck trips and construction grading and hauling equipment include: traffic congestion, fugitive dust, combustion emissions, and noise. An additional impact associated with grading and truck trip activity is that of disruption of existing viewsheds. The segment of project area most subject to visual impacts is the south end where the residen- tial communities currently exist. Although this is the area where the majority of grading has already occurred and, therefore, new impacts would be minimal. At the north end, grading and truck activities a be visible from residen- tial units in Newport Beach (Spyglass Hill, Newport North and Harbor View Knoll) and Irvine (Turtle Rock, UCI Housing). Fugitive Dust and Combustion Emissions Soil disturbance to clear the Corridor project area, and prepare the road base d1 generate considerable quantities of dust during the construction phase :Such "fugitive" dust generation depends on soil moisture, silt content, wind speed and disturbance level. For the Corridor project, an average daily dust generation rate of about 1.75 tons per day during a typical weekday is predicted if the entire length of roadway is under simultaneous construction. This should be considered a worst case estimate, because actual construction would occur in increments. The daily dust emissions WW therefore be considerably lower. Construction activities r also cause combustion emissions to be re- leased from on -site construction equipment, truck trips associated with dispos- ing of excess cut, and from off -site vehicles hauling concrete and other road- 4 - 139 1 bed materials. The mobile nature of these sources is such that no single receptor is exposed for any length of time to the nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and combustion particles released by the heavy equipment and trucks. Noticeable local impacts would be limited to occasional di-esel exhaust odors. Noise Construction noise represents a short-term impact on existing noise lev- els. The duration and level of construction noise is dependent on the dif- ferent phases of activity: Ground clearing including demolition and removal of existing trees, rocks 'and soil, which include some blasting; Placement of foundations and roadbeds; Erection of structures including bridges and retaining walls;. Finishing, including filling, grading, paving, landscaping and clean- up operations. Typically the first two phases, ground clearing and excavations,, generate the highest noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators, can reach levels in the range of 67 dBA to 98 dBA at 50 feet. Noise levels for potential construction equipment are shown in Table 4.1?.A. The noise levels shown in the Table are intended to provide the reader with a basic understanding of typical -noise levels generated by construction equipment. The noise levels presented are at a reference distance of 50 feet. The construction equipment noise levels decrease at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance away from the noise source. Therefore, at 100 feet the noise levels be about 6 dBA 1<ess than the levels shown at 50. feet. Similarly, at 200"feet the noise levels would be 12 dBA less than shown. Intervening structures or topography can act as a noise barrier and reduce noise levels further. Although not identified on Table 4.1.A, haul trucks and equipment carriers accessing the project site can also generate annoying levels of noise if passing through residential areas. Blasting and drilling operations occur at selected locations along the Corridor to remove rock. The prim ary.,impact associated with blasting is ground born vibration. - This impacts' be intermittent and temporary, depending on the amount of blasting required to complete grading activities. Drilli-ng operations can cause steady noise levels up.to 98 dB#� at 50 feet. As with blasting, this activity be temporary, depending on the amount of drilling required. Soil Erosion Newly constructed cut and fill slopes would cause a short-term- increase in sediment erosion, particularly damaging to watersheds and streams. In addi- tion, sediment can build up in streams over time. 1 4 - 140 I A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at 50 Feet 60 70 80 90 100 110 Compact (rollers) Front loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches Jackhammers and drills Pile drivers (peak levels) Vibrators Saws Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris,1979. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE TABLE 4.17.A I According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser- vice, surface soils along, the proposed corridor have high silt contents and erosion potential. Fire -Hazards During construction, there is a possibility of random brush and grass fires from sparks, hot exhausts, orinadvertent accidents. Proposed mitigation measures :;:.:i would reduce the .potential for accidental fires during construction and contribute to overall fire prevention measures. Increased fire incidents are a potential impact to, wildlife in that they may burn wildlife habitat. Fire suppression methods c€ be employed during construction, thereby reducing the impact during this tTme:— It is.'assumed that suppression efforts would continue after completion of construction; therefore-, this impact is not considered to be significant. Traffic Delays and Detours Traffic detours and delays may occur on the following existing arterials during construction of the Corridor: MacArthur Boulevard,'Bonita Canyon Drive, Laguna Canyon Road, Glenwood Drive, Aliso Creek Road, Alicia Parkway and La Paz Road. Traffic detours and delays may also occur on the following proposed roads and/or Corridor interchanges:wh.i.ch may be under construction concurrent with the Corridor::: Pelican Hill interchange, Ford Road and the Ford - Bonita interchange, and Glenwood Drive and interchanges to the south. Traffic detours and delays may also occur at SR-73 and I-5 where the Corridor inter- sects with these two facilities. Arterial Sidewalks During construction, sidewalks along existing arterials which WM have proposed interchanges with the Corridor may require temporary closure**o:r re- routing. If walkways are disrupted due to construct ion of the Corridor, op- tions for detour may include construction of temporary covered walkways along the arterial, or walkway closure and rerouting of pedestrian traffic onto adja- cent streets with sidewalks. The determination regarding these options tt be made at the time of construction. Several planned arterial interchanges at the Corridor are proposed to be constructed concurrent with future development projects. The arterial over- passes and underpasses be designed and constructed to include full improvements such as siddiii11"'facilities. Master Planned Riding and Hiking Trails The County of Orange General Plan Land Use Element and .Recreation Element have accommodated the proposed Corridor at a general level, in relation to master planned riding and hiking trail locations. The design of the planned regional riding and hiking trails discussed in Section 3'.12 may require adjust- 1 4-142 r ment during construction in order to conform with the proposed Corridor pro- ject. Specific Corridor design may include consideration of topographic fea- tures, correlation with arterial interchanges and other factors. Class II (On -Street) Bicycle Lanes Existing on -street bicycle lanes may be temporarily impacted during the construction of arterial interchanges for the Corridor. As with arterial sidewalks, potential options for rerouting or closure be determined prior to and during the construction period. MITIGATION MEASURES Many specific mitigation measures have been identified in subsections to Chapter 4.0 (Noise, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, Erosion, Wetlands, Agri- culture and Floodplains). The following additional measures are included with the project which have particularly applicability to construction activities associated with the Corridor project: Disposal of Excess Material 1--1 Trucks used for hauling excess material will be covered to minimize loss of material. Flagmen will assist trucks moving into traffic, and peak hour truck travel will be minimized. Truck traffic will also be addressed in the Traffic Construction Management Plan for the Corridor project. Air Ouality 1.-2 During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, and construction: 1. Fugitive dust will be controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust preventive measures as defined in SCAQMD Rule 403, 2. Equipment engines will be maintained in proper tune. 3. Construction will be discontinued during second stage smog alerts. 1-3 After clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation: 1. Seeding and watering will be performed until vegetation cover is grown, 2. Soil binders will be spread, 3. Areas will be wet down sufficiently to form a crust on the sur- face with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind, 4. Street sweeping will be performed in those areas where excessive dust would be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. Noise 1 ,4 Contractors will comply with all County of Orange sound control and noise level requirements, regulations and ordinances which apply to 4 - 143 I all work performed on the Corridor _project, and will make every ef- fort to control noise associated with the construction operation. 1-5 Caltrans' standard specifications specifically state that each in- ternal combustion engine used for any purpose on the project or re- lated to the project will be equipped with a muffler of a type recom- mended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine will be operated on the project without a muffler. 1 6 Noise level requirements will apply to all equipment on the project or related to the project including, but not limited to, trucks, transit mixers or transient equi-pment. The use of loud sound signals will be avoided in favor of warning lights, except those required by safety laws for the protection of personnel. 1-7 Construction planning shall group noisy operations to avoid contin- uing periods of greater annoyance. 1 -8 Haul routes for construction equipment and heavy construction related vehicles will be located away from existing residential and other sensitive land uses. 1-9 The weight of blast charges will be controlled to limit the blasting ground born vibration where structures are within 500 feet from the blast site. Soil Erosion 1-10 Temporary mulching, seeding, landscaping, permanent erosion control or other suitable stabilization measures will be used to protect exposed areas during and after construction or other land disturbance .and will be noted on project plans. 1> 11 All project related grading will- be performed in accordance with standards and criteria specified in the Caltrans Highway Design Manu- al and the Orange County Grading Ordinance. 1 12 Prior to final design, approval of an erosion and siltation control plan will be prepared and submitted for review .by the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 1 13 Approved erosion and sediment control devices will be installed for all grading and filling. 1. 14 Cut and fill slopes will not be steeper than 2:1 unless a thorough P p � 9h ... geological and engineering analysis indicates that steeper slopes are safe and erosion control measures are specified. 1... r Earthen or paved interceptors and diversions will be installed at the top of cut or fill slopes where there is a potential* for surface runoff onto constructed slopes. 4 - 144 1 1 1 -16 Permanent benches and/or terrace drains will be installed in accor- dance with TCA/CDMG standards and noted on final plans. 1-17 Fills placed against watercourses will have suitable protection against erosion during storm flows, such as riprap, protective walls and culverts. 1-18 Excavated materials will not be deposited or stored in or alongside watercourses where the materials can be washed away by high water or storm runoff. 1-19 Stockpiled excavated materials removed during grading operations shall be placed so that, if erosion occurs, it would not become a source for off -site sediment damage. Fire Hazards 1-20 Spark arresters will be required on all construction equipment. 1--21 Parking and idling areas for construction equipment shall be graded or otherwise treated to remove brush and grass. Detours and Traffic Management 17-22 Advance notice of temporary traffic disruptions will be provided to affected areas;:: and the public. Traffic management plans for handling trafi"ic`during construction shall be prepared during final design of the project and made available to local jurisdictions in which the traffic detours and delays may occur. 1.. 23 Specific Traffic Management Plans will be developed for each location where traffic management is a potential issue. These plans will be developed during final design of the facility and will include phas- ing of the construction activity to minimize traffic conflicts, de- tours and delays. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities 1-24 TCA will coordinate with Caltrans and affected local jurisdictions for temporary closure or rerouting, as determined necessary during construction, of on -street sidewalks, riding and hiking trails, and on -street bicycle lanes which may be disrupted during project con- struction. 4 - 145 I I I � !I L 11 [l 1 1 1 n 111, I � 1 a A I I ri 1 i i r I NO ALTERNATIVE The No# Alternative would have no construction -related impacts. However, otheF'Hidway projects may need to be built if the Corridor is not built. Therefore, the same types of impacts would be experienced in other locations. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. 4 - 146 r a 5.0 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION This sect ion describes the circulation impacts of the Corridor and ad- dresses Environmental Significance Checklist Questions 42, 43, and 44. Traffic Projections for the Corridor and other impacted circulation faci- �' liti-es were developed for the years 1995 and 2010 by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency €I using the South Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (SOCTAM): The SOCTAM model projects future traffic volumes on roadways in the South Orange County region based upon popu- lation and employment forecasts for the area, and anticipated circulation improvements. The 1988 Orange County Preferred (OCP-88) population and employ- ment forecasts for the years 1995 and 2010 were used as the demographic data in the traffic model. OCP-88 has been adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as the preferred set of land use forecasts for Orange County. The 1995 traffic forecasts assume completion of all budgeted or committed roadway projects: The 1995 traffic forecasts were developed- to approximate potential opening year traffic conditions on the Corridor. _The 2010 traffic forecasts were developed as "desi n ear" projections. ............................................................P...................................9....:.::Y.....::.:::::.:.:.p....::oj.:::::::::::::.::.:::.::::.::::.::;.:::::.::::.::.:..::.:::::..::::::::::.:::::.::::.;:.; �:�. � :::: � �:i>�.�:�:r��:>::::�:1:::::;i~o:�::::>�:�:�::. � :::>t:��tl"l.c.....� . �....................................................................................... ��`t��t The 2010 trafi`ic forecasts assumed completion o� the Orange Ctourity``i�aster plan of Arterial Highways within the area impacted by the Corridor. 1 t 1 Initially, the Corridor is anticipated to as,a toll road and later operate as a freeway. Traffic projections have -been made for both the toll and toll:»free conditions. As is discussed later in this section, toll road traffic volumes on the Corridor are anticipated to be 10% to 20% lower than tollfree volumes. The tollfree volumes were used for designing the Corridor, since the Corridor will ultimately be converted to a free facility. ....................................... Operational Characteristics of the Corridor - Opening fty Both the Demand Management and Conventional Alternatives are initially anticipated to be opened as a six lane facility (three lanes each direction, plus auxiliary lanes where required, refer to project description for details). Traffic forecasts in terms of average daily trips (ADT) are given for the year 5-1 i 1995 in Figure 5.1. The ADT gives the projected number of vehicles using the facility on a daily (24 hour) basis. Daily toll free traffic volumes are projected to range from a low of 70,000 vehicles per day near I-5 to a high of 110.000 vehicles per day between Pacific Park Drive and Pelican Hill Road Wayne Airport. anticipated to be �, By comparison, existing Ames on = 0� range f'roin T *9 000*" near I-5 to 220,000 near John Opening day traffic volumes on the Corridor are therefore approximately one-half the current volumes on I-405. The initial six lane facility proposed under both build alternatives can accommodate the 1995 forecast traffic volumes without substantial traffic congestion. The Corridor would operate at level of service (LOS) D or better. State, federal and County planning guidelines call for roadways to operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, both the Conventional and Demand Management Alter- natives would provide users with an acceptable level of service in 1995. Operational Characteristics of the Corridor - 2010 Daily toll traffic forecasts for the Corridor for the ,year 2010 are shown in Figure 5.2. Toll free traffic volumes (Figure 1.5.1€;ks) range from a low of 90,000 vehicles per day near I-5 to a high of 150;000 Vdh'icles per day between Pacific Park Drive and Laguna Canyon Road. 2010 volumes would be roughly 50% higher than 1995 volumes and are approximately 70% of current volumes on I-405. The Conventional and Demand Management alternatives would provide different facilities in the 2010 design year. A comparison of operating char- acteristics for each alternative are described below under the higher volume tollfree operation. conventional Alternative Operation <`€#. The 2010 Conv native would provide five general .`.purpose travel lanes - .... ...... .:.:::::e ; I ne l.onvent i on a I A I ter native cop d accommodate tfi`e"forecast`"`demand"..at".LDS 1�, or better, in the year 2010. Therefore, this alternative would provide users with an acceptable level of service in the design year. It should be noted that since the general purpose lanes would not be congested, there would be limited incentive under this alternative for HOV users. Demand Management Alternative Operation »'{1 The Demand Management A...terati.ve.... oul_d__provi.de three qeneral purpose travel lanes in each direction Ine Lorrioor is anticipated to carry more northbound traffic during--tlie morning peak hour and more southbound traffic during the evening peak hour. Five lanes would therefore be provided northbound during the morning peak hour. The HOV lanes would be reversed during mid -day, and five lanes would be provided south - bound during the afternoon peak hour. 5-2 I r 1 E I 1 I r I I I 1 I 1 �; IT f0-.,G(aOWNVA PKW) OP ►�11 N z N a D 0 Ja J UJ H O O 2 > > z o z zo Lu a Z -1 a z Z ¢ m � o o O Q Q > O LU F- 0 z W J N Lli W 0 M LL U. Q J O 0 r O N I The success of the Demand Management Alternative in provi-ding an accept- able level of service will depend on the percentage of high occupancy vehicles which use the Corridor and the proposed special HOV facilities. If current patterns of only 15% HOV usage within Orange County (roughly 1.15 persons per vehicle) are maintained on the Corridor, then the three general purpose travel lanes would be congested for up to four -hours per day, while the -HOV lanes would not be congested. However', if the HOV usage on the Corridor i-ncreased from 15% to 30% (roughly l.i. persons pe,r. vehicle), then both the general...pur- ose and HOV lanes would operate at. an acceptable level of service t the day. The estimate of 15% HOV usage is calf `tk Conservatve Scenario ; the estimate of 30% HOV usage is called the "O ptimistic Scenario". If the Demand Management Alternative is selected, then HOV usage must be encouraged to realize the level of service objectives of the project. Induce- ments for HOV usage included in the design of this alternative are the follow-- ing: Provision of separate, reversible HOV lanes Provision of direct access HOV rampsat selected locations Provision of<if)'`"`::;::.`':>,:>:,:: ;..::<::.; :<:::::;:;.:....::::.,..:.:......:::::<<:.:::: `: '«' acit;.t$rpark and ride lots It should be noted that if the general purpose lanes are congested the time advantage of the HOV lanes is increased, which by itself is a major in- ducement for HOV usage. In: addition, the Transportation CorridorAgencies can faci 1 i tate HOV usa e by a program"of Transportation Systems Management`"(TSM) which could include the following components: Providing speci:altoll rates for HOV users., Express buses p between park and ride lots and major employment centers. Computerized match ups for ride sharing In summary, the Demand Management Alternative provide an acceptable level of service for all Corridor users if HOV usage `increases to approximately 30% of all vehicles (the Optimistic Scenari:o).:, If HOV usage does not reach this level, then the general purpose lanes �t..be congested for up to four hours per day. Operation of the Corridor at Ramp Intersections Q. Under both the .........::.: . Conventional and Demand Management Alternatives, the��ffifeirsections of the Corridor on- and off -ramps with the arterial street network are designed to prov.ideanadequate level of service during peak.hours. The Traffic Technical fi# provides a detailed analysis of the level of _service at each ramp TnterseM6K Under the Conventional Alternative, all ramp intersections will operate , at; alevel of ::.service..:of Cor.:better, with the exception of the would operate at LOS during the afternoon peak hour. Under the Demand Management Alternative, al1A the ramp intersections would operate at LOS C or better (most 1 5-5 1 would operate at LOS A). Caltrans and the County of Orange generally consider LOS D to be appropriate for arterial street intersections. The Corridor ramp intersections would therefore operate, at an acceptabl.:a1�'C under both thetixiIt <''anlIi aa€tenir Impacts of Toll Operation on 2010 Traffic Volumes traffic volumes ''` .......... ., on the Corridor would be roughly 10% to 206"b"ower'.; from 70,000 ADT near I-5 to 150,000 ADT between Pacific Park Drive and"Laguna Canyon Road. Such a reduction could result in a moderate increase in the level of service on the facility i.e., those sections project- ed to operate at LOS D would likely operate at LOS C if tolls in placer:. Impacts of the Corridor on Other Roadways Implementation of the Corridor will have impacts on other roadways in the vicinity. Traffic volumes cgenerally decrease from projected levels on facilities that parallel the -Corridor and increase on portions of facilities that provide access to the Corridor. Figure 1.5.1 in <'' shows projected traffic volumes on key roadway segments for the yearboth with and without the Corridor (under toll free conditions). Impacts on Parallel Roadways. An objective of the Corridor is to reduce both existing and projected traffic congestion on roadways that parallel the Corridor, such as I-5, I-405,..Pacific Coast Highway and other arterial high- ways. Figure 1.5. 2 in r` shows the extent of roadways in the vicinity of the Corridor that are""antiicipated..:t:o operate at an unacceptable LOS without the Corridor. Figure 1.5.3 in "_ shows the extent of unacceptable congestion on the same roadway "net:work..:with the Corridor in place. By comparing these figures, it can be seen that the Corridor significantly reduces the number of roadway segments that tt'be congested in 2010. The Corridor t€tt`not cause any additional roadway,'segments to exceed capacity. The foTiowing shows the reduction in traffic caused by the Corridor on selected parallel facilities. 5-6 1 1 1 1 I 1-1 1 1 I r 1 I 1 IJ a 1 1 L REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC VOLUMES IN THE YEAR 2010 ON FACILITIES THAT PARALLEL THE CORRIDOR (IN VEHICLES PER DAY) Facility Section Reduction in ADT I-5 SJHTC/I-405 30,000 - 40,000 I-405 I-5/Culver 5,000 - 20,000 Pacific Coast Highway Laguna Cyn./MacArthur 10,000 - 16,000 Moulton Parkway Crown Valley/SJHTC 10,000 - 22,000 Moulton Parkway SJHTC/Lake Forest 12,000 - 31,000 Paseo De Valencia 24,000 Irvine Center Drive Lake Forest/I-405 15,000 University Drive MacArthur/I-405 8,000 - 13,000 Aliso Creek Road Laguna Hills/Laguna Cyn. 15,000 - 23,000 Bonita .Canyon Road SJHTC/Bake 8,0.00 - 21,000 Roughly one-fourth of the traffic on the Corridor is drawn from I-5.. The balance is drawn from paral l-el arterial s . The greatest t impact is to � Moulton Parkway, where the Corridor results in traffic recluctoris-of up to 50%. Without the Corridor, Moulton Parkway p be over capacity for almost its entire length, from Crown Valley Parkway t'o .Lake Forest Drive. The Corridor causes traffic volumes on Moulton Parkway to drop to those appropriate for a six lane major highway. Traffic volumes on- Aliso Creek Road, Irvine Center Drive, Bonita Canyon Road and University Drive would also be over their planned capacity without the Corridor. Volumes drop to generally acceptable levels with the Corridor. The Corridor has beneficial impacts to some segments of I-5 (north of the Corridor) and to Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1). Implementation of.the Corridor does not reduce forecast traffic volumes on all segments of these two roadways to below their capacity. Therefore, congestion is still, antici-pated to occur. However, the extent and period of congestion would be greatly reduced. Traffic in the year 2010 on I-5 near Alicia Parkway is anticipated to'be congested for eight to ten hours per day without the Corridor. With the Corridor, I-5 be congested for three to four hours per day, a 50% reduction in the perio" congestion.. In summary, the Corridor provides a significant benefit in reducing traffic on the network of parallel freeways and arterials. In the case of Moulton Parkway, Aliso Creek Road and University Drive, the Corridor makes the difference between acceptable and unacceptable levels of service. For I75 and Pacific Coast Highway, the Corridor t#1<<°cause significant reductions in the period of congestion in 2010. Impacts to Intersecting Roadways. The Corridor has two effects on road" ways intersecting the Corridor. Traffic volumes would increase, near the Corridor on- and off -ramps as traffic is attracted to these ramps. However, traffic volumes are correspondingly reduced where the roadways intersect I-5 or I-405. The following table shows the changes in traffic volumes for intersect- ing roadways near the Corridor and near I-5 and I-405: 5-7 �J I CHANGE IN TRAFFIC WITH THE CORRIDOR NEAR THE CORRIDOR RAMPS AND NEAR 1-5 AND 1-405 Change Near Alicia Parkway 3,000 El Toro Road 4,000 Moulton/Irvine Center -9,000 -15,000 Laguna Canyon Road +4,000 - 6,000 Sand Canyon Road +1,000 -14,000 The Alicia Parkway, El Toro Road, Irvine Center Drive, and Sand Canyon Road interchanges with 1-5 and 1-405 are anticipated to exceed capacity in 2010 without the Corridor. However, with the Corridor these interchanges are pro- jected to operate at an acceptable level of service. Even where the Corridor causes an increase in traffic on the intersecting arterial near the Corridor, this increase is within the planned capacity of the street and a corresponding reduction in congestion occurs at the 1-5/1-405 interchange. Impacts to 1-5 South of the Corridor. The Corridor causes an increase in traffic volumes on 1-5 south of the Corridor confluence as vehicles are drawn to 1-5 to access the new facility. This increase ranges from 40,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day, depending on location, and is mitigated though the provision of auxiliary lanes on 1-5 between the Corridor and Ortega Highway (SR-74). Impacts to Existing SR-73 North of the Corridor. Implementation of the Corridor causes an increase in traffic volumes on the existing SR-73 (Corona del Mar) Freeway north of Jamboree. This increase ranges from to vehicles per day, depending on location. Caltrans has approved'T' ecilt�udy Report (PSR) dated November, 1989, for improvements to this freeway. According to the PSR, traffic volumes on existing SR-73 Wddllff�ili=exceed the capacity of the existing facility in the year 2010 with ut the completion of the Corridor. Completion of the Corridor is a major factor in this increase in traffic volumes; however, projected growth in the vicinity is another key factor. The PSR further concludes that existing Route 73 would operate at an acceptable level of service if one additional general purpose lane and one new HOV lane were added to each direction of SR-73. The Orange County Transporta- tion Commission (OCTC), Caltrans, the City of Costa Mesa and the Transportation Corridor Agencies are developing a funding plan to provide these improvements. Impacts to 1-405 North the SR-73 of Confluence. The Corridor causes an . 0 increase of - two percent in traffic volumes on 1-405, north of its confluence with ..... SR-:43. This is considered an insignificant impact. This section of 1-405 has previously been identified as over by Caltrans, capacity OCTC and the City of Costa Mesa. OCTC and the City of Costa Mesa are conduct- ing studies regarding potential increases in traffic capacity along this sec- tion of 1-405. Impact of Toll Operations on Other Roadways. The above analysis focusses on toll free operation of the Corridor and consequent impacts on other road- ways. If the Corridor is toll operated as a road in the year 2010, the impacts of the Corridor on other roadways are anticipated to be similar to the toll 5-8 free impacts. Figure 5.3 provides comparisons of toll and toll frep... year 2010 ADT estimates at screenline locations.. With tolls, the Corridor, >'still result in benefits compared to the No Project Alternative, althougti_fiWic on arterials <be higher than with the toll free condition. Toll road traffic volumes o"Ii',torridor are, expected to be 80% to .90% of toll free volumes. An analysis Vof traffic on the adjacent facilities indicate that no additional lanes c be required beyond that shown on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways as a result of tolls on the Corridor. Comparison of Conventional and Demand Management. Alternatives on Other Roadways. Projected 2010 traffic levels on arterials in the vicinity of the Corridor are substantially, similar for the Conventional Alternative and the Optimistic Scenario- of the Demand Management Concept. Estimates of operating conditions are thus consistent between these alternatives. Direct access HOV ramps with the Demand Management Concept 'alleviate peak period vehicular traffic for the area served by the Corridor`IYincreasing peak period vehicular occupancy ratios and reducing peak period vehicular trips. Also, a net decrease in traffic demand should be realized for inter- changes serving general purpose traffic immediately adjacent to direct access HOV ramps for the Demand Management Concept. For example,'the direct access HOV ramp for the Demand Management Concept at Laguna Hills Road should alleviate traffic at both,the Pacific Park Drive/ Glenwood Drive and Aliso Creek Road interchanges. Alternatively,, Laguna Hills Drive from Pacific Park Drive to Moulton Parkway is expected to realize more traffic for the Demand Management Concept than the Conventional. Alternative. Similar localized variations in projected -traffic between the two alternatives are expected elsewhere along the Corridor where direct access HOV ramps for the Demand Management Concept would cause a redistri-but ton of traffic. Estimates of these variations and their impacts are provided later- in this section. The extent to which areawide arterial traffic would differ between the Demand Management Concept and Conventional alternatives would be a function of the relative success of the TSM program of the Demand Management Concept. Ideally, a successful TSM program would substantially reduce peak period vehicular trips in the area served by the Corridor. Thus the Demand Management Alternative should reduce peak period trips in the area served by the Corridor. However, .estimating the net benefit of the Demand Management over the Conven- tional Alternative is difficult, since the parameters affecting variations between the Demand Management and, Conventional alternatives are difficult to. estimate. Variations in traffic operations on the arterials, was limited to. changes in peak hour volumes at the interchanges with the Corridor. These, variations were estimated from the likely impacts of proposed direct access HOV ramps for the Demand Management Concept. ' South End Alignment Alternative c..,ange .to'**t.:e,:Mas er an o r er a ig ways near a orri- or Y-.S confluence ew Avery Parkway is proposed to be relocated over I-5 to connect di"rectl with Paseo De Col teas (see Figure 2.11 in Project 5-9 CJ M "00 u Lc) IL CO M N H wu Z O � U cc: ' U U ca � T N �C) rN T N ^ ^ T T � M + u u m IS E W - m J U- M Ln 0 M V) Z / O//� Y/ a a O 0 uj J W lu U) W cc LL J J 0 J J I ' Description). On and off -ramps would be provided between the Corridor and Avery Parkway. The change in vertical alignment of Avery Parkway would elimi- nate the existing connection between Avery and Camino Capistrano; this connec- tion would be replaced by :an.::extension of Via Escolar under I-5 to Camino Capistrano. This extension a>`require an amendment to the MPAH, because Via Escolar is currently a local_street which would need to be added to the MPAH. The traffic impacts of this change are described in the "SJHTC South End Traffic Study" prepared by Austin Foust Associates in February, 1990 and incor- porated by reference herein. This study concludes that this change would reduce traffic volumes on Crown Valley Parkway near I-5 and the Corridor while increasing traffic volumes on Avery Parkway. The- increase in volumes on Avery can be accommodated within the existing and proposed design, of' the street. Traffic volumes on Crown Valley Parkway west of I-5 will be over capacity with- out the proposed change. Volumes<be under capacity with the proposed change. The realignment of Avery ParWand Paseo de Colinas also has gener- ally beneficial effects by providing improved intersection spacing on Avery Parkway. It is therefore concluded that the realignment of Avery under the Demand Management Alternative >` #(''`r1`:> has generally beneficial circulation effects. Other Considerations Caltrans Maintenance Station. The project includes construction of a Caltrans Maintenance Station (Chapter 2). During operation, the maintenance station will generate about 30 round trips or 60 one way trips per day for the station crew's home to work commute. This volume of trips is not a significant impact. The maintenance station site is currently in use by a building .supply firm, and thus the site currently generates traffic. 1 1 1 1 1 Impacts to Other Modes of Travel. OCTD is studying providi.ng express bus service from the residential areas near the south portion of --the corridor to the employment ares in the vicinity of the John Wayne Airport. This service would be dependent on the use of the 'Corridor. Contact with OCTD will" continue throughout the design and construction of the Corridor. 5 - 11 I 5 - 12 1 1 I 1 1 171 I.YJ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 I M L iW+ U < < v + L ` < a 0 41 °C a - _ L iW+ N M N O �O aM- a- r OC W tt Q� •C CW O O Ln lC4)q, �N.. In Y Nl L ~ N to a c L a0 'r ri s L S O) � L .- CI ,V C C ^ M N ems- N � C W C7 M •- WA 1- (Au > CD O -+ 000 In •O S U N .'- In O > v L L1 M yE F- ..�- C" O 60. 7 S oo 00 N It WC N N N L 0-7 L c0(pp ~ O > N C S v N •` C � O M In 00 N O S 6W. 61 U < W N v Y > L 0 c is a s °C m o > O o W W L C i+ c W 3 u c o Q U OL. J ci 4 J W IL s M ,g A N (A - ao 61 Vl O C L. O C Y C W C. L (E4 O 7 lLp O v0- L 1. + w Z O u co N C . - tut 0) W ��Upp L -O IUO Y 'WO C. W chi +W+ c p� 0 At C 4j Ad L C OI tWp O a u O a+ Y do L1q •• N 61 U_ Y t�{An W 1, i+ 4- 3 C. OI W O L i+ S�'•pQ0 UL �.i. Q'L m N y,U� d� Eao+ p W c P M W rn W E L. L d rn c x v- "' - N L 41 Q) N 4, C! M O < t t 2 W C U VOl N < N N C . d 7 L O ti O) C G! y 3 0) 3N w C 6 A E .0 VL. cL,l cLi cLi C WO O W C •L �C > > L ...L a 'QQ W E •O C E a+ U E! L O dI .y 21- O O L O N V- L OIL L ~ " �� o,F -Co c c C 4j L � W 0 L> L. Cl) -WLIp O < u. N L W W CC W L+ W W u. C. o � ei c ca Ll 1 1 H 1 1 N 5 - 14 1 i 1 1 1 �I 1 'I 1 1 1 L7- 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 15 1.1 Summary of Impacts The above analysis has demonstrated that, prior to mitigation, there may be two significant adverse impacts of the Corridor Build Alternatives: For both alternatives, thetttwoul d contribute towards an overcapacity situation on existing""aoute 73 between Birch Street and I-405. 2. Under the Demand Management Alternative, the General Purpose travel lanes may be congested if HOV usage does not increase to at least 30% of Corridor users. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measureincluded in the project design to reduce the effects of the above impacts: T/C-1 The provision for reversible HOV lanes in the median of the Corri- dor will increase the incentives for HOV usage. The provision of 5 - 16 '�l 1 direct ramps from arterial streets to these HOV lanes (such as currently provided on I-10/San Bernardino Freeway) will provide additional incentives for HOV users by fully separating HOVs from general purpose traffic. Traffic congestion will decrease with an increase in HOV lane usage because there will be fewer solo vehicle trips made in the general purpose lanes_. T:�l~... 2 .. �'be.::;�€��*�*7: d��>�� se�}<t:_:>_::::>::d��:�;��:=:w::�::��::<:��c�:;��:�:�:�::�IQ#::::ar�r��►�:s:::::;#:;�:::��r x. �.... Additional Mitigation Measures In addition to the above design features, the TCA shall incorporate the following programs into the operation of the Corridor to reduce the impacts of the project: T/C-3 The TCA 3part icipate with other agencies (OCTC, cities) in studies 0...improvements needed on SR-73 north of Birch Street. The TCA fh'parti ci pate in future improvements as determined appro- pri ate" tl'rough those studies. T/C-4 The TCA shall adopt operational "measures which encourage HOVs. These measures may include: • Special toll rates for HOV users. s Ex re s buses betwe �FA w en park and ride lots and major employment `centers ........ • Computerized match ups for ride sharing 16-3 The TCA shall adopt a Traffic Management System (TMS) plan to in- crease the efficiency of the facility. The goal of this plan is the development of administrative and operational procedures which can be applied during normal traffic conditions, as well as during incidents and emergencies. The TMS may include mai-nl-ine detection, ramp metering, television surveillance, variable message signing, a control center, and Corridor management procedures, as approp.ri,ate, which can be applied with hardware and software components. The system will be operated by Caltrans, with support and coordinate -on with the California Highway Patrol and the TCA. NO JEALTERNATIVE1. Peak period arterial operating conditions are expectedto be impacted substantially ..i.nthe area served by the Corridor for the No'Altern ative.. For example Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center- Drive, Laguna`.Ganyon Road east of the CorriddF.'I niversity Drive and Bonita Canyon Road may realize signifi- cant operational problems if the Corridor is not built (refer to Figure 1.4.2} Or - Since Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive and the Pacific Coast H'g'way"are the only parallel arterial routes south of Laguna Canyon Road, and I-5 is heavily burdened through this area, substantial traffic is expected to use Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive and ;f Although the magnitude of 1 5 - 17 I I impacts along Bonita Canyon Road and.. University Drive are not expected to be as significant, traffic impacts along are expected to be extensive from 1-5 to Newport Beach should the Corridor n.b..."i be built. The No 063 tern at i ve is expected to impose additional burdens on 1-5 as well as . t the 2010 planning horizon. For example, most of 1-5 and .... paral e1 o the Corridor are estimated to operate at level of service E/F during peak periods and on weekends at projected 2010 traffic levels for the No Build Alternative. Similar peak period operational problems are anticipated along Moulton Parkway/Irvine Center Drive, Laguna Canyon Road east of the Corridor, University Drive and Bonita Canyon Road at projected 2010 traffic levels for the No Build Alternative. Although some arterials are estimated to operate at level of service E/F during peak periods for both alternatives, these conditions are independent of the Corridor. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS I The Corridor may have the following unavoidable adverse impacts on circu- lation: If funding for existing .... SR-73... i s"` not""Torthcom'ing, or is delayed until after the completion of the Corridor, then motorists on SR-73 will be subjected to increased traffic congestion. t While 2• he above measures are ant- ic - i . p . a te . d'**t'o ... * 5 c r- -e a * s-'e .... NOV .... U-j- and have demonstrated effectiveness on other facilities (such as I-10), it is not possible to quantify the future percentage of HOV usage on the Corridor. Therefore, HOV usage might not reach 30% and the general purpose travel lanes might be congested for some period during the day. I rI I u I 5 - 18 1 1 6.0 GROWTH-INDUChNG IMPACTS INTRODUCTION This chapter analyzes the potential growth -inducing impacts of the pro- posed project and its alternative. Following a discussion of current and projected levels of population, employment and housing in the County, the chapter addresses the relationship of the project to adopted local and regional plans, the effect of the project on growth and the cumulative effects'on growth of building the Foothill and Eastern 'Transport at Ion Corridors in addition to the SJHTC. Section 15126(g) of the CEQA guideli-nes specifies what shou.ld.'be ered as growth -inducing impacts of a action: consid- potential proposed Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could -foster economic or population growth, or the construction of -additional housing., either directly or indirectly, In" the surrounding ,'envaronment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to -popu- lation growth.... Also, discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate. other acti"viti-es that cou,ld,signi- ficantly affect the environment, either individually or cumul'ati-vely. According to Section 15.126(g) of the CEQA Guidelines, this analysis, "must not assume that growth in any area is necessarily beneficially, detrimental, or of little significance to the- environment." Growth inducement can take several forms. A project cap,remove barriers, provide access, or eliminate other constraints which encourage.g.rowth that'has already been approved and anticipated through the General Plan process. This "planned" growth would be reflected in land use pl-ans that have been developed and approved with the underlying assumption that an adequate supporting trans- portation system will be built. This can be described as accommodating or facilitating growth-, but for the purpose of this section the term "i-nduci-ng" will be used. A project can remove. barriers, ,provide new access and/or- otherwise encourage growth which is not assumed as planned growth included in the General Plans of the affected jurisdictions. This could include areas which are currently designated for open space, -agricultural uses, or similar non -urban land uses that because of new and/or- significantly improved access could ex- perience pressure to develop urban, -uses at higher densities: Over the long term, a project could affect already developed areas by increasing 'pressure to "recycle" or redevelop at increased intensities. This - could be particularly true for areas adjacent to interchanges. These potential increases in intensity of use may or may -not be anticipated in current land use plans. There are many other factors which can affect the amount, location, and rate of growth in south Orange County and 'the region in general, These include: 1) market demand for housing,, employment -,:and commercial services; 2) 1 6-1 !I the desirability of climate and living/working environment in south Orange County as reflected in the market demand; 3) strength of the local employment and commercial economy; 4) availability of other roadway improvements (e.g., new/expanded arterial capacity, new/expanded regional highway capacity); 5) availability of other services/infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment, water, schools, etc.); and 6) land use and growth management policies of the County and municipal jurisdictions. 11 1 Ll 1 1 L 'I 1 I 1 6-2 1 i II BACKGROUND Orange County is an urbanized area of approximately 786 square miles and contiguous to the Los Angel -es metropolitan area. Dramatic changes in the County's economy, population and housing .market have occurred throughout its history. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has forecast sig- nificant growth and change to continue between now and the year 2010. Orange County growth projections and forecasts discussed. in this Chapter are performed by two agencies: The County of Orange, Orange County Project ions - 1988 (OCP-88) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Regional growth has been analyzed by SCAG. SCAG's growth policies and fore- casts are recognized by the State and federal governments as the offi-cial regional development program for the six county Southern California region. I.n order to characterize this growth and change, the County -has been divided into ten regions for statistical purposes. These regions are called Regional Statistical Areas- (RSAs), these regions were developed by SCAG as an aggregate of census tracts. RSAs 43-C, 40-D,, 44-E and 39-F comprise south Orange County (see Figure 6.1). . Table 6.A summarizes growth projections for the entire County and south Orange County by RSA. These projections are based on current General Plans. Since the Corridor has been identified on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways since 1977, the General Plans in South -County assume construction of the Corridor. Consequently, all projec- tions and forecasts from both Orange County and SCAG reflect construction of the Corridor. EXISTING POPULATION. HOUSING.AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION Population Orange County has experienced significant growth in population over the past forty years and this growth is expected to continue in the future, although at a declining rate. The County's population has i-ncreased from approximately 216,2001 people in 1950 to 1,932,700 to 1980. In July, 1989, Orange County population was est,imated.to be 2,301,2002, thus growing by more than tenfold in a period of 39 years. The County i s projected to reach 2..8 million persons by the year 2010, an increase of 532,600 from the -1989 esti- mated population. The average annual rate of population growth is al -so declin- ing, and the County projects that the rate will continue to fall over the next 20 years. 'All historical population, housing and employment data from "Orange County Population and Demographic Highlights" by Orange County CAO Willi -am Gayk. All other population, housing and employment projection data is from OCP-88, unless otherwise noted. 2July, 1989, State Department of Finance estimate-. 6-3 L e :7 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 - n'CP-RR PRwOrTMR FnR TNF YFAR 9'nin* AREA POPULATION DWELLING UNITS EMPLOYMENT ORANGE COUNTY 2,833,800 1,103,500 1,855,500 RSA 39-F** 257,000 112,500 282,900 RSA 40-D** 279,500 134,700 119,500 RSA 43-C** 246,600 95,300 85,300 RSA 44-E** 177,900 .68,100 202,900 TOTAL FOR SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY 961,000 408,600 690,600 * INCLUDES INCORPORATED AREAS **SEE FIGURE 6.1 FOR RSA BOUNDARIES SOURCE: ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY, OCP-1988 6-5 South Orange1County population totalled approximately 453,800 persons in the 1980 Census. This population level is indicative of the significant growth (a 90% increase) which has occurred since 1970 when population in South Orange County was approximately 238,400. The estimated 1985 population of these same RSAs was approximately 536,400 persons, an increase of 18% above the 1980 census. Southern Orange County RSAs can be divided into city spheres of influence and unincorporated communities. The largest population increase is projected in the Irvine area, which is estimated to grow from about 72,600 people in 1980 to approximately 253,900 people in 2010, an approximate 250% increase. The smallest increases in population are projected to occur in the largely devel- oped communities, including Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Dana Point and Capistrano Beach. ' Housing Characteristics The County's housing supply totalled approximately 721,500 dwelling units in 1980, and consisted mainly of single family dwellings (62%). Based on Orange County Preferred-88 (OCP-88), over one million dwelling units (1,103,500) are expected countywide by the year 2010. This represents an increase of about 381,900 dwelling units, and is slightly lower than the SCAG projections of 410,000 additional dwelling units for the year 2010. At the RSA level for south Orange County (RSA's 39-F, 40-D, 43-C and 44-E), OCP-88 pro- jections assume nearly a 114% increase from the total dwelling units in 1980 of 191,100 to 408,600 by the year 2010. The County's housing stock is projected to grow at a faster rate than the population. Housing units are expected to increase about 53% between the years 1980 and 2010, while population is expected to increase by approximately 27%, according to OCP-88 projections. Following national and regional trends, multi -family housing is expected to develop more rapidly than other types. By the year 2010, approximately one-half of the total housing stock will consist of multi- family dwelling units. Employment The economic character of Orange County has dramatically changed over the , past 20 years from predominantly rural and agricultural to an economy dominated by urban and industrial activity. Employment has progressed from a strictly retail base, as found in the large shopping malls, to include light manufac- ' turing, as reflected in the County's many business and industrial complexes. High technology industries, biomedical facilities and tourism have become Orange County's major income producing businesses. Growth has also occurred in the southern portion of the County in the administrative, financial, and re- tailing activities. 