Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNORTH SPERE C/Z 92-1 1992 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 922 -60 2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 October 29 , 1992 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ANNEXATION NO. 30 LAFCO NO. 92-34-4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a resolution approving an annexation of approximately 499 acres to the City of Palm Desert, generally located south of Interstate 10 and the southerly line of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, east and west of Monterey Avenue. The annexation was initiated by the City of Palm Desert by resolution of the city council . The distinctive short form designation of the proposed annexation is LAFCO No. 92-34-4, Annexation 30 to the City of Palm Desert. The reasons for the proposed annexation include: i ) The proposed annexation is consistent with the City of Palm Desert ' s sphere of influence and the spheres of influence of all other affected local agencies; and ii ) The area to be annexed is adjacent to and substantially surrounded by the City of Palm Desert and, therefore, represents a logical expansion of the city' s boundary. �n I n+y .SOUTN2RLY LING OP TN[ SOUTHSRN PA48PW RANA"D RI�NT-0/-Why, �N DINAH SHORE- s0"U'P{•W 29 .4 n!� k 8 PROP03ED i PALM D!d fir•• CITY LIMI rN�, Y .p 2+Y RSrgrE' }$ 498.9311c ro ,.a Derr�x•Iv seos.ss• •. VZ CITY a W C IL CITY PALM DESERT Eso !12 r t f SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, e 3,A1992, at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert re Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Any land owner within the territory may file a written protest against the proposal with the City Clerk at any time prior to the conclusion of the hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk November 4 , 1992 City of Palm 'Desert, California s� L_ rr 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 October 5, 1992 Riverside County Clerk/Recorder Post Office Box 751 Riverside, California 92502-0751 Dear County Clerk: Attached please find a copy of Notice of Determination and California Department of Fish and Game De Minimis Impact Finding for prezoning of the city' s remaining northern sphere of influence. The notice, along with processing fee of $25 . 00, was mailed to your office on May 29, 1992 with the check being processed on June 8, 1992 . Our files show that the certified copy was not returned to us as - yet; and therefore, we are requesting copy of same. We ask that you expedite this request, as LAFCO is requesting certified copy of this notice in order to proceed with the annexation process . Thank you, S VE SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER Attachment SS/db t� ' I f CITY OF PALM DESERT FISCAL IMPACT REPORT PROPOSED ANNEXATION MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE PREPARED BY JONATHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS JUNE 27, 1992 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IMPACT ON CITY OF PALM DESERT Summary of Impact on City of Palm Desert . . . . . . . 5 Public Revenue Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Public Cost Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IMPACT ON COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Summary of Impact on County of Riverside . . . . . . . 19 Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 IMPACT ON OTHER AGENCIES Summary of Impact on other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 25 Structural Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 County Free Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 BASE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 INTRODUCTION This fiscal impact report analyzes the financial effect on the City of Palm Desert, the County of Riverside, and other affected agencies which would result from the proposed annexation. A five year time frame has been presented, beginning with fiscal year 1992/1993. It is assumed that build-out will be completed within this five year time frame. In the event build-out takes longer, approximately the same fiscal impact will occur, but over a longer period of time. Column headings of 1992 indicate the fiscal year which begins July 1, 1992 and ends June 30, 1993, headings of 1993 indicate fiscal year 1993/1994, and so forth. The following chart summarizes the net annual fiscal impact, the cumulative impact for the five year build-out period, and the annual net impact following build-out, for each affected entity: YEAR CITY COUNTY FIRE LIBRARY 1992 1, 210, 862 383 , 068 77, 357 46, 325 1993 1, 980, 557 577, 075 87, 089 61, 009 1994 2 , 239 , 787 771, 192 96, 860 75, 712 1995 2 , 414 , 720 965, 389 106, 660 90, 428 1996 2 , 505, 355 1, 159, 667 116, 489 105, 158 CUMULATIVE 10, 351, 282 3 , 856, 391 484 , 454 378 , 631 ANNUALLY THEREAFTER 2 , 582 , 065 1, 159, 667 116, 489 105, 158 Page 1 - DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION AREA The proposed annexation encompasses approximately 405 acres located near the intersection of Monterey Avenue and Dinah Shore Drive, adjacent to the North Sphere area of the City of Palm Desert. It is defined as portions of Sections 19, 20, and 29 in T4S R6E, as shown in the following map. The following parcels are included in the annexation area: PARCEL 1 Parcel consists of approximately 80 acres with a prezoning of PCD (Planned Community Development). The parcel is unimproved, and there is no development plan in process at this time. It is assumed the project will ultimately be developed at 22% coverage, with 75% retail use and 25% office use. This is consistent with similar projects in the City of Palm Desert developed under the same zoning. PARCEI- 2 The total size of Parcel 2 is approximately 118 acres, however, 75 acres within this parcel are not part of the annexation process. Therefore, this report takes into account only the 43 acre portion of Parcel 2 which is part of the annexation application. Zoning is PC(3) (Regional Commercial). The parcel is partially developed, presently containing Price Club, Home Club, Casual Dinettes, Computer Outlet, Cal Spas, Petsmart, Bubba Bear, and Taco Bell. Additional space remains under the development plan. PARCEL 3 Parcel 3 consists of approximately 13 acres zoned PC(3). It is undeveloped, and there is not a development plan in process at this time. Coverage of 22% has been projected, with 75% retail use and 25% office use. PARCEL 4 Parcel 4 consists of approximately 68 acres zoned PC(3). It is undeveloped, and does not have a development plan in process. Coverage of 22% has been projected, with 75% retail use and 25% office use. - Page 2 - PARCEL 5 Parcel contains approximately 20 acres zoned SI (Service Industrial). It is not developed, and does not have a development plan in process at this time. Coverage of 33% has been projected, with 75% warehouse use and 25% office use. This is consistent with completed projects in the City of Palm Desert under the same zoning. PARCEL6 Parcel consists of approximately 101 acres zoned SI. It is undeveloped with no development plan in process at this time. Coverage of 33% has been projected, with 75%warehouse use and 25% office use. PARCEL ? Parcel 7 contains approximately 80 acres zoned SI. It is undeveloped, and there is no development plan pending at this time. Coverage of 33% has been projected, with 75% warehouse use and 25% office use. Page 3 - P.C I 3 c , I o P.C. 3 Omah Shore Or. I . P:C. — — i i P.C.D. S.I. j I � I i I I i P.C.—(2): o I I I is irl I az �,✓ I � I u: P.C.—(2). i r: Page 4 - IMPACT ON CITY OF PALM DESERT The financial effect on the City of Palm Desert which would result from the proposed annexation has been analyzed and is presented in the schedules which follow. The schedule titled Summary of Impact on City of Palm Desert shows revenue, cost, and net impact to the City for fiscal years 1992 through 1996. Revenue is summarized in Schedule 1 and detailed in Schedules 1A through 1 D. Cost is summarized in Schedule 2 and detailed in Schedules 2A and 2B. Significant assumptions are presented in the schedules titled Base Data. As shown in these schedules, the net annual impact to the City of Palm Desert is: 1992 $1,210,862 1993 $1,980,557 1994 $2,239,787 1995 $2,414,720 1996 $2,505,355 Cumulative impact for the five year build-out period is projected to be a positive impact of$10,351,282. It is calculated that the net annual impact to the City of Palm Desert after the build-out stage will be a positive impact of$2,582,065 per year. PUBLIC REVENUE The revenue which would flow to the City of Palm Desert as a result of this annexation is summarized in Schedule 1, and detailed in Schedules 1A through 1 D. Only those revenues expected to be generated from the area proposed for annexation are included. Property tax revenue, detailed in Schedule 1A, is based on cumulative assessed value. The assessed value is based on land value of $6.50 per square foot, and building cost of$50.00 per square foot. An annual increase in valuation of 2.00% is included pursuant to the reassessment provisions of Proposition 13. In the interest of conservatism, any reassessments which may occur from subsequent sales of property are not included. The revenue factor of 0.0566% is based on the property tax revenue exchange agreement dated September 24, 1981 between the County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert. Retail sales tax revenue is detailed in Schedule 1 B. The factor of $150.00 represents average annual taxable sales per square foot, and is applied to projected square footage of retail use in the annexed area. - Page 5 - Revenues from Other General Fund sources are detailed in Schedule 1 C. The factors utilized for Business License Tax and Franchises are based on projected revenue, per the City of Palm Desert Preliminary Financial Plan for Fiscal year 1991/1992, divided by the square footage of the City of Palm Desert. This factor is then applied to the cumulative square footage in the annexed area. The factors for Property Transfers, License and Permit Fees, and Fees for Services are based on fee schedules utilized by the City, applied to valuation of new construction. Special Revenue Fund revenues are detailed in Schedule 1 D. The portion of Measure A revenue based on population is not included since this annexation does not contemplate any residential development and no increase in population is anticipated. The remaining portion of Measure A revenue, one-half of the 0.5% sales tax, is applied to projected taxable sales in the annexed area. The Drainage Facilities Fees revenue is calculated as $1,000 per acre as property is developed, the Prop A Fire Tax revenue is calculated as $230.00 per new structure, and the New Construction Tax revenue is calculated as $0.40 per square foot of new construction. PUBLIC COST The cost to the City of Palm Desert which would result from the proposed annexation is summarized in Schedule 2, and detailed in Schedules 2A and 2B. Only those costs directly attributable to the annexed area are included. General Fund expenditures are detailed in Schedule 2A. The factors were calculated by dividing projected expenditures, contained in the City of Palm Desert Preliminary Financial Plan for the Fiscal Year 1991/1992, by the square footage of the City. These factors were then applied to the cumulative square footage projected for the annexed area to calculate General Government, Police, and Public Works expenditures. The factor was applied to incremental square footage in the case of Building and Safety expenditures. Page 6 - CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE 4.5 4 3.5 3 0 2.5 2 1.5 gal 0.5 0 # 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 IMPACT ON CITY OF PALM DESERT ® ANNUAL REVENUE = ANNUAL COST Page 7 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SUMMARY OF IMPACT ON CITY OF PALM DESERT 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL PUBLIC REVENUE-SCHEDULE 1 1,345,071 2,359,337 2,947,461 3,535,613 4,123,791 14,311,273 PUBLIC COST-SCHEDULE 2 134,210 244,570 328,894 413,219 497,543 1,618,435 NET ANNUAL IMPACT 1,210,862 2,114,767 2,618,567 3,122,394 3,626,248 12,692,838 CUMULATIVE IMPACT 1,210,862 3,325,628 5,944,196 9,066,590 12,692,838 Page 8 - CITY OF .PALM DESERT ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE PROPERTY TAX (5.3%) SPECIAL REVENUE (26.7%) SALES TAX (46.1%) OTHER GENERAL FUND (21.9%) PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY- CITY OF PALM DESERT - Page 9 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 1 - PUBLIC REVENUE SUMMARY f 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE-SCHEDULE IA 92,323 121,588 150,890 180,219 209,575 754,596 RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE-SCHEDULE IB 439,869 879,738 1,319,607 1,759,476 2,199,344 6,598,033 OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUES-SCHEDULE IC 416,791 667,186 675,000 682,813 690,627 3,132,418 SPECIAL REVENUE-SCHEDULE ID 396,088 690,825 801,964 913,104 1,024,244 3,826,226 TOTAL REVENUE TO CITY OF PALM DESERT 1,345,071 2,359,337 2,947,461 3,535,613 4,123,791 14,311,273 Page 10 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE I - PROPERTY TAX REVENUE 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 LAND CUMULATIVE AREA (SO FT) 17,641.800 AVERAGE VALUATION RATE $6.50 ------------------ ------------------- ---------------- ------------------- ---- 114,671,700 116,965,134 119,304,437 121,690,525 REASSESSMENT 2,293,434 2,339.303 2,386,089 2,433,811 ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- ------------------- CUMULATIVE ASSESSED LAND VALUE 114,671,700 116,965,134 119,304,437 121,690,525 124,124,336 ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ---------------- STRUCTURES CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE 968,862 1,937,723 2,906,585 3,875,446 4,844,308 ASSESSED VALUATION RATE $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ 48,443,076 96,886,152 145,329,228 193,772,304 242,215,380 REASSESSMENT 968,862 1,957,100 2,945,727 3,934,361 ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- CUMULATIVE ASSESSED STRUCTURE VALU 48,443,076 97,855,014 147,286,328 196,718,031 246,149,741 ------------------ ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- TOTAL CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUE 163,114,776 214,820,148 266,590,765 318,408,556 370,274,077 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE SHARING RATIO 0.0566% 0.0566% 0,0566% 0.0566% 0.0566% ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- NET PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO CITY OF PALM DESERT 92,323 121,588 150,890 180,219 209,575 - Page 11 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 1 B - RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL SPACE 293,246 586,492 879,738 1,172,984 1,466,230 AVERAGE ANNUAL SALES PER SQUARE FOOT $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 TOTAL TAXABLE SALES 43,986,888 87,973,776 131,960,664 175,947,552 219,934,440 SALES TAX RATE ALLOCATED TO CITY OF PALM DESERT 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00 SALES TAX REVENUE TO CITY OF PALM DESERT 439,869 879.738 1,319,607 1,759,476 2,199,344 Page 12 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 1C - OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUES REVENUE REVENUE CATEGORIES FACTOR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 BUSINSESS LICENSE TAX 0.00104 3,670 7.340 11,010 14,680 18,350 FRANCHISES 0.00117 4,144 8,287 12,431 16,574 20,718 PROPERTY TRANSFERS 0.00055 16,724 26.644 26,644 26.644 26,644 LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES 0.00700 212.851 339,102 339.102 339,102 339,102 FEES FOR SERVICES 0.00590 179,403 285,814 285,814 285,614 285.814 TOTAL OTHER GENERAL FUND REVENUES 416.791 667,186 675.000 682,813 690,627 Page 3 1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 1 D - SPECIAL REVENUES REVENUE REVENUE CATEGORIES FACTOR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 MEASURE A 0.00250 109,967 219,934 329,902 439,869 549,836 DRAINAGE FACILITIES FEES 1,000.00 41,690 81,000 81,000 81,000 81.000 PROP A FIRE TAX 230.00 1,173 2,345 3.518 4,691 5,864 NEW CONSTRUCTION TAX 0.40000 243,258 387,545 387,545 387,545 387,545 --------------- --------------- -------------- --------------- ------------------ TOTAL SPECIAL FUND REVENUES 396,088 690,825 801,964 913,104 1,024,244 Page 14 - CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SPECIAL FUND (12.80Y,) p'II�1ilil il��lippi1'IpipppYiiyii'III�II dip\p�pi Oil t GENERAL FUND (87.2%) COST SUMMARY- CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 15 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 2 - PUBLIC COST SUMMARY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL GENERALFUND- SCHEDULE2A 120,396 216,943 287,454 357,964 428,475 1,411,232 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND- SCHEDULE2B 13,814 27,627 41,441 55,254 69,068 207,203 TOTAL COST TO CITY OF PALM DESERT 134,210 244,570 328.894 413,219 497,543 1,618,435 CUMULATIVE IMPACT 134,210 378,780 707,674 1,120,893 1,618,435 Page 16 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 2A - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES PER SO.FT. COST 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 GENERAL GOVT EXPENDITURES (REDUCED BY FOXED COSTS) 0.006955 24,540 49,079 73,619 98,159 122,699 POLICE 0.006412 22.624 45,248 67,872 90.495 113,119 BUILDING&SAFETY NORMALBURDEN 0.002296 7,315 8,101 8,101 8,101 8,101 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD BURDEN 0.070000 42.570 67,820 67,820 67.820 67,820 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 0.002414 8.517 17,035 25,552 34.070 42,587 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 0.004203 14,830 29,659 44,489 59,319 74,148 - TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 120,396 216,943 287.454 357,964 428,475 Page 17 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 2B - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND EXPENDITURES PER SO.FT. EXPENDITURES COST 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 PROPOSITION A 0.002120 7,480 14,960 22,440 29,920 37,401 MEASUREA 0.000503 1,775 3,550 5,324 7,099 8.874 III DRAINAGE FACILITIES 0.001292 4,559 9,117 13,676 18,235 22,793 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND EXPENDITURES 13,814 27,627 41,441 55,254 69,068 Page 18 - IMPACT ON COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE The financial effect on the County of Riverside which would result from the proposed annexation is summarized in Schedule 3, and detailed in Schedules 3A and 3B. The net annual impact is projected as follows: 1992 $ 383,068 1993 $ 577,075 1994 $ 771,192 1995 $ 965,389 1994 $1,159,667 The cumulative impact for the five year build-out period is calculated as a positive impact of $3,856,391. It is projected that following the build-out stage, the net annual impact to the County of Riverside will be a positive impact of$1,159,667 per year. There is an agreement dated February 13, 1992 between the County of Riverside, the City of Palm Desert, and the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency which provides that the Redevelopment Agency will remit to the County Health and Juvenile Services Fund an amount equal to the sales tax collected by the City of Palm Desert from a defined "site." This site is contained within the proposed annexation area. Since it is the Redevelopment Agency which is required to remit funds, the City of Palm Desert itself is not considered to be financially affected by the agreement for the purposes of this fiscal impact report. Further, since the remittance by the Redevelopment Agency is to be made directly into a restricted fund, the County is also considered to be financially unaffected. And finally, since it is expected that the Fund will expend outlays equal to its revenues, the County Health and Juvenile Services Fund is not presented in this report as an affected agency. PUBLIC REVENUE The revenue which would flow to the County of Riverside is presented in schedule 3A. Only specific revenue identified as revenue generated in the proposed annexation area is included. The calculation of property tax revenue is based on cumulative assessed value, using valuations of $6.50 per square foot of land and $50.00 per square foot of structure. Build-out assumptions are presented in the Base Data section of this report. Only the annual2.00% reassessment is included; reassessments from subsequent property transfers are not incorporated in the calculations. The revenue factor of 0.1697% is - Page 19 - based on the property tax revenue exchange agreement between the County of Riverside and the City of Palm Desert dated September 24, 1981. Retail sales tax revenue is based on projected retail sales, as presented earlier in this report in Schedule 1 B. The revenue factor of 0.25% represents the County's share of sales tax collected. PUBLIC COST The administrative cost which the County would incur is based on the variable expenditures which would apply to the annexation area, as projected in the County of Riverside Proposed Budget for the Fiscal Year 1991/1992. This amount is divided by the square footage of Riverside County to arrive at the factor of .001050 per square foot. Page 20 - CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE 1.2 1 0.8 en 0.6 0.4 A 0.2 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 IMPACT ON COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ® ANNUAL REVENUE = ANNUAL COST Page 21 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 3 - IMPACT ON COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL PUBLIC REVENUE- SCHEDULE3A 386,773 584,484 782,306 980,208 1,178,191 3,911,963 PUBLIC COST- SCHEDULE3B 3,705 7,410 11,114 14,819 18,524 55,572 NET ANNUAL IMPACT 383,068 577,075 771,192 965,389 1,159,667 3,856,391 ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ CUMULATIVE IMPACT 383,068 960,143 1,731,335 2,696,724 3,856,391 Page 22 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 3A - REVENUE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE _ -------------------- -------------------- CUMULATIVE ASSESSED VALUE 163,114,776 214,820,148 266,590,765 318,408,556 370,274,077 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE SHARING RATIO 0.1697% 0.1697% 0.1697% 0.1697% 0.1697 NET PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO COUNTY 276,806 364,550 452,405 540,339 628,355 RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE RETAIL SALES GENERATED BY ANNEXED AREA 43,986,888 87,973,776 131,960,664 175,947,552 219,934,440 TAX PAID IN ANNEXED AREA TO COUNTY 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25 TOTAL RETAIL SALES TAX REVENUE TO COUNTY 109,967 219,934 329,902 439,869 549,836 TOTAL REVENUE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 386,773 584,494 782,306 980,208 1,178,191 Page 23 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 3B - COST TO COUNTY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 CUMULATIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE 3,528,360 7,056,720 10,585,080 14,113,440 17,641,800 ADMINISTRATIVE COST PER SQUARE FOOT 0.001050 0.001050 0.001050 0.001050 0.001050 TOTAL COST TO BE INCURRED BY COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3,705 7,410 11,114 14,819 18,524 Page 24 - IMPACT ON OTHER AGENCIES The fiscal impact on other agencies which would be financially affected by the proposed annexation has been analyzed, and is presented in Schedule 4. Other agencies considered to be affected are the Structural Fire Protection Agency and the County Free Library Agency. STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY The net annual impact on the Structural Fire Protection Agency is projected as follows: 1992 $ 77,357 1993 $ 87,089 1994 $ 96,860 1995 $106,660 1996 $116,489 The cumulative impact for the five year build-out period is projected to be a total positive impact of $484,454. Thereafter, the annual impact to the Structural Fire Protection Agency is calculated to be a net positive impact of$116,489 per year. The revenue factor utilized is representative of those in the immediate tax rate areas. The cost factor is calculated on a per square foot basis. COUNTY FREE LIBRARY AGENCY The net annual impact on the County Free Library is projected as follows: 1992 $ 46,325 1993 $ 61,009 1994 $ 75,712 1995 $ 90,428 1996 $105,158 The cumulative impact for the five year build-out period is projected to be a total positive impact of $378,631, Thereafter, the annual impact to the County Free Library Agency is calculated to be a net positive impact of$105,158 per year. The revenue factor utilized is representative of those in the immediate tax rate areas. It should be noted that the County Free Library is not expected to incur additional costs Page 25 - because the proposed annexation is not expected to result in an increase in population. Page 26 - CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION -MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE 250 200 p„ N 150 A 0 100 4 50 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION ® ANNUAL REVENUE = ANNUAL COST CITY OF PALM DESERT ANNEXATION -MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE 120 100 iliipl0 ppppiii 0 y 80 co c 0 60 o �, I= 40 20 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 COUNTY FREE LIBRARY ® ANNUAL REVENUE Page 27 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE SCHEDULE 4 - IMPACT ON OTHER AGENCIES STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION FACTOR 1992 1993 1994 1995 _ 1996 TOTAL REVENUE,BASED ON ASSESSED VALUE 0.000607 99,011 130,396 161,821 193,274 224,756 809,257 COST, BASED ON PER SQUARE FOOT 0.006137 21,654 43,307 64,961 86,614 108,268 324,803 NET ANNUAL IMPACT 77,357 87,089 96,860 106,660 116,489 484,454 ____ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ CUMULATIVE IMPACT T7,357 164,446 261,306 367,966 464,454 -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- COUNTY FREE LIBRARY FACTOR 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL ------------ ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- ------ -------- ------------ ----- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- REVENUE,BASED ON ASSESSED VALUE 0.000284 46,325 61,009' 75,712 90,428 105,158 378,631 NET ANNUAL IMPACT 46,325 61,009 75,712 90,428 105,158 378,631 CUMULATIVE IMPACT -_ 46,325 _ 107,334 183,045 273,473 378,631 Page 28 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE BASE DATA LAND IMPROVED YEARLY 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTALACREAGE ANNEXED 405 SQUAREFOOT PER ACRE - 43,560 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGEANNEXED 17,641,800 3,528,360 3,528,360 3,528,360 3,528,360 3,528,360 ________ ________ CUMULATNETOTAL ANNEXED - 3,528,360 7,056,720 10,585,080 14,113,440 17,641,800 PARCEL SIZEi AND COVERAG PARCELI PARCEL2 PARCEL3 PARCEL4 'PARCELS PARCEL6 PARCEL? ACREAGE 80 43 13 68 20 101 80 COVERAGE 22% 22% 22% 22% 33% 33% 33% WAREHOUSE - - - - 75% 75% 75% RETAIL 75% 75% 75% 75% - - - OFFICE 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% - Page 29 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE BASE DATA 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL CUMULATIVE RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE - PARCEL 1 114,998 114,998 114,998 114,998 114,998 574,992 PARCEL2 61,812 61,812 61,812 61,812 61,812 309,058 PARCEL 3 18,687 18,687 18,687 18,687 18,687 93,436 PARCEL 4 97,749 97,749 97,749 97,749 97,749 488,743 INCREMENTAL TOTAL 293,246 293,246 293,246 293,246 293,246 1,466,230 CUMULATIVE TOTAL 293,246 586,492 879,738 1,172,984 1,466,230 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL CUMULATIVE OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE PARCEL 1 38,333 38,333 38,333 38,333 38,333 191,664 PARCEL2 20,604 20,604 20.604 20,604 20,604 103,019 PARCEL3 6,229 6,229 6,229 6,229 6,229 31,145 PARCEL 4 32,583 32,583 32,583 32,583 32,583 162,914 PARCELS 14,375 14,375 14,375 14,375 14,375 71,874 PARCEL6 72,593 72,593 72,593 72,593 72,593 362,964 PARCEL 7 57,499 57,499 57,499 57,499 57,499 287,49E INCREMENTALTOTAL 242,215 242,215 242,215 242,215 242,215 1,211,077 CUMULATIVETOTAL 242,215 484,431 726,646 968,862 1,211,077 Page 30 - CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED ANNEXATION - MONTEREY AND DINAH SHORE BASE DATA 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL CUMULATIVE WAREHOUSE SOUAREFOOTAGE PARCEL5 43,124 43,124 43,124 43,124 43,124 215,622 PARCEL6 217,778 217,778 217,778 217,778 217,778 1,088,891 PARCEL 7 172,498 172,498 172,498 172,498 172,498 862,468 INCREMENTALTOTAL 433,400 433,400 433,400 433,400 433,400 2,167,001 CUMULATIVE TOTAL 433,400 866,800 1,300,201 1,733,601 2,167,001 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 TOTAL EXISTING STRUCTURES 360,716 NEW CONSTRUCTION 608,146 ANNUAL INCREMENT 968,862 968,862 968,862 968,862 968,862 4,844,308 CUMULATIVE TOTALS 968,862 1,937,723 2,906,585 3,875,446 4,844,308 Page 31 - pd I ad2010199 pru city PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2DISJ ccP) R E'C E!V E`D Proof of Publication of: 03759 '921*h6cJ2ferf "y7-j•, Filing Stump MY OF PALM DESERT CITY CLERK'S CAF1 j ;E ORDINANCE NO. 683 i ORDINANCE NO. 683 t AN ORDINANCE OF THE CRY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 107,THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY A NEATIVE DECLARATIONPPROVING OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF ' INTERSTATE 10, -EAST AND WEST OF UE,FOR E PURPOSE OF FACIMLrr�A NG ANN[-XATIONOFTHEAREATO' . THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SAID AREA'. BE INOPAHTSOF SECTION519 20AND29 T4.S n sap ' The Gb Countll of the Clty'ot Palm Desert.CalBamle, - DOES HEREBY ,'>10N 1; That a Dam^ a OrdlnerlCe No.°107 Mfew Zoning tlMng 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ord the eP(Chapter 36.45 of the Paino exert Aamldpal Code)is hereby emended to read as Shawn on 0wetlatlwd ` Exhibit Br cv TC�: That a Negative Declaration of I - Envtornnemtal impact, Exhihit,\A' attached Ilerea. Is hereby Centred. SECTION The dry dark of 0te dry Cif Palm Desert. California. MOY dffected to pudishthlsadlnertoe Nthe Palm Desert Post. a newspaper of gw*r l circulation,CSTATE OF CALIFORNIA, published, and circulated In the City of Palm DeaeR lomlaand shell be in full faceand of ettholy(30)days County of Riverside.I am a cid- effer Its adoption. :' :.-; #,:1. '" tan of the United States and a re- PASSED.APPROVED AND ADOPTED INS 28t� of sident of the County aforesaid;I t18 - May. 12, by am following vote,tD wit "- am over the age of eighteen years, AYES: BENSON, CRNES,.SNYDER, KELLY NOES: NONE. +:.: - ' and riot a parry to or interested in ABSENT: WILSON .4!!p: ari.; i:. i.�i= theabove-entitled matter.lam the ABSTAIN: NONE'..', PNcipalclerk of the printer ofthe .. . +ref RICFWRD S. KELLY, Maycr - Desert Post,anewspaperof gen. ATTEST' /er SHEILA R:GOlIGAN, dry dark oral circulation,printed and pub- City of Palm Desert, California fished weekly in the Cityof Palm EXHIBIT a.�._ Dean County of Riverside, and - pursuanttdTttlel4,DNlslon6;Artlate7,Section 15089,of which newspaper has been ad- the Caltlonda Admodstrad"e Code• judged a newspaper of general i.':I»:...:. - NEGATIVE DECLARATION rpc No,,GZ 92 1 .:" circulation by the Superior Court ••ry/pgOJFCT cpoNSOR: of the County of Riverside,State _ city a Perm can. - _ of California, under the date of 73-6t0 Fred Wering DrlM , ,;; ' 10/5,1964.Case Number 83658, Palm ��' CA 92M ` that the notice, of which the an- PNniFCT DECORIPTION^OGATION:Ple2ordn0 of parts Of Sectlom 19,20 and. T4S RSE.the ar"edu01 of hexed is a printed copy (set in Interstate 10eastard westafa orerWAvenueafadlitate type not smaller than nonpareil), annexation of 01e PMPerty -"" has been published in each regu- The Director of the Department Of Community far and entire issue of said news- Deveiopment.City of Patin Desert,Cailfontla,has found that"desedbetl prelectwill not have a signifkemeffecton paper and not in any supplement the en JrMMWL A copy ofr01e initial Study has been thereof on the following daze,to- attached adoymerltthereasonsinsupportcf this finding. wit 6/3 Mitigation measures.If arty.Included In the Prolect a avow potand*significant effects,may also be found meet . all in the year 1992.1 certify rsf RAMON A. DIAZ DATE 62M (or declare)under penalty of per- DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT jury that the foregoing is true and (PUB JUN, 3, 1882) corral Dated at Palm De cn California, this 6/3/92 1vIONtlN � 31dd 'NO17100 OIAvo - - tNOOHOD N3SOVW AONYAtivW . 'Vd0 'NOOHOO OHvmoH rSLlll - ' IdS o3HSI00NIlSfo_,. . .,ri__ Hllm (Sigwd) _ 1 1IVd'VNnVlvO 09LEL IIN3S 3AOO NAISOP 3Hl NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Negative Declaration TO: (Xi Clerk of the Board of Supervisors O Secretary of Resources Countv of Riverside 1416 Ninth St. , Rm. 1311 4080 Lemon Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Riverside. CA 92502 FROM: Citv of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Warina Drive Palm Desert. CA 92260 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the public resources code. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proiect Title/Common Name: North Sphere Prezoning Date of Project Approval : May 28, 1992 State Clearinahouse Number ( IF submitted) : N/A Contact Person: Steve Smith - Associate Planner Project Location: South of Interstate 10 - both sides of Monterey Avenue to Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage city limits Project Description: Prezoning of area to facilitate annexation of area to the City of Palm Desert This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1 . The Project ( )will . (X ) will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An environmental impact report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the environmental impact report may be examined at the above city hall address. X A negative declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the negative declaration may be examined at the above city hall address. 