Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 ATEP COMMENTS 08-05-08-- + Agenda Item 16 :...:..:...... AGENDA REPORT Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director N/A MEETING DATE: August 5, 2008 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: CHRISTINE A. SHINGLETON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON LONG RANGE ACADEMIC AND FACILITY PLANS FOR THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION CAMPUS (ATEP) AND INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY The South Orange County College District (SOCCCD) has requested comments on their Long Range Academic and Facility Plans for the Advanced Technology Education Campus (ATEP) and on an Initial Study evaluating the environmental impacts of the Long Range Plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize transmittal to South Orange County Community College District of attached comment letters on the Long Range Academic and Facility Plans for the Advanced Technology Education Campus (ATEP) and Initial Study FISCAL IMPACT The only fiscal impact of the proposed action relates to the staff time by several City operating departments in review of the Long Range Academic and Facility Plans and the Initial Study. BACKGROUND The City received correspondence on June 27, 2008 from the SOCCCD requesting formal comments on draft Long Range Academic and Facility Plans for the ATEP. As subsequent letter was received on July 17, 2008 requesting comments on an Initial Study evaluating the environmental impacts of the Long Range Plan. City Council Report Response to Request for Comments from SOCCCD August 5, 2008 Page 2 City operating departments (including Public Works, Community Development, and Redevelopment) have been briefed on the documents, reviewed the documents and provided specific technical review comments. As a courtesy, the City staff have transmitted to SOCCCD preliminary City comments on the Long Range Academic and Facility Plans on July 24, 2008. We requested that our letter be considered a preliminary set of comments pending the comment letter be formally confirmed by the City Council as a result of the August 5, 2008 City Council meeting. Given the lateness of the request for comments on the Initial Study and SOCCCD's request for comments back by August 4th, City staff requested from SOCCCD an extension on transmittal of comments on the Initial Study until after the City Council's meeting on August 5th and until August 8. We have not received a response to our request for more time for the City to transmit our comment letter on the Initial Study. Attachment I and II are attached and include the two comment letters that staff would recommend be transmitted to SOCCCD on the Long Range Academic and Facility Plans and on the Initial Study. City staff will be available to answer any questions. Christine Shingleton, As ant City Manager S:\RDA\CC report\Agenda Report 8-05-08 SOCCCD Comment Letters Attachment I Comment Letter on Long Range Academic and Facility Plans For ATEP Office of the City Manager August 5, 2008 Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. Chancellor South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692-3635 RE: Preliminary Draft Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan Dear Dr. Mathur: TuSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST As you aware, City staff transmitted draft comments to SOCCCD on the Long Range Academic and Facility Plans on July 24, 2008. The City had requested that our comment letter be considered preliminary pending formal confirmation of City comments by the City Council at its meeting on August 5, 2008. At the August 5th meeting, the City Council formally authorized transmittal of comments to the District confirming all original comments previously provided to the District. Since any development activity on the property will be subject to all applicable provisions of the Conveyance Agreement, the Sublease, the Specific Plan and all Government Requirements including, but not limited to, the General Plan, Reuse Plan, Specific Plan, and other regulatory documents, we would strongly recommend that revisions to the Long Range Academic or Facility Plans be made in response to our comments and provided to the City with adequate time for our review before the District's adoption of the Plans. Attachment I to this letter is a copy of our July 24, 2006 transmittal. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office to schedule a meeting with the City team to review. Sincerely, William A. Huston City Manager Enclosure cc: Members of the Tustin City Council Doug Holland, City Attorney George Schlossberg, City Special Counsel Tim Serlet, PW Director Elizabeth Binsack, CD Director John Buchanan, RDA Program Manager 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3010 9 F: (714) 838-1602 0 www.tustinca.org Office of the City Manager July 23, 2008 Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. Chancellor South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguerite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692-3635 RE: Preliminary Draft Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan Dear Dr. Mathur: TUSTIN HISTORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for the opportunity provided to the City of Tustin to review and comment on the Preliminary Draft Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans for the Advanced Technology Education Campus (ATEP) dated June 26, 2008 which the City received on June 27, 2008. City operating departments have been briefed on the documents, reviewed the documents and provided specific technical review comments which are included as Attachment I to this letter. In addition, we received and reviewed the District's updated schedule provided by your counsel as an attachment to her July 8, 2008 letter. However, since given the lateness of receipt of the drafts from the District, City staff has not yet been able to agendize and receive specific direction and concurrence on any of our comments from the City Council. Therefore, this letter and its attachments shall be considered a preliminary set of comments only which cannot be formally confirmed until after the August 5, 2008 City Council meeting. Moreover, while the City shall endeavor to provide its comments in a timely manner, we note that the Conveyance Agreement does not set a time limit on the City's review of the document. Presumably, the District has been preparing for the Long Range Plan since the Conveyance Agreement was negotiated and signed in 2004, and can modify its unilaterally established schedule to receive the City's comments that can be deemed final only after the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Section 4.3.1 of the Conveyance Agreement requires South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) to consult with the City in preparation of the Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans, share the preliminary plans with the City for review and comment prior their release to the public, and also requires SOCCCD to give consideration to all comments received from the City on such plans. Unlike the Short 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3010 • F (714) 838-1602 • www.tustinca.org Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. July 23, 2008 Page 2. Range Plan, where SOCCCD did not positively respond to specific corrections and issues raised by the City and moved forward on adoption of the Short Range Plan despite remaining City issues and concerns, the City would strongly encourage the District to address the issues that have been raised by the City on the Draft Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans prior to any Board action on the Long Range Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans. Since any development activity on the property will be subject to all applicable provisions of the Conveyance Agreement, the Sublease, the Specific Plan and all Government Requirements including but not limited to the General Plan, Reuse Plan, Specific Plan, and other regulatory documents, failure to address issues raised in this letter may result in potential future conflicts and delays in the ability of the City to make conforming determinations and be in a position to take positive action on any discretionary approvals necessary for the City and any contemplated ministerial actions under the Specific Plan and Municipal Code including but not limited to Concept Plan approval, Site Plan, Design Review approvals, plan check as applicable, reviews and issuance of any required permits. Attachment I to this letter provides a more substantial set of City review comments on the Long Range Academic and Long Range Facility Plans. We will confirm or modify this initial set of comments following the City Council meeting now scheduled for August 5, 2008. Also, we look forward to the District's response to the City's comments. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office to schedule a meeting with the City team to review. Sincerely, 4&,.�>�4 4,4v� William Huston City Manager cc: Members of the Tustin City Council Doug Holland, City Attorney George Schlossberg, City Special Counsel Tim Serlet, PW Director Elizabeth Binsack, CD Director John Buchanan, RDA Program Manager Matt West, RDA Project Manager ATTACHMENT I DETAILED COMMENTS SOCCCD ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK LONG RANGE ACADEMIC PLAN Vo1.1-JUNE 2008 LONG RANGE ACADEMIC AND FACILITIES PLAN -JUNE 2008 1. Overview Section, page 4, paragraph 1. The draft Long Range Academic Plan ("Academic Plan") states that SOCCCD plans to build out the ATEP campus in partnership with a master developer, four year colleges and universities and businesses. Paragraph 3 of the Overview Section also states that the Long Range Plans for ATEP feature a major motion picture studio. The term Advanced Technology Educational Campus ("ATEP") was very carefully defined in Exhibit A of the Conveyance Agreement as follows: "Advanced Technology Education Campus" means an education Oriented development which may include traditional and non-traditional advanced education (extension and/or advanced degree opportunities), adult education, continuing education, vocational, job and educational training, or other education and training opportunities, as well as accessory uses when customarily associated with and subordinate with the educational uses listed above that would include the following uses: dormitory/student apartment housing; minor support commercial, office and retail service uses including but not limited to food services; administrative offices; a post office, medical/dental clinics; laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting; industrial/commercial business incubators which support educational programs or provide educational opportunities; maintenance facilities, structures and storage facilities, and guard houses, gates and other security facilities and structures. Any uses not listed above are subiect to a determination by the Community Development Director as either permitted, permitted subject to a conditional use permit or prohibited, consistent with the terms and conditions of the Specific Plan, this Agreement, the SOCCCD Property Quitclaim Deed, and the Sublease (until such Sublease terminates). [Emphasis Added]. Any program and development of uses on the ATEP site is subject to the Conveyance Agreement and the above definition and all Government Requirements including the Tustin General Plan, the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/ Specific Plan, Zoning Code, Sublease ("Regulatory Documents"). While Tustin concurs that public/private partnerships are permitted, the key to restrictions in the Conveyance Agreement and Regulatory Documents is that business and other accessory uses noted above are considered and must be subordinate with the educational uses above and to such permitted uses on the same site (Conveyance Agreement definition of ATEP Campus and Permitted And Conditionally Permitted and Accessory Uses and Structures listed in Section 3.3.2 of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan. If a proposed use is not specifically included in the first sentence of the definition of ATEP above, a determination is required by the City. Specifically, please clarify whether the District considers a "Motion Picture Studio" to be an "...accessory use[s] when customarily associated with and subordinate with the educational uses listed above..." It is up to the District to clearly provide square footages and specifics regarding all uses and buildings on the site to demonstrate that such uses meeting the definition of the ATEP Campus under the Conveyance Agreement and are Permitted and Conditionally Uses identified under Section 3.3.2 of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan. 2. Overview Section, Page 4, paragraph 4. The Academic Plan states that space allocations dedicated to education in the ATEP Long Range Plan exceed the total square footages available at Irvine Valley College. Unfortunately, there are no specific space allocations that define space dedicated to the authorized primary education uses in the LRAP for the ATEP Campus or to ancillary and subordinate uses which will need to be specifically identified in order to determine consistency with the Conveyance Agreement and Specific Plan requirements in the Regulatory Documents. On numerous occasions including at meetings and in formal correspondence, the City has suggested that to adequately evaluate whether uses on the proposed ATEP site comply with the regulatory documents, the City needs to specifically see the general location of proposed buildings and uses, quantified in square footages and acreages for all uses and buildings with all business uses identified by location and specifically quantified in square footages. 3. Non -Traditional Community College Education Section, page 6. The Academic Plan states that collaborative ventures, such as public-private partnerships, public-private consortiums, and other joint programs are the wave of the future. The Academic Plan provides some examples of such ventures. However, while such an assertion may be true, the District chose not to acquire the property from the United States Department of Education, and instead chose to acquire the property pursuant to the Conveyance Agreement that strictly governs the use of the property. 4. Initial Academic Programs/Communication, page 12, paragraph 2. The Academic Plan states that there will be three sound stages (two for television and one for movies) for exclusive student use and an additional nine sound stages will be designated for "joint use" by students and professional film companies. The District has not provided adequate information for the City to make a determination that the Academic Plan or Long Range Facilities Plan are consistent with the Conveyance Agreement and Specific Plan and all Regulatory Documents with regard to proposed uses and businesses contemplated on the site. There are no specific space allocations that define space dedicated to the authorized primary education uses in the definition of the ATEP Campus. An elaboration of the joint uses or uses for private business and ancillary and subordinate uses are necessary and required before the City can determine consistency with the Conveyance Agreement and Specific Plan and requirements in the Regulatory Documents. KA 1. Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan Scope, page 2, paragraph 1. The Long Range Academic and Facilities Plan ("Facilities Plan") states that the LRP may be reviewed and updated as needed to keep flexible and adaptable as future opportunities arise. Please clarify that the review and comment process currently in Section 4.3.1 will apply, including that the District will provide the City of Tustin with an opportunity to review any revisions, and comply with the requirement that the District shall give consideration to all comments provided by the City on such LRP revisions. The Facilities Plan also states that the LRP will replace the Short Range Plan (SRP) when approved by the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. The Short Range Plan (SRP) did not just identify the existing interim ATEP Campus, but also identified interim improvements to the ATEP site to be accomplished in a timely manner to improve the aesthetic appearance of the site and to demonstrate more substantial progress, particularly recognizing that the District has had control over the site since April of 2004. Unfortunately, replacement of the SRP automatically with the LRP as well as certain statements made in the LRP, delay improvements the District previously consulted with the City on to improve physical appearance of the site and to show progression that addressed the site conditions of the exterior perimeters of the site, not just what is defined as a Phase 1 improvement in the LRP. None of the interim improvements included previously in the SRP or addressed in the City's previous comments on the SRP have been included in the LRP. At minimum, the City requests that the LRP: • Provide streetscapes along Valencia and Armstrong frontages as a logical and orderly aesthetic improvement in compliance with the Specific Plan as indicated in comment #6 of City's letter date of March 24, 2008, timing needs to also be identified. • Provide temporary fencing at the landscaping setback line along with improvement screening and branding identification of the ATEP site. The conceptual design, placement and timing for the installations needs to be identified (See comment #7 of City's letter of March 24, 2008). • In the interim, all issues addressed in the short range in comment #2 of the City's letter of March 24, 2008 need to be addressed. • The current enrollment estimates provided by the District in submittal of both the SRP and LRP indicates that the District is not in compliance with Specific Plan parking requests (comment #3 of City letter dated March 24, 2008). 2. Approval Authority and Consultation process, page 3. The Facilities Plan states that the approval of the LRP will require review under CEQA. As a responsible agency on the LRP and a lead agency on subsequent discretionary actions required of the District by the City under the Conveyance Agreement, Specific Plan and other Regulatory Documents, the District should be closely coordinating with the City on the scope of any environmental analysis, including but not limited to the scope of work for any traffic analysis or technical information necessary for review of other impact categories and the 3 project in light of the original FEIS/EIR, as amended by Supplement and Addendum. This includes review of all supporting technical materials necessary to support any CEQA documentation and agreement as to applicable mitigation measures to be applied to the project based on the FEIS/EIR. 3. ATEP Site Context and Regulatory Background/Location and Surrounding Uses, Page 3, paragraph 1. The acreages are incorrect. There are approximately 1533 acres of Tustin Legacy within the City of Tustin and approximately 73 acres of the former MCAS Tustin facility within the City of Irvine. Only those portions of the property within the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/ Specific Plan within the City of Tustin are considered within the definition of the Tustin Legacy project. 4. Table 1, Surrounding uses, page 5. Please correct a number of the existing condition statements which are incorrect as follows: Under Community Park—modify to state "Existing Military Buildings and Vacant Land"; Abused Children's Shelter—delete "Vacant" and modify to read "Under Development"; Medium Density Residential—the site is not completely developed so modify to read "Under Development" with a footnote that can state "approximately 70% of proposed residential units on the site are completed"; Sheriff's Training Center—modify modify to state "Existing Military Buildings and Vacant Land;" Urban Regional Park—modify to state "Existing Military Buildings"; Education, City of Tustin—modify to read "Educational Village" and modify vacant statement to read "Existing Military Buildings and Vacant Land." 5. Figure 5, Existing Facilities. Figure 5 is of poor quality. It is referenced as depicting existing facilities, but shows very little detail or information. For instance, the list of buildings only identifies the church and helicopter hangar as existing; however, all buildings are existing. In addition, the plan should identify the existing ATEP interim buildings. Please clarify and revise accordingly. 6. Page 7, Figure 4, ATEP Site and Surrounding Programmed Uses. Please label the LIFOC boundary on the exhibit and identify specific parcels as identified in the Conveyance Agreement since these will be legal parcels that construction will not be able to extend across without subsequent subdivision or parcel mapping and approvals pursuant to the City's Subdivision Ordinance. There are Parcels which constitute the ATEP site. The Non-LIFOC parcels are I -E-3, I -E4, I -E-1.1 (for an aggregated total acreage of 37.66 acres) with the LIFOC Parcels, Parcels IV -J-4, IV -J-5, and IV -J-6 (for an aggregated total acreage of 30.71 acres). To the south of the ATEP site, the Warner Avenue right-of-way area is shown for private Commecial/Business Development. The right-of-way area is not proposed for such development and needs to be modified to reflect that the area is dedicated for the future extension of Warner Avenue. 7. Tustin Legacy Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, page 9, paragraph 2. The Specific Plan has been amended a number of times and not just on April 17, 2006; and will likely be subsequently amended. Please modify all references throughout the LRP to document that the Specific Plan, is as amended through June 5, 2005 and as may subsequently be amended. The following is a listing of other amendments to the Specific Plan as approved by the City not identified in the LRP: ILI • On March 7, 2005, Specific Plan Amendment/Zone Change 04-03 was approved modifying certain Specific Plan development standards as they affect Planning Areas 4 and 5 (Ordinance 1297). • On March 7, 2005, a pre -zoning of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Disposition Parcel 36 from the City of Irvine to the City of Tustin and amendment to the Specific Plan was approved to establish Tustin site development standards for Disposition Parcel 36 (Ordinance 1294 and 1295). Disposition Parcel 36 was subsequently annexed to the City of Tustin. On June 5, 2005, Specific Plan Amendment 05-01 (Ordinance 1299) was approved to facilitate the application and implementation of some of the requirements contained in the Specific Plan and to provide for minor clarifications and modifications as the amendment primarily related to density calculations, the definition of a development unit, and the transfer of residential units between planning areas. • On June 5, 2007 Specific Plan Amendment was approved. 