HomeMy WebLinkAboutHIGHWAY 74 C/Z 04-79 1979byy
ZZ
O
h
q
O
14
--
O
V
D
� O
0
�
ro
A
{�
4
14
b
0
a
So
S
.lC1S.v � x
ik
yV f 2 33i .i Cii
a, O k At
4
938r17- 1
61
KiA-
Zt
ti S' BBo` �v
h o ,4�''Z�
� �W r
fo
ZZ
p414 (13
%�
k. ti 4 a
01 �
ifs• � ._n zr,� -4'' N
u ifsd • Aid.>r, 1Tj
s} y
o _ M
- - �— cif/. a7 N/ "oJt� i✓ � i Q
I
1
0
�y
c� ti
Za
y �
STgT� o�
�Io
r rG
�s 1�
STAGE'
4
/90,4p_
a-
/�\
V
ZZ
Ll
Z f o
� i
a
x
[N
GI
;A
3
�b
Z �
-vA �
0
i
u
C�
V
0 O
o ko
V y I U I
b V
10:0
•4 �
i s Y r4 !
00
/ tw
O
(b O o�
�n 4
A �
�l?1/7Z _-
ti vr' .rG
0
ti (tl =
0
a
r
Z
Z
-A
U
ti
0
N
95'
s O �
qr '
io 9'
:677-0i"
9i So
4i
� 8a
'dam,
iv8 37
w
� w
0
n
GI
M
a`
°s
0
O
a
b
V
0
0
r
m
M
FIJI
y
O
ti
4
o
�
O
ti
N
w
14
I
n
e
(D
t
CC: Planning G
Public Works
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
NOTICE OF ACTION
r
BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
APPLICANT:
Mr. Larry Spicer, President
Silver Spur Associates
49-200 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, California
REMARKS:
CASE:
jZ 4-79 DP 04-79
ACTION: X APPROVED CONTINUED
DENIED OTHER
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: McPherson, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: Newbrander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Brush
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order
made and entered in the City Council Minutes of June 2 8T 1979
DATED: July 2, 1979
SHEILA K. UILLY AN, C11Y Lvw, in and
for the City of Palm DeserW California
ORDINANCE NO. 208 A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107,
THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM
PR-1, D., S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, MAXIMUM 1 D.U./
AC., DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE OVERLAY,
SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-5, S.P. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION
OVERLAY); PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7,-D. TO PR-5, ON
PROPERTY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES AND
RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805 DWELLING
UNITS IN A COMBINATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, AND
TOWNHOUSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 74, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD
CONTROL DIKE, EXTENDING SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN CITY
LIMITS.
CASE 140S. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN, as follows:
Section 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing
Section 25.46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter
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
1 in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
1 Section 3: That a Development Plan for a total of 805
dwelling units on 179.5acres is hereby granted to Silver Spur Associates
subject to compliance with conditions, labeled Exhibit 'B'.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council
this 28th day of June 1979, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: McPherson, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: Newbrander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Brush
�I if
Al
'((C.U.P1357 P ^ �-�f„' P.R.-7i (C.U.P. 1382)
Q' Ij
,•r + o P.R.-7" \�0 1
lit
/
/ �'--_^-^•`` KIVLA AVENUE
PM-7 I P.R. -7 nue
S.P.
ii f+ I SILLS
1 /r
1 r•. R-3 4 ,560 (9) S.P.
t I R-1 0-,0
3Q C.Y.C.1!/D.. Stormwat`er Clyayt��
11�1 1 j
It y
g — P.R.-7, D
QQ II — TO
PR.- _ O.S.
P.R.-5 M 7, D
y P D
?06
TO P.
tL RR.-5 I f
? P.R:S� RR.-7, H
- 31 32
COUNTY OF RIVCR310
I
^
_1
�
1
ORDINANCE NO. 208A
EXHIBIT 'B'
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibit A (Case No. DP 04-79) on file with the Department of En-
vironmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by This approval, the ;or
shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval; otherwise, said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the
total project shall be completed by January 1, 1989. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property.
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of
construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing
to these Conditions of Approval.
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
1 7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable
1 antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are
adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed
underground as a part of development from the nearest existing
pole not on the property being developed.
8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of
the development of this project per attached letter dated April 17,1979
9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall
be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until completed.
10. Traffic control provisions and safety street lighting shall be
provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall
be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required
by the Director of Public Works.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
permits and/or clearance from the following agencies:
_ORDINANCE NO. 208 A
(( EXHIBIT tB
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Development of the project shall be subject to installation of
improvement to provide protection from a 100 year storm, as
approved by the Chief Engineer for the Coachella Valley County
Water District and the City Director of Public Works.
2. Project perimeter, except where it abuts other portions of Ironwood,
shall be enclosed by a masonry wall,with decorative masonry wall
along Highway 74, as approved through the Design Keview Board process.
3. Highway 74 frontage shall be developed with ornamental
landscaped mounding and eight (8) ft. wide meandering pedestrain/
bike path, with public access easement granted over areas
where the path meanders out of the public parkway.
4. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board
observing all PR zone standards, except as specified, to achieve
the following:
a. Revise circulation system to avoid the use of four-way
intersections wherever possible. Provide illustration of road
extension grid system for adjacent properties to the east.
b. Design of Townhouse motor courts shall be restudied to
resolve design deficiencies, minimize unnecessary paving,
and provide acceptable open parking alternatives.
c. Townhouse building groups shall be limited to six attached
units, with consideration given to increased use of four
unit buildings.
d. Distance separation between duplex buildings shall be
maintained at a minimum of ten (10) ft., at the closest point.
5. Provide a minimum of eight (8) vehicle stacking spaces at the
southern entrance to Portola, with turn -around area. Entrance
details to be approved through the Design Review Board process.
6. Provide turf lining and landscape treatment for existing flood
control channel, to be approved through the Design Review Board
process.
7. Provide minimum three (3) ft. high mounding along Highway 74,
northerly of existing channel.
`,
ORDINANCE NO. 208
i1 RIVEP.SICE COUNTY
TT vc
FIRE DEPARTMENT
tjeltl:°" l IN COOPERATION WITH THE
1•. •f.�lie in,'; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
�DAVID L. FLAKE
COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
April 17, 1979
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 04-79
Gentlemen:
710 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET
PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370
TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a Two (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall
be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply
main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways.. Not to exceed 500' spacing.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior survaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Case Number DP 04-79 is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required
water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
Very truly yours,
1 DAVID'L. FLAKE
/. 4VI. CONSENT CALE1 R (Continued) �IZ D 7c1
C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR MONTH OF MAY, 1979.
Rec: Receive and file.
D. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE By Joseph A.
and Valerie Pohatu Carrabus and Pearl N. Goldman for THE
LORD & LADY INN, 45-640 Highway 74, Palm Desert, California.
Rec: Receive and file.
E. LETTER OF APPRECIATION From the Palm Desert Youth Sports
Association, Inc., For The City's Support.
Rec: Receive and file.
F. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Letter Agreement with Clayson,
Rothroc & Mann, Attorneys at Law, For Special Legal
Services.
Rec: Approve the Agreement as presented.
G. RESOLUTION NO. 79-58 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS
FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF FILES FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES THAT HAVE BEEN MIRCO-
FILMED.
Rec: Waive further reading and adopt.
H. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF COMPLETION OF TRACT NO. 5277-1
Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete
and authorize the City Clerk to Release Bond
Nos. 241, 239, and 240.
Mr. Bouman noted that the recommendation in Item "H"
should specifically state Bond No. 239 in the amount
of $16,500 and Bond No. 239 in the amount of $33,000.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried unanimously
with the members present.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CASE NO(-. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79, SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-1, D., S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL,
MAX. 1 D.U./AC., DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN, 14ATERCOURSE
OVERLAY, SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-5 S.P. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY);
PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7, D. TO PR-5, ON PROPERTY CON-
TAINING APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES; AND, RELATED DEVELOP-
MENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805 DWELLING UNITS IN A COMBINATION
OF SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, AND TOWNHOUSES, ON APPROXIMATELY
179.5 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY
74, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL DIKE,
EXTENDING SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS. (CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 24. 1979.)
VII
PUBLIC HEARIixu� (Continued)
A. SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT (Continued):
Report.
2. The Water District believes that the installation of a
new dike complying to 100-year storm criteria would not
result in any more runoff to Indian Wells than if no dike
were built.
3. The dice was being installed in compliance with Federal
Flood Insurance criteria and was not a regional matter.
4. The Water District had given concept approval only to
the dike design. The Water District would like to see the
dike designed to withstand a 100-year storm.
5. The City of Indian Wells would like to prevent any more
building on the alluvial fan until 1-A modified plan is
implemented.
6. The City of Indian Wells would like Palm Desert to
increase the new construction tax to generate income
for implementation of the Bechtel Plan.
Mr. Williams stated that it
issue of the City of Indian
project before the Council.
elected this project as the
of the Bechtel Report. He
Plan implementation as set
concluded by reviewing the
fee on new development for
Bechtel Plan, pointing out
under consideration at this
cation of an increased new
because this fee is applied
was Staff's opinion that the real
[Jells has nothing to do with the
However, Staff felt they had
forum to focus on implementation
reveiwed the matter of the Bechtel
forth in the Staff Report. He
possibility of establishing a
the purpose of implementing the
that the approval of this project
time would not preclude the appli-
construction tax on the project
at the building permit stage.
Mayor Mullins invited input in FAVOR of the project, and the
following was offered.
Mr. Larry Spicer, President of Silver Spur Associates,
49-200 Mariposa Drive, Palm Desert, addressed Council
and relating information that their engineers had advised
them that the preliminary design of the dike is completed
and they are proceeding with construction plans which
should be ready for submittal to the Water District on
August 1st for their approval.
Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the project, and
the following was offered:
Mr. Prince Pierson, City Manager of the City of Indian Wells,
45-300 Club Drive, Indian Wells, addressed Council
reiterating their objections to the installation of the dike
as it would increase the runoff through their city. He
stated that they wished this project to be continued until
the Bechtel Plan could be implemented.
Mr. Walter Pearce, Councilman of the City of Indian Wells,
76-835 Roadrunner Drive. Indian Wells. addressed the Council
•VII. PUBLIC HEARI...3 (Continued)
A. SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT (Continued):
Councilman McPherson also pointed out that the dike existing
now is the same dike that failed in 1976 and caused so much
devastation in the City of Palm Desert. If this project
were denied, the City of Palm Desert would be left with the
same protection as in 1976.
Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilman Wilson stated that he was one of those in favor
of the continuance of this project request, and he was glad
he had in that he felt more confident with the information
that had been presented as a result of the meeting with the
Water District. However, it is a separate issue. We are
not putting more water in Indian Wells, but merely making
sure that the water goes where the Water District intended
it to go and that is down into Deep Canyon Channel and not
through the City of Palm Desert through an inadequate dike.
He stated that he certainly shared the concerns of Indian
Wells relative to the implementation of the Bechtel Plan,
and he asked that Staff be directed to start work immediately
with sister cities and other affected agencies to.come up
with alternative financing methods to move ahead with the
Bechtel Plan.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to
waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 208A to second reading.
Motion carried on,the following vote:
AYES: McPherson, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: Newbrander
ABSENT: Brush
ABSTAIN: None
Councilman Newbrander stated that she did not think that this 1
dike would make any difference if the reinforced dike of the J
Water District holds. She, for one, would love to see something
done on the Bechtel Plan. However, she stated that she was
opposed to 805 more houses in the City.
B. CASE N0. TT 12451, DANIEL RUSSIE, APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION
OF A REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP TO CONSOLIDATE 15 EXISTING LOTS TO CREATE 4 LOTS
TO PROVIDE FOR 21 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE
ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF DEEP CANYON, BETWEEN
SAGE BRUSH DRIVE AND DRIFTWOOD DRIVE.
Mr. Williams stated that the Tentative Map had been approved
by Council in June, 1978, The applicant has been unable to
complete all necessary work to allow for implementation of
the Tentative Tract Map and is thus requesting the time
extension. Staff has reviewed all conditions imposed and
found them to be still in accordance with Code with the
exception of the Signalization Fund which the applicant
will now be required to participate in. Staff recommended
approval of the request for time extension.
Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited
input in FAVOR of the reauect. Nnnc waa nff=raA uo 4r,,4�-A
B. DISCUSSION:
This matter was continued from the meeting of May 24th. At
said meeting, all aspects of the proposed development were
presented to the Council. Therefore, this report will focus
on the reason for the continuance, which was at the request
of representatives of the City of Indian Wells to allow a
meeting to occur on May 25, 1979, with the Coachella Valley
County Water District. The purpose of the meeting was to
ascertain the relationship between the proposed Ironwood drainage
improvements and the recommendations of the Bechtel Report,
especially the favored 1-A modified alternative . By a tie vote
(Mayor -excused absence) on proposed Ordinance No. 208, the matter
was continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979.
The meeting with the Water District was held on May 25th. The
outcome of that meeting was as follows:
The Water District and the City of Palm Desert are of
the opinion that the proposed hardened dike concept
proposed by Ironwood has nothing to do with the needed
regional drainage improvements as specified in the
Bechtel Report.
The Water District believes that the installation of a
new dike complying to 100 year storm criteria would not
result in any more runoff to Indian Wells than if no dike
were built.
3. The dike was being installed in compliance with Federal
Flood Insurance criteria and was not a regional matter.
4. The Water District had given concept approval only to
the dike design. The Water District would like to see
the dike designed to withstand a 100 year storm.
5. The City of Indian Wells would like to prevent any more
building on the alluvial fan until 1-A modified plan is
implemented.
The City of Indian Wells would like Palm Desert to increase
the new construction tax to generate income for implementa-
tion of the Bechtel Plan.
It seems to staff that the real issue as expressed by the City of
Indian Wells has nothing to do with the project before the Council.
However, they have elected this project as the forum to focus on
implementation of the Bechtel Report. While they may never agree
that the Water District is correct in its opinion that the develop-
ment of the new dike will not increase the amount of runoff to
Indian Wells, staff is of the opinion that even without the dike,
the runoff would still get to the District -owned channel in
Indian Wells. Further, the 100 year storm criteria which is being
applied to the levee design, is the same design as the channel
through Indian Wells, as indicated by the Flood Insurance maps for
said City. Therefore, the development of the dike at a 100 year
Discussion (continued)
ment, as has been suggested by representatives of Indian Wells, the
Council would have to look at the remaining vacant land south of the
Whitewater Storm Channel which totals approximately 2,125 acres.
Of this total, approximately 1,380 acres (65%) is in some state of
development. Of this acreage under development, it is estimated
that approximately 40% is at a stage at which a fee could still be
applied, or 552 acres. Therefore for fee purposes, a total of
1,300 acres of developable land remains south of the Whitewater Storm
Channel. Of this total, approximately 725 acres is on the hillside
west of the Palm Valley Channel, which may not derive any direct
benefit from drainage improvements as expressed in the Bechtel Plan.
In addition, approximately 150 acres is publicly owned and would not
be subject to the new construction tax. It would therefore appear
that if some form of fee were established on new development to off-
set all or a portion of the drainage improvements envisioned by the
Bechtel Plan, it would only be applicable to a net of 425 acres.
Since the State Law would appear to restrict the City taxing alter-
natives to an expansion of the new construction tax, the Council
should evaluate this potential. In order to predicate any expanded
sq. ft. charge, it is necessary to establish the potential per acre
fee. Assuming that the remaining vacant land would provide 20% to
33% of the total cost of the Bechtel Plan improvements which is
estimated at a low of $18 million to a high of $30 million, the per
acre charge would have a low range (20%) of $8,471 to $14,118 per
acre to a high range (33%) of $13,976 to $23,294 per acre. However,
a more equitable alternative would be to assume that the remaining
425 acres, yet to be developed, represents approximately 7.5% of
total land area south of the Whitewater Storm Channel; and should,
therefore, be responsible for that level of cost of the regional
drainage facilities. This would result in a potential range of
per acre fee of $3,176 to $4,294 or $1,350,000 to $2,250,000 toward
the total project.
Using this alternative, approximately 173 acres of the remaining
vacant land is zoned some form of commercial; it would appear that
the new construction tax increase would have to be a low of $0.21
to a high of $0.34 per square foot of building area for commercial
development. Approximately 252 acres would be developed residentially.
Assuming an average of four units per acre with an average floor
area of 1,600 sq. ft., the tax increase for residential development
would have to be from a low of $0.50 to a high of $0.83 per sq. ft.
A uniform increase could be established without regard to pro osed
development and it would be from a low of $0.31 to a high of 52
per sq. ft. This should be compared to the present new construction
tax of $0.20 per sq. ft. for Residential and Commercial development.
With the knowledge that a minimum increase in the new construction
tax would be 155%, and more likely, a 260% increase, since the
ultimate improvement costs would be closer to $30 million, the Council
should realize that this substantial increase would only provide a
maximum of 7.5% of the total costs. To approve this increase without
determining how the rest is going to be obtained, is not a good
approach. At this time, the staff cannot assure the Council that
funding sources exist that would guarantee the availability of the
needed funds.
A. (cont.)
Development Plan
a. The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's adopted
General Plan.
b. The proposed use is similar to and compatible with those contemplated
on nearby properties.
c. The design or improvement of the proposed development will be
consistent with the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance.
d. The site is physically suited for both the type of development pro-
posed and the proposed density.
e. The design of the development and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or have a serious
effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare; and
further satisfy drainage and flood control requirements for the area.
B. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES:
The Planning Commission did not have any major questions or discussion re-
garding the proposed project. The applicant requested minor changes to
two standard and two special conditions of approval, which the Commission
felt were acceptable.
No one appeared to speak in favor or opposition to the request.
I
II
CITY OF PALM DESERT
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
REQUEST: Consideration of a request for approval of a Change of Zone
from PR-1, D., S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 1 d.u./ac.,
Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preser-
vation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max.
5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5;
and PR-7, D. to PR-5, on property containing approximately
101.5 acres; and, related Development Plan providing for 805
dwelling units in a combination of single-family, duplex, and
townhouses, on approximately 179.5 acres, generally located
on the east side of Highway 74, north and south of the
existing flood control dike, extending south to the southern
city limits.
III. APPLICANT:
IV. CASE NOS:
u
VI
DATE
Silver Spur Associates
49-200 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
June 14, 1979 (continued from May 24, 1979)
CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 208 A
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 487
E. City Council meeting minutes of May 24, 1979, involving this matter
F. Related maps and/or exhibits
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 208 to second reading, approving
a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.(Planned Residential, max. 1 d.u./ac.,
Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation Overlay)
to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation
�3t ofi bP Cij-i�1
�• \�\'"C\Ri_ savoy - \oft a«,s oN-Vo�.a\. !3�oJ�-�
o ' � c.E •.� 4�.o JCts(
�i. io y` 9Roj�cT wm-s ( �c�S INTcsr�SG T4tAN Or.-l.o�Nl C-1��.h
�- "Q.E.J\t_-��Gj taQ.E w4\ ol= CbaLa6��.N5 �VY�L.•�y \.)82E �CQ,Aii�(,
G • --\ CJ'of N'C '�T,J_.oJ �06\+� \ ILPs�ir �C.. Y��OY�-y c� � 5 �a� 0
2. i2�Sj-�S1Ce3G� ��.�wc�S �vLZ.� GaNCS�< CL:e�
JEAN ANN HIRSCHI
JAMES P. HEALEY
DENNIS J. HEALEY
WALTER T. CLARN
EXHIBIT "A"
HIRSCHI, HERLEU 6 HEflLEy
A PROfESStONAL CCROOw.nON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 24, 1979
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. CZ 04-79 and DP 94-79
Silver Spur Associates
aka Ironwood West
Gentlemen:
71-015 CL PASEO AVENUE SUITE A-S
P. O. OwAwEw I)OJ
PALM DESERT, CNLIfOVIA 92260
M41 566-6661
The City Council is requested to continue the above re-
ferenced cases for the following reasons:
1. A meeting has been scheduled with the Coachella
Valley County Water District for 9:00 A.M., Friday, May 25, 1979 between
CVCWD, Palm Desert and Indian Wells to discuss drainage issues pertaining
to and significantly affecting the proposed project and our cities.
2. The Local Flood Agency, CVCWD, should approve the projects
drainage plan as being consistent with and not detrimental to 1-A
(modified), the agreed upon Bechtel Storm Drainage plan. Also, Bechtel
Engineers should review and comment as to the projects possible effects
on implementation of the regional storm drainage system and on interim
mitigation measures necessary prior to the construction of 1-A (modified).'
3. An evaluation should be made by CVCWD and Indian Wells as
to what effect they would have in the proceedings and character of the
existing lawsuit No. Indio 23262, dated 3-11-77, City of Indian Wells.v.
Coachella Valley Water District and State of California, CALTRANS, by the
approval of plans and/or any acts of grading and grassing or otherwise im-
proving the present sand dike traversing the project together with the
proposed grading and construction of an additional parallel -dike with
retainer -wall foundation and concrete grouted -rock surface to be located
one quarter mile south on the project boundary.
Your careful consideration of the requested continuance would
be appreciated in order that mutual benefits will accrue from the infor-
mation to be secured.
r Very trulv yours.
LOON ry
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A L.rCY
ITS TNILt
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER-OIIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS, VIQ PRESIDENT OLE J. NORDLAND, SEQETARV
C.J. FROST DENNIS M HACKETT. AUDITOR
WILL1" B. GARDNER Apr i 1 17, 1979 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
STEVE D. BUXTON
File: 0163.17
o421.1
0721.1
Dept. of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
P. 0. Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Change of Zone 4-79
DP 04-79, Section 31, T5S, RISE
Gentlemen:
If the flood protection facilities are built to meet the 100 years criteria,
the concept of the plans will meet with District approval.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to said
area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 6 of the Coachella
Valley County Water District for domestic water service.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of the
Coachella Valley County Water District.
This area shall be annexed to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Unit of the
Coachella Valley County Water District.
Very tr1aly yours
Lowell 0. Weeks l
General Manager -Chief Engineer
KEH:je
cc: Riverside County Dept. of
Public Health .R1 y_ r+�a g19 -
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS kuontinued)
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson pointed out that this was the
first reading of the ordinance, and if anything should
come out of the meeting the following morning, the
ordinance could be changed at the second reading in 3
weeks.
Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and pass
Ordinance No. 208 to second reading. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson seconded
the motion. The following votes were cast:
AYES: Brush & McPherson
NOES: Newbrander & Wilson
ABSENT: Mullins
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson announced a deadlock and declared the
Public Hearing reopened and continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979.
VIIIA RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 79-55 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
HE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REVISING RESOLUTION
,NO. 78-58 AND ESTABLISHING A SIGNALIZATION FUND.
MrBeebe reported that the wording of the resolution which
est dished the Signalization Fund limited the use of the
funds`to intersections directly adjacent or near the pro-
posed developments when in actuality, certain intersections
had been signalized or were not proposed to be signalized
in the near future. Since all developments within the
City of Palm Desert definitely affect intersections
throughout the City, it was felt that by rewording this
resolution, mare flexibility will be given to the Council
in the use of tihese funds. The City Attorney is in con-
currence with this change.
Councilman Wilson moved
waive further reading and adop
carried unanimously with the m
IX. ORDINANCES
and Councilman Brush seconded to
1\Resolution No. 79-55. Motion
mbers present.
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 209 - AN ORDI ANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIF`ORNIA, REGULATING THE USE
OF PUBLIC PARKS WITHIN SAID CITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson announced,that action on this
ordinance would be continued to the meting of June 14, 1979,
to allow Council more time for review a d study.
For Adoption:
None
X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
1
L
None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
evaluation on a legal matter. It seemed to him that
the brunt of the letter is then issues primarily with
the Water District which is already provided for in the
Special Conditions of Approval; (3) we are all concerned
about flood control. He said he saw implementation of
Bechtel Plan IA as a long-term solution on the order of
13-15 years. This dike is now, and it will be installed
this summer for protection in the next rainy season. He
stated that perhaps it was a "now" which might not be
ideal, but the ultimate might not happen for 13-15 years.
Last, Mr. Spicer pointed out that Ironwood had an option
on the 70 acres, contingent upon approval of this plan,
which would expire on June 1st. He realized that this
was his problem and not the Council's.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson pointed out that Special Condition
No. 1 specifically called for protection from a 100-year
storm and construction would be accomplished to the Water
District's approval. If not, the project would not be
built.
Councilman Wilson stated he would feel more comfortable
with more information coming out of the meeting scheduled
the next morning. Another item he stated was of interest
to him was were there any reasonable conditions that could
be imposed to implement some steps of the Bechtel Report IA
as a part of this project to help get it done. If Indian
Wells is doing it, could we? He stated he would favor a
two -week continuance.
Mr. Bouman stated he would like to make a comment, not a
recommendation but a reaction. He stated that when Mr.
