Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/6/2009 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.B. Page 1 of 3 Jay Thompson From: Roos, Mary [MRoos@msaconsultinginc.comj Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:31 PM To: Marcus Fuller Cc: Tracy Conrad; Lynch, Thomas, Dave Barakian; Felipe Primera: Jay Thompson Subject: RE: Item 4-13 on May 6 Council Agenda Marcus: Have you confirmed that the easterly easement is open to all utilities including possible future water and sewer? Would it be possible to forward that document. DWA was telling us that the existing line will have to be replaced with the construction of any new home on Palisades. The existing 4" pipe has likely lost a measure of its nominal efficiency. When they upgrade their water line, they will have to take steps to create the easement in any event in which to locate the new water line. There is some question as to whether their existing facilities are located within an easement. We're just trying to make sure that is all other issues are resolved, that there is the potential for hooking up to water and sewer. Thanks for your assistance Marvin D. Roos,AICP Director of Design Development MSA Consulting, Inc. From: Marcus Fuller [mailto:Marcus.Fuller@palm5prings-ca.govj Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 4:34 PM To: Roos, Mary Cc:Tracy Conrad; Lynch,Thomas; Dave Barakian; Felipe Primera; Jay Thompson Subject: RE: Item 4-13 on May 6 Council Agenda Marvin, There is already a separately recorded easement easterly of the easement in question, in which various utilities are located. A summary vacation does not allow for requiring a replacement easement. It is a process to abandon an easement that has been unused for the purposes for which it was granted. Since the map was recorded, it was never used. To require a replacement easement for an easement that has not been used in 70 or so years would not be my recommendation, nor do I think there is legal nexus for such requirement. Abandonment of the easement is not affecting the existing DWA facilities, as there are none in this easement. If DWA desires a 20' wide easement as an avenue to upgrade its facilities, it would need to do so of its own accord, or require it from a property owner requesting service from DWA in which they determine the existing service is inadequate. The burden to provide DWA a new 20' easement and to upgrade DWA facilities will be on DWA or a property owner requiring upgraded DWA services, as the case may be. Abandoning the easement in question has no effect on DWA's existing facilities, and therefore, we can not require that a replacement easement be provided. The fact that the easement in question is now isolated from public right-of-way by the County and City's prier vacation of Tahquitz Canyon Way years ago lends further validity to abandoning the easement in question. Any effort to extend new utilities into the Palisades Tract through the easement in question would require acquisition of rights across the intervening property (the portion of Tahquitz Canyon Way previously vacated), currently owned by Mr. Meyerman Remember, we have contacted every utility company and they all have consented to the vacation of the easement in question, including DWA. %7c✓� 5�•,6• 5/6/2009 Page 2 of 3 When I met with Tracy and Tom on Friday, we came to the following understanding based on Tom's research: 1. The water service to Palisades Dr. by the existing 4" main is acceptable for existing and future domestic water needs; 2. There is a separately dedicated easement east of the easement in question across Mr. Meyerman's property that provides utility access for SCE, Time Warner and Verizon; 3. Jeremy Edwards from SCE has confirmed they have no need for the easement in question to be vacated — their facilities are in a separate easement as noted above, 4. All utilities (excluding sewer) are currently present to serve the existing lots within the Palisades Tract, including any additional house on the Russell property (which would be subject to other discretionary approvals, including City Council approval of a subdivision); 5. MSA coordinated extension of a private sewer system constructed by Mr. Meyerman to serve all the lots in the Palisades Tract; a binding agreement exists to provide for connection of the existing houses in the Palisades Tract to this private sewer. In discussing these issues with Tracy, I understand the real concern is preserving any rights she might have to use the easement in question to facilitate development of a potential home site on the vacant land immediately north of the Palisades Tract. Through the City's and MSA's research, we have concluded that if Tracy is granted an easement across the Russell property, that extension of utility service (excluding sewer) could be possible to her property immediately north of the Russell property. However, I have cautioned Tracy that the bigger legal challenge is to demonstrate or otherwise acquire access rights across Palisades Dr., which is a separate lettered lot whose ownership remains in question. The Assessor shows Palisades Dr. as if it were a public street (i.e. has no Assessor's Parcel Number assigned, therefore, has not been assigning value nor taxing this parcel to anyone). However, it was specifically dedicated for private use on the map. It appears that Palisades Dr. remains under fee ownership by Bank of America, the original subdivider, unless a subsequent grant of ownership can be shown of record. I was able to find a document noted on the Assessor's Map as"30039/59" which turned out to be a Quitclaim Deed from 1959 quit-claiming Palisades Dr. from Joseph and Joyce Pawling to William Burgess and Harold Newton (each to a %z interest). I have no idea if the Pawling's had any interest to convey, and if they did, if it was subsequently conveyed to someone else. The point is: Palisades Dr. is a private street dedicated specifically for the lot owners in the Palisades Tract; similar to the easement in question. Acquiring access rights to Palisades Dr. for property exterior to the Palisades Tract is a legal exercise, and may require obtaining approval of a majority or perhaps approval by 100% of the lot owners in the Palisades Tract. Given that there is no 'HOX or other agreement on the joint use and maintenance of Palisades Dr, it is unknown how one owner might grant access across Palisades Dr. to another parry without all of the other owners' express approval—again, a legal question. All of this aside, the easement to be abandoned has no present or prospective use, and we continue to recommend that the Council abandon the easement. Sincerely, Marcus L. Fuller, P.L., P L.S. Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer City of Palm Springs (760) 323-8253, ext. 8744 www.palmsnrinas-ca.gov Marcus.Fullerftalmsprings-ca_gov From: Roos, Mary [mailto:MRoos@msaconsultinginc.com3 Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 3:31 PM To: Marcus Fuller Cc: Tracy Conrad; Lynch,Thomas Subject: FW: Item 4-B on May 6 Council Agenda 5/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 Marcus: MSA has been retained by Tracy Conrad to review the proposed abandonment of a Public Utility easement in the Palisades tract currently being considered by the City Council (Item 4-6 on the May 6 City Council agenda). We understand that the impetus for the request to abandon this particular easement is a proposal to construct a home that would span across this easement after two existing lets have been merged. Our clients do not object to the construction of a new home as proposed but are concerned about the future utility needs of this area. As such, we would request that the easement be relocated to the easterly edge of the property rather than totally abandoned. As we are all aware, the Palisades Tract was approved in the late 1930's and is considerably underserved by current standards for utilities lacking full sewering and adequate water for fire flows. There have also been reports of drainage concerns expressed by the current residents. In order to understand the possibilities of building a home in the area, we met with Desert Water Agency. If water system improvements are to be made, either for the proposed structure or other future structures, the Desert Water Agency has indicated that they would likely need a 20-Foot width easement between the end of Tahquitz and the upper portion of Palisades rather than following the circuitous path of Palisades to make the upgrades needed for the area. One question that might be raised is the fact that the current PUE is not shown as connecting to the right-of-way of Tahquitz due to a partial abandonment of a portion of the original street dedication. While the PUE and Tahquitz might be disconnected now due to this apparent oversight many years ago, I believe that we should be able to rely on the intent of the PUE to provide the possible future utility connections; particularly in light of the normal practice of maintaining underlying utility easements in street rights-of-way when public street right-of-way is abandoned. In order to maintain the ability of Desert Water Agency to upgrade their facilities and provide future opportunities for sewering and other utility connections or upgrades, it would only be prudent to maintain a Public Utility Easement connection at least until DWA has determined the most efficient way to upgrade their service to the neighborhood. As such, we would recommend that an alternate 20-foot width PUE serving the same basic purpose be recorded prior to abandonment of the existing PUE. The exact location of the alternate PUE should be determined by the City and Desert Water agency taking into account both water and sewer upgrade potential. Marvin D. Roos,AICP Director of Design Development ID1' SA C'ONSULTING. INC. PLANNING •LAND SCItV1iY']N 34200 BOB HOPE 0MVE RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92279 760.320 9811 w FAX 760.323,7893 wwwN1SA.CCNv ULru,Gln cnm n„ fL7C1 ff'e1i i:l gaiiaQ({rttln r'Uattc ransdcr[ha cn nrtemn+:nL hc;mre pnn nnc7 ihr cna d 5/6/2009 FpALMSA i2 u CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Date: May 6, 2009 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Subject: SUMMARY VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF PALM SPRINGS PALISADES MAP IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST; FILE R 08-022 From: David H. Ready, City Manager Initiated by: Public Works and Engineering Department SUMMARY The Streets and Highways Code of the State of California allows the City to consider summarily vacating public service easements by following a streamlined process under certain conditions. In this case, the City Council may summarily vacate an unused public service easement through the adoption of a Resolution, without a Public Hearing. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY VACATING AND ABANDONING ALL OF ITS RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF PALM SPRINGS PALISADES IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST; FILE R 08-022." STAFF ANALYSIS: On September 23, 2008, staff received an application from the Harold and Dorothy Meyerman Trust to vacate public utility easements located in Lots 6 and 7 of Palm Springs Palisades, the hillside tract located north of West Tahquitz Canyon Way, directly west of the Palm Springs Art Museum. The existing easement has never been used by public utility companies, and vacating the easement will allow both lots to be merged and developed pursuant to separate City approval. The City Council considered this request to summarily vacate the public utility easement at its March 25, 2009, meeting. A summary vacation is a different process than a normal right-of-way vacation, in that, no public notice or public hearing is required. The law allows for this streamlined process for cases where a right-of-way or easement was dedicated, but never used. This is the case here. L_C-. 1� iT Mi NO. ` City Council Staff Report May 6, 2009-Page 2 Summary Vacation of PUE On March 25, 2009, prior to the City Council meeting, staff was contacted by Mr. Steve Locascio, a property owner adjacent to the Meyerman property. Mr. Locascio was concerned that no notice had been given to the adjacent property owners regarding the public utility easement vacation, and that the item should not be considered separate from Mr. Meyerman's application to construct a new guesthouse on the subject property. These concerns were shared with members of Council, and during consideration of the item at the City Council meeting, it was determined that the item should be considered at another date, in conjunction with Mr. Meyerman's application to construct a new guesthouse. The item was continued to an uncertain date. Staff has confirmed that Mr. Meyerman has applied with the Department of Planning Services to construct a new 2,682 square feet house spanning Lots 6 and 7 of the Palisades map (Case 3.3323). This application is subject to architectural review given the hillside nature of the property. As part of the architectural review process, public notice to adjacent property owners, as well as public hearings at the Architectural Advisory Committee and Planning Commission will be required prior to approval being granted for construction of the new house. The Planning Commission's approval on architectural review cases is final, the City Council will not review and approve the case, unless an appeal is filed. Therefore, while vacating the public utility easement extending along the common lot line of Lots 6 and 7 will be necessary to accommodate Mr. Meyerman's intention to construct a new house on the property, it also facilitates Mr. Meyerman's application to merge the existing lots to create one more legally conforming lot. Lot 7 is a legal non- conforming lot, having approximately 12,700 square feet, whereas the underlying Zone R1A requires a minimum 20,000 square feet. While Lot 6 is a legal conforming lot as to size (having approximately 23,126 square feet), it is non-conforming as to depth (has less than 120 feet depth) and is a very irregularly shaped lot. See Attachment 2 for an exhibit of the subject lots. Irrespective of whether a new home is approved on the subject property, vacating the unused public utility easement between Lots 6 and 7 allows for merging of Lots 6 and 7, perfecting these two irregularly shaped, non- conforming lots into one more legally conforming and usable parcel. On April 15, 2009, the City Council considered the request to vacate the unused easement for a second time. Immediately prior to the meeting, correspondence was provided to Council that gave an appearance that Southern California Edison (SCE) may need to make a further evaluation of whether SCE might require the use of the subject easement for future service requirements. Therefore, the City Council took no action and requested the item be continued to the May 6, 2009, meeting at which time a final determination from SCE could be provided to address the question. Staff coordinated with SCE and it was determined that SCE has another easement in use that would be used in the event additional services were required for the area. The subject easement to be vacated will not be used for SCE in the future. Please see attached e-mail correspondence from Jeremy Edwards, SCE Service Planner, dated �'2 City Council Staff Report May 6, 2009 - Page 3 Summary Vacation of PUE April 28, 2009. Given the clarification from SCE, staff recommends that the requested vacation be approved. Chapter 4 "Summary Vacation", of part 3 "Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easement Vacation Law", of Division 9 "Change of Grade and Vacation" of the California Streets and Highways Code (Section 8330 et. seq.), outlines the process to follow for summarily vacating public service easements. In accordance with Section 8333 of the Code, a local agency may summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. The City need only adopt a Resolution citing specific facts that allows for the summary vacation of the public service easement; a Public Hearing is not required. Staff coordinated with the public utility companies and determined that there are no public utilities within the easements. Staff has verified that the public utility easements are not necessary for use by the public utility companies, and recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution, which will vacate the public utility easements located on Lots 6 and 7 of Palm Springs Palisades Map. FISCAL IMPACT: None. jo/j� David J. Barakian Thomas J. Mson Director of Public Works/City Engineer Assistant City Manager David H. Ready, Cit ger ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. E-Mail from Jeremy Edwards, SCE Service Planner 4/28/09 3. Exhibits related to 4/28/09 E-Mail 4. Resolution t, ATTACHMENT VICINITY MAP Page I of I 77 -W, 9 7tp _�V., rr D a `r�, -1 - I, rq"A 2- "'V .I I..I T INKI N!" �y IN, 1 14 IN I IIII. "u NI 1�At Irw 1' 0 TI N1,1 p I I,, IM- IN 'NII 1 1.ICI I I"N L S Q, Ap Kj ljt i�rL 1.5 1 �N 2I LIE 7 "k ij .......... _2 z F 6 tI fill N� N" q CL j:;", or. . Nl� ALM VICINITY MAP 457 It PUE Vacation N CityGIS Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The Information contained herein is the proprietary property Of the Contributor supplied under license and may not be appywed except Cis licensed by Digital Map products. I i I A- r-1 + I I, I, I C1 T 0 1-.A I A I A Z A 1 -1 ATTACHMENT E-MAIL FROM JEREMY EDWARDS DATED 4/28/09 Marcus Fuller From: Jeremy,Edwards@sce.com Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4156 PM To: Marcus Fuller Cc: Dave Barakian; Felipe Primers; James Cioffi; John Sanborn, rh34@gte.net; Lynch, Thomas; Tracy Conrad Subject: Re: Proposed Vacation of PUE on Lots 6 &7 of Palm Springs Palisades Attachments: PALISADES EASEMENTS.pdf; Palisades Exhibit.pdf h- M b PALISADES Palisades >EMENTS.pdf(91 Klxhiblt.pdf(132 KB). Marcus, To answer your questions: 1. We currently have the capacity to provide single phase service to an expanded home or newly constructed home adjacent to 660 Palisades Drive. However, if the service were to require three phase service we would have to change the feed points and possibly run new primary through the existing easement (to the east of the PUE) granted to SCE and recorded as Instrument No. 267220 on Dec, 27, 1983 2. There are currently n❑ overhead service lines that run on or near any Palisades properties. All Edison facilities are underground in that area. 3. I've marked up a different exhibit to show the easement to be vacated as well as the easement with the existing SCE facilities that could be utilized for service extensions. As you can see from the exhibit we have an easement that could be extended in order to serve the new development possibilities. However, facilities may have to be upgraded and new lines run through the existing easement- depending upon the service requirements for the new development. Let me know if this helps to clarify the situation. Thank you, (See attached file: PALISADES EASEMENTS.pdf) Jeremy Edwards Service Planner Palm Springs District Office: (760) 202 - 4250 PAX$ 14250 Email: 7eremy.edwards@sce.com "Marcus Fuller" <Marcus.Fuller@pa lmsprings-ca.gov> To <Jeremy.Edwards@sce.com> 04/28/2009 12: 06 cc PM "Lynch, Thomas" <TLyrich@msaconsultinginc.com>, [rh34@gte.net>, "James Cioffi" <James@clofflarchitect.com>, "Jahn Sanborn" <john@sanbornae.com>, "Dave Barakian" <nave.Barakian@palmsprings-ca.gov>, "Felipe Primera" 1 <Felipe.Primera@palmsprings-ca.gov> "Tracy Conrad" Ctracy@smoketreeranch.com> Subject Proposed Vacation of. PUT: on Lots 6 & 7 of Palm Springs Palisades Jeremy, You were previously contacted by MSA Consulting to confirm whether or not SCE may have future needs for an existing easement that extends along the common internal lot line between Lots 6 & 7 of the Palm Springs Palisades tract. These Jots sat south and west of Palisades Dr. as it wraps up the hill. I have provided an exhibit to show the issue in question. Although we have cbLained approval from SCE real estate to proceed with the requested vacation (the easement is unused by any utility) , recent events have prompted us to confirm that SCE may or may not need this easement for future service needs. The questions are: 1. If the existing home located at 660 Palisades ❑r. - were to be expanded; or a new home constructed adjacent to it, would the existing SCF services that extend overhead up Palisades Dr. have sufficient capacity to provide service to the new or expanded home? Assume the power demand is comparable to a standard 2, 500 square feet home with pool) - 2. If the SCE services are insufficient, would the existing overhead service J.1nes be replaced or new lines added, or would a separate set of overhead power lines be required? 3- The easement to be vacated is identified with a blue line, and although connects to Palisades Dr. at its northwest end, is isolated from any public easement or right-of.-way at its southeast end; if SCE required new services to 660 Palisades Dr. or an area adjacent- to it for a new homesite, where would SCE extend services from? This item was before the City Council for consideration twice before; at its last meeting the Council was made aware of the potential future need for the subject easement to service 660 Palisades Dr. or a new home adjacent to that property- The Council continued the matter to its next meeting of. May 6 with confirmation that $CE does or does not require the subject easement for future service needs. Please review and determine if and how SCE might use the existing easement between Lots 6 & 7 for future service to 660 Palisades Dr. or the area adjacent to it- It will be necessary to receive your determination as soon as possible. Sincerely, Marcus L. Fuller, P.E. , P.L.S. Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Gngineer City of Palm Springs (760) 323-8253, ext. 874d www-palmsprings-ca.gov Marcus.Fuller@palmsprings-ca.gov (See attached file: Palisades Exhibit.pdf) 2 �, 1 ATTACHMENT EXHIBITS RELATED TO 4/28/09 E-MAIL n .h 4 _��,�:�t� _ Tel.'• .. f�_ �+n#� ! r �r Potential hlome Blte �•ti - , ;'"�•rt• ;t.� 'Y r �•' �40 ' , _ _ma`sjPk r_ Ju I Vr. PUE to be Vacated wo hP -91 J. . /- a •n`'��� In '� r i� 1 1 tM Wk errnu�cmwm•�Oaa.TeWubA„0(�'Y4a.v„�.�.. I � r f 1 , a CityGIS Copynght @+200S All Rights Reseryed The Irformatlon aantrnned herein is the proprietary property of the epnlrihuter supplled under Ileerse and may not be epprwed exept as licensed by DIgual Map Products •3 I T s � • r � 1 • ` I F � � _ f' \ '!Pralm •fir • _ _ _ — _ - s 5pr`m,g5 — - % SCE EASEMENT WITHFACILFRES RO % ��� P "BEVAOTED�� _ ' •1 j .'1 k I �'kr.ays.ue.ar�.canyai,�n•.r.lw�ohml wro�w+. :� PALISADES 78 f. EASEMENTS ¢ Landvision LDISON C cppljtT[ 2DOr AU R UU8 Reserved. Tile irdorn7ion eerkined teen is cl-z pr wmelsrg i.uopedy of the wrrFador supil r:d under lme a and may nei he apprwed e,cCrt as Fo nza3 hl acAel M-1p Pref3Jels i ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY VACATING AND ABANDONING ALL OF ITS RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN LOTS 6 AND 7 OF PALM SPRINGS PALISADES IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST; FILE R 08-022 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, is authorized by Chapter 3, Part 3, Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "statute"), to summarily vacate and