The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14 - Irvine Business Complex & Scholle Project EIRCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 14 January 13, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Tamara Campbell, AICP Senior Planner (949) 644 -3238 tampbell@city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Comments on Environmental Review for Proposed Scholle Project (Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road) and Other Previously Approved Projects in the Irvine Business Complex ISSUE: Should the City of Newport Beach comment on the environmental review for a proposed development in the City of Irvine and potential cumulative impacts of previously approved projects in the Irvine Business Complex? RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Direct staff to transmit comments prepared by EQAC to the City of Irvine. 2. Direct staff to make additional comments on the revised traffic study and other studies that may become available prior to public hearings. DISCUSSION: In July 2003, Newport Beach and Irvine staff met to discuss recent and proposed development in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC), and how the City of Irvine is complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on these projects. We learned that Irvine has been relying on the program environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for the rezoning of IBC in 1992, and preparing addenda to that EIR for projects that involve transfer of development credits or conversion of office to residential entitlement, as long as the projects are within the "trip budget" established in the 1992 Program EIR. An addendum to an already certified EIR does not require circulation for public review and comment, which left Newport Beach unaware of Irvine's development approvals in Comments from EQAC regarding the Scholle Project and Other Previously Approved Projects in the Irvine Business Complex January 13, 2004 Page 2 IBC. After our meeting with Irvine staff, we requested information on projects previously approved with addenda to the 1992 Program EIR, and to be notified of new projects as they are undergoing development review. The first pending IBC project for which we received early notification and an opportunity to review and comment on the traffic study is the Scholle development. This project includes 425,000 square feet of office space, a 7,500 square -foot restaurant and a 54,000 square -foot health club. The project site is at 19000 Jamboree Road, near Fairchild Road. A Conditional Use Permit, a Tentative Parcel Map and the Transfer of Development Rights will be necessary for project approval. In September we received a draft traffic study for the Scholle project, and Newport Beach staff met again with Irvine staff to discuss this study, as well as other recent approvals in the Irvine Business Complex. Based on information received at that meeting, staff grew concerned with potential traffic and other cumulative impacts associated with recently approved projects. Staff reports, environmental documents and the IBC Program EIR were obtained for further study. Newport Beach staff submitted comments to Irvine in September, and supplemented them with review by an independent traffic consultant in November. Both sets of comments are attached, and revisions to the traffic study are currently underway. On October 14 the City Council requested that the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) review the environmental documentation for recent and proposed projects in IBC. EQAC appointed a subcommittee at their November meeting, and this group began reviewing the volumes of documents received from the City of Irvine. EQAC met on December 16 and discussed the Scholle project along with projects approved and /or considered within the last few years. The full Committee approved a summary of concerns prepared by the subcommittee and recommended that the City Council submit these comments to the City of Irvine. A copy of the summary, reformatted as a letter from Mayor Ridgeway, is attached to this report. EQAC is recommending that the City Council request that the City of Irvine prepare a new EIR for the Scholle project. A new EIR is required to analyze potential impacts of this project along with the cumulative impacts of previously approved projects. The Scholle project and most of the previous ones transfer development credits from sites on the north side to sites on the south side of 1-405. In the case of the Scholle project, the receiving site is adjacent to our City boundaries. Both EQAC and staff believe that the 1992 Program EIR did not address potential impacts of this development on Newport Beach, especially traffic impacts. EQAC's review of the environmental documents showed that the circulation system improvements included as mitigation measures in the 1992 Program EIR were proposed for the area north of 1 -405, while we are now seeing development drift to the area south of that freeway. Moreover, the traffic study for the Scholle project initially did not include important intersections south of the project site in Newport Beach. Staff appreciates the work that 0 E 0 EA Comments from EQAC regarding the Scholle Project and Other Previously Approved Projects in the Irvine Business Complex January 13, 2004 Page 3 EQAC did in a very short period of time; we agree with their comments and recommend that they be transmitted to the City of Irvine as written. In addition, staff is asking for the City Council's direction to make additional comments on studies that may become available prior to Irvine's public hearings on the Scholle project. Although we have not received the revised traffic study or the addendum to the Program EIR for the Scholle study, we have been advised that these reports may be released in mid - January and considered at Irvine's Traffic and Infrastructure Commission meeting on January 26, 2004. This would give us only a few days to review these documents, and would not allow for City Council review of our comments. Prepared by: Tamara Campbell, ICP Senior Planner Submitted by: Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: Comments on Traffic Study, September 30, 2003 Consultant ReJiew of Traffic Study, November 10, 2003 Draft Letter to Clcy of Irvine CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 6443311 September 30, 2003 David Law Associate Planner City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 -9575 Subject: Scholle Development Traffic Study Dear Mr. Law: The City of Newport Beach has completed an initial review of the Traffic Study for the proposed Scholle Development project to be located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road. This site is on the border between the two cities and the traffic impacts of a project this size are of concern to Newport Beach. The impacts of the project on . intersections and roadway links wholly or partially within the City of Newport Beach are not adequately addressed by the study. The City of Newport Beach requests that no discretionary approvals be given to the project until such time as we can more fully review the Traffic Study and provide detailed comments for your consideration. Our preliminary review has identified a number of major inadequacies in the Traffic Study. Some of the most apparent ones are as follows: 1. The boundary of the study area needs to be extended sufficiently far to the south of the Fairchild property to evaluate the impact of project traffic on the links and intersections in this direction. Figure 30 of the Traffic Study indicates that 55% of the traffic from the project will come from this direction, yet only six of the forty-nine intersections analyzed are in the area south of the site. 2. A key component of the circulation system within the study area is incorrectly coded into the model network for 2025 and later. The exhibits show a connector (JR -5) from northbound Jamboree Road to the northbound SR 73 freeway. If this connector is constructed, a new off -ramp from SR 73 will be required to replace the existing Birch Street off -ramp. The proposed off -ramp will intersect Jamboree Road opposite Bristol Street North. This off -ramp is not reflected in the study. The City is contemplating the deletion of the JR -5 ramp and suggests that the 2025 and Post 2025 analyses include . alternatives of with and without the JR -5 ramp and the associated off -ramp. A • 3. Freeway volumes and volume to capacity ratios are depicted on certain of the exhibits, but they are never discussed in the report. It is requested that the study include a discussion of the impacts of the project on both mainline and ramp volumes at interchanges of both I -405 and SR 73 within an appropriate study boundary. 4. Intersections that are partially or wholly within the City of Newport Beach should be analyzed using the City of Newport Beach Traffic Study methodology for the short range time period. This methodology is detailed in Chapter 15.40 "Traffic Phasing Ordinance" of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. The study should provide detailed information on the various Trip Generation rates used by the City of Irvine. It appears that there are at least three different rates that are involved in this analysis; IBC rates for Transfer of Development Rights, ITAM model rates and ITE driveway rates. Due to the size of this project and its potential impacts on the City of Newport Beach, we will be performing a more detailed review of the project and the various assumptions used to perform the analysis. We expect to have additional specific comments as a result - of this fuller review by the end of October 2003. We respectfully request the City of Irvine to not schedule any discretionary actions on this project until we have provided these additional comments. 