Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 23681 BEL AIR ROAD/CHIA DRIVE HOMES FILE 1 1988poll- PRECISE PLAN ZONE CHANGE TENTATIVE TRACT _____ VARIANCE PARCEL MAP G.U.P. REFER TO: AP LICA v I REQUEST: EXISTING ZONE PREPARATION PROGRESS EN APPLICATION RECEIVED DATE BY COMM TS- _ LEGAL PUBLICATION SENT -� J NOTICES SENT FIELD INVESTIGATION DEPTS. NOTIFIED BUILDING 12 ENGINEERING FIRE _2Z POLICE ZZ RECREATION & PARKS SCHOOL DISTRICT DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS EKT-fprTE7i FLOOD CONTROL -r :!Avsl PRELIIV;NARY MEETING L A I 2 (A bi IvEI STAFF REPORT L� FINAL PLAN APPROVAL PRECISE PLAN (6) LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) PLAN. DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING PC. HEARING PUBLISHED PC. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT NOTIFIED C.C. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE N0. RESOLUTION N0, EFFECTIVE DATE RECORDED FO�DA A BANK 7QNING MAP CORRECTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA ' APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 36 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD,, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to September 20, 1988 and continued to October 18, 1988 to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, the planning commission approved the revised tentative map at its October 18, 1988 meeting. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, the tentative tract map 23681 was called up for review by the Palm Desert City Council which held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10, 1988 on said map. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff reports for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, September 20, 1988 and October 18, 1988 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or Improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission and city council have considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of.. the Clty,of Palm Desert, .' . California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the 1 council in this case. 2: That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No..TT 23681. for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. 1` PASSED, "APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this loth day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit:. AYES: CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: BENSON ABSTAIN: NONE ' JE1 M.� 8ON, Mayor b S. ROY WILSON, Mayo ro—Tempore ATTEST: It SHEILA R. GIL IGAN, City/Clerk City of Palm Desert, California e /dig z i 2 RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 a ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Development: 1, The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: ' Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department b" Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6.�� "`All lot lines shall be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. ' 6. That this applicant shall pay for the required Improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation In the neighborhood could be a problem. 7. That the pad heights shall not be higher than those shown on the revised plan dated ' October '1988 on file with the department of community development. Department of Public Works: ' 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and "''Palm Desert Ordinance No. 607, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map: ' t �- 3 i , RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a dralna ge study prepared by a civil O engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79-17 and 79-66, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. �. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 6. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted :to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any Improvements is commenced. Off—site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size, and configuration. "As—built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 .of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, ail , existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right—of—way at 60 feet on Bel Air Road/Barberry Lane and 50 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. + 11. 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. 12. Any and all off—site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the • , ! issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. x 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, , shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance 3 of the grading permit. • ♦ i 4 ; , - e RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 r : { l 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification In accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 16. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road at such time as requested by the director of public works. Applicant shall submit surety bonds in a form acceptable-to the city attorney guaranteeing the construction of the Improvements. ; City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is' required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 26' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. ' 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be Issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 6. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall .`; also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". City Council: 1. Chia Road shall be constructed in a straight line from the south boundary of TT 23681 ' and on the site covered by said map. 6 RESOLUTION N0. 88-143 - - • 2.' " Bike path" access shall be constructed from Arrow Trail to Chia Road as approved by the department of public works. r 3. The minimum dwelling unit size shall 'be 2;000 square feet exclusive of garage. 4. All housing plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission prior to issuance of building permits. /dig , n 6 ®r 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 March 2, 1989 Mr. Roger Moore Gerald J. Chazan, Inc. 431 N. Brand Avenue, Suite 101 Glendale, CA 91203 Re: Tract 23681 Dear Mr. Moore: Pursuant to your letter of February 22, 1989 to Pat Conlon, please be advised that "Lana Vista Lane" may be used in place of Homestead Road as it appears on your tract map. This revision has been discussed with the public works department and they have no problem with it. Yours truly, ,zL4 Stephen R. Smith Associate Planner /tm cc: Public Works Department Building & Safety Department 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (6191 346-0611 \ k November 30 1988 4'eC' 1988 COMI!AINiry DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C;4 �IF PALM DESERT Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive , Palm Desert , California 92260 Gentlemen : Subject: Tentative Tract Mao 23681 Subdividina 11 .2 Acres into 35 Single Family Lots in the R- 1 10,000 Zone Located on the South Side of Skyward Way, West of Proposed Chia Road and North of the Monterra Development At its regular meeting of November 10 , 1988 , the Palm Desert City Council adopted Resolution No . 88- 143 approving the subject tentative tract map. Enclosed for your records is a fully executed copy of Resolution No. 88- 143 which includes conditions of approval which were added by the City Council at the public hearing. If you have any questions or require any additional information , please do not hesitate to contact us . Sincerely, SHEILA R. GILLIGAN CITY CLERK/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER SRG:mpf Enclosure (as noted) cc : Department of Community Development/Planning RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to September 20, 1988 and continued to October 18, 1988 to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, the planning commission approved the revised tentative map at its October 18, 1988 meeting. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, the tentative tract map 23681 was called up for review by the Palm Desert City Council which held a duly noticed public hearing on November 10, 1988 on said map. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff reports for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, September 20, 1988 and October 18, 1988 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission and city council have considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of. the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. TT 23681 for the reasons set forth In this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 10th day of November, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSENT: BENSON ABSTAIN: NONE 1 J M. ON, Maybr S. ROY WILSON, Mayo ro—Tempore ATTEST: � �1 � ;C /mil r✓ SHEILA R. GIL IGANSHEILA R. GIL IGAN, Cit�lerklerk City of Palm Desert, Calfornia /dig 2 RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. All lot lines shall be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. 6. That this applicant shall pay for the required improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation in the neighborhood could be a problem. 7. That the pad heights shall not be higher than those shown on the revised plan dated October 1988 on file with the department of community development. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 607, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79-17 and 79-56. shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28. and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted .to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off-site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right-of-way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road/Barberry Lane and 50 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by'the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. . 4 RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. lb. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road at such time as requested by the director of public works. Applicant shall submit surety bonds in a form acceptable to the city attorney guaranteeing the construction of the Improvements. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent. to the responsible inspecting authority. 6. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". City Council: 1. Chia Road shall be constructed in a straight line from the south boundary of TT 23681 and on the site covered by said map. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 88-143 2. Bike path access shall be constructed from Arrow Trail to Chia Road as approved by the department of public works. 3. The minimum dwelling unit size shall be 2,000 square feet exclusive of garage. 4. All housing plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Palm Desert Architectural Commission prior to issuance of building permits. /dlg 6 THOMAS R. FARREEE, M.D. 73012 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CAMFORNIA 92400 September 6 , 1988 Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commission Secretary City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Diaz; I am writing in follow up to our phone conversation today regarding TT 23681 . The traffic situation on Alamo and Skyward is already dangerous. I brought this to the attention of the Mayor and City Council in the wake of a school bus accident which occurred at this intersection in November 1987. This situation will become even more dangerous if all of the traffic to the new development must use Alamo and Skyward. I urge the planning commision to insist that Chia Road be completed through to Haystack Road as part of the approval of TT 23681 . 1 Si Merely, T1k 4 Farrell, M.D. ' t ivo S> AGENDA PACKET E �yg� (13 DATE___ 11/7/88 NOV 8 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DErANIMENI CITY IF PALM OE$ERT CITY CLERK City Of Palm Desert, Calif Res Case # TT 23681 In response to you Legal Notice of 10/21/88 I wish to ex- press support for the street plan as approved at the previous meeting. In particular, I think it essential that Chia Rd. be completed through to Haystack Rd. , as a means to relieve some of the traffic on Alamo Dr. which is certain to result when the Monterra and Chazan projects are completed. Without Chia Rd. , all traffic generated by the Chazan project would be forced to exit and enter on Somera. Skyward, and Bel Air Roads, thus im- posing an unreasonable burden on those streets. Since we live on the Corner of Bel Air Rd. and Alamo Dr. , the resolution of this problem is of utmost interest to us. Thanks Sincerely � �C'r c s Richard C . Sloane 73-014 Bel Air Rd. Palm Desert, Calif (619) 568-2580 MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT ®r. :. TO: BRUCE ALTMAN AND RAY DIAZ FROM : MAYOR JEAN M . BENSON SUBJECT: CHAZEN DEVELOPMENT - TT 23681 DATE : October 19 , 1988 Please accept this as my official request that the City Council consider the October 18th Planning Commission approval of the subject project . I have had several phone calls from adjacent property owners who still have some serious concerns about the project and certain conditions ( or lack thereof) imposed by the Commission . If you have any questions , please let me know . ?E 'WN CITY OF PAIM DESERT DEPARTMR%V OF CC M MWff DEVEUNMWr TPJ90 rrnkL LETTER I. Honorable Mayor and City Council II. RAT: Consideration to an appeal of the decision of the planning commission approving a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 35 single family lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Chia Road and north of the Monterra development. III. APPLICANT: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NO: TT 23681 V. DATE: November 10, 1988 VI. QMTNM: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. 88-143 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. TT 23681. .F Planning Commission Resolution No. 1315. F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated August 16, September 20, and October 18, 1988. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ---------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF ATICPN: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution N0.88-143 , approving TT 23681. B. DISCUSSICK: The applicant requested approval of a 35 lot single family subdivision. After three Public hearings before the planning commission and five series of revisions to the map reducing the number of lots from 36 to 35, changing the street pattern, lowering pad heights and other matters, the revised map was approved by the planning commission at its October 18, 1988 meeting on a 3-1 voteRichards absent). (Chairman Erarood dissenting and Commissioner Rich The Property is zoned R-1 10,000. Minimum proposed lot size is 10,954 square feet and the average size is 11,525 square feet. I'notwithstanding the revisions made by the applicant and the lots exceeding the minimum requirement, there are still area residents who have serious concerns. V v JANE C. WOOLLEY P. O. BOX 1093, PALM DESERT, CA. 92261 ,oil h gL�a \j �;a v October 31, 1988. \UV 1 1988 Dear .Sirs ;cNMMUNIC T NEF PALMLNI DEiARIMENI Re: Legal Notice; case # TT 23681 As we will not be in town to attend the meeting scheduled for November loth relating to the above case, we did want our feelings to be counted. Regarding the subdivision of APN 630-190-012 and 013, we are not particularly happy about it. It seems to us that the lots are much too small for the surrounding area. We would vote "no" on this appeal. Regarding the opening of Chia Road to Haystack we are wholly IN AGREEMENT. As our residence is on the corner of Alamo Drive, we have been most anxious for 12 years to have Chia relieve some of the downhill traffic. Thank you for allowing us to voice our vote and keeping us apprised of the action taking place in our neighborhood. Sincerely, ZTW,%:, W&4Qy-tK Jane Woolley C�iL�'ub Shirley pork 73-010 Somera Road / OCT2 .BE 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 �w pq TYl4y O TO svmm YERGER R T C:HAFtLI ATIBREMOTKNO'WN NfJFABER r, s N [ Nu C !q 811CFI ADDRESS h '?�W6.o A !7 DESERT, ; tliKYiNf _ i Rffl1SED _ O!"M FORWARD R7g 14 IMTIALSL G${b� o� „�-R,rPamn Im®�� L=—�= 2 71510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 _)c -_ �- - - - • - . . . ' FPS{�—=+iJ2-1�12 MARTTNEZ ALEJANDRO J & TER 73214 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT CA 92260 MAR 11 1.901'57h`.l E"WD �TXMIE:' E XI='D 1iAI,RV Ill::"I_, V1 Fa I'!lE't I iU" � `94, T ! 1i4h4TEail::Y'E)'C:A�9C3�J9DIi'S�4A'r� F IZ7TIJRN TO /am DOU 95 :L1.01. 1551. FWD TIME L:XC D :, _ I; DOUGLASS Z 5 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 7(32t)0 CALL.IANDRA S'T sl9s�� PALM DESERT CA 922G0....598-9 RETURN TO SENDER m a W DO (GLASS THC IMAS hl JR & CA MchWo 81-395 RT_VERLAND DR SNDTCI,CA 92201 E 7 £S,. .✓ er F U S.POJ`ACf�; 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 O S n �1I J IH Ll rB H19,�,sJK 1944CIre i�7 ov�u e CIO w� ao o W h/o✓TEJY/cos r � CA , I N ZWp I L O z U ` 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October 21 , 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of the decision of the planning commission approving a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 35 single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 T -H I I `0.006 �. I . ROADROAD 93 � SICST 1 I WAY $NT WARD WA 1 SUN ETHDOAD '. HOM ESTER '. ¢OAD _r a .y . �). • ,T s�: DAVI$ RD. 1a - � - win IH Rucp poARo TRAIL P - SUBJECT PROPERTY LAr c uqr Imo. d -,� - I ' 5.09EN lggOW TRAIL 1pOMESEQ !E 66 I 10 r A. • n J pASp — OpRT a MONTEq \ ` FEATHER TRAIL F l WHITE OR In order to provide adequate traffic circulation in the area and to mitigate any traffic impacts this development may create, the city council may require that Chia Road be opened northerly to connect with Haystack Road or possibly the extention of Homestead Road east from Alamo to connect with the streets in this project. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 10, 1988, at 7:00 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: Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk October 28, 1988 City of Palm Desert, California CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARIMENP OF OmcNITy DEVECAPMEw TRANSMITPAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration to an appeal of the decision of the planning commission approving a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 35 single family lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Chia Road and north of the Monterra development. III. APPLICANT: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NO: TT 23681 V. DATE: November 10, 1988 VI. OCNrENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Resolution No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. TT 23681. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1315. F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated August 16, September 20, and October 18, 1988. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A. STAFF REQMMENIDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. approving TT 23681. B. DISCUSSION: The applicant requested approval of a 35 lot single family subdivision. After three public hearings before the planning commission and five series of revisions to the map reducing the number of lots from 36 to 35, changing the street pattern, lowering pad heights and other matters, the revised map was approved by the planning commission at its October 18, 1988 meeting on a 3-1 vote (Chairman Erwood dissenting and Commissioner Richards absent). The property is zoned R-1 10,000. Minimum proposed lot size is 10,954 square feet and the average size is 11,525 square feet. Notwithstanding the revisions made by the applicant and the lots exceeding the minimum requirement, there are still area residents who have serious concerns. TRANSMITTAL I F= TT 23681 NWEMBER 10, 1988 The concerns of the residents as expressed to the planning camnission were: i) The lots are not a minimum of 13,000 square feet as are other lots in the nearby area. ii) The circulation system as proposed will result in additional traffic on some streets. iii) Some people do not want Chia Road opened to Haystack. iv) Some people do not want Chia Road constructed on part of the city park site. v) Some people felt that Homestead should have been extended to Alarm and that Homestead,and Chia should connect into the Silver Spur Ranch area. vi) Some people felt that the quality of homes to be built would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff felt that the map as revised was acceptable and reconrceZded approval of same. Item (i) is discussed at length on pages 4 and 5 of the October 18, 1988 staff report. Item (ii) is discussed at length on page 4 of the envircrvnental checklist comments of the August 16, 1988 staff report and pages 5 and 6 of the October 18, 1988 report. Items (iii) and (iv) are covered in the memo of the director of public works dated October 14, 1988. Item (v), specifically extending Homestead westerly to Alamo was not possible in that the applicant does not own the necessary 60 foot wide and 400 foot long stretch of property and the low number of lots on Homestead (10) did not warrant the city acquiring this land for street purposes. With respect to connecting Homestead and Chia into the Silver Spur Ranch area the earliest map did in fact propose it in that it was felt that this would be a benefit to residents "in that area to get to Haystack Road. The Silver Spur Ranch Homeowners Association quickly and clearly advised that it did not wish to be given this benefit and so it was dropped. Looking at a map of the Silver Spur area indicates the circuitous nature of the 2 TRANSMITTAL LF=R TP 23681 NOS AMBER 10, 1988 streets in that area which precludes Homestead being an effective alternative to Haystack Road. Item (vi) concerning the quality of homes to be constructed is discussed on pages 4 and 5 of the October 18, 1988 staff report. Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by: /tn 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to September 20, 1988 and continued to October 18, 1988 to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, the planning commission approved the revised tentative map at its October 18, 1988 meeting. WHEREAS, said application has compiled with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant 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 city council did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff reports for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, September 20, 1988 and October 18, 1988 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of .improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits. and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance, of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All lot lines shall be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. 6. That this applicant shall pay for the required improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation in the neighborhood could be a problem. 7. That the pad heights shall not be higher than those shown on the revised plan dated October 1988 on file with the department of community development. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 507, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off-site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plaits and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26,32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right-of-way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road/Barberry Lane and 50 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road at such time as requested by the director of public works. Applicant shall submit surety bonds in a form acceptable to, the city attorney guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPIYI for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is .placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department., 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be. made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". /dlg 5 OWEN REALTY OctobeA 24, 1988 OCT 2 C611`9,988 PaPm Decent PZanning ,Commzsion 73510 FAed WaAi.ng Dn cve COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Palm DueAt, Ca i6oATua 92260 CITY �F PALM DESERT DeoA Ptanning Comm scion: 1 woutd Zike to take thin oppontuntty .to .thank you 6oA a2.t youA .time .in appnov.ing TT 23681 a{tm ouA th.uAd planning meeting with you. We undmstand and appnec,icrte ,the stAuggte you went thAough .in ,teaching .thi6 dec iz ion. Thank you, OWEN REALTY Chahtene McLean CM:kc 72-624 El Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (619) 346-0646 Mail to: P. O. Box 1135, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 I l Do��7 DV DD D& 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING CCM41SSICN MEETING NOTICE OF ACTICIN Date: October 20, 1988 Chazan Development J.F. Davidson Associates 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: DTI 23681, The Planning Ccrrmiission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of October 18, 1988. APPROVED BY ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMI SION RFSOLVPION NO. 1315, SUBJECT TO OONDITIONS. CARRIED 3-1 (aiAIRMAN EMgOOD VOTED NO). 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. I ; � i RAMO A. DIAZ, SE PALM DESERT PLANNING �SSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal I. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1315 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF PALM ,DESERT, CAI,IFORNIA ;APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO :'5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF 110P:IESTE;Al), S011TH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE;. 111URE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 63U-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planninq Commission of the, City or Pahn Dos-, t, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed publ-In hearing ahiuh "as continued to September 20, 1988 and continued to October 1H, 1988 to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requiremeuts of the "Cite of Palm Desert Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89" in that the director of community development, his determined that the project Will not have a significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and cousidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard: said planning commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified iu the staff report for TT `:3681 dated August 16, 1988, September 20, 1988 and October 18, 1988 nil fila in tho department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract, map: (a) That the proposed map is conAst.ent with applicallip general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvements of the proposer) subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable Cor the type or devolopun?nt. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed drinsity of development-. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements wilt not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access Hurough or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract nine tho pl:umiug comrnLssion has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City, of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. PLANNING C014111ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1315 NOW, THEREFORE, ISE IT REtiOLVED by the Planning Coumnission of the City of Palm ' Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That tho abovo recitations are true and correct, and Constitute the findings of the COMMi55iOn in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. TT 23681 for the reasons set fiu-th in this resolution and subject; to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVF D and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 19,88, by the 'follouling vote, to wit:: AYES: DOWNS, LADLOW, WIIITLOCK NOES: ERCVOOD ABSENT RICHARDS ABSTAIN: NONE RICHAED LIMMOD, Chairman ATTEST- RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec et /dlg PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1315 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department cf Corinnunit: Devcl1nent: 1. The development of the property- shall conform subsLanl,ialk wills exltibits on file with the department of courmunw, developmunt.fplanning. as modified he Lice following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project: shall connnence within one year from Lhe date of final approval unless an extension of We is grrrulofl: .otherwis" said approval shall become null, void .out of no effect whalsouver. 3. The development of the property- described Herein shall I"! spljocl. to the restrictions and limitations set: forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or Nhich horeofLer may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of an, use contemplated by this approval, the apldicant shall first obtain permits and or clearnoce froth the following agencies: - - Coachella Valley AEater Dis.t.ricl. Pa.ho Desert Commission City fire Marshal Public Works Department. Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above ngQnQy, shall be presented to W, department of building, ;ucd safcl,y at Lhe Lime of issuvm, of a huiling permit_ for it,(! _ use con'tertplated here!vitlr. 5. all lot lines shall be at the top of the slope except as may be appruved by the director of couununity development. 6. That, this applicant shall pray for the ructuired itnp= ",mnnts to up ?n (Via Road U, connect with Haystack in that wiLhout. this " unnection tho traffic :circulation in the neighborhood could he a prohlctn. 7. That the pad heiLltts shntl not be higher than Lhosw rhonn on thy, rep ised plan dated October loss on file uit.lc the departanent of cntnmimity i3okolupmont. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees, in accordance ;cit.Jr Section 26 19 of ::he Palm Dc-,sert Nuoicipat Cod^ and Palm Desert Ordinance NY 507, shall he paid luim to r,•curdation Of final neap. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1315 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off-site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right-of-way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road/Barberry Lane and 50 feet on Chia _ Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. i 4 �. .. . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1315 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road at such time as requested by the director of public works. Applicant shall submit surety bonds in a form acceptable to the city attorney guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the, system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire department. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles: Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". /dlg i .._ 5 MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: BRUCE ALTMAN AND RAY DIAZ FROM : MAYOR JEAN M . BENSON SUBJECT: CHAZEN DEVELOPMENT - TT 236BI DATE : October 19, 1988 Please accept this as my official request that the City Council consider the October 18th Planning Commission approval of the subject project . I have had several phone calls from adjacent property owners who still have some serious concerns about the project and certain conditions (or lack thereof) imposed by the Commission . If you have any questions , please let me know. YJEA M IR I_ ' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October 21 , 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of the decision of the planning commission approving a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 35 single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the proposed Arrow Trail /Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 is DEER GRASS ,. I TITEFJ 7-1 7 j S - i 1 ROAD OMERA - . t ''i O;C t3Efl 1 I m - R TDB Rl SIEST 43..�90 1!:: 4--- I WAY SKYWARD WA SUN I �� r r• R-1 10.000 ;IR ROAD BEL AIR +L L o Gb . :T 1:E Dr.Rc rgA�v I `5° I i HOMESTE/+ QOAD --,. 00 ib to q L. 1 � - ; - MIR gUCM O01R0 TRAIL DAVIS RD. 110 ,- ' _ i. _ I SUBJECT PROPERTY' 1 , ' u r C ..T { OROA[H ARROW T. pRO KX11 E N LRNOw T'1� hll !l S MOATIR RO FEATHER TRAIL J RAS$ - � �WHITE DR In order to provide adequate traffic circulation in the area and to mitigate any traffic impacts this development may create, the city council may require that Chia Road be opened northerly to connect with Haystack Road or possibly the extention of Homestead Road east from Alamo to connect with the streets in this project. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 10, 1988, at 7:00 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: Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk October 28, 1988 City of Palm Desert, California 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October 21 , 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an appeal of the decision of the planning commission approving a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 35 single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: i� APN 630-190-012 and 013. �A In order to provide adequate traffic circulation in the area and to mitigate any traffic impacts this development may create, the city council may require that Chia Road be opened northerly to connect with Haystack Road or possibly the extention of Homestead Road east from Alamo to connect with the streets in this project. SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 10, 1988, at 7:00 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: Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk October 28, 1968 City of Palm Desert, California E 3 IN m 10 c 7 O � 1nT E IPr423CA OCT 1 8 1988 c 1-008118A292 1P,/ 16/88 0 •c IC$ I F*.7REPJn i3 V] COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ZCZC 02661 RENO NV 1 - IFS 0925A PDT RENA CITY tf PALM DESERT c ICS IP'923CA T'T N a E 3 N EEL I VLR 4-6116975292 10/ 16188 c ICS IPM NGZ CSP 6125713137 FRS TD'2N UG MINNAPOLIS MN 31 10- 18 1130A EST' P..`1S RA'-lO7J A CIAZ, SECRETARY, DLR PAL.^1 DESERT PLANNING CCERIISSION RPT DLY MG'•R, DLR CITY OF PAL.1 'DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DR E PALM DESERT CA 92260 c c RE: CASE TT23681 m c WE OWN A HOUSE AT 73-249 HAYSTACK ROAD FOR REASONS GIVEN IN Y'lUR :! NOTICc• DATED OCTOnER 6TH WE URGE THAT CHIA ROAD PIE EXTENDED NORTH T^ Ln d E IAYSTACX ROAD. 3 f0 MR AND MRS COCJ„LG F MELTON 980 MISSISSIPPI ST p "INNEAPOLIS MN 55432 1128 EST NNNN 1129 EST c IPP923CA ° -c r_ sad INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 0('T 1 7 1988 COMMUNIC EVTY Of PALM EUESUERTNRTMENT TO: Ray Diaz, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23681 - CHAZEN DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 14, 1988 After our review and based on discussions with the project engineers for the above-referenced subdivision, the following comments are offered: The subdivision pad heights, as shown on the revised tentative map are still at issue. We would agree in concept with the position stated in the staff report with the exception of the discussion of drainage easements/systems for upper tier to lower tier lots. This approach to property drainage is more properly utilized with in-fill development situations. With a "new" subdivision, we would be well advised to avoid, if at all possible, this type of lot drainage. The street grades, as shown on the tentative map, can still be lowered resulting In lower pad elevations ranging from two to four feet. We feel this would be the appropriate direction for the subdivision engineer to follow. The second area of concern relates to the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road. We feel that the construction of this segment of roadway is an essential part of the proposed subdivision. As stated In the staff report, the failure to provide for this street connection would indeed create additional traffic on Bel Air Road, Alamo Drive, and Skyward Way. The final area of concern relates to the construction of Chia Road improvements on city park site property. We support the position that the roadway will be necessary to provide adequate and proper park access thereby requiring the physical construction of the roadway on park property. RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. RJF:JSG/ms cc: Steve Smith Gregg Holtz BIRTCHER 72010 Varner Road DUNHAM Thousand Palms,CA 92270 Telephone 619 346 Oo90 C.G.Dunham General Partner October 17 , 1988 6d 6 U8 \1 4z3&9 �. UCT 1 71988 City of Palm Desert CDMMUNIT} DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 73510 Fred Waring Drive CITY QT FALM DESERT Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Steve Smith Associate Planner Re: Chazen Project Tentative Tract #23681 Dear Steve: I met with Mike Smith today of J . F. Davidson Associates, Inc. and we have come to a meeting of the minds on the grading plan for the Chazen project, (tentative tract #23681 ) , adjacent to our Monterra Project. They have agreed to lower the lot grades as follows: Lot 18 499 .0 19 500 .0 28 489 . 5 29 491 . 2 30 492 .8 31 493 . 7 32 494.0 33 495 . 5 34 498.0 35 500 .0 We, (Chazen and Birtcher Homes) , agree to the pad grades listed above . If these pad heights are not exceeded, I have no further concern with the grading for the Chazen Project. V yp�trr ly yours, C.G. Dunham Birtcher Homes CGD: ch Chueago Dallas Denver Huu,ton Irvine Laguna Niguel Los Angeles Minneapolis Palm Desert Phoenix Portland Seattle Washington,D.C. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF OCMMUNITY DEVELOPYAM STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Cmudssion DATE: October 18, 1988 CASE ND: TT 23681 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 35 single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. APPLICANT: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND: The subject tentative map has previously been before planning commission at public hearings held August 16, 1988 and September 20, 1988. Both of these previous hearings were continued to allow further study of the issues as well as to allow staff to mail new notices of hearing to a wider, area of residents. Originally 46 property owners were mailed notices in July, 1988. These 46 properties were within the prescribed 300' of the subject site. Pursuant to commission direction staff expanded the area and number of notices to 127 properties. The additional properties were determined as having the possibility of being impacted if Chia Road were opened to Haystack or if Homestead Road were extended easterly from Alamo to connect with the streets in the project. The issues that have been raised at the earlier public hearings were as follows: i) Residents in the Silver Spur Ranch area felt that Chia Road and Homestead Road should not connect through to Silver Spur Ranch area. ii) The fire department is requiring that a second access be provided to Homestead Road in that as it presently is proposed it is a dead-end street in excess of 500 feet. iii) Staff, as well as the developer of the Monterra project, is requesting and suggesting that the pad elevations of the lots on the north side of Homestead Road be lowered to reduce their impact on the Monterra development and on lots to the north. STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCDOBER 18, 1988 iv) Residents on Skyward Way requested that the lots in the proposed subdivision be increased in size to be oampatible with their 13,000 square foot lots to assure adequate privacy, separation of hones and proper placement of hones on the lots. v) Residents near Scmera Road and Chia Road requested that Chia Road not be opened through to Haystack due to the children who play in the street in that area. vi) Chia Road along the east property line of the subdivision is shown to be located partially on the city park site. If the park site is not developed, then Chia Road should not be located on that property in that it is only needed for access to the subdivision. vii) Some area residents stated that there are more than 20 children in the area and that at least a portion of the park site should be planned and funded. viii) Other residents felt that the park site should be left in its natural state. ix) Residents in the area of Barberry and Bel Air Road asked that Barberry Lane not be extended frcm Honestead Road to Bel Air and that instead Homestead be extended to connect with Alamo to provide the second access required by the fire department. x) Several residents spoke in a general fashion concerning noise, traffic, oanpatibility of development with the area and quality of life issues. II. ANALYSIS• The property is zoned R-1 10,000 which requires minimim, 10,000 square foot lots with minimum width of 90 feet. All of the proposed lots ccmply with these minimums. In fact, most of the lots exceed 11,000 square feet. At this point we will discuss the issues which have been raised at earlier hearings and attempt to resolve as many as passible and propose options for cannission to follow. The plan as presently before ccmission has been amended to resolve many of the concerns. Item (i) concerning the connection of Chia Road and Homestead Road through to the Silver Spur area has been eliminated in that the intersections of Homestead and Chia and Little Bend Trail and Arrow Trail will not connect. 2 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OC1UBER 18, 1988 Item (ii) concerns the fire department requirement of a second access from the west end of Homestead Road. The revised plan provides for Homestead to turn northerly and extend through to the Bel Air and Barberry Lane intersection, providing for through traffic circulation. Item (iii) concerns the pad elevations of the lots proposed on the north side of Homestead as well as relative pad height differences between adjacent rows of lots. In the first instance the row of lots on the north side of Homestead are proposed to be raised above natural grade between 1 foot and 6 1/2 feet, on each lot. In the case of the 8 easterly lots 4 of then will be higher than the adjacent lots to the south in Monterra 100 feet removed (supposedly uphill). The westerly 3 lots have been altered due to the new street system and their heights are no longer an issue. In checking with the developer of Monterra, he still has serious concerns about the heights of this first row of lots. The second part of this height of pad problem concerns the height difference between the high and the low rows of lots within the project. The lots on the north side of Homestead range from 10 feet to 12 feet above the adjacent lots to the north which front onto Bel Air. The lots on the north side of Bel Air range from 5 1/2 to 8 feet above the adjacent lots to the north which front onto Skyward Way. At the last hearing co mission requested a detail shaving how these slopes will be handled. In the past staff has endured much pain and suffering in trying to locate block walls between lots in such circumstances. The revised plan shows that the property line will be at the top of slope. This will mean that the lower lot will have all of the slope in its back yard. The slope takes up from 19 feet to 28 feet of the rear of these lots. If this type of grading is allowed then it may be advisable to increase the depth of these lower lots, otherwise the entire required rear yard setback will be taken up with slope. The applicant's engineer indicated two reasons for proposing the grading as shown: creation of view lots and establishing positive drainage to the streets. 