Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP 86-36 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES/HOVELY LANE WEST 1986 PRP(:ISE PLAN �' —� TENTATIVE TRACT ZONE CHANGE— PARCEL, MAP y, co VARIANCE _ - C.U.R REFER TO:_�/ a /'7VI .APPLICANT:_ rD LOCAT ION:- �J6' U, uui, id,' t i 0- -&a-i o REQUEST:- - EXISTING ZONE:� h PREPARATION PROGRESS DATE BY COMMENTS APPLICATION RECEIVED LEGAL-_PUBLICATION SENT NOTICES SENT FIELD INVESTIGATION DEPTS. NOTIFIED j BUILDING ENGINEERING FIRE POLICE RECREATION & PARKS SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS FLOOD CONTROL 4,j PRELIMINARY MEETING STAFF REPORT .5 �-- — FINAL_ PLAN APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN (6) LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) PLAN. DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING P.C. HEARING PUBLISHED PC. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT NOTIFIED C.C. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. EFFECTIVE DATE RECORDED FOR DATA- BANK ZONING MAP CORRECTED i ' +nK/ ✓'1�4 'Y tl'r iM1.,,��..'7f S 06 v A '9` „` mul 'C.r ��bn` ❑ ..s iS:fF�.ly�.�r��i J'4., �.Y'�✓y C:� rP Y�Ih _ l ■ 9 _ ��qqyy�� �r<� � re"C'w P<•;,suulrnr� 6'n,i�4^�lt k h � o f '�" a.— �y��-+"....—_ W.4 `,.a Plan 3 Q �,� .:y<< :, «y A 4 .5• , � j•_ �� ql issz Sq. ft. Ct :. r rr t `A I // PA -WAL To- 9tG 3 I :,, ;: ..: :.. .: o ..__.. --F—EDROOMJ/"( 0 I I BREAKFAST I LIVING ROOM c W BEDROOM 1 0 I 4 KITCHEN 1•j1 rR O O 14� T} LINEN 11`�� fry 11 BATH 2 I a DINING ROOM 1�' �I t� r BEDROOM 2 O ENTRY EA 1 iRM COVERED t----- z ENTRY 1 I I cLosE* I I GARAGE Conti mliny;a pulil y of lnntla nl rt•cra n'h and imprnvenu•nl,wn reserve ropo..anw w=mw,. ___—_—__—_ the right n(pnm,product urdoclpn c-hanf;c Vrilhuutnulicc onrbllR;rtlon. ZA 1 216 ...... 0,0 00 ' 16 14 ? VI � 20 2 3 . 140, AF6 �6.� � ` �� C•1 z c• ,� bt 2� �, 19.60 45 o 4-ox Oda 613 & IPA 1, .40 At I 40 ,11 'y}p. 0" 6do 0.0 TV v n cF - a, Ill i. •.a Y * - . 2 8. 219, o Bl .9 7.Ob Do 4o Sr1R .. L l��'� � ,, J Pam. 5 9 t 5 o 5 ' Pad, op -I Q � ola r-"I�q 6 - iu �4 0 •00 22 6 220 2 22Z Y 6 s z ben l cit Na 4 hori20nta1 �§: +< grout, see section for + lK' 2'0•'• I bond reinforcement bdr +{1 21" Z'0"'• I I WOODFill all ttfG tally with CAP +1 3Y +� 3Y 2' • - FEA/CE location of horizontal 64 @ Jr +t @ 2.0"• _ .p. I I reinforcement bars. C-/ qn , NSPECTION (grout<eiiel Min. steel lover d =+-{{{{ I � two inches required. 3r' I Vertical reinforcement Note bond cell condl• 2" MORTAR CAP Ole I = 1 - oars are to to ce n_ tian depends upon the 4"A11N ered and fully grouted. depth provided. t, I UPPCR LOT _ HorizorRel bond ste.L 1r 2i C1r, a,C. head joints co 32° INSPECTION \ a C. min. at first course. I ee kV .r a. _ _ _. - _-- __- -f.. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 August 22, 1986 �����G.9G,/ AUG 2 2 1986 COEIMUNEY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CRY OF PALM DESERT Mr. Robert Vatcher VTN CONSULTANTS, INC. 2301 Campus Drive Irvine, CA 92713 SUBJECT: TRACT 21791 ------- Dear Mr. Vatcher: This is to confirm our recent telephone conversation regarding the subject project. As we have indicated to you, the citizens who live in the Sagewood development to the north of this project have concerns that were expressed at the most recent City Council meeting. During the meeting with Mr. Germain, the developer, you, Joseph Gaugush, of my staff, and me, the request to lower the proposed pad heights up to two to three feet was discussed. Mr. Germain indicated this request would not be possible without severe economic constraints to this development. It was further mentioned that it was impossible to reduce the grade of the street. In reviewing the street improvement plans for the project, which comprises three sheets, we have reviewed Sheet No. 2 of 3 showing the proposed plan and profile of Meadow Lane. It is our suggestion that the street grade be a uniform 0.5 percent from the ECR having an elevation of 211 to the MOC. Then the pad elevations would be no more than 1-1/2 feet above the curb at each lot. If this approach were taken, we believe it would satisfy both the city and the residents and reduce the extreme height at the north end of this project which affects the four homeowners from the Sagewood development. We would appreciate your consideration of this request. We believe you are not in compliance with Item No. 12 of the Community Development Department's requirements which states, "Applicant shall 3 Mr. Robert Vatcher Page 2 August 22, 1986 cooperate with adjacent property owners on the final design of the wall at the northerly property line." By modifying the site as previously outlined, we feel that you would be in conformance with that require- ment. Please review this matter with Mr. Germain at your earliest con- venience, and let us know how you intend to proceed. Very truly yours, chard Director of Public Works/City Engineer RJF/ms cc: Bruce Altman, City Manager JDavid J. Erwin, City Attorney Ray Diaz, Director of Community Development Joseph S. Gaugush, Associate Civil Engineer .;r GERM JN DEVELOPMENT CCU I tjg 1750 Camino Parocela, Palm Springs, CA (619) 327-6430 AUG 14 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT August 11 , 1986 CITY OF PALM DESERT Honorable Mayor Richard Kelly City of Palm Desert " cr' 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ccD rr - Re: Tract #217 20 Homes - Palm Desert x? r~v Dear Mayor Kelly: �+ 3rn t I have been advised by city staff that you have been contacted Ur four Sagewood homeowners with whom I have been meeting, concernin§^mrvcom- nliance with Condition of Approval #11 for tentative Tract #2179P as approved by the City Planning Commission on July 15, 1986. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of my letter to Mr. Ramon Diaz, dated 8-8-86, stating my position in compliance with said con- dition. I have been pursuing this project vigorously and have completed and submitted all final engineering drawings , maps and architectural plans to the City for plan check. I am trusting expeditious processing on the City' s behalf toward early plan approvals and permit issuances to enable me to commence construc- tion in a timely manner in accordance with a prudent time schedule. It is imperative that I meet my critical time schedule, as to the time of year in which I need to deliver my homes to prospective buyers. Any delays in my construction could adversly affect the interest rates for the construction and take out financing which, in turn, may affect final sales prices and buyer interest. Further, I have a sizeable investment in the project, both monetarily and personally, including a sizeable note and trust deed that is due and payable on this property in the latter part of 1987. This note is to be paid out of closings of home escrows. Therefore, you can see any delays will jeopardize meeting these necessary goals. I wanted to make you aware of my above position in light of the Sage- wood people coming to you. I have met with them concerning the wall design on two occasions, the last one being at City Hall . I have presented three revised proposals to them for mutual concurrance, however, I am afraid there has been no resolve on their part to con- cur. Honorable Mayor Richard Kelly August 11 , 1986 Page 2 1 trust .the foregoing helps you from my standpoint. If I may offer any further information, pleast contact me. cer y, id R. Ge ain President, Development Co. DRG/sk Enc. cc: Perrier, Dougherty & Cribbs V.T.N. GERM. .,N DEVELOPMENT CO., AC. 1750 Camino Parocela, Palm Springs, CA 92262 (619) 327-6430 August 8, 1986 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Mr. Ramon Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Re: Tract #21791 - Hovely Lane, Palm Desert Dear Mr. Diaz: I am writing this letter to you documenting the fact that I have complied with Condition No. 11 , on page 4 of the Sub-Title (Department of Community Development) in the Conditions of Approval of Tract #21791 , as approved by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1986. I have proposed minimizing the slumpstone block wall height and wrought iron fence on top to satisfy the adjacent homeowners. The slumpstone wall height will vary between six foot maximum to approxi- mately three foot miminum, along with a wrought iron fence in cells be- tween pilasters, with a height of between three feet and four feet six inches. I will install plant material along the entire wall on my northerly boundary, with plant materials, size and spacing to be determined and approved by the City of Palm Desert. These provisions were derived from two meetings held between myself, my consultants, and Sagewood homeowners who are affected. The latest meeting was held on this date in the offices of the City of Palm Desert. �erely, ` avid R. Ger ain President DRG/sk Enc. - Copy of revised boundary section showing wall and fence conditions . cc: Perrier, Dougherty and Cribbs V.T.N. CITY OF PALM ERT 7REASIRERT RECEF N° 4501 RECEIVED OF: Cd s P JlAn 6'u rC DATE _9/2� AMOUNT " 00, I0 FOR ai �gr RECEIVED: CITY TREASURER BY: 7 I?�f ACCOUNT NO. AMOUNT l,3 CHECKS ACCEPTED SUBJECT TO BANK CLEARANCE PAYOR GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. j 1750 Camino Parocela, Palm Springs, CA 92262 (619) 327-6430 j May 5, 1986 MAY 19 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY Of PALM DESERT City of Palm Desert 73-513 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Lot #10 on Hovely Lane - 4.78 Acres Net Attention: Ray Diaz, Planninq Director Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: MY name is David Germain and I am a small builder in this community. I am recuestinq ,your consideration to allow me to build a standard sinale family home development on Hovely Lane near Monterey Avenue, as cutlined on the attached sketch. There are so many private and gated developments in the Coachella Valley, with homeowner' s associations and monthly maintenance dues (some which are in serious financial difficulty) , that I believe there has been too little attention given to the buyers who prefer a normal , standard single family home environment to raise their families in. Hovely Lane is an excellent location for family type housing under a $150,600 price range, in one of the most desirable, centrally located areas of Palm Desert. Thank you for considering my application , and I 'm hoping for a favor- able response. a regards, avi P. Germai DRG/sk Enc. L_ r II ® � w ___ _ ___ _ aim°_•_ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ f v • ®� !1. Ilk ED r ®- I� ® � , t � V ©R ® : V � Eo ' SAMOV - �nf/ ;� �,a76fuoj/�/ C/ �� 20__ ��✓7�AH_ u/rrc�.7 4/vlriOh� 4. 78 Ac -Nef -JL9 9 JZ 8300 4* >r . 37 r , .� 17 9437 af0 9 2 l9 L o� # /1 � lP/w � 9/cn� •• arJ�! Iz ��sPltioL tJN< { CASE NO. T �n t Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address , and telephone number of owner, applicant or project sponsor: GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. David R. Germain, Pres. 1750 Camino Parocela Palm Springs CA 92264 619/527-6430 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre- sentative) : Engineer: VTN CONSULTANTS INC Robert Vatcher, 74-947 Highway III, Suite 206, Indian hells, CA 92210 61.9/346-3686 Architect: Curtis Shupe, 68035 Va.11ev Vista, Cathedral City, CA 619/324-7125 3. Common name of project (if any) : "MOr1T PHY Aff-.AD ws� ' 4. Project location (street address or general location) : 73-160 Hovely Lane, east of Monterey Avenue 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds) : W. 1/2 of N.E. 1/4 of S.W. 1/4 of N.W. 1/4 of Section 8 TSS R. 6E S.B.B.M. Co. of Riverside (AP #622-020-10) 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought): A standard (20) lot single family detached subdivision w/public street frontage. 7. Relationship to a larger projec` or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities , phases , and develop- ments planned, or now underway) : - - n/a 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : Tentative subdivision map, precise plan and architectural review. EXISTING CONIDITIONS : 9. Project site area: 4.8 acres (size of property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Present zoning: PP-5 (Proposed zoning) : PR-5 11 . General Plan land use designation: 12. Existing use of the project site: Vacant 13. Existing use on adjacent properties : (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). to the north are single-family dwellings, to the east and west it is vacant land, one dwelling is located to the south. 14. Site topography (describe) : rolling mounding sand dunes 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO XX YES 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : 20,000 c.y. 