1980 Census Report. 6-6 1 Employment growth in the County increased by 191% between 1970 and 1986. During that 16 year period, the number of jobs in the County increased bar approximately 821,400, from 428,400 jobs in 1970 to 1,249,900 jobs in 1986. Employment growth in the County is expected to continue at a rate of about 45% between 1990 and 2010. Jobs in the .County are projected to increase from 1,226,000 jobs in 1990, to 1,855,500 jobs in the year 2010, for a total increase of 580,100 new jobs. Job growth in South Orange County comprised of RSAs 39-F, 40-D, 43-C'and 44-E is projected to increase between 1990 and 2010 at an even greater rate of 63% from 422,400 jobs in 1990 to 690,600 jobs in 2010. A total of 268,200 new jobs are projected in South Orange County during that 20 year period. Employ- ment is project to grow at a faster rate than population in the County between 1990 and 2010. Jobs/Housing Balance SCAG growth policies state that regional growth should occur primarily in "currently urbanizing subregions where the pattern of development is carefully balanced to provide both jobs and housing, phased with provision of infra- structure, public facilities and necessary public services, and where adverse environmental impacts are substantially mitigated. SCAG policies also support "balanced development at the subregional scale." Balanced development, as de- fined by SCAG, is a mix of housing and employment opportunities within each subregion which reduces the need for inter -regional travel, supports community cohesiveness, 'and matches income levels and housing costs. Although SCAG considers Orange County as a whole to be a balanced subregion, there are im- balances at the Orange County subregional level. Based on 1990 SCAG Growth Management Plan (GMP) data for 2010, SCAG forecasts the County's Northwest and Southeast subregions to be job rich. SCAG proposes to remedy this imbalance by shifting jobs from Orange County to job poor subregions, primarily in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Orange County prepares an annual report, a Development Monitoring Plan (DMP) to monitor consistency with General Pl.an goals and objectives calling for 'balanced jobs/housing ratios in the unincorporated areas of the County. Included in that report is a review of SCAG's policies and forecasts, which are recognized as the official regional planning program. The County's most recent report, Draft DMP-1990, (not yet adopted) endorses the jobs/housing balance as one means of reducing work related -trips. However, Draft DMP-1990 identifies significantly different criteria from the SCAG GMP to achieve the balanced community concept, including a division of the County into three subregions as opposed to SCAG's two subregions, and a jobs/housing target ratio of 1.71 jobs per dwelling unit by year 2010 versus SCAG's jobs/housing ratio of 1.45. Draft DMP-1990 projects both Northwest and Southeast subregions to be in the balanced range in 2010, based on labor force participation rate of 1.71. it 'Development Monitoring Program, Draft., Volume 10, February 1990, County of Orange (Draft DMP-1990). 6-7 J RELATIONSHIP OF PROJECT TO ADOPTED PLANS/POLICIES Master Plan of Arterial Highways ' The Corridor is depicted on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It was placed on the MPAH by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in August 1976. Regional Mobility Plan One goal of SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) is to recapture and retain ' the transportation mobility levels of 1984. The Plan is part of an overall regional planning process. It is directly linked to and dependent upon SCAG's Growth Management Plan, the Housing Allocation process, and the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan. The Plan's Mobility Strategy is comprised of four elements: growth management, transportation demand management, transportation systems management, and facility development. The Corridor is consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan. The Corridor is specifically identified in the RMP. The consistency of the project with the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan is discussed in greater detail in the Air Quality Section (Section 4.4.) Planned Communities/Development Agreements The concept of the Corridor has beef included in the development plans for all approved and proposed planned communities adjacent or near to the Corridor including Aliso Viejo, Nellie Gail, County Village, Laguna Laurel, Irvine Coast, and San Joaquin Hills Planned Communities. Many of the planned communi- ties have been required to reserve and dedicate right-of-way for the facility. However, the planned communities have not been conditioned with the Corridor as a requirement for future development. Growth Management Plan The County of Orange adopted the Growth Management Plan (GMP) Element in 1988. The County GMP Element is one of nine elements of the General Plan. The Element contains County policies and implementation programs on planning and providing traffic improvements and public facilities that are necessary for orderly growth and development. The purpose and intent of the element is to mandate that growth and development be based upon the County's ability to ' provide an adequate circulation system and adequate public facilities and services while protecting natural resources and the natural environment. The County GMP Element establishes a requirement of development phasing plans which would allocate construction in coordination with roadway and public facility capabilities. Incentives are provided to ensure balanced communities and encourage employment development. Public facility plans for fire, ' sheriff/police and library service are also required. A performance monitoring program (included in the Development Monitoring Program) ensures compliance with the plans. The Development Monitoring Program is a single comprehensive 6-8 1 1 1 analysis of County service system levels and their relationship to the phasing of development in the unincorporated areas. New development can be limited in the absence.of appropriate infrastructure. Appendix B of the County GMP Element discusses the relationship of the County GMP Element to the freeway system. The discussion identifies San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as one of the necessary transportation system improvements which will help alleviate existing and future traffic congestion on the arterial highway system in Orange County. Development of the Corridor, along with improvements to the 'arterial, highway system, is necessary to provide adequate transportation services for future growth in the region. ' STATUS OF LAND USE.PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT - SOUTH'ORANGE COUNTY To assess potential growth inducing impacts of the Corridor, the Area, of Benefit (Figure 6.2) was analyzed to determine what portion of the area falls into the following categories: 1) Existing Land Use, 2) Planned Land Uses, and' 3) Unplanned. "Existing Land 'Uses" are those areas which' are developed or dedicated as urban open space/recreational, public facilities, or transporta- tion uses. "Planned Land Uses" are undeveloped areas which are designated on General Plans for s ecific urban o or en s •ace recreational uses;. '�t'prrit :+ uusEE::�<:L:#t7Ski3ii?il :EGia.l•1:1C.U><:% E :•:.::G U>s:a:it3�i:n: !tt :>.::;::a4:. :::: �11.C#:: 4tf:+is*•......................................................:.:...tYEIL1:::::1=;..C.::::::E;:t:1i:::;iE1;;:;:>i+iJiF1,i4..:!•..:�•..::::..:.............". ... •::.::..:...C+:.:i<41i:�r:4?! .:.:.::.::.::::::..:.........................................................................:......::.......................:.........:.....................................................................a..............y................... •.}•.:.}i.;;••;:{$L'{::;:.:::•:v:.:{.4.: :... ;. i�ff.��:;��.VV'.,7yy,7'',,::•:: ...:::.:...:.:....:...: ....:..:(..;. ,.;:.. :...; :. ::.,• �::.:::{:.:::.}v{:'i:ii>:•.: •.: ..:'..: :..: :..;'....: ;...,r ....;].,:..yiY :i::'•••i::•...:...:...:...:ii?i4•.:�.j:...:"',{TT.,,,:.. ,,,}sue.: i:......• i::5::••f7 •' :�M•:S•f .F.:::i'r:iyi • :•TY. t: } •:..:v:::•::: w€<:h:>art.:...:................................................:: ..': mn>:>::...: ....:...::..:::...:..:... r�................ `irti't<'d:ted:::: >::::: ;a ::::::;ea:<::::.::>laa�d::.J:: .:::�.........................................................................:::: €�..:erg:::.��..:......�.::.:a�..:..........:.:::.:......�'......................�,......................................� .:::.a:......................................................................"'Jf,............................................................................................................................................ ::::: ?3t:5::1::d d<:::::( ::::::ottlEa ::ti Un 1 annedXXX areas woul'd`•••b&'th'ose that are 'are not designated for urban `uses or permanent open space but are designated •with land, uses which could be cons'i•dered transitional or holding designations e.g., agriculture). ' {i:;;::::::•$:•i::i:� i$:' :i is iii�;>ij: ^i:; ':::;:::ii:?;::3:•:tti:� 'bti4i"v' i:24:Ltivi` �:5� ::;:•:::': •:•:^::;:ti; •':::::.}::: i{:rii>• ::;�; ::};}}}}:i:;:jii:�� :'{• :�:{{::�ii` �?t�:t{•' i :ii:ti�::::•:'::iii:::;::: gig .4 own 11-11I.I.-I •°�<` ::�')'1�V�ti`�i�'• �<7�'a`�a:��a'fs�:oia ' >� � •:::::>'>:ti • `�<; �A..>: ' ` •��'��:`:>.13��<�>�<�; �: Vie`>��a��; • :��:� :•:>'�1?�ti�dttlli€�t:ed: ?��:�':f#��iar��' `<�� Breakdown is based on data compiled by County EMA and LSA'.Associates,• April -July 1990. 6 9 04 1LU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I� 1 I F,', 1 1 J C EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON GROWTH Amount, Pattern and Rate of Development The following discussion pertains to both the Demand Management and Conventional Alternatives. Both build alternatives are designed to accommodate build out of existing and planned land uses consistent with existing General Plans. The Demand Management Alternative restrict the .size of the facility encouraging greater occupancy rates "and"`the use of transit to accom- modate planned:. growth at acceptable levels of service. The Conventional Alternative t€ provide a larger facility with less emphasis on higher occupancy rates and transit. This alternative is also intended to accommodate planned growth. It is expected that the two build alternatives have substantially the same effect,on the amount of growth occurring by":tfie year 2010. Area of Benefit. Approval and construction of the is not ex- pected to significantly influence growth. in the Are -a of 'B666' t`' over 'the 20 year period, 1990-2010. The County of.::Oran.ge..projects that development -/growth in south Orange County will occur inut`` same -manner with or without the Corridor. It is expected that the maj:ority...of::.pl,anned-, Land uses will .... devel.op with or without the Corridor. The major effect of the Corridor on growth in south Orange County occurred after the Corridor was identified on the Master Plan. of Arterial- Highways in 1976. Since 1976, a substantial portion of the A^ r has been the subject of considerable planning efforts. The CorricTor'tias been' N w;in all. .,:... the resulting land use approvals approved -since adoption of the Corri.......dor on the MPAH. Development approved since 1976 has been designed to accommodate the possible alignment of the Corridor both by providing right-of-way for the facility and designing land uses to be compatible with the future operation of the Corridor. Between construction and 20.10, the Corridor is not expected to increase pressure for intensification or change in planned land uses in the study area for two primary reasons. First, land use plans approved for .the study area already take into account the construction of the Corridor. Second, the Corridor is designed and sized to accommodate traffic generated by existing and planned growth in south Orange County. Implementation of the Corridor is considered by the County and SCAG Growth Management Plans to be a traffic improvement that is necessary to provide for orderly growth and development. However, if by 2010 it is feasible to utilize the reserve area in the median for some type of light rail transit facility it is likely that provision of such a facility could increase pressure for intensification/redevelopment of areas adjacent to the Corridor. The development of .a transit facility in the median, is likely to increase the feasibility of higher density devel-opment than is currently planned, especially in areas adjacent to transit stations. However, it is expected that this potential transit related growth in popula- tion and employment would occur after 2010. Therefore, construction of the 6 - 11 5 11 Corridor will not provide excess transportation capacity which could induce growth beyond planned levels for 2010. Although the Corridor is not expected to further influence the amount and pattern of growth in south Orange County, the Corridor may effect the rate of growth. The Corridor Mprovide relief to existing and projected congested arterial highways serving existing and future development areas. By providing this relief, the Corridor may delay or eliminate the need for improvements to the arterial system. Consequently, those planned land uses which are not already subject to development agreements or vested tentative maps may be able to proceed more quickly without being delayed by a temporarily inadequate arterial highway system. This potential increase in rate of development would occur only where there are sufficient market demand and if other services such as water, sewer, drainage, fire protection, and schools were also available. At present, there is no evidence that the availability of other services is acting to limit growth in south Orange County. Orange County and the XUR Region. Construction of the Corridor is consistent with the County's'Growt•h••Management Plan Element and SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan and Growth Management Plan. Within the period between 1990-2010, construction of the Corridor is not expected to impact the amount or pattern of planned growth in Orange County by .facil i.tating regional access from the South. <.::'.:::�:::�:<.>:.::>:�.�.:..�::.":::P.�::...':.....................:.:.:::::::::::t:::.�:::...............:....��.. >>:••.t��x�t ... the .. k.......... ........... .. Corridor ma be a factor Y 7.nd.0 "' rowt �.;��tg 9 h i n P�s�o�;�;r�:�'�`�`��:i:�� north San Diego County. The Corridor would be only one••of*`anumb'er o'Yactors which may influence growth in north San Diego County. Other factors could include: 1 the availability and dist ribution i employment 2) other arterial and freeway improvements +:::�;;}I;;1. 3) commute times, 4) housing availability andd*'prices{; and land use and growth management policies in north San Diego County. Population As shown in Table 6.A, OCP-88 population projections for the year 2010 for all of Orange County will be 2,833,800 persons. At the same time, by the year 2010 southeast Orange County is forecast to have approximately 961,000 persons, or about 34% of the entire County population. The OCP-88 population projec- tions represents South Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (SOCTAM) land use and socioeconomic data projections which incorporate build out of adopted land use plans. The OCP-88 population projections coincide with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 89 Modified Growth Forecast for the year 2010. SCAG's Countywide population projection of 2,982,200 forecast is about five percent higher than the OCP-88 total of 2,833,800. To a certain extent, population growth is affected by the land uses pro- vided in the various General Plans. For example, each land use element con- tains appropriate residential standards such as density, type and location. Furthermore, the land use elements of Orange County, the cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano show a general alignment reserved for the proposed Corridor. It is reasonable to assume then that these 6 - 12 1 r7 �I 1 1 IU 1 1 1 jurisdictions have made plans which determine population location, distribution: and density in anticipation of the proposed Corridor. (Reference Section 33, Land Use). As discussed under the subsection "Amount, Pattern and Rate. of Develop- ment," it is expected that development i.n the area of benefit will -occur to substantially the same extent with or without the Corridor. Consequently, population growth is expected to be the same with or without the Co.rri"dor. Empl o_vment employment rowth i s expected to increase ease .. �.9 P in Orange' ounty'w tF`...6 `without' the Corridor. The Corridor z €f, however, provide greater access to employment centers throughout Orange `County, pri- marily in south and central Orange County_. Housin rtl.;;.:k.;;;.,,ad;;.;€GF,.,;,, housing units are expected to increase with P or wi tlout ��the Corri dor:� �+�Tie Corridor is expected to provide greater access to and from existing and future housing developments in south Orange County, thereby affecting.the travel patterns of south Orange County residents. Jobs/Housing Balance To the extent that the Corridor facilitates movement within the County, it assist in providing jobs/housing balance. The Corridor is assumed in 'SCAV's Regional Mobility Plan which is ,an important link in their strategy to achieve jobs/housing balance. EFFECTS OF INDUCED GROWTH The environmental effects of anticipated growth in the Corridor area have been evaluated by the County of Orange and.affected Cities when the Land Use Elements, Growth Management Elements, subsequent General Plan Amendments, Planned Community/Specific Plans, and/or tentative maps were adopted. Th is environmental documentation includes assessments 'of impacts related to devel- opment. A general listing of environmental impacts which may be associated with expected growth is as follows: Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses; Elimination of wildlife habitat and sensitive .species; Loss of open space; Construction impacts related to erosion, fugitive dust, traffic, and noise; Increased traffic; Increased air pollution; Increased noise; Changes in visual environment; and Increased storm runoff. 1 6 - 13 Chapter 6 more specifically addresses potential cumulative impacts of this project in conjunction with committed, approved and reasonably anticipated projects. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ON GROWTH OF SAN JOAQUIN HILLS. EASTERN AND FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS The San Joaquin Hill Transportation Corridor and the Foothill and Eastern Transportation Corridors are integral components of a regional transportation system designed to serve the circulation demands of existing and planned devel- opment within the County of Orange and the five county SCAG region and de- scribed in SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan. The FTC is planned to extend southerly from an interchange with the pro- posed ETC in the hills north of Tustin/Irvine to join the I-5 in the vicinity of Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. The FTC is expected to be constructed beginning in 1991. The study area for the FTC generally covers Regional Sta- tistical Area B-41, C-43 and E-44. The ETC is planned to extend southerly from an interchange with the Riv- erside Freeway (SR-91) to a pointsouth of Santiago Canyon Road where it will split into two legs. One leg tt'extend south to the I-5 at Jamboree Road. The second leg td extend southeasterly intersection first with the Foothill Transportation Corridor and terminating at the existing SR-133/I-5 interchange. The study area for the ETC generally covers Regional Statistical Areas B-41 and E-44. Development of all three corridors t`'(``provide important components of the planned circulation system accommodatifng*growth related to planned land uses in the south and southeastern Orange County. Development of all three corridors may also encourage growth in areas currently not planned for urban development, particularly in areas directly effected by the FTC and ETC. Development of all three corridors may also be a factor in inducing growth in portions of Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties as the transporta- tion corridors network uprovi de improved access into areas in Orange County with significant emp'('oyment centers. Given the strong demand for residential and employment uses in southern California, it is expected even if the three corridors were not built a portion of the planned growth assumed to occur by 2010 would still occur. However, this would require major improvements to the arterial highway system (including super streets) and possible reorientation of land use patterns. Also, some growth would probably be diverted to other segments of the region (e.g. north/central Orange County and Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Coun- ties). The growth inducing impacts of the ETC and FTC mental EIR, Foothill Transportation Corridor, March Eastern Transportation Corridor Route Location Study, 6 - 14 1 1 1 1 h 1 are discussed in supple- , 1990 and EIR NO. 451, June 1988. 11 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE No Project Alternative Orange County assumes that the amount and general location of growth will be the same for the with and without project conditions. However, if the ' Corridor is not constructed, the loss of a key link in the planned circul-ation system could slow the rate of development which is contemplated in the existing General Plan and County Growth Management Element. Therefore, the No Project alternative may delay the significant environmental effects that may occur as a result of planned growth (refer to subsection entitled "Effects of Induced Growth" in this Chapter). ' Demand for housing and employment within Orange County is expected to remain extremely strong over the next 20 years resulting in significant increases in population, housing and employment and associated increases in ' traffic. If future growth in the area is slowed by the absence of the Corri- dor, development pressures may increase in other areas of the County or the region. The No Project alternative would result in significant deficiencies in the regional transportation system and a significant imbalance in the land use and circulation system. As such, the County would lose one mechanism to guide planned growth to appropriate areas of the County. 1 D 1 C 1 E 6 - 15 1 r CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130) require that cumulative impacts be discussed 'when they are significant. The discussion should include either a list of committed, approved and reasonably anticipated future projects produc- ing related or cumulative impacts, or a summary of projections contained in an ' adopted General Plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or,areawide conditions. 1 1 1 1 1 For the Corridor, the most relevant planning information includes the other local projects which are reasonably anticipated for purposes of project- ing future development. In Orange County, approved:, projects are monitored through the County annual monitoring reports :;dt Development Monitoring g General Plans and Local Coastal""Programs of individual cities are used for the same purpose (where applicable). Based on the issues associated with the Corridor, related planning and circulation issues have been evaluated not only in the context of other devel- opments, General Plan Amendments, and specific area plans, but also in light of road and transit improvement plans. For example, the TCA and Caltrans are presently participating in studies for the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors `tpe These studies may eventually affect the transportation system in this area of the County and ultimately growth in the region. The discussion below -analyzes the major transportation system improve- ments which may produce related or cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Corridor. Particular attention has been to significant effects from implementation of the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors. For the purposes of this discussion, the cumulative effects from related transportation projects will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of related develop- ment projects. RELATED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ' The SJHTC and the ETC and FTC are identified as integral components of the regional transportation system designed to serve the circulation needs of exiSting and planned development in Orange County and the surrounding area. f�1#de€ po�iblt 1 ..#*i#.#" ..... t. ...d.£#Q��.##:i:::•;:.�i{I:�.G:�.�......s`#�..yY.�':i`:#':::�.a'.`,k"::�'�`:`:.'�':�<#:37:i#:�::s�ts:.«:>'1.�:�:�:`: The Foothill Corridor has been separated into three segments for environmental assessment purposes and these segments are in various stages of 7-1 1 1 the EIR/EIS process. An EIR on alternative alignments of the Eastern Corridor was certified in February, 1988 and an EIR/EIS will be circulated in 1990. EIRs have previously been prepared for the ETC and FTC. Appendix E provides a summary of the significant effects for those two corridors. The significant effects of the ETC and the FTC, in conjunction with the effects of the SJHTC, may be considered cumulatively significant on the region- al environment. The traffic and air quality analyses prepared for this docu- ment assume construction of the ETC and FTC, thereby taking into account the cumulative effect of the three corridors. In addition, the three corridors will have cumulatively significant growth inducing effects. The three corri- dors represent significant components of the regional circulation system. Therefore, it can be anticipated that the corridors will, cumulatively, have a significant effect on the location, pattern and rate of development in the County, in that the Corridorsaid in achieving planned growth as identi- fied in the General Plan. The major transportation system improvements which may produce related or cumulative impacts in conjunction with development of the SJHTC are listed in Table E-A of Appendix E. RELATED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS For purposes of examining the potential cumulative , impacts of in the Corridor area information o sonab y anticipated future__projects was obtained from tfie cities of i.s., € i nese projects are presented in Tables --E=B through' ' E-G"" n"Append x "` and i:liei r locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. Projects compiled in the tables are, at a minimum, currently under construction, have received approval by the appropriate City Council or Board of Supervisors, or are in the planning process. The lists of future projects in the AOB are as comprehensive as feasible given the recordation system of each jurisdiction involved. The lists were compiled in order to illustrate geographical concentrations within the A# and to determine the focus of analysis by creating conceptual subregions, as identified later in this discussion. Tables E-B through E-G in Appendix E analyze potential cumulative impacts by environmental topic. The following discussion summarizes the cumulative effects per environmental topic of the proposed Corridor, in combination with committed, approved and reasonably anticipated projects within each subregion. Appendix E contains more detailed discussion of environmental infnrmatinn fnr 1 1 7 1 1 r 1 El r 1 7-2 1 1 1 ISUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS Topography, Geologic/Physical Features. Seismic Hazards, Erosion The proposed project S within a region which contains unique land - form features. The al ignment��of`"the Corridor has been '' to limit the ' project's effects on these landform features. The primary projects potentially contributing to a cumulative impact on significant landforms in the AOB include mitigation measures, such as grading and siting techniques, designed to mini- mize specific project impacts. Nonetheless, future projects planned in subre- gions having unique landform features, such as Laguna Laurel, portions of south Irvine and the Irvine Coast Planned Community, @."UT a substantial amount of landform modification. This impact be` partially offset by requirements of appropriate agencies and bx the:;;:preservation of open space. :•.\••:!]C•:$.i:,!�:1}1lisj.1,.•:5,•:,M,.M•M:isG:•i;M;N:•K,.,M,.•W.�V..iF:•l,.•11;Z �.iY�•�4:•i:•:,61,.T][•:M:•}:::M MINH{M:1•i•• ::•11: Each of the �# Jurisdictions have developed _policies to control erosion and sedimentation and to maximize seismic safety. Each of these pro- jects are subject to the adopted policies. Appropriate policies have also been incorporated into the pproject to adequately address soil, erosion and construction impacts. The proposed project, in conjunction with future pro- ' jects in the study, area, C1<>not have a significant cumulative impact in terms of geologic considerations: Streambed Modification, Floodplain Environment, Water Quality Successful implementation of the Runoff Management Plan for the Corridor (discussed in Section 4.1) would reduce the level of Corridor impacts on ' surface water to below a '1�vel of significance. However, the project could potentially contribute incrementally to cumulative water quality impacts in the form of residual materials such as heavy metal components in the Corridor runoff. The significance of the residual material would depend upon the imple- mentation of mitigation measures for projects near the Corridor route and the characteristics of individual storm events, such as duration and intensity of rainfall. Archaeological and Historical Properties, Paleontological Resources ' The proposed alignment contains several cultural resources. The proposed project, however, in conjunction with future projects zti'`not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources since these ``''` p projects are subject to stringent mitigation requirements. The requirements, which are based on feder- al, State and local policies, will ensure that, adequate mitigation, such as research, investigation, construction monitoring and data recovery will be implemented. In addition, impacts due to individual projects which have been ' approved have been mitigated to a level significance. Land Use Impacts Tables E-B through E-G in Appendix E,.:: and Figurelk E-1 nt `", illus- trate the future land uses within the. €<`: The `l ro `osed-project, P P 7-3 E in conjunct ion with other committed, approved and reasonably anticipated future projects, . convert existing open space, vacant and/or underdeveloped sites to urban uses or � increase the intensity of existing urban uses. Wetlands. Biological Resources Although the proposed project, in conjunction with future anticipated pro- jects, result in a cumulative reduction in biological resources in the region,*... future projects also serve as vehicles for implementing the County's regional open space program which includes a 10',000 acre permanent open space in the area of the Corridor. Due to the existing public policies and the incorporation of open space areas in future projects, cumulative impactsto.,,:biological :..:resources :. in :.t.h.i_s::::region . have been partially mitigated. The liittsfie Ser, g California Department of Fish and Game policies for no net 'loss of wetland habitat provide further mitigation requirements. Impacts to wetlands will be fully mitigated as the result of protection, enhancement or replacement. Although the preservation of open space and mitigation loss of wetland habitat and additional proposed mitigation measures mitigate cumulative im acts to biological Pq 9 resources, the project :tu€::: contribute to the i+y'cumltive loss of Category 3 and 4 habitat{ 1 <i'R�rMORROO ��€�' �€ €..............................<:: : < Ai r Oual i tv '.:`.`. Due to the ubiquitous and migratory nature of air pollutants, the cumul- ative analysis is discussed on an overall regional basis, rather than by sub- regions. The following discussion is a summary of the regional impacts analy- sis contained in Section 4.4 Air Quality. The transportation infrastructure's inability to keep pace with growth causes all traffic to shift to slower,more polluting speeds. The traffic analysis indicates that the project lijil increase the capacity of the circulation system of the M� . The proposed`project, therefore, represents a regional air quality benefff"due to a reduction in travel time. Additionally, the projects included in this area have been included in regional growth pro- jections and are also consistent with the air quality plan. Noise Impacts The noise impacts analysis, summarized in Section 4.5, incorporates§y. reference the .;.;..;r.:an.:: al :Y:p►sisiof cu mulative e nois e �mpact s contained ned in the.......... A. The analysis is based on traffic data representing cumulative `conditions wf�ich include traffic increases from other projects and their relationship to the Corridor. Noise level data was generated based on the cumulative conditions analyzed in the traffic study (Future 2010 with SJHTC) to determine noise increases from other projects in the region. The resulting noise levels indicate that several locations experience significant noise increases due to traffic generated 7-4 7 11 1 1 1 1 U u 1 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 0 i in the cumulative plus project. condition. Although noise mitigation # be implemented, the Corridor ..result in unmitigated noise impacts in some locations. Future projects`**� be required to comply with the noise stan- dards of the applicable jurisdiction. TransportationJCirculation Impacts The cumulative effect of committed-, approved and reasonably anticipated future projects i:s analyzed in the traffic study prepared for the proposed project (Section ) . Without 'the Corridor, the majority of arterials in the*<'::` ti ".31d experience higher volumes. The project is expected toprov' a a`'net Benefit to the regional circulation system by adding more capacity. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with.future projects in the region, # not result in a significant adverse cumulative impact. Light and Glare ------------ Theproject, in conjunction with, future 'development projects in the region, ti) convert open space #i`e'`" ><»^es to urban land uses resulting `i`n'cumulative impacts to a'sth`et'ic` resources;. The majority of the future projects are located in currently urbanized areas'he larger scale projects, in particular the planned communities, ' reduce:'large:.confl nuous open space areas, having medium to high aestheti c quality, and O` replace the areas with urban development. In addition to requiring a substantial amount of grading in some cases, these developments € also preserve large open space areas. For example, the Irvine Coast Planned Community provides for the dedication of large blocks of open space (2,666 acres total), contiguous to the 2,807 acre Crystal Cove State Park. The open space areas of the Irvine Coast will work in concert with a series of other dedications and land uses to com- plete a regional,greenbelt comprising approximately 1,.000 acres of land. The ultimate regional open space system will, include the Laguna/Laurel Canyons Re- gional Park, Sycamore Hills, and Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park. In addition to project specific measures implemented by the lead agencies to reduce adverse visual as well as light and glare impacts, such as grading concepts, height limitations and landscape plans, the County open space dedica- tion and park requirements partially offset cumulative visual impacts. How- ever, the project, in conjunction with other planned projects, t� contribute to cumulative changes from open space to development. Enerqyi_CommunityFacilities. Public Utilities 1 Committed, approved and reasonably foreseeable future development within the region will contribute to a long-term demand for public services and util- ities. Utility extensions and new facilities t be required:: to provide services to the Corridor. Although the proposed- project add to a cumulative demand for energy, there may be a reduction in energy.:;demand upon completion. The reason for this 'is that use of the Corridorm reduce 7-5 travel times and :W increase mean speeds on the I-405 and other related roadways. This in turn, increase fuel efficiency and reduce energy demand. Additionally, the Corridor and other future::.projects:::r#I incrementally :},::•:v;ir.i:•,:::i:::'•.{::{:::::•}:yj:::'•�:�'y::::.}:•.}':.}::.:::. v::::::: •: :: i::::.:::. i•}:::::}?:: ':> ••'{: •':: �}:isti:::•....i'F.{{.}.'{"{{'{.:'{.}:.:.T,:. add to the amount of solid waste : : '::: ::<:::: :: :<: <<::: >:>::::: ::.> :> :> ..... ................................:.:......:::: e Orange County<:ili"irr' :"''``iii closed ...::::?'.::.::::?!.:the Coyote Canyon Landfill in early"'`1�990"': "•opened}..a"`n'e" and i"11 in early 1990 in Bee Canyon to serve this portion of the County. ..:::::::...... Although the pro ject::,Mp'.::l:ead• to an incremental increase in demand for services ..:..,: ices and utilities. :....:.:....:..:....::.::..:.:....}:'.. �l�t�e the ultimate Corridor s contribution result �n a'sign�ficant cumu'(ative impact. 7-6 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT - The Corridor is intended to meet long-term planning goals and objectives of the Orange County Transportation Element and Master Plan of Arterial High- ways, and SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan and Regional Transportation -Improvement Program. Construction and operation of the Corridor will result in a number of environmental impacts. Construction of the Corridor will involve -short-term uses of the surround- ing environment. Impacts will include noise from heavy machinery, dust from earth movement, changes to the visual environment, potential increased down- stream sedimentation, temporary removal of riparian/wetland habitats (prior to creation of replacement habitat) and additional traffic congestion due to traffic detours during construction. Primary short-term impacts resulting from the Corridor will include relo- cation of eight existing businesses with the Conventional Alternative, and 17 businesses and one residence with the Demand Management Alternative. (Does not include partial takes as relocations.) Long-term impacts will include major topographical changes, potential visual incompatibility of Corridor facilities with residential and open space land uses, physical impacts on Bonita Reservoir and the removal of wildlife habitat and plant communities, reduction in the range -of wildlife movement, and growth inducing impacts. The Corridor will reduce the long-term productivity of wildlife habitat in the San Joaquin Hills area. Important habitat areas (i.e., wetlands and coast- al sage scrub) and wildlife dispersion corridors will be directly impacted by the Corridor alignment. At the same time, however, open space dedications jointly planned with adjacent developments will create contiguous blocks of preserved open space lands without fragmenting habitat areas. These dedica- tions of open space to the County reduce long-term effects on biotic communi- ties in the Corridor area. The Corridor was planned in conjunction with these developments and open spaces. The long-term benefits associated with implementation of the project pertain to the need for transportation improvements in this area of the County to improve existing and projected traffic levels of service on the circulation system. Current operations are at level of service (LOS)F on several arterials and state highways. Estimates of future operational conditions (year 2010) without the Corridor indicate significant increases in average daily and peak hour volumes on many facilities, including I-5, I-405, SR-55 and Pacific Coast Highway. Planned improvements to I-5 and I-405 alone will be beneficial but will not completely reduce projected traffic congestion to acceptable levels. The primary objective of the Corridor is to reduce peak hour congestion on other network facilities, improve travel time and speeds and reduce through traffic use of arterial highways. .Further, the project will provide a long- term benefit by reducing air pollution and energy consumption through reduction of vehicle miles travelled. The project design includes high occupancy vehicle 8-1 lanes and reserved right-of-way in the median for future transit uses or addi- tional travel lanes. These types of facilities will further reduce traffic congestion, and will support reduction of air pollution and energy use, enhanc- ing long-term productivity of the region. Although the project will create environmental effects as identified herein, implementation of the proposed project is warranted at this time rather than delaying the project for future options or alternatives due to the immed- iate need for the facility to accommodate existing traffic volumes and improve levels of service. u t r, i 1 1 11 fl i 8-2 1 1 `t IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The following list summarizes those resources which would be irretrievably committed to the construction of the Corridor: • Energy and materials used for construction. Riparian/Wetland habitat; there will be a loss of habitat due to Corridor construction, however on and off -site habitat will be devel- oped through a wetland revegetation program. • Loss of wildlife dispersion areas. • Loss of significant plant communities, woodlands, and raptor nesting areas, and habitat for sensitive species. • Loss of Vacant Land. • Loss of 31 acres of agricultural land, five acres of which are "Prime Farmland" as identified by the State of California. • Loss of up to one housing unit and 17 businesses (full- takes) for the Demand Management Alternative and eight businesses (full takes) for the Conventional Alternative. • Alteration of viewsheds in undeveloped areas from both on -site and off -site vantage points. 1 1 1 f 1 I 1 9-1 1 1 II I 1 1 L� I 1 10.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE-.ADVERSE.IMPACTS GEOTECHNICAL There would be no significant unavoidable adverse geotechni.cal impacts remaining after implementation of the above mitigation measures. WATER RESOURCES Streambed Modifications. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts would remain upon the following stream channels due to required realignments and/or placement into underground conduit and placement of'fill material: Oso Creek, Laguna Canyon Creek, Bonita Creek/Bonita Reservoir and Coyote Canyon channel. Floodplain. The Corridor would have significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain values including existing wildlife movement corridors, and sensiti-ve-,and endangered species and vegeta- tive communities. Impacts to beneficial floodplain val-ues would occur largely in Oso Creek `':naeh::::v :>::::..:::..:>: ;;'::;;;::>:.::.::.>::::.::.::.;r •:.;;;:::.: < :.;':::.::;:< ;: ,, Bon-i to Creek and Coyote Canyon channel `areas: Impacts...to we�tl'ands�'resources would be mitigated to a level of non -significance with complete and successful implementation of a Habitat Res- toration Plan (to be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the�Corri- dor). Water ualit . Successful :.impl;ementation of the Runoff Management Plan 'I..:::: :�for the Corridor i��>��t�::::wxs:>rd � s cussed in Section level of Corridor impacts on"s:urface water to below a level" of significance. However, the project could potentially contribute incrementally to cumulative water quality impacts in the form of residual materials such as heavy metal components in the Corridor runoff. The significance of the residu mitigation measures for pr tics of individual storm e Those storm characteristics settle in channel bottoms downstream to the ocean. AIR QUALITY al material would depend upon the implementation of ojects near the Corridor route and the characteri-s- vents, such as duration and intensity of rainfall. would determine the amount of materials which would or remain suspended in the runoff to be flushed There would be no significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts associated with the proposed corridor project. NOISE There are significant unavoi development.; of the Corridor :::.'•ii:•:.ki.4 iTSr.ir::L: i::: Y?:3: �.:.rir>.}::::i:''F'v.••yw:'i'::ii{::ii�ti::r i(:. ... :::iv:i::ii::::�'.}w::.:.. .?::... 10 - 1 ise impacts 1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES WETLANDS Upon full and successful implementation of project mitigation, all impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. LAND USE From a land use compatibility perspective, the complete takes of busi- nesses and a residence as identified in Section 4.9 are considered incompatible impacts that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance. Therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts would remain. HOUSING AND BUSINESS RELOCATION Implementation of the relocation policies outlined in Section 4.9 miti- gates all significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Corridor housing and business relocations. PUBLIC SERVICES There would be no significant unavoidable adverse public services impacts associated with the project. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES With the inclusion of the project mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur. HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse hazardous waste - impacts associated with the proposed Corridor project. PEDESTRIAN. EQUESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 10 - 2 F� not cause any significant unavoidable adverse impacts to bicycle, equestrian or hiking trails. LANDFORM Potential significant adverse impacts related to instability of cut and fill slopes and stockpiled materials, removal of excess materials, landslides, and compressible and expansive soils would be mitigated to below a level of significance. Construction and visual impacts of landform alteration are discussed in Sections 4.15 and 4.18. VISUAL RESOURCES A significant unavoidable adverse visual impacts remain along the Corridor right-of-way at the following areas, after implementation of mitiga- tion: <± (Conventional Alternative) • Nel l'`e "'G'a l ' ranch • Aliso Viejo • Sycamore Hills • Laguna Ridges Dedication Area. Implementati.on:.:of..prosect::: mitigation ::measures. cannot reduce views of the Corridor a se'($e to below a level of significance. ENERGY There would be no significant unavoidable adverse energy impacts associ- ated with construction and operation of the Corridor. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS There would be no significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. } 11 0 1 I xQ COMMENTS AND COORDhNATION PUBLIC REVIEWJPUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM Background -Environmental Review/Public Participation Program In 1979, during Phase I of the SJHTC Route Location Study, Environmental Impact Report No. 267 was certified by'the Orange County Board of Supervisors. In July, 1988, during Phase II of the 'Study, Draft EIR No. 494 was circulated for review. Draft EIR No. 494 evaluated design alternatives of -the selected alignment. The document did not evaluate the Corridor as a toll facility. Subsequent to circulating Draft EIR No. 494, the TCA decided to prepare this EIR/EIS evaluating the Corridor as a toll facility. For additional, information regarding the project history please refer to Chapter 1. An extensive public participation program has been carried out during both r� Phase I (1979-1982) and Phase II' (1982-present). Phase I Public Participation Program. Phase I included three rounds of meetings with homeowner associations, coordinating councils, and representatives of major land owners/development companies. Upon request, additional meetings were held with community groups to discuss results of the preliminary alternatives evaluation. The program also included meetings with staff of participating cities (Irvine, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, and San Juan Capistrano) and the Laguna Beach,City Coun- cil. Representatives of the four cities served on the Corridor Study Technical Advisory Committee. This committee met for monthly progress meetings through- out the study period. The objectives of the three rounds of meetings were as follows: First Round. Meetings were held in September and October, 1977 to -intro- duce the Corridor study program, discuss important local issues and study concerns, and plan the nature and schedule of subsequent public participation activities. Second Round. Meetings were held in -January and February, 1.978 to pres- ent, discuss, and receive comments on the alternative Corridor route locations, typical cross sections, and the preliminary general impact assessment. Third Round. Meetings were held in April and May, 1978 to present -for comment the refined Corridor route location alternatives and associated envi- ronmental impacts. Prior to the third -round meetings, the corridor analysis identified addi- tional groups and locations having a potential interest in the Corridor study. Consequently, the public information/notification program was substantially expanded for the third -round meetings. The Draft EIR No. 494 contains additional detail regarding the Phase I Public Participation Program, lists dates for the Phase I public participation 11 - 1 1 u meetings and discussions held during the period from September 1, 1977 - Octo- ber 2, 1978, and includes a summary of major issues and concerns raised at these meetings. Phase II Public Participation Program Pursuant to CEQA, a Notice of Preparation for Draft EIR No. 494 was dis- tributed on December 21, 1982. Pursuant to NEPA, a Notice of Intent for Draft EIR/EIS No. 494 was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 1984. Copies of these notices are contained in Appendix F. Subsequent to the decision to prepare this EIR/EIS (which supersedes Draft EIR No. 494), a revised Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on October 16, 1989% A Notice of Preparation was distributed on March 5, 1990. Responses to these notices have been considered in preparing this EIR/EIS. Table 11.1.A summarizes the issues raised in comments received in response to the notices. The letters received in response to the NOP and NOI are on file with the TCA and Caltrans. Copies of the notices are contained in Appendix F. The following list includes public meetings/events which occurred during Phase II. MeetingJEvent Date OCEMA presented Corridor Study findings to Board December, 1982 of supervisors and Orange County Transportation Commission. Public Meeting Route Location Study - Phase II January 19, 1983 - Mission Viejo High School MeetingJEvent Date Public Meeting Route Location Study - Phase II January 25, 1983 - Thurston Intermediate School, Laguna Beach Public Meeting Route Location Study - Phase II July 24, 1984 - Lincoln Intermediate School, Corona del Mar Environmental Scoping Meeting July 24, 1984 - Mission Viejo High School Environmental Scoping Meeting July 25, 1984 - University High School Environmental Scoping Meeting -Comment on EIR No. 494 July 20, 1988 - University High School Environmental Scoping Meeting -Comment on EIR No. 494 July 27, 1988 - 25552 La Paz Road, Laguna Hills 11 - 2 I a h 1 1 i I �I I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 r S<N<OCpOON Z61--W OC �r<JN 3QN1-W '�Q24C7W SW 2H m �+UYUJ W HOC <�+JN Ll W OCS.+HN X _ LL a[O-aW OF O WNUOC «. C. /-..OZ\xO�N�+Zt7 C70C0=F-S r.2pOU�+Z C7\W�LLJOYSW ZF- <W NFSWF-r.UN co cc<0 W <ZO 1-O LLO C70 I%.SY X W Z W CC C9 Y J .+ 4 S I- Q Z 0 C7 J Q OC W )( N<LLW ►-Y wmw"Z W NN CICWJOUQF-�OZ C.IOZNH00OU!-`r O.Z �+Sd<U F-N <J►-WM I--r+>WN 7 F�.r Jr1-«r W N S J Q Z 0 N W d QOCY 6Za OC .r OW Z O►+N W U�JI-HOC<J CIC WNO�CL'U W N X O OCQ►�ZQC7W \SYpOCOJOC7Y X X X X W SO N►+OZ X 0 C► LLI N CL Q U W X CL OC •+X: W U.60C$J<Za X W— O J O o— U < J O C W N O m O C U W N X X O. _ < N C7 \ aL ►+ Z 6 Z U �+ Z O . LL e 4- +A ° n'f- 4- L.O ° a°i t- o2 u W 4-- i c � C O > C J < cG C 0 u o N L. C U& t4- < O - ^ 4JuC�p ,I HJc - (LO 4- o aL cc L 4- L. o .a°i n �L0< 0 co S <NtGCOOON Z<E-W OC•-•<JN �QNF-W ZQZlC7WZWZI- X O. M O] -1 •-• U W W W> ►. U W w x M"UYUJ W Y-OC<•-•-JU/ x -J LA- U •-• J •-• F- Y x O. W OC S •+ l-- U) O. OL O" W U F- O W Ul U O: ►+ O- t- O Z\ S O Ul �+ Z C7 x C700O31-S-•ZO�U•-•2C7\W=aJOYiW Z1� X X X 6W NHSW1-SUN X x UO Z7 J<F--> W •-• ZO-<U 1-N C9O[!O W x x Q �-• oc Q Q J �+ (-- Y X x wzwmcDY J •-. U' SI- QZO (DJO00w U/<<+- WHY wmw"Z Www wW-JOU<l-"OZ UOZU)F-OCOUI-•-•OZ •-•ZdQUHN x <J1-W d'>WN 1- •-• J ►• 1- - W W X J< Z O y W x HOC<F- x CL OC bd Q Z O OC •-• O W x zO•-•U)w x x x F-OCQ 4-Y. ►•U\U•-•wum-i<1.- •OZ x x x X X UOJ1-OKQJ W W UIOOSU W N OOC<•-•zaC7w\x YO=O J0 0Y x x W WOO -•OZ Oa WZ U)O-QUW x O-OL•-•Z W U-4=Z-J<ZO x m•-•OJOC7 •-•UQJ OCWNO�OCUWN X X O.SIN�-•ZC91Y. .+Z IZ U•-•2tJ x h • N U L Gl N u i+ 10 O 0! Ol O N O tym ° O 4- 0 41 c .` a° q u U L. o c L •L 10 WLw ' ai ° CC •Nay.-- I t H 1 1 n 1 I i 1 r I I i n 1 I 11 i S <NdCpO�N SdF-wOC .-•¢JN x 3QN1-W SaZaC7W SW2H 'x m•-•Uy UJ W 1-Ca•+JN 1-OJJ U. s(U••J•-•Hy O.WOCX 1-N a CO-2w U/- p WNUC•-. 0. 1-•-.OZ\SOS N.-•ZC7 C700O31-= �+Zp�U►•Z G7\W SO.J Oy E W ZI- aW N1-2W 1-•-•UN N OCda W <Zp 1-o n.o Wcz O.S> x Q •'•C QJ... WZ WCC7 'Y x .J CD I.- ¢Zp C7 J¢CW x N¢u.LU x W=W"=WN N Cw JOU<1-•-.OZ x UOZNI-OG7U1-•-•OZ ►�saac�r-N x QJI-W OC2QH.-•> W N X X J d Z o M N W x i-CaZN •-+1- x m dCY 4me G.'•-.0 W X X Z O ►+ - N W X X 1-Cdu-u-•-•U \U•-•CU�J¢ 1-«..Oz X X UOJI-O00QJ wwNOOCUww pC6•+Z¢C7W \SYOO:OJO C7y W CO N.-•OZ O O. W Z N O. Q U W O.C•-•Zw u.¢CSJ42p - m •+OJOC7 ►+UaJ CWNOOCUw.N U N O L U Q C U a+ 'Q m O NU 41 f-o L O W m C s+ C! N l0 Ca U= \aa O O N y! v •.• c Y•1 M Eay L i rn W U L. , M L 0! to co ►-< C >. 411 tl N4O O lQ N Z xU< �t0 C tC W CI m N Zne< m rA �• M QI 7 {D Nmi L ad ~ L. f0 z ' Ln I 3!!n1-W fQz6C7W f W zF- O.�mJ..0 V1W OC>•-U W N 1-OJ J W Q U►•J�+1-Y 0- W OC S G. aCO� W UI- O W N UOC «+O. F-►+02\SO�H«.ZU' X X G90003t-S r+ip�U�+Z C7\WE6.J OYZW Zi- QW NI-S W 1--r+UN UO SO J61-�-+>W ►�iaQU 1-Vl 00000 W QZp 1-O O.O C70C60.SY Q ►»OC Q�Q Jr+HY x X WZ W w CDY <zo C7 JQ W W y Q W W 1- Y X Cd�N«+z W NN CY W JO U6F-�+02 Uozwr-oeoUf-...oz ..faQUr-vi <J I-W OCZ QF-•-•> W N X J < Z p :3 V) W I- OC Q z N •-• !- X aQneu <zp w"Imw z0•-vi W X UOJ!-mw<-I wwwo;)Wu WN OOC <•-•zQt7 W \SYpSO JO C7Y W oC0 y•-02 0 0. W z N 0. < U W X X Mix -.zw u.<==J<zp 07•-•OJOt7 �+UQJ o: WfnO�OGU W N X p C V J O o N -3 C Ol L 0 S L S CNC 7 Ql co J W > U •C. a+ A M L. J 0 11 1 I v O +: L a O L. c o m C) Y- a C � CA �y W 41 O O � L QI p L �o c L 0 40- N CA OC G1 W L 4- 0 L W N Y OC W 1 v 40 o t L c L L QI Q) EE6 O u u fy9 V W N LW �y-• N C 40 K \ OC C CA W O 'Q - W W CI 0O C 44 C. 61 � '. OC i+ L Io 0 d City of Irvine Council Meeting August 23, 1988 - City Council Chambers i City of Newport Beach Council Meeting August 8, 1988 - City Council Chambers City of Newport Beach Council Meeting August 22, 1988 - City Council Chambers The 1983 Public Meetings presented information about the proposed Corridor route, vehicular travel lane requirements, interchange types and location, transit/HOV provisions, and park and ride facilities. Foll-owing the formal presentation of the Corridor study findings, the public was invited to comment on the project. Environmental scoping meetings were held in 1984 and 1988 to provide the public with updated information on the Corridor Route Location Study and to receive input regarding the project and its potential environmental impacts. Environmental issues raised in the 1988 scoping meetings included: im- pacts on Irvine riding/hiking trails; traffic impacts on Ford Road; noise impacts and mitigation; cost and source of funds for mitigation, measures; impacts on congestion at connection of SR-73 and I-405; public health; impacts associated with 6% grades; impacts on drainage in Laguna Canyon; air quality; concerns with peak hour traffic conditions; construction phasing; traffic impacts on Greenfield Road; traffic impacts associated with eliminating Moulton Drive interchange; alternative locations for Park and Ride lot proposed at Ford Road; and, costs/funding for facility. The Phase II Public Participation Program also included joint meetings of the Public Agency Technical Advisory Committee and Landowners Technical Adviso- ry Committee. Meetings were held about every three weeks during 1982-85. The committees reviewed and commented on refined Corridor route alignments; related engineering and planning information; and technical design issues. The two committees included representatives of the following groups: * Public Agency Technical Advisory Committee - Cities of Newport Beach., Irvine, Laguna Beach, and San Juan Capistrano; - Caltrans; - Orange County Environmental Management Agency; and - Gruen Associates (Consultant to OCEMA). * Landowners Technical Advisory Committee - The Irvine Company; Aliso Viejo Company; S&S Development Company; - AVCO Community Developers; and, - Colinas de Capistrano. 11-7 Since 1985, the Traffic Technical Committee has been established to recom- mend appropriate travel demand forecasts for the SJHTC. In 1989, the committee held four meetings in March, three meetings in April, and three meetings in August. This committee is comprised of representatives from the following en- tities: * Traffic Technical Committee - Cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Costa Mesa; - Caltrans; - TCA; - Corridor Design Management Group (CDMG); County of Orange EMA; and, - affected landowners. A Joint Policy Statement Task Force was also established during Phase II to develop locally acceptable design principles. The group held 11 meetings between May and August 1989. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from the following entities: * Joint Policy Statement Task Force - Cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo, and Dana Point; - County of Orange; - The Irvine Company; - Mission Viejo Company; - Buie Company; - Home Capital Corporation; - University of California, Irvine - Caltrans - TCA - CDMG The Phase II Public Participation Program also included formal and infor- mal informational presentations to city councils and other agencies. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY The following is a summary of the major areas of controversy expressed through scoping meetings and the public participation program. - Need for the project. - Size of the project (e.g. number of general purpose lanes). - Allowance for truck use of the facility. - Inclusion of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes. - Need for and location of interchanges (especially Laguna Can- yon, and Sand Canyon interchanges). - Effect of the project on arterial traffic. - Visual effect of the project on residential areas (e.g., Turtle Harbor..::Ri :Rock,d 11 - 8 11 - Visual effect of the project on open space and recreational areas (e.g. Bommer Canyon, Crystal Cove State Park). - Noise effects of the project on residential areas and visual effects of noise barriers. - Growth inducing effects of the project. Air quality effects. Construction effects. CONSULTATION The following agencies, special districts, institutions, organizations, and companies have been consulted in preparing the EIR/EIS (perti-nent corre- spondence with these agencies is contained in Appendix Q . (Designation "C" or "R" denotes cooperating or responsible agency.) Aliso Water Management Agency: Bil'1 Becker California Coastal Commission R California Department Agriculture: Donna McIntosh - California Department of Conservation: Em'ily•Kiesh California Department of Fish and Game (R): Ron Hei-n; Ken Berg California Department of Parks and Recreation: Jack Roggenbuck California Highway Patrol: Capt. C.A. Lynd; Capt. S.E. Malone Cal-ifornia Public Utilities Commission (R) Capistrano Unified School District: Mike Vail, Facilities Coordinator Nanci Novrani, Facilities Technician Capistrano Valley Water District: Ray Auerbach Costa Mesa. City of: John Lower, Transportati-on Services Engineering Irvine Cit of: Chief Leo Peart; Irvine Police Department; Steve Haub- ert ,,:.....,,.,, .,149 ...,.... ,fl E f a 1 iy1#eY` .I sin 3 Pi a n n i ng Servi c e s Jenni<fer.. Regan y�: :;::.:+:y.}.:•:y:�.j{. ':::iiy]vi �►.j�:• � :•1[:•:ti:::. �jj•�:•.:yi.�::: :. v::i ::ti ::::::: '/.'}{::::::,jy{f• : �h .:ii:•• �'�y� .:.7`.'i-. ': �::ii:/1��';}y!�,?:f::: .:�j. .. .. .:::y.�...i '• .•.:.:�/.��p�::'ri: ti�:::�i��k;,FF�.::: i.: �.��1.{ ::}::::i'F�:i;:;�:�'.::j::j� �:: ��V•. �.i1��a�.::.i��::il��::•:::i�•1•i::::y��i�. .}y2.�.X•i��:�•:�i.Fl•iii� ..' Laguna Beach. C-ity of: Kenneth Frank, City Manager; Terry Brant, Director of Public Works; Chief Neil Purcell, Laguna Beach Police Department; Tamara Campbell; Chris"Kreymann, Kathy Lottes {#:•i:•::•ii • # Mission Viejo, City of: Glen Godfrey, Planner; Mary Annala; Planner; John Anderson (Consultant) 11 - 9 Newport Beach. City of: Donn Webb; Ben Nolan; Rick Edmonston; A. Camp- bell, Newport Beach Police Department; Patricia Temple Community Cable Vision Co.: Charlie Roberts Dimension Cable Systems: Michael D. Neal E1 Toro Water District: Fred Holt Irvine Ranch Water District: Robert McGraw Irvine Unified School District: Stanley Corey Laguna Beach County Water District: Joseph Sovella Laguna Beach Unified School District: Clyde Lovelady, Jr., Metropolitan Water District: Robert C. Moehle Moulton Niguel Water District: Carlo Habash Newport -Mesa Unified School District: Dale Woolley, William Shaw, Facili- ties Planning Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA): Bob Rende; Carol Cirelli; Bob Peterson; Ron Taira; Jeff Dickman; Kari Rigoni; George Britton; Sara Anderson; Kathy Matsuyama; Jenny Stetts; Yosh Kawasaki; Bob Richmond; Angela Woodward (Consultant); Jerry Sterling, Chris Miller, Angel Martin, Mark Esslinger Orange County Fire Department: Chief James Stone; Deputy Chief Rich Dewberry; Chief Robert Hichens Orange County Harbors Beaches and Parks District: Yosh Kawasaki Orange County Sheriff Department: Captain John Hewitt; Captain Dennis La Ducer Orange County Transportation Commission: Todd Murphy; Kia Mortazavi Pacific Bell: Karen Cahem Saddleback Community College District: Dr. Lombardi Saddleback Valley Unified School District: Dr. Peter Hartman Betsey Lindsey San Diego Gas & Electric Co.: Chris Neuner San Juan Capistrano. City of: Ted Simon, City Engineer; Dana Kasdan; Sara Pashalides; Bill Murphy; Tom Merrill; Rick Zimmer; Tony Foster; Irene Marcote; Kevin Veira; Cassandra Walker; Wendy Schulenberg San Diego Pipeline Co.: R.L. Wetzel Santa Ana Unified School District: Dr. Edward Krass Santa Margarita Water District: c/o Robert Bein, William Frost & Associ- ates South Coast Air Ouality Management District: Brian Farris Southern California Association of Governments: Mildred Yamada; Hideo Sugita Southern California Edison Company: Ken Bellis Southern California Gas Company: R.M. Oclara; J.A. Stebick The Irvine Company: John Boslet; Peter Changala; Bill Boyd; Paul Jones The Mission Viejo Company: Paul Shaver, Project Engineer; Dave Celestin; Bob Kahn; Rich Watson Tri-Cities Municipal Water District: c/o Woodside/Kubota; Richard Houck Tustin Unified School District: Dr. Maurice Ross University of California at Irvine (R): Peter Carpenter; Robert Dannen- brink, Jr.; Lauren Kfoury; Steve McHarris U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (C): Cheryl Conel; Rick Harlacher U.S.. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service (C): Jack Fancher U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service: Bob Bess U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (C) 1 L £# LIST OF PREPARERS, This Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. under the direction of Caltrans and the Transportation Corri- dor Agencies (TCA) of Orange County and with assistance from the Corridor Design Management Group (CDMG). CDMG is a consortium of four engineering firms, notably, Howard Needles Tammen and Bergendoff, Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., Fluor Daniel, Inc., and Church Engineering, Inc., selected by the TCA to serve as an extension of TCA staff in managing the design and construction of the Corridor. Some of the analysis of potential Corridor impacts has been based on addi- tional work performed by P&D Technologies (biological field inventories and analysis) and The Chambers Group (archaeological and paleontological analyses). Key personnel from agencies and firms who contributed to preparation of this document and those whose material has been incorporated herein are listed below: LSA Associates, Inc. Carollyn Lobell - EIR/EIS Director, Principal In Charge B.A., Social Ecology, Planning and Public Policy; 12 years experience environmental planning and roadway projects. Debra Schadeck - Environmental Task Manager B.A., Geography; 14 years experience in environmental, land use and public - policy planning. Amy Rudell - Environmental Task Manager, LSA Associate B.A., Environmental Studies, seven years experience environmental plan- ning, three years experience in freeway/roadway projects. Jill Wilson - Environmental Task Manager; LSA Project Manager B.S., Natural Resource Management; five years experience in environmental planning, three years experience in transportation planning. Annette Sanchez Baesel - Environmental Consultant B.A., Social Ecology; M.,B.A..; 11 years environmental and public policy planning. Deborah Baer - Environmental Analyst; LSA Project Manager B.A., Social Ecology; four years experi-ence in environmental planning. Paul Mayo - Environmental Analyst; LSA Assistant Planner B.A., Social Ecology; two years environmental planning experience. Karen Kirtland - Biologist; LSA Project Manager B.A., Paleobiology; M.A., Biology; seven years experience in biological assessment. Benedicte Reynaud - Biologist; LSA Assistant Project Manager B.A., Environmental Biology; M.A., Environmental Biology; plant biology certificate; geography certificate; five years experience in environmental ■I biology. r 12 - 1 a P & D Technologies, Inc.(formerly PRC En ineerin Inc. Michael Benner - Biologist/Environmental Planner B.A., Biology; M.S., Environmental Studies; 14 years experience in biology and environmental planning. The Chambers Group Philip DeBarros - PhD, Anthropology; 18 years experience in archaeology with expertise in faunal analysis, ceramic analysis. In charge of ethnohistoric and histor- ic studies at the mission at San Juan Capistrano. Transportation Corridor Agencies Jerry Bennett - TCA Chief Engineer B.S., Civil Engineering from Heald Engineering College in San Francisco; B.A., Business Administration, Management Science from Cal State Fuller- ton; 14 years CALTRANS, Highway Construction and Design and Utilities; 11 years County Transportation Planning. William Olson - Environmental Consultant B.S., Business Administration from USC; M.P.A, Public Administration from Cal State Fullerton; 16 years County Planning and Environmental Analysis and 4 years Environmental Consulting; total 20 years Planning and Envi- ronmental. Gene Foster - TCA Project Engineer B.S., Civil Engineering, 20 years total engineering experience; traffic engineering, highway design, bridge design, construction, general public works projects and toll road management. King Thomas - Environmental Analyst B.A., Social Ecology from U.C. Irvine, Specialization in Environmental Health and Planning; five years experience in Environmental Analysis, Transportation Planning and Land Planning. Corridor Design Management Group Jack Carman - P.E., CDMG Director of Engineering B.S., Civil Engineering; 21 years engineering experience with special experience in freeway and interchange design, tunnel engineering, HOV facility design, traffic surveillance systems, construction engineering. Bob McDowell - P.E., CDMG Project Manager B.S., Civil Engineering; 18 years engineering experience in toll roads, turnpikes, interchange design, bridge rehabilitation projects. Shant Kashyap - P.E., CDMG Deputy Project Manager B.S., Civil Engineering; 33 years experience in bridge design and con- struction, mass transit projects, interstate highways and interchanges, tunnels, and marine structures. Daryl Fleming - T.R., CDMG Chief of Traffic Engineering Doctor of Engineering; 15 years experience in transportation planning, traffic engineering, traffic systems management. Gregory LeFrois - P.E., CDMG Project Engineer B.S., Civil Engineering; 11 years experience in interstate highway and interchange projects. 12 - 2 Steven Wolf - Air Quality/Noise Analysis Engineer B.S., Mathematics; 18 years experience in noise modeling and ai,r quality analysis for interstate highways. Chester Henderson - P.E., Engineer In Charge of Hydrology and Hydraulics B.S., Civil Engineering; 22 years experience in transportation modeling with special expertise in hydraulic design and hydrology analysis for interstate projects. California Department of Transportation. District 12 Environmental Document Oversight Judith Heyer - Chief, Environmental Planning Branch B, Toll Road Oversight B.S., Business Administration from Redlands University; Landscape Archi- tecture, Cal Poly, Pomona; 10 years experience in landscape architecture and preparing environmental documents for major transportation projects. Specialist Studies Oversight Al Fisher - Chief, Environmental Analysis 20 years experience with Caltrans in environmental planning and environ- mental analysis management. Gene Huey - Associate Environmental Planner B.A., Anthropology, Cal State, Los Angeles; 12 years experience in California archaeology. Leha Tran - Assistant Environmental Planner B.S., Chemical Engineering from Cal Poly Pomona-; 9 years experience 'in environmental analysis; reviews air quality technical studies. Firooz Hamedani - Associate Transportation Planner B.A., Mathematics/Statics from San Diego State University; 8 years experi- ence in travel forecasting and overseeing EMA/CDMG. Sylvia Wells -Vega - Associate Environmental Planner B.S., Natural Resource Management from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo; 10 years experience as environmental generalist and biologist. Engineering Oversight Dan Butler - Deputy District Director Toll Roads Oversight P.E., B.S., Civil Engineering from Clarkson University; 31 years experi- ence in design ability of state standards. Doug Tugwell - Deputy District Director Project Management P.E., 33 years experience in construction, project development, project management, surveys and light rail design construction. George Beighle - Sr. Transportation Engineer, SJHTC Project Manager P.E., California and Arizona; 27 years experience in engineering, design, construction, surveys, maintenance, right-of-way, traffic and program management. Dana Van Horn - Associate Transportation Engineer P.E., B.S., Civil Engineering from the University of Arizona; 6 years experience in construction, design, geology and preliminary investigations in various divisions. Norm Johnson - Associate Transportation Engineer P.E., B.S., Civil Engineering from USC; 29 years experience in design planning, traffic engineering and drainage. A. Girgis:-.:Associate ::Transportation Engineer P.E. , ;.:.i~t 35 years experience in engineering, surveys, construction; mai'nten'ance, materials testing, reports, highway design; 2 years experience as District 12 Hazardous Waste Coordinator. 12 - 3 Mory Mohtashami, Associate Transportation Engineer P.E., B.S., Civil Engineering from Sacramento State University; 12 years experience in structures, construction, design, hydraulics and hydrology and bridge inspection. Roman Rustia - Associate Transportation Engineer P.E., B.S., Civil Engineering from Manila, Philippines; Masters Degree from Cal Poly Technical Institute; 30 years experience as Senior Struc- tural Engineer, 6 years experience with interstate highway; 12 years civil engineering experience; 2 years experience as environmental analysis on noise, air quality, energy and water waste. Right of Way Robert E. Davis - Sr. Right of Way Agent B.A., Public Administration, Masters candidate; 22 years experience in Right -of -Way; 10 years engineering experience in design, construction, surveys, and traffic. Other governmental agencies, organizations, institutions and companies which have worked on or have been consulted regarding the Corridor EIR/EIS are listed in Section 9.0, Comments and Coordination. 12 - 4 1 AGENCYJORGANIZATION/PERSON U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Region 9 U.S. Department of Interior Office of Environmental Project Review U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Compliance U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 'Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region 9 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Secretary Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.'Department of Commerce Office of Ecology and Conservation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of the Navy Western Division California Transportation Commission California Highway Patrol Commander of Appropriate Division Office Caltrans Environmental Branch Chief Planning Division of Aeronautics State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research State of California Department of Water Resources State Lands Commission Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Conservation Resources Agency Energy Commission State Department of Housing and Community Development Department of Fish and Game State Water Resources Control Board Solid Waste Management Board State Air Resources Board - Department of Health Services Department of Boating and Waterways Department of Education Bureau of School Planning Department of Food and Agriculture 13 - 1 1 Public Utilities Commission Native American Heritage Commission Department of General Services Facilities Planning off �a`#<::.,.: >:.>::..........::>:::..... Y`Ytt`'`Coast`"Guard" ni siri ct.... California Highway Patrol Long Range Planning Section Planning and Analysis Division South Coast Air Pollution Control District/ Air Quality Management District The California State University Physical Planning and Development Southern California Assoc. of Governments q�.;.Cos... a...MPsA ............... Trvine' Rancii" Water...Di stri ct California Native Plant Society Operation Wildlife Sierra Club Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Operating Engineers Local #3 Capistrano Unified School District Facilities Planning Bridgeport Terrace Homeowners Association Molly King Harbor View Community Association Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association Sepulveda Building Materials Mary Ann Tucker Siey-Linde Johnson Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. Target Stores, Thomas A. Bonneville 1 1 13 - 2 1 1 14.0 REFERENCES Barry, T.M. and J.A. Reagan. "FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," Report No. FHWA-RD-77-108, Federal Highway Admin-istration, Washington, D.C., December 1978'. California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Control Division. Motor Vehicles Projections Section, sent to OCEMA, January 31, 1984. Caltrans,, Guidance for Consultants - Procedures for Complet4ng the Natural Environment Study and Related Biological Report, May 10, 1989, Caltrans, 1980. Caltrans Guidelines for Preparing Biological Survey Reports: - Chambers Group, Inc. SJHTC Test Investigation Report/Determination.of Eligi- bility, 1990. Chambers Group, Inc./John Cooper, U dated Assessment of the Paleontolo ical Resources situated within the SJHTC and Recommended Mitigation Plan, 1990. Christiansen and Associates. Project Report for that .Portion of Oso Creek ' Channel (L04). Santa Ana: Christiansen and Associates, April, 1983. City of Irvine, Circulation Element. Irvine: City of Irvine, 1971. ---- , Land Use Element. Irvine, City of Irvine, March, 1984. City of Laguna Beach. Land Use Element of the General Plan, Draft. Laguna Beach: City of Laguna Beach, March, 1983. ----- Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan. Laguna Beach: City of Laguna Beach, April 17, 1974. City of Newport Beach. Land Use Element of the City of Newport Beach General P y P Plan. Newport Beach: City of Newport Beach, April 8, 1984. -----, Circulation Element of the City of Newport General Plan. Newport Beach: City of Newport Beach, March 24, 1975. City of San Juan Capistrano. General Plan. San Juan Capistrano: City of San Juan Capistrano, December 18, 1974. Coldwell Banker Orange County Office Market Reports _(4) for 1986 and 1989, and The Los Angeles Times Almanac of Commercial Real, Estate, April 1.1, 1990. IColdwell Banker Orange County Industrial Market Reports (4), 1987 and 1985. 1 References which are listed as technical studies are not repeated i-n this chapter. 14 - 1 Corridor Design Management Group, Alternate Profile Grade Study Laguna Canyon Road to Alicia Parkway, 1988. Corridor Design Management Group, Truck Restrictions Special Study Technical Memo 2-15, 1989. Corridor Design Management Group, High Occupancy Vehicle (H0V) Special Study, Technical Memo 2-57, 1989. Corridor Design Management Group, I-5/SJHTC Interchange. Technical Memo 3-18, 1989. Corridor Design Management Group, Construction and Traffic Conflicts Pelican Hill Road and SJHTC, 1989. Corridor Design Management Group, SJHTC Conceptual Design Report, Technical Memo 3-19, 1990. County of Orange. Aliso Creek Corridor Specific Plan (Concept), of the Orange County General Plan Open Space Element. Orange County: OCEMA, September, 1977. ----- ivou uensus KeporT. volume JN: selected Population Characteri Orange County: Orange County Board of Supervisors, March, 1982. ------ Development Monitoring Program, Draft Volume 10, February 1990. ----- Orange County Administrative Office, Forecast and Analysis Center, OCP-88, Orange County Projections - 1988, no date. ------ Growth Management Plan Element, 1988. County of Orange/LSA, SJHTC Draft EIR No. 494, 1988. OrangeEnvironmental Management Agency. trict. Orange County: OCEMA, 1975. ----- Updated EMA SOCCS Capacity Restraint Projections, derived from UMTA/ ROAD program. February, 1978. ----- Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan: Irvine Coast Planning Unit. Orange County: OCEMA, October 21, 1982. ----- Component II: Advance Planning Program Land Use Element. Orange County: OCEMA, June 9, 1982. ----- Component II: Advance Planning Program Resources Element. Orange County: OCEMA, April 18, 1984. ------ Component II• Advance Planning Program, Recreation Element. Orange County: OCEMA, December 5, 1984. 14 - 2 1 i F1 a J i 1 1 ----- Component. II: Advance Planning Program, Housing Element. Orange County: OCEMA, August 28, 1985. ------ Component II: Advance Planning Program, Transportation Element .(Master Plan of Arterial Highways Component), Amended. Orange County: OCEMA, October, 1985. ------ San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor West End Analysis. November, 1985.. ------ Floodplain Hydraulic Study, San Joaquin Hills Transportati-on Corridor. Orange County: OCEMA, September 22, 1986. ----- San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor East End Analysis. October, 1986. ----- The Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program. First Amendment, Draft. Orange County: OCEMA, March 16, 1987. Culbertson, Adams and Associates. 1982. ----= Laguna Laurel Planned Community Final Environmental Impact Report #26- 3C, 1983. ------ Laguna Niguel Planned Community Final Environmental Impact Report #316, 1984. Engineering Science Corporation. Report on Comprehensive Planning for Conser- vation of Water and Soil Resources for the'Aliso Creek'Watershed. Decem- ber, 1961. FHWA* Regulation and Technical Advisory, Appendix A-2 No. T6640.8A., October 30, ....1987. F.irst America Title Company's Orange County .Business Park Survey for 1986 and 1987. Florian Martinez and Associates. Sycamore Hills Final EIR/EIS, General Pl-an Amendment 80-2, City of Laguna Beach, 1984. Ford, Dr. Richard., Potential Ecological Effects of Runoff from The Irvine Coast Planned Community on the Adjacent Marine Environment.; 1987. 14 - 3 Genstar Waste Technology Group. Coyote Canyon Landfill Gas Recovery Project: Phase I. La Jolla: Genstar, July 23, 1984. Gruen Associates, Transit Development Analysis for SJHTC, 1982. Gruen Associates, EIR 267 and Study Report Phase I: SJHTC, 1979. Hanes, Ted L. "Chaparral." Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Edited by M.G. Barbour and J. Major John Wiley and Sons, Inc. pp. 417-470, 1977. Jack C. Raub Company. Aliso Viejo Planned Community Development Plan Master Environmental Impact Report #88, 1979. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. Preliminary Biological Inventory and Manage ment Recommendations: Irvine Coastal Project Area. (Irvine Co.), 1979. Kerri et al., Forecasting Pollutant Loads from Highway Runoff, 1985. Kirkpatrick, J.B. and C.F. Hutchinson. The Community Composition of California Coastal Sage Scrub in Vegetation. Vol. 35, 1:21-33, 1977. Leighton and Associates. Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility of Revised Pre- liminary Plans, Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, (Stations 261 and 25 to 513 and 00). October, 1983. LSA, Associates, Inc. Pelican Hill Road Final Environmental Impact Report #460, 1987. . Irvine Coast Program Environmental Impact Report #485, 1988. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). Report 155: Bus Use of Highways. Office of the President. Executive Order 11990: Preservation of Wetlands. P&D Technologies, (Michael Benner). Letter from Michael Benner on a Survey Conducted at Bonita Canyon Reservoir for the Presence of the least Bells' vireo. July 29, 1987. P&D Technologies. Spring 1988 Biological Survey Results - San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Report prepared for County of Orange, CA, 1988. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Gruen Associates, Phillips Brandt Reddick. Draft Envi- ronmental Impact Statement: Improvements to State Route 71 Between Inter- state 10 and State Route 91. March, 1986. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Gruen Associates. Draft Environmental Document: North- west Santa Fe Relief Route. October, 9985. Phillips, Brandt Reddick, Inc. Environmental Impact Report #507: Coyote Can- non Sanitary Landfill, Draft, Final, and Board Resolutions. Irvine: PBR, October, 1983. 14 - 4 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I Planning Center, The. Aliso Greenbelt: Development/Operations Plan. Orange County: The Planning Center, February 29, 1984. Planning Research Corporation Engineering, Inc. Mule Deer Analysis in the San Joaquin Hills, Orange County. January, 1986. ----- Area W1Hn Jpecial tmpna- sis on a .Least Bell's Vireo Census. May,,1986. -----. San Joaouin Hills Transportation Corridor, Biological Resources Analys- is. Orange: PRC, October 3, 1986. Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates. The Irvine Company Inland Coastal Hills: Circulation Study Documentation Report. Newport Beach: March., 1982. ------ Ford.Road Alternative Alignment Study. Newport Beach: RBF, August 4, 1983.' ----- Environmental Analysis. for the Ford Road Extension .and Realignment, 1989. Rudder, F. F. et al. "Users Manual, FHWA Level 2 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, STAMINA 1.0, "Report No. FHWA-RD-78-138, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., July 1978. Saddleback Valley Cityhood Study Council Economic Feasibility Report, 1986. Smith, James P. and R. York (California Native Plant Society), Inventory of the Rare and Endangered Vascular. Plants of California. ; Southern California Association of Governments, Cities of irvi:he and Newport Beach. Newport Bay Watershed: San Diego Creek Comprehensive Stormwater Sedimentation Control Plan, Orange County, California. Orange County: SLAG, August, 1983. Southern California Association of Governments, 1984 Regional Transportation Plan, Environmental Impact Report, 1984. -----.. SCAG-82.Modified Growth Forecast. February, 1985'. -----. .Regional Mobility Plan. 1988. »»<Growth Management Plan. February, 1989. State of California, Department of Conservation, Resources Agency. Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. Washington, D.C.: State of California, May, 1978. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, Resources. Agency. Crystal Cove State Park General Plan. Sacramento: State of California, July, 1982. 14 - 5 I State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Local Programs Manual, Volume III: Guidelines and Procedures for Processing Environ- mental Documents. April 1, 1981. ------ Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Santa Ana Freeway From Route 55 to Route 22. Los Angeles: Caltrans, December 11, 1986. ----- Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Laguna Canyon Road. Los Angeles: Caltrans, June 17, 1985. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Guidance Material for the Preparation of Environmental Documents. February 24, 1982. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of plant taxa for listing as endangered or threatened species; notice of review", Federal Register Vol. 50. No. 188, 1985. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal notice of review", Federal Register Vol. 54. No. 4, 1989. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Biological Services Program, 1979, 1985, 1989. Van F ------ NUISe 3Luav Kepori Keiazive -co MWA btanaaras• San Joaguin Hills Tran- sportation Corridor (Route 73) in the County of Orange. Van Houten, September, 1986. Vogl, Richard J. An Introduction to the Plant Communities of the Santa Ana and San Jacinto Mountains. Symposium Proceedings, Plant Communities of South- ern California edited by June Latting, Special Publication No. 2, California Native Plant Society, 1976. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989. 14 - 6 1 15.0 INDEX Acoustical; see Noise Aesthetics; see Visual Resources Affected Environment Agency Coordination; see Biological Resources Agricultural Lands; see Land Use Air Quality . . 3 - 1-1, 4 33 Air Quality Conformity 3 _ 12 Carbon Monoxide Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 - 35 Regional Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11, 4 33 Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration . .. ' . 2 _ 28 Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . 3 -56, 4 - 12 Archaeological Site Impacts,, see Appendix D Area of Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 9 Benefits of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �* 1 - 10 Bicycle facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3- 61, 4 - 118 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27, 4 64 Agency Requirements .. . 4 _ 71 Flora; see Plant Communities Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27, 4 64 Regional -Open Space •. • _ 4 69 Wildlife; see Wildlife California gnatcatcher; see Sensitive Wildlife Species California Mule deer; see Sensitive Wildlife Species Circulation �. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 1 Existing Traffic Conditions . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 3 Future Traffic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 Operational Characteristics : • _ 5 2 Traffic Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 1 West (North) End Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 11 Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 97 Comments and Coordination . * * . . .. . . . . . . . 9 - 1 Comparison of Alternatives andMajorImpacts; see Table A Construction 4 139 Air Quality :- _ 4 139 Detours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 - 142 Erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4-- 140 Excess Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4 - 139 Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 142 Noise . . . . . . 4 - 140 Pedestrian/Bicycle*Facilities . . . . . . 4 _ 142 Correspondence; see Appendix G Cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 18 Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. �18, 6 1 Design features • 2� - _ 2 25 Drainage; see Water Resources Economics/Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . 1 - 1 Employment; see Socioeconomics Energy . . . . . . 4 - 136 Environmental Evaluation . ,. Environmental Significance Checklist . . . . .. . . . . . . 4 - 4 -'13 1 Environmentally Superior Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 51. 15 - 1 11 Equestrian Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 61, 4 - 118 Erosion; see Geology Farmlands; see Agricultural lands Fauna; see Wildlife Floodplains; see Water Resources Floodplain Assessment; see Appendix L Flora; see Biological Resources Geology/Geologic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2 4 - 17 Erosion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4 - 17 Liquefaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 44 - 17 Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2 4 - 17 Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4 4 - 18 �B� Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2 4 - 17 Glossary; see Appendix Golden Eagle; Sensitive Wildlife Species Groundwater; see Water Resources GrowthInducement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 1 Habitat; see Biological Resources Hazardous Waste/Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 57, 4 - 115 HistoricResources .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 56 Housing and Business Relocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 103 HOV.. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 20 Hydrology; see WaterResources Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources . . . . . . . 8 - 1 Jobs/Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 7 Laguna Beach dudleya; see Sensitive Plant Species Laguna Greenbelt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 12 Landform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 122 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3�- 47, 4 - 89 Agricultural Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 49, 4 - 98 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 47, 4 - 89 Future Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 50, 4 - 89 Land Use Compatibiity . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 89 Least Bell's vireo; see Sensitive Wildlife Species Levelof Service .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 6 Light and Glare; see Visual Resources Liquefaction; see Geology Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment vs. Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 1 Mainline Toll Plaza; see Toll Facilities Maintenance Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 17 Many stemmed dudleya; see Sensitive Plant Species NOP/NOI; see Appendix F Noise . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 22, 4 - 43 Construction Noise; see Construction Impacts Effecton Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 67 Long Term Noise Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 43 Noise Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 49 Oak trees .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 27, 4 - 64 Objectives of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 10 Orange County Turkish rugging; see Sensitive PlantSpecies Orange -throated whiptail; see Sensitive Wildlife Species 15 - 2 Paleontological Resources . . . . . 3 - 56, 4 - 112 Park and Ride Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 12 Pedestrian Facilities . . . . 118 Permits • •3.-•61,•4•- 5 Planning and Policies; see Land Use Plans Plant Communities; see Biological Resources Population; see Socioeconomics Public Coordination; see Comments and Coordination Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 55, 4 - 110 Public Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 55, 4 110 Purpose and Need . . . . . . 1 _ 1 Railroads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 55 References 12 1 Related Projects 2 _ 53 Right-of-way 2 - 28 Riparian Habitat; see Wetland Runoff; see Water Resources Scenic Corridors; see Visual Resources San Diego Horned lizard; see Sensitive Wildlife Species Section 4(f); see Appendix A Section 404 Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 85 Seismicity; see Geology Slope Stability; see Geology ' Sensitive Plant Species • . 3 - 38, 4 - 65' Laguna Beach dudl eya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3 - 40, 4 - 65 Many stemmed dudl eya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 39, 4 65 Orange County Turkish rugging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 38, 4 - 65 Sensitive Wildlife Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 40, 4 - 69 Black -shouldered kite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 42, 4 - 69 Cactus wren . . . . . . 3 42, 4 69 California gnatcatcher • • • • . • • • • • • • • _ • . 341, _ 4 69 California mule deer . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 44, 4 - 69 Cooper's hawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 42, 4 - 69 Golden eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 41, 4 - 69, Grasshoppersparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 42, 4 - 69 Least Bel 1 's vireo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Northern harrier . . . . . . 3 _ 3 43, 42, 4 _ 4 69 69 Orange -throated whiptail. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 41, 4 - 69 San Diego horned lizard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 40, 4 - 69 Southwestern Pond Turtle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .44, 4 69 Tricolored blackbird . . . . . _ 3, 43, _ 4 69 Willow flycatcher . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43, .4 - 69 Yellow -breasted chat . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43, 4 - 69 Yellow Warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 43, 4 - 69 Socioeconomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1 Soils; see Geology Southwestern pond turtle; see Sensitive Wildlife Species Streambed Modification; see Water Resources Streambeds; see Water Resources Summary of Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresfortheBuild Alternatives 4 - 3 Toll Facilities •• • . • . 2 - 2 Mainline toll plaza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 - 13 1 15 - 3 1 Ramp toll plazas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 13 Transit; see HOV Truck Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 16 Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 16 Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 66, 4 - 122 Light and Glare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 131 Scenic Corridors .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 66, 4 - 131 Water Quality; see Water Resources WaterResources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 7 4 - 20 Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 7 F1 oodpl ai n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 9 4 - 22 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 10 MarineEnvironment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 29 Runoff 4 - 22 Streambed Modification 4 - 20 SurfaceWater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 7 WaterQuality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 26 Wetlands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 74 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 46, 4 - 65 Lossof.. ....................... 