HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Supplemental Draft EIR Report for Central Park• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 15
April 27, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
644 -3222, swood(a)city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Central Park Project (Jamboree Road, south of
Interstate 405)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and direct staff to transmit the attached letter from the Mayor to the City of
Irvine.
BACKGROUND:
On October 14, 2003 the City Council requested that the Environmental Quality Affairs
Committee (EQAC) review the environmental documentation for recently approved and
proposed projects in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC). Based on EQAC's review of
volumes of documents and their preparation of detailed comments on the Scholle
project (Macarthur and Fairchild), the City Council approved and the Mayor sent a long
comment letter on that project to the City of Irvine. In addition, I have testified at Irvine
and Planning Commission meetings regarding Newport Beach's concern about potential
environmental impacts on our city from additional residential development in IBC. I
believe that, in response to our comments, the City of Irvine has begun to require more
detailed environmental review for significant development projects in IBC. The first
example of this is a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report ( SDEIR) for the
Central Park project.
DISCUSSION:
The Central Park project is located on the former Parker - Hannifin site, south of
Interstate 405, west of Jamboree Road, north of Michelson Road and easterly of Von
Karman Avenue. The project includes a transfer of development rights from other IBC
sites to allow development of 1,380 dwelling units, 19,700 square feet of retail use and
90,000 square feet of office space.
A subcommittee of EQAC reviewed the SDEIR and recommended comments to the full
committee, which were reviewed at their April 19 meeting. They voted to recommend
Comments on SDEIR for Central Park Project in the Irvine Business Complex
April 27, 2004
Page 2
that the City Council send their comments, included in the attached memorandum, to
the City of Irvine. I have reviewed EQAC's comments and prepared the attached letter
for the Mayor's signature, which differs from the EQAC memorandum. While EQAC did
a thorough job of reviewing and commenting on the DSEIR, I have limited comments
from the Mayor to areas with the potential for impact on the City of Newport Beach. As
a result, I have deleted comments related to air quality, hazards and hazardous
materials, water quality, noise, public services and utilities and service systems. In
addition, the draft letter from the Mayor refers to the recently established Newport
Beach /Irvine Borders Committee, and offers to use the Central Park project as an
example for the two city councils to begin discussions regarding the border area
between the cities.
Submitted and prepared by:
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
Draft Letter to City of Irvine
0
•
9
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "DSEIR") for the Irvine
Business Complex, Central Park, Project (the "Project ")
Date: April 20, 2004
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR for the captioned
Project located south of Interstate 405, west of Jamboree Road, north of Michelson Road and
is easterly of Von Karman Ave. at the site formerly owned, operated and known as the Parker -
Hannifin site. The proposed DSEIR is intended to supplement the 1992 Program EIR for the
Irvine Business Complex ( "IBC ") (this Program EIR is referred to as the "IBC EIR "). Hereafter,
any reference to "City" refers to the City of Irvine.
1. Summary of Concerns:
(A) The DSEIR and the Project include significant changes from the IBC EIR
and are inconsistent with the IBC EIR. The City of Irvine (the "City ")
should prepare a new or subsequent DEIR.
(B) The Project and its goals conflict with the limitations imposed in the IBC
by the IBC EIR.
( C) The Project will create significant impacts on land use, traffic, water
quality, public services and other areas which are not analyzed in the
DSEIR.
(D) The Project will have significant cumulative and growth inducing impacts
which are not addressed in the DSEIR.
(E) The Project's mitigation measures fail to mitigate effectively and
. adequately Project impacts including traffic and land use impacts.
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 2
April 20, 2004
II. A Supplemental EIR, A Subsequent EIR or a new EIR.
Section 1.2.2 addresses the type and purpose of the DSEIR. The DSEIR notes that
the CEQA Guidelines address both a Supplemental EIR and a Subsequent EIR. Section 15162
provides that, when an EIR has been previously prepared, no subsequent EIR need to be prepared
unless:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously 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 the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative
Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed
in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(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 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.
LI
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
. Page 3
April 20, 2004
As the DSEIR notes, Section 15163 provides that the Lead Agency, the City of Irvine, may
prepare a Supplemental EIR if:
DSEIR, 1-4.
"(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would
require the preparation of a subsequent EIR; and
"(2) Only minor additions or changes would be
necessary to make the previous EIR adequately
apply to the project in the changed situation."
The DSEIR also notes that:
"Development of the project site with office and industrial uses
was assumed in the certified IBC EIR. However, no residential
uses were assumed for the site."
According to the DSEIR, the Project— the Central Park Project including 1,380 residential units,
90,000 square feet of office use, and 19,700 of retail use— is a minor revision of the original use
• proposed in the Irvine Business Complex.
However, the DSEIR misunderstands the IBC EIR and fails to consider properly
the Project changes. The IBC EIR did not consider residential development for the Project site at
the time. The IBC EIR stated: "In 1987, the City discovered that the IBC approvals exceed the
level studied in the 1989 (sic) Supplemental EIR." The IBC 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 "[rlesidential [dlistrict within IBC will be limited to the existing
and previously approved projects." IBC EIR, Executive Summary III -9. Among other things,
the IBC EIR established: (1) a Trip Budget for each parcel and limited development of the parcel
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." IBC EIR, Executive
Summary, III -10. The IBC EIR recognized: "Projects can use the total allocated AM and PM
trips to propose various types of non - residential land uses." IBC EIR, III -10. That is, under
the IBC EIR, the Trip Budget and the TDR transfers were for non - residential uses: TDR transfer
were not for residential development.
While the IBC EIR limited residential uses to existing or approved projects, the
Project proposes to insert additional residential uses in the IBC. While the IBC EIR limited TDR
transfers to non - residential uses, the Project proposes a TDR transfer for a residential
development. However, as is clear from the IBC EIR, such residential transfers are not
5
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 4
April 20, 2004
authorized. All of this constitutes a major change in the IBC EIR and the requirements of
Section I5I62 apply.
Hence, the DSEIR should be revised: the City should either prepare a subsequent
or a new EIR for the Project.
III. Section 2: Proiect Descri tion
The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document.
As the County of In yo Court noted long ago,
"Only through an accurate view of the project may affected
outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures,
assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the 'no
project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine gun non of
an informative and legally sufficient EIR."
County of In yo v. City of Los A_n_geles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 199. In addition, the CEQA
Guidelines section 15124 requires that an EIR describe the project "in a way that will be
meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers."
Discussion, Guidelines section 15124.
Section 2.2 addresses the Project and DSEIR objectives. Examples of the Project
Objectives includes:
Provide for additional housing opportunities in close proximity to
existing employment centers, consistent with the City's Housing Element
and local and regional jobs /housing balance policies.
Create a mixed use development that includes retail shopping,
restaurants, office and employment opportunities, and a wide range of
housing choices
• Develop this community to be compatible with the City of Irvine's
long -range plan for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC)...."
•
These examples show the Project's objectives which conflict with the objectives and provisions
of the IBC EIR and which are internally inconsistent as discussed below. As discussed above,
the IBC EIR limited residential entitlements to existing and entitled developments: the Project is
neither. Further, the IBC EIR regarded mixed use developments as only shopping, restaurant,
office, warehouse and industrial uses: the Project includes residential uses as part of the mixed •
use Project.
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 5
April 20, 2004
In its reference to the "long range plan for the Irvine Business Complex," the
DSEIR is unclear what that long range plan is other than that described and analyzed in the IBC
EIR. The DSEIR refers to no other planning document for the IBC. Hence, the public can only
assume that the long range plan for IBC is that set forth in the IBC EIR. However, as indicated
above, the Project and its objectives are inconsistent with the requirements and conditions set
forth in the IBC EIR. Because the Project Objectives include an objective of consistency with
the IBC EIR and the Project is inconsistent with the requirements of the IBC EIR, this Project
Objective — consistency with the IBC EIR — is internally inconsistent. Because the Project
Objectives are internally inconsistent and conflict with the requirements of the IBC FIR, the
DSEIR should be revised and rewritten either as a new or subsequent EIR, and circulated for
public comment.
Section 2.3 discusses Project Characteristics. The proposed Project as described
in this section includes a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, Master Plan/Transfer of
Development Rights, Tentative Tract Map, a Park Plan and a Development Agreement which
would allow development of 1,380 residential dwelling units, 19,700 square feet of retail use,
and 90,000 square feet of office. All of these uses require substantial parking. However, the
DSEIR addresses only office parking: the office building will include " ... a detached parking
structure at the southeast portion of the site, adjacent to the Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive
intersection. However, the Project description is devoid of discussion of internal circulation for
the Project, parking for residential and retail uses, and location of the office building.
Further, Exhibit 2 -7 is a map of the proposed land use plan. It shows substantial
residential development. An area marked "1" appears to show retail uses and perhaps office uses
but the shading covers virtually all printing in that section. Moreover, Exhibit 2 -7 does not
clearly indicate the location of the office building and its associated parking structure which as
indicated above is near the Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive intersection. This is the area which
appears to be devoted to retail uses.