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: none 18. Describe any cultural ; historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: none 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : (20) single-family detached homes, each with three bedrooms B. Schedule of unit sizes : (10) at +1700 S.F. and (10) at +1850 S.F. C. Number of stories one Height +16 feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) 1850 (hgt. ) +16 Ft. E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : (3) X 20 = 60 people F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : None G. Is there any night lighting of the project: Edison company street lights (two) H. Range of sales prices or rents : $ 135,000 to $ 145,000 I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . ' 20 a iu Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . 10 % Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . . . 70 20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices , specify type & number) : B. Number of square feet in total building area: C. Number of stories Height feet. D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) (Hgt. ) E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: F. Total number of required parking spaces number provided ' 6: Hours of operation: H. Maximum number of clients, patrons , shoppers , etc. , at one time: I. Maximum number of employees at one time: J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes No L. Percent. of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %a Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). . . a a Are the following items applicable to the project or its effect necessary) . s; Discuss below all items cheered yes (attach additional sheets as YES NO 21 . Change in existing features Of hillsides, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. X 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding. X 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X s 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) X 26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially . hazardous materials, such as toxic substances , flammables or explosives. X 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. X 28. Changes the demand for municipal services (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) (POPULATION INCREASE) X 29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned in the near future. X 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural _ features, including mature trees. X 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or public roads. X 32. Results in the dislocation of people. X YES t 0 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. X [ ]' Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts , statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my,knowledge and belief. David R. Germain Germain Dev. Co. Inc. e Print or Type For S/28/86 Si nature Date INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub— mit with this form. ) r 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: July 17, 1986 GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. 1750 Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264 Re: PP 86-36, TT 21791 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of July 15, 1986. APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1167 AS AMENDED. CARRIED 3-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRET PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/tm i PLANNINGM COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 1167 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 20 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HOVLEY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE. CASE NOS. TT 21791 , PP 86-36 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of July, 1986, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map, and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 20 lot single family detached project on a 5.02 acre parcel in the PR-5 zone located on the north side of Hovley Lane east of Monterey Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 622-020-010 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. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. 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 granting approval of said precise plan and tentative tract map: 1 . The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plan in that the net density of 5. 14 falls well within the general plan's density for the area of 5 to 7 units per acre. It also reflects the current goals of the city to encourage the development of single family detached housing. 2. The design or improvements proposed are consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that all public improvements will be to city standards and the public infrastructure (see environmental documents) can accommodate the proposed development at ultimate build out and occupancy. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed subdivision in that no variances or code modifications are requested or necessary for the project's development. 4. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development in that the 20 units can be constructed without modification and �E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1167 will be compatible to previously developed R-1 zoned single family detached developments. 5. The design and improvements will not cause substantial environmental ! damage or injure fish and wildlife habitat in that as identified in the environmental documents the short and long range environmental impacts are minor and conditions of approval will mitigate the minor impacts identified. ! 6. The design of the subdivision and improvements will not cause public ! health problems in that all energ y and building requirements must be complied with. 7. The subdivision will not conflict with any existing public easements in that any existing easement that is needed by the public will be retained or relocated as necessary. 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 approval of Precise Plan 86-36 and TT 21791 are hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 15th day of July, 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, WOOD, AND CRITES NOES: NONE ABSENT: ERWOOD AND RICHARDS ABSTAIN: NONE ' % J BU CRITES, diairman ATTEST: -0 042-'�lq z4e� RAMON A. DIAZ, Secrets I /tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1167 CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 21791, PP 86-36 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property described herein 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 statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of this approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time, as permitted by code, is granted by planning commission. 3. All on site utilities, including cable TV shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes as required by terms of City Council Resolution No. 78-92; determination to be made prior to recordation of final tract map. 7. Building heights to be maximum one story within 18 feet with maximum 30% lot coverage. 8. At the time of building permit issuance, applicant shall present proof to the city that $628 per unit school impact mitigation fee has been arranged or paid. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1167 9. Applicant shall pay $600 per acre •fringe-toed lizard habitat mitigation fee prior to obtaining grading permits. 10. Applicant shall pay $100 per unit fire impact mitigation fee at the time building permits are obtained. 11 . Applicant shall meet all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. I 12. Applicant shall cooperate with adjacent property owners on the final design of the wall at the northerly property line. I Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full g y lighting, public improvements, including traffic safety li htin as required � by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 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 the project final . 6. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 7. All streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 8. Landscaping maintenance on Meadow Lane and Hovley Lane shall be provided by the individual property owner. I 9. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. i I i 4 . I I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1167 10. Dedication of eleven ( 11) feet of right-of-way on Hovley Lane shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 11 . Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and eight (8) foot meandering sidewalk on Hovley Lane. 12. Waiver of access to Hovley Lane except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 13. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 14. Full improvement of interior streets based on 60' residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, C.P.D. Code. 15. Installation of sewers to serve this project. 16. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the director of public works for checking and approval and be recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this project. 17. Electrical service shall be undergrounded per Southern California Edison Company's recommendation. Fire Marshal : I 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two (2) hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating i pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. a. exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. C. hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 5 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1167 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the building department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Case Nos. TT 21791 , PP 86-36 are in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal ." . 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating, and delivering the required flow. 6. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . i 6 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 15, 1986 CASE NOS: TT 21791, PP 86-36 REQUEST: Approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, precise plan of design and a tentative tract map to create 20 single family lots and detached residences on a PR-5 zoned 5.02 acre parcel on the north side of Hovley Lane, approximately 650 feet east of Monterey Avenue. APPLICANT: GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. 1750 Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264 1. BACKGROUND: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site is a rectangularly shaped 5.02 gross acre site of 331 .4 foot width and 660.6 foot depth. The site is relatively flat having a slight fall north and south from a point about 350 feet north of, Hovley Lane. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: PR-5/Residential SOUTH: PR-5/Vacant and Church EAST: PR-5/Vacant WEST: PR-5/Vacant C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium density residential 5-7 du/acre. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.- The applicant proposes to develop 20 single family lots with single family detached units serviced by two public streets, Hovley Lane and the proposed Meadow Lane, a 578 foot deep cul-de-sac street. Meadow Lane would consist of 60 feet of right-of-way containing 36 feet of paving curb to curb with sidewalks, curb and gutter. The minimum lot size is 8100 square feet. There are two floor plans proposed; both units are single story three bedrooms, two and a half bath homes, one contains 1675 square feet, and the other 1852 square feet. Front setbacks will vary from 15 to 25 feet STAFF REPORT TT21791, PP 86-36 JULY 15, 1986 depending on the unit and lot location. All straight in garages will have a minimum 20 foot setback from property line and 25 feet from sidewalk. III. ANALYSIS: The city's planned residential zone provides for the development of single family detached housing, leaving the development standards to generally be set at the precise plan hearing. In the recent past the need and desire to encourage development of single family detached housing has been affirmed by the residential committee of the Year 2000 Plan, the city council , and the planning commission itself. The project in question has a gross density (number of units total site area) of 3.98 units per acre with the zoning permitting five units per gross acre. The project's net density is 5. 14 units per acre (number of units/total site area, area for street right-of-way) , the general plan calls for medium density residential land uses of 5 to 7 units per acre. The project, in short, conforms to both the underlying zoning and the general plan. The findings required for approval of a tentative tract map can be made affirmatively on this project. 1 . The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plan in that the net density of 5. 