3 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCICBER 18, 1988 The public works department advises that the proposed grading also results from using 2-% slope on the streets whereas as little as 1% or even 1/2 of 1% could be used and thereby result in lower pad heights. In addition, the engineer was advised that the grading ordinance in order to minimize the necessity of raising pads so that they drain to the street specifically allows for the creation of drainage easements along the side property lines of the lower tier of lots to drain the upper tier of lots. This drainage mechanism could be achieved by installing underground six (6) inch drain pipe in the side yards of the lower tier of lots and extending those out to Bel Air Road and Skyward Way. The applicant chose not to avail himself of this method of lowering the pad heights. CamLission will nee&to determine which form the grading and pad elevations should take. Details can then be worked out between the applicant and the public works department staff based on the direction provided by planning co uission. Item (iv) concerns the size of the proposed lots. The property is zoned for minimum 10,000 square foot lots. Most of the proposed lots exceed 11,000 square feet. Residents in the area pointed out that relative to their 13,000 square foot lots these lots will be more crowded, have less privacy and have less aesthetic appeal. The applicant has provided staff with siting of the existing houses on the north side of Skyward taken from recent air photos. These hones have distances between them ranging from 17 feet to 26 feet. The zoning ordinance provides for a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet and the total of both side yards on any lot must equal at least 20 feet. Therefore, the minimum separation between two proposed hones could be as little as 16 feet, but if this were the case there would be 20-24 feet on the other side. The average can be expected to be 20 feet of separation (10 feet on each side). In addition the maximum lot coverage in this zone is 30$, which on an 11,000 square foot lot would limit the total area under roof to 3300 square feet. Total required setbacks would equal about 5300 square feet or 48% of the site. The homes then will need to be designed to provide an average 22% more open space (setback) area in order to comply with the coverage limit. The five easterly hones on the north side of Skyward based on 13,000 square foot lot areas have lot coverages ranging from 28% to 29%. 4 STAFF 1UMRT TT 23681 OC1ClBER 18, 1988 Using both methods of measuring open space (i.e. setback distances between buildings and allowed coverage limit (30%) versus the existing coverages) it is seen that the proposed development will be very similar to the existing development. The one area where these homes could differ would be in their height. Typically, newer homes are being built with higher (steeper) roof pitches. The zoning ordinance limits height to 18 feet in this zone. Existing hones in the area appear to be somewhat lower than the maximum allowed. As a policy staff has been referring all single family dwellings in excess of 15 feet to the architectural commission for review to assure compatibility. Item (v) concerns whether Chia Road should be opened through to Haystack Road. Residents near the proposed new road were opposed to it and cited children who play in the street at this time. Other residents felt that opening Chia to Haystack would reduce traffic on Skyward, Bel Air and Alamo. The public works department originated this matter by requesting that this applicant be required to construct this section of road as a condition on this map. This piece of road is required to provide proper circulation in the area and to provide access to the park site should it be developed. To put off opening this street until and unless the park is created would unnecessarily add traffic to Bel Air, Alamo and Skyward Way. Commission will need to determine if this street segment is to be required. The environmental assessment contained in the report dated August 16, 1988 assumed that this connection would be made and it supported the recc mendation of a negative declaration. Item (vi) questions whether or not lot 'A' (Chia Road) should be located on the city park site properly if it only serves this development. If the park site were never to be developed or if the city doesn't need this segment of street adjacent to lots 27 and 28 to provide access to the park site, then this street should be located to the west exclusively on the applicant's property. If the city needs this street to provide adequate access to the park then it is reasonable to give up 30-35 feet of the south end of the park site for street purposes. Commission and/or city council will need to provide staff with direction in this matter. 5 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OcTOOM 18, 1988 Item (vii) design and finding for development of the park site is not a part of this application. Item (viii) represented the other side of the park issue. These people wanted the property to remain in its natural state. This again is not tied directly to this application. Item (ix) concerned the opening of Homestead between Alamo and this project. The applicant looked into this and decided to connect Homestead with Bel Air instead. This type of connection satisfies the fire department and should have .little impact on residents at the intersection of Bel Air and Barberry. Assuming Chia Road is connected through to Haystack then only 6-7 hones should choose to take Homestead to Bel Air and west to Alamo. Most hones should choose to go to Chia to get to Haystack. Item (x) was general items relating to quality of life issues such as traffic, air pollution and compatibility of the development with the existing neighborhood. This property represents the last major infill situation on the south side of the city. The revised plan calls for 35 lots all in excess of the 10,000 square foot minimum (most in excess of 11,000 square feet). The traffic and resulting air pollution created by 35 additional dwelling units will not be "the straw that breaks the camel's back." The 35 new dwelling units represent less than .2% of the city's 15,000 dwelling units. . Traffic in the immediate area will not be negatively impacted provided the needed mitigation measures are taken. Even if the opening of Chia Road to Haystack were not required as a condition on this development it would be very difficult to prove that this development would create traffic problems because of the low density of development in the area. III. F MINGS• The findings necessary to approve a tentative tract map were analyzed in the August 16, 1988 staff report. Those findings are still valid and are hereby included by reference. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The 36 lot subdivision was reviewed in the August 16, 1988 staff report. This 35 lot subdivision will not alter that previous assessment. Based on 6 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCTOBER 18, 1988 that assessment and subject to imposition of required mitigation measures as delineated therein the director recommends adoption of a negative declaration of environmental impact. V. CONCLUSION: Many of the previously. outstanding concerns have been resolved. The following issues still need to be addressed by commission: a) Should the pad heights on Homestead Road be reduced so that Lots 31, 32, 33 and 34 are at least 1 foot below the adjacent lots in the Monterra development. b) The pad height differences between the rows of adjacent lots within this project. c) As a part of item (b) if the height difference is allowed to remain then should the lower tier of lots be increased in depth to' accommodate the 19-28 feet of slope which will exist in these lots. d) As a condition on this project should this applicant be required to install the Chia Road and connect it to Haystack Road. e) Should the southerly portion of Chia Road where it connects with Homestead be allowed to be built on and take up a portion of the city park site (this matter may need to be referred to city council). VI. ATPAOIIK�IM: A. Draft Resolution. B. Legal Notice. C. Negative Declaration. D. Report of August 16, 1988. E. Minutes of August 16, 1988. F. Report of September 20, 1988. G. Minutes of September 20, 1988. H. Comments and Correspondence Received. I. Revised tentative map. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /tm 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing with was continued to September 20, 1988 and continued to October 18, 1988 to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant 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 as justified in the staff report for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, September 20, 1988 and October 18, 1988 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. TT 23681 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All lot lines will be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. 6. That this applicant shall pay for the required improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation in the neighborhood could be a problem. 7. That the pad heights above Homestead be reduced in height so that pads 31, 32, 33 and 34 are at least one (1) foot below the approved pad height of the adjacent lot in the Monterra Development. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 507, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off—site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As—built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right—of—way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road/Barberry Lane and 60 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off—site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road at such time as requested by the director of public works. Applicant shall submit surety bonds in a form acceptable to the city attorney guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". /dlg 5 �o�T o9 pEUM D A 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. DATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: TT 23681 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: (Kazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DRIP ION/10CATION: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 35 single family lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the proposed Arrow Trail. 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 OONMUNITY DEVELOP= /tm , OO ff al-�Mnlmr11 ?��C9 �73ot10 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 October 6, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 36 single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 .rI I 7 . Iiir R- 1 O t3Of3� I II IR 000 .9711.:;. ROAD $OMERA R R— 1 SIEST ` 43..�9.0 4 li.: WAY SKYWARD WA I SUN + ,Y Y e R-1 10.000 -' iI y'Yvl .T. A•+ .I:v 'SIR ROAD ` EEL AIR KV 3 R 111111,1 3 MW 7171 9ITNv fRA.L 166b, / I � i I I i� � fOQ� r �• �• 1 MIF IDUCK DO.RO TRAIL M DAS RD. Q _ I �I SUBJECT PROPERTY_ d , • BROKEN ARROW TRAIL BROKEN >PROM' TI 1 a JOR. iSEO LI___ MOW7ER I FEATHER TRAIRIDS OURTWHITE P �Ia � P.R.-7 In order to provide adequate traffic circulation in the area and to mitigate any traffic impacts this development may create, the planning commission is considering requiring that Chia Road be opened northerly to connect with Haystack Road or possibly extending Homestead Road east from Alamo to connect with the streets in this project. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 1988, at 7:00 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. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission . MIN[7PES PALM DESERT P1,AIaI M M4IISSION SEPTIIMBER 20, 1988 VII. PUBLIC HEARUCS A. Continued Case No. TT 23681 - CHAZAN DEVELOPMWr COMPANY, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. Mr. Smith reminded COMission that the matter had been continued from the August 16, 1988 meeting because of the unresolved issues outlined in the staff report. Mr. Smith's responses to those issues are as follows: (i) Mr. Smith stated that the change of Chia Road not connecting through to Silver Spur had been made and was reflected on the revised plan. Homestead aria "Chia Road now connect with each other, but do not connect through to the street in the Silver Spur Ranch area. (ii) The change for Barberry Lane to be extended through to the proposed Homestead Road to provide through circulation has not been provided. (iii) That the pad elevations of the lots adjacent to Homestead be lowered to reduce impact on the Monterra development; the elevations shown-on Homestead are the same as the earlier plans. (iv) It was the request of the area residents that the lots be increased in size to 13,000 square feet to be compatible with those on the north side of Skyward Way--commission had indicated that the applicant should get together with the area residents to show them how the homes would work on the lots in the range of 11,000 square feet. (v) As indicated in the report, public works department was going to meet with the city attorney to determine the status of the connection of Chia Road through to Haystack Road not be a condition unless the notice of hearing was expanded to include property owners 300 feet from that area. Mr. Smith stated he received a petition signed by 20 property owners primarily residing on Somera and some on Skyward to the effect that preservation of peace, tranquility and safety of the neighborhood be of utmost concern to city officials; that homeowners in the area south of Haystack and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic and a severe reduction in safety in this family area; and for the foregoing reasons, the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed. They requested that should the city require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack, the city cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with Chia, including Somera and Skyward. (vi) Mr. Smith 2 MI14JT S PALM DESERT PLANNIW3 CM-1ISSION SEPPE BER 20, 1988 stated that since there no longer is a connection through to Buckboard Trail in the Silver Spur area then there would be nothing to preclude Chia Road being relocated westerly so that it would not infringe on the city park site. Mr. Smith indicated that commission should direct staff as to which conditions they might wish to implement. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the ocmrission. MR. MIKE SMITH, 73-080 El Paseo, addressed the six conditions referred to by staff. He noted that (i) has been taken care of. (ii) He stated they weren't comfortable with Barberry Lane being extended through to Homestead and providing through circulation, but noted that the easement for Homestead Road goes all the way to Alamo now and at such time as the westerly property develops, they will be required to 'continue it. He indicated they would provide the temporary turn-around for the fire department in that interim period. (iii) Mr. Smith stated that pad,elevations have been lowered on three lots. He noted that Mr. Dunham , expressed concern at the last meeting, but felt that his concerns had been addressed. Mr. Smith noted that pad heights are set from Mr. Dunham's back wall with curb elevation and building pad to city minimum above the curb grade. (iv) He stated that the property is zoned 10,000 for lot size and they are proposing 11,000. (v) He indicated agreement to eliminate the connection of Chia Road to Haystack. (vi) He stated that Chia Road along the east limit of this property already is constructed on the park site, but they pulled the right-of-way over another 10 feet off of the site giving the city 3/4 of the right-of-way out of their track along the northerly lots. He stated this was a planned road, which is why it is being constructed, and will provide a frontage on the park and a road to the park. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. There being no response, Chairman Exwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed. MRS. BONNIE BOLAS, 73-182 Skyward Way, expressed concern regarding (1) increase in traffic--most people in neighborhood have three cars per household plus 36 more houses would generate 110 cars racing through the neighborhood; (2) Size of lots is very upsetting and 11,000 square feet is totally unacceptable-- responsibility of the city to see that it doesn't happen and hoped the lots were not to scale because they appeared to show 3 NUNMES PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMIESSION SEPPENRER 20, 1988 two lots across from her one; This has been a quiet neighborhood that they've lived in almost 15 years and greatly deplore the loss of wildlife and vegetation that has brought joy and contentment to so many in the neighborhood. Camiissioner Richards noted that this property has always been zoned for development and has previously been down-graded. He indicated that any development would increase the traffic, and the size of the lots at 11,000 square feet versus 13,000 is only a difference of 10 to 10 1/2 percent. MR. RANDALL WHITE, 73-186 Somera Road, spoke in favor of the project, however, he felt several changes were needed. The issue of Chia Road had been addressed and he presented additions to that petition and indicated that if the city decides to put Chia Road through, then to improve the circulation in the area it seemed logical that it- should also go through to Broken Arrow, and Hcmestead to the west;- the proposal by the city to have Barberry going through to the north and south doesn't make sense with available access from Homestead and why penalize the developer who is trying to develop the area and cut out one or two lots when it is not necessary to do that. With respect to the size of the lots, he agreed that it is a concern to many. Lots at 11,000 square feet would support a rather nice hone, however those homes would have to be closer together and the developments in the area would not be separated by large spaces as could be and he would like to see them as open as possible. There was earlier talk of building a park and he requested that the city use the funds contributed by this developer for the park to be built as soon as possible. Crnmissioner Richards asked Mr. White what he meant when he said the lots were separated by large spaces. He replied that of the existing houses in the area now, there are many homes separated by fairly large spaces. Mr. White also stated that there was an open house by the developer last Saturday at which some of the proposed plans were shown; he felt those hones would be adequate, but if they were built on the lots the setbacks required by the city would require that those houses be closer to one another than the existing ones in the area. MR. ROGER HORSWILL, 73-610 Buckboard in Silver Spur Ranch, stated that Thursday was their board meeting and they were in favor of the change of the Chia extension, though the park was still a concern. His major concerns were not extending Chia, traffic circulation in Silver Spur Ranch, and he informed 4 DUNLYrES PALM DESERT PLANNDU QNNIISSIM SEPPEIBER 20, 1988 commission that there is a So. Cal. Edison Power Plant at the end of Buckboard Trail. He indicated that right now at the edge of the Nbnterra wall they are currently working on a curb and an improvement of that street and proposed that Buckboard terminate into Array Trail because they have a problem with an unimproved road in Silver Spur from the end of Little Bend and would like to see Little Bend cul-de-sacced. They currently have a barrier at the end of Silver Noon Trail where cars come up to the barrier and have to turn around. He indicated that when there are park improvements, the Silver Spur Board felt that the park should be maintained in a natural desert state or improved with nature trails similar to the Living Desert Reserve. Mr. Diaz informed commission that the city does not have a specific plan for that park and this was the first time anyone has asked for that park to be developed. He indicated that in-lieu park fees generated from this development' would be utilized for that park. Also, the plans for the park would be done by the city in conjunction with meetings with neighborhood residents, which would require lots of money and several years in the future. Commissioner Richards stated that the city does not have a lot of experience in building parks and there is usually lots of opposition from area residents. He asked for public works' position on the Chia Road. Mr. Holtz stated that they are favor Chia Road being extended through to Haystack, based on the assumption that there would be a park. MR. HENRY WHITAKER, 73-237 Somera, last house on the east side of Somera on the south side of the street. He stated that he was opposed to the park due to the fact that it would take away their view of the natural area and was concerned about traffic. He felt that caning from Skyward around Chia and down Somera formed a loop where traffic can obtain high speeds. Also, a lot of small children play on Somera. He did not feel Barberry Road was necessary due to the size of the blocks of hones and noted that it cuts one section right in half. He suggested that Barberry Road be eliminated and Mr. Chazan's development be moved a few hundred feet further west, which would allow him to build a little larger lots. He was pleased that Chia would not open up to Haystack and felt that a park development would be detrimental and indicated that right now the area is used as a motor bike trail. Commissioner Richards asked public works why Barberry Road should be ' extended. Mr. Diaz stated that Barberry Road already exists and 5 MINVPFS _ PALM DESERT PLANND G O:M-TESSION SEER 20, 1988 where it exists between Bel Air and Skyward it breaks up the blocks and could be extended there. He stated they are proposing to extend it to Homestead to end the long cul-de-sac at Homestead Road. The city does not have the right-of-way to the west and if the developer were to acquire the right-of-way and construct Homestead out to the west to connect to its present terminus at full width, this particular alteration could be modified. After determining that a dirt path exists where the right-of-way would be needed, commission discussed the easement and the possibility of improving circulation by moving Barberry Road. Commissioner Richards suggested that if Silver Spur has the easement, the developer and 'Silver Spur might wish to discuss this. Mr. Diaz indicated that Homestead is shown as going through and would be a private street, but if the developer were to acquire the right-of-way to connect Homestead to Alamo, then the city would re-evaluate this and it might also solve some of 'the drainage problems and lower lots 36 and 35 even more. MR. TOM FARRELL, Skyward and Alamo, asked if the fire marshal holds a separate hearing and Mr. Diaz explained that the fire marshal reviews all proposed tentative tract maps and precise plans and makes comments; in this case they felt that Barberry Lane should be connected. Coninissioner Richards clarified that the fire department looks for effective turn-around area. Mr. Farrell felt that the traffic on Alamo was dangerous and noted that less than a year ago there was a school bus accident at the corner. He said that some stop signs and speed limit signs were posted, but indicated he would like a stop, sign at Alamo. Mr. Farrell indicated he liked the idea of having some structure as to what would be developed later, but didn't like the request for a substantially smaller unit of 1800 square feet to be built. Mr. Diaz explained that it is not a request, but under the present zoning ordinance the minimum dwelling unit size is 1200 square feet and the developer can do that or exceed that size up to 30% of the lot, but felt that the price of the lot would warrant a larger house; he noted that the city cooperates with Cc&R's however, it can't enforce them. MS. DONNA PEAK had questions regarding the existing water pipe on SOMera Road being enough for the new homes and asked if a light would be installed at the Intersection of Alamo and Haystack. She also wondered why at Chia and Haystack they put curbs in if they were going to be replaced again. Mr. Holtz 6 . MINVl'ES . PALM DESERT PLANND G CCM"fISSION SMnUI BER 20, 1988 stated that water main capacities are handled by CVWD and any new developments are required to have adequate water flaw and pressures and he would not be aware of any traffic signals being installed until a specific design is submitted; and he stated that the curb was removed for storm drain construction and had to be replaced, otherwise potential damage could be done to property dawn the street. Ms. Peak commented that several years ago she was told that within the next five years the park would be developed and indicated that there are 21 children in the neighborhood that congregate there. Mr. Diaz stated that at that time he thought it was a possibility. Ms. Peak also stated that she would like to keep the density down. Commissioner`Richards indicated that the city welcomes input from private citizens. He felt that if there was enough support, a unified group from the neighborhood should approach the city to develop the park. He ccamented that he would like to see the rest of Haystack developed. DR. HURLBERG spoke representing Dr. Eugene Kay, property owner to the east of this development. He indicated that from Alamo to one portion of their property is private property and a private road and felt that Dr. Kay would not look forward to any kind of easement from Alamo through their property and noted their difficulties from the Monterra development. He expressed concern about the traffic circulation and felt traffic was already unbearable. MRS. BEPSY WHITE, 73-186 Soiera, felt that, the lot size was too small and access from Haystack up Chia would create too much traffic because of the many children from Chia and Skyward that Play there and felt something should be built to protect them that would be aesthetically pleasing. MR. TIM SKOGAN, 73-102 Skyward, spoke regarding lot sizes and minimum square footages. He felt it was the same distance west of Alamo to the Frontage Road or Highway 74 as from east of Alamo to Chia. He asked about Chia going through to Haystack. Mr. Holtz stated that it was public works' recommendation that Chia go through to Haystack to relieve traffic congestion. Mr. Skogan felt a trade-off of the park land to a developer would be a good idea, leaving 1 or 2 acres for a passive park. He stated that he would like to see something compatible to the neighborhood built. 7 MIN[}1'ES PALM DESERT PLANNING MIMISSION SEPTEmBER 20, 1988 MS. CHARLENE M--CLAIN, 72-730 Ironwood, spoke representing Mr. Chazan. She stated that the zoning for the property is R-1, allowing a minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes and they were proposing 1200 square foot homes. She indicated that of 152 hones in the neighborhood 54 of them were under 2,000 square feet, per tax assessor records. Ms. McClain stated that the setbacks were the same and that they were willing to work with everyone. She indicated that a 60 foot easement already exists on the property, which should explain the location of the road. She also indicated that the economy would govern the unit sizes and the development would be compatible and contiguous with the rest of the neighborhood. MR. DON BOLAS, 73-182 Skyward, agreed with the majority of the property owners who spoke. He expressed concern regarding traffic congestion, noise, and retention of quality of life. He also indicated that he has lived in the desert for 16 years. Regarding traffic flow patterns, he felt Chia should be open to Haystack and discussed density. He requested that comnission make a conscientious decision. M. DIANE MANNIS, 73-085 Skyward, stated that she knew that the land would eventually be developed, but hoped it would be high quality. She indicated that children need a place to go and hoped the park would be built. M. DIANA JENKINS, owner of the last house on Somera, informed cc mission that her main concern was to protect the children that play in that area because of dangerous traffic. Mr. Diaz suggested that Ms. Jenkins talk to her neighbors, since it would be them or people visiting them that are creating the volume and speed of the traffic. He stated that speed bumps couldn't be placed on public streets, but suggested that Ms. Jenkins contact the public works to discuss the problem and possible solutions. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. He asked for a clarification of the statement regarding the city attorney's opinion of the Chia connection. Mr. Smith explained that it was of concern that the connection of Chia Road through to Haystack Road not be a condition placed on this map unless the notice of hearing was expanded to include property owners 300 feet surrounding the effected area and public works department was going to meet with the city attorney to determine the status of that condition. Mr. Holtz indicated that per Joe Gaugush, it was determined that notification to owners outside the 300' limit was not required. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING 00WESSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 Commissioner Richards felt that everyone in the area should be notified. Chairman Erwood agreed and questioned the matter of Chia to Haystack being heard at another public hearing and Mr. Diaz indicated that Chia opening for mitigation measures to the traffic should be all heard simultaneously. Mr. Diaz indicated that property owners within the 300 feet from the project and 300 feet down Chia should be notified with the applicant providing the city with property owner labels and then both issues could be resolved. Cormmissioner Richards felt there were unresolved issues regarding the easement and the park (Commissioner Richards suggested that a poll be taken of the neighborhood to see if they want a park), but did not feel that traffic was an issue, nor the lot size differential of 10$. Chairman Erwood felt that Homestead was a problem and something should be done. Mr. Diaz recommended that the public hearing be reopened and asked if the applicant concurred with the continuance. He stated that some type of grading plan should be submitted for evaluation so that this matter does not have to return at a later date. Commissioner Richards asked what direction would be given to the developer. Mr. Diaz stated that if he has the public right-of-way, fine; but if city has to utilize eminent domain, staff would not recommend approval of that to city council. Chairman Erwood reopened the public hearing. Mr. Chazan agreed to the continuance to October 18. Mr. Smith stated_ that renotification would be done. Commissioner Richards felt good input regarding parks had been received and suggested that people be sure and make their opinions known. He noted that park development required city funds and recommended that they speak to the city council. Mr. Diaz also stated that he would discuss the park with the Palm Desert Parks and Recreation Commission. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing TT 23681 to October 18, 1988. Carried 4-0. 9 September 20, 1988 To: Palm Desert Planning Commission From: Silver Spur Ranchers Association Re: Chazan Development The Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranch request the following: 1 ) Curve Chia Road into Homestead Road, without access to Arrow Trail. 2) Curve Buckboard Trail into Arrow Trail. 3) Cul-de-Sac Little Bend Trail. 4) Cul-de-Sac Silver Moon Trail. These improvements will facilitate traffic flow in Silver Spur Ranch and eliminate the unimproved and deteriorating portion of Little Bend to Arrow Trail. The Silver Spur Ranch Board of Directors would also like to see the city park land left in a natural state. If improvements to the park are contemplated, we suggest nature paths and trails similar to the Living Desert Reserve. Respectfully submitted, Rog HorrswCiliil Jeff Hawkins Boa d Member Board Member RH/gm i 820A4 / /La•rw T2. A I 2 , 8� C,i�boati� Tom. .� Tom• ��' /-I-u in � s TrA o 5�1v� uo i/91 4 T T �elA;,e i s y w�r2 A Somr�f/ NFIYsT�c/c P73IT ,i #'IOW TO THR CT'ry %T� 5?ts1.,At I7 RT c Extensim at- Chia Road South and North We the uz.Ic#.eraigmed MAkei_Fit 1ha t.' '�kxr� ,revervatiot of the peaor-.,, t"Taalsquility a31d, safety of our iieighbox-boaads most 'bp he torti:zsscm 0011,3ern Ca: our C-ity e, bovl :s:wmY trs ira the areaqcsuih of ;iayst�xal rtaad ,eran vrs at of GIA;-A Rcaraci are crancutmmi the.t tbo proposed ��°t��:€ 's'Gtn. of t hI a.. Roa(l north to HaystacA-,, r�Yjd wont:; near A ov Trr`all will rezult in un IDtolerpi :le li1areasa :ors traffic with the ca'1lloomitant Levers veductloxn in s5T4ftfty 'iri For the forogaing reaa'sonES, we erb-mit that thLe tprY3pCt.sad east nP�i.e1T; of G'bia Road r;b4c,l,uld not be e3Auvraaa,. e%ou-Id tbe. City require the rmtvnslon. of Cb1a, Road to 'ayatrack, we, embmi,t that the City 6.:sraii1doul -de-aac, that east and of the rltreR>t�3 conneoting watt C:#1ia, ilrit;luding %mac:a and Skyward . _ C , 73011 �U�tG e2i4 f� i - 0 SEP 2 01988 . - - - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARikNT - CITY OF PALM DESERT PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re , Extension of Chia Road South and North Ve the undersigned submit that the preservation of the peace, tranquility and safety of our neighborhoods must be the foremost concern of our city officials. The homeowners in the area south of Haystack Road and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable inoree' in traffic with the concomitant severe reduction in safety in this family area. For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed , Should the City require the extension of Chia Road to haystack, we submit that the City should cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with Chia, including Somera and Skyward. PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re : Extension of Chia Road South and North We the undersigned submit that the preservation of the peace, tranquility and safety of our neighborhoods must be the foremost concern of our city officials. The homeowners in the area south of Haystack Road and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic with the concomitant severe reduction in safety in this family area . For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed. Should the City require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack , we submit that the City should cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting /with � Chia, including Somera and Skyward. -S��iYrr� �\✓�l 7���4- � XJ o n,r. l / yM.. B�4y'L gaY L.,J1 - a� \o c s ` D� QP *\�\1N\\G\C•QE F � s _Ip /04=:; r7o _ y c,le7�m�'o v 5 r � � -� 1 THOMAS R. FARRELL, M.D. 73012 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CALIF RNIA 92260 August 8 , 1988 Ramon A. Diaz City of Palm Desert Planning Commision Dear Mr Diaz ; In follow up to our phone conversation, I am writing regarding TT 23681 . I will be unable to attend the proposed meeting on August 16 , 1988 . I am trying to arrange for counsel to represent my interests . My most important concern is that the proposed lots be of equivalent size to the lots on the north side of Skyward. These have already been developed into 13 , 000 square foot lots. I request that the planning commission require that the proposed tract be divided into lots of at least 13 ,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to this matter;: Sinc rely,j I Tho as R iarrell, MD cc;Jeffrey Patterson �I i �✓,_. i �T�L�o� Qo 0 �Zzrzla `SC�Ito4e 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DE: CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 JULY 20. 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT 3 LEGAL NOTICE CASE No. TT 23681 I f 7��," CHANGE IN MEETING DATE YOU RECENTLY RECEIVED A LEGAL NOTICE FROM THE CITY CONCERNING THE ABOVE NOTED CASE. PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEARING DATE DELINEATED IN THAT NOTICE. SEE THE CORRECT DATE BELOW. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert. Californle to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres Into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10.000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more Particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 1 _ 7 F R "D ,iE„4a.�6a 4 I' I w , ItYw lRD 1 3uN RDAD rsx Ldtl : N .li I R ,boo S 10 : SUBJECT PROPERTY � r � CC 5 uoxa .nxo. I 1 _1 y r rxu, uanx •+oiri ! ( 66 i • � a:Ti"' • �. � rE lrN a" run . Imo. P.R.-7 SAID Public hearing Will be held on Tuesday, August 16.the Administrative Conference Room next to the Council 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in Chamber at 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 Post July 29. 1988 RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commlsslon THOMAS R. PARRELL, M.D. - 9301E SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CALTE RNIA 922E August 8, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz City of Palm Desert Planning Commision Dear Mr Diaz:; . In follow up to .our' phone conversation, I am writing regarding TT 23681. I .will be unable to attend the proposed meeting on August 16, 1988. - I am trying to arrange for counsel to represent my interests. .My most important concern is that the proposed lots be .of equivalent size to the lots on the north side of Skyward. These have already been developed into 13,000. square foot lots.• I request that the planning commission require that the proposed tract. be divided into lots of at least 13,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to this matterFell, Sinc ely Tho s aMD. cc;Jeffrey Patterson pkp I` THOMAS R. FARRUIJL, M.D. 70012 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CALIFORNIA 02Y August 12, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring. Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr Diaz; I am unable to appear at the rescheduled meeting date. I have gathered the signatures of a number of neighbors. We all request that the proposed tract # TT 23681 include lots of no smaller than 13,000 square feet. I am certain that our neighbors who are out of town this month would also object to the planned 10, 000 square foot lots. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Sincere®RFaafell, o a M.D. Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commi}§ion Secretary City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Diaz; Regarding TT#23681 , the currently developed lots on Skyward and Bel Air east of Alamo are 13,000 square feet in size. We the under- signed local residents object to the proposed lot size of 10,000 square feet for reasons of aesthgtics and extra cost. We request that the planning commi$ion require the proposed development lot. size to be 13,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Thomas R Farrell, M.D. De rah D. Farr 73 lkexy (z StE�w2� r'2 � Oq ,� e 04 3 e 6-,f BIRTCHER DUNHAM Thou Varner Goad Thousand Palms,CA 92276 Telephone 619 340 Ob9O C.G.Dunham General Partner August 4, 1988 City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention : Steve Smith Planning Department Dear Steve: Birtcher Homes would like to express our concern of the finished pad elevation of the proposed Tract #23681 . This project abutts our Monterra project's north boundary line . Finish pad elevations from natural grade would be raised 4' to 6 ' in height according to the revised grading plan (Amendment #1 July 1988) . We have two concerns; 1 ) Birtcher Homes was required to amend our grading plan (Tract #22111 ) to insure that our homes would not block any views from the Ironwood Country Club. 2 ) the lots in Tract #23681 that back up to our subdivision, according to their grading , would adversely affect the views from our lots on the northerly boundary of Tract #22111 . If you have any questions, pleae call me. aVeruly yours, C.G. Dunham, Sr. CGD: ch cc: Curt Dunham, Jr. Chicago Dallas Denver Houston Irvine Laguna Niguel Los Angeles Minneapolis Palm Desert Phoenix Portland Seattle Washington,D.C. PETIT ION We, the undersigned residents of Silver Spur Ranch, respectfully ask the Palm Desert City Planning Commission to reject the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road in connection with the proposed Chazan development, on which you will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 16, at 7 p. m. in the Administrative Conference Room at the City Hall, San Pablo and Fred Waring. We do not object to the development per se, if it is properly planned and in keeping with the Monterra development to the south. We do, however, object to any connection from that development to Arrow Trail. Silver Spur Ranch already has three entrances and exits: Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard Trail, both off Portola, and Moon Lane, from Haystack. We do not need nor want another. Arrow Trail now is a short 1Pe-block street entirely within Silver Spur Ranch, and has outlets only to Broken Arrow, Buckboard and Little Bend, all quiet Silver Spur Ranch residential streets. To connect it to an extension of Chia Road would bring unwanted and unnecessary traffic to our peaceful area, and also would mean that a portion of the city land north of Buckboard that was deeded to the city for a park would have to be taken for the road, as shown on the plans submitted to you. We ask the commission to deny the proposal to extend Chia Road to Arrow Trail and to keep the park intact and in its natural state. SIGNED__ ADDRESS DATE 73 -1. 9'8' / lei 8-/0 - Sg G3 AUG 15 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Aug. 9, 1988 The Planning Commission AUG 121908 City of Palm Desert COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City Hall Palm Desert CA 92260 CITY Of PALM DESERT Dear Commissioners: The Silver Spur Ranchers Association wishes to express its concern about the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road, and hence to Haystack, in connection with the Chazan development of the property north of Monterra, on which you are holding a hearing Aug. 16 at 7 p. m. Arrow Trail now 1s a short 1% blocks long, entirely within the Silver Spur Ranch, and should remain so. Arrow Trail runs north from Broken Arrow to the rear of the property line on the north side of Buckboard Trail, where it curves into an undedicated street that is an extension of Little Bend, another Silver Spur Ranch street. To extend Arrow Trail northward as proposed would bring additional traffic to what currently is a very quiet and peaceful neighborhood, other than the present noise from construction on the Monterra development. You will recall that our association was represented at the Monterra hearings, voicing our concern that none of the Monterra traffic use Silver Spur streets, a concern with which the commission agreed, requiring Monterra to wall off its property to ease its impact on Silver Spur, which it abuts on the east. We welcome both the Monterra development and the Chazan one, if it is of similar caliber. However, we reiterate our concern that no traffic from any adjoining development be allowed to use Silver Spur Ranch streets, as would be the case if Arrow Trail is extended. Broken Arrow, Buckboard, Little Bend and other Silver Spur streets would all get more cars and trucks, along with the related problems they bring. We remind you also of the vacant property along the north side of Little Bend, which is designated as a future city park. It is and always has been Silver Spur Ranch Association' s desire that this land be preserved in its natural desert state as a wilderness park. It is one of the last few open spots where local residents may stroll and enjoy the desert in its pristine state, and many do. There are ,jackrabbits, quail, roadrunners, smoketrees, sage brush, and other natural flora and fauna, including wildflowers in season, there. Cutting through Arrow Trail to Chia Road would put a well-traveled street alongside our little natural park -- not a condition conducive to peace and quiet or the enjoyment of nature. It also would require a portion of the city park for the street, according to the submitted plans. We believe that no portion of the park should be turned over to developers. Page 2. We respectfully ask that you deny the proposed extension of Arrow Trail. Let Chia Road be cul-de-saced at its southern extension, but preserve Silver Spur Ranch and do not extend Arrow Trail. The ranch already has three entrances -- Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard off Portola, and Moon Lane off Haystack. We do not need nor do we want more traffic. Petitions to that effect are being circulated in the area most affected but because we were not notified of the hearing and because many Silver Spur residents are out of town at this time of year, we are unable to contact all of those we believe would oppose any change to Arrow Trail or to the nature park. We appreciate, as always, your cooperation and understanding. Sincerely, CARLA DICKERSON President Silver Spur Ranchers Association Inc. 1 ?TYn-.c. POOL C4 CPSL= WOCTRI Gi iuc! b'U' j TG4F cvgry DIC E524:7 rqh wboLwyo;w VR Hligm, kow conbeLgtTov+ 3u.G tIU*; L2�NUGtI I•y' 'PIT Of 00f 1�, MY 000XI MOON vunvae YK cpsuY go Ynon jLs 7 nL to iys Lsyrq= rt^ r;Lc ont Ol 10mu a; , tole PIMA o} NOW ws 9Le nuvp;e Fd coucec ; p, rri" m? r:' UOs UOPTI M +fit W P09VTPA auq at csnrs s!.IDA 'ypaL JnL. sFiCl oue f.O ;j18; rose( ow +)k3lus citculaasq jv Ivs vnen woe; mt'ivfQ (.fRh LLRt [7C' Olt bOL f oj9" 9Ufj I,acu raws' Opt j.jSaipcy, mo qp vor Poo q UOW go m !3pup waLe Jit9 r..oWtV 91LOVIN pqd WOO s rcLeneca -- ZIIAGL ?DIRE: JL*T7 Puq R6cKp4+7Lq ?.I y ' ,L ybOL {,=0 nuq qO Uq; GxteUg ALUM IL911' }U2'j P6 60 to G.. 1:iCOq. 