Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 PC REPORT LEGACY MEDICAL DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E ITEM #3 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MAY 11, 2020 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 2020-0001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2020-0002 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO-STORY 50,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL BUILDING WITHIN PORTIONS OF PLANNING AREA 1 OF NEIGHBORHOOD A OF THE TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREAS 1-K AND 1-H) APPLICANT: FRED ALAGHBAND ACS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. 4701 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: ANN-MARIE GABEL SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT 28000 MARGUERITE PARKWAY MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 CONSULTANT: GISELE WALTER ARCHITECTS OF ORANGE 144 NORTH ORANGE STREET ORANGE, CA 92866 LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AND VICTORY ROAD - PORTIONS OF PLANNING AREA 1 OF NEIGHBORHOOD A, TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN (SUBAREAS PA 1-K AND 1-H) EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT SITE GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN/SP 1 W OLeeAn'MewcAc Pi..zn rrr ■ ■ ta _ ,. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL: ON JANUARY 16, 2001, THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFIED THE PROGRAM FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIS/EIR) FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF MCAS TUSTIN. ON DECEMBER 6, 2004, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 04-76 APPROVING A SUPPLEMENT TO THE FEIS/EIR FOR THE EXTENSION OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD BETWEEN WALNUT AVENUE AND THE FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF VALENCIA NORTH LOOP ROAD. ON APRIL 3, 2006, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 06-43 APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE FEIS/EIR AND, ON MAY, 13, 2013, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 13-32 APPROVING A SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE FEIS/EIR. ON JULY 5, 2017, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 17-23 APPROVING A SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO THE FEIS/EIR. THE FEIS/EIR, ALONG WITH ITS ADDENDUMS AND SUPPLEMENT, IS A PROGRAM EIR UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE FEIS/EIR, ADDENDUMS AND SUPPLEMENT ARE CONSIDERED THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT ON THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS), TUSTIN. AN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT AND CONCLUDED THAT THESE ACTIONS DO NOT RESULT IN ANY NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF ANY PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IN THE FEIS/EIR. MOREOVER, NO NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE HAS SURFACED SINCE CERTIFICATION OF THE FEIS/EIR. REQUESTS: 1. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2020-0001 FOR THE DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 50,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL BUILDING WITH 270 PARKING SPACES. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 2020-0002 FOR JOINT-USE PARKING BETWEEN THE MEDICAL BUILDING AND THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PARK (ATEP). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4402, approving DR 2020-0001 for the design and site layout for the construction of a two-story, 50,000 square foot medical building with 270 parking facilities and CUP 2020-0002 for joint-use parking between the medical building and the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP). DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 3 APPROVAL AUTHORITY: • Design Review (DR): Section 4.2.2 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (TLSP) requires development within the Specific Plan area to submit and obtain approval of a Site Plan and DR. TCC Section 9272 authorizes the Community Development Director to consider the DR application; however, since the proposal includes other entitlement applications that require Planning Commission approval, DR 2020-0001 is forwarded to the Planning Commission for concurrent consideration. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Section 3.20.1 of the TLSP, parking facilities may be used jointly for non-residential uses with different peak hours of operation with the approval of a CUP by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Site Location The 3.47-acre project site is part of the ATEP campus within the TLSP which is currently under development by the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) in concert with Irvine Valley College and Saddleback College. ATEP will serve as a 61.4-acre satellite campus for both colleges offering various education, training and career opportunities in fields such as engineering, technology, and nursing. The project site is bounded by Red Hill Avenue to the west, Hope Drive to the north, Victory Road to the south with vacant land/Innovation Drive to the east. Surrounding uses include the Orange County Animal Care Facility and the Orange County Sheriff's Training Academy to the south and social service/educational uses which include the Orange County Rescue Mission,Women and Children's Shelter, and Heritage Elementary School to the north and vacant land to the east. (Figure 1). The subject parcel is within portions of Planning Area 1 (subareas 1-K and 1-H) of Neighborhood A of the TLSP (Figure 2). The project site is currently owned by the SOCCCD and the applicant, ACS Development Group, has signed a long-term ground lease with SOCCCD to develop the proposed project. The ownership of the site by the SOCCCD was a result of a conveyance following the execution of an Agreement between the United States of America and the City of Tustin (i.e. The "Navy Agreement") in 2002. Per the TLSP, the baseline mix of uses for sub planning areas 1-13, 1-D, 1- H, 1-K and 1-L is fifty-one (51) percent educational uses and forty-nine (49) non-educational uses; however, all uses must be related to the ATEP educational mission. Project Description The proposed project, called Legacy Medical Plaza, will be a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet with 270 parking spaces and other site improvements. It will be the first non- educational building within the ATEP campus. The TLSP allows uses that are related to ATEP and as per the ground lease with SOCCCD, there are provisions which ACS or any future tenant under the ground lease which stipulate that future building tenants or users of the Legacy Medical Plaza collaborate with the educational mission of SOCCCD at ATEP. Such mission is to have users which are engaged in and or supportive of activities which consist of allied health professions, or other businesses or operations which are complementary or closely related to curricula taught at SOCCCD's educational facilities. The proposed project and uses anticipated DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 4 follow the approved ground lease with SOCCCD and is consistent with the overall mission in that the medical building will provide for various opportunities for students within the ATEP campus. Project Site ti Y Figure 1 - Project Site Aerial ,;,m..... r — I ` l PA 20 PA 4-5 PA 7 r-•---- PA 15-A PA 1-A P A l-C P Project PA 21 1-E Site PA 1-D IPA 3 A l_H PA 6J PA 1-8 , a: —PA 15-6 —,- PA 21 PA 1-1 PA 1-L PA 15-C _. PA 1 F PA 1-G PA 8,13&14 PA 9-12 PA 16-19 PA 22 JL . -J Figure 2-Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Planning Area Map DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 5 The building will face west towards the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Victory Road and will be surrounded by on-site parking. Vehicular access to the site will be from Victory Road via two (2) private "spine" roads that will be constructed in conjunction with the project. One (1) "spine" road will be constructed off of Victory Road and a second "spine" road will be constructed from the existing roundabout at Innovation Street (Figure 3). si � II ATXWq s I I 1 � vACA+r 1 II� VACAM j O 31 y o> I VACANr THE VILLAGE OF HOPE l� � ORANGE CCUNTY RESCUE MISSION ° - 111LLL ,I 11—— l�Fl1.A1810E Figure 3— Overall Site Plan Hours of Operation The proposed project will include specific healthcare uses and disciplines that include urgent care, imaging center, outpatient surgery center, ophthalmology, dental offices, laboratories, etc. The hours of operation for the building will be Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. —5:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The number of employees and staff working at the building will be approximately 120 persons. Design Review Section 4.2.2 of the TLSP requires applicants for each development to submit and obtain approval of a Site Plan and DR pursuant to the TCC. DR 2020-0002 provides for the design and site layout of the proposed project. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 6 The proposed project has a contemporary approach to its design. The project consists of one (1), two-story building approximately thirty-three (33) feet in height with parking surrounding the building. There are two (2) pedestrian plazas; one (1) to the west and the other to the east of the building entry. Benches and tables with chairs will be placed within the plaza areas to complement the contemporary design. Protective pedestrian bollards and landscaping are also proposed within the plaza areas and surrounding the property adjacent to Red Hill Avenue, Hope Drive and Victory Road. Condition No. 4.3 of the Resolution has been added that requires that the ATEP and ACS portions of the property be landscaped prior to final inspection. Exterior design elements of the proposed building include the use of large areas of blue-grey spandrel glazing, cut stone on the building face with concrete tilt-up walls and horizontal aluminum storefront. Colors for the building include cooler grey tones, blue-grey and white (Figures 4 and 5). - a.P Figure 4—Front Elevation I! � _ _._. TI Figure 5—Rear Elevation With respect to the development criteria, the applicant proposes to comply with all of the development standards contained within the TLSP as summarized below: Required Proposed Building Setbacks Red Hill Avenue 40'-0" (min.) 91'-10" Victory Road 15'-0" (min.) 151'-10" Private Street 15'-0" (min.) 81'-8" Building Height 100-feet (max.) 33-feet Number of Floors 6 (max.) 2 Floor Area Ratio 0.38-0.59 0.33 DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 7 Conditional Use Permit for Joint Use Parking Section 3.20.1 (b) of the TLSP states that parking facilities may be used jointly for nonresidential uses with different peak hours of operation with the submittal of a parking study and subject to the approval of a CUP. A parking study prepared by a licensed traffic engineer is required to be submitted by the applicant demonstrating that no substantial conflict will exist during peak hours of the use. Planning Commssion approval is required for parking areas serving more than 30,000 square feet in building area. The applicant is proposing a total of 270 on-site parking spaces for the proposed project, which is less than the required TCC parking for medical-dental office buildings. Per TCC Section 9253, a parking rate of one (1) space per 250 square feet is applied to the first 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and six (6) spaces per 1,000 square feet is applied to the gross floor area in excess of 4,000 square feet within the building. Based upon the 50,000 square feet of the proposed building, a total of 292 parking spaces are required. Since the project is proposing to provide a total of 270 parking spaces, there is a code deficiency of twenty-two (22) parking spaces. The proposed project includes joint use parking between the medical building and the ATEP for educational purposes. Students attending the project site must park at the ATEP campus and this is specified in the ground lease which reads as follows: "Not less than once per academic term commencing with the academic term during which the first temporary certificate of occupancy date occurs, the landlord shall inform its students that are enrolled at ATEP that parking in the parking lot of the premises is prohibited, and that such students are required to park in the facilities designed for enrolled students at ATEP; provided however, that the tenant shall be solely responsible for such parking restrictions at its sole expense." Therefore, ATEP students engaging in provided educational opportunities by the proposed project will not be authorized to park onsite at the Legacy Medical Plaza. ATEP students shall only be allowed to park in ATEP designated parking lots and parking structures which are located within walking distance. In order to determine the parking rate for the proposed medical building, a parking analysis was completed by RK Engineering Group which surveyed three (3) comparable medical office buildings within Orange County. Based upon this information, a parking rate of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet was used to determine the projected parking demand for the proposed project which resulted in a peak projected parking demand of 248 parking spaces. With 270 parking spaces proposed, there are twenty-two (22) surplus parking spaces to accommodate peak parking demand. As a result, adequate parking exists on-site to support the use (Figure 6). If a parking problem should result, the applicant and/or landlord will be required to adopt measures to alleviate the problem, which is specified in Condition No. 5.4 of the attached Resolution. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 8 f +�• t '1 i „ as 00 I A I Figure 6—Site Plan Environmental Review On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program FEIS/EIR for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia north loop road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR and, on May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a Second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, along with its addendums and supplements, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, addendums and supplementals considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist (Attachment C) has been prepared and concluded that the proposed actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the DocuSign Envelope ID: F10B0647-9820-422C-954F-22196944F5FE Planning Commission Report May 11, 2020 Page 9 severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. CONCLUSION Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 to allow the construction of a two-story, 50,000 square foot medical building with joint- use parking. The project is consistent with the TLSP and would not have any significant impact to the overall development potential currently allowed within Planning Area 1 of Neighborhood A. 04/30/20 20 E(a.beA, A. 6,,Aj�c- 04/29/20 20 Erica H. Demkowicz, AICP Elizabeth A. Binsack Senior Planner Director of Community Development 3,x� OU kAw, 04/29/20 20 Justina Willkom Assistant Director— Planning Attachments: A. Location Map & Land Use Application Fact Sheet B. Submitted Plans C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4402 • Exhibit A: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan EIS/EIR Checklist • Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E 300 ft. 500 ft, and 1.000 ft Radius Map �b fY 4 �'v'Y T'g r. •�-9.i 300 ft ;3 500 ft 1,000 ft J 47 J l J I Park � hg 1 � ♦ � E ti nta r'i � �♦♦ E 17w Y� a� �•arr r e,,F 1. Location Map NE Corner of Red Hill Avenue and Victory Road Project # CUP 2020-0002/DR 2020-0001 DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): DR 2020-0001/CUP 2020-0002 2. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE &VICTORY ROAD 3. LOT: _ BLOCK:_ TRACT: _ 4. APN(S): 480-283-29 4. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: NONE 5. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: INDUSTRIAL OFFICE SOUTH: VACANT EAST: COMMERCIAL WEST: INDUSTRIAL OFFICE 6. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1)— PA 1-H AND PA 1-K SOUTH: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1)- PA 1-H AND PA 1-K EAST: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-1) - PA 1-H AND PA 1-K WEST: PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS (PC IND/BUS) 7. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN SOUTH: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN EAST: TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN WEST: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL BUS. 8. SITE LAND USE: EXISTING PROPOSED USE: VACANT LAND - UNIMPROVED NEW MEDICAL BLDG. ZONING: SP-1 NO CHANGE GENERAL TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN NO CHANGE PLAN: DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 9. LOT AREA: 151,327 S.F. or 3.47 ACRES 10. BUILDING F.A.R.: 0.38-0.59 MAX. PERMITTED 0.33 PROPOSED 11. SITE LANDSCAPING: N/A REQUIRED N/A PROPOSED 12. OPEN SPACE: N/A REQUIRED N/A PROPOSED 13. PARKING: TLSP 292 SPACES 270 SPACES PROVIDED REQUIRED 14. BUILDING HEIGHT: 100 FEET MAX. PERMITTED 33 FEET PROPOSED 15. BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED(MIN.) PROPOSED RED HILL AVENUE (FRONT): 40 FEET 91'-10" VICTORY (SIDE): 15 FEET 81'-8" HOPE ST. (SIDE): 15 FEET 76'-5" REAR N/A 77'-1" DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E ATTACHMENT B SUBMITTED PLANS " _ I k �t I"It� _eM,r•ti .,f. W d It 1 r^ a , r will"... .� •�"� � V 1 }r " \ ��/ c •.� �- s. 1 Itr 1k ' „1 ,�I' ...�..: >•.: ,.. ,wn�il�Yvf�Y�i'1,��11.. w..ax.I ra�Ull w,:� .. �� LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA y, NNM M ::. SON IS i r Y � v ' ^ � r t r a . T .. , .,,rr .w. a w,�'r rrwa .'tm•. ,. a ". �\w ,4 "' d.. ,.".i n ,..q , =d.•e,.„ �, ,. „G�I.:m,� .. „ �:iT:.-' xa.. r. 1 a w a r , M. %uwx' �� i .:. '� ,. � i... '� 'a.. ,: '. ,. G �� .�,^i�'+,� �'h�` �i�.1. �, _ �� .. • ,1 r„<. y p,,�.u.:a, :r�t� ,�+",,. ......_ X r y I • q r , .�I• R! ., ,tt x :��/�, �, - � d v' A :�, ro r' i•. �'1. �"rte �u , ,,.. :w., „ 'a`.'”: tI / , �. , ',+rt:, ..c. ' . a . s , r ^ a , a , f R C R C -ww v• a' SHEETINDEX CS RENDERING / INDEX F-MP FIRE MASTER PLAN A-SP SITE PLAN E1.1 SITE LIGHTING PLAN A-FP FLOOR PLANS 1-1.1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN A-RP ROOF PLAN / LINE OF SITE STUDY L2.1 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENT A-EL1 ELEVATIONS - FRONT & REAR L3.1 COLOR CODED PLANTING PLAN A-EL2 ELEVATIONS - SIDES L4.1 PLANT MATERIAL IMAGERY A-EL1 COLOR ELEVATIONS - FRONT & REAR C-1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN A-EL2 COLOR ELEVATIONS - SIDES C-2 PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN M-1 COLORS AND MATERIALS PARKING STUDY (SEPARATE FILE) W-1 WAYFINDING PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY (SEPARATE FILE) PRELIMINARY WQMP (SEPARATE FILE) Architecture. Design. ■� COVE C S R S H E ET GAY DIAL Job No. 2-017-256 Relationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 03.11.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 �� SITE PLAN NOTES LINE LEGEND: \ 1. 6' HIGH TRASH ENCLOSURE PER TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN REGULATIONS \ 1g I I I I AND FACILITY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING PLAN, CENTERLINE OF STREET TO BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING RIGHT OF WAY I I 2. POTENTIAL EMERGENCY GENERATOR ENCLOSURE (6' HIGH) DRY UTILITIES, O� EASEMENT - - -O" 21 I SCE & GAS TO BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING 45 3. ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER LOCATION -TO BE SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPING PROPERTY LINE 4. ARROW INDICATES BUILDING ENTRANCE o iP¢ c 5. DASHED LINE INDICATES CAR OVERHANG CAR OVERHANG 6. 6" CONCRETE CURB - TYP. 3 7. LANDSCAPE AREAS - SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN \ ��-` VISUAL CLEARANCE ----------------- � m o A_ I � I �, - 8. SIDEWALK/ ENTRY PLAZA/ PATIO HARDSCAPE AREAS - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS � � I I - _ oaW'eRtl t o o I I SITE 9. PROPERTY LINES VAMNs71 - b' 10. MONUMENT SIGN - LOCATION TO COMPLY WITH TUSTIN CITY CODE VISUAL VACANT CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS 11. STRIPED LOADING SPACE (9' x 17') / / 16 i I I VIP I I I N 12. STRIPED ACCESS AISLE ACROSS DRIVE AISLES 5 ./ / \ I I VICINITY MAP 13. PARKING STALL STRIPING PER CITY STANDARDS ,Y%// Q \ \ I w, 7 \ \, 16 �- 9 \ I / \ VACA err 14. EXISTING STREET LIGHTS �- / / / 8 �o� \ 15. PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS - FINISH TO MATCH PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS IN ADJACENT DEVELOPED SITE IN ATEP 9 / �- \ \ I LEGAL DESCRIPTION / " / 16. PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE ATEP LEASE PARCEL 6 � / � 5 \ I ! I (POR. APN 430-283-21&23) 17. VACANT PARCEL - LANDSCAPE PROVIDED BY ATEP TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY / / ' �O" / / / ' -�,� I // / \\ I I I THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF COMPLETE PRIOR TO BUILDING FINAL CERTIFICATION 6 / ' / \ \ - I GRANAS DESCRIBED IN L OTRLIINE ADJ,USTMEENTINO. 03-01 RECORDED APRIL 15, 2003 18. LIGHTED BOLLARDS - FINISH TO MATCH PARKING LOT POLE LIGHTS - ' / ' ' / / ' - �� \ \\ I I I -� VACANT \ AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2003000418455 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE �'�\ IVAfiE M I COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE E1.1 FIXTURE TYPE 'C' / - I / COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE 19. EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY/ BACK OF EXISTING SIDEWALK -� / / / \\ \ \ 5 / I DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH 49022'21" EAST, 131.81 FEET" IN THE GENERAL NORTHERLY / / " / / -'�/ \ TYP. I I n / / / j/ \ \` I I I LINE OF AVENUE SAID PARCEL I-E-1.1 BEING ALSO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF REDHILL 20. EXISTING EASEMENT 21. PROPOSED EASEMENT / / ' 1 ' / , �\ 11 ,-01, s�j / � / \ THENCE ALONG SAID GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL I-E-1.1 SOUTH 49022'21" /-� I / i- - , \\ I EAST,10.00 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE 6 ' \ ,� , VACANT I I / � ;/ \� I GENERAL NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I-E-1.1 AND PARCEL I-E-2.1 AND Cy �" ; 10 , �11 I I /� / /'- ` \\\` I BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING / � \ VACANT I 2 1 - / ' THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 40037'39"WEST,418.61 FEET TO A LINE -�/ / / �/ ` „ ,'O„ \� 'O / /A • \ \ I I I PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH 03017'29" EAST 37.48 FEET" IN THE GENERAL NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF VICTORY ROAD IN THAT OFFER OF DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECORDED 17 FEBRUARY 28, 2017 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2017000082670 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER; / 5 ` � � � � THENCE ALONG SAID LAST PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 0301729" EAST, 41.46 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE ' \J V ® , ` - \ 151''10" \ \ T VILLAGE 0 F HOPE / ` \\ ' �` I DESCRIBED AS "SOUTH 49022'21" EAST, 196.34 FEET" IN THE GENERAL \\ G � �/- i \ A \� � I � \ � � NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID VICTORY ROAD; ® \ v OR OUNTY v THENCE ALONG SAID LAST PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 49022'21"EAST,100.64 FEET; 3 PROPOSED 2 STORY 3 \\ I RESCUE. ISSION 1 ° /- ° /� I I THENCE SOUTH 65056'23"EAST,340.25 FEET; 4 j n 1 MEDICAL OFFICE F I C E BUILDING \ I _ + I I THENCE NORTH 12033'33"EAST,439.31 FEET TO THE GENERAL SOUTHERLY LINE OF \ _ _ �- I � _ - _ _ - / / - - - � � I THAT CERTAIN 35.00 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANT OF EASEMENT J \ ® ® \ \ Q - y ' i TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECORDED JANUARY 25, 2006 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 50,000 SF v" �" I 2006000056575 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, 5 `� 9 I THENCE ALONG SAID GENERAL SOUTHERLY LINE THROUGH THE FOLLOWING TYP. 7 \ ' ® ` - - J \ COURSES. \ 4 " \ 0 \ _• •• •• •• 1)NORTH 86°54'41"WEST,36.27 FEET; ` \ \ cc 2)NORTH 80023'59"WEST,78.57 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, O 6 ,, ` 15 I RW�AVEC CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60.00 FEET; �� \ 3)THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE,32.49 FEET,THROUGH A - CENTRAL ANGLE OF 31 001'38" \\ Q \ 4)NORTH 49°22'21"WEST,98.81 FEET; ansa nxamn � \ THENCE LEAVING SAID GENERAL SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 4003739"EAST,35.00 FEET 8 TO SAID GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL I-E-1.1; THENCE ALONG SAID GENERAL NORTHERLY LINE NORTH 49022'21"WEST,23.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. \ \ CONTAINING:3.474 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. \ . / \ AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART 9 ` \ OVERALL SITE PLAN 100' HEREOF. � 8 15 I 010' 30' 50' 100' 150' 200' N DATED THIS 6th DAY OFJUNE 2018. I I � I 1 1 2 -1 �,L / I T 1 ® 'o 1 5 10 1 - I j - �- 20 '- - 241-011 1,171-0111 I 115, - 24'-011 1 13 . D 1 ' 88 1 i o'- " 1 I 76'-5" \ - -� 1 1 '______ _-__ __ _ -------- o / / ' ' 1 SUMMARY PROJECT DATA / DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: I \ I OWNER & DEVELOPER. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION.. 20 ' 6 0 6 4 1 151-011 1 II-A, SPRINKLERED m24'-011 - 30'-0" 46'-011 46'-O° I ACS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. or 0 11 11 4701 VON KARMEN AVE. SUITE 100 BUILDING USE: * 0 12 TYP. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 MEDICAL OFFICE 11 0" TYP. ,TYP. ,- 11 I (949) 263-1920 9 , CN 10 CN6 9 9 FRED ALAGHBAND BUILDING HEIGHT (2 STORIES): (6 STORIES MAX. ALLOWED) _= 9 0 9 C:) 11 11 33'-0" (100' MAX. ALLOWED) ti ARCHITECT: - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ O� AO PARKING PROVIDED (9' X 19'): 9 - - - - ° 144 NORTH ORANGE ST. 258 STANDARD STALLS (INCLUDES 3 DROP OFF) ti = o ti o 0- N O- / 1 -- -- - -- -- -- -- -_' - -- -- -- - -- -- -- --� ORANGE,CA 92866 12 ACCESSIBLE STALLS C%4 N ~ O N o (714) 639-9860 270 TOTAL PARKING STALLS GISELE WALTER (5.4 STALLS /1,000 S.F.) 9 19 1 ZONING DESIGNATION: PARKING REQUIRED (9' X 19'): O RED HILL AVENUE 14 19 9 17 TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT 1-H & 1-K 4 STALLS/1000 SF (1ST 4000 SF) = 16 N o 6 STALLS/1000 S F (REMAINING SF) = 276 °O tiTOTAL STALLS REQUIRED 292 SITE AREA: SECTION 1 +/- 3.474 ACRES (151,327.44 S.F.) A-RP BUILDING S.F. 1ST FLOOR 24,900 S.F. 2ND FLOOR 25,100 S.F. C TOTAL 50,000 S.F. - FLOOR AREA RATIO: C:) N C:) 0.33 PROVIDED 0.38 -0.59 MAX ALLOWED 30' 0 5' 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' ■ Architecture. AmSP Design. ■■ SITE PLAN GAYEDICALPLAZA Job No. 2017-256 Relationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC.. Date: 04.09.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 �� FLOOR PLAN NOTES 1. LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 2. LINE ENTRY CANOPY ABOVE 3. LINE OF BUILDING CORNICE ABOVE 4. STRUCTURAL COLUMNS 5. CONCRETE TILT-UP PANELS SHOWN SHADED 6. STEEL STUD WALLS 7. GLAZING IN ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT 8. AUTOMATIC ENTRY DOORS 9. LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE / OPEN TO ABOVE 10. GURNEY SIZE ELEVATOR 11. STORAGE UNDER STAIRS 12. ENTRY CANOPY BELOW UP , DN ` F E , ISE ELEC./ , TELEPHONE SUITE 200 ;' S SUITE 100 POTENTIAL //� /' 15,360 S.F. POTENTIAL ,// /i 15,100 S.F. CORRIDOR \ ///� % i CORRIDOR LEV. QUIP. 10 4 , JANITOR ' 01 i 3 � MAIL i OPEN TO i LOW i BELOW i PLANTER i N LOBBY �;� LOBBY � , , < < UP / OPEN TO i < \ / i 8 _ BELOW i i POTENTIAL I IIi POTENTIAL CORRIDOR \ I II CORRIDOR SKYLIGHT OVER STAIR I II II I I I II II 6' I I II I I ILII� II II i i II II II II SUITE 250 II II SUITE 150 II II 9,740 S.F. II II 9,800 S.F. II II II II � 6 II i i � II i II i i II 37'-3" II 6'-6" II 44'-9" ' 35'-9" II 6'-6" II 42'-3" I II II I � II II I I I II I II 7 II i II 11 II i i �I II i i II ROOF DN UP ACCESS ------------------ ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- - --- - - --------- - --------------------- - ------------------ 5 ----------------- 5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN (25,100 S.F.) (24,900 S.F.) N 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 24' 32' Architecture. AmFP ■■ FLOOR PLANS GACY I I LA . Design. Job No. 2017-256 Relationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 12.31.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 O� O� ll� 3 TYP. po.0 . o O� _ 4 TYP. / / / / r / / m si-" , �Oo TYP. / r O \�/ yy / I / / I F I I / / I / I / r I I I I I I QOQ I Op. I � I � \N S I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I ROOF NOTES F 1. BUILDING PARAPET CAP I 2. ENTRY CANOPY BELOW 3. SOLAR ZONE -AREA FOR FUTURE POTENTIAL SOLAR 4. ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ZONE I I 5. ROOF ACCESS HATCH 6. ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW DRAIN I I � I L _ J 5 O %6' O o 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 24' 32' 6 TYP. ROOF PLAN 4 3 4 N TYP. TYP. TYP. i zo -– - — — — o rn WC, Q — — ch - — J OO OO — - - - O O co F.F.+71.00' EL.+69.1' NL LINE OF SITE STUDY Architecture. AmRP ■� Design. ROOF PLAN / LINE OF SITE STUDYEGACYEDICAL I�A Job No. 2017-256 Relationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 12.18.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 ii OBLIQUE OBLIQUE OBLIQUE OBLIQUE 2 B 6 E E1 *A 1 A 6 E 3 C 6 E 1 A I 6 E 8 C 3 C 2 B 1 A 6 E 1 A I PARAPET LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA 33' - 0" No, =. Ld 1, � � I I I I � � � 02 - Floor T-t I F7 I I I - - - - - - 15' - 0" 01 - Entry Level I I 0' - 0" I I FRONT ELEVATION OBLIQUE OBLIQUE 6 E 2 B 1 A 9 F 10 F 10 G 6 E 6 E 1 A 2 B 3 C 6 E 7 0 F] 0 o- o PARAPET 33' - 0" No, T 02 - Floor FGACY M DICAL Pi. ZA 151 - 011 01 - Entry Level • • 0' - 0" I I REAR ELEVATION NOTES <CX--> COLORS / MATERIALS 1. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING A. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING - VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 2. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING B. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING - VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 3. CUT STONE FACING - RUNNING BOND PATTERN C. CUT STONE FACING - CORONADO STONE MASONRY VENEER, PLAYA VISTA "SILVER ASH" 4. CLEAR ALUMINUM HORIZONTAL STOREFRONT D. CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT -ARCADIA 5. BUTT GLAZED VERICAL STOREFRONT E. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCOBOND FACING - ALUCOBOND "CHAMPAGNE METALLIC PVDF3" 6. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCABOND FACING WITH JOINTS AS SHOWN F. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL/ HORIZONTAL PLASTER TRIM PAINT COLOR - 7. CONCRETE PANEL JOINTS AND REVEALS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7024 "FUNCTIONAL GRAY" 8. CUT STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM G. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PAINT COLOR - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7022 "ALPACA" 9. PAINTED PLASTERED HORIZONTAL TRIM 10. PAINTED CONCRETE TILTUP WALL Y32 0 1'2' 4' 8' 16' 21'-4" Architecture. Design. ■ AmEL1 ELEVATIONSEGACYMEDICAL171L A � � Job No. 2017-256 Relationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC40 Date: 12.31.