Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/7/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.Q. PALM 0 o �SaPi �UF � Ni City of Palm Springs `a 11 — c Office of the City Clerk C` gyp. 3200 Tahquiri Canyon Way• Palm Springs,California922(,? q(�Fo R� Tti, (760)U3-82o4 •TDD.(760)864.952/ December 14, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Mr. John Goodrich 440 West Chino Canyon Road Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 RE: Public Records Request Notice of Determination Boulders and Crescendo City Case Nos. 5.0973 and 6.0996 Dear Mr. Goodrich: Thank you for your letter of December 5, 2007, outlining in detail the circumstances you have experienced with the Planning Department obtaining a response to your Request for Public Records dated November 13, 2007. The City strives for excellent customer service when responding to public records requests, and as such I appreciate you bringing this very important matter to my attention. For purposes of clarification your November 13, 2007, request for public record information seeks the production of records: information and data referred to in City Council Resolution No. 22063 "provided by the applicant and real estate agents in the City, that views of Mount San Jacinto are a primary factor in establishing the value of properties in the area." The City performed a thorough search of its files and located no records subject to the criteria of your request. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, and while it does not provide further consolation for your direct experience, I thank you for your continued understanding and bringing this customer service issue to my attention for resolve. Respectfully CITY OF PALM SPRINGS James Thompson City Clerk cc: David H. Ready, City Manager Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 12/14/2007 16:27 FAX 7603228332 PALM SPRINGS CITY CLERK Q 001 TX REPORT TRANSMTSSION OK TX/RX NO 0236 CONNECTION TEL 93230880 CONNECTION Ill ST. TIME ].2/14 16:27 USAGE T 00'21 PCs. SENT 1 RESULT OK I r /0 ..pA,.M9,0 V 'cam City of Palm Springs I^ �o Office of the Cary Clerk ra1Rh��n TL00 72hquuz Canyon Clay •pi�m$pangs,(addor= 92262 /FQ RN�P• TEL(761p 323-5204 "TDD.p60)SCA-9527 December 14, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL I Mr. John Goodrich 440 West Chino anyon Road Palm Springs, C192262-2906 1 RE: Public Records Request Notice of Determination Boul` ers and Crescendo City Case Nos. 5.0973 and 5.0996 Dear Mr. Goodrich: Thank you, for your letter of December 5, 2007, outlining in detail the circumstances ydu have experienced with the Planning Department obtaining a response to your' Request for Public Records dated November 13, 2007. The City strives for excelle6t customer service when responding to public records requests, and as such I appreciate you bringing this very important matter to my attention. I For purposl,s of clarification your November 13, 2007, request for public record information seeksithe production of records; infon•nation and data referred to in City Council Resolutioili No. 22063 "provided by the applicant and real estate agents in the City, that views oiE Mount San Jacinto are a primary factor in establishing the value of properties in the a'rea." The City pdrformed a thorough search of its files and located no records subject to the criteria of ydur request. I I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, and while it does not provide furtherf consolation for your direct experience, I thank you for your continued W---•-- ----- - , I - 001V11\1ITTEE Fol,? rri-a.� PRESERVATION OF i,ITrI`I,l. TUSCANY cV, ('IIINO (,'ANYON NEIGHBO12IIOODS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Sptings, CA 92262-2906 'Tcl: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 e-mail: littletuscanv( v_ahoo_corn Mx.James Thompson, City Clerk, December 5, 2007 City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Dear Mt. Thompson, Re q rr 2t for Public Records: Cases 5.0973 and 5.0 &BQMWgrs and Crescendo Attached is a wqucst for public information under the Public Records Act submitted by the Committee, by hand, against a signed receipt, on November 13, 2007, On Monday, December 3, 2007, I received a phone call from Mr. Edward Robertson, Principal Planner fox the above two projects, asking if I had received a copy of Resolution 22063. I pointed that we were not tequesting Resolution 22063,but certain data referred to in that resolution. Mr_ Robertson requested that I come to City Hall the following morning to assist in finding the information. 1 complied with his request and we met at the counter of the Planning Dcparmrent yesterday at 9.00 am. Mr. Robertson and I discussed in detail the nature of the Committee's request. Mr. Roberrson said he would discuss the matter with LSA Associates and get back with me, but he had no idea how long this would take_ I gave Mt. Robertson a copy of the California.Public Records Act, pointing out Section 6253 (b) that the requested records shall be made available "promptly" and 6253 (c) that "an Agency has 10 days to decide if copies will be provided." Mx_ Robertson said he was aware of these legal requirements but be was busy. The Committee, and other neighborhood organizations,have been in a constant battle with the Cites Pl^n�Deparrmenr for over four years in an effort to track the above two projects_ The issue has now 5nallp come to this: will the City, in the matter of public records, comply with State Law? Yours sine ely, N m � � acn n rom C t C7 nz G1'I r m John H. Goodrich n a =< on behalf of the �� s Committee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany &Chino Canyon Neighborhoods N CC City Manager, City Attorney COMMITTEE FOR THI13 P1:Ni5N.1RVATION OF LITTLE TUSCANY & CHINO CANYON NEIGIIBORHOODS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 Tel: (760) 416 1072 h'ax: (760) 323 0880 e-mail: lirderuscany@,yab oo.com Mr. Edward O. Robertson Principal Planner, Dept of Planning Services November 13, 2007 City Of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Mr, Robertson, RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST: THE BOULDERS TTM 31095 This is a formal request for public information under the Public Records Act. We refer to Resolution 22063 (the green Strike-out/Underline version dated November 7, 2007) covering the "Final resolutions and Findings of Fact for TTM 31095 "Boulders" and Case No. 5.0996 "Crescendo" ", page 43 item# 4, (Reduced Grading .Alternative) The final sentence of this item states "Based on information and data provided by the applicant and by real estate agents in the City, views of Mount San Jacinto are a primary factor in establishing the value of properties in the area." Would you please provide us with copies of this complete "information and data" which we do not recall ever seeing or being in the Boulders file at the time the Final EIR was published. We look forward to receiving copies of your supporting evidence at your earliest convenience Please enter this letter into the public record of the `Boulders' file Yours sincerely, John H. Goodrich on behalf of the Committee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany & Chino Canyon Neighborhoods COMMITTEE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LITTLE TUSCANY c, CHINO CANYON NEIGHBORHOODS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 Tel: (760) 416 1072 1�ax: (760) 323 0880 e-mail: litdctuscanv c)vahoo.com December 5. 2007 This is to acknowledge receipt of a letter dated December 5, 2007, titled Request for Public Records: Cases 5.0973 and 5.0996 Boulders and Crescendo addressed to Mr_ James Thompson City Clerk City of Palm Springs Pahn Springs, CA 82263-2743 o = rn n ��� rn t ;* (7 T G7 r m r rn yrn rn �J � '- Z N � Signed Date Time Print Name C'011_\Il Pal N 11 1,01_? rrllN; Y12N.SNlP1'ATION OIL LITTLE' TITSCANY & CHINO CANYON NITIGHBO1_ZHOO1:)S 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 L Tcl: (760) 416 1072 hax: (760) 323 0640 n e-mail: lirrlcruscanv(u);ahoo.com -N n -{ — -on rC N �Tz'1 M iE Mr. James Thompson, xva City Clerk, December :-, �gVE City of Palm Springs `n Palm. Springs, C.A. 92263-2743 RE: PETITION FOR CITY COUNCIL TO RECONSIDER RESOLUTIONS 22063 & 22064 Dear Mr. Thompson, Re: Cases 5.0973 and 5.0996, Eoulders and Crescendo The above resolutions, in their current form, were made available to the general public through the Office of the City Clerk on Monday November 19, 2007. Previous resolutions, identified by the same numbers, were issued by the City Clerk's Office on October 23, 2007. Both resolutions of October 23 contained a serious error in that both stated: "The City Council found that with the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to its review of the Project and the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis." This statement is wrong. It is contradicted by the findings of the joint Boulders and Crescendo FEIR, on pages 2-1, 2-11 and 2-12 and page 10-1 which list three CEQA and one non-CEQA "significant unavoidable environmental effects" resulting from each of these two projects. The same error also occurred in the final resolutions of the Planning Commission (No. 7055 (Boulders) and 7056 (Crescendo). It was also repeated in the draft resolutions for the City Council Meeting of October 17, the final resolutions of that meeting released on October 23 (referred to above) and the draft resolutions of the meeting of November 7, released to the public in the form of a Staff Report on November 2_ The Committee pointed out this error in public testimony during the Planning Commission Meetings of September 12 and September 26, in writing on October 10 and in the City Council Meeting of October 17. Our comments were ignored. 1 The City finally decided to correct the error on November 6, after the public notice and agenda with exhibits had been posted and distributed and hours before the Council took action to adopt the modified resolutions. The writer was informed of this change by the City Manager around noon on November 6 and a copy of a "strike-out/underline copy of all the documents in colored paper"—a total of 44 pages for each resolution— was made available to the writer but not to any other residents, including residents within 400 feet of the two project sites. The Committee, in public testimony before the Council on November 7, requested that the resolutions be deferred for one week to the next City Council. Meeting on November 14, so that the public might be given an opportunity to review the proposed amended text. Our requests were ignored. The general public and those residents directly concerned were therefore not given the opportunity to review the corrected text of the resolutions before they were approved by the City Council on the Consent Calendar for their meeting of November 7. Furthermore, the two items in question, items 2P (Boulders) and 2Q (Crescendo), stated: 2P RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 22063 (Boulders) 2Q RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 22064 (Crescendo) However, the Council, on October 17, had already adopted Resolutions 22063 and 22064. The resolutions brought forward on November 7 were clearly proposed amendments to the previous resolutions but were never stated to be so. Therefore, not only were the public unable to review the true proposed text and intent of the resolutions passed on November 7, they were not informed in advance that these were actually amended resolutions. Page 1 of the City Council Rules of Procedure, adopted by Resolution No. 21201 (February 9, 2005) states: "1n the absence of a rule herein to govern a point or procedure or the making of a motion, Robert's Rules of Order, newly revised, shall be used as a guide." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) (Tenth Edition, October, 2000) states on page xxv: "The book is also designed as a manual to be adopted by organizations or assemblies as their parliamentary authority. When the manual has been thus adopted, the rules within it, together with any special rules of procedure that may also be adopted, are binding upon the body and constitute that body's rules of order." There is no reference in the City Council Rules of procedure to "amended resolutions". 2 RONR (loth. ed.), § 35 p. 293, 1. 31-35 refers to the rules governing "Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted. `Rescind" is defined as "to strike out an entire main motion, resolution, rule.__" which does not apply in the cases under consideration. "Amend Something ,Previously Adopted is the motion that can be used if it is desired to change only part of the text, or to substitute a different version." (p. 294, 1. 8). This was precisely the effect desired under Consent Calendar items 2P and 2Q of the agenda for the Council Meeting of November 7_ However, the motion was not expressed in this manner, only as a recommendation to adopt a specific resolution Under Standard Descriptive Characteristics, item 7 (p. 295, 1. 24) RONR continues: "Zn an assembly, except where applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds majority vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of the entire membership..." Notice of the proposed amendments to resolutions No. 22063 and 22064 were not given in the previous City Council Meeting; neither were they given in the Staff Report for the meeting of November 7_ They were noted in a Memorandum dated November 7, 2007 to the City Council by David Ready, City Manager, via Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services under the Subject heading: Final Resolutions and Findings of Fact. for TTM 31095 (Boulders) and Case No. 5.0996 "Crescendo" but this Memorandum was not made available to the general public. We therefore contend that the noticing for the amendment to resolutions 22063 and 22064 was inadequate and that both items were incorrectly noted on the City Council Agenda for the Council Meeting of November 7, 2007. We also note that the Findings of Fact, the Statements of Overriding Consideration and the Mitigation Monitoring Programs were not included in the resolutions 22063 and 22064 released to the public on October 23, 2007. The relief we seek is that the required and complete public notice be given prior to these items being returned to a future City Council agenda, with the true intention disclosed—to correct and amend the previous resolutions—and the full, proposed amended tent be included in a Staff Report and made available to the public at least 72 hours before the meeting in question. The public and final decision makers must be provided timely, full and accurate information with regard to the City's contemplated actions. In this case, the required public notice would allow the public and decision makers timely notice that the City is contemplating amendments to two prior resolutions and make available the intended draft language that is actually to be considered. An accurate notice will allow the public to comment on and the Council to re-consider admitted errors in the Boulders/Crescendo EIR, which include, but are not limited to: 3 1. An inaccurate estimate of the rock content of the two project sites. The City quotes its own Geotechnical Engineering Report as stating the rock content is 50% whereas the report in question (Appendix J-1 and d-2 in the FEIR) state (page 5) "We estimate that the cobbles and boulders comprise in excess of 50% and may be as high as 75%_" This error affects the Air Quality Tables on which the Air Quality findings of the EIR are based. 2_ Failure to proceed in a manner required by law with regard to the migratory egrets resting, and possibly nesting, on the Boulders site. No study of these birds' migratory patterns was made and no mitigation measures were proposed. 3. Failure to adopt a feasible mitigation regarding the Custom Lots Alternative, a mitigation measure recommended by the City on page 5-11 of the FEIR 4. Failure to establish whether the DWA tanks directly above the Boulders site containing 7 million gallons of water have, or have not, been updated to the current post-Northridge Earthquake standards. 5. Failure to include Findings of Fact, Statements of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Programs as part of Resolution 22063 as published on October 23. For the above reasons we respectfully request that Resolutions 22063 and 22064 be made part of a future Council meeting .Agenda, properly noticed and entered on the agenda as "amended resolutions", with the full amended text, as required by Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, whose autbority the Council accepted in their Resolution 21201 dated February 9, 2005. We request that this letter be incorporated as part of the public record of the Boulders and Crescendo files. loh rs sin erely, nJ3. oodrich on behalf of the Committee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany &s Chino Canyon Neighborhoods cc. The Honorable Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Planning Services, Principal Planner 4 C01MMITTEE FOR T1:-I[E PR SrERVr' TION OIF�LCClaa :E) LITTLE TUSCIANY 6z CHINO CANYON NEIGH-VOR1I1©I0-DR It 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 9226MKC 17 PH 3= 47 Tel: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 J A PIES TH Oil!PSO,d e-mail: littletuscan ayahoo.com CITY CL ERI; Mr.James Thompson, City Clerk, December 17, 2007 City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Dear Mr. Thompson, Request for Public Records: Cases 5.0973 and 5.0996,,,$oulders and Crescendo Your Letter of December 14 2007 Thank you for your letter of December 14 and for your efforts on our behalf to obtain the information we had formally requested from. Planning Department on November 13. We now know, after one month of waiting, that the "information and data provided by the applicant and real estate agents in the City" are non existent_ The City's statement (item 4 on page 43 of Exhibit A, Findings of Fact of Resolution 22063 and page 40 of Resolution 22064) that "the Reduced Grading Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives..." is based on fictitious documents which only exist in the minds of the Planning Department. Subsequent to your fax, I received a telephone call from Mr. Robertson on Friday afternoon to say that the data referred to was the personal, expert opinion of Mr. Calerdine of LSA Associates. Mr. Robertson confirmed that there were no supportive documents to justify this opinion. The Committee respectfully points out that neither is there any evidence in the record that would lead one to believe that Mr. Calerdine is an expert on real estate matters. The Reduced Grading Alternative is a feasible alternative that was never discussed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. This is one more reason to add to those reasons given in our letter to you dated December 12, why Resolutions 22063 and 22064 should be brought back before the City Council for correction and final consideration. In addition, as a result of this delay in the response to our request for public records, we respectfully request that the City grant an extension to the time available to file a legal challenge to the project approvals. With regard to the final paragraph of your letter dated December 14, this issue is not a matter of `customer service' or `inconvenience', nor do I seek `consolation' for some imagined slight. My relationship with Mr. Robertson has always been both polite and correct. My concern is with a fundamental matter of principle: the freedom of access of the citizens of Palm Springs to the City's public records. The Planning Department does not appear, by its repeated actions, to consider that it is under an obligation to provide promptly copies of public records even when formally requested to do so. You may recall that this is the second time in seven months that we have had to have recourse to your office in order to obtain from Planning documents that should be available without question: the previous occasion Planning refused to provide a Tentative Tract Map on the spurious argument that such documents are copyrighted. Freedom of access, as defined by state lacy, is a fundamental right. We will continue to resist every effort to curtail rhat freedom.. Yours sin erely John H. Goodrich on beh the Conunittee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany & Chino Canyon Neighborhoods cc. Honorable Mayor, City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Planning Services, Principal Planner COM34ITTEE 1C'OYt Tilii+] 13REA SERVATI®N OF LITTLE TT-TSC',ANX &- CHINO CANYON NIAUG;IIBOR-HOOiDS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 N Tel: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 n e-mail. littletuscanv ca,vahoo.com o� c� _' 9 C1 •• «,. 47 7" d'f �ti Mr. James Thompson, City Clerk, December 17, 2007 City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Dear Mr. Thompson, Communication In the event that you wish to contact the Committee over the next four weeks, may we request that you do NOT use the above fax number. The fax machine listed above is in the house of Andy Linsky who is out of town for a month. Given the uncertainty of the US mail at this time of the year, if you would be kind enough to telephone me at (760) 416 1072, I would be happy to pick up any communication you may have for the Committee from your office Yours sin rely John H. C rich on alf of the Committee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Good Evening. My name is John. Goodrich I live in Little Tuscany My comments relate to Item 2P on the Consent Calendar. The City Council had a lot of options at the conclusion of the process and the public hearing on the Boulders project. You could have discussed, during public session, all of the reasons for making the approval decision and the evidence for reaching conclusions and the rationale for making overriding considerations and applying conditions. And you could have passed the resolution based upon all that discussion and your independent review as demonstrated by the dialogue, discussion and deliberation. You could have discussed the findings of the EIR and the various options that document presented to the City decision makers to consider. In fact a close review of the DVD of the meeting confirms that the only Council member to discuss the EIR was Councilmember Foat. The motion by Councilmember Mills, seconded by the Mayor before it had been elaborated, contained three references to previous Planning Commission decisions and two references to No Parking restrictions and the style of the No Parking signs. It seems short shrift for a document that had taken two years in the making, cost the City the better part of $200,000 and in which the neighborhoods had spent hundreds of hours of study and comment. One thing is certain: it was not the actions of a deliberative body. The other thing the City Council could have done is adopt and incorporate the previously prepared staff findings by reference. But the Council did none of these things. On Oct 17, the City Council: ///a7/.4ao7 .Lf� gPfZQ • adopted a resolution, • certified an EIR, • adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations • approved a tract map The words "Findings of Fact" were never uttered during the meeting and never appeared either in the draft resolution, the proposed resolution or the Final resolution dated October 29 Yesterday I received a call from the City Manager informing me that there were to be further "minor modifications" to tonight's staff report. The text could be delivered to my home to give me a "heads up". Was it delivered to everyone's home within 400 feet of the project? No! 72 hours before the meeting took place? Not without a time warp. This is the anarchy of the City of Palm Springs. There are no rules—or, if there are any, they are twisted, bent and subverted to suit the pressing need of the hour. Why not postpone this discussion to next Wednesday, do it right and make sure the public are informed? What difference would it make? Because I was told, the City is under great pressure to fix it tonight. By whom? Nothing changes. Just how far is the City going to subvert its processes to one developer? The City needs to re-open the hearing on Boulders & Crescendo and get it right. 483 My name is: W p"l- }��� 9aor7 WC5� I live at: %_ bo. GFh pio CIR�'1 o N le Th inal Resolution of the City Council (no 22063) that you approved and signed on October 17, contained a flagrant error. The Resolution stated that "potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance-" Anyone who had spent a few minutes reading the summary of the FEIR would have known this was not true. The same statement is now apparently a permanent part of the Planning Commission records,incorporated in their Resolutions 7055 and 7056. We pointed this out, once in writing, twice in verbal testimony to the Planning Commission and once, on October 17,in verbal testimony to Council. Our comments were ignored. Since October 17, two versions of Resolution 22063 have been released to the public, both containing the same error. The error was finally corrected 36 hours before this meeting and The corrected posted on the city website last night. This is improper noticing: an inconvenience for the Council members, a breach of state law as far as the public is concerned. An improper notice is the equivalent of no notice at all. It was,we were told, a minor correction. It was not: significance v, non significance is at the heart of CFQA. There will always be error; the important thing is correct one's mistakes. But if you don't correct the errors the right way, you merely compound the error and make it worse. In this case,the right way is following your rules—the City's rules. The integrity of City governance depends upon your doing it right. We respectfully request that you re-open the public hearing on the Boulders/Crescendo EIR, correct all the various errors in these documents, provide the public with proper legal Notice and follow*the process in accordance with the rules of the City and the State. -7 �-kn ZP/z4 Mynameis— Q,4zl -�,g�,EWp I live at— V 1 q �-t 6TzM1I o 7 a� PS65 Thcxe axe o)u ixbibits that should have been attached ro the City Council resolutions dated Oct 17' and Oct 29": The Findings of Fact The Statement of Overriding Considerations The Mitigation Monitoring Program The Conditions of Approval Three of the four got left out, twice. But all four have made a sudden appearance in your Staff report tonight, ex post facto. Boulders and Ctcscendo arc back as Consent Agenda items tonight because the Resolutions of Oct 17" and Oct. 29'" did not contain all four documents, so now you have to go through new approval process with the right documents. Since you have to consider the matter anyway,please consider some of the material you did not consider last time. At the Oct. 17°i meeting,you did not discuss the Statements of Overriding Considerations. Had there been a discussion,those Council Membcrs approving the project might have noticed this: Exhibit B page 51 #2 of your Staff Report tonight states that one of the benefits of the project that is worth an overriding consideradon—a benefit that is mote important than the project's significant and unavoidable negative environmental effects—is that the new residents will have high incomes and go buy stuff in Palm Springs_ Let's take a look at the number to back this up: In May 2006, the DEIR estimated that it would take 5 to 20 years for construction to be completed for a Boulders Custom Lot project. The FFIR maintained the estimate. Under current market conditions, the longer period seems mote realistic—sap 16 years. Allowing 2.5 people per residence, 45 custom homes would, over 16 years,increase the high income residents by 112 people'TOTAL.oy seven people per year. Seven people per year over around 16 years is not the kind of economic impact that justifies overriding consideration of very zeal and significant negative environmental impacts Seven people a year is not going to impact the City but building at this density in this location with this project design will — the FEIR proves it and you are asked to override those impacts. Consider carefttllly what you are doing. 1 For once and for all,please table this item and direct staff to place it on the agenda as a public hearing item where the council and public can comment on the corrected and accurate materials,the council can review all of the necessary information with some independence and then actually deliberate and tape an action that is defensible- 2 CWT f -� My comments pertain to Consent Calendar item 2P Honorable mayor; members of the council. "At the last meeting, the Council heard extensively from citizens that due process had not been respected in handling this case. We thought that perhaps that point was heard, at least, when we explained that due process is our right and we intend to defend it. Also at the last meeting, we explained that the Council's refusal to honor its own laws—as well as CEQA's requirements of notice—put us at a disadvantage and gave the impression that this was not a fair process, that the developer enjoyed a huge advantage over ordinary homeowners with his vast resources of time and his trained legal staff. On the Council, heads nodded. Concern was expressed. And here we are again! This meeting, the City issued a modification of Resolution 22063 with 36 hours notice. We are not developers who can afford full-time legal staff dedicated to defending our interests here. We're ordinary citizens of Palen Springs, with lives and jobs and doctor's appointments and dinner to cook, doing our hest once again on unlawfully short notice to react to an unlawful violation of our due process rights. I wish I could say I was surprised. But at this point, I'm not. We know the notice requirements for this meeting haven't been observed. The city's attorney knows that. And if a decision for certification is made today, other attorneys will tell you that as well." yr/ y/o7 27-1 zr l z 'Yesterday Measure C was soundly defeated by the public over the approval of Council. There are many ways to look at that but I think you'll agree it doesn't mean that Palm Springs opposes all building, all development, all growth. What it does mean is that the citizens don't like special deals for developers. People wondered why exactly Shadowrock needed these special exceptions. People wondered why its backers were being shown such extraordinary deference. We wonder that, too, about Boulders and Crescendo. Why should this developer be allowed to proceed with a defective bIR? Why should the Council rush to accommodate him, to the point of violating the requirements of CbQA, and its own municipal notice requirements? Where are two things the council can do to restore some of the public trust: fear this question again, properly noticed, at the next Council. Or, even better, send back and recirculate the defective EIR and regrind the city that everyone is equal before the law—even this developer." Good Evening. My name is 5olange Taylor and I live in Little Tuscany. My comments pertain to Consent Calendar item 2P Arleen Duchowny could not be here this evening. But you remember her heart-wrenching testimony about her experiences with the Tuscany Heights project west of Milo Drive. How it felt like she was having earthquakes every 15 minutes. How she was closed in her house for two years. And this for one street and fourteen building lots! How after a year of relentless noise she had a meeting with the city manager, city attorney, and city engineer, who while they were Umpathetic were not able to help her solve her problem. How she was told that once the project had been approved, rezardless of what verbal promises had been made, there was nothing the City could do about it. Tuscany Heights is not the responsibility of Mr. Wessman. But the specter—the potential—for the simultaneous construction of production homes still looms large for the Boulders project. At the last meeting you praised the developer for improving the project. Fine. But the Ci and the nei horhoods are not out of the woods yet. The developer can turn around tomorrow and sell part or all of the project to a different developer. It's the developer's right to sell the project, but the City and the neighborhoods need to ensure that the project will retain the improvements made to the project over the last four years. In theory first Architectural Review, then the Planning Commission, then the City Council will review the proposed houses even if a new developer buys up large chunks of the project. But that does not reassure me much because it's only a theory_ Look what happened in Tuscany Heights—that's not 111-71000-7 zP/?' theory, that's reality. Ask Arlene Duchowny. In Tuscany Heights one developer sold to another and a once approved project turned into what everyone now recognizes is a hideous mistake never to be repeated. It's too late to save Arlene and her neighbors and to fix Tuscany Heights. It's not too late to le2rn from the mistake and ensure that it is not repeated with The Boulders. Please look at the FEIR. This is the City's document. The FEIR was written by experts; that makes them your experts. In the FEIR's analysis of the custom lots alternative—on page 5-11—it says. ...restrictions would need to be in place to ensure that no one home builder bought up a large number of lots for simultaneous construction of "custom" residences (as seems to have occurred with the Tuscan Heights project west of Milo Drive). This is the expert view of the environmental consultant which has been adopted by the City. It's essential that you include in tonight's Final Resolution the restriction on the simultaneous construction of custom residences by a new developer so that you can preserve the elements that you yourselves pmced about the Boulders. Since tonight you are considering adopting a third variant of Resolution 22063 please include an appropriate Condition of Approval as proposed in your own FEIR. What is there to loose? Unless, of course, you're afraid of the Big Bad Wolf... 530 aFpA�MSpA+ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Z e " DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES �O'•nnda ,, .Cq<lFOAN`P• MEMORANDUM Date: November 7, 2007 To: City Council From: David Ready, City Manager Via: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Subject: Final Resolutions and Findings of Fact for TTM 31095 "Boulders" and Case No. 5.0996 "Crescendo" The City Attorney has forwarded certain changes to the final Resolutions and Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) for both the Boulders and Crescendo projects. The revisions reflect the Council's actions of October 17 for each project, including. 1. Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, and 2. Adoption of Findings of Fact in support of the projects All other resolution exhibits —the Statements of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B), Mitigation Monitoring Programs (Exhibit C) and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit D) —are unchanged. Staff has prepared a strike-out / underline copy of all the documents in colored paper to assist the Council in reviewing the changes. Feel free to contact Craig Ewing (323-8269) or the City Attorney if you have any questions. Attachments: 1. Final Resolution and Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) — TTM 31095 "Boulders'; strike-out / underline version 2. Final Resolution and Findings of Fact (Exhibit A) — Case No. 5.0996 "Crescendo"; strike- out/ underline version �,/_7lo RESOLUTION NO. 22064 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), ADOPTING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294, CASE NO. 5,0996 - PD 294, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31766 FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 79 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 42- ACRE SITE, AND THE VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 23 FEET OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY; FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD, SOUTH OF TRAM WAY AND WEST OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE,ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3. WHEREAS, on February 19, 2004. Wessman Development Company (the applicant) has fled an application with the City pursuant to Sections 94.03.00 and 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Development District and Preliminary Development Plan for a 79- unit single family residential project, for the property located at 1000 West Racquet Club Drive, south of Tramway Road and west of Vista Grand Avenue;and WHEREAS,the applicant has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62.00 of the Municipal Code for Tentative Tract Map 31766 for the subdivision of approximately 42-acre parcel into 79 single-family residential lots and lettered lots;and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for Tentative Tract Map 31766 and Planned Development District 294 (PD 294)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, the project site can be considered an in-fill development as it is surrounded by existing development on two sides; and WHEREAS, the project site has all utility services available at or close to the project site; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and Resolution 22064 Page 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed project on the housing needs of the region, and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on October 17. 2007, a public hearing on the application 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 meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented; and WHEREAS, the project will bring additional residents, visitors and activities to the community that will potentially impact the needs for public safety services beyond the City's ability to provide such services; and because such services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic and other safety services, and recreation, library, cultural services are near capacity, the City has established a Community Facilities District to which this project shall be annexed, subject to conditions of approval. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The City Council found that the project will not have significant Impacts in the areas of,land use population and housing, geolo,gy and soils recreation utilities and services agriculture and mineral resources. The City Council further funds that with the incorporation of Proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project in the areas of transportation and traffic cultural resources, noise, biology, hydrology and water quality and.,public Services will be reduced to a level of less thai significance. The City [iceea:m Council further finds that, even after mitigation the project may still have a significant environmental impact with regard to cumulative loss of native desert habitat air quality, and short term adverse cumulative impacts related to NOx and PossiblY PM-10 emissions. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to its review of this Project and the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Resolution 22064 Page 3 Section 2: The City Council has considered the environmental effects of the project that are analyzed in the FEIR and adopts the Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (E) and 94.02.00(B) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code,the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general plan pursuant to Sections 94.02.00 (A)(4) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The current zoning designation of the subject location is R-1-A, single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The proposed lot sizes will range from 15,077 square feet to 54,500 square feet. With these lot sizes and density of approximately 1.9 units per acre, the planned development is in conformity with the requirements of the zoning Cade. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the existing residential developments on all sides of the site. The general plan designation of L-2 allows a maximum density of two units per acre, this project will not exceed the density at approximately 1.9 units per acre. The planned development district will grant relief to lot dimensions, building heights, lot widths and setbacks only; therefore, the addition of new residential use to this location will be in conformity with the general plan. b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed planned development district, in terms of access, size of parce/, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations. The project site is relatively rugged with loose cobbles, boulders and low-growing vegetation, but can accommodate building pads, internal streets, and drainage. Adequate access is proposed onto main streets from Racquet Club Drive to State Highway 111. The size of the parcel is approximately 42 acres; relative to similar developments within the City, the location will accommodate the proposed planned residential development. C. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary and proper, and is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary to provide an upscale design concept comparable to the existing development within the surrounding. The proposed district will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or residents because streets are internal to the project. Furthermore, the planned development district only seeks to modify development standards in Resolution 22064 Page 4 a manner that will not be detrimental to the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity and the vista of the San Jacinto Mountains. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council makes the following findings- a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. Tentative Tract Map 31766 is for the subdivision of approximately 42 acres into 79 single-family residential lots. The residential project is consistent with the General Plan designations of L-2 the overall density of the new subdivision is approximately 1.9 units per acre, this is well within the threshold of 2 units per acre allowed within the district. The proposed map has been reviewed by City staff and other outside agencies for comments; the map is consistent with the general plan designation of the subject site. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located. The proposed project design and improvements are consistent with the R-1-A zone in which the property is located. Furthermore, the design of the Map is consistent with the allowable uses under the Planned Development District for this property. The proposed residential development standards, street improvements, internal circulation, proposed drainage and overall site development are in conformity with City standards. C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. Majority of the site area is rugged terrain full of loose cobbles, boulders and vegetation with slopes from east to the west. The site is surrounded by existing development and City streets. The construction of residential buildings on the site is appropriate at this location. Also, there are existing urban services and utilities in the immediate surroundings of the location. d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The Tentative Tract Map and associated Planned Development District have been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is proposed. Mitigation measures have been included which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. There are no bodies of water on the subject property and therefore will not damage or injure fish,wildlife or their habitats. Resolution 22064 Page 5 e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision is designed with adequate access to accommodate the needs of future occupants and surrounding residents in cases of emergency. Proposed drainage facilities at the site are designed to meet or exceed City Standards. The proposed homes and streets will be required to meet or exceed City development codes. The circulation system within the subdivision provides for an orderly system of internal driveways; therefore, the project will not cause public health problems. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. There are no known public easements or existing access across the subject property, therefore the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. Any utility easements can be accommodated within the project design. Section 5: The City Council adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as exhibit C. Section 6: The City Council approves Case No. 5.0996 - PDD 294, the vacation of the westerly twenty-three feet of Vista Grande Avenue right of way, and Tentative Tract Map 31766 for the subdivision of approximately 42-acre site into 79 single-family residential lots and the development of the proposed units subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit D, which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. ADOPTED this 7"day of November,2007, David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Resolution No. 22064 Exhibit A Crescendo Project: Findings of Fact I, INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("City Council") as the decision- making body of the Lead Agency for the Crescendo project ("Project") hereby adopts and makes the following findings of fact ("Findings") in connection with its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Project. The FOR is a Project EIR, as defined by Guideline 15161 of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines"), and serves as an informational document for the general public, the City and other government agencies. The City Council makes these Findings after reviewing and analyzing the environmental effects examined in the FEIR. These Findings are adopted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"). The FEIR identifies certain potentially significant effects that may occur as a result of the proposed Project, or that may occur on a cumulative basis in conjunction with the development of the Project and other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects. In addition to reviewing the Project's potential environmental impacts, these Findings also provide the City Council's analysis and conclusions regarding the applicability of possible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce any significant environmental effects. II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD A. CONTENTS OF THE RECORD The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record of proceedings to support the City Council's findings of fact regarding the environmental effects of the Project: 1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and related technical appendices, all other documents relied upon or Incorporated by reference into the DEIR, the FEIR and all documents relied upon or Incorporated by reference in the FOR and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (collectively the "EIR"). 2. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the meetings and public hearings at which City decision-making bodies considered the EIR. 5.195101 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 2 of 44 Exhibit A--Findings of Fact 3. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of meetings and other documents that City staff and/or its consultants relied upon or prepared in conjunction with the Project. 4. Any other documents specified by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). B, LOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The City is the custodian of the administrative record, including all GEQA documents and the other background documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decisions to certify the Final EIR and approve the Project are based. The administrative record is located at the Palm Springs City Hall, Planning Services Department, 2300 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262. III. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS The Final EIR evaluates the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the Project. Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guideline 15091 require that the public agency approving or carrying out the project(s) shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. These findings include one of the fallowing: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project(s) that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR for the approved project(s). 2. They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the EIR. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 3 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 3. They explain whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less than significant level or remain significant and unavoidable, either because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, an impact would remain significant. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the EIR and other evidence in the record of proceedings. IV. THE CRESCENDO PROJECT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Crescendo Project ("Project") proposes development of 79 single-family residences on approximately 42.2 acres. The City of Palm Springs General Plan and the Palm Springs Municipal Code will govern the Project's land use and development components, including the type and density of allowable land use, design standards, architecture, landscaping, circulation, infrastructure, and other planning and design components. The project site is an in-fill site located on undeveloped open desert land associated with the Chino Canyon alluvial cone (also referred to as the Chino Cone or the Cone), a large alluvial feature that emanates from Chino Canyon at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains and spreads east onto the floor of the Coachella Valley. Existing manmade features in the Chino Cone include (a) Tramway Road, which provides access from State Highway 111 (Highway) to the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, (b) a United States Army Corps of Engineers levee that provides Flood protection to the northern part of the City including a large part of the Chino Cone, and (c) parts of the Chino Canyon neighborhood, a hillside residential community south of Tramway Road and extending west from Highway 111. The existing Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood lies at the south edge of the alluvial cone. Currently, most of the Chino Cone north of Tramway Road is undeveloped. In the undeveloped areas, the native ground surface is characterized by loose cobbles and Crescendo, and desert vegetation including cactus that blooms in the cooler parts of the year. Undeveloped lands are also present south of Tramway Road. The majority of these are within the Agua Caliente Reservation (Section 4) but also include vacant lands proposed for development by the Crescendo project. The Crescendo project site is surrounded on three sides by existing development in the form of Tramway Road to the north, and residential development to the east and south. The Crescendo project site is currently designated R-1-A under the City of Palm Springs General Plan. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 4 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Project's objectives are rooted in five key goals: 1. Create new residential development that reflects and complements the overall pattern and character of existing surrounding uses 2. Provide a transition from the development style of Little Tuscany on the south to the slightly more dense development currently in place to the east and north of the Crescendo site. 3. Contribute to the revitalization of downtown Palm Springs by providing quality upscale housing that will attract residents and second-residence owners who will support and become the market for businesses located in the City 4. Provide upscale semi-custom residences that take advantage of the unique physical features and viewscapes offered only in Palm Springs. 5. Utilize an in-fill site to allow for quality residential development thereby supporting the City's retail economy without expanding the City's development footprint. The project site has long been zoned for residential development. The Project aims to create high quality in-fill development within an area that has already undergone substantial development without intruding into undeveloped areas of the Chino Cone. Such in-fill development is likewise one of the objectives set forth in the City of Palm Springs' General Plan (see Objective 3.2, p. 1-19).The Project achieves the objective of creating in-fill development because the site is among the last remaining substantial areas of vacant land within the otherwise developed area bounded by Tramway Road on the north, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation lands to the west, and Racquet Club Road to the south. The existing Chino Canyon neighborhood lies to the south and east of the Crescendo project. This neighborhood, developed at a density of approximately two units per acre, is a self-contained eclectic neighborhood of one-story and split- level single-family residences. Its streets are narrow with lots terraced to accommodate elevation changes throughout the neighborhood- V. THE EIR PROCESS In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to solicit comments on the proposed content of the Crescendo and Crescendo Combined EIR, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") on City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 5 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact July 5, 2005, and Revised NOPs for the proposed Project on July 28 and August 1, 2005, On September 8, 2005, the City held a scoping meeting to elicit further comments from governmental agencies and interested parties regarding the scope and content of environmental issues germane to the EIR. All NOP responses relating to the EIR were reviewed and the issues raised in those comments were addressed, to the extent feasible, in the DEIR. The NOP appears as Appendix A to the FEIR; letters received during the NOP comment period comprise Appendix B. In October 2005, the City held a meeting with key local stakeholders in order to define project alternatives for consideration in the EIR (see Appendix C). In November 2005, The City held a Public Meeting to describe alternatives developed based on the input from the Scoping Meeting and the stakeholder meeting. The DEIR was formally circulated for a 45-day review period, between May 22, 2006, and July 6, 2006. Comments were accepted through July 6, 2006. In October 2006, a Supplement to the DEIR was circulated, also for a 45-day review period. Comments were accepted through December 20, 2006. The City received 11 letters from agencies, organizations, and individual parties commenting on the DEIR and its Supplement. The written comments and the City's responses to them appear in FEIR Volume 2: Comments and Responses. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and the FEIR at its meetings of July 11, 2007, September 12, 2007, and September 26, 2007. At the meeting of September 26, 2007, the Commission recommended certification of the FEIR for the project. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE FEIR Pursuant to section 21082.1(c) of the Public Resources Code, the City Council hereby FINDS and CERTIFIES that: • The FOR has been completed in compliance with CECA. • The FEIR has been presented to the City Council, and the City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the FEIR prior to acting on the Project. • The FOR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. VII. EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these Findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the FOR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City Council hereby adopts these measures. The mitigation measures are express conditions o'f approval of the Project. The City Council will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 6 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact concurrently with these Findings to ensure that the responsible parry actually implements the mitigation measures. The MMRP developed for the Project includes applicable mitigation measures from the FEIR and new measures that the City developed in conjunction with the EIR process. Vlll. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR These Findings address the potentially significant environmental effects examined in the FEIR, which analyzed the environmental impacts at a project-specific level and on a "cumulative" impact basis. A cumulative impact is defined by CEQA Guidelines 15130 and 15355 as an impact created as a result of the combination of impacts of the project evaluated in the EIR and closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (commonly known as "related projects"). The FEIR addressed reasonably foreseeable impacts by assuming the build-out of the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The FOR also identified 24 reasonably foreseeable related projects in the relevant geographic area. The analysis of the EIR buildeut resulted in a conservative analysis because the City is currently reviewing a General Plan update that would reduce overall densities near the proposed project. A. SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS The EIR analyzes all potentially significant impacts of the Project for the environmental topics identified during the public scoping process, including responses to the NOP, a public scoping meeting, and consultation with interested agencies and individuals. In summary, the City Council finds that the following environmental impacts are less than si nificant on a project-specific basis in light of the EIR and the whole record before it, including the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures: (1) biological resources, (2)cultural resources, (3) hazardous materials, (4) population and housing, (5) noise, (6) public services, (7)recreation, (8) transportation and traffic, (9) utilities and service systems, (10) land use, (11) hydrology and water quality, (12) geology and soils, (13) agriculture, and (14) mineral resources. The City Council has incorporated the referenced mitigation measures into the Project pursuant to its concurrent adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. On the other hand, on a project-specific basis, the Project was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact on the aesthetics of its site, which may be considered adverse by some observers. . In addition, the project will contribute to cumulative loss of native desert habitat that may be considered adverse During grading, the project may exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NO, and PM,o. During the 18- to 24-month construction periods, the Project may contribute to short-term adverse cumulative impacts relative to NO,and PM,�emissions, City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 7 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact The EIR analyzed growth-inducing, unavoidable adverse and irreversible impacts, and consistency with Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") policies. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15126.6, the EIR also evaluated several project alternatives. IX. FINDINGS ON IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR A. AESTHETICS 1. Potential Impacts The Project may cause a significant impact on aesthetics if it does any of the following: a) has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) substantially damages scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) substantially degrades the existing visual character or quality of the sites and their surroundings d) creates a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area 2. Findings Due to the fundamental change in the site from undeveloped to developed, the Project will have significant effects on aesthetics that cannot be mitigated and may be perceived by some as adverse. The City Council makes the following findings for these impacts: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects b) For the reasons set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted concurrently by the City Council, the City Council finds that the significant impact identified in this Section IX(C) is acceptable in light of the Project's overall benefits. 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.5 of the EIR analyzes the Project's potential impacts on aesthetics and visual resources. For the following reasons, these impacts are found to be significant and cannot be mitigated: City Council Resolution No, 22064 Page 8 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact a) The primary aesthetic effect of the Project will be the fundamental change of the site from undeveloped to developed. However, the site has long been designated for development of the kind proposed by the Project. The City of Palm Springs General Plan Policy 3.2.3 specifies "high-end residential" as a "target land use" for the Project's area, zoned R-1-A. . b) The Project is not located near a designated scenic highway, so it will not affect scenic highway resources. Trees are limited, and there are no historic buildings on the sites. The boulders on the site are not considered a significant scenic resource. c) In the process of transforming the site from undeveloped to developed, the Project will result in mass grading of the site. This change could be perceived as degrading the sites' visual character or quality. The Project conditions of approval and mitigation measures require that the Project re-use native boulders, especially on slopes, to re-create the natural appearance of the land to the extent possible and still permit feasible development. d) As a residential project, Crescendo will meet the requirements of the local building code with respect to lighting. The Project's residential streets are not proposed to have street lighting thereby limiting the visual impact of the Project on the surrounding area. B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on agricultural resources if it would do any of the following: a) convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract c) involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses 2. Findings The Project will not have a significant impact on agricultural resources. 3. Supportive Rationale City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 9 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact Potential impacts to agricultural resources are evaluated in EIR Section 7.15. There are no agricultural uses present on the site. Impacts to agriculture are determined to be less than significant for the following reasons: a) The Project will not result in a significant adverse impact related to the conversion of prime farmland and farmland of local importance to non-agricultural uses. b) The Project will not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract lands. c) The Project will not result in changes to the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. C. AIR QUALITY—CONSTRUCTION 1. Potential Impacts The Project would cause a significant and unavoidable air quality impact if, during construction or operation, it de any of the following: 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 protected air 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 national or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) d) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations e) create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people 2. Findings Potential impacts to air quality are evaluated in EIR Section 7.5. The construction of the Project may create a significant and unavoidable air quality impact on a project-specific basis during the grading phase of construction. This impact results from the potential to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violation. The City Council makes the following findings for these impacts: City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 10 of 44 Exhibit A-- Findings of Fact a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) For the reasons set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted concurrently by the City Council, the City Council finds that the significant impact identified in this Section IX(C) is acceptable in light of the Project's overall benefits. Although the following mitigation measures aimed at reducing these significant and unavoidable air quality impacts during the Project's construction have been adopted, they may not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance (The term "may" is used in this discussion because the modeling indicates that emissions will be slightly less than the thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District; however, due to the uncertainty in the modeling procedures, there is some passibility that emissions could exceed the thresholds) MM AIR-1: Prior to the approval of a final grading plan by the City, the project proponent shall submit a detailed Grading and Rock Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission. This plan shall specify the following: 1. Final estimates for grading volumes, including cut and fill, off-site export of unsuitable material, and import of appropriate material. Refined estimates for emissions of importlexport trips will be provided. 2. Final estimates of on-site rock that can be incorporated into the site for fill, landscaping elements, or use in the decorative walls of residences, including rock that may be reduced in size, using the Nonex process. 3. Active grading shall be limited to 2.5 acres of disturbed areas. 4. If on-site rock crushing is proposed and approved by the City when the project is approved, then the location and emission factors of the exact equipment proposed to be used will be provided. An updated analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstrating that PM,o and NOx emissions shall not exceed the SCAQMD daily limits, and that rock-crushing PM10 emissions are equivalent to those listed in AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995 for"controlled emissions." 5. If on-site rock-crushing is not proposed, or is disallowed by the City when the project is approved, then an updated emissions analysis shall be provided based upon the relocation plan for rocks that cannot be used on-site and the final length of the trip to the rock disposal site. An updated analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstrating that PM10 emissions shall not exceed the SCAQMD City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 11 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact daily limits. If the City overrides the potential NO emission exceedance when the project is approved, then the Grading and Rock Management Plan shall demonstrate how the NO, emissions will be limited to within 25% of the SCAQMQ construction threshold for NO, 6. Prior to the commencement of grading, the City of Palm Springs shall retain, at the applicant's expense, an air quality monitor who shall be present on site at least three hours per day during grading operations. The monitor shall have the ability to "stop work" if visible dust is seen escaping from the site, or if other measures specified in the Grading and Rock Management Plan are not observed. 7. The plan shall demonstrate how the City's standard mitigation measures, listed in Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, shall be incorporated into project construction. MM AIR-2 Mass grading of the Aoulders and Crescendo sites shall nOt Deleted:Crescendo occur simultaneously. Accordingly, all graded areas of the first site shall be stabilized prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the second site. MM AIR-3 The applicant shall require the construction contractor to use construction equipment with low emission factors and high energy efficiency to the extent feasible. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the City shall verify that grading and construction plans include a prominently displayed statement that all construction equipment must (1) be tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturers' specifications and (2) meet or exceed Tier 2 standards, including the use of emulsified diesel fuels and oxidation catalysts particulate traps or other verified/certified technologies as feasible- Note: Such equipment and fuels may not yet be available in the Palm Springs area; therefore, the note "as feasible" applies. No mitigation credit was taken in this analysis for such mitigation. MM AIR-4 All residential fireplaces will be fueled by natural gas. MM AIR-6 Exterior electrical outlets will be provided in fronts and backs of residential units to facilitate use of electric landscape equipment. 3. Supportive Rationale Sections 7.6.3 of the FEIR analyzes air quality impacts during construction of the Project. a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan The applicable Air Quality Plan is [the 2004 State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District and Certified by the City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 12 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Federal Environmental Protection Agency]. The SIP demonstrates that the region will be brought into compliance with State and federal air quality standards over time. The SIP is based upon the development of the General Plans of the various Cities and Counties in the Region, and projects that are consistent with such general plans are consistent with the SIP. The project is consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan and therefore consistent with the SIP, b)and c) Contribute to any existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulative increase in any criteria pollutant. Air quality impacts during the Project's construction cannot be mitigated below a significant level for the reasons set forth below. a) The EIR estimated air quality impacts during grading according to modeling results from LSA Associates Inc. (I-SA) as contained in the EIR. These estimated emission levels were compared against regional and localized significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD. The estimates for emissions of Reactive Organic Gases, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide were all well below (more than 50% below) the specified significance criteria. The estimates for emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM10) were below the threshold of significance, but less than 10% below the threshold, even after the application of all applicable mitigation measures. b) The City recognizes that all modeling efforts contain a certain amount of inherent uncertainty. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the City notes that emissions of NOx and PM10 could exceed the thresholds. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures as listed above, project emissions during construction might exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD for NO,and PM10. D. AIR QUALITY-OPERATION 1. Potential Impacts The operation of the Protect may cause a significant and unavoidable air quality impact if it would do any of the following: 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 protected air quality violation City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 13 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact c) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable national 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 2. Findincis The operation of the Project will not create significant or unavoidable air quality impacts on a project-specific basis. 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.6.3 of the FEIR analyzes air quality impacts during operation of the Project. Air quality impacts during the Project's operation will not rise to a level of significance for the following reasons: a) The Project's operation will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2004 State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District and Certified by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. b) The Project's operations will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or protected air quality violation. c) The Project's operation will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria Pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). EIR Table 7.6-E shows that projected protect-specific emissions at build-out will fall well below the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. d) The Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) The Project's operation will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. None of the uses proposed for the sites are normally associated with the creation of objectionable odors. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 14 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it were to do any of the following: 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 ("CDFG") or United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") 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 CDFG or USFWS 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 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan 2. Findings The Project is not anticipated to significantly affect biological resources on its site unless it were to introduce non-native plant species in their landscaping designs. As a result, the City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project's impacts will be less than significant. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 15 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact MM BIO- 1 The following plants will not be utilized in the project landscaping: BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Acacia spp. (all species Acacia (all species except native exec t A. reg zi) catclaw acacia Arzmdo donax(x) Giant reed or arundo grass Atrz lex seniibaccata (x) Australian saltbush Avena barbata Slcuder wild oat Avena fahza Wild oat Brassica toumcfortzz xx) African or Saharan mustard Bromus madritensis ssp Red brome rubens x) Bromus tectorum (xx) Cheat grass or downy brome Cortaderia jabata [syn.C. 7ubata grass or Andcan pampas ataca]n L'nsisJ grass Cortaderza dioica [sym C. pampas grass selloana] Dcscuramza so hia Tansy mustard Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth Elaegnus angzis olia Russian olive Poeriiculum vul are Sweet femiel Ifirrchfeldia incana Mediterranean or short-pod mustard Lepidium latifolium perennial rweed Lohum inultiflorum Italian r cgrass Lollium perenne Perennial gelyass Nerium oleander Oleander Nicotiana glauca (x Tree tobacco Oenothera berlandieri(#) Mexican evening primrose Olea europea European olive trce Parldnsonia aculeata (x) Mexrean palo verde Pemusetum elandestirulm Kikuyu ass Penniserumsefaceum (,cx) Fountain grass Phoenix canariensis (4) Canary Island date palm Phoenix dac li era (#) Date palm Ricinus commums (x) Castorbean SaIsola tragur(x) Russian thistle Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree or California pepper Schinifs terebirzthifoli215 Brazilian pepper trce Schismus ar•abicus Mediterranean grass Schismus barbanes (xx) Saharan grass, abu mashi Stt a ca ensis (xx) No common name City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 16 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact Tamara spp. (all specie) Tamanslc or salt cedar Taeniatherum Caput- Medusa-head medusae Trihufus terres Iris Puncnlrevmc Vinca nsajoT Periwinkle Yucca g107105a # 5 apish dagger Sources: CVAG MSHCP; California Exotic Pest Plant Council, United States Dcparmtcnt of Agriculture-Division or Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Plant Society, Fremontia Vol. 26 No 4, October 1998, The Jepson Manual; Higher Planes of California, and County of San Diego Department of Agriculture. Key to Table k indicates species not on CaIEPPC October 1999 "Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California"list X indicates spccics known to be inv;csivc in the MSHCP Plan Area XX indicates particularly Ireublcsonte invasive species 3. Supportive Rationale Potential impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section 7.8 of the EIR, which rely on reports in Appendix I-2. For the reasons set forth below, the identified impacts can be mitigated below a level of significance. a) No officially listed animal or plant species were found on the Project site. Although the Project's development can be expected to eliminate approximately 43 acres of creosote scrub habitat; that loss cannot be said to constitute a significant adverse impact because the habitat is so widespread generally throughout the Southwest and specifically in the areas surrounding the Project, b) The Project site does not contain or abut any riparian community, c) The Project site does not contain or abut any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) The Project site is not used by animal species as a migratory corridor or wildlife nursery. The Crescendo site is surrounded on two sides by existing residential uses. e) The Project is consistent with the City's goals and policies relative to biological resources as articulated in the City of Palm Springs General Plan. f) No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conversation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan affects either project site. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 17 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact F. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would do any of the following: a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or an archeological resource as defined in CEQA Guideline 15064.5 b) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5 c) directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature d) disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries 2. Findings The Project is not expected to impact cultural resources on a project-specific basis. However, it is not impossible that it might do so inadvertently by uncovering hitherto unknown historical or cultural resources. As a result, the City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. c) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project's impacts will be less than significant. MM CULT-1: Prior to the approval of any grading plan, the Director of Community Development of the City of Palm Springs will ensure that the following specification is included with grading requirements: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location on the project site other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps will be taken: 1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: (a) The Riverside County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 18 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact (b) If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American: • The Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. • The NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. • The most likely descendant (MLD) may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative will rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify an MI-D. • The MLD identified failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. 2. Supportive Rationale Section 7.4 of the FEIR analyzes potential impacts on cultural resources based on studies contained in Appendix F-1, These studies identified no significant cultural or historical resources, so the Project's impacts on such resources are not expected to be significant. Should human remains be located during development, Mitigation Measure CULT-1 is in place to ensure their proper handling and disposition. G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact with respect to geology and/or soils if they were to do any of the following: a) expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving any of the following: • rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Algwst-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 19 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact Geologist for the area or based on the substantial evidence of a known fault • strong seismic ground-shaking • seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction • 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 an on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse d) be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the Uniform Building Cade (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 2. Findings With the implementation of the City's standard conditions, the Protect will have no adverse effects on geology or soils.As a result, no mitigation will be required. 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.9 of the FOR analyzes the Project's potential impacts with respect to geology and/or soils. This analysis is based on studies conducted by Earth Systems Southwest, including geotechnical feasibility reports and fault/seismic investigations; these studies appear as Appendix J-2 of the EIR. For the reasons below, the Project will not result in adverse impacts to geology and/or soils. a) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. b) Existing City of Palm Springs General Plan policies and programs, including strict adherence to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and other applicable building standards are expected to result in project design and construction that mitigate the impact associated with strong ground motion and other seismic hazards. c) The site is not at risk of landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading or collapse. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 20 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact d) The Project is not located on unstable soils; furthermore, development of the site will result in the stabilization of soils underneath structures, roadways and landscaping, so upon project completion, soil erosion will be reduced. e) Soils below the site are anticipated to possess a very law expansion potential. f) The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. g) The Project is consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan. H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact related to the potential presence of hazardous materials, recognized environmental concerns or potential hazards if it to do any of the following: a) result in a safety hazard for people residing, working or otherwise congregating in the Project area; or 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. 2. Findings The Project is not anticipated to have significant impacts relative to hazardous materials. 3. Supportive Rationale a) Sections 7.10 of the FEIR analyze the potential for contamination arising out of hazardous materials present on or near the Property. These analyses are based on the following documents: • A safety assessment by Earth Consultants International • A summary of available information on the disease known as valley fever(coccidioidomycosis) [Appendix GI Although project development is unlikely to release valley fever fungus, the possibility cannot be eliminated. As a result, in addition to the dust control and air qualltV mitigation measures City Council Resolution No. 22054 Page 21 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact reouired under the EIR the following additional mitigation measure has been incorporated into the EIR: MM HAZ-1 Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall inform all residents within 1,000 feet. b) The proposed Project does not involve the use of hazardous materials or substances. c) The Project is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip. a. The Project is consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan. b. The Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5. c. The Project will not impair or interfere with implementation of any emergency response plan. (In fact, the project would improve emergency response times and provide additional options for emergency evacuation). I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on hydrology and/or water quality if it would do any of the following: 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, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite 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 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 22 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite e) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff f) otherwise substantially degrade water quality g) place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps ("FIRM") or other flood hazard delineation map h) 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 i) result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 2. Findings The Project will impact hydrology and water quality on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project' impacts to hydrology and water quality will be less than significant. MM HY-1 Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent will submit, for approval by the City Director of Public Works, a final drainage plan based on a final hydrology study implementing the following local and regional requirements, policies and programs. a) The plan shall demonstrate that off-site storm flows will not be increased, and that all structures in the project are protected from 100-year storm flows. b) All proposed facilities will be privately owned and maintained by the proposed Crescendo project Homeowners Association, The CC&Rs for the association shall clearly specify the requirements to maintain the drainage system in an effective manner. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 23 of 44 ExhibitA— Findings of Fact c) The plan will include specific pollution control measures and/or designs that meet the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and keep pollutants, including sediment, herbicides, pesticides and oils, out of surface and ground waters. d) The plan will address the use of on-site stormwater retention basins, to the greatest extent practical, to enhance opportunities for groundwater recharge, provide additional open space and wildlife habitat value, and reduce the necessity for and costs associated with off-site stormwater conveyance facilities. e) Prior to formation of the Homeowners Association, the City Engineer shall review the proposed CC&Rs to ensure that language requiring effective maintenance of the drainage system is acceptable to the City MM HY-2 Prior to the approval of any building permit, the City Director of Planning will review plans to ensure the following: a) The use of drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems for all yard areas as a means of reducing water consumption. b) The applicant will install low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads and faucets in all new construction, in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code, Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601(b), and applicable sections of Title 24 of the State Code. c) The project will connect to the City's sewer system. Use of septic tanks will not be permitted. MM HY-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for lots 47-49, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the DWA that adequate water pressure is available to serve these lots. This condition may be satisfied in one of three ways: 1. DWA agrees that the existing pump is adequate to serve the project. 2. DWA accepts the applicant's offer to increase the capacity of the existing pumping system, 3. DWA obtains separate environmental approval for its own additional reservoirs. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 24 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's potential impacts on hydrology and water quality are analyzed in Sections 7.11 of the FEIR. These analyses are based on the hydrology reports (FEIR Appendix F) conducted for the Project by MSA Associates, Inc. For the reasons below, these impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. a) During final design, the applicant will be required to specify the BMPs that will ensure compliance with the City's NPDES requirements. b) The Project is unlikely to affect groundwater recharge on a project level. They will follow water conservation guidelines in the Palm Springs General Plan Update EIR (p. 5-100) and in the Palm Springs General Plan (pp.I1-63, 64), as well as the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to mitigate the impacts to public water supplies. The project is consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan adopted by the Desert Water Agency. c) There are no streams or rivers on the Project site, and the Project will adhere to all City drainage requirements so as not to cause erosion or siltation off site. d) The Project's adherence to City drainage requirements will ensure that the surface runoff caused by increased impermeable Project surfaces will be accommodated without flooding offsite. e) The Project's runoff, after development of the Project drainage system, will not exceed the capacity of existing drainage systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff f) The project runoff, after implementation of the above mitigation measures, will not substantially degrade water quality. g) The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. h) There is no dam or levee near the project sites. i) The Project area is not subject to seiches, tsunami or mudflow. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on land use and planning if they were to do any of the following: City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 25 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 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) adapted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect c) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 2. Findings The Project will not impact land use and planning on a project-specific basis, so no mitigation is required. 3. Su000rtive_Rationale The EIR analyzes the Project's potential land use and planning impacts in Section 7.1. For the reasons below, the Project is found to have no potential significant impacts on land use or planning. a) The Project is consistent with the City's land use goals and policies. b) The Project does not 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 environmental effect. c) The project does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. K. NOISE 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant noise impact if it were to do any of the following: a) expose persons to or generated noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies b) expose persons to or generated excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 26 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact c) create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the protect d) create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project e) were 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, which would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels f) were located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, which would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 2. Findings The Project will have noise impacts on a project-specific basis, chiefly in relation to construction activities including the potential temporary installation of a mechanical device to crush rocks on the project site and the requirement that a noise- mitigating structure be built to house the device. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a. All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project noise impacts are less than significant: MM NO[ — 1 Upon completion of the noise mitigation structure around the rock crusher, the following tests will be performed before the crusher goes into regular operation: The noise performance of the crusher and the noise attenuation structure will be measured at the property line of two residences closest to the structure (one north of the site and one south). Other construction activities will be shut down during this test. The noise levels at these locations will be measured when the crusher is operating normally. If the noise levels exceed those specified in the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 11.74.031 Noise Level Limit and Section 11.74.032, then crusher operations will cease until additional attenuation can be added, or crusher operations modified, and the system retested. If the system cannot be brought into compliance with the cited requirements, then no rock further rock crushing activities will be City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 27 of 44 Exhibit A--Findings of Fact allowed, and other means to address oversized rocks will be required. The results of the test will require certification by a City selected noise consultant. This test will be repeated at least every two months during the construction period. If the crusher is found to be out of compliance, then regular operations will be shut down until the crushing system can be brought into compliance. MM NOI-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall prepare, and the City shall review and approve, a technical study that demonstrates the required temporary structure provides sufficient noise reduction for the crusher to meet City Requirements as determined in the City's Zoning Ordinance Sections 11.74.031 and 11.74.032. 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's noise impacts are analyzed in Section 7.7 of the FEIR. For the reasons below, noise impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. a) Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 will ensure that noise levels generated by the project operation and noise levels within the project do not exceed the standards contained in the City of Palm Springs General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. b) Proposed uses within the Project do not generate excessive ground-borne vibration. Vibration during construction will be controlled through application of the City's Noise Ordinance. c) The Project will be constructed in accordance with the City's General Plan and its Noise Ordinance, so no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels will result. d) Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 will ensure that temporary noise levels generated by Project construction, and noise levels within the Project, do not exceed the standards contained in the City of Palm Springs General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. e) The proposed Project is not in the influence area for any public-use airport, so the aircraft noise levels at the Project site will be less than significant. f) The proposed Project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrip. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 28 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact L. POPULATION AND MOUSING 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on population and housing if it were to do any of the fallowing: a) induce substantial population growth into an area, either directly or indirectly b) displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere c) displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere 2. Findings The Project will have no significant impact on population or housing. Accordingly, the City Council finds that no mitigation measures are required with respect to population and housing. 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's potential impacts on population and housing are analyzed in Sections 72 of the FEIR. For the reasons below, these impacts are determined to be less than significant. a) The Project will be constructed consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, which specifies only low-density residential development in the Project area. b) The Project will not displace any housing as the site is currently undeveloped and uninhabited. c) The Project will not displace any existing people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere because the site is currently undeveloped and uninhabited. W PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on public services if they were to do any of the following: City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 29 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact a) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts), in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protective services b) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts), in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives c) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities or the need for new or physically altered school facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts), in order to maintain acceptable student/teacher ratios 2. Findings The Project will not impact public services an a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a. All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the Project's impacts to public services are less than significant. MM PS-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the project proponent shall annex to CFD 2005-1 to pay for increased police and fire services. 3. Supportive Rationale The FEIR analyzes potential impacts on public services in Sections 7.12. The analyses were based on information gathered from local public agencies and City departments. For the reasons specified below, these impacts have been determined to be below a level of significance. a) Per Mitigation Measure PS-1, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project will annex to Community Facilities District (CFD) 2005-1, which funds necessary police and fire services for new development. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 30 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact b) Although the Project will increase demands on Palm Springs Unified School District, the project will pay the required school impact fee (currently $2.14 per sf) to reduce the potential impact of additional student population; under State law, such payment fully mitigates project impacts to schools. N, RECREATION 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on recreation if it were to do any of the following: a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated b) include recreational facilities or required the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment 2. Findings The Project will impact recreation on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) The Project's proponent will mitigate impacts to recreation below a level of significance by the payment of in-lieu fees. 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's potential impacts on recreation are discussed in Section 7.13 of the FEIR. These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the reasons below. a) The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the expansion of facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. b) The Project's proponents will pay in-lieu fees consistent with the City's Quimby Act Ordinance 1632. City Council Resolution No, 22064 Page 31 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on transportation and traffic if it were to do any of the following: a) cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic lead and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) b) exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways c) result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety nsks d) substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (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). 2. Findings The Project will impact traffic and circulation on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact; a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Protect, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation are less than significant. MM TRA: Upon completion of mass grading of the Crescendo site, the applicant shall repair all existing city streets providing construction access to the site. The streets will be restored to a level of quality equal to or greater than that preexisting at the start City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 32 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact of construction. Any deterioration of pavement condition, including but not limited to potholes and cracking shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All traffic control devices shall be restored to their preexisting condition, including all pavement markings. The following streets will be subject to this condition: 1. Racquet Club Drive West of North Palm Canyon 2. Tramway Road west of North Palm Canyon 3. North Vista Grande Avenue 4. Any other street used for construction access. Upon completion of construction of the proposed residences, the same assessment of street conditions will be made. In addition, all such streets used for construction access shall be slurry sealed and restrped. 