Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (18) DATE: October 4, 2000 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29632 AND CASE NO. 5.0845 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT-262, APPLICATIONS BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA TO SUBDIVIDE A 25.01 ACRE SITE INTO A FORTY-EIGHT LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. LOCATED ON ACANTO DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET EAST OF SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, SP-1 ZONE, SECTION 35. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 29632 and Case No.5.0845-Planned Development District-262, allowing forthe forty- eight (48) lot residential subdivision of the 25.01 acre parcel, as described above, subject to conditions contained in the attached resolution. The applicant, Karl O. Bergheer, is the President of Bergheer California,Arthur S. Moreau is the Executive Vice President and the Judith Wyatt is the Secretary. The land is owned by the Raehn Family Trust. BACKGROUND: Bergheer California has submitted an application forTentative Parcel Map 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262, requesting the entitlement of subdividing an existing 25.01 acre parcel into forty-eight (48) single family residential lots. The lots average 18,500 square feet with the smallest lot being 17,355 square feet and the largest lot being 24,772 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-B with an overlay of Specific Plan -1. The Canyon Resort and Spa Specific Plan (SP-1)was originally approved on July 19, 1991 and amended on January 19, 1994. The Specific Plan's purpose was to allow the construction of a destination resort, known as Canyon Park Resort & Spa and establish land use designations for surrounding properties. The specific plan area consists of 746 acres on South Palm Canyon Drive, southerly of Murray Canyon Drive, which includes the subject 25.01 acre parcel. SP-1 included up to 900 residential units; a 400 room resort hotel, including a spa and fitness complex; an 18-hole championship golf course and clubhouse; also included were accessory recreational and commercial facilities. Specific Plan implementation is to be by planned development district and subdivision maps. ,1* Page 2 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 Access to the property is from a single gated entry on Acanto Drive, which is planned to be a 50' collector road on the SP-1 and General Plan. Acanto Drive will be extended to the subject property as a 50' wide collector roadway. Easterly of the entry drive, the roadway section will transition from a 40 ft. wide street to the existing 30 ft. wide private roadway easement located on Indian Land and within unincorporated territory. The gated entry feature includes a guardhouse and landscaping. Existing improvements consist of a 2-lane undivided, unstriped roadway. Internal circulation consists of a series of streets and cul-de- sacs. Roadways within the subdivision would be privately maintained as would the ten (10) lettered lots that include landscaped medians, the on-site detention basin, the guardhouse/entry lot and the equestrian trail and landscaping in front of the subdivision on Acanto Drive. The PD is requesting minor adjustments to the R-1-13 property development standards as follows: 1) guesthouse setback reductions of five (5) feet into the required front yard setback of twenty-five (25)feet, on an individual lot basis as guesthouses are optional; 2) Maximum building height of twenty-two (22) feet above approved grading plan pad elevations (single story houses only); and 3) The perimeter wall along Acanto Drive, adjacent to the horse trail, is proposed to be six (6) to eight (8) feet high with the eight (8) foot high section to be no more than 40% of the total length of the Acanto wall frontage. The remaining perimeter is proposed to have walls of six (6) feet in height. All other property development standards for the R-1-B zone will be complied with. These modifications are consistent with the SPA and are minor adjustments to existing property development standards. A fifty-five(55)lot residential subdivision(TTM 20603)was previously approved by the City Council on this site on November 3, 1993. The property owner has since allowed the entitlement to expire. ANALYSIS: The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is L-2 (Very-Low Density Residential)which provides for the development of a maximum of two(2)dwelling units per acre. The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance have been augmented by SP-1. SPA is intended to implement the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan. SPA has clustered density into various development areas thereby providing larger clusters of specifically desired uses, such as recreation. The SPA was developed to cluster densities to provide for golf, hotel and residential uses. The subject property is part of a larger residential area and is designated SFR on the SP. The previous subdivision approval on TTM 20603 allowed for a density of 2.2 units per acre while the current proposal, (TTM 29632), allows for 1.92 units per acre. The proposed use is a logical extension of development in the City. AA Page 3 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 SP-1 addressed the average lot size, land area and number of lots within each planning area. During development of SP-1, including Planning Commission meetings, it was clear that the final design (including lot size) of each planning area could be altered to meet planning, market and other concerns. The proposal complies with the lot area, lot configuration and all other SP-1 criteria. The current development proposal is also designed as a gated community. The proposed project is consistent with land use designations in SP-1 and is similar to the previously approved tentative tract map. Development related land uses impacts are reduced as fewer units are proposed compared to the previously approved TTM 20603. The environmental and land use impacts have been fully disclosed in the previous Canyon Park Resort and Spa Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)approved by the City Council on July 19, 1991 and Environmental Assessment, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) approved by the City Council on January 19, 1994 for this subdivision. In addition, the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Environmental Assessment (1994) considered a development alternative based upon the existing zoning and entitlements at the time of its preparation and the subject proposal is consistent with that analysis. The project is consistent with the General Plan, SP-1, and zoning designations. There will be no incompatibility with the existing land use in the vicinity because the areas to the north, east and west are included in SP-1 and are also designed for single family residential development. The area to the south (Bella Monte) is a 45 lot single family subdivision with lots ranging in size from 25,000 to 29,600 square feet. Homes are primarily one-story but several homes have partial two-story elements. Adjacent homes located at the northeast corner (Milner Subdivision) are on lots ranging from 15,000 to 21,000 square feet and are limited in height to approximately 18 ft. Based upon this relationship, the proposed 22 ft. high structures could affect views from adjoining properties. Considering lot sizes and setbacks, and proposed pad elevations, this height difference will not cause a significant land use incompatibility or impact. The applicant has requested clarification regarding certain mitigation measures. Condition of approval No. 28 requires the developer to mitigate by paying a fee: a) provide funding for a fire station; and b) affordable housing impacts; and c) off site traffic impacts. a) FIRE STATION: The City Master Plan of Fire Protection and SP-1 requires that developments within SP-1 pay a fair share fee for the construction of a fire station. The Fire Department estimates the cost of a fire station to be approximately 2.0 million dollars. The developers fair share based upon 1,207 total dwelling units is approximately $1,657 per unit. b) AFFORDABLE HOUSING: SP-1 and State Redevelopment Law require 15% of all new housing within a redevelopment project area to be affordable. This condition requires the developer to pay an in lieu fee to assist in the future construction of affordable housing. The Redevelopment Director and City Attorney will provide an update at the City Council meeting. C) OFF SITE TRAFFIC IMPACTS: The MND for SP-1 identified off-site traffic improvements which need to be mitigated. The City Engineer is calculating the cost of the developers fair-share contribution. An update will be provided at the City Council meeting. /4*4 3 Page 4 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning North:Golf Course, Single Family Residential, R-1-13, (Single Family Residential),SP-1, (Specific Plan) South: Single Family Residential, Riverside County, Residential East: Vacant, R-1-13, (Single Family Residential), SPA, (Specific Plan) West: Vacant, R-1-B, (Single Family Residential), SPA, (Specific Plan) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The purpose of the environmental assessment is to evaluate the subject proposal's impact upon the environment. In 1991, the City Council certified an FEIR for SPA and, subsequently, in 1994, the City Council adopted an MND for amendments to SP-1. This MND and amendments to SPA assessed the environmental impacts resulting from the development of up to 55 dwelling units on the subject property. In 1993 the City Council approved a 55 lot tentative subdivision map (TTM 20603) for the subject property (Resolution No. 18212). The currently proposed 48 unit guard-gated single family residential subdivision is consistent with SP-1. The attached environmental assessment has been prepared utilizing the previous FEIR and Negative Declaration (ND) for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa to determine if there are any new significant impacts which were not previously addressed. The EA focused upon new information or changed circumstances. Mitigation measures from the previous FEIR and MND, which apply to the subject property, are incorporated into the conditions of approval for TTM 29632 and Case 5.0845 - PD-262. The subject environmental assessment was completed by staff on July 24, 2000 for the subject project. The report was amended in response to the letters from the California Department of Fish and Game dated August 17, 2000 and from the United States Department of the Interior, (undated), received on August 23, 2000. While these letters allege deficiencies in the environmental assessment it is clear that both agencies did not review the foundation documents, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa, (SP-1) approved by the City Council on July 19, 1991 and the amendment to the FEIR, SP-1A, approved by the City Council on January 19, 1994. These documents are the foundation for the initial study and address the alleged deficiencies in the initial study. The agency letters and the City of Palm Springs rebuttal to the agencies comments are attached. Potential environmental impacts from the project include land use and planning, hydrology, noise, air quality, archeology and biology issues. The proposed project is consistent with land use designations in SPA and is similar to the previously approved tentative tract map. Development related land use impacts are reduced (48 units vs 55 units). If approved, the environmental and land use impacts have been fully disclosed in the previous EIR and ND. The project is consistent with the General Plan, SPA, and zoning designations. A#4 y Page 5 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 An archaeological study of the property was performed by Cultural Systems Research, Inc. for the Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa. No resources of historical or archaeological significance were identified on site. The study did indicate that the possibility exists that grading and construction activities might unearth previously unknown materials. In order to reduce the potential impact on possible historical and archaeological resources, the applicant and contractor shall halt grading or any other construction activity and contact the City if potentially significant remains or artifacts are found. Archeological monitoring shall be provided during rough grading of the site. No new impacts have been identified. Casey's June Beetle is a species of insect which was not mentioned in the final Environmental Impact Report for the Canyon Park Specific Plan nor in the EA for the amendment, Specific Plan-1A. A special study was done on this insect by James Cornett of JWC Consultants. This study is incorporated herein by reference and is available for review at the Department of Planning and Building. Casey's June Beetle is not presently listed, or proposed to be listed as a threatened or endangered species. In summary, the proposed project site is considered suitable habitat because one Beetle was captured at night during an intensive survey and habitat evaluation. However, so little is known regarding the life history of Casey's June Beetle that the significance of any adverse impacts cannot be determined. Meaningful mitigation cannot be recommended until more is known regarding the habits of this insect. Neither the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service nor the California Department of Fish and Game provided comments on the Casey's June Beetle in response to a letter from Mr. Jim Cornett. Subsequent letters directed to the Planning Department from the State Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service raised issues relative to possible impacts and mitigation measures. These letters have been responded to in the Addendum to the Environmental Assessment for TTM 29632 dated September 19, 2000. PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP The Peninsular bighorn sheep is recognized under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)as a threatened and fully protected species. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) lists the species as endangered. Prior, (1991) biological surveys indicate no bighorn observations or sign were made on the alluvial fans and flatlands to the east of the San Jacinto Mountains. In early July of this year Hardy Strozier and Jack Turner, Ph.D., conducted a recent evaluation of the project site as bighorn sheep habitat. Their finding was that the project site was not primary or even secondary bighorn habitat. This conclusion was based upon a finding that no escape cover existed on site and that no data existed indicating that sheep had been on or even near the site at any time. Ss Page 6 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 BIGHORN SHEEP CORRIDOR The subject property is located in the center of the mouth of Palm Canyon, roughly midway between San Jacinto Mountains and Northern Santa Rosa Mountains. The property has existing development and a roadway located to the south (Andreas Ranch, Bella Monte, and Pond estate). To the north there is an existing golf course and two single family residential subdivisions (Milner Tract and Andreas Palms). The property to the east is currently being developed with a single family estate. These developments which are contiguous to the subject property extend from South Palm Canyon on the west to the Palm Canyon Wash on the east. While a portion of this area is currently vacant, existing, planned, and proposed projects in this area will preclude the use of the area as a viable and safe wildlife corridor. Refer to attachment 3 for map. The City and Tribal Planning staff have had informal discussions with a US Fish and Wildlife Service(FWS)and California Department of Fish and Game (CFG)to discuss this area as a viable corridor for bighorn sheep. After several meetings and lengthy discussions, it was determined thatthis area,considering development patterns, roadways, bridges, and flood control structures, is not suitable for consideration as a wildlife corridor. The Tribal Council, in cooperation with Riverside County and State of California, has acquired lands southerly of this site for open space and park purposes. This area constitutes the most viable and safe area for a movement corridor of bighorn sheep between the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains. This corridor extends several miles to the south and has minimal conflicts compared to the area surrounding the subject property. Based upon a review of this information, recent biological studies, aerial photographs, and discussions with FWS and CFG, the Planning Commission determined that the development of the subject property would not cause any significant impacts on bighorn sheep regarding a possible movement corridor. DRAFT RECOVERY AND CRITICAL HABITAT PLANS Draft Bighorn Sheep Recovery (Recovery Plan) and Critical Habitat Plans have been released for public review. The Draft Recovery Plan indicates that it does not represent the official position of FWS until, and unless, it is signed by the Director, Regional Manager, or Operations Manager. The Draft Recovery Plan is undergoing revisions and my be in a final form in the Fall of 2000. The draft Essential Habitat Map is difficult to read. The subject property appears to be located outside of Designated Essential Habitat. However, according to Appendix B of the Draft Recovery Plan(pages 136-148),the theoretical habitat model assumed that an 0.8 kilometer(0.5 miles) band of habitat around each area of land having a slope of 20% or greater. Under this criteria, the subject property is either outside this area or near the assumed 0.5 mile habitat-modeled boundary. As previously described, there are existing and approved (recorded final tract maps) developments located between the subject property and hillside lands with a 20% or greater slope. 