Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 6 VILLAGE 14 EIR 04-15-85.... '~ REPORTS AGENDA',-,,,'- : Inter- Corn f'~DATE April 15, 198~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: HONORABLE FIAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL COMNUNITY D[VELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VILLAGE 14 EIR: CITY OF IRVINE BACKGROUND: The subject EIR discusses the l~acts resulting from the development of Village 14 south, also known as Westpark. The first proposal for Village 14 was submitted by The Irvtne Company in September 1978. A Draft [IR was prepared, but never distributed, and the project was withdrawn shortly thereafter. The earlier project encompassed 1,365 acres, proposing 8,600 dwelling units. The current Concept Plan and General Plan Amendment proposal requests a d/vision of the original Village 14 into two planning area, to be known as the Vtllage of Westpark (Village 14 south) and Village 38 (north of Barranca Parkway). The Concept Plan addresses only that portion of previously designated Village 14 which 1les south of the current alignment of Barranca Parkway. DISCUSSION: o In order to condense the size of the EIR and focus on issues, key impact areas are detailed in synopsis form. They include: The project consists of 833 acres south of Barranca Parkway and north of the 405 freeway, between Culver Drive on the east and Peters Canyon Wash/San Diego Creek on the west. It is next to the Village of Woodbridge to the east and the Industrial Business Complex on the west. The project area contains one existing residential development. Culverdale contains 460 single family dwellings on 101.3 acres (4.50Us/AC). The new plan for Village 14 tncludes 1) low to high density residential (6,400 units on 496 acres) 2) 133 acres of general/village commercial and offices, and 3) an 18 acre City Civic Center site. Although combtned dwe111ng units for both villages are proposed not to exceed the unit ceiling established in the General Plan, The Irvine Company wishes to increase residential densities in the newly proposed Village 14. The net effect will be a transfer of density from Village 38 to Village 14 to allew the development of more affordable housing (apartments) in a shorter period of time. Residential development is proposed to be phased over seven years with 48~ of the units (3,076) to be built between 1986-88. Another 41~ (2,642 units) is proposed for 1989-90, and the remaining 11) {682 units) between 1990-92. The overall residential density is quite high, 12.9 units per gross acre. -- i WESTPARK / CITY OF IRVINE Culbertson, Adams & Associates Planning Consultants VILLAGE Of WESTPARK LOCAL SETTING EXHIBIT 2 COMMUNITY PARK COMME;C,AL- ~\ ,~ ~. COMMERCIAL COM- MERCIAL MEDIUM NIGN DENSITY MSOIUM NIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ME01UM OEN$1TY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM 0ENSITY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM NIGI' DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIOENTIA POTENTIAL CIVIC CENTER SITE CITY I~I= ll=IVIN ¥-?~_-__ Culbertson, Adams Planning Consultants PROPOSED ELEMENTARY SCHOOL VILLAGE OF WESTPARK LAND USE PLAN EXHIBIT 5 INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACE []ELEMENTARY ]¥~'i] INTE R MED IA T E -'~ HIGH SCHOOL []UTILITIES COMMERCIAL []DISTRICT ~'~ COM~RCI~ RECREATION INDUSTRIAL []GENERAL ~ BUSINESS & FREEWAY THRUWAY PARKWAY COLLECTOR Boundary~e ~ REGIONAL PARK/OPEN SPACE ] COMMUNITY PARK ] GOLF COURSE ] WATER MCAS [H) BounOal RESICENTIAL ] LOW DENSITY (1.0-5 DU/ACRE] ~ MEDIUM DENSITY (5-10 DU/ACRE) ~ MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY [10'25 DU/ACRE) HIGH DENSITY (25-50 DU/ACRE) ] MULTI-USE CITY OF IRVINE  Culbertson, Adams & Associates 2000 Feet VILLAGE OF WESTPARK EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT EXHIBIT I I ~ City Council Report Vtllage 14 page two Commercial development is proposed to coincide with the residential over a seven year period, starting in 1986. 39 acres of commercial, 12 acres of office and the 18 acre Civic Center are proposed for 1986-88. Another 28 acres of commercial and 21 acres of office are proposed for 1989-90, and the remaining 32 acres of commercial is scheduled for 1990-92. Mixed uses are proposed for an area adjacent to San Diego Creek, Main Street, Harvard Avenue and the 405 freeway. The area has two elementary schools (one currently exists), eight parks and also contains the confluence of Peters Canyon Wash with San Diego Creek. The City has recently adopted a bond program to provide construction and mortgage financing benefits for the development of apartments. At a minimum, at least 85% of the bond proceeds must be expended by December 1986. Three sites in Westpark totalling 550 units are eligible for this special financing. Without the construction of these apartments, it is very likely that the bond program commitments will not be met in time by the City of Irvine. ° Governmental approvals being requested include: 1) A General Plan Amendment to: a) Divide old Village 14 into Villages 14 and 38j b) Add medium high density to' list of permitted uses. c) Create flexibility in density ranges of 10~ as long as planning area total is not exceeded. d) Allow over 40 DU/AC for senior citizen projects. 2) A concept plan to identify opportunities and resolve issues for the entire planned village, and 3) a zone change from Development Reserve to Village Community zoning to accommodate the proposed development plan. This background information indicates The Irvine Company and the City of Irvine are trying to accelerate their ability to develop affordable housing in order to meet their 1984 Multi-family Bond Program commitments. This points out one of the major problems with the EIR's traffic study, the remaining three quarters of the traffic generated by Village 14 (97,000 ADT) impacts the surrounding region, and yet, there is no evaluation of the project's impact or cumulative impacts of this and other Irvine projects on the regional freeway system, or upon Tustin local transportation systems. The only freeway impacts evaluated in the study are the Culver/I-405 interchange and the Myford and Culver interchanges with I-5. Community Development Department City Council Report Village 14 page three The Study does not mention the County's transportation corridor study considering extension of the Eastern Corridor past I-5 to 1-405. There ts also no mention of the potential of converting Harvard Avenue into a "Super Street" to altgn with the Eastern Corridor. The Myford/Jamboree extension through MCAS (H) Tustln Is the only "super street" considered tn the study. Their traffic study indicates approximately 85 of the trips generated within Westpark will impact Irvine Traffic Analysis Program (ITAP) Area 15, which basically encompasses the Tusttn area. Given 12g,420 daily trips generated by the project approximately 10,000 additional trips could result on Tustin's arterial street system. The existing streets most impacted would be north/south streets which include Harvard Avenue, Myford Avenue and Red Hill Avenue. Moulton Parkway/Edinger and Walnut Avenue would be the closest east/west arterial highways to Village 14.' The proposed project will add to substantial cumulative traffic impacts generated within the rapidly growing Irvtne Business Complex, and other major projects in central and northern Irvine. Cumulative impacts on Tusttn's regional and local transportation systems will be substantial and significant. If Caltrans delays improvements to I-5, SR-55 and the I-5/SR-55 interchange, ongoing development in Irvtne over the next two to three years could have dramatic negative impacts on the regional transportation system bisecting Tustin. As the IBC and Irvine's residential villages continue to develop, 'increasing congestion on the local overburdened freeway system can be anticipated. Given the information contained in the city of Tusttn's draft traffic study, Tustin's arterial street network has numerous major problems, some of which are compounded by traffic generated within the adjacent City of Irvine. IBC accounts for the majority of these impacts, but continued residential, retail and office development in central and northern Irvine can only compound these problems. In order to mitigate traffic impacts, the City of Irvine in 1983 adopted a complex zoning ordinance that requires private developers to pay a fee for development within the IBC. However, the ordinance (and the funds generated) are not sufficient to appreciably relieve their own projected traffic congestion. More analysis is needed concerning: 1) how the IBC traffic assessment fee works, 2) how much revenue has been generated to date and for what projects funds have been expended. Community Development Department Ctty Counctl Report Village 14 page four Primary issues that were being dealt with when the EIR was produced are listed as follows: 1. Treatment of San Diego Creek Channel. * 2. Control and/or attenuation for helicopter noise. 3. Amount of office use permitted in Westpark. 4. Interface with the Culverdale Planned Community. 5. Resolution of traffic problems. * 6. Location of equestrian trail on east side of San Diego Creek. * 7. Treatment of San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash Open Space Spine. 8. Location of office and residential uses adjacent to Irvine Business Complex. 9. Location of commercial and park sites. For the city of Tustin, traffic remains the primary issue. RECOI~qENDATXON: Pursuant to the comments expressed in the discussion section, staff has prepared and enclosed a draft letter response to the City of Irvine regarding Village 14. If the scope and content of the letter is suitable to Council, staff will finalize this response and forward to the City of Irvtne. EDWARD M. KNIGHT, Senior Planner EK:do attach: letter of April 15, 1985 , Community Development Department April 15, 1985 Department of Community Development Mr. Ed Moore, Senior Planner City of Irvine Department of Community Development 17200 Jamboree P.O. Box 19575 Irvtne, CA 92713 SUBJECT: CITY OF illS'tiM COllECTS CO#CER#ING THE DRAFT EIR FOR VILLAGE 14 Dear Mr. Moore: The City of Tusttn has carefully reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Village 14 Westpark development plan and offers