HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2001 - STAFF REPORTS (18) DATE: October 17, 2001
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning & Building
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27680-APPLICATION BY THE PALM MOUNTAIN COMPANY
TO SUBDIVIDE 7.2 ACRES INTO NINE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS -
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VISTA CHINO/VIA MONTE VISTA,ZONE R-1-A, SECTION
10.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 27680 to subdivide 7.2 acres into nine
single family residential lots, subject to conditions contained in the attached resolution
BACKGROUND:
A nearly identical expired map was previously approved by the Planning Commission and
City Council in 1994.
The application proposes the subdivision of 7.2 acres into 9 parcels, ranging in size from
24,713 square feet to 36,873 square feet. All proposed parcels meet the R-1-A zone
requirements. Adjacent lots are also zoned R-1-A and range from 16,430 square feet to
25,420 square feet. The property owner at the southwest corner of Coronado Avenue and
Rose Avenue is currently in the process of purchasing the remainder lot which will be added
to the existing lot through a lot line addition.The subject property is located in a hillside area
and will be subject to the City's architectural review process.
At its meeting of September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that
the City Council approve the proposed map. The Planning Commission staff report is
attached for your review. The lot merger of the remainder parcel discussed in the Planning
Commission staff report has occurred.
The applicant has requested permission to grade four lots for speculative purposes. The
Environmental Assessment approved in 1994 limits the amount of grading which can occur
as a result of this map to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. Staff supports this request,
provided that the amount of earth moved does not exceed 20,000 cubic yards. The precise
or rough grading of lots is not part of this approval.
The Planning Commission supported the applicants request to eliminate sidewalks as part
of the project improvements. Staff had recommended the installation of sidewalks in the
conditions of approval.
!004
The Planning Commission also discussed the relocation of existing and future utilities on-
site to a location underground; at the conclusion of that discussion, the applicant was
comfortable with the applicable conditions of approval.
DOUGLAS R. VANS
Director of Planning and Building
City Manager T
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission staff report of September 26, 2001
a. Vicinity Map
b. TM 27680 Map
c. Environmental Assessment
2. Planning Commission minutes of September 26, 2001
3. Resolution
4. Conditions of Approval
DATE: September 26, 2001
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Planning & Building
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27680-APPLICATION BY THE PALM MOUNTAIN COMPANY
TO SUBDIVIDE 7.2 ACRES INTO NINE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE
REMAINDER LOT - SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VISTA CHINO / VIA MONTE VISTA,
ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 10.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Tract
Map 27680 to subdivide 7.2 acres into nine single family residential lots and one remainder
lot subject to conditions in the attached resolution.
BACKGROUND:
A nearly identical expired map was previously approved by the Planning Commission and
City Council in 1994.
The subject property is designated by the General Plan as L2 (Low Residential 2
Units/Acre) and is zoned R-1-A (Single Family Residential) with a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet. The application includes 9 parcels and one remainder parcel, ranging
in size from 24,713 square feet to 36,873 square feet. All proposed parcels meet the R-1-A
zone requirements. Adjacent lots are also zoned R-1-A and range from 16,430 square feet
to 25,420 square feet. A remainder lot is proposed to remain as open space. The property
owner at the southwest corner of Coranado Avenue and Rose Avenue is currently in the
process of purchasing the remainder lot which will be added to the existing lot through a lot
line addition.
The subject property is located in a hillside area and will be subject to the City's
architectural review process. The initial proposal for this property requested approval of 17
lots. After staff review and meetings with neighborhood residents the map was revised to
show nine single family lots. The revisions were intended to minimize impacts to adjacent
properties. Existing homes to the north currently enjoy uninterrupted views and open
spaces provided by the subject property. Architectural approval will require careful review
of all proposed residences; however, preservation of scenic views cannot be assured when
the site is developed.
Pad elevations of existing development to the north of the site range from 642.0 to 674.0.
The pad elevation of the existing residence to the west of the site is 682.0. Pad elevations
of existing development to the south range from 626.0 with a sunken tennis court at 623.5
at the southeast corner of the project site to 636. Proposed pad elevations range from
623.0 to 664.0.
Elevation differences between proposed lots and adjacent residences
Proposed Elevation Adjacent pad Difference
Lot 1 630 642 +12
Lot 2 640 650 +10
Lot 3 652 662 +10
Lot 4 660 680 +20
Lot 5 664 682 +18
Lot 6 646 636 -10
Lot 7 638 636 -2
Lot 8 631 626 -5
Lot 9 623 unimproved n.a.
Section 9313.00 and Section 9406.01, Minor Modifications, of the Ordinance, allow for
building height up to 30 feet in hillside areas. This is typically only done in response to
topographic issues. Staff recommends that the Commission allow the City's architectural
approval process to guide future development within the project site. However, based on
existing topography, staff does not feel 2 story from grade houses would be appropriate.
Based upon the City's architectural approval process, and the established procedure of
sending courtesy notices to abutting property owners when any single family residential
development being proposed in hillside areas, future conflicts can be reduced to a level
acceptable within the community.
There is currently an existing utility line along the southern boundary of the subject site.
The City Subdivision Ordinance requires the underground relocation of existing utility lines
less than 32 KV upon site development. Due to overhead service to adjacent properties
and difficulties in connecting to underground electrical service, staff recommends that the
applicant enter into a covenant to underground the existing and all proposed utility lines
prior to the issuance of a grading permit (Condition No. 29).
The staff also recommends that the applicant submit codes, covenants, and restrictions
("CC&R's")to the Director of Planning and Building for approval prior to final map approval.
The CC&R's will include project design guidelines, landscape requirements, slope
restoration, building height standards, walls, building materials and multi-level homes
conforming to existing topography (Condition No. 18).
SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USE:
North R-1-A/Single Family Residences
South R-1-A/Single Family Residences and Vacant
East R-1-A/Single Family Residences and Vacant
West R-1-A/Single Family Residences and Vacant
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION:
The Environmental Assessment adopted by the City Council in 1994 for the original
application identified a number of areas of potential impact including grading, drainage, light
and glare, schools, scenic views and archaeological impacts. The environmental
assessment indicated that the impacts were not significant. Since the project has been
revised by reducing the number of lots, the potential impacts are less significant with the
revised map. There is an existing natural drainage course which traverses the western
perimeter of the project site and continues to Stevens Road. This drainage course is no
longer active other than sheet flow because of surrounding development in the area. This
drainage course will not be impacted by development since it is located within the
remainder lot which is proposed to remain as open space. Drainage proposed under this
plan does not vary from the earlier map approval in 1993. Pursuant to the Public Resources
Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from further
environmental analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. TM 27680 Map
3. Environmental Assessment
4. Resolution (see City Council report)
5. Conditions of Approval (see City Council report)
174r
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION:
The Environmental Assessment adopted by the City Council in 1994 for the original
application identified a number of areas of potential impact including grading, drainage, light
and glare, schools, scenic views and archaeological impacts. The environmental
assessment indicated that the impacts were not significant. Since the project has been
revised by reducing the number of lots, the potential impacts are less significant with the
revised map. There is an existing natural drainage course which traverses the western
perimeter of the project site and continues to Stevens Road. This drainage course is no
longer active other than sheet flow because of surrounding development in the area. This
drainage course will not be impacted by development since it is located within the
remainder lot which is proposed to remain as open space. Drainage proposed under this
plan does not vary from the earlier map approval in 1993. Pursuant to the Public Resources
Code, the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the project is exempt from further
environmental analysis.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. TM 27680 Map
3. Environmental Assessment
4. Resolution (see City Council report)
5. Conditions of Approval (see City Council report)
/260
VIGINTY MAP �
K T.S.
TRACT
LOCATION
c �q�� VISTA. CMNO DRIVE
A�N(
ROAD
J� w T
S �
JUL Q
2 3
O � s
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. =296BOZ-.;-�-
SubdivideTION
Tentative Tract MaI(� p 7.2 acres into 0 single familyAPPL ICANTial lots and one remainder parcel.
Palm Mountain -1-A, Section:14.
�47
DE " E
APR 1 0 2001
D
umE nrvscAxr Noe lre vsas umc 27680
PLA / u rz O M 1 1 OF
TIN BB&4.
APR/L 2N,
ASSESSORS PgP,CEL NlM9Eft OLNl6R INFORNaTfO/J
_ __�__ eoswo-w/ onrR ,.riiol„rn cawur
SCH
_ bz ud o�piEvlroto
OI T®lCT lAc'OAMATIOIJ IAA.
CORANADD AVENUE __ T. E 1 rva<�6
All
1.2 S27—A_
AREA 1PSl0k ATION 1/TILIPES
ry9Tor nmA RS 32/92 —ApFmx
wAfea
Rssros nem.ve-<an
tt
8_ — asma _ ssx'd _
a 5a
iv fi yRss - zEcrac --A
vs v
rc elegytt=dri5i'� as.><
`J r �u ccrv.r>r
- AI F.AOEs g nsn
E ; scats 'r cw�
o _
54 26 __ B •_ 0 IF
'AA E u 9 3
14 rr uio q GEAERAL AKJTc'S
P4 17 G �_ ; CCWIIXPnTCF1'H=1Fwi
2 ALL A2 AAFLAT�
iFSN acE UP.eJMMc wtv
s\ b ru., II�JII IL �m.Esvt• nx
I+W,T APMIAvnrsenw,w
DATA TABLEh_-L-
N,D a\ / _ , LA USE INFORA29TIOA1 su w L
I
J'fA.
P0.Erl 1 IF e,ro \ _ rre.eu_.�enovoep a..mos°� E.xv.r lr<saxts
j �I cb vu'ss IRPCi
17
\ >c avo LOCATION
5 APE NJTES
asFn nurar dst�=xo danr revogN,-c'xL n ALL.1]9 j 5 ses.x'ae�useey on�sm nx er c
- ,^ E
`'Pa`""'`� AD C.Fn To ee cerau'm vc/n'N;ts r,naP
rA.
s _,A
avr�neeu r..�NraTA M� SANBORN A/E, Inc. '" '^`
IJ orth 1ENIATI�IdAP- TRACT MAP NO D680
SANBORN mr voi Lra°"lo�" co
v ��
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
INITIAL STUDY
Application No(s) . Tentative Tract Map No 27680
Date of Completed Application: December 20, 1993
Name of Applicant: The Palm Mountain Co. , 11839 Sorrento Valley
San Diego, CA 92121
Project Description: The applicant proposes. to subdivide 10 acres
into 17 single family residential lots.
Location of Project: The subiect property is located in the
northwestern portion of the City at the southwestern corner of
Vista Chino Road and Via Monte Vista.
General Plan Land Use Designation(s) :_ L2 (Low Residential 2
Units/Acre) .
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation(s) : Not Applicable
Present Land Use(s) : Vacant
Existing Zoning(s) : R-1-A Proposed Zoning(s) : R-1-A
I��4 �
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. ) _X 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 X 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 X 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 X 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 X No
If yes, state the exemption and provide explanation.
(Use separate sheet to explain. )
If yes to II, III, IV or V, prepare notice of exemption
and file with Riverside County ($25.00 fee) .
VI. Project Description
The applicant proposes Tentative Tract Map 27680 to
subdivide 10 acres into 17 single family residential lots
at the southwestern corner of Vista Chino and Via Monte
Vista. The subject property is designated as L2 (Low
Residential 2 Units/Acre) and is zoned R-1-A (Single
Family Residential Zone) with a minimum lot size of
20, 000 square feet. The surrounding zoning is R-1-A and
R-1-S to the immediate northeast.
The project proposes to construct a 37' R/W private cul-
de-sac off of Via Monte Vista parallel to Stevens Road.
The proposed lots range in size from 20, 159 square feet
to 26, 865 square feet. Several lots do not meet the
minimum R-1-A width requirement of 130 feet. Thus, the
applicant has submitted an administrative minor
modification for the substandard lots which will be
processed after project approval.
/ ' .AID
VII. Site Description
The site is currently vacant and generally slopes between
2% and 10% from the northwest to the southeast. Portions
of the site exceed slopes of 20%. The subject site is
enclosed with a chain link fence surrounded with sporadic
single family residential development. Drainage is
generally from the northwest to the southeast. There is
an existing natural drainage course which traverses the
western perimeter of the project site. However, this
drainage course is no longer active other than sheet flow
because of development within the area. The site is
partially disturbed from surrounding development and
trails traversing the site. These trails are only local
paths and do not connect to the City's trail system.
Creosote bush, brittlebush, cholla and assorted grasses
are common in the project area.
VIII. Surrounding Land Uses: Surrounding General Plan:
North: Residential North: L2 (Low Res. )
East: Residential, Vacant East: L2
South: Residential, Vacant South: L2
West: Residential, Vacant West: L2
IX. Is the proposed project consistent with: (If yes or not
applicable, no explanation required. )
Yes No N/A
City of Palm Springs General Plan X
Applicable Specific Plan X
City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance X
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan X
Airport Part 150 Noise Study X
X. Are any of the following studies required:
1. —Yes—Soils Report 8. —No—Biological Study
2 . _No_Slope Study 9. —No—Noise Study
3 . _No_Geotechnical Report 10. _No_Hazardous Materials Study
4 . —No—Traffic Study 11. _No Housing Analysis
)2 00
5 . —No—Air Quality Study 12 . —Yes—Archaeological Report
6. _No_Hydrology 13 . —No—Groundwater Analysis
7 . —No—Sewer Study 14 . —No—Water Quality Report
15. —No—Other
XI. Incorporated herein by reference is the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan Update
!�A/y
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES
A. EARTH RESPONSE
A. l. Does the parcel contain slopes of 10% or greater? Yes
A. la.Is any development proposed on slopes in excess of 30V
No
Yes. A site inspection and review of topographic maps by the
Department of Planning & Zoning verified that portions of the
site do contain slopes exceeding 10%. There are also limited
areas of the site along the northern boundary which exceed
20%. Thus, areas that exceed 10% are subject to Section
9313 . 00 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding hillside
development. According to the ordinance, site plan approval
by the Planning Commission is required for all development in
hillside areas. In addition, the project has been conditioned
to submit a soils report in conjunction with the grading plan
to the Building Department and the Engineering Division prior
to the issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, there should
be no potential for a significant effect on the environment
due to intrusion into slopes.
A.2 . Is any portion of the project site in an area of medium or
high rockfall risk and are there any known rockfall areas on
the subject property? No
No. The Seismic Safety and Public Safety Element of the City
of Palm Springs General Plan indicates that no portion of the
project site is in an area of medium or high rockfall risk and
that no known rockfalls are present on the site. A site
inspection by the Department of Planning & Zoning confirmed
these conclusions. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to rockfalls.
A.3 . Is any significant modification of a major landform
proposed? No
No. A site inspection by the Department of Planning & Zoning
and review of the proposed grading suggest that no significant
modification of a major landform is proposed. This conclusion
is based upon the judgment of the case and environmental
planners and the fact that the site generally contains slopes
less than 10%. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to significant
modification of a major landform.