IV. Section 3: Environmental Setting.
Section 3 recognizes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, an EIR
must include a description of the physical environment including the baseline physical conditions
and limitations by which a lead agency may determine impact significance. Section 3 discusses
various baseline conditions including land use and location as well as assumptions on cumulative
impacts.
However, Section 3 fails to discuss the Project's environmental setting as
including or affecting the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is close to the
Project site and will be affected by the Project. The City of Irvine should revise the DSEIR and
recast the document as a subsequent or a stand alone FIR, include a discussion of the proximity
0 of the City of Newport Beach in the Project setting, and discuss all impacts and necessary
mitigation required to ensure that any such impacts will not be significant.
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page
April 20, 2004
As to location and land use, although the DSEIR proposes to supplement the IBC
EIR, Section 3 fails to discuss the land use conditions developed in the IBC EIR. As indicated
above, the IBC EIR restricted residential development to existing or permitted in 1992. The
Project is neither. The IBC EIR allowed mixed use, i.e. industrial commercial and other non-
residential uses, at the Project site and surrounding areas.
As to Section 3.9, "Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts," this section
attempts to comply partially with the requirements of Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines.
However, for the reasons set forth below, it fails.
First, Section 3.9 attempts to build on the cumulative impacts analysis in the IBC
EIR. This analysis contains a discussion of potential projects and their cumulative impacts.
However, Section 3.9, Section 4 and Section 8, all of which attempt to address cumulative
impacts, are inadequate. Their model should be the IBC EIR discussion of cumulative impacts.
Moreover, Section 3.9 misunderstands the requirements of the IBC EIR:
"... the IBC established an overall trip cap with a parcel specific
trip budget mechanism, which allows the developer flexibility in
determining specific land uses. The intent of the IBC EIR was to
analyze impacts associated with this mechanism, which allows
market forces to dictate how and where the trips would ultimately
be utilized through encouragement of mixed -use development and
implementation of a development rights transfer program. As
anticipated in the IBC EIR, several applications have been filed to
redevelop existing sites in the IBC from non - residential uses to
high- density, urban style residential development, including the
proposed Central Park project.
DSEIR, page 3 -8. However, as indicated above, the 113C's trip budget and transfer mechanism
was designed for mixed -use developments, i.e. non - residential developments. Applying the IBC
EIR mechanism to residential developments was not contemplated or authorized in the IBC EIR.
Notwithstanding the fact that the DSEIR opts to conduct the cumulative impacts
analysis through a summary of projections contained in an authorized general plan under CEQA
Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(B), the DSEIR includes a list of "past, present and probable
future projects" under Section 15130(b)(1)(A) as Table 3 -2. However, this table is not
informative.
The Guidelines Discussion of this Section provides guidance:
"Subsection (6)(1)(13) authorizes a lead agency to limit its analysis
of probable future projects to those which are planned or which
have had an application made at the time the NOP is released for
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 7
April 20, 2004
review. This describes a reasonable point in time at which to begin
the cumulative impact analysis. Without this guideline, the
cumulative impact analysis may suffer frequent revision as new,
incremental projects are identified. If additional projects are
identified later, they may be addressed during completion of the
final EIR."
"Cumulative impacts analysis must include reasonably anticipated
future activities of a project or associated with the project. Whether
these activities are addressed in the cumulative impact analysis
section or in the impacts associated with the project, as defined, if
there is substantial evidence indicating reasonable foreseeable
future projects or activities, an EIR must analyze the impacts of
those future activities...."
As discussed below, the DSEIR fails to analyze or discuss the cumulative impacts of the
probable future projects in conjunction with the Project.
Moreover, Table 3 -2 does not include all approved or pending projects. It
includes only "Residential Projects." Perhaps, the DSEIR limits this table to residential projects
because the Project really is a residential project. Whatever the reason for the limitation, it is
improper: numerous projects including residential, office and mixed use have been approved or
are pending before the City. The cumulative impacts of all of these projects together with the
Project may have significant impacts on several areas including transportation and circulation.
When the City issues a subsequent or new EIR for the Project, the cumulative
impact analysis should identify and analyze the cumulative impacts of all such projects.
Moreover, such future cumulative impacts analysis must correctly identify the uses allowed
under the IBC EIR, analyze any changes to such uses and the cumulative impacts of such
changes, and consider all other appropriate cumulative impacts.
V. Section 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation.
A. Section 4_11: Air Quality.
The DSEIR recognizes that the Project will have significant air quality
impacts including short term air quality impacts due to construction activities, long term regional
air quality impacts due to Project related truck trips, long term emissions associated with Project
related traffic, and long term impacts due to Project related energy consumption and vapor
contaminates from vehicles, from soil and from other sources.
0
I
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 8
April 20, 2004
After mitigation, several of such impacts remain including impacts associated
with construction activities, and long term air quality impacts associated with traffic emissions
including cumulative impacts.
Section 5 indicates that the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations in connection with these remaining significant and unmitigated air quality
impacts. As indicated below, the City cannot rely on the IBC EIR as the basis for such findings
for several reasons: (1) the Project includes uses not contemplated by the IBC EIR for the Project
site; (2) the IBC Project restricted residential development to approved or existing development;
the Project proposes new residential development; and (3) the SDEIR proposes trip transfers for
residential uses; under the IBC EIR, trip transfers are not authorized for residential uses. The
City must adopt different and independent findings based upon the Project, not the IBC Project.
B. Section 4.2: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
The DSEIR indicates that the Project site has experienced soil and
groundwater contamination as a result of former site uses. Contamination includes petroleum
hydrocarbons, chromium, cadneum and chlorinated solvents. The DSEIR notes that:
"[T]he elliptically shaped groundwater plume that underlies the
central portion of the property has reduced in size and contaminant
concentration over time.... ..
DSEIR, page 4 -38. Although the DSEIR fails to identify this plume, it also notes that another
plume of chlorinated solvent contamination is entering the property from the northwest. Id. The
DSEIR recognizes that such contaminants may result in risks including increased cancer risks to
construction workers, future residents and future park visitors.
The DSEIR appears to include a project design feature which the DSEIR states
will reduce such risks to acceptable levels. The design features include contaminated soils
removal, installation of an impenetrable barrier such as a liquid boot and something referred to as
shelter in place.
Such features raise several problems. First, given the risk assessment, perhaps
alternative uses including non - residential uses should be considered to minimize risks. Second,
given that the site suffers extensive contamination and may require the installation of
impermeable barriers, it is unclear that such barriers are consistent with other design features
which will eliminate, e.g. parking area, and increase pervious surfaces. These two design
features— increased pervious surfaces and installation of impervious barriers— conflict.
Moreover, given the presence of the contamination, increased percolation due to the presence of
increased pervious surfaces may spread existing contamination.
a
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
. Page 4
April 20, 2004
Third, the DSEIR fails to discuss and explain shelter -in -place programs which
appears to be an alternative to evacuation when hazardous materials are released. The alternative
is simply to stay in doors with doors and windows closed. However, the risk assessment
indicates that much of the contaminants may migrate indoors as vapors. The DSEIR fails to
discuss the shelter -in -place programs in any detail including issues of communication and
notification of residents visitors and commuters, fails to assess their effectiveness in dealing with
vapor exposure and fails to discuss alternatives to this program.
In addition, the DSEIR fails to address the hazardous impacts of the Project which
will increase vehicular traffic. The DSEIR includes no discussion of such potential impacts from
increased vehicular traffic including increased hydrocarbons in runoff and design features or
mitigation measures to deal with such impacts.
In addition, the DSEIR does includes records of some businesses which store
hazardous materials near the Project site. Appendix E includes only those sites which store
hazardous materials at special, high or medium levels, but does not disclose businesses which
store low quantities of such materials. Moreover, Appendix E fails to include current records of
hazardous materials use and storage: the latest records are May 2001. The Appendix should
include a current inventory of all businesses which store any amounts of hazardous materials
• because contamination continues at the site and the sources of such contamination are not fully
identified.
As indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised and issued as a new or
subsequent EIR to address the issues raised above. Importantly, that document must consider
whether the proposed residential use is appropriate given the contamination and the impacts of
vehicular traffic and pervious surfaces on such contamination.
C. Section 4_3: Water Quality.
Section 4.3.1 recognizes that the Project site is tributary to San Diego
Creek and Upper Newport Bay, and that San Diego Creek is an impaired water body. Section
4.3.3 states that the current site contains large parking areas and substantial amounts of
impervious surfaces. This section states that the Project will include much pervious surfaces and
no large parking areas. The WEIR concludes that Project will improve water quality over the
existing use.
