Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FEIR_SJHTC_VOLUME_2_PART_1
FHWA-CA-EIS-90-D SCH. NO. 9001 0230 12-ORA-73 P.M. 0-15 E.A. 102540 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 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION VOLUME II - COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIR/EIS (4-22 to 8-36) • SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO: (State) Division 13, Public Resources Cade (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 Transportation Commission U.S. Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Fish and Game U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 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 0 • • INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DEIR TCA EIR/EIS 1 The following is a list of the agencies, groups and persons who commented on TCA DEIR/EIS 1. The comments received have been organized in a manner that makes finding a particular comment or set of comments easier. Each comment has been organized into one of the following eight categories: Federal Agencies (1), State Agencies (2), Regional or Local Agencies (3), Private Organizations and Groups (4), Utility Companies/Public Services (5), Corporations/Businesses (6), Other Interested Persons (7). This division is the basis for numbering each of the comments. Each comment is numbered using a trinomial (set of three numbers), with the first number reflecting one of the eight codes identified above. The second set of numbers identifies the sequence in which the comment letter was received by the TCA. Finally, the third set of numbers signifies the location of the comment within the letter. Thus, comment number 1-1-15 refers to the 15th comment in the U.S. Department of the Interior letter, which was the first federal letter received by the TCA. FEDERAL AGENCIES (1) 1-1 U.S. Department of the Interior Office of the Secretary 1-2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9 TATE AGENCIES (2 2-1 Office of Planning and Research 2-2 California Integrated Waste Management Board 2-3 California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region 2-4 University of California, Irvine - G.J. (Pete) Fielding 2-5 California Department of Parks and Recreation 2-6 University of California, Irvine - Department of Ecology and Evolu- tionary Biology 2-7 University of California, Irvine - San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Re- serve 2-8 California Coastal Commission 2-9 University of California, Irvine - Museum of Systemic Biology 2-10 California Transportation Commission 2-11 University of California, Irvine - Office of the Vice Chancellor CITIES1000NTIESIREGIONAL AGENCIES (3) 3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District 3-2 City of Newport Beach 3-3 Southern California Association of Government 01/21/910CA901CANDMOl.2) L' r: 3-4 City of Laguna Niguel 3-5 City of Laguna Beach 3-6 City of Mission Viejo 3-7 City of San Juan Capistrano 3-8 City of Irvine 3-9 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency 3-10 Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 3-11 Saddleback Area Coordinating Council, Inc. ATE ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS (4 4-1 Turtle Rock Glen Association - Art Bruington 4-2 Laguna Greenbelt - Norman Grossman 4-3 Laguna Canyon Property Owners Assoc. - Sandy Lucas 4-4 Laguna Canyon Conservancy - Sarah Rapuano 4-5 League of Women Voters - Linda Rushing 4-6 Spyglass Hill Community Association 4-7 Sierra Club Angeles Chapter - Stanley Hart 4-8 Orange County Recreational Trails Committee - Marlene P. Sandler 4-9 Women for Orange County - June Bickford 4-10 Coalition of Neighborhood Associations in Laguna Beach (CONA) - Molly King 4-11 North Laguna Homeowners' Association - Pauline Walpin 4-12 Laguna Hills Community Association - Joel Lautenschlegar 4-13 Women for Orange County - Francesjane Kapsch 4-14 Leisure World Residents to Save the Canyon - Dave Blodgett 4-15 Nellie Gail Homeowners' Association - Meserve, Mumper and Hughes 4-16 Alliance for Survival - Marion Pack 4-17 Committee to Stop the Toll Road - Jean Kennedy 4-18 Committee to Stop the Toll Road - Karl T. Jenks 4-19 Friends of the Irvine Coast - Fern Pickle 4-20 Sierra Bonita Homeowners Association - Barry Partners 4-21 Stop Polluting Our Newport - Don Harvey 4-22 Natural Resources Defense Council - Joel R. Reynolds 4-23 California Wildlife Campaign - Garven L. Walker 4-24 Temple Hills Community Association - Sharon Heath 4-25 Friends of Historic San Juan Capistrano - Mark B. Clancey 4-26 Rancho Niguel Homeowners Association - Audrey Grider 4-27 Coronado Homeowners Association - Herb Boswell 4-28 California Native Plant Society - David Bramlet 4-29 Laguna Greenbelt - Jeanette T. Merilees 4-30 Laguna Canyon Property Owners Association 4-31 The Laguna Canyon Conservancy - Carolyn Wood 01 /21 /91(TCA901 C-+11DEXYM .2 ) 4-32 Sea 5 Sage Audubon - Susan L. Gallagher 4-33 The Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. 4-34 Laguna Environmental Outreach - Jean K. Jenks 4-35 Sierra Club, Orange County Group - Allyn Cooksey 4-36 Village Laguna - Si Jones 4-37 Aliso Viejo Community Association - Larry Dees 4-38 North Laguna Homeowners Association and LATMA - Arthur W. Casebeer UTILITY COMPANIES/PUBLIC SERVICES (5) 5-1 Southern California Gas Company 5-2 County Sanitation Districts of 5-3 Metropolitan Water District of CORPORATIONS/BUSINESSES (6) 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 60 6-11 6-12 6-13 6-14 6-15 6-16 6-17 6-18 6-19 6-20 Buffy's Restaurant The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Independent Service Mission Viejo Company Mission Yamaha John Mel Saddleback Wholesale Electric, Euro Performance World Eiki International, Inc. In-N-Out Burger Shell Oil Company C.J. Segerstrom b Sons Sepulveda Building Materials Costco Wholesale Orange County Southern California Fe Railway Company Inc. Allen Oldsmobile - Cadillac, Inc. The Buie Corporation The Irvine Company Forbes Road Association Express Oil Company M.V. Management 5 Talet Radwan OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS (7) 7-1 J. Dunn 7-2 Vicki Borthwick 7-3 Joel A. Couser • 7-4 Carol Deglman 01/21MOCA901CA DEWDL.2) s 7-5 Richard Deglman 7-6 Beth Leeds 7-7 Terri Quam 7-8 Jill Scheetz 7-9 Curtis Scheetz 7-10 William Strauss 7-11 Patricia Turnier 7-12 Jay Jones 7-13 Louis H. Davis 7-14 Richard Henrikson 7-15 James B. McDonough 7-16 William T. Samways 7-17 Michael Cartwright 7-18 Joan J. Carter 7-19 Marjorie Shearer 7-20 Robert W. Wells 7-21 A. McCormick 3 C. McCormick 7-22 Robert S. Smith 7-23 Genevieve Hapgood 7-24 James W. Schmidt 7-25 Christine and Patrick Conales 7-26 Cyndie Held 7-27 Rob J. Ramsey 7-28 Robert J. Healey 7-29 Michael J. Pinto 7-30 Paul Beier, PhD 7-31 Bob Reed 7-32 Mary B. Benson 7-33 Dr. Phillip Ellison 7-34 Mark Walpin 7-35 John J. Cirincione 7-36 Elizabeth Brown 7-37 Mary Lou Ripley 7-38 Wayne Held 7-39 Adele Mann 7-40 Joyce Tausenberry 7-41 Yasuo Kurata 7-42 Steven J. Wilson 7-43 Mel Burland 7-44 Ruth Evans 7-45 Lida Lenney 7-46 Loyola Seymour 7-47 Edith Donahue 01/21/910C#901CANDEXVOL.2) II -iv C • 0 7-48 Max Holiday 7-49 Lauren Miskinnis 7-50 Herbert N. Morgan 7-51 Judith R. Hance 7-52 Brian Phillips 7-53 Richard Peckman 7-54 Rebekah Pauly 7-55 Danielle Ritz 7-56 Janie Cowlin 7-57 R.A. Maxwell 7-58 Barbara Stuart 7-59 Felix Dupuy 7-60 Paul S. Sarizia 7-61 Eric & Laurie Kirkland 7-62 Tecla Miceli 7-63 Bruce R. White 7-64 Humberto Boccardo. M.D. 7-65 John Miceli 7-66 Laura La Ferla 7-67 Gary La Ferla 7-68 Bob McCarty & Joy Bradford 7-69 Connie Bergquam 7-70 Maria J. Bertran 7-71 Dorothy Felten 7-72 Donald E. Robinson 7-73 Natasha King 7-74 Judy & Kurt Topik 7-75 Fred Topik 7-76 Dean Steinke 7-77 Frances G. Carrillo 7-78 M.R. Benjamin 7-79 Ruth Sturn 7-80 K. & Wendy Milette 7-81 Jane H. Stewart 7-82 Marian Blacketer, Beth and Marielle Leeds 7-83 Dr. & Mrs. Fred S. Topik 7-84 Ken Kube 7-85 Herman Indrapradja 7-86 Wesley Marx 7-87 Margaret E. Hedden 7-88 Peter A. Bowler, Ph.D. 7-89 Mary Fegraus 7-90 Eden Lorenzen -Nolan, Keith Fowler & Marian Farieu 01/21/910CA901CA NDEXVOL.2) II-v 0 11 7-91 7-92 7-93 7-94 7-95 7-96 7-97 7-98 7-99 7-100 7-101 7-102 7-103 7-104 7-105 7-106 7-107 7-108 7-109 7-110 7-111 7-112 7-113 7-114 Mrs. Ann Weisbrod Robert A. Merkle, Sr. Rita Walker Leo Schacter Verna Stock Eugene & Mildred E. McFelea Ivera Marshall Zelma Lloyd Lucy Wallace Elaine Rosenwald Barbara Chapla T. Jackson Ernest C. Webb Charles A. Lewis Lee H. & Stephanie Penny Lorenzen, Marty Glorfeld, Edward Thornfield Albert E. Nasser Jan D. Vandersloot, M.D. Corinne Fowler Paul L. Root Robert C. Gray Paul Kennard Donald W. Harvey Bruce Nolan & Mrs. Marty Glorfeld & Pam Fowler Alan Thornhill, Cynthia Veit, Alistair Cullum, Eric Woehler, Dana Kamada & Alice Gibb 7-115 Ronald W. Hitter 7-116 Sieglinde Johnson 7-117 Walter & Dilys C. Gresham 7-118 Nancy King 7-119 Jill J. Millette 7-120 Dorothy Boynton 7-121 Richard & Carol Deglman, Bruce Jo Shurstad, Jerry & Carol Denham 7-122 Debbie Conyer 7-123 Scott Miklos 7-124 T.C. Rogers 7-125 Brigette Bukowski 7-126 Melody Schulte 7-127 Phyllis Gilmer 7-128 William G. Butler, Jr. 7-129 Martha Exline 7-130 Terry Barman 7-131 Joe Cabral 01/21/910CA901CA NDEXVOL.2) & Gayle 'Anderson, Tom & Mary and Don and Jane Crusius 7-132 Joel & Susan Atkinson 7-133 Charles E. Redding 7-134 Les Gilmer, Fred B. Green, Bob Messersmith, Richard Cardillo, Or. & Mrs. Richard T. Anderson 7-135 Mary D. Robb 7-136 Dave Smith 7-137 James Davison 7-138 Cindy M. O'Neal 7-139 Sandra Humphrey 7-140 Carol Roberts 7-141 Gene and Johanna Felder 7-142 Maureen Tilton 7-143 Nancy & Rod Boone 7-144 Bob & Patricia A. Spence 7-145 Russell Burkett 7-146 Rick Delanty 7-147 Alan & Janet Remington 7-148 Joan Richardson 7-149 Ellis 7-150 Richard Shaw 7-151 Jack E. Cotler PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS (8) 8-1 Jay Salsburg 8-2 Milton Adamson 8-3 Robert Wells 8-4 Jean Jenks 8-5 Joel Lautenschieger 8-6 Margo Beauchamp (San Clemente Village Association) 8-7 Beth Leeds 8-8 John Hamil (Laguna Canyon Property Owners) 8-9 Mark Clancy (Friends of Historic San Juan Capistrano) 8-10 Tom Rogers 8-11 Allyn Cooksey 8-12 Dan McClintock (Precision Auto Collision) 8-13 Russell Burkett 8-14 Joel Reynolds (Natural Resources Defense Council) 8-15 Alan Remington 8-16 Ken Kube (Sycamore Hills Residents Against the Toll Road) 8-17 Tom Larson 8-18 Clarence Black 8-19 Marielle Leeds 01m/910CANICANDElfvol.2) is C: 01/21/91(TCA901C-•INDEXVOL.2) COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DEIR TCA EIR/EIS 1 MANin.; DD Natural Resources Defense Council 617 South Olive Stred Los Angeles, CA 90014 213 892-7500 Fax 273 629-5389 November 21, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Att'n: Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Re: Comments on Proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Proiect Dear Mr. Letterly: The Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") is a national environmental organization with 140,000 members and a 100-member staff of lawyers, scientists, and resource specialists. Founded in 1970, it has a twenty-year record of successful environmental litigation and advocacy. On behalf of its approximately 15,000 members who live in Southern California, NRDC submits these comments in opposition to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor project ("Corridor" or "toll road") proposed for 4-22-1 construction in the heart of the Laguna Greenbelt in.southern Orange County. Based on our review of the Draft Em►ironmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") and other relevant documents, NRDC believes that approval of the project as proposed would be inconsistent with a range of federal and state statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Clean Water Act"). For the reasons set forth below, therefore, we believe that the DEIS should be withdrawn, rewritten, and J0t'or Rtcydrd Parr 40 West 20th Street 1350 New York Ave., N-11V •'� '' Nru, York, New York 10011 Washington. CSC 20005 212 727.2700 202 783,-7 AI Faz 212 727.1773 Fax 202 783-5917 90 New Montgamrr- t, San banirsir. CA 04105 415 777-0220 Fax 415 495.599t, 212 A4crihant 1; . yil lti �1�3 Hon,oaiif Knva:'r ac•�1= Fax 08527-r841 Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 2 recirculated in draft prior to any decision on the project as a 4-22-2 whole by the responsible federal, state, and local agencies. I. General Mandate and Application of NEPA and CEOA A. General Standards NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et see., and CEQA, California Public Resources Code § 21000 et sees., mandate that all federal, state, and local public agencies give major consideration to preventing environmental damage when regulating activities affecting the environment. NEPA explicitly mandates that "to the fullest extent possible" the "policies, regulations, and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with [NEPA]." 42 U.S.C. §.4332. This has been interpreted as "a direction 'to make as liberal an interpretation as we can to accommodate the application of NEPA."' LaFlamme v. F.E.R.C., 852 F.2d 389, 398 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Jones v. Gordon, 792 F.2d 821, 826 (9th Cir. 1981). CEQA has consistently been interpreted to like effect: The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act "to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the I NRDC intends to rely upon, and hereby incorporates by reference, any and all other public or agency comments submitted regarding deficiencies in the DEIS or in opposition to the proposed project. See, e.g., United States Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on the San Joaquin Hills Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement (November 6, 1990) (attached as Exhibit 1 hereto); Comments On Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (submitted on behalf of the City of Laguna Beach). C7 • Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 3 environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." More than a decade ago, we observed that, "It is, of course, too late to ague for a grudging, miserly reading of CEQA." In addition, "[t]he legislative history of CEQA supports the view that environmental values are to be assigned greater weight than the needs of economic growth.... The act thus requires decision - makers to assign greater priorities to environmental than to economic needs. ,3 The heart of both statutes is the requirement of an environmental impact statement or report ("EIS" or "EIR") IS describing a project and its potential environmental impacts. EISs are to serve as environmental "alarm bells" to alert the public and government officials to impending environmental consequences before irreparable harm has occurred.4 The EIR is an "informational document" the purpose of which "is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant 2 Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (1988) (citing Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 (1972), and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. 13 Cal.3d 263, 274 (1975)) (emphasis added). This basic principle applies to the protection of the urban environment as well as rural and wilderness areas. gee, e.g., Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco, 177 Cal.App.3d 892, 902-903 (1986); San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San -Francisco, 151 Cal.App.3d 61 (1984). 3 San Francisco Ecology Center v. City and County of San • Francisco, 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 590-591 (1974). 4 County of Ingo v. Yorty, 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810 (1973). Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies • November 21, 1990 Page 4 effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project."5 Further, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and other foreseeable projects in the area must be discussed in detail in order to protect the environment fully.6 In short, NEPA's goal is to facilitate "widespread discussion and consideration of the environmental risks and remedies associated with the pending project." LaFlamme, 852 F. 2d at 398. The courts have consistently held that a public agency's good faith performance of its legally mandated environmental assessment responsibilities is such an absolute, indispensable requirement that dereliction of this duty is a per se violation that renders the entire process invalid. See, e.g., No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 81 (1974) (citing cases and invalidating project approval on finding that EIR was no more than "'post hoc rationalization' of a decision already made," regardless of doubts that ultimate decision on project was affected by CEQA violation). The EIS must be "thorough and impartial" and not merely a partisan report in support of the proposed project. No Oil, 13 Cal. 3d at 88. See also Sierra Club v. Lynn, 502 F. 2d 43, 49 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 994 (1975) (NEPA's requirements not satisfied by a perfunctory performance by the public agency). Thus, it is an essential element of the environmental review process that an agency considering a project keep an open mind until all environmental impacts have been fully and objectively evaluated. 5 Pub. Res. Code § 21061; CEQA Guidelines §15003(b)-(e) (emphasis added). 6 San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth, 151 Cal.App.3d at 81. • • Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 5 II. Application to the Proposed Project The DEIS prepared for the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor project is plainly deficient under these standards. Not only is its consideration of the environmental effects of and alternatives to the proposed project inadequate, but the language and tone in which the DEIS is written, the evidence on which it relies, and the conclusions which it embraces reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the essential mandate of NEPA and CEQA. Moreover, they suggest that, rather than the product of a rational environmental review process, the DEIS is instead only a lengthy post hoc rationalization reflecting the agency's predisposition to proceed with the project no matter what the information generated through the environmental review process. This is not the "thorough and impartial" review that federal and state law require.7 The following ten examples, although not comprehensive, are illustrative: 1. Growth -Inducing Impacts. The DEIS concludes that construction of the toll road is not expected to influence growth significantly in the project area.. 7 We note that the Transportation Corridor Agencies, which are the principal proponents of the proposed project, were responsible both for selecting the EIS consultants and overseeing the document's preparation. This fact alone may explain why the DEIS so clearly advocates for the toll road instead of objectively balancing its benefits and disadvantages and accurately describing its impacts and alternatives. NRDC believes that the TCA's central role in preparation of the EIS undermines the document's credibility and violates CEQA. See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Res. §§ 21082.1, 21251; Friends of La Vina v. County of Los Angeles, L.A.S.C. No. C 750 488 (1990) (EIR invalid due to role of developer in EIR preparation). 4-22-3 4-22-4 Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 6 (DEIS, at 6-11.) Disingenuous at best, this conclusion has no factual basis. Indeed, a major highway like the proposed project is the classic example of a project that will, without any doubt, induce substantial growth through the provision of road access to previously inaccessible areas of the County. Although some might disagree about whether such growth is desirable in the midst of the last remaining coastal open space in Orange County, it is quite another matter to pretend, as the DEIS does, that it will not occur as a direct and foreseeable result of the proposed project. To ignore that fact -- or to denigrate its significance - - is to ignore what is one of the clearest and most significant environmental impacts of the project. This deficiency alone requires rejection of the DEIS.8 2. Air Ouality Impacts. The DEIS suggests that the air quality impacts of the project will be beneficial by reducing traffic congestion and, with it, air pollution. In effect, the consultants seek to portray the toll road as one massive mitigation measure for the air pollution and traffic congestion problems of Orange County. Once again, however, this assumption has no factual basis. Indeed, to the contrary, recent studies document that major highways -- far from reducing air pollution -- actually attract additional 4-22-4 4-22-5 0 8 Consistent with this fiction that the proposed toll road will not attract development, even the illustrations offered by the agency both in the DEIS and at the public hearing in November fail to reflect any development along the corridor through the Greenbelt.. In fact, they depict a solitary roadway winding • toward the horizon through verdant open space. Thus, the project illustrations, too, misrepresent the toll road's impacts. • Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 _ Page 7 traffic, so that before long the new highway, too, is overcrowded and congested. The ultimate result, then, is that the promised air quality benefits used to justify the highway project do not in fact materialize; rather, the projects generally have a negative impact on air quality. (See, e.g.,.U.S. EPA, Region IX, "A Study of Freeway Capacity Increases in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Sacramento Area" (September 1990) (Exhibit 2 hereto); Applied Management and Planning Group, "Traffic Congestion and Capacity Increases" (August 1990) (Exhibit 3 hereto).) The air quality analysis is also flawed by virtue • of the limited timeframe and truncated study area analyzed by the DEIS consultants. To project roadway capacity and use only through the year 2010 is patently inappropriate given the much longer expected lifetime of the toll road; similarly, to analyze only the immediately surrounding area, while ignoring the abysmal air quality throughout the South Coast Air Quality Basin as a whole, merely discredits the. analysis and the consultants' ultimate conclusion that the toll road will have a positive impact on air quality.9 14-22-5 4-22-6 3. Cumulative Impacts. Among the most widely accepted impacts that must be addressed in an EIS is 4-22-8 the cumulative impact that a proposed project will have 9 For the record, we also question the consultants' assertion that the proposed project is consistent with the State Implementation Plan, or the South Coast Air Quality Management 4-22-7 Plan. Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 8 relative to all other development in the region. Such an analysis must include not only adjacent developments, roadways, housing, etc., but projected developments, roadways, housing, etc. In this case, the DEIS does neither. Not only does it deny the inevitability that development will occur along the corridor itself (see discussion supra), but it ignores the substantial impacts of the planned Foothill and Eastern freeways -- promoted by the same Transportation Corridor Agencies and viewed as part of an overall "beltway" for Orange County. Similarly, cumulative impacts related to the full range of environmental impacts -- not only in Orange County but in the adjacent San Diego and Riverside Counties -- should be included but are not. Without an adequate cumulative impacts analysis, the DEIS inevitably understates the toll road's likely impacts by unlawfully segmenting the far larger project of which it is a part. 4. Biological, Water, and Open Space Impacts. The DEIS is grossly deficient in its analysis of the biological, wildlife, open space, and water impacts of the proposed project. Endangered or potentially endangered species whose habitat will be irrevocably destroyed by the project are given short -shrift, if any analysis at all; mitigation measures are promised in only the vaguest terms, without any certainty that they can or will be implemented (e.g., wetlands mitigation or replacement is alluded to but never identified);10 • 4-22-8 4-22-9 • 4-22-10 10 See, e.g., DEIS, at 4-85-86 ("Removal of streamside or bank vegetation will be avoided wherever possible ....") ("Except (continued...) Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 9 " wildlife corridors are destroyed without serious attention to the resulting significant adverse effect 4-22-10 on wildlife; noise and light impacts on protected species are ignored; water quality/hydrology impacts, although conceded to be significant, are addressed only 4-22-11 by reference to plans that either do not yet exist or are not included in the DEIS; and scarce open space (of which the Laguna Greenbelt is one of the last and best 4-22-12 remaining examples) will be lost with the inevitable progression of growth around the corridor right-of- way. These and other impacts are examined in detail in the comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4-22-13 incorporated herein by reference (Exhibit 1 hereto).11 5. Alternatives. Alternatives analysis is the very heart of NEPA's review process.12 Although such analysis is mandated in NEPA in §§ 102(2)(C) and 102(2)(E), the DEIS discussion of reasonable 4-22-14 alternatives satisfies the requirements of neither section. Rather than an impartial discussion of the full range of reasonable alternatives under § 10(... continued) where infeasible, construction improvements will be made along riparian areas during dry weather ...."). 11 We note that, because of its numerous serious concerns about the impacts of the proposed project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "can support or endorse only the no project alternative at the present time." Exhibit 1, at 13. 12 pe, e.cr., Alaska v. Andrus, 580 F. 2d 465, 474 (D.C. Cir. 1978), vacated in part as moot, 439 U.S. 922 (1979) (alternatives analysis is the "linchpin" of entire EIS); Natural Resources Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F. 2d 79, 93-94 (2d Cir. 1975) (alternatives analysis so important that it is mandated twice by NEPA in two wholly independent subsections). Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 10 102(2)(C), and rather than the alternatives study and development required by § 102(2)(E), the DEIS narrowly limits the options available -- it improperly attempts to incorporate by mere reference an alternatives analysis contained in DEIR 494 -- and, even as to those considered, provides only the most cursory and uninformative discussion. Rapid transit and high occupancy vehicle alternatives are virtually ignored; alternative alignments that would avoid the significant 4-22-14 wildlife habitat threatened by the proposed project are rejected out of hand; significant but feasible land use changes are not considered; trip reduction methods to reduce congestion on existing arteries are not addressed; comparisons among alternatives are vague and . uninformative; and the "no build" or "no project" alternative is addressed perfunctorily and rejected. Particularly in light of the virtually unanimous public opposition to the proposed project demonstrated at every hearing convened for public comment, the need to 4-22-15 consider all possible alternatives in a thorough and even-handed fashion is critical. That consideration has not yet occurred in this case.13 6. Traffic. Because traffic congestion is one of the principal reasons offered in support of the proposed project, one might expect that the DEIS 4-22-16 analysis of that issue would be persuasive. It is not. Not only is no data provided beyond the year 2010, but OL 13 NRDC wholeheartedly concurs in the statement in the DEIS, at 2-30, that "a comprehensive analysis of a full range of route • alternatives was essential." Unfortunately, no such analysis was apparently undertaken by the consultants. Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 11 the study area is inappropriately limited (see discussion supra). Moreover, the analysis is predicated on a range of highly questionable assumptions, such as the estimated number of persons per vehicle, unspecified error rates, use of an outdated transportation model database, and disregard of "no -build" trip reduction incentives. Given such deficiencies, the circulation benefit that the DEIS consultants ascribe to the project is uncertain. 7. Mitigation Measures. Vague and nonspecific allusions to mitigation measures pervade the-DEIS. Although the consultants clearly recognize the importance that NEPA and CEQA place on mitigation, they apparently fail to grasp the fact that mitigation can be meaningful only when it is specifically identified, capable of implementation, and tied to a timeline that is realistic and definite. These elements must exist at the time the EIS is being reviewed in connection with a decision on the project; mere reference to future "plans" is insufficient. Indeed, just Such a requirement was recently codified by the California legislature in Cal. Pub. Res. § 21081.6. In addition, other mitigation measures need to be addressed in the DEIS, such as those suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their DEIS comments (see Exhibit 1 hereto) .14 4-22-16 4-22-17 14 CEQA requires that the public agency incorporate all feasible mitigation measures before approving a proposed project with significant environmental impacts. Public Resources § 21002 . forbids agencies from approving projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. Steve Letterly • Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 12 S. Long -Term v. Short -Term. NRDC seriously questions the need for the proposed project given (1) 4-22-18 its conceded significant adverse impacts on a broad range of critical natural resources and (2) the recent tentative settlement of the Laguna Laurel dispute pursuant to which some 3200 planned housing units will not be built in the corridor. The decision to purchase the Laguna Laurel property and to dedicate it as permanent open space substantially reduces the potential demand for access to the Laguna Canyon area 4-22-19 and, with it, substantially alters the balance regarding the need for the proposed toll road at all. Moreover, even apart from this fundamental issue, the abandonment of so large a development indicates a need for updated analysis of the entire project, either through a revised draft of the EIS or through a supplemental EIS.15 It also suggests the need for further economic analysis to determine whether other 4-22-20 developments currently contemplated in the area are also being, or should be, reevaluated. 9. Economic Analysis. Related to the need for a review of the overall costs and benefits of the project is the need for an accurate and current economic analysis of the comparative costs of alternatives 4-22-21 (including rapid transit and HOV alternatives) and the full range of mitigation measures (including open space IL 15 As but one example of the need for supplemental environmental analysis in light of the Laguna Laurel settlement, the DEIS no where addresses the potential impact of the proposed toll road on • the parkland to which the Laguna Laurel property will be dedicated. See discussion infra. Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 13 dedication, wetlands avoidance, etc.). Apparently, no f4-22-21 such analysis has been done. 10. Run -Off. The DEIS dismisses as insignificant the impacts of toxic or other run-off from the proposed toll road. Increasingly, however, water quality experts have recognized the important role played by stormwater and other run-off from streets and highways in Southern California. Indeed, oil- and lead - contaminated run-off from major freeways in the Los Angeles area has recently been recognized as a major contributor to pollution of the Santa Monica Bay.16 Given the size of the proposed project, such run-off cannot simply be dismissed as insignificant in its impact on the surrounding hills and, ultimately, the marine environment. The DEIS should be redrafted accordingly. III. Other Statutory Violations A. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act On its face, the Section 4(f) standard is a strict one: [T]he 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 4-22-22 16 Natural Resources Defense Council, "Poison Run -Off Index for Los Angeles County" (October 1990).(Exhibit 4 hereto). Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 14 significance as determined by the federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, any land from an historic site of national, 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. See'49 U.S.C. § 303; DEIS, Appendix A, at 2d p. (unnumbered). As in the body of the DEIS, alternatives that would avoid such impacts (e.g., the "no build" alternative) are dismissed in the proposed § 4(f) statement as well. (DEIS, App. A, at 38). 4-22-23 This is inconsistent not only with NEPA and CEQA, but with the purpose of § 4(f). There is also too little substantive information or analysis concerning mandated efforts to minimize 4-22-24 environmental harm to parks, wildlife refuges, and historic sites, including the Laguna Laurel property. Taken as a whole, NRDC believes that the DEIS fails to establish that there is "no feasible and prudent alternative" to the use of the Greenbelt for 4-22-25 the proposed toll road. As such, it fails to comply with the requirements of § 4(f). B. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act The DEIS does not provide a substantively adequate basis upon which the Army Corps can fulfill its obligations under § 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344. In 4-22-26 particular, the I] is 0 Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 15 consultants' analysis of the potential impacts on waters and wetlands areas is patently inadequate for the reasons set forth 4-22-26 supra and in the comments prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see Exhibit 1 hereto). In addition, should the Army Corps seek to rely on the DEIS for its g 404 decision, its action would violate the procedural requirements of NEPA. It appears that the EIS has been prepared exclusively by State and local authorities and their consultants. According to the November 14 meeting agenda (prepared by the project sponsors), the FHWA "is the Lead Agency for NEPA" but Caltrans "represents FHWA in the environmental process." The Army Corps may not rely on the environmental review conducted or supervised by a state or local agency such as Caltrans or the TCA. See Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 701 F.2d 1011, 1039 (2d Cir. 1983). C. The Federal Endangered Species Act Wildlife protection issues can be.determinative of how, or whether, a project may proceed. Although the DEIS alludes to the presence of endangered or threatened species on the project site, the implications of this status, however, are not explained in the DEIS. Given the DEIS role as an information tool, analysis of ESA issues would materially assist responsible decision -makers and the public in comparing the relative risks, problems, or other considerations relevant to the proposed project and, in particular, any decision by the agencies to approve a project that does not fully protect the affected species. 0 Briefly summarized, a "take" under ESA, including "incidental take," of either a federally -listed endangered or 4-22-27 4-22-28 Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies . November 21, 1990 Page 16 threatened species activates the protections of federal law regardless of whether the taking is carried out by a federal agency, state agency, local agency or private individual.17 Since federally -listed species are involved here, the proponent of a project that would result in a taking of any of the species 4.22.29 is required to obtain a federal § 10(a) permit authorizing the taking before the project can proceed.1a For purposes of ESA, "take" means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.1119 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") defines "harass" and "harm" broadly. "Harass" means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates a likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns.20 "Harm" means an act that actually kills or injures wildlife and may include significant habitat modification or impairment of essential behavioral patterns.21 , Given these broad definitions, we believe that a § 10 permit is required to proceed with the proposed toll road. Indeed, the only way to avoid federal jurisdiction under ESA -- if it can in fact be avoided at all -- would be for the agencies to reject the 4-22-30 proposed project altogether or to mitigate fully all potential impacts of the project. Under the circumstances presented -- 17 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a) 18 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a). 19 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19) 20 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. 21 0 Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 17 and, in particular, in light of the project's proximity to critical habitat -- NRDC concurs with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 4-22-30 Service that the only acceptable alternative is the "no build" alternative. (Exhibit 1, at 13.) Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, NRDC believes that the DEIS for the proposed San Joaquin Hills toll road project is deficient and must be rejected as such, rewritten, and recirculated as a draft. More fundamentally, however, we believe that the project as a whole should be reevaluated in -light of (1) the overwhelming public opposition to the project among those persons allegedly served by it; (2) the imminent Laguna Laurel settlement and related mandate of the people of Laguna Beach in support of parkland dedication of the property; (3) the urgent public need to preserve the remaining areas of coastal open space and wetlands that characterize the Laguna Greenbelt; and (4) recent economic developments that may alter the costs and benefits of the project as a whole. 4-22-31 4-22-32 Each of these factors militates in favor of the view voiced virtually unanimously at the November hearing -- that the project's environmental costs are too great and its potential 4-22-33 benefits too uncertain. The proposed toll road, with its Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies November 21, 1990 Page 18 undeniable impacts on critical natural resources, is not an acceptable approach to the problem of traffic congestion in Southern California in the 21st Century. Simply stated, the San 4-22.33 Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, as proposed, is a classic example of the wrong project in the wrong place, and it should be abandoned. Very trul yours, J el R. R olds nior At 11 TEL:., ?14-494-9736 Nov 19.10 16:56 No.009 P.02•- EAD United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLII' E SERVICE FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIELD STATION Laguna Niguel Office Federal Building, 24000 Avila Road Laguna Niguel, California 92656 November 6, 3990 Memorandum To: Section 4f Coordinator, National Park Service - San Francisco, California oaFish and Wildlife Service From: G f ice Supervisor, Laguna Niguel, California Subject: Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on San Joaquin Hills Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement, ER . #90864 Attached are the Fish and wildlife Service comments on the subject document. If you have any questions, please contact Kim Falzone, Wildlife biologist, of this office at (714) 643-4270. 0 TEL:_-714-494-9736 Nov 1�_ 16:56 No.009 P.03 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COMMENTS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND 4(f) STATEMENT (£R #90--864 ) The Fish and wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the referenced document (DEIS) and submits the following comments. GENERAL. COMMENTS As currently proposed, the two project alternatives call for the construction and extension of" State Route 73, in Orange County, California, from its existing terminus at Jamboree Road in Newport Beach, southward to Interstate 5 at San Juan Capistrano. Depending on the alternative selected, the proposed freeway will be six to ten lanes wide (328 to 388 feet) and approximately 19 miles in length. The stated purposes of the project are to construct a transportation facility which will: 1) "alleviate existing and projected peak period traffic congestion on regional circulation uystems", 2) "minimize regional through -traffic use of arterial Highways", 3) "provide an alternative access route to the University of California, Irvine (UCI)", and 4) "relieve traitic impacts on SR-1 (Pacific Coast Highway [PCH)), MacArthur Boulevard, and Laguna Canyon Road, as well as provide access fro)", inland areas to the recreational areas along the coast and various open space and greenbelt areas", (DEIS, pp. S-4,5). As currently proposed, the study corridors include State- le:.:;ed property, as well as federal jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. associated with at least 14 :najo_- watercourses (plus numerous tributaries), and adjacent Upland$. Sensitive upland habitat types within the study corridors include riparian woodland, oak woodland, oak savannah, mixed chaparral, and coastal sage scrub. Included in the document are proposals which purport to mitigate or minimize the loss of sensitive wildlife habitats. .Irl general, the document has not adeguatcly addressed the. concerns pertaining to the protection and preservation of public fish and wildlife resources that are present in or near the wc: o.ternative route study areas. In pprticular, the Service continues to have major concerns with the following issues: )) the Proposed, unmitigated destruction of extremely high cu32ity riparian habitat at Bonita Canyon, u--;ed ty a male least bell's vireu (vireo; Vireo boa)ii rusillus), a species which is both State and Federally listed as endangered, 2) the proposed, unmitigated destruction of othcr sensitive habitats that TEL:,•714-494-9736 Nov 15 d0 . 16:56 No.009 P.04 2 accommodate a large number of additional sensitive, significant populations of plant and wild31fe species, including but not limited to the following: oranye-throated whiptail (whiptail; Cnemidophorus hvnerythrus), San Diego horned lizard (horned lizard; Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei), California gnatcatcher (gnatcatcher; polioptila californica), pacific little pocket mouse (pocket mouse; Pgrognathus Jpnaimemhr's pgcificus), spotted bat (Buderma maculatum), greater mastiff bat (Eumops PerOtis californicus), orange County turkish rugging ('horizanthe staticoides ssp. chrys cantha), and many -stemmed live -forever (Dudleva ulticaulis), that are candidates for listing as Federal threatened or endangered species, 3) the failure to adequately identify and address direct and indirect project impacts to, And mitigation for,* wetlands as well as to "waters of the U.S." as required by section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 4) the: subsequent failure of the document to comply with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) general environmental policy statement regarding consideration of wetlands in the planning of federal- -aid highways, 5) the cumulative impacts of this and other related projects on said sensitive habitats and plant and wildlife resources, 6) direct and indirect impacts of the area - wide growth induced by this proposed project. In fact, because -of the extraordinary direct and indirect project -related impacts, in addition to the projected cumulativc impacts of this project when considered with other projected secondary and local projects, the Service can endorse only the no ,project alternative. in addition, the Service agrees with the document authors that the impacts associated with either alignment will result in significant impacts to biological resources that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. However, the Service vehemently disagrees with th= assumption that the Demand Management Alternative is "environmentally superior", and believes that the data and ana3ysis presented here and in the DEIS suggest otherwise. According3 y, the Service offers the following to substanti.at_a i i.A conclusions and recommendations and asks that each of these be included and addressed in the FEIS. The specific comments outlined below are designed to eliminate or minimize project impacts to public fish and wildlife resources. They should assist you and other government entities in complying with applicable Federal statutes, and in anticipation of related Federal permit requirement.,:. Please be advised thdt if a Federal discretionary action is involved, or if a projr4z is proposed on Federally owned or cdministcred lands that "mdy affect" an endangered species or :tr critical habitat, a Section 7 consultation is required pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 197", as amended (Ac:t). This would u3timately lead to the issuance of d biological opinion f rcr; the- Service. The vi L eo, a federally listed endangered 40 • ov 1� 10 16:59 No.009 P.05 TEL:. ?14-494-9736 N 0 species, is present in each of the proposed alternative alignments. _ At least one additional sensitive species, the gnatcatcher, is is currently a "category Z candidate" for listing, a taxa that may warrant listing -but for which substantial information to support a proposed rule is lacking. The Service is currently reviewing the status and distribution of the gnatcatcher; a preliminary analysis of the data accumulated to date suggests that its proposal for listing is probably warranted. As a result of this review, it may likely be proposed for listing, and later may potentially be listed before the project is begun or ultimately completed. The gnatcatcher is evidently widely distributed and relativeay numerous in both proposed alignments. In fact, the ongoing and expected rate of destruction of the gnatcatcher's coastal sage scrub habitat, combined with the paucity of efforts to adequately mitigate these impacts, could prompt the Service to emergency list this species in order to assure its continued existence. The preliminary data supplied by tine document, biological S consultants, and Service biologists strongly suggest that the proposed project will result in substantial, significant, unmitigated impacts to the gnatcatcher and its habitat. FHWA should coordinate frequently (i.e., every 90 days) with the Service to check on the current status of the gnatcatcher and other candidate species so that project impacts may be avoided and/or appropriately and adequately mitigated. If and when the listing of the gnatcatcher occurs, the species would be protected from "take" (e.g., harass, harm, kill) pursuant to Section 9 of the Act unless and until a Section 10a permit is issued. Or alternatively, if a federal discretionary action is involved, a formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Act must be completed. Please note that the vireo is already afforded this protection by virtue of its status a:. a Federal endangered species, as are all listed its that presently or potentially occur within, or will be impacted by, the project area. Accordingly, the Service cannot issue Section 10 a permits or incidental take statements pursuant to Section 7 of the Act unless all prudent avoidance and alternative meastire, have been identified and evaluated. Further, if "take" is permitter:, the permit issued under Section 10a, or biological opinion rendered under Section 7, will require implementation of substantial mitigation measures prior to the "take" in order to offset actual and/or potential threats and impacts to the protected species. TEL : , -714-494-9736 Nov 19 A0 16:59 No.009 P.06 4 SPECIFIC, PROJECT -RELATED IMPACTS TO PUBLIC FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 1. PROPOSED WILDLIFE AND HABITAT IMPACTS AND RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES. Vireos are included in Table 3.6.A "Potential Sensitive Species" (p. 3-29) in the DEIS, but were shown as "not sighted within the corridor area of effect", when in fact a singing male vireo was found in the Bonita Canyon area of the proposed corridor during the May 1990 surveys conducted by LSA. It appears that the biological data in Technical Report $5 were not incorporated into, nor appropriately considered and mitigated for, in the DEIS document. It further appears that the status of the vireo; a federally listed endangered species, was inadequately represented in the DEIS document. The Service has concerns that the impacts to this and/or other -listed and sensitive species were not adequately addressed or mitigated. The Service -believes that such deficiencies in consideration of all available biological information in the DEIS may lead to other erroneous conclusions regarding federally or state listed tax& (including the vireo) within the proposed project study area. Therefore, given the apparent omission of this information, the Service contends that the real or potential impacts to listed and sensitive fish and wildlife resources that are possibly within .the project area (or predictod to be on -site), should be considered and appropriately addressed in both site -specific and cumulative impact analyses and mitigation proposals. The Servicc! strongly suggests that deficiencies in the collection and reporting of biological survey results, and related errors and/or omissicns in impact analyses and mitigation proposals be addressed prior to the preparation and release of the final arafc of the EIS. To address these concerns, the Service recommends future comprehensive surveys be conducted for the vireo, gnatcatcher, and other listed and candidate species whose geographic range includes the project area. For example, the fol3owing federally listed endangered species would be expected to occur oc.casional.ly within the project area but were not mentioned in the document: peregrine falcon (falcon; Ealc-g pgregrinus), light-footed clapper rail (rail; Ra lus on irostr;s evines), and California least C. n (tern; Sterna antillarur, )? owni) . III addition, the DEIS lists the spotted bat (Euderma , cu tun;) and greater mastiff Lat (Eumops perot•is californicus), both federal category 2 candidate species, as "potential sensitive s•peci?s within corridor area of effect". However, it appears that no focused surveys for T-heGe sensitive bat species wero C 0 TEL:,•714-494-9736 Nov 116..50 16:59 No.009 P.07 5 conducted; no bats were included on the LSA survey list (Tech. Rept. 15, pp. 20-30). Several substantial and unique caves in Upper Bommer Canyon (Tech. Rapt. 15, pp. 22-23) and elsewhere within the proposed project area may provide important habitat for these sensitive bat species and should.therefore be the subject of focused surveys for such. further, the pacific little pocket mouse ( Peroan thus Imaimembris pacificus), also a federal category 2 candidate species, is listed -in the DEIS as "not sighted within the corridor area of effect" (DEIS, Table 3.6.A, p. 3-30). The results of the spring 1990 surveys conducted by LSA (Tech. Rept. #5, Spring 1990 Survey Results, p. 29) show a "Little pocket mouse (geroanathus but do not indicate which subspecies. Based upon the documented, known distributions of populations of this species, the Service assumes that the subspecies located during LSA's surveys was R. 1. pacificus. The occurrence of this sensitive animal within the proposed project area should be properly reflected, and the impacts analyses and mitigation proposals addressed. With regard to the gnatcatcher, there is very little information provided in the document regarding its status and distribution. Table 2, •'plant communities -acreage lost" (Tech. Rept. #5, General Environmental Impacts, P. 62) purports that only 156 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat would be impacted by the corridor. Although the document does not attempt to quantify impacts to gnatcatchers or appropriately mention them in project impact analyses, approximately 17 birds were observed during surveys conducted by LSA (Tech. Rept. #5, spring 1990 survey results, p. 4). From the description given, it appears that these observations were concentrated in the area of Bonita Canyon Reservoir, "an area more intensively covered by us than any -where else along the route" (op. cit., p.4).. other data available in previous EIR's, when compared to gnatcatcher locations contained in the DEIS, Figures 4.73 thru 4.77 (pp. 4-76 thru 4-80), "Impacts to Sensitive Resources", indicate that at least 32 gnatcatchers may be present within the proposed corridor. This leads the Service to believe that either a focused gnatcatcher survey was not conducted for the entire length of the corridor, cr if it was, all of the data collected in this and in previous surveys were not included in the DEIS nor in the Technical Report. Additionally, there is at least one missing "Figure (4.7.4.A ??)", showing a 3,000 foot long section of the corrido2, within which at,least two gnatcatchers are known to occur. In any case, the data presented are unclear and incomplete, and thus the Service cannot adequately assess the potential or actual, direct or indirect impacts to the gnatcatcher. Further, when the entire length of the corridor is considered, tt,r total acreage of coastal sage scrub habitat lost may actual])' 10c much oreater than that reported in the DEIS. That is, if r•nr TEL:- 714-494-9736 Nov 15 10 17:01 No.009 P.08 c 1.1 includes the sections of the proposed corridor route which have already been constructed in conjunction with residential and commercial subdivisions and for which coastal sage scrub habitat: has already been destroyed, the total -project impacts to this sensitive species and habitat type (and possibly others), may be substantially greater than is reported in the DEIS. The Service also believes that other project -related impacts (e.g., erosion, stockpiling, heavy equipment/vehicle parking, construction and use of haul roads), as well as indirect effects of the project (human activities, noise, etc.) will impact areas of habitat much greater in scope, and outside of, the corridor itself. The secondary, indirect impacts of the proposed corridor include 'significant growth inducement along the route which would recult in the further loss or coastal sage scrub habitat and gnatcatchers; the magnitude of this loss will be substantial and is not agequately addressd. The DEIS does not contain specific proposals to appropriately or adequately mitigate potentially substantial and significant impacts to the gnatcatcher or other sensitive species such as the •whiptail, horned lizard, Orange county turkish rugging, and many - stemmed live -forever which occur in coastal sage scrub habitat.. "Complete mitigation of the habitat impacted by the corridor through revegetation would be difficult due to the large size ot the impacted area and poor likelihood of successful regeneration", (DEIS, Mitigation Measures, p. 4-70). It JN estimated that approximately 90% of the coastal sage scrub -historically present in California has been destroyed in recent. 4times. The Service does not consider appropriate mitigation for the destruction of large tracts of coastal sage scrub habitat to be crushing instead of blading or ripping above -ground vegetation, nor revegetation of corridor slopes with native plant materials. These measures only very slightly minimize permanent reductions in losses of habitat quantity and quality. Further, \/ the Service suggests that appropriate mitigation of coastal sage. scrub consists of in -kind habitat replacement and/or the dedication of lands of sufficient size to sustain biologically viable populationk of gnatcatchers and/or other sensitive species. If the gnatcatcher is federally listed, the Service may well use mitigation requirements similar to those in conjunction with a habitat conservation plan. Direct wetlands impacts for the conventional and demand management alternatives are purported to. be only 15.2 and 13.0 acres, ret:-pcctively (Tech. Rpt. #5, Impacts to Wet)ands, Table '•, P. 65). However, this table appears to be incomplete when compared to the wetland delineation sheets for Coyote Canyon, which indicate that wetlands were present there as weal (op. cit., App. 1, Att. 1). 0 TEL:, 114-494-9736 NOV 19 U 17:01 No.009 P.09 7 Further, as many as 14 watercourses will potentially be impacted by the proposed project. These areas include wetlands as well as "water& of the U.S." (Waters) under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers '(Corps) through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As such, they will likely require tho project to apply for and receive a permit for 404-regulated activities for the entire project prior to the commencement of any project construction activities. However, the amount and extent of Waters within the proposed project area was not described or quantified. The Service believes that a Section'404 (b)'(1) evaluation of impacts to wetlands and Waters is essential to an adequate and appropriate analysis of the proposed project impacts, and should be included in the document. The DEIS should"al.so include-a31 information necessary to satisfy the Corps' requirements for permit applications. In addition, the DEIS does not Adequately address nor quantify the growth inducing, secondary impacts of the proposed project to wetlands and Waters. This information is essential to the Service in evaluating the real and potential, direct and indirect, and cumulative impacts of the entire project to watersheds, water quality, Waters, wetlands, and wildlife habitats. Lacking this data, the Service considers the DEIS an inadequate document, and therefore recommends that a final decision be withheld until these issues are addressed. In the 404 (b)(1) analysis, there must be a "tiering" of considerations in analyzing the impacts of a project to aquatic ecosystems. The sequencing of these considerations, in order of priority, are: 1) avoidance of impacts, 2) use of least damaging, practicable alternative to minimize impacts, and 3) mitigation of unavoidable impacts, with no net loss of wetlands habitat quantity or quality. The Service offers the following guidance for appropriately mitigating direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitats. It has been suggested elsewhere that a 1:1 mitigation ratio is appropriate for impacts to wetlands of degraded quality.. However, the Service believes that this ratio does not adequately mitigate impacts to well developed, fully functioning habitats. Due to time delays inherent in replacing nature wetlands habitats, and frequent lack of success in creating viable replacement habitats, the Service believes that a minimum mitigation ratio of 2:1 is necessary to offset losses to nondegraded habitats. Further, the Service maintains that higher. ratios are appropriate for structurally complex habitat types such as vireo -quality ripariari''and sycamore/oak woodlands. The Service believes that, at a minimum, any and all mitigation plans should: 1) identify the location and current condition c: the proposed mitigation site, 2) identify the agencies or parties ultimately responsible for the plan's success and implementation, 3) contain clear language and stipulations pertaining .to enforceable performance standards and fir uvisions for routing TEL:! .14-494-9736 Nov 19. IJ. 17:02 No.009 P.10 8 evaluations by the Service and local, state, and federal permitting authorities, and 4) contain clear provisions for the dedication of the riparian and sensitive upland mitigation sites to the appropriate local government entity or conservation organization. The Service suggests that the project use the riparian mitigation success criteria as set forth and described in tho scientific treatise "High Quality Restoration of RiparJan Ecosystems" by Kathryn Baird (Restoration and Management Notes, 7:2; winter, 1989; pp. 60--64) as a guideline. The conceptual mitigation plan should be prepared prior to, and included as an integral part of, the 404 permit application package sent to the Corps, and will be reviewed by the Service. In this vein, the Service disagrees that "There are no listed federal or state plants or animals within the APE of the corridor. There are two catogory 2 candidate species....." (Tech. Rept. #5, Mitigation Measures -Species of Concorn, p. 76). This section omits the confirmed occurrence of the vireo, a federally listed endangered species (previously described in the report), within the APE at Bonita Canyon Reservoir. No mitigation provisions for impacts to the vireo are described in the document. The Service would therefore likely find a "may affect" in a consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act given this current omission of avoidance or mitigation measures for real or potential, direct or indirect, negative project impacts to the vireo. the service suggests that the impacts to the wetland and riparian habitats at Bonita Creek/Canyon might be best avoided and/or minimized by elevating the corridor on a bridge spanning the area, or by realignment of the route. Mitigation for the vireo - quality, mature riparian woodland and wetlands should be substantial and done on -site. In addition, the Service strongly suggests that mitigation be provided for the numerous federal candidate species of wildlife and plants known or potentially within the APE, which were not mentioned and for which mitigation was similarly not provided. These include the southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys aarmmpwrata al 'da), whiptail, horned lizard, spotted bat, greater mastiff bat, pocket mouse, ferruginous hawk (Buteo ire alis), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traij_U a%times), gnatcatcher., orange county turkish Tugging, and many -stemmed live -forever. 2. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS. The Service believes that the project as currently proposed wou),l create impacts to wildlife movement that could not re mitigated to a level less than significant regardless of which alignment is selected. Proposed wildlife avoidance measures and lack of consideration of impacts to wildlife Iltovexent are clearly not adequate to reduce the likelihood of suLs`.aritial direct and 0 TEL:1 .14-494-9736 Nov 19, ► 17:03 No.009 P.11 E indirect impacts to wildlife. Therefore, the Service contends that it is necessary and prudent to incorporate the design and implementation of viable wildlife movement corridors into project plans. Discussion of the issue in the document supports this conclusion (DEIS, pp. 3-46, 3-47; Tech Rept. #51 pp. 78--80). Revegetation of corridor slopes, installation of wildlife "guzzlers", and oak tree replacement are not appropriate or adequate mitigation for the loss of wildlife movement corridors. Nor is the installation of only one wildlife undercrossing of undetermined design adequate mitigation for the loss of corridors along the entire length of the proposed route. The impacts of the proposed project include the subdivision of large, contiguous parcels of wildlife habitat into smaller, biologically less viable parcels. This parcelization has particularly negative affects on large ungulates such as the California mule deer (deer; Qdocoileus hemionus californica), which occur within the project area. The Service has concerns that the proposed undercrossing design will not be used by the deer. The document alleges that this proposed undercrossing is a viable deer corridor, but the data used is based upon a 200 foot length, 15 foot height, and 20 foot crossing width. It further states that the "height and width (requirements) increase as the crossing length increases" (Tech. Rept. R5, Wildlife Crossing Technical Memorandum, Memorandum from Caltrans). The proposed undercrossing is 400 feet long, but maintains the 15' height and 20' width in spite of the.recommended increases in dimension. The Service suggests that alternative wildlife corridor designs such as wide overcrossings with native vegetation and restricted human traffic be considered instead. Mitigation for p U known and potential wildlife movement corridors impacted by the proposed project must be included. Further, a site -specific mitigation plan should be formulated for the Bonita Canyon/San Diego Creek/Upper Newport Bay wildlife movement corridor. This corridor, is a critical link in the ecology of the interaction between the freshwater and upland habitats at Bonita Canyon and San Diego Creek, and the intertidal habitats at Upper Newport Bay. The movement of native predators along this corridor is essential to the ecosystem. They are essential in controlling the numbers of non-native meso-predators which prey upon the federally listed, critically anddngered light-footed clapper rail. 'These habitats are unique in Orang(a County and southern California, and are extremely sensitive. The wildlife corridor r:itigation plan should provide a means for rai:ntairing this vital corridor. In part, this might be accomplished through tho revegetation (with native plant species) of the agricultural fields occurring along the proposed SJH route at its intersection with MacArthur and bison Streets and Southward. However, a means for o�i l d l i .`. a to cross MacArthur Noulcvard And University Drive must still be provided. .• TEL• 714-494-9736 PJov 1� 0 17:04 No.009 P.12 • 10 3. AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION OF INDIRECT IMPACTS TO PROTECTED . SPECIES. Given the real and potential impacts of noise to avian and mammalian species in or near both study corridors, the Service suggests that all potential noise impacts resulting from project - related sources should be adequately addressed, abated, and/or appropriately mitigated. The Service strongly recommends that such action be taken whenever or wherever possible to reduce the impact of the documented effects of noise on wildlife or, at the extreme, the possibility of an unlawful "take" of a migratory bird or a federally listed (threatened or endangered) species. Numerous published studies have concluded that excessive noise levels, such as those from heavy traffic or the operation of heavy equipment, can result in the disturbance or actual harm of avian and mammalian species. For example, noise levels of approximately 60 decibels or more are thought to adversely affect the vireo (and, by extension, other bird species) by: 1) reducing their ability to establish and defend territories and communicate with their mates and young, 2) subjecting them to physiological stress, and 3) exposing them to increased predation by reducing their ability to hear and avoid predators. Ambient noise levels in the Bonita Canyon/Creek area -are currently ranging between 48- 54 dB (DEIS, Table 3.5.A, p. 3-26), dangerously near the 60 db threshhold for negative impacts to vireos. The Service believes that the additional noise from construction of the proposed corridor and the resultant increase in ambient traffic noise levels would exceed the 60 dB level in the Bonita Canyon/Creek area where the vireo occurs (DEIS, pp. 3-23 thru 3-26). No noise mitigation measures specific to the vireo were presented. Accordingly, if the proposed project is permitted to proceed, the Service recommends that measures be taken to perpetually reduce ambient, exterior noise levels below that level. Otherwise, documented noise impacts to the vireo, other avian species, or any federally listed threatened or endangered species may result in violations of the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and as such be the object of criminal or civil prosecution. Other potential impacts to protected species that may result from project -related activities are the increased rates of depredation or nest parasitism resulting from increased human presence and/or the conversion of habitats adjacent to the occupied habitats of said species. Specifically, human -induced increases in the food supply or feeding habitat for the brown -headed cowbird (Molothr.us titer), a parasitic brood species, and other domestic or wild predators (e.g., American crow, Corvus brachY.lrhy-r.,c�igs; cats; dogs; non-native rodents) would almost certainly result in impacts to protected and/or sensitive species. Therefore, hecause no management plan is proposed to off.;et these impactF., ••� TEL:1 ,-14-494-9736 Nov 19, i 17:04 N0.009 P.13 it they would be unmitigated and should be subject to analyses of project -related and cumulative impacts. When a management plan is subsequently incorporated into mitigation proposals, the Service suggests that the plan should, at a minimum, contain provisions to insure: 1) frequent monitoring of listed and/or sensitive species and their respective habitats (e.g., vireos and vireo -quality riparian woodlands), 2) timely removal of brown -headed cowbirds, all problem predatory species, and all noxious, non-native habitat constituents, 3) substantially reducing or eliminating food and/or foraging habitat and access provided to all brood - parasitic or predatory species, and 4) legal and operational means to address and mitigate any of the potential impacts to listed and sensitive species (including, but not limited to, all those listed elsewhere in this document) resulting from construction and secondarily from subsequent human occupation of the transportation corridor and surrounding environs. In any case, the service -would not endorse any mitigation proposals that include sites or habitats that are otherwise appropriate, yet wholly or partially dysfunctional because of noise, predation, fragmentation, or other impacts. Further, if a Section 7 consultation should become necessary to address a "may affect" of a listed species (and it appears that it may, at least in the case of the vireo), it is likely that many or all of the above management considerations and stipulations will be included in the biological opinion rondered by the Service. For a thorough discussion of direct or indirect impacts to the vireo and other wildlife management considerations, please see the "Draft Comprehensive Species Management Plan for the Least Bell's Vireo" by Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON), January 1990. 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS. The service has carefully examined and considered the data presented in the document, and concludes that the proposed project will have significant impacts to hydrology and water quality, and therefore cause significant impacts to wetland species and habitats. Thus, the Service agrees with the DEIf; authors that the project "would add significant quantities of pollutants into drainage areas immediately adjacent to the propo_cd corridor alignment"'(DEIS, p. 4-27). Further, the DE.-c t.tates, "The concentrations of pollutants would exceed the Stan:- and Federal critical levels of pollutants", but purports to sljtigate this with a "Runoff Management Plan and Sediment Plan" in Section 4.13, which appears to be niissiriq from the document. The. Service cannot adequately evaluate the water quality issue without the oppot-tunity to examine the mertioncd ;:fans. however, the Service agrees that "the project could 01 TEL: 714-494-9736 Nov 1S 0 17:04 No.009 P.14 0 12 potentially contribute incrementally to cumulative water quality impacts in the form of residual materials such as heavy metal components...„. Indeed, hydrological considerations alone may be .sufficient to trigger a Section 7 consultation involving the vireo and/or other listed species. In any caso, the Service recommends that further measures be proposed to prevent the: 1) anticipated discharge or runoff of toxic or turbid aqueous waste plumes generated by the construction or utilization of the transportation corridor, 2) potential impacts to wildlife habitats (i.e., dewatering) that could occur as a result of the alteration of existing hydrological conditions in and adjacent to the project area, and 3) project -caused erosion and resultant siltation of wetlands and watercourses. 5. GROWTH INDUCEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. The Service contends that significant growth inducement impacts can be ascribed to the proposed project. When this project is considered cumulatively with other projects that are inter- connected with, and were or will be facilitated by its construction (e.g. Foothills (FTC) and Eastern Transportation [ETC] Corridors), the cumulative impacts are significant and stibstantial. These impacts have not been, and cannot be, mitigated to a level less than significant. Because of the growth patterns and development history in orange County, and because CEQA guidelines state "that it must not be assumed that growth in any area is of ... little significance to the environment" (DEIS, p. 6-1), the Service concludes that construction of either alternative will result in significant and substantial impacts to biotic resources (including federally listed and sensitive species) in and near the project area. The service believes that due to the similarity of wildlife resource issues, extraordinary cumulative impacts from, and the inter -relatedness of the mentioned transportation corridors (sill, ETC, FTC), that all three should be considered under one county- wide environmental impact statement as is required under guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Service recommends that Orange County defer approval of further development within areas affected by the corridors until the geographic information system (GIS) currently under development by the Cointy's Environmental Mdnagement Agency is in place and functioning. The GIS system will be invaluable in planning of and management for viable, "natural" open space lands and the wildlife corridors essential in connecting them. In ru-,mary, the Service clearly has numerous concerns pertaining to t':e overall, extraordinary impacts cf the proposed project On r, TEL: 714-494-9736 Nov 1� 10 17:04 No.009 P.15 13 public fish and wildlife resources. In particular,the problems related to wetlands impacts and lack of adequate and appropriate mitigation clearly indicate that the proposed project does not comply with FHWA general environmental policy statement, nor with FHWA guidance and policies on consideration of wetlands in planning of federal -aid highways. Therefore, given the proposed cumulative impacts of, directly and/or indirectly related to, the proposed project, the Service can support or Endorse only the no project alternative at the present time. 0 K A Study of Freeway Capacity Increases in the- San Francisco -Say Area and Greater Sacramento Area Tom Addison NNEMS Fellow U.S. EPA, Region IX Air Programs Branch September 28, 1990 Acknowledgements This work was supported by a grant from the National Network for Environmental Management Studies program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Numerous officials of different nt governmental organizations as well as academic institutions contributed to this study by sharing their insights, data, and time. I would particularly like to thank Julia Barrow, Mark Brucker, Jennifer Dill, and Frances Wicher of the U.S. EPA's Region IX Air Programs Branch, who all found the time and patience to meet regularly with me and provide invaluable advice. Additionally, staff from the following organizations both allowed me access to the files and information I needed .for study, as well as generously volunteering their time and years of experience and insights: f -California Department oTransportation (Caltrans) District �, San Francisco. Environmental, Highway Operations, Transportation Planning, and Traffic Branches. -Caltrans District 3, Marysville. Environmental and Traffic Census B Branches. -Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento. Offices of Environmental Analysis and Traffic. -Federal Highway Administration, Region IX, San Francisco. Despite the assistance provided by the above individuals'as well as dozens elsewhere, any errors in this study are solely attributable to the author. Furthermore, the views and opinions expressed herein are not those of the U.S. EPA, but are rather those of the author alone. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this research is to evaluate, for projects that increase freeway capacity, the adequacy of their air qualt_: analyses and the accuracy of their traffic predictions. The study examines three types of capacity -increasing measures on limited -access, divided highways ("freeways") in the greater San Francisco Bay Area and greater Sacramento regions: 1) new - alignment freeways, 2) expansion of existing freeways by adding "mixed -flow" and/or high -occupancy vehicle (HOV, or diamond) lanes, and 3) adding or expanding interchanges on existing freeways. Such projects are required under the California Environmental Quality'Act (CEQA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to undergo environmental review prior to their construction. By limiting the study to all such projects for which the final environmental document is less than 10 years old (and adding a few additional projects that were one or two years older), there exist 27 such freeway projects. I looked at the level of detail of the air quality analysis for all these in Part I of the study. In Part II I compared, for those projects on which construction had been completed, the projected future traffic volumes with actual volumes as determined by traffic counts. The large majority (63%) of the 27 capacity -increasing projects analyzed only carbon monoxide (CO) air quality in the immediate freeway vicinity. 22% of the projects had more detailed air quality analysis, which typically also involved mesoscale analysis of outputs of CO, hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO,) . 151 of the projects had 'no quantitative studies of air quality effects_ The second half of the -study, comparing traffic projections to observed volumes, revealed serious shortages of traffic count information, as well as extremely simplistic projections in the original environmental documentation. Because of.these and other problems with the data, a precise quantitative assessment of the accuracy of traffic volume forecasting was not possible. However, in 5 of the 6 cases in this portion of the study, itraffic projections underpredicted the later observed volumes. This study does not determine the reason for the underprediction.. Induced trips or latent demand, unexpected , growth, and other factors are all probable partial causes. Whatever the reasons for repeated underprediction, the predicted air quality benefits that were used to justify the projects' construction may never have materialized. In fact, these projects likely had overall negative impacts on air quality in the short run. Their long run effect on air quality, while still undocumented, may be even more negative, since travel and population growth are likely to continue to exceed the forecasts' made in these projects' environmental documents. Given the past underprediction of traffic volumes, future 3 freeway projects analyzed using standard traffic forecasting techniques that advertise regional air quality benefits should be viewed cautiously by air pollution officials. The environmental planning process would benefit greatly from improved traffic forecasting. Improving traffic count data is a critical step toward achieving this goal. Additionally, the air quality analyses of all these projects should model the consequences of the freeway expansion not only on the emissions of CO, but on the emissions of HC, NO,, and PM-10 (small particulates) as well. 9 V PURPOSE Despite the toughest air pollution regulations in the U.S., most Californians are still forced to breathe unhealthy air. The total annual costs of this pollution have been estimated by ^any economists to,be in the billions of dollars.. Countless studies have documented that this sorry state of affairs is largely a result of motor vehicle use. Increases to freeway capacity have the potential to significantly affect air quality. The environmental planning process under the National Environmental Polic., :.ct (NEPA) and/or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the only point at which the air quality effects of capacity increases are examined on an individual project, as opposed to a regional, basis. Thus, it is imperative that the air quality analyses in this planning process be accurate, as well as adequate. I undertook a two-part evaluation of the adequacy of the, environmental planning process for projects that increase freeway. capacity. First, I evaluated the project's air quality analysis, and then compared the traffic volumes projected for the improved freeway to the actual traffic volumes observed after it was completed.* I present the background information, the findings, and a discussion of the findings for each of these two halves of the study in Parts I and II below. 0 5 PART I• • The analysis included the following three types of projects in the greater San Francisco Bay area and -the greater Sacramento regions: 1) new freeways; 2) expansions of existing freeways by adding mixed flow (i.e., no restrictions on use) and/or HOV (use limited to vehicles with a minimum number of passengers) lanes; and 3) projects that added new freeway interchanges or expanded existing interchanges. I.included.only projects for which the final environmental document had been completed in the last 10 ;.o 12 years. Today these projects are in various stages of development. Some projects are completed, some are under construction, and some are still in the planning stage. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 9 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA's state corollary, require that the environmental consequences of freeway expansion projects be evaluated prior to the project's initiation. Both laws require similar environmental documents for these projects. First, a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) or a state Initial Study (IS) must be prepared. If the environmental consequences of the planned work are deemed relatively insignificant, the final federal document is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) while the final state document is a Negative Declaration (ND). If the consequences are deemed to be more major, then the federal and state documents prepared are an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Report (EIR), respectively. Some of the roadwork Z looked at was subject to both laws, whereas other projects were only covered by one. In the 1950's and 1960's when the. U.S. interstate program was under full construction, the bulk of the funding for such projects was federal. Under the Reagan -era "new Federalism" of the 1980's, the federal money was very limited. For projects that are built without any federal funds, and that are not connected to federal or- federal aid higrways, oni_i CEQA applies. In the Bay Area, the number of projects subject only to CEQA is rising dramatically. The majority of planned capacity increases are being financed by local or countywide initiatives that raise sales taxes for highway dollars. This shift in freeway funding is of significance to the EPA, for virtually all projects subject only to CEQA regulation are not routinely reviewed by Region IX...Also, the•EIR's prepared ' directly by or for county or local governments are increasing. with Caltrans no longer being the sole preparer, there will likely be an increasing range in the quality of the EIR's. There were 21 projects in the Bay Area and 6 projects in the greater Sacramento region that met the previously stated criteria. These are listed in Table 1. In reviewing the environmental documents for each of these 27 projects, the first part of this study looked at the level of detail of the air quality analysis of each project. In addition 7 TABLE 1: The Title, Type, and Date of the Projects' Environmental Documents Abbreviationx I/C n interchange EA• Environmental Assessment IS m Initial Study ND Negative Declaration FONSI • Findings of No Significant Impact DEIS/FEIS a Drat/Final environmental impact statement FETR a Final Environmental Impact Report Greater Bay Area projects: 1. EA and IS for two new I/Cs at Stone idg+e Drive on 1-6W and Hacienda Drive on 1-580 in Pleasanton, modify =rung I/C on 580. and build auxUiary lanes on 580 and 680, 12/87. EA/IS for Widenins Jrom 4 to 6 Lanes and Construction of 2 Sound Harrier Walls on I- 880 in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties: 6/88. 3. DEIS. 1-80 and 1-180. Operational Improvements in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 1/83. s. FEIS and 41J) Statement. Rot::e 101 in Santa Clara County, 0.6 miles south of Cocnrane Road in nloigan Hill to 0.7 miles North of Route 82 in Sari lose. 7/73. 5. ND/FONS1. li idening Route 101 from 6 to 8 Lanes in Santa Clara Cuurtn• from :he Lawrence Ezpressway to the .San Mateo County Line, 10/86. I 6. IS/EA. Widening Route 101 from 4 Lanes to 6 Lanes in San lose, front San Antonio St. to the McKee Rd I/C Santa Clara County, 7/87. 7. ND. WWening 101 from the 280168011011/C Norsk to the De La Cruz/Trimble Rd. I/C 4/89. 8. ND. 101 Widening front Bernal Rd to the 28016801/C, 5/88. 9. MS. Reconsouetlon of the 680/24 I/C and Freeway Improvements, 7/87. 10. FONSI/ND. Proposed. new I/C at BollingerCamkn Rd- Wdening of Overcrossing and Modification of Crow Canyon Rd and Sycamore Vallev I/Cs on 1-MO. 9/S3. 11. ND/FONSI. Proposed Widening and Aud ary Lanes on I-230 in Santa Clara Count.; 1/87. 12. ND/FONSI. Freeway Widening in the Median of 1-680 from Mllow Pass Rd. to Manna Vista Boulevar4 10/88. 14. EA/IS for Concord Avenue/Market St/Raue 242 Ramps Project. 6/86. 15. FEIS. 1-180 [the Hoffman Freeway], 6/81. 16. DEIS. Route 92 Gap Closure and 9211011/C Completion, 2/79. - 17. EA. Construct 4-lane Freeway from Mini Dr, to Sage St. Ovencrossing with Diamond t/Cat Fairgrounds Dr, Vallejo, Solano County, 11/85. 18. EA/1S. Reconstruction of 1-80/Alamo Dr. I/C in Vacaville, Solano County, 10/86. 8 Is C TABLE 1 (continued) 19. ND/FONSL Proposed Widening of Route 152 in Santa Clara County, 4/87. 20. L4. Proposed Ramp Connection for Route 238 West to Route 17/1-W Soudt, in and near San Leand% Alameda County, 3/85. 21. ND/FONSI. Ramp, Road Overcrossing and Signals ConstrucdOI „Modification, Wdening and Installation on Route 237 in Santa Clara. County at Fair Oaks Avenue, 2/83. Greater Sacramento region projects: 22. Environmental Reevaluation. Route 99 [turd highway converted to 44ane freewayl, 12/83. (FEIS, 8/751. 3. FEIS. Roseville Bypass %Route 651, 9/84. N. ND/FONSI. Route 99. Build 2 lanes in the median in Sacramento County bctween /Mack Road o+krcrossing and Sacramento Blvd. overcrossiny 10/87. 25. FEIR. Silva Valley Park -way 1/C with 1-50, 2/90. 26. IS. Laguna Blvd/Route 991/C Reeonsuuaion, 2/83. 27. FONSI. North Natomas Freeway ImprovemenLs, 1/90. to a final EIS/R or FONSI/ND, most of the projects.had at least one supplementary technical.report. These reports present the results of the air quality models used to predict the effect of the increased freeway capacity on the emission of pollutants. Additionally, these reports often contained the traffic forecasts used in Part II of this study. B. Findings and Discussion All of the 27 air quality analyses in this report concluded that the project would improve air quality (although not necessarily by a significant margin), or would result in no 9 1 significant change in air quality. For 17 of the 27 projects (63%), the air quality -analysis consisted of a microscale study of only CO (carbon monoxide) emissions. Analyzing the effects of only one pollutant often was justified by the inaccurate conclusion that CO serves as an "indication of the full range of pollutants"'. The effects of a project on the full range of air pollutants, however, can not be estimated by CO emissions. in general, increasing the average travel speed on a freeway from a congested, stop -and -go condition to a steady flow decreases he emissions of both CO and total HC•(hydrocarbons), but increases the emissions of NO, (oxides of nitrogen). Furthermore, the impacts of CO are localized, but the formation of ozone from HC and NO, affects the larger air basin. only 6 of the 27 projects (22%) had both a microscale analysis of CO emissions and a mesoscale analysis of emissions of CO, HC, and NO,. Five of these 6 projects were of enough , significance to require -an EIS. Two projects requiring an EIS did only a microscale CO analysis. One of the 6 mesoscale analyses projected emissions of SO, and particulate matter, and divided HC predictions into total and nonmethylated hydrocarbons. Another included a prediction of project -caused lead emissions. Four of the 27 projects (15%) had bQ quantitative analysis of air quality. One such project justified this minimalist approach as follows: "Based on previous analysis (of different ' (EA, Construct 4-Lane Freeway from Mini Dr. to Sage St Overcrossing... in Vallejo Solano County, 11/85). 10 prbjects)... no significant impact... is anticipated'12. Anot::er justification was that because the project was predicted to decrease total vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as well as congestion,. the -project will benefit air quality, and thus quantitative analysis is not required'. Of these 4 projects with no quantitative analysis, 3 were interchange projects, while the. fourth was a freeway -to -freeway ramp project. Given that both the Bay Area and Sacramento are violating federal and state standards for ozone and CO,•adeauate-air- quality analyses For =__ these projects would -have predicted the effect on emissions o: CO, and the ozone building blocks HC and 170,. additionally, Sacramento is violating the federal standard for small particulate matter (PM-10)'. Only one of the 27 projects modeled what its consequences would be for either PM-10 or TSP. A shortcoming of these models is that, for interchange additions or expansions, they tend not to model the consequences of additional traffic on the mainline, but simply look at the emissions of the cars on the ramp. This is a significant oversight. If the mainline is congested or nearly so., these entering vehicles can bog down the mainline enough so that total emissions of CO and HC may increase dramatically. Thus the 2 (EA/IS, Reconstruction of the 80/Alamo Drive Interchange ,(I/C) in Vacaville Solano County, 10/86). (EA/IS, Two new I/C's at Stoneridge Dr. on 680 and Hacienda Dr. on 580 in Pleasonton modify existing I/C and build auxiliary lanes..., 12/87). 4 PM-10 replaced total suspended particulates (TSP) as a criteria pollutant in 1987. 11 1.2 addition of extra vehicles to a freeway near saturation not only negatively affects air quality through the emissions from the new i traffic, but also by increasing emissions fron all the vehicles on the freeway. Although ramp metering might mitigate this problem, many interchanges and ramps are still being built without ramp metering, and the air quality analyses are typically done -for a scenario without metering. None of the projects gave a qualitative, let alone quantitative, analysis of the effects of the increased capacity on carbon dioxide emissions.. This is a -serious s;iortcomirg, =cr CO= is the primary "greenhouse gas," which when emitted contributes to the problem of global warring. Carbon dioxide is not directly harmful to individuals, but rather in sufficient quantities damages our planet's atmosphere. While both the Reagan and Hush administrations have shown great reluctance to limit CO. emissions, these emissions will have to be reduced. In California, over half the carbon , emissions are from our transportation network.' CO, emissions are tied directly to fuel consumption. Thus, a vehicle idling in stop -and -go, congested traffic is maximizing CO. output. Another shortcoming concerned mitigation of project -caused air quality declines. One air quality analysis stated that "air quality will be monitored to determine the need for ramp metering The Impacts of Global Warming on California, California Energy Commission, P. c-1. August, 1989. 12 0 0 to avoid significant air quality impacts."' No timetable of when or where such monitoring would be done was provided,- however. Nor* were critical pollutant levels specified which could trigger the installation of ramp metering.- Without a specified - implementation plan, it is unclear whether mitigation measures will be actually carried out. Therefore, it is questionable whether the measures should be given much weight when evaluating the project impacts. A recent CEQA amendment now requires monitoring plans for mitigation measures in final CEQA•documenrs, which may improve the situation. -" PART IL A. Background A wide number of varying factors, such as average fuel economy, percentage trucks, and pollution control standards, are used in the air•quality analysis for a capacity -increasing highway project. The most critical component of these models are traffic volumes for both the build and.no build scenarios. Thus a critical first step to check the accuracy of the air quality impact analysis for a project is to compare actual traffic to the predicted traffic used in the emissions model. The second major part of the study did just that and compared the projected (ND, Widening 101... in Santa Clara County from the Lawrence Expressway to the San Mateo County Line, 10/86). 9 13 r V traffic volumes to the actual volumes as measured by counts on completed projects. Before presenting the results of these comparisons, I first discuss problems in the modeling process as well as liaitations to the data used in this part of the study. Traffic modeling is a•complex process, but its essence is that land use, growth forecasts, and socioeconomic data are used to predict numbers, origins, and destinations of future trips. Various models then assign these trips to mnodes (transit, private vehicles, carpools, etc.), times, and roadways, using travel time, expenses, and other factors. Certainly any attempt to predict the future is an.inexact art, and predicting traffic 'volumes is especially tricky, given the enormous range of Variables that potentially affect travel. These factors include !gas, transit, parking, and toll prices, changes in regional 'growth patterns, new travel options, earthquakes, etc. , Although these models are highly sophisticated, they contain two serious flaws. First, they treat land use strictly as .an explanatory variable for highway use. Although land use certainly helps explain observed highway use, it is also true that freeway location and congestion levels influence the land use decisions. Historically, land use decisions in this country have been made at the local level. Regional or state planning attempts at more centralized land use planning are typically controversial and are often challenged successfully in the courts or through 14 voter initiatives. Caltrans and FHWA are thus extremely reluctant to appear to be making land use decisions. -Officials at these agencies maintain that roads are expanded to meet the demand provided by -present and future land uses, as decided by local governments. Their position'is that these projects are often undertaken to fulfill existing needs for greater freeway capacity, so any influence on land use is minimal. While it may be acknowledged that highways influence land use through market forces, highway agencies maintain that the responsibility -for changes in land use that arise lie with th:e local governments who set policy through zoning and other mechanisms. An apolitical examination reveals that where and - when roads are expanded or built has the potential for tremendous impacts on regional growth and development. Several senior Caltrans officials agreed off-the-record that this is the case, but agency policy refuses to acknowledge this. This debate, over whether growth causes the highways or highways cause the growth, is often polarizing and acrizionious, with Caltrans and environmental groups exchanging heated rhetoric both in the press and in the courts. Rarely does either side cite controlled or quantitative studies to reinforce their position, although there is a body of literature on this subject. (See Appendix A). Certainly the issue does not lend itself readily to quantitative study. Difficulties include the abundance of confounding variables, and the need for controls combined with the problem of finding areas similar in all aspects 15 f but for freeway improvements. After reviewing the literature, is 0 appears that the effects of roadwork on growth are variable and site specific. While growth is limited without an adequate transportation network., such a network is not of itsel= sufficient to ensure that growth will follow. Other factors, such as sewage lines and nonrestrictive zoning, are also required. The second theoretical flaw in traffic models is that the models do not include feedback loons to record the effect of increased capacity on the public's demand for or use of the facility. Demand, and thus the trips generated, are assumed be the same both before and after the capacity increases are completed. Most models in use today do allow and account for diversion of trips to other routes or modes, but not for new trips. Thus, the models show that increased freeway capacity may increase traffic volumes, but only by diverting (capturing) r. vehicles from, e.g., local arterials, or capturing trips from existing transit riders. In highly congested areas such as the urban regions of California, many individuals are either foregoing automobile trips altogether or have altered their destinations and/or travel times to avoid peak hour congestion. Called "discouraged drivers," they create a "latent demand" for improved road conditions. These phenomena are not addressed by traffic projection models currently in use. When the capacity on a freeway is increased, very likely some of these discouraged 16 drivers will return to their vehicles on the expanded roadway leading to new "induced trips. were to acknowledge the transportation agencies , Even ii - uc=:.^ ost-cons -•- existence of pre -construction latent demand and P the new trips would be difficult to c?uanti�y• r"^•- G induced trips. s would be to serve hypothetical way to measure induced trips ob} the.- or ramp immediately P rior to trafficvolumes on th volumes after encing, and teen to record the construe` -ion comet construction. Any increase in traffic could be at ter- tea --,-4-i nn could then - e useA directly to induced trips--rni7 i••--- models to predict induced trips - to develop variables , The problem with this approach is that other trips could explain -the difference between tt;ese besides induced p acted regional growth including two volumes. For example, unexp increased housing and commercial, industrial, or retail would increase traffic, while improved transit o= development would decease traffic signal coordination on parallel arterials traffic. lanning and This problem would be minimal if the P was taunted Construction periods were very short, and the traffic Constru Most of the immediately before and shortly after construction. freeway capacity increases studied, however, took a year or often much longer to complete, allowing greater amplitude in the •n variablesAlso, as will be discussed in detail confounding . frequently in the Bay Area* later, traffic counts are done very in Another problem in quantifying induced trips is in 17 accurately measuring the types of responses to road expansions: shifts in mode, travel time, route, and destination. Route shifts, for example from arterials to the improved freeway, prove difficult to assess since few arterials are regularly counted. In the Bay Area, few towns other than Berkeley and San Jose have regular counts of their arterials, although this non -freeway network is included in the traffic models. Mode shifts, e.g., from vanpools to single occupant vehicles, :could also confuse "he issue, in this example by having some of the traffic i.^.creases due not to induced trips. One theoretically valid way to quantify induced trips is to conduct interviews with drivers. Interviews could take place on the completed roads that have a tollbridge or plaza; realistically, this seems unlikely because of the time required. i-A large cohort study might also yield useful data. Regional y travelers could be questioned on their behaviors before and after the roadwork. Problems with this approach include the high time costs of gathering the data and the possibility of unreliable data, due to respondents' untruthfulness or forgetfulness. The primary rationale for the construction of the vast majority of the 27 freeway projects examined was decreased congestion. The benefits attributed to reduced congestion are better service to the drivers and improved air quality. Two problems underlie this reasoning. First the assumption that lessened congestion equals improved air quality is problematic. Although CO and hydrocarbon emissions are reduced as congestion 18 decreases, No. emissions are increased. Ozone, the major smog ingredient, is produced by the sunlight -aided reaction of reactive organic gases (from hydrocarbons) with oxides of nitrogen. While both smog ingredients have a number of sources other than vehicles, and high. levels of NO, may curb ozone levels, it is simplistic to say that decreasing one ingredient at the expense of the other improves air quality. Secondly, as mentioned previously, capacity increases do ndt,4 always result in decreased congestion, especially in the long run. Reiterating, roadway improvements have the abilit:✓ to spur r regional growth and thus attract more trips, and the latent demand for better -roads creates post -completion induced trips. In the short run, before development can occur and before people change their driving habits to take advantage of the uncongested road, emissions of CO and hydrocarbons may very well decrease. However, in the long run, as induced trips and/or regional growth occur, these emissions may go up. The roadway may end up I congested, but now with more vehicles and thus more emissions than it had previously. Despite the problems mentioned previously with quantifying induced trips, it is still valuable to compare traffic projections to actual counts. I could only find two instances where this has ever been done in the U.S., and both are small, limited studies. The Transportation Studies Center, a research branch of the Department of Transportation, has agreed to provide FHWA's Office of Planning with such a study. The*research will I tentatively look at 7 or, 3 major highway projects from around the country, and will compare actual costs to predicted costs in addition to traffic volumes. The results from this modestly - sized study (FHWA HPN-23) will not be available for perhaps a. year, however. B. Limitations of Data Comparing traffic projections to volumes was difficult. Due to lengthy construction time, unresolved environmental problems, or shortage of funds, 21 of the 27 projects I examined were not yet completed. One of the projects actually made no prediction of future traffic volumes'. Often the traffic projections in the EA/IS or EIS/R were not predictions of volumes (numbers of cars on the road), but rather of minutes of delay. Underlying this delay data were the volume predictions, but locating the volume numbers was not straightforward. Sometimes they could be found in one or more of the technical appendices, such as the Noise/Air/Energy reports. For other projects, I obtained the needed data from zhe original computer model printouts. To accurately model vehicle emissions at any point, at the barest minimum, projections of the following are required for each of the freeway's directions of travel: the average annual daily traffic (AADT; given in total vehicles per day), and -the (Environmental Document, Ramp... on 237 in Santa Clara County at Fair Oaks Avenue, 2/83). 9 • 20 0 a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes. This latter figure is usually defined for urban areas as the number of vehicles passing the point in the tenth busiest hour of the year'. Sometimes the traffic predictions were extremely crude. =c= example, some projects did not make predictions for each travel direction on the freeway, but rather lumped both directions into ADT (average daily traffic) and peak hour projections'. Sometimes the-ADT figure was.stated to be the AADT; other tinmes it was unclear if the ADT was the KwDT cr the ADT for the busiest month. Other -projects had no peak hour information, but on-L'; :.D= projectionst0. Other projects gave peak hour projections or .he a.m. only, ignoring the p.m. peak". The major problems I encountered, however, were a result of ' Caltrans' District 4's (Bay Area) troubled traffic count program. Over the last decade the program has been understaffed, underfunded, and its information undervalued. While recently! this trend has been partially reversed, the office is still lew on hardware and skilled staff. California's traffic census _ ' Personal communications With Emory Stoker, Research Analyst, Traffic Engineering Branch, Caltrans Headquarters, Sacramento; August 1990. ' (FEIS, Roseville Bypass, 9/84). 10 (ND/FONSI, Proposed Widening of 152 in Santa Clara County, 4/87). If (FEIS, Route 101 in Santa Clara County; fnew alignment freeway froml Cochrane Rd .... to 82. 7/78; ND, Wldening,101 ...in Santa Clara County from the Lawrence Expressway to the San Mateo County Line, 10/86). 21 program calls for at least a third of the state highways and interstates to be -counted each year. Thus the allowed maximum time between counts on a roadway is three years. In Districc 4, during -the last decade these requirements were rarely met. Often traffic on a road went uncounted for 5 or more years. The lack of up-to-date traffic counts created problems when trying to match a prediction to a count. Predictions are always made for a vear at least 20 vears in the future, and on score projects for intermediate years also, often at 5 or 10 year intervals. Growth.(or decline) in freeway traffic volumes is not always linear, but is often exponential or logarithmic._ Thus, in the typical case when the.traffic was counted in a year for which there was no projection, simply interpolatihq the accuracy of the prediction based .on straight-line traffic increases between the present and the predicted year(s) is somewhat inaccurate. Furthermore, the census program calls for the highway under study to be counted for a period of at least a week in each of the quarters of the year. Unfortunately, some of the District traffic counts were less than one week, and some were as short as 3 1/2 days. on most urban freeways and ramps, traffic varies substantially throughout the week, typically with highest volumes on Friday and other weekdays, and a marked drop in Saturday and especially Sunday traffic. In all cases where counts were made for less than a full week, the number of days is noted in the following Tables of results. The ADT figures I calculated from these short counts were not straight averages of the daily . 22 traffic totals, but were adjusted using knowledge of weekly variations on adjacent ramps and freeway sections to provide a best estimate of an accurate ADT volume. -Similarly, for counts of more than 7 days, the ADT's given are not a straight average of daily traffic totals, but are averages of the averaged weekday totals. Traffic volumes fluctuate not only with the day of the :reek, but also by the season. while seasonal fluctuation is generally less on urban as opposed to rural roads, in California with our emphasis on recreation, urban seasonal. variations are significant. These variations are usually not recorded is =:e Bay Area, though, since the counts are made only once in the rear z of the count. Another major obstacle to comparing predictions with counts ` was that even if the predictions were fairly extensive, frequently count information was available for only a small portion of the project. Basing a decision on the accuracy of ,an entire project's-traffic predictions on the validity of a small portion's (e.g., one interchange) prediction is risky business. As seen in the findings discussed below, on many of the projects some predictions seemed reasonable while others were ''inaccurate. On one project, the only portions to be counted were those for which no predictions had been made'. Another problem in the data arises from the fact that 's (DEIS, 92 Gap Closure and 92/101 Interchange Completion fin San Mateo Countyl, 2/79). 0 23 N traffic on freeway ramps is counted with rubber air hose.. - counters, instead of wire loops buried in the roadway. The loops record passing vehicles. However the air hoses count axes, not vehicles, and record 2 axles as 1 vehicle. Therefore each truck, which has up to 5 axles, incorrectly triggers the ramp hose counter into thinking that 2.5 vehicles have passed. There is no separate or additional tally of truck traffic on ramps. Thus, the ramp volumes in the data actually overstate the number of vehicles. Of course, if the percentage of ramp traffic that is trucks is ver,1 low, this problem is minimized. However, I chose not to use some arbitrary t=ucl: percentage to adjust the ramp volumes down, because of other problems that cause these figures to be too low. Measuring only one week out of the year and recording the highest observed volumes as the 0 peak hour volumes is inaccurate. This is because the actual peak hour volume is the volume recorded if the highway were to be , continuously monitored for an entire year and the tenth highest volume was selected. If the volumes were randomly distributed, the highest volume in a week of counting would be only 28% of the actual peak hour volume". However, peak hour volumes are not randomly distributed, " Actual peak hour = _10th highest hour 8670 hrs. each year and 240 hours in 10 days. So observed peak hour is x of actual peak hour, where: 10 X x-,28 8670 240 24 0 • because freeways have a finite carrying capacity. while the pear, hour volumes I use as actual volumes are certainly more than 28% of the real peak hour figures, they are still probably underestimates. Thus this error tends to -counteract the effec= of not adjusting ramp counts downward to account for the presence of -trucks on the ramp. - r C. Findings Because -of the reasons described above, it was 'possible to include only 5 of the 27 projects in Part.II of this study. Four were located in the Bay Area, and one was in the greater Sacramento region. Figures 1 and 2 show -the location of the projects. The first project was on I-680 in eastern Contra Costa County. In 1985, a new interchange at Bollinger Canyon Road was added to the freeway, and two existing interchanges, at Crow Canyon and Sycamore Valley Roads, were expanded. The FONSI/ND prepared in 1983 predicted traffic levels on all the ramps for the year 2005. (See Figure 3 for diagrams of all the ramps). In late April and early May of 1986, Caltrans crews counted traffic volumes on all the ramps, with their data collection varying from 10 to 3 1/2 days for different ramps. The 1986 ADT, and a.m. and p.m. peak hour volume counts are compared with the 2005 projections in Table 2. For these three interchanges, there was a total of 18 ramps. For 11 of these ramps, the 1986 volumes were significantly less 25 9 Figure 1: Greater Bay Area Capacity Increases included in Part II MONTEREY AREA. b". rz 0 aaooa=I 7N, ZZ ASA N FRANCISCO.-'. 7�vaoal .580 [Hoffman Freeway] Z!7 ------- wi� Ajb~ % EF, As— *a— a— f— aL /* Z .j 1 680 Interchange a. Z 121 C—Aft San Matto I el Cooed" If• a N sm Levowe he&, EL A 6§AL-- T. am If 77 N IK Me .4. �46 tar— n doao� I— a—. OOfiao` a— n A=! 77 0% & Widening Route 101-Lawrence Expressway .01 to San Mateo County Line Z. 0 11 • a- '"', Cover, &*wow Cow $ties. Par a—. Route 101- new alignment freeway 4— a- 7r, 1� RM 17J Figure 2: Sacramento Area Capacity Increase included in Part II '� ! r 1 •tell 1 r t 7 true •' r .( :::il •� ./ •�1 r raw + �? r ' ♦:••�EIIftYt •• ,,ii / at r,� •1 �' r•�w 1 Roseville Bypass [Route 65] ....: ' j' •'' ' st\ /i- ROierlll\ :� •,+c 3 i6� iI • �� � !i .rr. !t :,,.•_ •••t yr � _` •...w + � t • '• `` � S S.S +'/itre.s =law { • /�( —�• :(�? , .-i11'�\� /rr.. •Its--.r-�.�...�.��If.:"�:Y�u� S w.v. �i �(+. � 1{ �,3,.,•....,.—, _=3 .. �a � •,. it + ' i �(, • • 1 +� ♦ S .r• S '. n...w• + • y ��•t l /a ,r S�s / • • ' t 11 f:: + I/� .'�_ .r; a! /.� `_�• �•' fry. • : T w� - I , i. . •• // E i ti : � ' 4Y'7'j 1t'•..r. n^ / :i• { 2 f � � :. :'. . 1 1 ... •.rwr..••e �2 ^ rl.. -t �� 1 ♦w 1(+• ... r • 'r / • wL • jl •' -w' w - :A 1 ./ice+': 1 : ' � t 7 .. i� ,k'ttNue% Ci .► ♦ n/ ! at �' .ai..r.o+: � i:�t ri'3 • `�`+—\ �-'� �' t �S�tf l �r•cer/Lr� :Ij. 1 21�• ��� i � �3 at M '( S'Jir,m•,. r2:eii^�� e s. ••e , w f 1 = rr•.pt /'��l +S j .�wt• :� 3( 2 flt tam` S...a t r tl ws ' LS �• •\:Y•'if �.•.n • Jr f� i.I••it \ � � r f1�w...`•r • Pr 0 s tJ � I I t'i s r..•ce+ •• cWfmithzel. = as 7 • +j t w --� t . t 3 I ra .w IL "::C .off C \ 2 �°" 3--�.! l / -• f �I,u; +f +, C 7 = �CtrhtfI a ,t e 1 _ jsacramento '� ; ti. r ..: f : �G-•;fsL n S / ....+.. is � •... • :4� �v. � �• , I - . S h •..w IS t y w�ii • twit. `,. t..r • • r. \'' t -' .rig=♦� S 23 \.• ..c.w� i'\YI Jt •• .. - .r. e . r /.'• s .w• j' 1•r. 1 tw•. w 71 /.,� t • IS 2fmaw • t) • _ ` i •f r T t i t• iS 1/ ^ems"•- !'� • St! ( t fit Cm. 3 f % et • rw+ / r.. T1.• :'.; S \.if• J to o„' r,.,n �11:...1 , sl /:• •t.' 'j1 }� r w.� 1 + i� l• r 1! raw - �� • 2 ,1 Sf+t/ �•i !: �� �j�J• (1t 11 :1 i:� • , 1 = fta•tr+ ��, ` • \ t • //J ram• a. • i \7 /, its •1� ! •, . + . 1 :l�� +\ 2; �••► sl � �� = 1 27 Figure 3: Ramp Configurations for I-680 Interchanges . I-680 I-680 f SU off nmp So on loop S13 oil ramo�•--.�} \ ' Sa on mmpl S8 on loop so off loop SB on mmp l Bollinger C. o v OnL d. Rd. No on nmp �i3 �n ar..: '-11D on bop J �\ \ t►.:c� c BNB off ramp c- i^'fir i i i �NB Bollinger Canyon Interchange Crow Canyon Interchange I-680 NU on ramp v8 off loop YS off mmp Sycamore Valley Road SB off mmp� S8 on rampff lo SS oop Svcamore Valley Interchange 01 01 28 r Table 2: Predicted and Observed Traffic. Volumes on 3 I-680 Interchanges ?dote: Predicted volumes are for the year'_005, and observed volumes are from counts I in April and May of 1986. Ramp configurations are shown iri Figure 3. North and southbound are abbreviated NB and SB, respectively. Interchange is abbreviated I/C. F ADT a.m. peak hour p.m. peak hour Ramp Observed Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Prediaed 1986 2005 1986 2005 1986 2005 (Bollinger Cyn. I/C:) NB off ramp 5,890 18,950 1,435 2,235 714 1,505 NB on loop' 2,186 1,850 488 130 189 240 NB on ramp' 4,045 12.325 239 650 S95 1.315 SB cuff ramp 5,45S 15,175 1,097 2.010 622 1,025 SB on loop' 3?96 15,500 373 1.2.� 50 1.050 1.850 SB on ramp' 2 2275 2,320 32 ?`0 2233 260 (Crow Canyon NB on loop I/C:) 9,038 15,350 840 1,315 1, 074 1755 , NB off ramp' 3,686 20,175 577 2,270 521 1,765 NB on ramp' 7,054 15,625 432 1,760 1,078 1,365 SB off ramp' plus off loop 16,880 29,525 2,344 Z640 1,383 3,265 SB on loop' 3,105 13,175 245 1,200 394 1,435 SB on ramp' 5,976 6,775 491 535 770 820 (Sycamore Valley Rd. I/C:) . NB off ramp" 3,180 2,520 209 250 304 275 NB off loop" 3,682 3,990 387 245 353 440 NB on ramp' 9,803 18.060 1,135 1.420 SSO 1.985 SB off ramp" 4,534 3,890 367 995 415 430 SB off loop' 6,313 9,770 -358 995 .717 1,075 SB on ramp" 7,226 4,510 672 715 672 495 ` indicates a ramp with a significant underprediction for one or more parameters. ' indicates a ramp where the observed ADT is an estimate based on less than a full week of traffic counting. 29 A 0 than the 2005 projections, typically ranging from a third :.o two-thirds of the 2005 projections. Because of the 19-year discrepancy between the counts and the forecast, this range of observed traffic levels seems reasonable'.- For 'at least one of the three parameters of ADT or a.m. or p.m. peak hour, traffic on 7 of the ramps in 1986 was higher than that predicted for 2005. Another of the ramps had 1986 volumes that were as high as 94% of the year 2005 predictions. These ramps are indicated in Table 2, and are distributed across each of the three interchances. Caltrans seriously underestimated the future traffic olu.:.es ==r these ramps, since traffic modeling shoes yearly increases in `traffic levels until the ramps or freeways are saturated, and "then constant levels. In 1984,•12 miles of new -alignment freeway opened in Santa . *Clara County from Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill to Route 82 in San Jose. The new freeway, part of Route 101, replaced a length :of signalized highway known as Monterey Road and linked existing freeway sections to the north and south. The 1978 r-EIS-predicted 1995 AADT and a.m. peak hour mainline traffic volumes at 2 points along the new freeway. Two complete sets of these predictions were made for two different population projections. The "losouth" predictions assumed a moderate rate of growth in southern Santa Clara county, while the "grosouth" predictions assumed accelerated, substantial growth. Unfortunately, no predictions were made for ramp or p.m. peak hour volumes, and the AADT figures are 2-way volumes (lumping both travel directions W I into the given volume). Both the north and southbound directions of the new freeway -between the Bernal and Cochrane Roads interchanges (the southern half of the project) were counted for 5 1/2 days in August of 1985. For the northern half of the new freeway, only the southbound direction was counted, in both April of 1985 and October of 1984 for 7 days each time. Table 3 lists the traffic forecasts and the actual counts. Assuming that traffic volumes will not decline, Caltrans substantially underpredicted both A-ADT and peak.hour Zraffic n this project. Virtually all the predictions for 1995.using either growth alternative were exceeded.a decade early. Another project on Route 101 further north in Santa Clara County widened the existing freeway from 6 to 8 lanes through the towns of San Mateo, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. Completed in December of 1988, this project had peak hour predictions for ^995 and 2010 for all ramps and sections of the mainline. These predictions were made by DKS Associates. Unfort::nate3y, on=ti' one of the numerous interchanges along this section of freeway had been counted since the project was completed, and none of the freeway mainline had been counted since it was widened. The interchange that had been counted, in April of 1989, is the Lawrence Expressway/Route 101 interchange at the southern terminus of the project. The ramp configuration and designations " (July 1987 Route 101 in Santa Clara County: Bernal Road to . the San Mateo County Line Corridor Studv and Onerations Analysis, Final Report, DKS Associates). 31 Table 3: Predicted and Observed Traffic Volumes on Route 101 (new alignment freeway from .Cochrane Road to Route 82) . Note: All predicted volumes are for 1995. North and southbound are abbreviated NB and SB. "GroSouth" assumes high, accelerated onpulation growth in southern Santa Clara County; "LoSouth" assumes steady, continuing population growth. Mainline south of Metcalf Rd. overcrossing (between Bernal and Cochrane interchanges): "LoSouth" traffic predictions: Two-way ADT: NB a.m. peak hour. SB a.m. peak hour: -15,000 2,420 1,620 "GroSouth" traffic predictions: Two-wav ADT: NB a.m. peak hour: SB a.m. peak hour: 56,000 =,970 1,980 Observed traffic volumes (based on a 6 1/2-day count 8/85): Two-way ADT: NB a.m. peak hour: SB a.m. peak hour: 68,201 2,722 - 2,623 Mainline south of Blossom Hill Rd. (between Blossom Hill and Bernal interchanges): "LoSouth" traffic predictions: Two-way ADT: 54,200 "GroSouth" traffic predictions: Two-way ADT: 67,200 SB a.m. peak hour: 1,950 SB a.m. weak hour. 2,41 Observed traffic volumes (SB counts only; no NB counts): (10/84) SB ADT: 44,142 SB a.m. peak: 2,980 (4/85) SB ADT: 36,576 SB a.m. peak: 3,034 SB average ADT: 40,359 average SB a.m. peak: 3,007 Two-way ADT: 80,718` '(calculated assuming SB ADT=NB ADT; actual two-way ADT may be greater since for mainline segment to the north, SB ADT was less than NB ADT) 0 0 • 32 ' Figure 4: Lawrence Expressway/Route 101 Interchange Ramn Configuration Off ramp from 101 SB On loop to 101 S Lawrence Expressway On ramp to 101 S / Off loop from 101 SB' Southbound (SB) • Route 101 On ramp to 101 ``B ff loop from 101 XB A \2n loop to 101 NB Off ramp from 101 NB Northbound (NB) 33 of this full•cloverleaf are shown in Figure 4. Of the'8 ramps, 4 had 1989 a.m. peak hour volumes higher ti than the 1995 predictions, and.2 of these were even higher than the•2010 predictions. The comparison is shown in Table 4. While it was only possible to judge the validity of the forecasts for one of many intersections and nowhere on the mainline, and no forecasts were made for ADT volumes, fully half of the comparisons possible show substantial underprediction. Table 4: Predicted and Observed Traffic Volumes for the Route 101/Lawrence Expressway Interchange - i Note: Predicted volumes are for 1995 and 2010, and observed volumes are from April 1989 counts Ramp configuration is shown in Figure 4. North and soutbbound are abbreviated NB and SB, respectively. peak hoar. Ramp: 1989 (Observed) 199S Prediction 2010 Prediction = On loop to 101 SB from Xwav 334 539 651 OR ramp from 101 SB to Xwa? 701 693 771 OR loop from 101 S8 to Xway` 3" 323 371 On ramp to 101 SB from Xway 798 1.050 1,000 On ramp to 101 NB from Xway 392 590 619 OR loop from 101 NB to Xway' 1,025 S42 W i On loop to 101 NB from Xway 532 649 691 OR camp from 101 N8 to Xway` 722 674 7:0 ` indicates a ramp where traffic was significantly underprediaed. The fourth and final Bay Area project in this segment of the 4 study was the construction of a new freeway from Route 80 to the Richmond/San Rafael bridge. The 6-lane freeway, with an HOV lane in both directions for much of its length, replaced a road network that consisted of both a signalized highway and a limited 34 • 0 access 4-1ane expressway (Hoffman Boulevard). Original plans were for the freeway to be labelled Route 17 or I-180, but today it is designated I-580, although it is not yet cdmplete. The road is open to traffic, but a few interchanges are not yet in their final configuration or are still closed. Caltrans officials believe that current traffic volumes are below the volumes the road. will carry when it is completed. A* Detailed predictions for 1995 ramp and mainline ADT and a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes were made in the August 1979 Relrised Traffic Proiections for the 180 (17' Corridor. in the Ci- Richmond. Caltrans counted traffic on most of the existing on and off ramps in late April and May of 1990, but has not counted mainline volumes on the freeway. Indeed, counting the mainline will prove difficult, -for in the rush to open the new lanes after the Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989, no loops were installed. . However, because the bridge at the western end of the project is a toll bridge, daily traffic volumes are always recorded there. Thus ADT is readily calculable, but only in the direction of the toll, which is westbound. Knowing the total vehicles at the project's western terminus and adding and subtracting all vehicles entering and leaving the mainline could theoretically yield mainline ADT volumes at any point along the project. This was not possible, however, since Caltrans had not counted the exit immediately east of the bridge, among others. Table 5 compares the 1995 predictions to the 1990 counts. 35 9 :. , .. .. . I Table 5: Predicted and Observed Traffic Volumes on 1-580 [the Hoffman Freeway] dote: Predicted Volumes are for 19950 and assume the freeway is completed. Observed volumes are from counts in late April and eariy May of 1990. when the freeway was not ;ct uUmpietcd. West :utd t �;astbound are abbreviated WB and EB, respectively. I A,Dq; ' • a.= peak hour. p.m peak hour. RAMPObserved Predicted Observed Predicted Observed Predicted 1990 1995 . 1990 . 199S t'M 199S �YB on ramp from Central Ave.` 4,458 2.W, 378 260 210 511 236 140 ' 345 EB off ramp to Central Ave. 2,3M 7,625 _ 5,400 193 .. _ 200 _ 490 711 320 i WB off ramp to Bayview Ave.` 3.554 NVB on ramp from Bavview Ave. 1,904 5,870 180 495 182 370 EB on ramp from Bayview Ave.' 2,M9 5.400 400 I WB off ram to Erlandson St.',?.S8 P 7,000 187 1� SG0 r►�360 ! Era on loop from E.rlandson St. 1,801 7,00� 316 M '_,i ! NVB off ramp to 23rd SL' Eli on ramp from :3rd SL' 2,322 3,950 37,21 100 =f' 310 EB tiff ramp to 23rd St. 1,o49 St' 3,937 4.670 4320 '' ' 894 ' � 2"'1 ,' '0 i ED on loop from 23rd WB off ramp to Harbour Way' 3,109 5,055 213 170 435 320 W B tiff ramp to Cutting Blvd.` Z358 Z405 271 ?SO 565 �Z 170 EB off ramp to Cutting Blvd. 4,233 EB off ramp to Marine SL 3,723 8,600 5,600 313 S02 590 Observed toll plaza WB mainline ADT: 24,893 Predicted WB ADT for mainline 580 east of Western Dr. interchange: 30,000 (see text for discussion of mainline comparison) ' indicates a ramp with a significant underprediction for one or more parameters, although some of the other ramps may also represent underpredictions. F Of the 15 interchange ramps on this section of I-580 that could be included in the study, o had actual traf:?c.volumes .hat: exceeded predicted volumes for ADT or a.m. or p.m. peak hours. These ramps are indicated in the table. Only one of these ramps had all three parameters exceeded; the other 7 had one or both peak hour predictions exceeded. Additionally, various other ramp volumes were close to the level forecast for 1995. There was no ADT prediction for the freeway at the toll plaza, but there was a prediction one interchange to the east of the toll. This interchange, Western Drive, is estimated by �7_ 36 I Caltrans District 10 traffic count staff to car --I relatively minor levels of traffic, and thus -the ADT mainline predictions just east of Western Drive can be used as roughly -equivalent :o the ADT predictions at the toll plaza.. Table 5 also compares the toll plaza ADT count based on the late- April and May traffic =o the mainline prediction east of Western Drive. While District 10 traffic count staff suspect that west and eastbound. ADT volumes are not equal on I=580, since the toll is only collected in the westbound direction, there is no measurement of eastbound traffic. Thus I could only compare the obse ^red westbound :.D volume at this point.to the westbound prediction to the east. This prediction seems reasonable, for the*1990 traffic is considerably below the level projected for 1995. Of the 6 projects in the greater Sacramento area, it was possible to include only one, the Roseville Bypass, in this second part of the study. In September of 1987, a new -alignment, 4-lane limited access expressway opened from the existing Route 65 to I-80, allowing through traffic to bypass the signalized highway through downtown Roseville (see Figure 2). This typass is essentially a new -alignment freeway. Predictions of 2-way ADT and peak hour volumes on the bypass were made in the 1984 FEIS for traffic levels in the year 1987 and at 3-year intervals thereafter. Traffic on the bypass is counted continuously, and Table 6 compares the predictions to the counts. The actual volumes are less than the predictions for this project. Roseville was predicted to develop substantially as the 37 Table 6: Predicted and Actual TraMc Volumes on the Roseville Bypass (Route 6 ) Note: Actual volumes are rounded to the nearest hundred. Actual ADT volumes are AADT t'igu= predictions are not assumed to be AADT figure. Actual volumes were obtained for a continuous count of the freeway for the entire year specified. Two-way mainline ADT volumes: 1988 Actual 1989 AcruAl 1987 Prediction 1990 Prediction 13,000 14,800 11,700 21,200 Two-way peak hour volumes: 1998 Actual 1989 Actual 1987 Prediction 1M Prediction 1.300 1—C,00 1': w I W computer and semiconductor industries moved to the area. One factor that may explain the lower than expected volumes is tha= as a result of changes in these industries much of the predicted development has not occurred. D. Discussion of Part II Findincls e Despite the numerous problems and uncertainties discussed at L• length earlier with the data this study uses, it.is clear that the planning for freeway capacity increases has -frequently underestimated the traffic that actually uses the new or improved roads or interchanges. While the magnitude of the underprediction has varied, in 5 of the 6 projects that were analyzed, the forecasted traffic volumes or some portion thereof were exceeded, as much as a decade ahead of schedule. Thus it seems that there has been a consistent underprediction of traffic use for a variety of projects, including those planned quite recently as well as more than a decade ago. 38 0 0 Looking in detail at the specific factors that could explain where the forecast models erred is beyond the scope of this study. Certainly one problem is the lengthy time between projecc planning and construction. Because of the complex environmental process, the vagaries of construction, political opposition, or inertia, planning and constructing a major freeway projec-* can take up to a decade or more. This tends to decrease the validi:.y of the forecast models for several reasons. First, given infrequent traffic counts, the counts on existing road network, which are an essential input to =he -cde_s predicting future traffic, often predate the final environ-en=al document by as much as 4 years. If traffic has increased during this time, which almost invariably is the situation in California, the models will tend to underpredict future traffic. Second, lengthy time between planning and construction may mean that the effects on traffic of significant increases or locational shifts in regional growth in the meantime are not predicted. An "explanation" by Caltrans for the observed underpredictions might simply be that regional growth outstripped the projections of the various local and regional planning bodies, and blame for this is simply not attributable to the transportation providers. However, increased regional growth is often a function, at least in part, of freeway capacity increases. Ultimately the reason for underprediction is irrelevant when 39 weighing the consequences of this trend on regional air gual:�y. Because congestion levels and tailpipe emissions are partially . determined by traffic volumes, underprediction of volumes means that these projects' air quality analyses were inaccurate and overly optimistic. No matter the cause, consistent underprediction of future traffic means that the supposed air quality benefits of freeway work have been consistently overstated. CONCLUS iONV This study found significant flaws in the air quality analyses done for freeway capacity increases. The level of detail of the analyses was often inadequate and the traffic forecasts underlying the analyses showed a pattern of underprediction of the improved roads' actual use. Freeway ,projects that were allowed on the belief that they were going to- help solve our pollution problems have instead probably made them worse. Checking on the accuracy of the traffic predictions is essential to preventing further deterioration in air quality. After years of federal and state reductions in highway project funds, Proposition ill, in addition to county transportation tax initiatives throughout the state, will provide a huge influx of money into cash -starved construction programs. Many projects 0 which have been planned for years will now have their NEPA/CEQA documents prepared, or will be put out for bids. If traffic 40 0 predictions turn out to significantly understate the actual traffic levels on these projects, Californians will suffer by breathing air that will be more noxious than predicted in the projects' air quality analyses. Furthermore, given -the drastically tighter standards of the California Clean Air Act, as well as the forthcoming Clean Air Act amendments, it is now more important than ever to scrutinize. these types of highway projects closely to see that they don't pull our urban areas into a smog -choked future `ro- which we could only escape at enormaous sbcial cost. To improve the planning process for these tapes of projects, . I suggest the following steps be undertaken. Most urgently, Caltrans should improve its traffic counting program, especially in the Bay Area and other areas of the state where this program is weak. Spending over a billion dollars a year on construction and so little on traffic counts is poor public policy, for the counts form the basis on which all highway planning rests. The technology exists, and is employed in he Sac=ar_en-o area, to continuously count freeway traffic. For roughly $4,000 for each location, Sacramento has permanently installed the hardware needed in conjunction with buried roadway loops to continuously monitor freeway mainline and ramp volumes. Using loops to monitor ramp traffic, as is done in Sacramento, eliminates the inaccuracy of air hose counts caused by vehicles with more than 2 axles. Also, new loops have become available which are round in shape rather than square, and appear to be 41 considerably more reliable and less prone to failure. Broken loops should be replaced, and all new projects should have loops installed as a matter of course. Predictions for traffic use on capacit:: increasing =rojec=s should be standardized to include estimates of AADT and a.c. and • p.m. peak hour volumes, for each roadway direction, rather than minutes of delay, combined 2-way volumes, or other information. Even more importantly, Caltrans should check the accuracy of their traffic predictions by comparing them to =_ct-_a =oad::a:: counts to continually improve predictions on suture LroDec=s. The analysis of the effect of the project on emissions should as a'minimum quantify the emissions on CO (both in the immediate project vicinity as well as regionally), HC, NO,, CO2, and PM-10. A practical monitoring and compliance plan should be • required to be a part of every project that alludes to mitigation measures. Interchange projects should model not only the emissions of the cars actually on the ramps or in the interchange, but also the emissions of the vehicles on the mainline affected by the interchange traffic. • 42 Aooendix A There is a fairly large body of research that examines the effect of highways on regional economies and land use. With the large amounts of federal money provided for tt:e interstate net -work in the 1950's and early 1960's, there was An accompanying flurrl of academic research, as well as studies sponsored by the DOT and FHWA, on the effects of these highways. Much of this',work falls into one or more of the following categories: " -The effect of a highway bypass on'the economy of the bypassed town or village; -The regional economic effects of urban beltways; -Land use patterns at freeway interchanges in both rural and suburban areas; -Highway impacts on both actual and perceived property values; ' -Land use changes resulting from arterial and highway improvements, for both rural and for urban areas; -Demographic and community changes resulting from new alignments and highway improvements. These studies have used a very diverse assortment of data sources, including aerial photography, number of and prices for home sales, interviews with local officials and homeowners, census tract information, gross sales and manufacturing data, and county zoning maps. Some of the'more interesting or relevant studies are 0 43 a summarized below. The call number, in parentheses, 46s used the Institute of Transportation Studies Library, at UC Berkeley, where most of these are available. Griggs, A.O. Review of Some Effects of Major Roads on Urban Communities. 183. Chapter 3, "Land Use Changes". Includes summary of various studies done on the effect of house prices. Typically these show a slight decrease in value for houses very close to the freeway (a result of increased noise) and increases for those homes nearby that benefit from the improved mobility. Range is -6 to +10%. (NS 83-531). i:ingham, I.Z. "Suburban Hwvs. & Roads as Instr�. ments of Lard J:se Change," Trans. Research Record 565, 176. Highway engineers see their task as catching up on the ��o•:~_s:�- of road capacity to meet travel demand. "Suburban highways are a result of land development and do not influence land use change." All he did to conclude this, though, was interviews; a study ::it:: 'limited use. 'Buffington, J.L., et al.'"Non-User.Impacts of Different Hwy. °Designs as Measured by Land Use and Land Value Changes. Research "Report 225-2. Tx. Trans. Inst., Tx. A & M University. 178. .Found (for Texas) that urban areas were less affected by highway improvements than suburban and rural areas, because of the lack of undeveloped properties to develop., 'Adkins, W.G. & A.W. Tieken. "Economic Impacts of Expressways in San Antonio, Tx. Trans. Inst., Bull.#11, 158. Because of the lack of undeveloped/vacant land in the region, there were few land use changes when the new expressways were built. Adkins, W.G. "Effects of the Dallas Central Expressway on Land Values and Land Use," Tx. Trans. Inst., Bull.7#6, 157. This freeway, built through a previous slum, created major land use changes. Much new commercial, industrial, and residential development occurred. Most of these changes occurred abutting 'the highway or not far from it, though. Duke, R. "The Effects of a Depressed Expressway-- a Detroit Case Study," The Appraisal Journal,158. Ford Expressway influences limited to roughly 300 metres on both sides of it. Palmquist,R.B. "The Impact of Hwy. Improvements on Property Values in WA State," for WA DOT. 181. Multiple regression study shows appreciation for areas with the 44 0 v 9 new highway is 15-17% higher than for those without. Even within 600' of the road where noise is an issue, appreciation due to accessibility is generally greater than the noise depreciation. A sophisticated study: he looked at over 9000 sale prices, as well as interviewing residents. However, the increases in appreciation occurred only where the highway could be used :or commuting. (TA1001.5.27). Yu,J.C.& Allison,J.L. "A Methodology for forecasting Belt_oute Corridor Land Use Impacts and its Application to Utah I-215. Opt. of Civil Eng., U. of Utah, 185. Essentially the goal of this study is to allow towns to plan to encourage "appropriate" (as defined by each community) growth along the road corridor. The authors believe that beltways are developed differently than regular limited. -access expressways, because they carry a different set of passengers. They establisha a complex predictive model to be used by torn piarners across t: country, who must input data specific to existing land uses _n the region of their proposed beltway. They test their model on I-215 outside of Salt Lake. Conclusions: "[Beltrout.es; are particularly capable of altering, on a large scale, the at=it..ce potential land users have for land within the region through which the route will be located as well as for land within reasonable distance of the beltroute." "The perpendicular extent of the [beltroute] corridor is a function of the homogeny of land .use as well as homogeny of characteristics of the land itself. The extent [of] such a homogeny, both perpendicular and parallel to the beltroute, yields an indication of the potential area that a particular land use may eventually occupy." "A beltroute can facilitate and even precipitate new land uses within the urban area..." (TA1001.5.P7)•. Payne -Maxie Consultants, Blayney-Dyett Urban & Regional Planners. "The Land Use and Development Impacts of Beltways: Case Studies," for DOT, 180. A huge study trying to pin down the effects of urban circumferential highways for 8 regions. Most of the roads studied were built in the 160's or 1701s. It lacks any* statistical techniques to attempt to accurately link changes to the road, but rather tries to do so an 200 pages later; the reader has a picture of*how areas develop, but not how the roads affected their development. (HE370.2.P2). Barton-Aschman Assoc., for Illinois DOT. Highway and Land -use $elationships in Interchange Areas, Springfield, VA. 168 A fairly typical example from numerous studies I saw on land use at interchanges. (There is a related set of research on the economics of interchange location, typically in terms of sales volumes, based, on such factors as ADT on the highway). This study concludes "new hwy. facilities have a strong tendency to generate new uses of land that are often, themselves, generators 45 of large traffic volumes" [e.g., shopping malls]. (HE370.2.B2). is Babcock,W.F.& Khasnabis,S. "An Analysis of the Impact of Freeways on Urban Land Developments in NC...," NC State Raleigh, 'i4. "Historically, the estimation of traffic for the freeway & `hc intersecting roads has been accomplished by standard traf=ic projection techniques. Generally, these have been based upon existing land development plans and adopted transportation plans. In many cases, such predictions have not been realistic, because of unanticipated traffic that was•generated by new land.uses :brought about by the existence of the freeway." This study tried to determine what development had occurred because of the freeway by looking at aerial photographs over time and interviewing city alanners. (4505 Microfiche). Burkhardt,J.E. Socio-economic 'Reactions to Hwv. Deveioorent, 183. Analyzes ef-fects of-freeways`ypicalll built through -,1r.-0an. and usually poor, areas in the 1960's & 1970's. He socked at demographic, land'use, housing market, etc. changes. �. While such freeway building has essentially stopped today because such projects are no longer socially acceptable, he has some interesting findings. Measurable impacts were limited to a 5 to 10 block swathe adjacent to highway, and the impacts were not Big conclusion: the necessarily negative for the neighborhood. ;1 general patterns of these freeways on the adjacent areas are definitely secondary to site -by -site variations. (TA1001.5P7). Cosby,P.J.& J.L.Buffington OR Herndon,C.W.& Buffington. "Land Use Impacts of improving... Collins St. in a Developed Area of Arlington, TX/ Gessner Rd. in a Developing Area of Houston/ etc. Tx. Trans. Inst., Tx. A&M U., Ntl. Tech. Info. Service. 179 to '80. These are 6 very similar studies which use the same research methodology. All look at improvements to arterial fnon- expressway] roads in different urban and suburban areas of Texas. The studies set up 6 categories of land use, and quantify the changes in land use occurring after the road upgrades. Typical conclusions: "although the improvement of Collins St. helped create an area more attractive for development, the impact on land use [for this developed area] was not extensive. a). Most of the development in this area occurred... before the road improvement began and was most likely not influenced by the road change....c) The road improvement is viewed as a positive influence, because if the street had not been widened the resulting congestion would have been a deterrent to development. OR: [for a developing area), 1)Commercial and multi -family residential developments that were put on unimproved land were located in the Gessner area partly because of the improved access. 2). The improvement was also important in the changes from single family to commercial and multi -family uses. General criticisms: These studies are fairly simplistic. By lumping all 46 land use into 6 categories, they do not distinguish bet:+een density, quality, etc. of the areas•befoxe and after improvements. Furthermore, they limited analysis to what struck me as an overly -narrow band along the improved roadways. There is no attempt to verify causality of changes, but only the assumption that the changes are a direct result of the road. _ Finally, none of the studies looked at limited -access highways. (N.S.79-998,80-404/5/6.etc). Rollins,J.B. et al. cI1ects of Roadway Improvements on Ad-iacent LAnd Use An Agareaative Analysis and the Feasibility of using Urban Development Models. Tx. Trans. Inst. in coop. with FHWA. _ Research Report 225-22. Study 2-8-77-225. 182 T This study looked at 18 arterial improvements in non -rural Texas, including the ones above. Typical improvements were arterial lane increases, adding medians, turning lanes, etc., and most were done in -the 170's.• This was easily the most statist_ca:_. sophisticated study 1 found. Techniques included ordinary: least squares multiple -regression and a simultaneous ecmations =cdel with two -stage and three -stage least squares. The model allowed the changes in the percent of each of the 6 land use categories to be explained by numerous other independent variables besides just the road improvements. Conclusions: net overall land development is not significantly changed due to the roadway improvements. But, roadway improvements do affect the development rates of specific types of land uses. Residential and public development Are associated with ADT growth, and thus road improvements. ()i.S.82-116). Economic and Social Effects of Highway Improvements, Section IV, "Land & Prop. Values & Land Usage in relation to Dor`.. Hwy. r improvements. U.Mich., '61. Older study, but some interesting findings. "The Dort Highway (a Flint, MI bypass built in the late 19501sj, like most other major arteries, has been a powerful force molding S developing =::e area which it serves." "The highway, by providing accessibili-:, makes it possible to subdivide large tracts for the more intensive uses demanded as a result of increasing economic activity and growth..." Mountain West, Socioeconomic and Land Value Impact of Urban Freeways in Arizona, for AZDOT in coop. with FHWA. (FHWA 3AZS7- •282). 187. Very thorough, careful study of the impact of freeway construction on land use changes and property values in the greater Phoenix region. To study land uses, aerial photography, zoning changes, census data, and planning documents were used. Property sales and valuation data and owner interviews were also used. This study used control areas (lacking the freeways but otherwise similar) to link observed changes specifically to the freeways. Major findings: "The strongest and most obvious conclusion about the historic 47 . v socioeconomic impact of freeways in metro ?hoenix is =::at freeways are a necessary but not sufficient cause for development to occur. Other factors are equally as important, including municipal planning and zoning, land availability, existing utilities and infrastructure, and other transportation modes -- railroads -and arterials... (etc). Freeways merely create a condition that improves the market opportunity for change.... Development around freeways can be controlled by strong ur!:an land use planning.: However, it is clear that income -generating properties-- non-residential uses and apartaents-- have strong locational preferences for freeway corridors... (The) intensity of freeway corridor development depends on a combination of macroeconomic demand conditions and the supply of developable land... Beyond these broad statements, the specific kinds of land uses and their locations•are very much dependent on the peculiarities of place-- existing land uses, existing zoning, etc... Land values in proposed freeway corridors have increased due to road alignment announcements... It Is clear t!iat =:eeways have stimulated non-residential growth." This grossly oversimplifies very detailed findings. (HE336.E3.T66). ;Briggs,R. "The Impact of Interstate Hwy System on Non -metro. .Growth," DOT, Office of Univ. Research. Ntl. Tech. Info. Service, ;' 80. ;Statistically sophisticated look at the big national picture; • ;included suburban, exurban, and rural growth across the country. Me county was the unit of analysis. Conclusions: "The results ;of the research showed that, while counties with Interstates...• 'have higher average growth rates, even after confounding .factors... are controlled, the presence of a limited access highway •is far from an assurance of development for an individual county... The Interstate system was less able to explain the spatial pattern of development than non -transportation f6actors. (PB81-212987 fiche). Few studies investigate the effect of highway improvements ,on induced trips/ADT/congestion, and thus air quality. All too often this topic is discussed in general qualitative terms with apparently very little quantitative work having been done to demonstrate actual effects. The following studies touch on this issue at least peripherally. 48 4 Op 0 John Paterson Urban Systems. Feasibility of Assessing Efoectsfoof $,Qad TMUovements on Trio M'ak . na and ba b c the [Australian] Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, 171 Essentially, this whole document is an attempt by a consultant to ite a computer model to forecast the secure a contract to wr y improvements on induced trips. He wanted about effect of highway effect-of $25, ig is 1973 money to do it, and predicted t:':at it would Austhe take 3 people most of a year to :Trite the didn'tisDDeryngereral didn't get the contract. This document/p P and of limited use. (HE370.2.J6). Ziering,E. et al. "Energy Impacts of Transportation System Improvements," Trans. Research Record 870. This study basically applies modeling and work done by numerous new model. "Unlike many earlier energy other researchers into a impact estimation procedures, this methodology e::p'i=i==y considers induced and diverted travel resulting from a transportation improvement and the effect of is travel ^on ==•E *o calculating _ e level of transportation services." `ey �� elasticities induced traffic levels are a set of %rave_ -demand developed by Charles River Associates for the CA Energy Commission in 1982. "[The model] produced results that were frequently counterintuitive... and contrary to commonly accepted conclusions [ie, road improvements conserve fuel by reduingof th energy [and air quality] impacts :y congestion] concerning e projects." Furthermore, "Highway widening or bypass'projects can. either increase or decrease... consumption... Ramp -metering projects yield energy savings rampwhen delaysmented reduceutheramountsofd cases conditions... In most , induced new travel." "The Vehicle -Miles of Travel -Urban Highway Supply Relationship," in Ntl. Coop. Hwy. Research Program's Research Results Digest ;127, 12/80. Summary of NCHRP project "0-19 by Cambridge Systematics et al. which generated a computer model that relates highway supplY ais among other things, air quality. This model, which apparently huge and consumes large amounts of computer time, was run on 2 Bay Area highways: lane additions to Rte.24 from the Caldecott Tunnel east to Concord, and construction of Rte. 24 west from the ts tunnel. The model ays both all these.antseexceptvforeen NOxnet air quality improvements (TA1001.5.N32). 49 Transportation Consultant Services Traffic Congestion and Capacity Increases Prepared for. SierraClub Legal DefenseFund, Inc. and Citizens• : - ..0 Environment Prepared by: APPLIED MANAGEMENT & PLANNING GROUP Angust 1990 6=- xh%bit3 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Traffic Congestion and Capacity Increases Introduction The primary issue of concern in this document is the relationship between traffic congestion and proposed increases in the capacity of transportation facilities, with particular reference to environmental documents produced by public agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area. The questions to be addressed are: Do capacity increases in a congestion -constrained transportation system produce long-term relief of congestion with concomitant reduction in air pollutants from vehicles? • Are these issues addressed adequately in current environmental documents prepared in connection with proposed highway projects in the Bay Area? • Are current Bay Area transportation forecasting procedures capable of providing quantitative estimates of the impacts of capacity increases? To address these issues, this paper first outlines the issue of traveler behavior in response to capacity increases. Next the paper explores the capabilities of travel -forecasting procedures in current use in the Bay Area to deal with the impacts of capacity increases. Third, the paper examines the environmental documents and supporting methodology documents to determine the extent to which these issues are addressed in the current environmental documents. APPufD MAMGEM&a �Pc Page 1 TRAFFIC CONGESTION ,AND CAPACITY INCREASES Travel Behavior Responses to Capacity Increases The issue to consider here is how people actually can be expected to behave in a capacity -constrained transportation system, when capacity additions are provided. In other words, the questions is: what does common sense tell about how people will react to added capacity when the transportation system is already heavily congested? A capacity -con- strained system is defined as one in which use of the transportation system is limited by its capacity, because there is already sufficient de- mand being placed on the system to fill all available capacity. This des- cribes the state of the transportation system in the Bay Area. Behavior under Congestion First, a capacity -constrained transportation system is defined as one in which many highway (and/or transit) facilities are overloaded for substantial t periods of the day, resulting in low average travel speeds and prolonged { peak periods. One can put together a list of the responses that individuals ' make to traveling in such conditions. While transportation planners have not had funds available that would allow the sort of consistent measure- ment that is required to prove the effects of congestion, simply by general- * izing from one's own behavior and that of colleagues, and observing what happens to traffic in general in a congested urban area, one can list the types of impacts that congestion has on behavior: People forego trips they would otherwise like to make; People leave for work earlier or later, and return from work earlier or later, resulting in spreading the peak periods; People will try to find alternative routes that are less congested, often moving off the freeway onto arterial streets, until the streets are as congested as the freeways; MAMGEMENr O urvNIrvG Page 2 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND Cr4PAC17Y INCREASES • To avoid some of the time taken up in travel, people will chain trips together, such as stopping at the bank or cleaners on the way to or from work; People will choose closer destinations, exchanging a more desirable but more distant location for some activity for a closer, but less desirable one; if alternatives exist, people will change mode of travel, electing to use carpools or transit in preference to driving alone; and • In the long run, people will relocate their residences to be closer to work or other attractions and reduce the amount - of travel required to conduct their normal day -today activities. There is some evidence available on reactions to congestion. Congested urban areas tend to exhibit longer peak periods than uncongested ones, and the phenomenon of peak spreading, i.e. the lengthening of the peak period, is at least anecdotal and often measurable. Peak spreading is evidence of people shifting certain trips to other times of the day in an effort to avoid the severity of congestion at the height of the peak. For example, people may decide to get to work earlier in the morning in order to avoid the worst congestion. They may also leave earlier or later from work to go home for the same reason. Such rescheduling tends to lower the worst of the peak but creates peaks that last longer. In the Los Angeles area, the peak periods in the 1970s were defined as being from 7 a.m. to 9 am. and from 2:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. It is now being proposed that planners use a morning peak of 6 am. to 9 a.m. and an evening peak of 2:30 p.m. to 7 p.m., representing a lengthening of the peak periods by about 2 hours per day. There is often a decline in average trip lengths as congestion levels increase, indicating the choice of nearer locations than before for various trips. However, as we discuss further below, the overall time spent in travel within a 24-hour period tends to stay constant, so that as travel gets MAWGEME°r &PLMNING Page 3 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES slower, the total distances that people can travel are reduced. The trip purpose least susceptible to the change in travel distance is the work trip, which is dictated by affordable housing and location of jobs, while discre- tionary trips like recreation, social visiting, etc. are much more likely to be affected. The stability of certain time -based phenomena in travel provide additional evidence of response to congestion. Measurements taken at various times in the past century on average travel times to and from work in such cities as Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and also overseas in such cities as London, Munich, and Paris, show a surprising stability -in the average and maximum amounts of time that people spend traveling to and from work. In spite of numerous changes in transportation technologies, nature of work, housing development, etc., the average time spent getting to and from work has stayed close to 20 minutes, with an average distance just under ten miles (11, and approximately 99 percent of all work trips are , completed in no more than 90 minutes. This stability in travel times r indicates that longer travel times are not found to be acceptable, so that z workers are forced by congestion to accommodate to this perceived maximum time by time -of -day shifts, job or home location shifts, and rearrangements (trip chaining, or making minor diversions on the way to or i r from work to accomplish other errands that would normally require a separate trip out from home and back) of other requirements for travel so that traveling to or from work is chained with other activities. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) published a manual on computing user benefits from transporta- ton improvements [21 that notes the constancy of travel time budgets for all travel, not just travel to and from work. On page 18 of that manual, the following is stated: "A final qualirication of the use of a value for automobile and r transit travel dme savings is the indication from recent stud- ies that total average personal travel time has, over many years, been extremely invariant in different urban areas, at about 1.1 hours per capita per day (40). This means that the long-term — or, in some cases, the short term — results of APPUED MANAGEMENT LANN/NG GROUP Page 4 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES reductions in travel time caused by improved personal trans- portation facilities or operations usually show up in two ways: " Longer trips— the tendency in large urban areas to increase spatial opportunities and decrease resid- ential density. " More frequent trips— such as increases in trips for cultural and social purposes. "The argument for ascribing values to personal travel time savings must, therefore, regard time savings as a surrogate for other values that travelers seek, rather than as an end in itself, since the average daily time budget remains unaf- fected." [2] The citation says that an individual living -in an urban area has been shown to have a fairly constant amount of time that, on average, he or she is willing to spend on travel, and that is 66 minutes. The citation then deals with the response to capacity increase and points out that it will be most • likely to have one of two effects: a lengthening of the distance people travel in large urban areas and a long-term consequent decrease in resid- ential density; and more travel being undertaken, particularly for cultural and social activities. The citation concludes by saying that the justification for putting a monetary value on travel time savings (as is frequently done in cost -benefit analysis of transportation projects) is justified not so much because people are willing to spend money to avoid travel, but rather because they will trade off activities they would like to do with time spent in travel. The reference within this citation is to a paper presented by Yacov Zahavi(31 that investigated the evidence for constant time budgets and the impact of these on urban sprawl. In another document [41, Zahavi notes on page 46: "...shorter trips times may be traded off not only for more trips but also for either longer trips distancewise or savings in daily travel times." [4] APPLIED AMANAGEMENT &PLANNING Page 5 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 Later in the same document (page 64), he goes on to say: "It may be inferred from the above results that an increase in travel speed (such as brought about by an improved trans- portation system) may not necessarily save travel times; in the short run it may be traded off for a combination of more and longer trips, while in the long run it may be traded off for shifts in residence location." [4] Similar results have been shown in a more recent paper [5]. Taken to- gether, these various sources are clearly agreed that adding capacity to a congested system results in people making longer distance trips (within the same amount of time), traveling to a larger variety of places, and eventually even relocating their residences further from many of the activities that are involved in daily living, resulting in a commitment to longer travel distances. To a large extent, the congestion responses noted above also provide evidence that congestion is a self-regulating phenomenon. This is also noted by Remak and Rosenbloom, who state: • "Congestion in itself acts as a deterrent to drivers choosing to add their vehicles to an already overcrowded roadway. When road capacity is increased, this deterrent is weakened, and although, for a time, traffic flows more smoothly, new users are soon attracted to the improved route until conges- tion conditions reappear." [61 Remak and Rosenbloom also add: "The self-regulating phenomenon is more pronounced in large urban areas than in smaller ones ... the larger, more volatile economy of major urban areas produces an almost endless supply of commuters, who quickly adjust their travel - to -work patterns to take advantage of improved traffic condi- tions." [61 APPLIED Page 6 MMUGEMENT a LINNING g GpoUP 11 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 Research which suggests that congestion acts as a limit on additional traffic is confirmed by data which show that adding new transportation capacity lifts such limits and triggers additional new traffic. In other words, adding capacity permits traffic from the pool of unsatisfied demand to be added to existing traffic. This idea of a reservoir or pool of unsatisfied travel is pointedly discussed in two documents that reviewed the impacts of the construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. Original- ly, BART was expected to reduce daily travel on the Bay Bridge by 9,000 trips in each direction. At around the time that BART began trans -Bay operation, there were also some significant increases in gasoline prices that probably had an additional impact on trip reduction on the Bay Bridge. Nonetheless, in total, trip making across the Bay Bridge dropped by only 3,000 trips per day within the first year after trans -Bay operation, about one-third of the expected drop. On page 80 of the Final Report on the impacts of BART [7], the following conclusion is drawn: "It is believed that the 6,000 'new trips' were caused by travelers reacting to the lessened congestion on the bridge by malong trips that were previously suppressed or trips which had previously been diverted from other destinations or routes. This new traffic appears to have nearty completely offset BART's contribution to reducing travel volumes." [71 On the following page (81), it is added: "Because of the small net reduction in traffic volumes (BART's reduction offset by 'new' trips), there has been little impact on highway travel times and traffic congestion." [7] In a second related report, the following explanation is offered [8] on page 14: "This resurgence of (Bay Bridge) traffic cannot be identifled with certainty... (I)t might represent induced travel — trips that previously had been discouraged by congestion on the APPUED A"NAGEMENr &PLMNING Page 7 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES bridge, but became attractive as soon as BART began to relieve that congestion. ._ "Induced travel is a common phenomenon. Wherever an automobile route is heavily used, there exists a reservoir of trips that people do not make because the route cannot accommodate them. If a second route is provided, both routes will draw traffic from this reservoir, and the net loss in traffic by the old route will be considerably less than the gain in traffic by the new route. This result sometimes is surpris- ing to officials and to the public, who reason that the con- struction of new transportation facilities (such as BAR7) must substantially reduce the load on others." A further argument on this topic is offered by C. Kenneth Orski [91, who f states: T "On the traffic congestion front there is some good news and some bad news... The bad news is that it seems unlikely we L can build our way out of it permanently." • ` He then goes on to say: "New roads will not eliminate traffic congestion. They fill up with cars almost as soon as the ribbon is cut. This should 1. come as no surprise, for new roads improve accessibility, and greater accessibility increases the value of land. Higher land values, in tum, dictate a more intensive use of land, which generates more traffic, which fills up the highways." [91 This argument relating to new roads applies equally well to adding capacity to existing roads. Thus, the conclusion that can be drawn from Orski's words is that "...added highway capacity will not eliminate traffic conges- ton, but will be filled up almost immediately with additional traffic that retums congestion to the same level as before the capacity addition." These various authors seem to conclude quite clearly that there is a vast pool of unsatisfied demand for more travel in large urban areas that will APPUEO MANAGEMENT &LANNING GROUP Page 8 C TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES show up as increased volumes whenever new capacity is added into the system. Such increased volumes mean that added capacity will bring with it growth in total vehicle miles of travel and often a growth in total numbers of trips made in the urban area. These various citations also establish rather dearly that the common-sense idea that increases in capacity result in people making more trips and longer trips is indeed widely held in the transportation profession. In summary, the effects of constraints of capacity on people's travel be- havior is confirmed by research, particularty the references cited in the above paragraphs. Furthermore, research dearly indicates that congestion also has the effect of limiting travel in an urban area. In the event that there is a desire to reduce overall travel and vehicle miles of travel in an urban area, particularly one in which there is a sufficient excess demand for travel that new capacity additions will be unlikely to be adequate to satisfy demand for more than a very short period, congestion itself can be utilized as a means to reduce or, at least, limit vehicle travel. Response to Capacity Increases Based on the foregoing, it is then quite straightforward to deduce how people will react to a capacity increase that reduces travel times initially. It will be the opposite of the reactions described above as occurring under increasing congestion. When capacity is added to the system, several impacts can be expected to follow, particularly when the capacity is added for congestion relief. Foregone Trips. Trips that have been foregone because of congestion will now be made. This will result in an absolute increase in numbers of trips using the facility that has been expanded. Peak Spreading. There will be a reduction in peak -spreading from people no longer delaying trips or starting early to avoid congestion. This will result in a shift of trips between the traditional off-peak periods to the peak periods and is likely to restore the pre -capacity increase level of congestion in the peak. APPLIED AtAMGEMENT &PLANNING GROUP C Page 9 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Route Changes. Trips that may have used parallel or nearby alternative routes, in order to avoid congestion, may now divert and take the new facility, if the capacity increase boosts travel speeds above those of com- peting routes. Chained Trips. Trips that have been made part of an existing trip through trip chaining may now be "unchained," effectively adding more trips to the total. In particular, home -to -work trips that may have been used for side trips to phopping, banking, other personal errands, etc., may now be replaced by several "out -and -back" trips from home for the same purposes. Destination Changes. Trips made to nearby, but less -desired locations may now be made to further -away, more -desired locations, leading to an increase in trip lengths and therefore lengthening the distances that trips t are made on the expanded facility. Mode Changes. People who have chosen to use transit or carpools will now return to using solo drive. This will also result in an absolute increase in auto trips on the expanded facility. New Development In the longer term, if congestion levels are lowered for sufficient time, developers can be expected to seek additional develop- ment that will increase the number of residents and jobs in the vicinity of the expanded facility. In conclusion, if the effects of new capacity on future traffic levels are not estimated, based on the changes in travel behavior noted above, then accurate forecasts of the effects of new capacity additions cannot be obtained. To ignore the effects we have listed here will result in severe overestimates of the beneficial effects of capacity -increasing projects and severe underestimates of the negative impacts of such projects. APPUED A(AMGEMENT WYNlNG GROUP Page 10 • i TRAFFIC CONGES77ON AND CAPACITY INCREASES Travel -Forecasting Methodology Travel forecasting methodology is the means by which the impacts of additional capacity on travel patterns can be, at least partially, quantified and assessed. There are three fundamental issues that need to be ad- dressed in looking at the travel forecasting methodology. These are: Are the Bay Area travel forecasting models capable of ,F estimating the impacts of capacity increases on travel behavior, just outlined; If not, are state-of-the-art models capable of doing so, where the Bay Area models do not; and In either case, are the models used in such a way that the impacts of capacity increases on travel behavior are routinely estimated. In order to answer these questions, we first provide a brief description of the Bay Area travel -forecasting models, known as MTCFCAST. To assist someone who is not familiar with the various steps required to forecast travel, we have also provided a brief description as to the functioning of each model step. The standard metropolitan -area travel -forecasting methodology uses a series of steps to produce forecasts of person travel within an urban area. These are: Demographic and land use forecasts: • Trip generation; Network construction; • Trip distribution; Mode choice; and Network assignment. APPUEO MAMGEMENT &PLANNING Page 11 GAOUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 The models used in the Bay Area are among the most sophisticated in current use in North America, but are also typical of the standard models in their overall structure and operation. The sophistication of the MTCFCAST models comes with a heavy overhead, in that the models are complicated and time-consuming to run, with the result that shortcuts are often made in applying them, resulting in a failure to capture many of the important effects of transportation system changes on travel behavior. In this chapter, the steps in the process are described, and the typical pro- cess of application is also outlined. Figure 1 shows the steps involved in the process and the flow of information through the process, as it is currently applied throughout the United States. Details of the form and structure of individual steps in the procedure will vary from locality to locality, but the overall process is the same. Documentation used for this chapter includes the three -volume set of reports prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. for the MTC in June 1980 [10] [111 [121 and subsequent reports by MTC staff describing subsequent recalibrations and modifications to the models. j131 [141 r Step 1: Demographics and Land Use The first step in the process is to forecast the demographics of the region- al population and employment and to forecast the distribution of land uses in the region. Demographic forecasting in the State of California generally works at the regional level from control totals of population and employ- ment forecast by the State Department of Finance. These may or may not be modified by local agencies. The Department of Finance makes its forecasts based on past trends and "cohort -survival" models (ii.e., models based on the proportions of different age groups of the population that can be expected to live over the next twenty years), modified by overall estimates of the region's capability to accept growth. The specific demographics of the population are forecast locally by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) using past census data to estimate proportions of the population by income levels, household size, MAMGGEMEEJVr CkPUwnrwG Page 12 GROUP FIGURE 1 The Travel -Forecasting Process Regional STATE ESTIMATES Population and Employment Zonal LAND USE Population Employment MODELS Demographics . Trip Productions TRIP GENERATION and Attractions Trip Tables of TRIP DISTRIBUTION Zone -to -Zone Movements Trip Tables MODE CHOICE by Travel Mode Assigned NETWORK Trip Volumes ASSIGNMENT on Highway and Transit CAPACITY Congested Highway RESTRAINT I Speeds 0 1- Highway and Transit Networks TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPAC17Y INCREASES 0 dwelling types, etc. Population and employment totals are also split among subregions, based on a land -use model called POUS (Projective Optimization Land Use Information System). This model is driven primarily by current land uses and estimates of "holding capacities" of subregions or analysis zones, and include some sensitivity to the supply of transportation facilities. However, the linkages between land use and transportation supply, while reasonably well understood, have never been modeled very successfully, so that the impacts of transportation supply on this process - are not strong in the forecasting procedures. Generally, a single set of forecasts are made to a horizon year that is s usually chosen to be approximately 20 years from the present Thus, during the late 1980s, forecasts have been made of population and emp- loyment in the year 2010. Probably, these will be updated and modified occasionally by the regions- in the state, but the pressures to have a single set of "official" forecasts mean that there is generally little modification once the agencies within a region have signed off on a particular set of fore- t casts and these have been adopted as the official figures. It can be expected that the next change in these figures will occur in the late 1990s, when forecasts are produced for 2020. In the meantime, the Bay Area projections, known as "Projections 90" have been produced by ABAG, modified by member jurisdictions, and accepted as the basis for planning in the region. f Step 2: Trip Generation Following the forecasting of land use, the next step in the procedure is to run a set of models known as trip generation. These models estimate the numbers of daily person trips that will be produced by and attracted to each traffic analysis zone in the region. The models are normally a func- tion of characteristics of households for the production of trips and of t characteristics of employment or land use for the attraction of trips. The result of using this model is a set of forecasts of the numbers of daily person trips that will be made for each of a number of trip purposes (e.g., home -work, home-nonwork, nonhome-nonhome) for the entire region. APPLIED Page 14 MMANAGEMENTWaVNINQ 9 GROUP • TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES For at least the past three decades, various papers and research disserta- tions have been written that develop theories of the relationship between the numbers of person trips that will be made and the supply of transpor- tation. In other words, it has been argued quite dearly that the amount of transportation capacity in a region or locality will impact the amount of travel made by people that live in the region. However, all attempts to reflect this in travel -forecasting models have failed. The primary reason for this failure is that modeling is done at the regional level and is an ag- gregate phenomenon. It is difficult to describe the supply of transporta- lion at this aggregate level in such a way that the sensitivity of trip -making to it can be captured. The result of this is that there will generally be a single forecast of the amount of trip -making in the region that is associated with a single set of land use and demographic data. The total amount of trip -making in the region for a horizon year becomes fixed. Thus, despite that effect of transportation capacity on the amount of travel that will occur on the system, most analyses simply assume a single level of demand for the purposes of analysis that does not corisider the effect of supply. This is also true of MTC with respect to forecasts generated with MTCFCAST. The MTCFCAST model for trip generation is unusual, compared to any other region in the country. In the MTCFCAST model, the first step in the modeling procedure is to estimate the proportions of households with workers and without workers, before undertaking the trip -generation model- ing. From this step, auto ownership of households without workers is estimated prior to further analysis. However, an estimation process for the number of home -based work trips is applied next to the worker house- holds, and auto ownership for worker households is one of the elements of this estimation process. The procedure is also modeled differently from most current models, in that separate estimating procedures are used for the primary worker in the household and for secondary workers. In summary, the MTCFCAST models contain some additional capabilities for trip generation modeling that are not found in other models. By es- timating worker and nonworker households initially, the model is able to be APPLIED Page 75 MANAGEMENT L NNING 9 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGES77ON AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 more discriminating in estimating the numbers of trips made by house- holds. By estimating auto ownership based on workers in the household, the model also adds an element of sophistication, compared to other models that forecast auto ownership directly from income. However, the models still fall short of permitting the number of trips made by a house- hold to vary with the supply of transportation, as measured by the capacity of the system. Step 3: Network Construction The next step in the process is to construct highway and transit networks for the region. These are the representations to the computer of the systems of freeways, streets, and roads that exist on the .ground, together with the bus routes and rail lines providing transportation service to the region. Usually, this will be done in three distinct phases. In the first phase, base -year networks are constructed to represent what is on the ground now. In the second phase, networks called "Existing plus Funded" (E & F) are created for each of transit and highways. These networks contain what is on the ground now, together with projects that are included in the Transportation Improvement Programs for both transit and highways, which generally represent those projects for which funding is already committed by the various state and local agencies. In the third phase, 4; future horizon year networks are created, representing various scenarios of what may exist in twenty years in the region. This procedure is not only - the one followed by MTC, but is also the standard procedure used by all regional planning agencies in California. Phase One The highway system of a region the size of the Bay Area is extremely complex and extensive. In order not to exceed the capacity of modern- day computers and to control the costs and time required for processing the information, the networks are constructed by using varying levels of approximation about the transportation facilities. It is important to repres- ent freeways and major arterials quite accurately, so that the models that APPUED MANAGEMENT &PLANNING GROUP Page 16 11 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES use the network information can perform realistically with these facilities. However, this system of models is not used (and should not be) for very localized planning, so the detail and accuracy about residential access streets, alleys, etc. is unimportant and represents the main area where one can reduce the complexity. For the highway system, the network contains -a hierarchy of accuracy, with freeways being represented most accurately, then major arterials, minor arterials, and finally the remaining access streets and roads, which will not _ be represented accurately. Any streets on which buses run will also be represented accurately, to make sure that the transit services are also represented to the computer as accurately as possible. The transit network will usually be constructed in the most up-to-date regions by using the information contained in the highway network to define the locations of bus routes, and by using the geography of the highway network to determine the locations of separate rights of way for ' transit, such as light rail and heavy rail facilities. The representation of rail facilities and express bus routes on High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are usually equal in accuracy to the definition of freeways in the highway network. These are the procedures used by MTC to construct its regional networks. Individual bus routes are represented by listing the links of the arterial street system on which they travel. In the same way that the highway network cannot show every residential street, so too the transit network cannot show every bus stop. However, care is taken to include sufficient detail to allow the models to replicate current use of the system reasonably accurately. In the base year network, the speeds of buses and trains are carefully tuned in the network so that they provide a close approximation to actual running times experienced by riders on the systems. APPLIED MANAGEMENT LtNNING Page 17 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Phase Two The second phase involves creating the Existing plus Funded networks, as defined previously (p.16). These networks represent the inclusion of projects that are currently included within five-year improvement programs for each of the transit system and the highway system, and for which funds are currently programmed. For both transit and highway, local, regional and state governments are required to develop and maintain five- year improvement programs, based on currently available and committed funds. Because these plans are supposed to be updated each year, the Existing plus Funded networks may be redefined as often as once each year. The third and final phase is to build future highway and transit networks, to represent what is expected to exist in the horizon year. These networks will usually start from the Existing plus Funded networks and then add a number of investment projects that it is hoped the region can afford to build over the next twenty years. Frequently, there will be several different such networks, one pair of which may represent a wish list of all the investment projects that have been created in the region, while others may represent various alternative funding scenarios. Step 4: Trip Distribution This is the first step in the travel forecasting procedure that makes use of the transportation supply. This step links the production ends of trips to �= the attraction ends to form a set of trip interchanges,' or zone -to -zone movements in the region. This is done on the basis of the relative size of the numbers of trip productions and attractions in a zone, and on the travel impedance or difficulty between pairs of zones. The model is called a "gravity" model, because it is very similar to Newton's Law of Gravitation that says that the force of attraction between two bodies is equal to the MANAGEMENT &PWJNING Page 18 GI4oUP 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES product of the masses of the two bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Substituting trip productions and attractions for the masses, and travel impedance for the distance provides a very dose approximation to the form of the trip distribution model. In the MTCFCAST model, the travel impedance is a function of travel times between zones and is a function of both the highway and transit travel time. At the point in the model chain when trip distribution is performed, there is no knowledge available to the model of actual travel times for the levels of trip attractions and productions forecast. Therefore, the transpor- tation planner has the dilemma of deciding what values to use for travel times. There are two pieces of information that are usually known and included in the network data. • First, the posted speed or maximum safe speed on each link of the highway network is known. • Second, the actual speed has usually been measured for the peak period, representing the slowest speed on each part of the network. For the MTCFCAST networks, these two speeds are coded onto each link of the highway network. Bus speeds are also calculated based on a relationship to the auto speeds on the streets (slower to account for frequent stops and the slower accelerations of buses). So, the MTCFCAST model has available two known speeds for each of autos and transit — the maximum speed that can legally be used on each part of the network and the current (or most recently -measured, sometimes from several years back) slowest speed under most -congested normal conditions. In some instances, where a highway is known always to experience travel condi- tions that produce a speed significantly below the maximum posted speed, this lower speed is coded into the network in place of the maximum. It is also important to keep in mind that no region in the United States can inventory the speeds on every piece of the highway and transit systems. Therefore, the convention that is used in all regions, including the Bay Area, is to classify each link of the highway system into one of five to eight A"NAGEMENr &LANNING Page 19 0 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 different highway facility types and five area types. This results in up to forty possible classification combinations of the facility and area, for each of which a speed for each. of the two conditions (congested and uncon- gested) is estimated from survey data. To illustrate, one facility type may be "freeway" and another may be "primary arterial" highway (4 or more lanes, divided by a median). One area type may be the "Central Business District" and another may be "suburban." One speed will be selected for all "freeway" in the "Central Business District," and another for all "freeway" in "suburban" areas. The same will apply to the "primary arterial" highways. In a few cases, MTC will replace these speeds on individual links of the highway, where it is known that conditions are very unlike the average. A good example would be the bridges across the Bay, which do not operate the same as freeway and arterial facilities in other locations. However, the amount of the highway system that is given these replacement individual values amounts to less than one percent of the entire system. To run the trip distribution model, the conventional approach, which is also used by MTC in the MTCFCAST models is to do the following: t For home -to -work and work -to -home trips, use the peak period speeds for transit and autos, to reflect the fact that most home- work trips take place in the peak periods when traffic is con- gested. For all other trips, use the maximum speed on the networks, to ? reflect the supposition that most of these trips take place outside the peak periods, when traffic is not congested. The result of this step in the process is the production of a set of trip tables, representing the Zone -to -Zone movements for the region for each of the trip purposes that was used in the trip generation step. A set of trip tables is usually produced for each of the base year and the forecast horizon year. The base year trip tables are based on population, employ- ment, demographics, and transportation supply for the year selected as the base year (currently 1989 in the Bay Area); while the forecast horizon year trip tables are based on the population, employment, demographics, and APPLIED MANAGEMENT &PLANNING Page 20 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACI7Y INCREASES the highway and transit networks representing the most probable future scenario for the horizon year, currently 2010 for the Bay Area In the MTCFCAST models, the future networks are different from the base year networks by having included a number of improvements and addi- tions that are planned to be built in the next twenty years. However, no changes are made to the uncongested speeds on the networks, and only Waited changes are made to the congested speeds (increasing these where new facilities are to be added, and decreasing them where conges- tion is expected to worsen). Changes made to the congested speeds are a matter of judgement, and are applied both by changing the speed for particular combinations of facility and area, and by changing speeds on some individual segments of the system. For the horizon year forecast, the same convention is used for home -work trips and for all other trips, so that the trip tables are based on the as- sumptions of changes in the highway system and the assumed effects of both growth and facility construction on speeds in the congested periods of the day. Step 5: Mode Choice In this step, the trip tables generated in the previous step are allocated to each of the different travel modes (solo driver, shared ride auto, carpool, and various forms of mass transportation) in the region. The allocation in the MTCFCAST models is based on population demographics and the relative service levels (usually travel times, but possibly also including travel costs) provided by the attemative travel modes. The MTCFCAST model is a state-of-the-art model in this respect Thus, this step is a function of transportation supply, but, like the trip distribution step that precedes it, the transportation supply is still described in terms of average estimates of performance of the system, i.e., the pre -coded congested and uncon- gested speeds on the highway networks and scheduled running times of transit. KAWGF FNr &PLANNING Page 21 0 GaouP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES The result of this step of the process is the creation of a much larger number of trip tables, each one of which represents the regional zone -to - zone movements that are estimated or forecast to take place for a specific trip purpose and on a specific travel mode. It is customary that this step will define different transit modes as a function of the access travel mode to transit, so that transit alternatives may be walk to transit, drive to transit, and driven to transit, for example. In the MTCFCAST models, a novelty is the provision of feedback proce- dures between mode choice for the work trip, auto ownership for worker households, and trip distribution. Trip distribution is therefore affected by the mode choice, an interaction that is widely accepted in theory by trans- portation planners but rarely implemented in practice. Standard practice elsewhere in the country is to apply the models in the strict sequence of trip generation, trip distribution, and mode choice, with auto ownership es- timated directly from household characteristics prior to trip generation. This means that trip generation affects trip distribution, which affects mode choice. However, effects in the other direction, e.g., of mode choice on trip distribution, are not modeled. In contrast, the Bay Area models make auto ownership of worker households a function of the choice of travel mode for the primary worker's work trip, and also make trip distribution dependent on auto ownership. There is also a feedback loop provided for the secondary worker's work trip between mode choice and trip distribution, so that selection of the destination for the work trip is made partially dependent on the choice of travel mode for the work trip. In addition, the model contains a step that estimates the shared -ride occupancy for auto for the secondary worker. For non -work trips, the more conventional sequences of trip generation, trip distribution, and mode choice are used, with auto ownership, as mentioned previously, estimated prior to the generation steps. The output of these combined procedures (for work trips, non -work trips, and for non- worker households) are the standard trip tables for each of highway and transit and for the various purposes. ��iEM' CX ��Pa Page 22 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Although these capabilities exist in the MTCFCAST models, they are rarely employed in practice by MTC staff. The feedback loop takes considerable computer time to accomplish and also adds days into the time required to process a complete set of forecasts. As a result, the feedback loop is usually cut out, and the more normal progression of trip generation, trip distribution, and mode dhoice is employed. Step 6: Time -of -Day Trip Tables Up to this point, all of the trip tables that have been produced by the modeling process are trip purpose tables, that is, they are tables of work trips, nonwork trips, and trips that have neither end at home. Before the modeling process can proceed further, it is necessary to combine these trip tables in such a way as to produce time -of -day trip tables. These are needed because estimating the travel impacts on the highway and transit systems are clearly a function of time -of -day travel loadings, and trip purpose trip tables cannot tell the planner and decision maker much about these loadings. Unfortunately, this step of the process also represents an inconsistency in the process. Up to this point, the simplifying assumption has been made that all work trips take place in the peak period and all nonwork trips take place outside the peaks. Now, this assumption is dropped, and factors are used to split each trip table between peak and off-peak hours, and factors are used also to estimate the peak highest hour. The product of the modeling procedure at this point is a set of nine trip tables and two summary tables [101 representing 24-hour weekday estimates that can be factored to provide one -hour trip tables for peak and off-peak. The factors that are used by MTC are based on surveys conducted over the past decade, and provide estimates of the fractions of work and nonwork trips in each of the peak and off-peak periods and in the highest peak hour. These fractions are used for both the base -year and future year forecasts. As a result of this step, trip tables are now produced for the peak hour (defined as the hour of highest travel volumes), the peak period, an off - MAMAS ANT &L4WNING Page 23 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGEST70N AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 peak hour, and the entire 24-hour day. Each trip table resulting from this is a combination of all trip purposes in varying proportions. Step 7: Network Assignment In the seventh step of the process, the factored trip tables are loaded on (assigned to) the networks. The basis for assigning trips to the networks is first to determine paths (routes) between the pairs of zones through each of the transit and highway networks. Paths are found in the MTCFCAST procedure by finding the shortest travel -time path from each zone to every other zone. In other words, everyone traveling from one point to another in the Bay Area is assumed to choose the route that gives the shortest travel time. - On the highway network, the assignment of trips in the first instance is performed using so-called 'free -flow" travel speeds on the network. These are simply starting speeds that would be appropriate if little or no other traffic was on the facility. These speeds are defined, like the peak and off- peak speeds used in trip distribution and mode choice, as a function of the facility type and the area type. Once the initial assignment has been completed, travel speeds and times are reestimated for each link of each highway facility. Many facilities will have been assigned more volume than they have capacity to handle, while nearby parallel facilities may be nearly empty. This occurs because of the modeling assumption that everyone uses the single shortest -time route between each pair of places. The next step (iteration) is to find a new set of routes or paths through the network, using the travel times resulting from the first loading of trips on the network. A "capacity-restrairtt" function is used to reestimate all travel • While a few regions In the country have Introduced a capability to find multiple paths between each pair of zones for each of highway and transit, most regions, Including MTC, continue to use a single -path pro- cedure. The capability of finding multiple paths adds considerable com- plextty to the process and also poses problems of determining the proportions of trips that will use each path — a process that is not yet well -understood by the profession. APPUED MANAGEMENT &PLANNING GROUP Page 24 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPAC17Y INCREASES times based on the relationship between the assigned volume and the capacity of the facility. reassign traffic, using the newty-calculated travel times to produce a new set of zone -to -zone paths. This step has the effect of moving much of the traffic from the heavily -congested facilities of the first step, while loading traffic onto the under-utilized facilities of the first step. Some traffic will remain on the heavily -congested facilities, because the next possible path is so much poorer in travel time than even the con- gested time on the initial path. However, many paths will shift in the second step. This procedure is continued through several more iterations, because each of these produces a different assignment, always with a mix of overloaded and underloaded facilities. Most often, the procedure is continued through five iterations, and an average is taken of the last two iterations to produce the estimated most likely final assignment of traffic. No such procedure is available for the transit system, and a single assign- } ment is often the only one made to transit It is also a single -path, all -or - nothing assignment and may result in apparent overloads generated on some bus routes with close -by routes being left largely empty, as a result of the same features of the process described for the highway network. However, overloading in transit does not affect running times- appreciably, s so that there is no basis for iterating the assignment Manual adjustments will usually be made to the resulting assignment to represent most prob- able realistic loads on bus routes and rail lines. Impacts of Capacity Increases In this section, we review first what the MTCFCAST model system is cap- able of producing. Second, we review the different responses to capacity increases and assess what the models should be able to show. Third, we discuss how the system is used in practice. These are then used to draw conclusions about what MTCFCAST does in practice in providing estimates of traveler responses to capacity increases. APPLIED Page 25 MANAGEMENT CANNING 9 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES MTCFCAST Model Capabilities When a transportation system experiences significant congestion, the MTCFCAST models can reflect the degradation of speeds on facilities through the capacity -restraint process used to load the highway network. The process does not, however, shift highway trips to transit, as a result of congestion, unless at least the mode -choice and assignment steps are recycled, with mode -choice using the travel speeds calculated from a loaded highway network. If the procedure is recycled back through trip distribution, with the es- timated peak and off-peak speeds used from the final network assignments instead of the pre -coded ones, then changes will be reflected in both the destinations of trips and the allocations between highway and transit modes. Trip distribution will be affected, because it is a function of travel time. As speeds degrade, the distance that can be traveled in a given ' amount of time decreases, so that under congested conditions, nearer destinations will be selected by the model than under less -congested conditions. Similarly, as highway congestion increases, the relative levels of service of transit and highway, particularly where rail and busway fac- ilities exist (or buses on HOV lanes), will change so that transit becomes more favorable. Therefore, the model will shift trips from drive modes to ' transit modes. It is important to note, however, that because of the restricted sensitivity of land use modeling and trip generation, congestion will have no effect in the models on the distribution of population and employment forecast, nor will it affect the total forecast of trip -making by the population in the region. In other words, no matter how congested travel becomes, or how much capacity is added, speeding up travel, the MTCFCAST models cannot show any change in the amount of travel taking place in the Bay Area. If recycling of the model system is performed, as described here, then the forecasts can be made sensitive to levels of congestion, within the limits that total amounts of trips and the distribution and total amount of popula- tion and employment will not change. APPLIED MANAGEMENT _ GROUP G Page 26 0 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY /NCREASES It follows, therefore, that if a future scenario includes the addition of new capacity in areas where highways are currently congested, the MTCFCAST models can respond, within certain limits, to this additional capacity. Additional highway capacity will show up initially in the network assignment process as increased speeds of the traffic on the facility. Through cap- acity -restraint steps, the network assignment procedure will then shift additional trips to the facility that has added capacity, indicating the route changes that take place when capacity is added. if the procedure is not recycled through trip distribution or mode choice, this will be the only effect that will be estimated by the model system. If the model system is recycled back through mode choice, with the newly - estimated travel speeds on the expanded facility, the mode -choice model can be expected to shift trips out of transit and high -occupancy vehicles and into solo drive and shared ride, because levels of service for the latter two modes will have improved relative to the former modes. In the follow- ing network assignment, additional highway trips will be assigned to the expanded facility, and speeds may drop again from the initial estimates. Therefore, these steps may require sevbral iterations in order to reach an equilibrium or stable result, in which the speeds on the new facility are successively adjusted and the amount of shifting between other highway routes and between alternative travel modes stabilizes. If the models are recycled back through trip distribution and newly es- timated speeds on the expanded highway system are used, then the trip distribution model will adjust the origin -destination pattern of trips, reflecting the improved speeds obtained from the capacity addition, and lengthening trips that can take advantage of the new facility. This will occur provided that the following conditions hold: 1) The initial peak and off-peak speed estimates were close to actual loaded speeds at the end of the original assignment, or the entire modeling process was recycled originally to use loaded speeds from the highway network; and nPVUED Page 27 btMfAGEMENr UNNING 9 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 2) The new speeds after capacity addition improve travel times by at least one or two minutes for some trips that can use the expanded facility. A single pass through trip distribution, mode choice, and assignment, after a capacity addition will not be sufficient if the capacity increase has a significant impact on travel times. Rather, it will be necessary to perform several iterations of this process, in order to obtain reasonably stable estimates of the traffic impacts. There is no guarantee that this process will converge, but the same steps as in highway capacity restraint can be used in which results are averaged from two or more successive iterations. Travel -Forecasting Responses Some of the effects of capacity increases can be captured by the travel - forecasting models while others cannot. In this section, we describe how each of the responses described earlier in this paper are related to the travel -forecasting process. Peak Spreading Peak spreading involves the proportion of trips that are made in a given time period. In the standard travel -forecasting procedure, the only point where time of day enters the picture is when the trip purpose tables by mode after mode choice are prepared for assignment to the networks. This is a purely exogenous process, utilizing factors that are derived from data sources such as past origin -destination surveys. Therefore, the travel - forecasting process can reflect the peak -spreading phenomenon and reactions to it only through exogenous changes made to the factors by the analyst Given that peak spreading is not fully understood, and its relation- ship to travel times is not known speciflcalty, any changes made by the analyst to the time -of -day factors would necessarily be judgmental. Hence, the MTCFCAST models cannot show the impacts of capacity changes on the duration of the peak periods. MAM EMEM CX GROUP NI o Page 28 0 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Route Changes Travel -forecasting models base route selection strictly on travel time. if a capacity increase is provided in the highway network, speeds will increase over the capacity4nc ceased segment of highway, and new minimum time paths are likely to shift trips onto the enlarged facility. Therefore, the travel -forecasting procedure is fully capable of reflecting route changes consequent upon capacity increases. Hence, the MTCFCAST models can show the effects of capacity changes on route choices. Foregone Trips We have noted previously that the amounts of trip -making estimated by the models are not sensitive to the supply of transportation, even though it is widely recognized by transportation professionals that they should be. As a result of this deficiency in the models, no estimates would be obtained from the models of trips foregone as a result of congestion, nor of trips added because of a decrease in congestion. To the extent that the mod- els in the travel -forecasting process were originally calibrated with data collected when a state of congestion already existed, the models may embody some level of foregone trips. However, this is not explicit and is not readily available for manipulation through the modeling process. Hence, the MTCFCAST models cannot reflect the impact of capacity changes on the numbers of trips made or not made. Chained Trips The travel forecasting process treats trips as being single purpose. Chain- ed trips are generally represented as a series of apparently independent events, not as a linked chain. As a result, the travel -forecasting process is unable to show changes in the linking of trips as a result of congestion or, conversely, the relief of congestion. The relative proportions of trips for UAM EM EHT V( PL NNING Page 29 0 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES different purposes is a function of trip chaining in the calibration data, but the model system is not able to handle explicitly the trade-offs between chained trips and single -purpose trips. The MTCFCAST models are unable to show the effect of capacity changes on trip chaining behavior. Destination Changes The travel forecasting models are sensitive to levels of service as they relate to the choices of destinations. When travel speeds are low and • - traffic is congested, more trips will be given a destination in a short dis- tance from the origin than when travel speeds are higher and traffic is less congested. As noted in the preceding section, the ability of the model to show these effects is contingent on two conditions: first, that the initial distribution of trips was made using loaded (congested) travel times from the highway network; and second, that the models are recycled back to trip distribution to test the effects of new capacity, with appropriate ac- counting made of the extent to which speeds appear to have increased with congestion relief. However, as a general statement, the models are capable of providing a good estimate of this phenomenon under capacity increases. The MTCFCAST models are capable of showing the effects of capacity changes on destination choices. Mode Changes Choice of mode of travel is explicitly a function of comparative service levels among the available travel modes. Therefore, a change in travel time that results from a capacity increase on a highway is able to be included within the travel -forecasting procedure. As with destination changes, it will require that the service levels on the highway network are generated from a first pass of the forecasting procedure that results in a loaded highway network and capacity -restrained speeds. Given that highway travel times APPUED MANAGEMENT LNG Page 30 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES are derived from a loaded network, however, the mode -choice model will produce changes in the shares of each travel mode as a result of capacity increases on a highway segment. The MTCFCAST models are* capable of showing the effects of capacity changes on choice of travel modes. New Development As we have noted previously, the land -use modeling component of the travel -forecasting procedure is not transportation supply sensitive and the forecasts use a fixed, static forecast of land use. Therefore, the forecasting procedure is unable to provide estimates of the new development effects of capacity increases in the highway system. Further, because PODS is only an allocation model, it will not show how location decisions might y affect the overall level of growth in the Bay Area. f The MTCFCAST models are not capable of estimating the effects of capacity changes on development within the region. Conclusions Based on the above assessments, the travel -forecasting procedure is able to provide explicit estimates of three of the seven potential travel behavior changes that result from capacity increases, namely: route changes, destination changes, and mode changes. While the other four potential travel behavior changes are not susceptible to estimation from the model- ing process, some judgmental adjustments to travel volumes could be made, based. on prior evidence of the magnitude of the changes. APPUED Page 31 MANAGEMENT &PLANNWG GfiOUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES MTCFCAST Models in Practical Application • While the foregoing has described the procedure that the models are capable of providing, what is done in practice is far below the capabilities of the models. Each time that the entire model system is rerun, either from trip generation or trip distribution, a considerable amount of computer time is required and several days are required to perform all of the steps in the procedure. The auto ownership and workers per household steps in the MTCFCAST model make the process even more time-consuming and expensive than standard models in use elsewhere in the country. The result of this is that, in practice, a number of shortcuts are used in the modeling process. First, the auto ownership and workers per household steps of the process are run only once for a given horizon year. There- fore, although theoretically the models can show how capacity increases would affect auto ownership in the Bay Area, this capability is not exer- cised. In fact, the models are run much more like conventional models, not utilizing the "upward pass" capability between mode choice and trip distribution, but running these models in the conventional sequence from trip distribution to mode choice. Second, when MTC planners examine alternative capacity additions to the transportation system, the models are not rerun, to estimate the impacts on destinations and mode shares. Performing several iterations of the models from trip distribution through assignment, and readjusting the speeds on the network after running each iteration, is considered too expensive and time-consuming and is not performed. In looking at the impacts of alterna- tive capacity additions, the models are only rerun to look at the assignment of trips to the network for different projects, with no rerunning of mode choice or trip distribution. Also, a procedure for changing travel times on the highway and transit networks rapidly is not available and poses some difficulties because of the need to average results from two successive 9L assignments. This also means that a procedure would be required that could estimate the average volume on each link from two successive assignments and then compute the travel time on the link from that vol- MANA E E'Nr IPWvNING Page 32 GROUP • TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES urne. Such a procedure would not be difficult to create, but does not currently exist Summary of the MTCFCAST Travel Forecasting Procedure Given that the MTCFCAST models contain not only the usual elements of the travel -forecasting procedure, but also contain some refinements that are not usually found in applications contexts, three conclusions can be drawn at this point. First, the MTCFCAST models offer some capabilities that other regions in the United States do not have. Second, the models are certainly capable of providing estimates of three of the seven responses to congestion -relieving capacity increases described in the previous chapter, i.e., route changes, destination changes, and mode changes. . Third, because of the way in which the models are applied, the capabilities of the models to estimate the impacts of capacity Increases are not utilized and only route changes are reflected in the results. Furthermore, the MTCFCAST models are capable of reflecting an additional change not included in the discussion of that chapter, namely a change in auto ownership. To the extent that increasing congestion degrades solo driving compared to carpooling and transit riding, the MTCFCAST models could show a decline in auto ownership. ff the initial estimates from a capacity increase are, as expected, of improved solo driving times, then the MTCFCAST models contain the capability to show increasing auto ownership as a response, which in turn will reinforce the mode shift from carpooling and transit riding to solo driving for work trips. Also the in- creases in auto ownership will generate lower levels of shared -ride oc- cupancy for secondary worker work trips. However, this capability is not used in practice by the MTC planners. cEu ENT ,,&L"N/NG Page 33 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 0 Additionally, the "upward pass" between mode choice and trip distribution contained in the work -trip estimation procedure for both primary and secondary workers provides the capability to make a more accurate assessment of the impacts of a service -level change on destination choices. This is because destination choice in the MTCFCAST models is a function of both highway and transit levels of service (compared to just highway levels of service in conventional models), and the model system contains the capability to adjust trip distribution as a result of both highway and transit service level changes. Again, this capability is not exercised by MTC planners. Impacts of Capacity Changes in Environmental Documents Introduction il First, this chapter reviews procedures used by MTC and Caltrans to assess ' the environmental impacts of capacity increases, as shown in general t methodology reports. Second, the chapter reviews a number of environ- mental documents to determine their consistency with the methodology * and evidence of the impacts assessed for capacity increases. The MTC Forecasting Models Using the MTCFCAST Models to Predict Congestion and Response to Capacity Increases The normal procedure that is used by MTC to predict congestion and r. examine the impact of a range of congestion -relieving strategies is to apply the steps described in the preceding chapter as Phases One, Two and Three of the network construction and forecasting process. Prior to load - APPLIED &PLA NNING Page 34 GROUP 0 TRAFFIC CONGES77ON AND CAPACITY INCREASES ing forecast trip tables on the 2010 network, the forecast trip tables are assigned to the base -year networks, providing an estimate of the amounts of congestion that could be expected under a "no -build" scenario. This procedure should reflect mode shifts, destination shifts, and route shifts caused by high congestion levels on primary highway routes and resulting from congestion on all routes within a specific corridor. Assuming that there is substantial growth projected in the region over the twenty-year forecast period, and given congestion in the present system, much of the r future highway system would be projected to be heavily congested. Re- flection of destination and mode changes will occur only to the extent that the MTC planners change congested and uncongested speeds on the transportation system description. The MTC analyst may also make an exogenous change by inserting revised factors for peak period duration, in order to decrease the peak levels of congestion. However, the application of this "no -build" estimation procedure generally has resulted in estimating levels of peak congestion that are so high that they will never actually occur. In the real transportation system, it is not unusual to find a ratio of volume to capacity of up to about 1.2 for short periods of time. (By definition, a long-term volume -to -capacity ratio in excess of 1.0 is impossible, if capacity is correctly assessed, because this would imply that one could accommodate some volume in excess of capacity on a long-term basis. However, volume -to -capacity ratios in excess of 1.0 can be obtained for short periods of time, and inevitably lead to a partial breakdown of the transportation system.) Applying the "no -build" procedure to future trip levels has produced vol- ume -to -capacity ratios in the range of 1.75 to 12.5 and even higher on the highway network. In other words, attempting to assign the traffic estimated to be generated in the region with future growth and no increase in the capacity of the transportation system leads to gross overloading of all transportation facilities in certain corridors, to the extent that the models may attempt to assign over 12 times the amount of traffic to some facilities than they are actually capable of carrying. These volume -to -capacity ratios cannot be sustained even for short periods of time in reality and indicate simply that the forecast levels of trip making are inconsistent with the no - build transportation supply scenario. Either changes must occur in trans - MAMA EMEN7 &PLANNING Page 35 0 GROUP &A TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES portation demand beyond those of which the models are capable of esti- mation, or the growth of the region will not occur to the level predicted by the land -use and demographics models. This no -build scenario is useful as a device to identify where the most severe shortages of capacity will be located and thereby to pinpoint where priority corridors lie for addition of capacity, but they do not represent a realistic description of any possible future. If the no -build scenario is to be used as a realistic assessment of a possible future, then it is imperative that volume -to -capacity ratios greater than about 1.5 be removed by estimating or assuming other changes to the region (lack of growth, peak - spreading, mode changes, trip chaining, etc.). If such modifications are not made to the no -build scenario, it is incorrect to use it for such pur- poses as estimating the travel delays that will occur under no -build versus some alternative scenario that involves addition of capacity, or to estimate the comparison of pollutant burdens from transportation sources. Following this, the Existing plus Funded and future networks are created and trips assigned as described previously. By comparing the results of the assignments of trips to these two networks to the original one, the impacts of capacity increases can be seen as reductions in the volume/ca- pacity ratios. A comparison of speeds derived from the original assign- ment of future trips to the unchanged network to the speeds derived from the new network provide the basis for statements of the speed increases that will result from implementing the capacity -increasing projects. As noted before, trip distribution is not re -run with the capacity increases in place, so that destination shifts resulting from the capacity increases are not included in the process. Documentation of the application of MTCFCAST indicates that the trip tables that are used for assignment to the network are generated once only, using data from the base year network. Thus, in common with most other urban areas in the state, and with the tacit approval of Caltrans, the abilities of the models to estimate more of the impact of capacity increases on network loading are ignored, and the only impacts that are included in the standard application are those of APPUED MANAGEMENT &PLANNING GROUP Page 36 • 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES route change and, to a very limited extent, mode shift. In many instances, Caltrans ignores the issue of mode shift, and uses one estimate of transit trips from each of the base and future year. This is fairly common practice by Caltrans staff, but is not discussed explicitly in methodology documenta- tion. Furthermore, once the future network has been loaded with future trips, subsequent changes in projects are analyzed without returning to the system modeling step. Procedures for Identifying Impacts of Capacity Increases The draft 1990-1994 Transportation Improvement Program [151 contains a chapter that explains the procedures for Air Quality Assessment. Several versions of this chapter have been reviewed. It is notable that the later versions are less clear in describing the assessment of air quality impacts of transportation projects than were the earlier versions. In the final version of the Air Quality Assessment chapter, towards the end of the document on page 11-10-26 [15] it becomes apparent that projects receive an automatic "beneficial" or "potentially beneficial" rating if they institute Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in conjunction with increased capacity. Moreover, to be rated as beneficial, a project must either have no impacts, or provide mitigation of negative impacts. In contrast, a project must have both negative impacts and no transportation control measures in order to be rated as a "detrimental' project Because MTC works with project sponsors "...to ensure that all appropriate transpor- tation control measures are included in the project design and to ensure commitments to air quality mitigation measures are in place..." [15], pre- viously detrimental projects can be upgraded to beneficial simply by adding mitigation measures. Consequently, it can be concluded that the process is set up to assist projects to receive a beneficial rating, rather than requiring a stringent analysis of the air quality impacts of each project. Resolution No. 2107, "...establishing the criteria for review of the air quality impacts of highway projects, and the criteria for determining which pro- jects with significant adverse impacts on air quality will be considered for U"�GE ENT &LANN1NG Page 37 GaouP M 7 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES delay..", adopted on October 30, 1989 and revised on December 20, 1989, ' has a very similar structure. Pages 5 and 6 of Attachment A of Resolution 2107 show an almost identical set of statements and criteria as the Air Quality Assessment Chapter cited above. Given this situation, whereby the inclusion of TCMs in a project will guaran- tee a beneficial or potentially beneficial rating, it is appropriate to examine what TCMs can be implemented as part of a project The TCMs required by the current state implementation plan are shown in Table 1. As can be seen from a brief review of Table 1, all but one of the TCMs involve transit or parking management. However, Measure 4 indicates HOV lanes as a TCM, which is also the only TCM that can actually be included in a capac- ity increase project This generates a conflict. In the Air Quality Assess- ment chapter [151, HOV lanes are listed as being one of the types of capacity -addition projects that may have potential air quality impacts (page II-10-23). Yet, provision of HOV lanes, in conjunction with other improve- ments that may have negative air quality impacts, will automatically provide a beneficial rating on the project. The issue clearly becomes one of the degree to which HOV lanes are beneficial to air quality. This is a complex issue, but there are several circumstances surrounding this that provide some fairly clear indicators. First, in California, Caltrans established an internal policy, following the debacle of the diamond lanes on the Santa Monica Freeway in Los An- geles, that existing capacity cannot be removed in order to provide HOV lanes. Therefore, to comply with Caltrans policy, which is a requirement in order to receive any state or federal funding for a highway project, when- ever HOV lanes are provided, they must, necessarily, represent an overall increase in capacity. As has already been discussed in this document capacity increases in a congested urban area are likely to result in in- creased trip -making and longer trips, both of which will increase Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). Brittle et al. [161 state "...to the extent that traffic mitigation programs lower the number of vehicle miles of travel, they will also have environmental benefits — reduced emissions and reduced (fuel) consumption..." Therefore, because adding capacity through adding HOV lanes over and above existing lanes on a facility means that VMT in- creases, such projects are, by definition, a negative impact on both emis- APPUEO MANAGEMENT &LANNING GAOUP Page 38 0 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPAC17Y 1NCRE.4SES Table I List of Transportation Control Measures from the State Implementation Plan Transportation Control Measure ' Hydrocarbon Carbon Monoxide :Reduction ; Reduction-_' 1:.. Commitment to 28% increase in-transiC'.. -ridership (No additional reductions):: ` :�.::2- Support transit improvements in transit ::. ,.. operators 5-year plans :•..: ;: 3. Seek to expand transit beyond committed : ;::> ::: `:' :;: :: `.:" ;::::::: ` :< :.. ; ::• :;: . levels :..:. Q37 ... 4. Support development of HOV'tanes. ': (Depends on specWc project): : • . Support RIDES effort (No additional reductions) : 6. Continue efforts to support -ran e. transit improvements -(No. emissions credits claimed) T Reaffirm commitment to preferential .. parking program (No additional reductions) 8 Work with CaRrans to identify under- utilized lots along major transit lines that could be used as park -and -ride lots 0.04 0.19 .9. Expand commute attematives program 0.87 8.83 10. Develop information program for bow governments 0.69 6.04 sions and fuel consumption. TIPPLED MANAGEMENT &PLANNING GROUP Page 39 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Second, if new HOV lanes are provided in addition to a capacity increase for low occupancy vehicles (LOVs), the project has a doubled capacity and VMT-increasing impact Furthermore, because use of the HOV lane is dependent on the degree to which the HOV traffic moves at a faster speed than mixed -flow traffic, the addition of more LOV lanes can actually reduce the number of vehicles using HOV lanes. For the period of time that speeds on the LOV lanes are improved because of the additional capacity, the competitive position of new HOV lanes is degraded, and use of the lanes is likely to be relatively low. As a mechanism for removing some cars from the road, then, new HOV lanes will be ineffective in the short run. In the longer run, as additional trips are made on the LOV lanes and congestion reattains pre -project levels, there will be an increase in use of the HOV lanes, but for each vehicle that is removed from the LOV lanes by an occupant of a HOV, a new LOV is likely to be added to the facility. Again, VMT will continue to increase, until a new equilibrium between supply and demand is reached. This phenomenon will lead to re-creation of current congestion but affecting now a larger number of vehicles than before, because more LOV lanes are involved. This type of situation is shown up clearly by the forecasting procedures in use by MTC and others, and has been encountered recently in work in Southern Califomia on planning transitways. The simultaneous addition of LOV and HOV lanes was found to improve LOV speeds sufficiently in the short run that use of the HOV lanes, even with an added lane, decreased to levels below the pre -project levels, because LOVs were traveling as fast as the HOVs. There appear to be no arguments that can be offered to suggest that new HOV lanes can reduce VMT, except where the demand for travel prior to providing the new HOV lane was fully satisfied. In such a case, each LOV removed from the "mixed flow" lanes by a HOV occupant represents a net decrease in vehicles in the system (if average occupancy in the LOV lanes is 12 persons per vehicle and average occupancy in the HOV lanes is 2.4 persons per vehicle, then the same number of people traveling on the HOV lanes will travel in half the number of vehicles as traveling in the LOV lanes). It is highly unlikely that such a situation will occur, because, if demand were fully satisfied already, there would be no incentive to use a new HOV lane and the project would not be warranted. MANAGE EH° &PLANNING Page 40 GAoUp 0 TRAFFIC CONGES77ON AND CAPACITY INCREASES Finally, the MTC Contingency Plan 1171 states quite plainly that Congestion Relief Projects (HB42) can be subject to delay, because of negative air quality impacts. The addition of HOV lanes, when existing LOV lanes must not be reduced in capacity, represent congestion relief in most situations within the Bay Area. This further points up the circuity of reasoning in the Air Quality Assessment chapter and Resolution 2107: a project that in- creases capacity as a congestion relief project is subject to delay as a negative air quality impact project; however, such a project can be mitj- gated to beneficial if any TCMs are included, such as the addition of HOV lanes; however, HOV lanes themselves represent a congestion -reducing strategy and are therefore subject to delay. However, since HOV lanes are a TCM, the project will not be delayed regardless of its impacts on air quality. The implication of the above discussion is that a detailed air quality impact assessment is not considered necessary as part of the environmental documentation. Rather, a project can be classified as to its air quality impacts, simply on the basis of the nature of the project and the inclusion or not of TCMs, one of which is itself a project that can actually have negative air quality impacts. Two other issues are appropriate to consider in this topic, relating to HOV lanes and capacity increases. First, Brittle et al. [161 also state on page 2: "Traffic mitigation actions are designed to reduce the number of vehicle trips, shorten trip lengths, and change the timing of trips so that fewer people will travel during the most congested parts of the day." Given this definition, it is unclear how HOV lanes become classified as traffic mitigation actions, or TCMs. First, most HOV lanes are operative only during the peak hours and in the peak direction. Therefore, they encourage HOV users to travel during the most congested parts of the day. Second, HOV lanes are often designed to have relatively few entry and exit points, compared to the mixed -flow lanes on the same freeways (except where they are created simply by restriping an existing facility). APPUED Page 41 MANAGEMENT CANNING g GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES When the lanes are added other than by restriping, there may be three to five miles between segments where transition between mixed -flow and HOV lanes can occur. Therefore, HOV lanes may often encourage long trips as opposed to short trips. Third, HOV lanes reduce vehicie' miles of travel only when there is no pool of unsatisfied demand for travel, so that person trip volumes before and after addition of the HOV lane are exactly the same; or when the HOV lanes replace existing LOV lanes and the HOV lanes run below capacity, so that fewer vehicles are in operation than before creating the HOV lane. In general, the addition of HOV lanes will increase vehicle miles of travel, particularly when the system is congested, and when the HOV lane is added without taking away any mixed -flow lanes. Hence, HOV lanes appear to violate all of the conditions considered neces- sary by Brittle et al. to be classified as TCMs. Second, Caltrans indicates in its System Management Plan [181 that: "...the extent of [adding capacity] will not be adequate to prevent a deterioration in the overall levels of service on Bay Area freeways and will only marginally relieve the negative impacts caused by incident and recurring congestion." (page 67) • The capacity of a mbced-flow freeway lane Is estimated to be 2,000 vehicles per lane per hour. The capacity of a HOV lane Is estimated to be about 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour. If average occupancy of the mixed -flow lane Is 1.2, then the carrying capacity of such a lane is 2,400 persons per lane per hour. If average occupancy of the HOV lane is 2.5 persons per vehicle, then It can carry 4,000 persons per lane per hour. At volumes above 960 vehicles per hour, the HOV lane carries more people than the maximum capacity of the mixed -flow lane. APPLIED MANAGEMENT &L4NNING GAOUP Page 42 L� 0 TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES They also add: "Experience has shown the effects of adding capacity alone may only temporarily relieve congestion which recurs as demand continues to build." (page 225) This leads to a question as to why Caltrans then supports capacity expan- sion as a congestion -relieving strategy. This is not addressed clearly in the Systems Management Plan. However, a further issue of importance is raised by statements in the System Management Plan concerning HOV lanes and ramp metering [181. A heavily stressed note is printed on page 91 that states: "Once the freeway system is managed using ramp meters and HOV bypass lanes, there may not be the need for HOV lanes on all sections of freeways. Sec- tions identified for HOV lanes, which already have been - metered at on -ramps, may attain LOS D (speeds in excess of 40 mph). Under these conditions, the incen- tive for ridesharing along the entire route would be increased. This situation will be evaluated carefully. If HOV lanes are not needed on freeway sections, HOV lanes on freeways could be converted to mixed -flow lanes." (page 91) Thus, it appears that Caltrans would encourage the provision of HOV lanes as a TCM for a freeway project, thus permitting a D* project to be reclas- sified to a B project. Subsequently, Caltrans would encourage conversion of the HOV lane, under circumstances that are not explicitly described, to a mixed -flow lane. This appears to be a loophole in the process that would permit MTC, among other agencies, to add mixed -flow lanes to freeways in the Bay Area without considering the air quality impacts of those lanes, simply by adding HOV lanes at the same time; and subsequently convert- ing the HOV lanes to mixed -flow, thereby creating even graver consequen- ces for regional air quality. MANAGEMENT &PWVNING Page 43 is GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES In summary, the entire prescribed process for assessing the air quality impacts of capacity additions to the freeway system in the Bay Area ap- pears to be riddled with loopholes that permit projects to avoid air quality impact assessment. and that also open the potential for substantial degrad- ation of air quality through subsequent conversion of HOV lanes to mixed flow. All of this is done against a background in which Caltrans itself seems to admit that adding capacity is not a procedure for solving con- gestion problems. Review of Environmental Documents A number of environmental documents have been reviewed from the Bay Area. These documents represent as many of the 48 projects whose 0* (potentially detrimental) rating was changed to B (beneficial) as we were able to locate. These are the documents that were identified by MTC as the basis for redesignation. In the following discussion, we have drawn conclusions about the entire group of projects, bolstered by specific ex- amples drawn from those documents that were obtained for review. The basis for review, as outlined in the previous section of this chapter, is: 1. To determine if the project is a congestion -relief project; 2. If it is a congestion -relief project, to determine how air quality assessment was performed on the project; 3. If it is a congestion -relief project, to determine what TCMs are included, if any, and whether the inclusion of TCMs was the basis for a beneficial or potentially beneficial rating; and 4. If TCMs are included as the mitigation measures that provide the basis for a beneficial rating, in how many instances are the TCMs HOV lane additions? Before looking in detail at the specific projects, there is one additional point that should be made. As indicated much earlier in this chapter, there is MANAGEMENT&PL4NNING Page 44 GAOUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES usually a single travel forecast made with a highway and transit network that includes all programmed projects. This forecast effectively examines the combined impacts of all projects as part of the entire transportation system. It is deficient only insofar as the planners do not redistribute trips prior to estimating mode choice and network assignment. This procedure provides one set of estimates of traffic conditions, namely those that would occur if all projects were implemented by the horizon year. Following this one forecast of all projects, each individual project that is defined for an environmental impact assessment may be examined in isolation. In this case, it is customary to simply reassign the trips in the no -build or Existing -plus -Funded (see page 15) assignment with the one project in place. A repeated criticism of the MTC Transportation Improve- ment Program is that it frequently provides an assessment of impacts for the isolated project, even though the project in question may be part of a series of projects affecting one facility. For example, comment 4 on Air Quality Assessment [151 (page 8) states: "Projects should be grouped -together in logical seg- ments for air quality analysis purposes; segmentation masks the full air quality impacts of a project." While MTC responds that they agree, there is no evidence that they have changed the methodology to do so. Furthermore, since the air quality assessment is generally performed superficially, by using the guidelines outlined in the preceding section for rating the impact and the results of a local assignment to estimate actual reductions in pollutants, there is in fact no real analytical air quality assessment performed. It would have been more appropriate to respond by pointing out that a full analysis of air quality impacts is not performed, so that the comment is somewhat ir- relevant to the actual methodology. In general, reviews of the documents show the following conditions to exist: 1. Some documents provide no evidence of any traffic modeling; MANAGEMENT &PWVNING Page 45 GAOUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES 2. The "build" and "no -build" analyses do not consider the effect of capacity (or its lack) on demand; 3. There is no evidence that volume/capacity ratios have been checked and unreasonable or impossible values removed prior to developing the findings for the analysis; and 4. There is no modeling of the effects of any TCMs to verify their effect as being sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts of capacity additions. Table 2 shows the projects for which documentation was obtained from MTC and other agencies. It represents only a small proportion of all 48 projects, but apparently also includes all of those for which documentation can be located. The table shows a total of 14 projects for which doc- umentation was obtained. Most of the documents reviewed rely on MTC forecasts or on forecasts generated by Caltrans District 4 Office. In both cases, these forecasts appear to follow the standard approach of MTC and use a "no -build" projection to 2000, 2005, or 2010, and a "build" projection that includes other projects, besides the one that is the subject of the environmental document. The no -build forecast frequently shows levels of travel demand that could not be sustained by the facility in question. For example, the environmental document for the 1-680 widening from I- 580 to Rudgear Road shows a.m. peak volumes for one direction that are on the order of 16,900 vehicles in 2010 (see Exhibit 1. attached). The a.m. peak period is normally considered to be two hours long, the facility is three lanes in each direction, and the maximum capacity of a freeway lane is 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. The facility therefore has a capacity for the a.m. peak of 12,000 vehicles. The 2010 projected volume is clearly far in excess of capacity. From a review of the document, it appears that this volume of traffic was used in air quality modeling to estimate the pollutant burden if the project were not built. It is also the basis of deter- mining travel times on the facility, under no -build conditions, and these travel times are also used in the air quality analysis. APPUEo Page 46 MM4IGEMENT LMlN/NG GROUP 0 17J TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Table 2 List of Environmental Documents Reviewed Affected Highways) Project Location . I-680 and I-580 : I-680 from I-580 to Stoneridge Drive and I-580 from Santa Rita Road to I-680 I-680 h480 to Rudgear Road I-680 and SR 24 . I-680 from Rudgear Road to Willow Pass Road and SR24 from I-680/24 IC to PIeasant Hill Road.'"'. I-680 <.Willow Pass Road to Marina Vfsta.Boulevar'd . -.. US 101 I-280/680/101 IC to the De La Cruz Blvd/Trimble :. " Road IC US 101 -San Antonio Street OC. to -McKee- Road - IC'. US 101 Bernal Road to San Mateo' County Line I-880 Alvarado -Niles Road to Davis Street I-S80 Mission Boulevard to Montague Expressway SR-82 Blossom Hill Road to Curtner Avenue, San Jose SR-82 SR-880 and Scott Boulevard - - SR-85 US-101 and I-280 SR-37 Mini Drive to Sage Street, Vallejo I-80 Kidwell Road Interchanee APPLIED At"AGEMENT &PLANNING Page 47 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES Because no account is taken of the extent to which travel demand would be suppressed by the lack of capacity in the peak period, the no -build volume is too high and speeds of travel too low. Further, the project analysis concludes there will be no change in travel volumes on the facility, if the facility is widened. Rather, because the addition of a lane in each direction will increase the capacity in the peak period to 16,000 vehicles, which is just slightly below the demand level of 16,900. traffic is assumed to move faster under the "build" option, and the pollutant burden is as- sumed significantly less. Not surprisingly, the conclusion is then drawn that this project has no adverse effect on air quality, but rather will improve it. To show that the level of demand for travel is 16,900 vehicles in the peak link, peak direction for the a.m. peak is relevant for identifying the potential need for the project. However, the use of that volume for computing air quality impacts under the no -build scenario is clearly incorrect, because such a volume would not occur, nor would congested speeds be as low as projected with that volume on the existing facility. In several other of the documents listed in Table 2, the exact same proced- ure appears to have been used. Traffic volumes are not always reported in the document, so that the reasonableness or not of the no -build fore- casts cannot always be determined. However, its use in the air quality analysis seems quite clear. This can be seen, for example, in the docu- ments for Route 880 widening from Alvarado -Niles Road to Davis Street, and for US 101 widening from 280/680/101 to the De La Cruz Boule- vard/Trimble Road Interchange. In almost every case, ramp metering and HOV lanes are considered as possible TCMs. However, because most of the documents conclude that there will be no negative air quality impacts from the capacity addition, TCMs are not required in order to obtain a B or N rating, and the recom- mendation is made consistently that these operational options should be examined after the public hearings and environmental clearances are completed. There is a minimal analysis performed of the potential impacts of HOV lanes. It is minimal in that no effort is made to model the changes to travel demand patterns resulting from addition of a HOV lane. Rather, a APPLIED ,QT- _ MANAGEMENT LANNING GROUP Page 48 • TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES volume of use on the HOV lane is assumed and subtracted from the LOV lanes. An estimate is made of the reduction in vehicles that would result from the increase in vehicle occupancy, and this is used to estimate (generally negligible) changes in emissions. Each project also references the TIP in summarizing the air quality impacts. Generally, this reference indicates that, because the project is part of the TIP and because the TIP includes TCMs, the project conforms and there are no relevant air quality impacts. Despite this statement, several docu- ments still undertake a microscale analysis for Carbon Monoxide, although this analysis is flawed by comparing the, no -build and build options with no accounting for unrealistic volume/capacity ratios and travel speeds. Conclusions The primary conclusion to be drawn from this review of the environmental documents is -that almost any project that adds capacity to an existing con- gested facility will be assessed as having no negative impacts on air quality and may be considered beneficial. This situation arises because com- parison is made between an unrealistic "no -build" option and the "build" option, in which the traffic volumes and speeds in the no -build would not in fact occur, and the volumes remain generally unchanged for the build option. In addition, the only TCM whose effect is even superficially estimated is that of HOV lanes, where an oversimplified analysis leads to the conclusion that a slight reduction in emissions would occur if HOV lanes were used for the capacity addition, but that the effects within the accuracy of the models are undetectable. APPLIED MANAGEMENT OEPLANNING Page 49 GAOUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPACITY INCREASES References 1. Lowry, I.S., 'Planning for Urban Sprawl,' Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 220, Washington, D.C., 1988, p.302- 2. AASHTO, A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus - Transit Improvements — 1977, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. 1978. 3. Zahavi, Y., 'The Effects of Transportation Systems on Spatial Distribution of Population and Jobs,' presented at the Joint Nation- al Meeting of the Operations Research Society and Institute of Management Sciences, Miami, Florida, November, 1976. 4. Zahavi, Y. Travel Characteristics In Cities of Developed and Develop- ing Countries, Staff Working Paper #230, World Bank, Washington, D.C., March 1976. S. Reno, A. 'Personal Mobility in the United States,' Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 220, Washington, D.C., 1988, p.374. 6. Remak, R. and S. Rosenbloom, Peak Period Traffic Congestion, Transportation Research Board Special Report 169, 1976, p.62. 7. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, BART in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Final Report of the BART Impact Program, U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C., September 1979. S. Sherret, A., *BART's First Five Years: Transportation and Travel impacts. Interpretive Summary of the Final Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., September.1979. APPLIED MANAGEMENT &PwvNING Page 50 GAOUP 0 TRAFFIC CONGES77ON AND CAPACITY INCREASES 9. Orski, C.K., "A Realistic Appraisal of Traffic Congestion,' Urban- Land, Volume 48, No. 10, October 1989, page 34. 10.Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Travel Model Development Project Phase 2 Final Report: Volume 2: Detailed Model Descriptions, Report to Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Berkeley, CA, June 1980. 11.Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Travel Model Development Project Phase 2 Final Report Volume 1: Summary Report, Report to Metro- politan Transportation Commission, Berkeley, CA, June 1980. 12.Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Travel Model Development Project Phase 2 Final Report: Volume 3: MTCFCAST Users Guide, Report to Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Berkeley, CA, June 1980. 13. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, "A Disaggregate Work -Trip Mode Choice Model forAggregate Forecasting (Model TW)", Technical Summary, Travel Model Update with 1980/81 Data Base, MTC, Oakland, April 1988. 14. Kollo, H.P.H. and C.L Purvis, "Regional Travel Forecasting Model System for the San Francisco Bay Area", Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA, July 1988. 15. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 1990-94 Transportation Improvement Program for the Nine -County San Francisco Bay Area: Volume Ik Highway and Other Elements, MTC, Oakland, CA (Draft, undated). 16. Brittle, C. et al. Traffic Mitigation Reference Guide, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA, December 1984, page 2. 17.Association of Bay Area Governments, 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, December 1983, page II-2. APPLIED AMAGEMENt UNN/NG Page 51 GROUP TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND CAPAC17Y INCREASES 18. California Department of Transportation, Management Plan District 4, Prepared by Planning Branch, System Planning, December APPLIED MANAGEMENT &PLANNING GROUP State Highway System District 4 Transportation 1988. Page 52 0 • v 0 O w I IN M1 R P ♦ A Y O O f01. h ♦ N N r w '• A • • ♦ • ♦ ♦ • O A r a 1 R a 8 g g A A A A A A 9 o ID 10 a 1 1 1 Y i 0 O O O O O O O O e l Iv Y n q M1 -I r e to e I to IYO N 3 r A T Ae► N r r r w r r w w r r w w w w w w w w r r r r r r w w r r lit x x x x u x x x x x x MOO ti M1 O i 0 O n M o 1 1 : 1 a $ ti 3 O O O O 0 N O 4. 1 A pp 0 * ti A" t O I AI W N! w w .Yr .♦i w .•i .♦i .•.1 w M1 • ♦ 1 gyp/ S 8 op p -! O w w w w w w w p. Y ♦ r I w w w w w w w w 1 1 1 P I N e • M1 d A A Y M1 r w l IN Y Y Y r Y Y A A /V 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Qi Q °0 tc s .. u��� m _ Ica a i 4 8 8 3 3 3 R S S St S M 7t IYs a � o o w i a i w w w w w w w w w M r tf0f O tOn A O O r A_ � A ti O 1'0 O r • � R w N - O O w w r w w w w w w w w r r 0 :0 100 8 2 4 S A a $ R R 0 w AA 0 A 0) A � N Pod r r G 12 O O O COp OO O O CAS 2 O O 0 � � 1 ♦ O � � d N b 1'O N r r N w w w w w w w r p .+ O • A r S ry � A r O h � M P P • r • r • ! ♦ ♦ ♦ A 3 M1 A 01 �D •i A f3 JL J�1 n Y•♦ � �♦ il► r Y r r g�8883�R8a►�� N r A r ! r r r b Y r II ac tQ} Y 1A � W WA � u IV • THE POISON RUNOFF INDEX FOR GREATER LOS ANGELES NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL TIM BOYLE RICHARD COHN-LEE RESEARCHERS DIANE CAMERON PROJECT DIRECTOR E'x A, h/i ," 5/ THE POISON RUNOFF INDEX FOR GREATER LOS ANGELES TABLE OF CONTENTS Section � 1 Summary............................................................................................................ GREATER LOS ANGELES POISON RUNOFF INDEX ............................. 4-5 Introduction............................................................................................ 6 Explanation of the Poison Runoff Index for Greater Los Angeles 8 Sources and Effects of Selected Toxic Metals and Nutrients Found in Urban Runoff............................................................. 14 STEMMING THE FLOW OF RUNOFF IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA..... 15 TheLegal Tools.................................................................................... 15 Tools for Runoff Control............................................................... 18 19 Physical Tools for Fully Developed Areas ......................................... Stormwater Tools for Developing Areas ............................................ 20 How Businesses and Industries Can Manage and Reduce . PoisonRunoff 21 ............................................................................... Practices for Minimizing Poison Runoff for the Home and Yard..... 22 FinancialTools......................................................................................... 24 24 Conclusion................................................................................................ Appendix A 1. Greater Los Angeles Regional Breakdown ............................................ i II. Description of the Method Used............................................................... i III. Applying the Simple Method: Considerations for Los Angeles......... Percent Imperviousness Based on Land Use ........................................ Concentration Values Used in Estimating Pollutant Loadings in StormwaterRunoff.................................................................................... vi Land Use -Specific Stormwater Concentration Data ..................................... vii Contributions to Poison Runoff Loadings by Land Use ................................ viii Major Sewage Treatment Plants Within the Los Angeles PRI Region...... ix • THE POISON RUNOFF INDEX FOR GREATER LOS ANGELES SUMMARY What k Poison Runoff? Webstees defines 'poison' as 'something destructive or harmful'' Stormwater runoff from cities and suburbs is indeed destructive and harmful; it wreaks havoc on estuaries like Santa Monica Bay. During dry spells, a wide range of chemicals; dirt, dust, and animal droppings; decaying leaves and litter; and other loose particles, build up on streets and rooftops throughout the LA metropolitan area. Then, during rainstorms, these pollutants are washed into the nearest river or storm drain which often discharge directly into the nearest waterbody. In addition, raindrops can 'scavenge' (collect) dust, pollen, and toxic particulates out of the air as they fall to earth. Thus, a 'cleansrain" ' n ctease mat e poison runoff. Poison runoff can contain toxins like zinc, copper9 contaminate drinking water sources and aquatic organisms; bacteria and viruses that jeopardize shellfish beds and bathing beaches; excessive nutrients like phosphorus that promote algae growth and rob fish of oxygen; and sediment which can smother fish eggs and aquatic plants. Why do we need a Poison Runoff Index? While the poison runoff problem has been known for some time, few efforts have been made to quantify the problem in the Los Angeles region. The Poison Runoff Index (PRI) provides estimates of the quantities of toxins in urban and suburban runoff. The PRI incorporates information on local land use patterns, total rainfall, and levels of toxic chemicals and harmful nutrients in the runoff itself to estimate how many pounds per year of a given pollutant are being discharged into local waters. Poison runoff loadings are compared with loadings from factories and sewage treatment plants, so that citizens and public officials can make better decisions about how to clean up Santa Monica Bay. What does the Greater Los Angeles Region PRI tell us? NRDC's PRI for the greater Los Angeles region shows that poison runoff rivals, and in some cases, surpasses sewage plant discharges as a source of Santa Monica Bay pollution. From January through December, 1989, NRDC estimates that roughly twice as much zinc and cadmium were discharged via poison runoff into Santa Monica Bay, as were discharged by the Hyperion plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant for the year 1988. In addition, 1989 poison runoff from the greater Los Angeles area contributed one and one-half times as much lead, one-half as much copper, and one-third as much chromium as did the two sewage plants in 1988.2 What can be done about poison runoff? 1 'Poison," definition 1 b (1). in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1988 by Merriam -Webster, Inc. Springfield, Massachusetts. T The U.S. EPA's annual Toxics Release Inventory, initiated in 1987, requires all manufacturers that use 10,000 pounds per year or more of a toxic chemical to report their releases of that chemical into the environment. Both personal and political action Is required to tackle ison runoff. Homeowners can re - landscape their lawns to include more indigenous plants that require less water and fertilizer. They can also Install perforated drain spouts and divert rainwater from the roof to the lawn, instead of onto the street and Into a storm drain. Citizens can demand that developers leave more trees standing when new subdivisions are built, that parking lots are kept to minimum sizes and designed according to watershed protection guidelines, and that permanent stormwater retention basins be installed to treat runoff before it reaches area waters. NRDC's 19M book, Poison Runoff' contains many other examples of steps to control this insidious form of pollution. What federal laws apply to poison runoff from urban areas? Urban stormwater runoff is regulated by the federal Clean Water Act Section 319 of this Act requires States to identify watersheds that are degraded by "nonpoint source pollution," and to develop plans for reducing runoffs devastating impacts. Section 402(p) of the Act requires municipalities to get a permit when the stormwater flows into storm sewers which discharge into a waterbody. The permitting requirements of section 402 apply when the runoff flows into a storm drain that discharges into a stream or river. What California laws apply to stormwater runoff? California state law regarding nonpoint source pollution is still in its nascent stages. Unlike their progressive analogs in clean air legislation, California urban stormwater regulations differ very Tittle or not at all from Federal EPA regulations outlined in Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Section 319 emphasizes a weaker, voluntary approach rather than Mandatory controls for stormwater pollution. While several nonpoint source programs are seeking to assess the environmental impacts of poison runoff contamination, none have brought about the implementation of pollution control measures. Local flood control authorities are empowered to set fees on the basis of the volume of flow from an impervious surface area, but the law is silent on the establishment of pollutant loading surcharges. "Big Green," or Proposition 128, will be on the ballot this November 6. Big Green contains a stormwater provision that requires each coastal county to develop a stormwater management plan and control program. These control programs would enable local governments to begin to tackle the poison runoff problem, both for already -developed, paved -over areas, as well as for new developments that can be designed from the beginning to achieve bay, estuarine and ocean protection goals and standards. Santa Clara and . Alameda Counties' have already begun implementation of this process. Does the technology exist to stop stormwater from polluting our waters? Yes. There are a number of techniques and tools available to reduce the flow of polluted runoff to our waters. The first priority is to stop the introduction of pollutants at the source through public education, and to stem the flow of runoff itself. For poison runoff Paul Thompson, Poison Runoff a Guide to State and Local Control of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution, Natural Resources Defense Council, 1989. 2 r� that cannot be prevented at the source, there are a number of `remedial" techniques that can be used. These include filter strips and infiltration devices, as well as careful land use planning. Which tool is appropriate often depends on whether the area has already been developed, or whether the tool can be incorporated as the development occurs. it is usually easier and cheaper to do the [after. In addition, citizens and businesses can recycle, and property dispose of, used oil pesticides, and other toxic chemicals to keep the "poisons" out of runoff. What can local governments do to stop the flow of polluted runoff? Local governments can use the state nonpoint source management plan and use it to help Identify the degraded local waters and stormwater pollution sources. Not all of the necessary information is available yet, but what Is available will provide a start at identifying the problems. Once the sources of poison runoff are identified, the local government can enact ordinances, including land use and zoning controls, to require the appropriate design standards and technical tools. Local government will find it easier and cheaper to impose stormwater management responsibilities on developing' neighborhoods rather than ones that are already in place. Meanwhile, runoff reduction and control retrofits for already -built areas remain the crucial responsibilities of State and local governments, as well as private landowners. Are there funding mechanisms available to pay for stormwater management? Y Yes. One idea that has been successful is called a "stormwater utility." Through this mechanism fees are charged to those "impervious properties" that generate stormwater runoff and are then used to pay for the technical tools available to control the problem. This funding mechanism, which has been used successfully in cities in Washington State and dozens of other municipalities nationwide, was adopted by the Los Angeles City Council as a means of financing runoff control programs. The new Los Angeles City stormwater fee program will reward those property owners with the maximum permeable green space by charging them the lowest stormwater fee. This program will begin in early December 1990 and will be included as part of the property tax bill. The actual fee, for a typical single family home, will start at about two dollars per household per year,' with expected cost increases as the stormwater pollution program develops. 0 Felicia Marcus, Commissioner of the Water Board, City of Los Angeles. Personal communication, October 5, 1990. 3 0 z 3 O a 0 z 0 a 0 J Q F- W U X O Q W in 0 z O n. v 0 V z Q O J F- z W_ F-• z LOS ANGELES POISON RUNOFF INDEX TOXIC METAL LOADINGS RUNOFF SEWAGE PLANTS Ltw we ren uv. Y,., ..., . .. . . POISON RUNOFF VERSUS SEWAGE PLANTS NUTRIENT AND OIL AND GREASE LOADINGS POISON RUNOFF VERSUS SEWAGE PLANTS C 4 Table 1 Greater Los Angeles Region Poison Runoff Index Pollutant Total Poison Runoff Total 1988 Ldngs. Total California Loading Estimates from Major Large Factory 1/1 - 12/31, 19895 Regional STPe Discharges (1988)? (pounds/year) (pounds/year) (pounds/year) Lead 15Z392 92,568 93,059 Zinc 522,319 249,052 255,306 Copper 45,775 96,976 97,451 Cadmium 11,100 5,069 0° Chromium 14,718 48,929 2,936 BOD' 9,808,921 247,288,800 not reported Phosphorus 435,680 13,863,160 not reported Nitrogen 3,451,923 80,820,680 not reported Oil & Grease 4,475,826 30,856,000 not reported 'BOD= Biochemical Oxygen Demand S Loadings for heavy metals and oil and grease were calculated using land use -specific concentration data provided by Enginering-Science. BOD was calculated using National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) concentration value while Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus were calculated using monitoring data from Southwestern cities within the NURP study. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1988-89, 1989. See Table A-5 for list of major sewage treatment plants and their service areas. From the U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory for California (1988). a This value, taken from the Toxics Release Inventory for California, measures the loadings from only major industrial sources. In addition, it does not take into account illegal and unauthorized dumping of pollutants into waterbodies. 5 Introduction Major efforts are now underway by the City and County of Los Angeles, and other local governments, to stern the flow of pollutants to Santa Monica Bay. In particular, vigorous attempts are also being made to assess, monitor and control the problems in the Bay caused by toxins. As these municipalities set out to tackle sewage plant and factory pollution, they are also focusing attention on quantifying and controlling the stormwater pollutant loadings contributed by urban and suburban areas to the Bay. Increasingly, we are awakening to the fact that all categories of land use and development are intimately linked to water quality. Poison runoff, typically labelled with the less descriptive term 'nonpoint source water pollution; is receiving Increasing attention by Santa Monica Bay activists and policymakers. When It rains, the stormwater that runs off developed land: roads; parking lots; rooftops; lawns; and farm fields, carries a whole host of chemicals. These chemicals are poisons In the sense that they are ultimately destructive to the aquatic life of Santa Monica Bay. During the 1970s, planners in California performed studies on runoff as part of the (now - defunct) 208 watershed planning process. Then, during the mid -to -late 1980s, California's water quality officials began to re -focus attention on the deleterious impact of stormwater pollution. Yet the state has been slow to act. Although the 1987 Clean Water Act requires tat states develop regulatory and management structures to control nonpoint sources of pollution, these programs are far from being fully implemented. California's State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) does not have a program in place to monitor . stormwater pollutant loading or to require and evaluate the performance of management practices, control techniques, and system, design and engineering methods. Hence, relatively little is known about the volume, toxicity or actual consequences of poison runoff. Throughout the Santa Monica Bay region thus far, the bulk of pollution control efforts have focused on point source reductions at factories and sewage treatment plants. Only recently has attention been paid to the need for pollutant control efforts in urban and suburban areas, in part because runoff has traditionally been believed to be unquantifiable. Two recent studies have begun to elucidate some of the runoff problems that are afflicting Santa Monica Bay: Heal the Bay, in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project, studied the problem of human fecal matter discharged from storm drains;' and Engineering - Science under contract with the City of Los Angeles, monitored runoff from different land use types in Los Angeles.10 The Los Angeles Poison Runoff Index is based in part on data from this latter study. This report will underscore the fact that urban runoff is indeed both quantifiable and controllable. 9 Gold, M. et' al. (1990). An Assessment of Inputs of Fecal Indicator Organisms and Human Enteric Viruses From Two Santa Monica Bay Storm Drains. A document prepared for the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. 10 Engineering -Science, Inc. (1989) Santa Monica Bay Stormwater Pollutant Reduction Study. Draft Final Report prepared for the City of Los Angeles. C. L� It should be noted that the data used in generating the Los Angeles Poison Runoff Index represents the best available data at this time. However, NRDC recognizes the shortcomings of the database and the need for further stormwater monitoring in the Los Angeles County region" Due to these limitations, the Poison Runoff Index should be used only as a general guide to pinpoint major sources of contamination and to suggest possible methods of prevention and control. Also, the index should serve as a model for approaching this problem In other regions and municipalities. Santa Monica Bay is part of the National Estuary Program of EPA, and has been targeted for special monitoring and cleanup projects. Toxic heavy metals and organics (like DDT) continue to present a threat to the health of fish and shellfish. Poison runoff is Increasingly recognized as a major contributor of some of these toxics to the Bay. For certain toxic heavy metals, the Say area has the dubious distinction of ranking in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations's (NOAA) national top twenty sites for concentrations of toxics in mollusks." For example, Marina Del Rey, the NOAA •Mussel Watch" site for Santa Monica Bay, was ranked second overall in zinc contamination for the years 1986-88, and 14th overall for chromium contamination. With respect to urban and suburban lands, Los Angeles has long considered stormwater runoff to be primarily a problem of flow, not pollutant control, while targeting the lion's share of its pollutant reduction funds and policies to sewage and factory waste problems. • But as the Poison Runoff Index demonstrates, the pollutants in urban and suburban runoff are moth quantifiable and controllable, by existing technical and legal means. The Los Angeles County Public Works Department will soon be releasing a comprehensive stormwater monitoring database. This data could be used to generate a more detailed analysis of the poison runoff problem. 'Z National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (National Status and Trends Program), A Summary of Data on Tissue Contamination from the First Three Years (1986- f 1988) of the Mussel Watch Project, August, 1989. pp C-20, C-40. 7 EXPLANATION OF NRDVS POISON RUNOFF INDEX FOR GREATER LOS ANGELES Why are we interested In Poison Runoff? 'Pollution comes from factories and sewage treatment plants' At least that is the common wisdom, reflected in federal water pollution control budgets and State and federal enforcement programs. But in this case, the common wisdom is only half -right; at least one-half of all polluted rivers, lakes and coastal waters are contaminated by pollutants from diffuse sources." These pollutants 'run ofr city pavement and rural farmland when it rains, or when snowdrifts melt." Because poison runoff is diffuse and difficult to visualize, and often politically and administratively difficult to prevent, it has been largely neglected by State and federal pollution control programs. Yet figures recently released by the EPA show that out of over 17,000 heavily polluted surface waters around the country, only 595 (less than 5%) are polluted largely or entirely by factory and sewage discharges of toxic chemicals". Many of the remaining 16,405 polluted waters are degraded, to a large extent, by poison runoff. According to estimates by NRDC, the levels of some individual pollutants in poison runoff rival the output of factories and large municipal sewage treatment plants. When these pollutants get into waterbodies such as the Los Angeles River and Santa Monica Bay, they wreak havoc on finfish and shellfish and other aquatic fife. Nutrients promote excess algal and bacterial growth that blocks light and robs fish of necessary oxygen, often causing large fish kills. Heavy metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides and other toxic pollutants harm fish and shellfish reproduction, may cause cancerous lesions, and build up to levels that make fish unsafe for human consumption. Certain heavy metals, for example, can pose risks of kidney and central nervous system damage in humans. Even sediment, the largest runoff pollutant by volume, destroys aquatic systems by smothering fish eggs and aquatic plants. In December of 1983 the Water Planning Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP). This five- year study monitored stormwater runoff on a nationwide scale and found that runoff effects were dependent on the type, size and hydrology of a receiving waterbody. While much more research needs to be done on Los Angeles -area runoff problems, work to date suggests that runoff is a serious problem. Numerous studies by Los Angeles area " "National Water Quality Inventory," U.S. EPA Report to Congress, 1988. " These estimates do not address air deposition which for some pollutants may account for a significant proportion of total loadings. 15 'The Toxic Hotspots List," issued in compliance with Section 304(I) of the Clean Water Act of 1987. U.S. EPA Press Release, June 1989. E: 0 agencies such as the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)10 and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Programs (LACDPW)" have sought to gauge the threat from poison runoff. One recent study of the acute toxicity of Los Angeles stormwater to light -producing bacteria conducted by SCCWRP found that the "first flush' of stormwater its particularly toxic to these microorganisms" What does the Poison Runoff Index show? In its case study of the greater Los Angeles region, NRDC performed a series of calculations to estimate the quantities of nine key pollutants that run off of highways, and commercial, residential, and industrial areas into surface waters throughout the region. The estimates are presented as an tinder' of the amount of poisons present in urban and suburban runoff In a given time period." While conservative, the estimates show that poison runoff from urban areas is a significant problem which deserves more attention from environmental policymakers, kxcal and State administrators, public works managers and citizen activists. The Greater Los Angeles Region Poison Runoff Index (PRI) shows estimates of loadings to Santa Monica Bay of five heavy metals: lead, zinc, copper, cadmium and chromium; three nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus and Biochemical Oxygen Demand; and oil and grease deposited by automobiles on highways20; all of which are prevalent in poison runoff. These contaminants flow Into an extensive system of storm drains which extend thousands . of feet to the Pacific Ocean. These storm drains were designed to control. flood waters by diverting them to the ocean. - The Whittier Narrows Basin, for example, can divert contaminated stormwater into the Los Angeles or San Gabriel River. Exacerbating the problem of poison runoff is the fact that nearly all rivers in the Los Angeles County region have been channelized in the belief that this would facilitate stream flow. Thus, the rivers and streams which have undergone this treatment are essentially large storm drains. The ultimate effect of this pollution and channelization is increased loadings to the already severely -threatened Santa Monica Bay. 16 The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Storm Runoff in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, June, 1988. 17 The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Programs conducts a monthly monitoring program which utilizes 28 sampling stations to measure levels of heavy metals, bacteria, pesticides, minerals and hydrocarbons in surface waters. 18 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Resort 1988-89. 'Toxicity of Stormwater Runoff in Los Angeles County." page 66. Certain microorganisms are vital in maintaining the proper level of life-giving oxygen in waterbodies. 19 The Poison Runoff Index includes only wet -weather runoff, and excludes dry -weather 'runoff' from car washes, cooling tower blowdown, and other discharges. 20 See, for example, the oil and grease data review by Eva Hoffman, "Chronic Discharges of Petroleum Hydrocarbons Into the Aquatic Environment Via Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflows," in Oil in Freshwater (1987); proceedings from a conference held in Edmonton, Canada. 9 How are pollutant loading- estimates In the Poison Runoff Index derived? Pollutant loadings are an * estimate of total mass of pollutant, in pounds, carried by runoff to surface waters over a given time period. The PRI estimates pollutant loadings to surface waters for January 1 through December 31, 1989. The PRI Is calculated by multiplying the volume of runoff (which is based on percent of 'impervious'O cover for different land uses) over a particular time period, by the concentration of pollutant in the runoff. The stormwater concentration data used In this index was derived from a number of sources. For the heavy metals, concentration data came from a 1989 Los Angeles stonnwater pollutant study by Engineering -Science, a technical consulting firm based in Santa Monica.21 For each toxic metal the data was utilized in two ways: an average value was derived from an aggregate of all land use monitoring results; and concentrations were derived from sampling sites in specific land use areas such as residential, commercial and industrial. Table 1 shows the heavy metal and oil and grease loadings derived from the more accurate, land use -specific concentration data. For previous indices (e.g. Baltimore, MD, Harrisburgh, PA and Washington, D.C.) such detailed data was unavailable and so more general NURP data was used. An overall comparison of metal loadings derived from land use -specific data and those derived using the average concentrations revealed only minor differences. Because Los Angeles -specific runoff monitoring data -was not currently available for certain pollutants, data had to be incorporated from studies in other cities. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) was calculated using the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) geometric , mean concentration value. Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus concentrations were taken from 5 Southwestern cities' in the NURP report in order to obtain data geared more t$ward arid environments like Los Angeles. Appendix A -II gives a detailed description of the method used in calculating the PRI. How can we interpret these poison runoff estimates? The magnitude of these loading estimates can be illustrated with a few comparisons. NRDC estimates that in 1989, about 522,000 pounds of zinc, 11,100 pounds of cadmium and 152,000 pounds of lead were delivered to the Bay and Harbor from Los Angeles -area 2' The term "impervious" used in context, means "impenetrable to rain' Many of the man-made surfaces that are laid down over the land as part of the urban/suburban development process are impervious. These include parking lots, highways and streets, driveways, sidewalks, bike paths, and the rooftops of buildings. As a general rule of thumb, as coverage by impervious surfaces increases in a given region, so does the volume of runoff. 22 Engineering -Science, Inc. (1989) Santa Monica Bay Stormwater Pollutant Reduction Study. Draft Final Report prepared for the City of Los Angeles. 23 The southwestern NURP sites were San Francisco, CA, Fresno, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, Denver, CO and Austin, TX. 10 poison runoff. These are equivalent to 2.1, 2.2 and 1.6 times, respectively, the zinc, cadmium and lead discharged in c 1988 from the two largest 0 sewage treatment plants that serve roughly the same region, z the Hyperion and Joint Water o Pollution Control Plant. C J J NRDC estimates that a approximately 46,000 pounds of 2 copper and 15,000 pounds of V chromium were delivered to p Santa Monica Bay by runoff from the LOU Angeles area in 1989.24 This is equivalent to one-half and one-third the amount, respectively, of the loadings of the same heavy metals from the Hyperion and Joint Water Pollution Control plants. The fact that the metal loadings in Los Angeles -area urban runoff are large when compared with the statewide loadings of the metals from the largest factories (via the "Toxics Release Inventory"), is also significant. it signals that more emphasis must be given to urban runoff by California environmental officials, If they wish to fully address all important pollutant sources. Table A-3 compares heavy metal concentrations taken at residential, commercial, industrial and transportation areas in the City of Los Angeles. The concentrations of three of the metals (copper, zinc and chromium) were highest in the commercial areas while the second highest concentrations of copper, zinc and cadmium were found in the industrial sampling site. Interestingly, the highest level for lead was found in the residential region while the lowest value was found in the industrial region. These results should not be viewed as conclusive but rather as tentative guides for 25 allowing city officials to target suspect land uses for stormwater management programs Oil and grease in Los Angeles -area stormwater runoff is about seven times below the amount discharged by the Hyperion and Joint Water Pollution Control plants. The estimated 4.475 million pounds of oil and grease that run off annually from the streets of Los Angeles and surrounding urban areas represent a significant contribution to the overall oil and grease problem in Santa Monica Bay. One auto maintenance expert estimates that 5o% of all trucks and automobiles on the road experience some sort of oil and grease 24 (Statewide, large industrial dischargers reported no cadmium dumping to the Toxics Release Inventory during 1988.) 25 One problem with the Engineering -Science study is that it began monitoring runoff fir the first storm of the wet season had occurred -- thus the mean pollutant concentrations for different land uses are most probably underestimated. 11 leakage from crankcases" Therefore, Los Angeles, one of the most automobile -dependent cities in the world, Is especially vulnerable to future misplanning of streets and highways ^- and subsequent increases in oil and grease contamination. The NRDC Poison Runoff Index estimates for oil and grease contrast markedly with estimates made by Eganhouse and Kaplan (1982) that overall runoff oil and grease loadings to southern California coastal waters were roughly one-half the levels discharged by sewage plants" Three factors exist which can explain this discrepancy. First, the nature of the data in the 19M report by Eganhouse and Kaplan may not represent an Ideal yardstick' with which comparative oil and grease loadings can be made since It used only one sampling site and represented an only a rough estimate of oil and grease loadings" Second, compared with other sewage plants in the Los Angeles region, Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) receives large quantities of oil and grease from oil refineries and related industry waste. This results in sewage treatment plant oil and grease loadings that are unusually high. Third, the concentration data used in the calculation of oil and grease poison runoff is probably an underestimate. According to a Los Angeles city official', the Engineering - Science concentration data used to calculate poison runoff loadings failed to monitor the first storm of the rainy season or so-called `first flush" storm event, as was noted above. During the dry season, contaminants build up in high levels on impervious surfaces due to the lack of rain. With the first rain of the wet season, these accumulated particles and debris are washed off, resulting in poison runoff especially high in pollutant concentration. Therefore, a significant portion of the annual loadings might have been overlooked. Indeed, the oil and grease concentrations from Engineering -Science are roughly three - fourths those in the comparable DOT highway stormwater runoff report. Still, the oil and grease concentration values represent the best available data at this time. . The runoff loading estimates of nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and BOD are considerably below the contributions made by the two major L.A. sewage plants. This comparison shows that the L.A.-region sewage plants are still the major source of these oxygen -robbing substances to the Bay. Nationwide, the contribution of poison runoff loadings to aquatic pollution is large, even when compared with sources such as air deposition. For example, hydrocarbon poison runoff was ranked first or second in the Southern California Bight and Lake Washington when compared with contamination from factories, oil spills, refineries, atmospheric 26 Personal communication with Scott Williams, Chief Mechanic with Borror Auto Remanufacturer's (Baltimore, Maryland). October 10, 1990. 27 Eganhouse, R. and Kaplan I. (1982) Extractable Organic Matter in Municipal Wastewaters. 1. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Temporal Variations and Mass Emission Rates to the Ocean. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 16, No. 3. pp. 180-186. 28 Personal communication with Dr. Robert Eganhouse, head of the Chemistry Division of SCCWRP. October 16, 1990. 29 Personal Communication with Phillip Richardson of the City of Los Angeles Department of Water Resources. October 18, 1990. 12 deposition and sewage treatment plants00 In the Hudson -Raritan River,. sewage and poison runoff loadings (28,211,200 lb/year and 27,550,000 lb/year respectively) were ranked highest when compared with other sources such as atmospheric deposition. In the Narragansett Bay, poison runoffs yearly loadings of hydrocarbons are actually greater than those from sewage sources (1,941,724 Ib/year compared to 1,357,664 Ib/year). What is currently being done to control stormwater runoff? The Draft 1989 Stonnwater Study, generated for the City of Los Angeles by the Engineering Science consulting firm, recommends a number of control devices and techniques, Including both surface and underground detention settling basins (among others). Surface detention settling basins, in particular, are well-known urban runoff treatment devices. They can, with proper maintenance, achieve high removals of solid particles and the toxics that are attached to them. A 1.8 million -gallon stormwater detention basin is being constructed at the Los Angeles Airport. This basin will hold stormwater for eventual release and further treatment at the Hyperion sewage treatment plant." Filter strips are another type of poison runoff control suited to the Los Angeles area. The most promising plan to deal with poison runoff consists of a permit issued initially to Los Angeles County and 16 southern California cities by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The permit, issued in June 1990 under the authority of Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, calls for the cities to obtain stormwater monitoring data and phase in Best Management Practices (BMPs) within a five year period. Although NRDC supports the general goals of this program, we nevertheless believe that it does not go far enough. For example, the program as it currently stands does not impose numerical pollutant standards which are necessary to detect future improvements in water quality and to act as a guide for enforcement. Also, he current plan allows permitees to establish their own BMPs. NRDC believes that the pollutant reductions achievable by certain BMPs, such as filter strips, are technologically within reach and effective for all cities and should be required specifically by the program. In July of 1990, NRDC filed an Administrative Petition for Review against the City of Los Angeles in the hopes of strengthening the permitting system. A public comment period will end in October, at which time the State Water Board will decide on the matter. A study by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) is underway and will provide an overview of poison runoff sources to Santa Monica Bay, analyze about 20 years' worth of local runoff monitoring data, develop a method for monitoring poison runoff and identify BMPs for poison runoff pollution control. What are the sources and effects of poison runoff? The following table lists the five heavy metals, oil and grease and the three nutrients highlighted in the Poison Runoff Index, and briefly describes their sources and effects. 30 Dr. Eva Hoffman, "Chronic Discharges of Petroleum Hydrocarbons into the Aquatic Environment Via Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflows," from the Symposium in Oil and Freshwater, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1984. 31 Op. cit. at 11; page 2.13. 13 Table Sources and Effects of Selected Toxic Metals and Nutrients Found In Urban Runoff" Pollutant Source Effect Lead automobile exhaust; bioaccumulates in bottom dwelling fish exterior paints and shellfish; spinal deformities; retarded growth; reduced photosynthesis Zinc weathering and abrasion of toxic to fish and aquatic galvanized iron and steel; macroinvertebrates atmospheric fallout Copper leaching and abrasion of toxic to fish and aquatic copper pipes and brass macroinvertebrates a fittings; auto brake linings Cadmium atmospheric deposition mutagenic and carcinogenic effects from smelters and metal renal (kidney) damage finishing industries; paints dhromium atmospheric deposition from toxic and carcinogenic " cement plants; fossil fuel - t, combustion; auto and machinery corrosion Oil and leakage from automobile smothers marine life and interferes with Grease crankcases, joints and axles fish reproduction BOO vegetation, litter and robs fish of needed oxygen garbage; and animal droppings Total P same as for BOO; lawn causes algal blooms which block light fertilizer and reduce oxygen when they decompose Total N same as for BOO; lawn causes algal blooms which block light fertilizer and reduce oxygen when they decompose 32 Based on Schueler, "A Framework for Evaluating Compliance With the 10% Rule in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area," (1987). 14 i STEMMING THE FLOW OF RUNOFF IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA INTRODUCTION The Poison Runoff Index for Greater Los Angeles sends a clear message: the way we use land directly affects our precious water resources. If we adopt an ecological approach to urban land development: tree planting and tree preservation, open space and parkland preservation; mass transit; and other citizen land planning and advocacy projects, we can stem the flow of poison runoff. Conversely, the Index demonstrates that the more we allow uncontrolled growth to occur In our watersheds, with Its endless roads, rooftops, and parking lots, the more we sacrifice the health of Santa Monica Bay. Roads, parking lots and rooftops are the Impervious surfaces that collect large amounts of toxins and excess nutrients. Rainstorms then provide the runoff that. carries these pollutants to our rivers and streams. The Poison Runoff Index strikingly demonstrates that the Los Angeles region is no exception to this rule. The resultant contamination from stormwater runoff rivals pollutant inputs from other major sources, such as factories and sewage treatment plants. Unquestionably, it is time to move urban and suburban stormwater management programs to the `front bumer" of public works and environmental policy programs and budgets, . f we are truly serious about protecting our water resources. Now that the need to address the problem has been vividly established, it is time for everyone, from government officials to each individual citizen, to understand and use all available legal, scientific and financial tools to construct effective poison runoff control programs. This portion of the report pulls together some of the various tools applicable to the Los Angeles area, and suggests the ways that they can be used to stem the flow of poison runoff. THE LEGAL TOOLS The federal Clean Water Act provides a set of legal tools for controlling poison runoff. In order to understand how these tools can be used, we must understand how the Act can regulate urban runoff, what it requires, and the extent to which it has not been implemented" FEDERAL LAW According to current federal law and EPA regulation under the Clean Water Act, stormwater runoff is regulated differently, depending on the route the runoff takes in getting to the receiving water. If the runoff is discharged into a waterbody via a system of storm drain pipes and/or channels, the laws governing "point source" pollution apply. If, on the other hand, the runoff does not flow into a sewer pipe system, but rather flows off the land directly into a waterway, or percolates into ground water, the laws governing "nonpoint source" pollution apply. 33 For a detailed treatment, and case studies, of the legal tools available for runoff control under the Clean Water Act, see Thompson, P. (1989) Poison Runoff: A Guide to State and Local Control of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution, published in 1989 by the Natural Resources Defense Council. See in particular Chapter Two, "Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Under the Clean Water Act," and Chapter Four, "Land Use and Contaminated Urban Runoff Controls." 15 The One -Two Punch: Effective Urban Runoff Control By categorizing urban stormwater runoff under the heading of either point or nonpoint, EPA is attempting to draw sharp regulatory lines around a pollution source that, by definition, defies . physical boundaries. EPA and State regulatory schemes often insist that every pollution source is either "poinC or "nonpoint." The reality Is, however, much less neatly defined. Urban runoff Is actually a 'hybrid' water pollution source: it is often a combination of "nonpoinr and 'point' source phenomena and processes. Los Angeles, with its complex network of stormwater drains and concreted riverbeds, is an excellent example of poison runoffs hybrid nature. Poison runoffs volume and pollutant content depend on the lay of the land: the degree to which a watershed has been encrusted with pavement, buildings, and other developments. The nature of the particular urban land use, for example the type of on -site chemical storage at a factory, or the build-up of heavy metals and decaying leaves and animal droppings in older urban neighborhoods, influences the type and concentration of pollutants in runoff. These pollutant "buildup and washoffm phenomena are normally diffuse and spread -out over many acres. On the other hand, the manner of conveyance of the runoff often converts it from a diffuse, overland "nonpoint" source into a "point" source. Unlike most farmland runoff, urban runoff is usually (though not always) diverted into underground storm sewers and then discharged from the mouths of pipes into rivers and streams. A Thus, the "hybrid" nature of urban and suburban runoff means that regulatory schemes need flexibility and multiple regulatory layers, in order to tackle it effectively: "nonpoint" source planning and programs designed to reduce the flow of runoff (e.g., land use planning and Zoning for minimizing impervious surfaces and constructing wet detention basins); and, "point" source permits applied to end -of -pipe discharges. The latter are the primary legal means for enforcing urban runoff guidelines and standards. This "one-two punch" is necessary for effective urban and suburban runoff reduction and control, and should be kept in mind as the following regulatory programs are described. Overview of the Relevant Clean Water Act Sections Under the current legal and regulatory scheme, "nonpoint source" stormwater runoff is regulated primarily under section 319 of the Clean Water Act." Point sources of urban stormwater runoff (separate storm sewers and combined sewers) are regulated under section 402.35 Runoff into separate storm sewers is regulated by the specific permitting requirements of section 402(p). 34 33 U.S.C. 1329. 35 33 U.S.C. 1342. 16 • Section 319 of the Clean Water Act Section 319 of the Clean Water Act calls for the States to prepare two documents on controlling nonpoint sources of pollution: an assessment arid a management program" For the assessment, States must identity degraded water bodies that need additional nonpoint source controls to most State water quality standards. The assessment must also Identify specific categories of nonpoint sources that add significant amounts of pollution to these waters and must describe the State and local programs in place for controlling them. The State management program required by section 319 must set forth a four-year plan for addressing the nonpoint source problems identified in the assessment. The plan must identify ,4 the stormwater control measures that the State will utilize to reduce nonpoint source loadings, h and outline a schedule for achieving annual milestones at the earliest possible dates. To the maximum extent possible, the plans must also be developed and implemented on a watershed-� by -watershed basis. State governments have the primary responsibility for administering the plans. Section 319• Deadlines and Funding Both the assessment and the management programs were supposed to be submitted by August 1988, and Congress authorized more than $400 million over 4 years to assist the States in implementing the management programs. Of this $400 million, Congress has only appropriated $40 million thus far, and President Bush's proposed FY 1991 budget calls for only an additional ' $15 million.- Other than the loss of federal funding for nonpoint source controls, failure to comply with section 319 carries no penalties. Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act requires certain stormwater discharges from industrial sources and separate municipal storm sewer systems over a certain size to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System VNPDES") permit. This is the same permit program that regulates the amount of pollutants that may be discharged to surface waters from industries and sewage treatment plants. Section 402(p) imposes the NPDES permit requirements on a schedule with deadlines for obtaining the permit, largely dependent upon the municipality's population. Separate storm sewers serving a municipality of 250,000 or more were required to apply for a permit by February 1990. For storm sewers in municipalities of over 100,000 but less than 250,000, the Clean Water Act's deadline is February 1992. A municipality may be required to obtain a permit sooner, irrespective of population, if EPA or the State determines that stormwater runoff significantly degrades the quality of the surrounding waters or contributes to a water quality standard violation. The permitting process is behind schedule. EPA was supposed to establish permit application requirements in regulations by February 1989 for industrial dischargers and municipalities of 36 Even before these amendments went into effect in 1987, section 208 of the Clean Water Act required the states to prepare comprehensive water quality plans that identified polluted runoff problems. Section 208 started a useful planning process but the plans were, for the most part, not implemented and Congress discontinued funding the 208 activities in 1981. 17 250,000 and over. Regulations pertaining to permit applications for the smaller category of municipalities are required by February 1991. Draft regulations were published In December 19M covering both categories of municipal systems. EPA now intends to publish the final regulations In October 1990. From a review of the draft regulations, It appears that the permits which will be issued pursuant to section 402(p) will likely require the Implementation of a wide range of measures known as best management practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater pollution. The approach will be to prevent polluted runoff from reaching the stormwater drain, rather than treating it once It gets Into the system. it Is envisioned that these permits will require BMPs at construction sites, controls to limit lawn fertilizer runoff, programs for the disposal of used oil and other prophylactic measures. If the BMPs fail to prevent stormwater from violating State water quality standards, the permit must then require treatment. Exactly how the permit program will be administered will become dear when EPA's final regulations implementing section 402(p) are published this October. It is unclear, however, how much poison runoff reduction will be achieved through these regulations, since decisions about the extent and the type of control requirements (i.e. the degree of pollutant reduction required) may still be left up to individual municipalities. Since population is a major factor in determining whether or not a NPOES permit will be required fdr separate storm sewer discharges, the City of Los Angeles, with a population of over 3 million people Is now operating under a Consent Decree, signed with EPA, that includes establishment of a stormwater permit and associated BMPs (Los Angeles County has a population of about 8 million). Other jurisdictions in the Los Angeles region may fall under the rule's mandate. Rigardless of an area's population, a permit must be obtained if the discharges from its stormwater system significantly contribute to the degradation of the surrounding waters, or.. contribute significant amounts of pollution to those waters. Uiinq the legal tools These legal tools can and must be used to fashion remedies for stemming the flow of polluted runoff. Although they are not yet fully implemented, and could be strengthened, they can provide the legal foundation necessary to help local governments identify the land uses that degrade their local waters. The laws can also assist local governments in requiring developers and others to implement the necessary runoff controls to properly manage stormwater. The following is an overview of some of the technical solutions available to stem. the tide of polluted runoff. TOOLS FOR RUNOFF CONTROL Many effective tools exist for controlling polluted runoff. Some of these tools are listed below, but this is only a partial list." This list is meant to be starting point and a way of convincing the reader that the technology is available for those who want to use it. Which tool is appropriate for a particular situation will depend upon a number of factors specific to the site. It will also depend upon whether the runoff is being generated in an area that is growing or one that is fully developed. Because the Los Angeles area is growing in some portions and fully developed in Others, both types of tools will discussed. 37 For a much fuller list of examples of such runoff control tools, see: Schueler, Thomas R., Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs, The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, July 1987. 18 L] PHYSICAL TOOLS FOR FULLY DEVELOPED AREAS In the fully developed portions of the Los Angeles area, stormwater runoff problems are caused largely by pollutants accumulating on impervious surfaces (rooftops, roads, parking lots, etc.) and then washing into waterways during rain storms. , All densely populated and trafficked areas generate contaminants such as litter; decaying vegetation; oil and grease from leaking auto crankcases; metals from galvanized fixtures and auto fire wear -and -tear; animal droppings; and soil. They collect on roads, parking lots, roofs, bridges and sidewalks. These buildings and paved surfaces have traditionally been designed to channel runoff into storm sewers — and thus Into streams — untreated, and at maximum velocity. Measures that are easy to install or implement prior to development may not be so easy once a city or suburban block Is established. In the developed areas the existing structures must be "retrofitted' to provide the necessary controls. In many cases, retrofitting is more expensive than incorporating controls during the construction process. Stormwater Controls for Already-Develooed Areas The following measures should be considered when adopting requirements for managing stormwater runoff in fully developed areas: (1) Creation of Pervious Surfaces: Pervious, porous pavement allows rainwater to infiltrate through the pavement rather than run off directly into surface waters. The pollutant are thereby n. filtered out of the rainwater usually before they reach ground water. Developed areas should promote the use of porous pavements on any new parking areas or repaving projects. Retrofitting surfaces that are large contributors of polluted runoff should be required where appropriate. These porous pavements must be maintained via a regular cleaning or vacuuming operation to prevent clogging of the `pores." (2) Parking lot storage: Stormwater storage in parking lots is a feasible management technique in large parking areas. Parking lots can be designed and constructed to capture and store the rainwater falling on its surfaces. The water can then be released at a less harmful rate. Runoff from other areas can be directed to the parking lot storage facility for additional control, as well. Parking lot storage reduces downstream flooding, and may, with certain basin designs, improve water quality. (3) Conventional Wastewater Treatment Technigues: Conventional wastewater treatment techniques, e.g. various `unit operations" used to treat sewage and industrial wastewater, are generally the most effective stormwater management tools available. One such method consists of filtering the stormwater through finely ground particles of sand and peat or leaves. Sand filters can be used to collect oil and grease from parking lot and highway runoff. Stormwater engineers working for the District of Columbia have designed sand filters that are now required for new parking lots" Another conventional treatment method that has been successful in properly managing stormwater runoff involves collecting the runoff and then spray -irrigating it over golf courses. 38 Hung Van Truong (1989), 'The Sand Filter Water Quality Structure." From the District of Columbia, Soil Resources Branch, Stormwater • Management Program. May 1989. 19 (4) Street cleaning: Although street cleaning removes only a small percentage of pollutants, it is an important component of a comprehensive stormwater management program. Street •, cleaning should be performed by all city public works departments in developed areas. Conventional street cleaning equipment mechanically sweeps street litter and debris and collects the material in a hopper for later disposal. High technology street sweeperslvacuums are available that not only sweep up conventional litter and debris but also vacuum up some heavy metals and other toxins. Sections within developed areas, including the central business districts that have relatively higher levels of street contaminants, should have more frequent street cleaning Intervals with the advanced sweeper /vacuum street cleaners. (5) Storm Drain Maintenance: Poor maintenance of stormwater drains causes blockages which result in localized street flooding and major transportation problems. This problem can be eliminated by developing timely maintenance schedules to keep the drains free of street fitter and sediment buildup. While storm drain maintenance Is important for safety and keeping the storm drains from backing up, its impact on water quality is extremely limited. (6) Enclose/Isolate Activities: This includes physically covering activities which contribute to runoff and establishing drains in and around the immediate area to enter sanitary sewage systems. Also, illegal and unintentional building connections to stormdrains must be rerouted to sanitary sewers, a dead-end sump or some other type of detention area. (7)�' Divert Stormwater. This involves redirecting stormwater flow away from commercial, Industrial and transportation land use areas to minimize pollutant loadings. Also, small, frequent storms may be redirected to the city's sanitary sewer system with the approval of the local water authority. Stormwater Tools for Developing Areas Planning for stormwater management before a watershed is developed and paved -over, is usually less expensive than trying to retrofit existing areas. Therefore, the management tools listed for developed areas, if appropriate for renovation projects, and those listed below, should be required by municipal builders, land use planners and zoning officials. Additionally, some of these techniques should be required during the construction phase to ensure that water quality does not suffer when the land is in one of its most vulnerable States. Measures currently being used to control stormwater include: or Retention ponds: Retention ponds contain water all year long, and may include emergent wetlands vegetation. These Owet" ponds remove contaminants because the longer storage times allow sediment to settle out (and much of the phosphorus and heavy metals are attached to the sediment particles), and because the vegetation acts as a filter in the same fashion as a natural wetlands. it should be noted, however, that by allowing the water to be exposed to the sun, the high temperature of the retained water may cause thermal pollution problems once it reaches the receiving stream. (2) Detention ponds: Detention, or "dry," ponds are typically designed to hold the amount of rain water that would be produced by a storm of such severity that it has only been known to occur on an average of once every two years. The water is then released from the pond at a slower rate. Unfortunately, detention ponds provide little contaminant removal and, because they , do not store the water, they may actually contribute to stream channel erosion. 20 (3) Extended -detention ponds: Extended -detention ponds are a combination of wet and dry ponds. They are designed to retain water for one to three days. A mesh filter on the outfall removes the sediment in the runoff. When these ponds are used, a portion of the contaminants are removed by the vegetation and channel erosion is avoided; however, thermal pollution may still be a problem. (4) jnfiRWIon trenches: These are stone -filled trenches that temporarily store stormwater until the runoff soaks into the adjacent soils. Although they can require extensive maintenance, and their actual performance has had mixed reviews, they can be effective devices in certain areas K they are working effectively, Infiltration basins neutralize contaminants, recharge ground water,k- decrease thermal pollution and prevent channel erosion. _ r (5) Grass swales: Grass swales, or ditches, are extremely effective in controlling runoff from roads and streets. They slow the water's velocity, remove some contaminants, and especially in areas where water backs up, they can aid in the infiltration process. (6) €liter strios: Filter strips are vegetated, flat areas between the source of the runoff and�the stream. As the water travels through the vegetation, it is slowed and some contaminants become trapped. They are currently of limited use because the criteria for determining size has not yet been determined. (7) Construction and Development Practices: Contractors and builders should be aware of the following guidelines: avoid development on wetlands as these serve as natural filters for runoff contaminants; consider the runoff effects of changing the local topograpKy; avoid building on steep grades or slopes without setting up stormwater control measures such as detention pons or filter strips; divert runoff from recently disturbed surfaces such as soil; preserve natural vegetation as much as possible or -if impractical, plant temporary seedings or lay down straw to protect from erosion; sediment should be kept on the construction site and finally, vehicles should not be allowed to track large amount of soil from the development site to the street. How Businesses and Industries Can Manage and Reduce Poison Runoff Businesses and industries, because of their large scale of operations, have the potential to generate vast amounts of poison runoff. This can occur by improper storage of raw materials by improper draining and cleaning techiques during and after the manufacturing cycle and by improper disposal of waste materials. The following industries and related BMPs are just a few examples of what can be done to reduce a businesses contribution to pollutant loadings to the nearby waterbody. Industries producing cement, chemicals, concrete or electrical products can request that discharges flow into a public sanitary sewer and are subject to the local water authority's water standards for certain pollutants. If the level of contamination goes beyond acceptable limits for the sewage plant, wastewater should be discharged to a dead-end sump, basically a large tank which is periodically pumped and drained by an appropriate waste disposal operator. For additional industries and BMPs, one should refer to the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin Vol. 4: Control of Runoff Pollution from Urban Land Uses.,, 21 Importance of Growth Planning in Developing Areas _ As mentioned in the above section, strategies for runoff reduction and control depend upon whether an area is planning for future growth and development, or is already fully developed. This distinction is important for environmental planners and decisionmakers. Planning nI for future development presents the opportunity to ensure thalt watershed protection measures are built into new subdivisions, shopping mails, and other developments. This pro -active approach to site development stands In contrast to the 'after-the4act," urban and suburban runoff control - retrofits, that are now the (more expensive) norm. If strong environmental planning controls are not applied in the greater Los Angeles region, the poison runoff loadings from newly -developing sites could eventually dwarf the current runoff loadings estimates. These undeveloped areas are the raw material for real estate developers. The Los Angeles Area Poison Runoff Index is based on a land use analysis of Los Angeles County south of the San Gabriel Mountains Drainage Divide to the Orange County line. The total land area of urban and suburban sites within this municipality, including (for example) single- family homes and commercial offices, used to calculate the Poison Runoff Index "is approximately 1,235,090 acres. According to 1982 land use data i0 residential land use including everything from large -lot single family homes to high rise apartments comprised 326,490 acres or roughly 26 percent of the study region. The other categories considered by this report, commercial, industrial and highways make up 56,890, 66,580 and 250,093" acres respectively (4, 5 and 20 percent of the: total area). Since portions of this area enjoys the benefit of not being fully developed, public decisionmakers in the Los Angeles region should begin now to establish the growth control plans, designs, and practices that will ensure that future development will not increase runoff pollutant loadings to the Bay. 4. Practices for Minimizing Poison Runoff for the Home and Yard The following list of "best management practices," that individuals can use to minimize their contribution to poison runoff, is derived from Volume IV of the Draft Stormwater Management Manual of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. (1) Alter Day to Day Activities: A few examples of how changing simple, day to day activities can reduce poison runoff are buying garden appliances such as hoses and sprinklers that are water efficient, going to a car wash instead of washing your car in the street (most car washes 39 This runoff analysis deliberately excluded agricultural lands, such as ranches, and wildlands such as desert chaparral, from the runoff pollutant calculations. These land uses were excluded because they are not "urban" land uses, and because any runoff loadings calculations for these areas may require both a different estimation model, and different pollutant concentration data. 40 State of California Department of Water Resources (Southern District), Coastal Los Angeles County Land Use Survey, 1982, July, 1984. 41 Highway acreage obtained from personal communications with Los Angeles County Controller Tim Bazinet and CALTrans. 