A.4 . Will the project result in change in topography or ground
surface relief features? No
No. The project site generally contains slopes between 2% to
10% with portions of the site exceeding 20%. Earth moving
activities proposed for the project consist of approximately
/ ;th/S
20, 000 cubic yards to be moved on-site. The proposed grading
and future pad elevations will follow existing contour lines.
In addition, the project has been conditioned to submit a
soils report in conjunction with the grading plan to the
Building Department and the Engineering Division prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. Thus, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to a change in
topography or ground surface.
A. 5. Does the site include any unique geological resources of
significance? No
No. The project site is on the valley floor and is underlain
by deposits of recent alluvium. In addition, the site was
inspected by the Department of Planning & Zoning staff for any
unique geological resources. As none were observed, it was
determined that there will be no project-related impacts to
this type of resource.
A. 6. Will the project result in a significant increase in wind
erosion blowsand or water erosion or siltation either off or
on site beyond the construction phase of the
project? No
No. The subject project is being proposed adjacent to a
previously developed area. No significant increases in wind
erosion blowsand or water erosion either on or off site are
expected based upon a site investigation and a review by the
Planning and Engineering. The project has been conditioned to
submit a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan to the
Building Department. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to erosion.
A.7. Will the proposal result in exposure to people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards? No
No. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm
Springs General Plan, indicates that the proposed project site
is not within a known restrictive geologic hazard area. All
structures will be constructed to meet seismic safety
requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Thus, there is no
known significant threat to the project by geologic hazards.
A.8. Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic sub-structures? No
No. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm
Springs General Plan indicates that there are no known
unstable geologic conditions or substructures in the vicinity
of the project site. Thus, there will be no potential impacts
upon or by the proposed project from this issue.
/:2,*/y
A. 9. Will the project result in disruptions, displacements,
compaction or over-covering of the soil? No
No. The proposed project will involve 20,000 cubic yards of
cut and fill for site preparation. The cut and fill will be
balanced on-site with no importing or exporting of dirt. This
grading activity will not result in significant impacts to on-
and off-site drainage patterns or soil erosion. - Soils reports
and compaction reports will be reviewed by the Engineering
Division and the Building & Safety Department.
A. 10.Is the project site located within a Liquefaction Potential
Zone? No
No. According to the Seismic Safety Element of the City of
Palm Springs General Plan, settlement and liquefaction as a
result from seismic shaking are not considered significant
hazards in Palm Springs. Therefore, the project environment
will not be impacted by any known potential liquefaction
hazards.
B. AIR QUALITY
B. I. Will the project interfere with the attainment of the federal
or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or
contributing to an existing or projected air quality
violation, as indicated by the criteria in Table 3-1 of the
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook? No
B. 2 . Will the project generate vehicle trips that cause a roadway
to be reclassified at LOS E (CO Hotspot) , as indicated by the
criteria in the Table 9-2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook? No
B.3 . Will the project result in the creation of objectionable
odors? No
B.4 . Will the project be located on or near an active earthquake
fault identified in an Alquist/Priolo Special Studies Zone
(threatened or accidental release of air toxic emissions or
acutely hazardous materials? No
B. 5. Will the project emit lead or other air contaminant not
regulated by the District? No
B. 6. Does this project involve burning of hazardous, medical or
municipal waste as waste-to-energy facilities? No
B. 7. Will the project be occupied by a sensitive receptor within a
close proximity of an existing facility that emits air toxics
identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401? No
/440; /
B. 8. Will the project exceed any of the following significance
emission thresholds?
55 pounds per day of ROG No
55 pounds per day of NOx No
274 pounds per day of CO No
150 pounds per day of PM-10 No
150 pounds per day of Sox No
State 1 hour or 8 hour standard for CO No
B.9 . Will the mitigation measures attached to the project mitigate
the air quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible?
_N/A_
B. 10.Will the project alter air movement, moisture,or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
No
No. The proposed tentative tract map subdivision will not
alter climatological conditions either locally or regionally.
The 10 acre project site will not interrupt wind patterns and
the irrigation of landscaping will not effect the moisture or
temperature of the area in a significant way due to
conservative methods and the small size of the project.
C. DRAINAGE
C.1. Does the project involve a major natural drainage course or
flood control channel, flood hazard during the 100-year flood
event or aggravation of flooding off-site? No
No. A site inspection by the Department of Planning & Zoning
and the City Engineer indicated that no natural drainage
course or flood control channel is located within the project
boundaries. There is an existing drainage course that
traverses the western perimeter of the subject site. However,
this drainage course is no longer active other than sheet flow
because of development within the surrounding area.
Furthermore, a study of the U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle
Map confirms that no natural drainage course or flood control
channel exists on the site. Based upon a review of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Flood
Insurance Rates Maps, and the knowledge of the Planning
Department and Engineering Division, there is no flood hazard
on site during the 100-year flood event. (Copies of the
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps are available for public
review at the Building Department. Thus, no potentially
significant effect to the environment would result from
impacts on natural drainage courses or flood control channels
or from flooding.
l a 410
C.2 . Will the project result in changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements in either marine or
fresh waters? No
No. An on-site inspection by the Department of Planning &
Zoning staff confirmed that there are no bodies of water on or
adjacent to the project site. Thus, there will be no impact
to this water issue by the proposed project.
C. 3. Will the project result in a significant
increase in peak run-off? No
No. Based upon consultation with the City Engineer, it has
been determined that the increase in peak run-off from the 10
acre site would be insignificant. Based upon the knowledge of
the City Engineer, there is no flood hazard on site during the
100-year flood event. Therefore, increase in peak run-off
would not constitute a potential for a significant effect on
the environment.
C.4. Are there any apparent drainage problems or will the project
require significant off-site storm drain construction?
No
No. The project would not result in any increase in run-off
beyond that which presently exists. The existing improvements
adequately accommodate site drainage. A review by the City
Engineer revealed no drainage problems nor any need for off-
site storm drain construction. This conclusion is consistent
with the City of Palm Springs Master Plan of Drainage, 1986 .
Therefore, no potential for a significant effect to the
environment due to drainage will result from the project.
C.5. Are there any existing wells on the project site or are there
any proposed? No
No. Based upon a review and an inspection of the site by the
Department of Planning & Zoning, no active or abandoned wells
are present nor are any proposed. Therefore, there is no
potential for a hazard from the presence of a well on site.
C. 6. Are there any other drainage or groundwater concerns relating
to the project? No
No. Based upon a review of the project by the Engineering
Division, there are no other drainage or groundwater concerns
relating to the project. Therefore, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment that would be caused
by any additional surface drainage or groundwater issues.
C. 7 . Will the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or
in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
No
No. The proposed development will not generate any significant
additional storm run-off to existing flows received by storm
channels located adjacent to the site. The paving over a
portion of the site will result in some additional storm water
run-off compared to existing. Thus, minor additional
discharges into surface waters will occur. The project will
be required to comply with all NPDES regulations related to
storm water run-off, since the project site is 5 acres or more
in size.
C. B . Will the project require EPA discharge permits or streambed
alteration permits by the Fish & Wildlife service or Fish &
Game Department? No
No. The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to
a water course, and will not require application for discharge
or streamlined alteration permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. There is an existing drainage course which
traverses the western portion of the subject site. However,
this drainage course is no longer active other than sheet flow
because of development within the area.
C.9. Will the project result in a change in the amount of surface
water in any body of water? No
No. The project site is devoid of any body of water,
therefore, no potential impact or hazard exists to water
resources.
C. 10. Will the project result in change in the quantity of ground
water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
No
No. The proposed ten acre single family subdivision will
consume . 0023 gal. /ac. of water per day. This water will be
provided by the Desert Water Agency from existing wells.
Thus, the proposed project will use groundwater resources in
the area. However, the extent of this impact is minimal.
C. 11. Will the proposed project result in exposure of people or
property to water-related hazards, such as flooding or tidal
waves? No
No. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood
hazard area as designated by flood insurance rate maps with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . Since the
project is located in an inland desert, there is no potential
/ BAN
for tidal waves. Therefore, the potential for water-related
hazards is insignificant.
D. PLANT LIFE
D. I. Are any sensitive, rare or endangered species of plants
present on the subject property? (See California Native Plant
Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants.
No
No. According to the City of Palm Springs General Plan, no
rare, sensitive or endangered plant species exist on the site.
The site is surrounded by existing development and does not
have long term habitat values. This conclusion is based upon
the working knowledge by the Planning Department of sensitive,
rare or endangered species of plants in the area. Therefore,
there is no potential for a significant impact on the
environment due to a loss of rare, sensitive, or endangered
plant life.
D. 2 . Would any mature trees be removed if the project is carried
out? No
No. A site inspection by the Planning Department has revealed
that no mature trees of any species exist on the project site.
Creosote bush, brittlebush, cholla and assorted grasses are
common in the project area. Therefore, there is no potential
for a significant effect on the environment as a result of the
loss of mature or healthy trees.
D. 3 . Will the proposal result in a reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? No
No. There are no agricultural lands within the City of Palm
Springs. Thus, there will be no impact upon the environment
from loss of agricultural land.
D.4. Will the project change the diversity of species or number of
any species of plants including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and
aquatic plants? No
No. This project will be required to have a landscaping plan
submitted that will meet City landscaping requirements. The
site where the proposed improvements will be located is
presently vacant with vegetation and boulders. The project
site is surrounded by developed parcels that are landscaped
with a mix of native and non-native plant species. Therefore,
the proposed landscaping for this project will not change the
diversity of plant species from that existing in the
surrounding community.
D.5. Will the project cause the introduction of new species of
plants into an area or a barrier to the normal replenishment
of existing species? No
No. There will be no new species introduced into the area as
a result of the proposed project. The project will consist of
single family land uses on a site surrounded by sporadic
single family development. Therefore, no barriers will be
created and no new species will be introduced to the project
area.
E. ANIMAL LIFE
E. 1. Will the project result in a reduction of the number of any
unique, rare or endangered species of animals? (Big Horn
Sheep, Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard, Least Bell's
Vireo, Desert Tortoise) No
No. According to the City of Palm Springs General Plan, there
is no evidence of the presence of a unique, rare or endangered
species of animals. In addition, the site will serve as
infill to the surrounding development. This conclusion is
based upon a working knowledge by the Planning Department of
sensitive animals and habitat within the Palm Springs area.
Thus, the project would not result in a potential for a
significant effect on the environment from a loss of animal
habitat or the reduction of rare, unique, or endangered
animals.
E.2 . Will the project result in a deterioration of any significant
wildlife habitat (Riparian, hillside, wash or other) ?
No
No. Based upon a site inspection by the Department of Planning
& Zoning, who has working knowledge of wildlife habitats
within Palm Springs, it was determined that no significant
wildlife habitat is present on the site. In addition, the
project site is not within any significant habitat areas as
delineated in the Biology Section of the Environmental
Resources Element of the Palm Springs General Plan Update
text. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant
effect on wildlife habitat.
E. 3 . Is consultation with the California Department of Fish and
Game or the Department of Fish & Wildlife Service, as a
trustee agency, required? No
No. Review of the U.S.G.S. topographic map for the area
indicates that the project site is not adjacent to, nor does
it contain a perennial stream. (This criterion has been
adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game. ) There
is an existing natural drainage course which traverses the
western perimeter of the project site. However, this drainage
course is not identified on the U. S.G. S. topographic map and
w4;0
is no longer active other than sheet flow because of
development within the area. Therefore, no potential for a
significant effect on the environment would result from
impacts on a perennial stream and consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game or the Department of
Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
E.4 . Will the project result in a change in diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or
insects) ? No
No. The project site is located in an area that has scattered
development. There are no identified federal or state listed
animal species known to exist on or near the site according to
the City of Palm Springs General Plan Update, March 1993.
Similarly, the site is not within the Coachella Fringe-toed
Lizard habitat Conservation fee assessment area, therefore no
mitigation fees will be required for this project.
E. S. Will the project result in the introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals? No
The project site is surrounded by development which has
significantly altered the animal community in the area. No
significant new species will be introduced through development
of this project.
F. NOISE
F. I. Is the project located:
a. Within the 60 CNEL Airport Corridor? —No—
b. within 200 feet of the railroad? -
No-C. adjacent to a major thoroughfare? —No—
d. near any major source of industrial
or other noise source not covered above? No
No. Examination of the City map indicates that the project is
not within the Airport Noise Corridor, within 200 feet of the
railroad, or adjacent to an major thoroughfare. Although the
project is located at the southwest corner of Vista Chino and
Via Monte Vista, Vista Chino is only designated as a secondary
thoroughfare at this location. In addition, no source of
industrial noise has been identified. Therefore, there is no
potential for a significant effect on the project due to noise
impacts.
F. 2 . 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
N/A
F. 3 . Will the project generate a noise level exceeding the noise
levels stated within Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 11. 74
at the project boundary after construction? No
No. Based upon the experience and judgment of the Department
of Planning and Zoning, there would be no aspect of the
project which would generate noise exceeding the noise levels
stated within Palm Springs Municipal Code, Chapter 11. 74, at
the project boundary. The project proposes a 17 lot single
family subdivision which should not generate significant noise
levels. Therefore, no potential for a significant effect on
the environment due to noise impact has been identified.
F.4 . Is the project site adjacent to a land use that will generate,
or will the project generate, unusual periodic concentrations
of human activity? No
No. In the judgment of the Department of Planning & Zoning,
there is no aspect of the project that would generate
significant or unusual periodic concentrations of human
activity, nor is the project adjacent to a land use that would
generate such activity. Therefore, no potential is present
for a significant effect on the environment due to such
concentrations of activity.
F.5. Will the project require noise abatement measures? No
No. In the judgment of the planning staff, the project will
not require noise abatement measures. The project is not
expected to generate noise levels above the Palm Springs
Municipal Code, Chapter 11.74 . In addition, no sensitive
noise receptors are located in adjacent areas. (See
explanations to F. 1.-3 . ) Therefore, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to noise.
G. LIGHT AND GLARE
G. 1. Would on- or off-site residential land users be subject to
light or glare that would disturb those residents?—No—
No. The project site is located in a area of scattered single
family residential development which is exposed to some light
and glare from surrounding activities and development. The
proposed residential subdivision should not produce new light
or ,glare that will significantly impact the surrounding
environment. On-site lighting will be minimal and should not
impact existing development. Thus, their should not be a
potential for an impact from light and glare.
G. 2 . Will the proposal produce new light or glare? No
No. The project area is located in an single family
residential setting and as a result, the site is exposed to
light and glare from surrounding activities and development.
No additional street lights will be required for this project.
The construction of the project will result in an increase in
lighting in the area; however, this increase is not out of
scale with existing levels of lighting in the surrounding
area.
H. LAND USE
H. I. Could the project serve to encourage the development of
presently undeveloped areas or increase the development
intensity in developed areas (examples include the
introduction of new or expanded public utilities, new industry
commercial facilities and recreational activities?—No—
No. The single family subdivision is being proposed adjacent
to a previously developed area. Residential development is in
the area of the project site. In the judgment of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, there is no potential for
the project to cause a significant effect on the environment
by encouraging the development of previously undeveloped
areas.