'ZA 6 Page 7 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 As of this writing, no specific determination has been made by FWS with regard to the project site. The Draft Recovery Plan is available for inspection and copying at City Hall. It should be noted that, if the project site or a portion of the project site is ultimately designated as Essential Habitat in the Final Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Range (Final Recovery Plan), the proposed project could be inconsistent with some portions of the Final Recovery Plan, including the recommendation that no projects be developed in Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat. However, according to the Draft Recovery Plan, even when finalized, the Final Recovery Plan will not require any party to undertake any specific action. The Final Recovery Plan is primarily prepared for purposes of federal action and is not binding on local agencies. Because the content of the Final Recovery Plan is not currently known, it is not possible, at this point, to speculate as to whether or not the proposed project will be inconsistent with the Final Recovery Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, further discussion of this impact is inappropriate. The Draft Recovery Plan is not anticipated to be released until the Fall of 2000. As it is unknown whether or not the Draft Recovery Plan will designate the level portion of the project site as "Essential Habitat," it would be speculative to determine the inconsistency of the proposed project at this time. Therefore, it is noted that potential for inconsistency exists. On September 26, 2000 staff attended a FWS meeting to review updated Essential Habitat Maps. Revised maps do not designate the subject property as Essential Habitat. The proposed Critical Habitat Designation documents have recently been released for public review. This proposed action also includes a map which is difficult to read. Based upon a brief review of the proposed Critical Habitat Map at the FWS Public Hearing on July 20, 2000, and maps subsequently provided to the City, the subject property is not within proposed critical habitat. Additionally, FWS has stated(July 5, 2000 Notice, and Ken Berg, Field Supervisor, July 20, 2000 Public Hearing Testimony) that critical habitat does not require landowners to carry out any special management actions or restrict the use of the land. No federal permits or funding are necessary for the project to proceed. Based upon the proposed Critical Habitat Map, it appears that this proposed action will have no effect on the subject property. In summary the current project is not expected to have impacts of any kind on bighorn sheep. The Environmental Assessment of this proposed project was transmitted to California Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Department of Fish and Game responded with a letter dated August 17, 2000 and the Fish and Wildlife Service responded with a letter received August 23, 2000. Both agencies indicated some potential concerns. These concerns have been addressed in an addendum to the initial study dated September 19,2000. The findings indicate that all environmental impacts previously assessed in the FEIR approved by the City Council on July 19,1991 and the Environmental Assessment (MND) approved by the City Council on July 19, 1994 remain accurate and that there are no new significant impacts. The Planning Commission found on August 23, 2000 that the environmental assessment for TTM 29632 was consistent with the previously approved FEIR and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Page 8 of 8 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Staff Report for City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 All property owners within a 400 foot radius of the parcel considered for subdivision were notified. In addition, the public hearing notice and EA were submitted to the State Clearinghouse and other interested parties for a thirty (30) day public comment period. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: At its meeting of August 23, 2000 the Planning Commission voted 6-0, (1 absent) to recommend approval by the City Council of TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 subject to conditions. Douglas -vans, Director of Planning and Building David . Ready, City 1 arLage ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Parcel Map 3. Aerial Photograph, Bighorn Corridor 4. State Clearinghouse Letter, dated 8/2/2000 5. Cornett Letter, dated 6/18/2000 6. Gas Company Letter, dated 8/1/2000 7. Dept. of Fish and Game EA Letter, 8/17/2000 8. Fish and Wildlife EA Letter, received 8/23/00 9. Planning Commission Minutes of 8/23/00 10. City of Palm Springs Response to FWS and CDFG Letters, 9/1900 (Addendum to EA for TTM 29632) 11. Letter From Bergheer California, 8/22/2000 12. Riverside County Flood Control, 9/11/200 13. Fire Department Memo, 9/25/2000 14. Resolution/Conditions ,1 04 2 VICINITY MAP w �Py > LA VERNE w N.T.S. r o z w � Q < O w 0 ct� w .J O AVE. GR,y ~ z Q GP MURRA'� PROJECT LOCATION Q TRAIL BOGERT ACANTO WAY CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE N0. TTM 29632 DESCRIPTION 5.0845 PD-262 APPLICATION FOR BERGHEER A SUBDIVISION OF A 25.01 ACRE APPLICANT FAMILY CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL LOTS,PARCEL INTO 48 NR 1EBZONE, SECTION 35. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2 9632 �.., .., -,6 i-'(- J, / 11 (�I ,-i .J � �s .� � �I I Ir��.... jl ' ._'r�.; I�n'(�,, /'ram% .Y ._— .o��....«�..�...,. ,..• IN V�,ii I 5't \ .w,o win[ / �•.�� ,•_ •,x �_— —iCPniPW. vK'nx„rvty G)we ® c SANBOPN A/E, In !I�I�II' �- rauuK w.x ylxacr xozvsn 'i —._ -• _— _ --_____._._- SANBORN 6•nen,m cur»iu,m. • • • • ''• • •• • / • :•a I I 110MIN-11764MInTWIP /• / •• in RIME fi Project ; .Site } c Pa _�� �'y—!��"�k �n}[��.`3� ' 4� �lit�`/.:ii`'Y•t� E�e� o . 7� lr�rt'�"�7 b _ - ' ar td - !a'` •i -3' -- a-, Y ,..- STATE OF CALIFORNIA aad'"` ' Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse N faw , Gray Davis Steve Nissen GOVERNOR ACTING DIRECTOR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT DATE: August 2, 2000 ' F TO: Steve Hayes �'! City of Palm Springs AUG — 7 2000 P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 — - rJ RE: Tentative Tract 29632 SCH#: 2000071103 This is to acknowledge that the State Clearinghouse has received your environmental document for state review. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse is: Review Start Date: July 28, 2000 Review End Date: August 28, 2000 We have distributed your document to the following agencies and departments: California Highway Patrol Caltrans, District 8 Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Department of Conservation Department of Fish and Game, Region 6 (Inyo &Mono Region) Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Water Resources Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7 Resources Agency State Lands Commission The State Clearinghouse will provide a closing letter with any state agency comments to your attention on the date following the close of the review period. Thank you for your participation in the State Clearinghouse review process. 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 916-445-o6I3 FAX 916-323-3018 WWW.OPR.CA.GOV/CLEARINGHOUSE.HTML /�� , James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants .tune 18, 2000 Mr. John Sanborn Sanborn A/E, Inc. 1227 South Gene Autry Trail, Suite C Palm Springs, California 92264 Dear Mr. Sanborn: Thirty days have now elapsed since I contacted the agencies regarding your project and Casey's June Beetle. They have not responded to me in writing, nor to the best of my knowledge anyone else, at this time. I took the liberty of contacting Ken Cory of the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Kim Nichol of the California Department of Fish & Game on Thursday, June 15, 2000, on this issue. Mr. Cory stated that he would not be responding to my letter and that the Service could not act since the beetle is not listed or proposed to be listed at this time. Ms Nichol stated that her Department was not in the practice of commenting upon invertebrate issues and that she would not be responding to my letter. It seems the matter has been resolved. Qme rely, ,lames W. Cornett j we/tb 000? 6 Nn� r s PO Box 845 Palm Springs California 92253 T:Iephone i750 i 320-81 '_5. "rax ,76C': 3CG-5'82 /401 / 3 The Gas Company- August 1, 2000 Gas Co. Ref. No. 00-459-OG r - City of Palm Springs D I I I I 1 Department of Planning and Building U P.O. Box 2743 AUG - 4 2000 Southern California Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 J Gas Company 1981 L gon,a Avrnaa �i p�{(P,�r^,.rn n�•(IS�ON RadlanA CA Attention: Douglas R. Evans _ 92374-9720 Re: Draft EIR—Case No. 5.0845, Tentative Tract Map 29632, Mailing Addrev. Acanto Drive approximately 1,320 feet east of South Palm Bo:3003.SC8031 Canyon Drive. Redlandr,CA 92373-0306 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced project. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. . You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-2000. Sincerely, John DeWitt Technical Supervisor STATE OF CALIFORN A THE RESOURCES AGENT GRAY DAVIS Governor DEPARTMENT OFFISH AN. DAME 330 Golden Shore,Suite 50 Long Beach,Cahforr is 90802 (310)590-5113 � ( [_ U W August 17, 2000 1•� � D Mr. Douglas Evans, AUG 2 1 20N, Director of Planning and Building i -J City of Palm Springs );ON 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way ` Palm Springs, CA 92262 Initial Study Tentative Tract Map 29632- Bergheer California Dear Mr. Evans: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. The proposed project is located on Acanto Drive, approximately 1320 feet east of South Palm Canyon Drive, in the City of Palm Springs. The proposed project consists of Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 25.01 gross acres into forty-eight (48)single family residential lots. In connection with this project the Department-will be acting as a Trustee agency for fish, plant and wildlife resources and as a Responsible Agency regarding impacts to endangered species. This particular project has the potential to have significant environmental impacts on sensitive Dora and fauna resources, including a State threatened /fully-protected and Federally listed -- . endangered species. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts were not pan of the Initial Study for this project. The following areas should be addressed: a. CEQA Guidelines, 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed nn resources that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent'areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. The zoning of areas for development prdjects or other uses that are nearby or Page 1 of 3 adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. d. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. e. The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation programs. The Department recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other proposed projects does not preclude long-term preserve planning options. Jurisdictions participating in the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Plan should assess specific projects for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impact. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep The Department is concerned that the Initial Study did not reference the Peninsular bighom sheep as a state-listed threatened species or Fish and Game Code Section 4700. Which states, "Fully Protected mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected mammal and no permits or licenses heretofore issued shall have any force or effect for that purpose." A reference to the state status of the Peninsular bighom sheep and Fish and Game Code Section 4700 should be made part of the Initial Studv. The Department is concerned that reference to CEQA Guiders Section 15145, "$peculation" is used to refute a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and redent 'r�red Species Act Page 2 of 3 / 409 /f (FESA) action. No discussion of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of CEQA was included in this section of the Initial Study. No mitigation measures were included in the Initial Study addressing the potential impacts to Penimular Bighorn Sheep. The Department is concerned regarding habitat fragmentation, habitat loss and isolation in regards to this project. The Department requests that, prior to adopting the Initial Study, City staff meet with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to resolve outstanding biological mitigation issues. Please contact Ms. Teresa Newkirk of the Department at (760) 251-4817 and Mr. Scott McCarthy of the Service at (760) 431-9440 to set up such a meeting. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this document. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Teresa Newkirk, Environmental Services Specialist III, N. Palm Springs (760) 251-4817. Sincerely, Glenn Black Environmental Services Supervisor Habitat Conservation - South Region=6 cc: Scott McCarthy, USFWS be: Alan Pickard Teresa Newkirk Page 3 of 3 Cage .s.o8ys FD NTOFF 2 United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services bye. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Luker Avenue, Westt Carlsbad, CA 92008s��' In Reply Refer To: 1-6-00-NFTA-435 Doug Evans ; Department of Planning and Building PO Box 2743/3200 East Tahquitz Way City of Palm Springs, CA 92262 Subject: Comments on Draft Initial Study for Subdivision of 2-5.0 acres into 48 Single Family Residential Lots, Palm Springs, Riverside County Dear Mr. Evans: We have reviewed the draft Initial Study, received July 25, 2000, on the proposed subdivision of 25.01 acres into 48 single family residential lots in Palm Springs, Riverside County. The lots average 18,500 square feet, and range from 17,355 square feet to 24,772 square feet. The proposed project site is occupied by three sensitive species, Casey's June Beetle (Dinacoma caseyi), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi), and Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), all included as target species in the developing Coachella Valley Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan(Multi-species Plan), The worldwide known distribution of Casey's June beetle is limited to the City of Palm Springs and possibly Cathedral City, primarily in the Palm Canyon washes and surrounding neighborhoods (Smoke Tree Ranch). The proposed project would develop one of several known locations of Casey's June beetle within this limited distribution. The draft Initial Study (p. 16) states that the presence of Casey's June beetle on the proposed project site was not mentioned in the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Canyon Park Specific Plan. CEQA requires that EIRs identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of proposed projects and analyze feasible measures to avoid or substantially reduce the project's significant environmental effect [Section 15126.4(a)], Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to treat sensitive species as though they were listed, if the species meets the criteria for listing under State or Federal statutes, or that described in Section 15380(b). The criteria described in this section is that the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered "threatened" as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act. The restricted distribution, few known locations, and assumed listed status in the Multi- species Plan, indicates that this species should be considered under CEQA as though it is listed, /* of /F Doug Evans (I-6-00-NFTA-43 5) 2 with appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation proposed for significant impacts. Our ability to advise on measures to minimize or avoid impacts to Casey's June beetle, short of preserving the proposed project site, is difficult because very little is known about the ecology of this species. We recommend the project applicant acquires known habitat to put into a conservation easement to offset the loss of Casey's June beetle habitat. The Palm Springs pocket mouse and the Palm Springs ground squirrel are less restricted in distribution than the Casey's June beetle although they are endemic to the Coachella Valley. We know more about where these species occur and recommend that the applicant offset habitat loss by acquiring similar habitat in the Snow Creek area. "Friends of the Desert Mountains" can transact land purchases for conservation in the Snow Creek area. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Matt McDonald of my staff at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Nancy Gilbert Assistant Field Supervisor cc: Bill Havert, Friends of the Desert Mountains Kim Nicol, CDFG /1A Page 5 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2000 Case 5.0845 and TTM 29632 ( PD 262) —Applications by Bergheer California to subdivide a 25.01 acre site into a forty-eight lot residential subdivision located on Acanto Drive, approximately 1320 feet east of South Palm Canyon Drive, SP-1 Zone, Section 35. Director gave a brief overview of the planning history of this application. He reported that the City adopted its first Specific Plan in 1991 (with an amendment in 1994) as the Canyon Resort and Spa Specific Plan to allow the construction of a resort (Canyon Park Resort and Spa) and to establish land use designations for adjacent properties. Director reported that this application represents a small portion (approximately 25 acres) of the overall Specific Plan which consists of 746 acres and that all environmental issues have been addressed. Associate Planner David Dawson reported to the Planning Commission that project (the Canyon Park Resort) consists of a 400-room hotel, 900 residential units, a golf club, and a planned development district (PD 262). He reported that an archaeologist would be required on site at the time of grading. He reported that there is no water on site and land is virtually flat. Director reported that, although Acanto Drive was considered, adding public roadway is not feasible so the entry has been moved to the western edge of the property, adjacent to the Bella Monte entry. He reported that the proposed subdivision has islands in various locations and planters to break up the streets which are long due to the size of the homes. He reported that a full Environmental Impact Report had previously been commissioned by the City which was approved by both State and Federal review boards. The location of the hotel changed in 1994; however, no new impacts were created. He explained that the role of the State in the permitting process is not as a permitting authority; but as "trustee" to assist local government with mitigation and, he reported, they did recommend further study. Director reiterated that no significant impacts exist and that the State is concerned with Peninsular Bighorn Sheep on an overall basis; however, the California Department of Fish and Game's Draft Essential Habitat Report is being studied for accuracy and has no force and effect here. The Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Critical Habitat Plan seems to conflict with the Essential Habitat Plan. He reported that Heritage Park and the Indian Canyons (a three-to-five mile area) are better suited as sheep habitat. He further reported that a more recent FWS document states that this particular area is not critical habitat for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Director reported that the drainage channel is proposed to be under the street, picked up at the west side of Bella Monte and piped to a detention basin and outlet to existing drainage to the golf course. He reported that preliminary hydrology reports indicate that this is acceptable. He stated that the project will work with the natural grading to the greatest degree possible. He reported that the height limit, consistent with the Specific Plan, is 22' for the proposed buildings in this master planned community. /6A got Page 6 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2000 Commissioner Caffery requested lot No. 16 in the project (a corner lot) be reviewed with special attention to view corridors. Chairman Mills opened the Public Hearing, Mr. Alan Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, project architect, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the block wall throughout this project is proposed to be six feet except on some areas of Acanto along the equestrian trail where the wall will be raised to eight feet. He stated that the project will have a total of 12 different options including floor plans, color schemes, and elevations. He stated that the height of buildings will conform to existing slopes and required setbacks; however, some elements (peaks, turrets, towers) may reach 22' in height. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A & E. addressed the Planning Commission regarding hydrology. He stated that there is a ten ft. wide concrete channel which dumps on the property. He stated that his firm explored different options including underground system, two cache basins on Acanto, and one major basin on Bella Monte which could be taken underground to where the natural channel will take over. He addressed Engineering Conditions: #7: Requested relief from this condition (or to be deferred by covenant) regarding a five foot sidewalk on Acanto and asked that landscaping be an acceptable replacement; #11: Requested 37' Right-of-Way and no sidewalks behind gates, as they are privately kept streets (i.e. that condition #11 be removed); #14: Request that the eight inch curb be required only where new hydrology requires and that wedge curb be used for the remainder; #17: Requested that no sidewalks be required internally; #18: Requested relief from this condition as there is no access to the hotel from the residential area; #48: Requested that the street light at the main entrance be ground lighting or other alternative in place of the requested 16,000 lumen high pressure sodium vapor safety street light. Mr. Sanborn thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their consideration. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero, Smith, & Associates, representing Palm Canyon, LLC, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the property owner directly to the west of the proposed project supports the project and the requested changes in the conditions of approval. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Jurasky expressed concerns regarding consistency vs, individuality on the landscaping plans and that there could be a six ft. block wall along the golf course. Director reported that landscaping parameters will be outlined in the CC&R's which are regulated by the / 6#4iz Page 7 of 15 Planning Commission Minutes August 23, 2000 Homeowners'Association and that there is no block wall proposed at the golf course property line. City Engineer stated that sidewalks within the subdivision are not incompatible with the design. Director reported that staff is not in favor of sidewalks due to the rural nature of the surroundings; however, suggest that they be required by covenant to avoid a dead-end sidewalk to vacant land. Director requested that a custom street design be explored, while still maintaining requirements for institutional concerns (Fire Department, etc). M/S/C (Jurasky/Raya 6-0, 1 absent) to approve subject to conditions in staff report and: A. Defer Engineering condition #7 by covenant; B. Delete Engineering condition #11; C. Engineering condition #14 be changed to six inch curb except where hydrology requires eight inch and allow wedge (roll curb) in all other areas to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; D. Delete condition #15 prohibiting downspouts; E. Omit Engineering conditions #17 and #18; F. Condition #48 — applicant to propose decorative light fixtures to be considered by the Planning Commission with the final development plan; G. Applicant to submit interior street study to staff experimenting with 24' wide streets if clearance is sufficient; H. Restudy of the Guard House. Case 5.0840 - CUP and TTM 29825 —Application by Lawrence Sofonio for tentative map approval and to convert an existing structure to a 21-unit time share development with a 75- seat restaurant located at 2330 North Palm Canyon Drive, C-1 and R-2 Zone, Section 3. Principal Planner Sullivan reported that the applicant acquired the property in 1997 and currently owns and operates the adjacent property as a 20-unit time share. She reported that the site is 1.24 acres and has a pool, restaurant, parking lot, and a residential unit (intended for use by an on-site maintenance worker). She reported that the recommended conditions of 16A R3 Page 1 of 5 Addendum to Environmental Assessment Tentative Tract Map 29632 — Bergheer California September 19, 2000 September 19, 2000 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29632-BERGHEER CALIFORNIA. RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME LETTER DATED AUGUST 17, 2000 AND FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECEIVED AUGUST 23, 2000. CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMENTS: Comment a. CEQA Guidelines, 15125(a) direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. Response a. The regional setting is thoroughly discussed in the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)approved by the Palm Springs City Council on July 19, 1991 and the Environmental Assessment(MND)for SP-1A approved by the City Council on January 19, 2000. In November of 1993 TTM 20603 was approved allowing a fifty-five (55) lot residential subdivision. SP-1A(1994) explicitly analyzed the subject site and found the subdivision of a fifty-five (55)lot residential subdivision to conform to SP-1. The specific subdivision, (TTM 29632), is 25.01 acres. The project area discussed in Specific Plan #1 (SP-1) is 746 acres of the South Palm Canyon area and the FEIR discusses the regional setting, cumulative effects of development and rare or unique aspects of the area. Nothing has changed on the site specific since 1991; it remains undeveloped and covered with one of the most common types of southwestern desert vegetation, the Creosote Scrub Community. An Initial Study has been prepared for this project and conclusion is that the project remains consistent with the analysis provided in the FEIR for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa (SP-1) and the MND for SP-1A. And The subdivision (TTM 29632)proposes seven (7) less lots (48 vs. 55) than prior approvals. Comment b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas should be fully evaluated and provided. Response b. These impacts were analyzed in the FEIR/Canyon Park Resort and Spa, SPA and SP-1A, (MND) and the Initial Study prepared for this project. In that the subject area is one of many subdivisions and residential developments in the South Palm Canyon area the area should not be considered a suitable or safe Peninsular bighorn sheep corridor. This issue was addressed in the subject environmental assessment and previous environmental documents. AA Y Page 2 of 5 Addendum to Environmental Assessment Tentative Tract Map 29632 — Bergheer California September 19, 2000 Comment c. The zoning of areas for development projects or other uses that are nearby or adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. Response c. Please refer to Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Final Environmental Impact Report. Please note that the Initial Study for this project was prepared to evaluate consistency with the original Final Environmental Impact Report and MND and determine if there were any changes to the environment or project which would require the preparation of revised environmental documents. Comment d. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, 15130. General and Specific Plans as well as past, present and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. Response d. The Canyon Park Resort and Spa FEIR and MND discusses the totality of development in the area including residential uses. The cumulative effects of development within the 746 acres of Specific Plan #1 (SP-1) are thoroughly analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and MND. The regional setting is also analyzed. Please note that the Initial Study for this project was prepared to evaluate consistency with the original Final Environmental Impact Report and MND. Comment e. The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation programs. The Department recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other proposed projects does not preclude long-term preserve planning options. Jurisdictions participating in the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Plan should assess specific projects for consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Response e. The biology section of the Initial Study forthe project discussed the Fish and Wildlife Draft Recovery and Critical Habitat Plan. The subject project appears on the edge of proposed "essential habitat' and outside of the proposed 'critical habitat' area currently being discussed. Additionally, according to the Draft Recovery Plan, even when finalized, the Final Recovery Plan will not require any party to undertake any specific action. The Final Recovery Plan is primarily prepared for purposes of federal action and is not binding on local agencies or private parties. Additionally, as of September 25, 2000 the revised Draft Essential Habitat Map does not include the subject property. It �s Page 3 of 5 Addendum to Environmental Assessment Tentative Tract Map 29632 — Bergheer California September 19, 2000 The Coachella Valley Multi Species Protection Plan is not complete and the most recent(July 24, 2000) Initial Study biology analysis indicates there are no significant impacts. The 746 acres involved in SP-1, and particularly the locale of TTM, is already too urbanized to constitute a safe or desirable habitat or travel corridor for the Peninsular bighorn sheep. No sheep sightings or sign have been noted in the Initial Study. The Tribal Council, in cooperation with Riverside County and the State of California, has acquired land to the south of the subject site for open space and park purposes. The area constitutes the most viable and safe area for a movement corridor of bighorn sheep between the San Jacinto Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains. This corridor extends several miles to the south and has minimal conflicts compared to the area surrounding the subject property. Based upon a review of this information, recent biological studies, aerial photographs, and discussions with FWS and CFG, it is the City of Palm Springs understanding that the development f the subject would not cause any significant impacts on bighorn sheep regarding a possible movement corridor. Comment f. Potential violation of Fish and Game Code Section 4700, prohibition on "taking" of fully protected mammals. Response f. There is no violation of Fish and Game Code Section 4700 because there was no evidence of Peninsular bighorn sheep on the site;therefore there will be no "take" of the species. Comment g. Alleged use of CEQA Section 15145,"Speculation"to circumvent NEPA and the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Response g. As to the reference to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, and the reference to "Speculation" as a way of circumventing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal Endangered Species Act, this is simply not the case. The subject EA addresses the bighorn sheep issues to the extent necessary to determine there is no significant impact. Comment h. A general recommendation on page 2 suggests analysis of a range of project and site alternatives to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts. Response h. The FEIR (SP-1) and MND (SP-1A) have addressed alternative sites. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance allow this type of residential project. The Initial Study finds that the there are no significant environmental impacts. Comment i. Another general recommendation on page 2 suggests that off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. Response i. Please see the response to the letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service on page 4. 4of 2` Page 4 of 5 Addendum to Environmental Assessment Tentative Tract Map 29632 — Bergheer California September 19, 2000 Comment j. A reference to the state status of the Peninsular bighorn sheep should be made part of the initial study. Response j. Please note that the following language has been inserted into the Environmental Assessment signed on July 24, 2000. "The Peninsular bighorn sheep is recognized under the California Endangered Species Act(CESA)as a threatened and fully protected species. The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) lists the species as endangered." FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS) LETTER COMMENTS: Comment: In summary, the FWS states that the project site is occupied by three (3) sensitive species. They are as follows: 1)Casey's June Beetle; and 2) Palm Springs Pocket Mouse; and 3) the Palm Springs ground squirrel The FWS expresses the opinion that the Casey's June Beetle, under State and Federal statutes, (CEQA/NEPA), is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under CEQA codes such a species should be considered as though it is listed as endangered. The FWS continues and states that they assume a listed(endangered)status in the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan is pending. The FWS recommends that the project applicant acquire known habitat to put into conservation easement to offset the loss of the Casey's June Beetle habitat. The Palm Springs pocket mouse and the Palm Springs ground squirrel are acknowledged by the FWS letter to be endemic throughout the Coachella Valley. The FWS recommends that the applicant offset habitat loss by acquiring similar habitat in the Snow Creek area. Response: The FWS states in their letter that "Our ability to advise on measures to minimize or avoid impacts to Casey's June Beetle, short of preserving the proposed project site, is difficult because very little is known about the ecology of this species." The project applicant's biology consultant came to the identical conclusion as is expressed in the FWS letter. The conclusion of the Initial Study is that the effect of the project on the Casey's June Beetle is not significant. The conclusion of the Initial Study for this project relative to the Palm Springs pocket mouse and the Palm Springs ground squirrel is that the effect of the project is not significant on either species because they are "endemic throughout the Coachella Valley". 