Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 3 IBC EIR 09-08-92OLD BUSINESS NO. 3 9-8-92 - ...0• - 'y� jnter - Com )ATE: SEPTEMBER 81 1992-'� TO: WILLIAM A.-HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX (IBC) - RECIRCULATED "01�AFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND _ �1T7 if mT1tA 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 Complex (IBC) Planning Area 36, is a business and industrial complex comprised of approximately 2,800 acres in the western portion of the City of Irvine adjacent to the City of Tustin. The City of Irvine proposes to rezone the area and amend the City's General Plan accordingly. 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 55.818 million gross square feet and increase existing and approved residential units from 3,571 to 3,896 units. The IBC project will- generate 63,346 AM Peak Hour trips, 76,035 PM Peak Hour trips and 811,296 Average Daily trips. On December 28, 1990, the City of Irvine issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the original Draft Environmental Impact .Report (DEIR) for the IBC Rezoning Project. Subsequently, the DEIR was circulated for public comment on March 20, 1991. Due to comments and issues on the traffic analysis, proposed circulation improvements, zoning and land use compatibility and infeasible mitigation measures that were raised by the adjoining cities it was necessary that the DEIR be revised and a second DEIR was circulated on March 5, 1992. It should be noted that traffic impact issues and mitigation measure issues were not satisfactorily dealt with in the first, second or third iteration of the environmental document. Again due to changes regarding development potential and funding it was necessary for the City of Irvine to prepare a third DEIR which is now being circulated for public comments. City Council Report Irvine Business Complex (IBC) September 8, 1992 Page 2 The City of Tustin has scrupulously provided responses/comments at all phases of the public comments periods. Primary o6mments have related to the City of Irvine's attempt to compel surrounding cities to participate in a traffic shares study and to share in the cost of needed improvements to offset circulation/traffic impacts created by the IBC; and the proposal to dictate the widening of Red Hill Avenue between Barranca Parkway and Edinger Avenue to eight traffic lanes as a mitigation measure within the City of Tustin. In response to the Red Hill Avenue widening portion proposed by the City of Irvine, the City of Tustin recommended alternative mitigation measures which would better enhance roadway capacities within the City of Tustin to mitigate anticipated IBC traffic demands. Further, the City of Tustin staff has continued to be available to meet and negotiate with the City of Irvine in an attempt to find resolution to the projected traffic impacts that will be created by the project. Since July 1991, the City of Tustin has participated in on-going meetings with the City of Irvine on the IBC Rezoning and General Plan amendment project. The City of Tustin participated with other cities with the expectation that outstanding traffic related issues might be resolved. Unfortunately, the two cities are still at an impasse and these issues still remain unresolved. The City staff has attempted to keep the City Council apprised of all ongoing activities related to the IBC. On June 1, 1992, staff requested, and the City Council authorized, City staff to negotiate and prepare a MOU between the cities of Irvine and Tustin related to traffic mitigation on the IBC. Although the framework for an MOU was discussed with the City of Irvine, the City of Irvine did not respond back to the City of ,Tustin. The latest revisions to the project, which prompted the third DEIR, were necessitated by pressure from the small businesses and property owners within the IBC. The Irvine City Council formed an IBC -Ad -Hoc Committee and based on the Committee and Council's direction, the following revisions were made to the project: 1. The formula for calculating development potential for vacant and underutilized parcels was revised, permitting 2.764 million square feet of additional office development equaling 3,814 more PM peak hour trips. City Council Report Irvine Business Complex (IBC) September 81 1992 Page 3 2. Revise assumption for occupancy levels from 92% down to 85%, thereby reducing trip generation assumptions (NOTE: City of Tustin uses 100% occupancy when calculating trip generation). 3. Allow number of vehicle trips permitted per parcel to be taken from one parcel and transferred to another -parcel within the IBC. 4. Cost and revenue assumptions for the funding shortfall have been reevaluated. Cost estimates for needed improvements have been reduced from $250 million to $222 million and alternate funding sources have been identified. Comments on the DEIR from reviewing agencies and interested persons are due on September 21, 1992. The staff of the City of Irvine has developed the following tentative study session and public hearing schedule for the Rezoning/General Plan Amendment actions and EIR Certification: August 24 - Study Session with City of Irvine Transportation Commission September 17 - Study Session with City of Irvine Planning Commission October 5 - Public Hearing by City of Irvine Transportation Commission October 8 - Public Hearing. by City of Irvine Planning Commission October 13 - Public Hearing by City of Irvine City Council October 27 - Ordinance Second Reading by City of Irvine City Council A draft memo to the City of Irvine addressing the City of Tustin's concerns is attached for the City Council's review. Preparation of City Council Report Irvine Business Complex (IBC) September 8, 1992 Page 4 these comments has been a joint effort between the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department,r ",z - I -- Christine A. Shing ton Assistant City Ma ager CAS:DK:kbc\ibc#2.rw Dana Kasdan Engineering Services Manager S� Y O _ et� Community Development Department City Of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue August 28, 1992 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 544-8890 FAX (714) 832-0825 Mr. Robert Johnson }� Community Development Department City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza Irvine, California 92714 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX (IBC) RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (7234 -GA) AND ZONE CHANGE (88-ZC-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). We understand that it was necessary to recirculate the Draft EIR due to the following revisions that were incorporated into the IBC General Plan Amendment/Zone Change project: Increased development potential, (2.76 million square feet of office potential equaling 3,814 more PM peak hours trips) inclusion of transfer of development rights process, changes to occupancy level assumption, revised cost estimates and alternative funding sources. The City of Tustin feels that there are still many unresolved issues associated with the original project the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project: The addition of 3,800 PM peak trips and 2.8 million square feet of development potential will further negatively impact the City of Tustin. The IBC Project which is estimated to generate 811,296 ADT's will have significant traffic impacts on the City of Tustin. Proposed funding for traffic mitigation measures are contingent in part upon local, regional, federal funding sources ($31 million) and UCI and IRWD participation and may be overestimated and/or infeasible. As you are aware, the City of Tustin has been following the process of the IBC General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project since the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR was first circulated on December 28, 1990. During each public review and comment period the City of Tustin responded with written comments on the Notice of Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex August 28, 1992 Page 2 Preparation and subsequently on the Original Draft EIR and the first recirculated Draft EIR. The Draft EIR has bedn revised a second time and is now being recirculated for public comments. Throughout the Notice of Preparation and the two Draft Environmental Impact Report public comment periods the City of Tustin identified that the adoption of General Plan Amendment 7734 - GA and Zone Change 88-ZC-0135 would have significant traffic impacts upon the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin has attempted to work with the City of Irvine to achieve a satisfactory agreement related to traffic mitigation. Back on May 19, 1992, the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was recommended by the City of Tustin to the City of Irvine. The purpose of a MOU would be to establish feasible circulation improvements within the City of Tustin and funding obligations of those improvements by the City of Irvine. We are very disappointed that the City of Irvine has not favorably responded to the MOU concept and has not taken the opportunity over the last 2-3 months to resolve the issues at hand. We believe that the impact has been exacerbated by the latest revisions made to the project. The recirculated DEIR does not adequately mitigate or respond to the traffic/circulation issues previously raised by the City of Tustin and does not satisfactorily mitigate the impacts of the increase in number of vehicle trips now proposed as part of the mid -course correction. 1. In reviewing the recirculated DEIR, the City of Tustin is not in agreement with the evaluation of impacts as related to the increase in square footage, increase in number of vehicle trips and decrease in occupancy levels. Basically what has been done is to reduce projected occupancy levels to 85% in order to make up for the increased square footage allocations of 2.76 million square feet. The result of this manipulation is to keep projected traffic levels at the same levels as represented in the previous DEIR which analyzed traffic based on 53.111 million gross square feet of non-residential development. For determining peak hour generation rates buildout conditions should analyze the worst case situation at 100% occupancy. This would give a true and accurate picture of what affect 55.818 million square feet of development in the IBC would have on your community and surrounding cities. Traffic volumes and needed traffic mitigation improvements are grossly misrepresented based on underestimation of occupancy levels. Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex August 28, 1992 Page 3 2. The IBC Circulation Improvement Funding Program which is intended to ensure availability of sufficientr funds for circulation improvements appears to be not viable. Sources of estimated revenues from local, regional and federal programs are questionable. Discussion under Appendix D -Funding Program acknowledges that staff will make every effort to obtain this funding and allocations will vary and are contingent and dependent upon conditions out of the City's control. The Program estimates $30.9 million over a 20 -year period from these sources, and another $6.5 million from UCI and IRWD participation. However, due to the highly discretionary and speculative nature of these funds, they should not be accounted for in the total estimated revenue. Obviously, the City of Tustin is concerned with your identified $28 million shortfall and the above referred to $37.4 million outside funding sources which represents approximately 30% of your funding program, since a portion of these monies are needed to provide traffic mitigation improvements within the City of Tustin. As identified in all our previous responses and correspondence we feel that the impacts created by IBC on adjacent jurisdictions should be a priority for mitigation. Your program, however, provides for process by which the IBC Circulation Advisory Committee which will be comprised of appointees of the City Council, city staff and Irvine developers who will prioritize improvements and set an implementation schedule. As the program is described, adjacent impacted cities like Tustin will be denied input and our fears are that improvements in our community will be placed at the bottom of the list. 3. The City of Tustin continues to oppose Mitigation Measure #8 which attempts to force the City of Tustin into participating in a nexus study based on a traffic share analysis. This condition lays out obligations on the part of adjacent cities, mitigation conditions should be imposed only on the City of Irvine and your developers. We believe the City of Irvine must mitigate IBC traffic/circulation impacts and surrounding cities should not be responsible or conditioned to participate or fund your study. While we have attempted to work cooperatively with you and provided any and all data you requested, we believe it is not within Irvine's authority to dictate that we fund improvements within our city when the need has been generated by the IBC project. Letter to Robert Johnson Irvine Business Complex August 28, 1992 Page 4 All previous comments are attached (Attachment A) and still apply. In addition, new comments are appropriate given the a tiered nature of the project and are identified in Attachment A1. 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 Draft EIR. Sincerely Yours, Christine A. Shingleton Assistant City Manager CAS:kbc\Johnson.#4 ATTACHMENT A(1) 3RD DRAFT (RECIRCULATED) PROGRAM EIR FOR THE IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING PROJECT A. Mitigation Measures 1. Measure #7, has been added to address the Development and Circulation Phasing Plan. 2. Measure #8. The City of Tustin opposes this nexus study and traffic shares analysis for the reasons cited in our previous comments. 3. Mitigation requiring compliance to City's Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) has been deleted. Provide explanation of how employees and/or building owners will be required to submit TRO plans. 4. Mitigation #39 has been revised and requirement for documenting circulation improvements and public facilities as part of the Annual Monitoring Report has been deleted. Provide explanation of how this will affect the project. B. Project Description 1. Table I, page 3-11, IBC Land Use Summary has been changed. Reductions in existing Office and Industrial square footage since 2-7-92 (previous DEIR) to 7-15-92, are shown, please explain. Total square footage of 55.818 million varies slightly from total square footage cited elsewhere in DEIR and traffic study. All square footages cited should be the same, the document should be revised to reflect this. 2. Table 2a, page 3 - 15, has been changed to reflect changes in Table I. See comments for Table I, above. C. Environmental Setting 1. Page IV. A-5. Common practice for trip generation analysis is to study worst case scenario using 100% occupancy. The traffic study should show comparison between 100%, 92% and 85% levels of occupancy. 1 2. Page 4, A-9. Discussion under Trip Budget states that the trip budget concept ensures that trip generation levels are not exceeded. This statement seems to be in conflict with the proposed ordinance which permits the Council to approve a rezone and general plan amendment which will allow trip budgets to be exceeded. 3. Page 4, M-5, Table 32b Estimates of total existing employees in IBC has been changed from last EIR, provide explanation on the change. 4. Page 5 - 10 & 11, Table 33. Pacific Center East in the City of Tustin should be identified as 2.2 million square feet. Table 33 is a list of proposed projects. Pacif is Center East currently contains approximately 1.090 million square feet, new square footage will be 2.2 million. C. Appendices 1. Zoning Ordinance a. Page 2-12, #6. Master Plans should be required for lesser developments as well. The threshold of 10 acre site size is too large, cumulative impacts of sites less than 10 acres can be great. b. Page 2-12, #7 Trip allocation thresholds should be less. Cumulative impacts. C. Page 2-12, #9. Define principal uses. d. Page 2-14, A. Traffic Study Guidelines are referenced, they should be included in this document. e. V.E. - 836.5.1 (B) (5) (A) Adjustments to Data Base. No adjustments should be allowed, except where existing square footage has been previously incorrectly recorded. f. V.E. - 836. 