Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 10-87RESOLUTION NO. 10-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2008-138, DESIGN REVIEW 08-011, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-017 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL LOCATED AT 14611 PROSPECT AVENUE INTO TWO (2) NEW PARCELS WHICH WOULD EACH ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. I. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That a proper application for Tentative Parcel Map 2008-138, Design Review 08-011, and Conditional Use Permit 08-017 was filed by Tony Barkozia and Noel Prendergast requesting authorization to subdivide an existing 1.075 gross acres parcel located at 14611 Prospect Avenue into two (2) parcels to accommodate a single family dwelling on each parcel. Existing at tyre subject property is a historic residence which will ~e maintained and involve the construction of a 4,255 square foot addition and a detached 1,008 square foot garage and 460 square foot guest house at 14611 Prospect Avenue (Parcel 2). Construction of a new 5,807 square foot single family dwelling is proposed on the newly created parcel at 14702 Iverness Way (Parcel 1); B. That Tentative Parcel Map 2008-138, Design Review 08-011, and Conditional Use Permit 08-017 is considered a "project" by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.); C. That an Initial Study has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the project which concluded there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared; D. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available fora 20-clay public review and comment period from July 29, 2010, to August 18, 2010, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEC2A Guidelines; E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, held for TPM 2008-138, DR 08-011, and CUP 08-017 on August 24, 2010, by the Planning Commission. At said meeting the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4153, Resolution No. 10-87 Page 1 of 2 recommending that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 2008-138, Design Review 08-011, and Conditional Use Permit 08-017; II. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit A for Tentative Parcel Map 2008-138, Design Review 08-011, and Conditional Use Permit 08-017 to subdivide an existing 1.075 gross acres parcel located at 14611 Prospect Avenue into two (2) .parcels to accommodate a single family dwelling on each parcel. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 21St day of September, 2010. City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 10-87 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21St day of September, 2010 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Amante, Nielsen, Davert, Palmer, Gavello None None None (~) (5) (o> (0) -~V.~t+ PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Resolution No. 10-87 Page2of2 Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 10-87 TUSTI N CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 3UILU/N(: 1]UR I U 1 URL I10WIRING L1UR P.\ST A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact Person: Phone: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan land Use Designation: Zoning Designation: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Project Description: Tentative Parcel Map 2008-138, Design Review 08-011, Conditional Use Permit OS-017 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner (714) 573-3123 14611 Prospect Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 Tony Barkozia 17872 Theodora Drive Tustin, CA 92780 Low Density Residential Estate Residential (E-4) North: Residential (E-4) South: Residential (E-4) Noel Prendergast 2510 Bungalow Place Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 East: School (P&I) West: Residential (E-4) The proposed project involves the subdivision of an existing 1.075 gross acres parcel into two (2) parcels to accommodate a single family dwelling on each parcel. Existing at the subject property is a historic residence which will be maintained and involve the construction of a 4,255 square foot addition and a 1,468 garage/guest house. Construction of a new 5,807 square foot single family dwelling is proposed on the newly created parcel fronting Ivemess Way. Accessory and miscellaneous structures existing at the subject property are proposed to be demolished. 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 INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin 8. 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 ^ Biological Resources ^ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ^ Land Use /Planning ^ Population /Housing ^ Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION: ^ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Hazards 8 Hazardous Materials ^ Mineral Resources ^ Public Services ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Air Quality ^ Geology /Soils ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^ Noise ^ Recreation ^ Mandatory Findings of Sign~cance 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. ^ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi~ 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, 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. Preparers Rvan Swiontek ~iCi~r~ ,~~~sa..~f' Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Associate Planner Date 07/29/2010 2~Page C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-speck factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less #han sign cant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Sign cant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Sign cant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3xD). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (a.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the sign~cance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure ident~ed, if any, to reduce the impact to less than sign~cance INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: 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 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than !, Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ^ o a ^ D ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ 6~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: 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? 