Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 COMMENT LTR TO IRVINE ON DEIR 04-01-08AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 1, 2008 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TUSTIN RESPONSE TO DEIR FOR CITY OF IRVINE PA 40 AND PA 12 SUMMARY City Council authorization is requested for the City of Tustin's response to the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change associated with the proposed development of approximately 3,918 dwelling units, 1,540,000 square feet of Multi-Use, 205,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 100,000 square feet of institutional uses in Planning Area (PA) 40 (571 acres) and approximately 575,000 square feet of Research and Industrial (Medical Science) uses on a 36-acre parcel in Planning Area (PA) 12. PA 40 is generally bounded by Jeffrey Road to the northwest, the I-5 Freeway to the southwest, the Orange County Great Park to the southeast, and Trabuco Road to the northeast. The portion of PA 12 is generally bounded by vacant land to the west, the I-5 Freeway to the northeast, Sand Canyon Avenue to the southeast, and OCTA railroad tracks to the southwest. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to forward the attached response letter to the City of Irvine. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The proposed project includes the development of approximately 3,918 dwelling units, 1,540,000 square feet of Multi-Use, 205,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 100,000 square feet of institutional uses in Planning Area (PA) 40 (571 acres) and approximately 575,000 square feet of Research and Industrial (Medical Science) uses on a 36-acre parcel in Planning Area (PA) 12. The project includes an option to convert the Multi-Use to residential for up to 1,309 additional dwelling units. Also proposed are various parks and open space. PA 40 is generally bounded by Jeffrey Road to the northwest, the I-5 City Council Report DEIR - PA 40 and PA 12 April 1, 2008 Page 2 Freeway to the southwest, the Orange County Great Park to the southeast, and Trabuco Road to the northeast. The portion of PA 12 is generally bounded by vacant land to the west, the I-5 Freeway to the northeast, Sand Canyon Avenue to the southeast, and OCTA railroad tracks to the southwest. The Community Development and Public Works Departments have reviewed the subject Draft EIR. Staff believes that it is in the City's interest to be on record regarding this matter and has prepared correspondence expressing the City's concerns regarding the Draft EIR document (see Attachment). Staff requests that the Tustin City Council review and consider these comments and, if acceptable, authorize their formal transmission to the City of Irvine. Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachment: Draft Comment Response Letter S:\Cdd\CCReports\DEIR Irvine PA 40 and PA 12.doc April 2, 2008 Michael Philbrick City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR FOR PLANNING AREA 40/PLANNING AREA 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Dear Mr. Philbrick: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) fora General Plan Amendment and Zone Change associated with the proposed development of approximately 3,918 dwelling units, 1,540,000 square feet of Multi-Use, 205,000 square feet of commercial uses, and 100,000 square feet of institutional uses in Planning Area (PA) 40 (571 acres) and approximately 575,000 square feet of Research and Industrial (Medical Science) uses on a 36-acre parcel in Planning Area (PA) 12. The project includes an option to convert the Multi-Use to residential for up to 1,309 additional dwelling units. Also proposed are various parks and open space. PA 40 is generally bounded by Jeffrey Road to the northwest, the I- 5Freeway to the southwest, the Orange County Great Park to the southeast, and Trabuco Road to the northeast. The portion of PA 12 is generally bounded by vacant land to the west, the I-5 Freeway to the northeast, Sand Canyon Avenue to the southeast, and OCTA railroad tracks to the southwest. The following comments focus on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) by Austin-Faust (AFA) of the project: 1. TIA, page ES-1: the North Irvine Transportation Mitigation ("NITM') is a previous study based on General Plan land uses and serves as mitigation for the proposed Project. Use of NITM for mitigation is not likely to be acceptable, since the Project represents substantial changes to the General Plan land uses. 2. TIA, page ES-6: the traffic analysis is not consistent with regard to cumulative project assumptions/traffic growth between "with Project" and "without Project" conditions. The cumulative project assumptions (i.e., for PA1, PA9, PA9C-1 and PA9C-2) need to be the same for "with" and "without" Project, so the full Project impacts are disclosed. 3. TIA, page ES-6: the Project assumptions serve to document that some of the other "cumulative" PA's (i.e., PA 1, PA 9, etc.) will not be built to full General Plan potential. These known assumptions need to be included in the "without Project" analyses of years 2012, 2030, and post-2030. 4. TIA, page ES-7: the table at the upper portion of this page (and subsequent areas) would need to be modified to reflect the comments in number "3" above. Mr. Michael Philbrick DEIR For Planning Areas 40/12 April 2, 2008 Page 2 5. TIA, page ES-7: the table at the bottom portion of the page indicates the trip totals are for the project site, which appears incorrect. In addition, these totals may be misleading, as they do not reflect the significant changes in land uses proposed as a part of the Project. 6. TIA, page ES-8: NITM is being used as mitigation for the Project, but the NITM analyses do not appear to accurately reflect the land use assumptions for the Project sites (PA 40 and PA 12). 