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