Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-05 STAFF REPORTS 1E iy c C, CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 5, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: SMOKE TREE, INC. CASE 5.1090 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 323 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33878, SUBDIVIDING APPROXIMATELY 21.05 ACRES WITHIN A 41.22-ACRE PARCEL INTO 49 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH 31 EXISTING RESIDENCES AND 21 FUTURE RESIDENCES FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will consider proposed Planned District standards and a proposed 49- lot residential subdivision containing 31 existing cottage residences and 21 new residences all within a 21.05-acre portion of a 41.22- acre parcel located in the northwest part of the Smoke Tree Ranch resort, along with the environmental assessment and negative declaration for the project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE NUMBER 5.1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 323 AND PHASED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33878, FOR THE COTTAGES AT SMOKE TREE RANCH, A GATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 31 EXISTING COTTAGE RESIDENCES AND 21 FUTURE COTTAGE RESIDENCES ON 49 LOTS, ON A 21.05-ACRE PORTION OF A 41.22-ACRE PROPERTY, WITH A 20-ACRE OMITTED NOT-A-PART REMAINDER LOCATED ADJACENT TO 1850 SMOKE TREE LANE, SECTION 25, T4S, R4E, SBBM." Item No. 1 . E . City Council Staff Report April 5, 2006 -- Page 2 5.1090—Smoke Tree Cottages PD-323, TTM 33878 STAFF ANALYSIS: On March 22, 2006, the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission which adopted a favorable recommendation to City Council (by a vote of 6-0-1 Abstain). At that same time, the Commission approved the architectural design of the proposed project. The site is part of Smoke Tree Ranch resort, and located in the northwest portion of the Ranch. The proposal is to subdivide approximately 21.05 acres into 49 lots, and to apply Planned Development District standards to the resulting project site. The project site is part of a larger 41.22-acre parcel, and the remaining twenty acres is a Not-A-Part Remainder that is omitted from the subdivision. The development concept is to separate 49 residential lots from the existing common area, but to retain open areas between the lots, along with existing resort facilities in the twenty-acre remainder portion. The remainder portion serves to provide a continuation of the existing open area and recreation facilities that are subject to current private Smoke Tree Ranch use and design restrictions. Existing streets will be used, and any necessary upgrades will occur in conjunction with a Final Map for that phase. The project is gated. Lots are limited to a maximum coverage of 5,000 square feet, and coverage will be less than 30 percent, pursuant to the General Plan, when Not-A-Part open areas between lots are considered. Lot areas outside the building envelopes are intended as desert landscape areas. In the event that lots are redeveloped, the Planned District standards are intended to guide redevelopment. The General Plan designation of the site is L-2, (Low Density Residential with a maximum density of two units per gross acre), and the zoning designation is R-G-A (6), (bluster Residential Zone). The project is proposed at a density of approximately 0.8 dwelling units per acre when calculating gross density of the entire project site, including the open area associated with the project but located within the remainder portion. An environmental mitigation measure and condition of approval is to limit residential development within the remainder portion so that density would not exceed the General Plan density. As an environmental mitigation measure agreed to by the project proponent, the condition would be enforceable on an on-going basis. Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (A) of the Zoning Code, a planned development district (PD) may be approved in lieu of a change of zone as specified in Section 94.07.00. The PD is needed for this project so that relief from land use limitations and development standards can be achieved. City Council Staff Report April 5, 2006 -- Page 3 5.1090—Smoke Tree Cottages PD-323, TTM 33878 Relief is needed to continue use of the cottages on Lots 12, 27, and 34. Since they are currently used for resort accommodations, they are currently consistent with zoning limitations. However, after the property is subdivided they will no longer conform since the lots will now contain single-family dwellings. Relief is also needed since lot designs and sizes do not conform to the two-acre minimum size in the R-G-A zone, and do not conform to ordinary dimension, setback, and building separation requirements. Relief is needed to allow the flexible arrangement that takes advantage of the existing common area that provides greater separation between residences, effectively providing the equivalent to wider and deeper lots with greater setbacks. The relief from separation requirements is also needed for several of the lots that will include two existing cottages. In order to implement the subdivision design concept of lots set within common open areas, to allow use of single carports and continue the Ranch resort practice of occasionally using single carports, and to allow continuation of the unique, existing resort cottages that are developed on a more confined scale, relief from ordinary zoning requirements through the PD mechanism is needed. A more detailed analysis can be seen in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 22, 2006. Findings in support of approving the proposed subdivision are included in the attached draft resolution of approval. The applicant requests that the City Council waive standard Public Safety (CFD) Condition (Condition 14 on page 6 of the Conditions of Approval) requiring developer support if the City forms a Community Services District. Ordinarily, a District may be formed if at least five new residential lots are created. Staff is not in favor of such a waiver since the new lots that are being created will require additional City services at some point. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial Study was conducted for the proposed project. That study concluded that with the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, any potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted for the project. The mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A to the draft resolution of approval. FISCAL IMPACT: IFinance Director Review: No fiscal impact. Str�ig wing,ff.°(C homas Wilso Assistant City Manager �E irectbr'of Pla nin Services r - 1 '"R City Council Staff Report April 5, 2006 -- Page 4 5.1090—Smoke Tree Cottages PD-323, TTM 33878 David H. Ready, City anger Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed TTM 33878, PD 323 Resolution and Conditions of Approval 3. Reduced Site Plans and Elevations 4. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22/06 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/22/06 (Excerpts) 6. Copy of Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration H'\USERS\PLAN\5.1090 Smoke Tree Cottages PD-TTM 33878\CC 4.05.06\CC Staff Report 4.05.06[2006-0322].doc N a Department of Planning Services � E E Vicinity Map S IiV CIV 4-7 U LA CAPRI CI R A ZL_L n z IF PACANYON DR PAIN P e� e o �y E I R ❑ Doti eo"'A i i Legend ALGODONES TP. ® Site O 500'Radius G n C—lf CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5.1090 PD-323 DESCRIPTION: An application by Smoke Tree, Inc. for a TTM 33878 proposed Planned Development District and phased subdivision with 49 residential lots and private streets. An APPLICANT: Smoke Tree, Inc. approximate 20.17 acre portion will not be a part of the Smoke Tree Cottages subdivision at 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, Zone R-G-A(6), Section 25. `qrl RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE NUMBER 5.1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 323 AND PHASED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33878, FOR THE COTTAGES AT SMOKE TREE RANCH, A GATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 31 EXISTING COTTAGE RESIDENCES AND 21 FUTURE COTTAGE RESIDENCES ON 49 LOTS, ON A 21.05- ACRE PORTION OF A 41.22-ACRE PROPERTY, WITH A 20-ACRE OMITTED NOT-A-PART REMAINDER LOCATED ADJACENT TO 1850 SMOKE TREE LANE, SECTION 25, T4S, R4E, SBBM. WHEREAS, Smoke Tree, Inc. (the "Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (E) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, for the Establishment and development of Planned Development District 323; and WHEREAS, Smoke Tree, Inc. (the "Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62.010 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, for Tentative Tract Map 33878; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case Number 5.1090, consisting of Planned Development District 323 and Phased Tentative Tract Map 33341 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2006, a public hearing on the application for project was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project' pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and an Environmental Assessment has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed project on the housing needs of the region, and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented, and has Resolution No. Page 2 recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve Case Number 5.1090 consisting of Planned Development District 323 and Phased Tentative Tract Map 33878; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case Number 5.1090, consisting of Planned Development District 323 and Phased Tentative Tract Map 33878 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2006, a public hearing on the application for project was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed project on the housing needs of the region, and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that with the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND prior to its review of this Project and the MND reflects the City Councils independent judgment and analysis. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (E) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general plan pursuant to Sections 94.07.00 (A)(1) and 94.02.00 (A)(4) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The proposed planned development is consistent with the basic L2 General Plan designation as a residential use. The proposed density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre, including the lots and common area, is within the maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre called out in General Plan Objective 3.4b. The proposed development is consistent with Policy 3.4.1 because Section 65852.2(b)(5) of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that second units shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan. This is consistent with General Plan Implementation item 3/4.b allowing planned Resolution No. Page 3 development district flexibility in treating density. Finally, 77 percent of the combined lot area and remainder common area is maintained as open space or private recreational area per Policy 3.4.5, and the project proposes special street and development standards that maintain a 'relaxed" rural atmosphere. The type of development proposed by this project allows flexible development standards on individual lots within the context of the surrounding common area. b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed planned development district, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations. The project site is suitable for the development of 49 single-family residential lots. It is relatively flat and can accommodate building pads, and internal street, and drainage. Existing access is from East Palm Canyon Drive via Smoke Tree Lane, with secondary emergency access to Laverne Drive/South Sunrise Way. G. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary and proper, and is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents. The proposed establishment of the proposed planned development district is necessary to tailor land uses and development standards for this project so that smaller lots can be separated from existing common areas in a manner that preserves the overall openness of the project site and vicinity. The planned district is also necessary to provide tailored development standards within the proposed planned district that allow creative placement of residences on lots. The project site is separated from adjacent residents by the remainder common area, and allows buffering and desert landscaping. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed planned development is consistent with the basic L2 General Plan designation as a residential use. The proposed density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre, including the lots and common area, is within the maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre called out in General Plan Objective 3.4b. The proposed development is consistent with Policy 3.4.1 because Section 65852.2(b)(5) of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that second units shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan., This is consistent with General Plan Implementation item 3/4.b allowing planned development district flexibility in treating density. Finally, 77 percent of the combined lot area and remainder common area is maintained as open space or Resolution No. Page 4 private recreational area per Policy 3.4.5, and the project proposes special street and development standards that maintain a "relaxed" rural atmosphere. b, The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located. The proposed project design is generally consistent with the stated purposed of promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing for comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources per Section 91.00.00 of the Zoning Code because the Planned Development zoning overlay application provides a mechanism to tailor standards for this project so that smaller lots can be separated from existing common areas in a manner that preserves the overall openness of the project site and vicinity. The planned district is also necessary to provide tailored development standards within the proposed planned district that allow creative placement of residences on lots. C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. The project site is flat, and is located in an area with all urban services and utilities, including streets. d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development. The proposed 21.05-acre project site within the 41.22-acre property can accommodate an additional 21 residences without significant grading, the site has direct access to improved public streets with existing utilities, and the site is in an area allowing access to major thoroughfares. 31 cottages are existing, and are served by streets and utilities. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The scope of the project, creating lots for 28 existing cottage sites containing 31 existing cottages, and separating 21 additional lots from a common area remainder for 21 future residences, all on a 21-acre portion of a 41-acre site is limited. Existing roads will be utilized. As such, the design of the subdivision in not likely to cause environmental damage or injure wildlife or wildlife habitat. There are no water areas with fish. Additionally, the project proponent is participating in the Desert Water Agency Revegetation Plan and providing a Conservation Easement to maintain and protect areas as natural, open space that will retain its value as Casey's June beetle habitat. 1". The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Resolution No. Page 5 The design of the proposed residential subdivision includes the provision of public water and sewer systems, and an internal, private street system that provides an orderly system of ordinary and emergency access to the project. g. The design of the subdivision or 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. Although there are numerous utilities lines and easements crossing and serving the existing cottages, these easements have been accommodated in areas developed with existing cottages, and can be accommodated in the undeveloped areas of the project site. There is no known public access across the subject property, therefore the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. Any utility easements can be accommodated within the project design. Section 4: The City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number 5.1090 — PD-323 and Phased Tentative Tract Map 33878, and project architectural approval, and directs staff to file the associated Notice of Determination. Section 5.: The City Council approves Case Number 5.1090 and Phased Tentative Tract Map 33878. ADOPTED THIS 5th day of April, 2006. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk .J Resolution No. Page 6 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 April 5, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California Resolution No. F'age 7 H.\USERS\PLAN\5.1090 Smoke Tree Cottages PO-TfM 33878\CC 4.05,06\5 1090 CC Ross-04.05.06[2006-0323]doc EXHIBIT A Case No. 5.1090 — PD-323, TTM 33878 Smoke Tree Inc. 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, within Smoke Tree Ranch PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL March 22, 2006 Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Planning Department: 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.1046 Tentative Tract Map 33341. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 2 abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parkways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 4. The project is located in an area defined as having an impact on fish and wildlife as defined in Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code; therefore a fee of $1,314.00 plus an administrative fee of $50.00 shall be submitted by the applicant in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk prior to Council action on the project. This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be final until such fee is paid. 5. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for commercial or industrial projects, 1/4% for new residential subdivisions, or 1/4% for new individual single-family residential units constructed on a lot located in an existing subdivision with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning Services and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 6. Pursuant to Park Fee Ordinance No. 1632 and in accordance with Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act), all residential development shall be required to contribute to mitigate park and recreation impacts such that, prior to issuance of residential building permits, a parkland fee or dedication shall be made. Accordingly, all residential development shall be subject to parkland dedication requirements and/or park improvement fees. The parkland mitigation amount shall be based upon the cost to acquire and fully improve parkland. The applicant shall submit a property appraisal to the Planning Services Department for the purposes of calculating the Park Fee. The Park Fee payment and/or parkland dedication shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 F'age 3 Environmental Assessment 7. The mitigation measures of the environmental assessment shall apply. The applicant shall submit a signed agreement that the mitigation measures outlined as part of the mitigated negative declaration will be included in the Planning Commission consideration of the environmental assessment. Mitigation measures are as follows: MM III-1 Earth-moving activities on the project site shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 MPH, pursuant to the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan and SCAQMD Rule 403.1. MM III-2 Adequate watering techniques shall be employed on the project site to mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day, as part of the construction specifications. MM III-3 Any construction access roads to the project site shall be paved as soon as possible and cleaned after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved road surfaces shall be 15 mph. MM III-4 All trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. MM III-5 Trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose dirt material off-site, shall be covered and washed off before leaving the site. MM III-6 Adjacent streets shall be swept if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. MM III-7 As part of the construction specifications, any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind erosion of the soil. MM III-8 Construction operations affecting off-site roadways shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through- traffic lanes. MM V-1 As there is always a possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources in a project area, a Native American Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuill'a Indian Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 4 Cultural Office shall be contacted for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning Services. Following consultation, the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate the find. If necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. Human remains discovered shall be handled consistent with state law provisions. MM-VII-I Prior to demolition of any structures, a Phase 1 ESA shall be prepared to determine the presence of any hazardous building materials such as asbestos floor tiles, pipe insulation, etc. The recommendations of that report shall be followed including the proper handling and disposal of the material as well as any site remediation. MM IX-1 The Omitted Not-A-Part portion of the property is recognized to be, and will continue to be held as common area for this project and Smoke Tree Ranch, and shall not be developed with dwelling units unless it can be demonstrated that the residential units associated with this project, along with any proposed dwelling units conform to density provisions of the Palm Springs General Plan. MM XI-1 The project applicant shall demonstrate that all on-site residential units shall be designed to meet the City of Palm Springs noise standards (65 CNEL in outside activity areas and 45 CNEL in interior living areas). The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance through the submittal of building and site improvement plans that provide details regarding sound barrier heights, additional insulation and building materials used to maintain interior noise levels, building and window orientation, and other measures to reduce noise exposure levels to City noise standards. A qualified noise consultant shall be retained to ensure that project and building designs will meet City noise exposure standards. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. MM XI-2 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. MM XI-3 All construction equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. MM XI-4 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located in the northern portion of the site. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 5 MM XI-5 Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. MM XI-6 Construction activities on-site shall take place only during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., as specified by the Palm Springs Noise Ordinance (11.74.041), to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. The Construction Site Regulations (Chapter 8.04.220) also identify specific limits on hours of operation for construction equipment as not between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. if the noise produced is of such intensity or quality that it disturbs the peace and quiet of any other person of normal sensitivity. 8. The developer shall reimburse the City for the City's costs incurred in monitoring the developer's compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program, including, but not limited to inspections and review of developers operations and activities for compliance with all applicable dust and noise operations, and cultural resource mitigation. This condition of approval is supplemental and in addition to normal building permit and public improvement permits that may be required pursuant to the Palm Springs Municipal Code. CC&R's 9. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit three (3) sets of a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning Services for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to certificate of occupancy. The CC&Rs shall be submitted with a list of the adopted conditions of approval and an indication of where applicable conditions are addressed in the CC&Rs. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, and shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. 10. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $2000, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A filing fee, in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the City Council, shall also be paid to the City Planning Services Department for administrative review purposes. Final Design 11. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning Services, prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. All landscaping located within the public right of way or within community facilities districts must be approved by the Public Works Director and the Director of Parks and Recreation. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 6 12. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final development plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross sections, property development standards and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final development plans shall be submitted within two (2) years of the approval of the tentative tract map. 13. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93,21.00, Outdoor Lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning Services prior to the issuance of building permits. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building and in the landscaping shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. No lighting of the hillside is permitted. Public Safety CFD 14. The Project will bring a significant number of additional residents to the community. The City's existing public safety and recreation services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library, cultural services are near capacity. Accordingly, the City may determine to form a Community Services District under the authority of Government Code Section 53311 et seq., or other appropriate statutory or municipal authority. Developer agrees to support the formation of such assessment district and shall waive any right to protest, provided that the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate study and shall not exceed $500 annually with a consumer price index escalator. The district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement shall be recorded against each parcel, permitting incorporation of the parcel in the district. General Conditions/Code Requirements Ili. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 7 17. 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. 18. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. 19. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color. 20. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 93.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. 21. No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas. 22. The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 23. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 24. Construction of any residential unit shall meet minimum soundproofing requirements prescribed pursuant to Section 1092 and related sections of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code. Compliance shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Safety. 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the building. 26. Prior to submittal of any building permit or other type of permit, any proposed project shall provide evidence of Smoke Tree, Inc. approval. Engineering Department: Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 8 STREETS 1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 4. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer to the Engineering Division. The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. ON-SITE PRIVATE STREETS 3. Dedicate easements for public utility purposes, including sewers, with the right of ingress and egress for service and emergency vehicles and personnel over the proposed private streets. 4. All centerline radii shall be a minimum of 130 feet. 5. All on-site private streets shall be two-way with a minimum 20 feet wide travelway (as measured between the edges of pavement on each side of centerline). 6. All on-site private streets shall be constructed with a minimum pavement section of 2'% inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal. Remove and dispose of any existing asphalt concrete pavement that is not in the correct roadbed location or is deficient in quality as necessary. If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Remove and dispose of any existing asphalt concrete pavement that is not in the correct roadbed location or is deficient in quality as necessary. 7. Parking shall be restricted along both sides of the on-site private streets. The Home Owners Association (HOA) shall be responsible for regulating and maintaining required no parking restrictions, which shall be included in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for the development. SANITARY SEWER 8. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. New laterals shall not be connected at manholes. 9. Submit sewer improvement plans prepared by a California registered civil engineer to the Engineering Division. The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 9 110. Construct 8 inch V.C.P. sewer mains across the proposed on-site private street frontages connect to the existing on-site public sewer system, as required by the City Engineer. All sewer mains constructed by the applicant and to become part of the public sewer system shall be televised prior to acceptance of the sewer system for maintenance by the City. GRADING 11. Submit a Rough Grading Plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit. a. The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: Copy of signed Conditions of Approval stamped by the Planning Department; Copy of Tentative Tract Map stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department; Copy of current Title Report; Copy of Soils Report; and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report. 12. Natural drainage swales should be maintained adjacent to all edges of roadway pavement to keep nuisance water from entering the streets. 13. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit, issued from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Phone No. 760- 346-7491) is required for the proposed development. A copy of the executed permit shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 10 14. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.025 (c), the applicant shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per disturbed acre for mitigation measures for erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development. 15. A soils report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading Plan. 16. 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 a grading plan and involving the export of soil 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) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208). DRAINAGE IT This project may be required to install measures in accordance with applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's) included as part of the NPDES Permit issued for the Whitewater River Region from the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant is advised that installation of BMP's, including mechanical or other means for pre-treating stormwater runoff, may be required by regulations imposed by the RWQCB. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to design and install appropriate BMP's, in accordance with the NPDES Permit, that effectively intercept and pre-treat stormwater runoff from the project site, prior to release to the City's municipal separate storm sewer system ("MS4"), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the RWQCB. If required, such measures shall be designed and installed on-site; and provisions for perpetual maintenance of the measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including provisions in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for the development. 18. The applicant shall accept and convey all stormwater runoff across the property in a manner consistent with the existing natural landscape of the Smoke Tree property. 19. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $7,271.00 per acre per Resolution No. VI") Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 11 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, unless prior payment of fees may be demonstrated or credit for deletion of Master Storm Drain lines is approved by the City Engineer. GENERAL 20. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. The developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Verizon, etc.). Multiple excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected off-site streets, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to construction of the proposed development. 21. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 22. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans required for the project. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 23. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD drawing file) and DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file). Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. 24. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the City Engineer shall be documented with record drawing "as-built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. 2:5. 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 Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 12 MAP 26. A Final Map shall be prepared by a California registered Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Division as part of the review of the Map. The Final Map shall be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of building permits. 227. Upon approval of a final map, the final map shall be provided to the City in G.I.S. digital format, consistent with the "Guidelines for G.I.S. Digital Submission" from the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency." G.I.S. digital information shall consist of the following data: California Coordinate System, CCS83 Zone 6 (in U.S. feet); monuments (ASCII drawing exchange file); lot lines, rights-of-way, and centerlines shown as continuous lines; full map annotation consistent with annotation shown on the map; map number; and map file name. G.I.S. data format shall be provided on a CDROM/DVD containing the following: ArcGIS Geodatabase, ArcView Shapefile, Arclnfo Coverage or Exchange file (e00), DWG (AutoCAD drawing file), DGN (Microstation drawing file), and DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file). Variations of the type and format of G.I.S. digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC 28. Street name signage, and regulatory control signs at on-site private street intersections shall be installed as necessary and as approved by the City Engineer. 29. 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. 30. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. Waste Disposal: 1. Trash cans shall be screened from view and kept within fifty (50) feet of the street. Planning Commission Conditions of Approval Case No. 5.1090 Tentative Tract Map 33878 Page 13 Police Department: 1. Developer shall comply with Article II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Building Department: 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. Fire Department: 1. Plot Plan: Prior to completion of the project, a 8.5"x11" plot plan shall be provided to the fire department. This shall clearly show all access points, fire hydrants, knox box locations, fire department connections, unit identifiers, main electrical panel locations, sprinkler riser and fire alarm locations. Large projects may require more than one page. 2. Fire hydrant systems: Following Fire Department selection of hydrant locations, plans and specifications for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. (901.2.2.2 CFC). All fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with DWA specifications and standards. No landscape planting, walls, fences, signposts, or aboveground utility facilities are permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, or in line with hose connections. 3. Fire Department Access: Fire Department Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 901 and 902 CFC. (902.1 CFC) 4. Minimum Access Road Dimensions: a. Private streets shall have a minimum width of at least 20 feet, pursuant to California Fire Code 902.1 No parking shall be allowed in either side of the roadway. b. Vertical Fire Apparatus Clearances: Palm Springs fire apparatus require an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. (902.2.2.1 CFC) G. Road Design: Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and constructed as all weather capable and able to support a fire truck weighing 73,000 pounds GVW. (902.2.2.2 CFC) The minimum inside turning radius is 30 feet, with an outside radius of 45 feet. END OF CONDITIONS H:WSEMPIAM5.1090 Smoke Tree Cottages PD-TTM 33878WC COA 5 1090-3 22.06[2006-0323]doc f�6P� r O,* I �_ I •g ' .P .vua.x.v�a..z:v ci„N:mT .xv'oam n UI, ENE 'FZ w cooNry `re-F— Amu. _ _ - TENTATIVE TRACT `j -,� MAP NO 33878 /F' PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT INOLUFOING A ESlIBO1V1910N OF A O POHIION PRNATE SO TREET R GVT OF WAY / a -. �Lw heeuuNA.:o �....... R -,grog I ' x.nc_ , - -47 > Ste' I 1 aM - a1 I, .L ..1 - .,n..., qqNOW ap —��/IIII�IL�1�I Haim-.,.o.rne. L�.i L'::wd.6«Mma.tl ,.a�..„a,.ah.,..., „v.. ...........�. _ _-- _<- SS el S INSET MAP TERLA�NAoAos�-aP �V _�eSA C...,O wv mw r..E uama e n.wrw.v�.n evaca.v v.