Pierson had called him the prior day, he had decided to
' get himself more familiar with the project. His immediate
reaction which was unchanged at the time was there was no
difference between the old dike and the new dike. He saw
essentially the same water being intercepted and sent to
the same place. Admittedly, it is being sent to Indian
Wells, and they don't receive it warmly, but we received
it once and everyone remembers the devastation we got
from that. When Mr. Pierson says there is an alternative _
solution, Mr. Bouman felt that what he was referring to
is according to the Federal Flood Insurance Maps, the
pads for the houses can be raised 3 feet above natural
grade level and that would satisfy the Corp of Engineers
and Federal Flood Insurance requirements. That would be
fine for that small portion of Ironwood, but below that
area is where we had the trouble before. We have 1,000
homes that cannot be jacked up and raised 3 feet in the
air. They are there now, subject to the drainage. We
are not talking now about the kind of water flows that
came as a result of Kathleen, but the 100-year flood
which Mr. Weeks assures us is of less intensity than
Kathleen. What we are seeking here is the kind of protec-
tion in the 100-year storm that any city would try to find
for itself. Beyond that, as he looked at this project,
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
that out in that if a plan is approved according to the
Water District's design, it will be for a 100-year storm.
Mr. Pierson stated they felt this project is designed
because of flood insurance to allow recipients of Palm
Desert to receive flood insurance. He pointed out there
are other ways the insurance can be utilized without con-
struction of additional dikes. Pads can be built up, but
he indicated they were not suggesting this was the solution.
However, there are other ways that the Flood Insurance can
be arrived at, and he thought the Palm Desert Planning
Department would also verify that.
In connection with the proposed dike, he stated that the
Bechtel report did not call for a dike at that location.
It calls for a dike that runs parallel to the mountain
side which is actually perpendicular or at an oblique
angle to this dike. The Bechtel Report, he stated, does
not call for this type of improvement. The City of Indian
Wells feels that the improvements should be addressed at
this time for Plan IA M6a2fied inasmuch as the City of
Indian Wells is addressing the flood problem of constructing
an adequate system with its own drainage properties, and
he explained the number of improvements that the City of
Indian Wells through the Water District and the Bechtel
Report was constructing that would benefit both cities.
He pointed out that a developer in Indian Wells was being
required to construct a minimum of $3 million worth of
flood protection, much of which is offsite, and they
feel that now is an opportunity to address these as well
as regional and mutal problems. He concluded by requesting
the Council's continuance of this matter until a meeting
could be held at 9:00 a.m. the next morning with officials
from both cities and the Water District. He offered the
input of their city engineer to give a detailed report
on the improvements being implemented in Indian Wells.
Councilman Wilson pointed out that their city engineer had
given this report in Study Session. However, Councilman
Brush had been late arriving at Study Session, and since
he had not heard the report, he asked that it be given.
MR. CHARLES HAVER, 74-390 Highway 111, Palm Desert,
addressed the City Council as City Engineer for the
City of Indian Wells and gave a detailed report of
the drainage improvements being implemented in their
city.
Councilman Brush stated that they were asking a delay of con-
sideration in this matter until this matter is resolved. He
pointed out that this could take 13 years. He stated that
as he understood it, the City of Indian Wells' objection to
the project is basically that by grass lining those levees
it will just speed the water faster down there, it will be
stronger, and because it won't break and go through Palm
Desert, it will save Indian Wells. Mr. Haver responded
that their primary concern in speaking at the hearing was
to have the matter continued for possible solution at the
meeting at the Water District the next day.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) '
In reviewing the matter of the levees, both the Commission
and Staff construed this as a local drainage matter and
not in conflict with the Regional Concept that Bechtel
has put forth. It was felt that this is expressed in our
Federal Flood Insurance Map as a local drainage problem
and the fact that we have shown the majority of this
property proposed for development in the drainageway overlay,
drainage flood plain watercourse overlay and the fact that
the Flood Insurance Maps follow through with that concept
requires the City to begin to require flood protection
improvements before that drainage way floodplain watercourse
overlay can be removed.
Mr. Williams concluded the Staff report by reviewing the
correspondence received including a letter from Mr. James P.
Healey, Special Attorney for the City of Indian Wells,
asking continuance of this project to allow them to hold
a meeting with the Water District to weigh the merits of
this levee system in conjunction with the overall regional
Bechtel improvements that are contemplated by the Water
District. The letter also noted a law suit between the
City of Indian Wells and the Water District relative to
the levees in this area. Mr. Williams reviewed the
proposed ordinance and the special conditions of approval
which alleviated concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
In response to question by Councilman Wilson, Mr. Williams
explained that the proposed improvement by Ironwood does
not implement the Bechtel Plan but strengthens the existing
levee.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request.
MR. JOHN BALLEW, Ballew, McFarland, Inc., 74-075 E1 Paseo,
Palm Desert, addressed Council as the planners for Ironwood.
He stated that they had no disagreement with the Planning
Commission recommendation with the exception that he felt
the Commission had taken action to reword Special Condition
No. 2 and No. 4a.. He stated that although they could solve
most of the 4-way intersection problems, they would like
the latitude of introducing them at points where it created
other design problems. In addition, he stated that the
wording in Condition No. 2 of "solid decorative masonry
wall along Highway 74" did not permit latitude in the design --
of the.wall.
Mayor. Pro -Ten McPherson noted that the changes to the conditions
as noted by Mr. Ballew were reflected in the minutes of the
Planning Commission but had not been incorporated into the
proposed ordinance.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the
request.
MR. PRINCE PIERSON, City Manager of the City of Indian
Wells, addressed Council and:presented Mr. James P Healey's
letter for the record (attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes as Exhibit "A").
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
10
E
L
STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR MONTH OF APRIL, 1979.
Rec: Receive and file. / /
RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE PERTAINING TO
SALES TAX REDISTRIBUTION AND OPPOSING A, . 301,
Rec: Receive and file.
MINUTES OR�dITY MANAGER'S PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO
Rec:/ Receive and file.
Councflman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve
the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the
members present.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CASE NOS. CZ 04-79 AND DP 04-79, SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
CHANGE 0 ZONE FROM PR-1, D., S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL,
MAXIMUM 1 D.U./ AC., DRAINAGEWAY FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE
OVERLAY, SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-5, S.P. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY):
PR-1, D. TO PR-5: AND PR-7, D. TO PR-5 ON PROPERTY CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRO-
VIDING FOR 805 DWELLING UNITS IN A COMBINATION OF SINGLE-
FAMILY, DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74, BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS AND THE
EXISTING COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY I4ATER DISTRICT STORAWATER
CHANNEL.
Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson declared the Public Hearing
open and asked Staff for its report.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report indicating that
during review of the Planning Commission, certain concerns
had been addressed relative to 4-way intersections, the
number of units per building, and parking areas within the
individual complexes. It was felt that these items could
be adjusted to mutual satisfaction through special conditions
of approval.
The major concern of the Planning Commission dealt with '
drainage and the fact that this proposed development was
on an alluvial cone. The present levee which is the heart
of this property does affort some protection to the existing
portion of Ironwood, and the applicant, in reviewing the
flood insurance maps for the City is aware that this levee
is not at a level of a 100 year frequency which is the
criteria used in Federal Flood Insurance. Therefore, as
a part of this development, the applicant is proposing to
install a new levee which is shown on the preliminary grading
plan on the southerly City limit line. That design is to
provide an approximately 9' high hardened facelevee running
from Highway 74 easterly to the existing Water District
Channel. This is proposed to protect this portion of
PLANNING COMMISSI(
RESOLUTION NO. 48
I
rr
RIVEP.SIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
COCYT{' iyWi't
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
"; '-`' '�'.: ,Iq!�I-�
eIVFirsiti
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DAVID, L. FLAKE
COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
April 17, 1979
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 04-79
Gentlemen:
210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
TELEPHONE (714) GS7-3183
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a Two (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall
be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply
main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways. Not to exceed 5001 spacing.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior survaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Case Number DP 04-79 is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required
water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
Very truly yours, , _ 1 a�
navin I FI akc
PLANNING COMMISSIO( C
RESOLUTION NO. 487
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 04-79
EXHIBIT 'C'
1. Development of the project shall be subject to installation of
improvement to provide protection from a 100 year storm, as
approved by the Chief Engineer for the Coachella Valley County
Water District and the City Director of Public Works.
2. Project perimeter shall be enclosed by a masonry wall, with
solid decorative masonry wall along Highway 74, as approved
through the Design Review Board process.
3. Highway 74 frontage shall be developed with ornamental
landscaped mounding and eight (8) ft. wide meandering pedestrain/
bike path, with public access easement granted over areas
where the path meanders out of the public parkway.
4. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board
observing all PR zone standards, except as specified, to achieve
the following:
a. Revise circulation system to avoid the use of four-way
intersections wherever possible. Provide illustration of road
extension grid system for adjacent properties to the east.
b. Design of Townhouse motor courts shall be restudied to
resolve design deficiencies, minimize unnecessary paving,
and provide acceptable open parking alternatives.
c. Townhouse building groups shall be limited to six attached
units, with consideration given to increased use of four
unit buildings.
d. Distance separation between duplex buildings shall be
maintained at a minimum of ten (10) ft., at the closest point.
5. Provide a minimum of eight (8) vehicle stacking spaces at the
southern entrance to Portola, with turn -around area. Entrance
details to be approved through the Design Review Board process.
6. Provide turf lining and landscape treatment for existing flood
control channel, to be approved through the Design Review Board
process.
7. Provide minimum three (3) ft. high mounding along Highway 74,
northerly of existing channel.
PLANNING COMMISSI
RESOLUTION NO.1191�^
14. Drainage and Signalization Fund contributions, as required by
City Ordinance, shall be made as a requirement of this development.
PLANNING COMMISSION --
RESOLUTION NO. 4W,
EXHIBIT 'C'
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 04-79
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibit A (Case No. DP 04-79) on file with the Department of En-
vironmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval; otherwise, said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the
total project shall be completed by January 1, 1989. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property.
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of
construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing
to these Conditions of Approval.
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
l 7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable
l antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are
adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed
underground as a part of development from the nearest existing
pole not on the property being developed.
8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of
the development of this project per attached letter dated April 17,1979
9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall
be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until completed.
10. Traffic control provisions and safety street lighting shall be
provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall
be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required
by the Director of Public Works. .
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this aDDroval, the applicant shall first obtain
4
/
/
ilk
i�
it �� �. `� '•P
P.R.-7i (C.U.P.• 1382)
; , 1357`
' t_ t, :� f..
�III i'; � J T�-
;:: 11
PR.-6
(C.U.P. 1507ij �
/
1 Il
DA.
P R: 7
'
�/ i' ?, II� / •' ."Ro
LING KNoll. D jet
I ••
RTOLA
AVENUE
n PR.-7
I
P.R.-7
S.P..
a
N
R-3 4
,560 (9) S.P.
R-1
C.Y&W. P. ormweree/- ClyQy/�e
I
�
Z
"i,'rrrYn'Pmrn-r�nwt
lttYYtt`TYY/TRYYIliVu
a9s�wr•�r.��wa=..vc:cw
..
1
I---
P.R.-7, D'
r
PLANNING COUMISSIONi-R] LUTION NO. 487
Page two
l
2. Development Plan:
a. The proposed development plan is consistent with
the City's adopted General Plan.
b. The proposed use is similar to and compatible
with those contemplated on nearby properties.
c. The design or improvement of the proposed
development will be consistent with the Palm Desert
Zoning Ordinance.
d. The site is physically suited for both the type of
development proposed and the proposed density.
e. The design of the development and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or have a serious effect on
the public health, safety, or general welfare; and
further satisfy drainage and flood control
requirements for the 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
constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of a Change of Zone from
PR-1, D., S.P. to PR-5,'S.P.; PR-1, D. to PR-5; and,
PR-7, D. to PR-5, as shown on the attached map
labeled Exhibit "A".
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of the overall conceptual
Development Plan (Exhibit "B") as part of their
consideration of the related Change of Zone, subject
to those conditions labeled Exhibit "C", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of May, 1979, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
BERKEY, KRYDER, SNYDER
NONE
NONE
FLESHMAN
WALTER SNYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
4
/-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 487
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-1, D.,
S.P. TO PR-5, S.P.; PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7 TO
PR-5 ON APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES: AND, RELATED
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805
DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 179.5 ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74, NORTH AND
SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL DIKE, EXTENDING
SOUTH TO.THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 3rd day of May, 1979, hold a duly noticed
Public Hearing to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for
approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.(Planned Residential,
maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential,
max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation Over•,lay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and
PR-7, D. to PR-5, on approximately 101.5 acres; and related preliminary
Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination
of single-family, duplex and townhouses on approximately 179.5 acres of
land, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, north and
south of the existing flood control dike, extending south to the
southern City limits, more particularly described as:
APN's-631-130-010
631-120-004
631-130-011
631-142-001
631-130-001
631-142-002
631-130-002
631-141-001
631-160-001
631-141-002
631-160-002
631-141-003
631-160-005
631-141-004
631-150-004
631-141-005
631-150-005
631-141-006
631-150-013
631-141-007
631-110-013
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements
of the City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure,
Resolution No. 78-32," in that the Director of Environmental Services
has determined that this project will not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to`
be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to
justify their recommendations and actions as described below:
Change of Zone:
a. The land use resulting from the Change of Zone
would be compatible with adjacent existing and
proposed land uses.
b. The densitv resulting from the Change of Zone
ORDINAivCE NO
208 A
l.,
C-b I*NT I'
rs!I'E II SIDE
P.IVEPSICE CCLINTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
/) IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DAVID. L. FLAKE
COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
April 17, 1979
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 04-79
Gentlemen:
210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
TELEPHONE (7141 657-3183
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a Two (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall
be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply
main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways., Not to exceed 500' spacing.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior survaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3• Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Case Number DP 04-79 is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required
water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
Very truly yours,
I, DAVID L. FLAKE
i r -- "- v
rt i6. �1.1 A< Ie � f • .yf
-ORDINANCE NO. 20E
EXHIBIT 'B'
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Development of the project shall be subject to installation of
improvement to provide protection from a 100 year storm, as
approved by the Chief Engineer for the Coachella Valley County
Water District and the City Director of Public Works.
2. Project perimeter, except where it abuts other portions of Ironwood,
shall be enclosed by a masonry wall,with decorative masonry wall
along Highway 74, as approved through the Design Review Board process.
3. Highway 74 frontage shall be developed with ornamental
landscaped mounding•and eight (8) ft. wide meandering pedestrain/
bike path, with public access easement granted over areas
where the path meanders out of the public parkway.
4. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board
observing all PR zone standards, except as specified, to achieve
the following:
a. Revise circulation system to avoid the use of four-way
intersections wherever possible. Provide illustration of road
extension grid system for adjacent properties to the east.
b. Design of Townhouse motor courts shall be restudied to
resolve design deficiencies, minimize unnecessary paving,
and provide acceptable open parking alternatives.
c. Townhouse building groups shall be limited to six attached
units, with consideration given to increased use of four
unit buildings.
d. Distance separation between duplex buildings shall be
maintained at a minimum of ten (10) ft., at the closest point.
5. Provide a minimum of eight (8) vehicle stacking spaces at the
southern entrance to Portola, with turn -around area. Entrance
details to be approved through the Design Review Board process.
6. Provide turf.lining and landscape treatment for existing flood
control channel, to be approved through the Design Review Board
process.
7. Provide minimum three (3) ft. high mounding along Highway 74,
northerly of existing channel.
r,
ORDINANCE NO. 208A
t,\HI tSl r ' 0'
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibit A (Case No. DP 04-79) on file with the Department of En-
vironmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval; otherwise, said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the
total project shall be completed by January 1, 1989. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property.
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of
construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing
to these Conditions of Approval.
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable
antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are
adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed
underground as a part of development from the nearest existing
pole not on the property being developed.
8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of
the development of this project per attached letter dated April 17,1979
9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall
be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until completed.
10. Traffic control provisions and safety street lighting shall be
provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall
be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required
by the Director of Public Works.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
permits and/or clearance from the following agencies:
L" .•";"1 '(C,U,P1357 P.(C.U.P.. 1382)
oe41t - C.U.P. 1507� f�
RR.
�' I 1 1 i4 ' ' �I ! 1�i .f oR J I � � � •
• /�L, ",� l J �O LING KNOLL DM1j J ' •
� J ♦ , 11
RTOLA AVENUE "{
P,R.-7 P,R,-7
S.ALLE
�} I P.. L'
It 1 - A SILLA
�Jr : R-3 4 ,560 (9) S.P.
R-1"
el I
�. :.I��'��4' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •� ' �� _
lit
^ti
J
,W
ll�
�
I11
II�
Discussion (continued)
Page three
Finally, the approval of the project under consideration at this
time will not preclude the application of an increased new construction
tax on the project, because this fee is applied at the building permit
stage. The necessary information could be developed and the Council
could make the appropriate decisions well in advance of this point
in the development process.
ORDINANCE NO. 208 A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107,
THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM
PR-1, D., S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, MAXIMUM 1 D.U./
AC., DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE OVERLAY,
SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-5, S.P. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION
OVERLAY); PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7, D. TO PR-5, ON
PROPERTY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES AND
RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805 DWELLING
UNITS IN A COMBINATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, AND
TOWNHOUSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 74, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD
CONTROL DIKE, EXTENDING SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN CITY
LIMITS.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN, as follows:
Section 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing
Section 25.46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter
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,
Californian i—'s 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.
Section 3: That a Development Plan for a total of 805
dwelling units on 179.5acres is hereby granted to Silver Spur Associates
subject to compliance with conditions, labeled Exhibit 'B'.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council
this day of _ , 1979, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EDWARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR
CITY OF PALM DESERT
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
I. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
II. REQUEST: Consideration of a request for approval of a Change of Zone
from PR-1, D., S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 1 d.u./ac.,
Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preser-
vation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max.
5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5;
and PR-7, D. to PR-5, on property containing approximately
101.5 acres; and, related Development Plan providing for 805
dwelling units in a combination of single-family, duplex, and
townhouses, on approximately 179.5 acres, generally located
on the east side of Highway 74, north and south of the
existing flood control dike, extending south to the southern
city limits.
III. APPLICANT: Silver Spur Associates
49-200 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
IV. CASE NOS: C/Z 04-79 and OP 04-79
V. DATE: June 14, 1979 (continued from May 24, 1979)
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation
B. Discussion
C. Draft Ordinance No. 208 A
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 487
E. City Council meeting minutes of May 24, 1979, involving this matter
F. Related maps and/or exhibits
---------------------------------------
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 208 to second reading, approving
a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.(Planned Residential, max. 1 d.u./ac.,
Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation Overlay)
to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation
01
A. (cont.)
Development Plan
a. The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's adopted
General Plan.
b. The proposed use is similar to and compatible with those contemplated
on nearby properties.
c. The design or improvement of the proposed development will be
consistent with the Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance.
d. The site is physically suited for both the type of development pro-
posed and the proposed density.
e. The design of the development and the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or have a serious
effect on the public health, safety, or general welfare; and
further satisfy drainage and flood control requirements for the area.
B. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES:
The Planning Commission did not have any major questions or discussion re-
garding the proposed project. The applicant requested minor changes to
two standard and two special conditions of approval, which the Commission
felt were acceptable.
No one appeared to speak in favor or opposition to the request.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
(Negative Declaration)
TO: (x) Office of the County Clerk From: City of Palm Desert
County of Riverside 45-275 Prickly Pear Lp.
4050 Main Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Riverside, Ca. 92501
( ) Secretary for Resources
1416 Ninth St., Room 1311
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15083(f)
of the State EIR Guidelines.
Project Title/Common
Name
Case Nos. C/Z 04-79
and DP 04-79/Portion of Ironwood Country Club
State Clearinghouse
Number if submitted to State Clearinghouse
n/a
Contact Person
Telephone Number
Area Code (714) 346-0611
Mr. Murrel Crump
Project Location
Generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits
and the existing CVCWD Stormwater Channel.
Project Description
Change of Zone (various) to Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./a
on 101.5 acres; and,
Related Development Plan providing for an overall project of
ouo urvcii my uni ta, ouo vi rvn ii.n w11at,1UU6c a nc" vlvicav U1 cu.
This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1. The project has been approved by the City;
2. The project ( ) will (x) will not have a significant effect on the environment;
3. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project;
and
4
A Negative Declaration was prepared forthis-proqect pursuant to the provisions
of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Decl ation may-bf examined at the above City
Hall address. '
�. -•ice.
B. DISCUSSION:
This matter was continued from the meeting of May 24th. At
said meeting, all aspects of the proposed development were
presented to the Council. Therefore, this report will focus
on the reason for the continuance, which was at the request
of representatives of the City of Indian Wells to allow a
meeting to occur on May 25, 1979, with the Coachella Valley
County Water District. The purpose of the meeting was to
ascertain the relationship between the proposed Ironwood drainage
improvements and the recommendations of the Bechtel Report,
especially the favored 1-A modified alternative . By a tie vote
(Mayor -excused absence) on proposed Ordinance No. 208, the matter
was continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979.
The meeting with the Water District was held on May 25th. The
outcome of that meeting was as follows:
The Water District and the City of Palm Desert are of
the opinion that the proposed hardened dike concept
proposed by Ironwood has nothing to do with the needed
regional drainage improvements as specified in the
Bechtel Report.
The Water District believes that the installation of a
new dike complying to 100 year storm criteria would not
result in any more runoff to Indian Wells than if no dike
were built.
3. The dike was being installed in compliance with Federal
Flood Insurance criteria and was not a regional matter.
4. The Water District had given concept approval only to
the dike design. The Water District would like to see
the dike designed to withstand a 100 year storm.
5. The City of Indian Wells would like to prevent any more
building on the alluvial fan until 1-A modified plan is
implemented.
6. The City of Indian Wells would like Palm Desert to increase
the new construction tax to generate income for implementa-
tion of the Bechtel Plan.
It seems to staff that the real issue as expressed by the City of
Indian Wells has nothing to do with the project before the Council.
However, they have elected this project as the forum to focus on
implementation of the Bechtel Report. While they may never agree
that the Water District is correct in its opinion that the develop-
ment of the new dike will not increase the amount of runoff to
Indian Wells, staff is of the opinion that even without the dike,
the runoff would still get to the District -owned channel in
Indian Wells. Further, the 100 year storm criteria which is being
applied to the levee design, is the same design as the channel
through Indian Wells, as indicated by the Flood Insurance maps for
said City. Therefore, the development of the dike at a 100 year
Discussion (continued)
went, as has been suggested by representatives of Indian Wells, the
Council would have to look at the remaining vacant land south of the
Whitewater Storm Channel which totals approximately 2,125 acres.
Of this total, approximately 1,380 acres (65%) is in some state of
development. Of this acreage under development, it is estimated
that approximately 40% is at a stage at which a fee could still be
applied, or 552 acres. Therefore for fee purposes, a total of
1,300 acres of developable land remains south of the Whitewater Storm
Channel. Of this total, approximately 725 acres is on the hillside
west of the Palm Valley Channel, which may not derive any direct
benefit from drainage improvements as expressed in the Bechtel Plan.
In addition, approximately 150 acres is publicly owned and would not
be subject to the new construction tax. It would therefore appear
that if some form of fee were established on new development to off-
set all or a portion of the drainage improvements envisioned by the
Bechtel Plan, it would only be applicable to a net of 425 acres.
Since the State Law would appear to restrict the City taxing alter-
natives to an expansion of the new construction tax, the Council
should evaluate this potential. In order to predicate any expanded
sq. ft. charge, it is necessary to establish the potential per acre
fee. Assuming that the remaining vacant land would provide 20% to
33% of the total cost of the Bechtel Plan improvements which is
estimated at a low of $18 million to a high of $30 million, the per
acre charge would have a low range (20%) of $8,471 to $14,118 per
acre to a high range (33%) of $13,976 to $23,294 per acre. However,
a more equitable alternative would be to assume that the remaining
425 acres, yet to be developed, represents approximately 7.5% of
total land area south of the Whitewater Storm Channel; and should,
therefore, be responsible for that level of cost of the regional
drainage facilities. This would result in a potential range of
per acre fee of $3,176 to $4,294 or $1,350,000 to $2,250,000 toward
the total project.
Using this alternative, approximately 173 acres of the remaining
vacant land is zoned some form of commercial; it would appear that
the new construction tax increase would have to be a low of $0.21
to a high of $0.34 per square foot of building area for commercial
development. Approximately 252 acres would be developed residentially.
Assuming an average of four units per acre with an average floor
area of 1,600 sq. ft., the tax increase for residential development
would have to be from a low of $0.50 to a high of $0.83 per sq. ft.
A uniform increase could be established without regard to proposed
development and it would be from a low of $0.31 to a high of $0.52
per sq. ft. This should be compared to the present new construction
tax of $0.20 per sq. ft. for Residential and Commercial development.