However, the Project will bring in more people and more vehicles. The Project
and the DSEIR recognize this fact and mitigate it with the transfer of development rights from
various sites. However, nothing in Section 4.3 recognizes any impacts on water quality due to
increased vehicular traffic.
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 10
April 20, 2004
Further, Section 4.3.3 addresses cumulative impacts of the Project together with
proposed projects. The analysis is inadequate. The DSE1R recognizes:
"With respect to water quality, increased urbanization could result
in increased pollutants entering San Diego Creek. It is required, at
the time of ultimate build -out, that future projects comply with all
post - construction water quality standards applicable at that time,
and, at a minimum, incorporate structural and non - structural post -
construction water quality BMPs to the extent mandated by
regulations.... This will reduce the potential cumulative water
quality impacts to a level of insignificance."
DSE1R, page 4 -51.
The analysis raises several concerns. First, the Section 4.3.3 which addresses
environmental impacts fails to recognize that the Project will result in increased pollutants
entering San Diego Creek due to "increased urbanization." Section 4.3.3 fails to recognize
Project impacts which the DSE1R recognizes as cumulative impacts.
0
Second, the cumulative impacts analysis is too general: the analysis should
consider the cumulative impacts of the Project and future projects. However, the analysis simply
discusses the ultimate build out with increased urbanization. 0
Third, the cumulative impacts analysis does not address ultimate build -out of the
IBC. It attempts to consider the ultimate build -out of the increased urbanization scenario
contemplated by the Project. This fails to comply with the requirements of Guidelines Section
15130.
As indicated above, the DSE1R should be revised, and the City should prepare a
new or subsequent E1R which will discuss and address all Project impacts on water quality and a
detailed cumulative impacts analysis. If necessary, the E1R should propose adequate mitigation
for all such impacts.
D. Section 4.4: Land Use and Planning.
As indicated above, the DSE1R fails to meet the standards for a
supplemental E1R. This is specially true for the land use analysis. As indicated above, the IBC
E1R limited residential development to existing and approved projects; it did not authorize future
residential development. Moreover, the IBC E1R established trip budgets for non - residential
sites and the ability to transfer such trips to other non - residential sites. Because the Project is
largely residential (see Table 3 -2), the Project and the DSE1R are inconsistent with the IBC E1R
and the IBC Project analyzed therein.
•
12
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
• Page 11
� April 20, 2004
The DSEIR states: "To ensure that land use compatibility issues were considered
while the IBC retained its mixed use character, the City ensures that [thorough] environmental
analysis is conducted on project proposals." SEIR Page 4 -54. However, the IBC EIR analyzed
the environmental impacts of only 3,896 residential dwelling units. The current total number of
dwelling units in IBC is 4,954. The addition of 1,380 dwelling proposed by the Central Park
project would bring the total number of dwelling units in IBC to 6,334. This represents an
increase of nearly sixty -five percent (65 %) over the number of residential dwelling units
analyzed in the IBC EIR. Given that the IBC EIR limited residential development, such a large
increase constitutes changed circumstances and requires the preparation of a new or subsequent
EIR, not the DSEIR.
Section 4.4.3, "Environmental Impacts," includes a section titled "Compatibility
of Central Park with the Surrounding Area." Here, the DSEIR states that the proposed residential
densities of the Central Park project "are similar to the high- density residential products located
east of the site." While the residential component of the proposed project is consistent with the
existing high- density residential products in the surrounding area, it is not consistent with the
IBC EIR.
The DSEIR goes on to state that "all subsequent requests for conversion of non-
residential entitlement to residential units have been supported by subsequent environmental
documentation which has sufficiently analyzed the CEQA related project impacts." DSEIR
Pages 4 -56 -57 However, the DSEIR fails to address the environmental documentation for these
projects: if each subsequent project that has requested a conversion of non - residential
entitlement to residential units (with a current total of 4,954 dwelling units) has been analyzed in
a subsequent EIR, it is questionable that a thorough environmental analysis has been conducted
for each of these projects. Moreover, we are unaware of any environmental document circulated
for public comment for any of these projects.
Likely, the Project's increased densities together with the increased densities east
of the site may create significant cumulative impacts requiring mitigation. However, the
cumulative impacts analysis of land use impacts appears to acknowledge this cumulative impact
but provides no mitigation or analysis of the inconsistency with the IBC EIR:
"The gradual redevelopment of the IBC from non - residential uses
to high- density, urban style residential and mixed use development,
is consistent with the newly developed and developing IBC.
DSEIR, page 4 -76. The DSEIR's subjective perspective of the "newly developed and developing
IBC" may be correct. However, this gradual redevelopment is inconsistent with the IBC Project
analyzed in the IBC EIR; as redevelopment, it is not authorized by the IBC EIR. Because of this
unauthorized redevelopment, the DSEIR is improper. The City should prepare a new or
• subsequent EIR which fully analyses the cumulative impacts of the redevelopment of the IBC.
I4
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 12
April 20, 2004 •
Indeed, to the extent that the City is redeveloping the IBC, the City should prepare a new
Program E1R for the IBC.
Further, the DSE1R concludes that: "Cumulative land use impacts were identified
as signficant in the IBC E1R." However, because of the redevelopment of the newly developed
and developing IBC, the DSE1R's reliance on the IBC E1R's conclusions is improper. The City
should prepare a new or subsequent E1R, analyze all cumulative impacts regarding the IBC
redevelopment including the Project, and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation.
E. Section 4.5: Noise.
Section 4.5 addresses the environmental analysis for noise impacts. It
notes that, under existing conditions, "primary existing noise sources ... are transportation
facilities." These include Interstate 405 and arterial roadways as well as John Wayne Airport.
Although the DSE1R recognizes that the Project will have significant impacts on air quality as a
result of traffic, Section 4.5.3 concludes that the cumulative noise impacts relating to the Project
will be insignificant. Given that the primary noise sources after the Project will remain
transportation facilities, it is unlikely that the Project noise impacts will be insignificant.
In addition, as indicated above and below, the DSE1R is devoid of specifics on
Project design, except for Section 4.5.3. This Section recognizes that the Project will subject •
residents to significant noise impacts due to "transportation facilities" including Interstate 405.
Section 4.5.3 attempts to minimize these impacts by imposing Project design features including
wall specifications and window requirements including double -paned windows. However, these
design features will not be effective for those residents who desire open air living and for the
outdoor recreation opportunities provided the Project. The DSE1R or subsequent environmental
document should provide additional Project design features and /or mitigation so that the
Project's impacts on noise will be insignificant.
F. Section 4.6: Public Services.
Section 4.6 addresses public services including fire, police, schools, public
libraries and related services. As to fire services, the City of Irvine contracts with the Orange
County Fire Authority (OCFA) which provides fire protection and emergency medical services
(paramedics) to the City and this Project. The DSE1R fails to discuss any cooperative service
agreements with other agencies including the City of Newport Beach.
As to police services, the DSE1R analyzes growth in requirements for police
officers based on an "existing" ratio of 1.13 sworn officers per 1000 residents. However, the
Irvine General Plan contains a "desired" ratio of 1.5 sworn officers per 1000 residents. The
DSEIR fails to discuss this shortfall and alternatives to handle police services if the optimistic
estimates are flawed. As with fire services, the City contracts with others for additional police •
ILI
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page
April 20, 2004
services. The DSEIR fails to discuss any such cooperative service agreements and the Project's
impacts on such agreements and resources.
Likewise, the DSEIR is optimistic on its predictions regarding the Project's
impact on library services. The Project will put some strain on existing library facilities, but the
City of Irvine appears to have plans for library expansion and modernization. However, the
DSEIR projections of needs appear to be underestimated based on their projected population of
1,877 persons for this project. This population estimate seems low for a project of 1,380
residential units.
As indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised and reissued as a new or
subsequent EIR, and that document should discuss, analyze and propose necessary mitigation to
the impacts.
G. Section 4.7: Recreation.
Section 4.7 recognizes that the Project site has no public recreational
resources. However, while the Project will draw a substantial number of residents, and office
and retail workers to the site, it proposes to provide private parks but no public parks.
The DSEIR also notes that Irvine residents may enjoy substantial regional
recreational opportunities including parks and beaches in the City of Newport Beach. However,
the DSEIR fails to analyze the Project's impacts on such resources in the City of Newport Beach.
Further, the DSEIR proposes a park plan including one 2.62 acre centrally located
park and three 0.33 acre parks distributed around the project (a total of 3.01 acres of parks). This
falls well below the City of Irvine standard of 5 acres of parks for each 1000 residents. The
DSEIR appears to rely on large regional parks within the City to satisfy the Project recreational
requirements. Further, the DSEIR recognizes that the Project will pay in lieu park fees when
park dedication is unavailable.
However, the DSEIR fails to discuss the City of Irvine's specific park code
requirements. CEQA requires that the Project's impacts be fully analyzed in the DSEIR and any
necessary mitigation discussed and analyzed. However, the DSEIR defers this analysis and
mitigation. Indeed, the DSEIR notes that existing codes and policies require:
"In conjunction with approval of the project's conditional use
permit, the developer of residential subdivisions shall demonstrate
compliance with the City's local park code requirements."