14 falls well within the general plan's density for the area of 5 to 7 units per acre. It also reflects the current goals of the city to encourage the development of single family detached housing. 2. The design or improvements proposed are consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that all public improvements will be to city standards and the public infrastructure (see environmental documents) can accommodate the proposed development at ultimate build out and occupancy. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed subdivision in that no variances or code modifications are requested or necessary for the project's development. 4. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development in that the 20 units can be constructed without modification and will be compatible to previously developed R-I zoned single family detached developments. 5. The design and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish and wildlife habitat in that as identified in 2 STAFF REPORT TT21791, PP 86-36 JULY 15, 1986 the environmental documents the short and long range environmental Impacts are minor and conditions of approval will mitigate the minor impacts identified. 6. The design of the subdivision and improvements will not cause public health problems in that all energy and building requirements must be complied with. 7. The subdivision will not conflict with any existing public easements in that any existing easement that is needed by the public will be retained or relocated as necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In reviewing the project, if the mitigation measures identified in the initial study are imposed as setforth in the accompanying resolution, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A negative declaration of environmental impact should therefore be certified on the project. IV. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend approval of the findings and adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. 8. Legal notice. C. Negative declaration and initial study. D. Comments from city departments and other agencies. E. Plans ��and J exhibits. Prepared by ", `� - i Reviewed and Approved by 61 /tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA', `APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF .A 20 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HOVLEY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 650 FEET EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE. CASE NOS. TT 21791, PP 86-36 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 15th day of July, 1986, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , for approval of a precise plan of design, tentative tract map, and negative declaration of environmental impact to allow construction of a 20 lot single family detached project on a 5.02 acre parcel in the PR-5 zone located on the north side of Hovley Lane east of Monterey Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 622-020-010 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. 80-89," in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. 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 granting approval of said precise plan and tentative tract map: 1 . The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plan in that the net density of 5. 14 falls well within the general plan's density for the area of 5 to 7 units per acre. It also reflects the current goals of the city to encourage the development of single family detached housing. 2. The design or Improvements proposed are consistent with applicable general and specific plans in that all public improvements will be to city standards and the public infrastructure (see environmental documents) can accommodate the proposed development at ultimate build out and occupancy. 3. The site is physically suited for the proposed subdivision in that no variances or code modifications are requested or necessary for the project's development. 4. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development in that the 20 units can be constructed- without modificat-ion and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. will be compatible to previously developed R-I zoned single family detached developments. 5. The design and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish and wildlife habitat in that as identified in the environmental documents the short and long range environmental impacts are minor and conditions of approval will mitigate the minor impacts identified. 6. The design of the subdivision and improvements will not cause public health problems in that all energy and building requirements must be complied with. 7. The subdivision will not conflict with any existing public easements in that any existing easement that is needed by the public will be retained or relocated as necessary. 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 approval of Precise Plan 86-36 and TT 21791 are hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Pla nning Commission, held on this 15th day of July, 1986, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD CRITES, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 21791, PP 86-36 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property described herein 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 statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of this approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time, as permitted by code, is granted by planning commission. 3. All on site utilities, including cable TV shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of community development. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CCBR's for this development shall be submitted to the director of community development for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the .city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes as required by terms of City Council Resolution No. 78-92; determination to be made prior to recordation of final tract map. 7. Building heights to be maximum one story within 18 feet with maximum 30% lot coverage. 8. At the time of building permit Issuance, applicant shall present proof to the city that $628 per unit school impact mitigation fee has been arranged or paid. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9. Applicant 6hall pay $600 per acre fringe-toed lizard habitat mitigation fee prior to obtaining grading permits. 10. Applicant shall pay $100 per unit fire impact mitigation fee at the time building permits are obtained. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the director of public works. 3. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that is approved by the department of public works. 4. Full public improvements, including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 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 the project final . 6. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements Is commenced. The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 7. All streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 8. Landscaping maintenance on Meadow Lane and Hoviey Lane shall be provided by the individual property owner. 9. Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted, as required by ordinance, to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 10. Dedication of eleven (11 ) feet of right-of-way on Hovley Lane shall be done prior to issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 11 . Installation of curb and gutter, matching paving and eight (8) foot meandering sidewalk on Hovley Lane. 4 . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12. Waiver of access to Hovley Lane except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. 13. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. 14. Full improvement of interior streets based on 60' residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, C.P.D. Code. 15. Installation of sewers to serve this project. 16. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the director of public works for checking and approval and be recorded before Issuance of any permits associated with this project. 17. Electrical service shall be undergrounded per Southern California Edison Company's recommendation. Fire Marshal: 1 . Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two (2) hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. a. exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. C. hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the building department, and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: 11 1 5 . . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. certify that the design of the water system in Case Nos. TT 21791 , PP 86-36 are in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal ." 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating, and delivering the required flow. 6. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . i i 6 i 73-SIO FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 July 1, 1985 - CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 86-36 AND TT 21791 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. for approval Of a tentative tract map and precise plan of design for 20 - single family detached hones in the PR-5 zone, located on the north side of Hoviey Lane approximately 650 feet east of Monterey Avenue. (DP 15-79) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE I 7 f3 P.C. (2) (D.P. C3-78 R•„28.000 (8) A DPR-22 ILEY L E Y J W = Q SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15, 1986, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all Interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions In court, you may be limited to raising only those Issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary July 4, 1986 Palm Desert Planning Commission i INTEROFF MEM0RANDUNa U�V_i , v TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AL 2 1986 ,. r.ono a=xexi�o:d:xu:r FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS rxiL✓=u �wn�c[m SUBJECT: T,=;.H r�✓:- IPA,r ZI r7T DATE: Jil:,) z19BE The following should be considered conditions of approval: I) Drainage and slgnallzation fund fees, as required by City o,din.nca, shall be paid prior to (recordation of the final map) ( ' p) Drainage facilities shall be provided, per Ordinance No. 210 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of G the Director of Public Works. 31 Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer that Is approved by the Department of Public Works. q) Full public Improvements, Including traffic safety lighting, as required by ordinance and the Director of Public Works, shall be Installed In accordance with City standards. 88Improvement 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 the project final . 8 Complete Improvement plans and gpetificat Ions shall be�i!"-t2da�C_ of- submitted, as required by ordinance, to the are eci for checking and approval before con atructlomn of any Woy_�S Improvements Is commenced. The engineer shall submit "a9-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the Improvements by the City. 7) All streets shall be Inspected by the engineering department and a standard Inspection fee shall be paid or l or to (recortlatlon of the final map) (ate- . sue=' '/ L,.�,: B) Landscaping maintenance on ^�^J 9V1�f shall be ^:^(property owner). provided by the (I4+»>xc+ 1.o1naon1 - 9) Existing utilities on shall be underground- ' ad per each respective utility district's recommendation. 10) Traffic safety striping on - shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A _ traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the. 01rector of Public Works before Placing pavement markings. 2Jxe=cA/- a G1) Complete grading plans and specifications shall be submit-U,bLLL' tee, as required by ordinance, to the for checking and approval prior to Issuance of any permits. IZ Dedication of r-IF m-r CN� feet of right-of-way on �j_'J-I Lf shall be done prlor to Issuance of any permits and approval of plans. 013 Installation QQf curb and gutter, matching paving and fd FwT MM ^w°^" sidewalk on ']OVLEY L-PNF / 14 Wolvei' of access to j J/!J !.-�,,.,= except at approved locations shell be granted on the final map. 15) Close unused driveway wl .'u 11 helghth curb and gutter. 61 Offslte Improvement, plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite Improvements prior to (recordation of the final map) 17 Full Improvement of Interior streets based on (60' reslden- '' tial ) -L ( street standards as established in accordance with Chapter Z6, Section 26.40.040, C.P.O. Code. j I nst I tion e-ha lands a ad m n I I or ash paym nt f r on -h If he ost of Ian s ap d ed en I�G e t of Ire of is s. h 19) TraFflc analysis to be prepared for the project to address the specific Impacts on existing networks (street and Intersections) and the proposed mitigation measures recom- mended for approval by the City. 20 Installation of sewers to serve this project. ZI) Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications with only driveway approach(es) to be allowed to serve this property. 