Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-15 PC Regular Meeting Agenda Packet CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2019 — 6:00 P.M. CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Any person wishing to discuss any item not scheduled for public hearing may address the Planning Commission at this point by stepping to the lectern and giving his/her name and address for the record. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. Because the Brown Act does not allow the Planning Commission to take action on items not on the Agenda, Commissioners will not enter into discussion with speakers but may briefly respond or instead refer the matter to staff for report and recommendation at a future Planning Commission meeting. Reports and documents relating to each of the following items listed on the agenda, including those received following posting/distribution, are on file in the Office of the Department of Community Development and are available for public inspection during normal business hours, Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260, telephone (760) 346- 0611, Extension 484. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR AUDIENCE REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND ACTION UNDER SECTION VII, CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER OF THE AGENDA. AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of December 4, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER Vill. NEW BUSINESS None IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Action: X. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Remarks shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes unless additional time is authorized by the Planning Commission. A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 7.7-acre parcel into four residential lots that will be part of the Stone Eagle Development, and a third amendment to Development Agreement No. 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development) located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN: 652-090-002); and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. TPM 37336 & DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 (Eagles 605, LLC, Indian Wells, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2746, recommending approval to the City Council for Case Nos. TPM 37336 & DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3, subject to the conditions of approval. Action: XI. MISCELLANEOUS None 2 AGENDA REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES B. PARKS & RECREATION XIII. COMMENTS XIV. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing agenda for the Planning Commission was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 101h day of January 2018. Monica O'Reilly, Recording cretary 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES ' TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Ilo Chair Joseph Pradetto called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.'''_I�!p� II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice-Chair Lindsay Holt Chair Ron Gregory Staff Present: Jill Tremblay, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Janine Judy, Management Specialist I III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION None V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2018. Rec: Continue to the next regular meeting. Upon a motion by Commissioner Greenwood, second by Commissioner DeLuna, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. SELECTION of a Chair and Vice-Chair. Chair Pradetto moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Vice-Chair Gregory to Chair. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeLuna and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Commissioner Greenwood moved to, by Minute Motion, appoint Commissioner Holt to Vice-Chair. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). B. SELECTION of Commission Liaisons for Art in Public Places and Parks and Recreation Commissions. Director of Community Development Ryan Stendell commented that both Commissions have not met much in the past year. For continuity purposes, he recommended that the current liaisons for both Commissions remain the same. Commissioner DeLuna moved to, by Minute motion, reappoint Commissioner Greenwood to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Vice-Chair Holt to the Art in Public Places Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pradetto and carried by 5- 0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 2 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\12-4-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2018 XI. MISCELLANEOUS A. REQUEST to receive and file information related to improvements to the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Director of Public Works Tom Garcia presented the improvement plans for the San Pablo Avenue project. City staff anticipated construction to begin in the summer of 2019, subject to the bids. The project should take six to eight months to complete. The Planning Commission expressed their excitement to see the project move forward and had an impassioned conversation concerning the ultimate build-out and the importance of the project. The Commission felt the priority for this project is to focus on the Commercial Core area between Highway 111 and San Gorgonio Way and made the following recommendations for the core area: • Materials: The Commission expressed concern over the value engineering decisions for this project, and asked the staff to ensure the City Council considers the original design alternatives. The two specific areas addressed were pavers in the center parking area and concrete finishes along the sidewalks. • Lighting: The Commission expressed that lighting is of critical concern for the success of this district. The Commission recommended that lighting is a high priority to ensure that the core is appropriately lit, safe, and comfortable for nighttime use. • Landscaping: The Commission agreed to two specific recommendations related to landscaping: 1) the box size of trees installed should be between 36 inches to 48 inches; and 2) maximize the tree planter box sizes within the main Commercial Core area to provide additional opportunities for landscaping. • Signage: Vice-Chair Holt indicated that signage and branding could be important for the success of the San Pablo Avenue project. The Commission agreed signage is important; however, the street should function for a period prior to locating the signs. Staff noted that the branded name for the area could be Palma Village, which is the historic name of the area. The Planning Commission believed the elimination of the right-turn lane on San Pablo Avenue and Highway 111 was a strong improvement by providing additional spaces for activities and landscaping. The Commission also recommended that the staff continually review the need for additional mid-block crossing north of San Gorgonio Way. Additionally, the Commission was happy that the City made a conscious decision to favor pedestrians and people in the area. In conclusion, the Planning Commission expressed enthusiasm with the progression of the San Pablo Avenue project and excitement in bringing the project to reality. 3 G1Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\12-4-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2018 XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATION Commissioner John Greenwood reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the outdoor fitness equipment for the Civic Center Park and possibly at some trails. The Palm Desert Aquatic Center and the Family YMCA of the Desert are doing well and both are providing programs for the community. He announced that the annual Coachella Valley Wildflower Festival is Saturday, March 2, 2019. Mr. Stendell commented that the Palm Desert Aquatic Center has had over 700,000 people go through the gates in the past five years. XIII. COMMENTS Commissioner Nancy DeLuna thanked City staff for preparing the San Pablo Avenue project. The Commission appreciated the attention to detail and the amount of work done on the project. XIV. ADJOURNMENT With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chair Gregory adjourned the meeting at 7:15 p.m. RON GREGORY, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY JANINE JUDY, RECORDING SECRETARY 4 GAPlanning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\12-4-18 min.dou CITY OF PALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY MINUTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Joseph Pradetto called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL pi' .������;,,, �i Present: i, �,� ,1 I;lGii �I ,iill Commissioner Lindsay Holt IIIi{`;'JE11f',ry{!!I'INhI Commissioner John Greenwood Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Vice-Chairman Ron Gregory Chairman Joseph Pradetto q Staff Present: R obert Hargreaves, City Attorney G;�'�lllllh Tom Garcia, Director of Public Works Eric Ce'a, Principal Planner Nick Melloni, Assistant Planner Monica O'Reilly, Management Specialist II III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Pradetto led the Pledge of Allegiance. IV. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Principal Planner Eric Ceja summarized pertinent November 15, 2018, City council actions. V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 2018. Rec: Approve as presented. Upon a motion by Vice Chairman Gregory, second by Commissioner Greenwood, and a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission (AYES: Del-una, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None), the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIII. NEW BUSINESS %vii None , IX. CONTINUED BUSINESS "Jill, None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) for JCPenny to create a new lot within the existing parking lot for financing purposes located at 72-900 Highway 111; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case No. TPM 37436/18-0004 (Seaboard Engineering Company, Glendale, California, Applicant). Principal Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report (staff reports are available at www.cityofpalmdesert.org). He noted there is not a proposal to develop the parcel at this time; the subdivision is only for financing purposes. If in the future there were a proposal to develop the parcel, the application would go before the Planning Commission for review and approval. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner John Greenwood inquired if it is advantageous for the Planning Commission to consider the TPM at this time since a development application is not part of the request. He said the City might not be in favor of future development on the subdivided parcel. Mr. Ceja responded that the applicant has not expressed any desire to develop the pad. If they choose to develop the pad, the applicant would need to work with the Planning and Public Works Departments on the orientation of the building, the placement of the building, and the reconfiguration of parking areas. He noted that the Planning Commission would need to review and approve any new development on the pad. 2 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 If the applicant submitted a development application, Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the Planning Commission would be asked why they are challenging an existing approved parcel. Mr. Ceja said he did not believe so. He explained that land configuration is part of the review process. Commissioner Lindsay Holt referred to a picture of the site and asked if the area shaded in red is the proposed subdivided parcel. Mr. Ceja replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt commented that the parcel has an interesting lot configuration. She asked if there is an explanation for the exact dimensions and location of the parcel. Mr. Ceja deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Holt pointed to an area shaded in blue and asked if that area is also part of the subdivision of the parcel. Mr. Ceja replied no and noted staff made an error on the map. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. MARITES DIZON, Seaboard Engineering Company, stated that the subdivision of the parcel is only for financing purposes. At this time, they do not have any specific details for the parcel. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that it seems fairly obvious why the parcel might be a developable piece at a later date and it is fine with him. He said it is all pursuant to what the City has dictated and he does not see a problem with the request. Commissioner DeLuna moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2741 approving Case No. TPM 37436/18-0004, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Cannabis Regulatory Permit for the operation of a 28,500-square-foot cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and delivery facility with a retail micro- business for West Coast Cannabis Club, located at 42-650 Melanie Place; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. CUP 17-0018(West Coast Cannabis Club, Cathedral CitV, California, Applicant). 3 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner Greenwood stated the architectural firm he works for was involved with the said project and recused himself from this item. Mr. Ceja outlined the salient points from the staff report. He noted that staff did not receive comments in favor or in opposition to the proposed use. He also noted that the request includes a retail micro-business; allowed by the state and the City's Cannabis Ordinance. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Nancy DeLuna asked what the proximity to the First Tee is. Mr. Ceja replied that it is approximately 1,200 lineal feet away from the proposed business. Commissioner DeLuna asked if it is 200 feet over the minimum requirement. Mr. Ceja replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the proximity to the Palm Desert High School is. Mr. Ceja replied that it is approximately 2,000 lineal feet away from the proposed business. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. KENNETH CHURCHILL, CEO of West Coast Cannabis Club, Palm Springs, California, thanked the Planning Commission and City staff for their patience and getting them through the process. He looked forward to contributing to the community and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna voiced her concern with the proposed business being in close proximity to a youth center and less than 2,000 square feet of a high school. She asked the applicant if they would have security guards. MR. CHURCHILL responded that they would have security guards roaming outside of the property during business hours and a security station inside the facility, with a security guard monitoring the cameras 24 hours a day. Concerning the retail business, Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there is a check-in area to check customer's identification and then taken into the retail area one or two at a time. MR. CHURCHILL responded that the retail business would have a separate entrance, with a waiting room to screen customers. Commissioner DeLuna asked if they would be selling edibles. MR. CHURCHILL replied yes. 4 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna asked if they would have 24-hour delivery available. MR. CHURCHILL responded that they would not have 24-hour delivery available at this site. Commissioner DeLuna asked if all retail products would be prepackaged and sealed. MR. CHURCHILL replied yes. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there is exterior lighting for security purposes. MR. CHURCHILL replied yes and noted they will have a well-lit parking lot. Commissioner Holt asked if the main entrance gate would be open during the retail business hours. MR. CHURCHILL said that is correct. The main gate entrance would only be open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He mentioned there is another gate entrance for employees only. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the employee entrance would have limited access. MR. CHURCHILL replied yes. ��if With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that the project is one of the better-prepared cannabis facilities he has seen so far and it is interesting to see a multiple-use facility. He said he is in favor of the proposed use. Commissioner DeLuna voiced her concern with the proposed use being in close proximity to 3,000 kids. However, the applicant has met the requirements set forth by the City's Cannabis Ordinance. Therefore, she felt confident that the applicant has addressed all security measures to discourage underage kids from entering the facility. Chairman Pradetto moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2742 approving Case No. CUP 17-0018, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 4-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None; ABSENT: Greenwood). C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Precise Plan application to demolish an existing vacant restaurant and construct a 4,375-square-foot bank building with a remote drive-through ATM at 72-950 Highway 111; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP 18-0008 (111 Monterey Palm, LLC, Newport Beach, California, Applicant). 5 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Assistant Planner Nick Melloni reviewed the staff report. He received one neutral comment regarding access to adjacent properties, which staff addressed. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the distance is from Monterey Avenue and to the access along Highway 111. Mr. Melloni believed the distance exceeds 150 feet. He noted the Public Works Department reviewed the plans and they did not see any issues with the design as shown. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if the staff does not have a concern with cars stacking on Highway 111. Director of Public Works Tom Garcia responded that there is a right-turn pocket into the driveway so stacking would be minimal. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if comments made by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) shown on the exhibits given to the Planning Commission. Mr. Melloni replied no. He explained that the ARC added conditions and the plans would need to go back to the ARC for a final design review. City staff would make sure the applicant meets all the conditions. Commissioner Greenwood asked if staff was involved in any discussion between the applicant and the adjacent parcel owner to take advantage of the prominent corner of Monterey Avenue. Mr. Melloni said no. He stated the corner parcel has a separate owner and no longer owned by the City. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. TOM CARPENTER, Frontier Real Estate Investments, Newport Beach, California, thanked the Planning Commission and City staff for their time and consideration. He shared that they bought the property earlier this year and they have been working with Chase Bank for a new bank building. He clarified that they are adding a deceleration lane on Highway 111 to ease traffic flow. They are also demolishing the current building, replacing the parking lot and landscaping. He offered to answer any questions. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Holt felt happy that the project is going to be a new build. Vice Chairman Gregory agreed with Commissioner Holt and said he was afraid it was going to be a rebuild. 6 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2743 approving Case No. PP 18-0008, subject to the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). D. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of a Precise Plan and Conditional Use Permit to demolish an existing vacant restaurant and construct a 12,375- square-foot shopping center with up to 8,800 square feet of restaurant space located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Avenue of the States; and adoption of a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case No. PP/CUP 16-303 (Lumar Devco LLC Newport Beach, California, Applicant). Mr. Melloni presented his report and recommended approval. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Greenwood inquired what the proposed use of the building on Pad C is. Mr. Melloni responded he did not know the proposed use for Pad C. The allowed use of Pad C could be any use permitted by the zoning designation and could be retail, medical offices, and potentially a restaurant. Commissioner Greenwood asked if there are any concerns if a restaurant was proposed and there would be potential impacts to the Carlos Ortega Villas. Mr. Melloni replied that staff does not anticipate any impacts. However, there could be an impact if a future restaurant proposed outdoor dining. A request for outdoor dining would require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). If a future restaurant required a grease trap, Commissioner Greenwood asked if there would be any impacts to Carlos Ortega Villas. Mr. Melloni responded that the applicant is required to have a four-foot parapet, which staff believed it is sufficient to screen future mechanical rooftop equipment. Commissioner Holt noted that Site Plan 5 shows both right- and left-hand turns out of the site onto Washington Street. She asked if that is correct. Mr. Melloni believed it is a drafting error and pointed out that there is a median on Washington Street. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. MICHAEL LUNDIN, Lumar Devco, LLC, Newport Beach, California, offered to answer any questions. 7 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner Greenwood mentioned his concern regarding a future restaurant adjacent to Carlos Ortega Villas. He asked Mr. Lundin if they would be open to a condition to limit Pad C for retail or office use only. MR. LUNDIN responded that ideally, they would potentially like to have a food or restaurant component because Denny's is 4,500 square feet on Pad A. They do not plan on developing another large restaurant; however, they would want to possibly have a small restaurant on Pad C. Commissioner Greenwood voiced his concern with small eateries or fast food that have rows of exhaust stacks adjacent to residential. MR. LUNDIN understood Commissioner Greenwood's concern. He commented that there are a lot of entrepreneurial people in the community that would like to open a small restaurant to call their own. Commissioner DeLuna shared Commissioner Greenwood's concern. She asked what is minimum setback required by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Melloni responded 26 feet. Chairman Pradetto asked if 20 feet going to be substantially better than five feet in terms of traveling grease particles, especially in high winds. Commissioner Gregory divulged that his office is directly above a restaurant so the first thing he looked at on the proposed project is the location of the dumpsters, which could be a problem. If a restaurant were to go on Pad C, he suggested having a requirement for the grease trap be located away from the narrow setback. Commissioner Greenwood asked the staff if a condition could be crafted to address his concern. Mr. Ceja responded that the Planning Commission could craft a condition to limit the restaurant operations on Pad C, possibly a specific restaurant that would have a limited impact or not have a restaurant on Pad C. Commissioner Greenwood stated he would not want to limit the applicant. He preferred a restaurant that would not adversely impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. Commissioner DeLuna asked what the options are to locate the exhaust equipment away from the residential neighborhood. Commissioner Holt asked if space could be limited based on odor issues. She commented she would not mind living next to a bakery. Mr. Ceja conveyed that the Planning Commission's main concern is exhaust odor or a grease trap coming from potentially a future restaurant on Pad C, which is adjacent to residential development. He informed the Commission that City staff could work 8 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 with a future applicant for the restaurant space and keep the mechanical equipment away from the residential development and/or limit the type of restaurant that is not grease intensive. Vice Chairman Gregory said that the Commission has been doing well dealing with the possible odor coming from cannabis facilities. He said there might be some type of equipment available to address odors coming from a restaurant. He stated he would not be in favor of voting on what type of restaurant could be allowed on Pad C. Mr. Ceja agreed with Vice Chairman Gregory and suggested that the Planning Commission add a condition for City staff to evaluate odor control methods for any future restaurant(s) on Pad C to limit any impacts to the residential community. Commissioner Greenwood asked the applicant if they are agreeable to the condition. MR. LUNDIN believed they are agreeable to the condition. He mentioned that his architect informed him there are measures to adjust exhaust in the building. He stated that they want their project to be a great project for the residents as well. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenwood commented it is a great project for the site, which warrants new development. The project is also a great addition and great to see new business come to the City. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2744 approving Case No. PP/CUP 16-303, with the addition of the following conditions of approval: City staff is to consider Pad C when the applicant submits an application for a restaurant to mitigate restaurant odors. Chairman Pradetto asked Commissioner Greenwood to amend his motion to apply odor control for the entire project site. Commissioner Greenwood agreed to the amendment. The condition of approval was amended to the following: City staff is to consider the entire site for odor control measures. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Gregory and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). Chairman Pradetto called a recess at 6:54 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 6:58 p.m. 9 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning C0mmission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 E. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION for approval of Tentative Tract Map 37506 and a Precise Plan application to subdivide approximately 174+ acres of vacant land and establish master architectural and landscape design guidance for 1,069 dwelling units within the University Neighborhood Specific Plan; and adoption of an addendum to the General Plan and University Neighborhood Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Case Nos. TTM 37056 & PP 18-0005 (University Park Investors LLC, Pleasanton, California, Applicant). With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Ceja summarized his staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission received a memorandum with updated conditions for approval. If the Commission recommends approval of the said project, City staff asked that the updated conditions listed in the memorandum are included in the motion. He offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Holt inquired if there is a phasing plan for the proposed project. Mr. Ceja deferred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Holt asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the alleyways. She also asked if trash pickup would be in the alleyways. Mr. Ceja responded that the trash would collected from the alleyways. He understood that the alleyways would be private and maintained by a homeowners' association (HOA). Commissioner Holt liked that the project is a non-gated development. She asked if there was any consideration for a commercial pad so that the project could be a more walkable community. Mr. Ceja explained that the University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) includes adding commercial space in the community located off Frank Sinatra Drive. He pointed to a 10-acre parcel identified in the UNSP for commercial development. However, it is not part of the proposed project. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if there was an attempt by the applicant to have a gated community. Mr. Ceja responded that staff has been working with the applicant to ensure the community remains non-gated by adding a condition of approval. He noted it was an idea promoted as a goal and policy in the City's General Plan. He mentioned the applicant is interested in gating the apartment site; however, staff recommended that the entire community remains non-gated. Commissioner DeLuna asked if the condition was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Ceja deferred the question to the applicant. 10 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner Greenwood inquired if the main infrastructure, road systems, and retaining walls would be built at once for consistency. Mr. Ceja understood that the applicant has plans to grade the site and install infrastructure so pads are ready for development. He forgot to mention during his presentation that the applicant could subdivide the tentative tract map and establish the lots where the roadways would be built. He said with the anticipation of several phases to be sold to different developers, City staff would use the design packets moving forward to ensure the different housing product types are built on the lots. If a developer wants to make a change to the product type, the developer would need to go before the Planning Commission for approval. Additionally, there are refined design standards that could be incorporated into the product types. He noted the ARC reviewed the design standards. Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MR. JOHN GAMLIN, the representative for University Park Investors, presented the Planning Commission with a brief presentation on their vision for University Park and the plans they developed. Mr. Gamlin said they are in support of not gating the development. However, the proposed apartments are located near the commercial and the university. They felt the apartments are different in terms of security, the product is differentiated from the rest of the housing products, and the apartments are their own private amenity. Therefore, they proposed to provide gated access for only the apartment complex and hoped that the Planning Commission would consider looking at their request. He said it is their intent to commence the first phase of the interactive improvements and the amenity program in 2019. Concerning phasing the project, he stated the site does work as a single unit in terms of the grading and balance. He pointed to the plan and indicated where they would start construction in the northwest area and work down toward the existing commercial. He mentioned the development and design team are available to answer any questions about the project. They appreciated the Planning Commission's consideration and they look forward to moving ahead in 2019. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that there is an effort in the design to achieve narrower street widths that are typically forced on the developers by cities and fire departments. He asked the applicant if they were successful in achieving traffic calming by getting streets as narrow as they could within reason. MR. GAMLIN responded that they did as well as they could in terms of narrow streets that would allow for parking on the street and maneuverability around corners for emergency vehicles. From a traffic calming perspective, the block lengths are shorter. Vice Chairman Gregory asked what efforts were made to make the alleyways somewhat attractive. MR. GAMLIN replied that there are pockets with landscaping in the alleyways. He said they attempted to place interfaces with green space along the alleys. They also tried to budget their space well, so that they do not have conflicts with the utilities. 11 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory asked if the street trees have sufficient width in an effort to have a parkway system. Is there sufficient room afforded to trees so that large trees could be used as opposed to smaller trees that would not rip up paving? He voiced his concern with the neighborhood quality, the shade opportunity the trees would provide, and the sustainability of the trees. MR. CHRIS HERMANN, Hermann Design Group, responded that the packet has the details of the trees. The planters would have a width of five feet and the trees would have some form of root barrier, with a deep watering system. He noted that the packet outlines the type of tree species. Commissioner Holt asked what the landscape enhancements include. MR. GAMLIN replied that anywhere where they had a corner condition on elevation, there were enhancements made. The ARC reviewed and approved the enhancements. Commissioner Holt asked if they were architectural enhancements. MR. GAMLIN replied that is correct. MR. HERMANN briefly described the landscape design for the development and trail system. Vice Chairman Gregory asked how wide the corridors for the trail system are. MR. HERMANN responded that the widths vary because the system meanders and they have the ability to grab more space; widths are approximately 15 to 25 feet. He said the Grand Paseo is much larger, with widths approximately 50 to 60 feet. Commissioner Greenwood echoed Commissioner Holt's comment about integrating commercial or retail into the plan. He felt the connectivity of the trail system and other amenities were well executed within the development. However, the trail system does not integrate or connect with the university or the commercial and mixed-use development on Frank Sinatra Drive. He asked for the applicant's thoughts. MR. GAMLIN answered that they spent a lot of time on what could happen on the City- owned property, and they ended up with six connections that would allow connectivity to the City's property. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if there are any nodes or areas within the plan that could include a unique little coffee shop or something that could add to the walkability of the community. MR. GAMLIN replied that they could look into any opportunities for commercial space. He was not sure how much commercial space would be needed. He explained that they tried to program the open space with a diversity of uses. He pointed out that they have the community garden, The Grove, and an interpretive nature walk. 12 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.dou PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory felt that The Grove would be a logical place; however, he would not suggest and force the developer to add a coffee shop. He commented that he has never seen a development where a developer offered homebuyers a place to get the newspaper or get a cup of coffee. MR. GAMLIN said that The Grove is contemplated as a gathering area for the community, and there might be an opportunity to have a coffee cart at The Grove. Vice Chairman Gregory referred to the apartments and applauded the four-story approach. However, he felt more of an effort could be made towards providing a passive solar design. He noted it might be hot for people living in the building so he would like to know the architect's thoughts. MR. BOB WILHELM, the Architect, stated that they are in the middle of reviewing the apartments and upgrading its overall philosophy. He mentioned that comments made by the ARC were relative to recessing some of the windows and adding more interest to the elevations. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that it is important that the apartments be built well because they will establish a precedent. MR. GAMLIN noted that The Grove has a kitchen for gatherings. Commissioner Greenwood asked if elevation changes would go back to the ARC for review and approval. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He mentioned that one of the packets allows for minor modifications. Commissioner DeLuna asked Mr. Gamlin why they would want to gate and segregate the apartments. MR. GAMLIN responded that it is not an effort to segregate the apartments. They want to provide something that is an expectation in the marketplace for a rental product. He said there would be 336 units and having the apartments gated is an effort to control who is going in and out of the facility. He mentioned that the apartments have other connectivity to the community through the trail system. He made clear that gating the apartments is not an attempt to isolate or restrict access. He said the apartments would be located at the very east end of the community and close to commercial. The intent to gate the apartments were for security purposes. Commissioner DeLuna commented that she did not see anything pertaining to affordable housing. She inquired what the price point of the homes is. MR. GAMLIN answered that the price point has not been determined. They are hoping the price point would be $300,000 to $700,000. He mentioned the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) price point would be slightly above $400,000. 13 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna stated that the average median income (AMI) in Riverside County or the Inland Empire is in the high $60,000; therefore, she does not know how people would be able to afford some of the "for sale" product. However, the people could conceivably live in a townhome or the apartments. She stated it is a wonderful project; however, she does not see any provision for an affordable component. MR. GAMLIN remarked that there was not an intent to provide affordable housing within the project. Mr. Ceja disclosed there a few things within the City's policy that would initiate an affordable housing requirement. The applicant did not make a request that would initiate the requirement. Secondly, the City's Housing Element has identified sites throughout the City to accommodate affordable housing and the proposed project is not one of the identified sites. Lastly, the UNSP did not address or require any on-site affordable housing requirements. City staff did emphasize to the applicant that they provide product variation and housing that would be attainable. Commissioner DeLuna inquired if a family that makes 80 percent of the AMI would be able to qualify for the lower end of the proposed product. Based on the math, MR. GAMLIN responded the FHA price point could be $410,000 to $415,000. He believed the detached product or the alleyway product could be accommodating. Commissioner Greenwood referred to the walls along Portola Avenue, between the residential on Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive. He asked where in the packet is the aesthetic and the design of the wall shown. MR. HERMANN indicated that the wall details are included in the packet (L2.7 Wall and Face Details). Commissioner Greenwood clarified that there would be a split face block wall along Portola Avenue on the outside of the residential. MR. HERMANN replied that is correct. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the wall carries through the interior side of the development for all retaining walls. MR. HERMAN replied that it depended on the location of the wall. He recalled that the interior walls separating the properties would be precision blocked colored walls, and split face walls would be on public viewed areas. Commissioner DeLuna asked Mr. Gamlin what income level they would be targeting. MR. GAMLIN responded that they are not targeting specific income levels. They are providing a price point that they feel is attainable to a primary housing market in the Coachella Valley. 14 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner DeLuna asked what the market is. MR. GAMLIN replied $300,000 to $700,000. Commissioner Holt inquired if the applicant met with the Art in Public Places (AIPP) Commission. MR. GAMLIN responded that they did not meet with AIPP Commission. They had discussions with staff regarding their program and identifying artwork within the public spaces. Commissioner Holt commented that she is the Planning Commission liaison to the AIPP Commission and said the Commission is very particular. She suggested they meet with the Commission for the art in public places. Vice Chairman Gregory asked when an area of the development has been sold to a builder would they use the same plans approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ceja replied that the builder would use near the same plans. As he mentioned earlier, the builder could use the refined design standards. Any dramatic changes to the plans would need to go back to the Planning Commission for approval. Vice Chairman Gregory asked if staff would determine dramatic changes. Mr. Ceja replied yes. He noted that the dramatic changes would also need to go before the ARC. Vice Chairman Gregory inquired if the apartments would go back to the Planning Commission or ARC. Mr. Ceja responded that the only ARC would review the plans for the apartments. Commissioner Greenwood asked if the infrastructure, sidewalks, walls, and landscaping on Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive would be completed in Phase 1. MR. GAMLIN responded that they are going to phase the improvements and incrementally. Commissioner Greenwood inquired if Phase 1 did not include east of Pacific Avenue. MR. GAMLIN replied that is correct. Commissioner Holt noted with the exception of The Grove, which may be included in Phase 1. MR. GAMLIN replied that is correct. He believed there was going to be an expectation to bring the amenities online to create the market buzz. 15 \\srv-fi12k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReiily\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Vice Chairman Gregory referred to the memorandum and the added condition regarding gating all product types. He asked how the Planning Commission should handle the condition since the applicant requested that the Commission consider gating the apartments. Mr. Ceja replied that City staff's recommendation is all product types remain non- gated, including the apartments. Vice Chairman Gregory commented that the applicant felt gating the apartments would be driven by the market. He asked if the City is inadvertently creating a problem if people are hoping to move into a gated apartment complex. Chairman Pradetto made clear that staff have given their recommendation. It is up to the Planning Commission to decide if they are going to accommodate the applicant or agree with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Holt commented that she would not mind living in a gated community. Vice Chairman Gregory added that he recently visited his daughter that lives in a gated apartment complex in Los Angeles and she really liked it because she feels secure. Commissioner Holt felt the market should dictate if the apartments should be gated or non-gated. Vice Chairman Gregory agreed. Commissioner DeLuna asked why someone would feel less secure in a non-gated apartment complex than a non-gated condominium complex or single-family home. Vice Chairman Gregory remarked that it is the density, people might have more of a transient lifestyle, and there are more people coming and going. Commissioner DeLuna asked staff if there is a specific reason for having a non-gated apartment complex. Mr. Ceja said the reason is based on a policy in the City's General Plan. The policy states residential communities, unless it is a resort-style community, remain non- gated. With recent fires, Commissioner DeLuna commented that gated communities are a lot more difficult to evacuate quickly. Vice Chairman Gregory commented he would be more concerned with a sandstorm than a fire. With no further testimony offered, Chairman Pradetto declared the public hearing closed. 16 \\srv-fil2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.docx PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Commissioner Greenwood commented that he is not opposed to gating the apartment. complex. He felt it is consistent with housing types and he is cognizant of the density. He also felt the overall project meets the intent of the specific plan, the project is unique, it is adjacent to the university, and he sees the need for gating the apartments. He said gating the apartments does not deter away from what the specific plan intended. Commissioner DeLuna said if they decide to allow gating the apartments, she would not want to see a block wall. She would prefer to see wrought iron or something else, so the apartments do not look like a fortress, isolated, or segregated. Commissioner Greenwood states he is in favor of amending the condition to allow gating the apartment complex. Chairman Pradetto recommended changing Condition No. 3 of the memorandum to reflect that the Planning Commission would allow the applicant to gate the multi-family apartment complex and give direction on the type of fencing. Commissioner Greenwood mentioned he was part of the General Plan process and it was exciting to be part of the process. He said it is exciting to see the General Plan move forward and into fruition. The proposed project was well done and he is excited to see it go forward. Commissioner DeLuna thanked the applicant for all the time and effort they have taken and the wonderful job done on addressing all the different areas that the City felt was important in the General Plan. MR. GAMLIN thanked City staff. Chairman Pradetto conveyed that he liked the project and the aspect of the different housing product types. He said some of the best neighborhoods that people desire to live in reflect this type of planning. The only difference that he sees is some of the most desirable neighborhoods have developed organically, and the project is replicating some of the old school designs where everything happens incrementally. He commented that the danger is, and there is no way around it, the project is built all at once and it is great. However, in three decades, it all deteriorates at the same rate of pace. In an incremental design, there might be more of mixed-use and commercial going into the area. He said as far as getting to a point where they are developing a beautiful neighborhood, the proposed project is about as close as they can get without decades of investment from individuals. Commissioner Greenwood moved to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2745 approving Case No. TTM 37056 & PP 18-0005 as presented. In addition to the conditions of approval, incorporate the amended and additional conditions from the memorandum dated November 20, 2018; and adjust Condition No. 3 to allow gating the multi-family apartment complex and consideration is taken into not having block walls and there is a design to have openness in the wall. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Holt and carried by a 5-0 vote (AYES: DeLuna, Greenwood, Gregory, Holt, and Pradetto; NOES: None). 17 \\srv-til2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.dou PRELIMINARY MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 20, 2018 XI. MISCELLANEOUS None XII. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES None B. PARKS & RECREATIONi��;,i Al None ilalllil� i XIII. COMMENTS ylijll� I iiih `'i I Commissioner DeLuna wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. XIV. ADJOURNMENT ��, With the Planning Commission concurrence, Chairman Pradetto adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. JOSEPH PRADETTO, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ' i ii i(�ra RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MONICA O'REILLY, RECORDING SECRETARY 18 \\srv-til2k3\groups\Planning\Monica OReilly\Planning Commission\2018\Minutes\11-20-18 min.dou PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: January 15, 2018 PREPARED BY: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner REQUEST: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 7.7-acre parcel into four residential lots that will be part of the Stone Eagle Development, and a third amendment to Development Agreement No. 02-01 (Stone Eagle Development) located west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel at the termination of Old Stone Trail (APN: 652-090-002); and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommendation Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2746, recommending approval to the City Council of the above-noted, subject to the conditions of approval. Executive Summary Approval of the staff's recommendation will allow the development of four residential estate lots on 7.7 acres that will be incorporated into the Stone Eagle Development Agreement No. 02-01 (DA No. 02-01). Staff's recommendation for approval of this project is based on reducing the overall number of dwelling units, which is achieved by an amendment to the existing DA. Staff believes that this project reduces the overall number of Stone Eagle units, and meets the General Plan goals of preserving and reducing development within all hillside areas. Background Analysis A. Property Description: The subject property is located immediately south, of and contiguous to, the existing Stone Eagle community, and immediately west of the Palm Valley Storm Channel. It will utilize the same roadway network and infrastructure. The project will utilize and improve an existing channel maintenance easement held by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to connect the project to the original Crest/Stone Eagle project. Access to the subject property will be from the southerly extension of Old Stone Trail, a private road located within the existing Stone Eagle Development. The purpose of the hillside planned residential district is to encourage minimal grading as it relates to the natural contours of the land, while avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes in the January 15, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 Page 2 of 6 hillside area. The project area in regards to pad elevations will preserve as much natural terrain as possible. Additionally, the majority of the rock outcroppings will remain so that the future homes will blend with the natural terrain, and protect undisturbed viewsheds and natural landmarks and features, including vistas and the natural skyline. B. General Plan and Zoning: Zone: Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) General Plan: Rural Neighborhood (RH) C. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Hillside Planned Residential/Stone Eagle South: Hillside Planned Residential/Vacant East: Planned Residential/Sommerset Community West: Hillside Planned Residential/Vacant D. Hillside Planned Residential Zone: The ordinance regulating the HPR Zone was amended in April of 2007 to include the following Development Standards: • Density: Each lot shall be limited to a maximum of one unit per five acres. • Building Pad Area: The maximum area permanently disturbed by grading shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. • Access Road: Maximum permanent grading disturbance of natural terrain for development of access to the approved building pad shall be 3,000 square feet. • Maximum Dwelling Size: Total dwelling unit, garage, and accessory building size on any one lot shall not exceed 4,000 square feet. • Ridgeline Development: Development on or across ridges is prohibited. E. Stone Eagle Development: On October 24, 2002, the City Council approved a series of applications and a development agreement for a project known as"The Crest'and now known as"Stone Eagle." Stone Eagle is an exclusive gated residential community with 43 existing single-family lots, one lot with three condominium units available for timeshare use, a 15,000-square-foot clubhouse, and an 18-hole golf course located west of Highway 74 with an access road across the Palm Valley Storm Channel opposite of Homestead Road. The project is zoned HPR; however, the development agreement approved different development standards. The original approved development agreement allowed for 61 total residential dwelling units on the site. The agreement also allowed the developer, if they choose, to sell units as fractional ownership with up to a 1/4 share. There have been two amendments since the original approval of the agreement. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\PC Staff Report-Stone Eagle.docx January 15, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 Page 3 of 6 The amendments are as follows: • Amendment No. 1: Approved in September of 2007, this amendment allowed the developer to sell 20 homes within Stone Eagle with up to nine fractional interests. In exchange, Stone Eagle agreed to designate the remaining 41 units as single ownership. • Amendment No. 2: Approved in March of 2008, this amendment allowed the developer to increase the roof height of 19 residential units within Stone Eagle to 25'- 2". F. Previously Denied Project: On May 11 , 2011, the City Council denied the applicant's request for a similar project. At the time, the applicant proposed to subdivide the 7.7-acre parcel into six (6) residential lots. Several of the proposed pads intersected ridgelines, which is prohibited within the Hillside Development. The applicant contended that the City's Ridgeline Map was inaccurate, and proposed a new ridgeline map that they believed to be true ridgelines. City staff, at the time, concurred with the applicant and recommended approval of the project request. Ultimately, both the Planning Commission and the City Council denied the applicant's request stating that the proposed project is not consistent with the HPR zone development standard of one dwelling unit per five acres. Project Description The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) will allow the developer to subdivide 7.7 acres within the HPR zone into four residential lots and incorporate them into the Stone Eagle Development. The proposed lots range in size from 49,687 to 141,705 square feet. Pad sizes range from 6,825 to 15,239 square feet. There are no homes proposed on the property at this time. The owner anticipates selling these lots as custom estate lots. Homes will be designed independent of each other and will conform to the approved Stone Eagle design guidelines to ensure continuity. A. Site Plan Access: The access to this site is through the main entrance of Stone Eagle via Old Stone Trail. Old Stone Trail currently dead ends at the northern boundary of this project. The TPM proposes access to the site on the eastern boundary by extending Old Stone Trail, which is identified as "Lot A" on TPM 37336. ,An The developer has tailored this application as an amendment to the approved development agreement, which would expand the buildable area within the Stone Eagle Development. Staff believes that there are intrinsically two ways to analyze this application, by using the current approach of this application, or the strict and literal interpretation of the HPR zone. G\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\PC Staff Report-Stone Eagle.docx January 15, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 Page 4 of 6 A. Land Use Compatibility/Density: Density: The density is arguably the most complex portion of this project. Two scenarios exist: 1)The density allowed by expansion of DA 02-01; and 2)The density allowed under the HPR zone. Density Allowed by Expansion of DA 02-01: The proposal by the applicant is to subdivide a 7.7-acre parcel into four residential lots. The original approved development agreement for Stone Eagle allowed for 61 total dwelling units. However, only 44 units have been developed, leaving 17 lots undeveloped. All lots built-upon today are single-family residential, except for one parcel,which has three separate condominium units with the option of fractional timeshare use. Whenever an amendment to a development agreement is proposed, it should be mutually beneficial for the applicant and the City. That said, the applicant is willing to sacrifice some of the total allowable number of lots for the project in return for granting approval of these four lots. The applicant proposes to use four lots of the remaining 17 lots from the development agreement by annexing this land into the Stone Eagle Development. If approved, Stone Eagle Development will have 13 remaining undeveloped lots. From a density perspective, the original Stone Eagle project occupied 703 acres. Sixty-One (61) units on 703 acres equate to a density of one dwelling unit per 11.5 acres. If the 7.7 acres of proposed land is added to the development and the unit count is reduced, the total density will stay the same at one dwelling unit per 11.5 acres. If approved, this proposal reduces the amount of development possible within the lower hillsides of Cahuilla Hills. Additionally, during the initial planning of Stone Eagle Development, there were discussions regarding the accommodation of a bicycle/golf cart path along the access roads adjacent to the Palm Valley Storm Channel. Because no plan existed at the time for this path, Stone Eagle was conditioned to accommodate the future path. Both the Planning and Public Works Departments believe this to be an opportune time to further develop this plan. A condition of approval has been added that applicant must use their best effort to obtain the necessary easement/right-of-way to install a 10' wide decomposed granite multi-use path along the east side of the Palm Valley Channel. Density Allowed Under the HPR Zone: The HPR zone allows for one unit per five acres of land. The 7.7 acres of land would be entitled to one unit if it were being developed as a standalone project. Section 25.15.030 (D) allows property owners to apply for exceptions to the density standard. Under previous City Councils, staff generally discouraged these types of exceptions as they were viewed as inconsistent with the long-range vision of minimizing development on the hillsides. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\PC Staff Report-Stone Eagle.docx January 15, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 Page 5 of 6 Within the last three years, the City Council has approved two new homes within the HPR zone and seem open to smaller developments similar to the project request. Staff is very cognizant of the sensitivity of developing within the hillside. The applicant has made the necessary modifications to the project request from the originally 2011 project that was denied. The applicant has reduced the number of lots from six (6) to four (4), and positioned the building pads so they are no longer located on ridgelines. The building pads have also been designed to blend into the natural terrain and protect rock cropping's on the parcel. When the future homes are constructed, all disturbed areas will be re-naturalized with native landscaping that will also blend into the natural terrain. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council apply the "Density allowed by the expansion of DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3., as this proposal protects open space and will reduce the total number of lots within Stone Eagle. Furthermore, the project does not physically divide an existing community and does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation outlined in the General Plan. B. Development Standards: The applicant is proposing to use the same development standards as Stone Eagle Development; staff is in favor. Below is the development standards table: STANDARD HPR ZONE ALLOWED W/DA PROPOSED 02-01 PROJECT Coverage 35-50%* Not limited under DA No change from DA 02-01 02-01 Height as approved 25-2" 25-2" Front Setback as approved 15' 15' Rear Setback as approved 10, 10, Interior Side Setbacks as approved 5' S' Re-naturalization Addressed as Required as Landscaping required mitigation measure in mitigation CEQA measures in CEQA *40% based on the HPR Zone allowable 10,000 sq. ft. pad and 4,000 sq. ft. maximum dwelling size. -Previously approved existing building pads are limited to 35% lot coverage, but may be increased to 50% with Architectural Review Commission approval. C. Findings for Approval: Findings can be made in support of the project, and in accordance with the City's Municipal Code. Findings in support of this project are contained in the Planning G\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\PC Staff Report-Stone Eagle.docx January 15, 2018 — Planning Commission Staff Report Case Nos. TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 Page 6 of 6 Commission Resolution attached to this staff report. Environmental Review For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of Environmental Impact. The MND is attached as part of this report and filing of the MND has occurred in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. LEGAL REVIEW DEPT. REVIEW FINANCIAL REVIEV CITY MANAGER N/A 1'Dw" N/A N/A Ryan Stendell Robert W. Hargreaves Director of Community Janet Moore Lauri Aylaian City Attorney Development Director of Finance City Manager APPLICANT: Eagle 605, LLC 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2746 2. Draft Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment No. 3 3. Legal Notice 4. Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Exhibits Provided by the Applicant GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\TPM 37336 Stone Eagle\PC Staff Report-Stone Eagle.docx PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.7-ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT WILL BE PART OF STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, AND A THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 02-01 (STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT) LOCATED WEST OF THE PALM VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AT THE TERMINATION OF OLD STONE TRAIL (APN: 652-090- 002); AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) CASE NOS: TPM 37336 and DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 151" day of January 2019, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Eagle 605, LLC, for a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the above-noted project request; and WHEREAS, according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City must determine whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, a further environmental review is necessary. The application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 2015-75, in the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on th.e environment and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted; and WHEREAS, the proposed project conforms to the Subdivision Map Act; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons, which are outlined in staff report, exist to justify the recommendation to the City Council for approval of said request.. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: 1 . That the density of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The proposed parcel map falls within the Rural Neighborhood (R-H) designation of the General Plan. The intent of R-H designation is to provide reasonable development opportunities while protecting natural and scenic resources. The R-H allows for zero to one unit per five acres. The gross project encompasses 710 acres and as proposed will be allowed 61 total units, including the proposed four (4) lots which equates to a total density of one dwelling per 11.5 acres of gross land. There is no specific plan for this area. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Limiting grading and protecting natural resources are goals of both the City's R-H General Plan Designation and the City's Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) zoning district. As proposed, this project accomplishes two goals by reducing the overall number of units within the Stone Eagle Development, and by designing the proposed development into the existing terrain of the hillside such that grading is minimized. There is no specific plan for this area. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. The vacant property is located within the City of Palm Desert and located adjacent to the existing Stone Eagle Development. The site has vehicle access points via Old Stone Trail. The pads have been located to blend with the natural terrain of the property to the greatest extent feasible. Similar sites have been successfully developed as single-family homes as is proposed here, demonstrating that these sites are physically suitable for the proposed development 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The proposed T 7 acres is physically suitable forresidential development with accessibility through Stone Eagle Development and proposed access roads. Utilities are available in the vicinity, and the small footprint of these residential units it,*asily into the rugged terrain of the hills, tucked under the elevation of adjacent ridgelines. 5. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat For purposes of CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared. The design of the project will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat since the surrounding area has been developed with similar land uses and a golf course. Environmental studies performed at the site did not identify any endangered or sensitive species. In addition, the project will pay into the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation fund for the development of raw land. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design and layout of the parcel map and four residential lots are in compliance with all grading requirements, and the properties will be developed in accordance with the Uniform California Building Code. Grade changes in the community are accommodated by the street layout and open space provided throughout the subdivision. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 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. The proposed project will construct retention basins for the project. The parcel map identifies the use of this area, and the applicant is responsible for the maintenance of the retention. Surrounding perimeter City streets are built-out to the General Plan designation and the developer will complete minor improvements along Old Stone Trail. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 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 Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the project as proposed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 151" day of January 2019, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RON GREGORY, CHAIR ATTEST: RYAN STENDELL, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS: TPM 37336, DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. That all conditions of approval as part of Development Agreement 02-01 (as amended) shall apply to this application. 3. The applicant shall record Parcel Map 37336 within two (2) years of project approval, unless a time extension is granted; otherwise, said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. ... 4. The development of the property described hereinshall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to the approved project and all Palm Desert Municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use or structure contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: . ; Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)� s Public Works Department Fire Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building & Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 6. A cultural resources inventory shall be completed by a qualified archeologist prior to any development activities within the project area. 7. If the presence of cultural resources is identified in the cultural resources inventory, an approved Native Cultural Resource Monitor shall be on site during ground disturbing activities. 8. Should human remains be discovered during the construction of the proposed project, the project coordinator will be subject to either the state Law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains or the Tribal burial protocol. In either circumstance, all destructive activity in the immediate vicinity shall halt and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MILD). The City and Developer will work with the designated MLD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against any third party legal challenge to these approvals, with counsel chosen by the City at applicant's expense. 10. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at the time of issuance of building permits including, but not limited to, Art in Public Places, Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, TUMF, School Mitigation fees, and Housing Mitigation fees. 11 . The applicant shall re-naturalize to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development any and all disturbed hillside area of the project with native landscaping and materials to blend the project into the natural terrain. 12. Lighting plans shall be submitted in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code (PDMC) Section 24.16 for any landscape, architectural, street, or other lighting types within the project area. 13. The findings in the CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. 14. Final landscape plans shall be submitted to the City's Department of Community Development and the CVWD for review and approval. The landscape plan shall conform to the landscape palate contained in the preliminary landscape plans prepared as part of this application, and shall include dense plantings of landscape material. All plants shall be a minimum of five gallons in size, and trees shall be a minimum of 15- and 24-inch box sizes. 15. The applicant shall use their best effort to obtain the necessary easement/right-of-way for the construction of the 10-foot wide decomposed granite bike path from Calle De Los Campesinos to Cholla Way. The applicant shall also assist the City to obtain a necessary easement from appropriate owners by providing the City with legal description and plat by a registered land surveyor/civil engineer. 16. Before the parcel map records, the applicant shall execute the annexation agreement between them and Stone Eagle Development. 17. The future homes will be subject to the development standards established with Development Agreement 02-01 . 18. The applicant shall record Development Agreement 02-01 Amendment No. 3 prior to, or concurrent with recording of the parcel map. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Prior to recordation of the parcel map: 19. The parcel map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 20. Easements for drainage, pedestrian, and public utility purposes shall be provided as needed on the final parcel map. 21 . Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC. 22. The applicant shall pay the appropriate signalization fee in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55 and drainage fee in accordance with Section 26.49 of PDMC and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. 23. Park fees in accordance with PDMC Section 26.48.060 shall be paid prior to the recordation of the parcel map. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit: 4.0 24. The applicant shall submit a grading plan to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Any changes to the approved civil or landscape plans must be reviewed for approval prior to work commencing. 25. The applicant shall submit a PM10 application for approval. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of PDMC Section 24.12 regarding Fugitive Dust Control. 26. The applicant shall abide by all provisions of the City of Palm Desert Ordinance 843, Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance. 27. The applicant shall submit a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for review and approval. The WQMP shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Operation and Maintenance Section of the approved final WQMP shall be recorded with County's Recorder Office and a conformed copy shall be provided to the Public Works Department. 28. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative parcel map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the PDMC. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT: 29. This project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes. A. 2016 California Building Code and its appendices and standards. B. 2016 California Residential Code and its appendices and standards. C. 2016 California Plumbing Code and its appendices and standards. D. 2016 California Mechanical Code and its appendices and standards. E. 2016 California Electrical Code. F. 2016 California Energy Code. G. 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. H. Title 24 California Code of Regulations. I. 2016 California Fire Code and its appendices and standards. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2746 30. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1265. 31 . An accessible access overlay of the precise grading plan is required to be submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan review of the site accessibility requirements as per 2013 CBC Chapters 11A & B (as applicable) and Chapter 10. 32. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 11 B-705.1.2.5 and 11 B- 705.1.2.2. The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supersede the State requirement. 