Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 IRVINE DRAFT EIR 04-18-05 A G END A REPORT Agenda Item 15 Reviewed: ~ City Manager Finance Director ~ MEETING DATE: APRil 18, 2005 FROM: WilLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: SUBJECT: CITY OF TUSTIN RESPONSE TO CITY OF IRVINE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR IRVINE PLANNING AREAS 1,2, AND 9. SUMMARY City Council authorization is requested for the City of Tustin's response to the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report for a proposed City of Irvine General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9 (Attachment A). RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize staff to forward the attached response letter to the City of Irvine. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts associated with this action. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The proposed project includes the potential development of up to 4,310 dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of commercial uses and approximately 2,000 acres of open space within City of Irvine Planning Areas 1 and 2. Planning Areas 1 and 2 are located directly adjacent to the City of Tustin, north of Portola Parkway. Planning Area 9 is bordered by Jeffrey Road, Portola Parkway, SR-133, and Trabuco Road (see location Map) The proposed General Plan Amendment reflects a decrease of 1 ,593 dwelling units and 176,231 square feet of commercial space in Planning Areas 1 and 2, when compared to the City of Irvine's current General Plan. However, the potential number of dwelling units in Planning Area 9 would be increased by the 1,593 dwelling units shifted from Planning Areas 1 and 2. The residential units in Planning Area 9 would replace existing entitlements for the development of approximately 2.6 million square feet of research and industrial uses in Planning Area 9. City Council Report DEIR Irvine Planning Areas 1,2, and 9 April 18,2005 Page 2 The project also includes the deletion of a future extension of Culver Drive from the Circulation Element of the City of Irvine's General Plan (the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways ("MPAH") is also proposed to be amended). The Community Development and Public Works Departments have reviewed the subject Draft EIR. Staff believes that the City of Irvine should express its assurance that adequate mitigation for both the Culver Drive changes and the new added development will be provided. Staff also believes that it is in the City's interest to be on record regarding this matter and has prepared correspondence expressing the City's concerns regarding the Draft EIR document (see Attachment A). Staff requests that the Tustin City Council review and consider these comments and, if acceptable, authorize their formal transmission to the City of Irvine. .J uAt; ~ Scott Reekstin Senior Planner ~~¿A, 4i:~i E Izabeth A. Blnsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. B. Draft Comment Response Letter Location Map S:\CddlCCReportsIDEIR Irvine Planning Areas 1,2, and 9.doc ATTACHMENT A DRAFT COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER April 19,2005 Glen Worthington Principal Planner City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR IRVINE PLANNING AREAS 1, 2 AND 9 Dear Mr. Worthington: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Irvine's proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Planning Areas 1, 2 and 9 that would also involve the eventual annexation of approximately 4,200 acres within the Irvine Sphere of Influence adjacent to the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin Community Development and Public Works Departments have identified the following comments and concerns: MPAH Amendments IIncludina the Culver Drive Deletion): 1. The Traffic Study indicates that the "Project" is proposed to include the deletion of a future extension of Culver Drive from the Circulation Element of the City of Irvine's General Plan. The OCT A Master Plan of Arterial Highways" (MPAH) is also proposed to be amended. A primary concern of the City of Tustin is that there is no assurance that adequate mitigation will be provided for both the Culver Drive deletion and the proposed development. There are traffic impacts in the City of Tustin that have been previously identified through preliminary OCTA related analyses and documented in the current traffic analyses. The Project must contain conditions of approval to address both Project and cumulative impacts. The City of Tustin will not support any MPAH Amendments unless there are assurances that all traffic impacts in the City have been fully mitigated and funded. 