With the knowledge that a minimum increase in the new construction
tax would be 155%, and more likely, a 260% increase, since the
ultimate improvement costs would be closer to $30 million, the Council
should realize that this substantial increase would only provide a
maximum of 7.5'% of the total costs. To approve this increase without
determining how the rest is going to be obtained, is not a good
approach. At this time, the staff cannot assure the Council that
funding sources exist that would guarantee the availability of the
needed funds.
Discussion (continued)
Page three
Finally, the approval of the project under consideration at this
time will not preclude the application of an increased new construction
tax on the project, because this fee is applied at the building permit
stage. The necessary information could be developed and the Council
could make the appropriate decisions well in advance of this point
in the development process.
ORDINANCE NO. 208 A
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107,
THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM
PR-1, D., S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, MAXIMUM 1 D.U./
AC., DRAINAGEWAY, FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE OVERLAY,
SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-5, S.P. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION
OVERLAY); PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7, D. TO PR-5, ON
PROPERTY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES AND
RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805 DWELLING
UNITS IN A COMBINATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY, DUPLEX, AND
TOWNHOUSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
HIGHWAY 74, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD
CONTROL DIKE, EXTENDING SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN CITY
LIMITS.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
The City Council of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN, as follows:
Section 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing
Section 25.46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter
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.
Section 3: That a Development Plan for a total of 805
dwelling units on 179.5acres is hereby granted to Silver Spur Associates
subject to compliance with conditions, labeled Exhibit 'B'.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council
this day of 1979, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
EDWARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR
71
l PR
P.R.-7i (C.U.P. 1382)
I� I I<((C.U.P 1357 ,
II
P.R.-6 1 \\\\
II
1507�
T PR.-7'
_
•///''1 liI ,1�RO LING KNOLL DPyIits , \
------_ _ -RTOLA AVENUE _ ly
�I; n PR-7
;1 li S.P.
\`� J//♦
R-3 4 ,560 (9) S.P.
I CY.C?f/. Dtormwerfer cjCZ27
r; i�
-r till
— ._.
14 co
—P.R.-7, D
aQ PR. -II — TO O.S.
RR.-5
S. P.
PR.-7, D
R y TOP TO6 D
RR.-5 i
S.P. P.R.- 7, H
- 2
f 31 32
ORDINANCE NO. 208A
Y, A ri l t51 1 13
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibit A (Case No. DP 04-79) on file with the Department of En-
vironmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval; otherwise, said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the
total project shall be completed by January 1, 1989. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property.
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of
construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing
to these Conditions of Approval.
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and.limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
7. All existing'electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable
antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are
adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed
underground as a part of development from the nearest existing
pole not on the property being developed.
8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of
the development of this project per attached letter dated April 17,1979
9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall
be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until completed.
10. Traffic control provisions and safety street lighting shall be
provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall
be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required
by the Director.of Public Works.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
permits and/or clearance from the following agencies:
m
_ORDINANCE NO. 208 A
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT 'B'
1. Development of the project shall be subject to installation of
improvement to provide protection from a 100 year storm, as
approved by the Chief Engineer for the Coachella Valley County
{Pater District and the City Director of Public Works.
2. Project perimeter, except where it abuts other portions of Ironwood,
shall be enclosed by a masonry wall,with decorative masonry wall
along Highway 74, as approved through the Design Keview Board process.
3. Highway 74 frontage shall be developed with ornamental
landscaped mounding and eight (8) ft. wide meandering pedestrain/
bike path, with public access easement granted over areas
where the path meanders out of the public parkway.
4. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board
observing all PR zone standards, except as specified, to achieve
the following:
a. Revise circulation system to avoid the use of four-way
intersections wherever possible. Provide illustration of road
extension grid system for adjacent properties to the east.
b. Design of Townhouse motor courts shall be restudied to
resolve design deficiencies, minimize unnecessary paving,
and provide acceptable open parking alternatives.
C. Townhouse building groups shall be limited to six attached
units, with consideration given to increased use of four
unit buildings.
d. Distance separation between duplex buildings shall be
maintained at a minimum of ten (10) ft., at the closest point.
5. Provide a minimum of eight (8) vehicle stacking spaces at the
southern entrance to Portola, with turn -around area. Entrance
details to be approved through the Design Review Board process.
6. Provide turf lining and landscape treatment for existing flood
control channel, to be approved through the Design Review Board
process.
7. Provide minimum three (3) ft. high mounding along Highway 74,
northerly of existing channel.
ORDINAivCE NO. 208
e--;._ I i'\
T = --I`ILL
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
—
."VAl�{„'.
\I'f't,�•=�..z. m .. f'l
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
en•ERSID Ya.....,
DAVID,L. FLAKE
COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
April 17, 1979
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 04-79
Gentlemen:
210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET
PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370
TELEPHONE 17141 667-3183
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a Two (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall
be based upon a.minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply
main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
Ill is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways., Not to exceed 500' spacing.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior survaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water'system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Case Number DP 04-79 is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required
.water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
Very truly yours,
( DAVID L. FLAKE
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 487
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-1, D.,
S.P. TO PR-5, S.P.; PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7 TO
PR-5 ON APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES: AND, RELATED
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805
DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 179.5 ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74, NORTH AND
SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL DIKE, EXTENDING
SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 3rd day of May, 1979, hold a duly noticed .
Public Hearing to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for
approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.(Planned Residential,
maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, Fioodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential,
max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and
PR-7, D. to PR-5, on approximately 101.5 acres; and related preliminary
Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination
of single-family, duplex and townhouses on approximately 179.5 acres of
land, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, north and
south of the existing flood control dike, extending south to the
southern City limits, more particularly described as:
APN's-631-130-010
631-120-004
631-130-011
631-142-001
631-130-001
631-142-002
631-130-002
631-141-001
631-160-001
631-141-002
631-160-002
631-141-003
631-160-005
631-141-004
631-150-004
631-141-005
631-150-005
631-141-006
631-150-013
631-141-007
631-110-013
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements
of the City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure,
Resolution No. 78-32," in that the Director of Environmental Services
has determined that this project will not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to
justify their recommendations and actions as described below:
1. Change of Zone:
a. The land use resulting from the Change of Zone
would be compatible with adjacent existing and
proposed land uses.
b. The densitv resulting from the Change of Zone
PLANNING COMMISSIO#SOLUTION NO. 487 Page Two
u
2. Development Plan:
a. The proposed development plan is consistent with
the City's adopted General Plan.
b. The proposed use is similar to and compatible
with those contemplated on nearby properties. "
C. The design or improvement of the proposed
development will be consistent with the Palm Desert
Zoning Ordinance.
d. The site is physically suited for both the type of
development proposed and the proposed density.
e. The design of the development and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or have a serious effect on
the public health, safety, or general welfare; and
further satisfy drainage and flood control
requirements for the 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
constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of a Change of Zone from
PR-1, D., S.P. to PR-5,'S.P.; PR-1, D. to PR-5; and,
PR-7, D. to PR-5, as shown on the attached map
labeled Exhibit "A".
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of the overall conceptual
Development Plan (Exhibit "B") as part of their
consideration of the related Change of Zone, subject
to those conditions labeled Exhibit "C", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of May, 1979, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
BERKEY, KRYDER, SNYDER
NONE
NONE
FLESHMAN
WALTER SNYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
V-''PR:
/l(C-U-P1357` 'P i.: j.'- P.R.- (C.U.P. 1382)
P. R 6
4i�eu C.U.R 1507�(� I ��� OILS
.� / 0 -
u.
/`R LING KNOLL DP
PR 7
RTOLA AVENUE I iy +�
601
n ' PR. 7 ALLE
S.P.
�_.__ fir_-_��1�,� ,, I I ```� %/v I •.
Jrl it R-3 4 ,560 (9) S.P.
I; 0Ye,W.D. S.tormwaz`en'' ClI � yj
mot. r�It
I `J
coPA-7, D �
'J — TO O.S.
PR.-6 RR.-5 P.R.-7, D
S.P. _
T06
�• TO P.R. 5
._ 4? P.R:5 ' .. RR.-7, H
S.P.
r , 31.32
r�. r COUNTY OF NIVERSID ,,
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 487\
EXHIBIT 'C'
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 04-79
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibit A (Case No. DP 04-79) on file with the Department of En-
vironmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
:_phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval; otherwise, said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the
total project shall be completed by January 1, 1989. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property.
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of
construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing
to these Conditions of Approval.
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable
antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are
adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed
underground as a part of development from the nearest existing
pole not on the property being developed.
8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of
the development of this project per attached letter dated April 17,1979
9. `Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall
be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until completed.
10. Traffic control provisions and safety street lighting shall be
provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall
be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required
by the Director of Public Works.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
. contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.481
14. Drainage and Signalization Fund contributions, as required by
City Ordinance, shall be made as a requirement of this development.
PLANNING COMMISSI00
RESOLUTION NO. 487
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 04-79
EXHIBIT 'C'
1.- Development of the project shall be subject to installation ^of
improvement to provide protection from a 100 year storm, as
approved by the Chief Engineer for the Coachella Valley County
Water District and the City Director of Public Works.
2. Project perimeter shall be enclosed by a masonry wall, with
solid decorative masonry wall along Highway 74, as approved
„through the Design Review Board process.
3. Highway 74 frontage shall be developed with ornamental
landscaped mounding and eight (8) ft. wide meandering pedestrain/
bike path, with public access easement granted over areas
where the path meanders out of the public parkway.
4. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board
observing all PR zone standards, except as specified, to achieve
the following:
a. Revise circulation system to avoid the use of four-way
intersections wherever possible. Provide illustration of road
extension grid system for adjacent properties to the east.
b. Design'bf Townhouse motor courts shall be restudied to
-resolve design deficiencies, minimize unnecessary paving,
and provide acceptable open parking alternatives.
c. .Townhouse building groups:shall be limited to six attached
units, with consideration given to increased use of four
unit buildings.
' s shall be d.,-Distance separation between duplex buildings -, P P g
maintained at a minimum of ten (10) ft., at the closest point.
_.5. .Provide a minimum of eight (8) vehicle stacking spaces at the
southern entrance to Portola, with turn -around area. Entrance
details to be approved through the Design Review Board process.
6. Provide turf lining and landscape treatment for existing flood
control channel, to be approved through the Design Review Board
process.
7. Provide minimum three (3) ft. high mounding along Highway 74,
northerly of existing channel.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 487
I
e,,4—.
cbvsrr
4 Pak'tt RII-E It SIDE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DAVID, L. FLAKE
COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
April 17, 1979
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 04-79
Gentlemen:
210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET
PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92370
TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a Two (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or, other supply. The computation shall
be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply
main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways. Not to exceed 500' spacing.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior survaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3• Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Case Number DP 04-79 is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required
water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow.
Very truly yours,
DAVID L. FLAKF
VI. CONSENT CALENLo-icc (Continued)
C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS
OF APRIL. 1
F
Rec: Receive and file.
D. RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE PERTAINING TO
SALES TAX REDISTRIBUTION AND OPPOSING A,B, 301,
Rec: Rece' nd file.
E. MINUTES OF CITY MANAGER'S PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO PROPOSED
USE OF FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING ENTITLEMENT FUNDS, '1979-80.
Rec:/ Receive and file.
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve
the Consent' Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the
members present.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CASE NOS. CZ 04-79 AND DP 04-79,'SILVER 'SPUR ASSOCIATES
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-1, D.,'S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL,
MAXIMUM 1 D.U./ AC., DRAINAGEWAY FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE
OVERLAY, SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-S, S.P, (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY);
PR-1, D. TO PR-5: AND PR-7, D. TO PR-5 ON PROPERTY CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRO-
VIDING FOR 805 DWELLING UNITS IN A COMBINATION OF SINGLE-
FAMILY, DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74, BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS AND THE
EXISTING COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT STORt4WATER
CHANNEL.
Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson declared the Public Hearing
open and asked Staff for its report.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report indicating that
during review of the Planning Commission, certain concerns
had been addressed relative to 4-way intersections, the
number of units per building, and parking areas within the
individual complexes. It was felt that these items could
be adjusted to mutual satisfaction through special conditions
of approval.
The major concern of the Planning Commission dealt with
drainage and the fact that this proposed development was
on an alluvial cone. The present levee which is the heart
of this property does affort some protection to the existing
portion of Ironwood, and the applicant, in reviewing the
flood insurance maps for the City is aware that this levee
is not at a level of a 100 year frequency which is the
criteria used in Federal Flood Insurance. Therefore, as
a part of this development, the applicant is proposing to
install a new levee which is shown on the preliminary grading
plan on the southerly City limit line. That design is to
provide an approximately 9' high hardened facelevee running
from Highway 74 easterly to the existing Water District
Channel. This is proposed to protect this portion of
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
In reviewing the matter of the levees, both the Commission
and Staff construed this as a local drainage matter and
not in conflict with the Regional Concept that Bechtel
has put forth. It was felt that this is expressed in our
Federal Flood Insurance Map as a local drainage problem
and the fact that we have shown the majority of this
property proposed for development in the drainageway overlay,
drainage flood plain watercourse overlay and the fact that
the Flood Insurance Maps follow through with that concept
requires the City to begin to require flood protection
improvements before that drainage way floodplain watercourse
' overlay can be removed.
Mr. Williams concluded the Staff report by reviewing the
correspondence received including a letter from Mr. James P.
Healey, Special Attorney for the City of Indian Wells,
asking continuance of this project to allow them to hold
a meeting with the Water District to weigh the merits of
this levee system in conjunction with the overall regional
Bechtel improvements that are contemplated by the Water
District. The letter also noted a law suit between the
City of Indian Wells and the Water District relative to
the levees in this area. Mr. Williams reviewed the
proposed ordinance and the special conditions of approval
which alleviated concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
In response to question by Councilman Wilson, Mr. Williams
explained that the proposed improvement by Ironwood does
not implement the Bechtel Plan but strengthens the existing
levee.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request.
MR. JOHN BALLEW, Ballew, McFarland, Inc., 74-075 E1 Paseo,
Palm Desert, addressed Council as the planners for Ironwood.
He stated that they had no disagreement with the Planning
Commission recommendation with the exception that he felt
the Commission had taken action to reword Special Condition
No. 2 and No. 4a. He stated that although they could solve
most of the 4-way intersection problems, they would like
the latitude of introducing them at points where it created
other design problems. In addition, he stated that the
wording in Condition No. 2 of "solid decorative masonry
wall along Highway 74" did not permit latitude in the design ---
of the.wall.
Mayor Pro Ten McPherson noted that the changes to the conditions
as noted by Mr. Ballew were reflected in the minutes of the
Planning Commission but had not been incorporated into the
proposed ordinance.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the
request.
MR. PRINCE PIERSON, City Manager of the City of Indian
Wells, addressed Council and presented Mr. James P Healey's
letter for the record (attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes as Exhibit "A").
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
that out in that if a plan is approved according to the
Water District's design, it will be for a 100-year storm.
Mr. Pierson stated they felt this project is designed
because of flood insurance to allow recipients of Palm
Desert to receive flood insurance. He pointed out there
are other ways the insurance can be utilized without con-
struction of additional dikes. Pads can be built'up, but
he indicated they were not suggesting this was the solution.
However, there are other ways that the Flood Insurance can
be arrived at, and he thought the Palm Desert Planning
Department would also verify that.
In connection with the proposed dike, he stated that the
Bechtel report did not call for a dike at that location.
It calls for a dike that runs parallel to the mountain
side which is actually perpendicular or at an oblique
angle to this dike. The Bechtel Report, he stated, does
not call for this type of improvement. The City of Indian
Wells feels that the improvements should be addressed at
this time for Plan IA Modified inasmuch as the City of
Indian Wells is addressing the flood problem of constructing
an adequate system with its own drainage properties, and
he explained the number of improvements that the City of
Indian Wells through the Water District and the Bechtel
Report was constructing that would benefit both cities.
He pointed out that a developer in Indian Wells was being
required to construct a minimum of $3 million worth of
flood protection, much of which is offsite, and they
feel that now is an opportunity to address these as well
as regional and mutal problems. He concluded by requesting
the Council's continuance of this matter until a meeting
could be held at 9:00 a.m. the next morning with officials
from both cities and the Water District. He offered the
input of their city engineer to give a detailed report
-on the improvements being implemented in Indian Wells.
Councilman Wilson pointed out that their city engineer had
given this report in Study Session. However, Councilman
Brush had been late arriving at Study Session, and since
..he had.not heard.the report, he asked that it be given.
MR. CHARLES HAVER, 74-390 Highway 111, Palm Desert,
addressed the City Council as City Engineer for the
City of Indian Wells and gave a detailed report of
the drainage improvements being implemented in their
city.
Councilman Brush stated that they were asking a delay of con-
sideration in this matter until this matter is resolved. He
pointed out that this could take 13 years. He stated that
as he understood it, the City of Indian Wells' objection to
the project is basically that by grass lining those levees
it will just speed the water faster down there, it will be
stronger, and because it won't break and go through Palm
Desert, it will save Indian Wells. Mr. Haver responded
that their primary concern in speaking at the hearing was
to have the matter continued for possible solution at the
meeting at the Water District the next day.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
evaluation on a legal matter. It seemed to him that
the brunt of the letter is then issues primarily with
the Water District which is already provided for in the
Special Conditions of Approval; (3) we are all concerned
about flood control. He said he saw implementation of
Bechtel Plan lA as a long-term solution on the order of
13-15 years. This dike is now, and it will be installed
this summer for protection in the next rainy season. He
stated that perhaps it was a "now" which might not be
ideal, but the ultimate might not happen for 13-15 years.
Last, Mr. Spicer pointed out that Ironwood had an option
on the 70 acres, contingent upon approval of this plan,
which would expire on June 1st. He realized that this
was his problem and not the Council's.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson yointed out that Special Condition
No. 1 specifically called for protection from a 100-year
storm and construction would be accomplished to the Water
District's approval. If not, the project would not be
built.
Councilman Wilson stated he would feel more comfortable
with more information coming out of the meeting scheduled
the next morning. Another item he stated was of interest
to him was were there any reasonable conditions that could
be imposed to implement some steps of the Bechtel Report lA
as a part of this project to help get it done. If Indian
Wells is doing it, could we? He stated he would favor a
two -week continuance.
Mr. Bouman stated he would like to make a comment, not a
recommendation but a reaction. He stated that when Mr.
Pierson had called him the prior day, he had decided to
get himself more familiar with the project. His immediate
reaction which was unchanged at the time was there was no
difference between the old dike and the new dike. He saw
essentially the same water being intercepted and sent to
the same place. Admittedly, it is being sent to Indian
Wells, and they don't receive it warmly, but we received
it once and everyone remembers the devastation we got
from that. When Mr. Pierson says there is an alternative
solution, Mr. Bouman felt that what he was referring to
is according to the Federal Flood Insurance Maps, the
pads for the houses can be raised 3 feet above natural
grade level and that would satisfy the Corp of Engineers
and Federal Flood Insurance requirements. That would be
fine for that small portion of Ironwood, but below that
area is where we had the trouble before. We have 1,000
homes that cannot be jacked up and raised 3 feet in the
air. They are there now, subject to the drainage. We
are not talking now about the kind of water flows that
came as a result of Kathleen, but the 100-year flood
which Mr. Weeks assures us is of less intensity than
Kathleen. What we are seeking here is the kind of protec-
tion in the 100-year storm that any city would try to find
for itself. Beyond that, as he looked at this project,
VII. PUBLIC HEARINuo (Continued)
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson pointed out that this -was the
first reading of the ordinance, and if anything should
come out of the meeting the following morning, the
ordinance could be changed at the second reading in 3
weeks.
Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and pass
Ordinance No. 208 to second reading. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson seconded
the motion. The following votes were cast:
AYES: Brush & McPherson
NOES: Newbrander & Wilson
ABSENT: Mullins
ABSTAIN: None
.Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson announced a deadlock and declared the
Public Hearing reopened and continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979.
VIIIA RESOLUTIONS
XLUTION NO. 79-55 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REVISING RESOLUTION
78-58 ANDESTABLISHING A SIGNALIZATION FUND.
Beebe reported that the wording of the resolution which
established the Signalization Fund limited the use of the
funds \to intersections directly adjacent or near the pro-
posed developments when in actuality, certain intersections
had been signalized or were not proposed to be signalized
in the near future. Since all developments within the
City of Palm Desert definitely affect intersections
throughout the City, it was felt that by rewording this
resolution, more flexibility will be given to the Council
in the use of these funds.' The City Attorney is in con-
currence with thins change.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to
waive further reading and adopt�\\Resolution No. 79-55. Motion
carried unanimously with the members present.
.:-..-IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 209 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIr�ORNIA, REGULATING THE USE
OF PUBLIC PARKS WITHIN SAID CITY\ AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson announced
ordinance would be continued to the m
to allow Council more time for review
For Adoption:
None
at action on this
ing of June 14, 1979,
a study.
X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
pOUNTy
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC Ar.CV
�TST RICE
COACHELLA
VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058
• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651
OfFIOERS
MYMOND R, RIIMMON05,
RAYMOND
PRESIDENT
LOWfLI O. WEEKS, DENERAL IMNAGE0.-MU O[DIM[[R
TELLIS OODEKAS, VICE PRESIDENT
O J. NORDUND, SECRETARY
WILLIAB GARDNER
M
T AUDITOR
April 1 17, 1979 REDWINE AND SHERRILL • ATTOMEYS
STEVE D. SU%TON
File: 0163.11
o421.1
0721.1
Dept. of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
P. 0. Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Change of Zone 4-79
DP 04-79, Section 31, T5S, R6E
Gentlemen:
If the flood protection facilities are built to meet the 100 years criteria,
the concept of the plans will meet with District approval.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to said
area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 6 of the Coachella
Valley County Water District for domestic water service.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of the
Coachella Valley County Water District.
This area shall be annexed to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Unit of the
Coachella Valley County Water District.
Very trlily yours
UL
i
Lowell 0. Weeks l
General Manager -Chief Engineer
KEH: je
cc: Riverside County Dept. of
Public Health RE ,, 1s - .
JEAN ANN NIRSCNI
JAMES P. NEALEY
DENNIS J. NEALEY
WALTER T. CLARM
EXHIBIT "A"
HIUCHI, HUILf9 6 HE11Lf9
A P.OIESSIONAL COPPOPAVION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 24, 1979
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. CZ 04-79 and DP 94-79
Silver Spur Associates
aka Ironwood West
Gentlemen:
)A-O]S EL PASEO AVENUE SUIT[ A3
P. O. 0"Y'" I>OJ
PALM DESERT, CALVOOMA 92260
,,w see -see,
The City Council is requested to continue the above re-
ferenced cases for the following re..sons:
1. A meeting has been scheduled with the Coachella
Valley County Water District for 9:00 A.M., Friday, May 25, 1979 between
CVCWD, Palm Desert and Indian Wells to discuss drainage issues pertaining
to and significantly affecting the proposed project and our cities.
2. The Local Flood Agency, CVCWD, should approve the projects
drainage plan as being consistent with and not detrimental to 1-A
(modified), the agreed upon Bechtel Storm Drainage plan. Also, Bechtel
Engineers should review and comment as to the projects possible effects
on implementation of the regional storm drainage system and on interim
mitigation measures necessary prior to the construction of 1-A (modified).
3. An evaluation should be made by CVCWD and Indian Wells as
to what effect they would have in the proceedings and character of the
existing lawsuit No. Indio 23262, dated 3-11-77, City of Indian Wells v.
Coachella Valley Water District and State of California, CALTRANS, by the
approval of plans and/or any acts of grading and grassing or otherwise im-
proving the present sand dike traversing the project together with the
proposed grading and construction of an additional parallel -dike with
retainer -wall foundation and concrete grouted -rock surface to be located
one quarter mile south on the project boundary.
Your careful consideration of the requested continuance would
be appreciated in order that mutual benefits will accrue from the infor-
mation to be secured.
(-Very truly yours, _
i
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010, 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
CITY OF PALM DESERT -LEGAL NOTICE
CZ 0479
I a■ 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 newpaper of
general circulation, printed
and Published daily in the
city of Riverside, 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:
05110 ,1979
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
i
CITYLEFPAL
L NOTICEERT
FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT
C/{ Mn AND DP MT _.... ._ ......�_ ..:.,_•_ ..v_� .�..