22) No (new) requirements. (Original conditions apply) 23) Any permit Issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and records 0Complete t (tract) map(W) shall be submitted as 0 5 c required by ordinance to the for checking and ter'/"�eZr approval and be recorded before ssuance of ov A14 PJF.wT A4ss '4pcp WIr.F rlws Pry,nhac�. y . Richard J. Folkers. P.E. RA/RJF 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: TT 21791 , PP 86-36 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , 1750 Camino Parocela, Palm Springs, CA 92264. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Twenty single family lots on a 5.02 acre parcel on the north side of Hovley Lane, approximately 650 feet east of Monterey Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ---------------------------------------- RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm ' l CASE No. \ q/ L� =MIA0n- i'TTAL SERVICES DEPT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIR01T3IE7AL EVALUATION CZZCKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, passible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets ) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. 'Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? — — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or Ilkovercovering of the soil? — — — c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils , either on or off the site? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? i Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a._. Changes . in currents, 'or the course or direction of water• movements? x b. Changes in-absorption rates , drainage Patterns, the rate and amount of — —; surface water r runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? p/ d. Alteration of-the direction or rate of �S flow of ground waters? — e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water su;plies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Chance in the diversity of species , or numbers cf any species of plants (including trees , shrubs, grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? - X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? -� 5. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to 1 the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife hab.tzt? 3. Yes Maybe plc 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :.the rate of use of any natural resources? k b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7. Enercv. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b.' Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.dezelapment of new sources of energy? 8. Risk o_ fUo : _ Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, Pesticides , oil , chemicals; or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in i:he value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? �( b. A change in the value of property and impro•,ements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted .corn:unity risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the Point at which accepted CO=unity noise and vibration levels are exceeded? i1. Land Use. Will .the proposal result in the a tTeration of the Present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Soace. Will the proposal lead to a L\ decrease in the -amount of designated open space? _ — 13. Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human Population of the Citv? _ In. Change in the Population distribution by age, income, I-eligion, racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , household type? 4. ` Yes Maybe No 14. Emolovment. Will the proposal result in additiona nesv long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed , unemployed, and underemployed? v 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: 1 a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied dnd rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? r c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? _ Y d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists , or pedestrians? 9 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmentaL services in any of the following areAS: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? — f. Other governmental services? 5. Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities: r a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? ± f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: . a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? I b. A change in the level of community health Y care provided? 21. Social Se r�ices . Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social 'services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness? 23. Licht and Glarz. Will the proposal ne:v ignt or g are? Produce 24. Archeoioaical/Historical . Will the proposal resu t in an a teratton of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? _ — i 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Sioni wlicance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) C. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: 1 INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. TT 21791 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) . 1 . EARTH The grading that is involved is typical subdivision grading not requiring excavation or major earth movements. Based on previous projects developed in the area there is no evidence of unusual geologic substructures or soils conditions in the area. 2. AIR A. During construction there will be dust, which should not impact existing residents in the area because of one, prevailing wind direction and two, normal code dust control requirements. 8 & C The project site of five acres will not have an impact on climate or produce objectional odors. 3. WATER A. The site is a vacant parcel , without water running through the site, therefore, currents will not be effected. B. The net impact on in-absorption will be minimal in that while ground area that is covered with non-absorption development will be offset by landscaping which will absorb greater amounts of water. In addition, runoff will be properly directed. C. & D. The project will be required to pay appropriate drainage fees to be used for the eventual development of flood control facilities in the area. In the short range waters will be directed to the proper point of disposal . E. Excavation is not required on the site. F. The Coachella Valley Water District states there is adequate water supply to serve the project. In addition, should public water needs requirements fall short they shall be given priority per normal'"" policy. 4. PLANT LIFE There are no rare or endangered species of plant life on the site. While landscaping will introduce new species of plants to the site, the materials used have been used previously in the Coachella Valley. INITIAL STUDY TT 21791 5. ANIMAL LIFE: This will result in the elimination of fringe-toed lizard habitat area. However, the impact wi l l be mitigated by imposition of a $600 per acre fee to be used to acquire habitat area per the plan established by the U. S. Wildlife Service and California State Department of Fish and Game. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES The rate of use of natural resources will not be increased by the project since it must meet all current energy and construction requirements. The project will not require the use of any non-renewable natural resource. 7. ENERGY See discussion under item 6. 8. RISK OF UPSET Explosives or other hazardous materials will not be used on the project, with the exception of normal engine fuels used in grading equipment. 9. ECONOMIC LOSS See discussion under items 1 and 3. 10. NOISE Current DSNA and local regulations preclude the use of equipment which produce noise and vibration levels which exceed acceptable community standards. 11 . LAND USE The general area is developed and proposed to be developed with residential land uses. 12. OPEN SPACE The site is designated for residential development. 13. POPULATION Because of the project's size there will not be an impact on the demographic makeup of the immediate area or the region. 2 • INITIAL STUDY TT 21791 14. EMPLOYMENT While the project will result in short-term construction jobs, it will not result in any long term or permanent additional employment opportunities. 15. HOUSING The project's overall size assures that it will have no impact on the city's housing stock. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION While additional vehicles will be added to the street system, the volume fails into the planned street holding capacity and, therefore, will not have an adverse impact on the community. 17. PUBLIC SERVICE (FIRE PROTECTION) The project will have the usual demand on public facilities and school impact mitigation fees, as required by Desert Sands Unified School District, are being imposed. In terms of impacts on other public facilities the site is classified as infill and the public infrastructure has been developed to accommodate this development. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE Again the project's size means no real appreciable impact on this area. 19. UTILITIES All public utilities indicate they can and will serve the project. 20. HUMAN HEALTH A single 20 lot subdivision will not impact community or regional health standards. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES See discussion on item 17. 22. AESTHETICS The project calls for single story construction thereby not impacting views. 3 INITIAL STUDY CONTINUED 23. LIGHT AND GLARE There will be no additional light and glare beyond the normal lighting for a single family neighborhood. 24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL There has been no evidence during previous project development of any significant or minor archeological or historical sites in the area. 25. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE See discussion on all previous items. 4 R� --� RIVERSIDE COUNTY °F CALlp,0 ` t l,- FIRE DEPARTMENT - t I �` IN COOPERATION WITH THE _`cl ' III{ 1•)r/',�'71 ;-?o� -r` CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY o RAY HEBRARD �4l�Eer of f ' -- FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 1UNE2 ); �` PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 Raymon Diaz (b �d 61�a LiELEPHONE:(714)657-3183 Planning and Community JU N 2 4 Development Director 1986 73510 Fred Waring COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARiA!9di Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT Reference: TT 21791 Applicant: C96RMg(14 0EJtLOP#4e9T Dear Mr. Ramon Diaz The following fire protection requirements are in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code and Life Safety Code standards. 1 . Install a water system capable of deliverin915q GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a 2 hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. - 2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building is more than 2� feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular travel ways. a. exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. b. curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. c. hydrants shall not be located closer than Is feet to any building. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. Upon approval , one copy will be sent to the Building Department and the original will be returned to the developer. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in T T 2-17 91 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal ." 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 6. Additional fire protection requirements may be necessary when the applicant submits specific plans for consideration and approval . 7. All buildings over) L square feet require an approved fire sprinkler system. Very truly yours, RAY HEBRARD Fire Chief By:uu.►''s (4� MIKE MCCONNELL Fire Marshal 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: TT 21791 , PP 86-36 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. , INC. , 1750 Camino Parocela, Palm Springs, CA 92264. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Twenty single family lots on a 5.02 acre parcel on the north side of Hovley Lane, approximately 650 feet east of Monterey Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, Included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. ---------------------------------------- RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm t .l• I • 1T.-ice � . 