22 are connected to sanitary sewer systems which can treat runoff from car washing whereas water from normal car washing enters the stormdratn). Another example Is using only as much fertilizer, household cleaner and detergent as the manufacturer's label recommends (excessive amounts of phosphorus and other nutrients present in cleaners and fertilizers can cause algal blooms in local waterbodies which starve marine life of oxygen). Also, when possible, use alternate, less toxic materials to dean, fertilize and control pests. For Instance, Instead of using solvent, use vinegar to soften paint brushes. In place of scouring powder, use baking soda or non -chlorine scouring powder. Laundry soap can be substituted by borax, baking soda or washing soda. (2) Proper Storage and Cleanup of Household Chemicals: Insure that substances such as =; pesticides; fertilizers, paints, preservatives, strippers, and solvents are stored in dry places away from water sources. Once used, these substances should not be disposed of, in the local stormwater drain. Instead, containers of paint should be stuffed with newspaper and allowed to dry before disposal. Antifreeze, turpentine and oil and grease can be littered and re -used or they can often be recycled at nearby services stations. Items such as batteries are' one of the prime contributors of heavy metal contamination in waste dumps and should be brought to the local toxic or hazardous materials disposal sites. (3) Automotive and Driveway Care: Cars should be serviced regularly to avoid the leakage of oil and grease from crankcases, transaxles and joints. Any leaky valves or lines must be replaced. Small spills of oil should be cleaned using kitty litter or sawdust. The used sawdust or kitty litter should then be placed in a sealed plastic bag and placed in the garbage. Sweep your driveway instead of hosing it down with water since many pollutants build...up on the sidewalk and driveway surface ' and can be washed down stormdrains. In addition, this helps to reduce the total flow of stormwater entering the drainage system. When washing a car, try to direct soapsuds onto the lawn or some other vegetated area to keep it from seeping into local surface waters. Although not a major factor in the Los Angeles region, the use of deicing chemicals such as salt used on driveways and sidewalks during the winter months should be reduced. In addition to burning vegetation and damaging concrete, some of the additives in deicers break down into such harmful compounds as cyanide. (4) Home Remodeling: When building decks consider using wood instead of concrete since wood allows rainwater to seep into the ground below, preventing it from becoming poison runoff. Other alternate material which can be used for driveways, decks and sidewalks are brick, porous concrete and interlocking pavers. If placed on a bed of well -drained soil, gravel or sand, rainfall can infiltrate through them and reduce the contribution to runoff. (5) Increased Vegetation and Xeriscaping: By increasing the amount of vegetated area around a home, a homeowner increases the porosity of the soil and reduces soil erosion which lessen the amount of stormwater .runoff. In other words, these vegetated areas act as a natural filter, slowing the movement of stormwater runoff which in turn allows many contaminants to settle out. Xeriscaping, a subset of this category, goes one step further. Instead of. planting 'beater hungry „ plants such as blue grass and rose bushes, one can create a lawn or garden from indigenous, 'beater frugal" plants. For example, grasses such as Gaillardia, Texas Bluebonnet, Feathertop, Buffalo Grass and Blue Gamma are all available commercially and are require much less watering than a comparable blue grass lawn. Thus with xeriscaping, one reduces poison runoff by lowering pollutant concentrations in the surface water while reducing the flow the flow from garden watering. This concept is catching on rapidly in arid regions throughout the country where the need for water conservation and awareness of poison runoff are increasing 23 Financial Tools Innovative tools for funding the stormwater management exist and should be investigated by those in State and local governments who wish to free their waterways of poison runoff. One Innovative financing tool, now being implemented by the City of Los Angeles, Is commonly known as a `stormwater utility.' These are Iotal governmental entities that fund stormwater management services through `user charges' which pass on stormwater management costs to the 'generators' of the runoff. In the words of one stormwater utilities advocate: More than 50 communities have created stormwater utilities, total government enterprises that provide the services of flood control, drainage, and stormwater management and are financed with user charges. Users are owners of properties that discharge stormwater to publicly maintained systems... [C]harges are primarily a function of the percentage of impervious area on a property. The utility rate base Is. defined as the categories of land uses that may pay charges.... With relatively modes charges to residential users (e.g., $15 to $44 annually), utilities are able to generate substantial revenues.... Owners of nonresidential property typically pay more because their properties are larger and developed more intensively. Because users pay in relation to the amount of runoff they discharge, the utility approach is a step towards cost -based financing: 42 A great deal of research is being done on the benefits of stormwater utilities in funding the costs of stemming the flow of polluted runoff. Municipalities in many States have enacted stormwater utility ordinances, and formulas exist to determine the appropriate amount of user fees. Any municipality interested in adopting a comprehensive stormwater management program should thoroughly examine the benefits of this innovative funding mechanism. CONCLUSION Each level of govemment and every individual can and must help reduce the continued flow of polluted runoff to our waters. If we put the problems of stormwater pollution on a "front bumer,' these tools provide a start for fashioning an effective stormwater management program. The monitoring programs and plans required by the laws can supply much -needed information on the current status of the problem and the appropriate remedies. To make the job easier, the federal and California state governments must fully comply with the runoff management requirements set forth in the statutes. Local governments will then be in a better position to understand their unique runoff problems and how these problems affect the entire watershed. From there, California municipalities like Los Angeles can begin to target poison runoff controls to the particular land uses, site designs, and land development practices that cause the most significant runoff problems. Powerful technical and planning tools, as well as the regulations discussed above, are available for use now by State and local officials. It is high time that these tools be brought to bear on Los Angeles's (and other California cities') serious poison runoff problems. 42 Lindsey, Charges for Urban Runoff: Issues in Implementation, Water Resources Bulletin, February 1990, Vol. 26, No. 1. r 24 APPENDIX A 1. Greater Los Angeles Regional Breakdown Drawing any artificial boundary around an urban or semi -urban area for environmental planning and analysis purposes Is always a somewhat arbitrary. process; nonetheless, the authors have chosen what they believe to be a reasonable boundary that encloses the greater Los Angeles metropolitan region. The greater Los Angeles region was defined to include that portion of Los Angeles County south of the San Gabriel Mountains Drainage Divide to the Orange County line (see Figure 1). The: total land area of urban and suburban sites within this municipality, including (for example) single- family homes and commercial offices, used to calculate the Poison Runoff Index " is approximately 1,235,090 acres. According to 1982 land use data" residential land use including everything from large4ot single family homes to high rise apartments comprised 326,490 acres or roughly 26 percent of the study region. The other categories considered by this report, commercial, industrial and highways make up 56,890, 66,580 and 250,09345 acres respectively (4, 5 and 20 percent of the total area). 11. Description of the Method Used NRDC has evaluated a number of different methods for estimating pollutant loadings in urban runoff for the Poison Runoff Index." Methods range from the simple use of -'unit loading factors" 43 This runoff analysis deliberately excluded agricultural lands, such as ranches, and wildiands such as chaparral, from the runoff pollutant calculations. These land uses were excluded because they are not "urban" land uses, and because any runoff loadings calculations for these areas may require both a different estimation model, and different pollutant concentration data. State of California Department of Water Resources (Southern District), Coastal Los Angeles County Land Use Survey, 1982, July, 1984. '65 Highway acreage obtained from personal communications with Los Angeles County Controller Tim Bazinet and CALTrans. " For a review of available runoff models, see Donigian and Hurber (May 1990), Modeling of Nonpoint Source Water Ouality in Urban and Non -urban Areas, (Review draft), U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Athens, GA 30613. Marsalek and Ng (1989) have generated urban runoff loading estimates for a few Canadian -Great Lakes cities, using a methodology quite similar to the Washington -COG "Simple Method." See Marsalek and Ng (1989), "Evaluation of Pollution Loadings from Urban Nonpoint Sources: Methodology and Applications." Journal of Great Lakes Research. 15(3); pp. 444-451. (pounds of pollutant per acre of land), to various statistical and regression methods, 4? on up to the most complex computer models that can generate information on watershed segments and pollutant transport dynamics for Individual rainstorms. We have chosen a methodology that is somewhere in between these two extremes: our method combines a straightforward, standard hydrologic model; the 'constant concentration' method of incorporating runoff pollutant data; and a computer spreadsheet that performs rapid calculations for each land use category in the study area. The Poison Runoff Index is based on the 'Simple Method' for estimating water pollution loadings developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments in its 1987 book Controlling Urban Runoff A practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs authored by Thomas Schueler" The Simple Method is a straightforward way of estimating pollutant runoff loadings from developed urban areas. The Method consists of a simple equation where total rainfall, site imperviousness, pollutant concentration, and site acreage all arq factored in: L = [ (P) (Pj) (Rv)/12 ] (c) (A) (2.72) where L = pollutant load on pounds] over a given time interval P = rainfall depth per given time interval [in Inches] Pj = a factor that corrects P for storms that produce no runoff (assume .9 for seasonal and annual calculations) Rv = runoff coefficient which describes the amount of rainwater converted to runoff. (The figure is based on an estimate of impervious surface in the area of concern) C = average concentration of the pollutant in urban runoff [in milligrams/liter] A = area [in acres]" 2.72 and 12 are unit conversion factors The loading can be calculated for each land use category (i.e., for each land use, an estimate of imperviousness, pollutant concentration, and area is made) and then aggregated; or an overall 47 E For examples of statistical runoff loading estimation methods, see Driver, N. and Tasker, G. (1988), Techniques for Estimation of Storm -Runoff Loads Volumes, Selected Constituent Concentrations in Urban Watersheds in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 88-191. Denver, CO; and Jennings, M. and Tasker, G. (1988). "Estimation of Urban Stormwater Quality;" in Hydraulic Engineering; the Proceedings of the 1988 National Conference sponsored by the Hydraulics Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, August 8-12, 1988, Colorado Springs, CO. 48 Schueler, Thomas R., Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs, The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, July 1987. This manual is available from the WashCOG Environmental Division, (202) 962-3356. 0 average for imperviousness and pollutant concentration can be made and applied to the entire area under consideration. For Los Angeles we have used the former method. Further Assumptions in Applying the Simple Method * Total land areas as estimated for Individual land use categories such as 'commercial,' Oindustrial,' and so on, ranged from a few acres, to tens of thousands of acres. The estimates for the larger land areas are, of course, less exact than for the smaller areas; however, they are still useful in estimating pollutant loadings, and in any case, they err on the side of underestimating pollutant loadings. The runoff pollutant concentration values that are 'plugged -in' to the Simple Method -. equation are based on the monitoring data from the NURP studies. 'These concentration values reflect the contributions from all pollutant sources that contribute to urban runoff, both natural and 'xenobiotic.' For instance, a portion of the copper, zinc, and phosphorus, among other chemicals, in urban runoff comes from naturally -occurring substances contained in soils and sediments., Nonetheless, the sum total of these contributing sources is termed 'poison urban runoff" because the process of paving -over land in a watershed diminishes the natural filtration capacity of woodlands and meadows. Thus, even the pre-existing, natural copper content of runoff can become a human - induced problem If the runoff is routed directly to a stream by storm sewers. 111. Applying the Simple Method: Considerations for Los Angeles Rainfall Data P (total rainfall) = 8.08 inches for 1989.'° Percent Imperviousness Based on Land Use According to Schueler's 'Simple Method' Rv = 0.05 + 0.9(1), where I = site imperviousness. For Los Angeles, percentage imperviousness (1) was estimated to range incrementally at 50%, 80% and 100% (see table below). I -values for each land use category were within the ranges given by Schueler (1987).00 The lower value Is applied to the residential classification (i.e. large lot single family, medium density single family, and townhouse/apartment complexes). Higher values are applied to various commercial classifications (i.e. high rise, light commercial/industrial). The highest I -value was applied to highways and roads. .r Rainfall data obtained from the U.S. Weather Service. 50 Schueller, Controlling Urban Runoff, Table 1.5, p. 1.22. Table A-1 Aaaroximate Impervious Cover Based on Land Use Cattgory . Land Use Category Percent imaerviousness ea Residential 50% 326,490 Commercial 80% 56,890 Industrial 80% 66,580 Streets and Highways 100% 250,093 The lower impervious nature of the residential category is due to the fact that many single lot hornes, duplexes and multi -family quarters are surrounded by significant grassy (i.e. less impervious) areas. The higher I -values given to the commercial, industrial and highway categories were also based on certain assumptions about land use. These assumptions presume that for manufacturing regions, less permeable surface area (i.e. smaller grassy areas, large parking lot space) was present. This corresponds to an estimated 80% I -value. Streets and highways, with surfaces that are almost completely paved over, received an I -value of 100%. Runoff Pollutant Concentrations Ideally, each urban region would conduct regular, periodic sampling and analysis programs in order to maintain up-to-date records of both the quality and the quantity of urban runoff. This information would have a wide variety of uses and applications, including informing land use planners and zoning officials about the water quality impacts of various land uses. Given that it was statistically representative of the land use mix, and other aspects of the whole urban region, this locally -based runoff monitoring data would be utilized by NRDC in creating its Poison Runoff Indexes" 51 For a conceptual guide to be used in planning a local urban runoff monitoring program, see Fisher, G. and Katz, B. (1988), Urban Stormwater Runoff — Selected Backaround Information and Techniques for Problem_ Assessment, with a Baltimore, Maryland Case Study. U.S. Geological Service, Water Supply Paper #2347, Denver, CO. For a basic technical manual, see Alley, W. (conference report editor), (1977): Guide for Collection, Analysis, and Use of Urban Stormwater Data, a report from a conference held in Easton, MD, November 28-December 3, 1976, co -sponsored by the Engineering Foundation, the U.S.G.S., and the ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Council. Available from the American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. 0 iv Stormwater concentration values for metals were taken from a 1989 study by Engineering -Science Consultants which monitored for various contaminants in the Los Angeles and Santa Monica Bay Regions' Data for oil and grease loadings was highway -specific and was derived from two sources: Engineering -Science's report and a 19W U.S. Department of Transportation report on highway runoff." These concentration values were then reported as a range. The nutrient concentration values used In creating the Los Angeles Poison Runoff Index (see Table A-3) are taken from the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study, organized by the EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey between 1979 and 1983." This extensive study, covering 28 urban regions in the U.S., attempted to define the urban runoff problem. The NURP data is still the best and most comprehensive data base -available on urban runoff in the U.S. For Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus, NURP data from five southwestern cities (Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; Fresno, California and San Francisco, Califomia) was used to obtain more representative concentration values for that region. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has used the NURP data to estimate urban runoff contributions to total pollutant loadings in U.S. estuaries. The method used by NOAA in making these runoff loadings estimates is almost identical to the simple hydrologic model utilized by NRDC °6 NOAA scientists have calculated national geometric means for various pollutants from the NURP data, and these pollutant concentrations have been used in creating the Poison Runoff Indices for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.; and Baltimore, Maryland SO sz Engineering -Science, Inc. (1989) Santa Monica Bay Stormwater Pollutant Reduction Study. Draft Final Report prepared for the City of Los Angeles. 5,3 U.S. Department of Transportation (April 1990), Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff, Vol. 4. x U.S. EPA, Office of Water, (December 1983). Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Vol. I — Final Report. The NURP concentration averages are based on Event Mean Concentrations. $S Dan Farrow, NOAA, Strategic Assessment Branch. Personal communication, May 1990. 56 These Poison Runoff Indices are available from NRDC, Clean Water Program, 1350 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. v • Table A - Concentration Values Used In Estimating Pollutant loadings In Stormwater Runoff (mg/L)" NURP Five -City National NURP Southwestern Engineering -Science DOT Highway Study Average Averages Concentration Data Runoff Data Lead" 0.009 — 0.169 0.987 Zinc 0.202 — 0.540 0.666 Copper 0.043 — 0.067 — Cadmium — — 0.014 — Chromium — — 0.021 '-- BOD 12.0 — — — Total P 0.420 0.533 — — Total N 2.760 4.223 Oil and — — 6.069 8.275 Grease 57 Based on the EPA's National Urban Runoff Program, "National NURP average," and "National Urban Highway Runoff." The latter was used for all road and highway concentration values. S8 The values for lead were reduced by 95% from the NURP value to account for assumed reductions in the use of leaded gasoline. vi Table A-3 Land Use -Specific Stormwater Concentration Data (mg,/L)" Land Use Analyte Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation (Cimarron St. (Figueroa St. (Adams Blvd (Bronson Ave.) and 29th St.) and 12th St.) and Hope St.) Lead 0238 0.221 0.143 0.154 Zinc 0.895 0.999 0.925 0.335 Copper 0.0456 0.155 0.0555 0.0450 Cadmium 0.0131 0.0120 0.0210 0.0126 Chromium 0.0175 0.0397 0.0164 0.0147 Oil and Grease 6.196 6.605 9.528 3.898 59 Engineering -Science, Inc. (1989) Santa Monica Bay Stormwater Pollutant Reduction Study Draft Final Report prepared for the City of Los Angeles. vii Table A-4 Contributions to Poison Runoff Loading* by Land Use (lb/year)" Anatyte Lead Zinc Copper Cadmium Chromium Oil and Grease Land Use Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation (Cimarron St. (Figueroa St. (Adams Blvd (Bronson Ave.) and 29th St.) and 12th St.) and Hope St.) 64,041 15,957 12,084 60,310 240,827 72,133 78,166 131,193 12,270 11,192 4,690 17,623 3,525 866 1,775 4,934 4,709 2,867 1,386 5,757 1,667,220 476,915 805,152 1,526,539 60 Concentration data was obtained from Santa Monica Bay Stormwater Pollutant Reduction Study, a 1989 report by Enginering-Science, Inc. Land use data is from the State of California Department of Water Resources' Coastal Los Angeles County Land Use Survey, 1982. viii i Table A'S Major STPs within the Los Angeles PRI region and their service areas." PLANT NAME SiERVICE AREA ANNUAL FLOW (mad City of Los Angeles Los Angeles 501 Hyperion Treatment Plant (Hyperion) County Sanitation Los Angeles 518 Districts of Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) d 61 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Annual Report 1988-89, 1969. p 23. ix • IPlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE 11v, ADDRESS 1,�47/z 4�- AFFILIATION 1crTY, ZIP %-u S Tim L #- PH. # (Optional) IPlease add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: 7`� A,�/s_TdL���-ti I/I�► - .[x goy , � e d Lax .<�Cc� O.P�4,C,.ci �►► / •L� u� L/ R-,-, (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COIUIMENTS 14-23-1 RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1990 COMMENTS CONTINUED n T7r -e ecvz irVu irc. �scJ S/.c/�'rit f e+�iti c .Q'y GLJ2 'e �v� ,p/.vrr� Z 0 / S ._._... - Gc Le ZP LAP �� P�.v �T, �w�• ��w Q'�r� A es t4v T!z -P f=ti�C f�2 6•4-1-e 7'4,.s Gam,.-T,wlv,iy ro 0 i !- t TEMPLEHUS Commuwy ASsOQAnoN Mr. Steve Letterly, Manager Environmental Impact: Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: DEIR SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TOLL ROAD Dear Mr. Letterly: P.O, Box 4913 Laguna Beach, California 92652 (714)497-2218 November 23, 1990 The Temple Hills Community Association of Laguna Beach is seriously concerned about the proposed San Joaquin Hills Toll Road. On August 10, 1988, we submitted a four -page ` response to Draft EIR-494. With respect to the current DEIR, we find it to be deficient in a number of areas. As you know, CEQA mandates that the public has a right to "complete public disclosure" with regard to the proposal. The following remarks and questions address some of our concerns. We look forward to your complete reply. 1. The DEIR does not address the cumulative impacts of all three proposed transportation corridors: Eastern, Foothills and SJHTC. Are you within 4.24-1 CEQA guidelincs :t7tA respect to this lack of total review and reporting for the impacts of all three proposed corridors? 2. The DEIR does not adequately answer fundamental "need" questions. For example, with recent passage of Measure M, the El Toro "Y' will be fixed. 4-24-2 It is widely believed that the toll road was conceived largely due to the problem with the "Y." What impact will improving the "Y" have upon the stated need for the toll road? 3. We are not convinced that in terms of need, the toll road will alleviate traffic congestion due to current levels of use. According to an analysis down 4-24-3 0 by the L.A. Times in 1986, "traffic from..jiew developments would contribute TEMPLE HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: NOV. 23, 1990 PAGE 2 72.6%" of the toll road's overall use. Please clarify the need for this toll road with specific projections for percentages of driver use per residents prior to 4-24-3 1986 versus "new" residents subsequent to 1986. Please answer the fundamental question: Is this toll road being proposed primarily to facilitate new development? In addition, Irvine, Laguna Beach and San Juan Capistrano have recently passed bond issues that will lock -in land as open space that was previously ' designated for development. This corresponding decrease in development activity needs to be represented in the population projections. Also, build - out for Aliso Viejo is contingent on infrastructure being in place to service each new stage of the development in the document. Population projections 4-24-4 used to justify the toll road, while long accepted, are politically determined. The political climate in South Orange County, the area serviced by the toll road, is changing as reflected in the recent support for open space bonds and slow -growth legislation. The document should at least consider the possibility of reduced growth projections. Otherwise, a "no project alternative" cannot receive fair consideration. 4. What studies have been done with respect to the anticipated long-term changes on Laguna Canyon and associated canyon ecosystems as they relate 4.24-5 to changing air flow and thermal patterns? We believe that the attention to this important impact has been inadequate. 5. What light/noise/pollution impacts are anticipated for residents of the Temple Hills neighborhood who live along the upper ridges, within sight, 4-24-6 sound and air current patterns of the proposed toll road? Inadequate information is in the report. 6. We are concerned about land -use compatibility of the toll road with respect to the recent passage of Laguna's Proposition H, the Laguna Canyon Bond Act, and the settlement with the Irvine Company which will exclusively preserve Laguna Canyon as permanent wilderness and native wildlife habitat. The DEIR has inadequate information with respect to this land -use compatibility; it does little more than note that the toll road will have grave impacts. Mitigation is deficient with respect to the preservation of rare and endangered plants and animals. What is the justification for damage to this important and environmentally complete greenbelt/wildlife refuge? 4-24-7 0 TEMPLE HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION : NOV. 23, 1990 PAGE 3 7. Although the project's stated objective is to "improve access from inland Jo the coast, past county traffic studies have shown that traffic on Laguna Canyon Road will increase dramatically with the toll road's current design. Thus, there will be a corresponding decrease in coastal access resulting in the opposite stated objective. How do you respond to the fact that Laguna Canyon Road is anticipated to provide service level 'Y (a parking lot) after the toll road is completed? To what degree of compatibility with the project's stated objective does this comply? 4-24-8 8. What are the aesthetic/environmental impacts of engineering and construction to mitigate for unstable slopes, liquification, and soil expansion 4-24-9 areas in the region of the Laguna Canyon wildlife preservation area? The DEIR does not address them. 9. There is a noticeable lack of mitigation for the impacts of downstream water run-off along Laguna Creek to downtown Laguna Beach and Main 4-24-10 Beach. What are its anticipated impacts and what mitigation have been proposed? 10. We are dissatisfied with air quality factors. We believe that the point to improving Orange County's air quality is to reduce air pollution where it exists, NOT to redistribute or relocate bad air. Introducing air pollution into an otherwise pristine area in order to reduce overall air pollution is, we believe, an inadequate and deceitful plan. The DEIR does not addresses these concerns. What further studies do you propose to justify this debacle? 4-24-11 11. We are appalled by the lack of proven mitigation for animal migration corridors. What evidence, for example, supports that deer, bobcat and other 4.24-12 mammals will actually use the proposed 580-foot 'Wdlife undercrossing"? 12. There have been dramatic political changes in Orange County regarding the public's environmental preservation objectives. This proposed toll road will cut through one of the county's last remaining and remarkably beautiful wilderness areas. What are the anticipated psychological and long-term effects 4-24-13 of the "consequences of lost wilderness" on the general public? Specifically, what are the anticipated effects of the loss of irreplaceable wilderness on our children? Are there correlations between "loss of wilderness" (increased TEMPLE HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION: NOV. 23, 1990 PAGE 4 development, noise, pollution and traffic) and increased illness, crime, and 4-24-13 psychological trauma on our , youth? The DEIR does not address these important issues. We are particularly frustrated by the lack of consideration for social ecology concerns within the DEIR, especially in light of the fact that a Department of Social Ecology, and a wealth of scientific information, eldsts at nearby 4-24-t4 University of California at Irvine (U.C.I.). In conclusion, we find that DEIR is inadequate because it fails to address many critical concerns, among them: the effects of diminishing open space on the general public, the 4-24-is effects of drainage problems along Laguna Canyon, the effects of an improved El Toro "Y" on "need," and the effects of increased air pollution in an otherwise pristine region. Wreover, the document fails to abide by CEQA guidelines for overall impacts of the three proposed corridors. It does not regard open space and wildlife habitat as a valuable 4-24-16 public resource; thus it prevents objective analysis of the toll road's environmental effects. We believe the DEIR is deficient in objective scientific data; moreover it weighs heavily with objectives stemming from political concerns. I4-24-17 We are concerned that construction of the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road will destroy open space, a finite resource which benefits all of the people in the area regardless of their economic level, to provide benefit only to a small number of residents who can afford to ply the tolls on a daily basis. There should be an economic analysis to determine what percentage of residents will find the tolls affordable as well as direct response surveys to determine actual commuter response to the toll (fee) structure. 4-24-18 This DEIR is not a fair and unbiased document. Until such time as it is, the Temple Hills Community Association will remain firmly opposed to the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road 4-24-19 proposal. Since ly, Sharen Heath Kay Becknell Jones Steering Committee Representatives Temple HMIs Community Association cc: Ron Chit, te, Gayle Waite (rHCA) I* J . 4t1ENd HLSPORIC SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO O CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P 449 359 931 November 24, 1990 Steven Letterly, Environmental Manager Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: Revised Comments and ouestions: sJHC Dear Mr. Letterly: Pursuant to the TCA EIR/EIS 1 required deadline, I hereby., submit the following comments and questions on behalf of Friends of " Historic San Juan Capistrano, Inc. Questions and Comments: I. Land Use Designations and scenic Corridors: Specifically, how many lanes would be added to the existing I-5 corridor under each of the two alignment alternatives and can this expansion be accommodated without a widening of the right-of-way and the taking of property? The EIR statement is extremely vague and does not deal in specific data when referring to the widening of the I-5 right-of-way through this area. 2) Why is Camino Capistrano. a defined visual corridor and one of the last remaining sections of old Highway 101. not listed as a Scenic Corridor through this area? The EIR/EIS is extremely vague as regards this viewscape 4-25-2 corridor and does not speak to the adverse environmental impacts on our open space resource contained within the Oso Creek Corridor. Transportation Corridor Agencies November 24, 1990 Page Two In fact, this August 1990 EIR states that the land use designations (Sec. 4-88) for this area are intensive industrial, commercial and residential. For the record, in a much publicized and heralded voter initiative, this area was acquired as an open space preserve last April through $21 million in taxpayer bonds. Despite the passage of the open space preserve measure, this area is not zoned as indicated in the EIR, but rather, is a designated agricultural preserve. The EIR, however, fails to list this land use as agricultural (4- 96), or as "Parks and Recreation/Open Space Areas" (4- 97). Nor does the document list the frontage road through this area as a designated scenic boulevard containing landmarks potentially eligible for National Register of Historic Places recognition. Some of the oldest, most historically significant structures in San Juan Capistrano exist along this corridor and will be severely impacted by the proposed corridor. 4-25-3 4-25-4 Given the loss of the commercial/industrial buffer • fronting the alignment through this area, how do you propose to mitigate the adverse a) visual, b) noise, c) 4-25-5 arterial traffic and d) construction impacts on our open space preserve and historic landmarks? II. Historic/Archaeological/Paleontological Resources 1) Why are known and potential Native American habitation and burial sites excluded from the EIR in the San Juan Capistrano portion of the proposed corridor? Sections 3.10 and 4.11 and its appendices and related sections are equally flawed in that they fail to identify known and potential Native American archeological sites immediately adjacent to the proposed expanded I-5 right- of-way southwest of Avery Parkway. CSUF 1038, 1037, 1035, 1036, 1039 exist near the right- of-way and would be potentially impacted by construction and arterial traffic effects of the proposed project. Additionally, ORA 963, ORA-964, ORA 855, and CSUF 1040 would potentially be affected as well. (These sites comprise on of the largest known settlements of the area's native inhabitants and will, over time, be preserved and interpreted.) 4-25-5 • Transportation Corridor Agencies November 24, 1990 Page Three III. Section 4(f) Properties 1) Now does this element of the EIR relate to the above and archaeological omissions? Given the extent of the omissions, conflicts, and errors as noted concerning the impacts of the proposed project on the southwest side of the I-5 right-of-way, the Section 4(f) element is contradictory and largely unintelligible. Sincerely, Mark B. Clancey, President Friends of Historic San Juan Capistrano, a Non -Profit, Public Benefit Corporation formed in 1987 P.O. Box 1645 San Juan Capistrano, California 92693 (714) 496-1846 c: Ron Sievers, Director of Public Lands and Facilities Bill Murphy, Director of Public Works Ken Friess, Councilman - SJHTCA Director City of San Juan Capistrano David Belardes, Tribal Chairman Juaneno Band cf Mission Indians 1 4-25-7 E ] 0 Print Cwady: COMMENT CARD NAM i I6�21D, (ADDRESS �Ta42— 9—mck AAlne]140, AFFILIATIO CITY, ZIP CA 9aXt�PH. # (Optional) 7i s' -4r3i' F/0 Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: S, B. (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED f - 10 0 � 14-26- t • 4-26-2 14-26-3 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 0 01 November 21, 1990 P.O. Box 2011, Mission Viejo, CA 92690 By Facsimile (714) 557-9104 Steve Letterly Manager of EIR San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Comments on EIR, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ` Dear Sir: The Coronado Homeowners Association has had an interest in the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ever since its conception. The Coronado Homes are located on both side of Avery Parkway. By virtue of this location the Corridor, most particularly the South End Alignment, will have a significant effect on our residents, their homes and local traffic. It is submitted that the Draft EIR 'for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is deficient for various reasons. In this document we only wish to address the proposed traffic volumes on Avery Parkway. According to page 5-12 of the EIR the "SJHTC South End Traffic Study prepared by Austin Foust Associates in February, 1990" was incorporated by reference. It is believed that this study might be grossly inadequate and its projections erroneous. In order better to understand the basis of these remarks, attached hereto are four (4) pages that together represent the front and back sides of a large chart and accompanying map showing traffic flow in the City of Mission Viejo in 1988. This document is noted as being prepared by BSI Consultants, Inc. and it was obtained from staff personal of the City of Mission Viejo. It will be referenced as the 1988 Mission Viejo Traffic Map. Further attached are copies of Figures 4 and 5 of the Austin Foust report. 1. .1 4-27-2 Steve Letterly Page 2 November 21, 1990 According to the 1988 Mission Viejo Traffic Map, in 1988 the average daily traffic volume on Avery Parkway east of Marguerite Parkway was 10,500 vehicles. The traffic on Marguerite Parkway south of Avery Parkway was 15,100 vehicles. According to Figures 4 (part 1A) and 5 (part 1A) of the Austin -Foust study, in the year 2010 without the extension of Avery Parkway the traffic volume on Avery Parkway is projected to be 5,000 vehicles and the traffic volume on Marguerite south of Avery Parkway is projected to be 13,000 vehicles for Option 1 (Figure 4) or 14,000 vehicles for Option 2 (Figure 5) respectively. These Austin -Foust projections are questioned. In both instances they are lower than 1988 traffic levels. For Avery Parkway, in 2010 there is no known reason traffic volume would decrease to less than half of what it already was in 1988. Indeed as the campus of Saddleback College and the Saddleback campus of Cal State Fullerton further grow and increase in the next twenty years, irrespective of the other entrances to these colleges, traffic volume on Avery Parkway can only be expected to increase from its present value not decrease. The same is true with respect to Marguerite Parkway south of Avery. It is obvious that the Austin -Foust projected traffic volumes might be in gross error. If the traffic projections for Avery Parkway and', Marguerite Parkway without the extension of Avery are so! obviously questionable, the validity of those projected for Avery Parkway and Marguerite Parkway if Avery is extended are also considered questionable. Are these also less than half of what they could be in 2010? If Figures lA and 2A are so questionable, can we have any faith in the remainder of the Austin -Foust study? The Austin -Foust study studied the effect the South End Alignment might have on Avery Parkway only out to the junction of Avery Parkway, Ortega Hwy and Antonio Parkway. Yet just south and east of that junction development is already projected. The Talega Valley portion of San Clemente proposes development of 5,000 homes. Traffic from this development and other areas immediate adjacent it would quite naturally flow along LaPata Ave to Ortega and from there to Avery and the Corridor. Other traffic from the Foothill Corridor might also naturally flow from Ortega to Avery. The Austin -Foust study area excludes such traffic. Therefore besides the problems 2 4-27-3 4-27-4 4-27-5 4-27-6 addressed above, for this reason the Austin -Foust study might 4_27-6 also be grossly underestimating the traffic volume Avery Parkway might carry to the Corridor. It is evident from just these two examples that there is basis to question the validity of Austin -Foust study. Since the Corridor EIR uses this document to address the traffic 4.27-7 effect on Avery Parkway, the validity of the EIR is also questioned. Sincerely, Herb B swell Prdsid fit, Coronado Homeowners Association attachments: 11 3 CITY OF MISSION VIEJO AVERAGE DA Il 1988 1989 1989 ALICIA PARKWAY Olympiad Rood to Marguerite Parkway 5,000 — — Marguerite Parkway to Trobuco Rood 21,300 — — Trobuco Rood to Coronel Drive 25,800 — — Coronel Drive to West City Limits 29,900 — — AVERY PARKWAY East City Limits to Marguerite Parkway 10,500 — — Marguerite Parkway to West City Limits 26,900 — — CAMINO CAPISTRANO Oso Parkway to Crown Valley Parkway 4,200 — — CORONEL ORI VE Alicia Parkway to Alando Place 2,000 — — CROWN VALLEY PARKWAY East City Limits to Medical Center/El Regateo 13,100 — — Medical Center/El Regoteo to West City Limits 25,300 FELIPE ROAD Lo Paz Road to Fieldcrest 1,400 — — Oso Parkway to Marguerite Parkway 6,100 — — JERONIMO ROAD Olympiad Rood to Silleros 5,900 — Silieros to Marguerite Parkway 5,900 — Marguerite Parkway to Montilla Lone 10,200 — — Montilla Lane to Alicia Parkway 14.900 — — Alicia Parkway to Los Alisos Boulevard 18,600 — — LA BARCA Jornoda to Marguerite Parkway 3,300 — — LA PAZ ROAD Olympiad Road to Los Coballos 16,600 — — Los Coballos to Marguerite Parkway 16,600 — — Morguerite Parkway to Chrisonto Drive 21,800 — — Chrisonto Drive to West City Limits 21,800 — — LOS ALISOS BOULEVARD East City Limits to Santa Marguerito Parkway 9,000 — — Santo Marguerito Parkway to Vista Del Logo 16,100 — — Vista Del Logo to Trabuco Road 23,700 — — Trobuco Road to Vallejo 23,300 — — Vallejo to Jeronimo Road 23,300 — — Jeronimo Road to West City Limits 26,000 — — P-RAFFIC VOLUMES 24-HOUR TWO WAY TRAFFIC LOCATION MARGUERITE PARKWAY E/ Toro Rood to Santo Morgurito Parkway Santo Morguerito Parkway to Olympiad Parkway Oly npiod Rood to Alicia Parkway Alicia Parkway to Colixto Colixto Rood to Trobuco Rood Trobuco Rood to Jeronimo Rood Jeronimo Rood to Lo Paz Rood Lo Paz Rood to Estonciero Drive Estonciero Drive to Oso Parkway Oso Parkway to Felipe Rood Felipe Rood to Crown Volley Parkway Crown Volley Parkway to Hillcrest Hillcrest to Via Curocion Via Curocion to Avery Parkway Avery Parkway to South City Limits MELINDA ROAD Santo Morguerito Parkway to Olympiad Road OLYMPIAD ROAD 1988 1989 1989 22,600 — — 19, 700 — — 23, 900 — — 76,000 — — 16, 000 — — 24, 900 — — 33, 300 — — 31,200 — — 31,200 — — 31,000 — — 31,000 — 20,000 — — 20, 000 — — 29,100 — — 15,100 — — 13,000 — — Marguerite Parkway to Melinda Rood 7,100 — — Melinda Rood to Alicia Parkway 10,000 — — Alicia Parkway to Jeronimo Road 7,200 — — Jeronimo Rood to Lo Paz Rood 7,700 — — OSO PARKWAY Felipe Rood to Marguerite Parkway 2,700 — — Marguerite Parkway to West City Limits 78,700 — — PUER TA REAL Via Grande to Crown Volley Parkway 4,200 — — SANTA MARGURITA PARKWAY East City Limits to Los Alisos Boulevard 20,900 — — Los Alisos Boulevard to West City Limits 19,000 — SPADRA LANE Corronzo Drive to Lo Paz Rood 2,200 — — TRABUCO ROAD North City Limits to Los Alisos Boulevard 22,000 — Los Alisos Boulevard to Alicia Parkway 19,000 — Alicia Parkway to Marguerite Parkway 14,100 — VIA LINDA Los Vlveros to Alicia Parkway 2,800 — — cD flu: PIW AIM I-o.9 O W Z 2 LL 0 A �7- �7- N C O C V� Nr7 N < W � 2 G W O W < Z ror �r 'r A: s s � �o awsro 14 '� �+� �'�r t" - --- CLr�SrLM -r � �' - p a''1•i OM17tlStlr7 0�/rv� � . 0 E 4 r L 10 Orange County Chapter California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) c/o Fullerton Arboretum California State University Fullerton CA 92631 November 25, 1990 Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa CA 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: The Orange Co. Chapter of CNPS appreciates the receipt of the DEIR/DEIS for the proposed construction of state route 73, the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SCH No. 9001 0230). The chapter is concerned about inadequacies in the DEIR/DEIS to completely identify potentially significant impacts on biological resources, especially to known populations of species of concern. The following letter will document our comments concerning the proposed corridor project. The core of the NEPA process is a detailed evaluation of alternatives and a selection of the least damaging alternative. The evaluation of alternatives, as presented in chapter 2, does not appear adequate to meet NEPA requirements of evaluating the potential impacts for each alternative. It is our concern that the previous EIR (No. 267) did not conduct the type of detailed environmental evaluation on the corridor locations required by NEPA. It is our contention that insufficient analysis was conducted on the potential location of toll "plazas", offramps and other associated structures required for this project. 4-28-1 The chapter is very disturbed that some areas of the proposed corridor, Upper Wood Canyon, have already been graded before the environmental analysis can be completed. These areas were known to contain populations of several species of concern including: the many -stemmed dudleya, Orange County turkish Tugging, 4-28-2 California gnatcatcher and orange -throated whiptail. The EIR/EIS should document this loss of habitat and note how this grading was approved before the certification of this EIR/EIS. Specific Comments SUMMARY, Page 1 The summary does not provide the infornation denoting each significant impact to biological resources and the proposed mitigation measures for these impacts, as required by Section 15123 of the CEQA guidelines. It is recommended that the 4-28-3 impact summary found in Chapter 4, be incorporated into this section. SECTION 3.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Page 3-27 This section should cite the work performed the California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, San whiptail and other species of concern. We this and other previous biological survel section or in the technical appendix. Page 3-27, 2nd Paragraph in 1988 to determine the location of Diego horned lizard, orange -throated are concerned that information from 4-28.4 s has not been summarized in this Table 3.6.A. should be revised for it contains a number of species which would not be expected in the study area, such as the heart -leaved pitcher sage. If a review of these species to occur in the area was required, these species should 4-28-5 have been addressed and eliminated from further discussion in the technical appendix. A number of plant species of concern known to occur in the general vicinity of the project were not included in this table, these include: Chorizanthe procumbens var. albiflora, Comarostaphylos diversifolia, Dudleya blochmanae, Juncus acutus var. sphaerocarpus, Physalis greenei, Polvgala cornuta 4-28-8 var. fishiae, Quercus dumosa (as per Nixon) and Verbesina dissita. The known populations and potential for these species to occur within the corridor alignment should be discussed in this study. In addition several species of concern including: Calochortus catalinae, Dichondra occidentalis, and Hemizonia australis have been found on or adjacent to''the corridor. Previous studies contained additional details on at least two 4-28-7 of•,' -these species and this information should be used to determine the potential impacts from the development of this project to these species. Finally, the table does not summarize all of the known locational information for the species of concern. For example the California gnatcatcher was located in atileast 3-4 additional locations, than indicated on the table and the orange- 4.28-8 throated whiptail was located in the Aliso ridge area. This information should be included in the table and other sections analyzing the potential impacts to these species. Plant Communities, Page 3-36 This section and the technical appendix do not always fully describe the plant communities or their significance in the region. For example native grasslands are known to occur within the proposed corridor, often occurring in small pockets of 1-2 acres. These native grassland areas are very significant and should have 4'28'9 been delineated in the vegetation mapping and described in the baseline biological sections or technical reports. It appears that the descriptions of the communities do not always provide accurate information on the composition of these habitats within the corridor. The technical appendix notes that chamisal chaparral is uncommon along the 4-28-10 corridor, yet the community descriptions note that chamise is a commonly occurring species in these areas. These descriptions should be revised to accurately describe the composition of these areas. i 9 For other highly unique communities, such as the rock outcrop areas, detailed descriptions have been provided in the previous biological studies but were not summarized in the EIR/EIS or the 'technical appendix. In the case of the rock outcrops tables documenting the many -stemmed dudleya populations provided detailed descriptions of the flora found on the rock outcrop areas but this was not adequately summarized for this report. The document should be revised to reflect the unique flora found in these areas. Wetlands Definition, Page 3-37 4-28-11 We are concerned that wetland areas may have been overlooked by the total use of the jurisdictional wetland delineation process for this project. The California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG) has a broader definition of wetland and riparian habitats and it is our contention that both systems should have been used to - classify wetlands in the project area with tables to note those areas that are specifically within jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The oak woodland is a 4-28-12 good example of this problem, since under the CDFG classification many of these areas would be considered coast live oak riparian forests, while these habitats usually are not within jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. However, these habitats are considered highly significant and any losses would fall under the mandatory findings of significance under the CEQA guidelines. Sand/Gravel Wash, Page 3-38 It should be noted that these washes are considered "Waters of the U.S.", and are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. The text should clarify that 4-28.13 these areas were considered as part of the wetland areas found along the proposed corridor route. California gnatcatcher, Page 3-41 This section should be revised to reflect all of the known populations of California gnatcatchers that have been located along the proposed San Joaquin Hills Corridor. This should be compared to the potential total number of gnatcatchers which may occur within the San Joaquin Hills and nearby areas, to determine the significance of the populations within the corridor. The added section discussing the Endangered Species Act is totally irrelevant and should be deleted. Page 3-44 A section should be added discussing 1 mouse, which is known to occur near the the existing information on this species Joaquin Hills area and further studies impacts on this very rare pocket mouse. i he significance of the Pacific pocket 4-28-14 corridor. The section should document 4 from the PhD thesis conducted in the San-28-15 sre required to document the potential California mule deer, Page 3-44 This section should be revised to note the size and status of the mule deer herd in the San Joaquin Hills area and the importance of the habitat and movement 4-28-16 corridors to the viability of the herd in this area. Wildlife Movement Corridors, Page 3-45 The graphics base should be improved on figure 3.6.6, so the reader can determine the topographic locations discussed in the text. The text should discuss how these corridors could be maintained in light of this and other proposed projects in the region. Wildlife biologists generally consider that bridging in several 4.26-17 localities is necessary to maintaining viable corridors. The text should discuss these factors and note why culverts were selected rather than bridging which appears to have been suggested in previous memos. SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION Z!EASURES, Page 4-1 Table 4.1.A. Summary of Impacts..., Page 4-3 It_is very unusual to place summary tables in the middle of a document and we recommend that these be moved into an executive summary at the front of this 4-28-18 study. Section 4.6 Biological Resources The table does not adequately address all of the potentially significant impacts to, biological resources as a result of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor project. We,challenge the conclusion on the ability to mitigate for the loss of plant species of concern. Only two out of the five or more species to be impacted are 4-28-19 mentioned and the only proposed mitigation is the salvage of plant material. The mitigations have not proposed any location for this material and as noted in the CNPS guidelines could still result in a significant net loss of habitat and individuals. The section also notes that wetland losses will be fully mitigation, despite the fact that no mitigation plan has been proposed. The loss of wetlands will at a minimum have a short-term significant impact and a detailed revegetation program 4-28-20 must be proposed before a determination of the viability of the mitigation measures can be determined. 0 Section 4.6 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Page 4-64 The impact section is totally inadequate to address the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. The use of initial study tables to provide the significance levels of the impacts is not an appropriate mechanism to describe 4-28-21 the impacts of the corridor. This section must discuss the potential impacts and define their significance. For example we would challenge the conclusion that the loss of grassland habitats are not significant. In many areas along the corridor, these are form important foraging areas for a variety of wildlife 4.28.22 species. We feel the section should be extensively revised to discuss the .potential significance of the impacts to existing plant communities and species of concern. Sensitive Plant Species, Page 4-65 The section fails to discuss the potential impacts to all of the species of concern known to occur within the study corridor. The section fails to provide 4-28-23 an analysis of the potential impacts to the species discussed in this section. For example: What does the loss 2,000 many -stemmed dudlyea mean to the entirel4-28-24 known population of this species? What are the project cumulative losses, due to other proposed projects? These type of questions need to be analyzed before�4-28-25 a conclusion on the significance of the proposed project to these species. 0 Page 4-65 The impact sections fails to analyze an number of other construction and operational impacts of the proposed project to vegetation. These include: potential loss of vegetation due to increased erosion and sedimentation; potential fuel and hazardous waste spills; increased potential for fires; 4.28-26 herbicide use as part of vegetation management programs; and the introduction of exotic, potentially invasive plant species as part of the landscaping program for the project. This section should be revised to address these potential impacts. Sensitive Wildlife Species, Page 4-69 This section is totally inadequate, for it does not present any analysis of the potential impacts to these species. A detailed section should be developed that will determine the potential impacts to such species as the California - gnatcatcher. The section should also determine if additional studies are needed 4-28-27 to define the impacts to such species as the Pacific pocket mouse which have not been addressed in detail in previous technical reports on this project. Cumulative Impacts, Page 4-70 The discussion of cumulative impacts is totally inadequate, especially since it fails to describe the long term impacts of fragmentation will have on the remaining open space areas. A discussion should be developed on the long term impact of the corridor as a barrier to wildlife movement and breaking up of some of the large, proposed open space areas. The section should discuss the potential growth inducing impacts from the development of this project and how this could further the reduction of biological resources in the region. MITIGATION MEASURES, Page 4-71 It.should be noted that a majority of the proposed mitigations, do not compensate for the loss of biological resources but are recommendations for further studies or procedures which will avoid potential impacts. A discussion should be developed which explains this fact and clearly delineates the actual measures proposed to compensate for the loss of resources due to the development of the Transportation Corridor. 4-28-28 4.28-29 It should be noted that although that significant impacts were noted for the loss of coastal sage scrub, oak woodland (oak riparian forest) and chaparral habitats 4-28-30 no program is proposed to restore these habitats in other areas. Therefore, no compensation is proposed for the loss of these communities along the transportation corridor and this fact should be well documented in the text. It is recommended that tables be prepared which show the total acreage loss vs. any 4-28-31 restoration proposed and the location of any revegetation projects. , It is noted that there is no discussion of the mitigation monitoring efforts to be conducted, as, required by CEQA. It is very important that the mitigation plans and the evaluation of the mitigation efforts be proposed and that this 4-28-32 information be readily available to the public. This section should be modified tq;.note the type of monitoring programs proposed to meet the CEQA requirements. Measure 6-12, Page 4-72 What does mitigation option mean? It should be noted that this measure does not contain sufficient information to be considered a viable mitigation measure. The measure should clearly note the development of a publicly available plan, that will detail the aspects of the salvage effort. This should be noted in the text 4.28-33 as a salvage effort and the re -location areas and timing of this project should be clearly indicated in the detailed program for salvaging and transplanting these species. 0 7 1 Measure 6-13, Page 4-73 This measure should be revised to note the location and total potential acreage involved in this slope restoration project. The mitigation should require the development of a slope restoration plant in conjunction with erosion and sediment 4.28.34 control plans for the project. This plan should detail the planting/seeding mixtures, methods to be used and procedures used to determine the success of the revegetation effort. Measure 6-15, Page 4-73 Where would the proposed oak planting be located? The measure should be revised to note the potential location(s) of this project and the total acreage involved. The measure should also note the requirement of the development of a revegetation 4-28-35 plan which would detail all specifications on the proposed revegetation effort and develop the monitoring/reporting procedures to determine the success of the project. Section 4.7 WETLANDS, Page 4-74 tIITIGATION MEASURES, Page 4-85 The mitigation section, as presented, is inadequate in detailing the proposed revegetation program to replace habitat lost from construction of the project. The section should describe each potential mitigation area noted in 4.7.7, the 4-28-36 type of habitat to be restored and the total potential acreage for revegetation. 7-3 No 2, Page 4-86 This measure should be revised to require the development of a maintenance and monitoring manual. This manual should note all of the required maintenance procedures and determine the responsible party for all maintenance activities. A minimum of five years of monitoring should be required to determine the success 4.28-37 of the proposed revegetation program. The manual should develop the goals of this program and quantitative procedures, such as monitoring the height of trees and cover in the revegetated areas, to document the success of the revegetation effort. 7-3, No. 3, Page 4-86 The mitigation measures should be modified to require the development of a revegetation plan that will note the plant material proposed, spacing of trees 4.28-38 and shrubs and other specifications required for the implementation of the revegetation program. • 7-4, Page 4-57 This measure should be modified to note that the boundary of the wetland area plus a minimum of a 100 ft. buffer will be fenced to prevent accidental disturbance of these sensitive habitats. The measure should require the review 4-28-39 of grading plans and erosion/sediment control plans by a biologist, to insure that the minimum disturbance occurs in these wetland habitats. In addition these measures should require the presence of a biological monitor during the grading operation. The Orange County Chapter of the California opportunity to comment on the DEIR/DEIS Transportation Corridor (TCA EIR/EIS 1). S ncer y, '" i�� Zv- David Bramlet Conservation Committee t Native Plant Society appreciates the for the proposed San Joaquin Hills • • 0 Please Print clearly: ,(C,OMMENT CARD RECEIVED I NAMEP,Qt�ne� UPirri'I... DATE ADDRESS f n 0k, X-r7 jh� bt-: AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP40-RCM&L PH. # (Optional) ? a,&�5% Please add my nvibame to ou�ng list��Y�ES� �N�� O C MENT. ✓✓ 4 N H ftd-/ VqA (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 now�������������a����r�am��� am am TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Ll �w Yarinne., 26 SK 14-29-1 14-29-2 COMMENTS CONTINUED � J eve" -A r 4.29-3 A L moll s, 4114 Q _ r7f" 1 -V Stn`AZ 4-1 &44/r /E°A64, -sht)e.,a4 •29-4 Pw-R _ � i `r��. Ali O '� �'G7I T3/72i * I LAGUNA CANYON ToPERY og4NER5 AssocmvoN 20522 LAGUNA CgV'ONROAD SUITE 101 LAGUNA BEAM CALIF 92651 November 25, 1990 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Attn: Steve Letterly Re: Draft TCA EIR/EIS 1 RECEIVED Nov 2 6 1990 We find this DEIR fatally deficient and find that it does not meet the CEQA requirements since it does not substantially address the 4-30-1 impacts of the SJHTC on the Laguna Canyon and E1 Toro watersheds as well as the impacts to the downstream property owners. The title page SJHTC Conceptual Drainage Study (T143-16) alone is enough to strike terror in the hearts of the downstream property owners in Laguna Canyon. Why is this so scary? "Conceptual" plans are not working models and in the past have cost us a lot of time, money and worry. In the Introduction of this section we are told 1,4-30-2 that "The results presented in this report are based on conceptual level analysis and are not to be construed as final." To us this means that the impacts of this project have not been fully analyzed and/or revealed in this document. On page 25 of this "conceptual" study we read: "The ultimate goal in this area is to preserve the riparian habitat within the existing channel and to accommodate the peak 100-year flow at the Corridor." while we are concerned about preserving the riparian 4-30-3 habitat, we are much more concerned about the increased chance of flooding in the higher frequency events, the 2-, 5-, and 10 year storms. These are the storms that have the greatest impact on the Laguna Canyon residents. Further down in the study we find "A box culvert approximately 10- foot by 10-foot will provide adequate flow capacity at this crossing." A 10' by 10' box culvert may be able to handle the peak floes from the Corridor, but will increase the velocity thus changing the resulting Q's. Figure 11 shows this box culvert 4730-4 emptying into a almost non-existent channel along Laguna Canyon Road. won't this plan result in increased flooding of Laguna Canyon Road ;-.,here this culvert empties as well as leveling any riparian habitat that may exist there now? Vert we read about hot: the retarding basins "should" be designed to mitigate 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, and 100-year storms. The word should gives us very little confidence in the designers of this project. EIR mitigations are supposed to be the public's implied warranty of 4-30-5 . thf- level of service. This DEIR should say that the project designers and builders shall give us flood protection for all frequency storms and show us how they intend to accomplish goal. where in this DEIR is that to be found? t h i sT4-30-s In Section 3.4.1. E1 Toro creek, we again find more "shoulds" and "coulds". The increased runoff from the SJHTC is to be directed into the existing IO2 retarding basin. Since this basin has not given the downstream residents the protection we were promised to date, how can the TCA add more water to this basin? This basin is now undergoing revised construction for the higher frequency storms and if it works as is projected will relieve some of the problems we.now face, but the engineers have indicated that the basin is not large enough to handle the water from the larger storms with the development that has already occurred. won't the additional runoff from the SJHTC mean that the basin will fill up faster and over- flow in smaller storms? There is no mention in this DEIR about enlarging this basin or providing another one - why not? In the Response to Comments for DEIR. 494 as well as in the DEIR now before us the Laguna Laurel Runoff Management Plan is referred to as being part of the system being used to manage the SJHTC runoff. Since this plan was never approved by the County and the Laguna Laurel Project is not going to be built, how can it be expected to alleviate any of the runoff caused by the Corridor? Please incorporate by reference the attached letters regarding the Laguna Laurel Runoff Ilanagement Plan. These letters explain our special problems with the "low flog:" events. 4-30-7 We also would like to know why the Williamson and Schmid Study (Investigation of Hi t i gat i on Needs for Changes in Duration to F1 ood 40- Flows Due to Development) has not been applied? Has the oC Flood 4.30-8 Control Is computer model of the Laguna Canyon watershed been used? These are two very important available data bases which have not been used in this DEIR. The problems we have outlined in this document can truly effect the health and safety of all of the residents downstream of thisl4-30-9 project and should be'addressed accordingly. Thank you, Sandy Lucas John Hami l jmi Richard Lucas Attachments:Letter dated Nov. 7, 1969 to Board of Supervisors LAGuNA CANYON IRRoTER.TY 0'7+NE s ASSOCIATION 0 20522 LAGUNA c-q.V t7-NR0AD Suprz 101 LAGUNA BEACH, CALIF. 92651 November 7, 1989 Board of Supervisors Orange County Environmental Management Agency Land Planning Division 12 Civic Center Plaza - Rm. G-24 Santa Ana, California, 92701 Attention: Bob Rusby The Irvine Company Coastal Community Builders 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 1, . Newport Beach, California, 92658-8904 Attention: Bill Gartland City Council City of Laguna Beach SOO Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, 92651 Attention: Ken Frank RE: Why the Hydrology Report and RMP/LMP Does Not Adequately Address "Low Flow" Events. [Additional Comments and Observations on DSEIR # 502 & DEIR #501 - Laguna Laurel Project, et.al.] Dear Board Members, It has become apparent that neither the general public nor the County understand the purpose of the "low flow" study 4-30-10 and its importance to the Laguna Laurel Project, and the Laguna i Canyon Road Widening Project. It is customary for the County of Orange to plan, design and build "ultimate" (100-year event) flood control facilities from the Ocean outlet to the top of the Watershed area, or assure that the landowners/developers do so as they build their projects. To achieve this goal, the County and the Orange County Flood Control District adopted the orange County 1986 Hydrology .Manual. This manual tells the developer's hydrologists, and others how to calculate the amount of runoff to be expected in a 10 to 100-year event, for ultimate development, and how that runoff can be handled by a hydrolic engineer so it can be safely disposed of on its journey to the ocean. Using the 1986 Hydrology Manual and its assumptions for the Laguna Laurel Project, it appears that the 10-, 25-, and 50-year recurrence Q's* are computed using a runoff coefficient .for a "spring" or moderately saturated condition (AMC II), the 3 slakes partially filled (therefore providing natural retention) and includes the runoff from already developed areas (i.e. Leisure World), to compute the undeveloped condition for a given ;intensity and watershed. The 100-year flood Q's are computed using the .assumptions that the watershed is completely saturated (AMC 1JII), that the lakes are full of water, and includes the runoff :.from already developed areas (i.e. Leisure World), to compute the undeveloped condition. This condition will be very close to the same for a fully developed watershed. A rule of thumb was given [See "Investigation of - •,- - -2 - L - - -- - - - - - - Development" by Williamson and Schmid, July or September 1989]!7 also known as the "Hromadka" or "low flow" study, page 3-6, (with no explanation of where it came from) to compute the amount of runoff, after development, in a 10 to 100-year event. It seems to assume that each acre of development contributes a 1: increase to the undeveloped runoff for a given set of conditions. (These conditions have not been given.) Therefore, if the proposed development includes 40% of the watershed, the result will be a 40% increase in runoff after development. The OC 1986 Hydrology Manual was written to give a 100 year flood Q so that 100 year flood control facilities can be *Q . isthe�runo...... ...... ................. ............... Coefficient, rainfall Intensity in inches per hour, over a given watershed. 2 0 4-30.10,o implemented. The Manual was never intended to address the annual rainfall events which give rise to less than 10-year Q,s, because the emphasis is on ultimate design so that the 100 year flood can be controlled -with minimal property damage occurring. However, this procedure assumes that downstream facilities are in existence to the ocean outfall to handle the ultimate flows, and neglect the possibility that down stream facilities do not exist to handle the accelerated and increased flows. The manual deals with "apples", and deals with them fairly well, except for there being no discussion of debris and siltation control, as is included in the Los Angeles Hydrology Manual, and therefore no design provisions for such a -problem. But the legal liability issue regarding increased runoff from development upstream is a matter of "oranges" and was never intended to be addressed in the 1986 OC Hydrology Manual. The OC 1986 Hydrology Manual is not designed to achieve the type of protection (from increased runoff due to development) which would assure that neither the Public Entity and/or the upstream Property Owner can be held legally liable for damages to the downstream property owners caused by an increase in runoff from upstream properties, because it assumes that sufficient capacity for a 100-year flood flow exists in the downstream channel. In Laguna Canyon, the 1-, 2- and 5-year floods take on added significance because the cost of implementing 100-year flood protection equals the losses to be expected from a 100-year flood. The cost vs. benefit is almost equal. In addition, no funding source exists to pay for this massive public works project, estimated in 1986 as $31.5 Million, and as S48 Million in the Development Monitoring Program (DMP). Therefore the natural Laguna Creek channel is likely to remain in its unimproved condition for the foreseeable future. During small event floods there is a larger percentage increase in runoff per developed acre than the 1% average increase per acre (?) experienced in the 10- to 100-year floods. This larger percentage ranges from 1.2% to 2.75: per acre depending on the percentage of the acreage which is developed. (See "Investigation of Mitigation Needs for Changes in Duration to Flood Flows Due to Development" by Williamson and Schmid, July or September 1989, also known as the "Hromadka'l or. "low flow" study, page 3-6, and Figure 6.) 0 t, 4-30-10 In addition, the unimproved, natural Laguna Creek, from above El Toro Rd. (Station 260) to the De Witt property (Station 243) has an existing average capacity of 200 cfs (cubic feet per second), not the 400 cfs used by Tettemer and Associates, in designing the Runoff Management Plan. (See "Interim Study - Lacuna Canyon Channel. Facility No. 102 from Pacific Ocean to San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor", June 1988, OCEMA, page 7.] Based on observation and experience, no runoff from the Upper Laguna Canyon Watershed is experienced at Station 260 or 257 in a rain storm with an intensity of 1.5 inches of rain in a 24 hour period (December 24,25, 19881, or .5 inches of rain in a 24 hour period [February 9,10, 1989]. [Rainfall information from rain gauge readings at Laguna Lumberyard, located at Station 46.] Yet Tettemer and Associates Hydrology Report states that the existing cfs at Station 260 is 128 cfs or 82.3 million gallons of runoff per day passing that station in a 1" per 24 hour storm (Tettemer's 1 year Event). Since no water is coming r through the channel at Station 260 or 257, even in a 1.5" storm occurrence, Tettemer's "existing undeveloped" runoff figures for f• 1-, 2- and 5-year events show a cfs that is unsupportable and more than actually accrues, because they were computed using the 4-30-1 assumptions used for a 10-, and 25-year event. vim% To avoid legal liability for increased runoff, existing t in runoff 1-, 2- and 5-year events must be figured using the following "real world" assumptions: a 1. . The Watershed, or sub -watershed has full retention capability (AMC I) (i.e. unsaturated); 2. The lakes are in their natural state, with full retention ability available; and 3. Existing developed areas (i.e. Leisure world acreage) is undeveloped. This is the opposite of the 100 year ultimate or "worst case analysis" done for the 10- to 100-year flows used by the OC 1986 Hydrology Manual. Once existing runoff is figured in this manner, then the "low flow" study should be applied to derive the amount of runoff which will be generated in a 1-, 2- and 5-year flood after development of the watershed. The Upper Laguna Canyon Watershed above Station 25' 4 • supposedly contributes 73% of the runoff to the Laguna Canyon Creek. The Laguna Laurel Project (including the headlands and Sand Canyon commercial area, the Laguna Canyon Road widening Project, and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor) is not legally allowed to discharge any more water across its boundary line (Station 260) than they did before development in a 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, or 100-year flood, or the upstream property owner (at the Boundary line) is liable to downstream owners. For these reasons, the "nuisance flow", "first flush", or "5-year flood" bypass is unacceptable. Since xhe assumptions used to compute both the existing cfs and the developed cfs in the 1-, 2- and 5-year storm are unsupportable, the amount of increased runoff (even reduced by the RMP) which is allowed to exit the property at Station 260 is greater than the existing runoff conditions now experienced. If the County of Orange accepts the proposed open space area between the eastern right of way line for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and Station 260, they will also accept all liability which accrues from changes in flows which cross the boundary line at Station 260 from the upstream Laguna Laurel project, and its associated Mitigation Measures (including the LCR widening project, and the SJHTC)'. If the City of Laguna Beach buys the property offered (a portion of the development area) and the open space west to Station 260 for $38 Million, they will have bought the liability which accrues from the changes in flows as stated above. The City may already be exposed to liability to downstream property owners due to the approval of Club Laguna, and the problems with small storm floods from that development. It is possible that said liability could possibly Include not only the actual damages estimated in previous studies, but could also include a claim of inverse condemnation from all down stream properties (including the commercial areas of the Laguna Beach Downtown Business District) which will be damaged more frequently with the implementation of these projects and the proposed RMP/LMP. This letter points out problems and deficiencies in addition to those brought to your attention in previous communications. It is not meant to abrogate any other concerns: or claims stated previously. [See attached.] The Laguna Audubon/Aliso Viejo and Laguna Cove/Sycamore Hills developments were to be engineered so that no increase in runoff to Niguel Creek/El Toro Canyon (which supposedly represents the other 27, of the acreage contributing runoff at L 14-30-10 Station 255, just west of E1 Toro Rd.) over the undeveloped con,;ition would be permitted as this would adversely impact downstream properties. The Refined RMP for the Aliso Viejo Project has failed, as the photographs included in the Comments on SEIR 502 and DEIR 501 show. Assuming the 27% is correct you will note that we are now flooded by low event storms, and that the 27% flow exceeds the 100% capacity. Our experience with "implementation" of the County's "conditions of approval" which require that there be "no ,increase in peak flows after development", has been that the .Developers can't build a facility that meets that condition of approval for flows less than a 10-year event. SEIR 502 and DEIR 501 were released for public review before the "low flow" study was supposedly available. John Tettemer of Tettemer and Associates states that he will compare. his "figures" with the "low flow" study. A comparison is not .sufficient, The hydrology studies must use them. The hydrology ekreports, the RMP/LMP and mitigations proposed for Segment 4, in ,,their present form are inadequate to disclose or mitigate the'. .adverse impacts of these projects which will affect downstream. properties. The following issues still need to be addressed: 1. Existing cfs given for Tettemer's 1-, 2- and 5-year event are too high, and do not reflect the "real world conditions". 2. The cfs after development do not reflect the formula given in the "low flow" study at page 3-6. 3. The proposed "nuisance flows", "first flush", and/or "5-year" bypass flows are not adequately contained on the property due to 1 and 2 above. 4. The average capacity of the Laguna Creek natural' channel between Station 243 and 260 is 200 cfs, not the 400 cfs used by Tettemer in his Hydrology', Report. With regard to the existing Hydrology reports done by Tettemer and Associates, Robert Bein and William Frost Associates (Segment 4), and the Hromadka "low flow" study, we need the following information before our consultants can evaluate the calculations and given results: 1. what assumptions were used in reaching the calculations for each event ? 41 6 • 10 s 10 2. What computer program was used ? 3. Where are the Hydrographs ? We would like a copy of the first draft of the Hromadka Report issued in early July 1989. We still believe the times of concentration shown for the developed condition in the Tettemer Report must be redone. We believe that all runoff from the east and west side of the project, and Laguna Canyon Road must be retained in the lower basin. This letter is intended to put the County of Orange, the City of Laguna Beach, and the Irvine Company on Notice that we believe that the Hydrology Study and proposed RMP/LMP as it now exists is inadequate. If these entities continue with these projects without assessing the "real world conditions', such an act would constitute an intentional and/or negligent act on the'. part of the above owners, future owners, and decision makers )I with regard to the downstream property owners, residents and) business owners. ��11 Respectful) G'1ic�Lt G"� Gl fc'f/✓ Richard Lucas Dr. Rose Ekberg, D%V.M. Attachments: Sand' Lucas Dr./John Hamil, D.V.M. V Letters, dated October 20, 1989, and October 30, 1989 from Wesley L. Davis, Davis & Digrazia Letter dated October 23, 1989, and Comments on DEIR 501 and DSEIR 502, dated October 30, 1989, from Laguna Canyon Property Owners Assoc. CC: Caltrans 7 I4-30-10 WESLE`! L DAVIS' ►ETER ) DIGRAZIA RO{ERT L. SA{MUTH KEVIN R. ANDERSON GREGORY A. VVK9 GLORIA R. ANNuSCOTT TADµmfD TO PATENT AND MDEMA&K oma DAVIS & DIGRAZIA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT UAW I 1 I ►ACIFCA. SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 October 20, 1989 Orange County Hoard of Supervisors P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Re: Laguna Laurel Canyon Development Dear Gentlepersons: TEtEPMONE 71 A-727.3737 FAX -14-727.3390 At this time I have had the opportunity to review the Laguna Laurel Planned Community Runoff Management Plan prepared in August 1989. I have found that the plan is inadequate in many respects. First, the method of calculation using the same time for concentration for undeveloped and developed land is incorrect. I can understand it is claimed that the time of concentration does not change because the remote part of the watershed is not developed. However, this is incorrect. There should be a time of concentration for the developed and for the undeveloped portions of the watershed. The calculation appears to have been result orientated instead of analysis orientated. A proper analysis can be done, but I'm sure that it will give a different result. These analyses appear to be for the purpose of getting the County to accept by dedication the responsibility for the regional drainage systems along with the open spaces. You can rest assured that the best interest of the County is not being looked at by the Irvine Company and its hydrologists. You can tell this result orientation by looking at just a few items. The Laguna Laurel report assumes that there can be a 400 CFS discharge into the channel just below the confluence at El Toro Road. This is incorrect. The County analysis shows this point is able to only carry 200 CFS, an error of 200%. The Laguna Laurel analysis also assumes a maximum 'discharge from the Aliso Viejo development of 110 CFS at low storm intensities. One only has to look at the Aliso Viejo development to see that it alone exceeds the 200 CFS capacity of the channel for low storm conditions. 4-30-10 Crange County Board of Supervisors October 20, 1989 Page 2 I refer you to the case of Ektelon v. City of San Diego, a 1988 case. This case is clear that a pub is entity can be held responsible for damage downstream due to increase in runoff over natural conditions. It appears in this case that the interest is in development and not protection of the downstream property owners. To put it bluntly, the Laguna Canyon at this time does not get flooding every year - this is historical fact. It does not get flooded every other year - this is historical fact. If the developments are allowed as planned it is apparent that the residences and businesses along Laguna Canyon are going to be flooded each and every year and this is going to subject the County to significant liability and loss due to inverse condemnation and the dangerous condition of public property of these facilities are accepted. Very truly yours, G� WESDAVIS WLD/kij u 4-30-10 C7 LhyWNA cV�YoNP_T� ,oPERTy o`wNER,s A,ssocrA?zoN ZD.SZ'. GAC3'ZL^1(A C ." Z?NrRQ D sumix 101 LAGUN-A BEAp{, CA.LrF. .92651 October 23, 1989 Orange County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, California, 92702 RE: Laguna Laurel SEIR # 502 Laguna Canyon Rd. EIR # 501 Dear Supervisor Riley and Board Members, We would like to bring to your attention the "liability S issue" due to increased runoff to -be expected from the Laguna r Laurel development project, the Laguna Canyon Rd. widening project and the SJHTC. While the Irvine Company states they will reduce runoff to a degree which will allow the increase from the Road Widening project and the SJHTC project to be handled, they accept no responsibility for failure of their plan. At present, liability will be incurred by the Irvine Company for the Laguna Laurel Development, and by Caltrans for the Laguna Canyon Rd. Widening project. It is assumed that the TCA will incur liability for the SJHTC. However, by dedicating the "open space" and the SJHTC right of way to the County of Orange, the Irvine Company effectively insulates themselves from any future liability to the Residents and Businesses located downstream, and shifts liability to the County of Orange. This is because the County of Orange will become the owner of a large swath of property between the Irvine Company development, the SJHTC, the widened Laguna Canyon Rd., and downstream property owners. The potential liability for repeated flood damage to downstream properties, and lost revenues from light industrial and commercial uses within and immediately adjacent to the flood plain the length of Laguna Canyon and within the commercial business district of Laguna Beach could amount to untold millions due to the project (or projects) and potential failure of proposed flood control measures. 4-30-10 October 23, 1989, Page Two For the County to expose the taxpayers of Orange County to such massive financial liability for downstream increased flood potential amounts- to negligence on the part of the Board of Supervisors. The potential "benefits" of the projects in terms of both "open space" acquired and road improvements "paid" for by future Laguna Laurel residents are dwarfed by the massive liability which the county is accepting. Existing conditions are such that in "low flow" storms, no runoff is experienced from the Irvine Company and Sycamore Hills properties within the Laguna Canyon watershed area, while we are inundated by increased runoff from the Laguna Audubon/Aliso Viejo development. Since the flood control measures taken for Laguna Audubon were approved by the Board of Supervisors, and County EMA staff, and we were told that such measures were "state of the art", we have little faith in the County's assurances that the flood control measures for the Laguna Laurel development, the Laguna Canyon Rd. Widening project and the SJHTC will protect us in either "low flow" or flood conditions, since they have failed tondo so in the Laguna Audubon/Aliso Viejo project. We also find it interesting that the hydrologist doing the computations and the "concept" design for Laguna Laurel development is also the consulting hydrologist for the Laguna Audubon/Aliso Viejo development, yet has failed to correctly allocate "increased" runoff from each project into our 200 CFS channel. We believe that the County should consult their "water law" attorneys to better understand the extent of the County's liability, before proceeding with the proposed projects. Comments on EIR M 501 and SEIR # 502 will be submitted. We would also like to point out that documents referenced in the above draft EIR's have not been made available to the citizens reviewing the documents, making it difficult, if not impossible, to review the data contained within the drafts. Res p tfully, The Laguna Canyon Property Owners Attachment: Letter from Wesley L. Davis, Attorney cc: EMA - EIR Files The Irvine Company Caltrans 4-30-10 NESLEY L. DAVIS' PETER 1. DIGI AZLA ROSERT I. iALMUTM KEVIN R ANDERSON GREGORY A. WILLE GLORIA R. WNSCOTT TADWrrED TO PATENT AND 'RADEMARX owa DAVIS & DIGRAZIA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: _ ATTORNEYS AT LAW I I I PACIFICA. SUITE 200 IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92718 October 30, 1989 TELEPHONE 71 A•727.3737 FAX 71 A•727.3390 My review of the runoff management plan shows several items that lack sufficient explanation and appear to be in -error. A few of the more important areas are as follows: The times of concentration appear to be equal for the unurbanized model and the urbanized model. This is incorrect. For the urbanized model there should be a summing of hydrographs for each subdrainage area. For each sub area there should be a hydrograph for the runoff for the area not developed, a hydrograph for the developed area, and if applicable, the runoff time in the drainage system in the urbanized or developed area. Therefore, there are potentially three or more hydrographs for. each sub area. The plan does not show this being done. Another item is the assumption of one inch for 24 hours intensity for a one year storm, and the use 'of the rational method on the modified rational method. It is well known that once the storm time exceeds the time of concentration it has no_ impact on the peak flow achieved. A one year storm is very hard to define, and therefore, a two year storm should be used. This report shows that in a two year storm the downstream property owners are going to be flooded. The system should be designed such that the system is not exceeding the two year storm, even in a one year design. That means that all sources of runoff should not exceed 200 CFS just south of E1 Toro Road. Very truly yours, 14 Jam-4A_. ..._ .._. WESLEY L. DAVIS WLD/klj 10 The Laguna Canyon Conservancy SAVE THE CANYON November 25, 1990 Steve Letterly, Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: Comments on the San Joaquin Hills Transporation Corridor TCA bEIR/EIS 1. The Laguna Canyon Conservancy (LCC) is a grass roots, non-profit organization dedicated to preserving Laguna Canyon in its natural state for the benefit and appreciation of current and future generations. The LCC was established three years ago and currently has several thousand members. The LCC is not just a Laguna Beach organization, our membership is a cross-section of citizens from various parts of the county and range in age from the teens to over 90 years old. Recently our membership, from Leisure World in Laguna Hills, broke the 1000 mark. We also have members from out of the area, that are periodic visitors to Laguna Beach, and have joined to support the effort to preserve Laguna Canyon so there will be something left to visit in the future. Under normal conditions the LCC would have turned in a comprehensive report outlining our concerns and reasons for opposition'to the SJHTC toll road. For some reason the LCC was not included on the list to receive the DEIR/EIS this time. We were not able to secure a copy until sometime later, at which time we purchased a second set for $149.00. Unfortunately the review period for this DEIR/EIS fell right at the time when our members were intensely involved with the election campaign to pass "Measure H", the open space bond, necessary to trigger the purchase of the Laguna Laurel property in Laguna Canyon. Our efforts, along with others, paid off with a resounding 80% voting in favor of protecting Laguna Canyon from development and destruction. We have many members in the LCC that our very knowledgeable, qualified and willing to thorougly evaluate various sections of the DEIR/EIS. As mentioned above, under normal conditions the LCC would have planned to collate these comments and turn in a comprehensive report. But, since it took about two weeks for most of us to recouperate from the intense election activities and with the Thanksgiving Holiday immediately following, there just wasn't time to put things together. However, after talking with other groups and individuals, we found that many of our concerns are already being addressed in their comments. Therefore, the LCC wants to go on record as concurring with the comments of 4-31-1 the City of Laguna Beach, as well as those comments made by others oppcsir? the SJHTC and hereby incorporate ty reference those comments with ours. 20522 Laguna Canyon Road # 108, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 (714) 859•HELP 11/25/90 page 2 It is the opinion of the LCC that if the current SJHTC Toll Road DEIR/EIS is certified in its present form, it would be in violation of CEOA, NEPA and AOMD requirements/regulations and would also be in conflict with SCAG's 4-31-2 Regional Mobility Plan, the California Coastal Act and Orange County's Transportation Element. The purpose of the DEIR/EIS, as presented, is not to aid in the decision making process, but rather to justify decisions already made. The need for this project was determined and the decision to build a corridor was made 4-31-3 some 14 years ago. Times and conditions have changed. The fact that this was put on the MPAH 14 years ago and therefore has to be built, irregardless of today's needs and serious traffic problems, is unbelieveable and is a sign of an uncaring irresponsible government. Having made this decision to consider the corridor as the only alternative, eliminates any and all alternatives that could produce a solution to today's traffic problems. In fact this decision could delay any real solutions for several years. The alternatives set forth in the DEIR/EIS are two "To Build Alernatives" and a "No Build Alternative". Other alternatives listed deal only with specifics of the "Build Alternative". t There are no alternatives included that could in fact help solve today's or potential future traffic problems. 4-31-4 We don't know what the needs or the objectives were when the corridor was put on the MPAH. At that time the corridor may well have fulfilled those objectives, but'obviousely they didn't materialize since it was never i Y built. The LCC doesn't believe that building the toll road today is going 4-31-5! to meet any of the four objectives listed for the project. These objectives are so weak that even if the toll road resulted in meeting the objectives, to the tune of almost one billion dollars, it would be a waste and an i irresponsible use of public funds. The LCC believes that if current Standard Decision Making procedures were used, it would be abundantly clear that the proposed toll road is not only 4-31-6 "not the best solution" to our traffic problems, it is not even feasible. The DEIR/EIS makes the assumption that everyone in the south half of the area of benefit works in Irvine near the airport or on Jamboree. 4-31-7 This seems very unlikely and there is no survey data in the DEIR/EIS to prove otherwise. The lack of hard data to substantiate the need for the toll road or what the actual potential use would be, leads us to believe that the TCA and the County are more interested the toll road as a "thing", an "image builder", 4.31-8 (first tollroad with all of its state of the art toll collection devises and sensors) rather than as a viable solution to our current traffic problems. The "NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE" was rejected and withdrawn from consideration with absolutely no explanation what -so -ever. In Table A - COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND MAJOR IMPACTS there's the "Demand Management Alternative", 4-31-9 the "Conventional Alternative" and the "No Build". Under the "Nc Build - it lists outdated information and does not provide adequate data to make an 11/25/90 page 3 informed decision as to the viability, of that alternative. For example for the "No Build" under "Project Costs" it states "Unidentified costs to construct improvements to facilities such as I-5, I-405, SR-1 and Moulton 4-31-9 Parkway." This is a false statement and is contrary to what we were lead to believe when we voted for "Measure M". Other statements are equally misleading and incorrect. The LCC believes, with the passage of the gas tax in June and the passage Measure M in November, it shows that the majority of citizens recognize we have serious transportation problems in Orange County and that it's going to cost a lot of money to resolve them. The public, once again, has shown faith in its government officials to spend the money wisely. Whether it comes from the state or the Feds--don't blow it. 4-31-10 This whole toll road project should be re-evaluated, taking into account the changes that have or will occur as a result of (1) The Gas Tax, (2) Measure M, (3) The elimination of 3,200 housing units and 36,700 ADT in the SJHTC area of benefit, as a result of the upcoming purchase of the Laguna Laurel property in Laguna Canyon by the City of Laguna Beach and (4) the current recession and what impacts would be encountered, if developer fees ' were withheld, as a result of slowdown of development, on the financing of the toll road. Even though the LCC is going to rely mainly on the comments of others, there are still a few that require some attention. 1. THE EIR/EIS FAILS TO SHOW THE TRUE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, of the construction of the SJHTC, to significant natural resources remaining in 4-31-11 south county along the proposed toll road route. 2. It further FAILS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MITIGATION for the loss of these I 4-31-12 resources. In a press release, dated November 13, 1990 issued by The Irvine Company titled "THE NATURE CONSERVANCY AGREES TO PREPARE A STEWARDSHIP PLAN FOR 16,000 ACRES OF IRVINE COMPANY LAND IN ORANGE COUNTY", it quotes Steve Johnson, of the Nature Conservancy as saying, "We're very pleased to enter into this agreement to begin preparation of a Stewardship Plan for the The Irvine Company Open Space Reserve," said Steve Johnson, director of stewardship for the California office of The Nature Conservancy. "It provides us with an important opportunity to contribute to the future management of some of the most spectacular natural resources in Orange County." This plan will not only include The Irvine Company's future open space dedication areas, but will include an environmental assessment and proposed management plan for the Laguna Laurel portion that Laguna Beach is planning to purchase to perserve as public natural open space in perpetuity. Tnis is the sane property that will be bisected ana adversely impacted by the proposed toll road. 4-31-13 11/215/90 page 4 Development of the Stewardship Plan by the Nature Conservancy is expected to be completed by June 30, 1991. The press release further quotes Supervisor Riley as saying, "We're very pleased to see The Irvine Company and The Nature Conservancy take this cooperative step to plan for early access on some of the most valuable open space lands in Orange County," said Orange County Supervisor Thomas Riley. "The Stewardship Plan could be a valuable tool for those public entities, including the County, that will ultimately manage these lands when they transfer to public 4-31-14 ownership." It is the opinion of LCC that the environmental assessment data that will be available by June of 1991 on much of the open space lands that the toll road will bisect-- would in fact be a "valuable tool" for the TCA in realistically evaluating the true and significant environmental impacts that would result from the construction of the SJHTC. We further believe the use of actual environmental assessment data, prepared by an independent organization not under the control of TCA, 4-31-15 would produce an unbiased information bank. Hopefully, this would result in mitigation measures that actually "MITIGATE" rather than the "WAIT -SEE -MONITOR" approach currently proposed. 3. NEWPORT BEACH/IRVINE "JOINT POLICY STATEMENT" NOT ADDRESSED Figure 1.3.1 Existing and Projected Average Daily Traffic shows an unnamed proposed road connecting the SJHTC and Culver Drive with 14,000 ADT without the corridor and 18,000 ADT with the corridor. In Figure 2.5 TOLL t ROAD LOCATIONS, it has "Future Culver Drive" on the right at the intersection of Pelican Hill Road and the SJHTC. In the "Joint Policy Statement for the SJHTC" dated November 4, 1988 made by the City's of Irvine and Newport Beach, it states under Attachment B, Number 1.: 4-31-16 "1. It is recognized that the City of Irvine General Plan unequivocally provides that Culver Drive not be connected to the Corridor." -This conflict between TCA's plans and the desires of the City of Irvine made in the Joint Policy Statement in 1988 needs to be explained and clarified. Why wasn't this "Joint Policy Statement", and discussion there of, included in the DEIR/EIS? Is this another example where public input ha. been ignored? 4. The DEIR/EIS snould include the results of the study requested b) the 4-31-17 C:TC nhst the impacts would be at the 73 and I405 contluerce. 11/25/90 page 5 The LCC is made up of a large number of young people who have recognized their responsiblity to get involved in decisions made today and that only through their concern and active participation will it be possible to have anything left for future generations that would help preserve a "quality of life" similar to that experienced by current and past generations. These same young people are in today's work force or attending school. They use our local roads on a daily basis. They experience and recognize the severe traffic congestion and related problems with which we are confronted in south county. They believe it is time for a change and that people can look to alternative ways to solve our problems. The LCC believes building the tollway is not going to solve -any of our traffic problems on either a short range basis or in the long haul. Rather it will induce growth in the number of cars traveling in south Orange County. This has been borne out in many studies. There is no question that if the toll road is built people will use it. When new roads are added they quickly fill up with apparently no sustaining reduction on the older roads or freeways. If there is a road, drive way or parking lot automobiles will find it and use it. OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW...... rather than in the future when we find out that in fact the tollway did not solve the traffic mess it perportedly would. Southern California has always been an auto dependent society and maybe always will be, especially in South Orange County where there is no central employment center. This is one of the reasons car-pooling hasn't caught on. People, on the average, would probably rather ride with someone else. However this is cften an impossibility when employees live in all different directions. You can't legislate behavior without denying a person their public rights. The only way to get people out their individual cars is to provide a better alternative. We believe this is possible and recommend that the TCA withdraw the SJHTC DEIR/EIS 1., go back to basics and come up with concrete objectives that represent what any satisfactory alternative "must" provide. Then come back with a range of alternatives, including the toll road, and weigh these alternatives against the objectives. We believe this is the only way to truely come up with a viable solution to our traffic problems. 4-31-18 4-31-19 Our members have provided us with many suggestions of possible alternatives 4-31-20 and the LCC would appreciate the opportunity to participate in any future discussions on this subject. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Carolyn Wood L'-C. presioe,,t eaM C1 P.O. BOX 25 SANTA ANAL CA 92702 CY ag -- -- �i� e cA Wukn — 4-32-11 25 November 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly Manager Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 557-3298 RE: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor - Draft EIR/EIS Sea & Sage Audubon would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the proposed project. Our comments appear below: 1) Alternatives. Under CEQA or NEPA,.project alternatives must be proposed to meet their requirements. Nothing has been mentioned about transit light rail in the center of the existing freeways, although this may not be in the project area slicing through wilderness open space, but with foresight it would meet the project abjectives. By being -paid for by the public that rides it, it would not be infeasible in price. Also, impacts to wildlife would not exist. Air quality would be nil. Noise pollution would be next to nil. This alternative should have been included from the very beginning of this process years ago. 2) If informing the public and decision -makers is a part of the DEIR/EIS process, 1) why are the matchlines so hard to use (a note directing one to 4-32-2 another page would help tremendously), and 2) the figures used to identify habitat -types show the tollroad and matchlines in so light of a contrast, that it is impossible to read. 3) Some "before" and "after" renderings used to show what the corridor would. look like if built, are either hard to find or impossible. Highter contrast and an arrow would be helpful here. Also sane of the "after" renderings 4,32-3 show some areas revegetated, that in the 11;fore" pictures are currently graded. Where are these areas? What are they planted with? Also, why do some of the "before" pictures' trees in the "after" renderings! trees have more foliage drawn in? Is there something wrong with these trees? This is unnecessary, unless you are trying to convince the public how much "better" the habitat would look if the corridor is built. Mom] S&SA - SJHPC DEIR/EIS Response 4) Wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridors are an extremely important aspect of wildlife preservation in an increasingly concrete world, for the diversity of the species, etc. Also, not only do these "linkages" serve as paths for large mammels, but smaller mammmels use them, too. Marmiels, such as rabbits, move through these corridors in generations, not as one individual traveling from one end to another. With this in mind, figure 3.6.6 is inadequawe in showing small, medium, and large corridor sizes. It is also lacking important topography and habitat information. A rough schematic of large arrows placed on it, is doing the wildlife an injustice. Seventeen t miles of corridor, with the majority of its length cutting across wildlife habitats with one proposed undercrossing tunnel in no way comes close to reducing the impacts .to anything beneficial to the wildlife, as evidenced by the mountain lion -that was recently hit by a car while crossing Ortega Hwy. (74) rather than using an "corridor" a short distance away. Also, no mention was made of the bridge crossing Laguna Canyon Road on the west side. This is another place' with the use of fencing could allow for another corridor. Interbridge fencing should be 7 - 8 feet high. 5) No mention of mountain lions' past, present, or future status in the project area or beyond the project limits was discussed. Nor were the impacts to this suitable habitat of theirs, if it were necessary to reintroduce them in the future, mentioned. Nor was any mitigation defined in either of these scenerios. A mountain lion study in detail of this area needs to be done prior to any grading or construction in order for this DEIR/EIS to be informative. "Infeasible" due to time or budget would be intolerable, since the process to have this corridor built has taken over several years. 6) Wetlands. Why is the definition being used, only that of the "jurisdictional" wet11Us, nand not that of the "functioning" wetlands, which is the one that 'a 'the California Department of Fish & Game uses, and is far more appropriate when making decisions concerning environmental ecosystems2 4-32-7 7) Black -shouldered Kites. The DEIR/EIS states that black -shouldered kites "can a pt to the presence of humans and human activities, raptors generally require large areas secluded from disturbance that contain suitable foraging and nesting habitats." Then on the next page (4-68), the DEIR/EIS lists the black -shouldered kite under "sensitive wildlife species seen along the corridor". This is contradictory. The black -shouldered kite is a sensitive species as is evidenced by their great reduction in numbers in Orange County .over the past two decades alone. The kite is not well -adapted at all to "human presence. We would like to see your data that shows that they are an adaptable species to human presence. 8) Coastal SageScruub. Any vegetation planned for coastal sage scrub habitat should entirely those subassociations found in the immediate micro -habitat. Coastal sage scrub (CSS) can vary in its composition within a short distance. 4ti32-8 This should be recognized and mitigated for. Any biologist should be well - qualified and knowledgeable about this and CSS, in general. Furthermore, the DEIR/EIS states that CSS is "abundant", yet only 10-15% of CSS exists in the state today. It is an endangered community and should be completely mitigated as such on at least a 1 to 1 ratio with no net loss. If CSS is considered 2 (2) S&SA - SJHTC DEIR/EIS Response "abundant" locally, then that would be akin to standing in the largest forest of Tecate Cypress found in Orange County and calling it abundant. Especially, when CSS has so many different subassociations in such short distances. 4'`1f2'a Protecting and mitigating on a 1 to 1 ration will help to keep the California gnatcatcher from the.endangered species list, but everybody has to do their parts 4.=.919) Riparian woodland. Tree tobacco is a non-native plant species. (p. 3-38) 10) Sensitive wildlife -s--pU-ecies. What lead anyone to believe that the northern 4 -1p harrier seen on May Z5 "seemed only to be passing through"? This is during the' spring when only the residents are here and can be found in other locations such as, Aliso and Wood Canyons. We would like to see your data on this. 11) LandsSaRing in the median. Any landscaping in this entire project (including the Eastern Transportation Corridor and the Foothill Corridor) 432.11 should make use entirely of the native flora as they occur in their micro - habitats near any particular stretch of the corridors. This list should be presented in the Final EIR/EIS. 12) Phased construction. How will the continual construction of the lanes to HOV lanes be mitigated?? There will be constant dust and constant noise 12 from HOV lane contruction added to the traffic using the regular lanes. - What'are'the "assumed" noise levels to these and how will everything be mitigated? 13) AirSuualit How can the air quility be deemed good if the corridor is built? if you ve a pile of hazardous waste and are detezming how bad it is in a wider area, can you then call it good if you spread it thinly around 432-13 that whole area? This is the logic that is being used to call the air quaility good if the corridor is built! How will the air quility be deemed if there is constant dust and exhaust from construction machinery working on the HOV Imes , if the traffic is slowed on the regular lanes passing by this continual construction? How will it be mitigated? 14) Noise 9 ualit . In areas throughout the open spaces the noise levels 4.32-14 exceed-b&9BAwhich is known to impact birds' nesting, calling for mates or to defend territory. What mitigations have been provided for especially in regards to Calif. gnatcatchers and cactus wrens? 4-32-151 0 15) Bonita Creek/San Diego Creek/ San Joaquin Marsh/Upper Newport Bay. Bonita Creek's proposedrealignment should be avoid in order that t e large open spaces, such as, Newport Back Bay, San Joaquine Marsh, and Crystal Cove State Park may continue to function as whole ecosystems without the loss of coyotes' accessibility to these areas, particularly Newport Back Bay. At Newport Back,Bay they will be able to prevent the meso predators over population and therefore reduce the impacts to the light-footed clapper rails. What is the data that shows that this endangered species will not be "taken" as defined by the Federal Endangered Species Act if the corridor's impacts occur and their habitat is degraded? (3) S&SA - SJHPC DEIR/EIS Response 4W-1+6) t and glare. Mitigation of light and glare should include directing it away from open space. 17) Cumulative impacts. The DEIR/EIS states "Some of the predatore and prey with =ger ranges and teritories would be displaced..." They would only be #_32-17 displaced temporarily, then they will die for the same reasons that the animals with smaller territories will. Remote areas are gone and this is more than a disruptive force. How will this be mitigated? 18) S of significant cts. 'Disruption of wildlife patterns" 4-32-11SIcould'be belped with more rirg�es. If this is considered infeasible due to budget constraints then raise the tolls. 19) Mitigation measures. Does habitat enhancement include the use of only 4-32-12 native flora--'-anawnere are these proposed unaffected areas located? Mitigations should occur on or as near to the site as possible. 20) ency requirements. All criteria should be developed, in place and well - established prior to any grading or construction. 21) In -kind habitat value. All habitats recreated should be with in -kind habitat value, and with respect to the micro -habitat of the particular 4.32-21 mitigated area. Also, these habitats and areas to be "landscaped" need to be "habitats" and not swatches or clumps of plants revegetating an area. They need to be mixed with great care. 22) Resource category habitats. Minimization of grasslands may be more effect- ively protected with mapping and with the use of one side fencing (temporarily). ;When habitats are categorized as "abundant", etce they are treated as a re- 4.32-22 newable resource until it is too late. Grading inspectors must have all relevant information and maps, as well as all permits in order that they know what habitat areas are to be protected. These should be on -site at all times just as grading and construction plans are and always up-to-date. 23) Resource mitigation. Environmentally sensitive areas should already 41'`32'23 be mipFe2 and protective fences in place prior to grading, etc. so that the maxirmm of protection and minimum of exclusion from other habitats occurs. This should be included in the FEIR. 4'32-24I24) Only the areas to be graded for the corridor should be driven on. (6-2) 25) Excess fill specifically will be dumped where? Excess fill should not only not be dumped in washes but in no habitat that is outside of the 4-32-25 right -off -way as the areas mitigated for as shown in figures 3.6.1-3.6.5. Excess fill should only be dumped in an area such as a landfill, where the native habitat has already been destroyed. (6-7) 4 32-26 126 ) Vehicles and equipment should not be parked in any areas, except already graded area for the corridor.(6-8) 0 (4) S&SA - &MIC DEIR/EIS Response 27) Over wateri should be avoided in all areas, not just washes and ''� other drainages. 6-9) 4,=2 Ul 28) What is the DEIR/EIS.'s definition of a nesting "area" for raptors? (6-10) 29) The details of the mitigation plan for these and all native flora should 4�.=.Zp be done prior in place, and well -established before andy grading, etc. begins. (6-125 30) Wildlife movement corridor miti ation. How big is the wildlife "tonne Research s shown that deer —need a 17' by 17' high underpass to use it readily. How will noise be reduced to encourage their use of these undercrossings? What are the ground and side coverings to consist of? What happens if they refuse to use it? What are the final project design plans? These plans should be complete in the FEIR/EIS. The final location 4-32-30 of these undercrossings should be determined by where they cross now.. A deer study of this entire area needs to be done now. It was asked for two years ago. At that time it was determined to be infeasible due to time constraints,. A basic study could have been complete today. An excuse due to time is absurd at this time. A study needs to be done now, much prior to grading, etc. Only bridges should be used, not "mine -shafts" where bright light is seen at the end of a tunnel,. 31) The "project landscape architect" should be well -qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable of the native habitats that occur in this particular area, 4.32.31 as well as understanding the difference between habitat for animals and "landscaping" for man. A biologist's knowledge is needed for this. What is the criteria for the selection of the architect? 32) The "project biologist" should be well-quilified, experienced, and knowledge- 4-32-22 able in revegetation and protection of native flora and fauna.. What is the criteria for the selectionof the biologist? 33) What is the implementation for the revegetation program? This should be included in the FEIR/EIS and not left up to one individual. What are 4.32.33 "appropriate" replacement ratios and spacing criteria? To make up the habitat values of just one old oak tree, including nesting cavities, etc. means a lot of acorns, 5 gallon and 15 gallon oaks will be needed. (6-15) r� 34) Wildlife movement corridor miti ation. Gallinaceous guzzlers should be desiin—ed and in place for at least a year before grading, etc. begins. This 4-32-34 is for migrants', residents', and hibernators' awareness. What will they be made of, etc. Which animals use, is it desined for - large or small animals? (6-14) 35) Wetlands. "approxiametely 1/4 mile on either side of the proposed corridor center—Iinci*' to set the boundaries to determine the impacts on the wetlands 4 32 is inadequate since the tollroad crosses rather than follows wetland areas, therefore the lower wetlands downstream of the 1/4 mile boundaries is unmit- igated. How will these wetland acres be mitigated? It should be in a 1 to 1 ration of no net loss also! (5) S&SA - SJHTIC DEIR/EIS Response 36) San Diego Creek Channelimpacts-* "...may result in siltation flowing down San Diego Creek into Newport Back Bay. Trash will also show up on the 4.32,n way. How will these impacts be mitigated? Light-footed clapper rails reside there along with other erdangerd species,. What are the impacts to the Newport Back Bay? It would be helpful if these were listed all together, this is a very important ecological reserve. 37) Surface run-off effects. How will these impacts be mitigated? There are 432-37 better ways than using grass -lined channels, these are prone to attract wildlife. 38) Dis sal of excess material. "Although this is the area where the majority of grading has already or -cured.' Where in the No Build Alternative would 4.32-W the reahabilitation of graded areas for mitigation be? Under NEPA guidelines all alternatives are to be given equal discussion and weight, that has not occured in the DEIR/EIS. 39) Significant unavoidable adverse impacts. "Full and successful implementa- tion of project mitigation, allTimpacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance. With all the impaces to these wetlands, ie,. Bonita Creek's realigment and its effects upon the Newport Back Bay and the light-footed clapper rail, it is very hard to believe that it would all be mitigatied to below a level of significance. 4.32-40 40) What are these project design measures? How will they maintain waterflow? 41) Replacement site alternatives. What are the maintenance and monitoring 4.32.41 goals "Compatible" does not to us what t�iey specifically are or what yas intentions are. They may be better or worse than the Pelican Road's, etc. We cannot comment on them. 42) Where are the intended areas for the storage of the "graded material 4-32-Z stores" to be? They should only be placed on previously graded areas or in a landfill, and not in any wildlife habitat. 4.32-43I 43) What are these water control devices, specifically? 4.32-44I 44) What are the mitigations for the 4(f) resources? 4-32 45) All mitigation, design, etc. of plans should be in the FEIR/EIS and not just finished before and area is graded.. 46) Any concerns with not building bridges for undercrossings as opposed to tunnels or providing certain mitigations of being infeasible due to budget '-� constraints should not be made, as this is a tollroad and the tolls can be raised. Given the length of time between previous EIR/EIS:'s time for wildlife studies, infeasible excuses should also not be used.. 4-32.47 47) Anything that has been asked to be mitigated for and deemed infeasible, we would like to see your findings. (6) LI i, • S&SA - S_71= DEIR/EIS Response I48) All restrictions, etc. must be spawn in the F'EIR/EIS, otherwise it is '� inFcacmplete in informing everyone. 49) The areas that have already been graded need t and beyond a 1 to 1 ratio as we do not know what ng Mitigations should be determined regarding r natcatcher and cactus wren, the uncertainty w�S't-M Calif. g e occured, the length of time oar � what coverage �� possibility of having lost an established, and the Po it species without even knowing o be mitigated for, above as rowing and living there. seasons missed for the regarding what Plants will for the area to be �t reare or endangered 50) All mitigation programs regarding maintenance will need from the date of beginning grading to forever for the control Many areas that have been previously set 4.32J weeds, trash, etc. . Or a County can now be seen with to be continual' of non-native aside for an excessive amount mitigation years ago in ang of trash and non-native flora throughout. 51) The DEIR/EIS's maps are inconsistatn in it and its tectaiical volumes 43't�1 regarding mapped habitat areas,* is of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, 52) The cunulativertimpac �,orridor, the Eastern Tvanspo should be included in the FEIR/EIS. and the Foothill Transported- 53) 1ihe noise pollution at the crossing of as well as in the open spaces and should be fully viewsheds of these areas will be greatly impacted habitats in nature just to "get away from it all! for these be? The intent of creating large blocks of contiguous by short-sightedness started 20 years ago and new incorporated along the way. This is Only loo looking th seventh generation of people n Corridor Laguna Canyon Road will be tremendous mitigated for. Also, the as many people explore these What will the mitigations open space is being destroyed information has not been into the future as far as om today as would be more 2010 and not e appropriate. thi DEIR/EIS. We would like Thank you again for the opportunity to coament on sect. to continue to receive future information on this Proj Sincerely, 4A064,47 Susan L. Gallaugher Member, Conservation C x mittee cc: Pete DeSimone, S&SA Conservation Chair Richard Kust, S&SA President THE LAGUNA GREENBELT, INC a non-profit corporation Bit 100, Laguna Bea,h. Caly'Urn,u November 14, 1990 Steve Letterly, Manager Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street RECEIVED Nov2 6 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly, We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the DEIR/EIS for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Due to the expected large volume of comments, and a desire to avoid repetition, these comments are not intended to be comprehensive We have serious reservations about the adequacy of the DEIR/EIS for the followine reasons Inadecuate Description of the Project The 3 new roadways for which two TCA's were established are in reality one single project. The combined effects of buildinq the whole network on the growth and development of Orange County, and 4-33-1 nearby areas of San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego counties is the true subject for an EIR/EIS. This document is an attempt to piecemeal the project, to ignore the combined effects of the other two corridors. In Appendix E, the 6EIR/E15 artificially constrains the examination of cumulative impacts to the supposed SJHTC area of benefit, while ignoring the broader regional context of the three roadways Already Riverside County is considering a new road through the 4-33-2 Cleveland Nat'l Forest (Cajalco Cyn Rd) to facilitate access to the corridor network. A few months ago, a corridor was proposed for the Riverside Fwy median to facilitate Riverside traffic In the City of Irvine and unincorporated Orange County, the Irvine Co. is constructing Spectrum, billed as the largest commercial/industrial development in the nation This major commuter traffic 4-3" attractor will be made accessible via the tnree-corridor network to traffic from all five So California counties (although LA County residents might be expected to continue to use the 1-5 and I-405) The cumulative effects of the whole project must be addressed In the EIR/EIS in addition to the site-soecific impacts of the SJHTC Specifically, what will be the 4- reeional effects of the corridors on the growth patterns of the nearby counties^ It is unreaso"a:'e t.: exce:t treat provldino six conventional roadway lanes for at l egvns Greenbelt, Inc Pepe 2 least the next ten years will not induce conventional urban sprawl in presently undeveloped areas. If there is to be a halt to the kind of destructive development 4-33-4 Pattern which has fouled the air and water, aegraded the southern California quality of life, and consumed tens of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land, it will not come about by buildinq more roadway miles to facilitate more long automobile commutes. 6Xhff , � I Inadea,ate Range of Alternatives. The primary project objectives are written with a broad brush, but the DEIR/EIS fails to consider adequately any alternatives 4"33"s but tollway, tollway, or notning. In fact, even one of the build alternatives is a sham According to Technical Report 8, TSM/TDM Implementation Report, "EPA and SCAG have identified that any alternative proposing a larder number of lanes (than three lanes pius one HOV lane in each direction) and/or lacking an HOV lane, would be determined inconsistent with the Regional Mobility Plan The Conventional 4-33-6 Alternative is inconsistent with, the RMP to meet 2010 traffi demand at I OS D operating Condit ions five general purpose lanes and one concurrent HOV lar,e are necessary in each direction.- p.36 The conventional alternative cannot then be described as havina a "positive net impact to air quality" in Table A or anywhere else in the document, as it is not supported by the RMP's air quality analysis. 33- However, everywhere that air quality is mentioned, the document describes the 4- 7 two build alternatives as having the same beneficial(sic) effect on regional air quality. The Conventional Alternative is a sham alternative, a blatant attempt to 4-3" make the document look adequate in the face of possible legal challenge. In I perpetrating this sham, the DEIR/EIS is grievously flawed. In addition, the possibility of rail transit use on either build alternative is not presently included 4-33-9 in the SCAG RMP (Technical Appendix 8, o 40), and thus the 'corridor' concept is also not viable This project is just a road The courts, in defining both CEGA and NEPA, have rejected attempts to artificially narrow the range of alternatives. Just because the TCA, FHWA, and Caltrans are highway -building agencies does not excuse triem from seriously examining otr.er none -bulls scenarios, such as. what combination of land -use decisions, publlc 4-33-10 transportation system;,, traffic demand manaaement, etc would be sufficlerlt to achieve the project aims? For an EiR, the CEOA Guidelines, section 15126 requires the di;cu.sion of "...alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environment3i effects or reducing tnem to a levee of in i�jr,ificance, oavun 0, LJ 0 Lequne Greenbelt, Inc Par 3 if these alternatives would impede to some degree the 2roiect's objectives, or would be more costly. (emphasis added) In the last few years; we have witnessed two significant, dramatic instances in which traffic was controlled to an unprecedented degree, contrary to the prevailing wisdom of pouring concrete to accommodate traffic. (1) During the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984, traffic simply evaporated. (2) Last October, in San Francisco, the major (double -decked) freeways on both sides of the Bay Bridge were shut down. Over a year later, the freeways remain closed, and where has the traffic gone" Tr►e City of Laguna Beach included in its comments on the corridor the "Eignt Myths of Traditional Traffic Planning" excerpt from a book which describes the experiences and thinking of traffic planners in other countries, mainly Germany ana Australia Disincentives to easy automobile access have beers successfully used to stem the growth of vehicular traffic in city-wide ana intercity areas of comparable area to south Orange County. The EIR/E15 shoula include a serious attempt to evaluate an alternative.which does not rely on trying to build our wav out of a traffic mess (EXh;60-ta-) 4-33-11 Of all the briefly considered alternatives in'the DEiR/EIS, only'two can be con:.�dered to be roan-t►ut10 alternat�vE;, c-Alterr►at�ve Land Use Concepts, ar;% 4-33-12 a- TSM Alternatives Pape 2-30 Alternative Land Use Concepts- Much of this discussion is based on the aSW'tiOn that the General Plans of the cities and County involved are "premised on the coriclusion� of the SEOCCS " The SEOCCS (Southeast Orange 4-33-13 County Circulatior► Study) is almost 15 years old and some of the data is clearly out -dated Have the General Plans of all of those involved jurisdictions been examined to verify that they are based on SEOCCS? Several cities have rezoned in'4-33-14 the past years and have adopted arowth controls How do these measures affect alternative land uses" How do proposed job -housing balance proposals affect 4-33-15 potent ial land uses? This section is unclear Are projections based on zonina or actual proposed projects^/ Basing projections on zoning alone is dangerous since this generally represents a maximum of allowable units, a maximum which is frequently reduce:? 4-33-16 before final ap, roval of proje;t: The assertion tr►at elimination of the Corridor through down zoning would re-.-jlt in between the Land Use and Circuiation Elements C 114-33-17 Legun# Ormnbel t, Inc Pape 4 Is General Plans may be true, but is a problem easily remedied by simple amendments to the Circulation Elements. All too often, the Circulation Elements follow the 14-33-17 Land Use Elements, so this will not be difficult. The assertion that regional down zoning 'would probably have a greater socioeconomic effect on some jurisdictions than others" is an assertion without 4.33-18 any back-up and does not consider that the effect may be positive. The justification of the Corridor through citing the existence of development agreements is another example of how circulation needs are following land use decisions. Some discussion is required on the legality of development agreements On page 6-8 Planned Communities/Development Agreements- the statement is 4.33•ts made that "...the planned communities have not been conditioned with the Corridor as a requirement for future development," thus attempting to show that the growth will continue with or without the corridor. While this is true for the development agreements, it is not true with regard to the CEQA requirements. In the case of Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Orange County, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found (August 12,1982) that while tree EIR for the Aliso Viejo project was sufficient, that "...future occurence or ,-�20 non-occurence of the 'assumptions' therefore does not affect the sufficiencv of the present EIP., but rather is relevant in determining whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR should be prepared" (paqe 9). In a footnote on the previous page, the first 'assumption' is listed as 'Construction of the Transportation Corridor..." Thus, the future of the Aliso Viejo development is tied directly to the construction of the Corridor . This EIR should examine this aspect in detail This means determining the effect of a no -build option on a supplemental EIR for Aliso Viejo and an examination of the possible development options resulting. In the same fashion, the other planned communities listed in this section must be examined to see if they require supplemental EIPs and what the results of those 4-33-21 documents would be. The analysis must examine the possibility of a no-buila option requiring supplemental EIRs which successfully address the circulation Problems without the Corridor, or require less development. The analysis beino requested reverses the Orange County practice of entitlinq lano uses without regards to circulation, men attempting to build enouan new roads to handle the overloads. The analysis should be, instead, if no new corridors are built, riow much aevelopment could be accommodated" What other 4-33-22 People -moving measures could be emoloyea? This should be examined in light of the intent of the Growth Management Element to the Orange County General Plar. i lequne Greenbelt, Inc Pepe S Tne fact treat 20 C. of trte traffic on the Corridor is regional through traf f I Is not a sufficient volume to justify the Corridor. Further, the number itself is 4.33-23 questionable since no source is given and since studies are not available to show If people outside this region are willing to pay tO1is. Alternative e- Mass Transit alternative- curiously becomes just another 015CussIor► for freeways with HOV lanes However, the corridor is not initially proposed for HOV lanes, nor- is there certainty about when they will be added. Page 2-20 HOV/transit Median- The initial build of the Corridor is with six general purpose travel lanes "...to meet short-term travel demands (approximately ten years) As travel oemands increase, HOV lanes are expected to be phased to increase capacity." This appears to violate the intent of the Regional Mobility Plar, (RMPI) whicrt is to give priority to all transit and ridesharing projects over mixed -flow highway capacity expansion projects. The term "are expected to be priased" does not leave the reader witn any sense of certainty on the inclusion of HOV lanes in the Corridor To meet the RMP, consideration must be given to building the hOv lanes first, to encourage ridesnaring frorn the beginning The EIR/EIS should fully examine this option Tne aroument that HOB- lari(-s on tr►e Corridor at this time are not needed since HOV lanes or, the 1-405 are not at capacity is not valid since one of the stated goals of trte Corridor is to reduce traffic on the arterials More to the point, why arF corrioors being propo_ud if the HOV lanes on the I-405 are not at capacity'? It v,1i1 never bF easier to induce people to rideshare/carpool or take mass transit than, in the face of mounting traffic grldlOCk The time to introduce people-movin4_ instead of ver>>cie-movinq is now Construction of three new roadways will set back of forts for mass tr ar►s ,, t by 20 years The as5urntions for 30 -0 HOV are indeed ootimistic. If, however, HOV usage is not that high, and the corridor falls below LOS D, that violates the conditions under which this, corridor is classified as consistent with the SCAG RMP. What are the metnocs of ensur)nd Kc-0 HOV usage' Increasina tolls would be one possibility, gut tr,a: would unde,mine the financing by reducing the traffic (or so noes the aroument ao:.lnst lncludlnC, HOV lanes initially) Uppino the tolls also increases tree traffic or, the free parallel routes Given these conflicting forces, we do not see, anq the DE;R/EIS d•'.'ies not elucidate, how the road can be both financially `•;J'::.v.";".re:�.tr _ o,,r,t�,r,,c`���, CtterP:iu:t} on in3Uiorroii. 1;:,- 0 4-33- 24 4-33-25 4-33-26 t punt Greenbelt, Inc PW 6 Page 5-7 Demand Management Alternative Operation-2010- In discussing the Demand Management Alternative, several options are given for inducements for 4-33-27 HOV usage. A discussion of a free HOV lane on the tollroad is needed. Table 1.3. The estimate of year 2010 traffic volumes on the I-405 assumes that the tollway is "toll free" by then. However, the Financial Study in Technical Appendix, 7 assumes more like 28 years to retire the bonds. Even assuming the starting date for the bonds is 1990, the road would not be toll free in 2010. Also, the MPAH will not be complete by 2010, another assumption of the Table 1.3 (OCTC 20 year Master Plan identif les signif icant funding def kits- the MPAH cannot be completed). No conclusions about impacts of the SJHTC can be drawn from Table 1.3 until it is redone with realistic assumptions. Page 2-28. No -build Alternative. Where in the document is there a discussion of what the no -build alternative would mean in terms of the already destroyed significant biological resources? There are no plant communities in the r-o-w on the bioresources maps from El Toro Rd. east, due to the illegal pre -construction grading of the corridor would this be the site of the world's longest soccer field'" What about erosion, runoff; siltation, etc.? How about mitigation for illegally removed resources? Biology The statement at 4-41 in the Response to Comments Vol I of the DEIR/EIS , "The loss of open space and habitat areas is not significant,..." could not be more wrong The proposea aesign of the tollway guarantees that significant habitat fraomentation and loss of open space will occur. far beyond the boundaries of the APE Interestingly enouan, tree Biology Report, Technical Appendix 5, and the DEiR/EIS also conclude that the loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat remain as significant, unmitigated impacts Apart from actual 'take" of land by the construction of the road, the current proposed design is seriously flawed with respect to wiidiife The roaa will be neither a complete barrier nor will there be safe crossing opportunities. for wildlife it will be a killing around 17 miles long through the heart of the only significant coastal open space between the Palos Verdes peninsula and Camp Pendelton Paoe 4-66 Road Kills- The use of a five foot chair, fe"!C4 a*onq the lenatn of the Corriaor is not sufficient to prevent deer 4-33-2s 4-33-29 4-33-30 4-33-31 • Lequne Greenbelt, Inc Pege 7 from reaching the road Analysis is required to determine the maximum height required to prevent any large animal from jumping the fence, but generally a 7-8 foot height is sufficient Chain link fence is a hazard in its own right: i have personally removed large birds which have gotten stuck after flying into the mesh The completely inadequate suggestion of one inappropriately designs., wildlife crossing and the continued lack of a decent deer movement study to even justify the placement, serve to highlight the fact that there has been little or no attention paid to mitigating the loss of bioresources. Especially depressing is that there has been no attempt, since EiR 494 in 1988, to correct the obvious insensitivity of the roadway design to the open space areas it will traverse Fencing is still inadequate, the wildlife crossi.r►g is a love. The 1984-85 'deer, movement analysis study' was severelv criticized as worse than useless by the Dept of Fish & Game. but the new EIR/EIS is still referring to it. Why wasn't a new study started in tree intervening two years Two more examples of the inadequacy of the treatment of bioresources. 1. Pacific pocket mouse- the biology report states this species was "not observed, because it is nocturnal..." The only way to confirm the existence of small rodents is livetr m-ono (or serendipitous recovery of owl pellets), but that takes time in the field. Bats, too, cannot be confirmed in the daytime. 2 Covotes- although not a sensisitve species in the classical sense, the coyote is pernays the most critical species in determining the health of the entire coastal Saoe scrub community The recent work by Soule et al on mesopredator release after removal of coyotes has focussed widespread attention on this species Yet tr:ere iE nc)', onp word ar)o!;' tryE, importance of coyotes, and n0 mitigation to ensure their continued presence in any of the open space parcels fragmented by the roadway alignment The culverting of 7200' of Bonita Creek will eliminate a wildlife corridor which links Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Reserve and the San Joaquin Marsh with the Laguna Greenbelt. If the coyotes cannot reach Upper Nev.00rt Bay, raccoons, red foxes, feral cats and other small predators will destroy the nesting attempts of the endangered clapper rails and all other ground nestino birds in tree Bay Tree value of the land ecosystem around the Bay will Coilo;�E- Trig GioloC�, c-iudw a1s0 mij_ed tree point anout trip impc,rtar,cE- of the coastal �?�e c-,crut; in thr APE and ao?oining open space "Coastal sage scrub is found extensive1v in the Sa', Joaquin Hil15 Section of the APE " Instead of call no it 4-33-31 4-33-32 14-33-33 4-33-34 4-33-35 14-33-36 4-33-37 4-33-38 OP V Laqu%0reAnA-Jt, 11w P*r, 6 common, and therefore not in need of mitigation, the study should have realized that the great value of the community in this region is that it exists as a large unbroken stand. For from being found "on every low mountain," the coastal sage 4-33-38 scrub community is vanishing under the bulldozers. The biology study confused it with soft chaparral- chemise is not a normal coastal sage scrub plant. Mapping is inadequate and imprecise. Contrary to the claim 'Surveys and mapping of resources are current and complete." (Res to Comm, 4-40), neither of those claim:: is correct. Match lines are either missing or unreadable, and a long section of Fig. 4.7 is missing In the transfer from Figures. 3.6 to Figures.4.7, various resources were lost. Map 4.7.4 is missing wetlands along the east side of the road. This wetlands is Mapped in the 1983 Bioresources. Inventory for Sycamore 4-33-39 Hills, and in the 1986 DEIR. 494. Despite the description of this area as a paten of gient bamboo, it is a thriving willow riparian woodland, and among other species., it harbors an abundance of butterflies in the wet season. Also missing from 47.4 and 3.6.3 are two populations of DUdleya multicaulis: in the APE (1963 SH Bio Study.). In addition, please see the attached colorized versions of figurer 47 reflectinn 4-33-40 recent (sinr_.e1988) sighting_• of black -tailed gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. in -the APE by UCI Museurn of Vertebrate Zoology personnel. The maps also indicate where (4-3341 coastal sage scrub haDitet has been rernoved along the APE The DEIR/EiS study reveals that inadequate time has been spent in the field to determine the 4-3342 bioresources which ,^.'ill be affected by the road. 3 Pre -grading of corridor r-o-w- Attached as Exhibit (41 are two letters, from Ca)trans an^ FH;YA, and a newspaper article, about grading activities along the SJHTC well over two years ago. This premature and illegal grading impacted at least two sensitive plant species, and removed unknown acreages of encangered coastal sage scrub, habitat for black -tailed gnatcatcher, orange -throated whipteil, coast horned lizard, cactus wrer►, and mama other species. Grading along the corridor r-or�has been occurring for several years, as hignlighted in the April 1987: issue of "Building Orange County". The result of this grading, which we vrotestrd unsuccessfully many times to the Orange County Planning Commission arfo Board of Sucervisors, can be seen in Figures 3.6-1 to 3.6-3, in which the dominant habitat type from El Toro south is. "1 10- urban/cultural -!itereT Despite the cunic.al 19+_8 incident, in which the County was "puf on 4-33-43 is • • • tsgur�s Z�r�rrtr." t f , � rrt notice" about NEFA-protected resources by BrucFCenrion of FH'v,'A, grubbing and �4-3344 grading along the r-o-w ties continued. Attached are maps 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and 4.7.7 of sections of the r-o-w,, on which are indicated areas already graded and approximate times What NEFA-protected resources were removed? 'No acreages 4-33-45 available" is marked on the maps, or nothing at all. Additional mitigation over and above anything considered in the [HEIR/EIS is needer to offset this illegel removal of NEPA-protected resources which was authorized by JCEHA- and performed bu various private parties (mainiy, but not exclusively, 4,33-46 along segments of the Corridor east of El Toro road). Among the absurdities: caused by premature grading wes the building of a nonfunctional detention be..ir, along El Taro Fd to fit into a cloverleaf on -ramp which is no longer in the corridor design. Grading. for the basin removed part of a hillside end severed the �4-33-47 lono-planned regional hik:rnq ena equestrian trail into Wood Cannon Regional Fark.:. Prerr:5tu,re removal of resources, even if they were fully mapped in advance (nfhicr; is not the case here), is cause. for additional mitigation. The time lapse involved between loss of habitat, and mitigation which presumably entails provision of new 4-33-48 habitat, contri-butes to the impacts on the remaining resources. Missed breeding . season: for animal specie:: cause po urletior declines. µ+hich may not be recoverable bu future provision of nato,tat. T he follo-f.inq mitigation index, is intenaed to provide a way to calculate aoeq►.,ate. mltidatlon for the loss of riparian, coastal sage scrub and oak woodland caused t►q the premature gredinq of the SJHTC. r-o-v,: First, the approximate acreage:: of removed riparian, coastal sa4e scrub, grassland and oak woodland re_ources ilhould tie determined bla examination of eeriai photographs taken close to the date of removal Then, the following formule car- be used to determine the rninirr►um necessary acreage for creation of r►ew, or preserVation of replacement habitat INR - A Where 1= the initial acreage of destroyer, resource. h= the number of years. between destruction of habitat and replacement; R= the readiness with which a particular het►itat can be re-established igrassltr►r =1 5; wetland/riparian coastal sage scrub= 5; oar, woodland =7.5 1, and A= the final number of acres required as mitigation 4-33-49 L4qurd 6re�&nt*ft. 1rK Page f Future. grading and removal of resources in advance of en0ronmental documentation must be prevented. Destruction of sensitive plant species ir, advance of selvage results in terminal loss of individuals from the gene pool. "The strategy for salvaging and reestablishing species of concern... is the only appropnete method to mitigate the incremental loss of these resources loc turkish rugging and many -stemmed Dudleyal.` Mitigation 6-12; Res. to Comm. Vol I, p. 4-25 Obviously, the opportunity for mitigation has been forsaken where the plants were destroyed during the illegal grading operations sanctioned by the County In the case of the destroyed resources, mitigation is needed whether the tollroad is built or not. The Foothill Corridor, which as of today does not have are. EiR or EiS, was the oGlect of a "ground-breskrna" ceremony by developers, TCA and Countu officials at least t� o years ago' This is nothing but a cavalier disregard of the critical national problem of resource preservation for which NEPA was created. Such er, 8ttrtrrde by the ager,c.res. in charge of the SJHTC EIR/EIS does not increase confidence in the adequacy of this document. Eiological Pesources- Indirect Impacts The an'rount of wetlands considered to be impccted be._; the tollwey at Laguna Canyon Pead has shrunk drarr►atically since 1988, 61though tree road''vvey size has not Figure 4-13 of DEIP 4Q4 shb';15 a n o .3, acres of wetlands, compered to 1.1 acres on Fru 4.7.4 in the current oacUrner:? Although ' .,e are in a period of drougrrt, it has not affected the Laguna Canyon le'etlends to that extent± Realignment of Laguna Canyon road might or might not occur without the corridor; that is a separate project. Hc:ri-'ever if the tollrc•ad built, Laguna Canyon Road will have to be realigned. The impacts to the wetlands due to the realignment are properly part of the indirect (outside the APE? ,but real impacts of this project. Also, realignments of El Toro Pd and Bonita Clan Pd., arc the extensions of Culver Cyr. and Ford Rd. are all indirect impacts of tyre corridor project. Comprehensive P1rtrgation for Cumulative Impacts to Brore,OUrces is Needed -In addition to Significant impacts in the SJHTC right of way, the reduction of wild',ife hat,itat anc popuiatrons is. CuMulativeW s,ionificar►t for the county." DEIF/EIS Tech. AD:- 5, p 61 Yet, the rrrt,r�,�frr."r;. s•�,,neste�� for the impacts of this: road are so lnadegu6te that they rnag be consioer► d to tie ur•1rroU-,.;tsd. Thzi lPrt-lt ands indirect loss of ' 4-33-50 4-33-51 4-33-52 4-33-53 0 4-33-54 4-33-55 4-33-56 Zy�rJ/�sf 6rftr& !?, mt CW, i .11 biores oLrrc.es include fragmentetaon of habitat. disruption of wildlife corridor:, consumption of oiler, space by con_truction end the noise envelope of the three new roads, mes.sive road k:ilis, inducement of urban growth in three adjoining counties, degr'edatior► of air quality, loss: of wetlands, etc.. For these impacts:, revegetetir�r, 4-33-56 of cut slopes is not adequate mitigation. For wetlands impacts, a vague 'Conceptual wetlands mitigation plan" is suggested, from the 'trust me' school of mitigation. Tne DEIR/EIS is inadequate in that feasible mitigations for the impacts exist, but are not incorporated into the document. Grange County is at the crossroads: Implementation of the three corridors as currently proposed spells the end of the natural environment in Orange County and beyond. Previously protected open spaces, such as Upper Newport Bay State Ecological Preserve, Aliso-Woods Regional Park; Chino Hills State Park:, and other.., are in imminent danger of ecological degradation if they lose their 4-33-57 connections to other open space. Riqht no,*-, because three transportation corridors are in the manning phase, and there is: still some open space left, planning can proceed concurrently for a nets-ork: of functional open, space corridors to protect the remnants of the natural envlronnrrent. What is needed is 1. A cornprehen'Sive study of all three road areas to identify and map the ,;,,ilc+lrfe corridor systen+. Tne goai is to keep as manu natural open spaces as possit►le interconnected Thisstudy will require radioc.oliarrnq and morit►ring individv,4, 4-33-5e of larger mammalian species, as well as field work to determine smaller animal, and possible plant, dispersion corridors 2 A commrttment to implement ano preserve the wildlife corridor: 14-33-59 A pr001-8m of on -going monitoring to ensure that the corridors are functio► in..4-33-60 j to allow individuals. to cross: and populations to remain in contact. I 4. Perneolal action to correct and; inadequacies: by enlarging or creating new, I4.3341 corridors, or reintroduction of target species, if deemed necessary For a dFs:cription of adecuate wildlife corridors, please see Paul Beier's core peer►t_• su:+rrrtted for the southern half of the FTC, and Peter Bow�ler�s. con'Irrcents• on tr►e GreSer.t 'JrTC C,EIF:;'115 C►icl:. Zembal Of l► F,,1S rs• ai..c+ 5 resource, for specific wildlife corridors. in the coastal area of Orange County. A wildlife corridor IS a 4-33-s2 pjer-e Cif hbGtt5t v.;'1th Vegetation and topoorapnu that facilitates the rn0V. plants ano ar►rrnal5 from one large patty, of suitable habitat to another lar`ce pater, of s;u,t8•_'+le habliet t,Wurnt Oreent► it, iroe Pv t 2 Adoption of the above program would be a positive and feasible mitigation for the effects of urbanization ano corridor construction. 'The individual open space dedications by area developments do not discount the tact that wildlife habitat continues to shrink in size in the south county. The County's(sic) 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." Tech App. 5, p.64 Implementing the wildlife corridors will increase the stability of the remaining natural open spaces, thin, offsettinq some the worst impacts of the three propose roads. In contrast, the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR/EIS do nothing t mitigate for the effects of the roads, and are so minimal as to be legally inadequate under CEQA Wetlands Mitigations- Mitigation for distrubanc:es to wetlands; should be in the same watershed. Instead of mitigations, the DEIP/EIS promises a future "Conceptual wetlands mitiqetion plan". This is unsatisfactory under the bent of circumstances, but in Orange County, where the OC Planning Commission routinely upholds tract maps extirpating wetlands and replacing natural drainages with culverts, it is ludicrous. A vague promise of a future plan to mitigate is not a mitigation. who will decide whether the mitigation plan is adequate" The mitigation plan models mentioned in Technical Appendix 5 on pg. 73 are Pelican Hill Road, Aliso Viejo (probably the ACWHEF aionq Aliso Creek.?, and Salt Creek The best that can be said for any of these is that the worst is yet to come These are examples of bad plans driven by the necessity of some developer to find somewhere to mitigate wetlands imr-acts, regyrdlecss of ,A,,hether- the recipient area is appropriate or in need of mitigation► Tneu confirms our fears arlout ,that the wetlands mitigation plan for the SJHTC will he. 4-33-63 4-33-64 Hydrology: again the mitigation for effects of increased runoff is a "Conceptual Drainage Study" to be aporoved bu staff sornewhere doM'n the line. This is completely inadequate for all watersheds, ano especiallu h'ith regards to Legune Canyon The downstream residents from Aliso Viejo development along El Toro Pd have been strugy',irn-, fe, several years to have the County and the developer live up 4-3345 to the condition► "No net increase in peel: runoff in Laguna Cannon." Years of public heSrinos, staff conferences. promises. etc. have pessed. and there is stiff 0 0 L��rra�Zr�rrf�li, �rH: Page t 4 a Pollution in Urban Storrnwater Runoff" suggests a series of measures, from oil/water separators, detention/retention basins, grassy swales with regular 4-33-70 maintenance, and combining runoff with sanitary se,�.fer water in conjunction with e more efficient method of wastewater treatment (see exhibit 5). What effect will the current housing slowdown have on the cash flow for the I 4-33-71 Corridor? Truck traffic: The statements with regards to truck usage are inconsistent and self-contradictory. On page 2.16 the DEiR/EIS states that trucks are -not expected to use the tolina.y due to the steep grades and tolls. Hoy;,ever, in the financial 4-33-72 studti (Tech Appendix 7) trucks are assumed to be 25% of the traffic. is that an abnormally loy.,.* percentage of truck usage, The policy of allov,,•ing truck traffic is in direct opposition to Point 2 of the Environmental and Community impacts of the "Joint Policy statement for the San 4-33-73 Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, No!,ember 8, 1988", endorsed berg the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. If truck traffic will avoid the tollroad, questions are raised about impacts to the parallel route: Y1--hich are not explorer in the document. Anyone driving the 1-605 �,,•ith its. heevy mix of trucks is a;Afare of the unpieas:antness of driving a passenger 4.33-74 vehicle on a roaaway dominated by large trucks. In adaition to the sight distance and passing problems, there is an unusual amount of fugitive debris fallen from trucks which is constantly assaulting cars. In view of these points, the option of not allowing truck traffic should be explored in the EIR/EIS. Would it be possirile to eliminate the auxiliary lanes for climbing and thus reduce the environmental impacts of the road? What would be the effect on the parallel routes of increasing the proportion of trucks? Would there be an Effect on the viability of the Aliso-Viejo Town Center? 4-33-75 L&gum 6reertt-,-It, irr.• no adequate runoff control from the new development. What has been constructed is a large non-functional detention basin planned to fit into a now -deleted cloverleaf onramp for the SJHTC. The Conceptual Drainage Study must be circulated to the public, with a minimum 30 day review time provided and adequate provision that if it is inadequate, construction on the road will not occur In the Response to Comments, p.4-19, the answer indicates that anywhere from 60-109 acres on new pavement (three miles x 220-300' wide) will drain into Laguna Canyon. On page 28 of Technical Appendix 2(b), the hydrology study, the ' estimate for length of corridor draining into Laguna Canyon is 19,300 ft., well over three miles. The water quality Tech Appendix• 2(c) on page 3 calculates 16,000' x 210' width for pavement draining into Laguna Canyon; incidentally the shortest distance and narrowest width The range is from about 77 to 1.30 acres of new pavement (not counting n+idened LCR and E1 Toro, nor Park . Ride facility, nor the Toll Plaza). On p.4-42 in regard:, to a question on water quality, the answer states, "...the EPA also considers the impact of contaminants not significant if the ratio of impervious roadway surface to the total watershed area is less than one percent of the total drainage, ar-ni if runoff is directed over a vegetated channel." The Laguna Canyon watershed is about 6020 acres, thus even the most unrealistic. l05 estivate of pavement brinos the total above the 1% level. This is a significant impact not identified nor dealt with in the DEIR/EIS. Runoff in the lower reaches of Laguna Canyon below El Toro Rd. ocuus in a dirt channel which runs trrrough residential and rural -type land uses, and ends. up or, Main Beach where children play in it, and sea birds wash off and arinF., before it enters the tla'"irre Life Refuge Runoff betvveen the Corridor and El Toro Rd, if proposed to be in grasp. -lined ditches, also poses a significant threat to wildlife.. 8,, design, the..e ditches, and the vegetation, v,•ill be heavy metal traps. Let us not set up mini -Kestersons in the canyons! The entire water quality discussion, from "Incremental degradation of water quality in Upper Newport bay" to the offhand iugestiorr of grass -lined ditches, is callous and inadequate. We cannot continue to perpetu4te the aurrrping of tovic pollutants into our streams and oceans. The cumulative impacts of the toxic pollutants in the runoff all three corridors, with the increased traffic.: theca will attract, is a problem much larger than the DEIR/EiS admits. Tne Local Government Corrirro's-ion publication, "Controlling Toxic 14-33-GS 4-33-68 4-33-67 4-33-68 4-33-69 1 144ira Laguna Graenbelt, Inc Page 15 Page 5-1. Traffic Projections-SOCTAM- The statement is made that "toll road traffic volumes on the Corridor are anticipated to be 10% to 20% lower than toll -tree volumes." This is based on surveys of the Orange County population. The 4-33-78 analysis must be expanded. Other locations should be examined to determine the effect of tolls on volume since the surveys may not be completely reliable. Further, the survey needs to examine willingness to pay in the face of other 4-33-79 potential air quality measures, particularly the imposition of parking fees. What will the people pay in tolls if they also have to pay to park at work? Does the IN to 20 o reduction include the 20io of the regional through traffic from other a --so counties? Paae 6-9. Growth Management Plan- This section overstates the inclusion of the Corridor in me Growth Management Plan. The Corridor is included only as it is a 4-33-81 part of the adopted MPAH, not as a specific or desired solution. Paae 6-9. Status of Land Use Plans and Development -South Orange County- The limitation of potential growth including impacts to the Area of Benefit (AOB) is imprecise An analysis is required which identifies the sources of the potential 4-3"2 traffic throughout the entire County, including potential users of the Aliso Viejo employment center. Paae 6-1 1. Area of Benefit- As shown in the discussion of Page 6-8, the statement that "...development of the committed land uses is not contingent on construction of the Corridor" is simply not true. Without the Corridor, Allso Viejo 4-33-M at a minimum requires only a supplemental EIR and potentially fewer units. Page 6-12: Orange County and the Surrounding Region- Where is the analysis to support the statement that "...construction of the Corridor is not expected to impact the amount or pattern of planned growth in Orange County by facilitating 4-334m regional access from the South"? The employment center in Aliso Viejo may depend on wortiers from this area and the growth of this area may rely on the Corridor. Paae 7-1. Cumulat ive impacts- As mentioned in discussion of Page 6-9, the AOB 1 4-3345 is too imprecise for usage in this analysis. Lpune Greenbelt, Inc Pop146 Page 2-16: Truck traffic- The statement is made that trucks are not expected to use the toliway due to steep _ -des and tolls. This will cause a disproportionate amount of trucks on the parallel ro es, SR-1, Moulton Pkwy, 1-5 and 1-405, plus other arterials. Anyone who has driven the 1-605 with its heavy mix of trucks San attest to the unpleasant driving conditi especially for passenger car , cluding sight distance problems and the 1 e amounts of fugitive material lost fro rucks and thrown into windshields. Co ul e auxiliary lanes be dispensed wi if trucks were simply barred from the fa ity? The EIR/EIS should discuss the tion of not allowing trucks on the Corri r, and the effects on parallel routes. The policy of allowing t k traffic is in direct opposition to Poi 2 of the Environmental and Community I acts of the "Joint Policy Statement fo the San Joaquin HiIIs Transportation Corrid ", November 4, 1988, endorsed by the ies of Newport Beach and Irvine. Page 2-51: Laguna Canyon and El Toro Road Interchanges- The rationale for requiring interchanges at both locations is weak. The only rationale listed is distance, "deletion of either interchange would result in access to the Corridor being further away..." Since the increased distance is less than 1 mile, this rationale does not stand A full analysis is required to balance the environmental damage caused by two interchanges located in close proximity against the requirement for uses to drive one additional mile for access. Page 4-1 12: Archeological/Paleontological Resources- The conclusion that "with the inclusion of tree project mitigation measures, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts would occur" seems inconsistent with the earner statement (pace 4-1 10) that "...five sites ... would be directly affected by construction and be totally destroyed." No recovery plan can ever guarantee that all significant elements of a site are recovered. Destruction of a site is permanent and potentially significant unless the sites are insignificant. Emergency archeology can never deliver the data that fully planned study can give since the reason for the examination of the site is not to test scientific hypotheses, but merely to save as much as possible. Further analysis is required to justify the finding of "no Impact", including discussion of "new or scientific archeology." 4-33-70 U�-Mzffi • s leganeGreenbelt, Inc Page 16 Appendix A, Page 1. Proposed Action- Why is the statement made that "(u)noer the No Build Alternative, the Corridor would not be built nor the 1-5 widened"? 