1 0 Sincerely, d 1 ��LtGQi�i�• Gtr Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Transportation & Development Services Manager 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. • P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 6443311 November 10, 2003 David Law Associate Planner City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 -9575 Subject: Scholle Development Traffic Study Dear Mr. Law: This letter supplements my letter dated September 30, 2003 regarding the Traffic Study for the proposed Scholle Development at the comer of Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road. As previously indicated, the City of Newport Beach retained a consultant to supplement staff s review of this document. • The impacts of the project on intersections in Newport Beach cannot be determined based upon the report as it stands. This information is necessary to determine if the project impacts exceed our threshold and will require mitigations. ' The enclosed memo from Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. provides general and specific comments regarding the Traffic Study. The City of Newport Beach respectfully requests that you address each of these comments prior to any discretionary action on this project. Sincerely, Richard M. Edmonston, P.E. Transportation & Development Services Manager Enclosure: MMA memo dated November 10, 2003. • tD �J i Meyer, MoWdesAssociates, tac. An Rees Company MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Edmonston Transportation and Development Services Manager City of Newport Beach FROM: Lee Ward, Associate Vice President Robert Olson, Senior Transportation Engineer DATE: November 10, 2003 SUBJECT: Findings From the Traffic Study Review for the Scholle Development Project; Newport Beach, California The following presents a summary of our findings from the review of the Scholle Development Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kimley -Hom and Associates (K -H), September 2003. The review process included discussions with staff from the City of Newport Beach regarding issues and concerns in and near the study area, staff at Urban Crossroads regarding the model application and outputs, staff at K -H regarding the study assumptions, and staff at the OCTA and TCA regarding current and future transportation system improvement plans and system commitments. The first section of the comments presents issues and concerns with the model assumptions and methodologies used in the study, along with additional questions that still need to be identified by the Consultant. The second section presents a list of apparent errors and omissions based on the review of report and the accompanying technical appendix and areas where additional clarifications should be provided. ITAM Model Issues and Concerns The model formats, assumptions, and data for the ITAM and NBTAM models were reviewed, however model results were not compared, as the actual traffic volume output from the NBTAM was not provided and the data for the ITAM model was only that presented in the report. We sent a list of questions to Urban Crossroads for clarification on the operation and assumptions used in the model. As of this writing, we had not received a direct response to those questions. We have included the questions in the text below. Model Land Use Assumptions Due to the proximity of the Scholle Site to the City of Newport Beach, the land use /socio- economic assumptions used in the ITAM model should be compared with the NBTAM land use assumptions for consistency and accuracy between the two models. In lieu of land use n Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 Page 2 of 14 comparison, trip generation results should be compared between the two models for the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) within the City of Newport Beach. While the amount of land use to be transferred in the model was based on transferring an equal number of trips from the sending sites to the receiving sites, the combination of land uses was based on the IBC trip generation rates. What is unclear is whether this mix of land uses generates an equal number of trips (sent versus received) in the ITAM. This needs to be verified from the model outputs. The Consultant needs to verify whether the number of trips sent from TAZ 404 and 441 in the ITAM equal the number of trips received at TAZ 546? If not, what is the difference and why? Network Assumptions Since accuracy of roadway network plays a critical role in the Travel Demand Forecasting (TDF) models, the roadway networks for 2007, 2025 and Post 2025 within the City of Newport Beach should be consistent with roadway assumptions within the City of Irvine. As stated in the report, the roadway networks within the City of Irvine are based on committed improvements assumed in the City of Irvine Circulation Plan. Hence the City of Newport Beach Circulation Plan should be used for developing the roadway networks for 2007, 2025 and Post 2025 within the City of Newport Beach. In addition, if some roadway segment attributes such as speed or capacity were adjusted during the NBTAM calibration or validation, they should be carried over to ITAM model for purpose of this study. Trip Distribution Trip distribution links the trip productions in the region with the trip attractions to cieate inter- zonal and intra -zonal travel, called trip tables. Both the ITAM and NBTAM Trip Distribution models are based on the Fratar or Growth model. This structure uses a trip distribution matrix as its starting point and then adjusts the number of trips assigned to each zone (the trip matrix) based on the new total number trips for each zone. However, the trip distribution patterns between the starting trip matrix and the new trip matrix remain constant. Therefore, using the Fratar approach should be done with care, especially if an area is experiencing land use changes. Because the land use mix for the project site changed in the future scenario from the previous model, the Consultant should provide clarification as to whether the Fratar factors for the receiving zone (TAZ 546) changed because of the different land use or were they held constant in all model runs? It is not known from the report if the same seed is used for the "with and without the project" model runs. The trip distribution for the project site zone should be analyzed in detail to ensure that its trip distribution pattern represents the new land use and is not incorrectly reflected based on old, dissimilar land uses. • ^ Traffic Assignment . Traffic assignment in both models should be consistent with the OCTAM methodology. A critical missing part in the report is the model validation, i,e., comparison of forecast traffic Richard Edmonston • November 10, 2003 Page 3 of 14 volumes with actual counts. If the forecast traffic volumes compared with the actual traffic counts are significantly different, the future forecast traffic volumes may need to be adjusted accordingly. ITAM and NBTAM Differences The Consultant should provide clarification on whether any adjustments were made to the inputs or outputs from the ITAM model runs that may not have been done the NBTAM and were any of the assumptions used materially different in the two models (i.e., land use, network configuration, operational considerations {toll vs. no toll }, land -use to socio- economic conversion factors, etc.)? Also, information needs to be provided about whether the Newport Beach area in the ITAM network was consistent with the NBTAM and vice versa? Are there consistent lane and street system configurations including number of lanes, toll assumptions, etc.? If not, what material differences are there? Finally, the Consultant needs to provide information regarding what post - processing was done to the model output to achieve the turning movement and link volumes presented in the ICU worksheets? Because the model should be assigning traffic as Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE), the numbers may not be fully calibrated with existing data, and the numbers may be • generated as link volume data and not directly as intersection turning volumes, the number of trips for some locations may either be adjusted to inappropriately replicate existing patterns or may be directly taken from the model and not accurately reflect established behaviors. Because some of this information was not available as of this writing, some of these will need to be addressed by K -H and Urban Crossroads through responses to comments. Errors, Omissions, and Additional Clarifications General Comments ■ There are no existing conditions analysis worksheets provided for the study area intersections. No figure is provided depicting existing condition V/C ratios for the area roadways. ■ Roadway analysis should be provided for all scenarios for I -405, SR -73, SR -55, Bristol Street and Jamboree Road south of SR -73. Ramp analysis should be provided for all ramps along SR -73 and I -405 where project traffic will be traveling. ■ For locations where intersection or street geometries were found to not match existing conditions, the capacity analyses must be rerun to determine if the conclusions are materially different. Discussions with the K -H project manager for the traffic report indicated that the study area boundaries were initially identified by K -H and then approved by the City of Irvine staff. K -H. stated that the study are was not extended to the south because the trips were not assumed to change significantly from that area compared to the original IBC EIR Richard Edmonton November 10, 2003 • Page 4 of 14 traffic study. The traffic impacts from trip rerouting would be primarily expected in the north since that is where the trips would have been originally assigned. We do not agree with this assumption. If the study was to only look at the differences in the trip assignments between