H.2 . Is the proposed project inconsistent with adjoining land uses,
the General Plan and zoning? No
No. The proposed project falls within an acceptable range of
land uses as described by the Palm Springs Zoning ordinance
for the R-1-A Zone designation. The project site is
designated as L2 on the Palm Springs General Plan. Therefore,
the project is compatible with the City's General Plan and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with
development conditions of approval will minimize any potential
for land use compatibility concerns.
I. NATURAL RESOURCES
I. l. Will the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources? No
No. The project site does not contain any mineral resources.
The area surrounding the project site is developed with single
family residences. There are no natural resource extraction
activities in or near the site. Air and water resources are
discussed in Sections B and C, respectively. The proposed use
will have no impacts upon natural resources other than the use
of construction materials for the proposed improvements.
I� A �3
J. RISK
J. 1. Does the proposal involve, or would it be subject to, a risk
of an explosion or the significant release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, explosives,
pesticides, chemicals, or radioactive materials) , in the event
of an accident or upset condition? No
In the judgment of the Department of Planning and Zoning,
there are no aspects of the proposed operation or of the
project construction which would involve explosives,
pesticides, radiation, chemicals or other hazardous
substances. Nor is there any known hazardous materials on the
site. Therefore, there would be no risk of a release of or
exposure to hazardous materials which would result in a
potential for a significant impact on the environment.
J. 2 . Is the project within or adjacent to a high fire hazard area
as defined by the Palm Springs Fire Department? No
No. The project site is located well away from the boundaries
of the high fire hazard area as defined by the Palm springs
Fire Department. Therefore, there is no impact to the
environment from high fire hazard issues.
J. 3 . Will the project result in possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
No
No. A review of the Palm Springs Disaster Preparedness Plan,
by Department of Planning & Zoning staff, indicates that this
project will in no way interfere with emergency plans. Thus,
there will be little impact to the existing Palm Springs
Disaster Preparedness Plan.
K. HOUSING
K. 1. Will the project affect existing housing, create a demand for
additional housing or result in the displacement of people
from the existing site? No
No. Based on a site inspection by the Department of Planning
and Zoning, it has been determined that there are no occupants
on the project site. Therefore, the project would not result
in the potential for a significant environmental impact due to
the displacement of people from the site.
K. 2 . Will the project provide low or moderate income housing?
No
No. This proposed project does not involve the development of
low or moderate residential units. The project proposes a 17
single family residential lot subdivision catered to an
enhanced high end market. Thus, there will be no direct
impact upon existing or planned low or moderate housing stock
as a result of development of the project.
L. POPULATION
L. 1. If a residential project, how many new residents would the
proposed development house? (single family detached and
attached = 3. 3 ; apartments = 2. 3 ; mobile home= 2 .0)_56
L. 2 . Will the proposed project alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
No
No. A review of the project by Department of Planning & Zoning
staff determined that there will be no impact upon the
location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population.
M. SCHOOLS (Residential Only)
M. 1. How many students in each of the following categories are
expected? (Student generation factors provided by the Palm
Springs Unified School District) .
S.F. Apt. & M.H.
Elementary 0.45 8 0.33
Junior High 0.22 4 0. 15
High School 0. 15 3 0. 13
According to the Palm Springs Unified School District, due to
the low generation factors, the project should not impact
existing schools. However, the Palm Springs Unified School
District has indicated that the project shall participate in
the collection of school fees in the amount of $1. 65 per
square foot of accessible space to potentially mitigate the
impact.
M. 2 . What are the capacities of applicable schools? (Based on the
most recent monthly report by the Palm Springs Unified School
District)
Elementary 645
Junior High 1, 002
Senior High 2 , 198
See Response to L. 1. above.
M. 3 . What are the attendances at applicable schools? (Based upon
the most recent monthly report by the Palm Springs Unified
School District)
Date of Count_October, 1993
24 2Sr
Elementary 703
Junior High 1,280
Senior High 2 , 158
See Response to M. 1. above.
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
N. 1. Estimated Average daily vehicle trips generated by the
project: (S.F. = 10; M.F. = 6; or from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. ) 170
See Response to N. 3 . below.
N. 2 . Would the project result in traffic congestion? No
No. The proposed subdivision would not create traffic
congestion. Based on the review by the City Engineer, the
subdivision will not create on-site .or off-site traffic
congestion. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to problems
associated with traffic congestion.
N. 3 . Is parking inadequate for the proposed project? No
No. Based upon review of the site plan the proposed project
would meet all parking requirements as outlined in the Palm
Springs Zoning Ordinance. Upon satisfying the parking
requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance, no potential
for a significant impact on the environment would result from
inadequate parking on the site.
N.4 . Would the project create or experience access problems as
designed? No
No. The project would not experience access problems based
upon the judgment of the Planning Department/Traffic Engineer.
Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on
the environment due to problems associated with access.
N. 5. Does circulation within the development provide an un-
acceptable level of safety required for the orderly flow of
people and their vehicles? No
No. Circulation within the project site will be adequate based
upon the judgment of the Traffic Engineer and the Department
of Planning and Zoning. Therefore, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to circulation
within the project site.
/3A
N. 6. Will the proposal result in alterations to water-borne, rail
or air traffic? No
No. The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air
traffic. The project site is located in an urbanized area of
the City, away from water or railways. In addition, the
project is such that it would not interfere with air traffic.
N.7 . Will the proposal result in an increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? No
No. Vehicular traffic on the surrounding streets will not
change with the proposed project. Some short-term impacts may
result from construction activities. Increased traffic levels
and a higher incidence of traffic accidents are possible
short-term impacts that may result from construction
activities.
O. EMERGENCY SERVICES
0. 1. Roadway distance to nearest fire station: 4000 ft.
This distance is well within the 5 minute response time
established by the Palm Springs Fire Department. Therefore,
fire response time would not constitute a potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
P. AESTHETICS
P. 1. Is a major ridgeline, which is visible from the valley floor,
involved in the project? No
No. The project site is on the valley floor east of the San
Jacinto Mountain backdrop. No impacts will result. Since the
project does contain slopes exceeding lot, lots with slopes
10% or greater are subject to Section 9313 . 00 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding hillside development. The purpose of this
section is to provide for the safe, orderly and aesthetically
development of hillside areas. Architectural, site grading
and landscape plan approval by the Planning Commission is
required for all developments in hillside areas. Therefore, no
potential for a significant effect on the environment due to
involvement of a major ridgeline exists.
P. 2 . Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically
negative site open to public view or obstruction of any
significant vista? No
No. Lots 3 through 11 and 12 through 15 proposed along the
northerly property line may reduce existing views when
developemnt occurs on the site. Existing homes have enjoyed
uninterrupted views and the open space provided by the subject
property. Topographic conditions will not allow for
12A29
maintenance of existing views when homes are constructed on
the subject property. Since the project does contain slopes
exceeding 10%, lots with slopes 10% or greater are subject to
Section 9313 . 00 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding hillside
development. The purpose of this section is to provide for
the safe, orderly and aesthetically pleasing development of
hillside areas. Architectural, site grading and landscape
plan approval by the Planning Commission is required for all
developments in hillside areas. Architectural Approval will
require careful review of all proposed residences, however,
preservation of existing views cannot be assured in the
future. Section 9313 .00 and Section 9406. 01, allow for
building height up to 30' in hillside areas. Consideration
may be given on restricting building height to reduce
conflicts. This practice, at the subdivision stage, is
difficult and may restrict creative residential designs. Thus
the City's architectural approval process should be
implemented to guide future development. Based upon the
City's long established architectural review process, future
conflicts can be mitigated to a level acceptable within the
community.
Q. ARCHAEOLOGICAWHISTORICAL
Q. 1. Has a site inspection for historical and archaeological
resources ,been performed? Yes
If "yes", by M.C. Hall, Director and Principal Investigator,
Archaeological Research Unit,
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Yes. The site was inspected for archaeological and historic
significance. The archaeological study prepared for the
subject site indicated that there are no archaeological sites,
listed National Register of Historic Places properties,
California Historic Landmarks, or recorded historic structures
within the subject site. Therefore, the potential for
destruction of such resources would not constitute a potential
for a significant effect on the environment.
Q. 2 . Does the proposed project include any resources or
archaeological or historical significance and would the
proposal result in an impact on a significant archaeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?—No—
No. The archaeological study prepared for the subject site
indicated that there are no archaeological sites, listed
National Register of Historic Places properties, California
Historic Landmarks, or recorded historic structures within the
subject site. Therefore, the potential for destruction of
such resources would not constitute a potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
lS
Q. 3 . Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? No
No. There are no known religious or sacred sites located on
the project site as determined by the archaeological study
prepared for this project by Archaeological Research Unit,
University of California. Therefore, there is little
potential that the proposed project will effect any religious
or sacred sites.
Q. 4 . Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
No
No. The project site presents no known historic or cultural
significance to any groups or residents. No impact on ethnic
cultural values are expected with the proposed improvements.
R. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
R. 1. Is the proposed project or action environmentally
controversial in nature, or can it reasonably be expected to
become controversial upon disclosure to the public?—No—
No. Based upon the judgment of the Department of Planning and
Zoning, the proposed project is not known to be
environmentally controversial, nor is it reasonably expected
to become controversial upon disclosure to the public.
Therefore, no potential for a significant effect on the
environment due to public controversy would result.
S. UTILITIES/SERVICERS
S. I. Are existing utilities inadequate for or not available to
service the proposed project? No
Water Supply No
Electrical Energy No
Natural Gas No
Wastewater No
Fire No
Police No
Parks & Recreational Facilities No
Other Government Services No
JZ14 �t.�
No. The project has been reviewed by the Public Works
Department and other relevant agencies. The utilities
required for the project are present in the site area and
currently serve the site. Therefore, there is no potential
for a significant effect on the environment due to impacts on
utilities.
T. HUMAN HEALTH
T. I. Will the proposal result in creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ?—No—
No. There are no significant health hazards that have been
identified that would possibly affect the project or its
residents. Section J of this assessment discusses the
potential for Risk of Upset.
T.2 . Will the project result in the exposure of people to potential
health hazards? No
No. This proposed residential subdivision will not subject
the public to any known potential health hazard. Therefore,
there is no known potential impact, by the project, on, public
health.
U. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
U. I. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment or curtail the diversity in the environment?
No
No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to
Questions A-R. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
U.2 . Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of the long-term, environmental goals?
No
No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to
Questions A-R. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
U. 3 . Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those
impact on the environment is significant. In addition,
"cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects. ) —No
-
]:kip BE)
a. Traffic -mo-
b. Water -
No-C. Wastewater -No-
d. Schools -No-
e. Flooding No
f. Other No
No. Based upon a review of the project by the Planning and
Zoning Department there are no significant impacts regarding
traffic, water, wastewater, schools, flooding or other utility
issues. Therefore, there is no significant impact upon the
environment.
U.4 . Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly? No
No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to
Questions A-T. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
VIII. References used in responding to this questionnaire
include:
P.S. Existing General Plan text, City of P.S. (March 3,
1993)
P.S. General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, City of
P.S. Planning Dept. (July 1992)
Archaeological Study, M.C. Hall, Archaeological Research
Unit, University of California
/z� 3i
IX. LIST BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED
IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY:
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Zoning
Frank Coyle, Planner II
Robert Rockett, City Engineer
X. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_XX_ I 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.
I find that the proposed project is consistent with the
Program EIR on
_February 2, 1994_ XL4_'L'��
DOUGLAS . EVANS
Directo of Planning & Zoning
/aA 3 �
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
INITIAL STUDY
Application No(s) . Tentative Tract Mao No 27680
Date of Completed Application: December 20, 1993
Name of Applicant: The Palm Mountain Co. . 11839 Sorrento Valley,
San Diego, CA 92121
Project Description: The applicant proposes, to subdivide 10 acres
into 17 single family residential lots.
Location of Project: The subject property is located in the
northwestern portion of the City at the southwestern corner of
Vista Chino Road and Via Monte Vista.
General Plan Land Use Designation(s) : L2 (Low Residential 2
Units/Acre) .
Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation(s) : Not Applicable
Present Land Use(s) : Vacant
Existing Zoning(s) : R-1-A Proposed Zoning(s) : R-1-A
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. ) X 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 X 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 X 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 X 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 X No
If yes, state the exemption and provide explanation.
(Use separate sheet to explain. )
If yes to II, III, IV or V, prepare notice of exemption
and file with Riverside County ($25. 00 fee) .
VI. Project Description
The applicant proposes Tentative Tract Map 27680 to
_subdivide 10 acres into 17 single family residential lots
at the southwestern corner of Vista Chino and Via Monte
Vista. The subject property is designated as L2 (Low
Residential 2 Units/Acre) and is zoned R-1-A (Single
Family Residential Zone) with a minimum lot size of
20, 000 square feet. The surrounding zoning is R-1-A and
R-1-B to the immediate northeast.
The project proposes to construct a 37' R/W private cul-
de-sac off of Via Monte Vista parallel to Stevens Road.
The proposed lots range in size from 20, 159 square feet
to 26, 865 square feet. Several lots do not meet the
minimum R-1-A width requirement of 130 feet. Thus, the
applicant has submitted an administrative minor
modification for the substandard lots which will be
processed after project approval.
��A �y
VII. Site Description
The site is currently vacant and generally slopes between
2% and l0% from the northwest to the southeast. Portions
of the site exceed slopes of 20%. The subject site is
enclosed with a chain link fence surrounded with sporadic
single family residential development. Drainage is
generally from the northwest to the southeast. There is
an existing natural drainage course which traverses the
western perimeter of the project site. However, this
drainage course is no longer active other than sheet flow
because of development within the area. The site is
partially disturbed from surrounding development and
trails traversing the site. These trails are only local
paths and do not connect to the City's trail system.
Creosote bush, brittlebush, cholla and assorted grasses
are common in the project area.
VIII. Surrounding Land Uses: Surrounding General Plan:
North: Residential North: L2 (Low Res. )
East: Residential, Vacant East: L2
South: Residential, Vacant South: L2
West: Residential, Vacant West: L2
IX. Is the proposed project consistent with: (If yes or not
applicable, no explanation required. )
Yes No N/A
City of Palm Springs General Plan X
Applicable Specific Plan X
City of -Palm Springs zoning Ordinance X
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan X
Airport Part 150 Noise Study g
X. Are any of the following studies required:
1. —Yes—Soils Report 8. —No—Biological Study
2 . —NO—Slope Study 9. —No—Noise Study
3 . _No_Geotechnical Report 10. _No_Hazardous Materials Study
4 . No Traffic Study 11. _No Housing Analysis
5. —No—Air Quality Study 12 . —Yes—Archaeological Report
6. ,,_No_Hydrology _ 13 . No Groundwater Analysis
7. —No—Sewer Study 14. _No Water Quality Report
15. —No—Other
XI. . , _ Incorporated herein by reference is the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan Undate
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES
A. EARTH RESPONSE
A. I. Does the parcel contain slopes of 10$ or greater? Yes_
A. la. Is any development proposed on slopes in excess of 30%?
No
Yes. A site inspection and review of topographic maps by the
Department of Planning & Zoning verified that portions of the
site do contain slopes exceeding 10%. There are also limited
areas of the site along the northern boundary which exceed
20%. Thus, areas that exceed lot are subject to Section
9313 . 00 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding hillside
development. According to the ordinance, site plan approval
by the Planning Commission is required for all development in
hillside areas. In addition, the project has been conditioned
to submit a soils report in conjunction with the grading plan
to the Building Department and the Engineering Division prior
to the issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, there should
be no potential for a significant effect on the environment
due to intrusion into slopes.
