HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2019-09 and Ord 1346 DA 02-01 TM 37336 Third Amndmnt - Stone Eagle 03-14-201917"'T*I,r"7G.`F
S'cosrrimuc� To . _._
STAFF REPOR— D PASSED TO 2ND REANNG-______--_____ —
CITY OF PALM DES�RT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEETING DATE: February 28, 2019
PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Consideration for approval of a third amendment to Development
Agreement No. 02-01, and a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing a 7.7-
acre parcel into four residential lots that will be part of the Stone Eagle
Development, located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel (PVSC)
at the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN: 652-090-002); and adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Recommendation
Waive further reading and pass to second reading City Council Ordinance
No. 1346 , approving Amendment No. 3 to Development Agreement
No. 02-01 and;
2. Waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 2019-09 ,
approving Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment No. 3, Tentative
Parcel Map 37336, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for CEQA
purposes, subject to the conditions of approval.
Planninq Commission Action
At its meeting of January 15, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
project to the City Council by a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Pradetto voting No. The
Commissioners had a lengthy discussion regarding density and appropriateness of
development within the hillside. During the public hearing, one member from the public spoke
in opposition of the project. Ultimately, the Planning Commission supported the proposed
project based on the uniqueness of the parcel and minimizing the overall development within
the hillside. The minutes from the above referenced meeting are attached to this report.
Executive Summary
Approval of the staffs recommendation will allow the development of four residential estate lots
on 7.7 acres that will be incorporated into the Stone Eagle Development Agreement No. 02-01
(DA No. 02-01). Staffs recommendation for approval of this project is based on the uniqueness
of the parcel location which is adjacent to the PVSC, and reducing the overall density within
Stone Eagle, which is achieved by an amendment to the existing DA. Staff believes that this
project meets the General Plan goals of preserving and minimizing development within all
hillside areas.
February 28, 2019 — Staff Report
Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
Page 2 of 6
Backqround Analysis
A. Property Description:
The subject property is located immediately south, of and contiguous to, the existing Stone
Eagle community, and immediately west of the PVSC. It will utilize the same roadway
network and infrastructure. The project will utilize and improve an existing channel
maintenance easement held by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to connect the
project to the original Crest/Stone Eagle project.
Access to the subject property will be from the southerly extension of Old Stone Trail, a
private road located within the existing Stone Eagle Development.
The purpose of the hillside planned residential district is to encourage minimal grading as it
relates to the natural contours of the land, while avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes in the
hillside area. The project area in regards to pad elevations will preserve as much natural
terrain as possible. Additionally, the majority of the rock outcroppings will remain so that the
future homes will blend with the natural terrain, and protect undisturbed viewsheds and
natural landmarks and features, including vistas and the natural skyline.
B. General Plan and Zoning:
Zone: Hillside Planned Residential (HPR)
General Plan: Rural Neighborhood (RH)
C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North:
Hillside Planned Residential/Stone Eagle
South:
Hillside Planned Residential/Vacant
East:
Planned Res idential/Sommerset Community
West:
Hillside Planned Residential/Vacant
D. Hillside Planned Residential Zone:
The ordinance regulating the HPR Zone was amended in April of 2007 to include the
following Development Standards:
• Density: Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres.
• Building Pad Area: The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not
exceed 10,000 square feet.
• Access Road: Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for
development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet.
• Maximum Dwelling Size: Total dwelling unit, garage, and accessory building size on
any one lot shall not exceed 4,000 square feet.
• Ridgeline Development: Development on or across ridges is prohibited.
G \Pianning\Kevin Swartz\Wora\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\CC Staff Report - Stone Eagle door
February 28, 2019 — Staff Report
Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
Page 3 of 6
E. Stone Eagle Development:
On October 24, 2002, the City Council approved a series of applications and a development
agreement for a project known as "The Crest" and now known as "Stone Eagle." Stone Eagle
is a gated residential community with 43 existing single-family lots, one lot with three
condominium units available for timeshare use, a 15,000-square-foot clubhouse, and an 18-
hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with an access road across the Palm Valley
Storm Channel opposite of Homestead Road. The project is zoned HPR; however, the
development agreement approved different development standards.
The original approved development agreement allowed for 61 total residential dwelling units
on the site. The agreement also allowed the developer, if they choose, to sell units as
fractional ownership with up to a 1/4 share. There have been two amendments since the
original approval of the agreement.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 1: Approved in September of 2007, this amendment allowed the
developer to sell 20 homes within Stone Eagle with up to nine fractional interests. In
exchange, Stone Eagle agreed to designate the remaining 41 units as single
ownership.
• Amendment No. 2: Approved in March of 2008, this amendment allowed the
developer to increase the roof height of 19 residential units within Stone Eagle to 25'-
2".
F. Previously Denied Project:
On May 11, 2011, the City Council denied the applicant's request for a similar project. At the
time, the applicant proposed to subdivide the 7.7-acre parcel into six residential lots. Several
of the proposed pads intersected ridgelines, which is prohibited within the Hillside
Development. The applicant contended that the City's Ridgeline Map was inaccurate, and
proposed a new ridgeline map that they believed to be true ridgelines. City staff, at the time,
concurred with the applicant and recommended approval of the project request. Ultimately,
both the Planning Commission and the City Council denied the applicant's request stating
that the proposed project is not consistent with the HPR zone development standard of one
dwelling unit per five acres.
Proiect Description
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) will allow the developer to subdivide 7.7 acres within
the HPR zone into four residential lots by incorporating into the Stone Eagle Development and
transferring density to this parcel. The proposed lots range in size from 49,687 to 141,705 square
feet. Pad sizes range from 6,825 to 15,239 square feet. There are no homes proposed on the
property at this time. The owner anticipates selling these lots as custom estate lots. Homes will
G \Planning\Kevin Swartz\Woro\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\CC Staff Report - Stone Eagle aocz
February 28, 2019 — Staff Report
Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
Page 4 of 6
be designed independent of each other and will conform to the approved Stone Eagle design
guidelines to ensure continuity.
A. Site Plan Access:
The access to this site is through the main entrance of Stone Eagle via Old Stone Trail. Old
Stone Trail currently dead ends at the northern boundary of this project. The TPM proposes
access to the site on the eastern boundary by extending Old Stone Trail, which is identified
as "Lot A" on TPM 37336.
Analysis
The developer has structured this application as an amendment to the approved development
agreement, which would transfer four units within the Stone Eagle Development for the
proposed four lots. Staff is recommending approval of applying the Density allowed by the
expansion of DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3, as this proposal protects open space and will reduce
the total number of lots within Stone Eagle. However, below is an analysis of both a density
transfer and the strict and literal interpretation of the HPR Zone.
A. Land Use Compatibility/Density:
Density Transfer by Expansion of DA 02-01.
The proposal by the applicant is to subdivide a 7.7-acre parcel into four residential lots. The
original approved development agreement for Stone Eagle allowed for 61 total dwelling
units. However, only 44 units have been developed, leaving 17 lots undeveloped. All lots
built -upon to -date are single-family residential, except for one parcel, which has three
separate condominium units with the option of fractional timeshare use.
Whenever an amendment to a development agreement is proposed, it should be mutually
beneficial for the applicant and the City. That said, the applicant is willing to sacrifice some
of the total allowable number of lots for the project in return for granting approval of the four
units/lots proposed with this application. The applicant proposes to use four lots of the
remaining 17 lots from the development agreement by annexing this land into the Stone
Eagle Development. If approved, Stone Eagle Development will have 13 remaining
undeveloped lots.
The Stone Eagle project occupied 703 acres. Sixty -One (61) units on 703 acres equate to a
density of one dwelling unit per 11.5 acres. If the 7.7 acres of proposed land is added to the
development and the unit count is reduced, the total density will remain the same at one
dwelling unit per 11.5 acres. If approved, this proposal would slightly reduce the amount of
development potential within the hillsides.
Density Allowed Under the HPR Zone. -
The HPR zone allows for one unit per five acres of land. The 7.7 acres of land would be
entitled to one unit if it were being developed as a standalone project. Section 25.15.030 (D)
G \PianningtKev,n SwartztWoro\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\CC Staff Report Stone Eagle clocx
February 28, 2019 — Staff Report
Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
Page 5 of 6
allows property owners to apply for exceptions to the density standard. Under previous City
Councils, staff generally discouraged these types of exceptions as they are generally
inconsistent with the long-range vision of minimizing development on the hillsides.
Staff is very cognizant of the sensitivity of developing within the hillside. The applicant has
made the necessary modifications to the project request from the original 2011 project that
was denied. The applicant has reduced the number of lots from six to four, and positioned
the building pads so they are not located on ridgelines. The building pads have also been
designed to blend into the natural terrain and protect rock croppings on the parcel. When the
future homes are constructed, all disturbed areas will be re -naturalized with native
landscaping that will also blend into the natural terrain.
Bicycle / Walking Path. -
During the initial planning of Stone Eagle Development, City staff discussed accommodation
of a bicycle/walking path along the access roads adjacent to the PVSC. Because no plan
existed at the time for this path, no improvements were ever created. Staff believes this to
be an opportune time to further develop this plan. A condition of approval has been added
that applicants must use their best effort to obtain the necessary easement/right-of-way to
install a 10' wide decomposed granite multi -use path along the east side of the PVSC.
B. Development Standards:
The applicant is proposing to use the same development standards as Stone Eagle
Development; staff is in favor. Below is the development standards table.
HPR ZONE
ALLOWED W/DA
PROPOSED
02-01
PROJECT
Coverage:
35-50%
Not limited under DA
No change from
02-01
DA 02-01
Height:
as approved
25'-2"
25'-2"
Front Setback:
as approved
15'
15,
Rear Setback:
as approved
10,
10,
Interior Side Setbacks:
as approved
5'
5'
Addressed as
Required as
Landscaping
Re -naturalization
mitigation measure in
mitigation
Requirements:
required
CEQA
measures in
CEQA
G tPlanning%Kewn SwarwWormTPM 37336 Stone EagletCC Staff Report - Stone Eagle oocz
February 28, 2019 - Staff Report
Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
Page 6 of 6
C. Findings for Approval:
Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's
Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the City Council
Resolution attached to this staff report.
Environmental Review
For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impact. The MND is attached
as part of this report and filing of the MND has occurred in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.
LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW
Ryan Stendell
Robert W. Hargreaves Director of Community
City Attorney
Development
APPLICANT:
Eagle 605, LLC
74-001 Reserve Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
FINANCIAL REVIEV CITY MANAGER
N/A
Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian
Director of Finance City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Development Agreement Ordinance No. 1346 "Exhibit A"
2. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2019-09
3. Mitigated Negative Declaration
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated January 15, 2019
5. Legal Notice
6. Exhibits Provided by the Applicant
G \Pianning\Kevin Swartz\Word%TPM 37336 Stone Eagie\CC Staff Report - Stone Eagle aocx
ORDINANCE NO. 1346
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING APPROVING A THIRD AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 02-01 (STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT)
LOCATED WEST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AT THE
TERMINATION OF OLD STONE TRAIL (APN: 662-090-002)
CASE NO: ❑A 02-01 Amendment No. 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 281h day
of February 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Eagle 605,
LLC, for approval of the above -noted project request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California. did on
the 151h day of January 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
Eagle 605, LLC, for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the above -noted
project request; and
WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is
subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine
whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, a further
environmental review is necessary. The application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, at the said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did find
the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in the staff report, exist to justify the
approva# of said request:
1. The Development Agreement (DA) provides the City and the developer with a
higher degree of certainty of how the project will be developed, what associated
fees and improvements will be required, and assurance of consistency with City
policies, ordinances, regulations, and exceptions allowed as part of the ❑A.
2. Limiting grading and protecting natural resources are goals of both the City's R-H
General Plan Designation and the City's Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zoning
district. As proposed, this project accomplishes two goals by reducing the overall
number of units within the Stone Eagle Development, and by designing the
proposed development into the existing terrain of the hillside such that grading is
minimized. There is no specific plan for this area.
3. The vacant property is located within the City of Palm Desert and located adjacent
to the existing Stone Eagle Development. The site has vehicle access points via
Old Stone Trail. The pads have been located to blend with the natural terrain of
the property to the greatest extent feasible. Similar sites have been successfully
developed as single-family homes as is proposed here, demonstrating that these
sites are physically suitable for the proposed development
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City
Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby approve the project as proposed.
3. That Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment No. 3, Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
by Ordinance No. is hereby approved.
4. That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert. California, is hereby directed to publish
this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and
circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its adoption,
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 28th day of February 2019, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
2
SUSAN MARIE WEBER, MAYOR
GAP Iannin0ev+n Swartz=ordLTPM 37336 Stone EagIe1CC Ord CA 02-01 No. 3.dorx
ORDINANCE NO.
Exhibit "A"
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Palm Desert
Attn: City Clerk
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
-NO FEE-
6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE
Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use
THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Third Amendment to Development Agreement (this "Amendment") is made and
entered into as of this day of , 2019, by and between the CITY OF PALM
DESERT, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and STONE EAGLE, LLC ("Developer")
as successor -in -interest to DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California
corporation ("DDC"), and Eagle 6.5, LLC ("Eagle"), the owner in fee of the Additional Property
(as hereinafter defined) (City and Developer and Eagle are, collectively, "the Parties"),
pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of
California.
RECITALS
A. City and ❑DC enter into that certain Development Agreement, dated as of
November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003-
172463, in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the
`Agreement"). The Agreement was entered into to facilitate the development
of certain real property ("Site") more particularly described in the Agreement.
B. Subsequently, City and Developer entered into "First Amendment to the
Development Agreement 02-01" dated September 27. 2007 (Riverside County
Document #2007-0663645, recorded October 29, 2007), and "Second
Amendment to the Development Agreement 02-01" dated March 27, 2008
(Riverside County Document # 2008-0404071, recorded July 24, 2008),
The Developer now desires to make an additional approximately 7.7± acres
("Additional Property"), subject to the Agreement as amended by this
Amendment. All 7.7± acres of the Additional Property are located within the
City. The Additional Property is described as Tentative Parcel Map No. 37331
and is shown on Exhibit A-7 attached hereto. The Agreement (as amended)
3
G %PlanninglKavin SwartzlWordlTPM 37336 Slone Eagle%CC Ord RA 02.01 No. 3.doex
N1ala]IU-11 man0
sets forth the maximum number of residential dwelling units (each a "DU")
which is permitted on the Site. Of the maximum number of 50 DUs (plus one
caretaker residence) permitted on the Site, 44 have been developed, leaving
15 DUs plus the caretaker residence not yet developed. The Additional
Property will be allocated and entitled to use four (4) of the remaining 15 DUs,
one for each lot in the Additional Property. The Site will have twelve (12) ❑Us
plus the caretaker residence remaining for development after (and in addition
to) the allocation of the four (4) DUs to the Additional Property.
D. Eagle holds fee title to all of the Additional Property.
E. The Additional Property was annexed into the Site and the Stone Eagle
Owners' Association on by recordation of instrument number
F. City and Developer now desire to extend the term of the Agreement by ten (10)
years to February 27, 2029.
G. City and Developer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth
herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises
of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date which is two (2)
business days after the date which is thirty (30) days after the date of final adoption by the
City of the ordinance approving this Amendment ("Effective Date"). From and after the
Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall automatically be deemed to mean the
Agreement as amended by this Amendment.
Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meaning set forth in the Agreement.
Effect on Additional Propertv. This amendment will bind the Additional Property upon
the effective date since Eagle is a party hereto. In addition, the Additional Property shall be
subject to and bound by the Original Agreement set forth in Recital A and the First and Second
Amendments set forth in Recital B.
Expansion of Site. From and after the Effective Date, the Site will be expanded to add
thereto the Additional Property, consisting of an additional approximately 7.7± acres within
the City, and thereafter the term "Site" as used in the Agreement shall be deemed to include
both the original Site as defined in the Agreement as originally entered into, and the Additional
Property,
Revised Exhibits. On the Effective Date: (i) Exhibit A-7 attached to this Amendment
shall be included with Exhibit A attached to the Agreement; (ii) Exhibit C attached to this
Ell
G %PlannmglKevin SwartzlWor(ATPM 37336 Stone Eagle1CC Ord OA 02-01 No- 3.doox
Amendment shall be substituted for Exhibit C attached to the Agreement; and (iii) Exhibit 0
attached to this Amendment shad be substituted for the Exhibit ❑ attached to the Agreement.
