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