4-33-M which widening of the 1-5 does this address? Appendix A, Page I Section 4(f) Properties- The statement "(s)ection 4(f) resources are not considered to be constructively used where the alignment for the transportation project was established prior to the public acquisition of the 4(f) resource or where the 4(f) resource was concurrently planned with the transportation project" is both not true and not necessary, The statement is not true as demonstrated in recent legal actions and confirmed by a summary prepared by the Orange County Environmental Agency (OCEMA) for a meeting with Senator Alan Cranston on May 29, 1990 attended by members of the Transportation Corridor Agency. The Summary states that "(f)ederal courts have held that Section 4(f) applies to parts, established prior to final FHWA approval of a highway, even if the parks were planned in full contemplation of the highway." The statement is riot rieedeo sir►ce tree remainder of tr►e Appenoix A attempts to show that the 4(f) rule is being satisfied N.LLc_A There are no mitigations proposed for any of the noise impacts to natural areas, parks, etc. In fact, the entire subject of noise impacts to recreation or wildlife is treated very lightly Appendix A, Table A , p.24, summarizes noise impacts to 41f) resources. in 6 of the 10 areas considered, the noise is expected to increase more than 20db, from below to significantly above the 65db level. Despite that, the Table concludes that none of the areas would be 'substantially impaired' by this jump in noise levels. We disagree with that conclusion, especialiy for Aliso-Wood Canyon Regional Park, Sycamore Hills, and Laguna Laurel. One of the reasons people seek out natural open space areas is to be able to escape the din of civilization, to feel peaceful, to again be able to hear low birdsows. The DEIR/EIS is also deficient in its treatment of noise impacts or, animals In lieu of requiring extensive noise -related studies, we suggest that berms topped with natural vegetation be included along the roadway through natural areas to reduce the noise impacts. An especially sensitive area will be the stretch of roadway west of Laguna Canyon Road up to the ridgeline, as the road will be elevated above much of the canyon. 4-33-s7 Appendix A, Paoe 31. Sycamore Hills Open Space- Under Noise Effects, two 4" lepune Greenbelt, Inc Pogo 17 consecutive sentences contradict each other. The EIR says the Corridor "...would 11 not substantially impair the activities, functions, or attributes of this resource", while the City of Laguna Beach says "noise from the Corridor will 'substantially 4-33-89 depreciate the serenity of the recreation experience within Sycamore Hills"'. Where is there any analysis to judge the merits of these two conflicting claims? Appendix A, Page 33: Laguna Laurel Dedication Areas- Under Noise Effects the statement is made that the noise will "not impair the activities, functions, or attributes of this resource." What is the basis of this statement, what potential �90 activities are evaluated? Appendix A, Page 33 Sycamore Hills Open Space- What is the rationale for concluding that there is no "...constructive use of the Sycamore Hills Open Space"? 4.33-91 The discussions preceeding indicate that there is a definite constructive use Appendix A, Paqe 46: Laguna Laurel Dedication Area- This dismissal of alternative alignments based on the statement that any alternative "...would align the Corridor through larger areas of the Dedication Area, resulting in greater 4-33-92 Impacts to the resource" is simplistic and may not be true. An analysis is required to determine whicri resources are affected In alternative alignments and which alignment causes the smallest impact. Appendix A, Paqe 47. Measures to Minimize Harm- As discussed earlier, consider 4-33-93 the bannina of all truck traffic. Appendix A, Attachment B, Page 1: Cooperative Planning the 4(f) Context- As discussed earlier, this is irrelevant to the 4(f) rule. The fact that the parks and Corridor were 'cooperatively planned" and that "the parks and other open space 4-33-94 areas in the south County area did not come first" does not lessen the requirements under Section 4(f). Appendix E, Page 1: Cumulative Impacts- As discussed earlier, the AOB boundary I4-33-95 is too imprecise for this analysis Air Qu3IJ14 The rationale for not buildinq HOV lanes until after the year 2000 undermines the claims that the corridor will have a beneficial impact on air 14-33-96 0 leguneOreenbelf, Inc POP 18 quality in the basin (see discussion under Alternatives, p.5 these comments). 14-33-96 Furthermore, the intentional planning for construction "later' leads to a repeat of the short-term construction impacts, with additional environmental impacts not considered in the DEIR/E15. So called 'short-term' impacts,can include fugitive dust coating native plants, increased sedimentation into the watersheds, noise and disturbance, security fencing which impedes wildlife movements, heavy equipment tearing up habitat, new temporary access roads, etc. Traffic slowdowns can be expected, even if construction does not intrude into the roadway ( e.g. recent construction along 1-5 in the vicinity of Jamboree Rd ), decreasing local air quality. These short term impacts thus become repeated environmental insults. The EIS must consider the effects of stepwise construction, and impose additional mitigation measures. 4-33-97 Technical Appendix 3. Table 3, estimates of contaminant emissions, is deficient in not includino the Demand Management Alternative, nor a column for present day 4-33.98 concentrations (actual). Without a 1990 column, how can anyone decioe if the air is going to aet better or worse with or without the corridor? These comments were Drepared by the signators for the Board of Directors. If triers are questions, the office number is (714) 494-8190. E 1 isabeth M. Brown, Ph.D Sincerely, �r6�sMd�- Norman Grossman FAST CORRIDOR FACTS SAN JOAa)UIN HILLS TRANSPOk ATION CORRIDOR EASTERN TRANSPORTATION SCHEDULE: Ground breaking in 1991; completion 1994 and 1995. LOCATION: Extension of Corona Del Mar (73) Freeway from the John Wayne Airport area to San Juan Capistrano, between and parallel to Interstate 5 and Pacific Coast Highway. Length is approximately 15 miles. NUMBER OF Three to five each direction, depending on final LANES: alternative chosen. COST: Total estimated cost (1990 S); $667 million. SCHEDULE: Ground -breaking in 1991. CORRIDOR The ETC will take approximately four years to construct. LOCATION: Begins at the 91 Freeway near the Riverside County line; parallels the Newport (55) Freeway, splitting into two legs near Santiago Canyon Road, the west leg ending at Jamboree Road near I-5 and the cast . leg connecting with the Laguna (133) freeway at I-5. Length totals approximately 23 miles. NUMBER OF Three to four in each direction, depending on final LANES: design. COST: Total estimated cost (1990 $); $630 million. SCHEDULE: Ground-brealdng on FCPP section (7.6 miles FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION between Antonio Pkwy. and Portola Pkwy. North) CORRIDOR in late 1990; completion in early 1994; ground- breaking on remainder, 1992: completion, 1996. LOCATION: Connects with cast leg of Eastern Transportation Corridor, paralleling and connecting with 1-5 near the San Diego County border. Length is approxi- mately 30 miles. NUMBER OF Three to four in each direction, depending on final LANES: design. COST: Total estimated cost (1990 $); $746 million. FUNDING: Nearly 50% through fees assessed on new development in arras of benefit surrounding the Corridors. Remainder, construction bonds. paid off through toll revenue. (Small amount of state and/or federal funding it also possible.) ,gfbn canon occurxe as of 7/l/W fix A l b; t I w0000w,!!-' 60 I r� 60 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY J • I LOS ANGELES COUNTY ( i / 71 1 I i RWt Kwv t I s \ 91 57 91 ;► \ RIVERSIDE COUNTY 60 I� \s,yl' i 1s I J � � \ I KATEILA AVE yAd - �'S}� r SS ' ORANGE COUNTY \ Goa"EN 22 i 40 � 4• / 55 YFRWY 73 g� 405 � � OQO �• t33 ' ��fl�00Qff TRANSPORTATION j i QQQ000- 5 i CORRIDORS 4400 ; 0 O EASTERN 0 A FOOTHILL 0 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS existing roads I' t .. proposed roads FUTURE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS OF ORANGE COUNTY •^ 1 JM� M ' SAN DI s Courw ",.ovorroF JTYII]=:i:j You It s ty.� + ♦ i �•f�J�f Can Make .. Remember the Olympics Miracle? — No traffic jams or freeway congestion — Faster commutes to work — Less hassle and aggravation What happened during the Olympia wasn't a fluke. It was a result of all of us pitching in and doing our part, either by taking the bus, car- pooling, working modified hours, or driving less. And it can be like that all the time. The Olympia proved that if we all play even a small role, our streets and freeways can move quickly and efficiently, with less wear and tear on our cars and our nerves. • Nbu can do something about it. How? SCAG's Regional Advisory Council has recently inaugu- rated a program to inform Southland commuters on what they can do to improve the local trans- portation picture.'The Olympia Legacy: Let's Keep It Moving;' features a video program and Speakers' Bureau for presentations to your service club, business, religious organization, school, a group of neighbors —anyone who's interested in improving mobility. It's easy and its free. Just give us a call at 1213) 385-1000 and we'il be happy to schedule a presentation to your group. Let's do Itl Let's keep It moving! Alftk lfcal fOUTHERn CAtIFORnin A//OCIATIOn OF GOVERnMEnTl 6XA; b; r g_" a. L� 7" r1.. i � 1 j� ram• . '�� �--•—�.�� v Corridor ROW A. Ir I le G�/A �• ��O R re es Ava le ._%lj• s tlema prior ifl alm,-an) 1969 o 4red2d bdwt- F4rwq 1*9 -#Ad Auy 199C Smjw) M LEGEND O - e1rr,,4 a; fuel r•WACTn0- A.,yu r Im A - Dudleya Multicauiis C - Chorizanthe Staticoides Chrysacantha Area of Impact IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - PACIFIC PARK DRIVE CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE v O Ca1�4arn�� Gr k."tc►w' o 6-5� U= Lore, SCALE IN FEET r%mrmmml 0 . 420 840 FIGURE 4.7.3 4-76 1�xhl-6;t3 Corridor ROW i Q t�J yrrot� PAcr tv p �al�fvrnir Gn�tcxtt�ncr p lS2n D'ayo)cacttf Wltn LEGEND 2 - Forested Wetlands 5 - Scrub/Shrub Wetland A - Dudleya Multicaulis ® Areas of Impact SCALE IN FEET 0 420 840 i IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - FIGURE 4.7.4 EL TORO ROAD/LAGUNA CANYON ROAD CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE 4-77 i C A c U c C0 Q tsl,iorn�t 6nzt;a4tht� LEGEND A _ Dudleya Multicaulis SCALE IN FEET ' C . Chorizanthe Staticoides Chrysacantha r%mr■ onn Area of impact p ago eao IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - FIGURE 4.7.5 SAND CANYON AVENUE A CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE 4-78 F Corridor ROW HO `— t rA ' F LEGEND A - Dudleya Multicaulis , E -'Barn Owl F - Raptor Nesting Area SCALE IN FEET 0 H - California Gnatcatcher ® Area of lrnpact o 420 840 IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES FIGURE 4.7.6 EAST OF SAND CANYON AVENUE . CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE +� 4-79 2Ho �9v 0.2ac Corridor ROW I I 214 1 1 ' r � I I - r� G.7ac �� � � -_ -r . • F Site *NOTE- Construction of Pelican Hilt Road will impact these areas prior to the proposed corridor. These acreages reflect impacts from construction of the corridor only. SCALE IN FEET \ 0 420 $40 FIGURE 4.7.7 r� d 1 e f fr _ 2 `� 4 � Corridor ROW r 0.3ac No Acreages\ Available i/ 1 0.2 is 0.2aC ow Ir l+ / / 2 I � Pd . OA H *0`a H O � t - �i�(�iTIT --r3iSeC • Sac 0.4ac N s LEGEND .. t rNc1zJ SePir,ber-Octobr. 19>c 1 - Rlverine intermittent Streambed 6 - Saltwater Marsh Areas of Impac 2 - Forested Wetlands A - Dudleya Multicaulis r Potential Mitiga 4 - Emergent Persistent Marsh O H - California Gnatcatcher—�L 6 - Scrub/Shrub Wetland C - Chorizanthe Staticoides Chrysacantha L - Least Bells Vireo IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES - BONITA CREEK, BONITA RESERVOIR, SAN DIEGO CREEK CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE 4-80 j, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION REGION NINE 1 j11„Y is CALIFORNIA DIVISION P.O. Box 1913 Sacramento, California 95809 Ms. Belinda Blacketer 1174 South Coast Highway Laguna Beach, California 92651 Dear Ms. Blacketer: Aa#BOMA CAwOOMu MaVAOA M •wu� Over ArlalCAr sAroA July 19,*1988 1M RMY 119nw TO HB-CA File: FAP-73 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Thank you for your letter informing,us of the grading work on State: Route 73 through the Aliso Viejo project. You are correct that no draft environmental impact statement (EIS) has been circulated and/or approved. The County is currently developing this documentation. You pointed out that the grading. While this may be strictly to determine corridor was done so as corridor alignments. statement must address a meaningful discussion alternatives. FEIR 088 and FEIR 267 did not address be true, FHWA review of FEIR 267 would if the process for selection of a not to arbitrarily dismiss alternative The Federal environmental impact all reasonable alternatives and provide of the rationale for dismissing various The FHWA will review the DEIS and determine if the impacts of all reasonable alternatives have been fully evaluated. Project alternative selection decisions must be made in such a way as to not be influenced by actions taken by the County outside of the NEYA process. We have recently been advised by Caltrans that the area which was graded for the Aliso Viejo development may have impacted biological resources which normally receive consideration under NEYA. While we have advised the County that any future Federal -aid dollar: for SR-73 I7ould be in Jeopardy if the subject work has compromised NEPA considerations, we! cannot prevent the County from authorizing grading where Federal -aid dollars are not involved. Thank ,you for your comments. We will forward them to the County and California Department of Transportation so they will be aware of your concerns. Sincerely yours. For Bruce E. Can n Division Administrator (213) 620-3755 July 8, 1988 File: ORA-73 SJHTC 12209-102540 Mr. Jerry Bennett Transportation Corridor Agency 3347 Michelson Dr., Suite 450 Irvine, CA 92715 Dear Mr. Bennett: Caltrans has completed its study of potential NEPA-protected resources located within the proposed'San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor area, a portion of which is currently being graded for the Aliso Viejo development. Our studies revealed the following for the area between El Toro Road and Alicia Parkway. Archaeological Resources An archaeological site (CA-ORA-389), determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is located within the limits of the study area. The precise location of the site is illustrated on the SJHTC "APE" maps on file at the County EMA. This site is included in the SJHTC Phase II (test level) RFP being prepared by the County. It is anticipated that under a normal processing approach it will take approximately 6 to 8 months (from the time the contract is awarded) to determine the eligibility of the site. If it is found to be eligible, and if it cannot be avoided, it may be necessary to salvage the site. This work is anticipated to take approximately 4 to 6 months. Any disturbance to this site prior to the completion of the 106 processing could jeopardize future state and federal funding on the SJHTC. Biological Resources The Caltrans studies also identified two wetland systems within the Corridor study area. These wetlands are located along E1 i Mr. Bennett -2- July 8, 1988 Toro Creek and Aliso Creek. Before these areas are impacted, Section 404 permits would need to be processed through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 1601 permits would need to be processed through the Department of Fish and Game. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Fish and Game would also need to occur to determine the significance of the wetlands as well as to develop mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. Caltrans and FHWA would need to be involved in the consultation efforts. Four species currently listed as Candidate Category 2 species on the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List have also been identified within the study area. These species include the Many -stemmed Live Forever (Dudleya multicaulis), Orange County Turkish Rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides chrysacantha), Black - tailed gnatcatcher (Polioptila melanura californica), and San Diego Coast Horned Lizard (Phr nosoma coronatum blainvellei). The latter two species are also identified as being o "special concern" in the State of California. The locations of the populations or the sightings are illustrated in Figures 4-20 in the DEIR and in Chapter 2 of the "Biological Resource Analysis." Caltrans and FHWA normally consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game prior to initiating any action with potential to impact candidate species on the federal list of threatened and endangered species. Mitigation measures for impacts to candidate species proposed by these agencies is commonly incorporated into the overall mitigation program. It is our understanding that as of this writing, the area where the San Diego Coast Horned Lizard had been sighted has been graded and that a haul road has impacted about 301 of an intermingled population of Dudleya and Chorizanthe. In conclusion, our research has revealed the existence of an archaelogical site, wetlands, and candidate endangered species within the Corridor study area between E1 Toro Road and Alicia Parkway. It is incumbent upon the County and TCA to ensure that no disturbance occurs to these federally protected resourc-es, or prior to any disturbance, a mitigation package is developed and approved by both Caltrans and FHWA in order to preserve the opportunity for future state and federal funds/participation. Mr. Bennett _ -3- July Be 1988. All future communications on the three proposed Corridors related to environmental issues involving Caltrans should be directed to Jeff Bingham or Lew Bedolla of District 12. Very truly yours, RIGINPI SINNED BY RONG1 r �4SKI Senior Environmental Planner Environmental Planning Branch DH:rm cc: Glenn Clinton, FHWA-Division Lew Bedolla, District 12 Jeff Bingham, District 12 Robert Rende, OCEMA Pat Lee, OCEMA Elizabeth Brown, Laguna Greenbelt Andrette Adams, CAA :t1rr:�»�cics �imcfs ORANGE COUNTY r.tlxvlayJul) 2T•19811 LOCAL AND SOUTHLAND NEVUS a EDITORIAL PAGES Site for Mission Vism Co.'s Ailed, VNIo planted ciorywrilartity near atterataetion of El Toro Rood and Laguna Canyon Road. Builder Digs in Fragile Habitat Error Brings U.S. Warning on Toll Route ay JIM CARLTON Tine; Mary K"Wee rpM maW Mly CYl by a b i.iin ing eontrector through an environmentally sensitive area east of Laguna Canyon Ma prompted fe0enl officials to tarn that ermiar mru►es In the future may jeopardize federal funding for the San Joaquin Hula Transportation Corridor County officals said Tuesday th.t they acknowledged Inc error after state offtciao. who were conducting an enirit"Hiental Study dtocovere0 the art road a few weeks ago cutting through the arcs. Which r home to two rare plant Species and a threatened species of moats After the mistake was found. 1-06trah Highway Adminetratpn officals wined the County that more such er,ttrisices Could harm the county a chances of utnrung federal funding of up to 16♦i of the con of what will to be Calrforr ie s first toll road The cut iro r unit be m the same aennal sea a. rh. find•^g road and envnonMen ta l lots here to wd concerns &bowl the threat ta the hab.tat About/)a M lilies n !lob Srnee the h.r. Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is pruletted Its rust about $46: m0hur. to Budd. the federal money at mat unouna Ice about 1160 fft'.0r. Gncc . then. aunty officiaM have araered the rood —built to Mul material{ to and few the Al; 1'ir r� Construction era—toett"Wd off until State and Irdee.:.nr nonmrnt&l ImPact .i wCre• art ruenpltted for the .-menu whirr. a the ougKl of public hearings on a prgesad roust olignment County pnenntn who Said the developer and Subcontractor did s*ln Olsge f..eew.a rleaea overid.arwa aderast, n .Y.n.raar, SMW- A condi0ete for The fodaat onow good soocies lot. a XW nuts species of{C opal concern co —on con ION- o S in the wrote the aAopoc," of ins Gerrit harmer nuar0 has boar, louts in yw Orange County it protert2vi; Ind ry cocoa Susan SGYO and a Woo toured in graaotoeie coniferous forest brand-loo ad-OaOlerds and n ID-Wda along aanay vreahaa. No t PW" to ROM are annealed to loN of haaut and on rwd wMutlo nose. M�rY-pw-weal /�Myp Aid4rs nhfehiooidel Moaitn. erloperr*l and eagle eutvow n ONat*l wwAand ae"W pear Goo W location M Orange County Came dsl aaa taaur Mad+ sae -port lay. Woo Canyon. Praha Sae OvwW eager &rgrvfrant Senior, w Ora Se t:o a ly. @No known n Areas os Los A -Von fish Diego Ind fen Mradro It"4111 Mstw*l history NOW snlacedant TMasn. asw"Su fhant. "thing wrong. will revise liewedcounty peoic vi s to en• awe that Such envu*lMenlally atnaitivr are art prdwetwd in the future Carol Cael6. a tanner for the county Environmental Management Agency. said the Contractor. whose nanM she sad she did not know. cut the hauling road while working on grading for the Mission Vloho Cc'& 30.000•horM Alm Vella plaetna0 Community Soul% at EI Tbto Kid The rood Cut Mrwlgh 101E of two plant specie the many•&temened audleya and Turkish tugging which are both candidates for the federal lot of threatened and endangered species according to State Department of Transportation senior Planner Roehald J Kowookn n Loa A ngelM rise" e" 8MA/Ur page e TtarltMh saw jets fawimrMMt ataricaesN Sep aRryoaaenrAa) MNrtat: choperral and age" sera' on sandstone Rennet formation In OrSr,go County: "ones saacn Akan . Lahr r+larfM.liewport otrar d rears: texcu s dray n ora"County (aatwr*l hlotdrT Meer: oraonve to Aafnae Csiwitr. Throats: do sloe "I - aawrars to gfavg LAM n I. am —?— Motor *"me in use tiara doaVron Must Transportation Cenneor MR two prwl. a Aenviret. tga—Mr, Jadoren who Tran000natrn German eadod SOaho oaunry a Sasana plop ere Analoi /ka11-ors. • IMvorenas.. ll7F—loa0 d fwa.+we earolo+M Er-+er,nrmar wren me" Kati and a&prevpd the V'eeail etpvnem site- 0 Coo sterrnber. taa3—lowerwn Priced Carder in tf- note Rahway &vstam nrknp it okpele for State and tgaat enure a Jefwor►. 1M1—Cayraca neivod Orsngs Courier and M oterar u ! snsa ekpelo fw a rod roue rnarttnion Meesct. dhsa+nl n *livers to fWand M N"ownoq N 316%dC wM out O Jiay. 1MT—Saderel Mgh-sr Aufw irstntrn aww letter Merpeted to anon It ofe fen JeeOu.n erw mute aver aapoNd Iansr and S W mot carers Mere-arhnaprw pegnn Maws a Octebor. 1101a7—sae Les"tues vtMW Nsader UK Media n the county Orange C univ Teonaportatrrn CafuMUpn vow to insat end ew ow the Matt a fulp lea M" • Jway 20—inn y r-o aCAaduW pualtc we ~IV -ca Rand s- a ~I V non 114 Scott" to So sad *lard of f•IpervOM Snd the pantry adnwvsrored TrsrwSonnrn Canrda Agencies M actin n October W O �l��33� z� k - �! l � � t • _ .i JI il Klit; a 08 �: :p� Y�:�� x��Y,� 1 IpiIli � y ` 4 t Ic �it�E34:����t���sa�r��i�: ENS 6r •/� -��r Via- ��>t �w�� ���w� �� ;.���lrtYt =� :� �!� ���� w s Y let Y � ��E�6�����i���l�i! F�l���i�6l�•i����3� 0 Page 13 TT 13247 of the Tifth District Road Completion Program. Said agreement Shall ' provide: a. The fee shall be as tstalsingle-family i�elebfamil Board zesidentialervisors dwellinq�d shall not exceed $750 perg Y unit. b. Subdivider's obligation to pay fees would arise only after the County establishes the fee program bpt not prior to issuance of building permits. c. Subdivider shall furnish, prior to issuance of any building permits, surety bonds, letter of credit, money or other such security approved by the Director, EMA, to assure payment of the fees. d. Applicant's obligation to pay the fee would be extinguished if the fee program is not established within 3 years of recordation. (R) 25. Prior to the recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall design (SS) and construct the ultimate half -width improvements on the south side of the centerline of Aliso Creek Road (Secondary Arterial Highway Standard Modified - 90-foot right of way). The improvements shall be provided from Glenwood Drive westerly to the easterly tract boundary of Tract No. 12094 approximately 700 feet east of E1 Toro Road. The improvements shall include climbing lanes where grades exceed 61 and a transition to Primary Arterial Standards from westerly of and to Glenwood Drive. (R) 26. Prior to the recordation of a final map, subdivider shall provide a (SS) cash deposit for 25% of the cost of the design and construction of traffic signals at Aliso Creek Road and Street A` westerly, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division. Should a Mello -Roos CFD be formed that includes the cost of this signal, the cash deposit shall be refunded to the subdivider. (R) 27. Prior to the recordation of a final map, subdivider shall install all (S) underground traffic signal conduits (e.g.4 signals, phones, power, loop detectors, etc.) and other appurtenances (e.g., pull boxes, etc.) needed for future traffic signal construction at the intersec- tions listed above, and as needed for future interconnection with adjacent intersections, all in accordance with plans and specifica- tions meeting the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division. Estimated costs for intersection work, done as part of this condi- tion, will be deducted from any cash -in -lieu payments required as a condition of approval of this tentative map for corresponding signals. SPECIAL SJBTC CONDITIONS (G) 28. Prior to the recordation of final map, or the issuance of any grading (R) permit adjacent to the SJETC, whichever occurs first, the subdivider Tr 13247 Page 14 (5S) shall prepare a drainage plan for the San Joaquin Hills Transporta- tion Corridor portion of the project which meets the approval of the Acting Manager, EMA/Transportation Corridor Group. (G) 29. Notwithstanding what is shown on the map, prior to the recordation of (SS) a final map or the issuance of any grading permit, either of which is adjacent to the SJHTC, whichever comes first, the subdivider shall grade the SJHTC within the tentative tract boundaries in accordance with a precise geometric design plan with full dimensions approved by the Manager, EMA/San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Group. tR) 30. All acoustical studies which address noise impacts from the San (G) Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor shall meet County of Orange and (SS) Federal Highway Administration standards and criteria all in a manner meeting the approval of the EMA Director of Regulation or his designee. (R) 31. Notwithstanding what is shown on the map, prior to the recordation (SS) of a final map adjacent to or containing the SJHTC, the right-of-way for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor shall be offered for dedication in fee to the County of Orange in a manner meting the approval of the Acting Manager, EMA/Transportation corridor Group. HOUSING ELEMENT (R) 32. Prior to the recordation of the first final map, a housing program (S) shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Advance Planning. Said program shall include guarantees that at least: 69 units, further specified as: 28 Low 28 Medium I 13 Medium II shall be sold to and occupied by families in the target income category as defined by the Housing Element, or that a transfer of 69 units of excess affordable unit credit, further specified as 28 Low, 28 Moderate I, and 13 Moderate II, has been authorized by the owner of said credit for this map. MULTIPLE MAPS (R) 33. Pursuant to Section 66452.6, SMA, multiple maps on this project shall (SS) not exceed the number determined by the Manager, Subdivision Division. Further, each final map shall include the portion of the tentative tract map that meets the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division. TT 11797 Page 15 a, (R) 29. Prior to the recordation of a final map, subdivider shall install all (S) underground traffic signal conduits (e.g., signals, phones, power, loop detectors, etc.) and other appurtenances (e.g., pull boxes, etc.) needed for future traffic signal construction at the intersec- tions listed above, and as needed for future interconnection with adjacent intersections, all in accordance with plans and specifica- tions meeting the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division. Estimated costs for intersection work, done as part of this condition, will be deducted from any cash -in -lieu payments required as a condition of approval of this tentative map for corresponding signals. SPECIAL SJHTC CONDITIONS (G) 30. Prior to the recordation of the first final map, or the issuance of I•� (R) any grading permit, whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall (SS) prepare a drainage plan for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor portion of the project which meets the approval of the Acting Manager, EMA/Transportation Corridor Group. (G) 31. Because a portion of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor ^ (SS) will be required to be graded and right-of-way dedicated as part of 11J1 the project, notwithstanding what is shown on the map, prior to the recordation of the first final map or the issuance of any grading permit, whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall prepare a precise geometric design plan with full dimensions for the portion of the corridor across the map. The subsequent grading plan will then be based on the approved design plan, all in a manner meeting the approval of the Acting Manager, EMA/Transportation Corridor Group.* *NOTE: The subdivider is cautioned that Caltrans is reviewing the bench criteria for the corridor and may require Caltrans standard 20'-wide benches rather than the County 61- and 12'-wide benches. (G) 32. Because a portion of Aliso Creek Road at the Transportation Corridor (SS) will be required to be graded and right-of-way dedicated as part of the project, notwithstanding what is shown on the map, prior to the recordation of the first final map or the issuance of any grading permit, whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall prepare a precise geometric design and lane plan with full dimensions for the portion of Aliso Creek Road across the Corridor. The subsequent grading plan will then be based on the approved lane plan, all in a manner meeting the approval of the Acting Manager, EMA/Transportation Corridor Group in consultation with the Manager, Traffic Engineering Division. (G) 33. Prior to the recordation of the first final map or the issuance of (R) any grading permit, whichever occurs first, install a 10' x 5' public (SS) notification sign for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor on the east side of Aliso Creek Road in a location and design meeting the approval of the Acting Manager, EMA/Transportation Corridor Group. ' L TT 11797 Page 16 1 (G) 34. Any grading permit issued within the boundaries of the tentative (SS) tract map shall include half -width grading of the SJHTC from Aliso Creek Road to Alicia Parkway, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, EMA/SJHTC Group. 1 (R) 35. Because Caltrans will require a 20' rather than a 15' setback at (SS) locations where slopes are higher than 301, notwithstanding what is 1 shown on the map, prior to the recordation of an applicable final map, right-of-way dedication shall be made for the corridor in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, EMA/SJHTC Group. HOUSING ELEMENT (R) 36. Prior to the recordation of any final tract map or issuance of any 1 (S) building permit, whichever comes first, a housing program shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, Advance Planning. Said program shall include guarantees that at least: I 25% units, further specified as: 10% Low/Moderate 10% Moderate I 5% Moderate II shall be sold to and occupied by families in the target income category as defined by the Housing Element, or that a transfer of excess affordable unit credit, further specified as (10%) Low, (10%) Moderate I, and 5• Moderate II, has been authorized by the owner of said credit for this map. MULTIPLE MAPS (R) 37. Pursuant to Section 66452.6, SMA, multiple maps on this project shall (SS) not exceed the number determined by the Manager, Subdivision Division. Further, each final map shall include the portion of the tentative tract map that meets the approval of the Manager, Subdivision Division. v p C� °_ 4v' L ti C m y ^Y� O CFO/, C. ` T_ ` N t 4JRy O C4N/1 N /1 •+ N O N O Q Z 0 >, N C Q O N ac N c � V; J v -0O C vN ou; rcv j Qy�ELLY°o ti W M),ccu ���� zacrc �`= N c M� ��� °v Z �� O 3 B� E= a,L t ti�� a� tiyL E"V� '�N oEco�-�3 ..c n,N�2.8 a F0 �,a, W v c° c N ° ,U all W N rah =m 0 rl 5 c E� _ °z � v_°"b E 3-c _° o � v= e av v,a% o °'� r> 0 �E c 3 �' '" c ti x <� � = 0) CLo v c �c v ►- cl, E E c $�C o°a,= voz N ?. " E Zj L+ .' 4i S N r>C �+ C N C' ti Q = C O �j C v .N CO .0 'D € N ti ,c�c `y 5 ,, z'0 1 v� e ~ L v ° 3 ti T v a, } " c> �' Q[ �j N aC, —��5 >oov4E'c 't o"oct °p SS E��a �£ Qm m u2v ti v �s 3 v } ti0.5 �,> O a v y _ F E O Q� C� C t y ° = P -owl Yea vil m C 6^ to V O- L L C wf -. Q C �^ O C = to PC x u F 2 Cr z r N i - �• ti v0 N O R =0 OE a_ rr LrC v L Q. fG.+ '-'. ti NO >, U "we L - O 0 C GL 3 ti _ n c ad C O) �o �+ _C _� V r' L 5r . w own i .Y c E W H C s cq .0 wooC C O OLL 0.F I C O 0,N _ 'A O g OL ccpt �; E E i s C __ E o "' ry v v `1�' LL. s ti-off 0 E C c c rd G, v i i XZ' �° E C S < n �z ° ti aaE aLL CL ° g }�QC2 ¢,M w 1A M V 1 R< C C' Y Y Q) ;n U 5 W c a v 1 a O 615 —6 < L^C�§ u u u t t �u u u 1009-9Z9Z6 ND 'esaw MOD u v , laa»S UOIUIID Sb>= sa 2ua ! 6t/ sioppio.1 uol;egiodsue-a = � Q i � N M tly� • " _• i L_G' r o 0 o� ba�� ✓,��Z 383H U UvL)�uuas,x 3DdId u �j•- ,_^�•�1rM� � y._ _._j� l •4--y��!����,.�Y�,J'{m` '�� ;- Js�. Tt `i :'-• "�+'�i� �•�'•� ^w.s•�Z•A $%`♦=�e� G: �� '" _ �•'a.�'t �i3`•�� .'ems; � +; - `� r�L}ti{ � - __'I� �j/ 4" �_ - Y a •• 1_'.fywvr ram' ��9t�i- _ sy� � �" � �t �• r :� ►� /I7-� t � _ f r f zN ' - - +s.. � •fi'� ��� \ "^- " . (►. c �i •� ~# `rr..µJ' �--.�,�. b�iJ - -,- � �1 .:�'t s: �,�.t��- •`w•'f�1,-./�a--ice v .'.� �• • f--'T' � .1� � lot \ •-- � %-•. . y . .. _, <✓� � _� ' !";y . . • h - F ' �' riot .x� .- • _ � f • fp•,s't'�i � � 'J, .a. � � • _a-,r •f f :i �� .♦ Ri �/.� ia--� ..••• � �� �. � .• `u ''� _ +� Fry. .: �„�. S �; r • �- J �' • 1 �� . .jam_- �i^r y 3' ;:,�, 4•.a_.:�: :.._ w %� t j� J it vit IL Kc ' ♦ • _. • ��� �• ^" •..t ':tea• ... �'�" ,,,, • _ . .I • . I : ��'�" `x• � 'K•��� jr�p' �i. ,• •- ra .� -:�;. y.• � -�. �• �i�is¢..• • DNS „ K C• .•^ i�y,,�► =fit �. �1r`_ : 1� f. J[� � +�_ ``,�,`•'Y3` . _ r.'� f? •yL rf -•��+ „r. i • ,•r;,' �' •i 4 j� �• 1. `1 1"LtY!`"�*•�' 1 �:. ,C..` ��[ ' -• +f . �•` a -T. 16 t ATTACHMENT D • ' COORDINATE, CHEMICAL BONDING AND ADSORPTION Coordinate, Chemical Bonding and Adsorption (CCBA) is an innovative new process which has been developed by the San Diego Water Reclamation Agency for the treatment and reclamation of industrial wastewater, municipal wastewater, and hazardous waste. The process produces water which is clean enough for unrestricted recreational use, and converts the residual sludge from the treatment process into a valuable and useful lightweight ceramic aggregate. Thus, the CCBA process produces cleaner water than conventional primary treatment and does not create hazardous and useless solid waste, as conventional biological treatment plants do. The CCBA process adds clay, polyacrylic acid, and alum to wastewater. The mix is then flocculated and the heavy floc is settled out of the water in a clarifier. The water from the clarifier will meet secondary treatment requirements.- The sludge from the process is pumped from the clarifier and fired in a kiln, producing pellets of a ceramic material. The exhaust from the process is channeled back into the original mix, where the particulate matter becomes, once again, part of the floc which is ceramicized. The water from the CCBA process can be used for recreation and irrigation, and the ceramic aggregate can be best used for the construction industry (replacing cinder blocks). CCBA is now in its fourth stage of testing and evaluation, which began in June, 1986. Phase one demonstrated that the CCBA process can: 1. Treat and reclaim raw municipal wastewater economically. 2. Turn the sludge into a lightweight ceramic aggregate which has uses in the building and other industries. 3. Treat waste water at a quarter of the capital cost of an activated sludge secondary treatment facility. 4. Treat the same volume of wastewater in 25% of the space of a standard primary, secondary biological facility. 5. The operations and maintenance costs of the CCBA plant can be greatly reduced by the revenue from the sale of the resources (ceramic aggregate) recovered. Phase II studied the ability of metals and toxic organics from waste. Nearly 150,000 gallons was processed in the CCBA pilot of the chromium and silver, and the CCBA process to remove heavy mixed municipal and industrial of raw sewage from Tijuana, Mexico plant. The process removed 100% between 77% to 96% of all t7-x ,,1 iNovember 24, 1994 Trensportat.lon Corridor Agancles• 345 Clinton Street Costa news, Ca. 92626 Atto.: San Joaquin Hills EIP/ZIS Comments Gan than : After some difficulty I finally obt.sinod a copy _of the Draft EIP. for the Son Joaquin Hills Toll Road and the Biological As.s,essment. t.hereta. It is extremely difficult to comment. in such a short period of time on dc+curAmts sa inadequate, so full of errors., so 4-34-1 lac4ring in basic factual data and so completely biased. Furthermore, many s.ignific+ant odverae imperct.s <air quality, quality of life, noise pollution, loss of remaining wildlife, growth -inducing espe.ct.s, archeology, liquifaction, st•c.a simply are not ecY.nowledged as such. Why should the public be forced to cope with such a flawod project description and a taken Draft EIp. that is essentially a political product? Where is the analysis of reasonable alternatives as required by ZSQA3 What• will b: the-mfft+ct. in d4P=v%asAvd U9,09e of 4-34-2 designating the corridor as a toll road? What we have here Is a decmds old study that has fails►d to evaluate up-to-date: planning solutions, including all methods applicable- t.o this day and age. A good ids* would be a new study of long term solutions. that foster less dependence on the automobile. As for the current DEIR, I support, the **" Build Alternative". O83 FACT IOW S To SAH jo AQU I N HILLS TOLL R"D 1. FAILUPE TO COMPLY WITH CEQA. The alternatives t.o the proposed Corridor are not adequately analyzed and are insufficient in number. It is a fart. that many other alternatives. warrent. review. A 4-34-3 complet.e, well designed mass transit system for Orange County is but. one mandatory alternative. The DEIP. fails to describe and analyze. all reasonable alternatives and all reasonable altarnative routes to the 3JH Toll Road. .'.. OUTDATED MODE OF TP.AWSPYWTATION. The Toll Road is a further eyt,enslon of an out•d*tA&.d tronsport-*t.lon system which furthers. t.hc disast.erous commitment to fossil fuel burning vehicles. Their use should be discouraged, not ei►ooureged. Today this c%ount•ry is on the brink of war in the Mid -East because of our commitment to and 4-34-4 lnordinently heavy cons.umpt.ton of fossil fuels. It is time t-c+ rethink the role of the automobile and the course of planning for the Orange Canty arse. The Corridor will only increase traffic and congostion, and this at a time when alternatives to the oar are so vitally ne�tded. A now study and long Carm scolutlons tAot foster 4 "4 lass auto dapendance are needed. 4-34-51 4-34-T 4-34-8 S. L.A+CX OF NEED. The• heavy traffic ewunts, commarcial industrial development. and valor employment canters ere along the I-5, and that As where the overwhelming need i s . Orange County needs moss transit. along the I-5. More trains along the San Juan Capistrano t.a L.A. run, with numerous fe-edar rail lines on route, would alleviete the traffic congestion and crowding along that route. Destroying the San Joaquin Hills end Laguna Canyon is definita not In order and will not solve the problems wit-► the I-5. Furthermore, minimising regional through -traffic use of artAwriel highways Is mandatary in Orange County and would aliminate any end all need for the SJHTC. 4. PEOPLE WILL NOT DRIVE TOLL ROADS. I rewember recemntly taking a toll road from Philadelphia to Atlantic City --hardly any cars were on It! Later on someone In Atlantic City told me paopla living in t•he area didn't drive the toll road and pay the tolls, they toots the free route, one that. I dido't know existed. Undoubt.edly the toll revenues from the tJHTC cannot begin to pay the bonds for it be-c-suse numerous people won't drive It., and then the O.C. taxpayars will have to make up the difference. The SJHTC is not in tha public interest. The DEIR fails to prove that sufficient use and galls can be collected to justify this toll road. The DEIR fails to even attempt to c�onsidar the affects of the carridor's overnight status of becoming a toll road. It merely states an arroneous opinion when it says that the Corridor has bean aveluated as a toll facility. The trua significance of the Corridor being a toll road has nearer been addressed adequately. The affect of levying tolls will be. a reduced reliance on toll roads with an Increased reliance on other roods. Furthermore, toll roads should be decclarerd illegal k*ecoausa many taaxpayars cannot. afford the tolls and will be precluded from using tall roads. These end other factors will wean that the WHTv will only be usod during rush hours and will basically be a vast, empty asphalt strip 20 hours per day or more. I aj+paso any and all tall roads in California. I will make sure I never drive on the SJHT+C. It. is an e!rpenalve. and unneccxs.sary plan, and I have grave concerns about Its being used significantly and its exorbitantly high oast. S. IMPA+CTING OPEN AND NATURAL AREAS. The CAorrtdor will visually disrupt the user erperienoe in open spaces, greanbalts, and parks as It will be in full view from various locations 4Cryst4al Cove State Park, Laguna Canyon, Sycamore Hills, Aliso-Woods Canyon P.e•gional Park, Laurel Canyon, lust to name a few). Ongoing negative Impacts upon recreational values that will result are views of the Corridor, noise, air pollution, water quality, flooding, •tc. I am totally opposed to impacting our coastal resources, including but. not limitspd to any open and natural areas; tAvey are small enough and toe few already. With vehicles going through them, they won't. be a vary pleasant plecv. to be. .Z 6. SIOLOGICAL DECIMATION. The last bit of wildlife we have will eventually disappear from the San ,Joaquin Hills, Laguna Canyon and Upper Newport Say. The County has already lost a tremendous number of miles of wildlife habitat• and its very natural resource base is 4-34-9 threatenad with artinction. Damaging the wildlife and ocosystem any further would be ertra+mely onvironmentally harmful. We must not. look at the SJHTC as an isolat4md instance, but in relation Co the cumulative and profound loss of biological diversity and habitat in Orange County over the past several years. 4-34-101 4-34-11 7. INADEQUATE FIELD STUDIES. The impacts to wildlife and vegetation are inadc-quat.ely described in the DEIA. due• too both inc-omplete and outdata%d field studies. In Laguna Canyon t mre is. wildlife everywhere, and I request one year's ertension of the ccmmtnt•s period in corder to do lus•t•iee to and preae: pra complete field study of its diverse plant and animal life. "Over 4$ hours. were spend on boteniossl surveys... in late ,June: and early July of iSS3... " your DEIA, statres. Not only is key data mise.ing, your study is. too old and toe superfi.eiol. 4.6 hours• won't• begin to do the lob; 1S83 is nearly a decade ago and many changes have occurred since then. Furthermore, many "spring flowering annual species" bloom in ,April and early May as is the case, for example, In Laurel Canyon. by ,June. they cannot be seen. Also, the- Dudleya st.olonifera, a very late bloomer 4an endangered plant growing in Laurel rGanyon>, was. ccompletely mis.amtd by t-he study tm-sa. "LSA conducted a spring field survey in 1990, searching for scnn•it.iva sfecfea• along the a4ntire length of the Corridor. Approximately .99 hours..." and "...Bonita canyon Reservoir, an ara more intensively covered by us• than anywhere else along the eroute." are totally contradictory st.atoements. It is criminal to spend so 4-34-12 much time at. the. 8.onita Canyon reservoir to the detriment• of other wonderful areas along the route of the proposed SJHT+C. That's why the teeming wildlife in the Sycamore. Hills• area of Laguna •Canyon went totally unsc-en by your field team, I suppose. Achy, !very morning there are Baer grazing on the grasses under the sycamore trees. In 1990 cooper's hawks raised their young in the oak trees behind the sycamores•. There are deer and bobcat tracks. all over the area. Sloe & Sags Audubon Society is listing the +Ce. Gnotcatcher as 4-34.13 a probable bree•dar there; they told me the brush wan• toe+ thick to find the Post. They are listing the Cooper's Hawk as a definite bre+edar In Syc+emore Hills and t•he Norther Harrier oe. a probable breeder in Sycamore Hills; and I c%an show you the 1990 nests for two pairs. of Cactus Wrens. that. prodac+wd young them this. year. I am a volunt�ear Naturalist at sipper Newport Say and I have been doing a•tudies on my own in the Sycamore. Hills• area recently. There are several endangered species in the area. The Co. Least tern uses 4.34-14 the lake from time to t•lma:. There. are Moleve desert. tortoiama. and San Diego horned lizards in residence in Sycamore Hills, and I have seen t.her. ea. reoent.ly ea• the summer of 1915*10. The Co. gnatcatchor can be seen there any time. I enclose copies of the South Coast Audubon'*. bird List for their 4-11-6-S field trip and the Laguna J. 4-34-14 Hills Audubon's Bird Liat for their 2-27-90 field trip in that area. Last. winter during a soauting session for possible bird walks, Edith Crawford of Laguna Hills Audubon end I wars petrified when we ran Into a mountain lion in the E1 Moro Canyon area of Crystal Cove 4'34'15 State Park. Rangers at Crystal Cove State Park reportedly saw it in the Irvine CO-est. dodic+ation area. I firmly believe that there are: still to this very day mountain lions using Laurel Canyon and Lagune Canyon. 4-34-16 4-34-17 7. FAILURE To MEET STATE AND FEDERAL AIR. QUALITY STANDARDS. Air pollution from oars, trucks end buses has already ra'sched Intolerable levels for the health and safety of the people in Southern California. The SJHTC represents an increasic in air pollution and an increase in development and thus odds to the ever increasing need for vehicles because people have no alternat.ivss but. to drive. What we really need is some sort of mitigation to cxwpvnsat* us for all the smog we. ore currently breathing. Today, the number one killer of grammar woohool children is oath", whereas thirty years ago death from asthma was complotely unhoord of In children. I personally moved here from the Son Gabriel Malley area when my N.V. told me to stay indoors. and avoid physical activity during smoggy days <over -2OO per year>. The Corridor is not a solution to the non-polluting needs. of the arse. It will generate fumes for above acceptable health standards for the elderly and Infirm in Leisure World, for children, and also for the residents of the California Cove/Sycamore Hills area. 8. EL TORO ROAD PARK i. RIDE. Pleas4. do not put a Perk S. Ride on El Toro Road. It. Is a crime to divert additional traffic to this marvelous area. It. is t.00 valuable a wat.lands. arw+a end will only lead to more flooding problems for the canyon property owners d-cwns.tze-am and hinder wildlife dispersion. For this area is a mayor wildlife corridor that is required by large mammals. It makes obsolutely no sense for people. from the Ssddlebsok Malley area to drive SOUTH to a Park S. Rids so they c-an turn around and go NORTH. Why not. put. the Park & Rides where they can be. used efficiently and don't. na cessitate a lot of *extra driving around? S. EL TORO ROAD INTEP)CHANGE. The E1 Toro Rood Interchanges is superfluous. The concxpt of BOTH El Toro Road and L.sgune Canyon Road interchanges is. wrong due to their close proximity one to the 4.34.18 other, the need for lessening of noise and air pollution impacts upon the residents. of Leisure World end California Cove/Sycamore Hills residents of Laguna beach, and the need to mitigates flooding and drainage problems for the property owners. In Laguna Canyon. Please send out a qualified person to tabulate the data on the El Toro Crek•ek wetlands.. How is. it possible that parts of this arOs are checked off in your Draft EIR study as not being a wetlands any 4-34-18 longer? There ha& been stending water In what.'s left of E1 Toro Creek all summer and fall. Whereas the trees in the area used to dry out. and bwcome• grown in the dry summer and fall months., they are now green all year around! 0 10. DESTRUCTION OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES. Thera are numaroui archeological sites that• are eligible for the. National Register of Historic Places in Laguna Canyon and throughout the San Joaquin Hills. The Lagonas Indians. lived in the area of Lake Laguna in 4-34-20 Sycamore Hills. The. people living in Leisure World which abuts that lake collvbcted Indian art•ifect•s. that- were uneaverM when the Leisure: World development• was expanding towards the arse. Already an Indian burial site hen. b►eoen dee.troyed in sc+cracy at Pe.licasn Hill. 11 . AFFECT ON �iEIGH80A.ii00DSd+CI'TZESJSAIf JOAOUMIM HILLS. I'd like too s'se an analysis of the. Coomplete affect on a beach city such as. -1 Laguna Roach, where. they carrying capacity is already at- a maximum. I sa+apect It will overburden the capeci ti+Qs. and resources of such 4-,34.21 cit•fa-s. Ever day all summer and every we+eY.tnd all ye6er around overcrowding and traffic congest ton are imps ss•it+I4. Parking lots• are full, teaches are full, streets are gridloc3.ed, etc. Also, I'd s. on neighbncooc►ds. such like t.c+ ee se a completanalysis• of t-he impactc� 4-34-22 as Leisure World, the :'-alifornia Cove..tSycamore Hills are -a In Laguna LLs.+ach, and the property <owners in Laguna Canyon. The VEIR needs. tt► show the cumulative impact. of ALL planned road widening and highway c,ons.truct.ion in addition to that• for the S.THT+C. There will be severe adverse impacts on theca areas including very high traffic 4-34-23 loads, noise and fumes• for above acce.ptable health standards., flooding and drainage problems for canyon residents, poor quality of lift, etc., not to matntlon that it will be. a visual/ae.a.thVetic abomination. 12. SIX-pEpCENT PROJECT. Please addrasa the heelt3t, safety, noise, energy, air quality, con.t. and other problems. associat d with a sir.-peroent grade. I would auapoc* this is ass undeeirable grade. rio;' ' t you think that Ca 1 Tra n s. has. had a gre•s t. deal Of erptr i ence in 4-34-24 building "3or highways? If they permit. only a throe -percent maximum grade for their c+onv-t•ruct•i-an, then I submit they arc the experts on this. Why hasn't. the DEIR considered the "three -percent prcQ vt" and the. -minimal grade prc+Iect"? Very truly yours, Jean K. Jenks, Founder Laguna Environmental Outreach 3n1 San Mlcholas C4Wrt. Laguna Beach, C.S . 7.2 G S / S SOUTH COAST-. POST ' OFFICI: BOX 4059, SAN CLYADM, CALIFORNIA 92672 LAGLZZA LAKES, LAGUMA CANYON r . 1. Brewers Blackbird 2. Red -winced Blackbird 3. Bushtit 4. Mournirz Dove 5. House Finch 6. Northern ; `.xki.^.-bird 7. European Starling 8. So.^.- Sp 0', 9. Carr.Lcn Raven 10. Sri -colored Blackbird 11. wrentit 12. Com=. n Yellowth oat 13. Caspian Tern 14. Cormon Xoor;.en 15. Green -backed Heron 16. Anna's H . ,.incbird 17 Brown Towhee 18. Rufous -sided Towhee 19. Black Phoebe 20. Great Egret 21. House Wren LIST OF BIRDS SEEN 4-11-88 22. Coopers Hawk 23. Cassin's Kingbird 24. Western Kingbird 25. Western Meadowlark 26. Willit 27. Red-tailed Hawk 28. .mite -throated Swift 29. California Quail 30. Cactus Wren 31. Elack-tailed Gnatcatcher 32. r-erican Coot 33. LB=%,n-headed Cowbird 34. : ;-!lard 35. Great Blue Heron 36. Black -crowned Night Heron 37. Killdeer 38. Lesser Goldfinch 39. Turkey Vulture Respectfully submitted Arlene Krueger, Membership Chair South Coast Audubon Society ": CIYn-1A /c/Ai 4- Reproduced by permission of Natural History Foundation of Orange County. y/cG5 e.�f•9PTEiL' 91 S y(?�9/ylC2 E %T/LL S IV,4 Ta ope- LaKE �AGUN� Natural History Foundation of (Orange County NATURE Newport NOTES � del Oro pott Barb, t,.A 92660 (714) 640.71M THE BIRDS OF ORANGE COUNTY Pubn~ by The Museum of Natuml History and Sdenoe of Ontvupe Cowltr In cooperation with Sea and Saps C m#w of National Audubon Socieq: LOONS P4ddteoaled Loon Psalic Loon Common Loon GREBES Pned billed Grebe Eared Grebe Western Grebe Clark's Ghee AL"TROSSES Short -tailed Abstruse Btadrdooted Albatross SHEARWATERS A PETRELS Ptnk.footed Shavrwater imises Shaarwater sooty Shearwaw short -tailed Shaarwater B+.Ck-r«nlea Shearwater STORM -PETRELS Fork-W led Stonn-PeMM• Leach's Storm•Petroi Ashy Storrn-Petrol Black Stonn-Potrei Least SkwffW " TROPICaIROf White-tailed TMgkblyd' Rad-WRed Tro&bW PELICANS Brown Pelican Aio6uw9-crated cormorant Brandt'. Cormorant Peiegic Cormorant FRIGATEDIRDS a/aondscont Frloata0ird BITTERNS a HERONS Least Bitten west Blue Mann Great Egret Lima Blue A WON TAoclored Has+ Reddish Egret' collie Egret Grean•be aed Fiaon SarA-crowned Nght-Fie Yetlow crowned Nrght- I,w . VISE$ a S►OONSILLS tlillute-taaed Ibis Rowle SpoonblS• MOOD STORKS Wood Stork SWANS, GEESE A DUCK1 FuNous whistling-ouCk Tundra Swan Greater white -horded Ron' Goose Empror eGoose• grant Canada Gone Wbod Duck Grsen-wingod Teal MQlard Noriver" Pints" dlue•wirped Teal Cinnamon Taal Radhead VIRng~AW Dix*Greater Scoup Looser Scaup �� Martequln Duck' Oldaquow Black Seoar Surf Scoter WNite•wimged Soobr Corneon Goldenoye rr Baows Goldeneyo• �BGftlelwd . Hooded morgansw Cornrnon merganw wd.breavted Merganser vft�ddy Duck AMERICAN VULTURES /iTSrkey Vulture • CalifomtaCondor —E Kf XS, EAGLES A HAWKS Osprey Black-ohouldered KIM Miss"ppi Kite• Bald Eagle sharp-ehinrrd Hawk Coopers Hawk Red -should- Hawl Brood -winged Hawk' Yore sweineon's Hawk Zone -tailed Hawk* Z ►Pllid•talled Hawk Fsmuginow Hawk Rough � Hawk Golden FALCONS 4,i<>«toam Kostrol M001h Perogrine Fallon Pnkle Fokwn GUAIL `-enfomis Ouan Mounuin Ouall RAt1.S, GAI I INULES A COOTS Yellow Rai' Block Rsi Clapper Rai Yugo" Rai bon ' �mmon Moorfnen C" CRANES Black-bellled Plowr Leaver Golden -Plows Snowy Plow► Semipatmated PWM OYSTERCATCHERS Btsdr Oysteretlehar SMTS A AVOCITS 8111ck"»cked Stut SANOPIMS A PHALAROPES Greater Yoibwispo Leaver Yenowlogs solitary Sarbplper wtlMt Wandering Tattler Sponed Sandpiper Wt h 61 Long -billed Curlew Marbled Godwlt Ruddy Tunable Black Tumolone Red Knot Slandeding sornipsimated Sondpipsr Vowlern Sandpiper urns Stirs• Least Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Wwp•tailed Sandpiper Suit Saidpip Ruff' :horned DowhOw sandpipera a fihahnilo" Cont. Long-0illed Dowildv r Common snipe W:ion's Phalarope Red -necked Ptalancl" Red Phalarope GULLS, TEAMS a SKIMMERS Pontine Jaepor Parasitic Jaeger Long-tailed Jasper Laughing Gun Franklin's Gull Little Gun, Common Black4wooded Gun' BonapaMs Gull mown ut s Gun Mew Gun Rirg-bined Gun California Gull Fleeing Gun T)tayees Gutl Western Gun Gleucousrwirgod Gull Gleut m Gull 81@04e9gecl KWwoke Sabim's Gull Caspian Tarn Royal Tern Elegant Tim Conran Ter Acetic Tam Forstar's Tom Last Torn . 111m:k Tom ' Black Skknnor AUKS, MURRES a PUFF1M! Common blurt. • .. .. Xonixa, Munsiet• Cnwri's Murnw . Ancient Murm* Canin's Auklet Rhinoceroe Auklet Monad Puffin* MONS a DOVES Rock Dove —1 Band-lailad Ftpoon Spotted Dow — I A,%Vmm boa+ Common Gmund-Dove CUCKOOS, ROADRUNNER a ANTS Ye1bw-0ilied Cuckoo• Grater Roodrunar ' Groove -billed AN, BM/ -OWLS Common BanrOwl ' 10/89 A ` TYPICAL OWLS Western Screech -Owl Great Horned Owl Burrowing Owl spotted Owl. Long-eared Owl ShoA♦ared Owl Northern Saw-~ Owl' COATSUCKERS Lesser Nighthawk Common Nighthawk* Common Poorwill SWIFTS Black Swift Chimney Swift' Voui s Swift Whits -throated Swift SWALLOWS Purple Manin Tree Swallow Violet -green Swallow Northern Rough -winged Swallow Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Own Swallow JAYS. MAGPIES a CROWS lens Jay rub Jay Clark's Nutcracker' 4,-Kmencan Crow `Cbrnmon Raven HUMMINGBIRDS Broad -billed Hummingbird' Blaek-chinned Hummingbird k--%nna's Hummingbird Costa's Hummingbird Calliope Hummin bilrd Rufous Hummingbird Allon's Hummingbird KINGFISHERS Betted Kingfisher WOODPECKERS Lewis' Woodpecker Acorn Woodpecker Yaliorrbekired Sapsucker Red•naped Sapsucker Re"rsasted Sapsucker Williamson's Sapsucker' Hurrahs Woodpecker Downy Wbodpcksr HalryWoodpecker While -headed Woodpecker' ✓Northern Fucker TYRAICT FLYCATCHERS 011ve-sided Flycatcher Greater Pewee' Y�t Wood -Pewee Least "tow Hammond's Ftycatoher Dusky Flycatcher Grey Flycatcher Western Flycatcher 1.�ck Phoebe Eastern PI'aebs Sey's Phoebe Vermillion Flyeatclw Dusky -capped Flyau:hW Aah-t a tsd Fiyata,.r Great Crested Flycatcher' Tropical Kingbird Coin's Kingbird Thick -billed KkngbW Wastem Kingbird Eastam Kingblyd .Sclasor-Whad Flycatt:hsr' LARKS Harrod Lark TITMICE Mountain Chickadee Plain Titmouse BUSHTITS Bushtit NUTHATCHES Red -breasted Nuthatch White -breasted Nuthatch Pygmy Nuthatch' CREEPERS Brown Crosper WRENS L!G ctus Wron Fa•k Wren Canyon Wren A-lMrick's When 4--}Souse Wren Winter Wren Marsh When DIPPERS M+erican Dipper MUSCICAPIDS Golden -crowned Kinglet Ruby -crow, med Kinglet Blue -gray Gnatcatcher `iVatifomia Gnatcalcher Western Bluebird Mountain Bluebird Townsand's Solitaire Sweinson's Thrush 4-14rmlt Thrush Ruhws-backed Robin' American Robin Varied Thrush W rontit AlOCKINGSIRDS a THRASHERS {l}Uorftrn Mockingbird Sage Thrasher Brown Thresher' Bendirs's Thrasher Cwifomw Thrasher WAOTAILS a PIPITS Wagtail' sp. wor p4m WAXWINGS Bohemren Wrucwkng' Cedar WVaawinq SILKY -FLYCATCHERS Phalnopepta SyRIKES 9erho&d Shrike STARLINGS European Starling —1 VIREOS Vlmite•eyed Ywso' Bairs vireo SolitaryVino Yellow -throated Vireo' Mutton's Vireo Warbling Vireo PNIa"phis Vireo' Red -eyed Vireo Yello"Mon Krso' ILMBERIZIDS Goldon-winged Warbler' Tomm uses Warbler Orenge-crowned Warbler Nashville Warbler Virginia's Warbler Lucy$ Warbler Northern Paruls Yellow Warbler Chatnut-sided Warbler Magnolia Warbler Btack•throatt•: Blue Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Black-throsted Gray Warblerw Townnd's Warbler Hermit Warbler Black•tMoeted Green Warbler Bwckbtxnian Warbler Graces Warbler' Pine Warbler' Prairie Warbler• Palm Warbler ealer• Bay -breasted Warb Biactpoll Warbler wr' Cerussan VWarb Bleck�Wlu Black -white bwr Arneriean Redstart thler' Proonotary Warb Wbrm'eatkv Warbler' Ovenbirdthe Norrn Wawrthnrsh Kenthrc y Warbler - Mourning Mrning VNbwr• u MacGillivray's Warbler Corrrnon YMlowlhrold Witson's Warbler Canada Warbler' hrt inted Redsta YNlow-bresated Ghat hepatic Tanager' Summer Tanager Scarlet Tanager' Western Tanager Emberitds cant. Roso•breasted Grosbeak 84ek•headed Grosbeak Blue Grosbeak Latuli 8unkng Indigo Bunting Dfckciaw ukled Towhee -sided Towhee Towhee m Cass's Sparrow' Rufous-cmwnsd Spemow cNpprng Sparrow day -colored Sparrow Brewer's Sparrow Black -chinned Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Lark Sparrow Black•throsted Sparrow Sage Sparrow Lark Bunting* Savennsh Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Sharp -lewd Sparrow F Sparrow Sa+p Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow Swamp Sparrow White-Mrated Sparrow Go m4rowned Sparrow titi•erowfted Sparrow Dork�yed Area McCc m's Longspte GmsatnutLongspur Qpbolink P-14dwAnged Blackbird Tricolored Blackbird Wastan Meadowlark Yellow -headed BLwANrd Blackbird- s Blackbird Gntl-tilled Gtsdde Brown -headed Cowbird Orchard Oriole HoodW Oriow Northern Orlow Sears Oriole FINCHES Ptxpls Finch Finch Red Cram" Fine Siskin Lacer Goldfinch Lin nonee'a Goldfinch Aencan Goldfinch OLD WORLD SPARROWS House Sparrow —1 i • Introduced • • Accidental-4. or lower. tow records B • Estootsd r: 0 COMMENT TO TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY Fullerton. CA 26 November.l9c?0 Steve Letteriv. "tanager Environmental Imoact Trans:oortatior, Corridor Agencies 345 C1intin St. Costa Mesa. CA aZb'A'b Dear Mr. Latterly: F.Es SAN vOACHIN HILLS TOLLWAY TCA EIR/EIS 1 The cro;ect as or000sec would result in more fragment&— tion of habitat for many animal so*cies . The imo&ct on wildlife is oratably aaecivately definea. but the mitigatioh moays,srs•ss or.0cos ej are woefully inaaeauat*. In oartiaular the wildlife corridor 'crossings describea are not likely t:3 be uSEU bV the :ntende'] HDe'C:tS. The. resultant oiaastrOuss natita.t fraomentati cn will are: to more i sl ante too ginal l for sot'':: es The re'cantl / recarteoed :: St vt a newl v "rii'.dic aCl l ar:Li Mountain L:an''. sstr•_ta i, ana ►,ille'J while aressiina Ortega Hignwav a-mjac_nt tc a Sdn vuan Croei.: bridge indicates that mountaln 1::•hs will not use culvert &no low or:dge crossings. Most vtr.cr :arge mammals :--.,vote. toocat. -leer. eta will &Vol0 EUC-11 man ma0t structures that bear no resemblance whate'.ef' the natural habitat. Even a horse which oresL!m601V trusts its owner!r:oer cannot be r:Uden, but mu-t be lea under bridges anc thr,:ruan tunnels. Vaa: c• '"=ter-nc-es are mace to wlldllfe crossings in the Technica, Febort L•ut inULLTiiCicnt detail8 are orovided. Frm the anlmcls c,er utCti'v6 & satisiactory wildlife CrovBino must be a continuation of natural travel and migration routes:. natural in aooearance with a noisy levels similar t natural habitat. yarrow bridges on barren hilltoos. fifteen +Oct `lan bri::ges twc• hunare'c t=et !a•ng '.no matter how wine). or storm drainage CLllverts will not attract a wild animal see►.ina to cross oecl&m. Such structures resemole .are., oar►: tunnelE. 4-36-1 Marginal mitigation measures are oTfereo tc the enumerates rare. s'no&ngertea ana other of&nt soeciess 4.35-2 di>srubt:cns. The wilr:liie zrogsing aeticienc•,. alone. pr`:vioe_= sutiiciont reason tc'r re,t»tian of the +Entire oro:ect. ana 435^3 recommencing the "No Fro_ect" notion. Allyn ocl-sev 12,;: W. ;aleno:a Mvisa Dr. Ful l t•rtun. Cr"I 1::o Z Slerr-z. Ciut.-Iranae Count. .:rcUC Con=er'.at:an %,:a'mmitte_. Tran_borta.tion .?Lit-�avTmlt:== • VILLAGE LAGUNA P.O. Box 1309, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 November 12, 1990 Steve Letterly San Joaquin Hills Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: EIR: San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Dear Mr. Letterly, Village Laguna submitted comments on the San Joaquin Hills proposed toll road/corridor last April and has had representatives in attendance at the several stages of the recent public procedures for that toll way now concluded. On review of the most recent EIR and the information presented at the public hearings Village Laguna sees no evidence that its major concerns have been satisfactorily mitigated. Accordlingly, the April, 1990 submission, resubmitted below, should still be considered an active set of comments on the EIR submitted on the SJH Corridor. Comments: 1. The difference in vehicular accident rates for high speed freeways (tollways) without reversible direction lanes and those with 4-36-1 reversible direction lanes as planned on the SJC. 2. The differences in produced automotive pollutants between automotive vehicles using a high occupancy vehicle lane (diamond lane) versus those using regular freeway lanes during times of high road usage (rush hour). The new plans for the SJC would not provide for high occupancy vehicle lanes and this could/would increase air pollution in the area. 4-36-2 3. The work destination of vehicles that would be using this tollway. When transportation people are asked about the morning -hour carrying capacity of the junction of the SJC and the 1-405 for west- 4-36-3 bound SJC traffic, for example, the response has been that a major portion of the traffic would have the MacArthur/JWA and Irvine Area as a destination and would not impact this intersection. This 4-36-3 needs a definitive answer for two reasons: a. What would be the traffic impact at the junction of the SJC and the I-405 on the west and the SJC and the I-5 on the east and what 4-3&4 mitigation measures would be required to minimize the impact? b. If the destination of SJC traffic is, in fact, mostly the MacArthur-JWA/Irvine area (a fairly compact area) would this not be a major rationale supporting the inclusion of public transit (a bus- 4-36-5 way or monorail tying in with other planned monorail or public transit) along the corridor. This needs to be studied and answered. 4. What would be the differences in environmental impact if the SJC had its entrance/exit ramp at El Toro Road only and not Laguna Canyon Road versus ramping on both roads or on Laguna Canyon Road only. Please consider the heighth of the SJC at Laguna Canyon 4-36-6 Road and the nature of the land on either side of Laguna Canyon Road and El Toro Road at the SJC crossing. Note, also the housing density for possible SJC users in the area of El Toro Road and the high probablitiy of near -zero housing along Laguna Canyon Road. 5. Sycamore Hills, part of the City of Laguna Beach, will be bi-sected by the proposed SJC. The City of Laguna Beach now owns the land from Sycamore Hills to the junction of E1 Toro and Laguna Canyon Road. The area is parkland and open space. What is the legal 4-36-7 impact of building a freeway adjoining parkland and open space? What is the environmental impact of building a freeway (the SJC) so that it separates two halves of a park? What mitigation measures would ensure park users and native fauna (deer, for example) easy access to both ends of the park? 6. There needs to be a new up -date on the impact of the SJC on traffic on Pacific Coast Highway at Broadway (Laguna Canyon Road), along the length of Laguna Canyon Road with particular emphasis on the 4-3" Laguna Canyon/El Toro intersection. Removing provisions for public transit and high occupancy lanes from the SJC should impact this. 7. There needs to be a study of the impact on the CALTRANS' program of Ridesharing and the AQMD Reg. 15 requiring employers of 100 or more employees to provide traffic mitigation measures 4-36-9 (mostly ridesharing) when the SJC, our most recently conceived modern high-speed roadway, makes no provision to encourage ridesharing. It would appear the elimination of this incentive to OR Or ridesharingwould, at the least, shoe a major policy inconsistency in transportation policy and further weaken CALTRANS' credability as 4-36-9 it tries to establish and fund TMA's in heavy commuting areas. 8. Please consider among the alternatives to the most recent configuration of the SJC that provides for regular vehicle lanes only (no HOV lanes), configurations that provide for: 4-3s-1oa a. a monorail only along the corridor; b. a monorail (or light surface rail) and bus or other rapid transit (436-10b only and c. alternative 2, plus multiple occupancy cars only. If a goal is to get people out of single -occupancy cars, these alternatives would seem to warrant serious consideration. Very truly yours, Si- -'- , D' or For T he Executive Board 1436-10c h i� �0 q �44-1- cc 0 communmr ASSOCIATIOn November 21, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Regarding: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments Gentlemen: The draft environmental impact report / environmental impact statement for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SJHTC) recommends that noise barriers be built along various areas in Aliso Viejo. These ores are identified in the report as sites R32 through R39. The Association's Board of Directors strongly recommend that these noise barriers be built according to the 4.37_1 report. These sound barriers will help community to accept the transportation corridor. Also, please add the Association to your mailing list for any future information on the SJHTC. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (714) 643-2584. Sincerely, ALISO VIEJO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION 1-7100, �..P.�o Larry Dees President cc: Board of Directors 23726 BiRTCHER DRIVE • EL TORO • CALIFORNIA 92630. 17141768.7261 Print clearly: COMMENT CA U.W NAME, /i3 1 DATE 12.1111192— ADDRESS.2 L a � e c_ AFFILIATION i CITY, ZIP �� rf'�re4 - 9,1Vr PH. # (Optional)_�_9�_-�L 3 Please add my name to your mailing list ��YES NO Gn P 4. y►s3�o�ecu�I-�iy� (Continue comments on back of this p ge. To submit, please fold page with tape, and mail to the address below.) COMMENTS CONTINUED A ;? elf , secure 'O'�v4-s �-444qv� 4-38-1 4-38-1 6 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P. O BOX 3334. ANAHEIM, CALWORNIA 92803-3334 September.20. 1990 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attention: Steve Letterly Subject: EIR - San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served by an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial -Industrial Market Services Staff by calling (714)634-3180. We have developed several programs which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, Bill Glines Technical Supervisor LC/gc attachment 15-1-1 October 2, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626-6011 Attention: Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Subject: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject Draft 5_2_1 EIR/EIS. The.Districts have no comments at this time. omas M. Dawes Director of Engineering jt INWAO MMOPOUTAN WATER ASTR/CT Of SOUTHERN CARFORN/A November 7, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly Manager Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor We have received your Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. The project involves constructing an extension of the SR-73 Freeway from the I-5 Freeway in the City of San Juan Capistrano to its existing terminus at Jamboree Road. The comments herein represent Metropolitan's response as a potentially affected public agency. Our review of your Draft EIR/EIS indicates that your project crosses two of Metropolitan's existing facilities. The proposed transportation corridor intersects both the Orange County Feeder Extension and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2, 5-3-1 as shown on the attached map. It would be appropriate to consider the location of these pipelines in your project planning and address this in the Final EIR/EIS Our review of your project also indicates that Metropolitan's San Joaquin Reservoir is near your project area. The San Joaquin Reservoir stores treated drinking water that is ultimately distributed to approximately 400,000 residents of coastal Orange County from Huntington Beach to the South Laguna area. The attached map shows the reservoir in relation to your project area. Metropolitan is currently preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project to address water quality needs. The EIR addresses several alternate ways to improve water•quality and to better integrate the reservoir into Metropolitan's distribution system. A more detailed description of this proposed project is enclosed for your information. 5-3-2 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Mr. Steve Letterly - -2- November 7, 1990 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into your planning process. Questions regarding Metropolitan's proposed San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project should be directed to Mr. Thomas J. Ryan at (213) 250-6140. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at (213) 250-6437. Very truly yours, I-Z .--, 1 Roberta L. Soltz, Ph.D. ! I Manager, Environmental Affairs AER:led/C200 Attachments 0 • 1:7'.�r..LRYFcr 4-tt`..r�'::w.'.••�,f�i- �'''-� -- -. Utz- •..a. r i- - ._ - _ _._ - ORANGE M M w w :�•1,:_�'b��"''�-`•'=fit'?`%'-�°` •'4-"• / .. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND NEED The San Joaquin Reservoir provides treated water to approximately 400,000 residents of coastal Orange County from Huntington Beach to the South Laguna area. In the past, the reservoir has experienced periods of reduced water quality such as moderate turbidity, unacceptable bacteriological counts and undesirable total trihalomethane (TTHM) levels. The objective of the San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project is twofold: (1) To improve water quality in the reservoir in order to meet stricter water quality regulations expected to be promulgated in the early 1990s and (2) to better integrate the reservoir into Metropolitan's distribution system so that its service capabilities are improved and the expanding water needs in the reservoir service area may be met in a cost effective manner. water quality standards for TTHMs are expected to be lowered by the year 1992 from 100 parts per billion to a considerably lower concentration. Reservoir effluent barely meets current standards on a monthly basis. When the new standard is promulgated, the reservoir will not be in compliance. TTHM levels may be reduced by stopping the practice of chlorination which currently is required in order to keep algal population and bacterial levels low. The chlorinated reservoir effluent cannot mix with chloraminated water from Metropolitan's treatment plants. This restricts flows in Metropolitan's distribution system in the vicinity of the reservoir. Once the reservoir is improved and reservoir water is chloraminated water, these restrictions may be eliminated and the distribution system will be able to function more effectively. Several alternatives are possible to meet the water quality and operational objectives of the proposed improvement project. These alternatives together with the no action alternative will be analyzed in equal detail in the EIR. PROJECT LOCATION The San Joaquin Reservoir is an existing 3,000 acre-foot (approximately 1 billion gallon) reservoir located in the San Joaquin Hills of Orange County near Newport Beach, California. Figure 1 places the reservoir in a regional context and Figure 2 further delineates the reservoir location. The reservoir occupies an approximately 55 acre site with a maximum water surface elevation of 470 feet. is PROJECT VICINITY FIGURE 1 i� i PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE ' W, DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES An engineering analysis of potential alternatives to improve the the San Joaquin Reservoir is currently underway by James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. A preliminary description of the alternatives to be considered in the EIR is provided below. A. Floating Covers Several types of floating covers could be placed on top of the reservoir. This type of cover would block the transmission of light which causes algae growth, and also would keep foreign materials from entering the reservoir. These floating covers could include a Hypalon membrane cover previously used for covering other similar Metropolitan reservoirs, fiberglass/teflon covers or plastic inflatable covers. These covers could cover a portion or all of the reservoir, and could be black or other colors. The plastic inflatable cover would require an air source to keep it inflated. Use of this type of cover would require little modification of the reservoir if the entire reservoir is covered. Construction activities would center around installation and anchoring the cover. In the event that only a portion of the reservoir is covered, construction of a dam would be required to separate the two halves of the reservoir. B. Rigid Cover This alternative would involve the construction of a concrete, steel or other rigid material supported by columns placed in the reservoir. The top of the cover could be landscaped, support a reflecting pond, or otherwise modified for other uses such as tennis courts. Implementation of this alternative would require a rather extensive construction program including the construction of support columns as well as construction of the cover itself. C. Underwatew Flexible Tank (Bladder) The underwater flexible tank or "bladder" alternative would consist of construction of a group of interconnected horizontal flexible tanks or bags on the reservoir floor which would be able to receive and discharge potable water while submerged under the ambient reservoir water. As many as a thousand tanks would be required with an extensive piping system to distribute water flow between bladders. y;� •� T,�y.,{;t:�,: y�7` �4.w.ii C Z •,•�'.'T�'��.4�`niN��`��.'!'�fr'�-`i•:�i�`J fY''�'� . �.�11�v i'i� ; ��^'c�'�'!�`%�CYGSk� �' �,;; 7�1• � ri+,:�,`'�.C,�.�+�'.�!.!".`�rr�':,'' � �.l �!.TK:*':.:?`y'.?s. �r+�':i�"�VV'��',(�' D. Water Treatment Plant This alternative would consist of construction of a new treatment plant to further treat the reservoir water prior to distribution to the various water systems served by the reservoir. In order to serve Newport Beach's Big Canyon Reservoir, the facility would need to be located at an elevation of at least 430 feet. Two alternative sites have been selected for analysis: Alternative Site 1 is located directly east of the reservoir. Alternative Site 2 is located approximately four miles east of the reservoir. These are shown in Figure 3. Figure 4 provides an illustration of the projected treatment process. This process would include ozonation, flocculation and direct filtration. The sludge produced by the facility would be processed on -site and hauled to a landfill. E. Pipeline This alternative would include the abandonment of the San Joaquin Reservoir and the provision of additional capacity through construction of a 54- to 66-inch (inside) diameter pipeline from Metropolitan's Second Lower Feeder in Anaheim to the Coastal Junction Pressure Control Structure in Irvine (a distance of approximately 18 miles). No specific pipeline alignments have been defined as yet, however, two alignment alternatives are being developed by Metropolitan for analysis in the EIR. It is anticipated that a majority of the pipeline would be placed in existing roadways through Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin and Irvine. f. Replace San Joaquin Reservoir with a New Reservoir This alternative would involve the abandonment of the existing San Joaquin Reservoir and the construction of a new covered reservoir of either the same or smaller size than the existing reservoir at approximately the same elevation. The type and location of such a reservoir is currently under study with no specific sites yet defined. r G. No Action Alternative The "no action" alternative could consist of two options. The first option would consist of the continued use of the reservoir as currently operated with the potential for future water quality problems that may restrict the domestic use of this water and/or cause Metropolitan to go to public notification during periods of poor water quality. The second option involved with the no action alternative would is be to abandon the reservoir with no provision for storage LTER a o.1L ;CLILARWE � op ol / v / ALTERN `-� SIT EAII AN �oAou111 R«[avolm WATER TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVE SITES 6 FIGURE 3 10, • t� W R3W J � a z K W fig 3t `3 Z a W • •: a 3 4 = M i ui DIt 0 V) U x a z W a W cr 0 W V) O O cr a capacity by Metropolitan. It would be up to the agencies using the water from the abandoned San Joaquin Reservoir to modify their systems to provide the required peaking capacity and/or emergency storage. M 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND A. Name of Proponent: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1111 Sunset Boulevard, Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054 B. Name of Proposal: San Joaquin Reservoir Improvement Project C. Date Checklist Submitted: September 22, 1988 D. Lead Agency: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1111 Sunset Boulevard, Box 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054 '': II. ENVIRONMMT AL IMPACTS The potential impacts of the proposed Action may vary by alternative. Therefore, each alternative is analyzed on this checklist as follows. A. Installation of Floating Covers. B. Installation of Rigid Cover. C. Installation of Underwater Flexible Tank (Bladder). D. Construction of New Treatment Plant. E. Abandonment of Reservoir and Construction of New Pipeline. F. Abandonment of San Joaquin Reservoir and Construction of New Reservoir. G. No'Action Alternative. (When the potential environmental impact of the two No Action options is different, G will be used to denote the option of doing nothing and G* will be used to denote the abandonment option.) 1 OM (Explanations of "yes" and "maybe" answers are included in Section III.) Yes Maw No 1. Earth. will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes D,F E A,B,C, in geologic substructure? G b. Disruptions, displacements, compac- D,E,F A,B,C,. tion overcovering of the soil? G c. Change in topography or ground F D,E A,B,C, surface relief features? G d. The destruction, covering or modifi- D,F, A,B,C, cation of any unique geologic or E,G physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion D,E,F A,B,C, of soils, either on or off the site? G f. Changes in deposition or erosion of E A,B,C, beach sands, or changes in siltation, D,F,G deposition or erosion which may modify the channel or a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to B,D,E, A,C,G geologic hazards such as earthquakes F landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazard? 2. Air. will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or D,E,F A,B,C, deterioration of ambient air quality? G b. The creation of objectionable odors? D,G A,B,C, E,F,G* c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, A,B,E, C,D,G or temperature, or any change in E,F,G* climate, either locally or regionally? 3. water. will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of F A,B,C, direction of water movements, in D,E,G either marine or fresh waters? 2 • b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? j. Significant changes in the -temperature, flow or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or,aumber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? 3 Yes maybe D,E,F F A,B,C, E,F,G* D,F D,F, G, G* E,F F D,E,F D,E,F No A,B,C, G A,B,C, D,E,G D,G A,B,C, D,E,F, G A,B,C, E,G A,B,C, E,G A,B,C, A,B,C, D,E,G A,B,C, D,E,F, G A,B,C, G A,B,C, G A,B,C, D,E,F, G Yes maybe No d. Reduction in acreage of any D,E,F A,B,C, agricultural crop? G 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, D,E,F A,B,C, or numbers of any species of animals G (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any' D,E,F A,B,C, unique, rare or endangered species G of animals? c. Introduction of new species of F A,B,C, animals into an area, or result in a D,E,G barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or D,E,F A,B,C, wildlife habitat? G r 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? A,B,C, G D,E,F b. Exposure of people to severe noise A,B,C, G levels? D,E,F 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal B,D,F A,C,E, produce new light or glare? G 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in E,F,G* D, A,B,C, a subst&ntial alteration of the present G or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase the rate of use of any D,E,F A,B,C, natural resources? G b. Substantial depletion of non- A,B,C, renewable natural resource? D,E,F, G 4 0 Yes Maybe_ No 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release A,B,C, of hazardous substances (including, D,E,F but not limited to, oil, pesticides, G chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. possible interference with an A,B,C, emergency response plan or an D,E,F, emergency evacuation plan? G 11. Population. will the proposal alter the A,B,C, location, distribution, density or growth D,E,F, rate of the human population of an area? G 12. Sousing. will the proposal affect the A,B,C, existing housing, or create a demand for D,E,F, additional housing? G 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional A,B,C, G vehicular movement? D,E,F b. Effects on existing parking facil- A,B,C, ities, or demand for new parking? G,E,F c. substantial impact upon existing E A,B,C, D,F,G transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of E A,B,C, D,F,G circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Ob e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or E A,B,C, D,F,G air traffic? f. increases in traffic hazards to E A,B,C, D,F,G motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 5 Yes Maybe No 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for -new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? A,B,C, D,E,F, G b. Police protection? A,B,C, D,E,F, G c. Schools? A,B,C, D,E,F, G d. Parks or other recreational A,B,C, facilities? D,E,F, G e. Maintenance of public facilities, E A,B,C, including roads? D,F,G f. other governmental services? E,G A,B,C, D,F,G* 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of any substantial amount of D,E,F A,B,C G fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand D,E,F A,B,C G upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substan- tial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? A,B,C, D,E,F, G b. Communications systems? A,B,C, D,E,F, G LJ 6 Yes Maybe No c. Water? E,G A,B,C, D,F d. Sewer or septic tanks? A,B,C, D,E,F, G e. Storm water drainage? A,B,C, D,E,F, G f. Solid waste and disposal? A,B,C, D,E,F, G 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or G A,B,C, potential health hazard (excluding D,E,F mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential G A,B,C, health hazards? D,E,F 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result A,B,E D C,G in the obstruction of any scenic vista F,G* or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. will the proposal result in B A,C,D an impact upon the quality or quantity E,F,G of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the D,E,F A,B,C, alteration of or the destruction of G a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse D,E,F A,B,C, physical or aesthetic effects to a G prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? 7 c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing -religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 8 Yes Maybe No D,E,F A,B,C, G D,E,F A,B,C, G X X X F. III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRRN'ENTAL E.VALU kTICN This section provides a brief discussion of those environmental issues marked yes or maybe in Section II. 1. Earth a. Construction of a new treatment plant or reservoir as well as possibly a pipeline could create changes in the geologic substructure that must be investigated in the EIR. b. Construction of reservoirs, treatment plants and pipelines could create disruptions, displacements, compactions or overcovering of the soil. c. Construction of a new reservoir as well as potential construction of treatment plants and pipelines could result in changes in topography, or ground surface relief features. d. Construction of a new reservoir or treatment plant could create impacts to unique geological or physical features. This potential will be evaluated in the EIR. e. Construction of reservoirs, pipelines or treatment plants will result in grading which will create a short-term potential for erosion. f. Construction of a pipeline could result in modification of streambeds. This potential will be evaluated in the EIR once pipeline alignments have been proposed. g. Construction of rigid covers, new reservoirs, treatment plants or pipelines could subject additional people to seismic hazards such as rupture of pipelines or reservoirs as well as release of hazardous material. This potential will be analyzed in the EIR. 2. Air a. Construction activities will result in the creation of additional short-term air quality impacts. .• b. The operation of a new treatment plant could result in the creation of odors associated with the use of chemicals or the creation of filtrate sludge. This potential will be addressed in the EIR. c. Alternatives involving changes in the surface water characteristics of the San Joaquin Reservoir could result in changes in microclimates or neighboring areas. This potential will be evaluated in the EIR. 9 3. Water a. Construction of a new reservoir could change the surface water characteristics of the site depending upon the sites proposed. b. Construction of a new reservoir, treatment plant or pipeline could result in a short term or long term increase in surface runoff. C. Depending upon the sites proposed, construction of a new reservoir could result in the alteration of flood water flows. d. Abandonment or covering of the San Joaquin Reservoir would create a change in the amount of surface water in the reservoir. f. Construction of a new reservoir or treatment plant could result in the alteration in the direction or rate of groundwater flow. g. Construction of a new reservoir or treatment plant could result in the loss of groundwater recharge areas. h. Abandonment of the reservoir without replacement or replacement with smaller reservoirs would affect the water supply to those cities served by the reservoir. Operating the reservoir in its current manner may reduce the amounts of potable water. i. Depending on the site selected, failure of a new reservoir will create inundation potential to existing areas downslope of the reservoir. 4. Plant Life a, b, and d. Construction of a new treatment facility, pipeline or reservoir could result in loss of native plant life. 5. Animal Life a, b, Apd d. Construction of a new treatment facility, pipeline or reservoir could impact wildlife species or diversity. c. Construction of a new reservoir could result in a barrier to migration. 6. Noise a and b. Construction activities associated with all alternatives except the no action alternative would result in an increase in noise levels. This would be a short-term impact. 40 10 7. Light and Glare Construction of a new reservoir or treatment plant as well as placing recreation facilities on a rigid cover could create additional exterior lighting potentially creating light and glare impacts. B. Land Use Construction of a new reservoir or treatment plant will create changes in existing land use. Abandoning the reservoir site will cause ownership to revert back to the Irvine Company with resultant changes in existing use. 9. Natural Resources a. Construction activities will result in the use of natural resources in the form of construction materials. 10. Risk of Upset a. Construction activities as well as the use of chlorine or other hazardous materials may result in public safety concerns for all I alternatives. 11. Population The various alternatives may change the water supply aspects of the service area of the reservoir resulting in potential subtle changes in growth rates. 13. Transportation/Circulation a. Construction activities with all alternatives will temporarily increase construction related traffic. c to f. The pipeline would be constructed through city streets creAing short-term impacts to surface traffic. 14. Public Services e. Construction of a pipeline through public roads may impact those roadways during construction. f. Construction of a pipeline through public roads may 'result in temporary effects on other public services which utilize the same 11 right-of-way. The continuation of the status quo will require an expanded information program relative to water quality at the San Joaquin Reservoir. 15. Energy a and b. Construction and potentially operation of the treatment plant and other facilities will result in the use of additional energy. 16. Utilities c. Abandonment of the reservoir may require cities served by the reservoir to modify their water systems to provide additional storage capacity. operating the reservoir without any changes may also create additional demands on local water agencies. 17. Human Health a and b. The no action alternative involving use of the reservoir as presently operated could create human health impacts in the future due to deterioration of water quality. Additionally, all alternatives could expose the public to hazardous materials �, during construction or operation. 18. Aesthetics Covering or abandonment of tha reservoir will result in substantial visual impacts to those residents overlooking the reservoir. 19. Recreation Provision of recreational facilities in conjunction with a rigid cover could increase the quantity of such facilities available to the community. W 20. Cultural Resources a through d. Construction of pipelines, treatment facilities and reservoirs would have the potential to disturb cultural resources. Surveys will be conducted as a portion of the EIR. J. 12 • ,e :7 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance b, c and d. one or more of the alternatives have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, may be cumulatively significant or have substantial environmental effects. The EIR will explore these issues. IV. MMINATIM on the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGUIVE DECLARATICN will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGNTM DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIF4dNM VIAL III REPORT is required. !? / 0 Z 4 0 9 Date Sid6ature .. 13 r X �1 Please Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAME 43U FE4S ct'5;T'OLLtlea N DATEfo -/7-70 wwacres) 31#11 � gij-eajwvc srEW aier DDRESS_?97.a2. &rtii&m t?=,p, srRaAirs AFFILIATION OW NF 0e5' CITY, ZIP T L nu LT;sr sue A •9Z75_PH. # (Optional) 7/5/ - (q-IYYI Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: Wr taV o 2 'TA -c %4 4;ra Y1r_Ai-t 2tc-2- dlers are (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 9knMrs ———— — — — — — - TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company 5770 South Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, California 90040 (213) 889-7785 October 15, 1990 File: 01002620 — 2 Mr. Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: This has reference to your letters of September 14 and 17, 1990, concerning the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor project. I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement furnished with your above mentioned letters. It is noted both alignment #1 and alignment #2 will cross our trackage and right of way in the vicinity of Avery Parkway. There will be an additional grade separation in connection i with alignment #2 for the westerly prolongation of Avery Parkway. As you are aware, our 6.2.1 San Diego corridor is being studied by the various transportation commissions for possible purchase in ord.r to increase connruter train service. At this writing, it is quite possible a second track w;ll be required through this area. If Santa Fe still holds title to the property when the project commences, the follow;ng are guidelines for pursuing grade separated highway/rail crossings: 1. Provide a map that shows the location of the planned project; Provide a conceptual drawing, if available; Provide name, address and telephone number of contact person. 2. A preliminary meeting should be held at the site which should include Santa Fe and the Project Designer; the scope of the project will be determined, including any necessary work required by Santa Fe forces. Project funding will also be discussed. 3. Designer prepares preliminary plan and submits to Santa Fe for approval and/or comments. 4. Santa Fe prepares estimates of work required by Santa Fe forces, if ary. 6-2-2 A Santa Fe Southem Pacific Company Mr. Steve Letterly October l5, 1990 File: 01002620-2 Page 2 5. Santa Fe prepares a Construction & Maintenance Agreement which outlines and separates work by each party and at whose expense. A draft of the agreement goes to the Project Manager or the governmental entity involved for review. When acceptable to all parties, Santa Fe executes two original copies and sends to the governmental entity for execution. 6. The governmental body returns executed agreement to Santa Fe. 7. The governmental body then applies to Public Utilities Commission for authority to construct a grade separated highway/rail crossing. Application must include copy of the above Construction & Maintenance Agreement. 8. PUC authorizes construction. 9. Governmental body may now commence construction. If you have any questions regarding our response, please feel free to call upon me. Sincerely, Roy V. Ketring III Manager Special Projects cc: Mr. Tom Shalin, San Bernardino 7536a 16-2-2 INDEPENDENT SERVICE 27622 CAMINO CAPISTRANO, UNIT B (714) 582-0444 LAGUNA NIGUEL. CALIFORNIA 92677 (714) 582-0795 November 14, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly, I own and operate a Foreign Auto Repair shop, located at 27622 Camino Capistrano #B in Laguna Niguel. I want my comments registered and a offical response concerning the proposed new option (OPTION II) for the alignment of the SAN JOAQUIN TRANSPORTION CORRIDOR at its intersection with the I-5 Freeway. OPTION II will cause a loss of business due to no direct access from 6-3-1 the I-5 via Avery Pkwy. to Camino Capistrano and from the removal of the Paseo de Colinas entrance to Camino Capistrano. OPTION II will make my location much more isolated, which I feel will 6-3-2 increase vandalism and theft. I have experienced-5 to 8 acts of vandalism or theft since opening at this location in 1983. We have burned also had to major fires. Unit "CT?at 27622 Camino Capistrano to the ground in 1984 and the entire building at 27652 Camino 6-3-3 Capistrano was completely destroyed in.late 1988. OPTION II will make it much more difficult for Emergency, Police, and Fire Dept. vehicles to get to our location. Since relocating from Mission Viejo to Laguna Niguel in 1983. Our location has had an adverse affect on the success of our business. In 6-3-4 the last 2 to 3 years, people have started to notice us. The substantial traffic disruption in the excess of two years during construction, will cause many of our customers to seek service elsewhere. The adoption of OPTION II will put ALLEN OLDSMOBILE—CADILLAC—GMC and many more of us out of business, with employees out of jobs. This 6-375 will create a loss of sales tax revenue for the City of Laguna Niguel. Very truly ours, Larry 5:J Ray Mr. Steve Letterly November 15, 1990 Page 2 If you should have any questions regarding the above comment, please contact me at (714) 837-6050. Sincerely, MISSION VIEJO COMPANY David . Celestin Vice President Planning and Local Governmental Relations DAC/ j z i ` MISSION VIEJO COMPANY DAVID A CELESTi.� AICV November 15, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 Clinton Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Dear Mr. Letterly: Mission Viejo Company offers the following comment on the above referenced document distributed for review: o On page 3-62, the environmental document references pedestrian facilities which include existing and future on -street sidewalks at proposed interchange/ overpass locations and future off -road City and County riding and hiking trails. The document should identify that pedestrian ramps on both the north and south side of the Corridor were planned and partially constructed to provide pedestrian access underneath Alicia Parkway to the Aliso Viejo greenbelt area serving several schools and parks. 6-4-1 Mission Viejo Company appreciates this opportunity to work with the TCA in finalizing the environmental documentation for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. As we 6-4-2 have stated previously, it is our objective to ensure timely implementation of the Corridor and have it integrated into the approved development plans within Aliso Viejo. • • Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME John B. Matherson DATE 11 /15/90 ADDRESS 29752 Running Deer AFFILIATION Mission Yamaha CITY, ZIP Laguna Niguel 92677 PH. # (Optional) (714) 582-0351 Please add my name to your mailing list xx YES NO COMMENT: Please register my camments as an official resp=P_ to the icA Lis -Lich that is currently in circulation for impact reiaceu to Uie_ San (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 tinere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS s 6-5-1 11/15/90 Steve Letterly Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: I would like the comments contained in this correspondence to be registered as an official response to the TCA EIS -EIS that is currently in circulation for impacts related to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I am opposed to the Option #2 alignment of the corridor with the I-5 free- way that would remove the Avery Pkwy. intersection with Camino Capistrano. This 6-5-2 option will force traffic to travel south to Via Escolar in order to gain ac- cess to Camino Capistrano. I am the owner of Mission Yamaha, a retail business, located at 27622 Camino Capistrano in Laguna Niguel. Being a business of retail nature we are very dep- endant upon the accessibility to us. This is basically the situation of nearly every business located on Camino Capistrano north of Avery Parkway. I am extremely opposed to the #2 Option for the reasons listed: 1) Gaining access to the businesses north of Avery Pkwy. is extremely difficult right now and has been a problem for as long as I can remember. I have 64-3 been active in in this area and active in the motorcycle industry since 1972. Diverting the accessability further south to Via Escolar is going to turn a ter- rible situation into a nightmare. 2) Along with the unfair elimination of Allen Cadillac, the difficulty of gaining access to Camino Capistrano will severely impair every business along 6"6"4 the street. 3) Many of the businesses along Camino Capistrano have been in existence for a very long time providing a very substantial sales tax base for Laguna Nig- uel. The decrease in revenues these businesses will suffer will directly reduce 6-5-5 the sales tax revenues to the city. Allen Cadillac alone retails over 50 million dollars annually. This roughly figures to amount to $3,125,000.00 in sales tax. 4) If these business losses are incurred as a result of the Corridor al- ignment, I am sure the tennants will begin to search for alternate locations in 6-5-6 which to conduct business. If this -happens, the rents will need to drastically 27622 Camino Capistrano - Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - (714) 582-0351 - FAX (714) 582-1325 reduced as an attempt to fill the vacant buildings. This rent reduction will in turn reduce property values which will reduce property taxes. Again this will 6-5.6 have a direct adverse affect on revenues that has been consistently growing over the past 2 decades. 5) Losing the Avery access to Camino Capistrano will create an extremely dangerous situation as fire, police, medical, and police vehicles will have a much slower response time in the event of a serious emergency. This situation greatly concerns me as we had a serious fire in the unit immediately next to the one we occupy. The only reason this building even exists today is because of the fire departments quick response time. On another occasion the building across the alley from us burned to the ground and again, the building that I occupy was saved because of the fire department's unimpaired access to the emergency. 6-5-7 " 6) There is a major telephone switching station a little further north on Camino Capistrano from our location. If this station were not able to be ac- 6..* cessed in the event of an emergency, there could be serious repercussions. 7) Because this strip of Camino Capistrano is currently accessible only from one inlet from the south, the realization of many serious problems becomes much more apparent. Further enhancement of this type of access will only inten- sify the problems. I believe that the need for a northerly access becanes more 6-5-9 obvious than ever before. In my opinion, this access should be oampleted before any construction of the I-5 hookup is started regardless of the option selec- ted. 8) One option that has seemingly been overlooked is a "No build option". As a businessman I realize the need for improvements in the transportation sys- tems that are currently in use. I do not feel that the addition of this corridor is the only option. If this corridor is not built the decision of "Option 1 or 6-5-10 Option 2 " will be non-existent and these detrimental impacts I have listed will not became reality. It is my opinion that much more investigative work is nec- essary before this project comes to fruition. Sincerely,, � Lti John B. Matherson • 27622 Camino Capistrano - Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - (714) 582-0351 - FAX (714) 582-1325 Please Pant clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME J �' 117 �� DATE 1 1 -� o (ADDRESS 9 C Q ° C-W AFFILIATION O t,✓7 e R (CITY, ZI9),6-7-7 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list AYES NO COMMENT: r cA-,"% L^ -/' 42 J 7-0 tv ,.,e-. Al ef 4 c l 0 5 e J �3f �JSe p� Corr 7- �r'ct w-r ,—U (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 o ere --------------- TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 Stamp 0 COMMENTS CONTINUED ROBERT P. GEORGE -P.O. Box 3224 Mission Viejo, California 92690-1224 (714) 582-9500 Mr. Steven Letterby Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Dear Sir: November 19, 1990 RE: Opposition to Alignment #2 Iuteresection I-5 At present, I own a 24,000 square foot building located at 27652 Camino Capistrano, Laguna.Niguel. I was first made aware of the existence of an Option 2 plan for the intersecting of the Transportation Corridor at Avery Parkway at the I-5 freeway 11/13/90 and resultant meeting heard 11/14/90 at Laguna Hills High School. In attendance at this meeting were myself, several other Camino Capistrano property owners and tenants. Our concern is the stretch of road located north of Avery Parkway. My associates and myself are completely aghast for this Option 12. This option would eliminate the entrance to Camino Capistrano via Avery Parkway exit. At present, I am having complaints from my tenants that this exit is to far from this premises AND and you may well be aware, Camino Capistrano dead -ends north of Avery. To eliminate this exit would produce an additional hardship on property owners and tenants alike in accessing their business cousumate with servicing their customer base. I feel the necessary expenditures involved in design, future acquisition(s) and construction dollars PLUS the economic disadvantage this would place our group in would far exceed any economical benefit derived thereof. 6-7-1 It has been my constant understanding that the Corridor intersection would be 6-7-2 located south of Avery Parkway so as to not displace existing businesses. This is the most reasonable approach in all economies. I am in receipt of letters written November 6, 1990 to Mr. Micheal Pinto from the Law Office of George J. Jeffries representing Allen Cadillac and letters dated Noember 1, 1990 & 11/15/90 to yourself by Mr. Pinto and a letter from Mr. Pinto to P 6 D Technologies. I agree most heartfelt with the conclusions stated. I cannot comprehend how a study on alignment Option #2 could even be considered a desireable effect considering the hardships incurred to Camino Capistrano interests. If adequate notice had been given to our interest, proper information could have been presented making the Option #2 conclusively inadequate and unfair. 6-7-3 SADDLEBACK WHOLESALE ELECTRIC, INC. Mr. Letterby . Nov. 19, 1990 page two of two I have personally spoken with about all the property owners of concern and ascertain that no one was tinily nor properly informed of this Option. Nov I 6.7.4 understand that we have little time to properly prepare a defensive action to Option #2. The property owners in concern are meeting Tuesday, November 14 to discuss this most pressing problem. In our subsequent meeting your personal attendance would 6-7-5 provide to be most useful. It would be sincerely appreciated, when our future meetings are scheduled that you could avail yourself to attend. Your cooperation is most respected. Sincerely, Robert P. George RPG:lsw cc: P. Bates -Mayor Laguna Niguel Tim Cassey-City Manager Laguna Niguel 10 • SADDLEBACK WHOLESALE ELECTRIC, INC. UR0 'ERFORMANCE A.M.,! ORLD 27652 Camino Capistrano • Unit "A" • Laguna Niguel. CA 92677 • (714) 582-8811 Laguna Niguel November 19th, 1990 Steve Letterly Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly; I attended the Public Hearing at the Laguna Hills High School, I have seen the two proposed alignments for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and I would like to have the contents of this letter, registered as an official response to the TCA DEIR-EIF that is currently in circulation for impacts related to the so called Corridor. It is beyond my comprehension how Alignment 82, could even be considered as an option, this is more of a case of opening the hole first, to see what size patch you are going to need. • I have heard and read about all the different ways that this option will affect the different areas, but I have heard 6-8-1 hardly anything about the way this option will practically shut down the sixty to eighty businesses north of Avery on Camino Capistrano, which is where our business is located. Mr. Letterly the building we presently occupy, was burned to the ground approximately two years ago, one of the main factors that contributed to this disaster was the limited 6-8-2 access to the area. Can you possibly imagine how this will be if Option 82 is approved.? Mr. Letterly in the year and a half that we have been in business, we spent $ 27,159.07 dollars in advertising so that people could find us, again because of the limited access to 6-8-3 our area. Do you think they will go thru the trouble of using back streets to find us, if Option 82 is approved.? Mr Letterly among the businesses mentioned above you have Allen Cadillac, which is my understanding that it will be eliminated. They alone collect approximately $3,000,000.00 in sales tax annually, not to mention Nurseryland that I an sure collects another substantial amount. Our business sales tax 6-8-4 revenue is approximately $20,000.00 a year, in a very empirical way of figuring, multiply that by eighty businesses and you have about $1,600,000.00 a year. Can the city of Your "One -Stop" BMW Service Center Laguna Niguel afford this loss of revenue.? Can the State afford this loss of revenue, with the concurrent unemployment that would follow.? Hr. Latterly one of the responses I heard repeatedly at the Public Hearing, was that this project needs further study and probably it should not even be built at all, due to the impact so such to the environment as to the wildlife in the area, and I can really sympathize with their concerns. But to actually truncate the All American Dream of sixty to eighty business owners, that have more than enough hardship with the state of the economy, taxation and cost of doing business and turn it into an All American Nightmare by further restricting the access to their places, making it harder that it already is for customers to find then, is not only asinine but it sure sakes se wonder, about our wonderful Democratic process. Hr. Latterly I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues will see that our point is very valid and that the small business person directly contributes to the growth of this great Nation, lets not just shut them down in the name of "Progress". Sincerely Yours. Edward C. Burckhardt T6-8-4 i 6-8-5 6-8-6 0 s EIKI NO E 1 "I � . I . .. • rt' ". r T 71.'!1��tiVt.✓•. i'1r lllii (,� Ins 1. i •i' r 31 �rJ ETA MESA, CA rr [ A!' E.' K RE OPPOSITION TOAL13NflrEN7 412 INN F•uN ; BELL&HOWELL Audio Visual Video Products hr PRt:;C�'T E;KI COM,RA'4'! il"�"'- r 1; r; .,.It„ 1_ Y;hl . i?.: ._ 1: ANuPTION %PLAN FOR THE :i; i;KSW,-,T!.»:ji ;'iE "�yi�;;:OGTa-; ,tir,�Li�!F!!"rj<<pl AVER" DARKWAY AT THE i-5 FREEV►'AY A.- TAIL M :.'Ir;�• rr e� , ,,, I-�.� .'� ._nru..� r D i.5• .7rrN� •,./ins TENANTS AT CAM INO CAP!STkAN',; ON EIKI COMPANY IS TCITALY AGAi!JST FOR T►�� :�� !G!: $;.. i_�•'d T !S !S ABSOLUTELY A BAD PLAN THIS OPTION WOULD ELIM!N ATE THE ENTRANCE TOCA'`iINC CAP 1STMNO VIAAVERY PARKWAY EXIT. TO ELIMINAYE THIIE EXIT WOUI D PROD -J'CE T f;E1!E)::; AMIOUNT OF HARDSHIP ON PROPERTY OWNERS AND TZNhNT5 A± Ik:f. IN kCCEV*iNe O! iR AND THEIR BUSINESS BUSINESS CONSUMATE WITH SFRVICINO THE C'•U•tiiCr'fcri.'ASE". AN,,) i!;F!!: �Ft tf'!Pli)YECS C011IN6 TO WORK. I F►_EL THE NECESSARY FXpEND1-LIP E:; :r:vOL VEb IN D'c5!5N, FI iTI_IRF ACOi,!S! 7 iuN! `) AND CONSTRUCTION DOL: AkS PLUS THE C13 0( 11E• D;':RC.;hNTAC-E T. H!cd'4OULD it" LACE US AND Oup, NEIBOURHOODS IN WOULD FAR EXCEED AN:.' F'_'()N0t1iCAL BFNEFIT DEWYED THEREOF. 6-9-1 IT HAS BEEN MY CONSTANT UNDERSTANDING r RAT THE GY'!IR.iuOR INTERSECTION WOULD BE 6-9-2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTH OF AVERY PARKWAi :',OAS TC NOT Di5PLACE EXISTING BUSINESS, AND IT SEEMS THIS IS THE MOST REASONABLE APPROACH IN ALL ECONOMIES. I AM IN RECEIPT OF LETTERS WRITTEN ONNOV. 1090 TO MR. MICHAEL PINTO FROM THE LAVA OFFICE OF GEORGE J JEFFRIES REPRESENTtNG ALLEN CADILLAC, AND LETTERS DATED NOV.1 ,'90 & NGV.1 S,'90 TO YOURSELF BY 11R. PINTO AND A : C I T Er, f"ROM (!r . PII�TC TG r C 6-9.3 TECHNOLOGIES, AND A LETTER FROM MR ROBERT P. OFOROL To YOU DATE NOY 1-3, 90 ! AGREE MOST HEARFELT WITH THE i CANNOT COMPREHEND HO)A h ("P i 1:)N EVEN' BI CONSIDERED A DESIRABLE EFFECT CONSIDERIINO T HE HARDSHIPS'NCLR^ED TO CAMINO CAP!STRANO BUSINESS 6-9-4 INTERESTS. IF ADEQUATE NOTICE HAD BEEN G:VEN TOOUR INTEREST, PROPER INFORMATION COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED MAKING THE OPTION 02 PLAN CONCLUSIVELY INADEQUATE AND UNFAIR. I HAVE NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS OPTION WHAT -SO -EVER. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REGISTER OUR OPPOSITION TO OPTION *2 PLAN, AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE KEPT POSTED ON THIS TCA PROJECT. YOUR; SINCERELY, 'R7 IzHI ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGEP. EIKI INTERNATIONAL, INC 6-9-5 6-9-6 cc: Patricia Bates Mayor, City of Laguna Niguel EIKI INTERNATIONAL. INC. - 27882 Camino Capistrano - Laguna Niguel, California 92677.8000 - Tel: 714582'2511 - FAX: 714/364.6405 0 13302 E. % irginia Avenue Bald%in Parr. California 91706.5885 (818)338-5587 - November 21, 1990 Transportation Corridor 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California "tftftft�t lNeN&OUT IX BURGER Agencies 92626 Attention: Sar. Joaquin Hill E.I.R./E.I.S. Ccants Gentlemen: The Best Enterprise Is A Free Enterprise "God Bless America" As you are aware, our restaurant, "In-N-Out Burger" in Laguna Niguel, is one of the businesses identified to be relocated if Alignment #2 of the interchange at I-5 is approved. In-N-Out purchased this restaurant which opened great deal of time and r most successful in term unique since it gives us as a highly visible travelers. property many years ago and developed the on August 24, 1982. In-N-Out has spent a money developing this store to one of its s of sales and profits. This location is a strong local market to draw from as well The local market is unique because it is close to a strong residential base. This location also enjoys a strong amount of business from Laguna Niguel which uses Paseo De Colinas to cross over the railroad tracks to Camino Capistrano. Other off ramps such as Junipero Sierra Road do not have this advantage. Our Avery off -ramp location is also strategically located to serve our ciistomers from Saddleback College and Capistrano Valley High School. Interstate 5 affords us a tremendous sales opportunity, especially with the northbound traffic since our location abuts the freeway. On page 4-104 of the E.I.S. it states, "The availability of space in these types of commercial sites is assumed to be adequate for the number of commercial businesses requiring relocation." It is our opinion that there are no sites available in this area along Interstate 5 which would provide us with the same marketing opportunities as the present location. Since our facility uses a double drive-thru concept, we cannot locate in a typical "strip" retail center. Also, the signage limitations are much more restrictive in most communities and it is unlikely that we will find a location with the same level of advertising visibility. 6-10-1 The Customer Is Everything To Us Transportation Corridor Agencies Page 2 Consequently, we feel that the only action allow us to continue to reap the benefits of investment, and reinvestment over the past us to remain and build Alignment #1. Sincerely, Phil Spear Vice President Real Estate PS/ck 0 available which will our marketing efforts, 6-10-2 12 years is to permit 0 Z00'39dd U38U NdBiS3M I 0 W Ib:01 06, 92 nON Shell Oil Company 0 F'.o, Du 4e 1911 N. arowLhunt 8te,Mt awe,. QUft id aem Xovsmbar 26, 1990 To: Transportation Corridor Agencies 34S Clinton Street Costa Mae, CA 92626 From: District Manager Southern California District , Shell Oil Company R8: BAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR This letter is to express our deep concern over the connection of the Corridor at the southern end with Interstate 5 at Avery it Parkway, and its effect on existing business at this intersection. It is our understanding that ALIGNMENT 12 will eliminate most businesses in this area, and that ALIGNMENT 11 will eliminate some businesses, but not as many. our only negative comment to the Corridor is the construction of this southern interchange. We have a Shell station at 28662 Camino Capistrano at Avery Parkway in San Juan Capistrano, which provides a needed service to.both ; surrounding neighborhoods and traffic on Interstate 5. Although both ALIGNMENTS Will eliminate some businesses, we request consideration that the final adopted plan is workable to leave intact the Shell station at 28662 Camino Capistrano at Avery Parkway in San Juan Capistrano. Thank you for your consideration. very truly yours, A T. A. Runnels District Manager I zed T96# 69VZ-OZS-v TL :ON -131 u-im N213isw I 9 W : Q I 0b :0T NOW 06 ,-9z-rcN — C.J. SEGrr'-2- S7ROM 4&- SONS :3:315 Fairview Road • costa mess t.Callrurnta 92626 10 Telephone 3-46-0110 November 26, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS Dear Mr. L.etterly: We are pleased to have the opportunity to review and comment on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor draft EIR/EIS (DEIR). As an overall policy position, the Segerstrom organization would like to state that it strongly supports the Corridor Project and anticipates its successful completion. We believe the Corridor will provide a significant contribution to improving traffic circulation in Orange 6-12-1 County. We also believe that, overall, the DEIR presents an excellent and well -reasoned analysis of the project. On a more specific matter, we note that page 5-10 of the DEIR describes certain potential transportation improvements in the area of the confluence of existing SR-73, SR-55 and I 405. While these "confluence improvements" would appear to serve as feasible mitigation' for the impacts of the Corridor Project in this area, we suggest, however, that the Final EIR'. include additional detail regarding the intended timing, implementation and funding of each of these improvements. These would serve to make clear and strengthen the Agency's commitment to ensure the improvements are appropriately carried out. Please let us know if you would -like to discuss our concerns regarding the DEIR in greater detail. We would be very pleased to do so. Sincerely, Malcolm C. Ross Director of Planning & Design MCR:sw cc: Henry Segerstrom Hal Segerstrom Ron Van Buskirk 16-12-2 'TONS OF QUALITY" EST. 1960 BUILDING MATERIALS 1%fta.00001 BRICK - TILE - BLOCK • SAND -- GRAVEL - CEMENT - STEEL - STONE - FIREWOOD - BBQ's - TOOLS November 26, 1990 Mr. Steven Letterly TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Re: Response to the S.rI Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS Dear Mr. Letterly: I have just FAXed you my official response to the presentation made by the TCA of Option II of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS. Because FAX paper is not always the best quality copy, I am herewith forwarding the original copy of the FAXed material. I will look forward to your early response to my concerns. Sincerely,, John C. Connors, President SEPULVEDA BUILDING MATERIALS John C. Connors, Partner FORBES ROAD ASSOCIATES John C. Connors and Janie G. Connors, Co -Trustees Connors Family Trust (Property Owners) TORRANCE GARDENA LACUNA NIGUEL PALM SPRINGS 0 2936 Sepulveda Blvd 359 E. Gardena Blvd. 28092 Forbes Rd. 4153 Matthew Dr. Torrance. CA 90505.2894 Gardena. CA 90248-2815 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1288 Palm Sonngs. CA 92264-5607 (213) 325-2173 (213) 217.0134 (714) 582.7500 (619) 328.3614 FAX (213) 325.5340 FAX (213) 217-0193 FAX (714) 364.3468 FAX (619) 328-7043 "TONS OF QUALITY" EST. 1960 0 8 BUILDING MATERIALS BRICK TILE • BLOCK • SAND • GRAVEL • CEMENT • STEEL • STONE • FIREWOOD • BBQ's • TOOLS �f November 26, 1990 Mr. Steven Letterly TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: Enclosed is our response to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS. I would like to introduce myself and my wife, our names are John C. Connors and Janie G. Connors, we hold positions that would be affected by the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS. My wife and I are the trustees for the Connors. Family Trust, owner of the property at 28092 Forbes Rd., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. I am the president of Sepulveda Building Materials Company of which the Laguna Niguel division is located on the property (mailing address 2936 Sepulveda Blvd., Torrance, CA 90505). We are 25% partners in Forbes Road Associates, a commercial building, located at 28062 Forbes Rd., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 (mailing address 2936 Sepulveda Blvd., Torrance, CA 90505). Last, but certainly not least, two very concerned citizens for the welfare of the fine city of Laguna Niguel and the Saddleback Valley community. We would Joaquin presented officially express our opposition t Transportation Corridor, Option Public Hearing on November 14, 1990. Sepulveda Building Materials is a wholesale, retail sales business supporting the Southern Orange Counties masonry, landscape, tile, and firewood needs. It has five locations in Southern California of which the Laguna Niguel property is the flagship and sustaining office. It grosses in excess of 21.5 million dollars annually, a substantial portion from the TORRANCE GARDENA LAGUNA NIGUEL PALM SPRINGS 2936 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance. CA 90505-2894 (213) 325.2173 FAX (213) 325.5340 359 E. Gardena Blvd. Gardena. CA 90248-2815 (213) 217.0134 FAX (213) 217.0193 28092 Forbes Rd. Laguna Niguel. CA 92677-1288 (714) 582.7500 FAX (714) 364-3468 4153 Matthew Dr. Palm Springs. CA 92264-5607 (619) 328-3614 FAX (619) 328-7043 • reduced as an attempt to fill the vacant buildings. This rent reduction will in turn reduce property values which will reduce property taxes. Again this will-5-6 have a direct adverse affect on revenues that has been consistently growing over the past 2 decades. 5) Losing the Avery access to Camino Capistrano will create an extremely dangerous situation as fire, police, medical, and police vehicles will have a much slower response time in the event of a serious emergency. This situation greatly concerns me as we had a serious fire in the unit immediately next to the one we occupy. The only reason this building even exists today is because of the 6-5-7 fire departments quick response time. On another occasion the building across the alley from us burned to the ground and again, the building that I occupy was saved because of the fire department's unimpaired access to the emergency. 6) There is a major telephone switching station a little further north on Camino Capistrano from our location. If this station were not able to be ac- 6-5-8• cessed in the event of an emergency, there could be serious repercussions. 7) Because this strip of Camino Capistrano is currently accessible only from one inlet from the south, the realization of many serious problems becomes much more apparent. Further enhancement of this type of access will only inten- sify the problems. I believe that the need for a northerly access becomes more 6-5-9 obvious than ever before. In my opinion, this access should be completed before any construction of the I-5 hookup is started regardless of the option selec- ted. 8) One option that has seemingly been overlooked is a "No build option". As a businessman I realize the need for improvements in the transportation sys- tems that are currently in use. I do not feel that the addition of this corridor is the only option. If this corridor is not built the decision of "Option 1 or 6-5-10 Option 2 " will be non-existent and these detrimental impacts I have listed will not become reality. It is my opinion that much more investigative work is nec- essary before this project canes to fruition. Sincerelly #, L14 John B. Matherson 27622 Camino Capistrano - Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - (714) 582-0351 - FAX (714) 582-1325 oT compensation replace the labor and personal investment w have in Sepulveda Building Materials? Relocation does not appear feasible anywhere near our present location --we have 6-13-3 investigated --so even if Sepulveda Building Materials survives, it will not be in Laguna Niguel. Such human considerations are not relevant to you in drafting your EIR/EIS, we guess. Of more interest, then, is the fact that the loss of Sepulveda Building Materials will entail a substantial loss of tax revenues, employment, and local services to Laguna Niguel and the surrounding southern Orange County area. The DEIR fails to adequately address the adverse effects imposed on over 110 Camino Capistrano businesses and the traffic congestion that will be created on I-5 with at least two years of construction to remove and replace over 7000 feet of this freeway and local bridges, or resultant impacts on emergency vehicle access and response 6-13-4 times, customer access, and viability. As noted in the City of Laguna Niguel's comments on the EIR/EIS, in its rather biased comparison of Option I and Option II, the EIR/EIS fails to address these issues even though such fiscal impacts could "cripple" the City's ability to provide services. Elimination of Sepulveda Building Materials, Allen Cadillac, and other businesses as required by Option II, will affect traffic circulation, service availability, employment taxes, and future growth potential in this area. If your EIR/EIS is to be anything more than a rationalization for a predetermined political result, it should study these factors and report the results to the public. As things stand now, the public cannot assess how its government is deciding 6-13-5 environmental questions because the full effects and costs of each proposed alternative are not being presented. We know -- Sepulveda Building Materials is part of the "hidden costs" of Option II which the EIR/EIS ignores. Moreover, if we "victims" are in fact -to receive compensation, that will greatly add to the cost of the project. In our case, for example, the property not only has value as the sustaining location for* the Sepulveda Building Materials operation, but also has an intended secondary use as an office structure, which greatly increases the value of the land. Option II already costs $40 million more than Option I, which would displace only a few businesses, by their nature should be easily able to relocate. The additional costs from compensating the businesses destroyed by Option II will add to this taxpayer's burden. The EIR/EIS' should fully quantify and discuss the additional costs of Option II so that people will realize how freely their tax' money is being spent to accommodate political pressureis ' e 3 6-13-6 COMMENTS CONTINUED pressures being brought to bear on you and TCA. We hope you 6-13-12 are not misled by the lack of vocal opposition until recently to Option II. Now that its consequences are becoming apparent, we intend to fight it with every means at our disposal and so will many others in the Laguna Niguel 'area. We are not only fighting for what we believe in, we are fighting for our right to be heard and for the future of our family. We support the city's request that the Public Review Period for the DEIR/DEIS should be extended until these studies are available for public review. Once the studies 6.13-13 are completed, a forty-five day Public Review Period should begin. During that time we can evaluate the findings of these studies in conjunction with the DEIR/DEIS and prepare appropriate comments. If all the cards are put on the table and all dealings are above board and all avenues have been pursued, then let the negotiations be fair and equitable. We hereby make a formal request of the TCA, DEIR/EIS to research all comments and questions of any citizens or 6-13-14 companies submittal and to copy us with all their responses. We will expect to hear from you within the very short response period before the next step of your schedule occurs. Thank you for listening to our views and hopefully they, along with other businesses in our neighborhood, will be 6-13-15 given serious consideration before you proceed. We also formally request that all future materials, notices, and drafts relating to the EIR/EIS be sent to us. Very tru y ours, John C. Connors, President SEPULVEDA BUILDING MATERIALS 2936 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA 90505 (213) 325-9905 John C. Connors, Partner FORBES ROAD ASSOCIATES John C. Connors and Janie G. Connors, Co -Trustees Connors Family Trust (Property Owners) 5 Mr. Letterby Nov. 19, 1990 page two of two I have personally spoken with about all the property owners of concern and ascertain that no one was timly nor properly informed of this Option. Nov I 6.7.4 understand that we have little time to properly prepare a defensive action to Option #2. The property owners in concern are meeting Tuesday, November 14 to discuss this most pressing problem. In our subsequent meeting your personal attendance would 6_7_5 provide to be most useful. It would be sincerely appreciated, when our future meetings are scheduled that you could avail yourself to attend. Your cooperation is most respected. Sincerely, y/� P10- Robert P. George RPG:lsw cc: P. Bates -Mayor Laguna Niguel Tim Cassey-City Manager Laguna Niguel i SADDLEBACK WHOLESALE ELECTRIC, INC. i Corridor Design Management Grc_ __r INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE TO: WILLIAM.WOOLLETT, Jr. FROM: RONALD HARTJE 4 SUBJECT: SJHTC DEMAND MANAGEMENT CONCEPT PROJECT COST ESTIMATE BACKUP QUANTITY SHEETS A i Ac.VA0AE,1,) ► n � /'J i _r.. ersnro or `o%ara P-eeoies Timmen 6 3eraenaorf :rsrns Erincur- :m Qi do::.r Duuaras. rr.:. rluor Darne-.:rc. =iurcn Enomeer ..:. inc. CODE: CDMG1117.9HA DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1989 CDMG has assembled the quantity sheet calculations that were used in preparing the recent project cost estimate and they are transmitted for your information and to support the estimate. The estimate has been compiled into the components described herein as initial construction, median improvements, and the ultimate project. The work in the first two components equals the ultimate project cost. We have summarized the estimates into section by section totals for general construction contracts and we have identified items such as toll facilities, landscaping, habitat restoration and maintenance facilities that will be accomplished by special construction contracts. For your reference, there is a summary of the work by category that was provided in the tabulation submitted earlier. Also included is the basis of conceptual cost estimate for the quantity calculations. The estimate is in 1989 dollars. RJM/RLH:mec CDMG1117.9HAmec 345 Clinton Street. Costa Mesa. California 92626.6011 Telephone: ', 14.557 0330 FAX: 714.557.6258 Laguna Niguel afford this loss of revenue.? Can the State '�• 6-8-4 afford this loss of revenue, with the concurrent unemployment that would follow.? _ Hr. Letterly one of the responses I heard repeatedly at the Public Hearing, was that this project needs further study and probably it should not even be built at all, due to the impact so such to the environment as to the wildlife in the area, and I can really sympathize with their concerns. But to actually truncate the All American Dream of sixty to eighty business owners, that have more than enough hardship with the state of the economy, taxation and cost of doing business and turn it into an All American Nightmare by further restricting the access to their places, making it harder that it already is for customers to find them, is not only asinine but it sure makes me wonder, about our wonderful Democratic process. 6-8-5 Hr. Letterly I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues will see that our point is very valid and that the small business person directly contributes to the growth of this 6-8-6 great Nation, lets not just shut them down in the name of "Progress". Sincerely Yours. Edward C. Burckhardt cn W H Ci ~ 0 W cc a ac w 0 Z CO z O c� O ci M a w O U O cn O U z U O uj Pa J 0 J z Z Oa. Q Om Qz U cn Q N z O cn cc a 2 0 w z 2 p o z 20 �►- w<<� OI p < z I n. w U z O U I W cr a z O �<CC m LE g W LL. z U m y o r � U ul m U b Ulu IJ Z E e U m c 8arto T A c a m � N C' 17 •c A c� �n o Qo o m QU 5 m 0 c C t0 y O m a M .� ACL uaa c'0 c c E au zUli coof df to r� f �D Qi OPPf to N H N N N f��ta�c4ig� con Qf M r� M to 0 N H to H H H w H H U! en M M 3 N 10 II� ss§I§ r 1 a > I < t m ; � E o � W C 2 0 U C I O � U a O I CL E � � c - m <i o c�mci °' cg(aNi ^ ^ rO. a " Zr %n. Ita •- 9 - H M H C tNa LniN_ H HRH p O t0 � O OHO O `a v < <I v `r ? v,•? CO�, Z50 z z N IH Q N ca ^ H HIN H N O 0 w < cn o U m <aOU F- Uz i z OSz O w Wa0 Z O x < OP _ _ S�OS OpZ< Zn W � N°S V W cr F- Z U < O W U z 0 z< < � 0 0 p IgMl4C%/n&lq.f I' „ u of CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SIHTC INITIAL CONSTRUCTION S-1 1-5 WIDENING UNIT I TOTAL rtEM UNIT COST I OUANTITY CO1T/0N EARTHWORK i ' CLEAR0901ORUSSING AC S1,150 24 12B.000 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY SA 00 120.000 BY0.000 1 SLIDE STASKAZATION EA $1.000.000 BO DISPOSAL OF EXCESS MATERIAL CY $1.00 BO IMPORTED BORROW CY fA 20 1.000 !A 00o EROSNON CONTROL AC $1 170 5 N o00 2316.000 MTOTAL EAFITHWORK iDRAINAGE ROADWAY ORAIuOE MI 1QS.o00 2.5 21.563.000 I CROSS DRAINAGE BOX CULVERTS LF 1700 SO RC► LF S120 SO S1.SB5.000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE PAVEMENT MAINLINE SY 222 M.240 SIJ».000 MA"LWE SHOULDER SY t22 2B.A31 I014.000 ARTERIAL SY S25 10 RAMP SY 225 f0 MMF SHOULDER SY Sig SO I S2.1>'•000 SUBTOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURES SRIDGES IF m 2B.AB0 S1.157 000 AETAMNNG wALLS SF $a 21450 11Q2.000 SOUND WALAS I IF 210 257 Sw O 00 000 15.947,000 SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES MISCELLANEOUS SURVEILLANCE B CONTROL SYSTEM MI S1.100.000 25 S2.750.000 RANNNGLBARRIERS LF m 2AAO 571.000 TRAFFIC SIGNALS INT = 000 SO sgNronNGNrwG ►N 1250.000 2.5 14311.000 FENCING , LF ftl So SUBTOTAL MISC 12.661.000 UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS I27•000 SUBTOTAL S13 04 o00 CONTINGENCY(20%) I ( 12 7B7•� CONSTRUCTION COST i S15001 o00 11TNW FINAL Transportation Corridor Agencies Page 2 Consequently, we feel that the only action allow us to continue to reap the benefits of investment, and reinvestment over the past us to remain and build Alignment #1. Sincerely, Phil Spear Vice President Real Estate PS/ck available which will our marketing efforts, 6-10-2 12 years is to permit LJ s ATACV\ M�-,►�Yk ,1 1 TOM URAM DIRECTOR U N-rY t? F afro OCT 2 5 1990 L. RHX EHLINO MD 4 . HEALTH OFkICEA ` ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 2 1 ROBERT E. MERRYMAN, REHS MPH DEPUTY DIRECTOR 5 3 MANGE MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 355 Y V SANTA AN& CA 22702 HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION October 1 , 1990 2009 E. EDINOER AVENUE SANTA ANA; CALIFORNIA 92705 (714) 667.3700 Chuck Stewart Sepulveda Building Materials 28092 Forbes Rd. Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Subject: Remedial Action At Sepulveda Building Materials, 28092 Forbes Rd. Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - O.C.H.C.A. Case #90UT30 Dear Mr. Stewart: This letter confirms the completion of site investigation and remedial action at the above site. With the provision -that the information provided to this Agency was accurate and representative of existing conditions, it is the position of this office that no further action is required at this time. Please be advised that this letter does not relieve you of any liability under the California Health and Safety Code or Water Code for past, present, or future operations at the site. Nor does it relieve you of the responsi- bility to clean up existing, additional or previously unidentified condi • tions at the site which cause or threaten to cause pollution or nuisance or otherwise pose a threat to water quality or public health. Additionally, be advised that changes in the present or proposed use of the site may require further site characterization and mitigation activity. It is the property owner's responsibility to notify this Agency of any changes in report content, future contamination findings, or site usage. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact James Strozier at (714) 667-3711. 245 rty, EHS Supervising Hazardous Waste Specialist Hazardous Materials Management Section Environmental Health Division SJD:JS:md cc: Margo Boodakian. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Orange County Fire Department • }s, Costco! WHOLESALE VIA FAX & FEDERAL EXPRESS November 26, 1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: Mr. Steven Latterly Re: Costco - Laguna a Niguel Dear Mr. Latterly: Costco Wholesale Corporation ("Costco") is the owner of a parcel of land ("Costco Parcel") at the intersection of Cabot Road and Crown Valley Parkway in Laguna Niguel. Costco is presently operating an approximately 115,000 square foot retail facility on the Costco Parcel. Costco and the TCA have engaged in extensive negotiations over the course of approximately three years concerning the development of the Costco Parcel. Costco and the TCA have entered into an agreement for the acquisition by the TCA of the right of way for Alignment 01, and the improvements on the Costco Parcel were designed and built around Alignment #1. Costco has not received the requisite legal notice of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (IIDEIR"), and we have been substantially prejudiced by having inadequate time to review and comment upon the DEIR. Despite the extensive negotiations and agreement referred to above, Costco was not furnished by the TCA with notice of the DEIR. In the limited time available to us, we are submitting these comments. As you know the City of Laguna Niguel and a group of other Laguna Niguel merchants have also submitted comments, and we refer you to these comments which address a number of matters which we have not been able to address specifically due to the inadequate notice. 6-14-1 6-14-2 The DEIR fails to identify the fiecal.impacts, and resulting fire, life safety and other municipal services impacts, of Alignment 02 on the City of Laguna Niguel. For example, Costco 6-14-3 and many other local merchants will almost certainly be forced to 0.1 10809 120th AVENUE N E . KIRKLANZ: WA. 96033 i (206) 828-8100 i P.O. BOX 97077, KIRKLAND. WA 98083.9777 BUYING c&� 7rA'F,C -AX LEGA17EA_ ES't-. ;A, 120e; eas a+c' . !aLK e:e e:_: ::aP29 E4�."0e� sae•e+:,c , 1% 0" LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE J. JEFFRIES 610 NEWPORT CENTEYt DRIVE,SUITE 1010 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE 714/644-6400 FAX 714/640-2317 November 26, 1990 MR. STEVE LETTERLY MANAGER EIR/EIS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 COMMENTS ON SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR DEIR/EIS OPPOSITION TO OPTION 2 ALIGNMENT Dear Mr. Letterly: This law office represents Allen -Oldsmobile -Cadillac, Inc., - (hereinafter "Allen"), 28332 Camino Capistrano, Laguna Niguel, California. It is our belief that the current Draft EIR/EIS fails to provide facts necessary for a clear and adequate presentation to 6-15-1 the T.C.A. Board to assist it in making an informed decision on alignment alternatives, based on costs, environmental impact, and time constraints. Further, the report fails to address several l6-15-2 significant impacts which should be included in the document's cumulative impact analysis. These items are addressed herein. We additionally oppose Option 2 for the reasons further stated herein, as well as, those contained within the letter of Gordon B. Jones 6-15-3 and Associates, dated November 7, 1990, a copy of which is attached hereto for your further consideration and review. (A) Request for Delay for Comment on P & D Technologies, Inc., Study: The T.C.A. has been in complete control of scheduling and aware of the potential impacts from the choice of alignments. Despite this fact, they have sponsored a study of the corridor-I-5 confluence with P & D Technologies Inc. which will not be available for public response before the EIR/EIS is scheduled to be certified. In so doing, the T.C.A. has subverted due process commonly found in the environmental procedural process. Due to the critical importance of the results of this study to my client, and other businesses similarly situated, as well as other businesses in the area and more than 400 persons facing unemployment, it is respectfully requested that additional time be granted exclusively for response to the P & D Technologies study. Otherwise it is respectfully requested that the P & D Technologies study be terminated forthwith. 6-15-4 L.J 0 November 26, 1990 Page 3 excess of $50,000,000.00 per year provides approximately 1/6th offo the sales tax revenue of the City of Laguna Niguel. This loss, coupled with the loss of revenues from Costco, Sepulveda Building Supply and of other properties to be taken, in addition to reduced 6-15-8 sales taxes caused by the isolation of Camino Capistrano from Avery Parkway under Option 2 (see infra.) will result in a disaster to the City of Laguna Niguel so far as its sales tax revenues are concerned. (See City of Laguna Niguel comments for further - particulars.) Other government bodies (i.e. special districts) may r be affected by reduced property tax assessments after anticipated '6-15-9 foreclosures arising from reduced rental income.: This subject is not discussed. (D) Possible Relocation of Gillen and Other Businesses is a Myth: The T.C.A. relies upon "mitigation through relocation". In conducting an appropriate analysis, the T.C.A. should be aware of the following material facts. Practical and legal problems make this impossible for my client, Allen, and improbable for other businesses proposed to be taken by eminent domain. Allen represents three GMC franchises. Our dealer contract specifies in substance, that the dealership cannot close for a period in excess of seven days without voiding our dealership contract at the option of General Motors. If it were possible to avoid this contractual provision, a closure of any significant time would cause a loss of cash flow and impair Allen's ability to pay rent, used by the property owner to pay mortgage expenses, taxes, insurance, and maintenance, resulting in a breach of our lease agreement. Additionally, our employees would be unemployed, and could seek other employment. The T.C.A. offers 'no practical or legal assistance to anticipate and eliminate these problems. Vehicle Code section 3067 employs restrictions on automobile dealers who might intend to move dealership franchises within ten miles of another dealership with the same franchise. There is currently a -General Motors, GMC truck dealer in the Irvine Auto Center. Therefore, relocation of Allen in that direction, even if land were available for this purpose, is highly improbable. The only alternative direction which we could consider would be a move south to San Juan Capistrano which we deem to be unsatisfactory because we would be moving away from a major customer base for Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs in Laguna Hills/Leisure World. There are no acceptable similar sites in the immediate area. The areas near our current site lack similarities to our existing site which are minimum requirements for a successful dealership location. We currently enjoy use of a five acre, flat parcel with freeway frontage on one side and arterial frontage on the other side. We are approximately one quarter of a mile distant from a freeway on -ramp. Because of the peculiarities of our area, while 6-15-10 6-15-1-1 6-15-12 Laguna Niguel store. The Sepulveda Companies employ over 120 people and our Laguna Niguel division is the flagship; employing more people, controlling dispatch of our delivery vehicles, and housing our inventory control department, purchasing department, maintenance department, and sales department headquarters. Being our largest facility it also houses inventory for all the other divisions. We estimate we are responsible for paying $650,000+/- sales tax in the county of Orange annually. Sixty-five percent of all the masonry & landscape materials for residential construction in the area comes from us. Whenever possible, we shop with other local businesses, like Allen Cadillac, and we supply over 500 local contractors of the area on a regular basis. Our site was purchased in 1976 and has been designed with a two -fold purpose so that when the area was built to capacity and it was time to convert the property from a building materials sales use, to a self-sustaining office complex, in excess of 170,000 Sq. Ft., which would house office space, restaurants, dry cleaners, barber shops, office supply stores, fitness center, etc.. This would help the environment and support our tenants and also the other t businesses on the south end of Forbes Rd., eliminating the need to leave the complex until the people go home in the evening. Several years ago we attended many meetings related to the establishment of Option I for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor and we thought we had an equitable route that everyone in the area, with a few exceptions, could live with and still operate profitable businesses and support the City of Laguna Niguel and the surrounding community. We were never made aware that because a small handful of people had complained, all of the time and money spent on Option I was apparently discarded and a new route, Option II, was set in place until a very innocuous announcement arrived in the mail in February, 1990. Option II would effectively destroy Sepulveda Building Materials by taking most of our property. 6-13-2 Our personal stake in opposing Option II is obvious. Sepulveda Building Materials is our "baby" --our professional dream and livelihood, and the future of our children. Having it wiped out would not only remove our sustaining location, but would probably make it difficult to continue operating the other four Sepulveda Building Materials branches, which 6-13-3 are increasingly dependent on the Laguna Niguel main location. We will get some money as compensation, we are told, but somehow the government never offers enough to really pay for all the losses suffered; and, how can monetary IL 2 November.26, 1990 Page 5 (2) Most recent figures (which are not contained in the EIR/EIS) suggest that the cost will be $43,000,000.00 with $19,500,000.00 for right-of-way expense and $23,500,000.00 for construction (see Tech Memo TM3-18, page 5-7). The EIR/EIS does contain information concerning the assumptions or computations in 6-15-17 reaching these figures. (3) Even accepting the $43,000,000.00 estimate, it is in 1989 dollars. Realistically, construction will not be completed until* 1993, or later. There is no reflection of an adjustment of these values in the EIR/EIS. The foregoing figures appear to conflict with others in a memorandum dated November 17, 1989, to William Woollett Jr. from Ronald Hartje. Under the Demand Management Section there are two sheets, one entitled "Conceptual Project Cost Estimate SJHTC Initial Construction S-1 I-5 Widening" (Option 1 Alignment?) shows total costs of $16,601,000.00. Another sheet depicts 11S-2 I-5 Connection" (Option 2 Alignment?) showing total costs of $76,400,000.00. On a sheet entitled "Summary Comparison of Pre- 6-15-18 Concept Concept Estimates October 31, 1989 the right-of-way EIR 494" figure is $52,461,000.00 and the Demand Management Initial Constr. Oct 891.' right-of-way figure is $62,502,000.00." A reading of this data leads one to conclude that the total cost of the Option 2 Demand Management Alignment will exceed $59,799,000.00 for improvements and $10,041,000.00 for acquisition costs, total $69,840,000.00. These figures should be explained and reconciled. (4) Allen submits that even $43,000,,000.00 is a gross understatement of the actual costs of acquisition and construction; (a) Under Option 2, 7,000 feet of the I-5 near Avery parkway will be relocated approximately 100 feet westward; (b) The I-5 will be regraded and lowered 30 feet at 6-15-19 Avery; (c) Avery will be reconstructed at the I-5 to link up with Paseo de Colinas by passing over the railroad tracks and flood control channel; (d) 3,500 feet of 72 inch storm drain will be constructed. On the basis, of common iknowledge in connection with public transportation improvements it is submitted that the present 6-15-20 estimate should contain a more substantial contingency factor in the cost estimate. groups. T6-13-6 In reviewing an interoffice memo from William Woollett, Jr. to Ronald Hartje, dated November 17,1989, regarding the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Demand Management Concept Project Cost Estimate (attachment A), Mr. Hartje states on page 2 that the right of way cost difference between Option I and Option II was a mere $10,041,000.00. I. believe this figure is a gross misrepresentation of property values in the area. We think the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor will be hard pressed to purchase Costco, Sepulveda Building Materials, Allen Cadillac/Oldsmobile, Shell Gas Station and Mini -Mart, Exxon Gas Station, A's Burgers, Buffy's Family Restaurant, Travel Lodge, and In & Out Burgers for this figure. Some of these sites mentioned are worth more than this figure by themselves. 6-13-7 In the democratic processes we have in this country where small businesses are established. and built for the future of our families, it would seem that we would be given more consideration than just government take-over. In talking to other business owners in the area, it was noted that most were unaware of the ramifications upon their livelihood that 6-13-8 Option II would bring. Our investigation uncovered some very interesting questions concerning the TCA dealings with a couple of very large corporations. To date no one has negotiated any deals with our company or that of other close business neighbors that we have talked to. The fact that Option II would wipe out a large percentage of the City of Laguna Niguel's tax base, over 50% we are told, doesn't even seem to come under consideration. Collectively, businesses 6.13-9 in the area account for over $146 million in taxable annual retail sales and more than $98 million in assessed valuation. We have tried to be cooperative with TCA associated personnel who have come -on our property and drilled holes with disastrous results but that still does not afford us any 6-13-10 apparent consideration for possible loss of our businesses of which the Laguna Niguel facility is the backbone --the money maker --the sustaining facility of our other four locations. Referring to the EIR/EIS Potential Hazardous Waste/Material Sites, pg. 3-58, #2 Sepulveda Building Materials 28092 Forbes 6_13-1t Rd., Laguna Niguel removal of tanks case referred to OCHCA. Status: The spoil pile was removed and the clean up is complete - copy enclosed from OCHCA (attachment B). Mr. Letterly, we know there are significant politicall6-13-12 4 � November 26, 1990 Page 7 businesses on Camino Capistrano north of Avery, or to provide anyT6-15-26 mitigation with reference thereto. The EIR/EIS fails to contain any evaluation of this impact: (1) on these parties; (2) in the future, on the City of Laguna Niguel due to lower sales tax 6.15-27 revenues; and (3) to other governmental entities based upon lost property tax revenues because of lowered property values after foreclosures caused by inadequate rental revenues. Camino Capistrano, north of Avery, is a 1 1/2 mile cul de sac. There are 6-15-28 no current plans whatsoever to connect it to any other street or arterial highway. (2) Failure to Consider Alternatives: The EIR/EIS fails to disclose what, if any, alternative designs were considered, other than Option 2, to solve the problem at Avery Parkway and Camino Capistrano. Clearly, the T.C.A. must favor Option 2, all things' being equal, because it provides access from the Avery/I-5 interchange to the corridor which will have the result of providing greater revenues to the T.C.A. than Option 1 which provides an interchange south of Avery. CEQA Guidelines 15126.d, require that an EIR address a range of reasonable alternatives to the project_ which could feasibly attain the project's basic objectives. There is a third design alternative, based primarily on Option 1, which could also relieve congestion and provide access from Avery Parkway to the corridor, but which has not been discussed in the EIR/EIS. This alternative (Option 3) would not require a change in I-5 grade or location at Avery Parkway, at substantial cost and time savings. Option 3 would achieve the same benefits by simply relocating and lowering two railroad tracks adjacent to Camino Capistrano, instead of lowering eight lanes of the I-5, and connecting Avery Parkway to the west to Paseo de Colinas by going over the railroad tracks. The current overpass from Paseo de Colinas to Camino Capistrano would be eliminated.lI With the addition of a diamond access to and from the corridor at Paseo de Colinas substantially all problems of corridor access from, and exit to Avery Parkway would be satisfied at nominal cost and delay while preserving the same interchange to the I-5 under Option 1. While the EIR/EIS states that: "All reasonable alternatives are under consideration". this fact is untrue. 6-15-29 6-15-30 (G) Comparative Disruption: (1) $1'0010001000.00 Loss of Productivity Damages: Option 2 will clearly create a substantially greater disruption during construction which has not been evaluated or compared to that which 6-15-31 would be created under Option 1. The EIR/EIS has neither attempted to describe nor quantify the actual disruption to be created. This "' November 26, 1990 Page 9 misleading, as follows: (1) At page S-1 there is the following statement: "Depending on the I-5 connection, the corridor is a 17.5 to 19.4 mile project." A review of maps associated with the project would suggest that because Option 1 intersects the I-5 further south than 6.15-37 Option 2, one might conclude that the length of the project is related to which option is chosen. However, according to the staff, this is not necessarily true. The EIR/EIS contains no clear: description between the difference between the 17.5= and the 19.4 mile project. (2) Although Option 1 would appear to make an intersection further south with the I-5, Option 2 appears to have a greater 6-15-38 radius after crossing Crown Valley -Parkway so there is really no actual comparison between the respective lengths of each alignment option between Crown Valley and the intersection of the I-5. (3) Profound confusion exists in the EIR/EIS regarding alignment alternatives. The document states in pertinent part with reference to the selection of an alternative: "It must be determined and stated which alternative (or design variation) is environmentally preferred." (EIR/EIS page S-7.) Unfortunately the EIR/EIS makes it almost impossible to make a legitimate, informed comparison. 6-15-39 The EIR/EIS hopelessly confuses and interchanges "build alternatives" with "alignment alternatives." It provides in pertinent part at page S-1: "The proposed project consists of two build alternatives: the Demand Management Alternative and the 6-15-40 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 in Newport Beach. With the Demand Management_ Alternative, there are two alignment ternatives for the I-5 connection." (Emphasis added.) Despite the fact that reference is made to Options 1 and 2 as each being Demand Management Alignment Alternatives, there is considerable confusion as the report improperly and repeatedly uses the term Demand Management in referring to Option 2 alignment and Conventional in referring to Option 1 alignment. This is not only inaccurate, but permits inappropriate comparisons. For example, at page 4-102 the report provides in- pertinent part: "The Conventional Alternative would result in fewer commercial impacts than the Demand Management Alternative" and "The Conventional Alternative would partially encroach upon 15 residential properties. There are no full residential takes associated with this alternative" and "The Conventional Alternative will displace the same non-residential/non-commercial properties as the Demand 15-41 S • November 26, 1990 Page 11 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. 6-15-45 The availability of space in these types of commercial sites is assumed to be adequate for the number of commercial businesses requiring relocation." (Emphasis added.) There are no known auto malls in the City of Laguna Niguel. (I) Further Inadequacies: (1) The T.C.A. has done no studies reflecting actual economic impact of Option 2 on businesses which are not taken, and thus an informed decision with reference to even gross social,, environmental and economic impact is impossible. Included within the limitations provided by the current anticipated P & D Technologies report are the following: 6-15-46 (a) There has been no consideration of problems - pertaining to traffic flow at the Avery -Marguerite Parkway interchange resulting from automobiles seeking access to Camino 6-15-47 Capistrano from the I-5 Via Escolar, and from the opposite direction, involving three left turns to go northbound and four to go southbound on.I-5. (b) • There has been no analysis of the economic impact on 110 existing businesses and property owners on Camino Capistrano. Indeed, the most probable scenario resulting from the isolation of north Camino Capistrano would be a flight of businesses to other cities, possible substitution of marginal businesses at lower 6-15-48 rental rates, substantially greater tenant vacancies, substantially reduced rental income, while owners bear existing mortgage/tax/insurance expenses resulting in foreclosures and loss of property values leading to a lower property tax base and governmental revenues. In short, commercial blight. (2) A fact not considered by the EIR/EIS is that relocation caused by displacement does not help a city's tax revenues as it 6-15-49 reduces the property which should be available for new development in addition to the old development. (3) The draft EIR deals only conceptually with the circulation system in the area of Avery Parkway and the I-5, and fails to deal with prospective traffic problems at the micro level which may be created by Alignment Option 2. It is apparent that ending the corridor at Avery can only enhance and surcharge Avery Parkway in that area, but there is no analysis of this problem. conclusion: While certain environmental information has been provided EIR/EIS with reference to the impact of Alignment Options 1 6-15-50 in the and 2 6-15-51 147 -Ti9e-1A 7C: N7" %/ " a3 R �+ CONCEPTUAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE SJHTC INITIAL CONSTRUCTION S-2 "CONNECTION UNR TOTAL ITEM uNR COST OUAXY Y CoRtesa EARTHWORK CLtAR1N4mmUBBU4 AC $1.130 h 977 an ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 8408 91141.00111 U.230.000 SL10E STASAALATION EA $1.000.000 00 DISPOSAL OF EXCESS MATERIAL CY St BB 3011,000 Sp7.000 IMPORTED 0004R0w CY S• 20 SO EROSION CONTROL AC WEN 12 C@ o00 53,010.000 SUBTOTAL EARTHWORK DRAINAGE ROADWAY DRAINAGE CPO" DRAINAGE MI JIM.