Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (17) DATE: July 7, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning and Zoning CASE NO. 5.0931-13 PD-279 TTM 32028 - APPLICATION BY CENTURY VINTAGE HOMES FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 279 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32028 TO CONSTRUCT A 196-UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GATEWAY DRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 111 AND SOUTHEAST OF THE CHINO CANYON LEVEE, ZONE R-1-C, SECTION 33. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council order the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and approve a) a Planned Development District-279 for the construction of 196 single-family residential units with associated on and off-site improvements, and b) Tentative Tract Map 32028 for the property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Gateway Drive and State Highway 111 and southeast of the Chino Creek Levee, Zone R-1-C, Section 33. The applicant is Century Vintage Homes. SUMMARY The Planning Commission at its June 23, 2004, meeting voted to recommend approval (4-2-1, one absence) to the City Council of Planned Development 297. If approved by the City Council a project of one hundred and ninety-six (196) single family residential units could be constructed on 45.93 acres as a second Phase of a previously entitled project, Mountain Gate Phase I, consisting of three hundred and eight (308) single-family residences on 83 adjacent acres. Phase I is currently under construction. To date one hundred and seventy-four (174) of the homes in Phase I have been finaled for occupancy with new home owners moving in daily. The project is located within an R-1-C (single family residential) zoning designation. The approval would included relief to the following standards of development for the R-1-C zoning designation: • Minimum lot size reduced from 10,000 square feet to 5,000 - 7,500 square feet • Minimum lot width reduced from 100 feet for an interior lot to 54 - 82 feet and minimum lot width reduced on a corner lot from 110 feet to 80 - 110 feet • Lot coverage will be modified from a minimum of 35% to 33 - 48% • Minimum dwelling size will be reduced to 1,500 square feet to 1,208 square feet • Minimum yard setbacks will be reduced from 25 feet in the front to 20 feet, from 10 feet on the interior side to 5 feet and from 20 feet on the corner side to 10 feet The above relief to the R-1-C zoning standards are consistent with the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I project. During the public hearing six public testimonies were taken. One resident of the Little Tuscany neighborhood, representing the Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization, submitted as an exhibit to the Planning Commission a photo simulation of the appearance of the Chino Cone if it was developed to its full potential and a letter of concern requesting a moratorium on large tract developments such as Mountain Gate. Two homeowners within Mountain Gate Phase I testified in support of the proposed Phase 11, expressing their satisfaction with their new residences and the development overall and submitting into the record a letter endorsing the project. One landowner of adjacent property under entitlement, the Shadowrock Resort, also spoke in support of the project. Two individuals representing Century Vintage Homes, the project proponent, spoke on behalf of the proposal submitting into the record two exhibits. One exhibit was a January 19, 2004, article from The Desert Sun, a local newspaper and the second was also a reprint from a section of the The Desert Sun, indicating the price point of the proposed project relative to other projects within the Coachella Valley and Palm Springs. (All exhibits are attached.) The applicant also addressed the Commission with details of Century Vintage Homes' community outreach within the Desert Highland neighborhood including neighborhood cleanups and the intent of Century Vintage Homes to work with the City of Palm Springs Redevelopment authority to provide five (5) new in-fill single-family residences within the adjacent neighborhood. Staff responded to questions from the Planning Commission regarding the ability of emergency vehicles to access Phase II, The Fire Marshal had reviewed the proposed project and had approved the project with associated Conditions of Approval (See Fire: COA's # 1-8.) Planning Commission also questioned the usefulness of gated entries given the number of residences that are being proposed and noted that the gates are currently left open twenty-four hours a day. All Commissioners commented on the positive effect and success of the previously entitled Phase 1, although two Commissioners did not vote for approval of the project based on the density proposed and the gating of the project. BACKGROUND Century Vintage Homes has proposed the Mountain Gate Phase II project as a continued development phase for the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I Planned Development District. An Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Palm Springs City Council for the first phase on February 26, 2003, and is incorporated here by reference. Both phases will share access that was constructed for Phase 1. Recreational amenities, open space and maintenance will be under the auspices of a shared Home Owners Association. Overall density for the combined sites is 504 units, below a maximum allowed of 516 units. Total acreage for both phases is 128.93 acres. Within the Phase II component of the project, the applicant proposes to subdivide 45.93 grosstnet acres into 196 residential lots and 11 lettered lots for associated site improvements. The project is proposed as a Planned Development District (PDD) with associated Tract Map (TM 32028). The PDD includes modified minimum lots sizes for residential lots ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 7,820 square feet. One hundred and fifteen (115) residential lots are proposed as 5,000± square feet representing 58% of the total number of lots. Sixty (60) lots of 6,000± square feet representing 31% of the total number of lots. Twenty-one (21) lots of 7,500± square feet representing 11% of the total number of lots. The underlying zoning designation for Phase I and Phase 11 is the R-1-C single-family residential zone. Phase I is presently under construction. The first phase consisted of a subdivision of 83 acres into 308 residential lots with associated on and off-site improvements. That component is located immediately southeast of the proposed Phase 11. Phase 11 consists of a 46± acre parcel with a proposal to subdivide that undeveloped land into 196 residential lots with associated on and off-site improvements. Phase I was the first residential subdivision that was entitled and proceeded into the construction phase in many years in north Palm Springs. 13 • © - An Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for Mountain Gate Phase II that incorporates by record the previously approved Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration for Phase I. Changes have occurred to the site plan to reduce the number of lots and decrease the intensity of use at the Phase II proposed project site since the distribution of the Phase II Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration. Those changes include the reduction of lot numbers by three (3) lots; the increase in lot sizes adjacent to State Highway 111 to a minimum of 7,500 square feet; the modifications of roof lines for the proposed residences adjacent to Highway 111; and lastly, a small cumulative increase occurred in overall open space percentiles for the Phase II component of the Mountain Gate project from 63,89% to 64.02%. The Phase 11 project site area is currently undeveloped and a desert terrain. The development will take access from an adjacent residential development site to the east, Mountain Gate Phase I. ANALYSIS The proposed Phase 11 project would consist of the development of a 45.93 acre site. The over- all site area combining both Mountain Gate Phases I and II is 128.93 acres. Phase II of the Mountain Gate residential subdivision was envisioned during the entitlement process for Phase I consideration by the City of Palm Springs but was not incorporated in the tentative tract map or environmental review at that time due to the fact that the adjacent land had not been acquired nor was the extent of potential acreage that could be acquired known at the time. The private interior streets in Phase I were platted to provide connectivity to the more northwestern property, if in fact it could be purchased. The proposed application is for a Planned Development District, as was Phase I. The underlying zoning designation for both phases is single-family residential, R-1-C, and General Plan designation L4, that allows four units per acre in density. The density that could have been utilized within Phase I was 332 units. Three hundred and eight (308) were proposed and entitled to be constructed. Therefore a density transfer of 24 units could occur between Phase I and Phase II upon evaluation of the overall site. The proposed density of Phase II is 196 units. Therefore a density transfer of 12 units is proposed. The proposal is based on the common improvements shared by both phases. The overall acreage for both phases is 129± acres. The overall density allowed with the low density (114) General Plan designation is 516 units. The proposed density for Phase I and Phase 11 is 504 units. The following table indicates adjacent land uses: Land Use Zone North Vacant land intersected by Chino Canyon W -watercourse and Flood Control Levee R-1-C - single-family residential South State Highway 111/Vacant UR- Urban Reserve East Single-family Residences - Mtn. Gate R-1-C/PDD 279 Phase I PDD West Vacant Land transected by Chino Canyon W - Watercourse Flood Control Levee As indicated previously, the underlying zoning designation for the project site is R-1-C (single- family residential). The PDD proposal is requesting relief to the following standards of development: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot size 10,000 square feet 5,000 — 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width: Interior Lot 100, 54' — 82' Corner Lot 110, 80' — 110, Lot coverage 35% 33 - 48% Minimum dwelling size 1,500 square feet 1,208 square feet Yard setbacks: Front 25' 20' Side — Interior 10, 5' Side— Corner 20' 10, The following table reflects standards of development for the R-1-C zoning designation that are consistent with the project proposal: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot depth 100, 110'— 134' Rear Yard Setback 15' 15, Height 12' at setback lines 12' at setback lines increasing at a 4:12 pitch increasing at a 4:12 pitch to a maximum of 18' to a maximum of 18' The City of Palm Springs General Plan designation for the project site is L-4, Low-Density Residential. In compliance with the General Plan a maximum of 65% of the over-all project area will be maintained as on-site open space/recreational area. In regards to Planned Development Districts, the City's General Plan states: "Traditionally, Planned Development Districts have been used to provide flexibility and enable developers to increase buildable area and height, and alter other standard development regulations, above that permitted by zoning, conditioned on analyses and mitigation of impacts and contribution of specific 'benefits' to the City (e.g. additional parking, community open space and meeting rooms, funds for community beautification, housing, day care facilities and other similar amenities). All Planned Development Districts shall be consistent with the General Plan." The Following tables illustrate the proposed project Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision and previously entitled by City Council February 26, 2003, Phase I component and the two phases relationship relative to open space. OPEN SPACE MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE I Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 760,122 20.81% Open Space * 2,395,801 65.61% Private Streets 495,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase 1 3,651,635 sq. ft. 100% `Open Space includes 49,658 square feet of decorative pavement. MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 450,387 22.51% Open Space** 1,280,794 64.02% Private Streets 269,530 13.47% TOTAL Phase II 2,000,711 100% ** Open Space includes 28,420 square feet of decorative pavement. TOTAL OF MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE I AND PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 1,210,509 21.42% Open Space 3,676,595 65.04% Private Streets 765,242 13.54% TOTAL Phase I & II 5,652,346 100% Therefore, the proposed project, Phase I and Phase 11, is in compliance with the General Plan and includes funds for community beautification through the community art program and off-site landscape requirements adjacent to State Highway 111 that include a meandering pedestrian walkway, equestrian trail landscaped with a desertscape flora palette including California Fan Palm trees aligned parallel with the highway. As part of the Planned Development District for the Phase II component of the Mountain Gate project, the applicant has submitted architectural plans. The proposed models feature two series: a 100 and 200 series. The 100 series are proposed for the smaller, 50' wide lots and feature 2 bedroom, 2 bath units and 3 bedroom, 2 bath units. The 100 series units range in size from 1,208 square feet to 1,843 square feet in detached one-story structures. The 200 series are proposed for the larger 60' and 75' wide lots and feature 3 bedroom, 2 bath and 4 bedroom, 2 bath units and an optional 267 square foot guest house available on some lots. These units range from 1,841 square feet to 3,005 square feet. The 200 series has also included a choice of rooflines the include full hip, gable and modified hip. All proposed residences will feature two parking spaces in a garage and an additional two spaces in front of the garage in accordance with established parking standards. Some units feature three parking spaces in the garage. Thirteen percent (13%) of the lots will be compatible for Recreational Vehicle parking adjacent to the residence in the side yard behind a screen gate. In addition to the 196 residential lots Phase II includes lettered lots that are made up of private streets, dedicated open space, landscape, storm runoff retention areas, storm drain easements and recreational amenity areas. Of those, private streets occupy 6.84 acres. Lot A, 2.02 acres, adjacent to Highway 111 on the property's southern boundary, is to be dedicated for open space, landscape and storm drain purposed to the City of Palm Springs for formation of an assessment district. Lots B, C and D on 1.36 acres at the eastern property boundary are to be retained by the Home Owner's Association for open space and landscape purposes. Storm drain easements over Lots A, B, C and D are to be dedicated to the City of Palm Springs, for eventual transfer to Riverside County Flood Control. The Home Owner's Association will perform storm drain maintenance of these lots. Lot E located in the most northeastern corner of the proposed development of .58 acre will be a Desert Water Agency well site and will be conveyed to Desert Water Agency. Lot F , 17 acres, serves are the primary recreation/park and retention site for the project. It is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed site. It consists of a pool, spa and restroom facilities and other passive recreation space. It is connected with a landscaped pedestrian walkway that transects the proposed Phase II project site in a northeasterly direction to the southern project boundary. The remaining lots will serve dual purposes of dedicated open space and drainage easements. The site is located in an area of the City that does not require architectural approval, however, as a Preliminary Planned Development District application, review of the residences accompanies the Planned Development application. The City's Design Review Board reviewed the architectural design for both phases of the proposed project. Recommendations for the Phase II component included limiting turf to active recreation areas, adding additional street trees to the project perimeter and in front yards and utilizing desert drought tolerant vegetation throughout the project. Those recommendations have been included as conditions of approval (See Planning COA's 23 - 25). Although the site is located adjacent to State Highway 111, the preliminary grading plan indicates that the building pads will be located below the road grade of the highway and will also be at a similar grade to the existing adjacent dwellings. The proposed homes are single story in height and will not exceed 18 feet. The low profile of the homes and similar grade levels to adjacent Phase I residences should not impact views from existing residences or vistas from State Highway 111 due in part to landscape berming proposed along the highway corridor between the proposed project site and the highway. The adjacent state highway is an eligible state scenic highway but is not officially designated. In order for that classification to occur the local jurisdiction must adopt a scenic corridor protection program, applying the California Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval. Although the City of Palm Springs has not applied for State Highway III designation as a scenic corridor, General Plan designation north and west of the proposed project site are Conservation and a Watercourse zoning designation with strict guidelines for minimal residential development within those classification areas. Therefore, in order to minimize the consequences and impact to the potential for scenic highway designation mitigation measures have been included in the Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration that would allow transition from an urban residential environment to an open desert landscape and reduce the impact of the proposed project to a scenic corridor (See Planning COA# 7. Aesthetics a-b). Additionally, the project proponent has included a variety of roofline types for the residences proposed for the lots adjacent to the highway in order to add diversity and character defining features to the proposed project. Staff has worked with the project proponent to upgrade landscape design elements within the previously entitled Phase I and the newly proposed Phase II component. Those design elements include increasing the size of trees along the State Highway corridor; berming the Phase II State Highway corridor to give the adjacent pedestrian walkway not only a curvulinear appearance but also a variety of topographic relief; and integrate 15 foot high Washingtonia fitifera palms in a uniform placement parallel to the highway within the State Highway corridor. The project will include a 6 foot high perimeter wall of sack finished slump stone set back approximately 80 feet from the highway edge of pavement. The wall will also be at a lower elevation than the highway and screened by vegetation. Additional refinements to the landscaping and berming may be forthcoming in the final architectural design process. The Mountain Gate Phase II proposed project was brought before the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission study session February 4, 2004. The most critical element deducted from the study session was to increase the lot sizes and reduce the lot numbers within the area of the project site contiguous to State Highway 111. The original proposal was for thirty (30) lots 50 feet in width, of approximately 5,000± square feet adjacent to the State Highway right- of-way. The revised proposal is for twenty-one (21) lots a minimum of 70 feet in width and of a minimum size of 7,820 square feet. Additionally, the Phase II component of the Mountain Gate project was brought before the Desert Highland community at its monthly neighborhood meeting in February 2004. The meeting was well attended and the project was well received. The City of Palm Springs' Fire Department has included Conditions of Approval to address Planning Commission concerns for fire protection. To date two letters of support for the project and one letter of opposition have been received. (See attached). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION An Initial Study/Environmental Assessment was prepared for this project and is included as an attachment to the this report. Studies to support the Environmental Assessment were prepared by professionals within a variety of research disciplines including cultural resources, air quality, noise impacts, traffic, geotechnical, hydrology, and biological assessment. In completing the IS/EA, six potentially significant impacts of aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, noise, recreation, transportation/traffic, hydrology/water quality, public services and geology/soils were found. All mitigation measures included in the Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration are included within Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval. The impacts to air quality and noise are the result of short-term construction and grading activities. Aesthetic concerns have been previously discussed within this report alluding to the impact of the development to the potential designation of that portion of State Highway 111 as a scenic corridor. Cultural resources are a concern in Palm Springs, and while the General Plan does not identify the site as a potential area for cultural resources, the study identified areas for further research that was acted upon immediately in consort with an Agua Caliente Band of f �I Cahuilla Indians' Tribal representative. Mitigation measures have been included that would require documentation of resources in the field with a cultural resources monitor on site. Conditions of approval regarding monitoring of grading for the project have also been included for this project. Although the proposed project incorporates various open space and recreational amenities a mitigation measure includes the residential development to pay in lieu park and recreation facilities fees. Transportation and traffic concerns have been mitigated with measures including a fair share contribution to be made towards the future signalization of Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road. Implementation of measures included with the hydrology report in order to convey and collect on-site stormwater runoff and protect the City's water resources are also included as conditions of approval. As a public services mitigation measure all residences shall be equipped with fire sprinklers. Lastly, all newly constructed structures within the City of Palm Springs shall be designed to applicable seismic standards per the California State Uniform Building Code in response to a soils' stability test. To date one letter of concern has been received regarding the Environmental Assessment. That letter was from a representative of the South Coast Regional Air Quality Management District. The request was to include copies of the tables presented in the Air Quality Study for Short-Term Construction-Related Impacts including Peak Day Unmitigated Construction Emissions Estimates and Unmitigated Quarterly Construction Emissions Estimates for both Phase I and Phase II studies. A letter of response and the inclusion of the requested tables has been attached to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Upon completion of the IS/EA the Planning Commission found that although the project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant impact in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. All property owners within a 400 foot radius of the project have been notified. As of the writing of this report the Planning Commission has received two letters of public support for the project. One from the Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation (PSEDC) and one from a resident of Mountain Gate Phase I. A letter in opposition to the project and requesting a moratorium on building large tract residential developments was submitted at the Planning Commission public hearing by a representative of the Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization. A copy of the above letters have been attached. 0 Douglas R. EVans, Director of Planning and Zoning David H. Ready, City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment 3. Addendum and Attachment to Environmental Assessment/Mitigation Monitoring Program 4. Correspondence 5. Resolutions 6. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval ( 3/W NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0931-B, PD -279 TTM 32028 Mountain Gate Phase If - Northeast of the intersection of Gateway Drive and Highway 111 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 7, 2004. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider Case 5.0931-B, a request by Century Vintage Homes, an application for a Planned Development District 279, Tentative Tract Map 32028 and Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration to construct a 196 unit single-family residential development as Phase II of the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I subdivision project for a total of 504 single-family residences on 128.93 total acres with associated on and off-site improvements including community pools and spas, landscaped pedestrian and equestrian trails. The houses would range from 1,211 to 2,778 square feet in size. Lot sizes will range from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Gateway Drive and Highway 111 and south of the Chino Creek Levee. The subject property is zoned R-1-C, single-family residential, Section 33. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared and will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at or prior to the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Kathy Marx, Associate Planner at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor flame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Gabriel Diaz telefono (760) 323-8245. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk �04 V ALM BpsJ N Department of Planning and Zoningv, E Vicinity MapS h cq<IFORN�P% Mountain Gate II Mountain Gate I \ sy LU _ Q GATEWAY DR C Q w �� PFP CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.0931-13, PD-279, TTM 32028 DESCRIPTION: To develop Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision project that includes the APPLICANT: Century Vintage Homes construction of 199 single family residences for a total of 507 residences on 128.93 acres. Phase I o 308 residences is currently under construction. 1I , CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING INITIAL STUDY 1. Case No: 5.0931-B PD-279 TTM 32028 Proj cot title: Mountain Gate I1 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 3. Contact person and phone number: Douglas R. Evans, Dir. of Planning and Zoning Tel: (760) 323-8245 4. Project location: North of State Highway 111, northwest of Gateway Drive, and southeast of Chino Creek Levee and east of East Gate Road Assessors Parcel Numbers: 669-320-011, 669-320-013, 669-340-001, 669-371-002 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Century Vintage Homes 1535 North D Street, STE 200 San Bernardino, California 92408 6 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 implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed Mountain Gate Phase II project is a continued development phase for the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I. An Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Palm Springs City Council for the first phase on February 26, 2003, and is incorporated here by reference. Both phases will share access that was constructed for Phase I. Recreational amenities, open space and maintenance will be under the auspices of a shared Home Owners Association. Overall density for the combined sites is 507 units below a maximum allowed of 544 units. Total acreage for both phases is 128.93 acres. Within the Phase II component of the project, the applicant proposes to subdivide 45.93 gross/net acres into 199 residential lots and 11 lettered lots for associated site improvements. The project is proposed as a Planned Development District (PDD) with associated Tract Map (TM 32028). The PDD includes modified minimum lots sizes of residential lots ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. One hundred and eighteen (118) residential lots are proposed as 5,000 square feet occupying a total of 16.82 acres. Seventy (70) lots as 6,000 square feet occupying a 1 �� total of 11.82 acres. Eleven (11) lots as 7,500 square feet representing a total of 2.56 acres. The lettered lots are made up of private streets, dedicated open space, landscape, storm runoff retention areas, storm drain easements and recreational amenity areas. Of those, private streets occupy 6.84 acres. Lot A, 2.02 acres, adjacent to Highway 111 on the property's southern boundary, is to be dedicated for open space, landscape and storm drain purposed to the City of Palm Springs for formation of an assessment district. Lots B, C and D on 1.36 acres at the eastern property boundary are to be retained by the Home Owner's Association for open space and landscape purposes. Storm drain easements over Lots A, B, C and D are to be dedicated to the City of Palm Springs, for eventual transfer to Riverside County Flood Control. The Home Owner's Association will perform storm drain maintenance of these lots. Lot E located in the most northeastern corner of the proposed development of .58 acre will be a Desert Water Agency well site and will be conveyed to Desert Water Agency. Lots F , 17 acres, serves are the primary recreation/park and retention site for the project. It is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed site. It consists of a pool, spa and restroom facilities and other passive recreation space. It is connected with a landscaped pedestrian walkway that transects the proposed Phase II project site in a northeasterly direction to the southern project boundary. The remaining lots will serve dual purposes of dedicated open space and drainage easements. The project site area is currently undeveloped and a desert terrain. The development will take access from an adjacent residential development site to the east, Mountain Gate I. The underlying zoning designation for the project site is R-1-C (single-family residential). The PDD proposal is requesting relief to the following standards of development: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot size 10,000 square feet 5,000 — 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width: Interior Lot 100, 54'— 82' Corner Lot 110, 80' — 110, Lot coverage 35% 6 units — 55% 33 units —45% 44 units —38% 116 units — 35% or less Minimum dwelling size 1,500 square feet 1,211 square feet Yard setbacks: Froni 25' 20' Side — Interior 10, 5' Side — Corner 20' 10, The following table reflects standards of development for the R-1-C zoning designation that are consistent with the project proposal: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot depth 100, 110' — 134' Rear Yard Setback 15' 15, Height 12' at setback lines 12' at setback lines increasing at a 4:12 pitch increasing at a 4:12 pitch to a maximum of 18' to a maximum of 18' The City of Palm Springs General Plan designation for the project site is L-4, Low- Density Residential. In compliance with the General Plan a maximum of 65% of the project area will be maintained as on-site open space/recreational area. In regards to Planned Development Districts, the City's General Plan states in: "Traditionally, planned development districts have been used to provide flexibility and enable developers to increase buildable area and height, and alter other standard development regulations, above that permitted by zoning, conditioned on analyses and mitigation of impacts and contribution of specific `benefits' to the City(e.g. additional parking, community open space and meeting rooms, funds for community beautification, housing, day care facilities and other similar amenities), All Planned Development Districts shall be consistent with the General Plan." The following table illustrates the proposed project Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision and previously entitled by City Council February 26, 2003, Phase I component and the two phases relationship relative to density and open space. DENSITY L4 (Low Density Residential General Plan Designation) Proposed 4 units/acre Phase [ 361 308 Phase [] 183 199 Total Project (combined Phase I and Phase 11) 544 507 OPEN SPACE MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE I Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 760,122 20.81% Open Space * 2,395,801 65.61% Private Streets 495,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase 1 3,651,635 sq. ft. 100.00% Open Space includes 49,658 square feet of decorative pavement. MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 452,957 22.64% Open Space ** 1,278,224 65.61% Private Streets 496,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase II 2,000,711 100.00% Open Space includes 28,420 square feet of decorative'pavement. TOTAL OF MOUNTIAN GATE PHASE I AND PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 1,213,079 21.46% Open Space 3,674,025 65.00% Private Streets 765,242 13.54% TOTAL Phase I & II 5,652,346 100.00% The proposed project, Phase I and Phase 11, is in compliance with the General Plan and includes funds for community beautification through the community art program and off- site landscape requirements adjacent to State Highway 111 that include a meandering pedestrian walkway, equestrian trail and desertscape flora palette including California Fan Palm trees aligned parallel with the highway. 7. Present Land Use: Vacant Land 8. General Plan designation: L-4, Low-Density 9. Zoning: R-1-C, Single-family Residential residential Proposed General Plan designation: L-4, Low-Density Proposed Zoning: R-1-C, Residential Single-family residential 10. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section Yes ■ No ❑ 1 3ti" I 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in the same area, cumulative impact should be considered) 11. If"yes"above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects Yes ❑ No ■ listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 12. If"no" on 10., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts Yes ❑ No ❑ listed in Section 15268(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? 13. If "no" on 11., does the project fall under any of the Statutory Yes ❑ No ■ Exemptions listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 14. If "no" on 12., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines?(Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant Yes ❑ No ❑ effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). 15. Surrounding land uses and setting(briefly describe the proj ect's surroundings): North: Vacant land transeeted by Chino Canyon Flood Control Levee South: State Hwy III East: Single-Family residential Planned Development District of 308 residences West: Vacant land transected by Chino Canyon Flood Control Levee 16. Surrounding General Plan and Zoning: North: General Plan: C (Conservation) and CDL6 (Residential Density Controlled) Zoning: W(Watercourse) and R-1-C (Single-Family Residential) South: General Plan: L-6 (Low-Density Residential) and LSR(Large Scale Resort) Zoning: U-R(Urban Reserve) East: General Plan: L-4 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-C (Snigle-Family Residential) West: General Plan: C (Conservation) Zoning: W(Watercourse) 17. Is the proposed project consistent with(if answered"yes"or"n/a",no explanation is required): City of Palm Springs General]Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A❑ Applicable Specific Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A e City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A❑ South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Yes 0 No 0 N/A 11 Airport Part 150 Noise Study Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ■ Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A e 18. Are any of the following studies required? Soils Report Yes ■ No ❑ Slope Study Yes ❑ No ■ Geoteclurical Report Yes ■ No ❑ Traffic Study Yes ■ No ❑ Air Quality Study Yes ■ No ❑ Hydrology Yes ■ No ❑ Sewer Study Yes ❑ No ■ Biological Study Yes ■ No ❑ Noise Study Yes w No ❑ Hazardous Materials Study Yes ❑ No ■ Housing Analysis Yes ❑ No ■ Archaeological Report Yes ■ No ❑ Groundwater Analysis Yes ❑ No ■ Water Quality Report Yes ❑ No ■ Other Yes ❑ No ❑ 19. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Regional Water Quality Control Board—National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES/S WPPP) Desert Water Agency—Construction Permit South Coast Air Quality Management District—PM10 Permit 20. Incorporated herein by reference are the following documents: All of the referenced documents have been used in the preparation of this liritial Study and are incorporated in their entirety by reference. • Palm Springs General Plan and Final EIR, 1993 (as amended) • Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the Proposed Mowrtain Gate II,prepared by Tames W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, Palm Springs, CA, March 16, 2004. • Addendum to Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the Proposed Mountain Gate Ih prepared by James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, Palm Springs, CA, May 10, 2004. • Cultural Resources Survey, prepared by Jerry Schaefer, ASM Affiliates, Pasadena, CA, May 4, 2004 and May 17, 2004. • Amended Mountain Gate PDD A r Quality and Noise Impact Study,prepared by Endo Engineering, January 2004 • Preliminary Hydroloav Report. Mountain Gate II, Tract Map No. 32028,prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc., Palm Springs, CA, December 30, 2003. • Amended Mountain Gate PDD Traffic hnpact Study,prepared by Endo Engineering, January 2004. • Mitigated Negative Declaration—Environmental Assessment, Mountain Gate Approved by the City of Palm Springs City Council February 26, 2003. • The Impact of State and Federal Laws on Scenic Protection,published by Scenic California, Berkeley, CA,2004 • SR 159: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Reg on, Russell V. Miller, 1987. • Geoteetwical Engineering Report Tentative Tract Map No. 28507, Proposed 84 Acre Broxmeyer Recreational Vehicle Park.Palm Springs, Califon a, prepared by Earth Systems Consultants, Bermuda Dunes, CA, December 2, 1997. • "Timing of Large Eathquakes since A.D. 800 on the Mission Creek Strand of the San Andeas Fault Zone at Thousand Palms Oasis, near Palm Springs, California," T.E. Fumal, M.J. Rymer, and G. G. Seitz, BSSA, Vol. 92:7. • "California QuickFacts,Riverside County,"US Bureau of Census, May 2004. 13. i ?ALM 3p�' Department of Planning and Zoning ,,�E V Vicinity Map S og41FO RN�P / _ Mountain Gate II Mountain Gate I sy 'rr � o w GATEWAY DR U) a W �o �P C, CITY OF PALM SPRINGS � CASE NO.: 5.0931-13, PD-279, TTM 32028 DESCRIPTION: Jo develop Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision project that includes the APPLICANT: Century Vintage Homes construction of 199 single Family residences for a total of 507 residences on 128.93 acres. Phase I o 11 308 residences is currently under construction. 