the following comments: Our greatest concern is with traffic. Although the EIR's traffic study was very thorough in analyzing impacts in the immediate vicinity of Village 14, the study did not go far enough to address potential project impacts or cumulative impacts on the surrounding regional transportation system. Issues discussed in the EIR were limited to impacts at three freeway interchanges, I-5 at Myford, 1-5 at Culver and 1-405 at Culver. General Plan Amendments that propose increased densities and a rapid development scenario (up to 1500 units a year starting in 1986) should carefully evaluate the adequacy of more than just the arterial streets and freeway interchanges closest to the project site. Much of the project's traffic will impact the adjacent freeway system. Given the congested condition of State Route 55 and Interstate 5, careful evaluation of existing conditions and potential impacts on these freeways should be a part of the traffic study. The study states that 25 percent of the 129,400 daily trips generated by Village 14 development will remain within the Village or the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). This indicates that close to 100,000 new trips will be added to the region surrounding the project site. Many of these trips will be on the local freeway system especially Interstate 405, Interstate 5 and State Route 55. 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Ed Moore Village 14 page t~o The City of Tustin is concerned with the traffic impacts of the proposed project, combined with other village projects, rapid development within IBC and expansion of the Airport. We are most concerned about the cumulative traffic impacts of these and other large developments upon Interstate 5 and State Route 55, which bisect our City. The City of Tustln has recently learned that State funding for improving the I-$/SR-55 interchange could be delayed and other freeway improvement projects could also be pushed back for a variety of reasons. If development continues within IBC at its current pace, and new residential villages are also initiated by 1986, traffic congestion will continue to compound on Interstate 5 and State Route 55. The traffic study for Village 14 should not only include its potential impacts on the surrounding freeway system, but should also include the potential cumulative impacts of other major ongoing developments in Irvtne. The EIR should also address regional transportation alternatives related to the Easter Corridor, as suggested by the County of Orange. Extension of this corridor past Interstate 5 to Interstate 405 should be evaluated. "Super Street" alignments along Myford/Jamboree and Harvard Avenue should be discussed to determine potential impacts upon Village 14 and the surrounding areas. If it is found that there are potential significant adverse traffic impacts that could result on the regional transportation system prior to Interstate 5 and State Route 55 improvements, appropriate mitigation measures should be adopted. We recommend the City of Irvine consider conditioning building permits for uses except affordable housing in Village 14 until the I-5/SR-55 interchange improvements have actually been initiated. The City of Tustln is also concerned with the cumulative impacts of ongoing development in west and central Irvine on the adjacent arterial highway system. The EIR's traffic study indicates that approximately 8 percent of the trips generated within Westpark will impact Irvine Traffic Analysis Program (1TAP) Area 15, which basically encompasses the City of Tusttn. Although this is a relatively small amount of traffic, when combined with IBC traffic impacts, cumulative impacts are far more severe. Tustin's arterial street system is either at, approaching or beyond capacity for many of north/south streets in southern and southeastern Tusttn. There are numerous large scale circulation improvements that need to be made in order to keep pace with ongoing development in the area. Mr. Ed Moore Village 14 page three On page 4-111 of the £IR, the current state of indecision regarding placement of the equestrian trail along Peters Canyon Wash/San Diego Creek is discussed. We share the position with the City of Irvine that the trail should be located on the east side of the channel for greater resident utilization. This issue should be resolved at this stage and the decision should be incorporated into the EIR as a condition of approval for the Concept Plan, or by whatever means to insure its final placement. Establishing a 150 foot setback along the east side of the channels would also assist in the placement of the regional bicycle trail, equestrian trail and advanced transit right-of-way within this corridor. The City of Tustln hopes the City of Irvine can alleviate our concern over the cumulative traffic impacts on the freeway system that bisects our City and on our shared local arterial street system. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our input into the environmental review process for the Village of Westpark. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, DONALD D. LAMM, Director of Community Development DDL:do