33. Public pools and spas must be first approved by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and then submitted to Department of Building and Safety. Pools and Spas for public use are required to be accessible. ,a 34. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per PDMC, Title 5. 35. All contractors and/or owner-builders must submit a valid Certificate of Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. ''` FIRE DEPARTMENT: w �; 36. Fire Department Plan Review. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 37. The project may have a cumulative adverse impact on the Fire Department's ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts include an increased number of emergency and public service calls due to the increased presence of structures, traffic, and population. The project proponents/developers will be expected to provide for a proportional mitigation to these impacts via capital improvements and/or impact fees. 38. Fire Department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 39. Fire Department water system(s) for fire protection shall be in accordance with the California Fire Code, City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 7 RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Palm Desert Attn: City Clerk 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT -NO FEE- 6103 OF THE GOVT. CODE Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use Third Amendment to Development Agreement This Third Amendment to Development Agreement(this"Amendment") is made and entered into as of this_day of , 2019, by and between the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California municipal corporation("City"), and STONE EAGLE, LLC ("Developer") as successor-in interest to DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation("DDC"), and Eagle 6.5, LLC ("Eagle"),the owner in fee of the Additional Property (as hereinafter defined) (City and Developer and Eagle are, collectively, "the Parties"), pursuant to the authority of Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. RECITALS A. City and DDC entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated as of November 14, 2002, and recorded on March 11, 2003, as Document No. 2003- 172463, in the Official Records of Riverside County, California(the "Agreement"). The Agreement was entered into to facilitate the development of certain real property("Site") more particularly described in the Agreement. B. Subsequently, City and Developer entered into "First Amendment to the Development Agreement 02-01" dated September 27, 2007 (Riverside County Document#2007-0663645,recorded October 29, 2007), and "Second Amendment to the Development Agreement 02-01" dated March 27, 2008 (Riverside County Document# 2008-0404071, recorded July 24, 2008). The Developer now desires to make an additional approximately 7.7t acres ("Additional Property") subject to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. All 7.7f acres of the Additional Property are located within the City. The Additional Property is described as Tentative Parcel Map No. 37331 and is shown on Exhibit A-7 attached hereto. The Agreement(as amended) sets forth the maximum number of residential dwelling units (each a"DU") which is 321147626. 21 permitted on the Site. Of the maximum number of 60 DUs (plus one caretaker residence)permitted on the Site, 44 have been developed, leaving 16 DUs plus the caretaker residence not yet developed. The Additional Property will be allocated and entitled to use four(4) of the remaining 16 DUs, one for.each lot in the Additional Property. The Site will have twelve (12) DUs plus the caretaker residence remaining for development after(and in addition to)the allocation of the four(4) DUs to the Additional Property. D. Eagle holds fee title to all of the Additional Property. E. The Additional Property was annexed into the Site and the Stone Eagle Owners' Association on by recordation of instrument number F. City and Developer also now desire to extend the term of the Agreement by ten (10) years to February 27, 2029. G. City and Developer now desire to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth herein pursuant to Section 1000 of the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and promises of the Parties, the Parties hereto agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Effective Date. This Amendment shall become effective on the date which is two (2) business days after the date which is thirty (30) days after date of final adoption by the City of the ordinance approving this Amendment("Effective Date"). From and after the Effective Date, all references to the Agreement shall automatically be deemed to mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. 2. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 3. Effect on Additional Property. This amendment will bind the Additional Property upon the effective date since Eagle is a party hereto. In addition, the Additional Property shall be subject to and bound by the Original Agreement set forth in Recital A and the First and Second Amendments set forth in Recital B. 4. Expansion of Site. From and after the Effective Date, the Site will be expanded to add thereto the Additional Property, consisting of an additional approximately 7.7± acres within the City, and thereafter the term"Site"as used in the Agreement shall be deemed to include both the original Site as defined in the Agreement as originally entered into, and the Additional Property. 5. Revised Exhibits. On the Effective Date: (i) Exhibit A-7 attached to this Amendment shall be included with Exhibit A attached to the Agreement; (ii) Exhibit C attached to this Amendment shall be substituted for the Exhibit C attached to the Agreement; 321147626. 22 and (iii) Exhibit D attached to this Amendment shall be substituted for the Exhibit D attached to the Agreement. 6. Extension of Term. The Term of the Agreement currently expires on February 27, 2019. The Parties hereto hereby agree to extend the Term for an additional period of ten(10) years to February 27, 2029. 7. Covenants Run With Land. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the Parties hereto that the Agreement and this Amendment shall not be severable from Developer's interest in the Additional Property, and the provisions of the Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall constitute covenants which shall run with the Site or any portion thereof upon the recordation against the Additional Property of the Agreement and this Amendment, and that thereafter the benefits and burdens of the Agreement as amended by this Amendment shall bind and inure to all successors in interest to the Parties. 8. Interpretation. This Amendment shall be interpreted to give each of the provisions their plain meaning. The Recitals are incorporated into this Amendment. 9. Entire Agreement. This Amendment is executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Amendment consists of seven(7) pages and three (3) exhibits, which constitute the entire understanding of the Parties as to the matters set forth in this Amendment. 10. Status of Agreement. Except as modified by this Amendment,the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 321147626. 23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date and year first above written. "CITY" CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California Municipal Corporation Effective Date: By: (Mayor, City of Palm Desert) , 2019 Attest: City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney "DEVELOPER" STONE EAGLE, LLC a Delaware limited liability company Date of Submission by Developer: By: , 2019 "EAGLE" EAGLE 6.5, LLC By: Robert J. Lowe, its 52019 321147626. 24 F---- A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , a Notary Public,personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Notary Public 321147626. 25 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Notary Public 321147626.2 6 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF ) On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/th.ey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Notary Public 321147626. 27 Exhibit A-7 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37336 THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: The Southeast quarter of Government Lot 2 in the Northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian according to the official plat thereof. Excepting therefrom that portion lying North of the South line of and its Easterly extension of Tract No. 20024, in the City of Palm Desert, as shown by Map on file in Book 211, Page(s) 90 through 94, inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, California. Excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by deed recorded August 23, 1971 as Instrument/File No. 94950 of Official Records. APN: 652-090-002 321147626.2 8 EXHIBIT D BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS The following development standards shall apply for TPM 37336: Minimum Building Setbacks: All custom lot setbacks will be reviewed on the individual merits of the submitted site plan. At a minimum, the following setbacks shall be maintained. Front Yard Setbacks: Fifteen (15) Feet Rear Yard Setbacks: Ten (10) Feet Interior Side Yard Setbacks: Five (5) Feet Building Heights: Residential buildings or structures shall not have a height exceeding twenty-six (26) feet from the approved finished pad elevation. Roof mounted equipment must be placed within said height limitations and shall be screened from view. Chimney height and other projections required by building codes will be examined on a case by case basis. Visual impacts and privacy views to or from adjacent structures will be considered. 321147626.2 9 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. TPM 37336, DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 37336 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.7-ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT WILL BE PART OF STONE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT UP HIGHWAY 74. The City of Palm Desert (City), in its capacity as the Lead Agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that any potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level and a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. Project Location: Stone Eagle Development. APN: 652-090-002 Project Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.7-acres into four residential lots. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the project request. Public Hearing: The public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission on January 15, 2019, at 6:00 p.m. with a City Council meeting to follow. Comment Period: Based on the time limits defined by CEQA, your response should be sent at the earliest possible date. The public comment period on this project is from December 26, 2018 to January 30, 2019. Public Review: The project plans are available for public review daily at City Hall. Please submit written comments to the Planning Department. If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to, the Planning Commission hearing. All comments and any questions should be directed to: Kevin Swartz, Associate Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760) 346-0611 kswartz@cityofpalmdesert.org PUBLISH: DESERT SUN RYAN STENDELL, Secretary December 26, 2018 Palm Desert Planning Commission Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page I T CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 341-7098 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Project Title: Tentative Parcel Map and Stone Eagle Development Agreement Amendment Case No: TPM 37336, DA 02-01 Amendment No. 3 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palm Desert 73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Phone: (760) 346-0611 Fax: (760) 341-7098 Applicant: EAGLE 6.5, LLC, c/o Ted Lennon 74-001 Reserve Drive Indian, Wells, CA 92210 Representative: John D. Criste, AICP Terra Nova Planning &Research, Inc. 42-635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: 760-341-4800 Contact Person: Kevin Swartz, Planner, City of Palm Desert And Phone Number: 760-346-0611 (7.7f acres) Project Location: South extension of Old Stone Trail and Stone Eagle Palm Desert, CA 92260 APN: 652-090-002 General Plan Designation: Rural Neighborhood(0.05 to 1.0 Du/AC) Zoning Designation: HPR.,D (Hillside Planned Residential; 1 DU/5 Ac) Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Location and Limits The subject property is located immediately south of and contiguous to the existing Stone Eagle community and immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. It will utilize the same roadway network and infrastructure.The Project will utilize and improve an existing channel maintenance easement held by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to connect the Project to the original Crest/Stone Eagle project. The project primarily involves a single, 7.7t acre parcel (APN: 652-090-002), and is contiguous to, will take access from and will become a part of the Stone Eagle to the immediate south. Access to the subject property will be from the southerly extension of Old Stone Trail,a private road located within the existing Stone Eagle development. The subject property.is a subdivision of a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of Government Lot 2 in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, SBB&M. Project Description Development of the proposed addition to the Project(Tentative Parcel Map 37336;Exhibit 5)will involve the southerly extension of the existing Old Stone Trail within the aforementioned Stone Eagle development. The Project will include the grading of one access road,which will branch into two shorter segments to serve four (4) proposed residential lots. The proposed residential lots will provide buildable pads ranging from 12,802 sq. ft. (0.29 acres) to15,239 sq. ft. (0.35 acres). For purposes of this analysis, completed residential structures are assumed to total 28,000± square feet. Lot A is the extension of the private Old Stone Trail that will provide access to the four new residential lots, and will provide a minimum 20-foot paved cross section plus 2-foot gutter on each side in a 24-foor right-of-way. The total disturbed area, including the extension of the private Old Stone Trail, will be 2.17t acres. The Project also includes the 3`d Amendment to the Stone Eagle Development Agreement (DA), which will bind the subject property to the Stone Eagle development. The DA will thereby expand Stone Eagle by the 7.7f acres and shall not be thereafter severable from the larger interest of Stone Eagle or the provisions of the DA. The DA and the incorporation of the subject TPM into Stone Eagle allows for the transfer of development densities remaining available under the original Stone Eagle Development Agreement. Also please see Development Agreement Amendment No. 3. Surrounding Land Uses & Setting North: Stone Eagle residential lots and open space; scattered single family residential in Cahuilla Hills beyond South: Vacant open desert slopes and washes; scattered single family residential in Cahuilla Hills East: CVWD Palm Valley Stormwater Channel; Indian Springs MHP and Sommerset condominium development beyond channel; State Highway 74 east of aforementioned residential lands West: Vacant raising terrain of foothills; scattered single family residential in Cahuilla Hills General Plan Designation The subject property is designated Rural Neighborhood on the City General Plan, which states that the intent of this designation is: "To conserve nature while providing the lowest intensity and amount of neighborhood development." Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 3 This designation allows low density residential development at density ranging from 0.05 to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre. The Rural Neighborhood designation also allows for the: "Limited commercial activity may be allowed in the form of focused specialty lodging such as a bed& breakfast inn with minor commercial/retail." As well as: "Uses such as guest houses, churches, schools, family day care homes, public facilities, and others which are determined to be compatible with and oriented toward serving the needs of rural, low-density neighborhoods may also be allowed." Zoning Designation The subject property is designated HPR (Hillside Planned Residential; 1 DU/5 Ac. The purpose of the hillside planned residential district is to provide for the lowest intensity (0.2 du/ac) of residential development by minimizing the grading of hillside areas and to preserve the natural contours of the land by avoiding extensive cut and fill of slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development.This district is characterized by the preservation of natural features and protected viewsheds, architecture and landscape design that blends with the natural terrain,and informal and natural streetscapes that follow the topography of the land. Other Required Public Agency Approvals None required. Summary of CEQA Findings: This Initial Study has been prepared in conformance with Section 15063 and other applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines, including the City Rules to Implement CEQA, to determine if the project, as proposed, may have a significant effect upon the environment. Based upon the findings contained within this report,the Initial Study will be used in support of the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. i rALI �FMIA PACIFIC OCEAN l MEXICO "...', Palm 08Mt, MVERS"'DE CCKJNTY N CO T T �I TPM 37336 & Stone Eagle DA Amd. No. 3 Exhibit L j TERRA NOVA® Regional Location Map KA PALM DESERT 1 WNG 8 HESC,OCK W4G Palm Desert, California C+ur�'za.vn k Y f ay. I, "sdW t 4r Source:GoNle Earth,2018 ,. F, 1 TPM 37336 & Stone Eagle DA Amd. No. 3 Exhibit L J TERRA NOVA' Vicinity Map PLANNING 5 Fes.S&ARGt1,INC Palm Desert, California PALM DESERT 2 ya... AAi .rav rw� vatrr s h� a - a sF•, ; e � d yy {f �{ a .0 r n i s 4 " Id x fi . E � s Source:GoJe Maps,2017 TPM 37336 & Stone Eagle DA Amd. No. 3 Exhibit TERRA NOVA Area Location Map PtawNrNwaa>GsE,uu, Irx Palm Desert, California PALM DESERT 3 5. t a� _ q r _ Y S N1ERS�T " n ST0NE EAGE --r Ilk r - At, ci � � 4 a � _ { a ir +t .. .� !! ' # all - 4. 741, /aawtm uo Nuder�-NrarmO uy,r„d,q CLtMT r '� -.._ ._ ffiIL !N THE CRY Of PALM DrMgr,COW"Of MKRSW.STATr Of CA4"ANA " '_ -+_PMPPAODCORMP TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP xr MaroaP now Perartrvoa aaAw 4- �/{s+s.c) w+.arts ewws.ao.,s w+m. Par.a d�,EeMKYd t aSParwe^'.q ,awxa ar-w , � �awrrer n n�w xmax r aarAaaP ataaPu.� c� '�" NO. 37336 SfU A SURDNYWN Of A Pomm- Sf rw r/I Of aoVTRNvrw Lor 7 —nroramr aa,v apQ``9p L�`14��;� � an cu �x;rr a ref Nw 114 Of SCCTrON 31. T.SS.,R.&C,SAN RERNARAwO YfRrOIAN r£!RO ENGIN££RING, INC. MAY 2016 Wo F+���.•` ' .._run. y m_c roz ' tNAM rJU T AIOP•pIr.MM1 r',..r47 __... .---.- —S,JH -'�r.a � NslIMa NR.T+ ._ dl GOfiwt CllCIOVPoIJU MO YWRW MMCIts►RM.N QMEEir MOM Ai s[KSSIAr DFNYr MO MVntilaTd 7 wR 4 rayt s6tAW)r Pd 6)aw SOT } r _ aanrtswamo w amar ae uo aw nanny LOT 2 n Naona nP nam ..n tr nac 1 ''�.: , in:wr nc nrrRa naArnvNca r.a ar r: rsxtm¢_Bxa,F � ' mnagi a m r un�rw`eiran.• _ j f A(r0M b OamRWp aVOS frfN6f141 A: p� !4 �•s � iM'CaHCria'4'fN9_�a b a[NO LW[YW j1• ' {yrYr ++AYa Mr�d..(ka - �� lit ttrusainr tl�pA-FSNBaIf K rf w'1 W A w P (7 , � I §\ ♦• ' da I fffiE.$',( HfAR IAABd/AfRttl'0 --•—--`�Ti:Xa a`� . fur;, a - LK TAXC USA4W AWL3flWldYW of !M e q�yypy A1' A xr ws • A PADS AKA (yp n f mr rrtrtrl ___ R._ . ••_ ff # 'n r•YW b trla ' aaMtR/AMfe,urr/aAillOrmT rLtfit 1,4 f�t[eRCy(aaK f N 1110 IVSCR AAAS A.fa NA-W.AA G4 91710 I,M MHO AS} (rap)SrHlari♦ rrr p]a ��SY7Y Arise f0a Ct3tAUN -Y `•sm`M"„ *w"k, ',` �. - 7jRIPACLS AaG lNCRZfR: flra0 EM'aNY[aYNO.AK. (WI s -M 3 � g � LOT ,3 $ r., ..n. �a.�g1� ' e cRoss.uaa r.r Mxcs J aaqqrr y 'y '� ' 3r paltl�lD AAf14 .�' -a17- •fb: a31-0Ao-a0i r e , n ran""FT• S1R[E/ARU� ar M. n[crMc sa u tOnaw r ur— s�aaRu�s T� { S.W oJ1 Awl ( CnrO `t q4,�^�y �`•-._,.e 1 j�$' I L� ��AO WAN 2tT CAKE WCT C`7y f bmd,w �' I perroar asr. arrrrar.u.ras w wo LOT 4 a r PRarosrD uwR asr saR�f fAuar Rf9aFNlU S ,,,.. / 3` - Of SUAG"" Pfafosra tpaarc nP.R j..amira ear - AYY.LA4 �A � , r•,snr1 FX,6'rrp IQMMR: N.P.R. Q: �4 eOla.rfAP •-r / 1.�� .•r � LW C wr S 01 r0 01 M M RAMMROVI M CW R000.ASaPC tOS IYRt OKCNMCA'f0 PA(ll ALLtY STOANNAr[s aaKt . ty RAM: 11{SiJ P jJ7 I I L--- ------"=---J i/ D � I r tr a.a.�, r AiA1�paMl. w " m� ; cwv 4Y. _xnrwncx •ro. MalifNa twKC r_o .' ., yr.�j;'a•� O Sir6r i Q ` 'tea i -r u"---�.-E- T .it'�,� N m t _____ Source Fero Ergf�enng,ine.:2oiaC-Q^"tg tnlgrgge Qr Drain IYP+ L9[FJ.-SEGItoN r -I TPM 37336&Stone Eagle DA Amd. No.3 Exhibit TERRA NOVA Tentative Parcel Map 37336 Palm Desert,California PALM DESERT 5 CA41Fe dA t NI TN£CITY Or PALM D£S£RT,COIN N Of RNERSW STATE Of C UrOR - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP I _ LOT 2 NO. 37336 B£iNC A SVRDNIRON Or A AOR/IfM'Or TIlC 5C/ �Of COYCRNY£N7 LOT 7 \ f�l>u. IN MENW 114 Of SECTION SI, T.%S.R.S.£,SAN R£RIURDONO NERWLI I-EIRO ENGINEERING, INC. MAY 20I8 LOT t I I I { CROSS SECTIONS I \ I I LOT 4 LOT, .................... CVWD I LFGENQ: PROPOSED FILL SLOPE PROPOSED CUT SLOPE SECTcrrON PROPOSED RETAINING WALL '✓ I ypyym 1 .......... ..». .uw» .... s.e ..».. .�» .:. . . ..... t t I ` � 1 1 \ Y' I I 1 I I I LOT 4 , 1 � R CVWD RIW _ 1 1 { I I w SECTION BB �n Ilw:: TPM 37336&Stone Eagle DA Amd. No.3 Exhibit L A TERRA NOVA TPM 37336 Cross Sections AA&BB i ri Palm Desert, California PALM DESERT 7N rW CITY O£RAW OESERT, COUNTY Of WWRVOC, STATE OF CALI£ORN/A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP LOT 3 NO. 37336 BEM A SUMMSION OF A RORTYON-W Sr 1/4 OF GOVERNMENT LOr 2 IN IHC NW 114 OC SCCTNJN it, LSS, SAN BCRNARMNO MCRIDUH 1 LOT 4 I I ( FEIRO ENGINEERING, INC. MAY 2018 CROSS SECTIONS LOT 3 ILOTI �. I A I 1 I , ' � 1 �__ I •rc�m cm,'i 1 ' Mww� LOT 1 1 1 1 ren ropJ c I 1 1 ILOT A � ` ---- 1 , - - -- _- _ t -LOT r T 4 _._ -- -__ _ 1 PROPOSED FILL SLOPE -----' PROPOSED CUT SLOPE SECTION CC PROPOSED RETAINING WALL o.m» Iwo e.m afrl e.w �fwe'�`-ArR-C-s-rrJ-z-lv f� » • ,.ae ,,;, ,,, „, y SOUlCE:Fiero Engineering,Inc„2018 r I Stone Eagle Exhibit TERRA NOVA' TPM 37336 Cross Section CC ❑ Palm Desert,California PALM DESERT 7 1-1— � f R by THE CITY Of PALM D£5£RT,COUffrr Of R1VFRS1D£, STATE OF GLIFORNIA I TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP LOT 2 I I NO. 37336 BEING A SUBDIVISION Of A PORTION OF THE IN THE F£IRO ENGINEERING, INC S£t/t Of GOVERNMENT LOT 2 NG, ass., R.s.E; sAN BERN ADY 2krRaHA+ LOT 3 II CROSS SECTIONS ;- ;LOT; .� a I.,A LOT a I CvWD _ I R/W PROPOSED FILL SLOPE , I t PROPOSED CUT SLOPE SECTION DD � i � -- PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ifb'�""'$-L v'S1Y'@'. ids"i li T,b'l8"p'"$"H'�+$"fi'F"Sf-#-$'ii 8 Y'�"it-F'B-SF"Y"$'Y•-$I��"Yi-8'"G`Y€'Y'R'Y"21�eo` ' #'$_�''":Y3' w"$'Y`at-a'$'Y'$$"t n'$'$'a'4"Q"'.�'iY 2""".3'Y"'F`�a"YS"G'"ff"'$"$"§"lY"�5"$"k'&'fi`�'fi+'. . .fi S.iO Hi ,IKtl id�0e N m Source:Hero Engineering.Inc.,2018 r -1 TPM 37336&Stone Eagle DA Amd. No.3 Exhibit TERRA NOVA TPM 37336 Cross Section DD Palm Desert,California PAH10 DESERT 8 Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality Emissions Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance ® Tribal Cultural Resources The Project has been evaluated to determine if there is any substantial evidence, based upon this environmental assessments, studies and reports evaluated for the Project,as were supplemental biological' and cultural resources reports and line-of-sight analyses. All of the potential environmental impacts were evaluated for the proposed project. In addition to the proposed TPM 37336, the Project includes an amendment to the Stone Eagle Development Agreement, which places the proposed subdivision within the overall development thresholds set by the original Stone Eagle approval. Its potential physical impacts on the environment are comparable to those identified for the original Stone Eagle development and is subject to the application of the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures set forth in the certified Stone Eagle SEIR and this IS/MND. ' 'Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed Lowe Enterprises 6.5-Acre Residential Site",prepared by James W.Cornett. July 28,2006. z "Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report-Assessor's Parcel No.652-090-002",prepared by CRM Tech. August 16,2006. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 13 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Ryan Stendell Date: Community Development Director City of Palm Desert Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiring, program EIR or EIS, or other CEQA or NEPA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or EIS or negative declaration or FONSI. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance c) minimization measures, if any, if mitigation measures are not required Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 15 Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic,the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. Potentially Less Than Less Than No 1.AESTHETICS-- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? El ❑ ® ❑ c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ® ❑ ❑ views in the area? Source: TPM 37336 and Cross Section,Feiro Engineering,2018; Site surveys;City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Background: The subject property is located in the southwest quadrant of the City of Palm Desert in the Coachella Valley area of Riverside County. The property is situated on east-facing sloping terrain immediately west of the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The site is approximately 900 feet west of State Highway 74 and is separated from this roadway by intervening residential development. Terrain continues to raise behind (to the west of) the subject property and the proposed residential home sites (pads) to an elevation of 800 feet. Proposed residential pads vary in elevation from 732 feet to 767 feet above mean sea level. The terrain rises to the west of each of the four proposed development sites. The areas scenic resources of the area are dominated by the rapidly rising terrain of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills to the west and south, as well as the rocky spurs to the east. These dramatic rocky mountain backdrop rise to over 3,600 feet to the southwest and to over 9,600 feet to the south. In addition to the Santa Rosa Mountains,the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the north and northeast also enhance those viewsheds. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel passes north-south along the east boundary of the subject property. For purposes of this analysis,a number of cross sections were plotted to allow the analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed residential lots and future homes on the public viewsheds, including those of residents closest to the property. The cross sections show that even for the highest proposed lots there will be a backdrop of rocky slopes and elevated terrain behind(west of)each lot. Please see Exhibits 5 through 8. Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant. The Project will result in the grading of an extension of Old Stone Trail southerly and into the property, where it will split into two forks that serve each of the four residential lots. The road grading plan limits the exposed fill area that would be generated near the end of the south fork. Retaining walls are planned at several locations to limit cut and is visibility from below. The minimum vertical separate between the proposed four lots and the raising terrain Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 16 ranges from 33 feet to 68 feet. Single family residences are planned, which will ensure that structures do not break the ridgeline to the west. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas, which arise in all directions as viewed from surrounding lands, will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. Highway 74 is "state-eligible" to be designated as a scenic highway but is not currently so designated. As noted above, the Project site is located 900 feet from the closest approach of this roadway and is separated from it by residential development and the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Views into the developed portion of the subject property that might be momentarily visible from Highway I I I will also view homes in front of the rocky slope backdrop to the west. Therefore, potential impacts to Highway 74 viewshed are expected to be less than significant. There is very little vegetation on or surrounding the subject property. However, there are substantial landscaping elements, including trees and shrubs, within the residential developments to the east, which serve to soften and buffer the views of the rocky slopes to the west, including the subject property. Pose-development fill slopes will be limited and retaining walls will be used extensively to limit the effect of road and lot grading. Extensive portions of the site's rocky outcroppings will remain unaffected by the Project. Therefore, impacts to these visual resources will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant.The proposed project will result in the incremental development of single- family homes within the Cahuilla Hills area of the City and surrounding unincorporated area. The project will result in limited site grading and the maintenance of the overall look and feel of the site and the Stone Eagle development to which it will become a part through the approval of the proposed DA amendment. The proposed subdivision will not significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. The rising terrain above the site and the planned use of desert vegetation, gravel and boulders in the project landscaping (see landscape plan ref subst conform w/ Stone Eagle) will further reinforce the existing visual character and quality of the site by emulating the natural rocky outcroppings in the distance and native vegetation within and surrounding the community. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. Increased light and glare from outdoor structural and landscape lighting,and from reflective surfaces such as windows,automobiles and other reflective surfaces can be expected to result from the project. Excessive lighting can adversely impact enjoyment of the night sky and can intrude onto adjoining properties. Lighting from the future home sites may also be evident from the vicinity during evening and nighttime hours. These impacts are expected to be adequately minimized and mitigated (see Mitigation Measures discussion below) and are not expected to substantially alter the existing environment Mitigation Measures While the proposed subdivision and DA amendment will have limited adverse impacts to surrounding viewsheds, a variety of measures can be applied to the project design to further limit the visual impacts of new development. These are consistent with those that were applied to the potential development impacts associated with the approved Stone Eagle development, and include the following: 1. Building materials used in development of residences other potentially visible structures shall include those which tend to blend and harmonize with the textures and tones of the surrounding foothills into which they will be integrated. Earth tones are encouraged, as is the use of stone and Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 17 similar materials, which emulate surrounding natural materials and colors. Exposed roofing materials should also complement the surrounding environment to reduce or minimize the contrast of the built with the natural environment. 2. Landscaping plans shall serve to integrate a harmonious transition between the natural and the built environment. Native and appropriate non-invasive non-native plants shall be applied in a manner that emulates the natural vegetation pattern of the washes and foothills. Boulders and rock walls should also be considered to lend rhythm and massing and to help smooth the landscaped edge. 3. Boundary walls and fences shall be constructed so as to blend with surrounding unaltered and re- naturalized areas. Construction materials may include stone and stucco, wrought iron and steel fencing, which quickly acquire a patina or are painted, stained or coated to blend and harmonize with the surrounding environment. 4. All development plans, including grading and site plans, building elevations and landscape plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. Final home site plans, privacy walls, and private and common open space areas shall be designed in such a manner as to preserve individual viewsheds to the greatest extent practical, while preserving privacy. 6. All outdoor lighting shall be in compliance with the City lighting ordinance. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum height, number and intensity of fixtures needed to provide security and identification, taking every reasonable effort to preserve the community's night skies. 7. Water pumps, utility transformers and boxes and other related facilities shall be screened with walls or other appropriate treatment to preserve scenic viewsheds and limit visual clutter. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program l. The final subdivision map shall be reviewed to assure substantial compliance with the basic design parameters set forth in the above mitigation measures and as conditioned by City approvals. Responsible Party: Community Development Department and City Engineer. 2. Structural design elements, including residences, garages, utility buildings, and walls and fences shall be reviewed for their responsiveness to the design criteria set forth in the above mitigation measures and as otherwise required by City. Responsible Party: Community Development Department 3. Landscaping palette and design, as well as lighting elements for each home, shall be reviewed for their responsiveness to design and mitigation issues addressed in the above mitigation measures, and as elsewhere required by other mitigation measures and conditions set forth by the City. Responsible Party: Community Development Department 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES--In determining whether impacts to Potentially Less Than Less Than No agricultural resources are significant environmental Significant Significant Significant Impact effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Impact with Mitigation Impact Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Incorporation Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 18 impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would theproject: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ❑ ❑ ❑ Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forestland(as defined in Public Resources Code ❑ ❑ ❑ Section 12220(g)),timberland(as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104 ? d)Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use? ❑ ❑ ❑ e)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: City of Palm Desert 2017 General Plan; California Department of Conservation; Farmland Mapping& Monitoring Program.2001. Background: The City of Palm Desert is located in a desert environment containing soils that are characterized as sandy and rocky. The project site is located on course alluvium and rocky slopes of decomposed granitic rock with areas of limited, shallow soils, being the extension of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills. No agricultural activities occur in proximity to the project site nor are there any identified agricultural lands in the City or the vicinity, the closest such lands being located in the eastern portion of the valley. Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. The subject property is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to the California Department of Conservation, nor is it used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, there are no properties in the immediate area designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project area is designated as "Urban and Built-Up Land" by the State, and has a General Plan designation of "Low Density Residential". The proposed project will have no impact on farmlands. b) No Impact. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the subject property or properties in the immediate vicinity. The subject property is currently designated " Rural Neighborhood' and is also surrounded by scattered low-density residential development of Cahuilla Hills. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and planned residential developments are located to the immediate east. The proposed project is consistent with this designation and the surrounding land use pattern. The proposed project will not conflict with surrounding zoning designations. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 19 c,d) No Impact. The subject property is not located in an area designated as forest land and will not conflict with forestland zoning. The project will not result in the loss of forestland. e) No Impact. As described above, the proposed project is not designated as farmland, or located near areas of existing farmland; therefore, the project will not result in the direct conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. Minimization Measures (If any): Mitigation: None required Monitoring: None required 3.AIR QUALITY—Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable Potentially Less Than Less Than No air quality management or air pollution control Significant Significant Significant Impact district may be relied upon to make the following Impact with Mitigation Impact determinations. Would theproject: Incorporation a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ standard(including releasing emissions,which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sources: CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2;Project grading plans; SCAQMD AQMP,2016;Coachella Valley PM,o SIP,2003. Background: The City of Palm Desert is located in the Coachella Valley, which is a low elevation desert environment characterized by low annual rainfall (2 to 6 inches per year) and low humidity, with temperatures ranging from 800 F to 108 °F in July and 40'F to 57'F in January. The Coachella Valley is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMio SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The proposed site is located within Source Receptor Area(SRA)30,which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio. The Indio site has been operational since 1985 and the Palm Springs site since 1987. Historically, the Coachella Valley has been classified as being in non-attainment for both ozone (03) and PMio. Under the Federal Clean Air Act, the Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB is classified as a "severe-15" 03 non-attainment area for the 8-hour state standard, which means that the region must come Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 20 into compliance with Federal ozone standards by December 31, 2027. With future emission controls, the Coachella Valley will achieve the 2008 8-hour federal 03 standard by 2024.3 With regard to PM1o,the California Air Resources Board(ARB)approved the Coachella Valley PMto Re- designation Request on February 25, 2010. SCAQMD requested re-designation by the US EPA from serious nonattainment to attainment for the PMio National Ambient Air Quality Standard. As of January 30, 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency has not re-designated the PMio classification for the Coachella Valley'. The Coachella Valley continues to exceed the state standard and is in a serious non- attainment area for PMio. The Project will involve the grading and paving of an extension of Old Stone Trail south of its current terminus in the south end of the Stone Eagle development. Site grading will also include creation of four (4) residential lots comprised of five pads (1.24 acres), small terraces confined by retaining walls (0.12 acres), and the on-lot street(0.81 acres). Total site disturbance will be 2.17± acres or approximately 28% of the site. Earthwork quantities include 4,300 cubic yards of cut and 6,100 cubic yards of fill, meaning that there will be a net import of approximately 1,800 cubic yards brought onto the site. The residential square footage at buildout is unknow but has been assumed to average 7,000 square foot per unit or 28,000 square feet of residential space. Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impacts. The project will be developed in accordance with all applicable air quality management plans. The subject property is located within the SSAB, which is governed by the SCAQMD. SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring criteria air pollutant concentrations and establishing management policies for the SSAB. As previously mentioned, all development within the SSAB, including the proposed project, is subject to the 2016 AQMP and the 2003 CVPM10 SIP. The 2016 AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. It was based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Palm Desert's land use designations assigned to the subject property, and therefore, is consistent with the intent of the 2016 AQMP. b-c) Less than Significant Impacts. Both construction and operational phases of the proposed subdivision will result in the release of criteria air pollutants. The California Emissions Estimator Model(CaIEEMod)was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by construction and operation of the proposed residences. Construction Emissions As discussed above, construction activities result in the emission of air quality pollutants from grading, building construction, and off gassing from paving and architectural coating. The site is vacant. For analysis purposes, data from the TPM 37336 were used and it is also assumed that future residential construction will encompasses 28,000± square feet of building space that will occur over approximately a 5-year period extending from about May 2019 to April 2024. Criteria pollutant emissions from construction activities are short-term, and will end once construction is complete. 3 "Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan,"prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District,March 3, 2017. 4 "EPA Green Book Designated Non-attainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants,"as of July 2,2014.Accessed June 18, 2015. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 21 As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The data reflect average daily emissions over the 5-year construction period. It should be mentioned that the table below shows the worst-case emission scenario and projected unmitigated emissions. Table 1 Construction Emissions for TPM 37336 Buildout (lbs per day) Construction Emissions CO NOx ROG Sox PM10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily 16.23 32.27 36.99 0.05 6.12 3.49 Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter. Emissions reflect adherence to standard dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403.1.See Appendix A. Implementation of standard reduction measures during construction will further reduce emission levels. Applicable reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the implementation of dust control practices in conformance with SCQAMD Rule 403 and proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment. Impacts to air quality from construction of the proposed project for criteria pollutants, therefore, will be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operational emissions are ongoing that will occur over the life of the occupancy of the four residences. Operational emissions will be associated with the use of electricity for lighting,HVAC, space heating and other uses. As shown in Table 2 below, SCAQMD thresholds will not be exceeded during operation of the proposed residential units. The table below sets forth the operational emissions associated with the four residences. Table 2 Operational Emissions at TPM 37336 Buildout (lbs per day) CO NOx ROG Sox PM10 PM2.5 Operation Emissions 1.36 0.89 0.83 0.00 0.20 0.06 SCAQMD Threshold 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2.Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter. See Appendix A. Non-Attainment Historically,the Coachella Valley, which includes the proposed project site,has been classified as a"non-attainment" area for PMio and Ozone. The proposed project will contribute a very modest incremental increase in regional ozone and PMio emissions. However, this impact is not expected to be cumulatively considerable. Project construction and operation emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for PMio or ozone precursors (NO.), and appropriate standard reduction measures will be implemented that will further reduce emissions. The project will not conflict with any attainment plans and will result in less than significant impacts. d) Less than Significant Impacts. The nearest sensitive receptors to the subject property are single- family and multi-family homes located to the immediately east and beyond the Palm Valley Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 22 Stormwater Channel. The mass rate LST Look-Up Table was used to determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LST for SRA 30 (Coachella Valley)are summarized in the table below for sensitive receptors located 50 meters from the emission source (single-family homes located immediately northwest). For analysis purposes, it is assumed that the daily area of disturbance onsite will be approximately 2.1 acres. As shown below in the table below, LST thresholds will not be exceeded during construction of the proposed project. Distance from site disturbance to the closest home is 146± feet. Table 3 Localized Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction 16.23 32.27 6.12 3.49 LST 1,931 225 22 7 Exceed? No No No No Operation 1.36 0.89 0.20 0.06 LST 1,931 225 6 2 Exceed? No No No No Emission Source: Cal EEMod.Version 2016.3.2 Value shown represents the average emissions from summer and winter,after application of standard dust control measures (See Minimization Measures below) Source: Mass Rate Look-up Table, SCAQMD, Area Source Receptor 30(Coachella Valley)for a 2-acre project,sensitive receptor at 50 meters. Note: Construction emissions show the max. daily emission for the highest emitting year of construction. Potential effects to sensitive receptors will be further reduced through the implementation of effective dust control practices in conformance with SCAQMD Rule 403. These include, but are not limited to,the use of soil stabilizers,routine watering of unpaved roads and disturbed surfaces, reduced vehicle speeds on unpaved roads,routine cleaning of roads,and covering of import/export soils during transport. Air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project is not expected to generate objectionable odors at project buildout. The proposed project has the potential to result in short-term odors associated with asphalt paving and heavy equipment; however, any such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable thresholds as distance from the construction site increases. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are expected to be less than significant. Minimization Measures Standard Air Quality Regulations The project will adhere to all established air quality standards and regulations including the following: 1. SCAQMD Rule 402: The project shall adhere to nuisance odor requirement. 2. SCAQMD Rule 1113: The project shall use low VOC content architectural coatings and paints per the requirements of this Rule. Additional Control Measures Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 23 The following control measures are recommended to further limit air quality emissions: l. To reduce particulate matter and NOx emissions construction equipment should utilize aqueous diesel fuels, diesel particulate filters and diesel oxidation catalyst during all construction activities. 2. All construction equipment should be properly serviced and maintained in optimal operating condition. 3. Construction equipment should not be left idling for more than five minutes. 4. Diesel-powered construction equipment shall utilize aqueous diesel fuels, and be equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts. 5. Onsite landscaping, if any, should be equipped with efficient irrigation and a low water demanding plant pallet to minimize water use onsite, which also reduces onsite energy expenditures and any air quality emissions associated with the production of energy. 6. Onsite lighting should utilize energy efficient technology such as sensors, timers, and LED to minimize energy demand from lighting. 7. As feasible, construction waste should be recycling to reroute waste from landfills and minimize the project's contribution to the landfill. 