DSEIR, page 4 -109. However, the DSEIR states that the City has no standard conditions of
• approval related to recreation which apply to the Project.
I<
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 14
April 20, 2004
Finally, the Project's proposed parks have limited features. The closest lighted
park with extensive fields is the City of Newport Beach's Bonita Creek Community Park which
is currently heavily used by residents. As indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised, a new
or subsequent EIR developed which addresses these concerns and ensures that the Project will
have no significant and unmitigated impacts on recreational resources, including an analysis of
impacts on parks with the City of Newport Beach and any appropriate mitigation.
H. Section 4.8: Transportation/Traffic.
The SEIR states that "(t)he proposed project will not result in significant
impacts to street segments or intersections within the cities of Tustin and Newport Beach."
DSEIR, page 4 -135. However, the Traffic Study and the DSEIR do not consider or analyze the
Project's potential traffic impacts on State Route 73, on -ramps and off -ramps thereto and
intersections and roadways south of SR 73 in the City of Newport Beach, including the
intersections of MacArthur Boulevard with Bison Avenue and Bonita Canyon Drive. These
roadways and intersections should be included in the environmental analysis for the Central Park
project.
The traffic analysis in the IBC EIR employs a three -step model to evaluate traffic
forecasts and impacts. The first step groups intersections within the IBC and measures those
intersections by taking a group average. According to the IBC EIR , three of the five intersection
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 . The failing intersection groups are Groups A, C
and E. The IBC EIR goes on to state that the failure of these intersection groups further support
the existence of the north -south deficiencies. 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 Central Park project site is located
within Group C.
The second step used to evaluate traffic forecasts in the IBC EIR is screenline
analysis, which Aentails 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 IBC 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 -405]. These findings continue to
demonstrate the shortage of north -south capacity within IBC. Page IV.A -48. The failure of
these two screenlines may have significant traffic impacts on MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Rd.
in the City of Newport Beach. The DSEIR recognizes that the Project may create significant
traffic impacts on the MacArthur Blvd. /Jamboree Rd. and the MacArthur Blvd. /Michelson
I*
intersections . DSEIR, Tables 4 -28 and 4 -29. 0
I(,
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page
April 20, 2004
Further, the DSEIR states that, while the performance criteria for level of service
at an intersection or roadway in the City of Irvine is considered unsatisfactory when the
intersection capacity exceeds (ICU) 1.00 (LOS E), "(w)here the analysis reports Newport Beach
intersection performance, Newport Beach level of service criteria (LOS D) is used." The table
following this discussion shows the ICU for LOS D to be 0.81 -0.90. However, the DSEIR goes
on to say that "(a) project impact occurs when the roadway link or intersection in question
exceeds the acceptable LOS, and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to 0.02.
Project mitigation will be required back to 1.00 (within the IBC) or baseline, if the baseline is
greater than 1.00." DSEIR, page 4-114. This conflicts with the increased service level required
within the City of Newport Beach.
The DSEIR recognizes that one of the thresholds of significance for the Project is
whether the Project will "result in inadequate emergency access" or "result in inadequate parking
capacity." Unfortunately, the DSEIR contains no analysis of the Project's emergency access
requirements or provisions or its parking requirements and capacity.
The DSEIR concludes that any Project traffic impacts "can be mitigated to a level
of insignificance. However, as discussed below, Section 5 entitled "Significant Unavoidable
Adverse Impacts" appears to recognize that the Project may create significant traffic impacts
after mitigation. DSEIR, page 5 -1. Indeed, the DSEIR builds upon the IBC EIR, which
recognized that the IBC Project had the potential to create significant traffic impacts after
mitigation. The Project cannot avoid this finding.
As indicated above, the cumulative impacts analysis considers only impacts at
build -out under the City's General Plan. The DSEIR concludes that, with planned or existing
traffic improvements, all intersections will operate at acceptable service levels. This conclusion
is problematic.
The conclusion does not include existing or approved projects which have
required General Plan amendments or other variations. Table 3 -2 shows many residential
projects for which amendments have been required. In addition, Table 3 -2 does not include non-
residential developments in the IBC which have also required additional approvals. The
cumulative traffic impacts of these projects should be specifically analyzed in the subsequent
environmental document.
Also, the DSEIR fails to discuss any planned traffic improvements which may
serve to mitigate or reduce traffic at build -out. Further, planned traffic improvements may not
occur for a variety of reasons including funding.
Finally, and importantly, the DSEIR's traffic analysis in particular Table 4 -25,
appears to recognize that the Project will create significant traffic impacts without any transfers
I-7
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page
April 20, 2004
of development rights. That is, the Project requires trip transfers from other sites. As indicated
above, such transfers for residential developments are not authorized under the IBC EIR.
For all of these problems, the City should revise the DSEIR, publish the document
as a new or subsequent EIR and address each and every impact recognized above and provide
adequate mitigation.
I. Section 4.9: Utilities and Service Systems.
The DSEIR recognizes the significance thresholds for utilities and service
systems including waste water capacities and solid waste. As to waste water, the DSEIR
provides no discussion of any potential impacts. It merely concludes:
"The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements
and will not result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities."
This is simply a conclusion. CEQA requires that the environmental document analyze the
Project's potential impacts and not merely offer conclusions.
Surprisingly, after considering potential significant impacts on utilities and service
systems, the SDEIR concludes that:
"Implementation of the standard conditions of approval listed
above will reduce all potential water impacts to a level of
insignificance.
DSEIR, page 4 -174. However, this conclusion creates two problems: First, the DSEIR provides
no list of standard conditions of approval for utilities and service systems. Second, Section 4.9
addresses "Utilities and Service Systems," not simply "Water Systems."
As indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised and be re- issued as a new or
subsequent EIR. This new document should address the problems in the DSEIR's analysis of
utilities and service systems.
VI. Section 5: Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.
As indicated above, the IBC EIR found several significant unavoidable impacts
including: circulation and traffic, land use, public services, air resources, water resources and
"earth resources." The DSEIR notes this conclusion of the IBC EIR but fails to address its affect
on the DSEIR. It states:
i2
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
is Page
April 20, 2004
"This SEIR has concluded that the Central Park project will neither
reduce any of these IBC impacts to a level of insignificance, nor
cause any of these impacts to be significantly more adverse or
different from those analyzed in the IBC EIR, except potentially
with respect to air resources. Accordingly, a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will need to be adopted for each of these
impact areas."
This is unclear: does it propose adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each of
the areas noted in the IBC EIR or only air resources.
As also indicated above, notwithstanding the DSEIR's characterization of the
Project as having no impact on the IBC areas, this is incorrect. As discussed fully above, the
Project is a substantial change from the IBC Project and requires preparation of a new or
subsequent EIR. Hence, the DSEIR's attempt to rely on findings relating to the IBC EIR is
improper. New findings regarding the risk balance and any statement of overriding
considerations must be performed. The new environmental document must consider such and
conduct these balances independently from the findings of the IBC EIR.
0 VII. Section 6: Project Alternatives.
Section 6 discusses four alternatives to the Project: the no Project alternative with
no additional development; the no Project alternative with existing General Plan designations,
the reduced intensity alternative, and the residential only alternative. The DSEIR concludes that
three of these are the environmentally superior alternatives: the no Project alternative with no
additional development, the reduced intensity alternative, and the residential only alternative.
However, the DSEIR rejects each because they fail to implement one or more the Project
objectives.
As to the no Project alternative with no additional development, the DSEIR notes
that it has fewer environmental impacts but
" . . . the beneficial impacts associated with new recreational
facilies, remediation of contaminated soils, improvements to
water quality, and improvements to the jobs /housing balance of the
area would not occur"
DSEIR, page 6 -13. However, it is unclear that remediation of contaminated soils and
improvements to water quality would not occur: the regulatory entities have the ability to force
the responsible parties to cure and /or pay for the problems. As for the jobs /housing balance, the
IBC EIR limited such balance by restricting housing to those existing or approved in 1992. The
Project conflicts with this IBC goal. As for new recreational facilities, the DSEIR is unclear as to
M
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 18
April 20, 2004
the character of these facilities. If such are simply indoor fitness centers, the market may
determine when and where such centers develop. If the DSEIR is referring to outdoor
recreational facilities, the DSEIR must fully discuss such amenities so that the public may
understand the Project.
As for the residential alternative, the DSEIR finds this to be the superior
development alternative but also notes that it fails to create jobs. More importantly, the
residential only alternative conflicts with the IBC EIR.
As for the reduced intensity alternative, the DSEIR provides no discussion
regarding its comparison or reasons for or against the alternative. The DSEIR notes that the
reduced intensity alternative may create fewer impacts, but it would still create significant and
unmitigated air quality impacts. Further, the DSEIR notes that the Project is itself already a
reduced alternative.
As indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised and reissued as a new or
subsequent EIR. That document should re- consider the alternatives including the No Project
alternative as the primary environmentally superior alternative.
VIII. Section 8: Growth Int!M in Impacts.
Section 8 addresses the Project's potential to create significant growth inducing
impacts. The DSEIR recognizes that, among other things, this analysis should include "an
assessment of other projects that would foster other activities that could affect the environment . .
DSEIR, page 8 -l. The DSEIR concludes that, except for the site itself, the Project will not
have growth inducing impacts. This conclusion is incorrect.
The DSEIR uses a matrix of issues from an unknown source. These include:
whether the Project will remove obstacles to growth; whether the Project will result in the need
to expand public services to maintain the desired level of service; whether the Project will have
economic effects that could result in other activities that may significantly affect the
environment; and whether the Project is precedent setting. Although the DSEIR concludes that:
1. The Project will remove obstacles to development on the site, it will not
generally remove such obstacles.
2. The Project will not create significant growth in demand for public
services.
3. The Project will directly encourage economic activities, but, because of
the balanced plan, i.e. the mixed use character, such effect will be
minimized.
0
20
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
. Page
April 20, 2004
4. The Project will not be precedent setting in that all changes are limited to
the site.
In this analysis on growth inducing impacts of the Project, the DSEIR fails to
consider the limitations on the IBC created by the IBC EIR. As noted above, the IBC EIR
limited residential development to existing or approved developments as of 1992. However, the
DSEIR notes several residential projects approved since the IBC EIR. See Table 3 -2. However,
the Project dwarfs these projects: it is more than three times as big as many of the Table 3 -2
projects.
Because of its size, the Project will remove obstacles for development in the IBC
generally and set a precedent. Indeed, as indicated above, the DSEIR states design features and
adopted standards will minimize adverse effects of the Project. However, those standards will
not be project specific; the standard will apply to the entire IBC planning area.
In addition, the City of Irvine, its Council and Planning Commission, have
conducted a series of meetings in connection with development standards for IBC. The Project
will be part of that overall effort. Thus, the Project will remove such obstacles.
. As for growth in demand for public services, the large size of the Project will
itself create a significant demand on public services. This demand is significantly different from
the demands of the existing uses. The Project will encourage such demands.
As for economic impacts, the NOP for the Project considered a pedestrian bridge
over Jamboree Road to allow for pedestrian traffic to the retail opportunities across Jamboree
Road. That proposal recognized the economic impacts of the Project and its affects off -site. The
fact that the pedestrian bridge is no longer part of the Project does not mean that the Project will
not create impacts off -site.
As we have indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised, and re- issued as a new
or subsequent EIR. The section on growth inducing impacts should consider the full scope and
nature of the Project, and its impacts to the surrounding area and the IBC in general.
IX. Section 9: Impacts Found Not to be Significant.
Section 9 discusses impacts which were "screened" out due to the Initial Study for
the Project. This section notes that this screening is appropriate because the IBC EIR is a "full -
scope" EIR and these impacts were generally addressed in that document. However, the Notice
of Preparation did not inform the public that the City intended to rely on the IBC EIR for this
screening effort.
L J
.�,I
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 20
April 20, 2004
Significantly, the DSEIR includes no analysis of the Project's potential aesthetic,
biological, geology and soils and other impacts. Perhaps the most significant omission is
analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts. The Project proposes to demolish the existing
building and change use to residential /mixed use, which is currently not permitted at the site. At
a minimum, the DSEIR should discuss height, design, appearance, parking and parking
structures, size of buildings including office buildings and so on. The DSEIR contains nothing
which gives the public or decision makers any idea of the aesthetics, size, shape or mass of the
Project.
The DSEIR is inadequate. The City should prepare a new or subsequent EIR
which is a "full scope" EIR so that the public and decision makers may understand the full
nature, scope and impacts of the Project.
X. Section 10: Miti ation Monitoring Program.
Section 10 concerns the Project's mitigation monitoring program which will
ensure compliance during Project implementation and may allow for flexibility due to changes in
the Project during the review process. Several problems arise in connection with the mitigation
measures and the mitigation monitoring program.
•
First, as to mitigation measures, many such measures simply defer the nature and
character of the mitigation until some future event, e.g. precise mitigation of hazardous materials .
impacts including risk assessment is deferred until some time prior to issuance of building
permits. Virtually all mitigation measures are deferred until some future event, e.g. issuance of
grading or building permits.
As noted above, CEQA does not authorize deferral of mitigation measures. The
DSEIR should contain precise and specific mitigation measures so that decision makers and the
public may understand the nature and extent of the impact, the nature and effectiveness of the
mitigation measure, and the effectiveness of the mitigation monitoring program. The DSEIR has
none of these specifics.
As to the mitigation monitoring program, it is worse: because the mitigation
measures are deferred, the precise character of the monitoring program is unknown. Indeed, the
entire analysis consumes one (1) page. Given that the over twenty -five (25) mitigation measures
cover thirteen (13) pages, the minuscule size of the program is apparent and inadequate.
As before, the DSEIR should be revised: a new or subsequent EIR should be
issued and address these and other topics.
XI. Conclusion.
.11
Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
Page 21
April 20, 2004
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important and precedent setting
Project and its DSEIR. For the reasons set forth above, the City should revise the DSEIR, re-
issue the document as a new or subsequent EIR with a "full scope" analysis, address all impacts
raised above and in the public comment period for the DSEIR, and propose adequate mitigation
therefor.
•
Ci
23
DRAFT
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor Pro Tem April 28, 2004
Garold B. Adams
Council Members
Steven Bromberg
John Heffernan Michael Philbrick, AICP, Senior Planner
Richard A. Nichols City of Irvine
Steven Rosansky P. O. Box 19575
Don Webb Irvine, CA 92623 -9575
Comments on DSEIR for Central Park Project
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DSEIR for the captioned Project.
Newport Beach has an Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee,
which has reviewed the DSEIR in detail. These comments are based on the work
done by that Committee. The DSEIR is intended to supplement the 1992 Program
EIR for the Irvine Business Complex ( "IBC ") (this Program EIR is referred to as the .
"IBC EIR "). I- lereafter, any reference to "City" refers to the City of Irvine.
I. Suntntary of Concerns:
(A) The DSEIR and the Project include significant changes from the IBC EIR
and are inconsistent with the IBC EIR. The City of Irvine (the "City ")
should prepare a new or subsequent DEIR.
(B) The Project and its goals conflict with the limitations imposed in the IBC
by the IBC EIR.
(C) The Project will create significant impacts on land use, traffic, water
quality, public services and other areas which are not analyzed in the
DSEIR.
(D) The Project will have significant cumulative and growth inducing impacts
which are not addressed in the DSEIR.
(E) The Project's mitigation measures fail to mitigate effectively and
adequately Project impacts including traffic and land use impacts.
•
City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • www.city.newport- beach.ca.us
(949) 644 -3004
Michael Philbrick, AICP
. City of Irvine
2
Page 2
April 21, 2004
H. A Supplemental EIR, A Subsequent EIR or a new EIR
Section 1.2.2 addresses the type and purpose of the DSEIR. The DSEIR notes that the CEQA
Guidelines address both a Supplemental EIR and a Subsequent EIR. Section 15162 provides
that, when an EIR has been previously prepared, no subsequent EIR need to be prepared unless:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions
of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously 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 the
• previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted,
shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR or negative declaration;
(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 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.
As the DSEIR notes, Section 15163 provides that the Lead Agency, the City of Irvine, may
prepare a Supplemental EIR if:
"(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require
• the preparation of a subsequent EIR; and
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page 3 0
April 21, 2004
(2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to
make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in
the changed situation."
DSEIR, 1 -4.
The DSEIR also notes that:
"Development of the project site with office and industrial uses was
assumed in the certified IBC EIR. However, no residential uses were
assumed for the site."
According to the DSEIR, the Project— the Central Park Project including 1,380 residential units,
90,000 square feet of office use, and 19,700 of retail use— is a minor revision of the original use
proposed in the Irvine Business Complex.
However, the DSEIR misunderstands the IBC EIR and fails to consider properly the Project
changes. The IBC EIR did not consider residential development for the Project site at the time.
The IBC EIR stated: "In 1987, the City discovered that the IBC approvals exceed the level
studied in the 1989 (sic) Supplemental EIR." The IBC EIR divided the planning area into three
districts: the multi -use district covered all areas south of Barranea Parkway; the industrial district
included areas north of Barranca Parkway as well as areas already entitled or used for industrial
purposes; and the "[r]esidcntial [dlistrict within IBC will be limited to the existing and
previously approved projects." IBC EIR, Executive Summary III -9. Among other things, the
IBC EIR established: (1) a Trip Budget for each parcel and limited development of the parcel to
the Trip Budget; and (2) "a mechanism for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)," requiring
that each TDR complete a discretionary review process to allow identification of all potential
impacts of the TDR, and propose appropriate mitigation. IBC EIR, Executive Summary, III -I0.
