HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment F - City of Irvine Letter and ResponseATTACHMENT F
Letter from the City of Irvine dated April 24, 2013 and
Response letter dated May 7, 2013
General Plan Amendment 2013 -001, Specific Plan Amendment 2013 -001, Development
Agreement 2013 -002, and Agreement for Exchange of Real Property between City of
Tustin and South Orange County Community College District
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Addendum /Initial Study
SCH No. 94071005
May 2013
Agreement for Exchange of Real Property
GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002
Addendum /Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments
Comment Letter A: City of Irvine
OF fissi
iC
April 24, 2013
Community Doic:nprnent
Cis! /', .,ay :n =C.,C Cont.: 'rust PC) :3 ;) 5':. n..e
U
RECEIVED
APR 29 2013
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
Ms. Justina Willkom
Assistant Director- Planning
Community Development Department
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Sent via LISPS and email to: iwiilkomCdttustinca.orq
Subject: General Plan Amendment 2013 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Amendment 2013 -001, and Development Agreement 2013 -002
Dear Ms. Willkom:
City of Irvine staff has conducted a preliminary review of the project noted above
based on the information provided with the City of Tustin Planning Commission
agenda report dated April 23, 2013. Understanding your planned project
schedule while, at the same time allowing Irvine to better understand the project
and whether it might impact facilities in Irvine, we are requesting to meet with you
at your earliest convenience to discuss the following comments and questions.
1. It is unclear from the project description if the proposed intensification of
uses within the area bounded by Valencia Avenue, Red Hill Avenue, Warner
Avenue and Armstrong Avenue will result in a net increase of intensity and
2 AM, PM and ADT trips above and beyond the 2010 approval of the Specific
Plan Amendment. For instance, Scenario 1 results in an Increase of 1,084
AM, 972 PM and 6,241 ADT, while Scenario 2 results in 905 AM, 578 PM
and 6,239 ADT. Alternatively, clarify if intensity would be reduced in other
areas covered within the Specific Plan such that the total intensity and trips
remain consistent with the 2010 Specific Plan approval.
2. Page 1.4 of the traffic study includes the following discussion, 'Based on the
3 findings of the project traffic impact analysis, no expansion of the study area
beyond the limits presented here is warranted." Please provide a response
that explains the methodology used as well as the findings of the previous
May 2013
Agreement for Exchange of Real Property
GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013 -002
Addendum /Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments
3
cont'd.
Ms. Justina Willkom
April 24, 2013
Page 2
project traffic analysis. Was the prior analysis based on the assumption that
there is a net increase in AM, PM and ADT trips above and beyond the 2010
approval of the Specific Plan Amendment? Were the intersections of Red
Hill Avenue/Barranca Parkway/Dyer Road and Armstrong Avenue/Barranca
Parkway included in this prior analysis? Please provide a response
explaining the land uses assumed in the analysis, and provide the resulting
Intersection Capacity Utilization and Level of Service for both Project
Scenario 1 and Alternative Scenario 2 for these two intersections.
We look forward to meeting with you and discussing the above items. If you have
any questions, please contact me at 949- 724 -8383 or via e-mail at
taehricfu ci.irvine.ca.us.
Sincerely,
Timothy N. Gehrich, AICP
Deputy Director of Community Development
cc: (via email)
Barry Curtis, Manager of Planning Services
Kevin Lau, Project Development Administrator
Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst
Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner
David Law, Senior Planner
May 2013
Agreement for Exchange of Real Property
GPA 2013 -001, SPA 2013 -001, DA 2013 -002
Addendum/Environmental Checklist - Responses to Comments
Responses to Comment Letter A
Comment 1:
Comment 2:
Comment 3:
Responses to comments are provided below. Should the City of Irvine have any further
questions, we would be happy to have a conference call or a meeting if necessary.
As noted on pages 1 and 15 through 23 of the Addendum to the MCAS Tustin FEIS /EIR,
the project involves a number of components that the Addendum clearly delineates. One
component of the project is the extension of Bell Avenue, which the Traffic Study
analyzed and determined that with the Bell Avenue extension, there would be increased
roadway capacity in the circulation system (see page 19 of the Addendum). The
increased roadway capacity permits the Increase of the current vehicle trip cap by
10,000 average daily trips (ADT) for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan without triggering
significant adverse effects on the roadway system. The Traffic Study analyzed these
additional trips using the updated background vehicle data from the Irvine Business
Complex Vision Plan contained in the latest City of Irvine Transportation Analysis Model,
Version 12 (ITAM 12), which identified lower number of vehicle trips at key intersections
and roadway segments surrounding the project. The City of Irvine approved the IBC
Complex Vision Plan and traffic study on July 13, 2010, which provided the basis for the
updated background traffic numbers in ITAM 12. The additional roadway capacity created
by the extension of Bell Avenue and the lower number of background vehicle trips
pursuant to the City of Irvine's approved IBC Vision Plan and ITAM 12 permitted the
Increase in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan trip cap by 10,000 ADT without resulting in a
traffic intensification that would lead to increased environmental impacts beyond those
that are already identified In the FEIS /EIR.
As mentioned in the response above to comment #1, the project includes the increase in
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan trip cap. Based on the most recent traffic forecast data
available, which is from ITAM 12, no deficiencies occur with the proposed project. The
latest traffic forecast data on the major roadways near the project site as presented in
the traffic study, are overall lower in volume compared to previous data, which also
results in better level of service for the surrounding intersections than previously shown.
The methodology used to define the project Traffic Study's study area is consistent with
other traffic impact analyses carried out in Tustin and in Irvine. The limits of the study
area were reviewed during the course of the study based on no-project versus with -
project traffic forecast data to verify whether or not significant project impacts occur, as
defined by the circulation system performance criteria applied in the study, beyond the
study area boundary. Based on the findings of the project Traffic Study, which determined
that there are no deficiencies in the defined study area, no expansion of the study area
beyond the limits shown in the report was warranted.
May 2013