Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFRANK SINATRA DRIVE/MONTEREY AVENUE C/Z 2162 1977JD.COUNTY REFERRAL CASE NO. CZ 2162 IRWIN S. SCHUMAN Applicant: Rec: Direct the Director of Environmental Services to forward the letter regarding the request to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL To Enter Into A Lease Agreement for Data Processing Equipment with Datapoint Corporation. Rec: Approve the Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. F. REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CONTRACT 1011, Flood Damage Repairs in Conjunction with FDAA. Rec: 1) Accept the work as complete on behalf of the City. 2) Instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. 3) Instruct the City Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed. G. REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CONTRACT NO. 1006, Storm Drain Improvement on Catalina Way and San Pasqual Avenue and Street Improvement Project on Catalina Way. Rec: 1) Accept the work as complete on behalf of the City. 2) Instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. 3) Instruct the City Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed. H. REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CONTRACT NO. 1012, Maintenance and Repair of Various Streets. Rec: 1) Accept the work as complete on behalf of the City. 2) Instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion. 3) Instruct the City Clerk to release the bonds 35 days after the Notice of Completion has been filed. I. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of 30-Day Bond Extension for Tract No. 11215-1, Portola Country Club. Rec: Approve the request for a maximum of 30 days. Councilman Wilson asked the Clerk to note two corrections on Page 4, Section X,E, of the Minutes. Correction noted was that it was the RalpH M. Brown Act, and the California Public Records Act. Councilman Brush requested that Item D be removed from the Con- sent Calendar for discussion under Section X of the Agenda. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson questioned Staff's ability to under- take a study of the adequacy of the Palm Desert schools, indicating that this was a function of the members of the School Board. Councilman Brush agreed stating that he could not see Staff getting into something that they have no con- trol over. Councilman Wilson disagreed in that it very directly relates to planning and future growth, thus an integral part of the City's overview of exactly where we are going. Council- man Newbrander agreed. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-37. Motion carried unani- mously with the members present. D. RESOLUTION NO. 78-38 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS TO VACATE PORTOLA AVENUE FROM QUERCUS LANE, WEST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PART 3, DIVISION 9, OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, AND FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN OR OBJECTING TO PROPOSED VACATION. Mr. Bouman stated that this was the initiation of proceedings to vacate property received about two months ago as part of Tract 5565, Ironwood. Part of the hearing to be held on May 11, 1978, will be to determine whether Portola should be public or private. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-38. Motion carried unanimously with the members present. IX. ORDINANCES For Introduction: None For Adoption: None X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER D. COUNTY REFERRAL CASKNO. CZ 2162 IRkYIN S. SCHUMAN, AnDlicant: Councilman Brush state d requested discussion on this matter as it has had a long history with the City. It is a 960 unit development which we first learned about through an article in the newspaper. Because of a shortened appeal period, Council directed Staff to attend the hearings then to voice our objections. These objections resulted in an E.I.R. being required. This E.I.R. required 19 adverse impacts. Since then, the County Planning Commission has made no attempt to mitigate these impacts and has approved it, sending it on for the Board of Supervisors to approve. It is a premature, leapfrog development, and to approve such a project is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst. The City of Palm Desert will Dav for it with remH ramant Councilman Brush moved to instruct the Staff to request in writing the denial of this project and to attend the Board of Super- visors hearing to request denial of this project. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion; carried unanimously with the members present. Councilman Brush again inquired as to whether or not the Council could not request the County to consider the possibility of entering into an agreement whereby the City could approve all plans within their own Sphere, collect all fees, and conduct all building inspections. Mr. Williams indicated that he had a complete file of information on such agreements and would be most happy to present them to the County for their consideration. Councilman Brush moved to direct the City Staff to formally put in writing the points made at the Council meeting and forward them to the County Board of Supervisors, requesting the Board to place the matter on an Agenda for their consideration. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion; carried unanimously with the members present. XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT For Tract No. 8237E Mr. Beebe reported that this tract is located between Deep Canyon Road and the City's Community Park. It is one of the few and possibly the first subdivisions in the Palm Desert boundaries that has a complete street lighting system being installed. In Staff's opinion, the energy costs for this tract should be borne by the people therein. By the formation of this district, it will enable the cost to be collected on the tax bill by the County for this area. The cost includes the maintenance of these street lights as well as the energy costs. It is recommended that the system not be energized until approximately 50% of the homes are occupied. Dave Erwin pointed out that the date of the hearing noted in the resolution should be May 11, 1978, at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Newbander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 78-39; motion carried unanimously with the members present. XIII. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Real Estate Deeds Presented to the City of Palm Desert by Silver Spur Associates, Comprising Acreage on Which the Proposed South Side Fire Station and the Extension of Mesa View Drive. Mr. Williams reported that the deeds and agreement were prepared upon instruction from Council. However, it has been learned that the property is encumbered and cannot be released until July 1st of this year. Therefore, it is Staff's recommendation to continue the matter to the 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (T14) 346-0611 April 14, 1978 Honorable Chairman & Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Gentlemen: Subject: C/Z 2162 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, at its meeting of April 13, 1978, reviewed the Change of Zone No. 2162, Irwin S. Shuman, Applicant. By unanimous action, the Council directed me to write this letter of opposition to the request. Our opposition is based upon the following: 1) The property in question is at least one mile from the nearest existing public street, and, therefore, the request is very premature. 2) The property is located in one of the severest blowsand areas of the Valley. 3) The requested zoning mitigates few, if any, of the numerous environmental concerns that relate to the property. 4) The property lies within our Sphere of Influence and can be presumed to some day be part of our city. In that regard, a basic problem relates to timing. The contemplated project will create demands for public services which simply cannot be properly met at this time. The Council concluded that the request is premature and could lead to additional premature development in the area. Therefore, we recommend to your Board that the change of zone be denied, at least for a year or two. Continued........../ Board of Supervisors County of Riverside -------------------------------------- Page 2 April 14, 1978 --------------------------------------- We appreciate the opportunity to review the rezoning request and hope that our concerns will be considered in your deliberation on this matter. Very truly yours, JAMES E. McPHERSON MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE JEM/srg 'CU:ft:aU?' off Il r 11-- \ 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 April 14, 1978 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Riverside County Administrative Building 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Gentlemen: Subject: C/Z 2162 By virtue of this letter, I do hereby authorize Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services, to speak for the Palm Desert City Council on the subject change of zone before the Board of Supervisors. Very truly yours, JAMES E. McPHERSON MAYOR PRO-TEMPORE JEM/srg dw G � j o:ff :! 1nn na c�rc�f 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 October 20, 1977 Planning Director County of Riverside County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, Ca. 92501 Re: Palm Desert Planning Commission review of County Referral Case No. 2162 Dear Sir: As requested the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert at their regular meeting of October 19th, did review the request for change of zone noted on Case No. 2162 which is a change of zone from W-2-20 to R-1-12,000 on a 320 acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive extended and Monterey Drive extended. By a unanimous minute motion they did direct me to notify you that said rezoning is in conformance with the City's adopted General Plan and Land Use Map and assuming that the matter of ade- quacy as to the environmental impacts of said project can be determined, said rezoning appears appropriate at this location. I wish to thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this matter and hope that these comments will be of use to