�orm NN P `II e. �`� o T r ( L J r; hl I - if j I -- j I I j I I I I j I I j I I I { ! I I I I I I I� a fff Ye 1 i g ; i J I pSMOE TREE RANCH FMA A R c H I T e c a � 4 7-1 Ll �1 o i;� � o j, is 0 I I j SMOKE TREE RANCH rh PALM Wer+r.cUMaM ' AR CH l TE CT p�o pLM S.0 iy c+ V N • k c 441F0Re"P Planning Commission Staff Report Date: March 22, 2006 Case No.: 5.1090 — PD-323, TTM 33878 Application Type: Preliminary Planned Development District, Tentative Tract Map, and Architectural Approval Location: 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, within Smoke Tree Ranch Applicant: Smoke Tree, Inc. Zone: R-G-A (6) Cluster Residential Zone General Plan: L2 Low Density Residential (2 DU/Acre) APN: 510-011-006, 510-020-032, 510-090-001 From: Craig Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Edward 0. Robertson, Principal Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of a Planned Development District (PDD) to establish a site plan, design standards and guidelines, a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 33878), for the phased subdivision of a 41.22-acre parcel into a 21.05-acre area with 49 residential lots with 52 cottages, with private streets, and omitting the remainder of the 41.22-acre parcel from the subdivision. The Not-A-Part remainder portion includes existing roads, existing Smoke Tree Ranch amenity facilities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, and recreational facilities, a maintenance and detention facility, and desert-type landscape areas interspersed throughout and separating proposed lots. Currently, there are 31 existing cottages. Twenty eight proposed lots will encompass these existing cottages, with three lots (Lots 12, 27, and 34) each containing two cottages. Twenty one proposed lots will be comprised of undeveloped land, upon which t. Planning Commission Staff Report 3122/06 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 2 of 11 ,21 new residences will be constructed per standards of the Planned Development District. The subdivision is proposed as a phased map with five phases. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed application by Smoke Tree Ranch Inc. to develop a phased 49-lot residential subdivision on approximately 21.05 acres according to Planned Development District standards by: • Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case 5.1090 PD-323 and TTM 33878; • Adopting Planned Development District 323; • Conditionally approving phased Tentative Tract Map 33878 to subdivide approximately 21.05 acres of a 41.22-acre parcel into 49 single-family residential condominium lots with private streets; and • Approving the architectural design and landscaping for Case No. 5.1090. PRIOR ACTIONS At its meeting on February 21, 2006, the Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) reviewed the project and recommended approval of the project with no conditions. PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION The proposal is to subdivide an approximately 21.05-acre site into 49 lots, and to apply Planned Development District standards to the project site. The site is part of Smoke Tree Ranch resort, and specifically, part of the northwest portion of the Ranch. The project site is part of a larger 41.22-acre parcel, and the remaining twenty acres is be a Not-A-Part Remainder that is omitted from the subdivision. The development concept is to separate 49 residential lots from the existing common area, but to retain open areas between the lots, along with existing resort facilities in the twenty-acre remainder portion. The project proponent does not envision any residential development in the remainder portion, and a condition of approval limits residential development in the Remainder portion so that the gross density of the 41-acre project site conforms to the General Plan. The remainder portion serves to provide a continuation of the existing open area and recreation facilities as buffering between future home sites. The remainder portion also serves to continue the design theme of provide open area in the middle of blocks, and none of the lots have rear property lines that directly abut other lots. Common areas are subject to current private Smoke Tree Ranch use and design restrictions. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22/06 Case,5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 3 of 11 Site Redevelopment Fourteen existing, unused employee housing structures and the manager's quarters will tie demolished. There is no indication that any of these structures have significance, and a mitigation measure will relate to proper procedures to ensure that demolition itself will not cause significant impacts. Existing streets will be used to serve the proposed subdivision to the maximum extent feasible, and any necessary upgrades will occur in conjunction with a Final Map for that phase. The project is gated, with a central access gate at Smoke Tree Lane. A secondary gate is located off Sunrise Way, but is not intended for use by residents and guests. Site Design Lots are designed to be individually set into Ranch common areas. These common areas have landscaping following a desert theme and appropriate to desert conditions. Most lots that are currently undeveloped will have common areas on all sides except the front. Lots that currently have cottages, and lots located near existing, to-be- demolished buildings will have common areas abutting at least rear yards. In many cases, these lots will have additional sides abutting common area. Lots that are currently undeveloped have typical building envelopes toward the centers of lots. These envelopes are intended to include building footprints, and are limited to a 315-percent coverage, up to a maximum of 5,000 square feet. Lot areas outside the building envelopes are intended as desert landscape areas, although there would be greater flexibility than in the common areas. In the event that lots are redeveloped, the Planned District standards described in Table 2 are intended to guide redevelopment along these same lines. Architecture: The existing and proposed future cottage residences follow the "desert ranch" design theme, with one-bedroom and three-bedroom models. The height of all models is limited to 13.5 feet. The tentative site plan for Phase 1 includes the construction of two one-bedroom models and six three-bedroom models. All models have colors and materials consistent with the desert ranch theme, with use of combinations of stacked slumpstone, board and batten, fieldstone, and steel trowel plaster for walls, wainscoting, and accents, with tile shake roofs colored weathered cedar/madera. Tentative Phase 1 plans include single and double carports. Each lots contains adequate building envelope and driveway area to accommodate additional parking. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22/06 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 4 of 11 Table 1: Surrounding land uses, General Plan, Zoning Land Use General Plan Zoning North Smoke Tree CSC Community Shopping C-S-C Shopping Center Center East Smoke Tree Ranch L2 Low Density Residential R-G-A (6) Cottage Residential and R-1-A South Smoke Tree Ranch L2 Low Density Residential R-1-A Cottage Residential West Single-FamilyResidential L4 Low Density Residential R-1-C ANALYSIS Surroundings The project site is part of the Smoke Tree Ranch resort and residential development south of East Palm Canyon Drive, and east of South Sunrise Way. The Smoke Tree shopping center is located to the north and northeast of the project site, between Palm Canyon Drive and the project site. To the east, is the main entry to the Ranch along Smmoke Tree Lane, and other residential areas of the Ranch. To the south are other residential areas of the Ranch. To the west is a single-family residential neighborhood off South Sunrise Way and Laverne Way. The project site abuts mostly rear yards of these properties, and includes a project perimeter wall. The General Plan designation of the site is L-2, (Low Density Residential with a maximum density of two units per gross acre), and the zoning designation is R-G-A (6), (Cluster Residential Zone). The intent of the General Plan designation is to accommodate low-density residential development. The project is proposed at a density of approximately 0.8 dwelling units per acre when calculating gross density of the entire project site, including the open area associated with the project but located within the remainder portion. An environmental mitigation measure and condition of approval is to limit residential development within the remainder portion so that density would not exceed the General Plan density. As an environmental mitigation measure agreed to by the project proponent, the condition would be enforceable on an on-going basis. Although not within the project discretionary action for the proposed residential lots, the Not-A-Part remainder portion of the project site is considered when calculating General Plan Density because it has historically served as open area for the entire Smoke Tree Ranch, and the project was purposefully designed to benefit from this open area. An environmental mitigation measure is included to assure that the open area remain substantially open to achieve consistency with the General Plan. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22106 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 5 of 11 A comparison of the existing zoning and the newly proposed Planned Development District is shown on the following table. Table 2: Comparison of Existing R-G-A (6) and Proposed PD-323 Standards R-G-A (6) Zone Proposed PD-323 Uses SFR, MFR, Hotel, etc. Per R-G-A (6), Plus 2" DU on Lots 12, 27, 34 Min. Lot Size 2 Acres (Gross Area), Per PD (All Lots Net Area) or 87,120 Square Feet Overall Avg.: 12,940 SF Min. (Lot 16): 7,050 SF Max. (Lot 4): 25,199 SF Zoning Density Min, 7,000 SF / DU Avg. 12,194 SF / DU (52 DU) Lot Configurations Min. Width: 165 Feet 104 feet to 193 feet Corner lot: 135 Feet 51 feet to 106 feet Min. Depth: 165 Feet 101 feet to 202 feet Min. Front Setback 25 Feet 15 Feet Min. Front Setback 25 Feet New: 20 Feet to Garage Existing: 15 Feet Min. Setbacks Side: 10-20% of Lot Width New: 15 Feet or 10-25 Feet Existing: 5 Feet Rear: 20 Feet Min. Bldg. Separations 15 Feet (Increased by Ht.) Per PD Min. Res. Size, w/o Gar. No Regulation New: 1,000 Sq. Feet Existing: NA Min. Res. Size, w/ Gar. No Regulation New: 1,300 Sq. Feet Existing: NA Min. Garage Size No Regulation New: 300 Sq. Feet Existing: NA Garage & Driveway Typically, Double Garage Min. One-car Width, Width With Covered Space Max. Lot Coverage 50% 35%, up to 5,000 S . Feet Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (A) of the Zoning Code, a planned development district (PD) may be approved in lieu of a change of zone as specified in Section 94.07.00. The PEI is needed for this project so that relief from land use limitations and development standards can be achieved. Relief is needed to continue use of the cottages on Lots 12, 27, and 34. Since they are currently used for resort accommodations, they are currently consistent with zoning limitations. However, after the property is subdivided they will no longer conform since the lots will now contain single-family dwellings. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22/06 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 6 of 11 The individual lot sizes do not conform to the two-acre minimum size in the R-G-A zone, and do not conform to ordinary dimension, setback, and building separation requirements. Relief is needed to allow the flexible arrangement that takes advantage of the existing common area that provides greater separation between residences, effectively providing the equivalent to wider and deeper lots with greater setbacks. The relief from separation requirements is also needed for several of the lots that will include two existing cottages. In order to implement the subdivision design concept of lots set within common open areas, and to allow continuation of the unique, existing resort cottages that are developed on a more confined scale, relief from ordinary zoning requirements through the PD mechanism is needed. Relief is also needed to allow use of single carports. This practice of occasionally using single carports is continued from the Ranch resort style. REQUIRED FINDINGS Findings can be made in support of establishing the proposed Planned Development District as follows: a. The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general plan pursuant to Sections 94.07.00 (A)(1) and 94.02.00 (A)(4) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The proposed planned development is consistent with the basic L2 General Plan designation as a residential use. The proposed density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre, including the lots and common area, is within the maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre called out in General Plan Objective 3.4b. The proposed development is consistent with Policy 3.4.1 because Section 65852.2(b)(5) of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that second units shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan. This is consistent with General Plan Implementation item 3.4b allowing planned development district flexibility in treating density. Finally, 77 percent of the combined lot area and remainder common area is maintained as open space or private recreational area per Policy 3.4.5, and the project proposes special street and development standards that maintain a "relaxed" rural atmosphere. The type of development proposed by this project allows flexible development standards on individual lots within the context of the surrounding common area, thus allowing a desirable departure from strict provisions of the R-G-A zone. b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed planned development district, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations. 7,1. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22/06 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 7 of 11 The project site is suitable for the development of 49 single-family residential lots. It is relatively flat and can accommodate building pads, and internal street, and drainage. Existing access is from East Palm Canyon Drive via Smoke Tree Lane, with secondary emergency access to Laverne Drive/South Sunrise Way. C. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary and proper, and is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents. The proposed establishment of the proposed planned development district is necessary to tailor land uses and development standards for this project so that smaller lots can be separated from existing common areas in a manner that preserves the overall openness of the project site and vicinity. The planned district is also necessary to provide tailored development standards within the proposed planned district that allow creative placement of residences on lots. The project site is separated from adjacent residents by the remainder common area, and allows buffering and desert landscaping. Additional findings are required for the proposed subdivision pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act. These findings and a discussion of the project as it relates to these findings follow: a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed planned development is consistent with the basic L2 General Plan designation as a residential use. The proposed density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre, including the lots and common area, is within the maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre called out in General Plan Objective 3.4b. The proposed development is consistent with Policy 3.4.1 because Section 65852.2(b)(5) of the State Planning and Zoning Law provides that second units shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing general plan. This is consistent with General Plan Implementation item 3.4b allowing planned development district flexibility in treating density. Finally, 77 percent of the combined lot area and remainder common area is maintained as open space or private recreational area per Policy 3.4.5, and the project proposes special street and development standards that maintain a `relaxed" rural atmosphere. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located. The proposed project design is generally consistent with the stated purposed of promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing for comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources per Section 91.00.00 of the Zoning Code because the Planned Development zoning overlay �'�i71 crirr Planning Commission Staff Report 3122/06 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 8 of 11 application provides a mechanism to tailor standards for this project so that smaller lots can be separated from existing common areas in a manner that preserves the overall openness of the project site and vicinity as intended by the R-G-A(6) zone. The planned district is also necessary to provide tailored development standards within the proposed planned district that allow creative placement of residences on lots. C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. The project site is flat, and is located in an area with all urban services and utilities, including streets. d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development. The proposed 21.05-acre project site within the 41.22-acre property can accommodate an additional 21 residences without significant grading, the site has direct access to improved public streets with existing utilities, and the site is in an area allowing access to major thoroughfares. Thirty one cottages are existing and are served by streets and utilities. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The scope of the project, creating lots for 28 existing cottage sites containing 31 existing cottages, and separating 21 additional lots from a common area remainder for 21 future residences, all on a 21-acre portion of a 41-acre site is limited. Existing roads will be utilized. As such, the design of the subdivision in not likely to cause environmental damage or injure wildlife or wildlife habitat. There are no water areas with fish. Additionally, the project proponent is participating in the Desert Water Agency Revegetation Plan and providing a Conservation Easement to maintain and protect areas as natural, open space that will retain its value as Casey's June beetle habitat. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the proposed residential subdivision includes the provision of public water and sewer systems, and an internal, private street system that provides an orderly system of ordinary and emergency access to the project. g. The design of the subdivision or 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. Planning Commission Staff Report 3122106 case:5.1090—PD-323&TTM 33878 Page 9 of 11 Although there are numerous utilities lines and easements crossing and serving the existing cottages, these easements have been accommodated in areas developed with existing cottages, and can be accommodated in the undeveloped areas of the project site. There is no known public access across the subject property, therefore the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. Any utility easements can be accommodated within the project design. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration is being sent to applicable agencies and published in the Desert Sun for a 20-day review period. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached to this report. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration found the environmental impacts of the proposed project to be less than significant with the following mitigations: MM III-1 Earth-moving activities on the project site shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 MPH, pursuant to the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan and SCAQMD Rule 403.1. MM III-2 Adequate watering techniques shall be employed on the project site to mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be: formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day, as part of the construction specifications. MM III-3 Any construction access roads to the project site shall be paved as soon as possible and cleaned after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved road surfaces shall be 15 mph. MM III-4 All trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. MM III-5 Trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose dirt material off-site, shall be covered and washed off before leaving the site. MM III-6 Adjacent streets shall be swept if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. MM III-7 As part of the construction specifications, any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind.erosion of the soil. Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22106 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TfM 33878 Page 10 of 11 MAR III-8 Construction operations affecting off-site roadways shall be scheduled for off-peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. MAR V-1 As there is always a possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources in a project area, a Native American Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office shall be contacted for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning Services. Following consultation, the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate the find. If necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. Human remains diiscovered shall be handled consistent with state law provisions. MIM-VII-I Prior to demolition of any structures, a Phase 1 ESA shall be prepared to determine the presence of any hazardous building materials such as asbestos floor tiles, pipe insulation, etc. The recommendations of that report shall be followed including the proper handling and disposal of the material as well as any site remediation. MAR IX-1 The Omitted Not-A-Part portion of the property is recognized to be, and will continue to be held as common area for this project and Smoke Tree Ranch, and shall not be developed with dwelling units unless it can be demonstrated that the residential units associated with this project, along with any proposed dwelling units conform to density provisions of the Palm Springs General Plan. MAR XI-1 The project applicant shall demonstrate that all on-site residential units shall be designed to meet the City of Palm Springs noise standards (65 CNEL in outside activity areas and 45 CNEL in interior living areas). The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance through the submittal of building and site improvernent plans that provide details regarding sound barrier heights, additional insulation and building materials used to maintain interior noise levels, building and window orientation, and other measures to reduce noise exposure levels to City noise standards. A qualified noise consultant shall be retained to ensure that project and building designs will meet City noise exposure standards. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure Shia][ be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. MAR XI-2 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. MAR XI-3 All construction equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. J , 79 Planning Commission Staff Report 3/22/06 Case:5.1090—PD-323&TfM 33878 Page 11 of 11 IVIM XI-4 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located in the northern portion of the site. MM XI-5 Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. MIM XI-6 Construction activities on-site shall take place only during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., as specified by the Palm Springs Noise Ordinance (11.74.041), to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. The Construction Site Regulations (Chapter 8.04.220) also identify specific limits on hours of operation for construction equipment as not between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. if the noise produced is of such intensity or quality that it disturbs the peace and quiet of any other person of normal sensitivity. NOTIFICATION A. public hearing notice was advertised and was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property/adjacent property owners. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comment. Ei and O. Oo 4rtson rn' in ICP Principal Planner Di ectpr-of P'anni g Services ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Parcel Map 33878, Site Plan, and Elevations 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study 4. Draft Resolution / Conditions of Approval H\USERS\PLAM5.1090 Smoke Tree Cottages PD-TTM 33878\PC Staff Report 5 1090-3 22.06[2006-0309].doc CITY OF PALM SPRINGS _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES[ DRAFT � DRAFT March 22, 2006 ®RAFT Council Chambers, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Present: Cohen, Hutcheson, Ringlein, Roath, Shoenberger, Vice Chair Hochanadel, and Chair Marantz. Absent: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. Case 5.1090 PD 323 / TTM 33878 - An applilcation by Smoke Tree, Inc. for a proposed Planned Development District and phased subdivision of a 41.22 acre-parcel into a 21.05 acre area with 49 residential lots with 52 cottages and private streets located at 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, Zone R-G-A(6), Section 25. Commissioner Shoenberger stated he has a business related conflict of interest on Items 3, 4 and 5 and would not participate in the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 1:56 p.m. Contract Planner, Bernie Chase, gave background information as outlined in the staff report dated March 22, 2006. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing. Kitty Campbell, spoke on hehalf of the owner of Smoke Tree Inn, the adjacent property, concerned if project is approved, it would prohibit the applicant to erect 15 - 20 units on the back acre. Tracy Conrad, Chief Operating Officer of Smoke Tree Ranch, thanked staff for their diligent work on their project. She gave further details regarding the project and stated her concern with Engineering Conditions #12 and #18. Marvin Roos, MSA Consulting, gave a history of Smoke Tree Ranch and further information regarding lot coverage, CFD and drainage fees. He requested the Engineering Condition #12, regarding drainage swales, be deleted; and Condition #18, regarding retention be modified. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Marcus Fuller, Assistant Director of Public Works, proposed Engineering Condition #12 be modified as follows: "Natural drainage swales should be maintained adjacent to all edges of of roadway pavement . . . " and Engineering Condition #18 to state, 'The applicant shall accept and convey all stormwater runoff across the property in a manner consistant with the existing natural landscape of the Smoke Tree property" and Condition #19, to add to the end of the sentence, "unless prior payment of fees may be demonstrated or credit for deletion of Master Storm drain line, as approved by the City Engineer". Tracy Conrad requested 5,000 square feet of construction envelope. M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 6-0, 1 absent/Shoenberger) To recommend adoption of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of Case 5.1090 PD 323 and TTM 33878 to City Council, subject to Conditions of Approval; as amended: Engineering Condition #12 shall read, "Natural drainage swales should be maintained adjacent to all edges of roadway pavement . . .'; Engineering Condition #18 to include, 'The applicant shall accept and convey all stormwater runoff across the property in a manner consistant with the existing natural landscape of Smoke Tree property."; Condition #19, to add to the last sentence, "unless prior payment of fees may be demonstrated or credit for deletion of Master Storm Drain line, as approved by the City Engineer"; and a new Condition to shall be: "5,000 square feet of construction envelope, as approved by Planning Director". i • r� r7i , PROOF O PUBLICATION This is s'pacu for Connty Clerk's Fdmg Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) 2IJ G IT°R 30 S: � 5 No. 0947, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALMALMSPRINGS CASE: 5.1090 PD-323,TTM 33878 STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside PUNNED DEVELOPMENT logo SMOKE Ti LANE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Callfo a City d hone at the Cdy of Palm Spring':, public hearing it Its meeting of Aprll.,2006.The aTy Councll meeting be Ins at 0 00 p.m., In the Council Chamber at City jail,3100 East Ttpqultz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. I am a citizen of the united States and a resident of The purpose of this nearing Is to consider an ap- pllcotlon by Smoke tree, Inc., far a proposed the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen Planncd Development plinim and thi. develop- ment of a praised subdivision of a 41.22-3cre years,and not a party to or interested in the irrol Into a 21.05-acre area with As residential Pots and private streets, and omitting the remaln- above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a der of the 41 22-acre parcel from the subdivi,on. riuinr Of line,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING Tho remainder porhon (20.17 ecras) Includes ex- P istinq roads existing Smoke Tree R.rich amenity COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, racllrles mduding a clubheu.c,.tennis court.:.^rid rocreatlonal facllitles, a melrjtandAcce d areas In- printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, tlon facility,and desert-lyp pp ❑❑qq pp terspersed -G-A lfi uCluster Rokide`Ir, al,Sec[Ion County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been IoL, zone R-G-A 1 1 adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the 21,' Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of (If_� m rv,•- .} 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 - III `"• than non pariel,has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ,r - supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: - I March 25"',2006 i`,! __ -___ Fi �Y 1 All in the year 2006 :M- - I certify(or declare under penalty of perjury that the ENVIRONMENTAL 13ETrRMINATIONe,A Draft p Y P 1 Y Mltlgatcd Nagative Declaritlon was prepared for foregoing is true and correct. this project unokr The uidclnl,q Ot the California Environmental Qualify�/Rct(4CEGA) and will be ro- vlewed b) Ilia CityCOundl Or the hearing Mem- Dated at Palm Sprng California this-----27"', --day btrs of the public May view this document at the • Plannin, Services ❑opaflipenr, Citv call, 3200 gist"Is quitz Canyon Wayy', Palm Spnn❑ , 'and submit wilt en commons at, or prior TO,the City of-------- .rah---- /� �-,2006 Council hearing. klEV1EW OF PROJECT INFOnMATEONI The staff report and other supporinq documents regarding thin project are available for public review at City - ----•------•--.---. i Hall bclween the howr of 8.00 a.m. end 5:0 \\ p.m. Monday through Friday. Please contact The Signa re \ 011ice of the City Clerk at ,GO) 323-6204 if you V would Ilkr to scheci an appointment To review {hese documCnt-. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION- Pesponse to this notice may be made verbally at Iryo Public Hesring and/or In writing before the hearing.Wrd- ten comments may b,. made to the Cdy Council by letter(for mild or hand dolivery)to. ,r ® James Thomp:ur, City Clark 3200 E.Tahqudz l''. nyyon Way -f Palm Springs. CA 922G2 Any challonne of The proposed project in court ma yy be Ilmlted to raising only tho.r•issues raised at the public hearing dascrlbed in thin notice, ai' In written Correspandencn delivered to thu CITy Clerk st, or priori to the ppublic hegrinq. (Govern- ment Code action G5o0g[b[21). An opportunity will be given 9t said heannq �or all Interested per, son: to be heard. Questions regarding this case, may be directed to Edwlyd . RO crl..on or Diane Bullock Planning Services aT (750) 323�G245. Si n(ceslta ayuda Con esta carta,porfavor Ilame a Is Ciudad de Palm Spring= pucdc nobler con Nadne FI69eY telefono (7G0) ..23-6245, James Thompson, City Clerk Published:a/25/2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE: 5.1090 PD-323, TTM 33878 SMOKE TREE COTTAGES - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1850 SMOKE TREE LANE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of April 5, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application by Smoke Tree, Inc., for a proposed Planned Development District and the development of a phased subdivision of a 41.22-acre parcel into a 21.05-acre area with 49 residential lots and private streets, and omitting the remainder of the 41.22-acre parcel from the subdivision. The remainder portion (20.17 acres) includes existing roads, existing Smoke Tree Ranch amenity facilities including a clubhouse, tennis courts, and recreational facilities, a maintenance and detention facility, and desert-type landscaped areas interspersed throughout and separating proposed lots. Zone R-G-A (6) Cluster Residential, Section 25. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will be reviewed by the City Council at the hearing. Members of the public may view this document at the Planning Services Department, City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at, or prior to, the City Council hearing. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter(for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Edward O. Robertson or Diane Bullock, Planning Services, at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. es Thompson, City Clerk Department of Planning Services w � E J 4 t " Vicinity Map S til A� CAPRI GIR A Jul z E-RAI.M CANYON DR _ LL TWIN P lmm 8 E I R Legend { _ ALGODONES TR site [--1500'Radms �q rn 1f-_T4( CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE: NO: 5.1090 PD-323 DESCRIPTION: An application by Smoke Tree, Inc. for a TTM 33878 proposed Planned Development District and phased subdivision with 49 residential lots and private streets. An APPLICANT: Smoke Tree, Inc. approximate 20.17 acre portion will not be a part of the Smoke Tree Cottages subdivision at 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, Zone R-G-A(6), Section 25. FPALM Sn City of Palm Springs V to Office of the City Cleric 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 V OP Tel: (760)323-8204 ° Fax: (760) 322-8332 ^ Web: www.ci.paltn-sprmgs.ca.us geiF°�N 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, to consider an application by Smoke Tree, Inc., for a proposed Planned Development District and the development of a phased subdivision of a 41.22-acre parcel into a 21.05-acre area with 49 residential lots and private streets, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 23rd day of March, 2006, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (112 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 28th day of March, 2006. m srY ,�JAMES THOMPSON City Clerk /kdh H:\USERS\C-CLK\Hearing NoticesWlflidavit-SmokeTree. 