2. To date, the City of Tustin has not provided any support or agreement for the proposed Culver Drive MPAH Amendment or proposed MPAH change related to the East Orange project in the City of Orange. Based on information contained in the Project Traffic Study, it appears the two proposed MPAH amendments are interrelated and the deletions could result in significant traffic effects that are presently undisclosed. The DEIR must contain all needed analyses to fully disclose potential traffic impacts that could result from conditions with or without the MPAH Amendments, including the Culver Drive extension. Mr. Glen Worthington Irvine Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9 Draft EIR April 19, 2005 Page 2 3. In response to a February 9, 2005, City of Tustin comment on Chapter 8.0 of the "Culver Drive Deletion MPAH Analysis," the City of Irvine indicated that the "Post-2025" future projection of 7,000 vehicles per day (VPD) on Culver Drive south of the SR-241 is comprised of 2,700 PA1 trips and 4,300 VPD of "through traffic." This scenario assumes the proposed East Orange MPAH Amendments to be in place, although they are not yet finalized or approved. However, if these projections are compared to Figure 9-6 of the Traffic Study, the through traffic increases significantly to 14,000 VPD. This represents an approximate 325 percent increase in through traffic using Culver Drive if the current East Orange MPAH is maintained. This also indicates that PA1 and PA9 traffic would have dramatic increases in projected use of the Culver Drive extension, thereby reducing impacts on other routes, including arterials in the City of Tustin. This supports the City of Tustin's previous requests for model runs based on the currently proposed PA1 and PA9 development, but under the current MPAH road system. Without this information the Traffic Study shows that necessary information is not provided for what could be an environmentally superior alternative from a traffic viewpoint. If the MPAH remains unchanged it may actually serve much more Project traffic than presently shown in the DEIR, thereby reducing impacts on other travel routes. 4. A letter dated February 9, 2005, from the City of Tustin to the City of Irvine regarding Chapter 8.0 of the "Culver Drive Deletion MPAH Analysis" contains additional comments that are outstanding. On March 1, 2005, the City of Irvine provided some preliminary responses to our comments, but we do not believe the responses adequately addressed our concerns. Some of the outstanding issues include the following: The City of Tustin requested analysis of the proposed Project under the current MPAH. The City of Irvine's response indicated the requested evaluation was not warranted, but as described in paragraph 3 above the traffic volume projections appear to indicate the requested analysis is warranted. The City of Tustin requested removal of Automated Transportation Management System (ATMS) assumptions for intersections under City of Tustin jurisdiction. The City of Irvine response cited use of this assumption in the "Irvine Northern Sphere FEIR" as justification for the ATMS assumption. Although the City of Tustin had outstanding concerns, the City of Irvine approved the Northern Sphere. Therefore, it should not be assumed that the City of Tustin was in agreement with the assumptions prepared for that FEIR. Low volumes of PA1 traffic using the Culver Drive extension appear to be significantly influenced by the proposed East Orange MPAH amendment as indicated above. Mr. Glen Worthington Irvine Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9 Draft EIR April 19, 2005 Page 3 The City of Irvine indicates that congestion on the 1-5 is accounted for in the traffic modeling. This appears to be supported by the select zone traffic distribution maps, which show a very significant amount of Project traffic diverted to the arterial street system in the City of Tustin. Upon review of the Traffic Study analyses of existing conditions, however, there appears to be an understatement of some current congestion, such as that experienced on Jamboree Road near the 1-5 and on Irvine Boulevard approaching SR-55. This may result in an understatement of some Project traffic impacts. It is noted that significant Project traffic volumes are shown to use the arterial road system, which also includes many locations in the City of Tustin. There must be further review and evaluation if the existing traffic volumes used in the Traffic Study are inconsistent with those previously provided by the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin referenced its most recent available data. If there are inconsistencies, further investigation and explanation must be provided to assure that the analyses contained in the Traffic Study are accurate. 5. If the proposed MPAH amendments within Irvine and Orange ultimately are the assumed road system for the Project, there must be EIR mitigation measures and conditions of Project approval that assure construction of the needed arterial roadway improvements in the City of Tustin. The mitigations for locations directly impacted by the Project should be fully funded by the Project. Full funding/installation of the other needed improvements identified in the year 2010, 2025, and Post-2025 Traffic Study should be assured by the Project and reimbursement should be provided on a fair share basis by other future development. These conditions must be placed on the proposed Project since a significant MPAH roadway connection is being deleted that has a direct affect on the City of Tustin arterial road system. In addition, OCTA has indicated that mitigations in project specific EIRs and conditions on projects are the appropriate method to offset the impacts of MPAH changes. If Culver Drive is not deleted from the MPAH, then typical fair share requirements should be applicable. 