A. 2. Is any portion of the project site in an area of medium or
,high rockfall risk and are there any known rockfall areas on
_..the subject property?
No
u - No. The Seismic Safety and Public Safety Element of the City
:::_of Palm Springs General Plan indicates that no portion of the
project site is in an area of medium or high rockfall risk and
that no known rockfalls are present on the site. A site
inspection by the Department of Planning & Zoning confirmed
these conclusions. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to rockfalls.
A.3 . Is any significant modification of a major landform
proposed? No
. —No. A site inspection by the Department of Planning & Zoning
and review of the proposed grading suggest that no significant
modification of a major landform is proposed. This conclusion
is based upon the judgment of the case and environmental
planners and the fact that the site generally contains slopes
less than 10%. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to significant
modification of a major landform.
A.4. Will the project result in change in topography or ground
surface relief features? No
No. The project site generally contains slopes between 2% to
10% with portions of the site exceeding 20%. Earth moving
activities proposed for the project consist of approximately
/R 4 3?
20, 000 cubic yards to be moved on-site. The proposed grading
and future pad elevations will follow existing contour lines.
In addition, the project has been conditioned to submit a
soils report in conjunction with the grading plan to the
Building Department and the Engineering Division prior to the
-- issuance of a grading permit. Thus, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to a change in
topography or ground surface.
A.5. Does the site include any unique geological resources of
significance? No
No. The project site is on the valley floor and is underlain
by deposits of recent alluvium. In addition, the site was
inspected by the Department of Planning & Zoning staff for any
unique geological resources. As none were observed, it was
determined that there will be no project-related impacts to
,yA
this type of resource.
A. 6. Will the project result in a significant increase in wind
erosion blowsand or water erosion or siltation either off or
on site beyond the construction phase of the
project? No
No. The subject project is being proposed adjacent to a
previously developed area. No significant increases in wind
erosion blowsand or water erosion either on or off site are
-� expected based upon a site investigation and a review by the
Planning and Engineering. The project has been conditioned to
submit a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan .to the
-_Building Department. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to erosion.
A.7. Will the proposal result in exposure to people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards? No
No.. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm
Springs General Plan, indicates that the proposed project site
is not within a known restrictive geologic hazard area. All
., structures will be constructed to meet seismic safety
requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Thus, there is no
known significant threat to the project by geologic hazards.
A.S. Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in
. changes in geologic sub-structures? No
No. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm
Springs General Plan indicates that there are no known
unstable geologic conditions or substructures in the vicinity
of the project site. Thus, there will be no potential impacts
upon or by the proposed project from this issue.
/A 38
In addition, the project has been conditioned to submit a
soils report in conjunction with the grading plan to the
-Building Department and the Engineering Division prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. Thus, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to a change in
topography or ground surface.
A.5. Does the site include any unique geological resources of
significance? No
No. The project site is on the valley floor and is underlain
by deposits of recent alluvium. In addition, the site was
inspected by the Department of Planning & Zoning staff for any
unique geological resources. As none were observed, it was
determined that there will be no project-related impacts to
this type of resource.
A. 6. Will the project result in a significant increase in wind
erosion blowsand or water erosion or siltation either off or
on site beyond the construction phase of the
project? No
No. The subject project is being proposed adjacent to a
previously developed. area. No significant increases in wind
erosion blowsand or water erosion either on or off site are
expected based upon a site investigation and a review by the
Planning and Engineering. The project has been conditioned to
`'submit a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan to the
Building Department. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment due to erosion.
A. 7. Will the proposal result in exposure to people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards? No
No. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm
Springs General Plan, indicates that the proposed project site
is not within a known restrictive geologic hazard area. All
, 'structures will be constructed to meet seismic safety
,requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Thus, there is no
known significant threat to the project by geologic hazards.
A.S. ,Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic sub-structures? No
No. A review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm
Springs General Plan indicates that there are no known
unstable geologic conditions or substructures in the vicinity
of the project site. Thus, there will be no potential impacts
upon or by the proposed project from this issue.
A.9. Will the project result in disruptions, displacements,
compaction or over-covering of the soil? No
No. The proposed project will involve 20, 000 cubic yards of
cut and fill for site preparation. The cut and fill will be
balanced on-site with no importing or exporting of dirt. This
grading activity will not result in significant impacts to on-
and off-site drainage patterns or soil erosion. Soils reports
and compaction reports will be reviewed by the Engineering
Division and the Building & Safety Department.
A. 10.Is the project site located within a Liquefaction Potential
Zone? No
No. According to the Seismic Safety Element of the City of
Palm Springs General Plan, settlement and liquefaction as a
result from seismic shaking are not considered significant
hazards in Palm Springs. Therefore, the project environment
will not be impacted by any known potential liquefaction
`'-hazards.
B. AIR QUALITY
B. I. Will the project interfere with the attainment of the federal
or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or
—contributing to an existing or projected air quality
violation, as indicated by the criteria in Table 3-1 of the
3"SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook? No
B.2. Will the project generate vehicle trips that cause a roadway
to be reclassified at LOS E (CO Hotspot) , as indicated by the
criteria in the Table 9-2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook? No
B. 3 . Will the project result in the creation of objectionable
odors? No
B. 4 . Will the project be located on or near an active earthquake
fault identified in an Alquist/Priolo Special Studies Zone
(threatened or accidental release of air toxic emissions or
acutely hazardous materials? No
B. 5. Will the project emit lead or other air contaminant not
___regulated by the District? No
B. 6. Does this project involve burning of hazardous, medical or
municipal waste as waste-to-energy facilities? No
B.7. Will the project be occupied by a sensitive receptor within a
close proximity of an existing facility that emits air toxics
identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401? No
/2 4 VD
B.B . Will the project exceed any of the following significance
emission thresholds?
55 pounds per day of ROG No
55 pounds per day of NOx No
274 pounds per day of CO No
150 pounds per day of PM-10 No
150 pounds per day of Sox No
State 1 hour or 8 hour standard for CO No
B.9. Will the mitigation measures attached to the project mitigate
the air quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible?
_N/A_
B. 10.Will the project alter air movement, moisture,or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
No
No. The proposed tentative tract map subdivision will not
alter climatological conditions either locally or regionally.
; _ The 10 acre project site will not interrupt wind patterns and
the irrigation of landscaping will not effect the moisture or
temperature of the area in a significant way due to
conservative methods and the small size of the project.
C. DRAINAGE
C. 1. , Does the project involve a major natural drainage course or
flood control channel, flood hazard during the 100-year flood
event or aggravation of flooding off-site? No
No. A site inspection by the Department of Planning & Zoning
and the City Engineer indicated that no natural drainage
course or flood control channel is located within the project
boundaries. There is an existing drainage course that
traverses the western perimeter of the subject site. However,
this drainage course is no longer active other than sheet flow
'because of _ development within the surrounding area.
Furthermore, a study of the U.S.G.S. Topographic Quadrangle
Map confirms that no natural drainage course or flood control
' channel exists on the site. Based upon a review of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Flood
Insurance Rates Maps, and the knowledge of the Planning
Department and Engineering Division, there is no flood hazard
on site during the 100-year flood event. (Copies of the
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps are available for public
review at the Building Department. Thus, no potentially
significant effect to the environment would result from
impacts on natural drainage courses or flood control channels
or from flooding.
i;.4 yl
C.2 . Will the project result in changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements in either marine or
fresh waters? No
No. An on-site inspection by the Department of Planning &
Zoning staff confirmed that there are no bodies of water on or
adjacent to the project site. Thus, there will be no impact
to this water issue by the proposed project.
C.3 . Will the project result in a significant
increase in peak run-off? No
No. Based upon consultation with the City Engineer, it has
been determined that the increase in peak run-off from the 10
acre site would be insignificant. Based upon the knowledge of
the City Engineer, there is no flood hazard on site during the
100-year flood event. Therefore, increase in peak run-off
would not constitute a potential for a significant effect on
='the environment.
C.4. -Are there any apparent drainage problems or will the project
require significant off-site storm drain construction?
No
No. The project would not result in any increase in run-off
beyond that which presently exists. The existing improvements
adequately accommodate site drainage. A review by the City
`' Engineer revealed no drainage problems nor any need for off-
site storm drain construction. This conclusion is consistent
- with the City of Palm Springs Master Plan of Drainage, 1986.
Therefore, no potential for a significant effect to the
environment due to drainage will result from the project.
C.5. Are there any existing wells on the project site or are there
any proposed? No
-No. Based upon a review and an inspection of the site by the
Department of Planning & Zoning, no active or abandoned wellsi
are present nor are any proposed. Therefore, there is no
-potential for a hazard from the presence of a well on site.
C. 6. Are there any other drainage or groundwater concerns relating
to the project? No
No. Based upon a review of the project by the Engineering
Division, there are no other drainage or groundwater concerns
relating to the project. Therefore, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment that would be caused
by any additional surface drainage or groundwater issues.
C.7. Will the proposal result in discharge into surface waters or
in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
No
No. The proposed development will not generate -any significant
additional storm run-off to existing flows received by storm
channels located adjacent to the, site. The paving over a
portion of the site will result in some additional storm water
run-off compared to existing. Thus, minor, additional
discharges into surface waters will occur. The project will
be required to comply with all NPDES regulations related to
storm water run-off, since the project site is 5 acres or more
in size.
C.8. Will the project require EPA discharge permits or streambed
alteration permits by the Fish & Wildlife Service or Fish &
Game Department? No
No. The proposed project is not located within or adjacent to
a water course, and will not require application for discharge
or streamlined alteration permits from the U. S. Army Corps of
- Engineers. There is an existing drainage course which
traverses the western portion of the subject site. However,
this drainage course is no longer active other than sheet flow
because of development within the area.
C.9. 'Will the project result in a change in the amount of surface
water in any body of water? No
No. The project site is devoid of any body of water,
therefore, no potential impact or hazard exists to water
resources.
C. 10. . Will the project result in change in the quantity of ground
"' water, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
—No-
-No. The proposed ten acre single family subdivision will
consume . 0023 gal. /ac. of water per day. This water will be
provided by the Desert Water Agency from existing wells.
Thus, the proposed project will use groundwater resources in
the area. However, the extent of this impact is minimal.
C. 11. Will the proposed project result in exposure of people or
property to water-related hazards, such as flooding or tidal
waves? No
No. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood
hazard area as designated by flood insurance rate maps with
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . Since the
project is located in an inland desert, there is no potential
iOX49y10
for tidal waves. Therefore, the potential for water-related
hazards is insignificant.
D. - PLANT LIFE
D. 1. Are any sensitive, rare or endangered species of plants
present on the subject property? (See California Native Plant
Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants
No
No. According to the City of Palm Springs General Plan, no
rare, sensitive or endangered plant species exist on the site.
The site is surrounded by existing development and does not
have long term habitat values. This conclusion is based upon
the working knowledge by the Planning Department of sensitive,
rare or endangered species of plants in the area. Therefore,
there is no potential for a significant impact on the
environment due to a loss of rare, sensitive, or endangered
plant life.
D.2. Would any mature trees be removed . if the project is carried
out? No
No. A site inspection by the Planning Department has revealed
that no mature trees of any species exist on the project site.
Creosote bush, brittlebush, cholla and assorted grasses are
common in the project area. Therefore, there is no potential
-for a significant effect on the environment as a result of the
--- loss of mature or healthy trees.
D. 3 . Will the proposal result in a reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? No
No. There are no agricultural lands within the City of Palm
Springs. Thus, there will be no impact upon the environment
from loss of agricultural land.
D.4. -Will the project change the diversity of species or number of
any species of plants including trees,shrubs, grass, crops and
- --aquatic plants? No
No. This project will be required to have a landscaping plan
submitted that will meet City landscaping requirements. The
site where the proposed improvements will be located is
presently vacant with vegetation and boulders. The project
site is surrounded by developed parcels that are landscaped
with a mix of native and non-native plant species. Therefore,
the proposed landscaping for this project will not change the
diversity of plant species from that existing in the
surrounding community.
D.S. Will the project cause the introduction of new species of
plants into an area or a barrier to the normal replenishment
of existing species? No
No. There will be no new species introduced into the area as
a result of the proposed project. The project will consist of
single family land uses on a site surrounded by sporadic
single family development. Therefore, no barriers will be
created and no new species will be introduced to the project
area.
E. ANIMAL LIF$
E. 1. Will the project result in a reduction of the number of any
unique, rare or endangered species of animals? (Big Horn
Sheep, Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard, Least Bell's
Vireo, Desert Tortoise) No
No. According to the City of Palm Springs General Plan, there
is no evidence of the presence of a unique, rare or endangered
species of animals. In addition, the site will serve as
-infill to the surrounding development. This conclusion is
based upon a working knowledge by the Planning Department of
sensitive animals and habitat within the Palm Springs area.
Thus, the project would not result in a potential for a
significant effect on the environment from a loss of animal
habitat or the reduction of rare, unique, or endangered
animals.
E.2. Will the project result in a deterioration of any significant
, wildlife habitat (Riparian, hillside, wash or other) ?
No
No. Based upon a site inspection by the Department of Planning
& Zoning, who has working knowledge of wildlife habitats
within Palm Springs, it was determined that no significant
wildlife habitat is present on the site. In addition, the
project site is not within any significant habitat areas as
delineated in the Biology Section of the Environmental
Resources Element of the Palm, Springs General Plan Update
text. Therefore, there is no potential for a significant
effect on wildlife habitat.
E. 3 . is consultation with the California Department of Fish and
Game or the Department of Fish & Wildlife Service, as a
trustee agency, required? No
No. Review of the U.S.G.S. topographic map for the area
indicates that the project site is not adjacent to, nor does
it contain a perennial stream. (This criterion has been
adopted by the California Department of Fish and Game. ) There
is an existing natural drainage course which traverses the
western perimeter of the project site. However, this drainage
course is not identified on the U.S.G. S. topographic map and
124
N.6. Will the proposal result in alterations to water-borne, rail
or air traffic? No
No. The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air
traffic. The project site is located in an urbanized area of
the City, away from water or railways. In addition, the
project is such that it would not interfere with air traffic.
N.7. Will the proposal result in an increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? No
No. Vehicular traffic on the surrounding streets will not
change with the proposed project. Some short-term impacts may
result from construction activities. Increased traffic levels
and a higher incidence of traffic accidents are possible
short-term impacts that may result from construction
activities.
O. EMERGENCY SERVICES
0. 1. Roadway distance to nearest fire station: 4000 ft.
