Loading...
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)