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 1 , 1985 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 86-36 AND TT 21791 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by GERMAiN DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. for approval of a tentative tract map and precise plan of design for 20 single family detached homes in the PR-5 zone, located on the north side of Hovley Lane approximately 650 feet east of Monterey Avenue. (DP 15-T9) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1 ! 8 P.C. (2) (D.P. 03-78 °E � 1 hrt REE,�'Q00 OR,,ItcT- . ,. ° P A DPR— 22 a.00N ntOWEA pa:�ipl FE�1. a>'O I I I `4nl.ate Et' gwC•EW u '.. � r- I a 0 r:•:titiC};: ;:j•ii:•}: HQVLEY0 V L. E Y I J � U W SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15, 1986, at 2:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place ail interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described In. this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary July 1, 1986 Palm Desert Planning Commission INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUMf��'�g�(�19d tr TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES f4 JUL 2 1986 COMMUNitY DEVU613MENT DEPARTMENT FROM : DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF PALM DESERT SUBJECT: IF_riv\;un_ �Xi�� Z) 771 DATE : Jrll, The following should be considered conditions of approval : I ) Drainage and slgnallzation fund fees , as required by City ordinance , shall be paid prior to (recordation of the final map) (- . ... . - 2 ) Drainage facilities shall be provided , per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan, to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . 3 ) Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the pr ( vate engineer that is approved by the Department of Public Works . 4 ) Full public Improvements , including traffic safety lighting , as required by ordinance and the Director of Public Works , shall be installed In accordance with City standards . 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 the project final . 6) Complete improvement plans and gpecificatfons shall be-,/!'_6,�alt of submitted , as required by ordinance , to the �rQ�6C for checking and approval before construction of any Wei $ Improvements is commenced . The engineer shall submit "as-built" plans prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City . 7 ) All streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard Inspection fee shall be paid prior to ( recordation of the final map) s>san=Z# / /�� B) Landscaping maintenance on /Ulr•'�aJLv.PAu� U Yk1 shall be provided by the ( ^(property owner ) . �N OI JI JO/LL 9) Existing utilities on shall be underground- ed per each respective utility district' s recommendation. 10) Traffic safety striping on shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . A traffic control plan must be submitted to and approved by the Director of Public Works before placing pavement „[ markings . L)JLr'f �o/c of t ) Complete grading plans and specifications shall be subbmit j�Ja2 S ted , as required by ordinance , to the . checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . 12 Ded i cat j! n of E VE_,�l li) feet of r i ght-of-way on 11 JV ry L A.I.m shall be done prior to Issuance of any permits and approval of plans . 13 Installation f curb and gutter , matching paving and BrpoJ-Olr4l4Ew,a(, sidewalk on 140VLEY LnnrF 14 ) Wafve`r of access to ljoyk,4 LANI= except at approved locations shall be giTanted on the final map. r-+ 15 ) Close unused driveway with full heighth curb and gutter . 6) OFFsite Improvement, plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required offsite improvements prior to ( recordation of the final map ) 17 Full improvement of interior streets based on ( 60 ' residen- ' tial ) ( ) ( street standards as established In accordance with Chapter 26 , Section 26. 40 . 040 , C . P. D . &1W9) ode . OEld nst 1 tion ne-ha lands a ed m o f r ��L ash paym nt f r on -h if he ost of Ian s ed an t he t of irec r of Icsraffic analysis to be prepared for the project to address the specific Impacts on existing networks ( street and Intersections ) and the proposed mitigation measures recom- mended for approval by the City. 0 Installation of sewers to serve this project . 21 ) Size , number and location of driveways to Public Works I specifications with only driveway approach (es ) to be allowed to serve this property. 22 ) No. (new) requirements . (original conditions apply) 23 ) Any permit Issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorde P, L, C 24 Complete ( ax ) (tract) map(.-) shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Glee for checking and ��IJG�aetrl approval and be recorded before ssuance of os ANY P8¢ml'rs /I SSOc RT6D O GF4i'RIC.A�- SEiZVlCE S/}ALL �jF blNpE °L R> >tiD.�'� CAucogAIIA FDjf-oMC<��s 12P�...lin�,<..�z +rlf�,✓� -._ Richard J . Folkers , P.E . RA/RJF r. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 1, 1985 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. PP 86-36 AND TT 21791 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. INC. for approval of a tentative tract map and precise plan of design for 20 single family detached homes In the PR-5 zone, located on the north side of Hovley Lane approximately 650 feet east of Monterey Avenue. 1 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15, 1986, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are Invited to attend and be heard. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in. this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary July 4, 1986 Palm Desert Planning :Commission t I 73-510 FREO WAR ING CHIVE, PALM OESERT, CALIFORNIA 92<60 'ELE?HON'c (674) 3:6_o6, I REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND.CONDMO,NS OF AppROYA? # f v'3 CASE ,NO(s): e_�Jtd tj Lle %�� f PROJECT: o'Z.O Gal d _- acte4 su6ol✓/�/0�7 APPLICANT: Ge✓rt1alA) DE'V��/Jyvrnen l Cv. Inc. / 7.50 C�IM/n/o Pai�Cc LQ Enclosed plea?0-/,?7 /�r��yS Ca /t7�ornicL requested: A/(,�ri"17 aterialss describing a project for 'which �� t�n7a, v� �j 0.G f- ,rnQ the following is being eax-f- 01C lha v/-e!-&/10,e, The attached data -- as prepared by the a _comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable applicant and is being forwarded to you fo—r�— impzcts on the environment (including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise Objects of historical or aesthetic significance) and recommended conditions of a based on your expertise and area of concern. approval Your comments and recom �E_T�c DAr ` prior to ded conditions of approval must be received by this office 930 R.m, f commiree. The ), ?a in order to be discussed b�d division committee y the land division services, city building official cit engineer, (comprised of director of environmental 1;i11 discuss the comments and recomended condiire tions of approval and arshal and a ewill forward them Jf CO ;he altering m corn of`.ice after ;ti ission through the staff report. Any information received by this e receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee. i;ncere!� . MPECTt'R }.NME':TAL SERVICES RD/Ir .Attachments Bum Engineers, Ini. • SOIL ENGINEERING REPORT TRACT 21791 MONTEREY MEADOWS IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA B-16354-P1 June 1986 UMMM EngineErs,inE. ESTING�• INSPECTION 1731-A WALTER STREET VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003 PHONE (805) 642-6727 June 10, 1986 B-16354-P1 86-6-149 Germain Development, Inc. 1750 Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264 RE: Tract 21791 City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California Presented herewith is our Soil Engineering Report prepared for Tract 21791 located on Hovely Lane south of Monterey Avenue in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. This report incorporates the tentative information supplied our office, and in accordance with the request, recommendations for general site development and foundation design are provided. This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement dated May 21, 1986. Other services which may be required, such as plan review and grading observation are additional services and will be billed according to the Fee Schedule in effect at the time the services are provided. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions concerning this report or the recommendations included herein. Respectfully submitted, BUE A ENGINEERS I C--=-="S1 C ' :,.. Reviewed and Approved QRpEESSlONq N .. Richard M. Beard r aymond E. Brannen Soil Engineer , :';' Soil Engineer CE 38234 a i L 55� Exp. 3/31/E9 RMB/CSH/ms tl CE 2 c; X-24 SER t1 Esp. 1213110A Copies: 6 - Gerr'6ai / "f rl9T CIVI R��P 2 - PSfil`e'��% C'r `� j EOFCAIiE� 1 - VTA fileOgtC;`, VENTURA LANCASTER (805) 642.6727 (805) 948.7538 BAKERSFIELD SANTA BARBARA PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO _ (805)327-5150 (805) 966.9912 (619) 328-9131 (805)544-6187 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 FIELD INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 LABORATORY TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Site'Grading - General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 UtilityTrenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 STRUCTURE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Slabs-on-Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Settlement Considerations . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Frictional and Lateral Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Slope Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 8 Paving Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Additional Servi ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 APPENDIX A Summary of Test Results Table 29-A APPENDIX B Standard Grading Specifications APPENDIX C Site Plan Log of Borings BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . i June 10, 1986 -1- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 INTRODUCTION This report presents results of a Soil Engineering study performed for Tract 21791 in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. A. It is our understanding that the proposed development will be single family residences. The construction type will probably be wood frame and stucco of either one or two stories. The exact foundation types or locations of the _. buildings are not known at this time. B. For single family residences structural considerations for building column loads of up to 15 kips and a maximum wall loading of 1.5 kips per lineal foot were used to as; a basis for the recommendations. C. It is our understanding that much of the dunes are to be removed from the site. D. If loads are determined to exceed these estimated values the soil engineer should be contacted because such changes may affect our recommendations. SITE SETTING The site consists of about 4.8 acres in Riverside County, California. The legal description in the WYa, NEY4, SWY4, NWY4 of Section 8, T5S, R6E, SBBM. The site is typical desert with duning over a.portion of the property to ten 00)to twenty (20) feet high. The site of the proposed development is bounded by Hovely Lane on the south and Tract 11971 on the north, being about 660 feet east of Monterey Avenue, in the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. A. The site is basically flat with the dunes providing relief to heights of ten to twenty (10-20) feet. Overall drainage in the area is toward the east. There is a sparse cover of dry desert grasses and brush. B. There are no buildings or other structures on the site. A sewer has been installed in Meadow Lane. C. There does not appear to have been previous grading. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -2- B-16354-P1 - 86-6-149 FIELD INVESTIGATION Exploratory borings were drilled for observing the soil profile and obtaining samples for further analysis. A. Three (3) borings were drilled for soil profiling and sampling, to a maximum depth of sixteen (16) feet below the existing ground surface. The field work was conducted on May 30, 1986, using a CME 55 drilling rig with an 8-inch hollow - stem auger. The dunes areas were generally inaccessible and could not be drilled. B. Samples were secured within the test borings with a two and one-half (2Ya) inch diameter ring sampler (ASTM D 3550, shoe similar to ASTM D-1586). The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer, dropping 30 inches, in accordance with ASTM D 1586. C. Bulk samples of the soil types encountered were gathered from the auger cuttings for classification purposes. E. The final logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs, and the results of the laboratory tests and observations of the field samples. The final logs are included in an appendix of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. LABORATORY TESTING After a visual and tactile classification in the field, samples were returned to the laboratory, classifications were checked, and a testing program was established. A. Samples were reviewed along with field logs to determine which would be further analyzed. Those chosen were considered representative of soils which would be exposed and/or used in grading and those deemed within building influence. B. In-situ moisture content and unit dry weights for the core samples were developed in accordance with ASTM D 2937. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -3- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 i C. The relative strength characteristics of the subsurface soils were determined a from the results of direct shear tests. Specimens were placed in contact with water at least 24 hours before testing, and were then sheared under normal loads i ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 KSF. D. Settlement potential was evaluated from the results of consolidation tests performed in accordance with ASTM D 2435. Water was added under a 500 psf surcharge to evaluate hydroconsolidation. E. Classification tests consisted of Expansion Index (UBC Standard 29-2), Maximum -. Density-Optimum Moisture (ASTM D 1557), and hydrometer analysis (California Test Method 203 and ASTM D 422). F. Refer to Appendix A for tabular and graphic representations of the test results. SOIL CONDITIONS As determined by the borings, site soils were found to consist primarily of silty poorly graded fine sands. A. The soils encountered were primarily poorly graded silty very fine to fine sands to the depths explored. B. Expansion tests indicate soils to be in the "very low" expansion category in accordance with UBC Table 29-C. C. In general soils were of variable density being medium compact to compact based on samples driving resistance. Moisture content of recovered samples was low, averaging only a few percent. D. Consolidation tests showed a small potential for hydroconsolidation, but indicated that the soil is moderately compressible. E. Free water was not encountered to the maximum drill depth of sixteen (16) feet. CONCLUSIONS Test results indicate that site soils are medium compact to compact and uniformly dry. To improve bearing values and limit settlement a moderate amount of soil recompaction will be required. It is concluded that the site is suitable for the intended development when our recommendations are satisfactorily completed. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -4- B-16354-P1 - 86-6-149 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING Prior to any earth moving operations, areas to be graded should be cleaned of vegetation and other deleterious materials. Appendix B, "Standard Grading Specifications" contains specific suggestions for removal and disposal of deleterious substances and, as such, forms a part of these Site Development and Grading Recommendations. A. Site Grading - General 1: . Testing showed that soils in-place are medium compact to compact. Therefore, recompaction of the bearing soils is recommended. It is anticipated the leveling of the dunes will result up to five (5) feet of cut in some areas. 2. The existing ground surface should be initially prepared for grading by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, existing uncertified fill, or other incompetent material. No compacted fill should be placed unless the underlying soil has been observed by the soil engineer or his technical representative. 3. Previously removed soils, once cleaned of rocks larger than eight (8) inched in greatest dimension, and other deleterious material, may be placed in thin layers and mechanically compacted back to finish grade. 4. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D 1557 test method. Specific requirements are included in Appendix B, "Standard Grading Specifications" and Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. 5. It is anticipated that during grading a loss of approximately one tenth of a foot due to clearing, and a shrinkage factor of about ten (10) percent for the upper five (5) feet of soil may be used for quantity calculations. This is based on compactive effort needed to produce an average degree of compaction of approximately 93 to 94 percent, and may vary depending on contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated at approximately two-tenths of a foot. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -5- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 6. Areas around the structures should be graded so that drainage is positive and away from the structures. Gutters and down spouts should be used to convey water out of the foundation area. Ponding should not be allowed near the buildings. 7. It is recommended that the soil and foundation engineer be retained to provide soil engineering services during construction of the excavation and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specification and recommendations and to allow design _ changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from these anticipated prior to start of construction. B. Grading 1. Areas to receive fill should be prepared by heavily watering to a depth of one (1) foot and compacted by so that the upper one (1) foot is at a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density. Fill material should then be placed in thin layers at near optimum moisture and compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 2. Areas that are in cut should be heavily watered to a depth of two (2) feet � and compacted so that the upper two (2) feet is at a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density. C. Utility Trenches 1. Utility trench backfill should be governed by the provisions of this report relating to minimum compaction standards. In general, service lines extending inside of property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 2. Backfill operations should be observed and tested by the soil engineer to monitor compliance with these recommendations. 3. Trenching should not be difficult. However, trench stability may be a problem because of caving sands. The addition of water and compaction should help mitigate this problem in shallow excavations. BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . June 10, 1986 -6- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 STRUCTURE DESIGN A. Foundations Conventional continuous footings and/or isolated pad footings may be used for support of structures. 1. All pad and continuous footings or load bearing grade beams should be founded on firm compacted soil as recommended elsewhere in this report. 2. A minimum footing depth of twelve (12) inches below .lowest adjacent finish grade should be maintained for one story structures and eighteen (18) inches below lowest adjacent grade should be maintained for two story structures. 3. Continuous foundations satisfying the above conditions may be designed for the following values assuming a twelve (12) inch deep one (1) foot wide footing: 1000 psf, for dead plus reasonable live load. 4. Pad foundations satisfying the above conditions may be designed for the following values assuming a two by two (2 x 2) feet by twelve (12) inch deep footing: 1200 psf for dead plus reasonable live load. 5. The above dead plus live load value may be increased by 300 psf for each additional six (6) inches of depth and by 200 psf for each additional foot of width. Bearing values should not be increased beyond 2000 psf without approval of the soils engineer. 6. Allowable bearing values for dead plus live loads may be increased by one- third when wind and seismic forces are included. 7. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead plus reasonable live loads. S. Table 29-A gives specific minimum requirements for width,, depth and reinforcing. The "very low" category will apply. Other requirements may be more stringent and would govern. 9. While Table 29-A does not specify reinforcement for continuous footings when soils are in the "very low" expansion category, two No. 4 bars, one at the top and one at the bottom of the footing are recommended. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -7- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 10. Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on floor slabs and foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based partially on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations and grade beams is properly compacted. 11. Foundation excavations should be visually observed by the soil engineer during excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Local variations in conditions may warrant deepening of footings. B. Slabs-on-Grade 1. . Concrete slabs-on-grade should be supported by firm compacted soil placed in accordance with applicable sections of this report. 2. Slabs on grade should at a minimum be reinforced with 6X6 No.10/No.10 welded wire fabric. Presaturation of subgrade soil is not required. 3. It is recommended that perimeter slabs (sidewalks, patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of footing stems (free floating) so that settlement and/or expansion should not cause cracking. 4. Slabs should be underlaid with two (2) inches of sand plus an appropriate vapor barrier in areas where floor wetness would be undesirable. The membrane should be covered with the two inches of sand to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. C. Settlement Considerations 1. Expected maximum settlement of less than one (1) inch is anticipated for foundations and floor slabs designed and placed on recompacted soil as recommended. 2. Differential settlement between adjacent load bearing members is anticipated to be less than one-half M) inch. 3. The majority of anticipated settlements should occur during construction with post construction settlement being minimal. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -8- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 D. Frictional and Lateral Coefficients 1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of foundations. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be applied to dead load forces. 2. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems (300 pcf, equivalent fluid weight), may be included for resistance to lateral load. 3. A one-third (1/3) increase in the quoted passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. 4. When passive resistance of soils against grade beams and the frictional resistance between the floor slabs and the supporting soils are combined, the friction factor should be reduced to 0.30 of dead load forces. 5. For cantilever retaining walls backfilled with compacted native soil, a pressure of an equivalent fluid weighing 30 pcf may be used for well drained, level backfill conditions, plus the effect of any surcharge loads. E. Slope Stability Slope stability analyses have not been performed because of the anticipated low height (less than three (3) feet) of any slopes. In general, it may be assumed that fill slopes should be stable at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Slopes are expected to be highly erosive and should be protected from wind or water erosion damage. F. Paving Sections The following paving sections are based on an estimated "R" value of 60 for the soil on the project. Final paving sections should be based on "R" values measured on actual subgrade soils sampled at the end of rough grading and actual paving sections may be less or more than that shown below. In some cases the City's minimum section may exceed the provided design and would govern. 1. Meadow Lane TI = 5 "R" = 60 Use 3 inches AC on native subgrade compacted to a minimum of 95% of maximum density or the City minimum, whichever is larger. BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . June 10, 1986 -9- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 G. Additional Services This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of monitoring and testing will be performed by Buena Engineers during construction to check construction compliance with these recommendations. These tests would be additional services provided by our firm. The costs of these services are not included in our present fee arrangements. The recommended tests and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Review of the final design to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report. 2. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of engineered fill. 3. Consultation as required during construction. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -10- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the three (3) borings drilled on this site and on experience and judgement. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Findings of this report are valid as of this date; however, changes in conditions of a property,.can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not a relied upon after a period of one year. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the development or buildings are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project and incorporated into the plan and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. The soil engineer has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranties either expressed or implied are made as to the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the report. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -11- B-16354-P1 86-6-149 It is recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and 5 specifications. (If Buena Engineers is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we, Buena Engineers, can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.) h 1 END OF TEXT Appendices BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . APPENDIX A Summary of Test Results Table 29-A BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . June 10, 1986 -A I- B-16354-PI 86-6-149 TEST RESULTS BORING/DEPTH 1@0--1, USCS SM SOIL DESIGNATION Al MAX. DEN. (pcf) 104.9 OPT. MOTS. (%) 12.6 ANG. OF INT. FRIC. 31.50 COHESION (psf) 34 EXPANSION INDEX 0 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (%) Gravel 0.6 Sand 74.3 Silt 24.7 Clay 0.4 SOIL DESCRIPTION: A1: Brown poorly graded silty fine sand (SM) IN-PLACE.DENSITIES RELATIVE BORING & DEPTH DRY DENSITY % MOISTURE COMPACTION 1 @ 1.0 103.2 2.5 98 5.0 95.5 1 .5 91 10.0 95.7 3.2 91 15.0 97. 1 3.5 93 2 @ • 7.0 -- 0.9 -- 10.0 93.6 4.8 89 3 @ 15.0 95.7 3.7 91 BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . TABLE NO. 29-A MINIMUM FOUNDATION RC-QUIREMENTS 0 Footings for Slab Concrete Slabs be Raised Floor Systems (2) (5) (10) 3Y:" Minimum Thickness v All Peri- Interior foot- Reinforce- w L u meter ings for slab ment for Premoistening Weighted •cy v L Footings and raised continuous control for soils Piers under Expansion ° _ i0: �- (6) floors (6) footings Reinforce- Total under footings, raised floors oc Index I-- a c (3) (8) ment (4) thickness piers and slabs o E o o Depth below natural of sand (5) (6) Z surface of ground and finish grade INCHEN 0-20 1 6 12 6 12 12 None 6x6- Moistening of Piers allowed Very Low 2 8 15 7 18 18 Required 10/10 ground prior to for single (Non-Ex- 3 10 18 8 24 24 WWF 2" placing concrete floor loads pansive) recommended only 1 6 12 6 15 12 120% of optimum 2 8 15 7 18 18 moisture content Piers allowed 21-50 3 10 18 8 24 24 144 top 6x6- to a depth of for single Low and bottom 10/10 4" 21" below lowest floor loads WWF adjacent grade. only Testing Required 1 6 12 6 21 12 144 top 6x6- 130% of optimum 2 8 12 8 21 18 and bottom 6/6 WWF moisture content 51-90 3 10 15 8 24 24 or #3 to a depth of 27" Piers not Medium @ 24" e.w. 4" below lowest allowed ars 24" in ext. footing adjacent grade. . and bent 3' into slab (9) Testing Required 1 6 12 6 27 12 145 top 6x6- 140% of optimum 2 8 12 8 27 18 and bottom 6/6 WWF moisture content 91-130 3 10 15 8 27 24 or fl3 to a depth of 33" Piers not High 24" e.w. 4" below lowest allowed —ffTFars 24" in ext. footing adjacent grade. and bent 3' into slab (9) Testing Required Above 130 Very High Special Design by Licensed Engineer/Architect *Refer to next page for footnotes. (1) through (10) FOOTNOTES TO TABLE 29-A 1. Premoistening is required where specified in Table 29-A in order to achieve maximum and uniform expansion of soils prior to construction and thus limit structural distress caused by uneven expansion and shrinkage. Other systems which do not include premoistening may be approved by the Building Official when such alternatives are shown to provide equivalent safeguards against adverse effects of expansive soils. 2. Underfloor access crawl holes shall be provided with curbs extending not less than six (6) inches above adjacent grade to prevent surface water from entering the foundation area. 3. Reinforcement for continuous foundations shall be placed not less than 3" above the bottom of the footing and not less than 3" below the top of the stem. 4. Reinforcement shall be placed at mid-depth of slab. 5. After premoistening, the specified moisture content of soils shall be maintained until concrete is placed. Required moisture content shall be verified by an approved testing laboratory not more than 24 hours prior to placement of concrete. 6. Crawl spaces under raised floors need not be premoistened except under interior footings. Interior footings which are not enclosed by a continuous perimeter foundation system or equivalent concrete or masonry moisture barrier complying with Section UBC 2907 (b) in this ordinance shall be designed and constructed as specified for perimeter footings in Table 29-A. 7. A grade beam not less than 12" x 12" in cross section, reinforced as specified for continuous foundations in Table 29-A, shall be provided at garage door openings. 8. Foundation stem walls which exceed a height of 3 times the stem thickness above lowest adjacent grade shall be reinforced in accordance with Sections 2418 and 2614 in the UBC or as required by engineering design, whichever is more restrictive. 9. Bent reinforcing bars between exterior footing and slab shall be omitted when floor is designed as an independent, "floating" slab. 10. Fireplace footings shall be reinforced with a horizonal grid located 3" above the bottom of the footing and consisting of not less than No. 4 bars at 12" on center each way. Vertical chimney reinforcing bars shall be hooked under the grid. MOISTURE CONTONT IN PHGC6.NT OF DRY WSIGIIT i- O LL U m 3 at a 106 Z Al 7 8 = 104 r m z 102 / MUTNOD Or-COMPACTION. ASTM D-1557-78, Method A or C SOIL TYPir MAXIMUM DttrNSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE Al 104.9 pcf 12.6% MAXIMUM DENSITY — OPTIMUM MOISTURE CURVES BUENA ENGINEERS INC. Plate LOAD IH KIPS ll LQUA12E FOOT 0.1 0.4 O.G 0.8 1.0 20 S.O 4.0 co 6.0 MID 11111�11:11 I I hullll i III 'n, ! I II II L, l I IIj TT T I }��I II' I 11 n1 Idfl -'f` 1 ,i^ rI ', T''11l'+1 1 lli I I I I I ! 1f I I I .�IT i 111 I C I rt'11 Y --r t t,ir i I ' !I III I Pt1 u'.1 �T T:,,. l 1 I ', , ! 11-j1�ji" I I • : 'TTji I I I : rl I. I i _I(�I I. ' I I I I I :I: I, 1 1 Tl l Ii1 �1 I111 I �•-�T(( i�i '1 *• Iln.,l 1 r TITf 11. 'i RI ie o Th a er ,n�i�I'TI 7? i!I�,I,Ilttl! L� I I I . I,—T"r ��-I-f 1 `i l l.ffIl1', O it 1 Tii 1{ - 1;1i(T�TI�? 1 1 1 1 Ti�TTI, -(T' TI'-1T 11'.' ,'I::Y.1,I 1:11 ''In Ililll iii 1 1 1 I ' !ilI 111: 11 !! 11q it �i- I III ,I hill : j(1 7I I it '11!1 1 1 t IIII I 1I I,r; I :11 !I III I: I ' f - 1I U 2 I 'f!? T'" III Illr "1Tr1-':i, lTi r. .1 t 1j - '111111r1.11 ` TrT : .11 J 11T ,1 02 ►� T„�i. I I . 1 �(1'—it Bill I I 1111! 1T�I ,-?,�T?� i III h it 11I . II nl11101 1 It 1117 .11i 1 1; Ill, ri11�1 1 ! 111 i1 r1LIIII I It IIIII iI 'IIII = 1 n- il 111 ('? tr11(]'�t 111 f, ail !'its I 1" 1 Ili u I Ir,�+i 1 Il+ n •11—�—, 1 I � II _ 1 1 r Z 11T'1 il`t,!' It 1 +: '1:.—.—. H �Ti�, TT" I11T .,ITS!, IT Tl il- T IIIIr I rl. .04 11 41 1 1l I1 I! Z Tll'1.' ri-1iT' 1 lrr 11 'il—i�-1 11 11T1:1 T(11 11 I'I j• i� -7 Ir1I!1 z 0 7T .. rt � MITT1 1! Q T1iI',Iirii I i it r II .I.1�1�Tj j i� :TI„1 'IIi- �Tjlr IIII' ' II P IIITr.I!1`l1 1 ! IIII ,7 -7 -.-_ _.i_1. .� �-I 1itlli !1 71 , r III11t111 r 1 1 r'.~ II {�(? III -11 , 1 ' . tl Il rT TH 14m Il 11 I ..f1 ht 'rr { J TiTni�+—i ill Z O —Tjn { l 0 I r 11I I i 02 �T^ � �" ' -TT I11 .1 Tit. 7—' -�-11 �tJ�li11 ? rT : 1 j ITIT•11 ill 1 1 -_I 11 i�•T•• I I I 1'n iri 11.r1. I 11 711'u. �- I I I I I!II Tom• Y1T I1n I I! I I I11 l IIi Itr T�1 : fT^ Irl •'-I 11 l 1., off• .04 �' !.•: "I 1 , ', Tr1T 1, 11 I!1,I,"1?rr ' 1 I : I -1 1 I 1 1 1 l i�� 1 1 1 ♦I ,� , 1 11�11�'',I I , 1i I� ItI II TAT „ , 11 TI- I i1 �{1 ,nr r I"I�I !i�� -t-f"T,-!-r-1 1 ! -'1i1 n(hrn T�Tpr'I .�ll- r _I 11�'TTT (r'I i11'_�T�___•TI—I T� F%, TI '•1 1 1 1 T TT !i11ly!! ` 1! 1 I IIII 1_I � '1 `t IJit ,li 1 1 CONSOLIDATION DATA BUENA ENGINEERS INC. PLATE C **MMAL LOAD IN KIPS PER SQUOQE FOOT 40 O 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.S &0 3.F QN LL 3.0 Ir Or 2 a • 2.5 m IL Y to Z M a C 91 Al i 1•S Z t i 1.0 R•5 o. Samples remolded at 90% of maximum density DIB.ECT SM6AC DATA Soil Friction Angle Cohesion Al 31.50 34 psf BUENA ENGINEERS INC PLATE 0 APPENDIX B Standard Grading Specifications BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . B-1 STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT: TRACT 21791 CLIENT: GERMAIN DEVELOPMENT, INC. 1. These Standard Grading Specifications have been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to referenced project in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 2. Buena Engineers, Inc., referred to as the soil engineer, should be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during construction of the grading, excavation and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from that anticipated prior to start of construction. 3. The presence of our field representative will be for the purpose of providing observation and field testing. Our work does not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. The contractor for this project should be so advised. The contractor should also be informed that neither the presence of our field representative nor the observation and testing by our firm shall excuse him in any way from defects discovered in his work. It is understood that our firm will not be responsible for job or site safety on this project. Job and site safety will be the sole responsibility of the contractor. 4. If the contractor encounters subsurface conditions at the site that (a) are materially different from those indicated in the contract plans or in specifications, or (b) could not have been reasonably anticipated as inherent in the work of the character provided in the contract, the contractor shall immediately notify the owner verbally and in writing within 24 hours. This notification shall be a condition precedent before any negotiations for "changed or differing site conditions" can proceed. If the owner determines that BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . B-2 conditions do materially so differ and cause an increase or decrease in the contractor's cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, then negotiations shall commence between owner and contractor to provide equitable adjustment to owner or contractor resulting therefrom. 5. Whenever the words "supervision", "inspection", or "control" appear they shall mean periodic observation of the work and the taking of soil tests as deemed necessary by the soil engineer for substantial compliance with plans, specifications and design concepts. 6. These specifications shall be integrated with the Soil Engineering Report of which they are a part. Should conflicting statements be found between these standard specifications and the itemized recommendations contained in the main body of the soil report, the latter shall govern. 7. These specifications shall consist of clearing and grubbing, preparation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of the fill, and subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades and slopes as shown on the accepted plans. 8. The standard test used to define minimum densities of compaction work shall be the ASTM Test Procedure D 1557, Densities shall be expressed as a relative compaction in terms of the maximum density obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard procedure. 9. Field density tests will be performed by the soil engineer during grading operations. At least one (1) test shall be made for each five hundred (500) cubic yards or fraction thereof placed with a minimum of two (2) tests per layer in isolated areas. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below the required density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . B-3 10. Earth-moving and working operations shall be controlled to prevent water from running into excavated areas. Excess water shall be promptly removed and the site kept dry. Fill material shall not be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rain, fill operations shall not be resumed until field tests by the soil engineer indicate that the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. 11. Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, vibrating sheepsfoot rollers, multiple- wheel pneumatic-tired rollers or other types of acceptable compacting rollers. Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is within the specified moisture content range. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to insure that the required density has been obtained. 12. Existing structures, foundations, trash, debris, loose fill, trees (not included in landscaping), roots, tree remains and other rubbish shall be removed, piled or burned or otherwise disposed of so as to leave the areas that have been disturbed with a neat and finished appearance free from debris. No burning shall be permitted in the area to be filled. 