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 Plari, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated a ^ o D O D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ a ^ ^ ^ 7~Page INITIAL STUDY ^ ^ ^ a Issues: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated No Imp t F r 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 of formal cemeteries? VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of foss, 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. City of Tustin Less Than Significant Impact ® ^ a ^ ^ ^ i 8~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: 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? 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 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? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated D ^ D ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ a D ^ ® D ^ ^ ^ 9~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac~ Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 sign cant 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? l0~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ Issues: 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)? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Sign cant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ^ ^ ^ ^ i1~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact With Impact ~ Mitigation Incorporated 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 pattem 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? 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ~ ~ ~ I ® mudflow? I 12~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 ~ ~ ~ I conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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, speck plan or other land use plan? 13~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Sign cant Impaa Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 groundbome vibration or groundbome 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? 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 wortcing in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 14~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? 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? ^ ^ ^ D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o a a a ^ a o a o o ^ o 15~Page INITIAL STUDY Issues: v. Other public facilities? XV RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighbofiood 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact a City of Tustin Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impart With Impact i Mitigation Incorporated o a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 16~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: 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? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public Vansit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVI I UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Cluality 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 sign cant environmental effects? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o 17~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Sign cant ImpaG' -- Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? a o a ^ a o 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? ^ O ® ^ iB~Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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. 19~Page ATTACHMENT A INITIAL STUDY 14611 PROSPECT AVENUE BARKOZIA AND PRENDERGAST RESIDENCES PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicants, Tony Barkozia and Noel Prendergast, are proposing to subdivide an existing 1.075 gross acres parcel into two (2) parcels to accommodate a single family dwelling on each parcel. The project site is located at 14611 Prospect Avenue and is designated as Low Density Residential by the General Plan Land Use element and within the Estate Residential (E-4) zoning district. The project will involve the following: Tentative Parcel Map 2008-138, a request to subdivide an existing parcel to create two (2) new parcels. Parcel 2 will contain the property fronting Prospect Avenue which consists of an existing historic residence. Parcel 1 will contain the property fronting Ivemess Way and involve the construction of a new single family residence. Design Review 08-011 for the demolition of accessory structures on-site and portions of a single family residence listed in the City's Historical Survey and rated "A" with a National Register Historic Preservation (NRHP) Status Code: 3S. Construction of an addition to the existing historic residence on proposed Pazcel 2 and construction of a new detached single family dwelling on proposed Parcel 1. Conditional Use Permit 08-017 has been submitted for a proposed guesthouse above a new detached garage on Parcel 2. Existing on the property is an "A" rated historical residence as designated in the City's Historical Resources Survey (Attachment A) with a National Register Historic Preservation (NRHP) Status Code: 3S per the Update to the Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003). The rating scale places the "A" rating as the highest rating and includes buildings which are historically significant or notable as well as potential candidates for the National Register of Historic Places. A status code of 3S notes that the structure is eligible for separate listing on the National Register, however, the subject property is not currently listed on the National Register. The residence is estimated to have been constructed in 1928 and is of the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture. It is described within the City's Historical Survey as "one of the finest of that style in the city." There appear to be various unpernutted additions to the main structure. in addition to the main structure, there is a detached garage of the same architecture that appears to have been converted without permits to guest quarters. 'The garage structure has been altered and deteriorated to an extent where it diverges from the original character of the main structure. Also existing on the site is a tennis court, swirrvning pool, accessory structure and a variety of specimen trees. The site itself maintains two street frontages with the main stricture fronting onto Prospect Avenue and maintaining a reaz street frontage along Iverness Way. The current proposal involves subdividing the existing 1.075 gross acres parcel. There is a street and sidewalk easement in effect along Prospect Avenue which results in a lower net acreage (0.938 net acres). As a potential condition of approval the applicant shall dedicate in fee the portion of the parcel within the ultimate right of way. The applicant is proposing to create two new parcels each of approximately 0.648 (Parcel 2) and 0.427 gross acres (Parcel 1) in size respectively fronting onto Prospect Avenue and Iverness Way. All existing accessory structures on the site are proposed to be demolished to accommodate a new residence and an addition to the existing historic residence. Portions of the historic residence are also proposed to be demolished consisting primarily of areas that appeaz to have been additions over time and that are not true to the original architecture of the residence. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 2 The proposed addition to the historic residence on Pame12 would be a 4,255 square foot two story addition with a 1,468 square foot detached combined garageJguesthouse. The addition would be situated to the south of the existing historic residence and connected via an approximately sixteen (16) foot wide by eighteen (18) foot long two story architectural hyphen. This narrow connection (hyphen) essential divides the two structures (existing vs. new) visually and spatially while at the same time providing a literal connection of the two structures. The 1,468 square foot three car garage with second floor guest quarters is proposed to be situated neaz the rear of the property behind the proposed addition. The proposed new residence will be addressed at 14702 Iverness Way (Parcel 1) and will involve the construction of a single story 5,008 square foot home with a 799 square foot garage in the craftsman architectural style. Both sites are proposing swimming pools. This Initial Study is prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to the following categories: I. AESTHETICS Items a. b. d_- "No Impact": The proposed project would involve the construction of a new residence on proposed Parcel 1 and an addition to an existing historic residence on proposed Parcel 2 as well as the demolition of existing accessory structures. The project is located within a low density residential area and meets the applicable caning requirements. There is not a scenic vista that would be affected and the project site is not located within a state scenic highway. 'The project proposes to remove the exterior lighting sources associated with the existing tennis court which could reduce sources of light and glaze at the property. New sources of substantial light or glare would not be an issue as the project involves the construction of a new residence and an addition to an existing residence. Items c "Less than SiPnificant Impact ": The project site is located in an urbanized area consisting of low density residential housing. The majority of the homes, with the exception of the historic residence at the subject property, are of the California ranch house architectural tradition. The visual character of the site would be altered due to the demolition of existing structures and new construction, however, the property is located within the Estate Residential zoning district where lazger homes with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet are typical. The project consists of the demolition of existing improvements including a tennis court and accessory buildings, the construction of a new single family residence, and a substantial addition to an existing historic residence. The proposed addition to the existing historic residence on proposed Parcel 2 would use materials and finishes which complement the architecture of the existing residence. Architectural features of the proposed addition are typical of the Spanish Colonial tradition and the existing historic residence. The massing of the addition is also similar to that of the existing residence and would be placed beside it and connected via what is essentially a hallway. The addition proposes to match the height of the existing two story residence and would project closer to Prospect Avenue creating depth and dimensionality for the building. The proposed detached three caz garage with second floor guest quarters will be located behind the proposed addition making it more than 100 feet from the Prospect Avenue sidewalk and only minimally visible from the public right of way. Construction of the new residence on proposed Parcel 1 would front onto Iverness Way and replace the existing tennis court and single story accessory structure existing there currently. Iverness Way Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 3 is only one street block long which terminates into Amanganset Way to the north and Westbury Lane to the south. There are three homes which front onto Iverness Way located on the opposite side of the street of the project site. Apart from these three homes there are three other residences which have side yards along Iverness Way which front onto either Amaganset Way or Westbury Lane. All homes within the immediate vicinity of the project site are single story homes. The proposed residence on Parcel 1 will involve the construction of a new single story 5,008 squaze foot home with a 799 square foot garage. The proposed residence would be consistent with the single story nature of homes on the same street. The residence is designed in the craftsman tradition and adorned with cedar wood shingle siding. Exterior finishes and materials would primarily consist of wood, cultured stone, copper accent features and asphalt shingle roofmg. The two proposed residences are each lazger than the existing residence and would both be located on parcels in excess of 18,000 square feet. 'The proposed residences meet the development standards set forth for the Estate Residential zoning district. Aesthetically, the new residences would be replacing existing structures on-site. While there would be an additional residence built on the site, a less than significant impact is anticipated because each of the proposed residences would only be visible from its respective street frontage and the proposed lots would be oversized compared to others in the neighborhood. The proposed parcel configuration would appear more ordinary to the neighborhood than the existing parcel. The majority of homes within the neighborhood aze single story in design and the new home proposed on Iverness Way (Parcel 1) would also maintain a single story. The existing historic home fronting Prospect is two storied and has been in existence long before any of the surrounding homes were built. The proposed two story desiga of the addition is complimentary to the architecture of the original historic residence. Currently the subject property is not very visible from the public right of way due to extensively overgrown and urunaintained landscaping. Setbacks of the proposed residential structures meet the development standards and are consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. As part of the project proposal the applicant is planning to trim and replace portions of the existing landscaping. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The City's Design Review process and conditions of approval for the project will ensure that the structures do not pose an impact to aesthetics of the surrounding community. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey (1990) Update to Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003) City of Tustin Residential Design Guidelines -Cultural Resource District II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Items a - e - "No Impact": 'The project site is currently developed with a single family residence in an urbanized area. The project site is within an established tract of low density residential development. There is no Williamson Act contract associated with the property and it is not zoned for agricultural, forest or timberland use. The proposed project will not convert farmland or forest land, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural or forest land use, or cause changes to the environment resulting in conversion Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 4 of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. The Orange County Boazd of Supervisors has determined that there will be no Farmland of Local Importance for Orange County. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Orange County Important Farmland Map 2006 A Guide to The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2004 Edition http://www.conservation.ca. og v/dhp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp guide 2004 pdf III. AIR QUALITY Items a- e - "No Impact ": The proposed demolition and the construction of a new residence and an addition to an existing historic residence is below the threshold criteria for construction and operation impacts as defined in Tables 6-2 and 6-3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook published in 1993 by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A continuation of residential use at the subject property will not produce or involve concentrated pollutants or odors. Grading and development activities would be required to comply with all local and SCAQMD rules and regulations concerning emissions. The proposed project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and it will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Mitiga#on/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Grading Manual CEQA Air Quality Handbook IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a- f- "No Impact": The project site is located within an urbanized area and cun~erttly developed for residential use. There would be no change in the use of the property as a result of the project. Mature trees exist on the site and are proposed to be removed, however, there is no tree preservation policy or ordinance with which removal of trees would conflict with. The City's General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element does not identify any important natural resources at the subject property. The project proposes to install new landscaping. The project is located on a site with no wetlands and is not in close proximity to any body of water. As such, the development would not affect 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. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 5 The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or an adopted habitat conservation plan. No significant impacts to biological resources are anticipated. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• No mitigation is required. Sources: Fieid Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Department of Fish and Game, NCCP httn://www.dfg_ca.gov/habcon/nccp/index.html V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a- "Less Than SiQniRcant Impact": 'The project proposes to subdivide the existing property into two lots and construct a new single family residence and an addition to the existing historic residence. Existing on the property is an "A" rated historical residence as designated in the City's Historical Resources Survey (Attachment A) with a National Register Historic Preservation (NRHP) Status Code: 3S per the Update to the Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003). The property is eligible for separate listing on the National Register; however, the subject property is not currently listed on the National Register. 'The residence is estimated to have been constructed in 1928 and is of the Spanish Colonial Revival architecture. While not located within the City's designated Cultural Resources Overlay District, the property is recognized in the City's map of historic resources contained within the General Plan Conservation/Open Space element. The addition to the historic residence is sited directly to the south of the existing residence and the two structures will be connected via an approximately sixteen (16) foot wide by eighteen (18) foot long two story architectural hyphen. The proposed two story addition and detached garageJguesthouse comprise 5,732 square feet. Existing additions to the original historic residence that are not in-line with the original architecture are proposed to be removed which would result in a square footage of 3,572 square feet for the existing portion of the historic residence. Through the use of Spanish Colonial architecture and design features, the addition proposes to integrate with the existing historic residence. 