Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCONS. ARBORISTS RPT 03-29-90\. CNSUL DC ARBORISV S REPCRr Assessment of impact on proposed house moving, operation on streetside trees Prepared by Dr. Alden Kelley 1624 Mimosa Place Fullerton, CA 92635 For City of Tustin Tustin, California Project elements...........................................................1 Background.................................................................2 Effects of proposed operations on avocado trees ............................3 A. Tree location, size parameters and condition rating...............3 B. Projected effect of proposed clearance pruning on tree value ...... 4 C. Expected long-range effects and costs .............................5 D. Summary of projected economic effects of clearance pruning for house relocation...............................................6 Effects on other trees along house moving route ............................7 Further implications of pruning operations.................................8 A. Historic status of trees...........................................8 B. Effects on residences.............................................8 Recommendations...........................................................10 Consultant qualifications Credentials Publications PRO.JDCr REPORT DATE: 28 March 1990 SUBJECT: Analysis of effects on streetside trees of proposed house moving operation. CLIII�: Department of Public Works, Field Services 1472 Service Road Tustin, California Representative: Ken Schultz, Lead Worker/Trees 714/544-8890 Ext. 240 OBJECTIVES: 1. Assess pruning requirements to permit movement of a 40 -foot -wide house along a specified route from First Street to Sixth Street locations in Tustin. 2. Define value relations for two avocado trees on Sixth Street, which trees would require major branch removal for the proposed house moving. 3. Summarize expected outcomes regarding the subject trees and affected resi- dents. 4. Recommend appropriate measures regarding the house moving operation as re- lated to the trees. The Consulting Arborist was asked to assess outcomes of streetside tree pruning which would be required for a proposed house moving operation in the City of Tustin. During a site visit on 27 March 1990, Ken Shultz explained that the party intending to relocate the house desired to move the structure as a unit, as an alternative to cutting the house into two separate sections. The intact house width was reported as being 40 feet at foundation level, with 28 foot sidewalls overtopped by eaves to give a 43 foot width at that height. Mr. Shultz stated that the foundation width would extend approximately one foot Y over the curb on each side of Sixth Street, in the El Camino Real to California Street leg of the house relocation. The Consulting Arborist was asked to assess the effect of the pruning that would be required on two avocado trees near the "C" Street intersection. In addition, it was agreed that an interpretation of general effects on other trees be included in the report. This report summarizes the findings from this investigation, and includes information volunteered by one of the residents on Sixth Street. -3 001 1 11 oil Iffske.0 The two avocado trees in question would need to have major crown sectors removed to give the indicated clearance for house moving along Sixth Street. A third avocado tree west of the designated study trees would also require heavy T pruning. The following sections identify current appraisal values of those trees, postpruning values, and expected long term outcomes, if the proposed house moving operation is implemented. A. Tree location, size parameters and condition rating. _ The three avocado trees were on the south side of Sixth Street, within the first 150 feet west of "C" Street. They have been designated, in east -to -west se- quence, as trees no. 1, 2 and 3. Tree no. 1: trunk diameter 23 inches; height estimate, 28 feet; spread approx- imately 45 feet. Condition rating 75%. Species rating 85%. ' Basic replacement cost value = $3,700 + $2,700(d - 8) d = trunk diameter in inches Basic replacement cost value = $3,700 + $2,700(15) = $44,200 Appraisal value = (Basic replacement cost value)(species %)(condition %) = ($44,200)(0.85)(0.75) = $28,178.00 Tree no. 2: trunk diameters 16 and 15 inches; height estimate, 26 feet; spread approximately 45 feet. Trunk diameter adjusted for relocation equivalent [larger diameter + smaller diameter], 23.5 inches. Species rating 85%. Condition rating 70%. Basic replacement cost.value = $3,700 + $2,800(d - 8); d = 23.5 = $45,500 Appraisal value = ($45,500)(0.85)(0.70) = $27,102.00 Tree no. 3: trunk diameter 11.5 inches; height estimate 20 feet, spread esti- mate, 17 feet. Species rating 85%. Condition rating 60%. -4 - Basic replacement cost value = $3,700 + $2,700(d - 8); d = 11.5 = $13,150 Appraised value = ($13,150)(0.85)(0.60) = $69707.00 B. Projected effect of proposed clearance pruning on tree value. _ Because the pruning that would be entailed for the house moving would diminish tree condition and effectiveness, with no redeeming benefits to either the trees or their surroundings, the clearance pruning would significantly devalue all three trees. The following projections indicate the expected immediate value reductions which would result. Tree no. 1. Loss of approximately 1/3 of canopy; pruning cut face 14-15 inches in diameter; exposure of previously shaded branches to direct