13. When fill material includes rock,large rocks will not be allowed to nest and voids must be carefully filled with small stones or earth and properly compacted. Rock larger than six (6) inches in diameter will not be permitted in the compacted fill without review as to location by the soil engineer. 14. Organic matter shall be removed from the surface upon which the fill, foundations or pavement sections are to be placed. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least eight (8) inches and until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks or other uneven features which would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. Specific recommendations pertaining to stripping and minimum depth of recompaction of native soils are presented in the main body of the soil report. BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . B-4 15. Native soil free from organic material and other deleterious material may be used as compacted fill; however, during grading operations the soil engineer will re-examine the native soils for organic content. 16. Imported material should be tested and reviewed by the soil engineer before being brought to the site. The materials used shall be free from organic matter and other deleterious material. 17. Where fills are made on hillsides or exposed slope areas, greater than 10%, horizontal benches shall be cut into firm undisturbed natural ground to provide a horizontal base so that each layer is placed and compacted on a horizontal plane. The initial bench at the toe of the fill shall be at least 10 feet in width on firm, undistubed natural ground at the elevation of the toe stake placed at the natural angle of repose or design slope. The width and frequency of succeeding benches' will vary with the soil conditions and the steepness of slope. 18. The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six (6) inches in thickness. Layers shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade-mixed during spreading. After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to a relative compaction of not less than ninety percent (90%). The fill operation shall be continued in six (6) inch compacted layers, as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and graded as shown on the accepted plans. 19. When the moisture content of the . fill material is not sufficient to achieve required compaction, water shall be added until the soils attain a moisture content so that thorough bonding is achieved during the compacting process. When the moisture content of the fill material is excessive, the fill material shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is reduced to an acceptable content to achieve proper compaction. 20. Existing septic tanks and other underground storage tanks must be removed from the site prior to commencement of building, grading or fill operations. Underground tanks, including connecting drain fields and other lines, must be totally removed and the resulting depressions properly reconstructed and filled. Depressions left from tree removal shall also be properly filled and compacted. BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . B-5 21. The methods for removal of subsurface irrigation and utility lines will depend on the depth and location of the line. One of the following methods may be used: 1) Remove the pipe and compact, the soil in the trench according to the applicable portions of these grading recommendations, 2) The pipe shall be crushed in the trench. The trench shall then be filled, compacted according to the applicable portions of these grading specifications, 3) Cap the ends of the line with concrete to mitigate entrance of water. The length of the cap shall not be less than five (5) feet. The concrete mix shall have a minimum shrinkage. 22. Abandoned water wells on the site shall be capped according to the requirements of the appropriate regulatory agency. The strength of the cap shall be at least equal to the adjacent soils. The final elevation of the top of the well casing must be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches below adjacent grade prior to grading or fill operations. Structure foundations should not be placed over the capped well. BUENA ENGINEERS, INC . APPENDIX C Site Plan Log of Borings BUENA ENGINEERS , INC . / / :113 AL J / 2 / Z / r v r C �ove/y Lane S t-rt l��R ti A�pro c . L�orlhc� ' ou�lon AgoFj ERG-( ✓H1L� boLL� BUENA ENGINEERS, INC. 3-eC- al DATE: FILE NO. LOG OF BORING Job No. B-16354-P1 for Report No. 86-6-141 Monterey Meadow DATE 5-30-86 BORING NO. 1 LOCATION Per Plan c 0 C U o " T '� m c REMARKS AND ANALYSIS a E v 3 DESCRIPTION Tw F ro S 0 4'F 21 103.2 2.5 98 15 No Ret rn SM 5 Al: Brown silty poorly 12 graded fine sand 95.5 1 .5 91 10 '¢� 17 95.7 3.2 91 15 28 97.1 3.5 93 No Free Water Encountere Stopped@16 feet The stratificaion lines represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types and the tran- sitions may be gradual. Plate B LOG OF BORING Job No. B-16354-P1 for Report No. 86-6-141 Monterey Meadows DATE 5-30-86 BORING NO. 2 LOCATION Per Plan c 0 M 'U N 41 i+ o " }`� T '� co REMARKS AND ANALYSIS o o DESCRIPTION T ti F m E c h m j �o. � 4 h a� Ua 0 Al: Brown silty poorly SM 5 14 graded fine sand No R turn 8 No R turn 10 11 No R turn 15 t' 26 93.6 4.8 89 No Free Water Encountere Stopped @ 16 Feet The stratificaion lines represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types and the tran- sitions may be gradual. Plate B LOG OF BORING , Job No. B-16354-P1 for Report No. 86-6-141 Monterey Meadows . DATE 5-30-86 BORING NO. 3 LOCATION Per Plan c 0 v U a o y v .>. ro c REMARKS AND ANALYSIS CL E 3 DESCRIPTION 3 h ,� F" m E U C V)i m � G] n fin' v0i � Ua 0 E . 5 Al: Brown silty poorly graded fine sand No turn SM 9 No Return 10 19 95.7 3.7 91 15 . 21 No R turn No Free Water Encountered Stopped @ 16 feet The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between the soil types and the tran- sitions may be gradual. Plate B � NORTH 1/Z TR• 21791 SOUT14 1/7-- FUTURE S agewood Dr. BY OTHERS 2' 12' f _ •• _ __ ` JOIN FEA'C ER %I• _ 1 1 -� 1 t L U C �-- � I : .. K Mar of . . .. t h 1 E XI PAY MT y k (' -i I I _ I - ` I¢ 1 + I,' Shopping Center �'1 .C� , ---� r � � � f " I I - I I M` -► y% 1.5/e - --_--_ _T- I 1 t'7 1 ` I �'. s I r� �.. I L 1�-• I�: { �o tCOUNTRY . CLUB __. R . � �9 r r ... •,J�. � o'•� I _J� I u�+ -�'C ..� l l< 21 � ,� .�.,,._ � s f•_._._ t�„ PAQ 224.E t' - �. I I G1 Curb Gu��-er r i ( - b a s Lu Pov� e aA �. P' I 5 TYPICAL SECTION > o (PAD 2 l (PAD I Q A 8� PAD P tS- C A Z I o � 15 5 215• A 2 A .. - P 1 f-•! � Lei..— � ( 3) ! ( I I S t) (PAD z 14 8) _ � c•,,, Q 1 — I - I �- - - - - I , L -->_�-- � � -- - _ —— — - H OV E LY LANE b► ,G�: RAT• f,L M% I_ I Z"— —— C �j 59. _____�, ' C t o t.So'� i S.e'o4• ) G, 4.50' (94.S3' C�2.98' project i - I ! H( VELY LN.+ r _.__. _ /o, j PR APO 5ED ! �o' /tit` ° �o? EXIST O' WE ES'MT �00 ( ,_ 1 _ { L ,' t, - --- ' -- Qt:T 1 ► 114 I I I 2 SEWER 12' e 4 ! I o 5/ DC.Z 9'I - 1 Mtt_E �. ce ti�L �. 5': �y ! ��' go *~ . .� to S"ldewatk ,ea.Sides M Monterey a 5 v S► E -.. - y �' } \ 4�. �I I Curb G �tcr CCL. d f Counfr n TYPICAL SECTION I• Club KEY MAP - ` - 9 ! I G\ � � Pavemcrt � Base A* \ 1 4 \ MEADOW LANE •, n r ' II 4 1 / i� ,� �. �•� , ;: it (�20� _ W H TF (241 �-- F ,h g , �. . I3 WA tftf � T � SH 1. EXISTING LAND USE - I ct. Subject a�t^ce l Vcacan-i- \ ! 4a 1 � b. Ad acent to wcs-I- and east - Vct.ca.n q, 610' ,��gr c . Ad' cteent to Sov't'h - s in 1c house � 9 135:T J ?Cien+ial' s' N G�► C d a R e.n o rl e� A 1,or • t t_ . 8 J t - s stngte 1 - I W -Fcxrnity deto-r- -1ecl subd i v is►on, Sc1yewood 7 � 14 N N 2. PROPOSE L USE ec D AND S ResldenticO w I 6 Q l4 � I 4 W � 13 stn9le family detcic4, ed MAP PREPARED BY 19 LT °�� I W 3 . EXtSTtt�tG ZON1PtG - 5ub,jecf parcel a►n cx In j nf, PR 5 Il;�, 4. WOVELY LN• and MEADOvu LN , to be public str-eeats 5 u S, +- f'o C t �-y of Pa1rn De5er-t- s to,ndcLrds . CONSULTANTS , INC . 'E.ngineers - Planners- Surveyors e R l 6 I I S Dr4lnct. � to be b surfaces cor-tctuc Ion . ., .::."1 .:......:.:.:::. _ 9 Y _ , • _ N 9 HIGHWAY 1 U T S E 2IIIO 6 x Lo G . 0 0 5 u t' e t o a dh b n s e s �e• O 51 e. ohomeowner's ..�. la, � m l N v � Assoc.As I IN N-111 �c9 :; P 0 1 IAN N D WECALIF . 9 L C 21 � S e r a c� P_t n c3, w� W dS r e s v c r I C Cb ` / � V b ct c e a, t h t a ( ! W 1 . a-t' r D s 3 7 y e + , t y f N 37 1 �L CC r C S-=.. . E t t a e r u 1 t o S e C i v e t t a l -f'o r •ta. Ed' o r o Coo n s n 1 N. 6 C 34 3 � F 6 6 8 w 135. 8 135"1 NEE (to be e_ torlded in Hovel o x y Ln• -r�r m exist. at Ntlontere live. t 9 T e 1 o S G c� r i n ner_ a v b T�c e. 1 1 oCo .1 �P ti n C y 5 P 1 N Ln I r � I 6 ,� 10. G". : 4s Service b Sout e a o a � t •. ; ;:,:: �F'::::::::.::::::: ::::::;:::;:.;:':;:;. __ 1v h r C l t� r n t c� G Co . .�"� n s o , Y _. c9 '�5' �` r ' O ' I 1 • U i-i I i ties to be 1a,ced under r-ounci er Cat DEVELOPER / OWN PE O t IR u e P y r re i rn v n-�' f .t y t9 - t r I _I GERMAIN I)ti + EVE LOPM E NT CO . INCO r _ 1 � o 4 a.. 1 1 7 7• 50 A 1 C MI N A O P R E 0 , � 0 0 C LA �. � 1 ..t~� i a � P P R N M GS 2� .• C L I F 2 1 :\..:.- N�s 6 4 3 0 �t 13 "I 5 - c ,. 3 d v to 18 Z o l ._ :; - o . 00 ;; :;,.; ;:�:- :�;:. F � � NO. OF LOTS 20 � 5 1 y 3 ' I • O N v 3� N T MO E R E N F 1 Y O ACRES 4 . . ti i 8 Q 5 N ti a 0 ti 8 135, �W , MEADOWS 1 = 40 10 SCALE E 1 1 4 _. i I �` 2 = — ly 4 N � I J ATE D . . . .::. ::;: •• � ;:. :..:. .:: : , ;;: I � � l MAY 2 8 1 � .:• 9 86 CU I RT S RI CHARD R H - r + 1 0 ! D S UP s • �9a 3 a ARCHITECT Iv C T E CT ,..r .... Architecture. Lan d Planning / I � r 2 I 4 D 6 BO I 35 Valley i cJ e Vi sta a � I Y 1 -~ Cathedral CITY O F '" al City, California (619) 324-7125 0 I - I 1 1 1 I r x 6 d 1 a' r . 20 I UJ _ 1 O :: - t 0 0 0 o 0 0 y 1 'o s F ' 3 I O 4 FEET�• ' T � N•. U1,v�P I ,✓' ;;>::;: �r�^::;:;i;>;;:;::;;>:;;a ::::- 2 2 •to ti L '� 20 L-0 GO 80 - 3 I °w COUNTY OF- RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA i T E. G.TE• — — —— r-1- So.CAt_. GA CO� — — — — ��EXIST U.G. Etr — — — - "}�-- vv -- — — — 5 — — — —1�" _. T 5 0.0019 T 2„— t=.t_• 1 �- n - - - _n +r? T,m it r T � - T- - nr m - m ,s7 1'n '� m 7ri r r.�- �. - . 1 �O E ' Hov 1 S�` 0.4 l% -� Tiia n e /7,-Y77 d•'M.H. E,,Tir7��2.$ y DESCRIPTIONto N EX15T. M M \ h5.?5.?' l 5.7� PAV'MT. T �,�,� �,,�� ��.,,� �,,�_,� �„� �� ��� ,�,_,� 1� west 1/2 of northeast - M '• — 12` _" _ 9 1/4 of southwest 1/4 F, I u — — — - - ►2 — — -�ExksT• 2" CML/CMC ST>_. WATER MAIN �C.v.W0.) W— ►2 — v` y— — _ �� R. of northwest 1/4 of 0�1section 8 T. 5 S . ■� R • 6 E . ! S. b . B . & M . 1 PLANT LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME 'N SPECIFICATIONS TREES I FN FICUS NITIDA INDIAN LAS JA JACARANDA ACUTIFOLIA JACARANDA ` ," RL RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SM SCHINUS IOLLE CALIFORN PER ST SCHINUS TEREBINTHIFOLIUS BRAZILIA>! l' 'PER SHRUBS: Z CT CARISSA G. 'T=ILEV NATAL PLU14" �, DQ NERIUM OLEANDER 'PETITE PINK' DWARF OLE NDER DL LANTANA CAMARA 'DWARF YELLOW' DWARF LAN 'ANA EA ELEAGNUS PUNGENS SILVERBAN >EV EURYOPS P. 'VIRIIiIS' GREEN LEA ` EURYOPS WI GN GREVILLEA 'NOELLI' GREVILLEA c HS HIBISCUS SINENSIS . HIBISCUS t MI MORAEA IRIDIOIDES FORTNIGHTLILY MP MURRAYA PANICULATA ORANGE SAMINE PC PRUNUS CAROLINIANA CAROLINE 'HERRY PF PHOTINIA FRASERI RED LEAF HO'TINIA TP THEVETIA PERWIANA YELLOW .ANDER XC XYLOSMA CONGESTUM SHINY X SMA ESPALIERS• w co m M � p CI CALLIANDRA INAEQUILATERA PINK POWD;R PUFF `- `~ w W GC GREWIA CAFFRA LAVENDER. aTAR FLOWER I `�' f TC TECOMARIA CAPENSIS CAPE HO SUCKLE Z W J Y 3 GROUNDCOVER• I m ~ Q Q W O a U m I -� cn G L) AC ANNUAL COLOR SEASONAL FLOWERS GM LAWN HYBRIDAB f MERMUDAWt'TIFLGREEN' LAAWN ISY 4 I PROP . LINE 6 ' SLUMPSTONE WALL ol -- oo oo Fn 00 TP _ lo ol 00 ol lo I � I (7D P 12 D �� oe 11 1D I T 13 1 Q X� 14 2 5 3 R 16 4 D 17 1 DI 8 3 R 19 -•� 1D 2 ( 4R _ ! TP TG GT 5V H5 � 7 7 6 . I � 2 m � C7N I ••.. I ,,,,_ E 5 P E�f, cc pp .z , • ` TG GI IBC V2. P F Z 2A 2�, / � I � I I• I : � G E aP r� IIII � I Ivnti I5 \J (a Lu Z ► I v 1ryp Ty I� / � ' TEP OWN WALL TP CL O O � S DEWALK 3 0 m � FN HS ST FN EV XG H5 St-i f G FN MI MP 57 i7o PG GC MP Rl. p�7 pQ x 7 !0 2 I fo (-I 3'IIS 12 1 I 2-�5 2-IS 3•15 C5P r �' EA MEADOW LANE O rP Fr+ RL D� SM Tp PF HS 5T FN s PC PF RL PG 3T FN H5 4, - pD JA •' � • I-2�4 3 7 O \,` 4 3 7 la 7 3 2A 12A- I 9 '� 15 I 3• �► -� l • 5 RB l gt•�► 2•15 30 Lu S EWALK Q N _ , _ P P. I E O t � PC '• p I ^. EP DOWN WALL • tom" �I ILLJ <C O I 1 I :�1. TG EV °C PG H5 TP 11TYr 6 �. R FENCE lsG E5P '°L Z M5 TG Co CL ATE (T F-) I "� 2 Tp YP ESP I L • T '� CS ESP C. C I Gr+ Z �,, GN I �5 U-i 14 8 i xC I , pp HS 3 HS W FF 9610 M5 4 E5P', DO I 7 G� ' LI � GI ESP � � � I 8 4D 7 1D 6 3D 5 2D 4 3D 3 1R 2 3D 1 2D - 5 CA� W W --� E5 f� G JrSP I-15 �. _ � Q 9 ' D s ESP. . • _ CL oo oo L-F I 13 I i I I i FN 4 , 30' '� W �'tMum '76 ` SLUMPSTONE WALL PROP. LINE H' SHEET ' f -