IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE PLANNING AREA 6 NORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR THE PLANNING AREA 6 NORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Prepared for: IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Facilities Planning & Construction Services Departments 2015 Roosevelt Ave Irvine, CA 92620 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 (949) 261 5414 January 2017 ii

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1.1 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (b) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of negative declarations should be, on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect; (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and; (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204 (d) also states, Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency s statutory responsibility. Section 15204 (e) states, This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21092.5 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall notify any public agency which comments on a negative declaration of the public hearing or hearings, if any, on the project for which the negative declaration was prepared. If notice to the commenting public agency is provided pursuant to Section 21092, the notice shall satisfy the requirement of this subdivision. 1.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT MND This section provides responses to written comments received during the 30 day public review period. Table 2: Commenting Agencies provides a list of agencies that submitted comments on the Draft MND during the public review period. Table 1: Commenting Agencies Comment Letter No. Commenting Agency Date of Comment 1 Department of Fish and Wildlife January 6, 2017 2 City of Irvine Community Development January 9, 2017

COMMENT LETTER #1 Department of Fish and Wildlife Comment 1-1

Comment 1-1 cont. Comment 1-2 Comment 1-3 Comment 1-4

Comment 1-4 cont. Comment 1-5

Response to Comment Letter #1 1: Because the project site has undergone active grading operations as part of the Northern Sphere Project, measures to reduce offsite impacts are already included in the planned development of the PA 6 North project. Temporary hay bale sound walls to protect nesting birds from construction noise have been set up onsite and will remain during construction of PA 6 North. Further, these will protect the sensitive area against the spread of invasive species. For additional responses regarding spread of invasive species, please see the Response to Comment Letter #1 4. Response to Comment Letter #1 2: Comment noted. As the project moves through advanced design, the District and their architect will investigate incorporating these guidelines, consistent with District design requirements. Response to Comment Letter #1 3: The project will not include a significant amount of ground disturbance. The project is located on a site that has been previously graded as part of development of the Northern Sphere Project and as such is considered a previously disturbed site. That said, as the project moves through advanced design, the District will investigate incorporating these features, consistent with District design requirements. Response to Comment Letter #1 4: During construction, heavy equipment will be inspected before delivery to the project site. The District will ensure that all the equipment being delivered is weed free, including: earth moving equipment and project associated vehicles that could present a risk for spreading weeds (vegetation clearing has been previously completed so no further vegetation clearing and associated vehicles is not expected to be required). Response to Comment Letter #1 5: Comment noted. As the project moves through advanced design, the District and their architect will investigate including native plants to the maximum extent possible, consistent with District design requirements.

COMMENT LETTER #2 City of Irvine Community Development

Comment 2-1 Comment 2-2 Comment 2-3 Comment 2-4 Comment 2-5 Comment 2-6 Comment 2-7 Comment 2-8 Comment 2-9

Comment 2-10 Comment 2-11 Comment 2-12 Comment 2-13 Comment 2-14 Comment 2-15 Comment 2-16 Comment 2-17 Comment 2-18 Comment 2-19

Comment 2-20 Comment 2-21 Comment 2-22 Comment 2-23 Comment 2-24 Comment 2-25

Irvine Unified School District Response to Comments for Planning Area 6 North Elementary School

Irvine Unified School District Response to Comments for Planning Area 6 North Elementary School

Response to Comment Letter #2 1: To the best of the District s knowledge, Tomato Springs Road and Pear Blossom ( L Street ) will be built prior to the school opening. Response to Comment Letter #2 2: Comment noted. As the project moves through advanced design, a detailed site plan will be developed and provided to the City. District will meet with the City for review and input. Access from the sidewalks along Tomato Springs to the entrance of the school will be provided. Response to Comment Letter #2 3: Comment noted. As the project moves through advanced design, a detailed site plan compliant with Title V requirements will be developed and provided to the City. District will meet with the City for review and input. Response to Comment Letter #2 4: Comment noted. As the project moves through advanced design, a detailed site plan will be developed and provided to the City. District will meet with the City for review and input. Response to Comment Letter #2 5: Comment noted. As the project moves through advanced design, the District will collaborate with the developer on a site plan which will be provided to the City. District will meet with the City for review and input. Response to Comment Letter #2 6: Access points to the school are shown in Figure 7 of the IS/MND. As the project moves through advanced design, a detailed site plan will be developed and provided to the City. District will meet with the City for review and input. General Response to Comment Letter #2 7 through #2 25: District has reviewed the City s comments provided for the Traffic Study (study). In review of these comments, it was determined that the District, as the lead agency under CEQA, did not require implementation of the suggested edits in order to comply with the requirements of the statute and guidelines. Addressing the suggested edits will not identify a new effect nor alter the conclusions in the study. However, District will prepare updates to the study, as requested by the City, for their review and input. Further detail is provided in the below responses to comments describing how revisions to the study will be prepared. Response to Comment Letter #2 7: Access points to the school are shown in Figure 7 of the IS/MND. As the project moves through advanced design, a detailed site plan will be developed and provided to the City. District will

meet with the City for review and input. The updated study will include as much information as is known at this time to identify the school s access points. Response to Comment Letter #2 8: A forecast for traffic on Tomato Springs was not currently available at the time the IS/MND was circulated. The road and surrounding residences have not yet been built and there was no volume forecast in the Northern Sphere EIR. The updated study will analyze the Pearblossom ( L Street)/Tomato Springs intersection. The volumes for this intersection will be comprised of the cumulative traffic volumes only as the intersection does not currently exist. Response to Comment Letter #2 9: As requested by the City, the Pearblossom ( L Street)/Portola Parkway intersection will be analyzed as a traffic signal in the Existing With Project, Opening Year (2019), and Opening Year (2019) with Project scenarios. It should be noted that based on the analysis, the signal is not needed to accommodate school traffic. Further, development of this intersection is being performed by The Irvine Company as part of the Northern Sphere Project and is not within the scope of the Planning Area 6 North ES Project. Response to Comment Letter #2 10: A discussion on the trail network system and pedestrian and bicycle volumes will be added to the report. Response to Comment Letter #2 11: A figure illustrating future geometrics for the 2019 year will be added to the study. It is not expected that the project will be specifically adding, changing, or mitigating any roadway or intersection geometry. Therefore, theses geometrics will also be assumed for the Baseline scenarios. Response to Comment Letter #2 12: A 15 percent growth rate will be added per the City s traffic model. The volumes at the Portola Springs/Portola Parkway intersection may appear lower than other studies in the area because of the lack of development in the area. The volumes and graphics will be updated accordingly. Response to Comment Letter #2 13: The City of Irvine s Transportation Design Procedures were consulted for the school driveways and will be discussed in the updated study. Response to Comment Letter #2 14: A Build Out scenario would not be necessary as this project is already consistent with the City s General Plan and would have been evaluated in the General Plan EIR. Response to Comment Letter #2 15:

Childcare will be provided on site consistent with other K 6 schools in the District. IUSD has a Joint Powers Agreement with Irvine Childcare Project to provide on site childcare before and after school. Additionally, a childcare facility is planned east of the elementary school. The discussion of the existing setting will be revised to note that a child care facility is proposed east of Pearblossom ( L Street). Response to Comment Letter #2 16: The Pearblossom ( L Street)/Tomato Springs intersection will be included in the updated study. The volumes for this intersection will be comprised of the approved/pending projects in the area. Response to Comment #2 17: Table 3 in the study will be updated to reflect this comment as the study is revised. Response to Comment #2 18: The only school in the vicinity of the project is the existing Portola Springs Elementary School. To account for the existing school traffic, the traffic volumes generated by the Portola Springs Elementary School will be added to the existing traffic counts and included in the updated study. Response to Comment #2 19: As noted in Comment 2 12, a 15 percent growth rate will be used in the updated study. Response to Comment #2 20: The approved/pending (cumulative) projects within the study area were derived from a list provided by City of Irvine Staff in July 2016. In addition, a map of Planning Area 6 (PA6) prepared by Stantec in October 2015 was also used to derive traffic volumes from cumulative projects. This map contained dwelling unit counts and other information needed to estimate trips. If additional projects or an updated map are available, please provide them so that they can be included in the updated study. Response to Comment #2 21: Figure 7 has been updated to better illustrate the trip distribution through the study area. Response to Comment #2 22: The SR 241 Ramps were included in this study as some school employees are expected to use these ramps to commute to the site. The Pearblossom ( L Street)/Portola Parkway intersection will be analyzed as a traffic signal for the existing with project, opening year and opening year with project scenarios. Response to Comment #2 23: The number of left turns will be confirmed in the updated study. There are a total of 1,000 elementary school students (although, for the purposes of this analysis, a total of 1,200 students were assumed to provide a conservative estimate). This does not mean that all 1,000 students

will be driven to school individually. Based on the trip generation estimates, 540 AM peak hour trips are expected with 297 inbound trips. Some of this traffic is expected to come from the residential developments south of Portola Parkway and use Portola Springs to access the elementary school. Not all traffic for the school is expected to use Pearblossom ( L Street). Response to Comment #2 24: The westbound right turns at the Pearblossom ( L Street)/Portola Parkway intersection will be confirmed in the updated study. The westbound right turns are expected to come from the residential developments to the east of Pearblossom ( L Street). This traffic is expected to use a street east of Pearblossom ( L Street). Response to Comment #2 25: All tables in the study will be updated to show the Pearblossom ( L Street)/Portola Parkway intersection as a signalized intersection.