HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 03-55 TT 31135 Cree CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 15.44
acres (three lots) into seven (7) residential hillside lots in the hillside
area west of the storm channel north of Southcliff Road, APN 628-
120-004, 007 and 010.
SUBMITTED BY: Steve Smith, Planning Manager
APPLICANT: Dori Cree
P.O. Box 25
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CASE NO: TT 31135
DATE: April 24, 2003
CONTENTS:
Draft Resolution No. 03-55
Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. TT 31135
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2192
Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 2003
Related maps and exhibits
Staff Recommendation:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 03-55 approving TT 31135,
subject to conditions.
Executive Summary:
The property consists of three 5.15 acre lots (total of 15.44 acres) which
are vacant except for a single family dwelling on the southerly lot which
takes access from Southcliff Road. The westerly two-thirds of each lot
is steep mountainous terrain while the lower east portion is at the "toe
of slope" and has an average slope of less than 10%. This toe of slope
area is adjacent to and overlooks Homme Park to the east.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31135
Page 2
April 24, 2003
The applicant proposes to map the property into seven lots. No grading
activity or homes are proposed at this time.
The applicant has delineated a 4.31-acre area at the "toe of slope" which
has an average slope of less than 10% (3.82 acres for five proposed lots
and 0.49 acres of drainage area). The five proposed lots will each be
18,000+ square feet.
These five lots are based on one lot per acre of area with less than 10%
slope (four acres equals four lots) plus the transfer of the unit permitted
on hillside lot number seven. Lot 7 (7.62 acres) will have a conservation
easement prohibiting development placed on it.
The existing dwelling is included in the map as Lot 1 (four acres).
The proposal is for seven lots (one existing unit, five new developable lots and
one lot with a conservation easement). The conservation easement amounts to
49.4% of the total area.
Discussion:
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Planning Commission reviewed this request March 4, 2003. At the March 4, 2003
hearing, the applicant's representative, Mr. Schultz, indicated that his client was
prepared to place a conservation easement over lot seven thereby reducing the number
of new developable lots on the map from six (6) to five (5). This amendment meant
that the map complied with existing code and with Alternative A. The commission
directed staff to prepare a resolution approving the amended map.
March 18, 2003 the Planning Commission on a 4-1 vote adopted Resolution No. 2192
recommending approval of the map including a condition requiring a conservation
easement over Lot 7. Commissioner Finerty voted nay in that she supported
Alternative B which would limit the property to a maximum of three units.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31135
Page 3
April 24, 2003
ANALYSIS:
CURRENT CODE:
The current code allows the applicant to delineate areas at the "toe of slope" with
average slope less than 10% and then permits density of three lots per acre on this
property.
Areas of 36% average slope or greater are permitted one lot per five acres.
The applicant proposes to process this map pursuant to the provisions of Option 2 of
the current Hillside Ordinance. The applicant has defined a four-acre area at the "toe
of slope" which area has an average slope of 6.8%. This area is proposed to be
divided into five lots each having a minimum area of 18,000 square feet and minimum
dimension of 120 feet (code minimum equals 14,520 square feet and minimum
dimension of 100 feet). These lots are to take access from a proposed 20-foot wide
private street which is to be installed along the east limit of the lot and run north from
Southcliff Road adjacent to Homme Adams Park. This road terminates in a cul-de-sac
at the north end.
The remaining 11 .6 acres of mountainous terrain to the west has an average slope in
excess of 36%. Under Option 1 this area is to be divided into two lots (a four-acre lot
for the existing residence and a 7.62 acre lot).
The map is consistent with the provisions of Option 2 - Toe of Slope in the current
ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE A:
This alternative allows the "toe of slope" to be delineated on areas less than 10%
slope and then allows density equal to one lot per acre. Areas greater than 10% slope
have a density of one lot per five acres.
This alternative would limit the maximum number of lots in the 4.31-acre "toe of slope
area" to four lots and allow two lots in the mountainous hillside area to the west. This
alternative would reduce the maximum density for this property from nine to six units.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31135
Page 4
April 24, 2003
The applicant proposes to transfer the unit from Lot 7 to the "toe of slope" area and
then place a conservation easement over Lot 7.
The plan as recommended by Planning Commission with the conservation easement
on Lot 7 complies with Alternative A.