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 hnpact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ° Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources 7 Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards &Hazardous ° Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ° Noise ❑ Population/Housing • Public Services ° Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/ Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. AESTIIETICS--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ • ❑ vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ° ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a slate 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 which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ ° ❑ nighttime views in the area? 1.a) AESTHETICS - Less than Significant Impact The site is located in an area of the City that does not require architectural approval, however, as a Preliminary Planned Development application, review of the architecture of the homes accompanies the Planned Development Application. The Design Review Board reviewed the architectural design for both phases of the proposed project. Recommendations for the Phase II component included limiting turf to active recreation areas, adding additional street trees to project perimeter and in front yards and utilizing desert vegetation throughout the project. Although the site is located adjacent to State Highway 111, the preliminary grading plan indicates that the building pads will be located below the road grade of the adjacent State highway and will also be at a similar grade to the existing adjacent dwellings. The proposed homes are single story in height and will not exceed 18 feet in height. The low profile of the Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact homes and similar grade levels should not impact views from existing residences or vistas from State Highway Ill. Therefore the project should have less than significant impact substantial impact to a scenic vista. 1 b ) AESTHETICS Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated California State Highway III is adjacent to the western property boundary of the proposed project in both Phase I and Phase II components. Highway III is an eligible state scenic highway but is not officially designated. The designation process has been reviewed in The Impact of State and Federal Laws on Scenic Protection, published by Scenic California, as follows: `The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval and receives notification from CalTrans that the highway has been designated as a scenic highway. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define the scenic corridor of the highway...The minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection are: • Regulation of land use and density of development • Detailed land and site planning • Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on new billboards) • Careful attention to, and control of, earthmoving and landscaping • Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment' Although the City of Palm Springs has not applied for State Highway III designation as a scenic corridor, General Plan designation north and west of the proposed project site are Conservation and a Watercourse zoning designation with strict guidelines for minimal residential development within those classification areas. Therefore, in order to minimize the consequences and impact to the potential of scenic highway designation, mitigation measures have been included that would allow transition from an urban residential environment to an open desert landscape and reduce the impact of the proposed project to less than significant, as follows: MITIGATION 1) All outdoor advertising shall be banned adjacent to the project site. Signage that was approved in the Phase I component of the review process shall be maintained. No new signage shall be added in any form that includes the following but not limited to: monuments, banners, flags. 2) The landscaping adjacent to Hwy III of the Phase II component shall not include perennial plantings of non-native species. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1 c.)AESTHETICS - No Significant Impact The visual character of the site is presently open space and undeveloped desert. The site contains road traces and all terrain vehicle tracks, some refuse dumping, drainage channels and more significantly overhead power lines adjacent to the Highway III right-of-way at the western property boundary of the Phase II component. Undergrounding of utilities has previously occurred on the Phase I component of the project. Undergrounding of utilities will also be a condition of approval associated with the City's review of Phase II and is mandatory under the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 8.04.401. 1d.)AESTHETICS — No Significant Impact There is no light source on the Phase II site now because of its undeveloped state. The proposed development will include lighting around the homes that is in keeping with those fixtures found in a residential setting. All lighting proposed shall be downcast and night lighting of recreation areas shall be in compliance with the City of Palm Springs zoning ordinance relative to protection of night skies, Section 93.21.00. All lighting shall be required to be screened and downcast. Tennis courts shall not include not lighting. Therefore there should no significant impact as a result of lighting from this project. 2. 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 Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fatmland.Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ I] ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ 11 ❑ use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ❑ 11 nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use'? 2 a.b c) AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - No Impact There are agricultural resources or lands under Williamson Act contracts within the City and therefore no adverse impacts to these resources is anticipated. i46 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to matte 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 cmnnulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attaimnent under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantial number of people? 3.a. b. c) AIR QUALITY - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The City of Palm Springs is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SEDAB is comprised of the eastern portion of San Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, Los Angeles and San Diego, as well as all of Imperial County. The SCAQMD is required pursuant to the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-attainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by SCAQMD for the region. The AQMP outlines regional programs and control measures to reduce future emissions based on population projections. The AQMP is based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projections as well as the requirements and projections included in the General Plans for those communities located within the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project shall be incompliance with the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM ta) Section 8.50 that requires preparation and submission of a plan to implement control measures for project emissions. Individual projects and long-term programs within the region are required to be consistent with the AQMP. To demonstrate consistency with the AQMP, the population projections used to assess the need for the project must be approved by the SCAG. The District uses SCAG population projections to assess the need for the proposed project. The proposed project is intended to accommodate District growth. The Coachella Valley has been under scrutiny by the EPA for"serious" non-attainment of PM10 standards. PMto refers to suspended particulate Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact matter with a mean aerodynamic diameters equal to or less than 10 micros. Local Cities and Riverside County have promulgated stricter regulations and procedures in an attempt to meet this Federal air quality standard. A new ordinance, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM lo) in Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, has been developed in order to establish minimum requirements for construction and demolition activities and other specific sources in order to reduce man-made fugitive dust and the corresponding PM10 emissions. The ordinance deals with construction activities, vacant lands, unpaved roadways and the like that have been determined to be the source of significant contributions to PMto violations. The Coachella Valley will continue to be closely monitored and could face sanction unless the PM10 standard is met for three consecutive years. The project site is also located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated as a "severe-17" Ozone non-attainment area because of violations of the Federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. This designation indicates that the attainment date for federal ozone standards is November 2007. This project would be consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook Standards. However, due to future project construction activity emissions, the project applicant would be required to comply with the City's Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance and the new fugitive dust control ordinance. Compliance with this ordinance would mitigate the impacts to air quality to a level of insignificance. MITIGATION 1) The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM,o) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The plan must implement reasonably available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. 3.d)AIR QUALITY- No Impact The proposed project would be located on a site that is adjacent to a residential development to the southeast. Adjacent property to the north and east is vacant land. The proposed project would not alter climatological conditions either locally or regionally, nor would the proposed residences interrupt wind patterns due to the low profile of the single-story structures. No mitigation measures are required. 3.e) AIR QUALITY- No Impact Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach 1' 36-13 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant air quality impact. No mitigation measures are required. 4. 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ • to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 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? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Cornmmnity ❑ ❑ ❑ • Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 4. a, d c d f) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — No Impact James Cornett, an ecological consultant, conducted a biological study of the proposed Phase II project area to determine the possible occurrence of officially-listed plant or animal species at the site. Literature review and museum records review was conducted prior to on-site field work. Field surveys were conducted during the day on November 11, 12, 14, 24, 2003; and Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact March 12, 13 and 14, 2004. The daytime floral surveys were conducted at a time of year when all ephemeral species would be in evidence. A night survey was conducted on the evening of November 12, 2003. The evenings of April 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2004, were also utilized to capture flying insects with three black light insect traps in order to ascertain the occurrence of Casey's June Beetle on the project site. Plant surveys were conducted by walking north-south transects at twenty-yard intervals through the project site an fifty yards beyond the western and northern site boundaries. Animal surveys were conducted simultaneously with plant surveys. Additionally, twenty-five Sherman live-animal traps for large and small mammals were set within the project site. Both day and night live-trapping was conducted. The Sonoran creosote brush scrub community was the only plant association found. Approximately 10% of the project site has been disturbed by clearing and grubbing. That area was dominated by weed species that germinate and follow the removal of the creosote brush scrub community. No floral species from The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were found. The following fauna species were encountered on the site: eleodes beetle, harvester ant, pallid band-winged grasshopper, painted lady butterfly, side-blotched lizard, western whiptail, mourning dove, house finch, common raven, red-tailed hawk, black-tailed jackrabbit, Merriam kangaroo rat, coyote and Palm Springs ground squirrel. No insect species from the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list was found to occur at the proposed project site. Additionally specific effort was made to locate sign of the desert tortoise and flat- tailed horned lizard, but no individuals or sign was found. Therefore, none of the plant and animal species found within the project boundaries are officially listed by any governmental agency. Additionally, Coachella Valley Milk Vetch and Casey's June beetle were not present on the site. Therefore it was determined that this project will not have a significant negative impact on any of the species of plants or animals recorded at the project site as all those species have ranges far beyond the parameters of the proposed project site. 1 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ • ❑ ❑ §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ • ❑ ❑ pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ • paleontological resource or site or unique 3 " ' Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5, a CULTURAL RESOURCES — Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation As a result of a cultural resources archival research study and a field study conducted by ASM Affiliates, under the supervision of Dr. Jerry Schaefer on January 23, 2004, four historic resources were identified. Three of the four were pieces of historic period irrigation pipe, likely associated with the Palm Springs Water Company Pipeline. Three segments were found at various locations on the proposed building site. It was determined that similar pipeline segments have been located at other locations and determined not to be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. Additionally, a fourth historic resource was located: a small historic can scatter that was most likely the result of household dumping. Since there has been no known recorded historic residences on the property it is presumed the material was brought to the site from elsewhere. As the original source of the historic material is thus unidentifiable and cannot be associated with any known household or historic pattern, the site is not significant and therefore no further work is recommended. Because the exposed portions of once-buried pipeline would indicate that the potential for further segments to be encountered upon excavation of the site, the following mitigation measure is required to ensure the documentation of the pipeline alignment and would reduce the significance of impact to a historic resource to less than significant. MITIGATION 1) Pipeline alignments shall be carefully documented by the archeological monitors on site when pipeline segments are uncovered in the course of excavation and construction. 5. b)— CULTURAL RESOURCES — Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation The proposed project site is within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal lands. In the course of the field study conducted by ASM Affiliates there was also discovered a small rock ring that was notable due to its associated marine shell, which was a common trade item between the Cahuilla people and coastal groups. The age of the ring is currently indeterminate but the associated marine shell renders it potentially significant and eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. Pre-construction testing was recommended for the site with the participation of a Native American monitor. On May 14, 2004, Dr. Jerry Schaefer, a senior archaeologist, and Mr. Aaron Cruz, a Cultural Resources Monitor with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians undertook subsurface testing of the site in order to determine the age, cultural affiliation and function of the small rock ring with associated marine shell. The purpose of the testing was to determine the age, n, i+-71 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact cultural affiliation and function of the site. The results of the testing were inconclusive with regard to the age, function, and cultural affiliation of the rock ring. Inferences from the testing include that the feature is most likely of recent historic origin because of its superficial nature although the rock ring and shell do not conform to any typically recent Euro-american activities. It may be possible to obtain an AMS radiocarbon date from the shell but the results are predicted to be difficult to interpret. None of the shell species found at the site are commonly found at Cahuilla sites. It can be concluded with certainty that there are no subsurface components associated with the rock ring site. Additionally the research concluded that there was no evidence of any ceremonial activity such as associated with a cremation burial, clothes burning, or any other mortuary activity. Therefore it was concluded that the site as evaluated was not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources because the age, cultural context, and function could not be ascertained with any certainty. It was recommended that consultation be undertaken with the Agua Caliente Band of Cauilla Indians before a final determination is made. In order to ensure that all Tribal interests and resources that may be included at the site are fully monitored and documented the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures the impact to significant archeological resources will be reduced to less than significant: MITIGATION 1) Consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Resource Office shall occur to determine the further treatment of the rock ring site. 2) A Cultural Resources Monitor, designated by the Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Office shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Office for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. 3) Should buried deposits be encountered, the Cultural Resources Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning and Zoning and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, 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. 4) Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building and Engineering Department and one copy of the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection. 5.c) CULTURAL RESOURCES — No Impact The potential for the proposed project property to yield paleontological remains or unique geologic features is low due to the geologic substate of the alluvial fan that comprises the surface soils that would be disturbed during the normal grading and construction activities Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact associated with single-family residential construction. Therefore it is determined there is potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or geologic feature. 5.d)_CULTURAL RESOURCES — Less Than Significant Impact Due to the range of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians the potential exists for the possibility of finding human remains in the area. In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the remains. The designated Native American representative than determines in consultation with the property owner the disposition of the human remains. Compliance with this law will reduce any potential inputs to a less that significant level. 6. 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 knowm earthquake fault, as deliaea(ed on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ • ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a ]mown fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii)Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ • ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ • liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ • ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ • ❑ ❑ 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-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), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tavtks or alternative waste water ❑ ❑ ❑ • disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6a.i. a.ii )GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation The majority of Riverside County lies within areas subject to seismic hazards. The subject site lies approximately three miles south of the Southern Branch of the San Andreas fault, an area of high seismic risk. The area has a low potential for liquefaction due to a relatively low water table and negligible potential For landslides due to the lack of steep unstable slopes on the site, A detailed soils report will be prepared as part of the final project engineering. The report will be prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer and will identify site-specific soils issues that must be addressed in site grading and building construction. No known active faults cross the site. However, the proposed site is approximately three miles south of the Southern Branch of the San Andreas fault line and considered an area of high seismic risk. Specific data regarding the probability of a major seismic event remains controversial among geologists evaluating the Palm Spirngs' area. In the November 2002 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74 scientists provided data to support the probability of a major seismic event of a magnitude 7 or higher in Palm Springs as overdue based upon detailed records of prior events gleaned from core drillings within the fault. Other geologists from Cal State San Bernadino immediately refuted those findings. Therefore, statistical probability predicting the occurrence of a major seismic event in the area is not available, but the ability to prepare for such an event can be utilized as mitigation measures. All structures within the general area may be subject to severe ground shaking in the event of a seismic event. Engineered design and earthquake-resistant construction increases the safety and allows for development in seismic areas. Standard City requirements to protect future occupants of the proposed project include that the developer be required to submit a precise grading plan and soils report for the project area for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits and that all structures will be constructed to meet Uniform Building Codes specific to earthquake design standards. The soils report will address subsidence and the possibility of expansive soils on the property. The grading plan will be required to be incompliance with the soils report. Grading and construction decisions will be made upon review of the grading plan and soils report. MITIGATION 1) The facility will be designed to applicable seismic standards per the State of California Uniform Building Code. 2) A soils test will be required as part of the final engineering. All site grading, compaction, building pad construction, and foundations will be per the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer. All earthwork and Foundations shall be inspected to assure compliance with the engineer's recommendations. 6.a.iii)GEOLOGY AND SOILS - No Impact The site is located in an area generally designated as having a low potential for liquefaction as the groundwater in the area is generally in excess of 50 feet, noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report for Tentative Tract No. 28507, December 1997, a project proposal for the P Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mountain Gate Phase I site. It was further noted that fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. Therefore it is determined that the project site are will have a low potential for liquefaction. 6.a.iv)GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Less Than Significant Impact There are no steep or unstable slopes on the project site. Immediately west of the project site (across adjacent Highway III) an alluvial fan formation rises to the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. The toe slopes of that mountain range are approximately one to two miles from the project site. Those slopes and the associated alluvial fan could have the potential for instability during a catastrophic fault failure but the possibility of landslide impacts is negligible due to the distance of the project site from the toe slopes. Therefore it is determined that the project would expose people or structures to the possibility of landslides is less than significant. 6.b.) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Project implementation will require site grading. The area is also known to experience periods of high wind that can promote soil erosion. The movement of vehicles and personnel on unpaved surfaces during construction may also result in soil erosion. Ultimately, the majority of the site will be improved with structures, pavement, or landscaping that will stabilize onsite soils and prevent erosion. MITIGATION 1. All grading will be performed in accordance with a grading permit issued by the City of Palm Springs. 2. An erosion control plan will be prepared and implemented during construction. 3. A PM10 Plan will be prepared to mitigate dust generation resulting from winds and vehicle/personnel activities. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer must comply with the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) relative to dust mitigation including Rules 402 and 403. 5. See SECTION 3, AIR QUALITY for full air quality mitigation. 6.c. d) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - No Impact The site is not located in a geologic unit or soil unit that is considered unstable. Soils in the immediate area are not considered to be expansive. Therefore it is determined to have no impact. 6.e) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - No Impact Although onsite soils tests have not been performed, the proposed project will utilize City of Palm Springs sewer. On-site disposal systems are not necessary. Therefore it is determined that the project to have no impact. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. 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 Section 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 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two tr les of a public airport or 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 lire 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, injmy or death involving wnldland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ • urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 6.a—q) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — No Impact The proposed project is residential in nature and would not routinely involve the transport or use of hazardous materials therefore there is a very minimal possibility that the project site would be involved with a use that could create a significant hazard to public by accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project site is not within a quarter of a mile from a school site. The nearest school is approximately one mile away. Nor is the 34- 1 ' Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Lnpaet Incorporated Impact Impact project site located on listed site compiled by Government Code Section 65962.5. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has determined the project site to be beyond its sphere of influence nor is the project site within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. 6.h)_HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project site is located next to a state highway to the southwest, open desert on the north and east and Mountain Gate Phase I; a prior phase of the proposed residential development comprised of 308 single-family residences. The potential for fire from the desert in a wildland fire event does exist. Based on the vegetative species associated with adjacent vacant desert land that consists of low-lying shrub and sparse dispersal of plant material the fuel index on the adjacent desert is moderate at best. Therefore the potential to expose people or structures to a significant level of risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is determined to be less than significant. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ • ❑ discharge requirements? 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 table 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, ina ❑ El • ❑ 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 which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ • ❑ ❑ stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 13t Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ • g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ • Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ • flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ c ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or raudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ • 8. a —d and I ) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Less Than Significant Impact Prior to construction of the proposed project, the applicant and its contractor(s)will be required to obtain all necessary clearance and permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement the City's standards for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Board (NPDES) best method practices such that during construction, violations of water quality standards do not occur. Measures to eliminate discharge of polluted runoff or erosion of adjacent undisturbed areas will be required. The proposed project is a single family home subdivision with community recreations areas, and will not generate any polluted water or waste discharges. Stormwater runoff from on-site will be conveyed to on-site retention basins that will filter and dissipate the runoff such that direct discharges of potentially polluted water is not released directed into a natural drainage course or the water aquifer. It is not anticipated that the proposed subdivision will deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The subdivision is being developed in accordance with Desert Water Agency requirements, and is providing additional well sites within the development for future use in generating additional domestic water supplies. The existing site is vacant and native desert land, with no existing stream or rivers. Construction of the project will result in less on site absorption and increased stormwater runoff due to the construction of impervious surfaces. The site is designed to accommodate stormwater runoff in the streets, convey the runoff to on-site retention areas, and therefore no erosion, siltation or flooding on or off-site will occur. The existing site is protected from off-site stormwater runoff by the southerly levee of the Chino Creek Channel that runs parallel to the northwest boundary of the project. This levee is owned and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and is part of the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs area. The purpose of the levee is to intercept and redirect sotrmwater runoff generated off of the San Jacinto Mountains and the Chino Cone. And convey the runoff to the Whitewater River. This levee Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact connects with and is part of the levee system adjacent to the Whitewater River that provide flood control protection for the City of Palm Springs. The risk of failure of the Chino Creek levee is less than significant, and would only occur as a result of flooding that exceeds the design storm of the levee system, in excess of the 100-year storm. 8.e) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Less than Significant with Mitigation A Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 32028 was prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, dated March 4, 2004. The Report identifies that the project site is protected from off-site stormwater runoff by the southerly levee of the Chino Creek Channel that runs parallel to the northwest boundary of the project, and by Highway 111 along the southwest boundary of the project which effectively acts as a levee against all overland stormwater runoff from the west. Highway 111 is elevated above the project site, and off-site stormwater runoff is conveyed through three different culverts onto the property. Development of the vacant land will increase the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the project site, as well as provide additional sources of polluted stormwater runoff. However, the development will implement the measures outlines in the Hydrology Report, as finalized and approved by the City Engineer, including conveyance and collection of all on-site stormwater runoff to on-site retention basins. Existing off-site stormwater runoff conveyed to the project site under Highway 111 will be intercepted and directed to existing flood control improvements and drainage basins constructed as a part of the adjacent development. Through construction of required on-site storm drain and flood control improemen5ts, the increase in stormwater runoff generated by the development will be decreased to a level less than significant. The development is providing for the future construction of Line 2 of the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area, and will not exceed the capacity of any exiting or planned stormwater drainage system. MITIGATION 1) Payment of Drainage Acreage fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage for the Palm Springs Area. 2) The development shall comply with the recommended measures as outlined in the Hydrology Report, as finalized and approved by the City Engineer, including but not limited to construction of an on site storm drain system and retention basins. 8. f— In and D HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— No Impact No disturbance of the subsurface water resources is proposed and therefore development of the site will not alter the location, quantity or recharge of groundwater. The site is not located within a designated 100 year flood plain and the site is considered free from a major flood hazard. All new structures constructed within the proposed development will be outside of any 100-year flood hazard area, and will not impede or redirect flood flows, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. There is no risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. 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 plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ • ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an enviromnental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ • conservation plan? 9. a, bj LAND USE AND PLANNING — Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is a second phase of a previously entitled single-family residential planned development district, Mountain Gate I. Phase I is presently under construction. The first phase consisted of a subdivision of 83 acres into 308 residential lots with associated on and off-site improvements. An Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration for Phase I was adopted at the time of entitlement, approved by the City of Palm Springs' City Council February 26, 2003. That component is located immediately southeast of the proposed Phase II. Phase II consists of a 46± acre parcel with a proposal to subdivide that undeveloped land into 199 residential lots with associated on and off-site improvements. Phase I was the first residential subdivision that was entitled and proceeded into the construction phase in many years in north Palm Springs. At the time of Phase I entitlement neighborhood meetings with the existing Desert Highlands neighborhood introduced the project and encouraged existing neighborhood participation in the public review process. The result of that neighborhood involvement culminated with a very active and vocal community planning process documented by numerous letters and public comment at the public hearings conducted for project review. The overwhelming majority of comments expressed support for the project. One specific area of concern was the disenfranchisement of the existing community upon the construction of a walled and gated new development on the periphery of a very cohesive established community. To date approximately 100 of the 308 residences proposed have been finaled for occupancy. During the construction process the City of Palm Springs Planning staff has received one complaint regarding the new construction from adjacent property owners that involved the undergrounding of utility lines. Therefore it is determined that Phase ll, a proposed project that is considered an extension of an established land use pattern will have a less than significant impact upon the established community. Phase II of the Mountain Gate residential subdivision was envisioned during the entitlement process for Phase I consideration by the City of Palm Springs but was not incorporated in the tentative tract map or environmental review at that time due to the fact that the adjacent land had not been acquired nor was the extent of potential acreage that could be acquired known at the time. The private interior streets in Phase I were platted and are constructed to provide 13 _ Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact connectivity to the more northwestern property, if in fact it could be purchased. The Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by City Council Resolution February 26, 2003, and is incorporated by reference within this document. The proposed application is for a Planned Development District, as was Phase I. The underlying zoning designation for both phases is single-family residential, R-1-C, and General Plan designation L4, that allows four units per acre in density. The density that could have been utilized within Phase I was 361 units. Three hundred and eight (308) were proposed and entitled to be constructed. Therefore a density transfer of 53 units could occur between Phase I and Phase II upon evaluation of the overall site. The proposed density of Phase 11 is 199 units. The overall acreage for both phases is 129± acres. The overall density allowed with the low density (1-4) General Plan designation is 516 units. The proposed density for Phase I and Phase II is 507 units. Within the Planned Development District process a project may ask for relief to certain standards of development required within the overlying zoning designation if it is compatible with adjacent land uses, provides recreational and amenity-oriented open space not less than that required by zone, and encourages a project of qualitative design. Phase consists of lots that range in size from 5,500 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Phase II consists of lots that range in size from 5,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Both projects consist of eight floor plans in two different product lines; the El Dorado line has four floor plans and the homes will range in size from 1,211 to 1,820 square feet. The Ventana Collection also has four floor plans and the homes will rnage in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet. The homes will be single-story with a maximum building height of 18 feet. The Phase 11 component of the Mountain Gate project is asking for relief to the following R-1-C zoning designation standards of development: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot size 10,000 square feet 5,000—7,500 square feet Minimum lot width: Interior Lot 100, 54' — 82' Corner Lot 110, 80' — 110' Lot coverage 35% 6 units — 55% 33 units —45% 44 units — 38% 116 units — 35% or less Minimum dwelling size 1,500 square feet 1,211 square feet Yard setbacks: Front 25' 20' Side — Interior 10, 5' Side — Corner 20' 10, Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact As previously mentioned, the Planned Development District process requires that the open space for planned districts shall be equal to or greater than the minimum open space requirement for the zone in which the planned district is located unless otherwise approved by the planning commission and city council. Recreational areas, drainage facilities and other main-made structures may be considered to meet a part of the open space requirements. Open space shall also be integrated into the overall design of the project. Both Mountain Gate Phase I and Phase II include landscape right-of-ways adjacent to public streets and highways that incorporate pedestrian walkways and equestrian trails. All drainage retention areas in both phases are landscaped. Phase I included two recreation areas with pools and spa. One of those two recreation areas included a childrens' play area and tennis courts. Phase 11 will include a common recreation area with pool and spa, also. The following tables quantify the open space requirements for both phases and the overall project: MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE I Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 760,122 20.81% Open Space * 2,395,801 65.61% Private Streets 495,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase 1 3,651,635 sq. ft. 100.00% Open Space includes 49,658 square feet of decorative pavement. MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE 11 Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 452,957 22.64% Open Space ** 1,278,224 65.61% Private Streets 496,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase II 2,000,711 100.00% * Open Space includes 28,420 square feet of decorative pavement. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Lnpact Impact TOTAL OF MOUNTIAN GATE PHASE I AND PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 1,213,079 21.46% Open Space 3,674,025 65.00% Private Streets 765,242 13.54% TOTAL Phase I & II 5,652,346 100.00% Therefore it is determined that the proposed Mountain Gate Phase I and II project is not in conflict with any applicable land use plan or general plan of the City of Palm Springs. 9 c) LAND USE AND PLANNING — No Impact There is no known applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan associated with the proposed project site, therefore it is determined to have no impact. 10. 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 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? 10. a b) MINERAL RESOURCES — No Impact The proposed site does not incorporate any know mineral resource of calculable value to the region or residents of the state, The California State Mining Board has sought consideration of mineral extraction (sand and gravel resources) in the general area as a means of protecting this resource for future generations. No specific mineral resources have been identified in the project site area. Loss of 46± acres of land will not affect the overall sand and gravel resources of the region. Therefore the project will not have an impact on the area's mineral resources, 11.NOISE—Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? lti ti. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome ❑ ❑ ❑ • noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ • ❑ existing without die project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ • ❑ ❑ levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ • airport, world the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ • or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. a) NOISE — Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The City of Palm Springs General Plan established noise level guidelines in relation to land use categories in the 1993 General Plan Update in order to meet the objective of low noise levels in the community as part of a broad approach to environmental quality control. To assure that that objective would be met several General Plan policies were established as follows, as applicable to the proposed residential development: 6.20.1 Protect noise sensitive land uses such as residences...from acceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources. Sensitive land uses shall not be located where noise levels are excessive unless adequate attenuation can be achieved. • 6.20.2 Project design will include measures which assure adequate interior noise levels as required by Title 25 (California Noise Insulation Standards), 6.20.4 New developments will be permitted areas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL only if appropriate mitigation measures are included such that the appropriate standards are met. In order to assure that the above policies will be met a noise study was conducted Endo Engineering January 20, 2004. Two forms of noise impacts were evaluated: short-term construction related impacts and long-term exposures to traffic noise from the adjacent State Highway III. It was determined that long-term acoustic impacts could occur both off-site and on-site if the project is approved and implemented. In order to mitigated that long-term impact the following mitigation measures will be incorporated: 13 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact MITIGATION 1) Proposed single family detached residential development adjacent to State Highway III shall be evaluated by a qualified noise consultant at more detailed levels of planning to ensure that adequate noise attenuation strategies are incorporated to meet the Palm Springs noise standard of 65 CNEL in outside living areas and 45 dBA in interior living areas. The project applicant shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the required shielding shall be incorporated in the project design, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. b) NOISE— No Impact Residential vehicular traffic is the only noise source anticipated once construction activities are completed. Ground borne vibrations associated with manufacturing and large-scale commercial operations that would have the effect of creating ground borne vibrations will not be associated with the land use proposed, therefore there would be no impact. 11.c) NOISE — Less Than Significant With the increase of 199 residential households as proposed there will be a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity about levels existing without the project. The level of ambient noise increase will not be substantial. The project is surrounded on three sides by vacant land or state highway. Mountain Gate Phase I of 308 single-family residences will be the only project in the vicinity to be impacted by the ambient noise level increase. The most specific increase will be attributed to increased vehicular traffic through the Phase I component of the Mountain Gate project. That increased traffic is circulated through private interior streets. All interior streets are speed regulated and have incorporated traffic calming devices of periodic narrowing of the streets widths (chokers) accented by decorative pavement (another visual method of traffic calming). Therefore a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project is determined to be less than significant. 11. d) NOISE— Less Than Significant with Mitigation Short-term construction-related impacts necessary to implement the proposed land uses at the site will produce noise levels higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but will subside once construction is completed. The project development will be required to comply with the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code noise ordinance that includes hours of operation and maximum levels of acceptable noise levels for construction activity. In addition the following mitigation measures shall be required: MITIGATION 1) 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 sensitive time periods. The Construction Site Regulations (Chapter 8,04.220) also identifies 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 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact normal sensitivity. 2) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. 3) All construction equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. 4) Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise- sensitive receptors. 5) Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy equipment and on-site construction vehicles shall be located as far as practical from existing homes. 6) Every effort shall be made during construction activities to create the greatest distance between noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site. 7) Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. 8) Future on-site development shall comply will all relevant noise policies set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan. 11. e f) NOISE— No Impact The proposed project site is not located within two miles of a public airport nor is it within the vicinity of a private airstrip therefore the project will not expose people residing or working there to excessive noise levels and has no impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ❑ ❑ • ❑ exa nple, 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? 12. a) POPULATION AND HOUSING — Less Than Significant Impact The increase in housing units for the Phase II component of the Mountain Gate residential subdivision is 199 units directly contributing to the population growth of the City of Palm Springs. One hundred and ninety-nine units (199) can be adequately served by existing infrastructure or the incorporation of assessment districts to be financed by the new users of 1 ,314W Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact such services. More specific reference to assessment districts is covered in XVI. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES of this document. An increase of a projected as two persons per dwelling for a projected 398 residents. The population of the City of Palm Springs is 42,155 as of the U.S. Bureau of Census count in 2000. Regionally, the County of Riverside was projected after the 2000 Census to have a population of 1,699,112 residents, by 2002. That projection represented a 9.9% increase in population from April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2002. If the City of Palm Springs were to also experience a 9.9% increase in population as of the census of 2000, it would be estimated to have obtained a population of 45,949 by the year 2002. Therefore the City would have experienced an increase of 3,794 residents in two years. Data is not available to adequately estimate if that increase in population has occurred but it does indicate that an increase of 398 residents would represent 10% of a potential population increase (3,794 residents) for a two year period. Therefore it can be concluded that the increase of 398 residents does not represent a substantial increase in population growth with a less than significant impact. 12. b c) POPULATION AND HOUSING — No Impact The proposed project is to be constructed on vacant property that has not been previously developed. Therefore no displacement of existing houses or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere will occur, nor will there be an impact. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES a) 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, die, 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 public services: Fire protection? ❑ • ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Schools? ❑ • ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ • 13. a — fire protection) PUBLIC SERVICES — Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Fire Station No. 2 is located on Racquet Club Drive. Mountain Gate Phase II is beyond the five minute response time from this station thereby necessitating the following mitigation measure to adequately provide fire protection: 1 /4f , Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact MITIGATION: 1) All residences shall be equipped with fire sprinklers per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. 13. b — police protection PUBLIC SERVICES — Less Than Significant The City of Palm Springs Police Department will provide police protection for the proposed project. Staffing levels of both Fire and Police Departments are currently under review by the City of Palm Springs. At this time there appears to be adequate staffing to service the future development. 13. c— schools)_PUBLIC SERVICES —Less Than Significant with Mitigation The proposed project is not age restricted, therefore the possibility of residences with school- age children is anticipated. The City of Palm Springs is located within the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). The Palm Springs Unified School District has identified shortfalls in providing adequate facilities and has adopted a mitigation impact fee assessed to all new residential development that is not age restricted. Payment of those fees would reduce the impacts of the project on schools to below a level of significance. The following mitigation will be required: MITIGATION 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential construction the develop shall pay a school impact fee based on the current rate as adopted by the Palm Springs unified School District. 13. d - parks) PUBLIC SERVICES - Less Than Significant Impact There are approximately 130 acres of City-owned and developed parkland within the City of Palm Springs. The city-owned parks in the City include Desert Highland Park, Victoria Park, Ruth Hardy Park, Sunrise Park and Demuth Park. Other nearby recreational facilities include several golf courses which are opera to the public, such as Mesquite Country Club and Palm Springs Golf Course. Many private golf and tennis clubs are also located within Palm Springs and throughout the Coachella Valley. The Murray, Andreas, and Palm Canyon recreation areas, operated by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians are also located nearby. A large system of hiking/equestian trails is located in the southern and western portions of the City. The proposed project will extend both public pedestrian walkways and equestrian trails that currently exist at the project's southeastern boundary. According to the City's Parks and Recreation Department, existing City parks and recreational facilities are insufficient to serve the current City residents. The development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the number of residents needing parks and recreation areas ans would therefore require additional parkland within the City. Through the State Quimby Act, and the City Ordinance No. 1632, Section IV the developer will be required to pay a few for park and recreational purposes; the in lieu fee would be computed based upon the formula contained in the Ordinance No. 1632. Further discussion under section 14 a) of this document relates to the recreation fee. With the inclusion of the in lieu fee the projects impact on recreational facilities will be reduced to less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 13. e — other facilities) PUBLIC SERVICES - No Impact The proposed project is not anticipated to have impacts on any other types of public facilities. 14.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 ❑ ❑ ❑ recreational facilities which mrght have ail adverse physical effect on the environment? 14. a) RECREATION - Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation The project has the potential to increase the number of residents to the City that would use existing City and regional parks. The developer will be required to pay the City a fee in lieu of making the dedication pursuant to Ordinance No. 1632, Section IV. The in-lieu fee shall be computed by multiplying the area of park to be dedicated by the fair market value of the land being developed plus the cost to acquire and improve the property plus the fair share contribution, less any credit given by the City, as may be reasonable determined by the City, based upon the formula contained in Ordinance No. 1632, The following mitigation fee shall apply to the proposed project: MITIGATION 1) In accordance with City Ordinance No. 1632 and the State of California's Quimby Act, the proposed residential development shall be required to pay in lieu mitigation fees to facilitate the further development of park and recreation facilities at a local level. 14. b) RECREATION — No Impact The proposed project includes the development of a number of recreational facilities including pool and spa available for the residents of the proposed project and multiple passive recreation opportunities within the project site. A landscaped pedestrian pathway transects the project site in approximately a north/south direction allowing safe pedestrian passage from the south end of the project to the 144,625 square foot lot dedicated to recreation in the northeast corner of the project site. None of the recreational amenities proposed would physically adversely effect the environment. Therefore there is no impact by the construction of the proposed recreation facilities, 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load ❑ • ❑ ❑ and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 congestion 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ o intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ • f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ • ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ • (e.g, bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? 15. a) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC— Less Than Significant With Mitigation The project will include 199 single-family units each with its own two car garage. The density proposed for the combined Phase I and Phase II components of the Mountain Gate subdivision is less than projected in the City's General Plan, and therefore less traffic will be using the surrounding street network. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project by Endo Engineering, dated January 2004, and the report is on file with the City. As the proposed development is an extension of the adjacent development, Phase I (Tentative Tract Map 30963), the Traffic Impact Study included analysis of the existing and proposed development, for a total of a maximum of 514 single-family residential lots. The analysis indicates the existing and proposed projects will generate 4,670 trips (1,760 trips for the new development and 2,910 trips for the existing development); 373 trips (145 trips for the new development and 228 trips for the existing development) will occur at the mid day peak hour and 469 trips (174 trips for the new development and 295 for the existing development) will occur at the evening peak hour. These trips will be accommodated by the Existing street system without any additional widening or land modifications. Key intersections studied for the Traffic Impact Study were State Highway III and Gateway Drive, and Indian Canyon Drive at Las Vegas Road and Tramview Road. A new traffic signal is being installed at State Highway III and Gateway Drive, in conjunction with construction of the existing development. Both intersections on Indian Canyon Drive will operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed project. Although rural peak hour traffic signal warrants at Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road may be reached in the year 2006, the intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service until the year 2020 when signalization my be warranted. The project contribution to this signal is 9.2%. If installed earlier by the project a reimbursement agreement should be provided by the City. The following mitigation measures shall be Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact incorporated and thereby reducing the level of significance caused by the increased traffic from the proposed development to less than significant: MITIGATION 1) The final design of the internal circulation and site access plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer to ensure compliance with City access and design standards. 2) The applicant shall dedicate appropriate right of way to accommodate the ultimate improvement of master planned roadways on or adjacent to the project site. 3) State Highway III shall be improved to City and/or Caltrans design standards adjacent to the project site. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided on-site to meet the requirements of the Palm springs Municipal Code. 4) A fair share contribution shall be made towards the future signalization of Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road. 5) The applicant shall pay all required Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) prior to issuance of building permits. 15 b f and q) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Less Than Significant Impact The project will facilitate additional widening and improvements along State Highway III. The completion of the street improvements (additional pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk) will provide a safer condition for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed a level of service standard established by Riverside County Transportation Commission, nor result in inadequate parking capacity, nor conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 15. c, d and e) TRANS PORTATION/TRAFIC — No Impact The project is not located near an airport facility and proposed no structure or lighting that would interfere with air traffic movements. The project has been designed using City standards for the on-site private streets and intersections and no adverse impacts to street design or emergency access is anticipated. The project design already incorporates many of the recommended mitigation measures of the traffic analysis (i.e. right of way dedications, design and improvements to City standards, and provisions for adequate parking), and therefore, only those additional recommendations are incorporated as mitigation measures under section 15. a. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ • Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ r Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ • ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ • ❑ projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the projects ❑ ❑ • ❑ solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ • ❑ and regulations related to solid waste'? 12.a) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — No Impact The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board therefore is determined to have no impact. 12. b— e) UTILTIES AND SEVICE SYSTEMS — Less Than Significant Impact The Desert Water Agency (DWA) currently owns, operates, and maintains water distribution and pumping facilities within the project area. Project proponents will be required to drill a water well to adequately service the site for domestic water service and adequate fire flow. The well will be located in the northeastern most corner of the property, at the highest elevation. It will be located on a .58 acre lot that will be conveyed to DWA with the associated infrastructure. It will then connect to existing DWA water infrastructure to provide water to the site for construction and domestic water service. The developer will be required to 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, replacement, and abandonment of existing DWA facilities. These improvements may require construction within and adjacent to public rights-of-way and exiting and/or proposed easements. Construction will occur in accordance with DWA and City requirements and will not cause any significant effects upon the environment. 17. 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 wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elhninate a 1 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future e projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ human beings,either directly or indirectly? 17.a) MANDATORY FINDINS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Less Than Significant Impact The project has been evaluated for its potential to degrade the quality of the environment and has been determined after review of, but not limited to, the studies conducted specific to the proposed project site to not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. All mitigation measures previously incorporated in this review have reduced the level of those concerns to less than significant impact. 17. b) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Less Than Significant Impact The City of Palm Springs has been in a very active residential development phase for the past two years, as indicated by the fast pace of construction and occupancy of the Phase I component of the Mountain Gate project. The advantages to research when entitlement and constructions activity is current are many. For instance, the City of Palm Springs staff has availability to studies involving traffic, biological resources, cultural resources, noise and air quality from numerous projects with very current data. Those numerous studies allow for integration of data from project to project thereby representing a more regional portrayal of cumulative impacts to the environment. Similarly demands on public services are also evaluated cumulatively. The most difficult components of the Environmental Assessment to evaluate and typically, most controversial, is the cumulative significance relative to land use and aesthetics of mass, scale and density associated with all development and the perception of rapid change in a relatively small community. Compliance with the City of Palm Springs General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are the most effective means of maintaining consistency of implementation of policy and goals inherent in the General Plan. Therefore it is determined that the cumulative effect of past, present and future projects has a less than significant impact. tl Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. c) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — No Impact Previous sections of this document reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts related to traffic, air pollution, noise, health and safety, and other issues. As explained in those sections, the proposed project would not result in significant impact related to these issues. 18. LISTED BELOW ARE THE PERSON(S) WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning and Zoning, City of Palm Springs David Barakian, City Engineer, City of Palm Springs Carl Thibeault, Fire Marshal, City of Palm Springs Marcus Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Palm Springs Kathy Marx, Associate Planner, City of Palm Springs Bruce Kessler, Civil Engineer, MSA Consulting, Inc., Rancho Mirage Margo Thibeault, Planner, MSA Consulting, Inc., Rancho Mirage DETERMINATION 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. l7 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 enviroinrient, 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. Dougsa R va&s Date Director of Planning and Zoning AIR QUALITY AND NOISE IMPACT STUDY AMENDED MOUNTAIN GATE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (TENTATIVE TRACT 30963 AND 32028) NORTH OF GATEWAY DRIVE BETWEEN HIGHWAY 111 AND INDIAN CANYON DRIVE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JANUARY 20, 2004 Prepared For: Ms. Marty Butler Century Crowell Communities 1535 South "D" Street- Suite 200 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Telephone: (909) 381-6007 FAX: (909) 381-0041 Prepared By: Endo Engineering 288It Woodcock Drive Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Telephone: (949) 362-0020 FAX: (949) 362-0015 E-Mail: endoengr@cox.net emissions projections for carbon monoxide and reactive organic compounds are projected to exceed the SCAQMD operational emissions significance thresholds. Cumulative operational emissions generated over the long term by the proposed project in conjunction with development of other project wills in the region will exceed at least two of the SCAQMD operational emissions significance threshold criteria. It is not possible to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance. Table 3-6 1' Projected Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near the Intersection of State Highway 111 and Gateway Drive 1-Hour Averageb (ppm) 8-Hour Averagee (ppm) Receptor Comera(Feet) N E N E �I Year 2006 No-Project Year 2006 CO Backgroundd 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.4 Ambient Traffic Contribution 0_2 0_2 0_1 0_1 Year 2006 Background+Ambient 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 Year 2006 + Project Year 2006 CO Backgroundd 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.4 Project Buildout Traffic Contribution 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 Year 2006 Background+Buildout 2.6 2.6 1.6 1.6 Year 2020 No-Project Year 2020 Future CO Backgroundd 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.3 Ambient Traffic Contribution 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Year 2020 Background+Ambient 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.4 Year 2020 + Project I Year 2020 Future CO Backgroundd 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.3 Project Buildout Traffic Contribution 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Year 2020 Background+Buildout 2.4 2.4 1.4 1.4 State Standard 20.0 20.0 9.0 9.0 Federal Standard 35.0 35.0 9.0 9.0 a. Receptors are located on the east and north corners of the intersection 72.5 meters from the center of the two northbound lanes on State Highway I I I and 72.5 meters from the Gateway Drive centerline. b. Refer to Appendix A for the assumptions and CALINE 4 output sheets. c. A persistence factor of 0.6 was used to determine the 8-hour CO concentrations from the 1-hour values. d. The background CO concentrations were taken from the SCAQMD web site"CEQA Handbook"Update I Revised August, 2003. The background concentration, when added to the CO concentration near each intersection,yields the total CO concentration projected to occur in the project vicinity. 3-27 I Upon full occupancy in the year 2006, the project is expected to generate up to 637 pounds of carbon monoxide, 80 pounds of reactive organic gases, 75 pounds of NOx, 47 pounds of PMro and less than one pound of SOx, daily. Project-related motor vehicle and area source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD operational emission significance thresholds for carbon monoxide and reactive organic gases. Carbon Monoxide "Hot Spot" Analysis �i Future carbon monoxide levels in the project vicinity during peak hour traffic were assessed with the CALINE4 computer model at the most heavily used intersection. The intersection of State Highway I I I and Gateway Drive was modeled for year 2006 and year 2020 conditions with and without the project, as shown in Table 3-6. Other intersections carrying project-related traffic will experience smaller increases in carbon monoxide levels than those shown in Table 3-6. As shown in Table 3-6, year 2006 ambient(no-project) peak hour traffic will contribute up to 0.2 ppm (over a 1-hour period) and up to 0.1 ppm (over an 8-hour period) to the carbon monoxide concentrations at the closest residential receptor locations near the intersection of State Highway III and Gateway Drive. The highest carbon monoxide concentration expected at the nearest sensitive receptor sites at the intersection of State Highway I 1 and Gateway Drive under year 2006 ambient conditions is projected to be 2.5 ppm over a 1- hour averaging period and 1.5 ppm over an 8-hour averaging period. Project-related traffic volumes would increase carbon monoxide levels at receptors near this intersection by up to 0.1 ppm (over a 1-hour period) and 0.1 ppm (over an 8-hour period). Changes in CO concentrations of this magnitude are insignificant. Similarly, year 2020 ambient (no-project) peak hour traffic will contribute up to 0.1 ppm (over a 1-hour period) and up to 0.1 ppm (over an 8-hour period) to the carbon monoxide concentrations, adjacent to the intersection of State Highway 111 and Gateway Drive. With year 2020 ambient traffic volumes, the highest carbon monoxide concentration expected at the sensitive receptor locations (72.5 meters) feet from this intersection is projected to be 2.3 ppm over a 1-hour averaging period and 1.4 ppm over an 8-hour averaging period. Project-related traffic volumes would increase year 2020 carbon monoxide levels by up to 0.1 ppm at the sensitive receptor locations near this intersection. This is an insignificant increase. 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. Based upon the CO "hot spot' analysis, 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 concentrations adjacent to the intersection modeled will be only a small fraction of the 20 ppm state standard and 35 ppm federal standard (1-hour average) with or without the proposed project. The state and federal 8-hour carbon monoxide standards will not be exceeded in the year 2006 or the year 2020 with or without the proposed development. Significance of Long-Terin 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. The project-related operational 3.2.3 LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Projections During the life of the proposed development, a variety of emissions will be produced by its day-to-day operations. Emission projections were made for the project buildout year (2006) with the URBENUS2002 model which utilizes EMFAC 2002 emission factors. The input assumptions utilized and model output sheets are provided in Appendix A. The results are summarized in Table 3-5 for a summer day and a winter day, because motor vehicle emissions of ROG, NOx, CO and S02 vary, depending upon the ambient temperature. Table 3-5 Project Buildout Operational Air Pollutant Emissionsa (Year 2006 Pounds/Day) Emissions Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 SUMMERDAY Motor Vehicles 53.98 49.57 629.31 0.54 47.46 Area Sources -Natural Gas 0,50 6.44 2.74 0.01 -Landscaping 0.58 0.08 5.17 0.16 0.01 -Consumer Products 25.15 -- -- - -- Subtotal 26.22 6.52 7.91 0.16 0.02 Total 80.20 56.09 637.22 0.70 47.48 WINTER DAY Motor Vehicles 43.97 68.33 498.80 0.47 47.46 Area Sources �i -Natural Gas 0.50 6.44 2.74 _ 0.01 -Landscaping -Consumer Products 25.15 - - - - Subtotal 25.65 6.44 2.74 0.01 Total 69.62 74.77 501.54 0.47 47.47 Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 Threshold Exceeded Yes No Yes No No a. See Appendix A for URBEMIS2002 (Version 7.4.2) output which utilizes EMPAC 2002 Version 2.2. 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 only 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 freshners, automotive products, household cleaners and personal care products. i �I On a peak day during the grading phase, the off-road diesel emissions generated at the project site are projected to include approximately: 24 pounds of ROG, 177 pounds of r NOx, 188 pounds of CO and 8 pounds of PM10. In addition, the active soil disturbance associated with earthwork on 20 acres will generate an estimated 200 pounds of fugitive IFdust. Emissions at this rate would exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for PM10 and NOx. On a peak construction day after grading is completed, air pollutant emissions associated with building construction activities are projected to total approximately 197 pounds of ROG, 425 pounds of NOx, 521 pounds of CO, 21 pounds of PM10 and less than one pound of S02. Emissions at this rate would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROG and NOx to the extent that they could most likely not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Table 3-4 provides the unmitigated quarterly construction emissions estimates associated with the proposed project. The quarterly emissions were determined from the average annual emissions estimates and include only actual working days (22 days per month). Theoretically, it is possible to not exceed the quarterly thresholds while exceeding the daily thresholds shown in Table 3-3. Table 3-4 Unmitigated Quarterly Construction Emissions Estimatesa (Tons/Quarter) Emissions Source tO. NOx CO SO2 PM10 Site Grading - Fugitive Dust .3 6.60 -Exhaust 5.85 6.36 0.00 0.27 Subtotal 5.85 6.36 0.00 6.87 Building Construction Maximum All Phases 6.51 13.35 16.68 0.00 4.92 SCAQMD Threshold 2.50 2.50 24.75 6.75 6.75 Threshold Exceeded Yes Yes No No Yes a. Refer to Appendix A for the URBEMIS2002 printouts. The quarterly emissions include only actual working days (22 days per month). Without mitigation, the SCAQMD quarterly threshold for NOx is projected to be exceeded during site grading activities and during building construction activities. In addition, the SCAQMD quarterly ROG threshold is projected to be exceeded during building construction activities on-site. Significance of Short-Term Impacts The proposed project is expected to exceed the SCAQMD daily and quarterly construction emission thresholds of significance for PM10, ROG and NOx during construction activities on site. The magnitude of the exceedances indicate that mitigation of all three criteria pollutant emission levels to a level of insignificance is not likely. 3-24 Y_ i , q it The project-related unmitigated construction emissions projections are provided in Table 3- 3. They 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 LJRBEMIS2002 worksheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 3-3 Peak Day Unmitigated Construction Emissions Estimatesa (Pounds/Day) l Emissions Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 SITE GRADING PRASE - Fugitive Dust - - - - 150,00 -Off-Road Diesel 24.32 199.18 171.82 9.74 -Worker Trips 0.31 0.35 7.35 0.00 0.01 Subtotal 24.63 199.53 179.17 0.00 159.76 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Construction Process -Off-Road Diesel 26.53 219.45 185.63 - 10.77 -Worker Trips 2.90 1.45 32.22 0.00 0.41 Architectural Coatings -Off-Gasing 67.76 - - - -Worker Trips 2.90 1.45 32.22 0.00 0.41 Asphalt Paving -Off-Gasing 1.19 - - _ -Off-Road Diesel 18.14 134.40 140.14 6.56 -On-Road Diesel 0.32 6.21 1.19 0.08 0.16 -Worker Trips 0.11 0.05 1.36 000 0.01 Maximum All Phasesb 100.10 222.34 250.07 0.08 160.82 Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 Threshold Exceeded Yes Yes No No Yes a. Refer to Appendix A for the LJRBEMIS2002 printouts. The PMto emissions include exhaust and fugitive dust emissions, assuming 15 acres per day are disturbed during grading. b. Building construction activities will occur in several phases. The maximum emission projections for any phase are included here. Not all building activities will occur simultaneously on-site. As shown in Table 3-3, construction activities undertaken to implement the proposed project, including the initial mass grading, will cause temporary increases in localized ROG, NOx, CO, S02 and PM10 emissions and concentrations in the project vicinity. The primary sources of construction-related emissions will be gasoline and diesel-powered heavy-duty mobile construction equipment, architectural coatings, and 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, the amount of grading required, wind speeds, the number and type of machinery used and the construction schedule. , 3 23 �I 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 threshold criteria for criteria air pollutant emissions. Project-related impacts that have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds require Overriding Considerations, regardless of compliance with the Palm Springs General Plan and the Regional Growth Management Plan. 3.2.2 SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS jShort-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 excavation, grading and clearing activities; 4) exhaust emissions from the heavy vehicles used to transport building materials to the site; and 5) off-gasnrg emissions from architectural coatings used for buildings and paving materials used for roads and parking areas. For a "worst case" short-term impact assessment, it was assumed that construction began in the year 2003 and will extend over a period of three years. Construction equipment on- site will typically operate eight hours per day and five days per week. Buildout and full occupancy of the site is expected to occur in the year 2006. The entire 129.33-acre project site will require grading including approximately 5 weeks of mass grading followed by several months of fine grading. Cut and fill quantities were assumed to be balanced on-site. During the grading activities, the maximum acreage disturbed per day is estimated to be 10 to 15 acres. Paving will occur on 15 to 20 percent of the site and require approximately 2 weeks to complete. Each incremental group of 35 dwellings require approximately 6 months to construct. Architectural coatings will be applied over the course of two weeks for each group of 35 dwellings. Several groups of 35 dwellings may be under construction on site simultaneously, but at different stages of the building process. URBENHS2002 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.3 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). 