6. The select zone run shows a significant volume of Project traffic that will use Tustin Ranch Road south of Portola Parkway. It is anticipated, based on past City of Tustin evaluations, that a traffic signal will become justified at the intersection of TRR/Greenway-Adams as a result of the added Project traffic. The Project must be conditioned to install a traffic signal at this intersection prior to Project development. 7. The Traffic Study and City of Irvine responses continue to maintain that the demand for travel on the Culver Drive Extension and on Jamboree Road north of Portola Mr. Glen Worthington Irvine Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9 Draft EIR April 19, 2005 Page 4 Parkway is not extensive. The City of Tustin continues to have concerns with these conclusions, but it appears there is potential for the Project to be approved with the proposed Project/MPAH amendments. The City of Tustin, therefore, requests the Traffic Study to include a Post-2025 analysis assuming Jamboree Road in the City of Tustin (north of Portola Parkway) maintains the existing number of travel lanes. Based on the traffic projections contained in the Traffic Study, it appears that expansion of Jamboree to six lanes may not be necessary if the City of Irvine peak hour evaluation of roadway segments is considered. If the City of Tustin were to implement a MPAH downgrade of Jamboree Road from Tustin Ranch Road to the north City limit, it appears this would be technically feasible based on the Traffic Study analyses and would serve to assure that this corridor did not evolve into a "bypass' roadway in the future. General Traffic Comments: 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The Traffic Study must consider the Orange County/Riverside County Major Investment Study ("MIS") alternatives that could significantly impact the study area. In particular there are alternatives being considered that would provide a connection to 1-15 from a point near the SR-241 Portola Parkway interchange. It is believed that the NITM Program is based on assumptions that include the northerly extension of Culver Drive. Since the NITM is a part of the proposed Project mitigations, it should be updated for the proposed Culver Deletion conditions and circulated in conjunction with the DEIR document. The City of Tustin is concerned about the operational aspects of some of the mitigation recommendations/alternatives such as use of a right turn lane in conjunction with a through/right combination lanes, etc. The mitigation should require the Project to provide the improvements that are acceptable to the City of Tustin. If the traffic modeling and analyses were contracted directly by the applicant, rather than by the City of Irvine, there should be an independent analysis completed by another traffic consultant under direct contract to the City of Irvine. Based on the Traffic Study, the study area should be extended to include intersections along Irvine Boulevard westerly to SR-55 since these locations may also be impacted by the Project. The City of Tustin is concerned regarding the addition of a fifth northbound and fifth southbound travel lane for the Jamboree Road at Barranca Parkway. There is a special study of this intersection currently being conducted by the City of Irvine, which should be referenced in the Traffic Study. It appears that a significant amount of right-of-way acquisition is required to implement the Jamboree Road/Barranca Mr. Glen Worthington Irvine Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9 Draft EIR April 19,2005 Page 5 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Parkway intersection mitigations identified in the Traffic Study. There is presently no additional right-of way available along the west side of Jamboree Road within the City of Tustin. In a meeting on October 30, 2003, with the OCTA, the City of Tustin was informed that the MPAH northerly extension of Jamboree Road between Santiago Canyon Road in Orange and Weir Canyon Road in Anaheim was not planned to be deleted from the MPAH as previously assumed in the earlier technical analyses. The City of Tustin submitted comments on the Santiago Hills II development in the City of Orange regarding this issue. It is our understanding there will be a new MPAH designation whereby there is still potential for this connection to occur. This issue should be further clarified based on the Orange County/Riverside County MIS analysis. Overall, the PA 1 and 9 analyses must consider the "worst case" for potential traffic impacts in the City of Tustin as related to the potential extension or elimination of the Jamboree Road extension. The City of Tustin requests that any needed mitigation be required as a condition of the Project as described above. The City of Irvine provided select zone model runs as requested in comments on the NOP, which was appreciated. It appears a significant amount of Project traffic will travel to/from on the surrounding