040506.doc Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS MS APRIL HILDNER PUblic Hearing Notice (TAHQUITZ RIVERS ESTATES) MR TIM HOHMEIER Case 5.1090 PD-323 241 EAST MESQUITE AVENUE (DEEPWELL ESTATES) The Cottages at Smoke Tree Ranch PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 1387 CALLE DE MARIA CC Meeting -04.05.06 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MS SHERYL HAMLIN MR JOHN HANSEN MS ROXANN PLOSS (HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA) (WARM SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD) (BEL DESIERTO NEIGHBORHOOD ) 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE PO BOX 252 930 CHIA ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MS MALLIKA ALBERT MS DIANE AHLSTROM MR KENT CHAMBERLIN (CHINO CANYON ORGANIZATION) (MOVIE COLONY NEIGHBORHOOD) (TENNIS CLUB AREA) 2241 NORTH LEONARD ROAD 475 VALMONTE SUR 373 MONTE VISTA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR BOB MAHLOWITZ (SUNMOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP) MS PAULA AUBURN MR BOB DICKINSON 246 NORTH SYBIL ROAD (SUNRISENISTA CHINO AREA) VISTA LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 1369 CAMPEON CIRCLE 755 WEST CRESCENT DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR BILL SCOTT (OLD LAS PALMAS NEGIBORHOOD) MR. SEIMA MOLOI 540 VIA LOLA (DESERT HIGHLAND GATEWAY) PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 359 W.SUNVIEW AVENUE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-1459 MR PETE MORUZZI Ci Ji;uaPdt 1%d li'i PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO 5.1090 PD 323 PLANNING &ZONING DEPT MRS JOANNE BRUGGEMANS VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 1 1 ATTN SECRETARY 506 W SANTA CATALINA ROAD PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 1 1 I I 1 1 INDIANS 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MRS TRACY CONRAD MR JIM CIOFFI CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER JIM CIOFFI ARCHITECT SPONSORS I 1 I SMOKE TREE RANCH 2121 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,#3 1850 SMOKE TREE LANE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 MR MARVIN ROOS,AICP MR JIM CORNETT MSA CONSULTING, INC. JWC ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE P.O. BOX 846 t RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 WOJ'AeMa'mAAm pue woyssaadx3a�eaodAoD-AAmnn (FUTS8Z)hVOOi 3D'8881 a a n i v N a i s a;eaodao:) v 009-602-256 009-606-797 510-020-001 Union Oil Cc Of Calif First Wisconsin Natl Bank Of Smoke Tree Inc PO Box 15:39 777 E Wisconsin Ave 2235 Faraday Ave 0 Paso Robles, CA 93447-1539 Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7215 510-020-002 510-020-003 510-020-010 Union Oil Co Of Calif Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc PO Box 15:39 2235 Faraday Ave 0 PO Box 6030 Paso Robles, CA 93447-1539 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7215 Newport Beach, CA 92658-6030 510-020-012 510-020-023 510-020-025 Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc 2235 Faraday Ave 0 2235 Faraday Ave O PO Box 2818 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7215 Carlsbad, CA 92008-7215 Alpharetta, GA 30023-2818 510-020-031 510-020-032 510-020-033 Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc 1840 Mountain View Dr 1800 S Sunrise Way 1800 S Sunrise Way Tiburon, CA 94920-1810 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 510-020-034 510-020-035 510-090-001 Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc 1800 S Sunrise Way 1800 S Sunrise Way 1800 S Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 510-101-001 510-101-002 510-101-003 William D Rutherford William L & Shelby Strong Joan H Moore 1800 S Sunrise Way PO Box 2247 1800 S Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Rancho Santa , CA 92067-2247 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 510-101-004 510-102-001 510-102-002 John F & Deanna Oppenheimer Farigal & Elizabet Kieley Rwj 5438 91St Ave Se 1800 S Sunrise Way 2280 University Dr Mercer Island, WA 98040-5147 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3319 510-102-003 510-104-001 510-104-002 James A & Jacqueline Mc Mahan Owen C & Marie Peck Martha B Vandermolen 2237 Colby Ave 6070 Plumas St G 108 E Michigan Ave Los Angeles, CA 90064-1504 Reno, NV 89509-6035 Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3966 510-104-003 510-104-006 510-104-007 Le Sanders Martha B Vandermolen Carolyn W Rivard 2220 Homet: Rd 108 E Michigan Ave 1800 S Sunrise Way San Marino, CA 91108-1326 Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3966 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 510-105-002 510-105-006 510-105-007 Martha B Vandermolen Hoyt B & Jacqueline Leisure Hoyt B & Jacqueline Leisure 108 E Michigan Ave 190 N Canon Dr 405 190 N Canon Dr 405 Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3966 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-5315 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-5315 irni uar wo)-hma•mmm(sue wonsaidx3alwodjoymmm q (C)ZE9'8EZ).1b77013T888'6 �` /o /0 �� 3'C3 3 u n i v N D i s ajeaodo:) 510-105-009 510-111-007 510-111-008 Sunrise Rock 2 Nani Warren Peter & Mary Kaufman 2107 SW Greenwood Rd 2365 SW Madison St 1211 Air Way Portland, OR 97219-8362 Portland, OR 97205-1027 Glendale, CA 91201-2405 510-111-009 510-112-003 510-112-004 Peter & Mary Kaufman C Knudsen David C & Polly Wyman 1211 Air Way 602 36Th Ave E 1200 5Th Ave 1711 Glendale, CA 91201-2405 Seattle, WA 98112-4316 Seattle, WA 98101-1127 510-112-006 510-112-008 510-121-0"i Smoke Tree Inc Smoke Tree Inc Conrad'Marut 1800 S Sunrise Way 1800 S Sunrise Way PO/Box 3340 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 P£lm Springs, CA 92263-3340 510-121-002 510-121-007 510-121-008 Conrad-Marut Conrad-Marut Rozene R Supple PO Box 3340 PO Box 3340 1800 S Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-3340 Palm Springs, CA 92263-3340 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 510-122-001 511-020-006 511-020-007 Jean C Lehman Carol A Vogt Lance C Hile 1800 S Sunrise Way 1901 S Cadiz Cir 1900 S Toledo Ave Palm Springs, CA 92264-9222 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9210 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9230 511-020-008 511-020-009 511-020-014 James A Mcclelland Cyril R Gaultier Robert & Wanda Hird 1911 S Cadiz Cir 7256 Sunnydip Trl 1651 S La Verne Way Palm Springs, CA 92264-9210 Los Angeles, CA 90068-2054 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9297 511-020-019 511-020-043 511-020-0 Allan Levine Valerie Reitman Kawai erts If, 11 5460 White; Oak Ave A330 3278 Wilshire Blvd 203 1675,/S La Verne Way Encino, CA 91316-2407 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1400 Pa YM Springs, CA 92264-9297 511-020-049 511-020-050 511-020-051 Habib Azul.ay Desert Water Agency Joseph & Norma Hanna 46350 Arapahoe Ct PO Box 1710 1930 S Cadiz Cir Indian Wells, CA 92210-2792 Palm Springs, CA 92263-1710 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9210 511-022-032 511-091-021 511-092-001 Charlene Marson Gary P & Donna Gettinger Fred W Sladek 1813 Rees Rd 1580 Rojo Cir 1585 E Madrona Dr San Marcos, CA 92069-3344 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9226 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9219 Sll-092-002 511-092-009 511-092-010 Yolanda Guzman Gary A Hutton Rudolph A Centorcelli 1541 E Madrona Dr PO Box 4871 1690 E Maricopa Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-9219 Palm Springs, CA 92263-4871 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9224 it li 'lief w03-/ennarmrmnnpueworssaadx3a;ea0daoynnrmnn �o /v r ss"aadz3 888'6 7 a n 1 V N 37 E) n (6Z£g'S£Z)),V(]O.L i s I a;eaodao:)% 511-092-011 511-092-012 511-092-015 Jeffrey M Zeitlin Paul D Ehrhardt Minhee A Kim 116 S Fuller Ave 3207 Sterling Rd 1952 Ledo Cir Los Angeles, CA 90036-2810 Yardley, PA 19067-2637 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9216 511-092-016 511-092-017 511-093-002 Philip & Virginia Banta Maureen Mercury Bernard J & Sylvia Crawford 609 13Th St PO Box 3340 1935 S Cadiz Cir Manhattan Bea, CA 90266-4632 Palm Springs, CA 92263-3340 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9210 511-093-003 511-093-00 511-093-005 Norman C Ellermann Danny reager Y`- James R Edwards 1922 S Toledo Ave 1426 ularcitos Dr 1944 S Toledo Ave Palm Springs, CA 92264-9230 Mi pitas, CA 95035-7614 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9230 511-093-017 511-093-018 511-093-025 Pinetti City Of Palm Springs Ferdinand C & Adria Rose 18 Mount Rainier Dr PO Box 1786 PO Box 1003 San Rafael, CA 94903-1078 Palm Springs, CA 92263-1786 Palm Springs, CA 92263-1003 511-093-026 511-093-027 511-093-028 Robert R olfe �-�111 Thomas M & Leslie Lyons *M* Kathleen H Depaola 4204 ,Pe Beach Dr 1947 S Cadiz Cir 98 Fifer Ln League City, TX 77573-5841 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9210 Lexington, MA 02420-1229 511-093-029 511-102-025 511-102-026 Joan Ravenna Great West Life Assurance Cc Gabor & Marta Faludi 1998 S Toledo Ave 8515 E Orchard Rd 2020 S Chico Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-9230 Greenwood Vil, CO 80111-5002 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9214 511-102-027 511-102-028 511-102-029 Don & Jeannette Woolf Donald M & Helen Porter Richard L Hartman 2015 S Toledo Ave 2027 S Toledo Ave 2045 S Toledo Ave Palm Springs, CA 92264-9231 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9231 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9231 511-104-014 511-104-015 511-104-016 Roger C Senter City Of Palm Springs Joann Gray PO Box 350 PO Box 1786 223 Roosevelt Ave Palm Springs, CA 92263-0350 Palm Springs, CA 92263-1786 Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5114 511-104-017 511-104-029 511-510-007 City Of Palm Springs Harry Drexler Irena Kohn PO Box 1786 075 N Michigan Ave 3512 6441 E Bixby Hill Rd Palm Springs, CA 92263-1786 Chicago, IL 60611-1957 Long Beach, CA 90815-4708 511-510-008 511-510-009 511-510-010 Greene Steve & Florence Jacoby James W Hughes 1642 S La Verne Way PO Box 2723 1675 E Twin Palms Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-9296 Malibu, CA 90265-7723 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9107 it 11 uer woxhma`mmmpueworsswdx3ajajodao:)-mMmn b 7o li'b 3,t 3 j " (6Z£9'8EZ)AtlOO,L 3D'888"6 e a n i d N s i s ajeaod of C,/v 511-510-011 511-510-012 511-510-013 James Quinn Maurice & Alice Zekaria Great West Life Assurance Cc 1651 E Twin Palms Dr 723 N Rodeo Dr 120 W 18Th St 4A Palm Springs, CA 92264-9107 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-3209 New York, NY 10011-5413 511-510-015 511-510-016 s/ 511-510-027 Great West Life Assurance Cc Samuel & J an Rothberg u�� Great West Life Assurance Cc 1836 S Monaco Cir 1127 W IIchwoods Blvd 2499 S Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-9261 Peo�a, IL 61604-1353 Palm Springs, CA 92262 *** 96 Printed *** SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF PALM SPRINGS INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1. Project title: Smoke Tree Ranch-Case 5.1090 TTM 33878 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 3. Contact person and phone number: Edward Robertson, Project Planner (760) 323-8245 4. Project location: 1850 Smoke Tree Lane;south of East Palm Canyon Drive at Smoke Tree Lane 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Smoke Tree Ranch 1850 Smoke Tree Lane Palm Springs, CA 92264 6. General plan designation: L 2 (Low Density Residential-2 dwelling units per acre) 7. Zoning: R-G-A (6) (Garden Apartment-Low Density Multi-Family Residential, 6du/acre) 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implernentation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed project is for a Planned Development District and Tentative Tract map for 50 lots, 29 of which will accommodate existing structures that have existed on the site for over 50 years, located at 1850 Smoke Tree Lane, Zone R-G-A (6). A block of 59 efficiency apartments are to be razed, along with the former Smoke Tree Ranch maintenance area. Removal of these structures will be replaced by 5 of the 21 new home sites. The Planned Development District application is necessary since the property is zoned R-G-A (6) which would normally default to R-1-C for a single family subdivision. The subdivision proposes lots ranging from 6,900 square feet to 25,000 square feet in size. The overall density of 50 lots on 21.05 acres is substantially less than the 126 units that would be allowed by the RGA (6) zoning. The overall density of Smoke Tree Ranch is less than 1 du/acre (135 units on 232 +/- acres). Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 ;• � Page I of 50"1-1/3 5 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The request for the PDD is to be able to emulate the unique development standards that have been the hallmark of the Ranch for many decades. Among the unique standards are narrow streets without curbs, gutters or sidewalks. The proposal is to widen the streets within the map to a minimum of 20 feet in width in keeping with the current minimum standards for fire access and prohibit on street parking. Some of the existing streets are as little as 14 to 16 feet in width. "The Ranch has an existing set of standards contained within its bylaws." Those standards are proposed to carry over into this section of the ranch and will be memorialized in the project CC&Rs. The proposed development standards are delineated on the Tentative Tract Map No.33878. New home-sites will be developed by individual owners over a period of time estimated at 5 to 10 years. The project is unique in that 45% of the guest ranch portion of the property is preserved as permanent open space. Individual lots generally are not contiguous but are buffered with natural landscaped common lots. No walls or fences will be allowed at the property lines. Fencing will be allowed as necessary to enclose individual pools. Access to the project will be from a newly developed entry from Smoke Tree Lane, off East Palm Canyon Drive. The old entry will be maintained as a secondary point of access as well as a service entry. The Tentative Tract Map is being requested to subdivide this portion of Smoke Tree Ranch into 50 lots. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: East Palm Canyon Drive, Commercial South Smoke Tree Ranch, single family residential East: Smoke Tree Ranch, single family residential West: Sunrise Way, single family residential 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) • Desert Water Agency Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 20%-) Page 2 of'i5-1 _s' SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FIGURE 1 -VICINITY MAP I F.>'•• eL>w (Cox" -, / _ Ictlt —i g IT Lj LJ L--J l i Ceoo c a ��I: d; 7 o I i I �t � � I �w i r naNenYncc-�xa � jl �oNroxl ss.xre_j j+ .'I { nx'u°p"px_ 4 tasyo>Mn�t�l I ' �J LJ All J1 Legend N 500ft Buffer Wc`E ® A Portion Of Smoke Tree Ranch included in application j SJ Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 3 ofii5l i'q n ray i SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FIGURE 2 — PROJECT LOCATION MAP J_ L . ----------.r.— _ m —.RAM R o lrfcl.RglispNsN1�1.ii �y a -9 1CA1€!.&Rdl c�,I I _j ( ( j - o isoNNx buNE�f ._._. 1---- �r Y f j I W_ —}--— _ e c�' a— �.,� T..�. N. SRD--.-- .- j � vI L.�....61j� I i` r —5-RlVER5IDEDR—._. ! ( d / �aN•L6RE11dO�F2D--..._..�....—uS 0! TT-FT-_j-_. i w MGfZGNoofz0;.— 4 j_L-I T'�%c?�— j g SU i�A3+L '`� # `ca c Y w 0 —4{ L.—.I -- { -- 0 ,c.d--'- I �•j A ERY-D'R _-""! �-PALtd"R.­4.�.Z._ r 3 jet i�os.d ,_ o jdGrR ANZA7'R- •._ -Si RtA 4 PLconONES3R t I �i ATb —a --- —� _ . -5ATI:IAGIN�O T 1 (t ilL�.. � VrAEsTReLLA A l I 4C O� tl �SAtT1Aea,WY/' \ �1�..Rtw' � -"•,"".,"� i `f /7trX �•_�p r 6�"VISTA, jVIA-0�Aj 1-'\'f Legend N A Portion Of Smoke Tree Ranch included in application W�E Contiguous Ownership S Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration c ` March 2006 Page 4 of 51` `" c„ all 7 4-TT, pC TENTATIVE TRACT I'm MAP NO. 33878 w PRELI MINARY AN'.�&N 'R QP�A.0.11TJO r�ao NT. FHA ON 4—Mo IT: C) IT ITT L ­M—p JI z X �xp _1 v2 T— F, z > A_ IF o Y�! 1-H I T 1 'Tr ­,Ti 1. JTIT�l IT vrz w! mil > ­41 17 , > 7, �LN$_ST MAP rn 0L I gc D d1A OmvEIXl z SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 6 of 5,� SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Craig A. Ewing, AICP Date Director of Planning Services Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 7(9t 51 ces";1-7 _. SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPLICATION CERTIFICATION: 1 certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature Date Print name and title Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006CREVO Page 8 of St, i, ,d SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact'answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from 'Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures"Earlier Analyses,"as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. .Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c:) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other source's used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, ,.,.,- Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 9 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 10 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - ,Significaht ' Potentially With, Less;Than =Significant T ;Mitigatiun Sighfficant incoImpac Impact oImpact,p � I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic El El Elvista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ ® ❑ views in the area? a-c:) No Impact. The project site is located south of East Palm Canyon Drive at Smoke Tree Lane. It is not located near scenic vistas or state scenic highways. The proposed project is for 50 lots, 29 of which are existing home sites with the remaining 21 lots to be developed by individual owners over a period of 5 1 o 10 years. The proposed development standards are similar to the existing home sites thereby maintaining the character of Smoke Tree Ranch. Open space is integrated throughout the project through the existing CC&Rs ensuring maintaining the existing visual character of the site. There will be no impact on the visual character of the site. of Less Than Significant Impact. The site has 29 existing cottages, which currently generate a nominal amount light or glare in the evenings when occupied. Construction of the project would have some lighting impacts, characteristic of a very low density residential area. However, it is not anticipated that the project will create substantial light and glare that could affect night time views. The type of lighting proposed would be in compliance with the Smoke Tree Ranch CC&Rs. In addition, the project would be required to comply with City's "dark sky" ordinance pursuant to standards outlined in Section 93.21.00 of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, there will be a less than significant impact to day or nighttime views in the area due to light and glare. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page II of 17„ SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less:Than.. 5igni scant- "Potentially With Less Than - Signfcant `` Mitigation Significant 'Impact r Incorporated Impact Nq.lmpact,�. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether, impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use? a) No Impact. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency have not designated this area as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact to farmland would occur. b) No Impact. The proposed project site is zoned for multi-famly residential use and is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, no Williamson Act Contracts are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to Williamson Act Contracts would occur. c) No Impact. The proposed project is designated multi-family residential; the surrounding land consists of developed commercial or residential property. Implementation of the proposed project would, therefore, not result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses. No Impacts to conversion of agricultural land will occur. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 ,�17'. Page 12 91',,4 r"-�' SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Twd,;, . SimCrant .:Potentially Wi hs 'm Than � ;SigniflcanI, ;.` Mitigation- -Significant Impact. Incorporated Impact No-Imp act ',' 111. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an ❑ El ® El federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ® ❑ ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? The Air Quality analysis is based on a report by Endo Engineering (Appendix A). a-d Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Development at the project site will be governed by the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 2002 Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan (CVPMIo SIP). CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the applicable AQMP. The project would result in development intensities that are lower than what is allowed under the current General Plan land use designation. The Palm Springs General Plan is the basis for the AQMP emissions inventories, which is a key underlying assumption associated with the AQMP. Projects that are consistent with local General Plan land use development intensities are considered consistent with the air quality related regional plans including: the current AQMP, the Coachella ValleyPMio SIP and other applicable regional plans. The proposed project is not expected to exceed the SCAQMD daily or quarterly construction emission thresholds of significance during construction activities on site. The nominal threshold of significance considered by the AQMD for project development is a minimum of 7 acres of land is being graded on a given day or when 70 homes are being constructed simultaneously. In the case of the subject development, no mass grading is proposed since a majority of the site infrastructure is already in place and there applicant is proposing only to install the missing pieces of infrastructure in several smalls phases. The new, individual homes will be designed in keeping with existing Smoke Tree Ranch designs and will be constructed by individuals and not en manse. The 21 vacant lots are spread throughout the project and are located in each of the proposed five Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration e March 2006 Page 13 of 54'':f"1 wry ruMn SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION phases. The maximum number of new homes in any one phase is 8 (Phases I and V). Phases III and IV include no vacant lots, although there may be some expansion of the existing smaller units. Phase II is the area where 5 new home sites will replace the 59 efficiency units and the former maintenance area. Project-related motor vehicle and area source emissions are not projected to exceed the SCAQMD operational emission significance thresholds since the total number of units will be less than currently exist on the site. In addition, Smoke Tree Ranch has historically operated during the winter and spring months and closes the guest ranch operations roughly from Memorial Day to Thanksgiving each year. Operational emissions from the project would be within established thresholds and construction emissions exceeding daily thresholds would be mitigated through implementation of measures from the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2003 AQMP. This impact is considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities are a minor source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-woterbase paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. The URBEMIS-2002 for Windows (Version 7.4.2) program estimates maximum emissions from site grading, construction worker trips, stationary and mobile equipment, architectural coatings and asphalt off-gassing. URBEMIS 2002 was used to estimate potential emissions for the proposed project. Emissions from construction activities (grading and building), area sources (consumer products, gas fireplaces) and operations (vehicles) are provided in Table III-l. These calculations assume that demolition would not be necessary as the project site is currently vacant. Construction would occur over an eighteen-month period with project occupancy estimated late in the year2008. { Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 14 of 51 � 'e C SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table III-1 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS RESULTING FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES(POUNDS/DAY) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM10 (Lbs./Day) (Lbs./Day) (Lbs./Day) (Lbs./Day) Demolition Phase - Fugitive Dust - - - 3.15 -Off-Road Diesel 7.09 54.10 52.33 2.42 -On-Road Diesel 1.24 21.33 4.63 0.63 -Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 ------ ------ ------ ------ Subtotal 8.38 75.51 58.57 6.20 Site Grading Phase - Fugitive Dust - - - 5.00 -Off-Road Diesel 5.19 35.83 41.26 1.52 -Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 Subtotal 5.24 35.91 42.87 6.52 Construction Process ` -Off-Road Diesel 3.16 25.25 22.47 1.17 -Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.01 Subtotal 3.20 25.27 22.92 1.18 Architectural Coatings Off-Gasing 32.69 - - - -Worker Trips 0.03 0,02 0.35 0.01 Subtotal 32.72 0.02 0.35 0.01 Asphalt Paving Process -Off-Gasing 0.48 - - - -Off-Road Diesel 3.27 20.50 26.96 0.68 -On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.70 0.34 0.04 -Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 Subtotal 3.86 22.21 27.55 0.72 _.. ... -------- -- -- - _....-_.------ Maximum All Phasesb 32.72 75.51 58.57 6.52 Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 Threshold Exceeded No No No No a. Refer to the URBEMIS2002 printouts in an attachment. The PMio emissions include exhaust and fugitive dust emissions,assuming 0.5 acres per day are disturbed during grading. Twice daily watering of exposed surfaces was assumed as well as reduced speeds(<15 mph)on unpaved surfaces on-site. b. Building construction activities were assumed to occur in several phases. The maximum emission projections for any phase are shown and assume 8 single-family dwelling units are constructed. Not all building activities will occur simultaneously on-site. The major air quality impacts resulting from project construction would be increased ROG, NOx, CO, S02, and RMio emissions primarily from off road diesel, worker trips, off road diesel, and on road diesel. As shown in Table III-1, thresholds would not .be. exceeded on a pounds per day basis for any pollutant and would be below thresholds for pounds per day during construction. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 15 of 5141 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mitigation measures are provided consistent with the provisions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook to mitigate construction-related air quality emissions both for the project and cumulatively. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (which requires that projects obtain an approved Fugitive Dust Mitigation Plan prior to commencing construction) and Section 8,04.230 and 8.04.240 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code (which address erosion control associated with grading projects and outlines measures required to assure that no debris is washed, blown by wind or otherwise deposited onto streets or adjacent property). The project must also comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 to mitigate emissions to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures below shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and enforced/monitored by the City of Palm Springs and the SCAQMD. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce construction- related emissions and are considered adequate by the District to reduce emissions to less than significant. Mitigation Measures MNI III-1 Earth-moving activities on the project site shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 MPH, pursuant to the Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan and SCAQMD Rule 403.1. MM III-2 Adequate watering techniques shall be employed on the project site to mitigate the impact of construction-generated dust particulates. Portions of the project site that are undergoing earth moving operations shall be watered such that a crust will be formed on the ground surface and then watered again at the end of the day, as part of the construction specifications. MM III-3 Any construction access roads to the project site shall be paved as soon as possible and cleaned after each work day. The maximum vehicle speed limit on unpaved road surfaces shall be 15 mph. MM III-4 All trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. MM III-5 Trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose dirt material off-site, shall be covered and washed off before leaving the site. MM IIII-6 Adjacent streets shall be swept if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares. MM III-7 As part of the construction specifications, any vegetative ground cover to be utilized on-site shall be planted as soon as possible to reduce the disturbed area subject to wind erosion. Irrigation systems needed to water these plants shall be installed as soon as possible to maintain the ground cover and minimize wind erosion of the soil. MM IIII-8 Construction operations affecting off-site roadways shall be scheduled for off- peak traffic hours and shall minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located in a high-density area, near a school, hospital, assisted living facility, or other facility that would house people with Smoke free Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 5(xy � Page 16 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION lowered immune systems. However, single-family residential development is located to the east, and to the west. Homes within the Smoke Tree Ranch also exist to the south of the proposed development. To the north of the project site is a neighborhood shopping center with the service corridor of that center immediately northerly of the subject development. Those developments may potentially be exposed to a minor amount of nuisance dust and heavy equipment emission odors (e.g. diesel exhaust) during construction. The duration of exposure to air emissions and dust would be relatively short. Furthermore, exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Based on the short- term duration, rapid dissipation of construction emissions, and setbacks between the project site and adjacent residential areas, this impact is considered less than significant. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 17 of SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -, Significant: PotenhallY . ' With' Less Than _ Signrficant -: Mi6gaYion Significant �. ;Impact .I�OrpoSa 'Impact" No Impact, ' IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited El El ❑ to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? fl Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? a) Less Than Significant Impact. A biological assessment of the Casey's June beetle was prepared by James W. Cornett that included land in and around the subject property. Since the project site is currently developed, is surrounded by urban development, and does not lie within the boundaries of federally protected wetlands riparian habitat, no need was identified to specifically study the subject property. In a personal communication with Mr. Cornett, he indicated that the guest ranch portion of the property was not sensitive biologically. The grading of the project site can be expected to eliminate less than 7 acres of moderately impacted Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat. Given the widespread occurrence of the bush scrub and the fact that approximately 200 acres of similar habitat has already been preserved at Smoke Tree Ranch, there will not be any impact upon this habitat. Therefore, development of the project site will not have any significant adverse impacts upon biological resources in the region. The results of the Casey's June beetle study evolved to formally dedicate an open space easement over more than 200 acres of open space that had been informally set aside by the founders of Smoke Tree Ranch. This acreage Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 �j Page 18 of 51) �,9,,�� SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY I MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION includes the desert floor habitat lying between the homes of Smoke Tree Ranch and Barona Road, as well as a portion of the Palm Canyon Wash (breeding area for the beetle) and steep hillside area rising to the south of the wash. b-d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a wafer course, thus the project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish. Therefore, no migratory patterns of fish or wildlife would be impacted by this project and no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The proposed project has a number of existing trees on site that are proposed to be retained except possibly where in conflict with a new residence. Most of the trees at Smoke Tree Ranch are Tamarisk trees that were considered highly useful in the early part of the last century as fast growing windbreaks. The removal of an occasional Tamarisk tree would not be seen as a negative impact. f) No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) covers the project site that has been yet been adopted by the City of Springs. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) has prepared a draft regional "Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (CVMSHCP) that encompasses threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats, This plan has not yet been approved. In addition, the project does not lie within the Agua Caliente Tribal lands and is not included within the Tribal Conservation Plan (Tribal HCP). Therefore, the project site would not conflict with an approved HCP and no mitigation is CD Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 20061— Page 19 of SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION j, - Less Than - - + Signo tcan 'Pot entiallY,�" With' Les Than Signficant ' ,' tihhgaIt Significant ; Impact ' I rated', '-.'Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ El ® El of a historical resource as defined in " 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El ® ❑ El of an archaeological resource pursuant to" 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ Elpaleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject property is essentially developed and has been inhabited for 70 years. Since no mass grading is proposed, it is unlikely that there would be any disturbance of any buried artifacts. The various guest ranch units located in the subject portion of the site will be preserved in tact but will be converted from transient to residential occupancy. The razing of the dormitory style apartment units is not considered an impact on historical resources. As no significant grading activity is planned, there is little chance of uncovering any paleontological resources. The Citywide Historic Resources Survey of June 2004 generally cites the historic character of Smoke Tree Ranch and notes that the Ranch "reflects the context of residential development from the 1920's through the 1960's. The Ranch derives much of its significance from its history." The report cites only one individual structure (Rock 2/2L) but rather dwells on the overall ambient character of the development which has remained relatively unchanged since the late 1930's. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As the subject property may have been used by early Agua Caliente ancestors, it is possible that buried cultural materials may be discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the project. In that event, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. During ground disturbing project activity the potential to inadvertently encounter paleontological or cultural resources during project construction is always possible. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measures MM V-1 As there is always a possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources in a project area, a Native American Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. The Agua Caliente Bond of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office shall be contacted for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning Services. Following consultation, the Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 20 of 5 r� SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate the find. If necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. Human remains discovered shall be handled consistent with state law provisions. c) No Impact. No significant grading activity is planned. There is little chance of uncovering any paleontological resources on the site. Should buried deposits be encountered during construction activities, activities shall be halted and a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) shall be notified to analyze deposits. An Archaeologist may be required to prepare a mitigation plan for submissions to the State Historic Preservation Officer. d) No Impact. The site has been occupied for over 70 years and has no known cemeteries or burial grounds. Since no mass grading is proposed, uncovering any buried human remains is highly unlikely. In the event of discovery of human remains, „ Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration { `E March 2006 I Page 21 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than - 'Significant „ . Potentially ,With''.`. less Than,' • _ Sigmficant Mitigation , Significant _- Impact ,.t: in>:oiporated ytmpact No,Impact'- VI, GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ N ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ N ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including El El Elliquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ N b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of El ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- ❑ ❑ N ❑ site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), ❑ ❑ ❑ N creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ El Eldisposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a. i) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within an active seismic area within approximately 9 miles of the San Andreas fault system. Well-delineated fault lines cross through this region as shown on California Geological Survey (CGS) maps; however, no active faults are mapped in the immediate vicinity of the site. The project site does not lie within a currently delineated State of California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. Ground rupture is generally considered most likely to occur along pre-existing faults (Smith, Peroni & Fox, 1992). Therefore, active fault rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site. Compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. ii) Less Than Significant Impact. High levels of ground shaking may occur during future large magnitude Southern California earthquakes, particularly on the San Andreas Fault. All structures on the property will be subjected to this shaking, and Y Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 22 of 51-^•a�� SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION could be seriously damaged if not properly designed. This potential impact could be reduced to a level of less than significant through ensuring that the structural design of all buildings is performed by knowledgeable structural engineers familiar with conservative seismic design principles. As a performance standard the project will be required to be constructed to conform to the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. iii) No Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength from sudden shock (usually earthquake shaking), causing the soil to become a fluid mass. In general, for the effects of liquefaction to be manifested at the surface, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface and the soils within the saturated zone must also be susceptible to liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction is very low across most of the City of Palm Springs. The potential for liquefaction to occur at this site is considered negligible because the depth of groundwater around the site exceeds 100 feet. The project does not lie within the Riverside County designated liquefaction hazard zone. Therefore, no impact would occur. iv) No Impact. The elevation on the parcel is approximately 440 feet above sea level. The site slopes gradually toward the northeast with storm runoff generally characterized as sheet flow interspersed by localized high and low points. Sheet flow storm runoff currently remains on site as the very low overall site density and the "pioneer" grading design keep storm flows from concentrating and virtually all storm water is naturally percolated on site. The City of Palm Springs General Plan indicates that potential landslide hazard is primarily located in hillsides or mountainous areas of the City. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. During infrastructure construction operations, the project has the potential to cause airborne and waterborne erosion. Standard City protocols would be enforced during review of engineering design plans (e.g., grading and erosion control requirements). Even though the overall project area is approximately 21 acres, most of that acreage is in the 50 home sites being proposed, (29 of which already exist). Since the homes will not be built at the onset of the construction of the missing links of site infrastructure, the maximum amount of disturbance during any one phase should be about one-half acre (largest road improvement phase). The individual homes will have a maximum footprint of 5,000 s.f. and the non-footprint area is to be maintained in a natural condition. Projects larger than 1 acre in size require compliance with National Pollution Discharge elimination System (NPDES) criteria, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and the inclusion of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to control soil erosion as well as off-site discharge of pollutants to surface waters. The project will also be required to prepare a Fugitive Dust (PM10) Mitigation Plan in compliance with adopted procedures of the SCAQMD and the City. Paving of streets and planting of landscaping will stabilize soil during the long-term operational phase of the project (home occupancy). For these reasons, project implementation will not result in substantial soil erosion problems or the loss of topsoil and no mitigation is required. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. Compliance with these procedures will be required prior to issuance of grading permits and implemented throughout the project's construction period. These procedures will ensure that potential erosion is controlled during the construction process. O Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 23 of 51h,h`�rro�� SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION c) Less Than Significant Impact. Ground subsidence from seismic events or hydroconsolidation is a potential hazard in the Coachella Valley area. The elevation on the parcel is approximately 440 feet above sea level. The site slopes gradually toward the northeast with storm runoff generally characterized as sheet flow interspersed by localized high and low points. Overland storm runoff currently overflows onto the natural open space on the east side of the ranch and percolates. Slope Instability The site is relatively flat, therefore, potential hazards from slope instability, landslides, or debris flow are considered negligible. Soil Liquefaction See a. iii above. Ground Subsidence The potential for seismically induced ground subsidence is considered to be slight to moderate at or near the site. Dry sands tend to settle and density when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. The amount of subsidence is dependent on relative density of the soil, ground motion, and earthquake duration. Uncompacfed fill areas may be susceptible to seismically induced settlement. Adherence to the grading and structural recommendations in the Geotechnical report would reduce potential settlement problems to a less than significant level. d) No Impact. Site soils have a very low potential to be expansive. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be constructed as part of the proposed project.Therefore, no impact would occur. Smoke Tree Ranch initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 'N Page 24 of 5,1) SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than' - ' �, sjgnificant ^Potennally, nth° Less TThan SigmF'icant Mitigation "significant tmpad ' Inc61porateil „lm't . No lrnpact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. Currently the site consists of a number of existing residential and guest quarters structures along with sparse growth of native brush, grasses and trees planted by Smoke Tree Ranch (mostly Tamarisk) that are scatted around the site. Implementation of the project would result in the development of new residential units and private open space components. Although small quantities of commercially available hazardous material could be used within the residential component, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. The project includes the demolition or removal of older structures that may contain hazardous materials such as lead paint or asbestos. The presence of these materials in older construction is highly possible but can be mitigated through Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Ce! Page 25 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION proper handling and disposal of these materials if it is determined that they were used in the original construction or subsequent remodeling or improvements. Construction of the project would involve the use of a small amount of heavy equipment, which uses small amounts of oils and fuels and other potentially flammable substances. During construction, equipment would require refueling and minor maintenance on location, which could lead to fuel and oil spills. The contractor would be required to identify a staging area for storing materials and equipment. The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction activities would occur in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. No waterways are located on the site and the project would be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The project contractor would be required to file a Notice of Intent under the State's NPDES General Construction Permit. This permit requires that a Storm Water Pollutant Prevention Plan be prepared specifying Best Management Practices to reduce construction related-impacts on the project site. The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances. As part of the building permitting process, all plans are reviewed for compliance with applicable Building and Fire Department requirements, pursuant to the Uniform Building and Fire Codes, and all other related City requirements. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material. c) No Impact. Desert Chapel school (K through 12) is located approximately '/A mile northerly of the subject property and Palm Springs High School is located within one mile of the project site. As described in VILa, the proposed project would include the construction of residential infrastructure and eventually residential components. The operation of the project would not result in the routine use, transport, or disposal of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) No Impact. The proposed site is not located on the list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The project is not located within the boundaries of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Palm Springs International Airport and would not conflict with airport operations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to air related hazards. Therefore, no impact would occur. f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to air related hazards. Therefore, no impact would occur. g) No Impact. The project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency plan or emergency plan or emergency evacuation plan, although the project would be reviewed by the City Fire Deportment to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs. Therefore, no impact would occur. a sv Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 26 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION h) No Impact. The project is in a semi-urban area and development of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild fire. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures MM_VII-I Prior to demolition of any structures, a Phase 1 ESA shall be prepared to determine the presence of any hazardous building materials such, as asbestos floor tiles, pipe insulation, etc. The recommendations of that report shall be followed including the proper handling and disposal of the material as well as any site remediaf ion. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration `5 March 2006 Page 27 of 51 c„m� f9 l�h'4 o-�p•1 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than Significant - - - =Potenfialty� it Less Than, ::Significant Mitigation Significant [ i Impact Incorpprated ,Impact .No ImpacU Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ Eldischarge requirements? ID b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater El ® El level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which ❑ ❑ ❑ would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned El El ❑ stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ❑ ❑ ElFlood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard ID delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures El ❑ that would impede or redirect flood flows? ED i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ A technical report was the basis for the following analysis and can be found in Appendix D. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located north of Palm Canyon Wash, west of Barona Road and south of East Palm Canyon Drive and consists of approximately 21 acres of a 41-acre property. The project would include a total of 52 residences (21 new) in a private, gated development. The project would be required to meet all City, regional and state applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 O'D Page 28 of 511,1�"sp^yr.�} SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION thereby avoiding violation of such standards or requirements. Therefore, compliance with all standards would ensure that potentially significant impacts will be reduced to less than significant. As regards to wastewater, the proposed project would connect to the City's sanitary sewer system, which would convey project wastewater to the Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Operation of, and any future expansion of the WWTP are overseen by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with existing NPDES regulations and discharge requirements of the RWQCB would ensure that potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the project would not violate any waste discharge requirement on a City, State or Federal level. This impact is considered less than significant. The project proposes to use water supplied by the Desert Water Agency (DWA). Based upon the small number of new homes proposed (21), the use of drought-tolerant landscape materials and the razing of the 59 units of efficiency apartments, the project is not anticipated to deplete groundwater supplies, interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, or substantially increase demand for wafer. Based on water demand for the proposed project as described in XVI.a, the DWA has sufficient water supply to generate water supply for the project, as does the City WWTP as described in XVI.a. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. a,c-e) No Impact. The proposed project would add approximately 2.4 acres of impervious surface; approximately a 1.5% increase overall. The proposed site currently consists of 29 existing cottage units, narrow roadways, and mostly drought tolerant plants along with some tamarisk trees planted over 70 years ago when the Ranch was first established. The site is relatively flat and level with adjacent properties. The elevation on the parcel is approximately 440 feet above sea level. The site slopes gradually toward the northeast with storm runoff generally characterized as sheet flow interspersed by localized high and low points. Overland storm runoff currently overflows info a large natural desert area lying between the subject portion of the Ranch and Barona Road and eventually could reach the corner of East Palm Canyon Drive and Barona Road. Construction of the proposed project would create a small increase to the amount of impervious surface on the site, which would not alter the existing drainage conditions. Compliance with mandatory NPDES requirements would reduce the potential of erosion and siltation during the short-term construction and long term operation phases of the project. In addition, the project would be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall prevent all construction pollutants from coming into contract with storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters. A Preliminary Hydrology Report was prepared by MSA Consulting, dated January 30, 2006 indicates that the extremely low densities of Smoke Tree Ranch combined with the lack of curbs, gutters and other contrivances designed to concentrate the flow of storm water results in the conclusion that no additional measures are needed to mitigate storm runoff. As with all new development within the various drainage areas, the project will be required to pay the standard Acreage Drainage fee for the subarea. f) No Impact. Construction at the project site could produce pollutants that would have the potential to temporarily degrade the quality of receiving waters if not properly Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration `_ March 2006 �. Page 29 of 51 i, SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION managed. The primary pollutant of concern is sediment that results from excessive erosion of disturbed soils. Other potential pollutants include metals, pesticides, nutrients and soil additives, construction chemicals and fuel, and miscellaneous waste. With the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) required by the City as well as through the project's required SWPPP, no significant long-term impact to water quality would result from construction activities. Therefore, compliance with all BMPs would ensure that potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant. g-h) No Impact. The project is not located within an area designated as a 100-year flood boundary by the Federal Management Emergency Agency (FEMA). The project site is covered by Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Number 060257 0006D, revised July 7, 1999 for Riverside County. The FIRM designates the project as Zone B indicating the project area is subject to minimal flooding. The proposed project consists primarily of 29 existing units being subdivided along with 21 new units filling in between existing developed areas of Smoke Tree Ranch.Therefore there is no impact anticipated. The project is designed to continue the historic sheet flow patterns that exist on the property. The lack of curbs and gutters and the continued maintenance of natural areas between the existing and proposed units will allow continued percolation of storm flows Therefore, no impact is anticipated. i) No Impact. The Palm Springs General Plan Environmental Impact Report does not identify risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding as a result of levee or dam failure in the city of Palm Springs.Therefore, no impact would occur. j) No Impact. Due to extreme distances from any large bodies of water, tsunamis are not an issue with land use in Palm Springs. Therefore, no impact would occur. A seiche is the oscillation of water in an enclosed body of water (such as a lake). Water in golf course lakes could be affected during a strong seismic event. However, no damage would be anticipated, as these features are not of sufficient size or depth to have a major destructive potential. There are no flood control/desilting basins in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, potential impacts of seiches would be minimal (Smith, Peroni and Fox, 1992). Mudflow would be associated with a reservoir which could break resulting in flooding or mudflow to down stream properties. No reservoirs are located in the vicinity of the City of Palm Springs. Therefore, no impact would occur. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration `* March 2006 Page 30 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'Less Thd'n - Si , gnifieant Potentially; With', Less'Than , ' Signe,icant: Mitigation -Significant ,. 't Impect Incorpoiated 'ImpactNo'�mpad'" IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general El ® El Elplan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation El ❑ Elplan or natural community conservation plan? a) No Impact. As previously stated, the surrounding land uses are residential, commercial, and some offices. The project site is a previously developed, 21-acre parcel of land. The proposed project is for the subdivision of 21 acres into a total of 50 single family lots which will also entail the extension of several existing private streets to connect to other existing streets along with the necessary sewer and water line extensions. The proposed homes would be compatible with surrounding land uses and are considered infill development. The homes are designed to be architecturally consistent with the historic Smoke Tree Ranch guest residences. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed planned development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the L2 (Very Low-Density Residential 2 units/acre) General Plan designation for the subject property. Of note in the case of Smoke Tree Ranch is that the subject portion of the property is zoned RGA 6 (Garden Apartment-6 d.u./acre), while the larger bulk of the Ranch is zoned R-1-A (Single Family Residential, 20,000 s.f. lots). The higher density zoning of the northerly portion of the Ranch was emplaced to accommodate the denser development around the clubhouse as the Ranch development preceded the incorporation of the city. Thus the General Plan and Zoning came into being after the land was already developed. General Plan Objective 3.4b is to "accommodate various types of low-density development, including large estate lots and traditional single-family development' designation. The overall density of the entire Smoke Tree Ranch, including the proposed development is approximately 1.0 dwelling units per acre. Per Objective 3.4.2, "Limited commercial uses and services, and facilities for the keeping of horses, may be permitted for resident and guest use." Smoke Tree Ranch has historically operated at least partially as a Guest Ranch while a variety of visitor serving facilities and activity areas such as golf putting and chipping, tennis, basketball, swimming pool, lawn bowling, equestrian facilities and the clubhouse which includes meal service. General Plan Policy 3.4.5 states "A minimum of 75% of the lot area in Rural Residential Areas and 70% of in Very Low-Density Residential areas shall be marinated as on-site open space/recreational area." A minimum of 72% of the subject portion of Smoke Tree Ranch will be in some form of open space or recreation. In addition, the Ranch has historically maintained approximately 50% of its overall 400 acres as permanent open space. While this open space has been heretofore a private agreement among the Ranch "Colonists" the Ranch is moving 01) Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 31 of 51) 3:, SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION toward creating a formal and binding open space agreement to preserve the land in perpetuity. The proposed project is also requesting a Planned Development District for some modifications in development standards for the zone in which the project is located. Planned Development Districts are authorized pursuant to Section 94.03.00 of the Palm Springs zoning ordinance. The standards being requested are designed largely to fit the historic development patterns and standards of the Ranch. Objective 3.4.6. states that "Special street and development standards are encourage in Rural Residential areas to maintain a 'relaxed' rural atmosphere. While technically Very Low rather than Rural, the overall densities and character of Smoke Tree Ranch probably exemplify this objective more than any other existing development within Palm Springs. Thus, the proposed project does not conflict with any local land use plans or policies. c) No Impact. There are no habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans currently adopted for the project area. A draft Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is currently under consideration, but has not been adopted as yet by the City of Palm Springs. Therefore, there would be no impact to the natural community. Mitigation Measures MM XI-1 The Omitted Not-A-Part portion of the property is recognized to be, and will continue to be held as common area for this project and Smoke Tree Ranch, and shall not be developed with dwelling units unless it can be demonstrated that the residential units associated with this project, along with any proposed dwelling units conform to density provisions of the Palm Springs General Plan. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ' March 2006 .� Page 32 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than , ' ` Significant , Potentially-_ , With_ Less Than ... Sgnificant',: Mitigation Significant - ` Impact Incorporated hrypact „No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the El El El El residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. No significant mineral resources have been identified in the project area. The Palm Springs General Plan EIR (Palm Springs, 1992) has not identified any mineral resources in the planning area.Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 v, Page 33 ofi61,71r"yry SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Liss Than. '> Significant Potentm11 r With, ., Lesr7han .Significant " 'Mitigation. Significant : ' , ,:. Impact, Incorporated' - 'Impact No Impact XI, NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ Ellocal general plan or noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise ❑ ❑ ❑ H levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ H ❑ without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ H ❑ ❑ levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a ❑ ❑ ❑ public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or El El Elworking in the project area to excessive noise levels? a-b,e-f)No Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from Palm Springs International airport and therefore, would be subject to noise from airplane overflights. However, the noise exposure is estimated at less than 45 to 50 dBA CNEL and is therefore, not considered to be excessive. The project site is not located within the boundaries of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Palm Springs International Airport. Since the project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip there should be no impact on the overall noise exposure at the project site. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Of the 59 Single Family lots proposed, 29 lots already exist on site and the change in ownership is not expected to cause a change in the usage of those dwellings. The 21 new homes are expected to be built over a 10 year period and represent a minor increase in the overall fabric of the Ranch. As the new owners will be subject to the regulations of Smoke Tree Ranch, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant change in the noise character of the Ranch. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Palm Springs requires that the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) does not exceed 65 dB at the exterior living areas (rear yards) or 45 dB at the habitable interior living area. The following discussion is Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, March 20Q6) tZ Page 34 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION broken down into construction and post construction. The Palm Springs General Plan Technical Appendices includes a complete community noise assessment including projected CNEL noise levels due to airport and roadway noise. The nearest proposed residential structure in the subject development is located approximately 800 feet from the centerline of East Palm Canyon Drive and 400 feet from the centerline of La Verne Way (Sunrise Extended). The City of Palm Springs General Plan Noise Study shows that without intervening structures, that the 60 dB CNEL contours extend only 388 feet and 176 feet respectively. However, the subject property is further buffered by a Shopping Center and 10 foot berm from East Palm Canyon Drive and by residential development from the noise generated by traffic on La Verne Way. The only noise of note will be the noise from construction activities associated with the development of the infrastructure. The infrastructure is proposed to be done in small phases to complete a looped road system, most of which is already in place, the construction will last for only a short duration of time for each phase of development. Normal construction regulations, including construction hours prescribed in the Palm Springs Municipal Code will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. During the construction phase, noise generated at the project site could become noticeable. However these impacts would be temporary in nature. The loudest construction equipment used during construction hours would be backhoes, tractors, trenchers, front loaders, jackhammers, and rotodrills. The Environmental Protection Agency has found that the noisiest equipment types operating at construction sites, typically range from 88 to 91 dBA at 50 feet. Due to the small scale of the proposed improvements, it is anticipated that Mitigation measures identified below would reduce these temporary impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM XI.I The project applicant shall demonstrate that all on-site residential units shall be designed to meet the City of Palm Springs noise standards (65 CNEL in outside activity areas and 45 CNEL in interior living areas). The project applicant shall demonstrate compliance through the submittal of building and site improvement plans that provide details regarding sound barrier heights, additional insulation and building materials used to maintain interior noise levels, building and window orientation, and other measures to reduce noise exposure levels to City noise standards. A qualified noise consultant shall be retained to ensure that project and building designs will meet City noise exposure standards. Evidence of compliance with its mitigation measure shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. MM XI-2 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. MM XI-3 All construction equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. MM ;KI-4 Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located in the northern portion of the site. MM XI-5 Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. SP Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 20N Page 35 of 54 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MPA XI-6 Construction activities on-site shall take place only during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, as specified by the Palm Springs Noise Ordinance (11.74.041), to reduce noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. The Construction Site Regulations (Chapter 8.04.220) also identify specific limits on hours of operation for construction equipment as not between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. if the noise produced is of such intensity or quality that it disturbs the peace and quiet of any other person of normal sensitivity. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration `; March 2006) Page 36 of 5`1 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Less Tfian„ - Significant Potentially' 'Witfi:b. ' Less Tfian Significant Mitigation •' Significant Impact 1• Incorporated, -Impact " No Inloct XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and El El ® ❑ businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ® ❑ housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? a,b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include 21 new single family homes and the possible conversion of 29 guest cottages into homes that may be privately owned.for the first time. These homes are located within a private, gated development. This would be an increase in the current population. The project would accommodate approximately 42 new people based on 2 persons per unit for the 21 new units. However, Smoke Tree Ranch has historically been a seasonal home to the vast majority of the home owners at the ranch with a full time occupancy of approximately 8% (personal communication with Tracy Conrad, Ranch general manager). Given the historical occupancy of the Ranch, the new permanent population would be closer to 8 persons. The gradual diminishment of the guest ranch activities has begun eliminating the need for the 59 efficiency apartments which have been used during the season (December to June) for temporary workers for the guest ranch. As the guest ranch function is slowly replaced, the need for that housing is diminished. While the property is developed to a large degree, the portion of the site proposed to be razed is vacant most of the year. Once the guest ranch function is reduced or eliminated, there will be no requirement for this housing. The portion of the site that contains the efficiency units will be redeveloped in Phase II with c) No impact. No persons will be displaced as a result of the proposed development therefore there will be no impact. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration bx Q March 2006 P-", Page 37 of 5:4 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .Less Than' Significant Potentially =With. ` ° Less TJwn . `Sig mfcant �2 ,Mitigafiun ' :Significant Impact "Incorporated; Impact - No'Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to structures or any emergency response procedures. The Palm Springs Fire Department (PSFD) serves the current population of 44,260 persons, covering a geographical area of 96 square miles with five fire stations. Construction activities are not anticipated to result in an increase in demand for fire protection services.The proposed project would result in less than a 0.1% population increase to the City of Palm Springs. The PSFD has set a maximum acceptable fire response time within the urbanized at five minutes.The project site is located less than one mile from Station located at La Verne Way at Marion Way, as a result the PSFD would be able to reach the project within the five-minute response time. The property will be required to contribute to a Community Facilities District, if the area is designated as a district that requires additional public services, therefore, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. The project would conform to the access requirements and conditions of approval for the PSFD prior to submission for a building permit. Therefore, impacts to fire services are considered less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to calculations for police coverage assessment, 1.5 sworn officers per 1,000 people are required. The 2004 California Department of Finance (DOF) population estimate for Palm Springs was 44,260 persons. At 2 persons per unit for 50 units, the City population would be increased by approximately 100 persons or by approximately 0.002%. Currently, the City of Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) consists of 92 sworn officers and 56 general personnel. The City's maximum police protection coverage is 138,000 people. The increase in population from the proposed project would not result in impacts to the City's Police protection service capacity. The project would comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the PSPD. In addition, the project is currently a gated and guarded community. The property will be required to contribute to a Community Facilities District, if the area is designated as a district that requires additional public services, therefore, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be required to comply with Palm Springs Unified School District's developer fees for residential units at the time of the building permit. The developer fees are based on building area square footage at the rate of $2.24/per sq ft for residential development and $0.36 per square foot for Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration CC;, March 2006 Page 38 of 51, �r"ncT SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION commercial/industrial. According to Facilities Planning it is not expected that the proposed project would have impacts that would exceed available capacity of educational services. California Government Code Section 65995(h) specifically states "the payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed... [is] deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in Section 56021 or 56073, on the provision of adequate school facilities." Therefore, impacts to PSUD are considered less than significant. d) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City's General Plan there are approximately 130 acres of City-owned and developed park land within the City. The General Plan states that the City's aim is to provide 2.5 acres of community park land for every 1,000 residents. Utilizing the population estimate of 44,260, the current ratio of developed park land per 1,000 residents is 2.9 acres per 1,000 people. This ratio exceeds the goal of the City General Plan. The project provides amenities such as common area pools and private use rear yards for on-site recreation. In addition, the project would be required to pay park impact fees to the City consistent with the adopted ordinance. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreation are considered less than significant. e) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not expected to cause significant environmental impacts to the service levels of any other public service providers and would not propose relocating these facilities. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities are considered less than significant. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ID: March 2006 Page 39 of 5111;^q SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION LCss Than -. Significant. Potentially with. Less Than 'Significant Mitigation- . Significant Impact „`,In2orpogatpd '- INipact NoJmp'ad XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of El ❑ ® El facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include 50 single-family residences in a private, gated development. The project could include private rear yards, swimming pools, and common area. There are considerable private recreational facilities located within the project. The project is located approximately 1 mile from Sunrise Park and abuts the Palm Canyon Wash which provides access to many hiking and riding trails. While, the 8 new permanent residents and 92 part time residents could cause a minor increased demand for use of recreational facilities and public parks, the proposed project would result in an approximately 0. 002% population increase to the total population of the City of Palm Springs. This is a negligible increase which would not substantially increase the demand for recreational facilities or require construction/expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, recreation facilities are included as part of the project and future projects that would offset the demands on the current recreational facilities. Therefore the impacts are considered less than significant. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration cc ` March 2000 P'O Itt ' J Page 40 of 51 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lees Than - - - Significant- - . Potenhally With, ;, Less Than Significant i, Ivlitigation $iggificant . :Impact ,�-Incorpo7ate,{I . Impact .No,lkmact. . . . .;: XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial ❑ El ® El in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county El El ® El management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous El ❑ Elintersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ID g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus ❑ ❑ ❑ turnouts, bicycle racks)? a, b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project utilizes two existing points of access into the project: (1) the primary access is at the south end of Smoke Tree Lane (Cerritos Road extended) and (2) a secondary access on La Verne Way. The main access was recently constructed. The interior streets are proposed to be 20 feet wide with no on-street parking. The Circulation Element of the Palm Springs General Plan, adopted March 3, 1993, includes as a policy, the provision and maintenance of level of service (LOS) D operation for the City's circulation network. The trip generation associated with the proposed project would total approximately 210 new daily trip-ends, which is insignificant once TUMF fees have been paid. Mitigation Measures MM XV-1 The project shall pay TUMF (Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee) as established by CVAG. These funds are used to improve the regional road system and also act as the Congestion Management program for Palm Springs and the other participating entities in the Coachella Valley. c- e) No Impact. The proposed project would not affect any air traffic patterns as it is a residential project. Therefore, there is no impact. The proposed site plan shows two Smoke Tree Ranch initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 20Q66) Page 41 of 53 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION points of access to the project: Smoke Tree Lane and La Verne Way. Both are gated, two-way access points. The Fire Department and City Engineer will review the gated entry design including widths of ingress and egress lanes to ensure that there is adequate emergency access. The access to the project has recently been upgraded and the 21 new homes will not have an impact on the access or the surrounding streets. f) No Impact. The project is required to meet the standards for on site parking as established in the zoning ordinance. Guest parking is currently available at the main clubhouse area of the development. No impact is anticipated. g) No Impact. There are existing bus stops at the intersection of East Palm Canyon Drive and Sunrise Way. The project will have no impact on these facilities. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (07 March 2006Page 42 of 51�, '� SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than, n. Significant- ;.'Potonflally With . Less;Than. Significant , ki igation Significant -� �npaCt r ,Inf:orporaW Impact No Impact.; XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? El 19 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of Elexisting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 1-1 Elfacilities, the construction of which could cause El M significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or ❑ ❑ ❑ ID are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 Be served' by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and El ❑ ® El related to solid waste? a-d) No Impact. The proposed project would provide connections for 21 new residential units to the existing water and wastewater infrastructure. The project would convey wastewater generated by the project to the Palm Springs Waste Water Treatment Plant. In addition, the 59 efficiency apartments will be razed, thereby offsetting the demands caused by the 21 new homes. The City of Palm Springs, WWTP has sufficient capacity for this development. Operation of the WWTP is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB. RWQCB, standard permitting and monitoring ensure that treatment requirements for waste discharges are not exceeded.The project will have no impact on this facility. The Desert Water Agency has sufficient water supply to generate water supply for the project as does the City WWTP. The project developer would be required fo comply with all rules, regulations, and other requirements of the DWA in order to provide water service to the site. Water service requirements may include, but are not limited to, upgrades, modifications, and replacement of existing DWA facilities. These improvements may require construction within and adjacent to public rights-of-way and existing and/or proposed easements. 0 Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration `; March 200 9 e 3 of ag 4 J, SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION e) Less Than Significant. See XVI.b above. The impact to wastewater treatment capacity is considered less then significant. f) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would be accommodated by Palm Springs Disposal Service (PSDS) and the existing landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste beyond the next 20 years and no new landfills are currently planned for the area. Based the assumption that residents generate 2 lbs. of waste per day and the fact that 59 efficiency apartments are being replaced with 21 new homes, the proposed project would produce no new net increase in waste per day. Therefore, the impact to be served by a land fill with sufficient permitted capacity is considered less then significant. g) Less Than Significant. The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991) and other applicable local, State, and Federal solid waste disposal standards, thereby ensuring that impacts associated with this issue are considered to be less than significant.Therefore, impacts to solid waste are considered less than significant. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SO March 2006 Page 44 of SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -» Less T,hjW, - Significant, With PoWntiatly. ,°- 'mitigation_i' LessThan Significant �`' Inco�porate .Significant i lmpaM d" _ I,mp3et No Impact, XNII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-life population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ® ❑ considerable when viewed in connection with the 13 effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human ❑ ❑ ® ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment; result in an adverse impact on fish, wildlife, or plant species including special status species, or prehistoric or historic cultural resources because the proposed project contains no evidence of any critical habitat or endangered species. No officially listed plants or animal species were detected during the field surveys, therefore there would be a less than significant impact on biological resources, including fish or wildlife species, or rare or endangered plant or animals. The project, as currently proposed, would not cause substantial adverse change to any known historical resources. If buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth- moving operations associated with the project, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. During ground disturbing project activity the potential to inadvertently encounter paleontological or cultural resources during project construction is always possible. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant with mitigation measures identified in Section V. b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and would not create any potentially significant impacts. The proposed project is for a total of 50 single-family residential units within a private, gated community. There are no other new projects currently under construction in the immediately vicinity of the project. The proposed project is located on a parcel that has long been designated for low density residential land uses. The analysis provided in this document considers implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 20,,06,­, _R� ", Page 45 of 51 / SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION document and adherence to basic regulatory requirements would fully mitigate the project's contribution to cumulative impacts. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The preceding discussion has outlined the potential impacts and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on`humans. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 D Page 46 of 511, SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REFERENCES 1) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Draft Environmental Impact Report. December 1992. 2) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs General Plan, & City of Palm Springs General Plan Technical Appendices. 1992. 3) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2004. 4) City of Palm Springs. Citywide Historic Resources Survey. June 2004. 5) Government Code Section 65962.5)f), "Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement". 6) South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993. 7) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October 14, 2004. 8) Endo Engineering. Air Quality Impacts of the Smoke Tree Ranch. February 2006. 9) James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants. Revegetation and Habitat Restoration Plan. October 14, 2004. 1 Cl) MSA Consulting. Preliminary Hydrology Report:Tentative Tract Map 33878. January 30, 2006. 11) James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants. Analysis of the Distribution and Abundance of the Casey's June Beetle in Palm Sprinas, California. May 18, 2004. 12) Marvin D. Roos/MSA Consulting. Personal communication with James Cornett/JWC Ecological Consultants. February 1, 2006. Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006� Page 47 of 51 —_ SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDIX A Air Quality Impacts to the Smoke Tree Ranch Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ON March 200 6''" Page 48 of S�l�! -("" VVIIt IFNA Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments February 14, 2006 Mr. Marvin Roos MSA Consulting, Inc. 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage,CA 92270 SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF THE SMOKE TREE RANCH (TTM 33878) Dear Mr. Roos; Concern has been raised by the City of Palm Springs regarding the significance of the potential air quality impacts of future development of the 21.05 net acre Smoke Tree Ranch site located south of Palm Canyon Drive and east of Toledo Avenue. It is our understanding that the Smoke Tree Ranch project in Palm Springs would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation(L-2) and zoning of R-G-A (6). The site has already been mass graded and has some paved streets to facilitate internal circulation. The project would include: • the demolition of 59 single-story employee housing units and one manager's unit; • the subsequent sale of 29 existing cottages (subdivided into individual lots); and • the sale of 21 new lots that would permit the construction of 21 custom single- family homes over the next ten to fifteen years. Since the project may be built over the next decade, the URBEMIS 2002 model was employed to evaluate the highest level of construction expected to occur on-site during any future quarter as well as the long-term operational impacts of the proposed development. As shown below, both the short-term construction-related impacts and the long-term operational impacts are projected to be insignificant,based upon the SCAQMD significance threshold criteria. BASELINE CONDITIONS The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated by the California Air Resources Board as "nonattainment for ozone and PM to. The violations of the air quality standards for ozone are primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. The Salton Sea Air Basin has been designated by the U.S. EPA as "nonattainment" for ozone (based on the 1-hour standard) and as "serious nonattainment" for PM10 and for ozone (based on the 8-hour standard) but is designated "attainment" for PM2.5,carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead. 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677-1330 Phone: (949)362-0020 FAX: (949)362-0015 POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for adopting, implement- ing and enforcing air quality regulations within the Salton Sea Air Basin. The SCAQMD reviews and comments on environmental documents for projects that may generate significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD advises the lead agency in addressing and mitigating the potential adverse air quality impacts caused by projects both during and after construction. The final decision on the significance of the air quality impacts lies with the judgment of the lead agency. The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency with respect to land use decisions and discretionary permits. These decisions must be based upon several considerations including the following. 1) What is the intensity and type of project? 2) What is the location of the project(i.e. upwind of sensitive receptors or in areas with high pollutant concentrations)? 3) Will the project cause an exceedance of any air quality standard? 4) Will the project make a substantial contribution to an existing exceedance of an air quality standard? 5) Is the project inconsistent with the AQMP or State Implementation Plan? 6) Will the project emit toxic air contaminants (TACs)? 7) Will the mitigation measures that are attached to the project mitigate the air quality impacts to the maximum extent feasible? Local governments control the impact of air pollutants on sensitive receptors through land use decisions. Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary sources and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emissions from construction activities and natural gas combustion, emissions at the power plant associated with the electrical requirements of the proposed development. Mobile source considerations include exhaust emissions resulting from short-term construction activities and long-term vehicular travel associated with the proposed project. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA The SCAQMD has established short-term construction-related and long-term operational thresholds which are recommended for use by lead agencies in considering both primary and secondary impacts on air quality, as shown in Table 1. Emissions thresholds are indicators of potential air quality impacts. If the lead agency finds that a project has the potential to exceed the thresholds,the project should be considered significant. However, the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency,pursuant to Section 15064(b)of the CEQA Guidelines.' For construction-related emissions, the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds on both a daily and a quarterly basis, as shown in Table 1. Since a project's quarterly emissions are determined by averaging over a 3-month period (including only actual working days), it is possible to not exceed the quarterly thresholds while exceeding the daily thresholds shown in Table 1. '. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook,April 1993, page 6-2. 2 a, L1 Table 1 Emissions Significance Threshold Criteriaa (Pounds/Day) Pollutant CO ROC NOx Sox PM10 Operational Emissionsb -Pounds/Day 550 75 100 150 150 Construction Emissions -Pounds/Day 550 75 100 150 150 Tons/Quarter 24.75 2.5 2.5 6.75 6.75 a. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook;November, 1993, b. Projects in the Coachella Valley with peak(highest daily)operation-related emissions that exceed any of these emissions thresholds should be considered significant. Air quality impacts resulting from the operation of the proposed project over the long term could be considered significant if the project's daily emissions exceed the operational threshold criteria shown in Table 1. If the project is inconsistent with the 2002 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan or the AQMP, its long-term operational impacts on air quality could be considered significant. Significant localized project impacts occur when carbon monoxide standard exceedances are projected at sensitive receptor locations adjacent to roadways serving project-related traffic, or,in cases where the background concentration already exceeds the state carbon monoxide standards, when there will be a measurable increase in carbon monoxide levels at the receptor site. A measurable increase is defined by the SCAQMD as 1.0 ppm for 1-hour carbon monoxide levels and 0.45 ppm for 8-hour carbon monoxide levels. A project has a significant adverse impact on air quality if it is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of regional air quality plans (AQMP and PMio SIP), because it could interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state ambient air quality standards. A project that requires a General Plan Amendment or revision which would provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that projected in the adopted AQMP will have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. Only new or amended General Plan Elements, Specific Plans, and significant projects need to undergo a consistency review. Projects that are consistent with local General Plans are considered consistent with the air quality related regional plans including: the current AQMP, the 2002 Coachella Valley PMlo State Implementation Plan and other applicable regional plans.' Any project-related impacts that have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds would require Overriding Considerations, regardless of compliance with the Palm Springs General Plan and the Regional Growth Management Plan. The City of Palm Springs has recognized that there are certain substantial adverse impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan that cannot be avoided. Among these impacts are the exceedances of the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions. r. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook;November 1993; pg. 12-2. 3 r nr2:7 Attachment B of the "California Environmental Quality Act Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Palm Springs General Plan Update"concludes: "For the identified significant impacts which cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance,the City of Palm Springs finds that the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR are appropriate and have been incorporated into the project. The City of Palm Springs finds the project benefits outweigh the significant project impacts." Since the proposed project includes conforming uses, and the exceedance of the SCAQMD threshold criteria was identified in the Palm Springs General Plan Update as an unavoidable impact, the air quality impacts associated with the proposed project should be considered less than significant. SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS Short-term impacts on air quality will occur during the construction activities required to implement the proposed project. These adverse impacts will include: 1) diesel exhaust emissions from the construction equipment used as well as the vehicles used to transport the off-highway construction equipment required; 2) emissions from the commute vehicles of construction workers; 3) particulate emissions(fugitive dust) during demolition, excavation, grading and clearing activities; 4) exhaust emissions from the heavy vehicles used to transport demolished materials to the landfill and those used to being building materials to the site; and 5) off-gasing emissions from architectural coatings used for buildings and paving materials used for roadway improvements. Construction Assumptions Demolition of the 60 existing multi-family dwelling units on-site would extend over a period of two weeks and require the removal of a total estimated building volume of approximately 90,000 cubic feet (7,500 cubic feet per day). The demolished materials would likely be transported by truck a distance of 35 miles (one way) to be deposited in a landfill. It was assumed that the custom residential dwelling units would be constructed in several phases with each incremental group of dwellings requiring up to two years to construct. More than one dwelling unit would likely be under construction on-site simultaneously, but at different stages of the building process. For a "worst case" short-term impact assessment, it was assumed that construction activities on as many as eight single-family dwelling units could occur concurrently, beginning in July of the year 2006, Construction equipment on-site would typically operate eight hours per day and six days per week, as specified by the Palm Springs Municipal Code. The project site has already been mass graded and was therefore assumed to require only minimal fine grading for the building pad of each dwelling. It is estimated that up to one- half acre of fine grading per dwelling unit could be required and occur over the course of a week. Cut and fill quantities are expected to be balanced on-site, without requiring the importation or exportation of material. During the grading activities on-site, the maximum acreage disturbed per day for up to eight residential pads is estimated to be 0.5 acres. 4 The application of architectural coatings could be applied to the inside and outside of eight dwelling units over the course of a month (including three drying days). Although the roadways are already paved on-site,additional paving activities at up to eight individual pads could occur over a total area of up to one acre on-site and be completed over a one-week period. Buildout and occupancy of the first eight dwellings on-site was assumed to occur by the year 2008. Computer Modeling URBEMIS2002 is a computer model developed as a tool to estimate emissions for land use development projects for many California air quality management and air pollution control districts and the California Air Resources Board.' Short-term construction emissions can be estimated with the URBEMIS2002 computer model (Version 7.4) for three construction phases (demolition, site grading, and building construction) during summer days, winter days and on an annual basis. These emissions estimates include: fugitive dust (from demolition and site grading), on-road diesel exhaust (from demolition, site grading and asphalt paving),off-road diesel emissions(associated with demolition, site grading, building construction, and asphalt paving), worker commute trips (during each phase of construction),and off-gasing(during architectural coating and asphalt laying activities). Table 2 provides the project-related unmitigated construction emissions projections. Unmitigated emissions shown therein reflect the fact that the City of Palm Springs will use its discretionary permit authority to place conditions of approval on the proposed project that require compliance with all applicable policies,rules, regulations and ordinances. The emissions projections included in Table 2 incorporate site specific construction details, where available, and assume default values for input parameters where site specific information is not currently known. The assumptions and URBEMIS2002 worksheets are provided in an attachment. As shown in Table 2, construction activities undertaken to implement the proposed project will cause temporary increases in localized ROG, NOx, CO, and PM10 emissions and concentrations in the project vicinity. The primary sources of construction-related emissions on-site will be: (1) off-road diesel-powered heavy-duty mobile construction equipment exhaust NOx; (2) ROG off-gasing associated with the application of architectural coatings; (3) CO emissions generated during demolition, grading and building activities; and (4) PMio generated by demolition and site grading operations involving disturbing soil and exposed earth surfaces. Exhaust emissions during the construction activities envisioned on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The resulting air pollutant concentration increases will depend on several factors including the soil composition and moisture content, the amount of grading required and underway at any one time, wind speeds, the number and type of machinery used at any given point in time, and the construction schedule (including the scheduling of concurrent construction processes and phases). During demolition activities, the unmitigated air pollutant emissions are projected to total approximately 8.38 pounds of ROG, 75.51 pounds of NOx, 58.57 pounds of CO, and 6.20 pounds of PMio. Emissions at this rate would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds but would comprise 76 percent of the NOx threshold of significance. 3. Jones & Stokes Associates; URBEMIS2002 For Windows With Enhanced Construction Module; (Version 7.4.2) May,2003 and EMFAC 2002 Version 2.2. 5 Table 2 Peak Day Unmitigated Construction Emissions Estimates During Maximum Development Phase a Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PM10 (Lbs./Day) (Lbs./Day) (Lbs./Day) (Lbs./Day) Demolition Phase -Fugitive Dust - - - 3.15 -Off-Road Diesel 7.09 54.10 52.33 2.42 -On-Road Diesel 1.24 21.33 4.63 0.63 -Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 Subtotal 8.38 75.51 58.57 6.20 Site Grading Phase -Fugitive Dust - - - 5.00 -Off-Road Diesel 5.19 35.83 41.26 1.52 -Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 Subtotal 5.24 35.91 42.87 6.52 Construction Process -Off-Road Diesel 3.16 25.25 22.47 1.17 -Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.01 Subtotal 3.20 25.27 22.92 1.18 Architectural Coatings -Off-Gasing 32.69 - - - -Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.01 Subtotal 32.72 0.02 0.35 0.01 Asphalt Paving Process -Off-Gasing 0.48 - - - -Off-Road Diesel 3.27 20.50 26.96 0.68 -On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.70 0.34 0.04 -Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 Subtotal 3.86 22.21 27.55 0.72 Maximum All Phasesb 32.72 75.51 58.57 6.52 Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 Threshold Exceeded No No No No a. Refer to the URBEMIS2002 printouts in an attachment. The PM io emissions include exhaust and fugitive dust emissions,assuming 0.5 acres per day are disturbed during grading. Twice daily watering of exposed surfaces was assumed as well as reduced speeds(<15 mph)on unpaved surfaces on-site. b. Building construction activities were assumed to occur in several phases. The maximum emission projections for any phase are shown and assume 8 single-family dwelling units are constructed. Not all building activities will occur simultaneously on-site. 6 art"ar'�� On a day with site grading activities, the off-road diesel and worker commute emissions generated at the project site are projected to include approximately: 5.24 pounds of ROG, 35.91 pounds of NOx, 42.87 pounds of CO and 1.52 pounds of PM10. The active soil disturbance associated with earthwork on 0.5 acres would generate an additional 5 pounds of fugitive dust per day, assuming twice daily watering of the disturbed area and vehicle speeds below 15 mph on all disturbed surfaces. Emissions at this rate would not exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds but would represent 36 percent of the significance threshold for NOx. On a peak construction day after grading is completed,the maximum air pollutant emissions associated with building construction activities are projected to total approximately 3.2 pounds of ROG, 25.27 pounds of NOx, 22.92 pounds of CO, and 1.18 pounds of PM to. Emissions at this rate would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. During architectural coating activities, ROG emissions would comprise up to 44 percent of the ROG threshold of significance. The quarterly emissions were determined from the daily emissions projections, including only actual working days (22 days per month). The "worst-case" quarterly emissions projections shown in Table 3 were determined from the URBEMIS2002 annual construction emission estimates. As shown in Table 3, the SCAQMD quarterly significance threshold criteria are not projected to be exceeded during site grading activities or during building construction activities. Furthermore, the SCAQMD quarterly ROG significance threshold is not projected to be exceeded during architectural coating activities associated with the buildings to be constructed on-site. Table 3 Unmitigated Quarterly Construction Emissions Estimates (Tons/Quarter) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO PMro Maximum All Phases 0.13 0.80 0.78 0.04 SCAQMD Threshold 2.50 2.50 24.75 6.75 Threshold Exceeded No No No No Significance of Short-Term Impacts The proposed project is not expected to exceed the SCAQMD daily or quarterly construction emission thresholds of significance during on-site construction activities. The magnitude of the short-term construction-related emissions are projected to remain at a level of insignificance, assuming compliance with applicable policies, rules, regulations and ordinances. LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Projections During the life of the proposed development, a variety of emissions will be produced by day-to-day activities associated with future residents. Emission projections were made for 7 the year 2011 with the URBEMIS2002 model which utilizes EMFAC 2002 emission factors. The input assumptions utilized and model output sheets are provided as an attachment. The results are summarized in Table 4 for a summer day and a winter day, because motor vehicle emissions of criteria pollutants (other than particulates) vary with the ambient temperature. Table 4 Operational Air Pollutant Emissions' (Year 2011 Pounds/Day) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 SUNIMER DAY Motor Vehicles 2.30 2.13 27.07 0.02 2.04 Area Sources -Natural Gas 0.02 0.26 0.11 -- 0.00 -Landscaping 0.11 0.00 0.76 0.01 0.00 -Consumer Products 1.03 -- -- - - -Architectural Coatings 0.72 -- -- - - --- --- ---- ----- Subtotal 1.88 0.27 0.87 0.01 0.00 Total 4.17 2.40 27.94 0.03 2.04 WINTER DAY Motor Vehicles 1.89 2.94 21.46 0.02 2.04 Area Sources -Natural Gas 0.02 0.26 0.11 - 0.00 -Consumer Products 1.03 -- -- - - -Architectural Coatings 0.72 - - - - ----- ----- ----- --- ----- Subtotal 1.76 0.26 0.11 0.00 0.00 Total 3.65 3.20 21.57 0.02 2.04 Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 ISO Threshold Exceeded No No No No No a. Based on URBEMIS2002 (Version 7.4.2) modeling, which utilizes EMFAC 2002 Version 2.2. Assumes 21 new single-family dwellings generating 9.57 daily trips per dwelling unit and 200 ADT. Operational emissions associated with the proposed project will include motor vehicle emissions and area source emissions. The motor vehicle emissions projections include: running exhaust, tire wear particulates, brake wear particulates, variable starts, hot soaks, diurnal emissions, resting losses and evaporative running losses. They assume PM10 emissions associated with cars traveling over paved streets. Only a small fraction of the project-related operational emissions would be area source emissions, which include fuel combustion for space and water heating, fuel combustion for landscape maintenance, and consumer product emissions from air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care products. 8 n m If the 21 new single-family dwelling units of the proposed project were built and occupied by the year 2011, they would generate operational air pollutant emissions of up to 28 pounds of carbon monoxide, 4 pounds of reactive organic gases, 3 pounds of NOx, 2 pounds of PMto and 0.03 pound of SOx, daily. Project-related motor vehicle and area source emissions of this magnitude are not projected to exceed any of the SCAQMD operational emission significance thresholds. The operational emissions associated with 21 custom homes would represent six percent of the SCAQMD significance threshold for ROG, five percent of the CO threshold, three percent of the NOx threshold, and approximately one percent of the PMio and S02 thresholds. Consequently, even if the entire development were to be constructed by the year 2011, the resulting operational emissions would not exceed any of the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Carbon Monoxide "Hot Spot"Analysis A project has a significant impact if it interferes with the attainment of the state 1-hour or 8- hour carbon monoxide standards by either exceeding them or contributing to an existing or projected violation. The proposed project will not interfere with the attainment of the state 1-hour or 8-hour carbon monoxide standards by either exceeding them or contributing to an existing or projected violation at sensitive receptor locations. Future carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity during peak commuter hours are not expected to exceed the state or national ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. Background CO concentrations over a one-hour averaging period are expected to total 3.0 ppm in the project vicinity in the year 2007. The eight-hour CO background concentration is expected to total 1.8 ppm. Project-related and background traffic at the closest major intersection will generate CO concentrations of less than 1.0 ppm over one hour and less than 0.45 ppm over eight hours. Changes in CO concentrations of this magnitude are not significant. Local CO concentrations are not projected to exceed the one-hour 20 ppm (State) or 35 ppm (national) standard or the state and federal 8-hour carbon monoxide standards. Significance of Long-Terns Impacts Since the proposed project includes conforming uses on the project site, it appears to be consistent with the population and employment growth projections that form the basis of the AQMP and the Regional Growth Management Plan. Project-related operational emissions projections are not expected to exceed the SCAQMD operational emissions significance thresholds. The proposed project will not interfere with the attainment of the state 1-hour or 8-hour carbon monoxide standards by either exceeding them or contributing to an existing or projected violation at sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant long-term adverse impact on air quality. RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS Air Quality Management Plan The purpose of a consistency finding is to determine whether or not a project is consistent with the assumptions and objectives of regional air quality plans. Based on this determina- tion, conclusions can be drawn regarding whether or not a specific project will interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. 9 The consistency determination fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of projects under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. This allows decision makers to contribute to the clean air goals in the AQMP and the PMto SIP. When a project is inconsistent, local governments can consider project modifications or mitigation measures to eliminate the inconsistency. Since the Palm Springs Comprehensive General Plan is the basis for the AQMP emissions inventories,it appears that the proposed project, which is consistent with the General Plan land use designations on-site, is consistent with the key underlying assumptions associated with the AQMP. State Implementation Plan for PMto in the Coachella Valley The proposed project will adhere to the provisions of the Palm Springs Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance to minimize fugitive dust emissions during construction activities. This is a control measure outlined in the PMto SIP. Through the construction specifications, the project proponent will implement feasible PMto guidelines such as discontinuing grading when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. A PM to fugitive dust mitigation plan will be developed by the project proponent and submitted to the City of Palm Springs for approval, prior to the issuance of grading permits. It appears, therefore, that the proposed project is consistent with the PMto SIP. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations The project proponent will comply with all applicable SCAQMD "Rules and Regulations". City of Palm Springs Comprehensive General Plan The proposed project is consistent with the City's air quality goals as set forth in the Health and Safety Element of the Palm Springs General Plan. State Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)will be implemented on-site during the construction process. The use of passive design concepts to increase energy efficiency will be encouraged. Air quality policies contained in the Health and Safety Element of the General Plan address construction and grading activities. These policies specify City requirements for site watering and the use of soil stabilizers,the washing of construction truck tires, the covering of trucks hauling loose material from construction sites, the need to establish ground cover as soon as possible after grading, increased street sweeping activities during construction periods, and prohibitions on earth moving operations during periods of high winds. The PMto fugitive dust mitigation plan developed by the project proponent for approval by the City of Palm Springs will specify in detail each control measure to be implemented during construction activities on-site to minimize fugitive dust emissions. The most important control measures will be phased grading on-site to minimize the area disturbed each day and frequent watering of exposed surfaces to minimize fugitive dust emissions. City of Palm Springs Municipal Code The project proponent will comply with all provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code including the Construction Site Regulations and the Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance. The proposed project will comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code which establish minimum requirements for construction and demolition activities to reduce fugitive dust and PMto emissions. A plan to control fugitive dust through implementation of reasonably available dust control measures shall:be 10 prepared and submitted to the City of Palm Springs for approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits associated with the project. The proposed project will also comply with the provisions of Construction Site Regulations Sections 8.04.230 and 8.04.240 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code which establish minimum requirements for erosion control associated with grading projects. This will ensure that no debris is washed, blown by wind, or otherwise deposited onto streets or adjacent property. Special measures that may be required in addition to an on-site watering system are outlined therein. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS A project that requires a General Plan Amendment or revision which would provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that projected in the adopted AQMP would have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact. The proposed project would not provide directly or indirectly for increased population growth above that projected in the adopted AQMP. The proposed project would result in the development of 21 new custom single-family residential dwelling units and the sale of 29 existing cottages on a site that has 60 existing multi-family residential dwelling units that will be demolished. Cumulative impacts on air quality were addressed in the carbon monoxide "hot spot" analysis. The future traffic volumes modeled with the California Line Source Dispersion Model included the growth in background traffic volumes expected to occur in the project vicinity as a result of cumulative development in the area. As shown therein, the projected cumulative impact on air pollutant concentrations at the intersections carrying the most project-related traffic is not expected to be significant. The cumulative impact of the proposed development on ambient air quality during construction, when added to potentially significant construction-related impacts of other cumulative developments, is not likely to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Adherence to the SCAQMD "Rules and Regulations" and compliance with locally adopted AQMP and PMio SIP control measures will help reduce the pollutant burden of each cumulative development. Appropriate mitigation measures for cumulative impacts such as: fugitive dust control plans, grading permits, and TDM plans are required by the City of Palm Springs and implemented through enforcement of the Palm Springs Municipal Code to minimize the significance of cumulative impacts. CONCLUSIONS Less Than Significant Air Quality Impacts 1. The proposed project appears to include conforming uses on the project site; therefore, it appears to be consistent with the population and employment growth projections that form the basis of the Air Quality Management Platt and the Regional Growth Management Plan. 2. Although short-term impacts on air quality will occur during the construction activities required to implement the proposed project, the proposed project is not projected to exceed the SCAQMD construction emissions thresholds of significance. 11 3. Although future development of the site as proposed would result in increased local and regional air pollutant emissions (including project-related indirect operational emissions from motor vehicles) project-related motor vehicle and area source emissions are not projected to exceed any of the SCAQMD long-term operational emission significance threshold criteria. 4. Future carbon monoxide levels are not projected to exceed state or federal CO standards in the project vicinity with or without project-related traffic. The proposed project will not interfere with the attainment of the state 1-hour or 8-hour carbon monoxide standards by either exceeding them or contributing to an existing or projected violation at sensitive receptor locations. We trust that the information provided herein responds adequately to the concerns of the City of Palm Springs regarding the Smoke Tree Ranch development. If additional questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact our office by telephone, facsimile or electronic mail. Sincerely Endo Engineering Gregory Endo Principal Attachment: URBEMIS 2002 Output 12 Page: 1 02/14/2006 11:58 AM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Schnugga Cootie\Desktop\Work\Smoketree Urbemis.urb Project Name: Smoketree Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2006 *** ROG NOx CO 302 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 7.95 2.95 5.00 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 3.19 24.10 23.76 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2008 * ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 TOTALS (1bs/day, mitigated) 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (1bs/day,unmitigated) 0.71 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.87 0.81 10.31 0.01 0.78 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 1.59 0.91 10.64 0.01 0.78 is Nip Page: 2 02/14/2006 11:58 AM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Schnugga Cootie\Desktop\Work\Smoketree Urbemis.urb Project Name: Smoketree Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2006 * ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 9,38 75.51 58.57 0.40 7.95 2.95 5.00 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 TOTALS (lbs/day, mitigated) 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2008 * ROG NOx CO 502 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 TOTALS (1bs/day, mitigated) 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.67 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.72 1.12 8.17 0.01 0.78 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day,unmitigated) 1.39 1.22 6.22 0.01 0.78 Page: 3 02/14/2006 11:58 AM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Schnugga Cootie\Desktop\Work\Smoketree Urbemis.urb Project Name: Smoketree Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 SUMMARY REPORT (Tons/Year) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2006 *"" ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.27 2.19 1.95 0.00 0.12 0.09 0.03 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 0.27 2.19 1.95 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.02 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *"* ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.42 3.18 3.13 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 TOTALS (tpy, mitigated) 0.42 3.18 3.13 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 PMIO PM10 PM10 *** 2008 *"* ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.51 1.07 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 TOTALS (tp},, mitigated) 0.51 1.07 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO 502 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.15 0.17 1.75 0.00 0.14 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.26 0.19 1.79 0.00 0.14 Page: 4 02/14/2006 11:58 AM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Schnugga Cootie\Desktop\Work\Smoketree Urbemis.urb Project Name: Smoketree Project Location: South Coast Aix Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) Construction Start Month and Year: June, 2006 Construction Duration: 24 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 10.5 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.5 acres Single Family Units: 8 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006**" Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 3.15 - 3.15 Off-Road Diesel 7.09 54.10 52.33 - 2.42 2.42 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.24 21.33 4.63 0.40 0.63 0.53 0.10 Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 5.00 - 5.00 Off-Road Diesel 5.19 35.83 41.26 - 1.52 1.52 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 5.24 35.91 42.87 0.00 6.52 1.52 5.