7. TIA, page ES-8: any improvements (including NITM) assumed as mitigation, which are to be constructed in locations that require approval of other Agencies, need to be well coordinated with those other Agencies. The City of Irvine has recently presented to the City of Tustin, a significant road project on Jamboree Road at the I-5 Freeway. Even though the proposed road project significantly affects the City of Tustin, essentially no prior discussion with the City of Tustin occurred. 8. TIA, page ES-9: the traffic analyses contained in the DEIR do not appear to disclose the full impacts of the Project. As an example Figure 3-2 ("Existing ADT Volumes") was compared to Figure 4-1 ("Existing-Plus-Project ADT Volumes"). The DEIR and TIA assume the Project impacts are represented by the difference of the two Figures (and similarly for the other analysis conditions). It can be seen, however, that the volume differences do not appear to accurately represent the approximate 76,300 ADT generated by the proposed Project being distributed to the surrounding roadways. 9. The DEIR traffic analyses assume "with" and "without" Project traffic projections made through the Irvine traffic model ("ITAM"), provide full disclosure of Project traffic impacts. This is not believed to be correct. Given the methodology that was used in the TIA; a significant portion of Project traffic appears to be replacing "existing" and "background/cumulative" traffic in the analyses, but is still identified as existing and background/cumulative traffic (rather than Project traffic). The result is that only a portion of the actual Project related traffic impacts are identified. 10. There should be clear documentation of all Project generated traffic and where these trips travel to/from on the surrounding street system. This will also allow full disclosure of Project related traffic impacts. Right now a portion of the Project traffic appears to be shown and is analyzed as existing and background/cumulative traffic, which serves to "mask" some of the Project impacts. 11. TIA, Table 3-1, page 3-7: shows existing intersection conditions on Jamboree Road (i.e., at Bryan Ave., EI Camino Real, I-5 ramps, etc.) that do not appear to accurately match field operations. There are significant queues on Jamboree Road during peak hours. 12. There is significant existing congestion on the northbound I-5 Freeway, with vehicle queues from the SR-55 Freeway back toward the Jeffery Road and Sand Canyon Avenue interchanges. There is also congestion shown on the southbound I-5 Freeway as well. We believe there will be significant volumes of Project traffic that will use arterial roadways, including those in the City of Tustin, to bypass the I-5 Freeway congestion. It does not appear that the DEIR and TIA properly showed all Project impacts that will Mr. Michael Philbrick DEIR For Planning Areas 40/12 April 2, 2008 Page 3 result from the congested freeway conditions and use of the arterial roadways as a "bypass". 13. DEIR, Table 5.14-2, page 5.14-5: the significance threshold for non-CMP locations under City of Tustin jurisdiction, is a "0.01" or greater Project impact, at locations operating at worse than LOS D. 14. There are significant concerns regarding the methodology used in trying to identify Project impact, as detailed above. Since the methodology for identifying Project traffic impacts appears flawed, the DEIR and TIA conclusions would be invalidated. We request the opportunity to review the document in detail once these issues are resolved. 15. DEIR, Table 1-5, section 5.14: the mitigation measures are based on the current analyses, but the needed improvements need to be updated to reflect full project impacts. For example, the fair share should be based on all Project trips impacting a particular location; the Project trips that are "replacing" existing and background/cumulative traffic, must not be ignored. 16. As mentioned above, there is comparison of existing General Plan trip totals versus proposed General Plan land uses. However, the proposed uses have significantly different trip characteristics (i.e., office versus residential) so even if the "baseline" trip generation totals are equal, their traffic patterns and resulting ,effects are not interchangeable, especially with regard to mitigation needs. 17. The trip generation totals shown in Tables 2-2 through 2-8 of the TIA show the socioeconomic result to be lower than the land use based. Overall, the use of different trip generation rates used for various purposes, NITM, site analyses, and project impact evaluations support the conclusion that the ITAM model may not be an appropriate tool for evaluations of single projects. The current ITAM methodology is also not conducive to public review of development projects, and is inconsistent with the goals of the DEIR. 18. The City of Irvine recently requested the City of Tustin to complete a significant effort to verify ITAM assumptions for areas within the City of Tustin. These efforts have been completed and some discrepancies have been found that should be corrected as a part of this DEIR. 19. Assumptions included in some previous City of Irvine DEIRs were that Barranca Parkway would be improved to an eight-lane facility by year 2012. While the City of Tustin is designing improvements to four lanes in the westbound direction on Barranca Parkway, added information on the improvements to four lanes in the eastbound direction (within the City of Irvine jurisdiction) needs to be provided in the DEIR and how that is planned to be accomplished. 20. There was a signal progression study completed for Barranca Parkway between Red Hill Avenue and Jamboree Road in February 2006 that assured adequate traffic operations on that roadway based on the planned roadway design, future traffic projections, and traffic signal operations. The City of Irvine's Traffic Engineering staff has reviewed and approved the progression analysis. Given the proposed Project is shown to affect travel Mr. Michael Philbrick DEIR For Planning Areas 40/12 April 2, 2008 Page 4 patterns on Barranca Parkway, the potential increase in Project traffic impacts due to previous comments above, different travel patterns due to a change in land use, etc. it must be assured that adequate signal progression along Barranca Parkway will be maintained. Any needed mitigations need to be made a condition of the Project. 