Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO.B. 2 IBC EIR 04-06-92AuENuy_6"sy DATE: APRIL 61 1992 OLD BUSINESS NO. 2 4-6-92 r TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX (IBC) - RECIRCULATED DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZQNSNG__.PROJECT _------------------....._._--- -._----------.`_----------------- ---- RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to transmit comments and response (Attachment A) to the City of Irvine on the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) project. BACKGROUND The Irvine Business Center (IBC) Planning Area 36, is a business and industrial complex comprised of approximately 21800 acres in the western portion of the City of Irvine adjacent to the City of Tustin. The IBC Phase I General Plan Amendment and. Rezoning Project includes a Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Circulation Mitigation Program and revised Funding Program including a Fee Program. The purpose of the project will be to amend the present General Plan and Zoning intensity standards to increase approximately 48.255 million gross square feet of existing and approved non-residential development to a maximum of 53.111 million gross square feet of ,existing, approved and projected non- residential development, and increase existing and approved residential units from 3,571 to 3,896 units. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the original Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the IBC Rezoning Project was circulated on December 28, 1990 and the DEIR was circulated for public comment between March 20, 1991 to May 3, 1991. The City of Tustin provided comments on both the NOP and the DEIR. The City Council discussed potential litigation on the project during closed session. Primary comments related to the traffic analysis for the project and specific circulation system improvements. Primarily based on issues raised by the cities of Tustin, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach in their response to the original DEIR for the project, the City of Irvine acknowledged that the original DEIR did not adequately address these issues and they agreed to meet with adjacent cities and revise the original EIR in an attempt to address these concerns. - City Council Report Irvine Business Center (IBC) April 6, 1992 Page 2 Since July 1991 the staffs of the cities of Tustin, Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach have been meeting regularly with the City of Irvine staff to attempt to resolve outstanding issues relative to the EIR and the Rezoning and General related to ons. Several issues of concern to the City of Tustin the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project were identified by Tustin staff. These issues primarily included traffic impacts, funding and phasing of circulation improvements. A revised comment DEIR and has now been prepared and recirculated public review. The public review period is from March 51 1992 to April ,20, 1992. While there has been some agreement between the adjacent cities and the City of Irvine regarding the preparation of a traffic analysis of intersections and link volumes identified in the original NOP and DEIRr many issues remain unresolved and have not been adequately addressed or mitigated in the recirculated Draft EIR. In reviewing the revised DEIR, staff have determined that the proposed project will have significant transportation/circulation impacts on the City of Tustin as well as regional traffic impacts since access routes to the SR -55 and I-5 Freeways will directly utilize the local Tustin street system. Severe traffic impacts to the adjacent streets such as Barranca Parkway, Red Hill Avenue, Jamboree Road, and Edinger Avenue are anticipated to occur as a result of the IBC project. It should be noted and considered in any traffic analysis study that two of these potentially y impacted streets Jamboree Road and Edinger Avenue, are identified as part of the Orange County Congestion Management Highway System. The DEIR states that the proposed project will only have a 1% traffic increase over the existing Gen ral lan Planaffic establishedsa GPA 16, the City of Irvine's existing General maximum building intensity standard of 48.255 million square feet for IBC, the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning project increases that square footage by 4.8 million square feet. It seems highly questionable that traffic levels would only increase by 1% based on an increase of 4.8 million square feet of new business/industrial development. New traffic volumes may be misrepresented ed on - the consolidation and compression of land use categories proposed by new zoning standards. A draft memo to the City of Irvine addressing City of Tustin concerns is attached for the City Council's review. Preparation of _ City Council Report Irvine Business Center (IBC) April 6, 1992 Page 3 these comments has been a joint effort between the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department. R Westfield Assistant Director of Community Development RTW:CAS:kbc\ibcrcdrf.mem /,-� Y . - Christine A. Shingl n Assistant City Manager �T Y O Community Development Department April 2, 1992 Mr. Robert Johnson Community Development Department City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza Irvine, California 92714 City