sunlight; �. permanent, esthetically negative crown imbalance; loss of estimated 50% of insulating effectiveness. Post -pruning condition rating is projected as 30%. That presupposes top quality i performance of the pruning: stub cutting, tearing of bark, impact abrasions, or other common pruning flaws would.lower the condition rating still further. r r - Projected postpruningvalue = ($44,200)(0.85)(0.30) = $11,271.00 Pre -pruning appraisal value = $28,178.00 Pruning -induced value reduction= $28,178 - $11,721 = $16,907.00 Tree no. 2. Loss of 1/4 to 1/5 of canopy; other features comparable to tree no. 1, though somewhat less severe. Post -pruning condition rating is projected as 35%. Projected post -pruning value = ($45,500)(0.85)(0.35) = $13,536.00 Pre -pruning appraisal value = $27,102.00 I� Pruning -induced value reduction = $13,566.00 l� -5 - Tree no. 3: Loss of about 4 of canopy; other features comparable to tree no. 1, though somewhat less severe. Post -pruning condition is projected as 309. Projected post -pruning value = ($13,150)(0.85)(0.30) - = $3,353.00 Pre -pruning appraisal -value = $6,707.00 Pruning -induced value reduction = $3,354.00 C. RKpected long-range effects and costs. The clearance pruning would leave comparatively large cut faces, exposing the interior wood to significant decay and attendant insect infestation. Development of heart rot would be almost certain. All of the clearance pruning would be on the south and southwest sides of the respective foliar crowns: that would expose the presently shaded interior branches to direct sunlight. Avocado bark, when abruptly bared to sunlight, is extremely vulnerable to sunscald. Infrared in the solar radiation spectrum heats the dark, light -absorbing bark. Frequently the living tissues of inner bark, and even the cambial cells, are killed by the heat from bark exposure to sunlight. The aftermath is typically decay and invasion by borers and other harmful insects. The extent of probable sunscald following the designated clearance pruning would very likely mark the onset of rapid, terminal decline of each of the three subject trees. It is the Consulting Arborist's opinion that the initial pruning -- trauma and the subsequent sunscald effects would lead to death of all three trees within three to five years after the pruning operation. The probability of such an outcome in estimated as 50-709. In that very likely outcome, the remaining tree value would fall to zero (or to a negative value as hazard trees if removal were not effectedpromptly); and g there would be a further cost for tree removal, site preparation, planting and r' early maintenance of replacement trees. It would then require some 15 to 30 years (depending on species and management) to restore the shade factor and �-- other tree -related benefits to the presently existing state. -6 - The attendant economic losses, should the trees die as expected, would be on the order of $61,987 for total loss of present value, $800-$1,200 for removals, and $1,000-$3,000 or more for site preparation, installation, and early care of replacement trees. Environmental losses from the present time to an estimated 20 -year full restoral interval are deemed to average $500-$800 per year for the three trees, for a further loss estimated as $10,000-$16,000. D. Summary of projected economic effects of clearance pruning for house relocation. Current value appraisals: tree no. 1 $28,178 tree no. 2 $279102 - tree no. 3 $ 62707 total $612987 Pruning -induced total value loss projections: tree no. 1 $16,907 tree no. 2 $13,566 tree no. 3 $ 32354 total $33,827 Additional losses and costs if trees die: loss of remaining tree value $282160 estimated removal cost (avg.) $ 1,000 estimated replacement cost (avg.) $ 22000 estimated environmental value loss (avg.) $13,000 total $442160 prior value diminution $339827 estimated total loss $779987 -7 - The streetside trees were observed along the entire route designated for the house moving. Streetside trees which would be predictably impacted by a 40 X 28 -- foot (plus eaves projection) were noted, and the extent of impact estimated. It was concluded that, along First Street, 15-20 Ficus microcarpa nitida (Cuban laurel fig), 2 Cinnamomum camphora (camphor tree), 2 Platanus racemosa (California sycamore), and 2 Quercus ilex (holly oak) would be contacted by the passing house. Expected effects range from abraded and broken twigs and small branches, to debarking and/or -breakage of branches of 4-6 inch stem diameter. Trees along Sixth' Street (apart from the three avocados examined) which would �- likely be injured by the house include 10 more Persea americana (avocado), 2 Cinnamomum camphora (camphor tree), 1 Ficus elastica (rubber tree), 1 Washingtonia robusta (Mexican fan palm), 1 Morus alba (fruitless mulberry), 1 Pittosporum undulatum (Victorian box), 1 Pinus canariensis (Canary Island pine), and 1 Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese elm). Expected injuries range from small branch abrasion/breakage to major branch damage; the palm might well receive major injury along the full length of the trunk. Some of the vulnerably situated trees are parkway trees, presumably city -owned, and others are located on residential property. Under California statutes, wrongful injury to trees can be indemnified at three times the. appraised value loss. Even without a treble damage assessment, the potential tree value losses along the route (not including the three