'Sj j.;c^ ";j1f" eXCE'.L`C'j'GL' pR; JL6?b't,AG �lji' :_ :' b ."ny)' 00 MP %on WE roc, Cl YLOO6 ILV?.T• 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 20, 19 8 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PLANS THIS IS NOT A PLAN CHECK! DEVELOPMENT: CHAZEN DEVELOPMENT TT 23681 The comments below are based on the following assumption and code groups: 1985 Uniform Building Code 1985 Uniform Plumbing Code 1985 Uniform Mechanical Code 1984 National Electrical Code Title 24 Handicapp / Accessibility Standards Title 24 Energy Conservation Standards Title 24 Multi-Family Adaptability Standards Before further comments can be made, additional plans and specifications are needed for review. The following plans must be submitted to the Department of Building & Safety for plan review: Architectural Drawings and Details. Structural Drawings and Calculations. Complete Electrical , Mechanical and Plumbing Plans and Specifications. Title 24 Energy Conservation Documentation Forms. COMMENTS: 1 . comments on sub isi tract maps. E U LLER INC AL PLANS EXAMINER KW:djb I CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Smith FROM: Brent Conley RE: TT23681 DATE: June 22, 1988 i The Police Department requests that the residential 'street width be in compliance to Palm Desert City Standards ( unable to read because of print size) . Also, comments on the building structure should be preserved until plan submittal . If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at ext. 288. Brent Conley Crime Prevent on Officer BC/rh i PROOF OF PUJICATION This space is for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C. ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM DESERT resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of or interested in the above-entitled matter. I LEGAL NOTICE am the principal clerk of the printer of the •••••••••••.•......................I...................... DESERT POST CASE NO . TT 23681 .................................................... .......................................................... I CRY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ................................................... CASE NO. TT 23681 a newspaper of general circulation, printed NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be he] LLL a Planning commission of the City of Palm Desert,Calffomis to'onsider e I Bi-weekly request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMP ANY forapprovalotefien and published .............I.................... five tract map subdividing 112 saes Info 36 ten thousand squ�'ie foots. i single family dwelling lots in the RA 10,000zoneloatedon hesouth side) P a 1 m Desert of Skyward Way,west of proposed _._. al Ch a Road I nnecfion�and to the City of .................................. north of the Monterra Development more particularly described as:APN ' Countyof Riverside, and which news- �'190-012 and 013 srµ SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday,August 16,1968at 7i00 P.mr paper has been adjudged a newspaper in the Administrative Conference Room nest to the council Chsmber.at- . of general circulation b the Superior Palm Desert Civic Center,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CalF, 9 Y P fornia,at which time and place all interested parsons are united td'ettend Court of the County of Riverside, State of r 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 pub- 10/5 64 Iic hearing described in this notice,Orin written comespondenc4delNered California, under the date of.,,,,,,,. 19 to planning commission(a city council)at,or prior m,Oiepublic, hearing. 8 3 6 58 RAMON A. DIAZ, Case Number ..-.. .......; that the notice, j Palm Desert Planning Commission of which the annexed is a printed copy (set (Pub. D.P.July 29, 1966) in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: ...........MUe9 U............................. all in the year 19.88. I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury_ that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at...Palm Desert ...................................... California,this...Z9.th.day of...J.41Y 1988„ ... .. . . .. .. ...................... ignature Free copies of this blank form may be secured from: -',UG 0ti 198� CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. r _ Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 west second St., Los Angeles, Calif. 90012 Telephoner (213) 625-2541 Please reyuestOENERAL Proof of Publication when ordering this form. CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANLUING DEPAR'INIIV'P PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION I, Sharon Moen certify that on March 17, 1988 (print name) (month-day-year) the attached property owners list was prepared by Stewart Title Co. , (print company or of Riverside County pursuant to application requirements individual's name) furnished by the City of Palm Desert Planning Department. Said list is a complete and true compilation of owner of the subject property and all other property owners within 300 feet of the property involved in the application and is based upon the latest equalized assessment rolls. I further certify that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge; I understand that incorrect or erroneous information may be grounds for rejection or denial of the application. Name: Stewart Title Co. , of Riverside County TITLE/REGISTRATION: Subdivision Department ADDRESS: 7344 Magnolia Avenue Riverside, California_.92504 PHOnE': 714-68 -8 0 SIGNA, -21 DATE: /�i CASE: v i A CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARMENP OF Q.NM]NITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 20, 1988 CASE NO: TT 23681 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. APPLICANT: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACL(GIOLM: .. August 16, 1988 this application was before commission. At that time the following issues were unresolved: i. That Chia Road should not connect thru to Silver Spur Ranch area. ii. That Barberry Lane be extended thru to proposed Homestead Road to provide thru circulation. iii. That the pad elevations of the lots adjacent to Homestead be lowered to reduce impact on Monterra development. iv. That the lots be increased in size to 13,000 square feet to be compatible with those on the north side of Skyward Way. V. That the connection of Chia Road thru to Haystack Road not be a condition placed on this map unless the notice of hearing is expanded to include property owners 300 feet from that area. vi. That Chia Road along the east limit of this property not be constructed on the city-owned park site. In addition, the applicant was urged to meet with the area residents to discuss the matter more fully. II. RESPONSE: Revised plans were received September 1, 1988. The upper left corner of the sheet delineates two revisions as follows: STAFF REPORT TT 23681 SEPPEMBM 20, 1988 1. Put in temporary cul-de-sac at end of Homestead Road. 2. Put in knuckle at intersection of Homestead Road and Chia Road (8/29/88). Item one (1) was an earlier revision from July. Item two (2) should preclude thru traffic movements into the Silver Spur Ranch area. Item v of the concerns list has been addressed by public works and the condition has been revised to require re that this applicant bond for the necessary improvements to connect Chia Road thru to Haystack. Public works will discuss the legal implications of this proposed road construction with the city attorney prior to commencing the road improvements. Items ii, iii, iv, and vi are still outstanding. Staff feels strongly that item ii, the Barberry Road connection thru to Homestead should be provided and that item iii, the pad elevations on the first row of lots north of Homestead should be lowered. Item iv, increasing the lot size to minimum 13,000 square feet and item vi, the construction of part of Chia Road on the city-owned park site Property are policy decisions which should be determined by commission or council. III. CONCLUSIC N: Given the extent of the uncertainties which still remain, staff is reluctant to present a resolution of approval and conditions. Specifically, until the pad elevations on the lots adjacent to Homestead have been lowered and the commission has an opportunity to review same, it is felt that this case should not proceed. IV. ATTACIMEN15• A. Report of August 16, 1988. B. Revised tentative map. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /-bn 2 MINUTES PLANNING cammisSION i AUGUST 16, 1988 C. Case No. PP 86-38 (REErr.E) - STUART EVEy, Applicant Approval .for a precise plan for a four-plex rental apartment rental apartment project within the R-3, 13,000 (3) zone at 73-575 Shadow Mountain Drive. I, Mr. Diaz outlined the staff report and aspects of the project. A plan was shown with the changes from the original plan. Commissioner Ladlow asked if these apartments were the same as the apartments down the street from this project. Mr. Diaz stated that these apartments are better than the others. There will be two car i garages and opened parking areas on both sides of the complex. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed, I Mr. Diaz informed the ,commission that the applicant could not make tonight meetings. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Ccmnissicner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Notion carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Comnissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Cc mrission Resolution No. 1305, approving PP 86-38 (REFILE). Notion carried 4-0. D. Case No.(IT 236 j- C[NAZAN DEVELOPMENT ODMPANY AND J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCSATF\S,-INC., Applicants Approval of '�a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed .Arrow Trail and north of,.the Monterra Development. Mr. Smith reformed the commission that the staff report had originally be'-n prepared for the August 2, 1988, planning commission i meeting, and since that time 'letters have been received by residents IIII (Walter Auberger, Carla Dickerson Curt Dunham, Dr. Farrell and Bonnie Blass and a petition signed by 22 residents north of the i l 6 3 i , MINVPES PLAN IM aorrusSION AUGUST 16, 1988 subject property) voicing their concerns on the proposed project. Some of the concerns were lot elevations, density and street extensions. Due to the receipt of these let ers and their concerns, staff is not prepared to reccmTwo approval at this time. U Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. The 36 lots meet zoning requirements, which is R-1 - 10,000, and the proposed dwellings will need to be a minimum of 1,250 square feet. Other items for consideration are the street extensions of Bel Air Road east and Chia Road south to connect with Arrow Trail; addition of a new street to ran along the south side of the development westerly from Chia Road/Arrow Trail, which will dead-end in the front portion of lot 36 at the westerly end of the property and where an "off-set knuckle" is proposed on a temporary easement. Commissioner Richards did not understand why the lots sizes were smaller when the market is demanding larger places. He asked if amenities were being proposed. No amenities are being proposed. Commissioner Ladlow asked who set the 1,250 square foot minimum on the dwelling units size. The 1,250 square foot minimum was set by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Diaz noted that the pads do not have to drain to the streets. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished .to address the crnmission. MR. MIKE SMITH, of J.F. Davidson Associates, indicated that the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail could be deleted. He felt 'that the size of a lot does not determine how good a project will be, and he does not feel that a second access is needed. MR. CHAZAN, of Chazan Development, explained that the lots were in excess of 11,000 square feet, over the zoned 10,000 square feet. The lots will be sold on an individual basis and the OC&R's will be done by developer. He feels that the difference between a good project and a bad one is the architecture, not the size of the lot. He would be willing to raise the size of the homes to 1,800 - 2,000 square feet and delete the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail. Commissioner Richards was concerned about the fire marshal's condition on the second access (Barberry Lane). He did not know if they would be willing to accept the deletion of the second access. 7 rw N PLANNING CX144ISSICN AUGUST 16, 1988 A: Mr. Holtz indicated that there would probably be no problem with the public works department on this issue. Iff Chairman Eraood .opened the public testimly and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITI& to the proposed. MR. CURT DUNHAM, Developer of the Monterra Project, was opposed to the proposed height of the southerly portion of the site, t'. which would block the view of some of the lots on his project. r He requested that consideration bej given to lowering this part of the site as he was required to C& MR. RICK LOPEZ, 73-352 Buckboard Trail, representative for the Silver Spur Ranch Association, which is opposed to the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail. They are not opposed to the project itself, . as long as it is in keeping with the Monterra !. Project, but they are against no amenities, fencing, landscaping, etc. being proposed and the selling of individual lots. They do not feel that there will be harmony in the project itself if it is constructed on an individual basis. A' �. petition signed by 24 Silver Spur Ranch residents opposing the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail was submitted to the commission. 4' MS. MURRAY TAYLOR, 73-210 Somera MR. LANDAU, General Council Rep. for Dr. Farrell, Skyward Way MR. AND MRS. BUCHOLZ, 73-064 Skyward Way ' l'. MR. RANDAL WHITE, 73-186 Somera ¢ DR. HAROLD BYRD, Sun Corral Trail, Rep. for Dr. Eugene Kay f MS. WANDA TUCKER, 73-309 Buckboard Trail and all of the above mentioned people voiced their concerns against the proposed project which were: Density per lot size decreasing property values, the lot elevations blocking views, extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail and/or Homestead causing traffic and. safety problems and having Chia Road dead-end at Skyward Way causing parking, traffic and safety problems. The commission was asked to continue this case for a few months time, so that residents that are out-of-town during the summer months could be present. P Mr. Diaz indicated that the extension of Chia Road through to Haystack Road is a condition of approval under the public works department no. 15. 8 I i aVrEs G PLANNING Oa4-nSSION AUGOST 16, 1988 MR.' RICK LOPEZ, stated that the Silver Spur Ranch residents did not receive the notice on this project, and he would like to receive future notices. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Lopez that he couim$ receive the planning commission agendas by sending self-addressed stamped envelopes to city hall, community' ,development department. Also, notices are required to be mailed by, state law to all residents within 300 feet of a project within a certain period of time. MS. CHARLENE McCLENAHAN, 72-730 Ir nwood, was in favor of the Proposed project. She . felt that Palm Desert needed more R-1 lots. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. It was asked if provisions were made in the staff report for undezgrounding work. Provisions were made under the conditions of approval by the public works department. The developer will also have to pay park fees. Commissioner Richards did not feel that the case needed to be continued until more residents could be present. He felt that the concerns the other residents would list would not be different from concerns voiced tonight. I Commissioner Richards indicated that as a condition of approval. the dwelling unit size could be increased to approximately 2,500 square feet. He did not feel that the size of the lots would decrease the neighboring properties property value. Commissioner Ladlow agreed. Mr. Diaz suggested that the applicant be asked if he would like a continuation to consider some of the concerns that were voiced on the project. He indicated that the applicant could prepare plans that show 2,500 square feet home on 11,000 square foot lots. Chairman Erwood asked the applicant if he would like a continuation. The applicant agreed as long as it was not postponed to long. Commissioner Richards suggested that Mr. Chazan meet with the residents on this project, and discuss 'what is being proposed and show plans that outline the project. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, to continue this case until the September 20, 198B, meeting. Notion carried 4-0. g THOMAS R. FARRELL, M.D. 73012 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CAETF RNIA 92260 September 6 , 1988 Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commission Secretary QI P 81988 City of Palm Desert COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Diaz; CITY OF PALM DESERT I am writing in follow up to our phone conversation today regarding TT 23681 . The traffic situation on Alamo and Skyward is already dangerous. I brought this to the attention of the Mayor and City Council in the wake of a school bus accident which occurred at this intersection in November 1987 . This situation will become even more dangerous if all of the traffic to the new development must use Alamo and Skyward. I urge the planning commision to insist that Chia Road be completed through to Haystack Road as part of the approval of TT 23681 . Si • erely, T ._Farrell , M.D. 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING OC4 SSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: August 23, 1988 Chazan Development Company J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 73-080 E1 Paseo; Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: ( 2 681 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of August 16, 1988. OWrDX ED TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1988. CARRIED 4-0. 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. RAM A. DIAZ�� PALM DESERT PLANNIfARSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Deparbnent Fire Marshal a ,^ MINUTES PLANNING OCMIISSION AUGUST 16, 1988 C. Case No. PP 86-38 (REF=) _ STUART EVEY, Applicant Approval for a precise plan for a four-plex rental apartment rental apartment project within the R-3, 13,000 (3) zone at 73-575 Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Diaz outlined the staff report and aspects of the project. A plan was shown with the changes from the original plan. Crnmissioner Ladlow asked if these apartments were the same as the apartments down the street from this project. Mr. Diaz stated that these apartments are better than the others. There will be two car garages and opened parking areas on both sides of the ccmplex. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. Mr. Diaz informed the commission that the applicant could not make tonight meetings. Chairman EYwood closed the public testimony. Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Nbtion carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1305, approving PP 86-38 (REFILE). Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No TT 23681 - CEWM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND J.F. DAVMSON ASSOCIA ., Applicants Approval of la tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots cn the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of, the Monterra Development. Mr. Smith iPformed the commission that the staff report had originally bebn prepared for the August 2, 1988, planning commission meeting, and since that time letters have been received by residents (Walter Auberger, Carla Dickerson, Curt Dunham, Dr. Farrell and Bonnie Blass and a petition signed by 22 residents north of the 6 . MIN[lPFS PLANNIW, CX144ISSICN AUGUST 16, 1988 subject property) voicing their concerns on the proposed project. Some of the concerns were lot elevations, density and street extensions. Due to the receipt of these le7ers and their concerns, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. q Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. The 36 lots meet zoning requirements, which is R-1 - 10,000, and the proposed dwellings will, need to be a mini mun of 1,250 square feet. Other items for consideration are the street extensions of Bel Air Road east and Chia Road south to connect with Arrow Trail; addition of a new street to run along the south side of the development westerly from Chia Road/Arrow Trail, which will dead-end in the front portion of lot 36 at the westerly end of the property - and where an "off-set knuckle" is proposed on a temporary easement. Ccmnissioner Richards did not understand why the lots sizes were smaller when the market is demanding larger places. He asked if amenities were being proposed. No amenities are being proposed. Commissioner Ladlow asked who set the 1,250 square foot minimum on the dwelling units size. The 1,250 square foot minimum was set by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Diaz noted that the pads do not have to drain to the streets. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. mission. M. MIKE SMITH, of J.F. Davidson Associates, indicated that the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail could be deleted. He felt that the size of a lot does not determine how good a project will be, and he does not feel that a second access is needed. MR. CHAZAN, of Chazan Development, explained that the lots were in excess of 11,000 square feet, over the zoned 10,000 square feet. The lots will be sold on an individual basis and the OC&R's will be done by developer. He feels that the difference between a good project and a bad one is the architecture, not the size of the lot. He would be willing to raise the size of the homes to 1,800 - 2,000 square feet and delete the extension of Chia Road to Array Trail. Commissioner Richards was concerned about the fire marshal's condition on the second access (Barberry Lane). He dial not know if they would be willing to accept the deletion of the second access. 7 . MIN[TPSS PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 1988 Mr. Holtz indicated that there would probably be no problem with the public works departrnent on this issue. g Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITIGI to the proposed. MR. CURT DUNHAM, Developer of the Monterra Project, was opposed to the proposed height of the southerly portion of the site, which would block .the view of some of the lots on his project. He requested that consideration belgiven to lowering this part of the site as he was required to do. MR. RICK LOPEZ, 73-352 Buckboard Trail, representative for the Silver Spur Ranch Association, which is opposed to the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail. They are not opposed to the project itself, as long as it is in keeping with the Monterra Project, but they are against no amenities, fencing, landscaping, etc. being proposed and the selling of individual lots. They do not feel that there will be harmony in the project itself .if it is constructed on an individual basis. A petition signed by 24 Silver Spur Ranch residents opposing the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail was submitted to the commission. MS. MURRAY TAYLOR, 73-210 Sanera MR. LANDAU, General Council Rep. for Dr. Farrell, Skyward Way MR. AMID MRS. BUCHOLZ, 73-064 Skyward Way MR. RANDAL WHITE„73-186 Scmera DR. HAROLD BYRD, Sun Corral Trail, Rep. for Dr. Eugene Kay MS. WANDA TUCKER, 73-309 Buckboard Trail and all of the above mentioned people voiced their concerns against the proposed project which were: Density per lot size decreasing property values, the lot elevations blocking views, extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail and/or Homestead causing traffic and safety problems and having Chia Road dead-end at Skyward Way causing parking, traffic and safety problems. The ccmmission was asked to continue this case for a few months time, so that residents that are out-of-town during the simmer months could be present. Mr. Diaz indicated that the extension of Chia Road through to Haystack Road is a condition of approval under the public works department no. 15. 8 MDaUrFS PLAMIW, 0CM1uSSICN AUGMT 16, 1988 MR. RICK LOPEZ, stated that the Silver Spur Ranch residents did not receive the notice on this project, and he would like to receive future notices. Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Lopez that he Jd receive the planting commission agendas by sending self-addressed stamped envelopes to city hall, community' development department. Also, notices are required to be mailed by state law to all residents within 300 feet of a project within a certain period of time. MS. CIIARLENE McGT,INAFM, 72-730 Ironwood, was in favor of the proposed project. She . felt that Palm Desert needed more R-1 lots. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. It was asked if provisions were made in the staff report for undergrounding work. Provisions were made under the conditions of approval by the public works department. The developer will also have to pay park fees. Commissioner Richards did not feel that the case needed to be continued until more residents could be present. He felt that the concerns the other residents would list would not be different from concerns voiced tonight. Commissioner Richards indicated that as a condition of approval. the dwelling unit size could be increased to approximately 2,500 square feet. He did not feel that the size of the lots would decrease the neighboring properties property value. Commissioner Ladlow agreed. Mr. Diaz suggested that the applicant be asked if he would like a continuation to consider some of the concerns that were voiced on the project. He indicated that the applicant could prepare plans that show 2,500 square feet home on 11,000 square foot lots. Chairman Ecvaood asked the applicant if he would like a continuation. The applicant agreed as long as it was not postponed to long. Commissioner Richards suggested that Mr. Chazan meet with the residents on this project, and discuss what is being proposed and show plans that outline the project. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, to continue this case until the September 20, 1988, meeting. Notion carried 4-0. 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 16, 1988 CASE NO: TT 23681 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. APPLICANTS: CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 73-080 El Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. PROPERTY: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is vacant alluvial fan sloping from the southwest to the northeast with existing indigenous flora. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-1, 13,000/Single family dwellings South: PR-3/Monterra single family dwellings under construction East: R-1, 10,000/vacant - future Ironwood Park site West: R-1, 10,000/Single family dwellings C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Zoning: R-1 10,000 General Plan: Residential Low Density 3-5 du/acre D. ZONE REQUIREMENTS: R-1 10,000 ZONE Lot area 10,000 sq. ft. min. Lot width 90 ft. min. Lot Depth 100 ft. min. Min. dwelling unit size 1250 sq. ft. min. Maximum height 18 ft. - 1 story Coverage limit 30% Front yard 20 ft. Rear yard 20 ft. Side yards 8' min. 20' total TT 23681 STAFF REPORT The 36 lots as proposed all conform to the minimum required lot area, lot width and lot depths as prescribed in the ordinance. The design of the future homes on these lots will be required to conform to the other standards noted above. II. PROJECT: The proposal is to subdivide 11.2 acres into 36 single family lots. The lots as proposed comply with the minimum standards provided for in the R-1 10,000 zone. Skyward Way is an existing street serving the existing residential neighborhood through to Chia Road. Approval of this proposed subdivision would result in the extension of Bel Air Road easterly and the extension of Chia Road south to connect with Arrow Trial. Bel Air will connect with this extended Chia Road. In addition a new street, shown as lot "B" on the map, is to run along the south limit of the development westerly from Chia Road/Arrow Trail to provide access to ten lots all of which are located on the north side of this proposed street. This proposed street dead-ends at the westerly end of the property. III. CONCERNS: 1. Street "B" along the south side of the project will result in a 930 foot long dead-end. The applicant has suggested that an 'off-set knuckle" be installed in a temporary easement to be located on the front portion of lot 36. The proposed knuckle would be of sufficient size to allow fire trucks to turn around. If the property to the west were to develop then this street would continue westerly to Alamo and intersect with Homestead. The temporary easement would then be vacated. The fire department in its July 12, 1988 memo indicates that dead-end streets in excess of 500 feet in length are required to have a second access. Planning staff concurs with the need for a secondary access, however, it is not felt that we should create a 20 foot alley between homes. Therefore it is our recommendation that Barberry Lane be extended southerly through lots 18 and 35 with full improvements. This would reduce the total number of lots by two. Another possibility would be to extend lot "B" (Homestead Road) westerly through to Alamo. Note 1 on the map indicates that a "non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress for emergency vehicles exists". Public works staff is concerned that the availability of the described easement for public use may not in fact exist. If it can be determined definitively that it is available then Homestead Road (lot B) could be extended to Alamo and the dead-end situation partially eliminated (ie: for emergency vehicles) . 2 TT 23681 STAFF REPORT I 2. Staff was also concerned with the height of street "B" relative to the perimeter wall being constructed at Monterra. Homestead Road should not be constructed so high as to put people in vehicles above the top of the wall. The applicant is going to provide data confirming that this situation will not be created. 3. The public works department, with the concurrence of planning staff, will require that Chia Road be opened through to Haystack Road. This will serve to improve circulation in the area. 4. The applicant is utilizing the natural slope of the site to its maximum in order to create view lots. Lot numbers 27 through 36 and lot numbers 9 through 16 are the upper tier of lots and are significantly higher in grade than the adjacent lots to the north. The ten lots fronting onto Homestead are typically 12 feet above the adjacent lots to the north which front on Bel Air Road. The eight lots on the north side of Bel Air Road are typically seven feet above the row of eight lots that front onto Skyward Way. i In the past, grading lots in this manner has lead to problems with walls. In order to reduce these problems to a minimum it will be conditioned that all lot lines will be at the top of the slope. The proposed owner to the south (Monterra) has expressed concern that the proposed height of the row of lots on Homestead is being kept higher than the natural slope. This developer indicates that he was required to lower the pad heights at the south end of his project so as not to impact the lots south of Mesa View. 5. Arrow Trail and Chia Road do not align with each other. Chia Road must swing easterly in order to connect with Arrow Trail. This road connection is essential to the circulation of the area. The owner of the property to the east of this street is the city. Acquisition of this property in order to construct the street improvements will need to be negotiated prior to filing the final map. IV. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS NEEDED FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The proposed map is consistent with the zoning and the zoning is consistent with the general plan. The tentative map has been 3 TT 23681 STAFF REPORT conditioned to require provision of additional traffic circulation. Compliance with that mitigation measure will assure consistency with the general plan. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: All public streets will be dedicated and improved and sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the general plan guidelines and city ordinances. The tentative map has been conditioned that necessary circulation will be added to the final map. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. Justification: The 11.2 acre site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed project and the topography of the site does not create significant problems. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The design of the project indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed density of development because the site can be served by respective utilities and, as conditioned, to provide full traffic circulation and is designed in compliance with all city codes. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The design will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because it will be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations and the proposed negative declaration has determined that there will be no related adverse environmental effect which cannot be mitigated. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The design will not cause serious public health problems because it will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. 4 TT 23681 STAFF REPORT 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: There have been easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The easements are being developed with fully improved streets. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. Justification: The project has been designed to conform to code requirements and will not impact solar access to adjacent properties and will provide adequate solar access to this property. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of community development has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. VI. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the list of concerns delineated previously, staff feels that they can be mitigated to an acceptable level. VII. RECOMMENDATION: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving TT 23681, subject to conditions. VIII. A. Draft resolutions B. Negative declaration C. Legal notice D. Exhibits Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /dlg 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 36 LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant 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 as justified in the staff report for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. TT 23681 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of August, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All lot lines will be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. 6. That Barberry Lane be extended southerly to connect with the proposed Homestead Road to provide full traffic circulation (ie: 50 feet right-of-way, full improvements) . 7. That the street "B" (future Homestead Road) will be designed so that its elevation will be at least four feet below the top of the adjacent perimeter wall at the Monterra Development. 8. That this applicant shall pay for the required improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation in the neighborhood could be a problem. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9. That full improvements of Chia Road to connect to Arrow Trail be provided as part of this map. Acquisition of the property to the east necessary to align this road with Arrow Trail must be completed prior to final map approval. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 507, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79- 17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off-site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right-of-way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road and 60 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") , located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. i i 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12' , with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". /dlg 6 TENTATIVE TRACT NQ 23L681 �w�,>f�t.�r• A -� •� ' O - rx� .U �-?LI''5::.�-. � � � ..'I �',_ �' � �.�._. ....... .......... f•SIPEM191-S --'"_srcrwagD —wnY' --� I �. � ^•"•' '"Po � c �•fj / - L� 1 \y .i3 l - �/�[ �ja ,9."\ 1 � 77''''�� Ij' (liu\� 1'm,e z� _ j-{i�l `° �` � "l-V` ••� \= oez�eca�.� y I - � '. - ✓� _- PD ' 20 \ 2 /� 2[ .3'�23� :i-21\ `' i Iri ie ✓//yam ----- deY®n- ppa,i `de. .ro.s` Nu.YF `.M /i ; N•i]]{ \ 'r aY"�..i C t: _ J _ r c��� l4 �!> n32^ lI�I� '\90. � n°�mA'� »n•w. lreuw�- / _ `�-N.��aiss- vn.. rn aavms� �� � `�1� ` ���. .-._�-�...i.�... jj E N TIO �1 =,ems INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: STEVC SirIaW FROM: Richard Folkers, Asst.City Manager/Public Works Director DATE: Ave'vsT SUBJECT: T,,4 m rive. The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above- referenced project: (1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 507, shall be paid prior to (recordation of final map) (2) Drainage facilities, as designated within the (Master Drainage Plan) (Master Drainage Plan - North Palm Desert Area) (Northside Area Drainage Master Plan) shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. (3) Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. (4) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to (recordation of final map) t1SSE37lCQ (5) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. (6) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. offsite improvement plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to (recordation of the final map) Such offsite improvements shall include, but not limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configura- tion. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. (7) 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. (8) All private (streets) (driveways and parking lots) shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior, to (recordation of the final map) (grading permit issuance) . (9) Landscaping maintenance on shall be provided by the (homeowner's association) (property owner) . 10) As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. (11 In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12) As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of IRER-street right7of-way at y5_0 feet on 13E441R- R.P. and &C> feet on CgIA QD. 146*1ESMIInD Ashall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. (13) In accordance with the Circulation Network of the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, installation of one-half landscaped median island in shall be provided. A cash payment in lieu of actual installation. may be submitted at the option of the Director of Public Works. (14) 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. 15) Full improvement of t-11991t6V streets based on (W residential) ( ) ( street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, C.P.D. Code. . (16) Traffic analysis to be prepared for the project to address the specific impacts on existing networks (street and intersections) and the proposed mitigation measures recommended for approval by the City. (17) Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications. with only driveway approaches) to be allowed to serve this property. (18) No (new) requirements. (Original conditions apply) . (19) Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. (20 Complete Cif (tract) map(:ea 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. (21 Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the. approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit (s) by the Department of Public Works. (22 A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the grading permit. (23) Applicant shall secure reciprocal ingress and egress access easements from the owner(s) of lot(s) 24) Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (25) Waiver of access to" except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. (26) Applicant shall agree. to participate in and contribute their fair share to the Cook Street extension project (continuation of Cook Street to Interstate 10) when requested. (2 7) /F PPum.,.r r Woo J#Dr. Foti r etc co as7no c?W j e f r(f!N_�*�p (28) (29) (30) C"- RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. RJF:JSG/lw 06-14-88 �I " RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1p�E Of CAUF�9�i w � FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE V - OUNTY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY ! - "RIVERSMDk,, RAY HEBRARD raEN7 Of fOf�y FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE July 5, 1988 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 Y TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 W 4fiV �a TO: Ray A. Diaz Director of Community Development JUL 6 1988 ODMMONITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAP,9404I ATTN.- Steve Smith CITY OF PALM DESERT REF: TT 236131 ; 36 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION CHAZAN With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced TT 23681 , the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances, and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec . 1O.3O1C. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant (s) (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ) , located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building (s) . as measured along approved vehicular travelways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel " type. Prior to the application for a building permit , the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. . No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval , the original will be returned . One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Z-- Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing , and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: " I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department . " Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department . All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio-controlled over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department . Minimum opening width shall be 12' , with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" . All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Fire Protection/Inspection Staff. Sincerely, RAY HEBRARD Ranger in Charge County Fire Chief By rre eeder Protection Specialist bbm Z�U - RIVERSIDE COUNTY of CALIF "w f F1 vr_ FIRE DEPARTMENT 1 'f??_ IN COOPERATION WITH THE V COUNT ,_a CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RIVERSIDE 'o`r RAY HEBRARD A9�T4EMT OF f6P�g FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN IACINTO AVENUE July 12, 1988 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE:(714)6573183 Eastern Division Headquarters Riverside County Fire Dept. 44400 Town Center Way Ray Diaz �,�+J." ) a Palm Desert, CA 92200 Director of Community Developme tjij City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring J U L 12 1988 Palm Desert, CA 92260 COA7MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attn: Steve Smith CITY Of PALM DESERT Ref: TT 23681, 36 Lot Single Family Subdivision Chazan Additional Requirements 1. All dead end streets in excess of 150' must have a cul-de-sac with 45' radius. 2. All dead end streets in excess of 500' are required to have second access. a. Fire Department would prefer to have a circulating street from Lot B tied to Bel Air along lot lines 17/16 or between 21/22 and 32/31. Current Fire Department Policy calls for emergency access to be all weather surface, ac paving or concrete. Respectfully RAY HEBRARD County Fire Chief BY, ' m Reeder F"re Protection Specialist dpa vlATEq 0 ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY �JST RICj COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON.SECRETARY JOHN P.PONELL KEITH H.AINSWORTH.ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M.NICHOLS REDNANE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS THEODORE J.FISH July 6, 1988 File: 0163.1 Department of Environmental Services i•�� ,Ut 1oaN, 9�gpRtMEl+t City of Palm Desert COMP,�,IRY UE' PALMOESERt 73-510 Fred Waring Drive city of Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract 23681, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 29, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, Stormwater Engineer. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager—Chief Engineer CS:lmf cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 150083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: TT 23681 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 single family lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail. The Director 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 /dlg C CASE N0 .7ra.%-8L. =711t0N:iENTAL SERVICES DEPT . INITIAL STUDY ENVIAONM*1TAL EVALUATION C=CXLIST 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 , possible 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. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief / features? d. The destruction, coveringt 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? _ V_ b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a_ Changes- in currents , 'or the course or / 1` direction of water' movements? _/ _ b. Changes in-absorption rates , drainage patterns, or the rate and" amount of / surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? V d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of 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 sugplies? a. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and / crops )? — V— b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare, / or endangered species of plants? _ _ _✓ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal / replenishment of existing species? _ V_ l S. 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 V/ the migration or movement of animals? d. Oeterioration to existing wildlife h2bltet 3. Yes Ma`be No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in �.the rate of use of any natural resources? h. repletion of any non-renewable natural — resource? 7. Enerey. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. remand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.degelapment of new sources of energy? S. Risk of Uoset. . Does the proposal involve a risk o 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. E,anomic Loss. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? _ I/ b. A change in the value of property and impro-+erients exposed to geologic hazards / beyond accepted community risk standards? V 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? / 1i . Land Use. Will the proposal result in the V a ' ration of the present developed or / planned land use of an area? 12. Ooen Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the -emount of designated open space? 13 . Population. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteraticn of the location, distribution , density, or growth rate of the human Population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by aue , income, religion , racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , household type? _ _ _✓ 4. Yes Mavbe No 14. E�mol� o ++�enn Will the proposal result in adder new long-tarn+ jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? — — 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and 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. Transoortation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? — — 7 c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? — — _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation / or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , V bicyclists , or pedestrians? — 17 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or resuit 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)? V 19. Utilities . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? - v e. Storm water drainage? _ 1/ f. Solid waste and disposal ? — 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health — — care provided? 21 . Social Ser/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 Glare. Will the proposal produce — — ne-w I i gnt. or g are? 24 . Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal result in an a teration of a significant / archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? i a' 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Sioni`ficance. a. Ooes the- project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? _ _ — b. Oces 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. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: /D�"sd lei 9TC�� y^�-�= e INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. TT 23681 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1. EARTH a. The project will result in grading. Said grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures nor create unstable earth conditions in that all grading will be pursuant to the grading ordinance. b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over— covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural development which will take place on the site. C. The site slopes from southwest to northeast and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties, and better direction. d. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site, through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. Mitigation Measures The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that the buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. 2% AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem will be a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled "Park View Drive Land Use Study". Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. INITAL STUDY TT 23681 C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material. The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a control manner. C. See b. In addition, the Palm Valley Channel was constructed to protect the area in general and site in particular from flood waters coming from the areas that devastated Palm Desert in 1976 and 1979. d. There is no ground water present on the site. e. See d. f. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies; the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE a. The project will not increase or decrease the variety of animal life on the site. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of animal. C. See b and c. 2 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 d. The project site is an in—fill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7, a. & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 8. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent use as single family dwellings will increase ambient noise level. The increase will not create a long term annoyance to the adjacent residential properties. Mitigation Measures Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. 11. LAND USE The project will not alter the present developed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as low density residential; the project would develop land uses permitted in the low density residential land use designation. 12. OPEN SPACE The site in question is designated as low density residential; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. Park fees collected from this development will be used to purchase park land or develop park land to serve this area. 3 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 13. POPULATION a. Developing single family lots in an area designated low density residential will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio—economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT While the project will provide a number of new jobs in terms of the value as a whole, in and of itself, it is minor. Most of the jobs created; gardeners, pool maintenance and other service personnel, however, will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to the valley for other reasons. 15. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. b. None — covered in item 15 a. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Projected trip generation per dwelling unit per day is 10 for a total of 380 trip ends. As part of the conditions of approval the applicant shall be required to provide road improvements as provided by the circulation element of the general plan on Homestead Road, Chia Road and Bel Air. In addition, the applicant is being required to open Chia Road through to Haystack Road. This will serve to reduce traffic presently using Alamo Road as a means of access to Haystack. b. All new single family dwellings are required to provide two covered parking spaces as well as on—street and driveway parking. C. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. In addition these systems have extensive additional capacity. d. Principal access to the area will be via Haystack Road, Alamo Road and the newly connected Chia Road as discussed on item "a" above. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by item 16a should result in positive impacts. 4 i INITAL STUDY TT 23681 17. PUBLIC SERVICE a—f. None — The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for residential development. Infrastructure improvements (ie, storm channel, streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax generated on the site after 1979 including those generated by the improvement of this project will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. 19. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development. 20. HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 21. SOCIAL SERVICES The property will be developed with high end single family dwellings. Owners of these homes will pay substantial amounts of property tax and generally have a low incidence of use of social services. Any increase in the demand for general social services will be minimal. 22. AESTHETICS a. The city grading ordinance and architectural review process take into account the effects development may have on adjacent properties and the views available from public streets. Care will be taken to assure that any impact on views from adjacent properties or scenic vistas will be minimized. b. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive. The proposed single family dwellings must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural review process. C. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. 5 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 23. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the effects will be minimal. 24. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance of this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. /dlg 6 I X Berta �s &7 . n � , LLJ Cb nb �2 �S bze d'DD NY )) a` THOMAS R. FARREEE, M.D. 93012 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CALIFORNIA 92260 August 8, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz - City of Palm Desert ::{ 93i•� Planning Commision Dear Mr Diaz; asEc, In follow up to our phone conversation, I am writing regarding TT 23681 . I will be unable to attend the proposed meeting on August 16 , 1988 . I am trying to arrange for counsel to represent my interests. My most important concern is that the proposed lots be of equivalent size to the lots on the north side of Skyward. These have already been developed into 13 , 000 square foot lots. I request that the planning commission require that the proposed tract be divided into lots of at least 13,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Si ely/n/ Tho s �ar ell, MD cc;Jeffrey Patterson I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 ��O JULY 20. 1988 CiTY OF PALM DESERT � LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23601 70 CHANGE IN MEETING DATE YOU RECENTLY RECEIVED A LEGAL NOTICE FROM THE CITY CONCERNING THE ABOVE NOTED CASE' PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEARING DATE DELINEATED iN THAT NOTICE. SEE THE CORRECT DATE BELOW. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres Into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10.000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 I I , s N fl?flr0E3 ' ' R 00 RA ROADM 0 +•1� SIE ST 43. 90 4 D W 4Y ..9RYwARO U sun , i _ ILI i b0 ��P, I���� R ) 1t:E 9END ERA', / • f J I y �oq �_ _ , , ;T 1 :Pon , V� BUCwa K OARO TRAIL I -- . -i _ 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY �Arcougr 1� I . i ERONEN TIL.I(1 ` \ ARROW TRAIL •BROKEN ARRO TN A LI__ FE ATNER TgAIE SS � OVaf Y N�� WNITE DR.n ILI, i P P.R.-77 X SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 16. 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room next to the Council Chamber at 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary J July 29, 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission PET IT ION We, the undersigned residents of Silver Spur Ranch, respectfully ask the Palm Desert City Planning Commission to reject the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road in connection with the proposed Chazan development, on which you will hold a public hearing. on Tuesday, Aug. 16, at 7 p. m. in the Administrative Conference Room at the City Hall, San Pablo and Fred Waring. We do not object to the development per se, if it is properly planned and in keeping with the Monterra development to the south. We do, however, object to any connection from that development to Arrow Trail. Silver Spur Ranch already has three entrances and exits: Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard Trail, both off Portola, and Moon Lane, from Haystack. We do not need nor want another. Arrow Trail now is a short 144-block street entirely within Silver Spur Ranch, and has outlets only to Broken Arrow, Buckboard and Little Bend, all quiet Silver Spur Ranch residential streets. To connect it to an extension of Chia Road would bring unwanted and unnecessary traffic. to our peaceful area, and also would mean that a portion of the city land north of Buckboard that was deeded to the city for a park would have to be taken for the road, as shown on the plans submitted to you. We ask the commission to deny the proposal to extend Chia Road to Arrow Trail and to keep the park intact and in its natural state. SIGNED' / ADDRESS DATE /, / 23366 /3��ki3ae�i> 16 Ab c� Gy��� PET='FION We, the undersigned residents of Silver Spur Ranch, respectfully ask the Palm Desert City Planning Commission to reject the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road in connection with the proposed Chazan development, on which you will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 16, at 7 p. m, in the Administrative Conference Room at the City Hall, San Pablo and Fred Waring. We do not object to the development per se, if it is properly planned and in keeping with the Monterra development to the south. We do, however, object to any connection from that development to Arrow Trail. Silver Spur Ranch already has three entrances and exits: Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard Trail, both off Portola, and Moon Lane, from Haystack. We do not need nor want another. Arrow Trail now is a short 1#-block street entirely within Silver Spur Ranch, and has outlets only to Broken Arrow, Buckboard and Little Bend, all quiet Silver Spur Ranch residential streets. To connect it to an extension of Chia Road would bring unwanted and unnecessary traffic to our peaceful area, and also would mean that a portion of the city land north of Buckboard that was deeded to the city for a park would have to be taken for the road, as shown on the plans submitted to you. We ask the commission to deny the proposal to extend Chia Road to Arrow Trail and to keep the park intact and in its natural state. SIGN,EED1 /1 ADDRESS DATE .� 7B-ay/ ,rJt..b//7 o� d7• �/I 3/ P� PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Silver Spur Ranch, respectfully ask the Palm Desert City Planning Commission to reject the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road in connection with the proposed Chazan development, on which you will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 16, at 7 p. m. in the Administrative Conference Room at the City Hall, San Pablo and Fred Waring. We do not object to the development per se, if it is properly planned and in keeping with the Monterra development to the south. We do, however, object to any connection from that development to Arrow Trail. Silver Spur Ranch already has three entrances and exits: Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard Trail, both off Portola, and Moon Lane, from Haystack. We do not need nor want another. Arrow Trail now is a short 116-block street entirely within Silver Spur Ranch, and has outlets only to Broken Arrow, Buckboard and Little Bend, all quiet Silver Spur Ranch residential streets. To connect it to an extension of Chia Road would bring unwanted and unnecessary traffic to our peaceful area, and also would mean that a portion of the city land north of Buckboard that was deeded to the city for a park would have to be taken for the road, as shown on the plans submitted to you. We ask the commission to deny the proposal to extend Chia Road to Arrow Trail and to keep the park intact and in its natural state. SIGNED ADDRESS p DATE f QAfti r WA 73 Y/3 r �-riper 73 � �4 Q- 0 j E J.F. Davidson Assoc. , Inc. � 73 080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA •92260 k-tTN:C.SAI_ A-Tirmp—RJ- . E GIB J.F. Davidson Assoc. , Inc. 73 080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 ii DEVELOPER Chazan Constructin Company 72757 Fred Waring. Drive Suite 8 Palm Desert CA 92260 DEVELOPER Chazan Constructin. Company 72757 Fred Waring Drive suite ppalm DDes�sert CA 92260 ' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 _ TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 JULY 20. 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 CHANGE IN MEETING DATE ! YOU RECENTLY RECEIVED A LEGAL NOTICE FROM THE CITY CONCERNING THE ABOVE NOTED CASE. PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEARING DATE DELINEATED IN THAT NOTICE. SEE THE CORRECT DATE BELOW. NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a Public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert. California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-I 10.000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 . I i ' ^ R 00 R 1f) OOf3 R- ,, i ERA ROAD ' SOMERA R R- 1 1 JR19P"��'l R ,Of)fl 4 ,I T,12 WA -D WAY SKYWARD BUR R-1 10,000 AIR ROAD 60 T � r j 11 , Tr:E 9 L H Tan Ti p T - _ y - MIR BIICNB04 R0 TRAIL t. DAVIS RD. Q v { I C SUBJECT PROPERTY e \� BROKEN ARROW TRAIL BROKEN ARROW A. '{ J I _ a MWHITEOR, BLl WYRER FEATHER TRAIL ORA ' OURT n III I SM of C 1A \ _ P � QI�F, Y v l SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 16. 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room next to the Council Chamber at 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary July 29. 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission EUGENE M. KAY RANDALL D. WHITE - RICHARD F.- HERKERT 73020 Homestead Rd. 73186 Somera Rd. 73043 Somera Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-190-009 630-301-003 630-302-002 I I RICHARD YERGER JOHN R. EADE GBJ LTD. j 73909 Hwy Ill 73067 Somera Rd. C/O Richard F. Healy Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 3848 Carson St. #108 . .Torrance, Ca. 90503 630-301-004 630-302-003 630-190-012 I LQD INC. WALTER 0. YAREMCIO RICHARD G. COSBIE C/O Richard Healy 73110 Somera Rd. 73087 Somera Rd. 3848 Carson St. #108 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Torrance, Ca. 90503 630-301-005 630-302-004 630-190-013 I i CITY OF PALM DESERT j WALTER 0. YAREMCIO BARBARA L. STEWART P.O. Box 1977 73110 Somera Rd. 73111 Somera Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-190-025 630-301-006 630-302-005 I CVCWD STEVEN A. GRANIK CLAYBOURNE INVESTMENTS, LTD. P.O. Box 1058 73086 Somera Rd. C/O Luxury Home Inc. Coachella, Ca. 92236 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 P.O. Box 882 Palm Desert, Ca. 92261 630-190-052 630-301-007 j 630-302-006 i REID G. JENKINS WILLIAM A. GITMED j ALAN M. WINNER 73236 Somera Rd. 73060 Somera Rd. 73163 Somera Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-301-001 630-301-008 630-302.-007 MURRAY DONALD TAYLOR AUDRE L. SINGLETARY i JACK RICHARD PEAT JR. 73210 Somera Rd. 18726 Nau Ave. 73185 Somera Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Northridge, Ca. 91326 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-301-002 630-302-001 630-302-008 I STEPHEN G. SACHER JOHN VUKSIC ROBERT V. -WEINSTEIN 73211 Somera Rd. 72625 Hedgehog 73065 Skyward Way Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-302-009 630-302-016 630-303-003 HENRY H. WHITAKER JR. MARKO DAKOVICH RICHARD K. MARCKS 73237 Somera Rd. 1305 N. Padonia Ave. C/O Pride Piper Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Whittier, Ca. 90603 74051 .Hwy 111 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-302-010 630-302-017 630-303-004 MIKE CHARLEBOIX LEE M. BUCHOLZ STUART A. SMITH 73234 Skyward Way P.O. Box 4777 73082 Bel Air Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-302-011 630-302-018 630-303-005 i I I ALEJANDRO J. MARTINEZ JOHN C. TYLER CRAIG H.J. NELSON 73214 Skyward Way P.O. Box 2667 73068 Bel Air Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92261 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-302-012 630-302-019 630-303-006 i i I -- DONALD M. BOLAS THOMAS R. FARRELL III ROBIN JENNIFER BRAITHWAITE 73182 Skyward Way j 73012 Skyward Way 73042 Bel Air Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 I I 630-302-013 j 630-302-020 630-303-007 i I I BYUNG C. KWON RICHARD W. KITE RICHARD C. SLOANE 73162 Skyward Way 73015 Skyward Way 73014 Bel Air Rd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 630-302-014 630-3037001 630-303-008 REZA NAZEMI ANTONIO V. NANADIEGO NEIL D. NEUMANN 73134 Skyward Way 73045 Skyward Way P.O. Box 1184 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Palm Desert, Ca. 92261 630-303-002 630-302-015 631-181-001 WALTER AUBERGER CHACAHUALA LTD. 73298 Buckboard Trail C/O Leonard Greenberg & Assoc. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 1247 7th St. 11301A Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 631-181-002 j 631-690-001 WAYNE A. WILSON CHACAHUALA LTD. 73320 Buckboard Trail 10677 W. Pico Blvd. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Los Angeles, Ca. 90064 631-181-003 631-690-033 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON C0. 1 CHACAHUALA LTD. - C.S. Reenders Asst. Controler C/O Leonard Greenber ssoc. P.O. Box 800 1247 7th St. #30 IA Rosemead, Ca. 91770 i Santa Monic a. 90401 I 6317181-012 63 91-021 thru 030 . . JAMES MICHAEL BLOCHER CHACAHUALA LTD. 2385 Carpenter Canyon Rd. 10677 W. Pico Blvd: San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 Los Angeles, C. 0064 I 631-182-001 631-6 44 -691-046 and 047 JERRE D. MAXWELL CHACAHUALA LTD. 48125 Prairie Dr. >12477th rd Greenbe ssoc. ) Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 St. A a, Ca. 90401 631-182-002 10 thru 02.9 I FRANK R. TUCKER CHACAHUALA LTD- Pi Woodlyn Rd. 10677 W. Pi lvd. Pasadena, Ca. 91104 Los An es, Ca. 90064 ' 631-182-003 31-692-036 RALPH L. KIRSCH N I �cNeY f�/JPf� �iPC� 26602 Fond Du Lac Rd. JD V�Ne p Rancho Palos Verdes, Ca.90274 / (7"'/'� /� (/�^- 631-182-012 / V �/U�7on ra �? / 22� G N TK CITY 6 P M WSEPT.STATE f GLipIMi TENTATIVE TRACT_ NQ 23,681 0.101 _ ;1 v!� :, '�"H,�nr- -% IQ �• y "� �. r -- eTlu , Ile 4 i C..ti�o.a. V� � :vts I -/ rwD,.r\ \W`a° \�e.wa� ,,(... � . � .�.���•.� ..._... . o ao i � _ _ r' ELRIfl_ II __ � _ D��K• ( %�>�. =UTeES - { .. `lam -_ .)� ..... — <�-_ "1_.1.. - \�JI• � \t 'l 0. `. \S !i �i ` .✓)/ , � m s ' e. -- — -• a Z.1�"'.'_...T...�.._.........._.. I 1 H r.c•mo rco. u. Nea m•.m.a- nn .:� tau. •«uc� AI //Iflll �, 1 F� I -' - ASSPSSMY M.KEC Atl1 �\:Do fig' �ze \ zT Hnc zE ..o....�/1� >i_. I `o�• `�/ '!',�T'i' 1� .I 7DE'ff JAL E UT S-4N TION\ I \ 1 lll��� 1 `—ti.. �I• ���TTT� 1� i 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 JULY 20. 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that' a public hearing will be held before e p anning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more . particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 SAID public hearing will be .held on Tuesday, August 16, ':1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room next to the Council Chamber at 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary July 29, 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission fV , Gtlf�� o� llzzrT� 7 �ao� E 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 JULY 20. 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 CHANGE IN MEETING DATE YOU RECENTLY RECEIVED A LEGAL NOTICE FROM THE CITY CONCERNING THE ABOVE NOTED CASE. PLEASE DISREGARD THE HEARING DATE DELINEATED IN THAT NOTICE. SEE THE CORRECT DATE BELOW. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11 .2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10.000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 i- i 11- I AY S I � ERA I {, ROAD ° ' SOM ERA R — R- -' SIESTL Q +HR f i i' W' 0 I IWAY .SKYWARD I 1 SUN ', R-1 .0.000 W Y It V - V .Ivl AIR ROAD r all 114� R .11 tLE 9I,ND TRAIL a l I_ iO NIA II BU�11A TRAIL �% 1 t DAVIS RD. 0 , .SUBJECT,P`ROPERTY' LAY COURT Iq d \9 ' I BROKEN ARROW TRAIL ' BRONEN ARROW TR, t b 6 _ O 'FEATHER TRNIL e55 W OURT j ♦\♦ ti n WHITE DR.R n ; ! I I I .•(.(r . fF I r4 � - - P gl I SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday. August 16. 1988 at 7:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room next to the Council Chamber at 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary July 29. 1988 Palm Desert Planning Commission I. CuAlozr cmxff 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 13, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterro. Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 R 00 .9- 1 OM ERA RDA. SOMERA R— i)ZY • {�I{�q� }/^r do "I }� 0�� 43.b6Q 4 r o I 'KYWA D WAY SKYWARD SUN I r i ER 4 V P 3rEL AIR ROAD _ Ys yyj peT. 17 v :E , Nl, TR. _ �v y MIR SUCKBOARO I TRAIL / — I' DAVIS w DR. -, _ I1WNTER RC ,Eo - - SUBJECT I PROPERTY TY ��',�I Ile;-p w AA BROKEJ COURT BOEN AR90w N IARFOw T- 1 ' 26 00 FE>TNf TRAIL RASS — COURT J yWHITE DR. `� t.r `A P� P.R.— P.R.7,7 r- SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 2, 1988 at 7:00 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ July 22, 1988 Planning Commission Secretary 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 13, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterr0. Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 R — II 1-0 R 50 ERA I ROA j I I S MERA " A R— 1 IIEST 43.�9U. 4 ' I wf u I SKYw D wAY SKYWARD._' I � SUN , R-1 10.000 7 B E L AIR ROAD Ott 1 ,b0 .z�. 1 i ! IRr I �! LII :LE 9L..40 TRAIL J2 LI_ Ibib MIF l +1 9OOW Z i 1 ' 1 11 1 �\ + _I I• -1 _ BUCN804RD TRAIL ;e LEW OR. DAVIS RD.- Q ,SUBJECT PROPERTY f.1e_o -_ " _LAY - I 1 BROKEN ARROW TRAIL BROKEN ARROW TR♦ l-� i-01R.-5, I _ 10 1 MOViER '.f FATHER TRAIL J WHITE DR n III U ! III yL C_ „1 aL f -t+ AVE . UE s 1 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 2, 1988 at 7:00 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ July 22, 1988 Planning Commission Secretary d, 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 13, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterro Development, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 2, 1988 at 7:00 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ July 22, 1988 Planning Commission Secretary CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING DEPARTMENT , PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION I, Sharon Moen certify that on March 17, 1988 (print name) (month-day-year) the attached property owners list was prepared by Stewart Title Co. , (print company or of Riverside County pursuant to application requirements individual's name) furnished by the City of Palm Desert Planning Department. Said list is a complete and true,cempilation of owner of the subject property and all other property owners within 300 feet of the property involved in the application and is based upon the latest i equalized assessment rolls. I further certify that the information filed is true and correct to the best of my knowledge; I understand that incorrect or. erroneous information may be grounds for rejection or denial of the application. Name: Stewart Title Co. , of Riverside County TITLE/REGISTRATION: Subdivision Department ADDRESS: 7344 Magnolia Avenue Riverside, California 92504 PHONE: 714-687 4 SIGNATURE: DATE. ��- ��� CASE• SUE DIVISION MAP �ff�d_��Lriili`�'U®G`J G��68�i1 : a]®��Ir�mmceuo4 ®ti ®P9�1diTlDCNQW®ovtt�d �®Pnd�am a �n0�wwduos� �ldnd�d�uo a CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT CO. 4plicanr (Please print) ' 72-757 Fred Waring Dr. , Suite 8 340-5369 Mailing Aadrau Telephone Palm Desert, CA 92260 City State ZI p-Coae REQUEST: (Desrrtbe specific nature of approval requested). To subdivide the subject property into 36 residential lots. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 11.2 acres ' parcel situated on the northwest corner of Chia Road and Homestead. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 630-190-012, 013 . EXISTING ZONING -3 nit /at'ra _ /�/Qd() Property Owner AuthW.N� states trial they are the owner Is) of the property described herein and hereby give author- ing of this application. 6/8/88 OareAgreement aosoivingll ilabltihes rotative to any dead restrictions. I DO BY MY SIEM ENT, Absdvs the City of Poem Desort of all Ihblllfles regarding any deed restrictions that may be applicable )o the property described herein. 6/8/88 azure Date Applicant's Signature 6/8/88 ARer Moore Onature Dare STAFF USE ONLY) Environmental Status Acc.pted by: 7 Ministerial Act E.A. No. 7 Categorical Exemption - (CASE Ha.7 Negative Declaration I Other Reference Coss No. -�•;.re�u..reesr of e-u—e_______..__.______._. -- Parties Involved in Representing the Project Owner: GBJ, LTD. c/o Richard F. Healey 3848 Carson St. , Ste 108 Torrance, California 90503 Developer: Chazan Construction 72-757 Fred Waring Dr. , Ste. 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 340-5369 Contact: Roger Moore Engineer: J.F. Davidson Assoc. , Inc. 73-080 El Paseo.Ste 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (619) 346-5691 Contact: Claudia Salvatierra, Project Manager ♦ R c- I.. ,S��iII 'ifs 1 Environmental Assessment Form TO T'r,E APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and 'supplying the information requested will expedite City revie:i 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. Apolica-ions sub^itted will noz be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GE-NEPAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address , and telephone number of owner, applicant or project sponsor: . Mazan DevelonmPnt Co 77 757 Fred L� rinQ nr. StP A Palm DPSPrt, CA 9 260 (610) 'tan 5369 2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con- cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other reore- sentative) : Claudia SalirariQrra, Proiort Mmaqpr 7 F David on Assoc. , Inc. 73-080 El Paseo e 106 Palm Desert, A' 2260 346 5691 3. Common name of project (if any) : 4. Project location (street address or general location) :Northwest Corner of Homestead and Chia 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets 3 bounds) : Tentative Tract No 23681 (see attached Title Repa t for legal description) . Accessor's Parcel No's• 630-190 012 013 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) : 36 lot residential subdivision 7. Relationship to a larger Project or series of rcj rc s how this project e P -� (dascrlbe P relates to other activities , phases , and devel ments planned, or now underway) : ec- n,�A 8. List and describe any other related ernit- required for this ro 'ect permits and other public approvals red by the City, Regional, State andFederal agenciesn(indicatethseesub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) : N A EXISTING CONMITIONS : 9. Project site area: 11± a Yew (Size or property in sq. ft. or acreage) 10. Present zoning: PR-3 (Proposed zpning) : PR_3 11 . General Plan land use designation: Low density 3-5 dwelling units per acre. 12. Existing use of the project site: Vacant 13. Existing use on adjacent properties : (Example - North, Shopping South, Single Family Dwellings ; East, Vacant, etc. ). Center; South mr-rf 22111 residential currently under construction, —_ Fast V,r^nt: W stresidential - North residential 14. Site topography (descri.be) : Va n+- all , ;a1 fan, sloping from he Southwest to the Northeast with existing indi=ncajs flora 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO YES x �ma`ter V an storm drain) 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : 55.349.41 =ic yards of „t an. 2 fi , 1 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. NOTE: SUBDIVISION OF LOT$ ONLY, AT THIS TIME 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms ) : B. Schedule of unit sizes : C. Number of sto ries Height feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) (hgt. ) E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities : G. Is there any night lighting of the project: H. Range of sales rites or rents : P 5 to S I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . . o Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . . o 20. COm-T.ercial , Industrial , Inst4,tut`onal or Other Project: N/A A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) ( if Of-"ices , 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 G.' 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) . . e Are the following it_ms applicable to the project or its ef`ect, : Discuss below all items caecked yes (attach additional sheers as necessary) . YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides , or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Chance in .the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. x _ 23. g ail Subject to or resulting in s r. _ e. , osion by wind or rioodin . 9 X 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 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 25. 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. ) 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. 32. Results in the dislocation of people. _x YES t;0 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. x [ 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. �� ER MOW CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT' Namq Print or Type For 6/8/88 gnature Date INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and -sub— mit with this form. ) Comments on items checked "yes" on questions 21 - 33 of the Environmental Assessment Form. 22. Changes in levels of dust may be anticipated during grading activities. This can be mitigated through dust control measures such as watering while grading. 24. Existing drainage patterns will be altered in accordance with the design of the project. 28. Additional demand for municipal services will be generated subsequent to construction of single family residential units. 29. Additional demand will be placed on utility services as dwelling units are constructed. Extension of utility services to the subject site will be required. ,...-��-�x ,� `='.� - • - - .. � - I �lj ' u m N m i i i I ` i MINVI'ES PAIM DESERT PLAMIW, O "USSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 Commissioner Richards felt that everyone in the area should be notified. Chairman Erwood agreed and questioned the matter of Chia to Haystack being heard at another public hearing and Mr. Diaz indicated that Chia opening for mitigation measures to the traffic should be all heard simultaneously. Mr. Diaz indicated that property owners within the 300 feet frcm the project and 300 feet down Chia should be notified with the applicant providing the city with property owner labels and then both issues could be resolved. Coanissicner Richards felt there were unresolved issues regarding the easement and the park (Commissioner Richards suggested that a poll be taken of the neighborhood to see if they want a park), but did not feel that traffic was an issue, nor the lot size differential of 10%. Chairman Erwood felt that Homestead was a problem and something should be done. Mr. Diaz recommended that the public hearing be reopened and asked if the applicant concurred with the continuance. He stated that some type of grading plan should be submitted for evaluation so that this matter does not have to return at a later date. Commissioner Richards asked what direction would be given to the developer. Mr. Diaz stated that if he has the public right-of-way, fine; but if city has to utilize eminent domain, staff would not recommend approval of that to city council. Chairman Erwood reopened the public hearing. Mr. Chazan agreed to the continuance to October 18. Mr. Smith stated that renotification would be done. Commissioner Richards felt good input regarding parks had been received and suggested that people be sure and make their opinions known. He noted that park development required city funds and recommended that they speak to the city council. Mr. Diaz also stated that he would discuss the park with the Palm Desert Parks and Recreation Commission. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, continuing Tr 23681 to October 18, 1988. Carried 4-0. 9 MII9(TI'ES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CCKUSSICN SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 MS. CHARLENE McCLAIN, 72-730 Ironwood, spoke representing Mr. Chazan. She stated that the zoning for the property is R-1, allowing a minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes and they were proposing 1200 square foot homes. She indicated that of 152 homes in the neighborhood 54 of them were under 2,000 square feet, per tax assessor records. Ms. McClain stated that the setbacks were the same and that they were willing to work with everyone. She indicated that a 60 foot easement already exists on the property, which should explain the location of the road. She also indicated that the economy would govern the unit sizes and the development would be compatible and contiguous with the rest of the neighborhood. MR. DON BOLAS, 73-182 Skyward, agreed with the majority of the property owners who spoke. He expressed concern regarding traffic congestion, noise, and retention of quality of life. He also indicated that he has "lived in the desert for 16 years. Regarding traffic flaw patterns, he felt Chia should be open to Haystack and discussed density. He requested that commission make a conscientious decision. MS. DIANE MANNIS, 73-085 Skyward, stated that she knew that the land would eventually be developed, but hoped it would be high quality. She indicated that children need a place to go and hoped the park would be built. MS. DIANA JENKINS, owner of the last house on Scmera, informed Commission that her main concern was to protect the children that play in that area because of dangerous traffic. Mr. Diaz suggested that Ms. Jenkins talk to her neighbors, since it would be them or people visiting them that are creating the volume and speed of the traffic. He stated that speed bumps couldn't be placed on public streets, but suggested that M. Jenkins contact the public works to discuss the problem and possible solutions. Chairman Em:wood closed the public testimony. He asked for a clarification of the statement regarding the city attorney's opinion of the Chia connection. Mr. Smith explained that it was of concern that the ocnnection of Chia Road through to Haystack Road not be a condition placed on this map unless the notice of hearing was expanded to include property owners 300 feet surrounding the effected area and public works department was going to meet with the city attorney to determine the status of that condition. Mr. Holtz indicated that per Joe Gaugush, it was determined that notification to owners outside the 300' limit was not required. 8 MMT1'ES pAIM DESERT pLANN1NG Q"MMISSION SEPTIIm3ER 20, 1988 stated that water main capacities are handled by CVWD and any new developments are required to have adequate water flaw and pressures and he would not be aware of any traffic signals being installed until a specific design is sutmitted; and he stated that the curb was removed for storm drain construction and had to be replaced, otherwise potential damage could be done to property dawn the street. Ms. peak commented that several years ago she was told that within the next five years the park would be developed and indicated that there are 21 children in the neighborhood that congregate there. Mr. Diaz stated that at that time he thought it was a possibility. Ms. peak also stated that she would like to keep the density down. Ct missioner Richards indicated that the city welcomes input from private citizens. He felt that if there was enough support, a unified group from the neighborhood should approach the city to develop the park. He commented that he would like to see the rest of Haystack developed. DR. HURLBERG spoke representing Dr. Eugene Kay, property owner to the east of this development. He indicated that from Alamo to one portion of their property is private property and a private road and felt that Dr. Kay would not look forward to any kind of easement from Alamo through their property and noted their difficulties from the Monterra development. He expressed concern about the traffic circulation and felt traffic was already unbearable. MRS. BEPSY WHITE, 73-186 Sonera, felt that. the lot size was too small and access from Haystack up Chia would create too much traffic because of the many children from Chia and Skyward that play there and felt something should be built to protect them that would be aesthetically pleasing. MR. TIM SKOGAN, 73-102 Skyward, spoke regarding lot sizes and minimum square footages. He felt it was the same distance west of Alamo to the Frontage Road or Highway 74 as from east of Alamo to Chia. He asked about Chia going through to Haystack. Mr. Holtz stated that it was public works' recommendation that Chia go through to Haystack to relieve traffic congestion. Mr. Skogan felt a trade-off of the park land to a developer would be a good idea, leaving 1 or 2 acres for a passive park. He stated that he would like to see something compatible to the neighborhood built. 