13ERGHEER CALIFORNIA, INC. August 22, 2000 D I AUG 2 5 2000 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Mr. DouglasR. Evans PI p�ap,i! t':; ;'.'VISION Director of Planning & Building City of Palm Springs 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845-PD-262 Dear Mr. Evans: Bergheer California Inc. and Acanto Partners, LLC has reviewed the proposed conditions of approval for the Acanto/Canyons project (Case TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845-PD-262) as set forth in anticipation of the Planning Commission hearing on Wednesday, August 23, 2000. Our consultant, AE Sanborn, under separate cover, has requested exception to certain requirements. The developer also requests clarification with regard to the costing and the "fair share formula" to be developed for: (1) site acquisition and construction of the future fire station; (2) site acquisition and construction of affordable housing; and (3) construction funding for off-site roadway improvements and signals as set forth in the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Plan FEIR. This requirement is highlighted at Paragraph 28 of the Planning section. Finally, the developer requests that the Planning and Building Department withdraw the requirement, at paragraph 30 of the Engineering section, for the posting of a cash bond of $2000.00 per acre for "mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to [the] property and development " Municipal Code Section 8.50 et seq. does not require the posting of a cash bond, but leaves it to the discretion of the Director There are provisions for mandating the posting of such a bond in the future should it become necessary. Your professional courtesy and cooperation in this matter are greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, Bergeer Calfornia Inc. GPW,VA-E I Arthur S. Moreau 1601 DOVE STREET• SUITE 170 • NEWPORT BEACH • CALIFORNIA 92660 • 949.756-9400 • FAX 949-756-8499 Ah Z DAVID R ZAPPE �uuerr 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager-Chief Engineer �pa5 °pno RIVERSIDE,CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX A �'c0N°f virloN°ASS '__. „( '6252�'� 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CON TR AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRI T .;FSE'P ~1 1 `2000 City of Palm Springs Deppartment of Planning and Building I j —_.- J 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 Attention: -- D A V I D .18 W 50 N Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: 7'7 M - 2 9 6 3 2— The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: �G This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logr'cal extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership ot such acl I ies on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; appp Ica a tees Should a psi y cashier s check or money order only to tFie Flood Control District prior to Issuance of building or grading permits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESI permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval))should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt, If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies calculations, plans and o er Information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require thaj the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Califomia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required Trom the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer SK rJ Date: 9- I-Z000 c: /J•Jf a I Memorandum Date: September 25, 2000 To: Planning Director Assistant City Manager, Special Projects From: Fire Chief Subject: ESTIMATED COST OF NEW FIRE STATION I have received up-to-date information from Riverside County Fire Department on the cost to build new fire stations. They recently built a "light urban' station near Sun City Palm Desert -- the developer provided the land. Their standard "light urban" station is approximately 6,120 square feet: • The total cost (without land) is approximately $1.6 million -$1.2 million for construction -$80,000 for architectural work -$120,000 for contingency -$200,000 for professional services, furniture, landscaping, etc. Their standard "urban" station is larger, but I do not know the square footage. It overall cost of this station configuration is $1.9 million. Overall they claim that development and construction costs are running in the neighborhood of $196 a square foot. Our requirement in the South Palm Canyon area would probably track with the "light urban' station, but I am certain that we would want to upgrade some of the construction materials. Any assessment for a new station should consider the capital cost of the fire engine. We should consider $380,000 for a fire engine with equipment. City of Palm Springs Fire Department /�� RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Acanto Drive Approximately 1320 Feet East of South Palm Canyon Drive October 4, 2000 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning and Building, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PLANNING: 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. la. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 2. The developer shall be responsible for compliance with the State Endangered Species Act and Federal Endangered Species Act prior to the issuance of grading permits, if deemed necessary by the applicable resource agencies. 3. Architectural approval shall be valid for a period of two (2)years. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause. 4. The appeal period for TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845- PD-262 and application is 15 calendar days from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded. It 1#4 JI/ Page 2 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 5. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross sections, property development standards and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted within two(2) years of the City Council approval of the preliminary planned development district. 6. Final landscaping, irrigation,exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Building prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 8. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 9. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks - 3' wide and 6" deep. The irrigation system shall be field tested prior to final approval of the project. Section 14.24.020 of the Municipal Code prohibits nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways or gutters. 10. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. 11. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Building for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances and conditions of approval stated herein. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $2000 for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. 12. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. 13. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color. aV41Z. Page 3 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 14. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the buildings. The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. 15. The applicant shall submit an interior street study to staff with a twenty-four(24)foot wide street pattern throughout the development and if approved by the City Engineer, Fire Marshall, and Planning Director the street widths shall be modified as part of the final map. 16. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained in compliance with the corner cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D. 17. The design, height, texture and color of buildings, fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. A. A restudy of the guardhouse shall be submitted. The architecture shall be related to the architectural style of the development. 18. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 19. That low profile and glare protected lights shall be installed on each side of the driveway entrance located on Acanto Drive. 20. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the feeing being 1/2%for commercial projects or 1/4%for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. 22. Trash cans shall be screened from view and kept within fifty (50) feet of the street. 14#4 33 Page 4 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 23, The project is located in an area defined as having an impact on fish and wildlife as defined in Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, there a fee of $1250.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 shall be submitted by the applicant in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be final until such fee is paid. 24. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting (landscaping, and entry area) shall be submitted for approval prior to final map approval. 25. Texture, materials, and colors to be used on the proposed fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 26. Vehicles associated with the construction of the proposed development including company vehicles or employees vehicles shall not be permitted to park off the proposed building site unless a parking management plan has been approved. 27. The applicant shall dedicate a 20'easement and construct a 15'wide equestrian trail between the property line and Lots 1,2,3 and 4. Design and details shall be submitted with the final Planned Development plans. The equestrian trail shall be separated from Lots 1,2,3 and 4 by a landscaped area.A minimum 15' decomposed granite trail, landscape, fencing and signing shall be provided. 28. Final development plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan/EIR. Prior to approval of the Final PD and Final Tract Map, a comprehensive mitigation monitoring report consistent with the Monitoring Program shall be prepared and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning. The City shall be reimbursed for the cost of preparation and/or review of said report. Refer to City Council Resolution NO. 17598 certifying the Final EIR for the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan for specific details. All Mitigation measures, where applicable, shall be adopted as conditions of approval. The following measures are highlighted for convenience: a. Prior to final project acceptance including approval of the final map or planned development district, the City shall establish a formula for the applicant's payment of their "fair share' of the costs of the matters listed below, and applicant shall pay fees pursuant to the formula or post such security as the City Attorney shall determine is appropriate. The fair share formulas shall be based on data developed by City or its consultants to determine the applicants proportionate responsibility for providing the specified public improvements, and for producing affordable housing, based upon the benefits received by the project and/or impacts caused by the project. The costs shall include not only construction costs, but also design, engineering and other similar costs, as well as City administrative costs including the costs of developing the fair-share formula. Fair-share formulas shall be developed for the following matters: /6A3Y Page 5 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A— Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council i. Funding of site acquisition and construction of a fire station providing adequate fire protection services to the project site and vicinity. ii. Funding of site acquisition and construction of affordable housing meeting the goals of the City's Housing Element. See Section 5-10 (5-184) Jobs and Housing for specific mitigation measures. iii. Funding of construction of off-site roadway improvements and signals as shown in Table 5.14 of the Canyon Redevelopment Plan and the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. b. Appropriate removal and recompaction of surface soils in areas to support structures will mitigate potential settlements. Building sites planned within the alluvial areas shall be evaluated by the soil engineer for settlement potential during detailed geotechnical studies for design of structures, with respect to the specifics of proposed structure locations, soil conditions, foundation loads, etc. A final soils report shall be submitted with the detailed development plans (grading and structural) for the project. C. All outdoor lighting constructed on the project site shall be directed at the ground to prevent unnatural lighting from interfering with the activity of nocturnal animals that live in the surrounding natural areas. Exceptions to this condition shall be limited to accent landscape and architectural lighting. All lighting which directly illuminates hillsides and was areas shall be prohibited. This condition shall be included in the CC&R's. d. The applicant and the building contractor shall halt grading or any other construction activity in the immediate vicinity immediately if archaeological resources are uncovered during grading. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City and Tribal Council in writing and shall summo a qualified archaeologist to determine the significance of uncovered archaeological resources and appropriate mitigation measures. Due to the historical sensitivity of the area, a tribal representative and /or a qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during all rough grading operations. A written report shall be provided to the City outlining the nature of any resources found on-site, disposition, etc. At the end of construction, a written report shall be provided summarizing resources found (if any) and if any additional work is needed. POLICE DEPARTMENT: A 35- Page 6 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 29. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES: 30. The location of the trash enclosure is acceptable subject to approved construction details approved by the Director of Building and Safety consistent with approved City details. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 28. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE: 31. Construction Requirements - Construction shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, 1998 California Building Code, 1996 National Electrical Code, City of Palm Springs Fire Protection Master Plan Vol. II, City if Palm Springs Ordinance 1570, Desert Water Agency requirements, NFPA 13A, 13D (Modified), plus UUCSFM listings and approvals. 32. Emergency Access Roads - Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code,Article 9, Section 902. 33. Access Road Dimensions-Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20;' and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 14'6". 34. Road Construction - Fire department access roads shall be all weather driving and support a minimum weight of 67,500 lbs. 35. Turning Radius - Turning radius shall be not less than 43' from centerline. 36. Cul-De-Sac-Cul-de-Sac streets shall be designed with a minimum turning radius of 43 feet on center. 37. Construction Site Guard - A construction site guard is required for combustible construction. The guard shall remain intact until buildings are stuccoed or covered and secured with lockable doors and windows. 38. Construction Site Fencing - Construction site fencing required per City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570. Fire department access gates shall be at least 14' in width and equipped with a frangible chain and padlock. 39. Premises Identification - Premises identification shall be in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9, Sec. 901.4.4 and 1998 California Building Code, Chapter 5. Contact building official. AM 134 Page 7 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A— Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 40. Access For Firefighting Equipment - Access for fire fighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start of construction and maintained until all construction is complete. 41. Water Company Requirements - Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with 1998 California fire Code, Article 9, Sec. 903, and Desert Water Agency specifications. 42. Mandatory Fire Sprinklers - Project is beyond 5 minute response time from closest fire station and therefore requires an Automatic fire extinguishing system with 24 hour monitoring per the City of Palm Springs Fire Protection Master Plan Vol. II<City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570, and NFPA 13D ( Modified). 43. Smoke Detectors-Provide Residential Smoke Detectors to protect all sleeping areas in accordance with the 1998 California Building Code, Chapter 3, Section 310.9. Installation and acceptance testing by building official. 