the Commission. Very truly yours, Paul A. Williams, Secretary Palm Desert Commission c: County Referral file R. Cipriani PAW/ks 'Lw RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 40SU LEMON STREET NINTH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 October 6, 1977 TO: DEPT. OF BUILDING AND SAFETY COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DEFT. OF FIRE PROTECTION �N ENV RONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION NING DIRECTOR, CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY ROAD DEPT. WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NO. 7 PLANNING DIRECTOR, CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE USDA, SOIL CONSERVATION RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF°S DEPT. ADVANCE PLANNING, PLANNING DEPT. SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 2162 W-2-20 to R-1-12,000 (EA 4883) Irwin Schuman c/o Riviera Hotel 1600 No. Indian Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92262 CATHEDRAL. CITY - PALM DESERT DISTRICT Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to OCTOBER 20, 1977 so that they &my be included in our STAFF REPORT regarding this item. RELATED FILES: C/Zone 1619 COMMENTS: DATE: SIGNED: The public hearing on this matter will be held on NDVEMBER 2, 1977 should you wish to be present. (RETURN ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT, COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER, 4080 LEMON STREET, NINTH FLOOR, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501) PD-76-21 .TT.A e a I I P I I 4F �J Avg:, _ _P OLONGATION_ OF - - F >I 1AC. PQ j PQ M 1.0 2649.77' ; I i. �r f I _CO�NTR_YC�UB�-t_-__ _-DFt 1--- - App. IRWIN SCHUMAN Use W-2-20 TO R-1-12,000 0 Dist. CC-PD Area W^^ Sec. 32 T 4 S.,R 6E Assessor's Bk.653 Pg.360 CATHEDf RANG KRA( Circulation MONTEREY AVE. SEC. 881 R/W Element FRANK SINATRA MAJ. 100' R / W Rd. Bk. Pg. 107 Dote 1-26-77 Drawn By o��nc 1 �lv mrry iN AmAllA/(,' nFPARTMENT j= Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Six Commissioner Snyder moved that the Planning Commission approve Reso- lution No. 250, granting the extension of time for one year and the Variance for the setback requirements for said property.. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0). Mrs. Johnson asked if the extension would be for one year from today's date. Mr. Williams answered yes. VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF INDIO GENERAL PLAN. Mr. Williams stated that the City of Indio is.presently revising their general plan which was adopted in 1965. The document received by the City of Palm Desert is the draft EIR for the new Land Use Element. Further, the draft EIR provides a summary of the general land use im- pacts that would result from adoption of the new element, which is broken down into a short-range and a long-range plan. The staff's only comment regarding the EIR is that there is some confusion re- garding the goals and the impact of the land use plan. Therefore, staff was recommending that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, direct staff to forward its comments to the City of Indio for inclusion in the final EIR. Said draft letter containing the comments was in- cluded in the Commissioner's packets for this meeting. Commissioner Snyder commented that the draft letter was very well done. Commissioner Reading moved that the Commission direct staff to forward their comments to the City of Indio. Commissioner Kryder seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0). COUNTY CASE N0. EIR-64 Consideration of Staff Comments on County Referral - Palm Isles Draft EIR Mr. Williams gave a brief background on this project. He explained that the City had been requested to comment on the draft EIR for a Change of 7..w.. v.n..nr +n k. ;IA a OC.n_uni+ rnnrinmininm nrniart which Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission June 14, 1977 Page Seven There was a short discussion pertaining to endangered species of wild- life. Chairman Berkey asked that the following sentence be deleted from the staff comments: "411, page 55 - An example of this phenomenon can be seen at Del Safari where Cook Street was constructed along the west side of the project in a manner similar to that being proposed for Palm Isles." His reason for asking for the deletion was that it was an inaccurate statement in that Cook Street is not adjacent to Del Safari and that Cook Street was there long before the Del Safari pro- ject came into existence. Staff agreed with the deletion. Commissioner Reading moved that th direct staff to forward their comments sion. Commissioner Snyder seconded the he could abstain from the matter due to man Berkey stated that this would have decision. The motion carried 4-0 with Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, o the Riverside County Planning Commis - motion. Commissioner Kryder asked if a possible conflict of interest. Chair- o be Commissioner Kryder's own personal he following vote: AYES: KELLY, READING, SNYDER, BERKEY NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: KRYDER C. COUNTY CASE NO. C/Z 2208 