the original EIR study and this modified land -use plan and identify impacts that were previously not accounted for, then the trips and mitigation measures from that earlier study should have been presented and the incremental changes compared. Since the study looked at the trips generated on top of existing traffic volumes along with ambient background growth, then the trips were being assigned the same as a typical traffic study and all intersections within the projects sphere of influence that could be significantly impacted by additional traffic should have been analyzed. Page 1: • In the first paragraph the square footage from the Edwards sending site should be 532,389 square feet and not 568,991 as shown. • In the last paragraph the report should clarify whether the existing buildings will remain or whether the development sizes presented are the total project sizes. Page 4: • The first paragraph states that the existing entitlements plus the proposed transfers bring the total development to 486,500 square feet. This does not equate if the existing entitlement rights are for 138,328 square feet and they are transferring about 556,000 square feet of rights. This should be clarified to identify the actual entitlement rights being proposed for the Scholle property. • The report needs to clarify why there is a need to transfer 556,00 square feet of development rights for a project that is only 486,500 square feet in size, especially given that the site already has unused development rights. • The fifth paragraph states that all G.P. (general plan) roadway links in the study area were analyzed. This should either be changed to state that only G.P. links in the City of Irvine were analyzed or state which intersections outside of the city, if any, are being analyzed. • The study area should be extended to the south at least one mile to include major intersections in Newport Beach. Since Jamboree and SR -73 are identified in the report as CMP roadways, they should be analyzed to identify impacts to the south, east, and west of the project site. Additional intersections analyzed should include: • University and Jamboree • University and MacArthur Ramps • Bison and Jamboree • Bison and MacArthur • Bison and SR -73 Ramps . • Bayview and Bristol Street South • The first bullet point at the bottom of the page is repeated. 1Z Richard Edmonston • November 10, 2003 Page 5 of 14 Page 5: • Figure 3 does not reflect the existing roadway configuration for the Jamboree /SR -73 interchange. Bristol Street should also be added to the figure. This should be changed to reflect current conditions. The figure should also be extended south to include additional analysis intersections in Newport Beach. Page 6: ■ Figure 4 does not reflect the existing roadway configuration for the Jamboree /SR -73 interchange. Bristol Street should also be added to the figure. This should be changed to reflect current conditions. The figure should also be extended south to include additional analysis intersections in Newport Beach. Page 8: • Under the Analysis Methodology section, discussion should be included discussing the Newport Beach Methodology for those intersections either wholly within or on the border of Newport Beach. • Page 9: • Under the Model Assumptions section, all planned or assumed roadway changes should be listed to more clearly identify changes in the area. These assumptions should be checked against the figures, capacity calculations, and model inputs. • The future improvements along the SR -73 corridor should be checked. Discussions with TCA officials indicated that the proposed ramp improvements at Jamboree Road and the widening south of Jamboree are on hold and may not be completed in the time frame of this study. Therefore, an alternative analysis should be prepared for both with and without -ramp scenarios. In addition, based on discussions with OCTA planning staff the inclusion of HOV lanes along SR -73 may not occur by the planning year 2025. If the inclusion of these lanes in the Year 2025 forecasts has significantly redistributed traffic to the south along this corridor, the impacts of not having those lanes should be considered. While it is understood that the HOV lanes are in the OCTA Year 2025 planning model, the current financial condition of the TCA may result in a significant delay in such facilities being funded in the planning horizon. Therefore, the impacts of not having such facilities should be understood. Page 10: • The figure should be extended south to include all of the analysis intersections in Newport Beach. . Bristol Street, Bristol Street North, and Birch Street should be added to the figure. • Existing lane numbers should be provided for all of the roadway links in the figure. Richard Edmonton November 10, 2003 Page 6 of 14 Pages 11 and 12: • The table should include analysis for SR -73 and Bristol Street. • For locations outside of Irvine, appropriate values should be presented based on acceptable criteria from the managing agency. Page 13: • The intersection geometries for the locations identified in the following section (Intersection Geometry and Capacity Calculations) are not accurately reflected in the figure. These should be changed to reflect accurate current conditions. • The municipal boundaries for Irvine and Newport Beach should be shown on the figure. • The figure should be extended south to include all of the analysis intersections in Newport Beach. Page 14: • The lane configuration on Birch Street should be checked. There is no current plan to widen Birch to six lanes as depicted in the figure. • The cross- section of Jamboree south of Michelson should be checked to verify the seven -lane configuration depicted. No improvement plan was identified to indicate any additional lanes. Analysis calculations should be revised accordingly. • The cross - section for SR -55 should be reviewed to determine if the 10D cross - section • includes the proposed HOV lanes under construction. Analysis results should be revised accordingly. • Bristol Street is shown as 3D, when the street narrows to only two lanes west of the SR -73 off -ramp. Page 15: ■ The LOS "E" capacity for Main Street between Harvard and Culver should be provided, rather than "N /A ". Page 17: • The intersection diagrams should be revised based on the comments in the following section to accurately reflect existing plus committed improvement cross - sections. Page: 18: The figure should be extended south to include all of the analysis intersections in Newport Beach. Page 21: • In the first bullet point Red Hill Avenue is listed as widened between Main and I -405, however Figure 11 shows it widened between I -405 and MacArthur • The last bullet point lists Jamboree Road being widened from an 8 -lane Major Roadway • to a 10 -lane Smart Street. However, a review of the OCTA Directions 2030 plan did not list such an improvement. a' Richard Edmonston • November 10, 2003 Page 7 of 14 • The assumption in the last paragraph that the LA Fitness building will be converted to Industrial use should be substantiated as it appears contrary to development trends in the area. Page 22: • See previous discussion regarding Figures 6 and 8. Page 23: • Cross - section for Birch Street is incorrect. Should be four lanes. • Cross - section for Bristol Street is incorrect. Should be two lanes. • The future cross - section of Jamboree Road is depicted as an eight -lane cross - section south of SR -73. The eight -lane segment is quite short and the model should be checked to be sure this segment is correctly coded. Page 26: • See previous discussion regarding Figures 6 and 8. Page 28: • The project square footage for TAZ 441 (Fitness Center) does not match the rest of the • report. Correct value and verify correct number was used in the model calculations. • Table indicates that 23,000 square feet of space is to be removed from the Scholle site. If the incremental traffic growth is being assigned to the existing intersection values for the capacity analysis and the existing development space is vacant, then t116 model trip generation for the existing site is incorrectly being subtracted from existing volumes. To correctly assign the incremental difference in traffic, the existing land use values should be subtracted from the existing conditions, revalidated, and then the new development on the site added. This analysis needs to be verified to be sure site traffic volumes are not being incorrectly removed. • The consultant needs to explain why the transferred value at the receiving site is less than the value removed from the sending site. Some numerical equivalency should be presented to equate the two values. Page 29: • The consultant should explain the second sentence in the first paragraph. Existing traffic counts should be used to validate the existing model runs and not the future year scenarios. • If the existing traffic volumes were used to validate the existing model data and the site was not occupied during the time when the counts were conducted, then the land use assumptions in the model should be adjusted to match actual conditions when the counts were conducted. The consultant needs to provide clarification on this. • The consultant should explain the first sentence in the second and last paragraphs regarding how the existing traffic counts were used in running the ITAM model for future volumes. s� Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 Page 8 of 14 Page 30: • The figure depicts the site in the wrong location. • The graphic has the wrong configuration for the Jamboree /SR -73 interchange. • The figure should show traffic volumes for all of the major streets in the study area including SR -73, Bristol Street, and SR -55. Page 36: The V/C ratio for Bristol South is shown to be 1.41. If this is correct, analysis should be provided along with discussion regarding possible mitigation measures, as it would be unlikely that the roadway would function at this V/C level. This is especially important as on page 55 the report indicates that 15.8 percent of the project traffic would be using this roadway. Page 39: • The last paragraph states that the LA Fitness site is assumed to have the same land uses as existing for the year 2025. However, the table on page 28 indicates increased land use in each analysis year. One of these needs to be corrected. If the model was run with incorrect data, then the trip analysis should be rerun and appropriate calculations revised. 