3. Jones & Stokes Associates; URBEMCS2002 For Windows With Enhanced Construction Module; (Version 7.4.2)May,2003 and EMFAC 2002 Version 2.2. 3-22 � �� Table 3-2 Emissions Significance Threshold Criteria" (Pounds/Day) Pollutant CO ROC NOx Sox PMI0 Operational Emissionsb Pounds/Day 550 75 100 150 150 Construction Emissions �I -Poands/Day 550 75 100 150 150 -Tons/Quarter 24.75 2.5 2.5 6.75 6.75 a. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Haiulbook;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. For construction-related emissions, the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds on both a daily and a quarterly basis, as shown in Table 3-2. 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 3-2. 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 3-2. 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. �i 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 stale 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 PMlo 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 PM10 State Implementation Plan and other applicable regional plans.2 2. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook; November 1993; pg. 12-2. 3-21 �I 3.2 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS 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 signifi- cant 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. This decision 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 flee 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. 3.2.1 IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA The SCAQMD has established shoat-term construction-related and long-term operational thresholds which are recommended for use by lead agencies in considering both primary or direct impacts and secondary or indirect impacts on air quality, as shown in Table 3-2. 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.) L 1. SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993,page 6-2. � 3-20 .� ^ South Coast Air Quality Management District uN m 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 9 1 765-41 78 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov FAXED: JUNE 18, 2004 June 18, 2004 Ms. Kathy Marx, Associate Planner Department of Planning and Zoning City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92262-2743 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed 45.93-acre Mountain Gate Phase II Residential Development— City of Palm Springs The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The SCAQMD would be happy to work with the Lead Agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Gordon Mize, Air Quality Specialist—CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302, if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, � Z� Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment SS:GM RVC040526-08 Control Number I"� s Ms. Kathy Marx -1- June 18, 2004 Associate Planner Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed 45.93-acre Mountain Gate Phase II Residential Development—City of Palm Springs 1. In Section 3.a.b.c. Air Quality of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft MND), the lead agency has determined that air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The lead agency also included a proposed Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan to control fugitive dust in Section 3. of the Draft MND. In number 20 of the Initial Study, there is also incorporated by reference the Amended Mountain Gate PDD Air Quality and Noise Impact Study (Air Quality Study)prepared for the proposed project in January 2004. On June 17, 2004 staff contacted the lead agency about this Air Quality Study for the proposed Mountain Gate Phase II project and the lead agency indicated that it was an air quality analysis for the proposed project. Although the Air Quality Study is referenced in the Draft MND,the lead agency did not include estimates from that study of the project's construction impacts, operation impacts or impacts of the proposed mitigation measures. As a result, the SCAQMD could not verify the results. Further,the lead agency has not demonstrated that the proposed project will not generate significant adverse construction or operational air quality impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15147, the Draft MND should contain sufficient technical detail to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Therefore, the Final MND should include the emission estimates, emission factors, methodologies and control efficiencies for the proposed mitigation measures. This information could be included in the Final MND as part of the narration or as an appendix. Further, air quality information from phase I should also be included because project in its entirety includes both phases. O�Q p L ISM Spy h '2 City of Palm Springs * * Department of Planning and Zoning * �C�RPOgpTED E93 * 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 �P Tel: (760)323-8245 • Fax (760) 322-8360 • Web: www.a.palm-springs.ca.us q�/PORN June 23, 2004 Stei`e Smith, Program Supe visor, _=3'? 6:ecdo South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 C. Il1iIt3.J�.cSLeie eve„ '�"+.tjvP De i rnief:;S `l+ie5'qD� T:Jr iiSe VgUp'ad_eC6 u`3.y_� aere Mountain Gate Phase Il Residential Development— PD-279, City of Palm Springs in rCs,pJns- c' :YWr i-'Upr of concern re_� rLSit Si. _UUG'eeWiVim, �Uq a ._" e in , 4uu14, pucbuacci w ucU au yuauiy accary5cs, uce excuuus ceyue51.+;0 ace; auauca;u a5 . - an appendix in II-le Final wirvv. t _i JSI II:CI eIy, Kathy ey Associate Planner Post Office Box 2743 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: June 23, 2004 Re: Case 5.0931-B, PD-279, TTM 32028 Mountain Gate Phase II Project location: Northeast of the Intersection of Gateway Drive and State Highway III The following change to the Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be incorporated in order to reflect the intent of the City of Palm Springs' Design Review Committee's recommendation to the Planning Commission. 1 b) AESTHETICS — Would the project: substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Mitigation 2..I .N TL•—^IITC-la'I�Ldsea aEUacent 1. 11 enent •SO Y Ile 2. The landscaping adjacent to Hwy 111 of the Phase II component shall be comprised of perennial plantings of desert drought-resistant species. Mountain Gate II MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Source/ Proposed Actual Comments Responsible Date Date Part 3. Aesthetics 1. All outdoor advertising shall be banned adjacent to the Developer Life of project site. Signage that was approved in the Phase 1 and City Project component of the review process shall be maintained. No new Planning signage shall be added in any form that includes the following but not limited to: monuments, banners, flags. 2. The landscaping adjacent to Hwy 111 of the Phase II Developer Life of component shall be comprised of perennial plantings of desert and City Project drought-resistant species. Planning 4. Cultural Resources 1. A Cultural Resources Monitor, designated by Agua Developer/ Throughout Caliente Cultural Resource Office, shall be present Grading all ground during all ground-disturbing activities including clearing Contractor/ disturbing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of ACBCI activities rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Resource Monitors. 2. Should buried deposits be encountered, the Cultural Developer/ Throughout Resources Monitor shall contact the Director of Grading all ground Planning and Zoning and after the consultation the Contractor/ disturbing Director shall have the authority to halt destructive ACBCI activities. construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, 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. 1 Mountain Gate II MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM ' Mitigation Measure Source/ Proposed Actual Comments Responsible Date Date Party A 3. Two copies of any cultural resource documentation Developer Prior to generated in connection with this project, including reports of and City Final investigations, record search results and site records/updates Planning/ Inspection shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building and ACBCI Engineering Department and one copy to the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection. 4. Pipeline alignments shall be carefully documented by the Archeologic Throughout archaeological monitors on site when pipeline segments are al Monitors grading uncovered in the course of excavation and construction. activities 5. Consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Developer/ Prior to Indians Cultural Resource Office shall occur to determine the ACBCI issuance of further treatment of the rock ring site. grading permit 2 Mountain Gate II MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Source/ Proposed Actual Comments Responsible Date Date Part 5. Geology and Soils 1. A soils test will be required as part of the final Developer Prior to engineering. All site grading, compaction, building pad Issuance of construction, and foundations will be per the Grading recommendations. Permit 2. All structures shall be designed to applicable seismic Builder/City Prior to standards per the State of California Uniform Building Building & Issuance of Code. Safety Building Permit 3. All grading will be performed in accordance with a Grading Throughout grading permit issued by the City of Palm Springs. Contractor/ grading City Building activities 4. An erosion control plan will be prepared and Developer/ Prior to implemented during construction. Grading Issuance of contractor/ Grading Cit Buildin Permit 5. A PM10 Plan will be prepared to mitigate dust generation Developer/ Prior to resulting from winds and vehicle/personnel activities. Grading Issuance of Contractor/ Grading City Building Permit 6. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer Developer/ Prior to must comply with the rules and regulations of the South City Building Issuance of Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) relative grading to dust mitigation including Rules 402 and 403. ermits 7. See AIR QUALITY for full air quality mitigation. 3 Mountain Gate II MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Source/ TProposed Actual Comments Responsible Date Date Part Ai 6. Water 1. Payment of Drainage Acreage fees shall be required Developer Prior to prior to issuance of building permits for implementation of Issuance of the Master Plan of Drainage for the Palm Springs area. Building Permits 2. The Development shall comply with the recommended Developer/ Prior to measures as outlined in the Hydrology Report, as finalized City Issuance of and approved by the City. Engineer Occupancy Permit 7. Noise and Air Quality 1. Proposed single-family detached residential development Developer/ Prior to adjacent to State Highway 111 shall be evaluated by a qualified City Building Issuance of noise consultant at more detailed levels of planning to ensure & Safety Building that adequate noise attenuation strategies are incorporated to Permits meet the Palm Springs noise standard of 65 CNEL in outside living areas and 45 dBA in interior living areas. The project applicant shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the required shielding shall be incorporated in the project design, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 Developer/ Throughout a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of Grading Construction 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with associated sound Contractor/ Activities barrier screening. No construction shall occur at ay time on City Building Sunday or a federal holiday. These days and hours shall also & Safety apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. 4 Mountain Gate II MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM �. Mitigation Measure Source/ Proposed Actual Comments Responsible Date Date Part 3. All construction equipment shall be in proper working order Developer Throughout and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. Construction Activities 4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far Developer Throughout as practical from noise-sensitive receptors. Construction Activities 5. Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy Developer Throughout equipment and on-site construction vehicles shall be located as Construction far as practical from existing homes. Activities 6. Every effort shall be made during construction activities to Developer Throughout create the greatest distance between noise sources and noise- Construction sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site. Activities 7. Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted Developer Throughout noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. Construction Activities 8. Future on-site development shall comply will all relevant Developer/ Throughout noise policies set forth in the Noise Element of the General City Building Construction Plan. & Safety Activities 9. The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Developer/ Throughout Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control City Building Construction (PM-10) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building & Safety Activities Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The plan must implement reasonable available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. 5 Mountain Gate 11 MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Source/ Proposed Actual Comments ' Responsible Date Date Part 8. Public Services 1. All residences shall be equipped with fire sprinklers per the Developer/ Prior to requirements of the Fire Marshal. City Fire Issuance of mop Dept. Occupancy Permit 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential Developer/ Prior to construction the developer shall pay a school impact fee based PSUSD/ Issuance of on the current rate as adopted by the Palm Springs Unified City Building Building School District. Permit 3. In accordance with City Ordinance No. 1632 and the Developer/ Prior to State of California's Quimby Act, the proposed residential City Issuance of development shall be required to pay in lieu mitigation Planning Building fees to facilitate the further development of park and Services Permit recreation facilities at a local level. 7 Mountain Gate II MITIGATION MEASURES PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Source/ Proposed Actual Comments Responsible Date Date Party - '!a 9. Transportation/Circulation 1. The final design of the internal circulation and site access Developer/ Prior to plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City City Approval of Engineer to ensure compliance with City access and design Engineer Street standards. Improvement Plans 2. The applicant shall dedicate appropriate right of way to Developer/ Recordation accommodate the ultimate improvement of master planned City of Final Map roadways on or adjacent to the project site. Engineer 3. State Highway 111 shall be improved to City and/or Developer/ At Final CalTrans design standards adjacent to the project site. CalTrans Planned Adequate off-street parking shall be provided on-site to meet Development the requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. District 4. A fair share contribution shall be made towards the future Developer Refer to signalization of Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road. Engineering COA #52 — Exhibit A 5. The applicant shall pay all required Transportation Uniform Developer/ Prior to Mitigation Fees (TUMF) prior to issuance of building permits. City Building issuance of & Safety building ermits 8 Palm Springs � C ,_ ,: Ift EC460 JUN 16 20N - June 10, 2004 Ec mic Develo men Corporation P Nonpmlil Publlc Inler¢sl Corpalon Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Mountain Gate 11 Dear Commissioners: Based on a presentation to our membership and thorough review by committee,the PSEDC Board of Directors urges the Planning Commission to approve the Mountain Gate H project. Our position is based primarily on the following considerations: 1. There is continued demand for moderately priced housing. The PSEDC has supported this addition to our housing inventory in the past and maintains that support today. 2. The project expands and connects to the existing(and very successful) Mountain Gate I development in a way that provides a quality balance of lot size, home product and amenities. 3. The developer has included very significant landscape elements as buffers along the north and west edges of the project. 4. By moving the utilities underground, creating a retention basin and providing land for the D WA, the developer has demonstrated a real commitment to the community as a whole. Furthermore, we think that the developer's efforts to improve the surrounding area are to be commended. Of course, should you have any questions or want further comment, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, // Jon Caffe President cc: City Manager's Office Cathy Van Horn, Economic Development Post 0111ce Box 3205, Palm Springs, CA 02263 / 700-325-1625 / fax: 709-325-6117 Submitted to JUNE 23, 2004 Planning Commission CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUN 2 3 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION Casa CITY HALL MR. COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS POLLY CULBRETH AND I LIVE AT 783 MIRA GRANDE, PALM SPRINGS, IN THE MOUNTAIN GATE COMMUNITY. I REALLY ENJOY THIS NEW COMMUNITY AND I FEEL VERY PRI- VILEGED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUY A HOME IN THIS NEW COMMUNITY. SINCE I LIVE AND WORK IN THE PALM SPRINGS AREA, THIS IS VERY CONVENIENT FOR ME. I WAS ON A WAIT LIST FOR QUITE A WHILE. I AM COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF MOUNTAIN GATE II GOING FORWARD AND ADDING MORE HOMES TO THE AREA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, POLLY C "BRUT_R- 783 M1RA�GRANDE PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92262. j Prepared "Testimony— Planning Commission—June 23rd, 1:30 P.M. Good Afternoon Planning Commissioners, submitted to Planning Commissic My name is Mallika Albert and I live at 2241 N. Leonard Road, with the JUN 2 s Z004 nearest cross street being Via Olivera. I am here today offering public r ie _ comment about proposed developments in my neighborhood. Case # ��L / � `� �Q_ a A a The first is a project, 7 cluster residential units by Desert Builders, Inc. on Zan'cro and Via Olivera. This type of housing is an attractively designed building and a most welcomed development, with maximum benefits and with minimal developmental impact to our Uptown Village neighborhood. I applaud Mark Davis, the developer, and many of my neighbors also encourage him to return with other progressive projects. This type of new development as well as other low impact, progressive projects will revitalize the presently blighted, and crime infested area of our City, specifically in the streets in between the Indian Canyon and North Palm Canyon Drive, 04 N 1:1-19 A)W corridors, the "gateways to our City." As Co-Chairperson of the Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization, CCNO, which covers a city area from Vista Chino north to Tramway Road, and west of North Palm Canyon Drive, I encourage all developers to contact our Web site, www.chinocanyon.com, and email our Development Impact Committee, to meet with us and to share your ideas with our neighborhood, even before filing an application with the Planning Department. We are here to offer you support, as we have worked cooperatively with City Principal Planners and Applicants during the past year. This type of cooperative effort, between organized neighborhoods and the City, produces superior results -- it's a win-win for all concerned. Our CCNO membership also voted unanimously to support the Mountain Preset vation Initiative, filed with the City just a few weeks ago, which limits the density of development on environmentally sensitive areas, such as the hillsides and mountains, surrounding the City of Palm Springs. I encourage every one in this room to visit the Web site, linked to ours, at www.PalmSpringsMountains.org Page 2 Our neighborhood opposes any project that proposes to mass grade the alluvial cone, emanating from mouth of the Chino Canyon, as well as all other hillside and mountain areas surrounding Palm Springs. Environmental experts, including geologists, tell us that mass tract and commercial development on hillsides, and especially on this huge alluvial cone, interferes with the natural percolation of water back into the aquifer to replenish our critical and diminishing water source. I'm sure you all know the western states are now experiencing our worst drought period in 500 years, with no end in sight, and I put forth today that each of you would be totally negligent in your guardianship of this City, and your fiduciary responsibilities as appointed CoominiissioQ��e�,�s, if you did not immediately recommend a moratorium on all suc�i deveropments, Sock QQ � � h In closing, tract development on hillsides also destroys the natural beauty of our landscape. It is the acknowledged and powerful magnet attracting worldwide visitors and tourists, to our desert paradise. The hundreds and hundreds of registered voters and Palm Springs residents who have signed our Mountain Preservation Initiative petitions also agree. Are each of you, the City staff, and our elected officials of Palm Springs so desperate to provide housing for the masses that we would sacrifice this natural wonder, and put this urban sprawl in its place? The Mountain Preservation Initiative is committed to bring this issue to the residents and registered voters of Palm Springs to decide. We'd like each person in this room today to support this important Initiative as well. Thank you, and good afternoon. I YES on the Mountain Preservation Initiative The Palm Springs mountains and canyons are spectacular. Now is the time to protect them. The Mountain Preservation Initiative gives the residents of Palm Springs the opportunity to save our beautiful open space. It establishes a low-density requirement in the mountain region. Tract housing and commercial developments will not be allowed. The initiative will protect tourism and our local economy. People come to Palm Springs for the unique natural setting. If we allow it to be destroyed by urban sprawl, people will no longer visit. It is that simple. You can make the difference. We need your support to preserve our unique natural heritage. Please contact us online or by phone. www.PaImSpringsMotintains.org (760).409-7446 by the Pahn Springs Mountains Conservancy China Canyon ® Before Atpitr 11 R $vr I f Yew ✓� Y yyww l i _ ' � 7 0, I *'ri r. "' e y � .4 ✓ w Ntf w Y 1 ,✓> ° !�` <'`e i .3x m�'�Ir" Yxr'' r t f E. 1 '��� Y a '_ ;w AAN r. LL a 19f "r f - d1 y _ � 7 I eh µ J L11euGdR Wlul.l.ulll lVl.n' 11V U011LC�uV V l.1Vt1111 V11L ll1 AlLJLVL1a.U1\�' rrvva aava c".a ai�.....0 ..u....... ...... ...�., - "� ~ N G New housing development in historically poor neighborhood ushers in era of renewal By Kimberly Trone [[ Submitted to The Desert Sun January 19th,2004 Planning Commission'' f.`l' }"-";-,k"' ",M`' ------ ____-.__---.._-._____-. . More stories about On Mountain Gate street in north Palm affordable housing ION Z�Oe G� Springs, transformations have begun amid More stories about Case.;� the clamor and din of new-home construction growth and develo nn Lent --- ' at the end of the road. Mountain Gate Located: 3599 Mountain Gate, Geraldine Campbell, 48, is repairing and Palm Springs. painting the home her elderly mother, a Size: 308-home residential retired cleaning woman, "worked herself to development,houses up to 3,000 bones" to buy more than 30 years ago. "I square feet. „ Cost: Initially advertised for the ain't going anywhere. This is our home, high$100,000s,starting prices Campbell said, expressing optimism her have already increased to the low mother's long-ago investment as a single, $200,000s. working mother of four was going to Information: 325-5740 or appreciate after years of decline. www.conturyvintagelionies.coni Next door, 43-year-old Wendy Gray said she Post or read continents in dislikes being next to a construction site but our online formns also believes the value of her childhood - home in the predominantly black north-end neighborhood has begun to increase. Both Campbell and Gray live adjacent to Mountain Gate Pahn Springs, a 308-home residential development under construction. The residential development is the largest to open in Pahn Springs in decades. The block walls ringing the master planned community by Century Vintage Homes abut one of the city's oldest and poorest neighborhoods. Many living there are sons and daughters of families living in low-income homes razed by the city in the 1950s and 1960s to make way for new development. Locating in a downtrodden neighborhood was not a concern to buyer Roberta Kleinhaus, 49, who said she stood among a throng of prospective buyers waiting to get into Mountain Gate when homes went on sale July 19. "I have already seen a change in the surrounding neighborhood," said Kleinhaus, who was showing off a model of her future home last week to a fiend. She hopes to move into her home sometime in April. "People are painting, cleaning up and putting in landscaping. It's about pride �a of ownership. Gentrification is going to happen before we can blink an eye." uienesertsun.eom J nvew Housing uevcnoprnlernu nun unsnonncauy puor ucnguuuruouu LIMIC J ui... rngc ui So far, 179 of the 308 Mountain Gate homes have sold. Last week couples, singles, seniors and families swanned the on-site models for a look. Klein haus' two-bedroom, two-bath unit on a pie-shaped lot cost her $176,900. Starting prices hi the development have already increased to the low $200,000s. In November, the median price of a new home in the valley was $293,500 according to DataQuick Information Systems. Homeowners association fees to pay for upkeep of pools and other amenities such as playgrounds and picnic areas are expected to run about $70 a month. Tony Scimia, senior vice president of sales and marketing for Century Vintage Homes, said the entire community will improve with Mountain Gate's opening. While Century Vintage Homes has built pricier projects in the valley, Scimia said his company recognizes the need for homes affordable to seniors and first-time buyers. Increased expenses of subcontractors and materials,more than market demand,bad to do with homes in Mountain Gate rising from the initially advertised price of the high $100,000s, Scimia said. "We feel the more affordable arena is the wisest business at this time," Scirnia said. "We have had a very long, healthy nm in the home industry with very high numbers. We are hoping this will last forever, but we are preparing for the future." For residents hiving next to Mountain Gate,however, the future of their neighborhood is as much about the past as it is the new development next door. "We call this the `hood' now," said Gray, as she looked down the road going opposite of Mountain Gate, at the drooping, weathered houses that were new when she moved in. "We all grew up here and everybody is like family." IN SP11_R'111 Phl1]AV R119FMI.Nl { R9 PPLM115 �1x f ,i ,�C\'� �� I I C— REnoraar�_ i ml:or ,.F t•1 a1 f.__ _ ._�.�_�° Pa Hewes — r'}r �A p �y 11 Whenevery see th s key, v isl � '� i n c� i - rnvv/.flr da qr{s Ftccrx(-,z 7cs�'Ye I. to view much more mforamhon M on that development mclutling f nlnlOry AexlV or mods hpmo pholoa l L / and tlata lIO Fa-no dedar Pl one Submitted to " * 4. °Llevalnlo f ,ul&nc epua,e loolaye planning Commission =L ,alp dr°°d.OPO,WeLa1 �`' CrHT°°AG Cmmu,ly and sdlool nformal on f' 4 � "� e"Map,to the tlavel]pmanls ' JUN 2 3 7004 rjr '+�� sBrool•vre reauap+s au lder Pmf lOa a Case r11 ID �[,,3Y Y f - Sam aonn�sr_ # S Q 1 it I Ij1��1 _--�—" ,1 � � Poo, M6 z �a tl it ar 1 1 m 6$ r 1 a � � T , 'eil 1 •Y J,1RY R s sl F 17 1"r,eaao mm 1 q] T.-;♦;71�07 "',`� q,�„ VI7"31 Is e,.aaenlmmmempvlrocc r? r .' 9 ,� 5 �I ,��pmlr Via {� Eiil } ,.� Eru t nm cpmpns Frl n"6'm pnp, � i sxi mr.c ,q]➢ 1 � I � i i � �'° x na sananmm m.o "., r�! 1L�1 �C71'1 d 1, Cl amen caw vem rp mv;avv pnw `-I _-1 VV..xv ¢me rmm a"rmrvm"V rmo nv hrre�]Cpcw �yI S 1.7 Rnm Y�aV c00+ 9aP 0JW )Tl��11�L fe'a Cf aspamnza"I nusvrl Rlvv, 1„'7'll� `".r\( ➢] ieu ME5lcrt 5vn"5 Fmn[vIIP-yq'A pl rano,IPnncusE 6BM1Oi]J C n",Ihl rr111Srzo4wv. ` 3^_&g4V3 10 flen vgE ap,v Pp,, Fmm l. SR00i0Wb u nFlnu apR.al aR G n uLldO-06C�E'a ➢ nna sswl�m svacor.ava � s xp ncna 0nIS01 "'m l'"$' r0°V° a) PUO1'to Azul IgoyRloamad,fimm n nscaen 'Pacific 5.16 F. {cram lhUwa SCoo,000a z cazux ed ovsmn0 n3 Ouaaainla OR SboGow 111111 Mact¢r FEn idzl,am the rum I'll CVVodmi P{aOVOd COmmumty i{ M1lao plane nvall➢bla ]aa6¢00 d"lle �p CC111Yfy Vln[ag¢HOm65 { ]a]-9260 IG 1,tanv,., OR pz Rannup Tua Tlams 'Fvm+he inrd ltzoP Ooos` T.,. .. - F"a,savena mPplm snnnac UI115g910 on 51natra Fmm nm Fm.5ee,pC1. Pmorplsuo—table 3 asv Ilmll.ra]6, 'vl,vk 1151hs Ccnsauc0on dC1 a9,F dy Tvpe51ry.r16PlOn'vtiv F•vm'Ivnm$111,111, aYS 7720 Fr—Ihe uVpt'CR=+AVee deV qV>tt P om'F165o oaG m_m n rjf-SS'Cialrr Nair l`$'PrMt llv 9 lAOnlvgO VI SN,Ia Rove 9q Arvl IIIPory N1 x Fmm.na e.,w.:COv o to Cmmp om.1. Fora x:•[6,» a]annw mn m m111.%,.. a4300,q 408 c&Uo l .. view Manlan" res a]ea;a, .--- ��-•�'tl rN Po 1rw$1,11.1 136 nhops"tlVp 11o61en Palms C.C. Oq PSCVI"nV 9s 91a Fram,h.$AWi"w POA-R]Muaavle cl Pp4 N... -n J elv"$1.tC; p 1A MOvnWll„Ir elu e[ }y,y91 Fre+-Ihemtl5'v00 RCs a 1"ga[VlSlentlar Mlaal 01e II OnH:IL- Mwwn L"Ire^ ])4Apd9 • 29},u 5+cr Fmm:ha$]pO,000v 4a0 negpcllOna nt lnalun rarme C4 6 Aavi BnnS,O TIlb Ilm uqn 9dAVYAx PG6]p P6Al.,Ir talk vCanl"r prlrla Upp.r III I,, .,Rq pOv dGR9CB0 lcrr'$+VJiO]0: pS Mlllr:nv pgetlOBICPo 291,rya re xR 111prAnl Ren"Ira MIInOV [ un 9pnnq Hamvt cl Y1iW Fenr,he iw0 zMe Wm5fe;1,OP0 160 CneM1anlmvn131lntllan pa{m.eC en ESWnclaaol apN 11 COnvpn R^l'O:J Rbt.lpnf -em llab00O4^ ,�� :nilalv 6 yl 'Jllle,n rzwnp RanGsO La qufnta ]e F[M1 Wlbv:r. vtlntllan PJmEC.C, i.P Ueserl Uevflnpmilll PAM}pi oplla5am f[�fy` it r3"*i Fvry alJa.g00 ] 'Rrn VJlac la¢Ie Arylm Snrinps "}±2{' " J 01a Fain 11a 6Leg00Vn Jflpurpen avzAabe -.m llw'mr"Wplpyp ees �s A,Moma CnmA S1 zsee esrzs ➢a rPonana Sprinn5 IAS RoyaIY5N n11aelan PEImS C.G. o ,. q] Rrrlpi Vlvw - Ilr.$10VOPos FNm Re$1M 9GCc 750-9466 f{ z iheLmpens Or PVLa 6prings rt.n n_ !10,4V0. frylnl]]a a>5JA06 �„�.,w„�...��e.,•,.! Rc'v lln%a00,MOn Yt?)]M� iGw p r VJIa NOnle9011 P64[6 NOmtan Emlev ➢a"]D:".AG^'°JI71.'-,P.".5 p rcallwlr�aFsmp oze paea c cpn fpnla eaaaammrnms .,,� ' va,alp. weCAwpsn% a 20 - - " mssn.P "r a vlllasslO nunalav wanEes. F,aar ma,lle npappa, ➢ .—a x%$594,a0V VV�� +]OaV] Vlsla LVmmunrly Sv�Vl33 Z.QI.."vQ[Slq 0 FIV CUra lmve[VV,GVo a] onmpavma meian vmlm cc a Ron4M10 sm.mn' eA 'i1f¢Fabns frfEL?.fs._W qfi+9osn xla fc5e6malan rr.nud lm,55an.ppPa .00.zmz apy nm a Frm aamuav ai can�.a eWme 6 maEnmp:mFaml Fmp,ry R_n.e Fmnr ma Eu,o o. a>a swvpvv VIM' .=: s"x5.-NTA 3.£'l A Frrvn lFn SrnIC,YM1:s e111 n5�6Q'A .n.,ap � geoandan .eaaam° pv mlecran s➢arpE m vela s:.ma Rp.m .. yyy aaes��� Fromm�uw,rav,eou4 ue me lm.cmueuv, ] Bc1la Vlan vl sM1VEew Hlllc ifi 9Jn1a Rv5a Tn J„ 6LYi B'e6pv?n fi60 V3Aq m1ngr ti91b,0.Yv mPa.l CvxJ.�< Rn Tnp ESI.,nElas et Rvn[hO to Ovinlay G']Po]g9 heA:4 CIOIO Pvratllw er.r 344Ps,11 PCA,6zrh"snmmnmPCP wssrm -.xla e'mU"a '3v#cT'3575'4Ss. a it,.Ore>tattl LFl Ir De:alopinc pirm>aroe9;oor6•F*2&+L L3E'e'@u T" l.em s,gn.alaFlcorinr[svias Venknas xt PGA WESTpr s6 0109 „n11Vma Crre CO>tnulnmcJrl) mHaxd 'u ai mis]^ rrcm R'n xlgll gaoopcca Hoand+ D.O. TO showcase ., enaele annarrnane avuoama „ carol your l9ew Nome r :ha la..s:mp.aum Fm�Iln-ma sanp,uns r'I +vy+ 2yyefiaf EhIp..lsta ®evelagrnea¢ ac r—Ihaf lachaan 1] EM1line eOI,h$3C nnf CO -mmleFi0F 51Vgnr.- A6 Palmrllp Fn'nZhJ va11, From lr, hltfll$9Ni000e Query Saturday in aq]L459 r">'a¢.xa➢].E:� xPo oms y]F rzlromnmr The DeseN Sun, ul_ca�nas Fn1.a3]c .' v B614a01 c.-sam rmpndr.v.,...a°wrop ewe Cr1E'u5e cal! exe_ my " Hem W[mrc n<-ccwl PALM4F:ad?+4+5 -•--- x spnnrrm, ��-160v ] e„n"a JeannettePCo`ehbdei 3 F.em lna lm..$zaaopM z. ol,ol ILI 25 M¢Uatatn Gate rerciags1111 760.778.4526 dd P41 1 F.mrr aim.sa'O uu•. ( e¢ntary Vintage HOmos I ealuvja pIn n sma,ysnnupw rims nwin 9 Fra.,OII,000dpa I sr saga romaann mo Eaw nl °'A^ �+9..d'&l��l� .ep°ol woee 1E M"spmmeEpmnaaa etrrrololnna s4alBV1s ,.. F�r,l We raw oea,wm j r„n m�a"m•- r pYl pn msr Fmm m6lmasu,cs,. y "rzl9lau :'nuvc. 1 1g2E'SRnJ i IL[de:ertsun avm EXHIBIT A CASE 5.0931-B, PD-279 PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD #279) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32028 NORTHEAST CORNER OF GATEWAY DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 111 CENTURY VINTAGE HOMES, INC. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL July 7, 2004 Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PLANNING Administrative: la. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of. the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 1 b. 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 5.0931-B, PD-279 and TTM 32028. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 2. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, 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. 3. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits for the 196 unit project component shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") in compliance with the Phase I component of the Mountain Gate projec CC&R's to the Director of Planning and Building for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to certificate of occupancy. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. 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 $585 filing fee, or the fee in effect at the time of submission, shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes. 4. 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. 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 projects or '/% for residential projects with the first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be based on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning 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. 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 negative declaration will be included in the plans prior to Planning Commission consideration of the environmental assessment. Mitigation measures are as follows: Aesthetics: a. All outdoor advertising shall be banned adjacent to the project site. Signage that was approved in the Phase I component of the review process shall be maintained. No new signage shall be added in any form that includes the following but not limited to: monuments, banners, flags. b. The landscaping adjacent to Hwy 111 of the Phase II component shall be comprised of perennial plantings of desert drought-resistant species. II1� V Air quality: a. The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM-10) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The plan must implement reasonable available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. Cultural Resources: a. A Cultural Resources Monitor, designated by the Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Office, shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Office for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. b. Should buried deposits be encountered, the Cultural Resources Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning and Zoning and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, the Qualified Archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and Aguat Caliente Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. c. Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building and Engineering Department and one copy to the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection. d. Pipeline alignments shall be carefully documented by the archeological monitors on site when pipeline segments are uncovered in the course of excavation and construction. e. Consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Resource Office shall occur to determine the further treatment of the rock ring site. Geology and Soils: a. A soils test will be required as part of the final engineering. All site grading, compaction, building pad construction, and foundations will be per the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer. All earthwork and foundations shall be inspected to assure compliance with the engineer's recommendations. b. All structures shall be designed to applicable seismic standards per the State of California Uniform Building Code. c. All grading will be performed in accordance with a grading permit issued by the City of Palm Springs. d. An erosion control plan will be prepared and implemented during construction. e. A PM10 Plan will be prepared to mitigate dust generation resulting from winds and vehicle/personnel activities. f. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer must comply with the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) relative to dust mitigation including Rules 402 and 403. g. See AIR QUALITY for full air quality mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality: a. Payment of Drainage Acreage fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage for the Palm Springs area. V, t e , b. The development shall comply with the recommended measures as outlined in the Hydrology Report, as finalized and approved by the City Engineer, including but not limited to construction of an on-site storm drain system and retention basins. Noise: a. Proposed single-family detached residential development adjacent to State Highway 111 shall be evaluated by a qualified noise consultant at more detailed levels of planning to ensure that adequate noise attenuation strategies are incorporated to meet the Palm Springs noise standard of 65 CNEL in outside living areas and 45 dBA in interior living areas. The project applicant shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the required shielding shall be incorporated in the project design, prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with associated sound barrier screening. No construction shall occur at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. These days and hours shall also apply to any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. c. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. d. All construction equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. e. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise- sensitive receptors. f. Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy equipment and on-site construction vehicles shall be located as far as practical from existing homes. g. Every effort shall be made during construction activities to create the greatest distance between noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site. h. Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. i. Future on-site development shall comply will all relevant noise policies set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Public Services: a. All residences shall be equipped with fire sprinklers per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential construction the developer shall pay a school impact fee based on the current rate as adopted by the Palm Springs Unified School District. Recreation: a. In accordance with City Ordinance No. 1632 and the State of California's Quimby Act, the proposed residential development shall be required to pay in lieu mitigation fees to facilitate the further development of park and recreation facilities at a local level. Transportation and Traffic: a. The final design of the internal circulation and site access plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer to ensure compliance with City access and design standards. b. The applicant shall dedicate appropriate right of way to accommodate the ultimate improvement of master planned roadways on or adjacent to the project site. c. State Highway 111 shall be improved to City and/or CalTrans design standards adjacent to the project site. Adequate off-street parking shall be provided on-site to meet the requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. d. A fair share contribution shall be made towards the future signalization of Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road. e. The applicant shall pay all required Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) prior to issuance of building permits. Final Design: 8. If, within two (2) years after the date of approval by the City Council of the preliminary development plan, the final development plan, as indicated in Section 94.03.00(1), has not been approved by the Planning Commission, the procedures and actions which have taken place up to that time shall be null and void and the Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map shall expire. Extensions of time may be allowed for good cause. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final construction plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, fence and wall plans, entry plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, site cross sections, property development standards, street improvement plans and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final construction plans shall be submitted within two years of the Planning Commission approval. 9. 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 &Zoning 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. a. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. b. A photometric study shall be required for all parking areas, driveways and entries. C. Illumination levels in the parking area shall be an average of one-foot candle with a ratio of average light to minimum light of four to one (4:1). Architecture and Landscaping: 10. 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 and Zoning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 11. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. 12. No exterior down spouts shall be permitted on any fagade on the proposed building(s) that are visible from adjacent streets or residential land commercial areas. 13. The maximum building height shall be 18' measured as the vertical distance plus eighteen (18) inches from the average grade at the curb adjacent to the property. 14. The design, height, texture and color of fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 16. Details of pool fencing (materials and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan. 17. The path of travel to the common recreation/pool area shall be compliant with the disabled access codes. 18. The restrooms at the Recreation/Pool area shall comply with disabled access codes. 19. Common area pool hours shall be closed between the hours of 10pm and 7 am. 20. Front yards shall be fully landscaped prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The developer shall be responsible for completed front yard landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting plans. In addition, rear yards shall be landscaped within 90 days of occupancy per the CC&R's. The HOA will be responsible for enforcement of this requirement. 21. Project setbacks shall be as follows: Front Yard: 20' Side Yard — Interior Lot 5' Side Yard — Corner Lot 10, Rear Yard 15' 22. The minimum house size shall be 1,208 square feet, with a mix of housing sizes up to 2,778 square feet. Larger residences may be permitted as long as the building footprint is consistent with setback and lot coverage requirements. The maximum lot coverage shall be 48% of the net lot area for the 200 series residences and 45% for the 100 series residences. Maximum lot coverage shall not be exceeded. 23. Turf shall be limited to active recreation areas (including private yards). 24. Additional trees shall be added to the street trees on the project perimeters and in front yards. 25. The utilization of desert vegetation shall be incorporated throughout the project site. General/Grading: 26. Prior to the 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. 27. 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. 28. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks — 3' wide and 6" deep. The irrigation system shall be tested prior to final approval of the project. Section 14.24.020 of the Municipal Code prohibits nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways or gutters. Parking: 29. One handicapped accessible parking shall be provided adjacent to the recreation/pool area. It shall be van accessible. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces and the path of travel to the entry ways. 30. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide. Handicap parking spaces shall be 18 feet deep by 9 feet wide plus a 5 foot walkway at the right side of the parking space; two handicap spaces can share a common walkway. One handicap space shall be designated as "van accessible" and served by an 8 foot walkway on the right side. 31. Handicapped spaces shall by appropriately marked per Section 93.06.00 ( C) (10). 32. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 by 6 inch double stripe or equivalent design — hairpin or elongated "U" design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6" barrier curb shall provide wheel stops. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Developer shall comply with Section 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 1. 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) 2. Palm Springs Fire Apparatus require an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13' 6". 3. Locked gate(s) shall be equipped with a KNOX key switch device or Key box. Contact the Fire Department at 323-8186 for a KNOX application form. (902.4 CFC) 4. Project is beyond five-minute response time from the closest fire station and therefore automatic Fire Sprinkler System is required. 5. Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the 13 "" property. (901.4.4 CFC) Show location of address on plan elevation view. Show requirement and dimensions of numbers in plan notes. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches, and of contrasting color to the background. 6. Access for fire fighting equipment shall be provided to the immediate job site at the start of construction and maintained until all construction is complete. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13' 6". Fire Department access roads shall have an all weather driving surface and support a minimum weight of 73,000 lbs. (Sec. 902 CFC) 7. An operational fire hydrant or hydrants shall be installed within 250' of all combustible construction. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing are permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except groundcover plantings. 8. Residential fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with DWA or Mission Springs Water District specifications and standards. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing are permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants. ENGINEERING The Engineering Division recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances. Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PHASES 1 - 2 STREETS 1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950 - Restricting Street Work on Major and Secondary Thoroughfares. 2. Any improvements within North Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111) require Caltrans permits and approval of construction plans for all work done within State Highway 111 right-of-way. A copy of Caltrans requirements shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 3. Submit street improvement plans for all proposed streets to the Engineering Division. The plans shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE (STATE HIGHWAY 111) 4. This development is subject to the review of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Actual requirements of this development, including additional right-of-way dedications and/or improvements related to State Highway 111, shall be addressed by the developer to the satisfaction of the Caltrans District 8 Director, or other delegated authority, and the City Engineer. The required improvements for North Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111) as listed herein may be modified, deleted or other conditions added as required by Caltrans. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with Caltrans standard drawings and specifications. 5. Abutter's rights of access shall be relinquished to the California Department of Transportation along the entire frontage, if not already relinquished by prior document. 6. Construct an 8 inch curb and gutter, 57 feet northeasterly of the centerline along the entire frontage. 7. Construct an 8 feet wide meandering sidewalk along the entire frontage. 8. Construct a minimum section of 5 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, where required to meet existing and proposed improvements, and as required by Caltrans. ON-SITE (PRIVATE) STREETS "A" THRU "G" 9. Dedicate an easement 37 feet wide extending from back of curb to back of curb to the City of Palm Springs for sewer purposes with right of ingress and egress, including service and emergency vehicles and personnel, over the private streets. 10. Dedicate an easement 57 feet wide for public utility purposes extending from 10 feet behind back of curb with right of ingress and egress over the private streets. it. Construct a wedge curb, meeting City Engineer approval, 18 feet on both sides of centerline along the entire frontage, with 25 feet radius curb returns and spandrels (where required) at intersecting on-site streets in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 206. 12. Construct 6 feet wide cross-gutters at all intersections (where required) with a flow line parallel with and 18 feet from the centerline of the intersecting street in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 13. The on-site street "knuckle" shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 104. 14. The off-set cul-de-sac at the end of Street "C" shall be constructed with a minimum curb radius of 43 feet. 15. All on-site streets shall have a minimum centerline radius of 130 feet. 16. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2'/z inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110. 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. 17. Narrowed pavement "chokers" shall be provided mid-block on all on-site streets as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map. Pavement chokers shall be designed with a transition using 25 feet reverse curves and a 50 to 100 feet long, 24 feet wide (12 feet each side of centerline) narrowed travel way. The narrowed travel way shall be constructed with a colored or decorative Portland cement concrete section 6 inches thick, or other pavement section as approved by the City Engineer. 18. Concrete box culverts or other approved flood control/drainage crossings shall be constructed across Lot "O" and Lot "M" of Tract Map 30963-1 to facilitate extension of Skyline Point and Alta Mira for Streets "A" and "D" across the retention basin and future Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) drainage channel. The design of the box culverts or other approved drainage structures shall be subject to the review and approval of RCFC and the City Engineer. Submit construction plans concurrently to RCFC and the City Engineer for review and approval. 19. The extensions of Skyline Point and Alta Mira from Tract Map 30963-2 and Tract Map 30963 over the flood control channels and retention basins into the development shall be designed with vertical curve alignment consistent with the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual's minimum standards for stopping sight distance on a vertical curve. Measures shall be provided, including installation of a 5,800 lumen high pressure sodium vapor safety street light, acceptable to the City Engineer such that minimum stopping sight distance is provided. ON-SITE (PRIVATE) DRAINAGE CHANNEL/PEDESTRIAN PATH 20. Construct a 30 feet wide drainage channel/pedestrian path through Lots "H", "I" and "J" as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map. 21. Construct a 6 feet wide meandering sidewalk along the entire drainage channel. Measures, such as decorative paving, should be provided at each pedestrian crossing at Street "D", "E", and "G" to identify pedestrian crossing points. Adequate stopping sight distance shall be required for each pedestrian crossing point. SANITARY SEWER 22. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Laterals shall not be connected at sewer manholes. 23. Submit public sewer improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 24. All sewer mains constructed by the developer and to become part of the City sewer system shall be televised by the developer prior to acceptance of the sewer system by the City of Palm Springs. GRADING 25. 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 Building Department 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 Building Department 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 Elio Torrealba at AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at etorrealba@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 Building Department prior to approval of the Grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department; a copy of the Tentative Tract Map stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department; a copy of a current Title Report; a copy of a Soils Report; and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report. 26, Drainage swales 3 feet wide and 6 inches deep shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks to keep nuisance water from entering the adjacent streets. 27. 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 approval of the Grading Plan. 28. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.025 (c), a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre shall be posted with the City for dust control purposes associated with grading activities on the property. 29. 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. 30. Contact the Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the PM- 10 (dust control) plan. 31. 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. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776- 8208). DRAINAGE 32. Dedicate a drainage easement to the City of Palm Springs over that portion of the development identified as Lot "A" and Lot "B" on the Tentative Tract Map; a drainage easement 15 feet wide to the City of Palm Springs between Street "A" and "D" along the east side of the project adjacent to Lot "Y" of Tract Map 30963-2 (identified as Lot "C" on the Tentative Tract Map); and dedicate an easement 50 feet wide to the City of Palm Springs for drainage purposes between Street "D" and the northerly tract boundary (identified as Lot "D" on the Tentative Tract Map). A separate drainage easement shall be dedicated to the City of Palen Springs across that portion of Street "A" between Lots "A" and "B" as necessary to facilitate future installation of Lateral 2A of the City of Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan (realigned or relocated as a result of the proposed development). These drainage easements shall be dedicated to the City for future use by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) for Line 2 and Lateral 2A of the City of Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan. Retention/detention basins within the drainage easement may be used on an interim basis for management of on-site and off-site stormwater runoff, provided that the drainage easements are landscaped in a manner acceptable to the Director of Planning and Zoning. Provisions for maintenance of the drainage easements dedicated to the City shall be included in Codes, Covenants and Restrictions and shall be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association (HOA) created for this development. 33. Accept all stormwater runoff passing through and falling onto the site and conduct this runoff to approved drainage structures as described in the Preliminary Hydrology Report for Mountain Gate II, Tentative Tract Map No. 32028, prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc., dated December 30, 2003. The developer shall be responsible for construction of drainage improvements, including but not limited to retention/detention basins, catch basins, storm drain lines, and outlet structures, for conveyance of off-site stormwater runoff and management of on-site stormwater runoff, as described in a final Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 32028, as approved by the City Engineer. The preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 32028 shall be amended to include catch basin sizing, storm drain pipe sizing, and retention/detention basin sizing calculations and other specifications for construction of required on-site storm drainage improvements. 34. Construct an on-site drainage system to collect and convey increased stormwater runoff to on-site retention basins. Submit storm drain improvement plans to the City Engineer for review and approval. Dedicate and reserve a private drainage easement across those portions of the development necessary to maintain perpetual and unrestricted use of the storm drain improvements and retention basins, identified as Lots "A" through "D", "F", and "H" through "J" on the Tentative Tract Map. All storm drain improvements, drainage easements, and retention basins shall be privately maintained by a Home Owners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the storm drain system, drainage easements and retention basins acceptable to the City Engineer shall be included in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for this project. 35. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The acreage 13 drainage fee at the present time is $6,511.00 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. GENERAL 36. 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. 37. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 38. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 39. 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. 40. In accordance with Chapter 8.04.401 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, all existing overhead electrical lines of thirty-five thousand volts or less and overhead service drop conductors, and all gas, telephone, television cable service, and similar service wires or lines, which are on-site, adjacent to, and/or transecting the property, shall be installed underground unless specific restrictions are shown in General Orders 95 and 128 of the California Public Utilities Commission, and service requirements published by the utilities. The existing overhead utilities across the property are required to be installed underground in order to facilitate the proposed development. The developer is advised to investigate the nature of these utilities, and the availability of undergrounding these utilities with respect to adjacent and off-site properties. 41. Contract Whitewater Mutual Water Company to determine impacts to any existing water lines and other facilities that may be located within the project. Make appropriate arrangements to protect in place or relocate any existing Whtiewater Mutual Water Company facilities that are impacted by the development. A letter of approval for relocated or adjusted facilities From Whitewater Mutual Water Company shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 42. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway or intersection 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. 43. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904. MAP 44. The developer shall de-annex Lots "Y" and 7" of Tract Map 30963-2 from City of Palm Springs Parkway Maintenance District No. 10. The developer shall submit a deposit to the City in an amount to cover Fees associated with an assessment engineer to facilitate , the de-annexation process. The deposit shall be submitted prior to submittal of a final map. All final costs and fees necessary for the de-annexation of these Lots shall be paid by the developer, and the de-annexation process shall be completed prior to approval of a final map. 45. If landscaping adjacent to North Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111) and within Lot "A" as shown on the Tentative Tract Map is proposed to be maintained by the City, the developer shall dedicate a landscape easement to the City within Lot "A", and annex Lot "A" into the City of Palm Springs Parkway Maintenance District No. 10. The developer shall submit a deposit to the City in an amount to cover fees associated with an assessment engineer to facilitate the annexation process. All final costs and fees necessary for the annexation of this Lot shall be paid by the developer, and the annexation process shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 46. Relinquishment of abutter's rights of access shall be dedicated to the City of Palm Springs along the northerly property line of Lots 50 through 78, 47. A Final Map for each phase (if phased) shall be prepared by a California registered Land Surveyor or qualified Civil EngMeer 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 first review of the Final Map. The Final Map shall be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of building permits. 48. Abandonment or relocation of record easements across the property is required in order to facilitate the development. The various record easements shall be extinguished, quit- claimed, relocated or abandoned to facilitate development of the subject property. Record easements shall be abandoned, wherever possible, in conjunction with and as part of the Final Map. In the event record easements are maintained and shown on the Final Map, but will be extinguished, relocated or abandoned as part of the construction of the project, proposed individual lots encumbered by record easements are rendered unbuildable until such time as the easements encumbering the individual lots are removed of record. Building permits may be issued on any individual lot encumbered by an existing record easement provided a copy of a Notice of Intent to vacate or extinguish the easement from the respective utility owner is provided to the City Engineer. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any individual lot encumbered by an existing record easement until such time as the record easement is extinguished, quit-claimed, relocated or abandoned, and a copy of the recorded document removing the encumbrance is provided to the City Engineer. TRAFFIC 49. Install street name signs at each street intersection in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 620-625. 50. A 30 inch "STOP" sign and standard "STOP BAR" and "STOP LEGEND" shall be installed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 620-625 at on- site street intersections as required by the City Engineer. 51. Pay to the City of Palm Springs the fair share contribution toward the construction of a �� traffic signal at the North Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111) and Gateway Drive intersection. The fair share contribution has been determined as 18.4% by the Traffic Impact Study Update for Tentative Tract Maps 30963 and 32028, prepared by Endo Engineering, dated January 19, 2004. This is a net increase of 7.2% over the original fair share contribution of 11.2% required by Tentative Tract Map 30963 (refer to Engineering Condition of Approval No. 67 adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2003). The developer shall post payment of$10,800.00 to the City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. If installation of a traffic signal at the North Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111) and Gateway Drive intersection is requested by the developer in conjunction with the construction of this project, the developer shall be responsible for the design and installation of the traffic signal, pursuant to City and Caltrans approvals and permits. A traffic signal plan shall be submitted concurrently to the City and Caltrans for review and approval. The developer may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Palm Springs for reimbursement of a maximum of 81.6% of the cost of the traffic signal construction, and shall receive reimbursement as adjacent properties develop and post payment for their fair share contribution towards its installation. The maximum reimbursement amount is a net decrease of 7.2% over the original maximum reimbursement allowed by Tentative Tract Map 30963 (refer to Engineering Condition of Approval No. 67 adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2003). 52. Pay to the City of Palm Springs the fair share contribution towards the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road. The fair share contribution has been determined as 9.2% by the Traffic Impact Study Update for Tentative Tract Maps 30963 and 32028, prepared by Endo Engineering, dated January 19, 2004. The developer shall post payment of$13,800.00 to the City of Palm Springs prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for Tract 32028. This condition supersedes and replaces Engineering Condition of Approval No. 68 adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2003. In the event payment of the fair share contribution of $12,300.00 has been made to the City in accordance with Engineering Condition of Approval No. 68 adopted by the City Council on February 26, 2003, the developer shall post payment of$1,500.00 to satisfy the revised mitigation measure identified by the Traffic Impact Study Update. 53. 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. 54. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, which shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The Project will bring a significant number of additional residents to the community. The City's existing public safety and recreation services, including for police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library and cultural services are near capacity. Accordingly, City may determine to form a Community Services District under authority of Ord. C. 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 of protest, provided that the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate study and shall not exceed $500 annuall 4P/ The district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement shall be recorded against each parcel. �, rt STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Arnold Schwarzenegger Jan Boel Governor Acting Director Jane 24, 2004 , t lU�l � C 2004 , Douglas R. Evans City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Subject: Mountain Gate Phase II SCH#: 2004051137 Dear Douglas R. Evans The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on June 23, 2004, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acicnowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the eaviromuental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL(916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 w .opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2004051137 Project Title Mountain Gate Phase II Lead Agency Palm Springs, City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description The construction of 199 single-family residences as Phase II of the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I subdivision for a total of 507 single-family residences of 128.93 total acres in a Planned Development District with Tract Map and on/off-site improvements. Lead Agency Contact Name Douglas R. Evans Agency City of Palm Springs Phone 760/323-8245 Fax email Address P.O. Box 2743 City Palm Springs State CA Zip 92263 Project Location County Riverside City Palm Springs Region Cross Streets State Hwy III, Gateway Drive Parcel No. 669-320-011, 013, 340-001 Township 3S Range 4E Section 33 Base SB Proximity to: Highways Ill Airports Railways Waterways Chino Creek Wash Schools Robert Cree Middle School Land Use Vacant Desert Land- R-1-C Single-Family Residential Zone, LA Low Density Residential General Plan Designation Project Issues AestheticNisual;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Traffic/Circulation; Landuse Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Game, Reyion 6; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Office of Emergency Services; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Date Received 05/25/2004 Start of Review 05/25/2004 End of Review 06/23/2004 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) I,the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California; that on the 24th day of May, 2004, 1 served the within NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CASE NO. 5.0931 TTM 32028. This Notice was served on persons contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with certified postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox, sub-post office, substation or mail chute, or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of public agencies received from the Associate Planner, Kathy Marx on May 21, 2004 and attached hereto as Exhibit"A". I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. _ Lo?etta D. Moffett, Senior Secretalol/' Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 24th day of May, 2004 f NOTICE IF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Case No. 5.0931-PD-279 TTM 30963 Applicant Name & Century Vintage Homes Address: Century Crowell Communities 1535 South D Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 92408 Project Location & Planned Development and Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map for construction of 308 single family residences on 83.83 acres including associated on and off- site improvements at northeast corner of Gateway Drive and Highway III Assigned Planner: Alex Meyerhoff Labels Prepared by: Kathy Marx, Associate Planner Certification to City Clerk Date: February 28, 2005 Property Owners/Groups/ I Date Notices I Number of Notices Organizations Mailed Mailed Applicant/Sponsors May 24, 2004 2 Property Owners Land Owner (master lessor) Master Lessor (sub-lessor) Sub-lessee (unit owner) Indian Land Owners 0 Neighborhood Coalition-Notice May 24, 2004 9 only- no report sent Homeowners Association 0 Other interested parties - Notice 18 only - no IS report sent NOP Agencies - IS & Mitigated May 24, 2004 37 Declaration TOTAL NUMBER MAILED: 57 NOTICE TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0931-B - PD-279, TF'M 32028 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 23, 2004. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application by Century Vintage Homes, Case 5.0931 - PD-279 and TPM 32028, for a Planned Development and Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case 5.093-B, PD - 279) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 32028). The project would include the construction of 199 single family residences as Phase I I of the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I subdivision project for a total of 507 single-family residences on 128.93 total acres with associated on and off-site improvements including community pools and spas, landscaped pedestrian and equestrian trails. The houses would range from 1,211 square feet to 2,778 square feet in size. Lot sizes will range from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet. The subject property is located at the northeast of the corner of Gateway Drive and Highway 111 and south of the Chino Creek Levee. The subject property is zoned R-1-C, single-family residential. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the project and will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at or prior to the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Kathy Marx, Associate Planner, (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfacor[lame a I Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Gabriel Diaz telefono (760) 323-8245. i DO�R. EVANS Director of Planning & Zoning .tpQ P A L M SA�i N N Department of Planning and Zoning ,, Vicinity Map S Mountain Gate I/ \\\\ \ Mountain Gate 1 \ syr'r W GATEWAY DR F— LU _ I_ �pF CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.0931-13, PD-279, TTM 32028 DESCRIPTION: To develop Phase 11 of the Mountain Gate subdivision project that includes the APPLICANT: Century Vintage Homes construction of 199 single family residences for a total of 507 residences on 128.93 acres. Phase I o 308 residences is currently under construction. SUBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Mountain Gate Phase II In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Palm Springs, California, is the Lead Agency and has prepared a Negative Declaration for the project identified above. The purpose of this Notice of Intent (NOI) is to solicit comments on the environmental analysis contained in the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration has been prepared for Century Vintage Homes and Coachella Valley Water District to continue Phase II (199 single-family residential units) of a proposed 507 unit residential subdivision on 128.93 acres. Phase I (308 single-family residential units) is under construction. This Notice is not a City of Palm Springs application or form requiring response from you. Its purpose is to simply provide information to you on the above project. If the proposed project has no bearing on you or your organization, no action on your part is necessary. If you wish to receive the Negative Declaration, please call the Department of Planning and Zoning, City of Palm Springs, California, at (760) 323-8245. Comments relative to the environmental analysis should be addressed to Kathy Marx at the address shown above, e-mailed to KathyM@ci.palm-springs.ca.us or sent by fax to (760) 322-8360. Comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23, 2004. Please include the name and phone number of the contact person for your organization. Project Applicant: Date: - - 0FL Signature_ � W��M '� ' Douglas Evans Title: Director of Planninq & Zoning Teiephone: (760) 323-8245 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 2743, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Mountain Gate II Mitigated Negative Declaration: Case 5.0931-B, PD-279, TTM 32028 Project Location: The proposed project site is located north of State Hwy. 111, northwest of Gateway Drive, southeast of Chino Creek Levee and east of East Gate Rd. Description of Nature, Purpose,and Beneficiaries of Project:The proposed Mountain Gate Phase II project is a continued development phase for the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I. Phase II constitutes 199 single-family residential units for a total 507 single-family residential units in a Planned Development District (Phase I consisting of 308 single-family residential units is under construction) with associated tract maps, on and off-site improvements. Century Vintage Homes is the Phase I property owner and developer. Coachella Valley Water District is the Phase II property owner. The project proponent for Phase II is Century Vintage Homes. Lead Agency: Division., The City of Palm Springs, California Department of Planning and Zoning Draft Negative Declaration and all Supporting Documentation are Available at: City of Palm Springs - Or by Calling: Department of Planning and Zoning (760) 323-8245 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 The Public Notice of Intent is provided through the following: x The Desert Sun May 25, 2004 x Mailing List Review Period: May 25, 2004, through June 23, 2064 ,CEQA Contact Person: Phone Number: E-Mail Address Kathy Marx, Associate planner (760) 323-8245 KathyM@ci.palm-springs.ca.us CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING INITIAL STUDY 1. Case No: 5.0931-B PD-279 TTM 32028 Project title: Mountain Gate 11 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Talnquitz Carryon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 3. Contact person and phone nuunber: Douglas R. Evans, Dir, of Planning and Zoning Tel: (760) 323-8245 4. Project location: North of State Highway 111,northwest of Gateway Drive, and southeast of Chino Creek Levee and east of East Gate Road Assessors Parcel Numbers: 669-320-011, 669-320-013, 669-340-001, 669-371-002 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Century Vintage Homes 1535 North D Street, STE 200 San Bernardino, California 92408 6 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 implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposed Mountain Gate Phase II project is a continued development phase for the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I. An Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Palm Springs City Council for the first phase on February 26, 2003, and is incorporated here by reference. Both phases will share access that was constructed for Phase I. Recreational amenities, open space and maintenance will be under the auspices of a shared Home Owners Association. Overall density for the combined sites is 607 units below a maximum allowed of 544 units. Total acreage for both phases is 128.93 acres. Within the Phase II component of the project, the applicant proposes to subdivide 45.93 gross/net acres into 199 residential lots and 11 lettered lots for associated site improvements. The project is proposed as a Planned Development District (PDD) with associated Tract Map (TM 32028). The PDD includes modified minimum lots sizes of residential lots ranging in size from 5,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. One hundred and eighteen (118) residential lots are proposed as 5,000 square feet occupying a total of 16.82 acres. Seventy (70) lots as 6,000 square feet occupying a total of 11.82 acres. Eleven (11) lots as 7,500 square feet representing a total of 2.56 acres. The lettered lots are made up of private streets, dedicated open space, landscape, storm runoff retention areas, storm drain easements and recreational amenity areas. Of those, private streets occupy 6.84 acres. Lot A, 2.02 acres, adjacent to Highway 111 on the property's southern boundary, is to be dedicated for open space, landscape and storm drain purposed to the City of Palm Springis for formation of an assessment district. Lots B, C and D on 1.36 acres at the eastern property boundary are to be retained by the Home Owner's Association for open space and landscape purposes. Storm drain easements over Lots A, B, C and D are to be dedicated to the City of Palm Springs, for eventual transfer to Riverside County Flood Control. The Home Owner's Association will perform storm drain maintenance of these lots. Lot E located in the most northeastern corner of the proposed development of .58 acre will be a Desert Water Agency well site and will be conveyed to Desert Water Agency. Lots F , 17 acres, serves are the primary recreation/park and retention site for the project. It is located in the northeast quadrant of the proposed site. It consists of a pool, spa and restroom facilities and other passive recreation space. It is connected with a landscaped pedestrian walkway that transects the proposed Phase II project site in a northeasterly direction to the southern project boundary. The remaining lots will serve dual purposes of dedicated open space.and drainage easements. The project site area is currently undeveloped and a desert terrain. The development will take access from an adjacent residential development site to the east, Mountain Gate I. The underlying zoning designation for the project site is R-1-C (single-family residential). The PDD proposal is requesting relief to the following standards of development: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot size 10,000 square feet 5,000 — 7,500 square feet Minimum lot width: Interior Lot 100, 54' — 82' Corner Lot 110, 80'— 110, Lot coverage 35% 6 units —55% 33 units —45% 44 units —38% 116 units — 35% or less Minimum dwelling size 1,500 square feet 1,211 square feet Yard setbacks: Front 25' 20' Side— Interior 10, 5' Side — Corner 20' 10, The following table reflects standards of development for the R-1-C zoning designation that are consistent with the project proposal: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot depth 100, 110' — 134' Rear Yard Setback 15' 15' Height 12' at setback lines 12' at setback lines increasing at a 4:12 pitch increasing at a 4:12 pitch to a maximum of 18' to a maximum of 18' The City of Palm Springs General Plan designation for the project site is L-4, Low- Density Residential. In compliance with the General Plan a maximum of 65% of the project area will be maintained as on-site open space/recreational area. In regards to Planned Development Districts, the City's General Plan states in: "Traditionally, planned development districts have been used to provide flexibility and enable developers to increase buildable area and height, and alter other standard development regulations, above that permitted by zoning, conditioned on analyses and mitigation of impacts and contribution of specific 'benefits' to the City (e.g. additional parking, community open space and meeting rooms, funds for community beautification, housing, day care facilities and other similar amenities). All Planned Development Districts shall be consistent with the General Plan." The following table illustrates the proposed project Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision and previously entitled by City Council February 26, 2003, Phase I component and the two phases relationship relative to density and open space. DENSITY L4 (Low Density Residential General Plan Designation) Proposed 4 units/acre Phasel 361 308 Phase II 183 199 Total Project (combined Phase I and Phase ll) 544 507 OPEN SPACE MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE 1 Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 760,122 20.81% Open Space * 2,395,801 65.61% Private Streets 495,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase 1 3,651,635 sq. ft. 1001,00% * Open Space includes 49,658 square feet of decorative pavement. MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE 11 Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 452,957 22.64% Open Space ** 1,278,224 65.61% Private Streets 496,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase II 2,000,711 100.00% * Open Space includes 28,420 square feet of decorative pavement. TOTAL OF MOUNTIAN GATE PHASE I AND PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 1,213,079 21 .46% Open Space 3,674,025 65,00% Private Streets 765,242 13.54% TOTAL Phase I & II 5,652,346 100.00% The proposed project, Phase I and Phase 11, is in compliance with the General Plan and includes funds for community beautification through the community art program and off- site landscape requirements adjacent to State Highway 111 that include a meandering pedestrian walkway, equestrian trail and desertscape flora palette including California Fan Palm trees aligned parallel with the highway. 