8. The contractor shall notify the City of the start and end of grading and construction activities in conformance and within the time frames established in the 2003 PMIo State Implementation Plan. 9. Construction staging and management plans shall be reviewed and conditioned to require the application of all reasonably available methods and technologies to assure the minimal emissions of pollutants from the development. The City Engineer shall review grading plan applications to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in this document and as otherwise conditioned by the City. 10. As part of the construction staging and management plans, the contractor shall concurrently submit a dust control plan consistent with the City's Air Quality Management Plan. Mitigation measures to be implemented through this plan include but are not limited to the use of water trucks and temporary irrigation systems, post-grading soil stabilization, phased roadway preparation and paving, as well as other measures which will effectively limit fugitive dust and other emissions. 11. Construction equipment and materials shall be sited as far away from residential uses as practicable. Mitigation None Monitoring None 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 24 a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in ❑ ❑ ❑ local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the ❑ ❑ ❑ California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife ❑ ❑ ❑ corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ ❑ ❑ reservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservationplan? Sources: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,and CEQA/NEPA EIR/EIS,2007;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017;Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis for Lowe Enterprises 6.5-Acre Residential Site, Cornett. July 28,2006. Background: The project site is located adjacent to lands that have already been urbanized at levels varying from medium density residential to scattered low density residential. The subject property is also bounded on the east by the fully-lined Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. Located on a spur of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills,the subject property has been impacted over several decades beginning with the introduction of dirt and paved roadways in the vicinity, followed by scattered residential development west of the channel and more dense residential development between the channel and State Highway 74. Area disturbance and development has introduced non-native plant species, single-family and multi- family residences and golf course development. The subject property is located on shallow soils and rocky terrain along the edge of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and is relatively undisturbed. The nearest Conservation Area as established by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) is the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, which is located approximately 0.5 miles west of the site. Three days of on-foot plant and animal site surveys were conducted to evaluate the existing habitat of the site and how it will be modified by the proposed subdivision (Cornett 2006). Surveys were conducted on the subject property and a 100-yeard buffer area where access was available. Biological assessments prepared for the adjoining Stone Eagle property were also again reviewed (AMEC 2002). The subject property is dominated by the Sonoran creosote bush scrub community common across the Colorado subunit of the Sonoran desert. Common plants found on site include creosote, brittlebush or encilia, burrobush and indigo bush. Other common perennials included sweetbush and cheesebush. Sensitive plant species with some possibility to occur on site include California ditaxis,flat-seeded spurge, ribbed cryptantha, winged cryptantha, foxtail cactus, spearleft (M.. paravifolia), slender-lobed four- Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 25 o'clock, Thurber's beardtongue, and Cove's cassia. None of these plant species was detected and could be undetectable due to the hot summer(July) field surveys. No state or federal candidate or listed species was detected nor are any expected to occur on site. Common invertebrates detected during field surveys included eleodes beetle, harvester ants, pallid band- winged grasshopper, giant hairy scorpion and Southern California tarantula. Sensitive invertebrates that could occur, but which were not found on the site, include Coachella giant sand-treader cricket, Casey's June beetle,and the Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket.The site lies several miles southeast of the nearest designated survey area for the federally listed Casey's June beetle. Common vertebrates detected include ground gecko, side-blotched lizard, western whiptail, chuckwalla, desert scaly lizard and speckled rattlesnake. A concerted effort to detect desert tortoise and burrowing owl was unsuccessful. Observed birds were limited to mourning dove, rock wren, black-throated sparrow, house finch,common raven and American kestrel. Detected mammals included California ground squirrel, desert woodrat, deer mouse, and coyote. No sign (scat, bedding areas, scrapes, etc.) of Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) were identified at or in the vicinity of the site, which is consistent with the proximity of the site PBS habitat, including roads and homes. The nearest recorded historic sheep sighting is approximately 0.5t miles to the northwest. No state or federal candidate or listed species was detected nor are any expected to occur on site. Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. The project site is located east of identified critical habitat for the federal and state listed Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS), which occupy the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The subject property is located on rocky foothills immediately adjacent to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and varying intensities of rural to urban development. The site has been isolated from occupied sheep habitat for more than four decades.No state or federal listed plant or animal species is expected to occur on the subject property. b-c) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located on or near areas of riparian habitat or wetlands. The project site is located on rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains foothills. The proposed project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive natural communities, including marshes or vernal pools, or through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption of a natural drainage. d) No Impact. The project will have no impact on lands along the urban/wildlands interface of the Santa Rosa Mountain foothills. The site is bounded on the east by the fully lined Palm Valley Stormwater Channel and on the south by the Stone Eagle development. To the south and west is the low-density residential development within Cahuilla Hills. Most of the subject property will remain undisturbed and the four home sites will be dispersed, providing room for wildlife movement. The proposed subdivision and associated site disturbance and improvements will not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e- f) No Impact. The subject site lies outside the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area established by the adopted Coachella Valley MSHCP. It does, however, occur within the fee mitigation area established by the plan the applicable MSHCP development impact fee must be paid before any site disturbance. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 26 Mitigation Measures: None. Minimization While the subject property is not located adjacent to a CVMSHCP Conservation Area and is expected to have no impact on sensitive plants or wildlife, the following minimization measures are recommended to further avoid or minimize potential project effects. These measures will help to preclude potential impacts to biological resources. 1. The following measures should be implemented to assure minimum impacts to sensitive plants and wildlife. Toxics: No improvements or product that require hazardous or toxic chemicals, or that generate toxic or potentially toxic bioproducts, or may adversely impact native wildlife and plant species, their habitat, or water quality, should be use. Lighting_ Project lighting, including landscape, roadway and event lighting, shall be shielded and directed away from adjoining lands. Landscape shielding or other appropriate methods shall be incorporated in project designs to minimize the effects of lighting on adjacent lands. Minimal lighting is recommended throughout the project. Invasive Plants: Landscape plans for the project shall avoid the use of invasive, non-native plant species. Ornamental plant species to be avoided include but are not limited to oleander(see Table 4-113 of the CVMSHCP. To the maximum extent feasible, Coachella Valley native plant species (see Table 4-112 of the CVMSHCP) should be incorporated into the project landscape design. Monitoring A. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the required detailed landscaping and lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department for consistency with the above mitigation measures. Responsible Parties: Project landscape architect, project manager, City Community Development Department. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES--Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ to § 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic ❑ ❑ ❑ feature? d)Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 27 Sources: TPM 37336;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017;Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Assessor's Parcel No. 652-090-002.August 16,2006;prepared by CRM Tech,April 22,2006;Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Crest(Stone Eagle)Project,prepared by CRM Tech,April 22,2002. Background: Cultural and Historic Resources-_Cultural resources in the Coachella Valley are typically found in specific locale associated with habitation sites, lithic workshops, water sources and food gathering and milling sites. Trails and sacred places are also sometimes identified in the valley. The City of Palm Desert is located within the territory ethnographically associated with the Cahuilla people. This language group is within the Cupan subgroup of the Takic family of the Uta-Aztecan stock. The Takic family includes Cupeno, Gabrielino, and the Luiseno people. Prehistorically, a large portion of Cahuilla territory was inundated by Lake Cahuilla, which provided the focus for settlement and resources in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley. The northwestern-most extension of ancient Lake Cahuilla was at Point happy, today the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111, approximately five miles east of the subject property. The first noted European explorers in the Coachella Valley were Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo and Romualdo Pacheco. They traveled through the Coachella Valley on expeditions searching for a route to Yuma, Arizona between 1823 and 1825. In 1862, the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Native American trade route, was "discovered" by William David Bradshaw and subsequently was referred to as the Bradshaw Trail. During the 1860s and 1870s, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific), the Bradshaw Trail was the primary thoroughfare between southern California and the Colorado River. This historic wagon road followed a path similar to present-day Highway 111, located about 1.5 miles north of the project site. In the 1870s,with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, settlement of the Coachella Valley by peoples of European decent began. The Homestead Act,the Desert Land Act,and other federal land laws in the 1880s further expanded settlement. Artesian wells served to establish farming as the primary economic activity in the eastern portion of the valley and east of the City. Area Historical/Archaeological Resource: In the project vicinity there is evidence of food gathering and milling sites associated with the stand of mesquite found in drainages. These areas also appear to harbor the most archaeological resources, including rock cairns, ceramic scatters, milling and lithic work sites, and habitat debris. Most of these resources are comprised of single milling slicks and pottery shards. Neither the project site nor immediate area indicated any current or historic sources of water. Also, there were no ethno-botanical resources, such as honey or screw bean mesquite, or desert fan palm on the site nor other ethno-botanical resources prior to the site's development. An historical/archaeological resource survey (CRM TECH 2O06)was conducted on the subject property by the same archaeologists that conducted the surveys for Stone Eagle (CRM TECH 2O02). A comprehensive literature and records search were conducted, local Native American Tribes were consulted, and a detailed site survey was conducted across the subject property.No historical resources as defined by CEQA were identified within or adjacent to the subject property. The possibility remains that previously undetected buried cultural materials might be unearthed during earthmoving activities. If this occurs, work must be halted in the area and the potential resource examined and evaluated by a qualified archaeologist prior to further disturbance. Paleontological Resources: Site conditions were evaluated for their potential to harbor paleontological resources. Fossil remains are found primarily in the geologic deposits within which they were originally buried. Since there is a direct relationship between fossils and the types of rock formations where they can be found, knowledge of the geology of an area can help in predicting the likelihood of the existence of fossils. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 28 Paleontological resources are limited and nonrenewable. The west Coachella Valley has yielded a variety of fossils in the past, but these are mainly found in the sedimentary formations typical of lower upland areas. The valley floors in the project area are underlain by shallow alluvial, fluvial, and aeolian deposits, mainly sand, silt, and gravel. These deposits have a low potential for yielding fossils. The site's rocky slopes are comprised of a complex of granitic rock which do not harbor paleontological resources. Record searches from the University of California at Riverside (UCR)revealed no known fossil localities within the boundaries of the City of Palm Desert. However, this record also indicates that there is the potential that fossil materials may be located in older alluvium;this does not occur on site.These potential resources would be expected to occur east of the City near the high-water mark of ancient Lake Cahuilla at the vicinity of Highway I I I and Washington Street, which left deposits of freshwater clams. The granitic rock associated with the project site,which is a part of the Palm Springs Complex, has a very low potential to yield paleontological resources and none are expected to occur there. Discussion of Impacts: a-c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is largely undisturbed. While the cultural survey did not identify sensitive resources, care should be taken during grading and other site disturbance to minimize impacts to any buried resources uncovered during site development. There are no water sources on the site and it does not appear to have harbored ethno-botanical or other resources that might indicate prehistoric occupation or use. There are no historic structures, archaeological resources, or unique paleontological resources on the site. Consequently,no or less than significant impacts would occur to these resources. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site is not located on, or within proximity to a known cemetery or Native American burial grounds. It is not anticipated that any human remains will be encountered during construction of the proposed subdivision. In the event of human remains being discovered during project development, the State of California requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease to assure proper disposal. The proposed project is not expected to disturb human remains and the potential for such impacts is less than significant. Minimization Measures None. Mitigation 1. In the event of human remains being discovered during project development, the State of California requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease to assure proper disposal. The proposed project is not expected to disturb human remains. 2. In the event cultural artifacts are uncovered during site grading or rock removal, work in this area shall be immediately halted:and a qualified archaeologist will be called in to evaluate and, if necessary recover and document such resources. Monitoring: None required. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for ❑ ❑ ❑ the disposal of wastewater? Sources: Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017; Soils Survey for Riverside County-Coachella Valley Area,USDA, 1980; Geotechnical Engineering Report-Cahuilla Golf Club(Stone Eagle),Earth Systems Southwest,December 2001. Background: The subject property is located on Rock outcrop of the Lithic Torripsaments association, and characterized as sloping terrain that is excessively drained to well-drained with shallow horizons of sand and gravel atop bedrock. The soils on this site and surrounding uplands are of the Carsitas-Myoma-Carrizo soils association and are typically characterized by sloping terrain, somewhat excessively drained soils,fine sands,gravelly sands,and stony sands on alluvial fans and valley fills. These soils are severely limited with regard to shallow excavations and are moderately restrictive with regard to the construction of commercial buildings. These soils are considered good for road fill, fair as a source of sands, and are generally unsuited as a source of gravels, especially given the very limited depth of depositions on site. Site soils are highly permeable, has a low water storage capacity, tends toward being alkali, have a low shrink/swell potential. These soils pose a high risk to uncoated steel and a low risk to concrete. The subject property and the entire Coachella Valley are susceptible to strong groundshaking from earthquakes along major regional faults, including the San Andreas Fault Zone. The San Andreas is the major fault in the Coachella Valley, which exposes the region and the City to high amounts of seismic activity. The project site and vicinity are not within or adjacent to any Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones, the closest active fault (San Andreas Fault) being located several miles to the northeast. However, this and Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 30 other regional active faults have the potential to generate strong groundshaking in the valley, including at the subject property. Peak ground acceleration and seismic intensity values generally decrease as distance from the causative fault decreases.5 Other factors, including rock and soil deposit attenuations, direction of rupture and type of fault,may cause variability in ground motion within an area. There site's slopes are comprised of highly fractured bedrock characteristic of perched or fractured rock on steep slopes, and may be subject to rockfalls or issues of slope stability in both the undisturbed and developed condition. Rock fall potential shall be addressed in the project grading plan. Table 4 lists faults that have the potential to cause strong ground motions in the City of Palm Desert, due to their proximity. Table 4 City of Palm Desert Potential Earthquake Sources Fault Name Distance from Slip Rate Maximum Design Project Site (mm/year) Earthquake (Mmax) San Andreas-Southern 7 miles 24 7.4 Segment (combined) San Andreas-San 9 miles 24 7.2 Bernardino Segment San Andreas-Coachella 9 miles 24 7.0 Segment San Jacinto-Anna 10 miles 12 7.2 Segment Source: "Seismic,Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert,Riverside,County,California,"Earth Consultants International,January 2002;Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Maps,California Division of Mines&Geology, 1980. Discussion of Impacts: a)i. No Impact. Review of official state maps delineating earthquake fault zones indicate there are no known faults currently mapped on or immediately adjacent to the site. No signs of fault rupture are identified on-site; therefore, the risks of rupture are considered low. ii. Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The site is subject to groundshaking by both local and regional faults that traverse the region. Ground shaking from nearby active faults is expected to produce high ground acceleration during the life of the project. The site could be subjected to ground acceleration on the order of 0.48g(48%the force of gravity).The peak ground acceleration at the site is judged to have a 475-year return period and a 10 percent chance of exceedance of the maximum design quake in 50 years. As a performance standard the project shall be designed and constructed to conform to the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for Seismic Zone 4. The implementation of these codes will assure that grading,foundation design and code-compliant building construction will mitigate potential impacts associated with groundshaking. Therefore, with appropriate soils, geotechnical and structural modification, and adherence to the CBC, potential impacts associated with seismic ground motion will be less than significant. s "Seismic,Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert,Riverside,County,California,"prepared by Earth Consultants International,January, 2002. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 31 iii. Less Than Significant. The area in which the proposed site is situated has a very low liquefaction potential.Based on the depth of groundwater(>100 feet)and relatively shallow bedrock conditions on the site, the risk of liquefaction is considered low. iv. Less Than Significant. No signs of slope instability/landslides were observed on or immediately adjacent to the site; slopes are generally rocky and of moderate inclination. Retaining walls are proposed throughout the subdivision to create adequately sized building lots and allow stepped building designs. Proper engineering of slops and retaining walls should avoid failure due to strong groundshaking. Therefore, the risk of landslides, slope or retaining wall failure is considered low and less than significant. b) Less Than Significant. Major portions of the City are highly susceptible to wind erodibility. According to the City General Plan geotechnical report, the areas of highest hazard are located in the extreme northern portions of the City; however, all areas within the City could be affected by blowing sand and dust. The City will require that the applicant prepare a dust control management plan as part of the grading permit to minimize potential impacts caused by blowing dust during construction. Procedures set forth in said plan will ensure that potential erosion and dust is controlled during the demolition and construction process; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant c) Less Than Significant. The site is located on a rocky outcropping with moderate slopes and highly fractured surface roach, including potentially perched boulders. These sloes could become more unstable as a result of site grading and creation of manufactured slopes. To reduce this potential, the project grading plan proposes the extensive use of retaining walls. Strategic identification of rockfall hazard areas shall be identified and addressed in the project grading plan. With proper engineering and design, potential impacts are expected to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. d) No Impact. The site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings and gravelly sandy soils with shallow depositions of gravelly sands. No fissures or other surficial evidence of subsidence were observed at or near the subject site during the site walks. Potential impacts related to subsidence, lateral spreading or landslides are considered less than significant with proper slope and foundation engineering. e) No Impact. The subject subdivision will connect to the community sewer system that collects sewerage waste in the vicinity and conveys it to the Cook Street wastewater treatment plan owned and operated by the Coachella Valley Water District.Therefore,there will be no on-site wastewater treatment of disposal. Minimization Measures None. Mitigation 1. As a performance standard the project shall be designed and constructed to conform to the California Building Code (CBC)requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Identified instabilities shall be mitigated during site grading activities. 