Consideration of County Referred Change of Zone from R-1-1 (Single - Family -One Acre Lot Minimum) to R-T on property located approximately 1,300 feet northerly of the intersection of Monterey Road and Country Club Drive. Mr. Williams presented a brief background pertaining to the request to the Commission. He then stated that staff was recommending that the Planning Commission direct staff to notify the Riverside County Planning Commission that the Change of Zone request is in conflict with the Palm Desert General Plan and that the proposed use may not be appropriate for the subject pro- perty. Staff's justification is based on the following: 1. Said site is within an area designated Open Space -County Park on the Palm Desert General Plan. 2. No specific park sites have been designated on the Cove Com- munities General Plan, while new development in this area is rapidly eliminating the most logical sites. Commissioner Reading moved that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, direct staff to notify the County that the change of zone request is in conflict with the Palm Desert General Plan. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried (5-0). 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 June 20, 1977 Mr. A. E. Newcomb, Planning Director Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Re: Change of Zone 2162, EIR Dear Mr. Newcomb: The environmental impact report for the Palm Isles project, Case No. C/Z 2162, has been reviewed by the Palm Desert Planning Com- mission at its regular meeting of June 14, 1977. The attached comments, approved by minute motion, are being forwarded to the Riverside County Planning Commission for discussion at the pub- lic hearing. These comments are directed toward the adequacy of the EIR itself and do not imply that the City of Palm Desert either favors or disapproves of the proposed project. Uer truly yours, ' Ca \", 1�" PAUL A. WILLIAMS, SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PAW/mj Attachment (as noted) PALM ISLES DRAFT EIR Comments 1. Page 7 - The configuration of Palm Desert Greens is incorrect. 2. Page 7 - The configuration of Del Safari is incorrect. 3. Page 8 - It is difficult to verify the open space calculations. 4. Page 9 - This is not in -fill development, but more akin to leap -frog development. The center of population in Palm Desert is 4 miles to the south and in Rancho Mirage 3 miles to the south- west. The EIR does not adequately present the differential quality of environmental concerns between previously developed projects and the site in question. Linear proximity is meaning- less where development conditions vary so greatly. 5. Page 20 - Fire Protection. There is no indication of.response time and whether this time meets current fire protection standards. 6. Page 21 - Streets. No provision appears to have been made for the eventual development of the extension of 36th Street along the north boundary of the project. 7. Page 21 - Electrical. Require undergrounding of all overhead utility lines on or adjacent to the site. 8. Page 28 - Geological Hazards. The site is located approximately 1 mile north of the South Pass Fault. The attached map of Seismic Response Zones, prepared by the ENVICOM Corporation as part of the environmental analysis for the Palm Desert General Plan, indicates the location of this fault. 9. Page 33 - Air Quality. The EIR should indicate amounts of various pollu- tants that would be generated by the project. Emission factors utilized by the Southern California Air Pollution Control District for 1980 include the following amounts in grams per mile: CO NO SOx Particulates Hydrocarbons 16.8 1.9 0.1 0.3 1.1 Trip length figures should reflect greater distances of travel due to outlying location of project site. 10. Page 36 - Noise. The EIR should indicate noise contour levels for the project site and whether it is within the landing or take -off corridor of air traffic from Palm Springs or Bermuda Dunes. 11. Page 55 - Proposed treatment of blowsand. The establishment of irrigated windbreaks along the north and west boundaries of the subject property deals only partially with the problem. These wind- breaks will not stabilize blowsand up -wind of the project. Some of it will merely be shifted around the project (possibly towards Palm Desert Greens) and some will form large deposits to the wpst of the nrniart_ A rnnrpnt rnntainpd in the Palm Comments (continued) 12. Page 59 - Both the Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma micalli) and the Kit Fox are now quite rare in the Coachella Valley. The EIR should discuss in more detail how destruction of these speties in the Coachella Valley will affect the food chain and populations of insects, reptiles, and other mammals. 13. Page 65 - The College of the Desert is 2k miles south of the subject site. 14. Page 67 - Development of Monterey Avenue from Country Club Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive has not been officially approved by Rancho Mirage One obvious obstacle is the fact that this area is not even with- in the Rancho Mirage city boundaries. Thus at the present time, there is only one difinite access road to the project. Vista Dunes Road does not extend through to Frank Sinatra Drive and would make a questionable emergency access route. 15. Page 69 - The EIR does not discuss energy conservation measures as required by CEQA. The state guidelines require "particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary con- sumption of energy". The EIR should include an anlaysis of life- time energy costs for the overall project comparing conventional and alternative energy sources. No mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption are mentioned. 16. Page 86 - Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Project Is Implemented. Add the following: increased traffic will create higher levels of air pollution - humidity levels will rise due to landscaping associated with the project - views of the night sky will be reduced - increased cost of street maintenance. 17. Page 91 - No Project. There is no requirement for compensation if the project is denied on the basis of its cumulative environmental impacts. Such a denial would be within the right of the County in exercising its police power for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare and does therefore not require compensation. 18. Page 91 - Long -Term vs. Short -Term Impacts. This section is totally inadequate in meeting the requirements of the state guidelines. Specifically, the author does not address the question of why the project is justifie now, rather than at a future time. This is a very crucial question since the applicant is asking to extend development into new areas, long before existing open space areas closer to the established ur- banized area have been developed. 19. Page 92 - Growth Inducing Impact. By extending several major arterial roads past large open space areas to reach the site, this project will enable a great deal of additional growth to take place. With the sale of the last lot in Palm Desert Greens, this area will see much more demand for new development, with Palm Isles only the first. Property leeward pf existing projects in the blowsand area will Alen hava n mush hinhar nntantial fnr daValnnmant_ Additinnal in- CITY of PALM DESERT STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Subject: Comments on Palm Isles Drive EIR Applicant: Riverside County Planning Department for Irwin Schuman Case No.: C/Z 2162 I. REQUEST: The Riverside County Planning Department is circulating the draft environ- mental impact report (EIR) for a proposed Change of Zone request on 320 acres of land in the blowsand area north of Country Club Drive to concerned agencies for comments. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, direct the staff to forward the attached comments to the Riverside County Planning Department. III. BACKGROUND: A. Description: West 2 of Section 32, T4S, R6E, SBB & M B. Location: North of Frank Sinatra Drive extended and east of Monterey Avenue extended. The project is directly north of the Palm Desert Greens property. C. Size: 323 acres (gross) D. Number of Units: 960 condominium units E. Density: 3 dwelling units per gross acre F. General Plan: Open Space and Planned Development (0-3 dwelling units per acre). G. Zoning: The property is presently zoned W-2-20 (Limited Development, Minimum Lot Size 20 Acres). The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone for the entire parcel to R-1-12,000. H. Utilities: General Telephone - lines on the site. Coachella Valley County Water District (water and sewer) -well on site. Southern California Gas - extend main 2,660 feet from Monterey and Country Club to the site. Imperial Irrigation District/electric - lines on the site. Riverside County Sheriff's Department Palm Springs Unified School District T Arrpcc• Tho annlirant will hp rpnuirpd to pxtpnd Frank cinatra Drivp Palm Desert Planning Commission Staff Report County Case No. C/Z 2162 Page Two IV. DISCUSSION (continued) In addition to these elements, the EIR does not adequately address the costs and benefits of continued development of large residential projects in a severe blowsand area or whether such leap -frog development (regardless of the blowsand issue) should be continued. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, direct the staff to forward the attached comments to the Riverside County Planning Commission for consideration during their review of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. PALM ISLES DRAFT EIR fnmmantc 1. Page 7 - The configuration of Palm Desert Greens is incorrect. 2. Page 7 - The configuration of Del Safari is incorrect. 3. Page 8 - It is difficult to verify the open space calculations. 4. Page 9 - This is not in -fill development, but more akin to leap -frog development. The center of population in Palm Desert is 4 miles to the south and in Rancho Mirage 3 miles to the south- west. The EIR does not adequately present the differential quality of environmental concerns between previously developed projects and the site in question. Linear proximity is meaning- less where development conditions vary so greatly. 5. Page 20 - Fire Protection. There is no indication of response time and whether this time meets current fire protection standards. 6. Page 21 - Streets. No provision appears to have been made for the eventual development of the extension of 36th Street along the north boundary of the project. 7. Page 21 - Electrical. Require undergrounding of all overhead utility lines on or adjacent to the site. 8. Page 28 - Geological Hazards. The site is located approximately 1 mile north of the South Pass Fault. The attached map of Seismic Response Zones, prepared by the ENVICOM Corporation as part of the environmental analysis for the Palm Desert General Plan, indicates the location of this fault. 9. Page 33 - Air Quality. The EIR should indicate amounts of various pollu- tants that would be generated by the project. Emission factors utilized by the Southern California Air Pollution Control District for 1980 include the following amounts in grams per mile: CO NO SOS Particulates Hydrocarbons 16.8 1 0.1 0.3 1.1 Trip length figures should reflect greater distances of travel due to outlying location of project site. 10. Page 36 - Noise. The EIR should indicate noise contour levels for the project site and whether it is within the landing or take -off corridor of air traffic from Palm Springs or Bermuda Dunes. 11. Page 55 - Proposed treatment of blowsand. The establishment of irrigated windbreaks along the north and west boundaries of the subject property deals only partially with the problem. These wind- breaks will not stabilize blowsand up -wind of the project. Some of it will merely be shifted around the project (possibly towards Palm Desert Greens) and some will form large deposits to tho wcct of tho nrniart A rnnrant rnntainpd in the Palm Comments (continued) 12. Page 59 - Both the Flat -Tailed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma micalli) and the Kit Fox are now quite rare in the Coachella Valley. The EIR should discuss in more detail how destruction of these species in the Coachella Valley will affect the food chain and populations of insects, reptiles, and other mammals. 13. Page 65 - The College of the Desert is 22 miles south of the subject site. 14. Page 67 - Development of Monterey Avenue from Country Club Drive to Frank Sinatra Drive has not been officially approved by Rancho Mirage One obvious obstacle is the fact that this area is not even with- in the Rancho Mirage city boundaries. Thus at the present time, there is only one difinite access road to the project. Vista Dunes Road does not extend through to Frank Sinatra Drive and would make a questionable emergency access route. 15. Page 69 - The EIR does not discuss energy conservation measures as required by CEQA. The state guidelines require "particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary con- sumption of energy". The EIR should include an anlaysis of life- time energy costs for the overall project comparing conventional and alternative energy sources. No mitigation measures to reduce energy consumption are mentioned. 16. Page 86 - Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided If This Project Is Implemented. Add the following: - increased traffic will create higher levels of air pollution - humidity levels will rise due to landscaping associated with the project - views of the night sky will be reduced - increased cost of street maintenance. 17. Page 91 - No Project. There is no requirement for compensation if the project is denied on the basis of its cumulative environmental impacts. Such a denial would be within the right of the County in exercising its police power for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare and does therefore not require compensation. 18. Page 91 - Long -Term vs. Short -Term Impacts. This section is totally inadequate in meeting the requirements of the state guidelines. Specifically, the author does not address the question of why the project is justified now, rather than at a future time. This is a very crucial question since the applicant is asking to extend development into new areas, long before existing open space areas closer to the established ur- banized area have been developed. 19. Page 92 - Growth Inducing Impact. By extending several major arterial roads past large open space areas to reach the site, this project will enable a great deal of additional growth to take place. With the sale of the last lot in Palm Desert Greens, this area will see much more demand for new development, with Palm Isles only the first. Property leeward pf existing projects in the blowsand area will alsn have a much hiaher potential for development. Additional in- ♦ I .ill I FF `- ?'. ai �sx:. .,.ram a w •) Y ` I R _ �� ws q a - ._,'`a,y.4�y nut .,5 r 1 I FIGURE 6.34 SEISMIC RESPONSE ZONES w. Zone boundary and zone designation v ^ based on distance. A A Zone boundary and C zone designation C �. '•. _ based on rock or soil typc. L ti t 1A 3 T , f/ Fault (approximate) x (buried) C •_` I 1 Y - SOURCE ENVICON CYrYwalion J S NORTH ' � > dc�,..•••S 0 1 2 Miles 3 - '-.-n= • rr} WILSEY&HAM a/yam .. ..♦ '