Extension of Term. The Term of the Agreement currently expires on February 27,
2019, The Parties hereto hereby agree to extend the Term for an additional period of ten
(19) years to February 27, 2029.
Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between
the Parties hereto that the Agreement and this Amendment shall not be severable from
Developer's and Eagles' interests in the Site, including the Additional Property, and the
provisions of the Agreement as amended by the Amendment shall constitute covenants which
shall run with the Site or any portion thereof upon the recordation against the Site, including
the Additional Property, of the Agreement and this Amendment, and thereafter the benefits
and burdens of the Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall bind and inure to all
successors in interest to the Parties.
Interpretation. This Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of the provisions their
plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment.
Entire Agreement. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals, each of which
is deemed to be an original. This Amendment consists of seven (7) pages and three (3)
exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the matters set forth in
this Amendment.
Status of Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment, the terms and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
5
G.IPiannnglKevin Swartz%WOrd1TPM 37336 Slone Eagle1CC Ord OA 02.01 No.3 docx
ORDINANCE NO.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date
and year first above written.
"CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California
Municipal Corporation
Effective Date: By:
(Mayor, City of Palm Desert)
, 2019
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney,
"DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
Date of Submission by Developer: By:
.. , 2019
"EAGLE" EAGLE 6.5, LLC
By:
Robert J. Lowe, its
, 2a19
6
G 110lanninglKevin Swartz%wordlTPM 37336 Slone Eagle= 0rd DA 02-01 No. 3.docx
ORDINANCE NO.
►T0I:f►L41TiT1111149Ic3 IAj!ki
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate
verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached, and not
the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF i
On before me, a Notary Public,
personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
persons), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand. and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
M
GAP IanningWevin Slwartz%WofxATPM 37336 Stone EagIMCC Ord DA 02-01 No. 3.doex
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT A-7
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37336
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:
The Southeast quarter of Government Lot 2 in the Northwest quarter of Section 31, Township
5 South, Range 5 East, San Bernardino Meridian according to the official plat thereof.
Excepting therefrom that portion lying North of the South line of and its Easterly extension of
Tract No. 20024, in the City of Palm Desert, as shown by Map on file in Book 211, Page(s)
90 through 94, inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County,
California.
Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by
deed recorded August 23, 1971, as Instrument/File No. 94950 of Official Records.
APN: 652-090-002
f�
G 1PlanninglKavin Swartz%WordkTPM 37336 Slone Eagle1GC Ord OA 02-01 No.3.docx
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT D
BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS
The following development standards shall apply for TPM 37336:
Minimum Buildinq Setbacks:
All custom lot setbacks will be reviewed on the individual merits of the submitted site plan. At
a minimum, the following setbacks shall be maintained.
Front Yard Setbacks: Fifteen (15) Feet
Rear Yard Setbacks: Ten (10) Feet
Interior Side Yard Setbacks: Five (5) Feet
Buildinq Heiqhts:
Residential buildings or structures shall not have a height exceeding twenty-six (26) feet from
the approved finished pad elevation. Roof -mounted equipment must be placed within said
height limitations and shall be screened from view. Chimney height and other projections
required by building codes will be examined on a case -by -case basis. Visual impacts and
privacy views to or from adjacent structures will be considered.
GAPIanningWevin Sw@rWVVordLTPM 37336 Stone Eagfe= Ord dA 02-01 No. 3.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.7-ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS
THAT WILL BE PART OF STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, AND A THIRD
AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 02-01 (STONE EAGLE
DEVELOPMENT) LOCATED WEST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM
CHANNEL AT THE TERMINATION OF OLD STONE TRAIL (APN: 552-090-
002); AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA)
CASE NOS: TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 281h day
of February 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Eagle 605,
LLC, for approval of the above -noted project request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 1511' day of January 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
Eagle 605, LLC, for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the above -noted
project request; and
WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is
subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine
whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, a further
environmental review is necessary. The application has complied with the requirements of
the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in the Director of Community Development has determined that
the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Mitigated Negative
Declaration can be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project conforms to the Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments; if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the City Council did find the
following facts and reasons, which are outlined in staff report, exist to justify the approval of
said request:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:
1. That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
The proposed parcel map falls within the Rural Neighborhood (R-H) designation of the
General Plan. The intent of R-H designation is to provide reasonable development
opportunities while protecting natural and scenic resources. The R-H allows for zero to
one unit per five acres. The gross project encompasses 710 acres and as proposed will
RESOLUTION NO.
be allowed fig total units, including the proposed four (4) lots which equates to a total
density of one dwelling per 9 7.5 acres of gross land. There is no specific plan for this
area.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
Limiting grading and protecting natural resources are goals of both the City's R-H General
Plan Designation and the City's Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zoning district. As
proposed, this project accomplishes two goals by reducing the overall number of units
within the Stone Eagle Development, and by designing the proposed development into
the existing terrain of the hillside such that grading is minimized. There is no specific plan
for this area.
3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
The vacant property is located within the City of Palm Desert and located adjacent to the
existing Stone Eagle Development. The site has vehicle access points via Old Stone Trail.
The pads have been located to blend with the natural terrain of the property to the greatest
extent feasible. Similar sites have been successfully developed as single-family homes
as is proposed here, demonstrating that these sites are physically suitable for the
proposed development
4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
The proposed 7.7 acres is physically suitable forresidential development with accessibility
through Stone Eagle Development and proposed access roads. Utilities are available in
the vicinity, and the small footprint of these residential units fit easily into the rugged terrain
of the hills. tucked under the elevation of adjacent ridgelines.
5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife
❑r their habitat.
Far purposes of CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been
prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with
similar land uses and a golf course. Environmental studies performed at the site did not
identify any endangered or sensitive species. In addition, the project will pay into the
Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation fund for the development of raw land.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The design and layout of the parcel map and four residential lots are in compliance with
all grading requirements, and the properties will be developed in accordance with the
Uniform California Building Code. Grade changes in the community are accommodated
by the street layout and open space provided throughout the subdivision.
2
IN*1910111114 101TCel
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
The proposed project will construct retention basins for the project. The parcel map
identifies the use of this area, and the applicant is responsible for the maintenance of the
retention. Surrounding perimeter City streets are built -out to the General Plan designation
and the developer will complete minor improvements along Old Stone Trail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City
Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby approve the project as proposed.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 28th day of February 2019, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
SUSAN MARIE WEBER, MAYOR
3
:4*zY0]Will i[*1MZ14]
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS: TPM 37336, DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the
Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. That all conditions of approval as part of Development Agreement 62-01 (as amended)
shall apply to this application.
3. The applicant shall record Parcel Map 37336 within two (2) years of project approval,
unless a time extension is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and
of no effect whatsoever.
4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and
limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved project and all Palm Desert
Municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may
be in force.
5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance
from the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
Public Works Department
Fire Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the
Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use
contemplated herewith.
6. A cultural resources inventory shall be completed by a qualified archeologist prior to any
development activities within the project area.
7. If the presence of cultural resources is identified in the cultural resources inventory, an
approved Native Cultural Resource Monitor shall be on site during ground disturbing
activities.
8. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project,
the project coordinator will be subject to either the state Law regarding the discovery and
disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance, all
destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall be
contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are
determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely
Descendent (MLD). The City and Developer will work with the designated MILD to
determine the final disposition of the remains.
4
RESOLUTION NO.
9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any third party
legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the City at applicant's
expense.
10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of building
permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, TUMF, School Mitigation fees, and Housing Mitigation fees.
11. The applicant shall re -naturalize to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development any and all disturbed hillside area of the project with native landscaping
and materials to blend the project into the natural terrain.
12. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code
(PDMC) Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types
within the project area.
13. The findings in the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment
shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the
project.
14. Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Department of Community
Development and the CVWD for review and approval. The landscape plan shall conform
to the landscape palate contained in the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of
this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall
be a minimum of five gallons in size, and trees shall be a minimum of 15- and 24-inch
box sizes.
15. The applicant shall use their best effort to obtain the necessary ease mentlright-of-way
for the construction of the 1 0-foot wide decomposed granite bike path from Cal le De Los
Campesinos to Cholla Way. The applicant shall also assist the City to obtain a necessary
easement from appropriate owners by providing the City with legal description and plat
by a registered land surveyor/civil engineer.
16. Before the parcel map records, the applicant shall execute the annexation agreement
between them and Stone Eagle Development.
17. The future homes will be subject to the development standards established with
Development Agreement 02-01.
18. The applicant shall record Development Agreement 92-01 Amendment No. 3 prior to, or
concurrent with recording of the parcel map.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Prior to recordation of the parcel map,
19. The parcel map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
61
RESOLUTION NO.
20. Easements for drainage, pedestrian, and public utility purposes shall be provided as
needed on the final parcel map.
21. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in
accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC.
22. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm
Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section
26.49 ❑f PDMC and Palm ❑esert Ordinance Number 653.
23. Park fees in accordance with PDMC Section 26.48.060 shall be paid prior to the
recordation of the parcel map.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit:
24. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the ❑epartment of Public Works for review
and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for
approval prior to work commencing.
25. The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply
with all provisions ❑f PDMC Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control.
26. The applicant shall abide by all provisions of the City of Palm Desert Ordinance 843,
Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance.
27. The applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for review
and approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will
be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit, the ❑peration and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP
shall be recorded with County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided
to the Public Works Department,
28. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative parcel map, are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC.
BUILDING AN❑ SAFETY DEPARTMENT:
29. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes.
A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards.
B. 2016 California Residential Code and its appendices and standards.
C. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards.
D. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards.
E. 2016 California Electrical Code.
F. 2016 California Energy Code,
G. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code.
K Title 24 California Code of Regulations.
1. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards.
10
RESOLUTION NO.
30. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of
Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265.
31. An accessible access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to
the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility
requirements as per 2013 CBC Chapters 11A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10.
32. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B-
705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA
requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall
supersede the State requirement.
33. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health and then submitted to Department of Building and Safety. Pools
and Spas for public use are required to be accessible.
34. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business
License prior to permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5.
35. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers'
Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per
California Labor Code. Section 3700.
FIRE DEPARTMENT:
36. Fire Department Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when
building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be
based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code
(CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
37. The project may have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Department's ability to
provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts include an increased number of
emergency and public service calls due to the increased presence of structures, traffic,
and population. The project proponents/developers will be expected to provide for a
proportional mitigation to these impacts via capital improvements and/or impact fees.
38. Fire Department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall
be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and
Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
39. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the
California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire
Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and
approval prior to building permit issuance.
7
Project Title:
Case No:
Lead Agency
Name and Address:
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
C'EQA Initial Study/November 2018/1"age I
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Phone: (760) 346-0611
Fax: (760) 341-7098
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
Tentative Parcel Map and Stone Eagle Development Agreement
Amendment
TPM 37336, DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Phone: (760) 346-061 1 Fax: (760) 341-7098
Applicant:
EAGLE 6.5. LLC, c/o Ted Lennon
74-001 Reserve Drive
Indian. Wells, CA 92210
Representative:
John D. Criste, AICP
Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.
42-635 Melanie Place, Suite 101
Palm Desert, CA 9221
Phone: 760-341-4800
Contact Person:
Kevin Swartz, Planner, City of Palm Desert
And Phone Number:
760-346-06 11 (7.7t acres)
Project Location:
South extension of Old Stone Trail and Stone Eagle
Palm Desert, CA 92260
APN: 652-090-002
General Plan Designation: Rural Neighborhood (0.05 to 1.0 Du/Ac)
Zoning Designation: HPR.,D (Hillside Planned Residential, 1 DU/5 Ac)
Eagle 6.5 "I'PM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CF.QA Initial Study[November 2018/1'age 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location and Limits
The subject property is located immediately south of and contiguous to the existing Stone Eagle
community and immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. It will utilize the same
roadway network and infrastructure. The Project will utilize and improve an existing channel maintenance
easement held by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to connect the Project to the original
Crest/Stone Cagle project.
The project primarily involves a single, 7.7t acre parcel (APN: 652-090-002). and is contiguous to, will
take access from and will become a part of the Stone Eagle to the immediate south. Access to the subject
property will be from the southerly extension of Old Stone Trail, a private road located within the existing
Stone Eagle development. The subject property is a subdivision of a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of
Government Lot 2 in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, SBB&M.
Project Description
Development ofthe proposed addition to the Project (Tentative Parcel Map 37336; Exhibit 5) will involve
the southerly extension of the existing Old Stone Trail within the aforementioned Stone Eagle
development. The Project will include the grading of one access road, which will branch into two shorter
segments to serve four (4) proposed residential lots. The proposed residential lots will provide buildable
pads ranging from 12,802 sq. ft. (0.29 acres) to15,239 sq. ft. (0.35 acres). For purposes ofthis analysis,
completed residential structures are assumed to total 28,000± square feet. Lot A is the extension of the
private Old Stone Trail that will provide access to the four new residential lots, and will provide a
minimum 20-foot paved cross section plus 2-foot gutter on each side in a 24-foor right-of-way. The total
disturbed area, including the extension of the private Old Stone "Frail, will be 2.17t acres.
The Project also includes the 3" Amendment to the Stone Eagle Development Agreement (DA), which
will bind the subject property to the Stone Eagle development. The DA will thereby expand Stone Eagle
by the 7.7t acres and shall not be thereafter severable from the larger interest of Stone Eagle or the
provisions of the DA. The DA and the incorporation of the subject TPM into Stone Eagle allows for the
transfer of development densities remaining available under the original Stone Eagle Development
Agreement. Also please see Development Agreement Amendment No. 3.
Surrounding Land Uses & Setting
North: Stone Eagle residential lots and open space; scattered single family residential in Cahuilla }dills
beyond
South: Vacant open desert slopes and washes; scattered single family residential in Cahuilla Hills
East: CVWD Palm Valley Stormwater Channel; Indian Springs MHP and Sommerset condominium
development beyond channel; State Highway 74 east of aforementioned residential lands
West: Vacant raising terrain of foothills; scattered single family residential in Cahuilla hills
General Plan Designation
The subject property is designated Rural Neighborhood on the City General Plan, which states that the
intent of this designation is:
"To conserve suture while providing the lowest intensity and amount of
neighborhood development. "
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 3
This designation allows low density residential development at density ranging from 0.05 to 1.0
dwelling unit per acre. The Rural Neighborhood designation also allows for the:
"Limited commercial activity may be allowed in the form of focused specialty
lodging such as a bed & breakfast inn with minor commercial/retail. "
As well as:
"Uses such as guest houses, churches, schools, family day care homes, public
facilities, and others which are determined to he compatible with and oriented toward
serving the needs of rural, lost -density neighborhoods may also he allowed. "
Zoning Designation
The subject property is designated HPR (Hillside Planned Residential; I DU/5 Ac. The purpose of the
hillside planned residential district is to provide for the lowest intensity (0.2 du/ac) of residential
development by minimizing the grading of hillside areas and to preserve the natural contours ofthe land
by avoiding extensive cut and fill of slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the
development. This district is characterized by the preservation of natural features and protected viewsheds.
architecture and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain, and informal and natural streetscapes
that tollow the topography of the land.
Other Required Public Agency Approvals
None required.
Summary of CEQA Findings:
This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with Section 15063 and other applicable sections of
the CEQA Guidelines, including the City Rules to Implement CEQA, to determine if the project, as
proposed, may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained within
this report, the Initial Study will be used in support of the preparation of Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NMEXICO
Palm Spdnga
Random MW"
Palm DescrtA W40
rWLvn waft 09whe"
Ls 0LAr"
"AMMA
V
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
N p
I r
r
r 1 TPM 37336 & Stone Eagle DA Amd. No. 3 Exhibit
L j TERRA NOVA Regional Location Map 0 1
R KMNG3"t SIAMUK WA: Palm Desert, California PALM DESERT
C ur.r.y.
V.
y f ;
1 �F
4 icy' •� -� r``-� �" r.
Bob Hnpc Or
it� S .'ram-Fi-j�•` a
im
o _
' - F° 2tnla Rvc
t - i?
'Cook -St- n 1--
L � c
T c
Ei4wrihower Dr-,
b J
r
'•` � � -- ,,,�„ Y �� j yG� --•.� it :�'.. -
+ - 1Vashingtpn35t 111 .- y .
JCSfCrsot; St
a �
rp
x Z V
N
o i"
w ur aH mr
iFM'li !a(r
=o
o 'e - 89pI xai6 QPg;
ot-
+if- lit
T H" � � e
it pp
. 51
f 1 I
"l— � I I {
I , I
e I �a
w I I 3 $£ 3
I ! 1 I a A
L L rr L Y 1 1
r � "eao.: rim eny�,wr�, rie., zo+e
L J
�g
r
O
i
a
r
O
rn
rn
A
:rr
Q1
r=
r
z
v a
�
❑
�� i
�
y
i1}CN-7j
rn
Cq
rn
w
b
11
L J �f
�mm a
]] m
F � E
Y +
i
a + r r
� O i
r
E
E• j,
a
a
r
E
r-
� O
a
A
y �
■• e
y i
r
E h �
i
e
W y.
V E
W
W
n:
a
0y d
m (n y.
a
+ r
3 O +
0
�o
-,
----------------------------
E f y
... ...
idE
o a e Lf) 2 y ri
rn n �
n
`z cl a#�A
lQ tn � �
_ n.
•� a r= � ti A
r -I
M W
y m
3 W ra^o
n�►�
N�
a�o
a
3
a3
v.
z
v
w
r4
r.
E.
i•
r
ra
r
E
E
r`
�
F:
F �
i
I
f•
E
E•
!
�+
i
�
6
�
l
r
W
i
a
F
E
a
a
�1
,EI
F.
r
r
6
k
f
�
!ram A
r
1
Y
�
Y1
-1
F
E-
�
r
i
F-
Y
rn
[)rri
a
rn
a
y
Rc�
V !
❑ � y y
�s
A
L
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture and
❑
Air Quality
Forestry Resources
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Greenhouse Gas
❑
Hazards &
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
Emissions
Hazardous Materials
f
❑
I
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑ Population / housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
® Tribal Cultural Resources
The Project has been evaluated to determine if there is any substantial evidence, based upon this
environmental assessments, studies and reports evaluated for the Project, as were supplemental biological'
and cultural resources' reports and line -of -sight analyses. All ofthe potential environmental impacts were
evaluated for the proposed project. In addition to the proposed TPM 37336, the Project includes an
amendment to the Stone Eagle Development Agreement, which places the proposed subdivision within
the overall development thresholds set by the original Stone Eagle approval. Its potential physical impacts
on the environment are comparable to those identified for the original Stone Eagle development and is
subject to the application of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures set forth in the certified
Stone Eagle STIR and this IS/MND.
"Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of'the proposed Lowe Enterprises 6.5-Acre Residential Site", prepared
b� James W. Cornett. July 28. 2006.
"Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report — Assessor's Parcel No. 652-090-002", prepared by CRM Tech.
August 16. 2006.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI:QA Initial Study/Noxember 2018/Page 13
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE.
DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)
has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
FIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing farther is required.
Signature: Ryan Stendell Date:
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study-/Novcmber 2018/1'age 14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based
on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"
to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR or EIS, or other CEQA
or NEPA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or EIS or negative
declaration or FONSI. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the
project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources
for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared
or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
c) minimization measures, if any, if mitigation measures are not required
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CF.QA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 15
Environmental Checklist and Discussion:
The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those
environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site
environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse
impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the
reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described.
Potentially
Less Phan
Less Than
No
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) I fa%e a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
ista'?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including.
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
Elhistoric
buildings within a state scenic highway'?
❑
❑
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or duality of the site and its surroundings'?
❑
❑
®
❑
d) Create a nc%v source of substantial light or glare.
hich would ad%ersely affect day or nighttime
El
®
❑
Elie%%s
in the area'?
Source: T1110 37336 and Cross Section, Feiro Engineering,
2018. Site surveys: City of Palm Desert Municipal Code
Background: The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the City of Palm Desert in the
Coachella Valle, area of Riverside County. The property is situated on east -facing sloping terrain
immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The site is approximately 900 feet west of
State Ilighway 74 and is separated from this roadway by intervening residential development. Terrain
continues to raise behind (to the west of) the subject property and the proposed residential home sites
(pads) to an elevation of 800 feet. Proposed residential pads vary in elevation from 732 feet to 767 feet
above mean sea level. The terrain rises to the west of each of the four proposed development sites.
The areas scenic resources of the area are dominated by the rapidly rising terrain of the Santa Rosa
Mountains foothills to the west and south, as well as the rocky spurs to the east. These dramatic rocky
mountain backdrop rise to over 3,600 feet to the southwest and to over 9,600 feet to the south. In addition
to the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north and northeast also enhance
those viewsheds. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel passes north -south along the cast boundary of the
subject property.
For purposes of this analysis, a number of cross sections were plotted to allow the analysis of the potential
impacts of the proposed residential lots and future homes on the public viewsheds, including those of
residents closest to the property. The cross sections show that even for the highest proposed lots there will
be a backdrop of rocky slopes and elevated terrain behind (west of) each lot. Please see Exhibits 5 through
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less Than Significant. The Project will result in the grading of an extension of Old Stone Trail
southerly and into the property, where it will split into two forks that serve each of the four
residential lots. The road grading plan limits the exposed fill area that would be generated near the
end of the south fork. Retaining walls are planned at several locations to limit cut and is visibility
from below. The minimum vertical separate between the proposed four lots and the raising terrain
Eagle 6.5 ,rPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 16
ranges from 33 feet to 68 feet. Single family residences are planned, which will ensure that
structures do not break the ridgeline to the west. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas, which arise
in all directions as viewed from surrounding lands, will be less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant. Highway 74 is "state -eligible" to be designated as a scenic highway but
is not currently so designated. As noted above, the Project site is located 900 feet from the closest
approach of this roadway and is separated from it by residential development and the Palm Valley
Stormwater Channel. Views into the developed portion of the subject property that might be
momentarily visible from Highway I 1 1 will also view homes in front of the rocky slope backdrop
to the west. Therefore, potential impacts to Highway 74 viewshed are expected to be less than
significant.
There is very little vegetation on or surrounding the subject property. However, there are
substantial landscaping elements, including trees and shrubs, within the residential developments
to the east, which serve to soften and buffer the views of the rocky slopes to the west, including
the subject property. Pose -development fill slopes will be limited and retaining walls will be used
extensively to limit the effect of road and lot grading. Extensive portions of the site's rocky
outcroppings will remain unaffected by the Project. Therefore, impacts to these visual resources
will be less than significant.
c) Less Than Significant. The proposed project will result in the incremental development of single-
family homes within the Cahuilla Hills area of the City and surrounding unincorporated area. The
project will result in limited site grading and the maintenance of the overall look and feel of the
site and the Stone Eagle development to which it will become a part through the approval of the
proposed DA amendment. The proposed subdivision will not significantly degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The rising terrain above the site and the
planned use of desert vegetation, gravel and boulders in the project landscaping (see landscape
plan ref subst conform w/ Stone Eagle) will further reinforce the existing visual character and
quality of the site by emulating the natural rocky outcroppings in the distance and native vegetation
within and surrounding the community.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Increased light and glare from outdoor structural and
landscape lighting, and from reflective surfaces such as windows, automobiles and other reflective
surfaces can be expected to result from the project. Excessive lighting can adversely impact
enjoyment of the night sky and can intrude onto adjoining properties. Lighting from the future
home sites may also be evident from the vicinity during evening and nighttime hours. These
impacts are expected to be adequately minimized and mitigated (see Mitigation Measures
discussion below) and are not expected to substantially alter the existing environment
Mitigation Measures
While the proposed subdivision and DA amendment will have limited adverse impacts to surrounding
viewsheds, a variety of measures can be applied to the project design to further limit the visual impacts of
new development. These are consistent with those that were applied to the potential development impacts
associated with the approved Stone Eagle development, and include the following:
Building materials used in development of residences other potentially visible structures shall
include those which tend to blend and harmonize with the textures and tones of the surrounding
foothills into which they will be integrated. Earth tones are encouraged. as is the use of stone and
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI QA Initial Study/No\,ember 2018/1'age 17
similar materials, which emulate surrounding natural materials and colors. Exposed roofing
materials should also complement the surrounding environment to reduce or minimize the contrast
of the built with the natural environment.
2. Landscaping plans shall serve to integrate a harmonious transition between the natural and the
built environment. Native and appropriate non-invasive non-native plants shall be applied in a
manner that emulates the natural vegetation pattern of the washes and foothills. Boulders and rock
walls should also be considered to lend rhythm and massing and to help smooth the landscaped
edge.
3. Boundary walls and fences shall be constructed so as to blend with surrounding unaltered and re -
naturalized areas. Construction materials may include stone and stucco, wrought iron and steel
fencing, which quickly acquire a patina or are painted, stained or coated to blend and harmonize
with the surrounding environment.
4. All development plans, including grading and site plans, building elevations and landscape plans
shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. Final home site plans, privacy walls, and private and common open space areas shall be designed
in such a manner as to preserve individual viewsheds to the greatest extent practical, while
preserving privacy.
6. All outdoor lighting shall be in compliance with the City lighting ordinance. Outdoor lighting shall
be limited to the minimum height, number and intensity of fixtures needed to provide security and
identification, taking every reasonable effort to preserve the community's night skies.
7. Water pumps, utility transformers and boxes and other related facilities shall be screened with
walls or other appropriate treatment to preserve scenic viewsheds and limit visual clutter.
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program
The final subdivision map shall be reviewed to assure substantial compliance with the basic design
parameters set forth in the above mitigation measures and as conditioned by City approvals.
Responsible Party: Community Development Department and City Engineer.
Structural design elements, including residences, garages, utility buildings, and walls and fences
shall be reviewed for their responsiveness to the design criteria set forth in the above mitigation
measures and as otherwise required by City.
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
3. Landscaping palette and design, as well as lighting elements for each home, shall be reviewed for
their responsiveness to design and mitigation issues addressed in the above mitigation measures,
and as elsewhere required by other mitigation measures and conditions set forth by the City.
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES -- In determining �%hether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental
eff'ects. lead agencies mad refer to the California
Agricultural Land F.\aluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared b� the California Dept. of
Consen ation as an optional model to use in assessing
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Impact \sith Mitigation
Incorporation
Less "than No
Significant Impact
Impact
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CF.QA Initial StudN/November 2018/1'age 18
impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining
whether impacts to forest resources, including
timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the
Forest Legacy Assessment project: and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board. Would the project:
a) Covert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Calllornla
❑ ❑ ❑
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use'?
b) Conflict with existing coning fi)r agricultural use. or
a Williamson Act contract'?
❑ ❑ ❑
c) Conflict with existing zoning for. or cause rezoning
of. forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code
El El
Section 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51 104 (�))'?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non -forest use'?
❑ ❑ ❑
e) )mo)ve other changes in the existing environment,
which. due to their location or nature, could result in
conersion of Farmland, to nun -agricultural use'?
❑ ❑ ❑
Source: Clt\ of Palm Desert 2017 General Plan; Califurnia Department of Conservation: Farmland Mapping & Monitoring
Program. 2001.
Background: The City of Palm Desert is located in a desert environment containing soils that are
characterized as sandy and rocky. The project site is located on course alluvium and rocky slopes of
decomposed granitic rock with areas of limited, shallow soils, being the extension of the Santa Rosa
Mountains foothills. No agricultural activities occur in proximity to the project site nor are there any
identified agricultural lands in the City or the vicinity, the closest such lands being located in the eastern
portion ofthe valley.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) No Impact. The subject property is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to the California Department of Conservation, nor
is it used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, there are no properties in the immediate area
designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project area is designated as "Urban and
Built -Up Land" by the State, and has a General Plan designation of "Low Density Residential".
The proposed project will have no impact on farmlands.
b) No Impact. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property or properties in the
immediate vicinity. The subject property is currently designated " Rural Neighborhood' and is
also surrounded by scattered low -density residential development of Cahuilla Hills. The Palm
Valley Stormwater Channel and planned residential developments are located to the immediate
east. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the surrounding land use pattern.
The proposed project will not conflict with surrounding zoning designations.
Fagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI;QA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 19
c,d) No Impact. The subject property is not located in an area designated as forest land and will not
conflict with forestland zoning. The project will not result in the loss of forestland.
e) No Impact. As described above, the proposed project is not designated as farmland, or located
near areas of existing farmland; therefore, the project will not result in the direct conversion of
existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Minimization Measures (If any):
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
3. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
air quality management or air pollution control
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
district ma\ be relied upon to make the tbllowing
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
determinations. Would the project:
Incorporation
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan:'
❑
❑
❑
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantiall\, to an existing or projected air quality
v iolation?
❑
❑
®
❑
c) Result in a cumulati\ ely considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant fix which the
project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
❑
❑
®
❑
standard (including releasing emissions. %%hich
exceed quantitati\e thresholds for ozone
precursors)'?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
❑
❑
®
❑
e) Create objectionable odors aftecting a
substantial numberofpeople?
❑
❑
®
❑
Sources: CalF.liMod Version 2013.2.2. Project grading
plans; SCAQMD AQMP, 2016; Coachella Valley
PM10 SIP. 2003.
Background: The City of Palm Desert is located in the Coachella Valley, which is a low elevation desert
environment characterized by low annual rainfall (2 to 6 inches per year) and low humidity, with
temperatures ranging from 80' F to 108 ° F in July and 40' F to 57' F in January. The Coachella Valley is
located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's
2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM,o State
Implementation Plan (2003 CV PM,o SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality
monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The proposed site is located within
Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30. which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio. The Indio
site has been operational since 1985 and the Palm Springs site since 1987.
historically, the Coachella Valley has been classified as being in non -attainment for both ozone (03) and
PM,o. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB is classified as a
"severe-15" 03 non-attaintnent area for the 8-hour state standard, which means that the region must come
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 K DA Amd No. 3
CFQA Initial Study/No%ember 2018/1'age 20
into compliance with Federal ozone standards by December 31, 2027. With future emission controls, the
Coachella Valley will achieve the 2008 8-hour federal 03 standard by 2024.3
With regard to PM,o, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved the Coachella Valley PM,,, Re -
designation Request on February 25, 2010, SCAQMD requested re -designation by the US EPA from
serious nonattainment to attainment for the PM,o National Ambient Air Quality Standard. As of January
30, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency has not re -designated the PM,o classification for the
Coachella Valley'. The Coachella Valley continues to exceed the state standard and is in a serious non -
attainment area for PM,(,.
The Project will involve the grading and paving of an extension of Old Stone Trail south of its current
terminus in the south end of the Stone Eagle development. Site grading will also include creation of four
(4) residential lots comprised of five pads (1.24 acres), small terraces confined by retaining walls (0.12
acres), and the on -lot street (0.81 acres). Total site disturbance will be 2.17t acres or approximately 28%
of the site. Earthwork quantities include 4,300 cubic yards of cut and 6.100 cubic yards of fill, meaning
that there will be a net import of approximately 1,800 cubic yards brought onto the site. The residential
square footage at buildout is unknow but has been assumed to average 7.000 square foot per unit or 28,000
square feet of residential space.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) No Impacts. The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality
management plans. The subject property is located within the SSAB, which is governed by the
SCAQMD. SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and
establishing management policies for the SSAB. As previously mentioned, all development within
the SSAB, including the proposed project, is subject to the 2016 AQMP and the 2003 CVPM io
SIP.
The 2016 AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on
regional emission reductions for air pollutants. It was based, in part, on the land use plans of the
jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert's land
use designations assigned to the subject property, and therefore, is consistent with the intent of the
2016 AQMP.
b-c) Less than Significant Impacts. Both construction and operational phases of' the proposed
subdivision will result in the release of criteria air pollutants. The California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by construction
and operation of the proposed residences.
Construction Emissions
As discussed above, construction activities result in the emission of air quality pollutants from
grading, building construction, and off gassing from paving and architectural coating. The site is
vacant. For analysis purposes, data from the TPM 37336 were used and it is also assumed that
future residential construction will encompasses 28,000± square feet of building space that will
occur over approximately a 5-year period extending from about May 2019 to April 2024. Criteria
pollutant emissions from construction activities are short-term, and will end once construction is
complete.
-Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan." Prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, March 3,
2017.
" L• PA Green Book Designated Non -attainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants," as of July 2. 2014. Accessed June 18.
2015.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CriQA Initial Study/Novembcr 2018/Page 21
As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD
thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average daily emissions over
the 5-year construction period. It should be mentioned that the table below shows the worst -case
emission scenario and projected unmitigated emissions.
Table 1
Construction Emissions for TPM 37336 Buildout
Construction Emissions CO
Maximum Daily 16.23
Emissions
(Ibs per day)
NOx ROG sox
32.27 36.99 0.05
PM10 PM2.5
6.12 3.49
SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and %%inter. Emissions
reflect adherence to standard dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403.1. See Appendix A.
Implementation of'standard reduction measures during construction will further reduce emission
levels. Applicable reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust
control practices in conformance with SCQAMD Rule 403 and proper maintenance and limited
idling of heavy equipment. Impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed project for
criteria pollutants, therefore, will be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
Operational emissions are ongoing that will occur over the life of the occupancy of the four
residences. Operational emissions will be associated with the use of electricity for lighting, HVAC,
space heating and other uses. As shown in Table 2 below, SCAQMD thresholds will not be
exceeded during operation of the proposed residential units. The table below sets forth the
operational emissions associated with the four residences.
Table 2
Operational Emissions at TPM 37336 Buildout
(Ibs per day)
CO NOx ROG sox PM10 PM2.5
Operation Emissions 1.36 0.89 0.83 0.00 0.20 0.06
SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter. See
Appendix A.
Non -Attainment
I listorically, the Coachella Valley, which includes the proposed project site, has been classified as
a "non -attainment" area for PMi(j and Ozone. The proposed project will contribute a very modest
incremental increase in regional ozone and PMio emissions. However, this impact is not expected
to be cumulatively considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed
SCAQMD thresholds for PMto or ozone precursors (NO,), and appropriate standard reduction
measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with
any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts.
d) Less than Significant Impacts. The nearest sensitive receptors to the subject property are single-
family and multi -family homes located to the immediately east and beyond the Palm Valley
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 K DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 22
Stormwater Channel. The mass rate LST Look -Up Table was used to determine if the proposed
project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LST for SRA
30 (Coachella Valley) are summarized in the table below for sensitive receptors located 50 meters
from the emission source (single-family homes located immediately northwest). For analysis
purposes, it is assumed that the daily area of disturbance onsite will be approximately 2.1 acres.
As shown below in the table below, LST thresholds will not be exceeded daring construction of
the proposed project. Distance from site disturbance to the closest home is 146t feet.
Table 3
Localized Significance Thresholds
(lbs/day)
CO
NOx
PM 10
PM2.5
Construction
16.23
32.27
6.12
3.49
LST
1,931
225
22
7
Exceed?
No
No
No
No
Operation
1.36
0.89
0.20
0.06
LST 1,931 225 6 2
Exceed? No No No No
Emission Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 Value shown represents the average
emissions from summer and winter, after application ofstandard dust control measures
(See Minimization Measures belo%+)
Source. Mass Rate I.00k-up Table, SCAQMD. Area Source Receptor 30 (Coachella
Valley) for a 2-acre project. sensitise receptor at 50 meters.
Note: Construction emissions show the max. daily emission for the highest emitting
year of construction.
Potential effects to sensitive receptors will be further reduced through the implementation of
effective dust control practices in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403. These include, but are
not limited to, the use of soil stabilizers, routine watering of unpaved roads and disturbed surfaces,
reduced vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, routine cleaning of roads, and covering of import/export
soils during transport. Air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant.
e) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project is not expected to generate objectionable
odors at project buildout. The proposed project has the potential to result in short-term odors
associated with asphalt paving and heavy equipment; however, any such odors would be quickly
dispersed below detectable thresholds as distance from the construction site increases. Therefore,
impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant.
Minimization Measures
Standard Air Oualitv Rel;ulations
fhe project will adhere to all established air quality standards and regulations including the following:
1. SCAQMD Rule 402: The project shall adhere to nuisance odor requirement.
SCAQMD Rule 1 1 13: The project shall use low VOC content architectural coatings and paints per
the requirements of this Rule.
Additional Control Measures
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 23
I'he following control measures are recommended to further limit air quality emissions:
1. To reduce particulate matter and NOx emissions construction equipment should utilize aqueous diesel
Fuels, diesel particulate filters and diesel oxidation catalyst during all construction activities.
All construction equipment should be properly serviced and maintained in optimal operating
condition.
3. Construction equipment should not be left idling for more than five minutes.
4. Diesel -powered construction equipment shall utilize aqueous diesel fuels, and be equipped with diesel
oxidation catalysts.
5. Onsite landscaping, if any, should be equipped with efficient irrigation and a low water demanding
plant pallet to minimize water use onsite, which also reduces onsite energy expenditures and any air
quality emissions associated with the production of energy.
6. Onsite lighting should utilize energy efficient technology such as sensors, timers, and LED to
minimize energy demand from lighting.
7. As feasible, construction waste should be recycling to reroute waste from landfills and minimize the
proiect's contribution to the landfill.
8. The contractor shall notify the City of the start and end of grading and construction activities in
conformance and within the time frames established in the 2003 PMio State Implementation Plan.
9. Construction staging and management plans shall be reviewed and conditioned to require the
application of all reasonably available methods and technologies to assure the minimal emissions of
Pollutants from the development. The City Engineer shall review grading plan applications to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in this document and as otherwise conditioned by
the City.
10. As part of the construction staging and management plans, the contractor shall concurrently submit a
dust control plan consistent with the City's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures to be
implemented through this plan include but are not limited to the use of water trucks and temporary
irrigation systems, post -grading soil stabilization, phased roadway preparation and paving, as well as
other measures which will effectively limit fugitive dust and other emissions.
11. Construction equipment and materials shall be sited as far away from residential uses as practicable.
Mitigation
None
Monitoring
None
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the Potentially Less Than less "Khan No
proicet: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/No\ember 2018/Page 24
a) I la\ e 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 Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service'?
b) I lave a substantial ad\ erne effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
❑ ❑
❑
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish
and Wildlife Servicc'?
c) Have a substantial ad\ erse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined bf Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh.
❑ ❑
❑
crnal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal.
tilling. hydrological interruption, or other means'?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of and
native resident or migratory fish or .ildlilc species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife
❑ ❑
❑
corridors. or impede the use of'nati\e wildlife nursery
sites'?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
❑ ❑
❑
prescnation policy or ordinance'?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted I labitat
Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other appro\ ed local, regional, or state habitat
❑ ❑
❑
conser\ ation plan'?
Sources: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan. and CF.QA/NEPA EIWF:IS. 2007;
Palm Desert
General Plan & FIR, 2017. Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis for Lowe Enterprises
6.5-Acre Residential
Site.
Corriclt..Jul\ 28.2006.
Background: The project site is located adjacent to lands that have already been urbanized at levels
varying from rnedium density residential to scattered low density residential. The subject property is also
bounded on the east by the fully -lined Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Located on a spur of the Santa
Rosa Mountains foothills, the subject property has been impacted over several decades beginning with the
introduction of dirt and paved roadways in the vicinity, followed by scattered residential development
west of the channel and more dense residential development between the channel and State Highway 74.
Area disturbance and development has introduced non-native plant species, single-family and multi-
family residences and golf Course development. The subject property is located on shallow soils and rocky
terrain along the edge of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and is relatively undisturbed.
The nearest Conservation Area as established by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) is the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, which
is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the site. Three days of on -foot plant and animal site surveys
were conducted to evaluate the existing habitat of the site and how it will be modified by the proposed
subdivision (Cornett 2006). Surveys were conducted on the subject property and a 100-yeard buffer area
where access was available. Biological assessments prepared for the adjoining Stone Eagle property were
also again reviewed (AMEC 2002).
The subject property is dominated by the Sonoran creosote bush scrub community common across the
Colorado subunit of the Sonoran desert. Common plants found on site include creosote, brittlebush or
encilia, burrobush and indigo bush. Other common perennials included sweetbush and cheesebush.
Sensitive plant species with some possibility to occur on site include California ditaxis, flat -seeded spurge,
ribbed cryptantha, winged cryptantha, foxtail cactus, spearleft (M. puruvifoliu), slender -lobed four-
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI;QA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 25
o'clock, Thurber's beardtongue, and Cove's cassia. None of these plant species was detected and could
be undetectable due to the hot summer (July) field surveys. No state or federal candidate or listed species
was detected nor are any expected to occur on site.
Common invertebrates detected during field surveys included eleodes beetle, harvester ants, pallid band -
winged grasshopper, giant hairy scorpion and Southern California tarantula. Sensitive invertebrates that
could occur, but which were not found on the site, include Coachella giant sand -treader cricket, Casey's
June beetle, and the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket. The site lies several miles southeast of the nearest
designated survey area for the federally listed Casey's June beetle.
Common vertebrates detected include ground gecko, side -blotched lizard, western whiptail, chuckwalla,
desert scaly lizard and speckled rattlesnake. A concerted effort to detect desert tortoise and burrowing owl
was unsuccessful. Observed birds were limited to mourning dove, rock wren, black -throated sparrow,
house finch, cornmon raven and American kestrel. Detected mammals included California ground squirrel,
desert woodrat, deer mouse, and coyote.
No sign (scat, bedding areas, scrapes, etc.) of Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) were identified at or in the
vicinity of the site, which is consistent with the proximity of the site PBS habitat, including roads and
homes. The nearest recorded historic sheep sighting is approximately 0.5f miles to the northwest.
No state or federal candidate or listed species was detected nor are any expected to occur on site.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) No Impact. The project site is located east of identified critical habitat for the federal and state
listed Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS), which occupy the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains.
The subject property is located on rocky foothills immediately adjacent to the Palm Valley
Storrnwater Channel and varying intensities of rural to urban development. The site has been
isolated from occupied sheep habitat for more than four decades. No state or federal listed plant or
animal species is expected to occur on the subject property.
b-c) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located on or near areas of riparian habitat or
�ketlands. The project site is located on rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills. The
proposed project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive
natural communities, including marshes or vernal pools, or through direct removal, filling.
hydrological interruption of natural drainage.
d) No Impact. The project will have no impact on lands along the urban/wildlands interface of the
Santa Rosa Mountain foothills. The site is bounded on the east by the fully lined Palm Valley
Stormwater Channel and on the south by the Stone Eagle development. To the south and west is
the low -density residential development within Cahuilla Hills. Most of the subject property will
remain undisturbed and the four home sites will be dispersed, providing room for wildlife
rnovernent. The proposed subdivision and associated site disturbance and improvements will not
intertere with the movernent 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- f) No Impact. The subject site lies outside the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation
Area established by the adopted Coachella Valley MSfICP. It does, however, occur within the fee
mitigation area established by the plan the applicable MSHCP development impact fee must be
paid before any site disturbance.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Stu&.[November 2018/13age 26
Mitigation Measures:
None
Minimization
While the subject property is not located adjacent to a CVMSHCP Conservation Area and is expected to
have no impact on sensitive plants or wildlife, the following minimization measures are recommended to
further avoid or minimize potential project effects. These measures will help to preclude potential impacts
to biological resources.
The following measures should be implemented to assure minimum impacts to sensitive plants
and wildlife.
Toxics: No improvements or product that require hazardous or toxic chemicals, or that generate
toxic or potentially toxic bioproducts, or may adversely impact native wildlife and plant species,
their habitat, or water quality, should be use.
LiAtin: Project lighting, including landscape, roadway and event lighting, shall be shielded and
directed away from adjoining lands. Landscape shielding or other appropriate methods shall be
incorporated in project designs to minimize the effects of lighting on adjacent lands. Minimal
lighting is recommended throughout the project.
Invasive Plants: Landscape plans for the project shall avoid the use of invasive, non-native plant
species. Ornamental plant species to be avoided include but are not limited to oleander (see Table
4-113 of the CVMSHCP. To the maximum extent feasible, Coachella Valley native plant species
(sec "fable 4-1 12 of the CVMSHCP) should be incorporated into the project landscape design.
Monitoring
A. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the required detailed landscaping and lighting plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department for consistency with
the above mitigation measures.
Responsible Parties: Project landscape architect, project manager, City Community
Development Department.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
kith Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of'a historical resource as defined in
❑
❑
®
❑
15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
❑
❑
®
❑
to § 15064.5'?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
❑
❑
❑
feature'
d) Disturb any human remains. including those
interred outside of'tormal cemeteries'?
❑
0
®
❑
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CF,QA Initial Study/No%ember 2018/Page 27
Sources: TI'M 37336, Palm Desert General Plan & I:IR. 2017, Historical/Archacological Resources Sur%ey Report for
Assessor's Parcel No. 652-090-002. August 16. 2006: prepared by CRM Tech, April 22. 2006-, Historical/Archacological
Resources Surce) Report for the Crest (Stone Eagle) Project, prepared by CRM Tech, April 22, 2002.
Background: Cultural and Historic Resources- _Cultural resources in the Coachella Valley are typically
found in specific locale associated with habitation sites, lithic workshops, water sources and food
gathering and milling sites. Trails and sacred places are also sometimes identified in the valley.
The City of Palm Desert is located within the territory ethnographically associated with the Cahuilla
people. This language group is within the Cupan subgroup of the Takic family of the Uta-Aztecan stock.
The Takic family includes Cupeno. Gabrielino, and the Luiseno people. Prehistorically, a large portion of
Cahuilla territory was inundated by Lake Cahuilla, which provided the focus for settlement and resources
in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley. The northwestern -most extension of ancient Lake Cahuilla
was at Point happy, today the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111, approximately five
miles east of the subject property.
The first noted European explorers in the Coachella Valley were Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo and
Romualdo Pacheco. They traveled through the Coachella Valley on expeditions searching for a route to
Yuma, Arizona between 1823 and 1825. In 1862, the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Native American
trade route, was "discovered" by William David Bradshaw and subsequently was referred to as the
Bradshaw Trail. During the 1860s and 1870s, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (now
Union Pacific), the Bradshaw Trail was the primary thoroughfare between southern California and the
Colorado River. This historic wagon road followed a path similar to present-day Highway 1 11, located
about 1.5 miles north of the project site. In the 1870s, with the establishment of railroad stations along the
Southern Pacific Railroad, settlement of the Coachella Valley by peoples of European decent began. The
Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws in the 1880s further expanded settlement.
Artesian wells served to establish farming as the primary economic activity in the eastern portion of the
valley and east of the City.
Area I-listorical/Archaeological Resource: In the project vicinity there is evidence of food gathering and
milling sites associated with the stand of mesquite found in drainages. These areas also appear to harbor
the most archaeological resources, including rock cairns, ceramic scatters, milling and lithic work sites,
and habitat debris. Most of these resources are comprised of single milling slicks and pottery shards.
Neither the project site nor immediate area indicated any current or historic sources of water. Also, there
were no ethno-botanical resources, such as honey or screw bean mesquite, or desert fan palm on the site
nor other ethno-botanical resources prior to the site's development.
An historical/archaeological resource survey (CRM TECH 2O06)was conducted on the subject property
by the same archaeologists that conducted the surveys for Stone Eagle (CRM TECH 2002). A
comprehensive literature and records search were conducted, local Native American Tribes were
consulted, and a detailed site survey was conducted across the subject property. No historical resources as
defined by CEQA were identified within or adjacent to the subject property. The possibility remains that
previously undetected buried cultural materials might be unearthed during earthtnoving activities. If this
occurs, work must be halted in the area and the potential resource examined and evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist prior to further disturbance.
Paleontological Resources: Site conditions were evaluated for their potential to harbor paleontological
resources. Fossil remains are found primarily in the geologic deposits within which they were originally
buried. Since there is a direct relationship between fossils and the types of rock formations where they can
be found, knowledge of the geology of an area can help in predicting the likelihood of the existence of
fossils.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 28
Paleontological resources are limited and nonrenewable. The west Coachella Valley has yielded a variety
of' fossils in the past, but these are mainly found in the sedimentary formations typical of lower upland
areas. The valley floors in the project area are underlain by shallow alluvial, fluvial, and aeolian deposits,
mainly sand, silt, and gravel. These deposits have a low potential for yielding fossils. The site's rocky
slopes are comprised of a complex of granitic rock which do not harbor paleontological resources.
Record searches from the University of California at Riverside (UCR) revealed no known fossil localities
within the boundaries of the City of Palm Desert. However, this record also indicates that there is the
potential that fossil materials may be located in older alluvium; this does not occur on site. These potential
resources would be expected to occur east of the City near the high-water mark of ancient Lake Cahuilla
at the vicinity of'Highway I 1 1 and Washington Street, which left deposits of freshwater clams.
The granitic rock associated with the project site, which is a part of the Palm Springs Complex, has a very
low potential to yield paleontological resources and none are expected to occur there.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is largely undisturbed. While the
cultural survey did not identify sensitive resources, care should be taken during grading and other
site disturbance to minimize impacts to any buried resources uncovered during site development.
There are no water sources on the site and it does not appear to have harbored ethno-botanical or
other resources that might indicate prehistoric occupation or use. There are no historic structures,
archaeological resources, or unique paleontological resources on the site. Consequently, no or less
than significant impacts would occur to these resources.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site is not located on, or within proximity to a
known cemetery or Native American burial grounds. It is not anticipated that any human remains
will be encountered during construction of the proposed subdivision. In the event of human
remains being discovered during project development, the State of California requires a coroner
be contacted and all activities cease to assure proper disposal. The proposed project is not expected
to disturb human remains and the potential for such impacts is less than significant.
Minimization Measures
None.
Mitigation
In the event of human rernains being discovered during project development, the State of
California requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease to assure proper disposal. The
proposed project is not expected to disturb human remains.
In the event cultural artifacts are uncovered daring site grading or rock removal, work in this area
shall be immediately halted and a qualified archaeologist will be called in to evaluate and, if
necessary recover and document such resources.
Monitoring: None required.
Nagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 29
Potentially
Less Than
less Than
No
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss. injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a knov.n earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
❑
❑
❑
Geologist fir the area or based on other substantial
e\ idence ol'a known lault'? Refer to Division of
,lines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
®
❑ I
❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction'?
❑
❑
®
❑
iv) Landslides'?
❑
❑
® 1
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
❑
❑
®
I
❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of'!he project. and potentially result in on- or off-
❑
®
❑
❑
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence.
liquefaction or collapse'?
d) Be located on expansi\e soil, as defined in
l able 18-1-B of•the Uniform Building Code
❑
❑
❑
(1994), creating substantial risks to lil•e or
property'?
c) I lave soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of'septic tanks or alternative wastcwater
disposal systems v here sewers are not available fir
❑
❑
❑
the disposal of wastewater'?
Sources: Palm Desert General Plan & FIR, 2017, Soils
Survey for Riverside
County -Coachella
Valley Area, USDA. 1980:
(icotechnical Engineering Report-Cahuilla Golf ('lub (Stone F.agle). Earth S)stems South\kest.
December 2001.
Background: The subject property is located on
Rock outcrop of the Lithic Torripsaments association, and characterized as sloping terrain that is
excessively drained to well -drained with shallow horizons of sand and gravel atop bedrock. The soils on
this site and surrounding uplands are of the Cars itas-Myoma-Carrizo soils association and are typically
characterized by sloping terrain, somewhat excessively drained soils, fine sands, gravelly sands, and stony
sands on alluvial fans and valley fills.
These soils are severely limited with regard to shallow excavations and are moderately restrictive with
regard to the construction of commercial buildings. These soils are considered good for road fill, fair as a
source of sands, and are generally unsuited as a source of gravels, especially given the very limited depth
of depositions on site. Site soils are highly permeable, has a low water storage capacity, tends toward
being alkali, have a low shrink/swell potential. These soils pose a high risk to uncoated steel and a low
risk to concrete.
The subject property and the entire Coachella Valley are susceptible to strong groundshaking from
earthquakes along major regional faults, including the San Andreas Fault Zone. The San Andreas is the
major fault in the Coachella Valley, which exposes the region and the City to high amounts of seismic
activity. The project site and vicinity are not within or adjacent to any Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones, the
closest active fault (San Andreas Fault) being located several miles to the northeast. However, this and
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/Noxember 2018/1'age 30
other regional active faults have the potential to generate strong groundshaking in the valley, including at
the subject property.
Peak ground acceleration and seismic intensity values generally decrease as distance from the causative
fault decreases.' Other factors, including rock and soil deposit attenuations, direction of rupture and type
of fault, may cause variability in ground motion within an area. There site's slopes are comprised of highly
fractured bedrock characteristic of perched or fractured rock on steep slopes, and may be subject to
rockfalls or issues of slope stability in both the undisturbed and developed condition. Rock fall potential
shall be addressed in the project grading plan. Table 4 lists faults that have the potential to cause strong
ground motions in the City of Patin Desert, due to their proximity.
Fault Name
San Andreas -Southern
Segment (combined)
San Andreas -San
Bernardino Segment
San Andreas -Coachella
Segment
San Jacinto-Anza
Segment
Table 4
City of Palm Desert
Potential Earthquake Sources
Distance from Slip Rate
Project Site (mm/year)
7 miles 24
Maximum Design
Earthquake (Mmax)
7.4
9 miles 24 7.2
9 miles 24 7.0
10 miles 12 7.2
Source: "Seismic. Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safet) lilement of the
General Plan for the City of Palm Desert, Riverside. County, California." Earth Consultants International, January
2002: Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Maps. California Division of Mines & Geology. 1980.
Discussion of Impacts
a)i. No Impact. Review of official state maps delineating earthquake fault zones indicate there are no
known faults currently mapped on or immediately adjacent to the site. No signs of fault rupture
are identified on -site; therefore, the risks of rupture are considered low.
ii. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The site is subject to groundshaking by both local and
regional faults that traverse the region. Ground shaking from nearby active faults is expected to
produce high ground acceleration during the life of the project. The site could be subjected to
ground acceleration on the order of 0.48g (48% the force of gravity). The peak ground acceleration
at the site is judged to have a 475-year return period and a 10 percent chance of exceedance of the
maximum design quake in 50 years. As a performance standard the project shall be designed and
constructed to conform to the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4.
The implementation of these codes will assure that grading, foundation design and code -compliant
building construction will mitigate potential impacts associated with groundshaking. Therefore,
with appropriate soils, geotechnical and structural modification. and adherence to the CBC,
potential impacts associated with seismic ground motion will be less than significant.
"Seismic. Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General
Plan Ibr the CitN otPalm Desert. Riverside, County, California," prepared by Earth Consultants International, January,
2002.
L;agle 6.5 TPM 37336 8i DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/No�ember 2018/1'age 31
iii. Less Than Significant. The area in which the proposed site is situated has a very low liquefaction
potential. Based on the depth of groundwater (> 100 feet) and relatively shallow bedrock conditions
on the site, the risk of liquefaction is considered low.
iv. Less Than Significant. No signs of slope instability/landslides were observed on or immediately
adjacent to the site; slopes are generally rocky and of moderate inclination. Retaining walls are
proposed throughout the subdivision to create adequately sized building lots and allow stepped
building designs. Proper engineering of slops and retaining walls should avoid failure due to strong
groundshaking. Therefore, the risk of landslides, slope or retaining wall failure is considered low
and less than significant.
b) Less Than Significant. Major portions of the City are highly susceptible to wind erodibility.
According to the City General Plan geotechnical report, the areas of highest hazard are located in
the extreme northern portions of the City; however, all areas within the City could be attected by
blowing sand and dust. The City will require that the applicant prepare a dust control management
plan as part of the grading permit to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust during
construction. Procedures set forth in said plan will ensure that potential erosion and dust is
controlled during the dernolition and construction process; therefore, potential impacts would be
less than significant
c) Less Than Significant. The site is located on a rocky outcropping with moderate slopes and
highly fractured surface roach, including potentially perched boulders. These sloes could become
more unstable as a result of site grading and creation of manufactured slopes. To reduce this
potential, the project grading plan proposes the extensive use of retaining walls. Strategic
identification ofrockfall hazard areas shall be identified and addressed in the project grading plan.
With proper engineering and design, potential impacts are expected to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
d) No Impact. The site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings and gravelly sandy soils with shallow
depositions of gravelly sands. No fissures or other surficial evidence of subsidence were observed
at or near the subject site during the site walks. Potential impacts related to subsidence, lateral
spreading or landslides are considered less than significant with proper slope and foundation
engineering.
e) No Impact. The subject subdivision will connect to the community sewer system that collects
sewerage waste in the vicinity and conveys it to the Cook Street wastewater treatment plan owned
and operated by the Coachella Valley Water District. Therefore, there will be no on -site wastewater
treatment of disposal.
Minimization Measures
None.
Mitigation
I. As a performance standard the project shall be designed and constructed to conform to the
California Building Code (CBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Identified instabilities shall be
mitigated during site grading activities.
All till soil, whether natural on site or imported, shall be approved by the project soils engineer
prior to placement as compacted till. All fill soil shall be free from vegetation, organic material.
and cobbles and boulders greater than 3 inches maximum diameter, and other debris. Approved
fill soil shall be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness as prescribed by the soils
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CF.QA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 32
engineer, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) to obtain near -
optimum moisture content.
3. Utility trench excavations within road or public rights -of -way shall be placed in conformance with
the requirements of the appropriate governing agency. Utility trench excavations within private
property shall be properly backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction. As necessary, backfill operations shall be observed and tested to monitor compliance
with governing agency requirements and proper backfill procedures.
Monitoring
A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, final grading and building plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the City that assure conformance with the California Building Code for Seismic Zone
4 and other applicable development regulation.
Responsible Parties: Project engineer, City Building & Safety
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
the project:
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions. either
directly or indirectly. that maN ha\c a significant
❑
❑
®
❑
impact on the em ironment'?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan. police or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
❑
❑
®
❑
emissions of greenhouse gases'?
Source: Project de\,elopment plans, CalEf-Mod Version 2013.2.2.
Background: State legislation, including AB32, aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases in California
to 1990 levels by 2020. however, there are currently no state or local thresholds for greenhouse gas
ernissions pertaining to residential developments (such as the proposed project). Statewide programs and
standards will help reduce GHG emissions generated by the project, including new fuel -efficient standards
for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the Future.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-b) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions
during both construction and operation (residential uses). Construction -related greenhouse gas
ernissions will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. Table 5, below, sets forth
the GHG emissions associated with construction and assumed to occur over a one-year period
(worst case scenario). As prescribed by SCAQMD, operational emissions of G13Gs must also
include an annualized portion of construction -related GHG emissions arnortized over 30 years.
As Table 5 indicates, occupation and maintenance of the proposed residences will generate
ongoing greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas or propane,
moving (travel -related) sources, and transport and purnping of water. As noted, the table below
quantifies construction emissions in total, and those associated with annual operational GHG
generation.
Eagle 6.5 1'PNI 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI QA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 33
Table 5
GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation
TPM 37336
(metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Construction Activities 215.32 0.04 0.00 216.35
Operational Activities' 74.27 0.07 0.00 83.542
Source: CaILEMod Version 2013.2.2.
1. Operation GI IG emissions include area, energy, mobile, waste, and water source
emissions and represents total construction GHG emissions.
2 Operational emissions include construction emission amortized over 30 years. 216.35
CO2e construction = 7.21 CO2e per year added to operational emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized during construction by limiting idling times of
construction machinery, adequate maintenance of heavy machinery, and efficient scheduling of
construction activities to minimize combustion emissions. GHG emissions generated by the
proposed project will not be substantial and will not directly or indirectly result in a significant
impact to the environment or conflict with applicable GI-IG plans, policies or regulation.
It should also be noted that the net operational GHG emissions are those associated with the new
homes, which will be constructed to stringent energy performance criteria. Renewable sources of
electric power (rooftop solar, etc) and/or use of electric vehicles could substantially lower actual
long-term emissions. Therefore, impacts to air quality and climate change from the generation of
GI IG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project will be less
than significant.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Would the project:
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
❑
❑
❑
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
en ironment through reasonable foreseeable upset and
accident conditions im olving the release of hazardous
❑
❑
❑
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials. substances, or waste
%%ithin onc-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
❑
❑
❑
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
(ioxernment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
❑
❑
❑
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
en ironment:'
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
C'EQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 34
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted. within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ❑ ❑ ❑
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑
residing or working in the project area'?
g) Impair implementation ofor physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑
evacuation plan'?
h) Lxpose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death invol� ing wildland tires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or ❑ ❑
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Source: Site field surveys, Project development plans. Palm Desert General Plan & FIR
Plan. 2015.
El 0
2017: Riverside County General
Background: While a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) has not been conducted on this site,
the on -foot survey conducted did not uncover any sign of dumping or discharge of hazardous or toxic
materials. There were no signs of soil staining that might be associated with the dumping of oil or other
petroleum product. Neither were there any signs of dumping of construction materials or domestic trash.
In summary, the site does not appear to harbor any potentially hazardous chemicals or other materials.
No known chemical or hazardous waste disposal has been known to occur on the site. "There are no known
underground tanks or buried materials on site or in the area. While heavy equipment will be involved in
grading, materials removal and hauling, the potential for these activities to result in the accidental release
of toxic or hazardous materials is considered low.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-b) No Impact. Development of the proposed subdivision and four future homes will not directly
result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Upon completion, the four
residential units are expected to use limited amounts of pool chemicals, cleaning and other
"household" chemicals to be transported on site. Impacts associated with transportation, use,
storage, or the release of hazardous materials is considered negligible.
Theretore, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Neither will it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) No Impact. The St. Margaret's Pre -School and Pre -Kindergarten is located approximately 1.25
miles north of the project site. Further, the proposed project is not expected to store or use
hazardous materials. There will be no impact to schools.
d) No Impact. The project site is not located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, thus, will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
c-f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located in proximity to an airport or private airstrip. The
nearest airport is located in Bermuda Dunes, approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the project site.
Impacts would not occur.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Stud\/No�ember 2018/Page 35
g) No Impact. The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway
networks, or interfere with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. The
proposed project is located immediately south of the Stone Eagle development and will be
accessed by the private Old Stone Trail road. Neither will the project affect internal circulation in
the development that could hinder or interfere with an emergency response or evacuation.
h) No Impact. The proposed project site is located at the base of the foothills of the Santa Rosa
Mountains; however, there is very little vegetative fuel to feed a wildfire. The City and County of
Riverside's hazardous fire area maps (2014) do not identify this area as a high risk for wildland
tires. The project will not expose people or structures to wildland hazards.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Would the project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Violate am water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
❑
❑
®
❑
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially \,.ith groundwater recharge such
that there �%ould be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
❑
❑
®
❑
lo%Ncring ofthe 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 ri\ er, in a manner, which would
❑
❑
®
❑
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or oft -site?
d) SUbstantiall\ alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration ofthc
course of a stream or rig er, or substantially increase
❑
❑
®
❑
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner.
%%hich kkould result in flooding on- or oft -site?
c) Create or contribute runoff \%ater which .\ould
exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm\%ater
drainage sy stems or pro\ ide substantial additional
❑
❑
®
❑
sources of. polluted runotP
t) Othcrx� ise substantially degrade water quality?
❑
❑
❑
g) Place housing v,ithin a I00-ycar flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood I lazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate �fap or other flood hazard
❑
❑
❑
IE
delineation map'?
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CTQA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 36
hl Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures. which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑
floes''
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of'
loss. injury or death imol%ing flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑
flooding as a result of'the failure of'a le%ee or dam'?
j) Inundation by sciche ❑ ❑ ❑
tsunami. or mudflo%k?
Source: Site field surveys: TPM 37336; t.'SGS Topographic Maps: Palm Desert General Plan & FIR. 2017; FFMA FIRM
2018: Preliminary Hydrology Stud, Feiro Engineering. Inc. May 2018: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Feiro
Engineering, Inc. August 2018
Background: The Coachella Valley's geographic and geophysical isolation from marine influences to the
west has created a local subtropical climate with very limited rainfall through much of the year. While
annual rainfall typically ranges from 4 to 6 inches on the desert floor, no measurable rainfall has been
recorded in some years. The surrounding San Jacinto, Santa Rosa and Little San Bernardino Mountains
are generally subject to cooler temperatures and receive more rainfall than the valley floor. Runoff is
channeled through large watersheds that drain into the valley below.
In the Coachella Valley, most rainfall occurs between November and March, but occasional high -intensity
thunderstorms may occur daring late summer and early fall. Although the desert floor can be dry at the
beginning of a rainstorm, the ground can quickly become saturated when exposed to sufficient amounts
and intensities of rainfall, substantially decreasing percolation and increasing runoff. Increased runoff
produced upstream can potentially result in significant damage downstream. Urban development, which
creates large, impervious surfaces, also increases the amount of runoff produced in the valley.
The direct drainage area of the subject property is very limited, and tributary flows are limited to those
abutting and at certain locations shunted into the adjoining Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The on -site
drainage pattern is generally west to east with steeper terrain rising and cresting a short distance to the
west and off site.
Site development associated with this project will result in the creation of approximately 2.17 of disturbed
area, including the paved extension of Old Stone Trail through the site. It is conservatively assumed that
all of this area will be comprised of impermeable surfaces. Lots will be protected from upslope runoff by
a system of intercept drains (see Exhibit 5), which will shunt runoff tributary to the pads around each
residential pad. "these intercept drains will discharge into riprap energy dissipaters from whence runoff
will flow into the natural drainage.
Individual lots will drain to the private street (extension of'Old Stone Trail). The TMP indicates that "Site
ivill discharge to the Palm Valley Stornnvater Channel"; the point of this discharge into the channel is not
identified on the TPM. According to the project engineer and proponent, runoff from the subject
subdivision pads will continue north and into Stone Eagle on Old Stone Trail. Surface flows will travel in
the street approximately 315 feet and discharge into two catch basins located on either side of the street.
These flows will then be conveyed to the existing Stone Eagle lake to the north, from whence higher
volume flows discharge into the Palm Valley Channel. The project hydrology report states that the subject
lake (stormwater detention basin) has sufficient excess capacity to meet the demands generated by
proposed TMP 37336.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. With the application of Best Management Practices set
forth in the project Water Quality Management Plan the proposed project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction at the site will be subject to all
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CliQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 37
applicable water quality standards for waste discharge requirements of the City. A Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) may required because there is more than one acre of disturbed
area. Compliance with existing regulations and requirements will result in a less than significant
impact on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project will not generate a substantial increase in demand
for water or interfere with groundwater recharge. Water demand will be limited to that generated
by the four single-family homes that will be built on the site. The project landscaping plan will be
comprised predominantly of native and drought tolerant species. Therefore, once fully developed
water demands of the landscaping are expected to be minimal. The project will not interfere with
groundwater recharge programs or result in a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore,
the project will have less than significant impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater
recharge.
c-t) Less Than Significant and No Impacts. As previously mentioned, the proposed project will
largely maintain existing drainage patterns while somewhat modifying the current management
regime to shunt upslope runoff around building pads and to drain the developed portions of the
site to and conveyed by Old Stone Trail extended. The Palm Valley Stormwater abuts the subject
property on the east and regional runoff is conveyed by this facility to the Whitewater River to the
north. The City Engineer will review the final hydrology study to assure that storm flows do not
exceed current design capacities, and are not polluted. These standard conditions of approval will
assure that impacts associated with storm flows and pollution are reduced to less than significant
levels. No local or regional flood control facilities will be significantly impacted by project runoff.
Construction and occupancy of this project will not otherwise degrade water quality.
g-h) No Impacts. The proposed project will not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood
zone. According to the General Plan, the proposed site is located outside FEMA-mapped flood
zones. No impacts would occur.
i-j) No Impacts. The project site is located downstream of the Palm Valley dam and debris basin
from which storm flows are discharged into the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. During most of
the year the debris basin and channel area dry. The dam impoundment is shallow, its primary
function being to de -balk stormwater of sand, gravels and other debris before discharging into the
channel.
The project site is not located in the vicinity of a standing body of water, which could be subject
to either seiche or tsunami. While it is conceivable that an earthquake of major magnitude could
occur at the same time as a rain event fills the subject debris basin, the simultaneous occurrence of'
these two events if highly unlikely. The project site is not subject to hazards associated with seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts are expected.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would Potcntially Less "Phan Less Than No
the project: Significant Signiticant Significant Impact
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
Eagle 6.5 WPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial StudyfNovember 2018/1'age 38
a) PhN sicalIN divide an established community'? ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Contlict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation ol'an agency with
jurisdiction o,,cr the project (including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
tier the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect:'
c) Contlict \\ith any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑
conser\ ation plan'?
Source: Project materials, Palm Desert General Plan & EIR, 2017: Municipal Code Chapter 25.15: CVMSIICP.
Background: The subject property is located within the already developed Cahuilla Hills neighborhood
and is comprised of single-family development. Surrounding land uses include the full -lined Palm Valley
Stormwater Channel to the immediate east, and medium density residential developments and State
Highway 74 beyond the channel. Immediately north is the Stone Eagle development, to which the subject
property will become a part with the approval of Development Agreement Amendment No. 3, that is a
part of this project. Lands to the south and west include the aforementioned channel and low -density
single -family development throughout the Cahuilla Hills. It is important to note that the subject DA
amendment allows for the incorporation and transfer of Stone Eagle densities to and between that
development and the subject parcel map.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) No Impact. The subject property is located adjacent to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel to
the immediate east. The proposed four residential lots would constitute an extension to the existing
Stone Eagle development. The neighborhood to the west is comprised of low and very low density
residential in a rural setting. No established community or neighborhood will be divided by the
proposed project.
b) No Impacts. The project is consistent with the City General Plan, which in the Rural
Neighborhood designation allows up to one dwelling unit per acre. The City zoning allows one
unit per .2 acres or one lot per five acres. The joining of the subject 7.7f-acres to the Stone Eagle
development and its Development Agreement secured the transfer of development rights to allow
for the four proposed lots on this parcel.
c) The subject property is located within the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), which establishes conservation areas and
development impact fee areas in the valley. The developer will be required to pay the appropriate
impact fee prior to the issuance of grading permits or other site -disturbing activity.
Minimization Measures
None required.
Mitigation: None required.
Monitoring: None required.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 39
11. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Result in the loss ofavailability ofa known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state"
❑
❑
❑
b) Result in the loss ofavailability ofa locally
important mineral resource recover site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
❑
❑
❑
use plan'?
Source: Soils Surrey of Riverside County. California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Soil Conservation Surey. September
1980: Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production -Consumption Region. Special
Report 159 (Plate 15)." California Department of Conseration. Dig ision of Mines and Geology. 1988. Palm Desert General
Plan & IJR. 2017.
Background: The California Division of Mines and Geology determines the location of mineral resources
of statewide or regional significance. Lands in the City of Palm Desert are located in Mineral Resource
Zones I and 3 (MRZ..-1, MRZ_-3). The subject project is located in MRZ-3 and includes substantial areas
of exposed bedrock, and therefore has relatively shallow soils. Lands designated as MRZ.-3 are those
containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated with current data. Mineral
resources in the Coachella Valley are largely limited to sand and gravels, and the lack ofa fluvial regime
and deposition in the area precludes such resources in the project area. Mining of potentially viable sand
and gravel resources is also precluded by existing development.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-b) No Impact. The proposed project is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is an area where
inadequate information is available to determine the significance of mineral deposits present. The
City does not consider these areas to contain deposits of significant economic value. It should also
be noted that surrounding residential development makes the reclamation of such resources
infeasible.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required
12. !NOISE -- Would the project result in:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
\.yith Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Lxposurc of persons to or generation of noise
Ie\ els in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
❑
❑
® ❑
standards uf'other agencies'?
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 40
b) Exposure ot'persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
❑
❑
®
❑
noise levels'?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise le%cls in the project %icinity above levels
❑
❑
®
❑
existing, without the project'?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
le�cls existing without the project'?
❑
®
❑
❑
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or. %%here such a plan has not been adopted.
\%ithin two miles ot'a public airport or public use
❑
❑
❑
airport. \\ould the project expose people residing
or \%orking in the project area to excessive noise
levels,?
1) For a project within the vicinity oCa private
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or �korking in the project area to excessive noise
❑
❑
❑
levels'?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan & EIR. 2017: City Noise
Ordinance, Chapter 94.24 of
the Municipal Code.
Background: The City of Palm Desert Noise Clement of the General Plan provides guidelines for
community noise impacts per land use designation. According to City standards, residential land uses are
considered "noise sensitive" thereby restricting allowable noise levels within the planning area. The Palm
Desert Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.24) sets limits on the days and time when noise generating construction
activities may occur. Furthermore, the allowed weekday times of construction vary with the season Oct.
I st to April 30th and May 1 st to September 30th. Generally, construction activities are permitted between
7 AM and 5:30 PM, with an hour early start during the hot summer months. Saturday construction hours
are limited to 8 AM to 5 PM.
Section 9.24.030 establishes noise level limits in residential and other land use areas. The lands
surrounding the subject property are in residential use. The applicable 10-minute average decibel limit (A -
weighted scale) is 55 dBA from 7 AM to 10 PM, and 45 dBA from 10 PM to 7 AM. Interior noise levels
are generally not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL in all habitable rooms. Construction work is not permitted on
Sundays and major holidays.
Ambient Noise Levels
The ambient noise level in the project area is low to moderate, being impacted by normal residential
activity. including landscape maintenance and vehicular traffic frorn nearby Highway 74.
Construction Noise
Implementation of the project will result in ternporary and intermittent noise from construction activities.
Although construction related noise will be short-term, activities are likely to produce noise levels that are
occasionally excessive and intrusive. Site grading will include the use of heavy equipment and ripping of
fractured bedrock to form the five building pads and access road. Some ground vibration rnay also be
occasionally felt daring site grading by sensitive receptors in the area. No blasting will be required.
Noise impacts associated with other construction activities will result from clearing, grading, hauling and
deliveries, pneurnatic nailers and other construction equipment, and associated activities. Earth moving
equipment, such as cranes, bulldozers, backhoes, and front loaders, could generate noise levels between
73 and 96 dBA at 50 feet. Rock removal equipment can generate noise levels between 79 to 89 dBA at 50
feet, tvith the highest noise levels generally to range from 88 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Site excavation and
grading is expected to take six to eight weeks to complete. No blasting will be associated with this project.
Eagle 6.5 '1'1'M 37336 K llA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 41
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less Than Significant. Development of the site will result in short-term impacts associated with
grading and construction noise. These impacts are temporary and will cease when once
construction is completed. Construction noise is regulated by the Municipal Code to occur during
the least sensitive daytime hours, which helps to lower the potential impacts. The short-term nature
of construction activity assures that project noise impacts are consistent with City regulations.
b) Less Than Significant. Development of the proposed project will temporarily generate noise and
groundborne vibrations through grading and construction -related activities, but will cease once
construction is completed. Impacts are therefore expected to be short-term and less than
significant.
c) Less Than Significant. The proposed subdivision project will create outdoor activity areas and
other potential sources of outdoor operational noise. The proposed subdivision is consistent with
the City's existing land use designation for Rural Neighborhood low -density residential use and is
generally not considered a significant noise generating land use. There will be no substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity when compared to the current
condition.
d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The construction of the project may generate a substantial
but short-term increase in ambient noise levels that would not occur if the project were not
constructed. The subject construction noise impacts are anticipated by the City Noise Ordinance. It
should be noted that post -construction ambient noise levels will be the same as existing conditions.
Measures are set forth below to ensure that noise associated with construction and operation of the
new homes will be less than significant.
e,f) No Impact. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is the nearest airport/airstrip located approximately 7.5
miles northeast of the proposed project, and does not conduct flight operations over the proposed
project. No impacts associated with aircraft operational noise levels would occur.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation Measures
Construction activities shall comply with the hours of operation and noise levels identified in
the City Noise Ordinance. Construction activities on -site shall be restricted to the hours
between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
Saturday to minimize the potential for noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. No
construction will be permitted on Sundays or holidays.
2. All phases of the project shall comply with all relevant development standards and Municipal Code
requirements to ensure that demolition, grading and construction activities and site operations do
not create unnecessary adverse noise impacts beyond the site boundaries. Construction activities
shall incorporate feasible and practical techniques that minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses.
As a part of project grading permits, operations regulation shall include but not be limited to the
following:
The contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level roles, regulations and
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & UA Amd No. 3
CF,QA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 42
ordinances that apply to any and all work performed pursuant to the contract.
Internal combustion engines used onsite shall be in proper working order, maintained in a
proper state of tune, and equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer.
No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project site without said muffler.
C. Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise -
sensitive receptors.
d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practicable from noise -
sensitive receptors (homes). Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance
possible between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities.
The construction operations generating the most noise shall be arranged to occur together in
the construction program to avoid continuing periods of greater annoyance.
Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy equipment and on -site construction
vehicles shall be located as far as practical from existing homes.
Monitoring
A. Excavation and grading activities shall be monitored to assure that they are carried out in the most
sensitive and expeditious manner practicable. Monitoring shall ensure that construction operations
occur only between the allowed hours prescribed in the City Noise Ordinance.
Responsible Parties: General and grading contractors; City Building and Safety
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING —
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Would the project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
%%ith Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directl} (tor example, by proposing ne«
homes and businesses) or indirectl% (for example.
❑
❑
. ❑
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
❑
❑
❑
replacement housing else%vhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people.
necc�sitating the construction of replacement
❑
❑
❑
housing elsc�0cre?
Source: Palm Desert General Plan & EIR. 2017, U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. and 2007-2011 American Community Sur\eN:
California Dept. of Finance.
Background: The City of' Palm Desert's population increased from 41,155 people in 2000 to 48,445
people in 2011. This represents a 17.7% increase over the tcn-year period. The Department of Finance
estimated City 2014 population at 50,424 and 51,053 in 2015. The total number of households in the City
in 2015 was 37,905 households in the City of' which approximately 40% are single-family homes. The
City has an average household size of 2.12 persons per household. The proposed project will result in the
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI;QA Initial Stud)/November 2018/Page 43
construction of four single-family homes, which could add approximately nine additional persons to the
community.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of four single-family homes. The proposed
project will have a less than significant impact on City housing and population. The proposed
residences will not displace people or housing. There will be no meaningful impact on population
or housing.
Minimization Measures (If any):
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact �%ith Mitigation Impact
Incorporation
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
ph\ sisal impacts associated \.\ ith the prop ision of
nc\N or ph\sically altered governmental facilities.
need for ne\\, or physicalh altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant em ironmental impacts. in order to
maintain acceptable ser\,ice ratios. response times
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fir,: protection'?
❑
❑
®
❑
Police protection'?
❑
❑
®
❑
Schools'?
❑
❑
®
❑
Parks'?
❑
❑
®
❑
Other public facilities'?
❑
❑
®
❑
Source. Project development plans,
Palm Desert General Plan & FIR, 2017.
Background:
Fire Protection: The City provides fire protection and paramedic services in Palm Desert under contract
with Riverside County. First response is expected to be from Station No. 33 located on Towne Center
Way approximately five miles north of the subject property and response time should be 5 to 7 minutes.
In addition, Station 55 located on Eldorado Drive in Indian Wells and Stations 50 and 69, both in Rancho
Mirage, will also be able to respond to a call for service from this area of the City. The City has a dedicated
Fire Marshall to review projects and provide guidance. The project will generate a very modest
incremental and less than significant dernand for fire protection services.
Police Protection: Riverside County Sheriffs Department provides police protection under contract with
the City. A Sheriff's substation is located on Gerald Ford Drive and a satellite station is located in the City
Civic Center complex on Fred Waring Drive. The Sheriffs Department provides protective response,
investigatory, and patrol services. A Community Services Officer is assigned to patrol the City on a 24-
hour basis. The project will generate no new demand for police/law enforcement services.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/Nw,ember 2018/1'age 43
Schools: The City of Palm Desert is part of the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD). The City
is host to elementary, middle and high schools. Nearby St. Margaret's School provides (now separately
operated) both pre-school and pre -kindergarten. The project will generate a very limited or negligible
demand for additional school services.
Parks: The City provides a wide array of parks and recreational facilities in the City. It also supports
programs of the YMCA and the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District. In the vicinity of the
subject property is the 27-acre Cahuilla Hills Community Park and the 27-acre Homme/Adams Regional
Park located near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This area of the City is also rich in walking and
hiking trails, including several in proximity to the project site.
Medical
A number ofphysicians' offices and urgent care facilities are located within the City of Palm Desert and
in the project vicinity. In addition, there are several large health care facilities in the Coachella Valley, all
of which serve Palm Desert and are in proximity to the subject property. The 100-acre campus of
Eisenhower Medical Center, located in Rancho Mirage, is comprised of a 261-bed, general acute care
hospital, the Barbara Sinatra Children's Center, the Betty Ford Center for persons with alcohol and drug
dependency, and the Annenberg Center for I lealth Sciences, a conference and communications facility.
The Eisenhower Comprehensive Cancer Center provides several disciplines of cancer management under
one roof, offering a comprehensive range of oncology services.
Discussion of Impacts:
a) Less Than Significant. The proposed residential project will generate a very modest and less
than significant increase in demand for tire protective services and police services. The site will
be access through the guard -gated Stone Eagle entry ofl'ofHighway 74. While the four new homes
will have a very limited impact on police and fire protection services it cannot be said that there
will be no impact: therefore, it is determined that these potential impacts will be less than
significant. These four homes will also generate an equally limited demand for medical facilities
and services, schools and parks. The project will not significantly increase demand for public
services or adversely impact the provision of government facilities.
Minimization Measures: None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
15. RECREATION
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
❑
❑
❑
deterioration ofthe facility would occur or be
accelerated'?
b) Does the project include recreational tacilities or
require the construction or expansion of
rcca•cational facilities. %Nhich might ha-,c an adverse
❑
❑
❑
physical effect on the en, ironment'?
Sources: Development plans: Palm Desert General Plan & EIR. 2017.
F-:aglc 6.5 WPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CE'QA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 45
Background: As noted above, the City provides a wide array of parks and recreational facilities in the
City. It also supports programs of the YMCA and the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District. In
the vicinity of the subject property is the 27-acre Cahuilla Hills Community Park and the 27-acre
Homme/Adams Regional Park located near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This area of the City is
also rich in walking and hiking trails, including numerous trails in proximity to the proposed subdivision.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-b) No Impacts. The proposed residential subdivision will only very modestly increase population
and will not result in an increased demand for or use of neighborhood or regional parks and
facilities that could cause their physical deterioration. The project will not result in or the need for
addition or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than No
project:
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Conflict %rith an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures ofeftectiveness lix the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
❑
❑
❑
account all modes uftransportation including mass
transit and nun -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
frcckka�s. pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict %%ith an applicable congestion management
program, including, but not limited to level ol'scrvice
standards established by the county congestion
❑
❑
❑
management agency for designated roads or
hiah\\ a� s'?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic le%els or a change it
❑
❑
❑
location that results in substantial salety risks'?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
teaturc (e.g.. sharp cur\ es or dangerous intersections)
❑
❑
❑
or incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)'?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access'? I
❑
❑
❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? �
❑
❑
❑
g) Conflict \\ith adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting altcrnati\e transportation (e.g., bus
❑
❑
❑
turnouts, bicycle racks):'
Source: Project development plans. Palm Desert General Plan & EIR. 2017,
""Drip Generation. 8th Edition. ITE.
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 46
Background: The proposed project will result in the construction of four single-family homes on 7.7t
acres and will become an extension to the existing Stone Eagle development through which these homes
will take access. Access from the public street system will remain unchanged and will not conflict with
any circulation plan, ordinance or policy. Fire Department -compliant hammerheads and turnarounds will
be provided within the subdivision. No intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit will be affected by the proposed development.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-g) No Impact. The proposed project will only very modestly increase population and traffic, and
will not affect any transportation plans, ordinances or policies. The project will not conflict with
any applicable circulation or congestion management plan, and will not affect air traffic patterns.
The project will modestly increase the number of homes in the area. With the provision of Fire
Department -compliant hammerheads and turnarounds within the subdivision, there will be no
impact to emergency access. The project does not conflict with any City parking capacity or
alternative transportation plans and policies. There will be no adverse impacts to transportation.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
Significant Significant Significant Impact
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Impact with Mitigation Impact
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site.
Incorporation
feature. place. cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object ��ith cultural �,aluc
to a Calitornia Native American tribe. and that is:
a) Listed or eligible fir listing in the California
Register of historical Resources, or in a local register
El
ofhistorical resource,, as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1W. or
b) .A resource determined by the lead agene), in its
discretion and supported by substantial e� idence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
El ® ❑ ❑
apply ing the criteria set torth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
Source: Palm Desert General Plan, 2017 and 2004, Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Assessor's Parcel
No. 652-090-002. August 16. 2006: prepared by CRM Tech, April 22, 2006; Ilistorical/Archaeological Resources Survey
Report tier the Crest (Stone F,agle) Project, prepared by CRM 'Tech, April 22, 2002; National Register listed Properties.
National Park Service. accessed March 2018: Listed California Historical Resources. California Ot ice of 1listoric Preservation.
accessed March 2018.
Background: Over the course of assessing the potential for the subject property to harbor and have
impacts to sensitive cultural resources, the project archaeologists (CRM TECH 2O06) contacted the Native
American I leritage Commission, as well as the Agua Caliente and Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians.
F,agle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/1'age 47
The subject and surrounding lands were declared to be within the Traditional Use Area of the Agua
Caliente Tribe, which asked that a monitor be present during site disturbance and have the ability to halt
construction activities in areas where possible resources are uncovered. The site is comprised of no
ethnobotanical resources. Neither were there any sign of a lithic workshop or other "site". Also, please
see Section 5, above.
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As noted above and in Section 5, the subject property
does not harbor sensitive cultural resources nor is it a site with special cultural significance for
local Native American Tribes. The proposed residential subdivision will not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code
section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the sire and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe. There were no resources identified on the site or vicinity that
are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. At this time, it appears the development of the subject
subdivision will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, including a resource determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Section 5 minimization and mitigation
measures will ensure that sensitive Tribal cultural resources are not impacted as a result of the
project's development.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Would the project:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
a) Exceed %kastewater treatment requirements of
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
❑
❑
®
❑
Board'?
b) Require or result in the construction of nc%k
eater or waste\%ater treatment facilities or
expansion of'existing facilities, the construction of
❑
❑
®
❑
�Oich could cause significant env ironmental
effects''
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm \\atca* drainage facilities or expansion or
existing facilities. the construction of which could
❑
❑
®
❑
cause significant environmental effects'?
d) Ila%c sufficient eater supplies available to scr\,c
the project from existing entitlements and
resources. or are neck or expanded entitlements
❑
❑
®
❑
needed'?
Eagle 6.5'fPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CI:QA Initial StuclyfN ,ember 2018/111age 48
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment pro\. ider, �.\hich serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to sex e the ❑ ❑ ❑
projects projected demand in addition to the
providers existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
g) Comply vvith federal, state, and local statues and
regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑
Source: Project dc\.elopment plans. General Plan & LIR, 2017, Sanitary Sewcr Management Plan. Coachella Valley Water
District, 2010.
Background: The project site is located within the service boundaries of the following providers:
Coachella Valley Water District (water & sewer). Southern California Edison, the Southern California
Gas Company, and Burrtec (solid waste).
Sanitary Sewer
Coachella Valley Water District provides wastewater collection and treatment services to existing
residential and other development in the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch sewer mains located within
the Highway 74 right-of-way that connect to 8-inch sewer mains located within private streets in existing
residential Stone Eagle development, the extension of which will serve the subject property. The CVWD
sewage treatment plant which treats effluent collected in the project area is located approximately 5 miles
northeast of the site on Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. The plant's treatment capacity is
approximately 18 million gallons per day (mgd). CVWD also delivers reclaimed wastewater for irrigation
to several projects. Current tertiary water capacity is 15 rngd. The Stone Eagle project is connected to the
CVWD sewer system.
Domestic Water
The subject property is located within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) service area. CVWD
provides domestic water service to the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch water mains located in
Highway 74, as well as 8-inch and 12-inch mains in private streets within the Stone Eagle development.
The existing 8-inch water line will be extended into the subject property from the Stone Eagle system.
Solid Waste
The City of Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec for solid waste collection and disposal
services. Residential pick up is generally provided once per week, and commercial pick up is offered up
to six days a week. Solid waste is hauled to the recycling and transfer center where solid waste enters the
Riverside County Waste Management waste stream, is sorted and sent to either the Iambs Canyon landfill
in Beauront, the Badlands landfill in Moreno Valley, or the El Sobrante landfill in Corona.
The EI Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 10,000 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which 4.000 tpd is
reserved for waste generated within Riverside County and is expected to be in operation until
approximately 2031. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and City of San
Jacinto off State Route 79 and is permitted to receive 3,000 tons per day of trash for disposal and has a
remaining disposal capacity of approximately 12.9 million tons. The landfill is expected to be in operation
until approximately 2023. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site.
The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley is permitted for landfilling and
for excavation and stockpiling cover material and other ancillary activities. The landfill is owned and
operated by Riverside County, and is permitted to receive 4,000 tons per day and has an overall remaining
Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CIiQA Initial Study,No,,ember 2018/1'age 49
disposal capacity of approximately 10.2 million tons. The Badlands Landfill is projected to be in operation
until 2016. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site.
In addition, Riverside County Waste Management also operates a successful recycling program, which
has substantially diverted recyclables from the waste stream. landscape maintenance companies operating
in the Coachella Valley utilize composting for the disposal of green waste. Several green waste
composting facilities are located in the area.
Discussion of Impacts:
a-d) No Impact & Less Than Significant. The proposed four residences will not generate significant
amounts of' new wastewater or substantially increase water demands. Water demands will be
limited to residences, pool and landscaping improvements, and will connect to the existing Stone
Eagle water lines currently serving existing development. The project will largely retain the
existing drainage patterns and the existing drainage areas, with stormwater conveyance to the
larger Stone Eagle system, which has capacity to store the additional runoff associated with these
four new residential lots.
e-g) Less Than Significant. The proposed four lot subdivision will make a very limited contribution
to demand for existing sewerage collection and treatment facilities. The addition of these four
residences to the Stone Eagle development will not increase the overall permitted level of
residential development in this area. As noted, waste hauling and disposal facilities and capacities
are more than adequate to address the new demand for solid waste disposal associated with the
development of the four residential lots.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: Not required.
Monitoring: Not required.
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project ha%e the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantiallN reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or %%ildlife population to drop below self' -sustaining
le%els, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
communitN. reduce the number or restrict the range
ofa rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples ofthe major periods of
California history or prehiston,'?
h) Does the project hay e impacts that are
indi. iduall\ limited, but cumulatNel,,
considerable'?("Cumulati\cl� considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a pro.icct are
considerable when \ iewed in connection �Nith the
effects of past projects, the cf tccts of other current
projects. and the effects ot'prohable future
projects)'?
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
with Mitigation
Impact
Incorporation
❑
❑
❑ ❑
No
Impact
❑�
1•:agle 6.5 TPM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 50
c) Does the project have environmental effects.
%%hich will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑
human beings, either directly or indirectly'?
a) Less Than Significant. Biological and Cultural Resources: The proposed project will be
constructed adjacent to existing development, including the fully -lined Palm Valley Stormwater
Channel, and in an area that has been surveyed for sensitive cultural and biological resources. No
sensitive cultural or historic resources were identified during the on -site archaeological survey,
through queries with the Native American Heritage Commission or local Native American Tribes.
Neither will be the project impact any important examples of California history or prehistory.
The site is largely undisturbed. The proposed subdivision will involve the disturbance of 2.17t
acres of the 7.7t-acre site and will provide lour residential lots and will incorporate new
landscaping that, in the subject context, may provide limited enhanced habitat especially for
nesting and foraging birds. There will be no substantial reduction in wildlife habitat nor will it
restrict the movement or range of any plant or animal. The project will not substantially reduce the
fish or wildlife habitat or affect the populations of any sensitive fish or wildlife species.
b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and surrounding land uses. The project
involves the creation of four single-family lots on 7.7f acres and will become a part of the larger
Stone Eagle development to the immediate north. Its development will not result in cumulatively
considerable impacts in any area of category.
c) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project will not have adverse environmental effects on
human beings directly or indirectly.
Minimization Measures
None
Mitigation: None required
Monitoring: None required.
Eagle 6.5 ' I'M 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CE QA Initial Stud)/November 2018/1'age 51
APPENDICES
A. Tentative Parcel Map No. 37336, Feiro Engineering, Inc. 2018
B. Line -of -Sight Section for TPM 37336. Feiro Engineering, Inc. 2018
C. Preliminary Hydrology Study, Feiro Engineering, Inc. May 2018
D. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Feiro Engineering, Inc. August 2018
LIST OF EXHIBITS
I. Regional Location Map
2. Vicinity Map
3. Area Location Map
4. Location Map
5. TPM 37336 (w/Site Cross Sections
6. TPM 37336 Cross Section A & B
7. TPM 37336 Cross Section C
8. TPM 37336 Cross Section D
LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
• Tentative Parcel Map No. 37336, prepared by Feiro Engineering, Inc. 2018
• Preliminary Hydrology Study, Feiro Engineering, Inc. May 2018
• Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Feiro Engineering, Inc. August 2018
• City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan, adopted 2017.
• City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15, Noise Ordinance.
• "Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production -Consumption
Region, Special Report 159," California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology, 1988.
• Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics, U.S. Census, 2015.
• California Scenic Highway Mapping System, 2009.
• Field and Photographic Surveys, 2015.
• Soils Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area." U.S. Soil Conservation
Survey, September 1980.
• California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2001.
• 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, SC AQMD.
• State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, California Air Resources Board, March 2008.
Eagle 6.5 'I PM 37336 & DA Amd No. 3
CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 52
2016 Air Quality Significance Thresholds, SCAQMD, March 2016
• "Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM I 0 State Implementation Plan," South Coast Air Quality
Management District, August 1, 2003
• "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community
Conservation Plan and Associated Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain Trails Plan," prepared by
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. As amended 2016.
• John G. Rau and David C. Wooten, "Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook," 1980.
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program Map, 2001.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2018.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and
a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and
Pradetto; NOES: None), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented
VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
None
IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS
A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2018.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute Motion, approve as presented the
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2018. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna,
Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None).
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for
approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 7.7-acre parcel into four residential
lots that will be part of the Stone Eagle Development, and a third amendment to
Development Agreement No. 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development) located west of the
Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN: 652-090-002);
and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. TPM 37336 & DA 02-01 Amendment
No. 3 (Eagles 605, LLC, Indian Wells, California, Applicant).
Associate Planner Kevin Swartz presented the staff report (staff report(s) are available at
www.citvofoalmdesert.ora). He noted that staff mailed a public hearing notice, and
received some calls from residents within Cahuilla Hills concerned with the access. After
staff informed the residents that access would not go through Cahuilla Hills, they were no
longer in opposition to the proposed project. He also noted an email from a resident
concerned with access and the density. He offered to answer any questions.
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
Commissioner Nancy DeLuna inquired if Riverside County (County) governs the
regulations in Cahuilla Hills and the City of Palm Desert governs the Stone Eagle
Development.
Mr. Swartz replied that is correct.
Commissioner Joseph Pradetto asked if an individual owned the 7.7-acre lot and wanted
to develop a home, would the individual be able to build more than one home since the
lot is more than five acres.
Mr. Swartz responded that the individual would be limited to one unit per five acres.
If the individual is limited to the five -acre standards, Commissioner Pradetto asked if the
maximum area disturbed should not exceed 10,000 square feet.
Mr. Swartz said the individual must meet the standards; however, there is an exception to
the hillside standards. The City Council could consider an exception if an individual is
requesting a larger home or more square feet of disturbance.
For the proposed project, Commissioner Pradetto asked if there would more than 40,000
square feet of disturbance.
Mr. Swartz replied yes.
Commissioner Pradetto asked if an individual requested to build a home on the proposed
site, would the individual be under the same condition in which they must obtain the right-
of-way for the future trail.
Mr. Swartz answered yes.
Vice -Chair Holt inquired how many additional developable sites are on the hillside within
the City of Palm Desert.
Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell said that for many years he has been
a steward for hillside development. He believed there is not a mass amount of developable'
land because of the steep hills. From a City staff's perspective, there is not a fear off`
creating an "Orange County" on Palm Desert's hillsides; it is not feasible.
Mr. Swartz added that as part of the City's Hillside Ordinance, the ordinance included a
ridgeline map. He noted the proposed parcels are not on the ridgeline.
Vice -Chair Holt asked if the Planning Commission were to move forward recommending
an increase of density and an exception to the Hillside Ordinance, would it impact what
the County would allow outside of the Palm Desert city limits.
Mr. Swartz replied he did not think so. He felt it is a question for the County.
Vice -Chair Holt commented that her experience with the County is that they do not care
what adjacent cities do.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
Mr. Stendell mentioned that the City used to receive requests for comments from the
County for hillside development; however, it has been years since the City has received
any requests from the County.
Commissioner Pradetto disclosed that he met with the developer and all the information
exchanged at the meeting was contained in the staff report. He shared that he asked City
staff the following questions:
1) If the Commission does not amend the development agreement, he asked about the
elevation of the pads relative to the proposed lots. Staff indicated that the developer would
likely build the lots at a lower elevation than the existing lots.
2) He asked if the City has changed other development agreements and staff replied yes,
with the most recent being The Sands Apartments.
3) Concerning the trail, he asked where the right-of-way would come from, multiple
landowners or one owner. Staff said whoever obtains the right-of-way would need to get
it from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD).
Vice -Chair Holt asked if the public would have access to the proposed trail.
Mr. Swartz replied yes.
Chair Gregory noted that he also met with the applicant. They discussed similar items
Commissioner Pradetto mentioned.
Commissioner John Greenwood communicated that he met with the applicant in the
Planning Department and Mr. Swartz was present at the meeting.
Vice -Chair Holt said she also met with the applicant.
Commissioner DeLuna disclosed she met with the applicant at City Hall and Mr. Ceja was
present at the meeting.
Chair Gregory declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or
OPPOSING this matter.
MR. TOM CULLINAN, Indian Wells, California, thanked the Planning Commission for
considering the tentative parcel map. He stated that as the original developer of Stone
Eagle, they were always environmentally concerned with the project. He felt it was a
beautiful area and everyone is proud of the development. He communicated that the
property was substantially impacted by the construction of the Palm Valley Channel. If
you look at the site, the site does not have the feel of any of the properties that are above
Palm Desert. He said the property sits at a lower level, and the proposed parcel is not
breaking the ridgeline. He felt it was a good piece of property that looks like a remnant.
With the proposed new road and nice pads, he said it would be a complement to Stone
Eagle. He offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that the purpose of the hillside development
standards is to provide for the lowest density of residential development by minimizing the
grading of hillside areas and preserve the natural contours of the land. He understood
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
how the project would be a benefit to Stone Eagle and the idea behind the Hillside
Ordinance. He asked Mr. Cullinan, from his perspective, what would be the benefit in
furthering the purpose of the Hillside Ordinance to the City and the residents of Palm
Desert.
From his standpoint, MR. CULLINAN responded that the pads would be hidden from view.
He indicated that the property was severely impacted by the Palm Valley Channel and a
substantial amount of runoff. The proposed project would clean up the area and they
would provide a right-of-way access for the trail. He felt the project would be a real benefit
to the City of Palm Desert.
Chair Gregory referred to the CVWD dirt road access on the east side of the channel. He
inquired if there would be improvements to the area.
MR. CULLINAN answered that they are not required to improve the area; however, they
are working with the City. They have met with City staff and CVWD to acquire the right-
of-way along the east side of the channel. He believed the area would remain in its natural
state.
Chair Gregory said people use the area for outdoor activities and he hoped it remains
similar to its current condition. He noted that the area is one of the few places where you
could see the lots that are being improved.
MR. CULLINAN replied that is correct.
Commissioner DeLuna mentioned that a couple of years ago, there was a proposal to
build six homes on the parcel. She clarified that the project has been downsized to four
homes.
MR. CULLINAN replied that is correct.
MS. CONNOR LIMONT, Palm Desert, California, understood that Stone Eagle is exempt
from the Hillside Ordinance and there are 16 homes still to develop. She informed the
Planning Commission that the development does not affect her; however, it has a direct
impact on her as a resident of Palm Desert. As a resident, she depends on the Planning
Commission and the City Council to have the best interest of the community at the
forefront of their decisions. Concerning the proposed project, she said the discussion is
not about adding one more house to the hillside. The discussion is about dismantling the
ordinances that would keep Palm Desert's beauty and a place for people to call home or
visit. She pointed out that the City has development agreements to ensure the quality of
life is protected, projects do not negatively affect the City, and they assure residents'
homes would be protected. She stated that once the City makes an exception to a
development agreement, it opens the door to all development agreements. She noted that
the request is to divide the parcel into four home sites, which takes the exception to the
one in five houses to land rule. She expressed the request would damage the open space
and beauty of the area. She voiced that the Commission and the Council cannot say yes
to one without saying yes to all. She mentioned the City worked diligently for many years
to construct the Hillside Ordinance; it was made to preserve the beauty of the Cahuilla
Hills. Ms. Limont said people come to the Coachella Valley to enjoy the area; not see
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
buildings. Lastly, she conveyed to the Commission to not focus on the short-term money
of developers, but focus on not taking away the open mountain views.
MR. CULLINAN understood Ms. Limont's concerns. He felt that the site is different from
other hillsides. He reiterated that the Palm Valley Storm Channel denuded the area, and
the site is not located on a ridge overlooking the valley. The site sits hard against the
channel. He believed the project would be beautifully done and landscaped at the highest
quality. He said the City would be proud of the project once the homes are constructed.
Commissioner Pradetto asked how many lots have been graded.
MR. CULLINAN replied none.
Chair Gregory inquired if lots are specified that would be essentially swapped for the newly
proposed lots. Are the lots stipulated in some way?
MR. CULLINAN replied that is correct.
Mr. Stendell interjected that draft Amendment No. 3 memorializes the swap and density
of the lots in the development agreement.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that it seems developable space is limited within the
development agreement, which requires the clustering because there is not enough land.
Therefore, if the Planning Commission approves the request, it allows the applicant to
spread out four estates and there is still a concentration of condominiums. He said it would
give the applicant the flexibility to have four additional estates that they would not
otherwise have. He asked if that is correct.
MR. CULLINAN replied that is correct.
If the Commission approves the request, Commissioner John Greenwood inquired if the
initial construction would involve grading, street installation, curb and associated
landscape within the immediate right-of-way.
MR. CULLINAN replied that is correct.
Chair Gregory commented that the applicant's prior experience with Stone Eagle and The
Reserve have been exemplary with the planting of native plants or plants that are close
to native plants. He assumed the same plantings would be used on the site.
MR. CULLINAN responded that they would use the same approved guidelines as they did
for Stone Eagle.
If the request is approved, Commissioner DeLuna asked if it will not set a precedent and
any other further development would be considered on a case -by -case basis.
Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. He explained development agreements are composed
based on the findings. He said is it not always a true statement that the truth lies
somewhere in between. He said there are unique circumstances in the current case that
N.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
are key to the Stone Eagle property that would not place the Commission in any future
bind in his opinion.
With no further testimony offered, Chair Gregory declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Pradetto commented that he looked at the project from a couple of different
perspectives. Regardless if the Planning Commission decided to approve or not approve
the tentative parcel map, Stone Eagle is allowed to build 61 additional units in the area.
He said if the Commission did not approve the request, someone could build a home and
there would be one net gained unit in the hillside area. So technically an argument could
be made that there would be more units in the hillside area. He noted that it is one way to
limit the overall development by approving the request. He communicated that another
way to look at the request is the amount of disturbance in the hillside area due to the sizes
of the pads. He mentioned that the concentration of the units would take place near the
clubhouse at a lower elevation and more hidden than the current lot. He stated he does
not see what the City would gain relative to what it takes to deviate from the Hillside
Ordinance. He felt that the approval of the tentative parcel map would lead to a greater
disturbance in the hillside area and not enough in return for the deviating from the Hillside
Ordinance. He noted that the City would request the same condition for the trail for anyone
submitting an application to develop in the area. He communicated that the City should
set a high bar for hillside development.
Commissioner DeLuna asked if the Hillside Ordinance governs the property.
Mr. Stendell replied that is correct. The area is zoned Hillside Planned Residential (HPR).
Chair Gregory said Commissioner Pradetto made an interesting point in the spirit of the
Hillside Ordinance and possibly important for the Commission to consider.
Vice -Chair Holt assumed that the Hillside Ordinance was developed because the original
parcel sizes in the area were five acres, and existing owners in the area had an issue with
the County allowing further subdivision of the five -acre parcels. She inquired why the
ordinance was written as it was with regard to the density.
Mr. Stendell responded that there are rectangular five -acre parcels in three rows north of
Stone Eagle down to the Cahuilla Hills Park. Southbound from Stone Eagle, the parcels
are a little more irregular and the City boundary occurs very rapidly after Stone Eagle. He
referred to the map and pointed out that there is not a lot of land within the City limits. He
said the County is allowing parcels to be subdivided into one -acre lots and allow more
subdivision. He mentioned he was responsible for the most recent HPR code revision,
which was done to preserve the beautiful vistas and recreation in the area. He indicated
that the proposed parcel is zoned HPR. He felt that the request is a low -risk decision for
the hillside; therefore, staff recommended approval. He explained that the proposed
subdivision does not occur high on the hillside and it would allow the City to spread the
density for Stone Eagle over a larger land area, thus taking the total overall density
downwards. The subdivision would also help with a recreational trail, in which the
developer would maintain the trail for the City. Lastly, the subdivision would help Stone
Eagle with fiscal solvency.
7
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
Commissioner Greenwood felt that the proposal is unique and it is being looked at specific
to its location. He believed Stone Eagle had done a very good job with the development.
He said it is important if the Planning Commission could do something to help ensure that
development in Stone Eagle is successful moving forward without significant impact to
the hillside. He mentioned he visited the site and he did not feel the proposed project
would affect the site in a way that it would detour from the true meaning of the Hillside
Ordinance. He stated he is in favor of this matter.
Vice -Chair Holt concurred with Commissioner Greenwood's comments. She would feel
differently if it was another developer with no experience developing in the area. She
visited the site and shared that the color schemes of the homes and materials utilized
work with the surrounding environment. She also walked up to the proposed parcel and
recognized that Stone Eagle is keeping a lot of the existing typography intact. She
expressed that the County does not pay attention to what goes on in adjacent jurisdictions.
Therefore, a decision that the Commission makes would not set a precedent for what is
going to happen within the County jurisdiction. While visiting the site with Mr. Stendell,
they were not able to identify many other areas within the City limits that were developable
due to the typography.
Chair Gregory stated his main concern was setting a precedent situation. However, Mr.
Stendell said the project would not set a precedent because it is a unique situation. He
asked Mr. Stendell if another situation could possibly occur.
Mr. Stendell responded that he does not have an answer to how many more applications
the City may receive requests to develop on the hillside. He made clear that the staff
report and findings staff presented present a unique case. As City planners, they are in
charge of looking at the context of every site and making a recommendation for approval
or a denial of an application.
Commissioner Pradetto asked how the proposed project would benefit Stone Eagle
financially.
Mr. Stendell deferred the question to the applicant.
Chair Gregory asked if he needed to reopen the public hearing.
Mr. Stendell replied yes.
Chair Gregory declared the public hearing open for additional testimony on this matter.
As the developer, MR. CULLINAN stated that they do not have any particular financial
interest left in Stone Eagle other than the proposed parcel. He said the HOA operates on
its own, so he did not know what the benefits would be to Stone Eagle financially. He
noted that the residential units would be built sooner than the club units.
With no further testimony offered, Chair Gregory declared the public hearing closed.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
Commissioner Pradetto continued that he is not convinced in terms of spreading out the
lots and creating a different product type. In his opinion, he felt that spreading out
development in the hillside is the wrong direction. If the City is going to make a deviation
from the Hillside Ordinance, the City should be getting a much better deal.
Vice -Chair Holt asked Commissioner Pradetto what type of a deal he is looking for.
Commissioner Pradetto stated it is not for him to determine. He pointed out that the project
would create four times the amount of disturbance in the area.
Chair Gregory asked Commissioner Pradetto, as Commissioners, is it not what they do in
which they get creative in an effort to make something happen.
Commissioner Pradetto responded that he is not prepared to be creative on this matter.
He did not think it is a conversation to have in one night.
Vice -Chair Holt understood that there would be custom homes. She communicated that
the proposed project might be an opportunity for the City to have something constructed
as an example of how to develop correctly within the hillside. Noting to be careful concern
to aesthetics, viewsheds, materials, and outcroppings. If the project is tastefully done, she
sees it as a positive benefit if there is development on adjacent hillsides.
Commissioner Pradetto asked Vice -Chair Holt why set an example of how to do
something the City wants to discourage.
Vice -Chair Holt responded that she does not see a downside if hillside development is
done appropriately, does not affect viewsheds, and there are no environmental impacts.
Commissioner Pradetto remarked that the downside is the City could get exactly what
Vice -Chair Holt mentioned, except the City does not have to do it with four homes in the
area.
Commissioner Greenwood reiterated that the proposed development is commensurate
with the level of quality the City has seen throughout Stone Eagle and The Reserve. He
said that the four homes to be constructed would be consistent with the first-class level
that the City has seen through the entire club. The project would be a good addition to the
City of Palm Desert. He said the colors and material would be consistent with the hillside.
He is in favor because the parcel is unique, it is located low, it is not located on a ridgeline,
and the egress and ingress are already developed.
Commissioner Pradetto asked Commissioner Greenwood what would happen if City staff
brought another proposal for the Commission to consider that is not as good as the Stone
Eagle's proposal.
Commissioner DeLuna interjected that the City also has to give a property owner some
private property rights.
Commissioner Pradetto stated that the City could restrict what people do with their
property, stating that is the whole point of zoning.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2019
Commissioner DeLuna remarked the proposed project does not set a precedent and
moved for approval.
Commissioner DeLuna moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2746, recommending approval to the City Council of Case Nos.
TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3, subject to the conditions of approval. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Greenwood and carried by a 4-1 vote (AYES:
DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, and Holt; NOES: Pradetto).
XI. MISCELLANEOUS
None
XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Vice -Chair Holt reported that the Art in Public Places Commission discussed the inclusion
of additional artists onto the City's registered list.
Mr. Stendell added that there is a community art project coming in April, which involves
displaying a giant quilt at City Hall.
B. PARKS & RECREATION
None
XIII. COMMENTS
Chair Gregory commented that the Commission had an extremely spirited dialogue and
he was very impressed. He felt it was a good example of looking out for the interest of the
public. He thanked the Commissioners for their efforts.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Gregory adjourned the meeting at
6:53 p.m.
ATTEST:
RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY
RON GREGORY, CHAIR
MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY
10
E I I y Of PRIM
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6i i
infoCcityofpalmdesert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. TPM 37336, DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 37336 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.7-ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR
RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT WILL BE PART OF STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT UP HIGHWAY
74, AND APPROVAL OF A THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 02-01
The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has reviewed and considered the proposed
project and has determined that any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less
than significant level and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project.
Project Location: Stone Eagle Development. APN: 652-090-002
Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.7-acres into four residential lots.
Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the project request.
Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the City Council on February 28, 2019,
at 4:00 p.m. with a City Council meeting to follow.
Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at
the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from December 26, 2018
to February 28, 2019.
Public Review: The project plans are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please
submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in
court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the City Council hearing. All comments
and any questions should be directed to:
Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 346-0611
kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org
PUBLISH
DESERT SUN
February 18, 2019
RACHELLE KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
Palm Desert City Council
i� nnnoanametinr
4
�pp�pp Jill 1ag[p
ill P N'
18
Pap,:
-A
ak
g°g
I
I
_
I I I
a
y lu
iw I I I
I� I^
n i•
i� _ � I� I� I
t
1 I I
F
B
r
a
a
[
�
a
r
[
r
�
e
x
�
Y
e
Y
�
a
A
e
e
�
r
e �
r
r -
[
6
�a
ea
r
j
T
m
� T
z � o
•" [J4 g
�Vi77
x
�+ !
o ?
Oo
x s
N
��,l�a�lek�a�,��.�al�.�L(t1a���t�:c�:�.��`:i�,)F�,�.ea'u,,.'..���.�i,.i-«�\i����,��r,►iuli�.ui�u.,r�,��i.�:i .�t
,
e `+
r
d p
k �{
d �
I,
e �
al
re i 9
i
e '
d
a
e
i A �
r`
---- 1—---------_
A. r
B !
r _
d � i
a
i6
r
Y
� r
� I
x �
i
r
a I
I
r r—
,' a
A
110
n
iF I --i w
o g , �Tl
i n
9t
� C14
��V n
N
i p
(t $
;ftt
(
]|{
rr, 7
)\(-.14
-TJ 2
§m(
A
!
�
i
§ (-Nrn
�K
�
00
5
��