2. All fill soil, whether natural on site or imported, shall be approved by the project soils engineer prior to placement as compacted fill. All fill soil shall be free from vegetation, organic material, and cobbles and boulders greater than 3 inches maximum diameter, and other debris. Approved fill soil shall be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness as prescribed by the soils Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 32 engineer, and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557) to obtain near- optimum moisture content. 3. Utility trench excavations within road or public rights-of-way shall be placed in conformance with the requirements of the appropriate governing agency. Utility trench excavations within private property shall be properly backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. As necessary, backfill operations shall be observed and tested to monitor compliance with governing agency requirements and proper backfill procedures. Monitoring A. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, final grading and building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City that assure conformance with the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 and other applicable development regulation. Responsible Parties: Project engineer, City Building & Safety Potentially Less Than Less Than No 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS--Would Significant Significant Significant Impact the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emissions of greenhouse gases? Source: Project development plans;CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2. Background: State legislation, including AB32, aims for the reduction of greenhouse gases in California to 1990 levels by 2020; however, there are currently no state or local thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions pertaining to residential developments (such as the proposed project). Statewide programs and standards will help reduce GHG emissions generated by the project,including new fuel-efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) Less than Significant Impacts. The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during both construction and operation (residential uses). Construction-related greenhouse gas emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. Table 5, below, sets forth the GHG emissions associated with construction and assumed to occur over a one-year period (worst case scenario). As prescribed by SCAQMD, operational emissions of GHGs must also include an annualized portion of construction-related GHG emissions amortized over 30 years. As Table 5 indicates, occupation and maintenance of the proposed residences will generate ongoing greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas or propane, moving (travel-related) sources, and transport and pumping of water. As noted, the table below quantifies construction emissions in total, and those associated with annual operational GHG generation. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 33 Table 5 GHG Emissions from Construction and Operation TPM 37336 _ (metric tons per year) CO2 `CH4 N20 CO2e Construction Activities 215.32 0.04 0.00 216.35 Operational Activities' 74.27 0.07 0.00 83.542 Source:CaIEEMod Version 2013.2.2. 1.Operation GHG emissions include area,energy,mobile,waste,and water source emissions and represents total construction GHG emissions. 2.Operational emissions include construction emission amortized over 30 years.216.35 CO2e construction=7.21 CO2e per year added to operational emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions will be minimized during construction by limiting idling times of construction machinery, adequate maintenance of heavy machinery, and efficient scheduling of construction activities to minimize combustion emissions. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project will not be substantial and will not directly or indirectly result in a significant impact to the environment or conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies or regulation. It should also be noted that the net operational GHG emissions are those associated with the new homes, which will be constructed to stringent energy performance criteria. Renewable sources of electric power (rooftop solar, etc.) and/or use of electric vehicles could substantially lower actual long-term emissions. Therefore, impacts to air quality and climate change from the generation of GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project will be less than significant. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: None required. Monitoring: None required. Potentially Less Than Less Than No 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-- Significant Significant Significant Impact Would the project: Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or ❑ ❑ ❑ disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed ❑ ❑ ❑ school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, ❑ ❑ ❑ would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 34 e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or ❑ ❑ ❑ where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Source: Site field surveys;Project development plans;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017;Riverside County General Plan,2015. Background: While a Phase I environmental site assessment(ESA) has not been conducted on this site, the on-foot survey conducted did not uncover any sign of dumping or discharge of hazardous or toxic materials. There were no signs of soil staining that might be associated with the dumping of oil or other petroleum product. Neither were there any signs of dumping of construction materials or domestic trash. In summary, the site does not appear to harbor any potentially hazardous chemicals or other materials. No known chemical or hazardous waste disposal has been known to occur on the site. There are no known underground tanks or buried materials on site or in the area. While heavy equipment will be involved in grading, materials removal and hauling, the potential for these activities to result in the accidental release of toxic or hazardous materials is considered low. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) No Impact. Development of the proposed subdivision and four future homes will not directly result in the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Upon completion, the four residential units are expected to use limited amounts of pool chemicals, cleaning and other "household" chemicals to be transported on site. Impacts associated with transportation, use, storage, or the release of hazardous materials is considered negligible. Therefore,the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Neither will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. c) No Impact. The St. Margaret's Pre-School and Pre-Kindergarten is located approximately 1.25 miles north of the project site. Further, the proposed project is not expected to store or use hazardous materials. There will be no impact to schools. d) No Impact. The project site is not located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, thus, will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e-f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located in proximity to an airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport is located in Bermuda Dunes, approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the project site. Impacts would not occur. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 35 g) No Impact. The proposed project will not physically interfere with local or regional roadway networks, or interfere with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. The proposed project is located immediately south of the Stone Eagle development and will be accessed by the private Old Stone Trail road. Neither will the project affect internal circulation in the development that could hinder or interfere with an emergency response or evacuation. h) No Impact. The proposed project site is located at the base of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains; however, there is very little vegetative fuel to feed a wildfire. The City and County of Riverside's hazardous fire area maps (2014) do not identify this area as a high risk for wildland fires. The project will not expose people or structures to wildland hazards. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 9.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner,which would ❑ ❑ ® ❑ result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ sources of polluted runoff? f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ delineation map? Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 36 h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures,which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j)Inundation by seiche ❑ ❑ ❑ ,tsunami, or mudflow? Source: Site field surveys; TPM 37336; USGS Topographic Maps; Palm Desert General Plan & EIR, 2017; FEMA FIRM 2018; Preliminary Hydrology Study, Feiro Engineering, Inc. May 2018;Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Feiro Engineering, Inc. August 2018 Background: The Coachella Valley's geographic and geophysical isolation from marine influences to the west has created a local subtropical climate with very limited rainfall through much of the year. While annual rainfall typically ranges from 4 to 6 inches on the desert floor, no measurable rainfall has been recorded in some years. The surrounding San Jacinto, Santa Rosa and Little San Bernardino Mountains are generally subject to cooler temperatures and receive more rainfall than the valley floor. Runoff is channeled through large watersheds that drain into the valley below. In the Coachella Valley,most rainfall occurs between November and March,but occasional high-intensity thunderstorms may occur during late summer and early fall. Although the desert floor can be dry at the beginning of a rainstorm, the ground can quickly become saturated when exposed to sufficient amounts and intensities of rainfall, substantially decreasing percolation and increasing runoff. Increased runoff produced upstream can potentially result in significant damage downstream. Urban development, which creates large, impervious surfaces, also increases the amount of runoff produced in the valley. The direct drainage area of the subject property is very limited, and tributary flows are limited to those abutting and at certain locations shunted into the adjoining Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. The on-site drainage pattern is generally west to east with steeper terrain rising and cresting a short distance to the west and off site. Site development associated with this project will result in the creation of approximately 2.17 of disturbed area,-including the paved extension of Old Stone Trail through the site. It is conservatively assumed that all of this area will be comprised of impermeable surfaces. Lots will be protected from upslope runoff by a system of intercept drains (see Exhibit 5), which will shunt runoff tributary to the pads around each residential pad. These intercept drains will discharge into riprap energy dissipaters from whence runoff will flow into the natural drainage. Individual lots will drain to the private street(extension of Old Stone Trail). The TMP indicates that"Site will discharge to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel";the point of this discharge into the channel is not identified on the TPM. According to the project engineer and proponent, runoff from the subject subdivision pads will continue north and into Stone Eagle on Old Stone Trail. Surface flows will travel in the street approximately 315 feet and discharge into two catch basins located on either side of the street. These flows will then be conveyed to the existing Stone Eagle lake to the north, from whence higher volume flows discharge into the Palm Valley Channel.The project hydrology report states that the subject lake (stormwater detention basin) has sufficient excess capacity to meet the demands generated by proposed TMP 37336. Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. With the application of Best Management Practices set forth in the project Water Quality Management Plan the proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction at the site will be subject to all Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 37 applicable water quality standards for waste discharge requirements of the City. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)may required because there is more than one acre of disturbed area. Compliance with existing regulations and requirements will result in a less than significant impact on water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. b) Less Than Significant. The proposed project will not generate a substantial increase in demand for water or interfere with groundwater recharge. Water demand will be limited to that generated by the four single-family homes that will be built on the site. The project landscaping plan will be comprised predominantly of native and drought tolerant species. Therefore, once fully developed water demands of the landscaping are expected to be minimal. The project will not interfere with groundwater recharge programs or result in a lowering of the local groundwater table. Therefore, the project will have less than significant impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. c-f) Less Than Significant and No Impacts. As previously mentioned, the proposed project will largely maintain existing drainage patterns while somewhat modifying the current management regime to shunt upslope runoff around building pads and to drain the developed portions of the site to and conveyed by Old Stone Trail extended. The Palm Valley Stormwater abuts the subject property on the east and regional runoff is conveyed by this facility to the Whitewater River to the north. The City Engineer will review the final hydrology study to assure that storm flows do not exceed current design capacities, and are not polluted. These standard conditions of approval will assure that impacts associated with storm flows and pollution are reduced to less than significant levels.No local or regional flood control facilities will be significantly impacted by project runoff. Construction and occupancy of this project will not otherwise degrade water quality. g-h) No Impacts. The proposed project will not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood zone. According to the General Plan, the proposed site is located outside FEMA-mapped flood zones. No impacts would occur. i j) No Impacts. The project site is located downstream of the Palm Valley dam and debris basin from which storm flows are discharged into the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. During most of the year the debris basin and channel area dry. The dam impoundment is shallow, its primary function being to de-balk stormwater of sand, gravels and other debris before discharging into the channel. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a standing body of water, which could be subject to either seiche or tsunami. While it is conceivable that an earthquake of major magnitude could occur at the same time as a rain event fills the subject debris basin,the simultaneous occurrence of these two events if highly unlikely.The project site is not subject to hazards associated with seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts are expected. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 38 a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? Source: Project materials;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017;Municipal Code Chapter 25.15;CVMSHCP. Background: The subject property is located within the already developed Cahuilla Hills neighborhood and is comprised of single-family development. Surrounding land uses include the full-lined Palm Valley Stormwater Channel to the immediate east, and medium density residential developments and State Highway 74 beyond the channel. Immediately north is the Stone Eagle development,to which the subject property will become a part with the approval of Development Agreement Amendment No. 3, that is a part of this project. Lands to the south and west include the aforementioned channel and low-density single -family development throughout the Cahuilla Hills. It is important to note that the subject DA amendment allows for the incorporation and transfer of Stone Eagle densities to and between that development and the subject parcel map. Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. The subject property is located adjacent to the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel to the immediate east. The proposed four residential lots would constitute an extension to the existing Stone Eagle development. The neighborhood to the west is comprised of low and very,low density residential in a rural setting. No established community or neighborhood will be divided by the proposed project. b) No Impacts. The project is consistent with the City General Plan, which in the Rural Neighborhood designation allows up to one dwelling unit per acre. The City zoning allows one unit per .2 acres or one lot per five acres. The joining of the subject 7.7f-acres to the Stone Eagle development and its Development Agreement secured the transfer of development rights to allow for the four proposed lots on this parcel. c) The subject property is located within the fee mitigation area for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), which establishes conservation areas and development impact fee areas in the valley. The developer will be required to pay the appropriate impact fee prior to the issuance of grading permits or other site-disturbing activity. Minimization Measures None required. Mitigation: None required. Monitoring: None required. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 39 11.MINERAL RESOURCES--Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land ❑ ❑ ❑ useplan? Source: Soils Survey of Riverside County,California,Coachella Valley Area,"U.S. Soil Conservation Survey, September 1980;Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 159(Plate 15),"California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology, 1988; Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017. Background: The California Division of Mines and Geology determines the location of mineral resources of statewide or regional significance. Lands in the City of Palm Desert are located in Mineral Resource Zones 1 and 3 (MRZ-1, MRZ-3). The subject project is located in MRZ-3 and includes substantial areas of exposed bedrock, and therefore has relatively shallow soils. Lands designated as MRZ-3 are those containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated with current data. Mineral resources in the Coachella Valley are largely limited to sand and gravels, and the lack of a fluvial regime and deposition in the area precludes such resources in the project area. Mining of potentially viable sand and gravel resources is also precluded by existing development. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) No Impact. The proposed project is located in Mineral Resource Zone 3, which is an area where inadequate information is available to determine the significance of mineral deposits present. The City does not consider these areas to contain deposits of significant economic value. It should also be noted that surrounding residential development makes the reclamation of such resources infeasible. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: None required Monitoring: None required 12.NOISE--Would the project result in: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ standards of other agencies? Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 40 b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ existing without theproject? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels? Source: Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017;City Noise Ordinance,Chapter 94.24 of the Municipal Code. Background: The City of Palm Desert Noise Element of the General Plan provides guidelines for community noise impacts per land use designation. According to City standards, residential land uses are considered"noise sensitive"thereby restricting allowable noise levels within the planning area. The Palm Desert Noise Ordinance(Chapter 9.24)sets limits on the days and time when noise generating construction activities may occur. Furthermore, the allowed weekday times of construction vary with the season Oct. 1 st to April 30th and May 1 st to September 30th. Generally, construction activities are permitted between 7 AM and 5:30 PM, with an hour early start during the hot summer months. Saturday construction hours are limited to 8 AM to 5 PM. Section 9.24.030 establishes noise level limits in residential and other land use areas. The lands surrounding the subject property are in residential use. The applicable 10-minute average decibel limit(A- weighted scale) is 55 dBA from 7 AM to 10 PM, and 45 dBA from 10 PM to 7 AM. Interior noise levels are generally not to exceed 45 dBA CNEL in all habitable rooms. Construction work is not permitted on Sundays and major holidays. Ambient Noise Levels The ambient noise level in the project area is low to moderate, being impacted by normal residential activity, including landscape maintenance and vehicular traffic from nearby Highway 74. Construction Noise Implementation of the project will result in temporary and intermittent noise from construction activities. Although construction related noise will be short-term,activities are likely to produce noise levels that are occasionally excessive and intrusive. Site grading will include the use of heavy equipment and ripping of fractured bedrock to form the five building pads and access road. Some ground vibration may also be occasionally felt during site grading by sensitive receptors in the area. No blasting will be required. Noise impacts associated with other construction activities will result from clearing, grading, hauling and deliveries, pneumatic nailers and other construction equipment, and associated activities. Earth moving equipment, such as cranes, bulldozers, backhoes, and front loaders, could generate noise levels between 73 and 96 dBA at 50 feet. Rock removal equipment can generate noise levels between 79 to 89 dBA at 50 feet, with the highest noise levels generally to range from 88 to 96 dBA at 50 feet. Site excavation and grading is expected to take six to eight weeks to complete.No blasting will be associated with this project. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 41 Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant. Development of the site will result in short-term impacts associated with grading and construction noise. These impacts are temporary and will cease when once construction is completed. Construction noise is regulated by the Municipal Code to occur during the least sensitive daytime hours,which helps to lower the potential impacts. The short-term nature of construction activity assures that project noise impacts are consistent with City regulations. b) Less Than Significant. Development of the proposed project will temporarily generate noise and groundborne vibrations through grading and construction-related activities, but will cease once construction is completed. Impacts are therefore expected to be short-term and less than significant. c) Less Than Significant. The proposed subdivision project will create outdoor activity areas and other potential sources of outdoor operational noise. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City's existing land use designation for Rural Neighborhood low-density residential use and is generally not considered a significant noise generating land use. There will be no substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity when compared to the current condition. d) Less Than Significant With Mitigation. The construction of the project may generate a substantial but short-term increase in ambient noise levels that would not occur if the project were not constructed. The subject construction noise impacts are anticipated by the City Noise Ordinance. It should be noted that post-construction ambient noise levels will be the same as existing conditions. Measures are set forth below to ensure that noise associated with construction and operation of the new homes will be less than significant. e,f) No Impact. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is the nearest airport/airstrip located approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the proposed project, and does not conduct flight operations over the proposed project. No impacts associated with aircraft operational noise levels would occur. Minimization Measures None Mitigation Measures 1. Construction activities shall comply with the hours of operation and noise levels identified in the City Noise Ordinance. Construction activities on-site shall be restricted to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday to minimize the potential for noise impacts during more sensitive time periods. No construction will be permitted on Sundays or holidays. 2. All phases of the project shall comply with all relevant development standards and Municipal Code requirements to ensure that demolition, grading and construction activities and site operations do not create unnecessary adverse noise impacts beyond the site boundaries. Construction activities shall incorporate feasible and practical techniques that minimize noise impacts on adjacent uses. 3. As a part of project grading permits, operations regulation shall include but not be limited to the following: a. The contractor shall comply with all local sound control and noise level rules, regulations and Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 42 ordinances that apply to any and all work performed pursuant to the contract. b. Internal combustion engines used onsite shall be in proper working order, maintained in a proper state of tune, and equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project site without said muffler. C. Stationary equipment should be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from noise- sensitive receptors. d. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas should be located as far as practicable from noise- sensitive receptors (homes). Every effort should be made to create the greatest distance possible between noise sources and sensitive receptors during construction activities. e. The construction operations generating the most noise shall be arranged to occur together in the construction program to avoid continuing periods of greater annoyance. f. Parking, refueling and servicing operations for all heavy equipment and on-site construction vehicles shall be located as far as practical from existing homes. Monitoring A. Excavation and grading activities shall be monitored to assure that they are carried out in the most sensitive and expeditious manner practicable. Monitoring shall ensure that construction operations occur only between the allowed hours prescribed in the City Noise Ordinance. Responsible Parties: General and grading contractors; City Building and Safety 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, ❑ ❑ ❑ through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ housing elsewhere? Source: Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017;U.S.Census Bureau,2000,and 2007-2011 American Community Survey; California Dept. of Finance. Background: The City of Palm Desert's population increased from 41,155 people in 2000 to 48,445 people in 2011. This represents a 17.7% increase over the ten-year period. The Department of Finance estimated City 2014 population at 50,424 and 51,053 in 2015. The total number of households in the City in 2015 was 37,905 households in the City of which approximately 40% are single-family homes. The City has an average household size of 2.12 persons per household. The proposed project will result in the Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 43 construction of four single-family homes, which could add approximately nine additional persons to the community. Discussion of Impacts: a-c) The proposed project will result in the construction of four single-family homes. The proposed project will have a less than significant impact on City housing and population. The proposed residences will not displace people or housing. There will be no meaningful impact on population or housing. Minimization Measures (If any): Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Source: Project development plans;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017. Background: Fire Protection: The City provides fire protection and paramedic services in Palm Desert under contract with Riverside County. First response is expected to be from Station No. 33 located on Towne Center Way approximately five miles north of the subject property and response time should be 5 to 7 minutes. In addition, Station 55 located on Eldorado Drive in Indian Wells and Stations 50 and 69,both in Rancho Mirage,will also be able to respond to a call for service from this area of the City. The City has a dedicated Fire Marshall to review projects and provide guidance. The project will generate a very modest incremental and less than significant demand for fire protection services. Police Protection: Riverside County Sheriff s Department provides police protection under contract with the City. A Sheriff's substation is located on Gerald Ford Drive and a satellite station is located in the City Civic Center complex on Fred Waring Drive. The Sheriff's Department provides protective response, investigatory, and patrol services. A Community Services Officer is assigned to patrol the City on a 24- hour basis. The project will generate no new demand for police/law enforcement services. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 44 Schools: The City of Palm Desert is part of the Desert Sands Unified School District(DSUSD). The City is host to elementary, middle and high schools. Nearby St. Margaret's School provides (now separately operated) both pre-school and pre-kindergarten. The project will generate a very limited or negligible demand for additional school services. Parks: The City provides a wide array of parks and recreational facilities in the City. It also supports programs of the YMCA and the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District. In the vicinity of the subject property is the 27-acre Cahuilla Hills Community Park and the 27-acre Homme/Adams Regional Park located near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This area of the City is also rich in walking and hiking trails, including several in proximity to the project site. Medical A number of physicians' offices and urgent care facilities are located within the City of Palm Desert and in the project vicinity. In addition, there are several large health care facilities in the Coachella Valley, all of which serve Palm Desert and are in proximity to the subject property. The 100-acre campus of Eisenhower Medical Center, located in Rancho Mirage, is comprised of a 261-bed, general acute care hospital, the Barbara Sinatra Children's Center, the Betty Ford Center for persons with alcohol and drug dependency, and the Annenberg Center for Health Sciences, a conference and communications facility. The Eisenhower Comprehensive Cancer Center provides several disciplines of cancer management under one roof, offering a comprehensive range of oncology services. Discussion of Impacts: a) Less Than Significant. The proposed residential project will generate a very modest and less than significant increase in demand for fire protective services and police services. The site will be access through the guard-gated Stone Eagle entry off of Highway 74. While the four new homes will have a very limited impact on police and fire protection services it cannot be said that there will be no impact; therefore, it is determined that these potential impacts will be less than significant. These four homes will also generate an equally limited demand for medical facilities and services, schools and parks. The project will not significantly increase demand for public services or adversely impact the provision of government facilities. Minimization Measures: None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 15. RECREATION— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical ❑ ❑ ❑ deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ physical effect on the environment? Sources: Development plans; Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 45 Background: As noted above, the City provides a wide array of parks and recreational facilities in the City. It also supports programs of the YMCA and the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation District. In the vicinity of the subject property is the 27-acre Cahuilla Hills Community Park and the 27-acre Homme/Adams Regional Park located near the Palm Valley Stormwater Channel. This area of the City is also rich in walking and hiking trails, including numerous trails in proximity to the proposed subdivision. Discussion of Impacts: a-b) No Impacts. The proposed residential subdivision will only very modestly increase population and will not result in an increased demand for or use of neighborhood or regional parks and facilities that could cause their physical deterioration. The project will not result in or the need for addition or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC—Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into ❑ ❑ ❑ account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service standards established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ management agency for designated roads or hi hwa s? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ ❑ location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) ❑ ❑ ❑ or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus ❑ ❑ ❑ turnouts,bicycle racks)? Source: Project development plans;Palm Desert General Plan&EIR,2017; "Trip Generation, 8th Edition, ITE. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 46 Background: The proposed project will result in the construction of four single-family homes on 7.7± acres and will become an extension to the existing Stone Eagle development through which these homes will take access. Access from the public street system will remain unchanged and will not conflict with any circulation plan, ordinance or policy. Fire Department-compliant hammerheads and turnarounds will be provided within the subdivision. No intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit will be affected by the proposed development. Discussion of Impacts: a-g) No Impact. The proposed project will only very modestly increase population and traffic, and will not affect any transportation plans, ordinances or policies. The project will not conflict with any applicable circulation or congestion management plan, and will not affect air traffic patterns. The project will modestly increase the number of homes in the area. With the provision of Fire Department-compliant hammerheads and turnarounds within the subdivision, there will be no impact to emergency access. The project does not conflict with any City parking capacity or alternative transportation plans and policies. There will be no adverse impacts to transportation. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES—Would Potentially Less Than Less Than No the project cause a substantial adverse change in the Significant Significant Significant Impact significance of a tribal cultural resource,defined in Impact with Mitigation Impact Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, Incorporation feature,place,cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,sacred place,or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,and that is: a)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources,or in a local register El ❑ ® ❑ of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 k ,or b)A resource determined by the lead agency,in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.In ® ❑ applying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1,the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Source: Palm Desert General Plan,2017 and 2004; Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for Assessor's Parcel No. 652-090-002. August 16, 2006; prepared by CRM Tech, April 22, 2006; Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Crest (Stone Eagle) Project, prepared by CRM Tech, April 22, 2002; National Register Listed Properties, National Park Service,accessed March 2018;Listed California Historical Resources,California Office of Historic Preservation, accessed March 2018. Background: Over the course of assessing the potential for the subject property to harbor and have impacts to sensitive cultural resources,the project archaeologists(CRM TECH 2O06)contacted the Native American Heritage Commission, as well as the Agua Caliente and Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 47 The subject and surrounding lands were declared to be within the Traditional Use Area of the Agua Caliente Tribe, which asked that a monitor be present during site disturbance and have the ability to halt construction activities in areas where possible resources are uncovered. The site is comprised of no ethnobotanical resources. Neither were there any sign of a lithic workshop or other "site". Also, please see Section 5, above. a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. As noted above and in Section 5, the subject property does not harbor sensitive cultural resources nor is it a site with special cultural significance for local Native American Tribes. The proposed residential subdivision will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. There were no resources identified on the site or vicinity that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. At this time, it appears the development of the subject subdivision will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, including a resource determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. Section 5 minimization and mitigation measures will ensure that sensitive Tribal cultural resources are not impacted as a result of the project's development. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion or existing facilities,the construction of which could ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ needed? Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 48 e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g)Comply with federal, state,and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Project development plans;General Plan&EIR,2017;Sanitary Sewer Management Plan,Coachella Valley Water District,2010. Background: The project site is located within the service boundaries of the following providers: Coachella Valley Water District (water & sewer), Southern California Edison, the Southern California Gas Company, and Burrtec (solid waste). Sanitary Sewer Coachella Valley Water District provides wastewater collection and treatment services to existing residential and other development in the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch sewer mains located within the Highway 74 right-of-way that connect to 8-inch sewer mains located within private streets in existing residential Stone Eagle development, the extension of which will serve the subject property. The CVWD sewage treatment plant which treats effluent collected in the project area is located approximately 5 miles northeast of the site on Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. The plant's treatment capacity is approximately 18 million gallons per day(mgd). CVWD also delivers reclaimed wastewater for irrigation to several projects. Current tertiary water capacity is 15 mgd. The Stone Eagle project is connected to the CVWD sewer system. Domestic Water The subject property is located within the Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD) service area. CVWD provides domestic water service to the project vicinity. CVWD has 12-inch water mains located in Highway 74, as well as 8-inch and 12-inch mains in private streets within the Stone Eagle development. The existing 8-inch water line will be extended into the subject property from the Stone Eagle system. Solid Waste The City of Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec for solid waste collection and disposal services. Residential pick up is generally provided once per week, and commercial pick up is offered up to six days a week. Solid waste is hauled to the recycling and transfer center where solid waste enters the Riverside County Waste Management waste stream,is sorted and sent to either the Lambs Canyon landfill in Beaumont, the Badlands landfill in Moreno Valley, or the El Sobrante landfill in Corona. The El Sobrante Landfill is permitted to receive 10,000 tons of refuse per day (tpd), of which 4,000 tpd is reserved for waste generated within Riverside County and is expected to be in operation until approximately 2031. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is located between the City of Beaumont and City of San Jacinto off State Route 79 and is permitted to receive 3,000 tons per day of trash for disposal and has a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 12.9 million tons. The landfill is expected to be in operation until approximately 2023. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Lamb Canyon Landfill site. The Badlands Landfill is located northeast of the City of Moreno Valley is permitted for landfilling and for excavation and stockpiling cover material and other ancillary activities. The landfill is owned and operated by Riverside County,and is permitted to receive 4,000 tons per day and has an overall remaining Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 49 disposal capacity of approximately 10.2 million tons.The Badlands Landfill is projected to be in operation until 2016. Further landfill expansion potential exists at the Badlands Landfill site. In addition, Riverside County Waste Management also operates a successful recycling program, which has substantially diverted recyclables from the waste stream.Landscape maintenance companies operating in the Coachella Valley utilize composting for .the disposal of green waste. Several green waste composting facilities are located in the area. Discussion of Impacts: a-d) No Impact & Less Than Significant. The proposed four residences will not generate significant amounts of new wastewater or substantially increase water demands. Water demands will be limited to residences, pool and landscaping improvements, and will connect to the existing Stone Eagle water lines currently serving existing development. The project will largely retain the existing drainage patterns and the existing drainage areas, with stormwater conveyance to the larger Stone Eagle system, which has capacity to store the additional runoff associated with these four new residential lots. e-g) Less Than Significant. The proposed four lot subdivision will make a very limited contribution to demand for existing sewerage collection and treatment facilities. The addition of these four residences to the Stone Eagle development will not increase the overall permitted level of residential development in this area. As noted,waste hauling and disposal facilities and capacities are more than adequate to address the new demand for solid waste disposal associated with the development of the four residential lots. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: Not required. Monitoring: Not required. 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Mitigation Impact Incorporation a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"means ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects)? Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No.3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 50 c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ human beings,either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant. Biological and Cultural Resources: The proposed project will be constructed adjacent to existing development, including the fully-lined Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, and in an area that has been surveyed for sensitive cultural and biological resources. No sensitive cultural or historic resources were identified during the on-site archaeological survey, through queries with the Native American Heritage Commission or local Native American Tribes. Neither will be the project impact any important examples of California history or prehistory. The site is largely undisturbed. The proposed subdivision will involve the disturbance of 2.17t acres of the 7.7±-acre site and will provide four residential lots and will incorporate new landscaping that, in the subject context, may provide limited enhanced habitat especially for nesting and foraging birds. There will be no substantial reduction in wildlife habitat nor will it restrict the movement or range of any plant or animal. The project will not substantially reduce the fish or wildlife habitat or affect the populations of any sensitive fish or wildlife species. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and surrounding land uses. The project involves the creation of four single-family lots on 7.7t acres and will become a part of the larger Stone Eagle development to the immediate north. Its development will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts in any area of category. c) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the project will not have adverse environmental effects on human beings directly or indirectly. Minimization Measures None Mitigation: None required Monitoring: None required. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 51 APPENDICES A. Tentative Parcel Map No. 37336, Feiro Engineering, Inc. 2018 B. Line-of-Sight Section for TPM 37336. Feiro Engineering, Inc. 2018 C. Preliminary Hydrology Study, Feiro Engineering, Inc. May 2018 D. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Feiro Engineering, Inc. August 2018 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Regional Location Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Area Location Map 4. Location Map 5. TPM 37336 (w/Site Cross Sections 6. TPM 37336 Cross Section A & B 7. TPM 37336 Cross Section C 8. TPM 37336 Cross Section D LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED • Tentative Parcel Map No. 37336, prepared by Feiro Engineering, Inc. 2018 • Preliminary Hydrology Study, Feiro Engineering, Inc. May 2018 • Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan. Feiro Engineering, Inc. August 2018 • City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan, adopted 2017. • City of Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.15, Noise Ordinance. • "Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Palm Springs Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 159," California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1988. • Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics, U.S. Census, 2015. • California Scenic Highway Mapping System, 2009. • Field and Photographic Surveys, 2015. • Soils Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Soil Conservation Survey, September 1980. • California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2001. • 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, SCAQMD. 0 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, California Air Resources Board, March 2008. Eagle 6.5 TPM 37336&DA Amd No. 3 CEQA Initial Study/November 2018/Page 52 • 2016 Air Quality Significance Thresholds, SCAQMD, March 2016. • "Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan," South Coast Air Quality Management District, August 1, 2003 • "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan and Associated Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain Trails Plan,"prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. As amended 2016. • John G. Rau and David C. Wooten, "Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook," 1980. • California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map, 2001.