3. Supportive Rationale The FEIR analyzes the Project's traffic impacts in Sections 7.3. The analysis relies on traffic studies included as Appendix E. The key conclusions include the following: a) The traffic generated by the project can be accommodated at an acceptable level of service on the local street system b) Project roadways will be designed to meet City of Palm Springs standards, including standards for emergency access, design features, incompatible uses, and parking, c) The Project will conform to the City of Palm Springs General Plan with respect to alternative forms of transportation. . P. UTILITIES 1. Potential Imparts The Project would have a significant impact on utilities if it were to do any of the following: 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 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 33 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact c) require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant effects d) not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources e) result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments f) not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs g) not comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste 2. Findings The Project will have a less than significant impact on utilities 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.14 of the FEIR analyzes the Project's impacts on utilities, including utility improvements necessary for the Project. This analysis was based in part on the Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Palm Springs, the City of Palm Springs Wastewater Master Plan, and correspondence with the Desert Water Agency (contained in EIR Appendix L). a) Water: The Desert Water Agency has indicated that it has in place facilities adequate to serve the Project long term. b) Sewer: Sanitary sewer facilities for the Project will be provided by the City of Palm Springs from sewer mains located nearby. c) Electricity: Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the City of Palm Springs and will connect to existing SCE lines located at the Project's boundaries. d) Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company has confirmed adequate service capacity and has agreed to provide service to the Project via adjacent existent lines. e) Solid Waste: Palm Springs Waste Disposal Service will provide waste disposal services to the Project. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 34 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact f) Telephone: Telephone service to the Project will be provided by Verizon. g) All utility improvements constructed as part of the Project will comply with applicable County and uniform codes. Project design features incorporate appropriate water and energy conservation measures recommended by the California Department of Watcr Resources and required by the California Code of Regulations. In addition, the Project's utility impacts would be further mitigated by payment of applicable utility impact fees charged by the various service providers identified above- Q. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have significant impact on mineral resources if it were to do any of the following: a) result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future 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 in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan 2. Findings The Project will not have significant impact on mineral resources, so no mitigation is required 3. Supportive Rationale The EIR analyzes the Project's impacts on mineral resources in Section 7.16 and finds those impacts to be below a level of significance for the following reasons: a) The Project site has not been determined to contain important mineral resources. b) The Project site has not been designated as an important mineral resource site by the City of Palm Springs General Plan or any specific plan or other land use plan. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 35 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact R. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1. Potential Impacts CEQA Guideline 15130 requires the identification of public and private projects that, when taken together with the proposed Project, could have cumulative impacts on the environment. The City identified 24 reasonably foreseeable development projects in the relevant geographic area. The inclusion of those 24 reasonably foreseeable projects in the cumulative impact analysis resulted in a conservative analysis because it is uncertain whether all of those projects will be developed. 2. Findin s The Project will contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on aesthetics, short-term air quality during construction, and native desert habitat. --- oeteeW . —� The Draft EIR originally concluded that the Protect would have a potentially significant and unavoidable cumulative water supply impact. However, based on subsequent information and analysis provided in the supplement to the Draft EIR and in light of the whole record the Protect would not have a significant and unavoidable cumulative water supply impact. The City Council makes the oeteeed:..[n ore tna FEIR removaa following findings for these impacts construction, and native desert habitat me riding raga dmg walar auppues based upon the DW q 11Nan Water Supply Managerner Plan] a) As discussed above, all feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant cumulative environmental effects. b) No other feasible measures exist to mitigate these significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. c) For the reasons set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted concurrently by the City Council, the City Council finds that the significant cumulative impacts identified in this Section IX(R) are acceptable in light of the Project's overall benefits 3. Supportive Rationale The cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and identified related projects are evaluated in Section S of the EIR, which reviews the potential cumulative impacts for each environmental issue analyzed. By complying with local land use and planning standards, the Project will not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources, hazardous materials, population and housing, noise, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, land use, hydrology and water quality (except potential groundwater supplies), geology City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 36 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact and soils, agriculture, or mineral resources. The Project's contribution to these potential cumulative impacts will be minimized by adhering to the proposed mitigation measures and project requirements discussed above. The analysis results in the following conclusions with respect to significant cumulative impacts: a) The Project will transform the site from undeveloped desert to low- density residential development, necessarily altering the aesthetic character of the sites permanently. This alteration may be perceived by some as a significant impact. Full mitigation of this Impact is not feasible because it would not achieve even the most basic project objective, which is to establish new residential development on this site that complements the surrounding development. b) The Project will contribute to a cumulative loss of native desert habitat that may be considered adverse. Full mitigation of this impact is not feasible because it would not achieve even the most basic project objective, which is to establish new residential development on this site that complements the surrounding development. c) During the 18- to 24-month construction period, the Project may contribute to short-term adverse cumulative impacts related to NO, and PM10 emissions. Mitigation measures have been incorporated which limit the amount of land that can be disturbed at any one time, and that require that operations be shut down in high wind events. To further mitigate this impact would require reduction of the allowable area of grading at any one time, which would make the project economically infeasible and would result in the neighborhood being subject to construction disturbance for a longer period of time. _ DCICWI '. IfINDING REMOVED IN FEIRIS..GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS AND CONSISTENCY ------------- - ---------------- ----- WITH SCAG POLICIES 1. Discussion CEQA Guideline 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts, including whether a project will encourage economic and population growth or the construction of additional housing in the area. 2. Findings The Project represents a feature of planned growth in the City of Palm Springs and Is not considered growth inducing. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 37 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 3. Supportive Rationale Section 10.3 of the FEIR analyzes growth-inducing impacts. That section also evaluates the Project's consistency with related regional policies of the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"), including policies relating to population growth, housing, transportation and air quality The FEIR makes the following conclusions: 1. The Project is consistent with the SCAG policies relating to population growth, housing, transportation and air quality. 2. The Project is not considered growth-inducing. X. FINDINGS CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guideline 15126.6 requires an EIR to (1) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project; and (2) evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In analyzing the feasibility of an alternative, the CEQA Guidelines list the following factors: site suitability; economic viability; infrastructure viability; social, legal and technological issues; and jurisdictional boundaries. The purpose of the consideration and discussion of alternatives to the proposed project is to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. In doing so, CEQA Guideline 15126.6 also directs that the analysis of alternatives be limited to alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly. The selection and discussion of alternatives to the project is intended to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote or speculative. CEQA Guideline 15126.6 also requires the analysis of a "No Project" alternative and the identification of an "Environmentally Superior Alternative." If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Finally, CEQA Guideline 15126.6 requires an EIR to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination of such infeasibility. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 38 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected Several alternatives were considered that did not warrant further review in the EIR. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR. These included: • Public purchase of the site • Off-site development alternatives B. Alternatives Analyzed in the Final EIR The City Council has considered the following alternatives for the Crescendo Project identified in the EIR: No Project Alternative • Reduced Grading Alternative • Custom Lot Alternative • Reduced Density Alternative • No PDD Alternative The City has rejected those alternatives as infeasible or contrary to the project objectives for the reasons hereinafter stated: No Project Alternative 1. The No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA, assumes that the project site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. 2. The No Project Alternative would eliminate all impacts associated with the construction of structures and introduction of residents to the site, including significant and unavoidable adverse effects to: • air quality • aesthetics • cumulative impacts • adjacent residents during construction 3. Because the No Project Alternative would eliminate or reduce development- related environmental impacts, it is considered "Environmentally Superior' to the project. 4. The No Project Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives (See Section 4.3 of the Final EIR): • To create high quality in-fill development in an area that has already undergone substantial development, without intruding into undeveloped areas of the Chino Cone. The Crescendo project r ouncil Resolution No. 22064 Page 39 of 44 it A— Findings of Pact achieves the objective of creating in-fill development because the site is among the last remaining substantial areas of vacant land within the otherwise developed area bounded by Highway 111 on the east, Tramway Road on the north, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation lands to the west, and Vista Chino to the south. • To create in-fill development is likewise one of the objectives set forth in the City of Palm Springs General Plan (See Objective 32, page I- 19 of the [existing) General Plan.). To create new residential development reflective of and complementary to the overall pattern and character of existing surrounding uses. • To provide luxury semi-custom residences that take advantage of the unique physical features offered only in Palm Springs. The City of Palm Springs has worked for many years toward the revitalization of its downtown area and overall commercial base. A critical component in such an effort is assuring that the City can provide quality housing to attract residents and second residence owners who become the market for and support the businesses located in Palm Springs. In recent years, more and more luxury residential development has occurred in down-Valley cities, following and feeding commercial development in those same communities. It is critical to assure that Palm Springs can offer similar quality housing opportunities if the City is to maintain the residential base needed to support the local economy and assure the City's place as a world-class resort. • To take advantages of the views from the project site. • To create residence values that will meet or exceed the values of the housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. The No Project Alternative would eliminate public benefits associated with the project including the proposed trail system, improved drainage and development associated fees to the City. 6. It is uneconomical to maintain the project site in its current state over the long-term, given its location within a developing area. Pressure to develop the land for higher economic uses will continue. Therefore, the No Project Alternative may postpone rather than preclude development. 7. The No Project alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan and current City zoning. Reduced Grading Alternative 1. The Reduced Grading Alternative seeks to reduce overall grading at the project site by reorienting street system to minimize lot-to-lot grade differences. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 40 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Reduced Grading Alternative would be marginally less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics Air Quality While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case' daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. Impacts in other environmental categories are the same as the proposed project, or else the impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. 4. The Reduced Grading Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives (See Section 4.3 of the Final EIR): • To take advantages of the views from the project site, views from the proposed project are oriented in an east-west direction, and new residents will have primary views of Mount San Jacinto to the west, and down-valley areas to the east. The Reduced Grading Alternative would shift such primary views from Mount San Jacinto to views of the Banning Pass. Based on information and data provided by the applicant and by real estate agents in the City, views of Mount San Jacinto are a primary factor in establishing the value of properties in the area. Reduced Density Alternative 1. The reduced density alternative would develop fewer units than the proposed project. 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Reduced Density Alternative would be less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 41 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case" daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. The Reduced Density alternative has greater adverse impacts to land use, since the size of the proposed lots would be inconsistent with the lot sizes in the adjacent neighborhoods (See Table 7.1-B of the Final EIR). Reduced density would mean further increasing the lot sizes, which would increase the incompatibility. The average lot sizes of the proposed Crescendo home sites are already approximately 50% larger than the adjacent sites. The existing homes surrounding the Crescendo site are typically smaller homes on smaller lots, and the large lots and large homes associated with custom lots would substantially change the character of the neighborhood. Custom Lot Alternative 1. The custom lot alternative would develop the same number of units in the same layout as the proposed project, but all the lots would be sold as custom lots, and individually developed. 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Custom Lot Alternative would be less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case" daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. Because the Custom Lot Alternative would reduce development-related environmental impacts, it is considered "Environmentally Superior' to the project. City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 42 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 4. The Custom Lot Alternative is considered economically infeasible for the following reasons (based on information and data supplied by the applicant): In today's economic environment, custom lets are only viable for high-priced homes. For mid-priced homes, production homebuilders can provide much more value for the money through economies of scale. • Custom home-sites must be one-half acre or greater in size to attract custom homebuyers, and most of the proposed lots are smaller than one half acre. • The existing homes surrounding the Crescendo site are typically smaller homes on smaller lots, and the large lots and homes associated with custom lots would substantially change the character of the neighborhood. From a marketing standpoint, large lots and homes beyond what is being proposed in an area such as this surrounded by smaller lots and homes makes the project less marketable, requiring longer holding periods and making the project economically infeasible. • In the opinion of the applicant, there is a limited market for custom home sites. The applicant has agreed to make the Boulders project a custom home-site project, and his opinion is that there is insufficient demand for custom home sites on the Crescendo Site as well. No PDD Alternative 1. The No PDD Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, but No PDD would be proposed. Therefore, lot sizes and heights would be controlled by existing City zoning requirements. The density would be reduced by several lots by this change. 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Custom Lot Alternative would be less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality While impacts in these categones would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case' daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 43 of 44 Exhibit A—Findings of Fact • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. The No PDD Alternative is considered infeasible because it is inconsistent with the intent of the City's hillside grading ordinance. The basic lot dimensions established in the City's zoning ordinance are designed for rectangular lots on flat land. The PDD process allows for variation in lot dimensions that better conform to the land in the Project area. Findin s a) The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. b) The City Council finds that none of the proposed alternatives is environmentally superior to the Crescendo Project, because they are infeasible, have increased environmental impacts, or would not reduce impacts below significant levels. XI. RECIRCULATION As described in Section 1 of the FEIR, several minor changes were made in response to comments on the DEIR that clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the DEIR. The information added to the FEIR has not deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon any significant environmental effect of the Project or any feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Accordingly, the City Council finds that no "new significant information" (as that term is defined in CEQA Guideline 15088.5[aj) was added to the EIR since the release of the DEIR that would warrant recirculation as provided in CEQA Guideline 15088.5. XII. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Each and all of the Findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the EIR. All of the language included in these Findings constitutes Findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. All summaries of information in these Findings are based on the entire record of the proceedings, and the absence of any particular fact from any such summary herein is not an indication that a particular finding is not based, in part, on that fact. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the EIR and the Project is based on the best information currently available. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guideline 15151, which provides that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." r o. 22064 Page 44 of 44 act �O4pALAIS.0 h +y V n °gs«oRN'P City Council Staff Report DATE: November 7, 2007 CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), ADOPTING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294, CASE NO. 5.0996 - PD 294, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31766 FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 42-ACRE SITE, AND THE VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 23 FEET OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY; FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD, SOUTH OF TRAM WAY AND WEST OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Office of the City Clerk SUMMARY: The City Council will consider adoption of Resolution No. 22064. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt proposed 'RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), ADOPTING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294, CASE NO. 5.0996 - PD 294, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31766 FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 42-ACRE SITE, AND THE VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 23 FEET OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY; FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD, SOUTH OF TRAM WAY AND WEST OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3 ITEM NO.__�. City Council Staff Report November 7, 2007 — Page 2 Resolution No. 22064 STAFF ANALYSIS: At its October 17, 2007, meeting the City Council conducted a public hearing on Case 5.0996 (Crescendo) and approved the project, including certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Resolution No. 22064 with conditions as modified by the Council is attached for final adoption. h I A. ing, P Thomas Wilson Assistant City Manager Direc or of Pla nin Services Development ervices r David H. Ready, C' anager Attachment: Resolution No. 22064, with Exhibits A, B, C and D 2 RESOLUTION NO, 22064 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), ADOPTING STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294, CASE NO. 5.0996 - PD 294, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31766 FOR A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 79 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY 42- ACRE SITE, AND THE VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 23 FEET OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE RIGHT OF WAY; FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD, SOUTH OF TRAM WAY AND WEST OF VISTA GRANDE AVENUE, ZONE R-1-A, SECTION 3. WHEREAS, on February 19, 2004, Wessman Development Company (the applicant) has filed an application with the City pursuant to Sections 94.03.00 and 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Development District and Preliminary Development Plan for a 79- unit single family residential project, for the property located at 1000 West Racquet Club Drive, south of Tramway Road and west of Vista Grand Avenue; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62.00 of the Municipal Code for Tentative Tract Map 31766 for the subdivision of approximately 42-acre parcel into 79 single-family residential lots and lettered lots; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for Tentative Tract Map 31766 and Planned Development District 294 (PD 294) 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, the project site can be considered an in-fill development as it is surrounded by existing development on two sides; and WHEREAS, the project site has all utility services available at or close to the project site; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and 3 Resolution 22064 Page 2 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed project on the housing needs of the region, and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, a public hearing on the application 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 meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented; and WHEREAS, the project will bring additional residents, visitors and activities to the community that will potentially impact the needs for public safety services beyond the City's ability to provide such services; and because such services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic and other safety services, and recreation, library, cultural services are near capacity, the City has established a Community Facilities District to which this project shall be annexed, subject to conditions of approval. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The City Council found that with the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to its review of this Project and the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Section 2: The City Council has considered the environmental effects of the project that are analyzed in the FEIR and adopts the Findings of Fact attached as Exhibit A, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B. Section 3: Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 (E) and 94.02.00(B) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, the City Council makes the following findings: 4 Resolution 22064 page 3 a. The proposed planned development is consistent and in conformity with the general plan pursuant to Sections 94.02.00 (A)(4) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. The current zoning designation of the subject location is R-1-A, single-family residential with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet_ The proposed lot sizes will range from 15,077 square feet to 54,500 square feet. With these lot sizes and density of approximately 1.9 units per acre, the planned development is in conformity with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the existing residential developments on all sides of the site. The general plan designation of L-2 allows a maximum density of two units per acre; this project will not exceed the density at approximately 1.9 units per acre. The planned development district will grant relief to lot dimensions, building heights, lot widths and setbacks only; therefore, the addition of new residential use to this location will be in conformity with the general plan. b. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed planned development district, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other relevant considerations. The project site is relatively rugged with loose cobbles, boulders and low-growing vegetation, but can accommodate building pads, internal streets, and drainage. Adequate access is proposed onto main streets from Racquet Club Drive to State Highway 111. The size of the parcel is approximately 42 acres; relative to similar developments within the City, the location will accommodate the proposed planned residential development. C. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary and proper, and is not likely to be detrimental to adjacent property or residents. The proposed establishment of the planned development district is necessary to provide an upscale design concept comparable to the existing development within the surrounding. The proposed district will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or residents because streets are internal to the project_ Furthermore, the planned development district only seeks to modify development standards in a manner that will not be detrimental to the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity and the vista of the San Jacinto Mountains. Section 4: Pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council makes the following findings: a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. 5 Resolution 22064 Page 4 Tentative Tract Map 31766 is for the subdivision of approximately 42 acres into 79 single-family residential lots. The residential project is consistent with the General Plan designations of L-2 the overall density of the new subdivision is approximately 1.9 units per acre, this is well within the threshold of 2 units per acre allowed within the district. The proposed map has been reviewed by City staff and other outside agencies for comments; the map is consistent with the general plan designation of the subject site. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located. The proposed project design and improvements are consistent with the R-1-A zone in which the property is located. Furthermore, the design of the Map is consistent with the allowable uses under the Planned Development District for this property. The proposed residential development standards, street improvements, internal circulation, proposed drainage and overall site development are in conformity with City standards- C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. Majority of the site area is rugged terrain full of loose cobbles, boulders and vegetation with slopes from east to the west. The site is surrounded by existing development and City streets. The construction of residential buildings on the site is appropriate at this location. Also, there are existing urban services and utilities in the immediate surroundings of the location. d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The Tentative Tract Map and associated Planned Development District have been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is proposed. Mitigation measures have been included which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. There are no bodies of water on the subject property and therefore will not damage or injure fish, wildlife or their habitats. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed subdivision is designed with adequate access to accommodate the needs of future occupants and surrounding residents in cases of emergency. Proposed drainage facilities at the site are designed to meet or exceed City Standards_ The proposed homes and streets will be required to meet or exceed City development codes. The circulation system within the subdivision provides 6 Resolution 22064 Page 5 for an orderly system of internal driveways; therefore, the project will not cause public health problems. f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. There are no known public easements or existing access across the subject property, therefore the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. Any utility easements can be accommodated within the project design. Section 5: The City Council adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as exhibit C. Section 6: The City Council approves Case No. 5.0996 - PDD 294, and Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of approximately 42 acre site into 79 single-family residential lots and the development of the proposed units subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit D, which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 2007. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk 7 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Exhibit A Crescendo Project: Findings of Fact I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("City Council") as the decision- making body of the Lead Agency for the Crescendo project ("Project") hereby adopts and makes the following findings of fact ("Findings") in connection with its certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Project. The FEIR is a Project EIR, as defined by Guideline 15161 of the State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines"), and serves as an informational document for the general public, the City and other government agencies. The City Council makes these Findings after reviewing and analyzing the environmental effects examined in the FEIR. These Findings are adopted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq. (°CEQA"). The FEIR identifies certain potentially significant effects that may occur as a result of the proposed Project, or that may occur on a cumulative basis in conjunction with the development of the Project and other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects. In addition to reviewing the Project's potential environmental impacts, these Findings also provide the City Council's analysis and conclusions regarding the applicability of possible alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce any significant environmental effects. II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD A. CONTENTS OF THE RECORD The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record of proceedings to support the City Council's findings of fact regarding the environmental effects of the Project: 1. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and related technical appendices, all other documents relied upon or incorporated by reference into the DEIR, the FEIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference in the FEIR and Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (collectively the "EIR"). 2. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the meetings and public hearings at which City decision-making bodies considered the EIR. $4951n 1 $ City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 2 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact 3. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of meetings and other documents that City staff and/or its consultants relied upon or prepared in conjunction with the Project. 4. Any other documents specified by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). B. LOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The City is the custodian of the administrative record, including all CEQA documents and the other background documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City's decisions to certify the Final EIR and approve the Project are based_ The administrative record is located at the Palm Springs City Hall, Planning Services Department, 2300 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California 92262. III. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS The Final EIR evaluates the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the Project. Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guideline 15091 require that the public agency approving or carrying out the project(s) shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. These findings include one of the following: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project(s) that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR for the approved project(s). 2, They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the EIR. 9 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 3 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 3. They explain whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less than significant level or remain significant and unavoidable, either because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, an impact would remain significant. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the EIR and other evidence in the record of proceedings. IV. THE CRESCENDO PROJECT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Crescendo Project ("Project") proposes development of 79 single-family residences on approximately 422 acres. The City of Palm Springs General Plan and the Palm Springs Municipal Code will govern the Project's land use and development components, including the type and density of allowable land use, design standards, architecture, landscaping, circulation, infrastructure, and other planning and design components. The project site is an in-fill site located on undeveloped open desert land associated with the Chino Canyon alluvial cone (also referred to as the Chino Cone or the Cone), a large alluvial feature that emanates from Chino Canyon at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains and spreads east onto the floor of the Coachella Valley. Existing manmade features in the Chino Cone include (a) Tramway Road, which provides access from State Highway 111 (Highway) to the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway, (b) a United States Army Corps of Engineers levee that provides flood protection to the northern part of the City including a large part of the Chino Cone, and (c) parts of the Chino Canyon neighborhood, a hillside residential community south of Tramway Road and extending west from Highway 111. The existing Little Tuscany Estates neighborhood lies at the south edge of the alluvial cone. Currently, most of the Chino Cone north of Tramway Road is undeveloped. In the undeveloped areas, the native ground surface is characterized by loose cobbles and Crescendo, and desert vegetation including cactus that blooms in the cooler parts of the year. Undeveloped lands are also present south of Tramway Road. The majority of these are within the Agua Caliente Reservation (Section 4) but also include vacant lands proposed for development by the Crescendo project. The Crescendo project site is surrounded on three sides by existing development in the form of Tramway Road to the north, and residential development to the east and south. The Crescendo project site is currently designated R-1-A under the City of Palm Springs General Plan. 10 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 4 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Project's objectives are rooted in five key goals: 1. Create new residential development that reflects and complements the overall pattern and character of existing surrounding uses 2. Provide a transition from the development style of Little Tuscany on the south to the slightly more dense development currently in place to the east and north of the Crescendo site. 3. Contribute to the revitalization of downtown Palm Springs by providing quality upscale housing that will attract residents and second-residence owners who will support and become the market for businesses located in the City 4. Provide upscale semi-custom residences that take advantage of the unique physical features and viewscapes offered only in Palm Springs. 5. Utilize an in-fill site to allow for quality residential development thereby supporting the City's retail economy without expanding the City's development footprint. The project site has long been zoned for residential development. The Project aims to create high quality in-fill development within an area that has already undergone substantial development without intruding into undeveloped areas of the Chino Cone. Such in-fill development is likewise one of the objectives set forth in the City of Palm Springs' General Plan (see Objective 3.2, p. 1-19).The Project achieves the objective of creating in-fill development because the site is among the last remaining substantial areas of vacant land within the otherwise developed area bounded by Tramway Road on the north, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation lands to the west, and Racquet Club Road to the south. The existing Chino Canyon neighborhood lies to the south and east of the Crescendo project. This neighborhood, developed at a density of approximately two units per acre, is a self-contained eclectic neighborhood of one-story and split- level single-family residences. Its streets are narrow with lots terraced to accommodate elevation changes throughout the neighborhood. V. THE EIR PROCESS In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to solicit comments on the proposed content of the Crescendo and Crescendo Combined EIR, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") on 11 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 5 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact July 5, 2005, and Revised NOPs for the proposed Project on July 28 and August 1, 2005. On September 8, 2005, the City held a scoping meeting to elicit further comments from governmental agencies and interested parties regarding the scope and content of environmental issues germane to the EIR. All NOP responses relating to the EIR were reviewed and the issues raised in those comments were addressed, to the extent feasible, in the DEIR. The NOP appears as Appendix A to the FEIR; letters received during the NOP comment period comprise Appendix B. In October 2005, the City held a meeting with key local stakeholders in order to define project alternatives for consideration in the EIR (see Appendix C). In November 2005, The City held a Public Meeting to describe alternatives developed based on the input from the Scoping Meeting and the stakeholder meeting. The DEIR was formally circulated for a 45-day review period, between May 22, 2006, and July 6, 2006. Comments were accepted through July 6, 2006. In October 2006, a Supplement to the DEIR was circulated, also for a 45-day review period. Comments were accepted through December 20, 2006. The City received 11 letters from agencies, organizations, and individual parties commenting on the DEIR and its Supplement. The written comments and the City's responses to them appear in FEIR Volume 2: Comments and Responses. The Planning Commission reviewed the project and the FEIR at its meetings of July 11, 2007, September 12, 2007, and September 26, 2007_ At the meeting of September 26, 2007, the Commission recommended certification of the FEIR for the project. VI. THE CITY COUNCIL'S CERTIFICATION OF THE FEIR Pursuant to section 21082.1(c) of the Public Resources Code, the City Council hereby FINDS and CERTIFIES that: • The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. • The FEIR has been presented to the City Council, and the City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the FEIR prior to acting on the Project. • The FEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. VII. EFFECT OF FINDINGS To the extent that these Findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the FEIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City Council hereby adopts these measures. The mitigation measures are express conditions of approval of the Project. The.City Council will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") 12 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 6 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact concurrently with these Findings to ensure that the responsible party actually implements the mitigation measures. The MMRP developed for the Project includes applicable mitigation measures from the FEIR and new measures that the City developed in conjunction with the EIR process. VIII. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE FIR These Findings address the potentially significant environmental effects examined in the FEIR, which analyzed the environmental impacts at a project-specific level and on a "cumulative" impact basis. A cumulative impact is defined by CEQA Guidelines 15130 and 15355 as an impact created as a result of the combination of impacts of the project evaluated in the FIR and closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (commonly known as "related projects"). The FEIR addressed reasonably foreseeable impacts by assuming the build-out of the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The FEIR also identified 24 reasonably foreseeable related projects in the relevant geographic area. The analysis of the FIR buildout resulted in a conservative analysis because the City is currently reviewing a General Plan update that would reduce overall densities near the proposed project. A. SUMMARY OF IMPACT ANALYSIS The FIR analyzes all potentially significant impacts of the Project for the environmental topics identified during the public scoping process, including responses to the NOP, a public scoping meeting, and consultation with interested agencies and individuals. In summary, the City Council finds that the following environmental impacts are less than significant on a project-specific basis in light of the FIR and the whole record before it, including the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures: (1) biological resources, (2) cultural resources, (3) hazardous materials, (4) population and housing, (5) noise, (6) public services, (7) recreation, (8) transportation and traffic, (9) utilities and service systems, (10) land use, (11) hydrology and water quality, (12) geology and soils, (13) agriculture, and (14) mineral resources. The City Council has incorporated the referenced mitigation measures into the Project pursuant to its concurrent adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. On the other hand, on a project-specific basis, the Project was determined to have a significant and unavoidable impact on the aesthetics of its site, which may be considered adverse by some observers. . In addition, the project will contribute to cumulative loss of native desert habitat that may be considered adverse During grading, the project may exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for NO, and PM,o. During the 18- to 24-month construction periods, the Project may contribute to short-term adverse cumulative impacts relative to NO,and PM,oemissions. 13 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 7 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact The EIR analyzed growth-inducing, unavoidable adverse and irreversible impacts, and consistency with Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") policies. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15126.6, the EIR also evaluated several project alternatives. IX. FINDINGS ON IMPACTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR A. AESTHETICS 1. Potential Impacts The Project may cause a significant impact on aesthetics if it does any of the following: a) has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) substantially damages scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) substantially degrades the existing visual character or quality of the sites and their surroundings d) creates a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area 2. Findings Due to the fundamental change in the site from undeveloped to developed, the Project will have significant effects on aesthetics that cannot be mitigated and may be perceived by some as adverse. The City Council makes the following findings for these impacts: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects b) For the reasons set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted concurrently by the City Council, the City Council finds that the significant impact identified in this Section IX(C) is acceptable in light of the Project's overall benefits. 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.5 of the EIR analyzes the Project's potential impacts on aesthetics and visual resources. For the following reasons, these impacts are found to be significant and cannot be mitigated: 14 City Council Resolution No_ 22064 Page 8 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact a) The primary aesthetic effect of the Project will be the fundamental change of the site from undeveloped to developed. However, the site has long been designated for development of the kind proposed by the Project. The City of Palm Springs General Plan Policy 3.2.3 specifies "high-end residential" as a "target land use" for the Project's area, zoned R-1-A. . b) The Project is not located near a designated scenic highway, so it will not affect scenic highway resources. Trees are limited, and there are no historic buildings on the sites. The boulders on the site are not considered a significant scenic resource. c) In the process of transforming the site from undeveloped to developed, the Project will result in mass grading of the site. This change could be perceived as degrading the sites' visual character or quality. The Project conditions of approval and mitigation measures require that the Project re-use native boulders, especially on slopes, to re-create the natural appearance of the land to the extent possible and still permit feasible development. d) As a residential project, Crescendo will meet the requirements of the local building code with respect to lighting. The Project's residential streets are not proposed to have street lighting thereby limiting the visual impact of the Project on the surrounding area. B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on agricultural resources if it would do any of the following: a) convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use b) conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract c) involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses 2. Findings The Project will not have a significant impact on agricultural resources. 3. Supportive Rationale 15 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 0 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact Potential impacts to agricultural resources are evaluated in EIR Section 7.15. There are no agricultural uses present on the site. Impacts to agriculture are determined to be less than significant for the following reasons: a) The Project will not result in a significant adverse impact related to the conversion of prime farmland and farmland of local importance to non-agricultural uses. b) The Project will not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract lands. c) The Project will not result in changes to the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. C. AIR QUALITY—CONSTRUCTION 1. Potential Impacts The Project would cause a significant and unavoidable air quality impact if, during construction or operation, it do any of the following: 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 protected air 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 national or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) d) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations e) create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people 2_ Findings Potential impacts to air quality are evaluated in EIR Section 7.6. The construction of the Project may create a significant and unavoidable air quality impact on a project-specific basis during the grading phase of construction. This impact results from the potential to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violation. The City Council makes the following findings for these impacts: 16 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 10 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects_ b) For the reasons set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted concurrently by the City Council, the City Council finds that the significant impact identified in this Section IX(C) is acceptable in light of the Project's overall benefits. Although the following mitigation measures aimed at reducing these significant and unavoidable air quality impacts during the Project's construction have been adopted, they may not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance (The term "may" is used in this discussion because the modeling indicates that emissions will be slightly less than the thresholds of significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District; however, due to the uncertainty in the modeling procedures, there is some possibility that emissions could exceed the thresholds) : MM AIR-1: Prior to the approval of a final grading plan by the City, the project proponent shall submit a detailed Grading and Rock Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Commission. This plan shall specify the following: 1. Final estimates for grading volumes, including cut and fill, off-site export of unsuitable material, and import of appropriate material. Refined estimates for emissions of import/export trips will be provided. 2. Final estimates of on-site rock that can be incorporated into the site for fill, landscaping elements, or use in the decorative walls of residences, including rock that may be reduced in size, using the Nonex process. 3_ Active grading shall be limited to 2.5 acres of disturbed areas. 4. If on-site rock crushing is proposed and approved by the City when the project is approved, then the location and emission factors of the exact equipment proposed to be used will be provided. An updated analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstrating that PMIo and NO, emissions shall not exceed the SCAQMD daily limits, and that rock-crushing PMIo emissions are equivalent to those listed in AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1995 for "controlled emissions." 5_ If on-site rock-crushing is not proposed, or is disallowed by the City when the project is approved, then an updated emissions analysis shall be provided based upon the relocation plan for rocks that cannot be used on-site and the final length of the trip to the rock disposal site. An updated analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstrating that PM,() emissions shall not exceed the SCAQMD 17 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 11 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact daily limits. If the City overrides the potential NOX emission exceedance when the project is approved, then the Grading and Rock Management Flan shall demonstrate how the NO, emissions will be limited to within 25% of the SCAQMD construction threshold for NO, 6. Prior to the commencement of grading, the City of Palm Springs shall retain, at the applicant's expense, an air quality monitor who shall be present on site at least three hours per day during grading operations. The monitor shall have the ability to "stop work" if visible dust is seen escaping from the site, or if other measures specified in the Grading and Rock Management Plan are not observed. 7. The plan shall demonstrate how the City's standard mitigation measures, listed in Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, shall be incorporated into project construction. MM AIR-2 Mass grading of the Crescendo and Crescendo sites shall not occur simultaneously. Accordingly, all graded areas of the first site shall be stabilized prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the second site. MM AIR-3 The applicant shall require the construction contractor to use construction equipment with low emission factors and high energy efficiency to the extent feasible. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the City shall verify that grading and construction plans include a prominently displayed statement that all construction equipment must (1) be tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturers' specifications and (2) meet or exceed Tier 2 standards, including the use of emulsified diesel fuels and oxidation catalysts particulate traps or other verified/certified technologies as feasible. Note: Such equipment and fuels may not yet be available in the Palm Springs area; therefore, the note "as feasible" applies. No mitigation credit was taken in this analysis for such mitigation. MM AIR-4 All residential fireplaces will be fueled by natural gas. MM AIR-5 Exterior electrical outlets will be provided in fronts and backs of residential units to facilitate use of electric landscape equipment. 3. Supportive Rationale Sections 7.6.3 of the FEIR analyzes air quality impacts during construction of the Project. a) Conflict with Air Quality Plan The applicable Air Quality Plan is [the 2004 State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District and Certified by the 18 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 12 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact Federal Environmental Protection Agency]. The SIP demonstrates that the region will be brought into compliance with State and federal air quality standards over time. The SIP is based upon the development of the General Plans of the various Cities and Counties in the Region, and projects that are consistent with such general plans are consistent with the SIP. The project is consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan and therefore consistent with the SIP. b) and c) Contribute to any existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulative increase in any criteria pollutant. Air quality impacts during the Project's construction cannot be mitigated below a significant level for the reasons set forth below. a) The EIR estimated air quality impacts during grading according to modeling results from LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) as contained in the EIR. These estimated emission levels were compared against regional and localized significance thresholds adopted by the SCAQMD. The estimates for emissions of Reactive Organic Gases, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide were all well below (more than 50% below) the specified significance criteria. The estimates for emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM10) were below the threshold of significance, but less than 10% below the threshold, even after the application of all applicable mitigation measures. b) The City recognizes that all modeling efforts contain a certain amount of inherent uncertainty. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the City notes that emissions of NOx and PM10 could exceed the thresholds. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures as listed above, project emissions during construction might exceed the thresholds set by SCAQMD for NO, and PM10. D. AIR QUALITY - OPERATION 1. Potential Impacts The operation of the Project may cause a significant and unavoidable air quality impact if it would do any of the following: 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 protected air quality violation 19 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 13 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact c) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non attainment under an applicable national 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 2. Findings The operation of the Project will not create significant or unavoidable air quality impacts on a project-specific basis. 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.6.3 of the FEIR analyzes air quality impacts during operation of the Project. Air quality impacts during the Project's operation will not rise to a level of significance for the following reasons: a) The Project's operation will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2004 State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District and Certified by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. b) The Project's operations will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or protected air quality violation. c) The Project's operation will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). EIR Table 7.6-E shows that projected project-specific emissions at build-out will fall well below the thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. d) The Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) The Project's operation will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. None of the uses proposed for the sites are normally associated with the creation of objectionable odors. 20 City Council Resolution No_ 22064 Page 14 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it were to do any of the following: 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 ("CDFG") or United States Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") 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 CDFG or USFWS 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 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan 2. Findings The Project is not anticipated to significantly affect biological resources on its site unless it were to introduce non-native plant species in their landscaping designs. As a result, the City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project's impacts will be less than significant. 21 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 15 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact MM BIO — 1 The following plants will not be utilized in the project landscaping: BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Acacia spp. (all species Acacia (all species except native except A.greg ii) catclaw acacia) Arundo donax x Giant reed or arundo grass Atri lex semibaccata x Australian saltbush Avena barbata Slender wild oat Avena atua Wild oat Brassica tournc ortii xx _ African or Saharan mustard Bromus madritensis ssp. Red brome rubens x Bromus teetorum (xx) Cheat grass or downy brome Corladeria jubata [syn.C. Jubata grass or Andean pampas atacamensis] ffass Cortaderia dioica [syn. C. Pampas grass selloana7 Descurainia so hia Tansy mustard Eichhornia crassi es Water hyacinth Blaegnus an stifolia Russian olive Faerziculunz vulgare Sweet fennel Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean or short-pod mustard Le idium latifolium Perennial e erweed Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass Lolltum erenne Perennial iyegrass _Nerium oleander Oleander Nicodana glauca x Treetobacco Oenothera berlandieri (#) Mexican evening prun ose Olea euro ea European olive tree Parkirzsonia aculeata (x) Mexican palo verde Penniselum clandestinum Kikuyu grass Penniselurn selaceum (xx) Fountain grass Phoenix canariensis (#) Canary Island date palm Phoenixdactylifera (#) Date palm Ricinus communis (x) Castorbean Salsola tragus (x) Russian thistle Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree or California pepper Schinus terebintlzifolius Brazilian pepper tree Schismus arabicus Mediterranean grass Schismus barbatus (xx) Saharan gTass, abu znashi Slipa ca ensis (xx) No common name 22 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 16 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 7anwrix spp. (all species) ( Tamarisk or salt cedar Taeniatherum Caput- Medusa-head medusae Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine Vinca major^ Periwinkle Yucca gloriosa I S apish dagger Sources: CVAG MSIICP; California Exotic Pest Plant Council, United States Department of Agriculture-Division of Plant Hcalth and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Plant Society, rremontia Vol. 26 No. 4, October 1998, The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California, and County of San Diego Department of Agriculture. Key to Table # indicates species not on CaILPPC October 1999 "Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California"list X indicates species knovnn to be invasive in the MSHCP Plan Area XX indicates particularly troublesome invasive species 3. Supportive Rationale Potential impacts to biological resources are discussed in Section 7.8 of the EIR, which rely on reports in Appendix I-2. For the reasons set forth below, the identified impacts can be mitigated below a level of significance. a) No officially listed animal or plant species were found on the Project site. Although the Project's development can be expected to eliminate approximately 43 acres of creosote scrub habitat; that loss cannot be said to constitute a significant adverse impact because the habitat is so widespread generally throughout the Southwest and specifically in the areas surrounding the Project. b) The Project site does not contain or abut any riparian community. c) The Project site does not contain or abut any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) The Project site is not used by animal species as a migratory corridor or wildlife nursery. The Crescendo site is surrounded an two sides by existing residential uses. e) The Project is consistent with the City's goals and policies relative to biological resources as articulated in the City of Palm Springs General Plan. f) No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conversation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan affects either project site. 23 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 17 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact F. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would do any of the following: a) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or an archeological resource as defined in CEQA Guideline 15064.5 b) cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15064.5 c) directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature d) disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries 2. Findings The Project is not expected to impact cultural resources on a project-specific basis. However, it is not impossible that it might do so inadvertently by uncovering hitherto unknown historical or cultural resources. As a result, the City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. c) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project's impacts will be less than significant. MM CULT-1-1 Prior to the approval of any grading plan, the Director of Community Development of the City of Palm Springs will ensure that the following specification is included with grading requirements: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location on the project site other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps will be taken: 1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: (a) The Riverside County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and 24 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 18 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact (b) If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American: • The Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. • The NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. • The most likely descendant (MLD) may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative will rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: • The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD. • The MLD identified failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC. • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. 