arterial roadways in the City of Tustin including Portola Parkway, Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road, and Irvine Boulevard in the City of Tustin. The analyses, however, appears to understate some of the existing levels of service on the Tustin roadways, which likely results in an understatement of some Project-related impacts, Fair share contributions and/or construction of improvements to mitigate project impacts in the City of Tustin need to be required of the Project and clearly identified in the DEIR. If Culver Drive is to be deleted, then the mitigations/conditions as described above should be required. There are different traffic projections depending on whether a toll or non-toll operation is assumed for the Transportation Corridors. There should also be an analyses of both the "toll" and "non-toll" conditions. The toll conditions may yield a "worst case" scenario regarding impacts to the arterial roadways, but it may be useful to provide information regarding non-toll operations to highlight the differences. For locations within the City of Tustin, the traffic analyses must be consistent with City of Tustin criteria and methodologies. Mr. Glen Worthington Irvine Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9 Draft EIR April 19, 2005 Page 6 Noise Comments: 19. The potential traffic and construction related noise impacts to Tustin residential areas should be addressed and mitigated in the EIR. To be consistent with the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and mitigate the impacts to Tustin residents, there should be a mitigation measure in the EIR that requires significant noise-generating construction activities and construction-related traffic near Tustin residential areas to be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. 20. Construction-related traffic should be addressed and mitigated in the EIR. The EIR should identify truck routes for construction vehicles and include appropriate mitigation measures. There are several residential neighborhoods adjacent to Jamboree Road in the City of Tustin that may be impacted by construction traffic; therefore, appropriate mitigation measures may be necessary. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Planning Areas 1, 2, and 9. The City of Tustin would appreciate receiving the Final EIR documents with the responses to our comments when they become available. If you have any questions regarding the City's comments, please call me at (714) 573-3016 or Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer, at (714) 573-3263. Sincerely, Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Terry Lutz Principal Engineer cc: Elizabeth Binsack Tim Serlet Dana Kasdan Doug Anderson Scott Reekstin Attachment: Comment Letter Dated February 9, 2005 Public Works / Engineering ~.~_. ,,-- City of Tustin February 9, 2005 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780.3715 (714) 573.3150 FAX (714) 734.8991 Mr. Danny Wu City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 SUBJECT: Comments on Chapter 8.0 Culver Drive Deletion MPAH Analysis (P.W. File No. 1577.7) Dear Mr. Wu: The City of Tustin's Engineering Division received your memorandum dated January 21, 2005 requesting review of "Chapter 8.0 Culver Drive Deletion MPAH Analysis" prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. The analysis is proposed to support changes to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The City of Tustin continues to have outstanding concerns that we have previously raised through written comments, technical meetings, and comments on other related projects. In general, the City does not believe that elimination of Culver Drive from the MPAH is a viable option given the analyses presented, as well as our knowledge of the current and projected traffic conditions. The following comments summarize our concerns, which we believe need to be resolved prior to OCTA approval of any MPAH changes: 1. The analysis combines the proposed land use changes in Planning Areas ("PA") 1 and 9, with the proposed deletion of Culver Drive. The City does not believe this is the correct procedure. It is the City's understanding that the MPAH amendment should be a separate action from the land use changes. The analysis, therefore, should provide "with" and "without" Culver Drive deletion, while applying constant land use assumptions for PA 1 and PA 9. 2. The A TMS credit should be removed from the intersections of Red Hill Avenue/Irvine Boulevard (No. 34) and Tustin Ranch Road/Irvine Boulevard (No. 91) since the City of Tustin has not designated this location as applicable for the ATMS program. Additionally, please identify if any TDM credits were applied as part of the modeling for this report. 