3. Mitigation measures ( ) were, OW were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations ( ) was, (X ) was not, adopted for this project. Signa ure' �� Title Date Received for Filing (Please return date-stamped copy in the enclosed envelope) Attachment l California Department of Fish and Game CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Findino Proiect Title/Location (include county) : City of Palm Desert Prezoning of the City's North Sphere Area/Riverside County Project Description: Prezoning of the city's remaining northern sphere of influence to facilitate annexation of said area to the city Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary) : The subject area is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and is subject to a $600.00 per acre wildlife habitat destruction mitigation fee payable to the National Conservancy. This prezoning and annexation will not impact on the collection of this fee inthat the fee will be collected whether the area is In the City of Palm Desert or remains an incorporated part of Riverside County. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the Project will not Individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711 .2 of the Fish and Game Code. (C lef Planning Offici 1 ) Ramon A. Dian Title: Director of Community Development Lead Agency: City of Palm Desert Plan m Date: May 29, 1992 • I INVENTORY NO. 33922 I• CITY OF PALM DESERT DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 -� Filing Fee , Negative Declaration on North Sphere Prezoning $25 . 00 i i 1 ,I ` I I I PLEASE DETACH BEFORE DEPOSITING t _.,.�� _.`L.F Y r`t 1—T'�' 'i ..--7}..�.Yr`-'s•ti {'t'• �; i S-* ._i -_�_.-.�'-_• �- - _ 1- � .�_ r 1_23`T zM1il 1'7J - r # ECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK - - -. PALM DESERT'OFFICE p0338 -_{ 3N22}, ,TIiE TREASUF EEY OF,TH E�i'r'.i`r: r� ' _ 457245 PORTOLA AVE :. , + b 1220 n-- J f-r' F.} 1 ? J, N.1-t.=.�y t' 1'i - PAL"M DESERT CA 92260 >' r r r CITY OF:PALM DESERT T T t-i-`/&510 FRED WARING ---- r -d PALM DESERT..CA 92261 257f 619346 0611 y 4 A �'. . ♦� i.h'i1 ;vqt[ ' ,+y f i '1:- � 1 ) _ „t♦ ;`Y . . - T -AMOUNT. WILLPAYTOTHEORDER OF_' �111. 1-�'' -rk' i` l DATEI I jCHECK NO Riverside County-i-;r.r ;, , 15/29/92 33922 f t -$25 003- - Clerk oftheBoard„of=Supervisors' 4080.,Lemon StreetlE�cr (�� '''A ,.r's] t' ' ' '- e `- . 1..: ., ` ' j. • -: - Riverside 1Caa`•,92502 nr' mk "t+}A-.. •..[f :.a_Y iit!- i r� ., j1ti sr:fte. �. ! I I L ' 1� ` I t li �1 7 I '' I d�y ✓r tibt >._2-�"'Y. r r<' t .� '4_�t`} _li. � I. �I 4 i.. It•_L. _ 1. +�.�� a.,. � 1 Y .1- }` iR f � _'S,-,L4�J Y f't i -•/Y� ` A i �l-.._ � 1 � a. , - 1 l• �."'M � - 1 - Ckf V e� Y -} ,-•�.w:ri �'� f' �..v ,'-r= .rlj -�'.,$, _ t _ .i! r •.'> t f Sf „-t'...-_ ram_ _ 1180339 2 28' 1 IS 2 20000 l: 9 11' Z,L, 2 9 60 ;u w1 e wit . K, T �TAIAYC Zu i2 -MR M WILL PAY;TO4HEOA 99E- M WUJAM iiv"ejt's 4,F I 4W77--D-T X: -et cf;6finthe— yG Ri ve skde T,e TFwffc!bi krM L a LAC 06/10/92 BAC M R*IINU- CA ARGELES, CA..9071 06/10192 45187W6 *16 7-77 - ON CT N392Y; , \ - 0 . \ } \ / \/ / / ) \ � & Cq. r) \ \ ° \ / / » \ / \ \ 22 lu � 77 { e Wcr ) S / $ « $ \ I @ m {/\ / 9 ® � 2 ) (D P / \77 � � F: \ �- \\ E � } / \ \ CL /\ \ ( ( \ >,.LA / $ o ƒ V } 0 >, 0 \ \ \ \ ± � 2 { CL 0 0 7 § \� _ C73 \ 2 - 0 WDO \ ORDINANCE NO. 683 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PREZONING THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, EAST AND WEST OF MONTEREY AVENUE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, SAID AREA BEING PARTS OF SECTIONS 19, 29 AND 29, T4S R6E. CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25. 46 . 1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map ( Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code ) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "B. " SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached hereto, is hereby certified. SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 28th day of May, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : BENSON, CRITES, SNYDER, KELLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: WILSON ABSTAIN: NONE / RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City lerk City of Palm Desert, Ca, fornia ORDINANCE NO. 683 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO• C/Z 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E, the area south of Interstate 10 east and west of Monterey Avenue to facilitate annexation of the property to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. I pn X May 28 1992 MON A. DIAE DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 4 I. P.C.(3) e I Dinah Shore Dr. , �u\vrrulur{all?4Y.VIY'.Yarlulw.ltil' -L;,)) -. _ _ _ '.2i�. 2021 l i � ��. E921 t3 :< � cl i �1 f \1 i Z \ � rl'r � L� / w •�' II YI 1 1 \ 1 r •.'9 � ( R S.I. s\ • , t� it j P.C.D. i ..........«r•,,,.•.n•.. \ r:mr......... 0 1 P.t 1-5 1 IQ a-] 32 I 1tl IIP. wry CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/z 92-.1 CITY COUNCIL o o ORDINANCE NO. 683 Date May 28 , 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92-49 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 30 I RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, that WHEREAS, the City of Palm Desert desires to initiate proceedings Pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, Division 3. commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for annexation; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is uninhabited and a description for the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and WHEREAS. this proposal is consistent with the sphere of Influence of the City of Palm Desert; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has not aiven to each interested and each subject agency; and WHEREAS. notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been advertised In the Desert Post, May 6, 1992; and WHEREAS, the reason for this proposed annexation is as follows: I . The proposed territory to be annexed is part of the city's sphere of influence and is adjacent to the City of Palm Desert and . therefore represents a logical expansion of the city's boundary. NOW THEREFORE, this Resolution of application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is hereby requested to take Proceedinas for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit "A". according to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner Provided by the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985. a RESOLUTION NO. 92-49 PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of Ma 1992 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, SNYDER, KELLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: WILSON ABSTAIN: NONE RICH RD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Cites Clerk City of Palm Desert, Wifornia 2 y I 1 _ lM]Wf4(Y'iYIY'`YIY1W(YIY'(Y11'f y- _ AdIlk R-,kk� ////A ....-___ CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 92-49 Date May 28 , 1992 Q1EKLmj 0 0 7 A CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1 . TO: honorable Mayor and City Council I[. REQUEST: Annexation No. 30. Area south of Interstate 10, east and west of Monterey Avenue. Notice of intent to adopt a resolution requesting LAFCO to take proceedings. Ill . APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL ACTION'DENiED IV. CASE NO. : Annexation No.A�ROVED _— OTHER RECEIVED_______ V. DATE: May 28. 1992 r MEE DATE `- 1 t r , c 1i•�4 VI . CONTENTS: AYES: C- NOES: A. Staff Recommendation ABSENT:Lv`=_ CN� - B. Discussion ABSTAIN:_ C. Draft Resolution VERI JEDoriginal •on File F c� h Ci ty Clerk' s Office A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 92-49 DISCUSSION: Attached is a resolution requesting LAFCO to take proceedings for the annexation of approximately 489 acres in Sections 19. 20 and 29 T4S R6E. The prezoning of this area was given first reading by council at the meeting of May 1$. 1992. Notice of intent to adopt this resolution was placed in the Desert Post Mav 6. 1992. Therefore city council should hold a public hearing to receive any public input. i Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:, SS/db A CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER 1. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council 11. REOUEST: Consideration of approval of a negative declaration and prezoning of parts of Sections 19. 20 and 29 T4S R6E. the area south of Interstate 10. east and west of M'onterev Avenue. PC(3) (Regional Commercial ) . Si (SerV-�'a Industrial ) and PCD (Planned Community Development) . to facilitate the annexation of the area to the city. COUNCIL .ACTION: III. APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT :APP7'ZOVED ✓ DENIED IV. CASE NO. : C/Z 92-1 RECEIVED-- OTHERDATE V. DATE: May 14. 1992 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion U � C. Draft Ordinance No. 683 0. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. C/Z 92-1 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1564 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 21. 1992 and March 17. 1992 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 683 tq second reading. B. DISCUSSION: The proposal is to prezone the remaining area of the city's north sphere area. Following the prezoning the city will be in a position to complete the application to LAFCO to annex the area (some 489 acres) to the city. The area was designated by the city in the north sphere specific plan for service industrial and commercial uses. The proposed prezoning is consistent with these designations. As well , the proposed prezoning is similar to the existing county land use designations. ORDINANCE NO. 683 TRANSMITTAL LETTER CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 MAY 14. 1992 For the most Part the property owners in the area desire to be annexed to the city and feel the proposed zonings are acceptable. However. the planning commission heard lengthy testimony that the timing of the Prezoning and annexation application could negatively impact on the applications which they have Pending In the County and the Community Facilities District which has been created. -Representatives of _P,zho Mirage Industrial Park (owners of 169 acres) -_ have filed a letter challenging the adequacy of the negative declaration of environmental impact. They felt that a full environmental impact report should be Prepared. Staff's Position is that the area has been placed under very close CEQA scrutiny over the past few years with the review by the county prior to adoption of the county general plan, the E. I .R. which was done for Price Club. the E. I .R. done for Rancho Mirage Industrial Park (two (2) times) . the Rancho Mirage E. I .R. for its Monterey Specific Plan and the Palm Desert North Sphere Specific Plan. It is felt that given this level of CEQA analysis and the very close similarities between the existing county zoning and the zoning proposed by the city that a negative declaration of environmental impact is adequate. The argument that the preparation of an E. I .R. at this time could avoid a legal challenge at a later time may or may not be true considering the Altamira project where two (2) E.I .R.'s have been prepared yet the litigation continues. Prepared by�--� tt 4 Reviewed an ove by SS/db 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. - PUBLIC HEARINGSt A. Continued Case No. RV 91-5 - MR. ROBERT BARBOZA, Applicant Request for approval to park a recreational vehicle and a trailer in the front yard area at 74-691 Candlewood Street. Mr. Diaz indicated that this item had been continued from the last meeting. He stated that he met with Mr. Barboza and he had drawn up. one plan and was working on another alternative. He said that Mr. Barboza was requesting an additional two weeks. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing RV 91-5 to May 5, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 5-0. B. Continued Case No. C/Z 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to PC(3 ) (regional commercial ) , SI ( service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto. Mr. Smith stated that this item was continued from March 17. He noted that a letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen (see attached 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 exhibit A) was received, representing the Rancho Mirage Industrial Property, which was part of the proposed annexation area. He outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended that the city proceed with the annexation with a negative declaration of environmental impact. Mr. Diaz indicated that he met with representatives of the McLeod/Couch Development and they wished to be on the record as adopting the comments raised by Ms. Ludvigsen with regard to the environmental process. Staff' s position was that this area had several environmental impact reports done on it in the past and based on those reports and the mitigation measures and fees imposed, plus the fact that any project would have to go through the environmental review process, staff felt a negative declaration of environmental impact was sufficient at this time. Commissioner Spiegel noted that in that letter the public review period should .not be less than 30 days. Mr. Smith stated that staff's position was only a recommendation and if commission proceeds with approval to city council, the first council reading would be May 14 and second reading May 28, both of which were public hearing items. Mr. Diaz noted that the item had been continued one month and they were aware of that. Mr. Diaz clarified that certain developers had done environmental impact reports on their own projects and when those projects come through, they would have to go through the environmental review process individually, but the county had not done an environmental impact report on that whole area. Mr. Smith noted that the county did a Western Coachella Valley Plan when they adopted their general plan. It was noted that Rancho Mirage Industrial Park was doing an EIR on their own parcel. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was concerned about traffic impacts and air quality which could not be mitigated. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was concerned about the environmental impacts of any project, but staff' s position at this time was that the prezoning annexation did not build a project. At this point staff was saying that each project would be looked at individually when submitted. Commissioner Downs asked if the EIR for the north sphere by WRT would carry over for preannexation purposes. Mr. Diaz replied yes, that it would at this time. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MR. TOM DODSON, representing four parties who own propert��wwithin the annexation area (Steve Ordner, Gale __Messick_ , R, ien International, Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) as an environmental consultant. He informed commission that all parties do not oppose being ultimately annexed into the city. . He stated that the problem was the timing of the action. He indicated that he had been involved in the project site since 1982, when he helped conduct the original biological survey for the fringe-toed lizard. The EIR for the designation on the property was to change it from the general designation/ holding zone to an industrial designation. He stated that four years later the applicant requested a general plan amendment to have a general plan designation on the western portion abutting Monterey Avenue designated as commercial. At that time the project made a substantial contribution to the existing Monterey overpass. In the decision the county made, they indicated they wanted the project to come back through with an environmental impact report for a zone change and tract map to implement the commercial designation. He informed commission that they went to court with the City of Rancho Mirage on the Goleta Decision which determined that alternative sites were required. He said that later the decision was amended. Mr. Dodson indicated that in Riverside County there was a community facilities district that would generate a substantial amount of dollars and this project on its own would contribute more than $1.2 million to the new overpass at Monterey and the freeway. He said there were additional facilities this district would fund and it would include more than just the project site for Rancho Mirage Industrial Park. He indicated they had been working with the county for the last eight years to get the project built in a legal interaction with the City of Rancho Mirage and preparation of an environmental document. He requested that a recommendation be made to the city council that they reject the prezone at this time or continue the project until resolution with Riverside County. He again stated that there was no ultimate opposition to the annexation to the city, but under the current circumstances they would have to oppose it. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 Mr. Diaz stated that was a decision the council could make and just because the property was prezoned, it did not prevent the county from making a decision. He said that Palm Desert' s policy had always been that they would implement or approve and accept the approvals of the county. He did not see a problem unless, the county refused to make a decision. Mr. Dodson indicated that he does all the LAFCO environmental consulting for the County of San Bernardino and had worked with the Riverside LAFCO. The standard process they utilize was that when looking at a prezone, it had to be reviewed as an actual zoning action, because as soon as the property is annexed, it would come in under the zone created. The difficulty in this circumstance was that when there was a specific project in process and the action was associated with those, there was a general tenant in CEQA that the specific project be evaluated with the understanding that the action would allow the use. to occur. They wished to develop 123 acres of commercial and 50-60 acres of industrial development. He said there was a specific tract and for the city to be establishing a zone to facilitate that use created a situation that if CEQA was approved on the prezone, his attorney advised them that would be a flawed decision. To prevent that flawed decision from going to litigation later should the City of Rancho Mirage choose to do so, they have litigated them twice already, then they would be in a posture with a flawed decision of going back to the beginning. They didn't want that to happen. He felt the key issues were air quality and traffic. The traffic impacts associated with this project and accumulative projects in the area estimate 75, 000-80,000 trips per day along Monterey Avenue. Monterey was designed to be a six lane traffic corridor. That would not be sufficient to handle the ultimate traffic being projected in that location. The mitigation measures discussed with the county could alleviate some of that, but some of those were offsite impacts cumulative in nature. This project could not pick up the cost for all of those costs for offsites. He stated that was the purpose of the TUMF fee. He indicated that they could not guarantee that the TUMF fee would fund the traffic improvements needed at the same rate the development might proceed. Regarding air quality, with that many traffic trips per day would a lot of emissions would be created. He said that they exceed 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in its handbook for environmental impact reports. Based upon the fact that they exceed those thresholds, they concluded there would be a significant adverse impact on air quality (just from the 173 acres of the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) and the whole area 400 acres, some of which was developed._ He stated that they don' t oppose the designation, they don't oppose being in the city, but do oppose the city making a flawed decision in a manner that would effect the timeliness of their working with the county and causing them to lose all they had worked for up to this point because of the negotiations. He requested a denial or continuance until they reached closure with the county. Commissioner Downs asked when closure was expected. Mr. Dodson stated that he did not know and had been in this process for almost ten years now. They had incorporated every mitigation measure requested, gone far above what most people have made commitments to and they had questions as to what could be done for air quality. He indicated they would go back to hearing in May and hoped they had resolved those issues. He wanted to see them through the process into June and through the statute of limitations in July and finish in Riverside County. He stated that the facilities district in the county would benefit this area tremendously. Mr. Diaz stated that the city did not know when or if the decision would be made by the county; they did not know if those decisions made would be challenged by the City of Rancho Mirage, but he did know there had been agreements with the county concerning Price Club and Home Base and developments that had already taken place to bring them into the city. To wait and see if the county made a decision in May that might be appealed with mitigation measures they would have to do anyway, and to be asked to delay the annexation based on what may happen he felt was wrong. He recommended the city proceed with the annexation and the zoning as covered by the EIR and noted that Palm Desert had responded to those issues and was on the record as an interested party. Mr. Dodson stated that if this action harmed their ability to get the project approved through the county, 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 they were then in a place where they might have to challenge the CEQA decision made by Palm Desert because they did not want a flawed decision that would cause them a problem in the future. He said a favorable decision would force them into a confrontational mode, which they did not, want to do. He requested that this be _.considered. Mr. Diaz responded that a property owner was not forced to do anything, it was a choice they had to make. Commissioner Richards asked the reason for the timeliness of this action. Mr. Diaz replied the financial agreements executed with the county with regards to the future county facilities from revenues raised by the Price Club and Home Base; those agreements had times running. Also, development in that area continued and the city needed to get control and the litigation between the cities and different property owners had already created some obligations that Palm Desert might not agree 100% with, but would have to accept. If that area was ready for development, the city should be controlling it now. He reminded commission that in the case of Sunrise' s Indian Ridge project, with 640 vacant acres and no one opposing annexation, it took nine months from the time it was submitted to LAFCO to complete. Mr. Diaz did not feel there should be a delay now and felt comfortable with proceeding with the negative declaration of environmental impact. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Dodson indicated that their attorneys felt that the city was inviting litigation. He asked if our legal staff had reviewed this and looked at the likelihood of litigation. Mr. Diaz stated that there is a possibility of litigation, but he did not know if they would be successful. He did not feel a decision should be based on whether or not litigation would occur. Mr. Diaz said that staff might recommend an EIR which could be done in 45 days rather than going through litigation, but the choice of whether or not someone decides to litigate is up to them. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Hargreaves to comment on the sequence of events that might or might not happen. Mr. Hargreaves said that this was the first opportunity he had to see the letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen and it would take a good deal of time to research thoroughly all those issues. He also stated that if an action was taken and the CEQA action leading up to that action was flawed, then the action was subject to 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 litigation and court order voiding that action later. On the 9 g other hand, if commission recommends and the council approves it, there was a 30 day notice of determination period. I£ litigation was filed within that period there was a problem. If it was not filed within that period, then the city was past that hurdle. Mr. Diaz reminded commission that after two different EIRs. nd hearings before commission and city council, there was still litigation on the Altamira project. Doing an environmental impact report would not insure no litigation. Mr. Diaz stated that the city had evaluated the project and submitted comments. While Mr. Dodson represented a large amount of acreage, he did not represent a majority of the acreage or the majority of the value involved. MRS. KATRINA HEINRICH STEINBERG, spoke as representative for property owners of 180 gross acres on the north side of Gerald Ford from Monterey. Avenue to Portola, which was one quarter of Section 29. She said they were in the process of getting a tentative map approved on approximately 130 acres of this property on the north side of Gerald Ford and they were going for 291 residential lots for single family homes to be retailed out from between $195,000-$275, 000. She felt if there was an industrial park planned on the north boundary of their property, she needed to know now because they had already spent $1 million in assessments for improvements and $175, 000 to get their map processed to create a high caliber residential project. She did not foresee anyone purchasing a home next to an industrial park. She noted that the topography of her site created views to the south and north. She said that regarding Mr. Dodson' s contribution to the overpass, Mr. Steinberg (the majority owner in this property) had been more responsible than anyone in getting Monterey through to begin with so equally the contribution of other owners should be taken into consideration. She said that the neighbors and their projected developments should be considered. MR. MYRON MCLEOD, owner of 70 acres north of the Steinberg property. He said that he had worked with the city a long time and just found out about the housing project to the south and they currently were working on a buffer around their proposal. He failed to see how the prezone would effect Mr. Dodson' s group. He felt it 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 would strengthen his decision. Mr. McLeod recommended approval and felt that some of the property owners around them had been aware of their project. As to the traffic study, that issue concerned them and part of their proposal would be an in-depth evaluation. Mr. McLeod clarified, that their proposal would include a small _shopping center, light commercial, small shops and a restaurant. He felt this was a good transition between the two properties.. He said that he had a zoning of planned commercial development which did not include residential use. He indicated that he was aware of the service industrial use surrounding his property. He clarified that he had talked to his neighbors about possible traffic patterns, but not specific types of use. He stated that to their north was commercial that the county was working on and all around him was commercial and service industrial. He informed commission that they some plans they showed staff. MRS. MARY STOLTZMAN, 74-055 Highway 111, stated that she was present with Mr. Messick, who was the general partner of Monterey Palms which was the 72 acres on the westerly side of Portola. She said that the service industrial prezone was acceptable to him and was currently general planned that way in the county since 1988. She did not feel this should be a surprise to Katrina Heinrich on her 130 acre project to the south. She said they were in favor of the service industrial zoning, but Mr. Messick was in the community facilities district and shared the same concerns with Mr. Dodson on that. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for comments. Commissioner Downs stated that he was ready to move approval and forward this to council. Commissioner Richards noted that there had been a study group for the north sphere area and indicated that the uses being proposed were always intended that way. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned about some of the issues raised, particularly the traffic and air quality problems, but was persuaded by staff that this was not the time to deal with those. He said that eventually the city would deal with these problems, but right now it was just 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 prezoning for annexation purposes. He stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal. Commissioner Richards concurred with staff. _ Action _%— Moved,_ by _ Commiis,�sioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner _ Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1564, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-1. Carried 5- 0. C. Continued Case No. CUP 92-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and certification of the draft environmental impact report. pertaining thereto, for construction of civic center ballfields and corporate yard on the northerly vacant third of 72 acres acquired by Palm Desert for development of a civic center park. The project involves the development of four lighted ballfields, a corporate yard, concession stand, restrooms, parking, and other recreation facilities. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was recommending a continuance to May 5 and was presently working on plans; David Evans had done some drawings and staff was doing some drawings. He said they would be taking the plans to the Civic Center Steering Committee on Friday, April 24. He indicated that he had met with Monterey Country Club representatives and their attorney and representatives from the Vineyards area. He said that the new plan would try to relieve the concerns that were raised at that time with regards to parking, usage and noise. He noted that the plans would not have the corporate yard on them. Commissioner Richards felt that all the major obstacles had been resolved. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15.64 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PREZONING PARTS OF SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29 T4S R6E PC(3 ) ( REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) , SI (SERVICE INDUS'PRIAL ) AND PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) TO FACILITATE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z ' 92-1 1 -� WHEREAS,__the Plan—rxing Commission of the .City of Palm Desert, California, did on -the 17th day of March, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to city council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and prezoning parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate the annexation of the property to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director Of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said prezone and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact: 1. The proposed prezoning to PCD, PC(3 ) and SI is consistent with the North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3 . The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, ' restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 92-1 Exhibit "B" on file in the department of community development are hereby recommend to the city council for approval . PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1564 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, JONATHAN, RICHARDS, SPIEGEL, WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: -- NONE ABSTAIN: NONE Q CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTE� RAM N A. D AZ, 36Vary SRS/tm 2 1 5 f PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1564 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO• Cj.Z 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have i significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study ias been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Aitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. April 21 1992 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUN TY DEVELOPMENT 3 AC COMW 0 pmkD DEC 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 Villas at THousand Palms Rancho Mirage CA 92270 -E3 gy P F 0 T',! FILE P HFI L III!,1111111111H...111 Hill still 1111111411 IL1114L 'JH Always In Season . 1 JN (4'0•• j• . r r+fir••r - f � a U pAf9f•� a 2' - i P.C.(3) P•C.-o)i 3 7-Dinah Shore Dr. o ••" 0 z 2r ..__.-=411Vt•Y11VIJi iti411V1Si11Ylti ll'.+...-�.•... ,-- _ 1 aLxc Ia A"i c c,r uun 3G�:r :'Ai ' •,.'7r. Y� 29116 of � \ '" �'':.•�r.L•;,'�,:a'r .,r.: ,,. i.>. �'?� \ � \ \,\. :� .� { 11 Y ) ). • �. i _ \ y �, `\ �tier uj r p I ,� ''r_ r 'a:���,�\;: },.• I 0• \ J.I. 1. - ;';S' ,l\�• S.I. :ri,.. DO Ii O P.C.D. S.I. �I 1 i ' .......................:i............Fvva•2x any RlvE ...... . Yiftl PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT Ji I JI 1 LL 1 ' P.C.—(2): P. 1 I � r 1 ■ rt 31 1 32 132 I , I a —I I �I4�u�i141W�4\YVY�4"Y,NI•�Jf .•.E1;�. S � \• /////////////////A rn I : CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. �/ M A Date 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 April 22, 1992 RFCF1xiED CITY OF PALM DESERT 1 1992 LEGAL NOTICE JUN CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 WMMUNIC fU ENT of PALM USER' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider prezoning the property south of Interstate 10, on both sides of Monterey Avenue as more particularly delineated on the map below for the purpose of facilitating annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. 1_ P.C,(3) P.C.(3) , .... . ...I.. ..M1++9W1KI wLill A• to li rt�N '.n m \ e• \07 'XT $ �$ d \ F i , . `��}7 � (�.� S.I. � S.L.. •�\ 1 J... noi P.C.D. S.I. _i1 Y J, —1 s �" ¢. .......................................r���.�i.l:.nc.91 s:ler............. vVu WW 1 ....„.... .C� W Z A. P.C.— . P.I m 0o qC Jv i �IIP.c.-cz>i SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday? Ma— 14, r9'92_, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted , up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8 :00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the city council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: De sert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk April 29 , 1992 City of Palm Desert, California G i } 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA92260.2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: April 23, 1992 City of Palm Desert Re: C/Z 92-1 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 21, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF C/Z 92-1 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1564. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15 ) days of the date of the decision. RA Mv�DIA &MMISSION Y PALM DESERT PLA RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1564 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PREZONING PARTS OF SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29 T4S R6E PC(3 ) (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) , SI ( SERVICE INDUSTRIAL) AND PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) TO FACILITATE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of March, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to city council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and prezoning parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate the annexation of the property to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said prezone and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact: 1 . The proposed prezoning to PCD, PC(3) and SI is consistent with the North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 92-1 Exhibit "B" on file in the department of community development are hereby recommend to the city council for approval. i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1564 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of 21st day of April, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: DOWNS, JONATHAN, RICHARDS, SPIEGEL, WHITLOCK NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATT5SfP) ' RAM N A. ec ary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1564 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: CZ 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have i significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study ias been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Aitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. April 21 1992 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUN Ty DEVELOPMENT 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case No. RV 91-5 - MR. ROBERT BARBOZA, Applicant Request for approval to park a recreational vehicle and a trailer in the front yard area at 74-691 Candlewood Street. Mr. Diaz indicated that this item had been continued from the last meeting. He stated that he met with Mr. Barboza and he had drawn up one plan and was working on another alternative. He said that Mr. Barboza was requesting an additional two weeks. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, continuing RV 91-5 to May 5, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 55-�-0. ('8. ) Continued Case No. C/Z 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to PC(3 ) (regional commercial ) , SI (service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto. Mr. Smith stated that this item was continued from March 17. He noted that a letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen (see attached 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 exhibit A) was received, representing the Rancho Mirage Industrial Property, which was part of the proposed annexation area. He outlined the salient points of the staff report and recommended that the city proceed with the annexation with a negative declaration of environmental impact. Mr. Diaz indicated that he met with representatives of the McLeod/Couch Development and they wished to be on the record as adopting the comments raised by Ms. Ludvigsen with regard to the environmental process. Staff ' s position was that this area had several environmental impact reports done on it in the past and based on those reports and the mitigation measures and fees imposed, plus the fact that any project would have to go through the environmental review process, staff felt a negative declaration of environmental impact was sufficient at this time. Commissioner Spiegel noted that in that letter the public review period should not be less than 30 days. Mr. Smith stated that staff' s position was only a recommendation and if commission proceeds with approval to city council, the first council reading would be May 14 and second reading May 28, both of which were public hearing items. Mr. Diaz noted that the item had been continued one month and they were aware of that. Mr. Diaz clarified that certain developers had done environmental impact reports on their own projects and when those projects come through, they would have to go through the environmental review process individually, but the county had not done an environmental impact report on that whole area. Mr. Smith noted that the county did a Western Coachella Valley Plan when they adopted their general plan. It was noted that Rancho Mirage Industrial Park was doing an EIR on their own parcel. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was concerned about traffic impacts and air quality which could not be mitigated. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was concerned about the environmental impacts of any project, but staff' s position at this time was that the prezoning annexation did not build a project. At this point staff was saying that each project would be looked at individually when submitted. Commissioner Downs asked if the EIR for the north sphere by WRT would carry over for preannexation purposes. Mr. Diaz replied yes, that it would at this time. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this project. MR. TOM DODSON, representing four parties who own property within the annexation area (Steve Ordner, Gale Messick, Reuyen International, Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) as an environmental consultant. He informed commission that all parties do not oppose being ultimately annexed into the city. He stated that the problem was the timing of the action. He indicated that he had been involved in the project site since 1982, when he helped conduct the original biological survey for the fringe-toed lizard. The EIR for the designation on the property was to change it from the general designation/ holding zone to an industrial designation. He stated that four years later the applicant requested a general plan amendment to have a general plan designation on the western portion abutting Monterey Avenue designated as commercial . At that time the project made a substantial contribution to the existing Monterey overpass. In the decision the county made, they indicated they wanted the project to come back through with an environmental impact report for a zone change and tract map to implement the commercial designation. He informed commission that they went to court with the City of Rancho Mirage on the Goleta Decision which determined that alternative sites were required. He said that later the decision was amended. Mr. Dodson indicated that in Riverside County there was a community facilities district that would generate a substantial amount of dollars and this project on its own would contribute more than $1 . 2 million to the new overpass at Monterey and the freeway. He said there were additional facilities this district would fund and it would include more than just the project site for Rancho Mirage Industrial Park. He indicated they had been working with the county for the last eight years to get the project built in a legal interaction with the City of Rancho Mirage and preparation of an environmental document. He requested that a recommendation be made to the city council that they reject the prezone at this time or continue the project until resolution with Riverside County. He again stated that there was no ultimate opposition to the annexation to the city, but under the current circumstances they would have to oppose it. 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 Mr. Diaz stated that was a decision the council could make and just because the property was prezoned, it did not prevent the county from making a decision. He said that Palm Desert's policy had always been that they would implement or approve and accept the approvals of the county. He did not see a problem unless the county refused to make a decision. Mr. Dodson indicated that he does all the LAFCO environmental consulting for the County of San Bernardino and had worked with the Riverside LAFCO. The standard process they utilize was that when looking at a prezone, it had to be reviewed as an actual zoning action, because as soon as the property is annexed, it would come in under the zone created. The difficulty in this circumstance was that when there was a specific project in process and the action was associated with those, there was a general tenant in CEQA that the specific project be evaluated with the understanding that the action would allow the use to occur. They wished to develop 123 acres of commercial and 50-60 acres of industrial development. He said there was a specific tract and for the city to be establishing a zone to facilitate that use created a situation that if CEQA was approved on the prezone, his attorney advised them that would be a flawed decision. To prevent that flawed decision from going to litigation later should the City of Rancho Mirage choose to do so, they have litigated them twice already, then they would be in a posture with a flawed decision of going back to the beginning. They didn't want that to happen. He felt the key issues were air quality and traffic. The traffic impacts associated with this project and accumulative projects in the area estimate 75, 000-80, 000 trips per day along Monterey Avenue. Monterey was designed to be a six lane traffic corridor. That would not be sufficient to handle the ultimate traffic being projected in that location. The mitigation measures discussed with the county could alleviate some of that, but some of those were offsite impacts cumulative in nature. This project could not pick up the cost for all of those costs for offsites. He stated that was the purpose of the TUMF fee. He indicated that they could not guarantee that the TUMF fee would fund the traffic improvements needed at the same rate the development might proceed. Regarding air quality, with that many traffic trips per day would a lot of emissions would be created. He said that they exceed 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 the thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in its handbook for environmental impact reports. Based upon the fact that they exceed those thresholds, they concluded there would be a significant adverse impact on air quality (just from the 173 acres of the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) and the whole area was 400 acres, some of which was developed. He stated that they don' t oppose the designation, they don't oppose being in the city, but do oppose the city making a flawed decision in a manner that would effect the timeliness of their working with the county and causing them to lose all they had worked for up to this point because of the negotiations. He requested a denial or continuance until they reached closure with the county. Commissioner Downs asked when closure was expected. Mr. Dodson stated that he did not know and had been in this process for almost ten years now. They had incorporated every mitigation measure requested, gone far above what most people have made commitments to and they had questions as to what could be done for air quality. He indicated they would go back to hearing in May and hoped they had resolved those issues. He wanted to see them through the process into June and through the statute of limitations in July and finish in Riverside County. He stated that the facilities district in the county would benefit this area tremendously. Mr. Diaz stated that the city did not know when or if the decision would be made . by the county; they did not know if those decisions made would be challenged by the City of Rancho Mirage, but he did know there had been agreements with the county concerning Price Club and Home Base and developments that had already taken place to bring them into the city. To wait and see if the county made a decision in May that might be appealed with mitigation measures they would have to do anyway, and to be asked to delay the annexation based on what may happen he felt was wrong'. He recommended the city proceed with the annexation and the zoning as covered by the EIR and noted that Palm Desert had responded to those issues and was on the record as an interested party. Mr. Dodson stated that if this action harmed their ability to get the project approved through the county, 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 they were then in a place where they might have to challenge the CEQA decision made by Palm Desert because they did not want a flawed decision that would cause them a problem in the future. He said a favorable decision would force them into a confrontational mode, which they did not want to do. He requested that this be considered. Mr. Diaz responded that a property owner was not forced to do anything, it was a choice they had to make. Commissioner Richards asked the reason for the timeliness of this action. Mr. Diaz replied the financial agreements executed with the county with regards to the future county facilities from revenues raised by the Price Club and Home Base; those agreements had times running. Also, development in that area continued and the city needed to get control and the litigation between the cities and different property owners had already created some obligations that Palm Desert might not agree 100% with, but would have to accept. If that area was ready for development, the city should be controlling it now. He reminded commission that in the case of Sunrise's Indian Ridge project, with 640 vacant acres and no one opposing annexation, it took nine months from the time it was submitted to LAFCO to complete. Mr. Diaz did not feel there should be a delay now and felt comfortable with proceeding with the negative declaration of environmental impact. Commissioner Jonathan noted that Mr. Dodson indicated that their attorneys felt that the city was inviting litigation. He asked if our legal staff had reviewed this and looked at the likelihood of litigation. Mr. Diaz stated that there is a possibility of litigation, but he did not know if they would be successful. He did not feel a decision should be based on whether or not litigation would occur. Mr. Diaz said that staff might recommend an EIR which could be done in 45 days rather than going through litigation, but the choice of whether or not someone decides to litigate is up to them. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Hargreaves to comment on the sequence of events that might or might not happen. Mr. Hargreaves said that this was the first opportunity he had to see the letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen and it would take a good deal of time to research thoroughly all those issues. He also stated that if an action was taken and the CEQA action leading up to that action was flawed, then the action was subject to 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 litigation and court order voiding that action later. On the other hand, if commission recommends and the council approves it, there was a 30 day notice of determination period. If litigation was filed within that period there was a problem. If it was not filed within that period, then the city was past that hurdle. Mr. Diaz reminded commission that after two different EIRs and hearings before commission and city council, there was still litigation on the Altamira project. Doing an environmental impact report would not insure no litigation. Mr. Diaz stated that the city had evaluated the project and submitted comments. While Mr. Dodson represented a large amount of acreage, he did not represent a majority of the acreage or the majority of the value involved. MRS. KATRINA HEINRICH STEINBERG, spoke as representative for property owners of 180 gross acres on the north side of Gerald Ford from Monterey Avenue to Portola, which was one quarter of Section 29 . She said they were in the process of getting a tentative map approved on approximately 130 acres of this property on the north side of Gerald Ford and they were going for 291 residential lots for single family homes to be retailed out from between $195,000-$275,000. She felt if there was an industrial park planned on the north boundary of their property, she needed to know now because they had already spent $1 million in assessments for improvements and $175, 000 to get their map processed to create a high caliber residential project. She did not foresee anyone purchasing a home next to an industrial park. She noted that the topography of her site created views to the south and north. She said that regarding Mr. Dodson' s contribution to the overpass, Mr. Steinberg (the majority owner in this property) had been more responsible than anyone in getting Monterey through to begin with so equally the contribution of other owners should be taken into consideration. She said that the neighbors and their projected developments should be considered. MR. MYRON MCLEOD, owner of 70 acres north of the Steinberg property. He said that he had worked with the city a long time and just found out about the housing project to the south and they currently were working on a buffer around their proposal . He failed to see how the prezone would effect Mr. Dodson' s group. He felt it 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 would strengthen his decision. Mr. McLeod recommended approval and felt that some of the property owners around them had been aware of their project. As to the traffic study, that issue concerned them and part of their proposal would be an in-depth evaluation. Mr. McLeod clarified that their proposal would include a small shopping center, light commercial, small shops and a restaurant. He felt this was a good transition between the two properties. He said that he had a zoning of planned commercial development which did not include residential use. He indicated that he was aware of the service industrial use surrounding his property. He clarified that he had talked to his neighbors about possible traffic patterns, but not specific types of use. He stated that to their north was commercial that the county was working on and all around him was commercial and service industrial . He informed commission that they some plans they showed staff. MRS. MARY STOLTZMAN, 74-055 Highway 111, stated that she was present with Mr. Messick, who was the general partner of Monterey Palms which was the 72 acres on the westerly side of Portola. She said that the service industrial prezone was acceptable to him and was currently general planned that way in the county since 1988. She did not feel this should be a surprise to Katrina Heinrich on her 130 acre project to the south. She said they were in favor of the service industrial zoning, but Mr. Messick was in the community facilities district and shared the same concerns with Mr. Dodson on that. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for comments. Commissioner Downs stated that he was ready to move approval and forward this to council . Commissioner Richards noted that there had been a study group for the north sphere area and indicated that the uses being proposed were always intended that way. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he was concerned about some of the issues raised, particularly the traffic and air quality problems, but was persuaded by staff that this was not the time to deal with those. He said that eventually the city would deal with these problems, but right now it was just 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1992 prezoning for annexation purposes. He stated that he did not have a problem with the proposal . Commissioner Richards concurred with staff. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1564, recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-1. Carried 5- 0. C. Continued Case No. CUP 92-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit and certification of the draft environmental impact report pertaining thereto, for construction of civic center ballfields and corporate yard on the northerly vacant third of 72 acres acquired by Palm Desert for development of a civic center park. The project involves the development of four lighted ballfields, a corporate yard, concession stand, restrooms, parking, and other recreation facilities. Mr. Diaz stated that staff was recommending a continuance to May 5 and was presently working on plans; David Evans had done some drawings and staff was doing some drawings. He said they would be taking the plans to the Civic Center Steering Committee on Friday, April 24. He indicated that he had met with Monterey Country Club representatives and their attorney and representatives from the Vineyards area. He said that the new plan would try to relieve the concerns that were raised at that time with regards to parking, usage and noise. He noted that the plans would not have the corporate yard on them. Commissioner Richards felt that all the major obstacles had been resolved. 10 CITY.OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 21 , 1992 continued from March 17, 1992 CASE NO. : C/Z 92-1 REQUEST: Recommendation for approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E TO PC(3) (regional commercial ) , SI (service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto to permit annexation application to be submitted to LAFCO APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: Since the March 17, 1992 commission meeting, staff and legal counsel have met with, or had telephone conversations with, several property owners/representatives in the area to be prezoned. As well we received, on March 30, 1992, a letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen on behalf of the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park (Mery LeGros) outlining certain deficiencies in our proposed negative declaration. Later in April we received a subsequent letter from the same party exploring the possibility of have the city process their development plan rather than complete processing through the County of Riverside. As of the writing of this report we had not had an opportunity 'to meet with Ms. Ludvigsen but we intend to before Tuesday's planning commission meeting. We will report on same to commission at that time. We have included a copy of the March 17, 1992 staff report. If we have worked out the details with the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park representatives it may be possible for commission to proceed to recommend the prezoning for approval to the City Council . If it is apparent that more time is necessary to work out items with property owners then staff will so advise commission and recommend another continuance to a date certain. Prepared by: x=L—{�= k Reviewed and Approved by SS/db �i CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 21 . 1992 continued from March 17, 1992 CASE NO. : C/Z 92- 1 REOUEST: Recommendation for approval to the city council of the orezoning of carts of Sections 19. 20 and 29 T4S R6E TO PC(3) (regional commercial ) . S1 ( service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains -thereto to permit annexation application to be submitted to LAFCO APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: Since the March 17. 1992 commission meeting, staff and legal counsel have met with, or had telephone conversations with, several property owners/representatives in the area to be prezoned. As well we received. on March 30, 1992, a letter from Cynthia Ludvigsen on behalf of the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park (Mery LeGros) outlining certain defic+encies in our proposed negative declaration. Later in April we received a subseauent letter from the same party exploring the possibility of have the city process their development plan rather than complete processing through the County of Riverside. As of the writing of this report we had not had an opportunity to meet with Ms. Ludvigsen but we intend to before Tuesday's planning commission meeting. We will report on same to commission at that time. We have included a copy of the March 17, 1992 staff report. If we have worked out the details with the Rancho Mirage Industrial Park representatives it may be possible for commission to proceed to recommend the prezoning for approval to the City Council . If it is apparent that more time is necessary to work out items with property owners then staff will so advise commission and recommend another continuance to a date certain. Prepared b- � l ' �_ Reviewed and Approved by SS/db 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT D" 4RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVE ?MENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 17, 1992 CASE NO: C/Z 92-1 REQUEST: Recommendation for approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to PC( 3 ) ( regional commercial ) , SI ( service industrial ) and PCD ( planned community development ) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto to permit annexation application to be submitted to LAFCO. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: The north sphere specific plan and the city' s land use element to the general plan designate the whole of this area as commercial/ industrial . The city is proposing to prezone this area consistent with its general plan designation and subsequently process an annexation application through LAFCO. The whole of the area is within the city' s adopted sphere of influence. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: Railroad and Freeway South: PC( 2 ) and PR-5/Vacant East: PR-5/Vacant West: Future Commercial Rancho Mirage/Vacant B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial/Industrial II . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is to prezone the area PC( 3 ) , SI and PCD. The McCloud/Couch property, 80 acres at the southwest corner of the area, is to be prezoned PCD (planned community development ) which will be consistent with the land use under consideration and is consistent with the general plan. The area north of Dinah Shore and west of Monterey, 118 acres which includes Price Club, will be prezoned PC( 3 ) regional commercial which is the city' s zoning which most closely fits this type of land use. STAFF REPORT c,z 92-1 MARCH 17, 1992 The vacant property at the northeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore ( 13+ acres ) will also be prezoned PC( 3 ) regional commercial . The property fronting on Monterey at the southeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore ( 68 acres owned by Rancho Mirage Industrial Park ) will be zoned PC( 3 ) . This zoning extends east to Market Street approximately 1300 feet east of Monterey. The remainder of the area, 20 acres held by Bernard Debonne located west of the mid section line of Section 29 and 101+ acres east of the Market Street line held by Ruyen International Corp. and Melby Henry TR, will be prezoned SI ( service industrial ) as well as 80 acres + held by Monterey Palms ( PT ) at the southeast corner of the area. This will front onto Portola when extended. Overall the area takes in approximately 489 acres of which 80 acres will be PCD, 199 acres PC( 3 ) and 210 acres SI . All of the proposed prezonings are consistent with the city' s general plan land use plan as well as the north sphere specific plan. All of the proposed prezonings are also similar to the present County of Riverside land use designations. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed prezoning was considered and reviewed as a part of the north sphere specific plan which was recently completed. An EIR was done for the area prior to construction of Price Club. Additionally, the county is currently processing an EIR on the proposed regional center by Rancho Mirage Industrial Park ( i . e. southeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore) . This EIR identifies traffic and air quality impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. We have been given to understand that the county will certify the EIR in the near future and adopt a statement of overriding considerations. These actions will proceed the formal annexation of the area to the city. The prezoning only goes into effect if and when the area is actually annexed to the city. The city will recognize any approvals granted by the county as well as all mitigation measures identified in the EIR. 2 1 STAFF REPORT Ci Z 92-1 MARCH 17, 1992 IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: The proposed prezoning will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city and is consistent with the adopted specific plan and general plan land use element . The area, which will be subject to a future annexation application request to LAFCO is within the city' s sphere of influence. The types of uses to be permitted in the area by the proposed zonings are consistent with those presently existing in the area. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-1 . VI . ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. H. Legal notice. C. Plans and exhibits. Prepared by tG Reviewed and Approved by SRS/tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . A RE. UTION OF THE PLANNING C. 4ISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PREZONING PARTS OF SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29 T4S R6E PC( 3 ) ( REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ) , SI ( SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ) AND PCD ( PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ) TO FACILITATE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of March, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to city council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and prezoning parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate the annexation of the property to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said prezone and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact: 1 . The proposed prezoning to PCD, PC( 3 ) and SI is consistent with the North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3 . The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 92-1 Exhibit "B" on file in the department of community development are hereby recommend to the city council for approval . i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . r PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of 17th day of March, 1992 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO . EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code . NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO• C/Z 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. March 17, 1992 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 i I II I �I� •••••,. li � II .Jjl I II to „ I P.C.0) �I P.C.(3) - Dinah Shore Dr.. Y\y(rir r urrYU+iii:L+Yit r utiulLr�11 da)i- :. z � I i I S I i P.C.D. S.I. 1 1 :.........................I .............A: :wr............. S .0...., ...... vva I ` i P.C.—(2): ? i I i as .x'I �I P.C.—(2). I DCITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. c/z 9z-1 PLANNING COMMISSION o 0 o RESOLUTION NO . C h[ MRgCE) oC Mo IE K H H o F T B Date L & O B N D CI/ � IIIIIIIIIIII near GGurour Sr rr_._• I•W Golan} `v': .�..��,� . OITT LIMIT Ill",,l LU'48" u M ran•.n• CGVrtq GLol I.1 G /•e II rKY pleas, 00 am0 arm... 4O.p•C _ runcG Greomw 4M•M• sOOG IYIIGT LUt s..'.::' ItSICIM,,H 0V/G0. 1! . ON Plan'" Golan Ore.ulrt Y•-1i nor au4 BOXylogo as r jy G Y.nu __—— GOV•TT Or.........II.-CRO NOR GOYYYOI•L/prGm Ol•L G INS, AYSW Gm uYO IYIGt]RLL rr01i 4. r.a-G LT,eeem,eLGG F777 nrreG s.uLr J rIL G TLT /�� I,L•IL I 1 f� r 'tit 1 k f �M . • , 1 d tr s� ,I;IA//i _ yti'nR i t $ U� L�f t • t 'r:::d.:F li//�. j s a pnLY Diner GneanG '� � � l �w ! ram' I �I r J,111� irr If s I r - s \ eud•r utt '1 1 : 'Jf 1 r ctuu :It:, ''trr i iV J pRll, S , , t , rlJ P.N.., l r I • ��\ n s i 1 ( 1 44. Ip�llppflllhl. I///�I/�l _`',' 1 0 r'-% r f • lvr' ��.. ._.}\C� ` 1/CI r I' 4Y1 - `•LY •curl F ' 1 s!Y'' 'llll rfll�'•I�I I'II �E COVMle1 GIY.r I I 4 �� �I e 41•knrY �-�d T J f , `/ Itl f fr)�s t i t+)Ir� 31 .t tf I rl4 tl'Ir 14 t, unu 1W t 4.r•� o I; a ,.. ..�.•.,�..• r.t L••t�Vnn, ' _ •. Die In?GrnIMGG a{IGllr � ` ' / 1. Ft Ir 'I '�, Ifill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiillllllllllllllllllllf� �!• • v r 4R�S ` T il) .snw G "•,t+ ' anon r .' 1'•r`I_ I I 1Tr Est j 's. cool eT ewc, (.� G ..Y.n... ,, �l�„ .,:�rJe'i t•ha'♦ .r :�It .:(liar t l ' O P ,rt t LEI rl is r Ip�j��I,��;5��'I�� ) OG IICIO I�S� I s 1 i T GOVnM I. ,0. //I�.tI1.. r .� .� ros ioL•1 I J fr I_ Iml�llllllllll............11llll � '•' �eounre I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I `' ..�IvG A•a ll �'.L.11117 I�I�f'�I: �'- I 1 o rad• ._ rrrrnrrrrnrnrnnnrprqu/q/''//�ikryll, �l 1= I • a q/r to I l Poo y \\\\ C L LLJ (V Q 4i \\ CAcr N Z Q Z� N ~ N I ? h N Nth U co v Z d& L U O and lz ••.�L, �m Q � � U S 3dOH ix ••• a 066mL`7 a z N Y Z a K mow All, IC ;- I e e LLJ I'1 1 �11 iiZ�fEiif' 11i !I ,1'111�1.�11, ... II J :•�11 � iil �,I III I / ..I'• �•'•` I+ y:: .• III •� � 1 c� � '% J � '�IiI� I I�I�IIII III I jl. F. IIccQ ................. fe I I z 1 ♦ ','. - 1. i`• : W I I,"n .I a 19 1,119 • o )� 12 { = IWO INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIG=.:"GN MEASURES ( CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO THE ATTACHED CHECKLIST ) 1 . EARTH a. The project will result in grading. The grading will not result in alterations to geologic substructures. The area is gently sloping so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the area is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place in the area. C. The area is gently sloping and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d. The area , does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the area through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the area. MITIGATION MEASURES ' The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures requires detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that the building( s ) are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. Coachella Valley Water District has plans for a regional storm channel to run parallel to and southerly of the railroad. This area will drain to this new regional drainage facility. 2. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate INITIAL STUDY C;' Z 92-1 this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Additionally, the County of Riverside is currently processing an EIR for a regional commercial project on property within this area. This EIR identifies air quality impacts which result from traffic volumes anticipated in this area. Given the existing land uses and those anticipated in the future, this area will continue to experience air quality impacts . It is understood that the County of Riverside will certify in the near future the EIR done for that property and as part of that action will adopt a statement of overriding considerations. This prezoning, to facilitate annexation, will only become effective when the area is annexed to the city. It is anticipated that the EIR will be certified and the statement of overriding considerations adopted prior to the annexation being complete. The EIR to be certified by the county and mitigation measures contained therein and the accompanying statement of overriding considerations are hereby adopted by reference. b. The proposed future development does not call for any odorous land uses. C. Development of this area will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the area. b. The area will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however the onsite landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material . The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner. C. See b. As discussed previously, CVWD has plans for a regional storm drain channel that will serve this area. d. There is no ground water present in the area. e. See d. 2 INITIAL STUDY CiZ 92-1 f . While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development . CVWD, through contract with State Water Project and Metropolitan Water District, recharges the aquifer. Even though long-term water supplies are assured, CVWD and the city encourage water conservation. No further comment or mitigation is required. 4 . PLANT LIFE a. Presently the area contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the area. The plants that will be introduced to the area will , however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The area does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. It is extremely doubtful that the project .will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5 . a & b The undeveloped portion of this area may contain some remaining animal life which will have to relocate when the area develops . This area was habitat area for the endangered Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. A habitat conservation plan was established which will provide for the long term preservation of the endangered Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard as well as other flora and fauna associated with the blowsand ecosystem. Payment of the mitigation fee will allow expansion of the preserve established by the Nature Conservancy. In return for the mitigation fee, the cities of the valley were issued Section 10A permits of the Endangered Species Act by Fish and Wildlife Service which permits the incidental taking of the lizard and destruction of the habitat. 3 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 C . No new species of animals will be introduced to the area. The freeway and railroad are long existing physical barriers to the migration or movement of animals. The annexation and future development of the area will not impact further on animal migration or movement. d. See items a & b above. 6 . a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used in the area are renewable . 7 . Electric power to the area is available from Southern California Edison. Edison responded to the city' s north sphere plan and indicated that it was within growth projections for the utility. Southern California Gas Company will provide natural gas to the area. Both utilities have indicated they are able to serve the area. Buildings will be required to comply with Title 24 and the most recent state and city codes. In addition, the city' s architectural review commission reviews plans for the provisions of adequate solar protection which is in addition to Title 24. 8 . RISK OF UPSET The area presently does not have uses which have the potential to create a risk of upset. Much of the area is and will be zoned for service industrial uses. Any of those uses which have the potential to create a risk of upset or risk of explosion must first obtain necessary fire department permits and/or approvals. This level of impact will be—the same whether the area is within the city or the county in that both agencies project industrial land uses and the city contracts for fire service from the county. 9 . ECONOMIC LOSS The property is designated Zone 'C' of the FIRM ( Flood Insurance Rate Map) . Zone 'C' is described as an area of minimal flooding. At present flood waters leaving the - area are undirected. Mitigation measures required in the area include retention onsite and contributing to the Mid Valley Flood Channel construction will improve water direction and control . The potential for economic loss due to flooding will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 4 INITIAL STUDY CV Z 92-1 The area is subject to geologic hazards ( i.e. : seismic activity ) associated with the San Andreas fault north of the I-10 freeway. The risk of this activity is not beyond accepted community risk standards. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent operation of commercial and industrial projects will increase ambient noise level . The increase will not be above acceptable standards for these type of use areas. The ambient level in this area is high to begin with given the proximity to the railroad and freeway. Anticipated uses will not impact on the existing noise level . 11 . LAND USE The proposed land uses for the area were identified and analyzed in the city' s north sphere specific plan. For- the most part the uses are consistent with existing or proposed county land uses. Under either jurisdiction the area is subject to development pressures. 12. OPEN SPACE None of the area in question is designated as open space either in the county or in the city land use elements. 13 . POPULATION a. None of the area is designated for residential use under the city land use concept. The proposed land uses will result in additional employment and the employees will need housing. Notwithstanding the above, the prezoning and annexation will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. b. The project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT When the area develops a substantial number of new long-term jobs can be expected. Considering the unemployment rate it is unfortunate that this area could not presently be under development. 5 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 Development of the area will help alleviate unemployment. The jobs created should be a broad spectrum of job types from administration to management to sales clerks to office workers. Considering the current unemployment rate it is expected that most of the jobs created will be filled by existing residents of the area. 15 . a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. There is currently being projected some 8, 000 unsold housing units in the valley in addition to the number of rental units being developed. b. Considering that many of the jobs are expected to be filled by existing, unemployed and underemployed residents the housing impact is not expected to be significant. Additionally it should be noted that the city has purchased 133 acres of property at Gerald Ford Drive and Portola for the creation of a 1200 unit employee village. Construction of this project will be funded with up to $60, 000, 000 from bonds which have been sold through Riverside County Housing Authority which will operate the development once it is on line. Many of the jobs created in this area will qualify for this below market employee village housing. This housing will be located within one mile of this area. 16 . TRANSPORTATION a. Development in the area with industrial, commercial and office uses will generate additional traffic. The area is currently subject to development pressures and the County of Riverside is processing several applications. Traffic generated in the area will be similar whether developed under the county or the city. At this time the county is completing an EIR and traffic study which conclude that the traffic impacts are substantial and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. It is understood that a statement of overriding considerations will be adopted by the County of Riverside in the near future. This will be prior to completion of the annexation. 6 INITIAL STUDY Ci Z 92-1 This prezoning only becomes effective when the area is annexed to the city. The EIR being processed by the county for this area and mitigation measures contained therein and any statement of overriding considerations adopted by the County of Riverside pertaining to this area are included herein by reference. b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the individual projects on their own sites . C . Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. Required street improvements will alleviate some of this impact. Those impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance have been analyzed in the EIR being processed by the County of Riverside and will be part of the previously described statement of overriding considerations. d. Principle streets in the area are Dinah Shore and Monterey Avenue, both of which are designated arterial streets. The area is presently heavily congested due to traffic entering the I-10 Freeway. Any alterations to present patterns of circulation, movement of people or goods has already occurred. Further alteration is not expected. e. Implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR being reviewed by the County of Riverside will reduce traffic hazards to a level of insignificance. 17. a. FIRE County Fire Department provides service to the city. As indicated in the Plan For Services on file for the area, the area is within the five minute response time of Station 71 at Portola and Country Club Drive. Part of the mitigation for fire and paramedic service includes payment of the Proposition 'A' fire tax which also provides paramedic service. Prior to issuance of all building permits, the fire department reviews all plans. Future developments will comply with all current fire department standards. The impact on the fire department is not significant. 7 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 b. POLICE The city contracts with Riverside County Sheriff ' s Department for service. Staffing levels are reviewed on an ongoing basis and the reports on same presented to city council for funding. This project will not, on its own, generate a need for additional personnel in its earlier phases. The later phases and adjacent areas may result in a need. Therefore the project could have an incremental effect. The fiscal impact report will assume that the annexation of the area will necessitate additional sheriff personnel and funds will be available to provide same. C. SCHOOLS The area will be developed with commercial, industrial and office uses. This land use will not impact on schools other than through the children of employees. Future developments in the area will be required to pay the school mitigation fees in effect at that time. d. PARKS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Parks will not be impacted as parks are provided through conditions in residential projects where the employees will live. e. MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Additional personnel/governmental services may be necessary. This additional amount and its costs will be more specifically addressed in the fiscal impact report which will be prepared prior to submitting the application to LAFCO. f. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES Planning, building, public works and code enforcement services, as provided by the city directly will be provided on the basis of need. Our experience with commercial and industrial developments is that they initially create demand on planning staff, then during construction a demand is placed on building and public works inspections. The building director has advised that existing staff inspectors will be 8 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 assigned to this area and that he does not anticipate the need for additional inspectors. The low number of permanent residents in the area will result in a lower than usual number of requests for other governmental services once the area is complete and occupied. 18 . PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE Annexation of this area to the city will result in an increase of fiscal flow to the city. A detailed analysis of the net impacts will be contained in the fiscal impact report which will be completed prior to filing the application with LAFCO. If the fiscal impact report shows a negative fiscal impact on the city, the city can decide at that time not to proceed with the annexation and this prezoning would never become effective. 19 . UTILITIES Water and sewer service is provided by Coachella Valley Water District. Electric power is provided by Southern California Edison, natural gas by Southern California Gas Company, telephone service is provided by General Telephone, and solid waste by Palm Desert Disposal . Water, sewer, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television service lines exist in street( s ) in the area and are available to serve the area. Palm Desert Disposal is under contract with the city to provide trash pick-up in the city. The local landfill site at Edom Hill and Coachella Valley are expecting to operate through 2019 and 2010 respectively. After that, trash will have to be . hauled longer distances, possibly Eagle Mountain which the County of Riverside has under current review. The impacts created by solid waste could have a significant impact. Proposed Mitigation By ordinance the city requires new developments to participate in the city' s recycling program. The city' s recycling program, as a whole, has an 80% participation level according to the Environmental Conservation Manager. This level of participation would reduce the solid waste impacts to a point where they are not significant. Impacts on utilities will be similar whether the area remains in the county or is annexed to the city. This is because 9 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 the proposed land uses are similar and the timing of development is similar under either agency. 20. HUMAN HEALTH Annexation of the area to the city will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. The land uses under either agency ( county or city) will be similar and the proposed land uses are not expected to create hazards to human health. 21 . SOCIAL SERVICES The area when developed will contain few if any residents. No increase in the demand of general social services are anticipated. 22. AESTHETICS a, b and c The area slopes from south to north. Scenic vistas to the north have already been impacted by the freeway, railroad and row of 30- 40 foot tall tamarisk trees along the railroad. All future development proposals will be reviewed by the city' s architectural review commission. This, along with compliance with the city' s zoning ordinance, will assure that an offensive area is not created nor will the overall neighborhood attractiveness. 23 . New light will be produced but projects in the area will be required to prevent lighting spillover. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. Also, developers will need to comply with the city' s dark sky ordinance. 24. The area was reviewed for evidence of archaeological or historical significance through studies done for the county general plan, the Price Company EIR, the city' s north sphere secondary plan, and the current EIR that the county is reviewing. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance in this area. In addition, state law requires that 10 INITIAL STUDY CZ 92-1 should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the area cleared. 25 . a. Development in the area to be annexed, as discussed under traffic and air quality, has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. This is confirmed in the county EIR under review at this time. The level of impact and the timing of the imposition of such impacts will be similar whether the area remains under the county or is annexed to the city. The county EIR and mitigation measures contained therein and statement of overriding considerations which is to be certified and adopted in the near future are adopted by reference herein. b. The area, when developed, will result in long term impacts ( traffic and air quality) . Any short term impacts will neither increase or decrease the long term impacts. Future adoption of the EIR and a statement of overriding considerations are hereby referenced. C. The traffic impact is such that it results in air quality impacts. These impacts are discussed more fully in the county EIR which is referenced herein. d. The project is the prezoning of the area to facilitate annexation. Future land uses in the area will be similar under either the county or the city. The extent of any adverse impacts on human beings will not be affected by the annexation. The impacts have been identified in the county EIR presently under review which is adopted by reference herein as well as any future statement of overriding considerations. 11 APPENDIX TO REz5eONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHzCKLIST For the purposes of the Negative Declaration, we have followed the noticing requirements of Public Resources Code, Section 21091 et S�-Q . The documents referred to in this response are on file in the Community Development/Planning Department at the City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260 during regular office hours . The following documents have been referred to in the preparation of the response and the negative declaration: --- General Plan, City of Palm Desert --- Palm Desert North Sphere Specific Plan --- North Sphere Specific Plan Studies on Air Quality and Noise --- Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan --- Environmental Impact Report for City of Rancho Mirage General Plan GENERAL PLAN, CITY OF PALM DESERT: This is briefly described as the long term planning document for the city containing all mandatory elements. Specifically, elements relating to land use, housing, population, noise, seismic safety, public facilities, transportation, circulation, conservation, open space recreation and energy, and the urban design scenic highway elements were utilized. Also, the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the adoption of the general plan was reviewed. These elements can be described as follows: LAND USE This element describes the existing and proposed land uses of the city and its surrounding areas, and shows how they relate to one another. This element proposed future land use which incorporates low to high density development to ensure a consolidation of support facilities ( commercial, industrial, public, etc. ) into respective areas to ensure that they provide convenient and complementary service where they are most needed and best suited. This element recommended that a specific plan be completed for the north sphere area, which will be annexed into the city in the future. The specific plan will deal with the environmental and other problems prior to development on a large scale. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION This element describes the need for an effective transportation system to serve the local regional access now and in the future. It further describes various issues ( i.e. access, energy) and the various modes of transportation ( i.e. pedestrian, autos, bicycles) which must be taken into consideration in order to have a full array of service and means of access available. APPENDIX TO RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CY ',XLIST C/Z 92-1 This element proposes a roadway and pathway system which provides for automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart and public transportation ( bus ) access and circulation throughout the city and surrounding areas. Although only the main roadways are shown on the circulation map, detailed planning on the local level is required to complete the system in a manner which will make it effective. URBAN DESIGN/SCENIC HIGHWAY This element describes the importance of establishing the identity and character of the city, which in turn will help to create a greater sense of appreciation and pride. in the community. This element proposes that various features such as landmarks, focal points, scenic highway, landscaping and architecture should be utilized to establish an urban design character for the city as a whole and for the respective community neighborhoods. PUBLIC FACILITIES This element discusses the present and future capacities of public facilities ( e.g. schools, police and fire protection, etc. ) in Palm Desert. This element discusses the various factors affecting the provision or deliverance of public facilities and/or services in the city be taken , into consideration. HOUSING This element describes basic housing data ( such as price range of units ) , indicates trends, and establishes present and projected needs. This element proposes that a broad range of reasonably priced but quality-oriented housing types be provided because it is both required and desired in terms of meeting state and federal law and the best interests of the community at large. The element recommends the creation of a higher density overlay zone to encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types ( single family, apartments, duplexes, townhouses, etc. ) by providing flexible design standards, assisting in the application/planning procedure and providing other incentives to produce housing that residents can afford. 2 APPENDIX TO RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHF LIST C/Z 92-1 POPULATION ECONOMICS This element provides basic data about the community which describes its current population, business, and economic base. This data, along with other information, helps to provide for a better understanding of the community, along with a projection of future trends which must be taken into consideration if effectiveness is to result. SAFETY/NOISE/SEISMIC SAFETY These elements deal with such factors as blowsand, flood control , earthquakes, public safety, drainage and noise. These elements require that all of the various factors affecting the environmental and social quality of the community be taken into consideration and that standards and regulations be reviewed. CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION This element inventories and evaluates the existing natural resources ( such as endangered species and plants ) , park facilities and historical buildings within the city and surrounding area. This element establishes guidelines for the development of park facilities and for the preservation and protection of the natural environment during the continuing development of the city. ENERGY The intent of this element is to provide the necessary planning ( gathering and analyzing data, establishing goals and objectives, and formulating implementation policies and programs) , to make the city more energy efficient. In conclusion, local energy consumption levels can be reduced. The element describes how. land use controls such as zoning, subdivision regulations and site plan review can be refined or developed to improve the efficiency of energy use and reduce local consumption of non- renewable energy sources. PALM DESERT NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN: This is a specific plan for the north sphere area of Palm Desert extending from Monterey Avenue to Washington Street and from I-10 south to 42nd Avenue. This plan updates the general plan land use, transportation/circulation, public facilities .,and housing elements as 3 APPENDIX TO RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CF KLIST C/Z 92-1 they are applicable to the sphere area. This plan discussed development in the sphere as it relates to the surrounding region. The land use in the north sphere specific plan is generally consistent with those designated in the county comprehensive general plan. NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN - Technical Studies on Air Quality and Noise: These are technical studies of air quality and noise conducted as a part of the north sphere specific plan. Essentially these studies established a base line of existing noise level and air quality, then using the proposed land uses established anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The north sphere specific plan project included a' mix of. residential, commercial, office/industrial, recreational, and hotel uses on 4363 acres generally located south of Interstate 10 and north of Highway 111 between Monterey Avenue and Washington Street. The proposed project was a mixed-use development consisting of 11 , 790- 12, 886 residential dwelling units; 1, 454, 000 square feet of commercial space; 5, 340, 000 square feet of office/industrial space; institutional uses; 534 acres of recreational uses; and 2250-2550 hotel rooms. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN - (4th Edition) : Section 4b. at page 110. 20 covers the Western Coachella Valley Plan Community Policies. This is a plan with specific standards for the development of the area in a series of various permitted land uses. The subject area . is designated 2B. The standards for 2B areas are delineated at pages 110-32 through 110-34. Basically, all sewers must be available and the development must be compatible with existing projects. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON 1987 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE: In order to better analyze the regional significance of the project we reviewed this document similar in structure and content to the City of Palm Desert 's General Plan and the City of Indian Wells ' General Plan. 4 �7.VC:t1.T�`I��•. � i:1:^. ?.1L S:^•DY `'77-: The availability of data necessary to address the topics ' fisted below shall fore the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. F-M iACtNENTAL IMPACTS (Ex:lanaticns of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , possible mitigation measures and comments are pravidea on attached sheets ) . Yes yavbe 40 1 . earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or overtovering of the soil ? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d . The destruction, covering ., or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ Z. air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b . The creation of objectionable odors? X _ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temcerature , or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ Yes �a ,ta yc _ . Water Will the proposal result in: a_ Changes in currents , or the course or 1 Airec:icn of water movements? X D. Chances in-abscr't-a n rates , drainage patterns , or the rate ana" amount of sur*ace water ruroff? X c. Alterations to the course or *'low of flooa waters? d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of flow of ground eaters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through intarcemtion of an aquifer ty cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water suaplies? X Plant 14fe Will the proposal result in: a. Chance in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , snrabs , grass , and crops )? _ _ X b. Reduce on of .the numbers of any unique , rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? S. Animal. life. dill ,the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects )? D. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare , or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a tam er to the migration or movement of animals? _ d. Ceterioration to existing wildlife haoitat � — ",e ,r_casdl resu� t in : a . :ncrease in the rat_ of use Of any natural resources ? ec'et' cn of any ncn-renewable nat::rai -esc''�r :e? 7 . ne-:v. eii '' ' the proposal result in : a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? C b . Ce--and upon existing sources of ene",y, or re- Cuire the . deselopment Of new sources of energy? S. Risk of Ucset. . Goes the proposal involve a r-Isk o�explosion or the release of hazardous substances ( including, but not limited to , pesticides , oil , chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ � — 9. E^^namic Loss , Will the ar pesal result in: a. A change in the value of pracerty and imorovements endangered ty flooding? — — b. A --.`.ante in the value of prtperty and rnoro•.er.tents exposed to geologic hazards teyor.d accepted cc=unity risk standards? `lcise . '.Till the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted cc.-unity noise and vibration levels are exceeded? :: . Land Use. Will the proposal result in the L� aiteratien of the present developed or Planned land use of an area ? x 12. Coen Space. Will the prcpesal lead to a aecrease in the amount of designated open — — space? 12. tat Will the praccsal result in: a. Alteration or the location, distribution, density , or growth rate cf the human ;cpulation of the Cite? a. Change in the :ccuiaticn dIst. ituticn by — — — aye , inane , religion , raciai , or ethnic gr: o , cc--u;aticral class . ,,.usehold type? _ _ { Yes wa. ce `IC 14 . E.-nolovment. will the proposal result in adds—'�`onai new long-tarn jobs provided , or a change in the number and per cent employed , unemployed , and underemployed? 1: . ;cus4na. Will the proposal result in: a . Change in number and per cent of housing units oy type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16 . Transaa ration/Ciroulaticn. Will the proposal result in : a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? X _ b. Effects an existing parking facilities , ar demand for new parking?C. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , X bicyclists , or pedestrians? — — — 17 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? — _ b. Police protection? —.C. schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? ?8 . Pjblic Fiscal 8aiance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow ( revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures )? _ X i9 . Uti ' ities . Will the proposal result in a neea fcr new systems , or alterations to the following utilities : r a. Power or natural gas? ; b. Communications system? c. 'Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? — — e. Stcrm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal ? Z0. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. A change in the level of community health care provided? — — 2i . Social Services . Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? ZZ. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a . Obstruction of any scenic vista. or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? — — c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness , pleasantness , and uniqueness? — — 22. Licht and Glar*. Will the proposal produce — — new i :gnt or glare? 2a . Archealaaical/Historical . Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? _ — Yes 29 . a^.da:cry ;ndin^s -` Sicn;":ca^ee a. Cces the project have the potential to degrade the cua y cf the environment or to c.r ail the civery ty in One environment? b. Does the project have the -ctent' al to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A snort-ter^+ impact an the environment is one which occ.rs in a relatively brief , cefinitive period of time wniie long-tern impacts will endure well into i the fut.re. ) s c. Caes the project have impacts which are indi - Yidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A protect may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact an each resource is relatively small , but wnere the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Caes the project nave environmental effects whicn will cause sucstantial adverse effects en human beings , either directly or indirectly? _ X :m"t al St._y Prepared By: �' -' RECEIVED Cynthia Ludvigsen MAR 3 0 1992 4 COMMUNITY UEVEEUPMENR UEPFRTMEW Attorney 8t I.BW CITY OF P'I,DESERT P.O.Box 409 398 W.Fourth Street, Suite 203 San Bernardino,CA 92402-0409 (714) 885-6820 Fax (714)885-6976 March 15, 1992 Mr. Ramon A. Diaz City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Comments on the City of Palm Desert's Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration for Prezone and Annexation of several hundred acres in the City's North Sphere (Case No. C/Z 92-1) Dear Mr. Diaz: I am in receipt of the City of Palm Desert's Initial Study and a proposed Negative Declaration for the prezoning and annexation of several hundred acres of located in the City's North Sphere and centered on the Monterey Avenue/Dinah Shore Drive intersection (Case No. C?Z 92-1). Based on the City's Legal Notice (February 21, 1992) and the Initial Study provided on March 11, 1992,there are no data to define the project,i.e.the proposed prezone designation and the amount of acreage encompassed by the proposed prezone and anticipated annexation. The documents transmitted by the City and received by my office contain no information on the range of land uses allowed within the proposed zoning designation or the intensity of uses permitted in the proposed zone. Thus, my Furst comment on the proposed Negative Declaration is that it is wholly inadequate for any reviewer to review the contents of the Initial Study(see Section 15063 (d) of the State CEQA Guidelines) and make substantive comments that will assist the City to prepare an adequate environmental document. There are additional general concerns with the proposed Negative Declaration for Case No. C/Z 92-1. First, the project site contains known habitat for the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard, a federal and state listed endangered species. The area being considered for annexation includes portions of the Monterey Avenue on- and off-ramps to Interstate 10 for which extensive planning and design efforts are underway between the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and Caltrans. In this instance both state agencies serve as trustee and/or responsible agencies as identified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. When such agencies will "exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the Lead Agency shall send copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the State Agencies." (Section 15073 (c), State CEQA Guidelines) Further, Section 15073 (d) of the State CEQA Guidelines states"When a Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies,the public review period shall not be less than 30 days unless a shorter period is approved by the State Clearinghouse." The City has not complied with this mandated 30-day requirement for public review and is therefore in violation of this procedural requirement of the CEQA. The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration were not submitted to the State Clearinghouse and no authorization for a shorter review period has been obtained by the City. The Initial Study(consisting of the City's Environmental Evaluation Checklist and supporting "Comments and Possible Mitigation Measures) was first made available for public review on March 11, 1992,just six days before a scheduled hearing on the matter. This does not meet the required 30 day circulation period for the proposed Negative Declaration. The City should pull Case No. C/Z 92-1 from its agenda and refer it back to staff I for revision of the Initial Study and at a minimum recirculation in accordance with Sections 15073 (c)and (d) of the State Guidelines. As shown below, there is more than a fair argument that certain environmental resources and man-made systems will experience a significant adverse impact if the prezone is adopted and the area annexed. The second issue relates to the status of the proposed land uses in the area being prezoned(project area), an issue not addressed in the Initial Study. In several instances courts have determined that the level of evaluation for annexation projects must include projects that are publicly (mown to be in progress (see particularly Bozung o. Local Agency Formation Commission, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263 [118 Cal. Rptr. 249]). The Initial Study ignores the Rancho Mirage Commerce Center project(zone change and tract map)which is currently under review by Riverside County and which has a published Environmental Impact Report (EIR)that quantifies significant impacts to certain resources(discussed below)for commercial development of only a part of the area included in the Case No C/Z 92-1. Based on conversations with City staff,the whole area being considered in the prezone and annexation actions will be designated Regional Commercial which would result in more substantial adverse environmental impacts than identified for the Commerce Center Project EIR. The failure to include known projects in an evaluation creates a fatal flaw in the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration. The remainder of these comments focus on major inadequacies in the Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study and provides generalized comments on the types of issues that should have been addressed for this general type of project. However, it is my opinion that the Negative Declaration has been prematurely proposed and contains insufficient information to comply with CEQA requirements for adopting a Negative Declaration for the reasons outlined above. The project should be better defined and a new Initial Study prepared a final decision is made on whether to issue a Negative Declaration or prepare an EIR. The following comments are provided on each of the environmental issues addressed in the Environmental Evaluation Checklist. 1. Earth: In the"Checklist Comments and Possible Mitigation Measures" at the end of the Initial Study the following issues are discussed: grading, topographic changes, increases in soil and water erosion, seismic hazards and increased runoff. The evaluation ignores the potential increase in wind and water erosion as a result development. No mitigation is discussed for this issue although it is dismissed in the text of the comments. The potential for increased wind erosion due to construction ground disturbance is very high, and likely to be significant over the short-term based on an estimated 100+ lbs. of fugitive dust emissions each day per disturbed acre (SCAQMD 1987 Revised). Therefore, this issue should be included in a Draft EIR to ensure that sufficient measures are incorporated in the proposed development at Rancho Mirage Commercenter to control wind and water erosion. There is no substantiation of the conclusion that water runoff will have less of an impact after redesignating the property. The flood control facility must ultimately be constructed but timing and funding are being ignored for this area and specific developments are proposed. Based on the topography of this site and the presence of blowsand, the potential exists for significant water and wind erosion at the project site. 2. Air: The Initial Study notes that an Environmental Impact Report(EIR,Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Mirage Commerce Center (SCH #87101914) has been prepared and is in the process of being certified. The EIR documents both short-term and long-term project specific and cumulative air quality impacts associated with designating the property for commercial uses. Again, it is impossible for the whole area to be changed from a mixture of industrial and low density residential uses to commercial land uses and not have a greater impact than forecast within the EIR. The Initial Study incorrectly concludes that the prezone will "Maybe"cause a significant impact. The text of the document attempts to incorporate the significance finding and then conclude that the a Negative Declaration can be issued for the prezone and annexation. This approach has an inherent contradiction and the City's independent discretionary decision clearly causes and contributes to this quantified significant impact. The data in the EIR,including a verifying comment letter from the SCAQMD), meets the substantial evidence test of a significant adverse environmental impact (see Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines) and must require that a subsequent EIR be prepared to address the total air quality impacts, including the additional acreage that will contribute to the adverse air quality impacts. 3. Water: The analysis of water issues is somewhat simplistic and ignores several environmental issues related to the prezone and annexation of the property. The first issue is the timing and construction of major drainage facilities for the area. These are regional facilities that cannot be supported by development on some of the parcels included in the annexation. The City has not answered the question of how it would ensure that the regional flood control facilities are installed in a timely manner or if they can ensure adequate funding as development proceeds. This issue requires further evaluation and would most appropriately be evaluated in an EIR. The comment in the Initial Study regarding ground water is incorrect. Ground water does occur beneath the site at approximately 150 feet below the surface. The potential for ground water contamination does exist, particularly if detention/retention basins are constructed on properties to capture runoff from impervious surfaces and these basins are not managed properly. Water quality related to surface water management is a potentially significant problem under this circumstance. The discussion regarding water supplies is too narrow and £ails to address the real issues of overdraft within the Coachella Valley. The Water District's ability to serve water ignores the fact that overdraft has been demonstrated within the regional aquifer since at least the publication of the 1987 CVAG Master Environmental Assessment. The District has not been able to purchase sufficient water to offset ground water extractions. The regional aquifer is in overdraft and that overdraft is worsening, not improving based on several recent environmental documents produced in the Coachella Valley(see the City of Indian Wells General Plan). Appendix G identifies potential significant impacts which include depletion of ground water. The data provided in the Initial Study do not address the ground water overdraft issue and it can be fairly argued that the significance test is met for this all important issue. 4. Plant Life: The project site does not contain sage brush. Some areas have been disturbed and invaded by weeds,but the majority of the site contains a typical Creosote bush scrub plant community. The area may contain the Coachella Valley loco weed which is a candidate for listing as a Federal threatened species. The designation to higher intensity uses will cause the total loss of the several hundred acres of the Creosote Bush scrub plant community and all of the habitat values provided therein. The potential for significant impact exists and the evaluation in the Initial Study has not provided sufficient factual evaluation or the type of surveys required to ensure that significant plant life impact can be avoided. This issue should be included in an EIR unless field data is provided that demonstrates the impact will not be significant. 5. Animal Life: The loss of habitat has been ignored and given the cumulative losses south of I-10, the net animal habitat losses may be considered significant. 6. Natural Resources: The comment that the project will not increase the rate of natural resource use is not supported by any data and is incorrect. Water and energy resources (both directly, gasoline and natural gas,and indirectly, electric power)will both be increased and it has indicated that water resources are already experiencing an overdraft. The cumulative significant effect of continuing to add water consumption within an overdrafted region is ignored in this Initial Study. 7. Ener2v: Circumstances have changed since the North Sphere was prepared more than two years ago. The City needs to reverify that energy resources for the proposed uses at the project based on the prezone are consistent with projections and that no cumulative significant impact is being created by the uses at the project site. 3 8. Risk of Upset: Many activities do not require permits (such as construction activities) and yet have the potential to cause upsets of systems with associated public health or environmental risks. Many commercial operations are not aware that they require a business plan or permits from the Fire Department. Without establishing mitigation, how can the potential for risk of upsets be mitigated to a nonsignificant level given the types of uses that are permitted? This issue remains unresolved and is in need of more specific mitigation. 9. Economic Loss: The City is proposing to annex areas with community facilities district's in another jurisdiction that may not be implementable. Funding for a variety of infrastructure improvements, including the Monterey Overpass, is included and the City's proposal may significantly affect the implementation of these facilities, and therefore,adversely cause significant economic losses and impacts. This issue has been ignored and because of the significance of the infrastructure system impacts (circulation and regional flood control facilities such as the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel), the effect of annexation requires evaluation within an EIR. 10. Noise: It appears that the City has ignored the consequences to the noise environment of allowing a large regional commercial are to be developed and to operate. The noise environment will be dramatically altered and the analysis must include not only the onsite and nearby changes in the noise environment, but also the impact on the surrounding circulation system as it will be effected by increased traffic on the local major streets. It is critical that measures be identified whereby the allowing commercial development to occur is held accountable for the impact along the various roads that will be impacted by the proposed project. It is not clear what the basis is for concluding that the project will not expose people to severe noise levels. Without knowing the specific land uses and the type of construction proposed, this conclusion is highly suspect and must be further documented. Many commercial uses can generate relatively high noise levels (for example commercial recreational) and construction commonly involves construction equipment with very high noise levels. It is possible to minimize exposure to significant noise levels, but the Initial Study does not present information which addresses this issue. Therefore,this issue must also be discussed in an EIR. 11. Land Use: As noted in the discussion regarding current land use permitting activities and other land uses,it is essential to define the proposed prezone and proposed development for the proposed annexation area in some detail. Without this information it is not possible to evaluate the actual land uses and land use conflicts. It may be possible to avoid such conflicts, but based on the information provided in the Initial Study it is not possible to make a reasonable forecast of potential land use impacts. Significant impact could result from the proposed prezone designations and these should be examined in an EIR. 12. Open Space: The City appears to have missed the issue regarding open space. With the exception of the Price and Home Club development,the whole area currently functions as passive open space. This open space will be lost under the proposed prezone designations and the issue is the loss of this open space and cumulative loss of open space and the need for open space in the area. No evaluation of impact on open space is provided in the Initial Study-,therefore,it is not possible to determine significance of losing this area's open space values (in the absolute sense) and the cumulative loss and demand for open space in the area. 13. Population: A key issue evaluated in the Commerce Center EIR was the effect of creating new low income jobs on the affordable housing market in the Coachella Valley. A regional commercial area of several hundred acres will generate substantial employment (the 173 acres at the Commerce Center will generate an estimated 3,500 jobs) with an unknown percentage of low income employees that will require affordable housing. CEQA requires an evaluation of indirect effects of a project and one of the most significant effects on the existing community will be the increased demand for an already inadequate 4 affordable housing supply (CVAG 1989). The adequacy of the 1,200 affordable housing units to meet the cumulative demand within the Valley has not been demonstrated. This is a potentially significant impact that has not been addressed in the Initial Study and needs to be evaluated in an EIR. 14. Employment: Please refer to the discussion above for a discussion of one adverse impact of the increased employment. 15. Housine Refer to item 13 above. 16. Transportation/Circulation: As in the case of the information presented on air quality, the City has attempted to finesse the issue of transportation system impacts by referencing other studies on portions of the project area and ignoring the need to quantify the remainder. The Rancho Mirage Commerce Center Draft EIR has identified significant cumulative traffic impacts that will be made more significantly adverse because of the additional acreage being designated for commercial uses. The Initial Study fails to examine these significant impacts which will include effects on Interstate 10 and the Monterey Overpass. Related to the failure to forecast the potential additional trips generated from the project area is the ability to fund the available circulation improvements that will be necessary from making traffic at Monterey and Dinah Shore a disaster. The Initial Study indicates that traffic impacts can be reduced to a nonsignificant level. The documents cited do not demonstrate this and failure to summarize this information and the additional impacts from the prezoning effort creates a flawed environmental process. To present relevant information to the City's decision-makers regarding the traffic system impacts, it will be necessary to prepare a detailed traffic study that evaluates the effects of the prezone in the context of known cumulatively significant impacts. This is such a crucially significant issue that quantitative data must be provided and given the known significance of this issue, it must be in the context of an EIR. 17. Public Services: This analysis fails to include an evaluation of the existing fire infrastructure's ability to handle several hundred acres of commercially designated uses. Adequate resources may be available, but the information provided in the Initial Study does not demonstrate such adequacy. Further, no evaluation is provided of the cumulative impact on such systems, and the manner in which this project will support expansion of any systems that require expansion in order not to incur a significant adverse system impact. Discussions of means to provide additional law enforcement capability indicate it is feasible,but no specific mitigation is identified that will be carried out to ensure that such impacts can be reduced below a significant effect. The indirect effect of the land use designations is to create jobs and to expand the work force. New employees in the Coachella Valley will add to the cumulative demand for educational services. This indirect effect has been ignored and no evaluation provided in the Initial Study. This issue requires additional evaluation based on the potential number of jobs that may be created within the area due to prezoning. The same type of indirect effect occurs to the park and recreation system. Specifically,new employees may not live within the City of Palm Desert and there is no assurances that the additional demand for parks and recreational facilities will be provided to meet the added population increment. The City's analysis makes assumptions that are not supported by closer examination of the real issues at hand. 18. Public Fiscal Balance: The assumption that this area will result in a net fiscal benefit is not clear. Very major commitments have been made to the County through a community facilities district and other funding sources to assist in funding the substantial cost of constructing a new Monterey Avenue Overpass at Interstate 10. In previous discussions with the City of Palm Desert,Rancho Mirage Commerce Center learned that the City could not provide the requisite funding support without causing a negative impact 5 on the City. The unsupported statement regarding fiscal benefit in the Initial Study requires much more careful examination before such a conclusion can be reached 19. Utilities: For comments on power and natural gas please refer to the energy discussion in item 7. Comments on water supply have been provided under Items 3 and 5. The potential for significant impact to the water supply system is related to overdraft of the region's ground water aquifer. The two treatment plants serving the project area(Treatment Plants 10 and 58)are being affected by substantial cumulative growth and there are questions about the ability to have sufficient capacity on line in a timely manner to meet the cumulative increases that development of the project area will contribute to. A more quantitative and cumulative analysis of the impacts to the affected treatment facilities over the next ten year is required before a conclusion of nonsignificant impact can be reached. Storm water drainage facilities must still be installed in the area and their construction must be scheduled to meet demand. Depending on the type of development that will occur (size and parcels), these facilities may not be installed Use of detention/retention basins within the area requires effectivemanagement to ensure that pollutants do not accumulate and cause degradation of the soil and ultimately ground water quality. None of these issues have been addressed in the Initial Study and each issue poses potentially significant impacts that need to be discussed and mitigated, if feasible. 20. Human Health: Land uses within the County include substantial low density residential designations. The additional high intensity uses included in the prezone designation will increase the potential for use of toxic and hazardous materials and for accidents to occur which could expose people to public health risks. 21. Social Services: As discussed in the population section(item 13),the project will create a substantial number of low income jobs which can indirectly increase demand for social services. This issue has not been given the detailed analysis required to reach a conclusion of no significant impact. 22. Aesthetics: A professional visual analysis would focus on major visual setting changes relative to the existing setting which is relatively undisturbed open space. The sand ridge which occurs at the project is one of the major natural open space features and a major visual feature in all southern views from Interstate 10. The development of the sand ridge will alter the visual setting at one of the main entrances into the City. Review by the City's Architectural Commission may ensure the developed landscape meets the City's aesthetic goals but it does not address the absolute visual setting changes that will be caused by developing the existing disturbed, but natural landscape with several hundred acres of commercial development. The significance of loss of natural landscape features has not been addressed in the Initial Study. 23. Light and Glare: The biggest issues with light and glare are the effects on Mt. Palomar and the contribution of light and glare effects on the visual setting. The requirement for an engineered .� ting plan can resolve the former issue but the aesthetic impacts described above will remain. Also, the City has not made the requirement of engineered lighting plans a mitigation measure that can be enforced and therefore,no assurance exists that the such plans will be implemented. 24. Archaeoloaical/Historical: No surface archaeological resources are known to occur in the project area, but subsurface resources may exist and mitigation should have been provided to address discovery of such impacts. Otherwise, significant impacts to subsurface resources could occur. The City of Palm Desert's proposal to prezone the area in anticipation of annexing it to the City is a project that requires CEQA compliance. The prezone designation must take into account projects that are ongoing within the area, such as those proposals for the Rancho Mirage Commerce Center. Data from other documents (cited above) clearly demonstrate that this project will cause significant unavoidable adverse environmental effectsor contribute to cumulatively significant unavoidable adverse environmental 6 effects. The City's proposal would expand the area designated for commercial uses which would increase impacts beyond those forecast in existing environmental documents. There is substantial evidence in the record that the prezone designation of the City will cause significant adverse impacts and when this occurs CEQA clearly mandates the preparation of an EIR. The City's attempt to complete prezoning and initiate an annexation based on a Negative Declaration violates the requirements of the CEQA in this instance. As outlined in the comments above, the data supporting a Negative Declaration is inadequate and fails to meet the primary goal of CEQA which is to provide the City's decision makers with sufficient information regarding environmental impacts to make a fully informed decision. In this case,other documents demonstrate that unavoidable significant adverse air quality and traffic impacts (at a minimum) will be caused by prezoning the area for commercial uses and by the ultimate development permitted under these types of land use designations. In such circumstances CEQA requires the City to prepare an EIR and examine alternatives and mitigation measures that may be available to further reduce these impacts. The City must comply with this requirement. Adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration is an inappropriate CEQA determination for Case No. C/Z 92-1 and should be rejected in the face of comprehensive evidence of unavoidable significant adverse impacts. We request that the City Planning Commission reject the recommendation to adopt a Negative Declaration and return the prezoning action to Staff for development of an Environmental Impact Report that will provide sufficient information on environmental issues to support an informed decision regarding this issue. Very truly yours, LUDVIGSEN Attorney at Law CL/bjm 7 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)340-0574 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 19, 1992 City of Palm Desert Re: C/Z 92-1 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of March 17, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED C/Z 92-1 TO APRIL 21, 1992 BY MINUTE MOTION. CARRIED 3-0 (CHAIRPERSON WHITLOCK AND COMMISSIONER SPIEGEL WERE ABSENT) . Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. �r RAM N A. DIAZ, S C RY PALM DESERT PLANNI COMMISSION RAD/tm cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING uuMMISSION MARCH 17, 1992 B. Case No. TT 24866 - SOUTHWEST PARTNERS, Applicant Request for approval of a four year time extension to allow four homesites and open space on 8. 24 acres located on the west side of the Palm Valley Storm Channel across from Sommerset Condominiums. ( Staff recommended a one year extension be granted be state law. ) C. Case No. PMW 92-1 - CULTURAL CENTER BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to combine lots 9 through 12 into one to allow for an office building on Fred Waring Drive. Commission concurred with staff that a one year time extension for TT 24866 was acceptable. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Staff requested that item G be heard first since a continuance was being requested. Commission concurred. Case No. C/Z 92-1 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for a recommendation of approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to PC(3 ) (regional commercial ) , SI (service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto. 2 ' MINUTES I PALM DESERT PLANNING �oMMISSION MARCH 17, 1992 Mr. Diaz recommended opening the public hearing and continuing this case to April 21, 1992. Commission concurred. Vice Chairperson Richards opened the public testimony and asked for a motion. Action• Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing C/Z 92-1 to April 21, 1992 by minute motion. Carried 3-0. A. Continued Case No. "PP 91-14 - SCHMITZ/ANDERSON ENTERPRISES, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan to allow construction of a seven unit apartment complex at 44-555 San Rafael Avenue in the R-3 S.O., zone. Mr. Winklepleck reviewed the history of the case and outlined the salient points of the staff report. He noted that the architectural commission granted preliminary approval. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Jonathan asked if staff was incorporating the Water and Services District conditions. Mr. Winklepleck replied yes. Vice Chairperson Richards opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. HARRY SCHMITZ, applicant, stated that he took into consideration commission' s comments when designing this project and noted that a letter from the neighbor had been submitted in favor. He indicated that the project was reduced to seven units and requested approval . Vice Chairperson Richards asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Action: Moved by Commissioner , Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 3-0. 3 RECEIVED March 17, 1992 MAR 18 1992 SMITH fAMMUNIC ry Or PALM,HURT R7MENT PERONI City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr FIOX Palm Desert, California 92660 PLANNING CONSULTANTS,INC. Attn: Steve Smith 3800 Orange Street,Suite 150 _ Riverside,California 92501 714/276-3038 RE: Macleod Project Prezoning 714/369-1156 FAX Dear Steve, This letter is in regards to our phone conversation today, March 17, 1992. I understand that the prezoning of the MacLeod Property will be continued for thirty days and will be rescheduled for April 21, 1992. If for any reason, there are any other delays, please let me know as soon as possible. Enclosed please find a copy of the latest proposed signal locations for this project, should you have any questions please contact me at (714) 276-3038. Respectfully, Bonnie P. Berg Director of Project Management bpb CITY OF PALM DESERT - DEPHriTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 17, 1992 CASE NO: C/Z 92-1 REQUEST: Recommendation for approval to the city council of the prezoning of parts of Sections 19, - 20 and 29 T4S R6E to PC(3 ) (regional commercial ) , SI (service industrial ) and PCD (planned community development) and a negative declaration of environmental impact as it pertains thereto to permit annexation application to be submitted to LAFCO. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND• The north sphere specific plan and the city' s land use element to the general plan designate the whole of this area as commercial/ industrial. The city is proposing to prezone this area consistent with its general plan designation and subsequently process an annexation application through LAFCO. The whole of the area is within the city' s adopted sphere of influence. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: Railroad and Freeway South: PC(2 ) and PR-5/Vacant East: PR-5/Vacant West: Future Commercial Rancho Mirage/Vacant B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial/Industrial II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is to prezone the area PC(3 ) , SI and PCD. The McCloud/Couch property, 80 acres at the southwest corner of the area, is to be prezoned PCD (planned community development) which will be consistent with the land use under consideration and is consistent with the general plan. The area north of Dinah Shore and west of Monterey, 118 acres which includes Price Club, will be prezoned PC(3 ) regional commercial which is the city' s zoning which most closely fits this type of land use. STAFF REPORT C/Z 92-1 MARCH 17, 1992 The vacant property at the northeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore ( 13+ acres) will also be prezoned PC(3) regional commercial. The property fronting on Monterey at the southeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore ( 68 acres owned by Rancho Mirage Industrial Park) will be zoned PC(3) . This zoning extends east to Market Street approximately 1300 feet east of Monterey. The remainder of the area, 20 acres held by Bernard Debonne located west of the mid section line of Section 29 and 101+ acres east of the Market Street line held by Ruyen International Corp, and Melby Henry TR, will be prezoned SI ( service industrial ) as well as 80 acres + held by Monterey Palms (PT) at the southeast corner of the area. This will front onto Portola when extended. Overall the area takes in approximately 489 acres of which 80 acres will be PCD, 199 acres PC(3) and 210 acres SI . All of the proposed prezonings are consistent with the city' s general plan land use plan as well as the north sphere specific plan. All of the proposed prezonings are also similar to the present County of Riverside land use designations. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed prezoning was considered and reviewed as a part of the north sphere specific plan which was recently completed. An EIR was done for the area prior to construction of Price Club. Additionally, the county is currently processing an EIR on the proposed regional center by Rancho Mirage Industrial Park (i.e. southeast corner of Monterey and Dinah Shore ) . This EIR identifies traffic and air quality impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. We have been given to understand that the county will certify the EIR in the near future and adopt a statement of overriding considerations. These actions will proceed the formal annexation of the area to the city. The prezoning only goes into effect if and when the area is actually annexed to the city. The city will recognize any approvals granted by the county as well as all mitigation measures identified in the EIR. 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z' 92-1 MARCH 17, 1992 IV. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: The proposed prezoning will become effective upon annexation of the property to the city and is consistent with the adopted specific plan and general plan land use element. The area, which will be subject to a future annexation application request to LAFCO is within the city' s sphere of influence. The types of uses to be permitted in the area by the proposed zonings are consistent with those presently existing in the area. V. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the findings and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. , recommending to city council approval of C/Z 92-1. VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution. B. Legal notice. C. Plans and exhibits. Prepared by v Reviewed and Approved by SRS/tm 3 PLANN] COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PREZONING PARTS OF SECTIONS 19, 20 AND 29 T4S R6E PC(3) (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) , SI (SERVICE INDUSTRIAL) AND PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) TO FACILITATE THE ANNEXATION OF THE AREA TO THE CITY. CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City , of Palm Desert, California, did on the 17th day of March, 1992, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider recommending to city council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and prezoning parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate the annexation of the property to the city; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined that the project will not have an adverse impact on the environment and a negative declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts to justify recommending approval of said prezone and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact: 1 . The proposed prezoning to PCD, PC(3 ) and SI is consistent with the North Sphere Specific Plan. 2. The proposed land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives of the North Sphere Specific Plan and Palm Desert General Plan. 3. The proposed prezoning will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "A" and C/Z 92-1 Exhibit "B" on file in the department of community development are hereby recommend to the city council for approval. PLANNING COMMISSION F ELUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this day of 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary SRS/tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION F 3LUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 92-1 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: City of Palm Desert PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Prezoning of parts of Sections 19, 20 and 29 T4S R6E to facilitate annexation of the area to the city. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. March 17, 1992 RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 Y�qq q •.;poi;.. -- —_ o,r o P.C.(3) n� I Dinah Shore Dr. a :. •.rt --�Y1WIY5LL'145LL"11 "'L 41W Si W - _ .•�:_' 2U 21 1 xexcxo xn.EE cu. E:xu 3c1. — .�� �.'� '�;:i�., -- {_ I it "./� 'l (•. 3920 l r i � P E3) ;'{ S.I. ' , S.I. •:e:,_ Do -- i 1 P.C.D. S.I. ..........xmav:.n:nu r:roc............. •....................J i •.........................�': YYY rx..DESERT C Ty uvn o I LL P.C.—(2): P. 1 I . - - 31 1 32 32 3 P.C.—(2)I I III CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/z 92-1 PLANNING COMMISSION n RESOLUTION NO. ° OO 1r im (�) EMLI LI o � V Date L 8 O S N D C4 Illtllllllll STUD?elueoaNT - f nrr OYnr OTT ttNlr eelnb0 eYIOIRTIat +l COVFter Owe 4Y GU/af.. r'••••••• 'r.ul onnr Room, - ' r,rlrA1 a6 eunoe uoomw. ,ttAYH. eoUe INraR SIDS `ii?:;C ly ei1offro°O�FROAie i - 1r eN•dn.vT91d 02811101.Yet 86•48'rt0.Mae PAbir RI a0. ® /tY --- MONTT Or a........ OOYMpmaVOtpOmlaL ��'q" . . e 1eO1AN IrtW OTT 2Uwx I eTOOi tONe e.!♦000enrmus eoaml /li�F,Q: f�m�-r nee .r etNloe onur •;:;ICI I' :I --Tiranmr- ? Liii:AM 'i""` '/i♦�'o \ ' f G ::ti{.!1:ii{(,1;ati'$^.?ilvi'::':. -T °" '1 ♦/Q I """ e o !!!e WARAIM' t1 e ., ...ia';1:• •.:!j::j .;. .. �r•�N`�% ♦i, nude = ;t.1: :.y,, .i::iri'�`•+;it:iii::%::: ,f:�i::�. ...f''.. sS'l i��(, ryj/� � , ... p .....' .... '':'n,':i';i;jt(;;t .`.(i>;!r',•' '."di:? ,� �yf ft:- �:;� 'iS ii ,p..�t?ro"��i• ,,q,; /i/,�o '.I'i!7 %�51:+.' i:i'!'r•i(IS:; �:i: ''�' :i2£' ')tj: t1U.. //q/. .in.fluv;(1:'. ':1�tii:i a.��i5:�i:-�.r. ,rit:: ;ii: �•'':'ji•I - \j�1 Y�i//i . (4i:(::ii;.r�or.ii:� ':il� fi':Ili:;' i { ' ��!P}�t�o�•'. .L r,•. ♦, 11� iwr'M`! r.rr. "'1 .i.. :: ......t•. !i::y: I --^` .. .:r...ie - :�e:amyr•:F{i;.:.:..` v: .�„r rq.:.c. q+'/ . ..1 'i 'OFyyli. •3k;i:9e` ^i "y�.. :rr.4;ii!iui;�...6;: i;:i4 :%;i rf.:::ii:�!!:`'r.. f� �. ��\\ 4i::+:'>ti':::It.,'� :'t:�°•�:i�'!�i.'P::�///' `- 5:j. i....... - '9'i l.,,;;::;.;Tp•d': 1;;;� v� �� \��; ..i.� i tier Y I •! P''t,l.'�i . � !iY�.lM OntNt OnitNe K:••:} �� \ f.:.l:•... 5. //• . .couF 'ai. S.\'\\\� t\.. ?`:::Ic .'i'i=i<tyi• r-�oi-..., a,.;.�prs-� I•..r, I/ . - .tiiy` Iv eiGi ii;i5^1„ \ � \\.,a. � :'.'C•ii;y....:....t....l . . 7.!, .a,Yr?::'i:j -!/j'. - = i.r!;: yti:a:'R�i�tii>a; ay rip.-•:oy •!.. Q♦. 4FI:r.:/k1:i1�:y�l.rl r�..�;i:._5:•i ';i�i.:':,: � .'-'ti�oiiie`i�ilil,. ..i:�'' ..b_fj:. }.�! J:,.;�1 .. :,:;)i /i♦�. ::p?,:AiNrc>,.::./•:7j.y::;rr1.;1; ; ._::�t:li:if��: 'j \ Li:•! ufi��::r (: _.4 . :^7..':,r--./:� ♦/ COYNfnI Clue i Y-r !•' / 'txe� :?t'r! ,�ti:vxl•J °b:: t 'Y::.:;^.i:.:::f'. �e x i_-i' '•::i.f : ! ... �/ •...:..i>';:: {.'.jkY' \ � ^i?:r'.`,:1`}:: F'1.; :0" y .;, .^-r;'v.°'�;: ••;•'; y., ,rq,/•r :i:i:r•> ='; '\ . i, fJ,-.:J .� a \�, - .}:i:b. NF:E;•}' •;i::y., j=:::ii. a^^, /// c rn-r•1.. ti'ta:;.....,.i..i '%;ili�C%i[r'}%i.r:;r.:. .�:: ...1�! �f',i•:.�: I r.r:i•;:1:'r: ::'i' :J:l:.: !1 .r..:..,... r /// C \^''.i:• A6y y:ii:i$; ..Rc\V. .:oJ _,�s"J•..ao::P!If. -.;1:: '. F �' /I �E ::!.'::;`;:•.tn;r;: �fr:;:' \\:: \�\• cr S;;f ;f���.og.! I 'iCtl'i h� e 1e .h�Y, _J.+L_:.__ :1:J.7Vl. :.:!A• (�; %couNrel ewer.,ri :i e O.A' `.:/a: (.. ,,P.PtlCFirth •L%f`_. :: :.t - .;,.f::r:::::.:r: :!,r, i{ / = ';l(['thr � ��� �''-! •.r.. ':ii' a:ir:i:inq:i�+ t /.}.•, r:rl •1. •:i�: ill::•i�.../` .I:�r.l'ii:: er••r v:l: :ii: .fr• y{ }y 'r'1'r ..t .1-. .t:/:.. ..1. 1•'/1..::.. :'!1: ..P•: •.I[Slq'N�t� r'r'r is n,.r,.•ir,:� iir.::''r 4..:.d::. •i:•:•.L;}::+:: :1 :, in ql Y• .'1urc..'::•:::••a: .r, r, 1.1?;5' n!: 's�ul'1 r!t '-1'.. '•:.7::%:' ..L:. :•a . ::e: a•: ' '.°.:..: ':f.��•i:• .Ju: ........ai•r: ::•I::.:1• f 1?r.'::, , \ 1 � 1 q.Ijy - .,�'>,T�r+r-Jml :r.( ''rWnnr011Y•,r r r, .v'iNt YN°N : ••- •i ....:.-: rctue�...: .. Si(i.;�..;.r. '+r�lr...' . /:;.... ;;:...... n:ji e..qt! `.,,!•'. filar yp: .�`) nNee Nteonr• . . E4�:. i.•. 'iY:.: t.l •:t:)l:lr�.:•I �Y!r•'1;r�. .15:; 1111111111� ..,i:. :�v'i•':`.¢!'i' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� it, r.•.n:a'��i��' l ou .L..r .111t� :i:;;r�!::`i ,P,p'sg.....5....i.1.:••: iirau ter{:i1'?.:'. k N F rl n• .:r r.• .r .rr .,r rrr rrr. .rr .r.r •r'r .. .' - +! '.-.rr.i..f.J.rlJ;t••;.:-••.1":.::i:_ i:;r•:a5::r•::::. ..u'r O.P•� :.t-_== ..I_,.t;rrii rl... .ph::.:�..,a..,. i;l(:�:y:('�<: ••d�r �� �:,: -= :��i4%<i:Idly:.�P:`:vH;;,ril'd' clJ7; ,IC$'ij}j; .,.;.iv i:lily.,r:.r r,°;u �r0 ' I ^ ...Iya..O::!;..: !:;:. •. :�y :�t�.•}; vd: Y FQODlI o. 1,�• .:t... �:.j:i=Y:i.!':'.•�..!i.:}OV11nT C Ve 'r:x7C.-aT.r'r:ri:� :.ram: '�!" Itll.: �tl ,i;! :'d:{}j!..;}� 1!"� :•. 2' ...i::-+::;.iliniolw l':�II. (I li �i�iii..�t�im1i�11111111111111111:;ti�:.;•.�:.:.._::..•:.: .,....:;a:: �<"•(' %:r'•�!v: 8 �I fillcoliNln eme;.�II�I �� I - : �; :: 1I rl qNA+ll/ L• ii�;.' (r=�11 P. E L1.... � llgl/l/l//I / 'I+��'".;Cr +y�'ftf� j i I ' ,;�� : . � M \\\�\\\ \\\\\\\\ U a. �• as iamvs �3a Aik AJ LO a N N Z cp f 'r� LL M -UU) k. N : G i N U «Q U N Z U U 3AV a M I as lr 3dOH ?e /r �� U Nil � } � � o Q K F a z N Y z Q J _ _ ©. oa LU COMM oao� LU e000q 00000l cl 00000q NI Q • f' 1 t•i .i., I I , 1'ltltf�.••. ti 1 tll 77 1 ............. •: o Jt , a ' fff•�1 III �. ��'��/. U ..I...... ' fN.':1..�.'L•.1,,�II < nl�• ir:..t/.'ri,�, 1.$ •`�:':•.;:•1.:':i:.::i: �.. AU ';?'\:..f•y`il� '.{•(r•,P•'4 .�', '•4 •.;3;:: �'�:�•• i.W • ll•Il 11,] 1]Y11. 0 ]q C S,��}'�) 5.1.(�. ,,..fie.L. e� ''� :ti•.: wLTT r . r !,, "o . )r �: '.tt* ♦ 7r fr '' ✓ -4 { '..q{{/.-y y L {n6 ,l ti. f f n��� t. ,i• • W i '7,. 1 1 , � , �r ;,' ���. } •ram: >: � � Iz'f t:y.f?4•f'y'.�:• ;:'�. '?�,�,:; C1t4. ! r�f .� ' w.j r�.I- r�yil eeF'.'.•,`'.: ��::�. •;: p'C �' i� •.w �r{,Fil � I Iti a:+I. i1 i�i w�CCq>S'�.��{ ,�U'�l t ��7, r � �� r � S may-;>t :�•••'•:+ O rV �� t; .� Fr T LL, {# :^9 f �l 1 '�/-.��• .7) [ el 'i { � W { Wr �'�!}"�'i���, �I k 'S, r 1.� ift 'R:� r F � 7 L .,' Q'•s , r 1 a . a .1' i 1 '� ,f L- (i .cA+ ! Ir`r!'rr �'• 3 \r�� ! J }f F�!i'( ' �I,pia ai * ,.� r,!� I Zr r y ' , ' t {� .{r 1 IQ ,r• ' vl�.-'I`tyM�Y 1'�..` � '•z^) ?.,.7.'1:illy"1*n Nl'YY14r T '{. T•}•:11,..n,, .,,• ++:r,.: , _, v. .w.y O INITIAL STUDY CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO THE ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1. EARTH a. The project will result in grading. The grading will not result in alterations to geologic substructures. The area is gently sloping so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the area is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place in the area. C. The area is gently sloping and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d. The area does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. e. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the area through proper grading resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the area. MITIGATION MEASURES The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures requires detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must be designed to UBC requirements to insure that the building(s) are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth therein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. Coachella Valley Water District has plans for a regional storm channel to run parallel to and southerly of the railroad. This area will drain to this new regional drainage facility. 2. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate INITIAL STUDY C/Z" 92-1 this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Additionally, the County of Riverside is currently processing an EIR for a regional commercial project on property within this area. This EIR identifies air quality impacts which result from traffic volumes anticipated in this area. Given the existing land uses and those anticipated in the future, this area will continue to experience air quality impacts. It is understood that the County of Riverside will certify in the near future the EIR done for that property and as part of that action will adopt a statement of overriding considerations. This prezoning, to facilitate annexation, will only become effective when the area is annexed to the city. It is anticipated that the EIR will be certified and the statement of overriding considerations adopted prior to the annexation being complete. The EIR to be certified by the county and mitigation measures contained therein and the accompanying statement of overriding considerations are hereby adopted by reference. b. The proposed future development does not call for any odorous land uses. C. Development of this area will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the area. b. The area will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however the onsite landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material. The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner. C. See b. As discussed previously, CVWD has plans for a regional storm drain channel that will serve this area. d. There is no ground water present in the area. e. See d. 2 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 f. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. CVWD, through contract with State Water Project and Metropolitan Water District, recharges the aquifer. Even though long-term water supplies are assured, CVWD and the city encourage water conservation. No further comment or mitigation is required. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the area contains weeds and sagebrush. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the area. The plants that will be introduced to the area will, however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The area does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. 5. a & b The undeveloped portion of this area may contain some remaining animal life which will have to relocate when the area develops. This area was habitat area for the endangered Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. A habitat conservation plan was established which will provide for the long term preservation of the endangered Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard as well as other flora and fauna associated with the blowsand ecosystem. Payment of the mitigation fee will allow expansion of the preserve established by the Nature Conservancy. In return for the mitigation fee, the cities of the valley were issued Section 10A permits of the Endangered Species Act by Fish and Wildlife Service which permits the incidental taking of the lizard and destruction of the habitat. 3 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 C. No new species of animals will be introduced to the area. The freeway and railroad are long existing physical barriers to the migration or movement of animals. The annexation and future development of the area will not impact further on .animal migration or movement. d. See items a & b above. 6. a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. b. All material resources used in the area are renewable. 7. Electric power to the area is available from Southern California Edison. Edison responded to the city' s north sphere plan and indicated that it was within growth projections for the utility. Southern California Gas Company will provide natural gas to the area. Both utilities have indicated they are able to serve the area. Buildings will be required to comply with Title 24 and the most recent state and city codes. In addition, the city' s architectural review commission reviews plans for the provisions of adequate solar protection which is in addition to Title 24. 8. RISK OF UPSET The area presently does not have uses which have the potential to create a risk of upset. Much of the area is and will be zoned for service industrial uses. Any of those uses which have the potential to create a risk of upset or risk of explosion must first obtain necessary fire department permits and/or approvals. This level of impact will be the same whether the area is within the city or the county in that both agencies project industrial land uses and the city contracts for fire service from the county. 9. ECONOMIC LOSS The property is designated Zone 'C' of the FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) . Zone ' C' is described as an area of minimal flooding. At present flood waters leaving the area are undirected. Mitigation measures required in the area include retention onsite and contributing to the Mid Valley Flood Channel construction will improve water direction and control. The potential for economic loss due to flooding will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 4 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 The area is subject to geologic hazards ( i.e. : seismic activity) associated with the San Andreas fault north of the I-10 freeway. The risk of this activity is not beyond accepted community risk standards. 10. NOISE Construction and subsequent operation of commercial and industrial projects will increase ambient noise level. The increase will not be above acceptable standards for these type of use areas. The ambient level in this area is high to begin with given the proximity to the railroad and freeway. Anticipated uses will not impact on the existing noise level. 11 . LAND USE The proposed land uses for the area were identified and analyzed in the city' s north sphere specific plan. For the most part the uses are consistent with existing or proposed county land uses. Under either jurisdiction the area is subject to development pressures. 12. OPEN SPACE None of the area in question is designated as open space either in the county or in the city land use elements. 13. POPULATION a. None of the area is designated for residential use under the city land use concept. The proposed land uses will result in additional employment and the employees will need housing. Notwithstanding the above, the prezoning and annexation will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city' s population. b. The .project will not generate changes in the socio-economic characteristics of the area. 14. EMPLOYMENT When the area develops a substantial number of new long-term jobs can be expected. Considering the unemployment rate it is unfortunate that this area could not presently be under development. 5 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 Development of the area will help alleviate unemployment. The jobs created should be a broad spectrum of job types from administration to management to sales clerks to office workers. Considering the current unemployment rate it is expected that most of the jobs created will be filled by existing residents of the area. 15. a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in items 13 and 14. There is currently being projected some 8, 000 unsold housing units in the valley in addition to the number of rental units being developed. b. Considering that many of the jobs are expected to be filled by existing, unemployed and underemployed residents the housing impact is not expected to be significant,. Additionally it should be noted that the city has purchased 133 acres of property at Gerald Ford Drive and Portola for the creation of a 1200 unit employee village. Construction of this project will be funded with up to $60,000, 000 from bonds which have been sold through Riverside County Housing Authority which will operate the development once it is on line. Many of the jobs created in this area will qualify for this below market employee village housing. This housing will be located within one mile of this area. 16. TRANSPORTATION a. Development in the area with industrial, commercial and office uses will generate additional traffic. The area is currently subject to development pressures and the County of Riverside is processing several applications. Traffic generated in the area will be similar whether developed under the county or the city. At this time the county is completing an EIR and traffic study which conclude that the traffic impacts are substantial and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. It is understood that a statement of overriding considerations will be adopted by the County of Riverside in the near future. This will be prior to completion of the annexation. 6 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 This prezoning only becomes effective when the area is annexed to the city. The EIR being processed by the county for this area and mitigation measures contained therein and any statement of overriding considerations adopted by the County of Riverside pertaining to this area are included herein by reference. b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the individual projects on their own sites. C. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. Required street improvements will alleviate some of this impact. Those impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance have been analyzed in the EIR being processed by the County of Riverside and will be part of the previously described statement of overriding considerations. d. Principle streets in the area are Dinah Shore and Monterey Avenue, both of which are designated arterial streets. The area is presently heavily congested due to traffic entering the I-10 Freeway. Any alterations to present patterns of circulation, movement of people or goods has already occurred. Further alteration is not expected. e. Implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR being reviewed by the County of Riverside will reduce traffic hazards to a level of insignificance. 17. a. FIRE County Fire Department provides service to the city. As indicated in the Plan For Services on file for the area, the area is within the five minute response time of Station 71 at Portola and Country Club Drive. Part of the mitigation for fire and paramedic service includes payment of the Proposition 'A' fire tax which also provides paramedic service. Prior to issuance of all building permits, the fire department reviews all plans. Future developments will comply with all current fire department standards. The impact on the fire department is not significant. 7 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 b. POLICE The city contracts with Riverside County Sheriff' s Department for service. Staffing levels are reviewed on an ongoing basis and the reports on same presented to city council for funding. This project will not, on its own, generate a need for additional personnel in its earlier phases. The later phases and adjacent areas may result in a need. Therefore the project could have an incremental effect. The fiscal impact report will assume that the annexation of the area will necessitate additional sheriff personnel and funds will be available to provide same. C. SCHOOLS The area will be developed with commercial, industrial and office uses. This land use will not impact on schools other than through the children of employees. Future developments in the area will be required to pay the school mitigation fees in effect at that time. d. PARKS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Parks will not be impacted as parks are provided through conditions in residential projects where the employees will live. e. MAINTENANCE OF ROADS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Additional personnel/governmental services may be necessary. This additional amount and its costs will be more specifically addressed in the fiscal impact report which will be prepared prior to submitting the application to LAFCO. f. OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES Planning, building, public works and code enforcement services, as provided by the city directly will be provided on the basis of need. Our experience with commercial and industrial developments is that they initially create demand on planning staff, then during construction a demand is placed on building and public works inspections. The building director has advised that existing staff inspectors will be 8 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 assigned to this area and that he does not anticipate the need for additional inspectors. The low number of permanent residents in the area will result in a lower than usual number of requests for other governmental services once the area is complete and occupied. 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE Annexation of this area to the city will result in an increase of fiscal flow to the city. A detailed analysis of the net impacts will be contained in the fiscal impact report which will be completed prior to filing the application with LAFCO. If the fiscal impact report shows a negative fiscal impact on the city, the city can decide at that time not to proceed with the annexation and this prezoning would never become effective. 19 . UTILITIES Water and sewer service is provided by Coachella Valley Water District. Electric power is provided by Southern California Edison, natural gas by Southern California Gas Company, telephone service is provided by General Telephone, and solid waste by Palm Desert Disposal. Water, sewer, electric power, gas, telephone and cable television service lines exist in street( s) in the area and are available to serve the area. Palm Desert Disposal is under contract with the city to provide trash pick-up in the city. The local landfill site at Edom Hill and Coachella Valley are expecting to operate through 2019 and 2010 respectively. After that, trash will have to be hauled longer distances, possibly Eagle Mountain which the County of Riverside has under current review. The impacts created by solid waste could have a significant impact. Proposed Mitigation By ordinance the city requires new developments to participate in the city' s recycling program. The city' s recycling program, as a whole, has an 80% participation level according to the Environmental Conservation Manager. This level of participation would reduce the solid waste impacts to a point where they are not significant. Impacts on utilities will be similar whether the area remains in the county or is annexed to the city. This is because 9 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 the proposed land uses are similar and the timing of development is similar under either agency. 20. HUMAN HEALTH Annexation of the area to the city will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. The land uses under either agency (county or city) will be similar and the proposed land uses are not expected to create hazards to human health. 21. SOCIAL SERVICES The area when developed will contain few if any residents. No increase in the demand of general social services are anticipated. 22. AESTHETICS a, b and c The area slopes from south to north. Scenic vistas to the north have already been impacted by the freeway, railroad and row of 30- 40 foot tall tamarisk trees along the railroad. All future development proposals will be reviewed by the city' s architectural review commission. This, along with compliance with the city' s zoning ordinance, will assure that an offensive area is not created nor will the overall neighborhood attractiveness. 23. New light will be produced but projects in the area will be required to prevent lighting spillover. In addition, the requirement for an engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. Also, developers will need to comply with the city' s dark sky ordinance. 24. The area was reviewed for evidence of archaeological or historical significance through studies done for the county general plan, the Price Company EIR, the city' s north sphere secondary plan, and the current EIR that the county is reviewing. There has been no evidence of any archeological or historical significance in this area. In addition, state law requires that 10 INITIAL STUDY C/Z 92-1 should any evidence be found during construction, construction must cease and the area cleared. 25. a. Development in the area to be annexed, as discussed under traffic and air quality, has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. This is confirmed in the county EIR under review at this time. The level of impact and the timing of the imposition of such impacts will be similar whether the area remains under the county or is annexed to the city. The county EIR and mitigation measures contained therein and statement of overriding considerations which is to be certified and adopted in the near future are adopted by reference herein. b. The area, when developed, will result in long term impacts (traffic and air quality) . Any short term impacts will neither increase or decrease the long term impacts. Future adoption of the EIR and a statement of overriding considerations are hereby referenced. C. The traffic impact is such that it results in air quality impacts. These impacts are discussed more fully in the county EIR which is referenced herein. d. The project is the prezoning of the area to facilitate annexation. Future land uses in the area will be similar under either the county or the city. The extent of any adverse impacts on human beings will not be affected by the annexation. The impacts have been identified in the county EIR presently under review which is adopted by reference herein as well as any future statement of overriding considerations. 11 ill APPENDIX TO I RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ! For the purposes of the Negative Declaration, we have followed the noticing requirements of Public Resources Code, Section 21091 et SEQ. The documents referred to in this response are on file in the Community Development/Planning Department at the City of Palm Desert, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260 during regular office hours. The following documents have been referred to in the preparation of the response and the negative declaration: --- General Plan, City of Palm Desert --- Palm Desert North Sphere Specific Plan --- North Sphere Specific Plan Studies on Air Quality and Noise --- Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan --- Environmental Impact Report for City of Rancho Mirage General Plan GENERAL PLAN, CITY OF PALM DESERT: This is briefly described as the long term planning document for the city containing all mandatory elements. Specifically, elements'lrelating to land use, housing, population, noise, seismic safety, public facilities, transportation, circulation, conservation, open space recreation and energy, and the urban design scenic highway elements were utilized. Also, the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the adoption of the general plan was reviewed. These elements can be described as follows: LAND USE This element describes the existing and proposed land uses of the city and its surrounding areas, and shows how they relate to one another. This element proposed future land use which incorporates low to high density development to ensure a consolidation of support facilities (commercial, industrial, public, etc. ) into respective areas to ensure that they provide convenient and complementary service where they are most needed and best suited. This element recommended that a specific plan be completed for the north sphere area, which will be annexed into the city in the future. The specific plan will deal with the environmental and other problems prior to development on a large scale. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION This element describes the need for an effective transportation system to serve the local regional access now and in the future. It further describes various issues (i.e. access, energy) and the various modes of transportation ( i.e. pedestrian, autos, bicycles) which must be taken into consideration in order to have a full array of service and means of access available. APPENDIX TO RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC"uIST C/Z 92-1 I This element proposes a roadway and pathway system which provides for automobile, pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart and public transportation (bus) access and circulation throughout the city and surrounding areas. Although only the main roadways are shown on the circulation map, detailed planning on the local level is required to complete the system in a manner which will make it effective. URBAN DESIGN/SCENIC HIGHWAY This element describes the importance of establishing the identity and character of the city, which in turn will help to create a greater sense of appreciation and pride in the community. This element proposes that various features such as landmarks, focal points, scenic highway, landscaping and architecture should beyutilized to establish an urban design character for the city as a whole and for the respective community neighborhoods. PUBLIC FACILITIES This element discusses the present and future capacities of public facilities (e.g. schools, police and fire protection, etc. ) in Palm Desert. This element discusses the various factors affecting the provision or deliverance of public facilities and/or services in the citylbe taken into consideration. HOUSING This element describes basic housing data ( such as price range of units) , indicates trends, and establishes present and projected needs. This element proposes that a broad range of reasonably priced but quality-oriented housing types be provided because it is both required and desired in terms of meeting state and federal law and ,the best interests of the community at large. The element recommends the creation of a higher density overlay zone to encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types (single family, apartments, duplexes, townhouses, etc. ) by providing flexible design standards, assisting in the application/planning procedure and providing other incentives to produce housing that residents can afford. 2 I I f APPENDIX TO RESPONSEF TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECk,. IST C/z 92-1 i POPULATION ECONOMICS This element provides basic data about the community which describes its current population, business, and economic base. This data, along with other information, helps to provide for a better understanding of the community, along with a projection of future trends which must'1be taken into consideration if effectiveness is to result. SAFETY/NOISE/SEISMIC SAFETY These elements deal with such factors as blowsand, flood control, earthquakes, public safety, drainage and noise. These elements require that all of the various factors affecting the environmental and social quality of the community be taken into consideration and that standards and regulations be reviewed. CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION This element inventories and evaluates the existing natural resources ( such as endangered species and plants) , park facilities and historical buildings within the city and surrounding area. This element establishes guidelines for the development of park facilities and for the preservation and protection of the natural environment during the continuing development of the city. ENERGY The intent of this element is to provide the necessary planning (gathering and analyzing data, establishing goals and objectives, and formulating implementation policies and programs) , to make the city more energy efficient. In conclusion, local energy consumption levels can be reduced. The element describes how land use controls such as zoning, subdivision regulations and site plan review can be refined or developed to improve the efficiency of energy use and reduce local consumption of non- renewable energy sources. PALM DESERT NORTH SPHERE . SPECIFIC PLAN: This is a specific plan for the north sphere area of Palm Desert extending from Monterey Avenue to Washington Street and from I-10 south to 42nd Avenue. This plan updates the general plan land use, transportation/circulation, public facilities and housing elements as 3 t I APPENDIX TO RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHEGn,,IST C/Z 92-1 they are applicable to the sphere area. This plan discussed development in the sphere as it relates to the surrounding region. The land use in the north sphere specific plan is generally consistent with those designated in the county comprehensive general plan. NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN - Technical Studies on Air Quality and Noise: These are technical studies of air quality and noise conducted as a part of the north sphere specific plan. Essentially these studies established a base line of existing noise level and air quality, then using the proposed land uses established anticipated impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The north sphere specific plan project included a mix of residential, commercial, office/industrial, recreational, and hotel uses on 4363 acres generally located south of Interstate 10 and north of Highway 111 between Monterey Avenue and Washington Street. The proposed project was a mixed-use development consisting of 11, 790- 12, 886 residential dwelling units; 1, 454, 000 square feet of commercial space; 5,340, 000 square feet of office/industrial space; institutional uses; 534 acres of recreational uses; and 2250-2550 hotel rooms. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN - (4th Edition) : Section 4b. at page 110. 20 covers the Western Coachella Valley Plan Community Policies. This is a plan with specific standards for the development of the area in a series of various permitted land uses. The subject area is designated 2B. The standards for 2B areas are delineated at pages 110-32 through 110-34. Basically, all sewers must be available and the development must be compatible with existing projects. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON 1987 COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE FOR CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE: In order to better analyze the regional significance of the project we reviewed this document similar in structure and content to the City of Palm Desert ' s General Plan and the City of Indian Wells ' General Plan. 4 c/Z C CAEZZ NO . 12:: . , =T71PON-1=7AL SERVICES DEPT . INITIAL STUDY MVIRON3fE.E"ITAL EVALUATION( CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIROt•1MENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers , possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Oisruptions , displacements , compaction, or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief — — features? d. The destruction, covering.. or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ x e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture , or temperature , or any change in climate , either locally or regionally? _ • z, Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a_ Changes - in currents , •or the course or 1 direction of water• movements? b. Changes in-absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of — — surface water runoff?' c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of .the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ X e. Change in the quantity of ground waters , either through direct additions or with- drawals , or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? _ X a. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants ( including trees , shrubs , grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique , rare, - — or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area , or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects )? _ ` J b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare , or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Oeterioration to existing wildlife habitat? ,n. 3. Yes Mavbe Plc 6. Natural Resources . Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in •the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7 . Enercv. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.development of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Uoset. . Does the proposal involve a risk a an explosion or the release of , hazardous substances ( including, but not limited to, pesticides ,' oil , chemicals , or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. E^onomic loss.. Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and 4 impro•+ements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted community risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted community noise and vibration levels are exceeded? ii. land Use. Will .the proposal result in the alteration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Ocen Soace. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the -emount of designated open space? 13 . Pcoulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration or the location, distribution , density , or growth rate of the human — — Population of the City? b. Change in the population distribution by aue , income, religion , racial , or ethnic group, occupational class , hcusehr,ld type? 4 Yes Mavbe No 14. Em��oloy�nnennt�t. Will the proposal result in aaditio F new long-tern+ jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, unemployed, and underemployed? _ S. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied Ind rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? _ b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a 1 demand for additional housing? _J 16. Transoortation/Circulation. Will the proposal resu t in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? e _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities , or demand for new parking? e c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? a _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ — e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles , bicyclists , or pedestrians? 17 . Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following are!$: a. Fire protection? 1-- — b. Police protection? �( C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities , including roads? f. Other governmental services? — �— Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. . Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal ? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or Potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21 . Social Services . Will the proposal result in an increased demand for provision of general social services? 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista. or vi.ew — open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area ) attractiveness, pleasantness , - and uniqueness? 23. Licht and Glare. Will the proposal produce — — new lignt or g are? 24 . Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal resu t in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure , object, or building? _ _ . Yes Maybe No 25 . Mandatory Findings of Sioni'ficance. a. Oaes the- project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or to curtail the diversity in the environment? _ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into 1 the future. ) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi - vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Ooes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? r� Initial Study Prepared By: ( L .q w, q �•••••••;, II r ' • rj!'' •,'•' o 4r f'•� P.C.0) 0 P.C.(3) ' I Dinah Shore Dr. Y1Widi ILYlailtl"Ji L'"LiYl ZO 21 3G W_rt-33c `y... 1 Yx<xo u4iE( ctlr 11Y11 �:' _ _,�li>.�.� `;i —� {— 29I2B i i3)\ S.I. '\ n, P.C.D. i J vuY osssYl Yn • 1 i I j 1 . ' 31 132 32 3 �IP.C.—(2)I I ' CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. C/z 92-1 PLANNING COMMISSION ° C� RESOLUTION NO. �� ('-n0 0 � �r B Date Zi . 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 February 21 . 1992 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider prezoning the property south of Interstate 10, on both sides of Monterey Avenue as more particularly delineated on the map below for the purpose of facilitatina annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. -. I4y� � re -_-1M\WIYIY(IY\YIY.Y'`YIY\W(YY�fYII'! �)"` — Y•.c IOltl P.O:(2) 13 1= SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 17. 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. California. at which time and place all Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court. you may be limited to raising only those issues your or someone else raised at the public hearing described In this notice. or In written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to. the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary February 26, 1992 Palm Desert Planning Commission 1 pdladLUIV199 pru city P 'OF OF PUBLICATION Proof of Publication of: 0 This rice is for the County Clerks CITY OF (jcf O, Fling Stamp CITY OF PALM DESERT F LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CfZ 92.1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to corder prezonvig the property south of Interstate 10.rot troth aides of Monterey Avenue as more particularly dellnlated on Ina map below for the purpose of facilitating amasuaon of are area to Me City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental Impact Pertaining Violate. SAID pudic hearing w01 be held Cn Tuesday,Merck i7, ' a992,at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chamber at the Palm Dawn Off,Hall,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert, Califomla,atwhich time and pines all interested persons ere Jevited to attend and be heard. Written comments 5arteeming ell items covered by this pudic hearing notice I be accepted up to the data of are treating.Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration Is available for review In the department of STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Community devebpment/planning at the above address County of Riverside, I ann a cid- between the he=of 8:00 am. and 4:30 p.m. Monday un of the United States and a re- enough Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions inccun,You may be limited to raffling only those Issues you or sidem of the County aforesaid; I someone else relsed at the pudic hearing described M this am ova the age of eighteen years, 'hoike. or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission(or city council) at,or prior to, Me and not a party to or interested in Public hearing. the above-entitled matter.lam the RAMON A. DIAZ. Secretary principal clerk of theprinterof the Palm Desert Planning Commission (PUB. FEB. 26. 1992) Desert Post,a newspaper of gen- _ oral circulation,printed and pub-lished weekly in the City of Palm Desert County of Rivaside, and which newspaper has been ad- iiiii;il�..�\\a ^n�_ judged a newspaper of general t � L T.` circulation by the Superior Court s ,rsss.'.,,,.�,,.".,;\ r,;,a - of the County of Riverside,State ''( of Califomia, under the date of 1`I I I0/5, 1964,Case Number 83658; 'i that tl"e notice, of which the an- :;;":;:;:::;;:f:;:;:: \ nezed is a printed copy (set in t ::::;:�:;:::::ail;:;::;;::• type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regu- lar and entire issue of said news- -`"'"' paper and not in any supplement thereof on a following datc,to- _.•�� I I wit I� I Cam' all in the year 1992.I certify F=-- (or declare)under penalty of per- jury that the foregoing is we and correct. Dater)at Palm Dcsat California, this ja4. 2- (Shgned) I . pB i . 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 February 21 , 1992 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. C/Z 92-1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider prezoning the property south of Interstate 10, on both sides of Monterey Avenue as more particularly delineated on the map below for the purpose of facilitatinU annexation of the area to the City of Palm Desert and approve a negative declaration of environmental impact pertaining thereto. =rM1W1 Y1Y[\N11L.L.Y`LIN IIY[Y\WlY 1�" ���1y` t lr 1?:' o._ /-::.. 1 // ..... RC.-l2) PP s SAiD public hearing will be held on Tuesdav• i•larch 17. 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written cornrnents concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearino. information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declortit. ion is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues vour or 'someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice. or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission (or city council ) at, or prior to. the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post RAMON A. DiAZ, Secretary , 6WANEE COAST TITLE PACE 1 PREPARED FOR : REwLIESTED BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : ------------------------------------------------ - -- - - --- ----- -- ---------------- APN: 618-500-002 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : CVCWD (XX) Legal : 1 . 24 AC M/L IN POR NE 114 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : C/O CVCWD ; P 0 BOX 1058 ; COACHLLLA CA 92236 Phone : Use : Zone : Asd : Imp : W Sale Dale : Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Bih Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 53578 Sqft : - - ---------- ------------------- - - - -- - - - - --- - - -- --- - - -- - -- --- - ------------- - ----- APN : 618-500-003 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE (XX) Legal : 110 . 00 AC IN POR NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S R6 Mail : 69825 HIGHWAY 111 ; RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 Phone : Use : YR-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : W220 Asd : $2 , 084 , 061 Imp : 056 Sale Date : 11/00/83 Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Blh Tot Units : Lotsqrt : 4791600 Sqft : -- ------------------------------------- - -- - ----- ---------------------------- - -- -- APN: G18 -500-004 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : EDWIN VILESSING PARTNERS (P Legal : 5. 00 AC IN POR NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S 1`166ii Mail : 9596 WILSHIRE BLV NO 511 ; 1.3EVERLY HILLS CA 90212 Phone : Use : YR N . nE-VACAT sIDENTIAL Zone : W220 Asd : $280 , 500 Imp : O�X, Sale Dale : 01/05/90 Sale Aml : $660 , 000F Loan Aml : $330 , 000 Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd nth Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 217800 Sqfl : -- -------------- ---------- ---- - - - -- ---- ------- - - ------- - -- -- - ---------------------- APN: 618- 500-005 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : EDWIN VLESSING PARTNERS (P Legal : 5. 00 AC IN POR NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 TITS 116E Mail : 9595 WILSHIRE BEV NO 511 ; BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 Phone : Use : Rl -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zone : W220 Asc : $281 , 083 Imp : Sale Date : 01/00/90 Sale Amt : $660 , OOOF Loan Amt : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Blh Tot Units : Lolsqft : 217800 Sqft : - ------------ ------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------- APN: 618-500-011 Sifus : SITUS PENDING Owner : GRI FL. ST INV (FI ) Legal : 79 . 58 AC M/L IN POR SE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : P 0 BOX 1935; PALM DESERT CA 92261 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $ 1 , 359 , 122 Imp : OX, Sale Dale : 05/00/87 Sale Amt : Loan Aml : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 3466504 Sqft : ----- ------- - ----------------- - -- ---- -- -- - -------- ---- -------- ------ - --- - --- --- APN: 618-500-012 Si us : SITUS PENDING Owner : WILSIEIN DAVID & LEONARD ( Legal : 8 . 30 AC M/L IN POR NET. 1/4 OF SFC 30 TAS Mail : 2080 E CENTURY PARK PNTH; LOS ANGELES CA 90067 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $591 , 600 Imp : 0r'''' Sale Date : 09/00/89 Sale Amt : $610 , 000F Loan Aml : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Blh Tot Units : I-olsqfl : 361548 Sqfl : ---- - -- - ---- - - - - -- --- -- ------------------------------- --------------------- -- - AP ICI : 618-500-013 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : WEHLACZ LOUIS F & LORRAINE Legal : 4 . 58 AC M/L IN Pon NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : 2423 COUNTRY CLUB DR ; GLENDORA CA 91740 Phone : ( 818 )336-7611 Use : YD-VACANT DESFRT LAND Zone : Asd : $47 , 332 Imp : 0% Sale Dale : 05/00/81 Sale Aml : $55, 50OF Loa" Aml : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd 3th Tot Units : Lotsqft : 217800 Sqft : - ----- - ------------------------------------------------- -------------- - --- - ------- THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 198E ORA Xfa-E COA 5 T T I Tt E PAGE 2 PREPARED FOR : REudESTHD BY: 02/24/02 Riverside County REP : - ----- ----------------------- ---------- ---- ---------------------------------- -- ---- APN : 618-500-014 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : EDWIN VLESSING PARTNERS (P Legal : 4 . 58 AC M/L IN POR NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : 9595 WILSHIRE BLV NO 511 ; BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 Phone : Use : YS-VACANT - MISC . IMPROVEMENTSZone : Ascl : $281 , 083 Imp : O , Sale Date : 01/00/90 Sale Amt : $660 , 000F Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lot lift : 199504 Sqft : ............................ ..... ...... . . .. .... ... ...... ........ .... ...... APN : 618-500-015 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : EDWIN & DENNIS & ASSOC (FI Le )al : 4. 58 AC M/L IN POR NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : 9595 WILSHIRE NO 511 ; BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 Phone : Use : YR-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : Asd : $280 , 500 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 07/00/89 Sale Amt : $275, 0001 Loan Amt : Exempt : HIT : Rms : Bd Bth Tol Units : LoIsqfl : 199504 Sqft : 01-76-18-1-06-1-1-6--- -----S-1-1uh :---S-1T-U-S---P-F-N-D-lN-(-�t----------- ---------------------------- Owner : CEDAR FOOTHILL PARTNERS (F Legal : 14 . 58 AC M/L IN Pon NE 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : 9595 WILSHIRE BLV NO 511 ; BQVITRI-Y HILLS CA 90212 Phone : Use : YR-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : Asd : $528 , 523 Imp kill, Sale Dale : 06/26/89 Sale Am [ : $518 , 500F Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 635104 Sqfl : - - ---------------------------- -- -- - - ----- - -- --------- - ------------------------- THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT is NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 **END OF REPORT** 0RA hSE COA 5 7 T/ TL E PAGE 1 PREPARED FOR : REQUESTED BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : - ----- ---------------------- - --- - ---- -------------- ----- - - -- -- - ---------- ----- ----- APN: 618-560 -001 Silus : SIJUS PENDING Owner : LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY (CR ) Legal : 6 , 03 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : LOMA LINDA FOUNDATIONJOMA LINDA CA 92350 Phone : Use : YR-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : W220 Asd : $322 , 524 Imp : 0% Sale Dale : 11 /00/88 Sale Ami : Loan Aml : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Hd 13th Tat Units : Lotsqft : 262231 Sqft : --------------- - -- -- ------------------------ ----- ----------- ----- ----- ------ ---- APN : 618 -560-002 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : SULTANIAN ILSE S Legal : 5. 04 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S R6E Mail : 415 1/2 NARCISSUS AVE ; CORONA DE E MAR CA 92625 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : RA01 Asd : $17 , 923 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 12/00/87 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : 311 : Rms : Bd Bih Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 219106 Sqft : ---------- --------- ------------- -------------- ------- --------- --- - -- ----- - - - - - --- APN: 618- 560-003 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : SCARBOROUGH MARIANNE Legal : 2 . 52 AC IN POR SW 1 /4 OF SEC 30 14' R6E Mail : 5757 N BALDWIN;TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 Phone : (818 )287 so 8OR Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $4, 311 Imp : Of Sale Date : 11/00/65 Sale Amt : Loan Anil : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqft : 109335 Sqft : - ---------- --------- --- -- - ------ --- - -- - - -------------------------------------- APN : 618-560-004 Situs : SITUS PhNDING Owner : SCARBOROUGH MAR IANNEii Legal : 2 . 52 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S 106E� Mail : 5757 IN BALDWIN; TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 Phone : (818 )287-4808 Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $4 , 311 Imp : 0% Salo Date : 04/00/65 Sale Amt : Loan Aml : Exempt : H T "Rms : Bd Bth of Units : Lotsqft : 109335 Sqft : --- --- ------ -- ------ - --- -- ----- APN: 618-560-005 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : SCARBOROUGH MARIANNE Legal : 5 . 04 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S 11616 Moil : 5757 N BALDWIN; TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 Phone : (818 )287-4808 Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $7, 928 Imp : O'X, Sale Dale : Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : 011A Ros : Hd Oth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 210106 Sqft : ot.14ta----X--------- - --- ---------- ------------------ ------- -- ----------------- - APN: 618-560-006 Situs : 72260 VIA MARTA RANCHO MIRAGE 92270 Owner : NICHOLS ROBERT D & BARBARA Legal : 5. 00 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S 16L Mail : 72260 VIA MARTA; RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 Phone : Use : Rl-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zone : W2 Asd : $124 , 362 Imp : 88% Sale Dale : Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempt : IT Hit : Rms : Bd Blh Tot Units : Lotsqft : 217800 Sqft : ---------------------- --- --------------------------------- - -------------------- -- APN : 618-560- 007 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : COOK JACQUFLINF (UW) Legal : 2 . 50 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S RGE Mail : 1331 BROKEN HITCH RD;OCEANSIDE CA 02056 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $44, 161 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 03/00/86 Sale Amt : $40 , OOOF Loan Aml : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 108900 Sqft : - - ---- - - --- - -------------------------------------------- ---- ----- -------- - THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 GRANEE COAST TITIE PAGE ? PREPARED FOR : REQUESTED BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : -------------------------------- - ----- ------- -- ------- ------------------ APN : G18-560-008 Situs : SIIUS PENDING Owner : COTTRELL RICHARD EUGENE TR Legal : 5 . 00 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S RGE� Mail : 1075 RICHMAN KNOLL ; FULLERTON CA 921335 Phone : Use : YR-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : W220 Asd : $114 , 866 Imp : 0-0,�, Sale Dale : 02/00/84 Sale Amt : $204, 000F Loan Amt : Exempt : BIt : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqft : 217800 Sqfl : --- ----------------- -------- ------------- ------------------------------- .....- . . .......... APN : 618-560-009 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY (CR ) Legal : POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 TIIS R6E FOR TOTAL. Mail : LOMA LINDA FOUNDATIONJOMA LINDA CA 92350 Phone : Use : YR- VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : W220 Asd : $22 , 368 Sale Date : 11/00/88 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : B-111faq Rms : Bd BTh of Units : Loisqft : 11326 Sqfl : ------ --- ----- ----- APN : 618-560-010 Silus : 72340 VIA MARTA RANCHO MIRAGE 92270 Owner : BRECHTEL RICHARD 1) Legal : 2 . 50 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S RGE Mail : P 0 BOX 306 ;7HOUSAND PALMS CA 92276 Phone : Use : Rl -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zone : W220 Asd : $84,460 Imp : 30 , Sale Date : 12/00/84 Sale Amt : Loan Awl : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 108900 Sqft : - -------------- ------- - - -- ------- --------------- --- --- -------------------------- APN : 618-560-011 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : COI TRELL RICHARD EUGENE TR Legal : 5 . 00 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 TZIS 161[i Mail : 1075 RICHMAN KNOLL ; FULLERTON CA 92635 Phone : Use : YR-VACANT - RESIDENTIAL Zone : W220 Asd : $114 , 866 Imp : Sale Date : 02/00/84 Sale Ami : $204, 000F Loan Amt : Exempt : INS. Rms : Bd BlIti 'lot Units : Lolsqfl : 217800 Sqft : -, - A------ --------------------------------- ---- ----- ------------------- - ------ APN: 618-560-012 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : SCHROEDER ROBERT L & SHIRL Legal : 3 . 22 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T45S Mail : 77 N CAMINO ARROYO; PALM DESERT CA 922GO Phone : (419 )882-6081 Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $40 , 870 Imp : 0% Sale Dale : Sale Awl : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIt : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 139827 Sqfl : - ------------ ---- -- ------------- -------- --- --- - --- ----- - -------- ---- ---- ---- - ----- APN : 618-560-013 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : SCHROEDER ROBERT L & SHIRL Legal : 3 . 22 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S Mail : 17 N CAMINO ARROYO; PALM DESERT CA 92260 Phone : (419 )882-6081 Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $40 , 870 Imp : 01,c, Sale Date : Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : Bli : I nms : Bd Bih of Units : Lolsqft : 139827 Sqfl : ---- APN: 618-560-014 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : JACOBSON MARION V TIT Legal : 5 . 04 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S R6IF Mail : C/O FRANK 5 JACOBSON; 532 ARDEN ; ENCINITAS CA 92024 Phone : (619 )753-2= Use : RI --SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zone : W220 Asd : $9 , 923 Imp : 28'X. Sale Dale : 02/00/84 Sale Awl : Loan Amt : Exempt : Blt : Rms : Bd BTh Tot Units : Lotsqft : 219106 Sqfl : ------------------------ ---- ----- -- -------------------------- ------- ------ ------ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 OR,4N6E COAST TITLE PAGE 3 PREPARED FOR : REwjESTED BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : - --------------------------------------------------------- --------- - - - - ---------- APN : 618- 560-015 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : JACOBSON MARION V TR Legal : 5 . 04 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S R61i-- Mail : C/O FRANK S JACOBSON; 532 ARDFN; FNCINITAS CA 92024 Phone : ( 619 )753-293/1 Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $7 , 928 Imp : WX Sale Date : 02/00/84 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd 131h Tot Units : LotsqFt : 219106 Sqft : - - ----- ------------ --------------- -- -- -- --------------------------------- -- -- -- APN : 618-560-016 Situs : 72225 VIA MARTA RANCHO MIRAGE 92270 Owner : SCARBOROUGH MARIANNE Legal : 5. 04 AC IN POR SW 1 /4 OF SEC 30 T4S R6E Mail : 5757 N BALDWIN; TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 Phone : (818 )287-4808 Use : RI-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zone : W220 Asd : $37 , 380 Imp : 783S Sale Date : Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : Bit , d% RM115 " B t d Blh To Units : Lotsqfl : 219106 sqrt : ON.11, - - jAVL.. ................ ............ . . . ... . .................................. : 610060.017 Silus : 72295 VIA MAR TA RANCHO MIRAGE 02270 Owner : LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY (CR ) Legal : 5 . 00 AC IN Pon sw 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S RE [] Mail : LOMA LINDA FOUNDATION; LOMA LINDA CA 92350 Phone : Use : Rl- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Zone : W220 Asd : $340 , 210 Imp : Sale Date : 11/00/88 Sale Amt : Loaht Amt ., Exempt : BIT : tG Rms : Bd 3 Bth 2+ 1 Tot Units : Lotsqft : 217800 Sqrt : 2101 --------------- -------- ------------ --------------------------------- APN : 618-560-018 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : SANTOR ALBERT C JR & KENNE Legal : 5. 00 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S 16F Mail : 122 CALLF DE LOS MOLINOS ; SAN CLEMENTE CA 92672 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $84 , 941 Imp : Sale Date : 02/00/86 Sale Amt : Loan All : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Oth Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 217800 Sqfl : ----------------------------------- - --- - -------------------- ------ ----------- ----- APN: 618-560-019 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : SANTOR KENNETH F TR (FI ) Legal : 5 . 00 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 30 T4S RG(ii Mail : 122 CALLE DE LOS MOLINOS ; SAN CI EMENTE CA 92672 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $106 , 826 Imp : O*X, Sale Date : 01/00/84 Sale Amt : $28 , 500P Loan Amt : Exempt : I.3T R BJ Bih Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 217800 Sqfl : - - - -------------------- -- ---- - -- - - - - ---- - - - - ---------------------- APN : 618-560-020 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : CROWE CAROLYN B & SUSAN 13 Legal : 5 . 00 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OP SEC 30 T4S R6Ei Mail : 420 WASHINGTON AVE 8202 ; SANTA MONICA CA 90403 Phone : (213 )395- 1593 Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W220 Asd : $32 , 014 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 01/00/78 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 217800 Sqfl : --------------------- ----------------------- ---- - -- ----- - -- - --- ------ -------------- THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 **END OF REPORT** ORAA"GE COAST TITLE P A G F. 1 13 13 1::13 A 1311:1) 1:013 : RFQUl::sl-FD BY: 02/24/02 RiVOI- Sidk' C01-IrIlY ............. ....... ......... ........... APN : 653 2?f.50 005 '3, 11US 111F.INDING, Owner' : RANCHO MIRAGF INDUSTRIAL... P Legal . 13011 10 1/4 OF Z')I::C 29 14S RGIF: FORTOTAL... M�ti 1 323 W COURT 51 1\10 403 ; 'SAN BF:RNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : CY VA CAN I' COMM F 11 C I A L P 13 0 P L R 1-Y Zone : W2 A s d $2 1 , 2 13 1 inp : O,>,, at I e. Date: : 06/00 1117 �;a I e Am i : $20 , 0001 Loan Anil x e ri p I : 13 1 R 13 d 1:3 1 h F(" I Uri i t s L o t s q I 1 1 132. 6 < ,�(If t ........................................ APN : (353 -250 -006 1 1 u s S I F U S 13 1-1\1 1) 1 Ni G OwrieI R A NI C I 10 MI R A G,I- I N 1)U 5`1 1? 1 A L 1:1 1 e a I : 16 6,") AC I 1\1 1101' NW 1//1 01: SRC 29 1 /15 Rel' Mai 1 323 W COU 13 1 SF S I-1.I 103 ; SAN 131:-13 NA 13 1) 1 NO CA 92401 P1,10110 Us CY VACANI COMMIFIRCIAL PROPl::RIY Zorie : W2 Asd : $8 D!5, '22 6 1 Ill O'':; Sale Date : 06/00/83 Sale Am t $3 , 070 , 000P Loan Anil $5, 835, 000 F Xenljpt '. B 1 1 RIns 13(1 B I h lol Uri I t s I o 1 4;(:1 f t 727016 cl f I APN: 6i3 250 007 1 us : S I 'I U 5 111::1\1 D I N!G, Owner : N-.1301\11\11F. BF-RNAI-1) & .JFAlNlql-I I Ja I : 20 00 AC M/I I Iq P 0 13 1\1 W I/,1 OF (.Z.F C 29 1-48 N,I�.L i I : 1) 0 1130X 1936; lPAl M Dl.:.Sl]-Rf CA 922. 61 Phone : Us e : YP VACANI- PI-5 I DF N I I AL Zone : W2 Asd : $4 /3 , 382 Inip : 0 Sale Dotle : 05/00/88 Sala A m 1 $265 , 000 Lookrr Airl x e III p I 13 1 R I'll s : 1:3(1 1:3 Ill Fo t Un i I s 1-0 1 s(I f l: : 871200 f 1 : .................. ................... ....... ............ APN : 6.53 -250 008 Si lus : SI -Rjs Pr:NDINIG Vll...[..Ai; A-1 1110WAND PALMS ( Logod '3 . 3 '1 AC M/1 11\1 POR Nw '1//l 01 [ C 29 14<% Mal I P 0 BOX 38 ; lRANCHO IY11RAO1 C 13 I'l 0 Il G,2 7 0 U YD VACANII w-sr-rur ot LAND 7 o n W A s d $ 10, , 000 Imp : 01",I e Dale :e : 0 1/0 0/9 0 Sate 1,el-ni�t $5, 79 3 50 0 F Loan Arn I I x e ni t.i I 13 1 1 R Ill s 13 d [3 1 1-1� -f f) t Uri i I s it I s(I I I : 1/14 18 3 s is f I APN: 653 250- 00C.I s I l j 11 1\1 1.) 1 1\1 C, 0 w ri e I, : V I I..I-A S A f f I 10 U A,I\! �' _MS ( I.-e,g a I : G9 . 23 AC M/L I N POR NF. 114, ol::: --I::c 29 j-,I- Mai I : 11 0 130X 38 ; RAl\ICFIo1 IRAGl::: CA f)2270 P I'l o I'l e : Use : YD -VACAN I- 1.-)I:SF! LAND 7 o n o : W2 Asd : $ 1 , 3 8 , 0 0 0 1 111 0 X� cafe 1)a I c : 0 1/0 0 Sale A III 1 $5, 793 , 500F Loan Anil : F x E,In p I 13 1 1 R 11,11h: 13(1 13 t h l'o t Url I I s L.0 1 s q f 1 3 0 156 5 8 Sgfa . A 13 INI 6'5 3 -2!-3 0 -010 i t ri s I I U 111:1\1 1) 1 N G, 0 w ri e - : RL.JY1:::I\I 11\111: 111\IA-1 IONAL CORP ( Legal : 41 . 42 AC 11\1 1:1 A I? 'I R1; 0401069 Mail : 3'3 COLJRl' Sl 1: 1'L /103 ; SAN 131:FRNARD11\10 CA 92/101 1)h o ri c U s o : CY VACANI COMMIJ?CIAl Pl?Ol1I:J? IY /one : W2 Asd : $7 0 3 , 6()13 Imp : rD Sale 1)a I e : 0 8/0 0/8 2 Sale A Ill 1 $3 , !500 l-oari AiTt : I x e Ill p' I : 1 1:1 m s : 13(1 B 1 h -101 Uri 1 1 s I c.t s cI f C "18 0 42'6 5 S q f t : .......................I....... ............. ............ AP NI : 653 250 0 11 i I I-I S '5 1 1 W) P 1:N 1) 1 N G Owner : MFLBY Ill-N13Y 1R Legal : I 1 12 AC IN IIA13 2 RS 040/069 Mali 1 1) 0 1:30X 10310 ; (ILIFNDAI. F CA 91209 P I'l o ri e. Use : Y D -V A C A N 1' 1)l::.S F R F L..ANID zorle . W2 Asd : $290 , 803 Imp : n I o Dale : '10/00/83 �zt I e A In I Loan Anil x e rn p 131 t : 13 Ill s : 13 d 13 t h -I-or U n i t s 1.o I s(I f I : I'l!-.)1/1 cqft : ........ ........ ..........................I.................. ........ ..................- I I 11:: 1 N 1:0 R MA f 10 1\1 13 R OV 11)L 1) 1 S 1)1:1=M 1!:1) R 1:L 1 A 131..1- , 1.3 U f I S NOT GUA 13 A Iq I-[-F:1) CO 11 y R I G I I l -1 R w -19 0 6 =ile: FD Page 1 Report: 2/92 Set 3 Cityof Rancho Mirage 9 69825 Hwy 1i1 Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Edwin Vlessing Partners 9595 Wilshire Blvd #511 Beverly Hills CA 90212 GRIFEST Inv PO Box 1935 Palm Desert CA 92261 David Wilstein 2080 E Century Park Pn•th Los Angeles CA 90067 Louis & Lorraine Wehlacz 2423 Country Club Or Glendora CA 91740 Cedar Foothill Partners 9595 Wilshire Blvd #511 Beverly Hills CA 90212 Loma Linda University Loma Linda Foundation Loma Linda CA 9235D Ilse Sultanian 415 1/2 Narcissus Ave Corona Del rear CA 97625 Marianne Scarborough 5757 N Baldwin Temple City CA 91780 Robert Nichols 72260 Via Marta Rancho Mirage CA 92270 File: PD Page 2 Report: 2/92 Set 3 Jacqueline Cook 1331 Broken Hitch Rd Oceanside CA 92056 Richard Cottrell 1075 Richman Knoll Fullerton CA 92635 Richard Brechtel PO Box 306 Thousand Palms CA 92276 Robert & Shirley Schroeder 77 N Camin❑ Arroyo Palm Desert CA 92260 Marion Jacobson C/0 532 Arden Encinitas CA 92024 Albert & Kenneth Santor 122 Calle Oe Los Molinos San Clemente CA 92672 Carolyn & Susan Crowe 420 Washington Ave #202 �� Santa Monica CA 90403 - Psi !y,,,�"� Monter Avenue<Ass PO Box 501 Therma 9227 David eedman & Co Inc PO Box 501 Thermal 7F Palm esert Redevelopment 73510 d Wari r Palm Des A 92260 TMP Inland Empire V1 Ltd 801 N P rkcenter Or #235 Santa t>A7 5 Edith Mae Gales PO Box 1234 Joshua Tree CA 9ZZ52 File; PD Page 4 Report: 2/92 Set 3 Kamfas Real Estate Corp 11828 Wayland St Oakton VA 22124 Hope Park 70390 Hwy 111 #104 Rancho Mirage CA 92270 Kurbo Corp 9440 Santa Monica Blvd #405 Beverly Hills CA 90210 Milton & Jeanette Goldman 18655 W-Bernardo Or #547 San Diego CA 92127 William Ayers 34 Mohave Way San Juan Capistrano CA 92686 Edwin Zinman 935 Fountain Springs Ln Glendora CA 91740 ORANGE C04ST TIFIE PAGE 2 PREPARED FOR : REQUESTED BY : 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : ------- ------------------------- ---------- - -- - ----- ---------------------------- APN: 653-250-012 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT Legal : 19 . 84 AC M/L IN POR N 112 OF SEC 29 T4S Mail : 1 MARKET ST; SAN FRANCISCO CA 04105 Phone : Use : Zone : Asd : Imp : %" Sale Date : Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : Olt : Rms : Bd Oth Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 864230 Sqft : - ---------------------------- ---- -- -- - ---- - - - ---- ---- --- ------- ---- -------------- APN: 653-250-014 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL P Legal : 18 . 83 AC M/L IN POR NW 1 /4 OF SEC 29 T4S Mail : 323 W COURT ST STE 403 ; SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LANE) Zone : Asd : $907 , 693 Imp : 0%; Sale Date : 06/00/87 Sale Anal : Loan Amt : Exempt : 1 3 1 1 m s : Bd B I In Tot Uni ts : L o I s q f 1 820234 Sot I : --- ------ -------- -- ---- ----- APN : 653-250-015 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL P Legal : 39 . 