avocados studied) could readily amount to $20,000 or more. A. Historic status of trees A resident along Sixth Street pointed out to the Consulting Arborist that the streetside avocados are remnants of an avocado grove, from the pre -urbanization agricultural era. The trees were said to be -about 85 years old. Those features clearly qualify the trees as historic, heritage specimens. Historic trees or heritage trees are usually appraised at values beyond their assessed landscape values. It is not unusual for the historic/heritage status to be assigned a value of 50%-100% above the normal landscape appraisal. B. Effects on residences The homes along the north side of Sixth Street, west of "C" Street to the house relocation site, receive tangible benefits from the avocados and other trees which would be impacted by the moving operation. All the trees, including those situated in city right-of-way areas, contribute to the real estate value of the connecting properties. Impairment of trees lowers their value, hence diminishes real property value. A Sixth Street resident pointed out that some of the homes lack air conditioning, and that the most effective relief from oppressive stunner heat has been (for some elderly residents) to sit in the shade of the avocados. Certainly all of the streetside and lawn trees along the north side of Sixth Street have a major stmmuner cooling effect on the houses. The trees are also effective dust collectors, and have some benefit in buffering sound from this heavily travelled street. It was reported that many tractor -trailer rigs service the nearby industrial park: mitigation of noise and automotive emissions from such vehicles would be even more significant than if the traffic were limited to autos. Esthetic factors cannot be accurately assessed in monetary terms, but the psychological benefits of the trees surely constitute a dominant portion of their value to the residents. The one citizen's comments included the serious prediction that abrupt loss of the trees would have critical if not lethal effect on some of the older, health -impaired residents. The foregoing conditions leave both the city and the house moving contractor open to a variety of damage claims, should either the street trees or residential trees be significantly diminished in size, health or effectiveness, as a direct result of the house moving operation. As stated previously, some - such claims could well be assigned treble damage status. ��s: 4-01 of Z I M It is the Consulting Arborist's urgent recommendation that the plan for intact house relocation be abandoned. There is no question that the proposed clearance for the house foundation will entail severe crown reduction of the avocados and many other trees. The only uncertainty is that of actual extent of pruning required, and its subsequent effect on tree health and survival. The information gathered in the course of this study gives support to the view that adversely affected residents would be able to mount valid damage claims. The existence of this report, requested by a representative of the City of Tustin, would weaken the position of the city and the contractor, should such an eventuality materialize. The historic tree status of the avocados further intensifies the political sensitivity of this matter. All parties to the house moving project are strongly urged to balance the definable but limited cost of moving the house in two sections, against the potential costs in money and public image which could readily ensue from predictable adverse outcomes of excessive injury to the trees in question. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Alden Kelley Consulting Arboris Tree management; consulting arborist Writing and editing (scientific and technical) Research (plant sciences) Teaching (college, adult ed.: botany, horticulture) 1985 -present 1982-1985 1980-1981 1978-1979 1966-1977 1964-1-966 1962-1963 1958-1962 1956-1958 1952-1955 1950-1951 Alden Kelley 12 years 8 years 7 years 13 years Consulting Arborist (Southern California) Tree maintenance service (Orange County CA) Cell biologist (Beverly Hills CA) Plant care services/sales (Cypress CA) Assoc. Professor of Biology, Lycoming College -(Williamsport PA) NIH Postdoctoral Research Trainee, The Univ. of Texas (Austin TX) Asst. Professor of Biology, Parsons College (Fairfield IA) NIH Predoctoral Research Trainee, Purdue Univ. (Lafayette IN) Research Associate, Seed treatment, Iowa State Univ. (Ames IA) Tree trimmer; Teaching assistant, Iowa State Univ. (Ames IA) Groundskeeper's assistant (Springfield MO) B.S. in Horticulture, Iowa State University, Ames (1954) M.S. in Plant Physiology, Iowa State University, Ames (1958) Ph.D. in Plant Morphology, Purdue University, Lafayette IN (1962) Postdoctoral studies in cell ultrastructure and electron microscopy, The University of Texas, Austin (1964-1966) of dItic. Forensic arboriculture: expert witness; liability assessment; hazard tree analysis Tree evaluation: appraisal of property value of trees; damage assessment Tree management: tree preservation/maintenance programs and operations; landscape design analysis; tree selection; performance standards; diagnosis and corrective measures; tree root, soil and hardscape consultation. ..Z1 ' 1: I ; 1 M �. California Urban Forests Council International Society of -Arboriculture National Urban Forest Council Street Tree Seminars C�_I_v 4 II kIM4 `15yj M Tree Society of Orange County: Arboriculture Chair; educational programs; tree planting TreePeople: lecturer; information resource Fullerton Arboretum: Arborfest; tree pruning demonstrations; tree planting Xeriscape: lecturer Univ. of California, Riverside: tree management seminars U.C. Cooperative extension Service: seminar programs, lecturer Orange County E.M.A./Parks system: lecturer; advisory functions Environmental organizations: Orange County Enviromental Coalition; Audubon Sea and Sage; Wilderness Society; Greenpeace r- f • a Kelley CNS Alden �ey 1. Kelley, A.G. 1958. Floral kdmticn in aco KS. Treads, Iowa State Lhivexsi.ty, Anes IA. 2. Kelley, A.G. arxd S.N. Posdedwit. M. Fhm as a tool far the ���� study of Pioc. Ind. Ac:ad. Sri. (1960) 70:5fr60. 