HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 7 SUPPLEMENTAL EIR 04-15-85 ~ REPORTS April 15, 1985 ~ TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CZTY COUNCIL COld,UNITY DEVELOPRENT DEPARTIqENT SUPPLERENTAL EIR, ZRYZNE BUSINESS CORPLEX BACKGROUND: The subject document is a supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Irvtne Business Complex final EIR, orglnally certified in 1982. The supplement updates environmental data in regard to land use, noise, air quality, traffic and circulation. This supplement is intended for use by dectstonmakers to: 1) evaluate the current appropriateness of previously adopted IBC mitigation measures, particularly those related to traffic and circulation; and 2) assist In the environmental revte~ of subsequent more specific project proposals. No changes to the adopted land use regulations governing IBC are proposed at this time; most of the E[R discussion regards traffic and circulation in the IBC, updates the list of circulation improvements and adopts a final circulation improvement fee. A supplemental EIR is covered under Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines. It states that a Lead Agency (City of Irvine) may choose to prepare a supplemental E[R rather than a subsequent EIR if: 1) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation; and 2) the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. DISCUSSION: In order to condense as much information as possible, a synopsis discussion is covered on key issues that affect the City of Tustin. These issues are primarily related to traffic and circulation impacts: The EIR states that prior to implementation of the revised list of circulation system improvements, several discretionary actions from adjoining or affected jurisdictions are required. Although the EIR later states that approval is required from the City of Tustin for certain improvements, the City is not included in this list of affected jurisdictions and required actions. The IBC currently has 14.7 million square feet of office, with a total build-out estimated at 30.7 million square feet, an increase of 16.0 million square feet over existing square footage. C~ty Council Report Irvine Business Complex EIR page two The limits of the study area for the traffic study methodology extend as far north as Red Hill Avenue and Warner Avenue {see figure 16). These boundaries were chosen for two reasons. First, they encompass the geographic limits of circulation improvements included on the interim list. Second, the volume of traffic generated within the IBC dissipates to a level that has inconsequential impacts on the circulation system beyond these boundaries. Under current conditions, the EIR states that the Red Hill Avenue at Edinger intersection is operating at Level of Service "E", at .95 {1.0 is the absolute maximum a street can handle). Additionally, the southbound ramp of the 1-5 freeway at Myford/Mtchelle is operating at LOS F, at 1.05. The traffic analysis examines four different alternatives. These are: 1) Adopted General Plan Circulation System 2) The Interim List Circulation Improvements 3) The IBC Task Force recommended list of Circulation Improvements. 4) Additional Improvements recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee, but not recommended by the IBC Task Force; General Plan Ctrculat!on System l) Even with. all current and proposed circulation improvements, the General Plan circulation system will not provide sufficient arterial capacity for travel demand at build-out. Red Hill Avenue, Myford and the Jamboree extension all exceed their traffic limits. Interim CircUlation Improvement List 1) "The Interim Circulation Improvement List would require numerous modifications to mitigate IBC generated traffic." The modifications recommended by the IBC Task Force are summarized on Table L. Improvements within the City of Tustin network include: A. Reconstruct interchange at Myford Rd. and I-5, 5) of $12 million. B. Construct jamboree Blvd. extension as a six-lane expressway from 1-5 to Barranca Parkway, with grade separations at Walnut Avenue, Irvtne Center Drive, and Michelle Drive, 505 of $55 million. The IBC Task Force recommended circulation improvements. As far as the City of Tustin is concerned, the IBC Task Force recommendations and the Interim Circulation Improvements are the same. Enclosed is Table M, which gives these recommendations. Community Development Department I QNY~ I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I 54 1 1 1 1 1 i Ii ! II II II Ii II II II II §7 I I I I I 59 ! ~d .pi 6O '1 6l City Council Report [rvine Buslness Complex ETR page three The Jamboree Extension (also known as Myford through the Marine Base). The Jamboree Extension is described in the EIR as the largest and most costly of the recommended circulation improvements. Overcrossings would be constructed at Barranca Parkway, Moffett Drive, Moulton Parkway (Irvine Center Dr.), AT&SF rail track, Walnut Avenue, and Michelle Dr. Access would be provided at Barranca Pkwy, Moulton Pkwy, Walnut Ave., and Michelle Dr. This "super street" would connect at the Myford Ave. & I-5 freeway interchange and travel south along the proposed Myford Avenue alignment, thru the Marine Base and connecting at Jamboree and Barranca. The EIR describes this road as approaching the capacity of a freeway, estimated at 140,000 ADT. (see enclosed Figure 19) In contrast, the City of Tustin has prepared a comprehensive traffic report {draft), which shows Myford as a major highway with an estimated ADT of 30,000. The city of Tustin has prepared an Eastern Transportation Corridor/I-5 Connection Study (dated Nov. 23, 1983) as a part of the East Tustin Specific Plan and was submitted to the city of Irvine. As shown in Figure IV-2, the draft proposal is to move the Eastern Transportation Corridor east of Myford Road, and split the traffic utilizing the Jamboree extension between a major highway (Myford) and a freeway (Eastern Transportation Corridor). The Corridor is anticipated to carry approximately 75,000 ADT, and taken together with Myford, is still 35,000 ADT short of the City of Irvine .estimate. The City of Irvtne would fund 50~ of the total construction cost for the extension from IBC fees, with the remaining funds coming from unknown sources. No commitment from the city of Irvlne to construct the connection is given, and no anticipated schedule for construction. This connection is seen as the most important mitigation measure for traffic on the SR 55 freeway and Red Hill Avenue. Although it is stated in the EIR in at least three sections as a positive mitigation, no discussion is given regarding the widening of the SR 55 freeway to ten lanes. There is no discussion of anticipated construction, funding, or commitment by Caltrans. The EIR does state that the build-out of the complex will exceed the capacity of the freeway and cause congestion on parallel arterials, such as Red Hill Ave. Even with the construction of the Jamboree extension and SR 55 freeway to ten lanes, Red Hill Avenue will still exceed its capacity within the City of Tustin. No mitigation measures are given to alleviate this problem. The EIR contains minor discussions of the impact of the John Wayne Airport expansion and the Village 14 {Westpark) General Plan Amendment. The fourth alternative was the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee, but not accepted by the IBC Task Force. These recommendations included grade separations at Red Hill and Barranca, Jamboree and Alton, and Jamboree at Main. The IBC Task Force did not accept these recommendations because they were too costly and unsightly. They would provide, although, significant traffic mitigation. Community Development Department Figure 1 9 Proposed Circulation Improvement Assignment I I I IBC Circulation Study Lanes 4 ~..m Divided 4. . UndlvldH 311 FLYOVER 284 37 lCD 32 44 NORTH BARRANCA 3~ 19 52 45 I-5 0 .5 1 I, ~ ~ miles k I I I I I I 1 ! II l I[ 1 I[ ~ '""=""=~'~ . DODGE X / ~ '"..~ ".,, ~ ~: ~ ~. 'C '~...,.' /'" ~:. DRAFT PLANNED CIRCU~TION SYSTEM IV-5 //~City Council Report Irvine Business Complex EIR page four "The IBC Task Force is recommending a mitigation program that in total would cost $122 million, of which $79.5 million would be funded by IBC fees. The deficit, $42.5 million, is the remaining cost to construct circulation improvements outside of IBC and should be funded by other. sources." The EIR identifies $11.4 million in other sources that can be utilized for improvements, leaving $31.1 million in deficit. Of these deficit dollars, $25.9 million would be the Jamboree extension. Of the $11.4 million, $7.g million is the Caltrans and local contribution to reconstruct the I-5/Myford interchange. ANALYSIS AND RECOI~E#DATIO#S: Staff submits the following recommendations be forward to the City of Irvine in response to their supplemental EIR for the Irvtne Business Complex: As previously stated, the document was prepared as a supplemental EIR. This is important under CEQA, since it requires the lead agency to only examine information necessary to make the previous £IR adequate and usually involves only minor changes. Tustin staff feels a supplemental £IR is inappropriate for two key reasons: the cumulative in, acts of 1) the John Wayne Airport; and 2) the Village 14 General Plan Amendment. Neither of these projects were known at the time of the original IBC approval and represent a substantial change under which the IBC project was undertaken. Both of these projects are given only minor analysis in the EIR. Staff feels this supplemental EIR is inadequate, and should be rewritten as a subsequent EIR under Section 15162 of the C£QA Guidelines. The IBC Circulation Study boundary map is inadequate and does not represent all impacts of the IBC project (Figure 16). The EIR gives Warner Avenue as the boundary of the study area, and justifies this boundary by stating that traffic dissipates to an inconsequential level. Yet, at other sections of the EIR, it states that the City of Tustin will experience severe traffic problems north of Warner on Red Hill due to the IBC project, with no mitigation given. The Study area should be extended as far north as the I-5 freeway along Red Hill Avenue and should take into consideration Newport Avenue as well. Additionally, the City of Irvine is proposing a total of 140,000 ADT on Myford at the I-5 freeway. The EIR must examine where this significant regional traffic would disperse to from that point. The EIR points out at several locations that the widening of the SR 55 freeway is a significant mitigation measure. But, there is no discussion of this measure with the exception of one comment stating that Caltrans is studying this project. If this mitigation measure is serious, a thorough discussion is required, detailing its feasibility, financing and schedule. Otherwise, the project can only be seen as improbable at best. Community Development Department //~City Council Report [rvine Business Complex page five e The Myford Road/Jamboree extension is proposed as a significant mitigation measure for IBC traffic within the study area and surrounding vicinity. In spite of this, the IBC is committing to only 50~ of the funding of the extension, with other sources of funds being unknown at this time. There is no discussion in regard to scheduling anticipated construction of the extension or funding sources. The EIR must contain these discussions in order for this significant mitigation measure to be considered. Given its significance, the City of Irvine should commit to this project, and secure funding for 100~ of the project cost. Without this committment, there is no information given, or reason to believe that the project will be adequately constructed to mitigate projected traffic demand. 