Of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 544-8890 FAX (714) 832-0825 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX (IBC) RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (7234 -GA) AND ZONE CHANGE (88-2C-0135) Dear Mr. Johnson: The City of Tustin appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to the Draft recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). At the April 6, 1992 City Council meeting the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) and the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were discussed in detail. Based on our review of the document, the City of Tustin appreciates the City of Irvine's providing additional traffic information on some intersections and link volumes as originally requested by the City of Tustin. However, there are still many unresolved issues associated with the project and the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. The City of Tustin's principal concerns with the DEIR for the project are that: 1. The proposed Project will have signif icant traf f is impacts on the City of Tustin. 2. Proposed traffic mitigation measures are not fully funded and may be infeasible. 3. The Project has been designed as a two-phase work program with Phase II, the long range development potential of the IBC, being deferred to a later date. 4. A traffic shares analysis would occur after instead of before rezoning action. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes regulations for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a Project. Section 15143 of the Public Resources Code requires that an EIR shall focus on the significant effects on the environment. The significant effects should be discussed with Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex April 2, 1992 Page 2 emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. Through the Notice of Preparation and Draft Environmental Impact Report Review public comment period the City of Tustin identified that the adoption of General Plan Amendment 7734 -GA and Zone Change 88-ZC-0135 would have a significant traffic impact upon the City of Tustin. We believe that the recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report does not adequately respond to the severity of the IBC traffic impacts upon the City of Tustin, and the following items are not adequately addressed. 1. The City of Tustin has previously prepared a response to both the Notice of Preparation and the original draft EIR. While we recognize that there has been some effort to respond to .our previous comments and concerns, the draft EIR fails to adequately mitigate traffic/circulation impacts which would be created by the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project. The City has continually stressed the necessity for the City of Irvine to prepare a comprehensive traffic study as part of the EIR process which identifies improvements, phasing and funding necessary to mitigate IBC impacts. Identification of significant impacts and appropriate mitigation is required by CEQA. 2. The AM and PM peak hour ICU analysis that was prepared is not complete it fails to draw conclusions and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Without a complete traffic study it cannot be determined that the list of roadway improvements proposed for the IBC is complete and accurate. The phasing plan that is proposed is also unclear and subject to reprioritization by the City of Irvine. Improvements in the City of Tustin are all scheduled to occur in Stage II and III, we believe that improvements should be reprioritized to Stage I. rather than Stages II and III, where funding for improvements is not currently available. Se9tion 15147 of the Public Resources Code requires an EIR to include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts. The following items are not adequately addressed in the DEIR: 1. The recirculated DEIR fails to provide the requested comprehensive traffic analysis of intersections and links within the impact area of the City of Tustin. Without this analysis, information on significant environmental traffic Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex April 2, 1992 Page 3 impacts of the IBC- to the City of Tustin can not be sufficiently assessed. 2. CEQA requires that when significant environmental impacts are identified that they be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The IBC EIR does recognize that there will be significant traffic/circulation impacts to areas outside of the City of Irvine. In addition, roadway improvement mitigation measures proposed for the City of Tustin are not feasible. Mitigation measures must be reasonable and implementable, those shown for the City of Tustin are not and therefore should not be considered adequate mitigation for the IBC project. 