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 25.25 22.47 - 1.17 1.17 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 25.27 22.92 0.00 1.18 1.17 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 7.95 2.95 5.00 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 24.08 23.36 - 1.07 1.07 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 ' Max lbs/day all phases 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 *** 2008*** Page: 5 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 22.91 24.21 - 0.98 0.98 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 32.69 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.48 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 3.27 20.50 26.96 - 0.68 0.68 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.70 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum 1bs/day 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Max lbs/day all phases 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun '06 Phase 1 Duration: 0.5 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 90000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 7500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 973 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 0.25 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun '06 Phase 3 Duration: 23.25 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Jul '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 22 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 6.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May '08 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Mar '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: .25 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 3.15 - 3.15 Page: 6 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Off-Road Diesel 7.09 54.10 52.33 - 2.42 2.42 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.24 21.33 4.63 0.40 0.63 0.53 0.10 Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.39 - 1.39 Off-Road Diesel 5.19 35.83 41.26 - 1.52 1.52 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 5.24 35.91 42.87 0.00 2.91 1.52 1.39 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 25.25 22.47 - 1.17 1.17 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 25.27 22.92 0.00 1.18 1.17 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lhs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 21.08 23.36 - 1.07 1.07 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off--Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 22.91 24.21 - 0.9B 0.98 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 32.69 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Off:-Gas 0.49 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 3.27 20.50 26.96 - 0.68 0.68 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.70 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Page: 7 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Max lbs/day all phases 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Construction-Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 34.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily Percent Reducti.n(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 30.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% S02 0.0% PM10 40.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun '06 Phase 1 Duration: 0.5 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet) : 90000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet) : 7500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 973 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun 106 Phase 2 Duration: 0.25 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun 106 Phase 3 Duration: 23.25 months Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Building: Jul '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 22 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Architectural Coatings: May '08 Sub Phase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Asphalt: Mar '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: .25 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 Page: 6 02/14/2006 11:58 AM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0.01 0.10 0.04 0 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No winter emissions Consumer Prdcts 0.39 - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.27 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.67 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 Page: 9 02/14/2006 11:58 AM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 0.72 1.12 B.17 0.01 0.78 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 0.72 1.12 8.17 0.01 0.78 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F) : 60 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 2.67 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 8.00 76.56 Sum of Total Trips 76.56 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 512.22 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 Ned Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 Page: 10 02/14/2006 11:56 AM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 70 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The hearth option switch changed from on to off. The landscape year changed from 2005 to 2006. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2006. The operational winter temperature changed from 50 to 60. The operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 95. Page: 11 02/14/2006 11:58 AM DRBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Schnugga Cootie\Desktop\Work\Smoketree Urbemis.urb Project Name: Smoketree Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: June, 2006 Construction Duration: 24 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 10.5 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.5 acres Single Family Units: 8 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTROCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 RM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 3.15 - 3.15 Off-Road Diesel 7.09 54.10 52.33 - 2.42 2.42 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.24 21.33 4.63 0.40 0.63 0.53 0.10 Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 5.00 - 5.00 Off-Road Diesel 5.19 35.83 41.26 - 1.52 1.52 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.05 0.OB 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 5.24 35.91 42.87 0.00 6.52 1.52 5.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 25.25 22.47 - 1.17 1.17 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt 0£f-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 25.27 22.92 0.00 1.18 1.17 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 8.38 75.51 56.57 0.40 7.95 2.95 5.00 *** 2007**^ Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0,00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lb./day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 24.08 23.36 - 1.07 1.07 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 *** 2008*** Page: 12 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum Ibs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum ]bs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 22.91 24.21 - 0.98 0.98 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 32.69 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.48 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 3.27 20.50 26.96 - 0.68 0.68 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.70 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Max lbs/day all phases 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun 106 Phase 1 Duration: 0.5 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet) : 90000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 7500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 973 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun '06 Phase 2 Duration: 0.25 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun 106 Phase 3 Duration: 23.25 months Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Building: Jul '06 Sub Phase Building Duration: 22 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Architectural Coatings: May '08 Sub Phase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Asphalt: Mar '08 Sub Phase Asphalt Duration: .25 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NIX CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 3.15 - 3.15 Page: 13 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Off-Road Diesel 7.09 54.10 52.33 - 2.42 2.42 0.00 On-Road Diesel 1.24 21.33 4.63 0.40 0.63 0.53 0.10 Worker Trips 0.05 0.06 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum .Lbs/day 8.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.39 - 1.39 Off-Road Diesel 5.19 35.83 41.26 - 1.52 1.52 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.05 0.08 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 5.24 35.91 42.87 0.00 2.91 1.52 1.39 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 25.25 22.47 - 1.17 1.17 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.04 0.02 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings O£f-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Oft:-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 25.27 22.92 0.00 1.18 1.17 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 6.38 75.51 58.57 0.40 6.20 2.95 3.25 Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase'3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 24.03 23.36 - 1.07 1.07 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt O£f-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 Max lbs/day all phases 3.19 24.10 23.78 0.00 1.08 1.07 0.01 *** 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 3.16 22.91 24.21 - 0.98 0.9B 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 32.69 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.48 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 3.27 20.50 26.96 - 0.68 0.66 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.09 1.70 0.34 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Page: 14 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Asphalt Worker Trips 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Max lbs/day all phases 32.73 45.14 52.10 0.00 1.72 1.70 0.02 Construction-Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0°% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 34.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 30.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 40.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun 106 Phase 1 Duration: 0.5 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 90000 Building volume Daily (cubic feet) : 7500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 973 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Ocher Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun 106 Phase 2 Duration: 0.25 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun 106 Phase 3 Duration: 23.25 months Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Building: Jul '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 22 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 Start Month/Year for Sub Phase Architectural Coatings: May 108 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Mar '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: .25 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 Page: 15 02/14/2006 11:58 AM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0.01 0.10 0.04 0 0.00 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.04 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.39 - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.27 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 0.71 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.00 Page: 16 02/14/2006 11:58 AM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 0.87 0.81 10.31 0.01 0.78 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 0.87 0.81 10.31 0.01 0.78 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F) : 95 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 2.67 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 8.00 76.56 Sum of Total Trips 76.56 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 512.22 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 3,750 Its 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy B,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 08.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 °3„n) Page: 17 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 70 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The hearth option switch changed from on to off. The landscape year changed from 2005 to 2006. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2006. The operational winter temperature changed from 50 to 60. The operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 95. Page: 18 02/14/2006 11:58 AM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8.7.0 File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\Schnugga Cootie\Desktop\Work\Smoketree Urbemis.urb Project Name: Smoketree Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Tons/Year) Construction Start Month and Year: June, 2006 Construction Duration: 24 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 10.5 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 0.5 acres Single Family Units: 8 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (tons/year) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** 2006*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.02 - 0.02 Off-Road Diesel 0.04 0.30 0.29 - 0.01 0.01 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.05 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.01 - 0.01 Off-Road Diesel 0.01 0.10 0.11 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.21 1.67 1.48 - 0.08 0.08 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.21 1.67 1.51 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.27 2.19 1.95 0.00 0.12 0.09 0.03 *** 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.42 3.18 3.08 - 0.14 0.14 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.42 3.18 3.13 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.42 3.18 3.13 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 *** 2008*** Page: 19 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.14 1.01 1.07 - 0.04 0.04 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.36 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.51 1.07 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.51 1.07 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun '06 Phase 1 Duration: 0.5 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet) : 90000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet) : 7500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 973 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Sate Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jun 106 Phase 2 Duration: 0.25 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun '06 Phase 3 Duration: 23.25 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Jul '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 22 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 Start Month/Yeas for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May 108 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Mar 'OB SubPhase Asphalt Duration: .25 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES MITIGATED (tons/year) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO SO2 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST ' Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.02 - 0.02 Page: 20 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Off-Road Diesel 0.04 0.30 0.29 - 0.01 0.01 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.01 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.05 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.01 0.10 0.11 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.21 1.67 1.48 - 0.08 0.08 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.21 1.67 1.51 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.27 2.19 1.95 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.02 *** 2007**a' Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/yeas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.42 3.18 3.08 - 0.14 0.14 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings 0£f-Gas 0.00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.42 3.18 3.13 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 Total all phases tans/yr 0.42 3.16 3.13 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 *** 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust. - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 0.14 1.01 1.07 - 0.04 0.04 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0.36 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . Asphalt Off-Gas 0.00 - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0.01 0.06 0.07 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 21 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Asphalt Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons/year 0.51 1.07 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Total all phases tons/yr 0.51 1.07 1.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 Construction-Related Mitigation Measures Phase 2: Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2s: daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 34.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 30.0%) Phase 2: Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph Percent Reduction(ROG 0.0% NOx 0.0% CO 0.0% SO2 0.0% PM10 40.0%) Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1: Jun 106 Phase 1 Duration: 0.5 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 90000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet) : 7500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 973 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year fox Phase 2: Jun 106 Phase 2 Duration: 0.25 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Jun 106 Phase 3 Duration: 23.25 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Jul '06 SubPhase Building Duration: 22 months _ Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: May '08 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Mar '08 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: .25 months Acres to be Paved: 1 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 Page: 22 02/14/2006 11:58 AM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Tons per Year, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0,00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 0.07 - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.04 - - - - TOTALS (tpy, unmitigated) 0.11 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 Page: 23 02/14/2006 11:58 AM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Single family housing 0.15 0.17 1.75 0.00 0.14 TOTAL EMISSIONS (tons/yr) 0.15 0.17 1.75 0.00 0.14 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Season: Annual EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 2.67 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 8.00 76.56 Sum of Total Trips 76.56 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 512.22 Vehicle Ass=ptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lbs 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 Had Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 Its 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 a of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 Page: 24 02/14/2006 11:58 AM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Demolition Truck Hauling Miles/Round Trip changed from 30 to 70 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The hearth option switch changed from on to off. The landscape year changed from 2005 to 2006. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2006. The operational winter temperature changed from 50 to 60. The operational summer temperature changed from 90 to 95. Page: 11 02/14/2006 12:03 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 1.89 2.94 21.46 0.02 2.04 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 1.89 2.94 21.46 0.02 2.04 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F) : 60 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7.00 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 21.00 200.97 Sum of Total Trips 200.97 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,344.59 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 3,750 lb6 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 89.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0,00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17,60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Condicicas Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 Page: 10 02/14/2006 12:03 PM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.02 0.26 0,11 0 0.00 Hearth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscaping - No winter emissions Consumer Prdcts 1.03 - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.72 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 1.76 0.26 0.11 0.00 0.00 �� PT Page: 20 02/14/2006 12:03 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 2.30 2.13 27,07 0.02 2.04 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 2.30 2.13 27.07 0.02 2.04 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F) : 95 Season: Summer - EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: No. Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Single family housing 7.00 9.57 trips/dwelling unit 21.00 200.97 Sum of Total Trips 200.97 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 1,344.59 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 3,750 Its 15.10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 Med Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1.20 0.00 91.70 8.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 93.0 Page: 19 02/14/2006 12:03 PM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Natural Gas 0.02 0.26 0.11 0 0.00 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.11 0.00 0.76 0.01 0.00 Consumer Prdcts 1.03 - - - - Architectural Coatings 0.72 - - - - TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 1.88 0.27 0.87 0.01 0.00 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDIX B Revegetation and Habitat Restoration Plan Smoke Tree Ranch Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration'q,�7 'I) March 2006- Page 49 of 51 JAN-24-2006 11:19 FrowSMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237093 P.2/26 Rc vegetation and Habitat Restoration Plan for the Reclamation of the esert Water Agency Soui hwest Recycling Pipeline tension Site - Phase I Prepared for: Deseft Water Agency 1200 Gene Autry Trail, South Palm Springs, Caiifornia 92264 Prepared by: James W. Comctt Ecological Consultants P.O. Box 846 Palm Springs, California 92263 October 11,2004 JAN-24-2006 11:20 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.3i26 e L INTRODUCTION This revcgctation plan will tnal le tho Dmfft Water Agency,and/or its contractors;to restore,as practicably as possible,the nati a vegetation removed from Smoke Tree Ranch dining the Southwest Recycling Pipeline Extension eject—Phase 1. The plan was prepared as a result of an agreement between the Desert Water Agei cy and Smoke Tree Ranch,Inc. The pipeline extension site was located within the southwest quarter of Section 25,Range 4 Fast, Township 4 South;San Bernar -'no Baseline and Meridian.The project area was located along the southern boundary of the ferim I Ranch property and along the northern edge of the Palm Canyon Wash Levee.The project area i rds approximately four acfes.The exact location is shown in Figures 1,2 and 3. The restoration plan outlines tb,,steps necessary to revegcWe the Smoke Trcc Ranch project site after construction is concluded and natural contours restored. Five years following the completion of the revegetation program,the f ora of the project site should be similar in density and species composition to the native vegol ifion wittin the non-residential areas of the Ranch. Smoke Tree Ranch Revagetation Plan,page 2 JRN-24-200S 11:20 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7SO3279490 To:3237693 P.4/26 II. METHODS I i Ficid surveys were conducted h i early September of 2004 to delamine the diversity of perennial and ephemeral vegetation and the abundance of perennial vegetation in the project area Daytime surveys were conducted on the followi dates:September 2,3,4,22,and October 4,2004.All native perennial and ephemeral plant ties found on the project site during these surveys were recorded and are listed in Table 1 (pare 'al species)and Table 2(ephemeral species)in the Appendix Perennial plant density analy ' was done on the same dates.The analysis was conducted on all portions of the project site, Tbt analysis consisted of counting all perennial plant species in three belt transects thirty yards long by six yards vide for a total area of 540 square yards.This count established relative abundance lata.so that proportionate number of plants could be assembled prior to the onset ofrevegetation act vities.Tv addition,in the case ol'some species,the relative abundance data could be used so that pro rtionate quantities of vegetative parts could be collected for later transplantation. The results of I ie density analysis are to be found in Table 3 in the Appendix Although scientific name than es occur as new discoveries are made in plant taxonomy,the scientific names used in this r rt are taken from the standard references describing the species found in Southern California, ese are James A-llickman's The Jepson Manual published in 1993 and D.P.Tibor's Inventory of are and endangered plants of California published in 2001,Plant common names used in this rc r[are taken from Hickman(1994),Jaeger(1969),Mum(1961 and 1974)and Tibor(2001), Field work was conducted by J arres W.Comett,Jennifer Futterman,and Mary Wexler.The report was prepared by James W. Coi neft. Smoke Trw Ranch Revegdation Plan,page 3 JRN-24--2006 11:21 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237B93 P.626 111. SOIL RECLAMA ON AND DEVELOPMENT ,I Prior to digging pipeline trench ,the top six inches of topsoil should be soraped and stockpiler) This should occur only after ea tus plants have been transplanted to holding areas(see Section V4 Stockpiling soil sustains microi rganisms that coexist with the roots of native plants. Some of these microorganisms may have s. iotic relationships with plant species native to the region and he necessary for their vitality and urvival- The stockpiled soil should be tilled into the existing soil at the revegetation site before plai ds are replanted. During excavation,soil should piled so that surface materials are at the bottom and soil at depth is at the top of each pile,the customary method.Filling operations should he the reverse with soil at the top of excavation piles placed j irst in trenches and soil at the bottom of piles is placed in last.This procedure helps maintain the ii tegrity of soil horizons,provides the least disruptive soil environment for native plants and,ultimately,maximizes the success of the revegetation program. At the conclusion of excavatio Ii and re-establishment of site contours,soils should be compacted with water. Soils should not he mechanically compacted- No dust-control chemicals ormaterials should be applied to the site su face,Mechanical compaution and dust-control materials can interfere with the natural establishment f native plant species as well as the plants introduced during the revegetation program Flo fertilizers should be added o the soil at any stage of the revegetation program except as noted in Section XL Smoke Tree Ranch Revegetadoa Plan,page 5 S.1 j1-11 rl R L 7i Pipeline Corridor .77 UMOXV M .�C Rr VE, .. ............. i JAN-24--2006 11:21 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 76032794130 To:3237893 P.7/26 IV. ACQUISITION O NATIVE SPECIES In order to have plant material ith which to revegetate the site after the cessation of excavation operations,provision should be made to salvage plants from the project site prior to grading Established plants can also be fined through Salvaging plants from other sites where development has been approved and from co ritnercial nurseries that specialize in native plant species. Supplemental plant material ca i be acquired through the taking of cuttings or via the collection or purchase orseeds.It must be phasized that only those plant species listed in Table I are candidates for planting_There no exceptions. Salvaging Plants From Project Site As a general rule,some entire I lants can be salvaged from a project site prior to grading On the Smoke Tree Ranch pipeline coi ridor site,however,the only plant species that can be salvaged is golden cholla cactus(Opuntia i chmocarpa). The transplantation of the golden cholla is discussed in Section vl. Smoke Tretm The Smoke tree(.Pvorot&mnu spinosua),a species present on the site,cannot be salvaged due to its heavy investment in deep root issue,nearly all of which is inevitably lost in transplantation The mortality rate of mature smoke trees that have been transplanted from natural environments approaches 100%n and the prs .co has been abandoned by commercial landscapers. Smoke Tree Rancb ltevepmuon Plan,page 6 SAN-21-2006 11:21 From:SMOKE TREE RNCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.8126 I Uli'site Salvaging of Plants Rapid development in the Cm bella Valley has resulted in the availability of many native plant species from approved develop nent sites.In some cases,the developer is required by the lead planning agency to salvage gele cted species,particularly succulents.Planning departments in valley cities can provide information n projects that been approved for development and which projects have been required to salvage r ative plants.In many cases native species can be obtained without coat from developers. Nursery Acquisition Most established plant apecim s used to revegetate the project site will be obtained from commercial nurseries.Every el rort should be extended to utilize plant stock from local nurseries as they are most likely to havespt cimens,that are genetically similar to specimens found on and near the project site. Genetically sin ar specimens are best adapted to the local environment and are least likely to negatively impact the ene pool in the region. The nearest commercial nurs ry that specializes in native plant species is the Living Desert located at 47-900 PoAola Aveue in Palm.Desert,California (telephone 760-346-5694).Most of the plant species identified in this plan can be obtained at this institution. Mockingbird Nursery (1670 laekson St.,Riverside„ alUbmia, telephone 909-780.4571)and Mt.Fuji Nursery(1555 W.Foothill Blvd,Upland, Ca iforma,telephone 909 985.221.9)can also provide many of the plant specified in this report. Smoke Tree Ranch Revegetation P1en4 page 7 JAN-24-2006 11:21 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.9/26 V. SEED ACQU7SIT ON AND DISPERSAL Seeds of both perennial and ep emeral(annual)plant species should be broadcast over the project site at the completion of all oth r revegetation activities.The successful gemination and establishment of sonic ofthcse eels can augment the planting of perennial species by increasing the density of native plants.Additi(nally,some of the species lost during pipeline construction cannot be obtained as immature plants in. mtahiers and must be introduced as seeds-it should be emphasized that only those plant species lis od in Tables 1 and 2 are candidates for seed procurement and planting. No exotic species=to be planted.Only those species native to the immediate region are to be broadeast or plan There are no exceptions. All seeds should be mixed and mdornly broadcast by band at approximately one liter per acre. Sonic of the native seed sped found on the list in Table 2 of the appendix may be obtained at the Living Desert,located at 47- Portola Avenue in Palm Desert,California,telephone 760-346- 5694. Additional species may obtained at Native Seed/Seareb,526 NorthFourlhAvenue, Tucson,Arizona,telephone 5 -622-5561;Desert Botanical Garden, 1201 North Calvin Parkway, Phoenix,Arizona,telephone 2 80-941-1225;Theodore Payne Foundation, 10459 Tuxford Street, Sun Valley,California,teleph a 818-768-1802;Mockingbird Nurscry, 1670 Jackson St.,Riverside, California,telephone 909-780 571;and Mt.Fuji Nursery, 1555 W.Foothill Blvd,Upland, California,telephone 909 9852 1 19). Smuke'lrm Ranch Revgetnhon P*page 8 SPN-24--2006 11:22 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.10/26 VL CACTUS TRANS LANTATI.ON Prior to the removal of golden dwlla cactus,the north side of each specimen should be marked in an obvious manner.The plants shc uld then be planted with the north side again facing north This is necessary to prevent sunburn or stress damage on the less callused epidermal tissue of the north and east sides of the plant- To move large succulents with minimal damage,wrap them with pieces of floor carpet Rubber hose or nylon or canvas webbing strr ps may also be used Golden cholla cacti should be removed with at least rive gallons of root-bound soil.The root mass of each cactus must then be placed in a five- gal Ion container or temporarily buried to await transplantation.Both container and buried cacti must be placed in a shaded location. 