44. Further Comments - Further comments as conditions warrant. ENGINEERING: The Engineering Department recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances: Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STREETS 1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. B. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF applicable. /��9 37 Page 8 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these conditions. ACANTO DRIVE * Condition#7 is to be deferred by covenant. 3. Half-street right-of-way is required to an ultimate width of 40 feet from the west property line of the tract to the west property line of Lot 1 of said tract and shall be offered via an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Palm Springs.Acceptance of the right-of-way shall be at such time as the ultimate roadway improvements are contemplated as determined by the City Engineer. 4. Half-street right-of-way is required to an ultimate width of 34 feet from the east property line of the tract to a point 42 feet west of the west property line of Lot 2 and shall be offered via an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Palm Springs. Acceptance of the right-of-way shall be at such time as the ultimate roadway improvements are contemplated as determined by the City Engineer. 5. Half-street right-of-way is required to a variable width from 34 feet wide at a point 42 feet west of the west property to 40 feet wide at the southwest corner of Lot 1 and shall be offered via an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Palm Springs.Acceptance of the right-of-way shall be at such time as the ultimate roadway improvements are contemplated as determined by the City Engineer. 6. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 4 feet NORTH of centerline from the east tract property line to 600 feet westerly per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. 6A. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter transition from 600 feet west of the east property line to the east side of the main entry and continue with 6 inch curb and gutter, 32 feet north of centerline from the west side of the main entry to the west property line with a 35 foot radius curb return at the west side of the intersection of Acanto Road and the Main Entry per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. *7. Construct a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 8. Construct both halves of an 8 foot cross gutter and spandrel at the intersection of Lot "H" and ACANTO DRIVE with a flow line parallel to the centerline of ACANTO DRIVE in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 9. Construct a curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility standards at the NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST corners of ACANTO /1h � � Page 9 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A— Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council DRIVE AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE per City of Palm Springs Std. Dwg. Nos. 212 and 212A. 10. Construct a minimum pavement section of 3 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to centerline along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R"values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Construct an approximately 100 foot long pavement taper from the end of the curb at the west property line westerly to the existing edge of pavement (approximately 30 feet from south line of Section 35). ON-SITE STREETS (PRIVATE) 11. All on-site cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 103, curb portion only. 12A. All on-site knuckles shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 104. 12. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2-1/2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to edge of proposed gutter along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110.The pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 13A. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2-1/2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to edge of proposed barrier curb at the median island along that portion of the street frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 13. Construct a six (6) inch wedge curb in all areas except where hydrology requires an eight (8) inch curb. All curbs are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 15. Construct both halves of a 6 foot cross gutter and spandrel at the intersection of Lots "B"and "E" and Lot "C" with the flow line parallel to the centerline of Lot "C" in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 15A. Construct both halves of a 6 foot cross gutter and spandrel at the intersection of Lots"C" and "G" and Lot"F"with a flow line parallel to the centerline of Lot /`h a f Page 10 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council "F in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 16. The driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have minimum widths of 10 feet. MAIN ENTRANCE ROAD 17. The following requirements for a gated entry shall be met to provide adequate setbacks and turning movements for vehicles entering the primary parking facilities of this project: A. Provide a minimum curb cut of 60 feet B. Provide a minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate control mechanism C. Provide a turnaround after the mechanism for vehicles unable to enter the project E. Security gates closer than 50 feet from the access street will require a minimum of 14 feet clear width. Gates beyond 50 feet from the street will require a minimum of 12 feet width. SANITARY SEWER 18, Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be connected at manhole. 19 Dedicate an easement to the City of Palm Springs for sewer and public utility purposes with right of ingress and egress for the 10 inch diameter sewer trunk main in Lots "H", "C", "F' and "I". 20. Developer shall construct a 10 inch diameter sewer main along the Acanto Drive frontage from Main Entry to east property line. 21. Developer shall construct 8 inch diameter sewer mains 5 feet from and parallel to the centerline of all on-site street easements. A 10 inch diameter sewer main shall be constructed 5 feet from and parallel to the centerline of Lots "H", "C", and "F"(west of Lot "C"). The 10 inch diameter sewer shall connect via the existing easement from Lot"I"to the existing sewer manhole located in Palm Canyon Drive South approximately 129 feet south of the centerline intersection of Bogert Trail and Palm Canyon Drive South and into the 10 inch diameter sewer main being constructed in Acanto Drive. 22. Developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement for that portion of the 10 inch diameter sewer main which is off-site. �� y0 Page 11 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A— Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 23. Developer shall pay the sewer assessment fee of$146.19 per lot. GRADING 1. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of record documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 27. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering Department for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for comments prior to submittal to the Engineering Department. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal includes the following: A. Copy of final Planning Department comments. B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department. D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months. E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions. F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions. G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687) to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 28. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks - 3' wide and 6" deep -to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 29. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687) and provide a copy of same, when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 30. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00,the developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and development. /d#4 (It Page 12 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A— Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 31. A soils report prepared by a licensed Soils Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site. A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Department along with plans, calculations and other information subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 32. Contact the Building Department to get PM10 requirements prior to request for grading permit. DRAINAGE 33. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these flows to an approved drainage structure. On-site retention/detention or other measures approved by the City Engineer shall be required if off-site facilities are determined to be unable to handle the increased flows generated by the development of the site. Provide calculations to determine if the developed Q exceeds the capacity of the approved drainage carriers. Design of the basin outlet shall be within the existing drainage easement(Lot D, Tract 16149). Calculations shall include outlet Q and capacity of existing drainage control channel. 33A. The Storm flows shall be conducted through the project via underground pipes. The size of the storm drain pipes shall be as per the hydraulic design in the report to be submitted with the grading plans. 34. The storm drain infrastructure shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. 35. The tract shall be subject to all conditions of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District stated in their letter dated Jan. 24, 1985. GENERAL 36. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface. 37. All proposed utility lines on/or adjacent to this project shall be undergrounded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 38. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. The approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City of Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. lkh yZ Page 13 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A— Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council 39. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for this project at the earliest possible date. 40. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 203. 41. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. MAP 42. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Department. 43. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall be made prior to issuance of grading or building permits. TRAFFIC 44. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on the ACANTO DRIVE frontage of the subject property. 45. Striping plans are to be prepared and submitted along with street improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. 46. Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620 through 625. 47. A 30 inch "STOP" sign and standard "STOP BAR" and "STOP LEGEND" shall be installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620-626 at the following locations: NW Corner of Acanto Drive and the Main Entrance 48. The developer shall install a 16,000 lumen high pressure sodium vapor safety street light with glare shield on a marbelite pole on the NORTHWEST corner of MAIN ENTRANCE and ACANTO DRIVE with the mast arm over /GA y 3 Page 14 of 14 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD 262 Exhibit A—Conditions of Approval October 4, 2000, City Council ACANTO DRIVE. The pole and luminaire shall be furnished by the developer. 49. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES" dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 50. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ITE Code B land use. lW yy i` AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Pahn Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in conjunction with Case No. 5.0845, Tentative Tract Map No. 29632, concerning property near NE Corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 22nd day of September, 2000. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is hue and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 22nd day of September, 2000. PATRICIA SANDERS City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL Tentative Tract Map No. 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 (Planned Development District 262) Application by Bergheer California Located 1300 Feet East of the Northeast Conner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City ofPalm Springs,California,will hold a public hearing at its meeting of October 4,2000. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider a Tentative Tract Map application and Planned Development District by Bergheer California. The application proposes to subdivide an existing 25.01 acre parcel into forty-eight(48)residential lots with an average lot size of 18,500 square feet. The proposal includes a Planned Development District which will allow minor adjustments in front wall height(6 permitted,8' requested)around the entire development and optional guest house locations necessitating a five(5)foot encroachment into the required twenty-five(25)foot front yard setback. The entire project is within the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1991 and was most recently amended on January 19, 1994. The property is located approximately 1300 feet to the east of the northeast corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive. The subject property is zoned R-1-13, SP -1, Section 35. An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting. Potential impacts from the project are land use,biology and hydrology. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environnental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal and members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planming and Building,City Hall,and submit written continents to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing. If any individual or group challenges the action in court,issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to David Dawson, Department of Planning &Building, 760/323-8245. Patricia A. Sanders Publish: 9/3/00 City Clerk VICINITY MAP > LA VERNE N.T.S. w r o z w Q J < O W 0 � W J O AVE. GRq� ~ z Q MURRp ( PROJECT > LOCATION Q TRAIL w BOGERT ACANTO WAY CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE N0. TTM 29632 DESCRIPTION 5.0845 PD-262 APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 25.01 ACRE BERGHEER APPLICANT BERGHEER PARCEL INTO48 SINGLE FAMILY CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL LOTS, R-1-13 ZONE, SECTION 35. OV Allen Sanborn, Karl Bergheer Sanborn A/E Inc. Bergheer California 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail, Ste.0 1601 Dove Street, Ste.170 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Newport Beach, CA 92660 k., ;,,tea i /N 009-607-556 APN 009-607-557 APN 009-607-558 'SUSAN J.GRAHAM STANLEY E.&DORCAS I.BALDWIN HAROLD L.&BETTE L.FREEMAN 780 AZALEA Cl W PO BOX 226 10535 MOORPARK ST PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0246 SEAL BEACH CA 90740-0226 TOLUCA LAKE CA 91602-2851 APN 009-607-559 APN 009-607-560 APN 009-607-561 PETER &NAN TYNBERG ALAN MARCO STEVE PIC 1599 N VIA NORTE 310 TAN IT]WY#213 PO B 15 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4281 MARINA DEL REY CA 90292-6745 RA CHO MIRAGE CA 92270-1096 APN 009-607-562 APN 009-607-563 APN 009-607-564 DELTA FLIP DELTA�IFLP NEBHUT L.SMITH 247E TA ITZ CANYON WY#27 247EN WY#247 624 CHIQUITA RD PAL PRINGS CA 92262-6454 SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 SANTA BARBARA CA 93103-2541 APN 009-607-572 APN 009-610-907 APN 009-610-908 TERRY L.&KIM GOLDSTON ALAN T.&JOANNA SILVERMAN ROBERT STRAUSS&ANDREA L. 18011 LINCOLN ST 38045 VIA FORTUNA 38105 VIA FORTUNA VILLA PARK CA 92861-6446 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0237 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0237 APN 009-610-909 APN 009-610-912 APN 009-610-913 RICHARD M.&PATRICIA DELGADO SERVICE ROBERT J.&JOSEPHINE POND RICHARD STEARNS 38155 VIA FORTUNA 64725 ACANTO DR 800 5TH AV#394 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0237 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0245 SEATTLE WA 98104-3122 APN 009-610-914 APN 009-610-915 APN 009-610-918 GERALD &RUBY GALES JOSEPH M.BERNSTEIN ROBERTA MORREALE 64425 VIA AMENTE 780 N WATER ST PO BOX 4403 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0232 MILWAUKEE WI 53202-3512 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4403 APN 009-610-919 APN 009-610-927 APN 009-610-928 MICHAEL D.&EULA J.HARRIS PHILIP &AUBRIA BECKER JEREL W.JORGENSEN 64505 VIA AMENTE 38054 VIA ROBERTA PO BOX 1007 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0233 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0229 ZEPHYR COVE NV 89448-1607 APN 009-612-731 APN 009-613-734 MARVIN M.&EILEEN STERN MICHAEL &GLORIA MATER 839 N DEARBORN ST 1000 N LAKE SHORE DR#53A CHICAGO IL 60510-3373 CHICAGO IL 60611-1308 iN 009-607-497 APN 009-607-5261 62-7 .S-Lb, APN 009-607-527 53 1,538 MILNER CORP DELTA FLP DELTA FLP 535 BOYLSTON ST 247 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WY 247E UITZ CANYON WY BOSTON MA 21163-720 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 PAL SPRINGS CA 92262.6454 APN 009-607-528 APN 009-607-530 APN 009-607-531 532� 55 3 DELTA FLP EDUARDO A.MARIN ALAN HAMEL 247E QUITZ CANYON WY 31978 HIDDEN HIGHLAND RD PO BOX 55457 P SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 AGOURA CA 91301-3460 VALENCIA CA 91385-0457 APN 009-607-532 APN 009-607-534 APN 009-607-535 ALAN HAMEL FRED &NANCY BIEN JOHN E.