DISK, l SO TVg1tt C11QNN, NI Me p] nr lWly U rlo po M: Wl-1MDy
Wt-
pmp�l,, QL 12.l I
(PUP_>. 6aT:iill
IMOI 6P-la-0]t
p� _ Wl-InQ.1
WNA=
IWO, r Wl-ln-45
Wl-ulm,
°oj
y
TIDNAL MAP:--��------
" t
AL"AIII Gu, �, 1I
llplI Ugly i TIII
14�l NXI'i lw �i� l,ll 1 j z -
alit H lnno wNl m Wd on TN SAove Muy N IM W T:W o m In me�ol.lcll
me Pal Deee.l CIN Noll4Sn5 PH Yw P Lane. Palm ef D' Cmv Io. N
and M. al Intrashd imr,cn, ara I.Vlhd b attwl� and Ra,
GILLI CH, - -
o11M CH, aFFalm iM.rt O pDP3/10
i
Minutes Page Eight
Palm Desert Planni ommission
May 3, 1979
VI. H. Case No. PM 14625 - SIEGEL ENTERPRISES, Applicant
Request for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to divide
77 net acres into two parcels upon annexation; proposing
one parcel to contain approximately 9 acres in the P.C.-2,
S.P. (U.A.) (Planned Commercial, District, Scenic
Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) zone, and the other
parcel to contain approximately 66.5 acres in the PR-4,
S.P. (U.A.) (Planned Residential, max. 4 d.u./ac., Scenic
Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) zone and approximately
1.5 acres in the P (U.A.) (Public/Institutional, Upon
Annexation) zone, located south and east of the intersection
of Country Club Drive and Cook Street.
Mr. Crump -resented the case, noting that the proposed Parcel
Map seeks to separate the approved commercial zoned property (Parcel
No. 1) from the balance of the Development Plan area. There appears to
be no problems in defining this area separately, as long as the site
development continues to be tied to the larger area in terms of im-
provements and design. Staff would, therefore, recommend approval of
this case.
Chairman Snyder asked if the applicant would like to make a
presentation.
IRWIN SIEGEL, Encino,. California, questioned Condition of
Approval No. 4, stating that the configuration of
proposed Parcel No. 1 does relfect the same as that
approved in Case No. C/Z 12-78. He requested that this
particular condition be deleted, as it is not applicable.
After some discussion between Mr. Siegel and the Commission
and Staff, it was agreed that Condition No. 4 should be deleted.
The Commission also discussed with the applicant the merits of
defining the P (U.A.) zoned area as a separate parcel.
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this request.
There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed, and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission.
On a motion by Commissioner Fleshman, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder, the case was approved by Planning Commission Resolution
No. 486, subject to the deletion of Condition No. 4; carried
unanimously (4-0).
✓ I. Case No C/Z 0 and DP 04-79 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES,
Applican
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D.,
S.P. (Planned Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway,
Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation
Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac
Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and
PR-7, D. to PR-5 on approximately 101.5 acres; and related
Minutes Page Nine
Palm Desert Planning Commission
May 3, 1979
VI. I. (cont.)
Mr. Crump then noted that the applicant had expressed a wish
for a change in wording on Standard Condition Nos. 4 and 13, and also
has a question on Special Condition No. 2 and 4a. No. 4 cites the
maximum time for the validity of this approval, and No. 13 restricts
development of the site prior to a tract map. Staff would be amenable
to change of both of these conditions - No. 4 would specify 1989 as
date project should be completed; and No. 13 would add "No residential
development".
Chairman Snyder then asked if the applicant wished to make a
presentation.
JOHN BALLEW, Ballew/McFalrand stated his agreement with the
wording changes for Conditions as stated above, and noted that he had
an additional question on Special Condition Nos. 2 and 4a. No. 2 cites
a "solid decorative masonry wall along Highway 74", and Mr. Ballew
asked for some latitude in the design of wall. Mr. Williams suggested
to add, after "perimeter" - "except where it abuts other portions of
Ironwood", and also to delete the word "solid".
Regarding No. 4a, Mr. Ballew related that they could solve
most of the 4-way intersections, but would like the latitude of
introducing 4-ways at points where it creates other design problems.
It was agreed to add "wherever possible" to Special Condition
No. 4a.
Chairman Snyder declared the Public Hearing open, asking if
anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the request.
There being none, he declared the Public Hearing closed.
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commission
Kryder, the case was approved, with the changes noted to Standard
Conditions 4 and 13, and Special Conditions 2 and 4a, by adopting
Planning Commission Resolution NO. 487; carried .3-0-1 (AYES: Berkey,
Kryder, Snyder, ABSTAIN: Fleshman).
Commissioner Fleshman re-entered the Chambers at this time.
VII. OLD BUSINESS - None
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Request for comments from Riverside County Planning Depart-
ment regarding Change of Zone Case No. 2842, R-2-4000 to I-P.
Mr. Williams reviewed the proposal with the Commission, and
it was unanimously decided to direct Mr. Williams to notify the
County Planning Department of the City's opposition to this request,
for the reason that the requested Industrial Zone district does
ry.
MI
l _
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010. 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
CHANGE OF ZONE G RELATED PLAN
C/Z 04-79
I 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 cleric of the printer
of PALM DESERT POST• a newpaper of
general circulations Printed
and published daily In the
city of Riverside. County of
Riverside, and which newspaper
has been adludged 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
notices 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:
04119 ,1979
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report on: Change of Zone and related Preliminary Development Plan
Applicant: Silver Spur Assoc., c/o R. L. Spicer, 48870 Portola Ave., Palm Desert
Case Nos.: C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
Date: May 3, 1979
I. REQUEST:
Approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P. (Planned Residential,
maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max.
5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7,
D. to PR-5 on approximately 101.5 acres; and related preliminary
Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination of
single-family, duplex and townhouses on approximately 179.5 acres of
land, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, north and south
of the existing flood control dike, extending south to the southern City
limits.
LOCATIONAL MAP:
II. BACKGROUND:
A. ADJACENT ZONING:
North: R-1 12,000 and PR-6
South: Riverside County R-1
Can}• nn 7 n l nn nnn __J n r
Staff Report - Case N C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
May 3, 1979
Page Two
II. (cont.)
D. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES:
Riverside County CUP 1382 -- original approval
for Ironwood
Country Club.
E. OVERALL PROJECT USE ANALYSIS:
1. Project Description
a. Existing use permit allocation
Area Acres Units/Acre
Total
A 28.5 10
285
B 10.1 10
101
M 24.0 2
48
N 15.0 10
150
R 31.5 0
0
------------------------------------
New added area: X 70.0 0
0
Total area in
this application: 179.1
951 units
approved
b. Proposal in this application
Type No. Units
Acreage
Unit/Acre
acre lots 17
8.5
2.0
Single-family homes 36
11.0
3.27
Duplex 442
101.1
4.17
Townhouses 330
58.5
5.64
Total Units 805
179.1
4.49 ay. units/acre
c. Summary comparison
- Previous approval - 951 d.u. on
109.1 acres, average 8.72 d.u./ac.
- Proposal - 805 d.u. on
179.1 acres, average 4.49 d.u./ac.
F. LAND USE ANALYSIS:
Applicant calculation
- Building coverage 22.31%
- Private open space 8.05%
- Driveways 2.67%
- Streets and parking 13.42%
- Open space 53.55%
G. PARKING ANALYSIS:
Townhouse
Parking
Garages 660
Staff Report - Case N C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79 Page Three
May 3, 1979
II. G. (cont.)
Single -Family
Parking
Garages 72
Driveways 72
Street 66
Total 138 Ratio 3.8:1
Units 36
H. RECREATIONAL AMENITIES:
1. Townhouse area (330 units)
- 11 swimming pool areas
- 6 tennis courts
2. Duplex area (442 units)
- 14 swimming pool areas
3. Single Family (detached) area (36 units)
- 1 swimming pool
I. MAJOR PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS:
- Flood control measures necessary to provide protection from a
100 year storm, involving construction and moving of the flood
control dike which presently serves the area. Design approval
is subject to Coachella Valley County Water District approval.
- Internal private street system, realigning Portola.
- Highway 74 parkway improvements.
- Landscaping and grass lining of the existing flood control channel.
J. CHANGE OF ZONE PROPOSAL:
- PR-1, D (and PR-1, D., SP., 300' deep along Highway 74) to PR-5
(and PR-5, S.P.) for 70 acres, which is an area not previously
covered in the Ironwood approval.
- PR-7, D., to PR-5 for 31.5 acres which was previously covered
under the Ironwood CUP approval (designated as area 'R').
-- Total Change of Zone area involves 101.5 acres lying southerly
from the existing flood control dike.
-- Total project area (this application) involves an additional
77.6 acres lying northerly of the existing flood control dike,
for a total Development Plan area of 179.1 acres.
III. DISCUSSION:
A. CHANGE OF ZONE:
The Change of Zone requested in this application would appear to be
a straight -forward implementation of the General Plan, subject to the
Staff Report - Case N C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79 Page Four
May 3, 1979
III. (cont.)
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
The overall development Plan circulation features a realignment of
Portola, bending it south to connect that portion of the project
lying on the side of the existing levy. Portola forms an
important circulation spine and tends to unify the total project.
The former Portola entrance connection will become a minor resident
entrance serving the Townhouses. While the conceptual circulation
design appears to be generally acceptable, for purposes of traffic
safety, it is recommended that four-way intersections be avoided.
Project perimeter treatment should include a boundary wall, with special
attention to the Highway 74 frontage. This frontage should have a
solid decorative masonry wall with ornamental landscaped berms and
mounds. A pedestrian/bike path system should also be established
along this frontage with a public access easement where it meanders out
of the parkway.
The single most important feature of the development plan is the new
levy/dike improvement to be installed by this project. As
illustrated, the dike would be located along the south boundary of
the development, which is also the south boundary of the City.
Arrangements have been made by the applicant to install the
improvements across the square notched out parcel which is held under
a different ownership, as the improvement would also benefit this
property. The existing channel area would remain for local drainage,
and open space purposes.
Townhouse Area - lies north of the existing flood control dike, on
either side of the realigned Portola Avenue. The major portion
of this area is severed by loop private road system with units
clustered around motor courts. Schematically, the clustering of
building groups with a green belt system providing separation and
recreation linkages would seem to be an acceptable approach, but
on closer examination, it is questionable whether the motor courts
(which are the crux of the design) are efficiently and/or
functionally designed. In the conceptual level of detail submitted
for the Development Plan application, only the more obvious
deficiencies are prominent. Several examples of this would be that:
Unit garages at the ends of courts appear to require vehicles
to back out some fifty feet across other garage entrances before
being able to turn around.
In many cases, open parking is not provided in front of the
garages(or directly across from the units, which has been found
to be an acceptable alternative).
In other situations, there is a wide expanse of paving and it is
not quite clear the effect random open parking will have on
court circulation, as well as the efficiency of having large
paved areas.
'Staff Report - Case n C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79 Page Five
May 3, 1979
III. B. 2. (cont.)
another design consideration which surfaces is the distance
separation between buildings. PR zone standards call for a 20 ft.
separation; in this design, units are generally turned at
angles, therefore a minimum separation of 10 ft., at the closest
point, would seem reasonable.
3. Single-family Detached Units - located on the north side of the
existing levy, south of Portola, are arranged around three
cul-de-sac streets. Greenbelts, again, separate these
three clusters.
4. Half Acre Lots - remotely located around the eastern
boundary of the Ironwood project relate more to the individual
land holding which are not a part of this development. They will
serve other properties with a connecting road system. The grid
of streets to be formed should be studied in relation to the
other properties. The applicant is working on an exhibit to
illustrate this connection.
C. CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS:
Renderings have been submitted to illustrate project architectural
views; which is basically similar to the approach that has been
taken elsewhere. At this level of detail, the architectural design
would appear acceptable.
D. DESIGN REVIEW:
For purposes of discussion, the Design Review Board viewed the
project plans at their April 10, 1979 meeting. They noted the four-
way intersection consideration, but generally found the concept to
be acceptable.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to the resolution of design questions noted in this report at the
Design Review stage, and based on the justification provided in the
resolution:
Recommend approval to the City Council of Zone Change Case No. C/Z 04-79,
and related preliminary Development Plan DP 04-79, subject to conditions,
by Planning Commission Resolution No.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE 04-79 and DEVELOPMENT PLAN 04-79 DATE: APRIL 17, 1979
No comments regarding change of zone.
1. It is recommended that the streets be staggered to eliminate
the four-way intersections on the major through street of this
development.
2. It is recommended that at least 8 car stacking be provided at
the entrance to this development from the Highway 74.
3. Safety street lighting shall be installed to the approval of
the Director of Public Works.
4. This development shall pay the required drainage and signaliza-
tion fees to the City of Palm Desert.
5. This development approval is contingent upon the construction
of an approved dike system located to the south of this proposed
development plan.
LpUNiY
�ISTNILZ
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC A__.__Y
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651
DIRECTORS
RAYMOND R, RUMMONDS, PRESIDENT
TELLIS CODEKAS, VIOi PRESIDENT
C. J. FROST
WILLIAM B. GARDNER
STEVE D. BU%TON
Dept. of Environmental
City of Palm Desert
P. 0. Box 1977
Palm Desert, California
Gentlemen:
Services
92260
OFFICERS
LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANA0E4-0116 ENGINEER
OLE J. NORDLAND, SECRETARY
DENNIS M. HACKER, AUDITOR
April 17, 1979 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTOWEYS
File: o163.11
o421.1
0721.1
Re: Change of Zone 4-79
DP 04-79, Section 31, T5S, R6E
If the flood protection facilities are built to meet the 100 years criteria,
the concept of the plans will meet with District approval.
The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to said
area in accordance with the currently prevailing regulations of this District.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 6 of the Coachella
Valley County Water District for domestic water service.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of the
Coachella Valley County Water District.
This area shall be annexed to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Unit of the
Coachella Valley County Water District.
KEH : j e
cc: Riverside County Dept. of
Public Health
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201
Very tr ly yours,
�'tuf-l�G�'L!tF
Lowell 0. Weeks
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RFCIEIIVC,1)
APP I 1979
EN\ _ ..ICES
CITY 0: PALM L;LSLRT
1/
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAN COMPANY
R. W. RIDDELL
Eastern Division
Distribution Planning Supervisor
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Case No. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
3700 CENTRAL AVENUE • RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Meiling Address P. O. BOX 2200, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92516
April 9, 1979
Location of Nearest Gas Main:
In Portola
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to
serve the proposed project; but only as an information service. Its
intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas
service to the project could be provided from an existing main without
any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in
accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with
the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual
arrangements are made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter,
is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies.
As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the
jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can
also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should
these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition
under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance
with revised conditions.
We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to
provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy
conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further
information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact
this office for assistance.
MAJF
APR 12 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
• ti
46.10
Southern California Edison Company
CATHE_R&. CANYON DRIVE
CATHEDRAL CIT" CALIFORNIA 92234
April 9, 1979
TO: City of Palm Desert
45275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92260
Project: C/Z C4-79 and DP 04-79
Envirormental Impact Report
This is to advise that the subject property is located within the service
territory of the Southern California Edison Ccnpany, and that the -electric
loads of the project are within parameters -of projected load growth u.diich Edison
is planning to meet in this area.
Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our estimates,
and provided 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 o£.new generating facilities
are delayed, our ability to -serve all customer loads during peak demand periods
could become marginal by 1983-84.
locally we are, and will continue, to make major capital improvements
and additions to our distribution system to meet the present unprecedented
growthinour-service territory in the valley.
It is our intention to continue to do everything that can reasonably be
accoiplished to provide our customers with a continuous and sufficient supply
of electricity.
Very truly yours,
4enn anon
Customer Service Planner
GB:ae WE VIE r D
APR I
[NVIRONMLI,...L
CITY Of PALM DESERT
IRONWOOD WEST
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
John Balkw
David S. Buchanan
Slephen A. Flesh.m
Rohm McFod and ALA
Don Nicholl
Rob Pm.,w
APR 2-1979
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
7
It is anticipated that Ironwood will be developing at an
average of 150 — 250 units per year. This developing will
begin in the vicinity of where Portola now ends, which is
the intersection of Irontree. Developing will proceed
westerly along the extension of Portola. It is anticipated
that Portola will be connected to Hwy. 74 when approximately
half of the units are under construction. Stormwater improve—
ments are anticipated to begin with the first phases of
work in the West area.
The precise design of the new stormwater dike is being worked
out with the Water District. It is anticipated that the
ultimate appearance will substantially conform to that
which was submitted for the environmental assessment.
Driveways
187,520
sq.
ft.
2.67%
Building Coverage
64,968
sq.
ft.
22.31%
Private Open Space
599,990
sq.
ft.
8.05%
Total Streets
945,360
sq.
ft.
13.42%
Open Space
4,081,655
sq.
ft.
53.55%
74075 EL PASEO BSUITE A 7 PALLMEDESERCALIF
T, CALF. 92260 714) W-5626 PLANNERS & ARCHITECT S CORPORATION
bhn Ballow
Dovld 5. Buchanan
Stephen A. Fleshmon
Robert Mdorland AIA
Dan Nlcholl
Rob Patterson
The primary objective of the plan for Ironwood West
was to integrate this portion of the project into the already
developed areas. This is partially accomplished by moving
Portola. The total area of Ironwood has been expanded by 70
acres. The development plan requests a total of 805 new
dwellings on 179.1 acres for a density of 4.49 on Ironwood
West and an overall Ironwood density of 1,792 dwellings on
544.9 acres equal to 3.28 per acre.
The plan itself has four residential product types.
They are as follows:
1)
4 Acre lots
(17)
on 8.5
acres 2.0/ac.
2)
Single family homes
(36)
on 11.0
acres 3.27/ac.
3)
Duplex
(422)
on 101.1
acres 4.17/ac.
4)
Townhouses
(330)
on 58.5
acres 5.64/ac.
Total
805
179.1
4.49/ac.
The drainage for the area is proposed to be changed
in that the dike which now exists will be moved 1,400' south
and substantially improved.
74075 El PASEO BSUIRE A-7 PALMEDESERT,, CAL F. 92260 plel 5M-%26 PLANNERS & ARCHITECT S CORPORATION
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
(Negative Declaration)
TO: x) Office'of the County Clerk From: City of Palm Desert
County of Riverside 45-275 Prickly Pear Ln.
4050 Main Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Riverside, Ca. 92501
Secretary for Resources
-1416 Ninth St., Room 1311
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15083(f)
,of the State EIR Guidelines.
Project Title/Common
Name
Case''Nos. C/Z 04-79
and DP 04-79/Portion of Ironwood Country Club
:..—State Clearinghouse
Number if submitted to State Clearinghouse)
n/a
Contact Person
Telephone Number
Area Code (714) 346-0611
-Mr. Murrel Crump
Project Location
Generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits
and the existing CVCWD Stormwater Channel.
Project Description
Change of Zone (various) to Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./a
on 101.5 acres; and,
Related Development Flan providing for an overall
.2 Wb,dwelllng units, bUd of WhIch constitute a new project area..
This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations
—regarding the above described project:
1. The project has been approved by the City;
.2. The project will (X) will not have a significant effect on the environment;
3. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project;
and
4. A Negative Declaration was prepared for i-s—p ect pursuant to the provisions
of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Dec I ation may examined at the above City
Hall address.
Date Received for Filing
Datedc,�� '� W
proje
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Pursuant to Title 14,
Div. 6, Article 7,
Sec. 15083, of the
California Administra-
tive Code)
(Common Project Portion of
Case Nos.: C/Z 04-79 & DP 04-79 Name, if any) Ironwood Country Clu
Applicant/Project Sponsor:
Palm Desert, California 92260
Silver Spur Associates; 48870 Portola Avenue
Project Description/Location: Chance of Zone (various) to Planned
Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac. on 101.5 acres• and, Related Development Plan
providing for an overall project of 805 dwelling units 508 of which
constitute a new Dro_iect area. eenerally located on the east side of
Highway 74, between the southern City limits and the existing CVCWD
Stormwater Channel.
The Director of the Dept. of Environmental Services, City of Palm
Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have
a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study
has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding.
Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid poten-
tially significant effects, may also be found attached.
-23
Paul A: Williams, AICP
Dir. of Environmental Sery
Y'
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF A
"DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the follow-
ing listed projects will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted:
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.
(Planned Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway,
Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation Overlay)
to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic
Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to
PR-5, on property containing approximately 101.5 acres and
related Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in
a combination of single-family, duplex, and townhouses,
generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits and the existing Coachella Valley
County Water District Stormwater Channel.
CASE NO. CUP 03-79
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a racquetball and health club on approximately
1.4 acres within the R-3(4) (Multi -Family Residence,
4,000 sq. ft. per unit) zone located on Lots 6 and 7,
Palma Village Unit #3.
CASE NO. C/Z 05-79
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1
(Single -Family Residential) to C-1 (General Commercial)
for property containing approximately 10,000 sq. ft.
located on the northeast corner of Lantana Avenue and
Larrea Street.
An appeal from this determination may be made to the Planning Commission
within eight (8) days of the date of posting of this public notice by
filing an appeal in accordance with Resolution No. 78-32, with the
Department of Environmental Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California. If no appeal is filed within the said time,
this determination shall become final.
` ---A ` PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP
Director of Environmental Services
Date of Public Notice 4 9 1he
Date Appeal Period Expires
METHOD OF NOTICING:
!/costing
!/wiling to owners of property within 300'
Publication in newspaper
Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice)
Nos. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
PROJECT REDEFINITION
A portion of the present undertaking by Silver Spur Associates in Case
Nos. C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79 is an on -going project. The current environ-
mental assessment concerns that activity which has not been previously
considered in governmental review, and is limited to the extent that the
original project has not been significantly changed.
The attached schedule lists data concerning the original and proposed
project areas, and unit count. In the current proposal, 70 acres containing
350 dwelling units is being added to the original Ironwood project. An
additional 158 dwelling units are being proposed on 31.5 acres which had no
original unit approval, but the overall original unit count has not been
exceeded by either of these additions. Therefore, in terms of impacts
associated with dwelling units/population growth, the overall undertaking
represents a decrease in incremental impacts as may have been perceived
originally.
The new project elements of the overall undertaking do involve lands with
a specific environment constraint. These lands are currently indicated
as having a flood hazard. The project proposes to implement improvements
to the present man-made flood control facilities removing the hazard from
the subject areas and providing additional protection for down -stream
properties. Several technical approaches have been outlined by the project
sponsor to solve the flooding hazard, and now the selection of the most
desirable procedure, or combination of approaches, rests with the City's
contract flood control agency. In any event, the most acceptable level
of mitigation will be implemented as a part of the project proposal.
LOCATION
SIZE ORIGINAL
APPROVED
UNITS
IRONWOOD
UNITS UNITS UNITS TOTAL
BUILT APPROVED PROPOSED UNITS
TRACT
REFERENCE
A
28.5
285
200
200
B
10.1
101
70
70
C
45.5
226
150
150
14082
D&E
45.5
223
161
161
5565-1-2
5554
F&G
34.5
113
71
71
5553
H
54.6
550
302
302
5565-4
5083
4685
12784
J
41.1
411
124
124
5796
K
37.0
555
76
84
160
5565-3-5
L
32.8
62
19
19
5564
m
24.0
40
68
68
N
15
150
105
105
R
31.5
0
0
0
158
158
Q
58.8
0
0
0
0
0
P
16.0
0
0
0
0
0
X
70
0
0
350
350
TOTAL 544.9 2,716 682 221 1,035 1,938
John Ballow - '
Dwid S. Bachonw
Stephen A. Fleshman
Rohen McForbnd AIA D. Nichol]
Rob Paee,mn
Dwellings Acres Density
Original County Approval 21716 468.4 5.79
Concerned Citizen's Settlement 2,530 468.4 5.4
Proposed Plan 1,938 545 3.55
17848 SKY PARK 7407B 5 EL PASEO SURE A 7 PALM EDESERT, CALIF. M60 pu) 5685626 PLANNERS & ARCHITECTS CORPORATION
CASE NO. G'Z O - 9
City o f' i�d 1 rrr 1�1/�se rt
Environmental Assessment form
TO THE APPLICANT:
Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information
requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to
make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises
discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be
considered complete until all information necessary to make the
environmental assessment is complete.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Name, address, and telephone number of owner, applicant or project
sponsor: L SPfGtft51We-V, —)i` `S0� PR11
CAS O�
2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con-
cerning the project (such as architect, engineer or other repre-
sentative): fgJWE F«sFfi�tiAt�1
��csiS E��.�o A � • RuM®es�� Ga. 5io8-5�26
3. Common name of project (if any):
4. Project location (street address or general location): Ease 5ior
5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or
meets & bounds): QW_ ATnWAaWTe�
6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed;
describe the total undertaking, not just the current application
approval being sought): ReVPs,IlloL
7O Relationship to irger project or series of pro :s (describe
how this project relates to other activities, hazu�, and develop-
ments planned, or now underway): p�-nDo of _-MDtAuybty
IFtNA6. -PHA-Oss . 4 70 OF-W Ac./ s _
® List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals
required for this project, to go forward, including those required
by the City, Regional, State and Federal agencies (indicate sub-
sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required):
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Q�
9� Project site area:
Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage)
�0 Present zoning: • (—( (Proposed z/oning):�. PR5
IUt General Plan land use designation: S-7
0Existing use of the project site: Juus.J
13. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center;
South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc.).