3. The analysis assumes the MPAH deletion of Culver Drive between the SR.241 and Santiago Canyon Road in the East Orange area. The City of Tustin has previously expressed concerns about the East Orange MPAH deletions. The analysis cannot assume the deletions have occurred. The evaluations must show conditions with the East Orange MPAH connections still in place. Mr. Danny Wu Comments on Chapter 8.0 Culver Drive Deletion February 9, 2005 Page 2 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The projection of 7,000 vehicles per day ("VPD") on Culver Drive south of the SR- 241 does not appear to be reasonable. This portion of Culver Drive bisects P A 1, which under this condition was indicated to generate approximately 62,200 VPD. It is assumed that PA 1 alone wouid contribute more vehicles to Culver Drive than the totals shown, which does not account for any through traffic using this connection. This is one reason why it is important that the traffic distribution/assignment for PA 1 and PA 9 be shown in isolation (i.e., select zone model runs) so the travel patterns of these developments can be easily seen and it can be better determined if the analysis is reasonable. It does not appear that the analysis accurately models the potential demand for the Culver extension. Where Culver Drive is shown to carry 7,000 VPD, Jamboree Road (a parallel route) is projected to carry 32,000-35,000 VPD and SR-261 (also a parallel route) is projected to carry 35,000 VPD. The northbound 1-5 through the Tustin area is currently impacted during the AM and PM peak hours. With the significant added development in PA 1 and PA 9 it is anticipated that the development traffic will use Tustin's arterial roadways as a bypass to the already congested freeway. The proposed Culver Drive deletion would eliminate another viable alternative to access areas to/from the northwest and result in greater impacts to the City of Tustin. The City needs the evaluations for existing conditions to be provided for review in conjunction with this analysis to assure there is consistency in results. The City does not believe that evaluations regarding Culver Drive should be narrowed to a "build' or "eliminate" scenario. There may be alternative alignments that maintain the intent of the MPAH connection and actually provide circulation that is superior to the current alignment. There must be further analyses to determine if there are alternatives to the current alignment that may produce overall better traffic and environmental results. For example, there should be an evaluation of extending Culver Drive north, but in an alignment that better parallels Jamboree Road. This may produce a higher traffic demand for the Culver extension. The issue of connection to the toll road system should be addressed in conjunction with any alternative alignments. An alternative alignment that warrants consideration is extending Culver Drive to the northwest to merge with Jamboree Road near the City of Tustin/City of Orange border. This may result in higher traffic demands for the Culver extension making it more viable and also would serve to provide mitigation for the congestion at the Jamboree Road/I-5 Freeway interchange. There are some significant trafíic volume increases shown in the analysis (i.e., Figures 8-2 and 8-3), in particular for areas in the vicinity of PA 1 and PA 9. With the traffic volume increases shown, we would anticipate the actual impacts experienced in the City of Tustin to be greater than reflected in the document. The Mr. Danny Wu Comments on Chapter 8.0 Culver Drive Deletion February 9, 2005 Page 3 following are a few examples of some roadways, with comparisons of existing traffic volumes to future Post 2025 volumes. The new developments in PA 1 and PA 9 are expected to contribute significantly to these traffic volume increases: Portola Parkway west of the SR-261: 7,000 VPD existing to 43,000 VPD future (approximate 514% increase). Irvine Boulevard west of the SR-261: 22,000 VPD existing to 42,000 VPD future (approximate 91% increase). Tustin Ranch Road south of Portola Parkway: 17,100 VPD existing to 37,000 VPD future (approximate 116% increase). Jamboree Road north of Tustin Ranch Road: 18,900 VPD existing to 32,000 VPD future (approximate 69% increase). EI Camino Real west of Jamboree Road: 14,700 VPD existing to 26,000 VPD future (approximate 77% increase) Jamboree Road north of the 1-5 Freeway: 60,500 VPD existing to 72,000 VPD future (approximate 19% increase in a currently congested area). 9. The City of Tustin has previously raised concerns with the proposed study process and the technical conclusions. A primary concern is that regional road system changes are being proposed, but the potential mitigations are required to be based on localized individual projects. In addition, cities are being asked to obtain mitigation for the MPAH changes through the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for individual projects, but an EIR is primarily an informational document and does not always ensure adequate improvements to fully mitigate impacts (e.g., findings for overriding considerations can be made). The City of Tustin is concerned that MPAH amendment related traffic impacts within its jurisdiction will not be fully mitigated. 