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 3 C 2 B 3 C 6 E 1 A PARAPET 33' - 0" 02 - Floor 15' - 0" 01 - Entry Level 0' - 0" END ELEVATION 3 C 2 B 3 C 6 E 1 A PARAPET 33' - 0" 02 - Floor 15' - 0" 01 - Entry Level 0' - 0" END ELEVATION NOTES <CX--> COLORS / MATERIALS 1. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING A. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING - VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 2. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING B. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING - VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 3. CUT STONE FACING - RUNNING BOND PATTERN C. CUT STONE FACING - CORONADO STONE MASONRY VENEER, PLAYA VISTA "SILVER ASH" 4. CLEAR ALUMINUM HORIZONTAL STOREFRONT D. CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT -ARCADIA 5. BUTT GLAZED VERICAL STOREFRONT E. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCOBOND FACING - ALUCOBOND "CHAMPAGNE METALLIC PVDF3" 6. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCABOND FACING WITH JOINTS AS SHOWN F. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL/ HORIZONTAL PLASTER TRIM PAINT COLOR - 7. CONCRETE PANEL JOINTS AND REVEALS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7024 "FUNCTIONAL GRAY" 8. CUT STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM G. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PAINT COLOR - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7022 "ALPACA" 9. PAINTED PLASTERED HORIZONTAL TRIM 10. PAINTED CONCRETE TILTUP WALL Y32 0 1'2' 4' 8' 16' 21'4" Architecture. AmEL2 ■ Design. Job No. 2017-256ELEVATIONSEGACYMEDICALT)PIL!zRelationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. 4!D Date: 12.31.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 of 0 OBLIQUE OBLIQUE OBLIQUE OBLIQUE 2 B 6 E 1 A 1 A 6 E 3 C 6 E 1 A I 8 C 3 C 2 B 1 A 6 E 1 A j_[EEO PARAPET LEGACY TVIEDICAL PLAZA 331 - 011 v 02 - Floor 71 1WINi 15' - 011 a 77717777� qj 19 11.11.11.11116 Orr 01 - Entry Level I I FRONT ELEVATION OBLIQUE OBLIQUE 6 E 2 B 1 A 9 F 10 F 10 G 6 E 6 E 1 A 2 B 3 C 6 E 7 0 0 F] PARAPET 33' - 0" 7 _7 02 - Floor I F EGACY M DICr1L pL. ZA 15' - 0" 01 - Entry Level 01 - 011 I I REAR ELEVATION NOTES O > COLORS / MATERIALS 1. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING A. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING -VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 2. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING B. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING -VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 3. CUT STONE FACING - RUNNING BOND PATTERN C. CUT STONE FACING - CORONADO STONE MASONRY VENEER, PLAYA VISTA "SILVER ASH" 4. CLEAR ALUMINUM HORIZONTAL STOREFRONT D. CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT -ARCADIA 5. BUTT GLAZED VERICAL STOREFRONT E. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCOBOND FACING -ALUCOBOND "CHAMPAGNE METALLIC PVDF3" 6. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCABOND FACING WITH JOINTS AS SHOWN F. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL / HORIZONTAL PLASTER TRIM PAINT COLOR - 7. CONCRETE PANEL JOINTS AND REVEALS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7024 "FUNCTIONAL GRAY" 8. CUT STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM G. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PAINT COLOR - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7022 "ALPACA" 9. PAINTED PLASTERED HORIZONTAL TRIM 10. PAINTED CONCRETE TILTUP WALL Y32" 0 1'2' 4' 8' 16' 21'4' Architecture. AmEL1 ■■ ELEVATIONS EGACY L LAZA Design. Relationships. Job No. 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC.., AlkD Date: 12.31.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 3 C 2 B 3 C 6 E 1 A PARAPET 33' - 0" 02 - Floor 15' - 0" 7 I � I \7 L I 01 - Entry Level END ELEVATION 3 C 2 B 3 C 6 E 1 A PARAPET 33' - 0" 02 - Floor 15' - 0" 01 - Entry Level END ELEVATION.............. NOTES O > COLORS / MATERIALS 1. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING A. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING -VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 2. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING B. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING -VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" 3. CUT STONE FACING - RUNNING BOND PATTERN C. CUT STONE FACING - CORONADO STONE MASONRY VENEER, PLAYA VISTA "SILVER ASH" 4. CLEAR ALUMINUM HORIZONTAL STOREFRONT D. CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT -ARCADIA 5. BUTT GLAZED VERICAL STOREFRONT E. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCOBOND FACING -ALUCOBOND "CHAMPAGNE METALLIC PVDF3" 6. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCABOND FACING WITH JOINTS AS SHOWN F. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL / HORIZONTAL PLASTER TRIM PAINT COLOR - 7. CONCRETE PANEL JOINTS AND REVEALS SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7024 "FUNCTIONAL GRAY" 8. CUT STONE HORIZONTAL TRIM G. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PAINT COLOR - SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7022 "ALPACA" 9. PAINTED PLASTERED HORIZONTAL TRIM 10. PAINTED CONCRETE TILTUP WALL Y32" 0 1'2' 4' 8' 16' 21'-4" Architecture. AmEL2 ■ ELEVATIONS LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA Design. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Relationships. Job No. 2017-256 na Date: 12.31.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 :,,.. w v ro , ,v ... Ar 4� „• As Ail j j F y,•i « a k .„,+w, "'y�... map .. '� « 'M ,o b. a e � w .m , I l5 a.x a * Y " F M « m ry Y � - - m � ,V « , Y , „ 0 frq x . 4 �, ,. ,w . .. •, kap,.,."�, u � " v r.�w. a� SOL4,R AN R1 UD (2) SQL4R8XUF°+ Clear Glass Insulating Glass Unit s-27 tarts SALAABANO 8100 42l SpLARBLUE1+Clear Glass insulating Glass Unit s-27 lets Exterior Interior U-Value Imperial Exterior Interior U-Value Imperial ' ^{pp f Reflect- Reflect- (Winter) Jlli Reflect- Reflect- � ntery . a � VLT ance ance Air Argon SHGC LSG a ° ° ° 9 ' °."., :",4, + 261a 15/° 13 l° 0.29 0.25 0.19 1.37 i VLT ance ance Air Argon SHGC LSG 26°Io 15°lu 13°la 01.29 0.25 0.19 1.37 �s A B --------- ------ D E F COLORS l MATERIALS A. BLUE GREY VISION PERFORMANCE GLAZING -VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" D. CLEAR ALUMINUM STOREFRONT-ARCADIA B. BLUE GREY SPANDREL GLAZING - VITRO SOLARBAN R100 (2) "SOLARBLUE" E. CLEAR ALUMINUM ALUCOBOND FACING -ALUCOBOND "CHAMPAGNE METALLIC PVDF-3" C. CUT STONE FACING - CORONADO STONE MASONRY VENEER, PLAYA VISTA "SILVER ASH" F. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL 1 HORIZONTAL PLASTER TRIM PAINT COLOR- SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7024 "FUNCTIONAL GRAY" G. TILT-UP CONCRETE WALL PAINT COLOR- SHERWIN WILLIAMS SW 7022 "ALPACA" ■ Architecture. MEACS M � i COLORS ANS MATERIALS 0]:EG:AC� EIL�A� LA �� ADDesign. � Relationships. Job Na. 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC w Date: 12.18.19 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 6-7" u M Removeable/replaceable Top View 12'-111/2" blank panel faces for 5Scale: N.T.S. Tenant names 6'-7" 5'-8" a Panelized sections 3" This elevation to 10'-6face the street " 3 LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA ii 1'-6" 101, MAIN ENTRANCE <-- MAIN ENTRANCE 2 3 11"x 11"weatherproof access 6'-4" il _ AND DROP OFF - panel for LED components AND DROP OFF 4 Top View a w/tam per-proof flush Scale: N.T.S. mechanical fasteners Fabricated to determine frequency of locations 12'-111/2 1'-6" 5-8" SIDE A SIDE B 3-8" Front View Side View Side View Front View (opposite sign face) t I Scale: N.T.S. 2Scale: N.T.S. 3Scale: N.T.S. 4Scale: N.T.S. This edge to 7-31/2" face the street 6-7" 3". LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA Panelized sectinons 1'-21/4" Removeable/replaceable _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Removeable/replaceable Top View blank panel faces for Tenant names blank panel faces for 5Scale: N.T.S. Tenant names 6-7' 1._3.. 11'-0" 9'-0" Panelized sections 3" This elevation to 2 3 11"x 11"weatherproof access ;, face the street panel for LED components w/tamper-proof flush mechanical fasteners ;, LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA LEGACY MEDICAL PLAZA L - - - - - - - - - - - J L - - - - - - - - - - - J Fabricated to determine 101, A6, frequency frequency of locations 2 3 11"x 11"weatherproof access 6-4" - panel for LED components - - - - - - - - J w/tam per-proof flush L - - - - - - - - - - �� Structural footing - - - - - - - g ` - mechanical fasteners Two-sided fabricated sign cabinet Fabricated to determine frequency of locations 1 Front View SI DE A B Side View Side ViewLl Scale: N.T.S. 2 Scale: N.T.S. 3Scale: N.T.S. � Lighting gradient illustration note: SIDE A _______ SIDE B The illustration of the lighting color gradient is meant to reflect the color changing qualities of the internal LED and color changing controls. 1 Front View Side View Side View Front View (opposite sign face) he controls will be adjusted to provide a slow RGB shift in color. The illustration shows the intent but may not reflect the actual final color change as shown. I Scale: N.T.S. 2Scale: N.T.S. 3Scale: N.T.S. 4Scale: N.T.S. B2 I I lij I ♦♦♦ I ♦ I I / �P L:::::NNO ell I® / I � I I - --------:.� 71 _ \ ♦ ♦ I ♦ i—�• I / / '�' •� . . PRIVATE STREET \\B2 / ♦♦♦ ♦� ���� :.. �A ♦♦ I I rs, a� rrrr am i 40 a o \ tas u� TTTMT RED HILLAVENUE A �I NEI Architecture. Wmi ■■ EGACY ��� � � Relationships. Design. Job No. 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. WAYFINDINGReIati n hiPs. Date: 03.11.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 \ \ I \ \ ----------- M M I E / VACANT /' �00,0000 W 00,100, 10010#10#1 100, 0#1 / FIRE D.D.C.V. 100, 100, 100, i $100, 100, FIRE '' i� HYDRANT 0#1 i� i / 0 i 10 i \ \ � / /� j 0#1 001 �� FIRE I / i 100, ' "`�� `;�� 5 \\ \ HYDRANT ��' 5 1 "J � Q \ 7 6 000, .p \ \ \V I 3 I / k" I 4 \ 1 . - r 1 I \ \ 1815 o �/ I I r r 0 ElI I 5 _ / I w / II II i , I ............ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — X12 � �-- —T--s — / � FIRE HYDRANT I — -- — 9 — — — — — 9 — X11 Fj II a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a , I Pin H11 I A VRVIJE DASHED LINE INDICATES 20' WIDE FIRE ACCESS: 20' INSIDE TURNING RADIUS, MIN. 40' OUTSIDE TURNING RADIUS, MIN. N 30' 0 5' 10' 20' 30' 45' 60' PLAZA Architecture. FmMP FIRE MASTER PLAN �■ EGACYMEDICAL Design. . Relationships. DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 v ` P � ' \ � \ � B I lighting fixture schedule VACANT lamp manufacturer loo, rated lig hting fixture description �/ I type fixture manufacturer watts input voltage lamp model# loo, /lamp watts � LSI INCLUDED WITH UNIT SINGLE HEAD AREA LED LUMINAIRE WITH FO RWARD THROW loo,loo, t'7k I ( A J #SLM-LED-18L-SIL-FT-UNV-DIM- 149 149 480 OPTICS MOUNTED ON 22'-6" SQUARE STEEL POLE AND 30" ` /�i/ i I �� 40K-70CR1-BRZ LED HIGH ROUND CONCRETE BASE.\ I POLE#5SQB5-S1 1 G-22.5-S-BRZ-GA � LSI #SLM-LED-18L-SIL-3-UNV-DIM- INCLUDED WITH UNIT SINGLE HEAD AREA LED LUMINAIRE WITH TYPE III OPTICS 40K-70CR1-IL-BRZ 149 149 480 LED ROUND CONRETEMOUNTED ON ' BASE." SQUARE STEEL POLE AND 30"HIGH \ B i POLE#5SQB5-S1 1 G-22.5-S-BRZ-GA HESS AMERICA INCLUDED WITH UNIT ARCHITECTURAL LED 43" HIGH BOLLARD. #REN01400-LED-NW-UNV-43RB-43 24 24 277 i I -??-DIM LED \ 7 * EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE FINISHES SHALL MATCH ADJACENT DEVELOPED SITE IN THE ATEP. i U \9a t7 / \ I a7 *a� t.o I / \ U ta\ t9 B \ U U 17 I k \ 16 -I \ 1e 17 U U U 9.t U to 16 1� 10 t'b19 1s \ to is t6 4s t'9 U �,o t7 I \ 10 U-19 U %a its '19 U t'A U 161 to U 40 4s / to -4 PET/ 1A 1s7 40 U,1�7 15 12 t6 (TYP.-U.O.N.) A / / U iso t37 U UVS U U 9 tib 13 13 U Is \ 1 •�, ML / tr as t:4 U tea' 15 is.. 13 12 to 1A 13 %A isb � 1 I gt �S U '3.7 Ut37 �.S t!d t9 to t6 t2 tt 9 13 12 ,& tdt 7 / ./ t3 t4 1E 1.3 IbA / t!.7 t!.3 W L9/ to to t!.7 U t6 U 1A 15 12 7 U 40 U t:2 4'_�11 U U U t!.4 Tro / t9 40 12 1.3 I / tt4 t37 U A7 U t37 U t7 t3 t9 U U t!.9 7 VACANT 1 2 t!.o t:6 t!.4 te 2 ' t:6 t:6 t to U '3.o t!.7 \ / U X4 t4 U U U t!.6 t!.4 to to /t1 t0O t6 U t!.7 1.4 tL4 U tL3 tL3 to tb tt .. 7 U do t!.7 \ 1 i / ® U tib tit t7l 30 *A-2 t.3 t4 to t!.9 t!.7 t!.9 I A B /G ' ` • 11t'.2 7 t37 t37 t!.0 b U U t!.9 W 1 S�cSa t9 b t2 U t37 U U t t2 / t3 12 '3.3 '3.o t!.9 7 Q I t9 ti4 tib tib t t7 T.4 U / / U '3.9 42 '3.6 tb t'.0 tR3 U t37 to t7 X4.3 t4 ® �9 4.3 9.0 9.6 '4.t U 4E 7 / to tR7 tR7 U 12 \ 42 t4 ®t 4.t U t7 U U '4.0 U '4.7 '4.t 4.3 I e t7 tR3 t7 \ t7 40 10 ra 12 40 40 U U '3b U %A U t!d I t'.2 tR3t!.3 t6 L.0 t!.3 ® U U U 4.3 U 9 '3.7 '3E t!.6 t!.3 \ t:2 41 U t713(TYP) 1.3 1.3 40 15 40 U �s X4.3 U U 13 4s to t!.4 t!.3 t!.4 Tro 23 U U t9 41 U 23 '3.7 U 40 U I QU 12 U U to / U U 4.0 7 4a 3.3 9.e '3.9 '3.7 '3.t '3.0 45 4.e '3.3 \ I \ tL2 t!.4 t37 t37 t!.4 tt\ tE '3E .0 9 t9 9 'µ '3E 'µ '3.t t!.9 t'3 1.3 t!.7 I photometric notes : ` \ 'k9 U U U \ 15 t67 t7 U U U t!.9 U d o d o 4.3 U \ I 31°0 '38' +d7 +d7 TP 13 U / is7 U isb is7 isb 40 is 15 12j 1. THIS LIGHTING CALCULATION REPRESENTS ILLUMINATION LEVELS R=6 b0' I I I CALCULATED FROM LABORATORY DATA TAKEN UNDER CONTROLLED � L=32. U U tr7 U 15 U 12 &L U &9 to iso U U 15 15 15 15 U U U I CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ILLUMINATION ENGINEERING SOCIETY kG iso U t7 t!.4 9 I 7 4s 4o t!6 is9 *ae *ae U t7 12 U U U U U 4.0 I APPROVED METHODS. 14 '3,2 4o t!.4 t33_r7___9 I t9 13 4.0 U '36 19 '3.. t!.6 7 � �t9 tr7 4.o t!6 PA UI I 2. PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND ' \ I PUBLISHED LAMP RATINGS USING MANUFACTURER'S MEAN LUMEN VALUES. 'd3 iss isa 22 7 I U t.3 RU 4.o U 4b t7 t7 4b 9.0 /U I �u to I17 1ht 4o t!.6 13 I FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS. CERTAIN ELEMENTS MAY AFFECT THE LAMP & '3o t!.4 U 1r2 7 I _ U U t9 U U 4b 40 4o U 4b 4.0/ ' t7 t9, a 13 4.0 +L6 I 4o t!.6 isz o I FIXTURE PERFORMANCE. ACTUAL FOOTCANDLE LEVELS MAY VARY. DUE TO _ w THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, RG&D DESIGN GROUP, INC CANNOT GUARANTY rn °° 9 40 4s t!4 ?.2 4s ' TP to 43 ?.2 is is ?.2 t7 ?.2 40 4o isz 4e 9z +�. 7 4o Ls LP to is SZ �t tt 40 t7 4o N I THAT ACTUAL LIGHT LEVELS MEASURED IN THE FIELD WILL ACTUALLY MATCH / L THE INITIAL CALCULATIONS SHOWN ON PLAN. 00 U t4 U t4 t9 U U UZ 7 'f.0 U t3 t2 tt tt t3 t2 t0 t0 t'3 t!.9 t!.7 rn N I N I 1S U U t37 t.3 tE t3 to to to tb t9 �S 4.0 t7 14 1.t 9 -------------- V 9 U U U Tr t is t7 t7 t7 t7 t9 t9 4.0 U 9.0 'f.3 19 7 7 7 '3.6 '3.6 '3.0 9 I 11 t:3 t!.7 U to U U t!.7 t!.4 t!.4 U U T:2 T:2 T:2 L L T:2 L T:t L t o 4.o t!.9 t!.9 '3.t '30 '3.7 '3.t t!.7 4.3 U U 4.t U 4.3 4.3 U t!.9 U '3.0 '3.9 '30 L.7 I I 11 t:2 t!.4 T:6 t!.7 til til 1.6 ?a 1.6 1.6 ?a U U U U U U U U U U U 4.6 t7 4.0 9.0 9.0 4.0 45 U 4.t 4.t 4.3 4.3 U 45 t!.7 '3.0 U '3.o t1.9 '3.6 L.7 I CD t'.0 ti ti tt4 t:6 t!.3 t2 t!.3 U U tt4 U U L U U U L L L U U U U U t7 U 4.3 4.t 12 to t9 4.t 4.t 4.t 4.3 t!.7 4.e t!.9 U '3o I I N40°37'39"E 35. t7 t9 t!6 g2 '33 '3o t:3 t9 t t Tro t9 t t Tr to is t7 is to 4t 4.0 'f3 U U U t9 to is � J z a.1�a"" ti:., - r.. ani•: +7v:a .*�'Y.� ;� r'e`v~ti%_ti�< • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a�i.y.a'� • •'• l':\•;� 1:•�:'a`�••\�•�tiY •a1\�:a. •,i''••.. .n� t` • fYk.i�• .t ♦ 3':9;..it6 %� � a.� �}�,a• i},.�9�t�i . / v ��. • t',t;f. ..Y. ..� Y '.•ft •i1a•t,•• va::�• "' ' ~•• S.\. / `yj .e '"'' ':. ;? y•'*;� •.r ; . •. tia ��� 't 'r' �.n: ,.,�i;t : �r'.,• ..a t.. �.' S40-37'39"W 418.61' =� :' aaa�. : ..q: .,+ ♦ .... :;,�;?' 'w:y�` :T:a• 'y.1 .:{V �as� fr.l...,•aP.,- 2.'F:•• X .:t SITE LIGHTING PLAN SCALE:1"=30' Architecture. ■■ EGACY EDICAL � Design. E1 , 11 Relationships. Job No. 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 03.10.20------- 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 CQ D I n C c�� p,� V�a♦ ♦ i PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE FORM WATER DESCRIPTION it ` H II USE Q M I TREES \ \G n • I � 3: ` ' \ I CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD24„ M SMALL 0 I -OR- -OR- STD. -OR- FLOWERING % \ LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY BOX L TREE • � ` I \ # LOPHOSTEMON BRISBANE BOX 24 M EVERGREEN STD. • CONFERTUS BOX VERTICAL � � I CD OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN SWAN HILL Q \ HILL' FRUITLESS OLIVE L \• • • 36" MULTI- SPECIMEN • -OR- -OR- -OR- CERCIDILIM 'DESERT DESERT MUSEUM BOX TRUNK VL ACCENT Q •\ \ _ - - MUSEUM' PALO VERDE to 00 N \ R��j�1 `" 24„ EVERGREEN ® �� -� • PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE BOX STD. M SCREEN TREE ♦ N ' S go CD CD .. rL M P - QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 24 STD. L EVERGREEN • � � BOX CANOPY I O I WATER ' ;- I SYMBOL KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING USE DESCRIPTION ° I FOREGROUND SHRUBS, GRASSES & GROUNDCOVERS REFER TO D �� SUCCULENT # NOTE #1 AGAVE PARRYI PARRY'S AGAVE 5 GAL. 30" O.C. VL ACCENT Q_ o e BELOW ALOE 'BLUE ELF' BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L SMALL • • I SUCCULENT CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L ORNAMENTAL / I GRASS DIANELLA CAERULEA UPRIGHT 36" TALL SC EENINGLITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L 'LITTLE REV' ACCENT HEDGE A RKING CALIFORNIA GRAY ORNAMENTAL ADJACENT STREETS JUNCUS PATENS RUSH 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L GRASS SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS GREENLEE AUTUMN ORNAMENTAL p 1 GAL. 24" O.C. M u 'GREENLEE' MOOR GRASS GRASS MIDGROUND SHRUBS & GRASSES BACCHARIS P. 'PIGEON DWARF COYOTE 5 GAL. 36" O.C. L EVERGREEN POINT' BRUSH SHRUB FLOWERING • CEANOTHUS 'CONCHA' CONCHA CEANOTHUS 5 GAL. 48" O.C. L SHRUB ® CHONDROPETALUM ORNAMENTAL 5` TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL 36 O.C. L GRASS 0 \ \ ® MUHLENBERGIA ORNAMENTAL \ ® QDEER GRASS 1 GAL. 36" O.C. L \ ��" r • RIGENS GRASS BACKGROUND SHRUBS OLEA 'MONTRA' LITTLE OLLIE 5 GAL. 48" O.C. L LARGE H \ ��// d /,��% ��%�/��/��/ ��,' \•� U RHAMNUS C. 'MOUND COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL. 48" O.C. VL LARGE � SAN BRUNO SHRUB VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER "� " ,f USE STATED IS PER 'A GUIDE TO ESTIMATING IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS IN ,� ��//�/ ®® / v CALIFORNIA' (ALSO REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS) FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN. # I NOTES: o '� • I g ® 1 . LANDSCAPING TO BE PROVIDED BY ATEP AND BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE PRIOR TO FINAL CERTIFICATION. 2. PER TLSP SECTION 3.19.3 (c), ALL PARKING AREAS ABUTTING STREETS SHALL BE INSTALLED • \ WITH A MINIMUM OF THIRTY-SIX (36) INCH HIGH SCREENING. SCREENING SHALL CONSIST OF ONE OR ANY COMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING: WALLS / RETAINING WALLS, LANDSCAPE BERMS OR EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS TREES OR SHRUBS. Ty 3. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF ONE (1) 24" BOX TREE FOR EVERY SIX PARKING SPACES WITHIN THE I PARKING LOT AND INCORPORATE INTO THE OVERALL DESIGN. 4. LANDSCAPE WATER USE CALCULATIONS DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 7 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE REGARDING THE CITY'S WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE TO I BE PROVIDED ON IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. I I PARKING LOT TREE QUANTITIES: ' - TOTAL PARKING STALLS = 265 - • �� �� - ONE (1) 24" BOX TREE IS REQUIRED PER EVERY 6 PARKING STALLS • �� TOTAL PARKING LOT TREES REQUIRED = 45 --------- ---- -- ---- ,' - TOTAL PARKING LOT TREES PROVIDED = 52 I � RED HILL AVENUE 8841 RESEARCH DR SUITE 200 0 15 30 60 90 . IRVINE • CA 92618 36" TALL SCREENING • 949.387.1323 HEDGE AT PARKING RIDGELA.COM ADJACENT TO STREETS PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN Architecture. Ll 1 IL Design. EGACY EDICAL PLAZ R I i n hi�s. Job No. 2017-256 e �t • s DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 03.11.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 CQ " LEGEND 0 0 -/ o LINEAR CONCRETE PAVERS, 3'X9', ALTERNATING Q / i COLORS -/ °° o CONCRETE PAVER BAND DECORATIVE COBBLE MAINTENANCE BAND FLOWERING ACCENT TREES AT BUILDING ENTRY 0 / ACCENT PLANTING - VARIOUS SUCCULENTS AND 77 / / GRASSES 0 5 � o RAISED PLANTER WITH CONCRETE SEAT WALL ,. OQ.Q O • • • // 0 0 # SITE FURNISHINGS BY LANDSCAPE FORMS • 'PARALLEL 42' BENCHES / • 'CHIPMAN' TABLE AND CHAIRS CIO • 'GENERATION 50' TRASH RECEPTACLE ° � • • ILII o FLAGPOLE LOCATION 9 o 0 °O - A OPTIONAL RAIN CURTAIN WATER 0 � 0 o ° a r ° � FEATURE D • • D0 Q° ° Q ,n �° TRUNCATED DOME PAVERS AND SECURITY BOLLARDS 4 WITH BUILT-IN LIGHTING 0 • �. 0 0 ° o / QD DECORATIVE POTTERY WITH ACCENT SHRUBS o ° 0 o o 10 0� 0 OQo O 0 OQ o oQo j oQ° o o ° ti1 O Q0 O O O • °° ° i 0 0 o(Qfo QoQ l(Jl I • • o ° o • BENCH OPTIONAL RAIN CURTAIN 'PARALLE��` � ��� BY LANDSCAPEL FORMS WATER FEATURE ° ° ° O O OQ o \ o ° ° ° ° ° 0, °Q 0 „ ° ° ° \ W � 0 0 000,0 • • h. hVlir } o 0 00 re Qo oQo 0 0�0 • _ O[ OQ0 °(d) O p oQo oIRPi ° ° 0 0 0 ° o — 0 o mac° 0 0 a o TABLE AND CHAIRS TRASH RECEPTACLE 00i OC III bio 'CHIPMAN' 'GENERATION 50' °6°° °6°° ® BY LANDSCAPE FORMS BY LANDSCAPE FORMS 8841 RESEARCH DR SUITE 200 IRVINE - CA 92618 Aww 949.387.1323 0 5 10 20 30 RIDGELA.COM PRELIMINAY LANDSCAPE PLAN ENLARGEMENT A ,IArchitecture. m■ G EDI CL LAZ L201 Design. Relationships. Job No. 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 03.11.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 CQ i D I n I n / f I N P� ♦ S� n -� MP I ♦ ® ' \ �. N AL L I PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE BE .� 1 WATER \ �•y\ I I SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE FORM USE DESCRIPTION I TREES • A � t ALO o L l\ 6 DlA `�` DIA �ll B�I CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD 24„ M SMALL •i \ DIA -OR- -OR- STD. -OR- FLOWERING n LR LR _ �: LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY BOX L TREE � � � I 0 (D • �` r Q .. w k` - LOPHOSTEMON 24" EVERGREEN BRISBANE BOX STD. M l ALO CONFERTUS BOX VERTICAL G\A1 / GLS O Q L LR ♦ �� MO G ;�\ , OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN SWAN HILL ® w . SV SES ( HILL' FRUITLESS OLIVE L `V 36" MULTI- SPECIMEN ( • • -OR- -OR- -OR- ' ����� / GL _ • BOX TRUNK ACCENT A n � _ I � CERCI DIUM 'DESERT DESERT MUSEUM VL Q ' ` \ / ( MUSEUM' PALO VERDE / ALO I Iv / BE (, 0N RHA / B RHA 24„ PERIMETER MSB • PINUS CANARIENSIS CANARY ISLAND PINE BOX STD. L SCREENING / CAR I TREE � � I CAR I 0 DIV I cD / I DlA I 24" EVERGREEN sQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK STD. L LR I BOX CANOPY D CAR Q / /CAR DIV CD / CAR DIV � • I I � DIA I SYMBOL KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE SPACING WATERUSE DESCRIPTION RHA / MUH LR RIG 11 FOREGROUND SHRUBS, GRASSES & GROUNDCOVERS _ AGA AGAVE PARRYI PARRY'S AGAVE 5 GAL30" OCVL SUCCULENT \� CHO / /BE ® II PAR . . . ACCENT TEC LR/ CHOTEC / / �R I ALO SMALL DIA BE ALOE 'BLUE ELF' BLUE ELF ALOE 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L SUCCULENT O0 I / I LANDSCAPING T BE CAR ORNAMENTAL \ CHO BE 0 ` LR / MUH PROVIDED BY A P DIV CAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL. 24" O.C. L GRASS AGA CHO TEC RlG/ I DIA DIANELLA REVOLUTA AND BE SUB T TIALLY UPRIGHT •• PAR % TEC COMPLETE PR TO LITTLE REV FLAX LILY 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L CAR CAR A° I LR 'LITTLE REV' ACCENT � DIV DIV � `��``• �^ A FINAL CERTIFI A ON ..ems::• DIV JUN CALIFORNIA GRAY ORNAMENTAL ® CAR PAT JUNCUS PATENS RUSH 1 GAL. 18" O.C. L GRASS a DIA • � e •aaae�= 0 DIV a, SES SESLERIA AUTUMNALIS GREENLEE AUTUMN ORNAMENTAL � \ ° LR • ® CAR GL 'GREENLEE' MOOR GRASS 1 GAL. 24 O.C. M GRASS • DIA0�® DIV LR ® Q MIDGROUND SHRUBS & GRASSES R/ DG PH PP POINT' BRUSH BAC BACCHARIS P. EVERGREEN 'PIGEON DWARF COYOTE � y0 `"� �R GH " AGA ,� `�� � I �O 5 GAL. 36" O.C. L �0 ""`"'° PAR AGA SHRUB I �O l ALO PAR o 9/ -- PAR MSB CEA CEANOTHUS 'CONCHA' CONCHA CEANOTHUS 5 GAL. 48" O.C. L FLOWERING �� BE GL 0 CON SHRUB G MUH ALO I H ( • U CHO CHONDROPETALUM ORNAMENTAL DIV CAR RIG BE / / L> TEC TECTORUM CAPE RUSH 5 GAL. 36" O.C. GRASS � o= I s MUH MUHLENBERGIA ORNAMENTAL g • RIG RIGENS DEER GRASS 1 GAL. 36 O.C. L GRASS DlA � •; CAR \ �' • CHO LR o DIV • BACKGROUND SHRUBS CAR TEC � 0'0 '�,; i CA RI <<, DIV O MON OLEA'MONTRA' LITTLE OLLIE 5 GAL. 48" O.C. L SHRUB DIVLARGE • JUN I CHO PAT RHA RHAMNUS C. 'MOUND LARGE TEC GLS • MSB SAN BRUNO' COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL. 48" O.C. VL SHRUB OLE MUH WATER USE KEY: SES I VL = VERY LOW WATER USE, L = LOW WATER USE, M = MODERATE WATER USE, H = HIGH WATER USE. WATER MON DIA DIA RIG ® GL } USE STATED IS PER 'A GUIDE TO ESTIMATING IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS IN LR LR CALIFORNIA' (ALSO REFERRED TO AS WUCOLS) FOR THE CITY OF TUSTIN. o 0 � ..,.., CAR I I I ' I • RHA CAR DIA MSB CAR CAR CHO I DIV LR DIV DIV TEC CAR DIA CAR CAR OLE DIV ALO OLE DIV BAC DIV O BA L R BE MO TP • TP J 8841 RESEARCH DR STREETSCAPE RED HILL AVENUE SUITE 200 PER ATEP MASTER PLAN BY OTHERS STREETSCAPE . . IRVINE • CA 92618 949.387.1323 0 15 30 60 90 RIDGELA.(OM COLOR-CODED PLANTING PLAN Architecture. L301 ■■ Design. EGACY EDICAL LAZA Relationships. Job No. 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 03.11.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 Trees Foreground Shrubs D n r f t u r ,1V�1° IA D - 4 111 <da, M1 s ru4n x p . '�-•.'„r _v ..weir e.. :. 7. ,,.. .. ., f ,p ,. _. , 97 -- a , u , pp - i r • ,fir 4 y ,+ ...._•?Ij. - .z - � ,... ::i° \ s: >;r; 'p , -.1 , 4- ,rb c.i� .. :11:- :.f.. i u ' ., ,.,.... , ... a _':- _ , r..., ` ..,. .. i : .^e\. •i,F n I L: 1 h .: .: }•;72^.�i u ... it " -,..::. 1t: E ;: �' .: _. ,. ,,,• ,_. .' .... ° t. - ., '. ' � a a,., -v ,.v....1 .. . r"�. , ,.':_ --n,. • ,n _ r 9R 4 t An 1F _ y O _ 1 w O A , rL ” AGAVE PARRYI / ALOE 'BLUE ELF' / CAREX DIVULSA / JUNCUS PATENS / L, PARRY'S AGAVE BLUE ELF ALOE © BERKELEY SEDGE CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH AA r h �r — - CERCIS CANADENSIS / — OR — LAURUS NOBILIS / LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS / Q EASTERN REDBUD SWEET BAY BRISBANE BOX N At O 0tl� w :.4 egg,"•, rov— ! T rf t y U r ,, .,,tix ' ', ,;�,,,,' \'efpr�� .;. a�lrr 'i ; i'.t� ✓,- '�4 ?',;<,"�- a, O a 'a ,,,,� ,.. , ,..., ., : . .::•"! } �; a,,1 r ;, a,, b,:Yi :. :.: gam, :a • r i Fa -.., '. , _ ' „ ,. dip o . . _ � e• 1 _.. ✓�p(I:).¢I,��41 �5:, �«s,rid°-, .r.;i: ,p ���- ltyT' ., ., ;. ,• i " ..". ,:' r.:..- .:_.. -. •,' ar.« f..rd. c r aj' frr.l�pl I � /' DIANELLA R 'LITTLE REV' / A IS 'GR EE' / SESLERIA UTUMNAL EENL rn LITTLE REV FLAX LILY GREENLEE AUTUMN MOOR GRASS - Y z k M id r o u n d Shrubs ,, I Alw Ar , k a , _ _ p a 8x ,•,. ) 1` 'S,+;o-. _:.,. .._ A 'J::;.': d' ... ;' '::... t, ,'-. ,e-,.'ab k$. .TA .. " . '4N.. , 4 , I' : wM1. Ja OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN HILL' / — OR — CERCIDIUM 'DESERT MUSEUM' / SWAN HILL FRUITLESS OLIVE DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE +* u< �� i •a;- , . � _ "` ` `" ..•, Ill EL J J '• { Al BACCHARIS P. 'PIGEON POINT' / CEANOTHUS 'CONCHA' / - CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM/ MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DWARF COYOTE BRUSH CONCHA CEANOTHUS CAPE RUSH DEER GRASS oA � g Back round Shrubs I � ,. l,:,, x j. .w x r s a" 'djt;"Ski � f Jt y . .'.- � •Ap,y _ u, , „ i.- e • q ra vwr n - , • \r a't ~F { bAA•Wn i' ' . � x Ir ,... .s ""1"RW r. t.,.".v{ ' t• xly'a 4, �II 1.'fi ',4 re N i 14,. A. ,"Y •,""'" wsg ;� ;a :„1 yyr "..,. • yam., � "trf'�s w .r , .,. drr M t p.- ,ry",)'$ .ak rI • `'�'. ..., Y � (T. A E w i PINUS CANARIENSIS / QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / s CANARY ISLAND PINE COAST LIVE OAK — " • 9 Q OLEA 'MONTRA' / ® RHAMNUS C. 'MOUND SAN BRUNO' / 8841 RESEARCH DR LITTLE OLLIE COFFEEBERRY SUITE 200 . . IRVINE • CA 92618 949.387.1323 RIDGELA.(OM PLANT MATERIAL IMAGERY L401 ■■ EGACY1-1PLAZA �o � i � D� o0)R�,hj c coo Job No, 2017-256 DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC. Date: 03.11.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 i \ \ + + co �1 \ + X01 00 O + + +° ) + \\ \ ,N N 4 (00 9,2 22" W EXIST. DRIVEWAY _ -- - / / �� + -23. EXIST. SIDEWALK \ + ��. r co CD tib TC v o �� .�- EXIST. INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT �� 68.6 F� •p- + o ca`b' \\ \ \ + �n A=31°01'38" + \ \ CATCH BASIN AND DRAINAGE o �1 'EXIST. CURB & GUTTER "' '� 4' �� \ l � FROM HOPE DRIVE TO BE "' �� o R-6D.00; / �� �O \\ \ �1 V ��. -- 32.49 \ � 0 OF '\ • \\ \ + COORDINATED WITH A.T.E.P. AND MAY BE INCORPORATED PROP.,DRIVEWAY N 49°22'22" W 98.81' _� ��° ro 00 ��`�° ,�N `� o y + \� V INTO A BIOSWALE WITHIN THE /`� EXIST. P,L � �`�' � l . � �� 6 s r / \ 10 A.T.E.P. LANDSCAPE STRIP. > 6 6 • 9TC 0�F k86� \ \o 6906 69 o a 669 69 D.5 ° �G� 68'9F� 69.27 OOFC ��� \\ \\ �b� � �� ss l�, TC 9 dj 6g �j �`� F FS 6g 6 c o �C O � + \ A \ + ��, + ��. \ O f P es .95 Tr 3Fs /'tea v� �v �Q �G� of •4�S � ``�, 69.35 68.,3g�C ` 1� \\ � �� \ FS GB �7.86F `L ++ V A Off ``�' ,\ �� �Og o �° 6$ \\ \ + � \\ n �°' "�� 1 u� o / , ; 178E / C� \ _ CO� 1� FaF 69 69FS 8S` C v + EXIST. P/L rad bob CCP 0+ 9.63 \\ ° .0 9.63 - --- \ X sy o 00�, - ice ° F�,GB �� �o �V \ + i EXIST. GRATED INLET EXIST. GRATED INLET tb �� + \ i �� TC EXIST. . LINES EXIST. S.D. LINE + /� - - - Lij ,� . EXIST. G TED LETS �� W \\ \ ° �- g �o �„��'� �, i �� ° F EXIST. UTILITY EASEMENT \ \ - -- -__�_--- (bb. P o LLJ Q1 - - w o �� PRO D DING o + o W �- - �, - -. - - - v ;o°' \� 6 C� - C' V 0 �'15\0- 67 �3 C q� A A � w w v 1 313 AREA: (P FT `s v�� o�o� + t ti� �2 1 \ o i =- � 1.5% > 0.5% �� r c, A + 47 ACRES: �� SEXIST. CURB & GUTTE�2 v � I 'i + / F`' 6 �, z � v �'\ I �� C) w n S �, /� cow �cb• IST. TUf�N-ABOUT + �c�x` w � � � ' \ o �, � TC �� + v\ �z \ $6 TC 1.0% 6. v 690>�T` ` � � ° C PROP. GRATED INLET PROP. PRIVATE STREET I EXIST. CURB Q ��� c, .o �`3•` � `�'`n "�' WITH (2) STORMWATER-__' � S� TREATMENT UNITS z 1` A G ��� ' = •76F PROP. STOP GNP m '\ ` � �� �V 69 B �`a OF / ' < 1� O � v � _ S PROP. EASEMENT FOR _ PAER SE ROAD, UTILITIES, AND �� .. S ,, 0 R• W LANDSCAPING PURPOSES . 4T _ � oo %� �� Op. AR `s /. 1 / / Uj _ 0 _ F\ C 1p.8� 4% o� 6>cp \ 77 �n 6� �� 4FS - FS 0 0 �i c� -L 1 X 6 60 `� 7 ' ����' ti�`' �` PROP. STOP LEGEND ��� + ��. oo�o`�' a f �Q2 �S ��" mac' 0,8° ',g `�'``' ��,�`� AND BAR, �� �� 1 .� c, 72' X9.9°FS QD TC g�VC w P�E __ + `� �' 2Q �c �O 63' 9 10 i 70-05 6A sj I iz Tc 1 I a _ 66�cP . 6 �,9 c •n�6°1° � �o c� / = 6 •pa 1� �� o I I �n oT �> C' 6 �, S• C i PROP. GRATED INLET cn z 1.0� o� 1.0%'`S 6 ,9 1.0 F`' I pROp' tip 83 p ° WITH STORMWATER \ o q 5 12��C X J - �� ,�c ���� �O 6� 5 / 2�, EXIST. P/L TREATMENT UNIT \ 66�1F� W W - PROP. PRIVATE SEWER'LINE "' S c`� 50% 3�� PROP. FIRE D.D.C.V. �� 5� z ROP. GRA ED INLET oN i 2�' W 6' N ° 9 PROP. PUBLIC RECLAIMED WATER LINE Uj ��' f T'REATMENTMUN TER \ 6� 9 T ��^ N 65 PROP. DOM. BACKFLOW I° o > 30 15 0 30 cn � C 5 PROP. EASEMENT FOR � � v 6. Uj 50% �1• �% - ROAD, UTILITIES, AND �' � r =co LANDSCAPING PURPOSES 6 N 1 W 66 _ z SCALE IN FEET PROP. PRIVATE S.D. LINE 66 9Q ----, - I.. - 6 ,�" �� o J >IC? LJ _ TC_ ----- - - - w w 1 inch =30 ft. ��\ 0.5 �cc o PROP. PUBLIC WATER LINE a s� ° - I \\ _ N 49°22'22" W 00.64' A � PROP. GRATED INLETS / �a -- CL - - - �� WITH (2) STORMWATER _ off. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -F- - II _ TREATMENT UNITS - - o�EXIST. EASEMENT o0 5. - 1 EXIST. SIDEWALK oo EXIST. R W °O EXIST. R/W EXIST. SIDEWALK C O N C °° _ - - O ---- --------_-- - - 6 EXIST. 8 RECLAIMED S 6 6'� ''� � WATER LINE - - - MA EXIST CATCH BASIN AND - -- - — �� �� T STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY EXIST 8" SEWER LINE o EXIST. CURB & GUTTER I �-EXIST. SEWER MANHOLE EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND N TREATMENT FACILITY -coXIST 4" RECLAIMED WATER LINE _ N STORMWATER /EXIST. 8" SEWER LINE _ EXIST. SEWER MANHOLE f T �, PROP. MERIAN EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE VICTORY � EXIST. SEWER MANHOLE( - N 50°48'31" W 594.73' (EXIST. 24' S.D. LINE �f I+ STREET C/L PROP. MEDIAN ��EXIST. 48" S.D. LINE N 50°48 31 _W 466.35 - N N 49°22'21" W 294.34' o ��N50°05'26°W �� EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE-,_ _ 35 09' - _� _ EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE `V EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE _ N - _ - _- T EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE �-EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE � / EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE I N PROP. MEDIAN - PROP. S.D. MANHOLE I, EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND CIVIL ENGINEERS SEXIST. 24 S.D. LINE "� EXIST. 10" DOMESTIC WATER LINE T STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY NAALDEN LAND SURVEYORS EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND � � M" - SSOCIATES PLANNERS . EXIST. CURB & GUTTER s -- STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - - _ 2552 WHITE ROAD,SUITE B, IRVINE, CA 92614 001 EXIST. R W - ^ _EXIST. SIDEWALK °° - - - - - -L - - - - - - - - - - \ a (949)660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Architecture. cmi ■ EGACY Design.�� Job No. 2015- 01PRELIMINARY RADIN PLAN � A Relationships. Date: 4.8.20 EVEI OPMENT GROUP IN 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 v LEGEND >(X INDICATES PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT INDICATES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT \ b \ D INDICATES PROPOSED WATER METER o=o INDICATES PROPOSED BACKFLOW DEVICE i INDICATES EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE N 49°22'22" W I ' EXIST. DRIVEWAY _ � � � � J. EXIST. SIDEWALK �_ i INDICATES EXISTING SEWER LINE S i o A` \� �� INDICATES EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER LINE W >J o��� V A� RW INDICATES EXISTING RECYCLED WATER LINE_ EXIST. INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT `� �� \ z_ C3 .0 o �n A-31°01'38" o \� S INDICATES PROPOSED SEWER LINE CATCH BASIN AND DRAINAGE C14 EXIST.o EXIST. CURB & GUTTER "' i �; ��� SAA FROM HOPE DRIVE TO BE 06r "' R-6D.0o' V W INDICATES PROPOSED WATER LINE z L=32.49 v COORDINATED WITH A.T.E.P. AND MAY BE INCORPORATED ROP. DRIVEWAY ,- N, 49°22'22" W 98.81' � `. � \� DW INDICATES PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER INTO A BIOSWALE WITHIN THEEXIST. P/L � RW INDICATES PROPOSED RECLAIMED WATER LINE -� 6�- � � � �-� `, A � 10 A.T.E.P. LANDSCAPE STRIP. a� •moo f \ S INDICATES PROPOSED STORM DRAIN LINE rF- o ----- o �O o EXIST. P/L \O \\0\O EXIST. GRATED INLETS A I� �� EXIST. GRATED INLET - _ ` . EXIST. S LINE EXIST. S.D. LINE \ \ \ (EXIST. G TED LET ` �f� \\ �� \o _ F EXIST. UTILITY EASEMENT__J��`\ \ - �� , k W , w o o PRO1��� ; D DINGV ���' - � // Z, �� / — /� WF. q o \ v A C� O> CD v Uj 17 LO Y o / -,��. ,,-EXIST. CURB & GUTTE / � v J o r7 Q II s - — o �E IST. TURN-ABOUT F- X J X , W x L'i r l 0 C/) v 70.O.FG 63.65 INV y 59 INV C51- WITH s P PRIVATE ST �\, EXIST CURB ROP. REET ��� \\ , Q PROP. GRATED INLET C1 / ER WITH (2) STORMWATER i �S� �" ' �_� TREATMENT UNITS - �� i R h ,�/ ] `� 2 G`fo POP. STOP GN�P o/ °° �y ROAD, UTILITIES, AFOR �/ / Uj W - � �� '� �� /3 ARR• LANDSCAPING PURPOSES , LU Ekoo bc / 1 X �� j\ / 6�' p�N PROP. STOP LEGEND I �,0 6R� AND BAR, , •_ ------- Al I �N �0 N � � 72' 63' 9' 10' „- PR - w p10 67. 5TG 64.2511 � x � Uj W W SD• �� / PROP. GRATED INLET 5 o z c� ��� PR��' - WITH STORMWATER v w� J o a '� �� � - - EXIST. P L TREATMENT UNIT �� �,vX o �W X ���a � � - �� ���, �" 3��2� / PROP. FIRE D.D.C.V. � 1�, � \ 5 �' PROP. PRIVATE SEWER LINE I I W ROP. GRA ED INLET o� ��,2q W z_ WITH STORMWATER h co �" 65 PROP. PUBLIC RECLAIMED WATER LINE I PROP. DOM. BACKFLOW Cn > 30 15 0 30 w TREATMENT UNIT �o��``' � 0_ 6�2 � / � N 'I h o 0 p1 3 9 PROP. EASEMENT FOR W ,1i _ ROAD, UTILITIES, AND co S=0.005 �� ��53 LANDSCAPING PURPOSES 0 7i `� , 66.8RIM 1 7 09 G PROP. PRIVATE S.D. LINE ! 56.02 INV x x x I <n z SCALE IN FEET 4.09 NV / PROP. PUBLIC WATER LINE,_,- 4 � _- x � w _ i 1 inch =30 ft. \ \ 67.09TG x x x x o N 49°22'22" W 00.64' 64.091NV 65 ' \ PROP. GRATED INLETS - - - - _ - o -- - - - - - - - - - �� - - - - - - - - - - WITH (2) STORMWATER IL TREATMENT UNITS - - - o u O i L EXIST. EASEMENT Cn - - _^ - T- EXIST. SIDEWALK oo EXIST. R/W --- --- - _ °O EXIST. R W EXIST. SIDEWALK °° -- ,- -- _ I�, RW— R - -_ - - - h ? EXIST. 8" RECLAIMED WATER LINE / - - > - --,�a� ;,W a, N EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND o - RW—._ � n T oo STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY EXIST. 8" SEWER LINE _- EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND _ z (66.4)FS EXIST. CURB & GUTTER o N EXIST. SEWER MANHOLE --� STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY � � � � � EXIST. 4" RECLAIMED WATER LINE 54.3 INV 6' S- 0.010 C, S j EXIST 8' SEWER -LINE - S- 0.004 S - 0 1.\ M, _ �� EXIST SEWER MANHOLE 53.351NV 8 - PROP. MED N EXIST. 24" D. LINE EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE S= 0.010EXIST SEWER MANHOLE_ --- -- -VICTORY R - N 50°48'31" W 594 73'f - v 466.35 0 ` STREET C/L _ _ - -` � PROP. MEDIAN _ G N 5 �' N S/<���5 EXIST. 48" S.D. LINE N 49°22'21" W 294.34' C:) _ N50°05'26°W �� N _ - _ EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE 35.09, _ EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE _ `V -- - T 65.0 RIM O - -EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE N - - - - EXIST. S.D. MANHOLE - - _ S=(0.005) -- _ 54.941NV 24 EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE I 68.1 RIM - - - - - - - EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE °O N - EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND M. 58.08INV 24'::::w" ----- PROP. MEDIAN S= 00� - C, PROP. S.D. MANHOLE N CIVIL ENGINEERS o EXIST. 24" S.D. LINE -- "' > z z EXIST. 10 DOMESTIC WATER LINE T STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY NAALDEN & LAND SURVEYORS -- - _ W _ EXIST. CATCH BASIN AND `V zCn _ -- --- -- ---- --- - SOCIATES PLANNERS cc EXIST. CURB & GUTTER STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITY M `� v�- ,W —ulV 2552 WHITE ROAD,SUITE B, IRVINE, CA 92614 EXIST. R W EXIST. SIDEWALK - - 110 °O / oO= - - � - I �� (949)660-0110 FAX.660-0418 Architecture. Design. Cm2 PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN EGACY EDICAL 'PLAZA Re�ationshi s. Job No. 2015-506-001 Date: 4.8.20 144 North Orange Street, Orange, California 92866 aoarchitects.com 714-639-9860 DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4402 • EXHIBIT A - CEQA CHECKLIST FORM • EXHIBIT B - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E RESOLUTION NO. 4402 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 2020-0001 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2020-0002 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY, 50,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL BUILDING WITHIN A PORTION OF PLANNING AREA 1 OF NEIGHBORHOOD A OF THE TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Design Review (DR) 2020-0001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2020-0002 was filed by ACS Development Group Inc. requesting authorization to construct a two-story, 50,000 square foot medical building and other site improvements within portion Planning Area 1 (subareas PA 1-H and 1-K) of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. B. That the site is zoned as Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (SP 1)within a portion of Planning Area 1 of Neighborhood A; and designated as Tustin Legacy by the Tustin General Plan. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. C. Pursuant to Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (TLSP) Section 4.2.2, development with the Plan area must submit and obtain approval of a Site Plan and DR pursuant to the Tustin City Code (TCC). TCC Section 9272 authorizes the Community Development Director to consider the DR application; however, since the proposal includes a CUP that requires Planning Commission approval, DR 2020-0001 is under concurrent consideration by the Planning Commission. D. Pursuant to the TLSP Section 3.20.1, parking facilities may be used jointly for non-residential uses with different peak hours of operation with the approval of a CUP. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on May 11, 2020, by the Planning Commission. F. Pursuant to the TLSP and Section 9272 of the TCC, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Resolution No. 4402 Page 2 1 . Height, bulk, and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. 6. Towers, roof structures. 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 9. Design and layout of "spine" roads with connections to and from existing roadway(s) and/or roundabout 10. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 11. Location and method of refuse storage. 12. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the ATEP campus. 13.Appearance and design relationship of the proposed structure to existing structures and possible future structures in the ATEP vicinity and public thoroughfares. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. G. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare, in that: 1 . A Parking Study dated January 20, 2020, was prepared by a licensed traffic engineer (RK Engineering Group, Inc.) in accordance with TCC Section 9264. 2. That the proposed project includes the construction of a two-story, 50,000 square foot medical building with 270 on-site parking spaces and joint use parking between the project and the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) campus. The project will be the first non- educational building within the ATEP campus. The TLSP allows uses that are related to ATEP and as per the ground lease with South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD), there are provisions which ACS (the applicant) or any future tenant under the ground lease which stipulate that future building tenants or users of the Legacy Medical Plaza collaborate with the educational mission of SOCCCD at ATEP. The proposed project and uses anticipated follow the approved ground lease with SOCCCD and are consistent with the overall mission of the ATEP campus. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Resolution No. 4402 Page 3 3. The Parking Study has been reviewed and accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer for methodology and accuracy. 4. That pursuant to TCC 9263, the proposed uses would require 292 parking spaces to accommodate all uses. Based upon surveys of comparable medical office buildings within Orange County, the parking demand analysis determined a current peak use of 248 spaces; that 270 proposed parking spaces are sufficient for the use; and, that no substantial conflict will exist in the peak hours of parking demand for the proposed uses in the medical building. 5. That all of the on-site parking spaces are designated for joint-use between the proposed project and the ATEP campus and are located such that they will adequately serve the uses for which they are intended. Students attending the project site must park at the ATEP campus in accordance with the approved ground lease and will not be permitted to park at the project site. 6. That the proposed uses, as conditioned, will not have a negative effect on surrounding properties, or impact traffic based on the availability of parking in that sufficient parking would be available on-site. 7. That any change to the use may require a new parking demand analysis to be reviewed and approved by the City and may require additional parking be provided to accommodate proposed uses. H. On January 16, 2001 , the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR)for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplements is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplements considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. An Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Resolution No. 4402 Page 4 information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 authorizing the construction of a two-story, 50,000 square foot medical building with the establishment of joint-use parking for future users of the building and the ATEP campus, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit B attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 11th day of May, 2020. AMY MASON Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4402 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11 th day of May, 2020. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E TUT1Il CITY OF TUSTIN 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Tustin Legacy Medical Building Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Erica H. Demkowicz Phone: (714) 573-3127 Project Location: Northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and Victory Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Fred Alaghband, ACS Development Group, Inc. 4701 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Land Use Designation: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Zoning Designation: Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (SP-1) Project Description: Construct a 50,000, 2-story medical office building with 270 parking spaces and associated site improvements. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Red Hill Avenue, industrial East: Vacant land South: Victory Road, vacant land West: Red Hill and Bell Avenues, industrial business 1IPage DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEIS/EIR in conjunction with Specific Plan Amendment 2016-01 (Ordinance 1482) for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (formerly MCAS Tustin Specific Plan). The FEIS/EIR, along with its addendums and supplements, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, addendums and supplemental considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The Tustin Legacy Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. Other public agencies whose approval is required: ® Orange County Fire Authority ❑ City of Santa Ana ❑ Orange County EMA District ❑ City of Irvine ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management ❑ Other ❑ Orange County Health Care Agency Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? N/A 21 Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Land Use / Planning Materials ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant impact because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: Printed Name: Title: For: 31 Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: See Attached. Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 4Pag , DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause ❑ ❑ rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 5 1 P a g , DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable ❑ ❑ net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 6Pag , DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis C) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ ❑ in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑ ❑ in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 7Pag , DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known ❑ ❑ earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground ❑ ❑ shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground ❑ ❑ failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil ❑ ❑ erosion or the loss of topsoil? 8Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E C) Be located on a geologic unit ❑ ❑ or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, ❑ ❑ as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of ❑ ❑ adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. NotAppiicabie Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 91 Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included ❑ ❑ on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport ❑ ❑ land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ ❑ water quality? 11Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis g) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ area structures that would impede or redirect flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land ❑ ❑ use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable ❑ ❑ habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 12Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase ❑ ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or ❑ ❑ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 13Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 14Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse ❑ ❑ physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ii. Police protection? ❑ ❑ iii. Schools? ❑ ❑ iv. Parks? ❑ ❑ V. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 15Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion ❑ ❑ management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards ❑ ❑ due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ access? 16Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Previous Mitigation Analysis Incorporated f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Not Applicable Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or is eligible for listing in ❑ ❑ ❑ the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). b) A resource determined by the ❑ ❑ ❑ lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 17Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and ❑ ❑ local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 18Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Issues: Potentially Less Than No Change Significant Significant From Impact With Mitigation Previous Incorporated Analysis XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts ❑ ❑ that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have ❑ ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656. 191 Page DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Conditional Use Permit 2020-0002/Design Review 2020-0001 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. On July 5, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-23 approving a second Supplement to the FEIS/EIR in conjunction with Specific Plan Amendment 2016-01 (Ordinance 1482) for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (formerly MCAS Tustin Specific Plan). The FEIS/EIR, along with its addendums and supplements, is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, addendums and supplemental considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The Tustin Legacy Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. PROJECT LOCATION Neighborhood A/Planning Area 1 is the Education Village within the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). The Village encompasses a total area of 124.5 acres and is further divided into different subareas. It is bounded by an existing business center to the north, Armstrong Avenue to the east, Warner Avenue to the south, and Red Hill Avenue to the west. The Education Village is an important anchor for the community with a range of public-serving uses within a walkable campus setting. The project site is located within subareas 1-K and 1-H of Planning Area 1, which is a 3.47 acre portion and, more specifically, is bordered by Hope Drive to the north, a vacant parcel to the east, Victory Road to the south and Red Hill Avenue to the west. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 2 Conditional Use Permit 2020-0002 and Design Review 2020-0001 are the development applications necesary to construct a two-story, 50,000 square foot medical building with 270 on- site parking spaces and associated site improvements. Generally the applications can be described as follows: • Design Review 2020-0002: Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, individual development shall require Site Plan and Design Review in accordance with the Tustin City Code. Design Review 2020-0002 has been proposed for the project site planning and design. The proposed project design and site layout are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and complies with design review criteria prescribed in the Tustin City Code. • Conditional Use Permit 2020-0001: Pursuant to Section 3.20.1 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, development projects with shared or joint-use parking require a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the Tustin City Code. Parking areas greater than 30,000 square feet require approval by the Planning Commission. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 3 The proposed project is for a development of a two-story 50,000 square foot medical building with 270 on-site parking spaces within the Advanced Technology and Education Park of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The development of a medical building within Planning Area 1 were considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated with approval of the project. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 3.19 — Urban Design Guidelines of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposal includes Design Review application, which requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review and ensure the design of the project, if approved, is found to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses.All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 3.19.3d of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: no new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplemental; and applicable measures will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-58 through 3-67) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-35 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 4 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The proposed project is a two-story medical building comprised of 50,000 square feet within the Advanced Technology Education Park area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project site is part of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan that contained 702 acres of farmland. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no viable long-term mitigation to off-set the impact of converting farmland on MCAS Tustin to urban uses. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83 through 3-87, 4-109 through 114) and Addendums (Page 5-3 through 5-8) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-43 through 5-47) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 5 ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project is for the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEIS/EIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The site is presently not in use. The project applicant proposes to construct a portion of the property within Planning Area 1 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. Therefore, no significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS/EIR is anticipated. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or(3)the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) FSEIR forTustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Pages 5.1-1 through 5.1- 32) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Table 2, 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 6 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR, the Supplementals and Addendums for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The project site has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 permits issued by Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently,the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 7 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. It should be noted that the former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. Through the Section 106 process, these facilities were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement (attached as part of the EIS/EIR) with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EIS/EI R noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp hangars and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Consistent with the above referenced agreement, the previous owner of the property removed the blimp pad from the project site and leveled the property. However, no portion of the previously existing blimp landing pads nor the existing blimp hangars are located within the project site boundary. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1)changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 8 undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan would "include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin also concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 9 impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required:As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: —Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, which also includes areas for commercial, retail and institutional uses. These uses currently generate greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas used for energy, heating and cooking, electricity usage, vehicle trips associated it each land use and area sources such as landscaping equipment and consumer cleaning products from water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation. The FEIS/EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because, prior to SB 97, which went into effect January 1, 2010, it was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist and the City of Tustin did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation. The City has prepared the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR), which was adopted in June 2017 in conjunction with the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Modified Project). The FSEIR analyzed the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Adopted Specific Plan) would have generated GHG emissions at levels that would exceed the thresholds established by Southern California Air Quality Management District. The FSEIR concluded that the Modified Project would contribute to global climate change through direct emission of GHG from onsite area sources and vehicle trips and indirectly through offsite energy production required for onsite activities, water use and waste DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 10 disposal. However, the Modified Project would generate GHG emissions at a reduced rate than the rate GHG emissions would have been produced under the Adopted Specific Plan. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EI R; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Pages 5.2-1 through Pages 5.2-29) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project is the construction of two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. The ground lease with SOCCCD has provisions which requires the applicant(ACS Development Group, Inc.) or any future tenant under the ground lease to stipulate that future building tenants or users of the Legacy Medical Plaza collaborate with the educational mission of SOCCCD within this area of the Tustin Legacy. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 11 In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four(4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required:As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 12 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the project and submitted/approved Water Quality Management Plan. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed housing project will also not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS/EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 13 Tustin Legacy Specific Plan ((Pages 5-34 through 5-68) FEMA Flood Map: FIRM Panel 06059CO279J(Dec. 2, 2009) Tustin General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Physically divide an established community? a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and the square footage proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 1A, which contemplates an overall development total of 2,229,850 square feet of buildable area. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On July 18, 2017,the Tustin City Council approved the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan for Tustin Legacy project area that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 1A development standards for non-residential uses as noted in Section 3.5.2 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEIS/EIR. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 14 FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.2-1 through Page 5.2-27) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Chapter 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 15 c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. For interior noise, N-3 identified in the FEIS/EIR requires plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4- 231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Pages 5.4-1 through 5.4- 28) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 16 XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and the proposed square footage is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 1, which contemplates the development of a total of 2,229,580 square feet of buildable area. Additionally, the proposed project site is vacant and will not displace people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Pages 5.5-1 through 5.5- 15) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 17 Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The site is currently vacant. Development of the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide two 10-acre sites for elementary schools and a 40-acre high school site to serve the growing student population within its district. The 2001 FEIS/EIR determined that the project would generate 1,473 students within the TUSD. The 2006 Addendum determined that the modified project would result in a reduction of 497 students within the TUSD and analyzed the impact of expanding the Heritage school by 5 acres to accommodate a combination elementary/middle school instead of the two elementary schools and one high school contemplated in the 2001 FEIS/EIR. The FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Modified Project) determined that the Modified Project would in the construction of 6,813 total residential units in the Specific Plan area, resulting in the potential addition of 1,250 students to the TUSD. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from the proposed residential development of the site. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer will be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. In summary, no new additional students are anticipated beyond what was considered in the FEIR/EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS, Tustin, and in any event, City required mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to public services. Specifically, there have not been: DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 18 (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Pages 5.6-1 through 5.6- 12) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed project is a commercial medical office building which will also include educational classes to students in accordance with the conveyance agreement for the site. The project is not anticipated to increase the use of other existing neighborhood or regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 19 measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet, 270 on-site parking spaces and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and proposed building area is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 1, which contemplates the development of a total of 2,229,850 square feet of buildable area. A parking study was submitted for the proposed project stating that shared parking would be provided on-site for the medical building. The FEIS/EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Supplements identified the trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum to create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) of 216,440 trips. The Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed project DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 20 would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and its Supplemental and Addendums. According to the Addendum prepared in conjunction with the 2013 Agreement for Exchange of Real Property (GPA 2013-001, SPA 2013-001, DA 2013-002) for Planning Area 1 (Neighborhood A), a maximum of 50,000 square feet of medical office space was analyzed with an established trip budget of 664 average daily trips (ADTs). The proposed project matches with what was envisioned and analyzed and is well within the overall trip budget established for Planning Area 1. The analysis has shown that the proposed project has not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. Moreover, the proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer has analyzed the proposed project and the associated trip generation and determined that it is within the traffic budget for the project site. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to traffic. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment (Page 5.7-1 through Page 5.7-34) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Pages 5.7-1 through 5.7- 33) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 21 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project is the construction of a two-story medical building with 50,000 square feet and other site improvements within the ATEP area of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIR/EIR analyzed residential development on the proposed site, which is consistent with the proposed project. Development of the site would require on-site improvements and off-site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems, including payment of fair share contribution related to the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program and construction of landscape and irrigation on the public right-of-way Also, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The number of proposed units can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) FSEIR for Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment(Pages 5.8-1 through 5.8- 27) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 22 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS/EIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (Pages 5-34 through 5-68) Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DR 2020-0001 and CUP 2020-0002 Page 23 adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on July 5, 2017 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 4402 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW 2020-0001/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2020-0002 NE CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AND VICTORY ROAD GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped May 11, 2020, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The project will consist of a two- story, medical office building with a total of 50,000 square feet and 270 parking spaces. Any changes in the approved project shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Director of Community Development may approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the TCC. (***) 1.2 Approval of Design Review 2020-0001/Conditional Use Permit 2020-0002 shall become null and void unless the use is established within twelve (12) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be granted if a written request and associated fee are received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.4 Approval of the proposed project is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) 1162(a). SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.7 DR 2020-0001/CUP 2020-0002 may be reviewed on an annual basis, or more often if necessary, by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall review the use to ascertain compliance with conditions of approval. If the use is not operated in accordance with DR 2020-0001/CUP 2020- 0002, or is found to be a nuisance or negative impacts are affecting the surrounding tenants or neighborhood, the Community Development Director shall impose additional conditions to eliminate the nuisance or negative impacts, or may initiate proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. (1) 1.8 If in the future the City's Community Development Director, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department determine that a parking, traffic, or noise problem exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the facility, the Community Development Director, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department may require that the applicant and/or property owner prepare a parking demand analysis, traffic or queuing study, or noise analysis and the applicant shall bear all associated costs. If said study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic or noise problem, the applicant and/or property owner shall be required to provide measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department, Police Chief, and/or Public Works Department. Said mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Adjust hours of operation. b. Provide additional parking in perpetuity of the use. c. Engage parking attendants. d. Provide additional sound attenuation (1) 1.9 As a condition of approval of the project,the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.10 All activities shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. (***) 1.11 The applicant shall comply with original Development Agreement executed on May 22, 2013 and later amended on July 8, 2014 and the associated Implementation Agreement dated July 16, 2015. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 3 (***) 1.12 An access or agreement between the South Orange County Community College District and the applicant shall be obtained prior to improvements of joint access at Innovation Street (i.e. access to the ATEP roundabout). USE RESTRICTIONS (***) 1.13 The approval is for a 50,000 square feet medical building with specific healthcare uses such as urgent care, imaging center, outpatient surgery center, ophthalmology, dental offices, laboratory, etc. No overnight patient stay shall be allowed unless approved by the Community Development Department. (***) 1.14 The approved medical use shall collaborate with the educational use of SOCCCD at ATER Such uses includes but are not limited to the following: (a) users which are engaged in or supportive of activities which consist principally of allied health professionals, or other businesses or operations which are complimentary or closely related to curricula then taught at SOCCCD's educational facilities and (b) are committed to provide in a reasonable manner(i) collaboration with SOCCCD's faculty, (ii) internships for students, particularly in the fields of nursing, allied health professionals and other medical education, (iii) employment for students or graduates of the educational institutions located at ATEP and "career day" sponsorship through a career center located on the ATEP campus, (iv) donations of cash, equipment supplies or in-kind services or the donation or subsidization of buildings or other material facilities desirable to ATEP (v) joint projects with campus faculty or administrators involving research, testing, surveys, studies and/or promotion, (vi) funding for academic research projects, (vii) guest lecturers, seminar speakers and presenters sharing expertise with students, (viii) support of campus programs that contribute to the vitality and growth of the academic experience for students, or (ix) some combination of the foregoing acceptable to the SOCCCD in its reasonable discretion. Any changes to the use shall require review and approval from CDD. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING: (***) 2.1 A Certificate of Compliance shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted for review by Public Works/Engineering and approved by the Community Development Department in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9321. Once approved, the document shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any permits. (***) 2.2 The applicant shall design and construct a raised median on Victory Road from the intersection of Red Hill Avenue to Innovation Street(i.e. access to the roundabout). (1) 2.3 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 2.4 Prior to issuance an Encroachment Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department 24" x 36" reproducible street improvement plans, as prepared DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 4 by a California Registered Civil Engineer, for approval. The plans shall clearly show existing and proposed surface and underground improvements. In addition, a twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inch reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation shall be prepared and submitted to the Public works Department for approval. (1) 2.5 Any damage done to existing public street improvements and/or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development. (1) 2.6 Current Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements shall be met at all driveways and sidewalks adjacent to the site. City of Tustin standards shall apply, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (1) 2.7 The proposed project shall comply with the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as identified in Section 9265 and 9905 of the Tustin City Code (TCC). TDM program plans shall be prepared for the proposed project and shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department. (1) 2.8 Prior to any submittal, the applicant shall submit an 8 %2" x 11" street address map exhibit to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The address map exhibit shall be in portable document format (PDF) and shall include the site plan, foot print of building(s), and streets. SITE & BUILDING DESIGN (4) 3.1 Project materials shall substantially comply with those identified in the approved plans (as such plans may be modified pursuant to the Conditions of Approval). Additional color and material samples may be requested by City staff at the time of plan check. Substitutions to the approved materials may occur subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Enhancements to the architectural detailing may be required at the time of plan check based on the proposed materials. (4) 3.2 All roof access shall be provided from the inside of the building. (4) 3.3 No exterior downspouts shall be permitted. All roof drainage shall utilize interior piping and may have exterior outlets into landscaped areas at the base of the building. Any roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device so that overflow drainage will not stain the walls. (4) 3.4 All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be painted to match the building. (4) 3.5 All rooftop mounted equipment shall be installed so as not to be visible from Red Hill Avenue and Victory Road public right-of-way in accordance with the TCC and shall be subject to final inspection. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 5 (4) 3.6 Utility meters located outside of the building shall be screened with landscaping to the greatest extent possible. Electrical transformers shall be located in areas with room for landscape screening to be planted outside the required access space. (4) 3.7 Backflow devices and double detector checks shall be painted to match surrounding landscaping when in planters or painted to match the building when located adjacent to. Landscaping shall be utilized to screen the devices where possible. (1) 3.8 No outdoor storage shall be permitted except as approved by the Community Development Director. (1) 3.9 At plan check, trash enclosures shall be designed with roofs/covers that are architecturally compatible with the surrounding buildings. (1) 3.10 Freestanding walls and fencing shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating. LANDSCAPING (1) 4.1 Landscape plans shall comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Ordinance No. 1457, regarding the water conservation requirements stipulated in the Governor's Executive Order B-29-15 and the City's Water Management Plan. (1) 4.2 All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy and vigorous condition typical to the species in accordance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition, which includes, but is not limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, litter removal, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. (1) 4.3 Landscaping along Red Hill Avenue and Victory Road shall be the responsibility of ACS Development Group and the South Orange County Community College District. Said landscaping for both areas shall be completed prior to final inspection. (1) 4.4 A minimum of at least one (1) 24-inch box tree for every six parking spaces shall be planted within the project parking lot. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—JOINT USE PARKING (***) 5.1 In accordance with the Shared Parking Analysis prepared by RK Engineering Group, Inc. (dated January 20, 2020), the proposed project shall include the construction of a two-story medical office building with approximately 50,000 square feet of building area and 270 on-site parking spaces. Any changes of on- site parking, parking lot and/or circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 6 (***) 5.2 All parking area abutting streets shall be installed within a minimum of thirty-six (36) inch high screening. Screening shall consist of one or any combination of the following: wall/retaining walls, landscape berms or evergreen or deciduous trees or shrubs. (1) 5.3 Installation of gates across certain private drives to facilitate payment and enforcement of parking requirements shall be subject to approval of a Parking Management Plan by the Community Development Department. (***) 5.4 The applicant shall ensure that students that are enrolled at ATEP (including, without limitation, those participating in the educational opportunities at the premises pursuant to the ground lease) park in the parking facilities designated for enrolled students at ATER If, at some future date, parking at the project site becomes problematic, a revised parking study shall be submitted for review and approval and shall include measures to alleviate the parking problem. (***) 5.5 A written and recorded agreement shall be required assuring the continued availability of reciprocal access easements on the property. Said agreement shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Attorney and Director of Community Development. MASTER SIGN PLAN (1) 6.1 Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Plan for the project that is in accordance with Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and/or the TCC. Said plan shall be designed in accordance with both documents and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development and/or Planning Commission. The Director of Community Development may approve modifications to the master sign plan that are consistent with the intent of the Tustin City Sign Code. Such modifications shall be accompanied with findings to support said decision. (1) 6.2 A sign permit shall be applied for and obtained from the Community Development Department prior to constructing, erecting, altering, replacing, moving, or painting any sign, except for signs exempt from a permit according to the Tustin Sign Code. Permit applications shall be accompanied by information as required for a standard sign plan or master sign plan, pursuant to the Tustin Sign Code. (1) 6.3 All signs shall conform to the approved Master Sign Plan and revert to the City of Tustin Sign Code for any issues that remain silent in said Plan. (1) 6.4 All signs shall be structurally safe and maintained in good condition at all times. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to order repair, replacement, or removal of any signs which constitute a hazard or nuisance to the safety, health, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, or obsolescence. (1) 6.5 All signs shall be constructed of a non-corrosive, rust-resistant finish so as not to degrade in adverse weather conditions. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 7 (1) 6.6 The locations for any signs shall comply with the City of Tustin Guidelines for Determining Sign Location Visual Clearance and Public Safety Areas. Signs shall not be placed in a manner that will obstruct or inhibit sight distance or visibility for the motorist. At plan check submittal, all signs shall be clearly identified on plans as to the exact locations. Any signs in proximity to the public right-of-way that could impact driver sight shall be shown at a larger scale that will be adequate for plan check purposes. BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 7.1 All construction shall comply with 2019 California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Electrical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Code, California Energy Codes and City Ordinances, State and Federal laws, and other regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. (1) 7.2 The applicant shall apply for and obtain building permits for construction of the proposed project. Architectural plans, egress plans, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and structural plans along with elevator plans shall be submitted with the permit application (1) 7.3 A three-way stop sign shall be installed at each private street intersection within the project site to control traffic flow. (1) 7.4 The applicant shall make the required deposits for plan check and permit issuance in accordance with the City's most recent fee schedule. (1) 7.5 All new structures shall provide adequate radio coverage for City emergency service workers operating on the 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communication System. Further, the applicant/owners or tenants shall maintain a reasonable standard of reliable radio communication within their buildings and structures once a certificate of occupancy is issued or a final inspection is conducted. For the purposes of this section, adequate radio coverage shall include those specifications in the City of Tustin Public Safety Radio System Coverage Specifications set forth in Chapter 10, Section 8958 of the TCC, even if the project is exempt from Section 8958. (City of Tustin Public Safety Radio System Coverage Specifications). (1) 7.8 A drawing of the parking lot showing compliance with the City's required lighting levels will be required at the time of plan check submittal. (1) 7.9 All private on-site design and construction of improvement work shall be designed and performed in accordance with the applicable portions of the City of Tustin's "Grading Manual" and "Construction Standards for Private Streets, Storm Drain and On-Site Private Improvements," except as otherwise approved by the Building Official. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 8 a. Sidewalks and paths of travel, including curb ramps for the physically disabled; all sidewalks and pathways shall comply with the provisions of the American with Disabilities Act; b. Drive aprons; c. Signing/striping plan; d. Street lighting; e. Street and drive aisle paving; all private streets, drive aisles, and curb return radius shall be consistent with the City's design standards for private street improvements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official, and all roadway and driveway widths and parking area widths (and lengths where appropriate) shall be dimensioned on the plans; f. Catch basin/storm drain laterals/connections to the public storm drain system with approval of the City of Tustin; g. Sanitary sewer facilities: All sanitary sewer facilities must be submitted as required by the Building Official and IRWD. These facilities shall be consistent with the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District; h. Underground utility connections: All utility lines shall be placed underground by the developer; i. Fire hydrants; j. Telecommunications facilities including, but not limited to, telephone and cable television facilities. Developer is required to coordinate design and construction of cable television facilities with a City-franchised system operator and shall not place an undue burden upon said operator for the provision of these facilities. (1) 7.10 Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized whenever possible. (1) 7.11 The proposed project shall comply with the required accessible parking spaces for Rehabilitation Facilities or Outpatient Physical Therapy which will be 20% of the total number of parking spaces provided per California Building Code 1113-502, 11 B-208.2.2. (1) 7.12 The proposed project shall comply with California Green Code 5.106.5.3 and CBC 11 B-228.3 and 11 B-812 and the City of Tustin "User Guide for EV charging Stations" relative to the provision of location(s) for future EV charging stations. (1) 7.13 The proposed project shall comply with designated parking for Clean Air Vehicles in accordance with California Green Code 5.106.5.2 and long term and short-term bicycle parking per 5.106.4.1.1 and 5.106.4.1.2. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 9 (1) 7.14 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a noise study for review and approval by the City of Tustin. Said noise study shall demonstrate that all noise associated with the use adheres to the Tustin Noise Ordinance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS (1) 8.1 A grading a drainage plan shall be submitted to the City of review that includes location of underground utilities and private road improvements. The plan shall be prepared and designed by a California registered civil engineer and shall comply with the requirements of the Tustin Grading Ordinance and Manual. (1) 8.2 A final grading plan shall be submitted upon completion of initial grading. Said plan shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. The grading plan shall be consistent with the approved site and landscaping plans. (1) 8.3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a grading bond (on a form acceptable to the City) will be required. The engineer's estimate, which covers the cost of all work shown on the grading plan, including grading, drainage, water, sewer and erosion control, shall be submitted to the City for approval. (1) 8.4 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall install chain link fence with green screen along the project boundary along Victory Road, Hope Drive, Red Hill Avenue and the vacant parcel east of the project site. (1) 8.5 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Tustin, that a county-certified paleontologist has been retained in the event that unique paleontological resources are discovered during construction. WATER QUALITY (1) 9.1 This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations. (1) 9.2 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP shall identify Low Impact Development (LID) principles and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to retain storm water and treat predictable pollutant run-off. The Priority WQMP shall identify: the implementation of BMPs, the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessees, etc.), and reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (1) 9.3 Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of two thousand seven hundred dollars ($2,700.00) to the Public Works Department for the estimated cost of reviewing the WQMP. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 10 (1) 9.4 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall record a "Covenant and Agreement Regarding O & M Plan to Fund and Maintain Water Quality BMPs, Consent to Inspect, and Indemnification" with the County Clerk-Recorder. This document shall bind current and future owner(s) of the property regarding implementation and maintenance of the structural and non-structural BMPs as specified in the approved WQMP. (1) 9.5 Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Quality Control Board. SOLID WASTE RECYCLING CONDITIONS (1) 10.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). a. Developer/contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least sixty-five (65) percent of the project waste material or the amount required by the California Green Building Standards Code. b. The applicant will be required to submit a$50.00 application fee and a cash security deposit. Based on the review of the submitted Waste Management Plan, the cash security deposit will be five (5) percent of the project's valuation as determined by the Building Official, rounded to the nearest thousand. The deposit amount will be collected in accordance with the Tustin City Code. c. Prior to issuance of any permit, Developer shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin". (1) 10.2 Facility Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Plan. a. The applicant, property owner, and/or tenant(s) are required to participate in the City's recycling program. b. Waste and Recycling collection facilities shall be equally and readily accessible by the property owner(s) or tenant(s). c. Waste and Recycling collection facilities must be placed in a location that can be easily and safely accessed by the solid waste hauler while utilizing either front loader or side loading equipment. d. Adequate collection capacity shall be provided to ensure that collection frequency shall not exceed four times per week for commercial customers. e. All trash enclosures shall utilize the City's standard enclosure designed with roof to accommodate at least two (2) 4-yard bins, with at least one (1) bin reserved for recyclable materials. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 11 f. All developments are required to provide space for the collection of organic materials. Organics are collected in 35-gallon and 65-gallon wheeled carts, and 2-yard bins. The size of the organic's containerwill be dependent upon the use and size of the building. Organics can be collected six (6) days per week to minimize the space required for a container. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS (1) 11.1 Prior to Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) clearance of a final map or issuance of a rough or precise grading or building permit, a fire master plan is required to be submitted to OCFA for review. (1) 11.2 An underground piping plan for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems shall be submitted to OCFA for review and approval prior to issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required. (1) 11.3 Prior to concealing interior construction, a fire alarm and fire sprinkler system shall be installed. (1) 11.4 A storage plan of flammable/combustible fuel shall be submitted to OCFA for review and approval prior to issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required. (1) 11.5 Emergency Access Easements: Irrevocable reciprocal access easements for emergency access purposes to the benefit of the City shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or, where no final map is required, prior to approval of the fire master plan. (1) 11.6 Lumber-drop inspection: After installation of required fire access roadways and hydrants, the applicant shall receive clearance from the OCFA prior to bringing combustible building materials on-site. Call OCFA Inspection Scheduling at (714) 573-6150 with the Service Request number of the approved fire master plan at least five (5) days in advance to schedule the lumber drop inspection. (1) 11.7 Emergency Responder Digital Radio System: Evidence of compliance with emergency responder digital radio system performance criteria shall be provided prior to occupancy. Refer to OCFA Guideline E-03 or the local jurisdiction's emergency responder radio ordinance, as applicable, for requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL (1) 12.1 All mitigation measures related to the project that are required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for FEIR/EIS for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, identified in this exhibit and in other related project entitlements, shall be implemented. Additional measures related to development of this project as noted in the adopted EIS/EIR and are not previously identified in this exhibit as a condition of approval are required as follows: a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the developer shall retain a County- certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 12 the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. b. The developer shall comply with the requirements established in a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRM P) prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are found. C. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence to the Community Development Department that a County- certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. d. Prior to issuance of any permit, the developer shall provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. Such plans shall minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. e. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short- term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed fifteen (15) miles per hour. f. The developer shall coordinate with the Tustin Police Department to ensure adequate security provisions are implemented. FEES (1) 13.1 Prior to issuance of each building permit, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. b. Engineering plan check and permit fees to the Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. c. OCFA plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. DocuSign Envelope ID:8F00O3A4-F7B2-49EB-B647-83942719459E Exhibit B Resolution No. 4402 Page 13 d. Payment of Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department are required at the time a building permit is issued. e. Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. f. New construction fee in the amount of ten cents ($0.10) per square foot. g. School facilities fee in the amount as required by Tustin Unified School District. (1) 13.2 Per the Development Agreement between the City and SOCCCD, a Fair Share Contribution towards infrastructure improvements will be required in conjunction with the project. This contribution is applicable for all Land Use Category 2 uses and must be made to the City's Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program. The Contribution will be collected at building permit issuance and escalates 3% annually on May 21 of each year. As of May 21, 2020, the Fair Share Contribution will be $23.83 per square foot. (1) 13.3 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened.