HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (17) DATE: October 18, 2000
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning & Building
CASE NO. 5.0757 (CHANGE OF ZONE) - APPLICATION BY EDITH A. TOOR FOR A
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING ON 4.48 GROSS ACRES OF LAND
FROM 0-20 (OPEN LAND - ONE UNIT PER 20 ACRES) TO R-1-A (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE), LOCATED WEST OF ROSE AVENUE AND NORTH OF STEVENS
ROAD, SECTION 10.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28668-APPLICATION BY EDITH A. TOOR FORA SIX(6)
LOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 4.48 GROSS ACRES OF LAND,
WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.567 TO 0.9 ACRES, LOCATED WEST OF ROSE
AVENUE AND NORTH OF STEVENS ROAD, 0-20 ZONE, SECTION 10.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration, approve Change of Zone (Case No.5.0757) and Tentative Tract Map 28668
as described above, subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolution. A Draft
Ordinance for the proposed Change of Zone is also attached for City Council
consideration. The property owner is Ms. Edith A. Toorand is represented by Mr. Marvin
Roos of Mainiero, Smith and Associates, applicant for the above applications.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant,Ms. Edith A.Toor, has submitted a Tentative Tract Map(TTM)application for
a six (6) lot single-family residential subdivision on approximately 4.48 gross acres of land
generally located west of Rose Avenue and north of Stevens Road. The objective of the
subdivision is to create six lots to allow for the development of six custom residences in the
future. The application contemplates the subdivision of land only at this time; no residences
are currently proposed. The subdivision includes two lettered lots; one for the purpose of
providing a private street for vehicular access and the second for on-site retention of water.
The latter lot includes a 10-foot wide drainage easement,which will direct excess runoff from
the subdivision downstream. Only grading for the common areas(street and retention area)
will be conducted in conjunction with the subdivision. Lot sizes are proposed to range from
0.567 acres to 0.9 acres. The site will gain publicvehicular access from Rose Avenue, an
existing private street east of the proposed subdivision, and via a 36-foot wide access
easement across adjacent private property.
In conjunction with the TTM application,the applicant has also submitted a Change of Zone
request. Currently, the property is zoned 0-20 (Open Space - one residential unit per 20
acres). The applicant is proposing to change the zoning from 0-20 to R-1-A(Single Family
/y44
Page 2 of 5
Residential-20,000 square foot minimum lot size). The site is currently designated L2 (Low
Density Residential - 2 dwelling units max. per acre) on the General Plan Land Use Map.
The proposed Change of Zone request would provide consistency between the Zoning and
General Plan Land Use designations for the property. Ifthe Change of Zone request and
subdivision are approved as requested, the development standards of the R-1-A zone
and all applicable hillside development criteria will govern the future development of the
property. The property is within an architectural review area, where development of the six
home sites will require further review by the Director of Planning and Building and/or
Planning Commission, as deemed appropriate.
The site is currently vacant and consists of slope conditions that average approximately 10
percent. Native scrub vegetation exists in areas on site where the ground level soil
conditions can support plants. Numerous outcrops of boulders exist across the property.
SURROUNDING LAND USES/ZONING:
North: Single family dwellings - R-1-A zone
South: Vacant - R-1-A zone
East: Vacant and Single family dwellings - R-1-C zone
West: Vacant - 0-20 zone
SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
North: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
South: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
East: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
West: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
ANALYSIS:
The proposed 6 lot single family residential subdivision will be located on a site which is
designated L2 (Low Density Residential - 2 dwelling units max. per acre) pursuant to the
General Plan Land Use Map, but is currently zoned 0-20 (Open Land - one residential
dwelling unit per 20 acres) by the Zoning Ordinance. Again, the proposed subdivision
includes a request for a change of zone from 0-20 to R-1-A to provide consistency with the
current General Plan designation for the property. The objective of the L2 General Plan
Designation is to allow for various types of low-density residential development, including
traditional single family homes, as contemplated for this subdivision in the future. The
1 VAX
Page 3 of 5
zoning to the north, south and east are currently R-1-A or R-1-C and have a General Plan
designation of L2, consistent with the proposed subdivision and change of zone request,
while property to the west (to the base of the San Jacinto Mountains) is zoned 0-20 with a
General Plan designation of L2. The development of six future residences on the property
as proposed is consistent with the development pattern in immediately surrounding
developed areas and the proposed change of zone merely provides consistency with the
existing General Plan designation forthe property. Thus,the proposed change of zone and
subdivision should not have any significant adverse land use impacts associated with its
future development on the surrounding residents.
As mentioned earlier, one of the common lettered lots (Lot "B") is proposed within the
subdivision to provide for an on-site retention area. Lot"B" as proposed also includes a 10-
foot wide drainage easement at its southern edge, which will direct excess runoff from the
subdivision downstream. As proposed, the drainage easement does not indicate that the
outletting of water that could occur during a large storm event will follow the natural
downstream drainage course, which is not permitted under the California Subdivision Map
Act. As mitigation, it has been determined by the City Engineer that a 20-foot wide sewer
and water easement should be provided within Lot"B" (the on-site retention area)to divert
overflow and outletted water in the direction of the natural drainage course. In addition, a
20-footwide sewer and watereasement is recommended to be provided on the downstream
vacant parcel closest to the natural drainage course, adjacent to and east of the proposed
subdivision, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If an easement across this parcel
cannot be obtained by the applicant, it is the opinion of the City Engineer that the sewer
easement should go into the private street easement and the required public utility and
ingress/egress easement that connects the private street with Rose Avenue, which would
require a pump station to be provided within the subdivision. As an alternative to this option,
the developer may requestthatthe City proceed with the eminent domain process to acquire
a 20-foot wide sewer and water easement along the south property line of the vacant parcel
to the east closest to the natural drainage course flow line. Pursuant to the California
Subdivision Map Act, the developer would be responsible for bearing the costs of the
eminent domain process. All of the above options have been incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval and/or environmental mitigation measures for the
applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND NOTIFICATION:
An environmental assessment dated July 24, 2000,was prepared by staff for the Tentative
Tract Map and Change of Zone applications. In completing the Environmental Checklist,
staff found that there could be a significant environmental impact in certain areas, such as
geology, biology, drainage and air quality with respect to future short-term construction
activity, if mitigation measures are not incorporated into the project design.
As noted in the Initial Study,the subject property is located adjacent to hillside areas where
bighorn sheep are known to exist. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has released
for public comment two documents dealing with bighorn sheep. The first, Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan, and the second, Critical Habitat for the Endangered
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep are draft documents and have no force and effect until approved
and signed. Both documents are slated for approval sometime later this year. Both 1 V4 3
Page 4 of 5
documents include maps and general habitat descriptions. Based upon a field consultation
with FWS, it was determined that,with mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study, the
project would not cause a significant impact upon Bighorn sheep. See attached biological
study prepared by James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants. This report was utilized in
the preparation of the Draft Initial Study.
The subject property is in an area where there is a potential for archaeological resources.
Prior to issuance of construction permits (roadway and utilities), an archeology study shall
be completed and all recommendations implemented. If significant resources are
discovered, there may be a need for a supplemental environmental assessment. Section
14 Cultural Resources shall be amended to include (b) Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated prior to adoption by the City Council.
The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)submitted a letter dated August 17,
2000 regarding the proposed development. The letter outlines the CDFG role as a Trustee
Agency (advisory) and references previous discussions with a CDFG employee. Planning
staff has not discussed this project with CDFG and the references in the letter were
regarding a different project located near O'Donnell Golf Course. Specific mitigation
measures include acquisition of off-site habitat, limitations on blasting, fencing (6' not 8'),
and developer compliance with the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts (if
applicable).
In orderto clarify the perimeter wall/fence height mitigation, planning staff recommends that
Section 7 Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure No.5, be revised as follows:
"5. The developer of each single family residence shall construct a 6' high decorative
fence or wall around the north, west, and south project perimeter to create a barrier
between the project and undeveloped properties. In the event there is evidence that
bighorn sheep are entering the subject property the City may require each
homeowner to increase perimeter fence and/or wall height to 8'or more. The fence
or wall shall be increased in height within one year upon written notice by the
Director of Planning and Building. This condition shall be incorporated into the
project CC&R's."
If adopted, this condition will replace the recommenced mitigation measure in the Initial
Study.
In the attached Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, the above issues were analyzed
in great detail. In conclusion,with the mitigation measures recommended for all of the above
areas in the Initial Study,the Planning Commission found that any environmental issues will
be reduced to a level of insignificance. If the City Council concurs, then issuance of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order.
All property owners within a 400-foot radius of the parcel considered far subdivision and the
change of zone were notified. As of the writing of this report, correspondence has been
received from Mr. James M. Schlecht(attached) representing the adjacent property owner
to the east and the California Department of Fish andGame. All of the recommendations
included within Mr. Schlecht's letter have been incorporated into the attached conditions,
as recommended by the Planning Commission. (104 Y
Page 5 of 5
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On August 23, 2000 and continued to September 13, 2000, the Planning Commission held
a duly noticed public hearing on these applications and recommended adoption of a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the applications 5-0(1 absent,1 abstention)
subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. An adjacent property owner
to the north spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, going on record to state his
concerns associated with future grading of individual pads within the subdivision and
potential view
blockage. Other residents of the immediate area asked for clarification regarding the
proposed zone change and the relationship of this change to the General Plan.
Director f lanning and Building
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Tentative Tract Map
3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated September 13, 2000
4. Letter from Mr. James M. Schlecht to staff dated August 5, 1999
5. Letter from California Department of Fish and Game dated August 17, 2000
6. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment
7. Biological Study, JWC Ecological Consultants
8. Ordinance and Map
9. Resolution/Conditions
� y
VICINI-rY MAP
rr?oj�cT
copO LOCATION
® AVENUE
STEVENS I'.OAl7 >
u CAMINO NOI:TE
o S V�p�PA NOI;TE z
o VIA LA5 MA S 7d
> o p 4, v
Q ;7 V" 5Up
O
> CAMINO 5LIf:
vv n-
I
LOT
2
LOT
COI;ONAbO
z AV�NU�
LOT LOT Q
3 6
a� LOT
qA(o W
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. TTM 28668 DESCRIPTION TENTATIVE rn.ACr MAP
CHANGE OF ZONE 5.0757 APPLICATION TO 50PIVIPE ACI;E5
APPLICANT EPITHA, TOO? INTO Or5ATTNE
5OUTHM5T COFNEP: OF CO?ONAPO AVE. &
205E AVE„ 0-20 ZONE, 5ECTION 10.
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
1 APt✓ 54-201-025 ! ; f Of THE C1T'Y OF FAIY 3PIONCS,
I \�� COUNTY OF RNSRSDIE. STATE OF CILMONHIA
AP 5a zo1-o33`��% �L ��'A 1/F� j — f , �I $/ n �� \ TENTATIVE TRACT
J.Lb Ls �6
� 7'I I) \� APN 504 01-026 1/ \�PN 504-233-001 MAP NO. 28668
��; 'u , jl xn /� / •l� B=G A 90II011f40N OF T36 IlAIE4,Y 29Y PST OF
N01 1/2 OI THX M 1/4 OI TH6 Ni 1/4
f s /mowSXCRO I0,TA S, Q.t l.,PTE
SEPTEMSER 1997
/ Q OWNER/DEVELOPER:
f I I o WAS. EDITH ARMSTRONG TOOR
� C1� 3000 CORONADO AVENUE
OT 1 6 ( APN'�OS-044-OSB '` - ! J " PALM SPRINGS. ) 322-8570 92262
r \ P Is P60) 322-8570
PEA SB.O/ D Np�/ / r �rAm meT^ ENGINEER:
i-OT 12 �=t" \ / �' �O� '�°" •�`^"� NAINIERO. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
\ 0AD ACRES ` `� 777 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY, STE. 301
�� �"
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-6784
PE 7 8.0. ,E —fI MIT 3ACE 261
�i� �y ROBERT S. SMITH ACE 2fi401
_ s wE m cux.m Pt sCTf00. MISPRINT:
PALM SPRINGS LNIFIm SCHOOL DISTRICT 11TILITIES:
'\`° �_ f.>� L ESSP ) .' utnn:c ANIIXIN rn.xruxu mxf.N m. m sa..mf
A99ESSOR'3 PARCEL M. fi05-030-007 vcs vamun c.Mssm+v vu m. m-ma
-A� ap r, \ Tr1FNY,E voexa TF1fIlOE m. no-aeur
LOTS: 6 SINGLE FWILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS
1 PRIVATE STREET LOT extt rt v"venixa w az+vfee
b 1 PRIVATE COMMON LOT ((RETENTION, fat: uaMeRoua avrvxa Alllli arAfv
APNJ505-4PUMPSTATI1-000 SEWER P STATION)
13
PN 505-0 -0 r GROSS ACREAGE: 4. ACR
ES'
AES
/R / �y -Op
I I L T� NET ACREAGE: 4 ACRES
rm
/ L T 3 ? �OT 6 fix=srING LA use VACANT
625fA . ' "'$ ES A S �F`..J', wmrrr.• 92 C PsOPMSED LAND USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SET �
APN 5-030-003 P 7 0 T. p 7 0 - -- --� 'Ty EXISTING 6E]¢JVAL P-AR L2 (L0X DENSITY
VACAt4T—" \\ �.� 99 \^,vJ W µI RESIDENTIAL -2 O.U./ACRE) I
�/ A '' ! � I EXISTING ZONING: 0-20 ■ VIA tsfXFi.A
PROPOSED ZONING: R-1-A
�--/ /yl'M\, \ / •\_ /e III �,I ,,p��� �� THOMAS GUIDE MAP REFERENCE PAGE SBO E-A
��• \ APN 505=04 --Of m }III YP'" II CpR0UR3 AND RANIIETRILS TAID:N FROM RIVERSIDE VISTA CHSNT g
-VA AN 'XX��I�Irr����+ _�I � /J COLNTY FLOOD CONTROL MAPPING DATED 2-20 92 CPRONA00
/�`P SD30-012 MZN6 NOTE ONLY COMMON AREA GI
WING
TOP OF EASIJfAi IT JI / / RETTENTTLL ION�AREA INDIVIDUALTREET Lfi U
/ fOe o• �Jl.9R,.Q..s!— LOTS WILL BE DEVELOPED
V N vz �� i . �11 3 1 WITH CUSTOM HOMES WITH
/ LO�4 ✓ \ I + II I Lr I SEPARATE GRADING PLANS.
O.6Bb Ac9Es— o LOOT I l I I I
�--FE 69 .0 / YU. YArEIlA
_ j ". _D.PTvE A 0 S ! .^. �,.. /{� 9dL — V=wiX
ITY MAP
APIj 505-0/VACANT
yg 111 I APfJ 505-41-010
j 1\ VACANT /11 1 li f '— i r _ rEnssae
A N 50,E:630 0/ % d y Y I i I I� Y'`_J�J a•s '
/ I APN SOS-0 JA-01 I YAINfBS0,SY7Tlf AND ASSOCLTSS,INC.
%VACANT J1 runxu'o.ma L.cuYaAo.4va amtmuc
® m I.ruao+rl uxrvr r r.wm ea.
ri Rowvi�fTru5 auriL m a;,.
Page 3 of 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 2000
M/S/C (Matthews/Klatchko 6-0, 1 absent) to remove from agenda per applicant's request.
Sign Application —Application by Sign-a-Rama for a new monument sign for Howard Johnson
Resort and Denny's restaurant located at 701 East Palm Canyon Drive, R-3 Zone, Section 26.
M/S/C (Matthews/Jurasky 6-0, 1 absent) to remove from agenda as per applicant's request.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case 5.0757 (Change of Zone from 0-20 to R-1-A) and TTM 28668—Application by Maineiro
Smith & Associates for Edith Armstrong Toor for 6-lot, single family residential subdivision with
lots ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9 acres on 4.48 gross acres of land located west of Rose
Avenue, north of Stevens Road, 0-20 Zone, Section 10. Continued from the August 23, 2000
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest.
Principal Planner Hayes reported that any future homes in this hillside area would be subject to
the City's architectural approval process. He stated that the current access is a gated entry
from Coronado to Rose Avenue. He reported that a second lot ("B") is reserved for on-site
retention and would require a change of zone from 0-20 to L2 which would bring the area into
consistency with the General Plan (low density residential allowing two units per acre).
He also reported that excess drainage would be retained on-site; however, State law requires
overflow to follow the natural contours of the property (to the east in this case). Staff
recommends a 20 foot water easement for excess drainage to Rose Avenue. He reported that
the Eminent Domain process (at the applicant's expense) could be utilized if an easement is
not obtainable.
He reported that staff considers the biological issue prominent on this proposed project and
circulated an August 17, 2000 letter to the City from the Department of Fish and Game which
outlined mitigation measures proposed to protect any Peninsular Bighorn Sheep populations in
the area. This letter is on file in the Planning Division.
Director reported that creative and reduced street widths are a possibility; however, the Fire
Marshall may require a certain minimum (such as at least 32 feet) and that parking for residents
and guests is a consideration for this area.
Chairman Mills opened the Public Hearing.
I
Page 4 of 8
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 2000
Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero, Smith, &Associates, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that the General Plan consistency is a requirement that this zoning change request supports.
He explained that the current zoning (0-2) is intended for steep hillside areas and that the
subject property is not within that description. He confirmed that the lots are subject to Design
Review for individual development, as well as consideration by the Rose Avenue Association.
He further stated that it is hoped that the Rose Avenue Association can join with the proposed
Homeowner's Association for the subject property in order to communally maintain the gate
and street, etc.
He also stated that the applicant is happy to work with the Fire Department regarding the rolled
curb and street issues.
Mr. Jim Schlecht, Schlecht, Shevlin, & Shoenberger, addressed the Planning Commission to
represent the Rose Avenue Association and Mr. Jerry Gans. He stated that he felt the
conditions of approval are not currently sufficient to address the concerns the Association has.
He also stated that the Association would like to work with the applicant to maintain the gate
and the street. He requested that the applicant comply with the August 05, 1999 letter from the
Association to the City which outlined suggested conditions. He stated that, in the absence of
incorporating those suggested conditions, his clients object to the application.
Mr. Robert Fey, representing Mr. Roy Fey, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he
has no objections to the project; provided the above-mentioned suggested conditions are
incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Robert Schlessinger, representing the Bill Hardt Trust, concurred with Mr. Schlecht.
Dr. William Grimm, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that
he felt the proposed project would destroy, or at least distract, his views. He asked that, if the
project is approved, each pad height and elevation be settled all at once, rather than
individually.
Mr. Ty Hawkins addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is concerned with the
density of the proposed homes in this mountainous area.
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed.
Principal Planner reported that not pads would be allowed to be graded without a permit for a
house. He reported that the pad elevations of the lots were as follows:
Lot One — 7 ft. Lot Two — 692 ft.Lot Three — 706 06 ftft. Lot Four— 692 ft. lv)qq
Lot Five — 684 . Lot Six — 700 ft.
Page 5 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 13, 2000
He clarified that these are not under consideration with today's application; they are
representations of future development ideas. No grading is proposed at this time,
The Planning Commission called Dr. Grimm to the podium and asked him to show the location
of his home, which was designed by Richard Neutra, on the exhibited aerial photograph, which
he did.
Director reported that the applicant has owned this property for 15-20 years. He reported that
there is an ingress/egress easement which is an extension of Rose Avenue and that it is on
Mrs. Toor's property. He also reported that staff has no objection to deleting the requirements
for sidewalks on the property. He further reported that there is purposefully no access to trails
from the property. He stated that a six foot fence is recommended to discourage any sheep
from crossing onto the development. In addition to the fence, another deterrent to attracting
sheep is that no landscaping will be permitted outside the perimeter wall. Director also stated
that utilities are underground, that no overhead service is permitted for new subdivisions. He
also clarified that two-story homes would need to prove a hardship or grading concerns to be
approved; that it not an automatic approval process. He explained that on an 8-10% grade, for
example, a two-story home would be out of context. He also explained that it is standard
operating procedure for the City to request that applicants meet with neighbors prior to the
design phase of individual residences.
M/S/C (Matthews/Raya 5-0, 1 absent, 1 abstain) to recommend approval to the City Council,
subject to the conditions contained in the staff report and:
A. Eliminate Engineering Division Condition No.6 and;
B. Add recommendations in the August 05, 1999 letter to Doug Evans from Jim
Schlecht as recommended language in the CC&R's prior to issuance of the Final
Map and;
C. No grading of individual pads shall be in conjunction with the subdivision of land
and;
D. Reduce street width to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall, City Engineer and
the Director of Planning & Building, if possible.
3. TPM 29631 —Application by CSY Partnership for a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide
41.58 acres into 23 industrial lots ranging in size from 0.91 acres to 4.4 acres located on
the east side of Gene Autry Trail, south of the Palm Springs Classic Project, M-I-P
Zone, Section 18. Continued from the August 23, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. 1010
SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & SHOENBERGER
JAMES M.SCHLECHT A LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (760)320-7161
JOHN C.SHEVLIN LAWYERS TELECOPIER(760)323-1758
JON A.SHOENBERGER
DANIEL T.JOHNSON POST OFFICE BOX 2744 E-MAIL ssslaw@gte.ne[
DAVID A.DARRIN 801 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,SUITE 100 IN REPLY REFER TO:
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263-2744
5647.18
August 5, 1999 L
t CJ
Doug Evans AUG 091099
Director of Planning and Building
City of Palm Springs 1' �� pNIS
P.O. Box 274 �.�e����� � V � d��
Palm Springs, California 92263
RE: ROSE HILL ASSOCIATION AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28668 ("TTM 2866811)
Dear Doug:
Our office represents Jerry Ganz, the owner of three residential lots located in the subdivision
generally described as Rose Hill. It is behind a gate installed by the Rose Hill Association some
years ago.
The Rose Hill Association is a somewhat informal Association of owners behind the gates.
Mrs. Herbert E. Toor, who has filed an application for approval of TTM 28668, is one of the
members of the Rose Hill Association. She proposes to make access for up to six lots via Rose
Avenue, now a private street. The access is proposed to be through Mrs. Toor's property at the
north end of Rose Avenue.
It is my understanding that the Rose Hill Association would find such access acceptable
conditioned upon the following:
1. At the cost of Mrs. Toor replacing the current Rose Hill Association with a new more
formal structure which must meet the approval of both the City and the California
Department of Real Estate in order for her to be able to sell her lots. The form of any
proposed CC&RS, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for the new association should
be approved by at least 3 members of the existing association (10 members). All
members to be bound by them will have to sign a consent form. Attorneys' fees incurred
by the current Rose Hill Association and attorneys for the members thereof in reviewing
all new documents should be reimbursed by Mrs. Toor.
YA tt
SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & SHOENBERGER
A LAW CORPORATION
LAWYERS
Doug Evans
August 5, 1999
Page 2
2. Annexation of the lots in TTM 28688 into the new Association and therefore participation
in ongoing costs of street maintenance on a pro rata basis with other lots covered by the
Association.
3. Mrs. Toor shall pay the Rose Hill Association for her additional 6 lots the sum of
$10,000.00 as her share of the cost of the gate and related expense.
4. Approval by the new Association of final grading plans for the subdivision prior to
submittal to the City for grading permits.
5. The requirement for architectural approval of individual homes being granted by the
Association prior to submitting those plans to the City for approval.
6. Construction of the new subdivision should be restricted in terms of hours (e.g., 8:00
A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday), noise control and dust control. In the
event construction traffic must go through Rose Avenue and Coronado Avenue, Mrs.
Toor should be required to repair any resulting road damages.
Proof of compliance of these conditions should be demonstrated prior to City approval of the
final tract map.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
J MES M. SC LECHT
S/ct
cc: Jerry Ganz
Justin Hilb
Marvin Roos
Ming-chu C. Rouse
(Attorney for John vonNeumann)
c� l G
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Gova'
DEPARTMENT OFFISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore,Suite 50
LongBeach,California 90802
(310)590-5113
August 17, 2000
Mr. Douglas Evans
Director of Planning and Building
City of Palm Springs
3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Initial Study Tentative Tract Map 28668- Edith A. Toor
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 west of Rose Avenue
and north of Stevens Road, in the City of Palm Springs. The proposed project consists of
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.48 gross acres of land from Open land (one unit per 20 acres)
to create six custom hillside residences.
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
flora and fauna resources, including a State threatened /fully-protected and Federally listed
endangered species.
It was our understanding that in previous discussions with Department Wildlife Biologist Kevin
Brennan regarding this project, that the following mitigation measures for the protection of
peninsular bighorn sheep were agreed upon:
• Project footprint being reduced to 3 acres maximum.
• Perimeter barrier fencing to separate bighorn sheep from development be at least 8 feet
high around the perimeter of the subdivision.
• The development and implementation of a landscape plan that requires native plant species
and the removal of toxic and invasive plants from the property; and
• The establishment of a conservation easement on the remaining seven (7) acres of the
property in perpetuity.
If your understanding is different please contact us so we can resolve these differences. In
Page 1 of 2
addition, 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.
In summary, the Department does not object to approval of the proposed project, provided that
adequate biological mitigation measures for impacts to Endangered or sensitive species can be
identified and agreed upon prior to adoption of the Initial Study. The Department appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
Glenn Black
Environmental Services
Supervisor
Habitat Conservation - South
Region 6
cc: Scott McCarthy, USFWS
be: Alan Pickard
Teresa Newkirk
rq#4 /
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
INITIAL STUDY
Application No(s:): Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone)
Tentative Tract Map No. 28668
Date of Completed Application: July 11, 2000
Name of Applicant: Edith A. Toor
Project Description: Change of Zone -A request to change the existing zoning on 4.48 gross
acres of land from 0-20 (Open land - one unit per 20 acres) to R-1-A
(Single Family Residential Zone), located on the west side of Rose
Avenue, north of Stevens Road, Section 10.
Tentative Tract Map -A proposed 6-lot single family residential subdivision
on 4.48 gross acres of land, with lots ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9
acres. The objective of the subdivision is to create six lots for the purpose
of development of six custom hillside residences in the future. The site
will gain public vehicular access from Rose Avenue, an existing private
street east of the proposed subdivision, and via a 36-foot wide access
easement across adjacent private property.
Location of Project: West of Rose Avenue and north of Stevens Road, 0-20 zone, Section 10.
General Plan Designation(s):
L2 (Low Density Residential)
Proposed General Plan Designation(s):
No change proposed
Present Land Use(s): Vacant land
Existing Zoning(s): 0-20 (Open Land Zone)
Proposed Zoning(s): R-1-A (Single Family Residential)
I. Is the proposed action a "project' as defined by CEQA? (See section
2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in
the same area, cumulative impact should be considered). ■Yes ❑ No
II. If 'yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects
listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? ❑Yes ■No
III. If"no" on II., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts listed
in Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines?
❑Yes ■No
IV. If"no" on III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory Exemptions
listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines?
❑Yes ■No
V. If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical
Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where
there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant
effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not
apply). ❑Yes ■No
VI. Project Description: The proposed project contemplates a request to
change the existing zoning on 4.48 gross acres of land from 0-20 (Open
land - one unit per 20 acres) to R-1-A (Single Family Residential Zone),
and a proposed 6-lot single family residential subdivision of the 4.48
gross acres of land, with lots ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9 acres. The
objective of the subdivision is to create six residential lots forthe purpose
of development of six custom residences in the future. Only grading for
the common areas (street and retention area) will be conducted in
conjunction with the subdivision. The site will gain vehicular access from
Rose Avenue, an existing private street east of the proposed subdivision,
and via a 36-foot wide access easement across adjacent private property.
The subdivision includes two lettered lots;one forthe purpose of providing
a private street for vehicular access and the second for on-site retention
of water. The latter lot includes a 10-foot wide drainage easement, which
will direct excess runoff from the subdivision downstream. The proposed
subdivision is located on the west side of Rose Avenue, north of Stevens
Road, Section 10. The site is currently zoned 0-20 (Open Land Zone)
and has a General Plan Designation of L2 (Residential Low Density).
The Tentative Tract Map will be considered by the Planning Commission
and City Council as required per the Zoning Ordinance.
VII. Site Description: The site is currently vacant and consists of slope
conditions that average approximately 10 percent. Native scrub
vegetation exists in areas on site where the ground level soil conditions
can support plants. Numerous outcrops of boulders exist across the
property.
/ Y14 /4P
VIII. Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single family dwellings - R-1-A zone
South: Vacant - R-1-A zone
East: Vacant and Single family dwellings - R-1-C zone
West: Vacant - 0-20 zone
Surrounding General Plan:
North: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
South: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
East: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
West: L2 - Low Residential (Max. 2 du/ac)
IX. Is the proposed project consistent with:
If answered yes or not applicable, no explanation is required)
City of Palm Springs General Plan Yes ❑No ❑N/A
Applicable Specific Plan
❑Yes ❑No ■N/A
City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance ■Yes ❑No ❑N/A
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ■Yes ❑No ❑N/A
Airport Part 150 Noise Study ❑Yes ❑No ■N/A
Draft Section 14 Master Development/Specific Plan []Yes ❑No ■N/A
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map has been designed to be
consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan.
X. Are there any of the following studies required?
1. Soils Report EYes ❑No
2. Slope Study ❑Yes ■No
3. Geotechnical Report ■Yes [:]No
IVA17
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4. Traffic Study ❑Yes ■No
5. Air Quality Study [-]Yes ■No
6. Hydrology ❑Yes ■No
7. Sewer Study ❑Yes ■No
8. Biological Study ■Yes ❑No
9. Noise Study ❑Yes ■No
10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes ■No
11. Housing Analysis []Yes ■No
12. Archaeological Report II•Yes ❑No
13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes ■No
14. Water Quality Report []Yes ■No
15. Other ❑Yes ■No
XI. Incorporated herein by reference is the Final Environmental Impact Report on the
General Plan Update, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Preserve at Mountain
Falls project (Case No. 5.0730), Hydrology Study for Pre-Development Conditions -
Herbert E. Toor Estates, prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. August 1,
1997 and Biological Inventory and Impact Analysis prepared by James W Cornett
Ecological Consultants, August 25, 1997.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (Source#'a) ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b) Conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
I YA /61
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Be incompatible with existing land use
in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations(e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from
incompatible land uses)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community(including a
low-income or minority community)?
1. a) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.The proposed 6lot single family residential subdivision will be located on a site
which is designated L2(Low Density Residential-2 dwelling units max. per acre) pursuant to the General Plan Land Use
Map, but is currently zoned 0-20 (Open Land-one residential dwelling unit per 20 acres) by the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed subdivision includes a request for a change of zone from 0-20 to R-1-A (Single Family Residential-20,000 sq.
ft.minimum lot size)to provide consistency with the current General Plan designation for the property. The objective of the
L2 General Plan Designation is to allowforvarious types of low-density residential development,including traditional single
family homes,which is contemplated as the purpose of this subdivision in the future. The zoning to the north, south and
east are currently R-1-A or R-1-C and have a General Plan designation of L2,consistentwith the proposed subdivision and
change of zone request,while property to the west(to the base of the San Jacinto Mountains)is zoned 0-20 with a General
Plan designation of L2. The development of six future residences on lots ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9 acres is not
considered a significant impact relative to the intent of development of the property nor the surrounding properties and the
proposed change of zone merely provides consistency with the existing General Plan designation for the property Thus,
the proposed change of zone will have a less than significant impact on the environment and there should be no land use
impacts caused by the future development of the proposed subdivision relative to the surrounding residents.
b)-e) NO IMPACT. The proposed 6 lot single family residential subdivision will not conflict with applicable environmental
plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project,will be compatible with existing development to
the north and east of the project,will not create any impacts to agricultural operations, as none exist in the immediate area
and will not disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of the area,as the proposed development is generally consistent with
existing single family residential development in the immediate area.
2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional
or local population projections?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
Induce substantial growth in an area either
b) directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension
or directly or indirectly(e.g.through projects in
an underdeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
I �I
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑
2. a) - c) NO IMPACT. The proposed Change of Zone request and Tentative Tract Map, with its intended future
development,will be consistent and compatible with the density of the developed Little Tuscany and Las Palmas areas,
which are both in close proximity to the project site. The single family nature of the developmentwill not induce substantial
growth or be the type of development that displaces existing housing.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
Would the proposal result in or expose
people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
c) Seismic ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ S
liquefaction?
d) Seiche,tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading
and
fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑
I) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑
j) Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon,
etc.
involved? ❑ ❑ ❑
3 a)-j)-NO IMPACT. The subject site is located within an alluvial fan area at the base of the foothills of the San Jacinto
Mountains.With the future development of single family residences within the subdivision,the protect will involve grading
of the existing terrain. At this time, it is not known the specific impacts that future grading will have on the environment
within this subdivision. However, there are no known geological hazards present on the site other than groundshaking
potential associated with earthquakes. The subject site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo or City adopted special study
zone. There are no known unstable earth conditions associated with the project site based on review of the Seismic Safety
Element of the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The future development of housing on the site will be designed to comply
with the Uniform Building Code which mandates requirements for seismic safety construction. The developer will be
required to submit a precise grading plan for each lot along with a soils report for review and approval of the City prior to
the issuance of any permits. The soils report(s)will address subsidence of land and the possibility of expansive soils on
the property, and the grading plan will be required to be in compliance with the soils report. Therefore, there will be no
geologic impacts as a result of the development of this project and the proposed subdivision of the land.
Mdo
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
4. WATER
Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or rate and amount of surface
runoff? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people or property to
water
related hazards such as flooding?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alternation of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or
turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in
any
water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial
loss
of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
1) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public
public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
j) Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? ❑Yes ■No
4 a). POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED.The subject site for which the Change of
Zone and Tentative Tract Map is contemplated is vacant and sporadically covered with native vegetation Future
development of 6 new homes will increase the amount of hard surface which will increase the amount of surface runoff;
however,the projectwill be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as part of the grading plan check
process,that surface runoff can be conveyed to an approved drainage carrier. The Tentative Tract Map includes a lettered
rYJ �r
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Lot "B", which is proposed for on-site water retention and includes a 10-foot wide drainage easement, which will direct
excess runoff from the subdivision downstream. As proposed the drainage easement does not indicate that the outletting
of water will follow the natural downstream drainage course,which is not permitted under State Subdivision Law. Therefore
staff is recommending the following mitigation measure to reduce this potential impact to a level of insignificance:
Mitigation Measure:
1. A 20-foot wide sewer and water easement shall be provided within Lot"B"(the on-site retention area)to divert overflow
and outletted water in the direction of the natural drainage course, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer The 20-foot
drainage easement shall be provided on either APN 505-044-013 or505-044-014,as determined bythe City Engineer,prior
to recordation of the final map.
Due to the size of the project, it is not anticipated that the amount of surface runoff will cause a negative impact upon
surrounding roadways and properties. Therefore,with compliance with usual City drainage requirements and the above
mitigation measure, impacts resulting from changes in surface runoff will be addressed to a level of insignificance.
4.b.-j). NO IMPACT. Based upon a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Flood Insurance
Rates Maps(Community Panel No.060257 0006),and the knowledge of the Department of Planning and Building and the
City Engineer, the site is located outside of the 100-year or 500-year floodway. Due to the nature of the project and its
location,the project will not create a change in the course or direction of water movements,the quantity of ground waters,
alter the flow of ground water and there are no wells on the subject site. Additionally, according to the U.S.G.S.
Topographical Quadrangle Map, no natural drainage course or flood control channel exist on the site. The site is located
well north of the Baristo and Tahquitz Creek Flood Control Channels and south of the Chino Cone alluvial fan area
Therefore,the project will not be impacted by water and flood related issues nor create impacts on water related issues.
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Alter air movement, moisture,
or
temperature, or cause any change in ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
5.a) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Tentative Tract map is consistent with
the General Plan and the proposed Change of Zone will provided consistency with the existing General Plan designation
for the property. With the adoption of the General Plan update in 1993,the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding air quality. This statement acknowledges that it is not feasible to reduce City-wide growth related
impacts to air quality to a level of insignificance at this time. Additionally, due to the relatively small size and number of
average daily trips that will be generated by the future development of this subdivision, there will not be a significant impact
related to air quality on a local or regional scale. The project will also be consistent with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District(SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, due to future project construction and grading
activities,short term impacts to air quality could occur.The project will thus need to comply with the City's Fugitive Dust and
Erosion Control Ordinance.Therefore, short term impacts (PM10 related)will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
1 y040a
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
5.b)-d). NO IMPACT. The projectwill be located on a site that is surrounded by predominately vacant land on three sides
Short term impacts, such as odors and pollution created by diesel engines of large equipment during construction and
grading operations, may occur as a result of the development of this site. Additionally, the size and nature of the 6 lot
residential subdivision is such that a change in climate will not occur and significant objectionable odors will not be created.
Furthermore,it is anticipated that,with the custom-home oriented nature of the proposed subdivision that the 6 residences
will not be constructed at the same time. Therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project to sensitive receptor and
the current climate.
MITIGATION MEASURE:
1. The applicant shall be required to submit a Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan, prepared in accordance with Chapter 8.50 of
the Palm Springs Municipal Code regarding Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control, which shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of any grading permits on the property.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by
the project? (S.F = 10; M.F. = 6; or
from
ITE): ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic ❑ ❑ ■ ❑
congestion?
c) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm
equipment)?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Inadequate emergency access or
access
to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians
or
bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
h) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
17� 3
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
6. a) & b) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The future development of the subdivision will create approximately 30
daily 2-way trips or 60 vehicle trips per day.Due to the minimal amount of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed
subdivision,a traffic study was deemed not necessary for the project.With the overall ADT anticipated with development
of this site with 6 single family residences, all streets in the immediate neighborhood can still operate at a level of service
(LOS)A, which equates to an unimpeded traffic flow. The City's General Plan Street System Element Report indicated
that a two-lane surface can carry up to 9,600 vehicles per day and still be considered LOS A. The project impacts to the
existing vehicular circulation system are considered less than significant and will not cause any additional traffic congestion
in the immediate area.Therefore,the subdivision will not have a significant impact on the overall circulation patterns within
this area of the City.
6. c) - h) NO IMPACT. As a result of the proposed subdivision, unsafe ingress or egress will not be created at the
intersection of Rose Avenue and Coronado Avenue. Rose Avenue access currently exists and serves the area to the east
of the this street. Access has been designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and will allow for sufficient
emergency access and passing movements in emergencies,as necessary. Access to nearby uses,hazards for pedestrians
and/or bicyclists will not result from development of the proposed project or conflict with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation. The proposal will not impact rail,waterborne or air traffic.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered,threatened, or rare species or
their habitats (including but not
limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
f) Is consultation will the California Fish and
Game or the Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Service, as a trustee agency, required? ■YES ONO
7. a) &e)- POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The site is located in an area on a
perimeter area of the San Jacinto Mountain foothills where,although highly unlikely,sightings of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
(PBS) could occur. However, bighorn sheep are known to exist in adjacent mountainous areas to the west. Based upon
the knowledge of the Director of Planning and Building and the Mountain Falls Golf Preserve Final Environmental Impact
Report(FEIR) and previous environmental documents of projects in similar geographic and topographic locations, it was
determined that a biological study specifically for this site would not be necessary. Despite this, a biological study was
prepared as referenced earlier in this assessment,which is hereby incorporated by reference
Because the proposed golf course is in close proximity to the property and the proposed subdivision would extend the limit
of development up an existing foothill closer to PBS habitat,there is concern that barriers could be created that could impact
PBS migration routes in the future, if PBS populations increase. A mitigation measure to address this issue is included
below
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has released for public comment two documents dealing with bighorn sheep
The first,Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan,and the second,Critical Habitatforthe Endangered Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep are draft documents and have no force and effect until approved and signed. Both documents are slated for approval
sometime later this year. Both documents include maps and general habitat descriptions. Based upon afield consultation
with FWS, it was determined that,with mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study and applying the information from
applicable biological analysis to this subdivision, it can be concluded that the areas that will potentially improved with six
new residences are not expected to have significant adverse impacts on the biota of the region and specifically, the project
would not cause a significant impact upon Bighorn sheep.
Correspondence from California Departmentof Fish and Game requested the following mitigation measures forthis protect,
and should be implemented, as follows:
The purchase of 5 acres in the Snow Creek area as an offset to developing the subject property. Alternate property may
be acquired if mutually agreed upon by the City and the Fish and Wildlife Service or funds equal to the cost of the Snow
Creek property should be deposited with the City's Open Space Acquisition Fund for future acquisition of open space
lands either by the City or another entity.
The establishment of permanent barrier fencing, or a functional equivalent, at a height of six(6)feet between the
proposed housing and natural habitat up slope before housing begins; and
- The development and implementation of a landscape plan that requires native plant species and the removal of toxic
and invasive plants from the property.
Despite the low quality of the habitat and the minimal opportunity for sighting the PBS on this property,staff has determined
that the following mitigation measures should be imposed to insure that no negative impacts will occur to the biota of the
region with the future development of four residences on the property. Implemented mitigations shall be:
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The applicant shall purchase a minimum of 5 acres in the Snow Creek area as an offset to developing the subject
property Alternate property maybe acquired if mutually agreed upon by the City and the Fish and Wildlife Service or funds
equal to the cost of the Snow Creek property should be deposited with the City's Open Space Acquisition Fund for future
acquisition of open space lands either by the City or another entity.
2. If blasting is determined to be necessary as part of the excavation operation for any of the future residences on the
property,the timing of such a procedure shall be planned with the assistance of a biologist. If the biologist determines that
the location and extent of blasting is likely to affect sheep lambing, breeding, or watering, blasting should be done during
a period when the auditory impact will be negligible. A biological monitor may also be necessary prior to and during blasting
events to halt blasting immediately if sheep are present in the area. While the biologist will determine the final
implementation techniques,it is anticipated that the biologist will be positioned at the higher elevations of the site equipped
with a spotting scope and radio and would conduct visual surveillance before and during blasting.
3. Any additional landscaping or landscape alteration outside of fenced areas shall consist of plant species that are native
to the immediate area. No additional oleanders shall be planted on-site, as they have been implicated in PBS deaths
through poisoning. If bighorn numbers again increase in the future, they should not have any toxic plant species in their
environment.
4. The final design of any perimeter fencing orwalls shall be carefully reviewed bythe Department of Planning and Building
as part of the Architectural Review process for each residence within the subdivision. The fencing shall be of a height,
located and designed as to not create a"trap"for PBS that could potentially wander to the fringe of the subdivision.
5. The developer shall construct a fence at least six(6)to eight(8)feet high around the perimeter of the subdivision for the
purpose of keeping bighorn sheep out of the area of development. Such fence shall be constructed when there is a
determination of need by a"Fence Review Committee",consisting of the Director of Planning and Building,a representative
biologist appointed by the owner of each lot within the subdivision and a representative appointed by the California
Department of Fish and Game. The committee shall determine that a need exists based upon scientific information, field
observations and other reliable information, if such data shows that 1)development of the subdivision is tending to attract
sheep to the immediate area;2)new information has developed showing,with a degree of reliability,thatthe health of sheep
lyoWs
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
is adversely affected by any vegetation planted in conjunction with the new residences or 3)that sheep are coming into the
area of the subdivision and are adversely affected thereby. At the opinion of the committee,the committee may order further
scientific study of the issue to develop information necessary to determine if the need for the fence exists. The study may
recommend additional monitoring, which shall be instituted per the recommendations of the committee. The property
owner(s) shall have the right to install the fence in lieu of performing any such additional study. The design and location
of the fence shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building. The fence shall be completely
installed at the cost of the owner(s) of these lots within one (1) year after the committee gives notice thereof Failure to
timely complete installation shall result in notices of violation being posted on said properties with potenital legal action
pending. This language shall be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions(C,C& R's)for the project,
to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Attorney. See Conditions of Approval
for revised mitigation measure. (9.C)
6. 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.
7 b) - d) & f) NO IMPACT. The site consists primarily of hillside areas covered in rock outcroppings or native scrub
vegetation. The development of the site,which will be limited to small pad areas,will not have a significant impact on any
locally designated plant or animal species or natural communities. No wetland or riparian areas exist on the property that
could be impacted by the project development.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal create:
a) Conflict with adopted energy
conservation
plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and
inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of a future
value
to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
8.a)-c) NO IMPACT. Due to the size and nature of the proposed subdivision, the project will not conflict or interfere with
an energy conservation plan and will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner.Therefore this
project should not result in a negative impact on energy and mineral resources.
g HAZARDS
Would the proposal:
a) Be a risk of accidental explosion or release
substances (including , but not limited to:
oil,
pesticides, chemicals, or radiation? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Create possible interference with an
emergency response plan or
emergency
evacuation plan? ❑ 11 ❑ ■
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Create any health hazard or potential
health
hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ a
d) Create exposure of people to existing
sources
of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas
with flammable brush, grass of trees?
❑ ❑ ❑ ■
9. a)-e) NO IMPACT. In the judgment of the Department of Planning and Building,there are no aspects of the proposed
project or future project construction which should not involve explosives,pesticides,radiation,chemicals or other hazardous
substances. Access to the site will be provided via a private access easement from Rose Avenue, of a width satisfactory
to all affected agencies to serve the property in question in case of emergency. The entire site is currently vacant and no
hazardous materials are known to either be existing on the property,buried underground orwill be used in conjunction with
the proposed residential use. The proposed project will not create any possible interference with an emergency response
Plan and will not create any health hazard. Therefore, this project will not result in a risk, nor create any health hazards,
nor expose people to potential health hazards.
10. NOISE
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Exposure of people to severe noise ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
levels?
c) Will the project be compatible with the noise
compatibility planning criteria according to
Table 6-F of the Palm Springs Municipal
Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility
study? ■YES ❑NO
10. a) -b) . NO IMPACT. The proposed subdivision is not expected to generate noise levels greater than noise levels
stated within the Chapter 11.74 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, other than during construction, where the activities
will be restricted to the hours and noise levels specified in the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The project is located
in an area of the City not subject to periodic noise levels above 65 CNEL,as identified by the City of Palm Springs General
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Despite this, new construction of the homes shall comply with and meet minimum
soundproofing requirements applicable to the project per Section 1092 (and related sections, if any)of Title 25,California
Administrative Code and any applicable Uniform Building Code requirements to assure that interior noise can be mitigated
to"safe"levels,approximately 45 CNEL. Details of how the required noise attenuation can occur shall be incorporated into
the required construction drawings, which shall be reviewed by the City for compliance prior to the issuance of building
permits.
At 7
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
PUBLIC SERVICES
11. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result
in a need for new or altered government services
in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
Distance to nearest fire station 2500 FT.
b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X
c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ E
d) Maintenance of public facilities,
including
roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
11. a) - e) NO IMPACT. The proposed project is within the City's five minute response time for fire service and within
reasonable proximity of the Police station. The project will be adequately serviced by other public services as well, and
school fees are required for all new construction to mitigate any potential impacts to the school district. Additional street
maintenance is not contemplated with the subdivision, as the site will be served by a privately maintained driveway.
Therefore, this project is not expected to impact public services.
12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
c) Local or regional water treatment
or
distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
12.a)-g) NO IMPACT. Due to the nature and small size of this project,there should be no impacts to utilities and service
systems as a result of the project.
1
qAoks
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
13. AESTHETICS
Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
effect?
c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
13.a)-c) NO IMPACT. The subject site is located within an area of the City where architectural approval for single family
residences is required . Plans for each of the four future residences will be subject to the City's Architectural Review
process. Therefore,this project should not result in negative impacts on aesthetic issues.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
d) Have the potential to cause a physical
change
which would affect unique ethnic
cultural
values? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred
uses
within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
14. a) and c) - e) NO IMPACT. According to the General Plan, the subject site is not located within an Paleontological
Resource Area such that no paleontological resources could be identified on the site. Therefore, no impacts to
paleontological and other related historic resources should occur as a result of this project.
14. b) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The subject property is in an area where
there is a potential for archaeological resources.
MITIGATION MEASURE:
Prior to issuance of construction permits (roadway and utilities), an archeology study shall be completed and all
recommendations implemented. If significant resources are discovered, there may be a need for a supplemental
environmental assessment.
I q;4J.9
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
15. RECREATION
Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood
or
regional parks or other recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
15. a) - b) NO IMPACT. The future construction of the small, 6- lot residential subdivision of land will not significantly
increase the demand for recreational facilities nor will it affect existing recreational facilities.Therefore, a negative impact
on existing or the demand for recreational facilities will not occur as a result of this project.
16 PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
a) Is the proposed project or action
environmentally controversial in nature or can
it reasonably be expected to
become
controversial upon disclosure to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
public?
16. NO IMPACT.. The proposed Change of Zone will provide consistency with the General Plan designation for the site
and Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the zoning criteria for the proposed R-1-A Zone and the L2 General Plan
category. All property owners within a 400 foot radius will be notified of the public hearing for the Change of Zone
andTentative Tract Map. Thus, in the judgment of the Department of Planning and Building,the project is not known to
be environmentally controversial, nor is it reasonably expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the public.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California
history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■
b) Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals?
IV;+ 30
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and effects of
probable
future projects.) ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects
on human beings? ❑ ❑ ❑
17 a)-d) NO IMPACT. This conclusion is based upon the responses in 1 through 16 of this environmental assessment.
Therefore, there should be no potential for a significant impact with the proposed mitigation measures as a result of this
project.
18. LISTED BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN
THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY:
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning and Building
Steve Hayes,AICP, Principal Planner
19, DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ 1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the
mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on:
p � of 9Vlf�/,
�� �� July yi. 2006
Douglas R. Ev s Date
Director of Planning & Building
V14 31
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I
acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures.
Further, I have revised project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed
mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant environmental effects would occur.
Signature: Date:
Print name and title:
BIOLOGICAL INVENTORY
and
IMPACT ANALYSIS
of the proposed
TOOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
Prepared For:
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262-6784
Field Studies and Report Completed By:
James W. Cornett
Ecological Consultants
P.O. Box 846
Palm Springs, California 92263
August 25, 1997
CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1 - Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2 - Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Site and Project Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Plant Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Animal Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Findings and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Certification Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 1 - Plant List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 2 - Animal List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Exhibit A- Restnme of James W. Cornett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
V,4 W
0
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted on a 4.5-acre site located in Palm Springs,
Riverside County, California. No officially listed plant or animal species was detected during the
field surveys and no unusual or sensitive habitats were found.
This project is not expected to have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within
the region.
11103500,
page 3
0
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 16, 1997, James W. Cornett - Ecological Consultants was retained by Mr. Marvin Roos
of Mainiero, Smith& Associates of Palm Springs to conduct a biological survey on approximately
4.5 acres within the city limits of Palm Springs, Riverside County, California. Specifically, the site
was located in a portion of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 10,
Township 4 South, Range 4 East of the San Bernardino Base and Meridian as shown on the Palm
Springs, California, U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle. The regional location of the project site is
shown in Figure 1 and the precise location is shown in Figure 2.
This study was included as part of an environmental assessment mandated by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and required by the City of Palm Springs. The
biological survey and impact analysis were designed to ascertain the impacts of grading and
clearing on the plant and animal resources of the project site and immediate vicinity.
Specifically, the purposes of the biological survey were as follows:
1. Conduct an inventory of the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species on, and immediately
adjacent, the project site.
2. Determine the presence of any plant or animals species presently state or federally listed as
threatened or endangered.
3. Determine the presence of any plant or animals species formally proposed for state or federal
listing.
4. Determine the existence of any sensitive biotic elements or communities.
5. Develop measures to mitigate both direct and indirect adverse effects of the proposed project
on any listed or proposed plant or animal species or unique biotic elements or communities.
qq.44
P
page 4
Figure 1 - Regional Location
° N[V
'RNARDINO °°[• \ri ' - 8
�� I G,r`rty c�, r•PloneerlXwn u� _ `„ "
,pS z3 • �m ~O.a[ rotxun=_ IE E 1
eoo"errrf_ S IL"x.�'A IExoE ol•X W��� ywvo 01 ar r ".•- 5E _41EinE, iTw�.��"
.Y000A V10-
4- �� � i\_ , � Iz ;� rna v•� Valle c -., xm
�'`'P�- \ \`,. .r),r; ��1 i•�a' �� '_� LM _ . , I, i-n� �a ,:.'uo,.,,e
12
ST . ",„
` SAIL _ GORGONO \ I a •..
� � M0n0M•O YILLEI Ui W Ems•'- ,
COUNTY _ !_—_ _ _ ,,, •
WILDERNESS ` -^s\ - I a JOSHUA
OX �J— ' TREE
h.M,.'.. '
P.iw 3Xn�Ms WXlleiiter� all
-
P.I.
01 58{ Flo SPf111I3m Mt -- 3s - rRv.
y- Z..
a.,u.
1__I A["•6 �Wi�Yh♦ E Gam•I s • m 'I �!^�r.. N `. A
,1 `50a
"•., 1� CE 'n se_ E - _Flea iov I NCO / !EV.IIeY
/ perrM ynrlA Mln �� p?domANill [ ev
7_ I o1�J " � M'' s x ia' coAa'vu vwn
° a . LIEIx
31
�T7 w iXWSAXI �
°e�maiNT° ¢if ,..P�LMEP NCE
igxo xn _J__ nm __ nx.X• J .wwrx..o 0 3 I ♦ _ s p 31 ___i
�.�
.TATE VARM'—��S `r`L.' Irti fir. i n. I�xw'ny a'.�A 3. �S�M[i ICIJI45
0 W
n'D •TMAµr mm rEaa,x i.! -� ,[
e1..✓- I EArTA x,
BERNARDINO � i _�_ I_ � IAX -_-'/I�eATxeoRnL_ciT
xJl C
,� �' :•°0oa x:�' aF -"'ti.e � �Mr-Y r,., z✓ aix��. l I
IPnl.wlin 1 I����._ ������'�_ -- -r ~� � •�- i� �I_ 3_�E i"y°'" _
. W , RAN 0 RAGE ouili
.� ,v z
O i A1 - ,,.J;-,. rK
- v`A.XA— (i G,��,nI._'I I 8_��j,e I; n• - �� `�, o<� x 3"9 .°x"`m +5
Ch. uxo[s r ° '. I_� '° :,y ax N„ .'"r t°w PALM Ixoux_
j �M•e[x.+msr.. 11 ,1 -rlll - -i' QESEFi '"WELLS
•= -rl 1 R![nvwnoX NATIONAL SCENIC AREA-
'
y ��
Figure 2 - Site Location
l i
N T!E
� 1 � I � ..•i . ID'r:
0.
1 IIII A�N /�S F5R T�I O'�A' .E �1�• LJLJ I•.••.• •+��
_ lll
r
BM 4I 8Seb
�r��� ncis ens
o � r
C o
�)1 ✓/ ���r)-�� �'�°�/��ffi�
4/'� ��
t gA38
II. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Climate
The project area lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado Desert
as defined by Jaeger(1957). As is typical of this subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, annual rainfall
averages less than six inches (O'Dell, 1970). Most precipitation falls during the winter and late
spring with occasional summer storms accounting for approximately one-fourth of the annual
total (Cornett, 1980). Winter days are mild, averaging 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter nights
occasionally drop to near freezing. The month of July brings the hottest temperatures with
daytime highs averaging 108 degrees F.
Physical Features
The elevation of the project site averages approximately 700 feet above sea level. The site lies on
an alluvial fan emanating from Chino Canyon to the northeast. The site slopes to the southeast
and is covered with large rocks and boulders interspersed with pockets of sand and gravel.
There are no naturally occurring springs, permanent aquatic habitats or drainages on the project
site. In addition no blue-line streams, as depicted on United States Geological Survey
topographical maps, exist within the project boundaries.
Surrounding Lands
To the north, south and east of the project site lies an urban residential area known locally as Las
Palmas.
To the west of the site lies undisturbed creosote bush scrub habitat and the toe of the San Jacinto
Mountains.
Existing Impacts
There are no existing impacts to the site. It is relatively pristine creosote scrub habitat.
t �r�39
page 7
Project Description
As of August 25, 1997, the project proponent intends to create six residential lots on the site.
an
rw
page 8
III. RESEARCH METHODS
Prior to the initiation of field work, a review of the literature and museum records was undertaken
to determine the biological resources that might exist within the general area, and to determine the
possible occurrence of officially-listed plant or animal species (see References section). Records,
collections and staff of the University of California at Riverside Herbarium, the Living Desert and
the Palm Springs Desert Museum were consulted for more specific information as to occurrence.
Field surveys were conducted on August 23 and 24, and the evening of August 23, 1997. The
survey days were mild in the early morning and hot by noon. The evening of August 23 was warm
and calm. The survey period did not coincide with the blooming period of sensitive plant species
and maximum activity periods of sensitive animal species within the region.
Plant surveys were conducted by walking north-south transects at ten-yard-intervals through the
project site and twenty-five yards beyond all site boundaries. The ruggedness of the terrain often
made it impossible to follow straight paths across the site.
Animal surveys were conducted simultaneously with plant surveys. In addition, twenty-five
Sherman live-animal traps (which capture animals unharmed) for large and small mammals were
set during each day and evening field survey.
No surveys for invertebrate animals were conducted. No officially listed or proposed species are
known from the vicinity or region.
Although scientific name changes occur as new discoveries are made in plant and animal
taxonomy, the scientific names used in this report are taken from the standard and most available
references describing the species found in Southern California--James A. Hickman's The Jepson
Manual published in 1993; J. P. Smith's Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of
California published in 1994; R. A. Stebbins'A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians
published in 1985; Peterson's Western Birds published in 1990; and E. W. Jameson and H. J.
Peeters California mammals published in 1988. Plant common names used in this report are
taken from Hickman(1994), Jaeger(1969), Munz (1961 and 1974) and Smith (1988). Animal
common names are taken from Stebbins (1985), Peterson(1990) and Jameson and Peeter(1988).
Field work and report preparation were completed by James W. Cornett. Mr. Cornett's resume
can be found as Exhibit A in the Appendix.
I"ql
page 9
IV. PLANT SURVEY RESULTS
A single plant association or "community" was found on site: the Sonoran creosote bush scrub
community as described by Holland (1986).
The Sonoran creosote bush scrub community dominates the vegetation of the entire project site
and is the pervasive plant community throughout the Colorado Desert of California. The creosote
bush (Larrea tridentata), is a common perennial on the site but exceeded in numbers by the
encelia (Encelia farinosa). Other common perennials include the burrobush (Ambrosia dun:osa),
sweetbush(Bebbia juncea), desert lavender(Hyptis ensoryi) and fountain grass Pennisetum
setaceum). With the exception of fountain grass (an invasive exotic species) each of these species
is characteristic of the Sonoran creosote bush scrub community.
The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, published by the California
Native Plant Society (1994), the CNDDB Special Plant List(1994) and the Endangered,
Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (1994) list one plant species that could conceivably
occur on the project site: the California Ditaxis (Ditaxis californica). It is said to occur between
elevations of 400 to 3,000 feet within the Creosote Scrub Community. It is known to occur in the
vicinity of the San Jacinto Mountains near or in sandy washes and thus can be expected within the
Project Area. A concerted effort was made to locate this species but no specimens were found.
A complete list of vascular plant species found within the project boundaries can be found in
Table 1 of the Appendix.
19N
page 10
V. ANIMAL SURVEY RESULTS
The fauna of the project site and surrounding vicinity is comprised of species typical of the
Colorado Desert subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. Common reptiles include the side-blotched
lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), chuckwalla (Sauronsalus
obesus), desert scaly lizard (Sceloporus magister) and speckled rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchelli).
Frequently seen birds within the project area were the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black-
throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), house finch(Carpodacus nzexicanus), common raven(-
Corvus corax), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis).
Frequently detected mammals included the California ground squirrel (Spernsophilus beecheyi),
antelope ground squirrel (Ammospermophilus leucurus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni),
Merriam kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami) and coyote (Canis latrans).
The California Department of Fish& Game Special Animals (1992) report lists six animal species
that are known from the region of the project site: the desert tortoise (Xerobates agassizi),
burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Palm Springs
ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus
longimembris bangsi) and Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis crenmobates). None of
these species were observed or detected. This fact, in conjunction with the existence of urban
residential units on three sides, leads to the conclusion that none of these species occurs on site.
A complete list of vertebrate species observed or detected on the project site can be found in
Table 2 of the appendix.
/s(J* 1/3
page 11
VI. FINDINGS, REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The project can be expected to eliminate approximately 4.5 acres of creosote scrub habitat
including the native plant and animal species that currently live on the project site. However, the
creosote scrub habitat is widespread in the Southwest and therefore the loss of this habitat on the
project site cannot be said to constitute a significant negative impact to the continued existence of
this plant community.
None of the plant and animal species found within the project boundaries are officially listed by
any governmental agency. Additionally, this project is not expected to have a significant negative
impact on any of the species of plants and animals recorded from the project site. Each of the
species listed in Table 1 and Table 2 have ranges that extend far beyond the project site and
therefore the loss of habitat within the project boundaries must be said to constitute an
insignificant loss.
The project will have negative indirect impacts on the surrounding biota. The project site will no
longer serve as a source of emigration of native plant and animal species into the natural
surrounding lands. This project can be expected to increase vehicular traffic in the area, noise
levels, light pollution, human and domestic animal use of surrounding lands, introduction and
dispersal of exotic plant species and development in the region. All of these occurrences can be
expected to decrease the diversity and density of native plants and animals in the region
surrounding the project. Although these impacts cannot be quantified, it is not expected that they
will have a significant negative impact upon the biota of the region.
Nonetheless, the following mitigation recommendations are made to lessen the anticipated
impacts of this project on the biological resources of the surroundings lands.
1. Plant species native to the immediate region should be used in landscaped areas whenever
possible. The use of native plant species helps maintain a food and cover base for indigenous
animal species, particularly birds, that cannot utilize exotic plants for cover or food.
2. The night lighting of streets, yards and recreation areas can be expected to penetrate
beyond the project site boundaries and into the natural areas adjacent the project site. Unnatural
lighting can interfere with the nocturnal activity of animals in the surrounding areas. To minimize
this impact, it is recommended that all outdoor lighting be directed at the ground.
3. Due to the proximity of this development to pristine hillsides it is recommended that a
chainlink fence be erected to reduce the movement of stray pets into the surrounding natural
areas.
� h
page 12
Mitigation Summary
Required
No legally required mitigation.
Recommended
1. Utilize native plants in landscaped areas.
2. Direct outdoor lighting towards ground.
3. Erect chain link fence between the project site and natural areas to the west.
page 13
VII. REFERENCES
California Department of Fish&Game. 1994. Special animals. Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento,
California.
California Department of Fish&Game. 1994. Endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California. Natural
Heritage Division,Endangered Plant Program, Sacramento,California.
California Department of Fish&Game. 1994. Special plants list. Natural Heritage Division,Natural Diversity
Data Base, Sacramento, California.
Cornett,J. W. 1980. Coachella Valley nature guide. Nature Trails Press,Palm Springs, California.
Cornett,J. W. 1987. Wildlife of the North American deserts. Nature Trails Press,Palm Springs, California.
Ehrlich,P.R.,D. S.Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in jeopardy. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California.
Garrett,K. and J.Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society,Los Angeles,
California.
Hickman, J. C. (editor). 1993. The Jepson manual. University of California Press,Berkeley, California.
Holland,R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California
Department of Fish&Game, Sacramento, California.
Jaeger,E. C. 1957. The North American deserts. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Jaeger,E. C. 1969. Desert wildflowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Munz,P. A. 1974. A flora of Southern California. University of California Press,Berkeley, California.
National Geographic Society. 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society,
Washington D.C.
O'Dell, C. A. 1970. The climate of Palm Springs. National Weather Service, Asheville,North Carolina.
Peterson,R. T. 1990. Western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company,New York,New York.
Ryan,R.M. 1968. Manunals of Deep Canyon. Palm Springs Desert Museum,Palm Springs, California.
Smith,Peroni and Fox. 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report For The Palm Springs General Plan Update.
City of Palm Springs,Palm Springs, California.
Smith, J.P.,Jr. and R. York(editors). 1994. Inventory ofrare and endangered plants of California. California
Native Plant Society,Berkeley, California.
Stebbins,R. C. 1985. Afield guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company,Boston.
Stewart,J.M. 1993. Colorado desert wildflowers. Jon Stewart Photography,Palm Desert, California.
Weathers,W. W. 1983. Birds of Southern California's Deep Canyon. University of California Press,Berkeley,
California.
Whitaker,J. O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American mannnals. Alfred A. Knoph,Inc.,
New York.
y/9 yCa
page 14
X. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I, James W. Cornett, hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts,
statements and information presented are true and cor to the best of my kt owledge and belief.
W
Date P �i pal Investigator
Vq
page 15
APPENDIX
y8
YA
page 16
TABLE 1
PLANT SPECIES RECORDED
TOOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
ANGIOSPERMAE - DICOTYLEDONES
ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia dumosa-Burro-weed
Bebbia juncea- Sweet Bush
Encelia farinosa -Brittlebush
Malacothrix glabrata-Desert Dandelion
Palafoxia arida - Spanish Needle
Stephanomeria exigua-Mitra
Trixis californica- Trixis
Yiguiera parishii - Viguiera
BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY
Cryptantha maritima-White-haired Forget-me-not
CACTACEAE - CACTUS FAMILY
Ferocactus cylindraceus- California Barrel Cactus
Opuntia basilaris-Beaver-tail Cactus
Opuntia acanthoca pa-Buckhorn Cholla
EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY
Chaniaesyce polycarpa- Sand-mat
GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium cicutarium - Filaree
HYDROPHYLLACEAE -WATERLEAF FAMILY
Phacelia distans- Wild Heliotrope
KR AMFRIACEAE - RHATANY FAMILY
Krameria grayi-White Rhatany
page 17
LAMIACEAE -MINT FAMILY
Hyptis emoryi -Desert Lavender
MALVACEAE -MALLOW FAMILY
Hibiscus denudatus-Desert Hibiscus
NYCTAGINACEAE -FOUR-O'CLOCK FAMILY
Mirabilis bigelovii-Wishbone Bush
SOLANACEAE -NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura metaloides- Jimson Weed
Physalis crassifolia- Thick-leaved Ground Cherry
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - CALTROPFAMILY
Larrea tridentata- Creosote Bush
ANGIOSPERMAE- MONOCOTYLEDONES
POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY
Achnatherum speciosum -Desert Needlegrass
Aristida adscensionis- Triple-awned Grass
Bromus rubens -Red Broom
Cynodon dactylon-Bermuda Grass
Panicum unlilleanun: -Panicum Grass
Pennisetum setaceum -Fountain Grass
Schismus barbatus- Abu-mashi
' ;J36
page 18
TABLE 2
EXPECTED BREEDING OR OBSERVED VERTEBRATES
TOOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
AMPHIBIANS
BUFONIDAE - TRUE TOADS
Bufo punctatus-Red-spotted Toad
REPTILES
ANNIELLIDAE -LEGLESS LIZARDS
Anniella pulchra- California Legless Lizard ?
GEKKONIDAE - GECKOS
Coleonyx variegatus-Western Banded Gecko
Phyllodactus xanti -Leaf-toed Gecko ?
IGUANIDAE -IGUANIDS
Dipsosaurus dorsalis- Desert Iguana ?
Phrynosoma platyrhinos-Desert Horned Lizard
Sauromalus obesus- Common Chuckwalla *
Sceloporus magister -Desert Spiny Lizard *
Urosaurus graciosus-Long-Tailed Bush Lizard
Uta stansburiana- Side-Blotched Lizard *
TEHDAE -WHIPTAILS
Cnemidophorus tigris- Western Whiptail *
XANTUSIIDAE -NIGHT LIZARDS
Xantusia henshawi - Granite Night Lizard ?
IVA .51
page 19
LEPTOTYPBLOPIDAE - BLIND SNAKES
Leptotyphlops humilis-Western Blind Snake
BOIDAE -BOAS
Lichanura trivirgata -Rosy Boa
COLUBRIDAE - COLUBRIDS
Chionactis occipitalis-Western Shovel-nosed Snake
Hypsiglena torquata -Night Snake
Lampropeltis getulus- Common Kingsnake
Masticophis flagellum: - Coachwhip *
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus- Spotted Leaf-nosed Snake
Rhinocheilus lecontei -Long-nosed Snake
Salvadora hexalepis- Western Patch-nosed Snake
Tantilla planiceps -Western Black-headed Snake
Trin:orphodon biscutatus -Lyre Snake
VIPERIDAE - VIPERS
Crotalus mitchellii - Speckled Rattlesnake
Crotalus ruber-Red Diamond Rattlesnake
page 20
BIRDS
ACCIPITRIDAE - OSPREY, HAWKS, EAGLES
Aquila chrysaetos- Golden Eagle
Accipiter cooperii - Cooper's Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis-Red-Tailed Hawk
FALCONIDAE - FALCONS
Falco mexicanus-Prairie Falcon
Falco sparverius- American Kestrel
PHASIANIDAE - QUAIL
Callipepla gambelii - Gambel's Quail
COLUMBIDAE -PIGEONS AND DOVES
Columba livia-Rock Dove *
Zenaida asiatica - White-winged Dove
Zenaida macroura -Mourning Dove
CUCUL DAE - CUCKOOS
Geococcyx californianus- Greater Roadrunner
STRIGIDAE - TYPICAL OWLS
Bubo virginianus- Great Horned Owl
CAPRIMULGIDAE-NIGHTJARS
Chordeiles acutipennis- Lesser Nighthawk
Phalaenoptilus nuttalhi- Common Poorwill
TROCHILIDAE -HUMMINGBIRDS
Archilochus alexandri-Black-chinned Hummingbird
Calypte costae - Costa's Hummingbird *
TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Myiarchus cinerascens- Ash-Throated Flycatcher
Sayornis saya- Say's Phoebe
page 21
CORVIDAE - CROWS AND JAYS
Corvus corax- Common Raven
REMIZIDAE - VERDIN
Auriparus flaviceps- Verdin
TROGLODYTIDAE -WRENS
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus- Cactus Wren
Salpinctes obsoletus-Rock Wren *
M v1IDAE - MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Minus polyglottos-Northern Mockingbird
STURNIDAE - STARLINGS
Sturnus vulgaris-European Starling
EMBERIZIDAE -WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS, SPARROWS
Amphispiza bilineata- Black-throated Sparrow
PLOCEIDAE - WEAVER FINCHES
Passer donesticus-House Sparrow *
FRINGILLIDAE -FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus-House Finch *
501
page 22
MAMMALS
PHYLLOSTOMATIDAE - LEAF-NOSED BATS
Macrotus californicus- California Leaf-nosed Bat ?
VESPERTILIONIDAE -EVENING BATS
Antrozous pallidus-Pallid Bat
Eptesicus fuscus-Big Brown Bat
Lasiurus cinereus-Hoary Bat ?
Pipistrellus hesperus-Western Pipistrelle
MOLOSSIDAE -FREE-TAILED BATS
Tadarida brasiliensis-Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
LEPORIDAE -HARES AND RABBITS
Sylvilagus auduhonii - Audubon Cottontail
SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS
Ammospermophilus leucurus- Antelope Ground Squirrel
Spermophilus beecheyi - California Ground Squirrel *
HETEROMYIDAE -POCKET MICE AND KANGAROO RATS
Perognathus forn:osus -Long-tailed Pocket Mouse
Dipodomys merriami -Merriam Kangaroo Rat *
CRICETIDAE - DEER MICE AND WOODRATS
Neotonia lepida -Desert Woodrat *
Peromyscus eremicus - Cactus Mouse
MURIDAE - OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE
Mus musculus -House Mouse
CANIDAE -FOXES, WOLVES, AND COYOTES
Canis latrans- Coyote *
Urocyon cinereoargenteus - Gray Fox
page 23
MUSTELIDAE -WEASELS AND SKUNKS
Mephitis mephitis- Striped Skunk
FELIDAE - CATS
Lyra rufus- Bobcat
* = sign or individual observed on or very near site
? =possible occurrence on or near site; not detected during surveys
1YO54
page 24
EXHIBIT A
RESUME OF JAMES W. CORNETT
EDUCATION
B.A.,Biology,University of California at Riverside, 1976
M.S.,Biology, California State University at San Bernardino, 1980
POSITIONS HELD
April, 1976-Present
Consulting Ecologist and owner,James W. Cornett-Ecological Consultants,P.O. Box 846,Palm Springs,
California 92263.
For the past nineteen years Mr. Cornett has been conducting biological studies focusing on rare plants and animals
for both private and public agencies as part of the environmental review process required by the State of California.
He established the herbarium at the Palm Springs Desert Museum and has ltad his research published in numerous
journals inchuding Madrono,Fremontia'Southwestern Naturalist,Nahiral History,Herpetological Review,
Journal of Parasitology, San Bernardino Museum Quarterly, Western Birds and Principes. He has also written
numerous books including Wildlife of The North American Deserts,Wildlife of The Western Mountains,Desert
Palm Oasis, Saguaro and Scorpion.
January, 1980-Present
Curator of Natural Science,Palm Springs Desert Museum, 101 Museum Drive,Palm Springs, California
92263.
September, 1976-December, 1979
Assistant Curator of Natural Science, Palm Springs Desert Museum
September, 1975-June, 1976
Natural Science Instructor,Palm Springs Desert Museum
January, 1981 -Present
Biology Instructor(part-time), Universihj of California Extension,Riverside, California 92521, 714-787-4105.
Courses taught:Desert Flora, Ecology of The Coachella Valley, Ecology of The Colorado Desert, Endangered
Species of The Coachella Valley, Endangered Species of the California Deserts, Ecology of Desert Palm Oases,
Ecology of The Joshua Tree,Mammals of The Colorado Desert and Desert Reptiles.
October, 1975-June, 1983
Biology and Natural Resources Instructor(part-time), College of The Desert 43500 Monterey Road,Palm
Desert, California 92260.
January, 1973-June, 1974
Assistant Naturalist(part-time), Living Desert Reserve, 47900 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, California 92260,
619-346-5694.
page 25
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone)
Tentative Tract Map No. 28668
Edith A. Toor
West of Rose Avenue, North of Stevens Road
October 18, 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, 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.
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.
1 a. 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 No.5.0757 and Tentative Tract
Map No. 28668. 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 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; therefore 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
/YO-4
Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be final
until such fee is paid.
3. The mitigation measures of the environmental assessment shall apply and are
incorporated into these conditions by reference.
4. Minimum building setbacks for future development within the subdivision shall
conform to the development standards of the R-1-A zone, Section 9201.00 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Future development of the lots is also subject to the provisions
of Sections 9313.00 (Hillside Developments) and 9404.00 (Architectural Approval).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 shall
include provisions for maintenance of all common lot areas and easements and
sewer and water pump stations (if applicable) within and serving the subdivision.
The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $
2,000.00, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney.
It is recommended that the CC&R's include the following parameters relative to
access from Coronado Avenue:
The current Rose Hill Association entry gate should be replaced with a new
more formal structure and be subject to review and approval of the Director
of Planning and Building and the City Engineer prior to recordation of the
Final Map;
The property owner(s) shall be included within and therefore participate in
the costs associated with street maintenance on a pro rata basis with other
lots covered by the Homeowners Association;
The applicant shall pay the Rose Hill Association a sum agreed to between
the two parties for a fair share of the cost of the new gate and related
expense;
/w3ftp
Any final grading plan within the subdivision shall be reviewed by the Rose
Hill Association prior to the submittal of Final Grading plans to the City;
Architectural approval of any homes within the subdivision from the Rose
Hill Association shall be secured prior to submittal of conceptual plans to the
City; and
— Any construction within the new subdivision shall be restricted in terms of
hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. - Monday through Friday), noise control and
dust control. In the event construction traffic must use Rose Avenue and/or
Coronado Avenue, the developer shall be responsible for repairing any
resulting road damage.
9. If applicable, the final design of any vehicle gate and landscaping adjacent to the
main entrance to the subdivision shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Planning and Building prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the subdivision.
The design shall incorporate turnaround capabilities outside the gate pursuant to
applicable City Standards.
9A. Grading of individual lots and/or pads is not permitted in conjunction with this
subdivision. Grading associated with each individual lot within the subdivision and
future residences thereon are subject to the architectural approval process specified
in Section 9404.00 of the Zoning Code. The CC&R's for the project shall indicate
these restrictions, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and the Director of
Planning and Building.
9B. If possible, the ultimate street width of the private street serving the subdivision shall
be reduced to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal, the City Engineer and the
Director of Planning and Building.
9C. The developer of each single family residence shall construct a 6' high decorative
fence or wall around the north, west, and south project perimeter to create a barrier
between the project and undeveloped properties. In the event there is evidence that
bighorn sheep are entering the subject property the City may require each
homeowner to increase perimeter fence and/or wall height to 8' or more. The fence
or wall shall be increased in height within one year upon written notice by the
Director of Planning and Building. This condition shall be incorporated into the
project CC&R's.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
10. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
11. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
12. Construction shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, 1998
California Building Code, 1996 National Electrical Code, City of Palm Springs
/V�0
Ordinance 1570, Desert Water Agency requirements, NFPA 13D (Modified), 1997
Urban Wetland Interface Code plus UL and CSFM listings and approvals.
13. Fire Department access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with
the 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9, Section 902.
14. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 14 feet, 6 inches in
accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9, Section 902.2.2.1 and City of
Palm Springs Ordinance 1570.
15. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and constructed as all weather
capable, and able to support a fire truck weighing 67,000 pounds per 1998
California Fire Code, Article 9, Section 902.2.2.2 and City of Palm Springs
Ordinance 1570.
16. The turning radius of fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of 43 feet
from centerline in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9, Section
902.2.2.3 and City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570.
17. Dead-end fire apparatus roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with
approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The approved turn
around radius shall be a cul-de-sac with a minimum turning radius of 43 feet from
centerline. Referto 1998 California Fire Code,Article 9, Section 902.2.2.4 and City
of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570.
18. Required width of a fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any
manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances
established under 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9, Section 902.2.2.1 shall be
maintained at all times and be in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article
9, Section 902.2.4.1 and City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570.
19. Entrances to roads, trails, or other accessways which have been closed with gates
and barriers in accordance with Section 902.2.4.2 shall not be obstructed by parked
vehicles.
20. Premises identification shall be in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code,
Article 9, Section 901.4.4 and 1998 California Building Code, Chapter 5. Contact
Building Official.
21. Construction site fencing shall be required per City of Palm Springs Ordinance
1570, Construction site Fire Department access gates shall be at least 14 feet in
width and equipped with a frangible chain and lock.
22. Provide a water tender equipped with hoses and adjustable spray nozzles capable
of reaching all areas of the construction site until functional fire hydrants and
standpipes are installed. Contact this office regarding fire hydrant requirements.
Contact Building Official.
23. Where underground water mains are to be provided, they shall be installed,
completed, and in service with fire hydrants or standpipes located as directed by this
office, but not later than the time when combustible materials may be delivered to
the construction site. Contact Building Official and this office /
/V
24. Water supplies and fire hydrants shall be in accordance with 1998 California Fire
Code, Article 9, Section 903.4, including Appendix III-B and Desert Water Agency
specifications.
25. Free access from the street to fire hydrants and to outside connections for
standpipes, sprinklers, or otherfire extinguishing equipment,whether permanent or
temporary, shall be provided and maintained at all times.
26. A complete Automatic Fire Extinguishing System equipped with 24 hour monitoring
is required in accordance with 1998 California Fire Code, Article 10, Section 1003,
1998 California Building Code, Chapters 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, City of Palm Springs
Ordinance 1570 and NFPA 13D (Modified). Upgraded construction not accepted in
lieu of a fire sprinkler system.
27. Further comments to follow upon a detailed submittal of plans.
ENGINEERING DIVISION:
The Engineering Division recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is
subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and
ordinances:
The following exceptional items shall be provided with the subsequent development of the
subject property.
A. The developer shall submit a stamped an updated, signed hydrology study,
inclusive of street capacity, to the City Engineer with the first submittal of a precise
grading plan.
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.
PRIVATE STREET (LOT "A" AND EASEMENT ACROSS AP# 505-044-016)
2. Dedicate an easement for sewer and public utility purposes with
right of ingress and egress over the private street (Lot"A").
Dedicate an easement for public utility purposes with right of ingress
and egress across the south 36 feet of AP#505-044-016.
Dedicate a 20 foot wide sewer and drainage easement across the
south 15 feet of AP#505-044-014.
2A. The 36 foot wide easement across the south portion of AP # 505-
044-016 to be used for ingress, egress, and public utilities and the
20 foot wide easement for sewer and drainage across the south
150 Q
portion of AP # 505-044-014 shall be recorded prior to or
simultaneously with the Final Map.
Developershall provide confirmation, in the form of written evidence,
to the City Engineer that the proposed lots have rights of access
across the private portion of Rose Avenue to the public right-of-way.
2B. If an easement across APN 505-044-014 can not be obtained, the
sewer easement shall go in the easement for public utility and
ingress and egress across APN 505-044-016.
The storm flows shall go into the retention basin which shall have a
secondary overflow outletting into the existing natural flow line.
The developer may request that the City proceed with the eminent
domain process to acquire a 20 foot wide easement along the south
property line of APN 505-044-014. The developer is responsible for
all costs relating to said process.
3. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer to the Engineering Division.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 applicable agreements and improvement plans approved
by City Engineer, IF applicable.
C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements,
encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement
agreements, etc. required by these conditions.
4. Construct a 6 inch wedge curb and gutter, 18 feet both sides of
centerline along the entire frontage to Rose Avenue, with a 25 foot
radius curb return at the intersection with Rose Avenue per City of
Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
5. Construct the NORTH AND SOUTH halves of a 6 foot cross gutter
and spandrel at the intersection of ROSE AVENUE and PRIVATE
STREET with a flow line parallel to the centerline of ROSE AVENUE
in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
6. DELETED
7. Construct a curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility
standards at the NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST corners of the
intersection with Rose Avenue per City of Palm Springs Std. Dwg.
Nos. 212 and 212A.
19443
8. 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 to the intersection with Rose Avenue in accordance with
City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 304 The
pavement section shall be designed, using"R"values, by a licensed
Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
SANITARY SEWER
9. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall
not be connected at manhole.
10. Developer shall construct an 8 inch sewer main across the entire
Private Street frontage in accordance with the Master Plan of
Sewers and connect to the existing sewer system at the intersection
of Rose Avenue and the easterly terminus of the 20 foot wide sewer
and drainage easement along the south side of AP # 505-044-014
via a new manhole in the existing sewer main on Rose Avenue.
11. All sewer mains constructed by the developer and to become part of
the City sewer system shall be televised by the developer prior to
acceptance of said lines.
12. Submit sewer improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer to the Engineering Division. 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:
A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning
Department.
B. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements,
encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement
agreements, etc. required by these conditions.
C. Sewer Study/Report, IF required by these conditions.
GRADING
13. 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.
14. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the
Engineering Division for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for comments prior to submittal to the
Engineering Division. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
/yjl((
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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. A soils report, including slope stabilization analysis, 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 Division along with plans, calculations and other
information subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of the grading permit.
18. Contact the Building Department to get PM10 requirements prior
to request for grading permit.
DRAINAGE
19. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and
conduct these flows to an approved drainage structure.
20. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation
fees. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $9,212.00 per
acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance
of a building permit.
GENERAL
21. 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
/ VAW
Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement shall be restored to a
smooth rideable surface.
22. All proposed utility lines on/or adjacent to this project shall be
undergrounded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
23. 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 Division prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
24. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed
requirements for this project at the earliest possible date.
25. The developer shall take every precaution needed to 'Protect -in-
Place"any existing Whitewater Mutual Water Company water line(s)
that may traverse his project.
26. 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.
27. All proposed trees within 10 feet of the sidewalk and/or curb shall
have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm
Springs Engineering specifications.
MAP
28. 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 Division.
29. The existing lots or parcels shall be divided. The developer shall
submit a Tract Map prepared by either a Registered Civil Engineer
or a Licensed Land Surveyor to the Engineering Division. This
condition shall be complied with before issuance of grading or
building permits.
TRAFFIC
30. 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 PRIVATE STREET frontage of the
subject property.
I �lr4Co�
31. 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:
SW Cor. of Rose Avenue and Private Street
32. 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 1990, or subsequent additions in force at the time of
construction.
33. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
based on the RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ITE
Code B land use.
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING,SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS STATED, CASE NO. 5.0757 (CHANGE OF
ZONE) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28668,
APPLICATIONS BY EDITH A. TOOR FORA REQUEST TO
CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING ON 4.48 GROSS
ACRES OF LAND FROM 0-20 (OPEN LAND - ONE UNIT
PER 20 ACRES)TO R-1-A(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE) AND FOR A SIX (6) LOT SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON 4.48 GROSS ACRES OF
LAND, WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.567 TO o.9
ACRES, LOCATED WEST OF ROSE AVENUE AND
NORTH OF STEVENS ROAD, 0-20 ZONE, SECTION 10,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
-------------
WHEREAS, Ms. Edith A.Toor, (the"applicant")has filed applications with the City pursuant
to Section 9407.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a proposed Change of Zone of 4.48 gross
acres of land from 0-20 (Open land - one residential unit per 20 acres of land) to R-1-A
(Single Family Residential Zone - 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) and the Palm
Springs Municipal Code Section 9.60 for Tentative Tract Map No. 28668 for a proposed
6-lot single-family residential subdivision on 4.48 gross acres of land, both located west of
Rose Avenue and north of Stevens Road, 0-20 zone, Section 10; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has filed Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone) and Tentative Tract
Map No. 28668 with the City and has paid the required filing fees; and
WHEREAS, said applications were submitted to appropriate agencies as required by the
subdivision requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, with the request for their
review, comments and requirements; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Applicant's application for Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone) and
Tentative Tract Map No. 28668 was given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2000 and continued to September 13, 2000, a public hearing
on the applications for Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone) and Tentative Tract Map No.
28668 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend
approval (5-0; one abstention, one absent) to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map No.
28668 and Change of Zone 5.0757 through adoption of its Resolution No. 4709; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider Applicant's application for Case No. 5.0757(Change of Zone) and Tentative Tract
Map No. 28668 was given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66452.3, City staff prepared a written
report for the City Council with the Planning Commission recommendation that the
proposed subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 28668 and Change of Zone 5.0757 be
A/ c
approved, and that a copy of that report was served upon the subdivider along with
recommended conditions of approval at least three (3) days prior to the aforementioned
meeting; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2000, a public hearing on the applications for Case No. 5.0757
(Change of Zone) and Tentative Tract Map No. 28668 was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Case No. 5.0757(Change of Zone)and Tentative Tract Map No.
28668 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA); and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3,the Planning Commission has
previously considered and the City Council has independently considered the effect of the
proposed Change of Zone,Case No. 5.0757, and the proposed subdivision,Tentative Tract
Map No. 28668, 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 subdivision represents
the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with City's
obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its public hearing on October 18, 2000, the City Council
approved Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone) and Tentative Tract Map No. 28668 subject
to the findings herein and conditions as stated in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff
report, all environmental data including the initial study,the proposed Negative Declaration,
and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows:
The final Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with
CEQA,the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The Planning
Commission has previously reviewed and considered and the City Council has
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and finds that it adequately discusses any significant
environmental effects of the proposed project, and that, on the basis of the initial
study and comments received during the public review process, there is no
substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects
as a result of the approval of this project. The City Council further finds that the
Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment.
Section 2: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the City Council finds that
the proposed change of zone and 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
Section 3: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the City Council finds that
the proposed change of zone and subdivision and the provisions for its
design and improvements are compatible with the objectives policies and
federal land use provided in the City's local open space plan; and
Section 4: Pursuant to Section 94.07.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, the
City Council finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in
Exhibit A:
a. The proposed Change of Zone is in conformity with the General Plan Map
and Report.
The proposed 6 lot single family residential subdivision will be located on a
site which is designated L2 (Low Density Residential -2 dwelling units max.
per acre) pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Map, but is currently
zoned 0-20 (Open Land - one residential dwelling unit per 20 acres) by the
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed change of zone from 0-20 to R-1-A will
provide consistency with the current General Plan designation for the
property.
b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone,
in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and
other considerations deemed relevant by the Commission and Council.
The subject site consists of approximately 4.48 gross acres of land on a site
currently zoned 0-20 (Open Space - one residential unit per 20 acres)
pursuant to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Palm Springs, but has a
designation of L2 (Low Density Residential - 2 dwelling units maximum per
acre) pursuant to the City of Palm Springs General Plan Land Use Map.
The objective of the L2 General Plan Designation is to allow for various
types of low-density residential development, including traditional single
family homes, as contemplated for this subdivision in the future. The
proposed density and lot sized contemplated per Tentative Tract Map No.
28668 will comply with the density provisions specified for the L2 zone per
the General Plan and comply with all applicable property development
criteria pursuant to Section 92.01.00 (R-1 Zone) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Access to the proposed subdivision will be provided from Rose Avenue, an
existing private street east of the proposed subdivision, and via a 36-foot
wide access easement across adjacent private property. Properties to the
north, south and east are currently zoned R-1-A or R-1-C and have a
General Plan designation of L2, consistent with the site in question, while
property to the west (to the base of the San Jacinto Mountains) is zoned 0-
20 with a General Plan designation of L2. The development of six future
single family residences on the property as proposed is consistent with the
development pattern and densities established in immediately surrounding
areas.
C. The proposed Change of Zone is necessary and proper at this time, and is
not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property and residents.
The proposed Change of Zone from 0-20 to R-1-A is necessary to initiate
future development of six single family residences on the 4.48 gross acre
site and to provide consistency with the existing General Plan Designation
of L2. Again, the development of six future single family residences on the
property as proposed is consistent with the development pattern and
densities established in immediately surrounding areas.
I V't 3
Section 5: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474, the City Council finds that
with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A:
a. The proposed map is consistent with the applicable general and specific
plans.
The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the density, goals, policies
and objectives for lowdensity,residential development established within the
City of Palm Springs General Plan.
b. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with
the General Plan.
The proposed subdivision map implements design strategies and policies
as referenced in the City of Palm Springs General Plan for low-density
residential development.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by
the proposed subdivision.
The site is currently vacant and consists of slope conditions that average
approximately 10 percent. Native scrub vegetation exists in areas on site
where the ground level soil conditions can support plants. Numerous
outcrops of boulders exist across the property. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and minimum width and
depth dimensions of 120 feet. The proposed 6-lot subdivision is located on
4.48 gross acres of land with the smallest lot being 0.567 acres, or 24,700
square feet. The minimum lot width and depth dimensions are being shown
on all lots within the subdivision. When applying the hillside development
standards to the project, and with the recommended Conditions of Approval
specified in this Resolution, the subdivision meets all applicable
development criteria specified for the R-1-A zone in the Zoning Ordinance,
as is contemplated under the associated Change of Zone application.
Therefore, the site is physically suitable for the type of development
contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
Again, the site is currently vacant and consists of slope conditions that
average approximately 10 percent. Native scrub vegetation exists in areas
on site where the ground level soil conditions can support plants. Numerous
outcrops of boulders exist across the property. The proposed subdivision is
within an 0-20 zoning classification and designated L2 by the City of Palm
Springs General Plan. According to the General Plan, a low density
development not to exceed 2 units per acre should be provided on the
property. The associated Change of Zone request from 0-20 to R-1-A
would allow for lots of a minimum size of 20,000 square feet to be created
on the subject property, consistent with the proposed Tentative Tract Map
No. 28668 and consistent with the density provisions specified for the
property, per the L2 parameters of the General Plan. The proposed
subdivision has a density of approximately 1.34 units per gross acre
Surrounding land uses include single family residential development to the
north and east. Vacant land exists to the south and west. Given these
facts, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
e. The design of the subdivision or improvements is not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
An environmental assessment has been conducted in regards to the
proposed subdivision and it was determined, with the recommended
mitigations incorporated by reference into the attached Conditions of
Approval (Exhibit A), that the subdivision will not have a detrimental impact
on the environment.
f. The design of the subdivision or improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
The subdivision has been designed to minimize potential safety issues by
allowing for a vehicular access of appropriate width and grades, with
passing and turnaround capabilities for emergency vehicles, as well as an
on-site retention area capable of retaining excess runoff associated with the
future development of the subdivision. The proposed single family
residential use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is not
a use typical of causing serious public health problems.
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 the property within the proposed subdivision.
The project will not conflict with the existing traffic flow adjacent to the
property on all surrounding streets or access to utilities required to serve
the subdivision and the immediate area.
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 off-site improvements,which are required by the Zoning Ordinance, are
related to the project to provide needed services and access for future
residents of the site and will benefit the public at large. Currently, the
subject property is vacant and therefore no usage of the roads, sidewalks
and utilities is generated from the subject property. The required
improvements will provide safety benefits to the property owners and will
aesthetically enhance the neighborhood.
Section 6: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.6, the City Council has
determined that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into
the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council
hereby approves Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone) and Tentative Tract Map No. 28668
to the City Council, subject to those conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which are to be
satisfied prior to recordation of a final map or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
unless other specified.
ADOPTED this day of 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
� V6
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. 5.0757
(Change of Zone) Tentative Tract Map No. 28668, Edith A. Toor, West of
Rose Avenue, North of Stevens Road, was mailed to each and every person
set forth on the attached list on the 18th 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 18th day of September, 2000.
PATRICIA SANDERS
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone)
Tentative Tract Map No. 28668
Edith A. Toor
West of Rose Avenue, North of Stevens Road
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a
public hearing at its meeting of October 18, 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 an applications by Edith A Toor for a 6-lot, single family
residential subdivision on 4.48 gross acres of land located west of Rose Avenue, north of Stevens
Road, 0-20 zone, Section 10. The proposed project includes a request to change the existing
zoning on 4.48 gross acres of land from 0-20 (Open land -one unit per 20 acres)to R-1-A (Single
Family Residential Zone), as well as a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.48 acre site into 6
single family residential lots, ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9 acres, which are intended to be
developed with six custom residences in the future. The site will gain vehicular access from Rose
Avenue, an existing private street east of the proposed subdivision via a 36-foot wide access
easement across adjacent private property. The subdivision includes two lettered lots; one for the
purpose of providing a private street for vehicular access and the second for on-site retention of
water. The site is has a General Plan Designation of L2 (Residential Low Density). The property in
question is currently vacant and consists of slope conditions that average approximately 10 percent.
Native scrub vegetation exists in areas on site where the ground level soil conditions can support
plants. Numerous outcrops of boulders exist across the property.
An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting
Potential impacts from the project include hydrology, air quality with respect to short-term
construction activity and biology. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental impact
has been prepared for the subject proposal and members of the public may view this document in
the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, and submit written comments to the City Council
at or prior to the City Council 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 the Department of Planning & Building, 760/323-8245.
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
Publish: September 18, 2000
VICINIV MAP
CoroNAbo LOCA1-I0N
C� AvFNu� N,r,s,
SrEVFNS f;OAb N
CAMINO NOpr� fl
O VIA L�{ pA1 MA
> CAMINO 5W
v�
OT
Q C ONONAVNLOT
ce
5
M12
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. TTM 28668 DESCRIPTION -r�NTArIV� TACTMAp
CHANGE OF ZONE 5,0-15-7 APPI,ICArION TO 5012IVIP� 4.48 ACPF5
APPLICANT �nITHA, roon INTO6 ,�5Ib�NTIAL -Or5ArTHE
5OUTHM5T COPN�I, OF CO:ONAPO AVM, &
I:OS� AVM 0-20 ZONS, SECTION 10.
Applicant Mailing List
TPM 29631
Mr. Jim Schlecht
Schlecht, Shevlin & Shoenberger
P.O. Box 2744
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Mr. John Sanborn
Sanborn A & E, Inc.
1225 S. Gene Autry Trail, #C
Palm Springs,C 9� 2264
7� TTM 28668
Mrs—Edittrr RToor
1000 Coronado Avenue
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Mr. Marvin Roos, AICP
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Suite 301
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
L
APN 504-201-008 APN 504-201-009 APN 504-201-024
MARTHA ELLEN SCOTT MARK W.NELSON WILLIAM J.GRIMM
450 N ROSSMORE AV 1030 W CIELO DR f o I 1 L)i CL C-1 o D r
LOS ANGELES CA 90004-2461 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2712 paLryi sprin yp UQ q 2?Q2-
APN 504-201-025 APN 504-201-026 APN 504-201-027
THOMAS T.ANDERSON IRVING &MARILYN HIRSHLEIFER MAX PALEVSKY
49926 OASIS ST 877 W PANORAMA RD 924 WESTWOOD BL#700
INDIO CA 92201 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2745 LOS ANGELES CA 90024-2928
APN 504-201-032 APN 504-201-033 APN 504-202-007
MAX PALAUSKY THOMAS JAY MILLER HIBLER DOROTHY A TRUST PT
924 WESTWOOD BL#700 6601 E MILL PLAIN BL 12839 MARLBORO ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90024-2928 VANCOUVER WA 98661-7457 LOS ANGELES CA 90049-3720
APN 504-202-008 APN 504-202-009 APN 504-211-001
KAY SUTTON ONDERDONK MARIO BERARDI PATRICK J.&DARLE A.MAVEETY
12839 MARLBORO ST PO BOX 2487 PO BOX 56
LOS ANGELES CA 90049-3720 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2487 GLENEDEN BEACH OR 97388-0056
APN 504-211-002 APN 504-211-003 APN 504-211-004
ROBERT &JANE HAYDOCK OAK KINGS HIDEAWAY I.NC ROYAL HARRY &BEVERLY DANIELSON
PO BOX 1806 1670 BRADSHAWE AV 4226 CENTRAL ST
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-1806 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754-5428 GULFPORT MS 39501-1533
5o5-Dtid-o n
APN 504-213-001 APN 504-213-002 APN 505-030-001
506-630-001
PHILLIP LUMPKIN EDWARD J.DOMANSKIS EDWARD J. NSKIS
855 W PANORAMA RD 1441 AVOCADO AV#307 1441 CADO AV 4307
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2745 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-7704 NE PORT BEACH CA 92660-7704
APN 505-030-004 APN 505-030-006 APN 505-030-007
505-6tiU- 0IL6
HARVEY &LORI SARNER ROY ÐEL FEY ARMSTRONG M.TOOR EDITH
701 W PANORAMA RD 855 W CORONADO AV 1000 W CORONADO AV
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4114 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4115
APN 505-030-00 APN 505-030-009 APN 505-030-010
MAX PALEV 505 USA PALM MOUNTAIN QO
924 WOOD BL#700 US DEPT OF INTERIOR 155 S BELARDO RD
S ANGELES CA 90024-2928 WASHINGTON DC 21401 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6327
APN 505-030-012 APN 505-041-008 APN 505-041-010
ARNOLD STEVENS ARNOLD STEVENS JUSTIN &JEANE DYER HILB
3333 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 3500 LAKESIDE CT#200 911 JUAREZ AVE
BURBANK CA 91504-2531 RENO NV 89509-4843 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4121
APN 505-041-0111012I D13 APN 505-041-012 APN 50 3
WILLIAM R.GARNER WILLIAM GARNER WILLI ED GARNER
1488 N ROSE AVE 1488 N OSE AVE 1486 N ROSE AVE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4151 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4151 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4151
APN 505-044-001 APN 505-044-01010ll APN 505-044-011
ROBERT BOWMAN BILLHARDT KLAUS &INGE OGERMAN KLAUS &ING RMAN
4151 FAIR AVE OTTO STIR19 OTTO S 9
NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91602-3315 80333 MUNICH GERMANY 8033 -MUNICH GERMANY
APN 505-044-012 APN 505-044-01310I ,UfS APN 505-044-0�
S.A. IDANEL JERRY GANZ JERRY GAN//
32 ROUTE DE MALAGNOU 175 E DELAWARE PL#9109 175 E D WARE PL#9109
GENEVE SWITZERLAND 1208 CHICAGO IL 60611-7756 CHICAGO IL 60611-7756
APN 505-044-015 APN 505-044-01 APN 505-044-017
JERRY GANZ ARMSTRON .TOOR EDITH EDWARD J.D SKIS
1I E DE ARE PL#9109 1000 W ONADO AV 1441 ADO AV#307
CHICAGO IL 60611-7756 PAL PRINGS CA 92262-4115 PORT BEACH CA 92660-7704
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This 1s space rm County Clerk's Piling Star
(2015.5.C.C.P) �`
No.5452
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF F MEENING TING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 5A757 (Change of zone)
Tract Ma
County of Riverside Tentative Edith A. To or o. 2866a
West of Rose Avenue
-cam-d
NOTICE -BY GIVEN th�fVri8 Planning
Commission of the Cie of Palm Springs, Calli
ma, will hold a puhhc heating at its meeting Au-
ork 23, 2000.The Planning Commission meeting
begins
inathe Co mctl(�hambe sarin at gCitygHall in t3200
E."farl Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an ap-
Pheations by Edith A.Toot for a 6-lot,single fami-
y residential subdivision on 4.48 gross acres of
land Igcated west Rose Avenue, north of Stevens
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Road, 0-20 zone, Section 10, The proposed pro-
ject includes a request to than e the existing
the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen zoning on 4.48 gross(Open acres of land from 0-
2( land - one unit per 20 acres) to R-1-A
years,and not a party to or interested in the (Single Family Residential Zone),as well as a Ten"
atatrve Tract Map to subdivide the 4.48 acre site
above-entitled matter.I am the principal cleric of a into s sin le family residential lots, ranging in size
minter of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING ruin o.5s7q to o s acres, which are intended in t to be
1 developed with six custom residences r the se
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, fare.The site will gam vehicular access from Rose
g Avenue, and existing private street east of the
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, proposed subdivision via a 30-foot access ease-
ment across adjacent private property.The subdi-
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been vision includes two lettered lots; one for the put-
ad'ud ed a newspaper of general circulation b the pose of providing a private street for vehicular e-
1 gg y case and the secproviding
p for street retention la we-
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of ter The site is has a General Plan Designation of
P tY L2 (Residential I_ow Density) The property in
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case question is currently vacant and consists of slope
conditions that aversqe approximately 10 percent.
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the I Native scrub vegetation exists in areas.on site
where the ground Ieval soil conditions can sup-
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller port plants. Numerous outcrops of boulders exist
than non pariel,has been published in each regular across the property
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any °'"""r"""
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
July —21st------- ----'----------------------------
--- --------- ---------
-
--------------- --- ______-- r
- - ---------------
All in the year 2000 -
'`t
1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. __=Cry o�,vnu�_sraincs
Dated
JulyPalm Springs,California this-_-21st-----day An Environmental evie ed by air quality impacts n e Commission
ommtom�o tttthe meeting
de hydrology,
of ,2000 activity and biology A draft MitigatedNegative
Declmatti f of h Envib nmental impactd has been
of the public ublic maysubject
vielwcthis o a Iment in the Des
partme t of Planing and Building, City Hall, and
-------------------------------------- --------- ------- submit comments to the Planning Com-
at .,n at or prior to the Planning Commission
Signature hearing
If any ndividual 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 Pri-
or to the Planning Cmmission hearing.,
An opportunity wilol be given at said hearing for all
I interested persons to be heard Questions regard-
, ing this case may be directed tto� Steve Hayes, i
Department of Planning PLANNIuild N9 COMMISSION
__ _. lslDovylas R.Evans
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 18th day of July,2000 1 served the within
(NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING) on PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 5.0757
(Change of Zone)Tentative Tract Map No.28668 to consider applications by Edith A.
Toor for a 6-lot, single family residential subdivision on 4.48 gross acres of land
located west of Rose Avenue, north of Stevens Road, 0-20 zone, section 10. The
proposed project includes a request to change the existing zoning on 4.48 gross
acres of land from 0-20 (Open land - one unit per 20 acres) to R-1-A (Single Family
Residential Zone), as well as a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.48 acre site
into 6 single family residential lots, ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9 acres,which are
intended to be developed with six custom residences in the future. The site will gain
vehicular access from Rose Avenue, an existing private street east of the proposed
subdivision via a 36-foot wide access easement across adjacent private property.
The subdivision includes two lettered lots; one for the purpose of providing a
private street for vehicular access and the second for on-site retention of water. The
site has a General Plan Designation of L2 (Residential Low Density). The property
in question is currently vacant and consists of slope conditions that average
approximately 10 percent. Native scrub vegetation exists in areas on site where the
ground level soil conditions can support plants. Numerous outcrops of boulders
exist across the property on persons contained in Exhibit "A" attached here to 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 orfirms indicated on the report received
from the title company, dated November 2, 1999 and certified by the City's Planning
Technician.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
A�iVlll.['\
JUDITH A. NICHOLS
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 18th day of July, 2000.
First American Title Insurance Company
362514th Street
Riverside, California 92502
Phone (909) 787-1700
Property Owners Certification
I, LYSA SOBAMPO CERTIFY THAT ON NOV. 2 , 19991HE ATTACHED PROPERTY
OWNERS LIST WAS PREPARED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PURSUANT TO
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FURNISHED BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SAID LIST IS A COMPLETE AND TRUE COMPILATION OF THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND ALL OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 400 ' FEET (PERSONS OWNING MULTIPLE
PROPERTIES SI3ALL ONLY BE COUNTED OUNCE) OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THE
APPLICATION AND IS BASED UPON THE LATEST EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLLS.
NAME: LYSA SOBAMPO
TITLE/REGISTRATION: CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE
1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION FILED IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1 UNDERSTAND THAT THE
INCORRECT OR ER
RONEOUS INFORMATION MAY BE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OR DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.
SIGNATURE DATE: NOVEMB , 9(�ASENO.: SEE MAPS ATTACHED
1
APN 504-201-008 APN 504-201-009 APN 504-201-024
MARTHA ELLEN SCOTT MARK W.NELSON WILLIAM J.GROOM
450 N ROSSMORE AV 1030 W CIELO DR f Oo w rh to br
LOS ANGELES CA 90004-2461 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2712 po_U n Spr n J S G44
APN 504-201-025 APN 504-201-026 APN 504-201-027
505-030-00g
THOMAS T.ANDERSON IRVING &MARILYN HIRSHLEIFER MAX PALEVSKY
49926 OASIS ST 877 W PANORAMA RD 924 WESTWOOD BL#700
INDIO CA 92201 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2745 LOS ANGELES CA 90024-2928
APN 504-201-032 APN 504-201-033 APN 504-202-007
MAX PALAUSKY THOMAS JAY MILLER HIBLER DOROTHY A TRUST PT
924 WESTWOOD BL#700 6601 E MILL PLAIN BL 12839 MARLBORO ST
LOS ANGELES CA 90024-2928 VANCOUVER WA 98661-7457 LOS ANGELES CA 90049-3720
APN 504-202-008 APN 504-202-009 APN 504-211-001
KAY SUTTON ONDERDONK - MARIO BERARDI PATRICK J.&DARLE A.MAVEETY
12839 MARLBORO ST PO BOX 2487 PO BOX 56
LOS ANGELES CA 90049-3720 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2487 GLENEDEN BEACH OR 97388-0056
APN 504-211-002 APN 504-211-003 APN 564-211-004
ROBERT &JANE HAY DOCK OAK KINGS HIDEAWAY I.NC ROYAL HARRY &BEVERLY DANIELSON
PO BOX 1806 1670 BRADSHAWE AV 4226 CENTRAL ST
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-1806 MONTEREY PARK CA 91754-5428 GULFPORT MS 39501-1533
504-0y - bt7
APN 504-213-001 APN 504-213-0 2 APN 505-030-001
505 -030-0o I
PHILLIP LUMPKIN EDWARD J.DOMANSKIS EDWARD J.D NSKIS
855 W PANORAMA RD 1441 AVOCADO AV#307 1441 A DO AV#307
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2745 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-7704 N ORT BEACH CA 92660-7704
APN 505-030-004 APN 505-030-006 APN 505-030-007
506-014-61 tp
HARVEY &LORI SARNER ROY ÐEL FEY ARMSTRONG M.TOOR EDITH
701 W PANORAMA RD 855 W CORONADO AV 1000 W CORONADO AV
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4114 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4115
APN 505-030-008 APN 505-030-009 APN 505-030-010
MAX PAL 505 USA PALM MOUNTAIN CO
924 TWOOD BL#700 US DEPT OF INTERIOR 155 S BELARDO RD
L S ANGELES CA W024-2928 WASHINGTON DC 21401 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-6327
APN 505-030-012 APN 505-041-008 APN 505-041-010
ARNOLD STEVENS ARNOLD STEVENS JUSTIN &JEANE DYER HILB
3333 N SAN FERNANDO BLVD 3500 LAKESIDE CT#200 911 JUAREZ AVE
BURBANK CA 91504-2531 RENO NV 895094843 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4121
APN 505-041-0111012,015 APN 505-041-012 APN 505-041-013
WILLIAM R.GARNER WILLIAM GARNER WILLIAM R ARNER
1488 N ROSE AVE 14 ROSE AVE 1488 OSE AVE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4151 ALM SPRINGS CA 92262-0151 PAL SPRINGS CA 92262-4151
APN 505-044-001 APN 505-044-010f011 APN 505-044-011
ROBERT BOWMAN BILLHARDT KLAUS &INGE OGERMAN KLAUS &ING RMAN
4151 FAIR AVE OTTO STIR 19 0T70 S.TK 19
NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91602-3315 80333 MUNICH GERMANY 80 MUNICH GERMANY
APN 505-044-012 APN 505-044-013, 014,015 APN 505-044-014
S.A.IDANEL JERRY GANZ JERRY GAN
32 ROUTE DE MALAGNOU 175 E DELAWARE PL#9109 175 WARE PL#9109
GENEVE SWITZERLAND 1208 CHICAGO IL 60611.7756 C ICAGO IL 60611-7756
APN 505-044-015 APN 505-044-016 APN 505-044-017
JERRY GANZ ARMSTRONG R EDITH WARD ANSKIS
175 E DE RE PL#9109 1000 W C NADO AV 1441 CADO AV#307
CHIC GO IL 60611-7756 PA PRIN�2-4115 HE PORT BEACH CA 92660-7704
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Case No. 5.0757 (Change of Zone)
Tentative Tract Map No. 28668
Edith A. Toor
West of Rose Avenue, North of Stevens Road
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California,
will hold a public hearing at its meeting of August 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 of the hearing is to consider an applications by Edith A Toor for a 6-lot, single family
residential subdivision on 4.48 gross acres of land located west of Rose Avenue, north of Stevens
Road, 0-20 zone, Section 10. The proposed project includes a request to change the existing
zoning on 4.48 gross acres of land from 0-20 (Open land - one unit per 20 acres) to R-1-A (Single
Family Residential Zone), as well as a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 4.48 acre site into 6
single family residential lots, ranging in size from 0.567 to 0.9 acres, which are intended to be
developed with six custom residences in the future. The site will gain vehicular access from Rose
Avenue, an existing private street east of the proposed subdivision via a 36-foot wide access
easement across adjacent private property. The subdivision includes two lettered lots; one for the
purpose of providing a private street for vehicular access and the second for on-site retention of
water. The site is has a General Plan Designation of L2 (Residential Low Density). The property in
question is currently vacant and consists of slope conditions that average approximately 10 percent.
Native scrub vegetation exists in areas on site where the ground level soil conditions can support
plants. Numerous outcrops of boulders exist across the property.
An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study will be reviewed by the Commission at the meeting.
Potential impacts from the project include hydrology, air quality with respect to short-term
construction activity and biology. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental impact
has been prepared for the subject proposal and members of the public may view this document in
the Department of Planning and Building, City Hall, and submit written comments to the Planning
Commission at or prior to the Planning Commission 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 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 Steve Hayes, Department of Planning & Building, 760/323-
8245.
PLANNING COMMISSION
AOUGLAS'
R. ANS
Director of Pla ning & Building
Mail: July 21, 2000
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY
APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM 0-20
(OPEN LAND - ONE UNIT PER 20 ACRES) TO R-1-A
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE), LOCATED
ON APPROXIMATELY 4.48 GROSS ACRES OF LAND,
WEST OF ROSE AVENUE AND NORTH OF STEVENS
ROAD, SECTION 10.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 9407.00B-6 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, the
official zoning map of the City of Palm Springs referred to herein, is hereby amended as
follows:
Change of Zone from 0-20 to R-1-A (Single Family Residential).
The parcel of property legally shown on Exhibit A is approved for a change of zone from 0-
20 (Open Land - one residential unit per 20 acres) to R-1-A (Single Family Residential -
20,000 square foot minimum lot size), specifically the 4.48 gross acre project site for a six
(6) lot single-family residential subdivision, with the objective of allowing for the
development of six custom residences on said lots in the future, generally located west of
Rose Avenue and north of Stevens Road, Section 10.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty(30)
days after passage.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk is hereby ordered to and directed to certify to
the passage of this Ordinance, and to cause the same or summary thereof or a display
advertisement, duly prepared according to law, to be published in accordance with law.
ADOPTED this day of 12000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
BY:
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED &APPROVED AS TO FORM A119E
1
D
VICINITY MAP
PFOJ�CT
copoNA�o I-OCATION
AV�NU�
N.T.S.
ST�V�NS f?OAb
CAMINO N012TE n
o VIA LAS
o Lq pFd,MA
> CAMINO 5Uf:
QO �
R - I - A R••B .��
sa 9
/G G �� CANYoiJ pq x i • 1 . 3
CHAN6L OIr ZONL O
FF,OM 0-20 TO R \ § R IAA R - B s
i� Px Ix 8 . Iy
P2b ., .,.n��r'e ) R I Q R- I -
R-/-A --- -,yR-I-A "
0-20
R-1 - A ° R-1-A R-1-A ¢R
L R-1-A -,
A R I-A
R-1-A a �„
Cl
0 Q R 1 A R
W -I-A
w ��\-/-A a R.�. •
ROI' ir
R-1-AR I A
i '. R71-A R-1-A '
MI'.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. TTM 28668 DESCRIPTION
— CHANGE OF ZONE 5.0757
A`F�ICATION FOP, A ZONE CNANNC6 fPOM
APPLICANT FeImA. TOOp 0-20TOp-I-A