= 3.2 S3.om an Box CULVERTS LF t700 >p ACID LF 1 S1301 S20 I SA am C2.0r.000 SUBTOTAL OIWNAOE PAVEMENT MA111UNE SY S20 IS4.120 S•,•70.000 "MUNE SHOULDER SY =3 m,77! 111 300.000 ARTERIAL SY Ila 0.300 =13.=c RAMP SY In 22.073 "77,000 RAW SHOULDER SY S10 13.107 82" a00 ".0111.000 "TOTAL FAVEMEW STRUCTURES iRxIOEs SF m 000.300 $41.106 000 RRA NWM WALLS SF 920 127.500 $3 m.000 SOUND WALLS SF S13 •• 000 S302 000 IIAS ••• 000 SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES MISCELLANEOUS SURVEILLANCE S CONTROL SYSTEM MI 111 100 000 32 53.320 a= RAIUNGNSARRIERS LF S2S 0.000 S200 000 TRAFFIC SONALS INT SS .4X)* • ==.am S1GNIN0IUGHT104 MI Sm.000 3.2 Sm.m0 FENCING LF sit LOW Rm 000 01 S7. 000 SUBTOTAL MISC. UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS S2s0 000 SUBTOTAL u3 007 000 CONTINGENCY(20%) 512.733 000 CONSTRUCTION COST i 2•.aoo0o IS GORDON B. JONES & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING CONSULTATION LAND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS AND GOVERNMENT LIAISON November 7, 1990 Mr. George Jeffries 610 Newport Center Drive Suite 1010 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Allen Oldsmobile -Cadillac, Inc. ` Evaluation of Route 73-San Joaquin Hills Transportation --Corridor EIS/EIR Inadequacies of Information Dear Mr. Jeffries: You have requested my review and comment on the adequacy of the subject EIS/EIR as it pertains to those alternatives relating to the Allen Oldsmobile -Cadillac site on Camino Capistrano in Laguna Niguel. My observations are based on my experiences as a civil engineer on similar transportation project deliberations. In my opinion, the information presented in the EIS/EIR document and supplemented for us with additional technical data by TCA staff does not yet provide a clear and adequate basis for the TCA Board or those reviewing the document to fully evaluate and make informed decisions on alternatives based on costs, impacts, scheduling and other critical factors, particularly in regard to differences between Option 1 and 2 alignments and connections to Interstate 5. Though we have seen some additional materials which would aid in reaching decisions, and understand others are in preparation, the information is not available in the EIS/EIR itself and does not answer the questions we have raised to date. Information as presented is misleading to the public and inaccurate or incomplete in a number of instances. 6-15-56 'I80 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 180. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 62BB0 • t714) 760.1336 of way and $12 million to construction. Is this a comparison of the Demand Alternative with the Conventional Alternative on the Option 2 versus Option 1 alignment segments? Earlier studies for the TCA appear to indicate a $43 million savings for the Demand Management Alternative in favor of the Option 1 alignments. This Technical Memorandum (TM. 3-18, 11/28/89) is not included in the EIS/EIR. 6-ts-62 A clear cost comparison and a breakdown of construction and right of way estimated costs for Options 1 and 2 with the Demand Management Alternative. should be included in the EIS/EIR document. Costs we have seen to date appear low in respect to right of way, relocation and construction given the comparative impacts and problems of Option 2 versus Option 1. 3. Construction Impact Differences Construction impacts of the Option 2 alignment at its I-5 connection are not adequately identified (Reference Sec. 4.17 pgs 4-137 to 144). Realignment and lowering of 7000 feet of I-5 would certainly cause major disruptions to traffic on 6-15-63 I-5 and on arterial streets during the construction period with major impacts on area businesses, as compared with the Option 1 alignment construction which is relatively simple. 4. Comparative Schedules Scheduling differences for Option 1 and 2 alignments should be identified in the document. Option 2 will take considerably longer to implement than Option 1. The implementation schedule will be delayed by right of way acquisition and relocation requirements, possible cleanup of hazardous wastes, complex 6-15-64 construction staging and other factors. These delays may impact the timetable to complete and open the facility. Revenues and other benefits could readily be delayed. As an additional comment, overall project schedules leading to construction, presented at the Map Showing, appear overly optimistic. 5. Employment and Tax Revenues Probable losses of employment and tax revenues have not been identified 6-15-65 quantitatively. The document is contradictory of itself in addressing this issue. (See Sec. 4.9 pgs 4-101 to 109.) 6. Business Relocation Opportunities Studies under TCA auspices intended to identify any potential opportunities for relocation of businesses are not yet complete. Thus, relocation potentials are 6-15-66 unknown, if they exist. Opportunities appear very limited. Feasibility and availability for utilization of other sites for relocation is unknown. TheBuieCorporation �-_ --.- S: 3C November 26, 1990 Steve Letterly San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: Comments Regarding SJHTC Draft EIR/EIS Dear Mr. Letterly: As a property owner directly affected by the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, Niguel Development Company and The Buie Corporation have reviewed the Draft EIR/EIS and offer the following comments: 1. General Comments: We City of Laguna Niguel extended to allow revi severe economic effect affect property owners alignment change. The cumulative impacts of is a defect which must certification of this 2. Project Description: concur in the comments and agree that the re ew of all pertinent da s of the Alternative 2 both within and near lack of attention to the Corridor alignment be resolved prior to document. made by the view period be ta. The very alignment the proposed the alternatives the The proposed project is not thoroughly described in the Draft. The EIR/EIS must include a description of the project in sufficient detail to provide the reader with a clear understanding of the impact analysis. Specifically, the draft document lacks adequate discussion of the vertical and horizontal alignment of the easterly end of the corridor, between I-5 and Greenfield Dr. In addition, the project description should include the Greenfield interchange as a full diamond interchange as has been proposed to date. The impact analysis must also 6-16-1 6-16-2 6-16-3 permanently close if Alignment 02 is selected. The sales tax T8_14-3 revenue from Costco and these other merchants constitutes a large16-14-4 portion of the revenues of the City of Laguna Niguel. The DEIR also fails to identify mitigation measures for these significant (6-14-s impacts. The DEIR fails to identify the air quality, noise, local street disruption, lost work hours, physical and mental health 6-14-6 and other impacts of the extended and disruptive construction period associated with Alignment 12 or to identify effective means of mitigating these adverse impacts. The DEIR fails to adequately address the relocation costs which will need to be incurred if the fiscal impacts and con- 6-14-7 struction disruption impacts of Alignment #2 are to be mitigated or to analyze why these impacts will not be mitigated. The DEIR fails to identify or analyze possible relocation sites for the Laguna Niguel businesses which will be closed or 6-14-8 analyze the fiscal impacts of relocation alternatives on the aggregate project cost of the Corridor. The DEIR fails to identify the traffic, noise and other impacts which will be associated with the development and use of other parcels of land 6-14-9 in Laguna Niguel by displaced businesses which choose to remain ,in Laguna Niguel. .3 The DEIR is conclusory in evaluating the possible benefits bf Alignment 02, and fails to analyze whether substantially the 6-14-10 same benefits could be obtained with Alignment 11. Very truly yours, (:)4 1( t' 4v'_Aq-4� W ohn R. Osterhaus/ VI C F P/-<7-7s iO1�A-T— JRO/HDF/rme i `D San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 3 The Alignment 2 alternative will leave several small parcels of land unusable and could result in a blighted 16-16-10 appearance inconsistent with the quality of the City of Laguna Niguel. The potential use and maintenance of these residual parcels must be discussed in detail. Niguel Development Company and The Buie Corporation are strongly in support of the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: We are anxious to see this critical component of the region's circulation system completed. We hope that the comments detailed above are considered as constructive, and will help the Transportation Corridor Agency prepare a Final EIR/EIS which meets the requirements of state and federal law and allows the most expeditious possible schedule for construction of. improvements. If you have any questions or desire additional comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, lie ,ram_ The Buie Corporation Robert Mont ery, Planning Manager cc: City of Laguna Niguel Phil Rush, Home Capital • 6-16-11 November 26, 1990 Page 2 If an extension for public comment on the P & D Technologies report is not given, this is to inform the T.C.A. that this office 6.15-4 has been authorized to prepare, file and serve appropriate litigation against the T.C.A. to secure this result. (B) Impact on Employment: The EIR/EIS fails to address the fact that Option 2 will put my client, Allen, and other commercial establishments out of business. The reasons why this will occur are discussed, infra. a. However, the principal reason for the loss of employment is the fact that there is no practical plan for the relocation of these businesses. Allen employs 110 people. These people will lose their jobs for reasons to be cited, infra. Additionally, on the basis of information of which we are currently aware, Sepulveda Building Supply, as a result of condemnation, will lose 130 employees. Costco, as a result of condemnation, will lose in excess of 100 employees. On the subject of employment the EIR/EIS speaks only generally and ,states at page 4-104: "Employment impacts associated with either Aof the build alternatives are considered minimal." This is a gross -misstatement. w<The EIR/EIS assumes relocation and thus totally fails to properly evaluate employment impacts. For reasons previously stated, it is submitted that relocation of major employers in the area without substantial business disruption leading to unemployment, is impossible, The EIR/EIS at page 4-104 states: "It is anticipated that a majority of the businesses which are displaced would be relocated to sites within close proximity to their current location (10-15 miles)." (Emphasis added.) For others, the report goes on to concede, relocation opportunities may not be readily available within southern Orange County. Yet, the report concludes: "Employment impacts associated with either of the build alternatives are considered minimal." (Emphasis added.) Please note that if Allen Oldsmobile -Cadillac, Inc., Sepulveda Building Supply, and Costco are taken by eminent domain, and do not relocate within close proximity to their current location, which is highly -probable on the basis of currently available information, (and as 'communicated to the Laguna Niguel City Counsel at its meeting on -November 20, 1990), the loss of employment will approximate 400 people, without considering the loss of employment from the taking -of twelve other businesses. This employment loss is not minimal and can be mitigated only by adoption of Option 1, Option 3, (discussed infra), or no build alternatives. (C) Loss of Property - Sales Tax Revenue - Economic Impact on Governmental Entities: 6-15-5 6-15-6 6-15-7 The EIR/EIS fails to consider the economic impact to the City of Laguna Niguel caused by reduced sales taxes. Allen, with sales in 6-15-5 • Sys THE IRVINE COMPANY November 26, 1990 Steve Letterly San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Subject: SJHTC DEIR/EIS Comments Dear Steve: Thank -you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIR/DEIS for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. We have long supported the construction of this vitally needed regional facility and believe that the DEIR/EIS verifies its importance to this County's transportation network. At this time we would like to submit our comments on the draft environmental document. 1. Cross -Sectional Alternative: The DEIR/EIS discusses both a conventional design and a demand management cross -sectional alternative for the Corridor. The Company believes that the demand management alternative is the environmentally superior alternative since it reduces physical impacts, provides adequate transportation capacity and encourages an increase in vehicle occupancy rates through the use of reversible HOV lanes. 2. NEPA/CEQA ComRarison (p. S-7): The statement regarding differences between NEPA and CEQA regarding determination of impacts is difficult to understand. Given the extensive case law on NEPA, it seems unnecessary to try to summarize impact analysis under NEPA in one sentence. Perhaps it would be more helpful to the reader to delete this section and merely highlight the fact that, in comparison with CEQA, NEPA is essentially procedural. NEPA environmental review focusses on taking a "hard look" at potential environmental impacts to provide full disclosure of public. decisions to both the public and to decision -makers but does not require mitigation. 3. Employment versus Housing Growth (p. 1-2): The statement that employment is now growing faster than housing and subsequent statements in the first paragraph at the top of p. 1-2 imply that increases in traffic are somehow causally related to this relative increase in rate of employment. This statement overlooks the information set forth elsewhere in the document which indicates that, based on the draft-AMR/DMP findings, Orange County has a labor force participation rate of 1.71. Accordingly, the rate of employment'rate increase relative to housing units is not the significant indicator of jobs/housing balance, but rather it is the rate of employment growth relative to the number of total workers (i.e., workers per household which equals labor force participation rate) that is the critical determinant. In its comments on the draft 1989 South Coast AQMP, 6-17-1 6-17-2 6-17-3 550 Newport Center Dave PO Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 • (714) 720-2000 November 26, 1990 Page 4 there is vacant land to the West and south of Allen, there is no�6-15-12 similar site available for relocation. Even if such a site could be found there are practical and economic impossibilities to such a move: (1) Because we cannot close, it would be necessary to complete all building improvements to permit an immediate move from the old property to the new property. Thus, it would be necessary to finance and build the new property before we receive the eminent domain proceeds from the old property. As an alternative it would be necessary to finance the same. Who.would bear the cost of such financing. This problem is not considered by the EIR/EIS. 6-15-13 (2) We are potentially in a catch-22 situation if we desire to relocate. The T.C.A., or others, must create roads and improvements in order for us to move to a new area. However, we would likely have to move from our current site in order to permit 6-15-14 'the T.C.A. to build the improvements which would be part of the ''overall improvement in the immediate area. This dilemma is not „considered by the EIR/EIS. (3) The timing of such a move is incompatible with the current scheduling of the T.C.A.. According to information we 'have, T.C.A. desires to proceed forthwith to acquire property in order to commence construction. The earliest time frame which we could see as a basis for a move of Allen would be eighteen months. _This is out of phase to current scheduling. This timing problem is not considered by the EIR/EIS. (4) A preliminary review of the relocation law results in the conclusion that inadequate relocation capabilities of public agencies would result in relocation only at substantial expense to Allen. Allen cannot afford to move unless it can be kept whole, i.e. the public agency should bear all expenses associated with moving. It is not believed that this can be accomplished and is not discussed in the EIR/EIS. (5) Other problems of relocation generally and the unrealistic position of the EIR/EIS are discussed herein. (E) Questionable cost Estimates: The EIR/EIS fails to answer grave questions concerning the accuracy of current cost estimates for the respective options. (1) At recent map showings T.C.A. staff members stated that the cost differential between Options 1 and 2 was $24,000,000.00 more for Option 2, including $12,000,000.00 for acquisition and $12,000,000.00 for construction. 6-15-15 6-15-16 6-15-17 build" alternative identified at pp. 2-36 to 2-37 of the DEIS would seem to indicate that extensive landform alteration would be necessitated under 6-17-8 the "no project" alternative. Finally, the same rationale applies to Section 4(f) resources; as the Section 4(f) analysis indicates, other alternatives to the project would impact Section 4(f) resources and it is 6-17-9 not clear that the "no project" alternative would be clearly environmentally superior in this regard. 7. Status of the 1989 SIP (p. 3-15): Since the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments were adopted subsequent to the distribution of the DEIS and implementing regulations have not yet even been considered much less adopted, it may be difficult to assess the potential implications of the 1990 Amendments. However, to the extent a technical addendum for air quality can be prepared and added to the FEIS, such an addendum would make the document more complete. Additionally, it should be noted that the attainment date projections contained in the 1989 SIP are consistent with the new attainment deadlines in the 1990 Amendments. This update, if prepared, should note, in relation to the text in paragraph 3 on p. 3-17, those provisions of the 1990 Amendments that identify HOV improvements as TCMs and projects exempt from sanctions and that emphasize the function of transportation control measures to achieve attainment (e.g., Section 182 and the new transportation conformity provisions). 8. Biological Resources Impacts (p. 4-63 to 4-72): Although the Joint Planning History summary in Attachment "B" of the Section 4(f) Appendix summarizes the extent and significance of the 16,000 acre greenbelt program, the biological resources impact analysis does not relate the level of significance of individual types of impact to the scale of resource protection carried out by the 16,000 acre greenbelt in terms of a final assessment of level of significance of individual habitat and species impacts. The SJHTC impacts approximately 150 acres of coastal sage scrub in relation to 6500 acres of coastal sage scrub preserved within the 16,000 acre greenbelt. When considered in the context of the, open space preservation plan with which the Corridor was jointly planned, the Corridor's impacts on biological resources are either fully mitigated or reduced to a level of significance. Based on the information presented in Attachment "B" and in the environmental documents referenced in the EIS (e.g., Irvine Coast, Laguna/Laurel DEIR), we believe that the following level of significance determinations should be re-examined. (a) Coastal sage habitat/gnatcatcher - DEIS indicates coastal sage habitat impacts ranging from 153.3 to 156.1 acres. Total coastal sage protected within the 16,000 acre greenbelt, as documented by existing environmental documents, is approximately 6500 acres. In addition, opportunities for increasing coastal sage habitat can also be explored. Since the SJHTC constitutes the only remaining development of any scale allowed within the 16,000 acre greenbelt, the preservation of 6500 acres of coastal sage habitat, in conjunction with potential benefits from public management of this habitat, can be viewed as reducing the, "level of significance" of the SJHTC impacts to a level of insignificance. This rationale should similarly be applicable to the loss of chaparral and to any potential ®r impacts on the horned lizard and Orange -throated whiptail. 16-17-10 6-17-11 November 26, 1990 Page 6 (5) There are unknown problems which have not been quantified within the scope of the cost estimates or contingency estimates, as follows: 6-15-21 (a) around hater Problems: Unknown ground water problems caused by a substantial depression of the I-5 could lead to unknown additional expenses for mitigation; (b) Hazardous haste Problems: Several sites in the path of the proposed Option 2 have known hazardous waste problems. Expense and time for cure is unknown and could substantially delay 6-15-22 the project at unknown expense. This problem is not evaluated in the EIR/EIS. No similar problem exists with Option 1. (c) Construction Staging Problems: The EIR/EIS contains no provisions pertaining to what will inevitably be complex construction staging involving tearing up 7,000 feet of the I-5, a thirty foot drop in the freeway at Avery, construction of Avery Parkway over the train tracks, multiple on and off ramps, and the construction of a 3,500 foot, 72 inch storm drain while continuing to handle the traffic load of approximately 180,000 cars per day in -a limited area bound by railroad tracks on one side and commercial 'development on the other. A quick review of the existing infrastructure and topography would suggest profound difficulties in this regard. The EIR statement fails to address this subject in any detail whatsoever, or to provide a timetable comparison for the two options. Construction staging for Option 1, by comparison, would be minimal. 6-15-23 (d) Option 2 discloses substantially greater right of way and, if possible, relocation costs. The EIR/EIS fails to 6-15-24 provide any detailed comparisons sufficient to make an informed decision among the options stated. (e) Independent of acquisition and right-of-way costs, any comparison between Options 1 and 2 demonstrate Option 1 is far 6-15-25 more economical in time of construction, because of potential problems created by unknown factors reflected in (5) supra. (F) Design Problems: (1) Option 2 Isolation of Camino Capistrano: Option 2, which appears to relieve traffic congestion at Avery and Camino Capistrano, has at least one major flaw. It totally eliminates the present access of vehicles from Avery Parkway or Paseo de Colinas to 110 businesses on Camino Capistrano, except for the severely 6-15-26 limited access provided by a detour through Via Escolar which is one-third of a mile south of Avery. The EIR/EIS fails to evaluate the profound potential impact on most of the property owners and (f) Many -Stemmed Dudleya - We suggest that the more specific mitigation plan used in the Pelican Hill Road EIR be incorporated into the FEIR 6-17-16 rather than stating that a mitigation plan will be developed in the future. (g) "No Build Alternative" - For the reasons presented in our earlier comment regarding the no project alternative, we believe that alternatives requiring additional freeway and arterial widenings would have significant 6-17-17 adverse impacts and the FEIR should modify the "no significant impacts" finding for the No Build Alternative to reflect such potential impacts. 9. Laguna Canyon Flooding: The document includes a specific mitigation measure to assure that the Corridor document does not result in a net gain in surface runoff into Laguna Canyon. We agree that this mitigation ' measure is necessary, but disagree with the implied statement on p. 4-22 6-17-18 that without this mitigation the increase is not viewed as significant. It is our understanding that the approach for mitigation will be similar to that followed for the proposed Laguna/Laurel project where -considerable study was prepared in development of a runoff management plan. 10. HOV Assumptions for the Demand Management Alternatives (p. 5-7 and 5-12): We believe that the FEIR should include language indicating that the 30% HOV use assumption is warranted because: (a) the California Clean Air Act mandates the achievement of 1.5 persons per vehicle by 1997 and (b) the 6.17-19 federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 emphasize the use of Transportation Control Measures and, pursuant to Section 182 of that Act, require the preparation and implementation of three year VMT/emissions reduction plans. 11. Water Quality: Throughout the document it is assumed that the Corridor will result in a potential incremental degradation to water quality for pollutant loadings into the Newport Bay Ecological Reserve/San Diego Creek Channel drainage system. We do not believe that this has been 6.17-20 substantiated in comparison to the No Project Alternative where,there is an increase of VMT within the same tributary system to the Preserve and Creek. 12. Cumulative Growth -Inducing Effects of the Three Corridors (p. 6-14): this section should be amplified to include a discussion of Regional Mobility 6-17-21 Plan functions of all three corridors comparable to the discussion of the SJHTC's RMP functions. 13. Cumulative Effect - No Project Alternative (p. 6-15): This section fails to indicate that a reduction in future Orange County growth could well result in an increase in Riverside County growth with longer commutes. This result could have significant adverse air quality impacts for central 6-17-22 Orange County in light of the fact that'recent surveys of Spectrum and IBC show that presently only 5% of employees in those employment centers commute from Riverside County (source - Irvine GPA 16 FEIR). 0 November 26, 1990 Page 8 letter has heretofore described the fact that there is a total 6-15-31 absence of information with reference to prospective, staging of construction. Yet, even in the absence of this information, certain facts are fairly clear. The I-5 currently has 165,000 to 180,000 cars travelling on it per day. Assuming current traffic volume, a conservative two years for construction under Option 2, and an average delay of ten minutes per day, per car, the following calculations are apparent: 6-15-32 170,000 cars x 720 days = 122,479,920 cars affected; assuming a ten minute delay = 1,224,799,200 minutes of delay; divided by sixty equals 20,413,320 hours of delay. Assuming an average driver productivity of $5.00 per hour. equals $102,066,600.00 in lost productivity without considering additional hydrocarbon pollution (by the ton) from idling vehicles, fuel costs, or vehicle depreciation. Additionally, no mention has been made concerning the effect of gridlock, created by construction, on I6-15-33 emergency vehicles. The EIR/EIS has no assessment of this problem much less ,any comparison between Options 1 and 2 on this subject. However, 'a cursory review of the existing maps pertaining to the two options 6.15-34 discloses connections to Option 1 are from on and off ramps of the 'I-5 and thus would be minimal creating perhaps 5% of the problems created along the I-5 for Option 2. A potential response of the T.C.A. to the above quantitative analysis would be that the corridor will relieve future congestion on the I-5 thus minimizing future loss of productivity expense from future congestion on the I-5, calculated 6.15-35 above. However, people using the corridor will be paying the better part of $3.00 per trip for its use. Thus, the effect of such mitigation will be minimal, if any, over the twenty year period that the corridor is financed. (2) Inverse Condemnation Damages: The scope of disruption provided by Option 2 will have a profound effect on surrounding businesses. There is authority for the proposition that such effects can amount to inverse condemnation requiring compensation without a direct taking of the affected parcel. (See Harding vs. State of California, (1984) 159 C.A.3d 359; and Varjabedian vs. City of Madera, (1977) 20 C.3d 285.) The EIR/EIS makes no -reference 'to this fact and does not try to assess the additional cost created thereby or compare disruption caused by Option 1 and Option 2. (H) Misleading and Confusing Statements: 6-15-36 The EIR/EIS contains numerous statements which are confusing and 16-15-37 SJHTC DEIR/EIS COMMENTS 1. Figure S-1 depicts an interchange at Birch St. Should not this be changed to show an interchange at Campus Dr. since the off -ramp at Birch will be 16-17-23 removed with this project? 2. Figure 2.3 needs a legend for improved clarity. (6-17-24 3. Subparagraph "(2)" on p. 2-35 should indicate which interchange ramps and connecting arterial streets would be overloaded under the I-5/I-405 6-17-25 widening alternative in addition to the freeway to freeway interchanges mentioned in the text. 4. A line is the bottom 2-38. I6-17-26 missing at of p. 5. Paragraph "(8)" on p. 2-39 should describe how the RMP system has been modeled as an integrated transportation plan and that any major freeway 6-17-27 widening not indicated on that plan is not in conformity with the RMP for air quality conformity determination purposes. 6. On p. 2-48, the discussion of the Laguna Canyon Interchange Alternative does not indicate the result/outcome of the examination of the interchange 6-17-28 redesign. This is a significant interchange and design modifications to reduce environmental impacts should be summarized. 7. The Interchange Alternatives section on p. 2-49 should be expanded to include a discussion of the potential San Joaquin Hills Rd interchange with the Corridor. Throughout the document there are conflicting exhibits which either include or delete the extension of this roadway to the 6-17-29 Corridor. It is recognized that his interchange is not included in the project description. However, clarity is needed. For example, p. 3-6 discusses two landslides north of the San Joaquin Hills Road interchange. 8. Page 2-51 includes a discussion of the impact of deleting the Laguna Canyon and/or the E1 Toro interchanges. Additional discussion is needed to identify more clearly the negative impacts associated with deletion. For example, is not the Laguna Canyon/El Toro interchange impacted? With 6-17-30 deletion of the Laguna Canyon interchange, does not the increased traffic utilizing the E1 Toro interchange result in unacceptable congestion levels at this interchange? Are there not other problems associated with these deletions? 9. On p. 2-51, given the significance of mainline plaza alternative site locations, the one sentence summary of the reasons for rejecting 6-17-31 Alternatives 1-4 should be amplified so that the reader understands the specific rationale for the rejection of each alternative. 10. On p. 2-54 under "Site Specific Alternatives," where are the environmentall6-17-32 impacts of the shift eastward of the "S-" alignment analyzed? 11. On p. 2-57 under "Ford Road Extension," the document should state why it was determined that the best way to handle Pelican Road traffic during 6-17-33 corridor construction was to build the Ford Road extension. November 26, 1990 Page 10 Management Alternative." Illustrations for Option 1 appear to be based upon the Conventional alternative so that, in illustration, there is no comparison between a Demand Management Alternative for Option 1 and a Demand Management Alternative for Option 2. A further example of this is at page 2-29, purportedly comparing project and right-of-way costs for the entire project based upon a Demand Management Alternative and a Conventional Alternative without distinguishing costs for a Demand Management Alternative based upon Option 1, even though elsewhere it is conceded that Option 2 costs $43,000,000.00 more. Indeed, in the absence of correction, it would appear that the Demand Management Build Alternative is cheaper than the Conventional Alternative, but there is no comparison with reference to the Demand Management Alternative for Options 1 and 2. (4) The report misstates the concept of relocation in assuming that condemned properties will rather than might be -relocated. Relocation is a function of a number of factors, almost ,.too numerous to mention. The EIR/EIS provides in pertinent part at page 4-102: "Because the majority of businesses to be relocated .Vare located at the southern end of the alignment at I-5, the -.following discussion focuses on that area. The businesses to be relocated can generally be categorized ...." It is submitted that 'the underlying portions should be changed to read: "Which might be relocated" so that the initial sentence would read: "Because the majority of businesses which might be relocated are located at the southern end of the alignment ...." Of course, relocation of virtually all businesses to be taken is questionable for reasons stated herein. 6-15-41 6-15-42 (5) There is no financial basis for any significant relocation. The budget is only $785,000.00. There are no 6-15-43 breakdowns as to how this money will be spent. (Project and Right of Way Costs, page 2-29.) (6) The EIR/EIS evaluation of the commercial market is inconsistent and not credible. Although some effort is devoted to a quantification in terms of office and industrial spaces, the analysis of the commercial market is less objective. (See page 4- 104.) After continuing to confuse the Conventional Alternative and the Demand Management Alternative report acknowledges that "An accurate assessment of relocation opportunities could not be made." (Emphasis added.) (7) The report concedes that among cities contacted in the area with reference to similar sites: "Such commercial sites are virtually non-existent in the southern Orange County area." Then in a total about face the report states: "However, the City 6-15-44 6-15-45 r. od of the 16,000 acre greenbelt program. Such a table, based on existing information referenced in the DEIR, is essential for making an informed decision regarding the level of significance of project impacts on each 6-17-43 habitat type in the overall sub -regional context of the 16,000 acre greenbelt program (please see our list of major issue comments). 22. Page 4-65 appears to make a commitment that Bonita Creek be realigned into a grass lined channel. We believe that it is premature to make a 6-17-44 commitment that the channel be grass lined and that other design solutions be investigated. 23. A wildlife undercrossing tunnel is proposed as a mitigation measure in the Shady Canyon/Emerald Canyon area. It should be recognized that the exact 6-17-45 location of this crossing needs to be coordinated with potential County/City trail systems. 24. On p. 4-97, we suggest that a map illustrating the manner in which the 6-17-46 Corridor would provide improved access to greenbelt and coastal recreation areas would be very helpful for the reader. 25. Figure 5.1 should include Pelican Hill Road volumes southerly of San 6-17-47 Joaquin Hills Road and San Joaquin Hills Road volumes westerly of Pelican Hill Road. 26. On p. 7-3, given the major commitment to the preservation of significant landforms embodied in the recent Irvine CPA 16 open space program, we do _ not understand where development allowed in south Irvine would result in 6-17-48 a substantial amount of landform modification." Please modify the text to reflect the results of CPA 16 in the City of Irvine. 27. On p. 7-5, under "Transportation/Circulation," the text should also indicate that the project would provide a major contribution to the 6-17-49 implementation of a regional HOV network. 28. A portion of Chapter 8.0 was not included in the printed report. Only I6-17-50 page 8-1 was included. 29. On p. 10-2, the Biological Resources discussion should be corrected to I6-17-51 reflect our major issue comments if they are accepted. 30. Page 10 of the 4f Evaluation indicates that the existing San Diego bike trail will not be impacted by the Corridor's construction. It is my understanding from the conceptual design plans that the trail may need to be modified slightly within the existing channel R/W similar to other San 6-17-52 Diego Creek Bridge crossings (i.e., Main St.) due to inadequate clearance as a result of the Corridor bridge structure's proposed elevation. If so, should this section be modified to reflect this impact? 31. On p. 39 of the 4(f) discussion, Table B should be amplified to reflect the information shown in earlier DEIR sections depicting the scale of freeway and arterial improvements required under the "no project" 6-1T-53 scenario. November 26, 1990 Page 12 on the proposed project, insufficient information has been provided so that it is 'impossible to make an informed decision with reference to Options 1 and 2. Studies which might provide 6-15-51 additional information on this subject are continuing, but will likely not be available so that informed public comment can be made with reference thereto. An extension of time to permit public�6-15-52 comment is imperative. The EIR/EIS, in discussing differences between the Conventional Build Alternative and the Demand Management Build Alternative, rather than discussing differences between Option 1 and Option 2 6.15-53 alignments, where appropriate, has been so confusing as to make it impossible to make a fully informed decision on this subject. Substantial prospective environmental impacts have neither been considered nor quantified. It is submitted that in making a final decision that cost and timing should be given great weight. If the corridor is to be successful these factors should be mitigated so as to permit a prompt completion of the project so that it may 6-15-54 operate as efficiently as possible. By pursuing this efficiency, lower cost will result in lower developer fees and therefore lower housing costs. The County of Orange already has a severe problem 'with housing costs, and the Transportation Corridor Agency should do what it can to minimize this ongoing problem. On the basis of the foregoing, Allen Oldsmobile -Cadillac, Inc. submits that Option 1 provides a preferable environmental approach. 6-15-55 Yours truly, - K GEORGE J. JEFFRIES GJJ:11 .-cc: Mr. Dennis B. Allen Attachment: November 7, 1990 letter of Gordon B. Jones and Associates 0 r_ The following listing cites key areas of misleading or missing information: 1. R Two "build alternatives" are cited: The Demand Management Alternative and the Conventional Alternative, in partial combination with alternative alignments at the I-5 juncture: Option 1 and Option 2. (See pgs. 5-1, 2-1, 2-23 to 27, 2-52). We understand the Conventional Alternative is not practical on the Option 2 alignment, but that both it and the Demand Management Alternative are 6-15-57 applicable to the Option 1 alignment. However, comparisons of alternatives are made throughout the document in which the Demand Management Alternative is equated with the Option 2 alignment and the Conventional Alternative with the Option 1 Alignment, where in fact the Demand Management Alternative can also be applied to the Option 1 alignment. Several problems result and information is lacking for crucial decisions. a. A preference expressed for the Demand Management Alternative by those not intimately familiar or concerned with the I-5 connection options may mistakenly be viewed as support for the Option 2 alignment, which may or 6-15-58 may not be the case. Opposition to the Conventional Alternative may be taken as opposition to alignment Option 1. The apples and oranges combination is not helpful to obtaining meaningful responses. b. Construction and right of way costs (Table 2.6.A on page 5-29) are misleading for comparison purposes. This table fails to provide adequate cost information to compare Option 1 and 2 alignments on the common Demand Mangement Alternative basis. The higher cost shown for the 6-15-59 Conventional Alternative on the Option 1 alignment could be taken to favor the Option 2 alignment as a cost savings. In fact, we are told the Demand Management Alternative is less costly on the Option 1 alignment than it is on Option 2. C. Identification of right of way taking impacts is also misleading, shown as a comparison between functional alternatives, rather then alignment options 6-15-60 (Appendix I, pgs 1-9). f The EIS/EIR document should be modified to include cost and other impact comparisons for both the Demand Management and Conventional alternatives on 6-15-61 the Option 1 alignment in order to make a fair comparison with the Demand Management Alternative on the Option 2 alignment. At the Map Showing and in subsequent conversations up to November 5, 1990, staff of the TCA indicated that the Option 1 alignment alternative is $24 million 6-15-62 less than Option 2. We also understood that $12 million was attributable to right 0 FORBES ROAD ASSOCIATES c/o Marvin E. Levin, Attorney at Law 501 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 601 Santa Monica, California 90401 Transportation Corridor Agency Mr. Steven Letterly 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Comments to DEIR/EIS San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Gentlemen: Forbes Road Associates, a General Partnership, is the owner of commercial real property commonly known as 28062 Forbes Road, Laguna Niguel. We have owned this property since 1980. Our comments to the above referenced DEIR/EIS are set forth in this letter below. The DEIR fails to identify the following impacts that Corridor Alternative #2 will have on our property as well as on other business properties: 1. The economic impact on our real estate investment and on the investments of our tenants which would be proximately caused by this routing. Our property is shown as partially taken, but would eliminate vital parking land and locate the elevated roadway immediately adjacent to our office building and the front entrances to businesses of our lessees. 2. The physical impacts of noise, cutting off of light and air, shadow, additional dirt and environmental pollution as affecting our property and the businesses of our tenants is not addressed. Likewise, no mitigation measures are addressed. 3. No mention is made of the physical impacts during the construction period as they would affect our property and the businesses of our lessees. No comparison of the disruption is made between Option 1 and Option 2. We believe that if a true comparison would be made that under Option 1, there would be less physical impacts on our property and the businesses of our lessees. 4. The DEIR fails to address the significant revenue loss to the City of Laguna Niguel if Option-2 is selected over Option 1. It is our understanding that the loss of revenue to the City under Option 1, as compared with the loss under Option 2 would be insignificant. 6-18-1 6-18-2 6-18-3 6-18-4 7. Right of Way Needs Mapping More accurate maps for each of the three build alternatives are needed to clearly identify right of way needs, particularly for the I-5 connection Option 1 and 2 6-15-67 alignments. Current maps included with the EIS/EIR document are inadequate. I believe the above noted information is needed in the EIS/EIR for the Route 73-San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor to provide the basis for informed decisions by the 6-15-68 public, reviewing agencies and the TCA Board. Sincerely, c�. Gordon B. Jones Attachments GBJ:ld FROM . PHONE NO. . 0 G November 26, 1990 Express Oil Company 28662 Camino Capistrano LaquMa Niguel, CA 92675 stave Latterly Manager of EIR Ban Joaquin Sills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Res San Joaquin Sills Transportation Corridor/Alignment #2 Dear Sirs This company has purchased this business opportunity several' years ago, After the introduction of the new freeway coming at Avery, which will cause the traffic count to increase and help the business, as alignment # 1 shows. BUT, with alignment #2 , it will totally destroy our business and it will hurt our company severely. There is no reason to destroy all the businesses wart of the freeway, just to have a nio4 looking road. by having alignment #1 you are dividing the traffic conje`tion Into 2 cities or 2 intersections, which is better than having the some number of care in only one intersection. please lets save our business and save the tax -payer's money for some other project, whichis needed more to the community. Thank you. Sincerely, Hoda Ali President, Express oil Co. kR 6-19-1 NOV 26 '90 23:52 PAGE.001 San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Page 2 2. address the effects of a full diamond at this location. Project phasing must also be more thoroughly discussed in this section, as many environmental effects will be increased in severity over time, specifically those economic impacts of the Alternative 2 alignment if such alignment is selected. Will a portion of the corridor be built first? Will segments be delayed? Will bridges be built before main line segments? Will ramps be built at the same time as the balance of the improvements? Impacts. 6-16-4 Statements have been made through the public review process that Alternative 2 will be the subject of additional economic studies, particularly in light of the necessity of condemning existing businesses along the realigned right of way. The certification of a Final 6-16-5 EIR/EIS would seem inappropriate pending completion of this study and any additional studies necessary to describe and quantify the social, aesthetic and traffic impacts of the elimination of the businesses along the right of way. Also, the draft EIR/EIS makes no mention of the environmental effects of the additional grading and land 6-16-6 acquisition necessary on the area between Crown Valley Parkway and Greenfield, an undeveloped area presently planned and zoned for business park use. The draft document does not quantify planned land uses, or seem to 6-16-7 recognize the existence of the General Plans of the jurisdictions it crosses. The phasing of the project will have a substantial impact on local traffic circulation. The lack of clarity contained in the EIR/EIS regarding the ultimate construction sequence of the corridor makes difficult any 6-16-6 conclusions by the reader as to the best course of action in designing the phasing of the project, or in deciding priority for selecting which areas are to be completed first. The environmental and economic impacts generated through the construction phase of the project must be examined in detail and specific mitigating measures developed to 6-16-9 assure that the dislocation and disruption of businesses and residents be minimized. 0 • FROM : PHONE NO. : P01 November 26, 1990 M.V. Management: - 26371 Avery Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Steve Letterly Manager of EIR San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa. CA 92626 Re: Comments in EIR, San Joaquin Corridor ]Agency, Alignment #2 Dear Sir: This company has invested a considerable amount of money at some property at this intersection of Avery 6 Marguerite Parkways after alignment #1 had been introduced to us, knowing that the new freeway will have no adverse effects on curproparty or our business. We would like to OBJECT to alignment #2 for the following rea- sons: 6-20-1 1. Increasing the traffic level east of Avery Parkway from 10,500 cars per day to about 2100 per hour 2. Increase the traffic on Marguerite 16-20-2 3. The Avery intersection will be so highly conjeated, Which will be much sore worse that either Crown Valley or E1 Toro 6-20-3 4. All the traffic from the neighboring citios(San Jucn, Laguna Niguel$ Laguna Beach, etc. ) has to go through Avery Pkwy 6-20-4 and the intersection 5. Avery Parkway will have a now grade, :such higher than the rest of the streets, which will increase the speed of care 6-20-5 coning down and traveling fast, stopping suddenly at'the inter- section at Marguerite, which may cause many accidents 6. The extremely high cost of purchasing the new land from I6-20-6 thi landowners and business owners for alignment #2 7. The cost of relocating all thesebusiness west of the I 6-20-7 freeway is high S. No need to spend extra funds from the tax -payer's money I 6-20-8 to inconvenience them 9. The extra traffic in the area will hurt all businesses (too much traffic if just as,.harmful to businossea as not enough 6-20-9 NOV 26 190 23:36 PAGE.001 0! November 26, 1990 Talat Radwan - 26371 Avery Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92691 the Honorable Kayor Bob Curtis City of Xission Viejo 26522 La Alameda, Suite 190 Mission Viejo, ca 92691 Ref Comments in EIR, San Joaquin Corridor Agency, Alignment #2 Dear Sir: I have invested a considerable amount of stoney at some property at the intersection of Avery 6 Marguerite Parkways, after align- ment f1 had boon introduced to me, knowing that the new freeway will have no adverse effects on my property or my business. I would like to OBJECT to alignment #2 for the following reasons:. 1. increasing the traffic level east of Avery Parkway from 6-20-1 10,500 cars per day to about 2100 per hour 2. Increase the traffic on Marguerite 6-20-2 3. The Avery intersection will be ■o highly eonjested, 6-20-3 which will be much more worse than either crown valley or E1 Toro 4. All the traffic from the neighboring cities ( San Juan, Laguna Niguel, Laguna beach, etc.) has to go through Avery Park- 6-20-4 way annd the intersection S. Avery Parkway will have a new grade, such higher than tths rest of the streets, which will increase the speed of cars 6-20-5 coming down and traveling fast, stopping suddenly at the inter- section at Marguerite, which may cause many accidents 6. The extremely high cost of purchasing the new land from 16-20-6 the landowners and business owners for alignment 12 7. The cost of relocating all these businesses west of the �6-20-7 freeway is high S. No need to spend extra funds from the tax --payer's money I 6-20-8 to inconvenience them 9. The extra traffic in the area will hurt all businesses (too such traffic is just as harmful to businesses as not enough 1 6-20-9 traffic) NOU 27 '90 0:53 PAGE.001 the County of Orange pointed out that the major commute flow in the South Coast Air Basin is from Orange County to Los Angeles, not Riverside to Orange, thereby indicating that Orange County requires added employment 6-17.3 growth to reduce inter -regional VMT. We believe that the text of the EIS should reflect this factor in the discussion on p. 1-2 and at other points in the analysis of jobs/housing relationships. 4. Project Objectives - Relieve Congestion on Regional Circulation System (p. 1-10): Despite the extensive discussion of the functions that the SJHTC carries out for regional transportation purposes as delineated in the Regional Mobility Plan (e.g., pp. 3-15 to 3-20), the discussion of the project's function in relation to regional congestion relief implies that the project carries out regionally defined transportation objectives but does not make explicit the project's regional role as defined in the RMP. We believe that the text should be amplified to make explicit what is presently implied in the DEIS text. 5. Efforts to Avoid Environmental Impacts through the Analysis of Design Alternatives (p. 2-48): Since one means of minimizing/mitigating environmental impacts is the examination of design alternatives that "avoid" impacts while still carrying out the project purpose, project design efforts undertaken to avoid significant environmental impacts should be summarized in the FEIS. The summary of the 1988 Conceptual Design Report Alternatives on p. 2-48 relates in general terms some of the key alternatives examined in an effort to avoid or minimize impacts, but this analysis is not examined in the section on biological impacts in the assessment of whether the project has mitigated environmental impacts to the extent feasible. The text of the biological environmental impacts statement should be amplified by relating the information provided at p. 2-48 to the impact assessment summary; such an analysis would not require new information but instead only entails linking together the analyses presented in two sections of the DEIR to provide a more complete overview of the extent to which potential project impacts have been minimized or mitigated through project design alternatives. This analysis would also be relevant to avoidance and alternatives review requirements of Corps 404 and Section 4(f) review. 6-17-4 16-17-5 6. Section 2.9 Environmentally Superior Alternative (p. 2-51): We disagree that the "no project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative for "hydrology", "land use", "landform" and "Section 4(f) resources." As we point out in our comment on "hydrology" in point "ll" below, the "no project" alternative will generate equal amounts of vehicle -related pollutants into the Upper Newport Bay watershed due to 6-17-6 increased vehicle use on the San Diego freeway and on arterials within the watershed; it is also likely that the "Demand Management" alternative will actually reduce "hydrology" impacts over the "no project" alternative because it will reduce total vehicle trips within sensitive watersheds. With respect to "land use," the No project will not carry out the regional planning objectives of correlating land use and circulation identified consistently since the SEOCCS process through the adoption of development 6-17-7 agreements within the SJHTC area of benefit; this finding should be corrected through reference to the "History of Cooperative Planning" text at pp. 1-9 of Attachment "B" of Appendix "A." With respect to "landform" impacts, the extent of freeway and arterial widening required by the "no 6-17-5 FROM PHONE NO. W41 November 26, 1990 TALAT RADWAN 26371 Avery Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692 Stove Latterly Manager of EIR San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: comments in EIRt Ban Joaquin Corridor Agency, Alignment 42 Dear Sirs This company has invested a considerable amount of money at some Avery i Marguerite Parkways propertyy at this intersection of #1 had been introduced to us, knowing that the after alignment new freeway will have no adverse effects on curproperty or our business. We would like to oDJXCT to alignment f2 for the following rea- 6-20-1 sons s 1. Increasing the traffics level east of Avery Parkway from io,500 oars per day to about 2100 per hour 6-20-2 2. increase the traffic on Marguerite 3. The Avery intersection will bs so highly eonjested, 6-20-3 which will be much more worse that either crown Valley or F.1 Toro 4. All the traffic from the neighboring eities(San Juan, Avery Pkwy 6-20-4 Laguna Niguel# Laguna Beach, *to. ) has to go through and the intersection S. Avery Parkway will have a new grade, much higher than the rest of the streets, which will increase the speed of cars inter- 6-20-5 coming down and triveling fast, stopping suddenly at the section at Marguerite, which may cause tawny accidents �6. The extremely high coat of purchasing the new land from(6-20-6 the landowners and business owners for alignment #2 7. The cost of relocating all thoaebusinessg vest of the ( 6-20-7 freeway in high 8. No need to spend extra funds from the tax -payer's noney�6-20-8 to inconvenience them 9. The traffic in the area will hurt all buoinesseg if just an harmful to busihaseeg sex not encash g.20-9 (too much traffic 1 NOV 27 '90 0:00 PAGE.001 (b) Oak woodland - The DEIS indicates oak woodland losses ranging form 20.9 acres to 21.6 acres. The DEIR for Laguna/Laurel alone documents the preservation of oak woodlands far in excess of the project loss of approximately 20 acres of oak woodland. Additional oak woodland preservation is documented for Shady and Bommer Canyons (City of Irvine CPA 16 EIR) , Wood Canyon and Irvine Coast. areas. Per CEQA Guidelines 15370 (d), the long-term management of oak tree regeneration through the public management of the 16,000 acre greenbelt could provide additional mitigation for oak impacts. Thus, given the fact that the SJHTC is the only remaining large scale development allowed within the 16,000 acre greenbelt, the level of significance of impact on oak woodlands can be viewed as reduced to a level of insignificance through a combination of preservation of significant oak woodland within the 16,000 acres and the opportunities for long-term oak regeneration resulting from public management of the oak woodlands within the greenbelt. (c) Fragmentation of wildlife habitat - The Irvine Coast LCP, the City of Irvine Open Space General Plan Amendment (GPA 16) FEIR, the Laguna/Laurel DEIR and the East Orange General Plan Amendment FEIR document the extent to which the Legislature, the Coastal Commission, the County of Orange and individual cities have consciously pursued a policy of preserving large scale open space areas rather than attempting to protect smaller scale habitat on a piecemeal basis within individual development project areas. We have attached a copy of an exhibit from the East Orange General Plan Amendment FEIR that illustrates the results of this policy. The findings of the foregoing CEQA reviews, in conjunction with the findings of the DEIS regarding joint planning set forth in Attachment "B" of Appendix "A", demonstrate clearly the extent to which Corridor -related planning, for both the SJHTC and the ETC, has attempted to assure the preservation of large-scale habitat areas precisely for the purpose of minimizing the fragmentation of habitat. Although the SJHTC clearly bisects the coastal hills, large scale habitat areas remain on each side of the SJHTC - approximately 4000 acres in the Bommer Canyon/Shady Canyon/Laguna Canyon habitat, over 4000 acres in the Irvine Coast/Crystal Cove State Park habitat complex and approximately 3000 acres in the Wood Canyon/Aliso Creek dedication area. In this context, at a minimum the potential direct and cumulative impacts of the SJHTC on fragmentation of wildlife habitat have been reduced to a level of insignificance due to the joint planning that has characterized greenbelt, land use and transportation planning in central and southern Orange County. .(d) Reduction in wildlife population - Clearly the SJHTC will impact wildlife within the construction area and within noise impact areas. The SJHTC will also affect wildlife movement, to the extent that the proposed wildlife undercrossing does not provide for satisfactory levels of wildlife movement opportunities. However, for the same reasons cited above, the preservation of the 16,000 acre greenbelt area will substantially reduce the impact of the SJHTC on a cumulative basis. 6-17-12 6-17-13 6-17-14 (e) Turkish Rugging - Given the fact that this plant does not have a status warranting special protection, it is unclear why the DEIS treats it 6-17-15 as a sensitive plant type. • s 7-1-11 PC C f (V l r oZ 7.2 .2 7-A, CIV 100, 114 74 ool s- 14. Detailed Comments: The attachment I document. I hope our comments have been helpful anc you. Thank you. Sincerely, O0"4Cr- O'-f n Boslet Senior Director, Transportation Strategic Planning cc: Shirley Land, City of Irvine Don Webb, City of Newport Beach 12. Figure 3.7.1 should be modified to reflect the following changes: a. The commercial/industrial/institutional location depicted on the south side of San Joaquin Hills Rd. westerly of Pelican Hill Road should 6-17-34 be moved to the intersection of these two arterials. b. Commercial/industrial/institutional uses in the Laguna/Laurel area should be indicated. 13. On p. 3-15, the discussion of the 1989 SIP should indicate that the air quality modeling for the RMP used the non -modified regional growth 6-17-35 projections as the baseline for the RMP. 14. On p. 3-21, the discussion of the 1.45 ratio should indicate that the RMP provides for the use of alternative ratios where different ratios of workers per household can be demonstrated. The current draft AMR/DMP contains an extensive analysis prepared by the County's CAO office indicating that the County's labor force participation rate is considerably higher than the SCAG assumptions (approximately 1.71). The 6-17-36 DEIR discussion of the SCAG ratio should be clarified to indicate that the adopted GMP specifically allows for factoring in higher labor force participation rates. The discussion in this paragraph should also be amplified to indicate how the corridor provides for transportation between housing areas and specific concentrated employment centers along the corridor. 15. The reference on Laguna Laurel on p. 3-51 should be changed to Feature I6-17-37 Plan- not Area Plan. 16. Figure 3.8.1 incorrectly locates Laguna Laurel and should add the San (6-17-38 Joaquin Hills Community in the vicinity of Pelican Hill Road and San • Joaquin Hills Road. 17: The Geotechnical Section should discuss the need for blasting and any (6-17-39. related impacts. 18. Mitigation Measure 3-9 on p. 4-31 indicates that a Runoff Management Plan will be submitted which will include facilities required to route and detain runoff for the purpose of reducing pollutant levels in downstream 6.17-40 drainages to below a level of significance in accordance with Regional Water Quality Board standards. Is it necessary that routing and detention be necessary components of the Plan? 1V. A set of Runoff Management Plan policies should be included in the final document comparable to those contained in the Irvine Coast LCP and should: 6.17-41 (a) define performance standards for runoff management; (b) indicate the manner in which the performance standards will be translated into specific runoff control plans for each sub -watershed. 20. On p. 4-34, since Table 4.4.A on p. 4-35 discusses the Conventional Alternative, not the Demand Management Alternative, the first sentence in 6-17-42 the first full paragraph should be clarified to reflect the text in the immediately above paragraph. 21. Existing EIR information should be used to indicate how many acres of each habitat type shown in Table 4.6.A on p.-63 will be preserved as a result16-17-43 Please Print Clearty: COMMENT CARD NAMEy �C �� `� DATE ADDRESS �LJ ����5 ST AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 �ltl here ie, TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 32. On p. 40 of the 4(f) discussion, the conclusions reflected in that discussion should be amplified with information contained in earlier DEIR 6_17-54 sections that substantiate the conclusions regarding not achieving the project objectives. 33. Table E-J should be modified to show that only 2600 units are proposed I6-17-55 within the Irvine Coast Planned Community. 34. Page 30 within Appendix A should be changed to indicate that the Lagunal6-17-56 Laurel project includes detention basins - not debris basins. • NAME J-e-1 A - DATE / C-17-?o ADDRESS .253#s sk*40000./ AFFILIATION Area APA-W, ' ?A d.-V-t PH. (Optional)�,.,�-a COMMENTZA0weL/,._A /. W k..4 rs + L , !=fte? .4 Na+1. 6---04 C ,A . COMMENTS CONTINUED S A� AYCvy rtr-� et&x "✓IS .�.t,m .c-r-� s �i..., /-�� �... t t 1 3r� r.f,� ..+.....1 i,� �.t 4 + �.. .�.. i.,o. !•�.� - NGv ��`►..r-..� '�"o Yitr� 4rl..r� N of st , �O 1 � 1-f+�lA+i►S��t� � � f�IvC• � roc. �.� J �/�.G �w s 1 . i 7-3-1 7-3-2 7-3-3 7-3-3 7-3-4 Please Pant Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME 0-0-M( beaIMan DATE 1C-1-7-cic C;o mer n ed ADDRESS 21 u 1 1 MCw P r i ek Ur. AFFILIATION hn min c ,�Yt PY CITY, ZIP�Itt.n a 1�' 115 Q 2 � 53 PH. # (Optional) � 1- i4 2)&`3 Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO COMMEIvt:_PIeaSC >vyiGte mC L,L)14n OA .exa.e4 e(eJQ c�. ` ►e .,Y-te-w� hear my homey as wet.t as 4Ae. bt cm C' .u►�ee" I Z u kQ �X � � IV W&JU 4v my pvFjT7 COMMENTS CONTINUED W Lod. �i OWFV iw eYvl I rof,evn+s a-o& off' 5mc&k nests (4c, Inc, ,cd e I V4-v ou.r have e u-s CAresult- �, 41C- corls�-rued-► -I-c Cu I �e U a.k 'i{ii 15 y 41�6� K7c, f- o f (0L o "-ts,c -it m4cs+ Yn U 6M-e . Lott( UML Drcv "CLL e 4, - Oy p -4- c.M4-),Vl 5e rj t_cz 40 k e'(p Lt s cru4-., 7-4-t 7-4-2 'pItase PnyAL us w AtL tI<f-e+ .1oeU- ►s , i `& f VA 0— 1 1'1'1► IS�fLtilC2 3 1,U rn �'I e ase rc v i k- *L e. Lo It G� m 4x. 7-" re�,u) cis I s re�.afivf, � my k� . 5. The impact on employees of local businesses in not discussed nor does the Draft show that any research was done in this important area. Our business property and neighboring 6-18-6 business properties provide neighborhood persons with 1 0 opportunities for employment which will be adversely impacted. 6. The impact on neighborhood residents by removal of the businesses from our community under Option 2. The DEIR does not 6.18-7 address this issue nor the impacts which would be caused thereby. No studies are included which address this issue. We believe that the impacts would be substantial. For the above reasons, we believe that the businesses and residents of the City of Laguna Niguel will be significantly 6-18-8 affected by the selection of Option 2 routing. We believe that the Draft fails to address these significant impacts. Sincerely, FORBES ROAD AS.SSOCIATES Ma �? .'Lev n Aner MEL:lb M R Please Pant Ctaarty: COMMENT CARD NAME �suFB+� k14AeAA( DATE ADDRESS Z7-07/ IfAVC9 Ci' AFFILIATION .t�i•�ea v�i�R` �t6.stt CITY, ZIP 10 ,4&W-t k«--c CA PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _(Z� NO COMMENT: 91eas S40Fc/Atc. 0A1 Nols'� .tom ✓E �-, �b L L cc �' fa w It �F�'dl,.r , /trANCC- _ 7-5-1 �iP_o «ac COMMENTS CONTINUED AS 014 ,COEO ^��• i . ��'� �s - 8 Ko i� c ter-/� eC .0 7-s-1 �sc.-clL y .�'s���•vc&r �ki�.J u...��•-.� oito sr�aC 7-s-2 �dta ��'�? t t�2C �r' ... �r arc G �r-,c �� ,• „�vt� �--- .Tz wo w-� 7:4ee Carr r�� e *" !C &A 44 ca f-,ve2r -ro �-�r Ta � 7-s-3 �4.� Please Print 0aary: COMMENT CARD NAME-41 jeedSL— DATE PCf C ADDRESS ��lO� 14M.0QT2 I AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP LA&-rJJ A RPH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _,yYES NO (COMMENT: rT r. h rn & 1(7 gufyA G�" 6h La m aube I 1 (Continue comments on badidof this age. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 r-oa nere Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME -1e/r 1 Lta 6a DATE�!' D ADDRESS %'9- POW4061 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP" )jfZz4AA- S24Si PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing fist YES NO It COMMENT: ILI 1�4wC' gD714e&l. COMMENTS CONTINUED � Cii 17-7A 7-7-2 FROM : PHONE NO. : P02 traffic) T6-20-9 I hope thtit the officials will stay vith the decision made 15 years ago for alignnsnt #l, vhich was a major factor to the homeowners in deciding to purchase their home$, based on the 6-20-10 representation to us for alignment #I. Thank you. Sincerely, J" 1 4 Sharon Zuecar 2 NOV 26 190 23:37 PAGE.002 Please Print Cle : `` COMMENT CARD _ NAME I DATE D �'cNe.E�NF� ADDRESSe AFFILIATION l ►.�fr�cv�srcTZ_ CITY, ZIP +7 l LS 91GS3 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO (COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 9Ichere������� � �� � � � � . � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 123GN I hope that the officials will stay with the decision made years ago for alignment #i, which was a major factor to homeowners in deciding to purchase their homes, based or representation to us for alignment # 1. 13 the 6-20-10 the Please note that I was NOT informed of the public hearing regard- ing this matter. Please, for any further hearings pertaining to 6-20-11 this subject matter, inform ms at the following addresst 3624 University, Suite 302, Riverside, CA 92301 Thank you. Sincerely, Talat Radvan co.Steve Latterly 0 NOU 27 190 0:54 PAGE.002 Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �7c,2 t S Sc 4-0-1, 2- DATE 10-17-90 DRESS 0739 / C�Jt*S% Ri05E L/J AFFILIATION 14,c,"Le- o,0NfrJ CITY, ZIP CA PH. # (Optional) -7 83/ - Se 3 Z Please add my name to your mailing list >�-_ YES NO COMMENT: = t.300Lfl Lk K d '1 0 NAyti rr► Olt4 1J90 1ZM *T7 of) E�v,t�104035- 77-Ae- c7e,c,4_.flof,-A, �- N� ,?y vwe. CX.K i�ZB.4 G &'v&Z Alf' &JA4e it Z . C ofYJ COMMENTS CONTINUED 7a AwJ ;_,• ) i % G.s �f G• c0+i%w✓ . moo.✓? ,tom •� &-. L em AKii%v c it '0~ I IC V6y "V,.L_tr20 ey AL..' L O % G.O G r�'�o'J 'JSW /it1 ,0,00_' DA7Z') 7-9-1 7-9-2 7-9-2 7-9-3 7-9.s r 7-9-5 yea fjCEysc S ��FLEt i — �6�. N?Zwy%r �s �c�v �� 7-9-6 v 1,AJ��' w�G y�J C'v� OJT o�cJ rP� avct�/�S� box" a ✓NG ,ya1.L traffic) I hops that the officials vil Years ago for alignmant /1, homooanors in deciding to pu: r*praaantation to us for alignm Thank you. t�ncaraly, TALAT RADWAY 1. 2 NOV 27 190 0:00 PAGE.002 0, -- Pion* Print Qawy: COMMENT CARD NAME W l L L. 1 A0-1 S 7- R A Gl S S DATE 1 D— 17 - `� Q ADDRESS 5 7 4-1 L N �'- AFFILIATION C' w w R CITY, Zip L G (A N A N 1 G U EL PH. # (Optional) 6 46 - 3 �f 5 L/ Please add my name to your mailing fist YES NO . w H A-'T A l f T H v 1 S U r� �- R rV D r\/ d l s 1= X- r-► P/9 c 7- S F o n 7 H T- t�f d L d c.. J4 T 16 ry d P 'T / o Av _S 7-p ►,,-1- COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-10-1 HacnS — Lvr 7-10-1 ikl fl i� L S_S 4 ry O 1 1H S 1 l> L� ,T T H 1 T' f f & 1 G F' T 1 d w_1:r 0- w otA L H HVC- L. E_S S D 6 k,.-, /,� G I ry G aFr c7-S ary r 7 Nah-, E pf S e fj 4Z P S \l I S cA A� L 1; tv 1> N b) S L._ 7-10-2 S w O u L D L I pvc 7-10-3 ?�I i G H iN) P p ry 0 1.7 E .� c t a E S Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME.! {' �,` �� c,.� 1,., � DATE ADDRESS I_`�Sl-f ��r,ti: ��`�►. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �.��T n� ,C1a ; `q 5 ( PH. # (Optional) 714 —4 9 `t -ASS Please add my name to your mailing list AYES NO COMMENT: -4� ✓w-� (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS ro Stamp Jay Jones 20401 S.W. Cypress St. Santa Ana Hts., CA 92707 17 October 90 Steve Letterly, Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: I am responding to an announcement in a local newspaper titled, "Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and Section 4F Evaluation and Public Hearings", which mentions the potential impact of the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Having been a resident of the area for over 25 years, I have witnessed the tremendous growth of Orange County from a rural community consisting primarily of agriculture, evolving into an expanding megalopolis. Our local wildlife is faced with its greatest challenge with our increasing human presence. Development in the San Joaquin Hills has already strained the animal 7-12-1 population. I have personally viewed wild birds next to a bicycle trail perched on fence posts with defeated looks while earth movers destroyed their nesting ground only a few yards away: It is my belief that the San Joaquin Hills corridor (with its wide asphalt swatch), would be disastrous for wildlife foraging. Animals rely on access from 7-12-2 the coastal to the inland side of the low mountain range in order to seek vital and limited sources of food and water. Another potential problem of the Transportation Corridor is the resulting vehicle pollution which would be carried off the top by coastal trade -winds to inland 7-12-3 communities such as Turtle Rock. The high traffic flow of the major proposed artery guarantees a reduction in air quality for the hillside residents, as well as further impacting the wildlife. Increased noise would also be a factor affecting both sides of the hills. Sound travels a greater distance when originating from an elevated source. (�-12-4 Driver safety also becomes a concern on the hilltop passageway. Many a time, I have driven down a major road or freeway with a view of the San Joaquin Hills and seen a bank of fog enveloping the crest. Visibility would be at a low during these periods 7-12-5 of on -shore flow. Moisture on the various gradient changes would also present a problem with traction for the many vehicles rushing to their destinations. Even the I animals may become a safety factor in their futile attempts to cross the busy artery. 7-12-6 I would urge you to consider a reasonable transportation alternative such as a monorail system which could follow a similar route to the corridor. The quiet, non-polluting trains would ride on an elevated track, allowing wildlife access to both sides of the 7-12-7 mountain range. The intermittent nature of the monorail trains would help lessen the COMMENTS CONTINUED m u 4-4 v A Vv� U•c-�� �C Gk, 17-2-1 7-2-2 16 � 0 001 16 October laau Louis H. Davis 23 Abbeywood Lane Laguna Hills, Ca. 9265a Steve Letterly Manager or Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 3µ5 Clinton Street Costa Mesa. Calif. 92626 Mr. Letterly: Recently, i read in the latest issue of my association newsletter an article concerning the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. It stated*it was "becoming a reality" and that an environmental impact report was prepared. The news letter stated that comments could be submitted to become part of the public record if submitted oeiore to Novemoer 15rh. The rollowing are my comments and recommendations for the pianned transportation corridor. Soutnern Orange county has grown considerably in the past ten ,years. When 1 first arrived in this area it was mostly fields and orange groves. Now those are few and in between. The one thing that remains from those days is the constant problem of traffic jams and pollution. One of the failures of government is its lack of initiative to tackle these two pronlems properly. Foliticians have for some time now ignored the obvious for what the developers have told them. However. times nave changed. With air that becomes more unfit to breathe everyday and the current energy problem. this planned corridor must be re-evaluated. The proposed tollway is an ill-conceived plan to begin with. The planners would have one believe that it would be used on a constant basis. I cannot agree with their logic. After conducting an inrormal survey of my own. I discovered some Interesting racts. The roremost response to a tollway was negative. Most or those I talked to said that it was possible to avoid using it. By taking side roads, such as Moulton Parkway. commuters would spend approximately ten minutes more on the roan and save the cost of the toil. My ion is at PICAS E1 Toro and I have round it takes only ten to fifteen minutes to drive then using this route. 7-13-1 Another problem with the planned tollway will be its lack or use after "rush-hour". Most of those surveyed said they 7-13-2 would use Interstate - 6 and save the cost of the toll during V Please Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE o /11/1 ADDRESS 11,94 Z- A11 ST, AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP 4�Ul0f X� 926S1 PH.* (Optional) (?!4 ¢ -m 3s' Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: / /% `,� �12"S �� i� 7� S'Tf�TG G�I� 117-14-1 5-40U (/IR C_ S>3' aC (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15, 1990 T;zz . _ �jtamp `�OCT S .Z� CODE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 CT 19 1990 CDMG 0 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �?� ����% DATE ADDRESS I�B�}��9T AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP J 6VAJ.* 34V&# S—� PH. # (Optional) (7t4) Please add my name to your mailinglistYES / NO COMMENT: r �1 ✓ 5._Ip/- ` �4 � 5c�ce �°z Xk m -r._ tam 1�e l•71_ fA4QJ l A 44rg I(Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 Fold here 1 V7 i31 OCT Is :.�)u Mkju TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 4699 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, California 92660 September 18, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly A.anagar of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 Re: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Dear Steve: We have received recently issued notice and reviewed documents and likely effects. This should be a highly successful project with the advantages to the public and environment far greater ., than relatively insignificant adverse effect on a minor portion of people and wildlife population. As a native of Southern California, mortgage lender and San Juan Capistrano homeowner, I have watched the growth. Southern Orange County has changed from rural to suburban in less than ten years. The San Clemente to I-5 and 405 Y has become hopelessly con- gested. This proposal will have an important part in solving the problems. It would be better if there were no toll, however, properly structured the tolls should make this into a toll -free route in not too many years. We (mv wife, 2 daughters, sons-in-law, and 5 grandchildren% ::•ill benefit from the prompt completion of this necessary project. As proposed it has our support. Sincerely, James B. McDonough JBO:pmc • T-15-1 i �Please Pant Clearty: COMMENT CARD NAME WllllAM DATE Dc.? io, 40 RESS H4 q/ /77 ANTERO DR AFFILIATION A/C ESTA rr- Da o✓ g-k ZI PSANTA A v� LA Q,t -fOL ' PH. # (Optional)If Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: ,�XcE�� EN - �R�SE.wTi9T/ON (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 --------------- f.�W Iura Print Claariy: NAME4TJ«�fZ- COMMENT CARD DATE /d/-/ ADDRESS Bz� 104:Z 4 LWA —�7- AFFILIATION CITY, ZI P2-/% VAJ, 1 B cA 04 %GS , f PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing Ust _YES NO COMMENT: 774- —5A4AJ --?DA Q 0 i N L L IZDA f- 110 WWI 7-17-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-17-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED LL-- l3 Er - ���T -r�1r� of c.�os c,�P�tic�-- �►� ate � -ru �S 7-s-4 S'Q�--p , nrz a��a►.� ram. � l�vt�..l:. ----- � �S � V EG i t�A T�Cyv ycSy(*L,_ I MtP/a GT'. T-R-O �_ % S �,e�S 1,�, 4.�.- [� , W LE vc I-ti.ril F.�, DW 5E-HA-L,c pF- ` llf Cf T (UJ,.j S �VJ 1 NcV-- 1-.jTM 6y P,— �D U2 ti � C NST RV �T► OrJ t 1 WWI L) N c-, -�_ to E ► r 1i-5aa rtC X tS'i�ls �j�y S eE T `f 0 V w r L, L. 6 c— r4-- ---1- L.R,vA Fo e P, N F,-� NE- t (,N bCe-tfvot� 144`r" 00ES cy - r F- yg-,� F-\,e /5--/-17-8-6 T� uQ NFt �3oeS (,,�ov CJL- Tto ` is Lo (-) - PraE S C k � N-�� G V t L Q r-? S ' T Jc Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME irz&t D J CZr DATE ADDRESS ZMRJ AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP� '�1a65}PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT:�� (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 Mknere --------------------------------- Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COMMENTS Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME / i t4KVII?w" DATE ADDRESS % % a AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing fist L-YES NO COMMENT: -t'i r L�l a h-e �Lt�-l/l,(11yi uc s,..3�- u.�•�-� tf�, /(r, �a�/�e •+�— COMMENTS CONTINUED 110 0 v . 4, �✓ o r i 0 v/ v ►�a�iL7dr� oz- / e, 4 -u� v r e4, 7z— 2 4�,� 1 7-tat Please Print C COMMENT CARD NAME V�&Jw, L9L ADDR CITY, Please DATE 16 IATION ;Optional) NO COMMENT: � CA_A a,Y%e �° (� 177 i /%7G _GL. (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 rnn noro Please Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAME R O S DATEJ4— O ADDRESS -AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �,a 4%H)# (Optional) Please add my name to Xour mailing list YES NO COMMENT: S trr (Continue corments on back of this page. To submit, pielfse fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 7-20-1 7-20-1 • Please Print COMM NT CARD NAMErr-(4�2�0 S DAB D ' . O ADDRESSy/21 Y%AFFILIATION 9.2 6- L CITY, ZIP H. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing Iist,;,"\YES NO COMMENT: U o aC-PsIf r (Continue comments on back of this page. To sub t��e fold pate in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 !Please Print cle COMMENTCARD NAME �C:C.� DATE ZID ADDRESS AFFILIATION CITY, ZI!PH. �# (Optional) Please add my name toNyour mailing Iist�tS NO COMMENT: S is ILI (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 -20-1 7-20-1 fears of the more timid animals during their trek. During a recent trip to a Las Vegas trade show by automobile, I noticed a working monorail which crosses Interstate 15 7-12-7 between two casino/hotels in the humble town of Stateline, Nevada. If it is possible for small private enterprises, an agency in Orange County should have the capability of undertaking such a project. A potential route for the monorail would have the train starting at the John Wayne Airport terminal (or connecting with the proposed monorail loop), then following MacArthur Blvd. to the South, stopping at U.C. Irvine. (Having been a graduate of UCI, I can vouch for the fact that students represent a large commuter population.) The monorail line can then continue along the proposed route of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor with a terminal stop at the Ziggurat building in Laguna Hills. 7.12-8 The centrally located building has been used as a federal archives, with the vast parking area going to waste. The terraced pyramid configuration of the building would provide an easy access for monorail lines, linking with the upper deck of the building which has an existing main entry road sweeping along the opposite side. The monorail line can be continued to the San Juan Capistrano railroad station to service commuters from the South. My understanding is that funding for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor relies primarily on private sources. The monorail project may have additional expenses (one which would not be grading), but a joint venture with 7.12.9 a large transportation conglomerate such as the Bombardier Corporation may be possible. (Bombardier produces the reliable monorails which are in use in areas such as Walt Disney World in Florida.) This pause to reconsider the fate of the San Joaquin Hills may be the perfect opportunity to set a precedent for populated areas around the world. With our present fear's of a shortage of fossil fuels due to the Middle East crisis, we should plan to minimize reliance on such a questionable resource. Thank you for an opportunity to participate in your public response to the Transportation Corridor issue. If you should have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at the address on the letterhead. Sincerely, Jones cc. Laguna Greenbelt Association Mr. Francois Badeau, Transportation Group, Inc. Mr. Clarence J. Turner, Councilman, City of Newport Beach • 0 Please Print COMMENT CARD N ADDRESS O c �l I AFFILIATION �&, Z-- CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: ( J l�P. Sl �/C Cv%t(/L &iajr WIN s, (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15, 1990 Please Print c arty: COMMENT CARD NAME P 1 1, DATE J ADDRESS AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to yo mailing listYES ____MO COMMENT: IV NO �D 1 S (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 7--20-1 7-20-1 hOklTe o------------ non -peak driving times. Finally. most believe it will do 7-13-2 nothing to lessen trarfic and smog. These facts as 1 have stated are unofficial. however, it your organization was to do a valid survey, the results would be the same. Californians are acutely aware of the problems they race. Most understand that another roadway isn't much help. Real solutions must be found to divorce ourselves from 7-13-3 our love or the automobile and reduce traffic and with it smog. The plans for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor as an alternate route are good, but misses the mark on solving our traffic and pollution problems. I recommend using this route as a light rail line. Many communities around the world have found light rail lines to be a viable corm or transportation to work and to shop. Light rail is aiso beneficial to the quality of the air we breathe. Each station along the route can have a park and ride lot. where people could leave their cars during the day. Mails and shopping centers could be built around these stations to provide convenience to those shopping. Another sorvice wnicn could be provided with the light rail system are shuttle services to John Wayne Airport. the Irvine Spectrum. and uCi. The possibilities rot the growth associated with this light rail system are staggering. Some would.sa,y it is too costly to build sucn a system. 'let a light rail system will pay rot itself much quicker than a toll road that will not be used all the time. It would not be affected by traffic jams. or off peak hours. A light rail line will lessen the commuter nightmare wnicn is a daily part or Southern Orange County life. 7-13-4 i also recommend building a veloway alongside the light rail line rot those who commute by bicycle. Fifteen miles is an average commute for those who ride a bicycle. The bicycle is not the recreation toy it used to be. It is now a viable 7-13-5 form or transportation which is energy efricient and helps to clean up the air. Such a veloway could oe model after the one in Los Angeles. or those which are prevalent in Europe. A light rail system and a veloway are two onvlous solutions to Orange county's traffic and air pollution problems. Che future is now. we can keep spinning our wheels concerning these prooiems. or we can get serious snout them. I chalienge the deveiopers and the community to work together ano consider my recommendations rot the transportation corrioor. Mr. L.etteriv. I thank you rot the opportunity to share m•; ideas for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. 1 welcome .your comments to these recommendations. / Please Print CMarly: COMMENT CARD NAME %� M�Canl Cl. M`GD7YttilG�� DATE ADDRESS PCt ;eG �.i SAFFILIATION CITY, ZIP L64u A, k)I Ouil Q� &7r PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list ✓YES NO COMMENT: Your CwYeAt C� �`1 �,0�` �roDO�`1.� ( 'S in `ihe-, mi rhz . COMMENTS CONTINUED G.nnAil N.1Ll.n,G�Ar lii -� ytCoc�e, qilim-- 6N LL Vloruhs 7-21-1 r wi l 1/6t'St u /7t`i1 t.c l )j ;4 t t)buj am)o T `fit 5 t�►'0 DD� , TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 7-214 COMMENTS CONTINUED W444,x 74il- cc 7�; orK 8 Q �� 7-14-2 71�vPk va� �7.11e�► - i L, Cam 7-14-3 �2 �' G Coll? G Le 7� GN (/ SeC SCG7uit o_ C Cdi / Cv� � cad (j ��^C S 51 P /h �� �� &f." iVC •!�` 1 " p �? G'76�r�titi.G / 7-14-4 6 � 11 /15/90. Steve Letterly Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: I would like the comments contained in this correspondence to be registered as an official response to the TCA EIS -EIS that is currently in circulation for impacts related to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I am opposed to the Option #2 alignment of the corridor with the I-5 free- way that would remove the Avery Pkwy. intersection with Camino Capistrano. This 6-5-2 option will force traffic to travel south to Via Esoolar in order to gain ac- cess to Camino Capistrano. I am the owner of Mission Yamaha, a retail business, located at 27622 Camino Capistrano in Laguna Niguel. Being a business of retail nature we are very dep- endant upon the accessability to us. This is basically the situation of nearly every business located on Camino Capistrano north of Avery Parkway. I am extremely opposed to the #2 Option for the reasons listed: 1) Gaining access to'the businesses north of Avery Pkwy. is extremely difficult right now and has been a problem for as long as I can remember. I have 6.5.3 been active in in this area and active in the motorcycle industry since 1972. Diverting the accessability further south to Via Escolar is going to turn a ter- rible situation into a nightmare. 2) Along with the unfair elimination of Allen Cadillac, the difficulty of gaining access to Camino Capistrano will severely impair every business along 6-6'4 the street. 3) Many of the businesses along Camino Capistrano have been in existence for a very long time providing a very substantial sales tax base for Laguna Nig- uel. The decrease in revenues these businesses will suffer will directly reduce 6-S-S the sales tax revenues to the city. Allen Cadillac alone retails over 50 million dollars annually. This roughly figures to amount to $3,125,000.00 in sales tax. 4) If these business losses are incurred as a result of the Corridor al- ignment, I am sure the tennants will begin to search for alternate locations in 6-5-6 which to conduct business. If this happens, the rents will need to drastically 27622 Camino Capistrano - Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - (714) 582-0351 - FAX (714) 5824325 COMMENTS CONTINUED vy �c'wc-iL-- O�J l'7`S �C. So,„z a{' fie. Tc/f u,,, of �l /F,;-Ze A 1,0�f,-rlsze ��� -A 4/kze- a -At Ll �o o� 4 A ezl/, -JJ#/ 4es e-wl AA4-�. aAA- 17 -74�k �e� Spa c.�e/ //7 Z I�Z ly ev nd!� bvc u�Xe 4U-V-75-e GcC.tl 17-14-5 7-14-6 7-14-7 "I 7-14-8 7-14-9 6 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Ja 4 `7 �� I` DATE / I 41 `� o ADDRESS 9 C'° c C-° AFFILIATION D t,✓ t e A ICITY, ZIP L1 6- GA 916-7-7 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _YES NO (COMMENT: 7— A ""I A A-le"'I 13yS, -, s s e r c u -r A -%--42 J T-0 �_ _ AJ of y c.. l a 5 e J /3£,.�✓Se p� corroi T- 11 �rct 14^4 70 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 t-Oltl here s TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 0 9 ROBERT P. GEORGE -P.O. Box 3224 Mission Viejo, California 92690-1224 (714) 582-9500 Mr. Steven Letterby Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Dear Sir: November 19, 1990 RE: Opposition to Alignment #2 Interesection I-5 At present, I own a 24,000 square foot building located at 27652 Camino Capistrano, Laguna Niguel. I was first made aware of the existence of an Option 2 plan for the intersecting of the Transportation Corridor at Avery Parkway at the I-5 freeway 11/13/90 and resultant meeting heard 11/14/90 at Laguna Hills High School. In attendance at this meeting were myself, several other Camino Capistrano property owners and tenants. Our concern is the stretch of road located north of Avery Parkway. My associates and myself are completely aghast for this Option #2. This option would eliminate the entrance to Camino Capistrano via Avery Parkway exit. At present, I am having complaints from my tenants that this exit is to far from this premises AND and you may well be aware, Camino Capistrano dead -ends north of Avery. To eliminate this exit would produce an additional hardship on property owners and tenants alike in accessing their business consumate with servicing their customer base. I feel the necessary expenditures involved in design, future acquisition(s) and construction dollars PLUS the economic disadvantage this would place our group in would far exceed any economical benefit derived thereof. 6-7-1 It has been my constant understanding that the Corridor intersection would be 6-7-2 located south of Avery Parkway so as to not displace existing businesses. This is the most reasonable approach in all economies. I am in receipt of letters written November 6, 1990 to Mr. Micheal Pinto from the Law Office of George J. Jeffries representing Allen Cadillac and letters dated Noember 1, 1990 6 11/15/90 to yourself by Mr. Pinto and a letter from Mr. Pinto to P 6 D Technologies. I agree most heartfelt with the conclusions stated. I cannot comprehend how a study on alignment Option #2 could even be considered a desireable effect considering the hardships incurred to Camino Capistrano interests. If adequate notice had been given to our interest, proper information could have been presented making the Option #2 conclusively inadequate and unfair. 16-7-3 SADDLEBACK WHOLESALE ELECTRIC, INC. -URO _ _'ERFORMANCE AV .:ORLD 27652 Camino Capistrano • Unit "A" • Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 • (714) 582-8811 Steve Letterly Manager EIR Transportation 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Ca. Laguna Niguel November 19th, 1990 Corridor Agency 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly; I attended the Public Hearing at the Laguna Hills High School, I have seen the two proposed alignments for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and I would like to have the contents of this letter, registered as an official response to the TCA DEIR-EIF that is currently in circulation for impacts related to the so called Corridor. It is beyond my comprehension how Alignment 82, could even be considered as an option, this is more of a case of opening the hole first, to see what size patch you are going to need. I have heard and read about all the different ways that this option will affect the different areas, but I have heard 6-8-1 hardly anything about the way this option will practically shut down the sixty to eighty businesses north of Avery on Camino Capistrano, which is where our business is located. Mr. Letterly the building we presently occupy, was burned to the ground approximately two years ago, one of the main factors that contributed to this disaster was the limited 6-8-2 access to the area. Can you possibly imagine how this will be if Option *2 is approved.? Mr. Letterly in the year and a half that we have been in business, we spent $ 27,159.07 dollars in advertising so that people could find us, again because of the limited access to 6-8-3 our area. Do you think they will go thru the trouble of using back streets to find us, if Option *2 is approved.? Mr Letterly among the businesses mentioned above you have Allen Cadillac, which is my understanding that it will be eliminated. They alone collect approximately $3,000,000.00 in sales tax annually, not to mention Nurseryland that I am sure collects another substantial amount. Our business sales tax 6-8-4 revenue is approximately $20,000.00 a year, in a very empirical way of figuring, multiply that by eighty businesses and you have about $1,600,000.00 a year. Can the city of Your "One -Stop" BMW Service Center BELL&HOWELL Audio Visual•'Video Products F 1 P T Ire ` U .•. . 7 ^ T N �'•: ji1 I .: �.':. '� �: \+ •` iNTR w ;r; . H, n� ��-5TA MESA, CA !-JEAP S'R : RE OPPOSITION TOALI9Nr1E!'T sr,, 1fJl r,uN ; Ar PRESENT E;KI COMPANY 0+::I•.'•-.Y 11AR—_,:.ir � ;i;. ;'IJ„L;Y;hTF.AT die, :i`...t:..'__ :.�:.=•. :":,, :i. *.. h;;T..,:,i c' TP yiii�'04T+�.-i::�'i'iPRl00RA' AVEP AN OPTION 2 PLAN UK HE r ►_ttS... Zu ;r i_ . i PARKWAY AT THE i-S FREEWAY r,I TriC i"^r:_.- i;v' ri _..;':'rnlii:. PROPER'"! TENANTS AT CAMINO CAP!;SYkAn;; ON Et' EN!!\:'.-. EIKI COMPANY IS TOTALY AGAINST FOR TF''i . ,)P T 101J a� ?i_A`d TE+;S IS ABSOLUTELY A BAD PLAN. THIS OPTION WOULD ELIMINATE THE ENTRANCE TO aA'`iINC LAPISTRANO VIAAVERY PARKWAY EXIT. TO ELIMINAYE THIS EXIT WOUi D PRODUCE OF HARDSHIP ON PROPERTY OWNERSAND TENANTSAL IKE IN.ACCESE-iNO OUR AND THEIR BUSINESS BUSINESS 0,ON5UMATE WITH 5 F R V I C I N 0 THE CU-Si'1'"IF . ;.•A.,t_. AINK) i,,+:,R,.:, rt E r 1 P L 0Y['E5C011IN6 TO Vr'OP.K. I FEEL THE NECESSARY FXPENDITURES iP;,'YOL.VEO ON DcSi,iN, FUTURE: ACOUISiTi0N!5) AND CONSTRUCTION DOLLFiRS PLUS THE GYOIJOii:C [)ISAE:'y'ANTAO` THIS '?`-'OULD f'LA,CE USAND OUR NEIBOURHOODS IN WOULD FAR EXCEED AN: ECONOMICAL BENEFIT DERIVED THE'REOF. IT HAS BEEN MY CONSTANT UNDEkSTANDi!vr CHAT TH C0I:R.i[)0R INT ERSECTIOIv 'WOULD BE 6-9-2 LOCATED AT THE SOUTH OF AVERY PARKWAY, O P,S EC NOT DISPLACE EXISTING BUSINESS, AND IT SEEMS THIS IS THE MOST REASONABLE APPROACH IN ALL ECONOMIES. I AM IN RECEIPT OF LETTERS WRITTEN ON NOV.6, 1990 TO MR. MICFAEL PINTO FROM THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE J. JEFFRIES REPRESENTING ALLEN CADILLAC, AND LETTERS DATED NOV.1 ,'90 & NOV.15,'90 TO YOURSELF BY MR. PINTO AND A :ETTCn FROM r`R. PINTO TO P - C 6-9-3 TECHNOLOGIES, AND A LETTER FROM MR ROBERT P. O OBOE TO YOU DATED r10V 19,'90 ! AGREE MOST HEARFELT WITH THE CONCL US;0N c,TATE `. i CANNOT COMPREHEND hiOW A Si UDY (Pi iON -P 2 COLII_D EVEN BE CONSIDERED A DESIRABLE EFFECT CONSIDERING THE HARDSHIPS `NCI-RRED TO CAMIND CAh;STRANO BUSINESS 6-9-4 INTERESTS. If ADEQUATE NOTICE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO OUR INTEREST, PROPER INFORMATION COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED MAKING THE OPTION'w2 PLAN CONCLLISIVELY INADEQUATE AND UNFAIR. I HAVE NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS OPTION WHAT -SO -EVER. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REGISTER OUR OPPOSITION TO OPTION *2 PLAN, AND I WOULD LIKE 70 BE KEPT POSTED ON THIS TCA PROJECT. YOUR- SINCERELY, '6 1 ISHIQ � ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAOEP EIKI INTERNATIONAL, INC. 6-9-5 6-9-6 cc: Patricia Bates Mayor, City of Laguna Niguel EIKI INTERNATIONAL, INC. - 27882 Camino Capistrano - Laguna Niguel. California 92677.8000 - Tel: 714/582.2511 - FAX: 714/364.6405 13502 E. Virginia Avenue The Best Enterprise Baldwin Park, California 91 i06.5883 IN f N `� � � Is A Free Enterprise (818)338-558 "God Bless America" a� gu�C�Ek November 21, '1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 Attention: San. Joaquin dill E.I.P..; E.I.S. Commc^ts Gentlemen: As you are aware, our restaurant, "In-N-Out Burger" in Laguna Niguel, is one of the businesses identified to be relocated if Alignment #2 of the interchange at I-5 is approved. In-N-Out purchased this property many years ago and developed the restaurant which opened on August 24, 1982. In-N-Out has spent a great deal of time and money developing this store to one of its most successful in terms of sales and profits. This location is unique since it gives us a strong local market to draw from as well as a highly visible freeway location drawing long distance travelers. The local market is unique because it is close to a strong residential base. This location also enjoys a strong amount of business from Laguna Niguel which uses Paseo De Colinas to cross over the railroad tracks to Camino Capistrano. Other off ramps such as Junipero Sierra Road do not have this advantage. Our Avery off -ramp location is also strategically located to serve our ciistnrers from Saddleback College and Capistrano Valley High School. Interstate 5 affords us a tremendous sales opportunity, especially with the northbound traffic since our location abuts the freeway. On page 4-104 of the E.I.S. it states, "The availability of space in these types of commercial sites is assumed to be adequate for the number of commercial businesses requiring relocation." It is our opinion that there are no sites available in this area along Interstate 5 which would provide us with the same marketing opportunities as the present location. Since our facility uses a double drive-thru concept, we cannot locate in a typical "strip" retail center. Also, the signage limitations are much more restrictive in most communities and it is unlikely that we will find a location with the same level of advertising visibility. 01J 6-10-1 The Customer Is Everything To Us 200'39dd d3dU Nd31S3M I 0 W Ib:01 06, 92 AON Shell Oil Company November 26, 1990 P.O. Box 460 sit PL RnmMunt Btrem Ansh" (Wft Na IMM To: Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Xesa, CA 92626 From: District Manager Southern California District Shell Oil Company RE: SAN JOAQVIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR This letter is to express our deep concern over the connection of the Corridor at the southern end with Interstate 5 at Avery Parkway, and its effect* on existing business at this intersection. It is our understanding that ALIGNMENT 02 will eliminate most businesses in this area, and that ALIGNMENT 11 will eliminate some businesses, but not as many* our only negative comment to the Corridor is the construction of this southern interchange. We have a Shall station at 28662 Camino Capistrano at Avery Parkway in San Juan Capistrano, which provides a needed service to both surrounding neighborhoods and traffic on Interstate 3.` Although both ALIGNMENTS will eliminate some businesses, we request consideration that the final adopted plan is workable to leave intact the Shell station at 28662 Camino Capistrano at Avery Parkway in San Juan Capistrano. Thank you for your consideration. /very truly yours, T. A. Runnels District Nanager 6-11-1 Zed T964 697£-W9-b TL : ON IM U361d N831S31 I 0 W : Q I 0b :0 T NOW 06 ,-9Z-rCN — C. J. SEGERSTRO1e & SONS 3315 Fairview Road - Costa Mesa. California 9262(3 Telephone 546-0110 November 26, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 RE: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS Dear Mr. Letterly: We are pleased to have the opportunity to review and comment on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor draft EIR/EIS (DEIR). As an overall policy position, the Segerstrom organization would like to state that it strongly supports the Corridor Project and anticipates its successful completion. We believe the Corridor will provide a significant contribution to improving traffic circulation in Orange 6-12-1 County. We also believe that, overall, the DEIR presents an excellent and well -reasoned analysis of the project. On a more specific matter, we note that page 5-10 of the DEIR describes certain potential transportation improvements in the area of the confluence of existing SR-73, SR-55 and I- 405. While these "confluence improvements" would appear to serve as feasible mitigation for the impacts of the Corridor Project in this area, we suggest, however, that the Final EIR' include additional detail regarding the intended timing, implementation and funding of each', of these improvements. These would serve to make clear and strengthen the Agency's commitment to ensure the improvements are appropriately carried out. Please let us know if you would like to discuss our concerns regarding the DEIR in greater detail. We would be very pleased to do so. Sincerely, Malcolm C. Ross Director of Planning & Design MCR:sw cc: Henry Segerstrom Hal Segerstrom Ron Van Buskirk 6-12-2 "TONS OF DUALITY" EST.1960 BUILDING MATERIALS BRICK • TILE - BLOCK • SAND -• GRAVEL • CEMENT - STEEL • STONE - FIREWOOD - BBO's - TOOLS November 26, 1990 Mr. Steven Letterly TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Re: Response to the S='-n Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS Dear Mr. Letterly: I have just FAXed you my official response to the presentation made by the TCA of Option II of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft EIR/EIS. Because FAX paper is not always the best quality copy, I am herewith forwarding the original copy of the FAXed material. I will look forward to your early response to my concerns. Sincerely, John C. Connors, President SEPULVEDA BUILDING MATERIALS John C. Connors, Partner FORBES ROAD ASSOCIATES John C. Connors and Janie G. Connors, Co -Trustees Connors Family Trust (Property Owners) TORRANCE GARDENA LAGUNA NIGUEL PALM SPRINGS 2936 Sepulveda Blvd. 359 E. Gardena Blvd. 28092 Forbes Rd. 4153 Matthew Dr. Torrance, CA 90505-2894 Gardena, CA 90248-2815 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677.1288 Palm Springs, CA 92264-5607 (213) 325.2173 (213) 217.0134 (714) 582.7500 (619) 326-3614 FAX (213) 325.5340 FAX (213) 217-0193 FAX (714) 364.3468 FAX (619) 328-7043 October 22, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Attention: Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Dear Mr. Letterly: I oppose the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor for the following reasons: 1. Orange County does not need new freeways. What Orange County needs is public transportation in the form of monorails that connect every portion of all the cities. 7-22-1 A monorail runs clean and will generate income for the County and relieve the freeways of massive congestion. 2. A toll road in Orange County will never work. People by nature are not willing to pay a couple of dollars to move a few miles faster on a toll road. In other parts of the country, toll roads have been in existence for 7-22-2 decades, but introducing a toll road to Orange County will only upset the population. Don't we pay enough taxes? 3. If you have ever driven between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on the 5 freeway you can see that part of the problem with traffic is caused by massive trucks. 7-22-3 Limit the time trucks can travel on the road and you will help relieve traffic. If the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor is built it will give the developers the opportunity to build more 7-22-4 houses in South County, thus making even the Corridor crowed in a few years. My house rests just about a half block from the Corridor sign. If construction begins on this freeway, the noise would be tremendous. At this point Alicia Parkway is almost like a freeway and the County wants to widen it. Those two County aspects combined would make the noise level to the point where nobody could even live in my townhouse community. I don't know if you take in account noise pollution, but it is a factor when building a freeway so close to urban housing. The lawsuits that would develop from my fellow homeowners would take years to get through court, and could cost a great deal of money. 7-22-5 October 22, 1990 Page 2 Steve Letterly The pollution and destruction of the environment in Laguna Canyon is also a serious problem because it is the last of 7.22-6 the natural land left in our crowed polluted county. The pollution from the cars being so close to our houses could lead to making everyone sick thus causing more lawsuits. Remove the signs for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor and look for other solutions to our traffic 7_22-7 problems such as monorails, and controlling the building of houses and business parks on open land which leads to more people and of course more traffic. Sincerely, Robert S. Smith 29 Abbeywood Ln. Laguna Hills, CA. 92665 • Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME &ve- DATE .p-r f ADDRESS.262,7 'R4,ckd e S� AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP„/LI -vvn r�- yz6 0 PH. * (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT ,-'7LO7 04e7 ��? f"4�� - ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0661 6 Z 100 03/il • 7-23-1 7-23-1 A Please Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAME JAMES W. SCHMIDT DATE. OCT. 23, 1990 JADDRESS 6200 TOBRUK COURT AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP LONG BEACH, CA 90803 PH. # (Optional) 213-498-3012 Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO RE: 28142-28162 CAMINO CAPIST�, LAGUNA NIGUEL COMMENT: I own two commercial buildings located in the path of the proposed FREEWAY CORRIDOR. The income frtm these rental roperties represents the bulk of my retirement income. -It would continued (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 Fold here • _PCMC4 cc I P M . j 26 OCT I /990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 7-24-1 li�i����l�l�ll��„I�i�ll���ll��il��►��►11„�Ill���li, COMMENTS CO NTINUED severely impact my ability to keep up my financial obligations, as it would not be possible to make this kind of investment again 7-24-1 in the current Real Estate market. Of the two routes bein considered I find number ONE to be less I7-24-2 objectionable. However, I am very concerned about the impact the construction, which is very long term, would have on my tenants businesses (their ability to pay rent). This could take years and the potential economic loss to my tenants, myself and my family__ can onlv b uessed at. 7-24-3 1 Route TWO A MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE PROJECT COSTNG ACCORDING TO 7-24-4 THE AGENCY $40 MILLION MORE. But does that take into account the loss of Tax Revenue due to tenant displacement? In a tough 7-24-5 economic climate as wa are experiencing now, small businesses always experience hard times. The businesses harmed would in all 7-24-6 probability institute litigation for relief. I sincerely hope that Option ONE will be the choice of the board I7-24-7 i Li 4 November 17, 1990 City of Laguna Niguel 27821 La Paz Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92656 Re•San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Interchange at I-5 Dear I am the owner of 2 buildings located at 28142 and 28162 Camino Capistrano, Laguna Niguel, which would be very adversly affected if Option 2 were implemented. I am opposed to Option 2 for the following reasons: 1) The property which you plan on taking is my retirement income. A replacementproperty returning the same income is impossible to obtain in todays market considering Prop. 13 TAX benefits, low interest rates on existing mortgage. I have owned this property since 1969. 2) Option 2 will not provide direct access from the I-5 via Avery to --Camino Capistrano. To get to the businesses would be by way of a very circuitous route , which would disastrous for all the business at my site. That would rid of all my tenants within a short time, as they need access for their customers. be get easy 7-24-8 7-24-9 7-24-10 3) Option 2 would remove a large number of jobs in the commercial strip by expelling these businesses. The Tax Revenue generated by the commercial strip would be lost to the 7-2441 City of Laguna Niguel. The indivival owners have worked many years in this location and are known by the surrounding population, they may never re-establish their business if they are forced to relocate. 4) Option 2. would isolate some remaining buildings on Camino 7-24-12 Capistrano and leave them virtualy worthless, during the construction period but also after completion. 5) The cost of Option 2 is, by estimates (1989) in excess of 40 Million Dollars more than Option 1. I wonder if that figure includes Tax losses, job losses, economic losses 7-24-13 incurred by the people directly affected by this slice through their lives; or some litigation, which will surely come. The only solution is to build Option 1 ! I oppose Option 2 !! Please feel free to list my opposition wherever necessary. 7-24-14 Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ES W. SCHMIDT Please Print Clearly_ COMMENT CARD NAME CYNDIE HELD ADDRESS P • 0. BOX 2001 DATE 11-5-90 AFFILIATION PH. # (Optional) 714-364-5450 Please add my name to your mailing list. YES XX NO. . COMMENT: AS A PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNER IN THE AVERY PKWY. Ai *AL"IG'NMENT N0,2 IS THE ONLY ANSWER TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA, BY HAVING ON AND OFFRAMPS TO ACCESS (OV (Continue comments on back'of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tapp, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation porddor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 10, 1990 41 COMMENTS CONTINUED • THE CORRIDOR WILL ASSUREt.AN EFFICIENT FLOW -OF -TRAFFIC IN THE AVERY PKWY; ' AREA.- T02 NOT HAVE RAMPS AT THIS END WILL ONLY IMPACT OUR 7-28-1 SIDE STREETS WHILE ONE LOOKS FOR A WAY ON TO THE CORRIDOR. # 2 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. THANK YOU CYNDTE HELD ` r eay, Jam. Z- 0�y,- AJ AAMSAY 28705 ANGNEA WAY IAGUNA NIGH CAUfORMA S2577 y 7-27-1 7-27-2 Steve Letterly, Manager Transportation Corridor 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Steve: Environmental Impact November 8, 1990 Agencies I have reviewed the TCA DEIR/EIS and the Technical Reports #1 through #9 which are published in two volumes. As a resident at 28772 Ave. del Caballo in Laguna Niguel, a residence on the east side of Caballo nearest to I-5 (there are 15 houses on the east side of Caballo, and mine is the 8th from Paseo de Colinas), I have limited my analysis to matters related to the confluence options between the SJHTC and the I-5. Although the DEIR/EIS itself does not directly indicate a preference between the two alignments examined, identified as the Conventional or Demand Management Alternatives, the thrust is obviously favoring the Demand Management alternative. In fact, in the Implementation Study, Technical Report #8, recommendation #1 (on page 43) specifically states: 'In conjunction with the environmental review process and final design, the Transportation Corridor Agencies shall endorse implementation of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Demand Management Alternative, to ensure consistency of facility design with the Southern California Association of Government's Regional Mobility Plan." Given that the Demand Management Alternative moves the connecting overpass further north from my residence, removes the visual impact of the Conventional Alternative that cannot be mitigated at Paseo de Colinas at the end of Caballo, moves the attendant noise problem, and improves the circulation pattern with the overpass between Avery and Colinas, I generally concur with the above recommendation. I do have some concerns about the DEIR/EIS which I believe need examination. My initial concern relates to NOISE. I have prepared a detailed analysis outlining this concern as Appendix A, attached. I have identified some inconsistencies between section 4.5 of the DEIR/EIS and Technical Report #4 which is its supporting document. I have further indicated what I believe to be an error in the development of CNEL contours at this location which, if corrected, would result in a greater noise impact for the 15 residences along the east side of Avenida del Caballo and a change to Mitigation Measure 5-1. 7-28-1 7-28-2 TAX BASE tr Af I am concerned about the accuracy and completeness of the DEIRMS responses to items 38 and 39 of the Environmental Significance Checklist (Table 4.1.B, page 4-15), which state: If yes, is it Yes or No significant? EIWEIS YES or NO Section 38. Affect employment, industry or commerce or require the displace- 4-9 ment of businesses or farms? Yes No 39. Affect property values or the local Yes No 4-9 tax base? Section 4.9 of the DEIIt/EIS,^„a;rQ and Business Relocation discusses the differences in the effect of the Conventional Alternative vs. the Demand Alternative, or more appropriately, the differences between option #1 an option #2 alignments at the confluence of the SJHTC with I-5, and concludes that there seems to be adequate cap would be ity in helocated. e South County area to Unfortunately, accommodate those businesses which the analysis is not sufficiently micro to respond to the impact created - especially option #2. The analysis does admit that tto displaced na Niguel "could potentially result in. the loss of sales tax revenue businesses. . (p.4-105). An examination of Appendix I, and Table I of that appendix, emphasizes how significant the impact is. All of the full -taking of o 16 with sesoptwhich result from eithsf alignment (which increases from are in Laguna Niguel and have a direct impact upon its tax revenue base. Any analysis of relocation, if it is to mitigate the Corridor's affect upon P Laguna Niguel, must encompass a micro analysis within the city's boundaries. It. is my contention that item 39 has NOT been mitigated aarguments that the potential impact is �t]M significant, notwithstanding the presented in section 4.9 of the DEIWEIS. (Inc dea�y thhes atoment on p. fore disagree 2-52, comparing the two alternatives, is with the statement on page 10-2 which states: "�i OUSI ;Tv r"u�TD BUST^�Fcc 7?FLcATION Implementation of the relocation policies outlined in Section 4.9 mitigates all significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Corridor housing and business relocations." 7-28-3 7-28-4 7-28-5 �7 COSTS rn about the data presented in Table 2.6.A (p.2- Finally, Ihave some concern 29), Emiect and i t-of-W-U Costs. No data are presented which allows 7-28-6 an analysis of the accuracy of these estimates, but I have some questions which cannot be severed from the data as presented: 1. It would seem to me that there would be a considerable difference in the cost between option #1 and option #2 at the confluence with the SJHTC and 1-5. Option #1 does have a longer joining from Cabot Road to 1-5, but option #2 requires the movement of I-5 both 7-28-7 horizontally and vertically, as well as the building of the overpass between Avery and Colinas and the extension of Via Escolar. These costs should be separately identified within the table for comparison, and not 'buried" within some category.. I suspect that the SJHTC is not being "charged" for the cost of the 7-28-8 widening of I-5 since it will probably be a CalTrans Project. However, the Conventional Alignment (Option #1) suggests that the widening does not change the location of the centerline of 1-5 (since there are no business takings on either side), nor does it require a 7-28-9 lowering of it for 4.2 miles, and certainly does not include a . realignment of Avery and Colinas: These are additional costs, however the taxpayer pays for them! 2. I'm not sure that I understand what the "Cost of Business 1 7-28-10 Relocations' includes. The table shows that Option #1 would cost $210,000 (for 6 full -takes, and several partial takes?), and Option #2 would cost $780,000 (for 16 full -takes of commercial property, plus one residence, and several partial takes?). The tremendous increase in the taking of commercial property by Option #2 . cannot be 7.28-1 1 included in the cost of acquiring right-of-way, since this cost shows a decrease of $470,000. Are these figures an accurate representation of what the proposed full -takes might cost the SJHTC, and what are the data which support these figures? Sincerely, Robert J. Healey 28772 Ave. del Caballo Laguna Niguel; CA 92677 (714) 364- 3051 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF NOISE GENERATION at the Confluence of the SJHTC and I-5 Sign.? Table 4.1.B - Environmental Significance Checklist Y/N Y/N Sect. Item 19. Result in an increase in noise levels or vibration for adjoining areas? Y Y 4.5 Item 20. Result in any Federal, State or Focal noise criteria being equal or exceeded? Y Y 4.5 Table 4.1.A - Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Twenty-eight noise sensi- Mitigation Meas- Twenty-six areas can be miti- tive areas would experience ores 5-1 and 5-2. gated. Not significant. One increases in noise resulting area cannot be mitigated. One in noise levels in excess of area will be mitigated if build - Orange County or FHWA ing attenuation improvements guidelines. are feasible. Significant. 1. I have no problem with the above statements. I do have some problem, however, with Mitigation Measure 5-1 and the data presented to support it for the area of analysis. The area of interest is identified on Figure 3.5.1 (page 3-24) as noise receptor locations 17, 20, 22, and 23. Table 3.5.A provides current Leq readings for these locations as follows: sk U01iQu I� R17 Rancho Capistrano Church (Schuller) 59 R20 28601 Ave. del Caballo 68 R20A 28603 Ave. del Caballo 67 R22 28273 Bridgeport Plaza 57 R23 28081 Montecito, Bridgeport Plaza 52 2. I understand the reason for creating a site R20 and a site R20A because of the significant difference in the distance from this site and reading stations created by the Conventional Alternative and the Demand Management Alternative. I do not, however, understand how 7-28-12 these two sites (which are in the same location, since 28603 Caballo is a fictional address), given that these were actual readings, would have different Leq values since all current noise is generated by the same sources at this location. Note also that sites R22 and R23 have 7-28-13 lower readings because the condominiums were built with garages on the freeway side as sound barriers. Finally, note that site R17 has a lower reading than R20, although closer to the freeway, which 7-28-14 emphasizes that a site on -level or below the freeway and with intervening buildings provide a sound barrier. Table 4.5.A (pages 4-44 to 4-48) purports to be "a summary of the noise 17-28-15 impacted locations and the feasibility of a noise barrier to achieve the required noise reduction". Site R17 is judged under category E with the conclusion that I7-28-16 mitigation is not required, even though this site has considerable recreational facilities which should Just& B. Sites R22 and R23, per mitigation 5-1 (page 4-59) "A barrier is recommended at the right of way varying in height from 10 to 16 feet.- According to Table 4.5.A (and Table 6, p.13, of Technical 7-28-17 Report #4), a wall will be constructed on the right-of-way between the SJHTC stations #9472 to 9490 with the assumption that there will be no distinguishing difference in noise at these locations between the Conventional Alternative and the Demand Management Alternative. My primary area of concern has to do with sites R20 and R20A, taken at a residence on the west side of Caballo at the corner of Pasco de Colinas, and the conclusions reached by those readings taken. Site R20 indicates that 12 houses would be affected by option #1, even though there are 15 houses on the east side t of Caballo (nearer I-5), and some of them are at a higher elevation. It further shows for site R20A that only 1 house would be affected by option #2. It indicates that a barrier would be built on the roadway structure for both options r between stations 9460 to 9472 (Table 6 in Technical Report #4 differentiates between option #1 and option #2 by placing the barrier for option #2 on I-5 between stations 685 and 705. It also shows that the barrier for option #1 should be between stations 9460 and 9484). Mitigation measure 5-1 (page 4-59) states: 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 Corridor mitigated with a 6-foot noise barrier at the elevated roadway structure, other sources of traffic noise would exceed 67 dBA. Figure 4.5.1-1 (page 4-51) shows that a sound barrier would be located on the west side of the SJHTC elevated roadway between stations 9460 and 9484 for the Conventional Alternative. However, Figure 4.5.1-6 shows no sound barriers for the same location for the Demand Management Alternative. 3. There are obviously discrepancies between Table 4.5.A and Technical Report #4 which should be adjusted. I have concern about the meaning of the last sentence in the mitigation measure 5-1 for site 2 7-28-18 '7-28-19 17-28-20 L� ra R20. Does that sentence imply that even with the proposed barrier, the noise level will exceed 67 dBA Leq, and, more importantly, does 7-28-20 it imply that this noise increase is not a responsibility of the SJHTC, and therefore doesn't need further mitigation in this EIR/EIS? It is my belief that the basic noise levels at this location are traffic 7-28-21 generated, and that &H increases will be a direct or residual affect of the confluence of the SJHTC and the I-S. I believe that the conclusion of mitigation measure 5-1 is erroneous, based upon the analysis which follows. The primary source for the conclusions presented by Table 4.5.A are derived from Technical Report #4, presented in Volume I which accompanies the DEERMS. I believe that an error occurred within this report that significantly affects the conclusions reached in the interested area. Note this quotation of paragraph 5.3, impact assessment, on page 6: The design year 2010 traffic volumes and speeds were used to predict future traffic noise levels at existing and planned noise sensitive receptors. Existing and planned residential and recreational land uses along the Corridor were selected and 24-hour CNEL traffic noise was calculated for each of these receptor sites (Figure 4). The CNEL contours of 60 dBA, 65 dBA and 70 dBA were modeled and are reported for both Conventional Operations and Demand Management Alternatives in Table 4 for each of the traffic links by the distance from the centerline of the roadway to the contour. The 65 dBA and 70 dBA CNEL Contours are shown in Figure 7 for the Conventional Operations Alternative, the alternative with the highest traffic noise levels. An examination of Table 4 (page 9) at the line identified as PASEO DE COLENA TO JUNIPERO SERRA indicates that an error exists, for it reports as 'distance to CNEL contours in feet': CNEL-60 CNEL-65 CNEL-70 CON DM CON DM CON DM Pgseo de Colinas to NB 810 810 420 420 235 235 Junipero Serra $B 680 680 395 395 265 265 whereas: Greenfield Dr. to NB 665 645 Paseo de Colinas SB 705 660 3- 335 325 185 180 355 330 190 180 7-28-22 The argument for not presenting contour lines for the Demand Management Alternative is that those lines would always be 'inside' the lines generated by the Conventional Alternative. From Colinas to Junipero Serra, the footage from the 7-28-22 centerline to the CNEL contour is reported as identical for either alternative, and the assumption is that, therefore, the contour lines would be identical. This is not true, however. In section 2.3 (page 2-18) of the report, entitled Design Features of Demand Management ent Alternative indicates that the I-5 will be increased between Junipero Serra to the Corridor entrance by 2 lanes in each direction, increasing its width from 8 lanes to 12 lanes. In addition, the overpass between Avery and Colinas will provide exit ramps to and from both the I-5 and the SJHTC. What is important in this discussion is the information in the section entitled 'I-5 Connection' (page 2-23) which states: 'It should be noted that the analysis of the Demand Management Alternative in Chapter 4 of this EMMS is based on the Alignment #2 connection.' Therefore, the following statements about Alignment #2 are pertinent: image 2-25) Alignment #2 (See Figure 2.13). Beginning at a point approximately 2,000 [sic. feet?] north of the existing Avery Parkway Interchange and then heading westerly toward the Crown, Valley �j Parkway and Cabot Road Intersection. ('Phis alignment uses properties between the existing I-5 and Camino Capistrano arterial highway. The alignment is easterly [?] of Alignment #1 by approximately 300 feet to 480 feet.) �t.. Under Alignment #2 the grade of I-5 needs to be lowered to accommodate a reconstructed Avery Parkway which will span I-5, the northbound and southbound Corridor, Camino Capistrano and the AT&SF Railroad line, and to connect directly to Paseo de Colinas. In addition, Via Escolar would be extended westerly from Rancho Viejo Road under I-5 and the Corridor to intersect with Camino Capistrano. Approximately 7,000 feet of the I-5 freeway would be relocated both horizontally and vertically. The horizontal realignment would shift I-5 approximately 100 feet westerly to minimize the right-of-way impacts of the northbound Corridor alignment as it diverges from I- 5 northbound. The vertical realignment allowt I-5 to pass under Avery Parkway and over Via Escolar. It also allows ramp movements to and from both the Corridor and I-5 from Avery Parkway, and cross freeway local access at Via Escolar between Rancho Viejo Road and Camino Capistrano. 4 7-28-23 0 0 40 The above paragraphs indicate that there is a significant difference between the Conventional Alternative (Alignment #1) and the Demand Management Alternative (Alignment #2) at the I-5 connection. All 4 newly installed lanes on"z8-23 the I-5 will be west of and lower than the present alignment of I-5 for Option #2, but not for Option #L I can understand why the CNEL contour lines for the DM Alternative would always be inside those for the CON Alternative if the traffic flow which creates the noise is closer to the centerline, assuming that the centerline is in the same place for both alternatives and the elevation for both is the same. I further understand why Table 4 (page 9 of Technical Report #4) indicates no difference in footage from the centerline to various CNEL contours in the area between Paseo de Colinas and Junipero Serra since it is assumed that both alignments are traversing 12 lanes that are sited at the same location; an assumption that is erroneous. Contour lines as this location would not be at the same place! f 7-28-24 4. The above statements make it clear that the centerline and 17-28-25 elevations of the I-5 are not the same for option #1 and option #2. It, should therefore be clear that CNEL contour lines at this location'. 7-28-26 would not be at the same location, but would, in fact, veer further west for option #2. It is my contention that a reanalysis of the CNEL contour lines for option #2 would require mitigation barriers on the west side of I-5 that would extend from I-5 stations 650 to 705 rather than the 685 to 705 which is recommended. Further, it is possible that, because of the lowering of I-5 at that location, the movement of 7-28-27 the flyover of Avery to Colinas further south of the present alignment of Colinas, and the on/off ramps connected to Avery as recommended by option #2, additional noise mitigation measures might be required for the 15 residences on the east side of Ave. del Caballo. Site R17 should also be considered for reclassification to category B as a recreation site, but would (probably) be adequately mitigated by the barrier beginning at station 650. 5 MICHAEL J. PINTO PO BOX 1809 LAGUNA BCH, CA.§2652 TEL (714) 494-7366 FAX 497-7222 November 13, 1990 Steve Letterly Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: I want my comments registered as an official response to the TCA DEIR-EIF that is currently in circulation for impacts related to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I am opposed to the Option #2 alignment of the corridor with the I-5 freeway that would remove the Avery juncture with Camino 7-29-1 Capistrano, forcing traffic to go south to Via Escolar in order to gain access to Camino Capistrano. I am a property owner at 27622 Camino Capistrano and I strongly object to the #2 alignment option for the following reasons: 7-29-2 1. Access to the properties north of Avery is difficult now. Diverting it south to Via Escolar makes a bad situation much worse. 2. The impact of the difficulty of gaining access to 7-29-3 Camino Capistrano will badly hurt the businesses along Camino Capistrano. 3. The loss of business will adversely affect the city I7-29-4 revenues from sales taxes. 4. With the loss of business, tenants will vacate and in order to lease up we will have to substantially drop our rents. 7-29-5 This will have an adverse effect on sales prices which will in turn effect property taxes to the city and county. 0 5. The loss of access to Camino Capistrano via Avery will create a dangerous situation as it will be more difficult for emergency vehicles, fire, medical and police, to gain access to my property and the others along Camino Capistrano. This is of particular importance to me as we had a.major fire in my building and it was only due to the quick response of the fire department that the building was saved. Additionally, the building next door to me burned. down on another occasion and again my building was saved due to the quick response of the fire department. 7-29-6 6. The telephone switching station is located further 7-29-7 north on Camino Capistrano. Proper access will necessary during an emergency. Cutting off Aver Capistrano with a further obstruction south Capistrano could create havoc. be absolutely y from Camino 7-29-7 along Camino 7. No matter what TCA decides to do, I think it is absolutely necessary that Camino Capistrano be extended north so that it ties into Osso. This should be done prior to the beginning of any constru is adequate access for was an earthquake or a there was a collapse Capistrano was blocked. to all of the properties Sincerel , ichael i to :tion work on the alignment so that there emergency vehicles. Imagine that there problem with the construction such that at the construction site and Camino How would emergency vehicles gain access along Camino Capistrano? cc: Pate Bates, Mayor Laguna Niguel Tim Cassey, City Manager LN 7-29-8 MICHAEL J. PINTO PO BOX 1809 LAGUNA BCH, CA.92652 TEL (714) 494-7366 FAX 497-7222 November 15, 1990 Steve Letterly Manager EIR Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Ca. 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly: I want my comments registered as an official response to the ' TCA DEIR-EIF that is currently in circulation for impacts related to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Since registering my opposition to the option #2 alignment in my letter of November 13, 1990, I have learned a number of additional facts that further reinforce my opposition to the #2 alignment. These are as follows: 1. The local circulation problems created by the #2 alignment are not specifically addressed in the EIR. In fact, there is no 7-29-9 evidence that a study was done related to local circulation problems impacted by the #2 alignment. 2. No study was done on the negative impact to the tax base of I7-29-10 the city of Laguna Niguel caused by the #2 alignment. 3. The #2 alignment will displace a number of important uses 7-29-11 in the city of Laguna Niguel. There is no study that addresses this problem. 4. There is no study that addresses the overall negative (7-29-12 economic impact on the city of Laguna Niguel. 5. The retaining of P and D Technologies to perform a limited marketing study in no way addresses the above concerns. Their 7-29-13 main focus is the potential use of empty land for relocation purposes and some mitigation of loss of revenue to the city of Laguna Niguel. 6. The P and D study will not be available for public input before the time has expired during which public input is accepted on the TCA DEIR. 7. P and D was never instructed to look at the #1 alignment. This prejudices any analysis of the choice between the two alignments. „Sincere, Midhael \p�into 7-29-14 Paul Beier PhD Project Leader, Orange County Mountain Lion Study 26215 Via de Gavilan _ San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 714-661-3212 ,30 October 1990 TO: Transportation Corridor Agencies Environmental Impacts Office 345 Clinton St Costa Mesa CA 92626 RE: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Eastern Transportation Corridor I am a wildlife biologist employed by the University of California as Project Leader for a study of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountain Range. During my 2 years on this job, I have gained great familiarity with the areas to be traversed by the proposed Eastern and San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridors. The impacts of these freeways on wildlife can be devastating, and I do not wish you upcoming DEIRs on these projects to be as woefully inadequate as your recent DEIR on the FTC. Please bear the following in mind: 1. Freeways can have disatrous effects on wildlife movement (7-30-1s corridors, but THIS IMPACT CAN AND MUST BE MITIGATED. To do so you must: (a) do some field work to map the travel routes animals now use. You completely failed to do so on the FTC, and I spent many hours doing this work for you. Please see my comments on the FTC for an example 7-30-1b of how to map these corridors, and for an explanation of why they are important. If I have to do your work for you again I'll make you pay. (b) build bridges (NOT culverts!) over these routes. Again see my 17-30-1c FTC comments for the reasons why. (c) buy the land or the development rights to the most important wildlife corridors. This land should then be managed for wildlife. 7-30-1d 2. You must not repeat the mistake you made on the FTC of arguing that the growth -inducing impacts of these Freeways should be mitigated later, when specific projects are proposed, and that the future project developer should pay for it all. Because the SJHTC and ETC will provide critical infrastructure to large expanses of open space, it is irresponsible to put g_U of the responsibility on the PC's and other projects that follow. The FTC must mitigate for some of these inevitable losses of habitat by purchasing wildlife habitat and insuring that it is managed for wildlife. Sin ely, Paul Beier Encl: Beier comments on FTC N, 17-30-2 1 Paul Beier PhD 26215 Via de Gavilan San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 714-661-3212 October 4 1990 TO: Steve Letterly Manager Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies Costa Mesa CA 92626 714-557-3298 RE: DEIR for FTC southern segment: TCA EIR 3 Thank you for soliciting my comments on these documents for the Foothill Transportation Corridor. I am a wildlife biologist with a PhD in Wildlife Ecology from the University of California at Berkeley. Since September 1 1988 I have been the Project Leader for a study of cougars (mountain lions) throughout the Santa Ana Mountain Range. In this capacity, I have gained great familiarity with the project area. Because the project area includes the very best cougar habitat in the Mountain Range, I am very concerned about it. Although I am employed by the University of California under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game, the comments expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the University or the Department. C yg BX Alignment: Although I will attempt to confine the rest of my comments to issues concerning Biological Resources, I must dispute the DEIR's characterization of C as the "environmentally preferred alternative." The C alignment is far more deleterious to biological resources; in terms of (1) resources destroyed outright, (2) fragmentation of the remaining habitat, and (3) growth -inducing effects which will lead to massive habitat loss. "Disaster" is the only honest word to describe the biological impact of the C alignment as currently proposed. There are only 2 important aspects in which the BX alignment is inferior: (1) It requires building on less stable soils: This is simply an engineering problem, and to avoid more important impacts we simply need to spend the money required to engineer the road properly on these soils. Furthermore, these unstable soils are in areas of low habitat quality. In contrast, the unstable soils on the C alignment will cause severe damage to the oak woodlands located nearby (DEIR p.4-19). (2) San Clemente homeowners will have to live with the sight and sound of a Freeway, and the athletic field at the San Clemente High School may be reduced if the FTC is not built below grade and covered at this site. This is indeed a very real impact, and I sympathize with my friends in San Clemente. Beier ' Wildlife Corridors 2 The argument that C, because it intersects I-5 three miles further south, better meets the transportation goals, ignores the fact (admitted in many other places throughout the DEIR, most explicitly on p.5-13) that thousands of additional home will be built along C. In the long run, C would be more a part of the problem than part of the solution to our traffic woes.. On p. 5- 14 and Exhibit 5-3, the DEIR admits that under this predictable level of development induced by C we can expect deficient levels of service on Oso Parkway, Antonio Parkway, Ortega Highway, Avenida Pico, and even I-5, which is the very highway the FTC is intended to rescue! The CUMULATIVE IMPACTS section started with an honest admission that "the C Alignment offers much greater growth - inducing potential than the BX alignment because it would provide critical infrastructure to large expanses of open space. The DX Alignment is in closer proximity to approved urban development." But then the DEIR argues that we should deal with these impacts during EIR process for the General Plan Amendments for the future planned communities! Of course the future PC's should pay a share of mitigation costs, but for the FTC to put so little of .:_the burden on itself is irresponsible. Much of the disastrous ,tgrowth-inducing impacts of the C alignment must be mitigated as spart of this project. I think the following recommendations will =go a long way toward having the FTC pay its fair share. :WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS: The "wildlife corridor" concept is soften used without any clear definition of what it means, so I ::think it is wise to begin with a definition. A wildlife corridor Js a piece of habitat with vegetation and topography that facilitate the movements of plants and animals from 1 large patch of suitable habitat to another large patch of suitable habitat. Corridors help maintain biological diversity 3 ways, corresponding to 3 different time scales: 1. In the long term, corridors allow populations to maintain genetic diversity. Without corridors, small populations in isolated patches suffer inbreeding because individuals are forced to mate with close relatives. 2. In the short term, corridors prevent extinction by ;allowing males and females to meet and breed with each other. ,;This is especially important for animals like cougars that live at low density. If no corridors are provided, we can (and do) end up with situations in which unconnected habitat patches have only a few individuals of the same sex. 3. In the intermediate time scale, corridors allow vacant habitat patches to be recolonized. In any small area, small populations of any plant or animal species frequently become extinct; this is a natural phenomenon, apart from human disturbance. These extinctions are remedied by recolonization from adjacent areas if there is a corridor to allow animals to get between the 2 areas. The word "corridor" itself is perhaps unfortunate because it is often used to mean a hallway or conduit. This would imply 7-30-3 17-30-4 - Beier ' Wildlife Corridors that anything big enough for the animals to walk through is a corridor. However, for most plants and many animals (especially less mobile species) "moving across the landscape" requires several generations. This means that the corridor works only if the animal or plant can live and reproduce there. For example, a mile -long corridor does not serve as a conduit for mice or cottontails or lizards if it is too narrow for those animals to 7-30-4 live and reproduce there. This also means there must be enough space to find some animals of the opposite sex with which to breed. For some species, it will not be necessary for a corridor to provide breeding space, but at a minimum it must provide cover, freedom from disturbance, and something for the animal to eat so that the animal has some motivation to enter the corridor. In summary, a wildlife corridor.is a chunk of habitat enabling plants & animals to move from 1 large patch of suitable land to another, even if this requires several generations. It 7-30-5 must often provide a home for the -animals. It is not a narrow strip of land that we dare an animal to cross. On p.4-18 and 4-19, the DEIR says that "interruption of wildlife movement corridors [by the SX]... will be an unavoidable adverse impact of the project" and for the C alignment "substantial avoidance [of impact on wildlife movement) will note be possible." Although some impact is unavoidable, I was very disappointed that the DEIR basically says "Sorry, we can't do much about it. End of story." There is a whole lot we can do about this impact! The first step (not taken) is to go out and do some work to determine which areas now function as corridors, 7-30-6 or areas that have the resources which suggest that they ought to be corridors. Then you need to see that these corridors are bridged and that the land is protected from future degradation. '- There is a lot that can be done, and the FTC can preserve several important wildlife corridors: The first of these I call the "Regional Parks Wildlife Corridor" because it is designed to connect O'Neill, Wagon Wheel, and Caspers Regional Parks. A map is attached. My research indicates that this corridor is critical to allowing cougars access to Wagon Wheel Park and Chiquita Canyon from the Caspers area. The interspersion of habitat types, presence of woody cover, and several year-round water sources along this corridor indicate that it is likely to be used by most if not all species in the project area. The 4 ww*ro Santa Margarita Company has very conscientiously and voluntarily made major and expensive changes to its proposed Las Flores Planned Community to preserve the westernmost portion of this corridor. These changes include bridging of a critical canyon and reducing 2 planning areas to leave this corridor intact. Because a corridor is only as good as its narrowest link, it behooves TCA to do its part to maintain this corridor. There are 2 important features (See attached Map) along Chiquita Creek that add to the attractiveness of this corridor: The first -is Tri-Colored Blackbird Marsh, which is the wetland Beier ' Regional Parks wildlife Corridor 4 midway between the proposed interchanges for Crown Valley Oso Parkways; it supports a breeding colony of tri-colored blackbirds. The side canyon northwest of this site connects directly with the Las Flores section of the corridor, and has a perennial spring in its upper portion. The second feature is Chiquita Gorge, which is where Canada Chiquita forms a steep - walled heavily -wooded gorge about 0.2 miles above the proposed Crown Valley interchange. This area has abundant perennial flowing water, and is regularly used by cougars, deer, and other animals that seek cool, wooded areas for resting. The alignment must avoid impact to, and allow omnidirectional wildlife access to, these sites. The necessary mitigations depend on the alignment chosen: For both the DX and C alignments: 1. To offset the impacts that growth induced by the FTC will have on wildlife movements and habitat, TCA should insure the integrity of this important wildlife corridor by putting the critical areas into a Reserve. This would include about 800 acres, encompassing (1) the 2 small canyons that flow southeastward to Tri-Colored Blackbird Marsh and Chiquita Gorge respectively, (2) Tri-Colored Blackbird Marsh, (3) Chiquita Gorge, and (4) Chiquita Woods Canyon (see Map). I p do not feel that outright purchase of this land is 46 necessary; a less expensive solution would be for TCA to pay for a trust or conservation easement which could allow the O'Neill.family to continue to own the land and continue their barley and cattle operations, but which would insure that the critical resources are preserved. I have great respect for the ability and willingness of the O'Neill family and Reata Cattle to work as partners with TCA in such an arrangement. For the DX alignment% 2. Instead of swinging eastward south of Oso Parkway, the freeway should hug the western edge of the valley floor. This eliminates the need to cross Chiquita Creek twice in 1 mile, saving the expense of 2 bridges. This also avoids any ,- direct impact on Tri-Colored Blackbird Marsh and Chiquita Gorge. 3. add 2 bridges to span 2 side -canyons on the west slope of Canada Chiquita, namely the canyon which flows southeast to Tri-Colored Blackbird Marsh (mentioned above), and the next canyon immediately south of this one (which flows southeast to Chiquita Gorge): see attached map. See comments below on why bridges, and not culverts, must be used. For the C alignment: 4. A bridge is necessary to span Chiquita Woods Canyon. Chiquita Woods Canyon is the major tributary which flows into Canada Chiquita at the proposed 2_ Crown Valley Parkway 0 Beier ' Regional Parks Wildlife Corridor 5 interchange. This canyon has by far most of the oak woodland in the Chiquita watershed, and is the travel route regularly used by cougars travelling between Wagon Wheel Park and Chiquita Gorge. The Regional Parks Wildlife Corridor is cut by BX only in Canada Chiquita; the C alignment interrupts this corridor again in Canada Gobernadora. Note that Wagon Wheel Park is hemmed in by the FTC on the south and Coto de Caza on the east and north. Thus the above provisions create a wildlife corridor between Wagon Wheel and O'Neill Parks, but do not allow for a wildlife corridor between O'Neill -Wagon Wheel and Caspers Parks: if the C alignment is chosen, the Corridor dead ends in Wagon Wheel Park - unless the FTC is modified to allow east -west movement across Canada Gobernadora. To achieve this: 5. Build a kKidge to span North Gunsight Canyon: This is the canyorlows southwestward from Gunsight Pass (marked as "Cliff 873" on the USGS topographic maps); it is the major canyon in the southern half of Section 23. This canyon is the main route used by cougars travelling between-Caspers Park and Canada Chiquita. 6. Build a bridge to span South Gunsight Canyon: This is the next major canyon south of the above, and it also flows southwest from Gunsight Pass, joining Canada Gobernadora about k mile south of the Section 23-26 boundary. This canyon is also used by cougars and is the most direct route from Caspers to the Wetland Mitigation Bank in lower Canada Gobernadora. 7. To mitigate for the impacts that growth induced by this alignment will have on wildlife habitat and movements, purchase land or conservation easements for (a) Sulphur Canyon, also known as Cadon de Los Muertos. This canyon that runs along the west edge of the FTC from the center of Section 15 southeastward to Cahada Gobernadora. It is a major travel route for cougars and was named "Los Muertos" because 3 cougars died in cougar -cougar conflicts in that canyon during 1989. It is the most direct travel route from Canada Gobernadora to Chiquita Gorge and Chiquita Woods Canyon, thus connecting Caspers Park to O'Neill and Wagon Wheel Parks. It will also be necessary to preserve land northwest of this parcel to connect to Chiquita Wood Canyon (see attached map titled "Biological Reserves"), AND (b) either North or South Gunsight Canyon. These steps will also allow for wildlife movement between Caspers Park and the Wetland Mitigation Bank in lower Canada Gobernadora. The FTC as planned in the DEIR would sever this link. This ends my discussion of the Regional Parks Wildlife Corridor. The following paragraphs concern impacts on other wildlife movement corridors. Beier ' Other Wildlife Corridors 6 ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS FOR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ON BX ALIGNMENT: Further south in Canada Chiquita, there should be: S. An additional bridge to provide for east -west movement. This bridge should span one of the tributary canyons in the approximate latitude of the Water Treatment Plant. Because cougars make much less use of the southern part of Canada Chiquita, I do not know enough about the resources of particular canyons to recommend which particular canyon to bridge. TCA should pay for the fieldwork necessary to identify the optimal point. Because of the much smaller impacts of the BX alignment, I would consider the above measures sufficient mitigation for wildlife movement along this alignment (I do recommend additional measures for impacts on Coastal Sage Scrub). The remaining mitigations for wildlife movement apply only to the C alignment. ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS FOR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS ON C ALIGNMENT: 9. A bridge should be built over Canada Chiquita to allow animals north of Tri-Colored Blackbird Marsh to have access to the marsh. k South of the Ortega Highway, the C alignment runs through an ;area of enormous biological richness, and cripples wildlife .movements between the Talega Biological Reserve and the wildlands ,Uto the east. There are 2 sites to the west of this alignment ,where female cougars gave birth and denned their cubs (in November -December 1987 and July -August 1989); in both cases the mother's home range also extended well to the east of the FTC alignment. This area provides some of the best deer and cougar habitat in Orange County. To mitigate the impact on wildlife movements: 10. In the southern half of Section 1 and the northern half of Section 12, move the alignment 200 or so meters east to get the freeway out of the bottom of Christianitos Canyon and its.N-S tributary, thus avoiding the ephemeral pond (which contained Southwestern pond turtles in 1990) and leaving the canyon bottoms available for animal travel. Use a bridge to span the west -flowing portion of Christianitos Canyon at the southern edge of Section 1. This portion of Christianitos Canyon is not a particularly important route for east -west travel by cougars at present because cougars now cross freely anywhere within 1.5 miles of this point. However, when the freeway is built, some funnelling will be needed and we can expect the canyon to provide it. 11. The Gabino-Blind Canyon underpass is a very heavily used travel route for cougars, and doubtless for other wildlife as well. Although the maps in the DEIR are difficult to read, it appears that the present alignment runs right down the bottom of Christianitos Canyon north of this point. The alignment should be moved slightly eastward as necessary to allow a single large bridge to span Gabino-Blind Canyon at 0 Beier . Wildlife Corridors: C alignment 7 the north edge of Section 24, and to allow an animal that has crossed to the west side of the freeway to move north in Christianitos Creek and thereby access all of the 3 major canyons that occupy the southern half of the Talega Reserve. The northernmost of these canyons (see Map) was used as a den site by a mother cougar in July -August 1989. At least 4 different radio -collared cougars (plus an unknown number of uncollared cougars) have used this travel route on many occasions. The DEIR notes that the Christianitos Baptism site and an aboriginal village site are located near here, and a very large bridge may be required to preserve both the corridor and these important sites. This difficulty underscores the environmental inferiority of the C alignment. 12. To mitigate for the impacts that the growth induced by this alignment will have on wildlife habitat and movements, especially on the connection between the Talega Reserve and wildlands to the east, TCA should purchase land or conservation easements to (a) Blind Canyon, (b) the southern half of Section 17 (Talega Canyon) -and (c) Section 20 (small, fragments in Talega Canyon). This is the shortest route connecting the Talega Reserve to the nearest large block of protected land (Camp Pendleton). See Map attached. I want to emphasize again that a corridor is more than a narrow strip of land that we dare wildlife to dash through. It would be a pathetic mistake to leave a narrow strip of land a couple hundred feet wide and call it the "Wildlife Corridor." The conservation easements or land purchases should be "rim -to - rim" protection of the canyons included. I expect that MBA will propose that San Juan Creek could suffice as a wildlife corridor in lieu of any or all of the above mitigations. To anticipate this response, I make 3 points: 1. We are talking about a 12-mile obstruction here: it is ludicrous to require, for example, that animals take a 7-mile detour via San Juan Creek to travel the 1 mile between Wagon Wheel and Caspers Parks. 2. Future development along the Ortega Highway will certainly greatly degrade its ability to function as a corridor.-: 3. Even without additional future degradation, I doubt that this portion of San Juan Creek now functions as a corridor. Certainly cougars do NOT use San Juan Creek to move from Caspers to Canada Chiquita or Canada Gobernadora, or to travel from Gabino Canyon to the Talega Reserve, or for any other of the movements discussed herein. Cougars use the routes I have identified for mitigations., Although further upstream San Juan Creek is indeed an important cougar travel route, apparently the presence of the Consolidated Rock plant, Oda Nursery, and Cow Camp in the vicinity of the FTC crossing causes cougars, and probably many other species, to avoid this portion of San Juan Creek. Beier ' Bridges yB Culverts BRIDGES ya CULVERTS: As part of my current work, I have spent many hours observing animal tracks in culverts and underpasses, and I can state with confidence that mule deer is the wildlife species that requires the largest underpass. Therefore TCA should design its wildlife corridors to accommodate this species. To my knowledge, the only published study relating to use of culverts by deer is that of Reed et al. (1975: Journal of Wildlife Management 39:361- 367). Reed studied migratory mule deer in Colorado, which must cross highways to get to summer range; despite their strong motivation to cross the road, 40% of these deer either stayed on poorer winter range or risked running through freeway traffic rather than use a culvert 10 feet in height and width. The non - migratory mule deer in Orange County would presumably be even more reluctant to use a culvert. In my work in Orange County I have never observed deer tracks in any culvert, up to the maximum observed size of 25 feet in width and 12 feet in height. A culvert is not an acceptable means to allow deer movement. Culverts are also rarely used by cougars. In 3 cases I documented cougars approaching the Ortega Highway along a drainage that led directly to a large culvert (2 cases involved the culvert -- big enough to drive through -- where Dead Bull Canyon crosses under the Ortega near the Caspers entrance gate; the 3rd case involved the large Cold Springs box culvert). In 'all 3 cases, the cougar left the drainage and crossed over the Ortega Highway on the road and then dropped into San Juan Creek. .In contrast, cougars accept bridges readily, and regularly walk under the San Juan Creek bridge within Caspers Park. The study of Reed et al (cited above) and my observations suggest several features critical for the success of a wildlife underpass: 13. All bridges for wildlife movements should be at least 20 feet in height -and as long as possible. The underpass should also have a dirt (not concrete) floor. Fencing should be used to funnel deer toward the underpass and away from the road. There should also be native woody vegetation growing up to and within the underpass. Finally, skylights (including those accidentally formed by a gap between traffic lanes) should be avoided because they admit additional traffic noise. COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) Coastal Sage Scrub is a habitat type as endangered as the tropical rainforests that so dominate media attention. It exists only in 6 southern California counties, where development has already removed almost all of it. The DEIR estimates that 90% of the CSS in San Diego County has been destroyed. The California Dept of Forestry's FRRAP (Forest and Range Resources Assessment Program, 1987) estimates that 15,784 acres (24 square miles) of this habitat type was lost to development in Orange County aalone during 1945-1980 (35 years), and that almost this much (13,409 acres or 20 square miles) was lost during the decade 1980-89. 7-30-7 7-30-8 7-30-9 Beier ' Coastal Sage Scrub 9 The latter rate represents 2 square miles per year for Orange County alone. (These figures do not include the even larger losses of annual grasslands.) The biotic community represented 7-30-9 in CSS includes many unique plant and animal species. -It is time that Southland Coun ie a d public agencies develop aggressive policies to save the CSS remaining. Mitigation 23 (p.4- 1) proposes to resolve this issue "in conjunction with the final design" and suggests 3 alternatives. I suggest that the issue be resolved sooner, namely in the EIR. Of the 3 options, the first (revegetation onsite) should be s undertaken but should NOT be considered mitigation because we have too little assurance that graded sites will support high - quality CSS, and because the freeway may cause wrens and gnatcatchers to avoid the site even tf the vegetation takes hold. 14. If Option 2 ("creation of new habitat at a ratio acceptable to CDFG and USFWS") is used, this ratio must be at least 4:1 to allow for our uncertain ability to create high quality CSS on sites where it does not already exist. Sites for this experiment should be carefully selected, taking into consideration the historical vegetation at the site, the plants and animals currently using the site, and the character of adjacent habitats. 