I��s� • RAC �iS%. � rDY. �,� .
14. Site topography (describe): QJIJ 13; d
15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or
adjacent to the property? NO YES X
16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved):
17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed:
18. Describe any Cultural, historic, or scenic aspects of the project
site: ,/
19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer)
A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms):
B. Schedule of unit sizes: „tn
C. Number of stories �{° Height feet.
D. Largest single building (sq. ft.) (hgt.)
E. Type of househo�d size ex pec ed (population projection for the
project): Z. T_
F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities:
&f
G. Is there any night lighting of the project: +w.
it
Range of sales prices or rents: $ to $_
Percent of total project devoted to:
Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �29 %
Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . ap,Z� %
Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . . 66 2 %
20. Commercial Industrial, Institutional or Other Project:
A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices, specify
type & number):
B. Number of square feet in total building area:
C. Number of stories Height feet.
D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft.) (Hgt.)
E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area:
F. Total number of required parking spaces
number provided
G. Hours of operation:
H. Maximum number of clients, patrons, shoppers, etc., at one time:
I. Maximum number of employees at one time:
J. If patron seating is involved, state the number:
K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes No
L. Percent of total project devoted to:
Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %
Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . .
Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). .
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects:
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as
necessary).
21. Change in existing features of hillsides,
or substantial alteration of ground contours.
22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors
in the project vicinity.
23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind
or flooding.
24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drainage patterns.
25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in
the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport
noise (has the required.acoustical report been
submitted?)
26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammables or explosives.
27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy.
28. Changes the demand for municipal services
(police, fire, sewage, etc.)
29. Changes the demand for utility services, beyond
those presently available or planned in the
near future.
30. Significantly affects any unique or natural
features, including mature trees.
31. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
residential areas or public land or public roads.
32. Results in the dislocation of people.
YES NO
0
AL
YES NO
33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or
other features of the project. —
[ ] Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above
and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
e Print or Type For
Signature Date
INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30.00
(Make check payable to the
City of Palm Desert and sub-
mit with this form.)
CASE NO. 97- 0 %9
ENVIRONT-'fENTAL SERVICES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible
mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets).
Yes
Maybe
No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in _
_
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or _
_
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d. The destruction, covering., or modification
✓
- of any unique geologic or physical features? _
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? _
_
_
L.
Yes Maybe No
3.
Water. Will the proposal. result in:
sr
a.
Changes in currents nor the course or
direction of water -movements?
r/
'-•
b.
Changes in absorptioprates, drainage
r
patterns, or the rate•and amount of
surface water runoff&
c.
Alterations to the course or flow'of
flood waters?
d.
Alteration of the dtrection or rate of
flow of ground waters?
_✓
e.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through directradditions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
S
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
✓
f.
Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies?
*4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species. of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, and
crops)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered spectescof plants?
— —
t
c.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
i
replenishment of existing species?
5.
Animal Life. Will the proposal 'result in:
_
a.
Changes in the diversity of species, or
`
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, or
insects)?
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals?
(/
c.
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d.
Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
_ —
3.
Yes M�be No
6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural
resource?
7. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the development of new sources of
energy.
8. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides, oil, chemicals, or radiation) in
the event of an accident or upset conditions? C/
9.
Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding?
b. A change in the value of property and
improvements exposed to geologic hazards
beyond accepted community risk standards?
i10.
Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels to the point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded?
11.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
a teration of the present developed or
planned land use of an area?
C�
12.
Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in the amount of designated open
space?
l✓
13.
Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
✓
population of the City?
b. Change in the population distribution by
age, income, religion, racial, or ethnic
group, occupational class, household type? _ _
v
4
v
�
4.
Yes Maybe
No
7* 14.
Employment. Will the proposal result in
additional new long-term jobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed?
15.
Housing. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner -occupied and rental,
etc.) relative to demand or to number of
f
families in various income classes in the City?
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing?
16.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods?
_ ✓
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
v
bicyclists, or pedestrians?
17.
Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental services in any of the following
areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
!/
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
b1
Yes Maybe No
18.
Public fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
19.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
.�
b. Communications system?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
!/
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
20.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard?
b. A change in the level of community health
/
care provided?
L/
21.
Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased demand for provision of general
social services?
C/
22.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
f
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area) attractiveness, pleasantness,
and uniqueness?
L�
23.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
.�
24.
Arche�olo ical/Historical. Will the proposal
result in an a—Tteration of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building?
I
25
R1
Yes MLbe No
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into v
the future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(A project may impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on each resource
is relatively small, but where the effect of
the total of those impacts on the environment
is significant.) _
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Prepared By:
Case I C/Z 04-79 and DP 04-79
Environmental Evaluation Checklist
explanation of "Yes" and "Maybe" answers
and comments on evaluation subjects.
1. EARTH
C. The proposal will result in a change in the natural topography by
virtue of grading activities associated with ultimate development.
* e. The proposal may result in future temporary construction impacts
related to wind erosion of soils, but City requirements for
watering during grading activities should reduce any impact to an
insignificant level. Development of the site would tend to
stabilize soils to eliminate future wind erosion or blowing sand.
* 2. AIR
The proposal will involve the use of motor vehicles by project residents,
but the proposal will not, of itself, breach any State or Federal Air
Quality Standards, or significantly damage valley air quality.
* 3. WATER
The proposal will pose an incremental increase in demand for domestic
water supply, but will not result in an over -draft condition.
b. The proposal will result in a change in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff by virtue
of future development. Project waters will probably be more directly
channeled to man-made drainageways.
* 4. PLANT LIFE
The proposal will ultimately replace the existing natural vegetative cover
with ornamental landscaping and ground covers. No perceived adverse
environmental effect will occur.
* 5. ANIMAL LIFE
The proposal may involve maintaining domestic animals by future project
occupants. Existing mammals and rodents and reptiles on the site will
probably be displaced. Landscaping on the site will probably provide a
new habitat for birds and insects.
* 6. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposal will use natural resources in the construction of a future
project, some of which may not be renewable. The proposal will also
involve the continued use of petroleum products by project occupants.
The demands of this project are considered to be incremental and are
not considered to present a significant adverse impact.
* 7. ENERGY
Energy efficient standards within the Palm Desert Building Code (adopted
version of the Uniform Building Code) will be applied to this project.
Motor fuel considerations are discussed in 6, above.
* 8. RISK OF UPSET
The proposal will not involve the use of hazardous substances.
* 9. ECONOMIC LOSS
a. As discussed in the project redefinition, the proposal site is
subject to a flood hazard, but by virtue of development improvements,
that hazard will be mitigated.
b. The proposal site will be subject to strong ground motion in the
event of an earthquake. Palm Desert Building Codes provide for
lateral seismic loading to mitigate damage from ground motion.
* 10. NOISE
The proposal itself will not involve new adverse noise other than that
associated with urban uses. The residential development will be enclosed
by a solid masonry wall to act as a sound barrier to perimeter street noises.
* 11. LAND USE
The proposal is consistent with the planned land use of the area.
* 12. OPEN SPACE
The proposal does not involve the use of a designated open space area.
Over 50% of the project site will, at the time of development, be used
for common open space.
* 13. POPULATION
a. & b. The proposal will result in approximately 1,066 more persons in
the immediate area (based on 2.1 persons per household). The
population increase is planned as a part of the Palm Desert
General Plan, but if rapidly implenented, it could be considered
a temporary increase of human population density in the general
area. The proposal will probably be owner -occupied, upper
middle to high income households.
* 14. EMPLOYMENT
Significant numbers of new long-term jobs are not anticipated as a
result of the proposal.
* 15. HOUSING
The proposal will result in 508 dwelling units. Units will probably
be owner -occupied (partially on a seasonal basis) and may serve as a
second house, or short-term rental in some instances. Units would
probably be offered at prevailing market rates for upper -high income
consumers.
* 16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The proposal will result in the generation of additional vehicular
movements on the order of 2032 vehicle trips per day depending on
seasonal occupancy fluctuations and resident characteristics (factor
of 4 trips/d.u.).
The proposal site is served by arterial and major highways (thorough-
fares) which are adequate in planned design capacity to handle the
anticipated traffic volumes.
* 17. PUBLIC SERVICES
a-f. The proposal will have an incremental effect on the provision of
public service by virtue of the population increase. The impact of
the overall undertaking will be decreased, as discussed in the
project redefinition.
* 18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE
A significant net change in the public fiscal balance is not anticipated
as a result of the proposal.
* 19. UTILITIES
a-d & f The proposal site is within the planned service area of all
utility companies and will not require new systems to be
established. The proposal will place a minor incremental
demand on the provision of public utilities.
e. The proposal will incorporate a new stormwater drainage system
provided by the project.
* 20. HUMAN HEALTH
The proposal will not pose any specific health hazards or effect the
level of community health care. Project occupants will become health
care consumers, but it is noted that the doctor to patient ratio within
the area is more than adequate to accommodate population increases.
* 21. SOCIAL SERVICES
The proposal is not anticipated to place significant demands for social
services, based on anticipated projected occupant profile.
22
23
AESTHETICS
The proposal does not involve obstruction of scenic vistas, or creation
of an aesthetically offensive site; it will establish a neighborhood
character of its own, whose attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness
will be the subject of the City Design Review process.
LIGHT AND GLARE
The proposal will probably
lighting. Lighting that is
levels and will be closely
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
not involve the significant use of night
to be established will be maintained at low
reviewed to minimize light "spillage" and glare.
The proposal will not effect any known or recorded archeological or
historic resources.
25. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposal is not found to have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment. The proposal will not impare achievement of long
term environmental goals. The proposal involves minor incremental
impacts which are not considered to be cumulatively considerable when
viewed in the planned perspective of City development. The proposal
does not pose any adverse environmental impacts on human beings.
AL OSIA 97SANO alINIFT & A EiNIS c®NSULTING ENGINEERS
February 22, 1979
Mr. Ed Wallach
Ed Wallach & Associates
131 West Green Street
Pasadena, California 91101
FRANK E. ALOERMAN
rasu> cor., Lln
WILLIAM O. LEWIS
AE54lEM
FRANK M. SWIFT
-M R"ESiOENT
LEWIS W. GARBER
. RIEfYUENT
ROY N. LAMAR
PSEO(:�/�TE
O GLAS J. REINHART
P39 Ile
Ft8 26 1979
WALLACH and ASSOCIATES
Dear Mr. Wallach:
Subject: Draft Traffic Review of Ironwood West
Enclosed is the draft traffic review of the Ironwood West
residential project in Palm Desert. I call it draft be-
cause it does discuss a couple of "concerns" that might
arise as a result of the curvilinear alignment of Portola
Avenue within the development. This concern regards
streets which intersect on the inside of these curves. Such
intersections have limited sight distance for on -coming traf-
fic if landscaping, walls, buildings or other structures ob-
struct the view. Therefore, I suggest before this report is
finalized we get together to discuss this matter since I did
not go into great detail within the report itself.
Please feel free to call me at (714) 979-1761 at your earl-
iest convenience if you need additional information or agree
a meeting to discuss these concerns would be beneficial.
Sincerely,
Joe E. F st
.,Traffic & Transportation Engineer
JEF:bjb
Encl.
cc: Ballew McFarland & Associates
Attn: L"4 . John Ballew
721 FAIR OAKS AVENUE. SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91030 • (213) 799-7121 • 662-2176
2921 SOUTH MAIN STREET. SUITE C, SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92707 • (714) 979-1761
TRAFFIC REVIEW OF IRONWOOD
WEST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Introduction
In response to a request from Mr. Ed Wallach of the firm of the
same name of Pasadena, California, ASL Consulting Engineers con-
ducted a traffic review of the traffic impacts of the final
phase expansion of the Ironwood Condominium Development in Palm
Desert, California, known as Ironwood West. Specifically it was
requested that a traffic review of the following items be under-
taken:
1. Street Capacity
2. General Circulation
3. Impact on Surrounding Properties
In general the Ironwood West project consists of approximately
1106 condominiums to be developed on the last remaining 200
acres located on the east side of State Highway 74 (known as
Pines to Palms Highway) southerly of its intersection with
Starburst Drive. The project site is located adjacent to State
Highway 74 approximately 2-1/2 miles southerly of State Highway
111 in the City of Palm Desert. The project site and the sur-
rounding street system as well as that proposed by the develop-
ment, is shown on the vicinity map. The following three sections
of this report deal with the specific items reviewed, namely
street capacity, general circulation and impact on surrounding
properties. Ironwood West will be private community with access
controlled by security gates placed at the three entrances.
Street Capacity
The first step in the review of the effect of the traffic gener-
ated by the Ironwood West project on street capacity is a look at
the historical trends of traffic growth on both State Highway 74
and 111 in the vicinity of the city of Palm Desert. The results
of that investigation are shown on the following table. It is
significant to note that even though the volume of traffic on
State Highway 74 in the vicinity of the project has grown from
1800 ADT in 1969 to 3,000 ADT in 1977, traffic still remains well
below the capacity of this existing two-lane highway. Similarly, -
State Highway.11l is showing considerable growth in the segment
to the west of State Highway 74 (i.e. currently 27,000 ADT).
Nevertheless a significantly lower traffic volume exist on the
section of State Highway 111 east of Portola (16,600 ADT) which
leads directly to the project site.
1 ..i. 1
------- +-------------
�r�„ i
n�
•�C 1 I
G°AM
LD�RMAIII
$ & LEWIEYIIIS
60aEMM[>\ E
r�N!rR\9rfnrNr F: ►K
VICIIVITI MAP
F/r IRF I
Traffic Generation
In order to develop a traffic generation rate for the residents
of the Ironwood West development a typical condominium owner pro-
file shows them to be generally adults only with few or no
children, characteristically utilizing the units as a retirement
or second home while spending only a portion of the year in resi-
dence at this location. A cursory survey shows that of the units
sold this far only about 10 percent remain the year around. As a
result of this owner profile, the typical computer orientation
for trip generation and travel patterns is not appropriate for the
Ironwood West development. Consequently ITE's standard trip gen-
eration rates which are widely published and accepted, were review-
ed and modified to more nearly approximate the actual trip making
characteristics of the home owners. The following table shows
comparible trip generation rates for various residential units.
These rates are typical of housing units but since they include
commuter trips they are likely to be higher than those encountered
in the Ironwood West Development. Although the daily trip gen-
eration is noted, for design and analysis purposes the P.M. peak
hour entry/exit rates were utilized. From the information in the
following table a daily traffic generation rate of 5.4 trips per
dwelling units (D.U.) was utilized with a P.M. peak hour entry
of 0.4 trips per D.U. and an exit rate of 0.2 trips per D.U. As
a consequence it is expected that the 1106 dwelling units will
TABLE 1
Historical Traffic Growth
STATE
HIGHWAY 74
STATE HIGHWAY 111
(So.
of Homestead)
(@ Hwy. 1 11)
(E. of
Portola)
(West of
Hwy. 7,
Year
AADT
Pk. Mo.
Pk. Hr.
AADT
AADT
Pk. Mo.
AADT
Pk. Mo.
1969
1800
2350
360
5300
13,400
14,700
16,200
20,700
1970
1800
2350
360
4000
10,900
12,000
16,000
20,700
1971
1800
2350
320
3000
11,900
13,100
14,400
18,700
1972
2300
2950
460
6800
13,400
14,700
18,000
23,300
1973
2500
3200
550
7400
13,500
14,800
24,500
31,000
1974
1975
1976
3000
3450
300
8900
15,100
17,000
26,000
31,500
1977
3000
3450
300
8300
16,600
18,600
27,000
32,500
TABLE 2
Comparable Trip Generation Rates*
Type Development
Gen. Rate
1.
Condominiums
5.6
2.
Apts. (low rise)
5.4
3.
Apts. (General)
6.1
4.
Mobile Home
5.38
PM Pk. Hr.
enter/exit
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.37
0.22
5. Retirement Community 3.3 Total 0.4
* Source: Trip Generation, An ITE Informational Report
dated 1976.
No. of Studies
1
3
98
17 (all in
Calif.)
5
generate approximately 6,000 trips per day (rounded to the near-
est 100) with a peak hour traffic volume of 442 vph entering the
development ment and 221 vph exiting the development.
Traffic Distribution and Assignment
The following figure shows the result of the distribution and as-
signment of the total trip generation. In order to distribute '
these trips to the internal roadway circulation system serving the
Ironwood [hest development a few simple assumptions were necessary.
These are:
1. A 50-50 split would occur in the distribution of
external trips between State Highway 74 and Portola
Avenue.
2. Ninety percent of the development traffic would be
oriented toward the north.
3. There would be an equal distribution of traffic to
each of the three accesses serving the 600 units
in northwesterly corner of the project. This sec-
tion of the property has access to Highway 74
through a guard controlled entry gate located along
Starburst Drive.
73--,,, K'2e sTAre PWY 7¢
)4!
LEGEND
X X --i PK HR VOL. CVPH)
MAJOR ROADWAY CGHTE Com MoLLED)
LOCAL STRE.Fr
TRAFFIC DIsTRIBUT/ON
�ALnEx)[ix PM PK HOUR TURNING MDVEMENTS
SWIFT
a LEVIIS NOT TO SCALE
72
Nrs A I
Cn
R1
4 (136Ln
_ OC i
T
C�
C
6 40
�, 20
U�Zo
3
3 —Jy 6
AO
ZZZ
Upon reviewing the traffic assigned to the various roadways in-
cluded within the internal circulation system for Ironwood West
it can be concluded that traffic experienced will be well below
the capacities of these roadways to accommodate such volumes.
For example, Portola Avenue (a private gated roadway in the
vicinity of the project) is planned as a seventy-six foot wide
roadway cross section with landscaped median. The maximum peak
hour flow is predicted to be approximately 221 vph - in the peak
direction only. This is well below the absolute capacity of
3000 vph in one direction. In addition to this mid -block street
capacity analysis an intersection capacity analysis was also
undertaken. A technique known as intersection capacity utiliza-
tion (ICU) reveals that all intersections will operate well be-
low their capacity. For example, at the intersection of the main
entrance (Portola Avenue) with State Highway 74 only 16% of the
intersection's capacity is needed to accommodate the development's
traffic both in and out onto State Highway 74. Therefore 84% of
the capacity will remain available to satisfy Highway 74's traf-
fic demand. This is more than sufficient to accommodate present
and future volume of traffic on State Highway 74 which is cur-
rently running at only 300 vehicles per hour. Similarly an inter-
section capacity utilization was conducted for the internal inter-
sections within the development. In the "worse case" situation
involving the P.M. peak hour and the highest volume internal
intersection it is noted that the intersection will be operating
at only 14% of its theoretical capacity. Consequently Portola
Avenue and the intersecting residential streets will operate at
a very high Level of Service.
Internal Circulation
With respect to the review of the general circulation of traffic
within the development itself a number of observations were
noted. These are:
1. The curvilinear configuration of Portola Avenue com-
bined with its high design speed (i.e. made available
through use of large radius curves and wide streets
with 32 feet of pavement in each direction) result
in the need for considerable sight distance at the
various intersections. It is suggested that a low
profile landscaping technique be utilized to provide
approximately 450 feet of sight distance at each in-
tersection. Obtaining this design feature may pre-
sent some minor difficulties at some streets which
intersect on the inside (concave) side of the curves
along Portola Avenue. Similarly the presence of the
drainage swale running through the middle of the
project may restrict sight distance for vehicles
entering Portola Avenue from the side street in the
medium density area of the project.
2. Within the medium density area of the project there are
two intersections on the concave side of the curve of
Portola Avenue located only 230 feet apart. Low pro-
file landscaping and set backs for walls (if they are
used) to provide maximum sight distance from these
intersections should be incorporated into the final
design.
3. Left -turn pockets should be constructed in the median
along Portola Avenue at the intersections with the
residential side streets.
4. The design of the circle at the minor entrance (gate
protected) on Starburst Drive should be reviewed care-
fully to insure.left-turning motorists exiting the
project do not drive to the left of any landscaped
island (if one is to be placed in the middle of this
traffic circle).
5. Parking should be eliminated at least in the vicinity
of the intersections along Portola Avenue in order to
insure adequate room for U-turning motorists to gain
access to some driveways which are limited to right
turn only by the landscaped median. Presumably there
may be little, if any, parking along the entire length
of Portola Avenue anyway. Even so, most vehicles will
be able to negotiate the U-turn in a single maneuver,
but a few of the larger vehicles such as the full sized
Cadillacs may encounter minor difficulty in making an
uninterrupted U-turn maneuver. These motorists will
avoid this situation by encroaching toward the right
hand lane before starting their U-turns.
Impact on Surrounding Property
The most significant impact from the traffic generated by the
Ironwood West Development will be on Portola Avenue itself to the
north of the project. During the P.M. peak hour an additional 111
vehicles per hour will use Portola Avenue northbound. In terms of
daily traffic approximately half of the development's 6,000 ADT
will use Portola.Avenue thereby increasing traffic on Portola
Avenue by 3000 ADT. There will be little or no impact on the
residential properties to the north of the project simply because
the -existing street system is well designed to prevent the in-
trusion of outside traffic into these residential neighborhoods.
As a matter of fact, Haystack Road provides the only convenient
connection between Portola Avenue.and State Highway 74. Since
Portola Avenue itself provides convenient and direct access to
both Palm Desert and State Highway 111, very little of the traf-
fic generated by the Ironwood West Development will use any
streets except Portola Avenue or State Highway 74 for access into
and out of the development.
Descove, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
73-8931hAhwdv I I
Pdhn Desert, G)if'nrnia 92260
XOTAMIX PN14fi4fixfORXMM1XhXi 1416NNX
(714) 56 8-9 39 3
February 14, 1979
Mr. R. L. Spicer
Silver Spur Associates
49-200 Mariposa Drive
Palm Desert, Calif. 92260
Re: Portola Drainage - S03 3903
Dear Mr. Spicer:
As you requested, we have reviewed drainage patterns in the Ironwood
Country Club property as they relate to the Master Plan of Drainage
of the City of Palm Desert.
Using the methods, rainfall intensities, and runoff coefficients
employed in the Master Plan of Drainage, we find that the existing
and proposed sections and slopes of Portola Avenue in Tract 5565-1
are sufficient to convey runoff from a "10 year storm" on the area
west of Della Robbia Lane, south of the centerline of Section 31
(Portola Avenue/Carriage Trail), east of Highway 74, and north of the
CVCWD levee upon completion of residential development in this
area. It is assumed that the area east of Della Robbia Lane will continue
to drain easterly and ultimately into Irontree Drive and Deep Canyon.
The extension of Portola Avenue west of Tract 5565-1 will also be
sufficient to convey said runoff, provided the following or hydraulically
equivalent criteria are met:
Roadway section: Two 32 foot sections
Cross slope: 1 percent
Curb: County Standard "B" (8" curb, 12" x 24'' gutter)
Parkway slope: 2 percent for 12 feet
Longitudinal slope: 2.5 percent minimum
Sincerely,
DESCOVE, INC.
OTeKs
Donald H. Shayler
DHS : p r l'uhlie Works - Lind Development - Hdnning - Surveying
February 7, 1979
Paul Williams, Director of
Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
P. O. Box 1977
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Williams:
This letter is to acknowledge that the undersigned
have entered into an agreement to sell our property
described in Exhibit A to Silver Spur Associates.
We understand that Silver Spur Associates has filed
or will soon file a request with the City of Palm
Desert to approve a new master plan of development
for the west side of Ironwood Country Club, and that
our property comprises a part of this proposed plan.
We hereby express our consent to the inclusion of
our property in this plan and authorize Silver Spur
Associates to execute all applications, statements
and other forms required in order to secure approval.
Helen S. Russell
David L. Russell
jmc
IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (714) 346-0551
ALnDn)aZ0.&10T K 2pOO MIQ� ***CHANGE OF ZONE***
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
Silver Spur Associates c/o R. L. Spicer
Applicant (please mnt)
48870 Portola Avenue (714)346-0551
Mailing Address Telephone
f Palm Desert, California 92260
City State Zip -Code
e
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Change of zone from PR-1,D; PR-7;D; PR-1,D, SP to PR-5 and PR-5,SP
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
South side of stormwater channel, North of city limit, consisting
of approximately 101.5 acres.
631-130-010,011
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 631-150-004,005; 631-160-001,002,005; 631-120-004
EXISTING ZONING PR-1,D, PR-7,D, PR-1,D,SP.
Property Owner Authorization NOERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER IS) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
ATI N FpR WE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION.
t�A1 ell
SIGNATURE DOTE
AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT Or ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I DO BY MY SIGNATURE AHfAGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
SIGNATURE I IIIATE
Applicants Signature n () i
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. NA.
❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
❑ OTHER
C
SIGNATURE
ACCEPTED BY
CASE No.s
REFERENCE CASE NO.,
sbb
D TE
Supporting Data:
1. Name of Applicant Silver Spur Associates, R. L. Spicer
2. This request is made for property described as: Attached
Exact legal description
3. Total area of site: 101.5 acres ( 7.4. #ei �i S, P J
if more than 1 zone requested, give subtotal for ea
4. Existing Zoning: PR-7 I D PR-1,D PR-1 D SP
describe here or attach map
5. Proposed Zoning: PR-5 and PR-5 SP _
describe here or attach map
631-130-010,011
6. Assessor's Parcel No.: 631-150-004,005;. 631-120-004; 631-160-001,002,005
7. The property is located at East of Hwy. 74, South of the CVCWD storm channel
street address
between and north of the city limits .
street street
8. The present use of the property is vacant
/j%viu�r ,U�Nss�
9. General Plan Designation: Residential 5 -7 du./acre.
10. The applicant offers the following reasons to justify the request for a Change of Zone:
The allocation of density to the area is now 31.5 acres @ PR-7
for 220.5 units and 70 acres @ PR-1 for 70 acres for 290 units.
The applicant is requesting PR-5 for the area, based on the General
Plan, development patterns already established in Ironwood, and the
redesien and relocation of the stormwater dam and channel. The new
zone would allow for a total 507 units, with a practical des
capability of 422 units or 4.16 du./acre.
11. The applicant shall 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.
AMA 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
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at �f n/ �J1 this 1� day of VY�UJL�.(�LJ 19�.
CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF PALM DESERT )
I, .4j", 14+N , hereby certify
that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to
whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assess-
ment role of the County within the area described on the attached application
and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries
of the property described on the attached application.
I certify under penalty of
correct.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(20109 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
CHANGE OF ZONE S RELATED PLAN
C/Z 04-79
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 POSTY a newpaper of
general circulation* printed
and published daily in the
city of Riverside. County of
Riversides and which newspaper
has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of
Riversides State of Californian
under date of October 59 19649
Case number 83658: that the
notice, of which the annexed is
a printed copys has been published
in each regular and entire issue
of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following
dates• to —wit:
04/19 91979
I Certify (or declare) under
Penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated April 19► 1979
at Riversides California
CITY OF PALM DESERT
FOR APPROVAL OF A
on mt
Valley
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, M,
n the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lai
dace ail Interested persons are invited to attend ai
'AUL A. WILLIAMS
Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
- PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1979
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Z @' vr.�
�l
k * : * :c k k * * 4: k * is : * s t. * * !c * :c .. * * * :c * *c 1: x & x ..
1 I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim McPherson called the meeting to order at
7:07 p.m. on Thursday, May 24, 1979, in City Hall Council Chambers.
II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson
III. INVOCATION - Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander
IV. ROLL CALL
Present: Excused Absence
Councilman Noel J. Brush Mayor Edward D. Mullins
Councilman Alexis D. Newbrander
Councilman S. Roy Wilson
Mayor Pro-Tempore James E. McPherson
V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS
A. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO FILL THE UNEXPIRED
TERM OF MRS. GLORIA KELLY Continued Item
Councilman Newbrander nominated Mr. Charles E. Miller for
the position of Planning Commissioner to fill the term
expiring in 1982 of Mrs. Gloria Kelly. Councilman Wilson
moved and Councilman Brush seconded that nominations be
closed. Mr. Miller was appointed Planning Commissioner
by the following Roll Call Vote:
AYES: Brush, Newbrander, Wilson & McPherson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mullins
ABSTAIN: None
B. APPOINTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSIONER
UNEXPIRED TERM OF MR. JOHN HILL.
Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson advised that this item would be
continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979, to receive input
and recommendations from the Parks & Recreation Commission.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO
BF. ROIITTNF. AND WILT. BE ENACTED BY ONE ROLL CALL VOTE. THERE
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR MONTH OF APRIL, 1979.
Rec: Receive and file.
D. RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE PERTAINING TO
ALES TAX REDISTRIBUTION AND OPPOSING A.B. 301.
Rec: Receive and file.
E. MINUTES OF CITY MANAGER'S PUBLIC HEARING RELATIVE TO
Rec: Receive and file.
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to approve
the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously with the
members present.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
pCASE NOS. CZ 04-79 AND DP 04 SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A
HAND ZONE FROM PR-1, D., S.P. (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL,
MAXIMUM 1 D.U./ AC., DRAINAGEWAY FLOODPLAIN, WATERCOURSE
OVERLAY, SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY) TO PR-5, S.P. (PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL, MAX. 5 D.U./AC., SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY):
PR-1, D. TO PR-5: AND PR-7, D. TO PR-5 ON PROPERTY CONTAINING
APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRO-
VIDING FOR 805 DWELLING UNITS IN A COMBINATION OF SINGLE-
FAMILY, DUPLEX AND TOWNHOUSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74, BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS AND THE
EXISTING COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT STORMWATER
CHANNEL.
Mayor Pro-Tempore McPherson declared the Public Hearing
open and asked Staff for its report.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Staff Report indicating that
during review of the Planning Commission, certain concerns
had been addressed relative to 4-way intersections, the
number of units per building, and parking areas within the
individual complexes. It was felt that these items could
be adjusted to mutual satisfaction through special conditions
of approval.
The major concern of the Planning Commission dealt with
drainage and the fact that this proposed development was
on an alluvial cone. The present levee which is the heart
of this property does affort some protection to the existing
portion of Ironwood, and the applicant, in reviewing the
flood insurance maps for the City is aware that this levee
is not at a level of a 100 year frequency which is the
criteria used in Federal Flood Insurance. Therefore, as
a part of this development, the applicant is proposing to
install a new levee which is shown on the preliminary grading
plan on the southerly City limit line. That design is to
provide an approximately 9' high hardened facelevee running
from Highway 74 easterly to the existing Water District
Channel. This is DroDosed to protect this Dortion of
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
In reviewing the matter of the levees, both the Commission
and Staff construed this as a local drainage matter and
not in conflict with the Regional Concept that Bechtel
has put forth. It was felt that this is expressed in our
Federal Flood Insurance Map as a local drainage problem
and the fact that we have shown the majority of this
property proposed for development in the drainageway overlay,
drainage flood plain watercourse overlay and the fact that
the Flood Insurance Maps follow through with that concept
requires the City to begin to require flood protection
improvements before that drainage way floodplain watercourse
overlay can be removed.
Mr. Williams concluded the Staff report by. reviewing the
correspondence received including a letter from Mr. James P.
Healey, Special Attorney for the City of Indian Wells,
asking continuance of this project to allow them to hold
a meeting with the Water District to weigh the merits of
this levee system in conjunction with the overall regional
Bechtel improvements that are contemplated by the Water
District. The letter also noted a law suit between the
City of Indian Wells and the Water District relative to
the levees in this area. Mr. Williams reviewed the
proposed ordinance and the special conditions of approval
which alleviated concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
In response to question by Councilman Wilson, Mr. Williams
explained that the proposed improvement by Ironwood does
not implement the Bechtel Plan but strengthens the existing
levee.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in FAVOR of the request.
MR. JOHN BALLEW, Ballew, McFarland, Inc., 74-075 E1 Paseo,
Palm Desert, addressed Council as the planners for Ironwood.
He stated that they had no disagreement with the Planning
Commission recommendation with the exception that he felt
the Commission had taken action to reword Special Condition
No. 2 and No. 4a. He stated that although they could solve
most of the 4-way intersection problems, they would like
the latitude of introducing them at points where it created
other design_ problems. In addition, he stated that the
wording in Condition No. 2 of "solid decorative masonry
wall along Highway 74" did not permit latitude in the design
of the wall.
Mayor Pro -Teti McPherson noted that the changes to the conditions
as noted by Mr. Ballew were reflected in the minutes of the
Planning Commission but had not been incorporated into the
proposed ordinance.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the
request.
MR. PRINCE PIERSON, City Manager of the City of Indian
Wells, addressed Council and presented Mr. James P Healey's
letter for the record (attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes as Exhibit "A").
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
that out in that if a plan is approved according to the
Water District's design, it will be for a 100-year storm.
Mr. Pierson stated they felt this project is designed
because of flood insurance to allow recipients of Palm
Desert to receive flood insurance. He pointed out there
are other ways the insurance can be utilized without con-
struction of additional dikes. Pads can be built up, but
he indicated they were not suggesting this was the solution.
However, there are other ways that the Flood Insurance can
be arrived at, and he thought the Palm Desert Planning
Department would also verify that.
In connection with the proposed dike, he stated that the
Bechtel report did not call for a dike at that location.
It calls for a dike that runs parallel to the mountain
side which is actually perpendicular or at an oblique
angle to this dike. The Bechtel Report, he stated, does
not call for this type of improvement. The City of Indian
Wells feels that the improvements should be addressed at
this time for Plan lA Modified inasmuch as the City of
Indian Wells is addressing the flood problem of constructing
an adequate system with its own drainage properties, and
he explained the number of improvements that the City of
Indian Wells through the Water District and the Bechtel
Report was constructing that would benefit both cities.
He pointed out that a developer in Indian Wells was being
required to construct a minimum of $3 million worth of
flood protection, much of which is offsite, and they
feel that now is an opportunity to address these as well
as regional and mutal problems. He concluded by requesting
the Council's continuance of this matter until a meeting
could be held at 9:00 a.m. the next morning with officials
from both cities and the Water District. He offered the
input of their city engineer to give a detailed report
on the improvements being implemented in Indian Wells.
Councilman Wilson pointed out that their city engineer had
given this report in Study Session. However, Councilman
Brush had been late arriving at Study Session, and since
he had not heard the report, he asked that it be given.
MR. CHARLES HAVER, 74-390 Highway 111, Palm Desert,
addressed the City Council as City Engineer for the
City of Indian Wells and gave a detailed report of
the drainage improvements being implemented in their
city.
Councilman Brush stated that they were asking a delay of con-
sideration in this matter until this matter is resolved. He
pointed out that this could take 13 years. He stated that
as he understood it, the City of Indian Wells.' objection to
the project is basically that by grass lining those levees
it will just speed the water faster down there, it will be
stronger, and because it won't break and go through Palm
Desert, it will save Indian Wells. Mr. Haver responded
that their primary concern in speaking at the hearing was
to have the matter continued for possible solution at the
meeting at the Water District the next day.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
evaluation on a legal matter. It seemed to him that
the brunt of the letter is then issues primarily with
the Water District which is already provided for in the
Special Conditions of Approval; (3) we are all concerned
about flood control. He said he saw implementation of
Bechtel Plan lA as a long-term solution on the order of
13-15 years. This dike is now, and it will be installed
this summer for protection in the next rainy season. He
stated that perhaps it was a "now" which might not be
ideal, but the ultimate might not happen for 13-15 years.
Last, Mr. Spicer pointed out that Ironwood had an option
on the 70 acres, contingent upon approval of this plan,
which would expire on June 1st. He realized that this
was his problem and not the Council's.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing closed.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson pointed out that Special Condition
No. 1 specifically called for protection from a 100-year
storm and construction would be accomplished to the Water
District's approval. If not, the project would not be
built.
Councilman Wilson stated he would feel more comfortable
with more information coming out of the meeting scheduled
the next morning. Another item he stated was of interest
to him was were there any reasonable conditions that could
be imposed to implement some steps of the Bechtel Report lA
as a part of this project to help get it done. If Indian
Wells is doing it, could we? He stated he would favor a
two -week continuance.
Mr. Bouman stated he would like to make a comment, not a
recommendation but a reaction. He stated that when Mr.
Pierson had called him the prior day, he had decided to
get himself more familiar with the project. His immediate
reaction which was unchanged at the time was there was no
difference between the old dike and the new dike. He saw
essentially the same water being intercepted and sent to
the same place. Admittedly, it is being sent to Indian
Wells, and they don't receive it warmly, but we received
it once and everyone remembers the devastation we got
from that. When Mr. Pierson says there is an alternative
solution, Mr. Bouman felt that what he was referring to
is according to the Federal Flood Insurance Maps, the
pads for the houses can be raised 3 feet above natural
grade level and that would satisfy the Corp of Engineers
and Federal Flood Insurance requirements. That would be
fine for that small portion of Ironwood, but below that
area is where we had the trouble before. We have 1,000
homes that cannot be jacked up and raised 3 feet in the
air. They are there now, subject to the drainage. We
are not talking now about the kind of water flows that
came as a result of Kathleen, but the 100-year flood
which Mr. Weeks assures us is of less intensity than
Kathleen. What we are seeking here is the kind of protec-
tion in the 100-year storm that,any city would try to find
for itself. Beyond that, as he looked at this project,
-1 ,. _
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson pointed out that this was the
first reading of the ordinance, and if anything should
come out of the meeting the following morning, the
ordinance could be changed at the second reading in 3
weeks.
Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and pass
Ordinance No. 208 to second reading. Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson seconded
the motion. The following votes were cast:
AYES: Brush & McPherson
NOES: Newbrander & Wilson
ABSENT: Mullins
ABSTAIN: None
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson announced a deadlock and declared the
Public Hearing reopened and continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979.
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 79-55 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REVISING RESOLUTION
NO. 78-58 AND ESTABLISHING A SIGNALIZATION FUND.
Mr. Beebe reported that the wording of the resolution which
established the Signalization Fund limited the use of the
funds to intersections directly adjacent or near the pro-
posed developments when in actuality, certain intersections
had been signalized or were not proposed to be signalized
in the near future. Since all developments within the
City of Palm Desert definitely affect intersections
throughout the City, it was felt that by rewording this
resolution, more flexibility will be given to the Council
.in the use of these funds. The City Attorney is in con-
currence with this change.
Councilman Wilson moved and -Councilman Brush seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 79-55. Motion
carried unanimously with the members present.
IX. ORDINANCES
For Introduction:
A. ORDINANCE NO. 209 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, REGULATING THE USE
OF PUBLIC PARKS WITHIN SAID CITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson announced that action on this
ordinance would be continued to the meeting of June 14, 1979,
to allow Council more time for review and study.
For Adoption:
None
X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
XII. NEW BUSINESS (Continued)
A. (Continued)
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
approve the project and authorize the City Clerk to call for bids.
Motion carried unanimously with the members present.
B. REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE OF ACTION BY THE BUILDING BOARD OF
APPEALS AND CONDEMNATION IN THE DECLARATION OF CONDEMNATION
AND ABATEMENT OF STRUCTURES GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTION 30,
WEST OF HIGHWAY 74 AND SOUTHERLY OF HIGHWAY 111.
Mr. Bouman stated that Council had received a report in
Study Session from the Director of Building and Safety
concerning the clean-up effort of this portion of
Section 30. This is a report of the action being taken
and a request for Council s concurrence.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to,
by Minute Motion, concur, ratify, and approve the findings of the
Building Board of Appeals and Condemnation and direct Staff to take
all necessary steps to comply with the Abatement Code. Motion carried
unanimously with the members present.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TAX FOR STREET
LIGHT NG IN TRACT NO. 8273.
Mr. Beebe reported that a Street Lighting District had
been established the prior year by Council for the
subject tract. Each year, it is necessary to have a new
resolution authorizing the levy of a tax for that parti-
cular year's costs. The estimated cost for operation of
the District for 1979-80 is $1,700. Less the estimated
balance at June 30, 1979, the sum of $1,199.36 must be
assessed in equal amounts to all property owners.
The City Clerk questioned the individual amount of $9.37
assessed to each parcel, and Mr. Beebe advised that the
assessment was correct.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive
further reading and adopt Resolution No. 70-56, establishing a Special
Assessment Levy. Motion carried unanimously with the members present.
XIII. OLD BUSINESS
None
XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS
B. CITY ATTORNEY
1. Mr. Erwin stated that Council had received in their
packet "information dealing with a parcel map waiver
on Chapparal Country Club. In addition, Council
r oreivcli n nnry of n luttor of rcminat Aivantad to
Xv. REPORTS AND RE.__LKS (Continued)
B. CITY ATTORNEY (Continued)
a modified legal description. The golf driving range was
inadvertently left off the one submitted to Council, and
since the lending institution may require its inclusion,
the alternate plan was being submitted.
Mr. Erwin suggested that his proposed wording be modified
to include "Exhibit 'A' be subject to approval by the
City Attorney".
Councilman Wilson moved to waive further reading and adopt
Resolution No. 79-57 and to grant the waiver and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute the same with Exhibit "A" subject
to final approval by the City Attorney. Councilman Brush seconded
the motion; carried unanimously with the members present.
2. Mr. Erwin submitted a Claim Against the City by Lajoie
(Butch) H. Daum for the sum of $250,000 for damages
and injuries received as a result of an accident at
Oak Springs Drive and White Canyon Drive, Palm Desert
Greens, California. Mr. Erwin pointed out that the
attorneys representing Mr. Daum had been advised that
this area was not within the city limits. However,
Council should deny the claim.
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to deny
the Claim and refer it to the insurance carrier. Motion carried unani-
mously with the members present.
A. CITY MANAGER
1. Mr. Bouman pointed out an error in proposed Ordinance
No. 209. Section 1K should be 1J.
2. Mr. Bouman officially presented Council with the
recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 1979-80. He
stated that he wished to publicly thank Mr. Paul
Byers for the tremendous amount of help he had been
in preparing the proposed budget in a timely and
efficient manner. He stated that Mr. Byers had
requested that the Council officially instruct the
City Clerk to schedule and advertise a public hearing
on the budget for the meeting of June 28, 1979.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
instruct the City Clerk to schedule and advertise and Public Hearing
for the Proposed Budget for June 28, 1979. Motion carried unanimously
with the members present.
C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson stated that it was necessary that
an alternate delegate be appointed to the Sunline Board,
and he suggested Mayor Mullins.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to appoint
Mayor Edward D. Mullins as alternate delegate to Sunline. Motion
carried unanimously with the members present.
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to adjourn
the meeting. Motion carried unanimously with the members present.
Mayor Pro -Tern McPherson adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m.
JAMES E. McPHERSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
JEAN ANN HIRSCHI
JAMES P. NEALET
DENNIS J. MEALET
WALTER T. CLARK
EXHIBIT "A"
HIRSCHI, HEALEY 6 HEALEY
♦ P40EESSIONA1 C00IPOUA110N
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 24, 1979
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City of Palm Desert
Case Nos. CZ 04-79 and DP 94-79
Silver Spur Associates
aka Ironwood West
Gentlemen:
)4-0)5 EL PASEO AVENUE SUITE A-5
P. O. OR/-wEw If OD
PALM MOT, CALWOUTA 92260
ITM 566-5661
The City Council is requested to continue the above re-
ferenced cases for the following reasons:
1. A meeting has been scheduled with the Coachella
Valley County Water District for 9:00 A.M., Friday, May 25, 1979 between
CVCWD, Palm Desert and Indian Wells to discuss drainage issues pertaining
to and significantly affecting the proposed project and our cities.
2. The Local Flood Agency, CVCWD, should approve the projects
drainage plan as being consistent with and not detrimental to 1-A
(modified), the agreed upon Bechtel Storm Drainage plan. Also, Bechtel
Engineers should review and continent as to the projects possible effects
on implementation of the regional storm drainage system and on interim
mitigation measures necessary prior to the construction of 1-A (modified).
3. An evaluation should be made by CVCWD and Indian Wells as
to what effect they would have in the proceedings and character of the
existing lawsuit No. Indio 23262, dated 3-11-77, City of Indian Wells.v.
Coachella Valley Water District and State of California, CALTRANS, by the
approval of plans and/or any acts of grading and grassing or otherwise im-
proving the present sand dike traversing the project together with the
proposed grading and construction of an additional parallel -dike with
retainer. -wall foundation and concrete grouted -rock surface to be located
one quarter mile south on the project boundary.
Your careful consideration of the requested continuance would
be appreciated in order that mutual benefits will accrue from the infor-
mation to be secured.
r Very truly yours,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 487
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-1, D.,
S.P. TO PR-5, S.P.; PR-1, D. TO PR-5; AND PR-7 TO
PR-5 ON APPROXIMATELY 101.5 ACRES: AND, RELATED
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROVIDING FOR 805
DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 179.5 ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 74, NORTH AND
SOUTH OF THE EXISTING FLOOD CONTROL DIKE, EXTENDING
SOUTH TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 3rd day of May, 1979, hold a duly noticed
Public Hearing to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for
approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.(Planned Residential,
maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential,
max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and
PR-7, D. to PR-5, on approximately 101.5 acres; and related preliminary
Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination
of single-family, duplex and townhouses on approximately 179.5 acres of
land, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, north and
south of the existing flood control dike, extending south to the
southern City limits, more particularly described as:
APN's 631-130-010
631-120-004
631-130-011
631-142-001
631-130-001
631-142-002
631-130-002
631-141-001
631-160-001
631-141-002
631-160-002
631-141-003
631-160-005
631-141-004
631-150-004
631-141-005
631-150-005
631-141-006
631-150-013
631-141-007
631-110-013
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements
of the City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure,
Resolution No. 78-32," in that the Director of Environmental Services
has determined that this project will not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering
the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to
justify their recommendations and actions as described below:
1. Change of Zone:
a. The land use resulting from the Change of Zone
would be compatible with adjacent existing and
proposed land uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION `�SOLUTION NO. 487 Page Two
2. Development Plan:
a. The proposed development plan is consistent with
the City's adopted General Plan.
b. The proposed use is similar to and compatible
with those contemplated on nearby properties.
c. The design or improvement of the proposed
development will be consistent with the Palm Desert
Zoning Ordinance.
d. The site is physically suited for both the type of
development proposed and the proposed density.
e. The design of the development and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or have a serious effect on
the public health, safety, or general welfare; and
further satisfy drainage and flood control
requirements for the 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
constitute the findings of the Commission in these cases;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of a Change of Zone from
PR-1, D., S.P. to PR-5, S.P.; PR-1, D. to PR-5; and,
PR-7, D. to PR-5, as shown on the attached map
labeled Exhibit "A".
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of the overall conceptual
Development Plan (Exhibit "B") as part of their
consideration of the related Change of Zone, subject
to those conditions labeled Exhibit "C", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of May, 1979, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: BERKEY, KRYDER, SNYDER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN
FLESHMAN
WALTER SNYDER, Chairman
ATTEST:
R - 11
C.U.P.1507�P
RR.-7
/ �` LING KNOLL DPj�
/
RTOLA AVENUE
PR- 7 I RR.-7
S.P. 4
R-3 4 ,560 (9) S.P.
c7/C, V D. ✓ntormwafe,- Cltartnel
PTO 7,
5
P.R.-7i
(C.U.P. 1382)
\
1
1 it
II
�I.
� I �
LL,
SILLA
r �
I
� /
I I.
O.S.
COUNTY 6'5
PR.-7, D
c
P.R.-7, H
I
1 1
PLANNING COMMISSIOT
RESOLUTION NO. 487
EXHIBIT 'C'
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 04-79
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibit A (Case No. DP 04-79) on file with the Department of En-
vironmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to, Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures.
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever, each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project.
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval; otherwise, said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. Further, the
total project shall be completed by January 1, 1989. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property.
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement of
construction on said project, the applicant shall agree in writing
to these Conditions of Approval.
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
7. All existing electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable
antenna television, and similar service wires or cables, which are
adjacent to the property being developed shall be installed
underground as a part of development from the nearest existing
pole not on the property being developed.
8. All requirements of the City Fire Marshal shall be met as part of
the development of this project per attached letter dated April 17,1979
9. Construction plans shall be submitted for approval to the City Fire
Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. All conditions shall
be made a part of construction and no certificate of occupancy shall
be issued until completed.
10. Traffic control provisions and safety street lighting shall be
provided as required by the Director of Public Works.
11. Curb, gutter, sidewalk or approved pathways, and tie-in paving shall
be provided in conformance with City Standards and/or as required
by the Director of Public Works.
12. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.487
14. Drainage and Signalization Fund contributions, as required by
City Ordinance, shall be made as a requirement of this development.
PLANNING COMMISSIC
RESOLUTION NO. 48',
EXHIBIT 'CT
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 04-79
1. Development of the project shall be subject to installation of
improvement to provide protection from a 100 year storm, as
approved by the Chief Engineer for the Coachella Valley County
Water District and the City Director of Public Works.
2. Project perimeter shall be enclosed by a masonry wall, with
solid decorative masonry wall along Highway 74, as approved
through the Design Review Board process.
3. Highway 74 frontage shall be developed with ornamental
landscaped mounding and eight (8) ft. wide meandering pedestrain/
bike path, with public access easement granted over areas
where the path meanders out of the public parkway.
4. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the Design Review Board
observing all PR zone standards, except as specified, to achieve
the following:
a. Revise circulation system to avoid the use of four-way
intersections wherever possible. Provide illustration of road
extension grid system for adjacent properties to the east.
b. Design of Townhouse motor courts shall be restudied to
resolve design deficiencies, minimize unnecessary paving,
and provide acceptable open parking alternatives.
c. Townhouse building groups shall be limited to six attached
units, with consideration given to increased use of four
unit buildings.
d. Distance separation between duplex buildings shall be
maintained at a minimum of ten (10) ft., at the closest point.