5. In addition, Tusttn is not.committed to a Myford/Jamboree flyover crossing at Moulton Parkway (Irvtne Center Drive). The level of service that Irvine is planning for on the Jamboree extension is not in conformance with the circulation system proposed in the City of Tustin's draft traffic report. Irvine's design and configuration does not match proposed designs prepared by our City, nor were these designs considered in the supplemental EIR. 6. The EIR states that Red Hill Avenue within the City of Tustin will exceed capacity levels even with the SR 55 freeway at ten lanes and the fully developed Jamboree extension. No mitigation measures .are proposed. CEQA Section 21002.1 states that a public agency shall mitigate or avoid'the significant effects on the environment of projects it approves or carries out whenever it is feasible to do so. Mitigation can take the form of limiting the degree or magnitude of the action, implementation or compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources. The City of Irvtne must address this significant impact and provide sufficient mitigation. This further reinforces the need for a subsequent EIR instead of a supplemental EIR, in order to examine the land use intensity with a reduction to match the capacity of the regional arterial system. Posing land use intensities that exceed capacity of adjacent freeways and arterials without providing suitable mitigation, is not adequate according to the California Environmental Quality Act. EDWARD M. KNIGHT, Senior Planner EK:do Community Development Department April 15, 1985 Department of Community Development Mr. Ed Moore, Senior Planner City of Irvine Department of Community Development 17200 Jamboree Road P. O. Box 19575 Irvine, Ca. 92713 SUBJECT: CITY OF TUSTIN COP~4ENTS REGARDING THE IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Dear Mr. Moore: Thank you for this opportunity to submit the City of Tustin's concerns with regard to the impacts of the Irvine Business Complex expansion. The following comments, questions and concerns should be properly addressed: The City of Tustin feels that the use of a supplemental EnvironmmentaL Impact Report is inappropriate considering the cumulative impacts of approved or proposed projects that were not known at the time the original IBC Environmental document was prepared. These projects include the expansion of the John Wayne Airport and Village 14 (Westpark). These projects are given only a cursory review in the document and are not adequately covered. A supplemental EIR should only be used for minor additions or changes in the initial project. These cumu--~Tative impacts represent a substantial change under which the original project was undertaken, and as such, the use of a supplemental document is inadequate. The City of Tustin recommends that Irvine prepare a full disclosure subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 Page two ,¸ At several points in the document, it is stated that the City of Tustin will experience severe traffic problems on Red Hill Avenue north of Warner Avenue, yet the I~C Circulation Study boundary is Warner Avenue with the justification that traffic dissipates to an inconsequential level beyond this point. The City of Tustin submits that this premise is incorrect and the boundary should be extended northerly on Red Hill Avenue to the I-5 Freeway, and possibly included Newport Avenue to the I-5 Freeway as well. Additionally, the City of Irvine is proposing a total of 140,000 ADT on Myford Road at the I-5 Freeway The EIR must examine where this significant regional traffic would dispurse to from that point. The EIR points out at several locations that the widening of the SR55 freeway is a significant mitigation measure. But, the document contains virtually no discussion of this measure with the exception of one comment stating that Caltrans is studying this project. If this mitigation measure is serious, a thorough discussion is required, detailing its feasibility, financing, impacts, and schedule. The City of Tustin has not examined or is committed to a Myford/Jamboree flyover crossing at Moulton Parkway (Irvine Center Drive). The level of ~ervice that the EIR documents for the Jamboree Extension is not in conformance with service levels detailed in the City of Tustin's draft traffic study. Irvine's design and configuration of circulation improvements for the Myford/Jamboree Road do not match proposed designs prepared by the City of Tustin, nor were these designs considered in the environmental document. Page three ® The entire Myford/Jamboree Road from the I-5 Freeway south is proposed as a significant mitigation measure for IBC traffic within the study area and surrounding vicinity. In order to be effective, the road must carry a significant amount of traffic, far in excess of the planned level determined by the City of Tustin. Improvements to the roadway are required that amount to over fifty-five million dollars. The IBC is recommending to fund 50% of this improvement, with the remaining funds coming from unknown sources. There is no discussion of additional funding sources, scheduling, or anticipated construction. The EIR states that Red Hill Avenue within the City of Tustin will exceed capacity levels even with the SR55 Freeway at ten lanes and the fully developed Myford/Jamboree Extension. No mitigation measures are proposed. CEQA Section 21002.1 states that a public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects it approves or carries out if it is feasible to do so. Mitigation can take the form of limiting the degree or magnitude of the action, or implementation or compensation for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources. The City of Irvine must address this significant impact and provide sufficient mitigation. This further reinforces the need for a subsequent EIR instead of a supplemental EIR, in order to examine the land use intensity of the IBC project, and enact reductions in order to not exceed the capacity of the regional arterial system. Implementing land use intensities that can be shown to exceed the capacity of adjacent freeways and arterials on a cumulative basis and without mitigation measures, is not adequate according to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Tustin hopes the City of Irvine can indicate how these cumulative traffic impacts can be alleviated on the freeway and arterial systems within the region. The far reaching regional impacts of the IBC project demand this examination. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Donald D. Lamm Director of Community DDL:EMK:pef Development