0 Page 42: ■ The roadway volumes on Jamboree south of University and on Birch north of Bristol are lower in the 2025 analysis than in 2007. The consultant must explain why these volumes would decrease when development in increased. Page 48: • The roadway volumes on SR -73 are lower in the Post 2025 analysis than in 2025 when additional lane capacity was added. The consultant must explain why these volumes would decrease when development in increased. Page 54: • A more complete description of the trip generation rates used should be provided. The IBC rates listed in the table show a daily trip generation total of 10,349 trips with 821 AM and 1,013 PM trips. The ITE rates used for the driveway analysis show 6,327 daily trips with 613 AM and 845 PM trips. Pages 55, 56, and 57: • The directional distribution percentages display an anomaly between the 2007, 2025, and Post 2025 values. The percent of site traffic approaching and departing to the south on Jamboree is about 32 percent in 2007, but drops to about 22 percent in 2025 and . beyond. The consultant needs to explain why this significant amount of site traffic would shift from Jamboree. Based on the illustrations, the traffic appears to move to Richard Edmonton November 10, 2003 Page 9 of 14 MacArthur. A concern is that the site demographic data is not being accurately reflected in the regional distribution and the model may be assigning traffic based on an industrial -type development rather than an office /commercial site. ■ The consultant should provide a distribution by direction, especially for the roadways proximate to the site, to provide a better explanation of site traffic movement. Page 58: • In the second paragraph the consultant states that the ITAM model may provide "unexplainable results" in some locations because of shifts in background traffic. However, no locations where this occurred are presented. The consultant should either identify any such locations or remove the paragraph. • The third paragraph states that the LA Fitness site is assumed to have the same land uses as existing for the year 2025. However, the table on page 28 indicates increased land use in each analysis year. One of these needs to be corrected. If the model was run with incorrect data, then the trip analysis should be rerun and appropriate calculations revised. Page 59: The volumes on Jamboree south of SR -73 are lower than the Without- Project scenario. The consultant needs to explain why traffic volumes would decrease in this area approaching the site. Page 65: ■ The volumes on Jamboree south of SR -73 are lower than the Without- Project scenario. The consultant needs to explain why traffic volumes would decrease in this area approaching the site. Page 69: The intersections of Jamboree at MacArthur and Jamboree at Birch are partially within Newport Beach and any impact that exceeds the Newport Beach threshold must be mitigated. Page 71: In the first paragraph, the consultant states that by not rounding the V/C calculation results to two decimal places the project would not have a significant impact on area roadways and intersections. However, if this rounding is required by Irvine, this comment is irrelevant. If Irvine does not specify this method of rounding, the model output should be revised to eliminate or correct the rounding. Page 73: • The traffic volumes on Jamboree south of SR -73 and on SR -73 east of Birch street are lower in the With- Project scenario than in the Without- Project scenario. The consultant should provide an explanation why this is occurring. \b Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 . Page 10 of 14 Page 77: • The intersections that are partially or wholly in Newport Beach should be analyzed and mitigated per the Newport Beach methodology. • See discussion for Page 71. Page 83: • The queuing analysis does not take into consideration surge loading at the site entrances. It is not reasonable to expect employees to arrive evenly over a one -hour period in the AM peak hour. More typically about 75 percent of the employees will arrive in the 30 minutes prior to starting work. Therefore, the analysis should be analyzing an equivalent load of 150 percent of the peak -hour volume (75 percent in 30 minutes = 150 percent in 60 minutes). Using these values, the stacking should be for about six to seven cars per gate rather than One or two. • The first bullet point indicates that Access Drive A will be signalized, but no analysis is provided in the report. Queue analysis of the left -turn traffic should be included to determine the adequacy of the left -turn lanes at both Fairchild and Drive A. This analysis must consider traffic signal timing which favors through traffic on Jamboree. Page 84: • The calculations should be revised to reflect the above comment. Page 86: This table should be combined with the previous site trip information to compare the projected generation using the three trip generation rates (IBC, ITAM, and ITE). Page 87: • The north arrow should be adjusted in the figure to reflect the actual north direction. • The figure reasonably reflects the directional distribution of traffic as presented in the 2007 model scenario. However, for 2025 and beyond the figure and driveway volumes do not reflect the model results. If the long -range model is deemed to be correct, then the implications on site traffic access and intersection operations should be discussed and analysis provided. Page 90: • For the CMP analysis, the bullet points identify the CMP roads in the study area. However, the next paragraph states that only Jamboree Road and I -405 are in the study area. However, SR -73 is one of the stated study area boundaries and therefore must be in the study area. Also MacArthur south of Jamboree is part of the CMP system and should be included in the analysis. ■ There is no analysis presented of the CMP roadway analysis. \6 Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 Page 11 of 14 Page 91: • The second paragraph states that the City of Newport Beach will adopt a deficiency plan for the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur. A portion of the intersection lies within the City of Irvine and any deficiency plan will have to be adopted by both cities. • This same paragraph references Table 27 in error. The correct reference is Table 29. • The third paragraph states that 467,030 square feet of development rights will be transferred from the Edwards site. This number should be corrected to be 532,389. Intersection Geometry and Capacity Calculations The intersection geometry and capacity calculations were reviewed. The following outlines the comments and corrections for the intersections in the southern portion of the study area: Intersection #84: MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) Intersection #85: MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) ■ The existing intersection lane configuration on Figures 6, 8, and 10 needs to be revised. The figures should indicate a shared thru -right on the southbound approach and a shared thru -right on the eastbound approach. The correct lane configuration was used for the ICU calculations, but not on the figures. Intersection #105: Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive ■ The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) Intersection #106: Von Karman Avenue at Birch Street • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) Intersection #107: Von Karman Avenue at Mac Arthur Boulevard ■ The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised as indicated on the attached mark up. The figure should indicate two left turn lanes, one thru lane, 11 Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 Page 12 of 14 and a free right turn lane in the southbound direction. The lane configuration was indicated correctly in the ICU calculation but not on Figure 6. Intersection #146: Jamboree Road at Dupont Road • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised. The figure should indicate a shared thru -right in the eastbound direction and a shared thru -right in the westbound direction. Intersection #147: Jamboree Road at Campus Drive • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised. The figure should indicate two left turn lanes in the northbound direction. The figure should also indicate two left turn lanes, two thru lanes, and one free right in the eastbound direction. The capacity calculations for each scenario should be revised to reflect the correct geometry. Intersection #148: Jamboree Road at Birch Street • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with`and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) Intersection #149: Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised. The figure should indicate a shared thru -right in the northbound direction and a shared thru -right in the eastbound direction. The lane configuration was indicated correctly in the ICU calculations but not on Figure 6. Intersection #150: Jamboree Road at MacArthur Boulevard • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised. The figure should indicate a right turn lane in the westbound direction. Intersection #151: Jamboree Road at Bristol Street North Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 Page 13 of 14 • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) • Although the northbound right turn onto the SR -73 ramp occurs north of the intersection, the lane striping designates the movements for the ramp exit prior to the intersection. It should be assumed that drivers will move to the appropriate lane prior to the intersection and the two right -most lanes will not operate as exclusive through lanes at the intersection. Therefore, the capacity calculations should be revised to reflect this condition by analyzing the northbound approach as one right -tum lane, one shared through /right -turn lane, and one exclusive through lane. The geometry should also be reflected in Figures 6, 8, and 10. Intersection #153: Jamboree Road at Bristol Street South • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised. The figure should indicate a shared thru -right in the northbound direction and is also missing an east leg (SR -73 on- ramp). The lane configuration was indicated correctly in the ICU • calculations but not on Figure 6. Intersection #176: Fairchild Avenue at MacArthur Boulevard • The existing intersection lane configuration on Figure 6 needs to be revised -The figure should indicate a shared thru -right in the westbound direction. The lane configuration was indicated correctly in the ICU calculations but not on Figure 6. Intersection #194: University Drive at MacArthur Boulevard SB • The ICU analysis needs to be recalculated using Newport Beach capacity of 1600 vphpl and without the clearance interval of 0.05 for all scenarios (2007 with and without project, 2025 with and without project, and Post 2025 with and without project) Intersection #229: Alton Parkway and Culver Drive The lane configuration on the westbound approach is incorrect. The existing lane configuration should be two left -turn lanes, one exclusive through lane, and one shared through /right -turn lane. The figures and capacity calculation indicate a separate westbound right -turn. The future scenarios also indicate three through lanes each direction on Alton. The figures and capacity calculations must be recalculated to reflect the correct lane configurations and number of through lanes. Other intersections where inconsistencies were identified include #9- MacArthur Sr -55 NB • Ramp, #42 -Red Hill/Barranca, #47 -Red Hill/MacArthur, #49 -Red Hill/Main, #145 - Jamboree/Michelson, and #234- Culver/Michelson. These intersections should be re- surveyed and the capacity calculation rerun to identify and reflect the correct current geometry. 1' Richard Edmonston November 10, 2003 Page 14 of 14 Intersections where future improvements are planned and programmed should be identified in the report text and highlighted in the figures. Final Review Memo 11- 04- 03.doc • • • • Mayor Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor Pro Tein Garold B. Adams Council Members Steven Bromberg John Heffernan Richard A. Nichols DRAFT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 14, 2004 David Law, AICP Senior Planner, City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623 -99575 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Steven Rosansky RE: PRELIMINARY COMMENTS REGARDING THE SCHOLLE PROJECT Don Webb (19000 JAMBOREE ROAD) AND USE OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE 1992 PROGRAM EIR FOR THE IRVINE BUSINESS COMPLEX Dear Mr. Law: This letter is intended to provide you with early notice of our concerns pertaining to the proposed Scholle development and the use of an addendum to a previously prepared Program EIR forcompliance with CEQA. In addition to the . potential impacts to the City of Newport Beach resulting from this project, we are equally concerned with the cumulative impacts resulting from recently approved projects located in the Irvine Business Complex near our City limits. Please note that although we have not received the addendum to the Program EIR for the Scholle Project, nor the proposed final traffic study, the City of Newport Beach has been advised that these reports may be released by the City of Irvine in mid - January and considered by the Traffic and Infrastructure Commission on January 26, 2004, giving us only a few days to review relevant documents. As such, our Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) began reviewing volumes of documents in connection with recently approved projects at the Irvine Business Complex and evaluated a draft traffic study for the Scholle project. The Committee met on December 15, 2003 and discussed the project, along with projects approved and /or considered within the last few years. Committee members compiled the following summary of concerns which were subsequently reviewed and approved by the City Council at its meeting on January 13, 2004. Summary of Concerns: Unmitigated Sicmnificant Traffic Impacts As discussed below, the Program EIR for the Irvine Business Complex concluded that the Project, General Plan Amendment and rezoning of the IBC . would result in significant traffic impacts, which could not be mitigated. In connection with this impact, in 1992, the City of Irvine adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the 1992 GPA/Rezoning Project. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us n (949) 644 -3004 r David Law Page 2 January 14, 2004 • The Scholle Project will intensify these impacts: it transfers substantial amounts of development rights under the Program EIR's provision for Transfer of Development Rights which allows for transfer of trips between sites in the IBC. The transfer sites are north of Interstate 405; and the Project site is approximately two miles south of 1-405, adjacent to State Route 73 and surrounded by the City of Newport Beach on three sides. In addition, within the past two years, the City of Irvine has considered and /or approved eight (8) projects, four of which have transferred development rights from north of 1- 405 to south of 1-405. The City should prepare an EIR to study the cumulative impacts of these projects and the Project impacts and propose any necessary mitigation. We recommend that the City reconsider the Addendum and the Program EIR, revise the document and prepare another EIR to address the Project's impacts in connection with the John Wayne Airport, State Route 73, various important intersections within the City of Newport Beach and the cumulative impacts of the Scholle Project combined with other projects. All of these Projects are, or were, based upon the Program EIR and have transferred development/traffic impact credits south of various related sites and sometimes south of Interstate 405 with direct impacts to important intersections within the City of Newport Beach. We make these recommendations for several reasons: • (1) The traffic impacts of the Scholle Project alone may warrant the preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR; (2) The cumulative impacts of various commercial projects in the IBC together with those of the Scholle Project require preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR; (3) The cumulative impacts of various residential projects along Jamboree Road together with those of the Scholle Project mandate preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR; (4) The CEQA Guidelines recent requirements regarding developments within the vicinity of airports require preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR; and (5) Various other impacts of the Scholle Project including impacts on water quality, hydrology, natural and protected resources, air quality and other impacts require preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR. 11. The Program EIR, the Addendum and Legal Standards. An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: an EIR is the primary environmental document • which: ?. h David Law Page 3 January 14, 2004 ".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision - makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." • Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, notjust the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929. Pursuant to Guidelines section 151654, an addendum to an EIR may be prepared when the lead agency determines that none of the following conditions set forth in Guidelines section 15162 pertain: (1) "Substantial changes proposed in the project will require major revisions of the previous EIR ... due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occurwith respect to the circumstances underwhich the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR ... due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previous identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR was certified as complete ... shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in • the previous EIR; David Law Page 4 • January 14, 2004 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously analyzed which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." Guidelines section 15162(a). However, as discussed below, the Scholle Project raises several of these issues, and we recommend that the City of Irvine prepare a subsequent EIR or another EIR for the Scholle Project. Moreover, as indicated above, the City of Irvine adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with the IBC Project relating to, among others, traffic impacts. . In order to adopt the Statement, "CEQA requires the decision -maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effect may be considered 'acceptable. "' Guidelines section 15093(a). However, as discussed below, having approved the IBC Project by adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City of Irvine proposes now to approve the Scholle Project without preparing an EIR with full environmental analysis and without adopting another Statement explaining the significance of impacts and the benefits of the Scholle Project. Also, in connection with areas near airports, a