10. The on-going traffic model analysis for future traffic conditions presented at previous meetings and in previous documents show significant increases in traffic volumes and impacts to City of Tustin roadways (examples cited above). The future conditions analysis also assumes road system improvements to be in place (i.e., build out of Jamboree Road to six lanes throughout the City of Tustin). For other locations only incremental improvements related to specific project impacts are identified, but these measures are not necessarily sufficient to provide overall acceptable operations. It has been suggested in the past that none of the individual elements cause a "significant" impact and are therefore not responsible to identify improvements that would provide acceptable operations. This results in cumulative traffic impacts. This shows, however, that if the cumulative elements were considered rather than just individual elements, then the need for added mitigation(s) would be shown and required. 11. Overall, there should be conditions of approval associated with the proposed MPAH Amendments that will assure construction of the future road improvements assumed in the analysis and necessary to provide acceptable future traffic conditions in the City of Tustin. The improvements should not be limited to just Mr. Danny Wu Comments on Chapter 8.0 Culver Drive Deletion February 9, 2005 Page 4 addressing "incremental" impacts of particular projects, but address all future traffic. Based on review of the analyses provided to date, the City of Tustin is concerned that mitigation responsibiiities to support new developments (including those in other jurisdictions) are being placed on the City of Tustin. 12. There have been some recent projects located outside of the City of Tustin of significant scope (i.e., PA 1 & PA 9, Santiago Hills II, the Northern Sphere, etc.) that were shown to have little or no traffic impact at the "border" locations within the City of Tustin. The cumulative traffic increases at these locations, however, are significant. This indicates that the requirement to mitigate all cumulative traffic impacts should be in conjunction with OCTA approvals and not associated with future project EIRs or project approvals. 13. Most of the previous and current studies focus on "credit" for background land uses but not mitigation responsibility. The current request for agreement with the Culver Drive MPAH deletion does not address the responsibility for implementation of the future needed improvements (i.e., the cost of construction, who is using the roadway, etc.) In order to consider providing agreement with the Culver Drive MPAH deletion, the City of Tustin needs "select zone" information showing the major development projects in Irvine and Orange in isolation, so that trip assignment paths for the individual developments is clearly shown on individual figures. 14. It has been detailed previously that some of the MPAH connections (e.g., Culver Drive extension) cannot be constructed due to infeasible costs. At the same time, the analysis shows that some Tustin locations will be over capacity (and these locations are shown to remain over capacity). The City of Tustin does not agree with this approach and believes that full mitigation should be identified to fully disclose improvements that would be needed to provide acceptable operations at all locations. 15. There are some comments on specific pages of the document that need to be addressed. These items are listed below: Page i: Chapter 8.0 related to the Culver Drive Deletion is being presented as a separate report. Therefore, it needs to contain sufficient supporting information such as analysis of existing; recommended mitigation measures; etc. Figures 8-5, 8-6, & 8-7: What are the V/C ratios for the sections of the SR- 261/Jamboree Road south of Walnut Avenue? Tables 8-6 & 8-7: The jurisdiction for the Red Hill & Irvine (No. 34), and Browning & Irvine (No. 54) intersections are shared with the County of Orange. The jurisdiction for Jamboree & 1-5 NB (No. 128) ramps should be noted as Irvine only. Mr. Danny Wu Comments on Chapter 8.0 Culver Drive Deletion February 9, 2005 Page 5 Tables 8-6 & 8-7: Mitigation improvements should be identified that would be required if no ATMS credits are applied. The ATMS credits (see No.2 above) will also need to be removed from the ICU calculation sheets. ICU worksheet, Jamboree/Portola (No. 124): For Post-2025, current General Plan and MPAH (GP & MPAH), the southbound approach should include a "d". ICU worksheet, Jamboree/lrvine (No. 125): For Post-2025, current General Plan and MPAH, the southbound approach should include three (3) through lanes and one free right turn lane (rather than four through lanes). In addition, there appears to be an imbalance between the AM southbound through volumes and the PM northbound through volumes for this location as well as the Jamboree/Portola (No. 124) intersection. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these materials. Please contact Terry Lutz, of my staff, at (714) 573-3263 if you have any questions. ~~~ Dana R. Kasdan Engineering Services Manager C: William A. Huston Elizabeth A. Binsack Tim D. Serlet Doug Anderson Terry Lutz Steve Sasaki Glen Campbell, aCTA aCTA File No. 586 S";;erryID=V=LOPM=I,,-;- R=VI=W,2005\Culve: :Je: "1 :;:-05',.000 ATTACHMENT B LOCATION MAP PA1/PA2 AREA Source: Doug Bender and Associates, 2004. 4 Not to Scale PA ¡ /PA2/PA9 Project DraftEIR Figure 3.1-2 Local SettIng City of Irvine