7 MIN[lPES PALM DESERT PLANNING CC MISSION SEPTE BER 20, 1988 where it exists between Bel Air and Skyward it breaks up the blocks and could be extended there. He stated they are proposing to extend it to Hanestead to end the long cul-de-sac at Homestead Road. The city does not have the right-of-way to the west and if the developer were to acquire the right-of-way and construct Homestead out to the west to connect to its present terminus at full width, this particular alteration could be modified. After determining that a dirt path exists where the right-of-way would be needed, commission discussed the easement and the possibility of improving circulation by moving Barberry Road. Commissioner Richards suggested that if Silver Spur has the easement, the developer and Silver Spur might wish to discuss this. Mr. Diaz indicated that Homestead is shown as going through and would be a private street, but if the developer were to acquire the right-of-way to connect Homestead to Alamo, then the city would re-evaluate this and it might also solve some of "the drainage problems and lower lots 36 and 35 even more. MR. TOM FARRELL, Skyward and Alamo, asked if the fire marshal holds a separate hearing and Mr. Diaz explained that the fire marshal reviews all proposed tentative tract maps and precise plans and makes convents; in this case they felt that Barberry Lane should be connected. Comii.ssicner Richards clarified that the fire department looks for effective turn-around area. Mr. Farrell felt that the traffic on Alamo was dangerous and noted that less than a year ago there was a school bus accident at the corner. He said that some stop signs and speed limit signs were posted, but indicated he would like a stop, sign at Alamo. Mr. Farrell indicated he liked the idea of having some structure as to what would be developed later, but didn't like the request for a substantially smaller unit of 1800 square feet to be built. Mr. Diaz explained that it is not a request, but under the present zoning ordinance the minimum dwelling unit size is 1200 square feet and the developer can do that or exceed that size up to 30% of the lot, but felt that the price of the lot would warrant a larger house; he noted that the city cooperates with CC&R's however, it can't enforce then. MS. DONNA PEAK had questions regarding the existing water pipe on Somers Road being enough for the new hones and asked if a light would be installed at the Intersection of Alamo and Haystack. She also wondered why at Chia and Haystack they put curbs in if they were going to be replaced again. Mr. Holtz 6 rrnvvrs PALM DESERT PLANNING CXXYMSSICN SEMEMBER 20, 1988 commission that there is a So. Cal. Edison Power Plant at the end of Buckboard Trail. He indicated that right now at the edge of the Monterra wall they are currently working on a curb and an improvement of that street and proposed that Buckboard terminate into Arrow Trail because they have a problem with an unimproved road in Silver Spur from the end of Little Bend and would like to see Little Bend cul-de-sacced. They currently have a barrier at the end of Silver Moon Trail where cars come up to the barrier and have to turn around. He indicated that when there are park improvements, the Silver Spur Board felt that the park should be maintained in a natural desert state or improved with nature trails similar to the Living Desert Reserve. Mr. Diaz informed commission that the city does not have a specific plan for that park and this was the first time anyone has asked for that park to be developed. He indicated that in-lieu park fees generated from this development would be utilized for that park. Also, the plans for the park would be done by the city in conjunction with meetings with neighborhood residents, which would require lots of money and several years in the future. Coxrmissioner Richards stated that the city does not have a lot of experience in building parks and there is usually lots of opposition from area residents. He asked for public works' position on the Chia Road. Mr. Holtz stated that they are favor Chia Road being extended through to Haystack, based on the assumption that there would be a park- MR. HENRY WHITAKER, 73-237 Scmera, last house on the east side of Scmera on the south side of the street. He stated that he was opposed to the park due to the fact that it would take away their view of the natural area and was concerned about traffic. He felt that caning from Skyward around Chia and down Scmera formed a loop where traffic can obtain high speeds. Also, a lot of small children play on Scmera. He did not feel Barberry Road was necessary due to the size of the blocks of homes and noted that it cuts one section right in half. He suggested that Barberry Road be eliminated and Mr. Chazan's development be moved a few hundred feet further west, which would allow him to build a little larger lots. He was pleased that Chia would not open up to Haystack and felt that a park development would be detrimental and indicated that right now the area is used as a motor bike trail. Commissioner Richards asked public works why Barberry Road should be extended. Mr. Diaz stated that Barberry Road already exists and 5 14UAYTES PALM DESERT PLANNING OCPMSSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1988 two lots across from her one; This has been a quiet neighborhood that they've lived in almost 15 years and greatly deplore the loss of wildlife and vegetation that has brought joy and contentment to so many in the neighborhood. Commissioner Richards noted that this property has always been zoned for development and has previously been down-graded. He indicated that any development would increase the traffic, and the size of the lots at 11,000 square feet versus 13,000 is only a difference of 10 to 10 1/2 percent. MR. RANDALL WHITE, 73-186 Somera Road, spoke in favor of the project, however, he felt several changes were needed. The issue of Chia Road had been addressed and he presented additions to that petition and indicated that if the city decides to put Chia Road through, then to improve the circulation in the area it seemed logical that it should also go through to Broken Arrow, and Homestead to the west; the proposal by the city to have Barberry going through to the north and south doesn't make sense with available access from Homestead and why penalize the developer who is trying to develop the area and cut out one or two lots when it is not necessary to do that. With respect to the size of the lots, he agreed that it is a concern to many. Lots at 11,000 square feet would support a rather nice ham, however those hones would have to be closer together and the developments in the area would not be separated by large spaces as could be and he would like to see them as open as possible. There was earlier talk of building a park and he requested that the city use the funds contributed by this developer for the park to be built as soon as possible. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. White what he meant when he said the lots were separated by large spaces. He replied that of the existing houses in the area now, there are many hones separated by fairly large spaces. Mr. White also stated that there was an open house by the developer last Saturday at which some of the proposed plans were shown; he felt those homes would be adequate, but if they were built on the lots the setbacks required by the city would require that those houses be closer to one another than the existing ones in the area. MR. ROGER HORSWILL, 73-610 Buckboard in Silver Spur Ranch, stated that Thursday was their board meeting and they were in favor of the change of the Chia extension, though the park was still a concern. His major concerns were not extending Chia, traffic circulation in Silver Spur Ranch, and he informed 4 rw� PALM DESERT PLANNI`G OCI"MISSICN SEPPEMER 20, 1988 stated that since there no longer is a connection through to Buckboard Trail in the Silver Spur area then there would be nothing to preclude Chia Road being relocated westerly so that it would not infringe on the city park site. Mr. Smith indicated that commission should direct staff as to which conditions they might wish to implement. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the coinwission. MR. MIKE SMITH, 73-080 El Paseo, addressed the six conditions referred to by staff. He noted that (i) has been taken care of. (ii) He stated they weren't comfortable with Barberry Lane being extended through to Homestead and providing through circulation, but noted that the easement for Homestead Road goes all the way to Alamo now and at such time as the westerly property develops, they will be required to continue it. He indicated they would provide the temporary turn-around for the fire department in that interim period. (iii) Mr. Smith stated that pad elevations have been lowered on three lots. He noted that Mr. Dunham expressed concern at the last meeting, but felt that his concerns had been addressed. Mr. Smith noted that pad heights are set from Mr. Dunham's back wall with curb elevation and building pad to city minimum above the curb grade. (iv) He stated that the property is zoned 10,000 for lot size and they are proposing 11,000. (v) He indicated agreement to eliminate the connection of Chia Road to Haystack. (vi) He stated that Chia Road along the east limit of this property already is constructed on the park site, but they pulled the right-of-way over another 10 feet off of the site giving the city 3/4 of the right-of-way out of their track along the northerly lots. He stated this was a planned road, which is why it is being constructed, and will provide a frontage on the park and a road to the park. Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. There being no response, Chairman Erwood asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposed. MRS. BONNIE BOLAS, 73-182 Skyward Way, expressed concern regarding (1) increase in traffic--most people in neighborhood have three cars per household plus 36 more houses would generate 110 cars racing through the neighborhood; (2) Size of lots is very upsetting and 11,000 square feet is totally unacceptable-- responsibility of the city to see that it doesn't happen and hoped the lots were not to scale because they appeared to show 3 L MIId1I'ES PALM DESERT PLANNDU CCM?IISSICN SEPTIIBER 20, 1988 VII. PUBLIC HEARZ«S A. Continued Case No. TT 23681 - CHAZAN DEVE PMEZ P OCWANY, Applicant Request for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. Mr. Smith reminded cormission that the matter had been continued from the August 16, 1988 meeting because of the unresolved issues outlined in the staff report. Mr. Smith's responses to those issues are as follows: (i) Mr. Smith stated that the change of Chia Road not connecting through to Silver Spur had been made and was reflected on the revised plan. Homestead aria Chia Road now connect with each other, but do not connect through to the street in the Silver Spur Ranch area. (ii) The change for Barberry Lane to be extended through to the proposed Homestead Road to provide through circulation has not been provided. (iii) That the pad elevations of the lots adjacent to Homestead be lowered to reduce impact on the Monterra development; the elevations shown on Homestead are the same as the earlier plans. (iv) It was the request of the area residents that the lots be increased in size to 13,000 square feet to be compatible with those on the north side of Skyward Way--commission had indicated that the applicant should get together with the area residents to show them how the hones would work on the lots in the range of 11,000 square feet. (v) As indicated in the report, public works department was going to meet with the city attorney to determine the status of the connection of Chia Road through to Haystack Road not be a condition unless the notice of hearing was expanded to include property owners 300 feet from that area. Mr. Smith stated he received a petition signed by 20 property owners primarily residing on Somers and some on Skyward to the effect that preservation of peace, tranquility and safety of the neighborhood be of utmost concern to city officials; that homeowners in the area south of Haystack and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic and a severe reduction in safety in this family area; and for the foregoing reasons, the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed. They requested that should the city require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack, the city cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with Chia, including Somera and Skyward. (vi) Mr. Smith 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF CU44 NITY DEVELCFMEINT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: September 20, 1988 CASE NO: TT 23681 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing single family dwelling lots on the south�sidel of acres S yw into 36 west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Moondterra Development. APPLICANT: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND: August 16, 1988 this application was before commission. At that time the following issues were unresolved: i. That Chia Road should not connect thru to Silver Spur Ranch area. ii. That Barberry Lane be extended thru to proposed Homestead Road to Provide thru circulation. That the pad elevations of the lots adjacent to Homestead be lowered to reduce impact on Monterra development. iv. That the lots be increased in size to 13,000 square feet to be compatible with those on the north side of Skyward Way. V. That the connectio n of Chia Road t]ini condition to Haystack Road not be a placed on this map unless the notice of hearing is expanded to include property owners 300 feet from that area. vi. That Chia Road along the east limit of this property not be constructed on the city-owned park site. In addition, the applicant was urged to meet with the area residents to discuss the matter more fully. II. RESPONSE: Revised plans were received September 1, 1988. The upper left corner of the sheet delineates two revisions as follows: STAFF REPORT TT 23681 SEPTEhBER 20, 1988 1. Put in temporary cul-de-sac at end of Homestead Road. 2. Put in knuckle at intersection of Homestead Road and Chia Road (8/29/88). Item one (1) was an earlier revision from July. Item two (2) should preclude thru traffic movements into the Silver Spur Ranch area. Item v of the concerns list has been addressed by public works and the condition has been revised to require that this applicant bond for the necessary improvements to connect Chia Road thru to Haystack. Public works will discuss the legal implications of this proposed road construction with the city attorney prior to commencing the road improvements. Items ii, Iii, iv, and vi are still outstanding. Staff feels strongly that item ii, the Barberry Road connection thru to Homestead should be provided and that item iii, the pad elevations on the first row of lots north of Homestead should be lowered. Item iv, increasing the lot size to minimum 13,000 square feet and item vi, the oonstruction of part of Chia Road on the city-owned park site property are policy decisions which should be determined by commission or council. III. CONCLUSION• Given the extent of the uncertainties which still remain,, staff is reluctant to present a resolution of approval and conditions. Specifically, until the pad elevations on the lots adjacent to Homestead have been lowered and the commission has an opportunity to review same, it is felt that this case should not proceed. IV. ATTACHMENTS- A. Report of August 16, 1988. B. Revised tentative map. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /tM 2 _ NmaarES PLAP NDG CU"i'aSSIC N ALIG= 16, 1988 MR. RICK LOPEZ, stated that the Silver Spur Ranch residents did not receive the notice on this project, and he would like to receive future notices. f Mr. Diaz informed Mr. Lopez that he could receive the planning commission agendas by sending self-addressed stamped envelopes to city hall, community' .development department. Also, notices are required to be mailed by state law to all residents within 300 feet of a project within a certain period of time. MS. CHARLENE McCLmwM, 72-730 Ironwood, was in favor of the proposed project. She felt that Palm Desert needed more R-1 lots. Chairman Erwood closed the public testimony. It was asked if provisions were made in the staff report for under grounding ng work. Provisions were made under the editions of approval by the public works department. The developer will also have to pay park fees. Commissioner Richards did not feel that the case needed to be continued until more residents could be present. He felt that the concerns the other residents would list would not be different from concerns voiced tonight. Commissioner Richards indicated that as a condition of approval the dwelling unit size could be increased to approximately 2,500 square feet. He did not feel that the size of the lots would decrease the neighboring properties property value. Cam issioner Ladlow agreed. Mr. Diaz suggested that the applicant be asked if he would like a continuation to consider sane of the concerns that were voiced on the project. He indicated that the applicant could prepare plans that show 2,500 square feet hone on 11,000 square foot lots. Chairman Erwood asked the applicant if he would like a continuation. The applicant agreed as long as it was not postponed to long. Commissioner Richards suggested that Mr. Chazan meet with the residents on this project, and discuss what is being proposed and show plans that outline the project. Action: Moved by Ccmnissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Ladlow, to continue this case until the September 20, 1988, meeting. Notion carried 4-0. 9 MII�I7I'ES PLANNING QS441ISSION AEUUST 16, 1988 Mr. Holtz indicated that there would probably be no problem with the public works department on this issue. Chairman Erwood opened the public testiimtty and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITI( I to the proposed. MR. CURT DUNHAM, Developer of the Monterra Project, was opposed to the proposed height of the southerly portion of the site, which would block the view of some of the lots on his project. He requested that consideration be; given to lowering this part of the site as he was required to doe MR. RICK LOPEZ, 73-352 Buckboard Trail, representative for the Silver Spur Ranch Association, which is opposed to the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail. They are not opposed to the project itself, as long as it is in keeping with the Manterra Project, but they are against no amenities, fencing, landscaping, etc. being proposed and the selling of individual lots. They do not feel that there will be hazm ny in the project itself if it is constructed on an individual basis. A petition signed by 24 Silver Spur Ranch residents opposing the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail was submitted to the commission. MS. MURRAY TAYLOR, 73-210 Somera MR. LANDAU, General Council Rep. for Dr. Farrell, Skyward Way MR. AND MRS. BUCHOLZ, 73-064 Skyward Way MR. RANDAL WHITE, 73-186 Sanera DR. HAROLD BYRD, Sun Corral Trail, Rep. for Dr. Eugene Kay MS. WANDA TUCKER, 73-309 Buckboard Trail and all of the above mentioned people voiced their concerns against the proposed project which were: Density per lot size decreasing Property values, the lot elevations blocking views, extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail and/or Homestead causing traffic and safety problems and having Chia Road dead-end at Skyward Way causing parking, traffic and safety problems. The commission was asked to continue this case for a few months time, so that residents that are out-of-town during the seamier months could be present. Mr. Diaz indicated that the extension of Chia Road through to Haystack Road is a condition of approval under the public works department no. 15. 8 PLAAN MG cxrruSSION AtXmT 16, 1988 • subject property) voicing their concerns on the proper project. Some of the concerns were lot elevations, density and street extensions. Due to the receipt of these letters and their concerns, staff is not prepared to recommend approval at this time. n Mr. Smith outlined the salient points of the staff report. The 36 lots meet zoning requirements, which is R-1 - 10,000, and the proposed dwellings will need to be a minimum of 1,250 square feet. Other items for consideration are the street extensions of Bel Air Road east and Chia Road south to connect with Arran Trail; addition of a new street to run along the south side of the development westerly from Chia Road/Arrow Trail, which will dead-end in the front portion of lot 36 at the westerly end of the property and where an "off-set knuckle" is proposed on a temporary easement. Commissioner Richards did not understand why the lots sizes were smaller when the market is demanding larger places. He asked if amenities were being proposed. No amenities are being proposed. Crnmissicner Ladlow. asked who set the 1,250 square foot minimum on the dwelling units size. The 1,250 square foot minimum was set by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Diaz noted that the pads do not have to drain to the streets. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. MIKE SMITH, of J.F. Davidson Associates, indicated that the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail could be deleted. He felt that the size of a lot does not determine how good a project will be, and he does not feel that a second access is needed. MR. CHAZAN, of Chazan Development, explained that the lots were in excess of 11,000 square feet, over the zoned 10,000 square feet. The lots will be sold on an individual basis and the CC&R's will be cone by developer. He feels that the difference between a good project and a bad one is the architecture, not the size of the lot. He would be willing to raise the size of the homes to 1, 800 - 2,000 square feet and delete the extension of Chia Road to Arrow Trail. Commissioner Richards was concerned about the fire marshal's condition on the second access (Barberry Lane). He did not know if they would be willing to accept the deletion of the second access. MIIbHlIES PLANNING COMMISSICN AUGUST 16, 1988 C. Case No. PP 86-38 (RF-TT.F) - STUART E<IEY, Applicant Approval for a precise plan for a four-plex rental apartment rental apartment project within the R-3, 13,000 (3) zone at 73-575 Shadow Mountain Drive. Mr. Diaz outlined the staff report and aspects of the project. A plan was shown with the changes from the original plan. Commissioner Ladlow asked if these apartments were the same as the apartments down the street from this project. Mr. Diaz stated that these apartments are better than the others. There will be two car garages and opened parking areas on both sides of the complex. Chairman Erwood opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposed. Mr. Diaz informed the commission that the applicant could not make tonight meetings. Chairman Erwuod closed the public testimony. Aatian: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Cb missioner Ladlow, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Camiissioner Ladlow, adopting Planning Can fission Resolution No. 1305, approving PP 86-38 (REFILE). Motion carried 4-0. D. Case No.CTr 236)- CHAZAN DEVU OR a COMPANY AND J.F. mvms SI ASSOC kTES;--IdC., Applicants Approval of Ala tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of;the Monterra Development. Mr. Smith ; formed the commission that the staff report had originally b prepared for the August 2, 1988, planning commission meeting, and since that time letters have been received by residents (Walter Auberger, Carla Dickerson, Curt Dunham, Dr. Farrell and Bonnie Blass and a petition signed by 22 residents north of the 6 " r INITAL STUDY TT 23681 23. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the effects will be minimal. 24. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance of this site. In addition, state law requires that should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the site cleared. 25. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. /dlg 6 1 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 17. PUBLIC SERVICE a—f. None — ,The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the general plan and zoning maps designated the area for residential development. Infrastructure improvements Ue, storm channel, streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE The project will result in a net increase on fiscal flow to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency and the City of Palm Desert. All property tax generated on the site after 1979 including those generated by the improvement of this project will go to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. 19. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development. 20. HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 21. SOCIAL SERVICES The property will be developed with high end single family dwellings. Owners of these homes will pay substantial amounts of property tax and generally have a low incidence of use of social services. Any increase in the demand for general social services will be minimal. 22. AESTHETICS a. The city grading ordinance and architectural review process take into account the effects development may have on adjacent properties and the views available from public streets. Care will be taken to assure that any impact on views from adjacent properties or scenic vistas will be minimized. b. The site in the present condition can be termed as aesthetically offensive. The proposed single family dwellings must be approved by the Palm Desert Architectural review process. C. For reasons stated in items 22 a and b. . 5 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 13. POPULATION a. Developing single family lots in an area designated low density residential will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT While the project will provide a number of new jobs in terms of the value as a whole, in and of itself, it is minor. Most of the jobs created; gardeners, pool maintenance and other service personnel, however, will be filled by residents of the area or those who have come to the valley for other reasons. 15. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. b. None - covered in item 15 a. 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Projected trip generation per dwelling unit per day is 10 for a total of 380 trip ends. As part of the conditions of approval the applicant shall be required to provide road improvements as provided by the circulation element of the general plan on Homestead Road, Chia Road and Bel Air. In addition, the applicant is being required to open Chia Road through to Haystack Road. This will serve to reduce traffic presently using Alamo Road as a means of access to Haystack. b. All new single family dwellings are required to provide two covered parking spaces as well as on-street and driveway parking. C. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. In addition these systems have extensive additional capacity. d. Principal access to the area will be via Haystack Road, Alamo Road and the newly connected Chia Road as discussed on item "a" above. e. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by item 16a should result in positive impacts. 4 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 d. The project site is an in—fill site and not suitable habitat for wildlife. 6. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used on the site are renewable. 7. a. & b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 8. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. 9. a. As discussed earlier the project will have a positive impact in terms of drainage impacts on adjacent properties. b. Properties in the area are not subject to unusual geologic hazards. The project will not effect that hazard. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent use as single family dwellings will increase ambient noise level. The increase will not create a long-term annoyance to the adjacent residential properties. Mitigation Measures Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. 11. LAND USE The project will not alter the present developed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as low density residential; the project would develop land uses permitted in the low density residential land use designation. 12. OPEN SPACE The site in question is designated as low density residential; its development therefore will not result in a reduction in the amount of designated open space. Park fees collected from this development will be used to purchase park land or develop park land to serve this area. 3 INITAL STUDY TT 23681 C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however, the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material. The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a control manner. c. See b. In addition, the Palm Valley Channel was constructed to protect the area in general and site in particular from flood waters coming from the areas that devastated Palm Desert in 1976 and 1979. d. There is no ground water present on the site. e. See d. f. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies; the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species .,to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5. ANIMAL LIFE a. The project will not increase or decrease the variety of animal life on the site. b. The site does not contain any rare or endangered species of animal. C. See b and c. 2 IINITIAL STUDY CASE NO. TT 23681 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES� (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1. EARTH a. The project will result in grading. Said grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures nor create unstable earth conditions in that all grading will be pursuant to the grading ordinance. • b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over— covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural development which will take place on the site. C. The site slopes from southwest to northeast and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties, and better direction. d. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site, through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. Mitigation Measures The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures require detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of on site soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that the buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. Z. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem will be a short term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled "Park View Drive Land Use Study". Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposed development does not call for any odorous land uses. 6. Yes Maybe No 25 , Mandatory Findinas of Siani9icance. a. Does the- project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? — — b. Ooes 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 ! V/ 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 an the environment is significant. ) — d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? — — Initial Study Prepared By: C Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal resu t 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: a. Power or natural gas? ~ _ _ i/ 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? V/ b. A change in the level of community health — — care provided? 21 . Social Services . Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general / social services? i/ 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? 22. Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce — — mew lignt or g are? 24 . Archeolocical/Historical . Will the proposal result in an a teracion of a significant / archeological or historical site, structure , V/ object, or building? 4 Yes Maybe No 14. Emol�. Will the proposal result in additions new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed , unemployed, and underemployed? 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied And 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 resu t in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? — - c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? — — 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? — 17 . Public Serrices . Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result t in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following are is: 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? — Yes Maybe No 6. Natural Resources . Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in :the rate of use of any natural resources ? V b. Oepletion of any non-renewable natural resource? _ — — 7 . Enerov. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ V b. Oemand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Uoset. • Ooes the proposal involve a t/ risk o 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? V 9. E^anomie Loss . Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? 1/ b. A change in the value of property and improyerients exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted cO=unity risk standards? _ 10. Noise . Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? 11. Land use. Will the proposal result in the a tteration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12- 00en Sedce. Will the proposal lead to a decre•., in theoemount of designated open space? 13. Pcoulation. Will the proposal result in: a . Alteration of the locstion, distribution , density , or growth rate of the human population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by aye , income , religion , racial , or ethnic group , occupational class , hcusehcld type? _ _ ✓ z, Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: s_ Changes . in currents , 'or the course or / 1 ` direction of water• movements? _ n ^ b. Changes in-absorptfbn rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and- amount of / surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of / flood waters? V d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of / 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 supplies? a. Plant life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and / crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare, or endangered species of plants? _ _ _✓ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal / replenishment of existing species? S. 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 v/ the migration or movement of animals? d. Ceterioration to existing wildlife h3brt2t ? r > IROIYiIFITAI, SERVICES DEPT . INITIAL STUDY ENVIRO,YS[ENTAL, EVALUATI011 CEFCXLIST ;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 , possible 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. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering 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? 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 150083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: TT 23681 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Ste. 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 single family lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail. The Director 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 /dlg W AT ERt I /V� ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY o�sTR�°t COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398.2651 OFFICERS DIRECTORS THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMON D R.RUMMON OS,PRESIDENT BERNARDI N E SUTTON.SECRETARY TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT KEITH H.AINSWORTH.ASSISTANT GEN EPAL MANAGER JOHN P.POWELL - REOMNEAND SHERRILL•ATTORNEYS DOROTHY M.NICHOLS THEODORE J.FISH July 6, 1988 File: 0163. 1 Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Subject: Tentative Tract .23681, Portion of . Southwest Quarter, Section 29, Township 5 South Range 6 East San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone B on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said . fees and charges are subject -to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, Stormwater Engineer. +4 Yours very truly, n/ Tom Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:lmf cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY j - RIVERSIDECOUNTY of Chlroq� FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE ". i'-rf, CO L'.YT}' ;.•`� CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY o yam. =+IC:IaTr RIVERSIDE I �4i RAY HEBRARD "F J of FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN ACINTO AVENUE July 12, 1988 PERRIS.CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE:(714)657,3183 Eastern Division Headquarter Riverside County Fire Dept. 44400 Town Center Way Ray Diaz Palm Desert, CA MW Director of Community Developmer�L'.j<< 'l City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring ly�ti Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Steve Smith Ref: TT 23681, 36 Lot Single Family Subdivision Chazan Additional Requirements 1. All dead end streets in excess of 150' must have a cul-de-sac with 45' radius. 2. All dead end streets in excess of 500' are required to have second access. a. Fire Department would prefer to have a circulating street from Lot B tied to Bel Air along lot lines 17/16 or between 21/22 and 32/31 . Current Fire Department Policy calls for emergency access to be all weather surface, ac paving or concrete. Respectfully RAY HEBRARD County Fire Chief By, 4rx. m Reeder F're Protection Specialist dpa manner approved by the Fire Department . All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio-controlled over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles . Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure . All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department . Minimum opening width shall be 12' , with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ' 6" . All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Fire Protection/ Inspection Staff . Sincerely , RAY HEBRARD Ranger in Charge County Fire Chief By rre • eeder Protection Specialist bbm RIVERSIDE COUNTY P FIRE DEPART,LtENT er IN COOPERATION WITH THE : ,.._.JgI�.• ('(/CA7�f' =�;��-.�'� CALIFORNIA DEPARTM ENT OF FORESTRY R(vER S/D6 RAY HEBRARD Mi °f FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 July 5, 198B TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 TO : Ray A . Diaz Director of Community Development ATTN: Steve Smith REF: TT' 236el ; 36 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION CHAZAN With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced TT 23681 , the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances , and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Sec . 10 .301C. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site . The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrants) (6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2" ) , located not less than 25 ' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building (s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . Hydrants installed below 3000 ' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel " type . Prior to the application for a building permit , the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review . No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief . Upon approval , the original will be returned . One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority . Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing , and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements . Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification : " I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department . " Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates , barriers , guard houses or similar means, provision. shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a (21 Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permit (s) by the Department of Public Works. (22 A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of the grading permit. (23) Applicant shall secure reciprocal ingress and egress access easements from the owner(s) of lot (s) (24) Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (25) Waiver of access to except at approved locations shall be granted on the final map. (26) Applicant shall agree to participate in and contribute their fair share to the Cook Street extension project (continuation of Cook Street to Interstate 10) when requested. (27) APELc A fr- A1A* L- Pft✓IQ& f0lL r&A Caro37730c?lL� eke C'&A n VAlto rdneorr4 TO /4y4•KSfsac.K az ,4n (28) (29) (30) JW RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. RJF:JSG/lw 06-14-88 r (8) All private (streets) (driveways and parking lots) shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to (recordation of the final map) (grading permit issuance) . (9) Landscaping maintenance on shall be provided by the (homeowner's association) (property owner) . 10) As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district 's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. (11 In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 12) As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of it$M-street right-/�f-way at feet on i3E1.41iL 2P. and �o feet on C dA 121) /f�sM;_57Z 5 shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. (13) In accordance with the Circulation Network of the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, installation of one-half landscaped median island in shall be provided. A cash payment in lieu of actual installation may be submitted at the option of the Director of Public Works. (14) 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. 15) Full improvement of 2 streets based on (Gr residential) (p¢s x) ( street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, C.P.D. Code. . (16) Traffic analysis to be prepared for the project to address the specific impacts on existing networks (street and intersections) and the proposed mitigation measures recommended for approval by the City. (17) Size, number and location of driveways to Public Works specifications with only driveway approach(es) to, be allowed to serve this property. (18) No (new) requirements. (Original conditions apply) . (19) Grading permit issuance shall be subject to the waiver of parcel map first being approved and recorded. (20 Complete Cam) (tract) map (::al 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 . INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: STCVL S. IIW FROM: Richard Folkers, Asst.City Manager/Public Works Director DATE: �u4usT 2� � pe8 SUBJECT: 7_6 N n4reve. —7-rj.+LT P,3 49 f The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above- referenced project: (1) Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 507, shall be paid prior to (recordation of final map) (2) Drainage facilities, as designated within the (Master Drainage Plan) (Master Drainage Plan - North Palm Desert Area) (Northside Area Drainage Master Plan) shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. (3) Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. (4) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to (recordation of final map) (�STLCSt� (5) Full public improvements, as- required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be. installed in accordance with applicable City standards. (6) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to (recordation of the final map) Such offsite improvements shall include, but not limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configura- tion. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. (7) 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. urraeu '�} TENTATIVE TRACT NQ 23L681 rd o .F,°11S1pEf(71.AL0 ;®6' �'� T } •µ [I e ._..........� WAY 22 ' C"t•ew• mo�xt C '1ru,nan � I no,.i.e ��n.o .m:.sse... .� ,-• :='•• ••�••-• '�Y�- __— -_- - - :J-' @E un_ �__ _ ...._DMA ♦�T !✓ �_ I — � rt \-. 1 --(\ _. _ - -- � ` -- � �� " III � '•--_`� r._�^--.....-., .._....-...e S �— � .. _'� /r ....�.�. lei.. � _ • m..n � •m. ti. / � [w.n r�s�• /� � �1r+1 Q�M ,• - � - wrrerm�'s nlwcEC N]s n 1 .�-�.-•' _, 1-4 d PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12' , with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". /dlg 6 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCIOBER 18, 1988 iv) Residents on Skyward Way requested that the lots in the proposed subdivision be increased in size to be compatible with their 13,000 square foot lots to assure adequate privacy, separation of Manes and proper placement of hones on the lots. v) Residents near Sanera Road and Chia Road requested that Chia Road not be opened through to Haystack due to the children who play in the street in that area. vi) Chia Road along the east property line of the subdivision is shown to be located partially on the city park site. If the park site is not developed, then Chia Road should not be located on that property in that it is only needed for access to the subdivision. vii) Some area residents stated that there are more than 20 children in the area and that at least a portion of the park site should be planned and funded. ' viii) Other residents felt that the park site should be left in its natural state. ix) Residents in the area of Barberry and Bel Air Road asked that Barberry Lane not be extended from Homestead Road to Bel Air and that instead Homestead be extended .to connect with Alamo to provide the second access required by the fire department. x) Several residents spoke in a general fashion concerning noise, traffic, compatibility of development with the area and quality of life issues. II. ANALYSIS. The property is zoned R-1 10,000 which requires minimum 10,000 square foot lots with minimum width of 90 feet. All of the proposed lots comply with these minimums. In fact, most of the lots exceed 11,000 square feet. At this point we will discuss the issues which have been raised at earlier hearings and attempt to resolve as many as possible and propose options for commission to follow. The plan as presently before camussion has been amended to resolve many of the concerns. Item (i) concerning the connection of Chia Road and Homestead Road through to the Silver Spur area has been eliminated in that the intersections of Homestead and Chia and Little Bend Trail and Arrow Trail will not connect. 2 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF CO MJNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF iuu3 T TO: Planning Crnmission DATE: October 18, 1988 CASE NO: Tr 23681 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 35 single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. APPLICANT: Chazan Development Company 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.F. Davidson Associates, Inc. 73-080 E1 Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BAQCCROLM: The subject tentative map has previously been before planning commission at public hearings held August 16, 1988 and September 20, 1988. Both of these previous hearings were continued to allow further study of the issues as well as to allow staff to mail new notices of hearing to a wider area of residents. Originally 46 property owners were mailed notices in July, 1988. These 46 properties were within the prescribed 300' of the subject site. Pursuant to commission direction staff expanded the area and number of notices to 127 properties. The additional properties were determined as having the possibility of being impacted if Chia Road were opened to Haystack or if Homestead Road were extended easterly from Alamo to connect with the streets in the project. i The issues that have been raised at the earlier public hearings were as follows: i) Residents in the Silver Spur Ranch area felt that Chia Road and Harmestead Road should not connect through to Silver Spur Ranch area. ii) The fire department is requiring that a second access be provided to Homestead Road in that as it presently is proposed it is a dead-end street in excess of 500 feet. iii) Staff, as well as the developer of the Monterra project, is requesting and suggesting that the pad elevations of the lots of the north side of Homestead Road be lowered to reduce their impact of the Monterra development and of lots to the north. STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCTOBER 18, 1988 Item (ii) concerns the fire department requirement of a seed access from the west end of Homestead Road. The revised plan provides for Homestead to tun northerly and extend to the Bel Air and Barberry Lane intexsec , providing for through traffic circulation. Item (iii) concerns the pad elevations of the lots proposed on the north side of Homestead as well as relative pad height differences between adjacent rows of lots. In the first instance the row of lots on the north side of Homestead are proposed be raised above natural grade between 1 foot and 6 1/2 feet,on each lootf. In the case of the 8 easterly lots 4 of then will be higher than the adjacent lots to the south in Monterra 100 feet removed (supposedly uphill). The westerly 3 lots have been altered due to the new street the developer and their heights are no longer an issue. In checking with of Monterra, he still has serious concerns about the heights of this first row of lots. The second part of this height of pad problem concerns the height difference between the high and the low rows of lots within the project. The lots on the north side of Homestead range from 10 feet to 12 feet above the adjacent lots to the north which front onto Bel Air. The lots on the north side of Bel Air range from 5 1/2 to 8 feet above the adjacent lots to the north which fruit onto Skyward Way. At the last hearing commission requested a detail will be handled. In the past staff has endured much how these slopes trying to locate block walls between lots in such circa pain suf£end in The revised plan shows that the property line will be at the top This will mean that the lower lot will have all of the slopeof slope. its back yard. The slope takes up from 19 feet to 28 feet of the rear of these ots. If this type of grading is allowed then it may be advisable to increase the depth of these lower lots, otherwise the entire required rear yard setback will be taken up with slope. The applicant's engineer indicated two reasons for proposing the gra as ding shown: creation of view lots and establishing positive drainage to the streets. 3 I _ _ F STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCr BER 18, 1988 The public works department advises that the proposed grading also results frnn using 2$ slope on the streets whereas as little as A or even 1/2 of i� could be used and 'thereby result in lower pad heights. In addition, the engineer was advised that the din „d nanc to minimize the necessity of raising pads so thatthey o in order specifically allows for the creation of drainage easements alongrain to the street Property lines of the lower tier of lots to drain the u the side This drainage mechanism could be achieved by installing u tier of lots. ndergro(6) inch drain pipe in the side yards of the lower tier opts six Ong those out to Bel Air Road and Skyward Way. and The applicant chose not to avail himself of this method of lowering the pad heights. Commission mission will need to determine which form the grading and Pad elevations should take. Details can then be worked out between the applicant and the public works department staff based on Provided by planning commission. the direction Item (iv) concerns the size of the proposed lots. The property is zoned for minimum 10,000 square foot lots. Most of the 11,000 square feet. Residents in the area pointed out that relative proposed lots exceed ed their 13,000 square foot lots these to lots will be more crowded, have less Privacy and have less aesthetic appeal. The applicant has provided staff with siting north side of Skyward taken from o£ the existing houses the distances between them ranging from 17 feet to 2n air 6�f et. These des have The zcnir3 ordinance provides for a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet and the total of both side yards on any lot must equal at least 20 feet. Therefore, the minimum separation between two proposed haves could be as little as 16 feet, but if this were the caSe the would be 20-24 feet on the(10 feet otheron side.each Theide).average can be expected to be 20 feet of separation s In addition the maximum lot coverage in this zone is 3M, which on an 11,000 square foot lot would limit the total area under roof to 3300 square feet. Total required setbacks Could equal about 5300 square feet or 48$ of the site. The hones then will need to be designed to provide an average 2coverage limit.29s more open (setback) area in order to Oemply with the The five easterly hares on the north side of Skyward based on 13,000 square foot lot areas have lot coverages ranging from 28$ to 29%. 4 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 OCPOBER 18, 1988 Using both methods of measuring open space (i.e. setback distances between buildings and allowed coverage limit (30%) versus the existing coverages) it is seen that the proposed development will be very similar to the existing development. The one area where these hones could differ would be in their height. Typically, newer hones are being built with higher (steeper) roof pitches. The zing ordinance limits height to 18 feet in this zone. Existing hones in the area appear to be somewhat lower than the maximum allowed. As a policy staff has been referring all single family dwellings in excess of 15 feet to the architectural commission for review to assure compatibility. Item (v) concerns whether Chia Road should be opened through to Haystack Road. Residents near the proposed new road were opposed to it and cited children who play in the street at this time. Other residents felt that opening Chia to Haystack would reduce traffic on Skyward, Bel Air and Alamo. The public works department originated this matter by requesting that this applicant be required to construct this section of road as a condition on this map. This piece of road is required to provide proper circulation in the area and to provide access to -the park site should it be developed. To put off opening this street until and unless the park is created would unnecessarily add traffic to Bel Air, Alamo and Skyward way. Cxnmissicn will need to determine if this street segment is to be required. The environmental assessment contained in the report dated August 16, 1988 assumed that this connection would be made and it supported the rearmiendation of a negative declaration. Item (vi) questions whether or not lot 'A' (Chia Road) should be located on the city park site property if it only serves this development. If the park site were never to be developed or if the city doesn't need this segment of street adjacent to lots 27 and 28 to provide access to the Park site, then this street should be located to the west exclusively on the applicant's property. If the city needs this street to provide adequate access to the park then it is reasonable to give up 30-35 feet of the south end of the park site for street purposes. Omission and/or city council will need to provide staff with direction in this matter. 5 I STAFF REPMr TT 23681 OC-ZCBC�E3E 2 18, 1988 Item (vii) design and funding for devel Part of this application. opnent of the park site is not a item (viii) represented the other side of the park issue. These people wanted the property to remain in its natural state. This again is not tied directly to this application. Item (ix) concerned the opening of Homestead between Alamo and this Project. The applicant looked into this and decided to t Homestead with Bel Air instead. This department and should have little�e of connection satisfies the fire of Bel Air and impact on residents at the intersection Haystack then only 6 7- hanesAssss�a �a Road is connected through to and west to Alamo. choose to take Homestead to get Air to Haystack. Nast homes should choose to 90 to Qua to traeff cX) was general items relating to quality of life issues such as existing neighbPo01h1ouodon and ompatibili.ty of the development with the othe city. represents the last major infill situation on the south side The revised plan calls for 35 lots all in excess of the 10,000 square foot minimum (most in lut excess of 11,000 traffic and resulting air polion created feet). The units will not be "the straw that breaks the ca 35 additional dwelling dwelling units represent less than .2% of the he s back." The 35 new units. Traffic in the immediate area will not be's 15,000 dwelling Pr ovided the needed mitigation measures are taken. negatively impacted Even if the opening of Chia Road to Haystack were not required as a Condition on this development it would be very difficult to P7o that Of development ilopment would create traffic problems because of the low density opmtent in the area. III. FIMIDGS: The findings The August 19n gg staff yto approve a tentative tract map were analyzed in hereby included by reference. Those findings are still valid and are IV. MWIRLtd,IESII'Ah ASSFS.gmM: The 36 lot subdivision was reviewed in the This 35 lot subdivision will not alter that August 16, 1988 staff report. Previous asses Me t. Based on 6 STAFF REPORT TT 23681 Ocron R 18, 1988 that assessment and subject to imposition of required mitigation measures as delineated therein the director recommends adoption of a negative declaration of environmental impact. V. CCNCLUSICK: Many of the previously outstanding concerns have been resolved. The following issues still need to be addressed by commission: a) Should the pad heights on Homestead Road be reduced so that Lots 31, 32, 33 and 34 are at least 1 foot below the adjacent lots in the Monterra development. b) The pad height differences between the rows of adjacent lots within this project. c) As a part of item (b) if the height difference is allowed to remain then should the lower tier of lots be increased in depth to` accommodate the 19-28 feet of slope which will exist in these lots. d) As a condition on this project should this applicant be required to install the Chia Road and connect it to Haystack Road. e) Should the southerly portion of Chia Road where it connects with Homestead be allowed to be built on and take up a portion of the city park site (this matter may need to be referred to city council). VI. ATPACIIMff M: A. Draft Resolution. B. Legal Notice. C. Negative Declaration. D. Report of August 16, 1988. E. Minutes of August 16, 1988. F. Report of September 20, 1988. G. Minutes of September 20, 1988. H. Comments and Correspondence Received. I. Revised tentative map. Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by /tm 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY" LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 01:3. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing with was continued to September 20, 1988 and continued to October 18. 1988 to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant 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 follo.ving facts and reasons as justified in the staff report for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, September 20, 1988 and October 18. 1988 on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. TT 23681 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Dev-elopment: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially- with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property- described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety- at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All lot lines will be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. 6. That this applicant shall pay for the required improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation in the neighborhood could be a problem. 7. That the pad heights above Homestead be reduced in height so that pads 31, 32, 33 and 34 are at least one (1) foot below the approved pad height of the adjacent lot in the Monterra Development. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 507, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 3 t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26,40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off-site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. if determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City's General Plan, dedication of street right-of-way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road/Barberry Lane and 60 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be provided prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road at such time as requested by the director of public works. Applicant shall submit surety bonds in a form acceptable to the city attorney guaranteeing the construction of the improvements. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1i2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 6. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by- emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio controlled override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". idlg 5 0 -erl-I .b} 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Administrative Code. Article 7, Section 15083, of the California M3MTIW DECLARATICN CASE TT 23681 APPLICANT/PFa7BCT SPONSOR: Chayan Developmnt COmpany 72-757 Fred Waring Drive,Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PFJa]BCT DESCRTPTICN/LOCATION: APPrnval of a tentative tract map subdividiri� 11 2 acres into 35 s lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the Proposed to 35 ngie family The Director of the Department of of Development opnent, Ci of P alm Desert, effect on the f Ott the t copy o PrnJect will not have a significant masons in su this the Initial Study has been attached to document the - A of included in the Project to avoid Potentialgni i�tl effects, if any. found also be attached. may RA4NJN A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF OO`MUNITY D DATE 6VEIAPMFS7T /tm 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT.CALIFOFINIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619) 346-0611 October 6, 1988 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TT 23681 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres Into 36 single family dwelling lots in the R-1 10,000 zone located on the south side of Skyward Way, west of the proposed Arrow Trail/Chia Road connection and north of the Monterra Oevelopment, more particularly described as: APN 630-190-012 and 013 a fl=fi�1fl�00t31 R 00 r RI-l: :-��: Ott 10{Qo�O o — ROt� --_ 43.$ea wG♦ 5KYWARD WP y1 R-1 10.000 11 1tiv�' .` I1 Q4 IX POIO _ � BEL AQ F'• g � 1 1 R s �4- 1 b0 QOnD I HOMESTEw eh v+€ E; 51..:E TT, / SUBJECT PROPERTY 0Y tj2b,bb 1, di 2111 swwir om^ !3n III I4PI, / \ L 3�(�t ry -� € L P.R.-7 In order to provide adequate traffic circulation in the area and to mitigate _ any traffic Impacts this development may create, the planning commission Is considering requiring that Chia Road be opened northerly to connect with : Haystack Road or possibly extending Homestead Road east from Alamo to connect - with the streets In this project. SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 18, 1988. at 7:00 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. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission i CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: August 16, 1988 CASE NO: TT 23681 REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map subdividing 11.2 acres into 36 ten thousand square foot single family dwelling lots on the south side of Skyward Way, west of proposed Arrow Trail and north of the Monterra Development. APPLICANTS: CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 72-757 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 73-080 El Paseo, Suite 106 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. PROPERTY: A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The property is vacant alluvial fan sloping from the southwest to the northeast with existing indigenous flora. B. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: R-1, 13,000/Single family dwellings South: PR-3/Monterra single family dwellings under construction East: R-1, 10,000/vacant - future Ironwood Park site West: R-1, 10,000/Single family dwellings C. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Zoning: R-1 10,000 General Plan: Residential Low Density 3-5 du/acre D. ZONE REQUIREMENTS: R-1 10,000 ZONE Lot area 10,000 sq. ft.' min. Lot width 90 ft. min. Lot Depth 100 ft. min. Min. dwelling unit size 1250 sq. ft. min. Maximum height 18 ft. - 1 story Coverage limit 30% Front yard 20 ft. Rear yard 20 ft. Side yards 8' min. 20' total TT 23681 STAFF REPORT The 36 lots as proposed all conform to the minimum required lot area, lot width and lot depths as prescribed in the ordinance. The design of the future homes on these lots will be required . to conform to the other standards noted above. II. PROJECT: The proposal is to subdivide 11.2 acres into 36 single family lots. The lots as proposed comply with the minimum standards provided for in the R-1 10,000 zone. Skyward Way is an existing street serving the existing residential neighborhood through to Chia Road. Approval of this proposed subdivision would result in the extension of Bel Air Road easterly and the extension of Chia Road south to connect with Arrow Trial. Bel Air will connect with this extended Chia Road. In addition a new street, shown as lot "B" on the map, is to run along the south limit of the development westerly from Chia Road/Arrow Trail to provide access to ten lots all of which are located on the north side of this proposed street. This proposed street dead-ends at the westerly end of the property. III. CONCERNS: 1. Street "B" along the south side of the project will result in a 930 foot long dead-end. The applicant has suggested that an "off-set knuckle" be installed in a temporary easement to be located on the front portion of lot 36. The proposed knuckle would be of sufficient size to allow fire trucks to turn around. If the property to the west were to develop then this street would continue westerly to. Alamo and intersect with Homestead. The temporary easement would then be vacated. The fire department in its July 12, 1988 memo indicates that dead-end streets in excess of 500 feet in length are re required to have a second access. Planning staff concurs with the need for a secondary access, however, it is not felt that we should create a 20 foot alley between homes. Therefore it Ls our recommendation that Barberry Lane be extended southerly through lots 18 and 35 with full improvements. This would reduce the total number of lots by two. Another possibility would be to extend lot "B" (Homestead Road) westerly through to Alamo. Note 1 on the map indicates that a "non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress for emergency vehicles exists". Public works staff is concerned that the availability of the described easement for public use may not in fact exist. If it can be determined definitively that it is available then Homestead Road (lot B) could be extended to Alamo ' and the dead-end situation partially eliminated (ie: for emergency vehicles) . 2 I TT 23681 _ STAFF REPORT 2. Staff was also concerned with the height 0f street "B" relative to the perimeter wall being constructed at Monterra. Homestead Road should not be constructed so high as to put people in vehicles above the top of the wall. The applicant is going to provide data confirming that this situation will not be created. 3. The public works department, with the concurrence of planning staff, will require that Chia Road be opened through to Haystack Road. This will serve to 'improve circulation in the area. 4. The applicant is utilizing the natural slope of the site to its maximum in order to create view lots. Lot numbers 27 through 36 and lot numbers 9 through 16 are the upper tier of lots and are significantly higher in grade than the adjacent lots to the north. The ten lots fronting onto Homestead are typically 12 feet above the adjacent lots to the north which front on Bel Air Road. The eight lots on the north side of Bel Air Road are typically seven feet above the row of eight lots that front onto Skyward Way. In the past, grading lots in this manner has lead to problems with walls. In order to reduce these problems to a minimum it will be conditioned that all lot lines will be at the top of the slope. The proposed owner to the south (Monterra) has expressed concern that the proposed height of the row of lots on Homestead is being kept higher than the natural slope. This developer indicates that he was required to lower the pad heights at the south end of his project so as not to impact the lots south of Mesa View. 5. Arrow Trail and Chia Road do not align with each other. Chia Road must swing easterly in order to connect with Arrow Trail. This road connection is essential to the circulation of the area. The owner of the property to the east of this street is the city. Acquisition of this property in order t0 construct the street improvements will need to be negotiated prior to filing the final map. IV. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS NEEDED FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The proposed map is consistent with the zoning and the zoning is consistent with the general plan. The tentative map has been 3 TT 23681 STAFF REPORT conditioned to require provision of additional traffic circulation. Compliance with that mitigation measure will assure consistency with the general plan. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: All public streets will be dedicated and improved and sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the general plan guidelines and city ordinances. The tentative map has been conditioned that necessary circulation will be added to the final map. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. Justification: The 11.2 acre site is of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed project and the topography of the site does not create significant problems. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The design of the project indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed density of development because the site can be served by respective utilities and, as conditioned, to provide full traffic circulation and is designed in compliance with all city codes. 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The design will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because it will be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations and the proposed negative declaration has determined that there will be no related adverse environmental effect which cannot be mitigated. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The design will not cause serious public health problems because it will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. 4 TT 23681 STAFF REPORT 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: . There have been easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The easements are being developed with fully improved streets. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. Justification: The project has been designed to conform to code requirements and will not impact solar access to adjacent properties and will provide adequate solar access to this property. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of community development has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. VI. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the list of concerns delineated previously, staff feels that they can be mitigated to an acceptable level. VII. RECOMMENDATION: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving TT 23681, subject to conditions. VIII. A. Draft resolutions B. Negative declaration C. Legal notice D. Exhibits Prepared by !{ Reviewed and Approved by / /dlg 5 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 11.2 ACRES INTO 36 LOTS FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED NORTH OF HOMESTEAD, SOUTH OF SKYWARD WAY AND EAST OF ALAMO DRIVE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APN 630-190-012 & 013. CASE NO: TT 23681 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of August, 1988 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of CHAZAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY for the above mentioned project. WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures 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 a significant 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 as justified in the staff report for TT 23681 dated August 16, 1988, on file in the department of community development, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design' or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design, of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9. That full improvements of Chia Road to connect to Arrow Trail be provided as part of this map. Acquisition of the property to the east necessary to align this road with Arrow Trail must be completed prior to final map approval. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance No. 507, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 2. Storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the department of public works. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution No's. 79- 17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.44 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Off-site improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the director of public works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the city. 6. 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. 7. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing utilities shall be undergrounded per each respective utility district's recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future utility undergrounding district. 8. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the director of public works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 9. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of the City' s General Plan, dedication of street right-of-way at 50 feet on Bel Air Road and 60 feet on Chia Road/Homestead Road shall be .provided prior to recordation of the final map. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. Full improvement of streets based on residential street standards as established in accordance with Chapter 26, Section 26.40.040, CPD Code. 11. 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. 12. Any and all off-site improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the department of public works. 13. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the department of public works prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Section 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 15. Applicant shall provide for the construction of Chia Road through to Haystack Road. City Fire Department: 1. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform Fire Code Section 10.301C. 2. A fire flow of 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must beiavailable before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. The required fire flow shall be available from a super hydrant (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") , located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 4. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the county fire department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the county fire chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. 5. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 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 it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Tract Map No. TT 23681 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of August, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD ERWOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /dlg 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 23681 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of community development/planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statues now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural .Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. All lot lines will be at the top of the slope except as may be approved by the director of community development. 6. That Barberry Lane be extended southerly to connect with the proposed Homestead Road to provide full traffic circulation (ie: 50 feet right-of-way, full improvements) . 7. That the street "B" (future Homestead Road) will be designed so that its elevation will be at least eet below the top of the adjacent perimeter wall at the Monterra Development. SAX . B. That this applicant shall pay for. the required improvements to open Chia Road to connect with Haystack in that without this connection the traffic circulation in the neighborhood could be a problem. 3 j September 20, 1988 ' To: Palm Desert Planning Commission From: Silver Spur Ranchers Association Re: Chazan Development The Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranch request the following: 1 ) Curve Chia Road .into Homestead Road, without access to Arrow Trail. 2 ) Curve Buckboard Trail into Arrow Trail. 3 ) Cul-de-Sac Little Bend Trail. 4) Cul-de-Sac Silver Moon Trail. These improvements will facilitate traffic flow in Silver Spur Ranch and eliminate the unimproved and deteriorating portion of Little Bend to Arrow Trail. The Silver Spur Ranch Board of Directors would also like to see the city park land left in a natural state. If improvements to the park are contemplated, we suggest nature paths and trails similar to the Living Desert Reserve. Respectfully submitted, LU R� LvL4*n LJ Rog Horswill Jeff,H/awkins Boa d Member Board Member RH/gm PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Extension of Chia Road South and North Ve the undersigned submit that the preservation of the peace, tranquility and safety of our neighborhoods must be the foremost concern of our city officials. The homeowners in the area south of Haystack Road and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic with the concomitant severe reduction in safety in this family area . For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed . Should the City require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack, we submit that the City should cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with• Chia , including Somera and Skyward . \ e oAzk i PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: extension of Chia Road South and North Ve the undersigned submit that the preservation of the peace, tranquility and safety of our neighborhoods must be the foremost concern of our city officials. The homeowners in the area south of Haystack. Road and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic with the concomitant severe reduction in safety in this family area. For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed . Should the City require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack, we submit that the City should cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with Chia, including Somera and Skyward . 73 - Z36 vow errr -- FSTI'ViON TO THE CITY 07 PALM LESFRT Re: Utansiou of Chia Road South and North Ve the undersigned submit that the preservation of the jY"Os' i.r.anqu.i l i ty And. gaf ety of our neighborhoods must be the forexaast conoar•n a:, our .:ity officials. The hoxncx:lwncart; in th�A area south of HaVetack Road and went of C,b;ia Itc�ad .jr,. Cl,?ncerned -that the. prcpoaed «ektxeneian of Chia Road north 'tia_4 t in an intolerable stack ,,r,d :south near Arrow Trail will rr�sni i.rrcx,erlse ig e,affiq with .he conocmitant severs reduotion in safety i'W i:.'. s :[;Imi l y %3X c3 3 . Far the foregoing r"asons. we r3vE�xit that the proposed extenos on ul Chia Road should not ba allowed. eibou:ul the City, require tiee axtansion of Chia Road to, ilayei eck, we E3ub ai t that: the- City should cul-de-sac the oast sand of the estrersts x,ax;nect:i-jig wi-th Chia, including Somera and Skyward. 22 _ 2. 7Y�1�1;1 ✓ern ��- iz_Z e -_.__.-.._...__ SEP 2 0 1988 COMMUNITY DEVEtOPMERI DEPAR(MENT CITY OF PALM DESERT PET=T2ON We, the undersigned residents of Silver Spur Ranch, respectfully ask the Palm Desert City Planning Commission to reject the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road in connection with the proposed Chazan development, on which you will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 16, at 7 p. m. in the Administrative Conference Room at the City Hall, San Pablo and Fred Waring. We do not object to the development per se, if it is properly planned and in keeping with the Monterra development to the south. We do, however, object to any connection from that development to Arrow Trail. Silver Spur Ranch already has three entrances and exits: Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard Trail, both off Portola, and Moon Lane, from Haystack. We do not need nor want another. Arrow Trail now is a short 1%-block street entirely within Silver Spur Ranch, and has outlets only to Broken Arrow, Buckboard and Little Bend, all quiet Silver Spur Ranch residential streets. To connect it to an extension of Chia Road would bring unwanted and unnecessary traffic to our peaceful area, and also would mean that a portion of the city land north of Buckboard that was deeded to the city for a park would have to be taken for the road, as shown on the plans submitted to you. We ask the commission to deny the proposal to extend Chia Road to Arrow Trail and to keep the park intact and in its natural state. SIGNED ADDRESS DATE � 31-- /ri _ oov AUG 15 1988 CCMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARfMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 2. We respectfully ask that you deny the proposed extension of Arrow Trail. Let Chia Road be cul-de-saced at its southern extension, but preserve Silver Spur Ranch and.do not extend Arrow Trail. - The ranch already has three entrances -- Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard off Portola, and Moon Lane off Haystack. We do not need nor do we want more traffic. Petitions to that effect are being circulated in the area most affected but because we were not notified of the hearing and because many Silver Spur residents are out of town at this time of year, we are unable to contact all of those we believe would oppose any change to Arrow Trail or to the nature park. We appreciate, as always, your cooperation and understanding.. Sincerely, CARLA DICKERSON President Silver Spur Ranchers Association Inc. LAGS V ` Aug. 9, 1988 The Planning Commission AUG 121988 City of Palm Desert City Hell COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O PARIMENE Palm Desert CA 92260- CITYOf-PALM DESERT Dear Commissioners: The Silver Spur Ranchers Association wishes to express its concern about the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road, and hence to Haystack, in connection with the Chazan development of the property north of Monterra, on which you are holding a hearing Aug. 16 at 7 p. m. Arrow Trail now is a short 1S6 blocks long, entirely within the Silver Spur Ranch, and should remain so. Arrow Trail runs north from Broken Arrow to the rear of the property line on the north side of Buckboard Trail, where it curves into an undedicated street that is an extension of Little Bend, another Silver Spur Ranch street. To extend Arrow Trail northward as proposed would bring additional traffic to what currently is a very quiet and peaceful neighborhood, other than the present noise from construction on the Monterra development. You will recall that our association was represented at the Monterra hearings, voicing our concern that none of the Monterra traffic use Silver Spur streets, a concern with which the commission agreed, requiring Monterra to wall off its property to ease its impact on Silver Spur, which it abuts on the east. We welcome both the Monterra development and the Chazan one, if it is of similar caliber. However, we reiterate our concern that no traffic from any adjoining development be allowed to use Silver Spur Ranch streets, as would be the case if Arrow Trail is extended. Broken Arrow, Buckboard, Little Bend and other Silver Spur streets would all get more cars and trucks, along with the related problems they bring. We remind you also of the vacant property along the north side of Little Bend, which is designated as a future city park. It is and always has been Silver Spur Ranch Association' s desire that this land be preserved in its natural desert state as a wilderness park. It is one of the last few open spots where local residents may stroll and enjoy the desert in its pristine state, and many do. There are jackrabbits, quail, roadrunners, smoketrees, sage brush, and other natural flora and fauna, including wildflowers in season, there. Cutting through Arrow Trail to Chia Road would put a well-traveled street alongside our little natural park -- not a condition conducive to peace and quiet or the enjoyment of nature. It also would require a portion of the city park, for the street, according to the submitted plans. We believe that no portion of the park should be turned over to developers. Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commi$si°n Secretary City of Palm Desert the currently developed lots on Dear Mrs Diaz; Skyward and Regarding TT#23681 , 000 square feet in size. We the B to the proposed un er square Bel Air east of Alamo are 13, lot size of 10,000 signed local residents object cs and extra cos aesthfli t. We request that the the proposed development lot size to be feet for reasons of planning'commi$ion requite this matter. 13,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to Sincerely, Thomas R Farrell, M.D. De rah D•�r �? 5k��,4-2] O (�Z rrZ75 ILI LA `� 7.3 OiS THOMAS R. FARRELL. M.D. 73012 SKYWARD WAY PAL DESERT.CALII RN1A 922" August 12, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring. Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr Diaz; I am unable to appear at the rescheduled meeting date. I have gathered the signatures of a number of neighbors. We all request that the proposed tract # TT 23681 include lots of no smaller than 13 ,000 square feet. I am certain that our neighbors who are out of town this month would also object to the planned 10,000 square foot lots. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Sincere®RFaarr'ell, o a M.D. THOMAS R FARRELL, M.D. ] 12 SKYWARD WAY PALM DHS T.CA MRMA 9126 August 8, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz City of Palm Desert Planning Commision Dear Mr 'Diaz.; . In follow up to. our phone conversation, I am writing regarding TT 23681. I .will. be unable to attend the proposed meeting on August 16 , 1988 . - I am trying to arrange for counsel to represent my interests. .My most important concern is that the proposed lots be -of equivalent size-to the lots. on the north side of Skyward. These have already been developed into 13,000. square foot lots. I request that the planning commission require that the proposed . tract be divided into lots of at least 13,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sinc ely Tho s ar ell, MD cc;Jeffrey Patterson 7�J3� i re L �e j� coat -z x ell � d • 1 G i { I i _ BIRTCHER D U N H A M 72010 Varner Road l huusand Palms.CA 02276 Telephone o10 3.10 OnuO C.G.Dunham General Partner - August 4, 1988 City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention : Steve Smith Planning Department Dear Steve : Birtcher Homes would like to express our concern 'of the finished Pad elevation of the proposed Tract #23681 . This project abutts our Monterra project' s north boundary line. Finish pad elevations from natural grade would be raised 4' to 6 ' in height according to the revised grading plan (Amendment #1 July 1988) . We _ have two concerns ; 1 ) Birtcher Homes was required to amend our grading plan ( Tract #22111 ) to insure that our homes would not block any views from the Ironwood Country Club. 2 ) the lots in Tract #23681 that back up to our subdivision , according to their grading , would adversely affect the views from our lots on the northerly boundary of Tract #22111 . If you have any questions , pleae call me . Ver my yours , C. G. Dunham, Sr. CGD: ch cc: Curt Dunham, Jr . + Chira>;u Uallas Uun er liuuston Irvine Laguna Ni�,uel Lus.\ngelrs t,lin new µ.It, Palm Desert Phucnit Portland Seattle Wo,hmgkon.U.C. diL6�9LNa \J �:A- &J SILVER SPUR RANCHERS ASSOCIATION INC AN 2 7 1989 Post Office Box 680 COMMUNIP DBLLONINI DPPMrHLNI Palm Desert, California 92261 CITY iF PALM DESERT 23 January 1989 (� CITY OF PALM DESERT Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 -� Gentlemen: Reference attached letter from Lynn Dt Crandall, Attorney for Chazan Construction Company, regarding developement adjacent to Silver Spur Ranch. Inasmuch as the City of Palm Desert is mentioned as a possible defendant in their proposed action we are forwarding a copy of their letter as:'a matter of your concern. Contrary to remarks regarding Lot G of Silver Spur Unit 1 being abandoned we wish to bring the following to your attention: 1 - Little Bend Trail extends beyond the built-up area of Silver Spur Ranch. 2 - The road is partially paved and is used as a secondary access to the Southern California Edison sub-station. 3 - Lot G has been used for may years as a turn-around area for garbage trucks and other traffic entering Little Bend Trail without benefit of residence. It is not our intent to create a costly problem for Chazan Construction. We do appreciate their cooperation in other matters related to this project. It doesn't seem unreasonable, however, to request a cul-de-sac at the end of Little Bend Trail based on the fact that the area has been and still is used as a turn-around for vehicular traffic. We are open to suggestions and would welcome a meeting with appropriate authorities if deemed appropriate. In order to expedite an answer to Mr Crandall, request comments from you prior to our next Board of Director's meeting on 9 February 1989• FOR THE BOARD OF DIREEC-/rTORS CARLA B. DICKERSON President LAW OFFICES OF .IGN 2 7 1989 LYN N D. CRAN DALL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENI DEPARTMENT ATTORNEYS AT LAW CITY OF PALM DESERT LYNN O. CRANDALL - - 74361 HIGHWAY III, SUITE 1 TELEPHONE (619) 346-7657 TELECOPIER (619) 773-3569 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 January 17, 1989 Carla Dickerson Silver Spur Ranchers Association P.O. Box 680 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Re: Chazan Construction Company Dear Ms. Dickerson: My office represents Chazan Construction Company and your letter of November 17, 1988 addressed to Charlene McLean at Owen Realty has been referred to me. This is to notify : you that Chazan Construction hereby declines the demands set forth in your letter. This declination is based on the fact that investigation has revealed that your association is without enforceable rights in lot G. Mr. Chazan had instructed Ms. McLean to contact.you about the lot G situation because it appeared from a title report that the title company would not insure one of the lots to be constructed by Chazan Construction Company because it would be affected by lot G. Mr. Chazan, in seeking a practical solution, asked Ms. McLean to approach you about the matter. Because your demands would carry a large cost, he asked me to look into the matter from a standpoint of other solutions. I have reviewed the title report in question. The exception on the report has to do with the effect of an offer of dedication of lot G of Silver Spur Ranch Unit No. 1 as per map recorded in Book 30 pages 52, 53, and 54 of maps, for private road purposes for the benefit of lot owners in the r ,4 Carla Dickerson Page 2 January 17, 1989 subdivision shown on said map. The offer of dedication was contained on a subdivision map which was recorded March 1, 1956. Provisions exist in the Civil Code for an owner of property in the position of Mr. Chazan to quiet title to property caused by an offer of dedication which was recorded more than 25 years earlier provided certain circumstances exist, all of which exist here. Section 771. 