ALTERNATIVE B:
This alternative provides for a minimum of five acres per lot. No additional lots could
be created, but the existing three lots could be reconfigured.
CODE PROVISIONS IN CHART FORM:
Toe of Current
1 . Slope Section Project Code Alt A Alt B
(4 acres)
Max. Average Slope 6.8% 10% 10% N/A
Min. Lot Dimension 120 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A
Min. Lot Size 18,000 sq.ft. 14,520 sq.ft. N/A 5 acres
Maximum Density 2.14 units/acre 3 units/acre 1 unit/acre 1 unit/5 acres
Mountainous Current
2. Area Project Code Alt A Alt B
(Average Slope
= 36% plus)
Maximum Density 1 unit/5.8 acres 1 unit/5 acres 1 unit/5 acres 1 unit/5 acres
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
For purposes of CEQA, the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on
the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31135
Page 5
April 24, 2003
CONCLUSION:
The proposed map with the conservation easement over Lot 7 is consistent with the
current ordinance and Alternative A. It does not comply with Alternative B.
Submitted by: Department Head:
C..
St e Smith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
Approval: Approval:
Homer Croy Carlos L. Ortega
ACM for Develo t Services City Manager
* Waived further reading and adopted •^
Resolution No. 03-35, approving CITY COUNC7ACTION:
Case No. TT 31135, subject to APPROVED a" DENIED
conditions. 2-1 (Benson NO, Crites RECEIVED OTHER
& Spiegel ABSENT)
MEETIN DATE
6E1=
AYES: 1 rit.CM .
NOES:
(Wpdocs\tm\sr\tt31135.cc) ABSENT: �� / 431
ABSTAIN: �
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File wi h a.t_y Clerk's Office
EINIVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOI,.�.
1 . Project Title:
TT 31135, Dori Cree
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:
Hillside area west of the storm channel, north of Southcliff Road, APN's 628-
120-004, 007 and 010.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Dori Cree
P.O. Box 25
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
6. General Plan Designation:
Hillside Planned Residential
7. Zoning:
HPR
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.)
Approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 15 acres into seven
single family lots, five developable lots and one existing residence.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
NORTH: Vacant / HPR
SOUTH: Single Family Development / HPR
EAST: Park / Open Space
WEST: Vacant / HPR
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval,
or participation agreement):
Riverside County Fire Marshal
Coachella Valley Water District
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. TT 31135
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
AESTHETICS
d. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spill over. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting
plan per Ordinance No. 826 will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
a, b, c.
The site is vacant hillside 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 adjacent to an urbanized setting its development will
not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality.
c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is
due to its size and identified uses.
d. The proposed development does not call for uses which would create
substantial pollutant concentrations.
e. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a. The site is not in an environmentally sensitive area. The developable lots
are on the lower slope area adjacent to the recently graded park area.
b. No riparian habitat present on site.
c. No wetlands habitat present on site.
INITIAL STUDY
TT 31135
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.
The site has been designated for development with mitigation fees within
the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d. The cultural resource study performed as part of the West Hills Specific
Plan found no evidence of any cultural, archeological or historical
significance on this site. 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.
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 which is common in this
area. There is no topsoil present.
c. See mitigation measure above.
d. See mitigation measure above.
2
INITIAL STUDY
TT 31135
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 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.
3
INITIAL STUDY
TT 31135
f. Project will not substantially degrade water quality.
g. Site is not within a 100-year flood hazard.
h. See (g).
i. Area is not subject to flooding.
j. Area is flat 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. Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning.
c. Property is not subject to habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
a. No known mineral resources.
b. No locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on local
general plan.
Xl. NOISE
a, b, c, d.
Construction of single family homes 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.
4
INITIAL STUDY
TT 31135
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 a seven-lot tract map for six residential lots. The seven
lots to be created are consistent with general plan and zoning intensities
and densities. The five new developable lots are located on vacant land
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.
Schools
The project will be required to pay school mitigation fees per state law at time
of building permit issuance.
Parks
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.
5
INITIAL STUDY
TT 31135
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 be limited to those on single family lots and are not
expected to have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
a-b. Projected trip generation per single family dwelling unit per day is 10 for
a total of 60 trip ends. As part of the conditions of approval the
applicant shall be required to provide road improvements as provided by
the Circulation Element of the General Plan. 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 additional traffic
produced by the proposed residential project.