5. Provide a minimum of eight (8) vehicle stacking spaces at the
southern entrance to Portola, with turn -around area. Entrance
details to be approved through the Design Review Board process.
6. Provide turf lining and landscape treatment for existing flood
control channel, to be approved through the Design Review Board
process.
7. Provide minimum three (3) ft. high mounding along Highway 74,
northerly of existing channel.
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 487
e-4-
J
RIVERSIDE'
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
\ FIRE DEPARTMENT
J IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DAVID,L. FLAKE
COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
April 17, 1979
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Reference: Case No. DP 04-79
Gentlemen:
210 WEST SAN JACINTO STREET
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
TELEPHONE (716) 657-3183
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a Two (2)
hour duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall
be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply
main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways. Not to exceed 500' spacing.
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior survaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
C. Curbs (if installed) shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from
each hydrant.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and approved
by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the
design of the water system in Case Number DP 04-79 is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
5, Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required
water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow,
Very truly yours,
DAVID L. FLAKE
R+azaam
PR-7, D
1 /�
CITY bF
rPAIM DESERT T
PA ENT
O F,.:
ENVIRONI?E-NTAL
SEM; j;ES
EXH ;'
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
April 13, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
(IRONWOOD) for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P. (Planned
Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, FlDodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac
Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to PR-5, on
property containing approximately 101.5 acres and related Development Plan
providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination of single-family, duplex,
and townhouses, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits and the existing Coachella Valley County Water
District Stormwater Channel, more particularly described as:
APN's 631-130-010 631-120-004
631-130-011 631-142-001
631-130-001 631-142-002
631-130-002 631-141-001
631-160-001 631-141-002
631-160-002 631-141-003
631-160-005 631-141-004
631-150-004 631-141-005
631-150-005 631-141-006
631-150-013 631-141-007
631-110-013
S� / '- -�,--✓If--_ I,i •; A R•3 43380 (9) S.P. R-1 20,000
/:• i
QV. C.W.D. STORMWATER
4}ETa MIGLY YGX LIRE. MIM O[SEIIT,G1JlORXH 9Ei1O '" C
TELEPHONE 11141 NI.0111
y Creek Ln.
CA 92260
I
_x _ '+ C�Lfba ®'II SPmIlv® .E voa • _ 1 I _
453TJ PxIL V PEYC IAXE. MEY DESCrtfi GLLIIORXHNMC +$�:' � RITfV - �� E
IILEMOIIE 11141 NI-0111 >�O nl C1 ,L(
Panorama ui lders Inc
c/o Silver Spur Assoc.
48870 Port a Ave. y
Palm Desert, CA 92260 i
631-270-003
WrokiFE'a +�
4a:n MIaLY I`W uxE, vllr ofsExr. uuEoxxusEzeq�� _.-.. I ,
uM1QC11pERA0l� f� AUDR�SSER , v
TELEPxaXC (iH1i4YO111
Silver por Mobile Manor
C/o Robe Hubbard
.. 50001 Hwy 74
U
p�1mlD8ae , CA 92260
5
L dxbrwr,.
403iO RIICRLY KM LANE. MLY CE4EXi.tW tORN119ti60 1 CNpe„
rturxoxE 17141 NPosn -76ppj F0klH, '-f AS,
'S •10pp
NG pRDF4 FSSED II x6
D d B Development Co.
p� 32 us[ Plaza
RECEIVED Pa - -o 9
MAY 1 1979
fNXln0il4;111 i nL scxxlcfa ' r' .^/, ,/1
1 R DF MIA pLNVIC (/'YI/ YI V" / U 1
a ;
x CZp44wV oD4 r®.,n.,.,,.
45tM PRICKLY PEAR LANE. MIY MENE GURgNY XtlXp
TELETHON& Umi "s-0011 Ll��
D d B Development Co.
1938 S Pacific
Oceanside, CA 92054
631-452-002
`ol _ 1979
AD AES SEE ` 5lr Do
cl'.(MDvI!! Fa-- PM n
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF A
"DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the follow-
ing listed projects will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted:
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.
(Planned Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway,
Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation Overlay)
to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic
Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to
PR-5, on property containing approximately 101.5 acres and
related Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in
a combination of single-family, duplex, and townhouses,
generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits and the existing Coachella Valley
County Water District Stormwater Channel.
CASE NO. CUP 03-79
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a racquetball and health club on approximately
1.4 acres within the R-3(4) (Multi -Family Residence,
4,000 sq. ft. per unit) zone located on Lots 6 and 7,
Palma Village Unit #3.
CASE NO. C/Z 05-79
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1
(Single -Family Residential) to C-1 (General Commercial)
for property containing approximately 10,000 sq. ft.
located on the northeast corner of Lantana Avenue and
Larrea Street.
An appeal from this determination may be made to the Planning Commission
within eight (8) days of the date of posting of this public notice by
filing an appeal in accordance with Resolution No. 78-32, with the
Department of Environmental Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California. If no appeal is filed within the said time,
this determination shall become final.
` 4"-PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP
Director of Environmental Services
Date of Public Notice �/Z 17)
Date Appeal Period Expires
METHOD OF NOTICING:
!/hosting
(/gailing to owners of property within 300'
Publication in newspaper
Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice)
off ¶ � lmcp=o:Ezotp
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
April 13, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
(IRONWOOD) for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-T, D., S.P. (Planned
Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac
Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to PR-5, on
property containing approximately 101.5 acres and related Development Plan
providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination of single-family, duplex,
and townhouses, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits and the existing Coachella Valley County Water
District Stormwater Channel, more particularly described as:
APN's
6,31-130-010
631-120-nO4
631-130-011
631-142-001
631-130-001
631-142-002
631-130-002
631-141-001
631-160-001
631-141-002
631-160-002
631-141-003
631-160-005
631-141-004
631-150-004
631-141-005
631-150-005
631-141-006
631-150-013
631-141-007
631-110-013
R-3 435601e1 S.P.
D.
STORM WAT ER
OP o4-79
R-1 20,000
'/ P.R.-I,D
1111iIllllll611
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
April 13, 1979 CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
(IRONWOOD) for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-T, D., S.P. (Planned
Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway, Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac
Scenic Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to PR-5, on
property containing approximately 101.5 acres and related Development Plan
providing for 805 dwelling units in a combination of single-family, duplex,
and townhouses, generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits and the existing Coachella Valley County Water
District Stormwater Channel, more particularly described as:
S1\
APN's 631-130-010
631-130-011
631-130-001
631-130-002
631-160-001
631-160-002
631-160-005
631-150-004
631-150-005
631-150-013
a•
631-120-004
631-142-001
631-142-002
631-141-001
631-141-002
631-141-003
631-141-004
631-141-005
631-141-006
631-141-007
631-110-013
IW 43500 (9) S.P.
., C.N. C.W. D. STORMWATER
'DP 04-79
// P.R.-1, D
�/z 04- 79
Nlllillilll�l§
C��y99�7
T/T�Nf
R-1 20,000
O.S.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF A
"DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the follow-
ing listed projects will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted:
CASE NOS. C/Z 04-79 AND DP 04-79
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from PR-1, D., S.P.
(Planned Residential, maximum 1 d.u./ac., Drainageway,
Floodplain, Watercourse Overlay, Scenic Preservation Overlay)
to PR-5, S.P. (Planned Residential, max. 5 d.u./ac., Scenic
Preservation Overlay); PR-1, D. to PR-5; and PR-7, D. to
PR-5, on property containing approximately 101.5 acres and
related Development Plan providing for 805 dwelling units in
a combination of single-family, duplex, and townhouses,
generally located on the east side of Highway 74, between
the southern City limits and the existing Coachella Valley
County Water District Stormwater Channel.
CASE NO. CUP 03-79
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a racquetball and health club on approximately
1.4 acres within the R-3(4) (Multi -Family Residence,
4,000 sq. ft. per unit) zone located on Lots 6 and 7,
Palma Village Unit #3.
CASE NO. C/Z 05-79
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from R-1
(Single -Family Residential) to C-1 (General Commercial)
for property containing approximately 10,000 sq. ft.
located on the northeast corner of Lantana Avenue and
Larrea Street.
s
An appeal from this determination may be made to the Planning Commission
within eight (8) days of the date of posting of this public notice by
filing an appeal in accordance with Resolution No. 78-32, with the
Department of Environmental Services located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane,
Palm Desert, California. If no appeal is filed within the said time,
this determination shall become final.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AICP
Director of Environmental Services
Date of Public Notice Ae 17,e
Date Appeal Period Expires
METHOD OF NOTICING:
!/hosting
f ailing to owners of property within 300'
Publication in newspaper
Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice)
441
C. iYCF
FAUX Li:-aZIT
� Fzti?7';:TINT
335 y y J C., ,,.
1N.
-24,-Zg'
fv,-1,o
0-
335
PAUX :.L-,::-!T
fT
ftWYWCj ;Uf I
5i'raiW ,:.�J
kiR$ii�iT
`- ,ASSESSMENT Rk,
u.INTY 'IF
p11'ERSL .
v�
l tL,: NAnc
{` E S PAII �)-SITU.<p) SAP'EC
RECORDERS
NO. -DATE
-) f
i,N_
"SL
T RA
PARCEL NO
[.AND IMFF1'MNTS _sFn^rT !n� u,•.-
w TkAN FPENCRICK l
z n,s, ST c
6 tt LC�R
10943
FE.''
ACREP�E
180C3
All_090-CX
c c
THER/A.MT_
zAc :AI E ai ti,.
n
rN VNLLSQQ CA
l0 ACREc Mrt IN PO NW 1/4 OF SEC 31
941PS
T5S RfE
Z/00L59
FOR TOTAL
YY
9,00
CESCR1FT')N .LL ACSESSQRS 1AI,S
I ACF. R '.' RC,INIA
41(11
RE43
IA(V
31-ocSo-W-3
1770
e,n9EACRES M/L,INLPORRMWQ174.o EC 31
cc
T RhF
FGF' 10TAL
Yf
C.G.
t°ESCRIPTIQN SEE ASSESSORS MAIa
�.C.dD, xx
N: CA'�HPEcF Q EQX 1058, CQACHELLA. CA
94234_
18003
631-09(rAIi1-R
E. ABLE
NON -TAX NON-1P,
F[ 'D, xx
CIQ*C1��'DE P Q BQ? 1058, CQACtIELLA. CA 92. 3o
18003
631-rJ90-802-9
F_SASLE
NON -TAX
SCYTtERSET ASSOCIATES PT ���
C/ C EIDILE.DEXELQfT1EE1T INC_ $41 CAMFUR
DR STE
177399
' 9/00/77
PROM
YY
1800b
5.60
w?-006-7
70f0 ffC
116 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9
5 60 ACRES M/L_IIiPM Mi 1L4
T5S
QE_`."C -31
DESCRIPTION SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
K6E
Nf: TOIAL
MOLMTAINBACK PAEM DESERT HCxtEOMrERS ASSN
372(1 CAMPSS_DRIVE ,UEEACH-CALIF )2660
117839
9/pp/72
PRO8
C1
18046
631-100-W7-g
NON-TTAX
PKE1TE
SOUTHWESTERN ENTE PRISES INC CR
2Z4]]jj�� EfAe(IHQBNE ELVD_ f CA 9Q505
13256
Z/00/74
PRO
YY
1gbQp
2.5a
631-110-CK1_:
ra N-,
41)5 c
2.50 ACRES IN POR NE 1/4 bF SEC SS
DESCrIPIS4tiSEE ASSESS43S_MAPS_ _
P' fOk
''TAL
SOUTHWESTERN ENTERPRISES INC CR
Z2410 HAMQHORNE B(y[ TE 1_�ggA�E_ Cp
2.5U0 ACRES IN POR NE t/-6
p()50c
13256
2[DDL74
Pi OS
YY
18000
L50
631-110-CYT2-4
5010
OF SEC 31 T5S
R/+E FOR
TOTAL
DESCRIPIIQN.IEE- MESSORS MAPS
__
SOUTHWESTERN ENTERPRISES INC Ck
2�4 NAFIIHORNE.g�1L S7E 1 I cA
5.00XCIES IN POR NE 1�L`Of4SSEC
90505
13256
7d/00/74
PR05
YY
18L00
5.00
631-110 (10t-S
�Ot �Cic,
T5S
46E FOR
TOT L
SOUTHWE;T RN NT Ry $��S1'INTG��R[ E
244� ACRES IN NE AIL
9p �5
JR 7%IR
��13z5d
PROS
YY
18[>
4,
ht1-11i 005-7
6 2C
OF SEC 3i TJS
T�TV11414
VIE�S$Q[��p-110h SEE_.ASSF$$ MPPS ----
0UTHWESTERN
ENTERPRISES CR
a2410 HAH LILSTi1 16RRAKE,,_ CA
SOUTHWEST RN E RPRIIS IN CR
9Q5Q5
13255
2/�Q/74
PRR05
-- YY
TN(1Ci0
631-110-006-A
1:0 1Vl
2?410 HIWTNQ E_B�y 1 f4RRANC_E1 CA
�uTHNESTERN NT R I -NC
9Q505
1377
2/pp/74
PRO5
YY
1FL1[Y1
631-110-007-9
795 �,
F Q@@QX yp7 CEI (A �.19
5.00 ACRES N R i74
TZi224
9/QQ 2
Pe05
rY
IM,
S,QQ
AZ1-11O-TA-(1
S.jFC
NE OF 31 TS$
Pet FOR
TOTAL
DESCRIPTION SEE ASSESSQRS MAPS
COMONA COLL€GE
C'0 $$ HNE T;�I_ NTEgPRZ5ES INC P 0 B.
TC`RRAN CA 9050
1t97,
PRfc
vY
18pQ0
5,0D
I71-110-(?'9
5.ACk S IN POR NE 1/4 OF SEC 31 T5S
R6E FOR
TOTAL
DEWRIff CN1 SEA AS-ff SSOPS MAPS
SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
49g PORTOLA AVE PALM 0E$ERT CA 922rp
20. ACRES MR
1i89o4
11/00/72
PRC7
Y`
IM05
20.00
631-110-04,0-1
3cz?1 zc';0
IN NET7b �>` 3E�tT T5
RAE FOR
TATAI
DE°CRIPTION SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
REFS NAMMf
a DEVEIOPM �-SII11511)ON 114 E
p_pg�ENT COOL SON IMIAZTMTET CEO.
D�EI 1��k�C�� 9p2��C�
`rSRe r6 0797�i_ TRA[TP�D i 42260 5057
ASSESSMENT ROLL rkINTY OF RPIERSIDE FATE 9k
RECORDERS
ZONN�E TRA PARCEL wG. I -AND IMPRVMNTS EXEMPTIONS ASSMT NET
NO.
142499 PRO6 � 63T-452-038-4 750 OTHER/L�SL1T5 SALE AAW
7/m/77 R1 525�
N
b & 0 DEVELOPMENT CO OLSON INVESTMENT 0 i� ���PR06 MR 631-432-0M9-5
l/Q.D P DELAl1[Y 2711 E COAST_ _HJY -$j 7/m(77 R1
COR)W1 DEL IFIAR CA 92625— „
_2
0T 1rvi0JC1 TR CT c RT 4126Q.
D b e-NEVE0
ffiWWCO OL STM a CO - 4
CORONAPDEL DFL� C271 COAST HWY STE 206_ __ * 1 n R1 ------ — _ -----
30 RA ERI 92260
MB ^T 1 / T CT —------.- - --- -
L
D
24
750 1825
625 1750
'•1� :I IT: 1� •1 .
11 t-
1� r
'1 i
257c
2375
2w
dm.
_Y1Ji81
2575 '
2575
_ 82500.
—2375
75.500
2,t)50
197R-79 ASSESSMENT ROLL COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
`l*RS NAME RECORDERS ZONE TRA PARCEL NO.
'bDRE55IIII �� USE Cg�g
$ O DEpVELL NT2CbU OL N WE TMENT CO �4Z YR6b fli800E Zr 452-050-4
, RANAPbEI MT Ci 92 p�p3�E'p�I_!>)dY SIE 2[14.
)T 150 13Rh6 /OX RACT 5057 DESERT 42260 g
$ 8 DEVELOPMENT Co OLSON iNVESTMFNT rn
A
4
D
4
D
4
D
4
R
PAGE 100
LAND IMPRVMNTS EXEMPTIOi_ ASSMT NET
OTHER/AwTs SALE AMT
875 2- 295r
62747 PRE _ilW 6W-432 P-S 625 1750
4 _RL
16 PRE 18-W6- 65l-452-M-6 625 1750
R1 1 6-45L'4-8 2125 17
/76 Rt—ice- - �_. —_ 1750No
pt�Kca Mir IN "JK LUI 10 M9 U/9/U3U TRACT 5U57
2375
74500
74375
500
19625
79500
231
77
DEVELOPMENT• OLSON
i r-
LOTT
INVFSlM6?r-t6—
I .11'. 1:'1
11
C�1
T: i:"EK" 1 .
MECO
�;1: :�1: 1:
71
•.,i
1
u
1
ACRES M/L IN '1•. LOT 121
,B 079twu
IRACI
51
OWER
=POR L•
1
260
1 4T
11
4
SAGE FL1.
POR LOT:11v
1
,
1,1
�,UDF
WELOPMEKT Co
1
95m
Pim 18005 19
LAME VSqU ET
AL. 24511
CORTA11
TRACT••
./ ice' N UL5UN'
'I ` •
'J. :17: 1'.
.1 1
• •
1'
1/
1
1
•
Roo
D
.1 1
= • • •
1
'1 IKALI
'1
MF 1978-79 ASSESSMENT ROLL -tI�JNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CMNERS NAME RECORDERS ZONE TRA PARCEL NO.
D $ 8 DEVELOPMENT CO OL ON INVESTMENT CO - p j--452-M
C/0 D.P DELANCY 2711 COAST 44Y STE 204, * Rj
CORONAkLOT 0 CA �F{6� PAS — ----- -
48942 NN p� TRACTS uLRL 922 �__
D "DEV�C6F NT CO OLSON INVESTMENT CO P120�— M8 631_452-0_M_l
CEO D PDDEL.A�NCLY_ 271i�5SOSAT MY STE 2[Ib,
77565 I�Pbc'3i--�x-ENA DESERT 9226n---g----.—
LOT 66 MB
D DEV
M
*
F* E 96
LAND IMPRVMNTS EXEMPTTtIi`. ASSMT NET
875 OTifNR ;TTS "ALE A 50
875 2075
2950
1750 2375
6m .
-i750- 2375
- _b4m .
p _ — --�
R1 - - —_ _--4625
R1� - 8- —-3775
70000
R--452 — 3 75
— _7M .
Lb25
- -- 04500 .
- - 5549.
8m
69ow
MP 1078-79
ASSESSMENT ROLL
LINTY OF
RIVERSIDE
PAGE
94
OWNERS NAME
ADDRESS _ELMiL�°�-S:I1lEik)-SAME ")
DELANCY SSHEIIAgA�, CgP
RECORDERS ZONE
K. - �$
TRA
p�g��E
PARCEL NO.
LAND
IMPRVMNTS
OTHEQ/,MT
EXEMPTIONS
ASSMT NET
WE
SALE1650
2�DjEjL7A1N�CY OD�A�V�IDNWP
7241 fKWDLL
�� PRA6
-
1800tS
63i-45T-049-1
2125
�a 'S
65600
Nf ROLLING DRY PALM DESERT60
p
LOT_87 !� 3p T ��
KING THOMIIS W I-NWETTMN
Y J, JT ---g_ —
-
1WOb
h�i-45i1
1825
12175
OW
7 N l K 9ZZbI�
R
10 Rlpltbt
N
--
__.----- -
60
L MB 079/030 TRA[T,5051
,ONES TIMOTHY W- JONES P MELA �, JONES HOYT L,
PW6
-�
110DY
T=2
1825
10425
1750HO
11000
4 N L NG KNNOLL DR PALM DESERTS
- -
51000
lOT 89 MB 0'9/QYLTRA[T�5057
__
APPEL ALVIN F�AjP(PEL ROSALIE V JT
RO ��iSE@I_S22d4-_
P
= BL
- 2-3
2125
imm
1750HO
13875
42500
LOT 079/03 TRACT
_
PIERSON HARRIETT B WD. - - -d
DESERT �
j o 91�
$--
�
.-21W
-
1750HO
9085
RACT
_
_ - -
--- -
PEDERSEN DOPALD E, PEDERSE HHELEN L JT
G33� SOl1THL111m pR IMITTIER A W1
a WM/77 R1
IM
- _�W��-
�4000
724�i7 N ROLLING KNOLL DR, PALM DESERT 92260
N
—
- -
LENGLE W L T M, JT
eERT 92260
LOT '
- '< /78 R1
-
-—
-
-�
9 MB 5057M
(-,LASS CRAIG
72497M
-
HO
._..
-0210
jA�$M
P DESERT 9IZ±�O
= 6/m/76 Rl
LLO494 MBRACT
w
f1
4200
34500
MI' 197A-79 ASSESSMENT ROLL C
OWNERS NAME RECORDERS ZONE
ADDREU- MUL(^)- ii31SSg ljA 1=1FYERLC14 uR0SE6
ttWL4Y JO{MITE§R/E��YFRLLN- P WDF�FRT 922M--_.ZL�` Rl
LOT 21 t4B 079/030 TRACT 5057
4U SELL I�RY �ND pW6
LOT 22 M 0797030 T T
I
WES SELL MARY
4 l PALM DESERT 927_dCl =
LOT MB TRACT 5U5f--- —
MARTENS RAY
CNY Of
RIVERSIDE
PAGE
92
TRA
PARCEL NO.
LAND
IMPRVMNTS
EXEMPTIONS
ASSMT NET
ACREAU
651-451-b21-5
2210
OTHER/ArS
97
17501+0
SALE At4T
4029C%10
-fW
0-45T;:022-6
1w
7140
175OHo
7250
- -- ---
- --
22500 .
-fw5-
63T oT-v3-7
1 "5
7305
9200
— --
37500 .
63f-45Tz24-8
2125
132M
1750N0
- 11575
- IM
--
-
6m
- S
1
1W08
631-45TzU25--§--2T55----
+W- i 1 .�'a'• 1 .1.•. +/ A11 TMAC'I:.�9aQ ali<:/�71/q/1.7a
11
1
LILLIAN -J—T- TOW 1
1 kLu 1. :u 11 11.1
LOT 34 MB
P. -
1 q7A-79
ASSESSMENT Roll
,NTY
T
rallTHWEST
RECORDERS
O
N.. 5899E
IONL
U.L
Sl'R
TRA
Mci E1. W.
� IPof MN15 E�! ^'l ll�r +`TAIL(')-S1TUS(N)-SAME(=)
�iFiEk%ngh�158999
ASSOCIATES
AV'6 PALM DESERT CA Q2260
11/00/72
PRL?eC1C1QLA
YY
AL�,E�0E
10.00
"'
RES IN MR NE 1/4 OF IEC 3 TSS R6E
FOR TOTAL
ION SEE ASSESSQRS MAPS
RN ENTERPRIS
j�SppINC (� QQ
ACRESINRfY6R@N �1/LRONSEP
70940
PRO`
YY
1K(C
5.00
6" 1O-Pl,,-CX
1 T5RE
E ESCR.�P -ION SLE ASSE 4hi MAPS
FOR TOTAL
_
�ITHWE STERN ENTERPRISES INC CR 13256
2241Q HWHOBNE PLY_STE 1,_
ACRES P05 LTCA 90505
PRO"
YY
18d00
5.00
631-11'l Ill S-r
Rt c
IN NE 1/4 OF SEC
TOTAL
DESCRIF'TIQN SEE ASSESSORS MAPS.
— _ _ ___
.;HITMAN FREDERICK C
'33 PQST ST 6IH FLOOR, SAN FBANCISL4_SA--94MB -'
i9225
RE43
R1
18003
19.50
631-120-,T1-a
192?O
CAT CANYON RD PALM DESERT 92260
N
19.50 ACRES M/L ICl PQR SW 114 OF -SEC 31 TSS
ME FOR TOTAL
DESCRIPTI_W SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
SIL%ER SPUR ASSOCIATES__ -- -- - -- --
4L870 PQRTQLA A1E� ABM DESERT
158999
11/58999
- PR07
18005
631-12C?-(104-�
���1c _ ..