3. Land Use assumptions have been generalized for IBC. For example, the maximum IBC average daily trips (ADT Is) per square foot is 14.9 ADT/S.F. in comparison to adjacent cities who identify office use at higher ADT/S.F. This penalizes other cities while underassigning traffic generation of IBC at a lower rate. The IBC DEIR has also been reviewed against standards for adequacy of an EIR. Section 15151 of the Public Resources Code requires an EIR to contain a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information enabling them to make a decision taking account the environmental consequences of an action. The IBC EIR fails to provide sufficient analysis on traffic and circulation impacts to the City of Tustin; feasible traffic mitigation measures, funding sources to accommodate shortfall revenues for implementing roadway improvements, as well as items identified in Attachment A. The specific following items are not adequately addressed: 1. The City has reviewed the IBC traffic/circulation mitigation measures. We have continually requested that the DEIR address the constraints and feasibility of the mitigation measures identified within the City of Tustin. As an example, the DEIR includes the widening of Red Hill Avenue from six to eight lanes between Barranca Parkway and Edinger Avenue as a mitigation measure and Red Hill Avenue/Barranca Parkway future laneage. Due to a variety of potential constraints Red Hill Avenue and Red Hill Avenue/Barranca Parkway roadway improvements in Tustin may not be feasible. The DEIR must identify non -feasible mitigation measures and provide alternatives. Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex April 2, 1992 Page 4 2. Revenue sources proposed to fund the traffic mitigation improvements are questionable, and the method of funding the identified shortfall of approximately $100 million needs to be developed as part of the DEIR. 3. The City believes that "trip budget" method proposed by the City of Irvine as a method to establish development intensity for each non-residential parcel in the IBC planning area is a worthy idea in concept. However regulating and monitoring total number of AM and PM peak hour trips allocated to and generated by each parcel in the IBC would be a costly and unmanageable task. This could only be accomplished by conducting regular or at a minimum annual driveway counts for each parcel. CEQA requires a mitigation monitoring program, the DEIR fails to adequately describe a monitoring process which will guarantee that peak hour trips per parcel are not exceeded, as well the DEIR does not address the consequences/penalties for a development project exceeding their allocated trip budget. 4. The City has continued to oppose the concept "traffic shares analysis" which the City of Irvine proposes as a traffic/circulation mitigation measure. We believe the City of Irvine must identify and mitigate IBC traffic/circulation impacts and that surrounding cities should not be responsible for sharing in the expense of studies or transportation improvements created by the IBC project (as recommended by mitigation #10, page IV.A-47). CEQA is -intended to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection of the environment within a reasonable scope of statutory language; that environmental considerations should not become submerged by chopping a larger project up into little ones, each with a minimal impact, which cumulatively would have disastrous consequences. The term "project" under 15378 of the Public Resources Code means the whole of the action which has a potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately. The lead agency must also consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences of a project. The DEIR proposes to defer the comprehensive traffic/circulation study which would determine the circulation impacts resulting from the IBC project to a later date (within twelve (12) months of the adoption of the IBC GPA/Rezoning). By deferring this study, the EIR only addresses a portion of the impact, the full picture is not available for review. The City of Irvine is "chopping up" its Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex April 2, 1992 Page 5 approval process for projects which will cumulatively have a significant environmental impact on surrounding areas. In addition to the above concerns, Attachment A, lists additional comments from the City of Tustin regarding the Draft EIR and technical appendices. These comments should be addressed and appropriate revisions made to the environmental document. Thank you for providing the City of Tustin with the opportunity to review and comment on the IBC and the Draft EIR. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Puckett Mayor CEP:kbc\johnson.#3 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT (RECIRCULATED) PROGRAM EIR FOR THE IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING PROJECT Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures A. Circulation and Traffic 1. In our previous comments on the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR, it was identified that link analysis should be performed for the following streets: a. Red Hill Ave - Barranca Pkwy/Dyer Road to El Camino Real b. Barranca Pkwy - Red Hill Ave to Jamboree Road C. Jamboree Road - Barranca Pkwy to I-5 Frwy d. Proposed Tustin Ranch Road - Edinger Ave to I-5 Frwy e. Edinger Ave - Harvard Ave to SR -55 Frwy f. Newport Ave - (Proposed Extension) from SR -55 Frwy to the I-5 Frwy Only a partial analysis has been performed on Red Hill Avenue and Jamboree Road north of Barranca Pkwy. However, for the remaining portions of these streets as well as the other noted streets, the link analysis should be completed. Conclusions should be drawn and mitigation measures identified. 2. In our previous comments on the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR, the City of Tustin requested that A.M. and P.M. peak hour ICU analysis should be performed for a list of identified intersections for proposed opening year and year 2010. Although this was done, the peak hour ICU analysis should be comprehensive, this includes drawing conclusions and identifying mitigation measures. 3. We had also previously requested that all proposed mitigation should be reviewed with the responsible Agencies to assure that the proposed mitigation is feasible, and the percent contribution by Irvine Business Complex Rezoning is equitable. The DEIR contains numerous traffic improvements as mitigation measures, many of which affect the City of Tustin. City of Irvine staff has been informed that these may not be feasible due to existing roadway configuration and other right-of-way constraints. The recirculated DEIR continues to be proposed non -feasible improvements within the City of Tustin as mitigation measures. As an example, Mitigation Measure "k." on page IV.A-42 states that Red Hill Avenue will be widened from the existing six lanes to eight lanes between Barranca Parkway and Edinger Avenue. Since widening cannot be achieved north of Edinger - this will for all practical purposes, create an immediate Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 2 bottleneck. Further analysis is required to explain what happens to traffic north of Edinger Avenue. As noted in comment No. 1 above, Red Hill Avenue needs to be analyzed from Edinger Avenue to E1 Camino Real just north of the I-5 Freeway. Tustin does not support eight lanes for Red Hill. 4. In our previous comments on the Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR, we identified that the following proposed projects in the City of Tustin should be considered in the Infrastructure Analysis for the Irvine Business Complex Rezoning: a. Moulton Parkway Super Street b. Pacific Center East C. Eastern Transportation Corridor d. Bedford Properties. Although it appears that this document did consider Pacific Center East and Bedford Properties, it should also include the Moulton Parkway Super Street and the Eastern Transportation Corridor in the analysis (including recommended alternative alignments and how these impact traffic volumes). 5. The original DEIR did not adequately address the City of Irvine's Traffic Demand Management Program (TDM), Appendix F, Traffic Study discusses the Traffic Demand Management Program. The traf f is study assumes a change in driving habits that will result in a 15% reduction in AM and PM peak hour IBC commuter trips based on enforcement of the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Regulation XV program, and staggered work hours. While the 15% reduction is a goal that all cities are striving to achieve, it has not been shown that the City of Irvine is presently or can in the immediate future realize the 15% reduction. According to a recent, article in the ITE Journal, August 1991, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Travel Demand Management," by Ken Orski, it is stated that "The analysis so far suggest that travel demand management can have a negligible impact on regional levels of VMT, congestion, and automotive emissions. Further research remains to be done, and much more experience needs to be acquired before we can confidently regard TDM as the primary instrument of attaining and maintaining our congestion reduction and air quality goals." The City of Tustin feels that taking a 15% trip reduction may be premature and somewhat extreme and should not be used as the maximum achievable for every new trip in this analysis without a track record. Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 3 6. Jamboree Road and Edinger Avenue are identified as part of the Orange County Congestion Management Highway System. Traffic analysis for these streets should be performed in accordance with the adopted Orange County Congestion Management Program guidelines. 7. Jamboree Road: In Table 5 "IBC Roadway Improvements - Current General Plan (GP) Network" Jamboree Road - Irvine Center Drive (ICD) to Barranca is identified to be an 8 -lane roadway. This conflicts with Table 9 "IBC Roadway Improvements - 1985 Mitigation Program" in which the program to widen Jamboree Road to 8 -lanes has been reduced to 6 -lanes only. Then in Table 10 "IBC Roadway Improvements - 1991 Mitigation Program," Jamboree Road in this stretch has dropped out completely. Please explain this, as this facility is vital to mitigating traffic from the Irvine Business Complex. The future laneage of Jamboree Road north of Barranca Pkwy and Edinger Avenue has to be compatible with the plans for the Eastern Transportation Corridor. Future expansion of the Jamboree Road laneage north of Barranca Pkwy needs to be coordinated with the expansion of adjacent north -south arterials such as Harvard Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road. Please provide a complete analysis of this and also identify any other impacts to the adjacent north -south arterials: Tustin Ranch Road and Harvard Avenue. 8. Mitigation Measure #10, on page IV.A-47, the City has taken a position in numerous previous correspondence opposed to the use of the 5 -City Study as the basis for identifying and mitigating IBC impacts. (See our letters on 5 City Study/Nexus to Irvine. What your EIR calls the Nexus Study to be performed within 12 months of adoption of this document.) We continue to maintain the position that the IBC project under CEQA should identify at this time and mitigate all of its adverse impacts to the surrounding communities. 9. Appendix A, pg. 55 -57, the cover letter to the City of Irvine regarding the Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study is missing here, but it is included as pages 92 and 93. These two documents should be rearranged to reflect that pages 55-57 are an attachment to pages 92-93. 10. Intersection Analysis, Group A - Red Hill/Barranca/Dyer, on page IV. A-4 and Exhibit 7, the ICU maximum value should be LOS Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 4 D, and not LOS E, since this is a shared intersection with the Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin. 11. Although the DEIR represents that the implementation of an Advanced Traffic Management Systems (AIMS) system in the subject area may produce a six percent improvement in traffic flow, it will not increase roadway capacity and has limited experience . Furthermore, we are curious as to what happens to this IBC traffic when it reaches adjacent cities that do not have an ATMS system. It appears that any benefits derived from an ATMS system in Irvine will be lost in adjacent communities that do not have an ATMS system. Justification of any improvements derived from the implementation of an ATMS system should be provided and the 6% reduction should not be added to traffic as it moves into adjacent cities. 12. Thus far this document has not identified any impacts due to capacity constraints of the freeway system on arterial streets. Please analyze this situation and provide suitable mitigation to offset any adverse impacts. 13. IBC roadway improvements have been prioritized into three stages. Stages I and II roadway improvements will serve the interim phase level of development for IBC, the remainder of the City of Irvine and, adjacent cities. The EIR defines interim as short range which includes entitled and existing development projects. Stage III adds the improvements needed for buildout. The DEIR states that the City of Irvine can make minor deviations, over time and adjust the hierarchy of improvements. The City of Tustin does not agree that the City of Irvine should be able to adjust the timing/phasing of improvements and in addition does not agree with the prioritization of improvements which put all the improvements in adjacent cities in Stage II. It is also unclear as to how the improvements are prioritized within each Stage. Are we to assume that the order of intersection and arterial improvements within in stage is the prioritization ranking, please clarify. "Roadway Improvement Phasing," page IV.A-30 and Appendix F, Chapter VI, "Interim Phase Analysis." Identify the mechanism that determines the implementation of Stage I, II, III improvements. How are these going to be prioritized? Provide additional discussion to clearly demonstrate that future impacts will be appropriately mitigated when they occur. Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 5 14. We are concerned that the implementation of a "Trip Budget" concept provides the opportunity for a change in the mix of land uses thereby presenting the possibility of exceeding the trip generation levels in the analysis. Furthermore, a mix in land uses could also alter trip distribution patterns. Additional information on this concept needs to be provided. 15. Appendix F, Table VII -4, "Incremental ICU Contributions," please revisit and correct intersection ICU's that show A.M. peak hour ICU's substantially higher than P.M. peak hour ICU's. This requires further analysis. The intersections in question are: Jamboree Road & I-5 NB Ramps, Jamboree Road & I-5 SB Ramps, Jamboree Road & Walnut Ave, Red Hill Ave & Edinger Ave, and Red Hill Ave & Warner Ave. 16. "Traffic Shares Analysis," Appendix F, page VII -9 and Table VII -6, also referenced in text on page IV.A-21, "Impact on Adjacent Cities." Provide methodology for the traffic shares analysis. From the information provided, it is difficult to determine the equitability of the analysis. B. Land Use 1. In our previous comments we requested expanded discussion and definition of what constituted "approved development". The Recirculated DEIR responds that approved development includes all Vesting Maps, Development Agreements, Conditional Use Permits, Master Plans, Zoning Compliance and building permits within the IBC. There are ten (10 ) major IBC projects that constitute these "approved developments", and they account for approximately seven (7) million square feet of additional development above existing conditions. The Draft EIR does not respond to what actions can or should be taken to reduce the intensity of these "approved developments". The City of Irvine staff in response has indicated that they legally are prohibited from reducing square footages of existing agreements, entitlements or approvals. The alternatives section of the DEIR should respond to reduction of approved intensities and/or revocation of "approved developments" and entitlements. 2. The DEIR states that for purpose of determining build -out a building intensity of 0.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of office equivalent development will be applied to identified vacant/underutilized parcels, but does not identify the number or locations of these parcels considered vacant/underutilized. Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 6 The DEIR has a table indicating an increase of 2.308 million square feet of zoning potential over and above the entitled development, it is assumed that this zoning potential refers to the vacant/underutilized parcels, although the DEIR is not clear on this point, please clarify. 3. Page IV.B-3 of the DEIR provides discussion of existing surrounding land uses, the description is brief and there is no substantial discussion or evidence regarding compatibility of adjacent existing land uses in other cities and the proposed project, this should be included in the DEIR. On Page IV.B-7 there is a statement that no significant land use impacts are anticipated to commercial/ industrial land uses adjacent' to the IBC, as these are considered substantially compatible with proposed IBC uses. Light and glare impacts from high-rise buildings and electromagnetic interference has been identified as maybe having a significant impact on John Wayne Airport and United States Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. C. Employment and Housing The DEIR provides a relatively extensive discussion on the jobs/housing balance issues. The City of Irvine is considered a jobs rich/housing poor city, development of the IBC Rezoning and General Plan Amendment project will result in worsening this imbalance by providing more employment. The entire buildout of the IBC project proposes a total of 153,673 jobs this includes an additional 39,646 jobs through implementation of the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning action and 3,896 dwelling units resulting in a jobs housing ratio of 1.76. The jobs/housing balance ratio established for the southeast Orange Subregion is 1.44. In order for the City of Irvine to achieve a jobs/housing balance of 1.44 and additional 19,403 dwelling units would need to be constructed. The City of Irvine's Housing Element will not account for the full 19,403 additional units therefore other areas and adjacent cities will be impacted by providing housing opportunities for employees of the IBC. Please provide more discussion on the effect to the City of Tustin on providing housing for IBC employees. Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 7 D. Funding Program 1. Traffic Mitigation improvements for the IBC projects is estimated at a cost of $250 million (1991 dollars including a 15% - 20% contingency) . Included in the $250 million is a cost of $35 - $45 million for circulation mitigation program improvements in surrounding jurisdictions Appendix D, IBC Circulation Improvements Funding Program discusses funding sources to provide revenue for the implementation of the circulation improvements. The funding program consists of a new IBC Development Fee Program, Local, Regional and Federal Grant programs, a Benefit Assessment District and/or other alternative funding mechanisms. There is currently approximately $30 million available through previously collected fees, it is estimated that the new IBC Development Fee Program will generate an additional $80 million over the life of the IBC Project, an estimated additional $11 million generated by vested projects which have not yet received their building permits and an estimated approximate $31 million through local, regional and federal sources (Measure M, Arterial Highways Finance Program, Proposition 111 and Combined Road Program). Assuming that these revenue projections are correct, there will still be a $98 million dollar circulation improvement shortfall. This shortfall is anticipated to be covered by either the establishment of a Benefit Assessment District or an Advanced Payment Program whereby developers could make a cash payment or post surety of their share of funding shortfall allowing them to bypass a development phasing program. It should be noted that the City of Tustin does not agree with the revenue projections anticipated from local, regional and federal sources ($31 million). There are too many variables that could affect revenues from these sources already the estimated Measure M revenues to cities has dramatically decreased because of the current economic recession and the continued viability of other federal and state programs are uncertain at this time. In addition there is no basis to estimate that revenue from alternative funding sources (Benefit Assessment District, Advanced Payment) can cover the shortfall. The DEIR states that the studies to determine the exact amount and allocation of funds required by the Assessment District has not been completed at this time. CEQA requires all impacts and mitigation measures must be identified. Attachment A April 6, 1992 Page 8 2. As part of our previous comments on the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR, the City of Tustin requested that all capital improvement mitigation involving Tustin should be clearly documented in the EIR, identifying the proposed source(s) for funding; timing for construction; and responsible parties for coordinating project construction. This has not been done for all locations identified in this document that are impacted by this project. Specifically, intersections identified in Appendix F where incremental ICU contributions by IBC are substantial; intersections 85, 86, 92, 34, 95, 100, 102, and 104 require further analysis to mitigate impacts from the IBC project. RN:kbc\ibcrcdrf.mem