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.
g. Off street sidewalks will be provided for pedestrians and bicyclists.
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. See (b) above.
d. See (b) above.
e. See (b) above.
6
INITIAL STUDY
TT 31 135
f. Landfill space is available in the immediate area and long term will be
available at Eagle Mountain.
g. City will enforce these statutes.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. See IV (a).
b. None.
c. None.
7
•
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 El Recreation El Transportation/Traffic
❑ 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.
Cl I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant 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
Printed Name For
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 2 of 14
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved(e.g_ the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including off site as well as on-site,cumulative as
well as project-level,indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant,less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect 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(cx3)(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 appropriate,include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,lead agencies should
normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T'
Page 3 of 14
9) The explanation of each i should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
SAMPLE QUESTION
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 0 ❑ 0
limited to, tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ ❑
of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ ❑ �" ❑
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether
impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by
the California 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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ ���
Williamson Act contract?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T'
Page 4 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑
due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use?
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 0 ❑ 0
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ 0 ❑ (21
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 0 ❑ ❑
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑
people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or
regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J"
Page 5 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ 0 0 (31
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?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 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?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 0 ❑
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ ti
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 0 te
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,regional,or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ O.
historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ 0 0 0
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑
Cif
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside ❑ ❑ ❑ gi
of formal cemeteries?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 6 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 ❑ ❑
effects,including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the ❑ ❑ ❑
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ `S1
iii Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ 0 ❑
51.
iv Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑
•
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑ ❑ 0
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ❑ 0
the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ 0 ❑
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "In
Page 7 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact incorporated Impact
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport,would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ `�
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ 0
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving wildland fires,including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑
requirements?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 8 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑
area,including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on-or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ 0
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ 0
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "r'
Page 9 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
impact Incorporated Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ►2
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ 0 0
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ 0 0
natural community conservation plan?
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?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ 0 0
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan,specific plan or other land use plan?
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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ 0 �f ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
ll��
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ 0 0 X
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient 0 0 0
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 10 of 14
Lcss Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 0 . ❑ ❑
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 ❑ ❑ P ❑
directly(for example,by proposing new homes and
businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of
road or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ 0 (c_x`
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
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? ❑ 0 ❑
Police protection? ❑ 0 ❑
Schools? ❑ ❑ j ❑
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T'
Page 11 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Lcss Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Parks? ❑ ❑ 1 ❑
Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional 0 ❑ ❑
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation ❑ ❑ ❑
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street
system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ P4
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ❑ ❑ ❑
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ j
CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I"
Page 12 of 14
Less Than
Issues: Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 CI 0
g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs 0 0
supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 O El (d
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El 0 El V
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 0 0 g0
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 El ' 0
project from existing entitlements and resources,or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment O
CI 0
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 0 0
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and CI Ell 0
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 Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ ❑
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 0 ❑ ] ❑
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3785 FORM"T'
Page 14 of 14
MINUTES
MIMEO
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC
MARCH 4, 2003
��. n e REVISION
it through that way, they would be subject to the same Health Department
regulations in terms of location of an appropriate leach field and everything
else they would need to accomplish sewage disposal.
Mr. Bannon asked if paving of Calle De Los Campesinos would be
mandatory. And if so, what was the first attempt at paving that wasn't
really pavement in front of the park that made the dirt road a pleasure
to get on.
Mr. Drell said that was an experiment that an installer of a certain sort of
acrylic sealer offered to do for the City. He didn't do a very good job. As part
of the discussion on the General Plan, he said it would probably be
appropriate to discuss a policy addition to the hillside plan relaying if there
would be City participation in the paving of the CVWD road. That was a
separate issue relative to the land use issue, which was part of this
ordinance amendment.
Mr. Bailey readdressed the commission and said he didn't understand
why they had to cram down this ordinance tonight. Even assuming for
the moment that he could get a 5,000 square foot pad that Mr. Drell
was talking about under this ordinance, which under his reading he
couldn't see how he could do that. If he had to build an access road
that was 10,000 square feet to get to it, he had to take that away from
his building pad. So by the time he got there, there was zero building
pad left. He was only asking that they kick this out a reasonable
amount of time so that he could do the assessment of this ordinance
on his property. He didn't think that was unreasonable.
After no further comments, Chairperson Campbell stated that she would
leave the public hearing open and continued the item until after Public
Hearing Agenda Items C, D and E.
C. Case No. TT 31135 - DORI CREE, Applicant
Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide
15.44 acres (three lots) into seven (7) residential hillside lots in
the hillside area west of the storm channel north of Southcliff
Road, APN 628-120-004, 007 and 010.
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ' SUBJECT T(
MARCH 4, 2003 C la' REVISION
Mr. Smith explained that the plan was on display. The property currently
consists of three approximately five-acre lots with a total area of 15.44 acres.
The properties were vacant except for a single family residence on the
southerly lot which took its access from Southcliff Road. The westerly two-
thirds of each lot was steep mountainous terrain, while the lower easterly
portion was at the toe of slope and had an average slope of less than 10%.
This toe of slope area was adjacent to and overlooked Homme Park.
The map before the commission would, if approved, create seven lots. No
grading activity or homes were proposed at this time. The application had
basically been broken into two sections. First, the applicant delineated a 2.34
acre area at the toe of slope which had a slope of less than 10%. On this
area the applicant proposed five, approximately 16,000 square foot lots. On
the steeper westerly 11.6 acres, two lots were proposed. One would
encompass the existing residence.
For analysis, staff looked at how this proposal complied with the current
ordinance and Alternatives A and B. The current ordinance on the toe of
slope option was allowed on areas of less than 10% of slope and then it
permitted a density of three units per acre on those lands. The applicant did
the average slope formula and it came out at 6.8% and qualified for the three
units per acre, so the five lots at the bottom were in compliance. Those lots
would take access off a proposed 20-foot wide street which would be
installed along the easterly limit of the lot and it would run north from
Southcliff Road adjacent to Homme Adams Park. That road would terminate
in a cul-de-sac at its north end.
The 11.6 westerly acres of this property had an average slope in excess of
36%. Under Option 1, this area was to be divided into two lots, a four-acre
lot which would encompass the existing residence and a 7.6-acre lot.
The map as presented was consistent with the provisions of Option 2 toe of
slope and the current ordinance. He noted in the staff report that the map as
submitted proposed to create building pads on easements which were
created through the land patents when the lots were created. The City
Attorney looked into this and in discussing this with him, he expressed the
feeling that if they could obtain proof of title insurance with this exception that
they could then go forward.
35
MINUTES _ SUBJECT T(.
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONt g REVISION
MARCH 4, 2003
Under Alternative A, the 2.34 acres at the toe of slope would be limited to
two lots in that they have a one acre minimum in that area. Then the 11
acres to the west, the higher slope or the greater slope, would also get the
one unit per five acres and they would come up with two. Under Option A
they would have a reduction from seven lots down to four lots. In discussing
this with the applicant, he felt, and it might be something he would be looking
at in an amended application, that the area at the toe of slope could be
enlarged beyond the 2.34 acres which might get him another lot or possibly
two if he could come up with four acres at the toe of slope. So that was a
possibility in the future. But with what was before the commission tonight, it
would be two lots.
Alternative B had a minimum of five acres. No additional lots could be
created, but it was possible that the applicant could reconfigure the existing
three lots in some other form if that was beneficial.
In conclusion, Mr. Smith stated that the map as presented was consistent
with the current ordinance, it didn't comply with Alternative A or B. Were the
commission to recommend approval of Alternative A or B, then the
application should be continued and under the circumstances relative to the
general plan amendment, it should be continued consistent with that time
frame, whatever that became. He asked for any questions.
Chairperson Campbell asked if the proposed map was consistent with the
current ordinance, why they would wait for Alternative A or B. Mr. Smith said
that if the commission felt the current ordinance was appropriate to retain,
then they could act on it tonight.
Commissioner Jonathan asked what the legal ramifications were to
postponing an application to a time after which the zoning ordinance
changed. He asked if an application was entitled to be heard under current
zoning. Mr. Hargreaves said no, the commission was allowed to change the
rules of the game while the game was being played. Mr. Drell said that
technically until they started doing physical improvements to the ground or
get a development. A development agreement was another way to vest a
right in the current ordinance. But until someone went through a process like
that or physically started making investment in the ground, they had no
vested right in a current ordinance.