15. If Option 3 (acquisition and management of existing habitat off -site) is selected, it should be implemented to assure "no more than 33% net loss of habitat quality" for CSS. "Habitat Quality" should be measured by the presence of species, such as gnatcatchers and cactus wrens, that are dependent on the CSS habitat type. TCA should survey the ._ project area in detail for these 2 species, and fund a study^ using marked birds to determine how many gnatcatchers and . cactus wrens will be displaced by the FTC. They should then buy land (or conservation easements to land) off -site that is currently occupied by at least twice that number of cactus wrens or gnatcatchers. This land must be contiguous with other high -quality CSS, and the acreage purchased (even if of higher quality) must be no smaller than twice the acreage of CSS destroyed. For the C alignment this means purchase of a minimum of 400 acres of CSS, or an amount of CSS which protects twice the number of gnatcatchers and cactus wrens displaced, whichever is greater. For the D alignment, the minimum acreage is 84 acres (acreages from DEIR p.4-16). On the top of p. 4-25, we are told that for the DX alignment, "impacts on vegetation would be reduced to a level that is less than significant." However, on the last line of p.4-17, we are told that DX will n= mitigate for impacts "associated with removal or disturbance of Coastal Sage Scrub occupied by the California_gnatcatcher." The first statement should be the correct one, -brought about by 1 or both of Mitigation Options 2 and 3. Beier ' Coastal Sage Scrub 10 The botanical palette (p.4-23) for revegetating slopes in CSS should be improved and specified in more detail in the final EIR. The palette should delete both sugarbush (it is native to the Santa Ana Mountains, but at much higher elevations: none is found on site now) and the prostrate form of Baccharis oilularis (the upright form is the local native). Second, the EIR should specify the actual percents of each species so that we do not end up with a big carpet of one convenient species punctuated here and there with those species more difficult to establish. To its credit, the DEIR did state that the plant species will include those "used by" gnatcatchers and cactus wrens. However, I would like the EIR to more specifically specify that the species mix will be pointedly designed to "meet the habitat requirements of" these species. If good data are lacking, then TCA must fund research on what these species actually need. OTHER POINTS On p 4-24, the DEIR (Mitigation 30) states that there are areas where revegetation of native habitats is not planned -subsequent to grading. The EIR should state what criteria would be used to determine which areas are to be revegetated in native ;.yl non-native habitats. The criterion should be: t,;t16. "All areas that are now adjacent to areas of native vegetation will be replanted in native vegetation." For the # C alignment, this would mean re-establishment of native vegetation along virtually all of the alignment. This should be so stated. 7-30-10 7-30-11 SAN ONOFRE STATE BEACH PARK: The several canyons that would :be traversed by the FTC in the park are all used by cougars. The high elevation route of the FTC will cause enormous amounts of erosion and increase the runoff in these steep canyons, probably destroying oak woodland and wildlife values. The impact of having a freeway 600 feet (top of p.3-66) or 1,500 feet (bottom of same page) from the newly constructed campground adds insult to injury. Therefore: 17. The FTC should, -in consultation with State Parks, purch,�a¢ a :G,,pA"'4 land of recreational and wildlife valu;OV&'3a'�f r Onofre Beach State Park, build a campground on it, and turn it over to the State Park System. ADEQUACY OF THE RESEARCH EFFORT: The Technical Report Appendix: Faunal Compendium, stated that an asterisk would indicate those species detected via sight or sign on the study area. My copy showed asterisks for 9 birds, 1 herp, and no mammals. Was there some oversight during typing? I could provide more asterisks in a single day of field work, which leads me to question how much field work went into this list. I have noted Tri-colored Blackbirds at 3 locations in Canada Chiquita, none of which were mentioned in the DEIR. The largest colony (at Tri-colored Blackbird Marsh) was mentioned above. A second colony lies about h mile south of Chiquita Gorge, and the third • Beier 11 is near the paved ford crossing of lower Canada Chiquita. The lack of zeal in surveying for sensitive plants and animals in the field also spilled over into the literature review: A better listing than that in the DEIR was available in a public document, namely D.R. Bontrager's report dated October 1989 on the resources of the Riverside Cement Leasehold, which will be traversed by the C Alignment. Bontrager mapped 73 patches of Orange County turkish Tugging containing over 22,000 plants, counted over 2300 Many -stemmed Dudley& plants, confirmed the presence of orange -throated whiptails and San Diego coast horned lizards, and mapped 49 acres of native grasslands. All of this is on a small portion of the area that will be impacted by the C Alignment. Bontrager's September 1990 report on additional parts' of the leasehold adds to these totals and includes an observation of Southwestern Pond Turtles on the C alignment. Bontrager (1989) also described a large nesting colony of Tri-colored blackbirds on the site. THE TIMING OF THE GNATCATCHER SURVEYS (p.3-10) struck me as inappropriate because it was outside the breeding season. Not being an expert in gnatcatchers, I asked Dave Bontrager, who has 2 years experience studying local gnatcatchers, about this matter and he indicated that the timing of these surveys is critical. (MBA has phones and knows that Dave studies these birds: why didn't they call Bontrager?) The ideal period would be January through March; if surveys are conducted during the months of June through November, then each site should be visited several times. I think it would be most appropriate, especially considering the impacts the growth induced by the FTC will have on gnatcatchers, that: 18. TCA should fund a detailed study of California gnatcatchers, using banded birds, and extending over a 2-year period, to determine the habitat needs and home range size of gnatcatchers, and to make specific recommendations for mitigating human impacts on the species. SECTION 4(F) OF THE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1966: p.3-64 indicates that 4(f) applies only to the I-5 Interchange, and that the interchange will be addressed in a separate EIR. This is obviously a legal maneuver so that the Secretary of Transportation can be presented with a C Alignment as the only alternative, and thus pressure him into accepting that there is no feasible alternative. A more honest approach would be to prepare a joint state/federal EIR for the entire project, because it is inane to pretend that a freeway designed to reduce the pressure on I-5 is a project separate from the interchange between the two! It would also be a more intelligent approach, because if the Secretary refuses to grant an exception, the FTC will have been emasculated after years of planning effort! Instead: • 7-30-12 Beier 12 is 19. TCA should restart the EIR process by drafting a joint federal -state EIR for the entire FTC project, including the I-5 interchange. Thank you for considering these comments. Please call me at 661-3212 if you have questions regarding these matters. Sinc ely, l Paul Beier AiL 1 Nam' d1711-Y • ,. 1JIL]rs.'•..•Yl "if'�L� '' •1!. 1 • I •t/PI •'.�-'� d� ,J ';'� : , •l'jt r'�I 'a'"� ' ..% ' �h 5 „ � •il:ti , �� ,L, ,p ,� � It .0 � •�) �;� • '' � Ili/ � �' / r • r 't • lit r' r ''•' o ',} ��j ,/' �P ,v1 . i f •'ham tee. ', ..�T • -��/' ' [� _ ''�� \ s� - ter: :i ( 1`d` ,,�•�• �,• •!E• � -lam , I �; T "•" � �`�1. �-., ,,�? -fit' `} ' (oo- � 1� v` __�`'� it, i it ;' °, :, I` �'r�r /"y�ri • tI�>::: L . �� <<j--' ';ice •: tth'I', ilr �- (t,r,•t/ .n-'U` '�t �((t�1� }',i,,'--^/• l '� t �/ t1!/ _ ;:ice, �• ) �• f �.,,� �' �,1 _ } �!�. i - N� r, �L:::i ��;f% I" � ram• '.. Blu in M"ll fiS i EWN C6. 0 a z O =w uRmtirEn �°Ee>ewF^�� Lr •oa.0 e_wc��>.�a,3•°o c�'�3o�o..n V•^C ^�' 6v uw3�oE vt Ci L=C.• n `L'> C C9 C a rd w O r w o ^r r."i•in... U • ..r a. •p n O w w> O l0 w r •O y O EV oc=ipu3��` C `Lcr.T. OC=O[ r � r a `_ ;N 2�L w`p •t�.+Dr. q n d O r n C u w cc 'OCZ R w z C O `o- ^ _ �•- a �+ tv it it c uF ucc W a�U VIu C Vol u. E ^ a r a INI •ru=•wpm �"�>'� '>>,•mEE >'y w•- V a m ec_'u m r. wE' E J �iOUCC c�E Em w�Em>�O u u u Asa =Da C'n_ u cm-•uou—uu mo >'�'o �vtr•=t �w����° at E o c c` � = � 3 ` .... � � n w � � z � E u a� = � v E < t d °: °>R c m.. m> a`, U ° e`c� w c °= c G7 ^r n m o ez > L` c ° `ux aY aLr, ° wZ ^>,cLo =w._ ��ww� anu3uzav-$ ^u3^ >Epw Ko wG7 D w �. _ O .p ^ v. D >� ` �" L w u w C: C w O •- 8 M O z w_a uo w c- op ter. _w vE w w�rL_m f R` v V ` w^ CL•' 10 w E fe ` m N^ Y C w N = R'E C V w 3: CLr w b� w ^ p C L._ 'O �� .. _.+ v�C 3 =•C >C^u � y �._�+!^'-'Lt^ mow.. � � � � E m ° C Yam° pe m_• z ° e ^•- �� `� �3:, u- w �eF t - o w ^.°. u `v �1 � a'� VU, m r.'� O'p�` 8>C� `� G � > -^'L >.0 = p� AZ•, D 4 L ��� ^ V .,�• •wGC �`L � Tw V •.� tW a• o-o^cL.�.3^�cc� �>�SL i.J u-'>��-�^ � ^°•�a__ u TT� • m �•�1 � � z �z E E` �` w e... a ^•o E Q m.fl a .-z� p u ct-`�••_ ��•-.. �� Y �w•� C� .. � -; cec�r,D�• wuopQm�> umez Ui36����E y56`-_�c��wc.�v wboi° b O n Pi .__._•_ w Z� .. -�� C A y A C OAS ^ O Lr � �� z�dw�^�^3.pcm�e�''ir°'��u �'E^.•uu• e= O c W E= u -C ae°oc^Al c� 8v .. ez�� FiE • Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD' NAMDATE I o- I "i - ADDRESS ?1 1 LA AFFILIATION CITY, ZIp PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list `� YES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15, 1990 rOk7 here 0 r� �A. C Stagy z .• •'-iysuusl�s log, TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAIQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS ijsueiei)q Joii COMMENTS CONTINUED (`) AL-o#J & - t "? ran i L,� Grl OE CIE 176, ; µ DL--) 1-�Ax-N 7:) P. �Q mf--V -ram da L�j M C5 P2aJ D -n T-E5 � � '�� �� -G , I�C.�T S �:- Cr_ � tZ n c�►J tJ v � 0 F -A C. i C t D �_ lj -n,& �5 N S-4 i2 &TL- +" w �' -ktG�%[� 7-31-1 7-31-2 Is • 0 Novembea /1, ly90 laanapoatatLvn CvaaLdva AgencEea dttn: San �goaquLn #LLL 4 EIRICIS Commenter 345 Mnton St. Coata Meaa, CA 92626 To whom Lt may concean: f aom a.L.L aeooata w&Ltten to the papeaa, that I have aead, I don't LmapLne that you ate aeceLvLng too many 'Pa'a' at cyoua heaai.nga. TA La �a a to a! foa aeveaa.L yeaaa 1 woaned o�� o.t Yam6oaee acaoaa �aom the po.LLce atatLon and commuted to Laguna #L.L & by way o� the 405 oa Coaaf #Lghwary. NeLthea one waa veay dLaect. A.LL that time I thou�ht how gaeat Lt wou.Ld be to be a6.Le to juat-"kLf-ty- coanea" �aom llacAathua down here, not havLna to go mL. ea out o� my wavy. Now that I no .Longea woah up then.e, my hope& and wi.ahea ate goLnq to be �uJI L.Led. flow cou.Cd Lt not be a gaeat advantage to evearyvne cauahf Ln the hoaac:b Le taa��Lc anaa.L Ln &outh Oaange Country. Keep the coaai.doa mvvLng--don't atop! Lnceae.L T--- �laa B.$tnl /8-6 Avenida Caati.• a .Laq.una fl�LLa, CA 92653 I�li6/ha 7-32-1 DR. PHILIP ELLISON 909-s - RONDA SEVILLA -� LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA 92653 _ /`7 PS s) Cell A A 4'hw 4M'CA OL L� �l J 1 T-33-1 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE ADDRESS 3a z CV P rt r t s �R ✓` AFFILIATION Cbk1ceAA Ca; s aJ CITY, ZI, LSE. f264 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list ,_YES NO COMMENT: -rlU- C./D %/-*- R L.0 �4- i4 f21 I N A-P P 2 e h jee /4 -- see- eAA11 kW AWS A4t& .rL47-34-1 u �L rye r r : At/ UP- i rho 7 ;Ec- V*Qk4A (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15, 1990 �old�iere Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME„ �\r) C � I ��� C,, 1 � f' DATE ADDRESS rODJ� �;An V I tc�t7�S C4AFFILIATION (CITY, ZIP a P- PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: I-- opcxx L %� ��' 1�' h SAl (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS ►-35-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED IT-35-1 �� �I1 .L ► • ' L� s - (i -t!�zjte beep pic-i t 0i 1] 11 Please Print Cbarly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE ADDRESS AFFILIATION _ CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page: To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' .. office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 ----------------- nknere Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET. COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS e November 10, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS comments. If the true purpose for building R-73, the San Joaquin Hills Corridor is to alleviate trafficrthen it fails miserably. Using your own figures traffic would increase on Laguna Canyon Road and E1 Toro from Rt 1 (PCH) to R-73. Congestion.would reach a near impass at the juncture of R-73 and I-405. Many other surface streets leading to on -ramps of the R-73 would be greatly impacted with higher volumnes. The presumption by the Transporation Agencies is that thousands of automobiles will use the Corridor. Again using their figures it would seem that many users would be coming on or peeling off at one of the fifteen or so ramps to be built along the Corridor. Is this not a Toll Road Nightmare l Stickers on the windshield to be read electronically! Should one buy a sticker for the entire R-73 and only travel from say Moulton to E1 Toro? Will one have to exit or pay more? To build and man toll booths at every possible intersect is ridiculous. To pay an equal fee for a portion or the whole is equally insane and would not fly. Since the fees combined with higher gasoline taxes and higher operating costs will certainly have a strong negative influence on the use of R-73, proposed revenues from tolls seem more than iffy. What then? More taxes to pay for this boondoggle? Measure M,just passed, ha a promise of improving the I-5/I-405 Y. Promise of better syn onization of signals on surface streets and a beginning o the creation of alternate means of commuting"will go far enough without R-73f unless there is a secret agenda at work here. What if R-73pthe infamous Freeway to Nowhere,will be in reality a means of further developement! Given the territory not now under developement would this not be a builders dream? A dream that would destroy a natural habitat for wildlife, would add toms of pollutants to foul the air and would descecrate what little is left of a natural preserve. Aliso Viejo is living proof of what man has wrought in the name of progress and if R-73 is intended as a means of letting inhabitants of said Aliso Viejo access to an escape route then I for one say, to quote the Troll who lived under the bridge,"not by the hair of my chinny chin chin." Y rs t� � Mary Lou Ripley 485 Seaview Laguna Beach, CA 92651 770 Z yz -37-1 7-37-2 I7-37-3 17-37-4 7-37-5 1 7-37-6 7-37-7 0 IPlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME WAYNE HELD DATE 11-5-90 (ADDRESS P' 0. BOX 2001 AFFILIATION (CITY, Zlp MISSION VIEJO , CA. 92690 PH. # (Optional) 714-364-5450 IPeease add my name to your mailing list X YES NO ICOMMENT: AS A PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNER IN THE AVERY PKWY. I AREA,ALIGNMENT NO.2 IS THE ONLY ANSWER TO THE TRAFFIC lV o PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA. BY HAVI RAMPS TO AC ((Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation C' dS . gericies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 1*,1990 bye: ;•: row Here 7-38-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED THE CORRIDOR WILL ASSBSEEAN EFFICIENT FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN THE AVERY PKWY. AREA. TO NOT HAVE RAMPS AT THIS END WILL ONLY IMPACT OUR 7-38-1 SIDE STREETS WHILE ONE LOOKS FOR A WAY ON TO THE CORRIDOR. # 2 IS THE ONLY ONE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. �c THANK YOU WAYNE HELD Pwue Print Clrarty: COMMENT CARD NAME �/� !L — A r n • DA / P 90• ADDRES- AFFILIATION 9.2(0G/ c1 CITY, Zlp-)U� 1 .%- !� . PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _AYES NO COMMENT: 72ZAA4 •-4�22 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 i F leuty:COMMENTCARD) Y� t j,Zy < C=1 R 9 DATE : / "o ADDRESS 27 9 ST AFFILIATION -:� . _ CITY, ZIPS; n » �! G fie- ►� — PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list ____YES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 le e/ 7-39-1 17-40-1 7-40-2 it :..4 o w.i -4 . rim 0 9 Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME f A tk b KuP A TA DATE ADDRESS 29532 SPe,T-rtb 6VLL LOJ AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP S T 9z 6-7 5 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list ✓ YES NO COMMENT: -rH£ fR�Ew�+� u�,s� CJb1i.'T ac ErfFcr-t Vft rHCE) 157 lvNvr 6s F-jtjQ. % Br5iVrSj TPC seKA/p WILL 'flE IWIS£ 49£ M'r'g'rtb AICAIZ %EfiDE�l11/�Lk'KfI S (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 t:,st--------------------------------- Please Print Clearly: COMM NT CARD l/ NAMES 1E A0 )1"SC� DATE I /—? ADDRESS .S' Y►I �a' AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP W D u�/ y26O PH. # (Optional).Sn" 6 `�V L Please add my name to your mailing lis YES COMMENT: \ 9-t--U tV-C I �U ha e h NO (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) 7-42-1 Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 J 9 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME aV A L A-.A/7 DATE /I // v ADDRESSa,00Z oGy$R 11rW AFFILIATIOI/PG.� GYd•✓�•C CITY, ZIo PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: xoto V.0 y 4 ays.p & (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Please Print rly: /COMMENT CARD NAMES �ir�n�/ DATE ADDRESS.20q/ �• �� AAV AFFILIATION 7'�✓..Co )�% CITY, ZIP G _ 4 -2G = PH. (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT:, (Continue comments on -back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) 7-43-1 7-44-1 Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:04 P.M. on November 26,1990 0 0 0 Pt Fria c►oatt 0 COMMENT CARD vase y. NAME nn� DATE !/ ADDRESS AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP" PH. # (Optional) 9�s r Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: — 2 (Continue �mments on with tape, and mail to the address below.) pm- fot'd page in half, secure Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 7.45-1 -45-3 -45-4I COMMENTS CONTINUED - n n C. mr- -45-5 ate, 0 -45-6 V � I�-45a -45-8 �f --eZ& • 4� ,0" 0 40 0 0 Please Print CWariy: COMMENT CARD NAME �Leyp% �eG1ys-ty-Lt �— DATE ADDRESS la��S^� �D�/C�DYyAQyelt AFFILIATION,pri/�4�� CITY, ZIP��tit �� �/1 a � SOS PH. # (Optional)-L&g) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO 1 COMME (Continue comments on back of this page. -To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to theTransportatio orridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 1591990FA- i 1- COMMENTS CONTINUED t 4 1 n 11; 1 G �P T ----� c4 eef xr 7 n %i he I/ ii 7•46:1 7-4&1 �c�nsts ? 7-46.'2 0 • Plaas• Print cb arty: FCOMMENT CARD �-- NAME �a DATE AFFILIATION ADDRESS1ae o� CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) VE 3 — S" 90 Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO r COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 fro kn a Me TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS t 7-47-1 i 6 I RECEIVED NOV 16 MO COMMENTS CONTINUED It 17-47-1 _ V4� z I y-v o 17 w � lz� ` Z,LIC 0 ,, ,� .��.;;,; v �+ R I�� �`'~J•' C Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME�M,X 7 ,OLZlbK' DATE„ SFO 1ADDRESSS-/9 S1 /V 1e#ALAr. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP G/4 ;e1,VA B df�4el-lA2�s/PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _YES NO COMMENT: /G 5;:! 7�1i6'✓ (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) (Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �V.SIex\ DATE ADDRESS lo'� c_x Yi CuGndO.S AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �gy��o.. �ec�c�� PH. # (Optional)�'�'i�) Please add my name to your mailing. list AYES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure (with tape, and mail to the address below.) 17-48-1 7-49-1 Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 :f • Dlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME I4CR8i;ET N- l&WAI DATE //—/S' 94 ADDRESS W,775SFZ #W&'- 4C c/�AFFILIATION �EocJNElZ CITY, ZIP 44661 t/+ /Ili ,r qZG S 3 PH. # (Optional) 71Y-5P7-2/2- Z Please add my name to your mailing list YES (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 cola here •� "'= . /CqQ xOYtS'�p C.� .RECEIVED TRANSPOPPATiehrCORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 • • Pt urn* • 5163324 U POS74a ; COMMENTS CONTINUED A/C 7 - /36-112b .Zb� 7-0 P/2ol//0 E' l-rF- , B4frI Jew-r., � ,gwo 4wo s u,IiN 6 / CSOUND G.JA�Lf „ tf%tJGO QE lN�l'r9ccE/� �ie���_ �� E,E6iivNiN6 Coriz'2vr�io/�i.. ;Igij' 0/44 ,eM-,4 /mo04r6' caw 7-50-1 �c12/niG ceNJ'1"cr1oA) plc v A�;i" 60 o v zvt - i�� • FvEN moAr Z • �e;1?ADE- .tflouLD de- ;LECl FoucOv R2�'� 4F /NAdt'Wcte C1AC • 7-So-2 ti �, � l tr ST�LC.. Too `h dC�`f So N�►12. Z`o /`f o � c S . T'� �t/Et u6' i5i4GL r#f Ra4fl r� �tr'/�tE ry 7-sas. �'�ou LD d� l..ow -Nally SiSlh�g-C.T /��`1E�9D of Lam/ �'- 4 7Wg, CRe.SJ'iNG ^r Go�iv fiE4b Af- peeovlvDFib -;rrN SoaX10 cJ.¢4cs .AS 1 T GO s A--� 0 ec xj -�'eh� wbilcw Ce9 4AI ✓F` D6w N E•ttsVL a)lxe-c Ti rxJ 7-SO-4 Av T ewe dGH A-AvooW 4.s /1 114s xz-zw 7-sas Tom- a�x �a ,9,�tC-r-r�� •o� �o.;�� T► DAG- ,bvr wE- rs fr,¢ 40�c 41S7FN ZZ 77V e . rAIE&i., Of �"oA' -�' NExr /Do >I r, y / MOVA--ol Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME \j f -HP N(?,,E DATE I t 5,qa ADDRESS C283 5 GN 1 L t -Q N Wh `l AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP L/iGUiV q ?E(qC 14 9Q4o5I PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES X _NO COMMENT: W � � /f� c>� fie., � / 12•. K re (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Trpnsportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 � � r,or� ti31�ti3�3a1 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 11 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME &\an Phii1i O'T DATE NO V ADDRESS D� Avg •ReS'6en1 FFILIATION CITY, ZIP CN ClMn�e ` 20a PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES,NO COMMENT: —Tku/�-u �y ► t�i Yam- e C�09 1 C a t S S T E Gk.� r\. nc �P.Q..rr1 oc S a In i (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 �r _... rr W it_nrr....rrr Mu..s....rr�.�warr:rr�.r►.�rr��r�.� Fo�c7lie�e TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 7-52-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED � A, Dn = n ve S (znd � alb �c alnn LA Ila, ^, J v► W < < hut i �, .Y, Arno, i ,�►r, 4n ao urC,llr Cat 110(sQ �n 7-52.1 7-52-2 01 J 01 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME IG� DATE v ADDRESS 07 G S AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) Please add my. name to your mailing list -,YES NO COMMENT:, _..]COMMENT: • -/fit �"�% A (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page ir�half, sect with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transpfitation,C of Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 � J a' TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 RECEIVED NOV 19 i990 7-53-1 i7} .: Stamp ? t 1 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME 4 DATE�ly - q� ADDRESS aIine", I0�\nryA a rk i n AFFILIATION„ 4 a Pt 4 1�t i Gn oD� v CITY, ZIP � is-�►10� 4 l 15 ddl' PH. # (Optional} J Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: Lo lhu*ki6 ` 17-54-1 1 t t G v� P e S, e4 eC4 r- u Y r ► -$ en w5-t vlD f be P , 1 G eGc ir I y �- tc '1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure T, with tape, and mail to the address below.) k Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Please Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE Itilev) ,ADDRESS -ZLIR,6 1 AFFILIATION=MSS (CITY, ZIP /ouo, t�.��S 'jZ`S3 PH. # (Optional) �31-3M w T Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: gyi IJ;m "ne 5oim-..a-o►ba (e��anT y �; tI th2IO„ 7-55-1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 --------------- ------ IS 7:1IS CORRIDOR REALLY NECESSARY NOS-, THAT PROP. "Mn ( THE LOGICAL SOLUTION TO OUR TRAFFIC PP.CELEYS) HAS PASSED? i:i3AT GOOD IS THE PASSAGE OF PROP. nHn GOING TO DO IF THIS CORRIDOR GOES THROUGH? WEILL BE PAYING TAXES ON LAND THAT'S GOING TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY RUINED (BY THIS CORRIDOR) ANYWAY . 7-56-1 7-56-2 THE PLAN IS TO SAVE OUR ENVIRONMENT. 7-56-3 1.IiY CAN'T THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY WORK WITH US ON THAT? WHY WAS THERE NO MENTION OF THE EFFECT OF BENZENE IN TFM 1988 EIR DRAFT? 7-56-4 (BENZENE IS VERY DEADLY AND EVEN NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORT OF THE TOTAL LONG— TERM EFFECT IT HAS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS A WHOLE). NOW THAT PFtOY. "1411 HAS PASSED AND IT IS REALLY UNNECESSARY TO BUILD THIS CORRIDOR, AR% THEY GCISG SoLCLI/ TO STILL CONSIDER EUILDING ITIBECAUSIL M 1) FORINXR COMMITMENT - THEY SAID 1I1EY WOULD, SO THEY WILL - (SAVING FACE)? 2) MONEY - THE.:IA:ONEY ALREADY SPENT IN ALL THE PRELIV.I:;ARY STUDIES & DRAFTS; THEY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT MONEY - TO SPEND IT FOR NOTHING - SO THEY HAVE TO GET SCAETHI\G OUT OF IT BY CONTINUING WITH THE CORRIDOR PLAN? 511 IF THERE ARE ANY ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY WHO ARE WORKING TO GET IBIS CORRIDOR THROUGH, ARE THEY AWARE THAT THEIR VOTE WILL SUFFER IN LAGUNA? DO THEY REALLY CARE? TWO-PART QUESTIONS 1) 'HOW MORE DEVELOPMTS WILL BE MADE POSSIBLE IF THIS CORRIDOR GOES THROUGH? 2) HOW ABOUT THE INCREASE OF CRIME THAT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE AREA BY THESE DEVELOPMENTS? 7-56-5 17-56-6 7-56-7 7-56-5 0 0 0 0-5 0 0 1,CT A QUESTION, . YET AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS THIS CORRIDOR FRIGHTEN'S NE,- IT MAY SET A PRECEDENT ALL ACROSS THE U.S.A. FOR MORE OF THE SAME, uHE:y WE SHOULD BE PU11I\G OUR EFFORTS INTO FAIL SYSTEMS, PRESERVING THE TRAN4UILITY OF OPEN SPACE, AND PROVIDI`G SAFER �:CDES OF 1RANSPORTATION. WHY WONIT THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THOSE IN CoMMIUNITIES ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS CORRIDOR? HOlti MANY PEOPLE IN THIS AUDIENCE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS CORRIDOR AND UHY ARE THEY IN FAVCR OF IT? (NOW THAT PROP. „M„ HAS PASSED) 7-56-9 7-56-10 7-56-11 W11Y IS THIS CORRIDOR CONSIDERED BEING BUILT IN SPITE OF ITS UNPOPULARITY AND IN SPITE OF THE PASSAGE OF PROP. MAIM WHICH WILL DO A:ORE TO SOLVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION PROBLEMS I\ SO. ORG. CTY. THAT THIS CORRIDOR WILL? (IN FACT, THE PROPONENTS MUST ES AWARE THAT THIS CORRIDOR WILL M-RELY ADD TO THE ALREADY EXISTI2:G TRAFFIC CONGESTION. ) IF THIS CORRIDOR. IS BUILT, WILL THE OVERPASS OVER LAGUNA CYN. BE 100Qo EARTHQUAKE REINFORCED SO WE WON'T HAVE AN01HER TRAGEDY LINE l'HE Dti'E IN SAN' FRANCISCO IN ' E9 OR THE -ONE IN THE SYLA:AR EAR111C4UAKE OF '71 IN UHICH AN OVERPASS FELL ON A TRUCK? WILL ji HAVE ONT-SITE PRCOF BY EXPIiRTS 010 WILL KCT PROFIT EY THIS VENTURE THAT 31111E CVERPAS5 IS BEING BUILT TO BE 1COeo FARTM UAKE REI:tiFORCED TO WITHSTAND AN 6.0 QUAKE OR MORE TILL THE TI'cANS— PCRTATIO`' AGENCY BE WILLING TO ASSURE THAT & SPEND THE XONEY ON THAT EFFORT FOR OUR SAFETY? WHY HAVE NO STUDIES TXAT EXPCS3 THE TRAFFIC PRCDLEMS THAT WILL BE CAUSED AS A RESULT OF THIS CORRIDOR BEEN RELEASED TO TIME PUBLIC? 17-56-12 17-56-13 7-56-14 0 0 --I 0 Please Print Cleariy: COMMENT CARD NAME a M i DATE_LL_=j 5L _ , 5 ADDRESS Lo�,S FP,Ara AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP_ : . �r l+ ��,. 1�( PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list yES � NO COMMENT: I-r COMMENTS CONTINUED x.�b�.'_�f�� �L�S �r3rl ��fi �,.•—ate SU, 7-58-15 17-56-16 17-56-17 7-56-18 7-56.18 0 Transportation Corridor Agencies 343 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, Cal. Res- Comments on San Joaquin Hills EIS Gentlemens Laguna Beach, Cal. November .21, 1990 Enclosed are my comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR/EIS 1). Yours Truly, Janie Coklin 0 CONZ ENTS III REPLY TO THE EIS In response to the Environmental Impact Report relating to the proposed San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, I feel that the EIR/EIS does not address the environmental issues satisfact- orily. Construction procedures (and their consequences) do not conform to ethical standards and the survey should be reviewed and revised with this in mind; the present plans are neither adequate nor acceptable. 1-56-20 I First of 511, the building of this toll road would be tragic - for 0 would <:estroy a substantial -and essential amount of our valuable wetlands. We do not have an abundance of wetland area to begin with; i the E1 Toro Road area alone uould lose two-thirds ofiits wetland. These precious areas not only sustain the wildlife and waterfozcl -56-21 that are indigenous to the region, but also provide sanctuary for migratory birds, many of which are endangered species. I have seen egrets, rails, and even a blue heron. Another concern would be the vehicle emissions which would affect the duality of the water, habitat and vegetation in streams, creeks, and wetlands. Pollution is a paramount problem. To suggest that dilution of pollutants downstream from drainage areas near the proposed toll road would be "feasible„ is absurd; the mere existenot 0 these pollutants in the water is a hazard. Pollutants have to gather someplace; it is unrealistic to expect them to simply dissipate and go away, no matter what mitigation measures are proposed. a I (2) 0 All animals, large and small, depend upon wetlands for survival. If their source of water becomes polluted, many will -et sick T-56-22 and die. the same will occur with vegetation which will contain traces of vehicle exhaust. The animals will eat this polluted vegetation. Additionally, there is simply no way of replacing the riparian woodland; this would be like trying to replace old -growth forests. Timber industries may plant new trees in areas previously logged, but it will take hundreds - even thousands - of years to restore them to their former condition. oast Live Oaks are in the location in which we find them because that is the optimum condition for them. TransplantinE; may eventually kill them. More studies should be done before taking such steps. Riparian vegetation should not be disturbed at all. Neither should the flow of streams. As with the wetlands, creating new ones is unnatural. Maintaining what we already have is the best way to ensure their survival. Each separate wetland has its own unique benefit to wildlife and waterfowl. Each is different, though the difference may be only slight. Microorganisms vary slightly in each wetland; each nuance in difference has its own individual role in the ecosystem. Moreover, it is appalling to learn that the Bonita Canyon Reservoir would be destroyed. I cannot imagine this possibility even being considered. We do not have enough wetlands to offset the loss of this reservoir - or of any other reservoir in our area. No matter what mitigation measures are implemented, they cannot / • (3) possibly replace the wetland areas affected by this toll road, T7-56-24 There is evidence of large wildlife in most of the open -space area of the proposed toll rd. (the San Joaquin Hills), at its borders, where there is presently human access, especially deer and bobcats. If large animals are roaming on the periphery of their habitat, it makes sense that they -are certainly more prevalent in the interior, where this toll rd. would go. This corridor would dissect the animals' habitat and create serious consequences. There would be loss of open space, wildlife habitat, and food sources. These animals should not be forced out of one of the few expanses of habitation left in this area. They have enough trouble trying to survive with urban development overtaking them as it is. If we do nothing to preserve the San Joaquin Hills habitat while it is still not too late, these animals will face extinction. The �,ountain Lion once roamed most of the Americas. They now have only an infinitesimal habitat left in contrast to what they once had. They need large tracts of land because they are territorial and each stakes out its own territory. If another Mountain Lion from another territory invades a certain Mountain Lion's territory, sometimes they engage in battle until the intruder is killed. They require large tracts of uninterrupted territory to keep their population significant and the ecosystem balanced. 7-56-25 7-56-26 (4) Even a two-lane highway is a hazard for animals. Deer, foraging animals, become confused when their lifestyle is disrupted. They wander onto thoroughfares %%here the traffic confuses them, often causing them to Ofreeze" in their tracks - especially at night, when vehicle headlights "freeze" them as well. They then become unavoidable targets for fast -travelling vehicles. Countless such accidents can be anticipated which, in addition to the slaughter of innocent animals, will also cause death or injury to human beings due to vehicle pile-ups and traffic congestion. The EIR suggests that a solution to this disaster would be the installation of under -corridor tunnels (large pipes). It is highly improbable that animals will use the tunnels as an alternate route to the other side of the corridor. They have their established routes and they will not knot: u by the tunnels are there; they will not know enough to use them (unless there are plans to "train" the animals to use the tunnels.). Some animals may use them, possibly an occasional bobcat or i-:ountain Lion - but not the deer - and not for the purpose for which the tunnels would be intended. The animals' patterns of movement would be greatly disrupted by this toll rd. The noise & pollution from the toll rd., not to mention the activity and the sight of it, would throw their lives off balance. It is doubtful that any plan could be submitted that would mitigate the danger that this toll rd. would bring to the animals. 7-56-27 7-56-28 it 0 (5) An animal count should be done in the area, as some wildlife experts do in national par];s around the world, before this toll rd. continues to be considered for construction. No way could a mitigation proposal be found that could compensate for the removal of the archaeological sites located in the path of this proposed toll rd. These sites, whether pagan or religious, were chosen for a significant reason. They were very meaningful to those ancient people and they continue to be meaningful to those who are their present heirs. Some of these sites are thousands of years old and we should endeavor to preserve them exactly as they are, for any disturbance of these sacred grounds would be sacreligious. Our native vegetation is very frail. It is one of the most delicate vegetative ecosystems on earth. And it encompasses less area for its type (coastal scrub, Mediterranean grasslands, Chaparral) than any other vegetation on earth. It is the least dominant type of vegetation on this planet. It is more sensitive to pollution and climactic conditions than, for example, the vegetation in the US Southeast or the US \orthwest. This is because of the structure and habit of the plants themselves. Many of our native plants need specific optimum conditions to survive, such as the need to be facing just a certain way toward the sun, and the need for an exact combination of sand and clay soils; the formula for these soils differs for each 49 7-56-29 7=56-30 7-56-31 (6) 0 individual species of plant. Though they appear to be hardy and adaptive, they are hardy and adaptive under only these conditicns. The fact that they are drought -tolerant leads some of us to 7-56-31 believe that they can withstand large amounts of abuse and this simply isn't true. Each different vegetational area within this region exists for a reason. To re -plant one vegetational area with any type other than i,hat previously existed in that area would be a hazard to the survival of the newly -planted vegetation. This may not prove true for many years, but it would become an eventuality. Pollutants severely affect our native plants. Although there are thousands of species of native ;plants, they all have common fayctors which make them very sensitive to any change in their environment. And some of these species (as Dudlea) exist only in this .area. T-56-32 This vegetation will also be affected by vehicle exhaust particles falling to the ground. Our native plants are simply too delicate to handle that. And once these particles got into the soil, it T-56-33 would eventually kill anything that is growing in that soil and nothing would be able to grow there again. Our native vegetation is a very delicate ecosystem upon which other vegetation and animal life are inherently interdependent. T-56-34 Destroy it and the consequence will be similar to the destruction of the rain forests. 0 • (7) The EIR states that air quality would be improved by this toll rd.! There is no way that air quality would improve tith this toll rd. 6,,uite the reverse! New development made possible by this toll rd. and the vast increase of vehicles that new development would bring to the area could only increase the . air pollution! Carbon monoxide was extensively mentioned in the EIR but there was no mention of deadly dioxides or of the even deadlier hydrocarbon benzene. Benzene was not mentioned in the EIR. It may not be as prevalent as carbon monoxide but it is far more deadly. Even now we don't have any documented report of the total long-term effect it has on the environment as a whole._ But the fact remains that it is a deadly killer. And it is present in ALL vehicle exhaust. The State and National air quality standards should be up for reconsideration. They aren't good enough as they stand. and these standards should be upgraded before this toll rd. is considered any further. As for air quality, no super -freeway could reduce air pollution! To even suggest that it would is absurd. How can the TCA even consider creating hazardous waste when knowledge of its deadly effects is so widespread? If building; this toll rd. would cause hazardous waste, then the time is now to scrap the plans for this toll rd. 7-56-35 17-56-36 7-56-37 7-56-38 7-56-39 (2) The TCA mentions that it is considering noise abatement. It seems ironic that the TCA should even mention this, since the very 7-56-40 existence of the toll rd., with its heavy traffic, will be the principal noise contributor. Noise walls have been proposed (these may be an earthquake 7-56-41 hazard). Even so, noise would echo off the walls and be channelled elsewhere. 'I he n':(f )" Rule ( the "49 United states Code, Section 303" ) puts restrictions on highways & freeways passing through parklands and historical sites. Part of this rule states that the "Secretary of Transportation will not approve any project (highway project) that uses public land, including "public parks, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance, as so determined by the federal, State or local officials having jurisdiction thereof, any land from a historic site of nationals 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". We now have that "feasible and prudent alternative" in the passage of Prop. "M". 7-56-42 It is written that "the courts have interpreted 04(f)" protection to also include parklands adjacent to proposed highway projects, reasoning that, natural areas within close proximity to a highway 7-56-43 4p could be adversely affected by air pollution and noise". This toll rd. would go through, or abut, at least two public parklands and several archaeological sites of local historic (9) significance as well. Tricky gov't. officials are lobbying in 'sash. D.C. to get this rule changed so that this toll rd. can 7-56-43 go through. The fact that gov't. officials are attemptirf; to amend the 14(f)" Rule strongly indicates that the building of this toll rd. is illegal as it now stands. Also mentioned in this section is the second exception to the rules N2) such program includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl 7-56-44 refuge, or historic site resulting from such use*. It is highly unlikely that harm would be minimized by a super —freeway of any type. the mitigation measures to be taken by the TCA are simply not adequate. It has been stated that the proposed toll rd. would alleviate traffic. On the contrary, it would complicate it; for example, people driving on the toll rd. south from Costa Mesa would take th exit at Laguna Canyon to reach the 5 or 405 or E1 loro Rd. At the -56-45 same time, people driving north on the toll rd. from San Juan Capo, for example, would allso exit at Laguna Cyn. to reach the 5 or 405 or El Toro Rd. It is easy to imagine the massive traffic congestion created as all these vehicles converge in the canyon. Adding to this congestion, which would occur not only in Laguna Cyn.,.but in every other place, affected by this toll rd., is the 7-56-46 bulk of traffic from the new developments contingent upon the toll rd. being built, which would comprise the major part of the traffic using this toll rd. (10) It is easy to see that the solution, to our traffic ;problems is NOT the ;proposed toll rd. ;Toicever, we do have a valid solution right at hands We have Prop. "�:". Prop. will, among other things, eliminate the E1 Toro "Y", expand i•:oulton Parkway.into a super -road, widen the Santa Ana Fwy., improve other existing routes, & synchronize traffic lights. To begin kith, if the E1 Toro "Y" is eliminated, most of the southbound ;ridlock, especially at rush hour, will also be eliminated. If :,.oulton becomes a'super-road, north -south 'cc south -north traffic will become free -flowing through a considerable part of So. Orange County. Also, widening the Santa Ana Fwy., a very necessary project, will also greatly improve traffic flow in both north and south directions. And with the advent of an improved rail system in parts of Org. Cty., traffic will become further alleviated; also, rail systems do not cause pollution. Synchronizing traffic lights will be an enormous benefit to the flow of traffic. It will eliminate needless stop -and -go traffic, therefore helping to reduce pollution (more than this proposed toll rd. would ever do), and it would save on fuel. Also it will help alleviate the traffic jams on freeways caused by the back-up flow of traffic trying to get off the freeways. These improvements alone will greatly alleviate our traffic problems, and I have not mentioned every project that Prop. "DIN proposes to do. Also, the mahority of businesses are located r: 7-56-47� 7-56-48 0 0 El nearer the Santa Ana Ft:y. Since improvement will occur on that 7-56-48 freeway, there is no need for another super -freeway in the area. If the county has federal funds for freei:ay purposes, why not channel that money into the projects that Prop. 010 will undertake and make these improvements the best & most efficient obtainable for the benefit of our citizens. It is a wiser and 7-56-49 fairer investment than that of the toll rd. which primarily benefits only the residents of the new developments - and the developers themselves! This toll rd. would be aesthetically inappropriate. The drawings resemble an elongated spaceport runway. An elongated spaceport 7-56-50 runway could never be drafted to comply with or complement the surrounding countryside (except on another planet). Also, re -landscaping, landfill, and re -locating & transplanting; 7-56-51 trees � plants from their present locations would be detrimental to our fragile environment. Earthquake safety was not addressed in the EIR. However, it is an important factor for wildlife consideration, since animals rmnay be in one of the under -corridor tunnels when an earthquake occurs. In their natural habitat, a quake would not be as destructive as 7-56-52 it would be in or near a gigantic, man-made structure. In sor.:e of these tunnels, a•quake could kill some animals, while others could be too injured to escape and would suffer a slob. and (12) agonizing death. Also, debris from a c;uake, falling into wetlands adjacent to this toll rd., would severely affect the wildlife 7-56-52 in V-iose :•:etlands. There would be a lot of overpasses if this toll rd. is built. Therefore, if it is built, we, as citizens, should have on -site proof, by experts who would not profit by this venture, that it would be 100`Jb earthquake reinforced to withstand a c;uake with a magnitude of e.0 or more. It would cost more to make it quake safe, but that is in the best interest of all, including the 'ICA because of possible lawsuits in the aftermath of a quake. 7-56-53 One more important point should be brought up heres even after the San Francisco quake of 180 destroyed an entire freeway, and that freeway was removed, the traffic still flocs freely from San 7-56-54 Francisco to Oakland and from Oakland to San Francisco, provinb that some freeways are not essential. This would be true of this propose:.} toll rd.; therefore the ;proposed corridor isn't necessary. The TCA seems to ignore the objections of those in communities adversely affected by this toll rd. It appears as though we as citizens are subject to the desires of the bureaucracy and we have no say in what is to be done with our environment. This makes us feel helpless. But I believe that we, the people, as a majority 7-56-55 should have a voice in this. We should be given more time to 0 9 evaluate the consec.uences of this toll rd. The developments contingent upon this toll rd. can wait; there is no real 7-56-55 emergency for these developments. The existing residents in the area should be given the chance to vote on this issue, and the effects of Prop. "N,8 should be felt before any further consideration is given to the construction of this toll rd. CJ 7-56-56 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME -/?,. A, f�' AXA2f Ll DATE ADDRESS ?26 f^f,( Z ,73 AFFILIATION CITY, ZI'/ 9.24-rl PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: 7 A _ --t- f .L.-WA-M. _ (Continue comments on back of this page with tape, and mail to the address below.) M4Kz�[ fa-tN 3 0 To submii, please fold page in half, secure Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P-M. on November 26,1990 �ol�iere '� AM _ N NOV E 390 •.N— A �u . ��c Yox RECEIVED M-0 1 " TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCI`ES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS COMMENTS CONTINUED (a) &V-a o-a,. k 30 �-ei /�n . � /— DYGLl".Ai� _ .AAZZ ! O is�i^� � 7-57-1 7-57-21 7-57-3 C7 7 01 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD DATE ADDRESS 936 AFFILIATION -- CITY, ZIP d PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _YES NO f COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 tC Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COMMENTS COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-57-4 7-57-5 a v v v 01 0 � 0 Please Print�Qearly: COMMENT CARD NAME i 13119,Wel- !3h—GL A:t DATE ADDRESS 5 3G AFFILIATION ?W ndY►� CITY, ZIP t. QG QI, M&— i� C A- g-1 PR. # (Optional) add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: COMMENTS CONTINUED C 'fit A NM, L , I 0 0 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME F U I 1 X 1) f/ II V` f DATE if 14ru) ADDRESS,�Wl � l ZSS eCV,0 d"IFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �� U �� �i YbCt.-� ��-(! 1 % PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list x YES NO COMMENT: .,- / , f ,r" t T I C-; r 11 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 RECEIVED Nov 21 FA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 7-59-t COMMENTS CONTINUED c 4-1 i fi I eol 0 r 7-59-1 Oc_r r as pa��ibi��. 7 7-59-31 Q. f- cl' btuo d -tra ►c'. o file ,San 06 cite *T61 all k7n L,np L4Qd, Vlj- 0 e, ► �� be P0611 U. c u � c FL To,-c, 0 ors C �! D ec lij p� �l1'1C c c' 17 s-r , el ICO r ha �- t' �t�r i, _-Lo u (7 ___tl)f C�kkc sc, Kc f ea ppc �i� IS 0 9 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �v i,. S . S�+;AZ-1 11 DATE ADDRESS 3-s7y I AL-T-a K"n Z)2'V � AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP n i 4 C CA PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT:, e f4l•.Ltc OGr'il Hf lq-r# (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.). Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation'Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 - P M �\ is `1 ' m! C-cean �21 N���rumps',99 +" TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 8EWVED F1 nV 2 5 104 COMMENTS CONTINUED rr' gr3'Cie,omr e-� %tie, 7' c 1 will j '' (ynS .CTCc7 s w.11e+'l���l� ��► el, f pf+f midu. t-� kr S i . tA,/ t 64n Wiltj W i T )4 ,S�v 1; rrI 7-so-2 T ..At �.�. C.e� et S 0??u xcL uti t, � i 2�r �1 , 7-60-3 (7 60 k 7-60-5 I7-60-6 ,110A L,ti�r Tr: &R ► m hcr uw!' ft+i-erlcu d f Fir 70 B%; ��'�►�, ; �tf ��-,-� �� tic c� 6)� L, r� w , -I I Cer ; Arn L j & 6 ffl-ec eS / 7� An ou% - 7-60-7 4r j of tr 7-60-8 �It r^r�J�� rrlt 01 iV/AT f c�- 'cSr'►'I s5 r c'�G C�.'n.. 0 Please Print clearly: COMMENT WRIVO NOV 21 1% NAME�i`�L�2f �„ f✓,�Q�tl.( DATE — % d ADDRESS/&6P SGc,�7c,-- -T- I/?VGZ-AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP rH�# (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list IkYES NO (COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 �oA w � � w A ic e:� C4 t� t PM «r i r 20 NOV TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS • Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD f 1 NAME T- d 0i (1, L1 DATE ADDRESS ILIA I�e AFFILIATION `hk-4� �ZAkJ CITY, ZIP �. a 6 si PH. # (Optional -Qt *) Please add my name to your mailing list _AYES Z&NO MMENT: (pyz 0101- %j �y1i( II,�1• 7-62.1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 :3 NOV i a gp ! dOW00. ---1-+1.- TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COMMENTS 11, h„► i, l,1 I,,, ► i, I, 11,,, I,1, I COMMENTS CONTINUED d. " 17-62-2 7-62-3 �. 742-4 Z, o O v 7-62-5 0 � M Please Print Clearly: (NAME BRUCE R. WHITE COMMENT CARD DATE Nov. ?1, 1990 ADDRESS P.O. Box 15524 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP Newport Beach 92659 PH. # (Optional) Inease add my name to your mailing list * YES. NO (COMMENT After attending the public hearing on November 14th and listening to all the comments, I feel that this Toll Road project should be scrapped. My position is NO to I(Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 U �I�iere �..PM 23 NOV 4990 �► '�^ 'fir !C� S TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET - COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAOUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS COMMENTS CONTINUED the construction of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. Public comments have shown that this project is not wanted and should not be built. We don't need it and don't want'it. Don't you guys understand English! Read and understand NO TOLL ROAD!!! NO TOLL RO?D. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL'RDAD. NO TOLL ROAD. ' NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TCLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOIL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. NO TOLL'RDAD. NO TOLL'RDAD. NO TCLL ROAD. NO TOLL ROAD. 17-63-1 • Cn sm 601 • Piease Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAM EII Uis't / i2T"[� L3WCE- -Dc9 /L1.17 . DATE l 2-0 0 ADDRESS-?'Y9s 3 t-1'QsE0 Ui4cG',✓c�i�J «-3 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP 44C-VW -1/1" S', C4 -`� �ZGJ"3 PH. # (Optional) 5?12149 3 Please add my name to your mailing listy YES NO ICOMMENT:��� U R'IQE (N�//✓�r T�x Af 1461ts' A'LO ICE Y y/,v1G- TV �L%ST�fDy T� p %I-llzc Y �.r/��it/-TYv'�°e- Rm�v n94-r W /G L 'C' A-co4o c-« 41- Z3,,f �z,4 nr-,e' m r-: 7'#1' ofitew. . (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 F-0i8- —re NAB C4 �?MPM . N Z v 23 Nov '990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES - 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS + 7-64.1 COLLECTING A HOBBY A LIFETIME COMMENTS CONTINUED #-/t E /� m�=EI�/A1G S,4T�f �/f� G Ito,{ Y /�/!�-' AA P7Z-;r /0it/ 7-64-2 YOv �c/o rr EUeAl (f0A4r/Dd-AlAIG- 7-#e P •fA!,0%C-i 40i-, c - o Fpf/2 /b ce-u TAAArf r0 2 - 7-644 �Lv�✓G-S� o,� �c S Aic�'�S �o Pa�.rri� � . TEE �r--��-crJ m �= r��s YD t/ /yw 4oi!!- n cap,v f-iti c.eAr-r Az of itrS ro /fEL P -r*E .st R E,s �l{I¢-Y" /�'itE"Gc9�N(�- 7t� Sv�� /� TX-�f�fG /HC2G7f-SE 7h`ErtEFo.tE- tffe N v^z f E2 It Ao�� 4064 T-t,#iv mF EX rr- .fit/ EN7`/t Y !,+ MAT e` ,4 !/G- 7-0 74W4 /..�� /lC-'!//1E� ?'o h/n//M�ZC TftC .�E.S`r'�E'r/c /��•�c r A.�� 7-/f2= lZ*J'7X r-r7oA✓ 6P` y#rt'w fe- bq%alrwr"SJlLr Po(a/4-4r&-3) L - �� if AULS �4/6�' E1vli//L�r✓M�ivT" 7� �2o r�cT �}` N � l�o tr 2 I'rL� Y OEs'iv ' r 77f-96- /N'm Cm N"r1,A of *r/6N r?VG- C3 t o c o a.� C A.ci 7-64-5 ov A, /m A - r �N2 /iv�c�� T�� r u �E �i✓ rirlS tg�LEq A *welft x(14 yarY !J NEED E� /tl WElL �fJ JG/E/�TIf�G Jrv�/E� 0 r: • RECEDED NOV 26 Please Prin 1 arly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE ADDRESS o ! til �hO��k AFFILIATIOP Jt'.a Ukt-t CITY, ZIP OA a6 S PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES' i (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure 7-65-2 with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' ; office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 � ............ � — � — — � — = C — — — --�� �s,�-----ter--- Mi dare pN q %Q 30 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Please Pria COMMENT CARD _ NAME � �LQ. DATE ADDRESSVAlk &tk n� enOPOI S AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPJ J1 S PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES 4I E COMMENT: e-• a nrnn .n.7 n "I 11 I.YA n.. �1� UXtr� J'P -L -0 Qu (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-66-1 7-66-2 7-66-3 �11 1"] • E 0 Pease Print c►ear►y: COMMENT CARD NAME rCR Lq- DATE ADDRESS 01,t t'1 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP-4 &&OA q 2 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO I n e COMMENT: 9-n 0 7-67-1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies, office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 laiiere r pNA. Cq �Q P M N Z V 23 NOV aW �99d TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRfE1S COMMENTS ae g N V Pease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �cz� j qwJ DATE- 4.-aLCL-o ADDRESS�GL(� _ u ! Lc- AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP ts 7-c-- PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO Ir.nntinttG'-f%mmanfe nn ni fhie n-nnn Tn e,,krnif nlnnnn 4P%IP4 P%n^^ in k-14 .......... COMMENTS CONTINUED -.k-v C, " VZ3 - r\- -- P..- ttr is 7-68-1 s -66-1 0 f t Pease Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME CD&NlE &RC7QL1AA4 DATE ,[��QV. 21t ADDRESS477 CAA/ybN ACRES ,DR. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP ZA G UNA ,B—rAC i 22 S/ PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _YES NO COMMENT: 7-69-1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Trawortation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 R P V .. �- TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET ' COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS �c,'�tisT�ltiCE ,f3E�� Q U�riN, �7 7 CXivyDN LAGuAv,q &4cH0 CA 9z(,s/ iv T r Nov. /8, /990 tiYlLllA'' K'On,LETT, JR. ����.C.ZJtJ /� . !/lea a�� N OY 2 7 1990 Q F RW''.'D T0: -S(rl c- 7-66-2 � _� . ..lstf�i-ZGc,�� C,GL2 ..e,QJ►�IJt,C,�,./ 7L�G1!- ��,Czt,fZ¢ G �4 D,S S-L' Cvc-(L4 -, i ir e7tzrcIM D . I c ,Qm, I* le Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME NA R 1 A 4,6-P- DATE Mo ✓. do / 9 10 ADDRESS yyp AAYR tl-E-Sr- AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP oLA (-- UA)A A�Whf- , C A . PH. # (Optional) 9� 6 3( Please add my name to your mailing list VYES NO COMMENT: r Ltd (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 Fwow TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS . •tl����t�l�ll���l�l�t COMMENTS CONTINUED r w / 7.70-2 / ' i . AZUY W.6 o ms J cum 17-70-4 01 �-M �J Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Do x c , H Y r4 L 7-, .0 DATE /: -- / 9- 9 o we-sT ADDRESSa3y? 1H t//g /Y7dR,posA AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP�� a u N,4 N, irs , -�_ PH. # (Optional) 1jr83-74 rn / add my name to your mailing list YES �✓ NO c')Please c T -/ COMMENT: �- GTE I've G�' �S,�G,'/ 6 OG� �cI'yS - O o u"-1d1 cy O o efoeh q 1.78 tv 2 7-71- t 4eYr % 4o r i P S 1, O[.f C/c� i` �el I o f � p w c, e� COMMENTS CONTINUED �i've ��ie 000l �'I •� l�i e- - 1 ee h S PO 4eY //Ie,47 i''C!�'I /7 i' M e( 74:1 77 jCreeh/q S w ere eo /e, 7-71-1 A - v Q , c? �� 0 IPNase Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME i��n;r4G/'i 4E. i<—" F-FySc J DAtt, /-�� =So ADDRESS 1709' 63&ti1>4 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP 7h 077*Vo C4 PH. # (Optional)_SSz -7-05' 4_ Please add my name to your mailing list _AYES NO COMMENT: /"J ?;7 Gc� (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) COMMENTS CONTINUED Is 7-72-1 7-72-1 0 0 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME JV, k 0\5Vr., �NkMh DATE I 23 G'0 ADDRESS'�,°M'\6, 47�12-1 ')O\\ '1h\1 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPSr a�-�J PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES x NO COMMENT: 4 0 e COMMENTS CONTINUED 17-73-1 Ve- 7-73-2 COMMENT CARD ,lPisase Print Clearly: 'SAME Trudy Topik DATE 11-20-1990 ADDRESS 820 Temple Hills AFFILIATION Laguna beach CITY, ZIP PH. # (Optional) 7-74-1 Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO m n I habe looked over your plans and came to the conclusion that m COMMENT: C you are building a freeway that starts nowhere and goes nowhere. I t is ITI T r a blueprint to add another million to our population. I am sure that your N COMMENTS CONTINUED plans will not alleviate our road congestion problem in the long run. Besides, • tkie toll requested will only make the already existing elite more exclusive and divide the people more intc Haves and Havenots. 7-74-1 Why not learn from the present Persian Gulf crisis and work toward becoming less dependent on oil? We could build a high speed people mover above or next to an existino freeway. If Japan# Germanyp and France can do it, We CAN too. Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Kurt Topik DATE 11/21/90 ADDRESS 820 Temple Hills Dr. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP Laguna Beach, 92651 PH. # (Optional) 714-494-3365 Please add my name to your mailing list x YES NO COMMENT: The corridor,instead of relieving traffic,will only open more Territory for new,and expensive developement. What we need is decent,affordable public transp #tation. I(Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 7-74-2 Mime •'p,NA. �I PM s23 Nov eY , 125 l TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS REC1VE-D MY 2S 1W Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Ci' /2 DATE 0 ADDRESS �yf7� f %q .�� �`� AFFILIATION Lpof� z" CITY, ZIP Ito %i,6�r3 PH. # (Optional) � Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO = COMMENT: �i1`viiGL�vy f'zy �ut�iQ�it 2e�6 r S .'ii��cvy� 17-75-1 y•. COMMENTS CONTINUED ?2� AS�7 'Z Z'e ) 1 7-75-1 7-7S-2 7-75-3 7-75-4 a i Pease Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME -(-'-) z- fa- , S'7"e.)' tf DATE 1 I ' -r-9c. ADDRESS 'Z S I �� "� �' �`- AFFILIATION �j Zlo7J� CITY, ZIP .�M �7�. 7 PH. # (Optional) Sy2 "(�-d1el Please add my name to your mailing list _YES NO COMMENT: 7-76-1 Nnue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure 'iqp% and mail to the address below.) kse•i dte: Corpin nes�ts mu be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' .e..bv 5:00 Pn• Movember 26,1990 Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME r mnc-n (�. Mrrd b DATE I I -Z�) -GO ADDRESS (? -Z S flnr NQ V? AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPH. # (Optional) Ll I I Please add my name to your mailing list YES __)�—NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) , rn m rTt O x 7-77-1 0 ro as Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. an November 26,1990 _ i Q r. r a. •s: � s T c.�.�. r.•ac •.•. e� r+ s.�• w�. mom+ �.w tee+ es tom• + .•� •� �+ ^� �•• �• w� �e- �w ram. iw� -- ••-...-...-- � Gw4i Aare �.� r:nr r cr•.T 0 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME & 6 gy 1 94 ,tt i NrDATE/ L 90 ADDRESS �s7/ �� �S r�i ICJ AFFILIATION / CITY, ZI*4pr PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: . ��e 144- /�f (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 rh Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME 4, eV DATE �/- �l • PiT ADDRESS me 9/. dP9 GJeer,11axZ (? AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP . LG, /<<f,, ru gl t oc,, o PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list __k�YES NO COMMENT*� a . (CoWnue c#mg4nts on back thi page. To submit ple se o p e in half, secure • with tape, d nemail to the addr s elow.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 -- -- 7-78-1 7-79-' j 0 • 740-11 Pis=* Print 016 : . COMMENT CARD NAME 1 / 1 I /T DATE ADDRESS '� S�- Qt� i�r S �. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPV no. es PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES }' NO COMMENT: e'o rr (a(D r- /Ingerg q �s a/ tJ}�/y �1a semis e COMMENTS CONTINUED -W5T�(--�� FiA-)y wt ' lJ v� 6�1 cr )�e/t/ ea-645'-e a 1�q u6l� y> a d6X4 17-80-1 --hcld ro L1o' /10 OR ��EW�Al i %� 'e pl C�'o�C :. �Cyl �UQ U t /1 �f/S' �7 ►^ l G� d r- rr Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE ADDRESS -1f-O 5. ^JN `s ra-2--AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPGi1�7vP11x 13ci4 �q % s-1 PH.* (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES .4ZNO COMMENT: �p!yr ryr., rr�r'/.�- �%►�a ��� c. �ro /r, Lrz-ms rn vr—,-:1 COMMENTS CONTINUED �i�i B f2� � LJ �V r-L 'L1C�h I T�t'ti/d�G✓l. �l Gt. (.� 5' �?� o r I Ste_ roc, o v Q ? �l� lL r �1 S {' �Kcil � u a•�C C� � -f-r-a.n5 � v 740-2 jj 7-80-2 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME e te- war DATE' (ADDRESS a6-i2 9 G �o Urd_1_-e e �;,.,+- AFFILIATION' CITY, ZIP a Liu 4 r, �� sfY� n o PH. # (Optional) 344 _ IS? � 9�2 675" Please add my name to your mailing list ✓ YES NO COMMENT: A 77�e,xaYess rhU cl�do�,'//o l�s- (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page -in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 ----------------------IIII--- ------ Fob nere ��A• Cq �sq0 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626, C'L rDnnic I IMP ,.;- "MONTH ()l, t ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS C m 0 I I it III III 11 I ii IM M111,,,1 i1!1 • *I ' Tc, . C. C T . C . A. Ccmmc�n+s c-, the `_x:In'Toac,tn F� n� ; Maren 31ac kett- r- &C�7 Canyon Acres Dr. 7-82-1 7-82-2 H lI5 -Tct1 Cam' id - The I arae_ m am t^y) a 15tudy by eve A bhou,O be ap,:1+4fJ -�oall corridor �ttdli�� m•i-�igat6c,n�, and sr�cula be, c:on5tdereed YI+a1 +c +he- Iartcie-rm \5Uryival o-p -}be large- mammals in -bie ban S�)ac�uin HMs . l tJ j+hc,v� -IAnece- ni'v� 1 gat i on s -there, w i I 1 be_ no la rc3e�, mamma`s left 6') 4AIe 5an jccE�gq iYl hills a�+e- - consc'vctto.t t�J i �� o u-k �-l-t��se_ 1� c`c3�. ►�'���-m m a t s, tm a� � r nc-��}- i v e imqscks u3kll cccor 'in 4Nbe- -4-he T C A --t-a Ke-n 4A-) i s in+o con s iderat i o n :19 c�r e��n so+�e �-he s�c�g�s-t ions are. r�c,t tti'1C�rpora{ed ta-�cl 4-ht, de�qelcpme-n-- GP 4-he- - 'C\\ C'Ocic 5 4b3n u-�e are_ 1e44' tom: i--h no Gc<jt is a T>CoHe.rn \ng L kkdG e �rn+ga-�'ons, and are, rlc� ccn��idere� Pest ib1e� -�hEn mt+)o on rneasure5 do nc-� Wnric ,n 4411-) case, and 4h0,5 >A,,e a fe- ►e� t wi-4h ti mid- a-hor1.. see a++c,cc)eca repoyrt . • To: TcX x-i- cA�vAvA {kus gznoL-- o t6EDs A/�-D ►ygr2EY/ SLAC4-E7e5e, D E�1 S -r09- Scaq-Q UiN q-r ct� TtIRu f I OF T� 3 �Ti-f��� ��201�DS�D �oaT}�t QUA LIC�L �1Ol�C /YV1. �ZS__`7 2-3 +�l.�'N T rnNr rvr v�vLT[ C5 fl'N � dos ys ?mot,: leAND_v Hsu i ���TA�s WELL- A-s Sri • 7_8=.4 CoMwlUrJ�TY 1w ILL T/ NEED TU U (co t14- ) 1-52-4 Ov I LD Pr kc7e of ?e-Fr5NTON 5A,:5rN Msk ATO t-hw;2-al CAS yo/\l ? Q3)_ L�AA---.�A-C-H � D L ala's- A -:xo 1-N2•S ..h�q�-_A�N D n�3�Y�� �.T /N (D 6 EA-RK I �T 1 m P��7S __L�D�LD Tt�LS Tou�R��D Pd—TeoRIVA77VE- CEQA 1-F4e C,+tr(--6gnJ14 ieo(JI'vlCjN-�A-L _. QWr.0 T Y 1�� � -e;. -r�h s PS A FftfA-L--E�-- VJOC)L-> 7--82-7 isGrvE � A=N. New U�s� L-Ios -pF,-�vt52-S_I,��N�'T � VJ000 <e�t� - 0 �` ► s A� Gi Ti z�s' Corn w� � TS �K�1 7.82.8 i N-C) -T- _ ST�LZt�I-Fe tz.A Pn2t-.,.__ Ltx-fiTC-D FA -[-A o�F 7�415-- TV-OPosEn o Cov�p AN 742-9 S�fF Ate' T1-1� owl IN Cc v�Tranl I S� Ty, e\j A� OF ll-ii S Zk2Ta- _. W t-hC+ Cs2o in)5 NOw�� 1�f� rN l i Cotj5 IDozi4e-�-- n1 mac+ o F ?T-y� Z 6-f4 ! �- o F==- - �-.Z� ._l-�As B �•1 �-P -ri�-c-Ly GRAPE �� A1�D T�fUs Tt-I'iS G-�r✓D COv�-D Tff�� l� W+4o Go 75) Co vP-T 8_2i1 bVEt2GT T Lip, 3 ,..,.,�NA7tV5 �nl�l2aNM6r�T? � s�3r\A �o.12, CsEE e�c�h S T -- -- -DZ.,Z mc:) --- - �r N . ►�-hs t7 � 2�-rr�y re�T� �F�S�� ��-Ot�CT-t�- T�-i'tS A��lil►Tf-%� Iw'�I�ACTS W�I,L Ttf1 lk��r. 4r TR::F-: C Sf1'N �o� u� rJ /ya T l�vur� �O MOvtJT�iN Uon� �� S-r5 0-( 7-82_ 14 w i i �Dv7 RN �� I k- w� � • yZ l N j2��GZ.PS "� T-f� Gk�A�� NG- 7�%T 1pm-s Dane e:: ccP4Zfm+2� uU�r T:�Ocu�u�r �2� �y usfN�Ta 1qr7v I EuD -J�>E� I P, ,4Usa I� YES, .Tf*5 Q (Z frI�D2�S TT4S i M Pal cTS D F- T� A-!,-, /�- - 75 L-�—e[)A-D :� U �AML)N �T(2—o� -e2_16 Cp 22t 1���2 t2 Dom- �✓II- y I SN ' T s l N ��G7-, 17fGTf�7'�s _ Tf�� ArN D 1-41As NOT--. fitLDl_t�Jnl G 7.82-17IA-t.,q-OZNffiTlVi�frS 0-5� Vv.oNiTo 94n1Cs 7F E A2Cf%�rc� 7_82_18,CiJD ?P�L�A1JTD [�L- 12-Ir:5T50c) 2� Est 5 1 LARGE MAMMAL INPUT PELICAN HILL ROAD CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN By: Steve A. Loe, Wildlife Ecologist The Pelican Hill Road/Irvine Coast project area represents a; important part of an increasingly rare and endangered ecosystem for large mammals In southern California and Orange County. Large mammals such as mountain lion, mule deer, bobcat, coyote, grey fox, badger, and raccoon in the northwestern San Joaquin Hills will be significantly affectei by the road and associated landscaping unless carefully designed and implemented. The badger is a State Species. of Special Concern. Large numbers of road kills and vehicle accidents can be expected without. adequate provision for large mammal movement. Providing for the continued existence of these species north and west of the project should be fully considered when deciding on the final road, drainage, and landscaping design.. Current road and drainage design appear to present problems for the long term survival of several large mammals north ant west of the road allignment. Making all of the needed changes to fully provide for large mammals may not be feasible, however, they need to be considered by all involved parties. There Is an opportunity to demonstrate excellence In environmentally sound planning and development with relatively minor road and ultimate development design modifications. A Coordinated Resource Management Planning process should be used to determine long-range goals for wildlife populations and ecosystems in the open space being planned for In the San Joaquin Hills. Coordinated management 'of adjoining open space will be required to meet the stated. goals of the County. Alternative de signs and landscaping schemes for varying levels of'.large mammal protection and accident prevention are presented to allow decision makers to give large mammals and public safety the consideration deemed appropriate. In approving the EIR for this project, the Orange County Board of Supervisors provided that 'individuals and agencies who have expressed an interest will be provided the opportunity to participate In the review of the landscape and restoration plans'. In light of the potential impacts to large mammals, the Department of Fish and Game should be fully involved in the final design and landscaping decisions. 10 0 7-82-19 Me t Seven days Were spent in the field between April 17 and May 21, 1988 evaluating the biological situation in the San Joaquin Hills and the area traversed by the Pelican Hills Road project. Some of the large mammals in the project area have large home ranges which are commonly measured in square miles. Therefore, a significant portion of the field work related to determining how the specific project area fit into the big picture for these wide-ranging large mammals in the mountain range. This assessment included driving the geographical boundaries of the San Joaquin Hills large mammal ecosystem and making spot checks in some accessible areas to validate large mammal use. In addition, previous biological reports and development plans that have been prepared for the San Joaquin Hills were evaluated for relevance to this project. A literature review was conducted to determine the most cost effective means of road design•and landscaping used and recommended by others to maintain large mammals. In order to make specific landscaping recommendations, the majority of the alignment was walked to identify large mammal travel corridors and areas of use, and to understand how natural resources of the project area were being used by the large mammals. Locating the exact allignment was difficult due to poor marking on the ground until late In the project.Methods used to determine large mammal use included direct observation, tracking, and observation of scat and other animal sign. 7-82-19 Areas of potential open space were sapped on USGS topographic maps (Exhibit 1) to assess how large mammals would be able to utilize the site after road construction and ultimate development. The majority of these areas were ground checked for current large mammal use. Present Biological Situation The Pelican Hills/Irvine Coast project area represents an Increasingly rare and endangered ecosystem in southern California. Large land areas with perennial water and undeveloped habitat containing a six of oak and riparian woodlands with associated grassland and shrub habitats are extremely productive and support a great diversity and abundance of large mammals. As these areas are reduced In size and fragmented by development, large, wide-ranging species are eliminated. This situation is becoming more common In southern California, and there are many examples in the region of where the large, wide-ranging mammals have ' disappeared In recent years. Mountain lion, mule deer, bobcat, coyote, grey fox, badger, 2 and raccoon are important native components of the northern San Joaquin Hills (ecosystem. There is a demonstrated public interest and concern for -their well-being. These species have been discussed to varying degrees in previous biological assessments conducted for the Pelican Hill Road, Irvine Coast and other similar developments in the San Joaquin Hills and Orange County. Long-term large mammal population goals f-or the San Joaquin HIlls'have not been set by the responsible agencies.. Identified and predicted large mammal dispersion corridors are indicated on Exhibit 2. The concentrated cattle use during the survey period made it extremely difficult to find tracks or sign of large mammals. Most of the suitable trails and roads for good tracking were totally covered with new cattle tracks daily. Other forms of animal sign such as scat were also masked by the cattle use. In addition, this time of year is one of the worst worst times to evaluate large mammal use and dispersion corridors due to the abundance of habitat resources. Water and feed is abundant at this time of year, so concentrations and large movements of mammals are less likely. Major movement corridors are believed to be drainages, ridgetops, grass/shrub edges and moderate density coastal sage scrub habitat. Large expanses of introduced annual grasses and dense stands of chaparral are sometimes a barrier to movement. Deer are using relatively open stands of coastal sage scrub in a greater proportion than it is available in the area. The high level of deer use appears to ,J be partially related to the open nature of the shrubs that allow for unrestricted movement, lower levels of cattle use than grasslands and grass/shrub edges, and the presence of significant amounts of perennial grass in these areas. Deer numbers In the Pelican Hills Road/Irvine Coast project area appear to be lower than would be ezpeeted with the existing habitat quality and lack of human disturbance. As was noted in the Biological Resource Analysis for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor, heavy cattle grazing and resulting forage competition has probably contributed significantly to the reduced densities of deer. In addition, artificially maintained high populations of coyotes may also be affecting fawn survival and population density. The. presence of the landfill with abundant food sources and a large number of dead cattle from the grazing operation appear to be supporting unusually high numbers of coyotes. Many more coyotes were observed during the field surveys than deer. Based on experience with deer In southern California, I 13 estimated that from 25-50-deer currently occupy yIf tL' Canyon, Los Trancos Canyon and Buck Gully watersheds. managed for deer, the area has potential to produce a such larger population. Current deer use areas as estimated from • 3 7-82-19 this survey are shown In Exhibit 3. I Large mammals are currently using the area with little constraints to their movement. !Movement is common between the watersheds of Buck Gully, Coyote Canyon and Los Trancos Caeyon. This ability to freely move between these areas 13 critical to large mammals looking for year -around resources for survival. Deer and other large mammals are using areas adjacent to roads, residential developments, and the landfill with less than usual caution. This is a si§n that human harassment of large mammals on Irvine Company land is being controlled to a large extent by strictly controlled public access and use. Large Mammal Manaaemerit with Project and Ultimate Development Road Design Alternative-J. Maintain deer and all other large mammals in the project area. Install at least one, and preferably four deer underpasses (Exhibit 4) that connect the future dedicated open space on either side of Pelican HIlls Road. To provide for other large mammals, underpasses and water developments would be provided as shown on Exhibit S. Efforts would begin to provide a permanent open space movement corridor from Los Trancos Canyon to Buck Gully and Coyote Canyon. Following agreement -on providing a movement corridor from Los Trancos to Buck Gully, the 7.82.19 ridgetop between these two watersheds would provide an excellent location for a nature center. This nature center would provide a public benefit and opportunity to demonstrate ecologically sound development and habitat preservation. This use should be considered in the ultimate development plans. This movement corridor appears to be the most critical location for maintaining long-term viability of large mammals due to the large open spaces planned. Deer -proof fencing with wire mesh bottom, as shown In Exhibit 6, would be installed to direct large mammals to the underpasses.'`The goal would be to keep large mammals off of the roadway and adjacent landscaping. This alternative would result in the least vehicle accidents and road kills and provide the greatest chance of maintaining the entire group of large mammals . Alternativea. Do not provide for normal deer movement but attempt to maintain movement of other large mammals. Eliminate the deer underpasses and replace with large box culverts (Exhibit 7). Fence as in Alternative I to keep deer and other large mammals off of the road. Provide water • 4 sources as in Alternative I. This alternative could potentially provide for deer movement in emergency situations when required resources are scarce. The long-term viability of deer and mountain lion is not assured 1n this. alternative, but other large mammals should continue to use then future open space. Alternative 3. Provide for minimal large mammal movement by replacing all deer underpasses and box culverts with 72 inch and 48 inch culverts properly installed to provide for large mammal movement. Fence the road to keep large mammals off as In Alternative I. Provide water as in Alternative 1. This alternative will result in maintaining some of the large mammals west of the road. Mountain lion and deer would probably be eliminated. Alternative 4. Do not consider large mammals in the design of the road. Do not install large mammal drift fences, underpasses or permanent wildlife water developments. An attempt could be made to landscape for the safety of motorists by not planting trees or shrubs adjacent to the road. This would reduce the number of accidents, road -kills, and liability. The lack'of fencing would make it likely that numerous road kills and accidents would occur. This Mould be especially true during periods of large mammal movement such as the dry parts of the year or during periods of fall acorn and fruit production. Road kills in this alternative will be frequent enough that populations of large mammals will be significantly affected. Some species will continue to use the area to the vest of the road, but most of the large ranging species such as deer, mountain lion and badger will likely be eliminated over time. NOTE: All underpasses and culverts In all alternatives should be installed at natural grade With easy large mammal access to and from the adjacent open space. Landscaping decisions related to large mammals are totally dependent upon which on of the above alternatives is chosen. Alternative I. Landscaping in conjunction with underpasses._ drift fences, and water develooments._ In this alternative, large mammals would be excluded from the roadway, and in all likelihood, the right-of-way (Exhibit 8). This would depend on the final location of the drift fence. Drift fences could be screened from the road with tall native species such as elderberry or toyon. Plant species chosen for revegetatton within the fenced right-of-way should be based on restoring natural plant communities. Al rna*ive 2 L ndscatina with no drift fencina. Landscaping of disturbed -areas adjacent to the road would 7-82-19 provide for high visibility of animals and motorists to reduce accidents ( Exhibit 9). Without fencing and large underpasses, large mammals will move across the highway. Dense shrubs or trees adjacent to the highway will hide large mammals and greatly increase the likelihood of vehicle accidents and road -kills. Large shrubs and areas of dense trees or shrubs should be -only be planted away from the roadway. The greater the distance the better for large mammals and motorists. Revegetation with grasses, (orbs, and low shrubs would be needed adjacent to the roadway to provide for motorist and animal protection. Irrigation and the resulting lush vegetation during the dry periods of the year would attract deer and invite accidents. The long-range goals and objectives for large mammals in the area traversed by Pelican Hill Road have not been decided on by the management agencies. Agencies and land owners have not decided an long-term objectives for wildlife and total ecosystem management in the planned open space of the San Joaquin Hills. There is a great need for a Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) effort involving the County and other government agencies, the Irvine Ranch and other major private landowners, and other interested parties to determine long-range goals and objectives for wildlife and habitat preservation and management in the open space currently being planned. The long-term value of the open space for wildlife, the residents and the public could be greatly enhanced through such a planning effort. 7-82_19 \ Alternative ways of dealing with the large mammals in the Pelican Hills Road Project have been presented. The final decision on design and landscaping should provide for safety of motorists and long-term maintenance of large mammals. , Deer and other large mammals present on the project area can be maintained as a natural part of the ecosystem with several design modifications. The aesthetic and economic value of having naturally occurring wildlife populations within and adjacent to communities and housing developments has been demonstrated. In order to maintain deer and other large mammals and provide for motorist safety, a system of underpasses with directional fencing needs to be provided. These underpasses can also serve as the necessary water drainage system and provide safe human access under the road. These underpasses need to be large enough and protected enough to provide a feeling of security for the animals. The final decision on design and landscaping depends on which animals the Irvine Ranch, the State, and the County want to maintain in the open space ' areas. A failure to fence the road, provide underpasses, and Install water developments will result in high levels of road - kills and accidents. 6 References and Persons Contacted LSA, 1987. Pelican Hill Road, Final Iaeact Report_ EDAW, 1983. Laguna Laurel Planned Community Biological assessment. Jones and Stokes, 1974. PrelIninary Bioloaical snventory e------- f`r%aafal Ay-niert Area. PRC Engineering. 1986. San .T„acu I n H 1 1 1 s Transportation -- Corridor Biological Resource Analysis, CALTRANS. 1975. Hiahway Location in Natural Areas. Center for Regional Environmental Studies. San Diego State University. Prepared for CALTRANS. Kelly, W. 1972. Deer Crossing Structures for Hiahsoeed Multilane Highways, US Forest Service. Presented at the CAL/NEVA Conference of The Wildlife Society, 1972. Goodwin, G. and L.A. Ward. 1976. Mule Deer Mortality on *nterstate 80 in Wyonina: Causes. Patterns. and Recommendations. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Note 332. - Dan YparraguIrre, past Unit Manager, California Dept. of Fish and Game. 4. Karlin Marsh, Biological Consultant. ItY Douglas R. Willick, Biological Consultant 10 7 I r I 6. i -- -� L oy�e ma.m wry, Cor,• , - ,I,, .'• - - � ors •-� �' �'- re at 7 . s r �y� � r �. - • • r v�y .At •sa•.v '., n d. ! f `C i ,•'••as• / ice' _ �•' �� �J.:' . 't ` C. r �� e' -. �� Y i��• ••� tILLIMY � � •-�• ��ia +'1� r '�: �`~ /• '•�' � SLY •)� ; O .` �M.�� / — a" N c s '�•:. �—. L//'��•," �� tea:• !T. • �( •� � � • : --' ;—. �f / . '. ,i ` `!•�� '• , � ' � list '�•��� � •\ - � .. ` . •a• • � .,�'1 � r .-_ _' '•.1 ..�0 , -` • N y<<�!- a '\. '� llK��_1 . sib r' • t� Mgt Alt �•� °,ter•. • .. '� - .: l � t �� 4L , ' �. -fir !"• �--• ...... '. � •.a, .60 NEW298T. EAC �►~ tea �t .- � . t)1 = `".�• '_ '\ � � � `: � 4 ` . Yoe fts ,�. �.. —,•�.... `fir+ _ .��' • _ —� • ��r.ar+�/� \tom/ � '\� �' � �:�: ♦` � `� / y �• _ yiy + �, •IICir1��� '� • , � •�� � , i Pam• ' ! reek �►1 r�'' _ ; �•`^�_ ` � �, �' ♦ L•i �,�-- LAY 17[ �� � `•� ~• ~ - Owt to Ol .. i, v ram-- L •♦ ti hE ry,�•• •`� ' •\ f. ��•�..�• _ •• ,r• �=_ all iw• ' ,City Jaol •.••' .\ _ � 07p - ' N ORT EACH' 7A�'v -yam �':C/ �•' \ �"` • ' = y to ✓.._ ; T" J � �- ,I � �: %..,ilk t �.•�. f , y�, �� _ 7 tiro"= tV•�. :..� '1,,,/)- _ of _�"' �7 ,• ��., •. �� � 1"'` = � . � �� � � 06 to e �. ' s .ems �: � • 'j'�.�` Js7 ��'� i 0 Deer end �?Qc��hey� U��e.,r pass I W af�✓ e tom••; — - _ �.Crselc�. - _ _ � :::• � 41 .,� •ten--�-�•..,. , �"'�. • R 1 •\•,. �•;• .^ �,, ' Cr- tLcv _ ,` �� �- . ' �i j,� •...R '! • � A7. 7t .%OQitl y � .: i � v�— _ juj •• \ t� fd •� r M� • 1 -r• � 1 16. ��. - �� •L•-_ SO N 6RT_ `EACH-. /,' ':�,�` � .��• � �. ��•Or.:- •�—' _ 000•� rA VV��IrJ ��S 1' . ��r •••.� / � n, r�• -- r' •• `'-'. ;• �'�1�1 ` sas/ � :�'� _ GiJti. f i • c �\ • �icd _ r O 7 Z71 �C4?,W- Lok `:rF4SS D r'rPT Fe rce s +o fl ►,rec-+ La. C. a W ma /c S C � BGr Le G `.jtire. Cha n L /n k 0 • n �Yp-r-t .ror Lay9t Mo.r•wv &1s ~! 12hi� 9049 h • • 0 9049 h • • 0 0 IPlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Dr. and Mrs. Fred S. Topik DATE11-20-90 RESS 30E4 A Via Serena South AFFILIATION Unitarian-Universallsts CITY, ZIP Laguna Hills. Ca. PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES _mac _NO COMMENT: We do need traffic, improvements in OC South area. The Transportation Corridor however, is a very costly and pollu ing .= �Opo3 lml Tn 1990 the nowt ecetimntes bmira ri aon to -$56n (lnn 00. -83.1 This will be financed primarily by tends because toll revenues will not be enoug Also'the lederal government wili no-T—fu=nl AO COMMENTS CONTINUED hi¢hway projects that cross over or near parklands, according to federal rule "4f." This toll road runs adjacent and through Crystal Cove park, Aliso and Woods Canyons Regional Parks, and proposed regional parks for the Irvine Coast and Laurel Canyon. Added to the cost is the lawsuit which has been filed by the powerful Environmental Defense Fund. Air quality will become much worse, especially since n o "Diamond lanes have been provided. Three better alternatives aret a monorail over the existing freeways, fixing the E1 Toro "Y", and widening I-5. 0 40-1 November 24, 1990 COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TCA EIR/EIS 1 Submitted by Ken Kube 611 San Nicholas Ct. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 The following comments and questions relate to the inadequacies, omissions, and improper assumptions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR). The County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways Is A Myth. The traffic modeling data used for this study was based upon Orange County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). This document is the County's "wish list" of arterial improvements and has no basis in fact. The plan is over 10 years old and does not accurately reflect recent project changes in development or growth patterns. 7.84-1 1. The Laguna Laurel project is no longer slated for development. * Therefore, the auto trips this project of 3200 7.84-2 houses was slated to generate, need to be subtracted from the traffic modeling data. 2. In general, there has been a county wide slow down in growth which has been brought on by economic recession and high interest rates. . The Irvine company announced it is starting no new projects while other developers are cutting back their work force. The DEIR is intentionally misleading in not mentioning these changes and how it will affect the needs assessment portion of the DEIR. 7-84-3 3. What is the level of commitment from the County or CalTrans for extending Aliso Creek Road, Santa Maria, Bake Parkway, 7-84-4 Lake Forest and Ridge Route through to Laguna Canyon Road? 4. What is the time table for widening Laguna Canyon Road (see 17-84-5 attached exhibit I)? 5. Have all the necessary Environmental Impact reports approved for these roads? 6. What sources of funds are available to complete projects by 1995 and 2010? 0 been 17-84-6 these 7-84-7 8. What effect will the corridor have on the traffic �7-84-8 circulation plan if those streets are not extended to or through Laguna Canyon Road? 9. Please state the time table for the development of these 7-84-9 road improvements along with the impact they might have on the traffic circulation plan. 10. The traffic analysis for Laguna Canyon was done assuming Laguna Canyon Road will be a three lane highway in each direction. Since there is no intent to build the Laguna Laurel project, CalTrans has proposed making Laguna Canyon only two lanes wide in each direction. The traffic modeling data and intersection design needs to be revised to reflect these changes. If these changes affect the needs assessment or traffic circulation plan, it should be stated. 7-84-10 The DEIR does not adequately address what arterial roads are actually scheduled for completion by the year 1995 or 2010. By accepting the MPAH as it is written and not addressing the real issue of the county's ability to deliver a supporting 7-84-11 infrastructure of arterial highways within a realistic time table, it skirts the traffic issues it was intended to solve and further complicates the issue. As such, the traffic modeling data tends to overstate the benefits of the corridor while understating the impacts it was meant to correct. Inadequate and Incomplete Needs Assessment The stated objective of the DEIR is to relieve traffic congestion on the I-5, I-405 (hereinafter know as „ The E1 Toro Y). However, the traffic circulation plan does not address Measure M 7-84-12 improvements to "The E1 Toro Y" and Moulton Parkway "Superstreet". Many of the current and future county development projects are tied to the building of the corridor. The DEIR does not address which county development projects will be affected if the corridor is not 7.84.13 completed and how their completion/incompletion will contribute to the traffic circulation plan and the corridor needs assessment. 11. What specific development projects will be scaled back or eliminated by the no build alternative? How will this affect 7-84-14 the needs assessment? 12. What specific development projects will be allowed to proceed if the corridor is built and how will this affect the 7-84-15 growth inducing impacts of the corridor? 13. What is the cumulative traffic and air quality impacts I7-84-16 associated with items 11 and 12? 14. Please identify the mitigation measures that are being taken where the corridor has a growth inducing impact. 7-84-17 a Inadequate Project Alternatives According to CEQA, the project must include legitimate project alternatives. The DEIR's sophomoric presentation of the project alternatives is grossly inadequate in its attempt to lend credence to this document. 7-84-18 15. Item 4.e. page 2-32 Mass Transit Alternative. Scarcely one page is devoted to this alternative and there is no data presented which could lead one to make an informed decision based on the data presented. 16. Item 4.f. page 2-33,34 Widen SR-J. The presentation of this information is slanted. It totally ignores the impact of signal synchronization, lane improvements and rush hour 7.84-19 parking restriction. Further, it ignores the impact of making Sand Canyon a "Superstreet" to I-405 or minor improvements to Laguna Canyon Road. 17. Item 4.g. page 2-34,35. Widen I-405/I-5. There is no supporting data to confirm the conclusions reached in this alternative. Omitted, and not discussed is the effect of the current widening project on I-5. Also omitted is supporting traffic and air quality data that deals with the affect that Proposition M will have on the I-405 improvements and the "Superstreet" program. It also ignores the funding of recent traffic improvement measures such as the raise in gas and sales taxes. 7-84-20 18. Additional omissions include relevant traffic data and 7-84-21 the traffic circulation plan to support the conclusions reached in Tables 2.8.A and B. TCA, which is the advocacy agency for this project, oversaw the preparation of this DEIR in addition to other Corridor advocacy agencies. The omission of specific and relevant data as it relates to legitimate alternatives constrains informed decision making and presents a slanted one sided presentation of the facts. In order to meet the guidelines set forth in CEQA and to allow sufficient public input, these vague and non -quantitative alternatives must be quantified and qualified so their respective impacts to sensitive areas can be fairly evaluated. FUNDING The DEIR is vague on this account. It merely quotes a percentage figure that developers are suppose to contribute. These fees are actually passed on to new home owners when they buy into a new project. 19. Since .we are in an economic down turn and home sales have fallen off dramatically, will this affect the funding of the corridor? 7-84-22 7.84-23 20. What is the actual cumulative dollar amount that isI7-84-24 expected from developers? 21. The original cost of the corridor was estimated at $482 million. The estimates are now $680 million. As the building 7-84-25 cost escalate,. where will the additional funding be obtained? 22. It was stated that commuters would be willing to pay .15 a mile or approximately $90 a month to use the corridor. Since the corridor was sized for capacity, what affect will 7.84-26 a higher toll have on the capacity sizing if funding objectives are not met through developer fees or other funding sources. 23. Commuters will tend to use the corridor during peak traffic periods. Yet, no data is provided to show what the projected usage will be during non -peak hours. Has an analysis been done on non -peak usage and why was it not included? One cannot separate the relationship between capacity planning, higher tolls, usage and final build cost (Exhibit II). The DEIR dismisses this relationship by taking an over simplistic approach and stating that a survey showed people were willing to pay .15 cents a mile to use the corridor. However, this survey was taken before the recent gas and sales tax increases. 7-84-27 24. Please identify the anticipated funding sources by dollar t breakdown and elaborate on how this could impact capacity 7-84-28 planning if those objectives are not met. , Approvals 25. What approvals and by which agencies are needed between now and the Corridors construction? Please provide the anticipated chronology of future actions, including pubic 7-84-29 hearing and other opportunities for public input and review. 26. What approvals and by which agencies are needed between now and the SIP/FIP approvals? Please provide and anticipated chronology of future actions, including public hearings and 7-84-30 opportunities for public input and review. 27. What approvals and by which agencies are needed for the 4f sign -off? Please provide an 'anticipated chronology of 7-84-31 future actions, including public hearings and opportunities for public input. Wildlife 28. Please provide relevant data and examples of other projects of this scope and size where wildlife crossings 7-84-32 similar to the type being proposed for this project have been successful. 7 DEIR Double Speak y TCA, CalTrans and the current DEIR continue to improperly refer to the "Proposed San Joaquin Transportation Corridor". This is grossly inaccurate and should be referred to as "The San Joaquin Hills Toll Road", since this is the plan the proponents advocate 7-84-33 and which is being evaluated. Referring to it as a "Transportation Corridor", is a shrouded attempt to mislead the public and mollify any opposition to the corridor being built as a toll facility. The DEIR offers no substantial data to support the assumption 7-84-34 that the corridor will be converted from a toll road in any time frame. The DEIR offers no qualified quantitative data to support the HOV concept in either final design or addition environmental impacts. Since the HOV traffic could directly impact the toll operation of 7-84-35 the facility, this area is alluded to and offers very little substantial information. Developer Agreements with the County Are Null and Void The development agreements that the DEIR alludes to, were based in part on assumption that the corridor was to be built as a toll free facility. Many people have purchased and continue to purchase housed in 7-84-36 South Orange County based on that premise. By changing the corridor's "free" concept, to a "pay" concept, the whole equation of traffic management and circulation plan has changed. The collection of tolls artificially constrains and may prohibit the use by the very people -it was intended to serve. Therefore, all development projects approved and dependant upon the toll free operation of the corridor should be subject to review. Refund Developer Fees to Homeowners The fees developers have paid for the corridor are basically passed on to new homeowners. These fees were represented to pay for a "free" corridor. If additional revenues need to be collected in the form of tolls, then those "developer fees", paid 7-84-37 by homeowners should be refunded or toll credits given since the homeowners are paying a disproportionate amount to use the corridor compared to other county residence. Future development must insure that "developer fees" are actually paid by the developers and not just passed on to 7-84-38 homeowners. summary This DEIR should not be approved for the following reasons: 1. The vague references to the corridor's future conversion to a I7-84-39 "free" facility. 2. Omission of vital traffic and transportation data. I7-84-40 3. The inconclusive and incomplete design of the HOV facility. 17-84-41 4.` Misleading and inaccurate assumptions based on land use I7-84-42 planning. 5.'Inadequate range of meaningful project alternatives. 17-84-43 6. Incomplete needs assessment based on revised and current land 17-84-44 use information. 0 • kl k4 n :i %, , 11 . . z:Lagun :Road Road 16.f: V % is funainz;'developmen.... .-retnaw-unc 0M By Cathy Smith News Staff Writer Bringing change to Laguna Canyon Road is' like try- ing to drive down it on a Saturday in the summer —the delays are frequent. -- -. . . :.1. _' Z - 21 -i The scenic, *indinj'r6ilisteds id I one o" :'of "superstreets" slated for improvements under Measure M, the county transportation sales tax initiativo.'But if and when that money will become available is unclear. -*Local activists and the city of Laguna Beach have re- sisted efforts to widifi the road, which Is planned for super streets. Other possible changes are signal synchronization, bus turnouts and consolidation of -driveways for businesses. But noiv.the*funds would be welcomed by some, as an additiod to the account to purchase, and preserve the Laguna Laurel site. -.,We would be more than happy to'take (Measure M funds)," said Sandy Lucas, president of the Laguna Can- yon Property Owners Association and a member of the Laguna Laurel AdvisQry-Group, ."-Wg-inkend to go after that money." Under a development agreement with the county, The Irvine Co. is obligated to fund a $23.8 million prpj- ect to widen the road to four lanes from the proposed ...San Joaquin Hills Corridor tollwiy north of El Toro Road out to the freeway. That $23.8 million was included in negotiations lead: 3s ing to the*$78 million purchase agreement between the city and The Irvine Co. Any savings the company realizes will go toward the city's balance. "Unfortunately, I don't think there is much chance they'll have (Measure M) money left for Laguna Canyon Road," said Planning Commission Chairman Norm Grossman, who has been active in county transportation and growth management issues. "They only have $100 million for: suiperistreets and Laguna Canyon alone will co-"24 million." . The Orange County Transportation Commission dis- burses the funds from Measure M, the %-cent sales tmbc increase passed Nov. 6 that will raise $3.1 billion to fund a variety of transportation improvements. — - -' : .- 'To date, the commission has decided only that Moulton Parkway, Imperial Highway'Katella Avenue and Beach Boulevard will be superstreets. "I don't know where Laguna Canyon Road will fit in," said Tom Fortune, an OCTC spokesman and Laguna Beach resident. "(The superstreets) have to be prioritized. I can't say any money will go to Laguna Can- yon Road at this point." As the increasingly controversial highway winds -through Laguna Canyon it also winds through three jurisdictions —the cities of Laguna Beach and Irvine and unincorporated county territory. It's also a See ROAD, page AI6 j L. _Z „fit„-... _r�•'y.� -- i "';-• a-.-'r:. ” ''•'9'�' �hf.}FF� S iL .�?� ice. 'a}•- ?`; ^�.-.y�?V.. _ •'K�� .er-r'•�i ".�►^:yy=s=v='•'^.• , :�1_`_. :"e►: _ •:-.t[Li.'.-:-t` i.:.rs_�i, `c-• -.�.•_%'%2ti`•' ^ ra-: ,; -_. S s:fS�ri�Y. #). »+..?..._, ..�i +_'�.i5 � _11. w.:.•�4.�'�:':�,-"• _..a r a.�'�i-ic•� . ,�.. _':�''t.- .%. ... �ii�:i� - _ •=�JY'>�.��`-_•vim-:..i" ;;� 1`."-_•_t:--- _•. - "iY-%�:�. 51. -%, ��i� !=`:ti: �'i;w'��c:-r.j.:^!' ��.y�^`a.•.•w.:ri>,�_"i ('=+1`��,i. ,.- t�'i':_^ •' ! � : S. .t'.- .c. tom' rp. �( .1Cf .. Z :'.'. s ��Z.�1+'•a-._3. �'"1iG:._.__ti'y • • --y' �•� -�'`1-� t\ vim. ,_ K - > 3? ROAD vl ,J� way, but are more flexible on the stretch from -'� '•� :� .t F`-.0— - a = ; :ate- ✓� 1 El Toro Road north to the San Diego Freeway. Yt«=;',,.^:_: �`.-: • - ''` From page Al -• = Residents are extremely wary of changes to state highway, Fortune pointed out. _ the road. When the middle lane was added to Further complicating the matter, officials - the road in the late 1970s, and removal of a :' =• : -'> ``' ' -- ' •" 's; =. still have not decided when or how much the drainage ditch on the north side worsened can- :" . .: r•:�-,!c ,,:+-•_.. '. • ' road will be widened if the 3,200-home Laguna you flooding, she said. �;::':;;.r. _' Laurel development is not built, as intended by Grossman said traffic now might be im= the five-year purchase agreement reached by proved without broadening the highway. =.::. �:' : ; :r = • the Laguna Laurel Advisory Group. Improvements to the El Toro Y and Moulton �= _" .-%= }'" :�" '�- " ===• �': "If the project is not built, we will have to Parkway, which are Measure M priorities, examine the scope and scale of the widening;' should ease traffic on Laguna Canyon Road, he .�---- � said Mike Ruane, director of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. said. The city is opposed to widening the road to `" ==i'- -`': t�"• �'`' ` - ' - ' "Some may not be required if there is no devel- six lanes, City Manager Ken Frank said, adding that he didn't think the council had formally '}f = : .' Ruane said the decision would be made by taken a position on widening it to four lanes. ;;; ; _-:; •.:R ;-<1 the county and Caltrans, but probably not until The Eastern Transportation Corridor will at least June 1991, when the first of five annual connect to the northernmost end of Laguna :;: •' : payments to purchase the Laguna Laurel site Canyon Road, or state Highway 133, Grossman �. ; _s=:.: ; - ��� ;�> r comes due. _ said. That will be at least three years away, but ; ��''�:_`+.:. =: He doesn't foresee any significant decrease may prompt the widening, he said. y'r,�i�?'=.=� Y<-: ,: •' - in the cost because of the great deal of concern The emphasis now is more on streamlining ;,yam.• � , r, �•r •. _ ;. _-: ,. _ . ; •_ , '�:,ri�, = effects in aesthetics and environmental e the heavil y congested El Toro/Laguna Canyon • :-fir: ; ;. ;�.� f :.- -: •.._.�_+: _._ -. _.' i n - ' ' = == with tac the canyon, which tend to'k -on extra ex- roads intersection than widening Laguna Can - you Road, Grossman said. .`� • pense. Fortune pointed out that there is no "trig- City Councilman Robert Gentry placed that Bring event" for the Laguna Canyon Road im- issue on Tuesday's council agenda. - : • ` - =' t''- '_ `` ' ; provements if the homes are not built, but said Ken Smith, director of transportation for the . . any pressure from a political entity could move county Environmental Management Agency, :�'ti=,s.:i�� -� ;:=:�ii_•=:�=; it forward. said the county is continuing to study possible r ='• `. ; "The -real -issue is, -does the ritrw•ant-it"ire ' clang no -El Tofo-Road: -_'='' �• - = "There is a lot of discussion still going on, _' - - - ;; - said. At some point, but probably not for five OCTC coordinate an agreement be- he said. But the city doesn't always go along with the -_ years, will 'tween the cities of Laguna Beach and Irvine, county's plans. - the county and Caltrans, Fortune said. City officials have objected to a proposed ex - _ Lucas predicted that canyon residents would tension of Aliso Creek Road to Laguna Canyon r "fight tooth and nail" any plan to widen the Road and also opposed the San Joaquin Hills _ road between El Toro Road and Coast High- tollway. :4 !077—. T #TA-fe-I q:A : M 11K M PI: 1-c Rizz M SA wr ln'cbme--may' be. t o low SOVIET UNION ;^_xZ to co m e e - o, roa s' on he freeway going bumper -to- The study by consultants Wilbur Planners to ask,..,.' bumper for two hours," said Gary Smith Associates projected that SOVIET Hausdorfer, a San Juan Capistrano revenues would decline if tolls ON Ca'spian- public how much councilman and chairman of . the reached $1.50 on the Foothill -East. Sea board planning the ]Eastern -and ern route because many drivers -toil is too mujc�,h Foothill tollways. 4 would choose not to take the road. a He made the prediction dii'itea Drivers might accept tolls as recent study p6rformed fof high as $1.50 to ride a third pr&- 1;, �n -By Cheryl Downey. n The Register agency that suggested drivers Mj� '.posed tollway, the San Joaquin, the the Eastern and Foothill tollwitys -report says. might not take the new roadt.: if , The preferred toll is Si, said Lo- y to find a way to pay the tolls went much higher than $1'at retta Sanchez, of the toUwiy's fi..- rapidly rising costs of tollways, the each major toll booth. nancial adviser, Fieldman Rolap Assmisted Press agency building the roads plans to p out how' The study, based largely on toll- and Associates, who analyzed the.- -survey drivers to find report. .rgely written to the much they would be willing to pay way experience in other parts of But, "It's a different market and the country, cannot measure the I's specifications, as- in tolls to help. Jan's right to defy My guess is people would pay frustration of Orange County driv- that's what the politicians are say to avoid sitting ers, Hausdorfer said. Please see TOLLWAYM5 tee AZERBAWAN112 more 6an $2 or j �.,�' : Planners t0 ask To11 roads for orang :count ' LWAY _ • : ' Anew stud indicates y t tak 1 ' t the would a i ht no ...� ors =wha y p Y. en m g .� :.; . t sys :. ►*�r `proposed oitw ff.' Eastern 57 :� tills"are m�ich highei ` Riverside (91) -Freeway and tollway ichez said. "stretching south to where it splits re needed to pay half the :ion cost of the tollway into two legs that connect with the Phe other half of construe- Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway. It also : would connect with the $672 million 22 Eastern T; iwould be Paid by devel- Foothill s"t0i°° ill tollway, a 30-mile road 4os tollway utg the routes. _ a l )st of building the roads :' that would extend from Irvine to Pacific ss Canyon the Santa Ana Freeway near the Re. c t $2 billion. Three years H" . S Foothill Lr estimate was $1.3 billion.: San Diego County border. tollway :s such as Irvine Mayor The $560 million San Joaquin �� ro would cut through 15 miles of south 4:. P. ;ran warn that the roads P d up costing as much as $3: ' county from Newport Beach to San : •t.• ' a' C Juan Capistrano. " ,"' Construction on the roads is ex- ?"rF - of xrfer suspects devel-' ��^>A cted to start in 1991. ,':`:": ill have to be assessed Pe - � � >.•>,ry d • tolls will have to be' The study'fecently delivered to °> ra he d zd $l. tollway officials looked at tolls ?" charges of $l $1.25 and S1.50 at San Joaquin °"°°' P. :as ... tollway does not g � �- � . . 3nomically today," Haus- main toll plazas on the roads. tollway Ad. "So we either need to • A driver traveling the entire length of the San Joaquin tollway costs or increase rove>: tl g throw h.south county would hit one t and a commuter :.:::::..::::':::::;::: ..:.::>>': :.:::............ main toll plaza, :.:..::::...:...:••::•..:. •::':.:.:: - ing costs, for example by ; P .' .:';;..':.n traveling the entire Eastern-Foot- �ack the Eastern by reduc- •• `• •�•••• would defeat the purpose hill, from the Riverside (91) Free Tn. a.sta.r• i . • - . / ug the road. - way to San Clemente, would pass better make sure we build through three main toll plazas. ' ly would increase because more fident a workable combination of ; d to the right size or it's Most tolls will be collected using people presumably would use the tolls -and developer fees will be 1 be as crowded as the free- a system in which drivers will pre- road, tollway planners must make found to finance the Eastern toll - he said. . pay a set amount and receive a it through the early years of high way. astern is expected to be the vehicle identification card. An construction costs and low toll rev - pensive of the planned toll electronic beam will read the card enues, Sanchez said. "If we could be convinced that cause it cuts through rug- mounted in the ear's front window "We need more toll revenues or the driving public of Orange Coun- itry of hills and ridges and and deduct the toll charge from the the project has to cost less, she ; ty is more willing to pay tolls than mly tollway receiving no driver's account. A letter would be said. the people in Chicago or New Jer= county tax funds. sent notifying drivers to replenish ' Richard Edgar, a Tustin city sey, then we could charge more . - i10 million road would ex- the account. councilman who sits on the Foot. tolls and put it in the finance plan," miles, starting from the Although toll revenues eventual- hill -Eastern agency; said he is con- Edgar said. .=,i:. ': ` WEEKEND HOURS: FRIDAY 10 TO 9, SATURDAY 10 TO 7, SUNDAY • 0 0 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Hr l N4W 1 JDMA FKAP JA DATE II IZS� ADDRESS 257'91 ) L W V 67tlk A- AFFILIATION, CITY, ZIP LAtUAW 06UEL/ Ot I_TPH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list ✓ YES NO COMMENT: WE T11A/K- T�E� C41e44011- 13 T00 C WC6" TO AVP y1 i u. cMF h TA.F i'00 00 0 j AE64Tl Vt I 1 k PST 19 -0E7P i 0 F: ©#01 f6- 6 FP) K 78F W fRC- COMMENTS CONTINUED WP DU1-196 WNSTWTIOIJ iFg0p) 7-85-2 Taft% W A-A-1 pop- rV f pV Ey Y U 1� / W I, 1cM- W l u, P We1 lFfi` J V 81 ?/rA/ - 7-85-3 T(�i,c.� dC� CfiU f r DF T�F m -p-( poll__ OOP- Z660Tc0 rs MIT T ftF h6ffAfC-Y E (TttF/z-- 5 OOP,- PW F07Q 4T /t� T VA'— %e� a-- 7-85-4 6f TffE- cuss OF-VALF. 0 To: San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency Subject: Comments, Draft TCA EIR/EIS 1 From: Wesley Marx, 3 Butler St., Irvine, CA 92715 Date: 11/23/90 NOTE: Numerical numbers refer to page numbers, not section numbers. Page S-6, Public Involvement This section does not disclose incidents of how public involvement has been discouraged and/or ignored. For example, the reason given for Draft EIR no. 494 being withdrawn is incomplete and does not reflect the large volume of public comments showing how major impacts had been ignored or minimized and the errors and inconsistencies in the text. Despite official assurances that reviewers would receive written responses to their comments, reviewers, including this person, received no such response. The current comment period for this Draft EIR is clearly inadequate given the extent of technical documents, the timing over -major holiday periods, new information released in public hearings and major changes affecting the project which have occurred in the last two months. S-6, Areas of Controversy A cursory review of comments made by this reviewer and others on Draft EIR 494 and hearings since 1977 would disclose major omissions in this list, including wetland impacts, impacts on endangered species, flooding impacts in Laguna Canyon, geologic impacts, the technical and economic ability to fufill proposed mitigation measures and whether the process since 1977 has been oriented to project justification or to requirements of CEQA and NEPA. S-7. What is the process by which FHWA and Caltrans will certify and approve a Final EIS/EIR independent of action by TCA? Can TCA certify a Final EIS/EIR? What is the action to be taken by TCA at its January meeting regarding this project? Please identify TCA's past experience in designing and completing a road project. page 1-3, The ability of the TCA to adequately mitigate project impacts is directly related to its ability to raise funds. This section fails to disclose the cost of the project, whether these costs include interest costs, who will be liable for bond defaults, geological failures, and failure of mitigation measures meet objectives, what sums are being planned or set aside for mitigation, how tolls could be affected by cost overruns, construction failures or building slowdowns. Can landowners be reassessed for costs related to mitigation and/or construction failures and cost overruns? What is the error factor in the use of the AVI system for collecting tolls? Will tolls be eliminated or substantially reduced to encourage use of HOV lanes,*multiple occupancy of cars? Will public vehicles be subject to tolls? What agency is going to be responsible for patrolling the corridor? Under what circumstances could the County of Orange and the State of California become liable or responsible for construction costs and damages, including mitigation and construction failures? See 7-86-1 7-86-2 7-86-3 7-86-4 t 1 7-86-5 1 7-86-6 1 7-86-7 7-86-8 7-86-9 1 marx - 2 also comments Technical Report 8. 1-12, third paragraph. The document fails to disclose how alternative means of access could be provided without the major environmental impacts and costs related to the Corridor. Figure 2.11, please identify the site along the corridor route represented in this figure. 2-20, Does the TCA plan to build and open the Corridor without the HOV lanes? Could use of the HOV lanes conflict with TCA's need to raise tollway revenues? See also comments Technical Report 8. 3-7, Water resources This section fails to adequately identify presence of springs, groundwater. This inadequacy, in turn, makes incomplete the discussion of wildlife impacts -- the reliance by wildlife on springs as a source of water and loss of access to such springs. Adequate identification of groundwater associated with water courses/flood plains is critical to determining adequate buffer or protection measures for such water courses. 17-86-9 7-86-10 7-86-11 1 7-86-12 7-86-13 7-86-14 4-38, Mitigation measures . Measures are listed without any recognition of technical, 17-86-15 economic limits. 2-1, by referring to a laundry list of precautions for liquefaction, indicates that TCA has yet to determine what, if any measures, are applicable to this project. 7-86-16 What public agencies will be liable for geologic failures during an& after construction of Corridor? How can developer fees and toll rates be set if TCA still does not know how such impacts 7-86-17 are going to be mitigated? See also comments on 4-70, 4-84. 4-70, Once again, general mitigation measures are listed without any specific plan on how the impacts related to this specific project can or cannot be mitigated and whether funds are available to do so. There is no disclosure of how past mitigation measures in the 7-86-18 County have failed or been inadequate. Will the Corridor be allowed to open or operate if mitigation measures are not in place and judged effective prior to completion of road construction? There is no disclosure of existing federal, state resource agency co ments relative to such project impacts. 17-86-19 4-81, re Bonita Canyon reservoir, Who is and who will be responsible for maintaining the reservoir and dam and its associated functions? Does the dam meet current state seismic 7-86-20 standards? If not, who will assume responsibility for this? Who owns the dam and reservoir site now and will ownership change? 4-84, Once again mitigation measures are listed without a specific plan related to the specific impacts of this project. There is no disclosure of how effective mitigation measures are in making up for wetland losses and no recognition of the scientific literature 7-86-21 (see Zedler) which shows the severe shortcomings of such measures, i.e. level of functional equivalency of constructed or artificial marx - 3 wetlands, interim losses, time scale by which to judge meeting of objectives, responsiblity for monitoring and/or maintenance and for redoing measures that may fail. This issue has been raised repeatedly by this reviewer, others in past hearings, comments. It 7-86-21 is the responsibility of the project proponent, not the state and federal resource agencies, to mitigate the impacts of the project. 4-118, Section 4.14. Please disclose where clear grading has already occurred along the Corridor alignment, what impacts such grading has had and how impacts from such grading have or have not 7.86-22 been mitigated. Please reveal comments made by federal, state resource agencies related to incidents of such grading. Re mitigation measures, please indicate if construction activity will be limited to the dry season to reduce storm runoff, siltation 7-86-23 impacts. Re section 14-8, how will capacity of landfill to handle other projected wasteloads be impacted by volume of excess fill material? Will a fee be charged on disposal of excess fill 7-86-24 material or will other users of landfill share this burden. 7-4, Once again mitigation of wetland losses is assumed without any specific plan for the specific impacts of this project 7-86-25 revealed or recognition of limits to enhance or replace wetlands disclosed. See also comments 4-84. 11-0, See comments S-6. Once again, a rather elaborate enumeration of public participation is listed without acknowledging the many critical issues identified by community, environmental groups 7-86-26 and concerned citizens and unwillingness to respond to their written and oral comments. 11-9, This section`alludes to consultation with federal, state resource agencies such as the USFWS without revealing their 7-86-27 comments, concerns related to the project. Some persons listed as being consulted "in preparing the EIR/EIS" have not been with the agencies listed for over three years and more. Appendix A. page 12-13 Please explain why constructive use of Upper Newport Bay will not be impacted by loss of links with 7-86-28 habitats such as Bonita Canyon? See also comments Technical Report 5. Figure J-7 on. These figures should be dated. 17-86-29 Figure J-15, This figure defective because of over -exposure. 17-86-30 Figure J-16, Where is the Corridor? ' 7-86-31 Volume 1, Technical studies Page 23, Geotechnical Study, first paragraph. last sentence. Please identify the areas, nearby structures that could be 7-86-32 impacted by blasting. page 12, Water quality analysis. Please disclose effectiveness of Vr`6 -8-33 similiar mitigation measures already installed to protect Upper Newp Bay. 3 marx - 4 Volume 2, Technical studies Technical Report 5, page 72. This section on mitigation measures suffers from the same defects referred to on comments related to 7-86-34 pages 3-7, 4-70, 4-84 and 7-4 of draft EIR/EIS. page 70, section on Bonita Creek. This section acknowledges that "the loss of Bonita Creek constitute (sic) a significant unaviodable adverse impact." This loss is not adequately identified as to species impacted and impact on animals in Upper 7-86-35 Newport Bay. Because later mitigation measures listed are so vague an generalized, there is no adequate disclosure of whether such a loss will be or can be effectively replaced. Technical Report 8. Page 4, last paragraph. Re developer fees levied one time only, does this preclude reassessment for mitigation costs, inflation, property acquisition, cost overruns, 7-86-36 construction failures? Or does this burden fall on building permits yet to be issued . . . or toll payers? Page 5, first paragraph, What recourse do bond holders have if TCA is unable through tolls to retire bonds or there is a bond default? Could ownership of the Corridor revert to the bond 7-86-37 holders? Under what circumstances could Orange County and State of California be responsible for assuming debt service of bonds? Could the "identified constraint" influence the feasability and 17-86-38 staging of mitigation measures? Under what circumstances can the I7-86-39 need to raise toll revenues influence the number and density of building projects to be served by Corridor? To what degree could a 17-86-40 building slowdown impact toll revenue projections? Please disclose the soutce(s) of statements, conclusions attributed to the "bond market" here and throughout document. What bond firms were 7-86-41 contacted and/or relied upon for such conclusions? page 17. Do the cost estimates include interest costs 17-86-42 on bonds? What portion of the costs are allocated for environmental mitigation measures? (7-86-43 page 43, The willingness to delay construction of HOV lanes seems inconsistent with claims elsewhere in the draft that HOV lanes can mitigate air quality impacts. The measures to mitigate the delay in HOV construction are not an adequate substitute. Some of these 7-86-44 measures -- such as monitoring of traffic levels -- would occur regardless of HOV issue. In summary, the reviewer has serious concerns over the adequacy and full disclosure of this draft document and its standing under CEQA and NEPA. T-86-45 Ll • 4 • • Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME I`�o, Pc DATE 40 _ 3: 2SPtvl/.aa �,m drap, ADDRESS I4.33 AFFILIATION CITY, Zip l.o.crurno.ac�, C1�-loSl PH. # (Optional) - Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: I GALA/ affAk-0�6 ^._ 1 3 3-t-t-. jy�\D _ ry : (Continue comments on balQhis pag�e.4o submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 ninere TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp Y COMMENTS CONTINUED r*\`cnJer os)acmz, -�n af4- 0- Cn k ►�\' L� cm C a c �o S e e ivjL 1 D11 CDac)L : - 1-D CV f� co �-E- a � S ems- -�- m61� VN 01 it November 20, 1990 Mr. Steve Letterly qti ECEIVED NOV 2 6 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies t 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: Comment upon the Draft Environmental Report/Environmental Impact Statement for State Route 73 Extension, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (FHWA-AC-EIS-90-2D, Sch. No. 90010230, TCA EIR/EIS 1) Dear Mr. Letterly: I greatly appreciate this opportuni-y for public comment on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corr3 dor DEIR/DEIS and for the TCA's extension of the comment period upon the documents. I have a number specific remarks keyed primarily to Volume II and other more general comments. It is my opinion that this DEIR/DEIS document is not legally adequate for compliance with either CEQA or NEPA, and that only with the collection of additional data through more fieldwork over at the least an annual cycle and with a 7-88-1 thorough cumulative treatment of the Foothill Corridor, the Eastern Corridor and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor as a coordinated system (i.e., these projects are so intimately .; connected that they are one; their impact;3 interrelate extensively ,and require cumulative examination) can tzis analysis be raised to a level of minimal compliance with the guiding state and federal standards. Mitigation measures :nadequately ameliorate environmental impacts, and the biologcal setting is poorly 7 -88-2 characterized. The results of relevant studies of sensitive species at earlier stages of Corridor analysis for different alignments, particularly studies of the California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren, are omitted in areas of alignment overlap where sensitive species were found to occur - producing a deceptive portrait of the habitats to receive direct impact by the project. (For example, in Volume II, Fig. 4.7.4. omitted from this map of 7.88-3 biological resources - but present in other Corridor related studies which include this site - are two gnatcatcher territories and a cactus wren locality in or adjacent to the ROW; in 4.7.5. there are four gnatcatchers inside and one adjacent to the ROW which are not included; in 4.7.6. there aYe two gnatcatcher records along the ROW boundary that are not mapped; and in 4.7.3. five gnatcatcher records and several cactus u ren sites in or near the ROW are absent from the map, and at this site grading along the alignment dating back to January, 1989 ( or earlier) has occurred 7-88-4 which eliminated sensitive species' habi`:it, though it is baffling how this could occur prior to CEQA and PEPA process completion.) In summary, a supplemental sequence of studies including more biological research on issues which ti,-e fundamental to the influence of this project upon the enviro iment, the development of 7-88-5 far more realistic and comprehensive mitigative efforts, and complete cumulative treatment of the unified corridor system areT7.88-5 necessary to meet both federal and state legal standards. It should be clearly stated as well that there appear to be cases of project development prior to the completion of either CEQA or NEPA process (as mentioned above). I request a formal third party investigation of the entire Corridor alignment to completely 7-88-6 document the dates, extent, timing and responsibility for all pre - state and federal process habitat disturbance, clearing or grading. The responsible developing agencies or private parties should receive full prosecution for these non -compliances, and complete mitigation for all habitat lost should be required (if sites disturbed by illegal actions prior to CEQA/NEPA process completion 7.88-7 are selected for the final alignment following the legal process, complete mitigation for the site should 1gain be required, as if the prior non -complying disturbance had not occurred). If any public monies are being expended or will be expended on the project, then the funding agencies should be fully informed of illegal activities (if the blue-ribbon investigation reveals that non -compliant actions occurred, which seem obvious in the field). I would hope that such actions would be met with punitive response 7-88-8 (such as the elimination of federal or state contributions, fining, mandated and fully functional mitigation before ceritification of the CEQA/NEPA document, and so forth). The DEIR/DEIS does not cite the University of California, Irvine's Long Range Development Plan (as well as subsequent .research on campus biological resources) which clearly indicates 7-88-9 , 'the presence of Dudleya multicaulis, Turkish Rugging, nesting `,gnatcatchers, and cactus wrens all within the Corridor ROW on • •campus lands. In fact, the most current ROW map appears ksignificantly expanded (compared with the DEIR/DEIS map) in its 'intrusion into campus lands, specifically into UCI's Ecology `Preserve. This area of the campus was se'- aside in the Long Range `Plan 7-88-10 as mitigation for campus develoQ•en , thus the Corridor directly destroys land which has already been dedicated as mitigation for another project. Futhermors, candidate species of plants and animals are documented for th:.s site in CEQA documents' 7-88-11 available to the public - but which are not cited! Nor was the campus contacted until late in the review process (final maps were not provided until mid -November) with the change in ROW width at 7-88-12 the most ecologically sensitive site on the Main Campus. YBiological information was not solicited, nor did Corridor `consultants adequately survey the landF slated for destruction 7-88-13 `(though University consultants were able to find many sensitive ''species in this high quality coastal sage scrub). Grading, allegedly for the Pelican Hills Road, but extending far beyond the Pelican Hills roadcut has already occurred. One can only conclude 7-88-14 'that this is another site where Corridor grading has occurred. Recreational bulldozing outside the ROW in the Ecology Preserve during the grading caused further needless degradation to an area 7-88-IS already dedicated to mitigating an already approved project (the UCI LRDP). The extended ROW now also expands noise isobars of CNL much further into areas approved for residential development - and 7-88-16 also into habitat now supporting gnatcatct.er territories and cactus wrens. Complete onsite mitigation in t:he form of coastal sageJ7-88-17 scrub replacement should be mandatory at this site (ratios to be discussed below). The mitigation of UCIIIs LRDP has been very T7-88-17 significantly diminished, and complete mitigative upgrading must occur. I adamantly disagree with the suggestion that complete avoidance of the Bonita Canyon wetlands across Bonita from the UCI Ecology Preserve is in the best interest of the biology of this area. The presence of Turkish Rugging, Dudleya multicaulis, nesting gnatcatchers, and cactus wrens - as well an extraordinarily 7.88-18 high quality stand of coastal sage scrub and a rich saxicolous lichen community (Bowler and Riefner, 1990), now mangled - are far more significant in my opinion than the equivalent acreage of Bonita Canyon itinerant wetlands. I urge altering the ROW at this site and leaving the rest of the Ecology Preserve alone, instead swinging slightly into the Bonita wetlands. The California Drive Bridge over San Diego Creek which will be 17-88-19 constructed to extend California Drive is absent in all figures reflecting future roading, traffic projections, and so forth. This is a significant flaw not only because it denies the ability to 7-88-20 accurately predict traffic at the critical junction and maze of streets at the San Diego Creek crossing, but also because the cumulative and direct impact of the Corridor bridge over the San Diego Creek estuary cannot be accurately portrayed without California also appearing as another future impact (on listed 7-88-21 endangered species such as the California Least Tern and Light Footed Clapper Rail, as well as wildlife corridor flow along San Diego Creek, currently unimpeded by the proposed bridges and their impacts). The Corridor Bridge must be sufficiently elevated, even arching, (preferably as high as MacArthur, not low, like Jamboree) so that it damages as little vegetation as possible under it; the area beneath the bridge should be wide enough for easy wildlife 7-88_22 passage (preferably several hundred feet long and at a minimum 20 feet in depth), designed and vegetated for wildlife concealment. It should also have features attractive to cliff swallows for nesting (similar to MacArthur and Campus Drive Bridges). If there is a way of baffling the noise on the bridge so that it is deflected from 7-88-23 penetrating the adjacent wetlands, such design features should be included in the final bridge design. It should similarly be noted that no traffic loads at all are cited for California Drive where it joins with University Drive South (much less the future loads when it extends across the Creek). This junction of complex roadways - Jamboree Bridge, the Corridor Bridge, MacArthur Bridge, University Drive South,' 7-88-24 University Drive North, California Drive-nder planned UCI growth, California Bridge, and so forth - and its Qumulative biological and traffic impacts must be carefully examined. Traffic loads and biological influences of all of these reads and their ramps are absolutely and directly relevant and must be address in the Corridor FEIR/FEIS. Analysis of impact upon the California Least Tern, Light Footed Clapper Rail, and the significance of the existing wildlife corridor for predator flow into the San Joaquin Wetlands (curtailing mesopredator explosion and :he establishment of red 7-88-25 foxes in the wetlands, see Soule, et. al., 1988) are omitted from the document. This is a significant analytical deficiency which -prevents the document from achieving legal adequacy under both CEQAT7-88-25 and NEPA. The impacts of the non-native red fox upon Least Tern and Clapper Rail populations in the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Center habitat is very well documented. Red foxes have been recorded in the Delhi Channel, disturbingly near the Back Bay. It is inexcusable to ignore predator flow, wildlife corridor function and these federally listed species - especially since Dr. W. Bretz, in 7-88-26 his comments representing the University of California's Natural Reserve System (a State Trustee Agency) made these points in his previous comments on earlier corridor documents for this site. The San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve is directly dependent upon large predators (coyotes in particular) to control mesopredator populations and prevent establishment of red foxes in the wetland. The ecological effects of this bright line across and through topography and ecosystems can be compared with that which must have been caused by the Great Wall of China. It is a profound barrier to non -flying organisms. A five foot high fence will not exclude 7-88-27 deer, but would surely establish the Corridor as a killing ground, since they would not have room to get a run to jump back out of the alignment. A fence twelve feet in height. or higher would be more functional in excluding deer. The entire manner in which wildlife corridors and -undercrossings are treated is inadequate and trivializes a profound "-impact through data which are not included or available (deer 'movement studies, for example), but also through a lack of '<comprehending and articulating the basic concepts involved. As :Beier (1990) stated so well, "The 'wildlife corridor' concept is often used used without any clear definition. A wildlife corridor is a -piece of habitat with vegetation and topography that facilitate the movements of plants and animals from 1 large patch of suitable 'habitat to another large patch of suitable habitat. Corridors help maintain biological diversity in 3 wa:ys, corresponding to 3 different time scales: 1. In the long term, corridors allow populations to maintain genetic diversity. Without corridors, small populations in isolated patches suffer inbreeding because individuals are forced 7.88.28 to mate with close relatives. 2. In the short term, corridors; prevent extinction by allowing males and females to meet and bri ed with each other. This is especially important for animals like cougars that live at low density. If no corridors are provided, we.can (and do) end up with —situations in which unconnected habitat patches have only a few individuals of the same sex. 3. In the intermediate time scale, corridors allow vacant habitat patches to be recolonized. In any small area, small populations of any plant or animal species frequently become extinct; this is a natural phenomenon, apart from human disturbance. These extinctions are remedied by recolonization from adjacent areas if there is a corridor to allow animals to get between the 2 areas. The word 'corridor' itself is perhaps unfortunate because it is often used to mean a hallway or conduit. This would imply that anything big enough for the animals to walk through is a corridor. However, for most plants and many animals; (especially less mobile species) 'moving across the landscape' requires several generations. This means that the corridor works only if the animal or plant can live and reproduce there. For example, a mile -long corridor does not serve as a conduit for mice or cottontails or lizards if it is too narrow for those animals to live and reproduce 7.88-28 there. This also means there must be enough space to find some animals of the opposite sex with which to breed. For some species, it will not be necessary for a corridor to provide breeding space, but at a minimum it must provide cover, freedom from disturbance, and something for the animal to eat so that the animal has some motivation to enter the corridor. In summary, a wildlife corridor is a chunk of habitat enabling plants and animals to move from 1 large patch of suitable land to another, even if this requires several generations. It must often provide a home for the animals. It is not a narrow strip of land that we dare an animal to cross." Without studies clearly identifying existing and potential wildlife corridors and mitigative provision to maintain them permanently in a fully functional condition, the DEIR/DEIS is deficient. Suitable mitigation, as Beier (1990) has suggested, must include complete rim -to -rim protection of all canyons crossed by the project 7.88-29 (especially Bommer and Sand Canyon, as well as all smaller canyons which could be bridged; .filling should not occur for this project where there would be opportunity for bridging). As Beier (1990) concludes, "I want to emphasize that again that a corridor is more than a narrow strip of land that we dare wildlife to dash through. It would be a pathetic mistake to leave a narrow strip of land a couple of hundred feet wide and -call it a 'wildlife corridor.' The conservation easements (for habitats to be preserved) or land `purchases should be 'rim -to -rim' protection of the canyons included." As described in this document, the wildlife undercrossing concept is not likely to function and seems absurd. It stretches credibility to suggest that deer or bobcat (or mountain lion) would 7.88-30 utilize mine -shaft like tunnels up to F80 feet long (requiring penetrating a grate to enter and exit). .animals which enter would be easy prey for waiting predators. In the night or pre -light hours of dawn when much wildlife movement occurs, it is unlikely that they would enter such a cavern (shafts to allow natural light would 7.88-31 do little good during nocturnal or pre -dawn activity periods; Beier (1990) suggests that this could merely allow animal -alarming sounds into the tunnel; quoted below). Such tunnels, however,17-88-32 might be good havens for bats and could be used by owls if perches) were provided. Slanted entrances as figured ..would allow rain runoff to fill portions of the tunnels - further jeopardizing their utility. Beier (1990) provides an excellent discussion of this 7-88-33 issue, which I include because it clearly needs to be heard by the TCA: "Bridges versus Culverts. As part of my (Beier's), current work, I have spent many hours observing animal tracks in culverts and underpasses, and I can state with confidence that mule deer is the wildlife species that requires the largest underpass. 7-88-34 Therefore TCA should design its wildlife corridors to accommodate this species. To my knowledge (Beier's), the only published study relating to use of culverts by deer is that of Reed, at al. (1975: Journal of Wildlife Management 39: 361-367). Reed studied migratory mule deer in Colorado, which mus-t cross highways to get to summer range; despite their strong motivation to cross the road, 40% of these deer either stayed on poorer winter range or risked 7-88-34 running through freeway traffic rather than use a culvert 10 feet in height and width. The non -migratory mule deer in Orange County would presumably be even more reluctant to use a culvert. In my work in Orange County I have never observed deer tracks in any culvert, up to the maximum observed size of 25 feet in width and 12 feet in height. A culvert is not an acceptable means to allow deer movement. Culverts are also rarely used by cougars. In 3 cases I documented cougars approaching the Ortega Highway along a drainage that led directly to a large culvert (2 cases involved the culvert - big enough to drive through -where Dead Bull Canyon crosses under the Ortega near the Caspers entrance gate; the 3rd case involved 7.88-35 the large Cold Springs box culvert). In all 3 cases, the cougar left the drainage and crossed over the Ortega Highway on the road and then dropped into San Juan Creek. In contrast, cougars accept bridges readily, and regularly walk under the San Juan Creek Bridge within Caspers Park. The study of Reed, at al. (cited above) and my observations .suggest several features critical for the success of a wildlife ,underpass: All bridges for wildlife movements should be at least 20 feet fin height and as long as possible. The underpass should also have -�a dirt (not concrete) floor. Fencing shot ld be used to funnel deer 7-88-36 • the underpass and away from the road. There should also be _toward -native woody vegetation growing up to and within the underpass. .Finally, skylights (including those accidentally formed by a gap 'between traffic lanes) should be avoided because they admit additional traffic noise" (Beier, 1990). Elevated roadway segments with hundreds of feet of open area beneath the freeway are the only chance of establishing potentially 7-88-37 functional wildlife movement corridors. The elevated bridges along the Big Sur coast might be good models to examine. In terms of mitigation opportunity for this alignment, there should be rim -to -rim elevated highway sections bridging every span 7-88-38 possible along., the alignment, rather than filling small canyons ,(see discussion above). In fact, raised bridges might make even more opportunities for ;wildlife movement across smaller canyon heads. Critical to .;wildlife movement would be rim to rim bridges across Bommer and Sand Canyons, with a sweeping elevated highway from a high .elevation (over the oaks) through Laguna Canyon to the Sycamore 7-88-39 Hills ridgeline. Design features in the bridges should be examined to explore the possibility of using the bridges as roosts for bats or other wildlife (for example, the Canpus Drive and MacArthur Bridges sustain large aggregations of cliff swallow nests). Presenting a non-functional recommendation such as the 7-88-40 tunnels has nothing to do with actually mitigating a predictable (inevitable) impact. A further flaw which must see correction in the FEIR/FEIS isj7-88-41� that there is no cited document or study upon which base placement of wildlife corridors. In summary, the discussion -of wildlife movement is inadequate, and the EIR/EIS should not be certified until a study is conducted 7-88-41 to elucidate what movement patterns are - especially in the context of what will remain as future open space. (Previous studies - if they exist - prior to the Irvine Coast development cannot document what is happening now. Similarly, new studies must define how the deer population will respond to the removal of cattle from Laguna Canyon; it is probable that use by and numbers of deer will increase in Laguna Canyon when cattle grazing is terminated and the 7-88-42 forage base begins its recovery. This potential should be examined in a new, i.e. current conditions with :the cattle removed, and objective study extending over at least an annual cycle. Bobcat and coyote movement patterns and home ranges are. similarly not17-88-43 examined in the document, though they must be *in the Final EIR/EIS.) Based on these studies, mitigations must be designed which include purchase and preservation of entire canyons for 7-88-44 wildlife corridor purposes, with bridges that function in terms of allowing wildlife to use them. There is no real mitigation for the loss of gnatcatcher and cactus wren habitat or sites where Dudleya multicaulis occurs. As' was discussed above there are numerous examples along the alignment of identified gnatcatcher territories which do not appear on the maps in this document. The shallow analysis (focused only on the habitat actually excised, rather than a broader examination extending perhaps a mile or more on each side - providing a true 7-88-45 ecological context for predicting the effects of such a separative barrier) delineating only habitat directly lost does little for the true implications of erecting a baffle through sensitive habitat. Questions of sources and sinks (Pulliam, 1988) cannot be addressed by the data-depauperate approach used in this document, yet they are among the most profound results which could be anticipated. Coastal sage scrub is now viewed as an endangered habitat (Westman, 1987; Bowler, 1990a; Bowler and Riefner, 1990; O'Leary,- 1990), and many researchers are now recommending a moratorium on any further loss of this habitat type and the institution of "no net loss in quantity or quality" concept, similar to that now in place for wetlands (Bowler, 1990a). As Beier (1990), aptly elucidated, "Coastal sage scrub is a habitat type as endangered as the tropical rainforests that so doming:e media attention. It exists only in 6 southern California covnties, where development 7-88-46 has already removed almost all of it. The (Foothill Transportation Corridor) DEIR estimates that 90% of the CSS in San Diego County has been destroyed. The California Dept. of Forestry's FRRAP (Forest and Range Resources Assessment Program, 1987) estimates that 15,784 acres (24 square miles) of this habitat was lost to development in Orange County alone during 1945-1980 (35 years), and that almost this much (13,409 acres or 20 square miles) was lost during the decade 1980-89. The latter rate represents 2 square miles per year for Orange.County alone." "Mitigation" for the loss of coastal sage scrub is difficult because this is a very slow -growing, fire -adapted, upland 7-88-47 Mediterranean shrubland community with a species composition that ,shifts over longterm cycles. For example, an initial peak in species richness occurs in the first seven years following a burn and includes many fire -tracking species; a second rise in species richness occurs between 15 and 25 years following a burn in an established community and comprises many species which are rare 7-88-47 understory annual herbs (see Westman, 1987; Bowler, 1990a for further discussion). Thus, recreating lost habitat could require very longterm commitments to restoration - lasting 15, 25 or even more years, and could require planned burns to increase species diversity. I urge an outright moratorium on the elimination of any high quality stands and if badly disturbed stands are sacrificed, 7-88-48 off -site purchase of replacement high quality stands at a 2:1 ratio (preserved:eliminated); if habitat creation is used as a mitigation, then longterm (25 years at least, with clearly defined species richness, aspect and other community characteristic goals; see Bowler, 1990a) stewarding at a ratio of 4:1 (restored to destroyed) should be used because this is a completely experimental endeavour at this point. Beier (1990) summarizes these thoughts very well: "...If 'creation of new habitat at a ratio acceptable to 7-88-49 CDFG and USFWS' is used (as mitigation for CSS losses to the Foothill Corridor), this ratio must be at least 4:1 to allow for our uncertain ability to create high quality CSS on sites where it `does not already exist. Sites for this experiment should be selected, taking into consideration the historical ,carefully ,vegetation at the site, and the character of adjacent �habitats....If acquisition and management of existing habitat off - 4site is selected, it should be implemented to assure 'no more than -''33% net loss of habitat quality' for CSS. 'Habitat Quality' should ,be measured by the presence of species, such as gnatcatchers and .,cactus wrens, that are dependent on the CSS habitat type. TCA ;should survey the project area in detail for these 2 species, and `fund a study using marked birds to determine how many gnatcatchers and cactus wrens will be displaced by tha FTC. They should then 7-88-50 buy land (or conservation easements to land) off -site that is currently occupied by at least twice that number of cactus wrens or gnatcatchers. This land must be contiguous with other high -quality CSS, and the acreage purchased (even if of higher quality) must be no smaller than twice the acreage of CSS destroyed" (see Bramlet, 1987 and Bowler, 1990a for further discussion). Visual and aesthetic degradation, both in terms of the ugliness of the roadway (not adequately landscaped with nativel7-88-51 `shrubs) and the influence of night -lights are not addressed to CEQA 'and NEPA level compliance. In terms of the "landscaping" of the ;Corridor and the planting of upland -plant species (coastal sage .scrub species) along the graded sides of the freeway, only locally .derived seeds or cuttings should be used, not stock from other 7-88-52 areas. Freeway native plant landscaping and plantings along the embankments should be done, but should not be given any mitigation credit for replacing natural communities. The impacts of night - lights upon wildlife are not discussed. It is likely that this 7_88-53 would extend the halo of man's light -shadow through this road a very substantial distance at night. Similarly, the impacts of noise upon wildlife (and as it I7-88-54 degrader of man's experience in this now aurally pristine area) are,�l. ,,,� not truly addressed - especially the amphitheater effect canyons produce. Laguna Canyon will throb with the noise from this roadway 7-88-54 as vehicles descend from the canyon rim tc the bottom of the basin. It is a natural sounding board, and wildlife is sensitive to noise levels far below those generated by the project (anything over around 6OCNL has the potential to severely disrupt behavior). Thus, the noise isobars are, for many species,, a demarcation line of severe project impact. This should be addressed in a realistic way 7-88-55 in the final documents; just because the bulldozer doesn't happen to excise a patch of coastal sage scrub doesn't mean that sensitive (and other more common) species can function in it at noise levels above 6OCNL (they'll probably retreat to more quiet habitat). This auditory isobar should also require mitigation for habitat which is functionally lost. With this in mind, added habitat mitigation, I7-88-56 must be calculated in the FEIR?FEIS. The freeway as proposed will sit on what amounts to an enormous dam in terms of air flow into the canyon. Anyone who has driven it in the winter can witness the fog which hangs in a low- 7.88.57 lying layer. This kind of micro -cell airflow and thermal pattern will be terminated, with attendant alterations of the local microclimate. Without doubt this will alter the plant communities on the slopes inland of the freeway. This should be studied, 7-88-58 characterized, and mitigated (with an elevated roadway - the only plausible amelioration). The results of habitat fragmentation and isolation are only cursorily treated. Without a thorough portrayal of the ecosystem 17-88-59 surrounding the alignment, no real analysis can be developed. The true implications of habitat fragmentation for coastal sage scrub in this area are inadequately grasped. As the northern range extension of Deigan coastal sage scrub, there are many 7-88-60 intriguing disjuncts (both north and south in the ranges of various species) northern range limits, and so forth, which are missed in such a shallow treatment. ` This roadway degrades elements of the area which were found to.' be of national significance in the national Park Service analysis of the site in the late 197Os. These losses of nationally 7-88-61 significant natural heritage should be honestly presented by reviewing the documents developed by the RPS during their surveys. The Crystal Cove State Park is degraded by this roadway, a 17-88-62 fact which should be admitted as a regional reduction in the quality of the public domain in this state park. This freeway 17-88-63 similarly degrades other public domain viewsheds throughout the San Joaquin Hills and Laguna Canyon. Laguna Canyon must now be considered future parkland, so that there is a very unfortunate and significant degradation of magnificent new parkland at this site as well. This is in direct conflict with the Federal 4F Rule, and it is baffling to understand how federal funding can be applied to a 7-88-64 freeway which degrades an existing state park, open space in the City of Irvine, Laguna Beach's Sycamore Hills parkland (the Jim Dilley Wilderness Park), and which bisects a public parkland voted in by an 80% majority of the voters in Laguna Beach. Partial "mitigation" for the visual and aural despoiling of Crystal Cove 7-88-65 State Park would be the purchase of the "Moro Sliver Development," the pocket of land above North Laguna, and the transference of ownership to the State Park System. Similarly the purchase of theT7-88-65 development slated for the upper area of Bommer Canyon should be accomplished as mitigation and transferred to City of Irvine open)7-88-66 space management. In Laguna Canyon, at least 75% of the new Laguna Canyon parkland within the viewshed of the Corridor should be17-88-67 purchased and ownership transferred to the City of Laguna Beach. The Corridor is an ugly, noisy, polluting eyesore which would truly 1 7-88-68 degrade every parkland user's experience in perpetuity. The reality is that there is no mitigation for this road; thel7-88-69 recommended purchases in no way mitigate this project's impacts to the parks to insignificance. From the perspective of both human restorative experience in the parks and from a biological viewpoint - in which I concur wholeheartedly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 7.88.70 Service's conclusion, the "no build alternative" is clearly far superior to the proposed project, regardless of the extent of mitigation. There is no mitigation for the loss of southern oak woodland in the swath to be cut by the road (especially through Laguna 7-88.71 Canyon), just as there is no mitigaticn for the loss of high quality coastal sage scrub in the San Joaquin Hills. I disagree with the dominant use of soil character in the determination of riparian habitat, as emphasized in this document; awith an estimated 95 to 97% of our natural floodplain wetlands now ,.lost in southern California, we should err in favor of the environment in our interpretation of what is a wetland. Because of <the artificial nature of many of our runoff situations (which 4 nonetheless possess willow woodland and other riparian vegetation) , 7.88.72 ,,the soils are not always indicative of what we should be calling a riparian habitat. Regardless of whether the Corps, Fish and Game, for USFWS interpretations differ, we should rely on whichever system :gives the environment the most liberal mitigation benefit. I urge using soils, natural landforms (water formed land features) and vegetation in concert, with any of them being able to trigger no net loss mitigation (see Bowler, 1990b for further discussion). There are a number of organisms which are completely omitted from the biological surveys. Just as an example, this area of the San Joaquin Hills very probably supports populations of landsnails whose true status is not known, but which are declining as coastal 7-88-73 habitat is destroyed. Helminthoglypta tudiculata occurs at a site on the bluffs near the San Joaquin Marsh, but is locally in decline. The populations of native landsnails which would be ,bisected by the project should be surveyed during the correct time lof year. Similarly, the status of species such as Perognathus longimembris, known from the San Joaquin Hills from a number of research projects by UCI graduate students, needs to be determined 7-88-74 in this area (and throughout the range; this could well be a species which should be listed as threatened or endangered). There are many other examples. Roberts' (1990) listing of rare plants should have been cited, and AU species regarded by CNPS as 7-88-75 sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered should have been very carefully studied and functional mitigation (if feasible) proposed for losses to each. The air pollution in canyons such as Laguna Canyon will.be 7-88-76 significant as there is poor air circulation (particularly durng early morning commuting hours when fog hangs in the canyon close to the ground). This should be carefully examined considering the traffic loads to be carried by the new roadway. If one of the 7-88-76 goals of the project is to encourage carpooling - thus reduce pollution caused by single -occupant vehicles - why not dedicate all lanes to carpools? In Laguna Canyon the roadfill upon which the freeway will sit will effectively eliminate the shallow subsurface water flow now sustaining a unique fen -like wetland in the lower canyon. It is probable that down -gradient wetland habitat on the east side of 7-88-77 Laguna Canyon Road will perish as a result (the stretch between the Corridor crossing and E1 Toro Road). The entire. discussion of Laguna Canyon wetlands should be done again with less ass -covering and more objective science. The overall impacts of the road will now be more profound because of the removal of the Laguna Laurel project from Laguna Canyon (thus the road will erode many values of what amounts to a wild setting - despite the presence of Laguna Canyon Road, which is not even visible from large areas of the Canyon the Corridor will 7-88-78 be dominantly viewed). This new condition must be described. The traffic load of Laguna Canyon Road and Corridor in the canyon must be re -analyzed in the face of the elimination of Laguna Laurel. Mitigation sites and monitoring regimes are poorly defined. They must be clearly delineated in the FEIR. 17-88-79 The concept of transforming Bonita Creek into a channelized/piped non -wetland is unacceptable. The Bonita Creek corridor must be designed to allow wildlife movement from the Back Bay area to the *open space areas of the San Joaquin Hills interior, which mandates a functional passage :ender the Corridor and different design for the Bonita Creek channel. I urge using the San Diego Creek channel adjacent UCI as a broad model, with the creek meandering through a dirt (not lined) channel and with the 7-88:80 walls stepping down on each side in a gentle bench at least 60 to 80 or more feet wide on each side. The benches and gently sloping walls of the channel must be vegetated with low upland species (coastal sage scrub elements, see Bontrager, 1990) and the streambed area lined with riparian elements ranging from Baccharis, to Salix spp., to reeds or cattails. A 300 foot setback on both sides of the streamchannel (when possible; clearly topgraphy will limit the setback in places) will sustain this as the necessary wildlife corridor it is. I disagree with using Aliso Creek as a mitigation area for wetland habitat replacement, since habitat losses to the existing Baccharis wetland from the proposed mitigation bank outweigh any benefit (see Bowler, 1990b). Fig. 3. An alternative must be presented in which E1 Toro Road would end at the Corridor and be removed entirely in its terminal segment (rather than extend to Laguna Canyon Road). In a twisted sense this would be a mitigative feature cf the Corridor, providing 7-88-81 an expansion open-space.more effectively linking Sycamore Hills ,:of and the access to Aliso Canyon. Provision for functional wildlife movement must be made for crossing under the Corridor and Laguna Canyon Road. Aliso Creek Road will not extend from E1 Toro Road to Laguna • Canyon Road. This has been opposed by Conservation groups and the 7-88-82 City of Laguna Beach. Fig. 4 (Vol II). Illegal grading of the Corridor should be figured in the FEIR. This grading prior to E--R/EIS certification has eliminated nesting California gnatcatcher habitat at many sites, as 7-88-83 well as high quality coastal sage scrub and numerous sensitive species - plus this kind of activity is cynically motivated and blatantly illegal. Fig. 5 and others. Match lines do not appear on some figures and cannot be matched on others. Some of the figures are out of order, 7-88-84 making reading the sequence difficult. Some three thousand feet of the Corridor are absent from the documents habitat maps of the proposed alignment!!! This is unbelievable, and by itself would justify a supplemental and 7-88-85 hopefully more coherent presentation of mapped biological resources. p. 55. Why were surveys not conducted to determine if two candidate endangered bat species, the spctted bat and the greater mastiff bat, use this area? Aural bat detectors can easily survey 7-88-86 such an area, and it is not legally adequate to ignore these candidate endangered mammals. 'p. 76. The California Least Tern does forage within the Corridor 'ROW on San Diego Creek, and the channel is also a corridor for -movement of Light Footed Clapper Rails between the Back Bay and San 7-88-87 Joaquin Marsh habitats. These listed endangered species must be cited and impacts characterized and mitigated to insignificance. Thank you again for the opportunity for comment. I look foward to examining a NEPA and CEQA compliant document which 7.88.88 includes the studies and mitigations I have requested. Sincerely, C-2 Peter. Bowler, Ph.D. Residence: 560 St. Anns Drive Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Literature Cited Beier, P. October 4, 1990. Letter of comment on the Foothill Transportation Corridor, addressed to the Transportation Corridor Agencies. Bontrager, D. 1990. Ecological Landscaping: Creating Habitat in Suburban California Gardens and Public Landscapes. pp. 26-35. In Bryant, P.J. and J. Remington (eds.). Endangered Wildlife and 46 Habitats in Southern California. Memoirs of the Natural History Foundation of Orange County, Volume 3. Bowler, P.A. 1990a. Coastal Sage Scrub Restoration - I. The Challenge of Mitigation. Restoration and Management Notes (in press) . Bowler, P.A. 1990b. Riparian Woodland: An Endangered Habitat in Southern California. pp. 80-97. ;Ln Schoenherr, A.A. (ed.). Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication No. 3. Bowler, P.A. and R. Riefner. 1990. A Preliminary Lichen Checklist for the University of California, Irvine campus and the San Joaquin Wetlands. Crossosoma 16(6): 1-10. Bramlet, D.E. 1987. Developing requirements for native plant revegetation programs. Zn Rieger, J.P. and B.K. Williams (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Native Plant Revegetation Symposium. Society of Ecological Restoration and Management. O'Leary, J. 1990. California Coastal Sage Scrub: General Characteristics and Considerations for Biological Conservation. pp. 24-41. In Schoenherr, A.A. (ed.). Endangered Plant Communities in Southern California. Southern California Botanists Special Publication No. 3. Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, Sinks, and Population Regulation. The American Naturalist 132(5): 652-661. Roberts, F.M. 1990. Rare and endangered plants of Orange County. Crossosoma 16(2)": 12. Soule, M.E., D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sourice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed Dynamics of Rapid Extinctions of Chaparral -Requiring Birds in Urban Habitat Islands. Conservation Biology 2(1): 75-92. Westman, W.E. 1987. Implications of Ecological Theory for Rare Plant Conservation in Coastal Sage Scrub. In Elias, T.S. (ed.). Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. L aem.VEO no Pla Print ciearl * COMMENT CARD asQ 1,n .1 NAME /' i''Z2-�� DATE ADDRESSISZ/ %igVrti14,j r1tA. Z , AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP L-4 Uw 9a6SY PH. # (Optional) 'Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO (COMMENT: /T �l/�y'✓ c /h `S�c: ,-;•�, 3 S v/ e W (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 1! lc7ge---- -- -- — - Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 2 �} 7-89-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED U- A uwh • -V4 %EV r1 i/ cdv..