&NORMAN L.JACKSON PO BO 57 10224 CANDLEBERRY LN 2337 HERCULES DR V NCIA CA 91385-0457 NORTHRIDGE CA 91324-1268 LOS ANGELES CA 90046-1631 APN 009-607-536 APN 009-607-537 APN 009-607-538 ABELARDO &SHERRY LOPEZ DELTA FLP DELTA FLP 58 ROYAL ST GEORGE RD 247 E QUITZ CANYON WY#27 247 QUITZ CANYON WY#27 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5222 PAL SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 LM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 APN 009-607-539 APN 009-607-540 APN 009-607-541 THOMAS ALLARDYCE GLENN E.&LAVETA M.FISHER FRANK &VIRGINIA WISKOWSKI 2353 BOWMONT DR 1135 HERNANDEZ DR 2347 S VIA LAZO BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210-1608 PALMDALE CA 93551-7824 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-9494 APN 009-607-542 ,5''3 APN 009-607-543 APN 009-607-544j772r 55( 55j 5e�51b3 � DON M.KITCHEN DON M.KIT DELTA FLP PO BOX 1856 PO B 856 247 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WY#27 GLENDORA CA 91740-1856 - NDORA CA 9174(0-1856 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 APN 009-607-772 APN 009-607-545 APN 009-607-546 DELTA FLP RODNEY B.&SHAW VANDENBURG EUGENE M.&PATRICIA L.PASTRICK 247 E T ITZ CANYON WY#27 PO BOX 2515 3120 MARIGOLD Cl PAL SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270-1096 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0265 APN 009-607-547 APN 009-607-548 APN 009-607-549 STANLEY E &DORCAS I.BALDWIN JUDITH SOLOMON LOUIS C.&HELEN SMITS PO BOX 226 1599 N VIA NORTE 2532 N GIRASOL AV SEAL BEACH CA 90740-0226 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262.4281 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-1848 APN 009-607-550 APN 009-607-551 APN 009-607-552 IRVING J.PINTO DELTA ELF RICHARD A.&LINDA&ROBERT J.&DANIEL 1050 E MURRAY CANYON DR 247 E T ITZ CANYON WY#247 2366 S CAMINO REAL PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-9432 P SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-9419 APN 009-607-553 APN 009-607-554)5(o( APN 009-607-555 ALAN NAME STEVE PICCIOLO DELTA FLP PO BO 457 PO BOX 2515 247 QUITZ CANYON WY#247 V NCIA CA 91385-0457 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270-1096 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 :N'KNOWN PN 686-5 01 APN 686- 002 APN 686-51 03 6 A �'D -{�� 686 A �� '([�I(j'-�jDS 686 US -{ U KNOWN UN OWN APN 686-510-006 APN 686- APN 686-510- 8 sas u ��_(o!D-��a- BiA (bq-(n 1 U -�f3 sas /� p U OWN UNKNOWN 04-29-97 KNOWN v�����U� I� APN 686-510-009 APN 686-510- 12 APN 686-5 3 686u 669-(olO-��� 686 00i—�fo ' I�g siA p6 ]-lp10 —�1�! NOWN U KNOWN U KNOWN 04-04-97 APN 686-510- 21 APN 68 - 22 APN 686-510-0 s A � SAon9- � -� as�de1�7 � C(j9�n10 -- 3I O1UNKNOWN NKNWN KNOWN APN 686-510-026 APN 686-510-0 APN 6�5 28 6 '//o686 686 U A 7 J W - P NOWNVK y oq OWN ! 06-20-97 Q -10 Q APN 686-y51 O-029Zp 7 5 �a-��()-0� 686 USA �V�'-lQ�✓'� 7•.)� MA PO BOX 2245 /1 011)-yl PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-292-013 APN 512-292-014 APN 512-292-015 M&R INV ENTS M 8 R INVEST S M B R INVESTME 735 ESSANDRO DR 200 73550 A ANDRO DR 200 73550 AL DRO DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL ESERT CA )2260-3613 PAL ESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-292-016 APN 512-292-017 APN 512-292-018 M&R INVEST TS M&R INVEST S M&R INVEST 73550 A SANDRO DR 200 73550 A ANDRO DR 200 73550 SANDRO DR 200 PALM ESERT CA 92260-3613 PA ESERT CA 92260-3613 P DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-001 - 013 APN 512-293-002 APN 512-293-003 512:�a--oc J-'blimp M&R INVESTMENTS M&R INVESTWNTS M&R INVES TS 73550 ALESSANDRO DR 200 73550 A ANDRO DR 200 735 SSANDRO DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PA DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-004 APN 512-293-005 APN 512-293-006 M&R INVESTME M&R INVESTMEN M&R INVES S 73550 ALESS RO DR 200 73550 ALE RO DR 200 73550 SSANDRO DR 200 PALM D RT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-007 APN 512-293-008 APN 512-293-009 M&R IN�rSANDRTOD6P200 M&R INVESTM M&R INVEST S 73550 A 73550 ALE DRO DR 200 73550 SANDRO DR 200PAL ESERT CA 9220-3613 PAL SERT3613 PA M DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293- 0 APN 512-293-011 APN 512-293-012 M&R INVE NTS M&R INV `ENT/S M&R IN ENTS 7355 SSANDRO DR 200 735$ ESDA7�NDRO DR 200 73550'IN DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-013 APN 512-300-001 -011 APN 5� 300-092 M&R INVEST S M&R INVESTMENTS M&R INV ENTS 73550 AL ANDRO DR 200 73550 ALESSANDRO DR 200 735 LESSANDRO DR 200 PAL ESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-300-003 APN 512-300-004 APN 512-300-005 M&R INVEST TS M&R INVEST S M&R INV NTS 73550 A ANDRO DR 200 73550 ANDRO DR 200 735 ESSANDRO DR 200 P DESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-300-008 APN 512-300-009 APN 512-300-010 M&R INVES NTS M&R INV NTS M 8 R INS V EST�yll"xAFT� 73550 SANDRO DR 200 73 LESSANDRO DR 200 7355 SANDR0 DR 200 P DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 M DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-300-011 APN 686-030-001 APN 686-030-004 M&R INVEST S 686 USA STEPHMAR ENTS INC 73550 SANDRO DR 200 PO BOX 2245 38799 MARACAIBO CIR PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 APN 512-28 05 APN 512-28p0-0 L APN 512-280- P12 OX 2245 �p7--51 PO US 2245�DI- �- J� 512 US + PO 2245�R~�Do7-55/ PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 P LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-2 08 APN 512- -009 APN 512-2 512 US b5.--- 512 DO 9-(�7-55.3 BIA (�9-�pr17-Srj PO X 2245 3 WACKER DR#2600 KNOWN 11-19-97 P LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 CHICAGO IL 60606-1227 - APN 512-280- 11 APN 512- 12 APN 512-280- 3 512 US Q�R-r�D7-555 BI A �l(75-& ,-!�'rj((J 512 USA b04._In07-557 P X 2245 KNOWN 03-31-97 PO B 245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PA SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-280- 14 APN 512-2 - 15 APN 512-280- 512 USA 512 U 512 USA Po 224s©DR-ln0�-558 P ox22a� fob7' 9 Po B 2245 �� -�p� —�lnD PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PA M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512- APN 512-280-018 APN 512-280- 19 BI A Qo4_c�p7-t 512 USA L,4� 512 US 00q-(oD'-7- & NKNOWN 1 -17-97 PO 2245 O�R-�D� -Ld PO 2245 LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-28 APN 512-280-026)0� APN 512-280-027 512 U o�p�o 1� �4,1` 512 USA 512 USA P OX 2245 1 PO BOX 2245 PO BO 5 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PAL SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-28 APN 512-292-001 APN 512-292-002 512 US �- TRACY L.511t,KNEY M&R I MENTS 33 WACKER DR# 600 2491 CASTLEMONT CT 73 ALESSANDRO DR 200 CHICAGO IL 60606-1227 SIMI VALLEY CA 93063-2506 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-292-003 APN 512-292-004 APN 512-292-005 M&R INVEST TS M&R INVEST M&R INVES S 73550 ANDRO DR 200 73550 ANDRO DR 200 73550 SSANDRO DR 200 P DESERT CA 92260-3613 P DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-292-006 APN 512-292-007 APN 512-292-009 M&R INV MENTS M&R�rANDR.O M&R INVEST [zNTS� 73550 ALESSANDRO DR 200 7355000 7355 SANDRO DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL613 LM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-292-010 APN 512-292-011 APN 512-292-012 M&R INVEST TS M&R INVES TS M&R INVESTM 73550 A SANDRO DR 200 73550JitESS ND O DR 200 73550 ANDRO DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-200-0221 APN 512-200-02 APN 512-200-027 512 USA CA) 512 USA n0(,�`_�0� �qcf 512 USA PO BOX 2245 PO B 245 ul PO BO 5 PALM SPRINGS CA 92253-2245 M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 P SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-200-026 APN 512-220-006 APN 512-220-011 512 USA �- �� 512 USA �j �J- JANICE RAEHN BRIGHT PO B 45 UNKN 0 0 I-1 1449 ARCHER AV M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 BANNING CA 92220-6476 APN 512-27 009 APN 512-270-010 APN 512-27 11 BIA U BIA BI U NOWN 06-09-97 KNOWN 06-09-97 UJJKNOWN 06-09-97 X9`AGO-7-520 DD ! —(p07 —>Z�l APN 512-270-012 APN 512-270-01 APN 512-2 1 512 USA BIA US 512 U -7 PO B 245 U WIN 06-20-97 PO X 2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 00R" QP 0-7'-"5J 0 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-27 -002 APN 512-271-003 APN 512-271-0 512 US 009'to'-S?A 512 USA 512 USA PO 2245 PO BO PO 2245 LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 P.A SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-271-005 APN 512-2 06 APN 512-271- 7 512 US �`j-(GCS-(j35 512 U �a '�- 512 US O P X 2245 P OX 2245 11 PO X 2245(N "IS ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ;ALM N 512-2 -008 APN 512-2 d-009 APN 512-271- 0 U v�-I -W-7-535 512 U ��-�'71�7 512 US bL�Gj—lptJ7— X 2245 PO OX 2245 P X 2245 5 SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512- -011 APN 512-27 12 APN 512-271- BI A D©5 -1nD7 5ll 512 U 00'l-1P07 -5`�� 51z us �q_ p7-5zf3 NKNOWN I1-15-96 P OX 2245 PO 2245 D PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-27 15 APN 512-27 16 APN 51 - 01 512 US ��//jjq '/ 512 USA M i.-�b� _-7-�� BIA A PO X 2245 Lv l + -5�~ PO Bp 2245 L(� U KNOWN 09-16-97 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PA M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 51 02 APN 512-280- APN 512-28 - BIA A 0D 1 -(n0"]--5`flp s1z usn/ `_ ,/ s1z us Da9 --(00-7"5�f8 KNOWN 05-16-97 P0�9 2245 DD9'-�pb7-.5`� P X 2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 �Q lliD � ags by TM ���a � N 009-607 497 MiLNER�ORP APN 009-607-545 [ _' l 535 BOLSTON ST I, BOSTC�NMA21163-720 � JUDITH SOLOMON —� 1699 NVIA NORTE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4281 _ 225 s.;y }fit SEA 4r 1t(Ip K i APN 009-607-545 - -""-- -- ROI)f!EY-B.&SHAW VANDENBURG _ E CA 92270-1096 sNav3iS G VHOIa - F' CL6-M-600 NdH r n _ P - _ _ sguucls 1 _. - ze,. - IL rc I -1 >_ b 1 GOB yP� h :cfv `l i a J v j co F Iw Omx v v'aQ,4v o ¢ O (OD i OQ P����Q-CP' Z O G �' ' Z e 5 � � 'ity Clerk mk44 Calimmia 92263-2743 APN0-918 O I o 0 _ 1E0, ROBEEALE _ - - rJ Lo ¢ m TDEL VtlgISLEj EE'VOA DORESS PO BO �' 3� o z C4'� TE Fo D-NOi1I 4SADRESSED - NLMA 92263-4403 - J cp Q = ONO �iMED O NOWN I p Z °' No S�CH STREET f FUSED O O V OIiVSUr CH AlUlLIBER _ K FICIENTFlDORESS oNsF��Ee ¢ o QO PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space fel County Clerk's Filing stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) 7 J ^ - - STATE OF CALIFORNIA - - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - County of Riverside - -- - --- Na.54 s CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tentative Tract Map No. 29632and Case No. 5.0845 (Planned Development District 262) Application n r California Located 1300 Feet t Eastass of the Northeast C Corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive NOTICE IS H GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the the City Qty of Palm Springs, Califor- I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of nia, will hold a public hearing at Its meeting of August 23,2000.The Planninq Commission meet- the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen I n$ begins at 1 30 p.m ,tpublic hearings begin at 2: 0 p.m) in the Councl Chambers at City Hall, years,and not a party to Or interested in the 3200 E. al Canyon Way, Palm Springs The purpose of the hearing is to consider a Ten- above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a act Ma oy spIrq anoneer California Planned Devel- opmentap - printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING cation proposes to subdivide an existing 25.01 COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, with an'average lotlsizegof f 8, 00 residential lots printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, The proposal includes a Planned Development District which will allow minor adjustments in front Comity of Riverside,and which newspaper has been wall he It(6' permitted, s' requested)around the I entire development and optional guest house lo- adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the cations necessitating a five (5)foot encroachment Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of into the required twenty-five (25) foot front yard p OY setback The entire proect is within the Ca California under the date of March 24,1988.Case Park Resort and Spa �peci4ic Plan whi nyon m was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1991 and Number 191236;that the notice,of which the was most recently amended on January 19, 1994. The property is ocaied approximately 1300 feet annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller to the east of the northeast corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive The subject than non pariel,has been published in each regular property is zoned R-I-B, SP 41, section 35 and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: July 23rd "�- --------------------- --- ---------------------------------- All in the year 2000 I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ;n ilti a 'Mu saeimes 24th .r ,taenri:.h'tilr An Environmental � � / u Jelly tevievvemp by Commission a e Co 2 al Dated at Palm Springs,California this--------------day en neial sway will be t the meeting. Po- the project are land use, Of--------------------------------------,2000 o and hydrology. A draft Mitigated Negative e Declared on of Enmronmenwl Impact has been /�+ n prepared public themay subject proposal and members of the public may mew this dooumeni in the and Submit of Planning and Building, City Hall, and ___-------____________________---- submit written comments to the Paring. Com- mission at or prior to the public hearing. Signature If any individual or group challenges the only those in court, Issues raised may be earrin to only those issues raised at the public heannge described in this notice la in written correspondence at or pri- or to the unity mq be given t said heg. aring An rested persons will be given heard said hearing for all interested persons b di heard o David Dawsoregardn, this case may ni directed n David Dawson, Department of Planning&BUlldinq COMMISSION . PLANNING COMMISSION lsl Douglas R Evans Dvector of Planning & Building PI Ir'- `-lfl AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California;that on the 21 st day of July,2000, 1 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING)on PLANNING COMMISSION Case No.5.0845(Planned Development District 262)and Tentative Tract Map No.29632 to consider a Tentative Tract Map application and Planned Development District by Bergheer California. The application proposes to subdivide an existing 25.01 acre parcel into forty-eight (48) residential lots with an average lot size of 18,500 square feet. The proposal includes a Planned Development District which will allow minor adjustments in front wall height (6' permitted, 8' requested) around the entire development and optional guest house locations necessitating a five (5) foot encroachment into the required twenty-five(25)foot front yard setback. The entire project is within the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1991 and was most recently amended on January 19, 1994. The property is located approximately 1300 feet to the east of the northeast corner of south Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive, R-1-B Zone, SP#1, section 35 on persons contained in Exhibit "A"attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox, sub-post office, substation or mail chute, or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of persons or firms received from the title company and certified by the City's Planning Technician, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Notices (10) (along with stamped envelopes) were mailed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Palm Springs Field Office, PO Box 2245, Palm Springs CA 92263, which they will in turn send. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Judit A. Nichols Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 21 st day of July, 2000. " APN 512-200-0221p L-� APN 512-200-03_4-, APN 512-200-027 �.- 512 �71- 512 USA 7,�,J 512 USA n�l�.��o� � '9(1 7 512 USA PO BOX 2245 PO B 245 �' PO B�OX-2745 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 P M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PAL SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-200-026 APN 512-220-006 _ APN 512-220-011 512 USA '�'�� -� ; 512 USA y JANICE RAEHN BRIGHT PO B 45 U- UNKN I- "r 1449 ARCHER AV PA M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 BANNING CA 92220-6476 APN 512-270,009 APN 512-270-010 APN 512-27�011 BIA USAF CCU 1 /r�h 1-5J(< BIASA BIA UNKNOWN 06-09-97 UNKNOWN 06-09-97 U NKNOWN 06-09-97 o0c)`(-o !�:-) 7 CCUE[ 7 '52, APN 512-270-012, APN 51 >2A--- 512-2 1 512 USA ,.�--�- BIA US Cl- "7PO��245 UN OWN 06-20-97 2245PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 00l1- Q6 7 -`�3 C7 PRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-27 -002 APN 512-271-003 APN 512-271-0 512 US �b l'[<{f1'-✓ 512 USA �—J� 512 USA �n PO 2245 PO BOYS. 4� PO 2245 (-^' y�b LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 rALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-271-005 APN 512-2 06 APN 512-271--0-7 512 US �'V�'"_Jf l;-7_5;�`� 512 U t" ,���,�17.