7. Present Land Use: Vacant Land 8, General Plan designation: L-4,Low-Density 9. Zoning: R-1-C, Single-family Residential residential Proposed General Plan designation: L-4, Low-Density Proposed Zoning: R-1-C, Residential Single-family residential 10, Is the proposed action a "project' as defined by CEQA? (See Section Yes ■ No 0 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in the same area, cumulative impact should be considered) I t. If"yes"above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects Yes ❑ No ■ listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 12. if"no" on 10., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts Yes ❑ No ❑ listed in Section 15268(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? 13. If "no" on 11., does the project fall under any of the Statutory Yes ❑ No ■ Exemptions listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 14. If "no" on 12., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant Yes ❑ No ❑ effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). 15. Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project's surroundings): North: Vacant land transected by Chino Canyon Flood Control Levee South: State Flwy III East: Single-Family residential Plamied Development District of 308 residences West: Vacant land transected by Chino Carryon Flood Control Levee 16. Surrounding General Plan and Zoning: North: General Plan: C (Conservation) and CDL6 (Residential Density Controlled) Zoning: W(Watercourse) and R-1-C (Single-Family Residential) South: General Plan: L-6 (Low-Density Residential) and LSR(Large Scale Resort) Zoning: U-R(Urban Reserve) East: General Plan: L-4 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-C (Single-Family Residential) West: General Plan: C (Conservation) Zoning: W(Watercourse) 17. Is the proposed project consistent with(if answered"yes" or"n/a",no explanation is required): City of Palm Springs General Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A❑ Applicable Specific Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A o City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A❑ South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Yes ■ No 0 N/A 0 Airport Part 150 Noise Study Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ■ Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ■ 18. Are any of the following studies required? Soils Report Yes ■ No ❑ Slope Study Yes ❑ No ■ Geoteclmical Report 'Yes ■ No ❑ Traffic Study Yes ■ No ❑ Air Quality Study Yes ■ No ❑ Hydrology Yes ■ No ❑ Sewer Study Yes ❑ No ■ Biological Study Yes ■ No ❑ Noise Study 'Yes ■ No ❑ Hazardous Materials Study Yes ❑ No ■ Housing Analysis Yes ❑ No ■ Archaeological Report Yes ■ No ❑ Groundwater Analysis Yes ❑ No ■ Water Quality Report Yes ❑ No ■ Other Yes ❑ No ❑ 19. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Regional Water Quality Control Board—National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES/SWPPP) Desert Water Agency—Construction Permit South Coast Air Quality Management District—PM10 Permit 20. Incorporated herein by reference are the following documents: All of the referenced documents have been used in the preparation of this Initial Study and are incorporated in their entirety by reference. • Palm Springs General Plan and Final EIR, 1993 (as amended) • Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the Proposed Mountain Gate II, prepared by Jaynes W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, Palm Springs, CA,March 16, 2004. • Addendum to Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the Proposed Mountain Gate lh prepared by James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants,Palm Springs, CA, May 10, 2004. • Cultural Resources Survey,prepared by Jerry Schaefer, ASM Affiliates,Pasadena, CA, May 4, 2004 and May 17, 2004. • Amended Mountain Gate PDD Air Quality and Noise Impact Study, prepared by Endo Engineering, January 2004 • Preliminary Hydrology Report, Mountain Gate H,Tract Map No. 32028,prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc., Palm Springs, CA, December 30, 2003. • Amended Mountain Gate PDD Traffic Impact Study,prepared by Endo Engineering, January 2004. • Mitigated Negative Declaration—Environmental Assessment,Mountain Gate. Approved by the City of Palm Springs City Council February 26, 2004. • The Impact of State and Federal Laws on Scenic Protection,published by Scenic California,Berkeley, CA, 2004 • SR 159: Mineral Land Classification:_Aggregate Materials in the Palm Spda s Production-Consumption Re ig�on, Russell V. Miller, 1987. • Geotechnical Engineering Report Tentative Tract Map No. 28507, Proposed 84 Acre Broxmeyer Recreational Vehicle Park,Palm Springs, California prepared by Earth Systems Consultants,Bermuda Dunes, CA, December 2, 1997. • "Timing of Large Eathquakes since A.D. 800 on the Mission Creek Strand of the San Andeas Fault Zone at Thousand Palms Oasis, near Palm Springs, California," T.E. Pumal,M.J.Rymer, and G. G. Seitz, BSSA, Vol. 92:7. • "California QuickFacts,Riverside County,"US Bureau of Census, May 2004. �OQp ALM Sp�I N Department of Planning and Zoning ,, N Vicinity Malp S C'Q</FO RN�P \\�\ - \ Mountain Gate II \ Mountain Gate I sy�yr' W GATEWAY DR cn a W CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.0931-B, PD-279, TTM 32028 DESCRIPTION: To develop Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision project that includes the APPLICANT: Century Vintage Homes construction of 199 single family residences for a total of 507 residences on 128.93 acres. Phase 1 0 308 residences is currently under construction. 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 • Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources • Noise ❑ Population/Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Thin Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1.AESTHETICS--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ • ❑ vista? b) Substantially datuage 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 which would adversely affect day or ❑ ❑ • ❑ nighttime views in the area? 1.a) AESTHETICS - Less than Siqnificant Impact The site is located in an area of the City that does not require architectural approval, however, as a Preliminary Planned Development application, review of the architecture of the homes accompanies the Planned Development Application. The Design Review Board reviewed the architectural design for both phases of the proposed project. Recommendations for the Phase II component included limiting turf to active recreation areas, adding additional street trees to project perimeter and in front yards and utilizing desert vegetation throughout the project. Although the site is located adjacent to State Highway 111, the preliminary grading plan indicates that the building pads will be located below the road grade of the adjacent State highway and will also be at a similar grade to the existing adjacent dwellings. The proposed homes are single story in height and will not exceed 18 feet in height. The low profile of the Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated hnpact Impact homes and similar grade levels should not impact views from existing residences or vistas from State Highway 111. Therefore the project should have less than significant impact substantial impact to a scenic vista. 1b.) AESTHETICS Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation Incorporated California State Highway III is adjacent to the western property boundary of the proposed project in both Phase I and Phase II components. Highway III is an eligible state scenic highway but is not officially designated. The designation process has been reviewed in The Impact of State and Federal Laws on Scenic Protection, published by Scenic California, as follows: "The status of a state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation for scenic highway approval and receives notification from CalTrans that the highway has been designated as a scenic highway. When a city or county nominates an eligible scenic highway for official designation, it must identify and define the scenic corridor of the highway...The minimum requirements for scenic corridor protection are: • Regulation of land use and density of development, • Detailed land and site planning • Control of outdoor advertising (including a ban on new billboards) • Careful attention to, and control of, earthmoving and landscaping • Careful attention to design and appearance of structures and equipment" Although the City of Palm Springs has not applied for State Highway III designation as a scenic corridor, General Plan designation north and west of the proposed project site are Conservation and a Watercourse zoning designation with strict guidelines for minimal residential development within those classification areas. Therefore, in order to minimize the consequences and impact to the potential of scenic highway designation, mitigation measures have been included that would allow transition from an urban residential environment to an open desert landscape and reduce the impact of the proposed project to less than significant, as follows: MITIGATION 1) All outdoor advertising shall be banned adjacent to the project site. Signage that was approved in the Phase I component of the review process shall be maintained. No new sgnage shall be added in any form that includes the following but not limited to: monuments, banners, flags. 2) The landscaping adjacent to Hwy III of the Phase II component shall not include perennial plantings of non-native species. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1c.)AESTHETICS - No Siqnificant Impact The visual character of the site is presently open space and undeveloped desert. The site contains road traces and all terrain vehicle tracks, some refuse dumping, drainage channels and more significantly overhead power lines adjacent to the Highway III right-of-way at the western property boundary of the Phase II component. Undergrounding of utilities has previously occurred on the Phase I component of the project. Undergrounding of utilities will also be a condition of approval associated with the City's review of Phase II and is mandatory under the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 8.04.401. Id.)AESTHETICS — No Siqnificant Impact There is no light source on the Phase II site now because of its undeveloped state. The proposed development will include lighting around the homes that is in keeping with those fixtures found in a residential setting. All lighting proposed shall be downcast and night lighting of recreation areas shall be in compliance with the City of Palm Springs zoning ordinance relative to protection of night skies, Section 93.21.00. All lighting shall be required to be screened and downcast. Tennis courts shall not include not lighting. Therefore there should no significant impact as a result of lighting from this project. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant enviromneutal effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to rise 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 mid Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ t7 ❑ rise,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 non-agricultural use? 2 a,b,c)AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - No Impact There are agricultural resources or lands under Williamson Act contracts within the City and therefore no adverse impacts to these resources is anticipated. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. 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 an- ❑ ❑ ❑ quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? 3.a., b., c) AIR QUALITY- Less than Significant Impact with Mitiqation Incorporated The City of Palm Springs is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SEDAB is comprised of the eastern portion of San Bernardino, Riverside, Kern, Los Angeles and San Diego, as well as all of Imperial County. The SCAQMD is required pursuant to the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in non-attainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) prepared by SCAQMD for the region. The AQMP outlines regional programs and control measures to reduce future emissions based on population projections. The AQMP is based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projections as well as the requirements and projections included in the General Plans for those communities located within the South Coast Air Basin. The proposed project shall be incompliance with the Palm Springs Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM to) Section 8.50 that requires preparation and submission of a plan to implement control measures for project emissions. Individual projects and long-term programs within the region are required to be consistent with the AQMP. To demonstrate consistency with the AQMP, the population projections used to assess the need for the project must be approved by the SCAG. The District uses SCAG population projections to assess the need for the proposed project. The proposed project is intended to accommodate District growth. The Coachella 'Valley has been under scrutiny by the EPA for "serious" non-attainment of PMn) standards. PMto refers to suspended particulate Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact matter with a mean aerodynamic diameters equal to or less than 10 micros. Local Cities and Riverside County have promulgated stricter regulations and procedures in an attempt to meet this Federal air quality standard. A new ordinance, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM lo) in Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, has been developed in order to establish minimum requirements for construction and demolition activities and other specific sources in order to reduce man-made fugitive dust and the corresponding PMie emissions. The ordinance deals with construction activities, vacant lands, unpaved roadways and the like that have been determined to be the source of significant contributions to PMto violations. The Coachella Valley will continue to be closely monitored and could face sanction unless the PM10 standard is met for three consecutive years. The project site is also located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated as a "severe-17" Ozone non-attainment area because of violations of the Federal ambient air quality standards for ozone, primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. This designation indicates that the attainment date for federal ozone standards is November 2007. This project would be consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook Standards. However, due to future project construction activity emissions, the project applicant would be required to comply with the City's Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance and the new fugitive dust control ordinance. Compliance with this ordinance would mitigate the impacts to air quality to a level of insignificance. MITIGATION 1) The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PMte) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The plan must implement reasonably available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. 3.d) AIR QUALITY- No Impact The proposed project would be located on a site that is adjacent to a residential development to the southeast. Adjacent property to the north and east is vacant land. The proposed project would not alter climatological conditions either locally or regionally, nor would the proposed residences interrupt wind patterns due to the low profile of the single-story structures. No mitigation measures are required. 3.e) AIR QUALITY- No Impact Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant air quality impact. No mitigation measures are required. 4. 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) Rave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ • policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ • to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interrup lion, 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? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ • Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or slate habitat conservation plan? 4. a, d, c, d, f) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — No Impact James Cornett, an ecological consultant, conducted a biological study of the proposed Phase II project area to determine the possible occurrence of officially-listed plant or animal species at the site. Literature review and museum records review was conducted prior to on-site field work. Field surveys were conducted during the day on November 11, 12, 14, 24, 2003; and Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact March 12, 13 and 14, 2004. The daytime floral surveys were conducted at a time of year when all ephemeral species would be in evidence. A night survey was conducted on the evening of November 12, 2003. The evenings of April 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2004, were also utilized to capture flying insects with three black light insect traps in order to ascertain the occurrence of Casey's Jdne Beetle on the project site. Plant surveys were conducted by walking north-south transects at twenty-yard intervals through the project site an fifty yards beyond the western and northern site boundaries. Animal surveys were conducted simultaneously with plant surveys. Additionally, twenty-five Sherman live-animal traps for large and small mammals were set within the project site. Both day and night live-trapping was conducted. The Sonoran creosote brush scrub community was the only plant association found. Approximately 10% of the project site has been disturbed by clearing and grubbing. That area was dominated by weed species that germinate and follow the removal of the creosote brush scrub community. No floral species from The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were found. The following fauna species were encountered on the site: eleodes beetle, harvester ant, pallid band-winged grasshopper, painted lady butterfly, side-blotched lizard, western whiptail, mourning dove, house finch, common raven, red-tailed hawk, black-tailed jackrabbit, Merriam kangaroo rat, coyote and Palm Springs ground squirrel. No insect species from the California Department of Fish and Game's Special Animals list was found to occur at the proposed project site. Additionally specific effort was made to locate sign of the desert tortoise and flat- tailed horned lizard, but no individuals or sign was found. Therefore, none of the plant and animal species found within the project boundaries are officially listed by any governmental agency. Additionally, Coachella Valley Milk Vetch and Casey's June beetle were not present on the site. Therefore it was determined that this project will not have a significant negative impact on any of the species of plants or animals recorded at the project site as all those species have ranges far beyond the parameters of the proposed project site. 1 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a wuque ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including fliose u interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5, a CULTURAL RESOURCES — Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation As a result of a cultural resources archival research study and a field study conducted by ASM Affiliates, under the supervision of Dr. Jerry Schaefer on January 23, 2004, four historic resources were identified. Three of the four were pieces of historic period irrigation pipe, likely associated with the Palm Springs Water Company Pipeline. Three segments were found at various locations on the proposed building site. It was determined that similar pipeline segments have been located at other locations and determined not to be eligible For the California Register of Historic Resources. Additionally, a fourth historic resource was located: a small historic can scatter that was most likely the result of household dumping. Since there has been no known recorded historic residences on the property it is presumed the material was brought to the site from elsewhere. As the original source of the historic material is thus unidentifiable and cannot be associated with any known household or historic pattern, the site is not significant and therefore no further work is recommended. Because the exposed portions of once-buried pipeline would indicate that the potential for further segments to be encountered upon excavation of the site, the following mitigation measure is required to ensure the documentation of the pipeline alignment and would reduce the significance of impact to a historic resource to less than significant. MITIGATION 1) Pipeline alignments shall be carefully documented by the archeological monitors on site when pipeline segments are uncovered in the course of excavation and construction. 5. b)— CULTURAL RESOURCES — Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation The proposed project site is within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians tribal lands. In the course of the field study conducted by ASM Affiliates, there was also discovered a small rock ring that was notable due to its associated marine shell,,which was a common trade item between the Cahuilla people and coastal groups. The age of the ring is currently indeterminate but the associated marine shell renders it potentially significant and eligible for in'II..—t, It on the vaiiiv1 ..cy1SLe G, Historic ��wvJrCES. ric-GGiiSt uCtiGn testing was recommended for the site with the participation of a Native American monitor. On May 14, 2004, Dr. Jerry Schaefer, a senior archaeologist, and Mr. Aaron Cruz, a Cultural Resources Monitor with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahullla Indians undertook subsurface testing of the site in order to determine the age, cultural affiliation and function of the small rock ring with associated marine shell. The purpose of the testing was to determine the age, Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact cultural affiliation and function of the site. The results of the testing were inconclusive with regard to the age, function, and cultural affiliation of the rock ring. Inferences from the testing include that the feature is most likely of recent historic origin because of its superficial nature although the rock ring and shell do not conform to any typically recent Euro-american activities. It may be possible to obtain an AMS radiocarbon date from the shell but the results are predicted to be difficult to interpret. None of the shell species found at the site are commonly found at Cahuilla sites. It can be concluded with certainty that there are no subsurface components associated with the rock ring site. Additionally the research concluded that there was no evidence of any ceremonial activity such as associated with a cremation burial, clothes burning, or any other mortuary activity. Therefore it was concluded that the site as evaluated was not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources because the age, cultural context, and function could not be ascertained with any certainty. It was recommended that consultation be undertaken with the Agua Caliente Band of Cauilla Indians before a final determination is made. In order to ensure that all Tribal interests and resources that may be included at the site are fully monitored and documented the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures the impact to significant archeological resources will be reduced to less than significant: MITIGATION 1) Consultation with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Resource Office shall occur to determine the further treatment of the rock ring site. 2) A Cultural Resources Monitor, designated by the Agua Caliente Cultural Resource Office shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Cultural Office for additional information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource Monitors. 3) Should buried deposits be encountered, the Cultural Resources Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning and Zoning and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, 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. 4) Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building and Engineering Department and one copy of the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection. 5.c) CULTURAL RESOURCES — No Impact The potential for the proposed project property to yield paleontological remains or unique geologic features is low due to the geologic substate of the alluvial fan that comprises the surface soils that would be disturbed during the normal grading and construction activities Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact associated with single-family residential construction. Therefore it is determined there is potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site or geologic feature. 5.d) CULTURAL RESOURCES — Less Than Siqnificant Impact Due to the range of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians the potential exists for the possibility of finding human remains in the area. In accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Riverside County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the remains. The designated Native American representative than determines in consultation with the property owner the disposition of the human remains. Compliance with this law will reduce any potential inputs to a less that significant level. 6. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ • ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ 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-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defnvd in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water ❑ ❑ ❑ disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No - Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6a.i., a.ii ) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Less than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation The majority of Riverside County lies within areas subject to seismic hazards. The subject site lies approximately three miles south of the Southern Branch of the San Andreas fault, an area of high seismic risk. The area has a low potential for liquefaction due to a relatively low water table and negligible potential for landslides due to the lack of steep unstable slopes on the site. A detailed soils report will be prepared as part of the final project engineering. The report will be prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer and will identify site-specific soils issues that must be addressed in site grading and building construction. No known active faults cross the site. However, the proposed site is approximately three miles south of the Southern Branch of the San Andreas fault line and considered an area of high seismic risk. Specific data regarding the probability of a major seismic event remains controversial among geologists evaluating the Palm Spirngs' area. In the November 2002 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 74 scientists provided data to support the probability of a major seismic event of a magnitude 7 or higher in Palm Springs as overdue based upon detailed records of prior events gleaned from core drillings within the fault. Other geologists from Cal State San Bernadino immediately refuted those findings. Therefore, statistical probability predicting the occurrence of a major seismic event in the area is not available, but the ability to prepare for such an event can be utilized as mitigation measures. All structures within the general area may be subject to severe ground shaking in the event of a seismic event. Engineered design and earthquake-resistant construction increases the safety and allows for development in seismic areas. Standard City requirements to protect Future occupants of the proposed project include that the developer be required to submit a precise grading plan and soils report for the project area for review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of building permits and that all structures will be constructed to meet Uniform Building Codes specific to earthquake design standards. The soils report will address subsidence and the possibility of expansive soils on the property. The grading plan will be required to be incompliance with the soils report. Grading and construction decisions will be made upon review of the grading plan and soils report. MITIGATION 1) The facility will be designed to applicable seismic standards per the State of California Uniform Building Code. 2) A soils test will be required as part of the final engineering. All site grading, compaction, building pad construction, and foundations will be per the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer. All earthwork and foundaiioris shall be inspected to assure compliance with the engineer's recommendations. 6.a.iii)GEOLOGY AND SOILS - No Impact The site is located in an area generally designated as having a low potential for liquefaction as the groundwater in the area is generally in excess of 50 feet, noted in the Geotechnical Enqineerinq Report for Tentative Tract No. 28507, December 1997, a project proposal for the Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Lnpact Impact Mountain Gate Phase I site, It was further noted that fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. Therefore it is determined that the project site are will have a low potential for liquefaction. 6.a.iv)GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Less Than Siqnificant Impact There are no steep or unstable slopes on the project site. Immediately west of the project site (across adjacent Highway III) an alluvial fan formation rises to the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. The toe slopes of that mountain range are approximately one to two miles from the project site. Those slopes and the associated alluvial fan could have the potential for instability during a catastrophic fault failure but the possibility of landslide impacts is negligible due to the distance of the project site:from the toe slopes. Therefore it is determined that the project would expose people or structures to the possibility of landslides is less than significant. 6.b.) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Less than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation Project implementation will require site grading. The area is also known to experience periods of high wind that can promote soil erosion. The movement of vehicles and personnel on unpaved surfaces during construction may also result in soil erosion. Ultimately, the majority of the site will be improved with structures, pavement, or landscaping that will stabilize onsite soils and prevent erosion. MITIGATION 1. All grading will be performed in accordance with a grading permit issued by the City of Palm Springs. 2. An erosion control plan will be prepared and implemented during construction. 3, A PM10 Plan will be prepared to mitigate dust generation resulting from winds and vehicle/personnel activities. 4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer must comply with the rules and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) relative to dust mitigation including Rules 402 and 403. 5. See SECTION 3, AIR QUALITY for full air quality mitigation. 6.c., d) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - No Impact The site is not located in a geologic unit or soil unit that is considered unstable. Soils in the immediate area are not considered to be expansive. Therefore it is determined to have no impact. 6.e) GEOLOGY AND SOILS - No Impact Although onsite soils tests have not been performed, the proposed project will utilize City of Palm Springs sewer. On-site disposal systems are not necessary. Therefore it is determined that the project to have no impact. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. 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 Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ • result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located v,,itlin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ • urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 6.a— q) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — No Impact The proposed project is residential in nature and would not routinely involve the transport or use of hazardous materials therefore there is a very minimal possibility that the project site would be involved with a use that could create a significant hazard to public by accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. The project site is not within a quarter of a mile from a school site. The nearest school is approximately one mile away. Nor is the Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Lrcorporated Impact Impact project site located on listed site compiled by Government Code Section 65962.5. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has determined the project site to be beyond its sphere of influence nor is the project site within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. 6.h) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Less Than Siqnificant Impact The proposed project site is located next to a state highway to the southwest, open desert on the north and east and Mountain Gate Phase I, a prior phase of the proposed residential development comprised of 308 single-family residences. The potential for fire from the desert in a wildland fire event does exist. Based on the vegetative species associated with adjacent vacant desert land that consists of low-lying shrub and sparse dispersal of plant material the fuel index on the adjacent desert is moderate at best. Therefore the potential to expose people or structures to a significant level of risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is determined to be less than significant. S. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intcalere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table 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 which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ ❑ stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ X flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ including flooding as a result of the failure of a' levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. a — d and I ) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY- Less Than Siqnificant Impact Prior to construction of the proposed project, the applicant and its contractor(s)will be required to obtain all necessary clearance and permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to implement the City's standards for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Board (NPDES) best method practices such that during construction, violations of water quality standards do not occur. Measures to eliminate discharge of polluted runoff or erosion of adjacent undisturbed areas will be required. The proposed project is a single Family home subdivision with community recreations areas, and will not generate any polluted water or waste discharges. Stormwater runoff from on-site will be conveyed to on-site retention basins that will filter and dissipate the runoff such that direct discharges of potentially polluted water is not released directed into a natural drainage course or the water aquifer. It is not anticipated that the proposed subdivision will deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The subdivision is being developed in accordance with Desert Water Agency requirements, and is providing additional well sites within the development for future use in generating additional domestic water supplies. The existing site is vacant and native desert land, with no existing stream or rivers. Construction of the project will result in less on site absorption and increased stormwater runoff due to the construction of impervious surfaces. The site is designed to accommodate stormwater runoff in the streets, convey the runoff to on-site retention areas, and therefore no erosion, siltation or flooding on or off-site will occur. The existing site is protected from off-site stormwater runoff by the southerly levee of the Chino Creek Channel that runs parallel to the northwest boundary of the project. This levee is owned and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and is part of the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs area. The purpose of the levee is to intercept and redirect sotrmwater runoff generated off of the San Jacinto Mountains and the Chino Cone. And convey the runoff to the Whitewater River. This levee Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact connects with and is part of the levee system adjacent to the Whitewater River that provide Flood control protection for the City of Palm Springs. The risk of failure of the Chino Creek levee is less than significant, and would only occur as a result of flooding that exceeds the design storm of the levee system, in excess of the 100-year storm. 