recent amendment to the CEQA Guidelines requires: "When a lead agency prepares an EIR for a project within the boundaries of a comprehensive airport land use plan or, if a comprehensive airport land use plan has not been adopted for a project within two nautical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the agency shall utilize the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics to �A David Law • Page 5 January 14, 2004 assist in the preparation of the EIR relative to potential airport- related safety hazards and noise problems." CEQA Guidelines section 15154(a). Ill. Introduction: the IBC Program EIR and the Scholle Proiect. A. The IBC Program EIR and Master Plan. 1. Introduction: the Need for the IBC Master Plan. In 1987, the City of Irvine identified concerns with the previously prepared EIR: "In 1987, the City discovered that the IBC approvals exceeded the level studied in the 1989 (sic) Supplemental EIR." Program EIR, Project Description, III -6. (Something is wrong with the quoted dates). As a result, the City of Irvine enacted an interim urgency ordinance, attempting to limit development in IBC to a level consistent with the "existing and projected transportation system." In 1992, the City approved and certified the Program EIR for IBC. The IBC Project site and planning area covers over 2,800 acres with the following borders: on the . north, the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; on the south, John Wayne Airport and Campus Drive; on the east, San Diego Creek; and on the west, State Route 55; "Interstate 405 transverses the southern portion of the IBC, and Interstate 5 is located to the north and east. " The City of Newport Beach borders the IBC Project on the south. 2. The IBC Proiect and the Program EIR. The IBC Project and Program EIR divided the planning area into three districts: the multi -use district covered all areas south of Barranca Parkway; the industrial district included areas north of Barranca Parkway as well as areas already entitled or used for industrial purposes; and the "[r]esidential [d]istrictwithin IBC will be limited to the existing and previously approved projects." Program EIR, Executive Summary III -9. Among other things, the Program EIR and the IBC Project established: (1) a Trip Budget for each parcel and limited development of the parcel pursuant to the Trip Budget; and (2) it created "a mechanism for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)" and required that each TDR complete a discretionary review process to allow identification of all potential impacts of the TDR, and propose appropriate mitigation." Program EIR, Executive Summary, III -10. The Circulation and Traffic section of the Program EIR for the IBC employs a three -step model to evaluate traffic forecasts and impacts. The first step is to group intersections within the IBC and measure those intersections by taking a group average. According to the Program EIR, three of the five intersection J David Law Page 6 January 14, 2004 groups fail to meet the performance criteria in the AM and /or PM peak hours for both the current General Plan and Rezoning land use scenarios..." Page IV.A -18. The southern boundary for Group C, one of the failing intersection groups, is located at the intersection of Jamboree and MacArthur, directly adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, and the proposed Scholle Development project site is located within Group C. The traffic analysis for Group C that was done forthe Program EIR shows that this intersection group failed before the additional 9,828 daily trips had been transferred to the Scholle site through the TDR process. The additional 9,828 daily trips further intensify the problem. The Program EIR proposes mitigation measures that include roadway improvements. However, the majority of the roadway improvements are proposed for the northern and central portions of the IBC in intersection Groups and B, while most of the daily trips that have been (or are proposed to be transferred) are to the southern portion of the IBC in intersection Group C, including the 9,828 daily trips that have been added to the proposed Scholle Development project site. The second step used to evaluate traffic forecasts in the Program EIR is "screenline analysis," which "entails the grouping together of parallel links in the arterial network, and comparing their total assigned traffic volume to their combined roadway capacity." According to the Program EIR, "(e]ven with the extensive mitigation program, two screenlines continue to exceed the (Average Daily Trip] ADT link volume performance criteria: screenline 3 (V /C = 1.05) (Main Street, which intersects Jamboree just north of 1-405] and screenline 4 (V /C = 1.11) (Michelson Drive, which intersects Jamboree just south of 1 -4051. These findings continue to demonstrate the shortage of north -south capacity within IBC." Page IV.A -48. The failure of these two screenlines, particularly at the intersections on Jamboree, may have significant impacts to circulation and traffic on MacArthur and Jamboree in the City of Newport Beach, especially in view of the Scholle Project and other projects recently approved by the City of Irvine. Again, the failure of these intersections was determined before the additional 9,828 daily trips had been proposed to be transferred to the Scholle Development project site through the TDR process. CEQA allows the listing of "relevant past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects" and requires a summary of the projects and a "reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects" and an examination of "reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to any significant cumulative effects." However, the Program EIR simply provides a list of proposed projects within a two -mile radius of the IBC area and fails to provide any analysis of the cumulative impacts or feasible options for mitigating those impacts. More importantly, and as discussed below, the environmental documents in connection with the Scholle Project fail to carefully consider the cumulative impacts of other recently approved projects within IBC, most of which result in TDRs to the south of the IBC and near or adjacent to the City of Newport Beach. David Law Page January 14, 2004 4 The Traffic and Circulation discussion of the Cumulative Impacts section in the Program EIR states that "(d)ue to the nature of the project, the projects contribution to cumulative traffic impacts is considered significant." However, the Program EIR defers any mitigation to the proposed traffic mitigation measures and to "individual projects contributing toward the construction of ultimate road configurations adjacent to their properties..." Page V. 19 -20. Finally, and most importantly, the Program EIR concludes, "[t]he IBC Rezoning Project will have a significant impact on traffic and circulation within and surrounding the IBC." Even with the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, "several intersections and road segments within and surrounding the IBC will not meet City performance criteria, which is considered a significant impact as a result of the IBC General Plan Amendment and Rezoning Project." (Page IV. A -75.) B. The Scholle Proiect. As indicated above, the Scholle Development Project is located at 19000 Jamboree Road at the southeast corner of Jamboree Road and Fairchild Road in the City of Irvine, and which borders on the City of Newport Beach to the west and south. The Project is within close proximity of State Route 73. The Project site is currently developed with 12,000 square feet of office space and 23,000 square feet of industrial space. In addition, under former entitlements, the Project site is entitled an additional 103,328 square feet of office. The Scholle Project proposes an additional 413,000 square feet of office space for a total of 425,000 square feet of office space, 54,000 square feet "of health club," and 7,500 square feet of restaurant uses on the site: the total square footage of the Project is 486,500 square feet. The City of Newport Beach considers this to be a substantial project with potential major environmental impacts. Further, in order to develop the Scholle Project, the applicant seeks to transfer development rights to this site from another site within the IBC. "[t]o accomplish [the Project], the needed trips would be transferred within the [Irvine Business Complex] IBC through the [Transfer of Development Rights] TDR process. A total of 9,828 daily trips will be transferred from the two sending sites [the Edwards Life Sciences Development complex (Sending Site #1) and the former LA Fitness building (Sending Site #2)], with 564 trips in the morning peak hours and 887 trips in the evening peak hour. The total project is estimated to generate 10,349 daily trips, with 821 trips in the morning peak hour, and 1,013 in the evening peak hour, based upon the Irvine 0 Business Complex (IBC) trip generate rates." David Law Page 8 January 14, 2004 01 Scholle Development, Draft Traffic Study, Page I The Program EIR for the IBC concludes that the IBC Project will have significant and unavoidable traffic impacts; accordingly, the City of Irvine adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations. However, the Scholle Development Traffic Study concludes, " the project does not significantly impact any roadway link within the study area." Among other things, the Traffic Study concludes that the Project, including the transfer of Project traffic, will not cause any roadway link to deteriorate from an acceptable to an unacceptable Level of Service, and will not impact an already- deficient roadway link by 0.02 or more." Although the Traffic Study finds that the Project will have a significant long -term impact on two to three intersections, the Traffic Study includes an analysis that concludes that this impact is "overstated." As for parking, the Traffic Study proposes a parking variance of 389 parking spaces. This variance is "supported" by shared parking for each of the Project uses as well as the Project's proposed Transportation Demand Management program. W. Procedural Issues: The Addendum, Document Availability, and Public Comments. 