Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LITTLE BEND/MESA VIEW/ALAMO/ARROW TRAIL C/Z 02-78 1978
PROOF OF PUBu%.ATION f This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIAl ss. County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of PALM DESERT POST, a newspaper of general circu- lation, published weekly, in Palm Desert, County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of October 5, 1964, Case Number 83658; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit: 8/17/78__ I certify (or declare) under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date - ----- - at Palm Desert, California 197-1j Proof of Publication of .-.-CI-TY---ADF-P-&LM---DRS£RT------- ---------- ---- d� aWOp -oo L p`a Om EC_ COCA ➢➢> O '� wm uu°O� as YNrI Oj `L H Y C O« QS O to =E per. O�¢w CQ N Q. UC ¢aOro (J> C ] UC $poc >a o Zu R>co O^Q"- ;."'a� c ¢o Z cow omoo o«°= L CE r 0.c3=� 3E «cn` o= mZrz �c W�Ao U`¢ ¢�; WWmmwWJ 42QQQr2U Gl u'urS U« �G�n N C m w ?oa , o o¢ _"- 1 9 I _ / 000'ez I -a 5� /a / --1 000'01 I -a I � OOo'OI I-!{ - - i --- __ 'Wol 1-a' 7"71-can i_-- 000'01 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 ah TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 co BOX Closed >low O7 r c: jOtit -d�.- YP..'I EItW C s P.O. Box 1, ater �: w z 'alr Desert, c ta. 92.2ao 1 Gasf:�� o:ff 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July loth, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 o r ' a_ r�r 0 J V` D i � CKS - BULKBOARO TRAIL cIz o2-?"S LrLL J J 4. -- _aBnx 9aaaw F. REQUEST FOR REFUND by American West Development in the Amount of $332.00 or Building Tax and Plan Check Fees. Rec: Appro e the refund and authorize payment from Acc nt Nos. 31-4999-000 and 11-4980-000. G. REQUEST FOR/REFUND by Mrs. Julie K. Silverton in the Amount of 8.59 for Building Permit Refund. Rec: /Approve the refund and authorize payment from Account No. 11-4980-000. H. REQUEPT FOR REFUND by Signey'and Bettymae Rose in the Amouytt of $304.00 for Building Excise Tax. Approve the refund and authorize payment from Account No. 31-4999-000. LETTER OF APPRECIATION from the Board of Education of the Desert Sands Unified School District Officially Accepting the City's Donation to the Improvement of Washington School's Playground in the Amount of $15,000. Rec: Receive and file. ouncilman McPherson moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve t ncPnt Calendar aG presented. Motion carried unanimously with the members p— r�sct. VII. PUBLIC A. Q'ASE NO. CZ 02-78 ,XND RELATED EIR CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applica Oq,nsideration_qRequest for a Change of Zone from R-1. 20, - on a 37.8 Acre Parcel Located South of Little Bend Trail and North of Mesa View Drive Extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and the Related EIR. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Williams reviewed the major elements of the Environmental Impact Report as well as reports from 8 public agencies and citizen input. He reported that the Planning Commission, after their review of the EIR, had found it to be complete and recommended approval. Mr. Williams then presented Staff's report relative to the applicant's request for a change of zone to PR-4 and the related development plan. After review and hearing testi- mony from residents, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 374, concluded that a PR-3 zoning was more compatible for this area and that the PR designation would provide better integration for the property than would single-family residential. He also reviewed several letters submitted by residents expressing concerns which have been mittigated by the developer. He concluded by stating that Staff was recommending approval of the change of zone to PR-3 by Ordinance No. 188. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the project. 1. MR. A. T. WILKES, Project Architect, addressed Council and reviewed the history of the zoning on the subject property. He pointed out that the County, with the approval of the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, had zoned it 3-5 units per acre. The General Plan showed it as 3-5 units per acre. Mr. Wilkes presented some slides of their proposed development plan, stressing that the _ PR-4 zoning would be most appropriate for this property. Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the zoning. MRS. ROSE WACHTER, 73-413 Buckboard Trail, Palm Desert, expressed opposition not to the zoning but to any addi- tional development in Palm Desert before the Council can study the heavy impact development is having on our school system. In her capacity of a -teacher, she pointed out her awareness that the schools in Palm Desert were now operating at optimum capacity with no future plans for additional facilities. At the present time with the number of houses on the market for sale, if each house brought in 1/4 of a child, the District would have 400 new students in Palm Desert with no place to put them. She urged the Council, as elected representatives, to apply some type of pressure on the School District to provide a solution to what she felt was an increasingly bad situation. MRS. HARRY NUDD, 73-409 Little Bend Trail, Palm Desert, addressed Council expressing opposition to any more building in Palm Desert until something is done about the flood problem. She pointed out that traffic is already bad with Ironwood, and this development would only make it worse. MRS. JAN THOMPSON, 73-553 Haystack Road, Palm Desert, stated that Palm Desert is growing so rapidly that it will be like Orange County before the City is through handing out building permits. She pointed out what she felt was a horribly dangerous intersection at E1 Paseo and Highway 74. She also stated her agreement with Mrs. Wachter rela- tive to the school problem, feeling that the residents of Palm Desert foot enough of the School District's bill to warrant better and larger schools. MR. FRED GRIGGS, 73-549 Feather Trail, addressed Council as President of the Silver Spur Ranchers Association. He stated that his organization had had numerous people present at two Planning Commission meetings to point out their objec- tion to not only this development, but to any new development until the City has resolved the problems of fire stations, flood control, schools, stop signs and signals, etc. He stressed on behalf of the Association that the City is just growing too fast to handle the problems that will develop with all of these permits that are being handed out. He suggested slowing down before it is too late. MR. GENE SCOTHORN of Willdan Associates offered rebuttal to the concerns. He pointed out that the EIR contained a letter from Mr. Roger Harlow of the Desert Sands Unified School District which stated no concern over the develop- ment bringing in more children. He also pointed out that the EIR did, in fact, deal with the matters of land use, r Councilman Newbrander stated that she was in very strong sympathy with all the people who were objecting to the building. She said she was very concerned about the school situation, fire protection, traffic increase, and water shortage, and yet we have gone ahead and built and built. She reminded that over a year ago, she had made a motion for a moratorium which had died for lack of a second. She concluded by saying that it was obvious how fast ground is being used up when developers start building on storm channels. l Councilman Wilson stated his concurrence with Councilman Newbrander's concerns, but pointed out that the issue was what to do with this piece of property. He felt that in order to provide proper flood control, this piece of property must be zoned Planned Residential. He also stated that he felt strongly that we needed some citizens of Palm Desert going to the School District expressing everyone's concerns. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Councilman Wilson stated that the EIR presented here was.the most complete and comprehensive report he had seen and moved to cer- tify the EIR as complete by adopting Resolution No. 78-97. Councilman McPherson seconded the motion; carried unanimously with the members present. Councilman McPherson stated that he agreed with Councilman Wilson's comments that the issue at hand was land use and zoning. In his opinion, he had to go along with the Planning Commission and their recommendation for PR-3. He felt 140 units is too many for the property, and the PR-3 is better. than R-1-20,000 as it provides for open space, storm water protection, etc. Councilman McPherson moved to waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 188 to second reading, approving the change of Zone from R-1-20,000 to PR-3. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion. The motion carried on a 3-1 vote with Councilman Newbrander voting NOE and Councilman Brush being absent. B. CASE NO. CZ 04-78, COVE CONSTRUCTION, Applicant: Considera- ti a quest for a Change of Zone from PR-5, S.P. and R-5, to R--12,000 on a Parcel Approximately 75 Acres in Size, Generally Located East of Highway 74, Between Homestead and Portola. Mullins declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Williams presented the Staff Report indicating that the property is presently zoned for PR-5. The request, which is for R-1-12,000, would be a reduction in density f approximately 3 units to the acre. The Planning Com- m ssion and Staff believes that this is more compatible wi h the surrounding zoning, and therefore recommends app oval of the change of zone by Ordinance No. 189. Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the change of zone. •^/ General Offices: 1 Irvine Ievard. Suwta E • "Ice!ue Califwoin 9268f /4i. P Sox 85 Phone 832 80601 70 City of Palm Desert FROM PROCON MJB.IECI UNIDENTIFIED MAIL GATE 7/28178 We cannot identify the enclosed mail. Please return with complete name and, if possible, our collection number. No action can be taken on the above until the information requested is recieved. S�icerely� q , Carol P��urcedl(�/Z Mail Clerk July 10th, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-005 n■■■■ ■-s �:` -- ■ �■i ■■■ ■ ■ nsr�ua�.�.un� APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-009 r ----__ �� �FEAjNf�R_ i� EUGENE M. KAY, M.D. /v 73020 HOMESTEAD ROAD PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 %aZn Qe4ea t � t!� %'a lm De4e&4 La li van is 9,2Xo at4Y 17, 1978 V We attended .the /waruL�ru� Co=L"i.on meeiin on .tie evert& o� �LdY 5, 1978 es+d weae PLaZ .aulair,Cr� .inte�%e iced in the ?wenin.#,ion otthe ({fucdzucaLla aWec,4 a4 tAsu ee )8 acnaae adjacent to .the vuih 42de of oua pzopeatg at Hane4.iead and A.aw. We feet the Conn mion ua4 wide in expl[zini�ug #hat o an oveaaU paotection e plan o the aaea could incoaovaate the be4t(ovd P/z e 4urvuoundurg aaea4, and .that i;t =4 unpv44i.b le �oa .uldi.viduaj- hou4e4 built at witioto .timed to be p wu�sz� tv ve 4u�4ci.ent p otecu.on. In 4piite o� .the Coffmi44ion4 exp&maiion, dome of 4Ae audience obviou44 did not wzde�w&nd and coal ed .to aague. R ua4 4u4{ni4ing .to have .them ignoa,e .the advice o� .the Corwu4dione1&4 uiw aae fawn! eab.le in Ouch nntten4. We were in ithe direct path. o� .tie good in 1976 and aecei.ved hoaaen- do 4 a. ea, i eejoae rue have .!oohed ��auand to having pwtection the • We have vi4i.ted 40me O� ike .tea4 developnenta .in Santa dloni,ca and 4ound .ihem weCl de4t �oerdLV a beam! yinq qua'i'trg .to .iheiuz neigAbua1vod4. We .tiardi ,thi4 . ettea of appw .l will be ta/tea irao con4ideaation uAea you mzhe gout dece4ion on yulg 27" RE C E 1 v E J U L 19 1978 PALM DESERT CITY HALL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE i)04t .dinc&ze4 lYtraganet H. Kay llf-e --e- ;� L RE CEIV E fie 94 y 24, 1918 A& ON 1978 {{ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES J;�GpC✓(itJftenLt of Ulf iron mentat. cSesvic= City of Pa & tbeae tt 45275 nrick.L,.i Peat Xane Pats Denrnt, Ch. 92260 IV: Chacahuc Ca - lJec t nc 2ut 4 27o 1978 9 nes de within the aadiva of 300 feet of NO p2o`lec t. 9 have atudatd the &gvi2on- mentat nepont cage f ally and have c4one ouez theae y4ol . 9 Getieue it off era much yceataa Sod protection by errptoyin,, awan's than if that area waa devoted to eonalAuctaon of W- cGuw-i.dual ae idenceea. - 9 be.CAue theae awatea witl aaue oat city a ectt deaf in hood con - Not. 9 feet rtoa t objecti and can be oue acome if the eaat-went gaff is loom i ilkay 74 to Poo-tota can be diverted aDath of Macaw goad. 9 an Wonmed that to avoid famthey and fchute maintena,*n , the &tuq §nal Aowoazatea dedicated thW a &eeta to the. City of NO Qeae& Gat the object to the few uehictza from etaewhene wlzicJz mufht uae. theae Wash. . (�vcfe�a they pay �a& alceate& ta-mm than CAW le- Udenan of P beaent, P arc at a too to uOttstand how tq can hat, OWN%& on P&ON it tnaf fln urh, the �i.Cuen Spa& aaaa to Pontota. No one can undeJtat0d why the SLfvet Jpalt Aanw lat a want to Mow the baKez of tnal f is on other aneaa and not aGeoW theit ahask NO& the Situ t SpuA-Aa aoclatea object to the denx ty of this project, it appeana the/ demand 4eatet dsn,-Lity 2n theit area. Centc the ChacohaoCa /Meet of fern fa4 more etabosate Itood pnotecti.on meaaw&64 than the 9eruu& Condomin costa al teady evidtent Mead wea.t of Qamo. Katicer-ire s'l, Crai.c� 72992 Set Air road Pats Deaest, Cly. 92260 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE July 6, 1978 APPLICANT Chacahuala, Ltd. % I. Harold Hous ey 73-700 Highway 111, Ste. 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: C/Z 02-78 and Rela ed Draft EI The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of July 5. 1978 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. XX PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF July 27, 1978 FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission FROM: Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Summary of the draft environmental DATE: May 30, 1978 impact report on the proposed Chacahuala Project and Staff Recommendation SUMMARY The draft environmental impact report attached hereto, was prepared to accompany a request for zone change and development plans for a 38 + acre parcel of land located east of Alamo Drive and south of Homestead Road, extended. The proposed project will develop the land into a planned residential development consisting of 14 single- family detached units and 117 attached units, primarily duplex in nature. The project also includes such amenities as tennis courts, bike trails, swimming pools, recreation buildings, and landscaped greenbelts. The impacts associated with the project, determined to be most significant by the City of Palm Desert, are summarized below. Hvdroloev and Drainage The project site is situated directly in the path of a'natural storm channel, which has in the past been the source of major damaging floods in the project vicinity as well as much of the City of Palm Desert. On -site protection from flooding will be provided by the project by raised pad areas and a more defined drainage channel; however, additional off -site and regional facilities are needed to provide adjacent properties and downstream areas with adequate flood protection. Land Use and Land Use Compatibility The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped except for the extreme northwest corner of the site on which a single residence exists. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the east which have been developed in conformance with R-1-20,000 and R-1-10,000 zoning classifications. The existing zoning for the project site is single-family residential, R-1-20,000. The proposed zoning is PR-4 permitting a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre which is roughly equivalent to R-1-10,000 zoning. The proposed project conforms to the Palm Desert General Plan with respect to existing and proposed zoning and land use compatibility. Summary of Chacahuala Draft EIR May 30, 1978 Page Two Traffic and Circulation The proposed project will improve portions of Alamo Drive and Arrow Trail in conjunction with project implementation. The proposed project, upon completion, is projected to generate approximately 1,572 trips per day. Bike trails will be present to accommodate non -automobile modes of transportation. Public Services and Utilities No impacts are anticipated in providing water, sewer, gas, or elec- tric service to the proposed project. The City has, however, sug- gested the use of solar energy, where feasible to minimize the con- sumption of non-renewable natural resources. With respect to con- cerns raised by the Fire Marshal regarding the inadequacy of fire protection services to this area of the City, it should be noted, that a new fire station is planned to be located in the project area. Schools The project is projected to generate approximately 20 students in grades K-12. No major impacts on school district facilities are anticipated to result from the proposed project. Scenic Quality The project will transform the visual character of the site from that of a vacant parcel of land to that of a planned residential community. The proposed use of the site (planned residential) offers the City more stringent control over visual appearance of the project than would a standard R-1 type development. Short-term adverse impacts may result from the construction phase of this project. In the long- term, the cumulative impact of urban light on the views of the night- time sky will be incrementally increased as a result of this project. Energy Consumption and Conservation The project is estimated to have an annual energy consumption (gaso- line, natural gas, and electricity) roughly equivalent to 14,600 barrels of oil. Proposed measures for reducing energy consumption include the use of solar energy for pool heating and the use of sup- plemental insulation. Additional suggested measures include the reduction in gasoline consumption through the use of car pools, bicycles, and public transportation. Summary of Chacahuala Draft EIR May 30, 1978 Page Three STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff has reviewed the draft environmental impact report for the subject project and finds it to be a complete and comprehen- sive study of the impacts associated with the proposed develop- ment. The report has addressed the environmental factors of con- cern to Staff and it is noted that mitigation measures have been provided to eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Staff is recommending approval of the subject project. For your information, comments received from other agencies and the public are attached, along with the Staff responses, as ap- propriate, to said comments. LIST OF AGENCIES NOTIFIED Lowell 0. Weeks Coachella Valley County Water District Alan K. Straezer Southern California Air Pollution Control District Joe Richards County of Riverside Planning Commission Harold Horsley U. S. Post Office Joe Benes Coachella Valley Television Karl Kelsey Coachella Valley Soil Conservation District Gary Wiedle Coachella Valley Association of Governments D. R. MacPherson College of the Desert Don Shayler Pacific Rim Environmental Consultants Richard Rust University of California at Riverside Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District Southern California Association of Governments Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Riverside R. W. Riddell Southern California Gas Company Roger Harlow Desert Sands Unified School District LIST OF AGENICES NOTIFIED (CONT.) Kermit Martin Southern California Edison Co. D. M. Pinkstaff General Telephone Company Karen Fowler Living Desert Reserve Jim Langdon Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc. Stanley Sayles Palm Desert Community Services District Moe Kazem Regional Water Quality Control Board Lloyd Rogers Riverside County Health Department Todd Beeler Riverside County Planning Department General Telephone Company C. N. Vaughn Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert Dave Ortegal Riverside County Fire Department Fred Griggs, Jr. Silver Spur Ranchers Association Palm Desert Public Library Lt. Froemming Riverside County Sheriff's Department Coachella Valley Regional Library GpUNiy ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC Al ! �1S TRICZ COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT T,,Ea� LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER-pIET ENGINE" LL 'EIS CODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT 15 flp 1978 OLE J. NORDIAND, SECRETARY C. J. FROST J WALTER R. WRIGNT, AUDITOR WILLIAM D. GARDNER REDWINE AND $ ERRRL, ATTORNEYS STEVE D. 5L0 TON File: 0034.19037 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Service City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: EIR - Chacahuala Project NW'4, Sec. 32, T5S, R6E, S. B., B. 6 M. Dear Mr. Williams: The District has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project "Chacahuala". We recommend the following change on page 31, Paragraph 2, second sentence. Delete last portion of sentence after the word adequate. KEH:db Very truly yours, Lowel 0. Weeks-// General Manager -Chief Engineer Mp,,y 16'Q73 ENVIRONWILNTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT 17lo«13_4� — clrlIot7e 1 Iel- N R PUR RANCHERS ASSOCNLATION May 19, 1978 P.O. Box 680, Palm Desert, California 92260 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attentiono Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Gentlemen This is a reply to the environmental impact report known as "Chacahuala". The Board of Directors of the Silver Spur Ranch disagree with the environmental impact report of the Chacahuala development. We feel that this development would have a serious adverse impact on the development itself, as well as the adjacent properties, and all of Palm Desert. The area of the development is one of the finest view properties on the desert. Few areas of this nature are undeveloped. The view and the area are condusive to large elegant homes equal to the finest on the desert. To develop this area with less is to waste a potential that could bring more income to the city and increase the prestige of all of Palm Desert. The EIR has statements in it that are based on supposition. As an example, "The development will be compatible to the surrounding residential land use." Not true. The surrounding area to the east is developed with single family homes. To the north along Haystack Road, and to the northwest along Alamo are also single family homes. A large development of single family homes has also been approved for the north side of Haystack Road. The EIR admits that there will be an increase of 60% in the runoff draining to the northeast corner of the development. At this time there is no definite way of disposing of the runoff water at this point. The city of Palm Desert has a master drainage plan that will take water under Haystack Road, etc., but until this program has been funded no developers should be permitted to dump water on adjacent property owners. City of Palm Desert 5-19-78 p.2 We object to a zone change from R1 - 20,000 ft. to PR-4. If there is to be a change, it should be to R1-4 with 3.6 dwellings per acre. This would allow for lots of 12,000 square feet, with some as low as 10,000 square feet. This would be compatible with Ironwood's development of single family homes, and also with the Lewis homes north of Haystack Road. All the new homes in Silver Spur Ranch are on lots of 12,000 square feet, or more, with a maximum height of 14 feet or less. This height will allow for a pitched roof of either tile or white rock. The developers propose a second entrance on the northeast corner connecting with Little Bend Trail. The residents of Silver Spur Ranch do not want this additional traffic coming into the area. The above reasons, plus too many more to mention in this letter, should be sufficient to explain our reasons for objecting to this development in its present form. Sincerely, i SILVER SPUR RANCHERS�SSOCIATION Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President FWG s lw iif �a=$V .as ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES May 26, 1978 NOTE: The Southern California Association of Govern- ments has expressed an interest in the project and will forward comments. Pursuant to a May 26, 1978, telephone conversation with SCAG Staff Member, Rick Mellinger, the comments will address the drainage problem and recommend that perspective residents are made aware of their eligibility for flood insurance under the HUD Emergency Flood Insurance Program. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. He then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR, CHACAHUALA LTD., Applicant Reqest for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended be- tween Alamo and Arrow Trail and related Draft EIR. ➢7r. Williams reviewed the case and noted the related develop- ment plan. He also reviewed the correspondence received from Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr., President of Silver Spur Ranchers Association and Mr. Leland Scheu. Regarding the EIR, Mr. Williams noted a late response received from the South Coast Air Quality Control District. Staff recommends approval of the Change of Zone to PR-4 and certifi- cation of the final EIR. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to speak at this time. I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway 111, Engineer on project, and representative of Chacahuala, addressed the Commission and noted that a planned unit develop- ment is the best project for the area involved and he would answer any questions. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, 48-698 Desert Flower, representing the California Teachers Association which owns 11 acres adjacent to the property, noted their approval of the project. EUGENE KAY, owner of property north of development, gave his approval of the project. KAY CRAIG, Belair and Alamo, spoke in favor. TOM O'SULLIVAN, 72-990 Homestead, spoke to the Commission & asked to have a few things clarified regarding the traf- fic on Homestead and Alamo and the density. MARGARET KAY, lives across from Mr. O'Sullivan, spoke in favor of the project as the developers have met all the conditions. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) FRED GRIGGS, 73-549 Feather Trail, representing Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranchers Asso- ciation, spoke noting his objections to the Change of Zone of PR-4 from R-1-20,000 and to the addi- tional traffic that will be created. He stated two problems that should be solved or completed before any development should be considered and that is the flood and drainage control issue and the completion of the proposed fire station. MRS. HARRY NUDD, 73-409 Little Bend Trail, opposed due to flood control problem. JOHN MCMANN, 73-269 Broken Arrow, opposed due to flood control problem. ED PECK, 73-610 Buckboard Trail, opposed due to the flood control problem not being completely solved and the density should be lower. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, opposed due to the flood control issues, traffic and it would lower the value of adjacent homes. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a REBUTTAL at this time. Mr. Housley noted that Little Bend Trail would be an extension of Homestead and that Alamo would be widened and Chia would be extended. Also, drainage from the south side of Portola (extended) would cut off and divert to Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that for normal rainfall sufficient drainage is being provided. Mr. Housley noted that he had met with the people from Silver Spur and that the plans had been modified. A. T. WILKES, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission noting various points about the careful planning of the channeling of the water, which would only benefit adjacent homes; original zoning as stated in the Riverside County General Plan is 3-5 units per acre; the proposal is less dense than the R-1 next to the project; he does not feel that Silver Spur will be affected by any additional traffic; the tennis courts will be adjacent to present tennis courts and they will be recessed plus low glare lights will be used; lots were placed carefully with regard to the view and sun control; and, project will bring about money for flood control. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the project onto Mesa View. Mr. Williams stated no. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear- ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out development and that the project is a good one for the area. He then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern and -,;that he wants more time to study the draft EIR. 1,t �i`i� Y..-Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain- y,�.d'�- a e'and fire protection are her concerns and she would like more time. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder recpested that Staff make certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the traffic problem. Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the traffic situation. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study; carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is to address the City's responsibilities with regard to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic and access. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder noted that the Planning Commission needs additional input from Staff, the applicant gave a fine presentation. B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MF - CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Mr. Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with the related Case No. C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried unanimously (3-0). C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium Dro.lect to be located on nnnrnximntaly 33 nrras at E R� May 19, 1978 P.O. Box 680, Palm Desert, California 92260 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attentions Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Gentlemen: This is a reply to the environmental impact report known as "Chacahuala". The Board of Directors of the Silver Spur Ranch disagree with the environmental impact report of the Chacahuala development. We feel that this development would have a serious adverse impact on the development itself, as well as the adjacent properties, and all of Palm Desert. The area of the development is one of the finest view properties on the desert. Few areas of this nature are undeveloped. The view and the area are condusive to large elegant homes equal to the finest on the desert. To develop this area with less is to waste a potential that could bring more income to the city and increase the prestige of all of Palm Desert. The EIR has statements in it that are based on supposition. As an example, "The development will be compatible to the surrounding residential land use." Not true. The surrounding area to the east is developed with single family homes. To the north along Haystack Road, and to the northwest along Alamo are also single family homes. A large development of single family homes has also been approved for the north side of Haystack Road. The EIR admits that there will be an increase of 6oq. in the runoff draining to the northeast corner of the development. At this time there is no definite way of disposing of the runoff water at this point. The city of Palm Desert has a master drainage plan that will take water under Haystack Road, etc., but until this program has been funded no developers should be permitted to dump water on adjacent property owners. City of Palm Desert 5-19-78 p.2 We object to a zone change from R1 - 20,000 ft. to PR-4. If there is to be a change, it should be to R1-4 with 3.6 dwellings per acre. This would allow for lots of 12,000 square feet, with some as low as 10,000 square feet. This would be compatible with Ironwood's development of single family homes, and also with the Lewis homes north of Haystack Road. All the new homes in Silver Spur Ranch are on lots of 12,000 square feet, or more, with a maximum height of 14 feet or less. This height will allow for a pitched roof of either tile or white rock. The developers propose a second entrance on the northeast corner connecting with Little Bend Trail. The residents of Silver Spur Ranch do not want this additional traffic coming into the area. The above reasons, plus too many more to mention in this letter, should be sufficient to explain our reasons for objecting to this development in its present form. Sincerely, SILVER SPUR RANCHERS'ICSSOCIATION Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President FWG11w tiz+tiiyIVL& -o ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN P.O. 90x zae 218 WEST SAN JACIN TO STREET PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 Tr -Cities Fire Marshal 70-800 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 May 10, 1978 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Change of Zone 02-78 This proposed change of zone will require that the water system be up -graded to meet the fire protection requirements prior to the development of the area. David J. Ort gel el Fire Marshal DJO:dt R1E+L;EIII v�.A, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services Director of Public Works Change of Zone From 02-78 No comment. DATE: May loth, 1978 iriK%e;tiiVL v MAY 1 i 197on ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT, TO: Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert FROM: Mike Murray, R.S., Supervising Sanitarian Riverside County'Health Department - Desert District DATE: May 10, 1978 SUBJECT: CZ 02-78 Due to the fact that domestic water and sanitary sewage disposal is provided by Coachella Valley County Water District, we have no comments at this time. MM:js iiF,lvI:iVi.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT 46.10 Southern California Edison Company 36.100 CATHEDRAL CANYON DRIVE CATHEDRAL CITY. CALIFORNIA 92234 May 11, 1978 TO: City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Project: CZ 02-78 - Change of Zone Environmental Impact Report Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company, and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our electrical load requirements for the next several years. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, if our plans to proceed with future construction of new generat- ing facilities are delayed, our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1981. In addition, the major fuel used in E,dison's generating facilities is low sulfur fuel oil. We now believe our low sulfur fuel oil inventory, together with our contractual commitments for delivery, and our customers' conservation efforts, will permit us to meet the forecasted demand for electricity during 1978. It is our intention to continue to do everything that can reasonably be accomplished to provide our customers with a continuous and sufficient supply of electricity. GB:im (Rev. 11/77) � 1E I V i.:.. MAY 1`>1973 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CLIP 9E PALM pESERr Very truly yours, Glenn Buchanan Customer Service Planner INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Palm FROM: Desert Planning Commission Secretary to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: Response to comments on "Chacahuala" DATE: June 13, 1978 Environmental Impact Report from the South Coast Air Quality Management District Comments on the draft environmental impact report for the "Chacahuala" Project were received May 30th, 1978 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In as much as the comments were received late, time did not permit a response to be prepared prior to the initial public hearing date of May 30th, 1978. Accordingly this Memorandum explains the subsequent action taken by the Staff regarding the comments received from South Coast Air Quality Management District. Review of the comment relative to Appendix information indicates that existing air quality data has been included. In response to the second comment the preparer of the Environmental Impact Report was contacted and asked to provide the additional emission data to substantiate the statement in Section 3.10.2. This data was received June 5, 1978 and is attached hereto. On June 7th, 1978, Mr. Tom Mullins, of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, was contacted by phone to request assistance in review of the additional data submitted. Pursuant to that conversation the data was not transmitted since their comments were only advisory and since no interest was expressed in further review of the material. Their concern was that we were provided with the additional information and that it substantiated the related emissions data. Accordingly, since the Staff was satisfied that the emissions related data was correct and that the action taken regarding the South Coast Air Quality Management District comments fulfilled the appropriate environmental requirements no further action was taken. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary PAW/rk/tb G A June 1, 1978 IT City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane�pNt Palm Desert, California 92260 0" � Attention: Ron Knippel Subject: AQMD Comments on the Chacahuala Project EIR Dear Ron: fi u I. Aa p4aming n e Irmrremcl sciences Enclosed per our telephone conversation are the rough calculations pertain- ing to AQMD's comment on page 44 of the Draft EIR. Also enclosed are copies of the tables of emission factors contained in the AQMD document entitled, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports." If we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, ENVISSTA, INC. Clarence E. Aschbrenner Resource Analyst CEA:sr Enclosure E-291 T 0. M 10 V n 10 N 0V P O c O �o U ti c O O m JVliifin111,%�unLt11 1 LJfJ?;„Li DIaTRICT HEADQUARTERS • •9420 TELSTAR AVFNUX. EL NON I'E,. FORNIA 91731 • (213) 44]-393t Date 5/25/78 File No. A80418E Mr. Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 COaLMMTS ON: Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Chacahuala Project (140 Units) ADEQUACY OF AIR QUALITY AMNLYSIS Adequate Inadeauate 27A Existing Air Quality in Area — — — -- [j 1) (l Existing Emissions in Area — 2) Project Emissions: Construction phase Completed project vehicular ® 2) Stationary — — — — — - [l ED 2) Project Impact on Air Quality _ — — —[a El 2) q ARE ADEQUATE HITIakTION tMSURES PROVIDE) FOR PROJECT AIR POLLUTAtU.S? D Yes In No ❑ Incomplete n HA ARE GROWTH IMUCMG Err :CTS OF PROJECT Oil POLLUTANT MISSIONS DISCUSSED? MYes AQ!M M IIT El No []Partially IN Not required ❑ Required ❑ May be required, contact Zone office IS PROJECT CONSISTENT POT10TIAL EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY (AQ) NA ❑ Beneficial: will probably tend to improve AQ (] No effect ❑ Impairment: probably no substantial adverse effect [] Unfavorable: may degrade AQ to a significant extent [j Adverse: will degrade AQ to a significant extent L�J Indeterminate: due to lack of data 11 Yes [A No C0MENTS: 1) Contrary to what is stated on page 44 there is no information in the Appendix on existing air quality. 2) There should be emission data for these items to document the state- ment in Section 3.10.2 that project related emissions will be less than 0.3 percent of total Palm Desert emissions. C'hacS49(414, �4cr S�r�T. lie.4'c/e �r ;�5 PeCL� (edr tW)l S7 z /'I ;Ie5 Ptr �r:f io SoKrce ��K ?er . P/�, F40eE ➢alr l A 1 (JUde -J: , -fir ,JA-1) _ i s, 7;w v,.; l,- s . Ile Jar = >G;(r x34S = S.7y x/Dl°,ti, �Qs *'SS�m 'fGcnsrs 4r 1972? Are Tz6/e KLV"l ih tie A ; r C �a,�`��, ,�n bee /� �., C s ►2 s Pwd l shed by Aticty�,��Fe� 1ri77) 104J 4y- TAB J )eser-1 " :�5 $�kerc a� ;Jtre, I arf 4e- Itq,r^ 76 R4 Descr+- G-e.av-d F>la~, Pees � 8a a.,W c �d I—:rV-e q-2 0 Q �/ 0"��4 �Y Ta6�F3 W.�fy ,�; tiw'SS•v�+ �RoTers ?04 joj Cq,�L.5, N(t7,4wA %) rcc+or 11; TaNs / rQr 7&K5, do 23. / 1 y5.7 :Z . /7. o (o . 0Y7 ) of o. � <o. 0017) r�reCar�S �.t7 Tar�'�cN.�slis �, y 7-?w AQAAt> NGNJ6,o k CJS �Ftce.�rs+) i1bNs�lj� 7_w�odt Q ra.4'4% 534.9 ;Z73 3 C TABLE XLVIII ENERGY -USE EMISSION FACTORS SOURCE CARBON NITROGEN SULFUR PARTI- HYDROCARBONS MONOXIDE OXIDES OXIDES CULATES ORGANIC GASES PdR. GENERATIONI) Lbs/1000 KWH }u ..e e M Sj of OIL FIRED 0.2 2.3 S:j� 0.401 0.18 GAS FIRED 0.15 1.3 O 608 0.024 0.083 COM'L & H014E HEATING2) -Lbs/1000 Curt GAS FIRED NEGL 0.116 NEGL 0.018 NDGL LIGHT -DUTY GASOIIM 3 Grams/Mile POWERED VEHICLES 4) 1975 32.5 3.9 0.1 0.5 3.3 1976 29.4 3.5 0.1 0.5 2.9 1977 26.2 3.1 0.1 o.4 2.4 r 1978 23 1" 0 1 0. 4 2 1979 19.9 2.3 0.1 0.3 1.5 1980 16.8 1.9 0.1 0.3 1.1 1985 5.6 o.8 0.1 0.3 o.6 1990 4.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 1995 3.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 MOTORCYCLE TRAVEL3) Grams/Mile 1975 34.7 0.1 NEGI, 0.2 13.5 1976 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 13.2 1977 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 12.9 1978 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 12.5 1979 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 12.2 1980 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 11.9 1985 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 3.7 1990 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 3.1 1995 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 2.3 1) Emissions based on 1974 operations of L.A. County power plants, assuming 10,387, BTU's generates 1 KWH. Heating oil assumed to contain a maximum of 0.5% by weight of sulfur. No►a�0 xS� 2) Adapted from Journal of APCA, April 1962, page 158. 3) Developed from EPA AP-42 for an average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin, these factors correspond to an average route speed of 35 miles per hour. 4) Automobiles and light -duty trucks less than 6001 pounds. 95 July, 1976 SCAPCD TABLE XLVI IiEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE PO.1-P ED VEHICLE. EMISSION FACTORS' a GRAMS PER HILF. POUNDS PE2 THOUSAND GALLONS 2) YEAR CARBON NITROGEN HYDR.00A130N CAR30N NITROGE14 HYDROCARBON MONOXIDE OXID S 09GATTIIC GASES MONOXIDE OXIDES ORGANIC GASES 19T 92.2 10.2 11.6 1016.3 112.4 127.9 19- 92.2 9.7 1C.3 1016.3 107.4 113.E 19-17 92.2 9.5 9.9 1016.3 102.3 109.3 1973 92.2 8.8 9.1 1016.3 97.2. 130.1 1979 92.2 8.4 8.2 1016.3 92.2 go.8 198-0 92.2 7.9 7-4 1016.3 87.1 81.6 1935 92.2 5.4 5.5 1016.3 59.5 60.6 1990 91.8 4.8 L.0 1011.9 52.9 44.1 1995 86.4 3.9 3.1 952.4 43.0 34.2 SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES 1975-1995 0.3 0.8 3.3 8.8 1) Developed from EPA AP-42 for an average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin, these factors correspond to an average route speed of 35 miles per hour. 2) Calculated by assuming 5 miles per gallon. TABLE XLV II HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL POWERED VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS 1) C GRANS PER MILE YEAR CARBON NITROGEN HYDROCARBON MONOXIDE OXIDES ORGANIC GASES POUNDS CARBON MONOXIDE PER THOUSAND NITROGEN OXIDES GALLONS HYDROCARBON ORGANIC GASES 1975 19.4 30.5 3.1 213.8 336.2 34.2 1976 18.9 27.8 2.8 208.6 306.9 31.1 1977 18.4 25.2 2.5 202.8 277.6 28.0 1978 18.0 22.5 2.3 198.4 248.2 24.9 1979 17.5 19.9 2.0 192.9 218.9 21.8 1980 17.0 17.2 1.7 187.4 189.6 18.7 1985 14.0 10.8 1.1 154.3 119.0 12.1 1990 11.6 9.1 0.9 127.9 100.3 9.9 199r' 12.0 8.0 0.8 132.3 88.2 8.8 SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES 1975-1995 2.4 1.11 26.5 15.4 1) Developed from EPA AP-42 for an average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin, these factors correspond to an average route speed of 35 miles per hour. 2) Calculated by assuming 5 miles per gallon. July, 1976 SCAPCD TABLE XLIV ) ANNUAL ELECTRIC ENERGY USAGE PER SQUARE FOOT OF FLOOR SPACE Annual KWH Per So. Ft. RESIDENTIAL All -Electric, Single -Family Residence 10.3 Single -Family Residence W/Electric Kitchen 5.l: Single -Family Residence W/Gas Appliances 4.8 All -Electric Apartment 7.0 Apartment W/Electric Kitchen 4.4 Apartment W/Gas Appliances 4.0 NON-RESIDENTIAL - GENERAL CATEGORIES Office and Professional Buildings 34.2 Warehouses 14.4 Retail Outlets 47.8 Restaurants and Cocktail Lounges 76.9 Hotel and Motels •26.0 Service Establishments 95.2 Elementary Schools 23.1 High Schools and Colleges 38.8 Hospital and Convalescent Facilities 100.7 Churches 6.0 Theaters and Recreation 32.5 Manufacturing/Industrial 50.1 NON-RESIDENTIAL - SPECIFIC CATEGORIES Regional Shopping Center - 1,340,000 Sq. Ft. 33.3 �. Regional Shopping Center - 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. 33.6 Regional Shopping Center - 892,000 Sq. Ft. 31.4 Regional Shopping Center - 885,000 Sq. Ft. 27.2 Regional Shopping Center - 813,000 Sq. Ft. 32.5 Regional Shopping Center - 640,000 Sq. Ft. 22.8 Major Shopping Center - 492,000 Sq. Ft. 27.3 Shoe Stores 38.3 Jr. Department Stores 49.0 Women's Ready to Wear Stores 31.6 Women's Specialty Stores 30.2 Men's Wear Stores 29.2 Bank/Savings & Loan 21.1 Household Stores (Drapes, carpets, fabric, etc.) 16.3 Drug Stores 29.0 Jewelry and Gift Stores 40.0 Food Market 66.5 Restaurants and Food Specialty Stores 85.2 TABLE XLV AVERAGE 1� MONTHLY CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL GAS RESIDENTIAL Single Family Residences = 9125 Cubic feet/Month/Dwelling Unit Multi Family; 4 or less Units = 5330 Cubic feet/Month/Dwelling Unit Multi Family; 5 or more Units = 4830 Cubic feet/Month/Dwelling Unit ( NON-RESIDENTIAL Office = 3.5 Cubic feet/Month/Square foot. Shopping Center = 20. Cubic feet/Month/Square foot Hotel = 50. Cubic feet/Month/Square foot Industrial = 3.3 Cubic feet/Month/Square foot 1) City of Los Angeles, EIR Manual for Private Projects, 1975. Updated. 1976. Figure 9-2 PALM DESERT DAILY VEHICULAR EMISSIONSI RESIDENTIAL # TRIPS MILES NEIGHBORHOOD TRIPS/DAY VMT 1 2 3 E 4 5 6 8 11 Subtotal 7 8 m 9 to v Il 12 Z 13 W J 14 Z 15 16 0 17 w 18 1 W 9 x N 20 21 22 23 24 25 Subtotal CTota 1 8,554 4,137 5,187 3,010 7,686 3,507 16,810 -70 48,961 2,94o 2,430 13,454 13,958 25,942 23,625 13,076 10,822 8,720 10,500 17,020 19,22o 3,730 4,66o 10,64o 4,66o 7,070 3,920 196387 245:348 85,540 41,370 510870 30,loo 76,86o 35,070 168,loo -700 489,610 29,400 24,300 134,54o 139,580 259,420 236250 130:760 108,220 87,200 105,000 170,2oo 192,2oo 37,300 46,600 106,400 46,600 70,700 39,200 1,963,870 2,453,480 HYDROCARBONS ✓; TONS PER DAY ORGANIC GASES CARBON MONOXIDE NITROGEN OXIDES SULFUR CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE OXIDES2 .773 .374 .469 272 .695 317 1.519 .006 4.425 .266 220 1.216 1.262 2.345 2.135 1.182 .978 .788 .949 1.538 1.737 .403 .421 .962 421 .639 .354 17.816 22.241 .434 .210 .263 .153 .390 .178 .852 .004 2.484 .149 .123 .682 .708 1.315 1.198 .663 .549 442 .532 .863 975 .189 .236 .54o .236 .358 .202 9.960 12.444 6.629 3.206 4.o19 2.332 5.956 2.718 13.026 .054 37.940 2.275 1.883 10.426 10.816 20.103 18.307 10.133 8.386 6.76 8. 137 13.189 14.894 2.850 3.611 8.245 3.611 5.479 3.038 152.183 190.123 3.413 1.651 2.070 1.201 3.067 1.310 6.708 .028 19.412 1.173 .970 5.369 5.570 10.352 9.427 5.218 4.318 3.480 4.190 6.792 7.670 1.488 1.855 4.246 1.859 2.820 1.564 78.365 97.777 .585 .283 .354 .206 .525 .24o 1.149 .005 3.347 .201 .166 .919 .954 1.773 1.615 .894 .740 .596 .718 1.163 1.314 .255 318 .727 .318 .483 .268 13.392 16.739 .377 .182 .229 .132 .339 .155 .741 .003 2.158 .130 .107 .593 615 1.805 1.o4o 577 .477 384 .463 .750 .847 .164 .205 .470 .205 .312 .173 9.317 11.475 .019 .009 .011 .007 .017 .007 .037 n .107 .006 .005 .030 .031 .057 .052 .029 .024 .019 .023 .038 .o42 .008 .010 .023 .010 .016 .008 .431 .538 PARTICULATE MATTER2 .016 .008 .010 .006 .014 .007 .032 n .093 .006 .004 .025 .026 .o49 .044 .025 .020 .016 .020 .032 .036 007 .008 .020 .009 .013 .007 36 .460 oil Figure 9-1 AIR MONITORING DATA SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PORTION - 1970`-`1'1 California Contaminant State Standard Oxidant 0.10 ppm, 1-hour Carbon 40 ppm, 1-hour or Monoxide 10 ppm, 12-hours Sulfur 0.5 ppm, 1-hour or Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24-hour5 Nitrogen 0,25 ppm, 1-hour Dioxide Particulate 100 f g/m3, 24-hours or Matter 60 µ g/m3, annual geometric mean Hydrocarbons None Visibility Sufficient to reduce Reducing prevailing visibility Particles to 10 miles when relative humidity is less than 70% Lead 1.5 µ g/m3, 30-days (Particulate) Hydrogen 0,03 ppm, 1-hour Sulfide Number of Days State Standards Maximum Average Exceeded Concentration 49 0.48 ppm 0 0 ppm 0 0 ppm 0 0 ppm 35* 4j 1>: NO NO ND ND NO NO NO NO ND = No Data Random high -volume sampling every 6 days AISI tape sampling in COH units Source: Southeast Desert Basin Implementation Plan, 1971. E,5a Figure 9-2 (Cont'd) PALM DESERT DAILY VEHICULAR EMISSIONSI TONS PER DAY HYDROCARBONS & # TRIPS MILES ORGANIC GASES CARBON MONOXIDE NITROGEN OXIDES SULFUR PARTICULATE TRIPS/DAY VMT CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE OXIDES2 MATTER2 COMMERCIAL Core Area 2,117 16,936 .153 .086 1.312 .676 .116 .075 ,004 .003 Regional 6,248 49,984 .452 .237 3.873 1.995 .342 .220 .011 Specialty 22,245 177,96o 1.6o9 .902 13.796 7.101 1.216 .785 .039 .009 Village 11,705 93,640 .846 .475 7.256 3.737 .64o .413 .033 Total 42,315 338,520 3.06o 1.700 26.237 13.509 2.314 1.493 .021 .075 .018 .063 INDUSTRIAL Res. & Dev. 150,825 3,016,500 27.266 15.295 233.754 120.368 20.616 13.300 .665 Service 52,140 1,042,8o0 9.426 5.288 80.808 41.611 7.127 4.598 .230 .565 Total 202,965 4,059,300 36.692 20.583 314.562 161.979 27.743 17.898 .895 .195 .760 m TOTAL Res., m Comm., Ind. Cr 490,628 6,851,300 61.993 34.727 530.922 273.265 46.796 30.866 1.508 1.283 1 Assumes worst case at full development. Emission factors obtained from the Los Angeles APCD are for the average gas -powered vehicle on the road at the end of 1974, as estimated by both Federal (CVS) and California (7-Mode) test procedures, 2 Same for both. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission FROM: Secretary to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: Late Comments on "Chacahuala" EIR DATE: May 30, 1978 Comments on the draft environmental impact report for the "Chaca- huala" project were received May 30, 1978, from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. A copy of said comments are attached herewith. Time did not permit a response to be prepared before the public hearing; however, a response will be prepared prior to the project being presented to the City Council. A review of the comments received indicates that the information as stated in comment No. 1 is included in the Appendix and the information as requested in comment No. 2 will be provided by the preparer of the EIR and transmitted to the South Coast Air Quality Management District for further comment. For your information, Mr. Housley/Wildon Associates, present at tonights public PAUL A. WILLIAMS /ks Clarence Ashbrenner of the firm of preparers of the EIR document, will be hearing. CITY OF PALM DESERT TRAMSMITTAL LETTER I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related Draft EIR. III. Case No.• Ei -78 Related Draft EIR, Chacahuala, Ltd, Applicant IV. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation. B. Draft Resolution No. 78-_ certifying the final EIR as complete. C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Review of major issues discussed by the Planning Commission. (See Planning Commission Minutes from meetings of July 5th, 1978 and May 30th, 1978.) E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 374. F. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated July 5, 1978 and May 30, 1978. G. Portion of Planning Commission minutes dealing with the subject request. H. Related maps and/or exhibits. A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: By adopting Resolution 78-_ certify the final EIR as complete. 1) Justification: 1. The EIR submitted does conform to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32." 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 374, recommending certification of the Final EIR as complete. 2) By waiving further reading and passing to second reading Ordinance No. approve the Chanqe of Zone. a RESOLUTION NO. 78- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF THE CHACAHUALA PROJECT AS COMPLETE. CASE NO. CZ 02-78 (EIR) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, has held a duly noticed Public Hearing on July 27, 1978, on the Final Environmental Impact Report submitted by Chacahuala Ltd. on a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family Residential, minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PR-4 (Planned Residential, maximum 4 d.u./acre) on approximately 37.8 acres located south of Little Bend Trail and north of Mesa View Drive extended, between Alamo and Arrow Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001,002,003,004, 005,006,007,008,009 WHEREAS, said Environmental Impact Report does conform to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32"; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by Planning Commission Reso- lution No. 374 has recommended that the City Council certify the subject Environmental Impact Report at their meeting of July 5, 1978. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: That it does hereby certify as complete that certain Final Environmental Impact Reporf attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incor- porated by reference herein as though fully set forth at length, together with all comments received from other agencies, organizations, and community groups thereon, and the responses to such comments prepared by the City staff, as the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chacahuala Project. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 27th day of July, 1978, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EDWARD MULLINS, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-3 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED, BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. CZ 02-78 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows, SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance 107 referencing Section 25.46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 25.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit 'A'. SECTION 2: 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 certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 27th day of July, 1978, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: EDWARD D. MULLINS, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California /tb -jj R-1 13,000 I T—Fi 4 1 Cl) I h IP.R.-5 2 2 -1507);' �da ESTEao� AD U � exi � O PR.- 5 a R-1 10,000 (C.U•P. 1367) L > n-1 10.000 G P.R.-7 ( C.U.P.- 1382 ) R-1-10,000 R-1 10,04 ---' R-1 10,000 L------------ BUCKBO4RU—T R ; LIZ - I R-1 10,000 a L41 eH�eN--ARlnS, --✓ R-1 20,000 /' R- //i P.R.-7 PLANNING COSIMISSION RESOLUTION V0. 374 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNTA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CIIANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 to PR-3 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND FORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALA110 AND ARROW TRAIL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 IIIEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of July. 1978. hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an appli- cation filed by CHACAHUALA, LTD. requesting approval of a Change of Zone zie) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 au/acre) zone on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 and approval of the related Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32," in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been com- pleted in accordance with --the requirements of CEQA; and, I%HUEAS, at_a Public Hearing on May 30, 1978, and a continued Public Hearing on July 5, 1978, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a Change of Zone and related Draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely effect the health, safety, or general welfare. 3. The proposed Change of Zone will meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with re- gard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the ahove raritntinnc n,- r.n,o � ,,a ------- --A PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 Page Two 3. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete to include the Draft EIR, all comments received and Staff responses to them. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting; of the Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of July, 1978, by the fol- lowing vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KELLY, KRYDER NOES: SNYDER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: ,LOVE GEORGE'BERKEY, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ks �T �n r 1 1 J:V, (Pr i R-1 13,000 .._.... Fi0M'ES1EAo�....�^. .S / c? P.R.-5 i R-I PR.-5 10,000 (C.U.P. 1367) GRI. R-1 I3,00 C R-I - 10,000 rl� R-1 10,01 R IICN B0ARD TRAIL ------- i I R I 10,000 j 10j//- / RHONEH ARq�N R-1 20,000 P /'�, P P.R.-7 (C.U.P.- 1382 ) CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: Change of Zone Applicant: CHACAHUALA, LTD. Case Nos.: C/Z 02-18 and Related Draft EIR Date: July 5, 1978 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related draft EIR. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone and certifi- cation of the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission Resolution '!o. 374. Justification: I. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 3. The proposed Change of Zone would meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. III. BACKGROUND: A. Location: The property comprising approximately 37.8 acres is located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. B. Description: The subject property is described as follows: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 n DR] C9l 17n nn, .n.. fin, ,,n ...... Case No. C/Z 02-78 July 5, 1978 IV. ORIGINAL DISCUSSION: ?age Two The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) on the 37.8 acre parcel, The requested zone, PR-4, would allow a maximum of 4 units per acre, approximately twice the density per- mitted under the present R-1 20,000, namely 2 units per acre. Staff is supporting the applicant's requested Change of Zone as the proposed PR-4 would be compatible with adjacent zoning. The property to the south is zoned PR-7 which permits a greater density than that being proposed and the situation is similar to the west where property currently developed exists as a PR-5 development also a greater density than being proposed. Property to the north is zoned R-1 10,000 which would allow the same den- sity, approximately 4 du/per acre, as the proposed PR-4. Property to the east is zoned both R-1-10,000 & R-1 20,000; the R-1 20,000 property per- mitting only 2 du per acre. Therefore, in general terms, the property surrounding the subject parcel is zoned in such a manner that the permitted densities are either equal to or greater than that proposed by the pre- sent applicant. Staff also supports the Change of Zone for another reason. Development of the subject parcel will be difficult due to drainage and flood control concerns which necessarily must be addressed. The Planned Residential Zone would allow the developer much more flexibility in addressing these concerns than a conventional subdivision required under the present R-1 20,000 zone. This flexibility is offered as a result of the common areas provided in the PR zone. The proposed greenbelts which run in a northeasterly direction would be capable of acc'omodating much of the runoff generated by storms whereas a conventional subdivision would require far more improvements to dispose of the same water. The nearby CVCWD water storage tank and Southern California Edison substation have always been additional constraints that had to be considered when attempting to plan for development of the subject site. Once again, the flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization offered by the Planned Residential Zone make it much easier to mitigate adverse situations caused by the existence of the water storage tank and electric substation than attempting to mitigate these potential problems within the R-1 zone classification. Large open areas made possible by the PR zone, with extensive landscaping could lessen the impact of these two existing public facilities. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This matter was continued from the May 30, 1978, Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commission to give the EIR further study. In addition, the Commission requested more information from the Staff on drainage, fire protection and traffic circulation. These issues will be addressed in this section. Drainage The City's adopted Master Drainage Plan provides for a storm water pipe system as depicted on the following drawing. Case No. C/Z 02-73 July 5, 197E Page "iiree SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: (Cont.) A. Drainage (Cont.) 1979-80. Said development would be a part of the first phase of construction on the Ironwood Park site. These improvements, in conjunction with the subject project and its related channel and block walls should protect the Silver Spur Ranch Development from storm water from the west. Further, said system should reduce the drainage area affecting Alamo Drive. However, it should be noted that other improvements on Alamo Drive and within the Silver Spur Ranch are contemplated by the City's Master Drainage Plan in order to totally resolve the drainage problems ofthese areas. Traffic Circulation As a result of the public testimony at the Hearing on May 30, it has become apparent to Staff that access to the proposed project totally ignores the fact that a direct connection to Highway 74 and Portola Avenue would exist on the southerly border of the proposed project. Said connection would be Mesa View. If the project were revised to provide for an entrance off of Mesa View Drive, there would be no need for an entrance near the intersection of Little Bend Trail and Chia Drive extended. Further, such an entrance would ultimately re- duce the use of the proposed Alamo entrance, particularly when Mesa View Drive was extE'ded to Highway 74. Finally, said entrance would provide a direct access to the proposed project from the proposed Ironwood Fire Station. The applicant has agreed to relocating this proposed Chia entrance to Mesa View Drive. A revised development plan has been filed reflecting this change. Fire Protection The development of adequate fire protection is dependent on the con- struction of the Irownood Fire Station. The recently adopted City Budget for Fiscal year 1978-79 provides for the construction of said facility. It is expected that said facility would be constructed and in operation before any development were constructed on the sub- ject property. VI. RECENT CORRESPONDENCE: ter'. ............ M O �t li -+ u ,1 )r ,I w 1( G Ilr ' ` sari 13 13f10JCtl o - —63'1A7, a1 M M IT'S 0 :."'! :F STIFF p'E?Op,T To: Planning Commission Report On: Change of Zone Applicant: CHACAHUALA, LTD. Case Nos.: C/Z 02-73 and Related Draft EIR Date: May 30, 1978 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 a 37.3 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related _. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone and certi=i- cation of the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission Resolution 111o. Justification: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 3. The proposed Change of Zone would meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PP, zone designation would offer flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. III. BACKGROUND: A. Location: The property comprising approximately 37.8 acres is located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. B. Description: The subject property is described as follows: Case 'Io. C/Z 02-7S May 10, 1973 IV. DISCUSSI0t1: sae 7ho The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PP.-4 (Planned P.esidenti, , max. 4 du/acre) on the 37.8 acre parcel, The requested zone, PP.-4, would allow a maximum of 4 units per acre, approximately twice the density per- mitted under the present R-1 20,000, namely 2 units per acre. Staff is supporting the applicant's requested Change of Zone as the proposed PR-4 would be compatible with adjacent zoning. The property to the south is zoned PR-7 which permits a greater density than that being proposed and the situation is similar to the west where property currently developed exists as a PR-5 development also a greater density than being proposed. Property to the north is zoned R-1 10,000 which would allow the same den- sity, approximately 4 du/per acre, as the proposed PR-4. Property to the east is zoned both R-1-10,000 & R-1 20,000; the R-1 20,000 property per- mitting only 2 du per acre. Therefore, in general terms, the property surrounding the subject parcel is zoned in such a manner that the permitted densities are either equal to or greater than that proposed by the pre- sent applicant. Staff also supports the Change of Zone for another reason. Development of the subject parcel will be difficult due to drainage and flood control concerns which necessarily must be addressed. The Planned Residential Zone would allow the developer much more flexibility in addressing these concerns than a conventional subdivision required under the present R-1 20,000 zone. This flexibility is offered as a result of the common areas provided in the PR zone. The proposed..greenbelts which run in a northeasterly direction would be capable of accomodating much of the runoff generated by storms whereas a conventional subdivision would require far more improvements to dispose of the same water. The nearby CVC,•1D water storage tank and Southern California Edison substation have always been additional constraints that had to be considered when attempting to plan for development of the subject site. Once again, the flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization offered by the Planned Residential Zone make it much easier to mitigate adverse situations caused by the existence of the water storage tank and electric substation than attempting to mitigate these potential problems within the R-1 zone classification. Large open areas made possible by the PR zone, with extensive landscaping could lessen the impact of these two existing public facilities. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission Jul;: 5. 1978 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MI' (Cont.) Commissioner Pleshman stated that the amenities were ina6?f1uatr; _. the realtionship of the pools to the units is poor; parking on one side of the street is bad; and the applicant has appeared to do the minimum, as required in the Zoning Ordinance, on everything. Chairman Berkey noted his concern with the lack of guest parkin,, - in the project. Commissioner Kelly stated that the concerns voiced at the May 30, 1978, meeting were still apparent. Commissioner Snyder stated that he thought the applicant would have worked out his problems with the Design Review Board, but this hasn't happened. Chairman Berkey asked if there was a time limit on and if perhaps the applicant would like a continuance. Mr stated that there is no time limit on the Development Plan there is on the Design Review Board case. Mr. Kriese stated that there were two new con- cerns brought out at this meeting that had not been mentioned previously. He stated that the parking as proposed is the best they can do and that they have tried to comply with the Design Review Board's wishes. He indicated that they would gain nothing by going back to the Design Review Board. this project Williams but that On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission denied the Development Plan and rejected the Preliminary Design Review by Planning Commission Resolution No. 373; carried unanimously (5-0). B. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR. CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View ex- tended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and the re- lated Draft EIR. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted the previous report and the revised Staff Report. He then reviewed the drainage concerns and indicated that the applicant proposes an open channel through the project. He then noted the correspondence received stating concerns with drainage adjacent to the project. Mr. Williams then reviewed the Draft EIR noting that it is very complete and the Staff is recnm_ Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 3. 1978 Pa-e _-ur VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. C/Z 03-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) Commissioner Fleshman asked when the channel on Haystack was due to be completed. Sir. Williams noted that it is planned for this fiscal year. Commissioner Fleshman then asked about the one along Ironwood. Mr. Williams stated that it was planned for the nest fiscal year. Commissioner Snyder asked if there were catch basins on Haystack. Sir. Williams stated that they were in the budget. Commissioner Fleshman referred to page 4 of the EIR with regard to "Noise". He stated that noise is a long term impact and should be treated as an accumulative impact. He also asked to know the cubic feet per second that the channel will.carrv. Commissioner Kryder noted his concern for the water entering and leaving the project and what the effect would be if water path above the project shifts. Mr. Williams stated that the intent of the Master Drainage Plan is to carry the water down to Haystack, and the Indian Hills Villas south carried to the east. Commissioner Kryder noted his concern for the project being started prior to the flood control be completed so that proper drainage is provided. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, 73-893 Highway 111, addressed the concerns of the Commission regarding drainage and traffic. He noted the revised plot plan and the changes that had been made. He stated that during a normal rainfall, the water will be handled i by the water going underground to the channel along Haystack or Portola to the Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that although there is a wall around the pro- ject, there will be openings in the wall for the water to run through. Further, he noted that a re- tention basin could be constructed on the City park site. Also, he stated that the proposed drainage within the project would better protect the Silver Spur Association area. GENE SCOTHORN, Wilda & Assoc., referred to Commis- sioner Fleshman question, stating that the channel could carry 3600 cubic feet per second and this is a high figure. Also he stated that the local drain- age problems of the proposed project have been met, outside the project area is a regional problem. Commissioner Fleshman asked what size of an open channel would be necessary to carry the amount of water that will be generated in this area? He also stated that he was concerned with downstream area. Minutes Pala.: Desert Planning Commission July 5. 1978 Pa;c VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Rotated Draft EIR (Cont.) TONI O'SULLIVAN, Homestead and Alamo, noted his concern for the traffic, and asked that the entrance on Alamo be closed. JANE WOOLLEY, 73-010 Somera, noted here con- cern with the traffic and asked why Chia can't be opened to take flow off Alamo. HAROLD BIRD, Sun Corral Trail, asked about the elevation of the ea t boundary on Arrow Trail; whether the houses on Arrow Trail are above street; do they have driveways onto Arrow Trail; and will the water be diverted by the wall. Mr. Williams noted that there would be a wall on the backside of the units on Arrow Trail. EARL MCCANN. Riata Trail, noted his concern with the density and the potential loss in value of adjacent homes. He stated his objection to condo- miniums. JIM HALL, Skyward & Alamo, noted concern with traffic and there are already too many condos, wants single-family. FRED GRIGGS, President Silver Spur Ranchers Assoc., stated that the project is presented well, but wants large homes not condos. He also noted his concern for the completion of the fire station and flood control. These two concerns should be dealt with and completed prior to the project. DON BOLA'9, 73-182 Skyward, noted that there is no need for the increase in density, this type of development is not needed in this area. He also noted his concern with noise and pollution. ELIZABETH CHARLIBLOCK, 73-234 Skyward, corner of Chia, stated that she agreed with Mr. Bolas and the other speakers. She asked about the drainage on Chia and on Haystack nest to Marrekesh. Against project of this type in this area. SILVA WINTER, Somera, object to condos, should be single family homes, also objected to increase in density. Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant wished to make a RE- BUTTAL at this time_ Minutes Palm Desert Planningr Commission July 5. 1978 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont B. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and related Draft EIR (Cent.) TO\I O'SULLIVAN, stated that he opposed the project due to the traffic problems and the access tothe property. Chairman Berkey stated that the present R-1 would create more access to Alamo and that this proposal allows for control. At this time Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Fleshman stated that the easiest access for most of the residents of the project wouldbe to use the Alamo entrance/exit; PR is preferred to R-1; all questions and concerns noted at this hearing should be better clarified; and, no more than 200 of the traffic should be directed to Alamo. Commissioner Flesh - man proposed a PR-3 zone. Commissioner Kelly stated that she like Commissioner Flesh- man's proposal; against the higher density; planned residential is only workable zoning for the parcle. Commissioner Snyder noted that the presentation and the EIR were both very complete but he is concerned with the flood control and the obligation of the City. The work that needs to be done in the City is beyond the scope of the applicant. Planned residential is good for the area. Commissioner Kryder stated that he concurred with Commissioner Snyder and that the EIR is so complete that it defeats itself in a sense. He noted his continued concern for projects being approved prior to the completion of flood control in the City. Chairman Berkey stated that he liked Commissioner Fleshman 's approach and that he was concerned with the zone change and the in- crease in density. The PR-3 is a good solution. On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman to recommend to the City- Council a Change of Zone of PR-3 and to certify the EIR as complete by Planning Commission Resolution No. 374, seconded by Commissioner Kelly; carried (4-1) (AYES: Berkey, Fleshman, Kelly, Kryder; -NOES: Snyder). THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 9:40 P.M. THE NEETI,'QG WAS RECONVENED AT 9:50 P.M. C. Continued Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 12611F - CHACAHUALA LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a revised Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review for a 131-unit condo- Minutes Palm Desert Planning- Commission May 30. 1078 P.t�ar c VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session Cor the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions %eere reached. He then explained the Public IIearing procedures to those- present. A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR, CIIAC_1HUALA LTD., Applicant Reqest for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and nonth of Mesa View extended be- tween Alamo and Arrow Trail and related Draft EIR. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted the related develop- ment plan. He also reviewed the correspondence received from Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr., President of Silver Spur Ranchers Association and Mr. Leland Scheu. Regarding the EIR, Mr. Williams noted a late response received from the South Coast Air Quality Control District. Staff recommends approval of the Change of Zone to PR-4 and certifi- cation of the final EIR. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to speak at this time. I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway 111, Engineer on project, and representative of Chacahuala, addressed the Commission and noted that a planned unit develop- ment is the best project for the area involved and he would answer any questions. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, 48-698 Desert Flower, representing the California Teachers Association which owns 11 acres adjacent to the property, noted their approval of the project. EUGENE KAY, owner of property north of development, gave his approval of the project. KAY CRAIG, Belair and Alamo, spoke in favor. TOM O'SULLIVAN, 72-990 Homestead, spoke to the Commission & asked to have a few things clarified regarding the traf- fic on Homestead and Alamo and the density. MARGARET KAY, lives across from Sir. O'Sullivan, spoke in favor of the project as the developers have met all the conditions. :Sinutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 P:Lqe Tier VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) FRED GRIGGS, 73-5.19 Feather Trail, representin Board of Directors of Silver Spur'Ranchers Asso- ciation, spoke noting his objections to the Change It of Zone of PR-4 from R-1-20,000 and to the addi- tional traffic that will be created. He stated two problems that should be solved or completed before any development should be considered and that is the flood and drainage control issue and the completion of the proposed fire station. MRS. HARRY NUDD, 73-409 Little Bend Trail, opposed due to flood control problem. JOHN MCMANN, 73-269 Broken Arrow, opposed due to flood control problem. ED PECK, 73-610 Buckboard Trail, opposed due to the flood control problem not being completely solved and the density should be lower. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, opposed due to the flood control issues, traffic and it would lower the value -of adjacent homes. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a REBUTTAL at this time. Mr. Housley noted that Little Bend Trail would be an extension of Homestead and that Alamo would be widened and Chia would be extended. Also, drainage from the south side of Portola (extended) would cut off and divert to Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that for normal rainfall sufficient drainage is being provided. Mr. Housley noted that he had met with the people from Silver Spur and that the plans had been modified. A. T. WILKES, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission noting various points about the careful planning of the channeling of the water, which would only benefit adjacent homes; original zoning as stated in the Riverside County General Plan is 3-5 units per acre; the proposal is less dense than the R-1 next to the project; he does not feel that Silver Spur will be affected by any additional traffic; the tennis courts will be adjacent to present tennis courts and they will be recessed plus low glare lights will be used; lots were placed carefully with regard to the view and sun control; and, project will bring about money for flood control. .Minutes Palm Desert Planninl- Commission May 30, 1978 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR 71:11-c. tour (Cunt.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the project onto Mesa View. Mr. Williams stated no. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear- ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out development and that the project is a good one for the area. He then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern and -that he wants more time to study the draft EIR. �(,iu'l.. Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain- abe and fire protection are her concerns and she would like more y .y time. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder requested that Staff make certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the traffic problem. Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the traffic situation. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study; carried unanimously (3-0): Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is to address the City's responsibilities with regard to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic and access. Temporary Presiding Officer Commission needs additional input fine presentation. .', Snyder noted that the Planning from Staff, the applicant gave a B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126.IF - CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Air. Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with the related Case No. C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried unanimously (3-0). C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres at 9L! / `M June 7, 1978 iRF1M, ' :•� S SOOF w IQ P.O. Box 680, Palm Desert, California 92260 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Near lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Atten+ion: Dear fir. Syilliams: Paul A. 'Williams Director of Environmental Services Thank you for your letter of t'ay 30, 1978. You mentioned that you did not feel that our answer to the EIR on the""Chaeahuala" Development addressed itself to the EIR. :'that we were attempting to, do was to stress the fact that the EIR did not cover the serious adverse effect on the surrounding area, and particularly to the Silver Spur Ranch. Wec are all aware of the catastrophe caused by the dike reakirg in September, 1976, and nothing can prevent a reoccurrence until the complete drainage program is formulated. This may take many years, so we are not addressin.g ourselves to this D_hase of the problem at this time. What we are really concerned with now is ;that happens when we have the heavy rainstorms like the one that occurred two weeks aster the dike broke. The ;rater came from the southwest corner of this proposed development across the area and flooded garages, swimming pools, and entered many homes in Silver Spur Ranch. :.c much dama"e resulted from those heavy rains that the oi,y of Pali Desert constructed a dike runnin.- south to north along the wesu boundry of Silver Spur Ranch from Silver 'spur Trail past _i the Bend Trail. This was done to protect property to the east. The "Chacahuala" dev=lopers plan to fill in this dike and build homes on it.. This would remove the present protection to the property to the east and north of the development. The propo.-ed swale is not a solution to the oroblem. City of -alm 7esert une 7, 1978 p.2 The city's proposed drainage program would take runoff water from this area under Haystack Road an& into the storm channel. '.'e co not feel that it would be right or rr--etical to allow this project, or and, project, to ?7roceed until the drainage System has been -completed. We would like to point out that there have been at least four heavy rainstorms in the last ten years aihich have caused heavy damage in Silver Spur Ranch along Broken Arrox Trail, Buckboard Trail, and tittle Bend Trail. All of this damage has been caused by water which has come through the area of the "Chacanuala" proposed development. !•1hy should we rush into developments that could cause serious , Damage not only to tft2 f10meS iri the deV2lCpment but a1S0 t0 the homes in adjoining areas; when by waiting for the completion of the drainage program the problem can be .Solved. 'There is only SO mUCfl land in this area to be developed. It ''rill not stand idle once our drainage problems are soured. Your letter states also that our objections Should be raised at the public hearing. Several of us did this at the _lanning Commission meeting on .gay 29, 1978. If you would care to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, SILVER SFBR RANCE RS ASSOCIATION, ITIC. Fred .1. Griggs, Ji rresident F'r!G : lw a -- ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT 73640 HIGHWAY 111, Suite 1 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 i�'lr. Paul ims Ci•!rf HALL Palm Desert, CA o2250 Dear 1111r. ;Ailliams, a division of PHONE: (714) 346-5995 Jima lop 197 c As owners our residence at the corner of �iomestead and :_lano, as well as owners of. the lot at tra corner cf:'3el Air and Ylamo, my wife and i object to the re- cently proposed development to the East of Alamo be- t:.een Homestead and ilesa View. =ven thouSh the project is ;•re11 planned and -;ouli be an ideal sou'lt;.on for the development of that area, w: feel that the zoning change required should be dis- approved unless a solution can be found to the traffic flow problem. Homestead and Alamo already experience an inordinate amount of traffic because of the nearby tennis condo- miniums. 'The addition of the traffic prcject�ad by placing the primary entrance to the proposed ,_oject on Alamo near Homestead seems unwarranted. flora appears to be an 3ltarnative which would, in time, solve the problem even thou]-h it would lea?*a I omestead, Alamo, and H3ystac4� :rith the temporary incon`Ienience of added traffic. Moving the pr4mary entrance from Alamo to Mesa View, just to the east of the hater towor, ::oul•d have several :3dv3nta&e3. 1. }';inen mesa View is completed t,o Portolla, traffic I rom the project would 'tend to use it, rather than Alamo end Haystack, to het to the lost �ffLce, (.it:}- Hall, and the major shoppin:_ d-stricts of Palm Desert. 2.) ;ihen the proposed fire station is in operation, access to the south .rest carts of the community will be `'aster without slowinP access to other parts of the development j.) ifnen idesa View is completed to Hwy,74, traffic to and from 74 will tend to use it rather than Alamo and Homestaad. Williams (con; This solution promiscs to give future relief Q th, existing neQhborhoA YithDut re u ir.ine ma - _ e, _ of the proposed , project. - = By moving the lul de Ssc ne?r the we" —a tower, to mate room for the new entrance, to the spice F- .�_w ade ail Gle by closing the currently planned prim i`y„entrance, the shift Could be accomplished without the loss of unitz. The developer :you'd have `:ricer ?l mo up to Me;a - le and complete Mesa View to the east s far asthe :at n ' e entrance. However, samee.^.e will have Q do this at some time in the future, and it seems to be a small opine to pay for a proper solution. A hope that the Cio7 will consider this rraprsed S'Cl:-=on when reviewing the i '' - project �: C.t and l', l:.i CLisE ;.�13 merits with Dr. Key }s son in l_:'i. Verytruly.y;urs, ctl'AIRiON ;:CN?AL SFRVtCFS CITY :.° PALU '-lUE.77 a , ECOENE 'M. KAY, M.D. 730M HO-MESTEAD ROAD PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 June 21 1%•:i �.'itil Of YOIm .)esert 45-275 �rickiy Near Lane 1-'aln Desert, -'a. 9220-0 :attention: Paul ✓illia,"Is Director of Znviron,aental Services .-e: Proposed Chacahuala Project Dear kr. Williams, ..hen attending the Planning Commission meeting on i•;au 50tn regarding the above project we were very surprised to 1-Lear Silver a,our residents speak of their fears of future flood damage_ if the project materializes. `,'e would line to co pn record stating that -we feel comLpletely ob;;osite to their thinking. Our property adjoins the proposed +evelopment to the north. We have carefully studied their OnvironIental Impact report, plus discussing it with the developers and are convinced that their water drainage control could save us from a repeat of the disaster we personally suffered in the flood of Sept. 170' ... at which time we had in excess of 420,OCO.00 damage to our property. i•e would be most grateful for the protection their plans offer. During the eariv stages of their planning we made a couple requests of the developers regarding the north end of their project which adjoins our property and then complied with our requests. de also want to go on record stating that we have visited other ,projects the developers have completed in Janta ionica, Calif, and found them not only well planned and constructed but in each case they contributed to the aesthetic value of the neighborhoods. y w t %,o J ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT Very sincerely yours, e JUN 18 1978 PALM DESERT CITY HALL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - „-, STD C� it_y c-�1F�:<1 Ana ��)�ti<-<•l. 46-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 �;{ E 00 D712L6N1 RETURN Tu SENDER NuT ADDRESSEDDELIUNA;iLEErASFW RD .ate„, �.-. 1, �,,V. c/o Frederick Prescott Montanas Este • Irvine, Ca. 92715 NOi LL:.'._IVERA9LE ('�;L r5ED�iz UNAE3i'= ! FORWARD I (4 RET'!^`' TO SENDER 2��` 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-06II RECEIVED July loth, 1978 JUG l % I ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 F ;,17 �=�. ID Ll 22 I 1 < }� BUCKBO� TRAIL r\�� U YF. J z / L o a01 7 T' 0 t o —FT; &L„.LR_ "*Qs� ®ff Ta:.n „M, moo¢, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 �ELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 no y. irp Yi J VABLB TO FORWA%?. Jor�es w= 220 S long Leach Blvd. �. Compt Ca, 90221 W I 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 10th, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-005 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-009 ' r a m < w az I rTrrrr•rn�-•� BUCKBOARD TRAIL _ W 7-1 — i--� cfz o2-78 r PPP u ��--� d o —aa AB (ZPfttWc-D1. 6":nI inn =)a-tia•n•I 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE. PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (TIQ 346-0611 1. MR U W N � 4 •J 2 v - Z - z - W �dvard 73-41u It Palm nest .1 7 ;7 i CAI ie halut and 'cr. Ca. 92260 1Q 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July loth, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 r Dia I UL BUCKBOARD TRAIL —� W tl z 02-?"8 ��LLij - - nx 9e ns.W r,- Awl �- - / /kP/ /uy — CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: Change of Zone Applicant: CHACAHUALA, LTD. Case Nos.: C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Date: July 5, 1978 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related draft EIR. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone and certifi- cation of the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 374• Justification: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 3. The proposed Change of Zone would meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. III. BACKGROUND: A. Location: The property comprising approximately 37.8 acres is located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. B. Description: The subject property is described as follows: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 ADM cai 171)_nn9 ADM rz1_17n_nm Case No. C/Z 02-78 July 5, 1978 IV. ORIGINAL DISCUSSION: Page Two The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) on the 37.8 acre parcel, The requested zone, PR-4, would allow a maximum of 4 units per acre, approximately twice the density per- mitted under the present R-1 20,000, namely 2 units per acre. Staff is supporting the applicant's requested Change of Zone as the proposed PR-4 would be compatible with adjacent zoning. The property to the south is zoned PR-7 which permits a greater density than that being proposed and the situation is similar to the west where property currently developed exists as a PR-5 development also a greater density than being proposed. Property to the north is zoned R-1 10,000 which would allow the same den- sity, approximately 4 du/per acre, as the proposed PR-4. Property to the east is zoned both R-1-10,000 & R-1 20,000; the R-1 20,000 property per- mitting only 2 du per acre. Therefore, in general terms, the property surrounding the subject parcel is zoned in such a manner that the permitted densities are either equal to or greater than that proposed by the pre- sent applicant. Staff also supports the Change of Zone for another reason. Development of the subject parcel will be difficult due to drainage and flood control concerns which necessarily must be addressed. The Planned Residential Zone would allow the developer much more flexibility in addressing these concerns than a conventional subdivision required under the present R-1 20,000 zone. This flexibility is offered as a result of the common areas provided in the PR zone. The proposed greenbelts which run in a northeasterly direction would be capable of accomodating much of the runoff generated by storms whereas a conventional subdivision would require far more improvements to dispose of the same water. The nearby CVCWD water storage tank and Southern California Edison substation have always been additional constraints that had to be considered when attempting to plan for development of the subject site. Once again, the flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization offered by the Planned Residential Zone make it much easier to mitigate adverse situations caused by the existence of the water storage tank and electric substation than attempting to mitigate these potential problems within the R-1 zone classification. Large open areas made possible by the PR zone, with extensive landscaping could lessen the impact of these two existing public facilities. V. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This matter was continued from the May 30, 1978, Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commission to give the EIR further study. In addition, the Commission requested more information from the Staff on drainage, fire protection and traffic circulation. These issues will be addressed in this section. Drainage The City's adopted Master Drainage Plan provides for a storm water pipe system as depicted on the following drawing. TL--„„�F „„w„ nhn1 +hwn.inh +he nNnnnrfv Case No. C/Z 02-78 July 5, 1978 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: (Cont.) Drainage (Cont.) Page Three 1979-80. Said development would be a part of the first phase of construction on the Ironwood Park site. These improvements, in conjunction with the subject project and its related channel and block walls should protect the Silver Spur Ranch Development from storm water from the west. Further, said system should reduce the drainage area affecting Alamo Drive. However, it should be noted that other improvements on Alamo Drive and within the Silver Spur Ranch are contemplated by the City's Master Drainage Plan in order to totally resolve the drainage problems of these areas. B. Traffic Circulation As a result of the public testimony at the Hearing on May 30, it has become apparent to Staff that access to the proposed project totally ignores the fact that a direct connection to Highway 74 and Portola Avenue would exist on the southerly border of the proposed project. Said connection would be Mesa View. If the project were revised to provide for an entrance off of Mesa View Drive, there would be no need for an entrance near the intersection of Little Bend Trail and Chia Drive extended. Further, such an entrance would ultimately re- duce the use of the proposed Alamo entrance, particularly when Mesa View Drive was extended to Highway 74. Finally, said entrance would provide a direct access to the proposed project from the proposed Ironwood Fire Station. The applicant has agreed to relocating this proposed Chia entrance to Mesa View Drive. A revised development plan has been filed reflecting this change. C. Fire Protection The development of adequate fire protection is dependent on the con- struction of the Irownood Fire Station. The recently adopted City Budget for Fiscal year 1978-79 provides for the construction of said facility. It is expected that said facility would be constructed and in operation before any development were constructed on the sub- ject property. VI. RECENT CORRESPONDENCE: /// .�-_Jrl! /J•__-=Jt�4� ��i-_Ili 0 O 3311 1 I 45 03611 1 J\`i IDD�'ri 1 0 itIF—_—_-•• \�// Nut [Ql =====JL M A�NA N[DN DI Jk i;.;q •• ••• 'YY ��jj ••. • ••••:%••• 5.LL Q TRAIL_ ;. Vsi' L I C L BUCK BOAR• TRAIL ��� �,`- �113 Tlt4'TL___J Y AVENUE =F-CA11 y r f'\ 1r oxtx I\ t j t\ I I \'it ( - 11 )VW DESERT NWST,ER DWOMW AWAY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNTA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON PRO- PERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of July. 1978, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an appli- cation filed by CHACAHUALA, LTD. requesting approval of a Change of, Zone zie) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 au/acre) zone on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 and approval of the related Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32," in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been com- pleted in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at_a Public Hearing on May 30, 1978, and a continued Public Hearing on July 5, 1978, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Coinmmission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of a Change of Zone and related Draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely effect the health, safety, or general welfare. 3. The proposed Change of Zone will meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with re- gard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and consti- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 Page Two 3. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete to include the Draft EIR, all comments received and Staff responses to them. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of July, 1978, by the fol- lowing vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KELLY, KRYDER NOES: SNYDER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ks r. h H q H T P.R.-7 ( C.U.P.- 13 82) LVEP �Y R-1 10, T - - R-1 10,000 L------------ BUC EB mu T��__-- r--- I R-1 10,000 L� OXE -XWiYW - W� CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: Change of Zone Applicant: CHACAHUALA, LTD. Case Nos.: C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Date: May 30, 1978 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related draft EIR. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATI Recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone and certifi- cation of the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. Justification: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 3. The proposed Change of Zone would meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. III. BACKGROUND: A. Location: The property comprising approximately 37.8 acres is located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. B. Description: The subject property is described as follows: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 Case No. C/Z 02-78 May 30, 1978 IV. DISCUSSION: Page Two The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) on the 37.8 acre parcel, The requested zone, PR-4, would allow a maximum of 4 units per acre, approximately twice the density per- mitted under the present R-1 20,000, namely 2 units per acre. Staff is supporting the applicant's requested Change of Zone as the proposed PR-4 would be compatible with adjacent zoning. The property to the south is zoned PR-7 which permits a greater density than that being proposed and the situation is similar to the west where property currently developed exists as a PR-5 development also a greater density than being proposed. Property to the north is zoned R-1 10,000 which would allow the same den- sity, approximately 4 du/per acre, as the proposed PR-4. Property to the east is zoned both R-1-10,000 & R-1 20,000; the R-1 20,000 property per- mitting only 2 du per acre. Therefore, in general terms, the property surrounding the subject parcel is zoned in such a manner that the permitted densities are either equal to or greater than that proposed by the pre- sent applicant. Staff also supports the Change of Zone for another reason. Development of the subject parcel will be difficult due to drainage and flood control concerns which necessarily must be addressed. The Planned Residential Zone would allow the developer much more flexibility in addressing these concerns than a conventional subdivision required under the present R-1 20,000 zone. This flexibility is offered as a result of the common areas provided in the PR zone. The proposed greenbelts which run in a northeasterly direction would be capable of accomodating much of the runoff generated by storms whereas a conventional subdivision would require far more improvements to dispose of the same water. The nearby CVCWD water storage tank and Southern California Edison substation have always been additional constraints that had to be considered when attempting to plan for development of the subject site. Once again, the flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization offered by the Planned Residential Zone make it much easier to mitigate adverse situations caused by the existence of the water storage tank and electric substation than attempting to mitigate these potential problems within the R-1 zone classification. Large open areas made possible by the PR zone, with extensive landscaping could lessen the impact of these two existing public facilities. I SALVE PUR .Tune 7. 1978 HTAiNNC�H�EyR�S�A�S?ST NU A Ti�I N N P.O. Box 680, Palm Desert, California 92260 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Dear Mr. Williams: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Thank you for your letter of May 30, 1978. You mentioned that you did not feel that our answer to the EIR on the "Chacahuala" Development addressed itself to the EIR. What we were attempting to do was to stress the fact that the EIR did not cover the serious adverse effect on the surrounding area, and particularly to the Silver Spur Ranch. We are all aware of the catastrophe caused by the dike breaking in September, 1976, and nothing can prevent a reoccurrence until the complete drainage program is formulated. This may take many years, so we are not addressing ourselves to this phase of the problem at this time. What we are really concerned with now is what happens when we have the heavy rainstorms like the one that occurred two weeks after the dike broke. The water came from the southwest corner of this proposed development across the area and flooded garages, swimming pools, and entered many homes in Silver Spur Ranch. So much damage resulted from those heavy rains that the city of Palm Desert constructed a dike running south to north along the west boundry of Silver Spur Ranch from Silver Spur Trail past Little Bend Trail. This was done to protect property to the east. The "Chacahuala" developers plan to fill in this dike and build homes on it. This would remove the present protection to the property to the east and north of the development. The proposed swale is not a solution to the problem. City of Palm Desert June 7, 1978 p.2 The city's proposed drainage program would take runoff water from this area under Haystack Road and into the storm channel. We do not feel that it would be right or practical to allow this project, or any project, to proceed until the drainage system has been completed. We would like to point out that there have been at least four heavy rainstorms in the last ten years which have caused heavy damage in Silver Spur Ranch along Broken Arrow Trail, Buckboard Trail, and Little Bend Trail. All of this damage has been caused by water which has come through the area of the "Chacahuala" proposed development. Why should we rush into developments that could cause serious damage not only to the homes in the development but also to the homes in adjoining areas; when by waiting for the completion of the drainage program the problem can be solved. There is only so much land in this area to be developed. It will not stand idle once our drainage problems are solved. Your letter states also that our objections should be raised at the public hearing. Several of us did this at the Planning Commission meeting on May 29, 1978. If you would care to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, SILVER SPUR RANCHERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Fred +V. Griggs, President FWG : lw RECEIVL:j. JLlP! 7g7u ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT �R�0TPFSYSTEM 010100 C T S� 73640 HIGHWAY 111, Suite 1 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHONE: (714) 346-5995 June 19, 1978 Mr. Paul Williams CITY HALL Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Williams, As owners of our residence at the corner of Homestead and Alamo, as well as owners of the lot at the corner of'Bel Air and Alamo, my wife and I object to the re- cently proposed development to the East of Alamo be- tween Homestead and Mesa View. Even though the project is well planned and would be an ideal soultion for the development of that area, we feel that the zoning change required should be dis- approved unless a solution can be found to the traffic flow problem. Homestead and Alamo already experience an inordinate amount of traffic because of the nearby tennis condo- miniums. The addition of the traffic projected by placing the primary entrance to the proposed project on Alamo near Homestead seems unwarranted. There appears to be an alternative which would, in time, solve the problem even though it would leave Homestead, Alamo, and Haysttek(j with the temporary inconvenience of added traffic. Moving the primary entrance from Alamo to Mesa View, just to the east of the water tower, rA uld have several advantages. 1.)When Mesa View is completed to Portolla, traffic from the project would tend to use it, rather than Alamo and Haystack, to get to the Post Office, City Hall, and the major shopping districts of Palm Desert. 2.0 When the proposed fire station is in operation, access to the south west parts of the community will be faster without slowing access to other parts of the development 3.) When Mesa View is completed to HwyP74, traffic to and from 74 will tend to use it rather than Alamo and homestead. Williams (cont.) This solution promises to give future relief to the existing neighborhood without requiring major replanning of the proposed project. By moving the cul de sac near the water tower, to make room for the new entrance, to the space made available by closing the currently planned primary entrance, the shift could be accomplished without the loss of units. The developer would have widen Alamo up to Mesa View, and complete Mesa View to the east as far as the new entrance. However, someone will have to do this at some time in the future, and it seems to be a small price to pay for a proper solution. U!e hope that the City will consider this proposed solution when reviewing the project and discuss it's merits with Dr. Kay+s son in law. Very truly yours, Thomas C. O'Sullivan ,at4 1 ',) 1-17 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF, I:" DESERT JUN.'16 1978:. :: 73, 269.'8roken Arrow Trail,. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260:- PALM DESERT CITY HALL CITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 13, 1978:' City•of Palm Desert., Attention Mayor Mullins and v 411 275 Prickly Pear Lane, Council and Planning Commission.. Palm Desert,.•Ca'.92260. : Gentlemen,..-.. On May 30 I -attended a meeting'of the Planning Commission at which the "Chacahuala Development immediately west of Silver Spur Ranch"ifn Palm Desert was presented. .;Mr.. Williams made a,.very capable presentation of the project.'A few friends and relatives of the interested parties then -spoke in favor of the�.project, 'Against_immediately proceeding I comment'as follows: (lj It_,is impossible to imagine how anyone,could consider building in that area before adequate flood control measures are taken - ' immediately rto'.the'sguth-'west: Should another flood as 'that of Sept.10'/76'oceur"fatalities could result. TIhose responsible for• developments in the obvious -flood path could then -be ;charged with manslaughter... - We -were lucky there were no deaths in 176. The, rain guage' in :my back yard showed •4.101- in the 12,. hours prior to 2P.-M.Sept.-IOth. The flood came -down-thru'the location of the proposed development in surges from 2°1/2' to :5°,high. The dyke;twe.'st of'Arrow'Trail::immediate�y disappeared as did the cement block wallin front of. Mrs.' Sieman's home on the corner of,Arrow•Trail and .Buckboard Trail. The flood gutted the front. of,the house'- Mrs.'Si.eman was rescued from the top of'•a bed in the rear of the house. " Anyone responsibile for building, in this area before Cat Cr., Carrizo and Dead'Indian Cxs.r;are.,flood controlled does so -Page 2 only,at the peril of those,who would live in the area. But, they have a moral, ethical and legal responsiblity to those residents. (2) There should be no -further construction in this area before adequate fire fighting facilities are provided. (3) There should be a 40 ft. zone free of building to the west of Silver Spur Ranch area, as'provided by Ironwood on the -south. (4) The proposed construction of 2,000 sq. ft. homes,20 ft. apart indicate a'house°,eve~v.50 ft. along the west boundry:of Silver Spur Ranch or around-12'.homes in -'the' -project,. -opposite 6 in the Ranch. .(They will look like a row of townhouses that make for instant slums.) - 2n conclusion , you should also be satisfied as to the Fiscal Responsibility of the Developers, their Capabilities, ( past and present performance ). Are they good citizens ? - Gentlemen, it is your'responsibility to make this area safe -to build and live in ------.before granting the permi t ----then see that the homes are -each given a minimum of 1.00 ft..,by 120.ft. living area: , Sincerely,yours, P.Eng. (Colorado, B.C.,) EUGENE M. KAY, M.D. 73020 HOMESTEAD ROAD PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 June 2, '78 City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attention: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Re: Proposed Chacahuala Project Dear Mr.. Williams, When attending the Planning Commission meeting on May 30th regarding the above project we were very surprised to hear Silver Spur residents speak of their fears of future flood damage. if the project materializes. We would like to go pn record stating that we feel completely opposite to their thinking. Our property adjoins the proposed development to the North. We have carefully studied their Environmental Impact Report, plus discussing it with the developers and are convinced that their water drainage control could save us from a repeat. of the disaster we personally suffered in the flood of Sept. 176 ... at which time we had in excess of 820,000.00 damage to our property. We would be most grateful for the protection their plans offer. During the early stages of their planning we made a couple requests of the developers regarding the North end of their project which adjoins our property and they complied with our requests. We also want to go on record stating that we have visited other projects the developers have completed in Santa Nonica, Calif. and found them not only well planned and constructed but in each case they contributed to the < aesthetic value of the neighborhoods. Very sincerely yours, Al 1 RECE1VL10 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: Change of Zone Applicant: CHACAHUALA, LTD. Case Nos.: C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Date: May 30, 1978 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related draft EIR. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone and certifi- cation of the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. Justification: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 3. The proposed Change of Zone would meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. III. BACKGROUND: A. Location: The property comprising approximately 37.8 acres is located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. B. Description: The subject property is described as follows: APN F11-17n-nm APN r11_17n_nnr Case No. C/Z 02-78 May 30, 1978 IV. DISCUSSION: Page Two The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) on the 37.8 acre parcel, The requested zone, PR-4, would allow a maximum of 4 units per acre, approximately twice the density per- mitted under the present R-1 20,000, namely 2 units per acre. Staff is supporting the applicant's requested Change of Zone as the proposed PR-4 would be compatible with adjacent zoning. The property to the south is zoned PR-7 which permits a greater density than that being proposed and the situation is similar to the west where property currently developed exists as a PR-5 development also a greater density than being proposed. Property to the north is zoned R-1 10,000 which would allow the same den- sity, approximately 4 du/per acre, as the proposed PR-4. Property to the east is zoned both R-1-10,000 & R-1 20,000; the R-1 20,000 property per- mitting only 2 du per acre. Therefore, in general terms, the property surrounding the subject parcel is zoned in such a manner that the permitted densities are either equal to or greater than that proposed by the pre- sent applicant. Staff also supports the Change of Zone for another reason. Development of the subject parcel will be difficult due to drainage and flood control concerns which necessarily must be addressed. The Planned Residential Zone would allow the developer much more flexibility in addressing these concerns than a conventional subdivision required under the present R-1 20,000 zone. This flexibility is offered as a result of the common areas provided in the PR zone. The proposed greenbelts which run in a northeasterly direction would be capable of accomodating much of the runoff generated by storms whereas a conventional subdivision would require far more improvements to dispose of the same water. The nearby CVCWD water storage tank and Southern California Edison substation have always been additional constraints that had to be considered when attempting to plan for development of the subject site. Once again, the flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization offered by the Planned Residential Zone make it much easier to mitigate adverse situations caused by the existence of the water storage tank and electric substation than attempting to mitigate these potential problems within the R-1 zone classification. Large open areas made possible by the PR zone, with extensive landscaping could lessen the impact of these two existing public facilities. ai H q H I� O z. O H a 0 U) Cd H V) ul H b 0 U l - 6 -1507);! Y - R-1 10.000 0 rR= i , R-I 13,00 R-1 13,000 A R-1 - 10,000 s 7,1, LI �BEL �-TTi-1 R 110, 1 P.R.-5 -1 PR.- 5 )00 (C.U.P. 1367) �!. P P.R.-7 ( C.U.P.- 1382 ) LITTLE BENT ---� R-1 10,000 1------------- BUGKBSAflp r-- I R-1 10,000 L R-1 20,000 114,11 i CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report On: Change of Zone Applicant: CHACAHUALA, LTD. Case Nos.: C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Date: July 5, 1978 I. REQUEST: Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to ?R-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and related draft EIR. II. III STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the City Council approval of the Change of Zone and certifi- cation of the Final EIR by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. W. Justification: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. 3. The proposed Change of Zone would meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. anrvr_onimn• A. Location: The property comprising approximately 37.8 acres is located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. B. Description: The subject property is described as follows: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 Case No. C/Z 02-78 July 5, 1978 IV. ORIGINAL DISCUSSION: Page Two The applicant is seeking a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) on the 37.8 acre parcel, The requested zone, PR-4, would allow a maximum of 4 units per acre, approximately twice the density per- mitted under the present R-1 20,000, namely 2 units per acre. Staff is supporting the applicant's requested Change of Zone as the proposed PR-4 would be compatible with adjacent zoning. The property to the south is zoned PR-7 which permits a greater density than that being proposed and the situation is similar to the west where property currently developed exists as a PR-5 development also a greater density than being proposed. Property to the north is zoned R-1 10,000 which would allow the same den- sity, approximately 4 du/per acre, as the proposed PR-4. Property to the east is zoned both R-1-10,000 & R-1 20,000; the R-1 20,000 property per- mitting only 2 du per acre. Therefore, in general terms, the property surrounding the subject parcel is zoned in such a manner that the permitted densities are either equal to or greater than that proposed by the pre- sent applicant. Staff also supports the Change of Zone for another reason. Development of the subject parcel will be difficult due to drainage and flood control concerns which necessarily must be addressed. The Planned Residential Zone would allow the developer much more flexibility in addressing these concerns than a conventional subdivision required under the present R-1 20,000 zone. This flexibility is offered as a result of the common areas provided in the PR zone. The proposed greenbelts which run in a northeasterly direction would be capable of accomodating much of the runoff generated by storms whereas a conventional subdivision would require far more improvements to dispose of the same water. The nearby CVCWD water storage tank and Southern California Edison substation have always been additional constraints that had to be considered when attempting to plan for development of the subject site. Once again, the flexibility with regard to setbacks and overall site utilization offered by the Planned Residential Zone make it much easier to mitigate adverse situations caused by the existence of the water storage tank and electric substation than attempting to mitigate these potential problems within the R-1 zone classification. Large open areas made possible by the PR zone, with extensive landscaping could lessen the impact of these two existing public facilities. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: This matter was continued from the May 30, 1978, Planning Commission meeting to allow the Commission to give the EIR further study. In addition, the Commission requested more information from the Staff on drainage, fire protection and traffic circulation. These issues will be addressed in this section. Drainage The City's adopted Master Drainage Plan provides for a storm water pipe system as depicted on the following drawing. Case No. C/Z 02-78 July 5, 1978 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: (Cont.) Drainage (Cont.) Page Three 1979-80. Said development would be a part of the first phase of construction on the Ironwood Park site. These improvements, in conjunction with the subject project and its related channel and block walls should protect the Silver Spur Ranch Development from storm water from the west. Further, said system should reduce the drainage area affecting Alamo Drive. However, it should be noted that other improvements on Alamo Drive and within the Silver Spur Ranch are contemplated by the City's Master Drainage Plan in order to totally resolve the drainage problems of these areas. Traffic Circulation As a result of the public testimony at the Hearing on May 30, it has become apparent to Staff that access to the proposed project totally ignores the fact that a direct connection to Highway 74 and Portola Avenue would exist on the southerly border of the proposed project. Said connection would be Mesa View. If the project were revised to provide for an entrance off of Mesa View Drive, there would be no need for an entrance near the intersection of Little Bend Trail and Chia Drive extended. Further, such an entrance would ultimately re- duce the use of the proposed Alamo entrance, particularly when Mesa View Drive was extended to Highway 74. Finally, said entrance would provide a direct access to the proposed project from the proposed Ironwood Fire Station. The applicant has agreed to relocating this proposed Chia entrance to Mesa View Drive. A revised development plan has been filed reflecting this change. Fire Protection The development of adequate fire protection is dependent on the con- struction of the Irownood Fire Station. The recently adopted City Budget for Fiscal year 1978-79 provides for the construction of said facility. It is expected that said facility would be constructed and in operation before any development were constructed on the sub- ject property. VI. RECENT CORRESPONDENCE: 1 lu _ — ---- ---- mAli7 etas 0' O63'I 1 1_L _ ,d �TA W .: ::�::_,���: I �!• CIETRAIL i� `( r• __ j--.��,._TI e. WA L_ _LRD,7. A T HH BUCNBOATRTRAIL iI• 6 J y -1 � �..J/ J \.J �g 4— /// �—T �—r� I II', L / AB W _ w Oji w H _i &JN�jR_ TRrL A, oll 036°--�.�'.,Icst1i 3Y�9/��_L I__I _l._L L J oi�""� / sir A A V E N U E OL _ F Vt )WR D,4C-sLg7- S+ULVE�R SPUR RANCH►EyRS AS�SOC�LATION City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Paul A. 'Williams Director of Environmental Services Dear Mr. 'Jilliams: Thank you for your letter of May 30, 1978. You mentioned that you did not feel that our answer to the EIR on the "Chacahuala" Development addressed itself to the EIR. What we were attempting to do was to stress the fact that the EIR did not cover the serious adverse effect on the surrounding area, and particularly to the Silver Spur Ranch. Pie are all aware of the catastrophe caused by the dike breaking in September, 1976, and nothing can prevent a reoccurrence until the complete drainage program is formulated. This may take many years, so we are not addressing ourselves to this phase of the problem at this time. I hat we are really concerned with now is what happens when we have the heavy rainstorms like the one that occurred two weeks after the dike broke. The water came from the southwest corner of this proposed development across the area and flooded garages, swimming pools, and entered many homes in Silver Spur Ranch. So much damage resulted from those heavy rains that the city of Palm Desert constructed a dike running south to north along the west boundry of Silver Spur Ranch from Silver Spur Trail past Little Bend Trail. This was done to protect property to the east. The "Chacahuala" developers plan to fill in this dike and build homes on it. This would remove the present protection to the property to the east and north of the development. The proposed swale is not a solution to the problem. City of Palm Desert June 7, 1978 p.2 The city's proposed drainage program would take runoff water from this area under Haystack Road and into the storm channel. We do not feel that it would be right or practical to allow this project, or any project, to proceed until the drainage system has been completed. We would like to point out that there have been at least four heavy rainstorms in the last ten years which have caused heavy damage in Silver Spur Ranch along Broken Arrow Trail, Buckboard Trail, and Little Bend Trail. All of this damage has been caused by water which has come through the area of the "Chacahuala" proposed development. Why should we rush into developments that could cause serious damage not only to the homes in the development but also to the homes in adjoining areas; when by waiting for the completion of the drainage program the problem can be solved. There is only so much land in this area to be developed. It will not stand idle once our drainage problems are solved. Your letter states also that our objections should be raised at the public hearing. Several of us did this at the Manning Commission meeting on May 29, 1978. If you would care to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, SILVER SPUR RANCHERS ASSOCIATION, INC. i Fred 41. Griggs, J-f�. President FWG : lw ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT 73640 HIGHWAY 111, Suite 1 a division of PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHONE: (714) 346-5995 June 19, Yl-' Mr. Paul Williams CITY HALL Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear NIP, Williams, As owners of our residence at the corner of Homestead and Alamo, as well as owners of the lot at the corner oft'3e1 Air and Alamo, my wife and I object to the re- cently proposed development to the East of Alamo be- tween Homestead and Mesa View. Even though the project is well planned and would be an ideal soultion for the development of that area, we feel that the zoning change required should be dis- approved unless a solution can be found to the traffic flow problem. Homestead and Alamo already experience an inordinate amount of traffic because of the nearby tennis condo- miniums. The addition of the traffic projected by placing the primary entrance to the proposed project on Alamo near Homestead seems unwarranted. There appears to be an alternative which would, in time, solve the problem even though it would leave Homestead, Alamo, and Haystack with the temporary inconvenience of added traffic. Moving the primary entrance from Alamo to Mesa View, just to the east of the water tower, would have several advantages. 1.)When Mesa View is completed to Portolla, traffic from the project would tend to use it, rater thah Alamo and Haystack, to got to the Post Office, City Hall, and the major shopping districts of Palm Desert. 2.) rlhen the proposed fire station is in operation, access to the south west parts of the community will be faster without slowing access to other parts of the development 3.) ,'hen Mesa View is completed to HwYP74, traffic to and from 74 will tend to use it rather than Alamo and Homestead. Williams (cont.) This solution promises to give future relief to the existing neighborhood without re^.airing major replanning of the proposed project. By moving the cul de sac near the water tower, to make room for the new entrance, to the space made available by closing the currently planned primary entrance, the shift could be accomplished without the loss of units. The developer would have widen Alamo up to Mesa View, and complete Mesa View to the east as far as the new entrance. However, someone will have to do this at .some time In the future, and it seems to be a small price to Pay for a proper solution. rie hope that the City will consider this Dropased solution when reviewing the project and discuss it's merits with Dr. Kay's son in law. Very truly yours, Thomas C. O'Sull`_van ZNVIRXI'AE.N iAL SERVICES ,CITY PALM DESERT E C F ; V E JUN 16 1978 73 269 Broken .Arrow Trail, PALM DESERT CITY HALL Palm Desert, Ca. 92260. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 13, 190. City of Palm Deserts., +`.-Tnt9.o1, ll,lyor /r/ 271 Pr,c?,iv n r _ "aTp..nf Council and Pl.anni.7„ P^.'_- Insert, ra.92260 'nntlamen, -.,; , lion at (,hies -In -'at -'at of Silver Sour 'anc^ 1 ,4r. _. ;''..'.",- :.-Ie a var.:. t' _'� ncn-nt�tl0n O:C ?..^ -�-n,onr h few f.._ ,.l___r-, v 4 relatives iL `In nrarn_. ed ic5 - .. • - _.< _ _. par._ woke in favor of the -ro ncr, V,ainst immo''l>_a.r_1v nyoc, _ comment as folio-7: _ . _7nill co-sideco-sider b , 1tlz na - O n+-n}., try vnn 4h , i ,-n fl-ind as tvat Of qo ter- •l /- .1,. 02 c.. c'21-,T iriE.`S tl Ota(? ,-nSi.l 0• ThoG.- ap-`Onc_?;l - F:)-.. 1--ve}o- ^.fits in _ oh. .n-F Yl. narh c7 14 r. he _ _._^.n - charged rac I f` Thp rain _La^ to 'll`. nr. - .7 ,t. Art tt- 12 - --:gym 2 2: _ 1 /,_. `� ,. T c a•-"n west of Arrnw Trail neon^tern = as rho ceme^r "_1c'- 1�1; ,.,__ h^.. c a i oh.^ corner of w roF. r Trail __, :r„r. ,..;13r'_ ." it fin_: T it"ed thn front of t-hn none 7r a .n io the rear if yKi _ , -Pl— 2 - ,ar,' .,q1_ ate fire f- v,t _ni ,./;n.._ r+-nn rlt bu S1j-•.inr � DUT ?,^'tC`'1 AY'-^.3� Z.9 ^Y'OL�i r?nr? L• TY7.'.. '�f7 on i'l_,n p'.1 .�. t•.a •:1^0"105eii ^_rJ i'1SYyttntl0't Of 7, 000 ..^!la rt. ii C*P C'R 70Fta indicate a 1lol.i,` o p.?Es,.... rn r -. 17'.l;lo tH.n ;.i.crr holl^!ry O S I ^1 G:l 17 � -lnch Or arollili: 17- t oingS �.n r' "- »r7 i?Ct � 0-: Pbo I..t.O 6 in, ...". :Y#Cls+ :.1?.r %...71t f 1.00'C ll'c^ rOt�? J`_`)'_'l' , ,lC^S !-?-tQt In conclusion , ,o.: c _ l -27 F- to the Fiscal 7--soon7j.' t' ity o1 7,i-�.n7 na—t 'Ind resent ?Y?rforrar.ce �� �1 r" L, ,�.J'i ^_It'..Z�:?1;,. ,? rontlemellt 1t L^ •1.; ^7^_.?.7`_�'_+-j' `-.^t -i thin, arei safe to bu1ii a-,l ljV" ----- rJr,rl'i i_----tl"'9n Acc t'at hno ;A= a -. i 1 `_.. 100 ft. sr 120 f17, 11L,1 area. .;•Ob:'t n. rn5?. ,';llorado, ?.C.! EUGENE M. KAr, M.D. 73020 HOMESTEAD ROAD PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 June 2, 178 City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attention: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services He: Proposed Chacahuala Project Dear fir. Williams, When attending the Planning Commission meeting on flay 30th regarding the above project we were very surprised to hear Silver Spur residents speak of their fears of future flood damage if the project materializes. We would like to go pn record stating that we feel completely opposite to their thinking. Our property adjoins the proposed development to the h orth. Ede have carefully studied their Environmental Impact keport, plus discussing it with the developers and are convinced that their water drainage control could save us from a repeat of the disaster we personally suffered in the flood of Sept. 176 ... at which time we had in excess of :320p000.00 damage to our property. :e would be most grateful for the protection their plans offer. During the early stages of their planning we made a couple requests of the developers regarding the North end of their project which adjoins our property and they complied with our requests. We also want to go on record stating that we have visited other projects the developers have completed in Santa Alonica, Calif. and found them not only well planned and constructed but in each case they contributed to the aesthetic value of the neighborhoods. Very sincerely yours, AL Y RE%#IE1Vt.16, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NOZ74 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNTA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL A REQUEST�FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4$ON PRO- PERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of July. 1978, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an appli- cation filed by CHACAHUALA, LTD. requesting approval of a Change of, Zone zie) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 au/acre) zone on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 and approval of the related Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32," in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been com- pleted in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at.a Public Hearing on May 30, 1978, and a continued Public Hearing on July 5, 1978, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recommend approval of the Change of Zone request and related Draft Environmental Impact Report: The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely effect the health, safety, or general welfare. 3. The proposed Change of Zone will meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with re- gard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and consti- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Page Two 3. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete to include the Draft EIR, all comments received and Staff responses to them. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of July, 1978, by the fol- lowing vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ks � 9 PROOF OF PUBLICATION ' (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIAj ss. County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of PALM DESERT POST, a newspaper of general circu- lation, published weekly, in Palm Desert, County of Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, under date of October 5, 1964, Case Number 83658; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates to -wit: 7/13 1 certify (or declare) under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature Date-- ------ - . July...13--- - -............197-- Palm Desert, California This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of City of Palm Desert Case No. CZ 02-78 Paste clipping of Notice SECURELY In This Space IIIIIIIIIIIIIIISAL NOT ILU �...,....�.. .......................... _ ..... __. _, ----- . the Plonning Col7fmission has recommended PR-3 (PlMged CIT F PALM DESERT... Request far approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 .000 to PR -a Residential maximum 3 d.u./ocre) an a 37.8 acre parcel located Little Bend T alh more particularly described r) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and rgrth of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail:{ south of APN 631-17(F801 APN 631-170-106 Case No. C/Z `0278 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-W7 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170 4W� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a blic hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request APN 631-170-005 APN 631-170-1109 by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of tone from APN 631-170.00.5 R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential. min. 20,000 W. N. lot size) r •- c/z o2-?'s 1 SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday. July 27th, 1978 and be heard. of 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers In the Palm Desert CI1V SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk HAIL. d -275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert,_Callfornlo._af CItY of Palm Desert PDP-f/13f1 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 'iS[G 13 hORWARD ETUdl T5 WRITER Continental American Drop. _/o •futual Escro*r Co. 2202 4th Avenue San Diego, Ca. 92101 July loth, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECEIVEti JUL ] 7 jq>: EWIRJNMENTAL SERVICES REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-005 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-009 o� ¢ ¢ W m y ¢ 2 Q Q p J L T_ c/z o2-Ts 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 %Donad S. V1»hero rr- 3 r 73-297 ='ems i� sc �. Palm Darer Ca. 92260 • , (M: ice n=2)5M(a�=(M0rcDirP 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July loth, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REICIEIVE0 JUL 1 7 13)n ENY1RONMENTAL SERVICES SE M REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN ��631-yy1--7��0-005 LL�IJ 1 - of m—n. a= rLZ� LPL' J. rcz Cs!4Yi 1 T I98l.1 1 mJ 1 LLZ�_ _ _ BUCK DOARD TRAIL _ _ j�l; w C,z 02-?'SLLLI L L ' U /' � i a � y C�t�h� OO 11 - Il= 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE July 6, 1978 APPLICANT Chacahuala, Ltd. % I. Harold Housley 73-700 Highway 111, Ste. 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: C/Z 02-7_a and Related Draft EIR The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of July 5, 1978 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 PLACED ON THE AGE14DA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. XX PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF July 27, 1978 FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File c7 ,-,3 Q., z"Z. rr//JJnn l � L ti I—Ilzll J k.0 A- 1�_ A.I i ----------- Nz� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission FROM: Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Summary of the draft environmental DATE: May 30, 1978 impact report on the proposed Chacahuala Project and Staff Recommendation SUMMARY The draft environmental impact report attached hereto, was prepared to accompany a request for zone change and development plans for a 38 + acre parcel of land located east of Alamo Drive and south of Homestead Road, extended. The proposed project will develop the land into a planned residential development consisting of 14 single- family detached units and 117 attached units, primarily duplex in nature. The project also includes such amenities as tennis courts, bike trails, swimming pools, recreation buildings, and landscaped greenbelts. The impacts associated with the project, determined to be most significant by the City of Palm Desert, are summarized below. Hvdroloev and Drainaee The project site is situated directly in the path of a natural storm channel, which has in the past been the source of major damaging floods in the project vicinity as well as much of the City of Palm Desert. On -site protection from flooding will be provided by the project by raised pad areas and a more defined drainage channel; however, additional off -site and regional facilities are needed to provide adjacent properties and downstream areas with adequate flood protection. Land Use and Land Use Compatibility The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped except for the extreme northwest corner of the site on which a single residence exists. Surrounding land uses include single-family residences to the east which have been developed in conformance with R-1-20,000 and R-1-10,000 zoning classifications. The existing zoning for the project site is single-family residential, R-1-20,000. The proposed zoning is PR-4 permitting a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre which is roughly equivalent to R-1-10,000 zoning. The proposed project conforms to the Palm Desert General Plan with respect to existing and proposed zoning and land use compatibility. Summary of Chacahuala Draft EIR May 30, 1978 Page Two Traffic and Circulation The proposed project will improve portions of Alamo Drive and Arrow Trail in conjunction with project implementation. The proposed project, upon completion, is projected to generate approximately 1,572 trips per day. Bike trails will be present to accommodate non -automobile modes of transportation. Public Services and Utilities No impacts are anticipated in providing water, sewer, gas, or elec- tric service to the proposed project. The City has, .however, sug- gested the use of solar energy, where feasible to minimize the con- sumption of non-renewable natural resources. With respect to con- cerns raised by the Fire Marshal regarding the inadequacy of fire protection services to this area of the City, it should be noted, that a new fire station is planned to be located in the project area. SchoolG The project is projected to generate approximately 20 students in grades K-12. No major impacts on school district facilities are anticipated to result from the proposed project. Scenic Quality The project will transform the visual character of the site from that of a vacant parcel of land to that of a planned residential community. The proposed use of the site (planned residential) offers the City more stringent control over visual appearance of the project than would a standard R-1 type development. Short-term adverse impacts may result from the construction phase of this project. In the long- term, the cumulative impact of urban light on the views of the night- time sky will be incrementally increased as a result of this project. Energy Consumption and Conservation The project is estimated to have an annual energy consumption (gaso- line, natural gas, and electricity) roughly equivalent to 14,600 barrels of oil. Proposed measures for reducing energy consumption include the use of solar energy for pool heating and the use of sup- plemental insulation. Additional suggested measures include the reduction in gasoline consumption through the use of car pools, bicycles, and public transportation. Summary of Chacahuala Draft EIR May 30, 1978 Page Three STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff has reviewed the draft environmental impact report for the subject project and finds it to be a complete and comprehen- sive study of the impacts associated with the proposed develop- ment. The report has addressed the environmental factors of con- cern to Staff and it is noted that mitigation measures have been provided to eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Staff is recommending approval of the subject project. For your information, comments received from other agencies and the public are attached, along with the Staff responses, as ap- propriate, to said comments. LIST OF AGENCIES NOTIFIED Lowell O. Weeks Coachella Valley County Water District Alan K. Straezer Southern California Air Pollution Control District Joe Richards County of Riverside Planning Commission Harold Horsley U. S. Post Office Joe Benes Coachella Valley Television Karl Kelsey Coachella Valley Soil Conservation District Gary Wiedle Coachella Valley Association of Governments D. R. MacPherson College of the Desert Don Shayler Pacific Rim Environmental Consultants Richard Rust University of California at Riverside Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District Southern California Association of Governments Comprehensive Health Planning Association of Riverside R. W. Riddell Southern California Gas Company Roger Harlow Desert Sands Unified School District OF AGENICES NOTIFIED (CONT.) Kermit Martin Southern California Edison Co. D. M. Pinkstaff General Telephone Company Karen Fowler Living Desert Reserve Jim Langdon Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc. Stanley Sayles Palm Desert Community Services District Moe Kazem Regional Water Quality Control Board Lloyd Rogers Riverside County Health Department Todd Beeler Riverside County Planning Department General Telephone Company C. N. Vaughn Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert Dave Ortegal Riverside County Fire Department Fred Griggs, Jr. Silver Spur Ranchers Association Palm Desert Public Library Lt. Froemming Riverside County Sheriff's Department Coachella Valley Regional Library ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A__.._Y COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOA 1058 DIRECTORS RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT TELLIS CODEKAS, VICE IRESIDENT C. J FROST WILLIAM 8. GARDNER STEVE O. RU%TON COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 R TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651 OFFICERS LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENIALMANAGER -OUI ENGINEER 15 May 1978 OLE J. NORDUND, SECRETARY J WALTER R. WRIGHT. AUDITOR REDWINE AND SHERRML. AITGRN(YE File: 0034.19037 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Service City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Re: EIR Chacahuala Project NWk, Sec. 32, T5S, R6E, S. B. B. & M. Dear Mr. Williams: The District has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project "Chacahuala". We recommend the following change on page 31, Paragraph 2, second sentence. Delete last portion of sentence after the word adequate. KEH:db Very truly/yours, � ^ _ .9IF L f! Lowel 0. Weeks- ' General Manager -Chief Engineer 3R� : 6 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES C[Ty OF PALM DESERT /1l' /'`l��se C { MOM OTM e == A9O9X=IN(D39 May 19, 1978 P.O. Box 680, Palm Desert, California 92260 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Gentlement This is a reply to the environmental impact report known as "Chacahuala". The Board of Directors of the Silver Spur Ranch disagree with the environmental impact report of the Chacahuala development. We feel that this development would have a serious adverse impact on the development itself, as well as the adjacent properties, and all of Palm Desert. The area of the development is one of the finest view properties on the desert. Few areas of this nature are undeveloped. The view and the area are condusive to large elegant homes equal to the finest on the desert. To develop this area with less is to waste a potential that could bring more income to the city and increase the prestige of all of Palm Desert. The EIR has statements in it that are based on supposition. As an example, "The development will be compatible to the surrounding residential land use." Not true. The surrounding area to the east is developed with single family homes. To the north along Haystack Road, and to the northwest along Alamo are also single family homes. A large development of single family homes has also been approved for the north side of Haystack Road. The EIR admits that there will be an increase of 60% in the runoff draining to the northeast corner of the development. At this time there is no definite way of disposing of the runoff water at this point. The city of Palm Desert has a master drainage plan that will take water under Haystack Road, etc., but until this program has been funded no developers should be permitted to dump water on adjacent property owners. City of Palm Desert 5-19-78 p.2 We object to a zone change from R1 - 20,000 ft. to PR-4. If there is to be a change, it should be to Rl-4 with 3.6 dwellings per acre. This would allow for lots of 12,000 square feet, with some as low as 10,000 square feet. This would be compatible with Ironwood's development of single family homes, and also with the Lewis homes north of Haystack Road. All the new homes in Silver Spur Ranch are on lots of 12,000 square feet, or more, with a maximum height of 14 feet or less. This height will allow for a pitched roof of either tile or white rock. The developers propose a second entrance on the northeast corner connecting with Little Bend Trail. The residents of Silver Spur Ranch do not want this additional traffic coming into the area. The above reasons, plus too many more to mention in this letter, should be sufficient to explain our reasons for objecting to this development in its present form. Sincerely, SILVER SPUR RANCHERS2�SSOCIATION Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President FWG:1w ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES May 26, 1978 NOTE: The Southern California Association of Govern- ments has expressed an interest in the project and will forward comments. Pursuant to a May 26, 1978, telephone conversation with SCAG Staff Member, Rick Mellinger, the comments will address the drainage problem and recommend that perspective residents are made aware of their eligibility for flood insurance under the HUD Emergency Flood Insurance Program. "in.utes Palm Desert Planning Commission 'Iay 30, 1978 Page T'.cc VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions Isere reached. He then explained the Public [fearing procedures to those present. A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR, CIIACAHUALA LTD., Applicant Reqest for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended be- tween Alamo and Arrow Trail and related Draft EIR. Air. Williams reviewed the case and noted the related develop- ment plan. He also reviewed the correspondence received from Mr_. Fred W. Griggs, Jr., President of Silver Spur Ranchers Association and Air. Leland Scheu. Regarding the EIR, Air. Williams noted a late response received from the South Coast Air Quality Control District. Staff recommends approval of the Change of Zone to PR-4 and certifi- cation of the final EIR. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to speak at this time. I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway 111, Engineer on project, and representative of Chacahuala, addressed the Commission and noted that a planned unit develop- ment is the best project for the area involved and he would answer any questions. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR, of the project. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, 48-698 Desert Flower, representing the California Teachers Association which owns 11 acres adjacent to the property, noted their approval of the project. EUGENE KAY, owner of property north of development, gave his approval of the project. KAY CRAIG, Belair and Alamo, spoke in favor. TOSS O'SULLIVAN, 72-990 Homestead, spoke to the Commission & asked to have a few things clarified regarding the traf- fic on Homestead and Alamo and the density. MARGARET KAY, lives across from Air. O'Sullivan, spoke in favor of the Project as the developers have met all the conditions. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1973 Page ThreN VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cons.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) FRED GRIGGS, 73-549 Feather Trail, representing Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranchers Asso- ciation, spoke noting his objections to the Change of Zone of PR-4 from R-1-20,000 and to the addi- tional traffic that will be created. He stated two problems that should be solved or completed before any development should be considered and that is the flood and drainage control issue and the completion of the proposed fire station. MRS. HARRY NUDD, 73-409 Little Bend Trail, opposed due to flood control problem. JOHN MCMANN, 73-269 Broken Arrow, opposed due to flood control problem. ED PECK, 73-610 Buckboard Trail, opposed due to the flood control problem not being completely solved and the density should be lower. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, opposed due to the flood control issues, traffic and it would lower the value of adjacent homes. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a REBUTTAL at this time. ,fir. Housley noted that Little Bend Trail would be an extension of Homestead and that Alamo would be widened and Chia would be extended. Also, drainage from the south side of Portola (extended) would cut off and divert to Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that for normal rainfall sufficient drainage is being provided. Mr. Housley noted that he had met with the people from Silver Spur and that the plans had been modified. A. T. WILKES, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission noting various points about the careful planning of the channeling of the water, which would only benefit adjacent homes; original zoning as stated in the Riverside County General Plan is 3-5 units per acre; the proposal is less dense than the R-1 next to the project; he does not feel that Silver Spur will be affected by any additional traffic; the tennis courts will be adjacent to present tennis courts and they will be recessed plus low glare lights will be used; lots were placed carefully with regard to the view and sun control; and, project will bring about money for flood control. !la tes Palm Desert Planning Commission `day 30, 1978 Page Pour VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the project onto Mesa View. Air. Williams stated no. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear- ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out development and that the project is a good one for the area. He then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern and•,;that he wants more time to study the draft EIR. I Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain- ,v abbe'and fire protection are her concerns and she would like more time. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder recuested that Staff make certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the traffic problem. Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the traffic situation. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study; carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is to address the City's responsibilities with regard to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic and access. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder noted that the Planning Commission needs additional input from Staff, the applicant gave a fine presentation. B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 1261IF - CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Mr. Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with the related Case No. C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried unanimously (3-0). C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres nt �e - Pm mmgmmg anDMAIM(DO May 19, 1978 P.O. Box 680, Palm Desert, California 92260 City of Palm Desert 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attention: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Gentlemen: This is a reply to the environmental impact report known as "Chacahuala". The Board of Directors of the Silver Spur Ranch disagree with the environmental impact report of the Chacahuala development. We feel that this development would have a serious adverse impact on the development itself, as well as the adjacent properties, and all of Palm Desert. The area of the development is one of the finest view properties on the desert. Few areas of this nature are undeveloped. The view and the area are condusive to large elegant homes equal to the finest on the desert. To develop this area with less is to waste a potential that could bring more income to the city and increase the prestige of all of Palm Desert. The EIR has statements in it that are based on supposition. As an example, "The development will be compatible to the surrounding residential land use." Not true. The surrounding area to the east is developed with single family homes. To the north along Haystack Road, and to the northwest along Alamo are also single family homes. A large development of single family homes has also been approved for the north side of Haystack Road. The EIR admits that there will be an increase of 60;-o in the runoff draining to the northeast corner of the development. At this time there is no definite way of disposing of the runoff water at this point. The city of Palm Oesert has a master drainage plan that will take water under Haystack Road, etc., but until this program has been funded no developers should be permitted to dump water on adjacent property owners. City of Palm Desert 5-19-78 p.2 We object to a zone change from R1 - 20,000 ft. to PR-4. If there is to be a change, it should be to Rl-4 with j.6 dwellings per acre. This would allow for lots of 12,000 square feet, with some as low as 10.000 square feet. This would be compatible with Ironwood's development of single family homes, and also with the Lewis homes north of Haystack Road. All the new homes in Silver Spur Ranch are on lots of 12,000 square feet, or more, with a maximum height of 14 feet or less. This height will allow for a pitched roof of either tile or white rock. The developers propose a second entrance on the northeast corner connecting with Little Bend Trail. The residents of Silver Spur Ranch do not want this additional traffic coming into the area. The above reasons, plus too many more to mention in this letter, should be sufficient to explain our reasons for objecting to this development in its present form. Sincerely, SILVER SPUR RANCHERRS''9SSOCIATION Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President FJG a lw ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY Gf pALN1 (DESERT DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY DAVID L. FLAKE COUNTY FIRE WARDEN P.O. eox zae 410 WEST SAN JACIN TO STREET _T PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183 Tr -Cities Fire Marshal 70-800 Highway Ill Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 May 10, 1978 Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Change of Zone 02-78 This proposed change of zone will require that the.water system be up -graded to meet the fire protection requirements prior to the development of the area. ZCUQ/.LX���eG oaf&) David J. OrtEgel Fire Marshal DJO:dt RiEti;L—s it 4. MAY 1 1 ? ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: F3:L$T1 SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services Director of Public Works Change of Zone From 02-78 No comment. DATE: May 10th, 1978 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT, TO: Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert FROM: Mike Murray, R.S., Supervising Sanitarian Riverside County"Health Department - Desert District DATE: May 10, 1978 SUBJECT: CZ 02-78 Due to the fact that domestic water and sanitary sewage disposal is provided by Coachella Valley County Water District, we have no comments at this time. MM: j s e1_;%.;L414a..., ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY 0C PALM DESERT 46.10 Southern California Edison Company 36.100 CATHEDRAL CANYON DRIVE CATHEDRAL CITY. CA41FORNIA 92234 May 11, 1978 TO: City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 Project: CZ 02-78 - Change of Zone Environmental Impact Report Gentlemen: This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service territory of the Southern California Edison Company, and that the electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, we expect to meet our electrical load requirements for the next several years. Our total system demand is expected to continue to increase annually; and, if our plans to proceed with future construction of new generat- ing facilities are delayed, our ability to serve all customer loads during peak demand periods could become marginal by 1981. In addition, the major fuel used in Edison's generating facilities is low sulfur fuel oil. We now believe our low sulfur fuel oil inventory, together with our contractual commitments for delivery, and our customers' conservation efforts, will permit us to meet the forecasted demand for electricity during 1978. It is our intention to continue to do everything that can reasonably be accomplished to provide our customers with a continuous and sufficient supply of electricity. Very, truly yours, Glenn Buchanan °�„• _ tr-,:: Customer Service Planner GB:im ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY 91 EALM DESERT (Ray. 11/77) INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission FROM: Secretary to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: Response to comments on "Chacahuala" DATE: June 13, 1978 Environmental Impact Report from the South Coast Air Quality Management District Comments on the draft environmental impact report for the "Chacahuala" Project were received May 30th, 1978 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In as much as the comments were received late, time did not permit a response to be prepared prior to the initial public hearing date of May 30th, 1978. Accordingly this Memorandum explains the subsequent action taken by the Staff regarding the comments received from South Coast Air Quality Management District. Review of the comment relative to Appendix information indicates that existing air quality data has been included. In response to the second comment the preparer of the Environmental Impact Report was contacted and asked to provide the additional emission data to substantiate the statement in Section 3.10.2. This data was received June 5, 1978 and is attached hereto. On June 7th, 1978, Mr. Tom Mullins, of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, was contacted by phone to request assistance in review of the additional data submitted. Pursuant to that conversation the data was not transmitted since their comments were only advisory and since no interest was expressed in further review of the material. Their concern was that we were provided with the additional information and that it substantiated the related emissions data. Accordingly, since the Staff was satisfied that the emissions related data was correct and that the action taken regarding the South Coast Air Quality Management District comments fulfilled the appropriate environmental requirements no further action was taken. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary PAW/rk/tb June 1, 1978 W i�.44W 45t Deserty of Palm 275 Prickly Lane ENCO UcEpM VFSfK( Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: Ron Knippel Subject: AQMD Comments on the Chacahuala Project EIR Dear Ron: En planning & e i=mentai sciences Enclosed per our telephone conversation are the rough calculations pertain- ing to AQMD's comment on page 44 of the Draft EIR. Also enclosed are copies of the tables of emission factors contained in the AQMD document entitled, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports." If we can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, ENVISTA, INC. P Clarence E. Aschbrenner Resource Analyst CEA:sr Enclosure E-291 11 U Cl) d ' n 10 10 N N P 0 E `o U ti c c 6 C W N N j N c c N 0 0 0 3 m 0 c 0 O U) 9 U'iTRi__T H6Ai.i'�UARfZF2� 94_3 TFLbr A A9=Mx, FL IIUNrl _ .J r 67e N.4 9171, Date 5/25/78 File No. A80418E Mr. Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Coxli:�N-LS 0`1: Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Chacahuala Project (140 Units) ADaVIIACY OF ArR QUALITY AMLYSIS Adequate Inadecuate NA Existing Air Quality in Area — — — - 11 M 1) El Dcistin3 Emissions in Area - — — — -- C1 ® 2) � Project=,missioas: Construction phaseEl Completed project vehicular — — — — [] ® 2) Stationary — -- — — — - [� (212) ❑ Project Impact on Air Quality M 2) q ARE ADE?IIATE MITIGATION 1,BA.SU2ES PROVIDED FOR PPW-2CT AIR POT-LbT",jr ? O Yes In No ❑ Incomplete ❑ fu MRE GROWTH INDUCD-G rrtCTS OF PROJECT ON FODUTANT EMISSJO`-S DISCUSSED? IM Yes AQ�D Pam; ffT 0210 []Partially IN Not required ❑ Required ❑ Nay be required, contact Zone office IS PROTECT EJPU PIMMUTAL 'taCT ON AIR QUALM (Aq) ❑ Benefici�-': will probably "and to improve Aq ❑ Ho effect ❑ Impairment: probably no substantial adverse effect ❑ Unfavorable: may degrade Aq to a significant exteat C1 Adverse: will degrade Aq to a significant extent ] Indeterminate: due to lack of data 'd1TH T= ATTAIPi:r.^.'!T 11 Yes ® No COLMEtiTS: 1) Contrary to what is stated on page 44 there is no information in the Appendix on existing air quality. 2) There should be emission data for these items to document the state- ment in Section 3.10.2 that project related emissions will be less than 0.3 percent of total Palm Desert emissions. C AczcQh HkI0. haShell VeLde Tr ;('s FeccLa Cs{: d�l S7 Z le5 PLOY- +r:� /0 �a lr 1 N1 1 ( JU,C/t .Je�, 4,-, ) _ / s, �r4riy MT— = >4;Ir x34s sdrtr'ce 'O�K ear . � 6e-v�erd Pla„ p7e e 5 �rM`Ssi� fGc4r5 4r 072 are 4Lkc, XLVIII ih AIr nn�oLa 4 "k,,, �� esr�s Pwdis�w 6x -� L04�Fe� 1g177) 1 Cf r� �'YhiSS�O�. f 4r' 1R �[Sert Qn� Tg 5�f7t1'< o-x� inTtt'ef I art 4akN Itq-,K �7 Dese-r+ Ge.ard T /a+. F7es y,.. �G���✓uvKUrs " I S,A�. e. r,A�S e/�W4 r OLx-Ike ..//��� t� ,cam / � l4 S Q o'r 'v�QMD T"413 �v+�7�4 n; "`f t�wSS•v�. �4cTars ?c4 e.rL, fit%, ror Vx.A5 Stw.r b x, Cuf -rare Car IO,,S ,PC L r A i C w (6-kzw raw ptc'ev�Fntiss C...�s:.b„ p// op Fccfvr .W To-i/YC0.r (f-51d.V. QZ i .2•o a /y5.7 17• o (o. O�7) D. 4 <o- 0017) /a•4, p. 5 178. b I�� Cotas 0. Ptr ce cvs 17 „„de _'os9° Pa E 9 b 1 % o 4d " DeS;e tVc.t,,. - (Pair i CJ 5 (FaQ j rs) (��s�� ?.r�±?aL�i4_• 85530.7 73.3 `I4 S 30•9 l•5 �. S 3y.7 3ql •�s CJS, l90./ /b• 7 0.539 22. 2 o • 4(p0 z27. 998 122• 09 I TABLE XLVIII ENERGY -USE E24ISSION FACTORS SOURCE CARBON NITROGEN SULFUR PARTI- HYDROCARBONS MONOXIDE OXIDES OXIDES CULATES ORGANIC GASES PWR. GENERATION1) Lbs/1000 KWH OIL FIRED 0.2 2.3 50.401 0.18 GAS FIRED 0.15 1.3 8 0.024 0.083 COWL & HOME HEATING2) Lbs/1000 CuFt GAS FIRED NEGL 0.116 NEGL o.o18 NEGL LIGHT -DUTY GASOLIN� 3)4) Grams/14ile POWERED VEHICLES 1975 32.5 3.9 0.1 0.5 3.3 1976 29.4 3.5 0.1 0.5 2.9 1977 26.2 3.1 0.1 o.4 2.4 1978 2 1 =-�.7-.,.�o,-1 o.4 2.0 1979 19.9 '2.3 0.1 0.3 1.5 1980 16.8 1.9 0.1 0.3 1.1 1985 5.6 o.8 0.1 0.3 o.6 1990 4.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 1995 3.8 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.5 140TORCYCLE TRAVEL3) Grams/Mile 1975 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 13.5 1976 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 13.2 1977 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 12.9 1978 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 12.5 1979 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 12.2 1980 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2' 11.9 1985 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 3.7 1990 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 3.1 1995 34.7 0.1 NEGL 0.2 2.3 1) Emissions based on 1974 operations of L.A. County power plants, assuming 10,387, BTU's generates 1 KWH. Heating oil assumed to contain a maximum of 0.5% by weight of sulfur. 2) Adapted from Journal. of APCA, April 1962, page 158. 3) Developed from EPA AP-42 for an average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin, these factors correspond to an average route speed of 35 miles per hour. 4) Automobiles and light -duty trucks less than 6001 pounds. July, 1976 SCA FC D 95 TABLE XLVI IIEAVY-DUTY GASOLINE P10:+-2RED VEHICLE E-TIS6ION FACTORS' GRAMS PE7.2 14ILF. YEAR CARBON NITROGEN TfDROCAPBON MONOXIDE OXIDES ORGANIC GASES POUNDS CAR3OX MONOXIDE PER tiIOJSAND NITROGENHYDROCARBON OXIDES GALLONS 2) ORGANIC GASES 1975 92.2 10.2 11.6 1016.3 112.4 127.9 197, 92.2 9.7 1C.3 1016.3 107.4 113.6 1977 92.2 9.g 9.9 1o16.3 102.3 109.3 1973 92.2 -9.8 9.1 1016.3 97.2 100.1 1979 92.2 3.4 8.2 1016.3 92.2 go.8 1980 92.2 7.9 7.4 1016.3 87.1 81.6 19851 92.2 5.4 5.5 1o16.3 59.5 60.6 1990 91.3 4.3 +-.0 1011.9 52.9 44.1 1995 86.4 3.9 3.1 952.4 43.o 34.2 SULF1JR OXIDES PARTICULATES SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES 1975-199.5 0.3 0.8 3.3 8.° 1) Developed from EPA AP-42 for an average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin, these factors correspond to an average route speed of 35 miles per hour. 2) Calculated by assuming 5 miles per gallon. TABLE XLV II HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL POW-=D VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS I) GRAINS PER MILE POUNDS PER THOUSAND GALLONS 2) YEAR CARBON NITROGEN HYDROCARBON CARBON NITROGEN HYDROCARBON MONOXIDE OXIDES ORGANIC GASES MONOXIDE OXIDES ORGANIC GASES 1975 19.4 30.5 3.1 213.8 336.2 34.2 1976 18.9 2?.8 2.8 208.6 306.9 31.1 1977 18.4 25.2 2.5 202.•9 277.E 2" .0 1978 18.0 22.5 2.3 198.4 248.2 24.9 1979 17.5 19.9 2.0 192.9 218.9 21.8 19830 17.0 17.2 1.7 187.4 189.6 18.7 1985 14.0 10.8 1.1 154.3 119.0 12.1 1990 11.6 9.1 0.9 127.9 100.3 9.9 199r" 12.0 8.o 0.8 132.3 88.2 8.8 SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES SULFUR OXIDES PARTICULATES 1975-1995 2.4 1.4 26.5 15.4 1) Developed from EPA AP-42 for an average vehicle in the South Coast Air Basin, these factors correspond to an average route speed of 35 miles per hour. 2) Calculated by assuming 5 miles per gallon. or 1 July, 1976 SCAPCD on TABLE XLIV ANNUAL ELECTRIO ENERGY USAGE PER SQUARE FOOT OF' FZOOR SPACEI) Annual $WH Per Sq. Ft. RESIDENTIAL All -Electric, Single -Family Residence Single -Family Residence W/Electric Kitchen Single -Family Residence W/Gas Appliances All -Electric Apartment Apartment W/Electric Kitchen Apartment W/Gas Appliances NON-RESIDENTIAL - GENERAL CATEGORIES Office and Professional Buildings Warehouses Retail Outlets Restaurants and Cocktail Lounges Hotel and Motels Service Establishments Elementary Schools High Schools and Colleges Hospital and Convalescent Facilities Churches Theaters and Recreation Manufacturing/Industrial NON-RESIDENTIAL - SPECIFIC CATEGORIES Regional Shopping Center - 1,340,000 Sq. Ft. �. Regional Shopping Center - 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. Regional Shopping Center - 892,000 Sq. Ft. Regional Shopping Center - 885,000 Sq. Ft. Regional Shopping Center - 813,000 Sq. Ft. Regional Shopping Center - 640,000 Sq. Ft. Major Shopping Center - 492,000 Sq. Ft. Shoe Stores Jr. Department Stores Women's Ready to Wear Stores Women's Specialty Stores Men's Wear Stores Bank/Savings & Loan Household Stores (Drapes, carpets, fabric, etc.) Drug Stores Jewelry and Gift Stores Food Market Restaurants and Food Specialty Stores TABLE XLV AVERAGE MONTHLY CONSUMPTION OF NATURAL GAS 1) RESIDENTIAL Single Family Residences = 9125 Cubic feet/Month/Dwelling Unit Multi Family; 4 or less Units = 5330 Cubic feet/Month/Dwelling Unit Multi Family; 5 or more Units = 4830 Cubic feet/Month/Dwelling Unit NON-RESIDENTIAL Office = 3.5 Cubic feet/Month/Square foot. Shopping Center = 20. Cubic feet/Month/Square foot Hotel = 50. Cubic feet/Month/Square foot Industrial = 3.3 Cubic feet/Month/Square foot 10.3 5•�> 4.g 7.0 4.4 4.0 34.2 14.4 47.8 76.9 •26.o 95.2 23.1 38.8 100.7 6.o 32.5 50.1 33.3 33.6 31.4 27.2 32.5 22.8 27.3 38.3 49.0 31.6 30.2 29.2 21.1 16.3 29.0 40.0 66.5 85.2 1) City of Los Angeles, EIR Manual for Private Projects, 1975. Updated, 1976. RFS A!? % ! 0p A TRI10Ir �! oS A� U S B 9y CM D Cis 6 �'SS4 1, l(e, FSFR T ! B : /BJ A/T T Yp O91 y Ore s ! ) O/ BS O 9 C )tOtd i : S B6 S� !j�0 o�s�� ReoN `FSi�G2 \ y4 B ! ' B! 30 + B� 0 G9S S E Cq / 9 , )o )6.. /0 O .))S �% FS 9 FMi J�=vim I2lO 2 9y6/ /6B !0)00 .169 4 OF CAR90 SS/01S! 4S o 4B9 . 0 / ,S S 26 ° oyo °'ks o`` //S 22S9sLq 2?946/O s /> s/S?S /662g >`M°!pF pFR 4 ! 6 / 6 �? /3 4 00 O6 / 90 4, ° 206 pF pq y /S02s ISp ;4 .BS�B 2319 P4 N/r yQ� /9B O B�26 2259 'S800 2665 .°0�2 9s, 2J 6S C!'SROl t* 22?O ! / S �20 S0 >2'S00 / 22/60 �yB4 ! 0°26B S ool0 2 � -so p B ' 60 ? ' 62 / s9 s, / 6] 2a' /.9 020 .�22o ? sex`S 6 ?� '�� 6 224 3 j 2p Bj 2 / ! /,!S / ,� 82 ? 2940 O OB S ?064 �8 ] C1,S46,0 /0 6.600 / /) s, p0o 9)� / % /SB /off 8B3 /9 2B °td! 92 20 '9& !p 42 ! �I /4 0 / '0 66,49 ! �6� s�O 0 ! .9 98 S�9 /8 /� /66 s •9 �/2 .i O0s /SS 2�`S6 '�Bj 466' �O0° ! �ijB 5�42 8 ! �0� S S- A .2��� ; o4/ .SIB / ..�'j6�p00 •420-/ 8632 6 .SB6 s 9!�?? .,q 6 ? /s. �OSi ?4s�36,0 0 �4?62/ .4S /SB �>6 4�!/B� /! J, �9 ��; `� ' 4B0 /, • js 9/ .S ? /4 �189 �i �8 B • B9ls ! . 6�s i . 0, 0 22 B/64 -?S, 6' .! ° BSo 6 ° !90 °�4p4 . 0°S p OS SB B 6// > >s S �0 S0 9 0? S / 6�4S /88 / j,B96 j,� OOs,! / '.�9 . BSS /6I 3 0 s2 /S6 /8�B 2J BS�6 .2s�4 ,g684 ;0? 9 OC Figure 9-1 AIR MONITORING DATA SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PORTION - 1970;: Number of Days California State Standards Maximum Average Contaminant State Standard Exceeded Concentration Oxidant 0.10 ppm, 1-hour 49 0.48 ppm Carbon 40 ppm, 1-hour or Monoxide 10 ppm, 12-hours 0 0 ppm Sulfur 0.5 ppm, 1-hour or 0 0 ppm Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24-hours Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, 1-hour 0 0 ppm Dioxide Particulate 100 µ g/m3, 24-hours or 35* 4j1,; Matter 60 µ g/m3, annual geometric mean Hydrocarbons None NO ND Visibility Sufficient to reduce NO NO Reducing prevailing visibility Particles to 10 miles when relative humidity is less than 70% Lead 1.5 )tg/m3, 30-days NO NO (Particulate) Hydrogen 0.03 ppm, 1-hour NO NO Sulfide ND = No Data Random high -volume sampling every 6 days AISI tape sampling in COH units Source: Southeast Desert Basin Implementation Plan, 197). E.5a COMMERCIAL Core Area Regional Specialty Village Total INDUSTRIAL Res, 6 Dev. Service Total m TOTAL Res., ao Comm., Ind, Cr Figure 9-2 (Cont'd) PALM DESERT DAILY VEHICULAR EMISSIONSI TONS PER DAY HYDROCARBONS & # TRIPS MILES ORGANIC GASES CARBON MONOXIDE NITROGEN OXIDES SULFUR PARTICULATE TRIPS/DAY VMT CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE OXIDES2 MATTER2 2,117 16,936 ,153 .086 1.312 ,676 ,116 ,075 .004 ,003 6,248 49,984 ,452 .237 3.873 1,995 .342 ,220 ,011 .009 22,245 177,960 1,6o9 .902 13.796 7.101 1,216 .785 .039 .033 11,705 93,640 ,846 .475 7.256 3.737 .64o ,413 42,315 338,520 3.o6o 1.700 26.237 13.509 2.314 1,493 ,021 .075 ,018 .063 150,825 3,016,500 27,266 15.295 233.754 120.368 20,616 13.300 ,665 52,140 1,042,800 9,426 5,288 8o,8o8 41,611 7,127 4,598 ,230 .565 202,965 4,059,300 36,692 20.583 314.562 161.979 27,743 17.898 ,895 .195 .76o 490,628 6,851,300 61,993 34,727 530.922 273.265 46,796 30,866 1.508 1.283`� r I Assumes worst case at full development. Emission factors obtained from the Los Angeles APCD are for the average gas -powered vehicle on the road at the end of 1974, as estimated by both Federal (CVS) and Ca,lifornia (7-Mode) test procedures. 2 Same for both, COMMERCIAL Core Area Regional Specialty Village Total INDUSTRIAL Res. 6 Dev. Service Total T TOTAL Res., m Comm., Ind. Figure 9-2 (Cont'd) PALM DESERT DAILY VEHICULAR EMISSIONS] TONS PER DAY HYDROCARBONS G # TRIPS MILES ORGANIC GASES CARBON MONOXIDE NITROGEN OXIDES SULFUR PARTICULATE TRIPS/DAY VMT CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE CVS 7-MODE OXIDES2 MATTER2 2,117 16,936 .153 .o86 1.312 .676 .116 .075 .004 .003 6,248 49,984 .452 .237 3.873 1.995 .342 .220 .011 .009 22,245 177,960 1.6o9 .902 13.796 7.101 1.216 .785 .039 .033 11,705 93,640 .846 .475 7.256 3.737 .64o .413 42,315 338,520 3.060 1.700 26.237 13.509 2.314 1.493 .021 .075 .018 .063 150,825 3,016,500 27.266 15.295 233.754 120.368 20.616 13.300 .665 .565 52,14o 1,042,800 9.426 5.288 80.8o8 41.611 7.127 4.598 .230 .195 202,965 4,059,300 36.692 20.583 314.562 161.979 27.743 17.898 .895 .76o 490,628 6,851,300 61.993 34.727 530.922 273.265 46.796 30.866 1.508 1.283 i ] Assumes worst case at full development. Emission factors obtained from the Los Angeles APCD are for the average gas -powered vehicle on the road at the end of 1974, as estimated by both Federal (CVS) and California (7-Mode) test procedures. 2 Same for both. Fi'__ :o. ASC-_ a .z. Paul A. Williams Directcr of Environmental Services Citv ct Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 CCH.ItYN_ O'.i: Draft Environmental Impact Report Proposed Chacahuala Project (140 Units) AD �I_\CT 0710 OJ_1LI:"i Ati.1L-ZT?S Ademiate Ladecu'-te u:i E7CistiaZ Air Quality in Area — _ ❑ Y 1) ❑ fl:lstlnG L-.Iissi0as in Area - — — Q 2) ❑ Project Z.aissioas: Constractioa phase — — — — — - — El ❑ Completed project vehicular — — — = � 2) ❑ Stationary — -- — — — — Q 0 2) Q Project Lpact on Air Quality — — — — Q ,t 2) Q ARE ADNIIn TE MIT1G_iT!0,4 1- S.S,-.'. J P O fI]3 FO3 P=4^o, ATE �'' T : N.i? D Yes [X Mo [I 7nco aplate ❑ fib A_n GRO.rT3 12UCI',�G I F: 'O1S Of FROJECT CI FOLLL'"_';,NT-%S$TO.iS DIS^ti3S 7? M Yes No 0 Partially kOXD z ?^-i PO"."- -L T^r; : ON Ale IN Not Z;ot required ❑ Beneficial: will probably tend ❑ Required to inpreve A? ❑ No effect ❑ Pay be required, contact Q L-aairyent: probably no substazti?1 adverse effect .Zone office ❑ IIafarorable: ray de=rad 0 o Aa t0 a siSaifica.,Iu exte,:t LI Adrerse: will degrade Aq to a sigaifi^_ant extent Ldete_minate: dae to lack of data IS p?p1EOT CONSIS-= WITH icalf,_ ...ith� O? T.'y"" 1:.y IONIL A!? C:;ALIT ❑ Yes Q tiD CO:PtEi91's : 1) Contrary to what is stated on page 44 there is no information in the Appendix on existing air quality. 2) There should be emission data for these items to document the state- ment in Section 3.10.2 that project related emissions will be less than 0.3 percent of total Palm Desert emissions. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1978 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF (Cont.) Commissioner Fleshman stated that the amenities were inadequate; the realtionship of the pools to the units is poor; parking on one side of the street is bad; and the applicant has appeared to do the minimum, as required in the Zoning Ordinance, on everything. Chairman Berkey noted his concern with the lack of guest parking in the project. Commissioner Kelly stated that the concerns voiced at the May 30, 1978, meeting were still apparent. Commissioner Snyder stated that he thought the applicant would have worked out his problems with the Design Review Board, but this hasn't happened. Chairman Berkey asked if there was a time limit on this project and if perhaps the applicant would like a continuance. Mr. Williams stated that there is no time limit on the Development Plan but that there is on the Design Review Board case. Mr. Kriese stated that there were two new con- cerns brought out at this meeting that had not been mentioned previously. He stated that the parking as proposed is the best they can do and that they have tried to comply with the Design Review Board's wishes. He indicated that they would gain nothing by going back to the Design Review Board. On a motion by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, the Commission denied the Development Plan and rejected the Preliminary Design Review by Planning Commission Resolution No. 373; carried unanimously (5-0). B. Continued Case Nos. and Related Draft EIR, CHACARUALA, LTD., Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View ex- tended between Alamo and Arrow Trail and the re- lated Draft EIR. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted the previous report and the revised Staff Report. He then reviewed the drainage concerns and indicated that the applicant proposes an open channel through the project. He then noted the correspondence received stating concerns with drainage adjacent to the project. Mr. Williams then reviewed the Draft EIR noting that it is very complete and the Staff is recom- mending that the EIR be certified as complete. despite the Commission's } Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1978 Page Four VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. CJZ 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) Commissioner Fleshman asked when the channel on Haystack was due to be completed. Mr. Williams noted that it is planned for this fiscal year. Commissioner Fleshman then asked about the one along Ironwood. Mr. Williams stated that it was planned for the next fiscal year. Commissioner Snyder asked if there were catch basins on Haystack. Mr. Williams stated that they were in the budget. Commissioner Fleshman referred to page 4 of the EIR with regard to "Noise". He stated that noise is a long term impact and should be treated as an accumulative impact. He also asked to know the cubic feet per second that the channel will carry. Commissioner Kryder noted his concern for the water entering and leaving the project and what the effect would be if water path above the project shifts. Mr. Williams stated that the intent of the Master Drainage Plan is to carry the water down to Haystack, and the Indian Hills Villas south carried to the east. Commissioner Kryder noted his concern for the project being started prior to the flood control be completed so that proper drainage is provided. Chairman Berkey declared the Public Hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to speak at this time. HAROLD HOUSLEY, Project Engineer, 73-893 Highway 111, addressed the concerns of the Commission regarding drainage and traffic. He noted the revised plot plan and the changes that had been made. He stated that `t during a normal rainfall, the water will be handled by the water going underground to the channel along Haystack or Portola to the Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that although there is a wall around the pro- ject, there will be openings in the wall for the water to run through. Further, he noted that a re- tention basin could be constructed on the City park site. Also, he stated that the proposed drainage within the project would better protect the Silver Spur Association area. GENE SCOTHORN, Wilda & Assoc., referred to Commis- sioner Fleshman question, stating that the channel could carry 3600 cubic feet per second and this is a high figure. Also he stated that the local drain- age problems of the proposed project have been met, outside the project area is a regional problem. Commissioner Fleshman asked what size of an open channel would be necessary to carry the amount of water that will be generated in this area? He also stated that he was concerned with downstream area. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission July 5, 1978 Page Five VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) B. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) TOM O'SULLIVAN, Homestead and Alamo, noted his �- concern for the traffic, and asked that the entrance on Alamo be closed. JANE WOOLLEY, 73-010 Somera, noted here con- cern with the traffic and asked why Chia can't be opened to take flow off Alamo. HAROLD BIRD, Sun Corral Trail, asked about the elevation of the east boundary on Arrow Trail; whether the houses on Arrow Trail are above street; do they have driveways onto Arrow Trail; and will the water be diverted by the wall. Mr. Williams noted that there would be a wall on the backside of the units on Arrow Trail. EARL MCCANN, Riata Trail, noted his concern with the density and the potential loss in value of adjacent homes. He stated his objection to condo- miniums. JIM HALL, Skyward & Alamo, noted concern with traffic and there are already too many condos, wants single-family. FRED GRIGGS, President Silver Spur Ranchers Assoc., stated that the project is presented well, but wants large homes not condos. He also noted his concern for the completion of the fire station and flood control. These two concerns should be dealt with and completed prior to the project. DON BOLAS, 73-182 Skyward, noted that there is no need for the increase in density, this type of development is not needed in this area. He also noted his concern with noise and pollution. ELIZABETH CHARLIBLOCK, 73-234 Skyward, corner of Chia, stated that she agreed with Mr. Bolas and the other speakers. She asked about the drainage on Chia and on Haystack next to Marrekesh. Against project of this type in this area. SILVA WINTER, Somera, object to condos, should be single family homes, also objected to increase in density. Chairman Berkey asked if the applicant wished to make a RE- BUTTAL at this time. kh PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNTA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 to PR-3 ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND . AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND AR R A RTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIR ENTAL IMP T WORT. CASE '0. C Z 02-78 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 5th day of July. 1978, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an appli- cation filed by CHACAHUALA, LTD. requesting approval of a Change of, Zone zie) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 au/acre) zone on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 and approval of the related Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32," in that a draft Environmental Impact Report has been com- pleted in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, at.a Public Hearing on May 30, 1978, and a continued Public Hearing on July 5, 1978, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to recwnmd approval of a Change of Zone and related Draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. The proposed Change of Zone does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. The proposed Change of Zone will not adversely effect the health, safety, or general welfare. 3. The proposed Change of Zone will meet the objectives of the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance. 4. The PR zone designation would offer flexibility with re- gard to setbacks and overall site utilization not offered by the R-1 zone in dealing with adverse situations caused by the existence of large public facilities on adjacent properties and the sites location in a flood -prone area. 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 consti- 4 Ad PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 374 Page Two 3. That it does hereby recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report as complete to include the Draft EIR, all comments received and Staff responses to them. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of July, 1978, by the fol- lowing vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, FLESHMAN, KELLY, KRYDER NOES: SNYDER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE GEORGE BERKEY, Chairman ATTEST: PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary /ks t �s ,w TC�aiSlrmn� �$�i�' (MO - — -- 43-273 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, A DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92280 TELEPHONE (714) 348-04C C \ , zip t3 J z c W Henry F. & enevieve G. Joyle P. (,. Llox 18 Palm Deser , Ca. 92260 • At off `fin= 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 10th, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.u./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-005 c/z o2-7s W APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-009 y, 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPLICANT Robert Ricciardi 73-700 Highway 111 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: DATE July 6, 1978 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of July 5, 1978 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 383 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc• Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 383 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FIND- INGS AND APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTIONS OF JUNE 20, 1978. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did review the Design Review Board actions of June 20, 1978, approving: Case No. 134MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevation plans for 100 condo- minium units for SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES; Case No. 84C - Request for approval of an improvement plan for an existing commercial structure for CIRCLE K FOOD STORES; Case o. 72 - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a commercial center for ROBERT N. RICCIARDI; Case No. 116MF - Request for approval of preliminary site, floor and elevations for a triplex for AMERICAN WEST DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, at this time, upon considering and receiving all testi- mony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Commission did find sufficient facts and reasons to exist to approve the Design Review Board actions of June 20, 1978. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and consti- tute the findings of the Commission in these cases. 2. That it does hereby approve the Design Review Board actions of June 20, 1978, except Case No. 134MF which is hereby rejected. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of July, 1978, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, SNYDER NOES: FLESHMAN, KELLY ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 July 10th, 1978 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone where the Planning Commission has recommended PR-3 (Planned Residential maximum 3 d.ju./acre) on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-009 APN 631-170-005 P. R.- 3 ,n Ay S7A CN 19 � -Tr 100 1 I R-I 13,000 o R-I >00 R-1 13,000 3'S� RH b'fl� 10 —I 100-00 � /i R 1 13,00 u,000 d� tTonn-u�u_� R-I - 10,000 > R-1 10, 000 �' 9 AD' R-I 10,000 eU_ivoi5m0_7u= EXISTING, R-1 10,000 1pP� ii�R-I 10,000 r PR.- 5 (C.U.P. 1367) Project Site R-1 20,000 ��` R-1 10,000 _i1KLlCe_ Lot&t_1ir�, PROPOSED f•.rn�r..T.i P P.R. -4 /�� P.R.-7 (C.U.P.7-1382) AVENUE i r P.R77 (C.U.P.-1362) JL Scale 1 inch = 600 feet �` NORTH •,i PROP05ED CHANGE OF ZQN)NG 15Z LIMIT DEYEL8FMENT FOR CHACAHDALA, LTD. I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 73-700 highway 111, Suite 8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 714 346.3868 5-1.1H 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORMA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 June 8, 1978 Jane Woolley P. 0. Box 1093 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Jane: In response to your letter of June 5, I wish to indicate to you that the Chacahuala project is scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission on June 14, at 1:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Regarding your specific questions, the reference to the widening of Alamo deals with its improvement between Belair and Homestead on the east side adjacent to Dr. Kay's house. This project will have two accesses, one on Alamo and one on the east, which would eventually connect directly to Haystack. On this basis, I don't think that all the estimated 1,572 cars would have to just use Alamo. Finally, let me indicate to you that while we did notify all the property owners within 300 feet of this project, the Commis- sion would certainly welcome any concern of all residents in the area regarding this project. I would encourage you to come to the meeting on the 14th and indicate any concerns you might have regarding this project. I hope this is sufficient information. If not, please let me know. Sincerely, James M Pherson pw/ ' s DAME woOLLeY P• O. BOX NO. 1093 PALM DESEBT, CA. 92260 a�fe-a� -T.�A"- A" a_� eQAr� 54 •� P m•� a sf �1 clv.�.Q.k..y�s o.1..-k-IA.f� l�.ltia �.o�.1ti��. t.ow.� st 41poo 4v •U,,,Sefo ,� OAS 0. RyGL°t�li '� R0.N�, � 1 1ti4-•R-ti � S ZA. A-0 "'}�ttea 4-p- .�a °A;�A-c ` k.�r 0-R-cf. +l C. U CL� T R\gtQ out 1,�oLA-%%w J— a,% *�c o�1�tirZ �a i �U coo 4c S ,� ur. W `c. �a.�� A&" A i - iCvo 4S P-a-e A L'b L Y ti +- t. S4 p-, t t* cam. >: o uru_tiz s B.-v. A -A"w l z o p_ko b k,Qa ur .v-ct �' S d-L e u_Qtd wa-ossc, c.�. •. R� 0. K 0 Department of Environmental Services Planning Commission 45275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 Gentlemen: Re: Chacahula Project - Hearing July 5, 1978 We have no objection to this project provided the DENSITY does not exceed 3.4 structures to an acre; that the structures be limited to single residence for the reason that duplexes are not readily saleable and are generally occupied by renters who do not maintain those premises in the same manner as owners; and that the outlet from the project on Alamo will be south of Homestead Road since the East-West streets in the cove are not designed to accommodate heavy traffic generated by condominiumE I r Gr•ll-7 n s I R 1-2 � �i� n i73 t °� r 73-46 Jtf? _ - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. He then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. Case s. C/Z 02-7 and Related Draft EIR, CHACAHUALA LTD., Applicant Reqest for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended be- tween Alamo and Arrow Trail and related Draft EIR. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted the related develop- ment plan. He also reviewed the correspondence received from Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr., President of Silver Spur Ranchers Association and Mr. Leland Scheu. Regarding the EIR, Mr. Williams noted a late response received from the South Coast Air Quality Control District. Staff recommends approval of the Change of Zone to PR-4 and certifi- cation of the final EIR. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to speak at this time. I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway 111, Engineer on project, and representative of Chacahuala, addressed the Commission and noted that a planned unit develop- ment is the best project for the area involved and he would answer any questions. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, 48-698 Desert Flower, representing the California Teachers Association which owns 11 acres adjacent to the property, noted their approval of the project. EUGENE KAY, owner of property north of development, gave his approval of the project. KAY CRAIG, Belair and Alamo, spoke in favor. TOM O'SULLIVAN, 72-990 Homestead, spoke to the Commission & asked to have a few things clarified regarding the traf- fic on Homestead and Alamo and the density. MARGARET KAY, lives across from Mr. O'Sullivan, spoke in favor of the project as the developers have met all the conditions. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) FRED GRIGGS, 73-549 Feather Trail, representing Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranchers Asso- ciation, spoke noting his objections to the Change of Zone of PR-4 from R-1-20,000 and to the addi- tional traffic that will be created. He stated two problems that should be solved or completed before any development should be considered and that is the flood and drainage control issue and the completion of the proposed fire station. MRS. HARRY NUDD, 73-409 Little Bend Trail, opposed due to flood control problem. JOHN MCMANN, 73-269 Broken Arrow, opposed due to flood control problem. ED PECK, 73-610 Buckboard Trail, opposed due to the flood control problem not being completely solved and the density should be lower. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, opposed due to the flood control issues, traffic and it would lower the value of adjacent homes. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a REBUTTAL at this time. Mr. Housley noted that Little Bend Trail would be an extension of Homestead and that Alamo would be widened and Chia would be extended. Also, drainage from the south side of Portola (extended) would cut off and divert to Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that for normal rainfall sufficient drainage is being provided. Mr. Housley noted that he had met with the people from Silver Spur and that the plans had been modified. A. T. WILKES, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission noting various points about the careful planning of the channeling of the water, which would only benefit adjacent homes; original zoning as stated in the Riverside County General Plan is 3-5 units per acre; the proposal is less dense than the R-1 next to the project; he does not feel that Silver Spur will be affected by any additional traffic; the tennis courts will be adjacent to present tennis courts and they will be recessed plus low glare lights will be used; lots were placed carefully with regard to the view and sun control; and, project will bring about money for flood control. J Minutes Palm Desert Planning May 30, 1978 Commission VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Page Four (font.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the project onto Mesa View. Mr. Williams stated no. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear- ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out development and that the project is a good one for the area. He then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern an.,LLLthat he wants more time to study the draft EIR. Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain- d fire protection are her concerns and she would like more Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder regiested that Staff make certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the. traffic problem. Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the traffic situation. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study; carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is to address the City's responsibilities with regard to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic and access. Temporary Presiding Officer Commission needs additional input fine presentation. Snyder noted that the Planning from Staff, the applicant gave a B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MF - CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Mr. Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with the related Case No. C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried unanimously (3-0). C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres at the northwest corner of Fairhaven Drive and 44th w 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 June 13, 1978 Mr. & Mrs. Eugene M. Kay, M.D. 73020 Homestead Road Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kay: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 2, 1978 regarding the proposed Chacahuala Project and to advise you that your comments will be included in the final Environmental Impact Report and presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration when reviewing the subject project. We would also take this opportunity to thank you for your comments and your continued interest in the City of Palm Desert. ery truly yours, Paul A. Williams, Director Dept. of Environmental Services PAW/rk/tb EUGENE M. KAY, M.D. 73020 HOMESTEAD ROAD PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 June 2, ' 78 City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Attention: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services Re: Proposed Chacahuala Project Dear Hr. Williams, When attending the Planning Commission meeting on Clay 30th regarding the above project we were very surprised to hear Silver Spur residents speak of their fears of future flood damage_ if the project materializes. We would like to go pn record stating that we feel completely opposite to their thinking. Our property adjoins the proposed development to the North. We have carefully studied their Nnuironmental Impact Report, plus discussing it with the developers and are convinced that their water drainage control could save us from a repeat of the disaster we personally suffered in the flood of Sept. '76 ... at which time we had.in excess of 120,000.00 damage to our property. We would be most grateful for the protection their plans offer. During the early stages of their planning we made a couple requests of the developers regarding the North end of their project which adjoins our property and they complied with our requests. We also want to go on record stating that we have visited other projects the developers have completed in Santa Konica, Calif. and found them not only well planned and constructed but in each case they contributed to the aesthetic value of the neighborhoods. Very sincerely yours, Ac R1E%';EivL,16, JI_,ii '. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Two VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder announced that prior to this meeting, the Commission had met in a Study Session for the purpose of clarifying the staff recommendations. No decisions were reached. He then explained the Public Hearing procedures to those present. A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Dr ft EIR, HACAHUALA LTD., Applicant Reqest for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 to PR-4 on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended be- tween Alamo and Arrow Trail and related Draft EIR. Mr. Williams reviewed the case and noted the related develop- ment plan. He also reviewed the correspondence received from Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr., President of Silver Spur Ranchers Association and Mr. Leland Scheu. Regarding the EIR, Mr. Williams noted a late response received from the South Coast Air Quality Control District. Staff recommends approval of the Change of Zone to PR-4 and certifi- cation of the final EIR. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to speak at this time. I. HAROLD HOUSLEY, 73-700 Highway 111, Engineer on project, and representative of Chacahuala, addressed the Commission and noted that a planned unit develop- ment is the best project for the area involved and he would answer any questions. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in FAVOR of the project. WILLIAM ALEXANDER, 48-698 Desert Flower, representing the California Teachers Association which owns 11 acres adjacent to the property, noted their approval of the project. EUGENE KAY, owner of property north of development, gave his approval of the project. KAY CRAIG, Belair and Alamo, spoke in favor. TOM O'SULLIVAN, 72-990 Homestead, spoke to the Commission & asked to have a few things clarified regarding the traf- fic on Homestead and Alamo and the density. MARGARET KAY, lives across from Mr. O'Sullivan, spoke in favor of the project as the developers have met all the conditions. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission May 30, 1978 Page Three VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR (Cont.) FRED GRIGGS, 73-549 Feather Trail, representing Board of Directors of Silver Spur Ranchers Asso- ciation, spoke noting his objections to the Change of Zone of PR-4 from R-1-20,000 and to the addi- tional traffic that will be created. He stated two problems that should be solved or completed before any development should be considered and that is the flood and drainage control issue and the completion of the proposed fire station. MRS. HARRY NUDD, 73-409 Little Bend Trail, opposed due to flood control problem. JOHN MCMANN, 73-269 Broken Arrow, opposed due to flood control problem. ED PECK, 73-610 Buckboard Trail, opposed due to the flood control problem not being completely solved and the density should be lower. HAROLD BIRD, 47-967 Sun Corral Trail, opposed due to the flood control issues, traffic and it would lower the value of adjacent homes. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a REBUTTAL at this time. Mr. Housley noted that Little Bend Trail would be an extension of Homestead and that Alamo would be widened and Chia would be extended. Also, drainage from the south side of Portola (extended) would cut off and divert to Deep Canyon Channel. He stated that for normal rainfall sufficient drainage is being provided. Mr. Housley noted that he had met with the people from Silver Spur and that the plans had been modified. A. T. WILKES, Architect for the project, addressed the Commission noting various points about the careful planning of the channeling of the water, which would only benefit adjacent homes; original zoning as stated in the Riverside County General Plan is 3-5 units per acre; the proposal is less dense than the R-1 next to the project; he does not feel that Silver Spur will be affected by any additional traffic; the tennis courts will be adjacent to present tennis courts and they will be recessed plus low glare lights will be used; lots were placed carefully with regard to the view and sun control; and, project will bring about money for flood control. Minutes Palm Desert Planning May 30, 1978 Commission VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont.) A. Case Nos. C/Z 02-78 and Related Draft EIR Page Four (font.) Commissioner Kryder asked if there was an outlet from the project onto Mesa View. Mr. Williams stated no. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder declared the Public Hear- I ing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Kryder stated that it is a well thought out development and that the project is a good one for the area. He then noted that the drainage and flood control is his main concern ,,q that he wants more time to study the draft EIR. i'R7; ,:Commissioner Kelly stated that the increase in density, drain- ale-a'nd fire protection are her concerns and she would like more Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder regiested that Staff make certain determinations with regard to the land down stream and the traffic problem. Commissioner Kelly asked for further study to be done on the traffic situation. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, the cases were continued to July 5, 1978 for further study; carried unanimously (3-0). Mr. Housley asked what was to be done now. Mr. Williams stated that Staff is to address the City's responsibilities with regard to drainage and also Staff will provide more information on traffic and access. Temporary Presiding Officer Snyder noted that the Planning Commission needs additional input from Staff, the applicant gave a fine presentation. B. Case Nos. DP 09-78 and 126MF - CHACAHUALA, LTD., Applicant Mr. Williams noted that these cases had been reviewed with the related Case No. C/Z 02-78 and that they should be continued to the meeting of July 5, 1978. On a motion by Commissioner Kryder seconded by Commissioner Kelly the cases were continued; carried unanimously (3-0). C. Case Nos. DP 05-78 and 117MF - TERRA INDUSTRIES, Applicant Request for approval of a Development Plan and Pre- liminary Design Review for a 200-unit condominium project to be located on approximately 33 acres at +h. nni-+hmo-- n----- -P n,, 4. --A AA+U G tf`,1�7 o wn im)cto=c�r20fa 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALI FORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-06I1 May 30, 1978 Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President Silver Spur Ranchers Association P. O. Box 680 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Griggs: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 19, 1978, regarding the draft environmental impact report on the "Chaca- huala" project. While we appreciate the time you and your Association have taken in the review of this document, we note in general, that your letter does not appear to address specific environmental issues for consideration or further analysis prior to action, but rather registers the Association's objection to the overall development. You should be aware that the purpose of the EIR is to provide the decision -making body with adverse and beneficial environmental impact information regarding a proposed project. The City has taken the position that the environmental issues associated with the "Chacahuala" project have been fully addressed in the draft EIR. If the Association is opposed to this project, such objections should be raised at the public hearing. Please be assured, however, that a copy of your letter has been included in the final EIR as well as presented to the Planning Commission for their conside- ration at the public hearing. In general we would agree with the concept expressed in your let- ter regarding environmental impacts associated with the develop- ment of any vacant land. Such impacts, however, were considered when the City adopted its General Plan. Accordingly, development of the property is not an issue, but rather the type of development to occur. With this in mind we would again refer to the intent of an EIR which is not to justify the type of development, but to pro- vide information and address potential impacts of a proposed develop- ment project. -z- We trust the foregoing information will be helpful to you and we appreciate receiving your comments. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Paul A. Williams, A.I.P. Director of Environmental Services rk/pw/ks GNa f1jr o:ff IT)�I1nyza 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE May 31, 1978 APPLICANT CHACAHUALA LTD. % I. Harold Housley 73-700 Highway 111, Suite #8 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CASE NO.: C/Z 02-78, DP 09-78, 126MF and Related Draft EIR The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of May 30, 1978 . XX CONTINUED TO July 5, 1978 DENIED APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION. PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR PUBLIC HEARING. .ny appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Environmental ,Services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. PALL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSSION cc: Applicant C.V.C.W.D. File May 30, 1978 Mr. Fred W. Griggs, Jr. President Silver Spur Ranchers Association P. O. Box 680 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Griggs: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 19, 1978, regarding the draft environmental impact report on the "Chaca- huala" project. While we appreciate the time you and your Association have taken in the review of this document, we note in general, that your letter does not appear to address specific environmental issues for consideration or further analysis prior to action, but rather registers the Association's objection to the overall development. You should be aware that the purpose of the EIR is to provide the decision -making body with adverse and beneficial environmental impact information regarding a proposed project. The City has taken the position that the environmental issues associated with the "Chacahuala" project have been fully addressed in the draft EIR. If the Association is opposed to this project, such objections should be raised at the public hearing. Please be assured, however, that a copy of your letter has been included in the final EIR as well as presented to the Planning Commission for their conside- ration at the public hearing. In general we would agree with the concept expressed in your let- ter regarding environmental impacts associated with the develop- ment of any vacant land. Such impacts, however, were considered when the City adopted its General Plan. Accordingly, development of the prc_vrty is not an issue, but rather the type of development to occur. With this in mind we would again refer to the intent of an EIR which is not to justify the type of development, but to pro- vide information and address potential impacts of a proposed develop- ment project. -2- We trust the foregoing information will be helpful to you and we appreciate receiving your comments. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. y truly yours, Paul A. Williams, A.I.P. Director of Environmental Services rk/pw/ks PROOF OF PUBLICAYION This spa« is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIAl ss. County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above Proof of Publication of entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of PALM DESERT POST, a newspaper of general circu- CITY OF PALM DESERT lation, published weekly, in Palm Desert, County of ------ -- ---- ------------- ----- - -- --------------------- Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudged CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Request for approval of a change of zone Court of the County of Riverside, State of Cal° 9p�QQ� 1° �8b2S moo- under date of October 5, 1964, Case Number '� Sic}^� \i i h r' e 6666 Qco -- I \J. 7IL that the notice, of which the annexed is a printer ; 7�� oho Iq ld\ \ a t has been published in each regular and entire is ° zzzz fg=o 1 I I I � r n said newspaper and not in any supplement they v aaaa oo�E the following dates to -wit: E N BEc dg _tad 0 1 gg X0.0 §111XQL-180. ji = a - °zzzzzac. � do 0 I certify (or declare) under penalty or perjury tl foregoing is true and correct. - -------------- Signature Date-NaY---14 i -497-8 at Palm Desert, California May 8, 1978 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 20,000 TO PR-4 ON A 37.8 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF LITTLE BEND AND NORTH OF MESA VIEW EXTENDED BETWEEN ALAMO AND ARROW TRAIL. CASE NO. C/Z 02-78 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by CHACAHUALA, LTD., for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, min. 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, max. 4 du/acre) zone on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail, more particularly described as: APN 631-170-001 APN 631-170-002 APN 631-170-003 APN 631-170-004 APN 631-170-005 p� T Z � a � J W Q 0 W Q 2Q Q m'J APN 631-170-006 APN 631-170-007 APN 631-170-008 APN 631-170-009 E E'E .,Rt If �iio I NO ©NBC F AVENUE 10. Continuation of previous pages 2. The condominium type of development permits a much less rigid street layout and provides large Areas of park -like landscaped land which are fully maintained ty the project. It is designed with a non -rectilinear pattern. A standard single -lot develop- ment would not offer either of these advantages. In addition, the water run-off is about 10% less for the condominium than for a standard tract; (See the EIR, pg. 17). 3. The rezoning to Planned Residential designation permits much closer control by the city than the R-1 does, and it also permits better design in relation to the drainage channel than a tract of individual lots would. Lim c :ff .LFn_= 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No.: Project: Change of Zone Applicant: Chacahuala, Ltd. Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a Change of Zone from R-1 20,000 (Single-family residential, minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot size) zone to PR-4 (Planned Residential, maximum 4 du/acre) zone on a 37.8 acre parcel located south of Little Bend and north of Mesa View extended between Alamo and Arrow Trail. The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval. The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc.) Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. May 19 , 1978, in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of May 24th The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services, City Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVCWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission 'through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com- mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid- eration. Very truly yours, Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services PAW/ks PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS V CIRCULATION LIST FOR ALL CASES Circulation of Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps, CUP's, GPA's, etc: REVIEW COMMITTEE: (A. Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams L/2. Palm Desert Director of Building & Safety - Jim Hill 3.j Palm Desert Director of Public Works - L. Clyde Beebe 4. Palm Desert Fire Marshall - Bud Engel 5. Robert P. Brock Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor Administration Office Building, Room 313 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext 267) 6. Lloyd Rogers Supervisor - Riverside County Health Department County Administration Building, RoomWC 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext 287) 7. Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager - Chief Engineer Coachella Valley County Water District (C.V.C.W.D.) P. 0. Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 (Phone: (714) 398-2651) 8. R. J. Lowry Project Development Services California Department of Transportation P. 0. Box 231 San Bernardino, California 92403 (Phone: (714) 383-4671) 9. _ Director of Planning and Building City of Indian Wells 45-300 Club Drive Indian Wells, California 92260 10. Director of Planning City of Rancho Mirage 69-825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 11. Kermit Martin Southern California Edison Company / P. 0. Box 203 Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 345-2831) (Phone: 328-8871) (Phone: 346-8660) 12. Chuck Morris Circulation List for All Cases Page Two 14. Roger Harlow Director - Pupil Personnel Service Desert Sands Unified School District 83-049 Avenue 46 Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-4071) 15. Jim Langdon Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc. 36-711 Cathedral Canyon Drive P. 0. Drawer LL Cathedral City, California 92234 (Phone: 328-2585 or 328-4687) 16. Stanley Sayles President, Palm Desert Community Services District 44-500 Portola Avenue Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6338) 17. Regional Water Quality Control Board 73.-271 Highway 111, Suite 21 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (Phone: ) 18. Harold Horsley Foreman/Mails U. S. Post Office Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-3864) 19. Joe Benes Vice President & General Manager Coachella Valley Television P. 0. Box 368 Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8157) 20. Don McNeely President - Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce P. 0. Box 908 Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6111) 21. Scott McClellan, Senior Planner Riverside County Planning Commission County Administration Building, Room 304 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 22. James Whitehead Superintendent - District 6 State Parks and Recreation 1350 Front Street, Room 6054 San Diego, California 92101 347-8511, ext. 277, 278, & 279) (Phone: (714) 236-7411) 23. Les Pricer Redevelopment Agency 73-677 Highway 111 r��2�15 �1y�Cs�S��S�O LS�I ) OOMW ***CHANGE OF ZONE*** DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION Chacahuala. Ltd. Applicant ( please win') 10677 W. Pico Blvd. Mailing Address el California City State REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested) 475-5550 474-7979 476.3845 Telephone Change zoning on property described below from R-1, 20,000 to PR-4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: NW ; of sect. 32, T 5-s R 6 E FO - See Attached Legal ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. EXISTING ZONING R-1. 20,000 Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY IZATION FOR THE FILING OF TKtS ADM THE OWNER IS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR - AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIET RELATIVE TO ANY HEED RESTRICTIONS. I DO BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES- �� T S THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. a J -- SIGNA OF DATE Applicants Signature (FOR STAFF USE ONLY) SKIIRONMENTAL STATUS ❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No. ❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION n DTHFR DATE ACCEPTED BY CASE No. az - 79 �n a MF Supporting Data: 1. Name of Applicant Chacahuala Ltd 2. This request is made for property described as: See le 1 tt ched Exact legal description 3 4 V Total area of site: more than 1 zone req Existing Zoning: 1-1 11 000 ma attached describe here or attach map Proposed Zoning: Planned Residential devf describe here or attach map 6. Assessor's Parcel No.: 631170001-9 , give eac units/acre 7. The property is located at S. street a-J�esn View (extended) ddress between and street Trail street 8. The present use of the property is Vacant except for one old house on N 'A. corner 9. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential D to 5 dwelling units per acre 10. The applicant offers the following reasons to justify the request for a Change of Zone 1.A t a density of 1 unit per 12,900 sq . ft., the proposed project is corn- _ patible with the surrounding developmentse me evelopment of 4-5 ,000 sq. ft. is per acre (Approx. for development at 1/10,000. d On the south, it is bounded by the Ironwood nnr party, now working on an addition to be placed in this area with a density of approximate- ly 5 units per acre The proposed Cha nhinln n oject will result in y dancity of nnrOximate- ly 3.38 units per acre, density less than any of the surrounding deve. lopments. -11. The applicant shah submit a minimum of twelve (12) accurate scale drawings of the site (one colored) and the surrounding area showing: - existing streets and property lines - existing structures - access and utility easements - topographic contours at intervals of not more than two (2) feet. 12. The applicant shall submit a list of all owners of property located within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. The list shall be keyed to a map showing the location of these properties and shall include the name and address as shown on the latest available assessment role of the Riverside County Assessor's Office. 13. The applicant shall submit a completed Environmental Assessment form. 14. The applicant shall provide such additional information as the Director of Environmental Services may require to determine whether the granting of a Change of Zone would endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. The application may be filed only by the owner of said property and shall be signed by the owner or by a person with a Power of Attorney, in writing (attached) from the owner authorizing the application or by the Attorney -at -Law for the owner. Indicate your authority below: I am the owner of said property. J I am the agent for the owner of said property (attach written authorization). I have a Power of Attorney from the owner authorizing the application J -1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at ° this J= day of J AIV �A 19 PA%E 3 OP-=. Pi^. RIV-15::7417-E Dn'S-'!.l Iopl: I;r t`ra City of Pa1:a Desert, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows - ,The ;;ortr est quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 5 South, Dance 6 East, Sven Bernardino Base Ind ?'eridian; mC:.PTING therefrom that Portion described as follows: Cn1LY'21CI:IG at the Plorthwest corner of said Section 32; T.Y ':CE' South 1° 24' 30" mast, along the Nest line of said Section 32, 161.70 feet to a point in the West Sine of said Section 32, this point beinv also the ...PZ E POINT OF REGMI!lryr,; Eostarly and at right angles to the West line of said Section 32, 'lord: 33° 35' 30" Past, 100 feet; 7MI10E Southerly and Parallel to the nest line of said Section 32, South i° 2%' 30" 2,i 100 f^et; :.7E:SCE westerly ,South SE° 35' 30" N'ost, 100 fret, to a point in the West line of said Section 32; ',Ifr3Ca' INbrtherly and along the Nesterly line of said Section 32, 100 feet, more or less, to the �'RU7POINT OF PL'rIPo^:17NG; ALSO F; CZPT2:1G therefrom that portion described as follows: at tie Southwest corner of said ;Nrtheest quarter of the morthw. st quarter; ^WEliCa :dorm 0° 03' 00" west, along the best line thereof, a distance of 309.65 f•3et to the South line of that certain 190 foot square parcel belonging to the Coachella Valley County rater District locally referred to as the "twin reservoir" site; TF—mCE North 39. 52' 00" East, alonq the South line of said parcel, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Soutieast corner thereof; :forth 00 OS' 00" vest, along the Fast line of said parcel, a eistance of IOo.00 feet to the Northeast corner thereof; :PI!F:ICE :;orth 39° 52' 00" East, a distance of 100.00 feet; ,'!C;10E Sout, o° 03' 00" Sast, a distance of 469.65 feet to tho South 'i .ne of .raid :!ortis,,est quarter of the 'iortheast quarter; :!CE South 390 52' 00" :vest, along said South line a distance of '9n."o .*"set to the Point of Beginning. x A 1 A ': o:'c . "eneral and Special ^print!: taxes for the fiscal year 2976-77, as set ont b^brc, have been PAID 13 FP_TZ: Plat att.:c::%l/yjc- I MIiNIP �CIRCI)� i VR'�J • 11 P. R-3 ... A'( S T A N— ----Tr-T-10 000 R-1 R-1 1313 OOP 3,560 R-1 10,000 _ J x-,- - / R-1 13,000 ` 1 j4066 l R-1 13,00 k„aA 3osti_ •7 7d> R-1 - 10 , 000 ` e R-1 10,000 R-1 10,000 `� R-2 61000 --------��, % - I =� 1 10,000 /"R-1 10,000 ht �e / / ti1 i 20000.- U ' r /R I 10,000 @ p.R-- 5 R-I 20,000 i 1OL l-FHIL - M �- (C.U.p.1367) (' P.R. - -7 (C.U.P.1382) P.R.-7(C.U.P.-1382) o`` _ �1 ,-1 al ••`1 III w. AGE AIL) R-1 20.000 T DISTR;r-S 3EWAY FLOOD PLAINS, �JURSE HAZARD AL FACTORS rnn nc•.w nd.cuT ADDITIVAL DISTRICT IA, R-E, R-I E SYV"t$ q-)) THE MINIMUM • WHERE NO SUFFIX ARE SHOMN AFTER THE BASE RESIDENTI IN THE ZORIN6 ORDINANCE SHALL APPLY, R-DI STANDARDS q IDENTIpL DISTRICT (A R-E,R-I,R-2 B -ATE E BASE ES g0,000 RESIDENTIAL ES -TNE NUMERICAL SUFFIX AFTER THE PERM:TTEO I .., R-E- IND'CATES THE MINIMUM LOT 512E •0 OOO S0. FT MINIMUM LOT SIZE. WHEN AFFIXED TO THE R-2 end 11-3 DI(�YIIT SRESIDENTgAI IN 9PICXE TS MULTIPLE -THE NUMERICAL SU FTIX 1 ., P. 0..- T WETS NO UNIT, I.•. R-3-12.000EA PER DWELUNS UNIT. M SITE AREA PER SIZE, 4.000 SO.FY. OF LAND AREA THEm NIMU MINIMUM LOTTY PER ACRE, q0. F7. _-... ..,.� ,u n2ATE5 THE DEN 51 IW V, W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1p.j %6. WF 15, . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 29': :1 A 40'.?f 7.1 -17 7,17. k�i 4 �1. Nt, x Rx"Ap YAP G �w IW A I M, ".-I PqyptA ;kl M.- 'coo on �.Z 0�. k 0 1�� . j- 'Ok A. lv� -OWN 10-1 � !I1C S j01; WAY T Wei i i 17 w, a W 00 .. T .... P"JA Up, "?_ in V ic- 2L wo nw K z, 71 o 4:4 An lot All -11Try i AEI 7q 1"W I, e LOY, Qwt ff }wn M "Q ",Qa 4 .9 I610W Ait t 'To? Nil ; A!, - 25 Zr, t4 THIS ?AArr.IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS, NOT A PAIIT OF THIS iontliobkNck Find,Co Tit tirimcc IA rrica'h CC ym, rounrCcntn armct, sm4, C^L,P.RmW January 20, 1973 I. Harold Housley Consulting Engineers 73-700 Highway 111, Ste. 8 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Re: Your Project No. 7734-G Chacahuala Development Dear Mr. Housley: As you know, we are planning to develop a 140 unit single family project on the 40 acre parcel located on the south- east corner of Alamo and Homestead. You are hereby authorized to act as my agent in connection with the planning, processing and development of our pro- posed project. This authorization includes the signing and processing of documents in connection with the environmental application, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, zoning and related matters. very truly yours, Leonard Greenberg. `�� General Partner LG:1sp CC: Paul Williams, City of Palm Desert