5.3 . Procedure for Analysis of Average Daily Trips (ADT). Since mitigation is based on concept of a trip budget, the ordinance should not have provisions for exceeding allocated ADT. g. V.E. - 836.5.4 (C)(1) Findings for conditional use approval state that A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip allocation will not be exceeded. This is inconsistent with ordinance provisions for exceeding trip budget. h. V.E. 836.5.5 (C)(3) This ordinance provision allows additional office square footage for each square foot of amenity area. What affect will this have on maximum peak 2 hour trip generation rates, has this been accounted for in traffic study?. 2. Summary of Revisions Under the Land Use Element discussion it is noted that the City will undertake annual General Plan Amendments to revise and update square footage figures for the IBC, to make necessary adjustments. The discussion should specify that square footage allocation and trip budget allocations will not be increased. 3. Funding Program a. Page 3. Paragraph 3. In discussion regarding revenue generated from vested projects, the last DEIR stated this number was $11 million, this estimates approximately one half that amount. Provide explanation of the change. b. Page 3. Local, Regional and Federal Funding Sources. Refer to discussion in cover letter. C. Page 10. There is a discrepancy between discussion in V and VI regarding the development phasing plan. In Part V, it states that the City Council "will" establish the plan, in Part VI it states that the City Council "may" initiate the plan. 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,42states 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 4nalyzed from Edinger Avenue to El 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 .ial'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. S. Mitigation Measure #10, on page IV.A-471 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 positionthat 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 (ATMS) 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 61 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 pKbeeding 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-211 "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, of is assumed that this zoning potpotial 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 f1991 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, 94, 95, 100, 102, and 104 require further analysis to mitigate impacts from the IBC project. RW:kbc\ibcrcdrf.mem `1 y FE: AUGUST 24, 1992 Inter -Com ^�sTti� TO: CHRISTINE A. SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: ROBERT S. LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: THE IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX (IBC) GENERAL PLAN AMi0NDMENT AND REZONING PROJECT RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR (P.A. FIDE NO. 1576) In response to a recent request from Rita Westfield of the Community Development Department, the Engineering Division has reviewed the recirculated Draft EIR (August, 1992) for the noted project. The recirculated Draft EIR does not appear to adequately.address or, mitigate traffic/circulation issues previously identified by the City of Tustin. Attached are our previous comments that still apply to -this project. Additionally, the following comments address the recent changes in the recirculated Draft EIR. (August 1992): 1. The additional 3800 p.m. peak trips and 2.8 million square feet of development potential will further adversely impact the City of Tustin's circulation system. Based upon the revised assumption of occupancy levels (lowered from 92% to 85%), the Draft EIR concludes that there will not be further traffic impacts associated with the increased peak trips. The Engineering Division disagrees with this analysis and feels that further analysis should be performed based upon a worst case scenario, or 100% occupancy levels, which represents the typical analysis procedure performed by the Traffic Engineering Community when studying such matters., 2. The proposed increase in trip maximum may appear to allow for more flexibility for the future development of parcels which currently have under a 0.25 FAR in office trips, but the additional total trips generated with the increase in available square footage of office use will require mitigation of their associated adverse impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, Dana Kasdan, or Doug Anderson of my staff. Robert S. Ledendeaker Director of Public Works/City Engineer Attachment RSI,;DA:irccom7 ck- Dana R. Kasdan Rita Westfield Douglas R. Anderson Inter -Com A7 MARCH 30, 1992 O: RITA WESTFIELD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROM: DANA R. KASDAN, ENGINEERING SERVICES MANAGER REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS: DRAFT (RECIRCULATED) PROGRAM EIR FOR THE .UBJECT: • IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND R�'ZONING PROJECT (P.W. FILE NO. 1570) - The Engineering Division has reviewed the submitted materials for the noted project in response to the Community Development Department's recent request. In reviewing this material, it was determined thaV. ,#, As. project will have transportation/circulation impacts on the City of Tustin. This project will have local as well as regional traffic impacts. Access routes to the SR -55 and I-5 Freeways will directly utilize the local Tustin street system. The City of Tustin Public Works Department has determined that the rezoning of this project will result in severe traffic impacts to the adjacent streets such as Barranca Parkway, Red Hill Avenue, -Jamboree Road, and Edinger