36
SUBJECT T(
MINUTEST I - REVISION
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 4, 2003
Commissioner Tschopp asked where the access would be to Lot 7. Mr.
Smith deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Tschopp asked
if the dead palm trees belonged to the City. Mr. Smith said yes.
Commissioner Lopez noted that Mr. Smith made a comment regarding the
possibility of additional property and asked if that would be Lot B. Mr. Smith
said it would entail some of Lot B. What would happen was the lots would be
designed at the one acre minimum and then they would have a drainage
easement over parts of the lots.
Chairperson Campbell opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to
address the commission.
MR. CHRIS SCHULTZ with NAI Consulting addressed the
commission. He said he was representing the Cree property.
Regarding access to Lot 7, he stated that the Crees were willing to
dedicate that as open space and basically put a conservation
easement over the entire Lot 7 so that it would remain open space
forever if there was no access required. In return, since they would be
eligible to get one unit on Lot -7, they would like to do a density
transfer and have that unit on the flat land. So that was the intent of
having the five lots within the flat land area.
For clarification purposes, he said they actually have four acres
delineated by the toe of slope. It included the drainage easement on
Lot B and the roadway easement on Lot A. But the entire toe of slope
area was four acres. So under Alternate A, they would be entitled to
one unit per acre, so four units. With the additional unit as a transfer
from Lot 7, that was where they got five units on the flat land.
Under the current ordinance with the four acres of flat land, they were
actually eligible for 12 units. So they were going from 12 units to five
units, which was a substantial reduction. Then they would be giving
up approximately eight acres on Lot 7 as a hillside conservation
easement.
Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or
OPPOSITION to the proposal. Chairperson Campbell asked if Mr. Schultz
had any final comments.
37
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT TC
MARCH 4, 2003 REVISION
Mr. Schultz said they would like to be considered under the current
ordinance. Under the current ordinance they were well within the
entitled uses. He said they would like to move forward with this
application. If there was some clarification that staff needed to
demonstrate they have four acres within the flat land, they could
certainly do tl lat. But he believed under either scenario, the current
application met either Alternate A and the current ordinance. So they
would like some consideration tonight on the matter.
Chairperson Campbell closed the public hearing and asked for commission
comments.
Commissioner Tschopp said that in looking at this proposal he was in favor
of it. Whether it was the current or Alternative A plan they adopted, it was
consistent with the current ordinance and very close to Alternative A. The Lot
7 transfer he felt was acceptable. Additionally, he liked the five lots on the flat
land, not visible from very many points from the rest of the city and he
thought it fit in very well.
Commissioner Jonathan concurred. He was a little uncomfortable continuing
an existing application that was coming in under the current zoning
ordinance to a later time when there was a change in the ordinance. He
understood that they were permitted to do so, he was just a little
uncomfortable doing that. He felt that applicants had something beyond a
legal right, a moral right or whatever, to bring an application in under existing
standards and have it be evaluated under those standards. In doing so, the
application met the test and was appropriate for the area. He concurred with
Commissioner Tschopp and was in favor of approval.
Commissioner Lopez thought they presented a compelling case to move
ahead. In reviewing the staff recommendation for continuance, it was really
based on the assumption that the commission would be in favor of amending
the ordinance with either Alternative A or B and in that case it would not
comply. But again, in looking at the land use, this was within the current
ordinance was very close to Alternative A, so he was in favor.
Commissioner Finerty stated that she was in favor of Alternative B. She
thought that it was important to protect the hillsides and important to protect
their views. She thought the pictures spoke a thousand words. Yes, almost
38
MINUTES ' 6"* Z. Fos ft,
SUBJECT T�
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ` C REVISION
MARCH 4, 2003
every spot of land was developed in Palm Desert and hillsides were one of
the few areas they had left. She didn't feel allowing five units was appropriate
and was opposed to the subdivision application.
Chairperson Campbell thought the map was consistent with the current
ordinance and these lots were really not considered hillside developments,
they were on the slope on the ground. She thought they probably had a
disadvantage to have homes in front there to look at Homme Park and
maybe the applicant would call them the Homme Park Estates when she
decided to build. She hoped the City did something with the park to make it
better than what it is right now. She was in favor of the project.
Mr. Drell suggested that if there was a motion, the motion should include the
condition requiring a conservation easement to be applied to Lot 7.