2. Supportive Rationale Section 7.4 of the FEIR analyzes potential impacts on cultural resources based on studies contained in Appendix F-1. These studies identified no significant cultural or historical resources, so the Project's impacts on such resources are not expected to be significant. Should human remains be located during development, Mitigation Measure CULT-1 is in place to ensure their proper handling and disposition. G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact with respect to geology and/or soils if they were to do any of the following: a) expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving any of the following: • rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 25 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 19 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact Geologist for the area or based on the substantial evidence of a known fault • strong seismic ground-shaking • seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction • 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 an 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 tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water 2. Findings With the implementation of the City's standard conditions, the Project will have no adverse effects on geology or soils. As a result, no mitigation will be required- 3- Supportive Rationale Section 7.9 of the FOR analyzes the Project's potential impacts with respect to geology and/or soils. This analysis is based on studies conducted by Earth Systems Southwest, including geotechnical feasibility reports and fault/seismic investigations; these studies appear as Appendix J-2 of the EIR. For the reasons below, the Project will not result in adverse impacts to geology and/or soils. a) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. b) Existing City of Palm Springs General Plan policies and programs, including strict adherence to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and other applicable building standards are expected to result in project design and construction that mitigate the impact associated with strong ground motion and other seismic hazards. c) The site is not at risk of landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading or collapse_ 26 City Council Resolution No_ 22064 Page 20 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact d) The Project is not located on unstable soils; furthermore, development of the site will result in the stabilization of soils underneath structures, roadways and landscaping, so upon project completion, soil erosion will be reduced. e) Soils below the site are anticipated to possess a very low expansion potential. f) The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. g) The Project is consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan. H. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact related to the potential presence of hazardous materials, recognized environmental concerns or potential hazards if it to do any of the following: a) result in a safety hazard for people residing, working or otherwise congregating in the Project area; or 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. 2. Findings The Project is not anticipated to have significant impacts relative to hazardous materials. 3. Supportive Rationale a) Sections 7.10 of the FEIR analyze the potential for contamination arising out of hazardous materials present on or near the Property. These analyses are based on the following documents: • A safety assessment by Earth Consultants International • A summary of available information on the disease known as valley fever(coccidioidomycosis) [Appendix GI Although project development is unlikely to release valley fever fungus, the possibility cannot be eliminated. As a result, the 27 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 21 of 44 Exhibit A -- Findings of Fact following mitigation measure has been incorporated into the EIR: MM HAZ-1 Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall inform all residents within 1,000 feet. b) The proposed Project does not involve the use of hazardous materials or substances. c) The Project is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airport or airstrip. a. The Project is consistent with the City of Palm Springs General Plan. b. The Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. c. The Project will not impair or interfere with implementation of any emergency response plan. (In fact, the project would improve emergency response times and provide additional options for emergency evacuation). I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on hydrology and/or water quality if it would do any of the following: 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, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite 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 28 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 22 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite e) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff f) otherwise substantially degrade water quality g) place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped an a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Maps ("FIRM") or other flood hazard delineation map h) 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 i) result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow 2. Findings The Project will impact hydrology and water quality on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project' impacts to hydrology and water quality will be less than significant. MM HY-1 Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the project proponent will submit, for approval by the City Director of Public Works, a final drainage plan based on a final hydrology study implementing the following local and regional requirements, policies and programs. a) The plan shall demonstrate that off-site storm flows will not be increased, and that all structures in the project are protected from 100-year storm flows. b) All proposed facilities will be privately owned and maintained by the proposed Crescendo project Homeowners Association. The CC&Rs for the association shall clearly specify the requirements to maintain the drainage system in an effective manner. 29 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 23 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact c) The plan will include specific pollution control measures and/or designs that meet the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and keep pollutants, including sediment, herbicides, pesticides and oils, out of surface and ground waters. d) The plan will address the use of on-site stormwater retention basins, to the greatest extent practical, to enhance opportunities for groundwater recharge, provide additional open space and wildlife habitat value, and reduce the necessity for and costs associated with off-site stormwater conveyance facilities. e) Prior to formation of the Homeowners Association, the City Engineer shall review the proposed CC&Rs to ensure that language requiring effective maintenance of the drainage system is acceptable to the City. MM HY-2 Prior to the approval of any building permit, the City Director of Planning will review plans to ensure the following: a) The use of drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems for all yard areas as a means of reducing water consumption. b) The applicant will install low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads and faucets in all new construction, in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code, Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601(b), and applicable sections of Title 24 of the State Code. c) The project will connect to the City's sewer system. Use of septic tanks will not be permitted. MM HY-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for lots 47-49, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the DWA that adequate water pressure is available to serve these lots. This condition may be satisfied in one of three ways: 1. DWA agrees that the existing pump is adequate to serve the project. 2. DWA accepts the applicant's offer to increase the capacity of the existing pumping system, 3. DWA obtains separate environmental approval for its own additional reservoirs. 30 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 24 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's potential impacts on hydrology and water quality are analyzed in Sections 7.11 of the FEIR. These analyses are based on the hydrology reports (FEIR Appendix F) conducted for the Project by MSA Associates, Inc. For the reasons below, these impacts will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. a) During final design, the applicant will be required to specify the BMPs that will ensure compliance with the City's NPDES requirements. b) The Project is unlikely to affect groundwater recharge on a project level. They will follow water conservation guidelines in the Palm Springs General Plan Update EIR (p. 5-100) and in the Palm Springs General Plan (pp.I1-63, 64), as well as the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to mitigate the impacts to public water supplies. The project is consistent with the Urban Water Management Plan adopted by the Desert Water Agency. c) There are no streams or rivers on the Project site, and the Project will adhere to all City drainage requirements so as not to cause erosion or siltation off site- d) The Project's adherence to City drainage requirements will ensure that the surface runoff caused by increased impermeable Project surfaces will be accommodated without flooding offsite. e) The Project's runoff, after development of the Project drainage system, will not exceed the capacity of existing drainage systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff f) The project runoff, after implementation of the above mitigation measures, will not substantially degrade water quality_ g) The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. h) There is no dam or levee near the project sites. i) The Project area is not subject to seiches, tsunami or mudflow. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1, Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on land use and planning if they were to do any of the following: 31 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 25 of 44 Exhibit A -- Findings of Fact 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 environmental effect c) conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 2. Findings The Project will not impact land use and planning on a project-specific basis, so no mitigation is required- 3- Supportive Rationale The EIR analyzes the Project's potential land use and planning impacts in Section 7.1. For the reasons below, the Project is found to have no potential significant impacts on land use or planning. a) The Project is consistent with the City's land use goals and policies. b) The Project does not 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 environmental effect. c) The project does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan- K. NOISE 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant noise impact if it were to do any of the following: a) expose persons to or generated noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies b) expose persons to or generated excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels 32 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 26 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact c) create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project d) create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project e) were 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, which would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels f) were located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, which would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 2. Findings The Project will have noise impacts on a project-specific basis, chiefly in relation to construction activities including the potential temporary installation of a mechanical device to crush rocks on the project site and the requirement that a noise- mitigating structure be built to house the device. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a_ All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project noise impacts are less than significant: MM NOI — 1 Upon completion of the noise mitigation structure around the rock crusher, the following tests will be performed before the crusher goes into regular operation: The noise performance of the crusher and the noise attenuation structure will be measured at the property line of two residences closest to the structure (one north of the site and one south). Other construction activities will be shut down during this test. The noise levels at these locations will be measured when the crusher is operating normally. If the noise levels exceed those specified in the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 11.74.031 Noise Level Limit and Section 11.74.032, then crusher operations will cease until additional attenuation can be added, or crusher operations modified, and the system retested. If the system cannot be brought into compliance with the cited requirements, then no rock further rock crushing activities will be 33 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 27 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact allowed, and other means to address oversized rocks will be required. The results of the test will require certification by a City selected noise consultant. This test will be repeated at least every two months during the construction period. If the crusher is found to be out of compliance, then regular operations will be shut down until the crushing system can be brought into compliance. MM N01-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall prepare, and the City shall review and approve, a technical study that demonstrates the required temporary structure provides sufficient noise reduction for the crusher to meet City Requirements as determined in the City's Zoning Ordinance Sections 11.74.031 and 11.74.032. 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's noise impacts are analyzed in Section 7.7 of the FEIR. For the reasons below, noise impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. a) Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and N0I-2 will ensure that noise levels generated by the project operation and noise levels within the project do not exceed the standards contained in the City of Palm Springs General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. b) Proposed uses within the Project do not generate excessive ground-borne vibration. Vibration during construction will be controlled through application of the City's Noise Ordinance. c) The Project will be constructed in accordance with the City's General Plan and its Noise Ordinance, so no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels will result. d) Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOW and NOI-2 will ensure that temporary noise levels generated by Project construction, and noise levels within the Project, do not exceed the standards contained in the City of Palm Springs General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. e) The proposed Project is not in the influence area for any public-use airport, so the aircraft noise levels at the Project site will be less than significant. f) The proposed Project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrip. 34 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 28 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact L. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on population and housing if it were to do any of the following: a) induce substantial population growth into an area, either directly or indirectly b) displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere c) displace substantial numbers of existing people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere 2. Findings The Project will have no significant impact on population or housing. Accordingly, the City Council finds that no mitigation measures are required with respect to population and housing- 3- Supportive Rationale The Project's potential impacts on population and housing are analyzed in Sections 7.2 of the FEIR. For the reasons below, these impacts are determined to be less than significant. a) The Project will be constructed consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, which specifies only low-density residential development in the Project area. b) The Project will not displace any housing as the site is currently undeveloped and uninhabited. c) The Project will not displace any existing people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere because the site is currently undeveloped and uninhabited. M. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on public services if they were to do any of the following: 35 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 29 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact a) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts), in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protective services b) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts), in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives c) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities or the need for new or physically altered school facilities (the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts), in order to maintain acceptable student/teacher ratios 2. Findings The Project will not impact public services on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a. All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, the Project's impacts to public services are less than significant. MM PS-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the project proponent shall annex to CFD 2005-1 to pay for increased police and fire services. 3. Supportive Rationale The FOR analyzes potential impacts on public services in Sections 7.12. The analyses were based on information gathered from local public agencies and City departments. For the reasons specified below, these impacts have been determined to be below a level of significance. a) Per Mitigation Measure PS-1, prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project will annex to Community Facilities District (CFD) 2005-1, which funds necessary police and fire services for new development. 36 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 30 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact b) Although the Project will increase demands on Palm Springs Unified School ❑istrict, the project will pay the required school impact fee (currently $2.14 per sf) to reduce the potential impact of additional student population; under State law, such payment fully mitigates project impacts to schools- N. RECREATION 1_ Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on recreation if it were to do any of the following: a) increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated b) include recreational facilities or required the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment 2. Findings The Project will impact recreation on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) The Project's proponent will mitigate impacts to recreation below a level of significance by the payment of in-lieu fees. 3. Supportive Rationale The Project's potential impacts on recreation are discussed in Section 7.13 of the FEIR. These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the reasons below. a) The proposed Project does not include recreational facilities or require the expansion of facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. b) The Project's proponents will pay in-lieu fees consistent with the City's Quimby Act Ordinance 1632. 37 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 31 of 44 Exhibit A -- Findings of Fact Q. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on transportation and traffic if it were to do any of the following: 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 vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) b) exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways c) result in a change in 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 intersections) or incompatible use (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). 2. Findings The Project will impact traffic and circulation on a project-specific basis. The City Council makes the following findings for this impact: a) All feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant environmental effects. b) With implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Project's impacts to traffic and circulation are less than significant. MM TR-1: Upon completion of mass grading of the Crescendo site, the applicant shall repair all existing city streets providing construction access to the site. The streets will be restored to a level of quality equal to or greater than that preexisting at the start 38 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 32 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact of construction. Any deterioration of pavement condition, including but not limited to potholes and cracking shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All traffic control devices shall be restored to their preexisting condition, including all pavement markings. The following streets will be subject to this condition: 1. Racquet Club Drive West of North Palm Canyon 2. Tramway Road west of North Palm Canyon 3. North Vista Grande Avenue 4. Any other street used for construction access. Upon completion of construction of the proposed residences, the same assessment of street conditions will be made. In addition, all such streets used for construction access shall be slurry sealed and restriped. 3. Supportive Rationale The FEIR analyzes the Project's traffic impacts in Sections 7.3. The analysis relies on traffic studies included as Appendix E. The key conclusions include the following: a) The traffic generated by the project can be accommodated at an acceptable level of service on the local street system b) Project roadways will be designed to meet City of Palm Springs standards, including standards for emergency access, design features, incompatible uses, and parking. c) The Project will conform to the City of Palm Springs General Plan with respect to alternative forms of transportation. . P. UTILITIES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have a significant impact on utilities if it were to do any of the following: 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 39 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 33 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact c) require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant effects d) not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources e) result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments f) not be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs g) not comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste 2. Findings The Project will have a less than significant impact on utilities 3. Supportive Rationale Section 7.14 of the FEIR analyzes the Project's impacts on utilities, including utility improvements necessary for the Project. This analysis was based in part on the Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Palm Springs, the City of Palm Springs Wastewater Master Plan, and correspondence with the Desert Water Agency (contained in EIR Appendix Q. a) Water: The Desert Water Agency has indicated that it has in place facilities adequate to serve the Project long term. b) Sewer: Sanitary sewer facilities for the Project will be provided by the City of Palm Springs from sewer mains located nearby. c) Electricity: Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the City of Palm Springs and will connect to existing SCE lines located at the Project's boundaries. d) Natural Gas: The Southern California Gas Company has confirmed adequate service capacity and has agreed to provide service to the Project via adjacent existent lines. e) Solid Waste: Palm Springs Waste Disposal Service will provide waste disposal services to the Project. 40 City Council Resolution No_ 22064 Page 34 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact f) Telephone: Telephone service to the Project will be provided by Verizon. g) All utility improvements constructed as part of the Project will comply with applicable County and uniform codes. Project design features incorporate appropriate water and energy conservation measures recommended by the California Department of Water Resources and required by the California Code of Regulations. In addition, the Project's utility impacts would be further mitigated by payment of applicable utility impact fees charged by the various service providers identified above- Q. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Potential Impacts The Project would have significant impact on mineral resources if it were to do any of the following: a) result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future 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 in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan 2. Findings The Project will not have significant impact on mineral resources, so no mitigation is required. 3. Supportive Rationale The EIR analyzes the Project's impacts on mineral resources in Section 7.16 and finds those impacts to be below a level of significance for the following reasons: a) The Project site has not been determined to contain important mineral resources. b) The Project site has not been designated as an important mineral resource site by the City of Palm Springs General Plan or any specific plan or other land use plan. 41 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 35 of 44 Exhibit A -- Findings of Fact R. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 1. Potential Impacts CEQA Guideline 15130 requires the identification of public and private projects that, when taken together with the proposed Project, could have cumulative impacts on the environment. The City identified 24 reasonably foreseeable development projects in the relevant geographic area. The inclusion of those 24 reasonably foreseeable projects in the cumulative impact analysis resulted in a conservative analysis because it is uncertain whether all of those projects will be developed. 2. Findings The Project will contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on aesthetics, short-term air quality during construction, and native desert habitat,. The City Council makes the following findings for these impacts construction, and native desert habitat,. [Note: the FEIR removed the finding regarding water supplies based upon the DWA Urban Water Supply Management Plan): a) As discussed above, all feasible measures, changes and alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which will lessen such significant cumulative environmental effects. b) No other feasible measures exist to mitigate these significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts. c) For the reasons set forth below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopted concurrently by the City Council, the City Council finds that the significant cumulative impacts identified in this Section IX(R) are acceptable in light of the Project's overall benefits 3. Supportive Rationale The cumulative impacts of the proposed Project and identified related projects are evaluated in Section 8 of the EIR, which reviews the potential cumulative impacts for each environmental issue analyzed_ By complying with local land use and planning standards, the Project will not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts with respect to cultural resources, hazardous materials, population and housing, noise, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems, land use, hydrology and water quality (except potential groundwater supplies), geology and soils, agriculture, or mineral resources. The Project's contribution to these potential cumulative impacts will be minimized by adhering to the proposed mitigation measures and project requirements discussed above. 42 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 36 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact The analysis results in the following conclusions with respect to significant cumulative impacts: a) The Project will transform the site from undeveloped desert to low- density residential development, necessarily altering the aesthetic character of the sites permanently_ This alteration may be perceived by some as a significant impact. Full mitigation of this impact is not feasible because it would not achieve even the most basic project objective, which is to establish new residential development on this site that complements the surrounding development. b) The Project will contribute to a cumulative loss of native desert habitat that may be considered adverse. Full mitigation of this impact is not feasible because it would not achieve even the most basic project objective, which is to establish new residential development on this site that complements the surrounding development. c) During the 18- to 24-month construction period, the Project may contribute to short-term adverse cumulative impacts related to NOx and PM10 emissions. Mitigation measures have been incorporated which limit the amount of land that can be disturbed at any one time, and that require that operations be shut down in high wind events. To further mitigate this impact would require reduction of the allowable area of grading at any one time, which would make the project economically infeasible and would result in the neighborhood being subject to construction disturbance for a longer period of time. [FINDING REMOVED IN FEIR]S, GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS AND CONSISTENCY WITH SCAG POLICIES 1. Discussion CEQA Guideline 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts, including whether a project will encourage economic and population growth or the construction of additional housing in the area. 2. Finis The Project represents a feature of planned growth in the City of Palm Springs and is not considered growth inducing. 43 City Council Resolution No- 22064 Page 37 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact 3. Supportive Rationale Section 10.3 of the FEIR analyzes growth-inducing impacts. That section also evaluates the Project's consistency with related regional policies of the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"), including policies relating to population growth, housing, transportation and air quality. The FEIR makes the following conclusions- 1. The Project is consistent with the SCAG policies relating to population growth, housing, transportation and air quality. 2. The Project is not considered growth-inducing. X. FINDINGS CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guideline 15126.6 requires an EIR to (1) describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project; and (2) evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In analyzing the feasibility of an alternative, the CEQA Guidelines list the following factors: site suitability; economic viability; infrastructure viability; social, legal and technological issues; and jurisdictional boundaries. The purpose of the consideration and discussion of alternatives to the proposed project is to identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment. In doing so, CFQA Guideline 15126.6 also directs that the analysis of alternatives be limited to alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of project objectives, or would be more costly. The selection and discussion of alternatives to the project is intended to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote or speculative. CEQA Guideline 15126.6 also requires the analysis of a "No Project" alternative and the identification of an "Environmentally Superior Alternative." If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR is required to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. Finally, CEQA Guideline 15126.6 requires an EIR to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination of such infeasibility. 44 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 38 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact A. Alternatives Considered But Rejected Several alternatives were considered that did not warrant further review in the EIR. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR. These included: • Public purchase of the site • Off-site development alternatives B. Alternatives Analyzed in the Final EIR The City Council has considered the following alternatives for the Crescendo Project identified in the EIR: • No Project Alternative • Reduced Grading Alternative • Custom Lot Alternative • Reduced Density Alternative • No PDD Alternative The City has rejected those alternatives as infeasible or contrary to the project objectives for the reasons hereinafter stated: No Project Alternative 1. The No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA, assumes that the project site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. 2. The No Project Alternative would eliminate all impacts associated with the construction of structures and introduction of residents to the site, including significant and unavoidable adverse effects to: • air quality • aesthetics • cumulative impacts • adjacent residents during construction 3. Because the No Project Alternative would eliminate or reduce development- related environmental impacts, it is considered "Environmentally Superior" to the project. 4. The No Project Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives (See Section 4.3 of the Final EIR): • To create high quality in-fill development in an area that has already undergone substantial development, without intruding into undeveloped areas of the Chino Cone. The Crescendo project 45 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 39 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact achieves the objective of creating in-fill development because the site is among the last remaining substantial areas of vacant land within the otherwise developed area bounded by Highway 111 on the east, Tramway Road on the north, the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation lands to the west, and Vista Chino to the south. • To create in-fill development is likewise one of the objectives set forth in the City of Palm Springs General Plan (See Objective 3.2, page I- 19 of the [existing] General Plan.). • To create new residential development reflective of and complementary to the overall pattern and character of existing surrounding uses. • To provide luxury semi-custom residences that take advantage of the unique physical features offered only in Palm Springs. The City of Palm Springs has worked for many years toward the revitalization of its downtown area and overall commercial base. A critical component in such an effort is assuring that the City can provide quality housing to attract residents and second residence owners who become the market for and support the businesses located in Palm Springs. In recent years, more and more luxury residential development has occurred in down-Valley cities, following and feeding commercial development in those same communities. It is critical to assure that Palm Springs can offer similar quality housing opportunities if the City is to maintain the residential base needed to support the local economy and assure the City's place as a world-class resort. • To take advantages of the views from the project site. • To create residence values that will meet or exceed the values of the housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. 