'The project proposes to comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties which provides guidelines for the appropriate preservation/restoration of a historic struchue based on solid design principles. There are ten principles identified within the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The project architect has provided a response to these ten principles which identify the projects compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Thirtieth Street Architects firm has performed independent review of the proposed project for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties. Thirtieth Street offers a wealth of professional experience with historic preservation. The project architect has taken into account and worked to incorporate the recommendations from Thirtieth Street Architects within the project design when allowable. The project is consistent with the following General Plan Land Use and Conservation/Open SpaceJRecreation Policies: Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 6 Land Use Policy 5.5: Encourage the restoration and rehabilitation of properties in Tustin eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places according to the rehabilitation guidelines and tax incentives of the National Ttust for Historic Preservation. Land Use Policy 6.2: Encourage and promote high quality design and physical appearance in all development projects. Land Use Policy 6.5: Preserve historically significant structures and sites, and encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older buildings, sites, and neighborhoods that contribute to the City's historic character. Conservation Policy 12.1: Identify, designate, and protect facilities of historical significance, where feasible. Items b. c. and d "No Impact ": The project is located within an urbanized area and currently developed with residential structures. The proposed project will cause no substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource or directly or indirectly destroy a unique palentological resource or geological feature or disturb human remains. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The City's Design Review process and conditions of approval for the project will ensure that the structures do not pose an impact to cultural resources. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey (1990) Update to Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003) City of Tustin Residential Design Guidelines -Cultural Resource District Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation http•//www nps gov/historv/hps/tps/standards guidelines htm VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a-e - "No Impact"• A review of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map and the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map indicates that the project site is not located within a known earthquake fault zone and is not in an area of potential liquefaction or landslide hazard. Submittal of a soils report and compliance with current codes will ensure that the design and construction of the proposed project reduces any potential impacts related to fault ruptures, ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or unstable soils to a level of insignificance. Since the proposed development is on a relatively flat site, only minor grading will be required. Compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance and Water Quality Ordinance will reduce any potential impacts related to soil erosion to a level of insignificance. A sewer system is available to the site for disposal of wastewater and the development will be required to connect to this system. MitigationlMonitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 7 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code, Grading Manual Seismic Hazard Zone Map February 27, 2008 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Item a- "Less Than Significant Im amt": Temporary increases in greenhouse gas emissions are likely to occur during construction which would be greater than those typically experienced in the existing neighborhood. Construction will involve the demolition of accessory structures and the development of a new single family residence and an addition to an existing residence. Emissions created from construction activities are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the environment due to the scope of work and the minimal construction time anticipated. New construction will be required to comply with the latest edition of applicable codes which include energy codes related to efficiency. Materials proposed for the residences will be modern and meet high efficiency standards to reduce potential greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed residences aze likely to be much more efficient than existing homes in the neighborhood which were built in the 1960's. Renovation to the existing historic residence will use replacement materials that are of a higher efficiency than those existing when allowable and in context to the architecture of the historic structure. New construction is proposed to replace existing structures on-site, however, the new construction will be of a substantially greater square footage and larger footprint than those structures which are being replaced. The proposed development is in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan which allow for the proposed lower density residential development being proposed Single family residential use is the least intensive use allowed in the Estate Residential (E~) zoning district. Item b - "No Lnnact": 'The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project is not requesting any deviation or variance from the existing standards within the City Code or General Plan applicable to the property. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Grading Manual CEQA Air Quality Handbook Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 8 VIII. HAZARDS AND HA7.ARnOU5 MATERIALS Items a- h - "No Impact": The project site is located within an urbanized area characterized by residential development. The present use of the property is for residential purposes and is proposed to continue as such. Demolition of various residential use structures will occur, however, it is not anticipated that hazardous emissions would occur. Construction of the proposed project will not involve transport or use of any hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions. According the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the project site is not listed as a hazazdous material site. 'The project would not alter or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The site is not located within an airport land use plan or a private airstrip or in areas with wild land fires. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan Department of Toxic Substances Control -Hazardous Materials Sites http://www. envirostor.dtsc.ca. gov/public/ IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a_-i - "No Impact": The proposed project site is located on a relatively flat site with existing residential structures. Minimal grading would occur in conjunction with the proposed project and no substantial alteration of the site drainage pattern would occur. Residential uses as proposed by the project are existing in the area and permitted uses within the zoning district. The proposed project is not a priority project, will not require a preliminary water quality management plan (WQMP), and is exempt from the WQMP requirement. The project will be required to comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The project site is designated as Zone X -Other Flood Areas on the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map dated December 3, 2009 prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and is not located in a 100-yeaz flood hazazd area,. This zone is defined as "areas of a .2 percent flood chance, areas of one percent annual chance of flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile, and areas protected by levees from a one percent annual change of flood." Compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance and the California Building Code would ensure that the project is designed with adequate drainage improvements, erosion control measures, and pollution control plans. The proposed residential use would not create significant impacts to stormwater runoff or discharge pollutants due to post-construction activities. The project is not anticipated to degrade water quality. The project is located on an existing residential site serviced by Tustin Water Operations. The scale of the project does not have the potential to impact water supplies, nor deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater rechazge or lower the local ground water table level. The project would not redirect flood waters and the site is not within an area that would expose people to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 9 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Grading Manual Flood Insurance Rate Map dated December 3, 2009 Tustin Guidelines for Preliminary WQMPs TCC Section 4900 et al. -Water Quality Control X. LAND USE & PLANNING Items a - c - "No Impact": The subject property is within the Low Density Residential General Plan Land Use designation and the Estate Residential (E-4) zoning district. The proposed subdivision would bring the site more in context with other single family residences in the neighborhood in that the lot sizes would be more compatible with other lots located in the vicinity. The proposed project is in compliance with development standards and land use intensity of the City's Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. There would be no change to the existing residential use nor would there be any physical division of the existing community. The new residence and residential addition would be located on private property which has been previously used for residential purposes. There is no established habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan within the area of the project site. The project would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Map XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a, b - "No Impact": According to the City of Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space,/Recreations Element (Figure COSR-2) there are no known mineral resources within the City that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The proposed development will not have impacts on energy conservation or mineral resources with respect to adopted energy conservation plans or loss of available known mineral resources. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Attachment A Evaluation of Envvonmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 10 XII. NOISE Items a. b, c, e. and f- "No Impact": The proposed single family residential project is not anticipated to expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of local standards of the General Plan or noise ordinance or expose persons to excessive groundbome vibration. Construction activities would be required to comply with the City's restrictions on allowable construction hours. The project adheres to the density thresholds as identified in the City's General Plan and meets the development standards as set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The project proposes one additional single family detached residence to the existing neighborhood which is not anticipated to create any noise impacts to the existing neighborhood. The project is not located within two miles of an airport or a private airstrip. Item d "Less Than Sirniflcant Impact": Development of the site would result in short-term construction noise impacts that will be m;n;m;~ed through adherence to the City's construction hours. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan XIII. POPULATION & HOUSING Item a - c - "No Imvact"• 'The project site is designated for Low Density Residential use by the General Plan and complies with the density thresholds. In addition, the project is in compliance with the development standards contained with the City's Zoning Ordinance. The project site is located within abuilt-out residential neighborhood No persons will be displaced and population growth will not be induced as a result of the project. Only one (1) new residential use will be created as a result of the project, therefore no impacts to population or housing are anticpated. Mitigatiorr/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - "No Impact"• There will be no increase in the demand to public services as a result of the proposed project. All public services are existing and adequate to serve the additional single family residence that is being proposed as well as the addition to the existing residence. The project site is an infill site identified for residential purposes and located within an urbanized area The development is required to pay School Impact fees as adopted by the Tustin Unified School District, and the project will be routed to all affected agencies for review and comment. All other new development fees applicable to the Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1461 I Prospect Avenue Page I1 project will also be required to be paid. "The Orange County Fire Authority provides fire protection services to the City of Tustin and has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with their requirements. 'The City of Tustin Police Department has reviewed the project and has no concerns regazding their ability to service the project. The proposed new single family residence has been identified for low density residential use by the General Plan and Estate Residential (E-4) zoning district. No impact to public services requiring new or physically altered facilities such as schools, fire protection, police services, City or regional parks, or other public facilities are anticipated as a result of the project. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan XV. RECREATION Iten~ a &b "No Imyact": The project proposes the construction of an addition to an existing residence and the construction of a new single family residence. Both of the proposed lots are in excess of 18,000 squaze feet and have substantial private recreational area. The project would only add one (1) additional residential use thus, there would be no impact to neighborhood and/or recreation facilities as a result of the project and no recreation facilities are planned or required for the project. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan XVI. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Item a - f "No Impact"• No impacts to traffic are anticipated as the project proposes a new single family residence and an addition to an existing single family residence located within abuilt-out low density residential neighborhood. The project meets the zoning and development standards of the Estate Residential (E- 4) zoning district. Proposed construction within the public right-of--way will involve the widening of an existing drive apron along Ivemess Way and the relocation of an existing drive apron along Prospect Avenue to accommodate the project. The City of Tustin Public Works Department is also requiring replacement of portions of the existing sidewalk along Iverness Way and Prospect Avenue. Iverness Way is only a single block in length between Amaganset Way and Westbury Lane with three existing homes fronting onto the street. There are no known pazking impacts at this location and the proposed lot would have approximately 150 lineaz feet of frontage providing ample on-street parking. In addition, the proposed new residence with a 3 caz garage and driveway on Parcel 2 would create additional off-street parking not can ently existing at the project site. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 12 Relocation of the existing driveway and apron along Prospect Avenue will enhance the functionality of the project site. The existing drive apron is located at the property's northernmost point along Prospect Avenue just south of the crosswalk to Columbus Tustin School and will be eliminated. The City of Tustin Public Works Department will be installing a traffic signal (CIP No. 40007'n in this immediate location at the intersection of Amaganset Way and Beneta Way along Prospect Avenue. The new driveway and apron is proposed on the southernmost part of the property along Prospect Avenue which will be appropriate and efficient for the project site and street system. The proposed addition to the historic residence at 14611 Prospect Avenue (Parcel 2) will also involve the constntction of a 3 car garage along with a motoroourt. The proposed single family residential project is not expected to have an effect on the existing circulation system and does not conflict with an applicable congestion plan. No change in air traffic patterns will occur as a result of the project. Emergency responders such as police and fire services have reviewed the proposed project for compliance with their criteria. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a - P - "No Imaact ": Water and sewer services and other utilities are available to the site since the project is within an urbanized area and has been previously developed. The City of Tustin Water Department has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with their standards. 'The proposed new single family residence would replace existing structures on site and would not create a substantial draw on existing utilities. The project is not a priority project and will not require the preparation and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Construction of new wastewater and/or storm drain facilities to service the project are not anticipated. Compliance with utility or service provider and City requirements identified during project review will ensure that no impacts occur. CR&R Waste Services provides solid waste collection and disposal services to the City of Tustin. The project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (i.e. recycling) and solid waste disposal. The project is anticipated to have no impact on landfill capacity. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Tustin Guidelines for Preliminary WQMPs Attachment A 1~valuation of Environmental Impacts 14611 Prospect Avenue Page 13 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Item a - "Less Than Significant Imyact": The proposed project will involve the alteration of a designated cultural resource through the addition to an existing historic residence. Potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant through the careful design and siting of the proposed addition. The project would adhere to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties which would also reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. The project proposes to renovate the existing historic residence and would not eliminate an important example of California history. Aesthetically the proposed addition is in context with the existing historical structure. 'The newly created parcels would accommodate low density residential uses which are prevalent in the , neighborhood. The proposed new residence and addition to the existing historic residence would be substantially larger than existing homes in the neighborhood, however, the proposed lot sizes are approximately twice the size of those in the area. Therefore, the massing of the proposed structures related to lot size would be appropriate and does meet the development standards contained within the City Code and General Plan. Items b & c - "No Imyact": The project involves a new single family residential structure and an addition to an existing historic residence. 'The property is designate for low density residential uses and zoned as Estate Residential (E-4) The proposed development is in compliance with the applicable development standard. There are no cumulative impacts anticipated and the project is not expected to have any adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation/MonitoringRequlred: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey (1990) Update to Tustin Historical Resources Survey (2003) City of Tustin Residential Design Guidelines -Cultural Resource District Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation h+tp•//www nps ¢ov/history/hns/tos/standards_gttidelines htm