4-65 Movement corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3�- 45, 4 - 65 Undercrossing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 66 15 - 4 APPENDIX A SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 1 1 1 DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION Pursuant to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (Public Law 89-67-80 Statues 931), the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from. a public park; recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, ' State or local significance as determined by the federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, any land from an historic site of na- tional, State or local significance as so determined by such officials unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and (2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use. PROPOSED ACTION The proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) consists of two Build Alternatives, the Demand Management Alternative and the Conventional Alternative and the No Build Alternative- The Build Alternatives would extend State Route 73 from Interstate 5 in San Juan Capistrano to -Jamboree Road in Newport Beach (with additional improvements up to Birch Street.) . The Demand Management Alternative would provide three general purpose lanes, auxiliary lanes where required, an HOV facility, a toll system and reservation of an 88 to 116 foot median for additional capacity, as warranted. The Conventional Alternative- would provide six to twelve general purpose lanes (depending on the reach of the Corridor) with additional lanes for weaving and climbing, a toll system and reservation of a 64 to 116 foot median for future expansion. Under the No Project Alternative_, the Corridor would not be built nor the I-5 realigned.. Other alternatives considered, but withdrawn from consideration, are listed below and discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.0 of the EIR%.E.IS. • Non -Alignment Alternatives • Alignment Alternatives • Cross Section Alternatives • Interchange Alternatives • Mainline Plaza Location Alternatives • Wetland Avoidance Alternatives rOrange County is an urbanized area of approximately 786 square miles contiguous to the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Dramatic changes in the County's economy, population, and housing market have occurred throughout its history. The Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) has fore- cast significant growth and change to continue through the year 2010. This dramatic growth in population and employment has been accompanied by an even greater rate of growth in traffic. As a result., the existing freeway system lacks the capacity to serve the, travel demands placed on the system during peak AM and PM periods. During these -peak commute periods, sections of the larger circulation system, particularly along I-5 and I-405 operate at level of service (LOS) F. LOS F represents severe traffic congestion. �I �J 1 C Forecasts indicate that ADT increases without the SJHTC will represent constrained traffic conditions and cause extended peak period delays on I-405, I-5, SR-1 and local arterial streets. In order to accommodate the significant current and projected traffic demand, the SJHTC is proposed to provide a major new northwesterly -southwesterly route through southeast Orange County. A deteriorating level of service over the next 20 years indicates congestion and delay will continue unless the SR-73 is improved and extended. Extension of , SR-73 will reduce peak hour congestion and improve travel speeds. Implementa- tion of the No Project Alternative will substantially impact peak period arter- ial operating conditions in the area served by the Corridor. SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES A variety of recreational resources within the vicinity of the Corridor were investigated as potential 4(f) resources. The following recreational facilities were evaluated and found not to qualify as Section 4(f) resources: San Juan School, Capistrano Bluff Open Space, Goeden Equestrian Trail, Arroyo Trabuco Equestrian Trail, County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 81, Northwest Park, Oso Creek Open Space Area, Oso Creek Equestrian Trail, County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 42, Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park, Laguna Laurel Dedica- tion Areas, Crystal Cove State Park, County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 66, Bonita Creek Park, San Diego Creek, Santa Ana Heights Equestrian Trail, County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 61, San Joaquin Marsh and Upper Newport Bay Ecolog- ical Reserve. Disqualification of these facilities was based on the finding of r lack of taking of the facility or substantial impairment of the noise environ- ment, viewshed or air quality at each resource. In the case of County Bicycle Trail No. 66, construction of the Corridor would require relocation of the bike path, however, there will be no indirect effects of the Corridor which substan- tially impair the use of the trail. The following is a discussion of the Section 4(f) resources which will be affected by the construction of the Corridor. Seven resources are affected including three bicycle paths, one equestrian trail, one open space area and one park. The discussion below follows the outline (a-i) denoted in Subsection IX-A2a of T6640.8A (October 30, 1987) for describing 4(f) properties. Where appropriate, discussion of related items has been combined. The numbers which follow the property name correspond to the numbers on Figure 1. , Properties Directly Affected Rancho Vieio Bicycle Trail (1). a) The location of the Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail in relationship to the I-5 is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure A-1. b) This Class I (off -road) bike path is located only the east side of Rancho Viejo Road and is currently improved from Calle Arroyo to approximately 1500 feet south of Malaspina Road (approximately 1.2 miles), from Malaspina Road to Trabuco Creek (approximately .6 miles) and from Village Road to approximately 900 feet north of Village Road. Figure J-24 in Appendix J shows the facility. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c) The City of San Juan Capistrano owns the trail segments listed above. The missing segment near Malaspina Road is improved with a Class II (on -road) bike lane; while all other missing segments are not cur- rently owned by the City with no set date of acquisition. d,e) As shown in Figure J-24 of Appendix J, the path has been improved as a recreational facility. f) The path can be accessed via Rancho Viejo Road, Calle Arroyo, Ortega Highway, Junipero Serra Road, Malaspina Road, Mission Hills Drive, Village Road and Avery Parkway. There are no staging areas along this bike path. g) This path can access the County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 81 along Trabuco Creek. h) There are no applicable clauses affecting ownership of the bike path. i) The bike path currently has views of the I-5 freeway as shown in Figure J-24, Appendix J. Resources Affected by Constructive Use Niguel Equestrian Trail (2). a) The location of the Niguel Equestrian Trail and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure A-2. b,c,h) As shown in Figure 1 and Figure J-25, in Appendix J, the County of Orange owned trail begins near the intersection of Moulton Parkway and Pacific Park Drive and extends southwesterly through development to Greenfield Drive and terminates approximately 900 feet north of the Corridor. d,e) The trail has been developed to accommodate equestrians and hikers. f) This trail is currently accessed via Greenfield Drive. There are currently no designated staging areas in the vicinity of the Corri- dor. g) There are no other designated equestrian trails in the vicinity of the property. i) There are no unusual characteristics of the property that reduces or enhances the value of the property. County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72 (3). a) The location of the facility and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figures 1 and A-3. 2 I b) This bikeway is located along Moulton Parkway/Street of the Golden Lantern from Sand Canyon Avenue, in the City of Irvine to Pacific Coast Highway in Dana Point. For most of its length, the facility is a Class II (on -road) trail; however, from Laguna Hills Drive to Tra- buco Creek (approximately seven miles) the facility is a Class I ' (off -road) bike path. c) The County of Orange currently owns all of the facility. d,e) The bike path has been improved to accommodate bicyclists in the vicinity of Moulton Parkway. f) .This bike path is accessed by Pacific Park Drive to the north and Marina Hills Drive to the south. g) This bike path connects to existing bike paths or bike lanes adjacent to the arterial network in the vicinity of the Corridor. These arterials include: E1 Toro Road (Trail No. 75), Pacific Park Drive (Trail No. 76) and Crown Valley Parkway (Trail No. 85). h) There are no clauses affecting the ownership of this path. i) There are no unusual characteristics that reduce or enhance the quality of the resource. ' Aliso Creek Trail System 14.5) a) The location of the Aliso Creek Trail System and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in.Figure 1 and Figure A-4. b) The Trail System -is bounded by three future schools, three future parks and, an existing church to the west, and existing and proposed Alicia Parkway to the east. Alicia Parkway is constructed on top of hillside bluffs in this area. c) The Trail System is located wi th i-n the Aliso .Wood Canyons Regional Park of which the County of Orange currently owns 3,400 acres of the proposed. 5,000 acre Regional Park. The Trail System is within the area currently under County ownership. ' d,e) A draft General Development Plan (GDP) (June, 1988) was developed for the park by OCEMA-Harbors, Beaches and Parks which outlines planned uses within the park boundaries. This area i-s anticipated to be a generally passive recreational resource, allowing,for preservation of existing open space areas .within the channel as well as picnic/open space overlook facilities. An equestrian (County of Orange Aliso Creek Trail) and hiking trail system are proposed on the east side of Aliso Creek. An existing bike path (County of '0range, Ricycle Trail No. 78) is located along the western edge of the channel at this location. 11 5 f) This Trail System can currently be accessed by Alicia Parkway where a staging area has been constructed. g) The Trail System is within the Aliso Wood Canyons Regional Park which is part of the approximately 16,000 acre Laguna Greenbelt. Please see Chapter 1.0 (pages 1 - 11 and 1 - 12) of the EIR/EIS for a dis- cussion of the Laguna Greenbelt. h) The majority of the park, 3,400 acres, was dedicated to the County by the Aliso Viejo Company. The irrevocable Offer of Dedication of 3,400 acres within the Aliso Viejo Community Plan area for open space, conservation and recreation uses specifically excluded the Corridor from the dedication area (Aliso Viejo Offer of Dedication § 1.07 (d)). The Offer of Dedication specifically recognized that the areas of dedication area which would be needed for the Corridor could not be precisely determined. Therefore, the Aliso Viejo Company reserved the right to locate and designate portions of the dedication , area which would be excluded from the Offer of Dedication for pur- poses of the Corridor. i) There are no unusual characteristics that reduce or enhance the quality of the resource. Sycamore Hills Open Space (6. 7. 8). a) The location of Sycamore Hills Open Space and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure A-5. b) The Sycamore Hills Open Space area consists of approximately 458 acres located within the city limits of Laguna Beach between Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro Road southwesterly of the unincorporated community of Leisure World (see Figure 1 and Figure A-5 in Attachment A). c) The Sycamore Hills Open Space is owned by the City of Laguna Beach. d,e, f,h,i) As discussed in the SEIR for Sycamore Hills - Tentative Tract 12112, three parcels are provided for in the Sycamore Hills area: a 67 acre parcel identified for the Corridor and potential multi -modal trans- portation center (Resource No. 7 on Figure 1); a 67 acre parcel south , of the Corridor bounded by El Toro Road for regional open space pur- poses (Resource No. 6 on Figure 1) and, a remaining parcel of approx- imately 324 acres lying northerly of the proposed Corridor right-of- way between Laguna Canyon Road on the west and Leisure World and the City residential development on the east (Resource No. 8 on Figure 1), also for regional open space purposes. Please refer to Attach- ment C for a summary of the cooperative planning effort for Sycamore Hills. There are no existing or planned recreational improvements in the Open Space area. (Telephone conversation between TCA and Ken Frank, [date].) 1.1 1 f) The regional open space parcels are accessed primarily from E1 Toro Road; however, Laguna Canyon Road can also.be used to enter the pro- perty. The City of Laguna Beach Marine Safety Department (Lt. Mike Dwinell) estimates 1,000 people per year visit this open space. g) These regional open space parcels are part of the approximately ' 16,000 acre Laguna Greenbelt. Please see Chapter 1.0 (pages 1 - 11 and 1 - 12) of the EIR/EIS for a further discussion of the Laguna Greenbelt. h) By designating these areas Restricted Open Space, the City prohibits public uses,of the open space areas, except for City sponsored activ- ities, such as hikes or equestrian rides. Bommer Canyon Park (9). 1 C 1 1 F11 a) The location of the park and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure A-6. b,c) This 15 acre site is located approximately 1700 feet east of the Cor- ridor near the future extension of Sand Canyon Avenue, and is owned by the City of Irvine. d,e, f,h,i), The site is currently accessed through a locked gate via Bonita Can- yon Road. The City has been granted an access. easement along this roadway by - The Irvine Company. Currently, the park is unimproved however, several ranch/farming structures maintained by employees of The Irvine Company are located within the park. The City also employs a caretaker who monitors the park. Generally, the park is, not open to the public on a daily basis; however, the City allows passive recreational use (i.e. picnics) by groups, through a reserva- ti:on system. g). Bommer Canyon Park is located to the northwest of Crystal Cove State Park, however there is no existing or planned access between the two resources. Cooperatively Planned Resources The following cooperatively planned recreational' facilities were found not eligible as 4(f) resources: • Northwest Park • Oso Creek Corridor • Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park • Laguna Laurel As discussed above, analysis of the Corridor's effect on. these facili-ti.es determined that there was not a take or substantial impairment of the noise environment, viewshed or air quality experienced at the facility. 7 n 1 Attachment C provides a discussion of the cooperative planning effort in the vicinity of the Corridor. IMPACTS ON 4(f) PROPERTIES L The following is a discussion of the Corridor's effect on each potential , 4(f) resource within the project study area. These impacts have been sum- marized in Table A. Properties Directly Affected Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail (1). The improved segment of the bike path north of Trabuco Creek will be removed due to relocation of Rancho Viejo Road. The bike path cannot be accommodated in the cross section of the relocated road due to environmental constraints that limit the width of the new cross section (Figure A-1). Relocation of Rancho Viejo Road will preclude development of any bicycle facilities north of Trabuco Creek. Users of the trail below Trabuco Creek can reach areas to the north by utilizing the bicycle facilities along Trabuco Creek to reach Camino Capistrano, which provides access to Avery Park- way to the north. This rerouting provides access to the same commercial areas that the affected trail currently provides access to. However, the improved section of the bicycle path south of Trabuco Creek will not be physically impacted by I-5 improvements and will experience the following residual indi- rect effects. a) Visual Effects: Currently, views from both- the improved and unim- proved portions of the path are predominately of low to medium den- sity residential and office/commercial land uses (Figure J-24 in Appendix J. Construction of the I-5 improvements associated with Corridor implementation will not substantially alter the existing urbanized viewshed experienced at the facility. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table B, the path will not experience noise levels, due to construction of the Corridor, which are substan- tially greater than the No Build scenario. Short-term construction noise impacts will also occur. c) Air Quality Effects: Short-term impacts, such as construction equip- ment emissions and fugitive dust, will occur. d) Construction Effects: Users of the trails may be affected by unusual and unexpected conditions during construction of I-5 improvements associated with Corridor implementation. Resources Affected by Constructive Use Niguel Equestrian Trail (2). The Corridor crosses over the proposed trail as shown in Figure J-25 of Appendix J. Although the Corridor will not physically impact the trail, the following indirect effects are expected to occur. 0 1 F, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE A -IMPACTS SUMMARY SUBSTANTIALLY ACTUAL IMPAIRED AFTER INDIRECT EFFECTS USE. MITIGATION AIR RESOURCE VISUAL NOISE QUALITY CONSTRUCTION Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail (1) No Yes-S Yes-S Yes-S Yes "Yes Niguel Equestrian Trail (2) No Yes-S Yes-S Yes-S No Yes County of Orange Bicycle Trait No. 72 (3) Yes Yes7B Yes-S Yes-S No Yes Aliso Creek Equestrian Trail (4) Yes Yes-B Yes-S Yes-S No Yes County of Orange Bicycle Trait No. 78 (5) Yes Yes-B Yes-S Yes-S No Yes Sycamore Hills Open Space (6, 7, 8) Yes Yes-B Yes-S N/A No Yes Bommer Canyon Park (9) Yes Yes-S Yes-S N/A No Yes Notes: N/A - Not applicable B - Both short-term and long-term impacts S - Short-term impacts only TABLE B PROJECTED 2010 NOISE LEVELS IN LEO WBA Resource Future -No Build Future -Build Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail (1) 74 75 Niguel Equestrian Trait (2) 47 72* County of Orange Bicycle (3) Trait No. 72 50 73* Aliso Creek Equestrian Trait/County of Orange Bicycle Trail No: 78 (4, 5) 56 74* Sycamore Hills (6, 7, 8) 55 69 Note: *Substantial impairment 9 E a) Visual Effects: As shown in Figure J-25 in Appendix J, the trail is visually impacted by existing development, including Greenfield Drive and commercial and high density residential land uses, to the south of the Corridor. Construction of the Corridor will not substantially alter the equestrian traillIs currently degraded viewshed at this location north of the Corridor, as illustrated in Figure A-5. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table B, users of the trail will exper- ience noise levels with construction of the Corridor where the Corri- dor crosses the future trail that are substantially greater than the No Build scenario. The existing portion of the trail would not be affected by Corridor noise. Short-term noise impacts will occur during construction. c) Air Quality Effects: Short-term impacts, such as construction engine emissions and fugitive dust, will occur. d) Construction Effects: Users of the trail may be affected by detours, closures, construction and equipment movement during construction of the Corridor. County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72 (3). The Corridor will cross over the bike path as illustrated in Figure J-26 in Appendix J. There will be no physical impacts to the facility, however, the following indirect corridor effects are anticipated. a) Visual Effects: As shown in Figure J-26 in Appendix J, the existing viewshed in the vicinity of the Corridor is predominated by residen- tial development to the north. Also, existing development is visible to the south, east and west from the bike path. Visual impacts of the Corridor are unavoidable due to the direct crossing of the facil- ity by the Corridor (Figure J-26) and will result in a significant visual impact. b) Noise Effects: Users of the bike path will experience a substantial increase in noise where the Corridor crosses the trail from the future No Build scenario (Table B). Construction noise will impact users in the short-term. c) Air Quality Effects: Short-term impacts, such as construction equip- ment emissions and fugitive dust, will occur. d) Construction Effects: Users of the bike path may be affected by detours, closures and movement of construction equipment during con- struction of the Corridor. Aliso Creek Trail System (4, 51. bike path and future equestrian trail on Figure J-27 of Appendix J. The Corridor ity; however it will have the following The Corridor will cross the existing a bridge structure, as illustrated in will not physically affect the facil- indirect effects: P C r� 1 0 1 1 1 L 1 u 10 1 u I u 1 L 11 0 1 a) Visual Effects: Currently, as shown in Figure J-27 in Appendix J, views from this bike path are predominated by the existing open space channel as well as medium to high density residential and commercial,/ industrial land uses. Visual impacts due to the Corridor are un- avoidable at this location due to the direct crossing of the bike path by the Corridor (see Figure_J-27) are considered significant. b) Noise Effects: Bike path and trail users will experience noise levels which are substantially greater with construction of the Cor- ridor than the future No Build scenario, as shown in Table B. Short-term noise impacts will also occur during construction of the Corridor. c) Air Quality Effects: Construction impacts resulting from equipment emissions and dust are short-term. d) Construction Effects:_ Users of the facilities may experience de- tours, closures and movement of -construction equipment during con- struction of the Corridor. Sycamore Hills Open Space (6, 7. &). The Sycamore Hills Open Space is traversed by the Corridor, as can be seen i-n Figure A-5. The Corridor will have the following impacts on recreational activities within this resource: a) Visual Effects: The Corridor will substantially impair southern views in limited areas of the northern parcel of this open space area, due to the construction of the Laguna Canyon RoadAnte.rchange and the steep cut slope (approximately 100 feet) through the open space. The cut slope in this area is illustrated i-n Figure J=28. Existing northern views from areas in the southern parcel adjacent to the Corridor are currently of a urban nature. The existing viewshed consists of medium to high density residential land uses. Construc- tion of the Corridor will not substantially alter this urbanized viewshed. Views of the Corridor"i-n other portions of the southern parcel will be blocked due to steep topography. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table ;B,'construction of the Corridor will increase noise levels i_n the vicinity of the Corridor, however this increase will not result in a substantial impairment due to lack of noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Corridor. There is a potential ,for short-term noise impacts during construction. c) Air Quality: Short-term air quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and equipment emissions, will occur. Bommer Canyon Park (9). Bommer Canyon Park is located .in, and owned, by, the City of Irvine, just east of the Corridor. The Corridor will not physical- ly impact any part of the park; however,, the following indirect impacts will occur. 11 I a) Visual Effects: The Corridor will be visible from the existing ranch buildings within Bommer Canyon Park, as illustrated in Figure J-29 in Appendix J. As shown in Figure J-29, approximately 120 feet of slope will be altered. Due to its topographical location and its presence within the visual horizon of uses, construction of the Corridor will result in a substantial impairment of the quality of views at this resource. b) Noise Effects: Short-term construction noise impacts will occur. c) Air Quality: Short-term construction air quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions, will occur. AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES The following is a discussion of alternatives to the proposed Corridor alignment in order to determine if impacts to the previously identified re- sources can be avoided. It should be noted that no alignment has been identi- fied which avoids direct or constructive use of a 4(f) resource. No Build Alternative This alternative consists of no construction or extension of the Corridor. The advantages of the "No Build" alternative include no increases in noise levels, no alteration of existing biological resources, wetland areas or agri- cultural land. Disadvantages to the "No Build" alternative are numerous. Based on current trends, traffic congestion and peak period delays will signi- ficantly increase on the I-5 and I-405 Freeways and local streets by the year 2010 (see Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need). Additional delays would also be accompanied by greater vehicle accidents on the existing circulation system in southeast Orange County. These overall impacts are significant. Non -Alignment Alternatives Non -alignment alternatives previously evaluated comprise a broad range of functional alternatives to the project itself. These alternatives include: (a) potential widening of existing regional transportation facilities (i.e., I-405, I-5 and SR-1) to address some of the project objectives; (b) down -grading the Corridor to an arterial standard roadway; and (c) changes in land use to reduce some of the need for the Corridor. Chapter 2.0 of the EIR/EIS provides a detailed discussion of each non -alignment alternative. Specifically, the impacts associated with widening of the I-5, I-405 and SR-1, as outlined in Section 2.0 can be summarized as follows: 12 U E 1 1 I 1 'J 1 I-5LI-4051SR-1 • existing facility would be expanded • result in relocation of residences and businesses • additional improvements (i.e. expansion) to adjacent arterials feeding into the.freeways • publicly owned recreational resources would be impacted- (see Table C) • does not meet objective of facilitating recreational access to the coast and Laguna Greenbelt. I-5LI-405 only '0 greater vol-umes .would require major modifications to existing interchanges,and bridge structures. • greater volumes will aggravate existing and projected congestion ' at the I-5/I-405 confluence. • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will increase due to longer trip lengths. All non -alignment alternatives considered by the County of Orange or the TCA have been withdrawn from further consideration for the reasons described in ' Chapter 2.0 of the EIR/EIS. Alignment Alternatives Previously analyzed alternative alignments, are ill-uttrated in Figure 2. These alignments were analyzed in FEIR No. 267-Phase I Route Location Study (November, 1979) approved by the County Board of Supervisors. Table D illus- trates the impacts to 4(f) properties associated with each of the alternative alignments studied in FEIR No. 267. For this EIR/EIS, the alignments identified in FEIR 267 were evaluated as potentially. feasible and prudent alternatives to the alignment under consid- eration. Any of the alignments alternatives was rejected as not being feasible and prudent for any of the following reasons: (1) not meeting the'project's ' purpose and need, (2) excessive cost of construction, (3) severe operational or safety problems, (4) unacceptable adverse social, economic or environmental impacts, (5) serious community disruption, or (6) an accumulation of a lesser magnitude of the foregoing types of factors. The results of this analysis determined that none of the alternative alignments is feasible and prudent. At that time, the Board selected the route -location for detailed study in Phase II which is the proposed project alignment under study at this time. The follow- ing is a further discussion of potential alignment alternatives, in addition to those identified in FEIR 267. Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail Jl). Southerly of the Corridor/1-5 confluence, a narrow throat exists between easterly and westerly constraints which will make it virtually impossible to retain a bike trail along Rancho Viejo Road. Historically, the constraints in this area have been so severe that they have 1 13 J TABLE C SECTION W) IMPACTS DUE TO NON -ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES SR-1 Widening • County beaches' (Bayside, Crescent Bay Point, Aliso, 1,000 Steps, Three Arch Cove, Salt Creek and Lantern Bay) • Crystal Cove State Park' • Laguna Beach City Beach' I-405/I-5 Freeway Wideni • Granada Park' • Madrid Fore Park' • Mission Viejo High School' • Aegean Hills Park' • Aliso Creek Bicycle Trait' • Sycamore Park' • Heritage Park' • Linear Open Space north of 1-405 • University Park Intermediate School' • San Diego Creek Bicycle Trait' Arterial Highway Widenings • Moulton Parkway - Aliso Creek Bicycle Trail' - Sheep Hills Park (future public)' - La Paz Road open space' • MacArthur Boulevard - North Ford Park' • Bonita Canyon Drive - Turtle Rock Community Park' • Jamboree Road - Upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve' ' Direct impact to site by taking of additional right-of-way. 'Indirect impact by taking additional right-of-way immediately adjacent to site. 14 oMF co o If {� r CL CL CD CD CL m D mil ,.1. Q Il - 1\ 1 . JAMBOp . �• i/ . UFF'' a ;LyoNlcaq (D Q I �' } I� ^-• �•T. �/_ - R_D _::� �AMQORFF �� J ".L AyF �l CD gyp' �� ) � CD HARVA ? O V Cb IO W ja SPVGLASSF �4 Ix — 1 r ♦ jai i1 I `,• .J£EF r ' . l top 01 i it tf ^Q) t _ It r „' n C4f PO I' >✓ / 4 ON a� �rw , � • : '�► ' T F• �� - `.,}��" _) i•'\7•- / 4 r �' � i% it �; 61 VA, jq �y j j ��9 >�' o ` \.•-�\ f t / to ;% .............� for o'r/ ,, •. �} i' _ _ CIA /tom It N. Wk ,r /X--•"VALLEY ___. J'%�• a�'Yl / ,. -'H.-• _1 / cm \off \• 1 �1 I 1 1 1 Lei Ij 1 TABLE D - POTENTIAL SECTION W) IMPACTS DUE TO ALTERMATIVE ALIGNMENTS STUDIED IN EIR 267 Alignment Alternative Actual Use Constructive Use 1 - San Diego Creek Channel - Turtle Rock Community Park - County Bicycle Trait No. 61 - Chaparral Park - County Bicycle Trail No. 66 - Bommer Canyon Park_ 2* Same as Alignment 1 None 3 Same as Alignment 1 None 4 Same as Alignment 1 Same as Alignment 1 5 Same as Alignment 1 None 6* Same as Alignment 1 None 7 Same as Alignment 1 Buffalo Hills/Harbor View Park and those in Alignment 1 8* Same as Alignment 1 Buffalo Hills/Harbor View Park 9 Same as Alignment 1 Same as Alignment, 8 10 - Laguna Ridges Dedication None Area - Sycamore Hills None - Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional None Park 11 Same as Alignment 10 None 12 Same as Alignment 10 None 13 Same as Alignment 10 None 14 Same as Alignment 10 None 15 Same as Alignment 10 None 16* - Sycamore Hills None (North 1/2) - Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional None Park 17* - Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional None Park 18 - Same as Alignment 17 None 19* - Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional None Park - Aliso Creek Equestrian None Trail - County Bicycle Trail No. 78 None - County Bicycle Trait No. 72 None 20 Same as Alignment 19 None 21 Same as Alignment 19 None 22 Same as Alignment 19 None 23 - Niguel Trail None - County Bicycle Trail No. 42 None - Oso Creek Flood Control None Channel - Oso Creek Equestrian Trail None 24* Same as Alignment 23 None 25 Same as Alignment 23 Unnamed Local Park 26 Same as Alignment 23 None 27* Same as Alignment 23 None 28 Same as Alignment 23 1 Unnamed Local Park *Current alignment under consideration in the EIR/EIS. 16 served as obstructions to widening of I-5. Specifically, the constraints to p y� the westerly side of this "throat" consist of: 1) Oso Creek 2) Camino Capistrano Road (which contains major utilities); 3) The AT&SF Railway. Constraints to the east consist of Rancho Viejo Road and existing homes. These features are separated by approximately 430 feet, and in this area there is a demand for the following widths: two secondary arterial highways (Rancho Viejo Road and Camino Capistrano Road), each 80 feet wide; the I-5 freeway, 210 feet wide; Oso Creek, 30 feet wide; and AT&SF Railway, 36 feet wide. The geometric demand (436 feet) exceeds the available clearance between obstruc- tions (430 feet) and thus the retention of the bike trail along Rancho Viejo Road appears infeasible especially in light of the fact that either Camino Capistrano Road or Rancho Viejo Road may have to be approved as a substandard width arterial. Trails/Corridors Traversed By The Corridor. The Corridor will traverse the following resources: • Niguel Equestrian Trail (2) • County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72. (3) • Aliso Creek Trail System (4, 5) Avoidance of any of the above trails/corridors by an alternative Corridor alignment is not possible since the resources are perpendicular to the Corridor route. Any other alternative, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would cross the resource and impact at least an equal amount of the 4(f) resource. Sycamore Hills Open Space (6, 7. 8). The Corridor will bisect the Sycamore Hills Open Space (Figure 1). There are no additional alternative alignments which would generate less impacts at this resource than the preferred alternative. Bommer Canyon Park (9). Avoidance alternative alignments in the vicinity of Bommer Canyon Park require shifting of the roadway to the west. The discus- sion on page 48 (Project Description) documents that the "L" alignment adjacent to Bommer Canyon park is not a feasible and prudent alternative to the align- ment and consequently, the alignment has shifted away from Bommer Canyon to the maximum extent possible. Further shifting of the alignment to the south would reduce visual impacts to Bommer Canyon Park; however, it will directly impact Crystal Cove State Park, also a publicly owned recreational resource. Please refer to Chapter 2.0 (page 2 - 46) of the EIR/EIS for a further discussion of previously analyzed alignments in the vicinity of Bommer Canyon Park and Crys- tal Cove State Park. 17 1 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM The foregoing analysis described 4(f), resources which will be actually or constructively used by the Corridor, and for which no feasible and prudent alternatives exist. Section 4(f) requires the FHWA to utilize "all possible planning to minimize harm" to the 4(f) resource. The following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize impacts to sites which will be actually or constructively used. Where applicable, the resources for which the measure reduces impacts has been identified; if no resource has ibeen identified, then the measure applies to all resources affected. 1� 1. A maximum six percent design grade will reduce the extent of required cut visible from Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park. 2. Split level design from E1 Toro Road to Ford Road will reduce visual impacts due to grading at Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park. 3. The Corridor crossings at E1 Toro Road and Alicia Parkway will have larger open spans to minimize loss of existing views from Sycamore Hills and the Aliso Creek Trail System. 4. Landforms will be recontoured, where affected by Corridor improve- ments, to provide a smooth and gradual transition between modified and existing area grades and to avoid the appearance of manufactured grading. 5. Detailed landscape plans will be prepared and implemented for cut and fill slope areas. Such plans will include type and density of ground cover, seed or hydromulch mix, plant sizes soil compatibility with seeds and plants selected, and temporary irrigation systems during plant establishment. 6. To reduce the Corridor's visual impacts on Bommer Canyon, a berm shall be constructed adjacent to northbound travel lanes which will reduce views of the facility. This berm shall be contoured to match the existing topography and native landscaping shall be used for vegetation. 7. Where feasible at Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park, cut slopes shall be recontoured using a serrated technique and revegetated with, compatible native or drought tolerant plant materi-al. Serrating results in a more natural slope through implementation of small ter- races and revegetation. This technique can be used in cuts and rock surfaces, however, holes must be drilled for insertion with landscape material and soil amendments. 8. At Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park, selection and use of land- scape materials will recognize the opportunities for enhancing slope landform variation. Natural vegetation shall be located in appropri- ate locations and densities to fit into the .natural setting. Use of sculptured landscaping (i.e., varied height and species diversity) will assist in disguising the manufactured slope appearance and will 18 emphasize slope variation. Proper material selection and location of native plant materials, combined with sculptured grading, will emu- late the adjacent natural setting. 9. A tree survey shall be performed by the Project Biologist and the Project Landscape Architect in Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park to determine potential specimen trees to be preserved for Corridor related landscaping purposes. Trees shall be preserved and incorpo- rated into the Corridor revegetation and landscaping plan where feasible by the project landscape architect. Potential areas for placement of specimen trees include interchanges and overcrossings, as well as park and right lot landscaping. Preservation of specimen trees will be determined using standards developed by the Project Biologist. These standards could include criteria such as trunk width, health of tree and crown diameter. 10. At Niguel Equestrian Trail, Aliso Creek Trail System, and County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72, the use of native species of vegetation is recommended where feasible. However, non-native, non -aggressive drought tolerant plants shall be utilized in landscaping wherever native species are not feasible. The Corridor landscaping shall be compatible with existing landscaping in the vicinity of the align- ment. 11. In final design, rock outcroppings to be preserved shall be identi- fied wherever technically feasible in Sycamore Hills and Bommer Can- yon Park. 12. Where technically feasible, cut rock slopes shall be graded in such a manner that encourage development of rock outcroppings to enhance the visual quality of these slopes in Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park. 13. Benching of cut slopes in Sycamore Hills and Bommer Canyon Park will be incorporated only when necessary for geotechnical slope stability. 14. Vegetation removal shall be limited to the area required for immediate construction operations. 15. Short-term noise impacts shall be mitigated through restriction of construction to normal weekday working hours and to coordinate noisy activities together. 16. Short-term impacts on air quality shall be mitigated by use of stan- dard dust control procedures and heavy equipment emissions controls. 17. Construction detours and closures of bicycle and equestrian trails shall be adequately signed to reduce potential rider/equipment con- flicts. 18. Bridge structures which cross the Niguel and Aliso Creek Equestrian Trails shall be constructed with a minimum ten foot clearance from 19 the bottom of the crossing to the trail surface, in order to accommo- date both equestrians and riders, per section 208.7 of the Highway Design Manual. Trail crossing specifications shall be coordinated with the OCEMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks Division, specifically regarding compatibility with County trail standards. Al -so, struc- tures shall be constructed in a straight alignment so that the entire length of the structure can be seen from end to end. C� F I 1 I J � =o 1 1 COORDINATION Letters of Consultation The following agencies were consulted regarding impacts to 4(f) proper- ties. _ County of Orange OCEMA _ Harbors, Beaches and Parks • City of San Juan Capistrano - Public Works Dept. • City of Laguna Beach • City of Irvine - Community Development Dept. A summary of the results of this coordination effort is provided below. Coordination letters from these agencies are located in Attachment D. San Juan Capistrano. The City of San Juan Capistrano concurs with the finding of substantial impairment of the Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail (1), due to permanent displacement of a portion of the bike path. The City expressed concern regarding the Corridor's effect on the proposed Spotted Bull Equestrian Trail. This trail is currently not under City owner- ship nor will it be acquired by the City in the foreseeable future. Thus, it does not qualify as a Section 4(f) resource. Impacts to this proposed trail is discussed in Section 4.13, Pedestrian, Equestrian and Bicycle Facilities. County of Orange. The OCEMA-Harbors, Beaches and Parks Division concurs with the findings of substantial impairment of the following resources: Niguel Equestrian Trail (2) and Aliso Creek Trail System (4, 5). OCEMA - Transporta- tion Division concurs with the finding of the substantial impairment of County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72(3) (Telephone conversation with Robert Peterson- OCEMA, Transportation Divisi.n on June 20, 1990). D City of Laguna Beach. The City of Laguna Beach did not wish to provide input on the finding of substantial impairment at Sycamore Hills Open Space (6, 7, 8) at this time. (Telephone conversation between Steve Letterly, Manager Environmental Impact, TCA and Ken Frank, City Manager, City of Laguna Beach on July 17, 1990.) City of Irvine. The City of Irvine agreed with the finding of substantial impairment of the viewshed at Bommer Canyon Park (9). However, it was the City's concern that there would be long term air and noise impacts. The fol- lowing discussion addresses the City's concerns regarding long term noise and air impacts. Noise. The distance of approximately 3/4 mile between the Corridor and the center of human activity within Bommer Canyon Park will result in a signif- icant reduction in traffic noise to the level where it would be barely notice- able over the existing background noise level of the Park. Air Ouality. At distances of 1,000 feet or more, there would be no con- tribution to the background carbon monoxide (CO) levels from traffic along the Corridor. 21 1 1 I I I A 1 1 I I I ATTACHMENT A RESOURCE MAPS i 1 v0V RANCHO VIEJO BICYCLE TRAIL (1) FIGURE A-1 GP��NF�Lo ov, ��••-A. \ NIGUEL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL ` Q (Existing) °^ DR � NIGUEL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL (Existing) CROWN VALLEY PKWY ,1 posed) NOT TO SCALE NIGUEL EQUESTRIAN TRAIL (2) FIGURE-A-2 NCT TO SCALE / N P'14,Y I � \ MatoCOUNTY OF ORANGE ....�� I 0 I BICYCLE TRAIL NO. 72 .�•'' I iiamb. COUNTY OF ORANGE BICYCLE TRAIL NO. 72 (3) FIGURE A-3 . 3 rununrgr � / ••e PARK TRAILS••. ALISO/WOOD CANYONS REGIONAL PARK Q` ALISO CREEK EQUESTRIAN TRAIL NOT TO SCALE i ALISO CREEK TRAIL SYSTEM (4,5) BICYCLE TRAIL NO. 78 FIGURE A-4 SYCAMORE HILLS REGIONAL OPEN SPACE SYCAMORE HILLS REGIONAL OPEN SPACE SYCAMORE HILLS REGIONAL OPEN SPACE.(6,7,8) FIGURE A-5 BOMMER CANYON PARK (CITY�� CC� � �k BarxlarY BOMMER CANYON PARK (9) FIGURE A-6 ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF COOPERATIVE PLANNING EFFORTS AT SYCAMORE HILLS I I COOPERATIVE PLANNING EFFORT AT SYCAMORE HILLS OPEN. -SPACE The Sycamore Hills area consists of approximately 522 acres located within the city limits of Laguna Beach between Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro Road, southwesterly of the unincorporated community of Leisure World. fog On October 31, 1978, the City of Laguna Beach and the County of Orange entered into an agreement for the purpose of the County assisting the City in acquiring the 522 acre Sycamore Hills parcel from a private landowner. This agreement was subsequently superseded by a new agreement dated January 25., 1984, and its first amendment dated March 11, 1986.. Among other things, the original agreement included provisions that the County: 1) grant the City $1 million to be used by the City to'assi-st in the purchase of Sycamore Hills, as parti-al consideration for the City granting the County an option to purchase land within Sycamore Hills for a proposed regional park, and the proposed Corridor (including a related multi -model transportation center); 2) could preclude residential development on the Sycamore Hills property. Pursuant to the agreement in January, 1983, the County adopted a purchase program depicting the property it intended to further consider for acquisition in the Sycamore Hills. This property included a 76 acre parcel for the Corridor and related facilities, and a 67 acre parcel for proposed open space purposes. The City subsequently expressed a desire to sell approximately 62 acres ' within Sycamore Hills along E1 Toro Road for residential development to obtain funds necessary to help complete the purchase of Sycamore Hill-s, and asked the County to waive the prohibition against residential development. In order to facilitate mutual desires, the City and County entered into the new agreement, dated January 25, 1984, which provided for the placement in escrow of a Parcel A for transportation corridor purposes and Parcel B for regional open space purposes. The agreement also provided for an appraisal to determine the even- tual purchase price. Also, the new agreement did not preclude residential development on the 62 acre parcel of interest to the City. Pursuant to the agreement, four parcels are designated in Sycamore Hills: 1. A 67 acre parcel for the Corridor and related multi -modal transpor- tation center. l 2. A 67 acre parcel for regional open space. This parcel is south of the Corridor and is bounded by -El Toro Road and Laguna Canyon Road. 3. A 62 acre parcel which has been sold by the City for residential development. This parcel lies north of the Corridor, and near E1 Toro Road. 4. The remaining 324 acre parcel. This parcel is bounded on the south by the Corridor, on the west by Laguna Canyon Road, on the north by Leisure World, and on the east by the City's residential parcel., These four parcels have been carefully planned so that. they provide for mutual consistency of the activities within each area. 1 I The City of Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element shows the Corridor passing through Sycamore Hills. The 324 acre parcel owned by the City north of the Corridor is designated as Open Space with Tourist and Recreation/Commercial nodes, with a note on the map indicating that the uses for this Corridor plan- ning is completed. The City's General Plan Land Use Map shows the Corridor with a note indicating approximate grading limits for the Corridor. Thus, cooperative planning has been carried out between the City of Laguna Beach and the County of Orange in the Sycamore Hills area since 1978, by provi- sion in the agreement for various uses of the four parcels within Sycamore Hills for development, recreational, open space and transportation corridor purposes, all consistent with the City's General Plan. 1 1 11 P-1 4r I 1 1 11 I I II t I` � 1 ATTACHMENT C HISTORY OF COOPERATIVE CORRIDOR AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING T 11 0 t I HISTORY OF COOPERATIVE CORRIDOR AND OPEN SPACE PLANNING IN ORANGE COUNTY COOPERATIVE PLANNING THE 4(F) CONTEXT A unique feature of planning for south Orange County was the extent to which open space, development and transportation uses were cooperatively planned to insure adequate provision for all uses. The large land ownerships in south Orange County made the designation of substantial open space areas possible- i,n conjunction with the approval of master planned communities in these areas. In turn, the Corridor was an essential component of these master plans because it was understood to be necessary to service the new development in these areas. In short, the parks and other open space areas in the south County area did not come first. Rather, the need for the parks and Corridor were recog- nized at the same time, and planning activities were initiated to ensure that *� both the open space and circulation needs of the County's expanding population would be satisfied. The following is a discussion of the history of cooperative planning for open space and transportation uses, and documents the extent to which the designation of open space and other 4(f) lands specifically contemplated the existence of the Corridor. STATE GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS Since 1969 the State of California has required that loc al governments prepare and adopt General Plans to guide future development within their juris- dictions. Among the mandatory elements of the General Plan are Land Use and Circulation Elements designed to determine the location -,and intensity of use of specific type of development, along with the transportation systems required to properly serve proposed levels of development. Land Use and Circulation ele- ments must be harmonized with one another so that there will be sufficient and appropriate forms of transportation to service the types and intensity of proposed development in a geographic context. In 1970, the California Legislature adopted additional requirements for preparation of an Open Space Element and Plan as an integral part of the local government General Plan. With a rapidly urbanizing demography, local govern- ment was charged with assuring that the open space needs of present and future populations could be met. Orange County in particular has been concerned with prepari-ng and imple- menting a General Plan that reflects the needs of a rapidly• expanding populace. Evolving first as a bedroom community for Los Angeles, Orange County has become an urban center with its own employment base and work force. The need for a balanced plan, i-ntegrating land use, circulation and open space/recreational considerations has long been recognized. f I COORDINATION OF LAND USE, CIRCULATION AND OPEN SPACE PROGRAM This section outlines the specific planning programs whereby Orange County has attempted to harmonize circulation and open space needs. A number of circulation and open space planning programs dating back to the early 1970s are summarized so that the origins of regional transportation and open space plan- ning affecting the Corridor can be properly understood in relation to the question of whether the Corridor in fact uses park lands as defined in Section 4(f). Understanding the historical context of regional transportation and open space planning is vital because present Corridor alignment considerations, and alternatives to the Corridor, are derived from Orange County's planning efforts to meet both local and regional open space, recreational and transportation needs. Four major planning efforts have shaped the land use, circulation and open space programs for the areas potentially affected by the SJHTC and which, in turn reflect an effort to cooperatively plan for transportation and open space needs on a regional basis. These efforts include the following major programs that are reviewed in the subsections below: 1) The 1973 Orange County Open Space Study - a comprehensive overview of future open space needs on a regional basis; 2) The 1974-76 SEOCCS Review and 1976 Amendment to the Orange County Circula- tion Element - a comprehensive review of projected population growth in Southeastern Orange County directed toward integrating and land use and circulation needs on a regional basis and out of which grew the recommen- dation for a major transportation corridor in the general location of SJHTC. 3) The California Coastal Plan of 1975 - a statewide coastal plan prepared pursuant to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Propo- sition 20) which defined the proposed boundaries for future coastal zone land use regulation and the 1976 Cooske Act. 4) Comprehensive Planned Communities Plans - several major master plans reflecting the large-scale land holdings of southeastern Orange County including both land areas subject to coastal zone planning and areas outside the coastal zone, all of which were cooperatively planned with respect to a potential SJHTC. A Comprehensive Assessment of Open Space Needs - the 1973 Concept Plan In February, 1973, Orange County commissioned a major regional assessment of future open space needs for the County through the year 2020. The Williams- Kuebelbeck Study ("Cost/Benefit Analysis - Orange County - Concept Plan for Open space and Recreation," August, 1973) covered 145,000 acres of County lands. Two of the five priority areas proposed by the Concept Plan included areas affecting the Corridor - the Aliso Greenbelt and the Laguna Greenbelt. 1 There are three as ects of the 1973 o ens ace Concept Plan affecting the Corridor that should be noted. First, the total land areas proposed for acqui- sition in the Aliso Greenbelt and Laguna Greenbelt areas comprised approximate- ly 5,000 acres. Ultimately, Orange County would obtain a far greater land area for open space purposes than was contemplated in this comprehensive plan. j Second, the summary descriptions for each of the priority areas reflects the fact that scenic highways were contemplated to traverse many of the San Joaquin Hills areas including the Ali -so Creek node, Wood Canyon, the Laguna Greenbelt, the Laguna Canyon corridor and the Sycamore Hills -node. Additional- ly, residential development was contemplated in many areas that subsequently have been required to become public open space, primarily through County dedi- cation requirements. Third, the Concept Plan identified the inland areas which would have recreational access to the proposed open space areas. In this way, the impor- tance of providing adequate recreational access for inland users was specifi- cally acknowledged. Each of the planning issues implicit in these features of the open space Concept Plan has been a major factor in planning for the Corri- dor. Although the County desired to proceed with its open space program, fund- ing shortages precluded an acquisition program on 'the scale projected by the Concept Plan. Other land use needs also commanded the attention of County planners, particularly the need for harmonizing land use and circulation objec- tives in southern Orange County. The Southeast Orange Countv Circulation Studv (SEOCCS): Balancing Land Use and By 1974, it had become apparent that a major reassignment of future growth scenarios for southern Orange County was required in order to assure that land use and circulation requirements would be balanced. Accordi-ngly, Orange County undertook an intensive evaluation of future land use and circulation needs for southeast Orange County. The approach used in this study and the implementa- tion actions subsequently taken by the County to assure a land use and circula- tion balance were described as follows: 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 (SEOCCS)-was under- taken. The SEOCCS 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 circulation system concepts were analyzed, ranging from no new transportation corridors to 46 miles of new transportation corridors. Following completion of the SEOCCS in September 1975, the Orange County Board of Supervisors, referred the study to the cities and major citizen as- sociations within the study area for review and recommendation. At the same time, the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA) prepared an 1 Environmental Impact Report on the SEOCCS and proposed Circulation Amendment 76-1. The EIR analyzed the impacts of the four land use plans and the circula- tion systems designed for each alternative. Following a series of public meetings and hearings on June 21, 1976, the Orange County Planning Commission 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 Circulation Element Amendment 76-1 incor- porating the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and consistent with the then current Land Use Elements for County and cities, reflecting an ultimate 917,000 population level for southeast Orange County. The Board also es- tablished a targeted population of 711,000 by the year 1995 for the southeast Orange County area and called for a development monitoring program providing regular reviews to compare population trends, analyze air quality and determine the capabilities of essential services to cope with development demands. 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 which incorporated other recommendations of SEOCCS have been adopted by the County. The Corridor con- stituted the major new transportation facility added to the MPAH (Master Plan of Arterial Highways) in Circulation Amendment 76-2 as a result of SEOCCS.' In terms of the general location of the Corridor, three of the four land use/circulation alternatives examined in the SEOCCS proposed a similar approxi- mate alignment for the Corridor. The fourth alternative had no transportation corridors. Based on the SEOCCs, the Corridor was incorporated into the overall system as a conceptually proposed location, rather than as an established alignment. Thus, by mid-1976 the need, function and approximate location for the Corridor were all established based upon an extensive land use/circulation analysis and broad -based public review. Coastal Zone Planning- The Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 and the 1976 Coastal Act In to the addition requirements of State planning law and Orange County regional planning, the types of uses proposed in areas affecting the Corridor have been strongly influenced by State law requirements pertaining to the coas- tal zone. In 1972, the voters of California enacted Proposition 20, an initiative r designed to control development on an interim basis for a permit area within a 1,000 yards of mean high tide, and to prepare a coastal plan for an area ex- tending five miles inland in Southern California. The coastal zone planning 'EIR 267 and Study Report - Phase 1 - Corridor Route Location Study, at P. 1-3 to 1-5. 1�4 i area described in Proposition 20 included much of the land area re p presently considered for the Corridor. In 1976 the -California ,Legislature enacted a statute creating a permanent regulatory program and defining a new coastal zone boundary. The California Coastal Act of 1976 required the preparation of Local Coastal Programs by local governments for their portions of the coastal zone for review and approval by the California Coastal Commission. Two of the Local Coastal Programs for Orange County, the Irvine Coast and Aliso Viejo areas, relate closely to the planning for areas adjacent to the Corridor. During the same time period that Orange County was undertaking and com- pleting the SEOCCS Study and subsequent Circulation Element Amendment, the planning process under the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (Proposition 20) was also being completed. The planning area provided for by Proposition 20 was far greater than the permit area, comprising a five mile planning zone as contrasted with the 1,000 yard permit area. In October 1975, following extensive public comment, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission presented the California Coastal Plan of 1975 to the California Legislature. The 1975 Coastal Plan proposed a significant extension inland of coastal zone jurisdiction from the 1,000 yard permit area to embrace significant por- tions of the Irvine Coast and the Aliso Creek area. However, with a full awareness of the general location identified for the Corridor, the coastal zone boundaries proposed by the Coastal Commission did not include the area shown in the SEOCCS Study for the Corridor. Thus, in the judgment of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, significant coastal resources could be protected within a coastal zone area located seaward of the Corridor, even though the planning area within the coastal boundary included the potential location of the Corridor. M Subsequent to adoption of the Coastal Plan, proposals for permanent coas- tal legislation were forwarded to the California Legislature. During the 1976 legislative session, the Legislature debated all aspects of the proposed coas- tal legislation, including the proposed coastal zone boundaries. Ultimately, the Legislature approved a coastal zone boundary g.enerally consistent with that proposed by the Coastal Commission for the Orange County coastal areas, a coastal zone that did not include the general Corridor location identified in the SEOCCS study. Large Scale Master Planning in Central and Southern Orange County The role of regional land use, circulation and open space/recreational planning must be assessed with an understanding of large, scale master planning in central and southern Orange County. These Master Plan efforts involve specific planned community programs in unincorporated County areas. Unlike development in many parts of the country, the ownership of most of the landholdings in the area between the San Freeway Diego and PCH south of the Y City of Irvine in the last decade has been concentrated in three major owner- ships: The Irvine Company, the Mission Viejo Company and the Laguna Niguel ownership. The Laguna Niguel ownership area has recently been segmented. Due to the extensive landholdings of these companies, Orange County has been able. 5 I t to plan for the future growth (including transportation systems to service such growth) of the County, while ensuring the conservation of significant open space and recreational resources. The Community Master Plan for Colinas de Capistrano, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Sycamore Hills, Laguna Laurel, Irvine Coast, contemplated the presence of the Corridor both in overall planning for the communities and in locating recreation and open space uses. The following potential 4(f) resources, in- cluding some not yet in public ownership, were developed in accord with the Community Master Plan: • Oso Creek open space • Niguel Equestrian Trail • County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72 • Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park • Sycamore Hills open space • Laguna Ridges Dedication Area • Laurel Canyon Dedication Area • Crystal Cove State Park • Los Trancos open space. Results of the Cooperative Planning Program In summary, the existence of large land ownerships in south Orange County provided the County of Orange and other public agencies with the ability to establish significant open space and recreational land in conjunction with the approval of several master plan communities. The existence of the Corridor was specifically contemplated in the planning for these communities. Thus, the Corridor was an integral part of a plan which included development, as well as open space and recreational uses. Indeed, the record indicates that the County and other agencies undertook significant efforts to insure that the location of the open space and other uses would be compatible with the location of the Corridor. Accordingly, the Corridor does not use the open space and recreation areas in that the transportation, development and open space needs of the residents of Orange County were cooperatively planned, and the existence of the Corridor was specifically contemplated in each of the Master Plans discussed above. These planning efforts have resulted in the designation of over 13,000 acres of open space, recreational and wildlife habitat areas. Further, the Corridor is vital to providing recreational access to the large greenbelt area within this area of Orange County. If the vast majority of County residents and other visitors are to benefit from the recreational resources of the green- belt areas, there must be sufficient access provided. Pacific Coast Highway cannot be expanded to serve these access needs. Instead, for this portion of the Orange County coastal area, a new access route is required. Both as a means of providing access to the diverse recreational areas within the green- belt and as a recreational experience in itself as a scenic route comparable to I-280 in the San Francisco area, the Corridor does not use the greenbelt areas. Rather, the Corridor is a component of the recreational system itself just as it is a vital component of the County's attempt to balance land use and cir- culation support system. 0 1 0 �I I 0 1 1 /t I 1 1 j� ATTACHMENT D AGENCY COORDINATION t 1 t i cpuc use I$ B July 17, 1990 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANTHONY L.'BLAND LAWRENCE F. BUCHHEIM KENNETH E. FRIESS GARY L. HAUSDORFER PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE CITY MANAGER STEPHEN B JULIAN Steven Letterly, Environmental Manager Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 Subject: Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Impact on Section 4(f) Resources within San Juan Capistrano. Dear Mr. Letterly: By letter dated July 11, you have requested the City to provide you with a response to your agency's determination that the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will "substantially impair" Section 4(f) resources in the City of San Juan Capistrano. It is our understanding that section 4.(f) resources include public recreational facilities. Specifically, you have found that the proposed Corridor would "substantially impair" a portion of the Rancho Viejo Road bicycle trail. The draft narrative which accompanied your letter indicates that a segment of the Rancho Viejo Road bicycle trail would be discontinued as a result of the realignment of Rancho Viejo Road to the east. Please be advised that the City of San Juan Capistrano concurs with the Transportation Corridor Agency's finding that the Corridor, as now proposed, would "substantially impair" this recreation facility but questions whether removal of the bicycle trail is the only reasonable or appropriate option. We desire to examine this issue more closely and your staff has agreed to arrange a meeting to explain in detail the basis for proposing to remove the trail and explore other potentially feasible alternatives. In addition, the proposed Corridor may impact a proposed equestrian feeder trail (Spotted Bull Trail) between the Spotted Bull Lane subdivision and Rancho Viejo Road and extending south to Trabuco Creek. At this point in time we are unable to determine with any certainty whether the Corridor will impact the proposed trail due to the lack of information on the specific relocation of Rancho Viejo. I've attached a copy of the City Is "Hiking/Equestrian-Trail Map" and request that you evaluate the recommended, trail for potential impacts. The Spotted Bull Trail has been outlined in red pencil for your ease of identification. Please advise me of your 32400 PASEO ADELANTO, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 92675 • (714) 493-1171 1 Steven Letterly July 17, 1990 page 2 determination for this facility. We look forward to discussing this aspect of the project further with the hope of finding an alternative which allows for the complete relocation and/or inclusion of the Rancho Viejo bicycle trail. Should you have any questions or want to discuss this project further, please don't hesitate to call me at 493-1171, extension 505. Sincerellt, istAht Ci GS/WAR:hs cc: Thomas Merrell, Director, Community Planning and Development Thomas Tomlinson, Planning Manager Ted Simon, City Engineer Bud Vokoun, Senior Civil Engineer Thomas S. Marking, AICP, P&D Technologies King Thomas, Environmental Planner, TCA Clint Brookhart, P.E., Manager q s� 1 1 1 1 it a 3- it 11 11 �I 1 MICHAEL M. RUANE DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER Y Q F DIRECTOR OF HARBORS, BEACHES &PARKS LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA N G E SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 WIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CA 92702-4048 HARBORS, BEACHES AND PARKS TELEPHONE: July 17, 1990 (714) 834-3262 FAX # 834-6,132 FILE RHT-Admin. 4(f) Mr. Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: SJHTC Impact on Section 4(f) Properties within County of Orange Dear Mr. Letterly: EMA/Harbors, Beaches & Parks has reviewed the attached information provided by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) and has made the following determinations regarding the SJHTC's impact on 4(f) on our facilities. RESOURCE Niguel Equestrian Trail Aliso Creek Trail System WJ:dsHB0408/0197 0071,620175975 At tachmen-t DETERMINATION Concur Concur Very truly yours, Robert G. Fisher, Director EMA/Harbors, Beaches & Parks Communitv Development Department CGty of Irvine. One Cmc Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine. California 92713 July 17, 1990 t714) 724-6000 Mr. Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: SJHTC IMPACTS TO SECTION 4F RESOURCES WITHIN THE CITY OF IRVINE Dear Mr. Letterly: The City of Irvine has reviewed the information provided by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) and concurs with the determination of the SJHTC's impact on 4(f) properties within the City of Irvine, except for the following: Bommer Canyon Park Noise effects: The discussion only states that short-term construction impacts will occur, while excluding long-term impacts associated with a project of this magnitude. A long-term impact will occur for the adjacent recreational area by the Corridor significantly increasing the ambient noise level, although it is unlikely to exceed the City's 65 CNEL standard for recreational uses. Air Quality: Similar to the noise effects, the discussion only states that short-term construction air quality impacts will occur. It is recognized by the City that this project is to improve air quality within the Orange County region as a whole by increasing the average vehicle speed, however, the project will introduce pollutants into the air from vehicle emission which currently are non-existent. t i 1 i MR. STEVE LETTERLY July 17, 1990 Page Two Please revise both statements to reflect City staffs concerns, and submit to Ms. Jennifer Regan, Assistant Planner, a copy of th e Section 4(f) Bommer Canyon Park discussion, when it is revised. Should you have any questions, please call Jennifer Regan, Assistant Planner at (714)724-6355. Sincerely, Sheri Vander Dussen Acting Manager of Development Services jr/tcallett cc: Bernie Strojny, Assistant City Manager Robert C. Johnson, Director of Community Development Y Peter Hersh, Manager of Planning Services Pat Shoemaker, Principal Planner Steve Haubert, Principal Planner Lisa Heep, Principal Planer Shirley Land, Principal Transportation Analyst Jennifer Regan, Assistant Planner t 11 t r July 11, 1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Mr. George Scarborough, Assistant City Manager City of San Juan Capistrano 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Subject: Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources Along the Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Alignment Within the Jurisdiction of the City of San Juan Capistrano Dear Mr. Scarborough: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CALTRANS, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency are jointly preparing a Draft EIR/EIS for the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). During preparation of the EIR/EIS we identified several proposed and existing recreational facilities which are owned by the City of San Juan Capistrano and are located in close proximity to the SJHTC. For the 4(f) section of the EIR/EIS, the TCA would like the City's concurrence on our determinations regarding whether these facilities will be substantially impaired by impacts from the SJHTC. Attached are excerpts from our draft 4(f) section for each of the impacted City facilities. Additionally, attached is an example letter we would like to receive from the City. If you concur with our determinations, please put the attached example letter on City letterhead and return it to us with the appropriate signature. In the event that you do not concur with our determinations regarding impairment of any of the facilities, please state the areas of disagreement in your response. If there is a need for further coordination between the City and the TCA regarding 4(f) issues, please contact me. I will be happy to meet with you to resolve any outstanding 4(f) issues. I William Woollett, Jr., Executive Director Foothill/Eastern Corridor Agency Chairman: Gary Hausdorfer San Juan Capistrano Members: Anaheim Irvine Mission Viejo Orange San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Tustin Yorba Linda County of Orange San Joaquin Hills Corridor Agency Chairman: John Cox Newport Beach Members: Costa Mesa Dana Point Irvine Mission Viejo Newport Beach San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana County of Orange 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7141557-329B FAX 7141557-9104 SJHTC 4(f) page 2 We would appreciate your response by Tuesday, July 17, 1990. We realize this is a very short turn around time. However, we are willing to provide any help you may need to meet this deadline. Additionally, we will have a courier pick up your response letter�if needed. Thank you for your continued cooperation regarding the planning of the transportation corridors. qVerXrul v s, Y teve ett y Mana r o Environmental Impact SL:KT:lc Attachments cc: William Ramsey Tony Foster i H t 1 Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail (2). a) The location of the Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail in relationship to the I-5 is illustrated in Figure 1. b) This Class I (off -road) bike path is located only the east side of Rancho Viejo Road and is currently improved from Calle Arroyo to approximately 1500 feet south of Malaspina Road (approximately 1.2 miles), from Malaspina Road to Trabuco Creek (approximately .6 miles) and from Village Road to approximately 900 feet north of Village Road. Figure A-2 in Attachment A shows the facility. c) The City of San Juan Capistrano owns the trail segments listed above. The missing segment near Malaspina Road is improved with a Class II (on -road) bike lane; while all other missing segments are not cur- rently owned by the City with no set date of acquisition. d,e) As shown in Figure A-2 of Attachment A, the path has been improved as a facility for use by bicyclists. f) The path can be accessed via Rancho Viejo Road, Calle Arroyo, Ortega Highway, Junipero Serra Road, Malaspina Road, Mission Hills Drive, Village Road and Avery Parkway. There are no staging areas along this bike path. g) This path can access the County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 81 along Trabuco Creek. h) There are no applicable clauses affecting ownership of the bike path. i) The bike path currently has views of the I-5 freeway as shown in Figure A-2, Attachment A. Niguel Equestrian Trail (8). a) The location of the Niguel Equestrian Trail and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b,c,h) As shown in Figure 1 and Figure A-5 in Attachment A, the County of Orange owned trail begins near the intersection of Moulton Parkway and Pacific Park Drive and extends southwesterly through development to Greenfield Drive and terminates approximately 900 feet north of the Corridor. d,e) The trail has been developed to accommodate equestrians and hikers. f) This trail is currently accessed via Greenfield Drive. There are currently no designated staging areas in the vicinity of the Corri- dor. g) There are no other designated equestrian trails in the vicinity of the property. 4 1 r f 11 i 1 1-1 10 i 1 Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail (2). The improved segment of the bike :path north of Trabuco Creek will be removed due to relocation of Rancho Viejo Road. The bike path cannot be accommodated in the cross section of the relocated road due to environmental constraints that limit the width of the new cross section. Relocation of Rancho Viejo Road will preclude development of any bicycle faci- lities north of Trabuco Creek. However, the improved section of the bicycle path south of Trabuco Creek will not be physically impacted by I-5 improvements and will experience the following residual indirect effects. a) Visual Effects: Currently, views from both the improved and unim- proved portions of the path are predominately of low to medium den- sity residential' and office/commercial land, uses (Figure A-2 in At- tachment A). Construction of the I-5 improvements associated with Corridor implementation will not substantially alter the existing urbanized viewshed experienced at the facility. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table B, the path will not experience noise levels, due to construction of the Corridor, which are substan- tially greater than the No Build scenario. Short-term construction noise impacts will also occur. c) Air Quality Effects: Short-term impacts, such as construction equip- ment emissions and fugitive dust, will occur. d) Construction Effects: Users of the trail"s may be affected by unusual and unexpected conditions during construction of I-5 improvements associated with Corridor implementation. 0 TABLE B DISTANCE TO 67 LEO (dBA) CONTOUR IN FEET Resource Future -No Build Future -Build Rancho Viejo Bicycle trail 74 75 Niguel Equestrian Trail (8) 47 72 County of Orange Bicycle (9) Trail No. 72 48 73 Aliso Creek Equestrian Trail/County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 78 (10) 50 74 Sycamore Hills 55 69 10 0 1 [J I 1 1 I July 11, 1990 Mr. Robert G. Fisher, Director Orange County EMA/Harbors, Beaches and Parks P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Subject: Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources the Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Alignment Within the Jurisdiction County of Orange Dear Mr. Fisher: TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Along of the The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CALTRANS, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency are jointly preparing a Draft EIR/EIS for the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). During preparation of the EIR/EIS we identified several proposed and existing recreational facilities which are owned by the County of Orange and are located in close proximity to the SJHTC. For the 4(f) section of the EIR/EIS, the TCA would like the County's concurrence on our determinations regarding whether these facilities will be substantially impaired by impacts from the SJHTC. Attached are excerpts from our draft 4(f) section for each of the impacted County facilities. Additionally, attached is an example letter we would like to receive from the County. If you concur with our determinations, please put the attached example letter on County letterhead and return it to us with the appropriate signature. In the event that you do not concur with our determinations regarding impairment of any of the facilities, please state the areas of disagreement in your response. If there is a need for further coordination between the County and the TCA regarding 4(f) issues, please contact me. I will William Woollett, Jr., Executive Director Foothill/Eastern Corridor Agency Chairman: Gary Hausdorfer San •Juan Capistrano Members: Anaheim Irvine Mission Viejo Orange San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Tustin Yorbs Linda County of Orange San Joaquin Hills Corridor Agency Chairman: John Cox Newport Beach Members: Costa Mesa Dana Point Irvine Mission -Viejo Newport Beach San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana County of Orange A 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7141557--3298 FAX 7141557-9104 SJHTC 4(f) page 2 be happy to meet with you to resolve any outstanding 4(f) issues. We would appreciate your response by Tuesday, July 17, 1990. We realize this is a very short turn around time. However, we are willing to provide any help you may need to meet this deadline. Additionally, we will have a courier pick up your response letter if needed. Thank you for your continued cooperation regarding the planning of the transportation corridors. truly ,yo,drs , rl 11 Rancho Viejo Bicycle Traii_(2). a) The location of the Rancho Viejo Bicycle Trail in relationship to the I-5 is illustrated in Figure 1. b) This Class I (off -road) bike path is located only the east side of Rancho Viejo Road and is currently improved from Calle Arroyo to approximately 1500 feet south of Malaspina Road (approximately 1.2 miles), from Malaspina Road to Trabuco Creek (approximately .6 miles) and from Village Road to approximately 900 feet north of Village Road. Figure A-2 in Attachment A shows the facility. c) The City of San Juan Capistrano owns the trail segments listed above. The missing segment near Malaspina Road is improved with a Class II (on -road) bike lane; while all other missing segments are not cur- rently owned by the City with no set date of acquisition. d,e) As shown in Figure A-2 of Attachment A, the path has been improved as a facility for use by bicyclists. f) The path can be accessed via Rancho Viejo Road, Calle Arroyo, Ortega Highway, Junipero Serra Road, Malaspina Road, Mission Hills Drive, Village Road and Avery Parkway. There are no staging areas along this bike path. g) This path can access the County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 81 along Trabuco Creek. h) There are no applicable clauses affecting ownership of the bike path. i) The bike path currently has views of the I-5 freeway as shown in Figure A-2, Attachment A. Niguel Equestrian Trail (8). a) The location of the Niguel Equestrian Trail and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b,c,h) As shown in Figure 1 and Figure A-5 in Attachment A-, the County of Orange owned trail begins near the. intersection of Moulton Parkway and Pacific Park Drive and extends southwesterly through development to Greenfield Drive and terminates approximately 900 feet north of the Corridor. d,e) The trail has been developed to accommodate equestrians, and hikers. f) This trail is currently accessed via Greenfield Drive. There are currently no designated staging areas in the vicinity of the Corri- dor. g) There are no other designated equestrian trails in the vicinity of the property. 4 i) There are no unusual characteristics of the property that reduces or enhances the value of the property. County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72 (9 a) The location of the facility and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b) This bikeway is located along Moulton Parkway/Street of the Golden Lantern from Sand Canyon Avenue, in the City of Irvine to Pacific Coast Highway in Dana Point. For most of its length, the facility is a Class.II (on -road) trail; however, from Laguna Hills Drive to Tra- buco Creek (approximately seven miles) the facility is a Class I (off -road) bike path. c) The County of Orange currently owns all of the facility. d,e) The bike path has been improved to accommodate bicyclists in the vicinity of Moulton Parkway. f) This bike path is accessed by Pacific Park Drive to the north and Marina Hills Drive to the south. g) This bike path connects to existing bike paths or bike lanes adjacent to the arterial network in the vicinity of the Corridor. These arterials include: E1 Toro Road (Trail No. 75), Pacific Park Drive (Trail No. 76) and Crown Valley Parkway (Trail No. 85). h) There are no clauses affecting the ownership of this path. i) There are no unusual characteristics that reduce or enhance the quality of the resource. Aliso Creek Trail System a) The location of the Aliso Creek Trail System and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b) The Trail System is bounded by three future schools, three future parks and an existing church to the west, and existing and proposed Alicia Parkway to the east. Alicia Parkway is constructed on top of hillside bluffs in this area. c) The Trail System is located within the Aliso Wood Canyons Regional Park of which the County of Orange currently owns 3,400 acres of the proposed 5,000 acre Regional Park. The Trail System is within the area currently under County ownership. d,e) A draft General Development Plan (GDP) (June, 1988) was developed for the park by OCEMA-Harbors, Beaches and Parks which outlines planned uses within the park boundaries. This area is anticipated to be a generally passive recreational resource, allowing for preservation of 5 existing open space areas within the channel as well as picnic/open space overlook facilities. An equestrian (County of Orange Alis-o Creek Trail) and hiking trail system are proposed on the east side of Aliso Creek. An existing bike path (County of Orange Bicycle Trail \ No. 78) is located along the western edge of the channel at this location. f) This Trail System can currently be accessed by Alicia Parkway where a staging area has been constructed. g) The Trail System is within the Aliso Wood Canyons Regional Park which is part of the approximately 16,000 acre Laguna Greenbelt. Please see Chapter 1.0 (page _) for a discussion of the `Laguna Greenbelt. h) The majority of the park, 3,400 acres, was ded-icated to the County by the Aliso Viejo Company. The irrevocable Offer of Dedication of 3,400 acres within the Aliso Viejo Community Plan area for open space, conservation and recreation uses specifically excluded the Corridor from the dedication area (Aliso Viejo Offer of Dedication § 1.07 (d)). The Offer of Dedication specifically recognized that the areas of dedication area which would be needed for the Corridor could not be precisely determined. Therefore, the Aliso Viejo Company reserved the right to locate and designate portions of the dedication area which would be excluded from the Offer of Dedication for pur- poses of the Corridor. i) There are no unusual characteristics that reduce or enhance the quality of the resource. Sycamore Hills (12, 13, 14). a) The location of Sycamore Hills and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b) The Sycamore Hills area consists of approximately 453 acres located within the city limits of Laguna -Beach between Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road southwesterly of the unincorporated community of Leisure World (see Figure 1 and Figure of Attachment A): _ c) Sycamore Hills is owned by the City of Laguna Beach. d,e,i) As discussed in the SEIR for Sycamore Hills - Tentative Tract 12112, three parcels are provided for in the Sycamore Hills area: a 69 acre parcel identified for the Corridor and related multi -modal transpor- " tation center; a 67 acre parcel south of the Corridor bounded by El Toro Road for regional open space purposes and, a remaining parcel of approximately 324 acres lying northerly of the proposed Corridor right-of-way between Laguna Canyon Road on the west and Leisure World and the City residential development on the east also for regional - open space purposes. Currently', an equestrian trail is located through the regional open space areas and is shown in Figure 1. 6 Niguel Equestrian Trail (8). The Corridor crosse as shown in Figure A-5 of Attachment A. Although physically impact the trail, the following indirect occur. s over the proposed trail the Corridor will not effects are expected to a) Visual Effects: As shown in Figure A-5 in Attachment A, the trail is visually impacted by existing development, including Greenfield Drive and commercial and high density residential land uses, to the south of the Corridor. Construction of the Corridor will not substantially alter the equestrian trail's currently degraded viewshed at this location north of the Corridor, as illustrated in Figure A-5. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table B, users of the trail will exper- ience noise levels with construction of the Corridor where the Corri- dor crosses the future trail that are substantially greater than the No Build scenario. The existing portion of the trail would not be affected by Corridor noise. Short-term noise impacts will occur during construction. c) Air Quality Effects: Short-term impacts, such as construction engine emissions and fugitive dust, will occur. d) Construction Effects: Users of the trail may be affected by detours, closures, construction and equipment movement during construction of the Corridor. County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 72 (9). The Corridor will cross over the bike path as illustrated in Figure A-6 in Attachment A. There will be no physical impacts to the facility, however, the following indirect corridor effects are anticipated. a) Visual Effects: As shown in Figure A-6 in Attachment A, the existing viewshed in the vicinity of the Corridor is predominated by residen- tial development to the north. Also, existing development is visible to the south, east and west from the bike path. Visual impacts of the Corridor are unavoidable due to the direct crossing of the facil- ity by the Corridor (Figure A-6) and will result in a significant visual impact. b) Noise Effects: Users of the bike path will experience noise levels in excess of federal noise abatement criteria where the Corridor crosses the trail (Table B). As shown in Table B, the Conventional Alternative will have a greater area of impact than the Demand Man- agement Alternative. Construction noise will impact users in the short-term. c) Air Quality Effects: Short-term impacts, such as construction equip- ment emissions and fugitive dust, will occur. d) Construction Effects: Users of the bike path may be affected by detours, closures and movement of construction equipment during con- struction of the Corridor. 11 i A 1 P] 1 1 1 1 1 1. � TABLE B DISTANCE TO 67 LEO (dBA) CONTOUR IN FEET Resource Future -No Build Future -Build Rancho Viejo Bicycle trail 74 75 Niguel Equestrian Trail (8) 47 72 County of Orange Bicycle (9) Trail No. 72 48 73 Aliso Creek Equestrian Trail/County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 78 (10) 50 74 Sycamore Hills 55 69 1 1 1 1 � 10 1 a Aliso Creek Trail System (10). The Corridor will cross the existing bike path and future equestrian trail on a bridge structure, as illustrated in Figure A-7 of Attachment A. The Corridor will not physically affect the facil- ity; however it will have the following indirect effects: a) Visual Effects: Currently, as shown in Figure A-7 in Attachment A, views from this bike path are predominated by the existing open space channel as well as medium to high density residential and commercial/ industrial land uses. Visual impacts due to the Corridor are un- avoidable at this location due to the direct crossing of the bike path by the Corridor (see Figure A-7) are considered significant. b) Noise Effects: Bike path and trail users will experience noise levels which are substantially greater with construction of the Cor- ridor than the future No Build scenario, as shown in Table Short-term noise impacts will also occur during construction oT16 Corridor. c) Air Quality Effects: Construction impacts resulting from equipment emissions and dust are short-term. d) Construction Effects: Users of the facilities may experience de- tours, closures and movement of construction equipment during con- struction of the Corridor. Svcamore Hills (12. 13, 14). The Sycamore Hills open space is traversed by the Corridor, as can be seen in Figure B-4. The Corridor will have the following impacts on recreational activities within this resource: a) Visual Effects: The Corridor will substantially impair southern views in limited areas of the northern parcel of this open space area, due to the construction of the Laguna Canyon Road Interchange and the steep cut slope (approximately 100 feet) through the open space. The cut slope in this area is illustrated in Figure A-9. Existing northern views from areas in the southern parcel adjacent to the Corridor are currently of a urban nature. The existing viewshed consists of medium to high density residential land uses. Construc- tion of the Corridor will not substantially alter this urbanized viewshed. Views of the Corridor in other portions of the southern parcel will be blocked due to steep topography. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table , construction of the Corridor will increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Corridor, however this increase will not result in a substantial impairment due to lack of noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Corridor. c) Air Quality: Short-term air quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and equipment emissions, will occur. Bommer Canyon Park (16). Bommer Canyon Park is located in, and owned by, the City of Irvine, just east of the Corridor. The Corridor will not physical 12 11 J 1 11; a-, 1 L 1 July 11, 1990 Mr. Rob Clark, Deputy City Manager City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Subject: Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources Along the Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Alignment Within the Jurisdiction of the City of Laguna Beach Dear Mr. Clark: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CALTRANS, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency are jointly preparing a Draft EIR/EIS for the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). During preparation of the EIR/EIS we identified several proposed and existing recreational facilities which are owned by the City of Laguna Beach and are located in close proximity to the SJHTC. For the 4(f) section of the EIR/EIS, the TCA would like the City's concurrence on our determinations regarding whether these facilities will be substantially impaired by impacts from the SJHTC. Attached are excerpts from our draft 4(f) section for each of the impacted City facilities. Additionally, attached is an example letter we would like to receive from the City. If you concur with our determinations, please put the attached example letter on City letterhead and return it to us with the appropriate signature. In the event that you do not concur with our determinations regarding impairment of any of the facilities, please state the areas of disagreement in your response. If there is a need for further coordination between the City and the TCA regarding 4(f) issues, please contact me. I will be happy to meet with you to resolve any outstanding 4(f) issues. ,William Woollett, Jr:, Executive Director Foothill/Eastern Corridor Agency Chairman: Gary Hausdorfer San Juan Capistrano Members: Anaheim Irvine Mission Viejo Orange San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Tustin, Yorba Linda, County of Orange San Joaquin Hills Corridor Agency Chairman: John Cox Newport Beach Members: Costa Mesa Dana Point Irvine Mission Viejo Newport Beach San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa -Ana County of Orange 1 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7141557-3298 FAX 7141557--9104 SJHTC 4(f) page 2 We would appreciate your response by Tuesday, July 17, 1990. We realize this is a very short turn around time. However, we are willing to provide any help you may need to meet this deadline. Additionally, we will have a courier pick up your response letter if needed. Thank you for your continued cooperation regarding the planning of the transportation corridors. 4Ve trul curs, I teve, ett ly Manag o Environmental Impact SL:KT:lc Attachments cc: Kyle Butterwick 1 existing open space areas within the channel as well as picnic/open space overlook facilities. An equestrian (County of Orange Aliso the Creek Trail) and hiking trail system are proposed on east side of Al'iso Creek. An .existing bike path (County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 78) is located along the western edge of the channel at this location. f) This Trail System can currently be accessed by Alicia Parkway where a staging area has been constructed. g) The Trail System is within the Aliso Wood Canyons Regional Park which is part -of the approximately 16,000 acre Laguna Greenbelt. Please see Chapter 1.0 (page _) for a discussion of the Laguna Greenbelt. h) The majority of the park, 3,400 acres, was dedicated to the County by the Aliso Viejo Company. The irrevocable Offer of Dedication of 3,400 acres within the Aliso Viejo Community Plan area for open space, conservation and recreation uses specifically excluded the Corridor from the dedication area (Aliso Viejo Offer of.Dedication § 1.07 (d)). The Offer of Dedication specifically recognized that the areas of dedication area which would be needed for the Corridor could not be precisely determined. Therefore, the Aliso Viejo Company reserved the right to locate and designate portions of the dedication area which would be excluded from the Offer of Dedication for .pur- poses of the Corridor._ i There are no unusual characteristics that reduce or enhance the quality of the resource. Sycamore Hills ,(12. 13. 14). a) The location of Sycamore Hills and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b) The Sycamore Hills area consists of approximately 453 acres located within the city limits of Laguna Beach between Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road southwesterly of the unincorporated community of Leisure World (see Figure 1 and Figure of Attachment A). c) Sycamore Hills is owned by the City of Laguna Beach. d,e,i) As discussed in the SEIR for Sycamore Hills - Tentative Tract 12112, three parcels are provided for in the Sycamore Hills area: a 69 acre parcel identified for the Corridor and related multi -modal transpor- tation center; a 67 acre parcel south of the Corridor bounded by El Toro Road for regional open space purposes and, a remaining,parce,l of approximately 324 acres lying northerly of the proposed Corridor right-of-way between Laguna Canyon Road on the west and Leisure World and the City residential development on the east also for regional open space purposes. Currently, an equestrian trail is located through the regional open space areas and is shown i-n Figure 1. 6 f) The regional open space parcels are accessed primarily from E1 Toro Road; however, Laguna Canyon Road can also be used to enter the pro- perty. The City of Laguna Beach Marine Safety Department (Lt. Mike Dwineil) estimates 1,000 people per year visit this open space. g) These regional open space parcels are part 'of the approximately 16,000 acre Laguna Greenbelt. Please see Chapter 1.0 (page for _) a further discussion of the Laguna Greenbelt. h) By designating these areas Restricted Open Space, the City prohibits public uses of the open space areas, except for City sponsored activ- ities, such as hikes or equestrian rides. Bommer Canyon Park (16). a) The location of the park and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b,c) This 15 acre site is located approximately 1700 feet east of the Cor- ridor near the future extension of Sand Canyon Avenue, and is owned by the City of Irvine. d,e, f,h,i) The site is currently accessed through a locked gate via Bonita Can- yon Road. The City has been granted an access easement along this roadway by The Irvine Company. Currently, the park is unimproved however, several ranch/farming structures maintained by employees of The Irvine Company are located within the park. The City also employs a caretaker who monitors the park. Generally, the park is not open to the public on a daily basis; however, the City allows passive recreational use (i.e. picnics) by groups, through a reserva- tion system. g) Bommer Canyon Park is located to the northwest of Crystal Cove State Park. These two recreational resources are separated by the major ridgeline of the San Joaquin Hills. IMPACTS ON 4(f) PROPERTIES The following is a discussion of the Corridor's effect on each potential 4(f) resource within the project study area. These impacts have been sum- marized in Table A. 1 Aliso Creek Trail System (10),. The Corridor will cross the existing bike path and future equestrian trail on a bridge- structure, as illustrated 'in Figure A-7 of Attachment A. The Corridor will not -physically affect the facil- ity; however it will have the following indirect effects: a) Visual Effects: Currently, as shown in Figure A4 in Attachment A, views from this bike path are predominated by the existing open space channel as well as medium to high density residential and commercial/ industrial land uses. Visual impacts due to the Corridor are un- avoidable at this location due to the direct crossing of the bike path by the Corridor (see Figure A-7) are considered significant.. b) Noise Effects: Bike path and trail users will experience noise levels which are substantially greater with construction of the Cor- ridor than the future No Build scenario, as shown in Table Short-term noise impacts will also occur during construction o-f—the Corridor. c) Air Quality Effects: Construction impacts resulting from equipment emissions and dust are short-term. d) Construction Effects: Users of the facilities may experience de- tours, closures and movement of construction equipment during con- struction of the Corridor. Sycamore Hills (12, 13, 14). The Sycamore Hills open space is traversed by the Corridor, as can be seen in Figure B-4.. The Corridor will have the following impacts on recreational activities within this resource: a) Visual Effects: The Corridor will substantially impair southern views in limited areas of the northern parcel of this open space area, due to the construction of the Laguna Canyon Road Interchange and the steep cut slope (approximately 100 feet) through the. open space. The cut slope in -this area is illustrated in Figure A-9. Existing northern views from areas in the southern parcel adjacent to the Corridor are currently of a urban nature. The existing viewshed consists of medium to high density residential land ,uses. Construc- tion of the Corridor will not substantially alter this urbanized viewshed. Views of the Corridor in other portions of the southern parcel will be blocked due to steep topography. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table construction of the Corridor will increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Corridor, however th-is increase will not result in a substantial impairment due to lack of noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Corridor. c) Air Quality: Short-term air quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and equipment emissions, will occur. Bommer Canyon Park (16). Bommer Canyon Park is located in, and owned by, the City of Irvine, just east of the Corridor. The Corridor will not physical 12 TABLE B DISTANCE TO 67 LEO (dBA) CONTOUR IN FEET Resource Future -No Build Future -Build Rancho Viejo Bicycle trail 74 75 Niguel Equestrian Trail (8) 47 72 County of Orange Bicycle (9) Trail No. 72 48 73 Aliso Creek Equestrian Trail/County of Orange Bicycle Trail No. 78 (10) 50 74 Sycamore Hills 55 69 10 1 1 July 11, 1990 Mr. Peter Hersh, City Of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 91575 1 1 1 1 1 I 1. 1 1 E Li tl. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES Manager -Planning Services Subject: Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources Along the Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) Alignment Within the Jurisdiction of the City of Irvine Dear Mr. Hersh: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CALTRANS, and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency are jointly preparing a Draft EIR/EIS for the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC). During preparation of the EIR/EIS we identified several proposed and existing recreational facilities which are owned by the City of Irvine and are located in close proximity to the SJHTC. For the 4(f) section of the EIR/EIS, the TCA would like the City's concurrence on our determinations regarding whether these facilities will be substantially impaired by impacts from the SJHTC. Attached are excerpts from our draft 4(f) section for each of the impacted City facilities. Additionally, attached is an example letter we would like to receive from the City. If you concur with our determinations, please put the attached example letter on City letterhead and return it to us with the appropriate signature. In the event that you do not concur with our determinations regarding impairment of any of the facilities, please state the areas of disagreement in your response. If there is a need for further coordination between the City and the TCA regarding 4(f) issues, please contact me. I will be happy to meet with you to resolve any outstanding 4(f) issues. William Woollett, Jr„ Executive Director Foothill/Eastern Corridor Agency Chairman: Gary Hausdorfer San Juan Capistrano Members: Anaheim Irvine Mission Viejo Orange San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Tustin Yorba Linda County of Orange San Joaquin Hills Corridor Agency Chairman: John Cox Newport Beach Members: Costa Mesa Dana Point Irvine Mission Viejo Newport Beach San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana County of Orange 11 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 7141557--3298 FAX 7141557--9104 SJHTC 4(f) page 2 We would appreciate your response by Tuesday, July 17, 1990. We realize this is a very short turn around time. However, we are willing to provide any help you may need to meet this deadline. Additionally, we will have a courier pick up your response letter if needed. Thank you for your continued cooperation regarding the planning of the transportation corridors. 4VVeNoEonvrironmental ours, s, eve—etly anag Impact SL:KT:lc Attachments cc: Robert Johnson Jennifer Regan 1 f) The regional open space parcels are accessed primarily from E1 Toro Road; however, Laguna Canyon Road can also be used to enter the pro- perty. The City of Laguna Beach Marine Safety Department (Lt. Mike Dwineil) estimates 1,000 people per year visit this open space. ig) These regional open space parcels are part of the approximately 16,000 acre Laguna Greenbelt. Please see Chapter 1.0 (page for _) a further discussion of the Laguna Greenbelt. h) By designating these areas Restricted Open Space, the City prohibits public uses of the open space areas, except for City sponsored activ- ities, such as hikes or equestrian rides. Bommer Canyon Park (16). a) The location of the park and its relationship to the Corridor is illustrated in Figure 1. b,c) This 15 acre site is located approximately 1700 feet east of the Cor- ridor near the future extension of Sand Canyon Avenue, and is owned by the City of Irvine. d,e, f,h,i) The site is currently accessed through a locked gate -via Bonita Can- yon Road. The City has been granted an access easement along this roadway by The Irvine Company. Currently, the park is unimproved however, several ranch/farming structures maintained by employees of The Irvine Company are located within the park. The City also employs a caretaker who monitors the park. Generally, the park is not open to the public on a daily basis; however, the City allows passive recreational use (i.e. picnics) by groups, through a reserva- tion system. g) Bommer Canyon Park is located to the northwest of Crystal Cove State Park. These two recreational resources are separated by the major ridgeline of the San Joaquin Hills. IMPACTS ON 4(f) PROPERTIES The following is discussion a of the Corridor's effect on each potential 4(f) resource within the project study area. These impacts have been sum- marized in Table A. I 1 7 1 1 Aliso Creek Trail System (10). The Corridor will cross the existing bike path and future equestrian trail on a bridge structure, as illustrated in Figure A-7 of Attachment A. The Corridor will not physically affect the facil- ity; however it will have the following indirect effects: a) Visual Effects: Currently, as shown in Figure A-7 in Attachment A, views from this bike path are predominated by the existing open space channel as well as medium to high density residential and commercial/ industrial land uses. Visual impacts due to the Corridor are un- avoidable at this location due to the direct crossing of the bike path by the Corridor (see Figure A-7) are considered significant. b) Noise Effects: Bike path and trail users will experience noise levels which are substantially greater with construction of the Cor- ridor than the future No Build scenario, as shown in Table Short-term noise impacts will also occur during construction o-f—& Corridor. c) Air Quality Effects: Construction impacts resulting from equipment emissions and dust are short-term. d) Construction Effects: Users of the facilities may experience de- tours, closures and movement of construction equipment during con- struction of the Corridor. Sycamore Hills (12. 13, 14). The Sycamore Hills open space is traversed by the Corridor, as can be seen in Figure B-4. The Corridor will have the following impacts on recreational activities within this resource: a) Visual Effects: The Corridor will substantially impair southern views in limited areas of the northern parcel of this open space area, due to the construction of the Laguna Canyon Road Interchange and the steep cut slope (approximately 100 feet) through the open space. The cut slope in this area is illustrated in Figure A-9. Existing northern views from areas in the southern parcel adjacent to the Corridor are currently of a urban nature. The existing viewshed consists of medium to high density residential land uses. Construc- tion of the Corridor will not substantially alter this urbanized viewshed. Views of the Corridor in other portions of the southern parcel will be blocked due to steep topography. b) Noise Effects: As shown in Table construction of the Corridor T, will increase noise levels in the vicinity of the Corridor, however this increase will not result in a substantial impairment due to lack of noise sensitive uses in the vicinity of the Corridor. c) Air Quality: Short-term air quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and equipment emissions, will occur. ' Bommer Canyon Park (16). Bommer Canyon Park is located in, and owned by, the City of Irvine, just east of the Corridor. The Corridor will not physical 12 ly impact any part of the park; however, the following indirect impacts will occur. a) Visual Effects: The Corridor will be visible from the existing ranch buildings within Bommer Canyon Park, as illustrated in Figure A-11 in Attachment A. As shown in Figure A-11, approximately 120 feet of slope will be altered. Due to its topographical location and its presence within the visual horizon of uses, construction of the Cor- ridor will result in a substantial impairment of the quality of views at this resource. b) Noise Effects: Short-term construction noise impacts will occur. c) Air Quality: Short-term construction air quality impacts, such as fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions, will occur. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX `B GLOSSARY r� GLOSSARY 4(f) A section of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act which covers parkland impacts ACT Applied Conservation Technology ADT Average Daily Trips APE Area of Potential Effect AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AT&SF Atchison Topeka & the Santa Fe Railway BUS/HOV Bus -High Occupancy Vehicle Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDMG Corridor Design Management Group CEQA CNEL California Environmental Quality Act Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CPMOC Community Profile Map Orange County CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board Caline 4 California Line Source Dispersion Model Version 4 dB Decibel (measurement of sound) dB(A) Weighted Decibel DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DTIM Direct Travel Impact Model EB Eastbound EIR Environmental Impact Report EMA Environmental Management Agency (Orange County) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps gpd Gallons Per Day HOV High Occupancy Vehicle (i.e. buses/carpools) I-405 Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway north of confluence with I-5) I-5 Interstate 5 (Santa Ana Freeway, and San Diego Freeway south of con- fluence with I-405) LCP Local Coastal Plan LEQ Equivalent Noise Level LRDP Long Range Development Plan MEA Master Environmental Assessment MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways NAAQ National Ambient Air Quality Standards 1 1 1 E NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NO OHMA Oxides of Nitrogen Orange County Environmental Management Agency OCTD Orange County Transit District P&D P&D Technologies PCH Pacific Coast Highway RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAM Significance Assessment Methodology SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCS U.S. Soil Conservation Service SEOCCS Southeast Orange County Circulation Study SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan (Air Quality) SJHTC San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor SOCTAM South Orange County Traffic Analysis Model SOX Oxides of Sulfate SR-1 State Route 1, Pacific Coast Highway SR-22 State Route 22, Garden Grove freeway SR-39 State Route 39, Beach Boulevard SR-55 State Route 55, Costa Mesa/Newport freeway SR-57 State Route 57, Orange freeway SR-73 State Route 73, Corona del Mar freeway SR-74 State Route 74, Ortega Highway STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TCA Transportation Corridor Agencies TCM Transportation Control Measures THC Total Hydrocarbons UCI University of California, Irvine UFM Unified Federal Method USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service V/C Volume/Capacity Ratio ' VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VPD Vehicles per Day WB Westbound I 1 1 I APPENDIX C FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT 1 11 FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED ACTION MUST BE LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN The project would involve significant longitudinal encroachment into the floodplain areas of Oso Creek, Coyote Creek and Bonita Creek. Transverse encroachments would occur at three fl•oodpla-in locations: Oso Creek (longitu- di-nal and transverse), Laguna.CanyonCreek and Aliso Creek. The proposed project alignment was selected through a two phase. process. During ,Phase I, a Corridor Route location Study was conducted by the County of Orange..- EIR,No. 267 evaluated 28 alternative routes in terms of -environmental and community impacts, level of service and costs. Based upon that ,analysis, the presently proposed alignment was selected as the environmentally superior route. DEIR No. 494 (County of Orange,:::: June, 1988) evaluated several additional site speci f i c al i gnme.nt._. al ternati ves�a; l ternati ves which affected the Bo-ni to Creek fl oodpl.ai.nR":.. ' 1 1 ternat.i ves "U" and " at the propo-s-ed Ford Road ; . 1snterchange#t'€£ was determined to be environmental-ly, superior to as it would` impact •E��etl and habi tat ' and floodplain area in Bonita Creek. -The..environmentall,y superior alignment, Alternative "N' of these site specific route alternatives." was incorporated into the current alignment. The currently proposed project...i.nc'l.udes two .alternative al.:i:gnmen'ts at the interchange with I=5. The i<ue a : Alte '�> rnative € ><' `us si. nificant encroachment i ntot'fi'e` 'flood l ai n • whereas` 'tle :gym al.... .... .... ....e..........:..:.e N t.A.. fl.1 Al rna CovtoHowever, .:.:.<.. a.t.k.. . Alignment at I-5 would create fewer property 'impacts adjacent to I-5 than the Demand Management alignment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND WHY THEY ARE NOT PRACTICABLE The practicality of alignment alternatives to significant encroachment of the floodplain is constrained by a number of factors which include: existing development, potential noise impacts, presence of cultural resources, existing recreational areas, and planned open space/conservation areas. To further avoid encroachment in the Bonita Creek floodplai•n, the align - meet would have to. shift to the north or south. Moving the alignment to. the north could significantly i-mpact operations at the University of California;;; A shift of the alignment to the south would place the facility closer to existing'development and the Coyote Canyon Landfill, and would cause siq nificantly greater impacts to wetland resources with the Bonita Chan- nel/Reservoir area. Alternatives to encroachment into the Coyote Canyon floodpla ft include relocation of the Ford Road/Bonita Canyon Drive interchange or deletion of the - interchange. In order to avoid' the floodplain boundaries, relocation of the interchange to the south could place the Corridor and interchange ramps �on a bridge over the channelized portion of Coyote. Creek. The creek will -channel- ized as a result of the construction of Pelican Hi•1-1 Road. However, this alternative would require realignment of both Ford Road' and Bonita Canyon Road at the Corridor. The location of the Ford Road interchange is constrained by 1 J several surface and subsurface features. The proposed interchange location is a balance which minimizes the environmental impacts given these constraints. In the northwesterly quadrant of the interchange, the abandoned agricultural reservoir (Bonita Canyon Reservoir) is a wetlands habitat to which impacts will be minimized. The interchange is constrained in the southwesterly direction by the need to avoid construction in the Coyote Canyon landfill. The interchange location is also constrained by major (lifeline) utili- ties. The Metropolitan Water District has a 54 inch feeder line providing water to the San Joaquin Hills Reservoir in this area. In addition, poor soil conditions enveloping this utility make it necessary to plan the Corridor/Ford Road interchange to bridge this utility, thus relieving it from unacceptable soil loads that could occur from the project. Deletion of the interchange would reduce the overall levels of service and would increase congestion on adjacent arterials. Inclusion of this inter- change, in conjunction with the other proposed interchanges along the Corridor, provides the optimum traffic levels of service on the Corridor and adjacent arterials. Therefore, elimination of this interchange would not be consistent with the objectives of the project. PROJECT INFORMATION TO APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION STANDARDS The project will conform to all applicable city, County, State and feder- al agency floodplain protection standards, including the National Flood Insur- ance Program and the County of Orange Flood Control District. 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 L� 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE IMPACTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 I 1 m m o •o En0Wo FI V1•-1aJ u u • 0 AQ 00 1b1WU, W41 W m o d o ?f •V V _ ,>1 .?i D1 '>1 >1 .�, '>1 'J1 >1 a w D+ i1 U .N H U 4J ri D, 14 V1 w w 71 J1 D/ w w p1 w J/ w w w p1 w O a w w a a ro a a ro w w to Id w w a a w a w ro ro ro w ro �) U1 0 0 +1 U 41 U m m w m m m m N 0 m N m 0 0 w m in w > > g O m q O m D D N W D D D w w 9 w D N N N 7 N Iq O m 0 0 -A '-1 U -H 1 u 0 O m m 0 0 0 m m O m O m m m O m U u u U C q U U U U U U U u u U u U U U u u U m m o o w m m w m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m QI' g w w 0 +1 W O 41 W M w g q w w w q q w R Q'i q W •H W -HO 1d a In •. U) •. a ro m m ro m a m m a m ro m m m a m q ++ ++ 4 W 4 W •N W g q V .w .V q q V q 4•1 q q q ++ q O a rt N W N W Z A A W O a NO a ro A ro 0 0 ro ro a 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 A Z Z A A A Z Z A Z A Z Z Z ro 0 A Z N ^ \ eee+++ ul " 0 o a o a N a w u ° H iQ t �l U •q •+ w•y U tPi p W 14 ro ,► w A b b w 1010 w 'a0 w a ro 0•ti1~ a qq I v A w-a> "a a>a hj 41 c - >> a 1Ci W H u N W u H a u a u u H A'f u z H H z u H H N q H O •Aam o a o � u W �� z) (•1 H Ow Ln ON 1A O No00o co O to 0 NO.-fH H H o rHwH.•doo.-1.•100014 Cl 0 V d Al •10i N a)to W 1C u .q m O V1 N {Cn7 Q +t a m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O O N N O O o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O •-1 1I1 '•I N .-1 .i r•I rl 14i r1 H 14 .•I rf .-1 .-1 ei It m i-1 •-i %D 10 o N +4 6q 10i m q •tea Q1 ii U 01 y z d o ►�*' a o 1 1n o f11 olnoh rw o 0000000�00000lno 0 m +i w (p 'O 1 0 R m m m eW qA -, •.9 Nb PW 41 w w a) 0) �u�a3a) Vwxvmro v v H toiw �j m to to Q' w W µ' W W u1 w V) N 1n N N M 1n A'i Ai O O m\ q -1 \ -A M m m O O m m m O m m O m O O O m O 4' A N 3 7.. m R'r ' 4 '.4 C q • 4 :� '>1 q '>1 >1 0 :>1 C r. G' by 0 Fa 01 .-4 N M to 10 W co C1 O .4 N fT fh 1A 14 N N OmlO M01 tOrO N W OO,w w m co co 010101 .-1 roN co Ch N I" r M N CJ m m M O O O O O O W ••0 a 0 0 a .-1 1fl .4 H H .-1 N N N en fh to r r q1 '-1 .-1 -4 '-1.rl 'i -4 'M H H '-I.-1 . q .-1 m 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m 14, 1 1 1 1 I 0 ro a a a a I. a a ro a a a a ro a ro ro ro a c m ro a ro a a a rl w w w w w W w'w w w w w w w w w w w w w m •-1 w w w w w w in 0000 0 0 00000000000a00.X 0400000 I I I 1 1 1 1 0 � a �� fd� u O� I vuvu u u uuuvuuuuuvuuuvauu Is u �H,1a H a HC H Q a ww d1A1�Nj1 u14 D4 O O H h 4 4H a%'%o W H w�Q* 1••1 a u H III ra W a a A D w P4 J1 H W H q a w z a WA pa U) M u u a d a H m A N u H y a°aaw°a H E•1 H 17H ul a H w y to 4 1 M m A 1 1 1 lJ APPENDIX E CUMULATIVE IMPACTS I u u 1 1 APPENDIX E CUMULATIVE IMPACTS INTRODUCTION ' This chapter assesses cumulative impacts which may occur as a result of other reasonably foreseeable development combined with implementation of the Corridor. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (RELATED TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS) The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130) require that cumulative impacts be discussed when they are significant. The discussion should include either a list of committed, approved and reasonably anticipated future projects produc- ing related or cumulative impacts, or a summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document which i_s designed to evaluate regional or areawide conditions. For the Corridor, the most relevant planning information includes the other local projects which are reasonably anticipated for purposes of project- ing future development. In Orange County, approved projects are monitored through the County by annual monitoring reports requi-red by the Development Monitoring Program. General Plans and Local Coastal Programs of individual cities are used for the same purpose (where applicable). The study area for the cumulative impacts analysis coincides with the Corridor Area of Benefit (AOB). The AOB contains approximately 122 square miles and contains all or portions of the following jurisdictions: Cities of ' San Clemente, Dana Point, San Juan Capistrano, Mission Viejo, Laguna 'Niguel, Laguna Beach, Irvine, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa and -Santa Ana, and unincor- porated County of Orange lands. The AOB contains developable areas most likely to contribute to cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Corridor. Figure E-1 illustrates the location of the cumulative impact study area (i.e., AOB) boundaries in relation to the Corridor. Based on the issues associated with the Corridor, related planning and circulation issues have been evaluated not only in the context of other devel- opments, General Plan Amendments, and specific area plans, but 'also in light of ' road and transit improvement plans. For example, the TCA and Caltrans are presently participating in studies for the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridors. These studies may eventually affect the transportation system in this area of the County and ultimately growth in the region. For the purposes of this discussion, the cumulative effects from related transportation projects will be discussed first, followed by a discussion of related development pro- jects. ' Related Transportation Projects The SJHTC and the ETC and FTC are identified as integral components of the regional transportation system designed to serve the circulation needs of existing and planned development in Orange County and the surrounding area. ' 1 1 O sp M- -n 5 C m m m < lop 00000 .00" (0 W < , A C) < Oi X MW COP M U) IF" \ if 3 C.STA M . ...... 61TY!OF so MONO"— J"i of woo C) W -4 -4 C.) N) 0 - Ito "p: -*r . ..... co, I lHqdM3N P N .... ..... 0) OD W rMI7 CD `4 14 -4 IA '0 Ul CDI z 0 c 0 Z.0 m to v 1% c -n M co 0) 0/ OD co 400 CD is 0) aw '0 ........... �Z m I =10 AIJO . ... .... .... c # * /I -- 0 iaorI .... . ...... *0 416 A) .... . ...... ol* All, * # • jr- At V 4" 00 ot gtrp U) z C- .". 4k *Jft -4ieO Ln cs ,0*< ds 4 2 0) 'n is Z 1, 10; ;M tA 1 Specifically, all three Corridors are included in the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP) as necessary links in the regional circulation network. The Corridors' relationship to the RMP is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 1.0 and 6.0 (Purpose and Need, and Growth Inducing Impacts), as well as in Section 4.4 (Air Quality). EIRs have previously been prepared for the ETC and FTC, and addi- tional environmental documentation is currently being prepared for both facili- ties. This documentation has determined that these corridors may have the following significant effects: Foothill Transportation Corridor. This information is based on the Final Supplemental EIR No. 423 (FTC, northern Segment) and the EIR currently in preparation for the southern segment (MBA). The following list of significant effects does not necessarily apply to each link alternative. The segment responsible for each impact is indicated where appropriate. Extensive landform alterations in hillside and canyon areas; Loss of oak and vegetation riparian woodland and associated wildlife P harassment of wildlife and loss of a portion of a wildlife movement corridor (Santiago Segment); Cumulative loss of coastal sage scrub, oak woodland and riparian communities and grasslands used as forage area for birds of prey (Rancho Mission Viejo Segment); Displacement, removal and bisection of existing land uses (Santiago and Irvine Segments); Elimination of a scenic highway designation, disruption of riding and hiking trails, encroachment on recreational areas (Santiago Segment); Encroachment on planning areas which have not provided for the corri- dor alignment, incompatibility with a specific plan (Santiago Seg- ment); Removal of land from and/or displacement of agricultural production (Santiago, Irvine, E1 Toro and Rancho Mission Viejo Segments); Aesthetic impacts to existing and approved residential land uses (Santiago, Irvine and E1 Toro Segments). Eastern Transportation Corridor. The following significant adverse im- pacts have been identified in EIR No. 451 (Philli.ps Brandt Reddick, February, 1988) and confirmed in the EIR/EIS currently under preparation by P&D Technologies, Inc. to result from implementation of the Eastern Transportation Corridor: Extensive landform alterations in hillside and canyon areas; Overall reduction and degradation of open space; 3 1 Adverse effects upon existing scenic routes (Santiago Canyon Road and SR-91); Loss of existing agricultural land, including prime or unique agri- cultural soils and continuing agricultural preserves; Crossing of streambeds, increased sedimentation potential, and increased pollution of water resources; Direct and indirect loss of vegetation and habitat; Fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and destruction and/or displace- ment of wildlife; Short-term dust and air pollutant emissions during construction; Minor long-term regional and subregional air pollutant emissions; Effects upon existing and committed land uses, including parks and open space spines; Introduction of potential risks of hazardous materials incidents to a currently undeveloped area. The significant effects of the ETC and FTC, in conjunction with the ef- fects of the SJHTC, may be considered cumulatively significant on the regional environment. The traffic and air quality analyses prepared for this document assume construction of the ETC and FTC, thereby taking into account the cumula- tive effect of the three corridors., In addition, the three corridors will have cumulatively significant growth facilitating effects. The three corridors represent significant components of the regional circulation system. There- fore, it can be anticipated that the corridors will, cumulatively, have a significant effect on the location, pattern and rate of development in the County. The major transportation system improvements which may produce related or cumulative impacts in conjunction with development of the SJHTC are listed in Table E-A and discussed in Chapter 5.0, Traffic and Circulation. Projects 1-23, listed in Table E-A, are within the defined subregions used in the related development projects discussion. Therefore, the cumulative impact analysis for those projects is included within the related development projects discussion. The remainder of projects listed in Table E-A (Projects 24-31) are not within subregions used in the related projects discussion. With the exception of projects 29 and 30, the environmental effects of the projects are discussed below. Projects 28 and 29 (ETC and FTC) were discussed previously in this Section. 4 I I I I 71 11 U 1 i 7 1 TABLE.E-A - RELATED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Road/Street* Improvement Area Classifi-cation1Lanes 1. Bison Ave. (SWI) MacArthur Blvd. to California Ave. Primary/4 lanes 2. Ford Rd. (SWI) Hillside Dr. to Bonita Canyon Dr. Primary/4 lanes 3. 4. San Joaquin HillsRd.(IC) Spyglass Hill to -Route 73 Culver Dr. (SWI) Bonita Canyon Dr. to Route 73 Major/6 lanes Primary/4 lanes 5. Pelican Hill Rd. (IC) Route 1 to Route-73, Major/6 lanes 6. Sand Canyon Ave. (IC) Route 1 to Route 73 Commuter/2 lanes 7. Sand Canyon Ave. (SEI) Route 73 to Bonita Canyon Dr. Primary/4 lanes 8. Bonita Canyon Dr. (SEI) Sunnyhill to Sand Canyon Ave. Major/6 lanes 9. Bake Pkwy. (SEI) Sand-Canyorr Ave. to _Route 133 Primary/4 lanes 10.. Bake Pkwy. (SEI) Route 133 to I-5 Major/6 lanes 11. Glenwood Dr. (AV) Aliso Creek Rd. to Route 73 Primary./4 lanes 12. Pacific Park Dr. (AV) Route 73 to Wood Canyon Primary/4 lanes 13. 14. Pacific Park Dr. (AV) Laguna Hills Dr. (AV) Wood Canyon Dr. to Alicia Pkwy. Major/4 lanes Moulton Pkwy. to Route 73 Major/6 lanes 15. Aliso Center Dr. (AV) Route 73 to Park Pacific Dr. Major/6 lanes 16. Aliso Creek Rd. (LB) Route 133 to El Toro Rd. Primary/4 lanes 1 17. Aliso Creek Rd. (AV) El Toro Rd. to Glenwood Dr. Secondary/4 lanes 18. Aliso Creek Rd. (AV) Laguna Hills Dr. to Route 73, Primary/4 lanes 194 Aliso Creek Rd. (LAH) Route 73 to Alicia Pkwy. Major/6 lanes 20. Alicia Pkwy. (LN) Pacific Park Dr. to Aliso Creek Rd. Major/6 lanes 21. Cabot Rd. (LAH) Crown Valley Pkwy. to n/o Paseo Primary/4 lanes De Colinas 22.. SR-73 MacArthur Blvd. SR-73 Freeway to Bison including Major/6 lanes University Drive Ramp Modifications 23. SR-73 MacArthur Blvd. Bonita Canyon/SR-1 Major/6 & Blanes 24. Route 5/55 Interchange All connectors between I-5 and I-55 Improvements Interchange 25. Route 5/405 Confluence I-5/405 Interchange Two alternatives Study a. Median Lane, Lake Forest -Irvine Center Drive 26. b. Coll-ector/distributor road from Lake Forest to I-5/405 Interchange Route 5 Widening SR-55 to SR-22 State Freeway 6-12 lanes 27. Route 5 Widening SR-55 to I-405 State Freeway 6-12 lanes 28. Route 5 Widening SR-22 to SR-91 State Freeway 6-12 lanes 29. Eastern Transportation - SR-91 to I-5 Limited access 8 lane/ Corridor (ETC) Transportation Corridor 30. Foothill Transportation ETC to I-5 Limited access 8 lane/ Corridor (FTC) Transportation Corridor 31. OCTD Park and Ride lots I-5 in cities of Tustin Carpooling Program 1 and Irvine *(SWI) - Southwest Irvine (LB) - Laguna Beach (IC) - Irvine Coast (LAH) - Laguna/Aliso Hills (SEI) - Southeast Irvine (LN) - Laguna Niguel (AV) - Aliso Viejo 5 1 Projects 24, 26, 28 and 31 have been the subject of environmental docu- mentation, with certified Final and Draft Environmental Documents. The Route 5/405 Confluence Study Environmental Assessment (#24) has been prepared, and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been issued in spring of 1990. Construction has begun on Projects 24. The environmental effects of these projects, as outlined in the individual environmental documents, are summarized below. In general, these projects are located in urbanized areas, and the primary impacts are noise and residen- tial/business displacements. Mitigation has been included in these projects to meet noise standards and relocate displaced residences and businesses. Pro- jects 25 and 26 will require the removal of land from agricultural use. Sever- al of the projects will require flood control improvements to provide capacity for the 100 year flood. Project 28 may impact two structures potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Project 25 will remove a small portion of wetland. The wetland loss will be mitigated through replacement. Related Development Projects AL For purposes of examining the potential cumulative impacts of growth in the Corridor area, information on committed, approved, and reasonably antici- pated future projects was obtained from the County of Orange and the cities of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Dana Point, San Clemente, and San Juan Capistrano planning departments. These projects are presented in Tables E-B through E-G and their approximate loca- tions are illustrated in Figure E-1. Projects compiled in the tables are, at a minimum, currently under construction, have received approval by the appropri- ate City Council or Board of Supervisors, or are in the planning process. The lists of future projects in the study area are as comprehensive as feasible given the recordation system of each jurisdiction involved. The lists were compiled in order to illustrate geographical concentrations within the AOB and to determine the focus of analysis by creating conceptual subregions, as iden- tified later in this discussion. The following discussion analyzes potential cumulative impacts by environ- mental topic. For the purpose of this discussion, environmental topics listed in Chapter 3.0 have been grouped into major topics. Cumulative impacts related to population, housing and employment are incorporated in the cumulative growth inducing discussion contained in Chapter 6.0, Growth Inducing Impacts. Committed, approved and reasonably anticipated projects are discussed in - terms of their influence on the major environmental topics identified below. The cumulative effects of these projects are discussed in general terms based on available information. The land use assumptions are summarized below. L 17 1 6 1 1 I TABLE E-B - CITY OF COSTA MESA COMMITTED APPROVED -AND REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS JULY 1990 PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 1. Sakioka - Lot 1 Residential 1,300 units* Commercial 136.0 T.s.f.' 2. Sakioka - Lot 2 Office 1,438.0 T.s.f. 3. Transpacific (Metro Office 866.0 T.s.f. Centre) Retail 42.0 T-.s.f. Day Care Center 5.0 T.s.f. Health Club 15.0 T.s.f. Restaurant Apartments 20.0 740 T.s.f. units 4. Arnel Development Office 1,255.0 T.s.f. (Metro Point) Retail 150.0 T.s.f. Hotel 500 rooms 5. Home Ranch Office 2,722.0 T.s.f. Commercial 80.0 T.s.f. Hotel 400 rooms Child Care 10.0 T.s.f. Restaurant 10.0 T.s.f. 6. Town Center Office 431.6 T.s.f. Hotel 400 rooms 7. South Coast Corporate Restaurant 5.0 T.s.f. Center Financial 5.0 T.s.f. 8. 3801 S. Harbor Office 61.0 T.s.f. I t 'Projects locations are illustrated in Figure;E-1. ZT.s.f. = Thousand square feet. 7 1 PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 9, Marblehead Coastal Residential/ 250 acres Commercial 10. SC Jazz Club Commercial 2.8 T.s.f.' 11. Synergy Commercial 19.6 T.s.f. 12. Scalzo Auto Commercial 22.2 T.s.f. 13. Ralph's Shopping Center Commercial 196.0 T.s.f. 14. Carl's Jr. Commercial 4.4 T.s.f. 15. S.C. Tumor Center Commercial 2.4 T.s.f. 16. Renovation Commercial 11.7 T.s.f. 17. San Clemente Seniors Recreational 8.0 T.s.f. 18. Marquita Triplex Residential 3 units Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet El r ITART F F_11 _ L� � PROJECT LAND USE. QUANTITY 19. Civic Plaza Office Art Museum 10.0 T..s.f.2 Theater 20.0 T.s.f. 20. Newport Place Office Air California 40.9 T.s.f. Ketchum 87.0 T.s.f. 21. Toyota Research Facility Classroom 2.0 T.s.f. 22. GPA 84-2 Camelback Street/ Office/Retail 60.0 T.s.f. Postal Service Site or or Mini Storage 180.0 T.s.f. 23. Koll Center Newport and Office 7.6 T.s.f. No. 1 TPP 24. Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero TPP Industrial 120.0 T.s.f. 25. 1501 Superior Medical Office 37.0 T.s.f. 26. YMCA (Expansion) Recreational 45.0 T.s.f.. # 27. 1400 Dove Street Office 16.1 T.s.f. r 28. 1100 Quail Street Office 1.1 T.s.f. 29. Villa Point Residential 154 units 30. Newport Aquatic Center Recreational 18.2 T.s.f. 31. 2600 E. Coast Highway Office 21.7 T.s.f. 32. North Ford Residential 849 units Commercial 50.0 T.s.f. 33. Fashion Island Retail 66.0 T.s.f. 34. Bay View Planned Restaurant 2.0 T.s.f. Community 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E=1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 9 TABLE E-E - CITY OF IRVINE COMMITTED APPROVED AND REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS. JULY 1990 PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 35. 4115 Campus Drive 36. 4143 Campus Drive 37. 4187 Campus Drive 38. 4213 Campus Drive 39. 4237 Campus Drive Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial Commercial/Industrial 40. 2525 Dupont Drive Commercial/Industrial 41. 18321 Jamboree Boulevard Commercial/Industrial 42. 19800 MacArthur Boulevard Commercial/Industrial 43. TAZ 1573 Commercial Recreation 44. TAZ 158 Residential School 45. TAZ 159 Residential Residential Commercial Service Station Office Open Space Park Golf Course Recreation Recreation 46. TAZ 160 Church/Synagogue 47. TAZ 161 Residential Residential 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 10 4.3 T.s.f.Z 14.1 T.s.f. 16.6 T.s.f. 10.6 T.s.f. 14.1 T.s.f. 7.6 T.s.f. 10.6 T.s.f. 16.6 T.s.f. 7.6 T.s.f. 124.9 T.s.f. 48 T.s.f. 9.7 T.s.f. 330.8 T.s.f. 304.4 T.s.f. 296.1 T.s.f. 158 T.s.f. 124,000 acres 880 units 55 students 487 units 368 units 66.4 T.s.f. 1 unit 12.8 T.s.f. 6 acres 2 acres 139 acres 96.2 T.s.f. 5 acres 27.2 T.s.f. 264 units 571 units TABLE E-E -.CITY OF IRVINE COMMITTED APPROVED AND REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS, JULY 1990 (CONTINUED) PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 48. TAZ 1623 Residential 120 units Residential Community Commercial 273 78.5 units T.s.f.2 Office 20.6 T.s.f. Medical Office 9.1 T.s.f. Community Park 15 acres Church/Synagogue 8 T.s.f. Library 12 T.s.f. Elementary School 1,130 students 49. TAZ 163 Residential 101 units Residential 377 units 50. TAZ 164 Residential Elementary School 507 742 units students 51. TAZ 165 Residential 230 units Church/Synagogue 4.6 T.s.f. Elementary School 509 students 52. TAZ 166 Residential 296 units Community Commercial 65.3 T.s.f. 53. 54. TAZ TAZ 167 168 Residential Residential 850 230 units units Residential 945 units Residential 330 units 55. TAZ 169 Residential 172 units Residential 84 acres 56. TAZ 170 Regional Park 174 acres 57. TAZ 171 Residential 392 units Residential 1,225 units Open Space 572 acres 58. TAZ 172 Regional Park 96 acres 59. TAZ 173 Residential 95 acres Regional Park 216 acres 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 11 1 TABLE E-E - CITY OF IRVINE COMMITTED APPROVED AND REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS, JULY 1990 (CONTINUED) PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 60. TAZ 1743 Residential 1,305 units Residential 875 units Regional Park 165 acres Elementary School 850 students 61. TAZ 182 Park 95 acres 62. TAZ 183 Residential 600 units Instit. Housing 300 units Park 4 acres 63. TAZ 184 Residential 592 units Park 7 acres 64. TAZ 185 Residential 446 units Commercial 168 T.s.f.' Hotel 250 rooms Theatre 1,554 seats Office 167 T.s.f. 65. TAZ 186 Residential 653 units Residential 160 units Commercial 66.9 T.s.f. Government Civic Center 2 T.s.f. 66. TAZ 187 UCI 3,192 employees 67. TAZ 188 UCI 309 employees 68. TAZ 189 UCI 8,250 employees 69. TAZ 190 UCI 1,184 employees 70. TAZ 191 UCI 322 employees 71. TAZ 192 UCI 322 employees 72. TAZ 193 Residential 165 units Residential 252 units Regional Park 90 acres Church/Synagogue 30 T.s.f. High School 2,295 students Elementary School 90 students 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 12 1-1 TABLE E-E - CITY OF IRVINE COMMITTED APPROVED AND REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS, JULY 1990 (CONTINUED) PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 73. TAZ 3 194 Regional Park 60 acres Christ College Elementary School 100 170 employees students 74. TAZ 195 Residential 500 units Residential 414 units Residential 390 units Open Space 83 acres 75. TAZ 196 Residential 71 units Residential 188 units Residential 208 units 76. TAZ 197 Residential 1,299 units Residential Open Space 64 117 units acres Community Park 24 acres Elementary School 1,075 students Commercial Rec. 1 acres 77. TAZ 198 Open Space 39 acres Residential 95 units Residential 1,055 units Residential 270 units Regional Park 15 acres 78. TAZ 199 Racquet/Tennis/Health 156.8 T.s.f.2 Open Space 36 acres Residential 122 units Residential 1,055 units Residential 675 units 79. TAZ 200 Research/Development 1,908 T.s.f. Small Industrial 1,908 T.s.f. 80. TAZ 201 Residential 155 units Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 13 t 11 I I (CONTINUED) PROJECT LAND USE OUANTITY 81. TAZ 2023 Church/Synagogue 142.5 T.s.f.' Residential 128 units Residential 900 units Residential 330 units 82. TAZ 203 Open Space 106 acres Residential 48 units Golf Course 69 acres 83. TAZ 204 Open Space 156 acres Residential 146 units Golf Course 69 acres 84. TAZ 205 Residential 119 units Residential 86 units Community Commercial 74 T.s.f. Open Space 103 acres 85. TAZ 207 Residential 539 units Residential 590 units 86. TAZ 263 Commercial 19.9 T.s.f. Office 465.5 T.s.f. Industrial 17.3 T.s.f. 87. TAZ 264 Commercial 28 T.s.f. Office 2,163.7 T.s.f. 88. TAZ 265 Hotel 500 rooms Commercial 29.2 T.s.f. Office 1,059.3 T.s.f. Industrial 273.7 T.s.f. 89. TAZ 266 Hotel 507 rooms Restaurant 8.5 T.s.f. Office 1,142.6 T.s.f. Apartments 260 units Commercial 24.5 T.s.f. Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 14 t I TABLE E-E - CITY OF IRVINE COMMITTED APPROVED AND REASO NABLY ONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS, JULY 1990 (CONTINUED) � PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 90. TAZ 2673 Office 710.2 T.s.f.' 91. TAZ 268 Industrial Office 47.6 1,450 T.s.f. T.s.f. Industrial 435 T.s.f. 92. TAZ 269 Office 572.3 T.s.f. Industrial 187.5 T:s.f. Restaurant 11 T.s.f. 93. TAZ 279 Office 2,270 T.s.f.. Elementary School 121 students 94. TAZ 281 Office 830.5 T.s.f. Industrial 47.2 T..s.f. Apartments 1,500 units 95. TAZ 282 Recreation 50-acres Golf Course 169 acres 96. TAZ 283 Industrial 53.6 T.s.f. Research/Development 22.7 T.s.f. Open Space 240 acres 97. TAZ 284 Office 1,125 T.s.f. Industrial 5.4 T.s.f. UCI 1 employee 98. TAZ 321 Amusement Park 75 employees 99. TAZ 322 Large Industrial Research/Development 492.1 492.1 T.s.f. T.s.f. Community Commercial 434.4 T.s.f. 100. TAZ 323 Large Industrial 510.7 T.s.f. Research/Development 510.7 T.s.f. 101. TAZ 324 Open Space 297 acres 102. TAZ 325 Large Industrial 613.6 T.s.f. Research/Development 613.6 T.s.f. 103. TAZ 326 Large Industri-al 865.2 T.s.f'. ! Research/Development 865.2 T.s.f. 0 I'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 1 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 15 r� I I I I I I PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 104. TAZ 3273 Large Industrial 853.7 T.s.f.' Research/Development 853.7 T.s.f. 105. Vie De France Mixed Use 2.5 T.s.f. 106. The Marketplace Master Mixed Use 186.9 T.s.f. Plan Phase II 107. UTC/J.M. Peters Company Residential 209 units 108. Executive Plaza Office 52.9 T.s.f. 109. KCI SW Office/Restaurant 755.2 T.s.f. 110. Atrium Office 271.5 T.s.f. Exempt N/L 102.7 T.s.f. Retail 4.2 T.s.f. Restaurant 6.8 T.s.f. 111. Brinderson Office 742.3 T.s.f. Manufacturing 5.4 T.s.f. Warehouse 11 T.s.f. 112. Bauer Office 243 T.s.f. 113. Varian Office 437 T.s.f. 114. DuPont Plaza Office 224.5 T.s.f. 115. Comp Care Office 74.9 T.s.f. 116. 2600 Michelson Office 409.7 T.s.f. 117. Douglas Office 503.5 T.s.f. Retail 31.4 T.s.f. 118. Fluor Office 3,431.4 T.s.f. 119. Allergan Office 657.7 T.s.f. Manufacturing/Warehouse 161.8 T.s.f. 120. Parker Hannifin Office 1,070.7 T.s.f. 121. Parker (Bertea) Office 376.2 T.s.f. 122. Irvine Recreation Center Commercial/Recreation 121.8 T.s.f. 123. Douglas Plaza Tower IV Office 238 T.s.f. 124. Lakeshore Towers Restaurant 15 T.s.f. Retail 15 T.s.f. Office 690 T.s.f. 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 16 y TABLE E-E - CITY OF IRVINE COMMITTED APPROVED AND REASONABLY ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS, JULY 1990 (CONTINUED) � PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 125. Mola-IBC Mixed Use Restaurants 51.5 T.s.f. 2 Retail Office 68 T.s.f. 480 T.s.f. Hotel 456 rooms Residential 1,100 units Theaters 10 theaters Child Care 103 children, Health Club 100 T.s.f. 1 1 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 17 1 PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 126. Irvine Cove Residential 48 units 127. School District Property Residential 36 units 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 18 I ITABLE E-G - PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 128. Mathis Ranch Residential 995'units Commercial 3.3 acres 129. Laguna Hills Residential 235 units Commercial 6 acres, Industrial 168 acres 130. Ali so Hills Residential 2,740 units Commercial 13 acres 131. Alicia Creek Residential 1,151 units 132. Kite Hill Residential 987 units 133. Narland Business Center Commercial 107 acres Industrial 46 acres 134. Aliso Viejo Planned Residential 20,000 units Community Commercial 346 acres Industrial 494 acres 135. The Missions Residential Commercial 1,726 72 units acres 136. Casa del Oso Residential 625 units (Moulton Ranch) 137. Banning Ranch Residential 3,500 units Commercial 150.0 T.s.f.2 138. Laguna Niguel Residential 26,671 units Planned Community Commercial 255 acres 139. Country Village Planned Community Residential Commercial 287 64 units acres Industrial 56 acres Recreational 38 acres 4 I'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 19 PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 140. Capistrano Business Medical Office/ 14.2 acres Park Recreational 141. Rosan Property Office/ 17 acres Hotel/Retail 142. Marbella Country Club Recreational 256 acres Residential 71 acres 143. Lomas San Juan Residential 542 units 144. Capistrano Royale Residential 116 units 145. Capistrano Business Mixed Use 10 acres Center 146. Puebla Serra Office 74.0 T.s.f.' 147. Calle Arroyo Court Office 19.8 T.s.f. 148. Christian Research Institution 17.2 T.s.f Institute 149. Granedo Office Plaza Office 32.0 T.s.f. 150. Marbella Villas Residential 100 units 151. San Juan Villas Residential 85 units 152. San Juan Chrysler Auto Commercial 1.2 acres 153. Pepperwood Estates Residential 122 units 154. Spaulding Industrial Park Industrial 5.5 acres 155. Paseo Capistrano Home Design 5 acres Center 156. Seaside Ranchos/Payless Commercial .25 acre 157. Seaside Ranchos Retail 5.8 acres 158. Capistrano Gateway PD District/ 15.22 acres Office Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 20 I ITABLE E-H - PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 159. Connemara by the Sea Residential 103 units 160. Pueblo Serra Office/ Residential/ 29.5 acres Commercial 161. Heritage Plaza Office 2.25 acres 162. Water District Field Maintenance 6.0 T.s.f.Z Maintenance Building Building 163. Capistrano Collection Commercial 27.0 T.s.f. 164. South Coast Christian Church 3.3 acres Assembly 165. Glen Fed Office/Bank 4.2 T.s.f. 166. Franciscan Plaza Phase II Commercial/Retail 18.3 T.s.f. 167. The Church of Latter Church 27.0 T.s.f. Day Saints 168. Plaza Prosperidad Bank 1.49 acres 169. Slemons Jeep Commercial (Auto 3 acres Dealership) 170. Provincial Building Retail/Office 14.6 T.s.f. 171. 172. Marbella Plaza Capistrano Valley Retail 7.3 acres Industrial/ 16 acres Tennis Club and Mini Recreational Storage 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 21 PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 173. Hutton Centre Office 295.00 T.s.f.' Retail 300.00 T.s.f. Hotel 240 rooms 174. MacArthur Place Office 405.00 T.s.f. Apartments 400 units Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 22 1-1 u TART F F_.1 _ PROJECT LAND USE QUANTITY 175. Irvine Coast Planned Residential 3,035 units Community Commercial 265 acres Recreational 739 acres Golf Course 565.4 acres 176. Laguna Laurel Planned Residential 3,204 units Community Commercial 82 acres 177. San Joaquin Hills Planned Commercial 13.7 acres Community Residential 229.9 acres I 1 t 'Project locations are illustrated in Figure E-1. 2T.s.f. = Thousand square feet 3 TAZ = Transportation Analysis Zones 23 Cumulative Impact Analysis Information for the cumulative impact analysis was obtained through previ- ous planning documentation, such as Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and General Plans, and related sources of information including City files (i.e. building permits). The subregional areas include Costa Mesa (Hoag Cancer Center Final EIR No. 136, and the City of Costa Mesa General Plan), Newport Beach (Hoag Cancer Center Final EIR No. 136 and the City of Newport Beach General Plan), southwest Irvine and southeast Irvine (City of Irvine General Plan and Draft Master Environmental Assessment), Irvine Coast (Irvine Coast Planned Community Final EIRs Nos. 485, 486 and 511), Laguna Laurel Planned Community (Laguna Laurel Planned Community Final EIRs Nos. 263C and 501), Aliso Viejo Planned Community (Aliso Viejo Planned Community Final EIR No. 88), Laguna/Aliso Hills (County of Orange General Plan, Orange County Master Environmental Assessment) and Laguna Niguel Planned Community (Laguna Niguel Planned Community Final EIR No. 316) in the unincorporated areas of the County of Orange, Laguna Beach (City of Laguna Beach General Plan, Irvine Cove Draft EIR No.81-020) and San Juan Capistrano (City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan). The following discussion is organized according to these subregions. Topoaraahy. GeologicjPhvsical Features, Seismic Hazards, Erosion Setting Costa Mesa. This subregion lies adjacent to the Downey and Tustin portion of the Coastal Plains. The area is primarily developed and located on Newport Mesa. Because the majority of the City of Costa Mesa is developed, the oppor- tunity for erosion and sedimentation is limited. The nearest main trace of the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone is approximately 0.3 miles south of the City of Costa Mesa. The probability of ground rupture within this subregion is consi- dered to be low; however, the subregion is subject to groundshaking due to earthquakes. Newport Beach. The topography of this subregion consists of coastal hills, coastal bluffs, and gentle sloping, which becomes more variable in the northeast. The majority of the area is currently developed or previously altered by grading. Projects in this subregion are expected to increase runoff and urban pollutants into the Upper and Lower Newport Bay as well as the Paci- fic Ocean. Erosion and sedimentation are controlled by the City of Newport Beach through the regulation of grading and construction activities within the Newport Bay basin. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone is the nearest active fault to these projects, approximately one to five miles to the south. Ground - shaking would be the most damaging seismic phenomena. The probability of surface rupture due to faulting is remote, except for a fault trace which crosses SR-1 at Superior Avenue. Southwest Irvine. This subregion consists of alluvial plain, depression, marine terrace bench, and hill/sideslope, as classified in the Irvine Master Environmental Assessment (Community Planning Services, Inc., April, 1986). Dominant soil types include Alo clay, Bosanko clay and Myford sandy loam. The focus of erosion and sedimentation control planning in this area is on San Diego Creek, which discharges into Upper Newport Bay. No active faults have 24 0 been map ped in the area. The nearest active fault is the Newport -Inglewood fault zone. Ground rupture is not expected to occur; however, the area is subject to groundshaking. Portions of this subregion are within the City of Irvine Hillside Overlay District (HD). This ordinance provides policy state- ments for development in areas which, due to their topography, require special consideration to assure that the natural character is maintained. -" Southeast Irvine. According to the Irvine Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), this subregion consists of landslide, hilltop, hill/slope, upland val- ley, and rock outcrop landform features. The predominant soil types within the subregion include Capistrano sandy loam, Cieneba-rock outcrop complex, Myford sandy loam and rock outcrop-Cieneba complex.. The Irvine MEA also identifies the subregion as containing several Seismic Response Areas (SRA). Within the SRAs, ground motion is the primary potential seismic hazard. Localized lique- faction potential is remote. The City of Irvine will review applicable pro- jects within this subregion to assure -compliance with the HD Ordinance, where applicable.. In conjunction with the HD Ordinance, a hillside development manual was prepared as a tool to implement the Overlay District policies, and contains specific guidelines to achieve compliance with- the policies. For example, the ordinance discourages mass grading, excessive terracing, and large, flat, building pads. Irvine Coast.. This subregion is located on the western flank of the northern San Joaquin Hills, one of the several mountain ranges of the 'Penin- sular Range Province of Southern California. The area is mantl-ed by a variety of surficial materials including fill, topsoil, alluvium, colluvium and terrace deposits. Known active regional faults, -capable of producing groundshaking 1n the area, include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Whittier -Elsinore, Newport- Inglewood and the Sierra Madre Faults. Development of the subregion will alter landform through gradingactivi- ties. However, projects within this subregion have been planned to preserve significant landforms and measures have been included in the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program to preserve approximately 2,666 acres of land in open space. The primary potential seismic hazard in the subregion is from groundshaking. Liquefaction potential is considered to be low due to the absence of a shallow groundwater table and the moderately high cohesion of most materials in the subregion. Laguna Laurel Planned Community. The topography of this subregion con- sists of three distinct areas: the broader, level canyon mouth; a steep walled, extremely narrow middle canyon-; and a more gently sloping, broader upper canyon. Surficial deposits present in the area include residual soils, alluvium, colluvium, or slope deposits, and landslide debris. Existing northwest trending faults reflect a regional fault trend.- These faults were probably generated as sympathetic breaks during uplift of the San Joaquin Hills area along larger faults, such as the Pelican Hill fault,. 'the Laguna Canyon fault and the Shady Canyon- fault. No evidence of recent surface displacement along any of the faults within the subregion has been reported. The potential for groundshaking in the subregion is similar to that expected in surrounding areas. However, a potential exists for liquefaction, seismically 25 I I induced settlement and ground lurching in the canyon areas of the subregion. Development of the Laguna Laurel subregion will require extensive landform modification. However, to the extent possible, the grading plan for this subregion will balance the earthwork on -site which avoids import or export materials. Aliso Viejo Planned Community. The Aliso Viejo subregion is located along the eastern edge of the San Joaquin Hills uplift. Aliso Creek meanders through the subregion from north to south, creating Aliso Creek Valley, a broad allu- vial plain to the north, and Aliso Canyon, a narrower steep canyon to the south. Surficial materials include Pleistocene, marine and non -marine terrace deposits and poorly consolidated Pleistocene to Holocene alluvium, landslide and slopewash materials. There are no known active or potentially active faults within the sub- region; therefore, the potential for ground rupture is low. A number of active fault zones occur within the region which are capable of displacement or gener- ating earthquakes which may impact the subregion. The earthquake generating faults in the region, together with their approximate distance from the Aliso Viejo subregion, are the San Andreas, 48 miles; San Jacinto, 40 miles; Whittier -Elsinore, 17 miles; and the Newport -Inglewood, two miles. The pro- posed development plan for this subregion represents a compact urban community that designates over 50% of the property as open space for non -urban uses. In addition, the plan concentrates higher intensity land uses in areas containing less sensitive landforms. Laguna/Aliso Hills. This subregion consists of rolling coastal hills with elevations ranging from 300 to 700 feet. Prominent landforms in this area include Aliso Creek, Sulfur Creek, Wood Canyon and Sheep Hills. Nearly the entire area is currently planned for, or contains, urban development. Erosion' and sedimentation are controlled by the County of Orange through the regulation of grading and construction activities within the unincorporated lands. The future projects of this subregion are not located over any known active faults, and the potential for ground rupture is considered remote. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone is the nearest active fault, and is located ap- proximately five miles from projects within this subregion. In addition, the Whittier -Elsinore fault is approximately 15 miles from this subregion. This area of the County is subject to groundshaking due to earthquakes. Development of this subregion is subject to the building and land use requirements of the County of Orange. Currently, the Orange County General Plan Land Use Element, 1986, designates large areas of open space within this subregion. The open space areas include areas with prominent landforms (e.g. Aliso Park - Alicia Creek). Laguna Niguel Planned Community. The Laguna Niguel subregion is charac- terized by low hills and steeper escarpments which create several prominent landforms. These landforms include a ridgeline which flanks Aliso Creek and a less prominent ridgeline in the Salt Creek area that flanks Oso Creek on its easterly side. In addition, Salt Creek, Arroyo Salada and Sulphur Creek have created major drainages and tributary dissections in the marine sandstones of 26 1 A this area. The Laguna Niguel subregion consists of marine and alluvial sedi- mentary mentary materials. ' The nearest active faults are the Newport -Inglewood and the Elsinore faults, approximately six to eight mile to the northwest and 22 to 24 miles to the northeast, respectively. The most likely earthquake phenomenon that could affect the subregion would be elastic ground vibration. Development within this subregion will result in significant landform alteration. The development plan for this subregion has been planned to retain certain environmental fea- tures within each planning area. Specifically, Sulphur Creek, port ions of Salt Creek, upper San Juan Canyon, significant escarpments and steep slopes will be preserved. Laguna Beach. The Laguna Beach subregion consists of three separate geomorphic regions: coastal fringe, hillside canyons and high terrace lands, and the central basin. These regions are underlain by four predominant rock formations: marine deposits; conglomerate or coarse sand, boulders and sandy siltstone; Monterey, generally comprised of interbedded silty and silicious shale and sandstone; and Topanga, generally consisting of silty sandstone, interbedded siltstone and porous rock. The Laguna Beach subregion lies in a seismically active zone vulnerable to groundshaking and related geologic hazards (e.g. liquefaction and ground rupture). In addition to the three major faults in the region, Newport -Inglewood, San Jacinto, and San Andreas, two major fault systems intersect this subregion. Technically, these fault sys- tems, Laguna Canyon and Temple Hills, are inactive, which means that, geological evidence shows that no motion has occurred for 11,000 to three million years. Grading of the Irvine Cove development has begun, however the City of Laguna Beach has not approved a final certificate of occupancy for the site. Measures for each development, in accordance with the City of Laguna Beach Grading Ordinance, have been taken to reduce impacts of the proposed projects _to a level of insignificance. San Juan Capistrano. The topography of this subregion consists of gentle sloping hills cut by canyon areas. Prominent landforms in'the subregion in- clude Deys Canyon, Reservoir Canyon and the southern portion of Trabuco Arroyo Canyon. Soils in the subregion include terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock, colluvium, slopewash and alluvium. �! Faults within the subregion appear to be related to the Cristianitos Fault System which extends three to four miles east of the City of San Juan Capis- trano. Faults in this system are inactive, therefore ground rupture potential is considered to be low for the subregion, except for those areas underlain by alluvium. As with all of Southern California, this subregion is subject to groundshaking from earthquakes. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project would be within a region which contains a significant occurrence of unique landform features. The alignment of the Corridor has 'been chosen to limit the project's effects on these landform features. The primary projects potentially contributing to a cumulative impact on significant land - forms in the study area include mitigation measures, such as grading and siting 27 techniques, designed to minimize specific project impacts. Nonetheless, future projects planned in subregions having unique landform features, such as Laguna Laurel, Aliso Viejo, portions of south Irvine and the Irvine Coast Planned Community, will result in a substantial amount of landform modification. This impact will be partially offset by requirements of appropriate agencies and by the preservation of open space. Remaining cumulative impacts on landform are visual impacts, which are addressed in the Visual subsection of this assess- ment. Each of the applicable jurisdictions have developed policies to control erosion and sedimentation and to maximize seismic safety. Each of these pro- jects are subject to the adopted policies. Appropriate policies have also been incorporated into the proposed project to adequately address soil, erosion and construction impacts. The proposed project, in conjunction with future pro- jects in the study area, would not have a significant cumulative impact in terms of geologic considerations. Streambed Modification Floodplain Environment, Water Quality Setting Costa Mesa. The City of Costa Mesa consists of small drainage areas, which allow the installation of short storm drain systems. Therefore, uncon- trolled runoff is not a hazard due to the lower water concentrations. No significant changes in drainage, runoff or water quality will occur in this subregion due to the low number of projects anticipated and relatively low intensity of most of the projects. Newport Beach. Existing drainage patterns in the subregion are a result of previous development and grading. In addition, several drainage courses including San Diego Creek, Big Canyon and John Wayne Gulch conduct runoff in the City of Newport Beach through Newport Bay and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. Further development in this subregion will increase runoff and urban pollutants in runoff. Development of projects within this subregion will be subject to the goals and objectives of the General Plan Policies for the City of Newport Beach. Specifically, the plan attempts to encourage and assist in the development of a comprehensive water quality program to ensure the pro- tection of water resources. Southwest Irvine. This subregion is located within the western portion of the San Diego Creek watershed. The surface drainage network drains to Newport Bay. Continued urbanization of this area will cause an increase in runoff due to the additional impervious surfaces, and an increase in urban pollutants into the surface water system. All development within this subregion will be in accordance to the mitigation measures outlined in the Water Resources Section of the Irvine Master Environmental Assessment or other site specific measures adopted by the City. Southeast Irvine. This subregion is located within the Laguna Canyon and East Irvine Master Plans of Drainage, according to the Irvine Master Environ- mental Assessment. Continued urbanization of this area will cause an increase in runoff due to additional impervious surfaces, and an increase in urban pol- 28 lutants into, the surface water system. J ro Development of 'ects within this p projects subarea will be -subject to,the required mitigation measures for Water Resources i,n the Ci-ty of Irvine Master Environmental Assessment or other site specific measures adopted by the City. Irvine Coast. The major drainage courses within the subregion include portions of four major watersheds: Buck Gully, Los Trancos Canyon, Pelican Hill and Wishbone Hill. The major drainage courses are- ch-aracterized by incised channels having steep bottom and side slopes and significant vegetative cover. -Development within this subregion will increase impervious surface, thereby increasing run-off. In association with development of the Irvine Coast Planned Community, a variety of permanent erosion control devices, such as storm drains, energy dissipators, detention basins and sediment traps, will be incorporated into the project. Laguna Laurel Planned Community. The Laguna Laurel subregion is within the Laguna Canyon watershed, which is a portion of the San Diego Basin. Deve- lopment within this subregion will increase impervious surface area, thereby increasing runoff. In association with development in this subregion, a de- tailed runoff management plan is required as- a precaution to development (see Laguna Laurel Feature Plan). Included in this Plan are four debris basins proposed to temporarily retard storm velocities and to collect sediment and larger debris transported down the canyons by storm flows. The debris basins are designed to accommodate the 100-year storm. Aliso Viejo Planned Community. This subregion includes two watershed areas, Aliso Creek and Laguna Canyon. Approximately 92% of the property is located in the Aliso Creek watershed. 'Both of these watersheds eventually drain into the ocean. Water quality in Aliso Creek, Laguna Canyon and ocean areas adjacent to their outlets could be degraded due to development by the introduction of various urban pollutants, construction debris and sediments. To mitigate impacts of development within this subregion, a variety of per- manent erosion control devices, such as down drains, terrace drains, brow ditches and energy dissipators will be incorporated into. the project. In addition, earthwork and grading activities will not impact major water courses (e.g., Aliso Creek, Laguna Canyon). A Laguna/Aliso Hills. This subregion contains several incremental drainage areas, as defined by the Orange County Master Environmental Assessment (EDAW, 1980), including Increment 3 - West Orange County, Increment 5 - Irvine/Bryan, Increment 9 - Los Alisos, Increment 13 - Laguna Hills, and Increment 15, Laguna Canyon. These incremental drainage areas are smaller drainages within regional watersheds. Development in this subregion will alter runoff levels and in- crease impervious surface area. Development within this subregion is subject to County of Orange policies to mitigate hydrology/ water quality impacts of individual projects to a level of insignificance. Laguna Niguel Planned Community. The Laguna Niguel subregion is located within portions of two watersheds, Oso Creek and Aliso Creek. The majority of the subregion is located in the Salt Creek watershed area. The Salt Creek watershed is designated as a regional watercourse and an ocean outlet by the County's Master Plan of Drainage for the Laguna Niguel subregion. Since deve- 29 lopment is occurring and will continue to occur in the subregion, the contribu- tion of sediment can be expected to be high for an interim period prior to build out. However, it should be noted that most development, such as planned communities, reduce the overall natural rate of sedimentation. Permanent erosion control devices, such as desilting facilities, velocity reduction devices, and down drains will be used in this subregion to mitigate impacts to existing watersheds. Laguna Beach. The Laguna Beach subregion contains several regional water- sheds, including Laguna Canyon, Wood Canyon and Aliso Canyon. In addition to the regional watersheds, 12 localized drainage areas are included within this subregion. The Irvine Cove and Laguna Canyon drainage areas will conduct runoff from these future projects into the Pacific Ocean. Development of these projects will increase the impervious surface area and runoff and urban pollu- tant levels discharged into the ocean. However, due to the size and type of development proposed (i.e. estate density residential) the impact is not anti- cipated to be significant. San Juan Capistrano. Drainage of the subregion is generally southward and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. Major drainage areas include San Juan Creek, Horno Creek and Trabuco Creek. Development of projects within this subregion will increase impervious surfaces and in turn, runoff. Project specific measures to mitigate runoff and associated erosion impacts are included within the San Juan Capistrano General Plan. These measures include controlling runoff during construction, detaining runoff, minimization of - grading and clustering development in more gently sloping portions of the City. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project, in conjunction with other future projects in the study area, would potentially increase runoff and urban pollutants into down- stream drainages which may eventually drain into the Pacific Ocean. The sig- nificance of the cumulative pollutant levels would depend upon the implementa- tion of mitigation measures for projects near the Corridor route and the char- acteristics of individual storm events, such as duration and intensity of rainfall. Those characteristics would determine the amount of materials which would settle in channel bottoms or remain suspended in the runoff to be flushed downstream to the ocean. However, individual projects will be required to pro- vide drainage improvements where necessary to accommodate project runoff and reduce pollutant levels to a level below significance. The proposed project would implement drainage improvements and sedimentation controls consistent with County of Orange standards. Cumulative project contributions to runoff contaminants would occur; however, the levels would not be significant. Archaeological and Historical Properties, Paleontological Resources Setting Costa Mesa. One paleontological site is located in close proximity to a future project in this subregion. No archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of any projects. Historic Army Air Base Buildings are located near the anticipated Martinique Apartments project. C Newport Beach. Several archaeological sites have been identified in this subregion (Sanchez Talarico Associates, 1986); however, the majority have been investigated or destroyed by subsequent development. Additionally, preserved archaeological sites have been identified near Upper Newport Bay. These pre- served sites are designated as open space by the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Paleontological resources have been identified in the western portion of this subregion, and previous investigation has revealed a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources. Southwest Irvine. Few cultural resources have been identified in this subregion. Archaeological sites are located on the U.C. Irvine property. Several paleontological resources are located on the U.C. Irvine property, along San Diego Creek and within the marsh preserve. These resources are con- sidered to have low to, no sensitivity. One historic site is located west of Culver Drive, between University Drive and I-405. Development within this subregion will be processed in accordance with the mitigation measures for cultural resources in the City of Irvine Master Environmental Assessment or CEQA requirements for UC Irvine. Southeast Irvine. The Regional Archaeological Information Center at UCLA designates the subregion as containing approximately 50 archeol,ogical sites. In addition, 12 paleontological sites are identified in the City of Irvine Master Environmental Assessment. The Irvine Master Environmental Assessment includes mitigation measures for the preservation and exploration of cultural resources. All development within this subregion will be subject -to these measures. Irvine Coast. Results from two archaeological surveys of the Irvine Coast (Briuer 1977 and Douglas and Weil 1981) indicate this subregion contains twen- ty-three open archaeological sites and ni-neteen rockshelters. The known. re- corded paleontological localities within the Irvine Coast are .mainly inverte- brate fossil occurrences (some microfossil) and, as they presently exist, do not constitute unusual or significant scientific resources. Development of project within the Irvine Coast will be subject to strict mitigation require- ments for the preservation of cultural resources. Direct impacts to cultural resources will be mitigated through avoidance, capping, or data recovery. Laguna Laurel Planned Community. The Laguna Laurel subregion contains previously recorded archaeological sites (Archeological Resources Management Corp., 1983). This subregion is comprised of four stratigraphic units, includ- ing the Silverado, Sespe, Vaqueros, and Topanga Formations. Although no fos- sils were observed in the subregion, the potential for paleontological re- sources is considered moderate. Development within the Laguna Laurel subregion will affect the above mentioned formations, and may yield paleontolog-ical resources during subsurface exposures. In accordance with County policies, a County certified archaeologist and paleontologist will be required to be on - site during grading or other significant ground disturbing activity to ensure that the cultural resources will not be destroyed before exploration -and/or salvage. Aliso Viejo Planned Community. Forty-three distinct archaeological sites have been recorded within the Aliso Viejo subregion (Scientific Resources 31 I Surveys, Inc., 1977). Of the forty-three sites located, thirty-seven are intact, two are disturbed, three are not relocatable and one is completely destroyed. In a paleontological assessment of the Aliso Creek area prepared by John Cooper and Frederic Sundberg in 1976, the Aliso Viejo subregion was desig- nated as being highly fossiliferous, with exposed outcrops of pectin shell (clams), bivalve mollusks, oyster shell, sand dollars, barnacles, marine mammal bones and shark's teeth. Possible historic sites within the subregion are the "Tischler" petroglyph rock and the Old Moulton Cement Plant. Of the thirty seven intact sites, thirty-three are located in open space areas. The remain- ing four sites are considered of moderate to minor significance pending future evaluation as development occurs. A plan currently exists which proposes excavation/salvage or earth fill coverage techniques as a form of mitigation for paleontological sites planned for development. Both historic sites in the subregion occur in open space areas of the development plan and thus will be preserved. Laguna/Aliso Hills. The Orange County Master Environmental Assessment (OCMEA) designates the hilly terrain to the west and southeast of Aliso Creek as an area of high archaeological sensitivity. Additionally, the OCMEA desig- nates the area between Laguna Niguel and La Paz Road on the west, and the San Diego Freeway and San Juan Capistrano on the east as an area of moderate ar- chaeological sensitivity. Paleontological resources are considered moderate for the entire subregion. Numerous surveys have been conducted, and few sites have been recorded. All development within this subregion will be in accor- dance with County of Orange policies for the preservation of significant cul- tural resources. Laguna Niguel Planned Community. The entire Laguna Niguel subregion has been surveyed for archaeological resources, most recently in 1977 by Scientific Resources Surveys, Inc. Results from the surveys indicate the location of 13 archaeological sites within the subregion. Most of the sites have been essen- tially destroyed, although out of context remnants may still exist. In spite of the potential for paleontological resources in the subregion, none have been discovered during previous construction, and no sites have been recorded on the undeveloped portions of the property. The County Standard archaeological and paleontological grading observation conditions will apply to all remaining development in the subregion. Laguna Beach. Because of the mostly developed condition of the Laguna Beach subregion, the opportunity for the occurrence of undisturbed cultural resources is low. As a result, the remaining undeveloped portions of the subregion have a greater value for potential prehistoric sites. Future pro- jects in this subregion may disturb the few remaining archaeological/paleontological sites which would require additional research prior to their destruction. The records check and walkover fields survey prepared for the Irvine Cove development revealed no significant cultural resources (Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, 1980). Future development in the subregion will be processed through the environmental review process and/or subdivision review, wherein conditions may be attached to an approved tentative tract map, requiring the investigation of cultural resources (Laguna Beach General Plan, 1984). 32 1-1 E r� 1 11 1 i I San Juan Capistrano. Approximately sixteen archaeological sites have been uncovered from previous archaeological studies (City of San Juan Capistrano General Plan). Additionally, three areas were noted which contain various paleontological materials. Historical structures- have been identified on twenty sites within the City. Development of projects within this subregion is not anticipated to impact existing cultural resources. This is due to the fact that development in the subregion is subject to stringent measures for the preservation of cultural resources. Cumulative Impacts The proposed alignment contains several cultural resources. The proposed project, however, in conjunction with future projects would not contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources, since these projects are subject to stringent mitigation requirements. The requirements, which are based on feder- al, State and local policies, will ensure that adequate mitigation, such as research, investigation, construction monitoring and data recovery will be implemented. In addition, impacts due to individual projects -which have been approved have been mitigated to a level below significance. Wetland Impacts. Biological Resources Setting Costa Mesa. This subregion is primarily developed. No biological re- sources have been identified in the location of these future projects by the City of Costa Mesa. Newport Beach. Due to the developed condition and previous grading acti- vities of the subregion, biological resources are limited to the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, coastal marsh habitats, localized canyons, drainages and undeveloped hillsides. The remainder of the subregion is in a developed condition and previous grading activities have removed existing biological resources. The future project which may directly affect significant habitats in this subregion is the Newport Aquatic Center, which is in the vicinity of the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Both projects which could affect signifi- cant habitats occur in areas which are governed by Local Coastal Programs. These programs are designed to encourage development consistent with existing conditions and to preserve notable features of the land (e.g. riparian habitat areas). Southwest Irvine. The southwest Irvine subregion consists of urban/human altered vegetation and grassland. Additionally, the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh and mixed chaparral associated with the U.C. Irvine property is located in this portion of Irvine. The majority of projects proposed in this subregion are located in developed portions of the subregion. The San Joaquin Marsh and the mixed chaparral areas of the subregion are designated as Open Space on the City of Irvine General Plan Land Use Map, 1984. I 33 1 Southeast Irvine. The southeast Irvine subregion contains eight biologi- 9 9 cal cal resources areas, according to the City of Irvine Master Environmental Assessment. Of the resource areas identified, three are considered to contain moderate sensitivity and five are described as containing high sensitivity. Areas with moderate sensitivity include buffer areas and locally significant stands of native vegetation. Areas with high sensitivity contain rare/endan- gered/ unique species and regionally significant riparian habitat. The City of Irvine General Plan Land Use Element proposes low intensity development or open space in areas with high sensitivity (e.g. estate density residential). In addition, the City of Irvine General Plan has developed a program of preserva- tion or development restraint in designated habitat areas (Open Space and Conservation Element Irvine General Plan, currently being updated). Irvine Coast. The Irvine Coast subregion contains nine biological habi- tats: annual grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral riparian, sycamore riparian, willow riparian, elderberry arroyo, emergent herbaceous riparian and coastal bluff scrub. Although projects within this subregion will impact existing biological habitats, the preservation of approximately 6,800 acres of open space will mitigate the impact on existing biological resources. This open space preservation process is included within the Irvine Coast Local Coastal Program and includes the Crystal Cove State Park. Laguna Laurel Planned Community. Vegetative cover of this subregion is diverse, reflecting the varying topography, the influence of man and cattle in expanding and creating open grasslands used as pastures, and the distribution of permanent and seasonal water resources. Five major habitats are present within the subregion: scrub -oak, riparian -woodland, grassland, oak -sycamore, and coastal sage scrub (Dr. James Henrickson, 1983). Approximately 1300 acres of the subregion are proposed as permanent open space and are anticipated to remain in a natural condition. These open space areas encompass areas of high to moderate significance, oak and riparian habitats, and will mitigate the impact of the project on biological resources. Aliso Viejo Planned Community. The Aliso Viejo subregion contains six biological communities: freshwater marsh, riparian, grassland, coastal sage scrub, coastal chaparral, and oak woodland (England and Nelson Environmental Consultants, 1977). Grassland and coastal sage scrub represent the dominant vegetation cover of the area. The Conservation Element of the Aliso Viejo feature plan has been developed to preserve significant habitat areas. Also, significant representative areas of each habitat type will be retained in the proposed open space area. LagunajAliso Hills. The subregion contains biological resources with moderate to high ecological sensitivity, according to the Orange County Master Environmental Assessment. These biological resources are primarily located in and adjacent to drainage courses and canyon areas. Notable biological resource areas include: Wood Canyon, Aliso Creek,San Juan Canyon, Salt Creek and Sul- phur Creek. The Orange County General Plan Land Use Element, 1986, designates several of these resource areas as open space. In addition, development in this subregion will be subject to County Policies for the preservation of notable biological communities. 1 1 Laguna Niguel Planned Community. This subregion consists of rollinghills covered with grasslands, coastal sage scrub and haparral. Riparian woodlands are supported by drainage courses, and provide a s.u-itabl-e environment for wildlife. Large stands of coastal sage scrub occur in the coastal, hills south of Aliso Canyon. Non-native annual herbs and grasses dominate lower slopes and areas where scrub vegetation was removed to provide grazing lands. Retention of significant open space areas will mitigate impacts to biological resources to an acceptable level by retaining and enhancing natural riparian habitats and significant biological communities. Open space retention will be accomplished through Development Agreements already entered into between the County and developers. Laguna Beach. The Laguna Beach region contains nine biological commu- nities, including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, southern oak wood- land, riparian bushland, rock outcrops and barrens, maritime desert scrub, coastal strand, and urban forest (Laguna Beach General Plan Open Space/Conser- vation-Element, 1984). No significant biological resources have been identi= fied in the location of the two future projects of this subregion. San Juan Capistrano. According to the Open Space -and Conservation Element of the 'San Juan Capistrano General Plan, this, subregion contains biological resources of moderate to high ecological sensitivity. Biological resources are primarily located in and adjacent to canyon areas and drainage courses. Natu- ral resource areas occur in the creek beds of San Juan Creek, Trabuco Creek, Oso Creek and Aguate Ravine. The City of San Juan Capistrano's General Plan currently contains a Re- source Management Program which provides for the conservation of natural re- sources includi-ng air, water and agricultural lands. Cumulative Impacts ' Although the proposed project, in conjunction with future anticipated projects, would result in a cumulative reduction in biolog-ical resources in the region, the future projects also serve as vehicles for implementing the County's regional open space program which includes a 16,000 acre greenbelt in the area of the Corridor. Due to the existing public policies' and the incor- poration of open space areas in future projects, cumulative impacts to biologi- cal resources in this region have been partially mitigated. The United .States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish. and Game poli- cies for no net loss of wetland habitat provide further mitigation requirements. Although the preservation of open space and mitigation for loss of wetl-and habitat and additional proposed mitigation measures would partially mitigate cumulative impacts to biological resources, the project would contri= bute to the following: 1) loss of Category 3 and 4 habitat; 2) elimination of individuals of animal species; 3) disruption of predator/prey relationships; 4) decrease in species diversity due to variability of habitats; and 5) decrease in the total number of habitable acreage. 35 Visual Resources. Light and Glare Setting Costa Mesa. The City of Costa Mesa is highly urbanized. Open space land is either urban influenced (e.g., parkland, golf courses, schools, cemeteries) or vacant. Construction of future projects identified will not significantly alter the visual character of this area. Newport Beach. This subregion is primarily developed. The dominant visual features in the area of the future projects are Newport Center, Big Canyon, Newport Bay and views of the ocean from locations in the subregion. The majority of development has been landscaped. Further development in this area will add to the urbanized character, as well as converting some vacant parcels to development. The northern portion of the subregion is urban development consisting of high and low rise industrial, commercial and retail structures and the circu- lation network. Impacts resulting from further development in the area would be from shade/shadow effects of high rise structures. The northeast portion of the subregion is vacant, is experiencing grading operations or is developed. Southwest Irvine. Visual features of this subregion include urban deve- lopment, open space, San Diego Creek and the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh. Construction of anticipated projects in this area will intensify existing development and convert some open space. No significant landform alteration is expected in this area. Southeast Irvine. The aesthetic qualities of this subregion primarily consist of open space and varying topography, with natural physical features such as Bommer Canyon, Sand Canyon Reservoir and Shady Canyon. The area is primarily undeveloped. The projects proposed in this subregion will create a rural/suburban character. The primary land uses will be rural to low density residential and various open space uses, with intermittent industrial and community commercial projects. Although the primary land uses are low inten- sity, anticipated impacts include landform modification, open space conversion and an increased urban character of the subregion. Irvine Coast. The Irvine Coast subregion is divided into two zones that characterize the area viewshed: coastal plain and coastal mountain range. The coastal plain area is considered to be an important visual resource due to the proximity of the ocean, the ocean to land interface and the unique landform. The coastal mountain range is a valued visual resource, due to its unique land - forms, color variations and diverse elevations. Development of projects within this subregion will begin to change the appearance of the Irvine Coast from open space to urban development. However, an open space dedication program and other major viewshed mitigation measures are provided for in the LCP and are reviewed extensively in the LCP findings. Laguna Laurel Planned Community. The site of this planned community contains numerous visual and aesthetic qualities. Laguna and Laurel Canyons 36 1 i 8 and the slopes and ridges surrounding them are the primary topographic features which define this open space area. Laguna Canyon Road currently provides visual access to portions of the sites. Development of this project will require substantial landform modification, and will change the character from its present natural setting to one of residential/recreation land uses. A feature plan and open space preservation component will be i-mplemented as mitigation for the project, which contains edge treatments in compliance with the County's viewscape corridor designation for Laguna Canyon Road. Aliso Viejo Planned Community. Visual features of this subregion include various canyons and ridgelines, natural vegetative communities and agricultural activities. The approved project is currently under construction, and, will ultimately consist of a combination of open space greenbelts; residential, conservation commercial, light industrial and other urban uses. This project will result in landform modification; loss of vegetation and loss of visual open space which are mitigated by means of the 3,300 acre greenbelt dedication,. LagunalAliso Hills. This portion of the County is developed primarily with residential and commercial land uses and is urban in character. Although some of the project plans for this subregion contain recreation/open space, (for example, Kite Hill and Narland Business Center), the effects of construc- tion of these projects is to further develop an urbanized area. Laguna -Niguel Planned Community. This subregion is'a combination of open space and rolling landform developed with residential, commercial and recre- ational uses. In general, topographic relief precludes most direct views of Laguna Niguel from areas exterior to the community. Continued development of the approved planned community will primarily consist of residential, commer- cial and other urban uses. Future development which will: conform to the Laguna Niguel project includes a Feature Plan, which presents guidelines for the treatment of natural and manmade features in the community. Laguna Beach. Both of the projects planned for this subregion are vacant parcels adjacent to existing residential development in the City of Laguna Beach. These sites are relatively small in comparison with projects in other subregions, which are included in the discussion due to proximity to the Irvine Coast and proposed development on currently undeveloped land. Construc- tion of future projects identified in this subregion will not significantly alter the visual character of this area. San Juan Capistrano. According to the San Juan Capistrano General Plan, the majority of undeveloped areas i-n this subregion contains scenic value. Specifically, the surrounding hillsides, canyons, rivers, creeks, prominent trees, plant material and existing agricultural uses have been identified as containing scenic value. Development of projects in this subregion will convert existing open space areas into urban development. The City of San Juan Capistrano has designated approximately 30% of the corporate limits of the City as permanent open space. This policy has been developed to mitigate the impacts of future development on existing visual resources. 1 37 r Cumulative Impacts The project, in conjunction with future development projects in the region, would convert open space and undeveloped areas to urban land uses, resulting in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources. The majority of the future projects are located in currently urbanized areas. The larger scale projects, in particular the planned communities, would reduce large continuous open space areas, having medium to high aesthetic quality, and would replace the areas with urban development. In addition to requiring a substantial amount of grading in some cases, these future developments would also preserve large open space areas. For example, the Irvine Coast Planned Community provides for the dedication of large blocks of open space (2,666 acres total), contiguous to the 2,807 acre Crystal Cove State Park. The open space areas of the Irvine Coast will work in concert with a series of other dedications and land uses to com- plete a regional greenbelt comprising approximately 16,000 acres of land. The ultimate regional open space system will include the Laguna/Laurel Canyons Re- gional Park, Sycamore Hills, and Aliso/Wood Canyons Regional Park. In addition to project specific measures implemented by the lead agencies to reduce adverse visual as well as light and glare impacts, such as grading concepts, height limitations and landscape plans, the County open space dedica- tion and park requirements partially offset cumulative visual impacts. How- ever, the project, in conjunction with other planned projects, would contribute to cumulative changes from open space to development. Land Use Impacts Tables E-B through E-G and Figures 3.7.1 and E-1 detail the future land uses within the Corridor vicinity. The proposed project, in conjunction with other committed, approved and reasonably anticipated future projects, would convert existing open space, vacant and/or underdeveloped sites to urban uses or would increase the intensity of existing urban uses. Additionally, con- struction of the Corridor would result in housing and business displacements that would represent significant unavoidable adverse land use impacts. Air Quality Impacts Due to the ubiquitous and migratory nature of air pollutants, the cumul- ative analysis is discussed on an overall regional basis, rather than by sub- regions. The following discussion is a summary of the regional impacts analy- sis contained in Section 4.4 Air Quality. The transportation infrastructure's inability to keep pace with growth causes all traffic to shift to slower, more polluting speeds. The traffic analysis indicates that the project would increase the capacity of the circulation system of the study area. The proposed project, therefore, repre- sents a regional air quality benefit, due to a reduction in travel time. Addi- tionally, the projects included in this study area have been included in regional growth projections and are also consistent with the air quality plan. 38 1 Noise Impacts The noise impacts analysis, summarized in -Section 4.5, incorporates by reference the analysis of cumulative noise impacts contained in the Noise Impact Technical Study. The analysis is based on traffic data representing, cumulative conditions which include traffic increases from other projects and their relationship to the Corridor. Noise level data was generated based on the cumulative conditions analyzed in the traffic study (Future 2010 with SJHTC) to determine noise increases from other projects in the region. The resulting noise levels indicate that several locations would experience significant noise increases, due to traffic generated in the cumulative plus project condition. Although noise mitigation would be implemented, the Corridor would result in unmitigated noise impacts in some locations. Future projects would be requi-red to comply with the noise stan- dards of the -applicable jurisdiction. Transportation/Circulation Impacts The cumulative effect of committed, approved and reasonably anticipated future projects is analyzed in the traffic study prepared for the proposed project (Section 5.0) Without the Corridor, the majority of arterials in the study area, will experience higher volumes. With the Corridor, traffic volumes would primarily decrease on arterials in the study area in the cumulative condition (as shown in Chapter 1, Table 1.53). The project is expected to provide a net benefit to the study area cir- culation system by adding more capacity. Therefore, the proposed project, i-n conjunction with future projects in the region, will not result in a signifi- cant adverse cumulative impact. Pedestrian. Equestrian and Bicycle Facilities Existing and master planned pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle facilities would be affected on a project by project basis, rather than on a cumulative basis. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant adverse cumulative impact to area trail facilities. Enemy. Affect on Community Facilities. Affect on Public Utilities Committed, approved and reasonably foreseeable future development within ` the region will contribute to a long-term demand for public services and util- ities. Utility extensions and new facilities would be required to provide services to the Corridor. Although the proposed project would add to a cumulative demand for energy, there may be a reduction in energy demand upon completion. The reason for this is that use of the Corridor would reduce trav- el times and would increase mean speeds on the I-405 and other related road- ways. This would, in turn, increase fuel efficiency and reduce energy demand. 1 39 Additionally, the Corridor and other future projects would incrementally add to the amount of solid waste received at Bee Canyon Landfill. However, the project, in and of itself, would not adversely impact operations at Bee Canyon Landfill. Although the project would lead to an incremental increase in demand for services and utilities, the increase is included in the service parameters of the affected agencies. Thus, the proposed Corridor, in concert with other future development projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact. Hazardous Waste Impacts The proposed project, in conjunction with future development projects in the region, would be impacted by hazardous waste/materials. These substances are by-products of industrial land uses located largely toward the southern project terminus. The proposed project, as well as other future development projects, would have to comply with strict mitigation requirements that are based on federal, State and local policies. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that the proposed project, in concert with other future develop- ment projects, would not contribute to cumulative hazardous waste impacts. Construction Impacts The proposed project, in conjunction with future development projects in the region, would result in construction related impacts (e.g., air quality, noise, water quality and energy impacts). However, the proposed Corridor, as well as other future development projects, would have to comply with mitigation requirements based on federal, State and local policies. Adherence to these requirements would ensure that the proposed Corridor, in concert with other future development projects, would not contribute to cumulative construction impacts. 40 [l .11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX F NOP/NOI 1 1 1 1 1 CALIFORNIA DIVISION P. O. BOX 1915 Sacramento, California 95812-1915 October 16, 1989 HPR-CA File: FAP-73 Orange County San Joaquin Hills Corridor Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration Washington, D. C. 20408 Dear Sir: Enclosed are three originals of a revised Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor highway project in Orange County, California. Please place this revised Notice of Inten t in the Federal Register. The billing code is identified on the Notice. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Michael A. Cook, District Engineer, at FTS 460-1310, or Mr. Ed Sheldahl.,, Area Engineer, at .FTS 460-1310. Sincerely yours, DAMES J. BEDNAR For Bruce E. Cannon Division Administrator 3 Enclosures cc: w/Enclosure E. W. Blackmer, Caltrans OEA ,'Tudy Heyer, Caltrans Dist. 12 Washington, HEV-11 Region, HPP-09 M. Cook, HB-CA G. Jacobi, HPR-CA (4910-22) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AGENCY: Federal Highway Administrati on . (FHWA), DOT ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this Notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement containingTier e r II - level information will be prepared for a proposed highway project in Orange County, California. A previous Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 1984. The previous Notice indicated that only Tier I -level of information was to be prepared. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael A. Cook, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, P. O. Box 1915, Sacramento, California 95812-1915, Telephone: (916) 551-1310. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. Proposed Project. The FHWA, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA), will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a proposal to locate and construct a new high-speed, high -capacity, limited -access transportation facility. Transportation improvements are needed to serve existing and planned development. This facility (identified as State Route 73) will begin as an extension of the existing Corona del Mar Freeway near Birch Street (on the boundary between the Cities of Newport Beach and Irvine) and extend southeasterly to j-oin the San Diego Freeway (I-5) between Ave�Parkway and Ortega Highway near the northerly limit of the City of San Juan Capistrano. The highway is proposed as a toll facility, and will include toll collection facilities on the mainline and on some entry/exit ramps. It is contemplated,that the toll facilities will be removed when revenue bonds issued for the. project have been repaid. 2. Alternatives. Alternatives being considered for the project include the following: A. New Highway Alternative. This involves locating and constructingbetween ix sand ten general traffic lanes. An estimated twelve proposed interchanges may be included' in this Alternative. Also included are passing lanes at various locations where the grade approaches 6%, and auxiliary lanes to improve interchange functions. B. Demand Management Alternative. This Alternative includes the location and construction of six general traffic lanes and two reversible traffic lanes located in the median. Also included are passing lanes at various locations where the grade approaches 6%, and auxiliary lanes to improve interchange functions. C. Transit/HOV Improvements. In addition: to the above alternatives, Transit/High occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, located in the median, will be evaluated alongwith ith .park - and - ride facilities at five locations. 1 t D. No Project alternative. This Alternative is essentially the "no build" option. 3. Consultation. Consultation by Orange County with various State and local agencies began in August 1977. These consultations identify areas of special concern along the proposed route, which were the focus of locally initiated environmental studies. FHWA believes that this early consultation has been extensive and consistent with 40 C:F.R. Section 1501.7. However, in order to inform potentially affected agencies and the public of FHWA involvement, Federal scoping meetings were held in July 1984, and local public hearings on the project were held in July 1988. To insure that the full range of issues related to this proposed route are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address previously provided in this document. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway Research, Planning, and Construction. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal Programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: OCT 16 1989 Michael A. Cook District Engineer Sacramento, California FJ I F la 75�14, E 0 "'NOTICE OF PREPARATION�, ^,^ /7- GAARYp{�jj( �. i. DEP" TO: Distribution FROM: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION AGENCY -2501 Pullman.Street 345 Clinton Street Santa Ana, CA. 92705 Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement - <References: Division 13, Public Resources Code, Section 21080.4 (State); 40 C.F.R. 1501.7 and 1508.22 (Federal)> This is to inform -you that the SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY (TCA) and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) in cooperation with the FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) will prepare an EIR/EIS for the project described below. TCA is lead agency for the EIR; Caltrans is the designated lead agency for FHWA. TCA will serve as co -lead with Caltrans for the EIS.. Your participation as a responsible/cooperating agency or interested individual is requested in the preparation and review of this document. We need to know the applicable permit - and environmental review requirements of your agency and the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR/EIS prepared by our agencies when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The proposed project, known as the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (Corridor), is the extension of the Route 73 freeway from Jamboree Road (City of Newport Beach) to the I-5 Freeway (City of San Juan Capistrano), Orange County, California. Lane additions and ramp improvements are also proposed along existing Route 73 between Birch Street and Jamboree Road. Similarly, lane additions are proposed along I-5 near�San Juan Capistrano to facilitate merging of the Corridor. The highway is proposed as a toll facility, -and will include toll collection facilities on the mainline and on some entry/exit ramps. Toll facilities will be removed when revenue bonds issued for the project have been repaid (estimated to be after the year 2010). The project location is shown in Figure 1. A ETSM 73 A SAN JOAOUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORR DOR or-" cour" lRXJ'p'-lJ'GIONAL SETTING ....... . .. ways Idor LOCAL SETTING ..... ..... .............. ................... ... .. ..... .. . ... I I rr Oleo Ca BAN JUAN L CAMMAM FIGURE 1 I Notice of Preparation page 2 The Corridor was, adopted -by the Orange Count Board of -Supervisors -in P Y g Y P August, 1976, as part of the Orange County Master Plan -of Arterial Highways, based upon needs identified in the Southeast Orange County Circulation Study (SEOCCS). The Phase 1 Route Location Study for the Corridor commenced in August, 1977, concluding with certification of ■ Final EIR No. 267 by the County Board of Supervisors in November, 1979. At that time, the Board of Supervisors selected a route location, herein referred to as the proposed project alignment, for detailed study. The Corridor was officially placed on the State Highway system in September, 1983, making it eligible for State and Federal funding. In December, 1987, the State of California passed legislation giving the TCA authority to construct the Corridor as a toll facility. A draft EIR (DEIR 494) was prepared for the Corridor but did not evaluate it as a toll road. That document will be superseded by this EIR/EIS which is an evaluation of the Corridor as a toll facility. The public comments received on DEIR 494 will be considered in the preparation of this-EIR/EIS. Two build alternatives and a no -project alternative are proposed for the Corridor. The build alternatives: are a Demand Management Alternative and a Conventional Operations Alternative. Both include exclusive High Occupancy Vehicle.(HOV) lanes, HOV access ramps, and park and ride facilities. The EIR/EIS may include other feasible alternatives to the project. The Demand Management Alternative includes three general purpose g g travel lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes as required for weaving and steep grades. The EIR/EIS will examine reversible, exclusive HOV lanes in the median for this alternative. Reservation of adequate space in the median allows for potential capacity improvements in the future such as additional general purpose lanes, and/or concurrent flow lanes. Although transit options are not part of the proposed project, the median width is adequate to preserve the opportunity to consider future transit options. The Conventional Operations Alternative includes three to.six general purpose lanes in each direction, with auxiliary lanes as required. The EIR/EIS will examine concurrent flow exclusive HOV lanes for this alternative.. Overview of Potential Environmental Impacts:: The Corridor EIR/EIS will address the topics required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA,), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Caltrans and FHWA Environmental Guidelines. The EIR/EIS will analyze the project at a construction level of detail. Notice of Preparation page 3 A summary of probable significant environmental effects of the project is provided below. Topic Probable Environmental Effect Topography/Landform Extensive landform alteration. Biology/Wetlands Removal of habitat and wetlands, alteration of streambeds, impacts to sensitive species, wildlife impacts. Noise Levels may exceed FHWA/Caltrans guidelines. Transportation/ Increased traffic on certain segments Circulation arterial highways. ' Aesthetics Change in viewshed, interruption of views, Corridor visible from residential and public use areas. Construction Impacts Traffic, noise, dust, erosion. Growth Inducing Imputs Various indirect impacts Based on previous analysis in DEIR 494, the following impacts are expected to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Geology Geotechnical constraints such as landslides, seismicity. Hydrology/floodplain Encroachments into the 100-year floodplain, increased impervious surfaces with increased runoff. Water Quality Pollutants related to roadway operations. Air Quality Consistency with the 1989 Air Quality Plan Management Plan Light and Glare Lighting from the Corridor facilities and park -and -ride lots. Land Use Relationship to existing and planned land use, including partial take of public park and recreational land. Displacements Displacements of residences, businesses and parking near the I-5 connection. LJ Notice of Preparation page 4 Public Utilities Relocation of utility lines. Archaeological/Historic/ Testing and salvage, of archaeological sites Paleontological within the area of impact. Use of Public Lands Visual and noise effects on recreation sites, cooperative planning efforts. Due to time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response and direct any comments or questions regarding this project to Judith L. Heyer at Caltrans. (714/724-2252) at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES by: #44,ti F. William Olson, Environmental Consultant Date: i G ICALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 by: Judith L. Heyer, Chief v Environmental Planning, Branch B Date: APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U.S. Department of Agricukure FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To -be completed by Federal Agency) DetanoTmTdratwiion Request ederal A110MY Involved PART If fro br canp)errd by SCSI "• iepts.ss-Imiv +' :::..poes the sit* ,conutn prime, un que, statewide or focal important farri�landi'..: ; .:;;y i p' '•1SCrK no; Nse FPPA doei'not apply do nor complete xlditional ers oir thl's rarmJ; . trupated Avir itHm _... pe 0 r 0 •: M+ C a mab! • Lind M " Gavt.lvr.a dw:t ros► •: .' Acres: x. ..•rYION t •• ! . f K+ed•i4.•. i11Cf�Z`':r::;:::::: ;::':?:::;'': :::: ;sass:;.:'"•'� ': .O+ts:L:� .� Y S • ..:: ; ;Name D land v*Jw&1io SVs(rmthld .- ►me of looe� Site fW Kttnent SYxtem:. f .. • X. •.; . :: • :.: ::.::.:::::::•:: :.: .sass• �:•::• �:: •::;"::••:' PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative its at. &to A Site a Sae C Site o A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly0 C. Total Acres In Site 31 <aJ1RT !V 1 i"o be ctcdb-yoE : : - wC ...t Total' ACres9tme Awetfr% cu_ arrrt!- - _cymp B.Total es _ C tateWid _ focal tm I r tF Pam' a rnt and .. C. PerixcttagtQt Farmland in{ioun_tyOr Local Gaut. Unit i _ To'Be Con:v tcd <•,::' :.::;:::� • -� :D. ?eroint ► t r �D O £� miarM In Gout durisdrCYeOn t 1N it Same r h r i' 0 sir a Htra''vt P � Ya+ut ::: :: �ART,Y (To ba coiupjrredG SG`S) •ii.ttnd Evaluation .:...:...:. Y iron Cntanon • • �e . :. •. ::t:::::::•:::.:::.: ;:•:•: ' tb e Va! 1 .:..;...:...::: •.f1 u Fsrnif O and To Be n • Co verttdlsu/eof0io•r00Polnrtl •:� :: t •::;:::';: �:•:�:::•: �:�::::::::;�=•'� .... ..:. ;.:........:... "ifs':. tPART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) ' M.xtmtm, /� •� Site Atseument Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 63d.6fb) Points 1. Are:. '. Nonurban Use 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 6. Distance FromUrban BuiltIs Area 6. Distance To Urban Support Services 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Avenge B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland _ P. Availability Of Farm Support Services ID. On -Form Investments gn 11., Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 19 160 25 PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) top Total Site Arse sment from Parr V/above or a lox) site assessment 160 I? TOTAL POINTS (Total ofabove 2lines) 260 120 Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Loci Site Auerimant thed? Yes 13 No D (See In$rtuctlons on rarerse aldel Form AD•1006 110-1131 GU i r IJuly 12, 1990 r Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Steve Letterly, 'riaiiager of Environmental Impact Subj: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR Dear Mr. Letterly: Your letter dated July 2, 1990 requested comments concerning the Draft Floodplain Hydraulic Study for subject project. The City will review this aspect of the project along with all other facets, when the full EIR is available to the public. If there are any questions, please contact me. rSincerely, Ross E. Cox Assistant Director of Municipal Services/ City Engineer r r 1 505 FOREST AVE. LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 0 TEL (714) 497-3311 , FAX (714) 497-567.2 Community Development Department Ctv of Irvine. One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92713 (714) 724-6000 July 13, 1990 Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: Technical Memorandum (TM 3-22) San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Floodplain Hydraulic Study, April 9, 1990 Dear Steve: Subject study has been reviewed by the City and the following comments are offered: Any flood control channel work in Irvine shall be done in accordance with the Flood Control Master Plan for San Diego Creek. All channel designs shall consider soft bottom channel alternatives in accordance with City policy. Any work which causes a change in the FIRM shall result in the Corridor Agency initiating the FIS and FIRM revisions through the City, including supplying all documentation required by FEMA to complete the map revisions. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Richard Monroe at 724-6410. si�n/c/1erely, '��6L A William M. Huber City Engineer file: sjhtc.fldstdy 1-1 I I I � I � i STATE OF CALIFONNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GE'ORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION w DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION i POST OFFICE BOX 942896 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94296-0001 (916) 445-8006 REPLY TO:FHWA840724A March 3, 1988 Mr. Bruce Cannon Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Region Nine - California Division P.O. Box 1915 Sacramento, California 95809 Re: Archaeological Survey Report, Results of Cultural Stage I Investigations for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Dear Mr. Cannon: The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has reviewed and would ' like to comment on the above -referenced document. The survey report is thorough and professional, reflecting considerable thought and an enthusiasm over blending theory, method, and management that is refreshing. We find the survey aspect of the document more than adequate to ensure that cultural resources within the right-of-way, as delineated at the time of the survey, have been identified. We find the Significance Assessment Methodology (multivariate analysis) interesting, particularly for large-scale projects, and it is worthy of refinement and further testing. It is unfortunate that the study was unable to determine the National Register eligibility of the majority of sites. We. have only one further comment on this section at this time. The tables presenting and summarizing the data related to the Significance Assessment Methodology are difficult, to read and poorly ' reproduced. After reviewing the "preliminary assessment", we agree that archaeological sites CA-Ora-218,and -1033, are ineliginle for ' inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. We look forward to review of evaluations of the remaining properties within the direct impact area, upon completion of Phase II testing and evaluation. This evaluation will, we assume, include ' discussions of archaeological sites CA-Ora-125,-107,1.and -1086, which you suggested can oe determined eligiole without further testing. 1 J You have also requested our views on the applicability of the preliminary research questions identified in the HPSR. The research focus and associated questions discussed in the document tap into many issues and research directions of current interest in archaeology. The authors have more than touched on the relevant research domains and have made an attempt to articulate such domains, hypotheses within those domains, and related research questions to project area archaeological resources. However, the model that the consultants present (the Subsistence Focus Model) is only one of many possible models, although most incorporate the stated research domains in some fashion._ A research design should tie methods to the specific questions that in turn relate to the theoretical model. Thus, if one chooses to test or- use a different model, the focus of the research and the associated methods might vary. A researcher should be able to develop and/or test his or her model of choice, so long as that model is based on fundamental and important research directions agreed upon by mainstream archaeology. This implies some freedom in developing the specific methods that are appropriate to a chosen model. We recommend that the scope of work for Phase II testing not constrain proposers to follow the specific model developed in the Phase I work, although that model is by no means inappropriate. In addition, while the Significance Assessment Methodology developed in the Stage I study is promising, the Phase II consultant should not be constrained to use it, if it conflicts with a different yet acceptable methodology. We are willing to review and comment on the scope of work for the Phase II testing program, as it will establish the parameters for the work by which cultural resources will be evaluated. Thank you for considering historic properties during project planning. If you have any questions please contact Mr. Robert Jackson of our staff, at (916) 322-9602. Sincerely, Kathr n ualtieri Y State Historic Preservation Officer d 1 7 1 1 E 1 E RCV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; IJUL 20 190 10:28 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO 714 56275303 P.8/8 ;# 8 1 1 1 Christian New Napor Victoria C. 3affe ftorpro AM William S. Crayeraft C; wwibnan Robert A. Curtis Councilman Norman R Murray Councilman July 20, 1990 City of ffiSS.10P.V1,eio Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mena, CA 92626 Subject: Coordination with Local Jurisdiction Regarding Flood Plain Encroachment of the Sa Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC Dear Steve: ' In response to your July 2, 1990 letter regarding matter, please find enclosed a copy of the cityrs re he Fiew subject of the Technical Memorandum TM3-22. If you have any questions, please feel free to give either myself or Mr. Eric Crissman at BSI a call. Sincerely, DMWIS R. WILBBRG Director of Public Works City Engineer ' DRW/el Encl. DW-90225 26522 La Alameda • Suite 190 • Mission Viejo, California 92691 7141582•CUY FAX 7141582-; 530 RCV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; JUL 20 '90 10:24 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO 714 5827530-� ;# 2 P . 2/8 J." , 1 BSI Consultants, Inc. f July 17, 1990 Mr. Dennis R. Wiiberg k Director of Public Works CITY OF MISSION VIWO 26522 La Alameda, Suite 190 Mission Viejo, California 92691 ' I SUBJECT: First Review of San Joaquin HM Transportation Corridor Floodplain Hydraulic Study, Techni;cai. Memorandum TM3-22. Dear Mr. Wilberg: BSI Consultants, Inc. has given careful review of the technical document for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC), Floodplain Hydraulic Study. This check of Technical ' Memorandum TM3-22 included hydraulic and environmental concerns as thby relate to the proposed six -lane major connector road. This report is divided into two train areas. The first addresses minor concerns which include presentation, labeling, and sentence I structure. The second addresses conceptual concerns for the overall project, which includes design concept, references, and conclusions. , Minor Concerns Figure 3 This map is upside down and difficult to read. All other maps in the report are oriented to have north at the top of the page. This figure has north at the bottom of the page. i i Figure 3 The "Tustin Plain," "Santa Ana Mountains," "Laguna Bills," "Santiago Hills, and "Ortega Highway," do not appear on the map. I i Figure 3 Items not legible include: Laguna. Canyon Road, Niguel Creek Channel, and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. i i Section 3.1 How are the valleys and gently rolling hills aligned from northwest to southwest. Does this indicate a semi -circular bowl shape? E � 8JRTC tvw.aci„r/eo E 1415 East 77th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701 • (714) 558•1952 •FAX (714) 543.7473 FAX RCV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 4010 ; 1 JUL 20 '90 10:25 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO 714 5827530-3 P.3/8 ; # 3 1 Mr. Dennis R. Wilberg City of Mission Viejo RE: SWC Floodplain Hydraulic Study First Review ' My 17, 1990 Page 2 ISection 3.2 In reference to Laguna Canyon tributary area: What does Lagu a Canyon Road and Route 133 have in common? If they are different, please f state and define their connection. If they are the same, please state as such. I Section 3.3 In reference to Ahso Creek Watershed: The fourth line menti�ns "no drainage ' improvements" and "extensive storm drain improvements" in th same sentence. If these are two separate thoughts, please break them into twc sentences. 1 �I 1 L 1 Figure S This figure has no north arrow, but does appear to be upside 3. Page 7 The text jumps from page 7 to page 18 with figures and between these pages. Perhaps it would be more organizedto and the figures and references in the back. Table 2 What is "Conventional," "Demand Management," and "No no discussion of these labels in the text leading up to this i from Figure sandwiched the text first, ect"? There is Table 3 What does "No Emergency Evacuation" mean? What is "Yes or "No" in the column marked "Natural/Beneficiar? Bonita The term "wetland mitigation" literally means a "lessening. of etlands." If the Channel phrase is meant to lessen the adverse impacts on the existing etlands, please state it as such. If the phrase is meant to shrink the wetlands, additional environmental review may be necessary. Coyote Canyon Creek The alignment of Coyote Canyon Creek will be from the interchange of Ford Road and Bonita Road, up to the interchange of Pelican H I Road and an unnamed facility. What facility will interchange with Pelican IHill. Road? Figures 1 & 2 The symbol for State Highway is correct. The symbol used for Interchange Freeway is not shown on the map. I-5 and I-405 are shown as' T.S. Highways. Table 2 Cannot locate Stations 616+00 and 5344-00 on maps WkrrCRV W.EC/nu/80 C RCV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; JUL 20 '90 10:25 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO Mr. Dennis A. Wilberg City of Mission Viejo RE: SJRTC Floodplain Hydraulic Study Pirst Review July 17, 1990 Page 3 714 58275Z0-) Section 5.1.1 This section references a "Build Alternative" from Caltrans 11.988. What is the "Build Alternative"? In Section 5.1.2, Project Alternative"? ;# 4 P.4r8 t five Order is the "No Section 5.1.3 After discussing "Build Alternative," "No Alternative,"' Pelican Hill Road, and - realignment of Bonita Channel in the previous section, which 'The Project" is being discussed in Section 5.1.31.7 Table 5 This table has an asterisk for Narco Creek. No legend appea;s, to explain this mark. Section 3.3 The runoff is Laguna Canyon has Niguel Creek Channel. located in San Diego Creek Drainage Basin? Is it San Diego Channel, or both? channel is ' , or Bonita Section 3.3 Major waterways not included in the runoff section are: nita Channel, Coyote Creek, Laguna Canyon Channel, and Aliso Creek. In , me cases they may be implied, but not specifically stated. Each of the waterways appear on the FIRM map as a major crossing of the SJHTC. General Labeling Is "Coyote Canyon Creek," "Coyote Canyon," and "Coyote C you Wash" all the same waterway, or do they each represent something diff ,rent? Section 5.1.3 Are there a few examples of "incompatible development".) commercial sites, utility installations, military reservations, or c that no development of any bdnd may ever be built within SJHTC? Conceptual Concerns 1. 1 E Is this housing, oes this indicate ' the area of the The introduction to the SJHTC project has a lot of good information as far as project mission and general location. It does not, however, make mention of s ific titles and terms used later in the text. The concepts of: Build Alternative, Ike d .Management, Alignment, Conventional Alignment, Conventional Concept, Conventional Project SJJCrCRVW.EC/mrl80 1 1 C 1 1 RCV BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; IJUL 20 190 10:26 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO 714 5827530� P . 5/e ;# 5" 7 1 P I I I 1 Mr. Dennis R. Wilberg City of Mission Viejo RE: SJHTC Floodplain Hydraulic Study First Review July 17, 1990 Page 4 Alternative, Demand Management Concept, No Project Alternative, Development are unknown until encountered in the report. The sketchy explanation fails to specifically confirm the exact idea of each term. Incompatible titian or light 2. A brief summary of related projects should be involved in the introduction'. It is a surprise to discover other affected projects burred in the text without prior lmowlede. These would include Pelican Hill Road, channel work, and other construction ects that affect pr7 SJHTC. 3. The report mentions wide medians that are sufficiently designed to meeti high occupancy vehicles (HOV), or light rails. Such information is beneficial to the ove� I visualization of the SJHTC project. 4. As an aid to the reader, the report includes a description of existing terrain. and drainage patterns. Reference is also made to Federal and OCEMA requirements for water flow changes of not more than 1.00 foot in water surface elevation and no velocity greater than 10 feet per second, f 5. The sequence of events connected with Bonita Channel include: realign Ponta Channel, build Pelican Hill. Road, realign Bonita Channel a second time, remove Polican Hill Road, and build San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. If the two time4anmes are fairly close, it seems a waste to construct and realign channels and roadways wih the knowledge that they will be deleted soon by a new project. I b. An option to lower a 1.3 mile section of the Santa Ana Freeway to be 1� feet below the 100 year flood elevation does not appear to be a desirable option. A levee and retaining wall system is included to address the concerns of flood protection on thisfimportant major freeway. It may also be noted that if flooding did occur, Orange County jwould be sealed off from San Diego County along its only major coastal route. This study is limited to hydraulic topics only, and makes no .recommendation as to highway design. From a. flood protection .point of view, it is, generally more desirable to raise emergency access and common traffic facilities above the flood elevation, rather than to design lbelow this flood elevation. ! WXrCRVW.Wmrrsa 1 RCV BY:XEROx TELECOPIER 7010 JUL 20 '90 10:27 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO Mr. Dennis R. Wilber& City of Mission Viejo RE: SJHTC Floodplain Hydraulic Study First Review July 17, 1990 Page 5 714 5827530-3 This lowering of the Santa Ana Freeway and related levee/retaining wall cantly change the flood pattern. From the information presented, it will effect on drainage facilities near, or within, the City of Mission Viejo. 7. In Section 5.1.4. Will the SJHTC project include any landscape replacement, or erosion protection? This may affect both the envirc hydraulic analysis. S. The increase in runoff (Section 5.2) shows an increase of 5%. reasonable judging by the total area of watershed (not less than 700 the area of new paved section (not more than 10 acres). will not signifi- have little to no ng, natural tree at measures and Ls figure seems s), compared to 9. The report includes the use of energy dissipators and rip -rap as a metho10 to reduce flow velocity, prevent unnecessary erosion, and maintain a natural habitat for a 'sting plant and animal life. 10. Two locations within the City of Mission Viejo will be affected by the c SJHTC. The Park -and -Ride facility for Crown Valley Parkway will be Creek, but does not enter the floodplain. ,on of the near Oso The Park -and -Ride facility for Alicia Parkway will realize the effect of a Manned retarding basin. Since a 5 foot rise in the flood elevation will be created, the City of Mission Viejo is aware that the new parking facility will be well above the 100 year flood water elevation. Additional review will be necessary to determine the flood hazard to Viejo from backwater created in Aliso Creek. mm The report depicts a road project and related drainage concerns as it affects i environmental balance, During the course of the report, labels and concepts which leads to an inexact presentation of conceptual ideas. Further inve order to determine the more specific impact to existing life forms that exist SJHTC alignment. The report addresses construction methods, protected control to protect the environment, but does not mention specific details. XfCrCRVW.=Mrie0 City of Mission protection and ;e their names, ion may be in the proposed s, and erosion I 1 1 J 1 1 RCU BY:XEROX TELECOPIER 7010 ; I JUL 20 '90 10:27 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO 714 5827530-3 P.7i8 L 1 i 1 F 1 Mr. Dennis R. Wilberg City of Mission. Viejo RE: SJUX Floodplain Hydraulic Study First Review July 17, 1990 Page 6 The City of Mission Viejo is concerned with hydraulic impacts to Aliso Creek Trabuco Creek. From the information provided in this report, there.appear to changes to the drainage patterns as they relate to the City of Mission Viejo. a of Aliso Creek may have some impact on the City, but cannot be determined sincerely, ESI Consultants, Inc. Eric A. Crissman, R.C.E. Project Manager cc: Jeff Thompson, Division Manager 8WCavw.'8C/= o Oso. Creek, and e no detrimental ;kwater flooding n this study. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APP.ENDU H TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT ,ATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ., OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR A 1120 N STREET P.O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94273-0001 December 20, 1989 DIRECTOR'S TITLE VI POLICY STATEMENT 11 j Utilization of and access to all departmental programs, services, and/or benefits to be derived from any Caltrans activity will be administered without regard to race, color, national origin or sex. Y will not tolerate discrimination against any participant or beneficiaries of Caltrans services by a Caltrans employee in the performance of assigned duties or implementation of a departmental policy'or practice.. The-Caltrans Title VI Plan provides the direction and program structure for ensuring that we are in compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which mandates nondiscrimination by any agency receiving Federal funds. The Plan focuses on functional areas _-with_-responsibilities- that.__require significant -..public contact, but I also expect every Caltrans manager, supervisor and employee to be aware of and apply the intent of Title VI when performing duties. I firmly believe that how we treat people - whether employees or the general public - is a reflection of how we, Caltrans as an organization, accept our responsibility of being in the forefront of governmental agencies providing an essential service designed to enhance the quality of life for California Residents and visitors. /4- ROBERT" . BEST' Director of Transportation P i APPENDIX I HOUSING AND BUSINESS'DISPLACEMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 mmm =no m nil m I C Q W S Q z W N N W Cie Q C cm Q 1�1 J Z O C'J N �C9 h O ►-t W �t N W W •"c O VN l O Q O H CL Cie ham-• CQ..Q.I W UP V dLLI H E aH w O H W W W U m hCd Q � QO.Z W L.i LLA Z W C- 1. Q W Z � > > > 4- Ef#' 4- 4-- 4- >> >'?.'• >> >> U U E;i3? U U U Co +-) L i i 1 1 Om C tm -O N 1 'II r- O -0 O E I •'- -Q I •r U O CL J CO0 r- C •N tv >> i O >> i cQ +� +� O C L •� 4-3 O C +-3 O +-) C to -C tv tv O r- tv W +-) d E O O U S- r- L C 3 •O O a4- M •r i a4- O -Q •r r— L CO +-) >> f— S- oo O 0 i tv O O M co C Orr -O t Cu C O i i a)LL- L O O >SU U -0 to a-c M tv N O.= Mcd •r L' \ i U W •r +-) C > •I•) N i-J C 0 N C -0 tv -0 1L 1-4 L O •r r- tv 1-- L O C O V) cU CO 4-3 C (0-0 L U O r- C tv L U O r- O i Q) U O C M C C O, O C co O CL 1= O Z CtS >, LLI •r tY J. O CO U tv CL N O V) U N L L S - > E > c�C cCQ V U cc C O C O tc a O U = d' >. tN C C C C C ILS c� t� cti c>1 r• I r- I r- I r I r- I M 4-3 L i L i i a a a a a O O O O O U U U U U LO O to Ln LO M ti M M ch O' •.i O Q N N \ N tT \ N r! Z r- O Z (0 •-t N M st LO n N m a) am m aT O O H 4- t•-c 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- CM O O Or Or- Or- O N a) Cl) a) 4-) GG +� 4-3 C1 .- M 4J M r'7 UZ UZ UZ UZ UZ U U N i U ro to W I V Z O O Z c0o tv y a) 31 tvV) c •a 3 V) a) U to Q O �L •� d 'p a) I ,C C Q a) E y i ,G Ad O c ,G O Q •r- _) a) i 4- co -C S.• •r- Z -0 O i O i a) V) -r to i •r•) > M a) to co 4- to O i V) cc (A W •r- •r a) 'p to Q) +J 4-) tv a) >, i l c a) N C. r O J W 4-) O � Cl.. V) C +J .- Cl. i C U i C- r- +.t a) to S- O co C O N V) tm-• c i r- •r- i co U a) a) O y -t7 to •r- V) c s L) I V O I O a) U S- W •r- O O •r- O i i •r- •r- c O O O U r •r- S- •r- r V) 4- t i r- U a) a) tv E •� U c 4-j 4- S- Z G u U i c to (A i (1) i U y E r +-) a) •r- 4-J -r .a (A 4-) U (2) O i •r- a) J r- •r- to +.i i •r- � r- E a) to 4-j to c U (L) c to i Q1 to U -0 ft Z C) Z O Q Q Q• U Q Q U C 4 V l) ►� p' E d d U V) M: - j a- r_ ZZ I CA I Q 1••1 r � r r I •O r �1 Z co O co y tv .� r 4-3 y co r to y O CS N 4-3 c •r- 4-) 4-) c r- V) a) co CC co •r- • m,) 3 •r- +.) +•o c Cl* r- •t- 4-1 +-) c Z ~ c= = .' a) E c a) O E c E U In i c a) U F- O -Q O -0 4-2 a) O -C7 .c i co a) r U (1) E -p 4-) i a) a) 'C 4-3 44 " W • V) C •N .N O E r r- i E +3 •r- i W O C'U OCQ F- UN coLLJ Q UU tYQ V) = O •• _J 1-•• J 1•-• � I y r Q LA. O -C O _ -O O •L? -0 •p d OC c i c i c y \ co a) ro O ro E•-c O W)r y c "Q O r 4J r 1Z a) r Li J GC O Q O I r cm tv c I r C7� r co tv c cv r— to c to c + co c a C= Z �- ¢ Q i i cc to i i$- tv to = i to r i i i 0 i i i i i I••'G.J C.Q. G=4-3 t1 4- y tv cc O C1CU to tv =my to t4 tZG W cm �•r Z !- !- Z MC LLI cm G O \ � � .~J p CD O O O ►�Q U U Q O N CD N l0 p CV ce p W) J CC O r-r N d O N O d• ,Ir^ V) W W W U m r--r I r.l 1-4 LO e--1 Ll) d• tl) to O N I I O I I I st I V) do = Q d Z M to c'M t0 M d• t'M N (14 Ll') CV) tD O to w tO d tD W t� Z W W ar U- Q W S ce Q m U tD O W LL M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 h z 0 v 0 h oa G Z a W a Z tW/1 N W c C9 4 G J Oct C co a:c J Z O CD N � W h O as W W W w • J � Oa. W� ZatF- t••t O N oao CL ce F� C6 -j W ca H 2ca aLLJ �Q �G ,HW W W C.)m NCt:E a CL 2c W c� z W W CL L. Q W Z C9 a) a) a) a) a) m m Cs En C) a) tT is Cm c a c c c c c eo rC co rC tv cC cc 0 0 0 0 o " 0 0 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4-) 4-) N •-) 4-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U CU I i I 1 C C lD Z7 C N a) JaG N"0 O •r- N •N -0 M a) 1 0 E L. 00 a) i cc m to O ••- 01 'C O a) cis r- O O r (1) N CC a) tY r 00 i cis r r O 4-) Ca i cc N i 0 •� N r a) +) C •r•- co a' X N 4-) U 0 N O a) i 4•3 O a) cc to a) m Z7 H •r- O_ i • •�•� I a) m 1 tC C i •1 ) CM 4-) 4-3 C eC C -+3 •r- a) '0 N - C) a) �--+ a) r C a) a) O cc H O c--c a•C 4-3tC a) S" cc o "C •r- }t O rC = r - I -0 r d' (M = C O a) (A 0 "C r = Z tC O .0 cC tC (1) cc r ¢ a) = N = I.t_ a) (C 1 O a) 3X: U O O U to > •e— VN rC U -r- o\ > •� N to 4-3 C1 i U N a) r i a) U to ..0 4-3 r i a) r a) r 0 I= i a) •t•-) r i i= a) -0 i a N O 1 a) O O a) -0 r U= CC 3 CC •t) H O CO o CL 4-3 i. in 0 0 U- r i -o CL 4-,) i •�- CC O t Z a) C O .c a) • -3 (1) cC o O +3 .0 •r rC r tC CO a) CO O y iE c� Cam• c�3 c tnN�� tntn >t� cC O r r r r r •�- •� cc rC cC tC cc a) E 4-3i S- O X O O a) O O C 1= U W U U U U �•+ a) i rC tC U U r r O -�G ,L N O I 1 i I i I i I i r tTi r 4-3 tT r cC r tc r4-3 tC C tC N C cC a cc a to N 4•) -id d--) r -NL +J "C 4-3 "C •tom r i i i r i i C i G i r ca r,s to o to ea cc co tv to 0 a s a 4- a ar ar a 4- 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 o z z U U U U U N O qI" ^ n N 00 N O Cl O O O •-t r•t N r -t N CD CD CD 40 CD CD N I O I N N N N N %D tp t I n 1 1 L P. UD tD tD to to t to Cc3 ^ cli co ON O� r~-c f-4 a•. p z 4c LU z LLI w N W p OG z p ap J Q p co z z Jz 0 C9 m Z H w H O LLI !C Q) LLI= W C9 w > L) CL cl: H O Vf LLJCLO oao W H p M.aa F— CL J LLJ z I— c� oc �¢ LLd CL F — �a rn rn CD rn 0) o� W o� CD rn O O O O O O O 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- O O O O O O O A �•, A >) C C C C U U U U U U tJ I I ni!f C eo to O C \ tCo tCQ \ .CL to Y O 1 N to O N L U U L C 3 i (1) i 4-) M y a) "I •-• C�'3 i 0 C N N 4-) O O r— 4-) i 0 U 00 V! 0 CL00 •r- (1) i N O. r- \ O C •t- 0) r- •'- O +) en — O 4- M Cl C i O +) F- to 1= LN eo C •E •r- N -r- i cc to T! r- to E C -1 O 00 to O C C V) C ice. I R r- (-) I CU LL• cc •r- 0) to e0 N U U O +J O N eo •r- M CO O U U .G p U L. m 01 U U V! L.L. cz C U i Ln C r- C O O +-) C IT 1 0 (1) •r- C •r- +) 0 0 O e0 IT C C E-Nd N (A •r- to C Cf-0 i •r- tC r- N W C •r- a •r' -0 •r- •r- 0) Vf U ce) •t- ,L i (A •t- C O +- L 4-) r- t0 •e- O 4-J •� +3 C V) E r- •C O M Q S- O i E to O N U C O 'p t0 CL X« S E CL V)LMu QOF-NU CL- (AUU OLL.O gtn to tcNU L�LnU \ «s to tt1 tv eo to U U t0 U U E E U O ►c U LLJ U U Vl C C u S- U U \ r- to i, to r +> 4-3 ro CL to •�- \ I I r •� I 4-) 0) r- r• +� 4-) r- I r— i i r- i r- r- to O O O to tU O O CL 4-) 4- 4- sZ CL 4- co ' i I I Cl cr) O O N d• r-t 11 rH tV 00 csi N N (V N d• d• 0 0000 N N I Ir I O Ill� . I O f\ .. I I-. rH L.LJ 1 I t0 to O t0 O t0 N r" to to M d• LO t0 n 00 M r-4 r~ r••t r-t rH r 4 r1 Ln 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 z 0 C H e-t CC 7 C Z a LLI Z Z N N W cz a4 ca � 1••1 J Z O co N M C. h O ►-+ uj W W • J � F• J �— d L6 Z cc I-- " O NN LL J cz oaoi LLI F- G G.pGZ LLI co h•e �a � o=c aLLI "a w 0 V) LLI W Wum NNGCZ 0 Q =• a o. z �c LLI Z LLI OG Lj G- U. Q w S = o� rn Q) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 0 O O O O O O O N 4J 4 .� � U U U U V CO' cOj V M O N O i 00 O C O 1 >_ N L >> tV L 1 L N L co E N L O to +- r- a- O •i- O U •r M +)- r- U I I N •r I N d 0 OO I N J C 00 (A d O .r ¢ CO •IZ L CL etf •i- d. -p •r• O . +-) 41 IZ N (AO N N O , r— •r0- O. N w LL C to O T C O C to Cf�. C A «t - CM C aTU M U -J to ev O ed U •r CO t0 U I U r— Co tv .O cc cc L N L U L i r N L O L N i U L O O - O O r 4- -Q O i 41 d U O cc {- tt3 •i- m C >-, cc a)N (AC cc O W I CAII1•r O W I N O CD •r 4- +-) .r > •r M 4J •r .a 4 L C •r •r 'N'O •r N E 4- CA ;= cc I.. d N E E L. G. O •r E ty IM C. L O C. cc O O «J i O eQ C O etJ •r d eQ r R7 t s= etS O R la QU m=U I — NU .0U LUUU I—•rU GNU r- r• r— r— r— r- r- r-- cc tv .0 .u,i •i i C p C E U C01 U U U U U U V U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O L i i- a- d- a- i- N 1 N I N I N 1 N I N N N r— r r- r• r I r•-- 1 r— I r— r—r- 4- 4- 4- 4- CD CDU 0 0 LO to 0 Co I I 1 0 I 0 0 0 re r, r--c I I I r I '••e I rl- I r--r N I N I N 1 N N N N N n f\ n I n I f` I I I tD to tD tD to to to tM0 N N N N N N N N t0 G Q LaL a x tW/f (/) � H C OWG Z G 4c -4 sic C co Z Z J Z O C9 IV Z cd 1- O " LLI W = LAJ HJL=- 4 LL. S OG F•- �-+ O V) LL -J cl: O 4LLJ O F-1 G. OG Z Nd ::No'. co F-+ Z F- n.� 4. t- z C� oe a w'I � 41 CIC O V) -L GG toWLLI V)w= aa.z W V Z LLd LLA G. LL 4 LLJ 3c ce. >` O � •n O� a) to •�- J LI - C co i to L cc L to L 4..) O 4-3 O 4-J O 4J a) •� 7 N '7 N ''7 N t'7 N •i•J M N O CL C C1 C C1 C a. co co co to ro to fC co UZ V)U V)U V)U V)U I eo I ro •'- to •� o E O C o 033 03 03 L O I N to N O O CL V) CS•\ V) a) CL\ (n (1) CL\ V) a) a) ca E I-� L L cn •N i 00•� •�-a0 O O to O t 000 cCo X 4-) U Cl N F- N 4mJ J • m3 J W (A N •'- # •'- i CL L 1 N r— >> •)•) 4-2 r C C1 co I ro cc i C r to C r C r C r i c0 U U a) L co a) 0 3C O O (1) o N O � \'O >> O +j O tv a) to to cc N L (1) C C O C U •n'p C '� •p •n •t-7 •p N O N to •e— 3+•>> C1s O (1) N COUW Q4m)J Qa.,, r r— r V U L� O a) r r r ice. L O L O U co to co co to O r r r r r 4-3 r r r r r N to to cc to to r L L i i i 4-- a a• a. c o . O O O O O O U U U U U U a �• Lo 00 LO I N N N r-1 Co I I I 1 N r-4 O CD O CD O C) O 1 -4 I 1 I I I O O O O O O � LO Ln LO U") LO r-4 to to to LO LO N N M M M m 0 4-3 O r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 c r_ to c tv c (a c cc S- tC S- etf s- to S- r_ c c 4-3 O 4-3 O 4-3 r- C. c CL C CL c CL c CL (A (A (A ra tv IV IV to CO tv rd to u (n L) C4 u (4 u 0 C%i tv 0) -lid S- -Nd :�iWli 0 IV S- -04 CL LLI 0 tv r_ C"i tv m cm U) 0 0 c 0 >j 0 2c WN* (D 4-3 M rO cc kv V) (A = S- = i r_ tm r_ im r- cm r_ tm ca ro S- o O W) (A r- a) 4-) a) CD r- 0 W -r- 0 (3) C 0 a) C 0 (A 9:1- CA = CC LAJ cu 0 -0 -0 -0 4-):i�:p.:::: 0 U 4-) (M -r- (A U U -, C4 U -� 'A U. 2c ev tA S- (A (A = c (4 = c 0,-1.4--'l.'-'j, �.7-77K 0 ��;4; J, cc 4 . . . . . . . ,> 4c 1= a u CL) to (L) o cu (L) 0 cc a) o cc (D o v 4-):j�t*-Z 4-) . 4.) CC to J 4C X V) F- (n In Cl. 1 3: C3 2c 2c 2C C) ro tv cc CM N 4-) 4-) 4-3 (D r- 2c c r_ 0 0 u 1.4 cd S- Q) CL) a) S- S- Su- I-- CD (D -0 -0 (1) (1) trCCl) P-4 LaJ 0 V) (A S- CC uj = u OC tY W- 4-3 L) L) U LLI C: _j U=U ,cc a a -0 "a CL cc c c r_ 0 c 0 = ce I-- A-4 CD V) LL. --i ce r r r r r r r r 0 ac o to to to to to to to to b-.4 •I- ram LLI I- C 4.3 4-) 4-) 4-3 41 4-) 4-) 4-3 C. &,o 2c S- S- S- S.- S- L. S.- L. cc tv to to ca tv cc CL CL CL 0- CL 0. LLI 2c 2c u C9 ,cc LLI in ocm CL. = -i CD CD u u w u cm fm co LO nr CD rl� co' C%i C%j m Md, -d I I CD I I 1-4 r-4 Lc) —1 1" V) _j w C%i N r--f * ft r-4 r-q V) Ui LLI CD CD Cl CD CD CD m CD CD Lai Q ca I I I I I I -q- I I V) 9= Ic CD Co C) C) Cl (D — C) C� W) a= LO Lr) U*) an LO -W ce) .4, Id" CC0. 2c to to to uj LLJ LLJ C. LL. ox uj qr& Ln tD P.. CO CA (D f-4- sc W CIP) Ce) m CV) cn cn qr Rd" G Z a W Q z W N_ N W G fY C G J Q G C'J 1-4 Z z Jz 0 C4 N H ce F- O H W W = uj �I H J � aLA.� oa 11400 oao N LLI H d 49C W ci M �» a i-- z c� cc uj z -j �a fY hJGC W v m W Q= Q a. z W V z W w W d. L . Q W S = �: o to tvv i::: :;? CC J J C tC T- 4- 1 •O O O E N+- O R7 � O r N •'- O Or¢ 4- S-4-3 N•n r o to O N cC •�S O N N '� O Z 4 cC 0) OD1•r- U Om O •' - tC C C L C cC== > O•r-N r= U r- O r E C B Y O r 3 c -a O Nl i- N •� O c0 C M O O •� I tC 00 1— = ►-4 .J = u 4--) to d N r r r r rC «t rC r •u O V C d C N C a) Cd •U E E O V O 3 -v O U cC r r O r r - r 4-3 r r R! N RS fV N tv a rC CL d C. 00 Cl N N �--� 1 '�h N N O �'•� N N •-i CV r-4 co O C G LO M N O to tMp tD tM0 m st 2 d• el• I I APPENDIX J VISUAL GRAPHICS I E, I I I �n��l��. � +.N'L..t ,meµ y� / •� �� -�1��_ .��i .. ��1�� ^^- ��- na+t�� r�'.�,,1��rR�6��y�•f �Y "`�..w:.„�'T�W +fit " ��'.':• , w,C, —."."_r , `i•.. ... � �+-� ,VFW- ' � �,,� ., f. i �: ,;-,.�'�c mac•, a,'u�.ti�=4; � '1�a�:.:l.'I��r �in1'�•'�`�` .�t'� 1 'a i K t •T+c :M.. r..•*-.`3 .r- �a-,t- `s _sue'' ......: "�r'ss• av t.�Ys..` •� . '•=.` cs��i� :"' �'y.-.-..a-` '�.�R. . d' � < 'ham T x_,...• �,{''' "�,i�-�"�,,,,,i �` � ' '.�'N� ,. .'S __• i t Y y�� ..� 1� i .tom u y -f , ,...: � � ....�. L • ��ayw �� ai•' � �. „�. �•;«S� ti � way `�',w �� '` " •«.; �{ : � �,y . �, , =�":;N j�y,3�... ,�/'!�1y - ...+�+• a, �� .,.,,.•'�`,•iaa'�.•+,+..+� �•,.'. •'� � 'x'n �Y wr � ,y{3� � 'r'i � V- "+ Y •p�!''Oi ..1• � �M. �,}••.yy��"'•.�£. -:, "\�'"2. _x,,, tr '� K' ^ _ �� i.,,glv�}+ .e � s. ... ' ,,.r S• .�" �., ,�tYt�J 'c"sv�a �i N"`�.. � �V��, s s z-'i:.—io .co. ��`� %w •�N �'r ram., �` � �'�•"•�^' ��i' <• R• \�:� � �scsA �,... 1. 4'�� 4 ii��a +p,,a� IN(.:F 11 1 1 IX7 wf 1 1 i 11 I 1 1 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR EL TORO ROAD / LAGUNA CANYON ROAD INTERCHANGES SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION -CORRIDOR BARRIER TOLL PLAZA [SAND CANYON AVENUE INTERCHANGE ' INTERCHANGE ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE J-2 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PELICAN HILL ROAD INTERCHANGE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR FORD ROAD INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE J-3 I 1 1 1 1 Fj' SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR BISON AVE L MACARTHUR BLVD LJAMBOREE RD INTERCHANGE INTERCHANGE ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE J-4 J \mix LA 3 tm cc ,r- CL O.0 > t, .fir'`• � ' _ C1LL V �• s'ss fit ,s.Ci`.._ C O G.+� ,o ;i` r tit .::• ` +... a% '�'1 vi �. ,,_-....__,., :.f,`. \t �i ti ,=".�Sxx.:K��:,�:y.•y /• ....... uu'," t•A.�: ��' :w'•,}�•.. ' r, •'' .. - ... ..i' :.-`::,-. `. / µv. ';: ..+' " // ... . ii :. i':-.`Siri:: '.l-lea 3 cm \ N, Yy;`,'♦,'":T!1;;J,i ::.tH:• // -- e2''w �;:. oYC.:e!'oY;" :.t. v \�5•;.tt.?€t ^�y�' ,1 to to i 4— M i ter:".. •R�`:� �,>,::::: ,'� • :'iiEij iiF ONO 3 .. '�:° t^.•1 •' P.. ;.. "5 N C) y.. r4— ��?t�• i•Y. '•:arm 1`H V •Y a .. »> +"� �ss Ri L Sr . firs n S` x.} ev N .s •r W / � 3 til a� a� tm to 4-3 N m 4-3 w a •\ •f: :l? 3 ys LL i t `•1 • h Y :S 1 t T �t•4tiQ}W+. i ti•:ti'�cr r�� t .n;>•Jy•. ':Cwr<i.. �.Y:�, :':•2".SpX �"3it;c:K Ske :,t• J C ° .:a n1e ) _ 3 _ : iAC ..V.: A:T j'i:E S:j )`.:i:' S. 4.. •'C "-- ,e�A ��.,r i1 N � � >' L '":;aM�^:ax>ra^:t;i:i''Y,r�'r^ 51 :•AY- f3 so `ems ,: ti•' `.0 ,: q '•v,••, }':'•v�•:�•'�v'•' �•`"^. .. ``tZ. �/' N �''" G1•:` ":..... •;�.;}GCS y.:�� _ ZQ 101, All Vv I If >i7fi'y`iy^.'" ,':,y �::� °\• /�"' Vt !`+•r•'... s•-� \ t ilk cc ui ,.J%' ,\.\" •`\ �'1 >4/ ::'i:. art �, .`� :t :I'ie'r'.ii $ .. (( 3` ,{,w:-:}s :�(4♦ ,R 1 .✓'r. e";i'e'ieiiiii::: } a �fi to .�a:-:�:'`::v' E�`� .�F.'!:•'.:;i is. > � •.�,•. - V ��L ''fir.."-°�r..,,,��•',rl..�:"»:��;x,�,..>: /s:; � fi �\. �'y. _ tv ++ / � o Rd f •.,,,,...' �5,� V, �f � f p'__..... '•' 4 LEq: ii<'li' ,._.. _� ,„ti'r 7 jj . ��. 22•";:': %4 was :•: h4n. ' � �.:� �''�' S`:i::.: ,,.sue :).•:'`• q - 'D��' bJ•.,}:•:»...• s5• '•f" >°°°^"y" €ss i `: ,b%" }N:>•'":��„\ � W ° _AAA{--- _ _..5' }'JiN:} '"�.a,,,:e,,,fr: 't is'••' 11,` . 5 i� > Tl _ ✓; ..._._ __y'��- ,yr�'ia:'' ,'•.`.S ''3>. �.a..P:a�i'•+.J�S•.....°� � ''ax a.s � � I O L 41 ,�',A': i �,. �,. L h ..:_ .tY w( :$Y: �`Mg ex .`�,,: ,..ti. f'/:^ `•�:L _".._> W V / uj uj a I o � o cc LU , ip Ir Oftbo aj v j- "4V IL le, z coo, > 0 55 f (n N. P7 U. 77 jL LU r 'w I 1� 7 W c D L1. J J D in 0 W r O a 00 7 0 M Q Z J O 0 w N V/ Lu m = = = = = M = M = M = M M = = = m m 9 fp 0 70 0 U a) C- h- t 3 a) -C 0 z a� f-- 0 3 a� m c X W 0 T W cc 0 M Y W W OC U O O C a 0 m 0 m a U Q, S� Y a O 0. CD w F J o J ai > > Z 0 c X m W U CM T 7 W cc 0 C) M Y cc a J a z O a W N O z � Q � V 0 G z O o O O _- Cl) J W a L- 0 70 0 C) a) C- F- CD Eli ma w 0 M - 0 Imz D z D _0 U) w a) H 0 a) 0) w a O oc z O z a U a z D c) R m m m m m m m m m m m w m m m m m m w • ��» x .; �.• rt`' •Se �i r S M-O-U r�. A.; i COcic Eli NCO (n, ' W m U J T 7 w V M L 0 70 i 0 U m t H 3 a� U) m w m 0 3 A m c X w m m m m m m= m m m i m m®= m m i I co t— I ui LL Y U O J cc D H m = = M = m = = = = � � m m M = m N co W a) C- F— O 4- 3r c X W a 0 cc 0 _cc 0 LL m m m m m m m m m m m r m m m m m w m 0 L 0 L 0 U a) I- t 3 a� F c� w a) F- 0 4- a) 0) �X W -N N w () M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Z, lk I", 00 4G 4- U) a> 3 0 z (1) 0 3 a) 0) c X W J a cr. w J U V m O 3 w O U Z a cc = m m=' r r r UA N 7 W C) M L- 0 70 0 U a� H 3 m E r r== r r m r= m= m m m r it U) (13 uj m H O a� 0) c X W r = = = r = = m i = = = = = r = r ti N 7 W C7 M 2 W F— U) U) J_ Q m F— Y W W U O U) J Q 0o N 7 C) M J' J' LU Qom, 2i Al u = = = = m r = = = = s = m m O) N 7 W C) M Y Q Q a- z O } z Q U Q W O m r � 1 na ag ¥ Aa � �' ii 'r4�l��1 • � �� b