The IBC EIR recognized: "Projects can use the total allocated AM and PM trips to propose
various types of non - residential land uses." IBC EIR, III -10. That is, under the IBC EIR, the
Trip Budget and the TDR transfers were for non - residential uses: TDR transfers were not for
residential development.
While the IBC EIR Iimited residential uses to existing or approved projects, the Project proposes
to insert additional residential uses in the IBC. While the IBC EIR limited TDR transfers to non-
residential uses, the Project proposes a TDR transfer for a residential development. However, as
is clear from the IBC EIR, such residential transfers are not authorized. All of this constitutes a
major change from the IBC EIR.and the requirements of Section 15162 apply.
Hence, the City should either prepare a subsequent or a new EIR for the Project.
is
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
4
Page 4
April 21, 2004
III. Section 2: Proiect Description
The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document, as noted by the
County of Inyo Court long ago. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that an
EIR describe the project "in a way that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing
agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion, Guidelines section 15124.
Section 2.2 addresses the Project and DSEIR objectives. Examples of the Project Objectives
include:
• Provide for additional housing opportunities in close proximity to existing
employment centers, consistent with the City's Housing Element and local and
regional jobs /housing balance policies.
• Create a mixed use development that includes retail shopping, restaurants, office and
employment opportunities, and a wide range of housing choices
• Develop this community to be compatible with the City of Irvine's long -range plan
for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC)...."
These examples show the Project's objectives which conflict with the objectives and provisions
of the IBC EIR and which are internally inconsistent as discussed below. As discussed above,
the IBC EIR limited residential entitlements to existing and entitled developments; the Project is
neither. Further, the IBC EIR regarded mixed use developments as only shopping, restaurant,
office, warehouse and industrial uses; the Project includes residential uses as part of the mixed
use Projcct.
In its reference to the "long range plan for the Irvine Business Complex," the DSEIR is unclear
what that long range plan is other than that described and analyzed in the IBC EIR. The DSEIR
refers to no other planning document for the IBC. Hence, the public can only assume that the
long range plan for IBC is that set forth in the IBC EIR. However, as indicated above, the
Project and its objectives are inconsistent with the requirements and conditions set forth in the
IBC EIR. Because the Project Objectives include an objective of consistency with the IBC EIR
and the Project is inconsistent with the requirements of the IBC EIR, this Project Objective —
consistency with the IBC EIR — is internally inconsistent. Because the Project Objectives are
internally inconsistent and conflict with the requirements of the IBC EIR, the DSEIR should be
revised and rewritten either as a new or subsequent EIR, and circulated for public comment.
Section 2.3 discusses Project Characteristics. The proposed Project as described in this section
includes a Gencral Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, Master Plan/Transfer of Development
Rights, Tentative Tract Map, a Park Plan and a Development Agreement which would allow
development of 1,380 residential dwelling units, 19,700 square feet of retail use, and 90,000
square feet of office. All of these uses require substantial parking. However, the DSEIR
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page 5
April 21, 2004
addresses only office parking: the office building will include " ... a detached parking structure
at the southeast portion of the site, adjacent to the Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive intersection.
However, the Project description is devoid of discussion of internal circulation for the Project,
parking for residential and retail uses, and location of the office building.
Further, Exhibit 2 -7 is a map of the proposed land use plan. It shows substantial residential
development. An area marked "I" appears to show retail uses and perhaps office uses but the
shading covers virtually all printing in that section. Moreover, Exhibit 2 -7 does not clearly
indicate the location of the office building and its associated parking structure which as indicated
above is near the Jamboree Road /Michelson Drive intersection. This is the area which appears to
be devoted to retail uses.
IV. Section 3: Environmental Settine
Section 3 recognizes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, all EIR must include a
description of the physical environment including the baseline physical conditions and
limitations by which a lead agency may determine impact significance. Section 3 discusses
various baseline conditions including land use and location as well as assumptions on cumulative
impacts.
0
However. Section 3 fails to discuss the Project's environmental setting as including or affecting .
the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach is close to the Project site and will be
affected by the Project. The City of Irvine should revise the DSEIR and recast the document as a
subsequent or a stand alone EIR, include a discussion of the proximity of the City of Newport
Beach in the Project setting, and discuss all impacts and necessary mitigation required to ensure
that any such impacts will not be significant.
As to location and land use, although the DSEIR proposes to supplement the IBC EIR, Section 3
fails to discuss the land use conditions developed in the IBC EIR. As indicated above. the IBC
EIR restricted residential development to that existing or permitted in 1992. The Project is
neither. Tile IBC EIR allowed mixed use, i.e. industrial, commercial and other non - residential
uses, at the Project site and surrounding areas.
As to Section 3.9, "Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts," this section attempts to
comply partially with the requirements of Section I5130 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, for
the reasons set forth below, it fails.
First. Section 3.9 attempts to build on the cumulative impacts analysis in the IBC EIR. This
analysis contains a discussion of potential projects and their cumulative impacts. However,
Section 3.9, Section 4 and Section 8, all of which attempt to address cumulative impacts, are
inadequate. Their model should be the IBC EIR discussion of cumulative impacts.
•
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
6
Page G
April 21, 2004
Moreover, Section 3.9 misunderstands the requirements of the IBC EIR:
". . . the IBC established an overall trip cap with a parcel specific trip
budget mechanism, which allows the developer flexibility in determining
specific land uses. The intent of the IBC EIR was to analyze impacts
associated with this mechanism, which allows market forces to dictate
how and where the trips would ultimately be utilized through
encouragement of mixed -use development and implementation of a
development rights transfer program. As anticipated in the IBC EIR,
several applications have been filed to redevelop existing sites in the IBC
from non-residential uses to high- density, urban style residential
development, including the proposed Central Park project.
DSEIR, page 3 -8. However, as indicated above, the IBC's trip budget and transfer mechanism
was designed for mixed -use developments, i.e. non- residential developments. Applying the IBC
EIR mechanism to residential developments was not contemplated or authorized in the IBC EIR.
Notwithstanding the fact that the DSEIR opts to conduct the cumulative impacts analysis through
a summary of projections contained in an authorized general plan tinder CEQA Guidelines
Section I5130(b)(l )(B), the DSEIR includes a list of "past, present and probable future projects"
under Section 15130(b)(1)(A) as Table 3 -2. However, this table is not informative.
The Guidelines Discussion of this Section provides guidance:
"Subsection (b)(I)(B) authorizes a lead agency to limit its analysis of
probable future projects to those which are planned or which have had an
application made at the time the NOP is released for review. This
describes a reasonable point in time at which to begin the cumulative
impact analysis. Without this guideline, the cumulative impact analysis
may suffer frequent revision as new, incremental projects are identified. If
additional projects are identified later, they may be addressed during
completion of the final EIR."
"Cumulative impacts analysis must include reasonably anticipated future
activities of a project or associated with the project. Whether these
activities are addressed in the cumulative impact analysis section or in the
impacts associated with the project, as defined, if there is substantial
evidence indicating reasonable foreseeable future projects or activities, an
EIR must analyze the impacts of those future activities...."
As discussed below, the DSEIR fails to analyze or discuss the cumulative impacts of the
probable future projects in conjunction with the Project.
0
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page 7
April 21, 2004
Moreover, Table 3 -2 does not include all approved or pending projects. It includes only
"Residential Projects." Perhaps, the DSEIR limits this table to residential projects because the
Project really is a residential project. Whatever the reason for the limitation, it is improper;
numerons projects including residential, office and mixed use have been approved or are pending
before the City. The cumulative impacts of all of these projects together with the Project may
have significant impacts on several areas inchuding transportation and circulation.
When the City issues a subsequent or new EIR for the Project, the cumulative impact analysis
should identify and analyze the cumulative impacts of all such projects. Moreover, such future
cumulative impacts analysis should correctly identify the uses allowed under the IBC EIR,
analyze any changes to such uses and the cumulative impacts of such changes, and consider all
other appropriate cumulative impacts.
V. Section 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
A. Section 4.4: Land Use and Planning
As indicated above, the DSEIR fails to meet the standards for a supplemental EIR. This
is especially true for the land use analysis. As indicated above, the IBC EIR limited
residential development to existing and approved projects; it did not authorize future
residential development. Moreover, the IBC EIR established trip budgets for non-
residential sites and the ability to transfer such trips to other non - residential sites.
Becanse the Project is largely residential (see Table 3 -2), the Project and the DSEIR are
inconsistent with the IBC EIR and the IBC Project analyzed therein.
The DSEIR states: "To ensure that land use compatibility issues were considered while
the IBC retained its mixed use character, the City ensures that [thorough] environmental
analysis is conducted on project proposals." SEIR Page 4 -54. However, the IBC EIR
analyzed the environmental impacts of only 3,896 residential dwelling units. The current
total number of dwelling units in IBC is 4,954. The addition of 1,380 dwellings proposed
by the Central Park project would bring the total number of dwelling units in IBC to
6,334. This represents an increase of nearly sixty -five percent (65 %) over the number of
residential dwelling units analyzed in the IBC EIR. Given that the IBC EIR limited
residential development, such a large increase constitutes changed circumstances and
requires the preparation of a new or subsequent EIR, not the DSEIR.
Section 4.4.3, "Environmental Impacts," includes a section titled "Compatibility of
Central Park with the Surrounding Area." Here, the DSEIR states that the proposed
residential densities of the Central Park project "are similar to the high- density residential
products located east of the site." While the residential component of the proposed
project is consistent with the existing high- density residential products in the surrounding
area, it is not consistent with the IBC EIR. is
Michael Milbrick, AICP
. City of Irvine
8
Page 8
April 21, 2004
The DSEIR goes on to state that "all subsequent requests for conversion of non-
residential entitlement to residential units have been supported by subsequent
environmental documentation which has sufficiently analyzed the CEQA related project
impacts." DSEIR Pages 4 -56 -57 However, the DSEIR fails to address the
environmental documentation for these projects: if each subsequent project that has
requested a conversion of non - residential entitlement to residential units (with a current
total of 4,954 dwelling units) has been analyzed in a subsequent EIR, it is questionable
that a thorough environmental analysis has been conducted for each of these projects.
Moreover, the City of Newport Beach is unaware of any environmental document
circulated for public comment for any of these projects.
The Project's increased densities together with the increased densities east of the site may
create significant cumulative impacts requiring mitigation. However, the cumulative
impacts analysis of land use impacts appears to acknowledge this cumulative impact but
provides no mitigation or analysis of the inconsistency with the IBC EIR:
"The gradual redevelopment of the IBC from non - residential uses
to high - density, urban style residential and mixed use development,
• is consistent with the newly developed and developing IBC.
DSEIR, page 4 -76. The DSEIR's perspective of the "newly developed and developing
IBC" may be correct. However, this gradual redevelopment is inconsistent with the IBC
Project analyzed in the IBC EIR; as redevelopment, it is not authorized by the IBC EIR.
Because of this unauthorized redevelopment, the DSEIR is improper. The City should
prepare a new or subsequent EIR which fully analyses the cumulative impacts of the
redevelopment of the IBC. Indeed, to the extent that the City is redeveloping the IBC, the
City should prepare a new Program EIR for the IBC.
Further, the DSEIR concludes that: "Cumulative land use impacts were identified as
significant in the IBC EIR." However, because of the redevelopment of the newly
developed and developing IBC, the DSEIR's reliance on the IBC EIR's conclusions is
improper. The City should prepare a new or subsequent EIR, analyze all cumulative
impacts regarding the IBC redevelopment including the Project, and, if necessary,
propose adequate mitigation.
B. Section 4.7: Recreation
Section 4.7 recognizes that the Project site has no public recreational resources.
However, while the Project will draw a substantial number of residents and office and
retail workers to the site, it proposes to provide private parks but no public parks.
•
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page 9
April 21, 2004
The DSEIR also notes that Irvine residents may enjoy substantial regional recreational
opportunities including parks and beaches in the City of Newport Beach. However, the
DSEIR fails to analyze the Project's impacts on such resources in the City of Newport
Beach.
Further, the DSEIR proposes a park plan including one 2.62 acre centrally located park
and three 0.33 acre parks distributed around the project (a total of 3.01 acres of parks).
This falls well below the City of Irvine standard of 5 acres of parks for each 1000
residents. The DSEIR appears to rely on large regional parks within the City to satisfy the
Project recreational requirements. Further, the DSEIR recognizes that the Project will
pay in lieu park fees when park dedication is unavailable.
However, the DSEIR fails to discuss the City of Irvine's specific park code requirements.
CEQA requires that the Project's impacts be fully analyzed in the DSEIR and any
necessary mitigation discussed and analyzed. However, the DSEIR defers this analysis
and mitigation. Indeed, the DSEIR notes that existing codes and policies require:
`J
"In conjunction with approval of the project's conditional use
permit, the developer of residential subdivisions shall demonstrate
compliance with the City's local park code requirements." .
DSEIR, page 4 -109. However, the DSEIR states that the City has no standard conditions
of approval related to recreation which apply to the Project.
Finally, the Project's proposed parks have limited features. The closest lighted park with
extensive fields is the City of Newport Beach's Bonita Creek Community Park which is
currently heavily used by Newport Beach residents. As indicated above, the DSEIR
should be revised, a new or subsequent EIR developed which addresses these concerns
and ensures that the Project will have no significant and unmitigated impacts on
recreational resources, including an analysis of impacts on parks within the City of
Newport Beach, and any appropriate mitigation.
C. Section 4.8: Transportation/Traffic
The SEIR states that "(t)he proposed project will not result in significant impacts to street
segments or intersections within the cities of Tustin and Newport Beach." DSEIR, page
4 -135. However, the Traffic Study and the DSEIR do not consider or analyze the
Project's potential traffic impacts on State Route 73, on -ramps and off -ramps thereto and
intersections and roadways south of SR 73 in the City of Newport Beach, including the
intersections of MacArthur Boulevard with Bison Avenue and Bonita Canyon Drive.
These roadways and intersections should be included in the environmental analysis for •
the Central Park project.
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
. Page
April 21 21.2004
The traffic analysis in the IBC EIR employs a three -step model to evaluate traffic
forecasts and impacts. The first step groups intersections within the IBC and measures
those intersections by taking a group average. According to the IBC EIR, three of the five
intersection 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 . The failing
intersection groups are Groups A, C and E. The IBC EIR goes on to state that the failure
of these intersection groups further supports the existence of the north -south deficiencies.
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 Central Park project site is located within Group C.
The second step used to evaluate traffic forecasts in the IBC 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 IBC FIR, [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 I -405]
and screenline 4 (V /C = 1.11) [Michelson Drive, which intersects Jamboree just south of
I -405]. These findings continue to demonstrate the shortage of north -south capacity
within IBC. Page IV.A -48. The failure of these two screenlines may have significant
traffic impacts on MacArthur Blvd. and Jamboree Rd. in the City of Newport Beach. The
DSEIR recognizes that the Project may create significant traffic impacts on the
MacArthur Blvd. /Jamboree Rd. and the MacArthur Blvd. /Michelson intersections .
DSEIR, Tables 4 -28 and 4 -29.
Further, the DSEIR states that, while the performance criteria for level of service at an
intersection or roadway in the City of Irvine is considered unsatisfactory when the
intersection capacity exceeds (ICU) 1.00 (LOS E), "(w)here the analysis reports Newport
Beach intersection performance, Newport Beach level of service criteria (LOS D) is
used." The table following this discussion shows the ICU for LOS D to be 0.81 -0.90.
However, the DSEIR goes on to say that "(a) project impact occurs when the roadway
link or intersection in question exceeds the acceptable LOS, and the impact of the
development is greater than or equal to 0.02. Project mitigation will be required back to
1.00 (within the IBC) or baseline, if the baseline is greater than 1.00." DSEIR, page 4-
114. This conflicts with the increased service level required within the City of Newport
Beach.
The DSEIR recognizes that one of the thresholds of significance for the Project is
whether the Project will "result in inadequate emergency access" or ".result in inadequate
parking capacity." Unfortunately, the DSEIR contains no analysis of the Project's
• emergency access requirements or provisions or its parking requirements and capacity.
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page t I
April 21. 2004
The DSEIR concludes that any Project traffic impacts "can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance." However, as discussed below, Section 5 entitled "Significant
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts" appears to recognize that the Project may create
significant traffic impacts after mitigation. DSEIR, page 5 -1. Indeed, the DSEIR builds
upon the IBC EIR, which recognized that the IBC Project had the potential to create
significant traffic impacts after mitigation. The Project cannot avoid this finding.
As indicated above, the cumulative impacts analysis considers only impacts at build -out
under the City's General Plan. The DSEIR concludes that, with planned or existing
traffic improvements, all intersections will operate at acceptable service levels. This
conclusion is problematic.
The conclusion does not include existing or approved projects which have required
General Plan amendments or other variations. Table 3 -2 shows many residential projects
for which amendments have been required. In addition, Table 3 -2 does not include non-
residential developments in the IBC which have also required additional approvals. The
cumulative traffic impacts of these projects should be specifically analyzed in the
subsequent environmental document.
•
Also, the DSEIR fails to discuss any planned traffic improvements which may serve to •
mitigate or reduce traffic at build -out. Further, planned traffic improvements may not
occur for a variety of reasons including funding.
Finally, and importantly, the DSEIR's traffic analysis in particular Table 4 -25, appears to
recognize that the Project will create significant traffic impacts without any transfers of
development rights. That is, the Project requires trip transfers from other sites. As
indicated above, such transfers for residential developments are not authorized under the
IBC EIR.
For all of these problems, the City should revise the DSEIR, publish the document as a
new or subsequent EIR and address each and every impact recognized above and provide
adequate mitigation.
VI. Section 5: Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The IBC EIR found several significant unavoidable impacts including: circulation and traffic,
land use, public services, air resources, water resources and "earth resources." The DSEIR notes
this conclusion of the IBC EIR but fails to address its effect on the DSEIR. It states:
"This SEIR has concluded that the Central Park project will neither reduce
any of these IBC impacts to a level of insignificance, nor cause any of
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page
April 21 21, 2004
these impacts to be significantly more adverse or different from those
analyzed in the IBC EIR, except potentially with respect to air resources.
Accordingly, a Statement of Overriding Consideration will need to be
adopted for each of these impact areas."
This is unclear: does it propose adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for each of
the areas noted in the IBC EIR or only air resources?
As indicated above, notwithstanding the DSEIR's characterization of the Project as having no
impact on the IBC area, this is incorrect. As discussed fully above, the Project is a substantial
change from the IBC Project and requires preparation of a new or subsequent EIR. Hence, the
DSEIR's attempt to rely on findings relating to the IBC EIR is improper. New findings regarding
the risk balance and any statement of overriding considerations must be performed. The new
environmental document must consider such and conduct these balances independently from the
findings of the IBC EIR.
VII. Section 6: Project Alternatives
Section 6 discusses four alternatives to the Project: the no Project alternative with no additional
development, the no Project alternative with existing General Plan designations, the reduced
intensity alternative, and the residential only alternative. The DSEIR concludes that three of
these are the environmentally superior alternatives: the no Project alternative with no additional
development, the reduced intensity alternative, and the residential only alternative. However, the
DSEIR rejects each because they fail to implement one or more of the Project objectives.
As to the no Project alternative with no additional development, the DSEIR notes that it has
fewer environmental impacts but
" ... the beneficial impacts associated with new recreational facilities,
rcmcdiation of contaminated soils, improvements to water quality, and
improvements to the jobs /housing balance of the area would not occur."
DSEIR, page 6 -13. However, it is unclear that remediation of contaminated soils and
improvements to water quality would not occur: the regulatory entities have the ability to force
the responsible parties to cure and /or pay for the problems. As for the jobs /housing balance, the
IBC EIR limited such balance by restricting housing to those existing or approved in 1992. The
Project conflicts with this IBC goal. As for new recreational facilities, the DSEIR is unclear as to
the character of these facilities. If such are simply indoor fitness centers, the market may
determine when and where such centers develop. If the DSEIR is referring to outdoor
recreational facilities, the DSEIR must fully discuss such amenities so that the public may
understand the Project.
•
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page 13
April 21, 2004
As for the residential alternative, the DSEIR finds this to be the superior development alternative
but also notes that it fails to create jobs. More importantly, the residential only alternative
conflicts with the IBC EIR.
As for the reduced intensity alternative, the DSEIR provides no discussion regarding its
comparison or reasons for or against the alternative. The DSEIR notes that the reduced intensity
alternative may create fewer impacts, but it would still create significant and unmitigated air
quality impacts. Further, the DSEIR notes that the Project is itself already a reduced alternative.
As indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised and reissued as a new or subsequent EIR. That
document should re- consider the alternatives including the No Project alternative as the primary
environmentally superior alternative.
VIII. Section 8: Growth Inducing Impacts
Section 8 addresses the Project's potential to create significant growth inducing impacts. The
DSEIR recognizes that, among other things, this analysis should include "an assessment of other
projects that would foster other activities that could affect the environment ...." DSEIR, page 8-
1. The DSEIR concludes that, except for the site itself, the Project will not have growth inducing
impacts. This conclusion is incorrect.
The DSEIR uses a matrix of issues from an unknown source. These include: whether the Project
will remove obstacles to growth; whether the Project will result in the need to expand public
services to maintain the desired level of service; whether the Project will have economic effects
that could result in other activities that may significantly affect the environment; and whether the
Project is precedent setting. Although the DSEIR concludes that:
The Project will remove obstacles to development on the site, it will not generally
remove such obstacles.
2. The Project will not create significant growth in demand for public services.
3. The Project will directly encourage economic activities, but, because of the
balanced plan, i.e. the mixed use character, such effect will be minimized.
4. The Project will not be precedent setting in that all changes are limited to the site.
In this analysis on growth inducing impacts of the Project, the DSEIR fails to consider the
limitations on the IBC created by the IBC EIR. As noted above, the IBC EIR limited residential
development to existing or approved developments as of 1992. However, the DSEIR notes
several residential projects approved since the IBC EIR. See Table 3 -2. However, the Project
dwarfs these projects: it is more than three times as big as many of the Table 3 -2 projects.
•
0
0
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
. Page
April 21 21, 2004
Because of its size, the Project will remove obstacles for development in the IBC generally and
set a precedent. Indeed, as indicated above, the DSEIR states design features and adopted
standards will minimize adverse effects of the Project. However, those standards will not be
project specific; the standard will apply to the entire IBC planning area.
In addition, the City of Irvine, its Council and Planning Commission, have conducted a series of
meetings in connection with development standards for residential development in the IBC. The
Project will be part of that overall effort. Thus, the Project will remove such obstacles.
As for growth in demand for public services. the large size of the Project will itself create a
significant demand on public services. This demand is significantly different from the demands
of the existing uses. The Project will encourage such demands.
As for economic impacts, the NOP for the Project considered a pedestrian bridge over Jamboree
Road to allow for pedestrian traffic to the retail opportunities across Jamboree Road. That
proposal recognized the economic impacts of the Project and its effects off -site. The fact that the
pedestrian bridge is no longer part of the Project does not mean that the Project will not create
impacts off -site.
As we have indicated above, the DSEIR should be revised. and re- issued as a new or subsequent
EIR. The section on growth inducing impacts should consider the full scope and nature of the
Project, and its impacts to the surrounding area and the IBC in general,
The DSEIR is inadequate. The City should prepare a new or subsequent EIR which is a "full
scope" EIR so that the public and decision makers may understand the full nature. scope and
impacts of the Project.
IX. Section 10: Mitigation Monitoring Program
Section 10 concerns the Project's mitigation monitoring program which will ensure compliance
during Project implementation and may allow for flexibility due to changes in the Project during
the review process. The entire analysis consumes one (1) page. Given that the over twenty -five
(25) mitigation measures cover thirteen (13) pages, the minuscule size of the program is apparent
and inadequate.
X. Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important and precedent setting Project and its
DSEIR. For the reasons set forth above, the City of Newport Beach believes that the City of
Irvine should revise the DSEIR and re -issue the document as a new or subsequent EIR.
Michael Philbrick, AICP
City of Irvine
Page 15
April 21, 2004
The Newport Beach City Council has established a Newport Beach/Irvine Borders Committee to
meet with representatives of the Irvine City Council and discuss issues such as those raised in
this comment letter. It may be helpful to begin our discussions with this project as an example,
and we would be happy to do so. If that approach is of interest to the Irvine City Council, please
call Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood at 644 -3222 to arrange a meeting. You also may call
her if you have any other questions regarding our comments.
Sincerely,
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor
Cc: Environmental Quality Affairs Committee
•
0
� W poy
> >
CITY CAE NEWPORT BEACH
�yG /FU 0.Nr.
April 28, 2004
The Honorable Larry Agran D
Mayor of the City of Irvine DRAFT
FT
P. O. Box 19575
Irvine, CA 92623 -9575
Re: Newport Beach Citizens Environmental Quality Affairs Committee
Comments on DSEIR for Central Park Project
Dear Mayor Agran:
The Newport Beach Citizens Environmental Quality Affairs Committee
has, for many years, reviewed and commented on environmental
documents for projects in or close to Newport Beach that could have
an impact on this community. EQAC has reviewed and submitted
comments on the DSEIR for the Central Park Project. I am
transmitting the substance of those comments with the
understanding that the City Council has not taken a position on the
comments but has authorized transmission for your information.
As you know, the City Council has established a City Council Ad Hoc
"Borders Committee" in the hopes of initiating a dialogue with City of
Irvine representatives to identify potential solutions to current and
future traffic congestion in and around IBC and the Airport Area. The
City Council believes that discussions of this nature are the best way
to ensure that development and redevelopment in the Airport Area
and IBC do not impact our respective constituents.
On behalf of the City Council, I respectfully request that you or your
City Council appoint representatives to meet with the Borders
Committee at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Tod Ridgeway, Mayor
City Fall , 3300 Newport Boulevard u Newport Beach, California 92663 -3884