3roken stems may be dusted with sulfur,allowed to dry in the shade, and then planted along with complete specimens.Even broken stems can be expected to take root and grow.'I'he rooted plants and dried pieces may be replanted after callous tissue is observed at the damage sites.Pieces of broken(stem may be placed in the trench at a depth of about one to two inches for small pieces and th I to four inches for larger pieces.The trench should then be backtilled and lightly packed. The injured=tus roots shout be dusted with sulfur powder,a substance available at pharmacies with a trade name of"Flowers f Sulfur."This powder is also available at most nursery supply houses. The plants should then IIbe allowed to dry in a shaded location for approximately one week. This allows the injured root tisduo to callous over. Following the completion of thb pipeline project the stored cacti must be the first plant specimens to be transplanted on site. The available cacti should be planted in a 7iM,pattear over the length of Smoke Trco Ranch Revegetation Plan,page 9 JAN-24-2006 11:22 From:SMOrE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.11/26 I the project corridor beginning n yards east of Smoke Tree Stables and ten yards west of Barona Road Cacti must be planted at east five yards north,of the gravel road that runs along the chain-link fence running parallel to the Pa m Canyon Wash Levee.Cacti should be buried so that the original bw*base is again at ground I el.As mentioned previously,specimens should be placed in the original compass direction in ch they were removed ,Alter one week the cacti shoul I be hand-watered one time only for one hour for optimum vigor. The water should soak the ground tioroughly.The ground should then be allowed to dry completely. Watering once each month aftir the initial single watering should be adequate.Watering should not take place during those month wbcn more than one-half inch of precipitation has fallen A drip irrigation system shoul I be used in the field due to such a system's eflrcienoy and ability to improve plant vitality. Some museries and most landscape contractors can install a drip irrigation system.Cacti more than two filet in diameter should have two drip emitters,one on each side of the cactus to ensure symmetrical root development. ISmoke Tree Ranch RnTgdation Plan,page 10 I _ "Y frJ SAN-24--2006 11:22 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.12/26 VII, PLANTING OF N TIVE PERENNIALS It is the goal of the rev egetatio plan,as much as is feasible,to return the project,site to its original condition with regard to native egelat'on.To that end,only species native to the site or to the immediate region are to be p need.The following recommendations are based upon the relative abundances of native perennial vegetation as shown in Table 3, Prior to excavation,the most W iundant perennial on the pru jest site was the cheesebush,Hymenoclea salsola. It is estimated that at least several hundred of these plants occurred on the site prior to grading. Considering that this I ties will naturally re-establish on the site within five years,it is recommended that only fifty inlYlividuals be secured as one-gallon container specimens for planting. Planting holes must be no less than two feet in width and one foot in depth The cheesebush should be planted evenly over the enti a site in a zigzag pattern opposite that of the golden cholla pattern. None should be planted within five yards of the gravel road along the southern edge of the site.Each checsebush should have a sin i.e emitter. Discussion of the golden cholla cactus(Op7owa echinocarpa)can be found in detail in the previous sectiott In addition to the approximately one dozen,relocated individuals that occurred naturally on site and are to be transplanted twenty additional one-gallon specimens should be planted not less than twenty yards from the mE Lure,transplanted individuals. All ether plant species were rare or uncommon on the project site.These species can be plantcd,as available,through nursery stoik and a<specimens(four individuals each)at random but never within five yards of the gravel road l hese specimen plants include:Acacia greggii,Ambrosia drmmsa, Bebbia fwicea, Cercidium flaiidum, Chilglxm fincaris,Enecha farrnosa,Larrea trrdentata, Psorotharrmus emoryi,and Pwrothamnu s spinamv.As is the case with the cheesebush, Smoke Tex:Ranch Revegdz ion Plat;page 11 Sf1N-24-2006 11:22 From:SMOKE TREE MCH 76032794SO To:3237693 P.13/26 one-gallon specimens of the un rM mon plants should be plc ed in planting holes not less than two feet in width and not less than Ine foot in depth Palo verde trees(Cercidium floridum),desert willow trees(Chdopsis linear and smoke trees(Arorotham w spinosus)should be obtained in a)ntainer sizes of at least five gallors.Holes should be one foot wider and one foot deeper than the containers. It is likely that all of the species mentioned above will either not be available or will not be available in the quantities specified Th I fore the plants cited in Table 4(substitute plants native to the region)may be substituted on a one to one basis for any of the plants mentioned above. Each of the plant specimens p Inted on the site must have one emitter each from the drip line irrigation system.With the exception of cactus plants,the emitters should run one hour each day for the first three weeks. The emits is should run one hour each day for one week two weeks after the cams have been planted Smoke Tree Rmicti Rmgctation Plmi,page 12 SRN-24-2006 11:23 From:SM010E TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237393 P.14126 VI.TI, UMGATIGN SYSTEM A drip irrigation system should used in the field due to the system's efficiency and ability to improve plant vitality. Some nirtsenes and nearly all landscape contractors can install a drip irrigation system. Each plant should have one emitter though emitters on cactus plants should usually be turned of Review Section VI on cactus tr$nsplantation for instructions on watering cacti.Large plants(five gallon containers)such as polo Iverde,desert willow and smoke trees should have two cm itters, Emitters should run for one hour each day for three weeks after planting.Thereafter emitters can run :for one hour each week for on year,except for cactus.Cactus plants should.receive wafer Cur one hour once each month for one jear.All emitters should be placed into a vertical pipe buried as deep as the planting hole and protru i g above ground at least twelve inches. Main irrigation pipes should nat be buried nor should drip irrigation lines.The entire irrigation system will be removed by No tern ]0,2005. The Dessert Water Agency will I e attachment spigots available to the landscape contractors. S=ke Tree Ranch Revebn;tadon Plan,page 11 V, T'� JAN-24-2006 11:23 From:SMOKE TREE RNCH 7603279490 To:3237693 P.15/26 IX WEED CONTROL The use of a drip irrigation system is tho best strategy available at this time for weed control in all aspects of a revegetation progrim.This system supplies water only to the root zone of the desired plant rather than at the soil surface where weed seed germination would be encouraged. Pre-and post-emergent types of herbicides must not be used for weed control because they destroy the desired native seed and seedlings in the soil as well as non-desirable species. Revegetated plants should be watered by a deep pipe system as described m the previous section. Such a system has been proven to be both cost effective as well as efficient and minimizes invasive weed spccies. I I Smoke Tree Ranch RevegetatRm Plw,page 14 Vh r7 M� SAN-24-2006 11:23 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237e93 P.16/26 X. BROWSING AND GRAZING PROTECTION Young and seedling plants can be expected to be eaten by rodents,cottontails and jackrabbits in revegetated areas unless they aye physically protected.The Tree Sentry Company of Perrysburg, Ohio,manufactures shelters that provide protection for young plants.These shelters have proven to be effective in protecting seedlings from grating and permitting proper plant growth.It is strongly recommended that this kind of protection be used to for seedlings planted on the project site. A non-commercial alternative would be to wrap the stems loosely with chicken wire.This is gersially not cost effective and presents the possibility of inhibiting stem growth or even damage if the wire is.not removed at the Ipropriate time to allow the main stem to grow and expand, Any device used for gang protection should be removed one year after installation ofplam specimens. At that time plants,ILms have sufficiently hardened to deter browsing. Smoke Trm Ranch Revegeta6on NA page 15 ,r JAN-24-2006 11:23 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.17/26 XL FERMJZERS For plants transplanted onto site from containers,it is recommended that a phosphorus only fertilizer(0-10-0)be used This fertilizer should be mixed into the loose snail in the planting holc before the plant is positioned.I his will facilitate optimum root development. I i Smoke Tree Ranch Aevege cn Plan,page 16 JRN-24--2006 11:23 From:SMOKE TREE RPNCH T603279490 To:3237B93 P.Ie/26 XU. MONUORING The goal of dais plan is the eventual revegetation of the project site with the densities of native plant species found prior to the grading and excavation for the pipeline.The information eolleoled From. the three belt transects establis led m this study can serve as baseline data for determining the original densities and therefore the success of the revegetation program. It is recommended that site monitoring be conducted every month for one year.The revegetation prognma can be considered su i ossf.W if,at the end of one year,90%of the plant specimens have survived and shown.growth and at least twenty perennial plant species have established and survived from seed. After one year,the plant comm i pity will be able to sustain itself with natural rainfall and should establish its own regeneration.Within five years the site should be similar both qualitatively and quantitatively to the sumaundin natural community. I Smokt Trot Ranch Revegetution Plan,page 17 i SRN-24--2006 11:24 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237B93 P.19/26 X.J. PXFEMNCFS Bainbtidge,D.A and R A Virginia,1989 Resiorauar in Al Colorado Doerr:species trams California DePMWI=Of Traasportatiory Sacramento,Califorr Cal ifornia Department of Fish&.G I.20N.4mviSweg#ii r crredandrcrepkmtsofCalifornia.Natraalliezitage Division,Endangered Plant Program,Sacramento,California. Ctdifoutia pcputment ofFish&Gazn I.20U4..Special plardr of Nakurnl Nerik�ge Division,NahtraLDiversiry Data Bast, 'Sacramento,Cdifomis. Conrelt,1.W. 1097.The Sonoran D' rC a brief na tffal Jds4 ..Palm Springs Dewt Museum,Palm Springs,California. Finery,D. 1988.Sced propagariat ofl al ve Cal fnrrua plm tc Santa Barbara are Botanic Gardat Sawa Bathara Cal£lira a M&man,J.C.(editor). 1993.71xjcpso»mmaraC University nPCalifornia Press,Berkeley,Califomia. Jaeger,E.C. 1969. Dwarf wrklfk I,s Stard'ord Univoraity Press,Stanford,CaliformoL Mont,P.A. 1974. Aflora of Sandie;Cedif Ida. University of California Press,Berkeley,Calf mils Sawyer,1 0 and T.Reeler-Wolf 1995 A mmival ofCal�ia vegetadat California Native Plant Soddy,Sacramento, Cal brl ia. Sclm ik Marjorie G. 1980.Cntnving i urnia native plant..University of California Press,Berkeley,California. Stewart,J.M. 1993.Cokrrado Desert wildflomvrs.Jon Stewart Photography,Palm Desert,(Wifomia. Sunset Editors, 1995.Sunset western gorrkn bank une Publishing Company,Menlo Pads,Caftrnia, Tibor,D.P.,(editor).2001.brit ruory of rare and endmgered plains ofCatiforrua. California NativePl rat Society, Berkeley,California. U.S.Weather➢uneau,2003,Climatological stn'mt ary for Palm Spdnga,Riverside County,Celifomin U.S.DeMnonent of Commerce,Weatheraureau,San Frwasco,California. Wasser,C.1982.I..cokrgy and cuftiv afaelecred sjwcres mwfid m rawgerarirgf disturbed lands of the West United States Fish&Wildlife.Service,Biolqgieal Sv vices Program,U.S.Department of the luterior,Washington D.C. I I I Smoke Tree Ranch Revegetat'ton'Plan,page 18 JAN-24-2006 11:24 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.20/26 APPENDLX i Smoke Tree Rxwb Rcvegdation Pla%page 19 SRN-24--2006 11:24 From:SMOKE TREE RMCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.21/26 TABLE 1 ^RENNIAL PLANT SPECIES SMOKE TREE RANCH REVEGETATTON SITE Scientific Name Common Name Family Acaciagreggil Cat's Claw Acacia Fabacew Ambrosia dumosa Burrow-weed Asteraceae Bebbia jwwea Sweet Bush Asteraceae Cercidiwn floridwn Blue Palo Verde Fabaceae Chilopsm linearis Desert Willow Bignoniaceae Encehafarinosa Brittlebush Asteraceae Eriogonum inflatum Desert Trumpet Polygonaceae Hymenoclea salsola C'heesebush Asteraceae Larrea tridentata Creosote Bush Zygophyllaceae Opunua echinocarpa Golden Cholla Cactaceae Psorothaln=5 emoryi Emory Dalea Fabarew Psorothamnus spinosus Smoke Tree Fabaceae I Smoke Tree Ranch Revega4on Plan,page 20 i I JAN-24-2006 11:24 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.22,26 TABLE 2 EPHEMI S ERAL (ANNUAL)PLANT SPECIE MORE TREE RANCH STtIF ASTERACEAE-SUNFLOWER FAMILY �haeaulclis fremvruii-M -sort Pincushion Erioohvllwn wallacei-Wallace's Eriophyllum A%alexxdhrix glabrala-Dcscrt Dandelion Monoptilon belhoides-Desert Star Rafm ayuia neomexi,=na-Desert Chicory HYDR.I PHYLLACEAE-WATERI.EAF FAMILY Pliucelia caenulata-Notchleated Phacelia Plutceliu dislam-Wild Heliotrope Kama demamn-Purple Mat LAMIACEAI -I&NT PAMMT,Y lalvia columbariae-Chia ONAGRACEAE-EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY Camnsvnia r alifornica-California Evening Primrose Caniissoma clavlformis-Brown-eyed Primrose I APAVERACEAE-POPPY FAMILY Est Im-11olzia minzwora-Little Gold Poppy Fsolischolzia parishii-Desert Gold Poppy PL IAI.NTA GINACEAE-Plantain Family Plantago insularis-Woolly Plantain POL -'-MONIACEAE--PHLOX FAMILY Lcingloisia schoad--Schott's Gilia Smoke Tree Ranch R&vegetation Flmn page 21 ti SRN-24-2006 11:24 From:SNOKE TREE RANCH 7603279990 To:3237093 P,23,26 TABLE 2 (CONTUgTEA) EPHEMERAL (ANNUAL,)PLANT SPECIES SMOEE TREE RANCH SPFE POLYGONACEAE-BUCKWHEAT FAMILY �(horizandw rigida - Spiny-herb Eriogonum deflexum-Skeleton Weed Eriogomm fasciculaium—California Buckwheat Etiogonum irrflatum -Desert Trumpet Enogonum pusillum—Yellow Turban SCROPHULARIACEAL:—FIGWORT FAMILY MI havea confertiflora—Ghost Flower SULANACEAE-NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrigkii-Janson Weed Smoke Tree Ranch Rtvegetidim Nan,page 22 SAN-24-2006 11:25 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:3237893 P.24/26 TABLE 3 DENSTI T 01 PERENNIAL SPECIES BY TRANSECTS BELT TRANSE,Cr# 1 2 3 Total Individuals Per 540 Square Meters Acacia greggit 1 1 0 2 Bcbbia junc-ea 0 1 0 1 Cercidium jloridum 1 0 0 1 Chilopsis linearis 0 1 0 1 Enoelia farinosa 0 0 4 4 Hymenoclea salsola 14 6 17 37 Larrea tridentata 1 0 0 1 Opuntia echinocarpa 1 1 3 5 Psorothamnus emotyi 0 1 1 2 Psorothamms spinosus 1 1 0 2 Smoke Tree Ranch Revegetavon Plan,page 23 JAN-24-2006 11:25 From:SKOKE TREE RRNCH 7603279,190 To:3237693 P.25/26 r TABLE 4 SUBSTITUTE PERENNIAL PLANT SPECIES Atriplex canescens—Wingscale .Lchmocereus engelmannii—Calico Cactus Ferocactus'acanthodes—Barrel Cactus Fouquieria splendens-Ocotillo Jusucia californica-Chuparosa someris arborea—Bladder-pod Lotus rigidus—Rock Pea Mirabilis bigelovii—Wishbone Bush Olneya tesota—Ironwood Opuntia basilaris—Beaver-tail Cactus Ofi untia bigelovii—Teddy-bear Cholla Psorothamnus schottii—Indigo Bush Splureralceae ambigua—Desert Apricot Sphaeralc�eae ambigua ssp. rosaceae—Rose lvlallow =a schidigera—Mojave Yucca Smoke Trees Ranch Revogetation Ytnq page 24 ' 4 D Z N N m 0 N N Table 5 - Quantity of Plants and Emitters Required N U1 z 0 CO O Plant Species Number of Plant Required Emitters Per Plant Total Emitters m 5d M m m Hymenacleuaalsola(Cheesebush) 54-1 gallon 1 50 4 x Opumia echincoarpa(Golden Cholla) 20 - 1 gallon 1 20 Opuntia echmocarpa 12 -transplants 2 24 m �i N Acacia greggh (Cat's Claw Acacia) 4 - 1 gallon 1 4 n Ambrosia dumosa(Burrobush) 4 - 1 gallon 1 4 m Bebbia juncea(Chuck-wallas Delight) 4 - 1 gallon 1 4 Cercidium fiondum(Blue Palo Verde) 4 - 5 gallon 2 8 9 Chilopsis linearis(Desert Willow) 4 - 5 gallon 2 8 Enceha farmosa(Brittlebush) 4 - I gallon 1 4 w N R Larrea iridentata(Creosote Bush) 4 - 1 gallon 1 4 Psorothamnus emoryi(Enim's Dalea) 4- 1 gallon 1 4 w Psorothamnus spmosus(Smoke Tree) 4- 5 gallon 2 S • Total Emitters For Project 142 •a N ro W � m o Cn u � i SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDIX C Analysis of the Distribution and Abundance of the Casey's June Beetle Smoke Tree Ranch oz:; Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 50 of 51 FEB-16-2006 10:04 FrowSMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.2/26 i I I Analysis of the Distribution and Abundance of the Casey's .Tune Beetle (Dirracoma caseyr) in Palm Springs, California i I Prepared For: SMOKE TREE RANCH, i C. 1800 South Sunrise Way Palm Springs,California 92264 Field Study and Report Completed By: JAMES W. CORNFTT Ecological Consultants P.C . Box 846 Palm Sprizlgs, California 92263 May 18, 2004 FED-16-2006 10:04 From:SMOKE TREE RRNCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P.3/26 it i I CONTENTS Research Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction . - . . . 4 I Origin and Purpose of Current Study . . . . . . . . 6 Regional Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Figure 1, project Area—Trapping Sites . . 8 Research Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Results . . . . 11 Figure 2, Range of Beetle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 i Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . • 14 i Management Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 I Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 1, Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I8 Casey's June Beetle Study, page 2 FEB-16-2006 10:04 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P.4/26 1. RESEARCH SUMMARY An intensive trapping survey for the rare Casey's June Beetle(Dinacoina casgi) was undertaken in the Palm Springs area of Riverside County, California. Surveys were begun on April 10,2004, Mid terminated on May 7,2004. Trapping results confirmed that Casey's June Beetle has a very restricted range with a center of distribution within the fenced area of Smoke Tree Ranch. Fowler, the beetle is by no means confined to the Ranch being also present in Palm Canyon Wash between Bogert Trail and Highway 111; and in ungraded areas hounded by Acanto Way to the south, South Palm Canyon I Drive to the west,Murray Canyon Drive to the north and Palm Canyon Wash to the east. The Casey's June.Beetle reaches its greatest density near the east tennis court and maintenance complex within Smoke Tree Ranch. It is hypothesized that the cl mbmation of natural vegetation, dominated by the cheesebush(Hymenoclea salsola),together with the irrigation of erotic plants in the immediate area,combine to create ideal conditions 1'o1'the beetle. I (:asey'x June Beette Study,Page 3 1� �� FEB-16-2006 10:04 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Con8ult.n9 P.5�26 11, INTRODUCTION I Casey's June Beetle,Dinacoma casc:_yi, is one of the rarest insects occurring within the Coachella Valley region. The beetle was first described in 1930 by Frank Blaisdell of Stanford Medical School. Blaisdell's original six specimens were collected on May 10, 1923,though the collection data was not precise and stating only that the specimens came from Ihc vicinity of Palm Springs. Several other entomologists had previously collected specimens from the area but apparently did not recognize them as a species new to science. Dozens of additional specimens have been collected since Blaisdell described his new species. With but one exception, all have come from the flatlands within the City of Palm Springs. The one possible exception is a specimen said to come from Indian Wells,Riverside County, California(Cameron Barrows,personal communication). In thef past ten years all specimens have come from the southern cove of Palm Springs, south of Highway 111. Taxonomy Casey's June Beetle is a kind of scarab beetle belonging to a family of insects technically known as the Scarabaeidae. Some 30,000 species have been placed in this family with representatives on all continents except Antarctica. Each species within the family is rather chunky in form with it prominent thorax and head. Some are beautifully colored and have a metallicc luster though Cascy's June Beetle is relatively drab in appearance. A distinctive feature of all members of the family is the antennae that terminate in club-like structures Each`club"can be fanned out like a miniature leaf and serves to chemically evaluate scents in the ait. As a group, scarab beetles have well-developed wings,are good fliers, and often attracted to liglits at slight. Scarab beetles are so numerous and diverse that entomologists lave created sub groupings to better manage their classification and ecological relationships. Clne such sub grouping is referred to as the Mclolonthinae, a group that includes all species of June:^.beetles. In the 1cmperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere their common natric is derived from their time of greatest activity—June. (Casey's June Beetle diverges from the rest of the group in reaching its peak of activity In April and early May.) Generally speaking, .tune beetles are distinguished by the teeth on the claws at the end of each leg and the apparent absence of an antenna base when the beetle is viewed from above. Some twenty-four genera and five hundred spcctes of Junc beetles exist in the world In the Palm Springs region the most abundant June beetles belong in the gen�ris Plndlophaga, are the size of Casev's June Beetle Study.page 4 A /j FEB-16-2006 10:04 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P.6/26 I I an adult human's small fingernail and are light brown. Popularly they are referred to as Common June Beetles. The genus Dinacoma,the genus to which Casey's June Bootle bl longs, is represented by only two species,both indigenous to Southern Calilornia. in San.Diego County lives one species, Dinacoma marginata. This was the species that caused Thomas IL, Casey to declare in 1889 that he had discovered a new genus of scarab beetle. A combination of anatomical features distinguishes the genus Dinacoma from other June beetles. The most notable feature is the presence of unusual spines on the upper hind legs Tbese are best viewed under magnification. Casey's June Beetle differs from its relative from San Diego County in several Features, .Most noticeable is the rufous coloration and much denser hair coverir& The faint stripas on the back of the beetle are created by dense tracts of coarse hairs. Most Casey's June Beetle specimens have been collected on the flatlands south of Highway i 1 1 in the vioiaity of Smoke Tree Ranch The dominant p reartial plant in this area is the cheesebush,Hpnenoclea salsola. Since the larvae of June beetles are known to feed primarily on plant roots, it is hypothesized that the larvae of Casey's June 134tles probably feed on cheesebush roots(Mark Fisher,personal communication). Wormlike grubs represent the larval stage ot'the beetle. These transform into adult beetles while -underground. The newly formed adult beetles dig to the surface during the first warm spell in spring—usually in April. Though both males and females are competent fliers, it seems that female Casey June Beetles usually stay on the ground where they presumably release reproductive odors,called pheromones,to attract the flying males This assumption is based on the fact that males are generally the only sex that flies to lights at night. If Casey's June Beetles are similar in habits to other June beetle I,then following mating the ifcmales lay eggs in the soil. Sometime later the eggs hatch and presumably the tiny larvae dig deeper into the soil and burrow into the roots of host plants. At times, flying Casey's June Beetles can be abundant. In past years, numerous beetles have flown into swimming pools at Smoke Tree Ranch (Joan Taylor, personal communication). In fact, in recent years a reliable collection technique has bccn to examine the contents of pool skimmers on April mornings in and near the Ranch Casey's June beetle Study, page 5 FEB-16-2006 10:05 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279,190 To:MSA Consulting P.7/26 i III, ORIGIN AND PURPOSE Or CURRENT STUN On April 1,2004,Jaynes W. Cornett -Ecolob4cal Consultants was retained by Smoke Tree Ranch,Inc., to conduct a focused survey for Casey's June Beetle within the Palm Springs region, Riverside County, California. In general,the purpose of the present study was to dctennine the distribution of Casey's June Beetle and its relative abundance throughout its range. Specifically,research methods were designed to(1) indicate where the beetle occurred and where it did not occur and(2) where the beetles reached their greatest density. A special effort was made to locale the beetle beyond the boundaries of the approximately 250 acres enclosed within a chain-link fence that surrounds Smoke Tree Ranch proper. I I I I i i I Casey's June Beetle Study, page 6 FEB-16-2006 10:05 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7GO3279490 To:MSA Consultino P.8/26 I I TV. REGIONAIL, DESCRIPTION Climate The City of Palm Springs lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado Desert, a subdivision of the Sonoran Desert as defined by Jaeger(1957). As is typical of this subdivision, annual rainfall averages approximately five to six inohcs (U.S. Weather Bureau,2003). Most precipitation falls during winter and spring with occasional summer thundershowers accounting for approximately one-third of the annual total (Zabriskie, 1979). Winter days are mild, averaging 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Winterltights occasionally drop to near freezing. The month of July brings the hottest temperatures with daytime highs averaging 108 degrees F, I Topography The prgject site area incorporated only the flatlands and lowest reaches of alluvial fans within the city limits of Palm Springs (see Figure 1). The only relief in this region consists of the wash Cuts of Palm Canyon, Tahquitz Canyon,and Chino Canyon. Within the study area elevations range from approximately four hundred to seven hundred feet. ! I `Vegetation The project area encompassed much of the flatlands within the city limits of Palm Springs, Riverside County, California (see figure 1). Natural vegetation within tlus region varied from a creosote scrub community on the flatlands and hillsides to a doscrt wash/woodland community in ravines and low-lying areas. Minor variations of these two communities existed in isolated localities. Qf special interest with regard to the Casey's June Beetle is its association witb the widespread cheesebush shrub, Hymenoclea salsola. Cheesebush Is associated with both the creosote scrub and desert wash/woodland communities, In prehistoric times the cheesebush was primarily Rrund in those areas subjected to flashfloods and sheet flooding, i.e., washes and the scoured portions of alluvial fans and plains. In historical times the cheesebush has also become associated with graded areas such as road shoulders and abandoned development sites It thrives in any Colorado Desert area where natural or human impacts remove the;existing plant cormunities. Casey's June Beetle has always been found in or near cheesebush-dominated flatlands. � Throughout the study region human-modifications to the region)I flora were dramatic and pervasive. Typically, exotic plants species were planted in place ofnatrve species around homes, f Casey's June Beetle Study,page 7 I 4' ' FEB-16-200S 10:05 From:SMOKE TREE RRNCH 7603279490 To:MSn Consulting P.9/26 Figure 1 . Project Area and Trappiing Sites 44" 1�'I C'4� 't'). p- Ir NT IL I.G.-f.. t 11 Ls 7 41,11 < F' r .1 L 49 fb Red dots indicate trapping sites where beetles were not L; captured, Green dots indic ate sites where at least one beetle J- was raptured. 7' 1 cqseys June Beetle Study, page 8 FEB-16-2006 10:06 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P.10/26 businesses and in recreational areas. Within the boundaries of the study area exotic plants species accounted for the bulk of the plant biomass, No objective attempt was made to identify or quantify exotic plants species used in the ornamental landscape mosaic. Soils I Within the project area surface and soil features range from boulder fields surrounded by coarse sandy soils to silty soils with small pebbles. With the exception of wash-bottom environntents, soils are stabilized and moderately compacted. Historically, Casey's Tune Beetle is generally found in areas of sandy to silty soils without stones or boulders. Stabilized and slightly compacted soils also characterize those areas in which the beetle occurs. Casey's June Beetle Study, page 9 FEB-16-2006 10:07 From:SMOKE TREE RRNCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.11/26 V. RESEARCH METHODS Prior to the initiation of fieldwork,a review of the literature and:museum records was undertaken to determine what was known regarding the distribi iion and abundance of Casey's June Beetle. Records, collections and staff of the University of California at Riverside, the Living Desert, Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center,Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,and the Palm Springs Desert Museum were consulted for more specific information as to occurrence. Interviews were conducted with 66v.ens, biologists and entomoipgists familiar with the distribution and ecology of Casey's June Beetle. Persons intervi6wed included Cameron Barrows of the Coachella Valley Preserve; Mark Fisher of the Deep Canyon.Desert Research Center;and Michael Gates of the University of California, Riverside. Foot surveys throughout the relatively undisturbed flatlands of Palm Springs were conducted during the first week in April to locate sites that might possibly support populations of Casey's ,Tune Beetle, i,e., areas of slightly compacted sandy soils where cheesebush shrubs were present. Rioquip Universal Light Traps were used for attracting and live-capturing Casey's June Beetles. Twelve-watt black lights were the attracting mechanism with cash trap powered by a 12-volt automobile battery. Traps were generally placed for maximum visibility. Live trapping of beetles began the evening of April 10 and continued nightly through April 12, 2004-A second round of trapping began on the evening ofApri1125 and continued through May 7,2004 Each evening, traps were opened by 6:30 p.m. and remained open until at least 10:00 p.m. Eight stations were opened Query evening and all Iocalitics!were trapped at least two evenings. The total trap time (number of hours in which one trap was open)totaled 756 hours covering 26 evenings. More than sixty locations were sampled for Casey ,tune Beetles between April 10 and May 7, 2004(see Figure 2). At least one trapping station was located within Smoke Tree Ranch on each trapping evening. Bectics were captured every night during the study indicating that beetles were active through the entire study period Identification of beetles and report preparation were completed by James W Cornett Victor Rohrback and Terry Belknap assisted Mr Cornett Cascy's June Beetle Study, page 10 FEB-16-2006 10:07 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P.12/26 Vl. RESULTS General Distribution The current study confirms that the Casey's June Beetle has a very limited range in the southern portion of the City of Palm Springs, Riverside County, California (see Figure 2). The range can be easily described by using natural and manmade features. Palm Canyon Wash defines the southeastern boundary ol'thc beetle's range. It is not found south or cast of the wash. Beetles are rare north of the street named Bogert Trail and none were trapped south of Acanto Way, an east-west trending street approximately one-fourth mile south of Bogert Trail. The distribution of Casey's June Beetle is thus restricted to the area north of Acanto Way, east of South Palm Canyon Drive,south ofMghway l i 1 and west of Palm Canyon Wash. The total acreage of this area is approximately 800 of which approximately 250 lies within the fenced area of Smoke Tree Ranch. This entire area is characterized as the lower tier of a bajada with primary.runoff emanating from Palm Canyon, For several hundred thousand,years this region has been intermittently scoured by flooding which has resulted in the inability of the creosote scrub climax community to establish. In its plaoc exists a temporary or pioneer plant community dominated by wash-associated plants, particularly cheowbush. Near the bottom of this bajada soils are relatively fine and moderately compacted as it result of the flooding, It is very likely that Casey's June Beetle occurred over all orihe lower bajada prior to the arrival of settlers of European ancestry—from at least the vicinity of Tahquitz Canyon Wash in the north to Cathedral City in the east. Development of this area over the last century has eliminated most beetle habitat. Micro-Distribution Casey's,tune Beetle is not found everywhere within its 800-acre range, Ji is not found within traditional residential areas where soils have been graded and covered with structures and ornamental landscaping such as lawns and flowerbeds. Within Smoke Tree Ranch, for example, the beetle could not be captured on the lawn bowling turf near the ccntci of the Ranch compound 11 was,however, found everywhere else including imjpacted areas such as the maintenance yard, along paved roadways, and beneath rows of introduced tamarisk trees. Casey's June BCetiC Study,page I I FEB-16-2006 10:07 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.13/26 The beetle is also not found in natural plant communities where the creosote NO (L.arrea tridentaru)is the dominant perennial. This is true whether or not the cheesebush occurs in the immediate area. The beetle is found in Palm Canyon Wash even though the wash is scoured from runoff every few years. It is possible that the beetles re-establish populations in the wash following bloods. Presumably the beetle colonists arrive from surrounding areas not subject to flooding. Relative Abundances The Casey's June Beetle was found to reach its greatest densities along the northern and eastern edges of the maintenance yard and around the east tennis complex at Smoke Tree Ranch. Up to twenty-four individual beetles were captured in a single evening in a single trap in this area. The number of beetles captured generally declined as traps were placed further away from the maintenance yard and tennis court complex. Casey's June beetle Study,page 12 FEB-16-2006 10:07 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 TO:MSA Consultine P.14l26 Figure 2. Range of Casey's June Beetle (surrounded in red) F�n�e :.^'S� .x , ••�r� .h�.ly :L.3�1�:: 1 — L 1''•—�.L':�•' �h `!, /' .,M.,,x aa,�[+Flar. I�1'�1 ��. IOV /4J.•" "J:—.n—.(� � l= �"+.y -ice- �'-` c i-';:..`',L�y � `k.. � �� 'ry ky2!•LL��-,�1�� ;{` - -- Ij F - 11 .W.r.:.Mll I�: L[ 1 •LP ..� u�... [ . I � 'I�: is ..: elf,+ ,.•_" - ta '.�. % lY 1 L •�" Highway Ill Yv yJ']K+.' - I—�`,. N�- L���., ��!- • t I ,`t � ,� t_ i � .p �'� s� k�� .+"'fit'} .f � ;��l�'4+ �-` a~a-Q l ��'e !1 d'� a iY =v. +� �µ�5,� ���'� ��J. • ' -;.Z' '.. ,•,7 '-.``, :�•�. C` \ �;.,. �:'_'' ti.'.. I L,ten,.. '-l. _•, ! 1-I \� _ .•� ., `,xp1..M 1, � A F 'mfPll-�'�*, r' i��1�S..1 i- �-� _-^.` , ��—iA.iu¢Crt -�. . .�,r.. �(-.A? ;irnLVj '�'j• C'1 }�Gs7t.. ' a.,ff �: :GL_""`C'=°>— � "� :4 ='"I'c>>, �e. :- }` '�l�Y'.� l•- v�.'y.. .�• t_ ti y�.?�(_ I ..-,,,:fir — r'` :..YF ^_ Vic: a). ' :t�,,. �. _ - i^v. .r.+.l••^n.. npd,.'-]7•.. sLa�.1=_ - - '• f`�`J�.' _ I'-�' ,,.n• "- 1 Casey's June Beetle Study, page 13 FEB-16-2006 10:06 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.15/26 Vii. CONC.LUSIOirrS This study indicates that the distribution of the Casey's,tune Beetle is confined to an area not more than 800 acres in extent, the smallest area occupied by any insect found within the Coachella Valley. Considering this small range and the severe development pressure in this region, its continued existence is extremely tenuous. Based upon the number of individuals captured, the prime habitat of the Casey's Tune Beetle's is situated near the existing maintenance,yard and tennis courts at Smoke Tree Ranch. Although the cheesebush is common in the immediate area there are many ornamental plants as well including the tree tamarisk, Tamariv aplzylla. There are also structures and paved roadways. Prior to this study it was hypothesized that beetle densities would be greatest in areas away from human disturbances where cheesebush was the dominant perennial shrub. Obviously,this is not the case. Why the beetles are most abundant in moderately disturbed areas, where human impacts are present, can only be hypothesized. In desert regions, an increase in the population of a plant or animal species is usually associated with an increase in the availability of water. On the Ranch, the Casey's June Beetles reach their greatest density where plants are regularly irrigated and where there exists some native vegetation. It appears that the combination of these factors give rise to very favorable conditions for the beetle. Away from irrigated areas on the Ranch the beetles are present but in much lower numbers. They also exist in low numbers off the Ranch in the Palm Canyon Wash/Bogert'rrail area. Tt seems tbal the unique residential character of the Ranch—widely spaced homes with much native vegetation and some irrigation--has created an environment that is more favorable for the Casey's,lane Beetle than even its original habitat, The beetle has survived primarily because of the unique qualities of the Rancb environment with its large open spaces and relatively undisturbed native vegetation. It seems tmlikely that the beetle can survive in Palm Canyon Wash due to the scouring of the wash bottom by flood events approximately every ten years. To the south and west the beetle's survival is threatened by several development projects. The most viable habitat for the beetle is Smoke Trec Ranch where environmental perturbations are minimal. In summary, although there exists more than twice as much habitat ibr Casey's June Beetle outside the boundaries of Smoke Tree Ranch than within it, this situation is rapidly changing as new development eliminates acreage beyond the Ranch boundaries. .Upresent trends continue, the Ranch will be the only viable habitat remaining for the beetle Casey's June Beetle Study, page 14 nn �a^q FEB-16-2006 10:08 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:M9A Consuttins P.16126 MI. MANAGEMENT ISSUES It is likely that the£ate of Casey's June Beetle rests with Smoke Tree Ranch, Inc. The entire site is habitat for the beetle and the densest concentrations are found on the Ranch. Assuming that the residential character of the,Ranch remains the same, it is equally likely that the Ranch will continue to support healthy populations of the beetle into the foreseeable future. Although there exist proposals to move the maintenance,yard to the north edge of the Rauch, to relocate the entrance gate next to the maintenance yard, to develop the northeast fifteen acres of Ranch property (situated outside the fenced area), and to install a well near the southeastern comer of the property,these projects are highly unlikely to Jeopardize the continued existence of the beetle. Most beetles were captured near existing homes and facilities,not in the areas that will be impacted by the aforementioned projects. There are several procedures that can be followed by colonists and stall'of Smoke Tree Ranch that will assist in preventing Casey's June Beetle from becoming extinct. 1. Halt or discourage the routine spraying of insecticides outside homes and other buildings on the Ranch. Ban the spraying of insecticides outside between March 1 and June 1, the time of year when the Casey's June Beetle is most active. 2. Encourage the hutting off of pool lights between March I and June 1. The beetles are attracted to lights and often fly into pools and drown, 3. R,efrain from disturbing the soil around homes and other buildings, Tilling the soil, deep raking, or flood watering can disrupt the life cycle of the immature beetles while they are in the suil. 4. Conduct soil-disturbing projects (in a piecemeal basis. Spread such projects over as many years as possible so that only small amounts of beetle habitat are impacted at one time For example, complete the proposed well in one year, put in the new entrance gate in the following year, and move the maintenance yard in a third year. Implementing such procedures has the added benefit of demonstrating 10 regulatory agencies that Smoke Tree Ranch, Inc., is serious about minimizing impacts to beetles. This, in turn, may result in less governmental regulation on future land use proposals Cawy's June Beetle Study,page 15 L _ FEB-16-2006 10:00 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.17/26 L1. RFFFR.F,NCF,S Arndt,R H.,Jr. 1973. the beeles of the United States. The American Entomological Institute, Anti Arbor,Michigan. Blaisdell,F. E. 1930.Revision of the genus and species of Dnacoma with description of a new species(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Bruyea, G. P. 1997, Invertebrate habitat assessment Mountain Falls Golf Preserve Palm Springs, California. Hawks Biological Consulting,Riverside, California. California Department of Fish& Game, 2003. Special Animals List. Sacramento, California. Comett,J. W. 2000. Casey's June Beetle, The Desert Sun,Palm Springs. Evans,A. V. and J. N.Hogue. 2004.Introduction to California beetles. University of California Press,Berkeley, California. Hickman,J. C. (editor). 1993. The.Jepson manual. University of California Press,Berkeley, Califonua. Ftolland,R. F. 1986_ Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish &Game, Sacramento, California. Jaeger,B. C. 1957. The Norlh,4merican deserts. Stanford University Press, Stanford,California. O'Dell,C. A. 1970. The climate of Palm Springs. National Weather Service, Asheville,North Carolina, Powell, J. A. and C. L Hogue. 1979. California insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. White,R. E. 1993. A field guide to the beetles. Houghton Mifflin,Roston,Massachusetts. Casey's June Beene Study,page 16 FEB-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consultins P.10'26 APPE.NDLY Casey's June Beetle Study,page 17 FED-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P.19/26 TABLE 1 Spring, 2004, Casey's June Beetle Survey Capture Numbers, Dates, .Locations Location #Beetles Captured April 10 Smoke Tree Ranch,north-central fence 6 Andreas Hills Canyon 0 Indian Avenue at San Rafael 0 Sunrise Way at San Rafael 0 Indian Canyon Toll Gate 0 Tahquitz Canyon Entrance Gate 0 Gene Autry Trail at Mission Road 0 Gene Autry at Tahquitz Creek Wash 0 April 11 Smoke Tree Ranch,maintenance yard 19 Andreas Hills Canyon 0 Tndian Avenue at San Rafael 0 Sunrise Way at San Rafael 0 Indian Canyon Toll Gate 0 Tahquitz Canyon Entrance Gate 0 Gene Autry Trail at Mission Road 0 Gene Autry at Tahquitz Creek Wash 0 April 12 Smoke Tree Ranch, Tennis Courts—North Side 9 Bogert frail Bridge,northwest side 2 South Palm Canyon at Acanto Way I Indian Avenue,one-half mile east at levee 0 Chino Canyon Wash at Ihghwa_y I I 1 0 Vista Chino at Gene Autry Trail 0 Desen Sun.Building,east 0 Tachevah Dry Falls 0 C'asey's June Beetle Study,page 18 FEB-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7GO3279490 To:MSA Consultine P.20/26 April 13 Smoke Tree Ranch,Adobe Site 22 Bogert Trail Bridge, northwest side 3 South palm Canyon at Acanto Way 0 Indian Avenue, one-half mile east at levee 0 Chino Canyon Wash at Highway I I 0 Vista Chino at Crene Autry Trail 0 Desert Sun Building, east 0 Tachevah Dry Falls 0 April 14 Smoke Tree Ranch, Tennis Court Lawn S Bogert Trail Bridge at Street 1 South Palm Canyon at Cahuilla Canyon 0 South Palm Canyon at Murray Canyon 0 Tlighway I I 1 at Ritnrock south 0 Highway I l I at Mercedes Dealership south 0 Tahquitz Wash at Sunrise Avenue 0 Sunrise Way at Vista Chino—southwest 0 April 15 Smoke Tree Ranch, Maintenance Yard 9 Bogert Trail Bridge at Street 1 South Palm Canyon at Callmlla Canyon 0 South Palm Canyon at Murray Canyon 0 Highway 111 at Rimrock south 0 Highway I I I at Mercedes Dealership south 0 Tahquitz Wash at Sunrise Avenue 0 Sunrise Way at Vista Chino—southwest 0 Casey's June Beetle Study,page 19 C FE13-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSA Consulting P,21/26 April 16 Smoke Tree Ranch,Maintenance Yard south 10 Stutrise Way at Racquet Club Drive 0 Sunrise Way near Vista Chino 0 Highway 111 at Palm Canyon Wash 0 Vista Chino at Farrell Drive southwest 0 Mesquite at Baristo 0 Indian Avenue at %itewater Levee 0 Aveinda Caballeros at Tahquitz Wash 0 April 17 Smoke Tree Ranch,Maintenance Yard south 12 Sunrise Way at Racquet Club Drive 0 Sunrise Way near Vista Chino 0 Highway I i I at Palm Canyon Wash 0 Vista Chino at Farrell Drive southwest 0 Mesquite at Baristo 0 Indian Avenue at Whitewater Levee 0 Avenida Caballeros at Tabquitz Wash 0 April IS Smoke Tree.Ranch on Tennis Courts 3 Smoke Tree Ranch, southwest comor I Bogert Trail,southcasl side of bridge 0 Bogert Trail, southwest side:of bridge 0 Sunrise Way, terminus al levee 0 Highway I I I at Chino Canyon Channel 0 Farrell Drive at Ale10 0 Vista Chino at Whitewater Rrvcr Channel 0 Casey's June Beetle Study,page 20 FED-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RPNCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.22/26 April 14 Smoke Tree Ranch, northeast of Tennis Courts 11 Smoke Tree Ranch, southwest corner 2 Bogert Trail, southeast side of bridge 0 Bogert Trail,southwest side oi'bridge 0 Sunrise Way,terminus at levee 0 Plighway 111 at Chinn Canyon Channel 0 Farrell Drive at Alejo 0 Vista Chino at Whitewater River Charmet 0 April 20 Smoke Tree Ranch, east side Tennis Courts 15 Smoke Tree Ranch,northwest corner 6 STR Commercial Property,southwest corner 4 STR Ranch Commercial Property, adjacent Long's 2 STR Commercial Property,southeast corner 2 STR Commercial Property,center 1 STR Commercial Property, northwest corner 0 STR Commercial Property, northeast corner 0 April 21 Smoke Tree Ranch, east side Tennis Courts 12 Smoke Tree Ranch, northwest corner 4 STR Commercial Property, southwest comer 4 STR Commercial Property, center 3 STR Commercial Property, southeast corner 2 STR Ranch Commercial Property, adjacent Long's 1 STR Commercial Property, northwest corner 0 STR Commercial Property, northeast corner 0 Cawy's June Beetle Study,page 21 T FEB-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.23/26 April 22 Smokc Tree Ranch, north-central edge 24 Araby Drive at Palm Canyon Wash 6 Araby in residential area 0 Araby in Palm Canyon Wash—southwest 4 Rimroek Cove at Highway near Highway I I 1 0 Patin Canyon Wash at Murray Canyon Drive 3 Tahquitz Wash at Gene Autry Trail west 0 West of Visitor's Center on Tramway Road 0 April 25 Smoke Tree Ranch, Ranch House Porch 4 Araby Drive at Palm Canyon Wash 3 Palm Canyon Wash at Murray Canyon Drivc 3 Araby in Palm Canyon Wash—southwest 2 Araby in Palm Canyon Wash—southwest 2 Araby in residential area 0 Rintroek Cove at Highway near Highway 111 0 Tahquit2 Wash at Gene Autry Trail west 0 West of Visitor's Center on Tramway Road 0 April 26 Smoke Tree Ranch, entrance to Disney Hall 8 Merwin House 6 Frost House 5 Smoke Tree Stables 1 Tribal Building Entrance 0 Tahquitz Golf Course 0 DeMuth Park 0 PS Sewage Treatment Plain 0 Casey's June Beetle Study,page 22 r7 FEB-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.24/26 April 27 Frost House 8 Mervin House 8 Smoke Tree Stables 2 Smoke Tree Ranch,Lawn Bowling Site 0 Tribal Building Entrance 0 Tahquitz Golf Course 0 DeMuth Park 0 PS Sewage Treatment Plant 0 April 28 Smoke Tree Ranch Dining Patio 10 Smoke Tree Ranch east of lawn bowling 5 Bogert Trail 0.2 miles west of Bridge 2 Bogert Trail Residential Area 0 Bogert Trail at South Palm Canyon, west 0 0.5 miles northeast of Indian/San Rafael 0 Palm Canyon Wash at Para Andreas 0 Farrell Drive at Tahquitz Canyon Way, SE 0 April 29 Smoke Tree Ranch Dining Patio 12 Smoke Tree Ranch Entrance Crate 5 Bogert Trail 0.2 miles west of Bridge 0 Bogert Trail Residential Area 0 Bogert Trail at South Palm Canyon, west 0 0.5 miles northeast of Indian/San Rafael 0 Palm Canyon Wash at Parc Andreas 0 Farrell Drive at Tahquitz Canyon Way, M 0 Casey's June Beetle Study,page 23 FEB-16-2006 10:09 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:NSA Consultine P.25/26 April 30 Smoke Tree Ranch east of lawn bowling 10 Smoke Tree Ranch, southwest residence area 7 Joan Taylor House east 5 Smoke Tree Ranch, east fence center 2 Just east of Convention Center 0 Ramon at Gene Autry Trail, SE 0 Bogert Trail Residential Area Two 0 Whitewater River Channel at Indian 0 May 1 STR,Joan Taylor House east 5 Smoke Tree Ranch, west-central road 4 Smoke Tree Ranch, southwest residence area 4 Smoke Tree Ranch, east fence center I Just cast of Convention Center 0 Ramon at Gene Autry Trail, SE 0 Bogert Trail Residential Area Two 0 Whitewater River Channel at Indian 0 May 2 Smoke Tree Ranch, maintenance yard, NF. L5 Smoke Tree Ranch, south edge of residencies 6 Air Museum, north 0 Palm Springs Airport, south side (1 Mesquite Golf Course at'I'ahquitz Wash 0 Indian Canyons Gate 0 MaeGruder Chevrolet, west 0 Palm Springs Desert Museum, south 0 Casey's him Beetle Study, page 24 FEB-16-2006 10:10 From:SMOKE TREE RANCH 7603279490 To:MSR Consulting P.26i26 May 3 Smoke Tree Ranch,maintenance yard,NE 22 Smoke Tree Ranch,south edge of residencies 2 Air Museum, north 0 Palm Springs Airport, south side 0 Mesquite Golf Course at Tahquitz Wash 0 Indian Canyons Gate 0 MaeGruder Chevrolet, west 0 Palm Springs Desert Museum, south 0 May 4 Smoke Tree Ranch,maintenance yard,NE 9 Smoke Tree Ranch,southwest corner 1 Palm Springs.Desert Museum,north 0 O'Donnell Golf Course south 0 Frey House 0 Whitewater River Channel at Dinah Shore west 0 Whitewater River Channel at Dinah Shore north 0 Contract Decor at Gene Autry Trail 0 May 5 Smoke Tree Ranch, maintenance yard,NE 6 Smoke Tree Ranch, southwest comer 0 Palm Springs Desert Museum,north 0 O'Donnell Gol1`Course south 0 Prey House 0 Wlutewater River Channel at Dinah Shore west 0 Whitewater River Channel at Dinah Shore north` 0 Contract Decor at Gene Autry Trail 0 Cagey's June Beetle Study,page 25 SMOKE TREE RANCH INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION APPENDIX D Preliminary Hydrology Report-Tentative Tract Map No. 33878 Smoke Tree Ranch d Smoke Tree Ranch Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2006 Page 51 of 5 fl Vnr For Property Lgcated�In A Portionof Section 25, T4S.;R4E.; SB1vM Pahn,Sprmes; CAlifiirdia wo Tentative Tract Map V 33878 January 30, 2006 Prepared for: Smoke Tree Rooch, 1800 South Sunrise,Way Palm'Springs, CA �92262 JN: 1765 MSA CONSULTING INc. MAumwA S mm # A890QA'185, INC. PLAMUW r C M sr�tsta a r'I.eim vsrrtia ; 342W Floe Hans Darva ■ Rm= MmAm r CA 9=70 ,4 IDmammmm (760)"31A1-9811'R F" am 32smo i Introduction Smoke Tree Ranch, Tentative Tract Map No. 33878, is a low-density residential and resort development situated in Section 25, Township 4 South, Range 4 East, San Bernardino Meridian, in the City of Palm Springs, California (see Vicinity Map). The project site subject to redevelopment is the approximately 41-acre "Guest Ranch" portion of the roughly 400-acre Smoke Tree Ranch property. Of this property, the largest developed portion is roughly 100 acres of low-density single-family residential property immediately south of the Guest Ranch. Other developed portions include the leased shopping center space adjacent to East Palm Canyon Drive and the stables near the south end of the property. The remainder of the Ranch property is preserved as natural open space. Existing Conditions The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 060257 0008 C, revised June 18, 1986, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), designates the area of the project site as Zone B, indicating that it lies outside the 100-year flood zone but within the 500-year flood zone, or that it is subject to 100-year flooding with less than one foot of average depth, or is protected from the base flood by levees(see FEMA Map). The topography of the entire Ranch property is relatively flat with a gradual slope descending in a north-northeasterly direction to a low point at the comer of East Palm Canyon Drive and Barona Road (see Hydrology Map). The area tributary to this low point is constrained on the west by existing development along Toledo Road, on the south by the existing levee of the Palm Canyon Wash, on the north by existing commercial development along East Palm Canyon Drive, and on the east by Barona Road. Storm runoff would generally occur as sheet flow, as there are no significant channels or swales to collect or divert flow. The residential and Guest Ranch portions of the property are characterized by low-density development with restricted building envelopes surrounded by natural landscaped buffer spaces between residences, curbless streets and minimal use of walls. Consequently, multiple flow routes are available for storm runoff and the general patterns of sheet flow are preserved. Given the generally well-drained soil types occurring on the site (see Hydrologic Soil Group Classification) and the relatively flat terrain, infiltration rates are expected to be relatively high, limiting the amount of runoff actually reaching the low point of the tributary area. Hydrology Requirements Flood control for this site falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Palm Springs. The Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area, as prepared for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) and excerpted in this report for reference, shows the project area as being served by proposed storm drain Lines 25 and 26. The design of these facilities was to drain their tributary areas under fully developed conditions and to date neither has been constructed south of East Palm Canyon Drive. Given that they primarily serve the Smoke Tree Ranch property, whose development standards require significant natural open area and minimal development, these storm drain facilities likely will not be built in the foreseeable future. _)A nor I Proposed Hydrology and Flood Control Improvements The project as designed adheres to the development standards and characteristics of the existing residential area. Individual lots are separated by natural landscaped open space and have building envelopes limited to 35% of lot acreage (maximized at 5,000 square feet). Proposed streets have no curbs and/or gutters and are designed with cross slopes in only one direction (no crown) to prevent the obstruction of storm runoff. As with the existing residential development, the proposed improvements provide multiple flow routes to maintain the general historic patterns of sheet flow runoff. As the sheet flow runoff leaves the project area, it travels roughly 0.3 mile across the Ranch's natural open space and ultimately to the low point of the watershed at the corner of Barona Road and East Palm Canyon Drive. In generating a quantified model of the storm runoff arriving at this low point, the entire tributary drainage area must be considered. While the actual impervious portion of the 41- acre project area will increase from about 30% in the existing condition to roughly 40% after the proposed development, this affected area comprises only about 15% of the overall tributary drainage area. Consequently, the increase in the impervious percentage becomes approximately 1.5% in the storm runoff model, a negligible difference relative to standard incremental assumptions. The resultant effect is that the models of storm runoff before and after improvements are the same, indicating no net increase of storm runoff at the point of discharge. Conclusion In light of the foregoing, and considering that any minor localized increases of runoff immediately discharging from the area under development occur generally as sheet flow and affect only private open space, it is concluded that no additional measures are necessary to mitigate storm runoff beyond the application of proposed development standards. It is also concluded therefore that the proposed improvements to Smoke Tree Ranch, Tentative Tract No. 33878, meets the hydrologic requirements set forth by the City of Palm Springs. a � VICINITY MAP z TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY o � Cw Qt J :1 >< > z U RAMON ROAD J p } � 4 3 ¢ � w � J MESQUITE AVENUE w U w W w w z > Z p N p PALM CANYON DRIVE ESCOBA z (HIGHWAY U 1 ROAD TWIN PALMS DRIVE �PJ SITS Ja2 J Z lz tee > CONTIGUOUS , // al PROPERTY +bon-rel o 'r✓ VICINITY MAP N.T.S. �A r MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN c - • Y .-%................. •. _ Y 1 — =�-� •mil "' — 45• N• �. wY f —AG VA_/ )C•' '�'�. ' :C28 .I 7E '7Qy„F�I twit wen±•il�.-w.��Y!yrsM'RT���r.2 "'�`- 'f.• • :� w"a. _ �p �� �� }: we a.eo N. •.IN 100 / RC4 N u•,t 1 Q lV Y• f 3 u. a i/ a -P W . . ..Jw•s IIK.r l "oRry 1=Z eft. . . •� '� (' •.a #553'Ojd W, go 1138r LAT. 278�-, , •slue. 7 n d. 1 1 _ ` a '�{:.;: .Y. , saN•i - _ - O B .•^ a`!r Y a two �'_ - •sQ .�. ' `1 A . 1 ■ i0� O .a y ♦ o Ncli r- ''i7 UMZ ilk • 'y G.1 _F _ � � r - I �%ir.� � ,I c-v,ii '.,.."� r�'•.• ....4•�..,� flu - (W -" / ;•_� .-_ / LEGEND �� �' - •7 - }I•, -i •1 1 ' / J�1/ . . . EXISTING LEVEE �D' : 6'+ tea✓ : �' ( '��✓ PROPOSED OPEN CHANNEL N / J • ..� .•: iy>� `1 ��.. �` _—� PROPOSED STORM DRAIN Q .. l�' J •:•�}. / : � .fo iO aRCr RfAU [NE:C''ECi!>CR=ND t �/: i J •o^'• 122W.W'R.fIQr Rai[I EXISTING FACILITY �^ �•+•aX. C RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND - - _ ./• ws ti`"4,y / r �' , ,' raT'cR fn^IYSERVATiON DISTRICT � 17.1•--_ - 7'��^-4-..��.� � � �1 ,':i REVISED 1. MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE � 1 .1200 PALM SPRINGS AR NOV Fp �. "Alt !HL 1 �� 1; 2 r FEMA MAP N' ' I pg1 � L_ _JaL—.— °�------ RM76 RaNT'AGE F5AO ----���� APPROXIMATE SLALL IN FEET - m 1'VRLiOII -PORTION OF 100 YR FLOOD G CONTAINED WITHIN 'I UNDERGROUND CONDUIT ¢I ' I F -""' -',• - - RATIONAL FLOOD IRSURANU�ROCRAfI IRCLE FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP CITY OF }eooj\ "----_---- -----' --- a° PALM SPRINGS, 0 Clft -- I ----- CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE COUNTY -� '------ L-_ �J . ---- p I Isae rhosz roe 1. to hoT nmmabl CONCHO LAN V p j 1 JA ARA� COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER 060257___ l__-J —__J '• ;', , ORC MAP REVISED: JUNE 18,1996 [� Fedenl Erne"my Manyement Agency Radd- \�� — "— �- — --1 "�:'''�+ - �?.'f'}. .Ci^f'}. �• ihic la en oAldel cop/otaponion of IDe above rekrenced flood maP X was extracted wIhQ FWITOn.Llne THe map deem not feAecf cbanpes erellock. ntc he Istmayhesbeen martsubaequenitothetllIonthe LIM IT OF title Gxk. Far the la[heck(te,product F9M rmoen about National Floomcfe once n^`"'- Prog*am teed mepe check the FEMA Flootl Map Store et wwwmec feme gov HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATION ti F v y fY' n � b1 `� d ae t RA t A!F M ChC vt T.55 R It `�`i8 re ., i.� '�' �s� _ T•"�-a,, i thy^ s �'t ,I7 �a ' F.4E �izo MO Ec- R SF RIVERSIDE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA 77 TABLE 12.--Soil and water features [Absence of an entry indicates the feature is not a concern. See text for descriptions of symbols and such terms as `rare," "brief,"and"perched"The symbol<means less than;>means greater than] i Hyddro- Flooding High water table Bedrock Soil name and romp symbol group Frequency Duration Months Depth Kind Months Depth Hardner rt to Badland: BA. Borrow pits: B P. Bull Trail: BtE--------------_. B None------ >6.0 ___________ >60 Caion: a ------------------ A None------ ------------__ __.__-_.____ >6.0 _________________ -------- >60 Colon Variant: r-b D------------------ A None______ _-___-_________-___ ------ >6.0 --------------____________ >60 Carrico: CcC__________________ A Ran------- ----_--------------------- >6.0 -------- ____________ >60 ---- E CCdRCj.-d EC ChC k6. A None______ _________________________ >6.0 ------------- -___________ >60 __________ �f9!_______ ________ None__________--______-_ .___________ 2.0-4.0 Apparent_____ Jan-Dec.... >60 _ Caraitas'Variant: C m B,Cm E__--------- C None------------------------------- >6.0 --------------_ _ 6-20 Rippable. Chuckawalla: CoB,C:oD,CnC,CnE. B None------ -------------- ------------ >6.0 ---- ------- >60 Coachella.: CPA,CpB,Can------ B None______ ______________ ____________ >6.0 ------------- ------------ >60 _-________ CrA__..______________ B None______ -------------- ._____ ----- 3.".0 Apparent_____ -Tan-Dec >60 Fluvaqueiate: Fa___________________ D Frequent___ Very long_____ Apr-Sep---- 0.5-2.0 Apparent__--_ Jan-Pee---- >60 ---_-- Fluvents: Fe------------------- A/D Occasional__ Very brief--_ Jan-Dec.... >6.0 ---------_---- ------------ >60 ____._-- Gilman: Gas,GbA,GbB,GeA. B Ran ----------------- -- >6.0 .—_-________. ------------ >60 — GcA,GdA,GfA------ B None______ ______________ ____________ 3.0-5.0 Apparent____. Apr-act---- >60 _ GravPel pits and dompa: lourriaL' --_ >� __________________ D None------ ---.---------- ______.__._. >6.0 _______ _ __ .___.._ _________ IFA_._..____________ D None______ ______________ ____________ 1.0-3.0 Apparent_____ Jan-Dec---- >60 _ ImCs: Imppeerial part------- D None------ ____________________.___ >6.0 ____________- ----------- >60 ---------- Gullied land part. Ire nal: P.cr o: II pe ial part------- D None______ ______________ ___________ 1.5-5.0 Apparent__.._ Jan-Dec-_.. >60 ---------- Gullicd land part. Indio Ip, Is________________ B None------ -------------- ------------ >6.0 .____ -------- --- __. >60 .__._-_.-. B I done______ _____ ------- -------- 3.0-5.0 Apparent____ Tan-Dee..__ >60 _______-__ , Lithic Torripsamments: Lithic Torripaamments pare. D INone----__ ---_---------- ------- >6.0 __. 1-10 'Hard, Rock outcrop part. t � s 78 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 12.Soil and water features—Continued Hydro- Flooding High water table Bedrock Soil name and logic map symbol group Frequency Duration ;Months Depth Kind Months Depth Hardness Ft In MaB, aD___________IO None------�._____-_____ -______-__. >6.0 __------------ ____________ >60 -____-_--_ _________________ None___._. .._-____-____. ___._-_____. 1.5-5.0 Apparent____- Jan-Dec___. >60 ____---__. Niland: Na B----------- C None------ ------------- ------'--- >6.0 >60 —--- --- Nh,6-------- -------- C None------ '------------- ------------ I,5-5.0 APParent-____ Jan-Dec _._ >60 ---------- Omatott: Om D___-__._—__.__ C None------ -------------- ------------ >6.0 -------.---------- ------- 4-20 Rippable, Orl: Omstott put------- C None------ _------------- _ _______ >6.0 - ------- 4-20 Rippable. Rock outcrop __.. _____________ _-__ Part. Riverwaah: RA. Rock outcrop: RO. RTr: Rock outcrop part. Lithic Torripaammenta part. D None- -------- >6.0 -------------------------- 1-10 Hard. Rubble land: RU. Salton: Sa, 156_______________ D None------ -------------- ------------ 2.0 5.0 APparent__-__ Tan-Dec..__ >60 ____-_____ Soboba.: So D, Sp E------------ A None------ - ------. >6.0 ------------------------- >60 _------- Torriorthents: TO 1: Torriorthents part. Rock outcrop part. Tujunga: TpE, TrC, Ts6-------i A ------ -------------- ------------ >6.0 I----------- __-___. ---- >60 _.------- 'This mapping unit is made up of two or mare dominant kinds of soil. See mapping unit description for the composition and behavior of the whole mapping unit. parent; and the months of the year that the water and on other observations during the mapping of the table commonly is high. Only saturated zones above a soils. The kind of bedrock and its hardness as related depth of 5 or 6 feet are indicated. to ease of excavation is also shown. Rippable bedrock Information about the seasonal high water table can be excavated with a single-tooth ripping attach- helps in assessing the need for specially designed ment on a 200-horsepower tractor, but hard bedrock foundations, the need for specific kinds of drainage generally requires blasting. systems, and the need for footing drains to insure dry basements. Such information is also needed to decide whether or not construction of basements is feasible Formation, .Morphology, and and to determine how septic tank absorption fields and Classification of the Soils other underground installations will function. Also, a seasonal high water table affects ease of excavation. This section contains descriptions of the major fac- Depi.k to bedrock is shown for all soils that are tors of soil formation as they occur in the Coachella underlain by bedrock at a depth of 5 to 6 feet or less. Valley Area, a summary of significant morphological For many soils, the limited depth to bedrock is a part characteristics of the soils of the Area, an explanation of the definition of the soil series. The depths shown of the current system of classifying soils by categories are based on measurements made in many soil borings broader than the series, and a table showing the clas- SOIL SURVEY TABLE 11.Physical and chemical properties of soils—Continued a Available Shrink- Risk of corrosion Erosion wind Soil name and Depth Permea- water Soil Salim- swell factors erodi- msp eymbol buity capacity reaction ity potential Uncoated bility steel Concrete B T group Iw I'%, 10A. vH sfml j em Sobobs: So D, Sp E_______ 0-13 >20 0.02-0.04 6.1-7.8 <2 Low--------- Moderate_.___ Low-----.___ 0.15 5 ------ 13-M >20 0.02-0.04 6.1-7.8 <2 Low--------- High.________ Low--------- 0.15 Torriorthenta: TO 1: Torriorthents part0-60 _________ ____________ ______________________________ _____________ _ Rock outcrop _____________------ _--- ______ upnarrtt.. 'Fp E__•_------ O-iO 6.0-20 0.05-0.11 6.1-Z8 <2 Low___.____. High--------- Low--------- 0.17 S 1 7rC__ ____. O-iO 8.0-20 0.04-0.08 6.1-7.8 G2 Low--------- H:gh--------- Low_________ 0.15 5 2 ifs _________ 0-60 6.0-20 0.30-0.13 1 6.1-7.8 <2 Law___.____ High_________ - 0.20 5 1 This mapping unit is made up of two or more dominant kinds of soil. See mapping unit description for the composition and belmvior of the whole mapping unit. than 5 percent finely divided calcium carbonate, ex- swell potential,soils that have a permanent high water cept silty clay loams. These soils are very slightly table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near erodible, and crops can easily be grown. the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly Silty clay loams that are less than 35 percent clay impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate and less than 5 percent finely divided calcium car- of water transmission. bonate. These soils are very slightly erodible,and crops Flooding is the temporary covering of soil with can easily be grown, water from overflowing streams, with runoff from ad- Stony or gravelly soils and other soils not subject jacent slopes, and by tides. Water standing for short to soil blowing. periods after rains or after snow melts is not consid- Soil.and water featurm ered flooding, nor is water in swamps and marshes. Flooding is rated in general terms that describe the Table 12 contains information helpful in planning frequency and duration of flooding and the time of land uses and engineering projects that are likely to year when flooding is most likely. The ratings are be affected by soil and water features. based on evidence in the soil profile of the effects of Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff flooding, namely thin strata of gravel, sand, silt, or, in from precipitation. Soils not protected by vegetation places,clay deposited by floodwater;irregular decrease " are placed in one of four groups on the basis of the in organic-matter content with increasing depth; and intake of water after the soils have been wetted and absence of distinctive soil horizons that form in soils have received precipitation from long-duration storms. of the area that are not subject to flooding. The ratings are also based on local information about floodwater -k roup A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low levels in the area and the extent of flooding; and on runoff potential) when thoroughly wet, These consist information that relates the position of each soil on i chiefly of deep, well drained to excessively drained the landscape to historic floods. T sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water The generalized description of flood hazards is of transmission. value in land-use planning and provides a valid basis for land-use restrictions. The soil data are less spe- when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moder- cific, however, than those provided by detailed engi- 1• ately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well neering surveys that delineate flood-prone areas at drained soils that have moderately fine texture to mod- specific flood frequency levels. erately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate High water table is the highest level of a saturated rate of water transmission, zone more than 6 inches thick for a continuous period Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when of more than 2 weeks during most years. The depth to thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils that have a seasonal high water table applies to undrained soils. a layer that impedes the downward movement of water Estimates are based mainly on the relationship be- or soils that have moderately fine texture or fine tex- tween grayish colors or mottles in the soil and the ture.'These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. depth to free water observed in many borings made Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate during the course of the soil survey. Indicated in table (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These 12 are the depth to the seasonal high water table; the consist chiefly of clay soils that have a high shrink- kind of water table, that is, perched, artesian, or ap- a i SOIL SURVEY OF Riverside County, California Coachella .valley Area s.. t.. a � � s { �;W� q y. yr •d- United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment Station � HYDROLOGY MAP SMOKE TREE RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NEW EXISTING STRUCTURES STRUCTURES YARD SETBACKS- MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK TO STRUCTURE 15' 15, MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK TO GARAGE 20' 15' MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK 15' 5' MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK 15, 5' ROOF OVERHANG (MAXIMUM) 36" 36" MINIMUM HOUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE (WITH OUT GARAGE) 1000 sf N/A MINIMUM HOUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE (WITH GARAGE) 1300 sf N/A MINIMUM GARAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE 300 sf N/A MINIMUM BEDROOM COUNT 1 1 MINIMUM BATHROOM COUNT 1 1 MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 13'-6" 13'-6" MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE =359/&, / 5000 sf =3691e / 5000 sf ALLOWABLE USES PER R-G-A(6) ZONE NOTES: (1) EXCLUDED FROM THE SETBACKS SHALL BE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS (I.E. FIREPLACES, POP-OUTS, GARDEN WINDOWS, SURROUNDS, ETC.). NO HOME SHALL HAVE A FRONT SETBACK TO THE GARAGE DOOR BETWEEN 5' TO 20' UNLESS THE LOT HAS A SIGNIFICANT CURVILINEAR PROPERTY LINE (IN THE CASE OF A CUL-DE-SAC LOT OR A PIE SHAPED LOT) IN FRONT OF IT IN WHICH CASE THE SETBACK MAY FALL WITHIN THE 5' TO 20' RANGE. ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORS SHALL BE UTILIZED. FRONT YARD SETBACKS IN EXCESS OF 20' SHALL 13E PERMITTED. IF A CONDENSER IS SET ON THE SIDE YARD OF A HOME, THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3' OF CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE CONDENSER AND THE SIDE YARD WALL OR STRUCTURE. (2) REAR YARD SETBACK SHALL BE MEASURED TO THE REAR WALL OF THE HOUSE AND SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES A COVERED PATIO WHICH SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM OF 10' FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. (3) THE ROOF OVERHANG (ENCLOSED UNSUPPORTED) MAY ENCROACH 36" INTO THE AIRSPACE OF THE SETBACK AREAS AROUND THE ENVELOPE OF THE STRUCTURE. (4) EXCLUDES FIREPLACE STACKS WHICH MAY EXCEED MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT. (5) ALL LOTS SUBJECT TO SMOKE TREE RANCH CC&R'S INCLUDING DESIGN REVIEW. (6) WHERE SHOWN CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ENVELOPE MAY BE MODIFIED AS TO LOCATION & SHAPE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY SMOKE TREE RANCH. (7) FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES, ADDITIONS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY SMOKE TREE q� RANCH. r-9CJ d @ i a ri Cd ,-�-enq o NO R of c10N5 PPPRoveD DATE rW/Nn /, ,) l4 �\pJ ABBREVIATIONS FENFUDs IX XISID11E T n LETTER mns/oc AFGAL, '9',..�3 I I/, . _ /] 1 i-�',-;Cp'-[��.T,� I�(u AC�_II '..�1 _ i' .'` �4�. �aa° I/I( � '-� {y I. \j '.\— e' L 4 •J -_---1 r � °M1-fir ,.. x� 4 7 I/ t" .cxETE ii' - _NET RUBBER NOVEMBER 2005 }+M In_ FM y ? z�"' 0.`, IR EOF OIL GO I SCHOOL xa,._ IF HUGE xssrno.[xnEX F. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA - _ 5'NTFIE CITY OF PALM NO,UIL =LJ1�� —— —_ _ M FF FXx, TENTATIVE A IV 3P — — F/P RmP ACT — -_ — — — ,O.Pon E[ . T n r EME _— ED ESTddC MAP 878 PRELIMINARY GRACING PLAN _ ANC PLAN DEVELOPMENT PORTIDO ON �:/.o - - - - - _- --�, e°s s\ -� ---1 •'ram N.A.P.` ! `-1 111 - a °P"V �LHR°L"E">°o,n INCLUDING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION \ Ple iaosB LOT z - LOT a �� LEGEND OF PRIVATE STREET RIGHT OF WAY 2 F LOT 3 2LOT SF - I/ ma vs PE�3000 PE�p 80 PE 928 Eo - S ILyE ` �+ xsmc mvmua w P[�nOx OF kl- ESGR PT ON TO O I & EXISTS STEM In UFACk BOVIX,GA.f FA i?8 N.WI NBATID NO BASE MiJOF SECTION 3AEg101ANSHP f IN ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS C v \ CT 5V IS 12-D -r�Jf -- - , Eximxe ELeumla a INC s10-0ERE 32/s0 O9O Wl/sf0-Onb06 a - �A ' /rz3rzn SF V --_ -- _- • I� pE1T F LI TOSTI cxs OWNER / DEVELOPER BEST, rsaxc __ _ _ R xoo /\ '.\ / vvf 1 1E60 sMONE THEE LAZE "`�" PALM BPPN3e.CA MENDS P2EEI n TELEPxoXE.11eBIG21 ,/. LOT{1OI / __ _ / ss tx - er ENGINEER nov IS 18]0i SF \o_ LOT Id __ l M1/ \ �' m _ \) __ -' PE 43 LS./ / MEA LONBULTINO,1. /1.L ✓ t / b - tr,l ae LOT d FORCE II_rrr 31�00 TERM HOPE OWVE PE fe26 / SF\ z/r XC MRAO£,CALIFORNIA BPYIO y "� for{D 1„ / — /, `� �c gFa < PE'410F Fs a /',/ / p _ _ R •M' PE(A316m Qr. I LOT_4T A Ef / / I O _ _ TELEPNOHE bDUI 3. Put F I o\ r/I 6 ye 1 Fnoaosso,..o Exlslxv cXmx LINE 3'R8013R3>aP3 d \ CSEgT 9.SMITN.ROE Re101 v / f • Y I�� j�PE1A32E0( OOPp• �Ac // evv9 �, X 0 O. u // tl \a ,\ \ RE ih - Sa>�IERAL NOTES (fffI t / /•/� CONCEPTUAL + I Y¢S+' i '� \\\�x\ -y I TINS Z NIN TfDA 1 /_`�-�I IE I / eVE1lINO ENVELOPE • \ I i\ 0WE%M�uuuuuF PROPOSED PENCE .,vvx s eouxMsiES PgoPOEEO ZOMBIE R-O-AUU ITYPICALI svm �O/ \ \ I Nh I J I I� / LOT 42 _ -\P - / HE 1 ,I 1 m \\\� EUSTNG LARD USE WEST RANCH I VACANT 71 EA9TMG COMMON AREA I Logi{5 ( 1 -, - e94F.. \ wv- / &DE, r/ / \ \ I PURPOSES LAND VSm WEST RANLN/NNOLE FAMILY IESIDEXIfAL n �, JLOT 3$b n O IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN �tE Iaa fiO�mH LOp 4d - e �,+. / SO 12S.C�� �� \ ! O nax xer EgETIN3 GENERAL FLAN.L-P `fE 13e60 /-f¢`-O Ti PE 499 EOI"• \w, \I � +I \ � $EG PROPOSED SEEGA.PLAN L-P IF tA,E Al \\_ f l I�w I S <\, �\\asB� PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL LOT&LOTS I TFWU IP FU[AS SCRATCH -- --- - EXISTING COMMON AREAS IN --- 1 fxox 4E I Ov PNPIAIS \\ ` 1 I PRIVATE ROAD Id ROCK I/9•A•TMU'G•I FAST RANCH TRAIL/WEST ROAR/ -�' \\_ IMPROVEMENTS TO REMAIN- f 3 I Ej u'" o_-__ CIXIEJO ROAD/ROCK 1/ANZ/,TRIAL[ROCK u/MNCX XOVSE BOAC(BK SCRATCH ( f 11E 3e FF \� J ns Irt O.ILSi! x \- \�SYMORONflO-TRAR SO BR03e SOILAGE ILPP ACNEE a ff.F 5]ISSFl i A _r I` 1 `� uamuEE vsxu MET ACREAGE RLOfi ACRES I6NAOE0 AREAI SUC+� eCrlOprl �J PE IfaS501 I 1 l 18. I 1n `/ -� LI \ 11 _ { - NOiE E%A9TN3 GUEST OOTTAf£IMT9 TO F£TIAu py Iwmez Pu-!w' E(L3 a �. NAP PEa%azauf T •� PE 113].E - -� 1 PE 1134601 �� L �I \ LJ-J! - X G.. - / `/ a 20 EYJSTWB CONTINUES TO BE 91RpIVIOEO FOR BALE _ I I DgL z1 IEw ara FRR Sue LOT 3d 1 T2 p s I _ 1 I 3 Imu pn livsv ognlrlrt)F TEPI EV0.0YEE W.VITER9 LWTB TO Pl DEMIX18XE0 dE01A6 E0 µ' _� r i r TaIYM1 6ECOyiY6 M. ,A I \� \1,. - �� e N dlE fwO (9 AI- JA 1 b MANADEAS VXR pEMCL13F1FD ,� �.,tTE Ion I �I I - N P —_ G � `w�� ✓G agg33SF LOTr3d I ` --- Ir - ' NET CHANGE-3P UNIT flEWCTION 1 S3d 60 VE SI 8]3601�d r "� ,� I J ICu h - -- OOI n EASEMENT NOTES 1 Ldi a1 / I 1 . 1 44 J I L K tl P /� TO EE FROVOED _ - Gme?FS �� .Poe I� II f ryS o h., NAP Bxu4I,.G L1 E LLSI[V a0VLI G AiSPe ,qA y { c l� rs t�DD IL F00A J l 4 P C1�49 0T dali�@O• Y Ci NNTY MAP / / .,,,EGG 80UTTEAN CALIFORNIA EDISON OSDI RO2IPIS 11 ` 1 E TIT S0; RA9 THE A CR MPM'Y I..,]]A SURE t,o,J- ` �Z = PE141P eal r �P4' I -L �� E ppptoLPO TELEPxoNT v MaAxv I e03 LOT 3E LOT39 1 -'�`---r - `I �" IJr - I� I 1 II AGATES DETEST AGATES AGwcY Rem Bz31PR h 8] RE gdD AND, LOT 9l LGT 35 1 I IPE If3B fiQ1 -« A ASLE TIC£WARNS CABLE nepl a16131R �f 113PW1 n_ L 12YB0 TF =pE11�3O3601 43D P M3e501 PE 119450 �m a+� I I UEA@ `L.1 I,LF CRY OF PALM SPRINGS 33-ueS —� r��- T_ tY D., I o T , a r - - U,T l l uNOEAryiouNp 9EAVICE uQiT Ie3m z94epD C9NEJo TRAH. i _ I- If /T III $Ins LOT ae LOT z] /J / I O.D L�UT - Q H nap sF aIE sF _ 1 m)LEI MA1601 PE(f Al E01 S'r ( 4 I D l\ T9 wTO h LOT 90 III PE fae 5 \ I I TITITI III o _ �-P�a?SOH_P£ffJ13001 °r GV3XRWC A / �J PE(4iosm _L_--- 1 LOT 10 1� (• / J 1 IIFv VEV f�f3601 I\ / NI""I 96B5TF t n� // "l ua OD O UVA"P PE 199Yfie1 }pfi TF 1 1 &5 11 A LOTm, EXISTING COMMON1AREA PE 14OY601 LOT 10 IF N Ie _ 1JJ]95 - HAP. 413 END IMPROVEMENT6 T 4 D P_°. M4 fi�l\I ^'�21 �P 1�410RG-j ��1 + w f P «I+ PIE 1� 1[i INC'5F! "- ry ArF ANY Ip6 24 1 O y 8 a W < F.(If060) - x / 9 Oa SO. PE(I V1.601 A� ( HR601 �•I Es uem _ „�y�o / - + LOT d( � - - 0 PE 1594TFI c �,- _COI 11 BE 4430.1 3d 1� LOT SS LORZ� E 11436 1 LOF18/ %AGED OmSs N' 1 o,� r VI ANZA TRAIL _______ 1 3 0 3fi SF ]PS S 18]fi1 SF W O LGT 16 �1 LOTS _ _ + n PE IHI ESI 1113501 PE 14`4UO) PE(IIt601 ¢ %sIRBF I -SF NAP MOPONBO-iAAI FE ENE \V .. ! 6W 40fi01 PE IOefiO (BOCK aI ��(Ov°Q(�) - - LaXo3TIL8-�O(f© - v m NAP O b (svEGDj T19E:H RqW , are' ~ IeX.dYC9G=4PM1036PP@s W�fL0i1P] ¢ ¢ u' II D 900 E NOTE &ADx , ro x CBxHa AIL-NBSKYr —J DDT•A• _r L ` (+ BE� O �s Is+oW REI aTIBO waNm d6Q} Gtw� ehk' NAP IJ 9 SMOKE TREE RANCH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - 1FN IXISTINB (r)ExcwO[OE TIES ixE saPwus slruw eE P HHrtR Pna,GEST GO ¢ilOxs FOURTE,E FlxEPu[Fs,PDP-Our unO[x wl ODws VVQ R� AREA iHAS IHDCK 0 1L (µ /\ BTRULNIU:T 9TRVCTgE9SUCIECROT fi xE(Irr ED')s:x - STP [/\7 ROSINS SETBACKS� T1 20 -OF GUST OP CRESTED SI srxL eE-L ES FROM-I sErs+[ Ps/w n/w „ MNMW SUGAR YAM SETBACK TO STHUCTIHE I6' 16' P'CESS OF a0 SUALL e_PaurtrtO TD S MNMW FRONT YAM SETBACK TO GARAGE THERE swLL BE A MINIMS.OF I OF[EHO LE BEMFf ME P SLPLESI"=TO' p¢ C-Y.964[W®SO,h'RSI3 _I- _I 'Li- PO' IF L x x Rd4i:bV G. .. I- MNMW 9mE YAfu YTGACJ( 1fi' [OxDFxs[x AND BE i0E xn50 xnu Cx snvrnrx[ _ ` (D'E'C_tR THER MNMW PEAR YARD SEIUACK IS' (z)ARSR _ - T SPIRIT v EBILI EE A COVERED aAi I �� F L LRHPIJDf,Y] ROOF OVEMANG IMAXIMWI 9e' 3S• '^N ,Suu OE NET ucx A CGUIM OF r0 Fxou rx1 CFwn Px0FEw7 INE _ yy 0 ®21 MNM.M HWSE SWARE FOOTAGE rwrpl Wr NM IDW al WA FIN EYH LOOE3 FIA[PucE siacxs wx cx wv Ev r. n,w STtr.cNti xCVM E Dun3F [culAcrtO suevPm �{7-V I pp �'V * Z I 6 ¢ INSET M A P TM))THE ROOF CREE`IFT nw`CUTHED UNIUR STED)BEY EDIEw.cE GETEII TIE AUSPICE OF THE IFSCIK o„&s BING.IR I�I..I_I - r r — � — MNMJMHWSEEWAREFOOTAGErmnHuwm IS..1 WA V [ws c -" - S 1 •`1 I,fIMJM BAMOE SOUME FOOTAGE 3N.1 WA r MNMJM BEDROOM UTTERED (s)n 1 1 SECTION A-A �L`i� MNMUM BST..COLNr 1 1 u Lms ENaECT To suoxE TRIG-INaxes HxaDDw[DEIGN aEVIEw_ m%MW EUBDM3 IIEIUR GO I swl w l— III xv 11110I MAT EE RIDGED.ts m mamN x G-111Ri[E TO APPRDNAL D. INTERIOR ROADS - A PARKING �� INC. MSA CONSULTING, AfEGA OCT GOVERABE BopG.e m (WITHIN MAP BOUNDARY ONLYI TI�� �L �_ MAxNmdO.SAB3N a AEGxu'tBd INc ALLowAELE VaEe vER R-G-Alm zoxE R)FOR r DOUBTS THEIIIHIE1..FOSIOO.S EUB,ECI IT APFRDVAL By uT s 1 I^) 3 E��a v P[MT+vA. m)'Bwmm�o.GAG 9oaniiw 313d1 Ba BM ALve.M'm Mv.w.G 933T1 f 'Itrnnal am)3EOStl1.PAS QUO)32i]d3 I OS QALM 416 a .ti City of Palm Springs U N Development Services Department Planning Division i v�Av1lATty �[tFQRN�P MEMORANDUM Date: April 5, 2006 To: City Council From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Servit6e 1. Subject: Agenda Item 2.N. — CONFORMITY REPORT ON TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33443 Please note that the proposed project — a subdivision of land for development of sixty- eight (68) single family dwellings — will include public, not private, streets. While the staff report incorrectly notes that private streets would be developed, all recommended conditions of approval and related information are based on providing public streets. We apologize for any confusion. �a�rr�aalA+c. F�a-r�a��nto:�Y r� � vim, � �,A �,--- _� � �,.�.,...�.•� ^R4•.#P',':� � .i�"� A 4T,�)�.s' er" c r �.SF� .�'���,p�� �g4��g�e. �'�.�.�,,`" "a�"��q�' � 4 At ��rqy��� r" � .,� � -=t��f � � i � , sS'1��3M;lC �Cli� � ���!�*"• .,,:�`�s' t T�.. rr i ""x 4�z r Tw7lir'.a'�- r�'d { �, q ' t '6 Zv kW�Y ..:_5.��i.}F -�Ys SA 'S• �s a' Jf .. lu. .Y Yqq�'� - .1 �. {.��i�. ,}pJ� • 1� �. :'�.�y�s tSt't �j � "�.ym L a rxy' '� � t . Gt a't s► ti'ft� i{34' ..�� '� ��r iT� '�' .4 P ,T. + �-- ■ �(� f+ � Yk.,r(p l > w,�xk H .d #';' ffi..Yd v � .�., rrfa. -c i. }•� ems, �1 "cti�[y�1/44;tf ,.. r ,S o 5�d "i < �. j t lya+ .• 1:. c`Y x�' .a-s r^u+RO ' 1xz� 3+ar, �F . t �' ���.. �s aJ Fi 1�' f�� � 4P�,�"irx °e d t 1�r`Sr'•`Yj � i ".! . ♦ rs i�� e� � e , jay. ? j ;A"` ;j'•'� s'., s, b'', tea• �'`��a�•:�la. ,v'n�. ` �. m