'This distance is well within the 5 minute response time
established by the Palm Springs Fire Department. Therefore,
fire response time would not constitute a potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
P. AESTHETICS
P. 1. Is a major ridgeline, which is visible from the valley floor,
involved in the project? No
No. The project site is on the valley floor east of the San
Jacinto Mountain backdrop. - Since the project does contain
slopes exceeding 20%, lots with slopes 20% or greater are
---subject to Section 9313 .00 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
hillside development. The purpose of this section is to
provide for the safe, orderly and aesthetically development of
hillside areas. Site plan approval by the Planning Commission
is required for all developments in hillside areas. Thus, the
site should not impact a major ridgeline. Therefore, no
potential for a significant effect on the environment due to
involvement of a major ridgeline exists.
P.2. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically
negative site open to public view or obstruction of any
significant vista? No
No. The proposed project would not result in the creation of
an aesthetically negative site open to public view or
obstruction of any significant view vista based on review by
the Department of Planning and Zoning of the exhibits
)a
is no longer active other than sheet flow because of
development within the area. Therefore, no potential for a
significant effect on the environment would result from
impacts on a perennial stream and consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game or the Department of
Fish and Wildlife Service is not required.
E.4. Will the project result in a change in diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or
insects) ? No
No. The project site is located in an area that has scattered
development. There are no identified federal or state listed
animal species known to exist on or near the site according to
the City of Palm Springs General Plan Update, March 1993 .
Similarly, the site is not within the Coachella Fringe-toed
Lizard habitat Conservation fee assessment area, therefore no
mitigation fees will be required 'for this project.
E. 5. Will the project result in the introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals? No
The project site is surrounded by development which has
significantly altered the animal community in the area. No
significant new species will be introduced through development
of this project.
F. NOISE
F. I. Is the project located:
a. Within the 60 CNEL Airport Corridor? —No—
b within 200 feet of the railroad? No
c. adjacent to a major thoroughfare? No
d. near any major source of industrial
or other noise source ,not covered above? No
No. Examination of the City map indicates that the project is
--not within the Airport Noise Corridor, within 200 feet of the
railroad, or adjacent to an major thoroughfare. Although the
project is located at the southwest corner of Vista Chino and
Via Monte Vista, Vista Chino is only designated as a secondary
thoroughfare at this location. In addition, no source of
industrial noise has been identified. Therefore, there is no
potential for a significant effect on the project due to noise
impacts.
IZLA
F. 2 . 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
N/A
F. 3 . Will the project generate a noise level exceeding the noise
levels stated within Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 11. 74
at the project boundary after construction? No
No. Based upon the experience and judgment of the Department
of Planning and Zoning, there would be no aspect of the
project which would generate noise exceeding the noise levels
stated within Palm Springs Municipal Code, Chapter 11.74, at
the project boundary. The project proposes a 17 lot single
family subdivision which should not generate significant noise
levels. Therefore, no potential for a significant effect on
the environment due to noise impact has been identified.
F.4. Is the project site adjacent to a land use that will generate,
or will the project generate, -unusual periodic concentrations
of human activity? No
No. In the judgment of the Department of Planning & Zoning,
_.. there is no aspect of the project that would generate
significant or unusual periodic concentrations of human
activity, nor is the project adjacent to a land use that would
' generate such activity. Therefore, no potential is present
for a significant effect on the environment due to such
concentrations of activity.
F.5. Will the project require noise abatement measures?—No—
No. In the judgment of the planning staff, the project will
not require noise abatement measures. The project is not
.expected to generate noise levels above the Palm Springs
Municipal Code, Chapter 11. 74 . In addition, no sensitive
_,_ noise receptors are located in adjacent areas. (See
explanations to F. 1.-3 . ) Therefore, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to noise.
G. LIGHT AND GLARE
G. J. Would on- or off-site residential land users be subject to
light or glare that would disturb those residents?—No—
No. The project site is located in a area of scattered single
family residential development which is exposed to some light
and glare from surrounding activities and development. The
proposed residential subdivision should not produce new light
or glare that will significantly impact the surrounding
environment. On-site lighting will be minimal and should not
impact existing development. Thus, their should not be a
potential for an impact from light and glare.
��
G.2 . Will the proposal produce new light or glare? No
No. The project area is located in an single family
residential setting and as a result, the site is exposed to
light and glare from surrounding activities. and development.
No additional street lights will be required for this project.
The construction of the project will result in an increase in
lighting in the area; however, this increase is not out of
scale with existing levels of lighting in the surrounding
area.
H. LAND USE
H. 1. Could the project serve to encourage the development of
presently undeveloped areas or increase the development
intensity in developed areas (examples include the
introduction of new or expanded public utilities, new industry
commercial facilities and recreational activities?—No—
The single family subdivision is being proposed adjacent
to a previously developed area. Residential development is in
the area of the project site. In the judgment of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, there is no potential for
the project to cause a significant effect on the environment
by encouraging the development of previously undeveloped
areas.
H.2. Is the proposed project inconsistent with adjoining land uses,
--- the General Plan and zoning? No
No. The proposed project falls within an acceptable range of
land uses as described by the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance
for the R-1-A Zone designation. The project site is
designated as L2 on the Palm Springs General Plan. Therefore,
the project is compatible with the City's General Plan and
consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with
development conditions of approval will minimize any potential
. for land use compatibility concerns.
I. NATURAL RESOURCES
I. I. Will the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of
any natural resources? No
No. The project site does not contain any mineral resources.
The area surrounding the project site is developed with single
family residences. There are no natural resource extraction
activities in or near the site. Air and water resources are
discussed in Sections B and C, respectively. The proposed use
will have no impacts upon natural resources other than the use
of construction materials for the proposed improvements.
J. . RISK
J.1. Does the proposal involve, or would it be subject to, a risk
of an explosion or the significant release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, explosives,
pesticides, chemicals, or radioactive materials) , in the event
of an accident or upset condition? No
In the judgment of the Department of Planning and Zoning,
there are no aspects of the proposed operation or of the
project construction which would involve explosives,
pesticides, radiation, chemicals or other hazardous
substances. Nor is there any known hazardous materials on the
site. Therefore, there would be no risk of a release of or
exposure to hazardous materials which would result in a
potential for a significant impact on the environment.
J.2 ....Is the project within or adjacent to a high fire hazard area
as defined by the Palm Springs Fire Department? No
No.' The project site is located well away from the boundaries
J . the high fire hazard area as defined by the Palm springs
Fire Department. Therefore, there is no impact to the
environment from high fire hazard issues.
J. 3. Will the project result in possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
No
No. A review of the Palm Springs Disaster Preparedness Plan,
by Department of Planning & Zoning staff, indicates that this
project will in no way interfere with emergency plans. Thus,
there will be little impact to the existing Palm Springs
Disaster Preparedness Plan.
K. HOUSING
K. 1. Will the project iffect 'existing housing, create a demand for
additional housing or result in the displacement of people
from the existing site? No -
No. Based on a site inspection by the Department of Planning
.and Zoning, it has been determined that there are no occupants
on the project site. Therefore, the project would not result
in the potential for a significant environmental impact due to
the displacement of people from the site.
K.2 . Will the project provide low or moderate income housing?
No
No. This proposed project does not involve the development of
low or moderate residential units. The project proposes a 17
single family residential lot subdivision catered to an
/aof
enhanced high end market. Thus, there will be no direct
impact upon existing or planned low or moderate housing stock
as a result of development of the project.
L. POPULATION
L. 1. If a residential project, how many new residents would the
proposed development house? (single family detached and
attached = 3. 3; apartments = 2.3 ; mobile home= 2 .0)_56
L. 2 . Will the proposed project alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
No
No. A review of the project by Department of Planning & Zoning
staff determined that there will be no impact upon the
location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population.
M. - - SCHOOLS (Residential Only)
M. 1. 'How many students in each of the following categories are
expected? (Student generation factors provided by the Palm
Springs Unified School District) .
S.F. Apt. & M.H.
Elementary 0.45 8 0.33
Junior High 0.22 _4_ 0. 15
High School 0.15 3 0. 13
- -
According to the Palm Springs Unified School District, due to
the low generation factors, the project should not impact
existing schools. However, the Palm Springs Unified School
District has indicated that the project shall participate in
---the ' collection of school fees in the amount of $1. 65 per
square foot of accessible space to potentially mitigate the
impact.
M.2 . "'What are the capacities of applicable schools? (Based on the
most recent monthly report by the Palm Springs Unified School
District)
Elementary 645
Junior High 1,002
Senior High 21198
See Response to L. 1. above.
M.3 . What are the attendances at applicable schools? (Based upon
the most recent monthly report by the Palm Springs Unified
School District)
Date of Count_October, 1993
Elementary 703
Junior High 1,280
Senior High 20158
See Response to M. 1. above.
N. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
N. 1. Estimated Average daily vehicle trips generated by the
project: (S.F. = 10; M.F. = 6; or from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation. ) 170
See Response to N.3 . below.
N. 2 . Would the project result in traffic congestion? No
No. The proposed subdivision would not create traffic
congestion. Based on the review by the City Engineer, the
subdivision will not create on-site ,or off-site traffic
congestion. Therefore,
there is no potential -for a
significant effect on the environment due to , problems
associated with traffic congestion.
N.3 . Is parking inadequate for the proposed project? No
No. Based upon review of the site plan the proposed project
would meet all parking requirements as outlined in the Palm
Springs Zoning Ordinance. Upon satisfying the parking
requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance, no potential
for a significant impact on the environment would result from
=`-' inadequate parking- on the site.
N.4 . Would the project create or experience _ access problems as -
designed? No
No. The project would not experience access problems based
upon the judgment of the Planning Department/Traffic Engineer.
Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on
the environment due to problems associated with access.
N. 5. Does circulation within the ' development provide an un-
acceptable level of safety required for the orderly flow of
people and their vehicles? No
No. Circulation within the project site will be adequate based
upon the judgment of the Traffic Engineer and the Department
of Planning and Zoning. Therefore, there is no potential for
a significant effect on the environment due to circulation
within the project site.
IA4 $ Z
N. 6. . Will the proposal result in alterations to water-borne, rail
. _ or air traffic? No
No. The project will not affect waterborne, rail, or air
traffic. The project site is located in an urbanized area of
the City, away from water or railways. In addition, the
project is such that it would not interfere with air traffic.
N.7 . Will the .proposal result in an increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? No
No. Vehicular traffic on the surrounding streets will not
change with the proposed project. Some short-term impacts may
result from construction activities. Increased traffic levels
and a higher incidence of traffic accidents are possible
short-term impacts that may result from construction
.-activities.
0. EMERGENCY SERVICES
0. 1. Roadway distance to nearest fire station: 4000 ft.
This distance is well within the 5 minute response time
established by the Palm Springs Fire Department. Therefore,
fire response time would not constitute a potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
P. IiESTHETICS
P. 1. Is a major ridgeline, which is visible from the valley floor,
involved in the project? No
No. The project site is on the valley floor east of the San
Jacinto Mountain backdrop. No impacts will result. Since the
project does contain slopes exceeding 10t, lots with slopes
10% or greater are subject to Section 9313 .00 of the Zoning
:,_Ordinance regarding hillside development. The purpose of this
section is to provide for the safe, orderly and aesthetically
development of hillside areas. Architectural, site grading
and landscape plan approval by the Planning Commission is
required for all developments in hillside areas. Therefore, no
potential for a significant effect on the environment due to
involvement of a major ridgeline exists.
P.2 . Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically
negative site open to public view or obstruction of any
significant vista? No
No. Lots 3 through 11 and 12 through 15 proposed along the
northerly property line may reduce existing views when
developemnt occurs on the site. Existing homes have enjoyed
uninterrupted views and the open space provided by the subject
property. Topographic conditions will not allow for
maintenance of existing views when homes are constructed on
the subject property. Since the project does contain slopes
---exceeding 10%. lots with slopes 10% or greater are subject to
Section 9313.00 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding hillside
development. The purpose of this section is. to provide for
the safe, orderly and aesthetically pleasing development of
hillside areas. Architectural, site grading and landscape
plan approval by the Planning Commission is required for all
developments in hillside areas. Architectural Approval will
require careful review of all proposed residences, however,
preservation of existing views cannot be assured in the
future. Section 9313.00 and Section 9406.01, allow for
building height up to 30' in hillside areas. Consideration
may be given on restricting building height to reduce
conflicts. This practice, at the subdivision stage, is
difficult and may restrict creative residential designs. Thus
the City's architectural approval process - should be
implemented to guide future development. Based upon the
City's long established architectural review process, future
conflicts can be mitigated to a level acceptable within the
community.
Q. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
Q. 1. Has a site inspection for historical and archaeological
resources been performed? Yes
If "yes", by M.C. Hall, Director and Principal Investigator,
Archaeological Research Unit,
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Yes. The site was inspected for archaeological and historic
significance. The archaeological study prepared for the
subject site indicated that there are no archaeological sites,
listed National Register of Historic Places properties,
...California Historic Landmarks, or recorded historic structures
within the subject site. Therefore, the potential for
.'destruction of such resources would not constitute a potential
for a significant effect on the. environment.
Q.2. Does the proposed project include any resources or
archaeological or historical significance and would the
proposal result in an impact on a significant archaeological
or historical site, structure, object or building?—No—
No. The archaeological study prepared for the subject site
indicated that there are no archaeological sites, listed
National Register of Historic Places properties, California
Historic Landmarks, or recorded historic structures within the
subject site. Therefore, the potential for destruction of
such resources would not constitute a potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
/;t
No. The project has been reviewed by the Public Works
Department and other relevant agencies. The utilities
required for the project are present in the site area and
currently serve the site. Therefore, there is no potential
for a significant effect on the environment due to impacts on
utilities.
T. -HUMAN HEALTH
T.1. Will the proposal result in creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding mental health) ?—No—
No. There are no significant health hazards that have been
identified that would possibly affect the project or its
residents. Section J of this assessment discusses the
potential for Risk of Upset.
T.2 . Will the project result in the exposure of people to potential
health hazards? No
No. This proposed residential subdivision will not subject
the public to any known potential health hazard. Therefore,
there is no known potential impact, by the project, on public
health.
U. SMANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
U. I. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment or curtail the diversity in the environment?
No
No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to
Questions A-R. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
U.2 . Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of the long-term, environmental goals?
No
No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to
Questions A-R. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
U.3 . - Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those
impact on the environment is significant. In addition,
"cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects. ) —No—
/ ak #4
Q.3 . Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? No
No. There are no known religious or sacred sites located on
the project site as determined by the archaeological study
prepared for this project by Archaeological Research Unit,
University of California. Therefore, there is little
potential that the proposed project will effect any religious
or sacred sites.
Q.4 . Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
No
No. The project site presents no known historic or cultural
significance to any groups or residents. No impact on ethnic
cultural values are expected with the proposed improvements.
R. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY
R. 1. Is the proposed project or action environmentally
controversial in nature, or can it reasonably be expected to
become controversial upon disclosure to the public?—No—
No. Based upon the judgment of the Department of Planning and
Zoning, the proposed project is not known to be
environmentally controversial, nor is it reasonably expected
to become controversial upon disclosure to the public.