�C?7., 512 US MG...u,L'7._53`7 P X 2245 / P OX 2245 J'�'I PO X 2245 W ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-2 -008 APN 512-2 -009 APN 512-271- 0 512 U ���q --( S—l-S3C� 512 u ( i-�;1���3% 51z us U�'6 —(�r_? P X 2245 PO X 2245 P X 2245 5 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN �51 g;2 f--'011 APN 512-27 12 APN 512-271�� BI st7 A C,�a� -t(�D 7--5`�l 51z uDj—(�iD7-.5`�� 51z us 7 KNOWN I1-15-96 P OX 2245 PO 2245 OD(�� �d7�J`�J PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 LM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-27JAl5 APN 512-27 16 APN 51 - - 01 P97 O 512 UX2245 �JG� P�7 -�2�[J PO B512 US 2245 E�� -JO0 --7 r3" U KNOWN 09-16--Y,ci -1c90J 7._546 ALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PA M SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 7 APN 512/80-003 APN 512-28 - BIA A �� J /' �i 512 USA�'/ 512 US 0Oq -=(Dp-]--/JLf�{ KNOWN 05-16-97 PO 60X 2245 DO (J".�J�J P 043OX 2245 f PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 512-292-013 APN 512-292-014 APN 512-292-015 M&R INV- ENTS M&R INVEST Nl S M&R INVESTME 73�, ESAANDRO DR 200 73550 A ANDRO DR 200 73550 AL DRO PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALMDESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL ESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-2992-0016 APN 512-292-017 APN 512-292-018 M&R INVEST i'fVTS M&R INVEST S M&R INVEST 73550 A SANDRO DR 200 73550 A ANDRO DR 200 73550 SANDRO DR 200 PALM E4SERCA 92260-3613 PA DESERT CA 92260-3613 P9L DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-001 CI5 APN 512-293-002 APN 512-293-003 �uz1"h--cc;��UIn M&R INVESTMENTS M&R INVESTWNTS M&R INVESTMENTS 73550 ALESSANDRO DR 200 73550 8'ANDRO DR 200 7355.0-ALESSANDRO DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL' DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-004 APN 512-293-005 APN 512-293-006 M&R INVESTMENTS" M&R INVESTMENTS- M&R INVES " I S 7355 1 ALESS RO DR 200 73550 AL�SSANURO DR 200 7355�L S RO DR 200 PALM D RT CA 92260-3613 PALM bESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-007 APN 512-293-008 APN 512-293-009 / o�-. M&R INVEST NTS M&R INVESTME T'S M&R INVEST TS 73550 A SANDRO DR 200 73550 ALE DRO DR 200 73550 SANDRO DR 200 PAL ESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM-0 SE 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-29�;Qa0 APN 512-293-011 APN 512-29�3-012 M&R INVE NTS M&R INV NTS M&R IN -ESf Ervi NTS 73550 SSANDRO DR 200 73550A, ESSSA DRO DR 200 73550 LESSANDRO DR 200 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-293-013 APN 51-2-300-001 —OI ( APN 5300-0Q2 M&R INVEST S M&R INVESTMENTS M&R INV ENTS 73550 AL ANDRO DR 200 73550 ALESSANDRO DR 200 735 LESSANDRO DR 200 PAL ESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-300-003 APN 512-300-004 APN 512-300-005 M&R INVES�NTS M&R INVEST S M&R INV NTS 73550 AS.0 ANDRO DR 200 73550 ANDRO DR 200 7355 ESSANDRO DR 200 PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-300-008 APN 512-300-009 APN 512-300-010 M&R INVES NTS M&R INV ENTS M&R INVEST 73550 SANDRO DR 200 73 LESSANDRO OR 200 73550 SANDRO DR 200 PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM DESERT CA 92260-3613 M DESERT CA 92260-3613 APN 512-300-011 APN 686-030-001 APN 686-030-004 M&R INVEST S 686 USA STEPHMAR ENTS INC 73550 SANDRO DR 200 PO BOX 2245 38799 MARACAIBO CIR PAL DESERT CA 92260-3613 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 APN 6/8�6--- 01 ) APN 686=5fi�002 APN 686-510,003 686 A n '�c^^�Q ._LI� 68 A/�"��1 -4.,,1�._(jLc�i 686 US NKNOWN I��'� UNKNOWN UNK OWNC � �rL>--{�1('I APN 68�y6,-510-006 APN 686- �007 APN 686-510�8 U86 DOWN i-(fl BIA IX?1-(,�It7 _3 686��18A UNKNOWN 04-29-97 UNKNOWN APN 686-510-009 APN 686-510- 2 APN 686-5�0-013 sBs�A /�?,ci1� s86lu CC'i.-Uf0 BIA1C Q`% UNKNOWN UNKNOWN U<KNOWN 04-04-97 APN 686-5191J21 APN 68 -5g062 APN 686-510-025 /, tom/ 7 s6-IISA� �``-�`�(j'r(`rl C1'-I. Y- - BI SA OC'11-Cd l L1 �. { 686 (s`7 p UNKNOWN -ONKNOWN I0-09-97 KNOWN APN 686-510-026 APN 686-510-027 APN 686-51 -028 686 686 ��� `U "![� l' KNOWN v -lrn�� "C7J�,s1.,,., UN NOWN -�- '-`133 UNKNOWN 06-20-97 APN 686-Y510-yy029 W o clp 686 USA �l.'l ll7�j--�> LIS%} GG L( PO BOX 2245 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2245 APN 009-607-497 APN 009-607-526 1 5 2 ,Sz=d APN 009-607-527 MILNER CORP DELTA FLP DELTA FLP i 535 BOYLSTON ST 247 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WY 247� UITZ CANYON WY BOSTON MA 21163-720 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 APN 009-607-528 APN 009-607-530 APN 009-607-531 55 3 DELTA FLP EDUARDO A MARIN ALAN HAMEL 247E QUITZ CANYON WY 31978 HIDDEN HIGHLAND RD PO BOX 55457 P SPRINGS CA 922(32-6454 AGOURA CA 91301-3460 VALENCIA CA 91385-0457 APN 009-607-532 APN 009-607-534 APN 009-607-535 ALAN HAMEL FRED &NANCY BIEN JOHN E.&NORMAN L.JACKSON PO BO 57 10224 CANDLEBERRY LN 2337 HERCULES DR VAL'ENCIA CA 91385-0457 NORTHRIDGE CA 91324-1268 LOS ANGELES CA 90046-1631 APN 009-607-536 APN 009-607-537� APN 009-607-538 ABELARDO &SHERRY LOPEZ DELTA FLP i DELTA FLP.----�- 58 ROYAL ST GEORGE RD 247 E TA QUITZ CANYON WY#27 247�1'- , ,QUITZ CANYON WY#27 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-5222 PALI�1 SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 �F�LM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 APN 009-607-539 APN 009-607-540 APN 009-607-541 THOMAS ALLARDYCE GLENN E.&LAVETA M.FISHER FRANK &VIRGINIA WISKOWSKI 2353 BOWMONT DR 1135 HERNANDEZ DR 2347 S VIA LAZO BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210-1808 PALMDALE CA 93551-7824 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-9494 APN 009-607-542 )51K3 APN 009-607-543 APN 009-607-5441 77Z 55 DON M.KITCHEN DON M.KIT E DELTA FLP PO BOX 1856 PO BOIX-1856 247 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WY#27 GLENDORA CA 91740-1856 -GLENDORA CA 91740-1856 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 APN 009-607-772 APN 009-607-545 APN 009-607-546 DELTA FLP RODNEY B.&SHAW VANDENBURG EUGENE M.&PATRICIA L.PASTRICK 247 DELTA IT CANYON WY#27 PO BOX 2515 3120 MARIGOLD Cl PAL SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270-109G PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0265 APN 009-607-547 APN 009-607-548 APN 009-607-549 STANLEY E.&DORCAS I.BALDWIN JUDITH SOLOMON LOUIS C.&HELEN SMITS PO BOX 226 1599 N VIA NORTE 2532 N GIRASOL AV SEAL BEACH CA 90740-0226 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4281 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-1848 APN 009-607-550 APN 009-607-551 APN 009-607-552 IRVING J.PINTO DELTA FLP �� RICHARD A.&LINDA&ROBERT J.&DANIEL 1050 E MURRAY CANYON DR 247 E TyHWITZ CANYON WY#247 2366 S CAMINO REAL PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-9432 PALOSPRINGS CA 92262-6454 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-9419 APN 009-607-553 APN 009-607-554)5(c( APN 009-607-555 ALAN HAMEL / STEVE PICCIOLO DELTA FLP PO BO 457 PO BOX 2515 247 QUITZ CANYON WY#247 V NCI85-0457 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270-1096 ALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 APN 009-607-556 APN 009-607-557 APN 009-607-558 SUSAN J.GRAHAM STANLEY E.&DORCAS I,BALDWIN HAROLD L.&BETTE L.PREEMAN 780 AZALEA Cl W PO BOX 226 10535 MOORPARK ST PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0246 SEAL BEACH CA 90740-0226 TOLUCA LAKE CA 91602-2851 APN 009-607-559 APN 009-607-560 APN 009-607-5561 PETER &NAN TYNBERG ALAN MARCO STEVE PICC L-6 1599 N VIA NORTE 310 TAHITI WY#213 PO B 15 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4281 MARINA DEL REY CA 90292-6745 RA CHO MIRAGE CA 92270-1096 APN 009-607-562 APN 009-607-563 APN 009-607-564 DELTA FLP� DELTA FLP NEBHUT L.SMITH 247 E TAJiQL ITZ CANYON WY#27 247E QUITZ CANYON WY#247 624 CHIQUITA RD PAL PRINGS CA 92262-6454 RA SPRINGS CA 92262-6454 SANTA BARBARA CA 93103-2541 APN 009-607-572 APN 009-610-907 APN 009-610-908 TERRY L.&KIM GOLDSTON ALAN T.&JOANNA SILVERMAN ROBERT STRAUSS&ANDREA L. 18011 LINCOLN ST 38045 VIA FORTUNA 38105 VIA FORTUNA VILLA PARK CA 92861-6446 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0237 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0237 APN 009-610-909 APN 009-610-912 APN 009-610-913 RICHARD M.&PATRICIA DELGADO SERVICE ROBERT J.&JOSEPHINE POND RICHARD STEARNS 38155 VIA FORTUNA 64725 ACANTO DR 800 5TH AV#394 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0237 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0245 SEATTLE WA 98104-3122 APN 009-610-914 APN 009-610-915 APN 009-610-918 GERALD &RUBY GALES JOSEPH M.BERNSTEIN ROBERTA MORREALE 64425 VIA AMENTE 780 N WATER ST PO BOX 4403 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0232 MILWAUKEE WI 53202-3512 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4403 APN 009-610-919 APN 009-610-927 APN 009-610-928 MICHAEL D.&EULA J.HARRIS PHILIP &AUBRIA BECKER JEREL W.JORGENSEN 64505 VIA AMENTE 38054 VIA ROBERTA PO BOX 1607 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0233 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264-0229 ZEPHYR COVE NV 89448-1607 APN 009-612-731 APN 009-613-734 MARVIN M.&EILEEN STERN MICHAEL &GLORIA MATER 839 N DEARBORN ST 1000 N LAKE SHORE DR#53A CHICAGO IL 60610-3373 CHICAGO IL 60611-1308 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tentative Tract Map No. 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 (Planned Development District 262) Application by Bergheer California Located 1300 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission ofthe City ofPahn Springs,California,will hold a public hearing at its meeting ofAugust 23, 2000.The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m.(public hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.)in the Council Chambers at City Hall,3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose ofthe hearing is to consider a Tentative Tract Map application and Planned Development District by Bergheer California. The application proposes to subdivide an existing 25.01 acre parcel into forty-eight(48)residential lots with an average lot size of 18,500 square feet. The proposal includes a Planned Development District which will allow minor adjustments in front wall height(6'permitted,8' requested)around the entire development and optional guest house locations necessitating a five(5)foot encroachment into the required twenty-five(25)foot front yard setback. The entire project is within the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan which was adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1991 and was most recently amended on January 19, 1994. The property is located approximately 1300 feet to the east ofthe northeast corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive. The subject property is zoned R-1-13, SP #1, section 35. An Environmental Assessmein/lifitial Study will be reviewed by the Commission at the meeting. Potential impacts from the proj ect are land use,biology and hydrology. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subj ect proposal and members ofthe public may view this document in the Department ofPlanning and Building,City Hall,and submit written comments to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing. Ifany individual or group challenges the action in court,issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Planning Commission hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to David Dawson, Department of Planning &Building, 760/323-8245. PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: 7/23/00 tG AS R. EVANS Notice Mailed: 7/20/00 Director of Planning & Building VICINITY MAP w > LA VERNE N.T.S. ly o z w JGR Q O 0 W J O ~ zQ GPOR PROJECT LOCATION Q TRAIL w BOGERT ACANTO WAY ,us CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE N0. TTM 29632 DESCRIPTION 5.0845 PD-262 APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 25.01 ACRE BERGHEER APPLICANT BERGHEER PARCEL INTO48 SINGLE FAMILY CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL LOTS, R-1-B ZONE, SECTION 35, RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TTM 29632 AND CASE NO. 5,0845 - PD-262, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED, TO SUBDIVIDE A 25.01 ACRE PARCEL INTO A FORTY-EIGHT (48) LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON ACANTO DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1320 FEET EAST OF SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, SP-1 ZONE, SECTION 35. WHEREAS, Bergheer California, (the "Applicant") filed an application for Tentative Tract Map 29632 and Case 5.0845- PD-262 to subdivide a 25.01 acre site into a forty-eight(48) lot residential subdivision (the "Project") pursuant to Section 9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 9.60. The project is located on Acanto Drive approximately 1320 feet east of South Palm Canyon Drive and is within the SP-1 zone, Section 35; and WHEREAS, A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan (SP-1) and was certified and adopted by the City Council on July 19, 1991, and an Environmental Assessment, Mitigated Negative Declaration, (MND) was certified and adopted on January 19, 1994 in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, TTM 20603 and Case No. 5.0650-PD-228 was approved by the City Council on November 3, 1993 for a fifty-five (55) lot single family subdivision and found to be consistent with the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan (SP-1) which was previously distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, said applications were submitted to appropriate City Departments for their review and comment and requirements; and WHEREAS,said comments and requirements have been duly considered and are reflected herein; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845- PD-262, was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2000, a meeting on the application for Tentative Tract Map 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 for the subdivision was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law and all interested persons were afforded an opportunity to appear at the meeting and to express their opinions and otherwise be heard concerning the project; and Page 2 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 WHEREAS, pursuantto Government Code Section 66412.3,the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29632, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; the approval of the proposed project represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2000 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845-PD-262 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council subject to the conditions contained in Resolution 4708; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider Applicant's application for TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 2000 a public hearing on the application for TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845- PD-262 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the Project,including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including, the environmental assessment prepared for the project and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows: Pursuant to CEQA,the City Council finds that Tentative Tract Map 29632 and Case No. 5.0845- PD-262 are in compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan project and was certified and adopted on July 19, 1991 and the additional Mitigated Negative Declaration,certified and adopted on January 19, 1994 is in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines; the FEIR and MND adequately address the general environmental setting of the proposed Project, its significant environmental impacts, and the alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant environmental effect for the proposed Project. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered Tentative Tract Map 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 and determined that the plans are in conformance with Page 3 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 the information contained in the certified Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council further finds that the decision reflects its independent judgement. Section 2: The City Council finds that there is no new substantial evidence with respect to environmental effects that has been submitted to the City and there are no substantial changes with respect to the project that would require revisions to the certified FEIR and MND. The current project proposes a forty-eight (48) residential lot subdivision which is seven (7) fewer homes than the project analyzed in the original FEIR and the MND. Since the potential for impacts has been lessened there is no need for further environmental review. Section 3: The City Council finds that a mitigation monitoring program was previously adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the above referenced mitigation measures during Project implementation. This mitigation monitoring program is included as a condition of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit A. The City Council finds that the potential for an impact is even less than what was analyzed in the certified FEIR and MND. Thus, no further mitigation is necessary. Section 4: Pursuant to government 66473.5 the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses and programs provided in the City's General Plan and any applicable specific plan; and Section 5: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567,the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvements are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use provided in the City's local open space plan; and Section6: Pursuantto Government Code(Subdivision Map Act)Section 66474, the City Council finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A: a. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The proposed project is consistent with land use designations in SP-1 and is similar to the previously approved tentative tract map. The project represents a reduced density from a previously approved subdivision, and is therefore within the density parameters of SPA. Thus, the project is consistent with the General Plan and SP- 1. If approved, the environmental and land use impacts have been fully disclosed in the previous FEIR and MND. The project is consistent with the General Plan,SP- 1, and zoning designations. 463 Page 4 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the City Council finds that the proposed subdivision, TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD -262 and the provisions for its design and improvement are compatible with objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs provided in the City's General Plan and SP-1 approved by the City Council on July 19, 1991 as well as the FEIR and MND. All street, drainage, and utilities improvements are subject to the standards of the General Plan and the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures associated with TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845- PD-262. A hydrology study has been done to analyze the necessary drainage pattern. The storm water from the Bella Monte subdivision will be channeled via an engineered, underground drainage system for release into the established natural drainage. The applicant is required to obtain the necessary approvals from all utility companies. An equestrian trail is provided on Acanto Drive. The project improvements, as conditioned, are consistent with the General Plan and SP-1. C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by the proposed subdivision. The property is 25.01 acres of relatively flat desert with vegetation characteristic of the Creosote Scrub Community which is pervasive throughout the southwestern United States. The location was previously approved for development of fifty-five (55) lot residential subdivision and is now proposed to be developed at forty-eight (48) residential lots. There will be no incompatibility with the existing land use in the vicinity because the areas to the north, east and west are included in SP-1 and are also designated for single family residential development. The area to the south is a 45 lot single family subdivision with lots ranging in size from 25,000 to 29,600 square feet. Homes are primarily one-story but several homes have partial two- story elements. Adjacent homes located at the northeast corner are on lots ranging from 15,000 to 21,000 square feet and are limited in height to approximately 18 ft. Based upon this relationship, the proposed 22 ft. high structures could affect views from adjoining properties. Considering lot sizes and setbacks, and proposed pad elevations,this height difference will not cause a significant land use incompatibility or impact The current proposal is within all development parameters previously analyzed and approved in SP-1, the FOR and the MND. Thus, the type of development proposed is suitable for the site. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development contemplated by the proposed subdivision. The General Plan land use designation for the subject property is L-2 (Very-Low Density Residential) which provides for the development of a maximum of two (2) dwelling units per acre. The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance have been augmented by SP-1. Canyon Park Resort and Spa Specific Plan SP-1 is intended to implement the goals policies and objectives of the General Plan. The SP-1 has clustered density into various development areas thereby providing larger clusters of specifically desired uses such as recreation. The SP-1 was developed to cluster densities to provide for golf, hotel and residential uses. The subject property is part of a larger residential area and is designated SFR and recreation on the SP. The /` or' y Page 5 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 previous subdivision approval on TTM 20603 allowed for a density of 2.2 units per acre while the current proposal, (TTM 29632), allows for 1.92 units per acre. The proposed use is a logical extension of development in the City. SP-1 discussed the average lot size, land area and number of lots within each planning area. During development of SP-1, including Planning Commission meetings, it was clear that the final design (including lot size) of each planning area could be altered to meet planning, market and other concerns. The proposal complies with the lot area, lot configuration and other SP-1 criteria. The previously approved subdivision,TTM 20603,zoned SP-1, allocated fifty-five (55) units to this site. The current development proposal is also designed as a gated, walled community but contains seven less units (48 vs. 55) than the previously approved subdivision. In view of the above facts the site is suitable for the proposed density. e. The design of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no new substantial evidence with respect to environmental effects that has been submitted to the City and there are no substantial changes with respect to the project that would require revisions to the certified FEIR and MND. The (FEIR)and MND certified by the City Council adequately address all potential impacts and incorporated mitigation measures associated with the subject property. There is no new substantial evidence with respect to environmental effects that has been submitted to the City and there are no substantial changes with respect to the project that would require revisions to the certified FEIR or MND. Since the scope of the project has been reduced, the potential for impacts has been lessened in comparison to what the certified FEIR analyzed. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. If significant changes are in later phases, additional environmental review will be undertaken at that time. The FEIR and the MND fully analyzed the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep with respect to potential impacts and mitigation measures. The certified FOR and MND fully analyzed the Peninsular bighorn sheep with respect to potential impacts and mitigation measures. The Fish and Wildlife Service has finished a Draft Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan. There is no new information and the document remains in a draft format. The proposed project is not within what the Draft Recovery Plan defines as essential habitat. Essential habitat is defined as being within one-half mile of mountains with a 20% slope or greater. Under this criteria, the subject property is either outside this area or near the assumed 0.5 mile habitat-modeled boundary. As previously described, there are existing and approved (recorded final tract maps) developments located between the subject property and hillside lands with a 20% or greater slope. However, according to the Draft Recovery Plan, even when finalized, the Final Recovery Plan will not require any party to undertake any specific action. The Plan does not affect private land. The Final Recovery Plan is primarily prepared for purposes of federal action and is not binding on local agencies. Because the content of the Final Recovery Plan is not currently known, it is not possible, at this A41s Page 6 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 point, to speculate as to whether or not the proposed project will be inconsistent with the Final Recovery Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145,further discussion of this impact is inappropriate. On September 26, 2000 revised Essential Habitat Maps were reviewed and the subject property was not designated as Essential Habitat. The proposed Critical Habitat Designation has recently been released. Based upon a brief review of the proposed Critical Habitat Map at the FWS Public Hearing on July 20, 2000, the subject property is not within proposed critical habitat. Additionally, FWS has stated(July 5, 2000 Notice, and Ken Berg, Field Supervisior, July 20, 2000 Public Hearing Testimony) that critical habitat does not require landowners to carry out any special management actions or restrict the use of the land. No federal permits or funding are necessary for the project to proceed. Based upon the proposed Critical Habitat Map, it appears that this proposed action will have no effect on the subject property. The subject property is located in the center of the mouth of Palm Canyon, roughly midway between San Jacinto Mountains and Northern Santa Rosa Mountains. The property has existing development and a roadway located to the south (Andreas Ranch, Bella Monte, and the Pond Estate). To the north there is an existing golf course and two single family residential subdivisions (Milner Tract and Andreas Palms). The property to the east is currently being developed with a single family estate. These developments which are contiguous to the subject property extend from South Palm Canyon on the west to the Palm Canyon Wash on the east. While a portion of this area is currently vacant, existing, planned, and proposed projects in this area will preclude the use of the area as a viable and safe wildlife corridor. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and safety including, but not limited to, the application of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards, and the City of Palm Springs Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance. g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. An equestrian easement with landscaping is proposed fronting on Acanto Drive. The property is also conditioned to provide a drainage easement for the established drainage pattern coming from Bella Monte, south of Acanto Drive. These required easements will alleviate any potential easement conflicts. Page 7 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 h. A nexus or rough proportionality have been established for requirement of dedication of additional right-of-way to the City or the off-site improvements as related to the tentative tract map. The property frontage will provide an equestrian path and landscaped area. The required improvements will provide safety benefits to the property owners and will aesthetically enhance the neighborhood. The Aca nto Road rig ht-of-way is designed in accordance with City plans and specifications and will transition to the existing private easement at a point easterly of the projects entry driveway. Section 7: Pursuant to Section 9403. 00 of the Zoning Ordinance,the City Council finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A: a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the City's Zoning Ordinance and SP-1. The proposed Planned Development District (PD) will allow for an integrated subdivision. This will include aesthetically compatible walls, guardhouse, landscaping, and an equestrian trail. The PD is the appropriate land use review for this development and was specifically defined in SP-1 as the appropriate land use entitlement permit. b. The use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed project is consistent with land use designations in the General Plan and SP-1 and is similar to the previously approved Tentative Tract Map 20603. The project represents a reduced density from a previously approved subdivision, and is therefore within the density parameters of SP-1. If approved, the environmental and land use impacts have been fully disclosed in the previous FEIR and the MND. The project is consistent with the General Plan, SP-1 and zoning designations. There will be no incompatibility with the existing land use in the vicinity because the areas to the north, east and west are included in SP-1 and are also designed for single family residential development. The area to the south is a 45 lot single family subdivision with lots ranging in size from 25,000 to 29,600 square feet. Homes are primarily one-story but several homes have partial two-story elements. Adjacent homes located at the northeast corner are on lots ranging from 15,000 to 21,000 square feet and are limited in height to approximately 18 ft. Based upon this relationship, the proposed 22 ft. high structures could affect views from adjoining properties. Considering lot sizes and setbacks, and proposed pad elevations, this height difference will not cause a significant land use incompatibility or impact The current proposal is within all development parameters previously analyzed and approved in the FEIR and MND. Thus, the type of development proposed is suitable for the site. C. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping, and other features required in order to /4 0 Page 8 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood. Bergheer California has submitted an application for Tentative Parcel Map 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 requesting the entitlement of subdividing an existing 25.01 acre, SP-1 zoned lot into forty-eight(48)single family residential lots. The lots average 18,500 square feet with the smallest lot being 17,355 square feet and the largest lot being 24,772 square feet. The property is zoned SP-1 and the property is designated for up to 55 dwelling units. The General Plan designation is SP-1. Specific Plan implementation is to be by planned development district and subdivision maps. Access to the property is from a single gated entry on Acanto Drive, which is projected to be a fifty (50) foot collector on the General Plan. The gated entry feature includes a guardhouse and landscaping. Existing improvements consist of a 2-lane undivided, unstriped roadway. Internal circulation consists of a series of streets and cul-de-sacs. Roadways, landscaping, drainage features, the guardhouse/entry lot and the equestrian trail will be privately maintained. The PD is requesting minor adjustments to the R-1-13 property development standards as follows: 1) guesthouse setback reductions of five (5) feet into the required front yard setback of twenty-five (25) feet. This request would be on an individual lot basis as guesthouses are optional. 2) Maximum building height of twenty-two (22) feet above approved grading plan pad elevations (single story houses only). 3) The perimeter wall along Acanto Drive, adjacent to the horse trail, is proposed to be six (6) to eight (8) feet high with the eight (8)foot high section to be no more than 40%of the total length of the Acanto wall frontage. The remaining perimeter is proposed to have walls of six (6) feet in height. All other property development standards for the R-1-B zone will be complied with. These modifications are consistent with the SP-1 and are minor adjustments to existing property development standards. A similar, fifty-five (55) lot residential subdivision was previously approved by the City Council on this site on November 3, 1993. d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. The proposed project is forecast to generate 480 additional daily trips, (ADT's). This volume of traffic would not create traffic congestion in that the current Level of Service(LOS)is"A"the least impacted designation for traffic volume. The adjacent existing and proposed street network have adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic volumes. The project would not create traffic hazard problems based upon the judgment of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Drive are the ingress and egress streets. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to problems associated with access.Circulation within the project site will be adequate based upon thejudgment of the City Engineer and the Department of Planning and Building. The circulation /` e. � Page 9 of 9 TTM 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 Resolution for the City Council Meeting of October 4, 2000 pattern will provide adequate emergency access and access to nearby uses. Parking associated with the project is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and therefore there is no potential for a significant affect on the environment. The proposed residential project will not result in increased traffic hazards in that the City Engineer and Planning staff have reviewed the site plan for traffic safety. There will be no conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area of the City with existing street access. e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and may include minor modifications of the zone's property development standards. All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure public health and safety including, but not limited to, the application of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards, and the City of Palm Springs Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council approves Tentative Tract Map 29632 and Case No. 5.0845 - PD-262 subject to those conditions set forth in the Exhibit A, as in file in the Office of the City Clerk, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless otherwise specified. ADOPTED THIS—day of September, 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS BY: City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: �` �