08 AC M/L IN POR NW 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4S Mail : 323 W COURT ST STE 403 ; SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asc : $ 1 , 885,404 Imp : 0 '�- Sale Date : 06/00/87 Sale Amt : Loan Aml : Exempt : Olt : A R111s : 13d Bih Tot Units : Lotsqft : 1702324 Sqft : --------- - -- --- -- ----------- ---------------------------------- --- --- APN : 653 250-016 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL P Legal : 34 . 30 AC M/L IN POR NW 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4S Mail : 323 W COURT ST STE 403 ; SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : CY- VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Zone : Asd : $1 , 514 , 796 Imp : Sale Date : 06/00/87 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : 1110 % Rt11s : Bd Bth Tot Units : lolsqfl : 1494108 Sqfl : 004j� - - ----- ------ --------------- --- --------------------- - - -- --- ---- -- - - APN: 653-250- 017 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL P Legal : . 19 AC M/L IN POR NW 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4S Fi Mail : 323 W COURT ST STE 403 ; SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : CY-VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Zone : Asd : $149 , 162 Imp : 0.� Sale Dale : 06/00/83 Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempt : 3110,6 R s : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 8276 Sqfl :1.4 - ---- --------------------------------------- --------- - --------- --------------- APN : 653-250-018 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL P Legal : 19 . 03 AC M/L IN POR NW 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4S Mail : 323 W COURT ST STE 403 ; SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : CY-VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Zone : Asd : $918 , 026 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 06/00/87 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : dBIP -0m,'" 13d Bth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 828946 Sqft :"p-N ------ -- - -- - - ------------------ -- - ------ - ----------------------------- APIA : 653-2I)-50-019 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : RANCHO MIRAGE INDUSTRIAL P Legal : . 01 AC M/L IN POR NW 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4S Fi Mail : 323 W COURT ST STE 403 ; SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 Phone : Use : CY-VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Zone : Asd : $550 Imp : Sale Dale : 06/00/87 Sale Aral : Loan Ami : Exempt : 1311 : d Bth Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 436 Sqfi : - - ------ ------- -- --- - -- - - ----- - -- - - - - ---- - - --- ----- --- --- ----------- THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 ORA/116F COAST TITLE PAGE 3 PREPARED FOR : REUuESTHD BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : --- - -- ---------------- --- ----- ---------------------------- ------------------------- APN : 653-260-005 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : MONTEREY PALMS ( PT ) Legal : 72 . 00 AC IN PAR 3 RS 040/069 Mail : C/O GALE S MESSICK; P 0 BOX 1315; GLENDORA CA 91740 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : W2 Asd : $578 , 934 Imp : OX, Salo Dale : 05/00/83 Salo Aml : $172 , 500 Loan Aml : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Bih Tot Units : Lotsqft : 3136320 Sqfr : - -- -- -------------------------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------- APN : 653-260-007 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : MACLEOD COUCH LAND CO (PT) Legal : 26 . 89 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4S Mail : 777 S PACIFIC COAST NO 204 ; SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $983 , 739 Imp : 0% Sall Dale : 04100188 Sale Amt : $928 , O0OF Loan Amt : $875, 830 Exempt : Hit : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 1171328 Sqfl : -------------------------------- -- - -- - ----------- --------------------------- ---- APN: 653-260-008 Situs : SITU.`: PENDING, Owner : MC PROPERTIES (PT) Legal : 43 .78 AC M/L IN PAR 4 RS 040100.1 Mail : 777 S PACIFIC COAST NO 201 ; SOLANA BEACH CA 92075 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $81 , 502 Imp : 0% Salo Date : 01/00/78 Sale Aml : Loan Aml : Exempt : BI jRms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 1907056 Sqft : 01JAR ----------------------------- -- - --------------------------- ------- APN : 653-260-010 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : MONTEREY AVENUE ASSOC (PT) Legal : 41 . 56 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 29 ..I../IS Mail : P 0 BOX 501 ;THERMA1_ CA 922714 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $995, 046 Imp : Sale Date : 08/00/86 Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempt : Hit : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqft : 1800918 Sqft : --- ---------- - ----------------------------------- ------- - ----- - ---- ------ - ----- APN : 653-260-011 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : MONTEREY AVENUE ASSOC (PT) Legal : 42 . 66 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 29 14S Mail : P 0 BOX 501 ;THERMAL CA 9227/1 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $975 , 536 Imp : 0%, Sale Date : 08/00/86 Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIP ....Szord Bth Tot Units : Lolsqft : 1858269 Sqfl : --------------- ----------- -------------------------------- ------------ APN: 653-260-012 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : DAVID FREEDMAN & CO INC (T Legal : 85. 55 AC M/L IN POR SE 1/4 OF SEC 29 T4,; Mail : P 0 BOX 501 ; THERMAL CA 9227/1 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT LAND Zone : Asd : $520 , 047 Imp : 0%'o Sale Date : 05/00/79 Sale Amt : Loan Aml : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Blh Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 3726558 Sqfl : ------- -------- ---- - ---- - --- - --- - ---- - - - -- - ---------------------- ----------------- THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEE[) COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 **END OF REPORT** UP ATE COAST TITLE PA61 I PREPARED FOR : REQUESTED BY: 01/24/92 Riverside County REP : ------- ------ - ---- - ----------- ----------------------------- -- --- ----------- -- -- ---- APN: 653-280-004 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : PALM DESERT REDEVELOPINIGNT Legal : 12 .40 AC IN POR SE 1/4 OF SEC 28 T4S R61:-. Mail : 73510 FRQD WARING DR ; PAIEM DESERT CA 92260 Phone : Use : YD-VACANT DESERT- LAND Zone : W2 Asd -. Imp : VA% Sale Date : 04/00/90 Sale Amt : $5, 000 , 00OF Loan Amt : Exempt , BIT : Rms : Bd Bih Tot Units : Lotsqft : 544064 Sqft : ----------------------- ----- ---- - - --- --- ------ - -- -------------- -- ---- - - --------- APN : 653-280-005 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : TMP INLAND EMPIRE VI LTD ( Legal : 76 . 75 AC M/L IN POR SE 114 OF SEC 28 T4S Mail : 801 N PARKCENTER DIR NO 235; SANTA ANA CA 92705 Phone : Use : AR-AGRICULTURAL-RESIDENTIAL Zone : W? Asd : $3 , 624 , 825 Imp : 2,,, Sale Date : 06/ 15/90 Sale Amt : $3 ,765 , 000F Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Bill Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 3343230 Sqfl : -------------------------------- ---------------------------------- - ---- -- ---------- APQ 653-280-OOG Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : GALES EDITH MAZE TIR Legal : POR SE 1/4 OF SEC 28 T4S RGE FOR TOTAL. Mail : C/O EDITH M GALES ; P 0 BOX 1234; JOSHUA TREE CA 92252 Phone : Use : AS-AGRICULTURAL-VACANT Zone : W2 Asd : $3 , 623 Imp : 71W; Sale Dale : 11/00/87 Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempl : Bit : Rms : Bd Blip Tot Units : Lolsqft : 10019 Sqft : - - -------- --- ------ --- - ---- - ----- - - - - -- - -- - - ----- -------- --- ------ APN: 653-280-007 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : KAMFAS REAL ESTATE CORPORA Legal : 34 . 11 AC M/L IN POR PAR 1 PIS 076/062 PIS Mail : 11828 WAYLAND ST;OAKTON VA 22124 Phone : Use : AY-AGRICULTURAL- VACANT Zone : R-1 Asd : $206 , 920 Imp : 0% Sale Dale : 03/22/89 Sale Amt : $ 112 , 091 Loan Amt : Exempt : BIT : Rms : Bd Bih Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 1185831 Sqfl : - ---------------------------------------- ---------- --- - ----------------------- ----- APN : 653-280-009 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : KAMFAS REAL ESTATE CORPORA Legal : 4 . 78 AC M/L IN POR PAR 3 PM 076/062 PM 1 Mail : 11828 WAYLAND ST ; OAKTON VA 22124 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : RI Asd : $28 , 973 Imp : 0,X. Sale Dale : 02/00/79 Sale Aml : Loan Aml : Exempt : Bit : &PAI R : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lot , 208216 Scift : - --— ----- - ------------------ ------ ------------------- --- -------------------- APN : 653-280-011 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT Legal : 11 . 51 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 28 T4S Mail : 1 MARKET ST ; SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 Phone : Use : Zone : Asd : Imp : Sale Date : Sale Aml : Loan Amt : Exempt : BW _jPmsQBd Blh Tot Units : Lolsqfl : 501375 Sqft : Kwhy,-- --------------- - ----- ----------------------------------- ---------APN: 653- 280- 012 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT Legal : 10 .46 AC M/L IN POR S 112 OF SEC 28 Tn. Mail : 1 MARKET ST ; SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 Phone : Use : Zone : Asd : Imp : % Sale Date : Sale Aml : Loan Aml : Exempt : BY- Rmj, : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lolsqft : 455637 Scift : hi ........... ...... .. . .............................. ........ ......... . . THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLF , BUT IS NOT GUAnANTSEI) COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 ORAINSE COAST TITLE PAGE 2 PREPARED FOR : REQuESTED BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : --------------------------- --- ------ -7-- -- -------- ------ -------------------- --- APN : 653-280 -015 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : IVEY RANCH (PT) Legal : T 15 0 L R tJ Mail : 18017 SKYPARK CIR minvINE CA 92714 Phone : (714 )559-5913 Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W2 Asd : $240 Imp : 09. Sale Dale : 10/00/80 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : Blt : Rms : Bd Oth Tot Units : Lolsqft : 96267 Sqft : -- - - -- ---------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- APN : G53-280-016 Situs : SITUS PTINDING Owner : PALM DFSERT REDEVELOPMENT Legal : 101 . 11 AC M/L IN POR SF 1/4 OF SEC 28 T-1 Mail : 73510 FRED WARING DR ; PALM DESERT CA 92260 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : Asc : Imp : VA% Sale Date : 04/00/90 Sale Amt : $5, 000 , 000F Loan Amt : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Hth Tot Units : Loisqrl : 4404351 Sqfl : - ---- -- - -----------------------1------------------------- - ------------------- - - THE INFORMATION PROVIDED 15 DI UMFD RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEE[) COPYRIGHT TRW 1986 **ENO OF REPORT** OhA VSE CVA 5 F TI TL E PAGE I PREPARED FOR : REQUESTED BY: 02/24/92 Riverside County REP : --------------------------------- -------- ---------------------- - ------------------- APN : 618-490-002 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : HOPE PARK (PT ) Legal : 84 . 34 AC M/L IN POR NW 1/4 OF SEC 19 T4S Mail : 70390 HIGHWAY 111 STET 104 ; RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 Phone : Use : CY-VACANT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY Zone : W2 Asd : $ 1 , 828 , 036 Imp : 0',%'> Sale Dale : 03/00/88 Sale Amt : $ 1 , 040 , 000 Loan Aml : Exempt : BIt : Rms : Bd Oth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 3673414 Sqft : - - - ----- -- - --------- ----------- ------------------------- ----------- ----- APN : 618-490-004 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : KURBO CORP (CR ) Legal : 5. 10 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 19 T4 ' Mail : 9440 SANTA MONICA BLV 405; 13EVER1_Y HILLS CA 90210 Phone : Use : YD ..VACANT DESERT LANE) Zone : W2 Asd : $ 153 , 000 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 09/00/89 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIl : Rms : Bd Bih Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 222156 Sqfl : ----------- ---- - - - ----------- --- ---- -- ------------- --------------- ------------------ APN : 618-490-005 Silus : SIIUS PENDING Owner : GOLDMAN MILTON TR & JFANFT Legal : 5 . 20 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 19 T4S Mail : 18655 W BERNARDO DR NO 547 ; SAN DIEGO CA 92127 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W2 Asd : $6 , 971 Imp : Sale Date : 12/00/89 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : BIt : Rms : Bd Bth Tot Units : Lotsqft : 226512 Sqft : - --------------------------------- -- -- --- - ------------------------------ -- -- ---- APN : 618 490- 006 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : GOLDMAN MILION TR & JEANET Legal : 10 . 32 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 19 14S Mail : 18655 W BERNARDO DR NO 547 ; SAN DIEGO CA 92127 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : W? Asd : $ 18 , 351 Imp : 0% Sale Date : 12/00/89 Sale Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : BE I Bth Tot Units : Lotsqfi : 449103 SqfT : ........... ------------------------------ ----- - ---- --- ----------- ---- - ----------- APN : 618-490-007 Situs : SITUS PENDING Owner : GOLDMAN MILTON TR & JEANET Legal : 15 . 30 AC IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 19 T4S RGE Mail : 18655 W BERNARDO DR NO 547; SAN DIEGO CA 92127 Phone : Use : YY- VACANT LAND Zone : M3 Asd : $28 , 071 Imp : 0% Sale Dale : 12/00/89 Sale Amt : Loan Aml : Exempt : 1311 : N3q d Bih Tot Units : Lotsft : 666468 S q qft : — --------------- -- ------------- ----- -------- -- --- - - - --------------- --- APN : 610-490-011 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : AYERS WILLIAM 11 Legal : 4. 33 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 19 14S Mail : 34 MOHAVE WY; SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92688 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : Asd : $5, 365 Imp : 0% Sale Dale : 05/ 14/91 Salo Amt : Loan Amt : Exempt : Bit : Rms : Bd Blh Tot Units : Lotsqfl : 188611 Sqft : - --- ------- --- ------------ ---------------------------------------- ---- - ------------ APN: 618 -490-012 Silus : SITUS PENDING Owner : GOLDMAN MILTON & JEANETTE Legal : 8 . 89 AC M/L IN POR SW 1/4 OF SEC 19 T4S Mail : 18655 W BERNARDO DR NO 547; SAN DIEGO CA 92127 Phone : Use : YY-VACANT LAND Zone : Asd : $ 18 , 877 Imp : 0%'' Sale Dale : 12/00/89 Sale Anil : Loan Aml : Exempt : 1311 : Ais : 11A Bth Tot Units : Latsqft : 387248 Sqft : THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IS DEEMED RELIABLE , BUT IS NOT GUARANTEED COPYRIGHT TRW 1986) 491?A,Nr7E COAST TITLE 11AGI-: 2 1313LIDAI31:-D 1:014 : BY: 02/24/()2 1:? 1 v e.1 s i (I e Co 1.1 n I y ................ ..................... .......................................... ............ ....... A[)N: 6 *18 490- 013 SI -11,15 H-NDING) Owner : Zllq[AAN 1--DWIN J (1:71 ) Legal : 112 . 80 AC M/L IN POI3 SW 1/4 W SEC 19 1-11 Mai 1 : 935 [ 0(.Jl\1 I A IN! S1)1:? I NIG LIN; 61-1* ND01?A CA 91740 1)111 o n c : Use : YD VACAlq1- D1=Sl::131 LANID Zone : Asd : $ 1 , 500 , 042 Imp : 0 Sale Danis : 0 8/0 0 8 5 Sale Am I Loan ArnI x e III p I 13 1 1 13 111 s : 13(1 13 t I-I I r) I Un i Is : Lolsqft : 4913568 Z)(If A131\1 : 618 490 019 S i t u s I I US 131 ND I NG Owner : S 0 U I I 11:::1?N P A C I F I C -1 1?A 1\1 1:)0 1:1-1 Legal : 40 . 12. AC N1 L I N 1)0 1? S 1:::C '19 14 S 1?6 1:: A N 1) 1) Ma i I : I M A I3 K I i I- S. 1- A 1\1 1:'13 A N C I S CO CA 94105 Phone : U c� o : CY- VACANI COMMI::J?CIAL 1:)f'01:)I:.-.1' IY Zori(,.. -. Ascl : 1111p : V A :ale Date :e a I r, A in 1: loan Anit x e In 1) 1 B I I I-in s : B d 13 11-1 To I U n i t s I o I of I : 17/176127 S q I I - I 11-J'AA - - - .1 .- - - .- --.. -.. 1. - - - -.1--l-1-I.. -1.1-1 A 1:)1\1 6 18 4 0 0 12 2 .': i I u S : S I I US 1:)1:1\1 D I 1\1 G Owner : 1.-0 U A J (W S ) L.egal : 75 . 14 AC M/L I Iq 13013 1,: 1/2 01: SI::C 19 I-el ", V,,l a i 1 33/1 111-I'MOSA ['I ; [)AI..M Sl)[? I 1\1 G S CA u 2. 2. 6".1. Phone : Use : CY VACANI- COMMI713CIAL I:)I30l31::U-Y Zone , Asia : $ /9 , 131) 11111) 0% S a I e. 1)a I e : ')a I e A III I : 1-oan Anti : [:.x e 1111)1 131 1 13 111 s 13 d 13111 1-of Un i I s I (,. Is(.Ift : 3273098 Sf] f I ........................................................ I'M.: lKIl::013MAI- I0N l)MVlDI...D IS DH:M!-D Ill:-LIABI.A" 131J1- 11: NOT GLJAI3ANII::I::D C()l:)Yl:? lG,Hl 1HIM 1986 -*-*EIVD OF REPORT** v-,b 25 1552 City of Faim Deser cnnin�3 DepE A+-n Steve Smith/tDanna *7n- ioseci viease iina the current owner nrintuut & iabeis oruere� for the roiiowinq areas : G�3-•25D-DDi-DD7 653-250-010-011 653-260-Ou031-u-06 653-280-016: 61123--4913-002--01.3 616-490-013 61u-49D-02D 616--490-021 6iu-49D-D22 CFiease note some m4 the A_,se5scrs Parcel N::rncer5 have been cinansau'. i Then K—yau Tor 3yo\urr. �business. Y\ W u-.^'t�w'✓ Dawne Waiker O ORANGE COAST TITLE P A G F I PRLIPARILD FOR : RR, 1:1) BY : 0 2 G 0 2 Riveltsido (,ot,jilty ...............I--............ ....... ............................ A 1)1\1 6 1 R 9 0 0 0 1 t u s - I I U P1 1\1 D I N G Owile 1' : 10 711 PAR 1 ',\IIF.IRS (P.1..) e g ot 1 . !-.56 A(, NIJ IN PAIR 1 P10 168/026 FIM, '1,1616 Mail , 110 W L..AS fUNAs YO 1.3 ; (;Al\l GABIRIIFJ. ( A 91776 Phorle : Use : Cy VACAINII- DIROPFRIlY Zone : AS,(I : $ 7 , 317 jillp : 0 :;ale Date : Sale Am[ : I nari Aint Ili:xrP.11-11.) 1 R III s 13 1 1:3 t 11 1 o t U n I I s L o 1 ,, 2,1393 ;q f 1: ............. A 11 N r, 1s3 !-.3nn 006 Si li.is : 72` 700 DIHINAH :>NnRl:i DIR PAI-Nl DIF1:I:R: 1 9.Z. 260 Ow n f' 1, 7/1 PA R-1 N 11:R ( PI ) L o r1i a 1 10 . 37 M, V,11 11\1 PAR "? PM, PM "A .1 Mai I "1 10 W I AS 1UNIM, 1\10 1:3 : (,Al\l GARR111.1, (,A 1) 17 76 Phone : Us c, : C I (,'0IV1MiLfl(: IAI- PIR()Pj:: 1? Iy 7nim" Asd : $ 1 , 132 , 37(0 Imp : :ale Dale : SaIe AIII oin Atill x III p, I : 1:3 1 1 11 ins : 13 d 13 1 l'i I I U11 i t I c) I: s(I f t cl f I ....... .....I.......... ........... ... ...........- AP 1\1 6 18 590 007 S 1 1: u I I U S P Li 1\1 D I NI G, 0 w n e,I, : 10 7/1 PAR fl\IIi=RS ( PT ) I I : 3 . 48 A(,' N41: I I N 1:1 A R 3 PM 16 81 0 2 6 1:1 N1 2/1 G 16. Mai I : "1 "10 W LAS IUINIAS INIO 13 ; c:A1\l GABRIF[., CA 9 "1776, Phom"! : Ll e. : CY VACANI- C0141%,11713CIAI PROPERTY Zone : Asd : $45,47(3- Imp : Ow, Sale Date : SaI e Anil : I o a I I A ro I I xr,III p 1: 13 1 1 : Il s 1:3 d 13 t 11 I-o I U I'l I Is : I..o 1: s(I 1 1'.5 8 8 sq I I .............. ....... ............... ........... ............. A P N 6 18 15,j 0 0 0 8 Si t u s I1US 13 F:1\1 1) 1 N G 0 w I-) r I /1 1)A 1:1 1 1\1 F:1:? (PI) I., e, I : 2. . 7 *1 AC NI I,: I I 1\1 P A R 4 PM 16 8 0 26 1)Y1 2-4 6 16 M a 1 1 "1 "10 W L A I U M AS NO 1.3 ; ("A N G A 1 3 11 1 1:1.1 (,A 9 1776 P h o I'l e J z, CY VACANI MMMIF:IR(,' IAI-. r)1'01'1: 1?'IY 7wie : Asd : $ 1(3 u "16 3 1 111 p : 01/.� a I i Date : `a I c Am t Loan Annt x III p,t : R 1 1 tills : 13d 13 Hh -1 o 1: Un I I I I s cl I t 1 180/17 Siff : 1 -1 U P F IN!1) 1 1\1 G A PINI 6 18 5,1' 0 009 Owner : 10 //1 PAR I-N 1.1 R S (PI ) I e g a I : 3 . 0G AC GRS I N P A R 5 NMI 168 0 PIM. 2/1 1 G M,a I 1 "1 "10 W .-AS I UN A 1\10 I ; �:AIN GARR I F:L CA 1 7 G o I I e. 3 Use : CY VACANII- (,0[V1N9l--RCIAI P 11 0 1)F Il I Y Zone : Asd : $ .172 . 300 11111" : Sale D I: I r; Ant I I oan Aint F:x 0 111 p I 1.3 1 1 R s : 13 r I B t I'l IoI Un I Is : I o tsrif t 13 3 2-1)3 S f t A 13 1\1 618....5 9 0 (1 1(1 1; i I Ii s I I U 1)1 i N 1) 1 1\1 G Owner : 10 '7/1 1)A n: I N 1: R P I e cl a I : 1 17 A(: NI F: I I N 1)A R C P'p, -16 0 2"6 PIG 6 16 Mai I I (I W LAI: I UNA5 N'0 13 ; SA!\I GA 13 R I (,A 91776 Phone : Us ' : (,Y VA(.Al,! l C0MMI:::IR(, IAI 1)1?0 P F lily /()Ml, A tz cl $68 , 802 Imp : 01;11 ale Dale : Sa I Arai : Lc �-,un Arint x e III p I I 1:3 1 1 R s 1:3 13 11-1 lot UI:I I t s f 1 0 9 6 3 q f I ........... ................................ ......... A 11 N: 6 1 i I t.l S 1 -f U S P 1::: \1 1) 1 INI G, Owner : 10 //1 PARNNIF.Rc pir) I ofiil : 1 . 34 AC 1NI- I 11\1 PAIR 7 PM 168/0216 P'Mi 2,16IR Ma I I : "1 "10 W I., A -1 U 1\1 A N 0 1.3 A 1\1 (i A 13 1? 11iEL CA u -17 7 6 P I'l()I I('I. Use : CY VACANF WNAHNIFRCIAI PROPFIRlY Zono : Asd : $2 9 1 l 85 0 1 Sale I)„t I c Salo Alit : Loan Aint I.:X(,111111.) 1 131 t 13 111 s 13(1 13 l'i I o I U I'l I t s I o : s q If I : 58370 Z cI f t ........... 1-111: 1 NFORMA I I 01\1 PROV I DF 1) 1 S DI:1::%11:::1) Rli_1 1 A 13 -F , 1.3 U )- I 1401 G,U A R A 1\1 1 1: 1::1) RVI 1 4-186 ORANGE COAST TITIE P A Gj 1..: 2. 1--01' : BY: 9 2, [1 1 v e I s i (:I e Cn I'l I I I y ............ ............... A 11 N: (3 1 0 0 12, U D F:1\1 1) 1 INI G, 168/02R 13M 2,1(116 Owner : 10 711 ( PI ) Logal : 1 . 0' AC NFI IN. IDAI:? 8 IJY, Mail : 110 W LAS I UNAc 1\1 0 B AN G A 13 1? 1 F - CA 9"1776 Phone Use : (Y VA(.AI\ l C0Ml\'W1?(, IAL lD I? 1:11:4 I'l I Y Z o n o Asd : $ 2 15!5 1 111 p : 0 9%', S2: Ir, Date : Bot I e. Anil : I_o cL I I Ain I x()rill.) t : 13 1 1 13 111 s : 13(1 1: .3 th Tot Units : o I s q f I : ZI,�I,4 3 1 ScafI ... .................. .................... . ............................ ........ AID 1\1 618 590 013 i I u s I I U Q 1:1 F N!D I i\1 G Ow n I- 10 7,1 D A I? I 1\1 1:1:?s 1) 1 I. a I : .43 A(' GI?GI?S 1 N IIAI? 9 1W DMI 24616 [A a i 1 110 W LAS I U 1\1 A S 1\1 0 i:W-'AN GABIHIFIL. CA 91776 ID 11 o I'l e Use : (,Y V A(,A 1\1 I C OMM F:M' I A L. ID 1:?0 D F�1:' 1 Y Z r,r)c A s cl in p - Am r F: x III p I I Da I I c A III I L 0 z,n 13 1 1 1:1 tin 13 d 1.3 1 h I.f U I I i I s I s q f 1 18731 SclfI ............... .......... I I F: I 1\1 1'0 1:?M,A I 1 0 N D 0 V I D F 1) 1S 1)F:F:MI F 1) 1:?F:L I A 13 1- B U C IS 1\1 0 If G,U A l?A Y-1 1:11 F:1) C(Wyll I GLI I 1-13 W I **EA/D OF REPORT" 'v RCV BY:XEFOx TELECOPIER 7e10 2-26-92 9 40NIf 1PRLhl DESERT POST � ., � t1934170 E:;W'4 FEB-26—'92 E19:54 IDam- 1,1 DESERT POST TEL '10:619-7' 7541d9 #553 PO4 t; Charge ad2010) 99 mas Post LEGAL ADVERTISING ` NEWSPAPERS a 71"/05 Hwy. III P.O.Boa 459 Palm Desert,CA 92261 CUSTOMER NUMBER (6I9)klbllll -7zce A Attached hereto is a clip= ping of Your advertise- 01334 ad2 02 26 92 cmh ment as it appeared on r the first day of publica- CrTY OF PALM DESERT lion. LEGAL NOTICE will CASE No. Ca e2.1 You Please read it NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thal a Put'c hearing will be and if any en-ors are dis- hek before one Palm Dow Piontdng Commisslon b eonsber prezorhing the popery south of Interofate ,o,an covered, telephone US at both .lase o1 V mercy Avenue w more pa'tplli lry once - (619) 346-1181. desnsfed on the map below for the pu'pose of fadlitatng annexation of the area to the City Of Palm Desert and approve a negatve declaration of ervironmentw Impact ; _. pertaining therero. This voucher may be SAID public howinli wilt be held on Tuesday,March 17, used for payment. 1992,at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chamber a;the Palm Desert Gry HWI,70-S,0 Fred Wantg Drive,Palm Desert. CWitomla,of whet"and pace all interested persons are Wiled to attend and be heard. What comments concerning all aems covered by this puN4 hearing notice .i Wrap to accepted up to the dote of the hearing.Information ddncemina the proposed project anti/or negative Charges $ declaration is avallable for fsv{ew In the depart^ent of oommunly dwe"rit'planning al txe above addrou between the fhmat of 0:00 a.m. and 430 p.m. Monday Insertion. I 3� through Friday.t you"large the proposed actions In coup,you my be limited tonisilgonty those ltsuee You Or Order *'_ someone else*W at the pubic hearing described In this nonce, a in written correspondence delivered so the planning oommisWah(or dry counclq at, or prior to.the Please refer to this k and public hewing. aartoN A. !rig C Secretarylion your customer k when helm Desert Ptenn!ng Commission (PUB. FEB. 20, 19l making payment. Thank You \ \ ` Statement will Ire mailed at end of month. N `t i �!h Paim Oeaert Pod •`Cathedral City Post a Rtrw.M aMira®a Post 6 Ire ta WetiaU Quints Poet jE vz E I1 --7 y POO , , 1 i L I n � a y x H C D n y O N ? n NV Ho � _b o a ' m x a, s o•07 oa-,� 55,,.SCE m +161 8149 (RIO DEL SOL J R.5E �N b (Ll ux.n• w.zoao' zajo.iz' R.6E. . 14 L.4o{LI' 6. a O oO o0 I `Y D w I a 4 yl C I 41' N W p o � w«aaaT o ' 1ti0ayt 4F4 !^ v,L, a \ r ry Q��L o ` b V 0 / � ti°: y 5 / .v' ��LI a� '7 Wog;► A O d`v a � u I U` b � d o p 7Y1.F 12.ri - M r 0 xMi.Yx / � W ems' hh a 0 /rng�y it c n yW' (� .UI... Z4�` 1 e Z25 65 `o • ,969.0 /0'07'oo'x/ SY99.d0 I Q Ct W o �4 oj_ F� 0 \ � Q f O \ 00 f O m / p C �• 1 4 h7 _ D 1 e5z66 a ' + _�IQY 909•e7 fV bi res.io ee.ee too. o o Y u5 169.23 66.PI 116,16 2 O lC :, _ „� � o e •�P1. � I_ l =` 7' ab+ any ay � � 40 n O ro • / A u 0 .lt.17 n h r - 659.r7 N O 14 W 114. -P-• _ ID 60.00 vl 6y :] 4V b y • w I L.lt.q� ll. lir ! L•Pt1.10 L• 2 = R L'161.1j E >b qqq y Bl`9t-4, R.6tI.00 J P,, .n N }� L• 59�5 17t.53• Ili , I� 6•y`,9J ,9.� O b1 ^ � n + 1 oRIVATE It D w L !6� p.tJ.O h p� Zp J � n 9!./6 L s y � L•S.Be R.I .wi q O Oi 1p9.7f Y•1 6� �' w O ro '� '6.60 R•ee.0o ��• �� c1 ? .444 C .0 n y L P /0.00 R.tl.00 L.,16.96 Q n 6t 50.00 a o 30.00 Oe �� p. Pl.00 L.36.11 Z 69.6t- ! m pBl.P? F �1 o N 00011I3"Ir ti 9°.74 o a L• i p0 J, O L.ee.06 R.73.00 1p - P6B. 0 4i 66.91 56 ? W 0 IPO 5765 0077 � f.. Qcoo L7 o 100 "AVO If 9 �• - uII . � 4 �P J Jp JJ . . 2 ,�•s3 •• w� e v 44 i o � o ?� \ n a 4\ Acl 0 fV � . �ti• WO b 0tn 0�goo\o�o`��• aQ�;gc.�raa°c0`0 e •.rep°°a`°0��0°� b I C0 ea•�. '� � Q6 a qo�J\ Gem art ,� to �o it '" i a � r � a n - v, r _ H N eT o O .ten ISZS m O y D C O h 00 Gf Opp OHO a TRA 061 -019 h ° sr. I 6� OC i \ ' Y (� Y V� tN R/S I0/69 v /� AA CAl`Gi' e41p\ Y 4 , 15 ro \ a } / I }' o � R 9 y nn R.S.IfY69 / 0 rW r.•a'sr � N a W Q N N N N N MONTEREY AVE. 0 . . "'. . . 163782 •7 /ll� -` M 7Il.,J y`�' fe-.f N u 163781 7/65 C 163760 7/95 1 a " I a " o N b \ � � � Y V n k a y C) a o a w m U ° akh O O p N \ V O a co p 4 h \ N• � 4 e I T _a _ v ti (7 Q) I N 73A." err 1 I / ,s n N vW � ) a � a a a o : o ' 4 . q 03IO � b ob I W N y I IRIS 401169 y �p by a ' W0 Ne ,I.2,..-, n O b � P ._, - . ' - , ,., . .. .,, -T--o :w:" ,� ,-. --gin - - .-,. , -• - _x. �, -� ._-_ .._�._, "<`'f..�-ys..,'t.F .,v.,:,,.bax .f .v':4:;T.' " •,d.i°n-.... "'Y,'- P1..e F=.w'?'N K .. , .'" leap.. ,,..,...m w.......... M1'°.sq'c.+a4snK;SS .,..a^. x - '... _.. ,.. -..:.. - " .. _ _ _ _...... .a. .. ... - .ma•q•':' $-: - _. ,: .. .,-... _... ... .tAn".-N..�-.-. .;::5 -... -y.,.y _,. - .H.'..'3i".N"•'"".N1€e'<1 :.",^"^ , .. ._"''is+e'-gyp^^. M4. .- _..... ...-„T�K'+....a -'✓ - . . .- .. : . ,::..Tom•- .5 n*,is[— -&- - :fit. �h...::� .:':'x. :n. ._... +.eP.v.,_ _...... . e-.•e_ AMENDMENTS IU TIaE UQfkJ(�ORFDFRTATEP TER*RITO!RY OW T46 e00kJTY OF AVEW*PVK , GAt.Wt0W?%Jl ,. DATE DESCRIPTION W tCb" WW t1 j?>;/[j ♦CbtS��. Grd 15crf C{T� IJMITS, ST Si.aTtG+�s. N A r• t.►oTG, R+bwTEQE`( D11nA•, P. vpeLx- 11�-0T1oNS, ?oNlNG. E I G G ya' 38, , ` a ' �jti►o we, Qevlssfl: t-oT "517 r,'t_ ev ���� G' , r A �. rA/Ctlt f I ` I5X f ►.Sy �6 - �1rJJr1..t S1.�OtC•� . / / �— ►xt3ta?ItSuow R05�Q.nC 41rt18 , >�e.� tis ''��� nmJ�.,�;�: „ ' ��!UGt A <vU( pIVIGJIOW QF ,4 POWT101"J Gt< ?NE WORTK O� 1•-t/�-L, OF bEGT1U�1 29� TO\VWIi,alP 4 50UT4 // 4 8-f, Cg/WGE oQAi-JA4t* eSM7' F-KOPl C17 A 40, Tu So ' t�••re Ge•e.,.e3 v I lgssl�G g !� G1•►�OT{ Gs�,ti-1 t3E.tR1t1.•l,b,Mt p r►vp QF-•lt? M1E�!D t A,A), , Gef-r P.4GT .FUlY1GiD6 Dfc/S-r L-0T ""JE'S A•Q E� o F Lo'TS rwo we. N QV EM BE R 19 CJ ,�� � � .', °� �z s�" TYPICAL SECTION tom, u►+>m. NOT TO SCALE �x�$Tilv'G SOL/T!lEKN CAL. �ME!WD1 E! 1 1 NV . I pr�TL P�`�G.•t s�� f�-�"�'�''�►tT� 8c�t-emu ���cf a r-,aR.sT.GA.F2M E L �.vEtJ U E (to p -5 7 L m1E EASEME/JT 4 f 27 a r,.,,sL ear .w rtol 1TE,e,cq r-s4Qx�T. eor+ex► t� 4 s t, DINAR SHORE bR1VE (to POLES T//c!5 oti/ pir-/�4 we"t_.rlew Lo�. �_�Sf/oRE pRr.� - � POLES To BE RELocaTED ) �cTlf—rdSbOtJ G►1/jLqH GD�G PA.^- P_:_'t—`�/ TG LC ' �� E J ( , f!l ( i C vCm AG1C ,OGLS- a R EL GHA+°+G.E MAP OATEN Vr1 CT\1\1 J I.rl-\J\J J ��tST/til� IeoQO lh?PRO�EMFJ,IT � {{,,,, t u++.r.+c� �t,.wa y+G•sze �e�.� �o c,�' .�av �^' .�.rENue, �Cv�S>= �t5 '•1^. /IDJLST �b1 ,� .:.� r �r Pr�F•r-ser ��IyE>.,�... �.���5 �1 �. O'f�1��ER - DEVELOPER_: �/f �+ (�zr_G ,� .►il[yr t, tEl^r -rz psE � �, �/ r� -- I15TI� ��. {` V�T'1=p *•-I�rr,•^ trzlprz TO rar�A }¢1.l�tGF�O Mrt2/�G�E 1NDUSTRtA•L- PARK ItIPRovEHE�r }.Uyp - - - — N 89.58' ore OFPE2 t�1� WVV ,a 3,:3 �N. G�URT ST. SUtTB ��l . �.. , � D�t71cs•.-r,or,.t 20 ' �� 10• f 2�'7.19'' - ' `� �,ten( �Rt�\t�10 G� . 2 --- -- - gee- 6�3/ AMEhtDEa �► O ;� ;tip �.4 • \\, ,g,.q tz' E Ut�tINEER ^� -x (� Ayr-. � wtr7rH Ina - +W CASE NO 4c ' f' ti�� i \ \ \ \, ��`, `! E►:GIFJE�t�IN4 D6�41dtJ GTt•'� \ 4� . , k, PRof'bS£D moo. F��'S 1 L urn 5Y i �3 T S \' \ \.,a p� 3F5a w. F1PTF-� T., +SUt m to2 1 � � �, � Rh � � ,��, �,�� {•: .•.. . �,�, DE"RIJARPILIo. �,, �s•�tFo1 TYPICAL SECTION NOT TO SCALE All i` I ry Kr- \ b� PAC- -A LAAJE U•TILlTiES►SoL/Tr�ERn1 ch L.; I � . \ \ \ o � �i q�� Eta/SON k'aLE L/n!E EitSEt�tr<�1" \ \ PROP SED ' J ^ 5r�� \ �� _ ff �Q EL .,A°/E�Jt1E 4E�/L� /i�-tD NATER GOAG�ELIA I.AAL AW-Y NATEt% P16TRIGT, C 5- PoL-E� 79L/5 oN r dTE�-y AVCM E- T\b QE l4Et.otr.�. �) \ \ \� \ 5EtJEit' L/NE s A 't \�Q � F Lo ., Ef,ECT1AIG : �„vu'T41Gt� JQ GAGtFORtJI^ Mple0eQ. N \ C \\ C3\ 0 4 h ./��\ B QM1��ti`d - �� \ �� 35�''{ AvE (F�Rr IJtt�TH) G+e 4 Dieu-tmERN CAL.IF@FANIA 614 GOMPI►.tJY. 100� \ o , �` � �\ �• � h . moo. �- -� • � / •�\'�• , .� -T�L.tsr►�eH• . \ \ \ �I%,a ! \ P \. �. , Q4 r 34..4?7 ALtzE� ` o� \ ��.� \ ' o ,,\ '3 ` f\ ✓\� \ 7-4 ti� ti �' �r !v \� ✓/ f(� P=r J)E�1T \\ �+ •� rt \ \ 1 �t� E>05Tl>\!G ' �0 ��\�` � P <ar'O•��D 1 P i Gt'+4 ' 9 'G1�aOR' PLC E.L /� , t -- ! \� \ \ a°L s.a�.nlvonl�r�) , ttt ,�� c 3 . ✓J\�\, �1 V� ' , i : 1/ N \ \ r �' \ Ex15T/N4 c• ` A' tr 0 6' \\ ,\ 1�r3 • 7-So- oota _ SEI.JEi2 LtrJE--� st1�h (� •• e� �i \ \\� J` ET N\ \ ) eyi `0 �.r • Z0- p!S to5, • 2Sb -ODS G53 250 O16 �\ to zx N Q � �' \ _ ` \ \ ^ � \ �. g►• \ryt /t� 8 \'� TG 141. AGR6�GE Icot.dO /�G C \ _ Ik 0 h , h .el o C \ \ \ \ \ b fk' \ rt pp r7' �� „pQ` Pk'A�Y�t'r� EA5EM'T. I r{ o. ` Leo �� 7. \_ pq( iR �� \` / / /t - - - - yr I Z p2 , (N 'p��0 a� � , ,� J 31 tr \ ��tVt9 1 p _pf EASEM£ FDR p�L t� �trl �. /V TI T/G S l j ,.r` { r I _ ---_ ` - Q�'ryry h�00, •Qo r► ` I� � L�nlE� �A✓o/'' cF PAc „' _I !, \\\, ,. , \ 8 boo \/\ ,too ~`� �°• pie �� 1�4 - -_ \ \°d o �- `t { � OS Tc,A L f"1 L L ' 1000 GU. YD5. 4) � '01 �Q� " �• � ��- o ��` ' '\ �- 0 �• 1 �\ 1 &a,�r�4ce.�>� 5Z o � • Yl'7� r Nam � y� �tsgm o� C.Q ti 1 � K o tf� r1�` S Q` r �'N ea -� t� c'�/ �v L}' �1 o a& ei,�`�4' \� �t t ` i Y�G /►�'<t=.a. C� ! )� ,� ! 1' b ��N �' W �y �" $ M ' ftT f h I�(� ,� \ \ ` �R, a , rrur�., T�►m 'Tt�a..c-� two .IcuaR�l r r •� �,� �_, \ \ \\ ,� Q �N N GrpQ S' / SOP �,� nor-+�sTrTtL�+ Ta-+e ��.rT� ce V f a \ l (� NT CT t30 ► � a tf? \� % , " ' � ' `p\�9�; �a \K'\ too 100 /00 too too• '` r �1e0 ry 04 $ c N O���• \ •'� ry \ \ \ ' O \ / }� W -1 - i \ r� 1 . 0 ti , \ \ e 4 1n p. •� �\ b � ti ( , sdLV I \ I _^t '. \� \ N' �? H O ly 14'�N `¢i $w N >A� \~ Q • W \\ y�Ut t1 t11 N tl`N N f! K `� i ✓1,1 � � \ t L, \ .o tLm \ `�� h1�' ^.a �� p �\ O�I \ � 1 T Q��" �\A!, o• \ c- _f � \ � • - _ /' t - IIS7 l \ \ 4 s. ooI `vim, �\ , �, �T4 (\ �/1p �\ C: ,. �Q� lh A� ,aa .� �// 'Y\�q�1 � ! ------ . R M E AVENUE _ 09 , ( J �\ 11�7, =�1I \ 3�\ _ \ ,\ 2G \\\\J \\ t % .� ti n`Ut�A ' ti \a A. � VA Fv { Z , - \ ? 1 4l�^ `75 1 \ t' h'`� ,on �f/� Q� `rj \\ C�'f� o `, `. __ M�tP1A►J Mtn. r }1 \ �t t ` / , _ _ \ g �X Gfixt Z or. ` \S �� '4 /\ f \ i �oo� Ip�� <O t �t �:\\ \` \ �� �8 \� \ � /�' \ \\ \$ ,\ ��O#tip 1 / ` ` �� �a ,t1� O`�C Ito \� Q(; ` \ \�`` �\ `�` f Ct1J.�►{ S►►lo+tQ vA. C2ITe LOGLLTWW �� 2�. 0 --\ \ . z \ °l� ^� s `fit ^ \\ T � \ f s �'� ` � \� GATULPRreL < G Op►,tTRY Gl utb w 1 0 zW Y r ' ,� e� r 1 etT ctA►dG40 � r v t4 r ti � o 20 t I t` \ \ _��1 4 _ I G = d i t��� '� R� v- U�o�oF� \\ � '' NtiRA6E• �� �l.M r ti�� � � \� ' � - � - �` 1'� ;. i � - < ��!SGtDS7�`T 4 g �r2y./��• •���t� ��. •,QP•.p�? 1_ \\ •...'" ' ,. !"1r..0r"Ls�'L'' `��f!7'L^R'ArC t' f YI �' � ��...:.IRI -'• 't � :- � , , 2t�o. _� F.,1strtlgMt'M t"�''r�• Itcadp r• t►� 77 f , , AVENUE t _ 9 ,`�s�'t�d' -,�, _ _ �aGAt,E (N goo ,,� v , ; \\ \� =�_--, \i V l C /N l T Y MAP ;;1 i ' ' •, \ �, 'o ' ---6,�rKoro��to , � EA f �J�/ , NOTES \/ �' /\ -r / L E6 END r Q J 1✓ CoGMi3NT r FZds�.t� I. r �'� E!Y G k /�.A/` It • ` j �1 l r\ .,r1 J �r\�N r� . J �� ' t'°` f�'L. / ojNT LEl� /D yam'' BRASS TAB /N GOh�IPETF_ POST ST t�Mf'E!� P.D /�'V, iQlVGr�E"SlG� COUNTY /. ALL Lo'T SrZES ARE' E�PQESSEa AS r K N 6N P t- AT nl ' _ DATE PEGEi`l$E�2 /9�i3, IJESGIErf'T,��'✓•' t?•3 MILE'S SdtlTf� IILBrJG TIDE A/ET t�2�.5. - -___-` --- f - -- - - - EAST L1lJC- of SE6TiotJ /9 F�'oM t .`TER`STATE NO. /o, TD Tt1E •JOlnJT 2: G PA 75' GE�lEPJ',L PLAI1 4ME�lo !-nIT '22, S �P LOG✓ PalIJT ELEVATION r �v X�f ¢ r--) / r- r-' r- -r coRniErzS of SEc7'ia/J5 I 2a, 2� ; 0.3 MILES Sot17t! �Lan/4 TtIE 3 PAelre Tri- e Tom. �5ef-PENT rr6C-k Eo ----� +-- -- 5' CzRQDE BreEAK ELEt/ATtDn/ I- \ ��1� �� �' l"� J 1 f - --- ----- 7----- x t ' r �.� �P� �' GFt•=j Zot� t�►�'.6•t�'•Y I - \/ I - EAST SEGTrort L rn1E' OF- SEcTic�r,' so EEsM T}•IE Jdtn/T GOI�P/ElZS 23 J.4NtlAe�/ I9/Z IN g�e �� P�.c5� ZZ�, f ' J r S \,J r 3a.o F'EE'T SoLj-r9r-A,5T FRart f, roth--K' rocE nlo. 9"981? -P, 3.0 FEET o� D£Evs, eEco�c?5 a� Rr✓E,Ps�vE cocJ� �! Rr�Ili r eSiretcTB c-ot�•ss c �f.S�t�y, FAST OF PoI-JER PQL.E JJO 900Le70 D /.JE15T OF- T E- EAST LANE of �. Moti'TEREY A✓E ':lE, AS c,,�,l„/�/ c.�` T}r''S ,'!4� S EGTto�/ 30. A Br2e.55 T� 5 E"r IN A ed nJCee-rE POST. .S P�Tla(-Ll� I -rf 'b✓Ev To Zo' NAt F-:f ' W APP GET �i No. 2ia81 EL��/�.T/Ol�/ 25"5•�92 t --_ i ?Ye 3 �i 1el:VKiwWi: - d,rrht4Vt'.D Ls`t' ' \ , CIVIL ''/ �F.lG1 Ll.f�SF IPi4. t:?tR31614 GMF,lTER S'I/EET TYPICAL SECTION _ - - - *A" I�ERtJ.a,t�C�t►•.t0 � �+ol T E TAT I V E Mf�6EL 1 / t�4 T�rc�I !J ttr Cr1 ,.! R MoF-{T E R eY Avg• _ s�.t.8: roc�4 �^t & _ QChS: TAd SeT id GoAkXe L5 A 4-{Je' M-010W OP' ;d RsK710W OF IW "A" Ag CP �j>lEET6 -_ AC? ltl�llWh1 �bS1 '.rE NOTE A6odE. gdy1P OF e#'cTen4 ?A, Tay., PK rs.�.W,d M. 5v.f 72 t .al.�- --•r --- � PATE gym' l