Commissioner Lopez noted that since there was a recommendation for
continuance, there was no resolution before them. Mr. Smith said it would be
appropriate for the commission to direct staff to prepare a resolution for
adoption at the next meeting.
Chairperson Campbell asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Tschopp,
by minute motion approving Case No. TT 31135 and directing staff to
prepare a resolution of approval. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Finerty
voted no).
D. Case No. HPR 03-01 - DORI CREE, Applicant
Request for approval to construct a driveway and 15,043
square foot building pad on a 5.12 acre lot in the Hillside
Planned Residential District west of the storm channel, south
of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-013.
Mr. Smith explained that this was a five-acre lot located south of Southcliff
Road. The property has an existing single family dwelling located on a flat
section of land at the east end of the lot. On the map he pointed out the
39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2192
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO A PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE
15.44 ACRES INTO SEVEN (7) RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE
LOTS LOCATED WEST OF THE STORM CHANNEL NORTH
OF SOUTHCLIFF ROAD, APN'S 628-120-004, 007 AND
010.
CASE NO. TT 31 135
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 4th day of March, 2003, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request of DORI CREE for approval of the above noted tentative tract map; 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. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has
determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; 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
approval of the tentative tract map:
1 . The proposal is consistent with the adopted Palm Desert General Plan
and West Hills Specific Plan.
2. The proposal is consistent with the current Hillside Ordinance Option 2.
3. The proposal will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
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 City Council
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 31135, subject to the attached
conditions.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2192
•
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental, attached hereto as Exhibit
A, is hereby recommended for certification.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: JONATHAN, LOPEZ, TSCHOPP, CAMPBELL
NOES: FINERTY
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
c\ % -«
SONIA M. CAMPBELL, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, ecretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
i•
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2192
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31135
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property described herein shall conform to approved
exhibits on file in the Department of Community Development and shall be
subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition
to all the requirements, limitations and restrictions of all municipal ordinances
and State and Federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
2. That prior to commencing any grading or construction activity on the property
included in this map, the owner shall first obtain approval from the City
consistent with the provisions of Chapter 25.15 Hillside Planned Residential
District.
3. All utilities serving the property shall be installed underground.
4. That the map be amended to place a conservation easement over Lot 7 (the
8.47 acre hillside lot).
5. Applicant shall employ all available technologies to reconstruct and renaturalize
all disturbed areas.
Department of Public Works:
1 . Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation
of the final map or issuance of grading permits.
2. Drainage facilities shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. In addition, proposed drainage facilities/improvements that impact the
Palm Valley Channel shall be subject to review and approval by the Coachella
Valley Water District.
3. Any storm/detention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. Said study will include, but not
be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with
respect to existing and proposed conditions.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2192
be limited to, the investigation of both upstream and downstream impacts with
respect to existing and proposed conditions.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-
17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of
grading permits.
5. 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.
6. Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall be reviewed
and approved by the Public Works Department. The installation of such
improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department and a
standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
7. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete
grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public
Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. Preliminary
landscape plans shall be submitted concurrently with grading plans.
8. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code,
any existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each respective
utility districts recommendation. If such undergrounding is determined to be
unfeasible by the City and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree
to participate in any future utility undergrounding district.
9. Full improvements of interior street based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided. Proposed interior street sections shall be subject to review and
approval in conjunction with tentative tract map applications. The street shall
be designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.
10. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director
of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
1 1 . Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and
the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works
and Coachella Valley Water District, as applicable.
4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: March 4, 2003
CASE NO: TT 31 135
REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 15.44 acres (three lots)
into seven (7) residential hillside lots in the hillside area west of the
storm channel north of Southcliff Road, APN 628-120-004, 007 and
010.
APPLICANT: Dori Cree
P.O. Box 25
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT PROPOSAL:
The property consists of three 5.15 acre lots (total of 15.44 acres) which are vacant
except for a single family dwelling on the southerly lot which takes access from
Southcliff Road. The westerly two thirds of each lot is steep mountainous terrain
while the lower east portion is at the "toe of slope" and has an average slope of less
than 10%. This toe of slope area is adjacent to and overlooks Homme Park to the
east.
The applicant proposes to map the property into seven lots. No grading activity or
homes are proposed at this time.
The applicant has delineated a 2.34 acre area at the "toe of slope" which has an
average slope of less than 10%. On this area five 16,000+ square foot lots are
proposed.