010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: "If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all the following conditions are satisfied: " (a) the proposal was made by filing a map only. " (b) no acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within 25 years after the map was filed. " (c) the real property was not used for the purpose for which the dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed. " (d) the real property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and used as if free of the dedication. " sfV , Carla Dickerson Page 3 January 17 , 1989 Section 771. 020 provides as follows: " (a) an action is authorized to clear title to real property of a proposal to dedicate the property for public improvement if there is a conclusive presumption pursuant to Section 771. 010 _ that the proposed dedication was not accepted. " (b) the action shall be pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 760. 010) and shall have the following features: 11 (1) the public entity to which the dedication was proposed shall be named as a defendant. 11 (2) the judgment in the action shall clear the title of the proposed dedication and remove the cloud created by the proposed dedication. " The situation involving lot G fits 100% into these two code sections. The proposal was made by the recordation of the map (which is customary) which was recorded during March, 1956, the dedication was never accepted by the city, the property constituting lot G has never been used for street purposes and the property was sold to a third person after the map was filed and used as if free of the dedication. Enclosed is a copy of the map in question. As you can see, it was evidently originally contemplated that the street to be known as Little Bend Trial would continue westerly; hence the offer of dedication was made. Having now researched the matter and having determined that there is an ability to clear the title to this parcel, Carla Dickerson Page 4 January 17, 1989 Chazan Construction Company is not interested in pursuing the matter further with you for the simple reason that you have no enforceable claim to a right in the property. He does request, however, in the interests of good citizenship that you save the City of Palm Desert and your association the money that would be required to defend a legal action concerning the matter. These costs can be prevented if both the association and the city execute and acknowledge a document in a form satisfactory to the title company to make it clear that no dedication has been made or is sought as a result of the 1956 recordation. Absent your willingness to execute such a document, Chazan Construction Company will have no other choice but to file an action to quiet title to its property pursuant to the provisions of section 771. 022 quoted above. Of course, Chazan Construction Company has no way to force your cooperation; however, let me suggest that it went more than half way in meeting the concerns of your association and of others in connection with the design of the subdivision. To require the further expenditure of funds, both on its part and on the part of the city would be a useless exercise. I am anxious to proceed with the lawsuit if no alternative is available to us. As a consequence, I would app:-eciate it if you could let me know as soon as possible whether you are willing to execute the document described. Absent word from you that you are, we will have no other alternative but to proceed. I hope that such action will not be required. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF LYNN D. CRANDALL Lynn . Crandall LDC:jls 5960. 05 PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Extension of Chia Road South and North We the uuderaigned submit that the preservation of the peaoa, tranquility and: eafety of our neighborhoods must be the fordmost concern Of our city officials. The boneowoers in the area south of Haystao1c Road and waeat of Chia Road arcs oorscarned -that the. proposed .extension of Chia Road!, north to Ilaystaclt, ssnd south near ArVow 'Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traf'fio with the concomitant a6verw reduction in safety in^ this family area . For the foregoing reasons. we sulmi t that the proposed' extenefron- of Chia Road rabould not be allowed. Sbould. the City. require the extension of Chia Road to' llaystack, wry aubmi.t that. the, City should cul-de-sac the east end' of the, streekto "Onnooting with, Chia:,. including Sonora and Skyward.. - - _ -73 a�,7__: 07ti[ µv 73oll �vsvcE2� i1 1 SEP 2 0 1988 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARW01 CILV Of PALM DESERE PETITION We, the undersigned residents of Silver Spur Ranch, respectfully ask the Palm Desert City Planning Commission to reject the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road in connection with the proposed Chazan development, on which you will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 16, at 7 p. m. in the Administrative Conference Room at the City Hall, San Pablo and Fred Waring. We do not object to the development per se, if it is properly planned and in keeping with the Monterra development to the south. We do, however, object to any connection from that development to Arrow Trail. Silver Spur Ranch already has three entrances and exits: Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard Trail, both off Portola, and Moon Lane, from Haystack. We do not need nor want another. Arrow Trail now is a short 1%-block street entirely within Silver Spur Ranch, and has outlets only to Broken Arrow, Buckboard and Little Bend, all quiet Silver Spur Ranch residential streets. To connect it to an extension of Chia Road would bring unwanted and unnecessary traffic to our peaceful area, and also would mean that a portion of the city land north of Buckboard that was deeded to the city for a park would have to be taken for the road, as shown on the plans submitted to you. We ask the commission to deny the proposal to extend Chia Road to Arrow Trail and to keep the park intact and in its natural state. SIGNED ADDRESS DATE .73 "L9 � ���iv�, � 77� Y-/° - 8'Z AUG 15 1988 CCMMUNiry DEVELOPMEW DEPAR,rMENf CITY Of PALM DESEW j PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re : extension of Chia Road South and North We the undersigned submit that the preservation of the peace, tranquility and safety of our neighborhoods must be the foremost concern of our city officials. The homeowners in the area south of Haystack Road and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic with the concomitant severe reduction in safety in this family area. For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed. Should the City require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack, we submit that the City should cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with. Chia, including Somera and Skyward. ------ PETITION TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Re: Extension of Chia Road South and North We the undersigned submit that the preservation of the peace, tranquility and safety of our neighborhoods must be the foremost concern of our city officials. The homeowners in the area south of Haystack Road and west of Chia Road are concerned that the proposed extension of Chia Road north to Haystack and south near Arrow Trail will result in an intolerable increase in traffic with the concomitant severe reduction in safety in this family area . For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the proposed extension of Chia Road should not be allowed . Should the City require the extension of Chia Road to Haystack, we submit that the City should cul-de-sac the east end of the streets connecting with Chia, including Somera and Skyward. �c•-���G��--�� Q� 73/�5�-Sr�iYr�iP,cL . �/�� -� p �p n 73-ZA-1 .P4�Jnon ""` 73— Xl 6J7tn !1. 1 1�iYr.� �Jl � 3 `+OEO�QP iff I1 f September 20, 1988 ' To: Palm Desert Planning Commission From: Silver Spur Ranchers Association Re: Chazan Development The Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranch request the following: I 1 ) Curve Chia Road .into Homestead Road, without access to Arrow Trail. 2 ) Curve Buckboard Trail into Arrow Trail. 3) Cul-de-Sac Little Bend Trail. 4) Cul-de-Sac Silver Moon Trail. These improvements will facilitate traffic flow in Silver Spur Ranch and eliminate the unimproved and deteriorating portion of Little Bend to Arrow Trail. The Silver Spur Ranch Board of Directors would also like to see the city park land left in a natural state. If improvements to the park are contemplated, we suggest nature paths and trails similar to the Living Desert Reserve. Respectfully submitted, .e� Z4X 2J R09 Horswill Jeff Hawkins Boa d Member Board Member RH/gm I I JANE C. WOOLLEY P. O. BOX 1093, PALM DESERT, CA. 92261 October 31, 1988. 101V 1 1988 Dear Sirs :COMMUNITY DES MPMEN! DEPARIMENI CITY :F PALM DESERT Re : Legal Yotice; case ;T TT 23681 As we will not be in town to attend the meeting scheduled for November loth relating to the above case, we did want our feelings to be counted. Regarding the subdivision of APII 630-100-012 and 013, we are not particularly happy about it. It seems to us that the lots are much too small for the surrounding area. Ile would vote "no" on this appeal. Regarding the opening of- Chia Road to IIaystack we are wholly IN AGREE07M. As our residence is on the corner of Alamo Drive, we have been most anxious for 12 years to have Chia relieve some of the downhill traffic. Thank you for allowing us to voice our vote and keeping us apprised of the action taking place in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jane 'Joolley Shirley pork 73-010 Somers, Road i BIRTCHER 72010varne Road D U N H A M I huus.,nd Palm,.CA 0227b Telephone HQ 34o OoQO C.G.Dunham General Partner August 4 , 1988 City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention : Steve Smith Planning Department Dear Steve: Birtcher Homes would like to express our concern of the finished pad elevation of the proposed Tract #23681 . This project abutts our Monterra project' s north boundary line . Finish pad elevations from natural grade would be raised 4' to 6 ' in height according to the revised grading plan ( Amendment #1 July 1988 ) . We , have two concerns ; 1 ) Birtcher Horges was required to amend our grading plan ( Tract #22111 ) to insure that our homes would not block any views from the Ironwood Country Club. 2 ) the lots in Tract #23681 that back up to our subdivision , according to their grading , would adversely affect the views from our lots on the northerly boundary of Tract #22111 . If you have any questions , pleae call me . Ver my yours , C. G. Dunham, Sr . CGD: ch cc: Curt Dunham, Jr. C hi..�gu I),i llos Ucnerr Huu.tun Irvine Laguna Niguel Las Angeles \1inneapuli, Palm De,ert Phoeia ` Portland Seattle I%a.h mgtun. U.C. C"Z o?,o C. /e7km`fio us r& - e � o Gd�c fie, o/l j�ur� ea c 1 i THOMAS R FARREI E. M.D. ' T 12 SKYWARD WAY PALM DM T.CALIFORNIA 92960 August 8, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz City of Palm Desert Planning Commision Dear Mr Diaz; . In follow up to our phone conversation, I am writing regarding TT 23681. I .will be unable to attend the proposed meeting on August 16, 1988. - I am trying to arrange for counsel to represent my interests. .My most important concern is that the proposed lots be of equivalent size to the lots on the north side of Skyward. These have already been developed into 13,000 square foot lots.• I request that the planning commission require that the proposed . tract. be divided into lots of at least 13,000 square feet. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sinc ely Tho s ar ell, MD cc;Jeffrey Patterson 4 THOMAS R. FARRRI i. M.D. 73014 SKYWARD WAY PALM DESERT.CALIEDRNIA 92200 August 12, 1988 Ramon A. Diaz Planning Commision City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring. Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr Diaz; I am unable to appear at the rescheduled meeting date. I have gathered the signatures of a number of neighbors. We all request that the proposed tract # TT 23681 include lots of no smaller than 13 , 000 square feet. I am certain that our neighbors who are out of town this month would also object to the planned 10,000 square foot lots. Thank you again for your attention to this . matter. Sincere3aarrell, o a M.D. is Ramon A. Diaz planning COMOV ion Secretary City of palm Desert -Dear Mr. Diaz; developed lots on Skyward and Regarding TT#23681 , he under— the currently square feet in size. We t proposed lot size of 10,000 square ro to the p Bel Air east of Alamo are 13,00 signed local residents object P request that the tics and extra cost. We req size to be feet for reasons of aesthfl ro osed development lot. planning feet; requite the proposed 13,000 square feet: Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Thomas R Farrell, M.D. De rah D. Farr 73 0 • � p tr tl 1f� ✓� �J� Q/a/ �L/ ), O � �� 3 C� C )& Li _73 ed � 1 eV Aug. 9, 1988 The Planning Commission AUG 1 2 19�8 City of Palm Desert City Hall CDMMUNIrY DEVELOPMENT NPARiMENE Palm Desert CA 92260• Clrr Of PALM DESERT Dear Commissioners: The Silver Spur Ranchers Association wishes to express its concern about the proposed extension of Arrow Trail to Chia Road, and hence to Haystack, in connection with the Chazan development of the property north of Monterra, on which you are holding a hearing Aug. 16 at 7 p. m. Arrow Trail now is a short 1;i blocks long, entirely within the Silver Spur Ranch, and should remain so. Arrow Trail runs north from Broken Arrow to the rear of the property line on the north side of Buckboard Trail, where it curves into an undedicated street that is an extension of Little Bend, another Silver Spur Ranch street. To extend Arrow Trail northward as proposed would bring additional traffic to what currently is a very quiet and peaceful neighborhood, other than the present noise from construction on the Monterra development. You will recall that our association was represented at the Monterra hearings, voicing our concern that none of the Monterra traffic use Silver Spur streets, a concern with which the commission agreed, requiring Monterra to wall off its property to ease its impact on Silver Spur, which it abuts on the east. We welcome both the Monterra development and the Chazan one, if it is of similar caliber. However, we reiterate our concern that no traffic from any adjoining development be allowed to use Silver Spur Ranch streets, as would be the case if Arrow Trail is extended. Broken Arrow, Buckboard, Little Bend and other Silver Spur streets would all get more cars and trucks, along with the related problems they bring. We remind you also of the vacant property along the north side of Little Bend, which is designated as a future city park. It is and always has been Silver Spur Ranch Association' s desire that this land be preserved in its natural desert state as a wilderness park. It is one of the last few open spots where local residents may stroll and enjoy the desert in its pristine state, and many do. There are jackrabbits, quail, roadrunners, smoketrees, sage brush, and other natural flora and fauna, including wildflowers in season, there. Cutting through Arrow Trail to Chia Road would put a well-traveled street alongside our little natural park -- not a condition conducive to peace and quiet or the enjoyment of nature. It also would require a portion of the city park, for the street, according to the submitted plans. We believe that no portion of the park should be turned over to developers. Page 2. We respectfully ask that you deny the proposed extension of Arrow Trail. Let Chia Road be cul-de-saced at its southern extension, but preserve Silver Spur Ranch and.do not extend Arrow Trail. - The ranch already has three entrances -- Silver Spur Trail and Buckboard off Portola, and Moon Lane off Haystack. We do not need nor do we want more traffic. Petitions to that effect are being circulated in the area most affected but because we were not notified of the hearing and because many Silver Spur residents are out of town at this time of year, we are unable to contact all of those we believe would oppose any change to Arrow Trail or to the nature park. We appreciate, as always, your cooperation and understanding. Sincerely, J 1 � � CARLA DICKERSON President Silver Spur Ranchers Association Inc. 1 ' • A 41, i i APR 4 yY{ F " f I x t;+A, • c; J1IIII I Akf x ., IN THE CITY OF PALMESERT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA TEN VE T CT NO, REl//S/D/V BLOCK BEING A S!/GO/!//S/ON OC- 4 POAPT/D Oc- T//E" SOUTf/K/EST QUARTER OF ' 1 PUT /A/ TEMPD�?ARY G'UL OE SAC { " AT E/V,D OF HOMESTEAD ROAO. THE S0Z17WsvES T 0U.4/t'TEAP OF SEC /O/V Z9, T 5 S., .P 6 E, S..B h1. I Z. PVT IN KNUCKLE AT !/VTERSECT/ON X 471 .6 AMENDED I ✓ 41 ✓UlV I988 O464. 4 F ,yDME�TE AO ,Co.,CAlYO C!//q RO. �JUL Y I908 B/z9/8e) x 470 .7 AMENDED 2 A ME NDE A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR IN 5 AND G OCTOBER , 1988 14L/(i. >oJ88 OCT /a EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY (. EXTENDED BARBERRY LANE TO THE SOUTH, 460 X477. $ I �/ r �D VEHICLES A5 SHOWN AS PARCEL 2, OF RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN 2.REVISED LOT LINES AS NEEDED, 2 // GOOK 54 PAGE 29 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE 3.DECREASED BY I LOT. J `/ DD COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. 4. IIREVIIgIISEDNN PAD gg ELEVATIONS ON LOTS 481 . E X469 . S (PLOTTED) 5. 1 H4SA SDLOPES 5 ON ALL LOTS. tos THE EFFECT OF THE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF LOT G OF SILVER SPUR 480.8 FF =(474.SJ !�� RANCH UNIT NO. I AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 30 PAGES 52, 53 FF = (483.5) X a81 . 7 ,��' = (470. S) ! AND 54 OF MAPS RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA, FOR FF =�478. 8) FF = (47w.0 T FF =(47Z.0) ` PRIVATE ROAD PURPOSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNERS IN THE • Q { SUBDIVISION AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. ` / (PLOTTED) X481. 4 1 :' 1 D �3 ' AN EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, AS GRANTED 483 .4 _._fi--' r" f'"' � � k� I � TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CORPORATION , IN THE DEED d T�� -�F 1 J ] ��i X 474. 4 X 470 .4 X 469 . 7 I 9 `2!�'-76 RECOPOLD APRIL 4 , 1757 IN BOOK 2066 PAGE 313 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS X 78. 8 i OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY 60 FEET OF PARCEL 1 AND 4 OF SAID LAND. SKYWARD WAY (PLOTTED) 81 .72 oti a X 4-78. 6 _ _ -- - G-- - -- --_ __ -- \ _- _ _ �� ;�c, fi Go, x _ __ 3� _ �� _ 1'5G �� -` °c� eX157' C�warE.Q 411VE= �10 + 'L 010�� I n THE EFFECT OF A MAP FILED IN BOOK 54 PAGE 29 OF RECORDS OF Nj NI `�'� O) I lit �� ol� SURVEY , RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTI' , CALIFORNIA. 7t' / c � :u r �• 4e I (PLOTTED) 92, r c.r rp A RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY ARO✓Ec r S o ,,o t TATI 23 68 14 rr � � 'CI � ��� I ' �" �1 (�L� WATER DISTRICT , IN FAVOR OF THE F'UfiI.IC FOR ALL. PUBLIC ROADS W i � AND RIGHTS OF WAY HERETOFORE DEDICATED, ACQUIRED, F<ESERVED n+E:rQA RO. w 4B �✓ `�S �� OR ACCEPTED FOR PUBLIC USE AND ALSO ANY AND ALL PRIVATE O 4 EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ROADS, PIPELINES, DITCHES AND CONDUITS ON , OVER, UNDER OR ACROSS THE HEREIN UESCRiDED PROPERTY , EXISTL y 1 !�7 MEANS IOF SUCH NG FOR TROADS HE RAND EFOR THE OF RPURPOSE OFESS AND R CONVEYING ESS FROM OIRRIGATING NDS 6Y f-F = (487.5) �°'' 2 3 4 V 7 0 I �A'A� / AND DOMESTIC WATER TO SUCH OTHER LANDS BY MEANS OF SUCH PIPE- ,<, o - = I.D - a P - - _ _ N P c o (�✓ `�l �7T LINES DITCHES AND CONDUITS. PAD-403.0 PAD 48 PAD AD-477.5 ( PAD-476.5 PAD -474.0 PAD':472.0 AD 471.5 � J (BLANKET IN NATURE) �iic�iV/TY M,4,� _ 8� 1� a�� I I 1 l bO �' l I ��-D I I I Ozl-o �' ( ! I Duo d'' I I io�D I I ,ice , I I` 7, f a ��, ID R h 20 13��28 W � ti� 1 � SCAG E _ X 48 7. 8 ,„ - - - ---- -- - -- - `'-s _ / g ENGINEER a1�O 92, 93' 93 9g' n' ✓,,q ,0A(//OSO1V o4SS0C-, INC. k t• O 73-OBO 6Z t94S rO, S216. /06 X 496. 3 X 496.3 Q I PAGM OESERT. ,t Z 260 1 I 1 3 4 � { Z{� t 1 4 6. i .1� � `'�S 0 i h N X 9 3 h �' ( 0.Q Z� ( 6515 GB✓, L TO. 00 C/O Ric v v.Po F HEAc.,K I6 I5 14 I3 12 II 1 9 _ •r b Q• p O a o v o `� K Z 384E CARBON ST. STE. /OB O .._ // p N a N � i � l( l � 72�RRA/VCE, CA �J4503 '1 PAD=488.5 PAD=487. 2 PAD=486.0 PAD=484,6 PAD- 483.2 PAD--481.8 PAD=480.4 PAD=4.78.9 �? 2=Zw ©,a� I I I(o0 0 11 C)40 4 I I o+O l G1 o�-D I 1 l�` I I I ll�D `� 12- �'� ` �o� ' I 28 ! l 631 DEI/ELORER { II CAIAZA/V CONSTRUCT/ON C_� G 1 I 7Z - 757 FRED 1V,4R/NG 0,? STE. B ? X 496. 2 t '( // ...��GG A44 iY! DESERT, CA 9Z Z GO o.EX/5TlIVG CURB 72' 93' 92 92` 92' - 93 93, 94 � I I (G/') 340- 53G7 -� - '� -- --- - U ---- + --- - :41-- Q V - - --- - �-- -- - -- -------p�Sr..- --- - ---- -.�G 1j i`--- B$' EXIST 8" SEWER ` PiPOP 8" SEwE� IX, ,�c� N t39'S.9'O7" W ��; o c,/ b 6ELAIR�47`' a x RD - - Al.--- - - -- - -- ----- -- -- - -- -- --- - - - - -- - ---- __ ----------- - - 2� a N �� ,;�i ,��� m 3z w UT/L/T/ES �- - � PROR �" KWTER L/NE '� h Z 1-53/.- 1b / SEif�ER C.4 WI0. --Q�e - -- --- - -- - 6 �l PROP 8"tV.4TER L/�41� „r w4TER 93' 93 93 93, 93, 92.' 63 R; ELECTRICITY S. C�IL/F. ED/SON CO. moo_ h W { I TELEPHONE GENERAL TEL EPNONE CO. GAS S. G'�IG/F GAS CGZ I _ 'J ZONING EXis rlNG I _ . PR3 �i*LANNEO �E'ES/OENT/.4,L. 3 UNITS/AC'.PE) I r ` zO 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 �APP L OCA ,i O/V� '> Ul IA N �y (PRO��OSEO t` EXISTING 17 ,� to 0 PAU 4DO.0 N PAD-488.0 PAD=486.5 PAD=485.1 PAD=483.6 PAD=482.2 PAD=480.$ N PAD=479.4 \ PAD, 495 .0 / / ti EXIST/N6 - ✓ACANT I31& I I I �p87 I I (o2S I ` , �pZrJ I I �loZ� I I �02� I I' &7_E> j I I Z�p 7 PROPOSED - S/NGGE FA/N/GY RES/GENT/AL SCHOOL D/STR/CT a h DESERT S.INQS UN/F/EO SCHOOL O/STiP/CT 0)5 0)4' �3' - 0l3' �3 ' T 9 5' so' ASSESSOR*5 i°.4R'CEL NOS. J Q 1 G 3O- /90- 0/2, Ol Q tLl ACoPEACE Q �� � 18 sao _ � z PAD= 403.0 �, J I !/.2 ACTES t W / 35 34 N 33 32 �, 31 -1 30 29 za 0 LL� 1111 - N N U} Q (F c I v, , {- N - N = I I NoTEs _ W)-:500.0 PAD= 406W PAD-49& 5 PAD= 494,0 PAD=4�93.7 PAD--492.8 PAD=491.2 PAD=489.5 o��� ^J EARTHWORK ESTIMATE - - - - -- 55,00aGbC.Y. CUT AND FILL �' � l I1 ln2� � �087 IZI� ID � 5• �, � k 19 --- 0 -�14 0= 500. 0 ` � �3' �2 ' �3' al '�3Tn 6� Ar3AND0/V.CD PROP WATER L/N� -7- -- - - Q) TO f3E REL OG ATED G >cj W V W--- - -- - - -- - --W - -_. .. - . - --- rv - Al I t---G 01t?FSTEAD----�----� ,Qpq,a �XST GAS L/NB -s ---- -- -- _-_ s ---- - ------- -- - - -- R1 T rf E X I -fs , f _/� \ � � J J � -. � PER TRACT 22tt� U P = 1 =511.6 = 1 . W511.2 -PAD � J J PAD=493.2 � PADT492.5 PAD-492.5 AD 5 2 1 PAD PA 5 1 5 / PA 1 \, s�o I J A _) J 8 / I � J CURE � GUTTER Q CURB C' C;UTTER PEA' -- rR. 22!/! SOS 50 IO�yy g' t2� 12' 6 7' {ice SfOEW/�GK S/DErVALK Q CURB 5 0 . A.C. PAVEMENT CURB o S � _. � � ,j Z CIO f Z CIO---► 5--�- � ----- Q � . DR y BASE COURSE TRACT 2Z!/! I QI Nr� COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1 � TR. � EXIST. ,BLOCK W4GL Q � ao,cY � TYP/CAL. STREET SEC T/ON p �I A/0 SCAL E (,0A0:4W f) ^, cX/S T!A/G G,POU/UD � I 1 (475,5) IS T,P. BORX TiP I Baer. I iQ EX/ST//t GROUND I - - - - --- --- --- - - 5 1-C r/ON HS NO SC,4! F. t t i < • ' - WO 80 3 SHEET 190EX SEE SHEET 1-2 FOR IRRIGATION LEGEND. SEE SHEET 1-2 FOR IRRIGATION DETAILS . SPECIFICATION S IRRIGATION PLAN I-1 SEE SHEET 1-3 FOR IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS. IRRIGATION DETAILS I-2 IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS I-3 PLANTING PLAN P-1 Z o 1 PLANTING DETAILS . P-2 — PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS P-3 > W Q Q: W ' m � _ W Z W O z Y Iw J 3 v m N a W p o Q V I I m N = Y o I v •ao W LOMA VISTA LANE _ iN •- — _ W — Q�- � ■_ cWn O� 1�'E'W Bt6C K—WALL — Z A 195 J R/W ■ a 41f ■ � z _ a J a • - Z • 0 4 db a i 2' 1Z I C,v M 1'�D LL E EZ Ise I 'r}+ D W N I✓ ft 4 dh / ,, 00 w � ' LOMA VISTA LANE �oR Wdb — W ■ NEW BLOCK WALLZ DESERT w _ CITY � �- olt � Z •- 2 / / • z 4� _ _ CC H ■ R/W APPROVO by � P C.RES-NO } W G 4 . STAFF LETTER 2 ■ D.R.e. ACTION FORM a. O U a BY ! O 0 Ir W LL � V • � J W � V OZ ~ - O oc • V W ZW J ` dh Asa = 2 WoO• s ' SHEET µ. • i a i BRC.SS NIPPLE (TYP) /"'-P RESSURE GAUGE TA! ` . 4 PLACES / ELL (0-200 PSI ) - SHEET' 2 PLACES GATE VALVE / (PLASTIC FACE) REDUCED PRESSURE I ��' BACKFLOW PREVENTER � 11 �L-r �� S P E C i F 1 C A T I O N S ELBOW (BRASS) 1�,\�`;3� ` o - ROUND PLASTIC •, �,' � FINISH GRADE o GATE VALVE BRASS NIPPLE COVER MARKED IRRIGATION E I BOX $ ATI GAT TEST COCK (TYP.) UN'ON , .. . FINISH GRADE x �: r ► x x LAWN AREAS 4 PLACES - : _ - c PRESSURE 5 "PLY` w rr�- rr �r + p ~ - c�..i...,,�ri.q i•rr.f.�.�i.+rr��. . -� `- x x �yl) � �c STRAINER#40 -- t����..... t T r ! !+% „rot r ' LINE DISCHARGE � p• �+' 1 �ntL�_���� x x x x x )c FINISH GRADE Z MESH MONEL #p 0O .4 " ^ � „ SHRUB AREA O 1 Via ,• PVC. SCH 40 MALE ADAPTOR Epoxywie `�_� � _ ,;> 4" THREADED INIPPI.F Connectors Control ELL W i-BRASS ELBOW I Wires - J HANDWHEEL fY � 1 ' Valve fox STREET ELL Cc f RELIEF PORT PVC male ( ^ W Rain Bird \ Adapter ' ScuDDer j STREET ELL— m \--F PRESSURE SUPPLY WISH GRAD Valve � 4>a LINE (SE� E SPEC.) i #100-PE5 L " TEE (THREADED OUTLET) I2" THREADED NIPPLE = I W Z Y RASS ELBOW i r Z rltlre, y Rein Bird O goo �•_ t ��"1 I PEA GRAVEL W J U Pressure ,�Q'�8 a'� In ,c�cJ �$ °•'9•�.°o PVC Elbow -� (MIN. 2 CU. FT) t13 H Q Q W Regulator -w �.vo d. ! - _` '� LATERAL 0 O Q cd U Im i • % + *PSI-HMB 3 :. - —GATE VALVE ' to = Y• PRESSURE SUPPLY ' / $Cfles ( SCh. 8t� t8" a'• : . c:. - n, 7 j� r- (� m \) LINE INTAKE , R PVC 't� . '/ PVC MALE ADAPTOR . . I Crushed�� to main line ; ROCk _ ` • NOTE r . I. EQUIPEMENT TO BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUN OF 12" FROM WALLS, [• BUILDINGS, ETC. 2- ALL ABOVE GROUND ASSEMBLY SHALL RECEIVE ONE (1) COAT ' wIs{y .r RED LEAD PRIMER AND ONE (1) COAT PAINT AS SELECTED BY / ARCHITECT 3. WHEN UNIT IS NEXT TO BUILDING, WALL , ETC, TEST COCKS ARE TO BE ON OUTSIDE. A BACKFLOW PREVENTOR 13 AUTOVIATIC CONTROLLER 'M1GRQ _1RR1G,C0NTR�Q(_�.�.�U}�L E_ J D GATE VALVE E QUICK COUPLER VALVE �V GENERAL INSTALLATION NOTES 1. SPRINKLER IRRIGATION PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. FINAL LOCATION 12. 120 VOLT POWER FOR CONTROLLER(S) IS TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS �4 7 017 PIPING WILL BE DETERMINED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION• ON A SEPARATE CIRCUIT BREAKER. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINLINE AND LATERALS SHALL BE PLACED IN SAME TRENCH WREN BE RESPONSIBLE FOP. MAKING CONNECTIONS TD CONTROLLER. Normal height 6" or more POSSIBLE. EQUIPMENT SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS IS FOR DE3ZGN CONTROLLER FINAL LOCATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY OWNER'S „m+' o CLARZ?ICATION ONLY AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN PLANTED AREAS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. e ��� except for flat 0 nozzles " 2. IrI[STALL ALL EQUIPMENT AS SHOWN IN DETAILS. ALL EQUIP-EN, Rc v E ' � MAN 3 t O be 6 O T less .s s . Q 13. RONALD G.._COP.. ASSOCIATES, INC. SHALL APPROVE ALL INFIELD QI MAX REQUIRED BUT NOT SPECIFIED ON THE DRA%4rNG SHALL BE PRO'JiC_J DESIGN CHANGES DUE TO SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN CHANGES g•' "+" BY THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR. TO GUARANTEE 100% SPRINKLE?, COVERAGE OR THE IRRIGATION O (, p I� �i A y1 �,A•� �) CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY. � 0 " D 0 3. ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH " -RUCTIONS AND SPEC ,14. RONALD GREGORY ASSOCIATES. •ZNC. SHALL NOT BE RZ32O:r3Z3L" FCR 0 O c.�.�� MAINU=ACTURER'S INS. TONS. s r �f O O IMPROPER OPERATION OF SYSTEM DUE TO CONTRACTOR NOT FOLLOWING RUBBER COVER, SPRAY HERO BXCKFLC:J PROTECTION U:rIT(S) SHALL 92 INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE PLAN PIPE SIZING OR INADEQUATE STATIC PRESSURE OR INFZcLD WLTY LOCAL CODES. DESIGN CHANGES WITHOUT APPROVAL. �- � Q GEARED ROTOR 1/2 STREET ELLS I 5. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RZSPCNSIB-_Z FOR PROPER 15. RONALD GREGORY ASSOCIATES. INC. IS NOT RESPONSI3LE FOR s ►+ � p �dwt _-Q WORKMANSHIP DURING INSTALLATION. ERRORS IN INSTALLATION IF THEY HAVE -NOT BEEN RETAINED FOR �a V_' � v 3�4 STREET ELLS _ V INSTALLATION OBSERVATION. wTr v 'F 1/2 SCHED• 80 NIPPLE 16. ALL MAINLINE PIPING SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF IS- COVER (24" w� ° ` .• � y�. + e 1 8 NIPPLE r IR -- UNDER ROADS AND STREETS, AND 24" IF RUBBER RING SEALED 16. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR , 3/4 SCHED. 0 E r (LE AS REQU ED) r l .�r � 111E �r1^, PIPE) • ALL LATERAL PIPING SHALL BE rRErrcHED A MINIMUM OF DETAILS, STANDARDS OF MATERIALS AND WORKMA:rSHZ?. �•� #a ,,,�, # (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) ^ 12' DEE?. ALL CONTROL WIRE GOING UNDER DRIVEWAYS AND §„f ST'P.EE:3 SHALL BE SLEEVED IN A PVC PIPE. LATERAL PIPING SPECIAL NOTES _ Y 'Y Er T STREET ELL co I. C (,. D:R DRI J:iTAYS AND STR__.S SHALL BE SC3_LULZ 40 PVC 3 4 STREET ELL 1/2 A. SHRUB SPRAY HEADS ON A RISER WILL ONLY BE PERMITTED tL.XT T y � - k PVC Schedule 80 Riser RE WHERE THEE' ARE PCLEAR :mow ": � PVC SCh �U1 Irl: 7. ALL vA,.!_ CONTROL WL._ SHALL 9E INSTALLED IN SAM r_3 A .JAIL, A F_.7„- OR OTHE.. A...-A r1..c.._ .:._: A.a., OUT O. , ,:., ,,r p;: ,, e 1, .o l [ ;161C WITH MAINLINE WHEREVER POSSIBLE AND SHALL BE SOLID COPPER• '1'=� aavnao a . - - fl_t aR•,vrvv r "`; "-+'c_ AN APPFC.a-IaTZ 3_IGH- PO_ JP 5.....7.,E .. SHALL Bc PVC WE } _ _ ._ _ PVC TEE cc,, a �,;. - tw ,-" a0 R 1 S e I O C 10[ldl AWG i13, TYPE U?, DIRE BURIAL WIRE, USING SNAPTI.E OR L-- C. DRIVES. r. �•�. <, . g. �" , q.„,.+. m, P ) PVC Schedule 40 Street _ _ -^ I.tE_.1.,.._D AD�A,._.,. .O ALL WALKS, PATIO AREAS AND ALL SCOTCH-LCC .DIRE co.rNEG. Rs. c TRAFFIC. T f "' / e l 1 S AREAS OF PEDESTRIAN T..A_£IC. FINAL INSTALLATION IN LAWN --- ' r SHALL BE FLUSH AND IN SHRUB BEDS 0:7° INCH ABOVE GRADE. L ALL T..ENCR BAC...'LL SDI., SHALL BE CLEAN, .. OF RO PVC SCh�dule TRASH, GLASS, sowrz:r� AND CEMENT =1cAINERS A40 P.AGS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONE BUBBLER AT THE BASE OF EACH "*4 PVC LATERAL LINE CONTRACTOR SHALL CC,..ACT ALL TRENCHES TO A DENSITY EQUAL TO' FIELD GROWN OR 24" AND LARGER BOXED TREE OR AND OTHER TREE„ . 40 Street EllsF •, PVC LATERAL LINE tc= - THE UNDISTURBED SOIL A:iD SHALL BE RESPCNSI3L FCR BRINGING AT THE DZRECTZ( 0? THE LANDSCAPEA4CdZiECT ANY SETTLED TRENCHES BACK TO FINISH GRADE. PVC Schedule 40 Tee or Ell 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH ALL PIPE LINES PPICR TO INSTALLING & POP-U? SPRAY SPECI?ICATTC:rS s SPRISK _cR HEADS. A.if TWO OR THREE INCH POP-U? BODY IN STANDARD TURF T - a eralpiping � L t Class 200 P C 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL VALVE BOXES AT GRADE OVER ALL GROrUnDCOVER THREE OR FOUR INCH POP-UP BODY FOR LC4 GROWING ELECTRIC VALVES AND INSTALL ANTI-CRAW VALUES AS NECESSARY TYPES, FOUR OR SITS INCH POP-UP BOGY FOR TALLER '`I 1 TO ?REVENT LOW HEAD DP.AI:7AGE EROSION OR DAMAGE. TYPES. r 11. COINTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST ALL SPRINKLERS AND VALVES FOR PROPER ANNUAL COLOR SIX OR e ELlE INCH POP-UP BODY PAC Schedule 40 Class 200 PVC— E _ �► I'. Op><RATI0:7 AND COVERAGE. SPRINKLERS ALONG STREET CURBIt1G AND Tee or Ell Lateral DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE SET BACK 4 73 6 INCHES. ALL SPRINKLERS SH3:33_RY SIX OR TWEL'!E INCH PO?-U? SORT SHALL BE ADJUSTED SO THAT NO WATER IS THFC'4N ONTO STRUCTURES OR NATURAL FACED MASONRY WALLS, NO OVER-aROW IS PERMITTED ON P G LAWN POP UP H 12 " & 6 " HIGH P I SHRUB HEAD HARDSCAPE. F ROTOR POP U OP UP IRRIGATION LEGEND 6 SYMBOL MANUFACTURER & MODEL PSI GPM RADIUS DETAIL REMARKS � � Z Intsl Rain Bird *EMT•MOS / Q : vEMT-MID A RADVBZRD EMT-MO EMITTER 20 2 0' }k �.� Z a t *EMT-M20 1 Single Outlet E m i t t a r par plan CI RAINSIRD EMT-M10 EWT1'ER 20 1 0 c RAINBIRD PSI-FMA-20 PRESSURE RHGULATOR 0 0 Finish Grade �' a Curb; `walx 0f �-� Z Foundation o oR3in Bird O3V #B-2 2 O RAINBIM RBY-075-200 Y FILTERS O 0 ITS Distributer ' T u D i n g RAINHIRD PE 100 VALVE C � O . Uj LL Sch. 80 PVC IRRITROL M PLUS 4 STATION CONTROLLER B Q -WATER MET>R BY CVWD - 3/4" .t Uj X Q Nlarlex ' Street 'Ell - L�R AC LI� �'K.Y C1�1Ci[ Di \.IV ICU -4 n P v C Street iMAINLINE SCH 40 PVC PIPE =r Q Z PVC Lateral W Line LATERAL LINE CLASS 200 PVC PIPE - U PVC Tee VALVE STATION � � Q Z IW or Elbow GPM VALVE SIZE ► .i x ,Q SINGLE-OUTLET EMITTED �, a .1. THESE PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. 41 � ` 2. MAINLINE AND VALVES ARE SHOW IN HiARDSCAPE FCC CLARITY ONLY. 3. IRRIGATION CON7 AIC.'POR TO PROVIDE VALCON ADV-XC 5001 CHECK VALVE ON ALL HEADS ADJACENT *.- TO SIDEWALK AND CURBS. SHEET . I_2 . , SHEET CONTRACTOR IRRIGATION WORK RESPONSIBILITIES OWNER'S IRRIGATION WORK RESPONSIBILITIES . SPECIFICATIONS 1 . Sco a of _Work: The contractor shall provide all labor, 1 . Construction Responsibilities: The Owner will be 3. Specified Equipment: All equipment shall be as listed in materials, transportation and services necessary to furnish responsible for all aspects of construction including all the legend and installed as per details and specifications, and install a complete irrigation system as shown on the irrigation inspections. All field meetings, shall be or manufacturer' s recommendation. Any substitutions shall drawings and specified herein. initiated by the contractor and coordinated through the be approved in writing by Owner (Job Superintendent) and (n Owner (Job Superintendent) to the Landscape Architect. The Landscape Architect. Any unapproved equipment shall be Z 2. Conformance: All irrigation work shall conform to Landscape Architect shall be in a support observation role replaced at contractor' s expense. O applicable local, county and/or state codes, regulations and to the Owner (Job Superintendent) providing interpretive - rules. advice only in accordance with the observation schedule, as 4. Alternate Items: Approval of any item or alternate item r noted. indicates only that it apparently meets the requirements of > 3. License: All work shall be performed by a C-27 California the drawings on the basis of the information submitted, and w ` Licensed Landscape Irrigation Contractor. 2. DeterminingLegal and Physical Elements: The Owner (Job does not relieve the contractor of any responsibility for o: Superintendent) shall be responsible for determining the equipment' s successful operation. • 4. Permits and Inspections_: The contractor shall obtain, property lines, rights-of-way, tract boundaries, grades, � coordinate and pay for any and all permits, fees and agency easements, utility locations (above and below grade) and any 5. Contractor's Guarantee: Manufacturer's warranties shall not w inspections as required. other legal or physical elements as required for the relieve the contractor of his liability under the guarantee. o successful completion of the work. Contractor shall not be Such warranties will onlysupplement the 5. Insurance: The contractor shall carry all workman' s permitted to proceed with any work without determination of PP guarantee. � w compensation, public liability and property damage insurance the above facts. 6. Mainline Pipe: Pressure mainline pipe sized two inches (2" ) Z C _J Z Y as required by all applicable codes, regulations and by the and larger shall be PVC Class 315. Pressure mainline pipe m ^ w T 3 U Owner (Job Superintendent) . 3. Site Discrepancies: All discrepancies in site conditions, 1 -1 /2" and smaller shall be PVC Schedule 40. Both shall be to ~ drawings or specifications shall be immediately brought to buried a minimum of 18" and have solvent welded joints made O o a c1 U ¢ th = Y 6. Site Verification: Prior to commencement of work, the . the attention of the Owner (Job Superintendent) and from NSF approved Type I, Grade I PVC compound conforming to -5 0 P- U m contractor shall verify, at the site, all conditions and Landscape Architect. It is the Owner' s (Job ASTM resin specification 1785. dimensions shown on the plans necessary to achieve the Superintendent' s) responsibility to consult the Landscape {n intended design of the irrigation system. Any discrepancies Architect prior to any further work in that area. Any 7. Solvent Welds: PVC solvent weld fittings shall be shall be immediately reported to the Owner (Job unreported discrepancy and continued work without written Schedule 40 1 -2, II-K NSF approved, conforming to ASTM test " Superintendent) . authorization from the Owner and Landscape Architect shall procedure D2466. I �►, P be at the contractor' s risk and expense. 8. Lateral Line Pipe: Non-pressure buried lateral line pipe 7 . Liable for Encroachment: The contractor shall be Contract Fulfillment: All questions relating to shall be PVC Class 200 buried a minimum of 12" with solvent _ � < responsible and liable for any encroachment into adjacent 4• interpretation of the drawings and specifications, quality p weld joints made from NSF approved, Type I, Grade II PVC property, rights-of-way, easements, set backs or any other legal property restrictions either marked or unmarked. of work and acceptable fulfillment of intent of the contract compound conforming to ASTM resin specifications D1784. ' document shall be decided concurrently by the Owner (Job , Superintendent) and Landscape Architect. 9. Steel Pipe: Galvanized steel pipe shall be ASA Schedule 40 �`` 8. Point of Connection Verification: The contractor shall P verify the static pressure, meter size and size of service mild steel screwed pipe with medium galvanized screwed w• to meter (P.O.C. ) at each point of connection. beaded malleable iron fittings. 9. Field Staking: Prior to indtallation, the contractor shall 10. Steel Pipe Below Grade: All galvanized pipe and fittings locate, by stakes or other means, all pressure supply lines, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL IRRIGATION installed below grade shall be coated with two (2) coats of °" control equipment, ground cover delineations and heads for Koppers #50 Bitumastic. =r 'a ` FIELD OBSERVATION SCHEDULE approval by the Owner (Job Superintendent) . 11 /, '••� 11 . Pipe Joints: All connections to be sealed with Led-Lube Q or equal for galvanized joints and "Rector Seal No. 5" or 10. Coordination of Activities: The contractor shall be 1 . Field Observation Coordination: The following observations equal for PVC joints. responsible for coordination of his activities with all shall be initiated by the contractor and coordinated through other trades, through the Owner (Job Superintendent) . the Owner (Job Superintendent) . The contractor shall notify 12. Control Wire: Connections between the automatic controllers `` x> "` the Owner (Job Superintendent) and Landscape Architect not and the electric control valves shall be made with direct LL' 11 . Intended Design Coverage: The contractor shall be less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of any requested burial copper wire AWG-UF 600 volt UL approved. Minimum responsible for completion, modification or revisions of the observation. Continued work without observation at these size is #14 AWG buried 18" below grade. Use different color systems as necessary to maintain the consistent coverage phases of work is at the contractor' s risk, with any pilot wire for each controller. Common wires shall be white �: W design of contract documents. Any deviation from the required change or modification at the contractor' s expense.q g P with a different color striper for each automatic contract documents shall have the prior written approval of The Owner (Job Superintendent) shall inform the Landscape controller. the Owner and Landscape Architect. Architect as to the purpose and time of the observation : `_ P P • forty-eight (48) hours in advance. 13. Wire Trench: Wiring shall occupy the same trench and shall 12. Notification of Discrepancies: Any discrepancies between be installed along the same route as pressure supply orF the field conditions and the contract documents and/or the 2. Contractor Orientation/Preconstruction Meeting: This lateral lines wherever possible. Where more than one (1 ) ' s design intent affecting the successful completion and cost meeting shall be conducted to discuss the plans and wire is placed in a trench, the wires shall be taped ° of the project shall be reported to the Owner and Landscape specifications, possible discrepancies, site conditions and P j P P P P together at intervals not exceeding ten (1 0) feet. #° , Architect immediately. All work related to the problem area other aspects of the project irrigation work such as : +' _�•{ .fit . �.. •4i� � r. ' ,..-... :t '.s .t• - k` yr, r shall cease until the discrepancies have been resolved b w x P Y scheduling and requirements for starting work. Prior toExpansion Curl: An expansion url should be rovided . : ` -< . . .-#• ! _r =.e; :. r, a .;; _ _ >,�,;� r.•-.: ` � Expan on Cuc p wi h i�rt m Landscape Architect in writing. A4. � ., the Owner or Landsn contractor r shall thoroughly� � the meeting, cont c o ha t o u hl acquaint himself »k: ,: F{,n < _ .. PY ._ 9► g . � ... . :., re Y q ., , ,:.•, � . . . .a, . � three 3 ) feet ofwire and at least ever . .. # f�• �. ., .,. r, f . continuation of work is at the contractor' s risk and i t conditions and the Tans de length. r m,, ry with sitetails and > , k, plans, "one hundred ( 1 00) feet of wire :. ,; �' •N.a.:?Y'=.t ..,,:... ,., -:,,3, a .,` ' i<.;." :, L - expense. �'• .� •�°� W'="•° ,.���� ,'°;i .. ,: _: � �, W-+ .�k•��� �•�tl �' specifications. E ,,f»,:, ,.:n.. L. cm.,:F» „. . .. .e € u• x ., - �..d.:. .,+# 3fi.a' Y,6 y.. :8 s;,.9'• �° ;.. >. {,a ,p. -; � • - '� �. � • :.-•. � . . k w � _- �� - . • .� � 15 'Wire Splices: All splices shall be made with Scotch-Lo Imo+ -Irrigation Plans. The irrigation plans, inc'ludiA piping „•,Y a .`. �• -_' .: • � »� � .,° ,_ Y: ••' 13. g 9 p , q p p g m .4, � := 3.: Irrigation Mainline and Equipment Layout. This observatibri � a.�.. », r , 4 ;, , , #3577 connector sealing packs, pen-tite wire connector, or and equipment locations are drawn schematically. The f »" :.'i ` : ' . Y shall be performed b the Owner (Job Superintendent) approved equal. Use one splice per connector sealing pack. �� E r, � � :,fit� . .: : �., , -. � . , . P Y P PP q P contractor shall make minor adjustments to the system, as ' ` { following staking of all pressure mainline and control required, to avoid physical elements and conform to the site j equipment, verification of all site conditions and prior to 16. Trenches: Dig trenches straight and support {pipe < conditions. In all cases, the contractor shall insure that any trenching. Any discrepancies not previously noted shall continuously on bottom of trench. Lay pipe to an even there are no conflicts between the irrigation system, be corrected at this time to the satisfaction of the Owner grade. planting and construction elements, and existing utilities. (Job Superintendent) and Landscape Architect at the ' contractor' s expense. 17 . Backfill: The trenches shall not be backfilled until all 14. Electrical Connection: The contractor shall be responsible required tests are performed. Trenches shall be carefully for the final electrical connection from. power source to 4. Irrigation Mainline and Pressure Test: This observation is backfilled with approved materials, free from clods of earth controllers as indicated on the plans, where applicable. for the purpose of reviewing all mainline layout for or stones two inches ( 2" ) or larger. Backfill shall be � conformance to specifications and verifying the water mechanically compacted to a dry density equal to adjacent fib 15. Liable for Damage: The contractor shall be liable for tightness of pressure systems prior to backfilling trenches: undisturbed soil and shall conform to adjacent surface damage to all utilities, construction, irrigation and Pressure tests must conform to manufacturer' s grades without irregularities. planting elements, new, marked or unmarked, and shall specifications. All pressure lines shall be tested under a replace or replair damage to its original condition in a sustained hydrostatic pressure of 150 pounds per square inch 18. Streets: Where any -cutting or breaking of concrete or other manner acceptable to the Owner (Job Superintendent) . for a period of not less than two (2) hours. This test paving surface is necessary, it shall be done and replaced shall be performed in the presence of the Owner (Job to match existing to the Owner's (Job Superintendent' s) 16. Liable for Loss: The contractor shall be responsible and Superintendent) to manufacturer' s accepted testing procedure ' satisfaction, by the contractor, as part of the contract liable for any loss to his equipment, parts and materials on and approved in writing by the contractor_ , prior to cost. this project until completion and acceptance of the job in backfilling any trenches. Contractor shall furnish ,: Ilk },. Z writing from the Owner (Job Superintendent) . necessary force pump and all other necessary testing 19. Pipe Cover: All wire, pressure and non-pressure pipe equipment. installed under asphaltic concrete paving shall be installed g "° x QQ■ 17. As-Builts: The contractor shall provide and keep up to date in Class 315 sleeves, twenty-four inches (24" ) below road W a complete "As-Built" record set of prints which shall be 5. Progress Inspections: Periodic inspections shall be bed and backfilled per structural soils report o corrected daily and show every change from the original performed b Owner Job Superintendent) during the layout of specifications. `P Y ( P ) g X � Q drawings. Before the time of the final inspection, the all lateral line systems, with trenches open to verify a (� contractor shall transfer all information from the "As- conformance to details, depth of pipe and equipment 20. Pipe Clearance: All lines shall have a minimum clearance of 11 r�. "`* o Z a Built set, and field staking of all equipment located on assemblies. six inches ( 6" ) from each other. Parallel lines shall not the mainline and control wire location, to a reproducible � be installed directly over one another. � � � r Ozalid sepia, procured from the Owner (Job Superintendent) 6. Irrigation Completion/Coverage Test: This observation is to . o and Landscape Architect. All work shall be neat and ensure conformance of all irrigation equipment with ' 21 . Control Valves: Install each control valve in a separate W U L legible. Contractor shall certify reproducibles as to irrigation contract documents and will consist of operation locking valve box with a minimum of twelve inches " ' 9 g t i h s (12 ) ..J accuracy and completeness. of each system to ensure intended coverage. The contractor between valves, and a minimum of six inches (6") from any Q shall flush and adjust all heads for optimum performance and walk or structure. V 18. Written Guarantee: All irrigation work shall be guaranteed to prevent overspray onto walks, roadways and buildings, �.. by the contractor as to material and workmanship for a etc. , prior to this observation. This may include changes 22. Head Installation• Irrigation heads shall be installed only period of one year following the date of final acceptance of in nozzle sizes and degree of arc to optimize operation. after the system has been flushed to the complete Z the project. The contractor shall provide a written P j P satisfaction of the Owner (Job Superintendent) . a W � guarantee on his letterhead at the time of the final inspection. 23. S acin of heads shall be set perpendicular to finished r V s SR acing p p Q Z W grades unless otherwise designated on the plans. '; 19. Written Certification: The contractor shall provide a i 1 ' written certification that the irrigation sysem is SCOPE OF IRRIGATION WORK 24. All sprinkler heads shall be set perpendicular to finished � Q installed free from defects in materials and workmanship and rades unless otherwise desi noted on the lens. N in full compliance with the drawings and specifications. g g p Q J This shall be on the contractor' s letterhead with his � 1 . Base Sheets Were Derived from Plans: 25. All galvanized pipe on grade shall be secured to slope . . Irrigation and California C-27 Contractors License number. Ah surfaces at ten feet on center (10' o.c. ) and to flat areas Prepared by: .lF• 17AV1d501y f�SSO at twenty feet on center (20 ' o.c. ) maximum with #4x24" 20. Turnover Items: The contractor shall supply to the Owner ' PP Y rebar with "J" hooked radius at one end to hold pipe (Job Superintendent) , as part of this contract, the Dated• G1'S' S") Revised: securely in place. 14 , . following items prior to the time of the final inspection: Titled: TR AC f 2111 26. The entire sprinkler irrigation system shall be under full A. A reproducible set of "As-Built" drawings as per automatic operation for a period of seven (7) days prior to +' Note 17 above. B. The original of the guarantee letter. 2. Water Information was obtained from: > the start of any planting. C. The original of the certification letter. Mr./Ms. : 27. All irrigation lines, valves and wiring runs shown on plans D. Two keys for each automatic controller. in the street, paved areas and under hardscaping are , ~ E. Two sets of any special equipment required for Of: schematic. Install these lines, valves and wiring runs in s operating, adjusting, assembling and removing each type planting areas except where it is obvious that they must " 4 of equipment supplied on this project as requested by Date: PSI So GPM 30 S H E E T cross that paved area to get from one planting area to ' the Owner. another or unless noted otherwise. L. •, SHEET SEE SHEET P-2 FOR PLANTING DETAILS . SEE SHEET P-3 FOR PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS. SPECIFICATION S i z O r W cc cc m r W Z LU W O _j G 3 Y V m n F- a N a j W O a U 11 2 y, - C co ju co u � k I ' a , \ ' . w L �MAVITA► LANE _ s x O ', • , • ' sic I Gc, C, G tl G — w ` :6 7 Z 1 GG G h S `n , � 1 GN f sc� NEW BLOCK WALL,,, PSca W 5 z • •ram ., jrL �' y ell RAW . a I ,:- ,1` �& k, f °� + F � r a * . . .; .. .;� ,.L v ... y a , .:'9k ,. ,s j 6p ,, 1 ✓. 14.�, DY ..:.. +. ;Yr } .-.i.. .. ,.'tLj�': s • a,; qq .:a,r.,.,d, a.. {!..:, i-. +: ,,. 4 ,t,. 4 xy.J. ,«.xt} ,+...::.. r ... .,. ., ,1,x�, •9•,�. c y t �r _.. ;. ... .. . x.. ,t gin..+. ....r .,.. 9 .:,. d., .... ,. .rod .. _. .. , ,v...V :yy .-,. $, :.. � r I. , :}.r; t ... ,. ,�" ...,: ... • .. X': ,. ,. .. a :, v.'.. nn. .> * , • f a. �w" '..., 'vp,. .: ,,t c - Fa , ,...... - ,r,v ,. :si� `*�'- ,.¢ <. � �'I -, �"�F3wf t ti". yA8 .b: ., �• A � �S y� Y y z� r I _ � ■ ♦♦ T 'x`' � � sa' /UJ Q� x ! LOMA VISTA LANE ♦♦`�oq � ♦ I W �G -FLU ui en 30 W PSG NEW BLOCK WALL '1 P�C� Ps MY i Z J AL A ..+ Z �•- R W _ r ( W a c Xz ,b 0 1 J O oc PLANT LEGEND .. W �- U. SYMBOL- BOTMI NANR? COMMON NAME QTY SIZE REMARKS W GN ;VLFAS 'NOELLII' GREVILLEA S 5 GAL PLU PLL�GO ARTICULATA PLtl�AGO _— �� 5 GAL XC XYLOSMA CONGEST(JM SHINY XYLOSMA 31 5 GAL VINES dh t U � NORTH CI CALLIAND�RA INAEQUILATERA PINK POWDER PUFF 24 5 GAL WIRE TO NAM � GC GREWLA CAF RA LAVENDER STAR FLOWER 32 5 GAL WIRE TO WALL, 1 = 201'O' 1 L a MY MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM MYOPORUM 1 GAL 4' O.C. PSG PALM SPRINGS GOLD Ca, 2" DEPTH NOTES: 1. PROVIDE PALM SPRINGS GOLD FINES WITH STABILIZER FROM FACE OF CURB TO HALL. -- — - - - _ - SHE T 2. OTE'DELETE� E L --- — — 3. MAKE WATERING BASINS FOR ALL PLANTS. P - 1 i 4.: DRIP IRRIGATE ALL PLANT MATERIAL- 5 Sf UBS TO BE STAGGERED IN 6" OFFSET. r " s � �• SHEET SOIL MIX I - 2/3 NATIVE SOIL _ SPECIFICATIONS V3 KELLOGS NITROHUMUS 3 TIMES OF ROOT BALL U) OF ROOT BALL Z WHERE SHRUBS ARE �p PLANT SLIGHTLY ABOVE O IN (TROUPING THIS DETAIL SOIL LEVEL c IS TO BE EXTENDED N WIDTH o )� SO THAT THE SOIL MIX IS Q CONTINUOUS FROM PLANT DEPTH OF ROOT BALL ' W TO PLANT. KEEP SOIL MOIST, NOT WET TWICE DEPTH OF ROOT BALL aC W co Q o j W T OFF TOP SECTION W Z W Z Y OF SAKE DAMAGED BY CUT-OFF TOP SECTION OF W o J STAKE DAMAGED BY HAMMERING { m t a H a a W I Q tG U cc f;L = PLASTIC OR RUBBERRU88ER H03E VINE O � __� TREE TRUNK TREE TRUNK SNUG AROUND TRUNK "� I- tA n m � i I - U o0 Nap MUSE "LANIZED WIRE CABLE CLAMPS TREE(MULTI- ' WALL OR COLUMN w RE w THER RUBBER OR iOOT BALL 7 � 'z AROUND RUBBERBBER OR PLASTIC HOSE 1/B CABLE PLASTIC HOSE AROUND i (2) 2"BY 2"BY IO'-0" RED1M000 TURNBUCKLES TO EQUALIZE FINISH BRADE: 1 - " Y " BY 10*-6 STAKES OR LODGEPNE POLE AND MAINTAIN TAUTNESS OF WIRE I ' �-( ) 2 B 2 `o y REDWOOD STAKE OR ^, WATER BASH - eo LODGEPINE POLE o No. p GAUAMZED Wifif fi� I • Q N 4 I I" BY 3" CROe'lIBTit REDWOOD DE� DMEN 2"br 4" by24" ►- y,' �� b )� i .; i 3-1/8' GALV. CABLE -TYP. DRIVEN 2'-0 INTO TRE-WOUND w - MINTER BASH WATER BASIN OR BALV. STEEL SPIKES FINISH GRADE FIK TRADE r BACKFILL MIX -�� _ I - • SEE SPECIFICATIONS, - '- i ` PHILIP RED HEAD FASTENERS -TYP j 'p u ; y � --ROOT 8AL L - h zY 1 t. i' EtACKFlLL MIX c `� y ROOT BALL z o z b - (SEE SPECS.) « �` (SEE SPECS) ; 4_4BACK FILL MIX i ,r _ _ _ FERTILIZER TABLETS(SEE SPECS) I �_ i FERTILIZER TABLETS(SEE SPECS) 2 TIMES WIDTH OF ROOT BALL ONE AND ONE HALF TIME WIDTH OF I ONE AND ONE HALF TINE I'-dAl ROOT BALL WIDTH OF ROOT SALLM� \ , SINGLE STAKE TREE DETAIL DOUBLE STAKE TREE DETAIL TREE GUYING DETAIL SHRUB PLANTING & VINE ESPALIER DETAIL J 5d� IS GALLON 24' BOX I'I 36� BOX : �.. T .:. ' .^'...'y, ,.,x:•e ^Cr'. .....ea..; vr'�i' k y �{? - I a` ^ a Y $ e; i�� J a . M y , °SIGHTING NOTES DELETED. 7T ` PLANT I9t NOW OF SHRUBS A MIN. ' n OF la" FROM OU TSIDE OF HE ADM dh '7 ►` PF CUT-OFF TOP SECTION OF STAKE T AFTER Df"VMIG INTO GROUND LIGHTING DETAILS DELETED z 4 USE 3"BALYANQED NAILS Q LAWN (Sop) KEEP LAWN .� 'fig z a MOWED I BELOW TOP OF HEADER BOARD .g -• w � OQ PLANTING NOTES — S 7 I . BFFORF ANY PLANTS ARE LOCATED, ALL PLANTED AREAS ARE TO BE GRADED IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER TO AtitiURF. POSITIVE DRAINAGE. O .. �: Lu LL e e SI PARATF. ALL SIIRUB/GROUNDCOVFR AREAS FROM LAWN AREAS WITII 1 x4 REDWOOD HF.ADERBOARD. �(` �—I BY-e Wq*X D HEADER BOARD J SECTID 2-V4.4 LAMINATED BOARDS wo SCALE 2 BY2- BY IS LAM STAKE 3. PLANT SHRUBS A MINIMUM OF 30 FROM ALL LANDSCAPE. LIGHT FIXTURES. .� w Q MA TREAT ALL WOOD BELOW GRADE '"` wp WITH COOPER NAFMITENATE 4. WIII-RE CIRCU4S'TANCFS PERMIT, DO NOT PLANT TREES CLOSER THAN 3' (THRF,F. FEET) TO AN EDGE OF AS MANUFACTURED BY MOBIL OIL PAVING, HEADFRBOARD OR ROOF LINE. pad PLACE STAKES 1►IPI.6'-d'aC ■■ _ Q Z AND AT ENDS OF BOARD 5, WIIF.RF. CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT, DO NOT PLANT SHRUBS CLOSER THAN 2' (TWO FEET) TO AN EDGE OF PIN, 0 901L(NATIVE) PAVING OR IIEADERBOARD. � , 0. RFNOVF FSPAI IFRFD PLANTS FROM TIIEIR TRAINING FRAMEWORKS AND ATTACH TO TIII: WALL. AGAINST WHICH THEY ARE PLANTED. ATTACH PI-ANTS IN TIIF. SAME PATTERN IN WHICH THEY HAVE. BEEN TRAINED. uT M� A U w n ' 7- LANDSCAPE. PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC FOR CLARITY OF READING. PLANTING MAY BE ADJUSTED 1N FIELD. Q LAMINATED REDWOOD SENDER N ' 2 \\�\ BOARDS AS REOUIRED TO MAKE H. 4)UNDING AND ROUGH GRADE TO 1/10 FT. TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. FINISH GRADE TO BE PROVIDED _ fit A SMOOTH CURVE. BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. I"x4"x12" SPLICE BLOCK AT + ��. WHERE MOUNDING OCCURS ADJACENT TO STREET OR WALKS, SWALES SHALL BE FORMED ALONG THE STREET OF � ' � 2 Q �\ JOINT � /A / 1 � . \\. I"x 4"HEADER BOARD WALK TO CONTROL IRRIGATION RUN OFF. f Fo PLAN VIEW•LAMNATED 10. PLANT QUANTITY LIST IS PROVIDED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR/CLIENT AND IS NOT ro SCALE INTENDED FOR ACCURATE BIDDING PURPOSES. F COUNTRY PLANNING AND AGRICULTURE DF.PARTMF.NT5 t 11 . (ONTRA(TOR SHALL SUBMIT PLANS TO THE APPROPRIATE COU PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMITS. REDWOOD HEADER BOARD DETAIL ACCENT SPOT & AREA LIGHT DETAIL LIGHTING NOTES & PLANTING NOTES SHEET P- 2 - rt LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL PLANTING ' CONTRACTOR'S LANDSCAPE WORK RESPONSIBILITIES FIELD OBSERVATION SCHEDULE SCOPE OF MAINTENANCE WORK SHEET 1 . Scope of Work: The contractor shall provide all labor, 1 . Field Observation Coordination: The following observations 11 . Backfill Mix: Backfill mix around all container material 1 . Maintenance Period: The maintenance period shall commence materials, transportation and services necessary to furnish shall be initiated by the contractor and coordinated through shall consist of the following uniformly blended materials: upon the Owner' s written approval of all phases of planting S P E C IFIC A TIO N S and install all planting elements as shown on the drawings the Owner (Job Super intendant) . The contractor shall notify installation and shall be for ninety (90) continuous ' and specified herein. the Owner (Job Superintendent) and Landscape Architect not 6 parts of on-site soil calendar days. less than � )rty-eight (48 ) hours in advance of any 4 parts of Nitrolized Shavings or equal 2. Conformance: All planting work shall conform to applicable observation. Continued work without observation of these 18 lbs. of Gro-Power Plus per cubic yard of. mi.x 2. Maintenance Procedures: local, county and/or state codes, regulations and rules. phases of work is at the Contractor' s risk, with any Z required change or modification at the contractor' s expense. 12. Planting Tablets, as indicated on the details, shall be A. General: The general care and maintenance of all areas 3 . License: All work shall be performed by a C-27 California The Owner (Job Superintendent) shall inform the Landscape 21 gram 'Blue Chip' or equal and shall be furnished in the shall consist of proper watering, fertilization, Licensed Landscape Contractor. Architect as to the purpose and time of the observation following ratios: weeding, clean-up and as noted below. (n forty-eight ( 48) hours in advance. - 4. Permits and Inspections: The contractor shall obtain, One tablet per one gallon container B.• Groundcover from Flats/Areas without Overseed: Apply U coordinate and pay for any and all permits, fees and agency 2. Contractor_ Orientation/Preconstruction Meeting: This Two tablets per five gallon container pre-emergent herbicide in accordance with the wi inspections, as required. meeting shall be conducted to discuss the plans and Three tablets per 15 gallon container manufacturer' s printed instructions. � specifications, possible discrepancies, site conditions and Four tablets per 20" box 5. Insurance: The contractor shall carry all workman' s other aspects of the project -landscape work such as Four tablets per 24" box C. Fertilization: Maintenance work shall include w compensation, public liability and property damage insurance schedulin, and requirements for starting work. Prior to Five tablets per 30" box fertilization with a commercial fertilizer (Gro-Power P � P Y P P Y J J q Q m as required by all applicable codes , regulations and by the the meetinr7, contractor shall;thoroughly acquaint himself Six tablets per 36" box Plus) fertilizer at the rate of � lbs. per � p Owner (Job Superintendent) . with site Conditions and the plans, details and Seven tablets per 42" box 1 ,000 square feet at thirty ( 30) day intervals after w I specifications . Eight- tablets per 48" box planting. Z 6. Site Verification: Prior to commencement of work, the Eight tablets per 60" box Z w Y w o � 3 U ; contractor shall verify, at the site, all conditions and 3. Weed Abat.':nr:nt: This observation shall be performed after Nine tablets per 72" box D. Weeding: Any concentrated development of weed growth m ^ �- Q Q w dimensions shown on the plans which affect the intended the weed ihatement cycle has been completed to approve the Ten tablets per 84" box that may appear in planting areas during the � �Y p pp g g O o a U cc 1L = Y design of the landscape work. Any discrepancies shall be degree of woeri kill. maintenance shall be removed at ten ( 10 ) day intervals. -� � CS � (n C) m U m immediately reported to the Owner (Job Superintendent) . 13. ' Vines: All vines shall be planted as per shrub/vine The contractor shall remove such concentrations of 4• Plant Material Approval, Layout and Fine Grade Observation: - planting detail and shall have the wood support stake weeds manually. "��T �t 7. Liable for Encroachment: The contractor shall be This observation visit shall be performed after placement or carefully removed. without damage to the plant for rootball• All vines shall be attached to fences and walls with E. Cultivate all non-hydroseeded groundcover areas at not of a responsible and -liable for any encroachment into adjacent staking in the field of all plant materials per the plans. - ; property, rights-of-way, easements, set-backs or any other Container plants shall be placed on site, boxed specimens galvanized nails or eye-screws and 'heavy-duty ' plastic more than ten ( 10 ) day intervals.' ' ribbon ties as necessary legal property restrictions either marked or unmarked. shall be staked as to location. Owner (Job Superintendent) y ( 5 ties minimum) . 9 and Landscape Architect shall approve plant material type F. Clean-UP: During the course of the maintenance work, 8. Coordination of Activities: The contractor shall be and quality, locations of all plant material, Backfill mix 14 • , Clean-Up: Upon completion of each phase of planting work, the contractor shall remove surplus materials and responsible for coordination of his .activities with all and fine grade prior to any planting work. T` the contractor shall thoroughly clean the job site of all debris from the site and shall keep the premises in a ...... > r accumulated rubbish, debris and other extraneous material neat and clean condition at all times. ' other trades through the Owner Job Superintendent) . 1 5. Progress/Installation Observation: Periodic observations .and dispose of it in a suitable and lawful manner. , :Contractor shall keep site neat and clean at all times. 3. During the maintenance period, the contractor shall be 9. Field Staking: The contractor shall locate by stakes or shall be performed by the Owner (Job Superintendent) during j other means, all trees, shrubs, vines and headerboard planting operations to insure conformance to plans and responsible for maintaining adequate protection of all ; layout/groundcover delineation for approval by the Owner specifications, planting areas. Any damaged areas shall be repaired at the (Job Superintendent) and Landscape Architect prior to contractor' s expense. vw H installation. 6. Plant Material/Hydroseed/Pre-Maintenance Observation: This • a observation visit will be to review all work performed under SCOPE OF HYDROSEED WORK 4. Turf Area: Edge and mow to a height of two inches (2") I } s whenever the turf reaches a height of three inches ( 3" ` 10. Notification of Discrepancies: Any discrepancies between the contract for completeness and accuracy. Scheduling (where turf occurs on the plans) . the field conditions and the contract documents and/or the shall coincide with any hydroseeding work to be performed design intent affecting the successful completion and cost under this contract. The Owner (Job Superintendent) and 1 • Seedmix• The appropriate seedmix, as listed below, and the �P FK of the project shall be reported to the Owner and Landscape Landscape Architect shall verify conformance of hydroseed S. Re_Hydroseeding: The contractor shall re-hydroseed all appropriate water volume shall be mixed in the hydroseeding hydroseed areas eroded or non-germinating at the. end of each O Architect immediately. All work related to the problem area materials and seed prior to application, and prior to machine with each of the specified components to allow fbr a p thirty ( 30 ) days of maintenance. Fu shall cease until -the discrepancies have been resolved by starting the maintenance period. homogeneous slurry, which is thoroughly mixed and can be the Owner or Landscape Architect in writing. Any continuation of work is at the contractor' s risk and 7• Maintenance Observation: These observation visits shall be applied easily without clogging the hydromulching machine. 6. Final Acceptance will be given at the end of the maintenance Q performed at the end of each thirty (30) day interval of the - expense. maintenance period with the Owner (Job Su Superintendent) and designated on the Tans to be turf shall b_ Period for all planted areas once hydroseed germination and ^' U p A. All areas dews p A plant establishment have been obtained and there are no . . , •� Landscape Architect to insure conformance with the hydroseeded with the following seed mix a t lbs. 11 . Liable for Damage: The contractor shall be liable for barren areas. ' damage to all utilities, construction, irrigation and maintenance specifications. per 1 ,000 square feet: N/AU. planting elements, existing or near, marked or unmarked, and 8. Final Observation: This observation visit shall be fi shall replace or repair damage in a manner acceptable to the performed to review all aspects of the contracted work prior Owner (Job Superintendent) . W ° ,, to releasing the project to the Owner. B. All areas designated one the plans to be seedmix shall _ �� I �. ) �f j6 4 be hydroseeded with the following seedmix on a per acre . • , �.. �,, r 1 - . Liable for Loss: The contractor shall be responsible and i � � - � µ basis: SPECIAL CONDITIONS , liable for any loss to his equipment, parts and materials on i_4i this project until completion and acceptance of the job in,., ,.. a. x,. ,.a:...,,., ,:3 r m the 0 er J btSu erintendent... � . (.:� -.,, ,;. ;�� �,.-'... �. writing from Owner ( o P ) � , .. �, :.,..`:,+.. '' • rt.+ li .4e A11 lent material shall be approved t. - . ' ._•P b } ol� lc� aGr - a;,.. PE F LAN k, u.rr «. : . SCOPE O LANDSCAPE WOR .. I .. _. Associates Inc �� .,;. ' '•,: ,:_; ,-..�,. . , one week prior to " 4- . . p deliver to h . , .: . Y t e ob sit 1 3 �:tar. i tten Guarantee. All work shall be guaranteed b the � ! ,L. v Y w . �.; .. , The contractor ._ , .. , .. , ., shall submit �F x-' hoto ra h.. _� . ... ,,,... s of all, 1 :. t. . . ;�_ � �„ �,�, P 9 p a nt m ter , , � s : contractor as to naterial lncludin lent aat_rial n� . _ : ,.; *<„ ,, s <,, ., p ial t , .. '�:� .3..- w •..,", ..:t a;--'� s+' „',-,._ �° , ..xt �. ,..�.�. a R 1 �. .. ,, , one d Gregory Associates Inc.I g r ncor approval. , . M... . , oval per year following� ,.,� a �. ., I P workmanship for a • _period of one ye o 3 the date of 1 • Base Sheets Were Derived From Plans. final acceptance of project. The contractor shall provide a '',. 2. tiydromuYchtateial's: y��`dmulCri° t((att a shill consist written guarantee on his letterhead at the time of the final Pre pa b r. I7,Q�/ p y '" � the following components on a per acre bay is: '� � X inspection. . . • Q. '' +�. Dated: 95' 89 Revised: / �' . 14 . Written Certification: The contractor shall provide a NIA " ' 4 written certif i.cation that the planting work is installed Titled: '1'R/'.,L'r 2 ) in full compliance with the contract documents. Any - - 4 approved substitutions or deviations from the plans or 2. Site Preparation: The contractor shall remove all weeds, `` "* ► `1 specifications shall be noted. This certification shall be rocks, debris and other extraneous material from the job on the contractor' s letterhead with his signature and site prior to proceeding with any work under this contract, y, dh California C-27 Contractor' s License number. and dispose of it in a suitable and lawful manner. 3. Drainage: The contractor shall be responsible for drainage 3• Testing Specifications: The contractor' s seed supplier may`in all planting areas in accordance with the plans, details shall provide test data from each batch of. seed supplied on and specifications. (Minimum 2% gradient in all areas) . the .project. The following minimum criteria shall be met: F. OWNER'S LANDSCAPE WORK RESPONSIBILITIES 4 . Finish Grade: The contractor shall be responsible for I A. All seed varieties shall have a minimum pure live seed finish grade with smooth even grades at buildings, walks, count of eighty-five percent (85%) by weight. 1 . Construction Responsibilities: The Owner will be directly other permanent objects and limits of work. All changes in grade shall be blended uniform verticle curves. All areas B. Noxious weeds shall not exceed five e' responsible for all aspects of construction including all tenths of o�_ to be planted in turf shall be smoothed with rakes and percent ( .5%) b weight for an seed variet or er Z landscape inspections. All field meetings shall be floats to the Owner' s (Job Superintendent' s) and Landscape P- Y g Y y p" '' , initiated by the contractor and coordinated through the Architect' s satisfaction. Objects such as rocks, debris, entire seed mix. - Owner (Job Superintendent) to the Landscape Architect. The clods or other extraneous material shall be stock piled and Z Q Landscape Architect shall be in a support observation role removed at the end of finish grade work. C. Inert materials shall not exceed eight percent (3%) by a to the Owner (Job Superintendent) providing interpretive weight of each seed varieties or the total seed mix. W advice only in accordance w4.th the observation schedule as 5. Plant Material: All plants shall be a size, character and noted. 4. Test Data: Laboratory seed testing shall be the quality which meets the accepted industry standards for that responsibility of the contractor. Test data shall be plan and be free from insects, their eggs, disease, weeds or 2. Determining Legal and Physical Elements: Owner (Job supplied to the Owner (Job Superintendent) and Landscape 0 Z Z other detrimental characteristics. , ` " Superintendent) shall be responsible for determining Architect prior to any hydroseeding operations using that O property lines, rights-of-way, tract boundaries, grades, seedmix. .J 0 easements, utility locations (above and below grade) and any 6. Hanllinq/Storage: All plants shall be handled and stored so they are adequately protected from drying out, sun, windburn W other legal or physical elements as required for successful 5. Seed Packaging: All seed shall be delivered to the site in ■ V' or any other injury. completion of the work. Contractor shall not be permitted sealed bags. Each seedmix shall be packaged such that each > _ ..J to proceed with any work without determination of the above seed type is bagged separately and in the correct pre- Q 7. Rejection of Plant Material: The Owner (Job �' W V facts. Superintendent) and Landscape Architect may at any time weighed proportions for the seedmix. 0 reject any and all plant material regarded as unsuitable. 3. Rough Grade: Owner (Job Superintendent) shall provide rough 6. Observation: All seed shall be mixed at the site under theCn Such plants shall be removed from the job site at once and •4' ■ Q Z grade to within 1 /10th of one foot of finish grade. The observation of the Owner (Job Superintendent) and Lan3scape replaced at no additional cost to the Owner, _ 0 - contractor shall be responsible for finish grade and _ Architect as it is placed in the hydroslurry tank. drainage in all planting areas at specified gradient. v W 8. Planting: All plant material shall be as specified and W 7. Guarantee: Landscape contractor shall be responsible for planted as detailed and noted herein. Any substitutions ■ 4. Site Discrepancies: All discrepancies in site conditions, the quality of all labor and materials as provided by Z shall be approved in writing by the Landscape Architect. Q Q drawings or specifications .shall immediately be brought to subcontractors and suppliers, including seedmix, hydroslurry the attention of the Owner (Job Superintendent) and ingredients and their application. y;, N Landscape Architect. It is the Owner s (Job 9. Groundcover Planting: All groundcover areas noted on the '. Superintendent' s) responsibility to consult the Landscape plans shall be rooted cuttings from flats and shall be 8• Presoaking Seed: Seed noted to be pre-soaked shall be done ' � . _ = J planted in staggered rows continuously under all trees and Q Architect prior to any .further work in that area. Any so in clean potable water for twelve (12) consecutive hours •� . unreported discrepancy and continued work without written shrubs at the spacing indicated on the plans. prior to hydroseeding. After soaking is started, seed that V a authorization from the Owner and Landscape Architect shall drys out will be deemed unacceptable. ;_ 10. Soil Pre Preparation: All planting areas to receive goundcover be at the contractor' s risk and expense. from flats and/or turf shall receive the following ', 9. Hydroslurry shall be applied to the slope within two ( 2) ammendments uniformly blended into the upper six ( 6) inches I 5. Contract Fulfillment: All questions relating to of surface soil per 1 ,000 s.f. hours after mixing or the entire hydroslurry mixture shall interpretation of the drawings and specifications, quality be deemed unacceptable. of work and acceptable fulfillment of intent of the 4 cubic yards of Nitrolized Shavings or equal contract documents shall concurrently be decided by the 200 lbs. of Gro-Power Plus ` Owner (Job Superintendent) and Landscape Architect. Landscape contractor will submit several soil samples from random locations at the site to Soil and Plant Laboratory, $' Santa Ana, California, (714) 558-8333, for analysis prior to commencing with soil preparation. Results of testing shall S H E E T be delivered to Landscape Architect for approval. ,I-,I I 1I I.;,,1,.,I,..-t I,­.,;).I/."%�-.1 I.--"I'�I-'I 4I1,*,.1,,E.I-_1�I.I",I+",r.-,',,I_I,.II"I_,_./I,-/.-,I"I Ik,,m I I II"7I.,'I�IX-._II-I.""I.I"II:-,.1I..,11 I'I.I,%II.-4I,-,_AVI-I-1 I!IIt I r I.,I��:.­.rI I.-jI"I m"�II.-1-I �.I,-.I 1-4-I NxI\"-__I\__--,'4"i­.1/I"�;,I.1.--".IX7�._ y ., "I�,)I,1.1 I 11.�I,'1I/,�i I"._/"-,_I,I,-"--I__"_I,IL_)I1 I."l��_,r.I-Ia).II r/0 I---"_.I�II 1-I-,.IkI,)I.,)-I.I.�I.,,;,I I,'-I�.I 7AA I 171-,-II 1II.II.wI"=1-_"-I J-.I�[I I,iI_1.'-I,"4,"t,r.,.I,.",1 1.40,_­_1_IX I-.!III I.I,-.:�;1.!­"m..;.:�..y.1 I,_,_I_.. ;!I.�-'­..4_2.--�./I.-""_I__',"_8I_tiII I-,,'_-I I__�*_I(tI_"I.7I­A�.-*"vI.-I�,I.­�mII.4.l 1.-.;.I1iI\:1 lI w11-.IL I.._,-Ii,-.t,1.I-_.._s-�.,III,,,"�-r1.'I IL,_­..,e',-.,)1_..,1.I'.I 1­.k=.?,.I_):__I.I'"t_,i,I.I!k,w,1 I�I4t;,�1l-,'.1I,"!1k'i,f.,SL�,.�4*1iV 1I�1,#--�*,11I;k­�'�j�I �-Ia-re;1 1,1,111 4_'c1,1,,=�,-,%_I',`,_�UI�"Fr,"1""";-II1�i�I,,�i1r I,."w,h.",7&11..)1_1,I-.I�I 10v"_kI'I,,--A("- _r_.,;""_�o;,-;._I,�.­Q�..",-'1),:r_.'--:I,_--,c-\.v 0.'-', -r)";4-,&\%v\1�,--i.-II��I:I..j T11.�I,1I.�­).-"�',�1\( "i.III.I,I-,1.I I.I�I!I(I. -/I-1-I�,I,;I: -_\_,I_.-.I­=?\,1_Z_-=I 1\1_,"4=i�,=/I I.,I-I I\---I,IVI2.I I"-1.I.i.,I X\-1.�,'-,.�L--/.",-I.,1.r 1�1, .. , i .... ,..: ,. `.. ,. ., ,. ... i,.. ,, :: , ::: .'.... '," .� ''% ..,.,+,, 'Jd .P,Y..r`%'a ,;,�. h» ,,. ... �sue^,., d+.,, .,.a' .�r.' a.a, ... .:.:era,.,- r,a:Eh-.J!3i";ta"... 111,,4-t--/,x..Z.-........,.I�.\_A.�l 1AI,­-z 7.w/_1 -.I_,--o1�..e-_n,AI:J ,._1f"-V�-_�:_1-0-_,-I,1,�,E,,*.IT,-I-,\I.1 ..,.�I.-I I"I51.�I/.Ar- *"-.I I.w._1I,-,%-,,,I,1,-I.-\q II.I\..l:.:�.�,.�,,I"�1,lI"�1-._:­.1­1I9,l'.'I.",:',�I�.,'.I����,�,_:,n1.I1,I.1._",,11 IIIV$,I,I­,,,1,,1I II,.-�,,,'�c,,: ,_�10!) '4 �,.,*I,j.,,'.f)1 ... H: 1.-" ,1-_tI,I,1=,�,-I1,;I 1_,I. cIJ II I. , .,. , l -u'I t' °4 rak. .. , .-. i.. wY .., la i rI M, ... , ..n...'�' .- , .. .-, x ,.. '.. ., II A. .. jj tN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT STATE OF CA FOR i , t7 �, y . } dd ,. 0 Lt N A .:� 1 .,.., b . u - . - _ �5 " - t C i .. TbF f6111SJD/1/ BLOCK i , t �..... ,I11 1 r • ' ,r iiy +:. 8E/NG A SU,SO/!i/S/o/V OF A PORT/O/V OF' T�/E .SOUTf,/K/EST QUARTER QF � ' .` , `� r t i� +#Q 1 /. PUT /N rE,NPORAApr CUL. DE SAC T E OUTf/!v 04?4 OF CT S. ,P.GE. - - AT ENO OF f10M ` . i n H S EST �' SE /ON , _ �j wt s a } ffi ESTEAO ROAO _ Y 1 • TER T S S.,B./t1 i - 1 . ,T `' ( ;�, P!/T /N KNUCKLE AT/NT RS 7, 1 i4f r '_ , E Ecrcw x a 7 I .6 , AMENDED : d, - . ? i X464. 4 o�- , ESTEAo ,?,O AV CA114 .Pv � ,.: , ? ,� . ✓l/NE /9M } � • � _ .. x , wt ,. I y , � W x . �t 1 ,, (B�Z J/B� _.. , '._ r d+ JT ', I Y._ � 9. , C .. _ } r "t.-. J -,,... pas.; _ .. r C UL 8 4 ,c zr..+ !^.�'✓ :\. 7 l ,3'. _'\/_'_. f.. `1 ._.c( J"�" ' .. = 'xt.'t .. .. R ,.., < ry Y, f , y" �I/DED 2 • _ _ ._ ; ,1 t �, _ �, _ - -,� _ j _ _ ., UG. 1988 r - � �< . E Q ANON EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR EMERGENCY "`•: - - - ,_ �, _ - - - 1 - -:-- - �.__ 4Q _-- _ ; 477.8 - : :-: __ - - �fHICLES AS SNOifN A PAR - A i r, __ , _, _ - Q --•�....-- � ., 1, � , , - �r i J;�..;;, �,,�,, S Cft 3, flf RECORfl flf 9ilii#fY fitffl iN - {m'.�:> - :- _ . ,a , %\ „ �,;. , � .' ^: t): y,. ,3xrr, 800h: 54 PAGE 29 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS RECOPIDS OF RIVERSIDE , , ,., i �_ t_ *�c ;-. - t �,.,. { - COUNTY A . t - _ _ ., a j �C:, j� J-e r'. t - , , C LIFORNIA. ,{ °" r ,� ,{.. 1 ,, ,. v' a , t y , .-_._.'.�•--+c` _.._� ....--- -,-_'�" i' } _.,...,�:...� 1 i.. ., : k , ,,mot'.: �._ _, __ .► _ 4$i .6 ,. , t>. _ e • , .• 1 ,, '.t I,,,_x � ^^,..._ _._-� M: �, 1 � _ tPLOTTED) - ,� s ��"''�� I - - , , + ak'' f' ---�'- h. _{'. d THE EFFECT OF THE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF LOT G OF SILVER SPUR ` � ,' �i . HsvY �.. - Ill r` ,_.____ FF =`¢�'¢•�1 ;ez.& � _ - ____ ___ Y \� s r kANCH UNIT N0. 1 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN B00K 30 PAGES S2, 53 ` '' _ -_ X 481. 7 4 , ,. ^ s ) �� AND 54 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR r>, S FF (470. S r I PRIVATE ROAD PURPOSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOT OWNEkS IN THE :`Y ' ,x .:, �- FF =�476.8) FF = (47G. 2 _�__�_ -_- `'_35_^_3�10 675. ``7 3 e i Q �_.-- -- DIVISION A HOWN ON SAID MAP.- 0 32'A i �i �+ r Jvu •UR S .7 _ (481. 4 'Y��� �t-------- - _.�- , t P L O T T l:D) 4 . _ 0 3 l L J 5 u ��} c t t - r --- �� { . --.- �,_. _. _ r _ --1 Yam, } s; 1'' ' i , "I � "'""^ `d� � V� �3 �' 1,� AN EASEMENT FOR PIPELINES, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, AS GRANTED �'` 483 .4 .4 _.a_ y 11 r r' �'' •. �„� OUTHERN P RAT ON N THE DEED ,_ X 483. 3 r r. ` `� I ,�� �} , i TO S CALIFORNIA GAS COM ANY, A CORPO I , I r cK �. r�-'� "-' � J J X 4 7a. 4 J` ;ic 470.4 X 469. 7 W ,j °`y"' ECORDEO AFR I L , 1951 I N BOOK 2066 PAGE 313 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS t__ -1 �, y , _ +,+;:; OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIp, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY 60 FEET OF i°fPO✓ECT ___._.__.__-__ -_ . ___ ---____ _ ___ _____ _ __....._ _______ _.-_-._ __� .g. • _ .rr -- - _ __ _- rQ -' ' ,J... ._-_...__.-._..._�_r.__.�_..-..j_.. �. _,. _ ;,�� - _= _, ., -ti --19 . , � "IPARCEL 1 AND 4 OF SAID LAND. I X a78. 8 � -�_ ES Ma. i. r _ G _SKYWARD _ WAY ° PLOTTED) ' - ��!, F r, 3? `) I 481 .72 c2 "' o /.5G 96 ---•- o� co �,� F;`.; �, } , ' r �..---�"�! ' % 0� _�, in � �� EX/Sr. 0"N'ATER e-/rvE O �,_,_ ` , THE EFFECT OF A MAP FILED IN BOOK 54 PAGE 29 OF RECORDS .OF w -O Esc _. . ►� K _ N ,,,._._ fib, --''_-pc� pc� ��'.. _ . , a�\ �, '�� �' *, ^ SURVEY, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. -"' vr �,:P: v�. - * _ _ __.__-_-__._ _ -- __. ___ __..�______ _.__.._ __ _ ____.____-_ ! _ ._ _.. __ _ -_.�-__� . -..� _ _X/ST/NG CUR u _ - (PLOTTED) 771 E B TT - - _, ' E' G ER �. e ^-- 7' 2 { 2 _ gT Ta „ c _ ,._ _a.,.i4, .. .ban.e.. _. �8 n ---- 'i c p A RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENT OF THE COACHfLLA VALLEY COUNTY t s,, / , L c� -, - f \ -__ _ ; , T R DIST I FAVOk OF HE PUDLIC OR ALL PU LIC ROAb ,' `� ,^ JIA CT, I , 9' E R N T F D S 4 RIGHTS F WAY HERE OFO DE iCAT C _ / ~ .• AND 0 A 1 RE D ED, A QUIRED, RESERVE • y' i . ___ _-_._ -_ ,,,/ , ,, ++ OR PU@LTC USE ANU ALSO ANY AND ALL PRIVATE li/rC'/N/TY MAP '� ., ` 4 '_4 \\ i,. ,, ;OR ACCEPTED F , -�.. SCALE , .__.,._-_ ' ___-_-_,--__ , ". , EASEttENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY FOR ROADS, PIPELINES, DITCHES AND k - - . I � / z • N V R UNDER OR ACROSS THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY, CONDUITS ON 0 E W _., Y a' ._.�_ I i Z R : .,�_, : - ( -�1 ___._ �� ",' µ1" EXISTING FOR THE PURPOSE OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM OTHER LANDS BY ` -' - 3 I ' / N N �-' - +' ,�` �1 10 '.;,,, MEANS OF SUCH ROADS AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVEYING 1RRI6ATING 1 2 , 3 --�}- - 6 7� $ h I -FP a (4eZ5) \ O \ > -- OTHER LANDS EY M€ANS OF SUCH PIPE- i O , p i '. O p N /3 cw i = \ -1iND DOMESTIC WATER TO SUCH i O I _ , y, :r � a •,N "'' N I N a /'_._ .--- _ _ T , ; �`, +"$�, LINES OIiCHES AND CONDUITS. I.0 4,I.I1r-I 1"I-,-,1 I 4-IIf-E)t IIqI .11�_i.I1--I--N,,­1_1(1/_-_-1...1 `' I s ; PAD=483.0 PAD=48 'c-FAD=479.0 ,PAW477.5 PAD=476.5 PAD=474.0 PA�=472.0 PAD=471.5 a ' ` _ cBLANr.ET IN NATURE) r ,� - I _ p ' •: , a - I- • -- Y 0 I,,xI.-'e-.-1 I.,,1\I-III.I-V4�\l1_I_-,I T,'I,/.L 4,,,II1 1'I ­t;iV-_w 1 I)1-I"-,.1."3bI-II1,".T.-;II--"N�-II�-o a-.I,t.\,I-I I.I._4AI'._-_I.m.­.1 �-____-»- --.___ - - _-_-_ U , NNNI p w W a ,' h x , ♦,_ ; I. y r , 1 I; ,. G/NEER . ,r. . A t x ,: , i . _.., ,r 9Z' 93' 2• 92, 92, 93, 93' 98' - h , 0.4V/JDSO/VA.SSOC., //VC. . . ".�. ' ,) o r aQ 1 .�� ?C 496.3 x 496.3 71-odo Ec #44sE srE b Ir �a ' _ v r ,: r f 1r tG0 I+4L M D�'!'r.,rT l _ 7 = i' s + , 1 , ci.. `� I - , ,� f X y j, x 3 t,�„11 I G , �. A �� 1 I N N K C/O ,rlCViIRD F /VEAL Y __^__.^'_a_.___._�._____- F.,. f ; f i 6 0 15 a 14 13 a 12 0 i I 10 _ _ sO /oB o 84 C,4,t N T TE a ._.--__.- r II Q N r N �-_ fd N 11 t11 \ xfteANcff ' . �r.fir m - M1 PAD=408.5 PAD=467.2 AD=486.0 PAD=484.6 - AD=483.2 PAD=481.b 4D=4gp,4 PAD=478.9 _ ..4X -f I _, VELOP46R ,.. , . I . ' , � r ., •y �,.., i s, �' , !.N1;,,.y­r i _ ti..__ -_ _ _ , r / ` N,1 �. fi�A,2 AN CONSTRUCT/ON ',' ,�^ _...__ 96.2 ,/,I_.�1",",z4__/iI-z-1 ff v-.1 '` `�`{ G ,�: I 7Z - 757 F,PED S114RIIIV OR• . STE.8 .x; , �l .. ' 5,. ! O T, ZZGO ,k .-k _ r `�-- .ti • R4L M ,QE'SER C tX/$T//(lG CURB ° 72 93 92 92 92 93 93 94 2 I h tG/') 340- 5349 n , n �l /� +. w' _ ., - „,. �C ,, i` } .- e"5 I EX/ST. " SEWER PR P. Q" SE/vET i 2�b �b` ►W. T/ i`. --d , V .�� N 89.59'o7•'W o ,, 6 E L A I R oh, a u _ �• R D 0' � �. , . _ - --�- ,� ` � lJT/L/ ES o � oo - �p t o ��� ��o q� vWD `` , , �, rr - �, y k , �P - PwrER L/NE , ' In I.53'/1--_ .�b� S w R e. ec r r�,P a �� ` tv ^ _ ,.. ..._,0119 r✓.o L/ ---w'- _.r, .- wl4relo C.Y. D. . _.__ _ '1 - , EL ECT,P/C! r/. h t / TY S CAL/F' ED/SON CO ,,,.. 94' 93 93' 93 93 92- 63 h N G .9 PONE ' " > f- 93 »' TELE CENERAG T'ELEi�frCYV is . , �`� ,r:' r'�g o ! I `ti „ ' 61/S .S• C.IL/F C IS CO. ` s� +,� // / / py ,1 ,, 1 �, �' ems, I l {Y P , �'ot 1 j r �F 1 y , �� i f •, g ,.a :. E N X/ST/ G � ,� - _ ,1 1 u��;� v 1 .s ,..s f?J A,�1fi AA ' 3 V 1 T6M /sf/• r Pad �ia1G�INNED DIES/Oi/VT/AL• d GW/TS/AC.!'E) �' 17 , co�.v _r _ 1 N 19 0 21 2 2 3 N 2 . V i i l _ r T N µ - N _ 1 _ N - - A40/��/ SEO ��+EX °i \4 N N .� _ `,�`�I n a � I ) LAND US'E t;�^ ~ PAD=.4 .5 PAD`4$9.3 N P 4$ 0 ti PADt486.5 PAD 4�5.1 PAD=463.6 PAD,'48.2.2 PAD'4$0. - ,-PAD�479. f ti' t a'/6'TJm s - Y�1C.�1lVT � , " �? y / `''i , t ` ``1 k - PRiaPaS�'da S/NOCE FAMILY �PESJDENTJAL , I _I. , - , 17 v .. - _-_1T II 1�2i_.-10._.I-C-7­.-.\r.\.II�1I,L,II-I�­T,II I_.I V-._L.I IIII"Ir1 I,-,--.E.-(1;-7, -I I I:A_1'1s,)I-"��I1k-,)1��I a2,I-I,-.-.--__sI-_I,'-n-zI.I-'II 1.'., I-/p-J.l t)1 1�I_1__,,�'�,_I '-'---I_".1--k,-1ICII-�I..I_-._-(I__II-__"_I,,I_\\,---,-II T'­ _II.--_��'I,_,%�-I._.,II-LI 1 I__-_.3,I,r I I.A,-_._ _N.;r�"/y,.--.,z 1r1?',.�-1_,-].I,1 O_.,1..'.4-�,1�,'�I.--I.I�-I,'-I--*I',I\- I.1r.5,i,AI.I 1.2,,zI..l".I.-_I1',1,­1r-..I,1-1...­1*.__'__-3�...-.,,. l�W1,1I 1I.-I".?u 1,W-.A II�.*_�1.,.1_,,I iI--.Lu-6'm!_I.TI-,","I1-�z,:'_t�;I,ll�f�1II,1,,'��7II1`io,�!I.ww,.I1 l­­,-113-4 -1.-"t'/r/ I*:(�1��2.I I...Q.-,,\.-/. 4i1-I,-1t<-I-.�I-I,�I;J/-I,_�_)--_1..v.I.I.\\�1i,lv-._1" ,.;I--zI_._�0,I I.�A_.,\I/r�/1- I..1--. 1 7 _..-/-:,1�/,,-', 1 ,�'/DtI�vIII I&t I,,I11,.r, 6..1 x 1 h S�'f�aOL D/STR/CT �, \/� oESERr rA/vos uNi.CiEo acVooc o/arricT t )-1',.._-,5 . '�11Iii�Ii��iI 1!,2I,�1.,.1�,,N,,-I,i..,I-1I7I:,..,,.'_',,IJ)I1_I,.f.�l.,I.L'Iw_"\1-IIt. _x"_.RI,,Ir-1-I-_4A)�Y-_)_-__33-,-,_A I-I.(c u-_I -.4\-�__II1._.`II-,.-%-_I 2 1I 2\,-,I.-.,4.I,I-�1,!D.",..--,,)N(.L..L1__..--1,14 _-_I8*,__,,._')'',Ia4­ 1 1I._.Ij I,-. ,.I; 3, 3, 3, 3', Z, i, ��r��.. --- 0)3 so• VI►� sl �' s! - I , ` i ASSESS AXRCEL NOS. Gaa- mo-Om, 0 3 y3, '1 ''+ ,?i e r 1 , x ,...a4 .. / O -" - '� b _ � Jar' Ltd - - --�, . ;, ); AC�PEAGE' �s L Sao --- _ -- `� 2 -- -- - - _ - r `� u) - 3 3 - 33 32 N 3 I - 30 9 6 27 = < , .., V 11 1. �, �r -. / �tl i ' N N ct1 \ I N N O ""', _ _ ; Q s. \ \- _ N - I � /1loTES � , I \___ f �, , 1 ---PA = 86.0 PAD= 50 O '.PAtk;502.9 PAD=501.2 PA 499.2 PAD-497 3 PAD'495.3 PAD-493.4 PAD-491.5 - PAD--489.5 ;� ! Es-T INuT E - - - -- s o� Y CUT At�►Q �. ,fir ` , + FART H W O K S O G. F l L1. _ . r " :. _., .. _, k ` L , J .----•----•---� t r - - - 1 °I +>3 D8 " 'V o3r 0l2 73 /eR0 d- IV J + , ` ,e r, pk ATE L/N w -k ;;, �', W w _> W \ � `1 ' `` -` EX/ST. GAS G/,vB t2"I(/ ---s ----i k 1, � CROP 8- S�w� a/�IESTEAO -�° OAD s �' S - -�-- t �'i , - 5 y/ r . uj I 30 „29- - 1 _-r _ , . .. -- - - - -- i yy IJ +1 i A d 1�• 1' • u 'J a,x. t. r. „ r J' -6 .,i»J'... w .. Vi7*vs'i x 1�/ o" l N,7 "c 5' �I I ,¢ r f `. , {,. ri:. - "4 Sdraa az ..� _ w ' t x o ,..... ,.:.,, • 'fan: ..,.., .: *k, n .:.. q t +F-^ "+' 11` , i - �,-i"'` +y •'S' --- ..,... ..,,•.. - . 3. t. .. .,,, -,.. ..a M1yj.,R'a , j d , ...X:. y +t=,'a i ' ,.,. E X I „ x,. ,; i ;, yy , E T _ , L �.^�. PR TRAC 2211d - ., �y PAo=494.9 ,i J ` _� V ; , I j. d PAD 512.1 PAD=511.6 PAD--511.5 PAD=511.2 -#'AO= 496.2 PAD=493.2 PADs492.5 PAD;-,4.9 I k, � . / / A n.. .:ate`=1 r'1 - �' 1 -E X 1ST. - h,�,,. i4 � _� c- '� .. I I 83 Vx: I iJ J 1J ./ J -.3 I C GURU � GUTTEi? �` ` ° ,i 1 Q I" t j,t 41 1 c_ GYfit� OUTTE�t PER ,1 i ... I _ - •` y I `q �S r�r -J r N rJ r\ �L Jj�1.Er 7� r JN� rr Jr 1-'J Jj�1 - � - ` k , , >� R/w h ,Ja � . 1. r so 11 i 4 '' L be i I I I,f.q.x,I kz a:__.Lt I I-I ,-�,-.-.)I/.I-,�(�- �/.Z I. vt II Q I * a I _,.,. i" 0 h ,` ! 7, g' 12, 12` 6` T I k'# ry «` :, 5/DErY.IG K S/OCN60LK "`,•. Q * , } A.C.PAVEMENT CURB . S,t CURB _� S% ` ,�!I " ! �fo � -*-2% 1 2% --�- l +--- ; j - 'ff= '' 1 51s 9 j O f, -f, , BASE COURSE i -, ' T.�ACT ?2U/ t �� �_*» COMPACTED SUBGRAOE 3 � a ` _ 1 a ___ 1 EX/ST. FLOCK W.4C L g 4 W , � SIO x I - TYP/CAL STREET S CT/ON ' I °' 01 , i '� NO SCALE t", 4.. �, ` a Q °' e „ -., �) I ,c'� �� ��t4 i f ¢ LP�90.4�4.9) /C EX/57/N9 GROUND i h r „.14A , `7 ' f , ,#75.5 SECT/ON AA '' ► , 4 I r I I..II I,7_I 1I.-_I L.1 -1 I I 1,"I II ­r.I r:I III-II I-I,I.-I I I I.!.I 11:-...1.I I I.I II1 I. L I'I I I r 1I r r Ir_I.I I,-1.II I I t r 1,. . I-I L I.I I I I.­-1-t..I 11"II,,.­rr I I I 11 t.ftI!�i-�FI,44l I��,I:A,;A 7,�.'""1'�I"�,'�1�1:,II 1'II�1�,","1'I,t l,,,,.­,,r,I'';,,,,4�II:rI1-r,!,'_('Ir I r I,. I : I .I Ir.r . I r. I I I1.1 1,I, I I r I.I1.I,r 1 rI, I I .[I I.I,.-rI-,;I.-;I II Ie.1-yI.. I4�k k'..1I I II I I. .I r II.I.I1 II:II I 1,.II r\. I I I I,,. .rr1 I I .1 II I I I I.I II.'r I..I I," I . ''I'lr.l 1I I ,1'1 •w , 1f/,1� °: r x t NO .SG'AL E E� R/W - �, ,", y' I :r r7 z , o .' it , o •I , ' a TR. rF .,,,' l30RY. ».x �„ i �f • . «' ,. y S '' .. jj 1 , _. „ 1 }. , 3;`, e 'pu,.. - t,.. - :, ': .. Mir,a',�' r,.'�a'a Y.' 1u .. . ... :�, EX/ST/MC.. GROUND ` . ,� � "5t # ' '; { r J, „ Ca # /� _ y • , r. . .: �, , ..,;. ' ..'`" `'fit.�a:,'x#1.• 'r 1, -� .: .. �},.. 1 :: -, '.:..,yn;,.. _ 9Y' :` , v,i�,,:".fir a :. I - SEC T/ON �B ti � f ". , ,- + to : .,: ,, . J ,' d, I: NO SCAL.�E - ,.,. , a , 1.�rd �" ,'"",,fir „ W .. .., µ „ , a v" ' � , �, c I. . ,.N. . ., ,9.. , j ., .. ) 1 w A. ," - ... I- :� y , ^..,... .. „ fed , ,. .,�" .< ,::,.. ,,r„ ,C a`.;• a ,> a , c . �t� y .. y_ m,.+ r, • d ,: .. .. .,i„ .. 4 .„ :.., y .1 - :::- i _.: _ s :. .. .. ....,w 1 : ,.l- y,� a ': `, ,,,- x::.,,;u,,p'.'xr PAP .,z',m ,. ,gt,::rnp. ,..fy.:o q?..;h:.w: .-.fl..;.' �..M1. r + ,..,, . y JY,*7•Y. r .-,,.: [ _ -',, „ -;t aJ , :'.,Aa' ,,r: v', "V' raT nnAMGT"v"F•i•' 6 .. +W44f...., - ?R 4.. &. ,,. s. , , ,. ,. .- W#" "sF. ,ix,,.. :e..,.a, w a.p,: ;. ..._::r,. �„ T .e i a e - :'.,4,,, v'd'r:. ..r+. .^ .6'.RLMy :. 91+Ir'• , .h YW'V 'rA't.5 & .. r „ -,::c ,,;,y.-. , •..:. x,'..: .":, r::. , ;, . }„. a. --. `f4 �` '4�1WR"' „! a•.T.'v, 1+. -3."'1t .. - ,tx ,-x , G S' ,... � :..:. .: , ... .. �'^.. " V+r.. .. .. n "JR: .. .. ,., '>J ., •1RiiR - '.,Am .. !ra c t1r' .. 3 J1 .YGx, Af7>".. ,�,: .- S:u ', ,�` ,,, :...,,.. � ,,: ar._. ,+�,. a:: 1 f i % � . `- - 1. 1 'TEAS.-) --R D�'. VII iQ LOT 2 t 1-111 AftWuo kE J11IJ37 J� lik- s r� • 'IF W 'tg Ile ,MOM Soo r 400, -48() of 3 4ev s ��Tio�s �Ao 1A C71 4. Li N' X 74 N" Vv LOT now