."Therefore, no potential for a significant effect on the
environment due to public controversy would result.
S. - UTILITIES/SERVICERS
S. 1. Are existing utilities inadequate for or not available to
service the proposed project? No
Water Supply No
Electrical Energy No
Natural Gas No
Wastewater No
Fire No
Police No
Parks & Recreational Facilities No
Other Government Services No
/ ;L r4 �L
IX. -.-,.LIST BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED
IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY:
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Zoning
,_ Frank Coyle, Planner II
Robert Rockett, City Engineer
X. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I 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
a _ 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.
I find that the proposed project is consistent with the
` + -Program EIR on
_February 2 , 1994_
DOUGLAS EVANS
Directo of Planning & Zoning
1 ZL s'9
a. Traffic —No—
b Water -
No-C. Wastewater No
d. Schools —No—
e. Flooding No
f. Other No
No. Based upon a review of the project by the Planning and
Zoning Department there are no significant impacts regarding
traffic, water, wastewater, schools, flooding or other utility
issues. Therefore, there is no significant impact upon the
environment.
U.4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly? No
No. This conclusion is based upon a review of responses to
Questions A-T. Therefore, there is no potential for a
significant effect on the environment.
VIII. References used in responding to this questionnaire
include:
P.S. Existing General Plan text, City of P.S. (March 3,
1993)
P.S. General Plan, EIR and Technical Appendices, City of
P.S. Planning Dept. (July 1992)
Archaeological Study, M.C. Hall, Archaeological Research
Unit, University of California
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 27680, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS STATED, TO SUBDIVIDE 10 ACRES INTO
17 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VISTA CHINO AND VIA
MONTE VISTA, R-1-A ZONE, hSECTION 10.
WHEREAS, The Palm Mountain Company, (the "Applicant") has filed an
application with the City pursuant to Section 9402 . 00 of the Zoning
Code and the Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 9 . 60 for a
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 10 acres into 17 single family
residential lots at the southwest corner of Vista Chino and Via
Monte Vista (the "Project") , R-1-A Zone, Section 10; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed Tentative Tract Map 27680 with the
City and has paid the required filing fees; and
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map was submitted to appropriate
agencies as required by the subdivision requirements of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code, with the regftst for their review, comments
and requirements; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of
the City of Palm Springs to consider Applicant's application for
Tentative Tract Map 27680 was given in accordance with applicable
law; and
WHEREAS, on February 23, 1994, a public hearing on the application
for Tentative Tract Map 27680 was held by the Planning Commission
in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412 . 3 , the Planning
Commission has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision,
Tentative Tract Map 27680, 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 the City's obligation pursuant to its
police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 27680, is
considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") , and a Negative Declaration has
been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public
review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
The ' final Negative Declaration has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
City's CEQA procedures contained in the City's CEQA
Guidelines. The Planning Commission has independently
reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Negative Declaration and finds that it adequately discusses
the 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 Planning Commission further finds that the
Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment.
Section 2 : Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473 .5, the
Planning Commission finds that the proposed
subdivision and the provisions for its design and
improvement are compatible with the objectives,
policies and general land uses and programs
provided in the City's General Plan and any
applicable specific plan; and
Section 3 : Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the
Planning Commission finds that the proposed
subdivision and the provisions for its design and
improvements are compatible with the objectives,
policies and general land use provided in the
City's local open space plan; and
Section 4 : Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 , the
Planning Commission 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.
b. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of
development contemplated by the proposed subdivision.
/ZALD
d. 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.
f. The design of the subdivision or improvements is not
likely to cause 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.
Section 5: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 . 6, the
Planning Commission 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; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Tentative
Tract Map 27680 subject to those conditions set forth in the
attached Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy unless other specified.
ADOPTED this day of , 1993 .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Secretary, Planning Commission Chairman, Planning Commission
J,2 i�
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Tentative Tract Map 27680
February 23, 1994
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, or the Fire Chief, or
their designee, depending on which department recommended the
condition.
ENGINEERING:
VIA MONTE VISTA
1. Dedicate a half street right-of-way of 30 feet along the
entire frontage, together with 25 foot radius property line
returns at the INTERSECTION OF VIA MONTE VISTA AND LOT B.
2. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City
of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit.
3 . Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, per City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 200, 20 feet WEST of centerline along the
entire frontage, with 35 foot radius curb returns at the
INTERSECTION OF LOT B AND VIA MONTE VISTA. Meet and match
existing curb and gutter at south property line.
4 . Construct an end of curb section at the north property line
per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 203 .
5. Construct a 6 foot cross gutter with spandrels at the
intersection of VIA MONTE VISTA and LOT B with a flow line
parallel to the centerline of VIA MONTE VISTA in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 206 and 207 .
6. ' All driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have
minimum widths of 10 feet.
7 . Construct a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along
the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 210.
8. Construct a 'ramp for the physically handicapped at the
NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST corners at the INTERSECTION OF LOT B
AND VIA MONTE VISTA in accordance with City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 212.
1nLAL %
9 . Construct a minimum pavement section of 2 inch asphalt-rubber
hot mix over 6 inch Class II aggregate base, OR equalent
section of asphalt over the same base section, and a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction from edge of
proposed gutter to centerline along the entire frontage in
accordance with City' of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 315
AND 110. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R"
values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City
Engineer for approval.
10. Install post mounted reflector units at north property line
across end of pavement per City of Palm Springs Standard
Drawing No. 605.
LOTS B AND C (STREETS)
11. The following gated entry requirements shall be met to provide
adequate setbacks and turning movements for vehicles entering
this project:
A. Provide minimum curb cut of 60 feet.
B. Provide minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate
control mechanism.
C. Provide a turnaround after the control mechanism for
vehicles unable to enter the project.
D. Provide a minimum curb to curb dimension of 40 feet.
12 . Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, per City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 200, 20 feet ON BOTH SIDES of centerline
along the entire frontage, with a 25 foot radius curb return
at the NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST corners of the INTERSECTION OF
LOT B AND LOT C and a 35 foot radius curb return at the
NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST corners of the INTERSECTION OF VIA
MONTE VISTA AND LOT B.
15 . Construct a 6 foot cross gutter with spandrels at the
intersection of LOT B and LOT C with a flow line parallel to
the centerline of LOT B in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 206 and 207 .
14 . All driveway approaches shall be constructed in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have
minimum widths of 10 feet.
15. Construct a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along
the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 210.
16. Construct a ramp for the physically handicapped at the
NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST corners of the subject property in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 212 .
17. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2 inch asphalt-rubber
hot mix over 4 inch Class II aggregate base, OR equalent
AM 4�
section of asphalt over the same base section, and a minimum
subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction from edge of
proposed gutter to edge of proposed gutter along the entire
frontages in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard
Drawing No. 110 and 305. The pavement section shall be
designed, using "R" values, by a licensed Soils Engineer and
submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
18. The private streets shall be maintained by the homeowner's
association and said maintenance shall be covered in the C. C.
& R. 's for this tract.
ON-BITE
19. All centerline radii shall be a minimum of 150 feet.
20. All on-site cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance
With City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 101, curb
portion only.
21. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. A
manhole shall be placed where the private system meets the
public system.
GENERAL
22. Developer shall construct an 8 inch sewer main across the
entire Via Monte Vista frontage in accordance with the Master
Plan of Sewers and connect to the existing sewer system at the
intersection of Stevens Road and Via Monte Vista.
23 . Developer shall construct 8 inch sewer mains 5 feet from the
centerline, where applicable, of Lots B and C and connect to
the proposed manhole at the intersection of Via Monte Vista
and Lot B.
24 . 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.
25. All sewer mains constructed by the developer in the private
streets shall be maintained by the homeowner's association and
said maintenance shall be covered in the C. C. & R. 's for this
tract.
26. Submit street and sewer improvement plans prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Division. The
plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of any grading or building permits.
27 . The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the
subject property and the traverse closures for the existing
parcel and all lots created therefrom shall be submitted with
the Final Map to the Engineering Division.
28 . The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or
qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering
Division for review. Submittal shall be made prior to issuance
of grading or building permits.
29 . Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer
to the Engineering Division for plan check. The Grading Plan
shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
any grading or building permits.
30. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm
Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board
(Phone No. (916) -657-0687) and provide a copy of same, when
executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the
grading permit.
31. Any utility cuts in the existing pavement made by this
development shall receive trench replacement pavement to match
existing pavement plus 1 additional inch. Pavement shall be
restored to a smooth rideable surface.
32 . All existing and proposed utility lines on/or adjacent to this
project shall be undergrounded. The location and size of the
existing overhead facilities shall be provided to the
Engineering Division along with written confirmation from the
involved utility company(s) that the required deposit to
underground the facility(s) has been paid, prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
All undergrounding of utilities shall be completed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of occupancy.
33 . Developer shall contact all utility purveyors to obtain
written confirmation of service and submit a copy of all
utility company will-serve letters to the City Engineer with
first plan check.
34 . The developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, that this development can accept and convey to
an approved drainage carrier, flood and/or nuisance waters
from a 10-year storm that impinge upon this development. The
development shall provide on-site storage (detention facility)
to retain a minimum of 1, 000 cubic feet per each acre 'of
drainage area. Predevelopment Q shall not be exceeded. The
developer shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, that flood and/or nuisance waters leaving the ends
of the street(s) will not cause any erosion, nuisance or
damage downstream of the improvements proposed and/or required
by this development. Additional improvements will be required
off-site if any possibility of damage exists.
35. The natural drainage course through Lots 9, 10, 11 may be
diverted away from building pads and shall not be obstructed
in any way. This condition shall be incorporated into the
CC&R's for this tract.
36. 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.
37. In accordance with City of Palm Springs ordinances, Sections
8. 04 . 230 and 8 . 04.240, 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.
38 . Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off
area of street intersection or driveway which does or will
exceed three (3) feet in height in order to maintain an
appropriate sight distance.
39. A soils report prepared by a licensed Soils Engineer shall be
required for and incorporated as an integral part of the
grading plan for the proposed site. A copy of the soils report
shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the
Engineering Division along with plans, calculations and other
information subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of the grading permit.
40. All tree wells within the public right-of-way and within 10
feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City
approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs
Engineering specifications.
TRAFFIC
41. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk
clearance around all street furniture 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 VIA MONTE VISTA AND
LOT B frontages of the subject property.
42. Separate striping plans are to be prepared and submitted along
with street improvement plans for review and approval by the
City Engineer.
43 . Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620
through 625.
/2r44
44 . 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:
Southwest Corner of Via Monte Vista and Lot B
Northwest Corner of Lot C and Lot B
45. The developer shall install a 16,000 lumen high pressure
sodium vapor safety street light with glare shield on a
marbelite pole on the Northwest corner of VIA MONTE VISTA and
LOT B with the mast arm over VIA MONTE VISTA. The pole and
luminaire shall be furnished by the developer.
46. 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 1991, or subsequent
additions in force at the time of construction.
47 . This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fee based on the RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
ITE Code B land use.
PLANNING:
48 . 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.
49 . 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
advisory agencies, or legislative body concerning Tentative
Tract Map 27680. The City of Palm Springs will promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding
against the City of Palm Springs and will cooperate fully in
the defense. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding
or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hold harmless the City of Palm Springs.
50. 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 filing fee of $1,250. 00 plus an
administration fee of $78. 00 shall be submitted by the
applicant in a form of a money order or a cashier's check in
the amount of $1,328 . 00 payable to the Riverside County Clerk
ion04 � �
prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall be
submitted by the City to the County Clerk with Notice of
Determination. Action on this application shall not be final
until such fee is paid.
51. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive set of codes, covenants, and restrictions
("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Zoning with the
application fro Final Map for approval in a form approved by
the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the
City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall
require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in
accordance with all ordinances and conditions stated herein.
CC&R's shall include project design guidelines, including but
not limited to landscape requirements, slope restoration,
building height standards, walls, building materials, multi-
level homes conforming to existing topography. The applicant
shall reimburse the City for all legal costs associated with
City Attorney review and approval of project CC&R's
52 . That prior to issuance of a grading permit, a restoration
program shall be submitted for approval by the Director of
Planning and Zoning. This program shall include full
vegetation and soil restoration of all areas disturbed during
project grading and construction. The plan shall be prepared
by a licensed Landscape Architect. Irrigation shall be
provided during the initial restoration periods.
53 . That grading of individual lots shall be prohibited until such
•time that building permits are issued for single family
residences.
54 . That detailed entry gate plans shall be submitted pursuant to
Section 9404 .00 of the Zoning ordinance. Plans shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission prior to
submission of the final map for approval.
55. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and
Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Director of Building and Safety. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the
Municipal Code for specific requirements.
56. 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.
57 . This project shall be subject to the Public Arts Fee as
required in section 9311. 00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Said fee
is 1% of the total value of work as determined by the
Department of Building and Safety and payable prior to
issuance of building permits. should the fee be utilized to
locate the public art on the project site, said location shall
58 . 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.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
59. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8 . 04 of the
Palm Springs Municipal Code.
FIRE:
60. The project shall provide four (4) H-1 residential fire
hydrants meeting Desert Water Agency requirements. The
project shall submit 8-1/2" x 11" site plan for locations
prior to any building permit.
61. Construction sites or phasing sites of construction in excess
of 5,000 sq. ft. shall be fenced. An on duty security guard
is required when construction site exceeds 20, 000 sq. ft.
62 . The project shall provide garden hoses with adjustable nozzles
to cover all construction sites.
63 . Fire hydrants shall be within 250' of all construction sites.
64. Smoke detectors shall be provided per the Uniform Building
Code.
65. Additional requirements may be set forth as conditions
warrant.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
66. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits
must be secured.
� oax *
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
September 26, 2001 1:30 p.m. Jr�
Council Chambers, City Hall
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
FY 00-01
ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences
This Meeting To Date To Date
Philip Klatchko, Chr. X 5 1
Jeffrey Jurasky, V.Chr. X 5 1
Ralph Raya X 5 1
Jon Shoenberger X 5 1
Stephen Payne X 4 2
Jon Caffery X 6 0
Mark Matthews` X 6 0
*Arrived at 2:00 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building
Dave Barakian, City Engineer
Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner
Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator
Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.
The September 26, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior
bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday,
September 21, 2001.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
M/S/C (Caffery/Jurasky 4-0, 2 abstain, 1 absent) to approve the minutes of August 22, 2001 as
presented.
I VL r4 la
Page 9 of 11
Planning Commission Minutes (�1
September 26, 2001
TTM 27680—Application by the Palm Mountain Company for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide
7.2 acres into nine residential lots and one remainder lot on property located southwest of the
intersection of Via Monte Vista and Vista Chino, Zone R-1-A, Section 14.
/;I �l
Page 10 of 11
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2001
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that map application is nearly identical to an expired
map previously approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1994. He reported that
the number of lots has been reduced since that approval (from 17 to nine) in order to minimize
impacts to adjacent properties. He stated that the subject property is located in a hillside area and
that proposed pad elevations range from 623 feet to 664 feet. He reviewed the adjacent lots' pad
elevations for the Planning Commission.
Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 5:20 p.m.
Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the
"remainder lot" referred to in the staff report was sold to a Rose Avenue resident and no longer
in included in the map. Regarding Planning Condition No.19, he asked if it could be amended to
allow as many as four lots to be graded prior to building permits being issued for pads in order to
market the property. Regarding Planning Condition No.28 and Engineering Condition No.35, he
asked that the developer be allowed to enter into a covenant to participate in an undergrounding
assessment district. Regarding Planning Condition No.29, he reported that the lot line adjustment
had been completed 2 '/z years prior, making it a non-issue. Regarding Engineering Condition
No.2, he asked that the developer be allowed to work with the City Engineer, as an easement over
Rose Road exists. He asked that Engineering Condition Nos. 8 and 9 requiring the construction
of sidewalks and curb ramps as there is existing sidewalk on Via Monte Vista—that the developer
would prefer to landscape or otherwise beautify the area.
Mr. Ralph Hitchcock, Hitchcock &Associates, addressed the Planning Commission to state that
Engineering Condition No.38 addressed the ability to enter into a covenant forthe undergrounding
of utilities which is in conflict with Planning Condition Nos. 28 and 29.
Mr. Fred Grand, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the map expired
because other projects were delayed and those delays impacted the development of the subject
map. He stated that, in 1994, each of the adjacent property owners were consulted and no one
spoke in opposition and, at that time, the map was for 17 lots. He noted that there were no
opponents at today's public hearing either.
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed at 5:35.
City Engineer confirmed that Mr. Sanborn's request for a covenant for undergrounding would be
consistent with the City Ordinance. He stated that the requirement for a sidewalk (Engineering
Conditions 8 and 9) are not necessary as there is already a sidewalk on the subject road to help
prevent pedestrians from walking in the street.
Commissioner Raya called Mr. Sanborn to the podium.
In answer to Commissioner Raya's questions, Mr. Sanborn stated that grading four lots prior to
building permits is in to establish lots(with roads and improvements in place)which can be shown
for marketing purposes. He stated that only four are proposed to be graded and that no pads will
be built in order to provide options otherthan flat pads for design-conscience prospective builders.
114 7%xo
a
Page 11 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2001 �G�
u
Planning Manager confirmed that the environmental documents from 1994 do not prevent the
grading of lots provided the quantity of earth moved during that grading is within the parameters
of that assessment.
M/S/C (Caffery/Shoenberger 7-0) to approve subject to Conditions of Approval in Staff Report;
and
a. Condition No.19. will be changed to read, 'That grading of individual lots shall be
prohibited until such time that grading permits are issued for single family lots
within the parameters of the 1994 Environmental Assessment;" and
b. Deleting Engineering Conditions of Approval 8 & 9 (removing requirement to
construct sidewalk).
C. Deleting Planning Conditions 28 & 29 regarding undergrounding of utilities.
1� � 73
AFFIDAVIT
OF
MAILING NOTICES
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm 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 Tentative Tract
Map 29680, southwest corner of the intersection of Via Monte Vista and
Vista Chino, applicant, Palm Mountain Co., was mailed to each and every
person on the attached list on the 5th day of October, 2001. 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 true and correct.
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 5`h day of October, 2001.
-r 0,-
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Tract Map 29680
Southwest corner of the intersection of Via Monte Vista and Vista Chino,
Zone R-1-A, Section 10.
Applicant: Palm Mountain Co.
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 17, 2001, The City Council meeting begins at
7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm
Springs, California.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application by the Palm Mountain Company to
obtain the approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 7.2 acres into nine (9) single family
residential lots.
An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study was prepared for this project. Pursuant to Section
21092.6 (a) of the Public Resources Code, the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the subject project
was filed by the Planning Commission on December 14, 2001 as part of an earlier approval of
this project.
If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only
those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence
at or prior to the City Council meeting.
Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400)feet of
the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to
be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner,
Department of Planning & Building, 760/323-8245.
Patricia A. Sanders
City Clerk
Mailing: October 1, 2001,
Fax to Desert Sun: October 1, 2001
Printed in Desert Sun October 5, 2001
VICINTY MAP
N.T.S.
TRACT
LOCATION
AIJUE D VISTA, CMNO DRIVE
ROAD
�s
0
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. Tentative Tract Map29680 DESCRIPTION
APPLICANT Subdivide 7.2 acres into 9 single family
residential lots and one remainder parcel.
Palm Mountain Co. Zone: R-1-A, Section:14. !
Sanborn A/E, Inc
1227 S . GEne Auty Trl .
Suite C
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Sanborn A/E, Inc Sanborn A/E, Inc. Sanborn A/E, Inc.
1227 South Gene Autry Trl. 1227 South Gene Autry Trl. 1227 South Gene Autry Trl
Suite C Suite C Suite C
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
Preserve Golf Preserve Golf Preserve Golf
11839 Sorrento Valley Rd. 11839 Sorrento Valley Rd. 11839 Sorrento Valley Rd.
San Diego, CA 92121 San Diego, CA 92121 San Diego,CA 92121
ATTN: Fred Grand ATTN: Fred Grand ATTN: Fred Grand
dG Gem
Preserve Golf
11839 Sorrento Valley Rd.
San Diego, Ca 92121
ATTN: Fred Grand
Y I-oJ r Tee w
�G1� Cs
`�3a>
504-212-002 504-212-008 505-151-029
Patricia N Ott Gladys N Krenek Sitikantha & Shakti Mahapatra
PO Box 2126 PO Box 2085 PO Box 2407
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263
504-212-005 504-291-011 505-052-008
Lola N Sacks Michael N Pennell Michael E & Maureen Fife
777 Chino Cyn 1775 E Palm Canyon Dr H134 69930 Highway 111 308
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
504-212-009 504-213-002 504-213-004
Thomas P Reeder Edward J Domanskis Edward J Domanskis
PO Box 1296 1441 Avocado Ave 307 1441 Avocado Ave 307
Newport Beach, CA 92659 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
505-030-001 505-044-017 504-213-007
Edward J Domanskis Edward J Domanskis Robert C Gould
1441 Avocado Ave 307 1441 Avocado Ave 307 PO Box 6354
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Portland, OR 97228
504-211-001 504-211-007 504-201-033
Patrick J & Darle Maveety Long Andrew Z Linsky
PO Box 56 14650 1St Ave S 6601 E Mill Plain Blvd
Gleneden Beach, OR 97388 Seattle, WA 98168 Vancouver, WA 98661
*** 75 Printed ***
505-052-015 505-052-016 505-151-026
Leo S & Cyma Cohen John E & Farnaz Phillips Allan & Evelyn Sass
601 W Stevens Rd 695 W Stevens Rd 538 W Stevens Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
505-151-027 505-151-028 505-171-001
Larry M Berkowitz Bhaskararao & Padmavathi Nale Kenneth E & Gretchen Haggstrc
580 W Stevens Rd 594 W Stevens Rd 591 W Stevens Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
505-171-008 504-291-012 504-202-009
Daniel B & Sari Schachtel Wilfred K & Joanne Futerer Paul Bruggemans
550 Camino Norte 655 N Palm Canyon Dr 385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
505-030-010 504-201-024 504-201-026
Palm Mountain Co William J Grimm Irving & Marilyn Hirshleifer
155 S Belardo Rd 1011 W Cielo Dr 877 W Panorama Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
504-202-005 504-202-010 504-211-009
Jacqueline Kendig - Richard L Simon Sharon Dean
933 W Chino Canyon Rd 1860 N Vista Dr 1843 N Leonard Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
504-212-004 504-212-006 504-212-007
Miles E & Susan Barrett Jerry D Korte Giuseppe G Aliano
1725 N Tuscan Rd 669 W Chino Canyon Rd 633 W Chino Canyon Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
504-212-010 504-212-011 504-213-005
Marshall & Helen Bedder Dana K Valmy James D Neff
1700 N Tuscan Rd 700 W Panorama Rd 777 W Panorama Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
504-213-006 504-213-008 504-292-001
Ahmet E Oygar Harvey & Lori Sarner John F Macon
711 W Panorama Rd 701 W Panorama Rd 595 W Chino Canyon Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
504-292-002 504-292-014 505-030-004
Donald W & Julie Jones James J Gaudineer Harvey & Lori Sarner
511 W Chino Canyon Rd 600 W Panorama Rd 701 W Panorama Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
505-151-023 504-212-003 504-211-002
Madhusudhan T Gupta Morris J Diehl Harry A & Beverly Danielson
555 W Vista Chino PO Box 1587 PC Box 1806
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263
504-211-004 504-211-008 505-051-007
Harry & Beverly Danielson Weona E Armstrong Cfi Partnership No 2
4226 Central St 1107 Voltz Rd 300 N Elizabeth St 6N
Gulfport, MS 39501 Northbrook, IL 60062 Chicago, IL 60607
505-052-014 505-044-015 504-213-001
Edward J Marteka Jerry Ganz Phillip G Lumpkin
1550 N Lake Shore Dr 12C 175 E Delaware P1 9109 4608 N Virginia Ave
Chicago, IL 60610 Chicago, IL 60611 Chicago, IL 60625
505-041-008 504-201-008 504-202-007
Arnold Stevens Martha E Scott Kay S Onderdonk
3500 Lakeside Ct 200 45O N Rossmore Ave 12839 Marlboro St
Reno, NV 89509 Los Angeles, CA 90004 Los Angeles, CA 90049
504-202-008 504-291-010 505-171-009
Kay S Onderdonk Anthony F & Patricia Fantozz: Robert & Marilynne Stander
12839 Marlboro St 79 Malibu Colony Rd 11 Saddleback Rd
Los Angeles, CA 90049 Malibu, CA 90265 Rolling Hills, CA 90274
504-212-001 505-030-012 504-202-006
Lola N Sacks Arnold Stevens First
23901 Calabasas Rd 2001 3333 N San Fernando Blvd 393 W Foothill Blvd F12
Calabasas, CA 91302 Burbank, CA 91504 Claremont, CA 91711
504-211-003 504-292-015 504-292-018
Royal Oak Kings Hideaway Inc Security Brent R Harris
1670 Bradshawe Ave 925 B St F15 925 B St F15
Monterey Park, CA 91754 San Diego, CA 92101 San Diego, CA 92101
504-292-016 504-292-017 504-201-025
Security Security Thomas T Anderson
PO Box 121589 PO Box 121589 49926 Oasis St
San Diego, CA 92112 San Diego, CA 92112 Indio, CA 92201
505-030-006 505-044-016 505-051-006
Roy & Ethel Fey Edith A Toor Edward J Marteka
855 W Coronado Ave 1000 W Coronado Ave 690 W Stevens Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
505-051-008 505-051-009 505-051-010
Harold M Vessey Marianne I & Carl Kaplan Harold M Vessey
650 W Stevens Rd 600 W Stevens Rd 650 W Stevens Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
505-051-017 505-052-006 505-052-011
Melvyn & Stephanie Haber David Gura John C Otto
700 W Stevens Rd 1455 N Via Monte Vista 707 W Stevens Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
r / q
, u
-20
66 W 3
1
I
986s
l -J
Uo S�
'�i) e I1 O cc,�IlAryj�
✓ a�0 tp 0'6 llq i
S
n
J f
I Kp 1/ I��r � 'r •,���I
5
505-051-010
Harold M Vessey -
650 W Stevens Rd ,•'�
Palm S 504- ``<y
prings, 202-005g•
--- CA 92262
— 1ao4ueline
A�9,2,2,62,
------ __ ---- pa
3
W chino n
lm springs - C
KU
RWaop 4 "
:'n�iD�'%��., \• PAIJ. 1SC1q LTHE4 Try
rp StNDu'Xor
- — RiNc: '14XNa xt
- - a r
-
fff l
r1 I
505-052-014
Edward J Marteka -:�
1550 N Lake Shore �� � -
Chicago, 1L 60610 Dr 12C
t Q,.
Pr a�i h
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P) I d
r" f 7�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
No 9496 - - -
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Tentative Tract Map 29680
Southwest corner of the intersection
of Via Monte Vista and Vista Chino
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Zone R-1-A, Section 10
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen Applicant: Palm Mountain Co.
years,and not a Party to or interested in the NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City CounCll
of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a
above-entitled matter.I am the Principal clerk of a pabbe hearing at its meeting of October 17,2001
tinter of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING The City Council meeting begins at 7 00 p.m in
P the City Council Chambei at City Flail, 3200 E
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Tahcrua Canyon way, Palm Springs, California.
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, The purpose of the healing Is t'o consider an ahI-
pllcatlon by the Palm Mountain Company to ab-
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been tain the approval,of a tentative tract map to sub-
adjudged a newspaper of eneral circulation b the divide 72 acres into nine(9)single family iosiden-
J gg y tial lots.
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of ••• •••••••—,�• -�'•_ ,
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller
than non pariel,has been published in each regular w
.nox
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in anyw -
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
October Sth _
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
u rr or orw, snawcs
r ra s-�,
All in the year 2001 '--sK-------`' --
An Environmental Assessmenvonnal-Study was
prepared for this proIect Pursuant to Section
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the 21692 6 (a) of the I i e nesournes Code, ,he
Callfornia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
foregoing is true and correct. (CEQA), a Negative Declaration of Environmental
npact for the subject project was filed by the
5th Pl conrg Commission on December 14, 20 1 as
Dated at Palm Springs,California this-------------day
part of an earlier approval of this project
October If any individual or group challenges the action in
court, issues raised may be limited to only those
of---------------------------------------2001 ssues raised at the public hearrgs described in
this notice of in wrlHen correspondence at or pri-
or to the City Council meeting
Je-4y,(-, ^/�� Notice of Public Heanhg is being sent to all prop-
6 61 eK>>=i/� any owners within four hundred (400) feet of the
______________ subject property. An opportunity will be given at
na SI ture said hearings for all interested persons to be
g heard Questions regarding this case may be di-
rected to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, De-
partment of Planning & Building, 760/323-8245.
Patncia A. Sanders
City Clerk
PUB: October 5, 200I 1
pqA PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Piling Slarhp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Comity of Riverside
No.9326 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF PLANNING
ANNIN GCOMMISSION
JAPARITentative Tract MOP 29680
Palm Mountain Co.
South west of the intersection
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident Of of Via Monte Vista and Vista Como
the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the P Crillfc
lanninrg-
Cammission of the City of palm Springs,
years,and not a pally to Or interested in the ma, will hold a ppublic hearing at its meeting of
Se tember 2e,2001 The Planning Commission
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a n ho begins at 1:30 p m. (pubic hearings City
be-
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING g a at 32,0 p.m.)m the ouCa you wry,at palm
all, 3O0 P ptie tz Canyon Wa Palm
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Springs. p
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, ThoaPo Pos me Pat, Mountainoc mVp�'ny to ob-
Connty of Riverside,and which newspaper has been am the appproval of a Tentative Tract yap'd sub-
dmide 7 2 acres Into 9 single family resdenHal
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the lots and one remainder parcel. The property IS
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of zone P-1 A and M located In Section 14.
California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case �tiw,r aM
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller
than non pariel,has been published fn each regular
.and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
77
September I4th - i
^_,•v ar Ptr+n snninGS
All In the yem 2001
An Environmental Assessment/Initial Study was
ion
I certifyor declare under penalty of perjury that the graveled for the pro eat, Pursuant to Code
the
( p y P 1 1092.8 a of the Pudic Resources Cade, the
foregoing is true and correct. Calrfoma)Environmental Ouality Act (CEQA), a
g g Negative Declaration of Environmental Ilmpaot for
14th the sobject proleot was filed W the Planning
Commission on December 14,19 4 as part of an
Dated at Palm Springs,California this--------------day earlier approval of this protect
September If any individual or group challenges the action in
-- -- - - - - �^ court, issues raised may he limited to only those
of----- -- -- 2001 issues rased at the public hearing described in
f this notice or in written tortes ondencehopin at, n pon-
1 or to, the ill be given
Commission hearing P-
\J6 p p�a p,red p will be given e said hearing for g lrnar-
C�1.1.Y ested persons to be heard Questions regarding
-----------------------------------^------------------ --^---^ this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff,Oe-
padment of Planning R Building, (760)323-8245.
Signature Of
property oce wners lic within within four hundred (400)tfeet of
the subject property.
PLANNING COMMISSION
/s/Douglas R. Evans
{ Directed of Planning & Building
PUB: September 14_2001 ___
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING OF TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 27680, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT A, TO SUBDIVIDE 7.2 ACRES
INTO NINE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VISTA
CHINO AND VIA MONTE VISTA, R-I-A ZONE, SECTION
10,
WHEREAS, The Palm Mountain Company, (the "Applicant") has filed an application with
the City pursuant to Section 9402.00 of the Zoning Code and the Palm Springs Municipal
Code Section 9.60 for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 7.2 acres into 9 single family
residential lots, at the southwest corner of Vista Chino and Via Monte Vista (the "Project"),
R-I-A Zone, Section 10; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has filed Tentative Tract Map 27680 with the City and has paid
the required filing fees; and
WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map was 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 a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Applicant's application for Tentative Tract Map 27680 was given in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Subdivision,Tentative Tract Map 27680, is considered a"project"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared for this project, has been distributed for public review and
comment in accordance with CEQA and was approved by the City Council in 1994; and
WHEREAS, on September 26,2001, a public hearing on the application for Tentative Tract
Map 27680 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve
the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider Applicant's application for Tentative Tract Map 27680 was given in accordance
with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on October 17,2001, a public hearing on the application for Tentative Tract
Map 27680 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and
!a &
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has
considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 27680, 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 the City's obligation
pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; 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 Negative Declaration was completed in compliance with CEQA,the
State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA procedures contained in the
City's CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that it has previously and
independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Negative Declaration and finds that it adequately discusses the 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 existing Negative Declaration reflects its
independent judgment.
Section 2: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5, the City Council finds that
the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement
are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land uses and
programs provided in the City's General Plan and any applicable specific
plan; and
Section 3: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65567, the Council finds that the
proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvements
are compatible with the objectives, policies and general land use provided
in the City's local open space plan; and
Section 4: 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.
b. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with
the General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated by
the proposed subdivision. The remainder lot will be merged into an existing
parcel through the lot line adjustment procedure.
d. 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.
f. The design of the subdivision or improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems. Drainage proposed under this plan does not vary
from the earlier map approval in 1993.
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.
h. Pursuant to Fish&Game Code Section 711.4,this project has a de minimus
impact on fish and wildlife,
i. A nexus and rough proportionality have been established for the
requirement of the dedication of the additional right- of-way to the City and
the off-site improvements as related to this tentative tract map application.
j. This right-of-way dedications and off-site improvements related to this
tentative tract map application are required to comply with the City of Palm
Springs General Plan designations for Via Monte Vista.
Section 5: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.6, the City Council
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; and
Ixn
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the City Council approves Tentative Tract
Map 27680 subject to those conditions set forth in the in Exhibit A on file in the City Clerks
office, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Building Permit unless other
specified.
ADOPTED this 171h day of October, 2001.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By:
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
r�.� y
RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Tentative Tract Map 27680 -
Southwest corner of Vista Chino/Via Monte Vista
October 17, 2001
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, or 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,
ENGINEERING:
The Engineering Department recommends that if this application is approved, such
approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City
standards and ordinances:
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The street, storm drain, and sewer plans have been submitted, reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer.
STREETS
1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit.
2. Developer shall enter into an easement agreement for right of ingress and egress
over the private streets, Coronado Avenue and Rose Avenue, for Lots 4 and 5 on
Tract Map 27680 prior to approval of the Final Map.
3. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the
Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable:
A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
B. All agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer,
applicable.
C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment
agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc.
required by these conditions.
VIA MONTE VISTA
4. Dedicate a full half street right-of-way of 30 feet along the entire frontage of the
subject property in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No.
105.
5. Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 20 feet WEST of centerline along the entire
frontage, with 35 foot radius curb returns at the INTERSECTION OF LOT B AND
VIA MONTE VISTA per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. Meet and
match existing curb and gutter at south property line.
6. Construct an end of curb section at the north property line per City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 200.
7. Construct a 6 foot wide cross gutter and spandrel at the intersection of VIA MONTE
VISTA and LOT B with a flow line parallel to the centerline of VIA MONTE VISTA
in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206.
8. Eliminated.
9. Eliminated.
10. Construct a minimum pavement section of 3 inch asphalt concrete pavement over
6 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative
compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to centerline along the entire
frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and
315. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R"values, by a licensed Soils
Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
11. Install post mounted reflector units at north property line across end of pavement
per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 605.
LOT B (Private Street)
12A. IF a gated entry will be constructed on Lot B,the following requirements for a gated
entry shall be met to provide adequate setbacks and turning movements for
vehicles entering the primary parking facilities of this project:
A. Provide a minimum curb cut of 60 feet
B. Provide a minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate control mechanism
C. Provide a turnaround after the mechanism for vehicles unable to enter the
project
D. Security gates shall be a minimum of 14 feet clear width in each direction.
E. Provide a minimum back of curb to back of curb dimension of 37 feet.
12B. IF a gated entry will not be constructed on Lot B, the Developer shall provide and
install a traffic sign meeting the City Engineer's approval indicating Lot B is a
"Private Street".
12C. The median within Lot B shall be relocated outside of public right-of-way.
i ;. 4L
13, Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 18 feet on both sides of centerline of centerline
along the entire frontage, with a 35 foot radius curb return at the NORTHWEST
AND SOUTHWEST corners of the INTERSECTION OF VIA MONTE VISTA AND
LOT B per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
14. The driveway approach shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 and have minimum width of 10 feet.
15. The on-site cul-de-sac shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs
Standard Drawing No. 101, curb portion only. The hammerhead off of Coronado
Avenue shall be shown on the street improvement plan for review and approval by
the City Engineer.
16. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2-1/2 asphalt concrete pavement over
4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative
compaction, OR equal, from edge of proposed gutter to edge of proposed gutter
along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing
No. 110 and 300. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, by a
licensed Soils Engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
17. The private street shall be maintained by the homeowner's association and said
maintenance shall be covered in the C C & R's for this tract.
SANITARY SEWER
18. Submit sewer improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the
Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal shall include the following:
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.
19. Developer shall construct an 8 inch sewer main across the entire Via Monte Vista
frontage in accordance with the Master Plan of Sewers and connect to the existing
sewer system at the intersection of Stevens Road and Via Monte Vista.
20. Developer shall construct an 8 inch sewer main 5 feet from centerline, where
applicable, in Lot B and connect to the proposed manhole at the intersection of Via
Monte Vista and Lot B.
21. 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.
22. All sewer mains constructed by the developer in the private street shall be
maintained by the homeowner's association and said maintenance shall be covered
in the C C & R's for this tract.
/2L
GRADING
23. 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.
24. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering
Department for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for comments prior to submittal to the Engineering Department.
The PM 10 (dust control) Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Building
Division prior to approval of the grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal includes the following:
A. Copy of Planning Department comments regarding the grading plan.
B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning
Department.
D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months.
E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions.
F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions.
G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board(Phone No. 916 657-0687)to the City
Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
25. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-T wide and
6" deep - to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or
gutters.
26. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the
State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687) and provide a
copy of same, when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading
permit.
27. 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.
28. A soils report prepared by a licensed Soils Engineer shall be required for and
incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site. A copy of
the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the
Engineering Department along with plans,calculations and other information subject
to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit.
29, Contactthe Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the
PM10 (dust control) Plan requirements.
30. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving an engineered grading plan and the export
of native soil from the site will be required to present a clearance document from a
Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved
"Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange,
Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) or a verbal release from
that office prior to the issuance of the City grading permit. The California
Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,
Palm Desert. (Phone: 760-776-8208)
DRAINAGE
31. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these
flows to an approved drainage structure. On-site retention/detention or other
measures approved by the City Engineer shall be required if off-site facilities are
determined to be unable to handle the increased flows generated by the
development of the site. Provide calculations to determine if the developed Q
exceeds the capacity of the approved drainage carriers.
32. Off-site drainage from the north and Coronado Avenue, shall be routed via the
storm drain line in the storm drain easement to Lot B.
33. 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
34. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall
receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one
additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement
shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface.
35. All proposed utility lines on/or adjacent to this project shall be undergrounded prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
36. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and
proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line.The
approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City of
Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
37. All existing utility lines along Via Monte Vista and proposed utility lines that are less
than 35 kV on/or adjacent to this project shall be undergrounded. The location and
size of the existing overhead facilities shall be provided to the Engineering
Department along with written confirmation from the involved utility company(s)that
the required deposit to underground the facility(s) has been paid, prior to issuance
of a grading permit. All undergrounding of utilities shall be completed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
106%0 1
38. The overhead poles along the south property line of the tract also being the
common property line with single family residences fronting on Stevens Road West
shall be deferred to a utility undergrounding covenant.
The owner shall enter into a covenant agreeing to underground the existing
overhead facilities on/or adjacent to the south property line that are less than 35 kV
in the future upon request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as
deemed necessary. The covenant shall be consummated and submitted to the
Engineering Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. An updated title
report or a copy of the current tax bill shall be provided to verify ownership.
39. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for
this project at the earliest possible date.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public
sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City
of Palm Springs Engineering specifications.
MAP
43. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the
traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies
of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering
Department.
44. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil
Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall
be made prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
TRAFFIC
45. 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 VIA MONTE VISTA AND LOT B frontages of the
subject property.
46. Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in accordance with City of
Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620 through 625.
47. A 30 inch "STOP" sign and standard "STOP BAR" and "STOP LEGEND" shall be
installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620-626 at the following
locations:
SW Cor. of Via Monte Vista @ Lot B
/� 6com
48. The developer shall provide entry lighting at the project entry. The lighting
equipment shall be furnished by the developer and shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building prior to installation.
49. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects
as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum,
all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State
of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS
FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES" dated 1996, or
subsequent additions in force at the time of construction.
50. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED ITE Code B land use.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
1. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code.
FIRE:
2. Construction Requirements: Construction shall be in accordance with the 1998
California Fire Code, 1997 Uniform Building Code, City of Palm Springs Fire
Protection Master Plan Vol. Il, Desert Water Agency, NFPA standards plus UL anc
CSFM listings and approval.
3. Fire Apparatus Access: Fire Department access roads shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9.
4. Turning Radius of Fire Apparatus: The outside turning radius of a fire apparatus
access road shall be 43' from the centerline. Inside turning radius shall be 30'.
5. Fencing Required: Construction site fencing required. Fire apparatus access gates
shall be at least 14' in width and equipped with a frangible chain and padlock.
6. Site Protection: Provide a water hose or hoses equipped with adjustable spray
nozzles for construction site fire protection that covers all area of combustible
construction.
7. Gate Locking Devices: Subdivision entry gate at Camino Monte Vista shall be
equipped with a KNOX key switch per the 1998 California Fire Code.
8. Water Supplies and Fire Hydrants: All water supplies and fire hydrants shall be
installed in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, Article 9,Appendix III-B
and Desert Water Agency specifications.
9. Water System and Fire Hydrants: Where underground water mains are to be
provided, they shall be installed, completed and in service with fire hydrants or
standpipes, or combination thereof, located as directed by this as authority having
jurisdiction, but not later than the time when combustible materials are delivered to
the construction site.
10. Mandatory Fire Sprinklers: Automatic fire sprinklers with 24 our monitoring is
required in accordance with City of Palms Springs Fire Protection Master Plan Vol.
II. Installation shall be in accordance with NFPA 13 D (modified).
11. Submittal: Fire sprinkler plans shall be approved priorto the installation of any pipe.
C-16 Fire Sprinkler Contractor shall submits plans directly to this office.
12. Smoke Detector Requirements: Residential smoke detectors shall be installed to
protect all sleeping areas per 1998 California Building Code.
13. Further Comments: As conditions warrant.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
14. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
PLANNING:
15. 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,
16. 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 advisory agencies, or
legislative body concerning Tentative Tract Map 27680. The City of Palm Springs
will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the
City of Palm Springs and will cooperate fully in the defense. 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.
17. 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 filing fee of
$1,250.00 plus an administration fee of-$78.00 shall be submitted by the applicant
in a form of a money order or a cashier's check in the amount of$1,328.00 payable
to the Riverside County Clerk prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall
be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with Notice of Determination.
18. That prior to issuance of a grading permit, a restoration program shall be submitted
for approval by the Director of Planning and Building, This program shall include full
vegetation and soil restoration of all areas disturbed during project grading and
construction. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect.
Irrigation shall be provided during the initial restoration periods.
19. That grading of individual lots shall be prohibited until such time that building
permits are issued for single family residences and provided documentation
demonstrating the grading is within the scope of the environmental assessment
completed in 1994 is provided.
20. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall submit a comprehensive set of
codes, covenants, and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and
Building with the application for Final Map for approval in a form approved by the
City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. The
CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City
approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in
accordance with all ordinances and conditions stated herein. CC&R's shall include
project design guidelines, including but not limited to landscape requirements,slope
restoration, building height standards, walls, building materials, multi- level homes
conforming to existing topography. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all
legal costs associated with City Attorney review and approval of project CC&R's.
21. That detailed entry gate plans if proposed shall be submitted pursuant to Section
9404.00 of the Zoning ordinance. Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the
Director of Planning & Building and City Engineer prior to submission of the final
map for approval,
22. Priorto 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,
23. 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.
24. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code
regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of a fee.
The provision of art or the fee shall be based upon the total value of work of 1/2%
(commercial) or 1/4% (residential with first$100,000 of total valuation for individual
single-family units exempt). Should the fee be utilized to locate the public art on the
project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Planning and Building and the Public Arts Commission.
25. 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,
26. A maximum roof elevation of 678 feet shall be recorded on the deed of Lot 4.
27. A maximum roof elevation of 682 feet shall be recorded on the deed of lot 5.
28. Eliminated.
29. Eliminated.
/� � l3