0 The Guidelines section 15164(c) states that an addendum "need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR..." As indicated throughout, we recommend that the City prepare another or subsequent EIR. However, to the extent that the City chooses not to prepare such a document, we respectfully request the circulation of the Addendum for the Scholle Project for public review and comment. At its heart, CEQA is a process statute: it provides the public with the opportunity to participate in the development and environmental review process. The Scholle Project is an important project, which may create significant and unmitigated impacts over and above those recognized in the Program EIR for the IBC. We hope that the City will embrace the spirit of CEQA and circulate the Addendum for public review and comment. V. The Scholle Project: Unmitigated Traffic Impacts and Unmitigated Cumulative Impacts including Traffic Impacts. A. The Scholle Project Unmitigated Traffic Impacts As indicated above, the Scholle Project Traffic Study identifies the size of the entire Scholle Project as 532,389 square feet with 425,000 square feet for office uses, 54,000 square feet for health club uses, and 7,500 square feet for restaurant uses. #1 David Law Page 9 . January 14, 2004 The current uses include 12,000 square feet of office space, 23,000 square feet of industrial space and an additional entitlement of 103,328 for office uses. The current trip budget for the site is 581 trips with 257 morning peak hour trips and 383 evening peak hour trips. The proposed TDR's will increase the trip budget substantially: almost twenty times the total current trip budget for the site with more than three times the amount of morning peak hour trips and more than three times the amount of evening peak hour trips. The Project proposes to transfer from two sites north of Interstate 405 to the Project site adjacent to State Route 73, the following: 9,828 daily trips with 564 morning peak hour trips and 887evening peak hour trips. The totals are quite significant; the Project will generate 10,349 daily trips with 821 morning peak hour trips and 1,013 evening peak hour trips. More significantly, the Scholle Project and Addendum propose to add to or attach to the Program EIR, which recognized that the IBC Project would create significant impacts, especially with north /south arterials, and such impacts would not be capable of mitigation. The Program EIR proposed many traffic improvements in the hopes of ameliorating, but not mitigating below significance, such traffic impacts. Surprisingly, most of those improvements occur in the area of the Scholle Project Sending Sites. That is, the traffic impacts of the Sending Sites are mitigated near the sending sites but the actual traffic impacts through the TDR are transferred south, where little or no improvements occur. In addition, we believe the study area for the Traffic Study is too small for meaningful environmental analysis. As noted above, the Program EIR included a similar deficiency: the traffic study area was limited to IBC and areas east and north of Campus Ave. That is, although State Route 73 was in the planning stages in 1992 and the IBC is adjacent to this highway, the Program EIR failed to conduct any analysis of the Project's impacts on State Route 73, on -ramps thereto and intersections and roadways south of this route in the City of Newport Beach. Given the conclusion of the Program EIR that the IBC Project would create significant and unmitigated traffic impacts, such a limitation may not be surprising but it appears to fall short of adequate environmental review. However, with the somewhat extended study area for the Scholle Project which includes portions of State Route 73, the Addendum appears to go beyond the Program EIR. We believe that this extension is unacceptable under CEQA as an Addendum to the Program EIR and request that the City of Irvine prepare a new EIR or a Supplement to the Program EIR which would be circulated for full and fair public review and comment. • It should be noted that even the Scholle Project's extended traffic study area is inadequate: the north boundary .is State Route 55; and the south boundary is David Law Page 10 • January 14, 2004 University Ave. However, the study area excludes important arterials and intersections in the City of Newport Beach including the MacArthur Blvd. off - ramp from State Route 73; MacArthur Blvd. including its intersections with Bison Ave., Bonita Canyon Drive, and others; Bayview Dr. and Bristol Street South; and Jamboree Road and University Ave. These are only some of the problem areas. The Scholle Project alone provides sufficient cause for the City of Irvine to prepare a new EIR or Supplement to the Program EIR and propose real and effective mitigation measures for the traffic burdens created by the Scholle Project. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Scholle Project itself is not sufficient for such a new document and analysis, the cumulative impacts of recent TDRs south to areas near the City of Newport Beach, including the Scholle Project, are considered more than sufficient to warrant a new and full environmental analysis, a new EIR or Supplemental EIR and new mitigation measures. B. The Scholle Proiect and Unmitigated Cumulative Impacts. As indicated above, the City of Irvine has considered or approved eight (8) development projects in the IBC. These include: RD Olson /Legacy Partners Project which includes 290 residential • units with 7,500 sq. ft. retail and requires TDR, GPA, ZC, CUP. This project was approved in December 2003. 2. The Lofts at Von Karman which includes 116 residential units (93 base units with 20% affordable qualifying for a 25% density bonus of 23 units) and which is set for consideration by the Planning Commission in early 2004. 3. The 2300 Michelson Project which includes 80,000 square feet of office use, requires TDR from north of Interstate 405 to an area south of Interstate 405, and has been approved by the Planning Commission. 4. Essex Apartments Project which includes 132 units, with 15% affordable and which was approved in April 2003 (now in litigation). 5. MetLife Apartment Project which includes 481 market rate units with in -lieu affordable housing fee contribution and which was approved in June 2003. 6. The Lakeshore Towers Project which includes a 7 story, 140,951 sq. ft. office building and expansion of parking structure, which requires • David Law Page 11 • January 14, 2004 TDR from north of Interstate 405 to immediately south of Interstate 405, and which was approved in February 2002. 7. 18800 Von Karman Office Project which includes two -story, 26,000 sq. ft. office building, requires TDR from north of Interstate 405 to south of Interstate 405, and was approved in December 2001. 8. The Von Karman Properties /Larry Armstrong which includes two office towers, requires TDR from a site on the north edge of IBC to the Project site near Interstate 405, and which was approved in November, 2002. Clearly the number of these projects, their area and the fact that the Program EIR recognized that the IBC area has significant and unmitigated traffic impacts should be of concern to the City of Irvine and cause the City of Irvine to consider the Scholle Project very carefully. Most of the above eight (8) projects involve a TDR from the north of IBC southerly. Three of these Projects require TDR's from north of Interstate 405 to areas south of Interstate 405 and very close to the City of Newport Beach. A brief review of these last three TDRs as well as the Lofts at Von Karman will reveal the significance of these cumulative impacts. First, given the Program EIR's restrictions regarding new residential development, the Lofts at Von Karman cause concern. It proposes to: increase the IBC dwelling unit cap by thirty (30) units, increase dwelling unit intensity from 0-40 units to 0 -52 units per acre, and decrease the IBC non - residential square footage cap. Among other issues, the project proposed to rezone the site from IBC Multi -use to residential under a new zoning category. Given the Program EIR's restrictions regarding increased residential as well as the three categories of approved uses, none of these changes could fall under the Program EIR. More importantly, given the change in use, the project at the very least requires some traffic analysis. At worst, it requires preparation of a new EIR. In combination with the Scholle Project, the cumulative impacts of this project alone should require the City of Irvine to prepare a new EIR for the Scholle Project. The TDR projects also cause concern. First, at build out, the 2300 Michelson Project will include 80,000 square feet of office use. Currently, the project site includes only 25,000 square feet of office use. The project proposes a TDR of 55,000 square feet of office use from 17861 Von Karman Avenue, north of Interstate 405. By the standards of the Scholle Project, the transfer numbers are not large but they virtually double the project's current trip budget. Currently, average daily trip totals at the site are 332 trips with 31 morning peak hour trips and 33 evening peak • hour trips. The transfer numbers are total daily trips of 757, morning peak hour trips of 72 and evening peak hour trips of 76. The total number of trips is large by David Law Page 12 January 14, 2004 comparison: average daily trips of 1,786 with 168 morning peak hour trips and 179 peak hour trips. The trip budget for the site with the TDR