3. Kelley, A.G. aid S.N. Fbstledsmit. 1962. Effects of 2- d oroethyltrimthylamaji m dUnride on fern g3ie! 1-- - -. Am. J. Bot. 49:779-786. 4. Kelley, A.G. 1962. Sb ili es a i mor#qpesd inof Pteridim aquilirun - Klin. ftD. This, Ratite U dversi ty, Iafayette IN. - 5. Ma11 eb r-, H.H. , D.J. I xre and A.G. NaMey. 1%5. The widespread o=xreme of pLwt Cytoeares ari nal ' . Protoplasm 62(l):44-52. 6. ala, J.J. arra A.G. K_l ey. 1%8. Bapdd preperatiAn of pollen and spore urines for electrrn py. Stain Bch. 43:139-144. 7. ala, J.J. axd A.G. Kelley. 1969. Fine sere of Cara • dictysa ms. m FbUm ar�d PbUm Hwsi cklogy. Azns i etnrg, AAAS, Pacific Div. Avg 18-239 1%9. UbdArigtm State U-dv. 8. Shazla, J.J. aid A.G. Kelley. 1971* Mcqosam deet d zirg • in Cama In: J. on, ed. EbUm: Det�� asci HV:siAlogy. ButtMwordhs, laxkrL 9. Kelley, A. 1985. Gostreffective tree caze. 1. Wmt is a tree worth? CcarEe Canty Ag -rI e,zt Naas 25(8) :22ff. 10. Kelley, A. 1985. Cost-effective tree cane. 2. The effect of the pnriirg method on tree value. (karge Gamy Apert N3;s 25(9):13-14. 11. �, A. 1985. Cost-effective tree care. 3. Selectirg a rpt i N tree cane service. 07dge Canty Apartment New 25(10):19--2D. 12. Kelley, A. 1985. Cbst-effective tree care. 4. gpec fl catifor tree pnx gag. 0 C mty Apes Met Nags 25(11):9ff. 13. Kelley, A. 1985. Cosa -effective tree care. 5. How to trite gaUty Pte • QmW Canty ApwMmt New 25(12) :35. 14. Ke]ley, A. 1985- lbppdrg: the most eve farm of Wxdrg. Ad= Age 5(11)Mff. 15. Kelley, A. 1987. City trees: are they worth it? Arbor Age 7(4) :12ff. 16. Degm, J., J. Ramie, A. Kelley aid A. P nlyn. 1989. Street trees suitable for southem Catifcn-da. (dart) Street T:ee Semrws, Inc. 17. Sear, T.D. , G. Watson arra A. Kelley. 1988. Interim- blue moi, root developnent. The lay isicape 29(7) :14-15. 18. Kelley, A. (In preparation) Tree a=M-C , based m producticn/irBtatlatial oasts as related to costs. 19. NeUey, A. (In r f wation) Tree species in southem California: numery ;1 abd l i ly arxi laniscepe suitabd1ity. 20. Kelley, A. arYi J. Frair-de (In preparation) Rating tree species for larlsrape use. NEGATIVE DECLARATION �2 CITY OF TUSTIN 300 .CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 Project Title: ZONE CHANGE 89-02/DESIGN REVIEW File No. 89-52 (MELILLI) Project Location: 630 AND 640 W. FIRST STREET Project Description: AMENDMENT TO FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE A 5,825 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER Project Proponent: DAVID MELILLI. COMPANY Contact Person: DANIEL FOX Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 254 The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby find: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. X That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have been included in the roject plans and agreed to by the applicant that P would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where *clearly no significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attachEd to and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not req!1i red. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The p. b1 i c is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declar._: 6i on during the review period, which begins with the public notice f a Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon revi w by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extend. a if deemed necessary. REYIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on AUGUST 28, 1989 DATED: AUGUST 222 1989 Community Developm Di recto -,�r CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM 1. Bac�oground 1. Name of Proponent )AWO MEbl c;w 2. Address- and Phone Number—of Proponent `2 30 lb LA,:�e-jE f 6-per>7 t)vz-- - HILLS, cA g20s-s 3. Date of Checklist Submitted L�LMT S& Icj 82 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CI T"!C 01' TUST'I S. Name of Proposa 1, . if .app I icab le 7C 8. - d 2*1 DIZ 89 -ss- If. S2 I1. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "mcybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No l . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcove r i ng of the so i I ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or -modification of any. unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of ;a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, in let or lake? Yrs- AAnwhin No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air 'emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d._ Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters; either through direct additions or with- drowols, or through interception of an aquifer, by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water' supe lies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such 03 flooding or tidal waves? Yes No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic , plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, . rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction "of new species *of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _L"= S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or resu 1 t in a barrier to the migration or movement of an ima Is? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: C. Increases. in existing noise levels? i< b. Exposure Of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and• Glare. Will the proposal produce light new or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub. , stantial alteration of the prese.:t or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the p roposa I resu I t in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will. the proposal involve: a. A risk of an axplosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not 'limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency regxx:se plan or an en rgency evacuation Plan? II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Flousing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. - Trm"portation/Circulatlam Will the proposal result in: a. Ceneration of substantial additional veh icu lar . movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C, Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present --patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. A I terat i ons to waterborne, rail or a i r traff ic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? • - Yes No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance'of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in. a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? . b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need, for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water dre i noge? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Crettion of * any hC-altfi hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the • obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to • the public, or will the proposal result in the -� creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreat i ona 1 opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic ar+choeological site? Yes Maybe No b. WiI I the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious. or sacred uses within the potential impact yy(( area? 21. 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 wil&. life popu lat ion to drop below self sus- gaining- 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 the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- . term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) \ c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation �S'EEE .A IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluations I find that the proposed project, COULD NOT have a significant effect I—I on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect I on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because *the mitigation measures described on an attoched sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ. I I ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 28 l Date glignature DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - The proposed project is a request to change the First Street Specific Plan use designation from "office as Primary Usell to "Commercial as Primary Use" on the property located at 640 W. First Street and Design Review for a 5,825 square foot retail center on the properties located at 630 and 640 W. First Street. The project also includes a request for Lot Consolidation and Reciprocal Access Development Bonuses to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to zero feet, reduce the required parking from 29 spaces to 24 spaces, to permit a 9 foot tall pedestrian/shade structure within the front yard setback area, and to permit a 9 foot tall monument sign within the front yard setback area. The subject property is located in an urban area in the CG -PUD (General Commercial - Planned Unit Development) District and within the limits of the First Street Specific Plan. Surrounding uses include a retail convenience market to the east, multi -family residential uses to the south, office uses to the west, and retail uses across First Street to the north. 1. EARTH - The proposed project would result in the removal of existing structures and recompaction and precise grading to accommodate the building pads and landscaping.. Appropriate soils reports and grading plans would be required as part of the City's review and plan check process. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: The applicant would be required to submit appropriate soils reports and grading plans identifying the scope of work at the plan check stage. All work would be done in conformance with the Uniform Building Code as required by the the Building Official. 2. AIR - The proposed project would not result in any degradation to the existing air quality. Sources: AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 3. WATER - No significant change to the existing water conditions, absorption rates, or drainage would take place as a result of the subject project since the property is presently developed with structures. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation MeasuresfMonitoring: The applicant would be required prepare a precise grading plan which would be required to determine adequate site drainage in accordance with applicable City standards. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) Page 2 4. PLANT LIFE - The property located at 640 W. First Street is presently developed with landscaping which is good condition. there is a large Jacaranda and Avocado tree existing in the site. the property located at 630 W. First Street is free from any existing plant life. The proposed plans identify new landscaping for both properties and preservation of the existing Jacaranda tree. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Development Plans Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: The existing jacaranda tree shall remain on the project site unless a licensed arborist determines that the tree is diseased beyond repair, subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. All efforts shall be taken as feasibly possible to protect the tree during construction and after project completion. If the tree is determiners to be dead or diseased beyond.repair, a substantial tree of a similar species shall be planted in its place'. The size and species of the replacement tree shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to removal of the tree. 5. ANIMAL LIFE - The subject property is located within a commercial area and currently developed with a contractors storage yard and office building. The site is free from any significant population of animals, fish, or wild life. 6. Sources: Field Observations. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. NOISE - The proposed site design which places the rear of the commercial building toward the rear property line with parking adjacent to First Street would effectively screen any commercial activity from impacting the residential uses to the south. Since the properties are presently developed, there should not be any perceived increase of -existing noise levels in the area. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Field Observations Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) Page 3 7. LIGHT AND GLARE - The proposed project would add additional lighting on the properties to provide adequate parking lot lighting. The site design would prevent and reduce existing conditions of light glare on the existing residential uses to the south. Sources City of -Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation MeasuresfMonitori4g: All exterior lighting shall confine direct light rays and glare to the subject properties and shall be developed in accordance with the Cityls security Code. 8. LAND USE - The project site is located within the First Street Specific Plan. The westerly parcel (640 W. first Street) is located within the "Office as Primary Use" designation while the easterly parcel (630 W. First Street) is located within the "Commercial as Primary Use" designation. In order to accommodate the proposed project, the westerly parcel designation needs to be changed to "Commercial as Primary Use". the change in use designation would be compatible with the existing land uses of the First Street Specific Plan and surrounding properties given the existing commercial, office, and residential uses in the vicinity. The project would be consistent with the goals and objectives of the First Street Specific Plan. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department First Street specific Plan Mitigation MeasuresZmonitoring_: None Required. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The proposed project would not result in any increased use of natural resources given the scale of the project. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - The proposed risk of upset given the type uses of this scale typically potential for risk of upset. accordance with applicable proposed building shall be detection system. project would not result in any of proposed development. Retail do not represent a significant All construction shall be in Building and Fire Codes. The equipped with an -automatic fire DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) Page 4 Sources: Orange County Fire Department City of'Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation MeasureslMonitoring: None Required. 11. POPULATION - The proposed project is an infill project and would not result in any direct increase in population in that no additional dwelling units would be created. This small scale project would be designed to meet the needs of the existing residents and businesses of the community. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation MeasuresZmonitoring: None Required. 12. HOUSING - The proposed project is an infill project and would not result in any creation of new dwelling units. This small scale project would be designed to meet the needs of the existing residents and businesses of the community. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - The proposed project would not have any impact to existing off-site transportation or circulation systems. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 600 vehicle trips per day. The project site presently generates approximately 200 vehicle trips per day based on the existing office development and contractors storage yard. The existing street system is adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic generation of the project. The project would provide reciprocal parking and access to the property to the east as encouraged by the First Street Specific Plan. This would result in the closure of an existing driveway of First Street to improve current conditions at the intersection of First Street and Yorba Street. Consolidation of the two subject parcels would also eliminate one potential driveway as only one driveway to serve the development is proposed. All parking for the subject property is provided on-site in accordance with provisions of the First Street Specific Plan. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Community Development Department Proposed Development Plans DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) Page 5 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: The driveway for the 117-1111 property to the east along First Street would be removed and access consolidated with the subject property. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - All services are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed project. No additional public services would be required. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Orange_County Fire Department City of Tustin Police Department City of Tustin -Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 15. ENERGY - The proposed project would not result in any significant change in the current use of energy in that the existing development would be replaced with new development. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation MeasuresfMonitoring: None Required. 16. UTILITIES - The site is located within an existing commercial area with all utilities available to the site from First Street. The proposed project would not required any new utility service to the property. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The proposed project would not result in any effect on human health. the proposed uses that would be permitted under the "Commercial as Primary Uself designation retail and service commercial uses which typically do not create conditions that negatively effect human health. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department First Street Specific Plan Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None Required. 18. AESTHETICS - The First Street Specific Plan requires the Planning Commission approval of any Design Review of the subject properties. Development of the project is regulated by the development standards of the Specific Plan and First Street Design Guidelines. As designed and conditior:ed, the DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) Page 6 proposed project would be in substantial conformance with the provisions of the Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines. . Sources: First Street Specific Plan First Street Design Guidelines City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Design Review Process Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: Conditions of approval for Design Review 89-52_ shall be incorporated into the project design and final working drawings for the project. 19. RECREATION - The proposed project would not result in an increased need for recreational opportunities. Commercial uses typically do not demand extensive recreational amenities from the community as do residential land uses., Sources: City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Element City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation MeasuresZmonitoring: None Required. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The existing structure on the westerly property is a Victorian-Italianate residence that was constructed in 1874 and is designated as having a "B" rating in the City's Historic Resources Survey which is a high rating of significance. The site is not located within the City's Cultural Resources overlay District. The historic structure is proposed to be relocated to 615 "B" Street which is within the City -Is Cultural Resources Overlay District. Sources: City of Tustin Historic Resources Survey City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation MeasuresfMonitoring: The historic structure shall be relocated to a site within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, subject to final approval of the actual location by the Community Development Director. No relocation permits for the historic structure shall be issued until all discretionary approvals for the subject project are obtained. In addition, no building permits shall be' issued for development of the subject site until relocation of the historic structure occurs. The applicant shall be responsible for paying related relocation permit and new development fees for the relocation of the historic structure and any utility company costs for temporary DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ZONE CHANGE 89-02 AND DESIGN REVIEW 89-52 (MELILLI) Page 7 raising of utility lines for the. move and for reimbursing the City for any damage to public improvements during the move. A photo survey shall also. be provided by the applicant to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of any relocation permits. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The proposed project to amend the First Street Specific Plan and construct a 5,825 square foot retail center could have a significant effect on the environment. However, due to the project design and conditions of approval, potential impacts would be reduced to a level that clearly no significant impacts would occur. sources: As Previously Noted. Mitigation Measures/Monitorina: As Previously Noted. DF: