Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 01-37 and 01-38 Ord 983 GPA 00-1 CZ 00-002 and TT 29713 Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 CITY OF PALM DESERT Resolution No. 01-38 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment and prezoning to facilitate future annexation to the city of Palm Desert for 156.01 acres located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country Club). Said property to be designated very low density residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre) and open space in the General Plan and prezoned PR-2 and O.S. (open space). The application also includes a tentative tract map to create 20 residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830 square feet to be located on the future extension of Canyon View Drive. III. APPLICANT: Ironwood Country Club 73-735 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 and SR Consultants, Inc. 2698 Mataro Street Pasadena, CA 91 107 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02, and TT 29713 V. DATE: March 22, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No.01-37 , Ordinance No. 983 , and Draft Resolution No. 01-38 B. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00- 02 and TT 29713 C. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2044 and 2045 D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 20, 2001 E. Related maps and/or exhibits Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-38 CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 and TT 29713 MARCH 22, 2001 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . That City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-37 approving Case No. GPA 00-01 . 2. That City Council pass Ordinance No. 983 to second reading to approve the prezoning for Case No. C/Z 00-02, to be effective upon annexation to the city. 3. That City Council adopt Resolution No. 01-38approving TT 29713, subject to conditions. B. DISCUSSION: 1 . BACKGROUND: Ironwood Country Club recently acquired a substantial piece of property from the Coachella Valley Water District. This property is adjacent to the southern boundary of Ironwood Country Club and the city boundary. Ironwood Country Club desires to have this property annexed to the city of Palm Desert. Council may recall that a similar request was before you in March 2000. At that time the tentative map had not been prepared. The lack of a tentative map and environmental concerns relating to bighorn sheep habitat became major issues. The annexation process has been held up pending submission of these maps and clarification of the environmental issues. The applicant has now completed the tentative map and has been working with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center and through CVAG with the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve the environmental concerns. a. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: PR-7 / Ironwood Country Club South: County NA (natural assets) / Vacant East: Indian Wells / The Reserve West: County NA / Vacant 2 Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-38 CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 b. General Plan Designation: The southern sphere area was included in the original City General Plan but not planned in the Land Use or Circulation Elements. The County General Plan designated all of Section 5 as mountain. It is our intention to designate part of the 156-acre site as very low density residential to accommodate the 20 residential lots shown on the map and the remainder of the site will be designed open space to accommodate the golf course and the bighorn sheep habitat. c. Zoning: All of Section 5 is currently zoned NA (natural assets) under the County. It is our intention to zone the residential portion PR-2 (planned residential two units per acre) and the golf course and sheep habitat areas as open space. These zonings would become effective upon annexation of the property to the city. d. TT 29713: Tentative map 29713 proposes to create a total of 22 lots. There will be 20 residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830 square feet. Lot 21 is 100.59 acres and will be retained as a recreation lot (golf course). Lot 22 is 41 .34 acres located south of the flood control levee and is an open space lot. The residential portion of the map will take access from the southerly end of the existing Canyon View Drive. Municipal Code Section 25.24.310 allows for flexible setbacks for single family lots in the PR zone district in that the PR zone allows for a range of uses from attached condos to single family detached. Staff will suggest that the basic R-1 standards be imposed as follows: Minimum Front Yard 20 feet Minimum Rear Yard 15 feet 3 Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-38 CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Minimum Side Yards 14 feet total, minimum 5 feet Minimum Street Side Yards 10 feet Minimum Dwelling Unit Size 1 ,500 square feet Maximum Building Site Coverage 35% These setbacks and coverage limits will be conditioned on the approval of the map. Of course the Homeowners Association has the ability to impose greater requirements through its CC&R's. At this time we do not have home plans and they likely will be custom homes. The above noted standards will be imposed at time of permit issuance. e. Planning Commission Action: At the Planning Commission hearing of February 20, 2001 , several people spoke in favor of the applications. No one spoke in opposition. Commission on a 5-0 vote adopted it's Resolution Nos. 2044 and 2045 recommending approval of the general plan amendment, the prezoning and tentative map. 2. ANALYSIS: The applicant wishes to annex the property into the city. Part of the annexation process requires that the city prezone the property. The applicant has indicated that the long term goal is to develop the land with 20 single family lots, retain the existing golf course, flood control and other open space. The west portion of Section 5 has significant hills which could explain the County land use designation of "mountain." The area we are looking at in the east part of Section 5 is a drainage area, low foothills and existing golf course. We feel the proposed land use and zoning (very low density residential and open space) are appropriate. The remainder of Ironwood Country Club is zoned PR-7 and designated medium density residential (5-7 units per acre). The tract meets all of the Planned Residential zone requirements. All physical improvements meet the requirements of both the Palm Desert 4 Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-38 CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Subdivision Ordinance and the California Map Act. The proposed density of 1 .43 units per acre (or .13 units per gross acre) is below the maximum allowed of three units per acre. A condition will be imposed to require minimum 20,000 square foot lot area in order that neighbors can be assured that the PR-2 zoned area will remain as currently shown. Also, a condition has been imposed which provides that in-lieu of park dedication requirements, the applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development for an easement across their property allowing for the future development of a public trail crossing Deep Canyon in connection with a route from Palm Desert to La Quinta. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Through CVAG, the applicant has conferred with the Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Part of the resolution of the environmental concerns involve the applicant compensating for the loss of bighorn sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio per the letter from Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 15, 2000. The letter also delineates a series of development conditions which will be imposed as conditions on the tentative map and implemented as specified. In addition, the applicant conferred with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center and has agreed to specified mitigation measures. Based on the mitigation measures agreed to the Director of Community Development recommends that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be recommended to the City Council for certification. 4. FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. • The proposed tract map is consistent with the proposal general plan designation of very low density residential. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 5 Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-38 CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 • All streets will be maintained and improved. Sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the General Plan guidelines and City ordinances. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. • The 1 4-acre residential site is physically suitable for residential development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • The project will have a total of 20 units. The proposed density (1 .43 units per acre) is under the maximum allowed three units per acre. The project is physically suitable for the proposed development density. e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat. • For purposes of CEQA, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. See CEQA discussion later in this report. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The design of the subdivision will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. The site can be served by respective utilities, will provide adequate traffic circulation and is designed in compliance with all city codes. g. 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. • All subdivision improvements will not conflict with any public easements. 6 Resolution No. 01-37 Ordinance No. 983 STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-38 CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 h. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. • All subdivision improvements will not conflict with any public easements. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. • The project meets all code requirements. The design of the subdivision will not impact solar access to adjacent properties or the subject property. All single family homes shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved: -_44/7 ) ST E MITH PHILIP BELL PLANNING MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Review and Concur: Review and Concur: R C ARD J. OLKERS CARLOS L. ORTEGA ASSISTANT‘CITY MANAGER OF CITY MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY COUNCIL A,ETION: APPROVED ✓ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER FETING DATE �{-c) 1 AYES: �i1� NOES: Y\,' , , ABSENT: .�0.4 B qq,f(= ABSTAIN: Y\Gth1L: VERIFIED BY: �1 ,,/ h Original on File with Cftyller, k's Office 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Commissioner Tschopp stated that he also concurred. A market/deli of that size would be a good addition to the area and the building would be compatible with the existing structures. Chairperson Lopez concurred and called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2043, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 00-07, C/Z 00-10 and PP 00-23, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Drell requested that the following two public hearing items be considered simultaneously. Commission concurred. C. Case Nos. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 and TT 29713 - IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, Applicant Request for a recommendation to City Council of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, general plan amendment and prezoning to facilitate future annexation to the city of Palm Desert for 156.01 acres located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country Club). Said property to be designated very low density residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre) and open space in the General Plan and prezoned PR-2 and O.S. (open space). The application also includes a tentative tract map to create 20 residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830 square feet to be located on the future extension of Canyon View Drive. D. Case No. TT 29912 - IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, Applicant Request for recommendation to the City Council of approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and tentative tract map to create 32 single family lots ranging in size from 15,081 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 square feet to 23,001 square feet and a 96.47 acre recreation lot on the PR-7 D zoned property located in the east half of Section 32 T5S R6E being east of Canyon View Drive and north and south of Irontree Drive extended. Mr. Smith indicated that the tract maps were on display. He explained that Tract Map 29912 was located generally east of the existing clubhouse facility and Tract Map 29713 was at the south of the end of Canyon View. The area east of the clubhouse facility was currently in the city and was currently zoned planned residential and the lotting as proposed complied with the provisions of the ordinance and staff recommended approval of the map subject to conditions. He noted that in the draft resolution that was attached to that report, staff wanted to remove some of the material including, "Whereas, the applicant consulted with Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and Game; and Whereas, the applicant consulted with the Boyd Deep Canyon Research Center; and Whereas, the applicant has agreed to compensate for loss of bighorn habitat at a 2:1 ratio." As well, the word "mitigated" should be removed. He stated that "mitigated" didn't apply to Map 29912, but only to Map 29713, the area southerly of the existing city limit. Mr. Smith pointed out the location of the city boundary on the display map. He said the area was currently in the county of Riverside. The applicant wished to annex the property. Steps involved in annexation included prezoning and general planning the area. He noted that it came before the commission about a year ago and it was sent to City Council without a map. By the time it reached Council, the issue of loss of bighorn sheep habitat had arisen. Over the past year the applicant had been working to resolve that environmental issue and in the meantime prepared the map which would create the 20 residential lots. As well, the map would create another recreation lot and then the area south of the dike would be the last lot which would be an open space lot. He indicated that both maps have a proposed condition included in them relative to the city requesting an easement for trail purposes for a possible future trail that the city was looking at developing which would link from Palm Desert to La Quinta. That condition was imposed on both maps. The lots proposed were in excess of 20,000 square feet. They all backed onto the golf course and would provide use of the golf course. Staff proposed conditions and development standards basically at the minimums created in the city. It was very likely that the homeowner's association would establish CC&Rs in excess of what staff was proposing. He asked for any questions. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Commissioner Jonathan asked about the location of the trail. Mr. Drell indicated that there was a canyon in this location that would drop a person into the south end of La Quinta. The problem right now was that it was a lambing area. If at some time the general sheep population invigorated itself enough that they could allow a little more intrusion into that area, that's when it would be used. Commissioner Campbell noted that in their letter the United States Department of Interior said that with the 41 .9 acres, the remaining 59.7 acres still needed to be identified. She asked if that was still true or if it had been resolved. Mr. Smith said that the letter was dated in December and he knew that the applicant had been working with them on it. Mr. Drell said that they have tentatively identified 91 acres of equivalent land and they had to come up with eight or nine more acres. Chairperson Lopez opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. RONALD DAHL, 73099 Ajo Lane in Palm Desert stated that he was a member of Ironwood Country Club and a member of the Ironwood Country Club Land Development Committee that has been pursuing this for the last year. He said that he wanted to make one quick correction to the agenda. The second plan, TT 29912, referred to the request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration and that wasn't accurate. They spoke to Mr. Smith earlier this afternoon but it was too late to correct the agenda and make the various clerical changes. He said that he had a number of those that he really needed to go through. Most of them related to the fact that they were considering both of these tract maps together and the mitigation factors got tangled up between the two maps. Initially, he wanted to bring up the fact that there was a vote held by the members of Ironwood and a letter was sent to the city dated February 16 indicating that 63.2% of all members eligible to vote for Ironwood Country Club voted in favor of them pursuing these tentative maps. Of the actual votes cast, over 95% voted in favor. Under their bylaws, they were only required to have a simple majority. With regard to the first map, TT 29713 which would be the one requiring a Negative Declaration and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, there were a number of things they had questions about in the staff report. They found no conditions of approval they disagreed with and 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 all the comments he had were more of a clerical nature because of the problem of dealing with two maps at the same time. One was a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the other was not. On page four of the conditions of approval, they only had one comment on the in-lieu park dedication requirements and they wanted to see the language in the resolution that stated that it applied to the open space lot or Lot 22 of Tract No. 29713. Mr. Drell explained that the trail easement had nothing to do with the open space or the bighorn sheep aspect. It was a dedication in lieu of park fees. The park fees would apply to both maps. Mr. Dahl said they didn't question that. What they wanted to do was make sure it was dedicated into what was now called Lot 22 on the second map, 29713. Mr. Drell said that the applicant could designate it any where they wanted and it was ultimately as they determined. The city's goal was to get from one side of the valley to another. Where it would be located was the applicant's choice. Mr. Dahl said that was okay and that they assumed they would be able to make the offer when they brought in the final map. Mr. Drell said that was correct. It was their free choice of where it would go. Mr. Dahl said they didn't have anything further on Map 29713. He thought the staff report was acceptable. He indicated that there was one word on the staff report on page 5 that used the word "mitigation" that he hoped would be struck out. Anywhere it said Mitigated Negative Declaration on the 29912 report he felt should be corrected. On the staff report for TT 29912, page one of the staff report had the same problem with regard to the Negative Declaration. He saw that on page five for CEQA the term "Mitigated Negative Declaration" was left out in 29713. He just requested as a blanket item that for tentative map TT 29912, that all references to the negative environmental impact be omitted. Other than that, they didn't have any other problems with the conditions of approval and requested that the commission accept the recommendation of approval from staff on both plans. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Chairperson Lopez noted that there were a lot of changes and without going through a long continuance, he asked if this could be done. Mr. Drell said that there was no need to change anything in the staff reports. The staff reports were informational. The only thing that needed to be changed in the resolution was removing the mitigation language from TT 29912 and keeping it in TT 29713. That was the only change. Mr. Dahl concurred and felt that could all be done at the staff level. Chairperson Lopez asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public hearing was closed. He requested commission comments and/or action. Commissioner Jonathan felt that the applicant had done a great job. Obviously they had done their homework with the residents as well since there was a 95% approval rating. He saw no problem with the requests and was prepared to move for approval. Commissioner Finerty concurred and seconded the motion. Commissioner Campbell also concurred. She said that she lived there three years and felt they would do a first class job. Chairperson Lopez stated that he would also concur. Having lived in the desert for over 20 years and watching the whole valley grow, he felt the Ironwood area has always been one of the shining places in the desert. Commissioner Tschopp informed commission that he would be abstaining from voting and discussion because the bank he worked at had a financial interest in the property. Chairperson Lopez called for a vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2001 It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2044, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2045 recommending to City Council approval of TT 29713, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2046, recommending to City Council approval of TT 29912, subject to conditions and changes noted by staff. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Tschopp abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ELECTION OF COMMITTEE LIAISONS Appointment of an Art in Public Places Representative, a Civic Center Steering Committee Representative, Appointment of a Desert Willow Committee Representative, Appointment of a Landscape Committee Representative, Appointment of a Project Area 4 Committee Representative, Appointment of a Representative to the Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage Monterey Avenue Corridor Planning Work Group, and Appointment of a Zoning Ordinance Review Committee Representative. Mr. Drell said there had been some conversations regarding this and basically repeating what he said last time was that the City Council went through a process of discussing and arguing on the members of the committee and for whatever reason they chose to make all these decisions themselves and took it upon themselves to not leave it up to the committees to pick their own 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2044 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUTURE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, PART OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 5, T6S R6E AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. CASE NOS. GPA 00-1 AND C/Z 00-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of February, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment and prezoning for the purpose of future annexation to the city of property generally located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (south of Ironwood Country Club) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted through CVAG with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to compensate for the loss of Bighorn Sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio and has agreed to other mitigation measures delineated in a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 1 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24", in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and the Director of Community Development has recommended that it be certified; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions, as described below: 1 . The proposed land use designation of very low density residential and open space is consistent with the existing land use in Ironwood Country Club and this represents the only logical extension of Ironwood Country Club. 2. The proposed prezoning to R-1 20,000 and open space is consistent with the proposed general plan land use designation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2044 3. The proposed general plan/prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2 as shown on Exhibits "B" and "C", and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto which will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th, day of February, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINERTY, JONATHAN, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: TSCHOPP 4411 Jiro PEZ, Chair,' - son ATTEST: • PHILIP DRELL, ecretary Palm Desert Pla ning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2044 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 1 5070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning and general plan amendment of the property south of Ironwood Country Club, part of the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E, facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. '. "----k:-Iiis,____7kft_A__Qta ary 20, 2001 PHILIP DRE1(L DAT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 LLT„ J 1 � 11 cV, �;iiIW 1 V3 Ma 1''' •'• 1 .4/1 :��j—' ' la - (11/1111ifb� 1 1 II ;;;0 g i 41•444*•• Ilia pm •- 14---•Inria 4 y at%glrAr a w • ____. tat 1111 I \ , . i 1� % \ \_./ \ \ Proposed — - - GPA Very Low Density Residential 'CCC O 1000 Feet • _ -_ Open Space & �.%'u6I1-(1)evert Case No. GPA 00-1 PLANNING COMMISSION i . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B Date: 2-20-01 /% 1, --) • / r OS `Mai piiubi = .►-i e • • • +00 \ WI NI q II 140 , I lal a is t4-*,,-. Iv 1-in-ra-- 1,-)441.,,,,„41Q0 411 1 I ��. �711 I i� 41III'i� lir. • ail. ?I quirmia6 irr- \‘ \\ N•v -,\ \ :.\\ : , , , , , \ LI �� . , IN 14 i �, �. NO IMI I • \ \ Is ti \�� \ ILl \\\ \\ \\ Proposed Zoning PR-2 1000 0 :'\ 1000 Feet O.S. edy alYafin.9eaeir1 Case No. C/Z 00-2 PLANNING COMMISSION �* Chan,_e of Zone RESOLUTION NO. EXH I J I IT C Date: 2-20-01 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, SUBDIVIDING 156 +/- ACRES INTO 22 LOTS. PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 5, T6S R6E (THE AREA SOUTH OF IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB). CASE NO. TT 29713 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of February, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by S.R. CONSULTANTS and IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted through CVAG with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to compensate for the loss of Bighorn Sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio and has agreed to other mitigation measures delineated in a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 15, 2000; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of the tentative tract map: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 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. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map and precise plan/conditional use permit the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of TT 29713 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit "A", subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of February, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FINE RTY, JO AN, LOP Z NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: TSCHOPP JI PE , Chair er n TTES�: PHILIP DRELL4Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 29713 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. Recordation of the final map shall occur within 24 months from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Sunline Transit Authority Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 6. All onsite utilities shall be underground. 7. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees. 8. Project shall comply with requirements of Section 25.16.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to the following: 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 Front Setback 20 feet Rear Setback 15 feet Side Yard Setback 14 feet total, minimum 5 feet Street Side Yards Setback 10 feet Minimum Dwelling Unit Size 1 ,500 square feet Max Lot Coverage 35% 9. That the conditions and requirements contained in the letters from Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 15, 2000 and the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center letter dated September 10, 2000 shall be conditions of approval of this tentative map and shall be implemented in a time frame consistent with the agreement between the parties. 10. That approval of Tentative Tract Map 29713 is conditioned upon approval of Case Nos. GPA 00-01 and C/Z 00-02 and annexation of the property to the City of Palm Desert. 1 1 . In-lieu of park dedication requirements, applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development for an easement across their property allowing for the future development of a public trail crossing Deep Canyon in connection with a route from Palm Desert to La Quinta. 1 2. That the minimum lot size in this tract map shall be 20,000 square feet. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 2. Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream and downstream drainage conditions as they impact this project and existing development. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees(TUMF), residential classification. Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 5. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. 7. All private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with City standards or as approved by the city engineer shall be provided. Canyon View Drive exceeds maximum cul-de-sac length (600 ft.). An alternative / emergency access in accordance with Fire Marshall approval shall be provided. 9. All landscaping maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 1 1 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 1 2. Provisions for the continuation of existing access rights (easements, etc.) shall be provided for on the Final Map or by separate documents as appropriate. 13. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 14. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 15. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.301 C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 1500 for single family. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' single family from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 7. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 8. A dead end single access over 500 feet will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1 ,300 feet be accepted. 9. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 1 1 . Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 12. This project requires secondary access to streets "A" and "B" or residential fire sprinklers throughout. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2045 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: TT 29713 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Ironwood Country Club SR Consultants, Inc. 73-735 Irontree Drive 2698 Mataro Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91107 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Tentative tract map to create 20 residential lots and two open space lots on property south of Ironwood Country Club, part of the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E, facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. • February 20, 2001 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF bOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 20, 2001 CASE NOS: GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 and TT 29713 REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council of approval of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, general plan amendment and prezoning to facilitate future annexation to the city of Palm Desert for 1 56.01 acres located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country Club). Said property to be designated very low density residential (1 -3 dwelling units per acre) and open space in the General Plan and prezoned PR-2 and O.S. (open space). The application also includes a tentative tract map to create 20 residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830 square feet to be located on the future extension of Canyon View Drive. APPLICANT: Ironwood Country Club 73-735 lrontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 and SR Consultants, Inc. 2698 Mataro Street Pasadena, CA 91 107 BACKGROUND: Ironwood Country Club recently acquired a substantial piece of property from the Coachella Valley Water District. This property is adjacent to the southern boundary of Ironwood Country Club and the city boundary. Ironwood Country Club desires to have this property annexed to the city of Palm Desert. Commission may recall that a similar request was before you in February 2000. At that time the tentative map had not been prepared. When the matter reached the City Council the lack of a tentative map and environmental concerns relating to bighorn sheep habitat became major issues. The annexation process has been held up pending submission of these maps and clarification of the environmental issues. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 The applicant has now completed the tentative map and has been working with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center and through CVAG with the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service to resolve the environmental concerns. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7 / Ironwood Country Club South: County NA (natural assets) / Vacant East: Indian Wells / The Reserve West: County NA / Vacant B. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The southern sphere area was included in the original City General Plan but not planned in the Land Use or Circulation Elements. The County General Plan designated all of Section 5 as mountain. It is our intention to designate part of the 156-acre site as very low density residential to accommodate the 20 residential lots shown on the map and the remainder of the site will be designed open space to accommodate the golf course and the bighorn sheep habitat. C. ZONING: All of Section 5 is currently zoned NA (natural assets) under the County. It is our intention to zone the residential portion PR-2 (planned residential two units per acre) and the golf course and sheep habitat areas as open space. These zonings would become effective upon annexation of the property to the city. D. TT 29713: Tentative map 29713 proposes to create a total of 22 lots. There will be 20 residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830 square feet. Lot 21 is 100.59 acres and will be retained as a recreation lot (golf course). Lot 22 is 41 .34 acres located south of the flood control levee and is an open space lot. 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 The residential portion of the map will take access from the southerly end of the existing Canyon View Drive. Municipal Code Section 25.24.310 allows for flexible setbacks for single family lots in the PR zone district in that the PR zone allows for a range of uses from attached condos to single family detached. Staff will suggest that the basic R-1 standards be imposed as follows: Minimum Front Yard 20 feet Minimum Rear Yard 15 feet Minimum Side Yards 14 feet total, minimum 5 feet Minimum Street Side Yards 10 feet Minimum Dwelling Unit Size 1 ,500 square feet Maximum Building Site Coverage 35% These setbacks and coverage limits will be conditioned on the approval of the map. Of course the Homeowners Association has the ability to impose greater requirements through its CC&R's. At this time we do not have home plans and they likely will be custom homes. The above noted standards will be imposed at time of permit issuance. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant wishes to annex the property into the city. Part of the annexation process requires that the city prezone the property. The applicant has indicated that the long term goal is to develop the land with 20 single family lots, retain the existing golf course, flood control and other open space. The west portion of Section 5 has significant hills which could explain the County land use designation of "mountain." The area we are looking at in the east part of Section 5 is a drainage area, low foothills and existing golf course. We feel the proposed land use and zoning (very low density residential and open space) are appropriate. The remainder of Ironwood Country Club is zoned PR-7 and designated medium density residential (5-7 units per acre). The tract meets all of the Planned Residential zone requirements. All physical improvements meet the requirements of both the Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance 3 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 and the California Map Act. The proposed density of 1 .43 units per acre (or .13 units per gross acre) is below the maximum allowed of three units per acre. A condition will be imposed to require minimum 20,000 square foot lot area in order that neighbors can be assured that the PR-2 zoned area will remain as currently shown. Also, a condition has been imposed which provides that in-lieu of park dedication requirements, the applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development for an easement across their property allowing for the future development of a public trail crossing Deep Canyon in connection with a route from Palm Desert to La Quinta. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Through CVAG, the applicant has conferred with the Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Part of the resolution of the environmental concerns involve the applicant compensating for the loss of bighorn sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio per the letter from Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 15, 2000. The letter also delineates a series of development conditions which will be imposed as conditions on the tentative map and implemented as specified. In addition, the applicant conferred with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center and has agreed to specified mitigation measures. Based on the mitigation measures agreed to the Director of Community Development recommends that the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be recommended to the City Council for certification. IV. FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: A. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. • The proposed tract map is consistent with the proposal general plan designation of very low density residential. B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 4 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 • All streets will be maintained and improved. Sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the General Plan guidelines and City ordinances. C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. • The 14-acre residential site is physically suitable for residential development. D. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. • The project will have a total of 20 units. The proposed density (1 .43 units per acre) is under the maximum allowed three units per acre. The project is physically suitable for the proposed development density. E. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish, wildlife or their habitat. • For purposes of CEQA, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. See CEQA discussion later in this report. F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The design of the subdivision will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. The site can be served by respective utilities, will provide adequate traffic circulation and is designed in compliance with all city codes. G. 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. • All subdivision improvements will not conflict with any public easements. H. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. 5 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 FEBRUARY 20, 2001 • All subdivision improvements will not conflict with any public easements. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. • The project meets all code requirements. The design of the subdivision will not impact solar access to adjacent properties or the subject property. All single family homes shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to City Council approval of GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 and TT 29713, subject to conditions. VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolutions B. Legal notice C. Comments from city departments and other agencies D. Plans and exhibits Prepared by 7 -e,J) Steve-Smith Reviewed and Approve P it Drell /tm 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND PREZONING FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUTURE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, PART OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 5, T6S R6E AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. CASE NOS. GPA 00-1 AND C/Z 00-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of February, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to the City Council approval of the general plan amendment and prezoning for the purpose of future annexation to the city of property generally located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (south of Ironwood Country Club) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates thereto; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted through CVAG with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to compensate for the loss of Bighorn Sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio and has agreed to other mitigation measures delineated in a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 1 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24", in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared and the Director of Community Development has recommended that it be certified; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify its actions, as described below: 1 . The proposed land use designation of very low density residential and open space is consistent with the existing land use in Ironwood Country Club and this represents the only logical extension of Ironwood Country Club. 2. The proposed prezoning to R-1 20,000 and open space is consistent with the proposed general plan land use designation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The proposed general plan/prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2 as shown on Exhibits "B" and "C", and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto which will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th, day of February, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-1 and C/Z 00-2 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning and general plan amendment of the property south of Ironwood Country Club, part of the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E, facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. February 20, 2001 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 i ' , . a 0,1 i , e,tx . wi II -1-t-e-- , ,.., ,_,, „.,_,,tir__,‘, , _,,,,,,.._) i , f \ di t ,__1 a ' ,,, \ \ \ --''''\ \ I ' \s, . ,_... ., ell _ ., \ ,, \ . i Proposed GPA Very Low Density Residential OOG 1000 Feet 1 1 J I Open Space 61Y elielt- eoerl Case No. GPA 00-1 PLANNING COMMISSION g,,)`. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. --,;;, � '' EXHIBIT D Date: 2-20-01 j i -3-- ''--j . arit%14*--1.1i171 • 11 mislle 4 '--js / um 9 l'i r. ge, \ft tut 0 4 3 filim01114 6,7,414-44.14 al I *Am 0 0 0 aft glifjpoill‘ 11 II 110 �� III N / .\ \\: ' ' \\ Ns j \\ , IIII `,.‘ \\ 0\s - i 1 \\ \ \ \__ \\ \ ,‘ - Proposed Zoning PR-2 1000 0 1000 Feet 0.5. eieg al fain 17eeert Case No. C/Z 00-2 PLANNING COMMISSION Change of Zone RESOLUTION NO. " lip ' EXHI I IT C Date: 2-20-01 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, SUBDIVIDING 156 +/- ACRES INTO 22 LOTS. PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 5, T6S R6E (THE AREA SOUTH OF IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB). CASE NO. TT 29713 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of February, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by S.R. CONSULTANTS and IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted through CVAG with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Fish and Game; and WHEREAS, the applicant has consulted with the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center; and WHEREAS, the applicant has agreed to compensate for the loss of Bighorn Sheep habitat at a 2:1 ratio and has agreed to other mitigation measures delineated in a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 15, 2000; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will have no adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of the tentative tract map: 1 . That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site is physical►y suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 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. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map and precise plan/conditional use permit the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of TT 29713 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact attached hereto as Exhibit "A", subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 20th day of February, 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM LOPEZ, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 29713 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. Recordation of the final map shall occur within 24 months from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Review Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Sunline Transit Authority Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 6. All onsite utilities shall be underground. 7. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, TUMF and school mitigation fees. 8. Project shall comply with requirements of Section 25.16.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, including but not limited to the following: 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Front Setback 20 feet Rear Setback 15 feet Side Yard Setback 14 feet total, minimum 5 feet Street Side Yards Setback 10 feet Minimum Dwelling Unit Size 1 ,500 square feet Max Lot Coverage 35% 9. That the conditions and requirements contained in the letters from Fish and Wildlife Service dated December 15, 2000 and the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center letter dated September 10, 2000 shall be conditions of approval of this tentative map and shall be implemented in a time frame consistent with the agreement between the parties. 10. That approval of Tentative Tract Map 29713 is conditioned upon approval of Case Nos. GPA 00-01 and C/Z 00-02 and annexation of the property to the City of Palm Desert. 1 1 . In-lieu of park dedication requirements, applicant shall make an irrevocable offer of dedication acceptable to the City Attorney and Director of Community Development for an easement across their property allowing for the future development of a public trail crossing Deep Canyon in connection with a route from Palm Desert to La Quinta. 12. That the minimum lot size in this tract map shall be 20,000 square feet. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 2. Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream and downstream drainage conditions as they impact this project and existing development. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees(TUMF), residential classification. Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. 7. All private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with City standards or as approved by the city engineer shall be provided. Canyon View Drive exceeds maximum cul-de-sac length (600 ft.). An alternative / emergency access in accordance with Fire Marshall approval shall be provided. 9. All landscaping maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 1 1 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 12. Provisions for the continuation of existing access rights (easements, etc.) shall be provided for on the Final Map or by separate documents as appropriate. 13. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 14. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 15. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.301 C. 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of 1 500 for single family. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' single family from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 7. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 8. A dead end single access over 500 feet will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1 ,300 feet be accepted. 9. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 1 1 . Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 12. This project requires secondary access to streets "A" and "B" or residential fire sprinklers throughout. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: TT 29713 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Ironwood Country Club SR Consultants, Inc. 73-735 Irontree Drive 2698 Mataro Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91 107 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Tentative tract map to create 20 residential lots and two open space lots on property south of Ironwood Country Club, part of the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E, facilitating annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: STEVE SMITH FROM: Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29713; MEMBERS OF IRONWOOD, INC. DATE: February 14, 2001 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1) Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or recordation of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. (2) Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream and downstream drainage conditions as they impact this project and existing development. (3) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. (4) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees(TUMF), residential classification. Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. (5) A complete preliminary soils investigation,conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (6) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. (7) All private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. (8) Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with City standards or as approved by the city engineer shall be provided. Canyon View Drive exceeds maximum cul-de-sac length (600 ft.). An alternative/ emergency access in accordance with Fire Marshall approval shall be provided. (9) All landscaping maintenance shall be provided by the property owner. (10) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. (11) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (12) Provisions for the continuation of existing access rights (easements, etc.) shall be provided for on the Final Map or by separate documents as appropriate. (13) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. (14) Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. (15) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final SEP d S. USH, P.E. (tmaps\tm29713.cnd) L{J U V.1- 12/15/2000 11:11 FAX 76091806 L'S FISH AND VILDLIFE United States Department of the Interior .�. ;utr Servicrailla:111"111.1"1 Fish and Wildlife T Ecological Services 1, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenuo.West � � Carlsbad,CA 920og DEC 1 5 2000 Mr- Steve Nagle Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert California 92260 Subject: Ironwood Country Club Expansion of Golf Course and Residential Construction(1-6- _ 00 NFTA-1217.1) Dear Mr Nagle: This letter summarizes our Interim Project Review meeting discussion on October 25, 2000,regarding the above referenced project and the suggested measures to address impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep_ The proposed Ironwood project entails developing 50.8 acres of bighorn habitat into residential houses and gold course_ During the meeting it was agreed that the loss of habitat would be compensated for at a 2:1 ratio_ Ironwood has proposed several parcels of on-site habitat and/or acquiring off-siteh 9 itaat totaling west of onw byIronwood,least 101.6 acres. It appears that one of the on-site pa rcels offered . lands managed by the University of California, would be suitable dike and adjacent to Coachella the flood controlsheep habitat but isolated by compensation. The other parcels are contiguous with bighorn sh p Valley Water District(CVWD) land. Without confirmation that the CVWD land would be managed compatible with bighorn sheep recovery,these parcels would not be suitable compensation. Ironwood is in the process of identifying the remaining 59-7 acres of suitable bighorn sheep habitat. In addition, the following mitigation measures were agreed to by Ironwood to minimize disturb f nanative to adjoining bighorn habitat: no invasive plant species used in landscaping, encouraging plants in landscaping, no lighting of hillsides and minuni7ing off-site lighting or glare, any water features should be built to be incompatible with species of Culicoides, dogs should be leashed and away from areac adjacent to the hillsides, outdoor noise restrictions,no recreational access into bbl om hahebitap habitat, and a fence to be constructed between the proposed project and remaining bighorn t The fence may be built concurrently d��Pe �onflicject or ts,lif it becoLmc necessary to implement sheep thell� been seen on the project site. To avoid Received Dec-15-2000 01 :38pm From-T609180638 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Paie 002 12/15/2000 14:41 FAX 760918C US FISH AND WILDLIFE 21003 Mr. Steve Nagle fencing, it was agreed that, as a condition of approval,the City will require (1) a responsible party be identified, such as a Home Owners Association,for constructing the fence; (2) an identified mechanism for funding the fence construction(e.g_, annual fees or an account funded by the developer); (3)rights- of-way easements established across all affected properties; and (4) a predetermined mechanism that defines when a fence would be constructed (a single bighorn sheep bas been seen on the project site). contact Scott McCarthyf my staff at(760) 431- questions regarding Y If you have any g g this letter, please 9440. Sin ly • jNancy Gilbert Assistant Field Supervisor cc: Phil Drell, City of Palm Desert Theresa Newkirk, CDFG UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOSANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SANERANCISCU � FkD._ SANTABARBARA • SANTACRUZ REcFJ1'F.r September 10, 2000 Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center P.O. Box 1738 S E 1 3 2000 Patin Desert,California 92261-1738 Mr. Phil Drell Telephone: (619)341-3655 Director of Community Development COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA 4T ME; 73 510 Fred Waring Dr. CfTY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: 50 acre parcel of land within Ironwood Country Club located north and west of the Deep Canyon flood control levee and south of Canyon View Drive in the City of Palm Desert. Dear Phil: On August 21s` I met with representatives of Ironwood Country Club and their consultants. At the meeting we discussed their plans for a proposed development within Ironwood Country Club. It is my understanding that: 1. The project will be low density consisting of 20 lots of approximately '/2 acre each. The proposed project is essentially an extension of the existing development, and it will be surrounded by and separated from the Deep Canyon flood control levee by new golf course improvements. I have attached a copy of the relevant part of the"Proposed North Course Revision" map that we reviewed at the meeting. 2. About 42 acres of the parcel, is located south and east of the flood control levee and is a part of the Deep Canyon flood plain. Retaining this area as an undisturbed natural area is a significant concern of Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center. This part of the parcel is largely undisturbed and according to statements made by the representatives of Ironwood and their engineers, this parcel will not be disturbed, and will remain in its natural condition. The parcel will be designated as"natural open space". 3. A fence will be constructed by Ironwood in a location mutually agreeable to Ironwood and the University, near the flood control levee, and across the flood plain. Ironwood's fence will join a fence along the northerly boundary of the SW1/4 Section of Section 4 T6S R6E SBBM, the installation of which will not be Ironwood's responsibility. As Director of the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, I do not object to the project as proposed by Ironwood Country Club on August 21, 2000, subject to the following limitation: Nothing in this letter shall be deemed or construed to be a waiver of the University's right or fiduciary duty as a trustee agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), or under any other applicable laws or regulations, to comment on, or object, where applicable, to any plans for or activities on the Ironwood Country Club property, including the development of the project if, in the reasonable 1 judgment of the University's environmental managers, such plans or activities may have a significant effect on Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center. Please feel free to contact me at the letterhead address or by email (deepcanyon@a,mindspring.com) if you need more information or clarification of my comments. Sincerely, Allan Muth, Ph.D. Director Cc: Leonard Czarnowski, SR Consultants Inc. Bruce Edwards, Ironwood Country Club IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE STATE OF CAUFORNIA 'I TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29713 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 5,T.65., R.BE., 5.B.M. . A. �Tis_A rç- y OVEN SPACE SOT ATM 7ndtl aT.N ACRES �Y_ k'Sad�Lq SI 21 `` - ...j) R100..SB AC EST �� .__- 100.39 ACRES '� J O OALF COURSE \ \ w. Q IR I{7ilOm OOI111R7a1/ .— - r' 0 I �,nfii �= �Y $ I "�- AM _E.1 ClicAl i 1111 Ilic4011101 J SRI 111 a ,i 411111 0 t, -t, TM F iT�ATN 7M4B / Wile N A Y Y�1 r ', . • 40. Willi! N N..,,o, LOTS SS jAThi ZONING EAESCRU SIS mr�AL •,aE mN >a 8 11 ADM MAN. ,. a^»,° . .., 1 I�ihF I W I — I — 1 MONO. ro-i;0.4 LOAM N"RN.NIABNM RAN O.q wf ni CLGTRL LOT: : PROPOSED USE .IT.N ONO Rao [[ 1 YTS NOTE: 'MES.0 Of ev./0 Ord NAM LOT: Nsoss 3 STYES FOR anew RNRRS.P iNFTNYpT W.CO-vn AWN ]. c:a��. OW O(iaWYMi NE Tps O�NOA A Alto m ' mnsiwo•VOL VACANT MC Oas Cn.� $ T, IMNIIII=s7/Air"--MN 7.11WM TO memo um YE'. ISO �SISOINNON I^ $Tdl►M/ATFG2 RETENTION FLOOD ZONE 3 c TURN NMN CON cOwR STREET WMTENA CE A VN ro IANNO.Tml ora c M 5CC UTNJTIEB nR MAL.N,.. MOTO=SA.TO IC YONO IO WIN: COAOtAA VAUE,NAM AMA SNEn NO. M YAM ANNTENANCS ASSOC LEGAL DEBE;IIIPf1ON Of RRITWO C.C. C. ANNUM sACAu I.OAS N:T TENTATIVE MAP ELI TaO..ANANA m.4N PORTEN Of SU EAT NNI Of SECT. . CENENAL Nr ae... , �, .. N TN SLIT, TRACT NO. 29713 CAKE UN WANT a w nArz a cwawA MN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB CITY OF PALM DESERT OF 2 SMELTS IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,COUNTY or RIVERSIDE STATE OF CALIFORNIA e TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29713 9 BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION S.T.BS., RAIE.,S.B.M. APR 111114.47 APR 77E4l01 i T A `,,,,. \ i as I IOPEN♦t.34 ACRES SPACE LOT j AM)h0l01 T / lC<44Gc'd at _ RECREATION LOT 100.59 ACRES \ i, L i �a,AT.+--__i_ gyp' fl i# ... '!4 ' ' 11 n .3 M it lii $11 '44, ® APR 7RRFf R/R S S III VFW �{ T r a. 1� . raR�,.rn I , TRIAL MR.E a LOR: AMMO EER91YryS�A_EenR NIA on. ie.r ACM 1 +failir-Da�iE yr 1`u',� OOM ROOM! Y0-a at iiwTEr TER Rauw a cYw U Or o.°.ter-ws m rE4 t.0 m `S yMEN NO0D $ L M.tiir FR____D _ T v.. s 1 Aao Ina TOT p LOT PEES ION amRY NOR' Ro,REMss.oL�NmLiAL'oLT�Ne:oo-yn ITT A J E��.—rrna E.'-.-M TE.AO 0 A L.A1RXO MANS st1RT A REA t.E t�rFi.-1 ir^-i NO.O WAA1 M MOM TO A UM ONE BRIM A TAUNT 00 Oaf WA a�rr:arrri�-re STORIM/ATERI RETENTION FLOOD LONE no0a we ulT IESCOMA.9Rnx0w ME EF1m p 10 TA OEM COLOR 1 F STREET MAINTE/IM/CE UTILITIES rARa�i1 ro EcaoA9o.s TE'i1E r0- 1° p PROOED TIT.TOE YUL0 TO TOR OOAOBLA♦ALLLT r11FR COMM SHEET NO. TK YATOT YALITOUHa AMC. onEA. AO1Ou mart RATG m11Am LEOAL OESCIUPTION tr RO YWp�G OAR =TOM carom.us aRRAN. TENTATIVE MAP OfCIROT. MIRO GRROYLA COMM PORT=T T.UST MOT Or EE'110N TNFiMOC mar mFr1aRE COAPANT A T.Rs.AIE.PAR,R rNE OOETv ure IRE 0P1101 6 RMANR TA1E ff uVORAA TRACT 1 NO. 29713 MN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB m-of-t1 CRY OF PALM COMFIT OF a WETS 1 47.' ir")/-- ` -- . .', /i s' \s . ..� �� a.7.>> -..�t \ `�,` i '(i+�, 0. iv"( ,( (�.\ a. 4 Gi= � -�\i S 1 v%, � if i1 i.i ) (,�� • e . , \ • r, r .. ,,. a , -* ` ,,i n -�S J C `yam ` ,. , -,rVI ..ol''- '4—-r---\-Ci -..i..., ; )) per \`` J1 Y '�' �I�RI \ r\, �` Lf a 6,- .- (6-: . \\ mil``, e �. �t//�����ijj`_fr ` 11 A 1 r 11 • : ›..04 . 1 • a \\ \\\\\-----,)". Iry �'Li,-/ \ \\ \ \ \-- ilk i"c:71'1':. )': '4- • P.v�'' M.i ' .-J "f\ k • , _ \ 1\ \ -- . --\,1\,...,—_, r/ .i,.\•_1,----->r,\--,.\* NN,‘,..„-,_s, :\.4. ,/,.„, 0, ; f ,, .../ , , ‘ Nt ''\.,41; --_,,,,___,t, ,.,____:- ,.:17,-,-er> ,, teo:.:N,,,. ..„---.-....._:., _ vvi: ‘v., ../, /-1 , \ , .41„)._it.w , .,/,-„,—,,,,-„f-,\:, .. .. .A.. .., ,\: ....._/-..,r.,----- \,7- , ,.„-- -,.',N -` _, i --'7\- kg- 4\\\\\ . \,,, ..‘‘ -. illikA 4.0411,:nle' 01' I .2.tktik, \ , # \, ...,,, il ) ....,- a i \ --AP— rly.0.\„ • 1-- ,,\_11‘ r` P''' -'41g ' -'6,,p- - .0 — . t'---i ,.--. 1..I 1 A ri-4,''4.,;--71111,. . \ '' ill,,OfitIA k- 11\1,&1 ;„..,_-___,:••.,,t, 4 I /. 1). (pi ...•,,'.,:iii. AW,to - i t ikV1/4_ . svok,., ,.._. ighliktri . .. - ' , \ \ \ -' K . aft AL i \:-.\ . 0\ riric- ..._ ,,,,",, , e;.-- ,, , ‘,..4-r---,,_,,„ _,, if 1 pi . ‘) .1,.•9 -4 7K-V.Y....\1( . 04k --, --:- - - Vk I ‘1,91- ,y-- ,7 , i, , --1 6:_,...._,z-::„._;0,-J11...,-,1.;",,,,,, • . , (--, ,iiii liphk. jric(Av.,..\., .. 4 L.,..... 'I, ; "' 7L. 6„ ."-----..___•11.---,,,\\,-\\1, 1 --isT -4r, al. , 7 ( ' 1&_ (----____ --'-‘5e ' '-'-'..---. \' VL-7 / ''/' \'''' #11.41 1 /3 j i ( 1 ( CL.2-.. '80,---675- T<T2 ---- '' ' .,\1\1,Ii.ill4\): i: PH\':\Nf447j,,r11:4.41.‘ ;. '., ''..-,'"------------'-----2.--, "49-.\----- -----17\--2.\\:\) \, ,I \:,\2,\,\07:::,4..,:.,l'f\..,1 I tit 0„in - 1* ! ..- 0104,.. ,-- ' t` _ I --, -ill 7 / 1 1 . ...„ . .,---\\' ' it, 111 g4 i I / 7 ' —' �A1 \ i f l T\ 1 ,.../1 / ,—....- -( / ,/ , ( \-,,,,,, , -,-,—.....„,-,..a, -;•,A t- )(7)--t,_,1/11, 4,,i ) ,E-___- ,./ , ii ,,,. Ft , ' / ___,, / i,(‘-,rt ) ) /, ,.. -11y-._,.• A Ilk (\1 .,;(.5-,_:\\,)„., i1/44\cI,,,z,,, if i mr a:• .�.f 1MCT Ma IV AGSMS 0'110411000,Mc In.M••'P.P."'.'P.P."' , 9Jf1Jl d f?HD 44>4 ,y w rrooe o w N CUM OOMt TLTAATII, IR O. LAN° fK. I.— %M11 fr[llYIr M leirfrING 144. 1..4 444-440.!. 4.40 44►4441 cl N. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1 . Project Title: General Planning and Prezoning for Annexation 35 2. Lead Agency and Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 3. Contact person and Phone Number: Stephen R. Smith, Planning Manager Department of Community Development (760) 346-061 1 ext. 486 4. Project Location: Part of the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (south of Ironwood Country Club) 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ironwood Country Club SR Consultants, Inc. 73-735 lrontree Drive 2698 Mataro Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91 107 6. General Plan Designation: Very Low Density, Residential 7. Zoning: PR-2 and O.S. (open space) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) General planning and prezoning to facilitate annexation of property to the city and approval of tentative tract map creating 20 single family lots and two open space lots on a 156-acre site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) NORTH: Ironwood Country Club SOUTH: Vacant desert EAST: Golf Course Subdivision (The Reserve) WEST: Vacant desert 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): LAFCO will process annexation request. CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 PAGE 1 OF 14 FORM "J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic E Utilities/ Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 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. 