reduces this total to a level which the City of Irvine believes may be acceptable. Regardless of this conclusion, the cumulative impacts of this project alone when considered together with the Scholle Project, require the City of Irvine to prepare a new EiR. The Lakeshore Tower Project is similar. Currently, the project site includes 772,500 square feet of office uses in three buildings, 12,100 of restaurant use, and 89,940 square feet of health club use. The proposed project will increase the office space by 140,951 square feet for a total of 913,451 square feet. Currently, the trip budget for the site is large: 19,857 average daily trips with 1,293 morning peak hour trips and 1,833 evening peak hour trips. The project will increase this budget through the TDR as follows: 21,675 average daily trips with 1,465 morning peak hour trips and 2,015 evening peak hour trips. Although the current entitlement is large, the project makes it even greater. This is especially true since the IBC Project and Program EIR proposed an HOV on -ramp to interstate 405 at Von Karman, and no such improvements, neither the Interstate 405 HOV lane nor the Von Karman on ramp have been built. Notwithstanding the above, the City of Irvine again concluded that the project would have no significant impacts oreven significant cumulative impacts. The City of Newport Beach believes that this Lakeshore project, when considered with the Scholle Project, will exacerbate an already bad traffic situation. In 2001, the City approved the 18800 Von Karman office project with a new two - story, 26,000 square -foot office building. Currently, the project site includes a 19,590 office /industrial building. The project proposes to subdivide the parcel to allow for the construction of a second 26,000 square foot building. The current trip budget for the site is: 265 average daily trips with 41 morning peak hour trips and 43 evening peak hour trips. The project would almost double this demand: 465 average daily trips with 60 morning peak hour trips and 63 evening peak hour trips. As with the other projects, the transfers would come from sites north of Interstate 405. Some of the above projects are not large, but the cumulative impacts of these projects are significant. Considering these projects together with the Scholle Project, it must be concluded that the cumulative impacts are significant and require preparation of another document, not an Addendum, but an EIR or Supplemental EIR. �. Statements of Overriding Considerations • As indicated above, the Program EIR for the IBC Project concluded that the Project would result in significant and unmitigated traffic impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City of Irvine adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection with the IBC Project and its traffic impacts. . David Law • Page January 14, 2004 04 The Scholle Addendum appears to incorporate this finding. However, without adequate environmental analysis, the City cannot make the requisite finding. As indicated above, the City of Irvine must conduct a thorough review and analysis of the traffic impacts and all available mitigation measures, and then consider the benefits and detriments of the Scholle Project. Without a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR, the City of Irvine cannot make the requisite findings or conduct the necessary analysis. D. Additional Considerations. As indicated above, the CEQA Guidelines section 5154(a) requires a lead agency such as the City of Irvine to utilize the Caltrans' Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Moreover, Guidelines section 15154(b) requires: "A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project described in subsection (a) unless the lead agency considers whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the project area." It should be noted that the City of Irvine proposes to conduct much less environmental analysis than a negative declaration. However, as the City of Irvine knows, the conditions at John Wayne Airport and the proposed airport at El Toro have changed significantly. These changes alone, together with Guideline section 15154's mandates, require the preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR, and circulation of the document for public review and comment. In addition, Newport Beach is concerned with the residential developments taking place east of Campus Avenue. The City of Irvine's efforts to establish an urban village along Jamboree Road are well publicized. However, it is not clear how this residential development can occur in the IBC given the residential restrictions in the Program EIR. Moreover, such projects may create additional traffic impacts. As with the projects discussed above, the cumulative impacts of these projects when considered with the Scholle Project require preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR, and circulation of the document for public review and comment. Also, the United States Food and Drug Administration soon will fully occupy its new facilities near the Scholle Project. This FDA project may also have cumulative impacts which the City of Irvine should address in the Scholle environmental document. Again, we recommend that the City prepare a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR, and circulate the document for public review and comment. • Y David Law Page 14 January 14, 2004 As discussed above, several of the commercial projects in the IBC propose TDRs from sites north of Interstate 405 to sites south of Interstate 405 and nearthe City of Newport Beach. However, the other commercial projects identified above also propose to transfer rights from areas in the north of IBC southerly. Yet the Program EIR has proposed numerous traffic improvements in the north of the IBC while traffic impacts are transferred south. Such a result requires additional environmental analysis and preparation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR. Finally, the Scholle Project is adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, a protected wildlife and habitat reserve. The Project will likely create Project related impacts (both short and long -term) including impacts on hydrology, water quality, air quality, aesthetics, natural resources and so forth. Because of these impacts alone, the City of Irvine should prepare a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR, and circulation of the document for public review and comment. VI. Conclusion. Based upon the above, the City of Irvine should withdraw the Addendum and prepare a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR, and circulate the document for public review and comment. As indicated above, much has changed in the IBC area since the certification of the Program EIR. Further, the cumulative impacts of the • Scholle Project as well as the commercial and residential projects in the area warrant preparation and circulation of such a document. In addition, the requirements of Guidelines sections 15164 and 15162 mandate the preparation and circulation of a new EIR or a Supplemental EIR. If you have any questions, or would like to discuss the matter further, please call Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager at (949) 644 -3000. Sincerely, Tod W. Ridgeway Mayor cc: Irvine Mayor Larry Agran Irvine Mayor Pro Tern Michael Ward Irvine City Councilmember Chris Mears Irvine City Councilmember Beth Krom Irvine City Councilmember Christina Shea Allison Hart, Irvine City Manager Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee 3� ** *REPLACEMENT PAGE * ** "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" # � `4 � - 13 0 N David Law Page 10 January 14, 2004 University Ave. However, the study area excludes important arterials and intersections in the City of Newport Beach including the MacArthur Blvd. off - ramp from State Route 73; MacArthur Blvd. including its intersections with Bison Ave., Bonita Canyon Drive, and others; Bayview Dr. and Bristol Street South; and Jamboree Road and University Ave. Intersections in Newport beach should be analyzed using this City's methods including our standard of LOS D. These are only some of the problem areas. The Scholle Project alone provides sufficient cause for the City of Irvine to prepare a new EIR or Supplement to the Program EIR and propose real and effective mitigation measures for the traffic burdens created by the Scholle Project. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Scholle Project itself is not sufficient for such a new document and analysis, the cumulative impacts of recent TDRs south to areas near the City of Newport Beach, including the Scholle Project, are considered more than sufficient to warrant a new and full environmental analysis, a new EIR or Supplemental EIR and new mitigation measures. B. The Scholle Project and Unmitigated Cumulative Impacts. As indicated above, the City of Irvine has considered or approved eight (8) development projects in the IBC. These include: RD Olson /Legacy Partners Project which includes 290 residential units with 7,500 sq. ft. retail and requires TDR, GPA, ZC, CUP. This project was approved in December 2003. 2. The Lofts at Von Karman which includes 116 residential units (93 base units with 20% affordable qualifying for a 25% density bonus of 23 units) and which is set for consideration by the Planning Commission in early 2004. 3. The 2300 Michelson Project which includes 80,000 square feet of office use, requires TDR from north of Interstate 405 to an area south of Interstate 405, and has been approved by the Planning Commission. 4. Essex Apartments Project which includes 132 units, with 15% affordable and which was approved in April 2003 (now in litigation). 5. MetLife Apartment Project which includes 481 market rate units with in -lieu affordable housing fee contribution and which was approved in June 2003.