On the steeper 1 1 .6 acre area to the west, two lots are proposed (one encompassing
the existing residence).
II. ANALYSIS:
CURRENT CODE:
The current code allows the applicant to delineate areas at the "toe of slope" with
average slope less than 10% and then permits density of three lots per acre on this
property.
STAFF RE?'OK T
CASE NO. TT 31135
MARCH 4, 2003
Areas of 36% average slope or greater are permitted one lot per five acres.
The applicant proposes to process this map pursuant to the provisions of Option 2
of the current Hillside Ordinance. The applicant has defined a 2.34 acre (101 ,930
square feet) area at the "toe of slope" which area has an average slope of 6.8%. This
area is proposed to be divided into five lots each having a minimum area of 16,083
square feet and minimum dimension of 120 feet (code minimum equals 14,520
square feet and minimum dimension of 100 feet). These lots are to take access from
a proposed 20-foot wide street which is to be installed along the east limit of the lot
and run north from Southcliff Road adjacent to Homme Adams Park. This road
terminates in a cul-de-sac at the north end.
The remaining 1 1 .6 acres of mountainous terrain to the west has an average slope
in excess of 36%. Under Option 1 this area is to be divided into two lots (a four-acre
lot for the existing residence and a 7.6 acre lot).
The map is consistent with the provisions of Option 2 - Toe of Slope in the current
ordinance.
,rocr (4 -5 The map as submitted proposes to create building pads on easements which were
' created through land patents when the lots were created. The City Attorney and
j;2. ' Public Works Department are reviewing the issues involved in vacating these
easements given that they are in favor of the United States (copies attached).
ALTERNATIVE A:
This alternative allows the "toe of slope" to be delineated on areas less than 10%
slope and then allows density equal to one lot per acre. Areas greater than 10% slope
have a density of one lot per five acres.
This alternative would reduce the maximum number of lots in the 2.34 acre "toe of
slope area" to two lots and allow two lots in the mountainous hillside area to the
west. This alternative would reduce the maximum density for this property from nine
to four units.
ALTERNATIVE B:
This alternative provides for a minimum of five acres per lot. No additional lots could
be created, but the existing three lots could be reconfigured.
2
i STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. TT 31135
MARCH 4, 2003
III. CODE PROVISIONS IN CHART FORM:
Toe of Current
1 . Slope Section Project Code Alt A Alt B
(2.34 acres)
Max. Average Slope 6.8% 10% 10% N/A
Min. Lot Dimension 120 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A
Min. Lot Size 16,083 sq.ft. 14,520 sq.ft. 43,560 sq.ft. 5 acres
(1 acre)
Maximum Density 2.14 units/acre 3 units/acre 1 unit/acre 1 unit/5 acres
Mountainous
2. Area Average Slope = 36% plus
Current
Project Code Alt A Alt B
Maximum Density 1 unit/5.8 acres 1 unit/5 acres 1 unit/5 acres 1 unit/5 acres
IV. CONCLUSION:
The proposed map is consistent with the current ordinance. It does not comply with
Alternative A or B.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternative A or B of Case ZOA
02-06, then the application should be continued to allow the applicant to amend the
proposal or alternatively direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial.
V. CEQA REVIEW:
The project will be reviewed for CEQA compliance when staff is prepared to
recommend approval of a specific map.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
That TT 31 135 be continued to April 15, 2003.