0 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. E 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 or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. • Signature . Date S 7o' /��11/ j�z�; ,; Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 2 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVL..,,\TMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A bnef 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 appropnate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process. an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses 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 appropnate,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 form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "I" Page 3 of 14 9) The explanation of each should identify: a) the significance cntena 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. SAMPLE QUESTION Lcss Than Issues Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? , 5i / ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to, tress,rock outcroppings, and histonc buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Il AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? j b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Williamson Act contract? , : ' y j .. _r CITY/RVPUB/1999C313785 FORM "I" Page 4 of 14 L.css Than Issues. Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mrugauoo Sigaificant No Imp Lmpact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, D 0 0 A. due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? I 1 ,? III_ AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable D 0 O air quality plan? J J 5 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 0 0 0 0 to an existing or projected air quality violation? ,',3- c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 CI CI �-y criteria pollutant for which the project region is y�. nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? r1 ,5 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant O 0 0 concentrations? A / _) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ffl 0 0 people? I , _) IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through O 0 0 )4 habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1 , CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 5 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imps Impact Incorporated impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any nparian habitat or D E other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? -" I / J, c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected O ID El- 0 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? I d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native Cl D 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? -<•,i/- e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fy - =7 I 1 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ El g D Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ," V. CUL►URAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 D historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? ,z `• ".' % b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 0 13 D archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? ,. ,J" c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological C:1 Elta E resource or site or unique geologic feature? * , d) Disturb any human remains, including those inter-red outside El CI1 of formal cemeteries? �/ '5 , CITY/RVPUB/1999l313785 FORM "F' Page 6 of 14 Less Than Issues. Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No irnpa, Impact Incorporated Impact VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse ❑ ❑ 1 ❑ effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: I . i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑ most recent Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. A , `-j ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? /I ❑ ❑ as ❑ iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ,r ,_3 ❑ 0 1E1 ❑ iv Landslides? .`_) ❑ ❑ f4 ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4 ❑ 0 g ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that ❑ O 5ir ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence. liquefaction or collapse? ; /; d) Be located on expansive sod, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ❑ a ❑ the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial asks to life or property? i S e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ rn/ septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems `-'� where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? iLA VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous matenals? ' CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "r' Page 7 of 14 Less Than Issues Sigrulcant Potcnnally With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpac Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident cond itions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? I ' c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazard ous or acutely ❑ hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? j d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two 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? �1 ^7 1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ D ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? /L.;,-�' g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ D adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences arc intermixed with wildlands? I , VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ requirements? ! c CITY/RVPUB/1999l31 78 3 5 FORM "T' Page 8 of 14 Less Than Issues- SignificantPotentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impa Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere E ❑ q E substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? j/ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ E ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? / ) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? , r e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 0 0 Q El capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ,/ L f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 7/ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as 0 0 mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? /, h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? /7, i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ 1� ❑ injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow7 /6. 1!_ ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM «J.., Page 9 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Miugauon Significant No Imp. Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1) ,7/ / ❑ ❑ 0 Z b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? j i c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ 0 0 natural community conservation plan? L 2 �)/ X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 0 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1 ,5,6 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ fit mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? / `3 , i XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 0 0 ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Li , b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ 0 0 Kt groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? .i c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? _j._ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ J ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, _ . CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "F' Page 10 of 14 Less Than Issues. Significant Potenually With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im! Impact incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? il,)//1 J f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ 0 tEg directly (for example, pro posing new h m es and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? 1 -- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ 0 ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? .L) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 1 ❑ ❑ C Police protection? j ) ❑ ❑ C Schools? 1 7 3 ❑ ❑ CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM "J" Page 11 of 14 Lcss Than Issues_ Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmpa< Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? _j , j ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? a , 3 Di ❑ a Ei XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 0 CI 0 parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? J y b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require D 0 , ItSt- the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? l7 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ 0 to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? A b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of 0 0 0 g service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ,l-::?,L c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 0 D ❑ /a, an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? + • - d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? , e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 ,!4 . 0 ❑ ❑ a. CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "T' Page 12 of 14 Less Than ISSUcS: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impac Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? -,7 D CI CI Z g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 0 supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? -a( XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? d b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? L c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water D 0 MT drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? =j/ /L. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 CI 0 rEr project from existing entitlements and resources, or arc new or expanded entitlements needed? M e) Result m a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 0 0 --qr provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ,. , f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity 0 ❑ to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?`1 g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ID CI D regulations related to solid waste? ,, CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' Page 13 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impac Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality CI El of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? • CITY/RVPUB/1999513785 FORM "T" Page 14 of 14 LEGEND OF SOURCES 1 City of Palm Desert General Plan 2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance 3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development 4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff 5. Canyons at Bighorn EIR 6. Palm Desert Circulation Plan 7. The Reserve at Indian Wells EIR 8. (Intentionally not used) 9. City of Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage 10. City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance 1 1 . Coachella Valley Water District 12. Sunline Transit 13. (Intentionally not used) 14. Riverside County Fire Department 15. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch 1 6. (Intentionally not used) INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) AESTHETICS a, b, c. The site has a scenic vista to the mountains to the west and south. There are no roads in the area at this time. There are no trees on the site. Future development must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission and Planning Commission. d. New light will be produced but future development will be required to prevent lighting spill over. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a, b, c. Part of the site is golf course and the rest is vacant desert with minor amounts of native desert vegetation. The site has never been used for agricultural purposes nor shown on maps as agricultural. III. AIR QUALITY a & b. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a draft environmental impact report prepared for the North Sphere Specific Plan. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. d. The proposed land use does not call for uses which would create substantial pollutant concentrations. e. The proposed land use does not call for any odorous land uses. INITIAL STUDY GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The site ma y contain dune species which are of statewide concern (i.e., a. Coachella Valley Milk Vetch). A multi species habitat conservation plan is being prepared by CVAG which will establish preserves and conservation practices to insure the future survival of these dune species. The area to the west may be habitat for the peninsular bighorn sheep. b. No riparian habitat present on site. c. No wetlands habitat present on site. d. No migratory fish or wildlife present on site. e. No local policy or ordinance protecting biological reserves other than that delineated in item (a) above. f. See (a) above. The dune species of concern are not migratory in nature. MITIGATION MEASURE The applicant has conferred with Fish and Wildlife Service and the Boyd Deep Canyon Research Center and arrived at acceptable mitigation. The required mitigation measures will be made conditions of approval on the tentative tract map which is part of this application. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the Canyons at Bighorn EIR found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical significance in this area. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a (I-iv). The area is subject to earthquakes and seismic shaking. Various studies have concluded that with proper building design which is required by the Uniform Building Code people will not be exposed to substantial adverse effects. 2 INITIAL STUDY GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. b. Development will reduce blow sand erosion. There is no topsoil present. c. See mitigation measure above. d. See mitigation measure above. e. Sandy soil is capable of supporting septic tanks but they will not be used as sewers are available. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Site and immediate area are not subject to routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. b. Project will not create health hazards or potential health hazards. c. There is no school within 1 /4 mile of the site. d. The site has not been identified on the list of hazardous materials sites. e. Site is not within two miles of a public airport. f. No private airstrip in area. g. Project will not interfere with city's emergency response or evacuation plan. h. Project will not increase the fire hazard in area with flammable brush, grass or trees. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In 3 INITIAL STUDY GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. a. Project will be required to comply with Palm Desert Master Plan of Drainage and the grading ordinance. b. Project will use water provided by CVWD and will not interfere with groundwater recharge. c, d, e. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality. g. Site is within the area susceptible to 100 year floods. Any future-development will be required to comply with the city grading ordinance and design sites outside of flood areas. h. See (g). Area is subject to flooding as noted in (g). j. Area is desert land not subject to seiche, tsunami or mud flow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a. The site is zoned for residential use which is what is proposed. b. The proposed prezoning is consistent with the General Plan. c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, other than that discussed in Section IV (al ). X. MINERAL RESOURCES a. No known mineral resources. b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local general plan. 4 INITIAL STUDY GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 XI. NOISE a, b, c, d. Construction and subsequent residential project use will increase ambient noise level. The increase is not expected to create an annoyance to adjacent residential properties. All uses on the site will be required to comply with the city noise ordinance. MITIGATION MEASURES Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operational noise will be required. Noise to be mitigated so that noise levels set in the General Plan Noise Element are not exceeded. e & f. Project is not within two miles of a public airport or in vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a-c. The project is the general planning and prezoning of 156 acres. The Tract map will create 20 single family lots. This extremely low density of residential development is consistent with existing projects in the area. The site is currently vacant so the project will not displace people. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated for residential development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land use would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. Fire and Police Protection Police and Fire service has indicated that they can service the proposed project. 5 INITIAL STUDY GPA 00-01 , C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 Schools The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time of building permit issuance. Parks The project is a residential development of less than one (1 ) unit per acre which will generally be second residence oriented. Existing and proposed parks will be adequate to serve these families. Other Public Facilities Libraries and other public facilities are adequate to serve the project. XIV. RECREATION The project is consistent with general plan densities and as a result the population generated was considered as part of the recreation element. On site recreation facilities will provide much of the recreation for future residents. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a-b. Projected trip generation per single family dwelling unit per day is 10 for a total of 200 trip ends which will connect to city streets through Ironwood Country Club. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above, the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. Current circulation systems have sufficient capacity to accept any additional traffic produced by the proposed residential project. Principal access to the project area will be via Portola Avenue which is designed to handle vehicular traffic for this type of use. c. Project will not change air traffic patterns. d. Street design and intersections will be designed to meet all city standards and the project will not include incompatible uses. e. Emergency access will be acceptable. f. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the project on site in compliance with city code. 6 INITIAL STUDY GPA 00-01, C/Z 00-02 AND TT 29713 g. Street improvements will minimize traffic hazards to motor vehicles. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Project will not exceed limits. b. CVWD has indicated ability to serve this project. c. Construction of said facilities are currently under review. They will occur with or without this project. d. See (b) above. e. See (b) above. f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be available at Eagle Mountain. g. City will enforce these statutes through general city administration. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. None. b. None. c. None. 7 r . w .. CITY Of POIfII OH I . 30 0 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE �x , i PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8 % ,, Sv:; TEL: 76o 346-061 I ;1✓., FAX 76o 341-7098 ��, info@palm-deserr.org CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 00-1, C/Z 00-2 AND TT 29713 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MEMBERS OF IRONWOOD, INC., for approval of a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact, general plan amendment and prezoning to facilitate future annexation to the city of Palm Desert for 156.01 acres located in the east half of Section 5, T6S R6E (the area south of Ironwood Country Club). Said property to be designated very low density residential (1-3 dwelling units per acre) and open space in the General Plan and rezoned R-1 20,000 and O.S. (open space). The application P prezoned includes a tentative tract map to create 20 residential lots ranging in size from 22,778 square feet to 35,830 square feet to be located on the future extension of Canyon View Drive. - -*- -- al a fo-Deoert� ■11■� t i,..„ � 1 :::"` ' 7 ,a p/;;._ ,11 ti iiIuii 30114,611r- .pii;r0\ `•..u. i. ►ia pv�� ..►���� - aseti T E_ i '4/ • {lon � o 4.�.�yr� J,T /- -%,,.. 7' 11,,;-;(• ta,,,q :-. ,,-,:rliv:7 „e.:-10-7-_,..t; -4 owet -..:- tf,-,-,e2E-ta ii ,,,,;. ..-,-,:•zi.%.-----:::7A "zymmino .40 • ----aiiii---effiiiell '.' - ------.-1 i r 4: -''':•;':'—'101,4:1f -- ------ t reollistir m....d. :,,,r71.1_mi ii...;;,:h r Amon'''''' it or. ,,....p, ....,.. g __c_... .a...,..,.__,,t,,,,,,,„,, #40. �. �• I-- 1 .. 1► IA O $UbilC[ Property M 1e6 a is /i: 2000 0 2000 Fed it — e .. _ SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 20, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. in the Administration Conference Room at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary February 7, 2001 Palm Desert Planning Commission kA NI 10 IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB RTC:E kFP :- `=n 1 6 20111 February 16, 2001 ,..,, rtLN;PtCE'tai-,,Pt.... 'DE-i.:::., Cr+-YO PALM DESE City of Palm Desert Planning Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Mr. Phil Drell Re: Public Hearing February 20, 2001 Dear Phil: This letter is to certify a majority vote of the Ironwood Country Club Proprietary membership for the approval of the Tentative Track Maps submitted to the City of Palm Desert Planning Department. In accordance with the By-laws of Ironwood Country Club a vote of the membership was conducted. The following vote response was received. Total Eligible Voters 574 100.0% Total votes in favor 363 63.2% Total votes against 20 Total no response 191 36.8% Thank you. Sinc ely, J. Mic el Willi , General Manager IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB • 73-735 IRONTREE DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-6999 • (760)346-0551