8.e) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Less than Siqnificant with Mitigation A Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 32028 was prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, dated March 4, 2004. The Report identifies that the project site is protected from off-site stormwater runoff by the southerly levee of the Chino Creek Channel that runs parallel to the northwest boundary of the project, and by Highway 111 along the southwest boundary of the project which effectively acts as a levee against all overland stormwater runoff from the west. Highway 111 is elevated above the project site, and off-site stormwater runoff is conveyed through three different culverts onto the property. Development of the vacant land will increase the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the project site, as well as provide additional sources of polluted stormwater runoff. However, the development will implement the measures outlines in the Hydrology Report, as finalized and approved by the City Engineer, including conveyance and collection of all on-site stormwater runoff to on-site retention basins. Existing off-site stormwater runoff conveyed to the project site under Highway 111 will be intercepted and directed to existing flood control improvements and drainage basins constructed as a part of the adjacent development. Through construction of required on-site storm drain and flood control improemen5ts, the increase in stormwater runoff generated by the development will be decreased to a level less than significant. The development is providing for the future construction of Line 2 of the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area, and will not exceed the capacity of any exiting or planned stormwater drainage system. MITIGATION 1) Payment of Drainage Acreage fees shall be required prior to issuance of building permits for implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage for the Palm Springs Area. 2) The development shall comply with the recommended measures as outlined in the Hydrology Report, as finalized and approved by the City Engineer, including but not limited to construction of an on site storm drain system and retention basins. 8. f— h and i) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— No Im act No disturbance of the subsurface water resources is proposed and therefore development of the site will not alter the location, quantity or recharge of groundwater. The site is not located within a designated 100 year flood plain and the site is considered free from a major flood hazard. All new structures constructed within the proposed development will be outside of any 100-year flood hazard area, and will not impede or redirect flood flows, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. There is no risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. 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 limiled to the general plan, specific plan, local ❑ ❑ ❑ coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the propose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? 9. a, b) LAND USE AND PLANNING — Less Than Siqnificant Impact The proposed project is a second phase of a previously entitled single-family residential planned development district, Mountain Gate I. Phase I is presently under construction. The first phase consisted of a subdivision of 83 acres into 308 residential lots with associated on and off-site improvements. An Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration for Phase I was adopted at the time of entitlement, approved by the City of Palm Springs' City Council February 26, 2003. That component is located immediately southeast of the proposed Phase Il. Phase II consists of a 46± acre parcel with a proposal to subdivide that undeveloped land into 199 residential lots with associated on and off-site improvements. Phase I was the first residential subdivision that was entitled and proceeded into the construction phase in many years in north Palm Springs. At the time of Phase I entitlement neighborhood meetings with the existing Desert Highlands neighborhood introduced the project and encouraged existing neighborhood participation in the public review process. The result of that neighborhood involvement culminated with a very active and vocal community planning process documented by numerous letters and public comment at the public hearings conducted for project review. The overwhelming majority of comments expressed support for the project. One specific area of concern was the disenfranchisement of the existing community upon the construction of a walled and gated new development on the periphery of a very cohesive established community. To date approximately 100 of the 308 residences proposed have been finaled for occupancy. During the construction process the City of Palm Springs Planning staff has received one complaint regarding the new construction from adjacent property owners that involved the undergrounding of utility lines. Therefore it is determined that Phase II, a proposed project that is considered an extension of an established land use pattern will have a less than significant impact upon the established community. Phase II of the Mountain Gate residential subdivision was envisioned during the entitlement process for Phase I consideration by the City of Palm Springs but was not incorporated in the tentative tract map or environmental review at that time due to the fact that the adjacent land had not been acquired nor was the extent of potential acreage that could be acquired known at the time. The private interior streets in Phase I were platted and are constructed to provide Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact connectivity to the more northwestern property, if in fact it could be purchased. The Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by City Council Resolution February 26, 2003, and is incorporated by reference within this document. The proposed application is for a Planned Development District, as was Phase I. The underlying zoning designation for both phases is single-family residential, R-1-C, and General Plan designation L4, that allows four units per acre in density. The density that could have been utilized within Phase I was 361 units. Three hundred and eight (308) were proposed and entitled to be constructed. Therefore a density transfer of 53 units could occur between Phase I and Phase II upon evaluation of the overall site. The proposed density of Phase II is 199 units. The overall acreage for both phases is 129± acres. The overall density allowed with the low density (L4) General Plan designation is 516 units. The proposed density for Phase I and Phase II is 507 units. Within the Planned Development District process a project may ask for relief to certain standards of development required within the overlying zoning designation if it is compatible with adjacent land uses, provides recreational and amenity-oriented open space not less than that required by zone, and encourages a project of qualitative design. Phase consists of lots that range in size from 5,500 square feet to 7,500 square; feet. Phase II consists of lots that range in size from 5,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Both projects consist of eight floor plans in two different product lines; the El Dorado line has four floor plans and the homes will range in size from 1,211 to 1,820 square feet. The Ventana Collection also has four floor plans and the homes will rnage in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet. The homes will be single-story with a maximum building height of 18 feet. The Phase II component of the Mountain Gate project is asking for relief to the following R-1-C zoning designation standards of development: R-1-C Standard Proposed Minimum lot size 10,000 square feet 5,000—7,500 square feet Minimum lot width: Interior Lot 100, 54' — 82' Corner Lot 110, 80' — 110' Lot coverage 35% 6 units —55% 33 units —45% 44 units — 38% 116 units — 35% or less Minimum dwelling size 1,500 square feet 1,211 square feet Yard setbacks: Front 25' 20' Side— Interior 10, 5' Side—Corner 20' 10, Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact As previously mentioned, the Planned Development District process requires that the open space for planned districts shall be equal to or greater than the minimum open space requirement for the zone in which the planned district is located unless otherwise approved by the planning commission and city council. Recreational areas, drainage facilities and other main-made structures may be considered to meet a part of the open space requirements. Open space shall also be integrated into the overall design of the project. Both Mountain Gate Phase I and Phase II include landscape right-of-ways adjacent to public streets and highways that incorporate pedestrian walkways and equestrian trails. All drainage retention areas in both phases are landscaped. Phase I included two recreation areas with pools and spa. One of those two recreation areas included a childrens' play area and tennis courts. Phase II will include a common recreation area with pool and spa, also. The following tables quantify the open space requirements for both phases and the overall project: MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE I Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 760,122 20.81% Open Space * 2,395,801 65.61% Private Streets 495,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase 1 3,651,635 sq. ft. 100.00% Open Space includes 49,658 square feet of decorative pavement. MOUNTAIN GATE PHASE 11 Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 452,957 22.64% Open Space ** 1,278,224 65.61% Private Streets 496,712 13.58% TOTAL Phase II 2,000,711 100.00% * Open Space includes 28,420 square feet of decorative pavement. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact TOTAL OF MOUNTIAN GATE PHASE I AND PHASE II Total Square Feet % Building Coverage 1,213,079 21,46% Open Space 3,674,025 65.00% Private Streets 765,242 13.54% TOTAL Phase I & II 5,652,346 100.00% Therefore it is determined that the proposed Mountain Gate Phase I and II project is not in conflict.with any applicable land use plan or general plan of the City of Palm Springs. 9.0 LAND USE AND PLANNING — No Impact There is no known applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan associated with the proposed project site, therefore it is determined to have no impact. 10. 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 residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ❑ El 11 delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 10. a, b) MINERAL RESOURCES — No Impact The proposed site does not incorporate any know mineral resource of calculable value to the region or residents of the state. The California State Mining Board has sought consideration of mineral extraction (sand and gravel resources) in the general area as a means of protecting this resource for future generations. No specific mineral resources have been identified in the project site area. Loss of 46± acres of land will not affect the overall sand and gravel resources of the region. Therefore the project will not have an impact on the area's mineral resources. 11.NOISE—Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the El local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome ❑ ❑ ❑ • noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase hl ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ • ❑ existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ • ❑ ❑ levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ • airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ • or worlcing in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. a) NOISE — Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Incorporated The City of Palm Springs General Plan established noise level guidelines in relation to land use categories in the 1993 General Plan Update in order to meet the objective of low noise levels in the community as part of a broad approach to environmental quality control. To assure that that objective would be met several General Plan policies were established as follows, as applicable to the proposed residential development: • 6.20.1 Protect noise sensitive land uses such as residences...from acceptable noise levels from both existing and future noise sources. Sensitive land uses shall not be located where noise levels are excessive unless adequate attenuation can be achieved. • 6.20.2 Project design will include measures which assure adequate interior noise levels as required by Title 25 (California Noise Insulation Standards). • 6.20.4 New developments will be permitted areas exposed to noise levels greater than 60 dB CNEL only if appropriate mitigation measures are included such that the appropriate standards are met. In order to assure that the above policies will be met a noise study was conducted Endo Engineering January 20, 2004. Two forms of noise impacts were evaluated: short-term construction related impacts and long-term exposures ]o traffic noise from the adjacent State Highway III. It was determined that long-term acoustic impacts could occur both off-site and on-site if the project is approved and implemented. In order to mitigated that long-term impact the following mitigation measures will be incorporated: Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact MITIGATION 1) Proposed single family detached residential development adjacent to State Highway III shall be evaluated by a qualified noise consultant at more detailed levels of planning to ensure that adequate noise attenuation strategies are incorporated to meet the Palm Springs noise standard of 65 CNEL in outside living areas and 45 dBA in interior living areas. The project applicant shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the required shielding shall be incorporated in the project design, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. b) NOISE — No Impact Residential vehicular traffic is the only noise source anticipated once construction activities are completed. Ground borne vibrations associated with manufacturing and large-scale commercial operations that would have the effect of creating ground borne vibrations will not be associated with the land use proposed, therefore there would be no impact. 11.c) NOISE —Less Than Siqnificant With the increase of 199 residential households as proposed there will be a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity about levels existing without the project. The level of ambient noise increase will not be substantial. The project is surrounded on three sides by vacant land or state highway. Mountain Gate Phase I of 308 single-family residences will be the only project in the vicinity to be impacted by the ambient noise level increase. The most specific increase will be attributed to increased vehicular traffic through the Phase I component of the Mountain Gate project. That increased traffic is circulated through private interior streets. All interior streets are speed regulated and have incorporated traffic calming devices of periodic narrowing of the streets widths (chokers) accented by decorative pavement (another visual method of traffic calming). Therefore a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project is determined to be less than significant. 11. d) NOISE— Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation Short-term construction-related impacts necessary to implement the proposed land uses at the site will produce noise levels higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but will subside once construction is completed. The project development will be required to comply with the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code noise ordinance that includes hours of operation and maximum levels of acceptable noise levels for construction activity. In addition the following mitigation measures shall be required: MITIGATION 1) 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_ sensitive time periods. The Construction Site Regulations (Chapter 8.04.220) also identifies 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 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact normal sensitivity. 2) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the engines shall be equipped with shrouds. 3) All construction equipment shall be in proper working order and maintained in a proper state of tune to reduce backfires. 4) Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise- sensitive receptors. 5) Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy equipment and on-site construction vehicles shall be located as far as practical from existing homes. 6) Every effort shall be made during construction activities to create the greatest distance between noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors located in the vicinity of the project site. 7) Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise-sensitive receptors. 8) Future on-site development shall comply will all relevant noise policies set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan. 11. e, f) NOISE — No Impact The proposed project site is not located within two miles of a public airport nor is it within the vicinity of a private airstrip therefore the project will not expose people residing or working there to excessive noise levels and has no impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ❑ ❑ example, 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? 12. a) POPULATION AND HOUSING — Less Than Significant Impact The increase in housing units for the Phase II component of the Mountain Gate residential subdivision is 199 units directly contributing to the population growth of the City of Palrn Springs. One hundred and ninety-nine units (199) can be adequately served by existing infrastructure or the incorporation of assessment districts to be financed by the new users of Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact such services. More specific reference to assessment districts is covered in XVI. UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES of this document. An increase: of a projected as Iwo persons per dwelling for a projected 398 residents. The population of the City of Palm Springs is 42,155 as of the U.S. Bureau of Census count in 2000. Regionally, the County of Riverside was projected after the 2000 Census to have a population of 1,699,112 residents, by 2002. That projection represented a 9.9% increase in population from April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2002. If the City of Palm Springs were to also experience a 9.9% increase in population as of the census of 2000, it would be estimated to have obtained a population of 45,949 by the year 2002. Therefore the City would have experienced an increase of 3,794 residents in two years. Data is not available to adequately estimate if that increase in population has occurred but it does indicate that an increase of 398 residents would represent 10% of a potential population increase (3,794 residents) for a two year period. Therefore it can be concluded that the increase of 398 residents does not represent a substantial increase in population growth with a less than significant impact. 12, b, c) POPULATION AND HOUSING — No Impact The proposed project is to be constructed on vacant property that has not been previously developed. Therefore no displacement of existing houses or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere will occur, nor will there be an impact. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemnental 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 public services: ' Fire protection? ❑ • ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Schools? ❑ • ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ • ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ • 13. a — fire protection) PUBLIC SERVICES — Less Than Significant with Miiigation Incorporated Fire Station No. 2 is located on Racquet Club Drive. Mountain Gate Phase II is beyond the five minute response time from this station thereby necessitating the following mitigation measure to adequately provide fire protection: Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact MITIGATION: 1) All residences shall be equipped with fire sprinklers per the requirements of the Fire Marshal. 13. b— police protection) PUBLIC SERVICES — Less Than Siqnificant The City of Palm Springs Police Department will provide police protection for the proposed project. Staffing levels of both Fire and Police Departments are currently under review by the City of Palm Springs. At this time there appears to be adequate staffing to service the future development. 13. c— schools) PUBLIC SERVICES — Less Than Siqnificant with Mitiqation The proposed project is not age restricted, therefore the possibility of residences with school- age children is anticipated. The City of Palm Springs is located within the jurisdiction of the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD). The Palm Springs Unified School District has identified shortfalls in providing adequate facilities and has adopted a mitigation impact fee assessed to all new residential development that is not age restricted. Payment of those fees would reduce the impacts of the project on schools to below a level of significance. The following mitigation will be required: MITIGATION 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for residential construction the develop shall pay a school impact fee based on the current rate as adopted by the Palm Springs unified School District. 13. d - parks) PUBLIC SERVICES - Less Than Significant Impact There are approximately 130 acres of City-owned and developed parkland within the City of Palm Springs. The city-owned parks in the City include Desert Highland Park, Victoria Park, Ruth Hardy Park, Sunrise Park and Demuth Park. Other nearby recreational facilities include several golf courses which are open to the public, such as Mesquite Country Club and Palm Springs Golf Course. Many private golf and tennis clubs are also located within Palm Springs and throughout the Coachella Valley. The Murray, Andreas, and Palm Canyon recreation areas, operated by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians are also located nearby. A large system of hiking/equestian trails is located in the southern and western portions of the City. The proposed project will extend both public pedestrian walkways and equestrian trails that currently exist at the project's southeastern boundary. According to the City's Parks and Recreation Department, existing City parks and recreational facilities are insufficient to serve the current City residents. The development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the number of residents needing parks and recreation areas ans would therefore require additional parkland within the City. Through the State Quimby Act, and the City Ordinance No. 1632, Section IV the developer will be required to pay a few for park and recreational purposes; the in lieu fee would be computed based upon the formula contained in the Ordinance No. 1632. Further discussion under section 14 a) of this document relates to the recreation fee. With the inclusion of the in lieu fee the projects impact on recreational facilities will be reduced to less than significant. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Lncorporated Impact Impact 13. e— other facilities) PUBLIC SERVICES - No Impact The proposed project is not anticipated to have impacts on any other types of public facilities. 14. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ • recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 14. a) RECREATION - Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation The project has the potential to increase the number of residents to the City that would use existing City and regional parks. The developer will be required to pay the City a fee in lieu of making the dedication pursuant to Ordinance No. 1632, Section IV. The in-lieu fee shall be computed by multiplying the area of park to be dedicated by the fair market value of the land being developed plus the cost to acquire and improve the property plus the fair share contribution, less any credit given by the City, as may be reasonable determined by the City, based upon the formula contained in Ordinance No. 1632. The following mitigation fee shall apply to the proposed project: MITIGATION 1) In accordance with City Ordinance'No. 1632 and the State of California's Quimby Act, the proposed residential development shall be required to pay in lieu mitigation fees to facilitate the further development of park and recreation facilities at a local level. 14. b) RECREATION — No Impact The proposed project includes the development of a number of recreational facilities including pool and spa available for the residents of the proposed project and multiple passive recreation opportunities within the project site. A landscaped pedestrian pathway transects the project site in approximately a north/south direction allowing safe pedestrian passage from the south end of the project to the 144,625 square foot lot dedicated to recreation in the northeast corner of the project site. None of the recreational amenities proposed would physically adversely effect the environment. Therefore there is no impact by the construction of the proposed recreation facilities. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load ❑ • ❑ ❑ and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 congestion 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 featrre (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ • intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., faun equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ • 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ • ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ • (e.g, bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? 15. a) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC— Less Than Siqnificant With Mitiqation The project will include 199 single-family units each with its own two car garage. The density proposed for the combined Phase I and Phase II components of the Mountain Gate subdivision is less than projected in the City's General Plan, and therefore less traffic will be using the surrounding street network. A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the project by Endo Engineering, dated January 2004, and the report is on file with the City. As the proposed development is an extension of the adjacent development, Phase I (Tentative Tract Map 30963), the Traffic Impact Study included analysis of the existing and proposed development, for a total of a maximum of 514 single-family residential lots. The analysis indicates the existing and proposed projects will generate 4,670 trips (1,760 trips for the new development and 2,910 trips for the existing development); 373 trips (145 trips for the new development and 228 trips for the existing development) will occur at the mid day peak hour and 469 trips (174 trips for the new development and 295 for the existing development) will occur at the evening peak hour. These trips will be accommodated by the Existing street system without any additional widening or land modifications. Key intersections studied for the Traffic Impact Study were State Highway III and Gateway Drive, and Indian Canyon Drive at Las Vegas Road and Tramview Road. A new traffic signal is being installed at State Highway III and Gateway Drive, in conjunction with construction of the existing development. Both intersections on Indian Canyon Drive will operate at acceptable levels of service with the proposed project. Although rural peak hour traffic signal warrants at Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road may be reached in the year 2006, the intersection will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service until the year 2020 when signalization my be warranted. The project contribution to this signal is 9.2%. If installed earlier by the project a reimbursement agreement should be provided by the City. The following mitigation measures shall be Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant ]Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact ILnpact incorporated and thereby reducing the level of significance caused by the increased traffic from the proposed development to less than significant: MITIGATION 1) The final design of the internal circulation and site access plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer to ensure compliance with City access and design standards. 2) The applicant shall dedicate appropriate right of way to accommodate the ultimate improvement of master planned roadways on or adjacent to the project site. 3) State Highway III shall be improved to City and/or Caltrans design standards adjacent to the project site. Adequate off-street parking shrill be provided on-site to meet the requirements of the Palm springs Municipal Code. 4) A fair share contribution shall be made towards the future signalization of Indian Canyon Drive and Tramview Road. 5) The applicant shall pay all required Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) prior to issuance of building permits. 15 b, f and q) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project will facilitate additional widening and improvements along State Highway III. The completion of the street improvements (additional pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk) will provide a safer condition for pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed a level of service standard established by Riverside County Transportation Commission, nor result in inadequate parking capacity, nor conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. 15. e, d and e) TRANSPORTATION/TRAFIC— No Impact The project is not located near an airport facility and proposed no structure or lighting that would interfere with air traffic movements. The project has been designed using City standards for the on-site private streets and intersections and no adverse impacts to street design or emergency access is anticipated. The project design already incorporates many of the recommended mitigation measures of the traffic analysis (i.e. right of way dedications, design and improvements to City standards, and provisions for adequate parking), and therefore, only those additional recommendations are incorporated as mitigation measures under section 15. a. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ • Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction ❑ ❑ • ❑ of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ • ❑ Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accorcanodate the projece's ❑ ❑ ❑ solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ N ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? 12.a) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — No Impact The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board therefore is determined to have no impact. 12. b—e) UTILTIES AND SEVICE SYSTEMS — Less Than Siqnificant Impact The Desert Water Agency (DWA) currently owns, operates, and maintains water distribution and pumping facilities within the project area. Project proponents will be required to drill a water well to adequately service the site for domestic water service and adequate fire flow. The well will be located in the northeastern most corner of the property, at the highest elevation. It will be located on a .58 acre lot that will be conveyed to DWA with the associated infrastructure. It will then connect to existing DWA water infrastructure to provide water to the site for construction and domestic water service. The developer will be required to 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, replacement, and abandonment of existing DWA facilities. These improvements may require construction within and adjacent to public rights-of-way and exiting and/or proposed easements. Construction will occur in accordance with DWA and City requirements and will not cause any significant effects upon the environment: 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envuornnent, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact hacorporated ILnpact Impact plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects ❑ ❑ ❑ of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17.a) MANDATORY FINDINS OF SIGNIFICANCE— Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project has been evaluated for its potential to degrade: the quality of the environment and has been determined after review of, but not limited to, the studies conducted specific to the proposed project site to not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or' eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. All mitigation measures previously incorporated in this review have reduced the level of those concerns to less than significant impact. 17. b) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Less Than Siqnificant Impact The City of Palm Springs has been in a very active residential development phase for the past two years, as indicated by the fast pace of construction and occupancy of the Phase I component of the Mountain Gate project. The advantages to research when entitlement and constructions activity is current are many. For instance, the City of Palm Springs staff has availability to studies involving traffic, biological resources., cultural resources, noise and air quality from numerous projects with very current data. Those numerous studies allow for integration of data from project to project thereby representing a more regional portrayal of cumulative impacts to the environment. Similarly demands on public services are also evaluated cumulatively. The most difficult components of the Environmental Assessment to evaluate and typically, most controversial, is the cumulative significance relative to land use and aesthetics of mass, scale and density associated with all development and the perception of rapid change in a relatively small community. Compliance with the City of Palm Springs General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are the most effective means of maintaining consistency of implementation of policy and goals inherent in the General Plan. Therefore it is determined that the cumulative effect of past, present and future projects has a less than significant impact. Less Than potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. c) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — No Impact Previous sections of this document reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts related to traffic, air pollution, noise, health and safety, and other issues. As explained in those sections, the proposed project would not result in significant impact related to these issues. 18. LISTED BELOW ARE THE PERSON(S) WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning and Zoning, City of Palm Springs David Barakian, City Engineer, City of Palm Springs Carl Thibeault, Fire Marshal, City of Palm Springs Marcus Fuller, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Palm Springs Kathy Marx, Associate Planner, City of Palm Springs Bruce Kessler, Civil Engineer, MSA Consulting, Inc., Rancho Mirage Margo Thibeault, Planner, MSA Consulting, Inc., Rancho Mirage DETERMINATION 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 El 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. Douglas R.Evans Date Director of Planning and Zoning DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviromnent, 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 ❑ LIR 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 treasures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. s1,zZ/�o y Douglas . Ev s Date Director of Planning and Zoning Neighborhood Coalikion/Sponsors MR PETER DIXON HIS TR9SHA DAVIS and Verification List TENNIS CLUB AREA TENNIS CLUB AREA Case No. 5.0931-B 431 SOUTH M0HTE VISTA DR IVE 227 SOUTH CAH_DILLA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR BILL DAMS AND iviR FRANK T YSEN CIO CASA CODY COUNTRY(INN MS.CHRIS T 1618E HAMMOND MR BOB WEITHORN SMALL HOTELS TAHOUI T Z RIVER ESTf\TES TENNIS CLUB I SMALL HOTELS 175 SOUTH CA'HUIILLA ROAD I'l55 SOUTH CAMINO REAL 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR TIM HOHMEIER MS ROXANN GLOSS MR PHIL TEDESCO DEEPWELL OLD LAS PAL MAS DEEPWELL RANCH 1387 CALLE DE MARIA 920 Ci'HIA 1303 WEST PRiMAVERA DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALF4I SPRINGS CA t 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MARS-IALL ROATH MS MARGARET PARK EMS SHERYL HAMLIN AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA AQUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE CAHU&LLA INDWNS < 650 E TAHOUI T Z CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CITY OF PALM SPf RIN1GS PLANNWG E:ZONING DEPT CASE NO. 5.0931-6 VERIFICATION NOTICE—J —J Al TN SENIOR SECRET ARY MS LORET T A D MOFFETT PO 30)"2743 PO BOX 2494 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-27 63 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 O".94 CASE NO. 5.0I931 CASE NO. 5.0931 SPONSORS � CioACHELLA VALLEY WATER DIST CENTURY VINTAGE HOMES 85995 AVENUE 52 PO BOX 580348 COP,CHELLA CA 92238 NO PALM SPRINGS CA 92268 CASE NO. 5.0931 CENTURY CROWELL COMM. 1525 SOUTH D ST#200 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 2004 Environmental Case 5.0931-B-PD 279 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE INC R TTM 32028 District Agencies 560 WILLIAMS ROAD Century Vintage Homes PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 June 23,2004 P.C. Hearing COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT COLLEGE OF THE DESERT DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER PO BOX 1058 43500 MONTEREY AVENUE 1150 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DRIVE COACHELLA CA 92236 PALM DESERT CA 92260 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 DESERT WATER AGENCY THE GAS COMPANY MT SAN JACINTO 1200 SOUTH GENE AUTRY TRAIL 211 NORTH SUNRISE WAY WINTER PARK AUTHORITY PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 ONE TRAMWAY ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS DISPOSAL SERVICES PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY 4690 E MESQUITE AVENUE 980 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY MANAGEMENT DIST PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 21865 EAST COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR CA 91765-4182 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ATTN LIN JUNIPER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY REGIONAL MANAGER ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 32505 HARRY OLIVER TRAIL 36100 CATHEDRAL CANYON DRIVE PO BOX 800 1000 PALMS CA 92278 CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234 ROSEMEAD CA 91770 VERIZON TIME WARNER CABLE VERIZON ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 295 NORTH SUNRISE WAY MS JACQUE MCCORMACK 41725 COOK STREET PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 700 HIDDEN RIDGE MC WO1JO5 PALM DESERT CA 92260 IRVING TX 75038 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY ASSESSOR MR KEITH DOWNS EXECUTIVE 3255 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY#114 COUNTY AGENCIES 5555 ARLINGTON AVENUE PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 RIVERSIDE CA 92504 RIVERSIDE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPT AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST/ 2500 N PALM CANYON DRIVE STE A-3 44-400 TOWN CENTER WAY 1995 MARKET STREET PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM DESERT CA 92260 RIVERSIDE CA 92501 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPT RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT RIVERSIDE COUNTY CLERK ATTN MR PAUL CLARK 73520 FRED WARING DRIVE ATTN MS CINDY KOHLER DEPT CLERK 82675 HWY 111 ROOM 209 PALM DESERT CA 92260 PO BOX 751 INDIO CA 92201 RIVERSIDE CA 92502-0751 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS-CVAG CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY REGIONAL AGENCIES ATTN MR JIM SULLIVAN MS CYNTHIA KINSER CITY PLANNER 73710 FRED WARING DRIVE 68-700 AVENIDA LALO GUERRERO PALM DESERT CA 92260 CATHEDRAL CITY CA 92234 n a Y CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OF GOVERNMENTS -SCAG 65950 PIERSON BLVD 818 W 7TH STREET 12TH FLOOR INTERESTED DESERT HOT SPRINGS CA 92240 LOS ANGELES CA 90017-3435 PARTIES/ORGANIZATIONS AGUA CALIENTE CAHUILLA INDIANS MR TOM DAVIS MR WAYNE BRECHTEL PALM SPRINGS CHAMBER OF TRIBAL PLANNING DIRECTOR 462 STEVENS AVENUE#102 COMMERCE 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 190 W AMADO ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 COACHELLA VALLEY MNTN CONSV MS KATIE BARROWS MR PETER MORUZZI THE SIERRA CLUB ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE MS JOAN TAYLOR 73-710 FRED WARING DRIVE SUITE 205 PO BOX 4738 1800 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY PALM DESERT CA 92260 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS MR JAMES KENNA FIELD MANAGER MR KIM SNYDER DIRECTOR 690 WEST GARNET FEDERAL AGENCIES PO BOX 2245 PO BOX 581260 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS 92258 OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ATTN MR HANS KREUTZBERG LOS ANGELES DISTRICT US FISH &WILDLIFE SERVICE P 0 BOX 942896 PO BOX 532711 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD SACRAMENTO CA 94296-0001 LOS ANGELES CA 90053-2325 CARLSBAD CA 92000-4219 (FED EX'ED24-04) STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPT OF FISH &GAME-REGION 6 STATE AGENCIES 1400 TENTH STREET EASTERN SIERRA& INLAND DESERT SACRAMENTO CA 95814 4775 BIRD FARM ROAD CHINO HILLS CA 91709 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION DIST 8 HIGHWAY PATROL DEPT OF FISH &GAME 464 WEST 4TH STREET CAPTAIN SANDRA HOUSTON 1416 NINTH STREET 6TH FLOOR MS 72 79650 VARNER ROAD SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401-1400 INDIO CA 92203-9704 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMMISSION RIVERSIDE EASTERN INFO CENTER 1516 NINTH STREET 915 CAPITOL MALL#364 DEPT OF ANTHROPOLOGY SACRAMENTO CA 95814 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 RIVERSIDE CA 92521-0418 ➢ntra-city Project Review AIRPORT CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER ASSISTANT CITY COMMUNITY AFFAIRS MANAGER ECONOMIC BUILDING DEPT ENGINEERING & PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT WORKS PLANNING DEPT FINANCE DEPT FIRE DEPT PALM SPRINGS PARKS RECREATION POLICE DEPT LIBRARY & FACILITIES PLANNING COMMISSION CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in conjunction with Mountain Gate II — Northeast of the intersection of Gateway Drive and Highway 111, Case No. 5.0931-13, PD 279, TTM 32028, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 18th day of June, 2004. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 18th day of June, 2004. kz PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND NOTICE TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0931-B, PD -279 TTM 32028 Mountain Gate Phase II - Northeast of the intersection of Gateway Drive and Highway 111 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 7, 2004. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider Case 5.0931-B, a request by Century Vintage Homes, an application for a Planned Development District 279, Tentative Tract Map 32028 and Environmental Assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration to construct a 196 unit single-family residential development as Phase II of the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I subdivision project for a total of 504 single-family residences on 128.93 total acres with associated on and off-site improvements including community pools and spas, landscaped pedestrian and equestrian trails. The houses would range from 1,211 to 2,778 square feet in size. Lot sizes will range from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Gateway Drive and Highway 111 and south of the Chino Creek Levee. The subject property is zoned R-1-C, single-family residential, Section 33. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared and will be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared for the subject proposal. Members of the public may view this document in the Department of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, and submit written comments at or prior to the City Council hearing. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to the City Council hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Kathy Marx, Associate Planner at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Gabriel Diaz telefono (760) 323-8245. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk QpALM sp Department of Planning and Zoning,, P. Vicinity Map s k C44 1F°RN\ Mountain Gate 11 Mountain Gate I sy w r- _ Q GATEWAY DR - � U) Q w yP� - - - - ---- -- --- CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.0931-13, PD-279, TTM 32028 DESCRIPTION: To develop Phase II of the Mountain Gate subdivision project that includes the APPLICANT: Century Vintage Homes construction of 199 single family residences for a total of 507 residences on 128.93 acres. Phase I o 308 residences is currently under construction. Neighborhood Coalition/Sponsors MR PETER DIXON MS TRISHA DAVIS and Verification List TENNIS CLUB AREA TENNIS CLUB AREA Case No. 5.0931-B 431 SOUTH MONTE VISTA DRIVE 227 SOUTH CAHUILLA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR BILL DAVIS AND MR FRANK TYSEN C/O CASA CODY COUNTRY INN MS. CHRISTINE HAMMOND MR BOB WEITHORN SMALL HOTELS TAHQUITZ RIVER ESTATES TENNIS CLUB /SMALL HOTELS 175 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD 1155 SOUTH CAMINO REAL 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR TIM HOHMEIER MS ROXANN PLOSS MR PHIL TEDESCO DEEPWELL OLD LAS PALMAS DEEPWELL RANCH 1387 CALLE DE MARIA 930 CHIA 1303 WEST PRIMAVERA DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MARSHALL ROATH MS MARGARET PARK MS SHERYL HAMLIN AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE CAHUILLA INDIANS =J =D =0 =0 -EJ 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING &ZONING DEPT CASE NO. 5.0931-B VERIFICATION NOTICE =0-J =0 ATTN SENIOR SECRETARY MS LORETTA D MOFFETT PO BOX 2743 PO BOX 2494 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2494 CASE NO. 5.0931 CASE NO. 5.0931 SPONSORS -J COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DIST CENTURY VINTAGE HOMES 85995 AVENUE 52 PO BOX 580348 COACHELLA CA 92236 NO PALM SPRINGS CA 92268 CASE NO. 5.0931 CENTURY CROWELL COMM. 1525 SOUTH D ST#200 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 rIQ 5-. 01731.-3- PD a'79 669 310 004 669 310 007 669 310 008 Samson Funding Corporation Katbleen Kudell Ronald Rub' Judith Rubin n 9777 Queens Blvd 4910 22807 Valley Vista Cir#WATY 9911 W Pico lvd 4660 �( Rego Park,NY 11374 Wildomar, CA 92595 Los Angel A 90035 669 320 004 669 320 010 669 320 014 Samson u 'ng Corporation Shadowr ev Corp - Ronald Rubin&Judith Rubin 9777 Que rs Blvd#910 801 E Tali 'tz Canyon Way 4101 9911 W Pico Blvd#660 Rego P 11374 Palm Spri g CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90035 669 3 015 669 110 011 669 330 0 Ronald ib'n&Judith RuUm Usa 6 9 Usa 66 9911 W P o Blvd#660 Us Dep Of Interior Us Dep I. Interior Los Ang es, CA 90035 Waslu igt n,DC 20401 Washing > DC 20401 669 330 030 669 340 001 669 371 002 Usa li gt Roberta Kleinhaus Gate Palm Spgs Ventur Mountain Us De Of Interior 3708 Meadow View 1535 S D St#200 Was n on,DC 20401 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Bernardino, CA 92408 669 372 002 RIVERSIDE COUNTRY FLOOD BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Stanley Broxineyer&Alvia Slur Brox CONTROL MR JAMES KENNA FIELD MANAGER 7200 Radice Ct#503 1995 MARKET STREET PO BOX 581260 Lauderhill,FL 33319 RIVERSIDE CA 92501 NO PALM SPRINGS CA 92258 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION DIST 8 669-320-010 5T"FLOOR MS 72 SHADOWROCK DEV CORP 464 WEST 4T"STREET PO BOX 4470 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401-1400 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 :I i i 669 310 007 ' Katldeen Kudell r;), t `z 22807 Valley Vista Cir#WATY Wildomar,CA 92595 i ' i i 669 320'014",, Ronald Ruti'ik&;;Judit�Mbin 9911 W Pico B1e4'#, f Los Angeles, CA 90035 July 7, 2004 City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Post Office Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Carlos Cueva and I recently relocated to Mountain Gate in the City of Palm Springs. I was ecstatic to locate an affordable house within the City of Palm Springs, which I would consider as my home. It is my understanding that the City Council will be reviewing the Mountain Gate II (196 homes) subdivision. I was one of the fortunate residents to secure a new home within the City of Palm Springs at 696 Ventana Ridge. Prior to relocating to Palm Springs, I was concerned that I would be unable to locate new housing due to $350,000+home prices within the City. Mountain Gate was able to provide me with an affordable home within a gated community that contained several amenities. Additionally, I believe that the introduction of 196 new homes to the north end of town will attract businesses to support the new and existing residents. In support of businesses within the City of Palm Springs, I have to travel some distance to locate those establishments. Stater Brothers—Corner of Sunrise and Vista Chino Cleaners— Corner of Sunrise and Vista Chino Hardware and Nursery—Comer of Gene Autry and Ramon Road I am hopeful that with the completion of the Mountain Gate subdivision (505 homes), new businesses will be attracted to the north end of town(Highway 11 I and Racquet Club). I am very supportive of the new subdivision and am hopeful that the City Council will approve the subdivision. Thanks you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carlos Cueva Turning ai Silk Purse into a Sow's Far -or- How to turn Monumental Treasure into Monumental Trash We are adjacent to the Tram and at the gateway to halm Springs, which sees the Mountain Gate project's ugly sprawl marching inexorably towards the mountains. Doug Evans has recommended its expansion pnd the approvals of four other tract-crap developments. Imagine the beauty obliterated by barrier walls and masses of garish ticky-tacky rooftops. What an ugly view to be despised by visitors on their way up the tram (and Worse, on the way down!). How will they know they've traveled to a mro spot of unspoiled nature, once It's been spoiled? The violations of current weM€density, acid environmental protections laws, the Brawn Act, or conflicts of interests, must be thoroughly understood as to their impact upon this community, neighboring towns, and our main revenue-generator, health and nature-loving tourism. Ah, The golden goose. It's what's for dinner! And by the dray, got any water to wash it down? The Desert Water Agency needs to weigh in on each of these disasters by design. The Palm Hills development threatens to double demand and ruin habitat, whilc orator availability and quality is in decline. My right to make comment on this development at the public hearing was omitted evert though I had sent up a card. At midnight, I hEld missed my dinner, my bedtime, and my rights. I was hopping mad! We commend Ginny Foat and David Ready for working with the concerned citizens. We question others'efforts at due diligence. There have been EPA drought and water alerts that are ignored, and the public kept ignorant. Not many know of the theft of our water by Nestle-Perrier-Arrowhead. No time is allotted to study the physim_,�0 and fiscal impacts. There are significant challenges to the criteria and results of cursory O b's that have gone unanswered. I have still not been contacted regarding water supply assurance, water treatment, and revenue going to Riverside County instead of Palm Springs, and on the sales of our public assets. All these issues must be address,9ml&IRd made available for public scrut. Inv-not just public comment. Absolutely NO development must be given approval until these questions are investigated and answered. A moratorium is in order and so is legal action. Council members and staff aro not. personally exempt. They are not:shielded from violations of the law. We expect to enlist the finest legal minds in this arena if approvals are giver, before citizens can vote on major developments, health and safety hazards, and water law; enforcement. Numerous groups like Mod Com, environmental scientists, and neighborhoods are coalescing behind stopping these developments. Opponents to Palm Mills, The Boulders in Little"Tuscany, the Crescendo and Mountain Gate in file, Chino Canyon neighborhoods, Section 14, Little Araby, the image-destroying Wal-Mart, and on and on and on. You are seeing the weight of a critical mass of this cry ready to fight your RE .K� L,_ESS approval decisions. Are lunatics in charge of the asylum? Initial investigations may even lead to seriously considering a Grand Jury investigation involving the State Attorney General on the water issues. We expect to keep the city attorney very busy. 'I U M i 'IF — i I I �! L? 1 R I ^M 1 4 r 1�4*i 'fix`-1 �. {/615. � � / 'p ♦k •��, # - ;'�� .:, 1J !_ � I �f +3�\ f C � � e F .• 4w k+P�x.awTrs •'-��x $�M � -�✓ 'F sv � f�i�Y�.�. I: r'+r�uP� r '.,lr wad.4r d+HM _ �yir,+uwJ° r � li i '� r i 4� \� A�4 - </ �I � r1r.Nt1�`�+'1V"' ! CMc(�irdf M q�y.,J• ',RaAllre'xn�r� ' i rM' T 1 r 4�pr!+,•e. I �.6Th�Y� .1h�afYr ^, 4 "eiFe ,y r n �• �qy #y yy,�, �} a 1�" r \� ! r �f V I i '# L• J'� r �"t k,.Y, i cl y y.,Gv 0 it ��� ,�' � . - ��,. ` 1 �,� yA h�ti AY l t'-t- -Sm'r ii�MAS�sV 3`a " • �. f>++.°',A'� I � ,�•,� f ', 'eyMelei•.- 1I-� I {y� � co II- • �, gar. c 's - I " I I � c.Pasratfi <: O�ppLR15pJ City Of Pairs Springs y ++1 29' �j ��� � � Department of Planning and Zoxxiag AUG 03 v I, Q r P.O.Box 2743 A=Springs,COOK 922630743 - C° H METER 710038 Dana L. Stewart and James McKinley 2280 N. Girasol Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92262 • � ��c��4ca �i~ 11,l,,,,#,i„1,i,11,,,,1,#„AJ!„i,1„I,d,1,!„!.#i,:,l,:1,I CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3 7 f PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION "-- �`WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 03, 2003 AT 2:00 P.M. CITY HALL, 3200 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA AGENDA CALL TO ORDER-2:00 P.M. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA—Available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning & Zoning Department counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 29, 2003. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act in all respects. If,as an attendee or a participant at ihis meeting, you wiii need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Phil Kaplan,760/323-8219 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. Please advise us at that time if you will need accommodations to attend or participate in meetings on a regular basis. The telephone number for the hearing impaired(TDDf) is 760/864-9527. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS—Three minute time limit. 2. DISCUSSION—Application by the Wessman Development Company for Tentative Tract Map 31095, for the Stoneridge project, the subdivision of 31.34 acres into 54 residential lots and a number of letter lots for street and retention purposes,for future development of a single family neighborhood, located at the north west corner of via Escuela and Leonard Road, Zone R-1 A, Section 3. 3. DISCUSSION—Preapplication by Nexus Residential Communities, Inc.for a Planned Development District to include the construction of 133 multi-family dwelling units and 19 single-family dwelling units at 1000 East Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-2, R-3, and O, Section 23. 4. DISCUSSION — Case 5.0968 — Application by the City of Palm Springs for Zoning Ordinance Amendments to allow second family unit applications ministerially without discretionary review in accordance with Government Code Section 65852.2(AB1866-ministerial action), City wide in the R-G-5, R-1, R-G A, and R-2 Zones. Continued from the meeting of August 27, 2003. 5. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS— Update. 6. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS/REQUESTS— • General Plan Update Added Starters—Action is required to determine eligibility for consideration of Added Starters. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9. SEINER SERVICE CHARGES—FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 Recommendation: That the Council approve placement of sewer service charges for fiscal year ending June 30, 2005 to be collected on the Riverside W W Cr >> 3 County property tax rolls. �> 9 {H W W W Z 3 O N d CL@ Cr a) Memorandum of Director of Finance &Treasurer =� o o m 7 W M c — y �0 3a . gym' ° @p0 m =m �;a0 r r� o 'p N W,MN SN „t ti) Hearing o o o''Q m m o m _y p1 czi m c) If desired, Res as recommended. 0 a y � Pr a a So m m �0 W077 . SZ — Dm D ,O W 10. CASE 5.0826, PD 258, TTM 29100, TPM 29101, PALM HILLS DEVELOPMENT mOM z m W D LD 0 AGREEMENT o z o N 7 d ^' V m~O a o m 903 O'j.0& WW GAS m n M aC W_ Recommendation: That the Council approve Case 5.0826, Planned m n D Q at q c C 9 m Development District 258, Tentative Master Parcel Map 29101, Tentative Tract 0 m o N ;�. ° M a Map 29100, Palm Hills Specific Plan, General Plan Text Amendments; certify the { 3 5 1 N m V 0 0 W � ,�i 0 0 0 m m _N Final Environmental Impact Report for 1,204 acres located in the foothills of the 0 > y �'C ro = a Santa Rosa Mountains, south of East Palm Canyon Drive, north of Murray Hill. CC o M 3 N °:,o o. Zone U-R, Section 31 and 32, T4S, R5E, SBBM. Applicant: Palm Hills Land Z o p m y Corporation. 1601 Notices Mailed. A C = m - o•; m 6 0 G .7 7y W a) Memorandum of Director of Planning &Zoning m 0.w oGI = o o azoc y I N En b) Hearing 'O 0 am M C" Cmn m. z > � a > (C0 -M� mm c) If desired, Res as recommended. (EIR) o m 0 -. 0 �0 CD vo 3 o Mb+� mo d) If desired, Res as recommended. (GPA) ° w o N z m 0XF Wz e) If desired, Res as recommended. (SP) T� If desired, Res as recommended. (PDD) g) If desired, Ord for intro &first reading. (Zoning) h) If desired, Ord for intro &first reading. (Dev Agr) No 83� ^u tlr;,E'd0 P.Ot7PT d. A;I)AT4�3 dso5¢�s,a�f'uotE o9ECbAReaoMN PLANNING COAafi f,9iS'aVUt it9 4ifI OF G':LM SPPINC1S Cass No. 5.0937-16-PID-279, TPfVd 32023 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm S'piings, Califor- Jtfe, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of une 23,2004.Tie Planning Commission meeting begins at 2:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahgmtz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an ap- ppI cation tit/ Century Vintage Homes, Case 5.0931-PD-279 and TPM 32028, for a Planned Develop Assessment ment and Environmental Assesent MAl- PROOF OF PUBLICATION This gated Negative Declaration (Case 5.093-B, ,y a�'3 Lill PD_279) and Tentative Lict Map (TTM 32028) ♦ 4�° �f7 he project would include the conshyction of 199 (20IS.S.C.C.P) �d 1), single family residences as Phase II of the prey 1,✓ ,i ousdy entitled Mountain Glade Phase I subdivision project for a total of 507 single-iamlly residences pG �t on 128.03 total aces with associated on and off- 1 site Improvements including community que fools and iltUIJ sppas, landscaped praestrian and e11 square an fee The houses wall feet from 1,211 square feet i� tom 5, square feet in suer Lot t. T e s range L f from rty is to ed at square fast. The subject property a located at the northeast of the corner �a�j„i.r of Gateway rDInveeek and Hr'Tile s bje and south of the Chino Crying Levee. The subject property is STATE OF CALIFORNIA _ zone R4-C, single-fantlly residential County of Riverside ''Mr, r •�^�.,fi� am a citizen of the United States and a resident of 4 the County atoresaid;I am over the age of eighteen years,and not a party to or interested in the - _ _- ,T above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerVc of a , 0 printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been An Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the project and will be reviewed by the City a[I,judged a newspaper of general circulation by the ouncrl at the meeting.A draft Mltlgated Negative Superior Court of the Count of Riverside,State of Declaration of Environmental Impact has been y prepaied for the subIect proposal. Mcrnbers of California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case the public may,view title document 1n the Depart- ment of Planning and Zoning, City Hall, 3200 E. Number 191236;that the notice,of which the T911quh7 Canyon Way, Palm Spungs, and submit emdlen comments at of prior to the City Council annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller I lug than non pariel,has been published in each regular If any group challenges the action in court, Issues and entire issue of said newspaper and not in an ^a�eed may be Ilnmed to only these Issues lased y s. Iha public healing aesciibed In this notice or in - supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: council heleongon ence at, or prier to the City An opportunity will he given at said hearing for all May 29th Intel rated persons to be heard Questions regard- Ing tln cocci—may be diiactedi to_Kathy-Marv„As- --------------------------------- ----------------------------- socrate Planner, (760)323-6246. Si nccesda ayuda conprtgzesta carta, porfecor Ilame --------------------_------------_----------------------------- a Gabriel Diaz telefono 6 I Ciudad de Penn (7 y ue e hablar can 032 - 245 All in the year 2004 7s7 Douglas R.Evans I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Dvector of Planning e Zoning foregoing is true and correct. ZrC nd ECT: NOTICE. Ql= INTF_NT VO ANGFir lPlidGlITED NE7stU0i9E D1:CLA,'-L'XV0,H Dated at Palm Springs,California this-----8th ----day PNn.SG. 'ThIC.E: tYmimaafn +r:ate Phase of In accordance with the Califorma Envhonrnental Ouahty Act(CEQA),the City of Palm Springs,Cal- of----------June-----------------------------2004 rfornra, is the Lead Agency and has preppared a �� above ve Declaration for the project rent (NOB ,r above The purposes the the of Intent- - ✓�� Is to solicit comments on the environmental- ------ --- --- anal- ysis contained in the Negative Declaration The Negative Declaration has been prepared for Signature Century Vintage,Homes and Coachella Valley Wa- ter District to Continue Phase II f 199 single-family residential units) of a proposed 07 unit residen- L I subdivision on 128.93 acres. Phase I(308 an- gle-family residential units) is under consn'uchon. This Notice is not a City of Palm Splines applica- tion form requwng response from you. Its pur- pose is to simply ppromde in, to you on the above project. If the proposed project has no bearing on you or your organization, no action on yyour part is necessary If you wish to receive the IVaganvo Declaration, please call the Department of Planning and Zonlnq, City of Palm Springs, Callfornia, at(760)323-8245 Comments relative to the environmental analysis should be addressed to Kathy Maix at the ad- dress shown above, ei marled to KathyM@cl.palm- and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any `aF hb' public hearingq described in this nomice or in r supplement lement thereof on the following dates to wit: NyKabn'carrespondence at,or prior to the City 1 Y g e Coulici1„hearing. & `Inteeli ted persons will he given at said hearing for all 1\JIIy 2$t1 �''.inthis c persona a di heard.Questions regard- ing- t. - --- ----- ----- ------- ;this case may be directed to Kathy Marx,As- ----------------- rsl'ate,Planner,(7,60)323-8245. Shiieceslta ayudo con said carta, porfacor [lame _____ ______ _ __--------------- _________ if a.I.Ciudad de Palm Springs yy ppuede hablar con Gabriel Diaz telefono 60 23-824 i. All in the year 2004 j lsl Douglas R.Evans I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Director of Plpnning &Zoning foregoing is true and correct. %-UBJECT: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Dated at Palm Springs,California this-----5 -_-.day Y g th .PROJECT TITLE: Mountain Gate Phase II I In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the City of Palm Springs, Cal- - Negative a purpose of the and has prepared a j is role, Is the,Lead Agency for the project itlentl{led of----------J❑ne------------------------' -� e contained In the Negative Nonce of Intent NO[) above.solicit comments an the environmental a ental NO[) anal- ysis Declaration. -----------1�—� ----------------------------- p a e.Ne iota Declaration has been prepared for Signature Cantu ry Vintage Homes and Coachella Ualle Wa- g ter District to continue Phase II f199 single-family residential units) of a proposed 07 unit residen- tial subdivision cn 128.93 acres. Phase I(308 wn- g[e-family residential units) is under construction. This Notice is not a City of Palm Springs app[ica- tied form requiring respponse from you. Its our- pose Is to simply provide information to you on the above project. if the proposed project has no :gearing on you or your organization, no action on yyour ppart Is necessary. If you wish to receive the 'Negatve Declaration, please call the Department of Planning and Zonlnqq City of Palm Springs, California, at (760)323-8245. Comments relative to the environmental analysis should be addressed to Kathy Marx at the ad- dress shown above, e-mailed to Katl ppalm- Trings.came or sent by fax to (760)322-8360. Comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23, 2004. Please In- plude the name and phone number of the contact person for your organization Project Applicant: - '.Date:5-21-04 Signature Douglas R. Evans Title:Director of Planning&Zoning Telephone:(76o)323-8245 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA I;P.O. BOX 2743, PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title:Mountain Gate II Mlhggated Negative Declaration. Case 5 0931-8, -iPD-279, TTM 32028 :Project Location:The proposed project site is lo- cated north of State Hwy. 111, northwest of Gateway Drive, southeast of Chino Creek Levee and east of East Gate Rd. Description of Nature, Purpose,and Beneficia- ries of Project: The proposed Mountain Gate 'Phase II project Is a continued development i phase for the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I. Phase II constitutes 199 single-familyy 'residential units for a total 507 single-family resl- caudal units In a Planned Development District (Phase I consisting of 308 single-family residential ,units is under construction) with associated tract maps,on and off-site improvements.Century Vin- tage Homes is the Phase property owner and developer. Coachella Valley Water District is the Phase II property owner The project proponent _for,Phase II is Century Vintage Homes. Lead Agency Division The City of Palm Springs, California Department of Planning and Zoning ,,.Draft Negative Declaration and all Supporting 'Documentation are Available at: City of Palm Springs Department of Planning and Zoning 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 f, Or byy Calling: (7fi0)323-8245 The Public Notice of Intent is provided through the following: X The Desert Sun May 25,2004 X Mailing List Review Period: May 25, 2004, through June 23, 2004 CEOA Cdntact Person: Phone Numpber p E-Mail Adp,ress Kathy Marx,Assoc]'ate Planner (760)323=8245 PUB: May 25, 2004 KathyM®cl.pa[m-spn ngs.ca.us PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is Space for eom,ty Clews riling Slall,p (ZOIS.S.C.C.P) No 6G1B NOTICE Of AVAILABILITY AND NONCE TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 50931-5, PC-279 TIM 32028 Mauntaln Gate Phase II - Northeast of the mterssc4on of Gateway STATE OF CALIFORNIA Drive and Highway I I I County of Riverside NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Councll Of the City of Palm Springs,Calif."!.. will hold a public healing at Its meeting of Julqy 7, 2004, The City Counotl meeting beglns at 71 0 p�.m. In the Council Chambers at City 1-1111, 3200 L-. Tahqurtz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The dui ppeso of the hearing Is to consider Case a ropuest by Corrury Vintage Homes, in ap lication for'a Planned Development District 279, lentabve Tract Map 32028 and Envnonmen- I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of tal Assessmeni Mitigated Negative Declaration to tlle County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen construct a 108 unit singgle-lamely resld.rtlal da- veiopmant as Phase II 0f the Previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I subdivision protect for a years,and not a party t0 or interested in the total of 504 single-family iesidsnoes on 128s3 above-entitled matter.I am tile principal cleric of a total acres with associated on and off-site im- novements Including comm4nity pools and spas, p l-Intel-of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING �andscoped pedestrian and o uestnan trails. The ha aces would range from 1,211 to 2,778 square COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, feet In size, lot sizes will range from 5,000 to printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, 7,500 square feet The subject papally Is located at Ill- northeast corner of Gateway Drive and County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been odoeh ihy 111 and south of the Chino Creek Le- y family residential,property 1,zaned R-I-C, single- adjudged a newspaper of general circulation b the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California ender the date of March 24,1988.Case b','h,`�'i...... ' '�f fIP�'","d,,, �" °��• Number 191236; that the notice,of which the annexed is a printed copy(set in type nut smaller than non panel,has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof oilthe following dates,to wit: Jnne2odl All in the year 2004 certify(or declare)ender penalty of perjury that the All olll be reviewed Assessment has been prepared it the C foregoing is Tt'rle and correct and will be Iaviowed t. the sty C est..l at the mIvIrow A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of EnvfronmanLal Impart has been prepared tot' the Dated at Palm Springs,California this-----Ist ---day viewethis pioumerl. inetmb Depeis artment opu�blic Planning and Zoning, City tin / � A,ha gnlblc heeiln gdescohhrt✓a'IHenrcfmn Gents fu C Jn 1 ^------'- - 2004 p: p n eity -d D[his gno Ice r lY 14 of-- --- Y ii\\ If an rou ilot tochallon es the action cil nloncourt, Issues - lensed ma be limited er only those Issues rased __ �_______________ written aeries on enoe it, or nor to the City i Signall-e An apportunliy wfff he given at said hearing for aft inielasted poisons to be heard. Questions regard- Ing this caso may he directed to Kathy Mew,As- socials Planner at (760) 323-8245. 5i neoesda ayuda con seta earth, poifavoi home a j la Ciudad de Palm S rings , puede hablar con Gs bnel Diaz telefonc NO 3p3-8245. " PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk PUB: June 20, 2004 RESOLUTION NO. f OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 279 (PD-279)AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32028 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 196-UNIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF GATEWAY DRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 111, ZONE R-1-C, SECTION 33. WHEREAS, The Century Vintage Homes ("Applicants")filed an application with the City pursuant to Sections 9403.00 and 9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Development District and Preliminary Development Plan for a 196-unit single family residential project as Phase II of the previously entitled Mountain Gate Phase I project, for the property located on the northeast of the intersection of Gateway Drive and State Highway 111, Zone R-1-C, Section 33; and WHEREAS, an the applicant has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62.00 et. seq. of the Municipal Code for Tentative Tract Map 32028 for the subdivision of a 45.93 acre parcel into a 196 numbered lots and 11 lettered lots; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development District 5.0931-B, PD-279 (PD 279)was issued in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, said Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map were submitted to appropriate agencies as required by the subdivision requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, with the request for their review, comments and requirements; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2004, a public hearing on the application for Tentative Tract Map 32028, Planned Development District 279, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, 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 and therefore recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9402.00, the City Council finds that: a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the City's zoning ordinance. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance for the underlying R-1-C zone, single family residential development (single family residences) are a permitted use. b. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed project consists of subdividing 45.93 acres into 196 single family lots as a second phase to project previously entitled February 26, 2003; Mountain Gate Phase I. The site has a current zoning designation of R-1-C (minimum 10,000 square feet)and a General Plan designation of Residential Low(4du/ac). The applicant is proposing a Planned Development District(PDD) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 32028). The project will be provided access through the Phase I component currently under construction. The development will has primary access from Gateway Drive and secondary access from Tramview Road, both of which are public streets. Recreational amenities, open space and maintenance will be under the auspices of a shared Home Owners Association. The project also inlcudes private recreational opportunities (swimming pool, spa, pedestrian and equestrian trails). The PDD includes modified minimum lot sizes of 5,000 sq. ft. and 7,500 sq. ft. House sizes will range from 1,208 square feet to 2,778 square feet. C. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood. This Planned Development District application proposes to provide specific development standards for the project as well as a preliminary development plan as provided for by Zoning Code Section 9403.00. Approval by the City Council of the preliminary development will constitute approval of the Preliminary Planned Development District. Pursuant to the R-1-C zone, Section 92.01.01.D.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, in order to encourage a more creative approach in the development of land and to allow for more usable open space areas, large scale residential developments may be permitted on site of not less than four and one half acres of land. The land is required to developed as an integrated unit, conforming to density and all other property development standards except that lot area, lot dimensions, and yards may be modified to allow"cluster" and "row" housing: provided the overall development equals the general quality of development in this zone. A number of facts exist in support of this application for PD-279, including the provisions for common area improvements with areas devoted to common open space and amenities in addition to the provision of private rear yards and the private streets proposed as part of this project The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses, and the proposed project is within allowable density of the underlying R-1-C zone when incorporated with the Phase I component of the development. d. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. The proposed project will contribute to improvement of the existing street system that will serve the site, and with said improvements, the public street system will be adequate to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. e. The conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, of the existing neighborhood in which this project is situated. The conditions imposed are necessary to bring the project into compliance with applicable zoning, building, and other regulations to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the existing neighborhood in which this project is located. Section 3: Pursuant to 9.62.010 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and Section 92.01.00 et. sec. of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds that: a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Residential LA Low-Density Residential, General Plan designation which governs the subject property as well as all property adjacent to the subject site. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the underlying R-1-C zone in which the property is located. The proposed project is consistent with existing development under construction as the Phase I component of the project immediately southeast of the Phase II project. C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. The project site is level and each lot contains adequate developable building area. There are no bodies of water, ravines, or significant topographic features on the subject property. d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development. City zoning criteria for the underlying R-1-C zone and L-4 General Plan designation encourage and allow for a more creative approach in the development of land, which allows for more usable open space areas. Pursuant to Section 92.01.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, large scale residential developments may be permitted on sites of not less than four and one half acres of land. The land is required to developed as an integrated unit, conforming to density and all other property development standards except that lot area, lot dimensions, and yards may be modified to allow"cluster" and "row" housing: provided the overall development equals the general quality of development in this zone. The proposed project will allow for a housing opportunity which provides common open space amenities, private street and smaller lot sizes. This type of housing product has provided a necessary niche in the housing inventory for the City of Palm Springs. The General Plan Designation of L-4 permits establishment of a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre for single family housing. The proposed Phase 11 project would consist of the development of a 45.93 acre site. The over-all site area combining both Mountain Gate Phases I and II is 128.93 acres. The density that could have been utilized within Phase I was 332 units. Three hundred and eight (308) units were proposed and entitled to be constructed. Therefore a density transfer of 24 units could occur between Phase I and Phase II upon evaluation of the overall site. The proposed density of Phase II is 196 units. Therefore a density transfer of 12 units is proposed. The proposal is based on the common improvements shared by both phases. The overall acreage for both phases is 128.93 acres. The overall density allowed with the low density (1-4) General Plan designation is 516 units. Therefore the proposed density for both Phases of 504 units is in accordance with the General Plan. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that the project is adjacent to existing developments to the south and east. Through the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures any environmental impacts regarding animal or plant life will be reduced to a level of less than significant. There are no bodies of water on the subject property and therefore no fish will be disturbed. f. A number of easements; Whitewater Mutual Water Company, Southern California Gas Company, California Electric Power Company, California Water and Telephone Company and Southern California Edison, transect the property. The Whitewater Mutual Water Company holds an easement for pipelines. An existing irrigation line is to be relocated and the easement quitclaimed regarding the Whitewater Mutual Water Company easement. Southern California Gas holds as easement for pipelines that will be quitcalimed. California Electric Power Company holds a 20'wide easement for pole line and incidental purposes that will be quitclaimed. California Water and Telephone Company holds a 10'wide easement for pole anchor purposes that will be quitclaimed. Lastly, Southern California Edison holds a 10'wide easement with facilities and those power facilities will be relocated and the easement quitclaimed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby orders the filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves a Mitigation Monitoring Program for PD-279, and approves PD-279 and Tentative Tract Map 32028, subject to those conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits unless otherwise specified. ADOPTED this 7th day of JULY, 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: G6�� "( =-"