21. TIA, Figure 3-2 compared to 4-1: the sum of the traffic volumes arriving /leaving the site do not appear to match the full Project trip generation attributed to the site. These two sources of data should match. 22. The process for inclusion of particular road improvements was discussed. There should be table(s) and/or figure(s) that clearly show the existing and future intersection lane geometries used in the analyses. If the evaluations include assumptions of roadway improvements to be implemented by others, then the source(s) of providing these improvements should also be identified. 23. Previous ITAM projections included an assumption that the Tustin Ranch Road/ Warner Ave intersection would exist only for longer range, future conditions (i.e., post-2030). This is not accurate. As of today the easterly half of this intersection is already constructed, with the westerly half scheduled to be constructed before 2010. Please verify that this assumption has not been made for this study. If this is the case for these ITAM projections, the model runs need to be corrected, as this would probably affect other assumptions and analyses for the year 2012 evaluations. 24. Previous DEIR documents indicated that the actual existing trip generations for an IBC project exceeded the current trip budgets for the project sites. Is this the case for this currently proposed Project? If this is the case, it would be further confirmation that actual area wide traffic impacts may be exceeding previously approved conditions. 25. The IBC has formal TDR policies, which are believed to exacerbate problems associated with situations where trip budgets appear to be significantly exceeded by the actual developments. In some situations (i.e., General Plan conditions, etc.) where actual development may exceed a projected amount, there are also other sites within the large scale plan, that are developed below their expected trip generation potential. In the IBC, however, the TDR policies result in "unused" trip potential being transferred to other sites and increasing traffic intensity at a new location. This serves to eliminate the potential for under-utilized sites to "balance" those sites with excess trip generation. This is essentially the case for this project as trips are in a sense being transferred from PA 1 and PA 9. 26. To emphasize and summarize what was stated earlier in these comments, the ITAM traffic model is used to generate "with project" and "without project", traffic projections and the conclusions about significant project impacts are based on these comparisons. This methodology, however, does not account for traffic displaced by potential project traffic. The result is that only a portion of the project traffic is identified in these evaluations. Some of the actual project generated traffic may be "masked' by existing and cumulative traffic that is redirected to other roadways. While this methodology may be appropriate for large scale evaluations (i.e., General Plans, the IBC as a whole, the Tustin Legacy, etc.) where countless interactions between various land uses need to be Mr. Michael Philbrick DEIR For Planning Areas 40/12 April 2, 2008 Page 5 accounted for through a modeling process; to apply this same procedure to individual projects can be problematic and lead to undisclosed development impacts. When evaluating individual projects, all of their generated traffic should be accounted for and mitigated as necessary. 27. The significance thresholds for locations that involve City of Tustin jurisdiction are also incorrect. The City of Tustin uses a "0.010" threshold for non-CMP locations; not the "0.020" threshold applied in the DEIR. This correction combined with other comments in this memorandum may significantly change the traffic and transportation findings of the DEIR. 28. A "Red Hill Avenue" study has been jointly conducted by the City of Irvine and City of Tustin that includes further definition of traffic mitigation responsibilities for development projects in the IBC. This project should be subject to the findings, requirements, and agreements that will result from this study. The intersection analyses and assumptions in the DEIR should also be consistent with the Red Hill Study results. Red Hill Avenue is actually closer to the Project than some of the study locations in Lake Forest and Laguna Hills. The traffic analyses conclusions for the proposed Project appear to be dependent on the "with" and "without" Project differences, but those underlying assumptions no longer appear to be valid based on the conditions documented in the DEIR and TIA. The traffic analysis should provide analyses that clearly account for all proposed Project volumes and impacts, as well as identify appropriate mitigation improvements. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR for Planning Areas 40 and 12. The City of Tustin would appreciate receiving all additional environmental documents with the responses to our comments when they become available and all future public hearing notices with respect to this project and individual development projects within PA 40 and PA 12. If you have any questions regarding the City's comments, please call me at (714) 573-3016 or Dana R. Kasdan, Engineering Services Manager at (714) 573-3171. Sincerely, Scott Reekstin Senior Planner cc: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Dana Kasdan, Engineering Services Manager Douglas Holland, City Attorney SR:environllrvine Planning Areas 40 and 12 DEIR Comment t_etter.doc