abandon public service easements, or parts thereof, within the limits of the City, and WHERAS, pursuant to Section 8333 of the statute, the legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, a dedication of that public service easement shown within Lots 6 and 7 of Palm Springs Palisades, recorded in Map Book 19, Page 23, records of Riverside County, California, on May 20, 1937, was offered and accepted; and WHEREAS, the public service easement shown within Lots 6 and 7 of Palm Springs Palisades, recorded in Map Book 19, Page 23, records of Riverside County, California, on May 20, 1937, has been unused for the purpose for which it was dedicated for five consecutive years preceding the adoption of this Resolution. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council does hereby adopt this Resolution in accordance with Chapter 4 "Summary Vacation", of Part 3 "Public Streets, Highways, and Service Easements Vacation Law", of Division I, "Change of Grade and Vacation" of the California Streets and Highways Code (Section 8330 et. seq.). Section 2. The City Council does hereby summarily vacate and abandon all the City's right, title and interest in the public service easements located within Lots 6 and 7 of Palm Springs Palisades, Map Book 19, Page 23, Riverside County; California, being the vacated area described in Exhibit "A", and shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3. This Resolution to summarily vacate and abandon all the City's right, title and interest in the public service easements located within Lots 6 and 7 of Resolution No. Page 2 Palm Springs Palisades, Map Book 19, Page 23, Riverside County, California, is made in accordance with Section 8333, which states that the legislative body of a local agency may summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution, attested by him under the seal of the City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County. ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 2009. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on May 6, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California EXHIBIT "A" PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION - PALM SPRINGS PALISADES R 08-022 THE SOUTHWESTERLY FIVE FEET OF LOT 6 OF PALM SPRINGS PALISADES AS FILED IN MAP BOOK 19 AT PAGE 23, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA, SHOWN AS V EASEMENT. SAID EASEMENT CONTAINS 1255 SQ. FT MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH: THE NORTHEASTERLY FIVE FEET OF LOT 7 OF PALM SPRINGS PALISADES AS FILED IN MAP BOOK 19 AT PAGE 23, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA, SHOWN AS T EASEMENT. SAID EASEMENT CONTAINS 1242 SQ FT MORE OR LESS . TOTAL EASEMENT VACATION CONTAINS 2497 SQ. FT. MORE OR LESS. PREP R Y SA BO E ImOl111//1sF 0T. SNN7 +ti I0/1 /08 WO 08-161 PUE 6-7 q AL ftAN i EXHIBIT B CITY OF PALM SPRINGS INST, NO. 2008•-0532146 0 O 6i Zi 1 LOT LOT 16 1 11 4 APN-513-710--043 P�L SPRI 1s PALT PALM S SEE DETAIL ` H�FS 40 M.B. 19/23 BELOW 1 1a 0 ��`F 5 4 LOT 12.5' g 12.5' i 7 LOT 7 LOT 8 © 2 1 LOT _ N 89050'00'E 489.83' TAHOUITZ CANYON DRIVE 1 � I 7 � 1 LOT h 6 10' P.U.E h (2975 S.F.) © LOT 7 1 G7d P` LAND 9 O a 5. 4146 P.U.E BLOW—UP EXP. 6/30/10 GRAPH/C SCALE DETAIL s� 100 50 0 100 200 N.T.S. SCALE LI00' �0 CA0F� aF PA4M APPROVED: P CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DATE y PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING *G ,� DEPARTMENT ASST. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC *ORK5/ P98S ASST. CITY ENGINEER VA CA TION PLA T DEory an SCALE: FILE NO.: LEGAL DESCRIPnON: D.G.H. 1" = 60' ROB-022 SEE EXHIBIT "A " CHECKED BY. W.O. } SHEET NO., ✓.L.S 08-161 1 OF 2 C l Z 30 Z 191-90 'S'7r -'-ON 133NS { •oM as 03)03140 „ V,, 118/HX3 33S ZZO—SOLI 001 = „L -H-O.O r / A, / Vr�y :NoadiaOS30 7r037 "ON 37d :37VOS il8 NS43O 1 V 7d NOU Y,l YA a,WMON3 ADD 1SSr 5Yd LsNaOM 0nsnd 3O wi.?3a10 1SSr L8� 1 N3w1 dVd30 9N1&33N1,9N3 -7 SNJOM 0179nd 3iro 'a.�noaddr SON1,VdS N7VcJ 30 41/0 z o' OCZZI (3„00,09068 N) 6L I L 8!) Z6� (3„00,05068 N) 8L (,ZO 5£l) ,S£'9£l (3 00,Zf o8o N) LL 63L•L0 ,9f•9Z (05•S1) „6L,"OZ6 9l *.'9z Zf"SLLL) (M„00,LZo69 N) S! 9£•PL 98•*L (M„00,£Ook£ N) til „Ik,6£o06 f'L (,00'9L) (M„00,80oO N) ZL ("70.9z) 690.05) �O5•,,,L) 6,00,ofoaf) Ll 665'f 9) (M„00,8£088 N) OL (,98'*S) (,6f'kol) (,05•L£L) 6,00,0£o£k) 6O (,L6'10 (M„00,8Oa5* N) 8O (,LL'Z*) (,,k6.6L) (,05Z9) („00,Z-Pa29) O (06•k£) (,£6'L9) ( ,6.611) („OO,LZoZf) 9O 6z9fa) (,LL 9k) (,k9•9Zl) („00,60oLZ) (,k8£'£) (3„00,8ZoLL N) a (,f'SZ9) (3„00,867aLL N) O (,£9•k£) (,8L'L9) 605•ZLl) 6,00,rlop ,f) ZO 6£6•SZ) (100,94o£ti N) OL i O LN3JNY1 1SL0/'N37 S/)IOYLI ONIYV38/Y1730 YL Y0 ( o302/O03M A78'3Nb'03 > 9 1/9/HX-9