Avenue. Jamboree Road and Edinger venue are identified as part of the Orange County. Congestion .lanagement Highway System and traffic impact analysis should be performed in accordance with the adopted Orange Coupty Congestion Management Program guidelines. It is apparent that an effort has been made to address our previous comments for the Notice of Preparation in January 1991 and for the Draft EIR in the Spring of 1991, however, some of the responses require further analysis and explanations. Additionally, issues that should be addressed in the EIR for this project are included as Attachment A of this memo. If you have any f questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Doug Anderson of my staff. Thank you or the opportunity to review this material. Af Dana R. Kasdan Engineering Services ager DRK:DA:kIb:IRVEIR2 Robert S. ledendecker Douglas R. Anderson Attachment ATTACHMENT A DRAFT (RECIRCULATED) PROGRAM EIR FOR THE IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING PROJECT TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION COMMENTS 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 Some analysis has been performed on Red Hill Avenue and_Qr.4Lmboree Road north of Barranca Pkwy. However, for the remaining portions of these streets as well as the other noted streets, the -analysis should be completed. Conclusions should be drawn and mitigation measures identified where appropriate. . 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 our ICU analysis should be performed for a list of identified intersections for proposed opening year and year 2010. Although this was done, the analysis should be completed by drawing conclusions and identifying mitigation measures where appropriate. 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. As of this date, this has not been completed. 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. It was previously requested that the EIR provide justification for the 15% trip reduction for Transportation Demand Management that is used in the traffic analysis. Although some discussion has been provided in this document, we are extremely concerned with taking a reduction for this project. According to a recent article in the ITE Journal, August 19911 "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 in this analysis without justification. :f 6. 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 part=ies for coordinating project construction. This has not been done for all locations identified in this document that are impacted by this ---oroject. Specifically, intersections identified in Appendix F here incremental ICU contributions by IBC are substantial; intersections 85, 86, 92, 94, 95, 100, 102, and 104 require further analysis to mitigate impacts from the IBC project. . 7. 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. 8. 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. How will this widening be accomplished? Is it feasible? This may require a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element in the City cf Tustin. 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. 9. Re: Jamboree Road: In Table 5 "IBC Roadway Improvements - Current GP Network" Jamboree Road - 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 E --Program," Jamboree Road `_ease explain this, raffic from the Irvin in this stretch has dropped out completely. as this facility is vital to mitigating e 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 nort"fi-south arterials: Tustin Ranch Road and Harvard Avenue. 10. Re: Mitigation Measure #10, on page IV.A-47, the Engineering Division sees no reason for the City to participate ire the proposed Nexus Study to be performed within 12 months of adoption of this document. We continue to maintain the position that this project under CEQA should identify and mitigate all of its. adv�zse .impacts to the surrounding communities. We see no purpose in, duplicating the efforts of the current Five City Study which is providing a similar type analysis as proposed by this mitigation meastire. 11. Re: 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. 12. Re: Intersection Analysis, Group A - Red Hill/ Barranca/ Dyer,, on page IV.A-4 and Exhibit 7, the ICU maximum value should be LOS D, and not LOS E, since this is a shared intersection with the Cities of Santa Ana and Tustin. 13. Although the implementation of an ATMS system'in the subject area may produce a six percent improvement in traffic flow, this does not increase roadway capacity. 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 are lost in adjacent communities that do not have an ATMS system. What surveillance, if any, is planned for adjacent communities to continue continuity of the benefits of the ATMS system improvements? Justification of any improvements derived from the implementation of an ATMS system should be provided. 14. 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. 3 Re: "Roadway Improvement Phasing," page IV.A-30 and Appendix 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. 16. 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 tete 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. - 17. .Re: 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. 18. Re: "Traffic Shares Analysis," Appendix F, page VII -9 and Table VII -61 also referenced in text on page IV.A-211 "Impact on Adjacent Cities." Provide methodology for the traffic shares analysis. From the information provided, it is difficult to 'etermine the equitability of the analysis. 4