5. The No Project Alternative would eliminate public benefits associated with the project including the proposed trail system, improved drainage and development associated fees to the City. 6. It is uneconomical to maintain the project site in its current state over the long-term, given its location within a developing area. Pressure to develop the land for higher economic uses will continue. Therefore, the No Project Alternative may postpone rather than preclude development. 7. The No Project alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan and current City zoning. Reduced Grading Alternative 1. The Reduced Grading Alternative seeks to reduce overall grading at the project site by reorienting street system to minimize lot-to-lot grade differences. 46 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 40 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Reduced Grading Alternative would be marginally less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case" daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. Impacts in other environmental categories are the same as the proposed project, or else the impacts of the proposed project are less than significant. 4_ The Reduced Grading Alternative fails to meet the following project objectives (See Section 4.3 of the Final EIR): • To take advantages of the views from the project site, views from the proposed project are oriented in an east-west direction, and new residents will have primary views of Mount San Jacinto to the west, and down-valley areas to the east. The Reduced Grading Alternative would shift such primary views from Mount Sari Jacinto to views of the Banning Pass. Based on information and data provided by the applicant and by real estate agents in the City, views of Mount San Jacinto are a primary factor in establishing the value of properties in the area. Reduced Density Alternative 1. The reduced density alternative would develop fewer units than the proposed project. 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Reduced Density Alternative would be less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality 47 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 41 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case" daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. The Reduced Density alternative has greater adverse impacts to land use, since the size of the proposed lots would be inconsistent with the lot sizes in the adjacent neighborhoods (See Table 7.1-B of the Final EIR). Reduced density would mean further increasing the lot sizes, which would increase the incompatibility. The average lot sizes of the proposed Crescendo home sites are already approximately 50% larger than the adjacent sites. The existing homes surrounding the Crescendo site are typically smaller homes on smaller lots, and the large lots and large homes associated with custom lots would substantially change the character of the neighborhood. Custom Lot Alternative 1. The custom lot alternative would develop the same number of units in the same layout as the proposed project, but all the lots would be sold as custom lots, and individually developed. 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Custom Lot Alternative would be less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case" daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. Because the Custom Lot Alternative would reduce development-related environmental impacts, it is considered "Environmentally Superior" to the project. 48 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 42 of 44 Exhibit A— Findings of Fact 4_ The Custom Lot Alternative is considered economically infeasible for the following reasons (based on information and data supplied by the applicant): • In today's economic environment, custom lots are only viable for high-priced homes. For mid-priced homes, production homebuilders can provide much more value for the money through economies of scale. • Custom home-sites must be one-half acre or greater in size to attract custom homebuyers, and most of the proposed lots are smaller than one half acre_ • The existing homes surrounding the Crescendo site are typically smaller homes on smaller lots, and the large lots and homes associated with custom lots would substantially change the character of the neighborhood. From a marketing standpoint, large lots and homes beyond what is being proposed in an area such as this surrounded by smaller lots and homes makes the project less marketable, requiring longer holding periods and making the project economically infeasible. • In the opinion of the applicant, there is a limited market for custom home sites. The applicant has agreed to make the Boulders project a custom home-site project, and his opinion is that there is insufficient demand for custom home sites on the Crescendo Site as well. No PDD Alternative 1. The No PDD Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, but No PDD would be proposed. Therefore, lot sizes and heights would be controlled by existing City zoning requirements. The density would be reduced by several lots by this change. 2. As compared to the proposed project, the impacts of the Custom Lot Alternative would be less than the proposed project, but still significant in the following categories. • Aesthetics • Air Quality While impacts in these categories would be slightly less than the proposed project, the following significant impacts would remain the same. • Emissions of criteria pollutants on the "worst case" daily basis, which is the criteria for significance recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District 49 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 43 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact • The primary aesthetic impact is the change of the site from undeveloped to developed, which will be the same with the proposed project. 3. The No PDD Alternative is considered infeasible because it is inconsistent with the intent of the City's hillside grading ordinance. The basic lot dimensions established in the City's zoning ordinance are designed for rectangular lots on flat land. The PDD process allows for variation in lot dimensions that better conform to the land in the Project area. Findings a) The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project. b) The City Council finds that none of the proposed alternatives is environmentally superior to the Crescendo Project, because they are infeasible, have increased environmental impacts, or would not reduce impacts below significant levels. XI. RECIRCULATION As described in Section 1 of the FEIR, several minor changes were made in response to comments on the DEIR that clarify, amplify or make insignificant modifications to the DEIR. The information added to the FEIR has not deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon any significant environmental effect of the Project or any feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Accordingly, the City Council finds that no "new significant information" (as that term is defined in CEQA Guideline 15088.5[a]) was added to the EIR since the release of the DEIR that would warrant recirculation as provided in CEQA Guideline 15088.5. XII. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Each and all of the Findings and determinations contained herein are based on the Competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the EIR. All of the language included in these Findings constitutes Findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. All summaries of information in these Findings are based on the entire record of the proceedings, and the absence of any particular fact from any such summary herein is not an indication that a particular finding is not based, in part, on that fact. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the EIR and the Project is based on the best information currently available. This practical limitation is acknowledged in CEQA Guideline 15151, which provides that "the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is feasible." 50 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 44 of 44 Exhibit A — Findings of Fact 51 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Exhibit B CRESCENDO PROJECT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project (Public Resources Code §21081[bj); 14 Cal. Code Regs §§15043, 15093[a]). As documented in the EIR and the Findings of Fact for the Project, the Project will result in significant and unavoidable direct and/or cumulative environmental effects relating to aesthetics, short-term air quality, and the loss of native desert habitat. Although not considered an adverse effect under the CEQA Guidelines, the construction of the Crescendo (and Boulders) projects will create a temporary cumulative neighborhood disruption for the existing residents during the estimated 18 to 24 months of major construction for both projects. Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and render those potential unavoidable adverse environmental impacts acceptable. Each of the following benefits constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of the other benefits, despite the significant and unavoidable environmental effects: 1. The Project will result in the construction of 79 high-end residences in the City of Palm Springs. According to economic data provided to the City Council, the following economic benefits would accrue from both the Boulders and Crescendo projects (combined): • One-time benefits to government agencies in the amount of $4 million from school fees, public park fees, building permit fees, TUMF fees, flood control fees and other fees. • Ongoing annual payments to government agencies in the amount of $2.86 million/year. • Increase in the disposable income of Palm Springs residents of $8.5 million annually. • Residents of the proposed development will, by necessity, have high incomes, which will increase the demand for high-end retail in the City of Palm Springs. 52 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit B --Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Because the streets will be privately owned, and police/fire costs will be at least partially offset by an assessment district, the net financial impact to the City will be positive. 3. The Project will provide a six-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian trail on three sides of the site. 4. The Project will result in the buildcut of Racquet Club Drive adjacent to the Project. 5. The Project will result in a landscaped buffer along Tramway Road, 6. The Project will result in the construction of a segment of the Master Plan of Drainage. In view of the foregoing, the City Council adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, finding that the benefits of the Crescendo project outweigh its significant and unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts. 53 Resolution No. 22064 Exhibit C Crescendo Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring Program November 2, 2007 Responsible Party Monitoring Method of Sanctions Frequency Verification DPS-Director of Planning A- Prior to issuance of A-Oa-site inspection I-Withhold Grading or Services or designee Grading Permit Building Permit CE-City Engineer or 13- Prior to issuance of B- Other Agency 2-Stop Work Order designee Building Permit Permit/Approval CT-California Department of C-Prior to Construction C-Plan Check 3-Withhold approval of Transportation or designee grading plan PC-Planning Commission or D-Throughout D-Separate Submittal 4-Witlnbold design review designee Construction (Reports/Studies/Plans) approval NC-City designated noise E-Prior to the approval E- Planning 5-Withhold occupancy permits consultant or designee of grading plan Coinnnission Approval DPW-Director of Planning F-Prior to start of rock F-Paymeut of fees Services crushing BM-Biological Monitor or G-Throughout Grading designee H-Prior to design review approval I-Upon completed construction Lq 'P 1 Project File Name: Applicant: Prepared By: L5A Associates Date: November 2, 2007 Mitigation Measures N67Lnplementing Acton Respdnsible �loriitoririg •;; Timing of Verification Method of Verified Sanctions for for FrequeAC,- , Veiifcat on_ Batellnitials Non `-- __- M i ation from-LnFironmental Impact Re 'di•f= Transportation and Traffic MM TR-1: Upon completion of mass grading of the CE CIDII Prior to issuance of A 11215 Crescendo site, the developershall repairail existing buildma ci ly streets providing construction access to the site. permits+Throughout The streets will be restored to a level of quality equal coils tract ion Upon to or greater than preexisting at the start of completed construction construction. Any deterioration of pavement condition, including but not limited to potholes and cracking shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the i City Engineer. All traffic control devices shall be ! restored to their preextstme condition, including all pavement markings.The following streets shall be subject to this condition 1. Racquet Club Drive`Vest of North Palm Canyon 2. Tramway Road west of North Pahn Canyon 3. North Vista Grande Avenue 4. Any other streets used for construction access Upon completion of construction of the proposed residences, the same assessment of street conditions will be made. In addition, all such streets used for construction access shall be slurry sealed and restriped. LrI L' 2 MitkationMeasuresNoJlmplementingAction - Re_sponsible_j lfonitaring TimingofVeriticatioru. ' ' hMBthod'6f_- . Verified `Sanctions for for r Frequency --Verification.. __Datellniti_ais _ _ Non- Compliance Cultuknl-Resources iYIM CULT-1: Prior to the approval of any grading DPS E Prior to approval of C 3 plan, the Director of Community Development of the grading plan City of Palm Springs will ensure that the following specification is included with grading requirements: In the event of the accidental discovery of recognition of any human remains in any location on the project site other than a dedicated cemetery, the folfowing steps will be taken: t 1. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until s (a) The Riverside County Coroner is contacted to I determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and (b) If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American: • The Coroner will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 29 hours. • The NAHC will identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased Native American. • The most likely descendent(MLD) may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or i]l Q 3 Mitigafion Measures N.o.limplementing Action Responsible- - Mpr itdring ,. Timing of Verification'• . -iYIetfiud of _. - Verified _ San_cdans for for Frequency -•- _ - . _ Verification Datelluitials- _ Non _ - - - _ -- lIonitarin• - __ - _ - _ _ - _ _ ." : . __ - - . - _ Compliance _ 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative will rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity oil the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: (a) The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD. (b) The MLD identified failed to make a reconnnendatioa within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC. (c) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the i recommendation of the MLD, and the mediation by (lie NAHC fails to provide 1 measures acceptable to the landowner. Aesthetics NINI AES-1: The project shall incorporate as"many DPS E Prior to grading plan C 3 l of the existing boulders as possible into project approval landscaping, residential landscaping, slopes, and drainage courses. MhI AES-2: The slopes along the eastern side of the CE A Prior to issuance of C 1 Crescendo project, adjacent to existing development, grading permit shall average 3.5:1 and shall vary between 3:1 and 4:1.This slope configuration shall be reflected oil the grading plans for the project and subject to review and approval of the City prior to the issuance of a grading pernut For[lie project. Nnk I AES-3: Two-story elements will be prohibited DPS H Prior to Design Review C 4 along lots backing up to Racquet Club Drive, the Approval eastern project edge(including Visa Grande}and — Tramway Road. Air uality. vl 4 Mitigation Measures 14oAmplementing Action. Responsible_ - Monitaring Timing of V.eriHcaiion--, tiIethod aC Verified s Sancrions Lor , -for - ` Freqaenc} F - . . _ . _ ': ,I- ficatia_n- Da_telLnitials ? Non= , - l•Lmmitorin Compliance, i4IM AIR-1: Prior to the approval of a final grading DPWC E J Pnor [o approval of DIE 3 plan by the City, the project proponent shall submit grading plan a detailed Grading and Rock Management Plan for review and approval by the PIanning Commission. This plan shall specify the following: 1. Final estimates for grading volumes,including cut and fill, off-site export orunsui tab le material, and import or appropriate material. Refined estimates for emissions of import/export trips will be provided. 2. Final estimates of oa-site rock thal can be incorporated into the site for fill, landscaping elements, or use in the decorative walls of residences, including rock that may be reduced in size,using the Nonex process. 3 Active grading shall be Iimited to 25 acres of disturbed areas. i 4. If on-site rock crushing is proposed and approved by [lie City when the project is f j approved, then the location and emission factors of the exact equipment proposed to be used will be provided. An updated analysis shall be submitted to the City demonstrating that PMto and NO,emissions shall not exceed the SCAQMD daily limits,and that rock- crushing PMto emissions are equivalent to those listed in AP-42,Fifth Edition, Volume 1, United States Environmental Protection Agency,January 1995 for"controlled emissions." 5. If ou-site rock-crushing is not proposed,or is disallowed by[he City when the project is approved,then an updated emissions analysis shall be provided based upon the relocation plan for rocks that cannot be used on-site and the final length of the trip to the rock disposal to 00 5 Mitigation Aleasnres YoJIrnplementing actin Responsible Monitoring Timing of Verification - Method of Verified . 3artctioris for -for- _A'crification -Datelfnitials - Nou: \Ioniiarin ,j - Compliance site, An updated analysis shalt be submitted to the City demonstrating that P Vho emissions shall not exceed the SCAQMD daily limits. If (lte City overrides the potential NO,emission exceedance when the project is approved, then the Grading and Rock Management Plan shall demonstrate how the NO,emissions will be limited to within 25% of the SCAQM]) construction threshold for NO, ! 6. Prior to the commencement of grading, the City 14 of Palm Springs shall retain, at the developer's expense, au air quality monitor who shall be present on site at least three hours per day during grading operations. The monitor shall have the ability to "stop work"if visible dust is seen escaping from the site,or if other measures specified in the Grading and Rock Management Plan are not observed. j 7. The plan shall demonstrate how the City's standard mitigation measures, listed in Section 8.50 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code,shall be incorporated into project construction. NIAL I AIR-2: bass grading of the Boulders and the CE A Prior to the issuance of A 1 Crescendo sites shall not occur simultaneously. grading permit Accordingly, all graded areas of the first site shall be stabilized prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the second site, NMI AIR-3: The applicant shall require the CE AIB Prior to issuance of C i l construction contractor to use construction gradinglbuilding permit equipment with low emission factors and high energy efficiency. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the City shall verify that grading and construction plans include a prominently displayed statement that all construction equipment Lri � G NfitigarionMeasuresNo.11mplementiog Action Responsible --Alonitoring- _ . Timing-of3'eriffcation l•Lethod_of' _ Verified 3ancfimzs for_ for 'Fr' equenc} ," _ - S',erificafion- ➢nte+`hiifials Nan- DSmtiturin Com an- must (1) be tolled and maintained u1 accordance with manufacturers' specifications and(2) meet or exceed Tier 2 standards, including the use of emulsified diesel fuels and oxidation catalysts particulate traps or other verifiedlcerufied technologies. Note: Such equipment and fuels may not be available yet in the Palm Springs area; therefore, the note"as feasible"applies.No mitigation credit was taken in(his analysis for such mitigation. 11'ehM AIR-4: All residential fireplaces will be fueled DPS B Prior to the issuance of C 1 by natural gas. building permit itiM AIR-5: Exterior electrical outlets will be IYPS B Prior to issuance of C 1 provided in fronts and backs of residential units to building permit facilitate use of electric Iandscape equipment. - NIM NOI—1 Upon completion of the noise NC F Prior to the start of rock A 2 mitigation structure around the rock crusher, the crushing following tests will be performed before the crusher goes into regular operation: The noise performance of the crusher and the noise attenuation structure will be measured at the property line of two residences closest to the structure (one north of the site and one south). Other construction activities will be shut down during this test. The noise Ievels at these locations will be measured when OIL hlitiga£iori'1Vle2cserresNoairnp1ementiogAcHon Responsible roaibiring Timing of Verification Alethod of i Verified Sanctions for .Frequency` -- : -.- -Verification; I ' Datellaitials - - ',_Non- ; 1lmtiforin j compliance the crusher is operating normally,If[lie noise levels exceed those specified in the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 11.74.031 Noise Level Limit and Section 11.74.032, then crusher operations will cease until additional attenuation can be added, or crusher operations modified,and the system retested, if the system cannot be brought into compliance with the cited requirements, then no further rock crushing activities will be allowed, and other means to address oversized rocks will be required. The results of the test will require certification by a City-selected noise consultant. This test will be repeated at least every two months during the construction period If the crusher is found to be out of compliance, then regular operations will be shut down until the crushing system can be brought into compliance. This measure requires actual"in-the-field" compliance with the City's requirements. MM N0I-2: Prior to (lie commencement of the CE A Prior to the issuance of D l issuance of grading permits, the project proponent grading permits shall prepare, and the City shall review and approve, a technical study that demonstrates (lie required temporary structure provides sufficient noise reduc(ion for the crusher to mee(City Requirements as determined in the City's Zoning Ordinance Sections 11.74.031 and 11.74.032. Biological Resources &'IM BIG-1: None of die following non-native, DPS B Prior to (lie issuance of C 1 exotic species shall appear in the plant palette that building permit may be submitted or included in landscape plans prepared for the project: rn MffgaiioriNfeasuresN6,jmpiemenfiogAclio¢_ _ Responsible Monitoring Timing of-Ver'slicafion Vlefbud of 'Verified Sinctions fnr= for , 'RrequencV; - - - -Verificafifl¢ Datelinitials_ - -- ['Non- - -Monitoring Compliance BOTANICAL NAME Acacia spp. (ail species except A.greggri) Arundo donax(i) Afriplex semibaccafa(x) fAvom barbala Avena fafua Brassica fournefortii(xx Bromus mad?ifensis ssp. rubens(c) Bromus tecforam AX) Corfaderra juhala [syn.C. alacamensis] Corladevia dioica [syn. C. selloana] Descurainia sophia Eichhomfa crassipes Elaegnus angustifolia Foeniculurn vudgare Hirsclfeldia incana Lepidiunr ladfoli an Lolhon mulfiorurn Lolllum pereruie Mahan oleander Mcoliana glarrca(c) Oenofhera berlandieri(#) Olea europea Parkinsonia aculeata (x) Pennisefum clarrdesfinrun Pennlsefran sefaceum (TX) Phoenix canariensis (#) Phoenix daclylifera (#) rn n� 9 1VIifigsfion 4leasores NTo.7Impleunenting pctisn " ' ResponsiI ie <Ionitoring Turning of Verification Method'of _ 'Verilied. Sanctions-for- -.Frequency- _ _ - _- _ - _-.Verificafieri Date;Initials \oui, •11IoniEorin Compliance Ricinus comnuans{.i) Salsola Iragus (.i) Sch imus in olle Schinus lerebinthifoiifrs Schinnus arableas ! .SCIIII n7ll5 barbatus (.xx) 1 Stipa capensis (TA) Tanim•i.i spp. (all species) (xx) Taetriatherunr capul-medusae Tribuhrs lerresl+is Yinca major Yucca gloriosa ft) Source: CVAG MSHCP; California Exotic Pest Plan[Council,United Stales Department of Agriculture-Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Planl Society,Fs montia Vol.26 No. 4,October 1998, The Jepson Manual;Higher Plants of California,and County of San Diego Department or Agriculture Key to Table # indicates species not on CaIEPPC October 1999 "Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California" list X indicates species known to be invasive in the MSHCP Plan Area XX indicates particularly troublesome invasive species AIM BI0-2: A biological monitor shall be located BM G Throughout Grading A 2 rn w 10 Mltigii}iun Measures NaAmplementing Action ' Responsible I Monitoring : - "Timing infNerilication -- yimbnod of -_ Verified , saftctimis for 'for Frequency :fe- � _ - - = V'erificafion ; Datellnitials � : ' , Non lIduttorin' Com li. onsi(e during grading operations to remove and ice relocate any specimens of red diamond rattlesnake that are encoun(ered. ,Hazards and Hazardous Mater!oN A'INI HA -1: Prior to the commencement of grading DPS A Prior to the issuance of A I activities, (lie developer shall inform all residents grading permit within 1,000 feet. HVdrolo '-and V9atier uality . - - rv"d BY-I Prior to the approval of a grading permit, DPW A Prior to issuance of CID I the project proponent will submit, for approval by grading the City Director of Public Works. a final drainage plan based on a final hydrology study implementing the following loca[ and regional requirements, policies and programs a) The plan will demonstrate that off-site storm flows will not be increased, and that all structures in the project are protected from 100-pear storm flows. b) All proposed facilities will be privately owned and maintained by(he proposed Boulders project Homeowners Association. The CC&Rs for the association shall clearly specify(lie requirements to maintain lice drainage system in an effective manner. c) The plan will include specific pollution control measures and/or designs that meet the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and keep pollutants, including sediment,herbicides,pesticides and oils,out of surface and ground waters. d) The plan will address the use of on-site stormwater retention basins, to the greatest extent practical, to enhance opportunities for groundwater recharge,provide additional open space and wildlife habitat value,and reduce the rn '� lI NUtigalluuMeasures'n.lirnpiementing Acfion 'Responsible Monitoring. Timing of-4erification , 4Iethorlof _ Verified Sanctions-for for Frequency -; _ - - - FeriHcatioii--; ➢afelInifials. \an- Monitorin Compliance necessity for and costs associated with off site stormwa(er conveyance facilities. c)Prior to formation of the Honeo«•ners Association, the City Engineer shall review the proposed CC&Rs to ensure that language requiring effective maintenance of the drainage system is acceptable to the City. NM HY-2 Prior to the approval of any building DPS B Prior to the issuance of C l permit, the City Director of Planning will review building permit plans to ensure(lie following: a) Draught-Loierant landscaping and water- efficient irrigation systems will be used as a means of reducing water consumption in all yard areas, consistent with the City of Palm j Springs Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Conditions in the ordinance that apply to multi-family residences will be applied to this project. b) The project developer will install low-flush toilets, low-flow showerheads and faucets in all new construction, in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code, Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601(b), and applicable sections of Title 29 of the State Code. c) The project wdl connect to the City's sewer system. Septic tanks will not be permitted. MM HY-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits DPS A Prior to the issuance of D 1 for any lots where adequate water supplies and fire grading permit flows would require pumping from the existing reservoirs, the applicant shall provide the City with written confirmation from the DIVA that adequate water pressure is available to serve these lots. rn 12 1ffitigAtion Measures 1oAmplent-eitting Actin n Responsible Monitoring Timing of Verification` Method of Verified_ . Sanctions for - - - for, Rrequency _ _ - - _ _ - Verification -Datellriitials Non- - - IMorntorin Compliance This condition may be satisfied in one of three manners: 1. DWA agrees That the existing pump is adequate to serve the project. 2. DWA accepts the developers offer to increase the capaciLy of the existing pumping system, 3. DWA obtains separate environmental approval for its own additional reservoirs. 14141 Ps-1:Prior to die issuance of any building permit, DPS B Prior to the issuance of F 1 the project proponent shall annex to CFD 2005-1 to pay building permits for increased police and Fire services. ON 13 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Exhibit D CRESCENDO PROJECT: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL November 7, 2007 Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition_ Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Administrative: 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.0996, PD-294 and TTM 31766. 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. 3. 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 67 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 2 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 4. Prior to recordation of the final map or, at the City's option, prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the developer agree to support formation of or annexation into a Community Facilities District (CFD) to include the project site. Developer further agrees to waive any right of protest or contest such formation or annexation, provided that the amount of any assessment for any single family dwelling unit (or the equivalency thereof when applied to multiple family, commercial or industrial) as established through appropriate study shall not exceed $500 annually per dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalency unit, subject to an annual consumer price index escalator. Prior to sale of any lots, or prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, or prior to any approval of the Building Official that will allow the premises to be occupied, the CFD shall be formed, the annexation thereto shall occur, or at the option of the City Manager and Building Official, a covenant agreement may be recorded against any affected parcel(s) with the project, evidencing the Owner's binding consent, approval, and waiver of rights as provided in this condition of approval. 5. The applicant, prior to issuance of building permits, shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning Services 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, and shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. 6. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $3,500, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A $631 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. 7. 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. 68 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 3 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. The Project will bring a significant number of additional residents to the community. The City's existing public safety and recreation services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library and cultural services are near capacity. Accordingly, the City may determine to form a Community Services District under authority of Government Code Section 53311 et seq, or other appropriate statutory or municipal authority. Developer agrees to support the formation of such assessment district and shall waive any right of protest, provided that the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate study and shall not exceed $500 annually with a consumer price index escalator. The district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement shall be recorded against each parcel. Environmental Assessment: 10. The mitigation measures of the environmental impact report shall apply. The applicant shall submit a signed agreement that the mitigation measures outlined as part of the final environmental impact report will be included in the plans prior to Planning Commission consideration of the environmental assessment Final Design: 11. 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 as provided below in Condition #12, 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. 69 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 4 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 12. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 04.03.00 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, street improvement plans and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission and City Council. Final construction plans shall be submitted within two years of approval. The Final Planned Development District shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. 13. Pad heights and roof elevations shall be specified for each lot as a part of the Final Development Plan. 14. No retention basin may extend past property lines of the project site. 15. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 9321.00, 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. 16. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. 17_ A photometric study shall be required for the entries. Architecture and Landscaping: 18. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 19. 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. 20. 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. 70 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 5 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 21. The design, height, texture and color of fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All walls shall be located back from top of slope to permit screening by landscaping and stacked boulders_ Walls and fences shall be adequately and entirely screened by stacked boulders. 22. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 23. Details of fencing (materials and color) submitted with final landscape plan. 24. The retention areas shall be fenced; they shall be opened and fully landscaped. (added by the City Council on 10/17/07) 25. All proposed walls shall be located back from the top of slope and shall be screened by landscaping and boulders. (added by the City Council on 10/17/07) 26. The developer shall be required to construct split level designs where possible within the new subdivision. (added by the City Council on 10/17/07) 27. The path of travel to the common trail area shall be compliant with the disabled access codes. 28. Front and rear yards shall be fully landscaped prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The landscape palate shall utilize drought tolerant species. Planting of turf shall be prohibited from front yards. Turf shall otherwise be limited to active recreation areas in rear yards only (including private yards). The utilization of desert vegetation shall be incorporated throughout the project site. The developer shall be responsible for installation of front and rear yard landscape, irrigation and exterior lighting. The HOA will be responsible for enforcement of these requirements. 29. Planned Development District (PD 294) development standards are approved as follows: Front Yard 10', with 20' to face of garage Side Yard — Interior Lot 10' Side Yard — Corner Lot 12' Rear Yard — lot to lot 15, Rear Yard — backing to Local or Collector street 15' Rear Yard -- Backing to Major Street 25' Height-- Dominant ridgeline 18, Pro'ections and architectural features 21' Second Story, max. 500 square feet 71 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 6 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval a) No second story units allowed along perimeter of the project or adjacent to another second story unit. Second story units shall be limited to a maximum of 25% of the total number of lots (19 total). 27. A perimeter pedestrian trail, a minimum of 6' (six foot) in width shall be required around the project. A minimum of three shaded seating areas, with water fountains and trash receptacles, shall be required. The specific locations of the seating areas shall be selected in consideration of maximizing views, while also maintaining the privacy of adjacent parcels. 28. Hillside related conditions: a) Disturbed areas not proposed for development shall be re-naturalized and re- vegetated. b) Utilize low lighting levels to avoid glare c) All public utilities shall be located underground. d) Plant species native to the immediate region shall be used in all non- recreational landscaping located in or adjacent to open space areas. e) Project perimeters, slopes and retention basins shall be re-naturalized through the use of boulders and heavy landscaping. f) Special attention shall be taken to re-naturalize slopes and areas adjacent to project perimeters with boulders and heavy landscaping to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services g) Rock crushing — all sizes of rocks and boulders shall be retained for use in re- naturalizing slopes, which represent existing natural diversity of rock sizes. h) Retaining walls visible from streets shall be completely covered by stacked boulders. General/Grading: 29. Maximum pad heights shall be specified for each lot and shall be approved as part of the Final Planned Development District. 30. 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. 31. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all out and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 72 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 7 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 32. 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. POLICE DEPARTMENT: 33. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 34. Prior to any construction on—site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE: 35. 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) 36. Palm Springs Fire Apparatus require an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13' 6". 37. 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) 38. Project is beyond five-minute response time from the closest fire station and therefore automatic Fire Sprinkler System is required. 39. 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 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. 40. 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) 73 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 8 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 41. 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. 42. 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 DEPARTMENT: The Engineering Department recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances: STREETS 1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer to the Engineering Division_ The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. 3. The applicant shall be required to construct asphalt concrete paving for streets in two separate lifts. The final lift of asphalt concrete pavement shall be postponed until such time that on-site construction activities are complete, as may be determined by the City Engineer. Paving of streets in one lift prior to completion of on-site construction will not be allowed, unless prior authorization has been obtained from the City Engineer. Completion of asphalt concrete paving for streets prior to completion of on-site construction activities, if authorized by the City Engineer, will require additional paving requirements prior to acceptance of the street improvements, Including, but not limited to: removal and replacement of damaged asphalt concrete pavement, overlay, slurry seal, or other repairs, as required by the City Engineer. TRAMWAY ROAD 4. Tramway Road shall be constructed as a Special Street Section in accordance with the future General Plan and applicable Specific Plans. Improvements listed for Tramway Road that were required in accordance with the Improvement Certificate on Parcel Map 23130, as shown by Map on file in Book 181, Pages 50 74 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 9 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval to 53, inclusive, of Parcel Maps, records of Riverside County, California, consisting of construction of a 6 inch curb and gutter, 38 feet southeast of centerline along the entire frontage and construction of a minimum pavement section of 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inches of crushed miscellaneous base shall be deferred. The applicant shall deposit the engineer's estimate of the cost of the required improvements for construction by others in the future, prior to final map approval. 5. Construct a driveway from Tramway Road to the north end of "E" Street as necessary to provide emergency vehicle access into the development. The driveway shall be constructed of a suitable material (turf block) or decorative and colored concrete, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning Services and Fire Marshall. 6_ The applicant shall coordinate with the Tramway Authority regarding construction scheduling and coordination of work occurring on Tramway Road. RACQUET CLUB ROAD 7. Construct a wedge curb, 32 feet north of centerline along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. The wedge curb shall have a design providing the necessary stormwater runoff capacity required for the street, and shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. 8. In lieu of the secondary thoroughfare designation in the current General Plan, developer may construct Racquet Club Road to a two lane collector street section with a wedge curb located 20 feet north of centerline, and provide additional landscaping approved by the Director of Planning Services within the right-of-way required by the current General Plan. In such case, developer shall enter into an agreement with appropriate security to construct Racquet Club Road to a secondary thoroughfare designation in accordance with the current General Plan, but shall be excused from such requirement if in the General Plan revision process the ultimate configuration for Racquet Club Road is reduced from a secondary thoroughfare to a collector street. 9. Construct a new 54 feet wide street intersection for "A" Street, located approximately 320 feet west of the intersection of North Leonard Road, and a new street 54 feet wide intersection for "L" Street, located approximately 15 feet east of and just offset from the intersection of North Milo Drive, both as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, with 25 feet radius curb returns and 75 City Council Resolution No_ 22064 Page 10 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval spandrels, and a 6 feet wide cross gutter, in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 206. 10. Construct Type A curb ramps meeting current California State Accessibility standards either side of the new street intersections at "A" and "E" Street and Racquet Club Road, in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 212. 11. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 3 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 6 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement at centerline along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 330. 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. 12. The applicant shall propose a decorative treatment for the west end of Racquet Club Road, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning Services; with appropriate traffic signs, subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. VISTA GRANDE AVENUE 13. Construct a wedge curb, 5 feet west of centerline. The wedge curb design shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Engineer. 14. Construct a 20 feet wide driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201 at the corner of Vista Grande Avenue and Girasol Road for service and emergency vehicle access into the development, or as otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall. 15. Construct a driveway from the driveway approach at the corner of Vista Grande Avenue and Girasol Road to the north end of "D" Street as necessary to provide emergency vehicle access into the development. The driveway shall be constructed of a suitable material (turf block) or decorative and colored concrete, subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning Services and Fire Marshall. 16. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 2'/z inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from clean sawcut edge of pavement to edge of proposed gutter along the entire frontage. 76 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 11 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval Additional pavement removals or asphalt concrete pavement overlay shall be installed in order to construct a cantilevered pavement section with a cross-slope of 2% from the proposed curb face. 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. ON-SITE PRIVATE STREETS 17. All centerline radii shall be a minimum of 130 feet. 18. All on-site cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 101. A minimum 43 feet inside radius shall be required for all on-site cul-de-sacs. 19. Construct all on-site street "knuckles" in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 104. 20_ Dedicate an easement extending from back of curb to back of curb to the City of Palm Springs for public utility purposes, with the right of ingress and egress for service and emergency vehicles and personnel over the proposed private streets. 21. Dedicate an easement, 30 feet wide (or as required by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall), for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, over Lot 24 as necessary to provide access from Vista Grande Avenue to the north end of "D"" Street. This access shall be limited to emergency access purposes only. 22. Dedicate an easement, 30 feet wide (or as required by the City Engineer and Fire Marshall), for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, over Lots 47 and 66 as necessary to provide access from Tramway Road to the north end of"E" Street. 23. Construct a colored concrete wedge curb or rolled curb, 14 feet on both sides of centerline along the entire frontages, and throughout the cul-de-sacs. The on- site streets shall be constructed with a typical crowned cross-section. The pavement section shall be constructed using decorative colored concrete or pavers, subject to the review and approval by the Planning Commission. 24. Parking shall be restricted along one side of all on-site streets, as necessary to maintain a 24 feet wide clear travel way. A sign program or other process, acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be provided that satisfies the parking restrictions. A Home Owners Association shall be responsible for regulating and 77 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 12 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval maintaining required no parking restrictions, which shall be included in Codes, Covenants and Restrictions required for the development. SANITARY SEWER 25. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. Sewer laterals shall not be connected at manholes. 26. All on-site sewer systems shall be privately maintained by a Home Owners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the on-site sewer system acceptable to the City Engineer shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for this project. 27. Sewer improvement plans prepared by a California registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Engineering Division. The plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. 28. Construct an 8 inch V.C.P. sewer main within all on-site streets located 5 feet from centerline or as required by the City Engineer and connect to the existing public sewer system. 29. The on-site private sewer system shall not connect to any existing sewer manhole or any new manhole. The on-site sewer system shall connect to the sewer main in Vista Grande Avenue with a standard 8 inch lateral connection in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 405. 30. Reserve sewer easements across interior lots as necessary to implement the on- site private sewer system. GRADING 31. Submit a Rough Grading Plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive 78 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 13 of 21 Exhibit D -- Conditions of Approval Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit. a. The first submittal of the Rough Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of the final approved conformed copy of the Conditions of Approval; a copy of the final approved conformed copy of the Tentative Tract Map and/or Site Plan; a copy of a current Title Report; a copy of Geotechnical/Soils Report; and a copy of the associated Hydrology Study/Report. 32. 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 a Grading Plan. 33. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8,50.025 (c), the applicant shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per disturbed acre for mitigation measures for erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development. 34. A Geotechnical/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 Geotechnical/Soils Report shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of a grading plan_ 35. 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 Precise Grading 79 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 14 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval Plan. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73- 710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208). 36. Rock crushing operations on-site during rough grading shall be performed in a manner that maintains a sufficient supply of natural boulders for use in re- naturalized fill slopes and retaining walls, and in perimeter landscaped parkways. Grading and rock crushing operations shall be conducted a maximum of 8 hours per day. 37. The perimeter of the project shall be redesigned by softening the exterior of the project by decreasing the perimeter out and fill slopes from a maximum of 2:1 to a maximum of 3:1 or 4:1 as approved by the of Director of Planning Services and the City Engineer, including the use of landscaping and boulders. Slopes shall be softened by reducing slope heights and through the use of landscaping and boulders to achieve a natural appearance. All project fill slopes shall be re- naturalized by using a "Permeon" spray treatment to restore the natural desert varnish. 38. The final rough grading plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Council as part of its review of the Final Planned Development District. A rough grading permit shall not be issued prior to the City Council's review and approval of the rough grading plan and the Final Planned Development District- DRAINAGE 39. All stormwater runoff passing through the site and falling on the site shall be accepted and conveyed across the property to approved drainage structures as described in the Preliminary Hydrology Report for Tentative Tract Map 31766, prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (as may be amended and/or revised). The applicant 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 the development, as approved by the City Engineer. The preliminary Hydrology Report for the development 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. No more than 40-50% of the street frontage parkway/setback areas should be designed as retention basins. On-site open space, in conjunction with dry wells and other subsurface solutions should be considered as alternatives to using landscaped parkways for on-site retention. 80 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 15 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 40. The retention basin located at the southeast corner of the project adjacent to Racquet Club Road shall be revised to decrease the overall depth by increasing its size and lowering the adjacent berm and fill slope, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the final rough grading plan by the City Council. 41. The applicant shall install a drywell, or series of drywells, within each retention or detention basin proposed in the development as necessary to collect and percolate stormwater runoff, including nuisance water, from the tributary area within the development that has drainage directed to the basin. The drywell(s) shall be appropriately sized to accommodate the expected daily nuisance water, as well as runoff from ordinary storm events (2-year storm events), unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Provisions shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this development that require the routine maintenance of the drywell(s) by the Home Owners Association (HOA), including the right of the City to inspect and require the HOA to remove and replace the drywell(s) if they fail to function, causing stagnant water to accumulate above ground within the basin. The City shall be given the right, in the interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare, to order the removal and replacement of drywell(s) in the event the HOA is non-responsive to the City's written notice, with costs to be recovered against the HOA by the City in accordance with state and local laws and regulations. 42. All on-site storm drain systems shall be privately maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the on-site storm drain systems acceptable to the City Engineer shall be included in Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for this project. 43. An existing 25 feet wide drainage easement exists across the western boundary of the development. This easement exists for the purpose of constructing Line 2 from the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area, in coordination with Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFC). Realignment of the existing drainage easement within "G" Street, as proposed on the Tentative Tract Map, will require approval of RCFC, following review and approval of storm drain improvement plans for Line 2 from the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area_ The applicant shall be responsible for preparing a complete set of storm drain improvement plans for the entire reach of Line 2, from the southern edge of Chino Canyon to the Chino Canyon Levee. Plans shall be submitted to RCFC for review and approval. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the segment of Line 2 across the project, and extensions north and south of the property, acceptable to the City and RCFC, sufficient to avoid future impacts to property owners within the development. Upon the completion of the construction of Line 2 within "G" Street, following 81 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 16 of 21 Exhibit D -- Conditions of Approval RCFC acceptance, the City shall initiate proceedings to vacate the existing 25 feet wide drainage easement across the western boundary of the project, and shall quitclaim the 12 feet wide temporary construction easement. 44. In the event the design of Line 2 from the Master Drainage Plan for the palm Springs Area is not completed prior to final map approval, the existing 25 feet wide drainage easement and 12 feet wide temporary construction easement located across the western boundary of the property shall remain. A Covenant shall be prepared and recorded against Lots 75 through 79 restricting construction on the lots until Line 2 is constructed- The applicant shall deposit $2,000 with the City for preparation of the covenant by the City Attorney and shall be responsible for all costs in the preparation and approval thereof. The Covenant shall be executed prior to final map approval, and shall be recorded by the City with the final map. 45. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees pursuant to Resolution 14082. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $6,511 per acre per Resolution No. 15189_ Based on the 42.2 acre size of the project site as shown on the Tentative Tract Map, the project is responsible for payment of $274,764.20 in drainage implementation fees. The applicant shall be eligible for credit up to the maximum drainage implementation fee of $274,764.20 otherwise due. Validated costs incurred by the applicant for the design and construction of Line 2 from the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area may be credited toward the drainage fee otherwise due. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit if applicable_ 46. In the event validated costs exceed the drainage implementation fee otherwise due, at the request of the applicant, the City may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant for reimbursement of excess costs. Following completion and acceptance of the construction of Line 2 from the Master Drainage Plan for the Palm Springs Area by RCFC and the City Engineer, if reimbursement of excess costs is requested in writing by the applicant, the applicant shall submit a formal request for preparation of a Drainage Reimbursement Agreement and a $2,500 deposit for City staff time associated with the preparation of the Drainage Reimbursement Agreement, including City Attorney fees- The applicant shall be responsible for payment of all associated staff time and expenses necessary in the preparation and processing of the Drainage Reimbursement Agreement with the City Council, and shall submit additional deposits as necessary when requested by the City, which are included in the amount that may be reimbursed to the applicant through the Drainage Reimbursement Agreement. The Drainage Reimbursement Agreement is 82 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 17 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval subject to the City Council's review and approval, and its approval is not guaranteed nor implied by this condition. 47. All residential lots shall be designed to provide adequate drainage to the adjacent on-site streets. Drainage shall be accommodated in a manner that does not interfere with the split level pads of the lots. 48. This project may be required to install measures in accordance with applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's) included as part of the NPDES Permit issued for the Whitewater River Region from the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant is advised that installation of BMP's, including mechanical or other means for pre-treating stormwater runoff, may be required by regulations imposed by the RWQCB. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to design and install appropriate BMP's, in accordance with the NPDES Permit, that effectively intercept and pre-treat stormwater runoff from the project site, prior to release to the City's municipal separate storm sewer system ("M54"), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the RWQCB. If required, such measures shall be designed and installed on-site; and provisions for perpetual maintenance of the measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including provisions in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for the development. GENERAL 49. All on-site and off-site street improvements, and all perimeter landscaping and parkway improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (excluding certificates of occupancy issued for model homes). 50. A 6 feet wide meandering pedestrian trail system shall be constructed along the perimeter of the development providing public access into and around the property. Appropriate rest stops shall be provided along the pedestrian trail system with public access to make this feature a recreational amenity. The pedestrian trail system shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning Commission, using decorative colored concrete or other ADA acceptable material. Easements for public access into and around the property shall be dedicated to the City on the final map as required to allow public use of the pedestrian trail system. 51. 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 83 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 18 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval Drawing No. 115. The developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Verizon, etc.). Multiple excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected off-site streets, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to construction of the proposed development. 52. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 53. In accordance with Chapter 8.04,401 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, all existing and proposed 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, abutting, and/or transecting, 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 northerly property line meet the requirement to be installed underground. A letter from the owners of the affected utilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to approval of a grading plan, informing the City that they have been notified of the City's utility undergrounding requirement and their intent to commence design of utility undergrounding plans. When available, the utility undergrounding plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division identifying all above ground facilities in the area of the project to be undergrounded. Undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 54. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading and street plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 55. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (AutoCAD 2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. 84 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 19 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 56. 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 final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. 57. Contact Whitewater Mutual Water Company to determine impacts to any existing water lines and other facilities that may be located within the property. Make appropriate arrangements to protect in place or relocate any existing Whitewater 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 Division prior to issuance of a grading permit. 58. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any intersection or driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. 59. 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 60. A Final Map shall be prepared by a California registered Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Division as part of the review of the Map. The Final Map shall be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of building permits. 61. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall dedicate to the City of Palm Springs, by separate instrument, a 12 feet wide temporary construction easement adjacent to the east side of the 25 feet wide drainage easement, for the purposes of the future construction of Line 2 from the Master Drainage Plan of the Palm Springs Area in its original alignment (as required by the Improvement Certificate recorded concurrently with Parcel Map 23130). 85 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 20 of 21 Exhibit D — Conditions of Approval 62. In accordance with Section 66434 (g) of the Government Code, the westerly 23 feet of Vista Grande Avenue may be abandoned upon the filing of a Final Map identifying the abandonment of the right-of-way dedicated to the City of Palm Springs. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the developer shall coordinate with each public utility company and determine specific requirements as to the abandonment and/or relocation of existing underground utilities that may exist within the public easements to be abandoned. Prior to approval of a Final Map, the developer shall provide to the City Engineer a letter of approval regarding the proposed abandonment of easements over Vista Grande Avenue from each public utility agency. 63. A copy of draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval for any restrictions related to the Engineering Division's recommendations. The CC&R's shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of a Final Map, 64. Upon approval of a final map, the final map shall be provided to the City in G.I.S. digital format, consistent with the "Guidelines for G.I.S. Digital Submission" from the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency." G.I.S. digital information shall consist of the following data: California Coordinate System, GCS83 Zone 6 (in U.S. feet); monuments (ASCII drawing exchange file),- lot lines, rights-of-way, and centerlines shown as continuous lines; full map annotation consistent with annotation shown on the map; map number; and map file name_ G.I.S. data format shall be provided on a CDROM/DVD containing the following: ArcGIS Geodatabase, ArcView Shapefile, Arclnfo Coverage or Exchange file (e00), DWG (AutoCAD 2004 drawing file), DGN (Microstation drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file) ), and PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variations of the type and format of G.I.S. digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC 65. Furnish and install a decorative street light at the northwest corners of the project's main entrances ("A" and "E" Streets) on Racquet Club Drive to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services and the City Engineer. 66. Submit traffic striping plans for improvements to Racquet Club Road prepared by a California registered civil engineer, for review and approval by the City Engineer. All required traffic striping improvements shall be completed in conjunction with required street improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 86 City Council Resolution No. 22064 Page 21 of 21 Exhibit D -- Conditions of Approval 67. Street name and stop signs shall be required at each on-site street intersection, as required by the City Engineer. Developer shall create a street name sign system reflective of special neighborhood standards. 68. Install a 24 inch stop sign, stop bar, and "STOP" legend for traffic exiting the development at the intersections of "A" Street and "E° Street with Racquet Club Road in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620-625. 69. 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. 70. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. END OF CONDITIONS 87