8. Tustin Legacy Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, Page 9, paragraph 4. The District states that "For non-residential land uses, the calculation of development potential (i.e. maximum FAR) is based on gross acreage figures, which excludes land devoted to arterial roadways" with pages 3-5 of the Specific Plan footnoted. This is an introductory description of the Land Use Plan and how gross acreages of general land uses shown on the Land Use Plan were initially determined. It is a provision that continues to be incorrectly cited by the District; it has been pulled out of the context of the document. The information also provided by the District and the preliminary calculations of authorized Square Footages and Trip Budget information provided on the top of page 10 of the LRP are incorrect and not based on preliminary information provided to the District in writing by City staff as early as October of 2007 (recognizing that at the time the City had also not yet established the need for local roads on the site). Pursuant to the Specific Plan determinations of F.A.R. are based on net acreages (see Footnote #3, Specific Plan Table 3-1 and 3-2) and not based on gross acreage. The entire discussion and information provided on page 9 and 10 of the LRP will need to be deleted and replaced with the information more accurately provided on numerous occasions to the District based on its meetings with the City and consistent with comments provided herein. The City in numerous meetings with the District staff provided direction on the requirements of the Specific Plan related to use and development by the District which have been replaced with the District's own interpretations. The Specific Plan actually states that: "The Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis is organized in two ways. Table 3-1 is the Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis organized by land use designation, and Table 3-2 is the Land Use Statistical Analysis organized by neighborhood.... Each statistical analysis contains the approximate acreages, square footage allocations and dwelling units permitted in each Planning Area shown on the Land Use Plan. Each Planning Area is assigned an amount of land devoted to existing buildings (where applicable), and includes an allocation of land available for new uses based on the density intensity 5 standards established in the Specific Plan. The maximum number of dwelling units and total square footage of non-residential development provided for in the Specific Plan are prescribed in the Statistical Analysis and further defined in the following regulatory sections. Calculations of development potential are based on gross acreage figures for each Planning Area, which excludes land devoted to arterial roadways as identified in the Circulation Plan (Figure 2-5)." Further, on both Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the Specific Plan, there is a footnote providing clarification of both "Gross Acreage", "Net Acreage" and "Floor Area Ratio" which read as follows: "Gross acreage for each planning area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent arterial future arterial and secondary roadways, and public roadways shown on the Land Use Plan, and/or the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is calculated from the Right -of -Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process. "Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within the Planning Area. Net acreage is estimated approximately for each Planning Area, based on permitted use, size of the Planning Area and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process." "Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R) is the gross floor area of all buildings within a Planning Area divided by the net acreage of the Planning Area for purposes of the statistical analysis. If applicable, the F.A.R. column specifies a floor area ratio derived from an assumed mix of uses within a Planning Area." In addition, in Section 6.D. of the Appendix of the Specific Plan there is a definition of what constitutes Net Acres and Floor Area as follows: "Acres, Net. An estimated allocation of land area within a Planning Area, based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area." "Floor Area, Total. The total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage." Table 3-1 of the Specific Plan did not break out a separate square footage for the individual parcels within the Planning Area on which the ATEP Campus is located but only total authorized square footages for the entire Planning Area not to be exceeded and subject to all other provisions of the Specific Plan. While Table 3-2 identified preliminary gross acres and net acres for each of the sub -portions of the Planning Area including the ATEP parcels, it also did not break down total floor area permitted by parcel in Neighborhood A but relied on the City's use of other provisions of the Specific Plan for the City's determination of authorized square footages by use and location within Neighborhood A. More specifically, the Planning Area Land Use Trip Budget in Section 3.2.4 identified the square footages as well as authorized trips assigned to each of the land use types within the Neighborhood. While City staff cautioned the District in October of 2007 that no direction had yet been provided to the District by the City on necessary local streets on the ATEP site (with the exception of our discussion of required common areas and easements required of the 0 District in the Specific Plan), City staff as early as October 2007 identified the total maximum authorized square footages permitted within the Learning Village portion of the Planning Area (which includes the ATEP Site) subject to the need to modify this information as may be necessary in the future for local street accommodation. Public Streets need to be identified and subtracted from gross acreage of the ATEP site to determine net acreage and any subsequent refinements of authorized square footage to be permitted on the ATEP site. City staff did disaggregate square footage information for the Learning Village and applied the City authorized footages to individual parcels within the Learning Village based on at least the gross acreage available at the time recognizing that refinements would need to occur once net acreages were defined further in the future. This preliminary spreadsheet information was provided to the District in writing (See Attachment II). Note that both the square footages and total authorized trips allocated to the ATEP site when the spreadsheet was provided in October 2007, to the District are considerably below those identified in the LRP. The District information in the LRP is inaccurate and F.A.R. will need to be adjusted further to reflect other comments previously provided to the District on local streets on the ATEP site. In addition, the following corrections will also need to be made the information provided in the LRP in Table 2: The total square footage for Planning Areas IA & 1-E authorized to date is 14,676 square feet as shown on City reviewed building plans. Please correct this error. For Planning Area 1-G, change the total trips authorized from 1,480 to 6,220 per Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. In order to establish the specifics of total trips on the ATEP site, City staff has previously requested on several occasions that the District provide a more detailed defined space allocation, including square footages of uses proposed on the ATEP site separating or differentiating those dedicated to the authorized primary education uses as described in the definition of the ATEP Campus from those that will be ancillary and subordinate uses, even under a joint use scenario. Different uses have different ADT generation factors depending on the specific uses on site (for instance, motion picture studios have a completely different ADT generation factor than an exclusive educational use). Nowhere in the LRP can specific square footages of buildings and facilities by type of use and function be found. The determination of compliance with the Conveyance Agreement and Regulatory Documents cannot be made without this information. 9. ATEP Campus Background, page 11, paragraph 1. The paragraph should also indicate that the Navy was the previous owner of the former MCAS Tustin and the Navy is currently the owner of approximately 230 acres of the former MCAS Tustin, including a 30.7 acre portion of the ATEP site. 10. ATEP Campus Background, page 11, paragraph 2, first and second sentences. While the City received the ATEP site under an Economic Development Conveyance from the Navy, the City did not convey the ATEP site to the District pursuant to an Economic Development Conveyance, but rather the Conveyance Agreement and by quit claim deed and sublease. An Economic Development Conveyance is a special statutory mechanism created under Federal law and available only to a federally recognized local redevelopment authority. The District is not eligible for such a conveyance and did not receive one under Federal law. M 11. Environmental Conditions, page 12, last bullet at bottom of page. Modify to read "local statutes..." 12. Environmental Conditions, page 13, paragraph 1, last sentence. Please consider qualifying this last sentence and statement. The remediation activities by the Navy are per federal and state standards which may not be consistent with any provisions of the State Education Code. The Navy is only required to undertake remediation actions related to contamination that they create pursuant to Federal law. 13. Environmental Conditions, page 13, last sentence of paragraph 2. It states that it is anticipated that none of the existing MCAS Tustin improvements will be reused for ATEP; however, it is later noted in the LRP that the chapel is intended to be relocated and reused. Please clarify how the chapel will be used, including how it will fit into the ATEP site and operations, if it will be operated by a third party as a privatization operation, including a description of what functions might be anticipated to occur at the chapel. 14. Environmental Conditions, page 13, first sentence of last paragraph should read: "The overall ATEP campus is designated as a portion of Parcel 1 and all of Parcel 19...." 15. Environmental Condition, page 14, paragraph 1. It is stated that the Phase I ESA included interviews with property owners. As the owner of at least 30 acres of the site, the City was not contacted or consulted on the Phase 1 ESA and has not been provided a full copy for review and comment. 16. Environmental Condition, Page 14, paragraph 2, last sentence. See statement under comment #12 above which should be qualified. Not every subsequent environmental condition that may be discovered in the future by the District would necessarily be covered under the Section 330 Indemnification in the original quitclaim deed and be an obligation of the Navy's responsibility. 17. Page 15, paragraph 2. It is stated that the approximate locations of groundwater monitoring wells on the ATEP Campus are shown on Figure 5. However, Figure 5 contains no such information. An exhibit should be provided that shows the existing remediation systems, including conveyance piping and wells since these systems will impact construction of all improvements. This paragraph also states that complete remediation of these plumes is anticipated by 2010. This is not correct. The remedial activities on the site are anticipated to continue well into the future with systems likely in place for some time. The current Closeout Report indicates that the anticipated completion date of approximately September 2038, as identified in the Department of Navy's Draft Amended Site Management Plan for Fiscal Year 2009. Further, it needs to be clarified that a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) the property which indicates that the United States has determined that the property is suitable for reuse is currently scheduled for between 2012-2013. Institutional controls will be included in any contemplated FOST that will necessitate that wells and continuing remediation systems and wells not be disturbed. There may also be additional controls typical to these types of remedial activities which preclude other activities on the site which have not yet been determined. The FOST will not certify that 0 the LIFOC area has been cleaned, only that the Federal government believes there is no longer a threat to the public health and safety. There are currently specific institutional controls on both previously FOST property on the ATEP site as well as LIFOC property. As previously provided to the District and requested by the City, the LRP should specifically add a matrix or table that describes these specific requirements for demolition or use on any structure or portion of the site as included in either the previous FOST or LIFOC. Whether the presence of any conditions included in the FOST or LIFOC document will affect the development plans for the ATEP site is largely a result of any PERF document release for such conditions provided and as approved by the Navy. 18. Short Range Plan, Page 17. The Facilities Plan states that the LRP will replace the SRP when approved by the SOCCCD Board of Trustees. The Short Range Plan SRP did not just identify the existing interim ATEP Campus, but also identified interim improvements to the ATEP site to be accomplished in a timely manner to improve the aesthetic appearance of the site and to demonstrate more substantial progress (see comment #1 above). Unfortunately, replacement of the SRP automatically with the LRP as well as certain statements made in the LRP, eliminates the provision of the SRP improvements the District previously acknowledged to the City specifically that the District would install to improve physical appearance of the site and to show progression that addressed the site conditions of the exterior perimeters of the site, not just what is defined as a Phase 1 improvement in the LRP. None of the interim improvements included or addressed in the City staff's previous comments on the SRP have been included in the LRP. At minimum, those SRP improvements identified in LRP Comment # 1 above which should continue to be reflected in the LRP if it is replacing the SRP as a phased improvement. 19. Existing Interim ATEP Campus Facilities, page 18, top of page, last two sentences. The District states that SRP screening along the perimeter of the ATEP site is not desired by the City's police department and that the District is working with the City on an appropriate temporary screening solution. Unfortunately, the branding screen for aesthetic purposes does not have to obstruct all views into the property and the decision regarding its purpose and what was agreed to with the District in the SRP was provided as direction by the City Council. The City continues to expect its implementation to the standards discussed with representatives from the City Manager's Office, District staff and consultants. The District has been informed that all discussion relative to the use and development of the SOCCCD site should be directed to the City Manager's Office. 20. ATEP planning process, Page 18, paragraph 2. It is stated that the vision for ATEP was formulated with input received from government. Unfortunately, as these comments indicate much of the input previously provided by the City to the District has been rejected or ignored. 21. Regulatory Requirements and Processes, page 19-22. In review of the summary outline of implementation process matrix, the City has a number of comments: • ATEP Site/Use Development Plan 2006. It needs to be noted that this document was adopted by the Board of Trustees and released to the public indicating that X this was the anticipated master development plan without specific response to comments raised by the City on August 10, 2006. • SRP -completed March 24, 2008. It needs to be noted that it is the City's position that our comments of February 15, 2006 and March 24, 2008 were not adequately addressed prior to adoption of the document. • Development of new landscaping plans for existing ATEP Campus Parking Lot. Plans are subject to City review and comments were provided to the District on June 30, 2008 and all requirements for issuance of permits have not yet been met by the District. • Concept Plan for expansion of Interim Campus Facilities. Note that Concept Plan will require approval of the City of Tustin. Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 any submittal of a concept plan for sub -planning area PA -1 -A will need to be for any interim and future development of the entire sub -planning area. • Expansion of Interim Campus as LIFOC property will require approval at a minimum from the City of Tustin with any improvements within LIFOC property also subject to Navy review and approval. Provided that a building is an educational use regulated by DSA, then the review of interim campus facilities will require design review and building plan check, permits and payment of all processing fees for grading, drainage, siting of improvements, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections. In addition, the District is also required to provide to the City for courtesy review and comment any plans submitted to DSA. If such uses are not proposed to be regulated by DSA, then full submittals to the City under our current Site Plan and Design Review requirements under the Tustin City Code and Specific Plan, plan check and building permit processes, or any other applicable Regulatory Documents will be required by City for required review and discretionary and applicable ministerial approvals. Need to add to the matrix that any contemplated lease within a LIFOC area, whether in the Interim Campus scenario or under the Permanent ATEP Campus development scenario, will require approval by the City and the Department of the Navy as long as the properties are subject to the Sublease and pursuant to Section 12.2 of the Conveyance Agreement and applicable provisions of the Sublease. In the matrix, under Permanent ATEP Campus and after Concept Plan approvals, insert the fact that Site Plan and Design Review under the Tustin City Code and Specific Plan, plan check and building permit issuance, and compliance with other applicable Regulatory Documents will be specifically required after Concept Plan approval for any portions of the site proposed not to be regulated by DSA. For portions of the site regulated by DSA, then City review of permanent campus improvements will require design review for grading, drainage, siting of improvements, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections as well as plan check, and permit issuance and payment of all processing fees for said improvements. In addition, 10 the District is also required to provided to the City for courtesy review and comment any plans submitted to DSA. Navy approval of permits for construction, including demolition and all sub- surface excavation is required in the LIFOC area. Note that Approval by the City of a federally and City required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required prior to any demolition, grading or construction of further interim or permanent facilities on the ATEP site. A materials recycling plan is also required by City Code and must also be submitted before any of the above activities. A traffic plan is also required to be submitted and approved by the City. The City must also approve a Traffic Demand Management Plan for the site consistent with the Tustin City Code. The District will also be required to enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement for maintenance of all streetscape areas within the public right-of-way adjacent to the ATEP site. • Any divisions of land, including establishment of any leasehold interests shall be processed in accordance with the City's subdivision ordinance. Section 10.1 (b) of the Sublease and Section 12.2 of the Conveyance Agreement provides that SOCCCD may not transfer any portion of the LIFOC parcel or deeded property without approval of the City provided that such request complies with both the Conveyance Agreement and Sublease with SOCCCD and the use with the Specific Plan. More specifically, under the Sublease, Assignments or subleases for use of the Sublease property shall only be as permitted provided that the City, as Landlord, has approved the assignee or subleasee. The District is required to submit the name of the proposed assignee or subleasee and other information that the City may require for purposes of the City determining whether such assignee or subleasee has the capability and resources necessary to cant' out the obligations under the proposed assignment or sublease. The information that may be requested shall include, but not be limited to: (i) current financial statements of the proposed assignee or sublease to the extent existing (and if not, then other reasonable evidence of financial resources); (ii) the names of the persons or entities who manage or control the affairs of the proposed assignee or subleasee; (iii) information regarding the experience of the proposed assignee or subleasee (and the persons managing or controlling such lease or sublease) in owning or operating enterprises such as that to be pursued under the proposed assignment or sublease; and (iv) the terms and conditions of the proposed assignment. This basic information should be a part of any existing condition information in the document. • Add general plan check prior to any permits noted in the matrix. • Payment of Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Obligations. Prior to issuance of any permits by the City which include buildings which will have a possessory interest and leasehold interest or a privatization component, the District or leasehold interest will be required to make payment to the City of Tustin for Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Fair Share Contributions 11 applicable to the subject property. This requirement was previously communicated to the District in a meeting with District staff and in correspondence dated January 22, 2008. Add that CEQA compliance by the District for all City discretionary actions required by the City will need to be certified by the City prior to actions on City discretionary actions by the City, with the City acting in a lead agency role on these actions. 22. Page 22, paragraph 1. After Concept Plans on line 3 insert "and applicable Site Plan and Design Review, subdivision approvals and approvals of grading, drainage, siting of improvements, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections as well as plan check, and permit issuance and payment of all processing fees for said improvements". 23. Page 22, paragraph 22. The District has oversimplified the required submittal materials for a Concept Plan. Modify the LRP to detail that Concept Plan approval pursuant to the Specific Plan must include, as applicable, the following: • The location and acreage of proposed land uses, including the amount of non- residential square footages within the Planning Area; identification of proposed sub -parcels (development units or sites); accommodation of private and public opens spaces where applicable. • Identification of buildings to be renovated and buildings to be removed, including a schedule for renovation and/or demolition. • An overall external and internal access plan including an analysis of Tustin Backbone Infrastructure and Local Infrastructure, and circulation improvements required. This analysis shall address phasing of necessary improvements and any assignment of non-residential Land Use Trips to individual parcels (development sites). • A design program for the Planning Area that demonstrates consistency with the applicable community structure plan or urban design guidelines established for the planning area. Individual building design is not required at the concept plan level. • A concept landscaping and hardscape plan, streetscape design, parkway and edge treatments, and buffering and screening of remaining interim uses, if applicable. • Conceptual utility connection plans and overall drainage plan required for development and phasing of major Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure, other major improvements; and • Other information as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 12 24. Page 22, paragraph 3 is misleading. The District has a Conveyance Agreement that is a real estate transaction with the City. The RSCCD conveyance was subject to a distinct settlement agreement that was executed prior to the Navy's approval of the Economic Development Conveyance, and incorporated within the Navy Economic Development Conveyance. 25. Page 22, bottom flow chart needs to reflect the required steps pointed out in the City's correction to the matrix noted in comment #21. 26. Page 23, paragraph 2. It states that the ATEP campus will involve partnerships with technology oriented businesses. Please respond to Comments #1 and #2 under the Long Range Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #32, under the LRP. 27. Long Range Academic Plan Summary, page 24, paragraphs 2 and 3. The Facilities Plan states that the opening of the ATEP facility was based on 400 students and that enrollment has now increased to 550 students. Section 3.13.5 of the Specific Plan off- street parking standards are based on the type of non-residential use. For a college use one space per every 3 students, plus one space for every 2 faculty members of the faculty and employees is required. Only 104 parking spaces are currently located on the ATEP interim campus site. Even though the District has not identified in this section the number of employees or faculty members supporting the site, based on at least the current 550 student enrollment at the ATEP site, a minimum of at least 183 parking spaces and likely more for faculty and employees are currently required for the District to be in compliance with the Specific Plan. Additionally, programming provided to the City in the District's SRP, also indicated that at least 197 parking spaces would be required to meet requirements of the Specific Plan. 28. Overview of Academic Approach, page 25 and top of Page 26. The Facilities Plan states that the District intends to build out the ATEP Campus in partnership with a master developer, to include private businesses and that the LRP features a major motion picture studio. In addition, page 25 states that the ATEP design includes feature film, television, and digital media studio complex with classrooms, sound stages, production offices, a large back lot, mill shop, and commissary with the statement that the studio will host various types of productions, including small, independent productions to large scale productions. To determine compliance of these proposed business uses with the Conveyance Agreement, Specific Plan and other Regulatory Documents information responsive to Comments #1 and #2 under the Academic Plan, and Comments #8 and #32 under the Facilities Plan shall be addressed in the LRP. 29. Page 27, see comments #1 and #2 Long Range Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #32 of the LRP above and provide specific information requested. 30. Community Partnerships, Page 29, paragraphs 1 and 3. Commercial film enterprises are noted as well as studio operator, other public-private partnerships and business incubators. Please provide the information requested in Comments #1 and #2 under the Long Range Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #32 under the LRP. 31. ATEP Campus Concept, Page 31, paragraph 3 and on page 33. It is noted that the ATEP campus will include joint use academic and professional film, television and digital media production and distribution and sound stage facilities and integrate joint use 13 educational facilities with business incubator space. In order to determine consistency with the Conveyance Agreement and Specific Plan and other Regulatory Agreements, the District shall provide the information requested in Comments #1 and #2 under the Long Range Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #32 under the LRP as well more information on the specific types of business incubator uses proposed. 32. Figure 10 does not respond to previous requests by City staff for the District to be specifically clear about the locations, square footages by use and building proposed for the ATEP Campus by function and as specifically required by Section 4.3.1 of the Conveyance Agreement. It is more a broad outline of the categories of information to be included in a LRP with no real specifics as previously requested by City staff. As such, there is insufficient information as previously requested City staff to be able to determine compliance with the Conveyance Agreement, Specific Plan, and other Regulatory Documents. In order to determine consistency with the Conveyance Agreement and Specific Plan and other Regulatory Agreements, the District shall provide the information requested in Comments #1 and #2 under the Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #32 under the Facilities Plan. Without this information, the adequacy of circulation, and parking, etc. cannot be determined. 33. Regarding Figure 10, there are numerous access locations shown into the ATEP site that were not previously planned nor previously, accommodated in the City's Valencia and Armstrong backbone roadway projects. Without actual traffic specifics including all square footages by function and a comprehensive traffic study approved in scope and content and recommendation by the City's traffic engineer and Public Works Director, additional access cannot automatically be assumed by the District. In fact, pursuant to Section 3.11.21 of the Specific Plan all access points to individual development sites shall be subject to acceptance by the City Engineer. Access to arterials, due to their significance and high traffic volumes also warrant a higher degree of access restrictions than would be applied to lower level arterial roadways. 34. Figure 10, the LIFOC boundary is shown between parcels IV -J-4 and IV -J-5, but both parcels are within the LIFOC. Please revise accordingly. 35. Conceptual Campus Design, pages 33-51 and improvements and subsequent land use section. In general, Figure 10 and subsequent discussions regarding land use descriptions, streetscapes, open space, etc. require more supporting information (development square footages, development intensities, building heights, etc) to determine specific conformance with the Specific Plan and Regulatory documents to also adequately evaluate the CEQA implications of the LRP. In addition, more detailed review will also be required in any subsequent Concept Plan submittal to the City. 36. Campus Design and Improvements, page 34, paragraph 2, it is stated that there will be certain zones where either exclusive educational uses or joint -uses and industrial/commercial business incubators, commissary, administration, production support buildings, support commercial, office and retail service space and laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting. Given the definition in the Conveyance Agreement that restricts business uses to being ancillary and subordinate to educational uses, the District will need to provide information requested in Comments #1 and #2 under the Academic Plan and Comments 14 #8 and #32 in the Facilities Plan to determine that the LRP is consistent with the Conveyance Agreement, Specific Plan and other Regulatory Agreements. 37. Figure 10 does not reflect City comments regarding required access points, common areas and easements and in our specific correspondences dated February 15, 2008, March 24, 2008 and in email dated April 9, 2009. Section 2.3.5, item 2. of the Specific Plan requires the District as a condition of any recommendation on conveyance of the property by the City to the District to provide right-of-way easements to the City for access to the proposed community park site and two day care facilities. Further, pursuant to Section 3.11.21 of the Specific Plan all streets and highways shall conform to street and highway standards detailed in the Specific Plan. Existing streets and roadways on the site may be permitted to remain as private streets only subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. McCain Smith Road. City staff has specifically told the District that this roadway and common area from Landsdowne to Valencia needs to be shown on any plan, constructed as a public street but can be built to private street standards, based on determination made by the City Engineer pursuant to Specific Plan provisions contained on Page 2-61. The right-of-way was always contemplated and will need to be a minimum of 50 feet in width (what will be included in any easement attached to the quitclaim deed for this portion of the ATEP site), with a 32 foot paved travel curb to curb, including one 12 foot travel lane in each direction, and an 8 foot parking lane adjacent to the future park. The parkways will need to be 5 foot sidewalks and street lights will be needed on both sides of the street. The sidewalk on the north side of the roadway can be accommodated within the park easement and will not be part of any future easement required under Section of the Conveyance Agreement. This is in conformance with Section 2.5.2 B 8 (a), page 2-70 of the Specific Plan. McCord Road/Portion of Blackbird Road. City staff has specifically told the District that these roadways and common areas from Valencia south need to be shown on any plan, constructed and will need to be a public street, but can be constructed with reduced street standards contained in City Street Standard 13- 102 with a 36 foot minimum curb to curb with a ten foot parkway on each side. The parkways will need to include 5 foot sidewalks and street lights on both sides of the street. Minimum 5 foot sidewalks within the parkway, street lights, parking and a 56 foot minimum right-of-way (what will be included in any easement attached to the quitclaim for this portion of the ATEP Site). This is in conformance with Specific Plan Section 2.5.2.13 9(a). In light of the review of existing Valencia curb cuts and improvements, the SOCCCD District has been informed that the common area outlet and this public street as it outlets at Valencia needs to align with the curb cut completed as part of improvements. As it relates to the access on the north side of the City of Tustin Child Care Center, and what is defined as Blackbird Road. There is not adequate information on the LRP for the City to determine the necessary dimension of any right-of-way easement area required at this location. City staff has previously advised the District that the extension of McCord, even with noted relocation above, will need to extend as shown on the exhibit previously provided to the District. City staff has also informed the District that this will require a minimum 15 private street right-of-way easement fully improved with what could include turn around or other access accommodation in the way of a permanent easement for the benefit of the "public' accessibility to the Tustin Child Care Facility, as determined necessary by the City and as contemplated in the Conveyance Agreement and Specific Plan. 38. The discussion of infrastructure improvements on pages 35 and 42 of the LRP references a "pedestrian bridge". If this is to cross Valencia and the public right-of-way, it will need to serve the general public or no encroachment would be permitted by the City. The City will need to see the specific anticipated location and more specific concepts of the bridge for it to be even considered by the City, and it will need to be addressed in any required Traffic Analysis for this project before the idea is even formally included in the LRP. Note that any encroachment within the public right-of-way is within the complete discretion of the City. 39. Conceptual Campus Design Improvements, page 34. The discussion in this section is overly broad and provides no specifics regarding the information as previously requested by the City to determine conformity with the Specific Plan, Conveyance Agreement and other Regulatory Documents. While it appears on page 35 that there may be a more developed site plan that the District has in its files, no layout or more specific location information has been provided to allow the City to determine conformity with the Specific Plan. 40. Academic Quads and Classrooms, page 36. The discussion in this section is overly broad and provides no specifics about the location of academic quads or classroom buildings or their anticipated square footages. 41. Recreation/Open Space, page 36-37. The discussion in this section is overly broad and provides no specifics about the location of recreation/open space areas in the facilities plan including specific or general locations and their anticipated sizes. 42. Ancillary/Student Services, page 37. The discussion in this section is overly broad and provides not specifics about the location, size of square footages of ancillary services to be provided on the ATEP site. 43. Support commercial operations on campus, page 39. This discussion in this section is overly broad and does indicate that there will be certain business related uses on the site including retail uses and business incubator uses. More specific information in response to the information contained in Comments #1 and #2 in the Long Range Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #33 in the LRP will need to be provided in order to determine conformity with the Conveyance Agreement, Specific Plan, and all regulatory documents. 44. Campus Architectural Design. The discussion in this section is overly broad and provides no specifics about the location, size, square footage of buildings, quads, ancillary services, support commercial uses, recreation/open space, parking amounts and locations, roadways, and security and maintenance/utility functional areas. The reference that the information in Table provides a detailed analysis of conformity with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan development standards is an overstatement. There is nothing in the Land Use Plan and discussion of campus development that provides Kel enough information to make the broad conformity statements that the District makes in Table 5. In fact, it is the City who determines whether the District complies with the City's development standards and based on the comments throughout this attachment, no such determination can be made at this time given the inadequate level of information provided by the District. One example is that this section identifies that parking structures are planned. The broad location of parking areas identified on Figure 10 does not specifically identify parking structure locations, nor does the figure or accompanied narrative description anywhere in the LRP, identify the non-residential square footages by type of function and use on the site for their to be able to be a determination that parking has been adequately addressed. 45. Roadways -Site Access and Circulation, page 40-43. There is a lengthy discussion of circulation and access. The document identifies that the District's Traffic Engineer, Austin -Foust, has made numerous determinations including turning movements, traffic signal needs, access needs along both Armstrong Avenue and Valencia Avenue, access needs for other uses including the City's Child Care facility and Community Park and for the future Orange County Sheriff's Training Center, and the Traffic Engineer has identified intersection deficiencies at Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue. First of all, any requirement for common areas, and easements including required common area easements required for access to the Community Park and Child Care Center are not within the purview of the District but were contractual obligations in the Specific Plan and Conveyance Agreement. With respect to other determinations that the District's engineer has apparently recommended to the District, there is no justification for any of these determinations provided in the document. The City has full authority in reviewing and evaluating and either concurring or not concurring with any traffic analysis for this site and therefore cannot approve any of these statements or requests made in the LRP. Further, pursuant to the Specific Plan all private and public streets, drives and related improvements are subject to City of Tustin construction standards and review and approval of the City Engineer. In addition, as noted in Section 1.7.3 of the Conveyance Agreement, even if there is DSA review of certain improvements on the ATEP Campus, the City retains full exercise of review and approval rights over plans for grading, draining, siting of specific improvements, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections. The District will need to provide more specific information relative to the dimensions and specific design features of all anticipated vehicular and pedestrian circulation areas, site improvement locations and square footages, etc which should be addressed in Figure 10 and described in the LRP. It is critical that prior to approval of any LRP by the District that a full traffic analysis prepared by the applicant be reviewed by the City as well as a full evaluation of the project in light of other environmental impact categories in the original EIS/EIR, as previously amended by Supplement and Addendum. Since the City has a responsible agency role in review of any District actions on the LRP, and also retains its own Lead agency role in review of all City required, and as applicable, discretionary approvals for development of the ATEP Campus, the City will need to be provided this information for comment and approvals well before any actions by the District on the LRP. There are also substantial improvements included in this document that will affect the future circulation system operations, public access, and on-going maintenance that the City needs to fully understand and approve. Additionally, the District will be responsible for 17 any necessary modifications to the backbone infrastructure systems and any necessary mitigation measures required by the City. Hope Drive is a reciprocal roadway with easements granted not only to the Rescue Mission but to the City of Tustin, which should be shown on Figure 10. The City has previously indicated to the District that while the easements were recorded that it was always anticipated that for orderly development and consistent with City private drive and private street standards that a more orderly terminus with a safe turnaround at the terminus of the accesway would be required. This has not yet been addressed by the District. 46. On the top of Page 42 and under Streetscape Improvements, Page 43, it is stated that the pedestrian connections will be made via generous landscape parkway separated sidewalks along Valencia, Armstrong and Warner Avenue with also a reference to Figure 11. Unfortunately, all of the dimensions on the Figure 11 provided to the City are not readable to determine conformity with the Specific Plan. The District will need to provide a legible exhibit and narrative that conforms with the following Specific Plan requirements: • Adjacent to Valencia, the Landscaping setback required is 30 feet and the building setback requirement is 25 feet. • Adjacent to Armstrong, the Landscaping Setback required is 20 feet and the building setback is 20 feet. • Adjacent to Red Hill Avenue, the Landscaping Setback required is 30 feet and the building setback is 40 feet. • Adjacent to Warner Avenue, The Landscaping Setback required is 20 feet and the building setback is 20 feet. • Adjacent to Landsdowne, a Landscape Setback is no identified but the required building setback is 15 feet. Public Sidewalks will be required to be constructed by the District on all frontages along Valencia and Armstrong which do not currently contain public sidewalks pursuant to standards contained in the Specific Plan and in City Construction Standards and subject to approval of specific locations and dimensions by the City Engineer. In addition, the District will be responsible for completing all median landscaping improvements adjacent to the ATEP site within the public right-of-way within Valencia. 47. It is stated that Tustin Legacy backbone streets surrounding the ATEP Campus are funded by the Master Developer (Tustin Legacy Partners); however all private users and developer are responsible for participating in the funding of the Tustin Legacy Fair Share Backbone Infrastructure Program. While public agency for development of an exclusive educational use is exempt from the Fair Share Backbone Infrastructure Program and will not be included in any CDF for the financing of such improvements, City staff has advised the District that any possessory interest will be evaluated for the applicability of Fair Share obligations for Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure. Since CFD financing mechanisms have largely provided assistance to private interests in making a large portion of any contribution to the Fair Share Tustin Legacy Backbone Program, all private interests at Tustin Legacy will be treated in a consistent and fair manner. 18 48. Emergency and Service Access, page 43. The discussion in this section is overly broad and more detail and information at this stage of the LRP is necessary for the City to determine the adequacy of any proposed driveway and accessways and turning radius for emergency vehicles as well as any and all service and loading dock information. Per the discussion in Comment #36 under the LRP, the City retains discretion over approval of these areas and cannot determine based on the information provided conformity currently with the Specific Plan and other Regulatory Documents. 49. Parking Amount and Locations, page 45. This section incorrectly identifies the number of parking spaces required by the Specific Plan. More information about the specifics adequacy of parking based on the square footage of functional areas, land uses including business uses will need to be provided for the City to determine any conformity with the Specific Plan. As noted above, the City retains authority over the approval of the adequacy of all parking site improvements, locations and circulation and access. The City has already determined that even existing parking improvements in place are not currently in compliance with the Specific Plan as also noted in Comment #27 and in previous correspondence to the District on the Short Range Plan, The Parking requirements also identified by the District are also not consistent with the current Specific Plan. For an example, parking standards required by the Specific Plan currently are as follows for certain non-residential uses: • For a college institution, 1 space for every 3 students, plus 1 space, for every 2 members of the faculty or employees. • For a general and administrative office, 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area. • For research and development uses, 1 space for each 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area for all office use and 1 space for each 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area for manufacturer or assembly uses (but not less than 2 spaces per every 3 employees on a maximum shift). • For retail restaurants, 1 space for each 100 sq. ft., plus a minimum of 7 car stacking space for any drive thru facilities. • For retail stores, 1 space per 200 sq. ft. In addition to the above parking standards, specific loading standards for uses are also required as noted in Section 3.13.6. Compliance with these standards has not yet been demonstrated by the District. The District will need to provide this projected information for the adequacy of parking to be determined. The City's determination of parking required for the site will be based on square footages of functional areas, land uses and specific business uses on the site. 50. Water Quality/ Stormwater, page 45. While the approach proposed by the District is broadly discussed, there needs to be specific mention in the narrative that approval by the City pursuant to City Code of a federally and city required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required prior to any demolition, grading or construction of further interim or permanent facilities on the ATEP site. i K, 51. Utilities, page 46. There needs to be specific mention that pursuant to the Bill of Sale for utilities on the ATEP site executed between the City and District, the District is not permitted to demolish or relocate any existing utilities, whether abandoned or not on the ATEP site without City review and approval. It should be noted, in the narrative as previously requested on several occasions by the City, that utility demolition plans shall be required to be submitted to City and identify the location and severance methodology for these systems for City review and approval. 52. Utilities, page 46. It is noted that the Military chapel will be relocated to a new location adjacent to the planned community park. However, any relocation while the facility is on City Subleased property will require City and Navy reviews and approvals. Further, siting of the chapel will also need to be reviewed and approved by the City and adequate parking provided based on the size and non-residential square footage of the improvement. 53. ATEP Campus Phasing, Page 47. The reference to Figure 10 should be Figure 12 and the reference to Figure 11 should be Figure 13. In paragraph 2, there is also reference to the expansion of existing interim campus improvements being south of Landsdowne. This should read west of Landsdowne (south of Valencia) and east of Landsdowne (north of Valencia). The anticipated phasing exhibit and narrative and built out of the ATEP site over three phases including four years for the non-LIFOC property and another year for the LIFOC property is not consistent with Section 4.1.1 of the Conveyance Agreement that requires the District to have made significant progress towards implementation within 5 years of the Initial Closing or by April 2009. Phase 1 improvements and Phase 2 improvements identified if even completed in April 2009 do not appear to be significant progress towards implementation as required by the Conveyance Agreement. Please note, that as part of the City's original approval of the siting and extent of interim facilities west of Landsdowne, the District agreed that the modular buildings would only be in place for five years and then be replaced by permanent buildings. The District indicates that until the non-LIFOC build out is complete, the expanded interim campus facilities will continue to serve students (through approximately 2012). As such, the proposed phasing and contemplated expansion of the interim campus facilities does not appear to be consistent with this previous understanding between the City and District. In addition, will all interim buildings be replaced with permanent buildings when the LRP is implemented? Otherwise, Phase 2 should include permanent buildings that are integrated with the overall campus design to ensure orderly growth and development of the ATEP site. Paragraph 2, the parking standards noted are not consistent with the Specific Plan parking requirements as noted in Comment # 38 on the LRP above. 54. Phase 2 Site Plan, Figure 13 is not consistent with other information contained in the LRP and needs to be revised accordingly. It does provide the location of the Chapel relocation as shown on Figure 10; it does not show the required access and easement area along McCain Smith Road from Landsdowne with an outlet to Valencia as required by the Specific Plan and in previous comments from the City. The adequacy of actual parking for the proposed buildings cannot be validated for conformity at this time without 20 the non-residential square footages and siting of the chapel, ant the specific non- residential square footages, uses and functions of the proposed buildings along with information as to whether any portion of the site is contemplated to be subleased. Pedestrian and Vehicular circulation also cannot be validated by the City without information as requested in Comments #35, #36, and #38 on the LRP. 55. Financial Plan, page 51. The reference to Figure 9 is incorrect. In addition, the discussion in this section is overly broad and is really not a financial plan and does not provide any financial information or any estimates of the development costs and anticipated specific financing tools and mechanisms to ensure timely and orderly development of the ATEP Campus including provision and funding of security and maintenance during the development phases of the project. In addition, the discussion references the private partnerships and business intended to be located on the site as well as the potential for the possible ground leasing of the site for construction of certain facilities on the ATEP site. It goes on to note that the site will be significantly pre -leased under long term contracts prior to commencement of construction. If this is the case, the District should identify which portions of the site will be ground leased and will also need to respond to comments provided in Comments #1 and #2 on the Long Range Academic Plan and Comments #8 and #32 on the LRP. In addition, it should be noted in this section of the document (where references are made to ground leasing) that Section 10.1 (b) of the Sublease and Section 12.2 of the Conveyance Agreement provides that SOCCCD may not transfer any portion of the LIFOC parcel or deeded property without approval of the City provided that such request complies with both the Conveyance Agreement and Sublease with SOCCCD and the use with the Specific Plan. More specifically, under the Sublease, assignments or subleases for use of the Sublease property shall only be as permitted provided that the Landlord (City) has approved the assignee or sublease. The District is required to submit the name of the proposed assignee or sublease and other information that we may requires for purposes of the City determining whether such assignee or sublease has the capability and resources necessary to carry out the obligations under the proposed assignment or sublease. The information that may be requested shall include, but not be limited to: (i) current financial statements of the proposed assignee or sublease to the extent existing (and if not, then other reasonable evidence of financial resources); (ii) the names of the persons or entities who manage or control the affairs of the proposed assignee or sublease; (iii) information regarding the experience of the proposed assignee or sublease (and the persons managing or controlling such lease or sublease) in owning or operating enterprises such as that to be pursued under the proposed assignment or sublease; and (iv) the terms and conditions of the proposed assignment This basic information should be a part of any existing condition information in the document. 56. CEQA Compliance, Page 51 and 52. Information in this section should note all modifications to the original EIS/EIR not just the April 3, 2006 Addendum. There was also a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin certified on December 6, 2004. For any District action on the LRP, the City is a responsible agency and shall be consulted with on review of any initial study prior to an environmental determination by the District. The City expects complete responses and coordination with the City 21 consistent with the City's role under CEQA as a responsible agency. Further, since specific traffic conditions and improvements in the LRP require City review and approval, and the City has retained its discretionary lead agency over any future discretionary actions on the site, the City will need to concur with any traffic report review and conclusions. 57. Consistency with Regulatory Documents. Table Pages 52-69. The discussion and review by the District with conformity with the Tustin General Plan, the Specific Plan and Zoning Code is overly broad and does not conform to the City's review and analysis previously provided to the District as well as comments in this Attachment 1. It is only the City that can determine consistency with the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and other Regulatory Documents. Prior to the City making such determinations, corrections to the Academic and Long Range Facilities Plans will need to be provided as requested and all issues raised by the City comprehensively addressed. In addition, the following comments are also provided: The table discusses an "existing military chapel" as contributing "to the City's historic character." Please note that the chapel was formally reviewed and rejected from consideration as an historic structure due to the structure's history of building alterations while in service to the Marine Corps. It was determined that these alterations have negatively affected its historic integrity to the point where the building is not considered significant. Please clarify that it is the District's intent to restore the building to its original 1942 historic condition pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Otherwise, please delete this reference to chapel consistency with Policy 6.5 of the City's General Plan. • The discussion related to Goal 14 on page 57 implies that students and faculty members will utilize the nearby 24 -acre Community Park and Urban Regional Park. Please identify recreational open space opportunities that are proposed to exist at the ATEP campus (i.e., sports fields, gymnasiums, etc.). Will these facilities be open and available for public use? • The discussion related to item 1.5.2 on page 59 indicates that "recurring revenues to the City are expected to exceed the recurring costs of providing public services to the ATEP site." Please provide supporting data for review by the City of Tustin to substantiate this statement. The discussion related to Community Boundaries on page 66 that "the ATEP Campus is not on a corner that is designated as a major entry point for the Tustin Legacy community" is not correct. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan clearly identifies that the ATEP property includes a portal entry at Valencia Avenue and Red Hill Avenue, and a secondary community entry at Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. • It is previously noted in the Facilities Plan that there would be parking structures on the site; however, on page 68 it is noted that there will be four parking fields. Please clarify. 22 • Private movie studios are not identified as a permitted or conditionally permitted use per the Specific Plan; please add to unlisted uses. Please also note that uses not specifically listed are subject to a determination by the Tustin Community Development Director as either permitted, conditionally permitted or prohibited uses. • The Site Development Standards discussion on page 68 indicates that building F.A.R. is based upon "gross site area." This conclusion is not consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which requires F.A.R to be based upon a computation that excludes certain acreage (see comments above). 58. Appendix C. Revise title on the exhibit to be Legacy Landscaping Design Guidelines. The attachment only applies to backbone street landscape palettes and park and open space areas. This exhibit, as well as more comprehensive design guidelines for not just landscaping and open space areas but buildings and uses, on the site will be required to also be submitted at the Concept Plan level. 23 Attachment II Comment Letter on Initial Study Office of the City Manager August 8, 2008 Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. Chancellor South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguirite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692-3635 TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST RE: INITIAL STUDY ON LONG RANGE ACADEMIC AND FACILITY PLANS Dear Dr. Mathur: Thank you for providing the City of Tustin (City) with an opportunity to review the Initial Study for the Advanced Technology Education Campus (ATEP) Long Range Academic and Facility Plans (LRP). As a "responsible agency" on ATEP, the South Orange County Community College District (District) has a legal obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consult with the City and obtain the City's recommendations on the scope of environmental review for ATEP. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15063(g)) To date, this consultation has not occurred even though the City must approve various components of the LRP. The City must approve a grading plan, drainage plan, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections. In addition, the City must approve the overall siting of improvements and design review of all building improvements which are not subject to state approvals. The City received the Initial Study on July 17, 2008 with a request that comments on the document be provided by August 4, 2008. The City requested from the SOCCCD an extension of time for submittal of comments until August 8, 2008 to permit the City Council's review of the comment letter at its regular meeting on August 5, 2008. We believe our request for more time was reasonable, but we have not received a response from the District. In any event, the City Council has reviewed the City staff comments on the Initial Study, concurs with the comments, and has approved transmittal to SOCCCD. As the City points out in more detail in the attached comments, the City believes that the District is improperly tiering off of the Final Joint Program EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the former MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR) because ATEP is a significantly different project than the one that was contemplated for the site in the FEIS/EIR. On July 23, 2008, I sent you a letter identifying numerous significant issues and corrections relating to LRP, which is incorporated herein by reference. Among other concerns, the City expressed concerns about ATEP's inconsistency with applicable regulatory documents that control development of site including, but not limited to, the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan and related FEIS/EIR, the Conveyance Agreement, Sublease, City 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3010 0 F: (714) 838-1602 0 www.tustinca.org Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. August 8, 2008 Page 2. Zoning Code, and other governmental requirements. Until the issues discussed in the June 23, 2008 letter are resolved, the City strongly advises the District's Board of Directors not make any CEQA determination on the LRP. Moreover, the City urges the District to comply with its CEQA obligation and consult with the City on the scope of environmental review of ATER In addition, the City has identified numerous flaws in the Initial Study's analysis, data and findings for the reasons set forth in the attached comments. Accordingly, the Initial Study fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and must be revised and recirculated with the corrected analysis and information. Moreover, based on the information provided in the Draft ATEP LRP and in our letter of July 23, 2008 and in this letter, additional CEQA analysis beyond simple reliance on the FEIS/EIR may be required for the following reasons pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21166: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the environmental impact report; b. substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; c. New information, which was not known, and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. The City again urges the District to consult with the City on its CEQA determination and the requirements of the applicable regulatory documents affecting build -out of this site. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, William A. Huston City Manager Enclosure cc: Gary Poertner, Deputy Chancellor SOCCCD Board of Trustees Members of the Tustin City Council Doug Holland, City Attorney George Schlossberg, Special Counsel Tim Serlet, Public Works Director Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director John Buchanan, RDA Program Manager Matt West, RDA Project Manager Attachment I Comments on SOCCCD Initial Study on ATEP Long Range Academic and Facility Plans Redevelopment Agency Comments 1. Section 1.4.9, paragraph 2, states that the Initial Study was provided to the City in June 2008. In fact, the District did not provide the document to the City for review until July 17, 2008 with a request that comments be returned by August 4th. While the District does not have approval authority over the LRP, the City is a responsible agency and retains discretionary approvals over a number of implementation activities required for development of the ATEP project. As such, the District must comply with CEQA's consultation requirement. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15063(g)) To date, the District has not consulted with the City on the scope of environmental review for the ATEP or the conclusions of the initial study or the District's Circulation Analysis. In addition, the Initial Study and ATEP propose development (see letter from William Huston, Tustin City Manager to Raghu Mathur, Chancellor, dated July 23, 2008 (ATEP LRP Letter)), which is subject to the City's discretion. Therefore, the District should have made a concerted effort to work with the City on these matters. 2. The Initial Study's conclusions about the ATEP's environmental impacts are based upon incorrect information and assumptions contained in the LRP. Because the Initial Study is based upon the LRP, we recommend that all of the City's comments on LRP dated July 23, 2008 be addressed first to ensure that these comments are adequately addressed in the Initial Study. Once the City's comments are addressed in the LRP, the District must revise the Initial Study to be consistent with the LRP and recirculate the initial study for an additional round of public review and comment. At a minimum, the document shall be revised to reflect the comments in this letter as well as the following Sections, Tables, and Figures which need to be updated to reflect the comments of the July 23, 2008 letter: o Table 1 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #4 on LRP) o Section 2.2 ATEP Background (July 23, 2008 letter, comments #9,10, 53, 54 are examples) o Figure 5 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #5 on LRP) o Section 2.3 Project Characteristics (July 23, 2008 letter, comment # 31, 32,33,34,36, 37,38,39,45,46,47,49,53,54 are examples) o Figure 7 (July 23, 2008 letter related to a corresponding Figure 10 in the LRP include comments # 32,33,34, 37 are examples) o Figure 8 (July 23, 2008 letter related to phasing and a corresponding Figure 12 and 13 in the LRP include comments #53,54 as examples) o Figure 9 (July 23, 2008 letter related to the Phase 2 site Plan and a corresponding Figure 13 in the LRP include comment # 54. o Figure 10 o Table 4 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments on a corresponding Table 1 in the LRP include comment #4). o Section 3.1.2 o Section 3.4.2 o Section 3.5.1 o Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments #11, 12,13,14,15,16,17) o Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments # 8, 35, 39,40,41,42,43, 49 on LRP. o Table 5 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #8 on LRP) o Section 3.15.1 and 3.15.2 ( July 23, 2008 letter, comments # 8, 21,27, 31,32,33,37,38, 45, 46, 47,49) o Figure 11 (see comments on Sections 3.15.1 and 3.15.2 above) o Section 3.16.2 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments # 9, 51, 52) 3. The Initial Study includes table 6, which identifies various mitigation measures from the FEIR/EIS, and explains whether and to what extent the District has complied or must comply with such measures. As noted below and contrary to the Initial Study's conclusions, many of these mitigation measures have not been fulfilled and must be implemented as part of the LRP to ensure that the corresponding environmental impacts will, in fact, be mitigated. Status of Mitigation Measures needs to be revised as follows: o LU -2b —This mitigation incorrectly states that all ATEP easements have been recorded; therefore, the mitigation requirement has been fulfilled. However, this conclusion does not reflect the District's obligation under the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/ Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Conveyance Agreement for the provision of required access. Also see #37 contained in the July 23, 2008 LRP Letter regarding required public streets and access issues. o LU -2c — this mitigation must reflect comments in the ATEP LRP Letter. o LU -2d — Without any supporting data or analysis, the Initial Study simply concludes that IRWD has sufficient facilities to serve the ATEP project. Please identify the specific facilities that would serve this project to substantiate this statement. In addition, there is no discussion or analysis of whether IRWD has sufficient water supplies to serve the ATEP. At the very least, the District must demonstrate that a will serve letter from IRWD has been received prior to stating that this measure has been fulfilled. o LU -2f — Again, without any supporting data or analysis, the Initial Study simply concludes that IRWD and OCSD have adequate facilities to serve the ATEP project The District must demonstrate that a will serve letter has been received and is available prior to stating that this measure has been fulfilled. 2 o LU -2k —The Initial Study must clarify that only grading and drainage plans for interim ATEP campus have been approved. No plans have been approved for any permanent campus structures. o LU -2m — The Initial Study must reflect comments of ATEP LRP Letter. o BIO -1 — The discussion in this section is inconsistent with the checklist/discussion in Section 3.4.2 in that impacts on jurisdictional waters/wetlands are anticipated but are not identified on the checklist. The document should identify the location and survey information which validates the location of the jurisdictional waters/wetlands that impact the ATEP site based on consultation with regulatory agencies such as Army Corps of Engineers and California Fish and Game. o IA -3 — The satisfaction of mitigation measure is yet to be determined. The Initial Study must reflect comments of ATEP LRP Letter. o IA -7 —The Initial Study states that no off-site roadway improvements are needed on the ATEP site; however, as noted in this letter, the District's Circulation Analysis is flawed and not acceptable to the City. There may still be a need for subsequent mitigation measures, including but not limited to pedestrian connections to sidewalks, additional public roads, bus stops as an example. In addition, it should be noted that certain improvements to the public right-of-way have not yet been approved and will require approvals by the City Engineer. Because additional mitigation may be required once an adequate Traffic Analysis has been prepared, satisfaction of mitigation measure has yet to be determined. 4. Table 1, page 5 and 6. The Initial Study must be modified to reflect comments on this table contained in the LRP Letter. 5. Page 8, see cover on this letter and comment # 1 below under Community Development. 6. General Comment- the District has provided no source documentation or references to information or agency sources for their analysis of each impact category that support the basis of their conclusions (See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 [Court rejected an initial study where there was no indication of the source of the data that staff relied on in preparing the document). Many of the impact categories require consultation with responsible agencies which we do not believe has adequately occurred. 7. Project Characteristics, Page 13-14. See ATEP LRP Letter and modify the text to respond to issues identified therein and in this letter. 8. Phasing, Page 15-19. See ATEP LRP Letter regarding the City's concerns about the proposed phasing of the ATEP Long Range Plan and the Phase 2 site plan. Also, the Initial Study uses incorrect parking standards for its analysis that are inconsistent with the Specific Plan as noted in the LRP Letter. 9. Page 21. The Initial Study states that the Chapel will be relocated. This relocation is an impact that was not evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. This relocation could have a potentially significant aesthetic impact due to its unique architectural design and location. Accordingly, the k Initial Study should analyze this new impact and identify feasible mitigation measure to ensure that the structure will be integrated with other ATEP and non-ATEP uses in the vicinity. 10. Page 25. The City has carefully reviewed the LRP and notes that the LRP is demonstrably different than the use that was identified for this site in the FEIS/EIR and analyzed in that document. Therefore, the Initial Study's conclusion that there is no change in the project from what was analyzed in the FEIR/EIS is incorrect and not based on substantial evidence in the record. The City points out extensively in the ATEP LRP Letter how the proposed LRP differs from the use that was actually analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. To the extent that the District does conclude that certain impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR (which still may need to be supplemented or amended by addendum), the District must adopt and implement any applicable mitigation measures that may have been identified in the FEIS/EIR to address that same impact. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15168 (c)(3)) Community Development Comments 1. General Comment — The Department of Navy (DON) and City of Tustin approved the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin in 2001, a Supplement in December 2004, and an Addendum in 2006. The EIR portion of the document, as amended, was prepared as a Program EIR consistent with the requirements of CEQA (14 Cal Code Regs §15168). The FEIS/EIR was prepared to provide decision makers of responsible agencies (including the District) with information on the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the approved Reuse Plan which includes the reuse of the District's property for educational purposes. The Supplement to the FEIS/EIR was certified on December 6, 2004 and the Addendum to the FEIS/EIR was adopted on April 16, 2006. The District has prepared an Initial Study to evaluate whether and to what extent the ATEP's environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR. To the extent that certain LRP components were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, CEQA requires additional site specific environmental documents (e.g., a new site specific EIR, a Supplemental or Subsequent FEIS/EIS or an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR) (14 Cal. Code Regs §15168(c)(1)). 2. General Comment — As noted above, the ATEP LRP Letter raised a substantial number of significant issues that require significant modifications to the LRP. Those changes will necessitate a significant modification to the Initial Study's project description and evaluation of environmental impacts. In light of these changes and to ensure that the City's comments are adequately considered and addressed, we urge the District to continue the August 25, 2008 Board Hearing on the matter. The City also requests that the District provide for adequate time for all responsible reviewing agencies, decision makers, and all other interested parties to review the required changes and their adequacy. 3. Section 1.4.11, Environmental Determination, Page 8 — The section states that the "a Common Sense exemption has been prepared for the project" because "all potentially 4 significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration". This conclusion is an erroneous interpretation of CEQA. CEQA limits the use of a "Common Sense" exemption to projects "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." (14 Cal. Code Reg §15061(c)(3) When a project is determined exempt under this section, "the activity is not subject to CEQA." In other words, once a project is deemed exempt, not initial study is required. The District has incorrectly used the existence of an earlier EIR that concluded that the Reuse and Disposal of the former MCAS Tustin project would cause significant impacts to the environment as its common sense argument that there would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the development of the District's property. Further, the Initial Study clearly argues against a common sense exemption since the Initial Study indicates the District's intent to implement a number of FEIS/EIR mandated mitigation measures to address environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Rather, CEQA section 15162 and 15168 requires a responsible agency to evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the agency finds that no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being covered by the program EIR. However, the agency must incorporate mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. The environmental checklist should document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were covered in the program FEIS/EIR. Where components of a proposed project are identified that were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the program EIR, additional environmental documents would be required (e.g., a new EIR, a Supplemental EIR, or an Addendum to the EIR). Once a lead agency has determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project, the lead agency shall consult with all responsible agencies (including but not limited to special districts (e.g. utility providers, etc.), state agencies (e.g. State Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, etc.), local agencies (e.g. Orange County Flood Control Agency, school districts, the City of Tustin and neighboring cities, etc.) and other interested parties. Each agency/person notified should be provided a minimum of 30 days to review and comment upon the revised Initial Study. In addition, a copy of the Initial Study should be provided to the Office of Planning and Research to ensure that all responsible state agencies are notified and afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the Initial Study. Together, the ATEP LRP and Initial Study do not adequately describe or evaluate each of the project impact categories as they relate to the specific ATEP site. Once the LRP and the Initial Study are revised and completed properly, and following adequate review and comment by responsible or affected agencies, the District must determine whether the ATEP project may have a significant effect on the environment and whether the project requires 5 additional environmental documents (e.g., a new EIR, a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR, or an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR). 4. Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Page 21 The conclusion related to the impacts of future development upon two historic blimp hangars is not relevant since neither blimp hangar exists within the District's site. The section should be revised to indicate that aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project will be avoided through compliance with the FEIS/EIR which requires projects at Tustin Legacy to be consistent with the urban design plan described in the Specific Plan through project design review in coordination with the City of Tustin. 5. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Page 25 — The section incorrectly states that the Tustin Legacy Master Developer has obtained all necessary permits to disturb jurisdictional waters/wetlands at the former MCAS Tustin. The Tustin Legacy Master Developer has only obtained necessary permits to disturb jurisdictional waters/wetlands within their development footprint and is not responsible for undertaking such permits for the location of jurisdictional wetlands on other property at Tustin Legacy. Each project proponent at Tustin Legacy, including the District, must comply with state and federal waters/wetlands permitting requirements. Numerous drainage channels are located within the District's site, including channels identified within the approved FEIS/EIR that are clearly identified as jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (Figure 3.7-1) and that the City has previously informed the District about in writing. The discussion and description incorrectly referenced from the FEIS/EIR Addendum (Exhibit 4) was intended to describe only the Master Developer's refined project within the limits of the Master Developer site boundary not the District's property. The section should be revised to indicate the District's commitment to adhere to the mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/EIR requiring the project proponent, in this case the District, to obtain the necessary waters/wetlands permits. It should be noted that the narrative for mitigation measure Bio -1 accurately reflects the District's responsibilities in this regard. 6. Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Page 31 — Section narrative indicates that "complete remediation of the plumes is anticipated by mid 2010" and that the Navy will "certify the LIFOC area has been cleaned and all prior contamination risks have been abated" prior to the release of the 30.7 -acre LIFOC portion of the ATEP campus and construction of permanent structures. Please revise to disclose that the Department of Navy's Draft Amended Site Management Plan for Fiscal Year 2009 indicates that the site is not scheduled for remediation measures to be approved as operationally safe and that the property may not be "cleaned" until the year 3038 or later. The section should also be expanded to describe how the District will address site contamination issues during the interim period prior to and following Navy issuance of a Finding of Suitability of Transfer (FOST) anticipated in 2010 for existing facilities and buildings. This includes addressing the need for measures to ensure that Navy monitoring wells and continuing remediation activities on the site after a FOST are not disturbed. It is our understanding that students and faculty are currently or will be using the site during the period before issuance of a FOST. The document also does not address the requirements under the current FOST that are institutional restrictions on buildings and improvements within areas already conveyed to the District. Specifically, the District must disclose and implement conditions and specific institutional controls contained in the LIFOC, FOST, any future Navy deed and Conveyance Agreement with the City as requested in ATEP LRP Letter. 7. Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, Page 38 and Section 3.15, Transportation, Page 49 — The ATEP LRP proposal is not logical, orderly, or adequate in regard to roadway circulation and parking. The long term site use and development and the focus of the entire document seems to be on private business and industry rather than an education mission and/or focus. The LRP must be compatible with the list of uses as identified in the Specific Plan and only such uses authorized by the Conveyance Agreement. The LRP and Initial Study must identify limitations or restrictions of the Specific Plan, adopted FEIS/EIR (as amended), and the Conveyance Agreement with the City of Tustin to guide future development within the LRP area. 8. At present, the proposed building square footage does not appear to be consistent with the Specific Plan's assumptions for the District's property as discussed in the LRP Letter. Consequently, the LRP and Initial Study should clearly indicate the assumed vehicle trip generation compared to the assumptions described in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum (note: the ATEP site represents a proportional share of the total acreage, square footage and Average Daily Trips allocated to Planning Area 1). The District's Circulation Analysis is currently based upon a maximum development of 893,851 square feet and a trip budget of 5,470 ADT which appears to be incorrect. This issue should be further reviewed and agreed upon by the City of Tustin's Public Works Department. As previously indicated, the City of Tustin has provided separate correspondence to the District regarding issues and concerns related to the proposed project. Once these fundamental land use issues are addressed and resolved, Sections 3.9 and 3.15 must be revised and the Initial Study re -circulated for additional review and comment. Where components of a proposed project are identified that were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the program EIR, additional environmental documents would be required (e.g., an Addendum to the EIR). 9. Section 3.13, Public Services, Page 45 and Section 3.14, Recreation, Page 47 — As noted in the ATEP LRP Letter, the District is proposing no park or recreational services on the site to meet the needs of faculty, students or others. Instead, the Initial Study relies solely on planned public parks at Tustin Legacy to address the parks and recreation impacts of the project. Because the project involves land uses not previously contemplated within the FEIS/EIR and an overall intensification of the land uses at the site, the Initial Study must disclose and assess any potential project impacts based on the project's increased demand on police, fire, school, park and library services. The District must coordinate the City as the responsible agency providing municipal services to Tustin Legacy. Engineering and Public Works Comments 1. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: In Figure 10, the Initial Study calculates development potential based on gross acreage figures for each PA, which excludes land devoted to arterial roadways, and cites the Legacy Specific Plan Page 3-5 as a reference. Please see the ATEP LRP Letter for additional commentary related to this matter. The consultant's reference is not correct. The provision cited merely refers to an introductory description of the Land Use Plan and how 7 gross acreages of general land uses shown on the Land Use Plan were initially determined. It is not provision that applies to the methodology used to determine and calculate development potential. The methodology and applicable Specific Plan provisions are noted in the LRP Letter. 2. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, Table 5 is incorrect and must be revised to accurately reflect square footages and trip budgets to evaluate the project's consistency with the Specific Plan. The footnotes for this table indicate that the data was derived from Specific Plan Tables 3- 1, 3-2, and 3-3. However, Table 5 is not consistent with the aforementioned tables in the Specific Plan per the following comments: a. The Net Site Acreage is shown as 68.4 acres, the same as the gross area. The District is obligated to provide public access to the City's Child Care Facility and to provide a common roadway adjacent to the north side of the ATEP parking facility to the City's Community Park. These access areas (local roads) are not to be counted as part of the "net acreage". Therefore, the Net Site Acreage needs to be adjusted to accommodate for these requirements (see also the ATEP LRP Letter). The City has previously provided a spreadsheet to the District identifying the maximum authorized building square footages based upon the trip budget restrictions in Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. b. The total SF for Planning Areas 1-A & 1-E authorized to date is 14,676 SF as shown on the Building Plans. Please correct this figure. c. The SF Requested column for Planning Areas 1-A & 1-E will need to be adjusted based upon the above discussions and also the Total Trips Authorized column will need adjustment subject to approval as to the numbers by the City. d. For Planning Area 1-G, change the Total Trips Authorized from 1,480 to 6,220, per Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. 3. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: A Circulation Analysis has been prepared by the District's traffic consultant to identify and evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The District's Circulation Analysis concludes that the Long Range Plan trip generation was consistent with the non-residential based trip budget established for Neighborhood A and the Learning Village with no consultation with the City as the responsible agency on this conclusion. The District's Circulation Analysis is based upon a maximum development of 893,851 square feet and a trip budget of 5,470 ADT. Based upon the discussion in Item No. 2 above, this land use assumption is incorrect and is inconsistent with specific information previously provided to the District. Additionally, until the District identifies specific land uses on the site as identified in the ATEP LRP Letter, we cannot validate that the appropriate trip generation rate that should be applied to the ATEP site should be that of a Learning Center as identified in the FEIS/EIR. The applicable rate would relate to the type of uses on the site (e.g., privatized commercial uses and offices would use applicable commercial trip generation rates, as would a motion picture studio,etc). 4. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: The District's Circulation Analysis identifies and plans for numerous access locations to the District's property from Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. These access points were not previously planned nor previously accommodated with the City's Master Backbone Roadway Project that built Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. Moreover, the FEIS/EIR did not evaluate the potential impact of these access points. The City retains approval authority over all access points to the public right-of-way. The District and its consultants have not consulted with the City on the proposed access points. No access locations can be automatically assumed by the District without the City Engineer's acceptance. Due to the characteristics of the arterial circulation system at Tustin Legacy, access restrictions have been pre -planned as part of the infrastructure development along Valencia Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, future Warner Avenue, and Red Hill Avenue. The District's Circulation Analysis has not evaluated the pre -planned access locations for this site. In consultation with the City Engineer, this specific additional analysis will need to be accomplished prior to proposing and evaluating alternative access locations, subject to the City Engineer's final approval of the analysis. 5. Traffic controls proposed for Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue to serve the project site may appear sufficient for the proposed project, but have not been evaluated for cumulative impacts to reflect other land uses adjacent to these arterials, and to the overall circulation of the Tustin Legacy Project. As an example, the restriction of left -turning movements at Valencia Avenue/Lansdowne Road are not sufficient to adequately serve the future public school and community uses planned on Lansdowne Road, or the other uses other than ATEP south of Lansdowne Road. Also, the City Engineer has determined that the left -turns out of the proposed Driveway E on Valencia Avenue will only serve to disrupt through traffic movements and deteriorate the traffic levels of service on this roadway. 6. The District's Circulation Analysis indicates that two additional traffic signals are needed; One on Valencia and one on Armstrong, both at project driveways. However, the District Circulation Analysis indicates that the District's proposed project does not necessitate the need for these signals, and therefore they are not recommended mitigation for the proposed project. These signals do not appear to be needed for the overall Tustin Legacy circulation system based upon previous traffic analysis performed in this area. Furthermore, these signals are not consistent with the most recent Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Study. 7. Figure 5 of the District's Circulation Analysis identifies the 2025 ADT Volumes on the roadway system surrounding the project site. However, the projected volumes on Armstrong Avenue are significantly different than those identified in the latest Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis. It appears that the model may have miscalculated traffic volume in this area, which would significantly affect the entire access evaluation in the report and the additional traffic controls recommended in the report. 8. The Circulation Analysis is incomplete in that it does not address either bicycle or pedestrian circulation associated with this project. Figure 7 of the ATEP Long Range Land Use Plan identifies a pedestrian crossing at mid -block across Valencia Avenue which is a safety concern. The Long Range Facility Plan further identifies a pedestrian bridge which was not contemplated in the FEIS/EIR, as amended but no details are provided. The City will not approve a mid -block, at -grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing on Valencia Avenue, which is a 4 -lane secondary arterial. Additionally, the Long Range Facility Plan should not indicate a pedestrian bridge without 9 additional information provided for approval by the City Engineer consistent with ATEP LRP Letter comments. 9. In summary, the District's Circulation Analysis is based upon incorrect land use and trip budget information, it assumes access locations, turn movements, and traffic controls that are not consistent with previous traffic analysis in the area of the SOCCCD site, the build -out roadway traffic volumes appear to be miscalculated, and the document fails to provide any adequate analysis of pedestrian or bicycle circulation. 10 August 8, 2008 Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. Chancellor South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguirite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692-3635 RE: INITIAL STUDY ON LONG RANGE ACADEMIC AND FACILITY PLANS Dear Dr. Mathur: Thank you for providing the City of Tustin (City) with an opportunity to review the Initial Study for the Advanced Technology Education Campus (ATEP) Long Range Academic and Facility Plans (LRP). As a "responsible agency" on ATEP, the South Orange County Community College District (District) has a legal obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consult with the City and obtain the City's recommendations on the scope of environmental review for ATEP. (14 Cal. Code Regs § 15063(g)) To date, this consultation has not occurred even though the City must approve various components of the LRP. The City must approve a grading plan, drainage plan, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections. In addition, the City must approve the overall siting of improvements and design review of all building improvements which are not subject to state approvals. The City received the Initial Study on July 17, 2008 with a request that comments on the document be provided by August 4, 2008. The City requested from the SOCCCD an extension of time for submittal of comments until August 8, 2008 to permit the City Council's review of the comment letter at its regular meeting on August 5, 2008. We believe our request for more time was reasonable, but we have not received a response from the District. In any event, the City Council has reviewed the City staff comments on the Initial Study, concurs with the comments, and has approved transmittal to SOCCCD. As the City points out in more detail in the attached comments, the City believes that the District is improperly tiering off of the Final Joint Program EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the former MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR) because ATEP is a significantly different project than the one that was contemplated for the site in the FEIS/EIR. On July 23, 2008, I sent you a letter identifying numerous significant issues and corrections relating to LRP, which is incorporated herein by reference. Among other concerns, the City expressed concerns about ATEP's inconsistency with applicable regulatory documents that control development of site including, but not limited to, the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan and related FEIS/EIR, the Conveyance Agreement, Sublease, City 52I39.1 lcn�;0n1 ii Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. August 8, 2008 Page 2. Zoning Code, and other governmental requirements. Until the issues discussed in the June 23, 2008 letter are resolved, the City strongly advises the District's Board of Directors not make any CEQA determination on the LRP. Moreover, the City urges the District to comply with its CEQA obligation and consult with the City on the scope of environmental review of ATEP. In addition, the City has identified numerous flaws in the Initial Study's analysis, data and findings for the reasons set forth in the attached comments. Accordingly, the Initial Study fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and must be revised and recirculated with the corrected analysis and information. Moreover, based on the information provided in the Draft ATEP LRP and in our letter of July 23, 2008 and in this letter, additional CEQA analysis beyond simple reliance on the FEIS/EIR may be required for the following reasons pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21166: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the environmental impact report; b. substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; c. New information, which was not known, and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. The City again urges the District to consult with the City on its CEQA determination and the requirements of the applicable regulatory documents affecting build -out of this site. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, William A. Huston City Manager Enclosure cc: Gary Poertner, Deputy Chancellor SOCCCD Board of Trustees Members of the Tustin City Council Doug Holland, City Attorney George Schlossberg, Special Counsel Tim Serlet, Public Works Director Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director John Buchanan, RDA Program Manager Matt West, RDA Project Manager 591301,159POI 1 Attachment I Comments on SOCCCD Initial Study on ATEP Long Range Academic and Facility Plans Redevelopment Agency Comments 1. Section 1.4.9, paragraph 2, states that the Initial Study was provided to the City in June 2008. In fact, the District did not provide the document to the City for review until July 17, 2008 with a request that comments be returned by August 4t'. While the District does not have approval authority over the LRP, the City is a responsible agency and retains discretionary approvals over a number of implementation activities required for development of the ATEP project. As such, the District must comply with CEQA's consultation requirement. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15063(g)) To date, the District has not consulted with the City on the scope of environmental review for the ATEP or the conclusions of the initial study or the District's Circulation Analysis. In addition, the Initial Study and ATEP propose development (see letter from William Huston, Tustin City Manager to Raghu Mathur, Chancellor, dated July 23, 2008 (ATEP LRP Letter)), which is subject to the City's discretion. Therefore, the District should have made a concerted effort to work with the City on these matters. 2. The project description is vague and fails to provide sufficient details about the ATEP LRP to make an informed decision about whether the project's short and long term significant environmental effects were in fact adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR. As the Court held in County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 199: Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefits against its environmental costs, consider mitigation measures, access the advantages of termination the proposal (i.e the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." The County of Inyo case admittedly involved a project EIR; however, these principles apply across the board to all environmental documents under CEQA. This is particularly true in the context of an initial study that purports to tier off an existing EIR. It would be impossible to determine whether and to what extent a particular project's environmental effects were adequately addressed in a Program EIR or some other first tier document without disclosing the pertinent details of a development project. The vagueness and overall lack of project definition and detail is highlighted on pages 1 and 3-4, which identify eight bullet point components of the ATEP LRP. These components include vague references to "academic quads and classroom buildings," "student faculty housing," unspecified "ancillary services," "support commercial operations...", "recreation and open space," "parking locations," "roadways," and finally "security and maintenance/utility functional areas." While these sections appear to be just a summary of this ambitious project, a careful examination of the more detailed "project characteristics" in Section 2.3 reveals that none of these eight components are sufficiently flushed out to understand that magnitude of this endeavor. Moreover, the various site 1 Sni;o1.i=Q0�„ , plans do not provide the critical details of the project. For example, how many classroom seats are proposed for Phase II and ultimate build -out of the campus? What is the maximum student capacity of Phase II? How much support staff and administration will be on-site during any given day? In addition, the Initial Study devotes on 3 short paragraphs to its description of "build -out" or Phase 3 of the ATEP campus. (see p. 19) Again, like the Phase 2 discussion, there is no information on the critical components of this phase that are likely to generate environmental impacts. The Initial Study talks about the timing of build -out and how much of the site will be built -out. Remarkably, however, there is no discussion of the actual development that will accommodated during this phase and number of students, faculty, administration, employees, and residents that will be occupying the site. The initial study similarly fails to describe the overall massing, height, architecture, and square footage of the development. Moreover, there is no discussion of the contemplated "support commercial operations." Finally, there is no discussion of the ATEP LRP's short term construction requirements. For a project of this magnitude, it is essential that the initial study to provide a comprehensive discussion of the project's construction requirements, including anticipated heavy equipment on site at any given time, number of construction workers, and haul truck rips that may be required during grading. The short term construction component of the project should also include a detailed discussion of any necessary demolition activity. All of the information requested above must be included in the initial study. CEQA does not require the City or any other reviewing entity to flip back and forth between some other document in record, such as the actual ATEP LRP or any other plans on file, and the initial study to understand the specifics of a project and its impacts. Before the Board of Trustees approves the ATEP LRP, the City recommends and CEQA demands that this significant new information be added to the Initial Study and re -circulated for public and agency review and comment. Otherwise, it is impossible for the City to determine (1) whether this project is in fact with any land use plan that was adopted for the ATEP site, and (2) whether this project's environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR. 3. For all of the environmental impacts categories, the initial study concludes that the ATEP LRPs environmental effects were "previously considered within the FEIR/EIS and Addendum..." However, in general, these conclusions are not adequately support by evidence in the record. The FEIS/EIR was generally intended to broadly examine a land use plan for this whole MCAS -Tustin. Neither the FEIS/EIR nor Addendum evaluated any site specific land development project for the ATEP site because no specific development project was proposed for this site in 2001. Instead, the FEIS/EIR evaluated the impacts of a land use designation. This project entails a comprehensive plan for build -out an educational campus that includes, classroom buildings, movie studios, student/faculty housing, and commercial uses. None of the vertical elements of build -out of the site were specifically addressed in the FEIS/EIR. Accordingly, these project components may cause environmental effects that were not adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR warranting more comprehensive site specific review in either a new stand alone Mitigated Negative Declaration at the very least, but more likely an EIR. CEQA states that if any unexamined impacts exist, the 2 agency must prepare an initial study to determine whether the effects require a negative declaration or EIR. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15168(c)(1)) As noted in the "project description" discussion above, the initial study omits critical details of the ATEP LRP development plan, which results in an incomplete and inadequate discussion of the project' environmental effects. For example, in the discussion of the project's potential aesthetic impacts, the initial study concludes that the ATEP LRP will result in a "visual change" for the existing condition, but "the change is part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development," which was identified as a potentially significant impact. The analysis is flawed and unsubstantiated because (1) it provides no specific details about the bulk, massing, architecture, height or other key development details that will undoubtedly alter the visual character of the site and (2) fails to explain what the FEIS/EIR specifically concluded about the visual transformation of this site. In the absence of this analysis, the initial study's conclusion is not supported by evidence in the record. More importantly, this omission makes it impossible to understand the magnitude of the project's impacts. In addition, the initial study repeatedly states that the project would have "no impact" on the environment. However, the initial study identifies mitigation measure to address many of the impacts. The identification of mitigation measures suggests that the project would indeed have potentially significant environmental impacts that require mitigation to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. By checking "no impact" boxes throughout the initial study, the initial study creates the illusion that this project would have no impact on the environment when in reality there will be impacts the require mitigation. 4. The Initial Study's conclusions about the ATEP's environmental impacts are based upon incorrect information and assumptions contained in the LRP. Because the Initial Study is based upon the LRP, we recommend that all of the City's comments on LRP dated July 23, 2008 be addressed first to ensure that these comments are adequately addressed in the Initial Study. Once the City's comments are addressed in the LRP, the District must revise the Initial Study to be consistent with the LRP and recirculate the initial study for an additional round of public review and comment. At a minimum, the document shall be revised to reflect the comments in this letter as well as the following Sections, Tables, and Figures which need to be updated to reflect the comments of the July 23, 2008 letter: o Table 1 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #4 on LRP) o Section 2.2 ATEP Background (July 23, 2008 letter, comments #9,10, 53, 54 are examples) o Figure 5 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #5 on LRP) o Section 2.3 Project Characteristics (July 23, 2008 letter, comment # 31, 32,33,34,36, 37,38,39,45,46,47,49,53,54 are examples) o Figure 7 (July 23, 2008 letter related to a corresponding Figure 10 in the LRP include comments # 32,33,34, 37 are examples) o Figure 8 (July 23, 2008 letter related to phasing and a corresponding Figure 12 and 13 in the LRP include comments #53,54 as examples) 3 o LU -2k —The Initial Study must clarify that only grading and drainage plans for interim ATEP campus have been approved. No plans have been approved for any permanent campus structures. o LU -2m — The Initial Study must reflect comments of ATEP LRP Letter. o BIO -1 — The discussion in this section is inconsistent with the checklist/discussion in Section 3.4.2 in that impacts on jurisdictional waters/wetlands are anticipated but are not identified on the checklist. The document should identify the location and survey information which validates the location of the jurisdictional waters/wetlands that impact the ATEP site based on consultation with regulatory agencies such as Army Corps of Engineers and California Fish and Game. o IA -3 — The satisfaction of mitigation measure is yet to be determined. The Initial Study must reflect comments of ATEP LRP Letter. o lA-7 —The Initial Study states that no off-site roadway improvements are needed on the ATEP site; however, as noted in this letter, the District's Circulation Analysis is flawed and not acceptable to the City. There may still be a need for subsequent mitigation measures, including but not limited to pedestrian connections to sidewalks, additional public roads, bus stops as an example. In addition, it should be noted that certain improvements to the public right-of-way have not yet been approved and will require approvals by the City Engineer. Because additional mitigation may be required once an adequate Traffic Analysis has been prepared, satisfaction of mitigation measure has yet to be determined. 6. The initial study notes that the applicable mitigation measures from the FEIS/EIR will be implemented to reduce project impacts. However, these measures were "program" level mitigation measures that in most cases were not designed to address site specific impacts. For example, the initial study identifies the preparation of a "concept plan" as mitigation for aesthetic impacts. The "concept plan" was identified as mitigation in the FEIS/EIR because the actual details of individual development projects were unknown. To ensure that future development would comply with the overall aesthetic vision for Tustin Legacy the "concept plan" was identified. However, preparation of a "concept plan" does not adequately address site specific aesthetic impacts. For example, it is difficult to conceive of a project that contemplates extreme massing and bulking could be mitigated solely by preparation of a "concept plan." At this stage, the initial should be identifying design and project level mitigation to reduce environmental effects. Moreover, to the extent that one or more these mitigation measures contemplate the preparation of future studies and analysis to reduce the impacts, these measures are inappropriate and inadequate to address project level site specific analysis. Such measures are generally far more appropriate at the "program" to ensure that project level analysis includes detailed environmental assessments to fully disclose and mitigate impacts. 7. Table 1, page 5 and 6. The Initial Study must be modified to reflect comments on this table contained in the LRP Letter. 8. Page 8, see cover on this letter and comment # 1 below under Community Development. 9. General Comment- the District has provided no source documentation or references to information or agency sources for their analysis of each impact category that support the basis of their conclusions (See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 [Court rejected an 5 191 ZOl.lcn_ni initial study where there was no indication of the source of the data that staff relied on in preparing the document). Many of the impact categories require consultation with responsible agencies which we do not believe has adequately occurred. 10. Project Characteristics, Page 13-14. See ATEP LRP Letter and modify the text to respond to issues identified therein and in this letter. 11. Phasing, Page 15-19. See ATEP LRP Letter regarding the City's concerns about the proposed phasing of the ATEP Long Range Plan and the Phase 2 site plan. Also, the Initial Study uses incorrect parking standards for its analysis that are inconsistent with the Specific Plan as noted in the LRP Letter. 12. Page 21. The Initial Study states that the Chapel will be relocated. This relocation is an impact that was not evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. This relocation could have a potentially significant aesthetic impact due to its unique architectural design and location. Accordingly, the Initial Study should analyze this new impact and identify feasible mitigation measure to ensure that the structure will be integrated with other ATEP and non-ATEP uses in the vicinity. 13. Page 25. The City has carefully reviewed the LRP and notes that the LRP is demonstrably different than the use that was identified for this site in the FEIS/EIR and analyzed in that document. Therefore, the Initial Study's conclusion that there is no change in the project from what was analyzed in the FEIR/EIS is incorrect and not based on substantial evidence in the record. The City points out extensively in the ATEP LRP Letter how the proposed LRP differs from the use that was actually analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. To the extent that the District does conclude that certain impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR (which still may need to be supplemented or amended by addendum), the District must adopt and implement any applicable mitigation measures that may have been identified in the FEIS/EIR to address that same impact. (14 Cal. Code Regs § 15168 (c)(3)) Community Development Comments 1. General Comment — The Department of Navy (DON) and City of Tustin approved the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin in 2001, a Supplement in December 2004, and an Addendum in 2006. The EIR portion of the document, as amended, was prepared as a Program EIR consistent with the requirements of CEQA (14 Cal Code Regs §15168). The FEIS/EIR was prepared to provide decision makers of responsible agencies (including the District) with information on the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the approved Reuse Plan which includes the reuse of the District's property for educational purposes. The Supplement to the FEIS/EIR was certified on December 6, 2004 and the Addendum to the FEIS/EIR was adopted on April 16, 2006. The District has prepared an Initial Study to evaluate whether and to what extent the ATEP's environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR. To the extent that certain LRP components were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, CEQA requires additional site specific environmental documents (e.g., a new site specific EIR, a Supplemental or Subsequent FEIS/EIS or an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR) (14 Cal. Code Regs § 15168(c)(1)). 6 2. General Comment — As noted above, the ATEP LRP Letter raised a substantial number of significant issues that require significant modifications to the LRP. Those changes will necessitate a significant modification to the Initial Study's project description and evaluation of environmental impacts. In light of these changes and to ensure that the City's comments are adequately considered and addressed, we urge the District to continue the August 25, 2008 Board Hearing on the matter. The City also requests that the District provide for adequate time for all responsible reviewing agencies, decision makers, and all other interested parties to review the required changes and their adequacy. 3. Section 1.4.11, Environmental Determination, Page 8 — The section states that the "a Common Sense exemption has been prepared for the project" because "all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration". This conclusion is an erroneous interpretation of CEQA. CEQA limits the use of a "Common Sense" exemption to projects "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." (14 Cal. Code Reg §15061(c)(3) When a project is determined exempt under this section, "the activity is not subject to CEQA." In other words, once a project is deemed exempt, not initial study is required. The District has incorrectly used the existence of an earlier EIR that concluded that the Reuse and Disposal of the former MCAS Tustin project would cause significant impacts to the environment as its common sense argument that there would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the development of the District's property. Further, the Initial Study clearly argues against a common sense exemption since the Initial Study indicates the District's intent to implement a number of FEIS/EIR mandated mitigation measures to address environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Rather, CEQA section 15162 and 15168 requires a responsible agency to evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the agency finds that no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being covered by the program EIR. However, the agency must incorporate mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. The environmental checklist should document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were covered in the program FEIS/EIR. Where components of a proposed project are identified that were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the program EIR, additional environmental documents would be required (e.g., a new EIR, a Supplemental EIR, or an Addendum to the EIR). Once a lead agency has determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project, the lead agency shall consult with all responsible agencies (including but not limited to special districts (e.g. utility providers, etc.), state agencies (e.g. State Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, etc.), local agencies (e.g. Orange County Flood Control Agency, school districts, the City of Tustin and neighboring cities, etc.) and other interested parties. Each agency/person notified should be provided a minimum of 30 days to review and comment upon the revised Initial Study. In addition, a copy of the Initial Study should be provided to the 7 s9t;ot.t9PPW Office of Planning and Research to ensure that all responsible state agencies are notified and afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the Initial Study. Together, the ATEP LRP and Initial Study do not adequately describe or evaluate each of the project impact categories as they relate to the specific ATEP site. Once the LRP and the Initial Study are revised and completed properly, and following adequate review and comment by responsible or affected agencies, the District must determine whether the ATEP project may have a significant effect on the environment and whether the project requires additional environmental documents (e.g., a new EIR, a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR, or an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR). 4. Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Page 21 - The conclusion related to the impacts of future development upon two historic blimp hangars is not relevant since neither blimp hangar exists within the District's site. The section should be revised to indicate that aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project will be avoided through compliance with the FEIS/EIR which requires projects at Tustin Legacy to be consistent with the urban design plan described in the Specific Plan through project design review in coordination with the City of Tustin. 5. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Page 25 — The section incorrectly states that the Tustin Legacy Master Developer has obtained all necessary permits to disturb jurisdictional waters/wetlands at the former MCAS Tustin. The Tustin Legacy Master Developer has only obtained necessary permits to disturb jurisdictional waters/wetlands within their development footprint and is not responsible for undertaking such permits for the location of jurisdictional wetlands on other property at Tustin Legacy. Each project proponent at Tustin Legacy, including the District, must comply with state and federal waters/wetlands permitting requirements. Numerous drainage channels are located within the District's site, including channels identified within the approved FEIS/EIR that are clearly identified as jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (Figure 3.7-1) and that the City has previously informed the District about in writing. The discussion and description incorrectly referenced from the FEIS/EIR Addendum (Exhibit 4) was intended to describe only the Master Developer's refined project within the limits of the Master Developer site boundary not the District's property. The section should be revised to indicate the District's commitment to adhere to the mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/EIR requiring the project proponent, in this case the District, to obtain the necessary waters/wetlands permits. It should be noted that the narrative for mitigation measure Bio -1 accurately reflects the District's responsibilities in this regard. 6. Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Page 31 — Section narrative indicates that "complete remediation of the plumes is anticipated by mid 2010" and that the Navy will "certify the LIFOC area has been cleaned and all prior contamination risks have been abated" prior to the release of the 30.7 -acre LIFOC portion of the ATEP campus and construction of permanent structures. Please revise to disclose that the Department of Navy's Draft Amended Site Management Plan for Fiscal Year 2009 indicates that the site is not scheduled for remediation measures to be approved as operationally safe and that the property may not be "cleaned" until the year 3038 or later. The section should also be expanded to describe how the District will address site contamination issues during the interim period prior to and following Navy issuance of a Finding of Suitability of Transfer (FOST) anticipated in 2010 for existing facilities and buildings. This includes addressing the need for measures to ensure that Navy monitoring wells 8 and continuing remediation activities on the site after a FOST are not disturbed. It is our understanding that students and faculty are currently or will be using the site during the period before issuance of a FOST. The document also does not address the requirements under the current FOST that are institutional restrictions on buildings and improvements within areas already conveyed to the District. Specifically, the District must disclose and implement conditions and specific institutional controls contained in the LIFOC, FOST, any future Navy deed and Conveyance Agreement with the City as requested in ATEP LRP Letter. 7. Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, Page 38 and Section 3.15, Transportation, Page 49 — The ATEP LRP proposal is not logical, orderly, or adequate in regard to roadway circulation and parking. The long term site use and development and the focus of the entire document seems to be on private business and industry rather than an education mission and/or focus. The LRP must be compatible with the list of uses as identified in the Specific Plan and only such uses authorized by the Conveyance Agreement. The LRP and Initial Study must identify limitations or restrictions of the Specific Plan, adopted FEIS/EIR (as amended), and the Conveyance Agreement with the City of Tustin to guide future development within the LRP area. 8. At present, the proposed building square footage does not appear to be consistent with the Specific Plan's assumptions for the District's property as discussed in the LRP Letter. Consequently, the LRP and Initial Study should clearly indicate the assumed vehicle trip generation compared to the assumptions described in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum (note: the ATEP site represents a proportional share of the total acreage, square footage and Average Daily Trips allocated to Planning Area 1). The District's Circulation Analysis is currently based upon a maximum development of 893,851 square feet and a trip budget of 5,470 ADT which appears to be incorrect. This issue should be further reviewed and agreed upon by the City of Tustin's Public Works Department. As previously indicated, the City of Tustin has provided separate correspondence to the District regarding issues and concerns related to the proposed project. Once these fundamental land use issues are addressed and resolved, Sections 3.9 and 3.15 must be revised and the Initial Study re -circulated for additional review and comment. Where components of a proposed project are identified that were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the program EIR, additional environmental documents would be required (e.g., an Addendum to the EIR). 9. Section 3.13, Public Services, Page 45 and Section 3.14, Recreation, Page 47 — As noted in the ATEP LRP Letter, the District is proposing no park or recreational services on the site to meet the needs of faculty, students or others. Instead, the Initial Study relies solely on planned public parks at Tustin Legacy to address the parks and recreation impacts of the project. Because the project involves land uses not previously contemplated within the FEIS/EIR and an overall intensification of the land uses at the site, the Initial Study must disclose and assess any potential project impacts based on the project's increased demand on police, fire, school, park and library services. The District must coordinate the City as the responsible agency providing municipal services to Tustin Legacy. Engineering and Public Works Comments 1. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: In Figure 10, the Initial Study calculates development potential based on gross acreage figures for each PA, which excludes land devoted to arterial 9 roadways, and cites the Legacy Specific Plan Page 3-5 as a reference. Please see the ATEP LRP Letter for additional commentary related to this matter. The consultant's reference is not correct. The provision cited merely refers to an introductory description of the Land Use Plan and how gross acreages of general land uses shown on the Land Use Plan were initially determined. It is not provision that applies to the methodology used to determine and calculate development potential. The methodology and applicable Specific Plan provisions are noted in the LRP Letter. 2. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, Table 5 is incorrect and must be revised to accurately reflect square footages and trip budgets to evaluate the project's consistency with the Specific Plan. The footnotes for this table indicate that the data was derived from Specific Plan Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3- 3. However, Table 5 is not consistent with the aforementioned tables in the Specific Plan per the following comments: a. The Net Site Acreage is shown as 68.4 acres, the same as the gross area. The District is obligated to provide public access to the City's Child Care Facility and to provide a common roadway adjacent to the north side of the ATEP parking facility to the City's Community Park. These access areas (local roads) are not to be counted as part of the "net acreage". Therefore, the Net Site Acreage needs to be adjusted to accommodate for these requirements (see also the ATEP LRP Letter). The City has previously provided a spreadsheet to the District identifying the maximum authorized building square footages based upon the trip budget restrictions in Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. b. The total SF for Planning Areas 1-A & 1-E authorized to date is 14,676 SF as shown on the Building Plans. Please correct this figure. c. The SF Requested column for Planning Areas 1-A & 1-E will need to be adjusted based upon the above discussions and also the Total Trips Authorized column will need adjustment subject to approval as to the numbers by the City. d. For Planning Area 1-G, change the Total Trips Authorized from 1,480 to 6,220, per Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. 3. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: A Circulation Analysis has been prepared by the District's traffic consultant to identify and evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The District's Circulation Analysis concludes that the Long Range Plan trip generation was consistent with the non-residential based trip budget established for Neighborhood A and the Learning Village with no consultation with the City as the responsible agency on this conclusion. The District's Circulation Analysis is based upon a maximum development of 893,851 square feet and a trip budget of 5,470 ADT. Based upon the discussion in Item No. 2 above, this land use assumption is incorrect and is inconsistent with specific information previously provided to the District. Additionally, until the District identifies specific land uses on the site as identified in the ATEP LRP Letter, we cannot validate that the appropriate trip generation rate that should be applied to the ATEP site should be that of a Learning Center as identified in the FEIS/EIR. The applicable rate would relate to the type of uses on the site (e.g., privatized commercial uses and offices would use applicable commercial trip generation rates, as would a motion picture studio,etc). 10 4. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: The District's Circulation Analysis identifies and plans for numerous access locations to the District's property from Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. These access points were not previously planned nor previously accommodated with the City's Master Backbone Roadway Project that built Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. Moreover, the FEIS/EIR did not evaluate the potential impact of these access points. The City retains approval authority over all access points to the public right-of-way. The District and its consultants have not consulted with the City on the proposed access points. No access locations can be automatically assumed by the District without the City Engineer's acceptance. Due to the characteristics of the arterial circulation system at Tustin Legacy, access restrictions have been pre -planned as part of the infrastructure development along Valencia Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, future Warner Avenue, and Red Hill Avenue. The District's Circulation Analysis has not evaluated the pre -planned access locations for this site. In consultation with the City Engineer, this specific additional analysis will need to be accomplished prior to proposing and evaluating alternative access locations, subject to the City Engineer's final approval of the analysis. 5. Traffic controls proposed for Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue to serve the project site may appear sufficient for the proposed project, but have not been evaluated for cumulative impacts to reflect other land uses adjacent to these arterials, and to the overall circulation of the Tustin Legacy Project. As an example, the restriction of left -turning movements at Valencia Avenue/Lansdowne Road are not sufficient to adequately serve the future public school and community uses planned on Lansdowne Road, or the other uses other than ATEP south of Lansdowne Road. Also, the City Engineer has determined that the left -turns out of the proposed Driveway E on Valencia Avenue will only serve to disrupt through traffic movements and deteriorate the traffic levels of service on this roadway. 6. The District's Circulation Analysis indicates that two additional traffic signals are needed; One on Valencia and one on Armstrong, both at project driveways. However, the District Circulation Analysis indicates that the District's proposed project does not necessitate the need for these signals, and therefore they are not recommended mitigation for the proposed project. These signals do not appear to be needed for the overall Tustin Legacy circulation system based upon previous traffic analysis performed in this area. Furthermore, these signals are not consistent with the most recent Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Study. 7. Figure 5 of the District's Circulation Analysis identifies the 2025 ADT Volumes on the roadway system surrounding the project site. However, the projected volumes on Armstrong Avenue are significantly different than those identified in the latest Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis. It appears that the model may have miscalculated traffic volume in this area, which would significantly affect the entire access evaluation in the report and the additional traffic controls recommended in the report. 8. The Circulation Analysis is incomplete in that it does not address either bicycle or pedestrian circulation associated with this project. Figure 7 of the ATEP Long Range Land Use Plan identifies a pedestrian crossing at mid -block across Valencia Avenue which is a safety concern. The Long Range Facility Plan further identifies a pedestrian bridge which was not contemplated in the FEIS/EIR, as amended but no details are provided. The City will not approve a mid -block, at -grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing on Valencia Avenue, which is a 4 -lane secondary arterial. Additionally, the Long Range Facility Plan should not indicate a pedestrian bridge without additional information provided for approval by the City Engineer consistent with ATEP LRP Letter comments. 9. In summary, the District's Circulation Analysis is based upon incorrect land use and trip budget information, it assumes access locations, turn movements, and traffic controls that are not consistent with previous traffic analysis in the area of the SOCCCD site, the build -out roadway traffic volumes appear to be miscalculated, and the document fails to provide any adequate analysis of pedestrian or bicycle circulation. 12 August 8, 2008 Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. Chancellor South Orange County Community College District 28000 Marguirite Parkway Mission Viejo, CA 92692-3635 RE: INITIAL STUDY ON LONG RANGE ACADEMIC AND FACILITY PLANS Dear Dr. Mathur: Thank you for providing the City of Tustin (City) with an opportunity to review the Initial Study for the Advanced Technology Education Campus (ATEP) Long Range Academic and Facility Plans (LRP). As a "responsible agency" on ATEP, the South Orange County Community College District (District) has a legal obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to consult with the City and obtain the City's recommendations on the scope of environmental review for ATEP. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15063(g)) To date, this consultation has not occurred even though the City must approve various components of the LRP. The City must approve a grading plan, drainage plan, alterations of the public right-of-way, circulation, parking and utility connections. In addition, the City must approve the overall siting of improvements and design review of all building improvements which are not subject to state approvals. The City received the Initial Study on July 17, 2008 with a request that comments on the document be provided by August 4, 2008. The City requested from the SOCCCD an extension of time for submittal of comments until August 8, 2008 to permit the City Council's review of the comment letter at its regular meeting on August 5, 2008. We believe our request for more time was reasonable, but we have not received a response from the District. In any event, the City Council has reviewed the City staff comments on the Initial Study, concurs with the comments, and has approved transmittal to SOCCCD. As the City points out in more detail in the attached comments, the City believes that the District is improperly tiering off of the Final Joint Program EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of the former MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR) because ATEP is a significantly different project than the one that was contemplated for the site in the FEIS/EIR. On July 23, 2008, I sent you a letter identifying numerous significant issues and corrections relating to LRP, which is incorporated herein by reference. Among other concerns, the City expressed concerns about ATEP's inconsistency with applicable regulatory documents that control development of site including, but not limited to, the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan and related FEIS/EIR, the Conveyance Agreement, Sublease, City Raghu Mathur, Ed.D. August 8, 2008 Page 2. Zoning Code, and other governmental requirements. Until the issues discussed in the June 23, 2008 letter are resolved, the City strongly advises the District's Board of Directors not make any CEQA determination on the LRP. Moreover, the City urges the District to comply with its CEQA obligation and consult with the City on the scope of environmental review of ATER In addition, the City has identified numerous flaws in the Initial Study's analysis, data and findings for the reasons set forth in the attached comments. Accordingly, the Initial Study fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA and must be revised and recirculated with the corrected analysis and information. Moreover, based on the information provided in the Draft ATEP LRP and in our letter of July 23, 2008 and in this letter, additional CEQA analysis beyond simple reliance on the FEIS/EIR may be required for the following reasons pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21166: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the environmental impact report; b. substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report; c. New information, which was not known, and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available. The City again urges the District to consult with the City on its CEQA determination and the requirements of the applicable regulatory documents affecting build -out of this site. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, William A. Huston City Manager Enclosure cc: Gary Poertner, Deputy Chancellor SOCCCD Board of Trustees Members of the Tustin City Council Doug Holland, City Attorney George Schlossberg, Special Counsel Tim Serlet, Public Works Director Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director John Buchanan, RDA Program Manager Matt West, RDA Project Manager Formatted: Doc ID, Left Attachment I Comments on SOCCCD Initial Study on ATEP Long Range Academic and Facility Plans Redevelopment Agency Comments 1. Section 1.4.9, paragraph 2, states that the Initial Study was provided to the City in June 2008. In fact, the District did not provide the document to the City for review until July 17, 2008 with a request that comments be returned by August 4`h. While the District does not have approval authority over the LRP, the City is a responsible agency and retains discretionary approvals over a number of implementation activities required for development of the ATEP project. As such, the District must comply with CEQA's consultation requirement. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15063(g)) To date, the District has not consulted with the City on the scope of environmental review for the ATEP or the conclusions of the initial study or the District's Circulation Analysis. In addition, the Initial Study and ATEP propose development (see letter from William Huston, Tustin City Manager to Raghu Mathur, Chancellor, dated July 23, 2008 (ATEP LRP Letter)), which is subject to the City's discretion. Therefore, the District should have made a concerted effort to work with the City on these matters. 2. The project description is vague and fails to provide sufficient details about the ATEP LRP to make an informed decision about whether the project's short and long term significant environmental effects were in fact adequately addressed in the f-EIS/EIR. As the Court held in (:'ou-nty oflnyo v_ City ofLvs.fng&s, (1977) -71 -Cal. -App. -3-(1-1-85-.--199-: - - Formatted: Font: Italic Onlv through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5°, decision -makers balance the proposal's benefits against its environmental costs. Right: 0.5^ consider mitigation_measures,._access_the._adv�antages,_of,termination._ the....prcposa]__.O.e proJecf._alternative) and_yv,eigh_other alternatives in the balance. An accurate. stable and finite descriptl_rn1,..is the._si_ne qua_. non of an intormativ and._I gaily sufficient EIR." The C'ounty o0nvo case admittedly involved a project EIR, however, these prhicipleS apply across -- Formatted: Font: Italic the board to all environmental documents under CEQA. This is particularly true in the context of an initial study that hat purports to tier off an existing EIR. It would be impossible to determine whether and to what extent a particular project's environmental effects were adequately addressed in a. Program EIR or some other first tier document without disclosing the pertinent: details of a development project. The_�agueness_and overall. lack of..project._defnition_ and _detail __is._higha_iJ;hted_on_.pages_ L._and. >.- , which identify eight bullet point components of the ATEP LRP. These components include vague references to "academic quads and classroom buildings," "student faculty housing," unspecified ``ancillary services," "support commercial operations...". "recreation and open space," "parking locations," "roadways." and finally "security and maintenance/utility fimctional areas." While these sections appear to be just a summary of this ambitious project, a careful examination of the more detailed "project characteristics" in Section 2.3 reveals that none of these eight components are sufficiently flushed ot:it to understand that magnitude of this endeavor. Moreover, the various site plans do not provide the critical details of the project. F'or example, how many classroom seats are proposed for Phase 11 and ultimate build-out of the campus? What is the maximum student capacity of Phase 117 I-low much support staff and administration will be on-site during any given day? In addition, the Initial Study devotes on 3 short paragraphs to its description of "build-out" or Phase 3 of the ATEP campus. see p. 19) Again, like the Phase 2 discussion, there is no information on the. critical_ccm.Rcnents ofthis phase._ that._ are.._l_ikely tQ IgEate env.ironmental._i_mpacts..._.__The.Initial . Studv talks about the timing of build out and. how much of the site__w will be.huilt out..Rematkahl�� however, there is no discussion of the_actual developntent that,wrll ac cpmmndated during this_.phase and number of students, faculty, administration, employees. and residents that will be occupying the Site. 'The initial studv similarly fails to describe the overall massing, height, architecture, and square footage of the development. Moreover, there is no discussion of the contemplated "support commercial operations." Finally, there is no discussion of the ATEP LRP's short tents construction requirements. For a project of this _magnitude, is_essentlal_that the ._initial _shady_to_.pravi_de_a_cdmp.rehensive discussion. of the_. rnaect construction .._regwrenlents, ]ncludin ._anticipated heavy. equipment_on_._site..._at_any, gwen._trme� numher.._nf constrncti��p__workers,.and._.haul truck. rips.._ that may be required during grading. The short term construction component of the project should also include a detailed discussion of any necessary demolition activity. All of the information requested above must be included in the initial study. CEQA does not require the City or any other reviewing entity to flip back and forth between some other document in record, such as the actual ATEP LRP or any other plans on file, and the initial study to understand the specifics of a project and its impacts. Before the Board of Trustees approves the ATEP t_<RP....the ..City _.recommends _and CE.OA demands_ that ibis_._ significant clew inforination_._be added, to the Initial Study and ;re, circulated for_. public_ and_agenev review and comment Otherwise __.......... a it is impossible._fi)r..the._City__to_determine_.t_1..).._whether_th:is...proiect.._is.._in fact_ with....anv land use plan that was adopted for the ATEP site, and (2) whether this proiect's environmental impacts have been adequately addressed in the FEMUR. 3. For all of the environmental impacts categories, the initial study concludes that the ATEP LRPs environmental effects were "previously considered within the FORMS and Addendum..." flowever, in general, these conclusions are not adequately support by evidence in the record. The FB.IS/EI.R. was generally intended to broadly examine a land use plan for this whole MCAS-Tustin. Neither the FF.,IS/EI_R nor .Addendum evaluated any site ite specific land development project for the ATEP _site ._hecause_no specific _deyelopntcnt._13roject _�yasTrgpn edfur__this_site ..in 2001._Instead. the FFIS%EIR evaluated the impacts of a_land use deesignation__.._Th.is pmaect entails a cgmplehen.S1 e plan for build-out an educational campus that includes, classroom buildings, movie studios, student/faculty housing, and commercial uses. None of the vertical elements of build-out of the site were specifically addressed in the FEIS/EIR. Accordingly, these project components may cause environmental effects that were not adequately addressed in the F'EIS;'EIR warranting more comprehensive site specific review in either a new stand alone Mitigated Negative Declaration at the very least, but more likely an EIR. CEQA states that if any unexamined impacts exist, the Formatted: Doc ID, Left 991301.1 _.................... at;encv must prepare an initial study to determine whether the effects require a negative declaration or EIR. 14 Cal. Code Regs S15168(c)(1)) As noted in the "project description" discussion above. the initial study omits critical details of the ATEP LRP development plan, which results in an incomplete and inadequate discussion of the project' environmental effects. For example, in the discussion of the project's potential aesthetic impacts,.._the_._in;itial.._study_. concludes__ that the_._�TEP._LRP.._wi;l_l_ result;_.,i_n._a_ "visual chan.Re"..,:for .the eXistrng condition, but the ch.tnge is....part of._the overall visual change of the former base_ to the hgger.._Tg9in j egacy;_development�' which _was identified as.._a poteptiaily_s_innrticant_mipact The analysis is flawed and unsubstantiated because (1) it provides no specific details about the bulk, massing, architecture, height or other kev development details that will undoubtedly alter the visual character of the site and (2) fails to explain what the FEIS/E1R specifically concluded about the visual transformation of this site. In the absence of this analysis, the initial study's conclusion is not. supported by evidence in the record. More importantly, this omission makes it impossible to understand the magnitude of the project's impacts. In addition, the initial study repeatedly states that the project would have "no impact" on the environment. However. _the .,..ini_tial_.._stud]!__ identifies_.m;itigationmeasure _tg_.._address _._rnan�'ofthe impacts_ The identification_ of_miU.gation me1sures__su�;gests.__that the protect. would .._rrrdeed._have potentially signifcarrt_enviropmental._impacts that.requi.re mitigation. to_reduce.the impact to a_level of insignificance. By checking `'no impact" boxes throughout the the initial study, the initial study creates the illusion that this project would have no impact on the environment when in reality there will be impacts the require mitigation. 2: 4. The Initial Study's conclusions about the ATEP's environmental impacts are based upon incorrect information and assumptions contained in the LRP. Because the Initial Study is based upon the LRP, we recommend that all of the City's comments on LRP dated July 23, 2008 be addressed first to ensure that these comments are adequately addressed in the Initial Study. Once the City's comments are addressed in the LRP, the District must revise the Initial Study to be consistent with the LRP and recirculate the initial study for an additional round of public review and comment. At a minimum, the document shall be revised to reflect the comments in this letter as well as the following Sections, Tables, and Figures which need to be updated to reflect the comments of the July 23, 2008 letter: o Table 1 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #4 on LRP) o Section 2.2 ATEP Background (July 23, 2008 letter, comments #9,10, 53, 54 are examples) o Figure 5 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #5 on LRP) o Section 2.3 Project Characteristics (July 23, 2008 letter, comment # 31, 32,33,34,36, 37,38,39,45,46,47,49,53,54 are examples) o Figure 7 (July 23, 2008 letter related to a corresponding Figure 10 in the LRP include comments # 32,33,34, 37 are examples) o Figure 8 (July 23, 2008 letter related to phasing and a corresponding Figure 12 and 13 in the LRP include comments #53,54 as examples) �913U1.1 ...................... Formatted: Doc ID, Left o Figure 9 (July 23, 2008 letter related to the Phase 2 site Plan and a corresponding Figure 13 in the LRP include comment # 54. o Figure 10 o Table 4 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments on a corresponding Table 1 in the LRP include comment #4). o Section 3.1.2 o Section 3.4.2 o Section 3.5.1 o Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments #11, 12,13,14,15,16,17) o Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments # 8, 35, 39,40,41,42,43, 49 on LRP. o Table 5 (July 23, 2008 letter, comment #8 on LRP) o Section 3.15.1 and 3.15.2 ( July 23, 2008 letter, comments # 8, 21,27, 31,32,33,37,38, 45, 46, 47,49) o Figure 11 (see comments on Sections 3.15.1 and 3.15.2 above) o Section 3.16.2 (July 23, 2008 letter, comments # 9, 51, 52) 35. The Initial Study includes table 6, which identifies various mitigation measures from the FEIR/EIS, and explains whether and to what extent the District has complied or must comply with such measures. As noted below and contrary to the Initial Study's conclusions, many of these mitigation measures have not been fulfilled and must be implemented as part of the LRP to ensure that the corresponding environmental impacts will, in fact, be mitigated. Status of Mitigation Measures needs to be revised as follows: o LU -2b —This mitigation incorrectly states that all ATEP easements have been recorded; therefore, the mitigation requirement has been fulfilled. However, this conclusion does not reflect the District's obligation under the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/ Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Conveyance Agreement for the provision of required access. Also see #37 contained in the July 23, 2008 LRP Letter regarding required public streets and access issues. o LU -2c — this mitigation must reflect comments in the ATEP LRP Letter. o LU -2d — Without any supporting data or analysis, the Initial Study simply concludes that IRWD has sufficient facilities to serve the ATEP project. Please identify the specific facilities that would serve this project to substantiate this statement. In addition, there is no discussion or analysis of whether IRWD has sufficient water supplies to serve the ATEP. At the very least, the District must demonstrate that a will serve letter from IRWD has been received prior to stating that this measure has been fulfilled. o LU -2f — Again, without any supporting data or analysis, the Initial Study simply concludes that IRWD and OCSD have adequate facilities to serve the ATEP project The District must demonstrate that a will serve letter has been received and is available prior to stating that this measure has been fulfilled. Formatted: Doc ID, Left 4 o LU -2k —The Initial Study must clarify that only grading and drainage plans for interim ATEP campus have been approved. No plans have been approved for any permanent campus structures. o LU -2m — The Initial Study must reflect comments of ATEP LRP Letter. o BIO -1 — The discussion in this section is inconsistent with the checklist/discussion in Section 3.4.2 in that impacts on jurisdictional waters/wetlands are anticipated but are not identified on the checklist. The document should identify the location and survey information which validates the location of the jurisdictional waters/wetlands that impact the ATEP site based on consultation with regulatory agencies such as Army Corps of Engineers and California Fish and Game. o IA -3 — The satisfaction of mitigation measure is yet to be determined. The Initial Study must reflect comments of ATEP LRP Letter. o IA -7 —The Initial Study states that no off-site roadway improvements are needed on the ATEP site; however, as noted in this letter, the District's Circulation Analysis is flawed and not acceptable to the City. There may still be a need for subsequent mitigation measures, including but not limited to pedestrian connections to sidewalks, additional public roads, bus stops as an example. In addition, it should be noted that certain improvements to the public right-of-way have not yet been approved and will require approvals by the City Engineer. Because additional mitigation may be required once an adequate Traffic Analysis has been prepared, satisfaction of mitigation measure has yet to be determined. 6. The initial study notes that the applicable mitigation measures from the FEIS/LIR will be implemented to reduce project impacts however these measures were "program" level mitigation measures that in most cases were not designed to address site specific impacts. For example, the initial study identities the preparation of a "concept plan" as mitigation for aesthetic impacts. The `_concept plan" was._identified.as_Mitigation_in_ the_FEiS EIR because.. the actual._ details of individual detizl_chment_.projects.._ were._ unknown....._.To._.ensure that _.future. _development. would comply with the overall aesthetic vision for Tustin Legacy the "concept plan" was identified. However, preparation of a "concept plan" does not adequately address site specific aesthetic impacts For example it is difficult to conceive of a project that contemplates extreme massing and bulking could be mitigated solely by preparation of a "concept plan." At this stage, the initial Should be identifying design and project level mitigation to reduce environmental effects. Moreover. to the extent that one or more these mitigation measures contemplate the preparation of future studies and analysis to reduce the impacts these measures are inappropriate and inadequate to address project level site specific analysis. Such measures are generally far more appropriate at the "program" to ensure that project leYel__analysis..in_cl_udes,detailed.environmental.assessments,to..fully_discloseand.m ig<�tei_mpacts.-1- 4 47. Table 1, page 5 and 6. The Initial Study must be modified to reflect comments on this table contained in the LRP Letter. 58. Page 8, see cover on this letter and comment # 1 below under Community Development. 69. General Comment- the District has provided no source documentation or references to information or agency sources for their analysis of each impact category that support the basis of their conclusions (See Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 [Court rejected an Formatted: Doc ID, Left 5 +41301.1 �' initial study where there was no indication of the source of the data that staff relied on in preparing the document). Many of the impact categories require consultation with responsible agencies which we do not believe has adequately occurred. 210. Project Characteristics, Page 13-14. See ATEP LRP Letter and modify the text to respond to issues identified therein and in this letter. 81 1. Phasing, Page 15-19. See ATEP LRP Letter regarding the City's concerns about the proposed phasing of the ATEP Long Range Plan and the Phase 2 site plan. Also, the Initial Study uses incorrect parking standards for its analysis that are inconsistent with the Specific Plan as noted in the LRP Letter. 912. Page 21. The Initial Study states that the Chapel will be relocated. This relocation is an impact that was not evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. This relocation could have a potentially significant aesthetic impact due to its unique architectural design and location. Accordingly, the Initial Study should analyze this new impact and identify feasible mitigation measure to ensure that the structure will be integrated with other ATEP and non-ATEP uses in the vicinity. 103. Page 25. The City has carefully reviewed the LRP and notes that the LRP is demonstrably different than the use that was identified for this site in the FEIS/EIR and analyzed in that document. Therefore, the Initial Study's conclusion that there is no change in the project from what was analyzed in the FEIR/EIS is incorrect and not based on substantial evidence in the record. The City points out extensively in the ATEP LRP Letter how the proposed LRP differs from the use that was actually analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. To the extent that the District does conclude that certain impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR (which still may need to be supplemented or amended by addendum), the District must adopt and implement any applicable mitigation measures that may have been identified in the FEIS/EIR to address that same impact. (14 Cal. Code Regs §15168 (c)(3)) Community Development Comments General Comment — The Department of Navy (DON) and City of Tustin approved the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin in 2001, a Supplement in December 2004, and an Addendum in 2006. The EIR portion of the document, as amended, was prepared as a Program EIR consistent with the requirements of CEQA (14 Cal Code Regs §15168). The FEIS/EIR was prepared to provide decision makers of responsible agencies (including the District) with information on the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the approved Reuse Plan which includes the reuse of the District's property for educational purposes. The Supplement to the FEIS/EIR was certified on December 6, 2004 and the Addendum to the FEIS/EIR was adopted on April 16, 2006. The District has prepared an Initial Study to evaluate whether and to what extent the ATEP's environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the FEIS/EIR. To the extent that certain LRP components were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, CEQA requires additional site specific environmental documents (e.g., a new site specific EIR, a Supplemental or Subsequent FEIS/EIS or an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR) (14 Cal. Code Regs §15168(c)(1)). Formatted: Doc ID, Left 6 2. General Comment — As noted above, the ATEP LRP Letter raised a substantial number of significant issues that require significant modifications to the LRP. Those changes will necessitate a significant modification to the Initial Study's project description and evaluation of environmental impacts. In light of these changes and to ensure that the City's comments are adequately considered and addressed, we urge the District to continue the August 25, 2008 Board Hearing on the matter. The City also requests that the District provide for adequate time for all responsible reviewing agencies, decision makers, and all other interested parties to review the required changes and their adequacy. 3. Section 1.4.11, Environmental Determination, Page 8 — The section states that the "a Common Sense exemption has been prepared for the project" because "all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration". This conclusion is an erroneous interpretation of CEQA. CEQA limits the use of a "Common Sense" exemption to projects "where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." (14 Cal. Code Reg §15061(c)(3) When a project is determined exempt under this section, "the activity is not subject to CEQA." In other words, once a project is deemed exempt, not initial study is required. The District has incorrectly used the existence of an earlier EIR that concluded that the Reuse and Disposal of the former MCAS Tustin project would cause significant impacts to the environment as its common sense argument that there would be no significant environmental impacts associated with the development of the District's property. Further, the Initial Study clearly argues against a common sense exemption since the Initial Study indicates the District's intent to implement a number of FEIS/EIR mandated mitigation measures to address environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. Rather, CEQA section 15162 and 15168 requires a responsible agency to evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the agency finds that no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being covered by the program EIR. However, the agency must incorporate mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. The environmental checklist should document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the proposed project were covered in the program FEIS/EIR. Where components of a proposed project are identified that were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the program EIR, additional environmental documents would be required (e.g., a new EIR, a Supplemental EIR, or an Addendum to the EIR). Once a lead agency has determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project, the lead agency shall consult with all responsible agencies (including but not limited to special districts (e.g. utility providers, etc.), state agencies (e.g. State Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Caltrans, etc.), local agencies (e.g. Orange County Flood Control Agency, school districts, the City of Tustin and neighboring cities, etc.) and other interested parties. Each agency/person notified should be provided a minimum of 30 days to review and comment upon the revised Initial Study. In addition, a copy of the Initial Study should be provided to the Formatted: Doc ID, Left Office of Planning and Research to ensure that all responsible state agencies are notified and afforded an opportunity to review and comment upon the Initial Study. Together, the ATEP LRP and Initial Study do not adequately describe or evaluate each of the project impact categories as they relate to the specific ATEP site. Once the LRP and the Initial Study are revised and completed properly, and following adequate review and comment by responsible or affected agencies, the District must determine whether the ATEP project may have a significant effect on the environment and whether the project requires additional environmental documents (e.g., a new EIR, a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR, or an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR). 4. Section 3.1, Aesthetics, Page 21_ The conclusion related to the impacts of future development upon two historic blimp hangars is not relevant since neither blimp hangar exists within the District's site. The section should be revised to indicate that aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project will be avoided through compliance with the FEIS/EIR which requires projects at Tustin Legacy to be consistent with the urban design plan described in the Specific Plan through project design review in coordination with the City of Tustin. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, Page 25 — The section incorrectly states that the Tustin Legacy Master Developer has obtained all necessary permits to disturb jurisdictional waters/wetlands at the former MCAS Tustin. The Tustin Legacy Master Developer has only obtained necessary permits to disturb jurisdictional waters/wetlands within their development footprint and is not responsible for undertaking such permits for the location of jurisdictional wetlands on other property at Tustin Legacy. Each project proponent at Tustin Legacy, including the District, must comply with state and federal waters/wetlands permitting requirements. Numerous drainage channels are located within the District's site, including channels identified within the approved FEIS/EIR that are clearly identified as jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (Figure 3.7-1) and that the City has previously informed the District about in writing. The discussion and description incorrectly referenced from the FEIS/EIR Addendum (Exhibit 4) was intended to describe only the Master Developer's refined project within the limits of the Master Developer site boundary not the District's property. The section should be revised to indicate the District's commitment to adhere to the mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/EIR requiring the project proponent, in this case the District, to obtain the necessary waters/wetlands permits. It should be noted that the narrative for mitigation measure Bio -1 accurately reflects the District's responsibilities in this regard. Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Page 31 — Section narrative indicates that "complete remediation of the plumes is anticipated by mid 2010" and that the Navy will "certify the LIFOC area has been cleaned and all prior contamination risks have been abated" prior to the release of the 30.7 -acre LIFOC portion of the ATEP campus and construction of permanent structures. Please revise to disclose that the Department of Navy's Draft Amended Site Management Plan for Fiscal Year 2009 indicates that the site is not scheduled for remediation measures to be approved as operationally safe and that the property may not be "cleaned" until the year 3038 or later. The section should also be expanded to describe how the District will address site contamination issues during the interim period prior to and following Navy issuance of a Finding of Suitability of Transfer (FOST) anticipated in 2010 for existing facilities and buildings. This includes addressing the need for measures to ensure that Navy monitoring wells Formatted: Doc ID, Left 8 and continuing remediation activities on the site after a FOST are not disturbed. It is our understanding that students and faculty are currently or will be using the site during the period before issuance of a FOST. The document also does not address the requirements under the current FOST that are institutional restrictions on buildings and improvements within areas already conveyed to the District. Specifically, the District must disclose and implement conditions and specific institutional controls contained in the LIFOC, FOST, any future Navy deed and Conveyance Agreement with the City as requested in ATEP LRP Letter. Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning, Page 38 and Section 3.15, Transportation, Page 49 — The ATEP LRP proposal is not logical, orderly, or adequate in regard to roadway circulation and parking. The long term site use and development and the focus of the entire document seems to be on private business and industry rather than an education mission and/or focus. The LRP must be compatible with the list of uses as identified in the Specific Plan and only such uses authorized by the Conveyance Agreement. The LRP and Initial Study must identify limitations or restrictions of the Specific Plan, adopted FEIS/EIR (as amended), and the Conveyance Agreement with the City of Tustin to guide future development within the LRP area. At present, the proposed building square footage does not appear to be consistent with the Specific Plan's assumptions for the District's property as discussed in the LRP Letter. Consequently, the LRP and Initial Study should clearly indicate the assumed vehicle trip generation compared to the assumptions described in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum (note: the ATEP site represents a proportional share of the total acreage, square footage and Average Daily Trips allocated to Planning Area 1). The District's Circulation Analysis is currently based upon a maximum development of 893,851 square feet and a trip budget of 5,470 ADT which appears to be incorrect. This issue should be further reviewed and agreed upon by the City of Tustin's Public Works Department. As previously indicated, the City of Tustin has provided separate correspondence to the District regarding issues and concerns related to the proposed project. Once these fundamental land use issues are addressed and resolved, Sections 3.9 and 3.15 must be revised and the Initial Study re -circulated for additional review and comment. Where components of a proposed project are identified that were not previously and specifically described and analyzed in the program EIR, additional environmental documents would be required (e.g., an Addendum to the EIR). Section 3.13, Public Services, Page 45 and Section 3.14, Recreation, Page 47 — As noted in the ATEP LRP Letter, the District is proposing no park or recreational services on the site to meet the needs of faculty, students or others. Instead, the Initial Study relies solely on planned public parks at Tustin Legacy to address the parks and recreation impacts of the project. Because the project involves land uses not previously contemplated within the FEIS/EIR and an overall intensification of the land uses at the site, the Initial Study must disclose and assess any potential project impacts based on the project's increased demand on police, fire, school, park and library services. The District must coordinate the City as the responsible agency providing municipal services to Tustin Legacy. Eneineerine and Public Works Comments 1. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning: In Figure 10, the Initial Study calculates development potential based on gross acreage figures for each PA, which excludes land devoted to arterial Formatted: Doc ID, Left roadways, and cites the Legacy Specific Plan Page 3-5 as a reference. Please see the ATEP LRP Letter for additional commentary related to this matter. The consultant's reference is not correct. The provision cited merely refers to an introductory description of the Land Use Plan and how gross acreages of general land uses shown on the Land Use Plan were initially determined. It is not provision that applies to the methodology used to determine and calculate development potential. The methodology and applicable Specific Plan provisions are noted in the LRP Letter. 2. Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning, Table 5 is incorrect and must be revised to accurately reflect square footages and trip budgets to evaluate the project's consistency with the Specific Plan. The footnotes for this table indicate that the data was derived from Specific Plan Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3- 3. However, Table 5 is not consistent with the aforementioned tables in the Specific Plan per the following comments: a. The Net Site Acreage is shown as 68.4 acres, the same as the gross area. The District is obligated to provide public access to the City's Child Care Facility and to provide a common roadway adjacent to the north side of the ATEP parking facility to the City's Community Park. These access areas (local roads) are not to be counted as part of the "net acreage". Therefore, the Net Site Acreage needs to be adjusted to accommodate for these requirements (see also the ATEP LRP Letter). The City has previously provided a spreadsheet to the District identifying the maximum authorized building square footages based upon the trip budget restrictions in Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. b. The total SF for Planning Areas 1-A & 1-E authorized to date is 14,676 SF as shown on the Building Plans. Please correct this figure. c. The SF Requested column for Planning Areas 1-A & 1-E will need to be adjusted based upon the above discussions and also the Total Trips Authorized column will need adjustment subject to approval as to the numbers by the City. d. For Planning Area 1-G, change the Total Trips Authorized from 1,480 to 6,220, per Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan. 3. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: A Circulation Analysis has been prepared by the District's traffic consultant to identify and evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed development. The District's Circulation Analysis concludes that the Long Range Plan trip generation was consistent with the non-residential based trip budget established for Neighborhood A and the Learning Village with no consultation with the City as the responsible agency on this conclusion. The District's Circulation Analysis is based upon a maximum development of 893,851 square feet and a trip budget of 5,470 ADT. Based upon the discussion in Item No. 2 above, this land use assumption is incorrect and is inconsistent with specific information previously provided to the District. Additionally, until the District identifies specific land uses on the site as identified in the ATEP LRP Letter, we cannot validate that the appropriate trip generation rate that should be applied to the ATEP site should be that of a Learning Center as identified in the FEIS/EIR. The applicable rate would relate to the type of uses on the site (e.g., privatized commercial uses and offices would use applicable commercial trip generation rates, as would a motion picture studio,etc). Formatted: Doc ID, Left 10 4. Section 3.15 Transportation/Traffic: The District's Circulation Analysis identifies and plans for numerous access locations to the District's property from Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. These access points were not previously planned nor previously accommodated with the City's Master Backbone Roadway Project that built Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue. Moreover, the FEIS/EIR did not evaluate the potential impact of these access points. The City retains approval authority over all access points to the public right-of-way. The District and its consultants have not consulted with the City on the proposed access points. No access locations can be automatically assumed by the District without the City Engineer's acceptance. Due to the characteristics of the arterial circulation system at Tustin Legacy, access restrictions have been pre -planned as part of the infrastructure development along Valencia Avenue, Armstrong Avenue, future Warner Avenue, and Red Hill Avenue. The District's Circulation Analysis has not evaluated the pre -planned access locations for this site. In consultation with the City Engineer, this specific additional analysis will need to be accomplished prior to proposing and evaluating alternative access locations, subject to the City Engineer's final approval of the analysis. 5. Traffic controls proposed for Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue to serve the project site may appear sufficient for the proposed project, but have not been evaluated for cumulative impacts to reflect other land uses adjacent to these arterials, and to the overall circulation of the Tustin Legacy Project. As an example, the restriction of left -turning movements at Valencia Avenue/Lansdowne Road are not sufficient to adequately serve the future public school and community uses planned on Lansdowne Road, or the other uses other than ATEP south of Lansdowne Road. Also, the City Engineer has determined that the left -turns out of the proposed Driveway E on Valencia Avenue will only serve to disrupt through traffic movements and deteriorate the traffic levels of service on this roadway. 6. The District's Circulation Analysis indicates that two additional traffic signals are needed; One on Valencia and one on Armstrong, both at project driveways. However, the District Circulation Analysis indicates that the District's proposed project does not necessitate the need for these signals, and therefore they are not recommended mitigation for the proposed project. These signals do not appear to be needed for the overall Tustin Legacy circulation system based upon previous traffic analysis performed in this area. Furthermore, these signals are not consistent with the most recent Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Study. 7. Figure 5 of the District's Circulation Analysis identifies the 2025 ADT Volumes on the roadway system surrounding the project site. However, the projected volumes on Armstrong Avenue are significantly different than those identified in the latest Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Analysis. It appears that the model may have miscalculated traffic volume in this area, which would significantly affect the entire access evaluation in the report and the additional traffic controls recommended in the report. 8. The Circulation Analysis is incomplete in that it does not address either bicycle or pedestrian circulation associated with this project. Figure 7 of the ATEP Long Range Land Use Plan identifies a pedestrian crossing at mid -block across Valencia Avenue which is a safety concern. The Long Range Facility Plan further identifies a pedestrian bridge which was not contemplated in the FEIS/EIR, as amended but no details are provided. The City will not approve a mid -block, at -grade pedestrian/bicycle crossing on Valencia Avenue, which is a 4 -lane secondary arterial. Additionally, Formatted: Doc ID, Left 59.1,301.A. 11 v the Long Range Facility Plan should not indicate a pedestrian bridge without additional information provided for approval by the City Engineer consistent with ATEP LRP Letter comments. 9. In summary, the District's Circulation Analysis is based upon incorrect land use and trip budget information, it assumes access locations, turn movements, and traffic controls that are not consistent with previous traffic analysis in the area of the SOCCCD site, the build -out roadway traffic volumes appear to be miscalculated, and the document fails to provide any adequate analysis of pedestrian or bicycle circulation. Formatted: Doc ID, Left 12