3
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO. TT 31135
MARCH 4, 2003
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B. Comments from city departments and other agencies
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
n
Steve mith Phil Drell
Planning Manager Director of Community Development
/tm
4
DORI CREE PROPERTY
TTM 31135 °o
I
W
RECEIVED d
�a. E MAR 2 6 200� m
�� E 4. .,.:
► ., �,.- `t, COMMUNITY Dr,'.":.i P.�1E\'i DF.'.1P.T�SEti7 1111
wa so rws+ vi_ n CITt i, ... ):P,EERT. Q
OC
CC
,i
_ � ^
ILI
# ``` — - } . ;E ✓.SLOPE ANALYSIS
iff �.,,,�, "`�-._,`,.E� � .� 4` S = 0.002291(L) = 0.00229(1)(15,314) = 8.14% NIPIC
' ,. ! ""TE ` „%"r" , ✓ A 4.31
E 40: y z E .- ,r WHERE:
"„\__ ®q / S=AVERAGE PERCENT SLOPE
it ,g, ,:' f -: '.1 fief: 1 I=CONTOUR INTERVAL IN FEET = 1 FT
1 \\
. , „-. .,,,_ ' 1 ' ' L=SUMMATION OF THE COUNTOUR LENGTH = 15,314 FT
E A=AREA OF THE
PARCEL IN ACRES BEING CONSIDERED 4.31 AC
,•.. �,/' '`/-_-..-.. - ,'AVERAGE SLOPE = 8.14%
1 li,- ,,,,,,,,,, , ;, , :gro, , (
_/-',`!rrr ( ti:, �� r .• 1 it
�I { 1 . E -.. .`'-.x - - - -`--. I
'.)..,) EEEE � • ' `'
`*` E�.bT:ON'
,. ` \ t\) IE r 11
ti^ '�J ��� 1 � --.
! /'Os ✓ • I 4 I fp II 1 1 /
iM � -1 1 — g
k',1 '''':: ' tir , . , --;----:->---•:%.,-- ,79T\ MI- ,
i! �--`,, '' ''\ — is
ioi--
, , ' '7°--24'14'' -''' ;IP 1)T"' " '
- - ril /sto4 ° .)/t• --'1t I
_Am.j
,...00,i
=..__-J.-.1//'
: __--':• ` k,., ) A4 Ef-7 i Scale: 1'=160'
f
_ _ i LOTS
Is..........0.-------....4 -..'\ \\ i, !-:,,,, ,. - -,--,-: -..-- 7 '0 i (
! /. 4*itlCa�eCivil Engineering
�..„— , � �' , '4. , / »,.,=... ,clamN-A.T TrofFc Engineering
°i ` k r _ "' � Project 1ianagementl ��E vi ! t1.� ; �e _ r, � , �l j, Contn�ct Admin'�atraGon
�,,J,J� E 1 i}) , , ,AY " Consulting
fi;/' 4 , \' , .�;, ^;• a.u�. 68-955 Adelina Road
n " -. =',:/; i ; _�� &~ •` Cathedral City, CA 92234
(760) 323-5344
760 323-5699 (fax)
DORI FREE PROPERTY
TTM 31135 al
x
W
RECEIVED d
~` ` rr CO
MAR 2 6 2003 J
u W
CC
la
, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
��., � " CITY OF PALM DESERT
SLOPE ANALYSIS ,71r
,�f� n r{,�} ;� S = 0.002291(L) = 0.00229(1)(15,314) = 8.14x 1(
4.31
. J WHERE:
r .
fr
� � `\ � � � �/�� ��S=AVERAGE PERCENT SLOPE
t j a ff f 1=CONTOUR INTERVALS FEET = 1 FT
r ° " t f L=SUMMATION OF THE COUNTOUR LENGTH = 15,314 FT
A=AREA OF THE PARCEL IN ACRES BEING CONSIDERED = 4.31 AC
...(es; \l-fp, , , ��rff� _=� ' AVERAGE SLOPE = 8.14%
Pq)
) 1
f f -4r.:
r1--,,,,, ' ,,' ' '..\\ ) /___________,
:1,„4:,•.:;.,*,,,, ,. ,. /F,,,1 i filvi,,,,,,..,4tior - —•
'.!-mlut:,,_',,!r,_-b-,.:_,-.,,',.-
�, ,;, , f •yam , �i
0s'r..1,,t.r1,1oi 1,
f�" t pp-� .�,1►j
_,,f,,_-,4 o',p.r—y,/.(-',(.e,'`",F,,,d,
.,i.-1-l7,)'-
ie 1f.w„\i-:
.'.)f./r„4-4p
y `, c ti /} Scale: 1"=160'
N
1„''•).`*;‘N'..zc,'4'\k,?,'o',,.,
- & .... tzk<"
--, 1,
\�
i r'-'-t,._t c'-,w9N^,*.','
a +ice *NAI
EnginI c Eng-0a-
Proct kianarnnt
Consulting
/ ,' `a' ; `. �a ...nos 68-955 Adelina Road
r% s1 Cathedral CityCA 92234
;,. ,g 760 323-5344
760) 323-5699 (fax)