-/ cLcn-- (�S 4 I)e-uJ /�yrs c 6-t AeAAJ rvl � -per /e44 b id r T-89-1 o"I Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME N61 � FeP ICJ DATE 11 -2 y 9 0 ADDRESS/-Q/ I t�0►^►''l�c ���. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP !A-U U*v, U C0:?1jt 5�(aS% PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO COMMENT: e ; �Ots c !n S'c c.�i.�•,<< fie :3.Sa..-d �j!.i- tS urz %) .rAj r S Ct I d Li A L! �X—jl t.t r E ��-- (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 Stamp RECErvEp NO, 2 6 19% TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 7-89-2 COMMENTS CONTINUED 0 7/ , a Pofo!Vy! o%r Gt h o lVrr 0 F �s 1 oJ„ � � S� �i.l (� Co ►�,-zc�o�- G�,.� h a f ��cl! 6� 7-89-2 ►--eat.CC e 1-,,n rvu.�,L&,� tit vto L'- C Let rc L Jd,-U w rtd 1 en �O L-L.,&1 ,h e e cLLq �� c� Y� Z_c3�UY �-T /"s•C�c.t !.1 Gi. wL l Qt �e r rt a.�vK tn/ r,,z L J G rh �l G ,-, ,� J ups / t-� L,f cam. 0 RECEIVED NOV 2 6 So Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD DATE NAME ADDRESS /s;/ /,%ZOr✓��nyflc �lr; AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �-e 11 11-' PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: �-- 0-1 3• / vGc.�+ �t— ,yy-ey 7-89-3 7 U // C'J -742) -pre Qh-e rtz 77rrU r� ¢0 4!> COMMENTS CONTINUED of 7W/ is 2..f ce- rev- c- drucJq nn 7-89-3 L)ej ► L • 704+1�, i LLj 4trems 6t 4(? c c ti —� 7-89-4 'Pr IN- o f AL i 1 41) c L ,r, 0 0 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME /fit /�� -�i :.�� DATE 11-. - ADDRESS. - AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP ' PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: There are many questions not fully answered in the Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. For example: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 To-itl nee — — — — — — — — — — — — — = — — — — — — — — — = TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED upon the residents already living in the area near the proposed corridor. Many of these residents already have reached the limit of the noise level (Depending on their residence, there are dBAs of 69-73) which they can tolerate. Some residents would receive no noise barriers to mitigate the increased roar of cars. 2. On Page 5-10 of the EIR, it is indicated that the traffic volume on I-5 would increase from 40,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day. Yet there is no provision for tackling the air pollution which would result from these added vehicle emissions. The cities of Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano have long been proud of their air quality. We want that air quality to be maintained. We want answers to this problem. 7-90-1 7-90-2 As • 0 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME S"i r a c! ;; DATE 1 .1'- T ~ ADDRESS;; cl ** ILIATION CITY, ZIP �-ur4.00,�A,- h` 14:4i 1 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO (COMMENT: There are many questions not fully answered in the Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. For example: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Mio Here -------=--------- TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED upon the residents already living in the area near the proposedl corridor. Many of these residents already have reached the limit of the noise level (Depending on their residence, there are dBAs of 69-73) which they can tolerate. Some residents would receive no noise barriers to mitigate the increased roar of cars. 2. On Page 5-10 of the EIR, it is indicated that the traffic ` volume on I-5 would increase from 40,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day. Yet there is no provision for tackling the air pollution which would result from these added vehicle emissions. The cities of Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano have long been proud of their air quality. We want that air quality to be maintained. We want answers to this problem. 7-90.1 7-90-2 0 i 1 -0 API@as@ Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE I' a� ADDRESS ---,? VAfJ L r AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP 9-)6 9 Z- PH. # (Optional) 4- 7a - 7& /? Please add my name to your mailing list "YES _NO COMMENT: There are many questions not fully answered in the Environmental Impact Report for the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor. For example: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED upon the residents already living in the area near the proposed corridor. Many of these residents already have reached the limit of the noise level (Depending on their residence, there are dBAs of 69-73) which they can tolerate. Some residents would receive no noise barriers to mitigate the increased roar of cars. 2. On Page 5-10 of the EIR, it is indicated that the traffic 4 volume on I-5 would increase from 40,000 to 45,000 vehicles per day. Yet there is no provision for tackling the air pollution which would result from these added vehicle emissions. The cities of Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano have long been proud of their air quality. We want that air quality to be maintained. We want answers to this problem. � �-h�.at.�fi��J�•����s,a%— - --�_z� —� �_�..a--: �- -jai—�.:v 7-90-1 I-90-2 0 Please Print //l Clearly: COMMENT CARD e, NAME �Ir-r• RGIG! He4-t620t DATE d)0 ADDRESS16LD 7,4 /waly" -I)r/`i° AFFILIATION CITY, ZlpAwk,ka, A, 67* 9uoS/PH. (Optional) Vey-033.0 Please add my name to your mailing list YE NO cry -/ Let COM r� Z-t4t i V 140 L1ClI �I�Cf �J e4fv1raa�eo#,'t.�iea i`, l roc lie ve 7-91.2 `i is Oc Coati U4v64 Ta�.hf-J' .c um, . C4•f+rar k a.f- ,bC 6 awa A r J y�s�/�s.� /Y• i r .1041 /S. P&-" t kAWlx441L a AWgt� JYt� i1 FA Np�hOKi k-k+igtr�o- %t%devaQ 1t�b6il�efise iJ GFf Ve GYM ? I 7•91-1 Continue co ents on ba k of this age. To submit, fold page in half, s2quW with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 loin'F,e---�---------------..���__���__�_�� ISM Ann WWWNW i m n,ursm Orlw Law" Be** cn 9=1 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS COMMENTS CONTINUED If f 'I � Y4,0 10 r-IZZ4-0 5 ,OJO-A 14 C a. i 0 Prase Print Clearly: 'j COMMENT CARD p NAME �.t g = DATE A/— ADDRESS 1?4 �',�''� �` AFFILIATION N*-�M4 CITY, ZIP L�' Q� -�iS PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES N COMMENT: f-r-t- e- Cd Q.ud- 211 � �-e''s �y (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November W 1990 ----------------------------------- Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �l TA fI 1--KE� DATE ADDRESS T4 NIA �}rP�/40Si*FFILIATION CITY, ZIP LA Qy Alh dll-L-S: PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT:. (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 �Oltl more IN 7-92-1 7-93-1 Fstarnp 7 Please Print cw COMMENT CARD NAME DATE ADDRESS - 67AFFILIATION_ CITY, ZIP2 % , 0 ���H. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: 1; - 494 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 ,ease Print Ci.arb,: COMMENT CARD NAME VEIT tY T s c DATE I` ADDRESS`� AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP �,,« -�PH. # (Optional) 1 Please add my name to your mailing list YES _NO 7-95-1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 rob More Stamp Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME (tii Id E idc- E -- Ic- f2 DATE I t-9- Z d ADDRESS jS 4g 0 /41 t'ay I ,'t"a AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP L�, .� PH. # (Optional). 7/ 5( r? C o J ir -1 Please add my name to your mailing list = ES NO COMMENT (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Print Cbarty: COMMENT CARD NAME Et) &ENt MC-FEL96 DATE f I{' �t'? e ADDRESITrA AFFILIATION �Crry,ZlP Lac><-Ur4A -R tLU PH. * (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: _T /�t,M © p SAD To To f�L Ro�D (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 robnaro�------- Stamp 17-96-1 17-96-2 Please Print Clearly: • COMMENT CARD NAME �., ADDRESS vim-- AFFILIATION CITY, ZI PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO A . / i " // / TIWJKKA� (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 �jw---------- P t cwary COMMENT CARD Please rat NAME 'f z-- DATE ADDRESS Me`� • C •/FILIATION CITY, ZIPI' k s'1 ° lti'" ��`�s PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list -4—YES NO COMMENT: C '"""' �' (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 �o{o here Stamp 17-97-1 7-98-1 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME w DATE r ADDRESS -96—m -14 /9*J1O.A AFFILIATION • CITY, 924,i_ 2 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list t.,YES NO COMMENT (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 21lease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD // NAME DATE _ ADDRESS S3->'� l o y Q.. AFFILIATION CITY, Zip - la`• PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list = ES NO �� COMMENT: a ✓4c vP 7iefx rl'� /l;wl (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 7-99-1 1' okt naro Stamp �j Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD �. . DATE /% 9,�9� ADDRESS��.�?% TE'�2� C,� G'/'e- AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP, ///.cr �C.� �U/, a PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list = S NO COMMENT: Z110 TiParJFF/ - (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAMDATE 109 DRESSI 9-�'c Urn W flTOR eR AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP LAaw A n1 s 14-3 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list V YES NO COMMENT: 1 :611 AcjiNSr T,, rem-. -V (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 7-102-1 0 Pw,,e pmt c,. COMMENT CARD NAME ,i, DATE G ADDRESS ZdpC" ! AFFILIATION ' CRY, ZIP �f PH. # (Optional) Please add m name to our mailing list YES �2NO Y Y 9 COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 Prue Print ca=rty. COMMENT CARD NAME a�lf DATE ft� ADDRESS,'00/ 4 VIe- J50-L AFFILIATION�'�� CiTy, ZIP `0,Cvt1#f PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES 0 COMMENT: ,Zo_e -A (Continue 7-103-1 7-104-1 rot hero tnvironmenL Is Please P jqt Clearly: _ COMMENT CARD DATE �1 zr 90 NAME ADDRESS a 090AFFILIATION CITY, ZIi.)618 H. # (Optional) Qj Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: The Environmental Impact Report on the San Joa4uin Transportation Corridor is deficient in key data. It fails. t0 address the combined JMPA�t of ^11 thrPP rnrridnra nn (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 �c Here --------------------- TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED our South County environment. The resultant noise and air pollution would seriously impact our quality of life. 7-105-1 2 The Corridor passes through some of the most environmentally sensitive areas which remain in Orange County. Yet the impacts 7-105-2 of night lights and noise 'upon the wildlife in the canyons have not been adequately addressed. The proposed "wildlife under - crossing" concept is not workable. Even a horse with its trusted rider on its back will not enter a tunnel. Yet this 580 foot 7-105-3 shaft is supposed to entice untamed living creatures! Who believes that this is a solution? 1 3. The impacts to the canyon's natural air flow and thermal patterns -105-4 have not been fully studied. It seens as though the Corridor Agency has prepared the EIR for the purpose of getting endorse- ment to the project; rather than to assess the truth about environmental impact. !7-105-5 6 Environment Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Lie- - C-cnze.n, �r DATE 96 ADDRESS 621-SAFF LIATION !CITY, ZIP'1 rc� c-92L.'7 2 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: The Environmental Impact Report on the San Joactuin Transportation Corridor is deficient in key data. It fails (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Mio Here ---------------------------------- Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 7-105-1 • COMMENTS CONTINUED our South County environment. The resultant noise and air 7-105-1 pollution would seriously impact our quality of life. 2. The Corridor passes through some of the most environmentally sensitive areas which remain in Orange County. Yet the impacts 7-105-2 of night lights and noise upon the wildlife in the canyons have not been adequately addressed. The proposed "wildlife under - crossing" concept is not workable. Even a horse with its trusted rider on its back will not enter a tunnel. Yet this 580 foot 7-105-3 r shaft is supposed to entice untamed living creatures! Who believes that this is a solution? 3. The impacts to the canyon's natural air flow and thermal patterns 7.105-4 have not been fully studied. It seens as though the Corridor Agency has prepared the EIR for the purpose of getting endorse- 7_105-5 ment to the project; rather than to assess the truth about environmental impact. • LnvironmenL :7 IPlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME I- E- �I , (�, n DATE I = 5 rc� ADDRESS Zvi L r n AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP `-� 1 S S� r�� �� • BIZ. PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: The Environmental Impact Report on the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor is deficient in key data. It fails (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 1 COMMENTS CONTINUED ro our South County environment. The resultant noise and air 7-105-1 pollution would seriously impact our quality of life. 2 The Corridor passes through some of the most onvi ronmentallx sensitive areas which remain in Orange County. Yet the impacts 7-105-2 of night lights and noise upon the wildlife in the canyons have not been adequately addressed. The proposed "wildlife under - crossing" concept is not workable. Even a horse with its trusted rider on its back will not enter a tunnel. Yet this 580 foot 7-105-3 untamed shaft is supposed to entice*iliving creatures! Who 0 believes that this is a solution? 1 3. The impacts to the canyon's natural air flow and thermal patterns 17-105-4 have not been fully studied. It seens as though the Corridor I Agency has prepared the EIR for the purpose of getting endorse- ment to the project; rather than to assess the truth about 7-105-5 environmental impact. Lnvironment 0 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD N �f1 1�m{� DATE %/ ADDRESS IK AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP, D, /£e� c� 5.�� 4� f 2 PH. # (Optional) ,Please add my name to your mailing list YES ..j ` NO COMMENT: The Environmental Impact Report on the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor is deficient in key data. It fails - (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 -------------------- �----------- t010 Here TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 7-105-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED our South County environment. The resultant noise and air 7-105-1 pollution would seriously impact our quality of life. 2 The Corridor passes through some of the most environmentally_ sensitive areas which remain in Orange County. Yet the impacts 7-105-2 of night lights and noise upon the wildlife in the canyons have not been adequately addressed. The proposed "wildlife under - crossing" concept is not workable. Even a horse with its trusted rider on its back will not enter a tunnel. Yet this 580 foot -105-3 shaft is supposed to entice untamed living creatures! Who believes that this is a solution? 3. The impacts to the canyon's natural air flow and thermal patterns 7-105-4 have not been fully studied. It seens as though the Corridor Agency has prepared the EIR for the purpose of getting endorse- 7-105-5 ment to the project; rather than to assess the truth about environmental impact. Traf f is i 0 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME •� DATE ADDRESSAFFILIATION CITY, ZI«� 91Z PH. # (Optional) .-�' 3G (Please add my name to your mailing list YES .NO COMMENT: The impact of the San Joacuin TransDortantion Corridor upon the existing traffic has not been adequately addressed for the local residents in the South County area. (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 �--------------- �a Here TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED • SMZMNRZ9-E- . volumes on Avery can be accommodated within the existing and proposed design of the street." At times when Saddle- back College is operating, it is obvious that no increase 17-106-1 could be accommodated. The situation is even more critical, considering the number of young drivers due to the College. And what about the traffic due to students commuting to Capistrano Valley HIgh School: THe study of this area . needs to address this situation of young drivers and the congestion at the times schools are in session. Safety 7-106-2 must be a major factor which is addressed. 2. The idea of an increase of vehicles to the tune of 40,000 to 45,000 per day is not acceptable. We came to the South County for a quality of life. Now we are being asked to have that quality of life lessened. Airguality would lessen, and noise would increase. This we do not want. I7-106-3 0 0 Traffic IPlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD (NAME F—d,-.;cLrcicYy�-4-�2�c�- DATE �' r ADDRESS aL4,'7 1 Li � ° AFFILIATION (CITY, ZI� v 9 � 6TL PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list —YES NO COMMENT: The impact of the San ,Toaauin-Transoor_tantion __ Corridor upon the existing traffic has not been adequately addressed for the local residents in the South County area. (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 ----------- —�—� to n.. naerQ.�---------- Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET .COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COMMENTS COMMENTS CONTINUED volumes on Avery can be accommodated within the existing and proposed design of the street." At times when Saddle- back College is operating, it is obvious that no increase could be accommodated. The situation is even more critical, considering the number of young drivers due to the College. And what about the traffic due to students commuting to Capistrano Valley HIgh School? THe study of this area needs to address this situation of young drivers and the I7-106-1 congestion at the times schools are in session. Safety 7-106-2 must be a major factor which is addressed. 2. The idea of an increase of vehicles to the tune of 40,000 to 45,000 per day is not acceptable. We came to the South _ County for a quality of life Now we are being asked to _ 7-106-3 have that quality of life lessened Airauality would lessen, and noise would increase. This we do not want. 17J r] Traffic I* Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE �� '� - - IADDRESS�'�y%�l-� l�'�'�r� AFFILIATION (CITY, ZIP /�%� `'anti �f �� PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list ' YES NO COMMENT: The impact of the San Joactuin Transport ant ion __— Corridor upon the existing traffic has not been adequately, addressed for the local residents in the South County area. (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Miner's — — — — — — — — — — - ..Here�. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 7-106-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED - .79'= ire - - - - volumes on Avery can be accommodated within the existing and proposed design of the street." At times when Saddle- back College is operating, it is obvious that no increase could be accommodated. The situation is even more critical, considering the number of young drivers due to the College. And what about the traffic due to students commuting to Capistrano Valley HIgh School: THe study of this area needs to address this situation of young drivers and the congestion at the times schools are in session. Safety must be a major factor which is addressed. 2. The idea of an increase of vehicles to the tune of 40,000 to 45,000 per day is not acceptable. We came to the South County for a quality of life. Now we are being asked to have that quality of life lessened. Airguality would lessen, and noise would increase. This we do not want. 7-106-1 7-106-2 7-106-3 0 0 s ALBERT E. NASSER ATTORNEY AT LAW 16 MORENA IRVINE. CA. 92715 786-8708 November 23, 1990 RECEIVED WILLIAF . WOOLLETT, JR. NOV 2 6 1950 FOM'A^G TO: tk Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, Ca 92626 Attn: William Woollett, Jr. Executive Director Re: EIR Public Comment Gentlemen: My concern over the present EIR report is expressed in the attached item which was ,published in the IRVINE WORLD NEWS. The corridors thousands of natural devices - trees. need to plant tens of pollution recovery Failing to recognize that vehicle traffic on the corridors (130,000/day) will spew lethal fumes over the landscape is a flaw that can be corrected. Failure to combat it is a disservice to the people of Orange County. Vi y,asser an/mn N 7-107-1 0 June 7, 1990 /The Irvine World New� '�1's},•�. .'• ire-- �.•�� •-r Mate should-plantlrees to combat auto pollution' In my opinion tll, :environmental im= pact report (EIR) k the San Joaquin Hills Corridor, in its present form, is { geriously flawed. Its soothing tone is a kind of Brahms Lullaby to put us all to --sleep with expert assurances that the ambient air quality will not be impaired by the 130,000 or more cars a day that will travel this concrete treadmill. This is what the EIR experts did to leach the flawed result concerning air quality. They compared the impact on air quality of 130,000 of us driving over the highway with 130,000 of us driving helter skelter over existing roads without the highway. Approximately 18.5 million pounds of noxious carbon dioxide fumes annually would be spewed oyes the land- scape by these cars and in my view would adversely affect the air we breathe. Moreover, it also seems .to �me that the San Joaquin Corridor will generate its own wall-to-wall development and •its own traffic congestion Without the coiri= __. . dor little development would occur and much less'tiaffic would generate much -less car exhaust. =:: =,;; ; ) :. * - r•,.41To be more 'realis6c the experts might . .try comparing.130,000 cars using the highway with an'estimated 50,000 can without any such highway. :But I have'a different suggestion: Plant a minimum of 600,000 trees on -each side of the San Joaquin Hills Corri- dor'to- conibat'the•'massive pollution _. 130,000 cars or more will spew into the sir. Ten trees to a car, �,:1 ; .; ;;; -. It is not easy to get•trees planted along -- - highways in the numbers needed.'It will take legislation•and a lot of us writing to ,the legislatorsvvho gave us'fhe Corridor. - i So write' Sen.'•Seymour"knd possibly Sen. Bergeson and urge them to require the planting of the trees along the or- -a' •AI.BEBT E. NAmER �- Rt • - - a..tirlli �c�r3r�..�ISatL.afL:t•.. �..- ..'ri►.:wu,�.n�i..i..�z- ALBERT E. NASSER ATTORNEY AT LAW 16 MORENA Is IRVINE, CA. 92715 786-8708 September 17, 1990 Mayor Sally Anne Sheridan 9 Thunder Trail Irvine, Ca 92714 Re: Corridor Agency and Trees Dear Mayor,Sheridan: There is a need to plant a substantial number of trees along the corridors to offset air pollution by 130,000 or more cars that will use the corridor. each day. Two items for your review are enclosed: 1. President Bush's Proposed National Tree Trust Act (may be a source of funds). 2. Irvine World News item re trees on the corridor. As a member of the Corridor Agency g Y do what seems reasonable to you to make tree planting by the thousands a part of a public benefit component of the corridors. Very truly yours, Al Nasser P.S. The 130,000 cars per day is the estimate for the San Joaquin Hills corridor. The Foothill corridor may be similar. JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. D/PLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OFDERMATOLOGY 8101 NEWMAN. SUITE C HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street CostaMesa, CA 92626 2221 E16 Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 November 20, 1990 Re: Draft EIR/EIS San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Dear Mr. Letterly, Enclosed are my comments on the draft EIR/EIS for the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor: (714) 848-0770 1. There is insufficient analysis for avoidance of impacting Bonita Creek. The apparent reason given for building the corridor over the creek is that 7-108-1 an alternative alignment to the north away from the Bonita Creek floodplain "could significantly impact operations at UC Irvine". Please explain what operations would be so impacted that would merit destroying the Bonita 7-108-2lCreek wetland and floodplain. Why are UCI operations spared, yet 8 businesses under the Conventional Alternative and 17 businesses and 1 residence under the Demand Management Alternative are removed? The destruction of Bonita Creek 7-108-3 1 appears not to be an unavoidable impact since the corridor alignment could simply be moved north. 2. Please explain why wildlife corridors could not be preserved by elevating the transportation corridor on piers over wildlife dispersion routes such as 7-108-4 Oso Creek, Bonita Creek, and Coyote Canyon channel areas rather than tunnels. The corridor is built on piers when crossing other roads. Why not do the same over wildlife routes? 3. No analysis of changes in the recent city general plans is made that might reduce demand for the corridor. For example, the city of Newport Beach 7-108-5 substantially downzoned its general plan in 1988, which would reduce traffic and corridor demand. Is this general plan reduction factored into this EIR/EIS? 4. The voters of Laguna Beach recently decided to purchase Laguna Canyon and 7-108-6 remove its 3200 home entitlement. Thus, approximately 32,000 car trips a day are eliminated from corridor demand. Is this reduction factored into the EIR? 5. The recent state gas tax increase approval and the county sales tax increase 7-108-7 require congestion management and growth management plans. How will these requirements work in the absence of the corridor? Such a scenario should be analyzed, since such requirements might reduce corridor demand. 6. The growth inducing impacts of the corridor compared to growth with no }7-108-8 corridor, but with growth management plans and congestion management plans i in place, should be analyzed. 7. The Irvine Company has recently announced suspension of new home building. 7-108-91 JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF DERMATOLOGY 8101 NEWMAN. SUITE C Steve Letterly • 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 Transportation Corridors Agency (714)848.0770 November 20, 1990 Page 2 7-108-9lHow will this reduction impact growth and demand for the corridor? 8. There appears to be a discrepancy between statements made on page 5-10 that "toll road traffic volumes on the Corridor are expected to be 80% to 90% of toll free volumes" and the chart on page 5-11 which shows that the toll road traffic at screenline 2 on the SJHTC to be 56% (59/105) of the toll free traffic 7-108-10 projections; at screenline 3, the toll traffic/toll free traffic to be 65% (100/155); at screenline 5, the toll/toll free traffic to be 67% (91/135). Thus, the statement should be: "toll traffic volumes on the Corridor are expected to be 56% to 67% of toll free volumes", thus impacting nearby arterials and all other traffic projections in the report. 9. In addition, if the toll roads are going to carry 56% to 67% of toll —free 7-1011-11 volumes, then a smaller, narrower, less environmentally impacting Corridor should be analyzed. 10. Toll versus toll —free traffic volumes should , in total, be roughly the same in the last column on the chart on page 5-11, showing total traffic on the Corridor, freeways, and arterials. Instead, the last column for screenline 3, 7-108-12 for example, shows 432,000 cars a day on the Corridor, freeways, and arterials with tolls, but 415,000 cars a day if the Corridor is toll —free. Why the discrepancy? 11. No attempt is made to analyze the percent of cars stopping to pay a toll 7-108-13 compared to those who will not stop. The air quality impacts of cars stopping Ito pay a toll then accelerating should be analyzed. 12. Will the toll plazas increase congestion on already congested Corridor 7-108-14 segments when cars must stop to pay a toll and cause traffic flow to back up? This phenomenon is readily apparent on commuter toll roads in the East, such las in New Jersey. 13. Improvements to other freeways with car—pool lanes, and thus increased 7-108-15 capacity, should be analyzed, because if the other freeways are free —flowing, there will be less Corridor demand. People will only use the Corridor if the other routes on freeways and arterials are backed up, if tolls are required on the Ccrridor. 14. Air Quality impacts on page 5-2 showing increases in the federal and state 8—hour CO standard on the Jamboree Road to Birch Street link and Laguna Canyon 7-108-16 Road to Sand Canyon Road is unacceptable. How will the Corridor mitigate this effect? Thank you for the opportunity to express my comments. ve-, orc_ 15 ct ty4 t Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot MID SAC- vlec) ht i r, C. I udc XT iS i?o7 �. r me G4 tr er�T eotinnc 9owLt-t 414 .foculf gitta .Ca9una �aacii, Cdifosnla 92651 Te-Z s�L Ed �Jo its not c'1C `YJ f-L7 f i Cr C: �S'�1 G'Y�• tip C.`L- 7-109-1 17-109-2 7-109-3 7-109-4 7-109-4 eo �O1 ffjlkt:Key\-17 .109.5 �zcuve- 7-109-6 7-109-7 U 9 7-109-8 Ll Rom. Cpe,rr-,-e-FouLller' l.acuNg21051 ATTT,I: `�JOr.C�V� n l t 5 E t a EIS COMM, Ekn re-. Wrr; JB r _mil- pje* - jot.aN Poc. TLAr, t,-A t qr A-t-M4 p 5 01:7 . V� tLc:> Li t✓E ! tN _ 11aCtVrJA .- C.4t4N? 7t J AS � 2 Tt•-'ram r�1 I M �t-�S "iZ� �p,�1 EI.� _:. -- Ncx"J L e' j � l -4 T�4 15 rL�c �3 I r, ciz-c ou L-o (15 . T�-h (5 PtIOC,J L J + L A _ W oei4 -i ? WA-5 e;)E� 1 s�,3S'i t TU r EYD ! tJ O't-PEO, C i TI E-5 'Dze C)mz , cx>4oTc, aco cz�wT-, cTc ., E i c . 40nr-e� ar-ici PtZ.CCE_F_:O T�AQbUcqO OP Tn M\q e. ;per i EtJCZ T -1- &-VE, �ET TO W ! TlsCt>S A W ► LiD E-QTE32_ Jo L V r` l-AP,► L\/ AtJ EfQCL05F—VD spo.C,,C' r• e)jce_ cc OU �SVill� L� CA UrJA l ��/p� ' S �C..1► LSE ABC) e44,,_) r,_ZT ccbl� o� GL e.., 5u r-QzM: CoR. t N � FoLA3LOL 4.4- Locxi-5T- sT urn aLazk1 C ►cbLA.).rO -M PPQ-.rl AL,,-U_.�PAyl �r ._.C�f1S'trC�T10Y1 Q VJ A Ef--� T�A C CeV E LoeM e+, Tis P. C. AL_L_O 1N EA 50 -ri►�2. f r -� par t i aA I 1 S . VJo ►--;�SLr -\ ed � r waki LJ`")C.)►r" 1. W ��.T �u A �A r�*S You. CI V-. !-i0 u� ca^J Gov � r•5SV 2.E i-�a'� . �-�oo-�o Z'r' v�rc1�S 'ib ME 'T"k-��•T vJt-k�r�S 0 v t tJ C.2 E•�S� O��IE L-UPrl1i A- - Ootf] W t l_1_, P�t✓Cjprul E _. L)T pTED -- A*Z D VIE vim► LL PE-- . At,3 ,4EIJ i2 c CZ pko&Loyv-\ TW-tr1 E�\tER, -6E—Fbou , -- t N '� �OJ/ LFAsf t r,�Ct US �r`ir-)LDSS Gt 2GL.. r ? ?"c. 3 `^,� Co�.��-,tee. Fo�J1� �-- 4t4 LOc�.ST s LI• o u s�r� t� T�-1� E 1 R �'1r1ra� - iolk Poa.d cat i 1 rn�►r'o►�le. o�.( v �ou�- ai5o st c +KL io t 1 - d►��.tope�.' : T 15 oP ql ous T kpcT- u.> >-c" lncrzz.a� - 0oR4bp-�OPP . LIED oL)-y- L.A(; ut�JA &r,--Pc-R 3LYVr. rrvcNfEE:c �b ?JC4_kA T"e lAC,\u+IJo` A.r`�oRC Lp&j Peo �A t 6 t-rs 1106 use i �,q�XLA �5 _ .. -For.. ?,D s -b h 9 ; .ce._ Qr v k u�le sS r ccrz� -fit roPor�a.r\-�s Ao 1 m U br- 9X. Lo�" (7orz w P� re, �.,o ' , Lot k, --o c5acraffir c e CaXWL'+ u.)e -j7C)p - ca-y--- o Please Print clearly: NAMEPAUL L% OV-r COMMENT CARD DD. .. p► • \ :. r *• • • Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT V cj v (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) ` Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation' Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 - rolTiere 09, PM NOV ` TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COMMENTS 066L l Z &ON (23A13:338 COMMENTS 7-110-1a-- . 7-110-2 CONTINUED 0. 0 0 7-111-4 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME OdCzz DATE ADDRESS_ Ia5'a AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP , Z&C& 92tV PH. # (Optional) Y9V 726Z Please add my name to your mailing list COMMENT: DES NO (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page In half, secure COMMENTS CONTINUED u G �¢ a N S oe"h( jOs /_e, � i Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME ?i -1 Z- G;AWAAO DATE J H �-17V ADDRESS 2-6 P&i45j&nMnU PL • AFFILIATION S�F CITY, ZIP 1,AG(4A*11)"6r-- ,!22477 PH. # (Optional) ?�� Z��' %%2 Please add my name to your mailing list ,YES NO COMMENT: , O n 1IONS g KuX o P77V IV &4cL , �"AL.16-Iy7&4-*2 " conhey%io h (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp 7-112-1 NOV 26 '90 11149 MDSSC FAXCEN 896-1313 P02 7-113-1 DONAL.D W. HARVEY 20*9 M"T WwAR1069 P6AMR Naw0C LT MRA H. CAUP"MIA 90880 / ./ - .2- 6 - /o Snx.� G a GG s� Te-•4 /nO4.0c 4�4 9 2-624& D /Jz 44 4W tom.. Tal ah+T,.r.►,Z:..•�- o� � _ NOV 26 '90 11:50 MDSSC FAXCEN 896-1313 P03 y., sy,�p � � Cam � � oy � �a-�.•-�. J.-e Z;��- 44>.,U% -4�- wod-c e:/r- 60,,�,o ow� -2�4 -,e� 06"O-� eso 7-113-1 • '''"" !J r '`4, 0 TI...c Awz� to val e-4�pe -v' estf,-, 7-113-2 6 NOV 26 090 11:50 MDSSC FAXCEN 896-1313 PO4 7-113-2 November 12, 1990 Steve Letterly Manager of Environmental Impact Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Dear Mr. Letterly, Attached are comments on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Report (SJHTC-DEIR). The document is an enormous one that obviously took many person- nel and a considerable amount of time to complete. We are not satisfied that the comments here are anywhere near complete in their analysis of the document, but under the time constraints of the public review period, this is the most complete review that time would allow. We feel that such a large project document should spend more time in the public review stage, as this could do nothing but improve the quality of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). We are in general, very displeased with the overall document. There are many unresolved problems and impacts associated with the project, even after the mitigation measures have been enumer- ated. With such an extensive project being routed through some of the last pristine open space in Orange County, this document does not go far enough to address and reduce the impacts as proposed. In addition, we found that many of the mitigation measures that were included in the document to alleviate impacts of the project will probably alter the areas at least as much as the original impacts that are being mitigated. The best alternative in our opinion is the No Project Alternative, which would- leave Laguna Canyon and the other areas in the path of the corridor untouched for future generations to enjoy. Another gridlocked freeway will not provide much of a legacy to subsequent generations, but a forward looking plan of conservation of resources will. We appreciate your consideration of all of our comments, and request that you address the comments with more than a "comment noted" response. Thank you in advance for your appreciation of the attached. C. 7-114-1 7-114-2 Page 2, SJHTC-DEIR. I �-- Alan Thornhill Graduate Student Department of Ecology and University of California C th a tleit Stu ent of Biology Irvine Valley College Evolutionary Biology at Irvine Alistair Cullum Graduate Student Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California at Irvine Eric Woehler. Graduate Student Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California at Irvine Dana Kamada Graduate Student Department of Ecology and University of California Alice Gibb Graduate Student Department of Ecology and University of California Evolutionary Biology at Irvine Evolutionary Biology at Irvine r] Page 3, SJHTC-DEIR Gary Krupni Graduate Stu ent Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of California at Irvine 0 C7 Page 4, SJHTC-DEIR. Chapter four of the report was our main focus, and most of our comments are directed at that section of the document. Our first concern is for the hydrology of the area being effect- ed. The enormous weight of the corridor could compress topsoil and subsoils to a point at which any under -surface water movement will cease. The DEIR states that only general applications of geology studies were used to determine the effects of the corri- 7-114-3 dor on the area's geology. Because the analysis in the DEIR is based on general applications and not on a detailed analysis of the areas in question, we are not convinced that such a compres- sion would not take place. Erosion and flood hazards are going to be a significant problem during construction and after project completion, even with the mitigations measures outlined. Planting vegetation will decrease the amount of erosion below potential, but culverts and drainage ditches will increase the velocity and volume of runoff far beyond what the topsoil can handle. Culvert flow then becomes an impact instead of a mitigation. How will the drainage system described as a mitigation for erosion problems not become an impact on the local flora and fauna? Mitigation measure 10 says terrace drains will be constructed to decrease erosion. Are the dimensions of these terraces included in the varying project widths noted in the topology section of the DEIR? If their width is not included, how much wider will the corridor's footprint actually be, including the land graded to build the terrace drains? 7-114-4 7-114-5 The DEIR claims that there will be no significant changes in the impacted area's geology at project climax. We disagree. The air flow patterns into the canyons will be radically changed after a 17 mile long stretch of untouched land is graded into a paved 7-114-6 plateau which is 225 to 2,100 feet wide with 20-30 foot high noise blocking walls erected on either side. Microclimates, and all air flow in the vicinity of the project will be highly im- pacted and the alterations are certain to displace many residents of the area (animals and plants). The Orange -Throated Whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus), San Diego Coast Horned Lizard '(Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei), Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), California Black -Tailed Gnatcatcher (Poliopti- 7-114-7 2a melaneura californica), Laguna Beach Dudleya (Dudleva stolo- nifera), Multi -stemmed Dudleya (Dudleva multicaulis), Orange County Turkish Rugging (Chorizanthe staticoides chrisacantha), and Mesa Club moss (Senaginella cinerascens) are all sensitive species, and some are listed or candidates for listing through the Endangered Species Act. Microclimates, and the inhabitants of i Page 5, SJHTC-DEIR s 0 microclimates are extremely sensitive to perturbation, and should 7-114-7 be treated wit4 extreme care (Gates 1980; Geiger 1965)u We support the plan to seed and landscape the impacted areas with native vegetation. However, we would like to see only Southern California natives from local sources used in this revegetation effort. Exotics or endemics from non -local sources could disrupt 7.114-8 the stability of the local ecosystems and would be of little value to local animal inhabitants (Bontrager 1990). Using Cali- fornia natives is inappropriate if species endemic to areas outside southern California are chosen. In Section E, mitigation measure A is excellent. However, without the erosion and siltation document included in the DEIR, we can hardly comment on the mitigation measures to lessen the erosion 7-114-9 potential. Without public review of the scientific documentation that leads to the mitigation plans, there is no insurance that these plans will be appropriate for the area. : We are also concerned about the plans to install protective walls, culverts, erosion control channels, energy absorbing devices, earthen or paved interceptors, diversions, sediment basins, and debris traps. All of these mitigation measures are 7-114-10 intended to lessen the impact of the corridor on the local habi- tats. However, we feel that they may provide more of an impact than a mitigation. Measure N says drains will be vegetated or protected. How will 7-114-11 this be accomplished? What sort of vegetation will be used? Was the amount of fuel consumed and subsequent CO2, CO, CH4, and NOS, etcetera, emitted by the machinery and vehicles used to 7-114-12 build the project included in Table 4-5 (Fuel Consumption Sum- mary) ? The mitigation measure of Section F (Energy) states that "if energy supplies decline or costs increase prohibitively, the corridor will have the flexibility to incorporate a higher level of public transit service in response to those needs." Surely the same person who wrote this comment read the statement earlier in this section about the current oil situation, "a nonrenewable source of energy which is becoming an increasingly depleted resource." Public transportation must at some point take prece- dence over the individual automobile. The Arab Gulf crisis and the fact that several pro -public transportation propositions have been passed by the California voters in the past few years should 7-114-13 Page 6, SJHTC-DEIR be sending a clear message that Californians want more than another super highway. It is time to abandon the idea that anoth- 7-114-130 er road will ease the commute. This highway is not the answer. In Section I (Water Quality) regarding the runoff from the corri- dor, it is stated that "Pollution concentrations and loads would be decreased downstream as the flow proceeds overland and in stream courses." This is self evident, but we disagree with the idea that because the pollution concentration is lessened with overland flow that this is somehow mitigation for introducing asbestos, bromide, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, copper, iron, lead, phosphorus, nitrogen, petroleum, manganese, nickel, rubber, sulfates, zinc, and particulates into the area (National Research Council 1983). On the contrary, these pollutants associated with motor vehicles and the tendency for soil to trap them, has led to the development of many procedures to trap and remove the pollu- tants (ibid). The DEIR mentions aerobic -maintained ditches to encourage hydrocarbon degradation, and the planting of leguminous plants as two ways of dealing with the problem. This will not eliminate the problem of heavy metal buildup in the soils near the corridor nor address the problem of air -borne particulates which may contribute more pollution to the area than does pollut- ed water runoff (Gjessing et al. 1984; Lord 1987). We are told that although pollution loads will exceed critical limits for all materials analyzed, mitigation can decrease this problem. Howev- er, since no outline of the plan to decrease this impact was included, we must assume that this pollution problem will not be mitigated to insignificant levels. The Federal Highway Adminis- tration (1984-5) and Ellis (1986) conclude that although urban and highway drainage may flow only 2-6 percent of the time, it may be responsible for 20-50 percent of the total annual pollu- tant load on receiving waters. A highway of this magnitude through a pristine open space area will heavily impact the area with or without the mitigation measures that have yet to be determined. Construction of detention/sedimentation basins and use of grass fields to trap pollutants in overland flow is outlined to miti- gate the highway runoff. Is the land that will be used to con- struct such basins included in the total wildland conversion numbers? If such areas are not included in the tally of converted canyon land, they should be. How will the grass areas be prevent- ed from successing to climax? What kind of grasses will be used? We recommend that only Southern California grasses native to the area are used, as introduction of exotics will increase the impact on surrounding vegetation and wildlife by competing for resources. We would also like to see language added to the miti- gation section that prevents any pesticides, herbicides, fungi- cides, fertilizers, or any other anthropogenic chemicals to be used on the entire length of the corridor. All of these would 7-114-14 7-114-15 Page 7, SJHTC-DEIR adversely impact the area in ways that are not addressed in this�7-114-16 impact report.-., Planting leguminous plants"is also mentioned as a mitigation measure in relation to runoff and shallow water pond- ing. We want to once again remind you that the use of exotic species of Leguminosae will result in excessive impacts that have 7-114-17 not been addressed here. We recommend contacting the Tree of Life nursery in San Juan Capistrano for a list of appropriate vegeta- tion for the area. In section J, habitat improvement is mentioned as a mitigation for the loss of wetlands as a result of the corridor. As we are sure the Fish and Game Department will point out, habitat im- provement is not mitigation for lost wetlands. No net loss means riparian conversion where there once was none. It is important to remember that the act of converting upland to wetland is also a habitat impact and therefore should be completed in the least 7-114-18 invasive manner. This type of mitigation requires close monitor- ing and a plan for monitoring should be completed before any action is taken. We would also like to see all replacement of lost habitat completed before any corridor ground breaking. In addition, we are unhappy with the notion that not placing grading spoils on or in riparian areas is a mitigation for loss of wet- lands. In section K, we are unclear about what exactly "attractive " patterns and textures to break up the monotony of extensive vertical wall surfaces" means. We are also unclear about the idea 7-114-19 of "architectural themes which are compatible with prominent local structures or landmarks". Our final comments. are related to the plan to create wildlife undercrossings to facilitate movement of resident wildlife under and around the corridor. The first inadequacy we noticed is that 7-114-20 the California Drive bridge is completely ignored and left off of the corridor plans, this is obviously unacceptable. Limiting the fence, designed to keep animals away from the corri- dor, to 5 feet will only insure deer and other animals will jump 7-114-21 the fence and get trapped on the roadway side without enough room to jump back the other way. With the passing of Measure H in Laguna Beach, the corridor will now be impacting an undeveloped area. This is a major change from the original plan of development of the canyon on which the 7-114-22 corridor's impacts were projected. Perhaps the entire impact analysis is invalid with this change in land use. The undercrossings plan is also a point of concern. We are notl convinced that any animal (except for a troglodyte, as one person 7-114-23 1r..I Page 8, SJHTC-DEIR put it) will use a 410 or 580 foot long tunnel to cross under a vibrating noisy highway stuck into the hillside. Is there any 7-114-23 • research to back up the claim that these types of tunnels are actually used by animals other than bats and opossums? The tun- nels may end up acting as water collectors or worse yet, death traps for any unwary humans (children) that venture into the 'mine shafts'. A metal grate could be installed over the entries to keep people (kids) out of the tunnels, but then won't the animals (coyotes, deer, bobcats, etcetera) for which the tunnels were designed be excluded as well? Large elevated bridges, leav- ing the canyon floor relatively unscathed, seems to be the only way to insure wildlife utilization of undercrossings. 7-114-24 We also would like to see more effort made to link the fragmented portions of wildland that will remain after the corridor's com- pletion. The amount of wildlife that habitat patches can support 7-114-25 increases significantly when they are linked with wildland corri- dors (Harris 1984; Soule' 1986). Page,9, SJHTC-DEIR Literature Cited Bontrager D. 1990. Ecological landscaping: creating bird habitat in suburban California gardens and public landscapes. Mem- oirs of the Natural History Foundation of Orange County. Natural History Foundation of Orange County, Volume 3. Federal Highway Administration. 1984-5. Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters. RD-84. Report 062-066. Gates D.M. 1980. Biophysical Ecology. Springer-Verlag, N.Y. Geiger R. 1965. The Climate Near the Ground. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Gjessing E. 1984. Effects of highway runoff on lake water quali- ty. The Science of the Total Environment. 33:245-57. Harris L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. Univ. of Chicago Press. Lord B.N. 1987. Nonpoint source pollution from highway stormwater runoff. The Science of the Total Environment. 59:437-46. National Research Council - Highway Research Program Report. 1983. Guidelines for the Management of Highway Runoff on Wetlands. Report 264. Soule' M., ed. 1986. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarci- ty and Diversity. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, MA. • 0 Please PrinClead COMMENT CARD NAME N 1�UDATE ADDRESSZ32 6 S & Nf 6 141 U-S &FILIATION CITY, ZIP .V .4 / (of • 9Z67� PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO (COMMENT: 0� I No n16 4 w306r44b 'THE HAlAI-11V b- (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 irokn Me ------------- .MA '25 Jack Lon on 0 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1990 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME s e i n.9 e, J ri So Pi DATE AnyGrn 6c.,- 17 I yi ADDRESAFFILIATION `E"7 Z e h CITY, ZIP1� •�h d_ R �� 9lj 6S.V PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: u ; �- Y ►-e i hsa �� h y v e. L"P. erCa11 1 ,qI 4i (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 There c4o, Mn. Sieglinde Johnwn616 Mystic View Laguna beach, California 9W1 .re TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 • ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1990 COMMENTS CONTINUED 6-� TAX T o e r» S6 1 keT ?O v Yc°- VS Dr e sr✓ ry e J 2 OtJn !LL Cu (j h1 � s � C'� v. v � < < � ►.ro %c. � c� G� -�' i c. � � � 5 c � e v e � o Ae r'S, wa N T vex 6e r /17 �a;n+s a�-� fkL f Q r�� �,. 6��; �f 7r, so_ O Ya nA P - ' Svc l CL, kba s:s, v e i., 4 r,) .g, oyj 1 h QLj ►• c4aj�ts 4oL 15 6E I nG Cn n T'C P" 12 1a4td r IP c ccc 0� Vn 60, I+ kuc�►�9 A Sin Ury� 7a Serc1�CP �d�1cl►'rCr I'6 Al 0 l �1 Please Print Clearly: COMMENTCARD NAME i l v c C -� R =45 I9 M - DATE f / — /j - 9!i ADDRESS_ 7t1 �� L,,., ��Q 1, loofa,;:( ILIATION CITY, 21 PH. # (Optional)/�—�%f�'�6� Please add my name to your mailing list t� YES NO COMMENT:__ COMMENTS CONTINUED ' ..4.W Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME Walter Gresham DATE 11/16. 1990 ADDRESS 413 2- Nicholas Ot, AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP_ 92651 Laguna Beach PH. # (Optional) 714-497-6630 Please add my name to your mailing list x YES NO COMMENT: OVER COMMENTS CONTINUED The San Joaouin (Corridor) means more congestion of.traffic,___ noose and air polution without compensating benefits along the route. One more transportation corridor (toll freeway) simply amounts to more development and the ultimate strangulation and distruction of the enire natural region. What short-sightedness! What insanity: 7-1 17-2 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME /(/�'•� T kid DATE �i�iq 511 ADDRESS 29,1z B,1/1 11Ja!4 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP ,,a JH C' ash 92-45PH. # (Optional) 71'f - A y-6ht4P Please add my name to your mailing list '� YES NO COMMENT: I(Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November, 1990 �2 C.'-!i ti ta!!i M!OW nere SL meow 73t41-:;V J , TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 0 -COMMENTS CONTINUED 3 � 14 r,A&V coon N u � / \ i b 23 cLf`v f� �`�n►iv�,�! lam. �.,.�C. "o /V en k, A4 4ze An"', Aell. � � . !', /lc`c .Tl�.,. Tkr►-� n,cor d.�•-�� .i'f�t �'. d� �w}dc....� vim/ iz. i 6t ,c,��.c fs Ai �P /a a►�.L k n� e Y ri ^ L R..fa'+� fat / v r � G•� �tn.t cZ � /Y✓ // T e!/ Xor-le Aa;,OCIIti /�,�� �-( i/14- t �f2A,u� �+• $ d f�a. r %i.t ,& S SO 6v e [44.. AIva.C,o C.&t /i r rr 4, � tee, eA." rr olot e 644, WVLAX n. Ito /� c4:; %f O a 3 �, ��ua� Gan c�,,.� � a 6or•..•� �r moo• 1+, Q c- .., is t-*L /.l d t r 0e + Q CA- • (i(/t- 11 L-w h y � IGr�-, GAY► C�i�+�c-4� CC � 0 !.t f' /o Ji n p_Pn � �t C! 11..+� Gam• d / �c w h c� w -e k fir, /. �'� e�'!� �`• so cc r ti 7-118-2 7-118-3 7-118-4 7-118-5 01 Please Print Clearly: • COMMENT CARD NAME 1;1/ .1 /�;IGtft✓� Ph.D. _ DATE"!Uo%-Z31/990 ADDRESS Y 49Gan on Ac-res Dr;✓e AFFILIATION Ref--oCe lf-4 PmPcr1 Owrtw in La una CITY, ZIP Laqumca 8ea.clt, G4 R265I PH. # (Optional) C7/y) ` ,77-9/27 Please add my name to your mailing list ? YES NO dh COMMENT: To Whom It May Concern: I am a long-time resident and my husband and I recently became property owners In the city of Laguna Beach. We bought our home here because of the unique atmosphere of Laguna Beach. We did not want to be a part of the burgeoning metropolis that comprises most of Orange County. We have been fighting hard to save Laguna Canyon from development for several years. There are many reasons why the proposed Toll Road should not be built at this time. I will list the reasons that most concern me below: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' t" office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 �Ta�s��������������� l��i 0uwaN1M--- tOld here z � o,,,,,, J, 24 NOV Mtn = e Jill millette y� J •,,,�.� 499 Canyon AcresDrive Laguna Bach, CA 9WI �• r vss25u%90 L TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES%o` 345 CLINTON STREET r2 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS COMMENTS CONTINUED Recent 1 ct' n Re l l:. With the November 6th approval of both Measure H and Proposition M, the plan to build the proposed San 1 1 9_ 1 ►n o oa ►s Joaqua of date and needs to be completely reevaluated. With the passage of Measure H, there will no longer be a I7 - guna Laurel INta�una Cany n, and therefore no extra road is needed. With the passage of Pr 4sitlon M, theere will development ailedTooffeTUM5 be mono oral le (Kent o th the Toro Y nd t e su a streets that surround the area, again ne ►n the need t g' g or (7-119-2 anotneryroad. ie needs to be rewr�tten tak�ng tie rents of the recent election into aceounf. 17-119-3 Who YiiIIII Pay? You expect the cost of travel on the Toli Road to be S2.25 each vat, If a car travels the entire length of the road. l 1990 assume a is in dollars and will undoubtedly rise as the costs of completing the Toll Road rise. You expect that the tolls will eventually par for the road construction costs, thereafter travel will be free. I have lived in the East and have observed the promises and the results of building toll roads. The New York State Thruway was original)/ built with the grand intention of letting the tollsa for the they turning the for free gy road and road over travel. They have final)/ ad0ltted that this is unreasonable and unattainable. the toils for barely pay road upkeep and employment of the people who take the tolls at each on and off ram. The actual cost of the construction of the road will be The 7 - 1 1 9-4 never paid off. same thing has occurred on the Skyway (Rte 90) from Chicago to Indiana. The tolls will never be able to pay for tAe cost of the road construction. I ai sure there are other examples, these are just two that 1 as aware of. I am sure that California drivers will be even more reluctant to pay to travel on a toll road than drivers In the Fast. Have you done an analysis of the time that it will take for the road to be paid off if you get half as man}}� people using the road as your estimates Qreoict? What if twice as many people need to use the manned toll plazas as opposed to the automated sticker readers? Who Will Use the Toll Roam? While zany of the people low expect to use the Toll Road will be people travelling to and from work, there wi many who are s►Q y travelling to vis►tt relatives or friends or to go shopping or to the doctor or various errands. This Is why the car pool lanes of the San Diego freeway are always empty. Most people In Orange County do not work In an office with colleagues that live near them and a set schedule so that they can arrange a car pool. Have you done an analysis of the travel patterns Of the IIve 7- 1 1 9-5 people who around the route of the proposed Toll Road? I have heard that 2/3 of the people who Ifve In South Orange County work along the route of the Santa Ana freeway. A toll travelling to Costa Mesa do road will not them any good, even If they could afford to travel on It. This reminds me of a Sufi story about Nasrudin. When Nasrudin was observed at night crawling around on his knees in the street under a street lamp, the helpful neighbor inquired, 'What are you looking for?' Hasrudin replied. 'My house keys.' The neighbor joined Nasrudin in crawling around under the street lazy for a utile, but keys found. 'Where 11 quite no were did you lose your keys, Nasrudin?' inquired the neighbor. lost them way over there by my door, but there was no light there so I an searching here came the reply. The construction this Toll Road of ap ears to be like looking for Nasrudin; keys. You think this Is a convenient place to put a road so is being built, without consideration of the traffic patterns and/or need for a road in this location. 17-119-6 o lut This road will pollute. There will be air pollution. It is ludicrous to state that the road will reduce air pollution O'e,:ausethe cars will be travelling fast and not Idling in stop -and -go traffic. The AAA has that 80% 17-119-7 stated of the traffic jams on Southern California freeways are caused by Improper accidents, road construction crews, merging lanes between freeways or factors other than too much traffic. The Toll Road wlII not be immune to these mishaps. There will also be accidents and road construction crews on the Toli Road. There will also be traffic jams on the Toll Road. There will be light pollution. The road will be required to hire many 7 - 1 1 9-8 I1gAts. Light pollution is one of the cost insidious forms of pollution in Southern California. Light pollution affects humans as welt as plants and animals. We do not need another lighted corridor In Southern Orange County. There will be noise pollution. There is no alternative, the Toll Road will be noisy. There will be water pollution. Oil and debris from the traffic on the road will be carried In the �o I7 -.1 1 9-9 water that falls on the Toll Road and channeled into the surrounding water tables. The fragile ecosyYstem that tAe I Road runs through will be affected. None of these pollution issues are adequately addressed in the current EIR/E15. Ecoloav• I as running this 17: 1 g= 1 9 p 1 out of space on page and some of the most important issues have not been addressed. The current SIRIUS does not come close to examining the issues of the animals and plants that will be permanently displaced and/or eradicated by the construction of this Toll Road. A fair and impartial biologist should De appointed to evaluate the effect of the road on the ecosystem of the surrounding area. I have heard that there are unique plants that live only in Laguna Canyon directly in the proposed path of this road. Providing for 7- 1 1 9- 1 2 unoercrossings wild animals Is wholly Inaoequate. I do not believe that any competent blollist would propose that unoercrossings will mitiggaate the thoroughfare problem of a major crossing through some of the last remaining wild animal refuges of Southern Orange County. The cutting and filling of the wetland areas the Upper Newport the Toll Road around area of proposed will also have a profound and lasting effect on the plants and animals that currently Inhabit this area. Cormnity Conc@EL There is hugegrass -roots opposition to this Toll Road. The November 14th meeting should have given you s ame indication o e co®unity ooposition to this road. 1 do not personally belong to any organization opposed to the building of this road, but I know several exist and I will join one if you persist in going forward with the construction of this road. The Irvine Company found out what happens when an unpopular construction project is forced down the throats of ordinary Orange Countyp citizen. Remember, Measure H was approved by 80% of the voters in Laguna Beach. 1 have heard lots of people say that they are willing to liesdown in front of the bulldozers if they 7 - 1 1 9- 1 3 try to enter the untouched wilderness areas of Laguna Canyon and the wetlands areas north of (,guns Beach. Are you pre�ared for the extra costs and delays that will occur when the camnity opposes the ?oil Road? ResemDer the Walk to Save Laguna Gnyon. You if can count on a reprise of that scene you continue to try and build this Toil Road. s�? I do not see that an alternatives to this Toll Road have been considered. You talk about perhaps putting a light -Alterman tivrail system in the middle of your toll Road at some later date. What about a light -rail, or even better a Monorail in the current Pproposed corridor the Toll Road? 1 for of would expect the cost of constructing a Monorail would Be no more than this Toll Road. A donoraii could carry just as many passengers. I would expect that Orange Canty commuters would be more willing to pay up to $2.25 one way to ride in quiet comfort as apposed to driving themselves to work, We don't need another huge corridor to carry cars. We need a quiet, efficient non-polluting, mass transportation alternative. When you studied who will use the Toll Road did you also study whether 7 - 1 1 9 - 1 4 the hypothetical future travelers could or would rather use efficient mass transportation? You are proposing park and ride lots along the corridor now, why not put those riders on a train instead of a van? Trains cater to the individual. by stopping at convenient Interchanges where busses be taken, train public can a system would really help get people out of their cars. tiny don't you think ahead, thinK the about next 4entury and the next generation. We don't want more cars, we want mass transit alternatives. 1 think the time schedule for community debate and comments is unfair. It took you years to get this far with the EIR/ElS and now we ave a couple of weeks to respond? We also need time to have experts came In and evaluate the issues that i have raised aoove. Also, why are we only allowed one par? I have many concerns. The final approval hearing is currently set for Februar! 14th. This is not enough time. I have only raised the topics that have been pressing on my mind since I heard about the proposed Toll Road. I am sure that other citizens have other concerns. That we only have a couple of weeks to get these letters to you and then a 7 - 1 1 9- 1 5 couple of months for your response is not in the best interest of the citizens of Orange Canty. The approval hearing date must be delayed in oroer to provide time for a study of the actual necessity for a Toll Road at this location. I hope you will take the time to answer each and every one of my concerns outlined above. • J► 1 J. XPA Ph.D., Laguna beach. [a 44v- a �Sc�n, `►-d, Tr 7990 cli 7-120-1 7-120-2 El I�N�H��rn Cat M 9 0 C. T Bomb �_'y°+cte,:_ . �� S�eTV��sor /hofia s %1 e-i,r/ '!(D Civic Ce r,Ae r 0 0 i October 31, 1990 Council Member Ken Friess 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92677 Dear Council Member Friess: This letter is in regard to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. We attended a "Map Viewing" at Laguna Beach High School on October 17, 1990. We have also had many conversations with some people at the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency. As concerned citizens being fully aware of the traffic congestion problems in Southern California as a whole as well as those as specifically pertain to Southern Orange County, we feel it is our duty to advise you that we are extremely opposed to the above mentioned freeway. Many, many people will have their existing lifestyles destroyed by noise, exhaust fumes, as wells as adding to the congestion problem. We feel this corridor will not solve our congestion problems. The funds might be better spent on various forms of available public transportation. This would help solve the smog and noise issues, as well. In addition, the wildlife in the designated corridor areas will be destroyed, never to return. We appreciate you taking your time that as concerned citizens of this what takes place in the environment Sincerely, Circle A 92653 n reading this letter and hope area, we have had some say in surrounding us. Carol Deglman 7-121-1 ('71 d1 Q11-4AAR DRWUAG uU a November 9, 1990 Mr. and 'Mrs. Richard Deglman 27471 Maverick Circle Laguna Hills, California 92653 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Deglman: 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 Thank you very much for taking the time to write to express your views on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I will be sure that your letter is shared with the Board of the Transportation Corridor Agencies. On November 14 there will be a public hearing at Laguna Hills High School, and I encourage you to attend and let your views be known. The hearing is set for 7:00 p.m. to get the widest participation of residents and concerned individuals. Again, I thank you for taking the time to write. It takes the involvement of people from all walks of life and viewpoint to reach solutions to regional problems of this magnitude. My best wishes. Cordially, k� � Kenneth E. Friess Councilman KEF:cj j 32400 PASEO ADELANTO. SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CALIFORNIA 92675 0 (714) 493.1171 November 3, 1990 Council Member Ken Friess 32400 Paseo Adelanto it San Juan Capistrano, CA 92677 Dear Council Member Friess: This letter is in regard to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. As concerned citizens being fully aware of the traffic congestion problems in Southern California as a whole as well as those as specifically pertain to Southern Orange County, we feel it is our duty to advise you that we are extremely opposed to the above mentioned freeway. Many, many people will have their existing lifestyles destroyed by noise, exhaust.fumes, as wells as adding to the congestion problem. We feel this corridor will not solve our, congestion problems. The funds might be better spent on various forms of available public transportation. This would help solve the smog and noise issues, as well. In addition, the wildlife in the designated corridor areas will be destroyed, never to return. We appreciate you taking your time in reading this letter and hope that as concerned citizens of this area, we have had some say in what takes place in the environment surrounding us. Sincerely, Bruce Anderson 24972 Sandridge Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (714)831-5050 C--�' aw-z�� Gayle Anderson 7-121-1 _ DRUa USE is November 9, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Anderson 24972 Sandridge Laguna Hills, California 92653 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANTHONY L. BLAND LAWRENCE F. BUCHHEIM KENN ETH [ FRIESS GARY L. HAUSOORFER PHILLIP R. SCHW ARTZE CITY MANAGER STE►HEN B JULIAN Thank you very much for taking the time to write to express your views on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I will be sure that your letter is shared with the Board of the Transportation Corridor Agencies. On November 14 there will be a public hearing at Laguna Hills High School, and I encourage you to attend and let i1 your views be known. The hearing is set for 7:00 p.m. to get the widest participation of residents and concerned individuals. Again, I thank you for taking the time to write. It takes the involvement of people from all walks of life and viewpoint to reach solutions to regional problems of this magnitude. My best wishes. Cordially, Kenneth E. Friess Councilman KEF:cjj C7 October 31, 1990 Council Member Ken Friess 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92677 Dear Council Member Friess: This letter is in regard to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. As concerned citizens being fully aware of the traffic congestion problems in Southern California as a whole as well as those as specifically pertain to Southern Orange County, we feel it is our duty to advise you that we are extremely ORROsed to the above mentioned freeway. Many, many people will have their existing lifestyles destroyed by noise, exhaust fumes, as wells as adding to the congestion problem. We feel this corridor will not solve our congestion problems. The funds might be better spent on various forms of available public transportation. This would help solve the smog and noise issues, as well. In addition, the wildlife in the designated corridor areas will be destroyed, never to return. We appreciate you taking your time in reading this letter and hope that as concerned citizens of this area, we have had some say in what takes place in the environment surrounding us. Sincerely, 4TS hurstad 27451 Maverick Circle Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (714)643-2531 0 Mary Jo Shurstad 17-121-1 NOV 1 31990 0 0 MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANTHONY L. BLAND LAWRENCE F, SUCMMEIM KENNE'TM E. FRIESS GARY L. HAUSOORFER ►MILLI► R. SCHWARTZE CITY MANAGER STE►MEN • JULIAN November 14, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Tom Shurstad 27451 Maverick Circle Laguna Hills, California 92653 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Shurstad: Thank you very much for taking the time to write to express your views on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I will be sure that your letter is shared with the Board of the Transportation Corridor Agencies. In January there will be additional public hearings held and I encourage you to attend and let your views be known. The exact bearing date or dates will be announced and publicized in December. Again, I thank you for taking the time to write. It takes the involvement of people from all walks of life and viewpoint to reach solutions to regional problems of this magnitude. My best wishes. Cordi ly, 7 Kenneth E. Friess Councilman KEF:cj j 32400 PASEO ADELANTO, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO. CALIFORNIA 92675 0 (714) 493-1171 • November 2, 1990 Council Member Ken Friess 32400 Paseo Adelanto San Juan Capistrano, CA 92677 Dear Council Member Friess: This letter is in regard to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation' Corridor. As concerned citizens being fully aware of the traffic congestion problems in Southern California as a whole as well as those as specifically pertain to Southern Orange County, we feel it is our duty to advise you that we are extremely opposed to the above mentioned freeway. Many, many people will have their existing lifestyles destroyed by noise, exhaust fumes, as wells as adding to the congestion problem. We feel this corridor will not solve our congestion problems. The funds might be better spent on various forms of available public transportation. This would help solve the smog and noise issues, as well. In addition, the wildlife in the designated corridor areas will be destroyed, never to return. We appreciate you taking your time in reading this letter and hope that as concerned citizens of this area, we have had some say in what takes place in the environment surrounding us. Sincerely, %A..;tt 4 C.� ger yam 27292 ridge Laguna Hills, CA (714)643-9622 92653 Carol Denham IT-121-1 a- i_� cRua usf a November 14, 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Denham 27292 Westridge Laguna Hills, California 92653 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Denham: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANTHONY L. @LAND LAWRENCE F. •UCHHEIM KENNETH E. FRIESS GARY L. MAUSOORFER ►HILLIP R. SCHWARTZE CITY MANAGER STEP -MEN • JULIAN Thank you very much for taking the time to write to express your views on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. I will be sure that your letter is shared with the Board of the Transportation Corridor Agencies. In January there will be additional public hearings held and I encourage you to attend and let your views be known. The exact hearing date or dates will be announced and publicized in Or December. • Again, I thank you for taking the time to write. It takes the involvement of people from all walks of life and viewpoint to reach solutions to regional problems of this magnitude. My best wishes. Cordially, ielnneth E. Friess Councilman KEF:cj j 32400 PASEO ADELANTO, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA 92675 0 (714) 493-1171 0 November 13, 1990 Supervisor Thomas Riley, Dist. #5 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Supervisor Riley: C E C = 7990 CC TR FK F This letter is in regard to the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor. As concerned citizens being fully aware of the traffic congestion problems in Southern California as a whole as well as those as specifically pertain to Southern Orange County, we feel it is our duty to advise you that we are extremely opposed to the above mentioned freeway. Many, many people will have their existing lifestyles destroyed by noise, exhaust fumes, as wells as adding to the congestion problem. We feel this corridor will not solve our congestion problems. The funds might be better spent on various forms of available public transportation. This would help solve the smog and noise issues, as well. In addition, the wildlife in the designated corridor areas will be destroyed, never to return. We appreciate you taking your time that as concerned citizens of this what takes place in the environmen Sinc ely, i" Don ,,Crusius 27472 Maverick Circle Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (714)643-2386 0 t in reading this letter and hope area, we have had some say in surrounding us. Jane Crusius 7-121-1 SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT THOMAS F. RILEY ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P O. BOX 687, SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE 834-3SSO (AREA CODE 7141 December 27, 1990 Mr, and Mrs. Don Crusius 27472 Maverick Circle Laguna Hills, California 92653 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Crusius: 9 Thank you for your letter regarding the San Joaquin Hills r Transportation Corridor. Because the environmental documentation for f� the corridor is currently under review and open to public comments, I am forwarding your letter to Mr. Steve Letterly of the Transportationj' Corridor Agencies (TCA) for consideration of including your comments in the public record. Thank you for making your concerns know to me. Best wishes for a happy holiday season. Sincerely, Thomas F. tRiley v Supervisor, Fifth District TFR:mgb cc: Steve Letterly, TCA -" FROM . PHONE NO. . Pei • November 26, 1990 0 DebBie Conyer 27182 Soledad Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Stave Latterly Manager of SIR Ban Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 343 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Not San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor/Alignment f2 Dear Sirs I an writing in behalf of several members of the community in the City of xission Viejo, to object to Alignment #1 for several reasons, which are as follows: a dramatic increase in the traf- fic count on Avery, as per sap enclosed, showing about 2100 care per hour. According to the 1988 Mission Viejo Traffic Map, in Igoe the average daily traffic volume on Avery Parkway east of Marguerite Parkway was 10,300 vehicles. The traffic on Marquarits Parkway south of Avery Parkway was 13,100 vehicles. According to Figures 4 (part 1A) and 3 (part IA) of the Austin -Foust study, in the year 2010 without the extension of Avery Parkway the traffic volume on Avery Parkway is projected to be 5,000 vehicles and the traffic volume on Marguerite south of Avery Parkway is projected to be 23,000 vehicles for option 1 (Figure 4) or 14,000 vehicles for Option 2 (Figure S) respectively. These Austin -Foust projec- tions are questioned. in both instances they are lower than 1988 traffic levels. 7-122-1 By having Alignment fl, it will solve most of the traffic prob- lems by sharing this traffic conjestion with other streets north 7-122-2 and south of Avery. It is zero economical to finish the project as alignment #1 was planned for, in which case, all the land that is needed is al- 7-122-3 ready owned by Cal -Trans. Let's save the tax -payer's funds for other projects more important in this area. Thank you. ,(S-incerel , r Debbie Cony 1 NOU 27 190 0:13 PAGE.001 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD ' NAME So J4 L NM�1\ Lv 5 DATE / / - iZ -7 ° ADDRESS 1 Y3a I ZAmbca'ee 9,DAJ AFFILIATION F'wvKe r }-faww F•- CITY, ZI1.1 -7) �r PH. # (Optional) (7/-/) rs J -3S'22 9 Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: S-ec AN C X (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on Novem:ser 26,1990 MIrere U z Q 2 I ?. C'.40 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS r7f 7 MR. Bill woolett Director, Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626— " Dear Sirs: Scott L. Miklos Rideshare Coordinator Parker Hannifin 18321 Jamboree Road Irvine,Cal. 92715 NOV. 21,1990 I4m the Rideshare Coordinator at Parker Hannifin located in Irvine.I have the following questions about the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. This year Parker Hannifin will spend about $250,000 in rideshare incentives and subsides.By creating more freeways you are placing the burden of changing .the commuters commute habits onto the indivual Employers in the South Coast Air Basin.The South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Regulation XV requires all Employers of 100 or more people at a single work site to submit a Trip Reduction Plan each year. The most important part of this plan is the incentives which are required to change the Single Occupant Vechile person into a Ridesharing person. The amount of incentives must be increased each year untill an Average Vechile Ridership level is met. By opening new Freeways you are promoting single occupant commutes. This in turn will force Employers to increase their Rideshare budgets which will result in either higher cons`—,mer prices, or Companies leaving the South Coast Air Basin. The latter will result in a loss of jobs and revenue to the county.How will this be a benifit to the community?? 123-1 In your packet on "Frequenty asked Questions about the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor", table 4.1.a, it states that " There are no long term adverse impacts related to air quality. The project will create a postive net benifit to air quality...". I fail to see how creating more Single Occupant Tripd will benifit the air quality. I know that the South Coast Air Quality Management 7-123-2 District does not beleive so, or they would require Employers to increase the speed of their employee's work trips, not eliminate them. Your answer and data to back this up will prove usefull to me for my next Trip Reduction Update Plan. My next question is what studies have been done to assure that the Toll Road will be used. I have a vanpool that travels from La Paz in Mission Viejo to Jamboree Road in Irvine. We charge only $10 per week to ride the van, but even after 8 months the van is 7-123-3 still noV full. Most people I have asked, say that it costs to much. This makes me wonder, at .150 per mile for about 15 miles of Toll Road, who will pay $22.50 per week to use this Toll Road ? • page two Even if there are some people who use the Toll Road during " peak hours ",I can assure you that during non " peak hours 7-123-4 the Toll Road will be empty. I think that it is a foolish waste of time, money and natural resources to build a Toll Road that will be only slightly used about 6 hours aday. One quick note, please do -not tell me that any of my questions can be answered by either " Light Rail ", or " H.O.V. 7-123-5 lanes. You have assured us of nkither during the forcast period, which is through 2010. Your answers to these questions will greatly appreciated. Sincerly r Scott 1. Minos Rideshare Coordinator LJ Please Pant clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME DATE i f 2ct- Q o ADDRESS AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPS cJL),sw 9:: - ,14h'c PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 ' 1 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED NOV 2 7 if i►i��,�I�i,ii����lfi+ii���li�+lips:<<�ii���iii,l�ii COMMENTS CONTINUED r` r��� - , C' .i V �✓ tf� �f� `� �..��{ �W may/ 7-124-1 4�&'41 MOA11'4 41CF-11' -.AE f �. 7�, �t�. �i �/�><�: � �►. cam.. L,c��� hg-�,�'� A-�2. 7-12416 sir,;�1.� /mt3 /wc / r ye iQw 70�r, e *<I 's t/ZL1 1-5 7�W e C -C -Ljy /A.! Ala—MA-4— 7-124-3 eAI D 1-e .���_/ ntl� �� G� -y u�� �LN //Y 9 ! — � �>�'� lt�syGt,✓y i 7-124-4 � n I Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �,�///,�5 DATE 11- Z I - 90 ADDRESS oZS /zZ AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP G6-C/N� 1�/mil 9-2- 6f3 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list COMMENT: _YES NO 216-L" /itCtkci '- (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-125-1 A �• r • 0 (Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME (Y1 eiQLL 5d-L : L7. DATE ADDRESS �-%;�31 IJ�S��� T AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP L. Ut1a S 9265 3 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name t6 your mailing list -" YES NO COMMENT: o V-e-! (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 14,1990 ..2` 1 o eye TRANS?ORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED NOY 2 7 199fl 1 I COMMENTS CONTINUED EMB c CAI o u4- +f i� C9 r r- i c(o r, Q u Ne re +co d T V-�oJ 14 W a- S 6 e U U rz<l -q� � I Q- are. o,— su • I u�.. /L�, / 1INFECOR W& i w i // � /r, rIC Wu vie r,v W� I �lelQ cly SUi J 7-126-1j6 al 0 (Please Print cloarl :. COMMENT CARD -r q NAME /�j`��= '�t= DATE ADDRESS ?` %"SF���'?�`-cam/�" �, AFFILIATION CITY, ZIRZL � •�- ����� i�� PH. # (Optional) 9 Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO " COMMENT: 7-127-1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) 'y' %*aso v Please note: Comments must be returned to the Tran rJ99P Corridor A�enciesh _ office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 P M :► _ W11 Ord THE`s• 2s K: OF A � L!Fa. �'J9�S LL sT- -Vz r�fl,t� TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS • DC'nri� �.-�r. 0 COMMENTS CONTINUED Please Print Cleary: COMMENT CARD NAME �. �`-rt�2 Q2. DATE 50 ADDRESS 2 7 y6 AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP Cos-ra. tv� �� ,. C PH. # (Optional) 4 / Y 9sy-4223 Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO COMMENT: ��o�.�t 5��s�R�.� cov.o +-f� zt4enfl`*'� 1�e,T- '� ! rc % E 1 S f�' n t't T t�-p 3�-►� � Cf'r 9i..lxr .� � r_ c.z Ti�.� is s� c.a..T*4—a N nn T 1 f (Continue comments comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on Novemberz�S; 1990 r �c.�..------.r---r.-------r- FO{C here G 'Bill Butler 3 Chris Cameron ` S 2046 Ceylon Drive Costa Mesa. cA 92626 USA — TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIRIEIS COMMENTS RECEIVEC Wr 2 7 1990 1 • -- . 0 qAr�)r, I COMMENTS CONTINUED l` I.J t i A l_ Yc t E K-- W \TFi f}- �'p YZ.J►ra� - L 1 N E-� 'p1 T c, 7-128-1 c_ c G o 1:rA-r • tr S S CST Vz Esc - Cat2t2\ ocC2 To P�tsz �E..►'Q�Er+ t�(iy_ \ I ' S � _ 1 . N . T � Rx'�� • t� 0 2 a t,-T o F "f'K-�. CJ �a-z�TT o rJ . R T� ti}C' f t — G� --N. O T' _ L 1 C—►+ i e i�- CL D -lZ (r / Tct a RtR t /! , �7r S: �- � � � � -•a 6-S� • ��-e c`� [_�a-t�q � 1�,6•w�y� A-�� S Z � rtnS 1 S Ei7 R-\ 'fl fa tiJ O f'f"� «ni-r- GAS 00 &t, . rRa�s�o �c�ps�Es 7-128-2' El COMMENTS CONTINUED /-,66,: -7"�, W \ � 4-10"►' EL.�vr�1 i.��� '£..off �c.a �.�5 ts-+r.`��.s_ �r �S C,`— S le. c-: Tu-- _G 7-128-3 e- 6 IL ex t t ..� ,�t.c...- T� v�n F s. --c�a t•r�e ►� rt-oR- ,q-v,t� 'moo c 7-128-4 -V\'( w,.� y. 14-► IL ,AST u�A S-r- J �v���. �Ye^rE 'gc !� �p`i �g"r5 l.Ls Q W,� 3 mac- To �"` Set rKt �ax�Dcz�flS e�'` S 2 a t^ r. Y1 -w�l r� a �►-5 C Q'a+T ►a ar c-ra 0.► S. 0 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME /1/IA,_LyA XI-/,c% DATE411,=%&. ADDRESS >,910�2 6,ef A) Q / AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP T4z&I L5 r'r9 Zaa3 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _YES NO COMMENT . // (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 r=oia neia slow PEA, C4 ' `_._.__ z �+ S 2 G Nov qu _ t�E TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED NOV 2 7 19M • COMMENTS CONTINUED 0 40 Please Print clear : COMMENT CARD NAME IF R2 4 A g !q ly DATE tip U 5 0 ADDRESS / � `'( C A YV � 0 N �SAFFILIATION CITY, ZIP U&ovo A %� A-0 A PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO LL COMMENT: Gl M v 0S-e , �-t* 4 ru r5 eCrTu �/W, (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 FOId here TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED MnV 2 7 1990 7-130-1 C. a 7-130-1 COMMENTS CONTINUED 3L J--� C. c�-J yr f w i �l .e C rex,4<6 �to `) in c'u-, e / en.� m o r-e con 0 fb Pease Print clearly: C'+a2A LCOMMENT CARD NAME Qe = C _ DATE I —2-( 'C a ADDRESSa(o Z 12_ C 6 C) 6 r (:;9A6,AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP S -5 - C- PtO PH. # (Optional) 3& Y-? c, f/ Please add my name to your mailing list lLYES NO COMMENT: .o • 10 laic c16C"Z., d (Continue comments on back of this page. To subfnit, p with tape, and mail to the address below.) COMMENTS CONTINUED half, secure T-131-1 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �/ �C%i qyrA� DATE 1I 06-1Z0 ADDRESSMsYl �&qae 2Ul1, ),*• AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP ,¢,1�.�U��! �-f�T'iSl �Q PH. # (Optional) .3/o44-6000,;t Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: r (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 YA. a ping, doff. AMNSOA( , Pat 9 —---...... �.. pM y--�.,..._ .S, TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED NnV 2 7 19N +:lilt iI+++I+I+I 0 COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-132-1 gar 77/smar Is a 4 Dhi gl&aab i 7-132-3 R1il�? �.�dt 1� .�ti4' TILL W-b AW7 �5 4,l977I y IiV 7 - A¢Vo�,4dZ-4 �0 la 7-132-4 1 i fir A�-DD/ 77 oxv D � aoAoIt.;e �1 0 Please Print Clearly: n COMMENT CARD NAME Ci4P?-L-cs t,�.• C�EAUcNG DATE It Rl/e ADDRESS ^"$4-001 My�RwAKDs ��� AFFILIATION ICITY, ZIP F— - T Ro 0k `i�. c 3' PH. # (Optional) 5 91—it 81'2 Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' ,I office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Miners AU L , 0 \� SCLER -- TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVED Nov 2 7 1990 1 7-133-1 1 COMMENTS CONTINUED L, 1 1 1 ,... ,.-.aye *I Please Prn I `ly: 0 MENT CARD NAME Boa Nessersmith DATE Novambe_r 23: 1990 ADDRESS 29301 potted Bull Way AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP San Juan Capistrano 92675 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: The Environmental Impact Report does not address several Problei!n which are of vital concern to Spotted Bull residents: 1 _ Tn t hp rPmrt., it i a clearly i ndi r-ai-ad that the mice lQuoi s•ti7,l 17-134-1 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 --------------------------------- mc here J Yoscmn-+ e�� - TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 1. RECEIVED Nnv 2 7 1990 r 0 COMMENTS CONTINUED significantly increase with the addition of the San Joaquin HIlls Corridor. Yet it is also indicated that "A mininimum 7.3-foot noise barrier would be required to break the line of 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." "A barrier at these sites is not recommended." What, then, will be done ? It is indicated that a further study will be completed. The EIR IS the study and it is clearly incomplete in regard to the study of noise impact. We are entitled by law to a complete study BEFORE a 17-134-1 Corridor. 2.Bicycle -hails are a major feature of the City of San Juan Capistrano; yet the EIR indicates on Page 23 that there would be no bicycle trai- north of Trabuco Cree'.:. The northernmost part of the city would be without access -134-2 to the bicycle trails. Spotted Bull and Country HIlls residents would have have no way to enter the trail system; nor would Stoneridge or Village San Juan students be able to bicycle to Capistrano VAlley High School. 3. There is no answer to the proposed Spotted Bull Trail (Page 3-64) which has been promised us. This equestrian trail is to connect to the city's other trails 7.134-3 and is vital to us as an equestrian community. We have paid tax dollars for the trail; we have been using the trail as it is --unimproved-- and the loss of it would have a huge impact on our co mrUnity. '_fie EIR is simply not complete. • Please Print clearly: * COMMENT CARD NAME Fre:- r_ DATE 11/L:/9c ADDRESS 29342 spotted Bull way AFFILIATION CITY, Zip 4nn 7uan capistran: 9267-- PH. # (Optional) -7, l Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO (COMMENT: the Environmental Impact Report does not address several f problems which are of vital concern to Spotted Bull residents: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS b Yoxmue 17-134-1 RECEIVED oy 2 7 1990 COMMENTS CONTINUED significantly increase with the addition of the San Joaquin HIlls Corridor. Yet it is also indicated that "A mininimum 13-foot noise barrier would be required to break the line of 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." "A barrier at these sites is not recommended." What, then, will be done ? It is indicated that a further study will be completed. The EIR IS the study and it is clearly incomplete in regard to the study of noise impact. We are entitled by law to a complete study BEFORE a Corridor. 2.Bicycle -trails are a major feature of the City of San Juan Capistrano; yet the EIR indicates on Page 23 that there would be no bicycle trail north of Trabuco Creek. 'Ihe northernmost part of the city would be without access to the bicycle trails. Spotted Bull and Country HIlls residents would have have no way to enter the trail system; nor would Stoneridge or Village San Juan students be able to bicycle to Capistrano VAlley High School. 3. There is no answer to the proposed Spotted Bull Trail (Page 3-64) which has been promised us. This equestrian trail is to connect to the city's other trails and is vital to us as an equestrian community. We have paid tax dollars for 7-134-1 0 • 7-134-2 I-134-3 the trail; we have been using the trail as it is —unimproved— and the loss of it would have a on our com mu i The EIR is not 0 P1aass Print cloudy: COMMENT CARD J r, �C/- /s/r- . NAME h' i ,, h ,2r T 5 R & rA-" DATE ADDRESS.,-? AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP S� # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list P* YES NO COMMENT: The Ehviromental Impact Report does not address several I problails which are of vital ooncern to Spotted Bull residents: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 Miners 7 L_ TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS • RECEIVED NOV 27 1990 3. COMMENTS CONTINUED significantly increase with the addition of the San Joaquin HIlls Corridor. Yet it is also indicated that "A mininimum 13-foot noise barrier would be required to break the line of 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." "A barrier at these sites is not recom*ded." What, then, will be done ? It is indicated that a further study will be completed. The EIR IS the study and it is clearly inom plete in regard to the study of noise impact. We are entitled by law to a complete study BEFORE a Corridor. 2.Bicycle - rails are a major feature of the City of San Juan Capistrano; yet the EIR indicates on Page 23 that there would be no bicycle trail north of Trabuco Creek. The northernmost part of the city would be without access to the bicycle trails. Spotted Bull and Country Hllls residents would have have no way to enter the trail system; nor would Stoneridge or Village San Juan students be able to bicycle to Capistrano VAlley High School. 7-134-1 7-134-2 There is no answer to the proposed Spotted Bull Trail (Page 3-64) which has been promised us. This equestrian trail is to connect to the city's other trails 7-134-3 and is vital to us as an equestrian community. We have paid tax dollars for the trail; we have been using the trail as it is --unimproved-- and the loss of it would have a huge impact on our cowunity. The EIR is simply not complete. 0 i 0 Please Print clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME _9 i /I I'i "I"! r'1 ��,/I /_' r' - % r`• DATE / L 41" � ADDRESS:-' Sy 2- 6AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP %'I G I' -S PH. # (Optional) >' G `l - ! �S 3 COMMENT: The Environmental Impact Report does not address several proble;ns which are of vital concern to Spotted Bull residents: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) 1112flz�o Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Minere............���������������.������ / • .1 ^` - Yosetm0 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS r1t -,��C� unV 2 7 t99(► 3. COMMENTS CONTINUED significantly increase with the addition of the San Joaquin Hills Corridor. Yet it is also indicated that "A mininimum 13-foot noise barrier would be required to break the line of sight of an 11.5 foot truck stack and would still not meet Caltrans policy of reducing the traffic noise levels by 5 dBA 7-134-1 or more." "A barrier at these sites is not reocmm nded." What, then, will be done ? It is indicated that a further study will be completed. The EIR IS the study and it is clearly incorQlete in regard to the study L; • of noise impact. We are entitled by law to a complete study BEFORE a Corridor. 2.Bicycle Trails are a major feature of the City of San Juan Capistrano; yet the EIR indicates on Page 23 that there would be no bicycle trail north of Trabuco Creel:. the northem--nost part of the city would be without access 7-134-2 to the bicycle trails. Spotted Bull and Country Hills residents would have have no way to enter the trail system; nor would Stoneridge or Village San Juan students be able to bicycle to Capistrano VAlley High School. There is no answer to the proposed Spotted Bull Trail (Page 3-64) which has been promised us. This equestrian trail is to connect to the city's other trails 7-134-3 and is vital to us as an equestrian community. We have paid tax dollars for the trail; we have been using the trail as it is --unimproved-- and the loss of it would have a huge impact on our oomntmi.ty. The EIR is simply not complete jPlease Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME -1418 � Y DATE / C1 C> ADDRESS�t AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP a.� -.C•1s PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list _.YES NO COMMENT:_ (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 --------- ----._ Mid • -Here TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS lei Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED 0 • -'r?nsnortation Corridor 3L5 Clinton St. Costa Nesa, C,� 92626 '.)ear AIr. Letterly: :-e nc ie s I attended your recent public hearing at T•agauna Rills on the San Joaauin rills Transportation Corridor. You will recall that there were several parties opposed to the corridor particularly as it is planned north from TsUuna Canyon Road to connect with Route 73. I would like the "7encies to consider an alternate plan for this particular se:-ment which has not been graded and which is not only auite expensive but very disruptive to the environment. M- recommendation is that where the corridor intersects 133 on its way north the corridor turn due north followin;• 133 to LL05. -his would still accomplish many of the corridor •oals and postpone the se,cuient connectin:; to 73 to the future. advantages of this new route as I see them, are: 1. l'he corridor would offer an easily accessible alternate to I 5 all the way from Irvine to San Juan Capistrano. 2. The cost of construction for replacing 133 with the corridor will be much less costly than through the -hills. 3. This design would take much of the pressure off of the E1 Toro Y whi*ch might ' eliminate the ex- pense of a redesign of that bottleneck. The re- design of the Y will be terribly expensive and the ` benefits are questionable. 4. The segment from Laguna Canyon road to Route 73 could be light rail only thus impacting the open spaces of that segment far less than a massive corridor. 5. The lower cost of this design may permit the corridor to be built without the necessity of making it a toll road. 7-136-1 I trust that your committment to the existing route of the corridor is not so firm that you can give serious consideration to this and other alternatives available to the Agencies. I would appreciate your comments relative to my suggestions. Sincerely yours, 'Dave Smith 33 Clover Hill Lane Aliso Viejo California 92653 7-136-1 0 7-137-1 IPbase Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME James Davison DATE 'Nov. 26. 1990 ADDRESS 2945 Dorn Ct. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP Laguna Beach, CA 92651 PH. # (Optional) 494-8393 Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO COMMENT: BACKGROUND: I am an engineer working for Loral Aerospace Corp. which was Ford Aerospace Corp. until Oct. 24, 1990. For a number of years we have been developing advanced batteries such as sodium sulfur for Ford Motor Company electric cars. (See over) (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 15,1990 are COMMENTS CONTINUED 7-137-1 90 James J. Davison Engineering Specialist Aeronutronic Division Materials and Process Ford Road Engineering Department Newport Beach, CA 926M Ford Aerospace Telephone: 7141720-4915 From your maps we have computer modeled the road bed topography from MacArthur Blvd. to the crest below Signal Peak as it relates to demand load on an advanced electric car. To our dismay, this substained grade/ elevation rise puts severe design constraints on the electric car. In addition, the battery charge that would be depleted to drive an electric from MacArthur Blvd. to the crest below Signal Peak is equivalent to the energy that would move that same car on the 405 fwy from Bristol St. to the Ortega hwyl Long and medium range commuters with electric cars would not be able to use SR 73. Ford Motor Company and General Motors a committed to building electric cars. Why build a road that would limit their use? We need to move into the 21st century with electric cars jus to maintain present levels of air quality. car re ADM' SA OF I ��'r ORANGE W. 3�+�° AREA �` - A a � AY o I f 1rY7 r7 PTO qq O n o� AV d L I� cc �, r► Fy D..o L O -2 pc ° G • MA S" Q ♦ f < J O hA 1D iY < m f Q IQ AS rM M � ° � 2_ -0�y 7)Q Amp` !/) C1 Q E z= \ ff•' ttf « n PQ�G0R "0' 0 : D" Q' YY ralY1, y� C.) P�MC50 0 aA g > P O 1 � � �077i M d 'd0 • � ! r� O � N d QI $ a l,bf r'0�aepWp? p ]ni:r ct • _ z 3rtlY:a e- _ Cp o t Q NI n YJ YnNr t r W W Z37 l0]15 15 _ w 7015.a c a oQo 2�2 N ,� tD 0 W .hw W p tl A r W C h O J tl0 YYN Q c is N <> o Al +<y o �Z 3s O 3 y� u 4� ` sYnxroo _ O F ► z ¢ z < iBi�ao S = W cca O 1<- 15 y lON7Y11 A 4 ' v cn MIR _ 1W. �a' J Al DN V A 13U N3D1fq NIY = - rA I.. I. F !� —Q d S zC • AV « A 1 A y iy ri(Mh W pNp� P I Q Ix M �• fD QQ Q ` QC7 ID DY Y']IN7 Y510Y 0 m CO W ° <tl! 1Yc U Gwx 11rMY0N < O J; 8 Z ? < ^ « W AIR cc t m� W LLi ~ W O � = a¢ AY MA a)i/J Cif 3 G j 3YY74Q Y J AY V Y. ? U. N ! W i A g S m5 IM W, J ��z77 G� O NMY < r W x r7j YY3N7 �Q W F- cc J m• O I Q m M, AV 3Nr tY +may Ong Ate bast 0 IHOiatidOO —z— o - r 'Y1 J1i — - CINDY.M. O AEU Natural & Cultural ReNoUrce Ci n•ultin,; November 26, 1990 VIA FAX — 11/26/90 Mr. Steve Letterly San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: DRAFT EIR/EIS 1 — Paleontological Resources Mitigation, San Joaquin Transportation Corridor (SJTC) Dear Mr. Letterly: The above —referenced document fails to adequately address mitigation of impacts to paleontological resources during grading of the SJTC. Comments on previous DEIR 494 pointed out the need for comprehensive paleo mitigation planning for the proposed project (letter from Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County attached). Several sections of the proposed corridor alignment have been, or are presently being graded and, in all likelihood, paleo mitigation for the project thus far has been dealt with in a piecemeal manner. Such an approach should not be permitted during the major grading operations which will ensue after certification of EIR/EIS 1. Considering the significance of the marine fossil record of South Orange County; the importance of providing science with a contextual meaning to aid paleo—environmental reconstruction; and the high potential for uncovering thousands of fossils during-138-1a construction of the SJTC, many paleontological issues remain to be addressed including, but not limited to the following: 1. Will one company or several be involved in salvage operations and who will oversee all operations? 2. How many monitors will be provided, and what qualifications 7-138-1b will be required to ensure adequate protection of paleo resources? 3. Who will be determining fossil "significance" — certified paleontologist trained in fields appropriate to the 7-138-1c specimens uncovered, or others? (714)831-8477 P.O. Box 7254, Laguna Niguel, California 92607-7 254 Steve Letterly SJTC — EIR/EIS 1 November 26, 1990 Page 2 4. What measures will the TCA implement to ensure that all I7-138-1d phases of grading are being adequately monitored? 5. How often will activity reports be required and what topics (7-138-19 will these reports cover? 6. What timeframes will apply to submittal of final reports? I 7-138-if 7. Has consideration been given to other governmental agencies previously adopted paleo mitigation measure requirements andl7-138-1y disposition policies? 8. Have effected cities and individual property owners already granted the TCA the authority to apply TCA mitigation measures to salvage operations and the right to determine 7-138-1h disposition of fossils? If not, what assurance does the TCA have that mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR/EIS are acceptable to effected cities and property owners? : 9. Does the TCA intend to provide funds to local jurisdictions for storage, preparation and curation of fossils uncovered in incorporated areas which will not be given. to the O.C. Natural History Foundation? 10. Will funds be provided to the O.C. Natural History Foundation if the project extends beyond one year? (The statement on page 4-112m, Item 11-5, is ambiguous.) 11. What specific plans has the TCA developed to deal with fossil salvage in areas already recognized as prolific fossil —bearing sites, e.g. Country Village Planned Community, Laguna Niguel? 7-138-� Based on the magnitude of the proposed project, and the high probability of recovery of literally tons of fossils during its construction, a comprehensive paleontological mitigation 7-138-2 management plan should be developed and considered prior to certification of DEIR/EIS 1. Thank you for consideration of my concerns. Sincerely, Cind O'Neal cc: Mr. Tim Casey, City Manager, City of Laguna Niguel NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM of Los Angeles Count EARTH SCIE NCES DIvISIOM August 22, 1988 goo Exposition Bouletcr. Los Ange/et, California 9000 Mr. Patrick Lee Acting Manager EMA/Environmental County of Orange P.O. Fox 4048 and Special Projects Santa Ana, CA. 92702-048 Dear Mr. Lee: Subject: Draft E.I.R., 4Q4, San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Paleontological Resources. , After reviewing the relevant parts of this E.I.R., I believe that the Paleontological elements are not sufficiently comprehensive. The area is one of the richest fossil -producing districts in western North America. The Orange 71-1 County Master environmental assessment documents this, and existing County policy for managing fossil resources is quite comprehensive and explicit. �. Eas: cal IY, I bel ieve that the draft E.I.R. unerstates and/or underestimates the level of activ:tiy that will be necessary to adequately handle fossil resources for this large project. I suspect that literally hundreds of localities and thousands of specimens will ultimately be involved. Road and highway construction projects in Orange County generally have not recieved adequate 71-2 paleotalogical assessment and salvage, and it would be unfortunate if that became true also for.this important project. Mitigation Measdures should detail how and when surveys and collecting before, during and after construction shall be handled. Important co-centra;.ior,s of I f=ssii= should be located and/or predicted. Specific plans should be formulated for disposition of the specimens, including provisions (and funds) for cleaning, organizing and storing specimens. Which institutions shall recieve specimens? The tent on p. 522 mentions a Paleontologist. A require Paleontologists. large numbers of trainedg Project of this magnitude will 71-3 other sorts of fossil concentrations are not uncommon occurrences binpbeds OrangerCounty. If such are found, it could tale many people weeks or months to properly collect them. Contracts, funds and plans must be made that can accommodate such extensive activities. What agencies will pay for all of funds are involved, I believe that protection of "cultual resources". affect survey and salvage protocol 0 this? Will volunteers be used? If Federal a certain amount may be earmarked for If Federal funds are involved, how will this 71-4 and final disposition? George C. Pave Mut.r,m li . -.e n t 0 I hope that nay questions will be addres=_ed in the final draft. There are probably other iss,jes that I have overlooGed, and if you wish to contact me other nembers of the staff of this Museum for information, please feel free SO. Sincerely , Lawrence G. Barnes Curator and Section Head, vertebrate Paleontology LSE: p3, NOV 26 '90 16:49 AACN P.2/4 Pau* Pint Cleaiiy: COMMENT CARD )NAME_ ANNA HOINE{ABY DATE !//'Q6_•9O _ AFFILIATION 2Nta"-+�3 Ar-VCx)T CITY, 212?65_PH, # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: Z AM ajn" •ro F.CPAsss My ccak'a4 AgQvr 7HP 82062s00 SAI3 ;%6awj4 HILL& 7ou. AGAR 2 A MWn MOr iwN-Ad MAXOG A ao (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 t010'�OfY SMMP TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CUNTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS NOV 26 '90 16:42 7146404903 PAGE.002 7-139-1 Nov 26 '90 16:50 AACN P.3i4 COMMENTS CONTINUED 60wE iaz2 Z ,s camer, wor daAaa /uC A,s me, swetwNb Pgogdessep t.w Mir QVRWNk�•MlA1b PV&je Jer,"Wr A6AIW-r 7 g PAD PW,4L. S C44% r WPM7>gvb rd L .� y � � • a-- L• � ' 70 71jS LD wt' 4 MWExtr PRQbLo" &3rjw SUCH %7Vj G PVdUC_ oo1/ ox) 46A/NsT -rr. 1i J 774ts , if ag 8F1p) Pt)r 7066) A "LLAT ? WHY NOT? PM*-T;i ltjVoLvFy ,a) 1>01N6 Se. A0JB( sut4 A W,06 N s-MO-V of PO4kitz.. OdE24 C44 wouw,u'r rr m-4Ket sawsF X2 AMN A &MV ALMA-AhinvS�.' WHY NOT Bs" )mwov*ntjf 4ND srm A 141F1ut oF 66'mA;& US o0r OF Qt AOMM06/1-6t 4f6Nr RqtE iN5•(EA'D op A PQeaJ4y utrr As A R75&t r Abon7o2 72 *mr AG,SCD `yQ 73? sovoina CAU= IA tees tfOf .4 7,90—ac Aroscem. Aloe; wo 4 SEVgW wk4X a�2,trAb f �QeSLDtI AN� SA►WO SPA4 PRG6LEM ... .4U. Wr MArM3 *.IT Q F ' 1AN(v -MM PAl. SIE M ER SoL 17T py fo 7NC P►Q &" . W771- DE�?AAs�.s sw t) KIN6 As VAOY +was #s PO,� M ra ME Aifm= d sccw-s,eo�r�� of jWMAos r1ir 794FFIC is SiMPL y dUt' . OF 7/9 CO&r& 4006 %M NOV 2S '90 16:43 714S404903 PAGE.003 Wi 26 '90 16:50 AqCM P. 4/4 AM-bur-10:1111:11, I :;j ll WAM7� P-MM P. f-, AW-1 I Mr. NOV 26 90 I6:43 7146404903 PAGE.004 0' Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD (NAME awn r, 6e-=f:5 DATE // JaS f 4n ADDRESS Los i1► sA t2 AFFILIATION VC, b-lk*- CITY, ZIP M, ssjc., C4 q,.?W4/ PH. # (Optional) IPeease add my name to your mailing list ✓ YES NO (COMMENT: (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 � � � � � � a � � � � — — --% — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — minor RECEIVED NOV' 2 6 1990 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS Stamp COMMENTS CONTINUED • 1, .� .. �� • - • I •w a / . .I!- .I 1 kreel1w impact— eft- ro c0f o.4.1 Ach 6&77 � w i (d it-f• � P 47, .f�f c�,ri� a�.�� Suc G, t.n t bAT .jae" e.S 7-140-2 L1S � L,c h�rPy-Jrd (11 ?.,1 � I,&1n.c C/1c4rh+'1,'Q*= cr 1-it. c h `�ucsnt 0 rid �•dle,4 c., M,,- /treslul,c c+jncnt 0411,trs Wi�� LAI FA NMI Reo 7-140-4 /,K. 0 TL k & C A.P 4- `-;Lh a tL- Q l a r u ✓1 id n"l- p l — 7-140-5 /�uh!) a, f-oQcL also roire s�o!I %4z*5 rvti,<.4 ttist a � e4 7-140-6 ►�`t''re c�dL �1kc a ►Q 14bIL o� s-pa " f on l c,�c4 E,K� a 64d �J, Can -mil- poe<<-10"s; l '*Hr Of ell -'P-O C-f reiR41nS in "f'�1 S CL✓`tC� S`'` S 5 e sr Lv 2 etc +' wl � ( may'''► (..' �t-1'✓t �'C ev+ Cukiy3-t �w'�'l Gi�+d drSf1'.IGhM� w�^c 5cn,nf .. �a�,p�.,•rS�,..r*t►,�� i • Gene Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments ' How many mammals, please specify by species, will be expected to be killed by vehicular traffic each year over each of the next twenty years? 7_141-1 Have studies been performed to determine these numbers? Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours truly,. Gene Felder Gene Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 r November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments 'During periods of light traffic on the 405 Freeway, what is the anticipated traffic on the San Joaquin Toll Road? Monday - Friday 9 : 00 p.m. to 6 : 00 a.m. 7-141-2 Saturday All Day Sunday All Day Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m to 3:00 p.m. Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours trul Gene Felder Gene Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments Have you run tests to determine if small and large mammals will go under the Toll Road through long tubes without adversely affecting their migratory patterns? What change is anticipated to the population of these mammals? Please specify by species. Please add my name to your mailing list. Your trul , Gene Felder Gene Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments Have you studied the traffic noise impact upon the mammals and other wildlife? What changes will occur to their reproductive activities? 7-141-3 Will there be anticipated smaller litter sizes, body weight, sterility, increase in infant mortality? Please specify by species. 7-141-4 Please add my name to your mailing list. Gene Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments For typical years, 20 year flood years, 50 year flood years, and 100 year flood years, what amount of water currently absorbed will runoff the concrete and other man-made surfaces? Where will this water go? 7-141-5 What pollutants, such as pesticide, tire particles, oil, I will be in this water? 7-141-6 Is this water safe for children to play in? What steps have 7-141-7 been taken to ensure that children will not play in this runoff? What quantity of this water will be expected to spill across 7-141-8 Main Beach in Laguna Beach and into the Pacific Ocean? Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours, truly, Gene Felder Gene Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments What currently used hiking trails on currently private, and public lands will be adversely affected by the construction of the San Joaquin Toll Road? Please list these trails, and current estimated usage of the trails by the public. Please add my name to your mailing list. Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 7-141-9 Yours tru y, `L r Gene Felder Johanna Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments How will uphill grades on the proposed San Joaquin Toll Road affect fuel economy? How will the uphill grades on the proposed San Joaquin Toll 7-141.10 Road affect the air exhausted from the vehicles? Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours truly, pohanna Felder Johanna Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments With the San Joaquin Toll Road, and the housing units allowed in South County by the County's Developer Agreements, what affect will the additional vehicle trips have upon the area's air quality? What is the expected additional air pollutants for each of the next twenty years? Specify county area, and description of pollutant. Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours truly, ohanna Felder Johnna Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments 7-141-11 What is the expected impact to average vehicular speed to the #5 Freeway where the San Joaquin Toll Road will connect 7-141.12 to it and have its flow of traffic join the traffic all ready on the #5 Freeway? Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours truly, Oe Aoh vaa Felder Johanna Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments What is the expected impact to average vehicular speed to 7-141-13 the #73 Freeway where the San Joaquin Toll Road will connect to it and have its flow of traffic join the traffic all ready on the #73 Freeway? Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours truly, ?Johanna Felder Johanna Felder 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments How will the San Joaquin Toll Road connect to the #5 Freeway? How can the Environmental Impact Report accurately determine the environmental impacts of these projects without knowing how the San Joaquin Toll Road will connect to the #5 Freeway? Please add my name to your mailing list. Yours truly, /ohanna Felder 7-141-14 Johanna Felder _ 2680 Park Avenue Laguna Beach CA 92651 714-497-4525 November 26, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 235 Clinton Street Costa Mesa CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments How will the San Joaquin Toll Road connect to the #73 Freeway? How can the Environmental Impact Report accurately determine the environmental impacts of these projects without knowing how the San Joaquin Toll Road will connect to the #73 Freeway? Please add my name to your mailing list. 0" Yours truly, ohanna Felder 7-141-15 Please Print Clearty: COMMENT CARD NAME A 0 bri- U 1 1 L;MK - DATE ADDRESS o1"O t V A 26 -,A C e(ZAFFILIATION CITY, ZIP /K&d7j0Q V itSO 4Db44. PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO COMMENT: "Ta v M06-0 'WffiC . of.sW&fs oPvJ 5oAG t W W &A'0 js Lvr, {- - orUC'41f_ c - (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME �Va ��� C.rt e DATE 1 t ILL14 ADDRESS o qg � u n'i►' � AFFILIATION CITY, ZIP .�.1Z �t2(o?� PH. # (Optional} Please add my name to your mailing list YES NO L COMMENT: o J id � t �f qcVm4 ers iW D IL retort JQ M4 -9r- 0- r (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 7-142-1 7-143-1 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME S v'✓rf DATE ADDRESS o I-L6 / eV01"r4Y /J%61FAFFILIATION lu,� ,,lkp•� "�,A�y�bys- CITY, ZIP �'� r� �GY ,0 PH. # (Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list k/ YES NO (COMMENT: r.J � E/ P� -40" Nor ') j S ° 4"� E J /7l f C� 6 A In / N o �AP fT-,e,4No it A S'Cfly /d- 7-144-1 17-144-2 COMMENTS CONTINUED D1—t A�F /C � CpNJf`SriOti1 � No/SE .I7-144-3 rn p,90 Y7- t/� o,�C AvHo Oo # 6,+r /V-6Z✓ 7-144-4 To Ev E.7' A 1 � 0,014 N rRi oc && t_ 6 7 Please Print Cla�: COMMENT CARD / NAME Iloc` �'� f DATE ADDRESS ,2�09a AFFILIATION ��o►�c CITY, ZIP SJ—C CA q 2- PH. #.(Optional) Please add my name to your mailing list X YES NO COMMENT: ��k�elcr• o- �✓y C� S.S� �QC I �n2n� Lc�OUIC P 0 C' Cl o 4S/r/L10 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the"Transportation'Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 ----------- 7-143-2 �I�ne ems.-------------------- Please Print Cla y: , COMMENT CARD NAME a-f r��� 00, DATE �� ADDRESS QS KA. AFFILIATION CITY, ZIPJ� �(.�t.�c 5"' PH. # (Optional) /I/ Please add my name to your mailing list _&YES NO COMMENT: 4441c, !Lt 14t- 7-144-5 (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26, 1990 IroIa more Stamp TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS 7-144-51 COMMENTS CONTINUED ,4� 79 m / J. xa&v- ,A �4,�� /�� _ r— � c.Dx._- ,!�- a--•,.-- ����.�-are — Zc,LE 0 J 01 a TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 Clinton Street COSTA MESA, CA 92626 RE: SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY: RUSSELL BURKETT, 29520 Spotted Bull Lane, SJC 92675 Date; Nov. 26th 1990 I would request that a separate South -End -Study be included in the final EIR-to idenify to decison makers and southern cities (San Juan Capistrano, -145-1 San Clemente, Dana Point, Laguna Niguel, Mission Viejo) the actual impacts and migitations required under any alignment to I/5. In reviewing the Draft EIR, one has to wade through too much data to fully comprehend the impacts to this southern area. Citizens along the corridor path in these areas could more easily read, review and comment if all the Tr145-2 pertaint data was organized, explained and available in one report section. The Draft EIR is deficient in explaining the impacts to I75 at the southerly I boundaries. Example: page 2-10 describes grading widths, page 2-18 talks about lane additions, Table 1 summaries impacts, page 3-64 references feeder trail relocation, etc,throughout EIR. But, little data is given or expanded discussion on the real lane requirements, traffic conditions, arterial over- 7-145-3 loads on side streets that either alignment #1 or #2 but create. The City of San Juan Cistrano and their representative to the JPA maintain that no takings or widenings are necessary along I/5? They dispute the extra lane requirements? Why is the EIR so evasive on these points? I believe that the NO BUILD alternative for the southern area should be given more credibility and comment in the EIR. How has the NO BUILD Alt. 7-145-4 been inconsistent with the cities general plans as page 4-99 tries to paint? If real volumns of traffic are to impact San Juan Capistrano (20,000 to 40,000 extra cars per day) would 2 lanes really.handle the I/5 transition? 7-145-5 The EIR is again deficient in explaining where all this extra traffic will go when it reaches Ortega Highway? Submitteby it SELL BURK T 0 7-146-1 Please Print Clearly: COMMENT CARD NAME lC 1291--AAJ7 DATE it 12-SII 0 ADDRESS ��2 l Z AFFILIATION SA' Clefe'tle �IrfG• CITY, ZIP Q-V- C"tZv% t1, PH. # (Optional) y Z ' $`?q 5 Please add my n COMMENT: 77W) I our mailing list YES NO LASE, C�uS 10�1z ACTiRA/147 AffU"rX j aTINF. C N ,juA Q u rN Po,��T7oN Caj2.�2 rvo;� I (Continue comments on back of this page. To submit, please fold page in half, secure with tape, and mail to the address below.) Please note: Comments must be returned to the Transportation Corridor Agencies' office by 5:00 P.M. on November 26,1990 t 4 CF 'i r!;� 6:z; PM `�° OF z " fFETIME— Z'. Mov d°j OLLECT /994 J TAMPS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCIES 345 CLINTON STREET COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ATTN. SAN JOAQUIN HILLS EIR/EIS COMMENTS RECEIVEL) NOY 2 8 1990 0 COMMENTS CONTINUED 77% 5#w JUAG A s� GtrDtC !� S C•t��2 %7'_�ryl � d o-u_S' .�ry yr 2on! •- nTY &-f4FP H, 45 A10T- PRO PiA2Z K p1�n�SS "n6,4 77CF-A/ 01Z-4 E VZ&- A) ' 7-146-1 X J ,)0A Q U 1AJ 00421VMel- AppsA� s rl-P 15�fvs rnANy DF -/7/CF 77tW T ?-#('s IJ07- A- Ir F,4/T AC(!!0nlPL( "'Xlvv 77M7- eMx?sAk AC- 0/7-/ ZFiJ12Y /eT 7D OZVL�MCl ZQ721210072 4 S AL 01uti' F-0 -eg r Iti i-1) 4eeOu" . Steve L.etterly San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Agency 345 Clinton St. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Nov. 25, 1990 Dear Mr. L.etterly: We would like the following thoughts and questions included in the comments on the current EIR for the San Joaquin Corridor. . We oppose the San Joaquin Corridor in any form, as a disruptive and polluting force in the lives of nearby people, plants and animals -- and -a temporary solution, at best, to today's traffic problems. t. Since others have discussed many of the weaknesses of the EIR, we will restrict our comments to a point not covered in detail by anyone at the last public hearing: the necessity for preserving viable populations and gene pools of our wildlife. This is especially true of endangered and threatened species, and also of the coyote, as the dominant predator of the area. Because of the upheavals and extinctions that follow the loss of a dominant predator (when smaller predators undergo a population explosion), the predator -prey balance is of very serious concern. And according to the EIR, this balance is expected to change if the corridor is built. Under the "Wildlife" section (4-64) the document states that if the road is built, less mobile species, e.g., reptiles and small rodents, will be eliminated. It also says that while more mobile species such as the coyote and gray fox may move into adjacent habitats, these habitats are all at carrying capacity, or in other words, already holding all the coyotes and foxes the adjacent land will support. Therefore, the overcrowding in adjacent habitats may ram, according to the EIR, in an overall reduction in wildlife population, mobile as well as less mobile (underlining ours). What has been described is a classic case of a population crash in the making, beginning with a !_ population surge and ending with the deaths, by starvation or fighting, of approximately the same number of animals as those entering the adjacent habitats -- that is, those that have managed to get out of the construction area alive. The probability of this is so high that the "may result in" would more accurately read "will result in." Considering the pivotal role of the area's dominant predator, too little is explained in the EIR about the size of a coyote population necessary to assure a safe future for the species. We ask: Have studies been done to determine the how big the coyote population must be to maintain a recoverable population in bad years as well as good -- after several consecutive years, for example, of drought, low food supply, disease, fire, or disturbance by humans? How much access do these animals have to each other and to other coyote gene pools? And since the coyote keeps down the population of smaller predators that can bring about the extinction of ground -nesting and other birds of the chaparral, will coyotes have access to the areas of all of these sensitive species? And how large a population of each of these sensitive bird species is necessary to avoid their extinction? One further point: The mitigation being considered for the biological destruction sounds like a Band-Aid to treat an amputated limb. To replace the land to be stripped of vegetation, the 60,000 acres planned for mitigation would have to be (1) not now available to wildlife (or there would still be a net loss) and (2) capable, after preparation, of sustaining something close to the diversity and richness of native habitats being destroyed by the road construction. How close will the 60,000 acres come to meeting these standards? Cordially, A6" FS14, Alan and Janet Remington 7-147-2 7-147-3 Q. � v' 0 OV l�J w`4 li4�i-t19i6 ,+W` ;L� e}t�wwj9 moss .�} •. vl cP ml 90'E wosaar IN NVW sw • OF CLt�l� Co JAJ JOULOO v ��,/ra-S r-►9 fJ e1� i3f CF 14 Twc.p u Ccr AWC vF Ov,e ONCl A L� U America the Beautiful USA15 o� 4kA l` , qa7,0 I Rci of San Joaautn Transportation Corridor i deftnttely object to any T saki any fees on he on�oertp �� �r o Lama. We did fine withpq...V?L eavP- our R10 Hear a olds • s,�tJ net ynstawpe sn�€ &l7np_r'rg eq PME bTaRgy for. T vote mn Richard Shaw • 72.9 Gavi.ota %ptm Reach 7-150-1 30842 Driftwood Drive South Laguna, CA 92677 December 27, 1990 Transportation Corridor Agencies 345 Clinton Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Attn: San Joaquin Hills EIR/EIS Comments I wish to comment on the growth -inducing impacts of the pro- posed San Joaquin Hills Corridor project and the manner in which these issues are addressed in the draft EIR/EIS. As far as I am familiar with the EIS process, there is no a priori reason why any particular impact should be emphasized or de- emphasized in relation to other impacts. Therefore I find it astounding that the subject of growth -inducing impacts is confined to•six pages, within a document that is literally hundreds of pages in volume. Within these six pages, there is a generalized discussion of Orange County growth projections, but no direct discussion of the extent of growth inducement that may be associated with the Corridor project. The most obvious growth impact is that of increased traffic generation associated with new developments. I have reviewed the traffic projections contained in Vol. II, Technical Studies, Sept. 1990. The key factor in the transportation analysis model would seem to be the number of dwelling units assumed in the various model zones, and their Average Daily Trip (ADT) gener- ating capability. The number of dwelling units assumed in this analysis in the zones along the project route number in the hundreds. No basis for this assumption is given, and it is clearly a gross underestimate as compared to the size of the developments which have already been approved and straddle or adjoin the Corridor. These development projects have dwelling units numbering in the thousands. 0 7-151-1 Page 2 I do not believe that the Draft EIR/EIS should be certified without a detailed consideration of the following questions. 1. What is the justification for dismissing the impacts of 7-151-1 growth inducements in only six pages? 2. How can a transportation analysis be justified that uses dwelling -unit densities that are an order of magnitude less than already -approved development projects? Sincerely, Ja E. Cotter L-1 0 CERTIRED COPY-- SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS E DATE & TIME: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1990, 7:00 P-M- PLACE: LAGUNA HILLS HIGH SCHOOL 25401 PASEO DE VALENCIA LAGUNA HILLS, CALIFORNIA REPORTER: STEPHANIE MCMILLIAN WEST . MAXENE WEINBERG. AGENCY Certified Court and Deposition Reporters 1901 tvincArlhur Boulevard, Suite 200 27281 Las Ramhlas, Suite 170• Newport Beich, CA 92660 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (714)476-0222 (714)582-2503 1 s 2 3 G 5 0 7 s J 10 11 12 �. 13 14 i5 16 17 18 1° 20 21 22 23 24 0., 25 PRESENTATION BY CENE FCSTEF PRESENTATICN BY CARCLYI; LCEELL PRESENTATICfI BY STEVE LETTEFLY COci2`EI:TS BY THE PUBLIC I N D E X PAGE 12 32 37 45 f;A.:ENE PiEIUZ-ERG ACENCY f:ISSIO:I VIEJO/I:E;-(PORT PEACH 1 2 3 4 NMI 6 7 3 al 2C 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S ER. OLSCI?: GCCD EVENIFC, EVE YC`;E, A ;D D:ELCCI•IE TO TONIGHT'S PUBLIC E-:EARI:?C CI; THE E VIR.CNEENTAL !,'.:PACT STATEME*:T FCP. TiIE SAP: JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. CAN EVERYECDY H-PAP. ME? PLEASE HOLE UP YOUR HAND IF YOU HAVE A PROELEi:. THANE YOU. f:Y I:Ar'E IS BILL OLSCi;. I'i: A PRIECIPAL jiITH FLORY, OLSCI' & VA ' OSDEL AI"�D T�TILL BE MODERATOR FOR THIS EVENII G' S PUBLIC HEARING. JUST A FEW HOUSELKEEFING REMINDERS EEFCRE ti';E BEG IF. THERE ARE FOUR. EXITS TO THIS AUDITCRIUL' THAT ARE LIGHTED -- THREE CF THEi' ARE LIGHTED ANI: ONE OF THEM IS NOT, DOWN HERE TO I•IY RIGHT. REST ROOLS APE LOCATED OUT THE El{IT TO YOUR RIGHT, BACK ACROSS THE QUAD NEXT TO THE LTERARY. TKEY' RE NOT TERRIBLY NTELL MARLNED, BUT PRESUMABLY YOU'LL FIP:D TREM IF YOU HAVE A NEED. THERE'RE DRINKING FOUNTAINS LOCATED OUTSIDE EACH EXIT. IN THE CASE OF THE FOUI;TAIN OVER, HERE, IT'S LOCATED BEHIND THE EXHIBITS, SC YCU MAY HAVE TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT. AND THERE'S A PAY PHCP;E OR A RANI; CF PAY PHONES OUTSIZE THE GATES HERE AND THEM INI•IEDIATELY TO YOUR RIGHT IP. THE EVENT THAT APcYOI••:E NEEDS TO 1-:ARE A PH CI•;E CALL. ..E G AGEI•;CY 4 1 2 3 4 G 7 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2' 24 YCU CFl:E It: THIS EVE;:II:G, YOU SESCULD HAVL RECEIVED A PACKET CF I:'thTEP.IALS. AND I' D LIKE TO EALK THROUGH THAT WITH YOU JUST TO :-LAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE 11HAT I HAVE. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS A SHEET THAT HAS THE AGENDA FCF. TONIGHT'S NEETING. AND ON THE BACK OR ON THE FRONT, I' M NOT SURE t:HICK IT IS, THERE IS A DESCRIPTICI: OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, SOEIE INFORLATION AECUT THE PROCESS. THE NEXT ITEM IS A ECCKLET LABLED "FRECU'ENTLY ASKED QUESTICNS ABOUT THE SAIL: JOAQUIV HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR." IT'S A QUESTICE AND AI:SI-,ER BOCKLET THAT'S BEE'." PUT TOGETHER BY THE AGENCY. AND ID:CLUDED IN TKA:' BOOKLET IS A SU'IIP•IARY OF TEE Er:VIRCNt:EriTAL II -:PACTS OF THE PROuECT AS IDENTIFIED IN THE EEVIRCIZMENTAL IMPACT STATEt:ENT, AS WELL AS A GLOSSARY OF TERPIINOLOGY. YOU MAY FIND SOME OF US LAPSING INTO JARGON THIS EVENING. WE'LL TRY TO AVOID THAT. BUT THE GLOSSARY MAY HELP YOU DECIPHER WHAT WE'RE SAYING. ADDITIONALLY, YOU HAVE A CCMN;ENT CARD itiHICH CAN BE FOLDED AND BAILED II1 TO THE CORRIDOR AGE!:CY AFTER TEE EEETING OR CAP: BE HANDED IN THIS EVENII.G WITH A I:P.ITTEPI COIi:•iEr.T IF YOU WISH TC LAI Z- 25 1 C::E A:' T Itz. IS T1I•:E. YOU CAN ALSO, OF CCURSE, l-;Ai:E A r 11 i i•'I''!F?'F !'r T i?PF'?r nrr-rV ''TCCTnN- ITTr -n /'hTrT: r-rroR, t rrrl!.• c 0 1 2 3 4 c 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 •15 16 17 18 19- 20 21 22 23 24 25 S E P ♦RATE t'II:ITTEI- CCI::iZ',:i TO TiiE AGEPiCY AI:E EAIL IT TC TEE ADDRESS SHC0JI: I:CT LATER T 5 : 0 0 P.i:. 0ii �;OVE'iLER 26, 1::0. FINALLY AND VERY II.PCRTANTLY, THERE'S A CARD, SI:ALL SHEET OF PAPER CALLED "PUBLIC MIErETI17G, ATTENDAi'•CE CARD" SC TEAT YOU CAN RECORD YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, AND ORGAiiIZATICP:AL AFFILIATIONI IF ANY. '.',I D TI:ERE' S A SEAD.ED BC:. TO INDICATE LETHEF OR NOT YOU WISH TC SPEAK THIS EVENING. PLEASE BE SURE AI:D FILL THIS CARD CUT AND TURN IT IN TC CNE OF THE STAFF N—w?":DERS. THEY'LL BE IDENTIFIED BECAUSE THEY'LL BE t-iEARIP:G A BADGE CR LEAVE IT CI: THE TABLE CUTSIDE OF EITHER OF THE EXITS WHERE YOU CADIr IN TINS EVENII:G. IF ANYBODY DOES NOT HAVE THIS MATERIAL THAT I SPOKE OF, IF YOU'D PLEASE RAISE YOUR SAND, WE'LL I•:AKE SURE THE STAFF tiEI BER GETS YOU A PACKET OF INFORMATION. LISA AND DONNA, WHEREVER YOU MAY BE -- IF SOMEBODY CAN EELP ME ALERT THEN, THERE ARE SODIE PEOPLE HERE III THE CENTER WHO DO NXT HAVE A PACi:ET. IF YOU COULD, PASS IT TO THEY. THAN'R YOU. ANYBODY ELSE, JUST KEEP YOUR HAND UP AND STAFF t'IILL• GET YOU n P�:CI:ET. AS I IZODICnTED, THE SUBJECT OF TCI.IGI:T' S EEARII-G IS THE DRAFT 1 2 3 4 5 cl 7 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 ENVIRCNLIZNTAL I; -:PACT REPORT AI:D ENVIRCINLE:1TAL Ii:FACT STATEIIEI.T FOR THE SAt. JOAQUIr; HILLS TRANSrOF.TATICN CORRIDOR PRCJECT. THIS DOCUI•IENT HAS BEEN PREPAREL TO SATISFY THE P.EQUIRENENTS OF ECTH THE Er"%TIONAL ENVIRCNMENTAL PCLICY ACT, OR Ar'L, TI'_E CALIFORNIA EF.VIP.Cl'I:E: TAL QUALITY ACT, CEQA. 107E TiILL BE USING THE TERD? "EIS" THIS EVEFING ZUST TO AVOID LENGTHENING IT AVD CALLING IT AN. EIR/EIS. THAT I%ILL STAND FOR ENVIRCI,'i-:El'TAL II'PACT STATEMENT. SII•IPLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE DCCUI:ENT IS A COl:EINED EIR/EIS TO SATISFY BOTH OF THOSE STATUTES. THE DRAFT EIS HAS BEEN PREPARED AS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE SAI: JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY, CALTRANS, AND THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. THE TRANSPORTATIOII CORRIDOR AGENCY, OR TCA, IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THE EIR. AND FF•WA, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, IS THE LEAr AGENCY ON THE EIS. CALTRANS HAS REPRESENTED FHWA IN THE ENVIRONEENTAL PROCESS AND P; ILL •ULTIMATELY ASSUFE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CORRIDOR AFTER COIISTP+UCTI0N, IF THE PROJECT PP.CCEELE. I'L LIYE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF EISTCRY, 0 0 "%UL _-+-r.rn� rr�r+•r I 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2c JUST A FEI: i•IILESTCI:ES, I:: THE DEVELCPi:EI:I CF TIT PRCL_ECT SINCE IT BEGAN. IT'S BEEN: IN. THE PLANINING STAGE FOR SOME TIi*'E. IN. AUGUST OF 1S76, THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADDED THE CORRIDOR TO THE FASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL KIGHT-IAYS EASED O'N NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN: Tr:E SOUTHEAST CR.ANGE CCUI:TY CIRCULATICN STUDY. III NCVEi•:BER CF 1979, FINIAL EIR 267 Z'JAS CERTIFIED BY THE BOARD AND A ROUTE ALIGN.14ENT FOR THE CORRIDOR WA.S SELECTEE. IN AUGUST OF 110881 DRAFT EIR. 494, WHICH ADDRESSED THE CONSTRUCTION: LEVEL I'.•.PACTS OF THE CORRIZ OR PrCjECT, IIA.S CIRCULATED AZIB PUBLIC CCI 11EI:TS V ERE RECEIVED. LATER OR SL'BSEQUEN;TLY II: JUN:E OF 1:89, IT WAS DETER EIN:ED THAT IT ti'OL'LD BE PREFERABLE TO PREPARE A COI:BIlIED EIR AND EIS DOCUMENT TO INCLUDE ADDRESSING THE CORRIDOR AS A TOLL FACILITY AND TO INCCRPORATE THE DISCUSSION: CF THE DEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE, WHICH CONCEPT HAD ARISEN CUT OF THE DIALOGUE REGARDING EIS 494. IN: SEPTE11BER. OF -- SEPTEI•iEER 14 DRAFT EIR/EIS TCA-1, WHICH IS THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT, WAS CIRCULATED FGR PUBLIC REVIEW. IT'S AVAILABLE AT THE -- FROV THE TCA FOR R.EViE:; AND AT OTHER LCCATIOUS I47FICH :.ILL BE MADE FVAILABLE FC.c TFCEE I`AYE::E f'rIl"EEFC AGE17CY-:ISSIOI: VIEJG/N:Ej:POR.T BEP.C'.—: E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OF YOU I:FO I•bF.Y WISE: TO OBTAIN ? CC•PY FCR FEVIEI•;. IN OCTOEEF, LAST EOTNTr r VAP S'ciGl,IVGS ::ERE H LZ II' IRVIi:E AT L'I)IVERSITY IiICEi, AT LAGUNPI EEACF, LAGUVA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL, AI:D I`zISSICP: VIEJC AT CAPISTRhI'C VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL TO DISPLAY CORRIDOR PLAYS AYD RESPOND TO QUESTIONS II: AI; OPEN HOUSE SETTIK.G. TEAT SETS TEE STAGE, THEE, FCR TCP;IGFrnl S HEARING, THE PURPOSE CF WHICE: IS TO PRESENT YOU WITH S0,'•'E INFORI:ATION ABOUT THE CCRRILOR, FOR THOSE OF YCU WFC AREN'T FAMILIAR WITH IT APED I•:AY NOT HAVE ATTENDED THE 1-',AP SHCWINGS, AP;D TO RECEIVE YOUR COEEEI4TS ON THE DRAFT EIS AED ON. THE PRCJECT'.S SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONNEETAL EFFECTS. A COURT REPORTER IS HERE THIS EVENING TC PREPARE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING. THAT TRANSCRIPT WILL BE IMCLUDED IN THE FINAL EIS AS PART OF THE FINAL DOCUMENTATION FOF. REVIEIti BY THE DECISION MAKERS BEFORE A PROJECT DECISION IS REACHED. THE TRANSCRIPT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM THE TCA ON OR ABOUT DECEt'BER 14TH IF YOU WISE: TO REVIEW IT AT THAT LOCATIGN. t•;RITTEN RESPONSES TO COt:MENTS OR QUESTIONS RECEIVED AT THIS HEARING WILL ALSO BE II'CLUDED IN THE RESPCNSE TO COI'IlENTS DOCL'IdENT 'r±HICH DILL BE A PART CF THE FINAL EIS. i 0 i A'A;'EI-',E WEINEERG ACEN.CY I-:ISSICI� ViEvC/NEi-PORT EEACF 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A FC-TICE OF TONIGHT'S HEAI.'II,:C WAS PUELISE ED I:•: TKr. TIMES, T::E RECIfiTER., TEE Dr',ILY PILOT, TEE LACU11A BEACH t:Et'ZS POST, AIiD THE CAPISTRANO VALLEY P.EL:S. COPIES OF THE NOTICE WERE ALSC t:AILED TO APPROXII•:ATELY 4700 INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIOP'S ON THE TCA PRCJECT CCNTACT LIST, IP CLUCII:G FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATCRS, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND MEMBERS OF THE AFFECTED CITY COUNCILS. AT THIS TIME I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MONEitiT AND INTRODUCE THE FOLLOT' ING PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND AG-El-:CY STAFF WHO ARE PRESEt:T THIS EVENING AND LIFE THEM TO STAND AS THEY'RE !NTRODUCED. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE WITH US MARK GOODIiAN, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO SUPERVISOR THOMAS RILEY, FIFTH DISTRICT, MARK; MR. EDWARD SHELDAHL OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADLINISTRATION; AND SITTING NEXT TO ED, JUDITH HEYER, CALTRANS DISTRICT 12 ENVIRONMEPTAL COORDINATOR; AND FINALLY DONNA STUBBS. DONNA, ARE YOU AVAILABLE IN THE ROOM HERE? HERE SHE COMES. DONNA'S THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY. AND LEL'BERS OF THE PRESS WHO ARE HERE THIS EVEI" II•:G, PLEASE SEE DONNA IF YOU PEED ADEITIO::AL INFCR1:i�TIC1; OP. HAVE QUESTIONS THAT SHE L:A::E::E ;•.ElLl'-r RG AGEi:CY VISSION VIEJC/NZ'v'PCRT BEACH 1 c 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 11 12 1-2 r 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I CAN ANSWER. DC171'A' S ALSO AVAILABLE TO OTTER VEI•:BERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT I CALL HER OUT ESPECIALLY FCR TEE PRESS. THANN YOU. OTHER TCA STAFF AND CONSULTANTS WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED I174 PROJECT PLANNING A1:D EIS PREPARATION ARE ALSO HERE THILS EVENIrG. YOU CAN IDE 'TIFY TEEM BY TEE NA11-1E TAGS TKEY' RE F-vEARING, ANB I' D LIFE TEED: TO JUST STAND AS is GROUP Ai:D BE RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME SO THAT YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. ALL FIGHT. l•:ELL, THE PANEL AS 1:1ELL, CF COURSE. ALL RIGHT. TRA1 K YOU. YOU HAVE I:•: YOUR PACKET, AS INDICATED, THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S KEARING. JUST BRIEFLY IT WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. IN A tlOriENT, 1"E' LL HAVE THE PANEL r:ARE A BRIEF PRESENTATION. WE'LL TRY TO KEEP THE PRESENTATIONS TO A MINIMUM SO THAT IvE MAXIMIZE THE TIME THAT WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM YOU BECAUSE THAT IS INDEED THE PURPOSE, THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATIONS, I' LL MAKE L COUPLE OF REMINDER CON.NEKTS, AND THEN VIE' LL TAKE A 15—MINUTE RECESS, RATHER SHORT RECESS, ANL- BEGIN PROMPTLY 15 MINUTES AFTER THAT RECESS BEGINS. WE WILL THE:: £•-rGI:: TIEE PUBLIC FEARII:C A:•:Z 0 11 1 2 3 Y 5 6 7 E c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RECEIVE YCUR CCiIEENTS. t:E ARE SUPPOSED TO CLEAR THIS ROCI: BY 1C:3'0 THIS EVEI;ING, SO TEAT'S THE TI,':E LII:IT THAT j%E' nE LOOK IFC AT. WE LL I✓ETERAN11:E 1.'KETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO AST FOR A TIDE LIMIT ON CCMNEN:TS AFTER 4:E SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE WISH TO SPEAK, AND WE'LL DO THAT DURING THE RECESS. AT THIS TINE I'D LINE TO INTRODUCE THE PANEL tiHC BILL DE MAKING PRESET TATIONS THIS EVEI IA".G. FIRST CF ALL, III THE CENTER, -GENE FOSTER, I-TEO IS THE TRAN:SPCRTATTON CORRIDOR AGENCY PROJECT E_.GINEER IN CHARGE OF THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS CC =IIrOR PROJECT. ON GENE'S LEFT IS CAROLYN: LOBELL, A PRINCIPAL OF LSA ASSOCIATES, TI:E CONISULTIN:G FIRM WHICH HAS TAKEN THE LEAD IN: DRAFTING THE EIS. AND ON GENE FOSTER'S RIGHT IS STEVE LETTERLY, i•IANAGER OF ENVIRONMEI•ITAL I2IPACT WITH THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY. STEVE IS -- HAS OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TEE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT AS FAR AS THE AGENCY IS CONCERNED AND AS WELL IS IN CHARGE OF THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR TEE EASTERN: CORRIDOR AND THE FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. I'D LIKE AT THIS TIEE TO TURF THE I•IEETIN:G OVER TO GENIE FOSTER, WEO IIILL BEGIN THE STAFF PRESENTATION: BY DESCRIBING THE NEED FOR THE �'A-'.E. E WEII.EERG ACEN:CY III�SION? VIEjC/i E.:PORT EEaC:? 1) 3 4 5 6 7 8 e 10 11 12 1' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 251 12 PROJECT AXE THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. GEI;E. PRESENTATION BY MR FOSTER MR. FOSTER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BILL. AS THE SLIDE PROJECTOR -- ,SLIDE SCREEN IS CCi:ING DCL';N, LET ME EINSURE THAT EVERYO"-.E CAN SEE THAT. IF E-E CAN HAVE THE LIGHTS DOWN SLIGHTLY. THAT'S FILE. FIRST SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TRANSPCRTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY -- AND I TI_INN IT'S It:PCRTANT TO REINFORCE, BASED CN SOI'iE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE RECEIVED TONIGHT AT THE OPEN HOUSE, EXACTLY WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY IS. SECOND SLIDE, PLEASE. WE AP.;. AN AGENCY CONSISTING OF 13 CITIES IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. OUR SCLE PURPOSE, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, IS TO CONSTRUCT THREE CORRIDORS. SPECIFICALLY THOSE THREE CORRIDORS ARE THE FOOTHILL, EASTERN, AND THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TCA IS DIVIDED INTO T4:C AGENCIES REALLY UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. CIJE AGENCY IS THE FOOTHILL EASTERN; THE OTHER AGENCY IS THE AGENCY THAT IS REPRESENTED HERE TOEIGHT, THAT IS, THE SAN JOAQUIN CORRIDOR AGENCY. AP'D YOU CAN SEE THE CITIES AND THE COUNTY REPRESENTATICII CE THAT SLIDE. THE TCA SAN JCAQUIF 0 !.:Ai.EI.E i�='.T':77Pr. r,r.T--ry ,.'TCC�/`� 13 C 0 1 2 3 G 5 6 7 E 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 III 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CORRIDOR AGE17CY SPECIFICALLY HAS THE TASI: OF DESICI:IKG, BUILDING, AND CPERATII:G TEE SAN JCACUII: CCRRIDOR, S:HICE IS THE 1,71EXT SLIDE, PLEASE. DEPICTED CI•i THIS REP?DERIFG IS A CORRIDOR THAT IS SOME 14.7 MILES OF t:Et: CORRIDOR CC::STF.UCTION. IT EEGINIS, IF I CAN: LEAVE THE LICROPHCN•'E FOR JUST A LCN:ENT, AT AVERY PARKiCAY Ai'D THEN; CONTINUES NORTHERLY 70 TEE EXISTING ROUTE 73 AT JAMBOREE NEAR THE JOHP: W-AYN?E AIRPORT, AND LET tiE POINT THAT OUT FOR JUST A MCNEN'T. JUST TO REINFORCE THE LIMITS THAT I JUST SPCKE, THE CORRIDOR BEGINS AT I-5 NEAP. AVERY PARF:WAY, 14.7 MILES OF N4El'. CORRIDCR COP?STRUCTION: THROUGH ALISO VIEJC, AND THEN CROSSING THE EL TORC-LAGUNA CANYON "Y, " GOING THROUGH THE IRVIN:E BACK COAST AND CONNIECTIN:G TO EXISTING ROUTE 73 AT JALBOREE BOULEVARD. THE CORRIDOR ALSO HAS ADDITIONAL LIGHTS ON THE I-5, DEPEN;DING ON THE ALTERNATIVES, AND WE'LL GET INTO THOSE ALTERNATIVES IN: JUST A MOMENT. BUT THE TOTAL LENGTH OF THE CORRIDOR, DEPENDING 014 THE ALTERNIATIVE SELECTED WITH ADDITIONAL MERGING LANES ON: I-5, COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS BEING 17 1/2 MILES OR 11c' t•iILES L0:7G, 19.4 I•:T_LES, THAT LEI•:GTH BEING FF.0i•: j 11IE0REE L;EIP:BCRG AGEI"CY LVISSIC11 V--EJO/EES•:PCPT E£tCF. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 DOUN TC I.hATEVER ALTE::t:FT:VE IS CCi:SID'P�.TICN OP' I-5. IF I COULD HAVE T:i-E 1'rY,T Sr _TDE, PLEFISF. AI,C2'G THIS ALIGNEENT, THERE ARE TWO CHOICES CI' TEE EA'VIRCi :_EI:TAL DCCULNENT THAT WE I;EED YCUR COI-:I:EiZTS C*' THIS EVENING. THOSE CHOICES HAVE TO DO :-ITH A 1-1IDTH OF THE CORRIDOR. Cr: :•; Ir-TH OPTION IS X120I•I1: AS THE CCNVEETIONAL OPTIOP:. ITE' VE SELECTED THAT E.AitE BECAUSE TE EFFECT IT OPERATES AS A CONVENTIONAL FREEv;AY S:CULD I:ITH AN EQUAL NUMBEF OF LAP:E-- DEDICATED IN EACH DIfiECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, AN EQUAL 16 L. NEER OF LAI-:ES IN THE NORTHBOUND AIvD SOUTHECUND DIRECTIONS. THAT WIDTH IS DEPICTED HERE. IT IS A VO:II*:AL I,TT_DTH OF 204 FEET. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. TEE CORRIDOR WOULD DEVELCP VERY SUCH AS IS DEPICTED HERE. THIS IS THE CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE IN ITS ULTIMATE STAGE WITS -- DEDICATE EQUAL NUI`.BER OF DEDICATED LANES, AS I' M DEPICTING HERE WITH FY POINTER, IF, EACH DIRECTION AND THEN CONCURRENT HOV LANES IN THE CENTER. THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, IS KNOI•.I? AS THE LEMAND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE. IT HAS A NARROEIER V:IDTH, AND THE WAY 25 1 I'iE' RE ABLE TC EAKE THIS RARRCI"ER P:IDTH 1.CRK IN i� I•iEII":EEF.G AGEI:CY I:ISSICE VIEJC/1'EI•:FOP.T EEACH 15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TRAFFIC IS EY USE OF A t:ELPIA:-:, TEE PIE;L'IA:' VIETH HERE BEING tj-IDER THAN TFE C- HER CHOICE. TtI—c tIEIrIAI: WIDTH IS 8E FEET. It: THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THE I:EDIAN WIDTH 1'0-'AS 64 FEET. BY USIING THE E.-EDIA:: IN A c:UNBER OF LIFFEREINT WAYS, WEICH I' LL GET Ii?TC IN A I•IOI•IENT, VE CA11 DECREASE THE YET t•:IrTE OF THE CORRIDOR AND KAVE LESS OF Ei'VIRCI•:I<ENTAL II PACTS. THIS IS THE OPTION OR THE CECICE THAT HAS TO BE SELECTED, EITEEP^ CONVENTICNAL OR DEMAND I%.AIiAGEIiiZ;T. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. TO FURTHEi EXPLAIN TEE DEMAND MANAGEI• ENT ALTERNATIVE, WE HAVE FOUR SLIDES DEPICTED HERE. THE PHASI`:G OF THE CORRIDOR tIAY DEVELOP A.:D IT WILL DEVELOP DEPEN:DIN�G ON THE TRAFFIC THAT WE EXPERIENCE. BUT IT t'TOULD LIKELY DEVELOP FROM All OPEN MEDIAN WITH THREE LANES BUILT IN EACH DIRECTION. THE 88—F-EET i•:EDIAN THAT I ALLUDED TO EARLIER IS RIGHT HERE. THE SECCND. STAGE BIGHT LIKELY BE REVERSIBLE LANES. A THIRD STAGE MIGHT LIKELY BE CONCURRENT HOV LANES. AND THEN F� IN SOME FUTURE YEAR WE COULD HAVE LIGHT RAI LET'S STEP THROUGH THOSE Iii A LARGER EXHIBI NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE FIRST PHAS TIiIS IS THE PHASE THAT CUR EN:VIP^CI:i:ENTAL DO SEEKS TO CLEAR IF TEE DEI• A D L'Ai:AGELEI:T }. T V ^ N v T: i^ T K' T. T T /^ f /` r �r /� t) • • r n n T n .• r + •^ - n / • - r . 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 1 ALTER??ATIVE IS SELECTEE'. 2 THIS T:CULD BE THREE LAi;ES CF TPAVEL II: EACH DIRECTIO:; T:ITH AN, BE—FCCT OPEN MEDIAN. TEE I BE—FCCT OPEN I-:EDIAN IS THE I:EY. IT'S THE !•IENU TEAT ALLCT;E; US TO PUT IA: A NUMEEp OF DIFFEREL";T OPTIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE REVERSIBLE LAVE IS ONE OPTION. WE DC IN TINS AREA OF THE CORRIDCP., IN THE AREA OF BENEFIT, HAVE A STF,CNGER DIRECTIONAL FLO11. THAT DIRECTIONAL FLOW, AS YOU PRCBABLY ALL KNOW FROMI DRIVING THE 5 AND 405 IN THE MORNING, IS ABOUT A 70-30 SPLIT, 70 PERCENT OF THE TRAFFIC L'ANTING TO CO P:ORTHBOU2ID IN THE MORI3IA-G, T,ITH A 30 PERCENT DIRECTION T;ANTING TC GO SCUTHBCUND. THAT'S AN INEFFICIENT USE OF TEE FREEWAY. REVERSIBLE LANES TIOULD ALLOT-7 US TO ZMAKE THAT IP;EFFICZENCY 11ORE EQUITABLE. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE A REVERSIBLE LANE AND DIRECT IT NORTIIBCUND IN THE MORNING. WHEN THE PEAK HOUR CHANGES AND COMES SOUTHBOUND, THIS COULD BE REVERSED IN THE AFTER 700I:. THAT'S ONE OPTION. NEXT ELILR PLEASE. HOWEVER, IF OUR LAID USE DOES NOT DEVELOP THAT T:AY► THE MZEDIAN COULD BE CHANGED. THIS 66—FOCT CEDIAN AGAIF, LET I•:E REXIND YOU, COULD EE M c.n —i L ve!' -i -i: w Nr_ r•r-r Ts r`tr 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 USED '.ITl: COECUP.REN-T HCV LADES, AND HERE ARE, TFE THREE LANES THAT L"CULD EE BECILT 1-.ITF INITIAL C0NSTRUCT1C::. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OTHER OPTIONS I17CLUDE FCV AND LIGHT RAIL, VENT SLIDE, PLEASE, AFD REVERSIBLE LANES AND LIGHT RAIL. VEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. LET ME E%PHASIZAE EEFCRE WE CC ANY FURTHER THAT AT THIS TIME OUR EIR DOES NOT CLEAR Tr'c, LIGHT PAIL OPTIONS. THOSE ARE OPTIONS THAT NEED TO DEVELCP AS POPULATiCN DENSITIES AND CENTRCIDS OF FORK, SY.CPPING, AND RECREATIONAL AREAS NEED GREATER DENSITY BEFORE LIGHT RAIL CAN EECOLE ECCI:0It! ICALL FEASIm-LE. CUR CORRIDOR, HOWEVER, DCES MAKE A REAL COLMNITMENT TO LIGHT RAIL BECAUSE OUR BRIDGE DESIGNS WILL CLEAR SPAN THE CORRIBOR, ALLOWING FCR LIGHT PAIL TO GC IN. BY CLEAR SPANNING, I NEAP: TO SAY THAT TIE WILL NOT HAVE CCLUNNS IN THE CENTER OF THE CORRIDOR FOR*BRIDGES. THAT'S A REAL CONNITIMIENT TO THE OPTIONS THAT ARE DEPICTED IN THE DELAND i-;Ai:AGEMEI".T ALTERNATIVE. ANOTHER SET OF CHOICES THAT WE'D LIKE YOUR COMMENTS ON TONIGHT DEALS WITH THE CCNNECTICN OF THE CORRIDOR TO I-5. THERE ARE Tti90 CCrNECTIOFS. THE FIRST Cr;C THAT IS DEPICTED HERE IS CALLED ALTERNATE r•+tNPr%I- •-"r•----- �--1.- ..-....-.... ........... i..---- ..-..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 NULEEF. 1. TO CRIENT YOU A LITTLE BIT, THIS L'OULL BE THE EYISTI2:G I-5 FF.EES•7AY. AVERY PARIZWAY IS SHCT:;N HERE. XY POINTER IS NOW PCIN•TING TO PASEC CE CCLINAS, AND THIS IS CANINO CAPISTRANO. IP: ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 1, WE HAVE A STRAIGHT CONFLUENCE, WHICH I•iEANS CUR CORRIDCR, THE 73 COP.RIDCR SHOWN HERE, CONNECTS DIRECTLY TO I-5 ;',ITi:CU'T ANY INTERMEL'IATE RAMPS TO THE LOCAL ARTERIALS. IF I COULD HAVE THE 17EXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF ALTERNATE NUMBER 1. j•7E'VE PHCTOGRAPHED• THE AREA. THIS VIETr: LOOKS SOUTHERLY TOV7ARD CAPISTRANO, AND IIE' VE INDICATED THE CORRIDOR IN A RENDERING FASHION. THIS WOULD BE CABOT RCAD AND CROWN VALLEY PARKEAY. SOME OF YOU HAVE UNDOUBTEDLY BEEN TO THE NEW COSTCO BUILDING 4FICH IS LOCATED HERE. UI3DER ALTERNATE NUMBER 1, WE'VE HUGGED THE CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWN HOMES THAT ARE ALONG PASEO DE COLINAS AND FOLLOW THE ALIGNMENT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED III 1979. THERE ARE NO DIRECT CONNECTIONS FROM THE CCRRIDOR TO THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM IN THIS AREA. THE FIRST OPPCRTUNITY TO GET Or: THE CORRIDOR WOULD BE 25 I GREENFIELD DRIVE. NEXT SLIDE, PL•EF:SE. THIS IS A i 1E ON, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RE:1DEPIN:G THAT LOGES AT ALTERNATE YUNBER 1. IT IS A FILL•. THIS WOULD BE THE ECNES AN:D COD'BOMINIUNS UP DEAR PASEC VE COLIN;AS. THIS IS THE EXISTING PASEO DE COLINAS BRIDGE JUST TO ORIENT YOU. THE REASCI: WE'VE DEPICTED TKIS IS TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF THE VISUAL II=:PACTS. THIS RENDERIDG IS MADE LOOKINIG FRO1.1 ROUGHLY THE RAILROAD SOUTHWESTERLY. SOME CF YOU HAVE ASKED HOT, HIGH WOULD THE BRIDGE LEE OVER PASEC DE COLIN3AS. I? YOU WERE TO GO OUT THERE TODAY AND NCTE OUR BLUE CORRIDOR SIGN, YOU WOULD SEE A GRADED PAD RIGHT NEXT TO THE COP?DCI--INIUI•:S AND APARTLENTS. THAT IS THE ACTUAL GRADE CF THE CORRIDOR IF THAT ALIGNMENT WERE SELECTED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE VISUAL IMPACTS WITH THIS ALIG::MENT ARE SIGNIIFICANT. THIS IS A BRIDGE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE VIEWED FROM, AVENIDA DEL CABALLO. THIS STRUCTURE IS ALONG ALTERNATE NUMBER 1 ONLY, AND THIS VIEW LOOKS EASTERLY TOWARD SADDLEBACK COLLEGE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO AL•IGENENT ViUL,"BER 1, THERE IS ANOTHER ALIGNEEN:T KNOt,JN: AS ALIGELE2"T r:UMBER 2. THIS ONE IS COi:SIDERABLY I•:CRE COMPLEX TO -E::PLAII-:. t.1?I 1 +•T' "t, r vnnr- Trc•-r-- rrr-r+• +-r-r• /•-rr.-r.rrn rrr 20 1 2 0 4 5 G 7 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19• 20 21 22 23 24 25 1T CRCSSES OVER CROWN VALLEY PF.^,F T:AY, I;FICE IS THIS ARr' ErrRIAL HERE, AND CABOT RCAL KERE AP:Z HAS RAI:PS, ON: AN:D OFF RAMPS TO TEE ARTERIAL SYSTEM: AI:L TO I-5, ALLOWI::G ACCESS, BETTER ACCESS TO TKE CORRIDOR. THE ALTERNATIVE HERE IS EASED ON LC47ERING THE I-5 FREEWAY AND CONNIECTING PASEO DE CCLIN AS I:" A ERIDGE CVER THE TOP OF THE LOVIERED FREEWAY TO AVERY PARKWAY. THERE ARE RAMPS THAT CCN.NZECT TO I-5, ALLOW YCU TO GET OFF THE CORRIDOR TO THIS ARTERIAL. YOU CAN ENTER THE CORRIDOR BY THIS RAMP FROM: I-5. IN ADDITION TO THAT, BECAUSE THERE t+OULD BE SOME LOST ACCESS FROM: THIS AREA DOt'%lN TC CAMINO CAPISTRANO, 1-1E HAVE INCLUDED IN THIS ALTERNATIVE THE IDEA OF RAISING I-5 AND MAKING A NEW CONNECTION BETWEEN CAMIN O CAPISTRANC AND VIA ESCOLAR. THIS INTERSECTION EXISTS TODAY. THIS IS THE INTERSECTION OF VIA ESCOLAR AND MARGUERITE PARKWAY. THE OTEER ALIGNMENT, ALIGNMEN•IT 1, JUST FOR COMPARISON'S SAKE, WOULD BE TRACED ROUGHLY BY MY LIGHTED PINPOINT AS RIGHT UP AGAINST THESE HON•IES. THE ALIGNMENT 2 MOVES OUT AS=AY FROI•: THE HOMES BUT DOES IMPACT SEVERAL BUSINESSES. I\ FACT IT IMIPACTS ALL THE BUSINESSES FROM: ALLEN CADILLAC SOUTHERLY, ILCLUDIN:G THE GAS • t,-TCCTn-' 17T7.?r:/77rf•'Dr`Dri+ rc*rt 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 STATICNS, RESTAURANTS, HOTEL AND SC FORTE, AND I THII R T�iE' VE DEPICTED THAT OUTSIDE. i:ANY CF THE PROPERTY OWNERS III THIt- AREA KNOT'- THAT ALTERNATIVE. YEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IN A SILILAR FASHIOP: TO THE RENDERING WE SHCT7ED EARLIER, THIS RENDERING DEPICTS ALTERNATE NUI-IBEP. 2 AND HOT•. IT P70ULD BE COI?FIGURED. IN THIS ALIGNMENT, T•dE WOULD HAVE TNO OPTIONS. WE COULD SPAN TEE COSTCO BUILDING OR, IF NEGOTIATIONS WITH CCSTC, WE COULD DOVE THEM BACK ON TO THE OLD ALIGNAN,ENT. THAT i.OULD EE AN. CPTIOI:. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A RENDERING -- AS WE LOOKED AT THE FILL SLOPE FOR ALTERNATE NU,NBER 1, THIS WOULD BE THE SAME AREA. LOOKING NORTHERLY, THIS WOULD BE THE BRIDCE STRUCTURE, AND THIS WOULD BE THE REAR OF THE COSTCO BUILDING. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE VISUAL IMPACT FROM AVENIDA DEL CABALLO, THIS STREET -- PREVIOUSLY WE HAD A BRIDGE SUPERSTRUCTURE UP IN THE AIR HERE. THIS WOULD BE THE VISUAL IMPACT THAT YOU'D RECEIVE FROM ALTERNATE NUMBER 2 AT GRADE. THE PASEC DE COLINAS ROAD WOULD CONTINUE II•: A BRIDGE A;:D CONNECT OVER TO AVERY PARKTdAY. OUR CCRRIDOP. NOL'LIr BE LOB:°ER THAI! THE OTHER 25 1 ALTEF.I:ATIVE AND T:CULD BE ROUGELY DOWN HERE' FOR 22 1 COMPARISON'S SAKE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IT IS 2 II:PORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THIS CORRIDOR IS A TOLL 3 FACILITY. IT j;ILL BE A TOLL FACILITY IN THE 4 INTERIt: AND ULTILATELY REVERT BY LAW TO A FREE6•,AY 5 ONCE THE COFSTRUCTION BONDS ARE PAID CFF. 6 THERE ARE A LCT OF QUESTIONS TYPICALLY AT 7 MEETINGS LIKE THIS ABOUT HOW THE TOLL SYSTEM 8 WORKS, AND I' LL GIVE YOU A BRIEF RUNDCNI: Cr. THAT. 9 THE TOLL SYSTEM IS ONE THAT I`7E CALL AN AVI 10 SYSTEM. THAT tIEANS THAT SUBSCRIBERS IN THE AREA 11 COULD PREPAY AND OBTAIN A TAG THAT IS PLACED ON' 12 THE VEHICLE. AS THEY USE THE CORRIDOR, THEY P:OULI; 13 PASS THROUGH AND NOT BE STOPPED. THEIR TAG IOULD 14 BE ELECTRONICALLY READ, AND THEY WOULD BE BILLED 15 ON A MONTHLY CYCLE. 16 IF YOU'RE -- SOMEONE THAT IS I:OT A 17 RESIDENT OR NOT A SUBSCRIBER, SOMEONE, FOR 18 EXAMPLE, FROM OUT OF THE COUNTY, WE WOULD HAVE THE 19 TRADITIONAL STOP AND PAY BOOTHS, NEXT SLIDE, 20 PLEASE. THIS SLIDE INDICATES THE SAME 21 CONFIGURATION. IT JUST INDICATES WHERE THE 22 ANTENNA IS, AND IT INDICATES THE READING OF THE 23 TCLL TAG THERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. ANOTHER 24 SLIDE INZICATING 11101-, THE ANTENNA READS THE TAG. 25 AND IF THE TAG IS DETERMINED TO BE NCT • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 O 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 VALID OR NOT PAID UP, THEM WE COULD USE LAW ENFORCEEENT OR PROBABLY SEND YOU A REMINDER. EILLIi:G. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TOLL FACILITIES THEMSELVES -- THIS WOULD BE A RENDERING OF THE MAID: TOLL PLAZA. THE ANTENNAE THAT T'iE' VE INDICATED WOULD BE IN THESE SPECIFIC TOLL BOOTHS. AND SC,'•:E OF THESE WOULD BE DEDICATED SPECIFICALLY TO AVI. THE REST OF T1;El1 17OULD BE THE STOP AND PAY BOOTHS WHERE SOMEONE WOULD -- THE OUT OF AREA SUBSCRIBER WOULD HAVE TO STOP. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AT THE TYPICAL ON OR OFF RAMP, WE WOULD HAVE A BOOTH THAT COULD SERVE BOTH PURPOSES. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TOLL SYSTEM ITSELF, THE CONFIGURATION IS -- WE'RE SPEEDING JUST A LITTLE BIT OF TIME ON. THERE WOULD BE A MAIN TOLL PLAZA CROSSING THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR JUST SOUTHERLY OF SAND CANYON. I DO APOLOGIZE THAT THIS NORTH ARROW IS UPSIDE-DOWN. JUST TO ORIENT YOU, THIS IS I-5, AND NORTH IS THIS WAY. THE JOHI] WAYNE AIRPORT WOULD BE IN THIS AREA. THIS IS SAND CANYON. OUR MAIN TOLL PLAZA i:CULD BE SOUTHERLY OF THE SAND CANYON INTERCHANGE, THE FUTURE INTERCHANGE. TRAVELING NORTH, IF YOU ENTERED THE CORRIDOR FROt•i I-5, YOU EOULD NOT PAY A I:nXE.:E I?Ei?:SERG AGENCY MTSSTrNt ViR,in/? Fi-:P(`FT zFArT: 24 1 TOLL UETIL YOU CROSSED THE EAIN TOLL PLAZA. 2 HOWEVER, IF YOU WANTED TO GET OFF THE CORRIDOR 3 EARLIER ON AN OFF RAI•:P, THAT LITTLE ELACn DOT 4 IN:DICATES THAT WE EOULD HAVE AN OFF RAI:P TOLL 5 1 PLAZA. 6 WITH THE AVI SYSTEI•I, I -I E' RE ABLE TO FIGUPE 7 OUT HOW FAR YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE CORRIDOR BECAUSE 8 iT'S ELECTRONICALLY READ, AND WE CAN PRORATE YOUR 9 TOLL TO THE LENGTH OF TRAVEL ON THE CORRIDOR. 10 NORTHERLY OF THE MIAIN TOLL PLAZA, WE WOULD HAVE 11 OUR RAMP TOLL PLAZAS ON ON RAMPS ANC WE WOULD TOLL 12 YOU AS YOU GET ON THE ON RAMP FOR THE RELAINDER CF 13 THE CORRIDOR. GOING SOUTHBOUND, THAT SYSTEi•: 14 REVERSES. OUR ESTIMATED TOLLS AT THIS TIIIE ARE 15 ABOUT 15 CENTS PER MILE. 16 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE SERIES OF 17 RENDERINGS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO SHOW INDICATE THE 18 SPECIFIC INTERCHANGES. THIS IS THE INTERCHANGE AT 19 GREENFIELD. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WOULD BE -- THE 20 CORRIDOR IS A BRIDGE OVER EXISTING GREENFIELD, AND 21 THERE IS A DIAMONL INTERCHANGE i'iITH A NORTHBOUND 22 RAMP AND A SOUTHBOUN;D OFF RAMP. IT IS A HALF 23 CIAMOND. THE SOUTHEOUNL OFF RAD:P -- I' I: SORRY, 24 1 THE NORTHBOUID OFF RAIdP AND SOUTHBCUND Cif RAMP ARE 251 NOT A PART OF THE INTEF.CHA.IGE AT THIS TILE. MAXEEE �:EIIFBERG AGENCY I•IISSIO?I VIEJC/i•:Et•:PORT BEACF f I - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • G 10 11 12 13 14 1r. 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS INDICATES THE COP.RILOR, A RENDERING OF THE CORRIDOR AS IT WOULD APPEAR FPO!-; NELLIE GAIL. WE'RE FREQUENTLY ASKED ABOUT GRADE REDUCTION STUDIES IN THIS AREA. THE TCA HAS GONE THROUGH QUITE AN EXTENSIVE STUDY TO NEWS IS WE CAN; THE BAD NEWS IS NOT A LOT. WE WILL BE DEDICATING IN OUR DESIGN, FINAL DESIGN, TO LOITER THIS CORRIDOR IF THIS AREA ABOUT TWO FEET AND IN SOME AREAS WE WILL BE PUTTING IN BERMS FOR VISUAL AND NOISE MITIGATION. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THOUGH, LOOKING AT THE INTERCEAP:GE, THIS WOULD BE MOULTON PAP KF:AY. THIS VIEtiY LOOKS NORTH. THE CORRIDOR DOES HAVE AN INTERCHANGE, AN OFF RAMP, SO THAT YOU CAN GET OFF THE CORRIDOR SOUTHBOUND ON MOULTON PARKWAY, AND THERE IS AN ON RAMP FROM MOULTON PARKWAY. THE NEXT INTERCHANGE UP WOULD BE.THE LA PAZ INTERCHANGE. THERE IS NO INTERCHANGE AT OSO -- PACIFIC PARK. THE NEXT ELEMENT YOU 'SEE IS ALICIA PARKWAY. WE DO NCT HAVE AN INTERCHANGE THERE BUT AT ALISO CREEK WE WOULD. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS CONTINUES RIGHT ON, UP THE CCRRIDCR' T4lIE I. THIS IS THE ALICIA -- I'M SORRY, THE ALISC CREEK 26 1 PARN%�-:AY INTERCHANGE. THIS IS ALISO CREEK ROAL. 2 YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE. FOR FURTHER ORIENTATICNI 3 THIS IS THE UNITED PARCEL BUILDING. LAGUNA HILLS 4 DRIVE IS HERE. WE WOULD NOT HAVE AN INTERCHANGE 5 AT LAGUNA FILLS DRIVE. BUT WE WOULD HAVE A FULL 6 INTERCHANGE AT PACIFIC PARK AND GLENS"COD. 7 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. CONTINUING UP THE 8 CORRIDOR, THIS 141OULD BE THE EL TORO AND LAGUizA 9 CANYON CONFIGURATION. 4':E DO HAVE AN INTERCHANGE 10 AT EL TORO ROAD. IT IS A DIAMOND INTERCHANGE WITH 11 THE RAMPS TUCKED IN. VERY CLOSELY TO TEE CORRIDOR 12 ITSELF. AT LAGUNA CANYON ROAD, E7E HAVE A 13 CLOVERLEAF INTERCHANGE. PEOPLE FREQUENTLY ':ANT TO 14 KNOW TINY WE CAN'T TUCK THE RAMPS IN CLOSER AT 15 LAGUNA CANYON ROAD. WE HAVE GRADE PROBLEMS. 16 WE HAVE TO GET THE CORRIDOR UP TO THE 17 PROPER ELEVATION, AND THAT REQUIRES SOME CLIMBING 18 AND LUBE RAMPS IN THIS AREA. I WILL ADMIT THAT 1: THE SLIDE IS OLD AND THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH 20 WAS THE LAGUNA LAUREL DEVELOPMENT, WILL NOT OCCUR 21 NOW. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A DEPICTION OF 22 THE EL TORO ROAD IVTERCHANGE. IT LOOKS GENERALLY 23 SOUTHWESTERLY AND DEPICTS THE TYPE DIAMOND 24 INTERCHANGE AT EL TORO ROAD. 25 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE 9- 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 DEPICTION OF HOS: THE EL -- LAGUNA CA:IYCN ROAD 2 WOULD LOOP;. THIS VIE:: LOOKS GENERALLY 3 NCRTHEASTERL•Y AND SHOWS THE CLOVERLEAF RAMPS. 4 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE'RE FREQUENTLY ASKED WHAT 5 THE VISUAL IMPACTS WOULD BE FROM THE TURTLE ROCK. 6 AREA. It: THE PAST, THERE WERE TWO ALIGNMENTS THAT 7 WERE UDDER STUDY THROUGH THIS AREA. ONE WAS KNOW111 B WAS THE "L; " ONE WAS KNOWN AS THE "S" ALIGNI•IENT. THE "S" ALIGNMENT WAS SEAWARD OR MORE TOWARD THE COAST. THE "L" ALIC-17MENT WAS MORE l TOWARD TURTLE ROCK. DUE TO GEOTECHNTCAL REASCINS, '. THE "L" ALIGNI:ENT HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED FORWARD. THERE WERE MASSIVE SLIDES IN THE AREA, AND WE DROPPED THAT ALIGNMENT FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION. THE VIEW OF THE CORRIDOR FROM TURTLE ROCK WOULD APPEAR VERY MUCH AS WE HAVE DEPICTED HERE. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS WOULD BE BOMMER -- YOU GO BACK? PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: COULD MR. FOSTER: YES. COULD WE GO BACK. TO THAT FOR JUST A MOMENT? THIS WOULD BE BOULER PARK ROAD. PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: WHERE IS TEE CORRIDOR? �E --- - •� ..E 4;EID:EEFG A(;Ft;ry To f�T..,, - ,-_-- 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 G' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FOSTER: THE CORRIDOR IS RIGHT THERE, THAT THIN WHITE LINE. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. AND WE CAN GET -- UE CAN SHOW YOU THAT AT A BREAK, IF YOU'D LIKE. THE NEXT INTERCHANGE UP WOULD BE THE PELICAN HILL P.CAD INTERCHANGE. ACTUALLY THERE IS AN INTERCHANGE IP: BETT,- EEN, WHICH IS SAND CANYON. WE WILL CONSTRUCT THE BRIDGES THAT WOULD MAKE UP THE SAPID CAYvCN INTERCHANGE. THE ALIGNMENT OF SAND CANYON IS YET TO BE DETERMINED. IT IS NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT. THE ALIGI•;b:ENT V;ILL DEPEND ON STUDIES DONE BY THE CITY OF IRVINE AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE IN CONJUNCTICY T,7ITH CRYSTAL COVE PARK. PELICAr; HILL ROAD IS CUR NEXT INTERCHANGE. THIS VIEW LOOKS GENERALLY NORTHERLY. PELICAN HILL ROAD AS DEPICTED HERE COMES IN FROM THE COAST, AND THIS TRUMPET INTERCHANGE WOULD TAKE PELICAN HILL ROAD TRAFFIC TOWARD UCI. THE CONNECTION WITH CULVER DRIVE IS POSSIBLE. BUT SINCE THAT IS NOT ON THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN, IT IS NOT A PART OF THIS PROJECT TO COID'IdECT -- MAKE THAT CONNECTION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASL. THE VIE6'J OF THE CORRIDOR FROM SPYGLASS HILL IS INDICATED IN THIS SLIDE. IN THE %Ih aC• .•n •-n nr.n •ten n�. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ..��.. i.. �..�.. .. .� �� �_. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 S. FOREGROUND tIOULD BE PELICAN HILL ROAD, AND IN THE BACI%GROUI'D EOULD BE THE S;P; JOF.C,UIF CORRIDOR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE VIEty OF THE CORRIDOR FRCI: FORD ROAD IS DEPICTED Its' THIS SLIDE. IT'S IMPORTANT TC REALIZE -- AND WE'VE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF CONMENTS THAT INLICATE TEAT - THERE'S GENUINE CONFUSION OVER WHAT HAPPENS EITH CCYCTE CANYON ROAD, PELICAN HILL ROAD, AND THE CORRIDOR IN THIS AREA. LET ME STATE VEP.Y CLEARLY THAT THOSE ROADS t?ILL NOT LIE NEXT TO EACH CTHER. ONE ROAD TAKES THE PLACE OF THE OTHER ONE SEQUENTIALLY IN THE FOLLOWING FASHIOK. COYOTE CANYON ROAD EXISTS TODAY. IT :BILL BE REPLACED WITH PELICAN HILL ROAD, AND ULTIMATELY PELICAP: HILL ROAD WILL BE REPLACED BY THE CORRIDOR. THIS VIEW LOOKS GENERALLY TOWARD UCI. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OUR FINAL INTERCHANGE IS THE MACARTHUR BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOW THE AREA, THIS WOULD BE UCI. THIS IS JAMBOREE ROAD. SAN DIEGO CREEK IS HERE. UNIVERSITY DRIVE SOUTH IS THIS ROAD RIGHT HERE. THERE IS A:"I EXISTING CITY PARI: HERE TODAY. THIS IS E,;ISTII,7G N'ACARTHUF. BOULEVARD. IP: THE FUTURE, NACARTHUR BOULEVARD WOULD GO OVER THE ESnYFf'r t•7rTVDrV1-2 Arr�-nv r,m invpk - 30 1 CORRIDCR, AFr, VE' D HAVE RAi:PS FROM I•:ACARTHL:R 2 BOULEVAPD, TO AND FROM _KE CGP,RT_DGR. EIECE cVEINIUE 3 INTERCF:AEGE, VHICH IS A .IET-I EI•:TrAI:CE TO THE 4 UI:IVEFSITY GF CALIFORNIA IRVI :E, IS DEPICTED 5 HERE. NEXT -cL:DE, PLEASE. THIS IS A GROUND LEVEL 6 SECT OF THE ZMACARTHUR BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE Fri•:D 7 LCC 'S TOT•7ARD UCI. 6 NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. TIRE COST OF THE 9 CORRIDOR IS DEPICTED III: THE ENVIRCINVENTAL 10 DCCUEENT. I THOUGHT I T:CULD SECT-,- THIS SLIDE JUST 11 FOR COMPARISON. IT' S II,IPGFTA!:T TO UNDERSTANE, I 12 THINK, THAT THE CONVENTIGIvFL ALTERNATIVE AF-D THE 13 DEEWND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE HAVE BEEN UPGRADED 14 SYSTEMATICALLY BY CALIFCR16IA CC::;STRUCTIC!. CCSTS 15 INDEAX WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR IEFLATICN. 16 THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THIS CAI; BE FOUND 17 ACTUALLY RIGHT IN THE ENVIRGNMENTAL DCCUMENT, IF 18 THERE'S FURTHER NEED FOR THAT. NEXT SLIDE, 1S. PLEASE. THIS WOULD BE THE DEMAND MANAGEtIEll T 20 ALTERNATIVE. WE'VE INDICATED Iti BOTH SLIDES, AND 21 I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED TENS IF THE PREVIOUS 22 SLIDE, THE INITIAL COST OF A SIX -LANE FACILITY, 23 IHAT T•:OULD EE WHAT CUP. EI•IVIROAi::E::TAL DCCCi-IE:"" 24 SEEDS TO CLEAR AT THIS TIME. 25 I I+:EDIAD: IN, PROVEI:EI:TS ANE ULTI:•:ATE PRO-JECT "TPQTr`" 17Tr711 /II V T. nnnm !--A/-7 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 1� 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ARE SEPARATE PROJECTS THAT N-CULD CCME AT A LATER DATE. r:E:IT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE rEEL FCP. THE PROJECT IS L'EPICTED BY TRAFFIC VCLUNES. THIS LOCUMENT CCMES DIRECTLY CUT CF THE CORRIDOR EI:VIRCI:I-:ENTAL IMPACT STATEIIENT, BUT I THIN: IT BEARS A FET: TCORDS OF EXPL&NNATION. THE FIRST WORD CF E?:.LAI:ATIO:: IS THAT LhT OF THE TRAFFIC PF.OJECTI01`S ARE NAZE FRCNA LAID USE DATA, iti'IiICI: 67E RECEIVED FRO;: CUR r4EISBER AGENCIES FOR THE YEAR 2010. TC THE EXTENT THAT THAT LAND USE DATA IS XNCT-.-Nr TEEN CUR TRAFFIC PROJECTION TAKES OFF AND USES THAT AS THE FCUNDATIC1: FOR ALL OF THE VOLUI•:ES THAT v,E PROJECT OR FORECAST. T�:E OTHER PRIMARY ASSUMPTICN t•;ITH THE TRAFFIC FORECASTING IS THAT THE MASTER PLAT. OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE YEAR 2010 AND, VERY IEPCRTANTLY, THAT THE FOOTHILL CORRIDOR, WHICH IS OFF THE MAP, AND THE EASTERN CORRIDOR ARE ALSO, CONSTRUCTED. TO THE EXTEI•:T THAT THE FCCTHILL CORRIDOR OR EASTERI' CCRRIDCR OR MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS ARE NCT CONSTRUCTED, THERE WOULD BE A GREATER NEED FOR THE SAID JOAQUIN CORRIDOR TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC VOLUT ES ON THE 5 AND 4C5 AND PCH. THE RELIEF Ii" THE YEAR 201C FOR THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 01; THE 5 AND i•'TcCTrT' �iTF.��1/T'F'i•'DI�RT PrPr'� 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 405 RANGES BETWEEN 39- AND 65,00C TF.IPS A DAY. RELIEF FCR PCH RANGES II: TILE CF.DEF OF 14,000 TRIPS A DAY. AND RELIEF FOR NOULTCN* PARX'17AY RAI:GES IN THE ORDER OF 20,000 TRIPS PER DAY. AN'D THAT CONCLUDES I'Y PRESENTATION. 1:R. 0LS0Y: THANK YOU, GENE. ANL AT THIS TIME CAROLYN LOBELL •;ILL PRESENT A;•: ENVIRCNMENTAL DCCUMIENT. CAROLYN PRESENTATION BY CAROLYN LOBELL I•IS. LOBELL: THE CCRRIDOR EIS ADDRESSES 21 DIFFERENT ENVIRCNMEUTAL TCPICS AN.D POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE CORRIDOR. I' I•; GOII:G TC FOCUS IT: A VERY BRIEF SUI:�:ARY ON SOME OF THE KEY AREAS, THE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED IN -- PRIMARILY IN THE PUBLIC i4EETINGS, AT THE THREE i•:AP SHOWINGS. EXCUSE ICE. ALSO I ti'•iILL TRY NOT TO REPEAT SOI•IE OF THE TOPICS THAT GENE HAS ALREADY FOCUSED ON. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE CORRIDOR HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SEVERAL STUDIES IN THE PAST. THIS BASE OF INFCRI--IATION HAS HELPED THE ENGINEERS TO LIMIT THE ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACTS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DESIGN FEATURES REFLECT THE TCA GCt",L OF STAYI::G AS FAR AWAY FROM SENSITIVE RESOURCES AS POSSIBLE.. It; a 3 4 5 6 7 1c J 16 2C 21 22 23 r 2 << 2� 33 ABBITION, AS CUTLII:ED III THE EIS, THE TCA HAS COMEITTEB MITIGATION MEASURES WHICh Y.-ILL REDUCE OF. ELII'INATE I•_Ai:Y OF TEESE EFFECTS. THE FIRST TOPIC I' l: GOING TO M.ENTI-OP: IS I:CISE. SEVERAL LOCATIONS 17OULD EXPERIENCE NOISE IN EXCESS OF STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES. FOR ::CST CF THESE AREAS, NOISE 6-1ALLS Y:ILL BE COI:STRUCTED TO BRING THE NOISE LEVELS TO THE STANDARDS. THE NEXT AREA IS BIOLOGY AND WETLA'NDE. IMPACTS INCLUDE REMOVAL AND FRAGMENTATICN OF T-,ILDLIFE HABITAT, IMPACTS TO "ILDLIFE AND DESTRUCTION OF jILDLIFE KOVEMENT PATTERNS, IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE PLANT C0I-1111UNITIES, ANL LOSS OF WETLANDS. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THOSE IMPACTS INCLUDE ISONITORING DURING CCNSTRUCTION BY A BIOLOGIST, MAPPING AND FENCING OF SENSITIVE AREAS, AND OTHER PROTECTION OF RESOURCES DURING CONSTRUCTION, TRANSPLANTING SENSITIVE PLANTS, F.EVEGETATION OF SLOPES WITH NATIVE VEGETATION, WATERING DEVICES FOR WILDLIFE, AND ALSO WILDLIFE CROSSING IN THE SPADY CANYON', EMERALD CANYON AREA, REFLACEMENT OF HABITAT IN ACCORDANCE 4:ITH RESOURCE AGE;:C`_' RECUIRELENTS. I' D ALSO LIKE TO fiENTICN THAT TEE COU::TY ►•T.Vr?-C` r: "r• n"n^ %^ - I -nv ' . I....-.... ..---.. .— - 34 1 I:AS HAE A POLICY OF FESERVING LARGE BLOCl%S OF CPEc: 2 SPACE IPA MANY OF THE PLANI:ED CC :::UT'ITIES THAT 3 PLAI+i'ED it'. CCORDII'ATIC:' WITH TfiE CCF.RIDCR. THE 4 NE: T TCPIC IS HOUSING AND BUSINESS RELOCATICIT. 5 GENE HAS TOUCHEI: C1.1 TEAT BRIEFLY. THERE PILL EE 6 PARTIAL ANE FULL TAKES OF BUSINESSES AND 7 RESIDENCES. THESE PRII:ARILY OCCUR AT THE SOUTH 8 ENE NEIAR THE I-5 CONNECTION. ° riT �TIGATICN MEASURES FOR THOSE INCLUDE 10 RELOCATIGN PROGRAMS IN ACCCRDANCE T-47ITH STATE AND 11 FEDERAL LAW, AND RELOCATION PLANS WILL BE 12 DEVELGPED WITH TEE AFFECTED CITIES. THE NE: T 13 TOPIC IS CALLED SECTION 4(F). THIS REFERS TO THE - 14 USE OF ANY PUBLICLY O'o-I ED LAND FROM: A PUBLIC PART{ 15 OR RECREATION; AREA. I' D LIKE TO BRAT-,' YOUR. 16 ATTENTION TC A GRAPHIC NOW. I REALIZE IiOST OF YOU 17 WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT VERY WELL. 18 BUT I'LL POINT IT OUT, AND YOU CAN LOOK 19 AT IT DURING THE RECESS, THIS GRAPHIC HERE WITH 20 THE GREEN AREAS. THE GRAPHIC DEPICTS THE SECTION 21 4(F) RESOURCES THAT WE EVALUATED. AND THESE DO 22 INCLUDE ANY RESOURCES THAT WOULD BECOME PUBLICLY 23 OWNED PRIOR TO OR DURI!'G THE TIME THAT THE 24 CORRIDOR IS CCNSTF.UCTED, SC T':E HAVE LOCI:ED AT 25 SEVERAL OF THE PLANNEL C0I•:I:uNITIES IN THE AREA, L'L'lt'T r T.r -. r Lr. :)r arr* ry " T C C T r : z7Tr-rI/•-r•-cel� rm rr*rt: 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 1Q 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NOT JUST EXISTING OPEN SPACE. THE GRAPHIC ALSO SHOjdS ALIGNNENT ALTERNATIVES TEAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO TRY Al'D AVOID It:PACTS ON THOSE RESOURCES. IN TERMS OF IMPACTS, ONE BICYCLE TRAIL WILL BE PHYSICALLY AFFECTED BY THE CORRIDOR. NO OTHER SIGNIFICANT DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS OCCUR* Ai�D I !•TIGHT POINT CUT A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH COOPERATIVE PLANNING THAT HAS OCCURRED. MOST OF THE LARGE PLANN.ED COi;D:UNITIES THAT ARE GOING TO DEDICATE OPEN SPACE HAVE LEFT THE RIGHT—CF—T'AY FOR THE CORRIDOR AVAILABLE. ALL OF THE ALIGNI.4ENT ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THCSE STUDIED Ii•: THE PAST, WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLETELY AVOID IMPACTS OR AVOID GOING I:EAR THESE FOUR RESOURCES. MITIGATION MEASURE INCLUDES RECONTOURING OF SLOPES TO MATCH EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, CONSTRUCTION OF A BERM NEAR BODIMER CANYON PARK TO SHIELD VIEWS OF THE CORRIDOR FROM THE PARK, AND PROVIDING OVERCROSSINGS WITH CLEARANCE FOR PEDESTRIANS ArD BICYCLES. THE NEXT TOPIC IS HYDROLOGY. THE CORRIDOR WILL CROSS SOME FLOOD PLAINS. MITIGATION DILL INCLUDE BRIDGES, CONSTRUCTI02 OF CHANNELS, AED DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND RETARDING BASINS. i•:�XFT.'T' T•;FTT-74rrr Lr-r'%r'V !•TCCT/`T• ITT CTI^ /T'L`fTfl/^DT rr*~I'L' 36 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RETARDIEC i,.EASUPES ;•v'ILL BE IN-CCEPORATED SO THAT THERE j;ILL BE NO INCREASE, NO NET INCREASE IN RUl:—CFF ID: LAGUNA CANYCIN. AIR QUALITY, WE HAVE CONDUCTED AN ASSESSMENT OF THAT AREA, AND NO AREAS WILL EXCEED ANY CARBON I-:Ct:OXIDE STANDAF.D. THE PRCDUCT WILL RESULT IF A REDUCTION ELISSICN DUE TO REDUCTIONS IN TRAVEL TIt•:E At:D FUEL USAGE A,dD AN INCREASE IN VEHICLE SPEED. THE PRCJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE AIR QUALITY NANAGEt•:ENT PLAN. SOME CF TEE KEY POINTS HERE ARE THAT TEE PROJECT IS FACED, SIZED, AND LOCAT—ED IN ACCORDANCE ETITH POLICIES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMIENT PLAN AND THE REGIONAL MOBILITY PLAN. THE REGIONAL MOBILITY PLAT: DEFINES TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM NEEDS IN RELATION TO PROJECTED POPULATION LEVEL AND REGIONAL AIR QUALITY AND MOBILITY GOALS AND POLICIES. ALSO THE PROJECT, AS GENE MENTIONED, DOES INCORPORATE DEMAND MANAGEMENT FEATURES, HOV FACILITY, AND ALLOWS FOR FUTURE TRANSIT, ALL WHICH ARE PART OF THE POLICIES OF AQI:D. THE LAST AREA THAT I'D LIKE TO TALK. ABOUT IS GROWTH INDUCEMENT. Ir: ORDER TO ASSESS POTEr:TIAL GROliTY. 25 I ir:DUCEI,:E,7T IMPACTS, 'lE E?:Ai:INED THE CCRRIDOR AREA r-lA"F''—, i•'F", -" z.nor ' ^rr+r,%r F•T(•^Tn•. *-+C,-,- /%-r.r•rnnn' rr-TnL: 7 1 2 3 4 c A 7 8 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OF BENEFIT TO CATEGORIZE THE DiFFEREI:T LANE USES. WE LOCKED AT EXISTIrG PLANNED, WHICH INCLUEES CCE ITTED AND IXT COM14ITTED, AID UN.PLANN!ED USES. OF THE 78,000 ACRES THAT 17E LOONED AT, CNLY ONE A::D A HAT F PERCENT OF THAT AREA IS NCT ALREADY COMMITTED TO EITHER SCIIE TYPE OF OPEI; SPACE OR DEVELCPnENT USE. IN THE FORESEEABLE -FUTURE, THE CORRIDOR IS NCT EXP£CTEE TO II'CP.EASE PRESSURE FOR iNTENSIFICATION OF LAND USE OR A17Y CHANCES IN PLANNED LAND USE. AND THIS IS BECAUSE ACCRUED LAND USE PLANS TAKE INTO ACCCUYT COP:STRUCTICP: OF THE CCRF.IDCP,, AND THE CORP.IDCR HAS BEEN DES�G:_EL AED SIZED IN ACCORDANCE I-,ITH PCPULATION FORECASTS OF THE COUNTY. THAT COMPLETES A VERY BRIEF OVERVIEI•; OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUME';T, AND I'll GOING TO TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO STEVE LETTERLY. PRESENTATION BY STEVE LETTERLY MR, LETTERLY: GOOD EVENING. I WILL KEEP MY PRESENTATION -- EY PART OF THE PRESENTATION RELATIVELY SHORT SO WE CAN GET INTO THE PUBLIC C0I•11IENT PERIOD. I' D LIKE TO JUST TAKE A FED: MCI•:EP:TS, THOUGIi, TO PLACE THIS HEARI1:G IN PERSPECTIVE BY OUTLINING THE REI.AII:DER OF THE PROJECT DECISIO`; PROCESS. TEE DRAFT EIn/EIS IS E A X E N E t'EINBEPC? AGEi^.CY Ni 7 SRTC)N' 1777.7,r' 38 1 CURRENTLY IT: THE PUBLIC REVIET'. AND COl-,,1EFT STAGE. 2 THE COEEE2;T PERIOD ENDS CN NOVEi:..ER 26TH OF THIS 3 YEAR. 4 YOU ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBLM-TT 5 P,RITTED. COI-:r:EI.TS CiN THE DCCUMIEP:T BY THE 26TH OF 6 THIS L?"C::TF. COEMENTS SKCULI: BE SUEIiITTED TO MY 7 ATTENTT_CP: AT 345 CLINTON STREET It: CCSTA I;ESA, 8 52626. YOU CAi: GET THE ADDRESS AFTER THE HEARING. IT IS ALSC ON ALL THE HANDOUTS THAT 1C TE'VE PROVIL`EZ. AFTER TEE CLOSE OF THE REVIEW 11 PERIOD, THE TCA, TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY, 12 Ii: CCCPERATIOI: t':ITI: CALTRAI.;S AND T&HE FEDERAL 13 HIGHI;AY ACNINISTRATION tiILL PREPARE RESPONSES TC 14 CCI-II.IENTS RECEIVED AT THIS FEARING. 15 THIS EFFORT STILL RESULT IN THE PRCDUCTIOF 16 CF A RESPONSE TO CCI.2.1ENTS DOCUMENT WHICH :ILL BE 17 DISBURSED TC ALL COMMENTERS AND PRESENTED TO SAN 18 JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR BOARD OF 19 DIRECTORS AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT PREPARED FOR 20 THE BOARD'S FEBRUARY 14, 1991 PUBLIC I.',EETING. AT 21 IHE CCNCLUSIOY CF THE BOARD'S FEBRUARY 14TH 22 IIEETILdG, THE BOARD STILL DECIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT 23 TC CERTIFY TENS Er:VIRCNEENTAL DCCUl-*&Ei:T AS ADEQUATE 24 ANE, ;tiJ; ETEER TO SELECT A SELECTICN CF A LCCnLLY 25 PREFERRED PR%IJECT ALIGNMENT ALTERI:ATIVE. 1 d. 3 4 61 Gi 7 8 S 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1S 20 21 22 2. 24 25 39 IF TI:E IF CERTIFIED AT THAT HEARING IS ADEQUATE, THEN: TH:E EI;VIF'ON1-:El•'TAL DCCUMEN:TATION. PRCCEED£ TC TEE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADZI117.ISTRATICIA'. THAT AGEI'CY WOULD THEN. CONSIDER CERTIFICATION? OF THE FINAL EIS. FEDERAL CLEARANCE 4:ILL RESULT III' A FILT_YG OF A RECORD OF DECISICH:. TEE EARLIEST THAT RECCRD OF DECISION; COULD BE FILED ON THIS PROJECT LOU'L•D BE SPRING OR SUI';I•iER OF 1991. AH:D TEAT CONCLUDES -- THAT FALL GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW: OF THE PUBLIC DECISION -MAKING PRCCESS. I' LL• TUR ' IT BAC:' OVER TO BILL. MR. CLSCN: TL:iI; YOU, STEVE. ALL RIGF.T. JUST A FEZ': BRIEF C01:I%iEI:TS, THEN;, BEFORE UE TAKE OUR RECESS AND PREPARE FOR -- TC HEAR YOUR CCI•iAiENTS. IF YOU'VE NOT ALREADY DONE SO, PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TC, AND SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE COME IN: LATE -- PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO FILL OUT AN ATTENDANCE CARD AND INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURIN;C THE HEARING PROCESS. WE'LL NEED THESE CARDS IN ORDER. TO CALL ON YOU TO SPEAK DURING THE FEARING. YOU CAN PUT THEL -- YOU CADS EITHER HAND THEI•i TO A STAFF XENBER OR PUT THEM, ON THE TABLES 0UT£11:E CF TrE EXITS, AN:D 6:E'LL PICX TrEI•: UP. A� 1 INDICATED, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS ASKED US TO 42 1 SEATS OVER HERE CZ: THIS SIDE OF THE AUDITCRIUL. 2 HAS EVERYBODY TURUED IN AN ATTE►:TICI: CARD, 3 EVERYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEA:C BECAUSE I'LL BE 4 CALLING Ot' YCU FRCP: HERE? AND SC PLEASE, IF YOU 5 HAVE::' T ALREADY DONE SC, TURN: IN THE ATTENDANCE 6 CARD TC A STAFF MEMBER, AND THEY CAN CET IT TC 7 P--: E . 8 ALL RIGHT. IT'S I,C;-v' ABCL'T 8: 13 P.i'. WE C. HAVE APPROXIMATELY -- WELL, I LOST MY COUNT HERS. 10 I THINK WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 135 MINUTES TO 11 CO:";PLETE CUR HEARING TO ADJOURN BY 10 : 3 C . T•; E HAVE 12 APPROXIM:ATELY 30 PECPLE 6,IHO HAVE INDICATED THEY 13 WANT TO SPEAK, A LITTLE BIT NCRE THAT; THAT. IF M:Y 14 DIVISION HASN'T TOTALLY DESERTED ME, THAT WCULD 15 YIELD A TIME, A TIME LIMIIT OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR 16 MINUTES. 17 DOES IT SEEM: REASONABLE THAT WE IMPOSE 18 THAT KIND OF A TIME LIMIT ON THE SPEAKERS? AND IF 191 I HAVE ANY STRONG OBJECTION, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT. 201 IF NOT, I'LL ACCEPT THAT AS YOUR C014CURRENCE THAT 211 A FOUR -MINUTE TIDE LIMIT WOULD BE REASONABLE. IF 22 SPEAKERS DO COMPLETE THEIR COMMENTS IN TIME, THCSE 23 OF YOU WHO INDICATED MAYBE -- WE'LL SEE IF s 4 "HERE' RE OTHER PECPLE ',,,EC WAP:T TC SPEAK AT THAT 251 POINT. 1% 1 L 3 4 5 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 461 21 22 23 24 2c 41 POLICY ACT .14 ENEVER AN GIs IS PREPARED, AND THE E.IPEASIS IS 01N. THE HEARING RECORD. AND NO LECIS�LCN [:ILL BE MADE TH-IS EVENING, SO IT'S P:OT -- UNANTICIPATED THAT BOARD MEr"ILERS 1•4CULD NOT I'.ECESSARILY ATTEND THIS HEARING. ALL RIGHT. IT 1.5, ACCCRDING TO I Y j:ATCFl, AND THAT'LL HAVE TO BE THE OYE i;E GO BY, IF YOU'LL AGREE TO THAT -- IT IS NOW SIX MINUTES TO 8 C' CLCCK, AND IWE' L•L GIVE OURSELVES AN EXTRA MIt:UTE. WE'LL RECOt:VENE EiiP.CTLY AT 10 NINUTES AFTER 8:00 SC THAT 1,E IiAXIMI"GE TEE TIME AVAILABLE FOR YOUR CCP:�:Et:TS. THANK YCU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. YOU CAN TAKE A EREAK IF YOU'r LT."E. AND WHEN YCU COLE BACK IN TC BE SEATED, I V70ULD APPRECIATE IT VERY :MUCH IF YOU LIOULD PiOVE TO THE CENTER, PARTICULARLY THOSE ;'.'HC DON'T PLAN TO SPEAK, AND MAKE ROOT; FOR THOSE WHO ARE STANDIt:G, MAKE IT EASY FOR THEN TO BE SEATED. THE ROOM DOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO EASY SEATING, I REALIZE. BUT WE'D APPRECIATE YOUR COURTESY IN THAT REGARD. THANK YOU. (15—MINUTE RECESS.) GLSGt:: PLEASE FIND YOUR SEATS. THERE ARE PLEI:TY CF SEATS HERE It: THE CEI:TER, THOSE CF , YOU W'SO DC NCT PREFER TO STAND, I:AZENE ;;L• it:EEPC- AGELCY 11'I£SIC.: VIEJC/NEI-:P-OF.T BEACH 4C 1 CLOSE THE E.EARINC AT 10:3C TC ALLOW CUSTCLIAL 2 STAFF TIES TC CLEAR THE ROCid. WE MAY HAVE TO 3 II:PCiSu A TIiIE LIMIT. I-:E' LL SEE AECUT THE I:UI;rEr—, 4 OF PECPLE WHC WANT TO SPEAK Ar:D ASK FOR YOUR 5 CO'CURRENCE IN THAT RULE -- GUIrEL•INE. 6 I ALSC NOTE AGAIN: THAT YOU FAVE A COMMEI:T 7 CARD, A COi•;I:ENT SHEET THAT YOU PICKED UP I:HEi: YCU 8 CALE T.: OR SEiCULD Er"IVE. YOU CAI: t',RITE YCU= CCI'LEI:T ON THAT SHEET AND GIVE IT TO US TONIGHT. 10 IT'LL EE MADE PART OF THE HEARIP G F.ECCRD, OR YCU 11 CAi' I•:e.IL IT Il': BY 5 : 00 O'CLOCK Off: THE 26TH OF 12 NCVEI:BER TO THE TRANSPORTATION COFFIDCR AGEI:CY, 13 AND IT WILL BE RESPCI:DED TO AS PART OF THE COI:i•:Ei:T 14 -- OR THE RESPONSE TC COMEENTS PACKAG&V!�,Ai�D FADE A 15 PART OF THE FINAL EIS. 16 PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: 17 QUESTION? 1& MR. OLSON: YES, GO AHEAD. 15 PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: ARE ANY 20 TCA BOARD LEMBERS PRESENT THIS EVENING? 21 MR. OLSON: I DON'T KNOI.7. 22 I' LL ASI: THEI; TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES IF THEY ARE. 23 THIS -- THE HEARING, TEE BOARD'S HEAR IEG IS GOII:G 24 TO BE CCi:CUCTED II: FEERUARY. THIS HEARING IS A 25 RECUIPED HEARING UNL'•ER THE NATICNAL EEVIROP.I•;ENT:,L 4t- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 �j 10 11 12 1' 14 15 F 20 21 22 23 24 25 OTHEP.:•:ISE, WE' RE CALLING Cis'. TEE PEOPLE 1-7HO II:DICATED A DEFINITE YES, THAT THEY DID ttiAI:T TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. JUST A COUPLE OF CLICK REMINDERS BEFORE WE BEGIII. AGAIN: IF YOU WANT TO APPEAR ON THE PUBLIC HEARII'C RECORD AND HAVE A T-:F.ITTEIZ STATEV.EI T, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TC PRESEET THE ENTIRE WRITTEN STATE.IEN'T. S;E CAN IIZSERT IT II: THE RECORD FCR YOU. IT i•tiILL BECOI•IE A PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT, A114B YOU CCUL1r JUST SUNI ARIZE YOUR STATEMENT. IF YCU HAVE A LENGTHY LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU WAI:T AI:St�EREL, AGAIN: WE CAI' DO TEE SAME THING t:ITHOUT HIVING TC RU ; THROUGH THAT ENTIRE LIST, IF YOU HAVE THEN: ti:RITTEN; OR IF YOU S-7ISH TO SUBMIT TEED. SUESEQUENTLY, THAT ALSO WOULD BE ADEQUATE. THERE TON'T BE TIRE FOR STAFF TO RESPOI:D TO EACH QUESTION? OR EACH COMMENT. I WILL, HOWEVER, FRCM, TIRE TO TIME PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PANEL TO COMMENT OF; ANY APPARENT I• iISUNDERSTANDINC CF FACT THAT !`NIGHT BE MISLEADING AI:D THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED, AT LEAS FROM STAFF' S STANDPOINT. BUT WE WON'T BE AELE TO EL'GAGE IN A LIALCGUE UNFCRTUNATELY. WE'D LIi:E YOU TC ESPECT EACH SPEAKER'S TIDE AhD CPPCRTUNITY TO SPEAK BY NCT APPLAUDI'mC OR MAd E:.. I'7F:T*:F.F�tC- H.r..Fi'C',,' t'Tccr(.f' 17TT'.-ir. ' T. �r AT F�'.'.r 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 F] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OTHERS:ISL IETERRUPTIEG THE SPEAYER DURII:G TF•:EIR CCNILENT S . AND I ;SILL CALL ON TI-10 OR THREE SPEAKERS AT A SAI:E T:I:E TC CCI•:E TC TEE ZIICRCPHCI;E TO AVOID UNI.ECESSARY DELAY, ESPECIALLY THIS SEATING ARRA:;GEll ENT. 1-.'FEZ: YCU STEP TO 'TI:E NICROPECI'E Ai,C YOU' E CALLED CI•: TO SPEAK, PLEASE SPEAI: CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY !NTC THE MIC SO THAT F:E CAN ALL HEAP. AND HAVE THE BEFEFIT OF YOUR CO;::I• E'NT CN OUR TAPE RECORDIfiG AI;D IPA OUR RECORD. ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE IN THOSE RE: tiI;I:S. LET t*,E CALL THE FIRST SPEAKERS TO THE I•iICROPHONE. THERE ARE MICROPHONES EITHER HERE TO YOUR RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT IN THE AISLE HERE. I THINK YOU CAN ALL SEE THEM:. VAICE YOUR LAY TO TEE MICRCPHCFE ;THEY I CALL YOUR NAI.133, AI+D THEId WELL RECOGNIZE THE INDIVIDUALS TO SPEP.c: IN THAT ORDER. JAY SALSBURG, REPRESENTING THE CRITICAL PATH DESIGN -- I'M SORRY, I CAN'T READ ALL OF THIS BUJ CRITICAL PATH DESICIN; MILTON ADAMSON, GCLDEN RAIL` FOUNDATION; ROBERT WELLS, COI%sI•IITTEE TO STOP THE TOLL ROAD; JEAl: JENKS, THE RESIDENTS CPPCSED TO THE TOLL ROAD; DONNA t:ARTIIS, RES IDE:+TS OPPOSED TO TEE TOLL RCAD. AI:l, 0., DEAF, I LAY HAVE A LITTL:: TROUBLE WITH THIS, .70E L -- I' is SORRY, I' I•: NOT �01 • 4 5 6 7 E Gt 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 20 21 22 23 24 25 GETTING IT RIGHT. MR. LAUTEI;SCHIECER: LAUTENSCHIEGER. 45 ?',R. OLSOI,: THANK YCU, AND I APCLCGIuE FOR THAT. -- REPRE-cEI3TING LAGUANA HILLS CC!-:Z-LUI:ITY ASSOCIATION, CHAIRr:AN CF THE TRAFFIC COLMITTEE. 6iCULL YOU PLEASE I•RAKE YOUR j:AY TO THE NICROPFCEE Ai:D -- SO THAT WE WON'T HAVE A",Y FURTHER DELAY? I'LL CALL FIRST ON JAY SALSBURG. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC I1IR. SALSBURG: JAY SALSBURG. I'VE LIVED IN LAGUNA ABOUT FIVE YEARS IF THE EARLIER PART OF THE EIGHTIES. I PASS rIAEY TIMES IN TEE DEEP COASTAL CAIIYON, LAGUNA CANYGI•:, WHICH IS DIRECTLY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CENTER PHOTOGRAPH Ci; THE STAGE. THERE'S A VERY DEEP MIYI CANYON THAT CODES OFF THE SOUTH END OF THAT CANYON. II:SIDE THAT CANYON, THERE IS A BIG RACK OF AT LEAST 25 TO 30 RACCOONS LESS THAN A MILE FROML THE EXISTING PLAT: THAT APPEARS THERE. I AM CONCERNED AS TO WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO I 8-1 THESE ANIMALS AND AS MANY AS 100 DEER THAT LIVE IN THE MEADOW AREA THERE. PLUS I' M CONCERNED ALSO THAT -- WHY EUILD THIS THINC OVER THE TCF 0- THE 8-1 RIDGE TO TAKE THE HIGH ROUTE? IT'S VERY UI'iTIELDLY .1 .2 46 1 2 Z 4 5 6 7 E 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 TO DISTURB At; AREA TEAT' S NCT DISTUPBED. IT'S VERY DISTURBIT;G TO ME. I FEEL AS THCUGH I'M DEFEATED ALREALY. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS t;ILTON AI:AIISOI'. MR. ADAI"SCN: GOOL EVENING. I',"; I,:ILTON ADAESOly. I' I: A RETIRED EI;GINEER. I SPENT SEVEN YEARS IN HIGHLtiAY EEGINEERING. I LIVE IN LEISURE WORLD, LAGUI;A HILLS. I THINK THAT EVERYONE HAS SEED THE LAYOUT OF THE IiASTEI~ PLAT; OF ARTERIAL HIGE;%AYS. IF YCU LOOK AT IT, YCC i•:ILL SEE A LOT OF LINES SHOWING ALL THE RCAZS ANZ THE HIGHWAYS, THE FREE:,"AYS, AND IT ALL RESZ:IBLES THE HUMAN BODY. IN THE HUMAN BODY, THE IA'JOR ORGAN IS THE HEART. IT PULPS THE FLUID THRCUGE THE ARTERIES AND BACK TO IT THROUGH THE VEINS. AND IF THERE IS AN OBSTRUCTION IN THCSE, YOU WILL HAVE PRESSURE ON THE HEART. AND BLOOD PRESSURE, AS IT INCREASES, CAUSES CARDIAC ARREST. IF YOU PERMIT IT TO CONTINUE, IT WILL ULTIMATELY CAUSE SOMETHING ELSE. AND IF YOU DO NOT REMAELY IT BY EITHER BY—PASSES OR OTHER. METHODS, YOU 6-lILL HAVE CARDIAC FAILURE. LCOI< AT THE EiIGH11:AYS. THEY HAVE BLCOC, TI:EY RAVE FLUIC. IT'S TRAFFIC, AI.D IT GOES THROUGH -- ECT:N THESE FREE,' AYS AND RCADS IN • 1 2 3 4 5 1.1 J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 SUCH A 1 AY THAT GESTRUCTICI:S CAUSE GRID LOCI:. SINCE 11053 I-5 HAS BEEN THE I PJCR I:EAI:S OF TRA::SPCRTATION FORTH AND SOUTH THROUCH TEE FREEI-IAY -- THROUGH THE CCUI;TY. THE ONLY BY -PASSE£ YUIRLAI:DS AND TRAEUCO AND JERC`:INO TO TEE EAST. THERE HAVE BEEN: 170 MAJOR ROALS, Ai:D THEY HAVE ALL EECCI•IF I iPACTED. THE MAJOR ROAD THAT IS tiEEDED TO RELIEVE THIS TRAFFIC NOT ONLY FROM I-51 BUT ALSO 8-2 FROM PCH IS THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS TRAI:SPORTATION CORRIDOR. YR. OLSCI•.: ALL P.ICHT. THAT:R YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, ROBERT WELLS. MR. WELLS: MY NAME IS RCEEF.T WELLS. I LIVE IN LAGUNA BEACH. YY FAI•:ILY HAS BEEN IN THIS AREA FOR GENERATIONS. WE HAVE ACTUALLY FOR 200 YEARS LIVED IN THIS AREA. I HAD A PAIR OF GREAT GRANDPARENTS, FCURTH GREAT GRANDPARENTS MARRIED IN MISSION AND SOME IN CAPISTRANO IN ABOUT 1787. ANOTHER ANCESTOR ACTUALLY OWNED RANCHO SAN JOAQUIN, A 48,000-ACRE TRACT 1•;H ICH WAS SOLD TC ' JAI•:ES• IRVINE II: 1864. SO THIS RCAD IS GOING THROUGH SOME OF MY 'r".NCESTRAL LAIND IN TLAT AREA AS WEL.L AS RANCHO NIGUEL, 01.1NED BY ANOTHER ANCESTOR. .1 4E 11 2 3 41 5 6 7 8 01 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 J 24 25 I SAY NO TO TEIS ROAD, PERIOD. ONE SS:ATF: CF THE BULLDCZER ON TEIS LhP;E TO i:E IS AN: AECLIN;ATICId TO NY. HERITAGE. AND YCU' RE TRYING TO I•:ITIGATF THE E;NVIRON EEN:TAL IN•:PACT OF TENS. I T'HIN;i: THIS IS RIDICULOUS. CN:E BIT CF CONCRETE TO LE IS OYE BIT TOO MUCH. I THINK THIS THING SLOULD BE STOPPED NOW. JUST TAKE THIS OFF TEE DP.AI''I:'G ECARD. IlITH YOUR MEASURE "Y," HONEY P.ND IMPROVE THAT THAT ALREADY EXISTS. BUT LEAVE US SCt_ETHING UNTAPPED FOR THE FUTURE, t;Y FAN ILY' S FUTURE. THANK YOU. JENKS. MR. 0LSCi:: N:E T SPEAKER, JEAN: MS. JENKS: MY NAVE IS JEAN As 8-3-1 -2 JENKS, A14D I LIVE INI LAGUNA BEACH. ANL I OPPOSE 8-4-1 ANY ANL ALL TOLL ROADS IN CALIFORNIA. I THINK. THAT TEERE'S A REAL FLAW IN THIS DRAFT EIR, AND 8-4-2 THAT IS, IT DOESN'T ASK WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF A 1 TOLL ROAD. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED, PERIOD. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT g-4-3 THIS AND FIND OUT IF PEOPLE WOULD REALLY DRIVE ON A TOLL ROAD AT ALL. I RE LN, E Z-1 EER BEING IN? PHILADELPHIA F:N:C DnIVII:G TO ATLAN;TiC CITY ON: A TOLL RCAD, AND IT WAS Et--:PTY. AND I FOUND OUT THAT THERE PiAS A".;CTHER ;:EIN:EERG AC-Ei CY t:ISSIO VIEJC/I:EI':PCRT EEACP 4S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ROUTE TO GC T:f:ERE YOU DIDI:' T EAVE TO PAY TOLLS, A::D T.v.AT' S WHERE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE V!EI:T. IT'S All EXPENSIVE AND UNNECESSARY PLAN, ANL 8-4 IT'S DECEPTIVE AND INCOMPLETE. AND I THINK THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TOLL ROADS FEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. ALSO I' M SORT OF CO:jCERr:ED IN,THAT A LOT OF THE DOCUMENTATION, SEEI.IS • TO BE INCOMPLETE. I NOTICED THAT THE CITY TANAGER OF LAGUNA BEACH WROTE A LETTER, AND IT'S IZ: THE PACKAGE. AND THE EIR APPARENTLY SAID THERE WAS NO VISUAL IMPACT ON LAGU17A BEACH, TO T HTCH THE CITY FAr:AGER STATED THAT THE VISUAL IMPACT ON LAGUNA BEACH WOULD BE MONUMENTAL OR DISASTROUS. I DO►:' T REI•:EN.BER EXACTLY WHICH ONE IT WAS. IT'S PROBABLY DISASTROUS. AND I THINK IF YOU GO THROUGH THIS DRAFT EIR AND YOU LOCK AT EVERY PARAGRAPH ON LAGUNA BEACH, YOU 67ILL FIND THAT IT IS TOTALLY FLAWED Ar'D INACCURATE, AND IT'S JUST A POLITICAL DOCUI•:ENT. AS FAR AS TEE BIOLOGY GOES, THERE'S NO INDICATIOi THAT MUCH 11AS DONE ON THE BIOLOGICAL STUDIES. YOU ADDRESSED THE CALIFOR"NIA GNATCATCHER AS BEING A 8-4 CA.:DIDATE NONI'NATED FOR THE EFDANCERED •SPECIES LIST, AND YOU DIDN'T FIND IT IN LAGUNA CANYON, I17 -3 -4 -5 .6 y MAXE.IE T`EIr:EEP.G AGE*'CY t-_T --To'-: VT-jC p.r :P^r•.T Pt Ac 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SYCAN,CP.E I -ILLS. I HAVE SOUGHT THOSE AUCU201:S. THEY SA:: IT THERE. I HAVE TILE LAGUNA HILLS AUDUBON, THEY SAI•: IT THERE. AND ALSO I CALLED THE SEA & SAGE AUDUBON, AND THEY HAVE SEEN IT THERE 014 MANY IESTANCES. AND THIS IS THE SORT OF THE THING TEAT CAN BE DONE ON PRACTICALLY EVERY PARAGRAPH AND Cis ALL OF THE BIOLOGY AND THE hILDLIFE IN THE AREA. THERE ARE DEER TRACKS EVERYWHERE. IF YOU GO CUT THERE AT 7:00 A.M. THROUGH SYCAMORE HILLS, YOU CAN FIND DEEP. GRAZING IN THE AREA UNDER THE SYCAI-ICRE TREES. THERE ARE COOPER'S HAWKS NESTING ON TI:E OAI: TREES BEHIND THEN. THEY WERE SEEN THIS SPRING, AEL ALSO THE AUDUBON SOCIETY OF SEA & SAGE WAS BEEN REPOPTING THEM AS NESTING It: THE AREA. THERE ARE OTHER ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE AREA. THE CALIFORNIA LEAST TERN IS FREQUENTLY ON THE LAKE. 8-j ALSO THERE'S MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE THAT LIVES IN THE AREA, WHICH IS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES. AND THIS IS JUST A SHORT LIST OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD TIME TO LOOK INTO. NOW, I DON'T HAVE TII:E TO LOCK, INTO THE WHOLE EIR. BUT I WOULD E-E CLAD TO DO IT, BUT I WCULD HAVE TC HAVE A SIX-MCNTH EXTENSION 01: THE EIR, AND I WOULD NEED 8-4 Is .7 • r..r^.-r. r __. *i.r•-'-, .. -- .. i.-_.-_, - -.... I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 '14 15 16 17 18 19 2G 21 22 23 is 2 4 25 TO HAVE PERVISSION TO GO INTO THE AREAS IN LAGUNA CA1`:Y01' THAT ARE NOT OPEN TC THE PUBLIC. THE PUBLIC IS NOT ABLE TC GO II;TO THESE AREAS AND ASCERTAIN THE BICLCGY OF THESE AREAS AND ALSO THE SEA & SAGE AUDUECN. HAS TWICE iiEETIONED TC YOU THAT THEY ARE HAVING ACCESS PRCCESSED AND THEY'RE -- FOR THEIR BREEDING EIRD, ATLAS, AND THEY PEED INTO THESE AREAS T00. SC I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WE SHOULL BE LOCRIFG AT AMONG MANY. AND I GUESS I'LL JUST CLCSE BY SAYING I 8-4 THAT THIS WILL DISRUPT THE U-SER EXPERIENCE IN THE OPEC: SPACES, THE PARES, THE GREEFBELTS. Ac<D IT'S Ali EXTREMELY ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL PLAN, AND I THINK IT'S AN OLD, OUTDATED PLAN'.. AND WE NEED TO 8-4 RETHINK ;,?NETHER THIS IS REALLY NEEDED, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE WHEN WE ARE THINKING OF GOING TO WAR OVER GASOLINE. THANK YOU. MR. OLSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS DONNA MARTIN. IS DONNA MARTIN HERE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. JOEL LAUTENSCHIEGEP.. I HOPE I GOT IT FIGHT THIS TIME. PIR. LP_UTENSCHIEGER: THAT IS CORP.ECT. IT'S JCEL LAUTE!;SC:=IEGER. I LIVE PT 24621 CHARLTON DRIVE III LAGUNA HILLS. I'D: -8 .9 10 L,rvr..VLl r. rT1L•rrnr• 7,r•T-../`v - 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 SPEA ING TO YOU TCtiIGHT AS A RESIDENT OF THAT COL•.IiUl-ITY AND ALSO AS THE TRAFFIC CCt'1,:ITTEE CrAIRLAN FOR TEE LAGUNA FILLS COI;t:UNITY A.SSCCIATICN. MOST OF THE RESIDEI6TS IN LAGUEA HILLS ARE GENERALLY II: SUPPORT OF THIS I-IEASURE, KNOS':II:G AECUT THE TRAFFIC PROBLi:VS THAT ARE VERY II;TENSE AT THE PRESENT TIME BOTF ON IiOULTON PARKWAY AND THE I-5 FREES•7AY. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST RESTRICT THEE., TO THE LAGUNA' HILLS AREA AT THAT TIME SINCE THAT IS ;'JHERE AGA'A J." I AM FROfI. ONE OF THESE INVOLVES SCME FIGURES II,: YOUR STUDY UPON THE TRAFFIC ON; LA PAZ ROAD. YOU LIST THERE THAT THE PRESENT TRAFFIC VOLUME IS 16,000 TRIPS PER DAY AND IP; THE YEAR 2010 t•:ITHOUT THE FREEWAY THAT'LL DROP TO 5,000 AVERAGED TRIPS PER DAY. THAT'S WITH THE FREEWAY. BUT ALSO YOU LIST ON THAT LIST, ON THAT STUDY THAT itiITHOUT THE FREEWAY THE TRAFFIC IS ALSC GOING TO DROP TO 51000 TRIPS PER DAY. I KNOB; THAT WASN'T III AGREEMENT WITH MOST OF YOUR OTHER STUDIES. SO IF SOMEONE COULD GET BACK TO ME AS TO THE TRAFFIC ON LA PAZ ROAD, I WOULD LIKE TC BE I AELE TC REPORT THAT BACK TO LY ASSOCIATION:. TP:E SECOND THING INVOLVES POISE ABATEMENT. YOU DID A IV 8-: i-2 -3 i T 1 3 4 S 6 7 8 12 1' r 14 15 16 17 is 19 2C 21 22 23 24 2� 5-Z TRENENDOUS AMCUNT CF STUDY 01: NOISE ABATEI-:ri.:T. AND YOU DID A LOT OF WALLS ON TF:E Er",STEP.i: SIDE OF THE FREE:':AY THRCUGI•I TEE NELLIE GAIL DEVELOPtIENT AND THE AREA BETT•IEEN PACIFIC PARK DRIVE AP:D LA PAZ RCAI: T'V' :ERE TEERE ARE APARTMENTS, I'M SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING WHERE YOU PUT RECEPTORS 30 AND 31 TIHICH HAD POISE LEVELS OF 69 DECIBELS. YOU HAVE WALLS ALL THE WAI' ALONG THERE, EACEPT I2: CNE AF.EA, BE^ttvEEN PACIFIC PARK AND LA PAZ ROAD. IZ' IS EXTREIiELY r:CISY. THE DECIBEL RATING THERE OF 69 IS VERY HIGH. THE ONLY REAS02: FOR STOPPING A WALL IN THAT ONE SECTION IS THAT IT' WAS A -- AN INSIDE -- I BELIEVE IT I-TAS A LEVEL D OF. E WHERE IT WAS -- AN INTERIOR WALL WOULD STOP THE NOISE FROM A BUILDING. THAT BUILDING IS A HOSPITAL RIGHT NEXT TO THE FREEWAY. RIGHT -- LESS THAN 150 FEET AWAY FROM THAT RECEPTOR THAT YOU HAVE LISTED IS THE END OF THE ALISO CREEK APARTMENTS -- EXCUSE NE, THE QUAIL CREEK APARTMENTS. THAT IS GOING TO BE JUST AS -NOISY WHERE YCU HAVE THE SOUNE E-ALL AT THE OTHER EI?D OF THOSE T':HICE IS AGAII•: IE GCIFG UP. SC I T:OULi LIRE TO SEE A"" ALTERATION CF THIIS EHERE THAT. 4 r r L -r r ti, r, T c- c r- ,.- �- - : - r /' ... 'D r r r+ 54 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 SCUCD !,:ALL IS CG*:TI!'lUEC Cl-. THE EASTEP.L`1 ; IEc OF In'lT FREEvonx EETV EEI•: LA. PAZ R.CAD AND -- E::CUSE I:E, 8-5-3 IT I-iCi:LE: BE BETI•:EEi; PACIFIC PARK AhD I:OULTON PARF.4: AY . TY.AINK YOU. MR. CLEON: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THE NEYT SPEAI:EP., AND I SHOULD E'RVE CALLEL SCIIE CTHER PEOPLE UP, IS CHAPLES SCF AE. Np. SCHi;Ai:: PASS. MR. OLSON: OKAY. THANK YOU. NARGG BEAUCHAMP, REPRESEt T1I;G SAID CLEP:ElPTE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION; BETH LEEDS, REPRESEI;TING THE COMMITTEE TO STOP THE TOLL ROAD. ANY OF THESE PEOPLE HERE AND WISH TC EE -- TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW. PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME. THANK YOU. MS. BEAUCHAMP: MY NAI•:E IS LARGO BEAUCHAMP. I'M A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE SAP: CLEMENTE VILLAGE ASSOCIATION. I PREVIOUSLY TESTIFIED AT THE HEARII:G, PUBLIC HEARII;C IN SAP' CLEMENTE REGARDING THE FCOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. IN REGARDS TO THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR, I WOULD LIFE TO -- I HAVE NOT READ THE SPECIFIC DEIR FOR THIS CORRIDOR. BUT IN LIGI-'T OF WHAT WI.S I.: TCEAY' E 251 REGISTER., THE FROST PAGE ARTICLE STATING THAT THE f r, C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 c, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 �3 24 25 IP.VII'E COMPANY AND THE MAJOR COFSEP.VAECY HAVE AGREED TO RESERVE THREE CANYONS, ONE OF EHICH IS THE NE:�PORT COAST CPS :YON:, THE DEIR NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE AND ADDRESS THE ONGOING PLANNING PROGP,AM EETEEEN: IRVINE COI:PAN:Y AND MAJOR CONSERVAD?CY REGARD-IN:G Ti-IE NEZ•;POPT CCAST CANYON. ALSC THE DEIR NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE AND ADDRESS ACCURATELY AND BE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE ;.71LDLIFE THAT LIVE INd THAT CORRIDOR IN THIS PARTICULAR CANYON. I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS TO THE PUBLIC TO PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TRAN•'.SPORTATION CORRIDOR AGENCY BY THE DATE TEAT 2:R. LETTERLY STATED. IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO TURil, IN YOUR COMMENTS. IT IS IFPORTANT THAT YOU DO READ THE DEIF. AED THE TECHNICAL REPORT IN CASE YOU COME UP jti ITE ANY INCONSISTENCIES AS WE FOUND WITH OUR FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION: CORRIDOR DEIR. THERE ARE 8-6 INCON:SISTEN:CIES IN: THE NOISE, IN TEE POLLUTION. AND I WOULD JUST STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING YOUR COMMENTS IN: BECAUSE FOR US WE WERE ABLE TO DELAY THE ULTIMATE HEARING PROCESS IN SANTA ANA TO Ai: AP IL 1991 DATE. THANK YOU. !•'F.. OLSON : THAN:i\' YOU. THE LEXT FOUR SPEAKERS '.,.!ILL BE JCHE HAMIL, MAPF i-1 -2 .3 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 L2 23 24 25 CLANCEY, THOEAS RCGERS, AEC Ar,L:'i: COCi�SEY, IF YCU" LL JUST N.ARE YOUR 4,FyY TO THE N!CPCPHONE . AI:L 6CE'LL ASK JCHP: HAl'IL TO SPEAK FIRST, REPRE SENTII:G THE LAGUNA CANYON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION'. VR. 14.AiL1L: I THII'.K BETH LEEDS I -:AS AHEAE OF M-E. MR. OLSON: OH, I'E. -- FORGIVE NE . I' I: SCRPY. MS. BETH LEEDS: CK, THAT'S CI:AY. MR. OLSON: I DIDi:' T SEE YCU MOVIZtiG TO THE VICRCPHONE. THANK YOU. MS. BETH LEECS: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MY NAtIE IS BETH LEEDS. I' M FRCi*, LAGUNA BEACH. AND ALL I CAN SAY IS THIS IS A GIGANTIC PROJECT. JUST THE PRESENTATION AED THE ARTWORK ALONE IS ENOUGH TO CREATE A WHOLE CORRIDOR. I'D LIKE TO SEE A SHOW OF HANDS IF THE ROOM. I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE PLANT TO STOP THE CORRIDOR. ALL RIGHT. AND NOW I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW MANY ARE CONNECTED TO OR WORK FOR THIS CORRIDOR. ER. OLSON,: MS. LEECS, PLEASE JUST GIVE US YOUR CCIII.EI:TS. I•,E' D APPRECIATE IT. MS. BETH: LEEDS: ALL RIGHT. io .1 I�?A}'F.t:F t:!'T11FPrr �r.c�-ry VTC:CTr. 1.' 17'^-n/*•rr-onrm rrnrc 57 1 3 4 6 7 E c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1E 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXCUSE NAE. ALL RIGHT. .:R. OLSCP:: IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET THE SHOW OF HANDS ON THE PUBLIC RECORD. MS. BETE LEEDS: OKAY. I SEE. A REPORTER ASI:ED ME OUTSIDE WHAT IS THE WORST THING ABOUT THE CORRIDOR. AND I THINK IT IS TEE FACT THAT t•:E' RE EVE.IIrG CCI.:SIDERIIIG THE CORRIDOR. THAT'S THE WORST THING TO INE, THAT ItiE'RE CONSIDERING THIS PRO.:ECT, AND TO THINK THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING AND DO -LNG ALL THIS GREAT t'.CRI: APE DIRECTING IT T01%ARE SCEETr_Ii•:G THAT k:ILL DESTROY LAGUNA CANYON AND MAE-Y OF THE AREAS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRADED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE CRADED QUITE A FEW AREAS ALREADY THROUGH THE VARIOUS HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. SIMPLY BY NOT BUILDING THE HOUSES, THEY'VE CREATED THE ALIGNME14T OF THE CORRIDOR. SO REALLY AN ALTERNATIVE PLAT: IS OUT CF THE QUESTION TO THINK OF BECAUSE THEY'VE PRETTY MUCH PUT HOUSES WHERE POSSIBLY THE ALTERNATIVES T:IGY.T GO. AND IF t•:E DOT:' T t•;ANT THE ALIGNE.ENT THAT WE r:Ot': HAVE, t':E' RE PRETTY t:UCH STUCK t:ITH IT, UNLESS, OF COURSE, TIE TURN IT INTO A NICE TRIP '-2 '-3 .4 j•:AdvF'�r T;'rTT:r-rDr• Ar.rllk'rV vTcr•rnr 't7TrTn/7•rr•;r!)r-ipm ar71'rr!. c8 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 0 J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 2' 24 �cz PAR:: CP SC::E I:Ii:D CF PART: 6-:HERE CHILDP.EE CAM GET 8-7, F RCII CFE DEVZLOPI:ENT TO THE NEXT. THE ET_R IS FULL CF I:CLES . Ai:D THE TESTIMCNY TEAT I PRESENTED WAS TEAT I PRESEUTED, ALONG ;-7ITF: SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE, 1 AS ABOUT A:; INCH. THICK. AI:i j'*E SPED:T I:ANY, MANY. HOURS IN 1986 GCING OVER, POURING OVER TEE DCCUI:EIIT THIP&T i CTE IS NUr L ANE VOID EECAUSE THIS NEW DOCUI:EI:T TARES ITS PLACE. SC I:Y TESTIMOITY WAS NOT INCLUDED. EC! -.-EVER, I DIC TESTIFY IN THE I'MITTEN -- II: THE AT THE HEARING, A17C IT IS -ON PAGE 62 CF VOLUME 1 WHERE I I•:EI:TICI; THAT, OF COURSE, I' M REALLY OPPOSED TO A TOLL ROAD, BUT AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COULD BE TO REROU"TE IT FROM MOUL TON APOUND OVER L' THE 405 SO THAT PEOPLE COULD SEE THAT IT TdAS TOTALLY EMPTY. AND IF THEY CHCSE TO RIDE IT ON, THEY COULD, AND THEN IT WOULDN'T CUT THROUGH LAGUNA CANYON LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO, WHICH I'M TOTALL' OPPOSED TO. ILLEGAL GRADING HAS BEEN DOME ON THE CORRIDOR FOR YEARS. BUT JUST THREE WEEI:S ACO A POi:D BEHIND THE DEj•;ITT PP.OPEIRTY IN' LACUI.A CAI1:YOI: WAS ILLEGALLY CRLEEC. AI:L I TKINK THAT POFE HAD LILIES ID. IT. AND I JUST: :',0NDE.RED IF YOU COULD • •5 -8 0 H 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 LOOK INTO TXIAT CR SOI-:EOr'E WCULD LIKE TC LCCi: INTO IT. I' Id JUST REPCRTIr:G THAT. I THINK THIS SHCULD HAVE BEEN NAI4ED THE SAN JOAQU'N HILLS TRANSPORTATICN RAILROAD v"CB BECAUSE IT'S CERTAI17L•Y GETT I14-G SHOVED DOWN A LOT OF PEOPLE'S THROATS. AND OFE OF THE THINGS IS THAT THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE ONE ACRE HEARING, AND THAT IS THE CERTIFICATION HEARING. NOrv"r I UNDERSTAND THAT TEE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH.' IS P:CT A PARTY TO THE TCA. AND OF COURSE, 1 TH.INK IT WAS PRETTY MUCH OF A STATEMENiT THAT THEY V ERE I-AKI1-+G, THAT THEY WERE OPPOSED. TO THE TOLL ROAD. BUT I HOPE THAT THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TCA AND PERHAIPS INVITE TEE TCA TO LAGUNA BEACH_ TO A SPECIAL HEARING OF CUR OWN. AND I CERTAINLY HCPE THAT THAT WOULD COME ABOUT AND MANY OF THE RESIDENTS OF LAGUNA BEACH'S CONCERNS COULD BE ANSWERED BY YOU TEEN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HANIL, PLEASE. MR. OLSON: THANK YOU. JOHN MR. HAI•-.IL: YES. I'M JOHN HAMIL, AND I LIVE AND j•:ORI; IN LAGUNA CANY.Ci. AND PRESENT THE LAGUNA CANYCN PROPERTY Ct;I'ErS .8 6C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OT:NERS TEAT HAVE BEEN: FIGHTING ;;IT'S' THE CCUETY FOR ALI:CST TWO DECADES ALI,:CST SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO HYDROLOGY lE THAT AREA. UPSTREAI,: DEVELCPEENT HAS CCI,:SISTE—EN:'ILY IMPACTED US PoITH INCREASED PLATER AN:D THIS COULD EE TEE ABSOLUTE DEATH KNELL FOR OUR SMALL CO1•il UNITY. THE EIR IS DEFICIEI:T DUE TO ITS FAILURE TO USE THE COU17TY COMPUTER ECDEL FOR TEE LAGUNA CANYON: WATERSHED AND THE WILEEP SbIITH LCT',* FLCT-: STUDY DONE IN 1989. OUR HYDROLOGISTS A::D WATER ATTORNEY FEEL THAT THIS DEFICIENCY WILL BE DISASTRCUS OF DCENSTPEAL PROPERTY OWNERS DURING LOT; FLCT•: , I . E . , LESS THAN FIVE—YEAR STORMS. IN LAGUNA CAI:YCI: THE PLATER IS SHOWN TO BE COLLECTED AIID DIVERTED INTO A NONEXISTENT DRAINAGE CHANNEL ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF LAGUNA CANYON ROAD. THE STAFF HYDROLOGISTS INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE FAILED TO WALK THIS AREA AND DID NOT EVEN REALIZE THAT NO SUCH CHANNEL EXISTED. EL TORO CANYON'S RUN—OFF IS TO BE DIVERTED INTO THE KATHRYN: THON:PSON BASIN:, WHICH TEE COUNTY NOT•► ACI:NGT':LEDGES FAILS TO FUZNCTION: IN: LOW FLCF•:S P.N:D CAN'T CCNITAII: FLOWS Ii: 2C YEARS OR GREATER FRCN: THE PRESEIiT DEVELOPI:EI:T T±ITE.OUT EVEN: CONSIDERATION: .1 61 9 • • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E 0 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FCR TEE INCREASED RUN—OFF FROE THE NET.1 TOLL RCAD. THE EIR ONLY ADDRESSES THE CONCEPTUAL PRCELEI:S AND FAILS TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL ENVIRONIdENTAL ILPACTS OF RUN—CFFS GENERATED BY THE ACRES CF CONCRETE THAT WILL RUIN FROM RIDGE TO RIDGE ACROSS L•AGUI:A CANYCN AND EL TORO CANYON O OUR CCi,:I;UNITY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS CALLED ors NA' NY CCCASICPIS P_DiD ASKED IT BE ALLCT•:ED TO LTSCUSS t•:ITH THE HYDROLOGISTS CUR PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE IN. THIS AREA, BUT SOMEHOS•: OR OTHER THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE TIME. I HAVEN'T -- ti E HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE OTHER AREAS OF THE EIR WITH ITS COMPLEXITY AND ITS LENGTH. PUT IF THERE'RE AS MANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE OTHER AREAS AS WE FOUND IN THIS SMALL AREA THAT 11E KNCI-. ABOUT, I 'P:UST FEEL THAT ENTIRE EIR IS TERRIBLY FLAPIED. MR. OLSON: THANK YOU. MARK CLANCEY. MR. CLANCEY: ON BEHALF OF THE FRIEP:DS OF HISTORIC SAP: JUAN CAPISTRANO, A LOCAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION GROUP DOWN IF. SAY JUAN., I WOULD LIKE TO SUET IT THE FOLLOtiING BRIEF COI•MEi:LS AND QUESTIONS RELATIVE TC THE ALIGNI•:ENT OF THE PROPOSED CORRIDOR AT INTERSTATE 5. I WILL SPARE 1-1 t:AXENE WEINEERC AGFT:CY r. TF.CZTrr: F.FArr 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 1� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YCU At: ACCCUt:T OF THE FRUSTRATIOI: E.:000::TEREL It: TRYING TC ASCERTAIN ANSWERS TO TI:ESE QUESTIONS AN:% OTI_ERS FROL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES AND CITY CF SAN: JUAN CAPISTRANO OFFICIALS. TO ;"'FAT E..TE::T AND IN ttiHAT DIRECTION, EAST Cis t':EST, WILL TFE ALIGIINEI;T ALTERI'ATIVE NECESSITATE THE WIDENING CF THE I-5 RIGHT-OF-t:AY SOUT:i OF THE INTERCHANGE? AND UHY ISN'T CAtl=170 CAPISTRA1,70, C' E OF THE LAST REMAINING SECTIOES CF OLD HIGHWAY 101, LISTED AS A SCENIC CCRRIDOR THRCUGH THIS AREA? THE EIR IS EXTREMELY VAGUE IU THIS REGARD AND DOES NOT SPEAY TC THE ADVERSE ENVIRO :t:Et:TAL ILPACTS ON OUR CPEN SPACE RESCU'RCE CCETAINED VIITHIX THE OSO CREEK CORRIDOR. I'M REFERRING TO SECTION 4(F), W,HICH ONE OF THE SPEAKERS EARLIER ELABORATED Ot:. IT'S VERY -- THE EIR IS VERY DEFICIENT IN THIS AREA. AS REGARDS THE SECTION THAT DEALS WITH CONSISTENCIES OF FUTURE LAND USES, IN FACT THIS AUGUST 1990 EIR STATES THAT THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FOR THIS AREA, AND I'M REFERRING TO THE AREA AT THE ALIGNLENT ALTERNATIVE 2, ARE INDUSTRIAL, CCi:I•:EPCIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL. FOR THE RECORD HERE TC:IICHT, IN N•:UCH PUBLICIZED AND HERALDED, VOTER INITIATIVE THIS AREA 11AS PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE 8-f [7 1-2 op 1-3 i I:A.�Et:E t:t?IN;DErG Arrt'Ci MISSICNv VIEJC/t:Et;PCRT BEACH 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 s� 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 63 LAST APRIL THROUGE it ; 21, COO, COO ETA .PAYEr BOND YEA SURE. UNFORTUNATELY OUR CITY STAFF IS APPARENT T Y LORE CONCERNED WITH A BIKE TRAIL CN THE OTHER SIDE CF THE FREEWAY AND NEGLECTED TO INFORI: THE TCA OF THIS MAJOR DISCREPAP:CY, P:A.CR CEANGE _!N ENVIRCNI:ENTAL PERIMETERS, NOR DID OUR CITY INFORM THE AGENCY THAT THE FRONTAGE ROAD THROUGH THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED SCENIC BOULEVARD CONTAINING LANDI•iAPKS PCTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NAT:O AL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES RECOGFITION. ADDITIONAL QUESTICIV'S WOULD BE F40 Mirk P:Y LAVES WOULD BE ADDED TO THE E:i15TING 1-5 CORRIDOR UNDER EACH OF THE TWO ALIGNI;ENT ALTERNATIVES? AND CAN THIS E?iPANSION BE ACCOMMODATED WITHOUT THE WIDENING OF THE RIGHT-CF-WAY AND THE TAKING OF PROPERTY? IN EITHER CASE, GIVEN THE LOSS OF THE COMMERCIAL -INDUSTRIAL BUFFER FRCNTIIIG THE ALIGNMENT, THAT 4YHICH WAS REFERRED TO UNDER THE LAND USE PROVISION AS BEING CONSISTENT, HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO MITIGATE THE ADVERSE VISUAL AND NOISE IMPACTS ON OUR OPEN SPACE PRESERVE AND HISTORIC LAI:DI•:ARKS? LASTLY COULD YCU EYPLAIr ECI'," A LOCAL 4 5 6 7 I AXEP:E j'iEINBER.G ACENCY IiiSSICY VIEW"C/NEWPORT BEACH 64 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 0 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BOARD I';CULL EXERCISE, GIVEN THE FF.CT TEAT THEY I•`.IGF;T ;-;A-NT TO, THE I"C BILL AL:'EP.NATIVE OPTION? CUR LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE TELLING US THAT TREY HAVE ALREADY WAIVED THIS OPTIOI: LCNG AGO AND THAT IT IS I"OT YOI: AN' AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE FCR THE CITIZEI:S OF SAT: JUAN CAPISTRANO. I Kr:OI': CF NO PUBLIC HEARI`:G WIHERE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DELIBEPIATEC C`: THE PROS AND COLS OF WAIVING THE PUBLIC'S RICHTS UNDER THIS NO BILL ALTERNATIVE. Z;-ITHOL'T HESITATJ. , I CAI: TELL YCU THAT IF TEAT 6;AIVER TOOK PLACE WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING AND I:ITHOUT DUE PROCESS FOR THE CITIZENS OF SAY JUAN CAPISTRANO, A VERY DIVICIVE AND CORF.CSIVE ELEMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, ANC IT DILL BE A LONG CITE INDEED. THANK YCU. MR. OLSON: BEFORE I CALL ON THE NEXT SPEAKER, LET ME JUST GET A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE READY TO GO. DAN MCCLINTOCK, RONALD SHEARER -- MR. SHEARER: PASS. N.R. OLSON: RUSSELL -- ALL RIGHT. -- RUSSELL BURKETT, AND JOEL REYNOLDS, IF YCU' D BE IN LINE TO SPEAK. THE NE::T SPEAKER IS THOLAS ROGERS . 11R. ROGERS : THANK YOU. I' t: 0 .7 r T-+ r T r n r n r^ r r r v n.• T r r T n r r T 7 T T+ 'r rN /• r a r n n m r n r r 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 TOD! ROGERS FRO11-1 SAN JUAt� CAPISTRANO. JUST A BRIEF REEUTTAL TO THE STATEI:EYT ON AIR POLLUTION DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE ,7I1,1, BE I:OVEMENT OF TEE VEHICLES ON T£IS CORRIDOR. THE AUTO CLUB HAS FIGURES THAT REAP. OUT THE FACT THAT APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OF CONGESTION ON ALL OF THE FREEWAYS 1S DUE TO ACCIDENTS AND OTHER HAPPENINGS UNRELATED TO THE TRAFFIC ITSELF. I DON'T ENC;q IF THAT'S ADDRESSED IN THE EIR, BUT IT CERTAINLY SHOULD BE. I14 OTHER 1 ORDS, IT MAY BE DESIGNED TO CAPRY TRAFFIC IN A RAPID FASHICr, BUT THESE UNAVCIDABLE, IN MOST CASES, i INCIDENT£ DC CREATE THE TRAFFIC PCLLUTICN TO THE EXTENT -- THE AIR POLLUTION TO THE EXTENT OF ABOUT 60 PERCENT. AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE A KIND OF A HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE TO THE MEETING TONIGHT. I WENT TO THE FIRST CORRIDOR MEETING. I TEINK IT WAS IN 1976 OR MAYBE LATE 1977. THERE WAS ONLY A FEW PEOPLE AT THAT PARTICULAR MEETING. AND UE HAL THE SAME OPTIONS AT THAT TIME, 12 YEARS AGO OR MORE. IT WAS TO BE -- TO DISCUSS THE SAN JOAQUIN CORRIDOR. AND WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THREE ROUTES AT THAT TIME, TI-?E EIG:;T OR 10 OR 12 OF US j%I;C trEPE IT. THIS MEETING. AND THE PERSON FRCi-; THE COUNTY STAFF SAID, WE WAFT B-10-1 &1 t:AXF.1:E 0-7E1NBEPG AGE`:CY IMSSIC?7 VIEJC/FET;PCP.T LEACHa: GE 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 2' 24 2cd TO TAI:E A VCTE AS TO rI::ICH OF THESE ALIGNZMEN.-TE THAT YOU ARE IN FAVCR OF, -cCt.E OF LIKE TOFIGHT. REEELEER THIS WAS 12 YEARS LGC. AND WE SAIL`, jiELL, t•.E DIDN'T COL'E HERE FOR TEAT. WE CAME PEP.E E ECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE THING TO LE BUILT. AND HE SAID, WELL, I' I-? NOT HERE TO DISCUSS TEAT. MY CEDERS ARE TO TAKE SOi:E READINGS ON i-;HAT YOUR DESIRES ARE AS TO -- V71TE RESPECT TO THESE THREE RCUTES. IN EVERY SUBSEQUENT MEETING I HAVE BEE:: TO, WE'VE ALLNCST EAD THAT SAME TYPE CF CHOICE. I THINK IT WAS PREDETERLINED BY THE POt•;EP.S THAT BE BACK 12 OR 13 YEARS AGO THAT TrEY t;EP.E GOING TO FORCE THIS DC;;L,7 OUR THROATS. WE SAID WE DIDK'T WANT IT THEN. EVERY SUBSEQUENT t•;EETING THAT ;•:E' VE BEEN TO, THE PERCENTAGES ARE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT, AS I RECALL. AND TCNI ISEMA°: ONE TIME SAID, GEE, I HOPE THEY GO BACK AND TELL THEM THAT EVEN THOUGH WE HAD A PUBLIC FEARING, THAT ALMOST EVERYBODY HERE WAS AGAINST IT, BECAUSE SUPERVISOR RILEY ALWAYS SAYS, WELL, THESE ROUTES liERE ADCPTED AFTER 50 OR 60 PUBLIC HEARINGS. YET -- DUT I -,-HAT HE FORGOT TO SAY t-:r.S SS PERCEET OF THE PEOPLE L;E'C WERE THERE 6:EP.0 AGAIII5T 8-10-2 8-10-3 4 9; t 0' 1 e 3 4 5 6 7 E 14 15 16 17 18 1g 20 21 22 2.2 24 25 In TEII'G IF THE FIRST PLACE. SC FRCt: AN OLD RAt:C.'-:-EF' S STr.NDPCI2:T -- I RAI: CATTLE ALL THRC",UCH KEF.E rURII'G TI70SE YEARS. I t';AS AGAINST IT It' 1977 OR 1978. I %Cr' T WANT -- I DIDN'T WANT ANY OF TEE ALTERNATIVES THEtV'. I WAS AGAIIIST IT AT EVERY I;EETII:G I' VE BEEN TO, AND' I'M MUCH t:ORE SC AGAArI:ST IT TONIGHT. I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THE BUILDIFG OF THE CORRIDOR. THANK YOU. MR. OLSON: ALLYN CCCKSEY OF THE SIERRA CLUB. MR. COOKSEY: YES. I'M ALLYF CCONSEY. I LIVE It: FULLERTCI'. AND I HAVE HEARS TOt:IGHT MUCH TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THT GS. I t:OULD LIKE TC POINT OUT THRT TEIE WILDLIFE AND PLANT LIFE SILL BE VERY SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THIS THING. I HAVE GCNE THROUGH THE DOCUMENT TO SOME EXTENT', FOT COMPLETELY. I HAVE SEEN MANY IR.PACTS ENUMERATED. MITIGATION FACTORS PRESENTED ARE VERY INADEQUATE. ONE CASE IN POINT, THE MATTER OF SUGGESTIVG THAT tlILDLIFE WILL USE CULVERT —TYPE CORRIDORS. THERE WAS AN INCIDEYT A COUPLE OF 1-4EEF.S AGO, A 110UNTAIll LION RECENTLY COLLARED, KILLED 4:HILE CRCSSING ORTEGA EIGH11AY tvITHIt: PRCBAELY 100 YARDS OF A BRIDGE. THOSE OF YOU WIC D-3 .1 1'T'.'^`+Q T.TV TT.•0 DT:/- 7T/-T'--r!1/ .•T e- a. -r^I- 't,-n-n/,L.+--rrn nm .-r._-.. m 1 L 3 4 S 6 7 P G 1^ 11 12 13 14 1G 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2' J 24 2� HAVE HAD Ez:FERIEL'CE I; ITt A. HCREE KI:OT'. EVE!-; A A DC::EST=CATFD A!:II'AL j;E:C PFESUL'rk=_L`_' T..U-STS � HIS C.;I:ER r:;L RICER, CANNOT ZE RIDDEN THP.CUGH A ERIDGE OR A TUNUEL. SCME CF THEM EVEN SUCK AT BEII:G LED ACROSS. IF THIS PRCJECT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED, I TFII:::; THE I•:ITIGATION MEASURES TO SATISFY LvILDLIFE MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IFCPEASED OR WE CAN KISS THAT WILDLIFE GOOD -BY. FRAGIIE.17TATION OF KABITAT AND EVERY ROAD BUILT, EVEN A TIJO-LAi:E HIGHI%AY CR A BICYCLE TRAIL, PRODUCES SCIIE FRAGMENTATICE CF HABITAT. IT DESTROYS NESTING AREAS, FEEDIYG AREAS. AND EVEN A TWO-LANE EIGHT -;AY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF TRAFFIC PRESENTS A HAZARD FOR MANY ANIMALS, AND PARTICULARLY LARGER ANIMALS DEFINITELY HILL NOT CROSS A NOISY AREA. SO THAT UNLESS WE ARE TO ADMIT THAT WE DON'T GIVE A DANN ABOUT THE WILDLIFE, THEN WE MUST MAKE SOME PREPARATION. ANiL THE MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO THIS POINT DO NOT CUT THE MUSTARD. THANK YOU. MR. OLSON: THANI{ YOU. DAN MCCLII'TOCK. I`,R. MCCLINTOCK: EI. I<•IY FAt;E DAN I•.CCLINTOCK, Ar:D I OWN PRECISION AUTO CCLLISION MAXENE t';EINBERG AGr_t:CY tl-ISSICN VIEJC/i:Et:PCRT BEACE 1 2 3 4 5 rl 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EC II: LAGUNA NIGUEL. I'VE BEEN THERE FOP. AEOUT FIVE YEARS. AI:L UI?FCRTUI'P.TFLY I CAi,s' T REALLY GET UP HERE AND OPPOSE WHAT I THINK WE NEED. I DON:' T THINK EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE RIDING THEIR BICYCLES. SC IF U'E'RE GOING TO KEEP DRIVIFG OUR CARS, WE'RE GCING TC NEED TRANSPORTATION CCRRILCRS. BUT WHAT I API OPPOSED IS THE SECOND PROPOSAL OR THE SECOID OPTION:. THE ONLY OTHER EFFECT I SEE THAT SECOND OPTION: HAVING WHEN THIS CORRIDOR IS BUILT IS ON SOME CF THE SOME OWNERS THAT LIVE INi LAGUNA N;IGUEL ON TFE AVERY OFF RAMP THERE OF AT COLIN:AS. AND I KNOW, I HAPPEI= TO LCOK.AT HOMES THERE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO. AND EVERY HOME OWNER THERE WAS AWAF.E WHEN THEY BOUGHT THOSE HOMES THAT -- OF A FIRST OPTION AND THAT THERE WOULD BE A CORRIDOR COMING THROUGH THERE. SO WHAT THIS OPTIONT WOULD AFFECT, IF THIS OPTION 2 GOES THROUGH ON THIS CORRIDOR, IT'S GOING' TO WIPE OUT THE STREET OF CAMIN:O CAPISTRANO. AND I KEEP MENITIONINIG CAMINO CAPISTRANO, BUT WE'RE NOTI GOING TO BE THERE BECAUSE THE SMALL BUSINESSES ON THAT STREET, ALONG WITH THE LARGE BUSINESS OF ALLEP: CADILLAC, IS GOING TO BE GONE. AND THERE'P,E� FIVE BODY SHOPS IN THAT GENERAL AREA WITHINi A t-1 !-2 t-3 7C I 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1: 20 21 22 23 24 25 c`-U^-•RZ i:T_LE F.ADIL'S, TEE CN;LY FIVE DCCY SF:CPS I,: THE CITY OF LACUNA FIGUEL, AI;C ;:E' LL ALL BE EL=IiI2:ATED. SO ALL YOUR TAX DCLLARS FROM THE CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL WILL HAVE TO GO TO MISSION VIEJO OF LACUNA BEACH AND, YOU KNOW, POSSIELY OFF LACUNA CANYON THEY'LL BUILD ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MORE BODY SHOPS OUT THERE, IF THEY CAN GET TO SELL NEW CARS. BUT UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T KNOW P:HERE TO RELOCATE, IF I HAD TO. I L:Ci3' - KNOW IF ANYBODY HERE HAS EVER DEALT WITH AQI•:D, BUT TFEY' RE AT M-Y OFFICE QUITE OFTEN1. ii`! BODY SEOP DOES MEET ALL STANDARDS OF AIR QUALT_TY. THE RELOCATION -- THERE'S NOT ANOTHER STREET DESIGNATED IN THE CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL THAT WILL ALLOW AUTO BODIES OR MOST AUTOI-;OTIVES, FiHICH THE STREET IS. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE OF LAGUNA NIGUEL AND SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, MISSION VIEJO WANT TO TRAVEL, YOU KNOW, 20, 30 MILES TO ANOTHER CITY TO HAVE A CAP. SERVICED. I BELIEVE MOST PEOPLE LIKE TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE IN THEIR OWN TOWN OR THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW WE ALL DO. THERE ARE SEVERAL OF US HERE TONIGHT. AND I 'KNOW I BUY ALL MY fIOTORCYCLES FROM JOE:i•: DOWN AT YAMAHA. I EUY MY 8-1 I,IAXEI;G G,EII,P.F.RC. AC'FP;C`_' KTSST0%t VTR•:(,/NFIiPf?RT EF_ACIF e. 6 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 `11 21 22 23 24 25 CARS FRCE., ALLEI: CAZILLAC. I NAVE EY CAR SERVICED AT ALLEl, . TFEY USL I•:E FCR LCDs WOrK. IT' S GCIING TC BE A BIG DOI•;INO EFFECT. AI:L IT'S REALLY GOING TC, YOU KNC6c, EURT A LOT OF THE SHALL BUSINESSES THERE. ANYWAY -- ER. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. THANK You, DAN. NEXT SPEAKER, RUSSELL BURKETT. MR. BURKETT: OVER HERE. MY NAME IS RUSSELL BURKETT, AND I LIVE IN SAY JUAN CAPISTRAP:O. I' Ili THE CHAIRMAN4 OF THE SPOTTED BULL HONE OWNERS ASSOCIATION. WE'RE AT THE SOUTHERN TER Ill"US OF THE CORRIDOR. IWE LEARNED ABOUT THE CORRIDOR EARLY ON, AS YOU PROBABLY HEARD FROM TOM ROGERS, WHO'S A RESIDENT OF OUR AREA. WHEN I MOVED TO SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY IN THE VERY EARLY EIGHTIES, I MOVED HERE BECAUSE I LIKED THE LIFESTYLE AND WHAT I IMAGINED WOULD BE A VERY TRANQUIL, INDUSTRIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASE TO LIVE. WHAT I LOOKED AT AND I THOUGHT WAS HAPPENING WAS THE SOUND OF MUSIC IN THE HILLS. BUT IT REALLY WASN'T THE SOUND OF MUSIC. IT WAS THE SOUND OF BUILDING IN PROGRESS COATING OUR WAY, THE SIREN SONG OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPIiENT. AND THE GROWTH GROUPIES THAT SINC THIS SONG HAVE TERMED US ALONG- THE WAY THAT AS LONG AS WE KEEP !-3 3-1 72 1 3' 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUTT_T.:G TEE FILL-c FULL HOidES, TFtI.T EVEc:TUALL•Y 40 WE' LL HAVE TO PUT TRA:'.SPCRTt?TICt7 CCRRIDORS Iiv TC 8_13_1 SERVICE THOSE HILLS AND SERVICE TIiOSE HOMES. WE DIDN'T HAVE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE BACK. HILLS. BUT 6.E ARE GOING TC HAVE TRAFFIC CCNGESTION: t; ITH THIS NEP: PLAN. I HAVE OPPOSED AND 8-13-2 CONTINUE TO OPPOSE AND MOULD ENCOURAGE ALL OTHERS WHC OPPOSE TO SEEX THE NO BILL ALTERNATIVE. I A@: DISTURBED THAT SOME CITIES HAVE -- MAY HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR RIGHT TO THE NO BILL ALTERNATIVE, AND THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED OR IN SOME WAY GENERALIZED 8-13-3 THEIR CITY A2tiD GENERAL PLAN SO THAT THEY'VE CREATED CONSISTENCY WITH THE SAN: JCAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR RATHER. THAN OPPOSING IT. I THINK THAT GROWTH IS INEVITABLE. WE SEE IT HAPPENING. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE ARE ALTERNATIVES. WE'HAVE LOOKED AT -- THE EIR DOES NOT LOOK AT ANY SUPERSTREET OR ANY KIND OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE SCENIC HIGHWAY CORRIDORS THAT COULD SERVICE THE BACK -SILLS. IF THE NO BILL ALTERNATIVE IS LEGALLY RULED OUT AS A REMEDY OR A CURE FOR THIS PROJECT, THEN THE NEXT PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE TO FACE ARE A GE17ERAL ATTACK ON TEE CONISISTEi;CY OF THE EIR. ITSELF. TWC, YEARS AGO, IN: 1988, THE EIR 494, 8-13-4 T•iAnE,','E t9EIP.EERG AGENCY PTPPTfl VTF.7n/NFt•:P0PT REACH I 7' r 1 I",EICE I;AS THE PRECECESSCF TO THIS EIR, DREW SUCH A 2 TREMENDCUS hi:CUINT CF COI•MEN:TS. TFERE WERE THREE 3 FUGE LCLUiIES OF JUST CCLIllIEN+TS, AND l-iE' RE TALKING 4 ABOUT STACKS OF CO1MMENITS. LIKE ONE SPEAKER SAID 5 BEFORE, THOSE COMMENTS HAVE VOW PUT -- BEEN PUT 6 Al -.-AY III: THE ARCHIVES. IF YOU WANT TO GO SEEK 7 THOSE COMMENTS OUT, YOU HAVE TO GO TO CORRIDOR 8 AGENCIES AND GET THOSE REPORTS. WE ARE NCVI S STARTI14G ALL OVER AGAIN COAiMENTING ON A NEW EIR. 10 WE'RE GOING TO BE GENERATING ANOTHER 11 MOUN1TAIN OF PAPERWORK. AND WITH THAT MOUNTAIN OF_ 12 PAFERi1OF:I: IS GOING TO COME THE EVErTLTAL LOOPHOLES 13 AND PITFALLS THAT THE WORDS -- THAT LA17YERS CAN 8-1 14 PUT INTO DOCUPIENTS, ALSO CREATE TEE OPPORTUNITIES 15 FOR I•FANY OF US WHO OPPOSE THIS DOCUMENT. I 16 PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M IN FAVOR OF 17 SOME PORTION OF THIS PROCESS. 18 JUST LOOKING AND REVIEWING THE EIR IS A 19 MONUMENTAL JOB BY ITSELF, NOT INCLUDING THE 20 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT COMES ALONG WITH IT, 21 THE TECHNICAL DATA. I'M CONCERNED, AND I WILL BE 22 WRITIt:G THE AGENCY AND MY CITY, SAN JUAN 23 CAPISTRANO, IN DETAIL TO STRESS THOSE POINTS 111HICH 24 I FEEL ARE IP:ADECL'ATE AND HAVE BEEN ILL SERVED IF- 25 THE EIR. 14a V%,qr 4^ V,-- %-,-"- %.n n,-/!i, ..T-^Taw• t?Tn r^/pT t, Ta-m^nm vZt ry 74 9 1 2 3 4 5 ' 6 7 8 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I THIZ:K THAT A SEPARATE CCCUr-'.EP:T SECULE EE GENERATEE JUST CN THE SCUTS ALIGZ:;-IEZNT TEAT ?:OULE IDENTIFY NCT C LY TO THE CITIZENS OF SOUTH MISSICN VIEJO AND LAGUNA NIGUEL, BUT TO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO AND SAP: CLEMENTE AND CAPISTRANO BEACHI DANA POINT, WHO ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY, WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS, WHAT ARE THE GRO;ITH INDUCING POSSIBILITIES OF THIS CORRIDOR, WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SUFFER THROUGH. WITH THAT, OF COURSE, I DCN'T WANT TO CONTINUE ON THE WAY OVER HERE. I THINK YOU CAN PUT NE DCT:N IN THE NO CATEGORY. MR. OLSON: I'D LIKE TO CALL JOEL REYNOLDS TO THE MIC. AND WHILE HE'S PREPARING TO SPEAK, THE NEXT SPEAKERS WILL BE ALAN REMINGTON, KEN KUBE, TON LARSON, CLARENCE BLACK, IF YOU'D MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE MICROPHONE AS WELL. JOEL REYNOLDS. MR. REYNOLDS: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOEL REYNOLDS. I'M A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL. NRDC IS A NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION. WE HAVE ABOUT 150,000 MEMBERS NATIONALLY, A STAFF OF 100 LAWYERS AND SCIENTISTS. NRDC HAS A 20—YEAR HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL 0 8-13-6 NAXENE kEINEERG AGENCY MIISSICtT VIEJC/YEI,-,PCRT EEACF: 75 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 E S 10 11 12 13 14 1r 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AE OCfCY. I'i: HERE THIS EVEYING 01- BEHALF OF THE 15 , 0 G C t•:I::HEPS OF t.RDC I': SGUTHE.:_'•: CAL I FOP 1. Tl'.. I' ,: "El EP.E THI£ EVE:sI�:G TO 0 P P C S E TEE 8-1 PROPOSER TRAIN:SPORTATION CORRIDOR. IT UNQUESTIONABLY 1ILL DESTROY IRREPLACEABLE NATURAL 8-1 AYB BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. IT WILL SEVEREI;Y DEGRADE THE ENVIRClil• ENT,. CF LAGUN 84 HILLS AND SURROUNDING AREAS. IT WILL INDUCE MASSIVE GROWTH. IT :•TILL ACGRAVATE_ ALREADY •8-1� LETERIORATED AIR CCA,LIT- IN THE SOUTHERN . CALIFCRNTA AREA. AND IT 11ILL CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL 8-1 LOSS OF OPEN SPACE, AND IT t+ILL DC MUCH MORE. rrE t-;ILL '�t:IT DETAILED CCI;ASEt:TS CP: THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IM PACT STATEi ENT BY NOVEMBER 26TH. LET ME SAY THIS EVENING, THOUGH, THAT EASEL ON OUR PRELIMINARY REVIEW, AND I DON'T MEAN THIS OUT OF ANY DISRESPECT TO THE PEOPLE WHO PREPARED IT BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF WORK WAS THROWN INTO IT, I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE?:ENT IS A BLATANT POST HOC RATIONALIZATION FOR A DECISION THAT'S ALREADY BEET MADE. IN PLAIT+ LANGUAGE, IT IS A PUP TEASE FOR. THE TRANSPORTATICl: CCRRIDCR. THE DOCUMENT COA:PLETELY DISP.EG;,RDS TEE GROWTH, INDUCING IMPACTS 1-1 4-2 1.3 1-4 4-5 1-6 WTvL'rt f-vT%,gTTR/• f.e-,m'wnV t,Tv[NT^1, f-Tv?M/VVT 76 1 3 4 5 t 6 7 6 9 1cz 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FULL RAL.G E GF C S V I C U S ALTCRN:F.TIVE:. :C Th1S PRCCCCT . IT FAILS TO AD rRE.SS A*"C REQUIRE II:PCR=AI;T, IT ATTEP:PTS TO PATICFALIZE THE i°:RCN:C PRCJECT It' THE WR C.:C PLACE. THI: IS NOT WHAT THE EATICNAL ENVIFOt:I:Et'TAL PCLICY ACT IS ALL AECUT. IT'S ECT T-.-HAT THE CALI:FCRN•:IA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1--'AS ENACTEI; TO El"SUP.E. THE ENVIRCCEENTAL REVTEi•; PROCESS IS SUPPCSED TC RESULT I:: AN CBJECTIVE, RATIONAL VIEW OF A PRCPCSAL EITH FULL COIJSIDERATION OF PCTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES T. HICH WILL THEN ALLCW THE DECISIO?; MAKER, WITH ALL INFORMATION AT HIS OR HER FINGER TIPS, TO MAKE A REASONAL DECISION. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT LEADS INESCAPABLY TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION. CONSEQUENTLY NRDC IN ITS COMMENTS [•TILL REQUEST THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEVEL\T DE WITHDRAWl'. AND BE REWRITTEN At:D RECIRCULATED ONLY AT SUCH TIME AS THE DOCUMENT CAN BE DONE IN AN OBJECTIVE, OPEN—MINDED FASHICN THAT RECCGNIZES THAT A MAJOR HIGHT,'hY PRCJECT THRCUCH CRITICAL OPEC: SPACE IS NOT THE WAY TO DEAL i',ITH TRAFFIC CO1`:GESTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY. TF.ANK YCU. 0 0 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 cc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 77 EP. CLSOi-:: ALAN R E I'l i::GTCi:• N'R. REl'--NGTO`;: ALAI. REI:Ii:GTCi:. I LIVE III COSTA InESA. FIRST OF ALL, I' D LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS SORT CF AWED BY THE FFLSEt:TATICti, BY THE AEOUN:T OF MONEY, TIME, AND RESOURCES THAT SENT INTO THE PRESENTATION ::HEN FIRST STARTED. BUT JUDGING FROI-i THE NUMBE CF PEOPLE INFO OPPOSE IT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THT—S SORT CF SEEMS LINE A HOSPITe?L ALI•:INISTR ATOR ADDRESSING A BUNCH OF HEALTHY PEOPLE, TELLING THEL WHAT A TERRIFIC ENVIRCIIIIENT THEY'RE GOING TO LOCI: FORWARD TO WHEN THEY COME TO HIS EOSPITAL. I HAVE SOME COl CERIiS . OYE GENTLEI:i:N A LITTLE EARLIER REFERRED TO THE FREEWAYS AS SILMILAR TC THE HUMAN BODY. I THINK THE HUMAN BODY WAS DESIGNED WITH A LITTLE MORE CARE. I HAVE SCMIE CONCERNS REGARDING THE REPORTS THAT WE GET FROfi THE EXPERTS. SINCE THE LATE FORTIES, THE EXPERTS HAVE BEEN WRONG IN ALMOST EVERY AREA FROM AIR POLLUTICN TO WATER CONSUMPTION TO TRAFFIC. I 8-1! DON'T MEALN TO DOWNGRADE ANY OF THE WORK THAT ANY OF THESE VERY LOVELY PEOPLE HAVE CONTRIBUTED. BUT Al; EXPERT SEEMS TO BE DEFINED AS THE PERSOI' WHO V'ILL GIVE HIS BOSS WHAT HE KNOTS THAT FIE BCSS WANTS OR FIND A WAY TO GET IT. 1' i-1 76 1 L 3 4 5 C 7 8 9 -10 •11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 IT 25 CC.:C_-FNEr- AZCUT ..ITICAT!Ci,:. NITIGil. IC.. VAS CEFIc:ED EY Cl:--' CF YCUR PRESE_:TEFS r.S .:G:,*iTCRI.:C THE !-: _LDLIFE S-:HILE TEE CCP:STRUCTT_CI: WAS GOi:•:C Cis:. ;':HAT ARE YOU GCIt:G TO MONITOR, THE DECLINE? THAT' S ALL YOU CAt' I--iONITOP.. THEY SAID THEY I: ERE GCING TO BE STAYING AT- AY AS MUCH AS PCSSIE:rE FRCI•i SENSITIVE AREAS. :TELL, WE-EREVER YOU PUT A STAYCF=ICt-,: IS A SENiSITIVE AREA. FOR SOME CRITTER. WHEY YOU DC FRAGt--:ENIT THE AREA, AS YOU SAY YOU CAN:' T HELP EUT DO, YOU CUT CFF THESE ANIMALS FROM GENE POOLS THAT KEY HAVE TC HAVE Its ORDER TO SURVIVE. WHEN YOU LOSE THE ANIIMAL•S, YOU'RE GOING TC LOSE PART OF THE QUALITY OF CUP. LIVES. lv�HEN YGU LOSE THE PLANTS, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE PART OF THE QUALITY CF OUR LIVES. MANY OF US CAME TC CALIFCRNIIA BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE HERE, AND IT HAS THESE STUDIES DETERIORATING BECAUSE OF THE LACE OF PLANNING. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE QUALITY OF SOME CF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HIRED TO ADVISE US ON THESE MATTERS. IT SORT OF REMINDS ME OF -- THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE 14HO GRADUATED IN THE BOTTOM OF THEIR MEDICAL SCIOOL CLASS ARE CALLED DOCT70R. UELL, WE HAVE THE SAt:E THING, I THINit, WHEN YCU GET 8-15 0 9 1-3 0 t-:AXEiyE :':E'TNSERG_ AGENCY t!iSSION V=EJC/N:Ei:rCRT DEACc 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 Lj, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7c EICLCG:STS ;:CR:;_Ti:G FCn DEVELCPi%Ei,'T CCI•'PAl:IES. I T Ii'r; YCU CAL: SAFEi1` CALL TE E�. EYCSTITUE-c . A ;l: I DCN' T THINK THAT -- I DCI'' T THA.IN" THEY DC THE PUBLIC A SERVICE AT FALL, AFL THEY CERTAI.;LY DON'T DO THEIP. OI:P: FIELD A SEFVICE. TOIL ROGERS REFERRED TO THE CARS AND THE CARBON EONCXIDE THAT 1•70ULD DECREASE A13D -- BECAUSE OF BETTER GAS, BECAUSE OF FASTER TRAVEL, AND THE ACCIDENTS THAT WOULD, OF COURSE, BUILD OF SCI.E OF IT. THE CARBOY: MONOXIDE INCREASED, IN GENERAL WHILE VERY EALLEABL•E, IS NOT THE BILLER THAT THE DICXIDrS ARE. AND A ROAD CF THAT SIZE IS GOING TO PUT TONS EVERY DAY CF INCREASED DICXID£S INTO THE AREA. IT'S A BOMBER ILEA. IF THERE'S NO S•lAY TEA'] 8-1 YOU CAN AVOID BUILDING SOMETHING OVER THAT VERY SENSITIVE AREA, THEN BUILD SOME LIGHT RAIL AND GET g.1; US THE HELL OUT OF OUR CARS. MR. OLSON: KEN KUBE, IF I'M PRONOUNCING THAT LAST NAME CORRECTLY. MR. KUBE: THAT IS CORRECT. MY DAME IS KEN KUBE. AND ON BEHALF OF THE SYCANCRE HILLS RESIDENTS AGAINST THE TOLL ROAD, I tvOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAT: AS INCOMPLETE FOR TWO CF TEE FOLLCt'i IFG 5-3 5-1 EC 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 10 11 12 i1 14 15 16 17 18 19, 20 21 22 231 24 25 IF _T"SC.:S. ; —_'VE BEEN: LED TC EEL 1EVL EY m''E CCRPIDCF. AGE.:C1 A.'D BY 4%.-m Cr^.A'.,.GC C=,T'_' Er RE cF �r SL'PERVT_SCCS THAI' CYE CF TEE CHIEF REASC:'S FOR BUILDING THE SAli uCAQUIr: TOLL RCAD IS DUE TO THE DEFICIENCIES THAT E IST AT THE EL TORO "Y." WITH THE RECENT PASSAGE CF MEASURE "L l " I WOULD SUGGEST THAT A NEW STUDY NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED TO SEC6. T•!FAT TEE EFFECTS THAT TEE IIiPF.CVE:!EA:'='S OR THE PROPCSED Ii1PRCVEt:E?-!TS PILL HAVE AT THE EL TC-RC "Y" A.:D ALSO V HAT THE EFFECTS OF THIS TRAFFIC CIRCULAT-10i: PLAT: FILL HAVE BY TURNII:G N:CULTON' PtaRu:1,:NY INTO A SUPERSTREET. REASOU 2, Y_AEI_' CF THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAT: ARE EASED ON THE CCUFTY' S I•!ASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS. I MUST EMPHASIZE THIS IS SIMPLY A MASTER PLAN. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STREETS THAT THEY HAVE ON THE MASTER PLAT: WILL EVER BE BUILT. ALSO TKE DOCUMENT, THE MASTER PLAT: OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS, I BELIEVE, IS OVER 10 YEARS OLD AND AT TKIS TII•:E IS OUTDATED. CNE EXAMPLE I'D LIKE TO CIVE IS THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH JUST RECENTLY EFTEREEl I11TO Air: AGREEIiEr:T 1,.-1TF. THE IRVIr;E C0NPA::Y TO PURCHASE SIGFIFICAI:T PORTIONS OF LAGUNA CANYON, II-:CLUUIi:C A LAPGE TRACT CF OPEI: SPACE !IEERE TFERE • 0 f.:A71:'"P G7F7 VZ VC1" A r'F` r'V • T CC Tn1.1 17T G Tn /1.7T'-Zf`,0M = QA r t: 1 ..I 4 c 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E1 t;AS G::CE LFSTI�:EG i=. C. U SI::C rFG.:�EC^ CALIE.D LAG L*i. T ' U=, ;'-:?ICE: T:CULLI:R�"E .: r. :_r.D 3,200 HOUSES. TEE SURFACE STREETS TF;.T WERE C•L:CE DESIGI:ED TO SERVE TEAT COi•:I-eL'I,:ITY PILL NOT BE LEISURE NORLL TC LAGUNA Cr P YO.<. IIti ADDITICN LAGUNA CA::YCI: ROAD 1-,ILL NOT BE A THREE —LANE EIGHLAY Ill t EITHEP. DIRECTION, BUT PCSSIBLY AT BEST CASE T:•:O LAi:ES IN EITHER DIREC^1IOIJ. THE CURRENT EIR. DCES NCT ADDRESS AD.'!" CF THESE BORE RECENT DEVELOPt:Ei•:TS . IN FACT THE EIR IN ITS TRAFFIC ETUDY COMPLETELY IGNORES ANY TIr:IN:G THAT Y,!Gt:T BE INVOLVED IN THE BUILDING CF THESE STREETS, THESE SC -CALLED ARTERIAL ROADS, AND TOTALLY IGNORES THE TIMING OF WHEN THESE WOULD BE BUILT OF IF THEY WILL EVER BE BUILT. IT IS THE CCUN:TY' S 4:ISH LIST. THE THIRD THING THE EIR DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS PROBABLY THE MOST ENVIRONMENTAL -- THE MOST IMPORTANT ENVIRO`NENTAL FACTOR, THE HUMAN FACTOR. IN DEMOGRAPHICS. BY LEISURE WORLD, THE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF SEVERAL THOUSAND ELDERLY AND SE17IOR CITIZENS. MOST OF THE DRIVERS IN THEN CCN`,,,'.UB:ITY DOti' T DRIVE B-1 5-2 tc; 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 2s FAc,, i:CR LC lF:EY iPIVE FAST. ;.i:L ".E.E1r. DP.IVI2IC E:AL_=S Ar,Z SUCH THAT ci A F.0 J ECT CF TINS S C C F E, LU:-:PliNC Tl*:E AZ:CU:,T CF TRAFFIC THAT IS FF.CPCSED TO EUI:P C;"TC E-. TCRC RCAD ANL OTHER SURFACE STREETS IN TFE AREA, _ DELIEVE, WOULD BE A DISASTER. TO T1HA', CC1-:t:UI•:_T`_'. Ai:lr, I BELIEVE IT ►�ARRciiaTS FURTHER °.TUEY FROE A ZELCGRAPH:C STAr:DPCIr:T. AS FOR THE CITY OF LAGUtdE'1 EEACH, E" THE t;ATUR,E OF ITS LCCATICr IN CRANGL CCUI:r.`Y, IT IS PRI'.•!ARILY RURAL IN NATURE ALSO NIT I:Ai:Y RETIRED INLIVIDU'ALS. JUDGING BY THE TURI:CUT F:ERE TONIGHT, THIS PROJECT IS NCT ACCEPTAELE FRCI•; A I:U IA: STANDPOINT BECAUSE THE PECPLE REALIZE THIS TCLL RCAD I -;ILL AFFECT THEIR LIFESTYLES FOREVER, AND THEY I':ILL BE NEGATIVELY IIdPACTEZ . AI<D ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I LIVE ACROSS FROM ONE OF MAJOR ILLEGAL GRADINGS BY THE KATHRYN THOMPSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. ACROSS THE ROAD FRCN, WHEP.E I LIVE, THEY CAME -- THEY'VE COi:E IN AND THEY'VE GRADED A SWASF OF LAUD OVER 2,000 FEET WIDE, SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET DEEP. THERE WAS r:0 ENVIRONMErrTAL IMPACT STATErIEN: DGEE CN THIS. THIS LAND IS FCREVER IMIPACTED ✓i:iETHER THTC CCRRIDCR IS BUILT OR NOT, ANC I SPEAF -2 -3 46 3-4 • I;EINBER,G AGE?-iCY NISSICI•J VIEJC/NETIPORT BEACH r: r: 4 S 6 7 a a 1C li 1� 13 14 1c 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i4 25 FCR T L E F.EE_I;E::TS CF S-'CAI -CF'E :TILLS. THAT GRALII:G LIT: I`CFS TO TU I' Tr AT IN;ZTCI:ECRI:CCD ACA.FST THE TOLL RCAD T ,AI: Ai,-,Y EI:VIP.Ci:I:EI•:Ti.L I. —PACT SERE. YCt; VERY I:GCH. I•:R. 0LSO1-I: THANK YCU. THE NE%T S: EANER IS TOI'I LARSCN. FIR. LAREC`I. ,'•:R. LARSCN: GOOD EVENING. I CERTAII'LY FEEL FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE TRAD-.SPCRTAT_TC:; I-1CRK, THE EINGT_D:EEF.S, TEE PLANNEFS, THE GOVERiCLENTAL OFFICIALS. I THINX YCU' VE BEEN VERY PATIEZ"T TO HEAP, THE PEOPLE TOi:IGHT SPEAR THEIR PEACE. AGAIF I COI•:PLII•:E:CT YOU FCR SITTI::C THERE PROFESSIO!'ALLY AND LISTENING. I DO HOPE AND UICULD LIKE TO TIiRCvi DO1ti41.1i THE CHALLENGE TEAT YOU TAKE THIS INFCRMATiCiv BACK Ai:D BE FRANK AND TELL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE EMPLOYING YOU THAT WE'VE MADE A MISTAI:E AND WE REALLY PEED TO BECOME DIEM CENTURY VISIONARIES, TO BE THINKING ABOUT OTHER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS THAT ARE NOT SO COSTLY, SO ENVIRONMENTALLY DEGRADING, THAT CAN REALLY PROTECT FUTURE GENERATIOPaS, THAT CAN REALLY PROMOTE THE COCD ::ILL, TEE QUALITY OF LIFE OF ORANGE CCUI:TY TEAT SC i MANY CF US DESIRES .I 2: 2 3 J 4 5 b 7 fi c 1C 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1: 20 21 23 '7 4 25 %CU S_E, REE!.ZER ZAC;F IN TE E ;: T S I:a T .. E.C. , A..L 1' `—7 E rZ E L. I +.. LL - , - TF:E 405, TI:E SG, TILE 55, 57. Ai;% I HEARS rlUCH CF. THIS 'rNFCRL•'.ATICL; THROUGH THE PAPER Ar:D• PAID CLOSE T:0N TC �:CI•; EACH NEr: TRANSPCR.TAT10N C C R ID0R t1 1 1 1: 1• L 1 6*AS GOING TO RELIEVE TRAFFIC. Ul:FC TU2;ATELY THAT HASN'T HAPPENED, ANZ IT SACDENS I•:I . I RUN A COLEPANY OF 150 PEOPLE, HAVE TO I•tE,ET A PAYROLL EVERY T;7O Y:EEr.S IN IRVIFE. I LIVE IN :;ISSICr; VIEJC. AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS FOR A GOOD TRA:;SFCRTATICi; SY-cTEI:. EUZ' I DG t:f.:.T THESE TRANSPGRTATIOr; PEOPLE TO INOVE FROM A DEMAND L�:t.::AGELE'NT PHILCSCPHY TO REALLY A DEMArID SENSITIVITY PHILOSOPHY ON HOW ;'IE TREAT Ai;Ir HAN.BLE CUR RESOURCES. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO TAKE AND TC USE OUR RESOURCES AS IF THEY'RE ENDLESS. r:0::, FUTURE GENERATIONS REALLY DEPEND ON HOj•I WE MANAGE OUR LIFESTYLES AND H0;•I WE MANAGE :HAT WE'RE DOING. WE NEED TO BECOME GOOD STEWARDS. I•:E NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND ;HAT INTERGENERATIONAL RESPCESIBILITY r,:EAN,S, WHAT SUSTAIt:ABILITY tlEAl..S. :'CU KNMI, IT' S JUST REAL."." UNFCRTULYATE TO SEE THAT TEE • 8E 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1G 11 12 13 14 1� J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i 24 2co TFI,:'Sc-'•C::TATrCN .S•YSTI- HAS Ll.CCEL SC Fr:R EEHIP:i :E7" C01:::L:P.ICATyC:: SYST-E A.:L 'ThE I;Ei.ICc:L I2:LUSTRY. T.:;, I;C::' T ::EEL A TELLER Ai:YI;CRE. :':E CA;.: CALL FI;O:.: CLIP. AUTCI:CLILES. WE CAT: USE FA,. I:ACI?I.:ES. T°IE CAN DC A.:AZj�;G TI?INGS IP: nErICIN.E. BUT YET IF YOU LOCI: ABOUT US IN CUP TP.Ai:SPCRTATIOI; SYSTEI•IS, THE CELY THING THAT TIV RE LCT.NG IS PA_'{ING TFIE:1 EIGGER,' LONGER, :•:IDER, AND CCSTT_2:G US MOREa:CP:EI' AI-D LEGr,'DII�G CUR EN.VIRC::,:E::T A GREAT DEAL i-:CRE. L•:HY CANT Z•,E KEEP UP? ::HY CAI. T :'E EE VISICI:ARY AND DO THIi:GS THAT AfiE P ACTICA: L, THAT ARE SENSITIVE. WE CAN'T KEEP PRCI•ICTI ;G THE USE OF THE ALTONOBIL E. EE PEEL TO LOCK AT OTHER ALTERNATIVES, PUT THOSE FIRST, EEGIP: TC TEACH PEOPLE THAT WE'RE THE CARETAKERS. AND SC MY CHALLEGE TO THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE TRAi:SPORTATION IS THEY CC BACK AND BE FRANK AND SAY, LISTEN, WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, A LOT CF HARD WORK, IT'S BEEN CHALLENGING BUT S•,E 2 ADE A I'SISTAKE. WE NEED TO I•IOVE FORWARD 4:ITH VI£ICN AND WITH WISDOM AND BE PRACTICAL AND DEVELOP TRANSPORTATION SYSTELS THAT REALLY IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE. TEIS SYSTEM UNFORTUNATELY IS TCO TRAGIC, AND WE i'.UST AEA2:DCI: IT. THANK YOU. r-1 R:LXfi`-F r--r r*-t vr- - r-i^r_Tn>• iyrr.7 ./wrT-?vr\vrr Gi u 1 2 J G 5 6 c 1C 11 12 1.0 14 1� J 16 17 18 1S 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLECI.. r%- CLAF::.'C LL:.CI. CCi:ES i'C T::E v::CFCrFCZ:E, LET i.:E C0 t' AT 0ULC IC, A C TFAT IS, GIVE THE PANEL AN GPPORTU:iITY TO tIAhE ANY CLARIrYING STATENENT CP. CCI:I•:E'.•:T THE: WISH TO i•IARE AT THIS TIi•:E. TFEY' RE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO SO. AND VIE CF.N CONTINUE V.IT:: THE HEARING, UNLESS I SEE A GREATER ENTHUSIAS,•: THE L FRO.: THE PAt:EL OR SHOV. CF HANDS. IS THERE Ai.Y COI:i:ENT CR CLARIFYIt C RENARK YOU'D LIrE TC EAI v-? iLid ►c , `Ei. E • MR. FOSTER; IN t,Y PRESE23TATION, I MADE USE OF SOME ACRONYiIS. I' D LIFE TO tiAF:E SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THOSE TERI-:S. AVI IS THE AUTCt:ATT_C VEHICLE iLE2:TIFICATION. IT IS A SYSTEM USED FOR TCLL COLLECTION. IT IS AN ELECTRONIC SYSTEM UTILIZING A VEHICLE ON -- A TAG ON A VEHICLE TO BE READ THROUGH THE BOOTH. AND THAT TERM AGAIN IS AVI. HOV, I USED SEVERAL TIMES. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A CARPCGL LANE OR A LANE THAT'S RESERVED FOR VEHICLES WITH MORE THAN ONE OCCUPANT. I ALSO NEGLECTED, III MY PRESENTATICE, TO INDICATE THE ROLE OF CALTRANS. CALTRANS IS NOT A PART OF THE TCA. THEY DO, HOP,EVER, PLAY A ROLE It: OVERSEEING THE CORK=DOR PLA::S IN THE l:EVELCPtIEi:T 0 �i 7 i ,- kPP(; A r P c;c'rr. is Tr.7o/mFr,. Pnrr,Pr CE £7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 ?1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OF THE PR CCECT. THEY ARE ACTUALLY I::-F:CUSE t•:ITF: TF:L' TCA, E U T i-:CT A FArT OF THE AGE,:C:. CNE CL'IC:: NENTIC:, Cl. TEE ::ASTER PLAN, THE EASTER PLAI: OF ARTEI:IAL HIGHWAYS IS IN A SENSE A LIVING DOCUINEI'T. IT IS CHANGED ANNUALLY, AND IT IS CHANGED IN ACCCRDAP:CE i'.ITH THE LAP:: USE PLAITS AS 2J OUR MEI�;EER AGENCIES. _, AND THA;N,X THEY CHANGE BUT I YOU FOR THE I•;CEENT TO CLARIFY THAT. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, GENE. Ai'Y OTHER COFIEENT? ALL RIGHT. CLAREI:CE BLP_CN, THENt PLEASE. MR. BLACI; : CLARENCE BLACK FROM LAGUNA HILLS. I LIVE IN LEISURE WORLD IN THE POST :- ESTERLY PORTION, APID I LOCP: DOWN RIGHT OF, WHERE THIS PRCJECT'S GOING TO BE BUILT. AND ONE THING I -- WELL, I READ ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL• REPORT, INCLUDING THE TECHNICAL VOLUMES. IT TAKES UP CONSIDERABLE TIME, AND I'M NOT A STRANGER TO THOSE. I UNEERSTAND YOUR LANGUAGE BECAUSE I'VE WRITTEN THEN I:YSELF. AND THIS ONE IS AIMED TOWARDS SHOWING OFF THE PROJECT AS FAVORABLY AS YOU CAN, WHICH, I 8-1 GUESS, YOU CAN'T BLAME YOU BECAUSE YOU VIANT TO BUILD IT. BUT V;E DON'T WANT YOU TO BUILD IT. I SPCKE AT THE MEETING A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND I .8.1 8-1 1-2 SE 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 0 1C 11 12 13 14 15 Elu-s 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 OUF.RIEI; t:HY THERE WAS UC CF'FE 1L';:A': FtC^_CR It; THE Z%':V:RCP:i•:E:'TAL REPC T, 4:Hc;TSCEVER I APPEARED AT THE PLANI:ING CCt:i:ISC T_CN, THE SAI•IE THING, ANr, I EELIEVE THAT'S WI-11Y IT WASN'T APPROVED. I;OI. , YOU'VE PUT CIdE PARAGRAPH IN NOW, HEALTH RISK, YOU CALL IT. BUT IT IS GAUGED ONLY TO A HEALTHY ADULT, WHICH IS THE MCST ABLE TO WITKSTAi-'C THE PCISCNCUS CASES AND THE PARTICULATES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN THE AIR. AFIL THE CARS TRAVELING BY, CREATING THEIR OWN WHIRLWINDS T'.'RCSTING CUT THE MILE CR I•:CRE. ni:D IN LEISURE j•*'ORLD WE STRETCH FROt: I-5 DOWN ALMOST TO TiHER E 73 IS GOING TO BE, THIS CORRIDOR. AND IN BETWEEN WE HAVE THE SUPERHIGE NTAY, MOULTON, ;IHICH NOW HAS SIJX LANES AP:D THEY SAY IT'S GOING TO HAVE 10 EEFCRE YOU KNOW IT. SUPERVISOR RILEY VAGUELY SAID TO THE GOLDEN RAIN FOUNDATION AND CAME OVER CHANNEL 6 AT LEISURE WORLD THAT, CH, WE WILL NEVER NOTICE ANY CHANGE IN TRAFFIC ON MOULTON. WITHIN THREE MONTHS, IT WAS HANDLING TRIPPLE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. SO 11IHAT CAN WE BELIEVE POLITICIANS TELLING US AND REPRESENTATIVES OF GOVERNMENT TELLING US? 251 WE CAN'T BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE YOU TAKE • t-3 !-4 MAXEI:E 6-iEINBERG ACENCY -:ISSICPI V:EJC/MEWPCRT BEECH • 0 1 2 4 c J 6 7 8 0 I 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2' 24 Ee THINGS THAT APPEASE YCUR ELDERS OR YOUR SUPERVISOP.S OR t:HATEVER. SO THE HAI LES. PART OF REAZING THIS E2'.VIRONMENTAL REPORT WAS KEEPIi.*,G UP WITH THE CONGLOMERATION OF GROUPS OF LETTERS IP•DICATING t:HEFE SOME ORGANIZATION, AGENCY, OR ITEM: THAT YCC 4;AET TO SHORTEN TI:E i%ORD ON. THERE'S ABOUT 100 OF THEM THROUGHCUT THE`REPCRT, SO IT'S VERY NICE. I DON'T 6:AI:T THE PROJECT TO BE 8-1' EUILT. BUT IF IT IS CERTAIA', ADDITIONAL THINGS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. IN TALKING WITH PULMONARY, CARDIAC AND -- INTERNISTS, WE FINr THAT TEEM ARE SERIOUSLY CCACERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON THE HEALTH OF THE AGED A.�D THE CHILDREP:. THEY DON'T HAVE A BUILT—UP RESISTANCE THAT A HEALTHY ADULT HAS. I FULLY EXPECT TO BE IN COURT O13 THIS. I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO CHANGE IT SG IT WILL BE CORRECT. SO THE REPORT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED. AND YOU USE THEORY INSTEAD OF FACTS IN COMPARISONS. AND I MUST CHALLENGE THE EIR IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS I HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO CHALLEGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE 'IN IT 1 HEN WE GO TO COURT. ANir GENTLEI•IEN, U'E WILL GC IF YOU DCN'T MAKE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BAKE THIS B-5 1-6 1-7 25 MORE EEALTHY PRO:.ECT FOR THE PEOPLE WEG LIVE 5c 1 c 5 6 7 s c; 10 11 12 13 14 -15 16 17 is -1 g 20 21 22 23 24 25 EETWEEP: TFESE ARTERIES. Y C U FAVE'.:'T DC::E r.:"Y'=f:I:,C AECUT I - 50 A1.0 .:CULTCP, I:' CC::.:Era. T10Z= 1 l:' 1%1TF ALT L E FCLLCT[1::T.S CCi•.ING THIS ;,,AY. AND, THOUGH, YOU SAY IN HERE THE PREVnIL-NG RA .: BLOt,S IT AWAY. BUT, 1 TELL YOU, I LIVE THERE. I CAN 'FELL YOU YOU'RE WROUG. I'VE JUST G014E TFRCUGH THREE MONTE S CF SERIOUS ILLNESSES, INCLUDING PP:EUNONIA. AND I Ki:O17 A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT TOO. ::Ct,i, THE TECFi:ICt?L STUL=ES SOLETILES LEAD TO A LIFFERENT CCNCLUS1-01, THAT: WHAT YOU PUT IN THE EIR/EIS VOLUME. THEY'RE C017FUSI2;G. THEY AREP;' T LEGITIMATELY TF.r_.:SLATEL INTO THAT TEXT. NR. 0LS0N: PIR. FLACK, I DON'' INTERRUPT YOU, BUT t-iE' RE APPROACHING FOUR NIN.UTE£ COULD YOU SUM UP YOUR -- MR. BLACK: WELL, I TELL YOU, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 6:30, AND I'VE READ ALL THE LINES. I THINK I'M ENTITLED TO SAY ANOTHER COUPLI OF WORDS. NOW, AS STATED IN VARIOUS CONCLUSIONS, IT EXCEEDS THE EPA STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREI=TENTS FOR NOISE AND AIR QUALITY. AND THERE'S NO MITIGATION SET FCRTH FOR SEVERAL OF THOSE THINGS. T17AERE IS NO COINPARISON t:.ITH PARALLEL HIGE:t'sAYS IN CLOSE PROXILITY 01:' t-:HAT THE TOTAL GASES A::D 1-7 40 t-8 91-9 • I:A XEt;E T�:EIFBERG ACEi:CY "ISS10I11 VIEJO/:SET•:PCRT EEACI= c1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 `va 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 pm 21 22 23 24 PARTICULATES N:ATitR IS CR t•,ILL EE I':r:E:: A:: ARE EEi FORTH AI:L CO :PARED. THE GP%_cL' S AINE PARTICULATES FRCIi I-5 REACT: N:CULTC::. .AND ROUTE 73 PARTICULATES, GASES 6'iILL N:EET ITH THE GA: ES 0R PCLLUTA17TS OF t=OULTON, WHICH IS SIX LANES AND 10 LANES ON THE I-5 CCEBIN:ED. LEISURE WORLD LIVES BETWEEN1 THOSE TWO HIGH,' AYS. AND THIS NrArKES A SERIOUS PRCBLEI•: THAT IS NOT COVERED IN: ANY OF YOUR REPORTS, AN.D IT'S THE SA.'IE THING I BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION T170 YEARS AGC . AND THERE HAS -- NOTHING HAS BEEN DONIIIE ABOUT IT. NtiCiv, WE HAVE SPECIALIS'='S IN THE HEART, LUNGS, AND IN:TERYISTS WHO CAN: TESTIFY TO YOU AT ANY TIME YOU WANT TO HEAR IT ABOUT THIS CONCERN. AND I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU CANNOT COME TO AN ACCOMMODATION ON: HOW THIS CAN BE RESOLVED; I ASSURE YOU AGAIN: THAT IT WILL END UP IN COURT. AND MAYBE THIS WON'T EVER BE BUILT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. THE NEST SPEAKERS, MARIELLE LEEDS; FELIX DUPUY, I'M NOT SURE I'M PRONOUNCING THAT, D—U—P—U—Y, I BELIEVE, FELIX DUPUY, EXCUSE ME; GLEN:: EBEIAP.D ROY; R 251 AND I:AN:CY ZEIGER, IF YOU'LL STEP TOWARD 3-10 9-1 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 1S 1c 20 21 22 23 24 25 I•cS. I•IARIELI:E L E E C S : HI. r';Y DS. I'M ALSO SPEAKING FOR -- THEE CCIII:EI:TS ARE ALSO -- TO SAVE SCI:E TIt:E, THEY'RE ALSO FOR MY I•:CTHER, BETH LEEDS, WHO'S ALREADY SPOKEN TONIGHT AND ALSO I N. EWACKETER. TINS IS III; REGARCS TO THE DEIR/DEIS FOR THE PRCPCSEC SAP: JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPCRTATICte CCRRIDCP, AEC I..AY 'T HIE FCLLCL• iP'G CCI•:r:-Ql"TS E EREBY B.^•. SUBLNITTEZ AND AESWERED. I SAY "AND Ai:St•:ERED" BECAUSE I SUELITTEC FOR THE LAST TOLL ROAD, OR ACTUALLY IT WAS A CORRIDOR AT THAT TIhIE BEFORE IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE A TOLL ROAD, AND THEY WEREN'T RESPONDED TO. AND IT TCOF. PIE A LONG TIME TO MAKE THOSE CCI,!,IENTS, AND I'VE JUST BEEN TOLD THAT ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN TRASHED, THAT THEY WERE THROWN CUT AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE RESPONDED TO, AND I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THEN. I CAN'T FIND MY CCPY, SO ALL THAT PORK ISI DC6•:': THE TUBES, AND THEY WERE NOT RESPONDED TO. I DID NOTICE THAT TF:ERE 1':ERE A COUPLE OF PAGES FRCI•I THAT DGCUiIENT THAT I SUEI•:ITTED IP: THE NE;-, RESPONSE 1 0 i-1 • NA'4XEI'E AGEI'CY FISSICi3 V_IEJO/NETNPORT BEACE 1 2 4 5 6 7 S c IC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ;C CC.:::E:;TS. BUT THERE JIUST r. FEV PACES, Ai;D SC !T' S REALL' Uk.FCRTUI'ATE TEAL' YCU DIDr;' T II.CLUEE � TECSE :N'TC Ttl.c. I'E'. EIR BECAUSE jL'ST ADOUT ALL THCSE COI-:l"EI'TS PEF.TAIr TO T):IS TOLL ROAD EIR AS WELL . FIRS T OF ALL, AND I HOPE .-CU EO RESPONT— TC ALL MY COMMENTS, WHAT T ILL BE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE THREE PROPOSED TCLL• ROADS, THE FCCTHILL TOLL ROAD, THE EASTERN CCRRIDOR, Ai:D THE SAN. JCAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR, Oil THE Er:VIROr:Y:E:;T OF ORANGE COUNTY, IN, ORANGE CCU23TY? Ar:D -TEAT' S 8-1! II;C�UDIr.G, EUT I.CT LIi'ITEL TO TEE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS, NOISE IMPACTS, AND THE ILPACTE TO El'DANGEP.EL SPEC:ES, TKETL•ANdDS, AFD OTHER PLANT COIN=:UNITIES AND ECOSYSTEt:S T& AT ARE DISAPPEARING RAPIDLY AROUND THE WORLD, TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND. VISUAL IMPACTS AS WELL AS IMPACTS TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND PALEONTOLOGICAL SITES. ALSO IF THE LAGUNA LAUREL PLANNED ` COMMUNITY IS FC-T TO BE DEVELOPED, WILL THERE STILL 8-1 BE A NEEL TO BUILD A HUGE RETENTION BASIN AT THE MOUTH OF LAUREL CANYON? IF LAGUNA BEACH 0 23 SUCCESSFULLY PURCHASES THE LAGUNA LAUREL PROJECT 24 AREA AND FAKES IT INTO A PAPX; WEAT IPPACTS WOULD 25 I THIS TOLL ROAD HAVE ON TI IS PART EK? WHY ARE Ti-'.ERE �: 8-1 i-1 i-2 9-3 9-4 D-5 S4. i L 3 4 6 7 18 1° 20 21 22 23 24 25 I_0 ALTEF,I:ATIV:= RCUTES PLA. —1:ED? I `"CTICE I" TH7 PICTURES TIL:r.T YCU SHCl.ED L;P Ci. T: E SC"LE,. T'H- 'ICU EF,VE JUt'CTICNE PLF.P EEZ, LUT i:C ACTUAL AND AS HAO BEEN I•*,ENTIOP:ED BEFORE, TEERE' S r? PERFECTLY CCOD ALTERI'ATIVE THAT %CL'LD GO RIECET AL'Jr'10EP:T TO THE ALREADY 1:AIiAGED AI:D DEETF.O`IEL AREA RIGHT ALCP'GSIDE THE FREEP;AY. AND THAT S OULD PrCZE=ELY HAVE THE I:Ii?Zip �L AFFECT CI: TF E IF YOU PUT IT RIGHT ALCOG TEEP,E. A1:1:: LIKE 2:Y I':OI: SAID, YOU' L LE AELE TO SEE IF TE:E FREE.': AY v.-AS CLEc.R -- THE TCLL ROAD WAS CLEAR OF. NOT, AND YCU COULD DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO USE IT CF.I NOT. WHY PUT IT THROUGH SOME AREA IF YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE WHERE IT IS? YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FULL OR NOT, AND IT'S KOT GOING TO ENTICE PEOPLE TO USEI IT. ACCORDING TO CEQA, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, PROJECTS LIKE THIS NEED 8-1 FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES SUCH: AS PARALLEL ROUTES TO 4C5 WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW DRIVERS TO SEE HOW FULL THEY ARE. OKAY. ARE CITIZENS' COMMENTS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, OR ARE THEY JUST FULFILLING YOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC IP�PUT? THE MAJORITY -- ANOTHER IMPORTANT ISSUE :0 -5 1-6 1-7 --'.X IrI-E ti;EII;EERG AGE::CY P:ISSION VIEJC/hEr-;POF.T BEACH Sj 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 G c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 IS TnAT -- YCL EI-TIC:'EJB H EF E TC1:ICKT E.AT YCL'F.E TF.Y_..G .'C TA!'"E II TC ACCCU:'m TE'I — £IT_iiE r.� Lr. Ai:D YCL: LCr:' T _:T TC PUT TEI£ ROF.D T.HP.CUGit. .SEINS.ITIVE AREAS. WELL, IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT THE LALCRITY OF TEE DUDLEYA, IiH_CF: 1S L•AGUI:A EEAC:; DUDLEYA -- IT'S AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, AND IT i GROI-S NGt:HERE ELSE IN THE WORLL BUT THE 'RCUTE THAT TENS TOLL ROAD IS GOING TO TF.I:E. IT GOES -- THIS RCUTES GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE BIGGEST PnTCH. SURE , YOU NIGHT CO. E EAC" "ll"i' .SAY TFIf. L , 1-.-ELL, WE CAN RELOCATE THOSE, YOU CAI: I:ITICATE AND PUT THEL': cOi:E;•.FERE ELSE. El-'_ THEY ONLY. GP.O►. IF THAT PLACE I:< ALL THE 1':ORLD FOrl i RE."SCI:. 17HY IS TEAT? YCU CAN'T JUST PICK THEM CUT A,:L PUT T EI: SC'-EPLACE ELSE. HC6, DO YOU KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO TARE? CCr'SIIrERING MUCH OF THE RIGF=T-OF-WAY OF THE PROPCSED TCLL ROAD HAS PARTIALLY BEET GRADED ILLEGALLY, BY THE t';AY, COULD ON ALTERNATIVE ROUTE BE CHOSEN, THUS THIS PLAN COULD BE USED AS A LIEEAR PARK? SUPERVISOR RILEY HAD IiEI:TIONED IN THE PAST THAT ONE OF HIS DREAMS WAS TO HAVE A PARK 23 THAT GOES FROI; THE FOREST TC THE SEA. ;FELL, IT 24 WOULL 'T QUITE REACH TO THE FOREST. BUT THIS 25 LINEAR PARK t•IOULD HELP LIEF: THE Ik"PCRTANT Ai; EAS TO I 1-9 I-1c SG i L 3 4 5 6 7 8 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 CTHEl AREAS Tnr.T A. E CCI1,C TC �E Ti. R-Er .11":TC T't:`� LC C.'E i:AVE TC GC TC C0URT• CVEF. Tc T.S m m •- m r+ F �• ♦ 7 r t w 8-1<. PROJECT TO PRC ECT CUR r:F._IVEE E..VIrCt L-',E►;T. .T S A 1 AST E OF TI':E AIND MCNEY. THE ATTACHED LARGE MAE IAL STUDY -- I' VE ATTACHED' A LARGE NAI:rIAL STUDY THAT U"AS COf• MISS_CNED BY THE IRVINE COMPAP:Y FOR -- Ii-' CONJUNCTION. t•iITH THE FRIENDS OF THE IRVINE CCr.ST PERTAINING TC THE PELICAN HILL ROAD. AND I SUEN!Trj.EL THIS IN EY COI:I•:EF;TS ON. THE OTHER EIF.. IT'S GOT SOME VERY CRITICAL INFORMATION, AND IT'S NOT FOUND AI'Yt;HERE. I' VE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED IT T 6.1 I C E . I CAN'T REMEMBER WFAT THE OTHER PFCu'ECT WAS, A;:D IT WASN'T -- IT DIDN'T SHOW UP THEP.E EITHER. SC I HOPE IT SH06':S UP IN YOUR COMIEENTS -- IN YOUR RESPONSE TO COMIENTS, AND I HOPE YOU TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION, SO I'M HEREBY SUBMITT76NG IT AGAIN. IT DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE SAN JOAQUIi, HILLS TRA:ISPOP.TATICN CORRIDOR IN THAT IT ALSO PASSES THROUGH THIS AREA WITH EVEPi GREATER MAGNITUDE. SO THE IMPACTS IN THAT REPCRT WOULD BE -- HAVE THE POTEiITIAL OF EEIING EVEN GREATER. ;•:HAT IP:PACTS T'IILL TEE TOLL ROAD HAVE Oc: THE LARGE , 0 11 • •12 • LAXrP E i:F • Nr-,FRC; ACEIVICY VIEJO/*.Et•;PORT EEr.Ci: rl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s c 1G 11 12 13 14 1` 16 17 18 1° 20. 21 22 23 24 25 EALLALS OF ThE SAN jCAQUIN ELLS, I :CLUCIi.C, BUT i:CT LIi:ITE� �'C I:C�t:TAIi: LIC::, IrErR, BOBCAT, ET 8-19 CETER:., 0 Y 14IGRAT1'CP: INTERACTICN. TrlitCUCH0UT ALISC AND EAN jOAQUIN HILLS CCRRIDOR? WHY IS THE ACCESS FOR THE TOLL ROAD BEIP:G G: ADED 1-0-ITHCUT All EIR THAT WAS CERTIFIED? IT. REGARDS TO THE GRADING THAT .'-WA: DCi:E 8-1! FOR THIS CORRIDOR, F-iHAT DOCUMENTS ARE THEY USING TO DETERIIINE THE 35 PERCENT PURPORTEDLY PERMITTED BY THE TCA? WAS IT THE OLD lE75 ALISO VIEJO CRAFT EIR? IF YES, DOES THIS EIR ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE CCRRIDC AS A TCLL ROAD? MR. OLSON: ES. LEEDS, EXCUSE ME. YOU HAVE COME TO THE FOUR MINUTES. MILL YOU sum UP YCUR -- MS. MARIELLE LEEDS: OKAY. I JUST HAVE THREE NCRE. MR OLS0N: ALL OF THE QUESTIONS WILL BE SUBMITTED AND 4;IL•L BE RESPONDED TO, AS THEY MUST BE UNDER LAW. MS. BLACKETER: THESE ARE ALSO PART CF I•;Y COMMENTS, AND- I' M MARIAN BLACKETER. I ZYILL SPEAK NEXT. SHE'S TAKING UP A LITTLE BIT CF NlY TIME TOC. I-IR. CLSCi;: ALL P.IGHT. -12 1-13 c� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 e 1C 1. 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i:S. I-:AF.IE:_LE .r ZEDS: CIr,Ay• :r=TE Tt.. EXTEi"S!C:: -- E.-TCFEE:) H:.CU',' C- C AC'-rl:G ALREACY ):CI:E FOR' TEE COF.FIDC:t ?IGHT—CF—I;AY, THIS lP: EFFECT CICTATIFG THE RCUTE AND LESS ECT ALLG�;ING ALTERL.ATIVES TC BE CONSIDERED? AZ;D TF:IS GRADING ON -- AND THIS GRACING ON PALEOL:TCLCGICAL SITES, WHAT It:PACTS TC THESE SITES? WHC IS F.CNITCRING TEE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESCURCES, SITES, AND FINDINGS? t:CL7 I' LL TUR:' TEE REST OF ::ASREN' S TIi-;E CVER TO HER. MR. CLSCN: THANK YOU VERY LUCE. JUST A ,INUTE. BEFORE I'CU BEGIN, SIEVE LETTERLY I•iIG1~T HAVE A CCt:t:ENT, MR. L•ETTERLY: OKAY. TEERE'VE BEEN SEVERAL COMMENTS REGARDING C014MENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED ON A DOCUMENT THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE KNOWN AS EIR NUMBER 494. THAT DOCUMENT WAS NOT TAKEN TO CERTIFICATION, SO LEGALLY THOSE COM14ENTS ARE NOT — THERE WAS NO NEED TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS. BUT THE AGENCY DID PREPARE A DOCUMENT, V:HICH IS KNCWN AS A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON 494, THAT WE DISTRIBUTED TO THOSE PERSONS 6JI7C LID ttAKE THOSE CCINMENTS. IT HAS OVER EIGHTY SOMIETHING PEOPLE THAT -- (a -14 1-15 EAY•-ENE 6';EINBEPG AGEi:CY hiISSIO:: VIE�O/I:E:'�FCRT EECL 0 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 J J s PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: I DIL1,'T RECE:VE CFE. ER. LETTERLY: IT HAS -- PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: I'D LI.7E TO ASI: CTJEER PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T RECEIVE THOSE. PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: IN FOOTEILL I DIDN'T. PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: I DIDN'T, A"D T :SAS CU THE 14AILING LIST. 2."R. OLSON: JUST -- MR. LETTERLY: I'M NOT REFERRIP:G TC THE FOOTHILL, SIR. I'M REFERRII:G TC THE SAN' 0CAQUIN DOCU11ENT. PRCSPECTIVE SPEAKER: I'M REFERF.ING TO THE, SA'_•: JOAQUIN. I'M, REFERRING TO SAN JOAQUIN. MR. OLSON: JUST SO THIS GETS ON -- PROSPECTIVE SPEAKER: I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT I RECEIVE THAT NOW. MR. LETTERLY: YOU MAY RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT DOCUMENT. MR. OLSON: STEVE, EXUSE ME. JUST SO IT'S CLEAR ON THE RECORD, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE MIC COULD PICK UP THE COMMENT, THE 10c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s c I 1G 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CC:'_C_ZR:: v; ,5 THc.T I.` Ci V IDUaL.S to: CC:..:E::TEE C:: EIE 454 KAZ NC:' REC-, 7VZ7' `"r' F•i..ESPC: ".. '-y C C _ .. L. : a i LCCU"E"':T. T1:11.1 Y0 . 1:R. LETTERLY: :;E' LL CLT Y C U F :A ;E AEDPESS AI'D MANE SURE YOU GET A COPY. TEEAT ECCUI•':ENT VIAS b,ADE AVAILABLE, AI,.L THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED ABOUT A NOI TF ACC DURING TF:E REVIEW: -- THIS DGCUN•:EI;T, WHEN THE DRAFT EIR/EIS 6;EN:T OUT. PROSPECTIVE: SPEAKER: i:ELL, WKY EASN•:'T THAT EEEK INCLUDED IN THIS? MR. LETTERLY: BECAUSE 1T IS ::CT -- BECAUSE THAT rCCUI•:Et:T WAS NOT CG::T=N:L'ED FORTH. IT WASI:CT CERTIFIEDIT T:AS A DCCUN:ENT -- THAT DOCUMENT ADDRESSED AN OLDER PROJECT. THE PROJECT G'.AS tiODIFIED THROUGH THE CCtMMEVTS THAT TIERE RECEIVED TO CONSIDER THE DEMAND i:ANAGELMENT ALTERNATIVE AND THE PROJECT AS A TOLL FACILITY. A NEW EIR WAS PREPARED, AND THAT --- THIS IS TEE REASON THAT THIS EIR IS NC!? UP FOR PUBLIC CIRCULATION. SO WHAT YOU'LL NEED TO DC -- IF THERE ARE COMMENTS THAT YOU PRESENTED WITH 494, YOU ITEED TO SUBMIT TF:OSE SO THAT THEY WILL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS PROJECT. I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT EECAUSE SEVERAL PEOPLE SAVE LADE C0NNIENTS • 6, I:A.'.E.'E WEINBERG AGE::CY 'ISSIOP: VIEJC/I:ET:PCRT ::EAC&H 1] 1 2 3 4 r 6 7 s C. 10 11 12 13 14 15 lE 17 1fi 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RECARDINC COENE::TS TEAT THEY MADL Ci•: 494, THERE WERE ALSO COMI;E2:TS REGARDI::C UEETI• EF CR NCT THERE !"AS Ai:CTHEP PRCjECT ALTERI:ATIVL CONSIDEF.ED, A."D THERE IS AIICTHER PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CCNSIDEREi THE EIR. IT IS ONE OF TFE ALTERNATIVES THAT Wr, VE CONSIDEREE AS 1,'ELL. IT'S THE DE.IAI:i NAA:AGL :E"ET AYD THE CONVENTIONAL ALTERNATIVE. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. IE'LL GC NC'T% TO t:S . BLACIETER. MS. BLACKETER, HOWEVER, I DON'T HAVE A CART FROM YOU. I' LL MAKZ P.T. EXCEPTION TO THE RULE AND LET YOU HAVE TWO A:IP:UTES TO COMMENT. MS. BLACKETER: I SUBYITTEL• A CARD -- MR. OLSON: WELL, I'll SORRY. MS. ELACKETER: -- AT THE FRONT DESK. MR. OLSON: I DOW T HAVE IT, AND I HADN'T CALLED ON YOU. WOULD YCU GO AHEAD, THOUGH, AND MAKE YOUR COMMENT? MS. BLACKETER: THAN9 YOU. MR. OLSON: BUT PLEASE GIVE US YOUR HALE, SO IN CASE WE CAN'T FIND THE CARD, WE'LL HAVE IT FOR THE RECORD CORRECTLY SPELLED. MS. BLACKETER: OKAY. .'•:AXEI:E V-EIFLERG AGENCY, MISSICN VIEJO/P;Ei:PORT BEACI: 10Z 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 S. 1C r 1 � 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 P.. CLSCZ:: TFA.::: YCL'. !:£ . ELACKETEF.. BLACKETER, LAGUi:c: BEACH . I i'a 1A • LInE TO SFEAF: TO TEE ISSUE OF, 1-iGAIN JUST ACCING TO WHAT I-:ARIELLE SAID, FELCCATICN OF PLAI:TS AI:L/CR All 1EALS IN TEE CORRIDOR AREA, PROJECT AREA. PERTAINING TO THE ZUBLEYA, JUST OI''E SPECIFIC 1ESTAI:CE, AIID TF:=S COULD ALSO PERTAIN TO OTHER SPECIES AS 11:ELL. EVEN: THOUGH THE LITTLE PLANT IS SUCCULEFT AND I::.Y TE :L' TO BE HARDY, THEY ONLY GROW IN CEP.TAII1 PLACES 1'7ITH THE PERFECT TE1-.' EP.ATU::E, CLItiATE', A•I;D ALL OF THOSE THINGS. THEY HAVE TO BE FACING A CERTAIN DIRECTION, THE PJ::CLE THING. '.CU DCW T JUST TAKE THIS PLAI`:^1 AND PLOP IT 1:-C1-,N ANY4+HERE. YOU HAVE TO FIND THE PERFECT LOCATION: FOR IT, TEMPERATURE AND ALL THOSE THINGS. SC THAT. AND AS FAR AS THE LARGE TIAMMAL INPUT REPORT REFERRED TO EARLIER AS --- THE LARGE MAMMAL INPUT FROM PELICAN: HILL ROAD BY STEVE LOWE CONTAINS VITAL INFORMATION: PERTAIEIEG TO THE POSSIBLE FUTURE, QUOTE, END QUOTE, OF THE LARGE L-AE.F.ALS IF THE ENTIRE SAIL JOAQUIN: FILLS. THIS INCLUDES DESIGNS FOR BRIDGES, UNDERCP.OSSIN:GS, A::L ►�1 8-20-1 r� 8-20-2 r•Ilk I!rr•P 7-'VTr.•Cr'r)r• ar.r.r-r17 "TCCTrr VTF..--Ci/NEVPCP.T BEACH 1 C 3 0, 0 1 2 3 4 5 A 7 8 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 all 21 22 23 24 25 FENCI1'G. REASONS FOR THESE DES_TGN.S -- 1-.£TL , DELETE REASCN:S FOP. THESE DESIGN'S. EXCUSE I:£. SIEVE LO JE STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE CF THESE DESIGNS IF A'NY LARGE I•:AI•:,,ALS ARE TO SURVIVE IN TI:E LONG TERM IN: THE SAN JOAQUIN: HILLS. IF THESE DESIGNS FOR WILDLIFE M-ITIGATICN ARE DEEMED TO BE FEASIBLE, THEY'RE NOT FEASIBLE BECAUSE OF COST, THE:: NITIGATIOF MEASURES DOD:'T WORK IF THIS IN'STA":CE, THUS 1,7E ARE LEFT I•JITH NO MITIGATION:. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY, FOR THE RECORD, I CHALLENGE ANYONE FROM THE TCA TO GO AN:YUHERE TtiITH FE OUT THERE WHERE IT'S ALREADY BEEN GRADED AND PJHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GRADED, AND I' LL SHCV: YOU A SIGN] OF LARGE MAMMAL tiITHIN 50 FEET ANYWHERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. OLSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS FELIX DUPUY, AND AGAIN: I MAY BE PRONOUNCING THAT NAME INCORRECTLY. FELIII DUPUY APPARENTLY HAS LEFT. ALL RIGHT. GLEN:N EDWARD ROY. MR. ROY: YES. I'M GLENN EDWARD ROY. I'M MERE TONIGHT REPRESENTINIG THE COALITION: AGAINST THE CORRILORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE. I'M ALSO THE AUTHOR OF ONE CF THE TWO DOCUIiENTS THAT WAS HANDED CUT AGAINST THE CORRIDOR )-2 1C4 1 3 4 c 6 it 8 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1S 20 21 22 23 24 TC:.=GET, ':'H IS YELrol: CI:E THAT ::Ai:Y PECPLE RECT-ivEc. RAT.:EP THAN REREAD THE E;•'TI7RE DCCU,'.' '' T I' I; JUST LIItE TO CUCTE' SC M,E E::CEF.2TS. THE ILLEGAL GRADI`:C CF TA EE PROPOSED SAN' JOACUIIl FILLS CCP•.RIDGF ROUTE THROUGH LAGUi.'A P;iGUAt" L IS A EISTAI{E TEE ECAF.L CF SCPEF.VISCRS ANE THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDCR AGENCY CANNCT UNDO. BUT THE PEOPLE HERE WHO OPPOSE TI?E CORRIDOR, YOU CAI: TALE PART JUST AS LAGUNA BEACI: IS U.l':TEC I.: CPPOST_TIOF TO THE SA:-1- JOACU-IN HILLS COP.RIDOR. t:E C1=_2: DEFEAT THIS. CERTAIN POLITICAL REALITIES AP:1? TI::E COPSTRAI-TS ARE WORKIPIG AGAINST THE S'+ILL OF THE MAJORITY CF THE PECPLE WHO WANT TC STOP THESE ENVIRONEEI••:TALLY DESTRUCTIVE DEVELOPER HIGHi•JAYS. THE EIR'S ARE UP FOR CERTIFICATION, AND WHEN THIS OCCURS, IT IS TOO LATE TO APPEAL. THE CORRIDORS ARE THEE; A CERTAIN REALITY. THIS ALL HAS TO DC WITH ADDRESSING CR EXHAUSTING OUR ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. I Z:AS DENIED THAT OPPORTUNITY ON ANOTHER CORRIDOR, THE FOOTHILL. I KNOW THESE PEOPLE HERE WON'T PANT TC HEAP. THAT BECAUSE YOU MACE A MISTAKE. THE LAW F IF.I•: i:HICH REPRESENTS THE CITIES CF SAP: CLEMEi:TE AND LAGUNA BEACH POSSESSES CERTAIN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ALSC I7F:ICH ;-,OULD PRECLUDE IT FROM 8-21-1 1-2 o EAXENE I'.'EINEErr ACF.'C'Y A TPPT( T' NIT P.1r./T'Pl':POPT PPAC';z 2 4 cz 6 7 8 9 1C 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wv REPRESEINTING L;,GL'i:A AFD SAi: CLEi:E1, : E EFFECTIVELY AG,ml. .PST A::Y CGF.F:DCR T::REIzT. RUTAF & TUCNER REPREEEFTS LAI:Y CTHER CRA:•:GE COUNT`_ CITIES, CI' -PIES WHICH ACTIVELY E«DORSE THE TOLL -7AY PROJECTS TO RELIEVE COFiGESTIC17 II THEIR AREAS. THESE CITIES LANT TO DUMP THEIR TRAFFIC O'. LAGUNA BEACE AND SAN CLEMENTE. ADDITIONALLY, RUTAN & TUCKER REPRESENTS CERTAIN DEVELOPER INTERESTS. IN E CLSING ITSELF FROM REPRESEINT-ING CLIEYT CITIES IN THE PAST, THE FIRM HAS CITED PRICR REPRESENTATION OF DEVELOPERS AS SOURCES CF POTENTIAL COI\FLICTS OF INTEREST. SECONDLY, TO LAGUNA CAA:YON' S DETFTEENT, ANY ACTIVE CPPOSITION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AGAINST THE SAN JOAQUIN HILLS COPRIDCR WILL BE REASOV FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DENY FUNDS TO ASSIST THE MEASURE "H" CANYON ACQUISITION BOND FUA:DING. SUPERVISOR RILEY THREATENED THE PUBLIC WITH THIS BLACKMAIL TACTIC, AND IT WAS REPORTED IN ALL OF THE PAPERS. WHAT CAN BE DONE? AN INDEPENDENT CITIZEN —SPONSORED LEGAL DEFENSE FUND MUST BE CREATED NOW. I'D LIKE TO GO OVER SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED EERE TONIGHT, THAT, • 8-21 MR. MODERATCR, YOU INDICATED THAT A SHOW OF HAN 1-2 -3 MAXEITE T4EIllEERG AGENCY MISSTO VIEJC/I•:ETrPORT EEACE iC6 1 4 5 6 7 1C it 12 13 14 IS 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IS=.:S..G1.IF=CAi:T. A S:iGI: OF FA.:ZS IS SIG::IriCA::T BECAUSZ = CCU!77ED THE UUEBER C•F SE ;TS C.'.-, r'...� r L EST_.::�TcL THAT I:CFE TFAN FALF OF THE 'rcCPLE EErE :ERE CPrCSEL TO TFE CORRIDOR. THERE ARE 30C SEi-.TS 1'.J T IS r".ULITCF.IUI•:. SC LET THAT STACID CI: THE RECGRD THAT MOPE THAI: HALF OF THE PEOPLE HERE ;':EF.E CPFCSE'L TO TiiE CORRIDOR AND STILL ARE. IT'S JUST THAT THEY'VE LEFT. THE CCRCI4ARY BY-PASS TFAT WAS I•:ENTICNEi EARLIER IS CERT?,IFLY I:CT TIE I-:OST RESOLVABLE SCLUTIC:. TO THZ APTERIAL HEART DISEASE THAT I1:17LICTS SOUTHERI: CALIFORNIA. AND I' D LI4':L TO R_!,Ci: WEERE THE DEVELOP14ENT IS ALONG -- THE ILLUSTRATION SHCWS PRISTINE CCUN.TYSIDE. I TI1, TEAT ;IizS NEGLECTED. YOU ALSO, MR. MODERATOR, MEN-TICi;ED j;E COULD HAVE LIGHT RAIL. I WOULD DEMAND THAT LIGHT RAIL BE IFSTALLED ALONG EXISTING RIGHTS• -OF -WAY BEFORE ANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS ARE APPROACHED SUCH AS THEM ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE CORRIDORS. I WOULD ALSO LIY.E TO KNOW WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE FOR THE N( PROJECT ALTERNATIVE. AS FAR AS I CAN SEE FROK Al,.' OF THE CORiILOR RCUTINGS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS ACTUALLY V:RITTEII, SO IT'S VERY NEBULCUS. IT. SEEI•: SGMETHIr:G THAT'S VERY SUBJECTIVE THAT SOME GROUP 8-21-3 .4 -S ` A EI'I; iL: •:E_BEP.0 AGENCY NISSIOV VIEJC/NEB":PORT BEACH 1C 7 1 z 3 4 5 G 7 E e 10 11 0 12 13 14 1= 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2.10 24 25 LI:CE THE EGA.^,I, OF SUPERVISORS CR EVE',-, YOU CCULL LEC1DE. i:C;-, 17EE:1: PEOPLE RAISED THEIR i'.AFry HERE, TEE OLLY HANDS I DIDN'T SEE GO UP 1-.-,AS THE CALSTRANS CREW. THESE PECPLE HERE REPR-v-cED:T DEVELOPERS. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST P;AI"T TO SAY Ill-' CONCLUSION THAT THE PR ROUTINE WILL NOT SMCOTY. THE CCFRIDCR, AI:D THE BUTTER *OF RHETCRIC TILL NCT l:ELT UP;DER THE HEAT OF CIVIL LITIGATIOr. THANSK YCU . MR. CLSC1.: THE NEB T SPEAKER IS NANCY ET_EGER. ANC T-SH:LE P:ANCY ZEIGER IS CCMING TO THE'MICRCPHONE, STEVE, DID YOU HAVE A CCL.--ENT? MR. LETTERLY: JUST A --!- MS. ZEIGER: I'll FANCY ZEEGER. I LIVE IN LEISURE -- MR. OLSON: PARDON ME. MS. ZEIGER: ARE YOt READY FOR ME OR NOT? MR. OLSON: NO, I WASN'T QUITE READY. MS. ZEIGER,: OH, ALL RIGHT. MR. OLSON: WCULI= YOU -HOLD JUST A SECOND, NOEENTARILY? MR. LETTERLY: JUST A COUPLE 1-6 10E 2 3 4 c J 6 7 E 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OF CC;:i•:E::TS . C:"E , THERE' VE BEE:. SEVERAL R:.F :RECCES 'T'C ACTIV=TY BY THE TCA. TFiS 'iF.A "S?ORTATIC:" CCR. ILCF. LCE::CY HAS CT CCI_I:E:'CE-:I; CT: AP:Y GRADIUC I ITHIN THE CORRIDOR RIGF:T—OF—t:r.Y. THERE EAS BEEN GRADIP:G ASSOCIATED t:ITL 7YCIVIDUAL PROJECTS tI:HICH Eie VE CLEA^EC GRADING FOR THAT RIGHT—OF—TNAY AS PART OF THE IP:DIVIDUAL EIR FOR THESE IP:DIVIDUAL PROJECTS. i:F ET'r.ER OR NOT PEOPLE ]?EEL T::AT ?S APIROPRTATE IS P.P'OTHEF. I£SUE. BUT TCA, AS REFS. LPED BY TCA, HAS N=CT PAVED FOR As:Y GRADING t-iITHIIN THE CORRIDOR RIGF:T—CF—t4AY. ALSC AS FAR F.S REFEREYCE TO THE NO PROJECT, THE NO PRCjECT ALTERNATIVE IS EXACTLY THAT, N017 TO BUILD THE CCRRIEOR. AND THAT'S HOW IT IS PRESENTED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT. MR. OLSON: AS YOU'RE COPING TO THE MICROPHONE, MS. ZEIGER, 'ThE NE:{T SPEAKERS WILL BE BERN:ARD FELDIIAN, CAROL DEGLMAN, CAROLYN WOOD, AND GILDA ELK, IF THEY COULD PREPARE THEMSELVES TO SPEAK. MS. ZEIGER: I'M A RESIDENT CF LEISURE WORLD. t:OST OF THE COMI•IENTS I 1-..AS GOINdG TO MAKE HAVE ALREADY BEEN I---IORE THAN: ADEQUATELY i • • 1�.PXENE t;EIEBERG AGEP'CY MISSION.- VIEJG/NES';PCRT BEACH 1CS 1 L 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATEC. EUT I .4CULT✓ LIRE TO F.FFIF P: ti;I F.m" I•iF.. ELAC:� SAID AE,GUT CUP PHYC=CE.T SITUAT►C:'' IF LEISURE WOO E EECAUS -F 07-E ARE. EETt:EElf. GP EAT IMASSES OF A_R PCLLUTIGi:. AYD I HAD ^1C MOVE A?':t?Y FRCN LOS ANGELES FIVE YEARS AGO BECAUSE -- I LIVEL IN LOS ALGELFS ALL LY LIFE, A.:L AFTER 35 YEARS OF AIR PCLLUTIO:<, MY LUYGS I.ERE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED. SC MY DOCTOR TOLD N-E TO LEAVE LOS ANGELES AFD GC SCt EPLACE THERE THERE WAS FRESHEF: AIR. 1-17HEt: I APRIVED HERE ABOUT 19E5, IT WAS REASONABLY GOCE AIR QUALITY. BUT SINCE THEN, IT'S DONE NOTHING BUT DETERICF.ATE, ANZ, I:Y LUi'GS HAVE ALSO DETERIORATED. NC;I, i' I -I LOOKING OUT AT LAGUNA AUTOBAHN FROM r:Y LIVIFG ROCM WINECT , WHICH IS NOT A PLEASANT SIGHT. WE HAVE A ROAD THAT CCMES DOWN ADJACEP'T TO LAGUNA AUTOBAEN tvITH JUST AN EVEF, INCREASING MODE OF TRAFFIC. MOULTON HAS ALSO BECOt•:E MUCH OVERBURDENED. BUT WITH PROPOSITION "Mr" I THINK SOME OF : 8-2. THAT EL TORO "Y" PROBLEM COULD BE ALLEVIATED. BUTJ THE MItUTE YOU BUILD A ROAD, THERE ARE ALWAYS GCIYG TO BE MORE AND MORE CARS AND NOIRE PEOPLE JUST AS TCF: LARSON SAIL; TCAIGHT. SO I'M TOTALLY CPPCS-"L TO IT. ALSO CPS ONE OF THESE PIECES OF LITERATURE. IT GIVES SOLE FIGURES CF THE CCST. vn'-' r vr, r.7errwTncrt- wC^?'r %,r cc-, nit VTP.-.n t-1 t-2 8-22-3 8-22-4 8-22-5 A C F. 1 2 3 G 6 7 8 S 10 11 12 1—� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CCiNC F: L_TTLE AI?I'TEI_ETIC F E R E LCCi:S AS THCUGI: IT'S A 25 PERCEi:T I::CF.EASE FPC:: 19 TC I:I:A: EVER - IT' S —cU- PCSEi TC EE T01:AY. SC IF IT I::CP-EASEI: 25 PEPCE.:T Ir; THAT BRIEF PER_OD, T'.HAT GILL IT 52 BY T::E TIME IT'S ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED? jSE' RE GCIr:G Ii;TO A -- ; E' RE IN AN ECONCMIC DO;'v7N.TURP:. WE DON' T KNjOW HCE E-:ANY CF THOSE HOUSES IE< ALISC ViE%O ARE EVER GOING TC BE EUILT. I HAVEN'T HEARD THE SOUND OF A HAI;E:ER FCR SIX 1•7EEXS, 1'7HICH Ir'IrICATES SOMETHING. SO I' is TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE T1 ING, AND THE ► FICLE QUALITY OF LIFE HAS DETERICRATEI) Sc- EIUCH THAT IT SICFENS ME. MR. OLSON: BERNARD FELDI•:AN. MR. FELDMAN: NY NAME IS BERNARD FELDMAN. I ALSO LIVE IN LEISURE WORLD. I MOVED THERE TWO YEARS AGC FROM MY HOME IN LAGUE:A NIGUEL. MY BACKYARD WAS ON THE CORNER OF COLINAS AND GOLDEN LANTERN. THE GOLDEN LANTERN ROAD TO DANA POINT, WHICH WAS OPENED EIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, FORCED ME OUT BECAUSE I COULDN'T CARRY ON A CONVERSATION IN t.Y BACKYARD WITHOUT TAI:ING t:� HEARIE,:G AID OUT. THAT'S HOW BAD IT j-IAS. SC THAT'S THE MAID REASOY T•::HY I Y-CVED TO LEISURE WORLD. 8-2 -S 3-t :.A?IEETE 11EINBERG AGEYCY FIISSIO VIEJC/NEI•iPCRT BEACI: 0 1 3 4 5 6 7 0 1G 11 12 1' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NCE , THE STATEI:ENT 1,A-c Ti:A'I' CKLY G?:E A:7D A HALF PERCENT GF THE RETIRE!'E"NTE WERE NCT A.CU"TED FGR EESPECT TC TKE £AP: JCA C-UIIICG CCRRIDGR. 1�.ELL, I' M PRETTY SURE THAT i• HATEVER HOUSES ;iERE PLA:;I:EL UP ON TEAT HILL EETWEEN CROj'i:: 8-2 VALLEY PF,Rl' AY AND DADA POINT WERE PLANNED, BUT THEY NEVER COULD HAVE GOTTEN THERE UNL•E"SS THEY OPENED THAT ROAD. AND SO I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE SAi:E THIPIG WOULD APPLY TO THE SAP: JOArUIT HILLS CORRIDOR. I'E IN LEISURE.WORLD, EUT I LEAVE TEE COc:POU D ONCE A WEEK. I STILL WORI: T -70 DAYS A ;:EEr' . A::L I GO UP TC -- I DRIVE TO THE CITY OF CAN FERNANDO, STAY OVERP.IGHT AND CCI E BACK THE NEXT DAY. SO I HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THIS CONGESTION PROBLEM. AND ONE OF MY HOEBIES DURING THE RUSH HOUR IS TC COUNT THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT HAVE SINGLE DRIVERS, AND I HAVE TO BE GUILTY BECAUSE I' M ONE OF THEN I•:YSELF. BUT ANYEAY, IT'S i ABOUT -- THE RATIO IS ABOUT EIGHT OR PINE TO ONE, ABOUT EIGHT OR NINE TO ONE. SO I THINK THAT THE MAJOR PROBLEM RELATES TO OUR LIFESTYLE AND HOW WE USE THESE AUTOMOBILES. Al D SC I WANT TO PROPOSE A ~' CONSTRUCTIVE ALTERl,'ATIVE TO THIS PROJECT. AI:D I I 3-2 1-3 f � �l V ':+ T' F.+ p,• � .. � ^ .� .n ... n � n ^� �' n f 7 +. +- +� +. n �. � � � .� / + i �... w r+ w. ►.. .r w I+ .♦ 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 14 15 16 17 12 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 t•:A::T TC CUCTE FRC:: A LETTEI THAT I WROTE TC ChRY HART, A CALIFCR%:IA SEt:ATCP. .-7FC 1 P iRSC::P.LLY WFEIN T_ LIVEC Ic, SAt;.T;. BARBARA, A::C E:ERE' S WHAT I SAIL. I i:ADE THIS PRCPROSAL. I THAINK j.E SE:CULC LEVY A T.".: CF EIl"'GLE—DRIVER VEHICLES THAT USE CUP. FREEI;A&S CURI::G RUSH E:CURS. I WOULD PRCPOSE THE FCLLOZ:INiC AS AN: GUTLID:E CF THE PLAN: TO ACCOMPLISH A REDUCTION: INS THE USE CF FUELS, TRAFFIC CCN:GESTION:, AND PCLLUTION. ON?E, CONSTRUCT A TOLLBOOTH AT EVERY FREEStiAY ENTRANCE; TWO, CHARGE A TOLL FOR EVERY SINGLE —DRIVER VEHICLE ENTERItvG THE FREEWAY DURIN:C RUSH HCURS, SAY, 5:00 TO 10:0C A.M. AND 2:00 TO 7:C0 P.M.; TFREE, THE TCLL 0 ULD PRCVILE Atd INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO CARPOOL. THE TOLL FEE ir:OULD BE ESTABLISHED AT A LEVEL DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THAT OBJECTIVE. FOUR, ALL MULTIRIDER CARS WOULD ENTER FREE; FIVE, EXISTING TOLLS ON THE SAME WOULD BE DOUBLED FCR SINGLE —DRIVER CARS. ENERGY CONSERVATION IS WIDELY ENDORSED AS THE SINGLE MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR CUTTING OUR ENERGY CCN:SUPIPTICN:. I BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL IS THE SINCLE MCST EFFECTIVE %AY TO CONSERVE ENERGY IN AN:I EFFICIENT 1-1-AY AN.: It? A POSSIBLE MANN.EP.. NC?ai, IF 0 3-A MAXEi;E t:EIt:F;EP.G AGENCY HISSICN VIEJC/NIES•:PGP.T BEACF 1] 1 J 4 5 6 7 8 0 le 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YOU PECPLE AT TCA ACP.EE WITH THIS AS A VIABLE LLTZRI:ATIVE TO THIS FREEI:'.Y, I:AYEE YOU t':At:T TO RE.ST_G` Ai:L, GC TC SF,CRAl:Ei:TO AND LCEEY FOR THIS PRCPC' Sc.L. MR. OLSCN : CAROL DEGL14Ai: . I' M SORRY. DID I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY? MS. DEGLI AN : CLOSE.. E.Y. HALE IS CAROL DEGLMAN. I' M A RESIDEI:T IN r:ELLIE GAIL, AND IIE'VE ONLY LIVED THERE A FEW MONTES. WE'RE FAIRLY NET.1 TO THE AREA, BUT N.OT NZEW TO CALIFORNIA. MY HUSBAND COMMUTES TO DOWNTC4iI: L.A. FOR WORK EVERY DAY, AND 111E 1-17ERE QUITE AI:AZEL AT THE LACI: OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, IN SOUTHERN CRANGE COUNTY. IF HE IIAP:TS TO TAKE THE BUS, HE HAS TO DRIVE HALF6IAY TO I CRK TO TAKE IT. FE NOW TAKES THE TRAIN, WHICH IS A WONDERFUL WAY TO GO, BUT IT'S QUICKLY GETTING CROWDED. I IMAGINE IF YOU WORK IN NEWPORT BEACH OR COSTA MESA, YOU HAVE TO GO ON THE FREEWAY AND YOU HAVE TO TAKE YOUR CAR. THERE IS NO OTEER WAY TO GO. I AGREE WITH MANY PEOPLE HERE THAT WE JUSTI DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. GOING IIII OUR CARS IS NCT THE ANSUER. THE MAIN REASON THAT I WANTED TO SPEA:: WAS JUST TO SAY ON THE RECORD 8-2 THAT WE ARE OPPOSED, IN- OUR FAMILY, TO THE 1-3 4-1 t-2 i:A1iENE 6';Etr:?7<< tCr�-CY *•rcc-r r; �f ,'rRT FEAZE 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 15 16 17 18 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 CORRICCR. I i_V_ RIGE:T I:EXT TO ; HIF.E T:iE C C F F i::CF 8-24- I£ TO GC N �:E'VE BEET: TO A I:A'P WE'VE ASKED TEE CUESTIOI: OF MANY PECPLE WFAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN: WHILE THE CCYSTRUCTICN AND C"CADII'G IS GO=N:G Of: AS FAR AS PESTS, I':=LDLIFE, AND SC FORTH. I HAVE VISIONS OF SEEI1:C I:Y HOI:E INFESTED BY MICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT I JUST CAN'T CONTROL. SO I TOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THERE -- THAT SOMEBODY TAKE A LCCK AT WHAT CAN: BE LOPE FCR THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE BY THE CC:RRIDCR SO THAT WE DCN'T HAVE THE COYOTES IN: OUR BACKYARDS, THE BOBCATS, THE POSSUMS, THE RACCOONS, THE 1-:ICE, AI:f: EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS CURRENTLY LIVING CUT IN'. THAT LAND RIGHT NOW. ' ALSO TOO, JUST IN CLOSING, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I'VE TALKED WITH MANY, MANY NEIGEiBORS THAT I HAVE OVER THERE, AND EVERYBODY'S OPPOSED TC IT. NOBODY WANTS THIS CORRIDOR TO GC IN, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A VOICE III IT, AND THAT'S SO SAD. WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. AND IF WE DCI:' T F;AN+T THIS, HOW CAN WE STOP IT? NOBODY KNOD:S. THANK 2 •3 1-4 LAXEN.E WEI:IEERG AGEN:CY f:ISSION VIEJO/N:E;VPCRT BEA CH 115 0 I 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YOU. MR. CLSCN: _ CAROLY�: ►.CCC, PLEASE. MS. WOOD: HI. MY NAME IS CARO:..YN WCOD. I't: FROM LAGUNA BEACH. AND THIS KINE OF REMI17ES t•:E OF A LITTLE KID THAT GOES TO I•IOTHER, ASI:S A QUESTION, GETS NO AND GOES TO FATHER. YCU'RE CONTINUING THIS OVER NOW WHAT, 14 YEARS? AND IT'S COME UP THAT THE PEOPLE DON'T E ANT IT, AND YET YOU KEEP BRINGING IT BACP.. IT'S KIND OF LIKE HIRINC A COI:SULTAIvT, YOU KEEP HIRING THEN UNTIL YOU GET THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO GIVE THE ANSWER. BUT ANYWAY, I COME FROM A LITTLE DIFFERENT TrIRECTICN TONIGHT. I'll CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT IF THE CORRIDOR IS APPROVED, THAT WE MAY LOSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE JUST VOTED FOR. IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE COUNTY HAS WORKED ON A 20-YEAR MASTER PLAN, AND THE CENTERPIECE OF THE 20-YEAR PLAN WAS REBUILDING AND RECONSTRUCTION. CF THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY, INTERSTATE 5 ALOI-:G WITH THE "Y." THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY IS ORANGE COUNTY' .c, MAIN STREET. 30 PERCENT OF ALL ORANGE COUNTY RESIDENTS LIVE WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE SANTA ANA FREET':AY, i-1 i-2 X,AJXEl7E WEINBERG AGEi:CY MISSICN VIEJO/A:EWPORT BEAC1: 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 �• G 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r.::L T7:C—THIRDS CF ALL CCES ARE II' TFE SANE LC_.E BY 1; LDr; Cr Si:IT: & I%SSCCIA.TEC, Tf'E SURVEY Cr TF AF F^IC A'L:C REVE2.:UE STUDY TC SEE IF -- ;•JF.ETFER OF. FG`I TEE COP,RIDCR i;CULD BE VIAEL•E AS A TOLL RCAD, U::DEF FUTUrE IL:PRCV:.i:E►:TS IT' S THE ASSCt•�PTICi; -- IT IS II•_PCRTAP:T TO FECOGN;IZE, E:O�:EVER, TEAT F0 WIDENING IS CURRE::TLY PFCGP.'l-MED CR PLAN.NED SCUTS: CF T::E EL TCRO "Y." IT GOES ON TC SAY, THIS SECEEi:T ;':ILL COIN=i:UE TO BE AN- IMPORTANT BOTTLENECK ANC WILL CCNTINUE -- WILL CCN:TRIBUTE DEI,"AN;D TO ECTH THE SAI' JCAQUIN E:ILLS Ai:D, TO THE LESSER E::TEI:T, TEE FOOTHILL CORRIDOR. N:OT%, SO BASICALLY YOU :•IERE COUNT INIG Ci: THAT BOTTLENECK AS PROVIDING FUNiDS OR IN?CEN;TIVES FOR PEOPLE TO USE THE CORRIDOR. AGAIE. IN THIS -- AND I' M QUOTIN:G HERE, THIS TRAFFIC MID REVENUE STUDY, IT SAYS UNDER BASIC ASSUMPTION -- THEY LIST A VARIETY OF THEM, AND I WCN'T READ THEM. ONE OF THEM; IS THAT THE SAN: JOAQUIN: HILLS TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ;,.'ILL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC CIS DULY 1, 1992. THIS IS, OF CCURSE:, OBVIOUSL`1 IYCCRRECT ALCI:G 14ITH 1--.ANY CF CTFERS. IT GC•ES ON 251 TO SAY THAT AUY SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURES FRCN: THESE 0 • 1-'Ad E'r:E 11EII;EERC AGEi:CY M':ISSiCi: V?E JO/FE`,YPCP.T BEACE: 1?7 1 BASIC ASSUt'.PTICI:S COULD i,ATERIALLY 1r:r:ACi ESTI..ATES CF TRAFFIC A:7D REVE.:L:E C ': YGUF. TRA::SPOFTATICI: CCc,RICORS. AAND EASED CC T IS, I FEEL THAT -- 1.1E VOTEL FOR THE "Y," I TI INI:, .t:CST EVEPYEODY THAT VOTED FOR "t:." S II:CE THE "Y" T.AS A PRIORITY AND ' OBVIOUSLY 1'.AS THE I•:AJOR CONGESTICN 11-7 OUF. SOUTH COUISTY, THAT 11E WERE HOPING THAT THIS WOULD BE DC -NE. 'r3Ct;, t•:E HAVE -- DURING TKE COUFTY'S FLA.:?:=ITC CF THE 20—YEAR. PLAN, O,rE OF TE.i REASONS FOR THE CC::F.IDOR AS THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE THE YCNEY TO INCREASE THE FREEWAYS OR THE SERVICE STREETS. THINGS HAVE CRA ;GEL 101-% PEOFLE HAVE VOTED TO -- FOR I•IEASURE "M," OF e'iHICH THE "Y" AND THE I-5 ;-,,TIDENING IS A PRIORITY ITEt:, WINCH I HOPE EVERYBODY IN SOUTH COUNTY IS LOOKING FORWARD 17 ! TO. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2` r AND MY QUESTION NOW REALLY, IS -THE CORRIDOR NECESSARY? IS IT GOING TO SERVE THE PEOPLE? AS IT MENTIONED IN' THE 20—YEAR PLAIT, THE MAJORITY OF THE BUSINESSES ARE ADJACENT TO THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY. THE CLOSEST THE CORRIDOR. CODES TO THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY IS ABOUT FIVE NILES ON LAGUNA CANYON ROAD. FRCti THERE IT'S -- THE DISTA::CE IS FARTHER. NO[•: , THAT'S THE SANTA AI:A TC J 5-2 i-3 t:At EP:E j�EI:<�LRG AGEi:CY AiISSICIP. VIEJO/NEWPORT EEACF 11c 1 2 3 4 c J 6 7 8 13 -14 "15 16 17 18 1° r 20 21 22 23 24 2-9 THE "Y," VEICHI I't: REFEPRING TO. A..-: SC "_'E:E CCP.FIDCR -- TC nl'"ECL:" GCI-C- ONI-5 CR 2;C Tri TO S1?i? FEP.�:AitiDO VF LLE`_' CF. TC SA::.e; 8-25 P.1:P., THE CCi,F:IDCR TICULD BE OF AFSCLCTELY NC ADVAFTAGE :HATSCEVER. IT i:IGHT EE A LOA:G ROUTE THEY'D TAI:E, BUT IT' E: COST TF.ELI,, SO I AM CcPCSED 8-25 TO IT. I FEEL THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ADDITICNAL STUDY WITH CI:F.I:GES THAT HAVE HAPPE.:LD OVER THE -- CURRENTLY IF THE LAST FEI-. YEARS. THANK YOU. ER. OLSON: THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS GILDA ELK. AN'D YIHILE SHE'S CCl;ING FORI;A:RD, IF YOU'LL PAUSE JUST A ::CIMENT, I' LL CALL OUT SOME OTHER NAPES. EUGENE FELLER, E:U!:EERTO BOCCARDC, RICHARD HENRIKSON, RICHARD PECI;F:r%L,. IF YOU'LL EE STANDING BY TO SPEA�C, PLEASE. MS. ELK. MS. ELK: MY NAME IS GILDA ELK, AND I LIVE IN LAGUNA BEACH. I HAVE THREE CCtit•:Er,TS; FIRST, TO REFER TO THE EIR REPORT AND, TWO, THE POLLUTANTS, CNE OF WHICH WAS MENTIONED AND THE OTHER ONE WASN'T MENTIONED. AND THE ONE THAT WASN'T ADDRESSED IN THE EIR REPORT WAS THAT OF LIGHT POLLUTION. I SUPPOSE IT MAY BE HARD TO t•:EASURE, THIS TYPE OF POLLUTANT, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAIiPLE. 0 •3 -4 is i-S NAZENE WEIi-FERG AGEFCY i:iSSICI' V-EjO/NE6:PCRT BEACF 11 E. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 II" LOS ANGELES THE LIGHT PCLLUTiCi: EECAi:E SC Z- .D NCT :'CC LOI:G •ALCA?G Ti?AT THEY KAZ TC CLCSE GR IF F ITH CLSER ATCRY FCR A T FIL•E. TEE II•:PACT CI? THE ASTF:TIC, I TFII:K, WOULD BE A MAJOR Oi•:E. I CAt, OiV'LY TELL THAT YOU I':HEi: 1 TURN OFF THE 405 AI:D DR:VE CI;TG LAGUNA CAI•:YON RCAD AI:D GET Ai.AY FROM THOSE HORRENDOUS NONSTCP LIGHTS AND FINALLY SEE WHAT'S LEFT OF THE NIGHT SKY AND THE STARS, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THE SECONE, POLLUTANTS, THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE REPCRT AND THAT OF AIR POLLUTION. THE COI-:^IEKT, I BELIEVE, THAT EAS MADE "';AS THAT IF TH_S CCRRT-DCR OR FREEi AY GOES THROUGH, THAT iT WILL RELIEVE THE CONGESTION FRO;: OTHER RCADS, BASICALLY THE 405 AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY CAN NAME ONE FREEWAY THAT HASN'T BECOME EVENTUALLY A BUMPER —TO —BUMPER GRID LOCK MESS. I REIIEMEER j•:HEN THE 405 WENT IN. I DON'T THINK IT TOOK FIVE YEARS BEFORE IT BECAME A GRID LCCE MESS. SO I THI::R WE SHOULD LOOK A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE FUTURE THAN FIVE OR 10 YEARS. AND THAT BEINGS CIE TO NiY THIRD CCI•:I•IENT. RAIL HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. THERE WAS A CCRRIDOR. LIGHT RAIL WAS MENTIONEZ, BUT NCECIrY 6-1 3-2 3-3 =Y.EI;E T,ir,Tc r ar,rr�-ry �; F ccsr?• t T� T(• /VFn•AxC'R'T' FFAc'F I:C 1 2 4 5 7 8 c 1C lI '2 1: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "AI Af.l:c..r'.•c$E� A I:C::CF.AIL S�',c,TEIi. TE:'ZFE ARE SEL - n" - r..T , f ES UP.R E—T t. S,CF...T.:G Cl: =E:--i:. r. CCUPLE .d?_Y EVEN i•iAi:E TEfI~ f?ALL•CT IA: THE FL-TU E. T'"..E:Y AFE -- ThiEY LCI''T E?AVE' &'CISL PC•L,LUT-"CI:. THEY ARE FAST. THEY LCI:' T TAKE UP LAND USE. AND I THINK THAT -- COESILERi::G Tt:AT 1,,E ARE CETTIZ:G IiZTO THE 21ST CENTURY, I THIN'.! THIS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. A N B I THIIrK DiAYBE I:EETII'G£ SH'CUrI; BE i; LE WITH PRIVATE CCEPANIES. I THII':; 1-:CST OF US r-.PE AWARE III THIS ROOM OF THE POLITICS TEAT h:.E If:VCL•`'ED "ND OF ALL THE TRAIiSPORTATION CEi'CIES Tf:AT ARE Ii'.VOLVED AI:L AILL THE TRANSPORTATIOE PROJECTS, SOb.ETHING LIKE 200 II: THE SIX SECUTE:ERt' CALIFOR14IA COUNTIES AND -- BASICALLY FIGHTING FOR TURF. AI;D I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S ABOUT. AYC I 4;CULD LIKE TO ASK PEOPLE III THE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR TO COI;SIDER THE QUALITY OF LIFE. IT'S YOUR LIFE T00; IT'S YOUP. CHILDREN'S LIVES. SO PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. AND LET'S CO SCr:ETHING SENSIBLE, AND LET'S GET INTO THE FUTURE. THAi:I: YOU. FIR. OLSON,: EUGEIvE FELDER. l;R. FELDER: HI. I THII:I: IT' 0 3-3 B-4 i t:AXEI:E I�EI::BER G ACEi:C'i IIISSIOIN ViEJO/NEI;PORT EEACE 121 1 2 3 4 c 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 1A 15 16 17 18 I 20 21 22 24 25 A GCCL I r E A TO SPEED SCi-.E i•:C1:F:Y At•r EUI:,i; SCA:E ROADS A:: I; iC ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CCNGE.rTICl: . 8-2 F:Ci;ECiR, I'i: VEF1' I:CC1, CrFGS%r. TC T::E SE.i: JCi:CCI:: TRAESFCETA TICD; TOLL ROAD. I THIrK THE PRCPOI:"NrrS CF TINS ':`CLL R-C'IL C U G H T TO BE ASEMNE•'D CF TF"E;:S LVES, GOING FROLN THE ILLEGAL GRArIL:G P.i;D HAVItIC A TOTAL DISDAIN FOR PUBLIC IP:PGT. CI'E OF TH-E THINGS NOT MENTIOINED TONIGHT IS THE TIMING OF TEE REEPCNEES TO THE EIR/EIS. ZANY PEOPLE WHO ARE Ill'VCLVED IN REAE-ING TEE EIR AND RAKING THE PROPER RESPOYSE TO IT ARE PCLITICALLY ACTIVE PEOPLE. 117 TEESE PROCESSES, YOU'LL SIT THERE AND YOU' LL TAKE ALL THE YEARS OF THIS. THT.%L,:G GCINvG ON FOR STUDY AND YOU TAKE ALL TEE TII•:E. AP;D THEN YOU DUI•?P THIS TFiIt'G CI: US JUST 8-2 BEFORE At: ELECTION, AND THEN YOU WILL SAY THAT THERE TIAS MEANINGFUL PUBLIC INPUT. IT IS A SHAIV. YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. ARID THE QUESTIOII, OF COURSE, IS t°HAT CREDIBILITY DO YOU HAVE, WHAT CREDIBILITY CAN IT BE TO BUILD THE ►r.AN JOAQUIN HILLS TRANSPORTATION TOLL ROAD AND THEN SAY THIS WILL ItiP.r.CVE AIR QUALITY? THIS IS BUMB. ECECDY BELIEVES THAT. IT IS STUPID. THE -- IT COULD BE SO IF t-;ITI: TF:E -- ., r �,•, v c ?-. c r- 8-2 IF YOU £UiuT A ROAD EY .HE E..ISTI::C PEOPLE WHOov 7-1 7-2 1-3 I:A�:E;:E S.'EIi7EE1::G AGENCY i'ISS=O�: VIEuO/I:E6;PGI T E-:�.CI: �LG 6 7 6 J 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 LIV_ tEP F A?:L YCU f AC TE:S SAt--C ."U::rr� Cp IC' 8-2i .FEY • T r ` � n r vr.EA.T S: :EI: ZU'T T_4L TC THIS _MRC:,EC= _S ZE%7ZL•C;1'Z :^_, A,-Z THAT'S I':-HY HE rAIL,RCA IS CCI:•'G Ci: -- S:FY THIS PRCJECT IS EEI:'G RAILR.CACEE IS 'ZECAUSE CF TEE ADLITICUAL DEVELCPI�:E iT. TE:E DEVcLGPEF FEES THAT ARE INVOLVED HERE. IF YCU !•I-ALT AI:Y &SUPPORT FF.CI,. THE GEFERAL PUBLIC, YOU'V:: CCT TO LISASSCCIATE YOURSELF FPCI: THEIR -- FRO'c, TE:CSE DIEVELCPEF S. TEAT IS THE INDUCED CRCI-,-m.K BECAUSE YCU HAVE TcESL 1 8-2j EXTRA PROJECTS. YOU WILL HAVE A -- THE BULK OF THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC ON THE TCLL ROAD FROM ThES ' *:;El: PF.OJI;CTS. YOU OUCHT TO BE ASHAMED CF YOURSELF. OUR FEDERAL GCVERN'MENT PASSED THIS 4 (F) RECULATICZ: BECAUSE IT DCESN' T MAKE ANY SENSE TO I',AVE SOLE PARK LYING IPA OPEN SPACE, GET SOME BUNCH OF FUTS WHO SAY LET'S BISECT IT WITH A HIGHPIAY. AND WHAT DC WE HAVE -- WHAT DOES THAT LAW SAY? IT SAPS -- IT ACTUALLY SAYS YOU CAN DC IT IF YOU'RE WILLING TO SHOW THERE ARE NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVES. BUT WHAT WE HAVE IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE IS LOBBYIING AT %ASHII•:GTCN D.C. SO THAT FEZERAL I;:C:EY CAN BE USED ON THIS TEIING, EISECTING TINS NATURAL OPEN SPACE. A1:L YOU I;OP'' T EVE! Ai IDE SY s I-4 '-5 r. 7-6 LAaEi E WEINBERG AGENCY I:ISEIOI•: VIEjC/i:EI':PCRT ErACE 123 4 5 6 7 E e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 20 21 22 23 24 TF'E LA:; TC 1":A1E SURE THAT -- YCC YXCIN, TC'.- SnCrvl THATCCU HAVE GOi"E GUT OF YCUR-!-1'AY, TF:ar—.1 TI:=E IS "I"�L� ALTER::ATIVE "'t ' _ C :CC^ -=:� .:�1 .. ERE S r.L'£ D CA?' YC I CRYSTAL CCVE, CITY OF LAGUNA EEACF: APii IRVI :E PARKS THAT ARE ADJACENT OR EEI::G BISECTED EY TEIS PROPOSED THIT:G. THE -- FOR 20 YEARS PEOPLE II"o ORANGE COUYTY HAVE WORF:ED TO ACQUIRE THE LAGUNA GFEENEELT, TC PROVIDE A SIGNIFICAF T AREA AS AN ECCEYSTELt TO PROVIDE AN AREA FCR -- THAT I',TILL BE i-:ATL'RAL AI:D FOR THE ANILN-AL AND PLA::T LIFE TO E::.IST. TO HAVE TT TRAVERSED BY THIS TOLL RCAD IS ABSCLUTELY UNA-CCEP^_'AELE. TKE TRAFFIC CAN BE :.ITIGr.TED BY ROADS, BUT NOT IF YOU ADD SC I•:ANY NEW DEVELOPI•IEFTS THAT IT WILL ADD IlCRE TRAFFIC WHE1: YOU' RE ALL• DOA:E T; ITH IT THAT: YOU HAVE TODAY. MR. CLSCIA: HUNBERTO BOCCARDO, PLEASE. MR. BOCCARDO: HI. I' I'; AN I'1. D • Ill LAGUNA HILLS, AVD I' M A LOCAL COrMIUTER. I I S-21 DON'T THINR WE NEED THE FREEWAY FOR US WHO COMMUTE AROUND HERE. SECOND, THE AIR POLLUTION IS A REAL 8-21 THREAT FOR TEE PCPULATICF IN LAGUNA HILLS P.I:D THE SUP.ROUI.:DINGS. THiRL, I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY 8-2 CESCEI:E THAT TOI: RILEY IS ELACRrIAILING LAGUNA I 7-6 7-7 3-1 1-2 3-3 :-:AXEI.E :%:EI::BEFr- AGE::CY A'.ISSION VIEWO/k:Et•:PORT BEACF 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B E A C 'tz , AEF0LUTELY 0BSCE::E. AI:D 1T' S ALSC I.'CrZz'ZiEL_ HC:. Y C U PUT II% A F^-JUST TC FRC::CTE Et-'VELCPNEI:T Cl: TEE EILLS ARCUi'D Li.Gt;::is CAk,YCI:, JUST TO CREATE tiCRE TRAFFIC. ALL YOU'VE GOT TO CO IS TAKE SCI'.E TRAFFIC CFF OF 5 AND STICI: IT INTO 405, AND _TT' S GCIr'G TC ZACI: UP AS SOOT: AS THEY BUILD CNI LAGUVA CANYCN, BECAUSE IRVTNE CCI_PAP:Y WANTS TO BUILD BETj',EEIv' TEE COAST AND THE STUPID FREEWAY OUT TEIERE. IT'.-. GOIt:G TC EU=Li WHAT, 4,000 IIOF.E HOUSES OUT THEF•.E, PLUS IT'S GCING TO BE MORE GRCWTH FOR LAGUi"4A NIGUEL. SO YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE MORE TRAFFIC. III FIVE YEARS TEAT CCRRIDCR IS GO�TNG TO BE ALL ELCCKED AGAIN. 1.1R. 0LSCZZ: RICHc"IRD HEDIRIKSON. 8-21 MR. HENRIKSCN: I'M RICE;ARD HENRIKSON. I WORK AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL• CONSULTANT. I'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT THIS EIR, AND I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU IT'S REALLY SWISS CHEESE. I'M JUST GOING TO TOUCH ON A FEW'POIFTS HERE. THERE'RE TOO MANY TO GO INTO. AIR QUALITY, THIS CORRIDOR GILL IMPROVE AIR QUALITY, WHAT A 8-2' FARCE. YOUR OWN READIINGS ALOVG TEE PATECF THIS CORRIDOR INDICATE SUBSTANTIALLY Ir,-CREASED CAPECI: 1-5 • f:AXEI'E AGEr;CY i•:ISSIOr VIEj0/I:EI:PCRT EEACEi 125 0 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 c 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 1° 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO SII,:: LY BROAD ERUSE; IT HTTE A CLAI:": LNE REASCI: 7:F.Y AIR POLLUTION j':ILL CO DC�:i:, THAT'S A SPECICUS ARGUEENT. TEAT' S Al: ARGU::EI;T USED BY PECPLE HHO KNO',`. THE PRO%ECT THEY' RE PUTTIt:G IN CBVICL:SLY INCREASES AIR POLLUTICIN. YOUR CT-:2: RESULTS SHO.4 THAT. SECONDLY, HOV LANE, SUPPOSEDLY CARPCCL LANES. YCU —SAY YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THEid IIC. I REALLY i'TCLIDEF I?Cll CGMMITTED YOU ARE TO ThEIL. THE Aln Clit,LITY MANAGEMENT PLA?: REQUIRES CARPCCL LANES GOING IN. BUT THE TOLL ROAD IS IN AN INTERESTING PCSITICN. THEY EANT TO CCLLECT MORE TOLLS SC TEE`1 CI:P: PAY FCIR THIS THING. BUT IF THREE PEOPLE RIDE IN A CAR, THEY ONLY PAY GIBE TOLL. LET'S GET THREE PEOPLE IN THREE CARS, YOU GET THREE TOLLS. THE TCLL ROAD IS IN AN INTERESTING POSITION OF DISCOURAGING CARPOOLING TO PAY FOR THIS TURKEY. THIRDLY, THIS IS A TOLL ROAD GETTING PEOPLE TO PA) AS THEY GO. PRESUMABLY IF THE 5 AND THE 405 ARE CROWDED, PECPLE DILL TAKE THE TOLL ROAD TO AVCID THE CCNGESTION. BUT AS SOON AS THOSE TWO FF.EE:t;AYS, ARE T:CT CROT-iDED, THAT IS, ANY NONPEAK HOUR, WHC'E GOING TO RIDE ON THE TOLL ROAD AND PAI 8-2 .I 8-2! i I-2 i-3 121' 1 2 4 c E 7 E c 1C 11 12 1 14 1^ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 y' E C. Cis ;::? Y. I i I :; i. :': E' R E A LT TTrE .,C t-:,. r T r• ` ,. �,Ei. ECCi:Ci:ICS. TE:__S TOLL RCr.L ' ILL SE A VIFT::AL Gi:CST TC;':i: FOR ABOUT 18 FcuFS A r,;.Y. A.:i; Ai:YECL:' I*' I;Y FIELL OF Lr:GINEEi:'i:G EUILLING .SC::ET::Ii:C FCF. i EA:: USE C::LY IS ABCi;_ TEE VCRST USE CF P ULLIC FL:'ZS YCU CAD: U.S.E. FINALLY, THE E:Ui:AN FACTOR, THERE'S A L•ITr,LE BIT BEi;N SAID ABOUT THAT TOI;IGHT. i';ELL, TH:; HUt:A;; FACTOR, IT' S PRETTY EARD TO GCT A Cl:. I GUESS YCU' VE GCT A PARAGRAPH IE YCUP. REPORTi ;.BOUT THAT. t;iiAT r;E' VE SEEll F.EF:E TCNIGHT, PERSC:: AFTER PEr'SCI: AFTEi? PERSOO SAY IVG WILE LCIN' T WAFT TINS T1':I iG. I TH'Ir:I: WE'VE HAD E;VERYEGLY C?PC.4ED TO IT, E::CEPT ONE. YOU'VE COME BF.0 TIt:E ANC TIME AGAiiI. THE ANSWER IS STILL I70. THE HULAN FACTOR HERE IS SAYING WE DON'T WANT THIS, AND WE'LL KEEP TELLING YOU THAT UNTIL IT'S FINALLY HEARD. THAFK YOU. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. THE NE UT SPEAKEP, IS RICHARD PECXHAt;. AND WHILE I;R. PECKEAr" I.C. COINING UP TO THE tIICRCPf?CNE, I' D LIKE TO IDENTIFY THE FOLLOW-UP SPEAKERS, RONALD SFEARE: , l:ICEAEL PE:ILLIPS, LINDA ECr:I:Plt;i', AND TFCI•:AS PALBZrZG. t:R. PECKHAE'? STILL HERE? APPAREtITLY NOT. RONALD SHEARER. • 1-3 1-4 • 0 t:AXEi:E I';EI:;BEctC AGEi:C- MISSICi: V` E.:0/TTEI"PCRT BEACI: 127 s 1 3 4 6 7 E 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r•il:. CCIC: EV=i:=.:C, t; i.L, YCU''V.. LC,'_ IT. I At'.THCRCUG'-:LY CCi:FUSEL . I' V E EEE1: .c'ITT II'G HEF.E LL EVE::11.G. I' VE EEEii LISTENIEG TO COMMENTS. EVERYTI:IN'G; THAT THE FCLXS SAY ABOUT THE ANII•:AI,S AI:D ENDAI;GERED SPECIES AND THE PLATS l.I:i THE FLOODS OR THE VATERWAYS, I AGREE ; ITr.. THE- COFCEPT OF THE ROAD, 1 LOCK OUT IN THE MORNII;G ON. THE FREEWAY? AFE I SEE iT BACRED UP FCR EIGHT N4ILES. SCr:ETI:IYG'S GCi TO BE DONE. BUT THAT EEIING l,HAT IT MAY, I'I: HE: E TODAY FOR A LITTLE MORE SELFISH REASOF. YOU FOLKS HAVE -- A LOT OF YOU FOLKS HAVI BUS17FESSES THAT YOU CCI'r•:UTE TO. IF THIS RCAD GGE; It', I I':AY NOT HAVE A BUSINESS TO GC TO. Il3Y BUSINESS, TIMBERLINE REEWOOD COMPANY, DCT-TN ON. CANINO CAPISTRANO IS SUBJECT TO BEING DISPLACEL II THIS ROAD GOES IN. AND I-:Y BIGGEST PROELEY IS, WITH THE Er:VIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TODAY, A LUMBERYARD IT: SOMEONE'S NEIGHBORHOOD IS A PRETTY TOUGH COOKIE TO GET THROUGH, UNLESS IS LCOKS LIKE AN ALPHA BETA OR LUCKY SUPERMARKET. SO WE ARE BECONING AN ENDANGERED SPECIES FOR THE LUMBER BUSINESS. WE JUST BARELY SCRIAPED THRCUGH A COUPLE INITIATIVES CI1 THE LAST BALLCT, 25 1 UHICH INCIDEINTALLY I DFAS FOR ONE OF THEiI. EUT )-1 0-2 r:AXE'*:E WEINBERG AGEECY I- ISSICI` VIEJO/I:Ei:rCI:T EEACH 12: 1 2 3 Q 5 6 7 E J 10 �1 12 13 .14 1q J 16 17 18 -19. -20 21 22 23 24 2-r J .:C:?ETI:ELESS, I i:EEZ -- IF TINS R C A C G C E S TERC 1-CH, I i:EEi c:ZLP A. SUPPCRT FP.CI1 THE CCRFILCR PECP:, TO ZE DIUCSSE-c—SEC AI:E, I Sr:CCL-C SAY, RELCCATE�- A;:D HELP It; F I::I:Ii:G A I'E!•: LCCATICP: FOR MY EUsT_P:E.-,S. I K,:Cv: IT'S A LITTLE SELFISH BUT !':'HAT TIi:. FZC:\' . I'VE GOT TO PAY MY BILLS TOO AND SURVIVE. I' VE BEEN DCl:'P: IN SOUTH CP.A:;CE COUFTY FOR 19 YEARS, AND I' VE SEEN A LOT OF GROWITH r:ATU ALL . A::I; IT I;Ii:L OF A:A ES ME I AL. WHEN- I SEE PECPLZ COME IYTC TI:E CCU.;TY A1.D NOT-; THAT THEY' RE THERE EVER YTHIi'G ELSE IS STOPPED, YOU KNOW, CLOSE Trl- DCCR CC_:' T LET AP:Y3C�Y ELSE IF DOII' T GET I-:E !:'RCP'G, I' I'' P'CT F CF. EIG DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. I' VE SEE i' TOO ilUCH. I Tt:TVK WE'VE GCT -- THIS IS !'IHY WE'RE TALKING ABCUT THIS ROAD T0'L\'IGHT, AND THIS ROAD IS GOING TO PROMOTE I CRE DEVELOPMENT. BUT LET'S NOT BE HYPOCRITES. LET'S NOT MCVE INTO TEE AREA AND THEN WANT THE DOOR TO CLOSE BEHIND YCL' AND EOT LET ANYBODY ELSE COME IN. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. MR. OLSON: MICHAEL PHILLIPS. T'R• PHILLIPS: HI. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPCRTUI+ITY. M,Y N A MA E IS MICF.AEL D-2 r. D-3 • i::Ei: l:"iNIrEi2C AGEi:CY :.,'ISSIO!' VIEJOAEE-PORT BEACH 12E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2G 21 22 23 24 25 PHILLIPS, AND I LIVE II: LAGUNA BEAC::. A µQUICK CCI:I:L::T ON THE 4 ( F ) RULE, IT SL•ELS TO I'.E -- SE ::s TC BE A FACT TF'.F,T TL E TCAr ALCI:C V.-ITF THE CCUN:TY OF ORANGE, L-AS INDEED INVCLVEE AT THE BEGIENIA:G CF l THE YEAR ti:ITH I:CRKII•:G FOR THE REGULATORY PROCESS IN' l,AS::IA:GTCN: D.C. TC A:: —END THE 4 (F) RULE. Al'.D I I1UST ADMIT WE' RE ALL A BIT MYSTIFIED AT ALL THAT EFFORT TO AI•IE17D T E 4 (F) PULE P)HICH WAS IMPLENENTE1r IN 1566 AS PART OF THE TRANISPCPTATT_CI' ACT TO PROTECT Nr:TURAL AREAS. IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH AN: INNOCUOUS RULE TC COLPL`_' ivITH. WE'RE A BIT h:YSTIFIED AT ALL THE EFFORT MADE TO SLIT IT. THE 4(F) SAYS BASICALLY THAT THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION HAS TO MAKE A FINiDIN:G FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS THAT USE FEDERAL FUNDING, THAT THE -- ALL EFFORT WAS BADE TO SHOT,.*, ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS. AND ALL THE SECRETARY CF TRANSPORTATION HAS TO DO IS I•iAKE A FINDING THAT THERE WERE NO PROVER OR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE ALIGITMEFTS THAT YOU SELECTED, AND YOU MAKE ALL DUE EFFORT TO MITIGATE AFYTHIN;G THAT YOU DO TO THE EN VIRON KENT. A COMPLETELY EASY THING, I WOULD THIN:F: IT WOULD BE, TO COEPLY WITH. IF THIS ALIGNMENT THAT YOU HAVE IS THE BEST AND YOU CAN PP.OVE THAT IT'S 1-1 t;AX'rI.E �,IEIN'BERG ACENCY l.IcS_TGN: VIEJC/* LVPCrT DEPCH 13C 119 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE TEST, THERE SHCL'LDF' T BE P.::Y PFCELE': P; ITE 8-31 `:'H:=.T SCRT CF FI::LI::C :l_'1' T: E SZCP.ET'�.RY CF TF.SL'CF.TATIC::. FRAI::;LY T- E DO11 T Ll:D P.SZ'A::L ;:1:Y ALL THE EFFCRT TO ACCEPT FEDERAL t--:Ci:EY FOR T IS 8-31 PF.CZECT BUT TRY TC ASSERT FEDERAL SCRUTINY CE TOP ANOTHER REAL QUICK QUESTION HERE REGARLING SOME OF YOUR. TRAFFIC FIGURES. THE DRAFT EIR STATES THAT SHOULD TEE TOLL ROAD GO TERCUGH C:. THAT PORT-10F CF LACUNA CANYON ROAD SOUTH Cry EL TORC, IF TAHE TOLL ROAD GOES IT:, YOU COULD EiiPECT TG SEE AN INCREASE OF 5,000 CAP. TRIPS PER DAY 0:; LAGU*":A CF,i:YC:C ROAD BY THE YEAR 2010. N'OT:, I^_ :CAS OUR UNDERSTAYDING THAT THE TOLL ROAD WAS GCING TC ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC CP: LAGUNA CANYON ROAD. YOUR FIGURES SEEM T0, YOU KNOW, SHOW SC:dETHING DIFFERENT. WHY SHOULD WE SUPPORT THE TOLL ROAD IF, YOU ICNOW, THE NET RESULT tICULD BE ADDITIONAL CAP, TRIPS PER DAY ON LAGUNA CAEYON ROAD. IF IT IS TRUE THAT THE TOLL ROAD WOULD BE INCREASING TRAFFIC ON LAGUNA CANYON ROAD, WHAT MITIGATIOI;S IS THE TCA SUGGESTING TO ALLEVIATE THEI OBVIOUSLY IMPACTS THAT WE CAN EXPECT FROt1 THE TOLL' ROAD AND THE: AEDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT IT t;ILL• BE GEr:ERATING? THANK YOU. -2 G 1-3 o "A"EN V,E;_r::E.r,RG AGEL:CY MISSION' VI_rJC/NE1"PORT EEAC'r. 131 9 0 1 G 3 4 5 6 7 E 5 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 LJ 24 25 A;F.. CLSC2:: Tf:ANK YCU. LIFEA F:£. ECI;I:A 1:. GCOD EVE.:1NC. I Al: CC'.".CE L:ED TEAT THE SAN JOAQU'I . HILLS TOLL ROAD IS JUST A:: EXPENSIVE CIi, OFF RF.MP FOR THE SP.:•; rIEGO FP -T E;'AY. rC:i DC YCU JUSTIFY THE CCST OF SUCE AN A'•iBITICUS PROJECT WHICH PEQUIRIES SO MANY MITIGATICN i':EASURES BECAUSE CF THE DISRUPTION OF SE:;SITiVE HZiEITAT AND THE G EliERATION OF NICISt IN THE EXISTING RESIEENTIAL AREAS. WHAT FORMULA DO YOU USE TO JUSTIFY THAT THIS PRCJECT IS WORTH DOING? AI:L 17FAT CRITERILA PEED TC BE ADDRESSED TC DISCUSS THE ALTERINATIVE CF YC PF.OJECT? WHEN DOES AN EIR BECOME OUTDATED DUE TO CHANGIFG CIRCUI•:STANCES? AND IF YOU CARE TO REPLY TO ANY OF THOSE 11401�,, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. MR. OLSON: THANK YOU. ANY COM.MEFT, OR ANY COMIMENT ON ANY OF THE COY.-MENTS THAT WERE RECEIVED HERE THOE LAST FEW MINUTES? MR. LETTERLY: YES. THERE WAS JUST A QUESTION REGARDING WHEN -AN EIR BECOMES OUTDATED. AND REGARDING THAT STATEMEI'T, YOU USE TEE EEST IAFOREATICIi AVAILAELE 1'.T T'iE TIi•:E THAT YCU START PREFARII:G THE DCCUi-!Ei'i , AND THAT'S WHEAT 8-3 r I 2-1 +•wt...�.... ..,�+•...�..nr. wr•r+n•n:7 ..�..,n�'... *�....v� /+,.'+e.+rnTT t^-*+r/'`:C i L 3 C 6 7 E 9 iC -1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i•.—E FEEJ— IS I::CGFPG%ATED IFm_O Tri,"S CCCU:--::T, m - 1rE 14R. CLSCi•;, A_T• P.ICHT. T-E' "E"T SPEPRER IS Tr:Gi•:AS PACEERC. A:"I1; WHILE 1•:R. PADEERG IS COMING TC THE I•IICROPECt-E, IF INDEED HE IS, I' D LI::E TO CALL CUT TEE 1•:E*,IT SPEAKER;,,, TCIii ISEIiA\, I?irE CU1Ii:-C—S, AND JERF.I CEARCESKY. TEC1•:F.S -- IS THCEAS PADEERG HERE TO SPEAN'? APPARENTLY NOT. THANK YOU. THE:; TGNI ISENAN, ':'LEASE . I•iS. ISEI•iA1•:: AT THE RISK OF CFFEI:E;IP:G SGI•'sE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE THIS EVENING, I' I-: SURPRISED THAT YOU I•;CULD ADDRESS THL COUNTY OF ORANGE WITH CCI:CERI: ABOUT AD:It ALS AI'D PLANTS OR THE ENVIRONME17T. I HAVE BEEN GCIEG TO THESE I-iEETINGS FOR 10 YEARS. TOV ROGERS MADE REFERENCE TO ME. AND TEERE'S A REAL INTERESTING FOOD CHAIN IN ORANGE COUNTY. ON THE BOTTOti OF THE FOOD CHAIN ARE THE PEOPLE. NOTIr AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN, WE HAVE A CHOICE OF EITHER BULLDOAZEF.S CR, IN THIS CASE, PROBABLY PHILLIP 1•I0RRIS. DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN MADE WT_TH THE 111TENTIC1: OF FURTHERING DEVELOPMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY AT THE EXPEi,'SE OF ANYTHIT:G TEAT STANDS II•; ITS WAY. YOU 6 3-1 t:i X—QNE T•iEINBERG AGENCY EISSI0N. VIEJC/NEl.PORT BE -.Ck 133 • 1 L 3 4 5 6 7 8 S. 10 11 12 13 14 My 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 T::E COUNTY CF CRA17GE SFEF:i:ING ABOUT SC:...THING EEI :G EI•;VIRGI.EENTALLY SENSITIVE IS LIFE E VE AT1'ILti EUF S_ EAN AGAIP:ST rOVESTIC VIOLENCE. 4•iE HAVE BEEN RAILROADED BY BLATANT A17D ARRCGANT DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE HAI:DS CF PECPLE' T.1 . GIVE A CREAT DEAL OF NCI:EY TO THE SUPERVISORS. YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS ►JHOLE THII`iG IS DCFE -- YOU KNCti7 iiOYT WE ARGUED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GCII C TO CALL THE AIRPORT, WELL, MAYBE THE CCRRIDGR L ILL BE I7Ai ED AFTER TCM RILEY. HOWEVER, I CLALLENGE T01-1 RILEY' S DCCTCR TC GIVE HIM APPRCVtL TC LIVE NE." T TQ THIS POLLUTION 11-:ACHINE. I DCUE T Tr' -.AT HE COULD STAND THE EYVIRONMEl:T T::ERE, AS CF THE PEOPLE IV LEISURE WORLD :•:ILL SUFFER, AS HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE. YCU K'NOE , WHEN YOU LOCK AT A ROAD AND YC1 SEE THE GRADItiG ON THIS, THE GRADE RATHER, A SI2I PERCENT GRADE IS REALLY UNUSUAL. I THINK IF WE COULD HAVE A COMPARISON BY THE' EXPERTS AS TO WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE A SIX. PERCENT GRADE, WE'D REALLY BE SURPRISED AT WHAT GOES IT IN TERMS OF ADDITICINAL AIR POLLUTION. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WAS TAKE!; INTO COI:SIDERATICY 6:I:EF THAT WAS BEID:G BUILT OR BEING -- THE ALIGF-llE'a'T WAS BEING CONSIDERED. AND THAT 3-1 3-2 3-3 I%A::E::E T.:EIi:EERC AGENCY t ISSIGI: VI£3G/FEjiPCRT EEAC1 134 1 3 4 6 7 8 c 1G ii 12 1' r 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- ALSC YCU' LL E:.VE TC ASF TEE YUEETIC:' CF THT_ HYCRCCArrCi' , T.._ i:CI.�.E, i:.'C PP.CF:LE:'. I;ITE F'i;EL r%�aD EFFICIEI•.CY TF.,-. CCi.CS SI: PERCENT GRADE. TEiE COST CF TEE CCF._ I:CF I,'t.S ORICIE LLY $300, 000, 000 I•:HEN IT t AS 14 LAKES. rOW1 IT'S SIX L I'ES, IT'S $7CO,OOC,000. AND I REALLY QUESTICI:, AS IT'S BEEP: SAIC EEFCLE, V;H.AT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF IT. IF YOU LCCK AT TKE `4C, 00'0, 000 THAT'S BEE*: SUCGESTED FCF. THE ALTE t:ATIVE ROUTE It: THE SOUTE: -- T_ T':CULC LC :'E TC I:AVE THESE PECPLE BUILC A ONE FCR ME BECAUSE I':•: SUP.E THEY CCULD E::ILD LIKE A 4, 000 Sr_UA C FCC`: E:CEIE FCR I:nYEE 3C— CR Y4C,000 2ASEE Cl' TF_Z : _GUF.L-:, THAT TEEY' RE GIVIt;G US. NCS-;, 6':E-'Y IS IT The-.T ':E AREN'T GETTING THE TRUTH? 6'E:Y IS IT THAT WE DOP;' T TRUST THE COUNTY? IT'S BECAUSE 6;E HAVE BEET: CCN:I:IG IP: FCR 10 YEARS. AND IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING, APED I','I VER i SADDENED BY THE LOSS CF FAITH THAT WE HAVE IN OUR GOVERNMEP'T HERE BY SEEING WHAT HAPPENS. I AGREE WITH THE tiOMA*: FROM r:ELLIE GAIL. THIS IS A TRAVESTY. MP.• 0LS0'N: MIKE CUEE.It:GS, MIKE CUMfl IIN G.S. , THE P:EXT SPEAKER. t1R. CU1'aD:INGS: YES. I't: A • !-4 • 3-5 0 I'_It" '. Z E N E HEINBERG AGENCY ".IE°IOr; VIE::O/::E:6PORT EEe=CE • 0 1 4 c C 7 8 c I 11 12 i� 14 15 16 17 18 1G 20 21 22 23 24 25 PHYSICIAN. I LIVE IN LAGL'i:A :-1CUEL ?:0T,% -A::I: I rC HP. V= 2% NU+:LCF. CF CC::CEF.I:S AE0U� TFIS FP.CCECT. FIF.ST CIF ALL, 1 Al' PERSOINALLY CPPCSED TO CAI PC0L LE FZ—c . I THINK THEY' VE PROVEN TO BE IFE FFECTIVAE . I IEEE IT' $ PRErCP:II`:hI`::'L_' �'� PCL--TT:CAL I:AP-'EUVER. IT'S EASICALLY TO SA.'7, I;ELL, IF YOU DCI7' T CARPCCL, DGi;'T COiPLPTO US, YU IiCI', I:E POLITICIAN; .- j S, AECUT YOUR TRAFFIC SITUATION BECAUSE IF YCU CARPOCLEL, YOU COULr TRAVEL, YOU KYCt-7, EFFICIENTLY OF THE Fi?EEI'"AY. I DC NOT THT!'K THAT THEY EFCOURAGE CARPCCLI17G EITHER, THESE CAFPOCL LA17ES, Al- 1) I TF1t-_N THEY' RE ALSO UP!SAFE. ANii D I ALSC TI:I:7G THF.T THE EXTRA TIME AND EFFORT SPENT Ii: COYSTRUCTIi:G THESE CARPOO-1. LAN. -ES -- IN THE CASE. OF 405, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AN ENTIRE LANE CROSSED CUT, LUDICROUS, IN ORDER TO HAVE A CFRFCOL LANE. I THINK IT'S JUST RIDICULOUS. THE OTHER CONCERNS I HAVE ARE ABOUT THE EFFECT CN DEVELOPMEFT. I -- IN MY OPINION, HOWEVER, DEVELOPEENT CANNOT BE COMPLETELY STOPPED. I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE AND FEEL THAT THAT CAN BE DONE ARE INCREDIBLY NAIVE. I FEEL THE WAY TO COt'TRCL DEVELOPMENT IS JUST TO DO THAT, TO COFTROL IT. TO I•i HARE SURE ANY DEVELOP THAT DOES OCCUP DOES NCT 4-1 1-2 1-3 I:A'C:EI• E j,EIi,'EERG AGENCY N.ISSIOF VIEJO/i:EYiFCRT PELC,r. 126 1 a 5 E 7 5 c 1C .11 12 13 It 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 2 Cl 25 F.�- ..—CT ThE P.-_LITY FC.. TRtCPTATICi. A;:i: CTHEP. CEE ^_I::.T A= — t.LSC_UZ L_ ESSE. T L, T::T T,''.=., r-EVELCP --E l E_, LC1.r I. F, TII;ELY I:%�:i:EP. I'G^' .. EUS ED. 7T Sh0ULL LOT JUST BZ THRC6: ' UL T0GZTHEP. AS FAST AS :HE DEVELCPERS CAI: PUT THE HOUSES UP, AS IS HAPPE :ING -IN LAGUiTA NIGUE.L NOW, PARTICULAF?L' Ii•: A S I TUATIOF OF FOUSIFG: EXCESS. AND I' I•; ALSO CC's:CERNED ABOUT THE EiCVIF.CI:i:EI;T. I TY.II� F: THERE'S BEET: ti FUI•_BER CF CCi'.CEF."S HEPE RECUT Ei:V:RCi:i:E' :; T . I TI:I:17K THAT AP:Y PLAN- SHOULL ADDRESS ALL THESE CCF,CERi�S, AP:D THEY ARE iI:PORTAI:T. HAVIidG SAID AL TEAT, I Ai"_ STROLGL:' IN FAVOR CIF TF:: CCrRIDCR, Al-c LET t:E TELL YOU i•:HY. NG CI<E hERE -- I DCi�' T TF?INK I HEARD OI,E PERSON -- I' VE NOT BEEI1 FEPE ALL NIGHT. I CYLY HEARD O11'IE PERSON EXPRESS ANY OPINION AT ALL AS TO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ENTIRE REGIOP;. I-E HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT I LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE I'M GCI1:G TO HAVE AIR POLLUTION. I HAVE GREAT RESPEC' FCR THE Ci1E GEINTLEIMAN D:FiC STATED THAT HE WAS HERE FOR A SELFISH REASO::, HIS BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED. LU. I HEARD OTEI- PEOPLE SAYI:G TEAT ;'; ITHCGT ACTUALLY SAYIi'.0 THAT, THAT THEY :iAIi1LY 8-3, 0 1-3 le 4-4 I::•'C'.Ei•E ICIEZZ C ACEI'CY FIES :Ci: L"I"j0/I.E;';PCRT EELCL 13 • C 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 0 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i'.CN' T L-SE :T, I I'CVEr, TC LACUI:A BEACI: EEC -RUSE I L._ �rr,..iT L- r F ITIME _ ::G ISC_.� � ::.. �.:L' S A- r.'t"Z r r. 7 Ct I"' CCUL£ BE TH"T y I7OCLD L VE TFERE TO. EUT I CAP:' T -- THAT'S NOT THE C ITUAT ION. FY CP=D: Ci': IS THAT THERE' S I:O ALT-rF,"--,TiVE TO AP:OTHEF i:CRTI-:-SCL':':: P.CUTE. IF TE:ERE TC Ai: ALTERi:A:'T_VE, I UOULD SUPPORT THAT. IF THERE'S A LESS ErVIRONNE13TALLY DESTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVE, I WOULD STFONGLY SUPPORT THAT. I DCI:"•1' EELIEVE THERE IS. I THINN THAT WE PAY THESE PEOPLE A LOT OF I'IONEY. THESE ARE EXPERTS. THEY'VE DEVISED TEE` BEST PLAN. YES, YOU SHOULD ALL -- BY ALL I•:Et'%NS, IF YOU CAN THI17K Cr- A LETTER I;AY OF DOING IT, EVERYONE IL; THIS P.CCI. SHOULD GET UP AND EnPP.ESS THAT. IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND IT SHOULD BE DONE. TRAFFIC IS A DISASTER. TO SAVE -- IF WE CAN SAVE A FLOWER OR A PLANT OR AN ANIMAL AND THAT -- THOSE THINGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS. BUT NO ONE HERE HAS DISCUSSED ECTq WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS TRAFFIC DISASTER. I 47ISF. EE FAD riASS TRANSIT. I WISH V;E HAD BORE OF IT. IT'S VERY EXPEASIVE. NO CiNE M.EP:TIONS THAT. IT HAS ITS OWN PROBLE IS. BUT I FEEL THAT UI•:TIL j':E COI"E UP WITH A BETTER 4-4 v1,,ry 1 2 Z r 4 5 5 7 8 c 1G •11 12 1; 14 15 16 17 18 -1 9 20 22 23 24 25 ALTER:'ATIVE TC SCLVE T::_S TRAFFIC CISFSTER, :EAT T S T I E e? V E T _t,L1.....�TIVE. 1 r CISCUSS TEAT. j:E' RE ALL TALKING AEOUT OUR CWN PE.t SCI.Ar DESIRES BECAUSE [.E LINZ A PLANT CR WE LIKE AI' CR :E ECN'T LI::E POLLUTICN. I HEARD IICBCCY SAY WHAT'S S THE REGIONAL PLAT: FOR TR:.I•:.G.PCRTATICI: IF ?CIE DCI:' T BUILD THIS THING. I TE:I::K LIGHT FAIL IS II:PCRTANT. THE VOTERS TUF.ii TT ECT'::. A7..D I TE:TI:I: THAT S:iQULD 2E INTEGRATED II:. 0Eli. Y? EUT -' ICY CPIigICNr IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S EEE:: I:CR: EL OUI' FCR A LCIiG TIEE. AID I' L LIi:E TC BE I'sA_'EE Ci:E VCT_CE EXPRESSII•IG SGi:L— -- I I?AVE CG_ICE..L... BUT I D LIK:. TO BE GI:E VCICE E�:PRESSING SUPPCP.T FCP. THIS PRCJECT. THANIK YOU. MR. OLSON: THANK YOU FCR. YOUR COMMENTS. AND THE LAST SPEAKER -- THE CARD AT LEAST HAS IND76CATED THE LAST SPEAKER IS JERRI CHARI:ESKY. K.S. CHARNESKY: ALL RIGHT. THIS GENTLEMAN WASN'T HERE BUT MAYBE FIVE MINUTES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HEAR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO TALKED ABOUT E.A S TRAYS IT AND ALL THE CTHER WAYS THAT TIE COL'LC DC L.ITECL'T THIS CORRIDOR. TONIGHT I' M ADDRESSING A:R.. FCSTERt I BELIEVE THAT'S YCUR r. -4 i • I:AKEi:E j;EI.:EERG r:GEI:C.' I-ISSION VIzJO/NE::PCP.T EEAC�' 1 iq • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I4 R. FCST ER: YEc. N1S. C Al ARE.Z,;,::Y: -- C:Z TEE PA::E- -- MR. FOSTER: RIGHT. I•:S. CHAR N;ESKY: -- AND MR. LETTERLY. ABOUT AN HOUR AND FIVE I-:INUTES AGO, NR. FOSTER TCLD THIS GROUP THAT CALTRANS WAS NOT INVCLVED. RE:'•iEI-:EER THAT? I:ELL, HE EITHER IS LYII:G TO US CR •:R. LETTEFLY LIEZ) TC I:E AYD THE WHOLE CITY, THE MAYOR, EVERYBODY IN SAA: CLEINENTE jUST ABOUT A ::CII;TH AGO WHEN T::EY -- 1 HE:: MR. LETTERLY TCLD ME THI,T I HAD TC CALL CALTRANS TC FII:L CUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE LY HOUSE OR NOT WHEN THEY PUT IN THE FOOTHILL CORRIDOR. I'M WITHIZ"ll 60 FEET OF I-5. AND SO I T AS TOLD THEY'RE NOT TAI:ING MY HOUSE, CALTRANS IS. WHEN THEY HOOK THIS CORRIDOR UP TO I-5,-~CALTRANS TAKES CVER. SO N:OS. I WANT TO KNOW 111iICH ONE OF YOU GENTLEMEN IS LYING TO THESE PEOPLE? CAN YOU ANSWER US? MR. FOSTER: YES. IS THIS NIC ON? CALTRANS IS NOT A PART OF OUR AGENCY, AND LET ME EE VEP.Y CLEAR :']HAT I MEAN; EY TEAT. THE TCA IS 13 CITIES IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. CALTRANS DOES -2a LAXE2:E i•:I;II;DL•RC AGENCY I.'ccrf,r: V:EJC/I,1£:'rDCRT REACE 14C 1 2 3 4 cz 13 14 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLAY A RCL E II: THE ?P.Cv CT, EUT ,:CT AS PART CF THE AGEI:C_-. Ci%L^_FtA2:S' RCLE T_.. Al' CVERSIG i r-:. THEY OVERSEE THE DEVELCP:•:E::T Al"P, TEE Drc=G:. C. PRC.:ECT, AND ULTIEATELY THEY -LL E . TEE Ci;.":ERS CF THE CCRRIDCR irF:EE THE TCLLS ARE PAID OFF AND IT "ECCLES A FREEWAY. MS. CF;ARNESKY: AI:D I HEL YOU 8-35 HOCK TC I-5, ARE THEY NOT THERE TO SEE -- TO 1 OVERSEE ALL TEAT? AIR. LETTERLY: LET I•FE -- A::D I j'iILL CLARIFY WHAT ;',AS SAID WITH THE CITY OF SAN CLEEZINTE REG%RDIENG THE FOCTZILL TRANSPCRTATICN CCRRLDOR. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, WAS THE TCA PRCPCSINC TO WIDEN THE I-5 FREED A'_', AND THE RESPONSE IS NO. TCA IS NOT PRCPOSING TO WIDEP' TEE I-5 FREEWAY WHERE THE EX ALTERNATIVE TIES IP:. TEE EX ALTERNATIVE IS ONCE OF THE ALTERNATIVES WE HAVE CO!;SIDERED FOR THE FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. IF THAT ALTERNATIVE IS APPROVED AND I-5 IS WIDENED SCMETINE III THE FUTURE, THE QUESTI014 I WAS ASKED SAS WHO WOULD BE DOING THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE A CALTRANS PROJECT. TCA -- IT'S NOT A PART OF THE FOGTHILL TRAFSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT TC WIDEN THE I-5, AND THAT'S WHAT I TOLD r. M. • �7_ i:EIINFERC AGEI?CY :,:SSICIi VIEJC/I:EVPCRA. r" EEACc: 141 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE SAX CLEMENTE CITY CCU"r'CIL. 4 IIS. CHAT;EY: YCU NEVER Sr:L 8-35 THAT CALTRANS !•:?S THERE v F."Y YOU, HCCI.ED THIS CORP.1DCF. TO I-5: MR. LETTERLY: THE CUESTICN LID 170T CC::E WITH THE CITY OF SAN' CL•EI:ENTE WHAT HAPPENS LIITH THE SAN JOACUIN HILLS TRAFSPORTATICN CORRIDOR. THAT MEETING TAS ON THE FOCTHILL TRANSPORTATION CCRRILCR. ME. CHARNESKY: THIS ONE IS GOING TO HOOK TC I-5. IS CALTRANS GOING TO BE THERE? MR. OLSCPi: MAYBE WE CAN CLARIFY. 1HAT IS YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY? LET US RESPOND TC IT AGAIN. IIS. CHARNESKY: I WANT TO KNOT: WHY MIR. FOSTER SAID CALTRANS WAS NOT INVOLVED AND WHY MR. LETTERLY SAID A MONTF AGO THAT CALTRANS WAS INVOLVED WHEN THE CORRIDOR HOOKS UP TO I-5. AND THIS CORRIDOR IS GOING TO EOOF. UP TO I-5 ALSO. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT r IF A:3Y, IS CALTP.AN'S' ROLE RELATIVE TO THE TRAN&SPORTATICY CORRIDOR AGENCY'S ROLE IN CONX.ECTING TEE SAIL JOAQUIN HILLS CORRIDOR 8-35. .2c 2d •29 .. +��r Cx7p �a Z+T•.�n nn,r �I•pT^!'�.� �•:T CC TnAi 17Tr T17FL•7 D r, PT RRACT: 14Z 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 c 1C 41 12 1' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TC T E I-5? IS THAT A FAIR cTATEi:E::T CF YCUIt QCESTIC: ::CUED YGU LI::E Ai: A''S::ER. TC IT Cl-, i:GT? i.wc. ChARI:ESXY. 'IS CALTRAi:S INVCLVED S'F:Ei: YCU HCCK THIS CCPr,!DCP TO I-5? MR. CLSCF: ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. PLEASE RESPOND TO THAT., MR. FCSTER: AGAIN LET 1.1E TRY IT CNE 1<:0RE TIME. I REALLY DCW T INTEND TC MISLEAD YCU. BUT LET 1-IE FAKE SURE THAT I L'::LERSTANC THE QUESTION. I' LL TRY ANE REPEAT IT. IS CALTRANS INVOLVED EHEN 6:E HOCK TO THE I-5? TE E AA:S;:ER IS YES, THEY ARE INVOLVED IN Ai•: OVEF.SIGIiT ROLE. THEY ARE NCT IiiVCLVED AS A LEMBER OF THE TCA AGEFCY i-:AKII;G A DECISICi� ON THAT CON11 ECTICY. THEY ;':ILL GVERSEE THE DESIGN, ;'iHATEVER CHOICE THE TCA MAKES. ALSO IF I MISUNDERSTOOD ANY PREVICZS QUESTIONS YOU HAD ON I-5 OR 405, MY MISUNDERSTAr;DING MIGHT HAVE BEEN. ALONG THE LINES OF THE TCA'S ROLE ON THE 5 AND 405 ITSELF. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT. TI:E FREE11AY SYSTEM EELCNGS SPECIFICALLY TO CALTRANS, AND TCA'S PROJECTS DO NOT TEND TO MAKE I1 FRCVE:iEP'TS ON 5 OR 405 OTHER THAN WHAT'S DISCLOSED IN THIS DCCUMENT. AND LORE SPECIFICALLY, ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO 5 6:CULZ BE 8-35-2f ul • 1•:AnE1:E ;-;EINBERG AGENCY 1.:ISSIC:' VIEJO/'NEW:CRT EEAC:: C� J 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RCUGET V FRCN AVERY PARKWA-1 COW ' TC ADCCT•• C; TECA ::IGr?P;AY, CR TEAT G E F E R A L VICIEITY, AS DISCLCSED THE DOCU DEFT. I HOPE TI:Ai HELPS YOU. CALTRANS DOES PLAY THE ROLE OF OVERSIGHT. BUT ONCE AGAIN THEY ARE NOT A SPECIFIC PART OF THE AGENCY. MR. OLSON : CI:AY. DO YOU HAVE OTHER COLEENTS? AIS. CHARNESY.Y: VC. I STILL THII-K YOU LIED ONE WAY OR AYOTHER. AT HOUR AGC YCU SAID THEY DEFIE.ITELY WERE IICT IildVOLVED. YOU HAVE TC :MATCH 1-.-,FAT THESE PEOPLE SAY. WRITE IT LC11N. THEY'RE URITING IT DOWNG MR. OLSCN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CCINMENTS. IT'S 10 : 28 ACCORDING TO I Y WATCH, WHICH' IS STILL THE ONLY ONE WE'RE USING, I HOPE. IT REALLY IS NOT TIME FOR ME TO CALL OIL OTHER SPEAKERS THIS EVENIIIG IN THAT YlE REALLY PEED TO CLOSE THE RECORD. DID YOU SUBMIT A CARD? MS. HEDDEN: I HONESTLY DID. MR. OLSON: I APOLOGIZE. WILL YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE? GIVE US YOUR NAME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A CARD HERE. MS. REDDEN: I LITERALLY WILL *BE 30 SECONDS. MY NAME IS MARGARET Y.EDDEN. I WAS I-3 91Av11*l::, 1T..I%•w-w,-%nn--t1 .. .•---w.. ..--♦- /.....•w i.-- -w.-- 144 1 2 3 J 4 5 6 7 E J 10 �11 12 13 14 1� J 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ECRN It. LAGU;.- , SEACHr CALIFOP.i•:IA. ;;AS VERY FOZTL'::r.TE. I j,_AS ELUCAT?:, !F LAGU:;A EEl'.-_K, C1 T I is TIR .61 r R;:I,. i STILL LIV" T::EF.L. A::L ' E� r"; 1'.ELL BECAUSE I TAUGHT ALL DAY. I TEACH AM A PRESCHOOL It: LACUNA CAFYC::. AND I' N GOING TO HAV A REAL Ii:TERESTJ. CLASS TCNORRCT T,:I:EP' t:E GC ON CUP. NATURE WALI: AND I TELL THEM -- THEY'RE FOUR YEARS OLD. At:L THEY HAVE NO CONCEPT OF WHAT WE NEED TO DC TO SAVE OUR PLANET AF2 TO KEEP OUR PLA::ET HEALTHY SO THAT THEY HAVE A PLAT:ET. AND THIS IS OBSCENE. SOMEONE ELSE SAIL THAT, AND IT'S THE BEST WORD FOR IT. IT'S OBSCENE. FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE GOT A FREEI•:A:' THAT'S BELCJ-: ANOTHER -- I BEAN EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAIL; TONIGHT IiAS ALREADY BEEE CLEARLY STATED AND I JUST t;CULD LIKE TO REITERATE. ANE ALEC REA. QUICKLY I BROUGHT TONIGHT TO TARE NOTES CN YOUR MEETING -- JUST BY FLUKE, IT'S CALLED "HELP SAVE OUR ANIMALS," ARID IT'S A PTORKBCOK FOP FOUR—YEAR OLDS. AND I THINK MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE A LCOK A' IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. OLSON: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR US TO CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY N:UCH, Ot: BEHALF OF THE TRAN.SPCRTATION 8-3 • i-1 • -2 i-3 [7 MA,XE17E 4'.'EIt:BERG AGENCY MISSION VIEuO/NEl%PORT BEACK I A C 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 r 20 21 22 23 • 24 25 COF.RIrC; AGE:'CY, ='CR r?TTENDI1'G THE EEAr II:G AI:L. SHARING YCUF. CC.:dEt'TS . I' D LIEF, TC REI:I:'D YCU ACAI}•: Ai:D YGU' VE BEEN ENCOURAGED ECTI: Bi SPEE:i\'ERS AI,:D t-;E Y:A:2T TO ENCOURAGE YOU, THAT IS, TEE CORR_DOR AGENCY, CALTRANS, AI:D F:.;•;A IIANT TO EXCCURAGE YOU TC SUBMIT SPECIFIC SUESTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL• DOCUMENT. + THOSE ARE THE ONES 14E ARE REQUIRED OR THE STAFF IS REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO EY LAW. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE US Y:CRK, LOCK OVER THE DOCUMENT AI:D COMMIEZKT ON IT SUBSTANTIVELY. YOUR OPINIONS ARE ALSO i;ELCOMED, HOWEVER, AND THEY WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DECISICY BAKERS I:; THE ENVIRCP:I:E�ITAL PROCEES. BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY OBLIGATION TO RESPOND TO A LETTER'. OF OPINION, BUT AGAIN THEY'RE P:ELCOMED. PLEASE SUBMIT THEM AS WELL. I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ATTENDING, APPRECIATE YOUR COURTESY IN STICKING WITHIN THE TIME LII,IITS, AND'WE'LL SEE YOU SOON. (HEARING CONCLUDED.) in7lX� "F t-7r '�1Drne' 71!'t"Vt'V vv*r, ,-,^%- rc+l'%rx- REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE THE UNDERSIGNED REPORTER DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING WAS TAKEN BEFORE ME AT THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN SET FORTH AND WAS RECORDED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND WAS THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED, SAID TRANSCRIPT BEING A TRUE COPY OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES THEREOF. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS 4� DATE: •