"`
i1 f-SA-42260 --
14.69 ACRES M/L N POP SE 1/4 OF SEC 31 T55
—
R6E FOR TOTAL
_YY_-
14005
PESCRIPTIQNSEEASS GCORG pS__
DANIELSON JOHN L ILLO HOWjAgRD C
12059UACRC, D i*
- - 82642
PR01
YY
18n
2S8
631-12U-005-A
FORS 1 /4 OF SEC 31 TS$
R6E f�R�OTAL -
f'ESCRYTIQN�EE`ASSESSQRS MAPS
_ -_-__
SILVE^ SPUR ASSOCIATES
4_5 fYRIQLAAVE-. -0 , [A
t 5 ACRES MIL I POR
1389W
_ • luouZ2_
PR07
-u
18005
3S2
631-12C-((16_9
3u3E
SE /4 OF SEC _ TAS
R6E FOR TOTAL
ESCRIPIION_SF AGG Gc RG IgAF $
_..._.._.—_
PACIFIC ;lUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO
L SMITH- 3$35 BIRCH ST^ NEWPOR9�EACHAf
C A
RM
Cl
18003
33.75
631-120W7-0
76140 14q�/5
9c
49 .Nlra"-Y_ 74,-L" PMRI 922bC
3-. S ACRES IN
N
R SW / OF SECII TSS 06E
FOR TOTAL
DESCRIPTION SEE ASSESSORS hWPS
CVCWD xx
C/Q CGCu P_.9�OX-105$,.COACHELLA, CA 92234
75p29
631-120-V 4)
NON ASSE SABLE
NON -TAX N,,r A
SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
4 RTQLA-AY PALM PES _T, CA q 26Q
- TiCRE$ NTl TN 06R SE i�4 OF $€ 3i
158W
11/ /
PR07
YY
IW05
14.96
631-1 Z101_5
214 V, z�
TFS
R6F F6lR TbT7i[
DESR SCn ON A $QR$ MAPS
SILVEPUR AWN
4 A L pA_�t D�$ CA_-q���p
7, ACRE. rtT TN Pbk SF TT4 T5$
158W
111QQ172
PRO7
YY
18W5
17,08
631-130-CIp2-6
24465 c:..
OF SFF�T
RAF FOP TZsTAL
PUjRIPIIQH SEE ASSESSORS- KAPS
HARR S PHII_
49 F T�q L- I M DESERT A 9`26Q
1 ACRE$ MIc
R12r
rY
1,90pp
10 L)L)
TN POR SE 1IL OF SEt 71 Trr
PfF FOR TOTAL
-E$CRIPTION SEE_ A5$E$$OR$ h�APS
_
PENTZEN JOFN,v_ 207" R121'
ggQX 3191 SAN FRRgqNC SCO CA 94119 zz/pppp/74 R1
F2 07 ACRE$ Ty/L Wil
1W
I.Q7
6i1-170-007-1
5490 931O +,;s+F,P
1N P R TTS-k6F AND NM
$Et' _ T53 R6ET
�c TOTA Df54C1�PTION SEE A$$E$SQR$ MAPS
eENTIEN J3}�HN
MS
F.I.)BOX
MIL$AN
SESI n OF SFc'31
2p0p7r
R1
Imm
.39
6i1-lip-Opt '
111n „1n
CRE$ IN POP TSS ;AF
AND PbF 5W41/4Y
F SFC 32 T5S R6E FOR TOTAL DESCRIPTION SEE
ASSESSORS MAPS
ME' ?078->�� ASSESSMENT ROLL
Y OF
RIVERSIDE
'A(:E 48
OWNERS NAME RECOGDERS ZL
ADDRES; MAID )-SITUS(N)-SAME1-Z__ NO.
TRA
R ��E
PARCEL NO.
LAND
IMPF'MNTS
EXFMF'TIp S
N AssMT NET
C\'CWD XX -.11
C/o C�'_WD, F 0 BOX 1059. COAL ,�
MELLA. CA 9436
631-260-801-3
QTHER; 3$MTS
SALE AMT
2-(10 NON ASSESSABLE
NON -TAX
NON -TAX
C/O_ttCWO. F' 4 ug, 105a4 COACHELLA� CA 9223L ^°
_1800"
631-?60-V2-4
NON -TAX
0000
22--NON ASSESS LE
NON -TA?
PANORAMA BUILDERS INC__ __-.. _ __-"_ _.... -____ -. _
6$461 - R1f_
TW
631-270Ob3-0
50
SHIEL TES._.', PORTOLA_AVE- _r. 10/00(54. Y_Y
PALM DDESEER
c n
CA _.__
SCOTT PANDOLPH, SCOTT PATRICIA --
68233 020
4 [� [ANON DR, 9EVEfV gLy �21S __ =_ LIIZ_ IY
18w
631-220-004-1
5835
cRjS
5
.50 ACRES IN POR SW 1/4 OF EC 2 TSS R6E FOR TOTAL
-2
Q SEE Ac_c_fc_cpgc MAp$
PETI 0 V V [TOR PETITTO GLORIA B, JT 9 4 Ri26
4QQ PAiM DESERT 9 760 = 7/m/ Rl
1
631-270 Opb-3
c435
9b3p
175fNc, 11715
_ —
2-U9 ACRES IN OF SEC 32 T S3 R6E FOR TOTAL
_j.[)9
—
-
DFc[RIPTICM SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
HARRIS PHIL MS
CLSLIHId'IDER�IRD COLMR• �Y [ pp 7'0612 H11Y III +� R1_..—_.._-ZQ�---—----.---_
—
--4435
ANC HO MIRAGE C 2Z70 •-3100173
2M
ACRES IEL P(i 5lL1L4_Qf SE[ t TSc g fOB TQT�
"EECRIPTICN+ SEE ASSESSORS NAPS — --
"-- _—
— --
-
-
SILVERSPUR ASSOCIATES-------�
4
3gmASN
—
--
78525
CN
EO{1ik
--
-- -- --
--
SILVER SPUR A SOCI T?^
• It/1, 2 YY
40.1m8 E5 M/L N SW 0 T R6E FOR TC'"
----- -
°F SGpRS PC
DEjVACC
SPEAR
RNW T6
�
712M�
2280
RES GRN---§u
19C
e
31-2227p-014-6
-- -- ---
]f219CRE5 GRS IN PAR 2 PM 009/015 PM 4$74�QgC 32 T5,5 R6E
cv WD XX-
C997�S ACRE- N-W9W—iT4-WW32I -Ru T6-jow ___ 9.)4 _._ NON-TAX-
_PElCAI;jM SEE ASSESSORS MAPS ��qp��
C/ SILyP7�� $RlR ASSOCIATES, 73941 HWY 111, PALM_* 11/50D 2
S T, CF i2[2�6/0� — 1-1.,.�7 _— __ - NON -TAX __ .
11-S7� 5 IN P(�1OF SEC 32 TSS R6E FOR- P TAL
DES RI SEE A5SE5 SILVER , PT---- -- R3 --TM---63T=27D_UTF=4 11602,5 113475
DSLA4E._�QZQQ__MARIPOSA DR`PALM : --- - — R1 _ -45..49-_------_ -_-
Y
455 49 AC.gE$ M/ IN pr�R S 1/ F SEC _TSS R6E FOR TOTAL __
DF C IPTI6N M _R,; SaifS r P -- -- ----
22AO
2500
NON-TAX
NON -TAX
» 500.
1978-79 ASSESSMENT ROLI COUNTY OF RIVER
SIDE
06%ERS NAME RECORDERS b_)NE TRA PARCEL NO.
ADDRESS MA.L(*)-SiTUSU)-SAME(=) _-- --- --
SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, PT R2?M �18pp5 631 37�-02>_-J
C(Q SIL1'E¢ SPIl�A$SO[_ _ A DR PALM + C1 $.ZZ
4EggS7E�QQRT�fiipQl4229Y PpERT 92
P.72 ACRES NET WWI W 078/686 R CT-5w—.d_—.__-.. _- -
SILVER SFIJR
1 1.71p8y.. PROT TMU�, 63T-270�2�-8
* 8/m/73 Cy _ 4_35 T — -
p�
26306 R1_.]3T-776-M-9
3/m/74 Yy . L
PAGE 49
LAND IMPRVMNTS EXEMPTIONS ASSMT NET
21405 CTHE$[6SMTS SALE AMT
700 97015
23675
NON -TAX
275
23675
NON -TAX
275
6790
792
HIRSCHI JEAN A — — -
R -- —
P DE 2545 .
71 .3 ACRES M/L IN PAR PM Up9/ PM 4 ��--- — --- -- ------ ----
ROTTSCHAEFER ROBERT T ROTTSCW1f.FER BARB RA JT r132� TAMARISK_ PALM 6 S RT 9226 < 10/OD/7¢__.YY 22440 .
1. RES WE IN POR -PAR 2P1 UUY/UY5 PM 4815--- — __
SIQ R SPUR SS I TES, PT -- "-_
225�
DESERS;�i12 �[ ASS�a-�YZDCy r IEQSA DR, PALM * YY_ _ ---- - --- — --- - -
C14 PT ON ',1 A RS M4r SEC 32 TSS $4E FOR TOTAL _
1 -
1
VtbtKI, LA Yee%j
1165
:d RiKl. I: ... 11 :1
dr,14
r� •� •/ ' '•�1 : :1 / 1 '1�3621)0
11 1 A • 1
lI i. ... 11 11 11
320.00 '1•' 1 1' 1
1 §SSESSORS
MPS
HSCTATE-'' llll •1�11 1 i11
1 -�� �� 1 } _1 1 1 1
N-TAx -TAX
1.:
m' 1Q78-79 ASSESLMENT ROLL
UNTY Or
RIVERSIDE
PA([ tt
*+EES NnME
PPRE S MAIL( )-SITUS SN)-: AMES=1- - _--
EER•'JN D BR011N MERRILYN
RECORDERS
_',_-D[�IE
2ONi
u$;
TRA
Aipl)QLIE
PARCEL NO.
LAND
IMPRVMNTS EXEMPTIONS ASSMT NET
OTHER(S66 c
,AMES J, CP
*Q19 -'UT MC�ITAIN S. C�'
146369
R1zf
631-1�009-;
5545
[ ALE APTE
p� y�
_.52 ACRES M/L IN PCl� SE 1/6 i
g[pQ[
AND
R1
2.52
A045
E55 Ra
'/4 CF SEC 32 TSS R4L1 FO:'._TQTALlElU IFTION_lEL
POR SW
SSE=K
"AFc
II_VEF SPUR ASSOCIATE, - -- -
?70 FQR.TOLA_A11�� PA.' .ESERL�4
tt ACRES M/L IR POR iT
i38g49
1/�/7�
Pg07
-
1
631-130-010 3
1920
1920
SE pF ff" T5S R6E
"LSC-,iPIION SEL
FOR TOTAL
U "Ek SPUR ASSOCIAT--"------
H D . ORT4L�AYE �_PALlLOESERT C «
N'RES
��� P�7
��
63i-1}O1 (t11-4
3200
3200
.51 M/L I FOR SE 1T4 SF SEC�i T3S R6E
PES'I19l1_
FOR T
.
SILVER SFVR ASSOCI T -
48870. P BT9LlE
,—„��
PR 7
-i��
631-13o--012-5
?Q
1 V1
.14 ACRES MIL IN POR SE 1 C S R6E
"`�`�—
FOR TOT
'—
- - 14
—-
LtLS.CRi TjCft- SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
Ck•0CUDXX
f]SA COA[HEI IA_ CA 92236
l2-0L
-
-ib�5
3 �-i3���-1
A S0ESBSAOBY LE1
«
_ NON -TAX
NON —TAX
SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES -
PR
bW.i-T4_TZjV1-q
2i�1
SILVER, 0DESERT« [A 92260
SFUR ASSOCIATES
49gM7
�1
158999
PRE
=t
6�_i4���
- ��j
210RO
MsIIILA_A1�CA 922EL1
LOT 7 M9 4 / TRACT
« 11/m/72--
- ------
2120
_ -- -__-- ,
POR LOT 6%4XWTRACl 2323
1IATtg-
0;..': .
1' m a I 7
40 P_T5NWl i
j:.- ILif/1 :1.)fi:LTiilfl
CVCM�XX __._
C2�ASS€$�7� 11�« COACHELLA� CA_9Z234_.__ "—
SILQV�pERp�f�"�Q �Anyy�CI�AfiPPALA� ---- - --
4 7'f i7�DAT7pb>s`TiElI 23 A YY_
"D S
A E H RTH to q��11
I.
T TSS-RbE Fa1fTOTA[—' —
DESCRIPTION SEE ACSESSQRS MAPS
T800T 331-iL1-ObT-3 Z'IZQ
�5029 a3'f-1zT=BIJ'f-5 _
_ _NON -TAX _
i�R15--a31=1GZ-DOi-T 3i�f
a31�'f4Z�02=3 367Q- -- -
1855
L120
2120
2120
2120
NON —TAX,
3180
3Ean '
BEiD'.Ei ram" 01) YNI)'LMSII.
ZZ CC ���EkEs9SEFtttNNppR
bfQtiiPTI6N -ASSESSORS WWS
(V'W --- ----._1375�i .771-026OOb5 NON -TAX
AM #€��i� oP-sEc;TwmrTOR-"W--- -
"P .107E-n-- ASSESiWRTi IIdCC ZOUM-W RIVEPSM
OWNERS NAME RECORDERS ZONE TRA PARCEL NO.
CVLQUDSQSy IpM�lel (^ )p-ASIHTELU�S �U")-CSAAMp1E?( ) _ tlo.-�AIi--- JJS� �. m-020-OC�d
�p1p5�6,B�9R71FICILRFS Ek M& WiORS f9p OI SEC 5 76S R4 f6a 161A1 ----- —
WIRER SUSAN- 1Z--7�, 771-0JO-007�
_� ( _�E7 N C1?IR15 AVE_ LOS_ YT._]il�.1L
11$f•SSEE ASISESR6RI ry�/�4 OF SE[ 6 Ib5_$6E.-f� TDTAL _ __
Wr TAx
PAU 74
AND OTM R/ASKTjWPVMMTS
ExEM7i(Mr5 ASSPIT NET
SALE APr
NEN-TAX NCN-TAT
65490
65490
77fOOYi 3625
3625
33625 .
S 15
DESCRIPTION
3625
�3 -
3625
4Z5M .
L
y
TOTAL DESCRIPTION _-- .---------
-_ _.- -
-- 7�T 771 S - - -
--- 3365 '
YY 4--5 -- — —
---------- '
TOTAL DESERtRTloN ___
—62---71T 7363-34535
Ai-TM*Di$cRf6T16iT- - --- - ---
moea--
� JM
--- z'500 soo.
k6E FOR TOTAL — — —
__
1430'
1^*T7 .Tt- ?500�771-0i(F>Q2-T -T775- 1fi
--
11-'RLS-
—-T07E74-iESESSRENT R'�Ll-COGifY-O�7IVEkSIDE PACE 75
y RREEC.OROD�E?RSS ZONE � TRA PARCEL NO. LAND IMPRVWTS EXEMPTIONS ASSMT NET
LN CA '6 1077Pi�f+F �M 72435 OiHER/ASMiS. SALE AM
7T3 T5
b_,T6S .AE fdl :GZlLOFSLE1fI13,1— -
245
RR 99_�Tb�FT811�"6F5 II�-'17T-�r3- 2e00 _ 2800
2550 103M 12430
OO'
Ar NII • L. 0171 R1 _ —_ — _ _ ..
1978-79 ASSESSMENT U COWTY
'N`'`'` NAME RECORDERS ZCNE TP`
I'BCSS MA1Ll'')-:1TUS(k)-SAMLL=-) —_ _ W4. -CIE
ILVER SPUR MC6ILE NOR PT 145541 PR'iS 75fU
A0' RQQl RT HUBBARC, 50MI HWY 74._PALM DESERT,. 9/00/76 "Y 03
.C_• ACRE MIL 1N POB SW 1/4 OF SEC 21 T51 R6E FOR TOTAL
F15L';1PTICN SEE ASSESSORS MAPS
f
,.ANT PEVERLY R, RUSSELL HELEN S, RUSSELL DAVID L - -97016 PR1S 1'Awj
R77 SAN ANTONIO SAN DIEGO, CA i�6 _--7/m/76 Yy 2'.,41
Z6.41 ACRES rVt jK &S}L.1L4._O -31 TSS_R6�-fOA I4TAL
DESCRIPTION SEE SSESSORS MAPS
GANT BEVERLY R, RUSSEC- DAVID L, RUSSEIL NELEN S 97016 PFID- 18OW
877 SAN ANTONIO SAN , OIEGOCA 9 1b6 �n76--YY 10.91
10.91 ACRUIl 1L4 0 SEC 31 USM6E-FULTOTAL _
DESCRI°TION SEES SC NSESSORS MAPS
GANT BE
_IC --
877 SAN
�•�� 'uas7lclnilSgli�7.:�Li1�S�lt
RIVERSIDE t'AJ 34
PARCEL NO. LAND IMPRVMNTS EX(MPTI!NS ASSNT NET
OTHER/ASMTS SnIE AMT
631-150 003-9 50
631-150-W4-0 183V 1 x77t
631-150-(05-1 7140
18003 631-150-007-3
1m 631-165-p01-8
20.53
PR1E--_1m-- 631-16�062--9
YY__ _10.29____
l
1RO 631-160-003-0
YY_--
--.L,
PROT---
iBW631-16&M4-1
R1-
-.5,QQ_
137500 350000
12035
6960
3460
37E'0 12715
SILQV�R R �FifTIE$— --- -- - -- ---- - PR07 TW- 631-166-OO5-2 7710
C194 LVC� �{+$ i_.,A�$QEI-TES_ P,4 BOX 1727, PALM* _ YY 16.00
DES�Rf� W `SEC 51 TSS R6E FOR -TOTAL,
SILVER SPUR ASTOaVr�-- i58949 PRO7 -M5 A31-IM-006-3 870
4 EMOLA Aye_ PA M pESE��� �A 9 11/pp/7 YY 9,10
9.10 CqAjCp7RE M7C IRAiF3`Fi74 DF-5E03i TS$ RdE W TbTAL�
DE;g%, lQN SEE ASSESSCNtS MAPS
cvcw �(TI Pp �� -- _ iB005 63i-i60-8IT1-4
Cr/o COS E1SAeT E BOX 1058,_COACNEILA. CA 92236 -_ 1` NCN-TAX
71 1-0
r,A7�fe
150 70cle
tot;
p "r,
Nr,N-TAx
Barbara A. Wohlford John Bentzen Silver Spur Mobile Manor
+8663 Stoney Creek In. P 0 Box 3191 c/o Robert Hubbard
Palm Desert, CA 92260 San Francisco, CA 94119 50001 Hwy. 74
531-451-028 631-130-007,008 P6j}m1De8s8rrj, CA 92260
.k. Gutheil
+625 Hillard Ave.
La Canada, CA 91011
531-451-029
IDnald Jeffredo
+8642 Stoney Creek Ln.
?alm Desert, CA 92260
531-451-030
Jack H. Rowe
+8633 Stoney Creek Ln.
?aim Desert, CA 92260
531-451-031
Gilliam R. Lewis
+8623 Stoney Creek Ln.
?aim Desert, CA 92260
531-451-032
-has. Bushman
2 620 Stoney Creek Ln.
?aim Desrt, CA 92260
531-451-033
klan Moskowitz
5009 .jumilla Ave.
Joodland Hills, CA
531-451-034
Panorama Builders Inc
c/o Silver Spur Assoc.
48870 Portola Ave.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-270-003
Randolph Scott
499 N. Canon Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
631-270-004
Beverly R. Gant
877 San Antonio
San Diego, CA 92106
631-150-004,005
631-160-001.002
Silver Spur Reserve
c/o Bruce E Bedig
160 Franklin St.
Oakland, CA 92607
631-150-007
Victor Petitto
radford Ostrom
49425 JFK Trail
988 Ceres Rd.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Palm Sppringgs, CA 92262
631-270-006
631-160-003
Phil Harris
Thomas Kelly
c/o Thunderbird Country Clb
1301 Hotel Circle South
70612 Hwy III
San Diego, CA 92108
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
631-160-004
631-270-007
Virginia Spear
Silver Spur Properties
73720 Buckboard B
c/o Silver Spur Assoc.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
P 0 Box 1727
631-270-013
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-160-005
Dennis J. Healy
P 0 Box 1703
91367 Palm Desert, CA
631-270-014
John L. Danielson
140 Luring Dr.
?aim Springs, CA 92262
531-120-005
Pacific Mutual Life Ins.Co
:/o Mirams & Smith
3835 Birch St.
4ewport Beach, CA 92660
531-120-007
;VCWD
? 0 Box 1058
,ochella, CA 92236
531-120-801, 631-141-801
631-130-801, 631-160-801
Phil Harris
+9400 JFK Trail
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-130-005
Jean A. Hirschi
73-833 E1 Paseo
Palm Desert, CA
631-270-027
'B
Susan P. Walker
436 N Citrus Ave.
92260 Los Angeles, CA 90036
771-030-002, 771-040-002
C L Willoughby
Ste 106 8888 Olympic Blv.
92260 Beverly Hills, CA 90211
771-030-003
Robert Rottschaefer
73263 Tamarisk
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-270-028,_<. D
James D. Brown
1039 West Mountain St.
Glendale, CA 91202
631-130-009
Networks Electronic Corp
9750 De Soto Ave.
Chatsworth, CA 91311
631-142-002
Virginia Spear
P 0 Box 1672
Palm Desert, CA 92260
771-030-004
Title Ins. & Trust Co.
433 S. Spring St.
LosAngeles, CA 90013
771-030-007
Bailew/McFarland, Inc.
74-075 E1 Paseo, Ste. A-7
Palm Desert, CA 92260
D & B Development Co.
c/o Mrs Mary B. Lindley
2024 Victoria Dr.
Santa Ana, CA 92706
631-452-018
D & B Development Co.
c/o Cheryl G. Palmer
72714 Willow St.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-019
D A B Development Co.
13 iinda Isle
Newport Beach, CA 92660
631-452-020
D & B Development Co.
930 Oliver St.
S. Pasadena, CA 91030
631-452-021
D & B Development Co_.
6215 Cnaterbury Dr.
Culver City, CA 90230
631-452-022
D & B Development Co.
48999 Sunny Summit In.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-007
D & B Development Co.
48969 Sunny Summit In.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-010
D & B Development Co.
28620 Mt Whitney Way
San Pedro, CA 90732
631-452-011
Jerome Giola
72577 Rolling Knoll Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-451-059
Lacon E. Brueckner
13350 Ector St.
City of Industry, CA 91746
631-451-060
Orhan 0. Yirmibesh
72572 N Rolling Knoll Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-451-039
Esther Randazzo
c/o Strople
913 Abbot -
San Gabriel, CA 91776
631-451-040
Clintine-E. Clark
15711 Sunflower In.
Huntington Beach, CA 9264
631-451-041
Joella C. Champion
2830 W. 235th St.
Torrance, CA 90505
631-451-042
Frank Rodriguez
1425 Masser P1.
Montebello, CA 90640
631-451-043
D & B Development Co.
Dorothea M, Simmel
Walter A. Lawrence
210 N. Citrus Ave.
2301 Mandeville Canyon Rd.
72610 Moon Ridge In.
Covina, CA 91723
West Los Angeles, CA 90049
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-023
631-451-061
631-451-044
William Roe
Carl E. Buchheim
Leland R. Yoss
Rt 1 Box 163A
72617 N. Rolling Knoll Dr.
16 Harbor Light Dr.
Del Mar, CA 92014
; Palm Desert, CA 92260
Rolling Hills Estates, CA
631-452-063
631-451-062
90274
631-451-045
D & B Development Co.
John H. Grant
William A. Guyton
1938 S Pacific
4056 Skyline Rd.
72605 Moon Ridge In.
Oceanside, CA 92054
' Carlsbad, CA 92008
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-002
631-451-035
631-451-a046
D & B Development Co.
Patti Lyttle
David P. Delancy
16 Harbor Sight Dr.
49650 Stoney Creek In.
72595 Moon Ridge Ln.
Rolling Hills Estates, CA
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Palm Desert, CA 92260
90274
631-451-036
631-451-047
631-452-W3
D & B Development Co.
Geraldine Desimone
Larry A. Taylor
1890 Maginn Dr.
48660 Stoney Creek In.
72585 Moon Ridge In.
Glendale, CA 91202
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-005
631-451-037
631-451-048
D & B Development Co. Mary Meister Seymour Price
7409 Arrowood Rd. 48670 Stoney Creek In. 48¢73 Stoney Creek In.
Bethesda, MD 20034 Palm Desrt, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-451-038 631-451-027
Duthwestern Enterprises Inc D & B Development, Co
2410 Hawthorne Blvd. Ste. 1 7202 Deep Harbor
Drrance, CA 90505 014 Huntington Beach, CA
31-110-005,006,007,008,015 631-452-051
Silver Spur Associates
+8-870 Portola Ave.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
D & B Devlopment Co
4128 Via Andorra
Santa Barbara, CA
631-452-052
D & B Development Co.
1548 Live Oak Lane
92648 Santa Barbara, CA 93105
631-452-031
D & B Development Co.
924 Oliver St.
93110 S. Pasadena, CA 91030
631=452-030
) & B Development Co. Vincent W. Hall
'/0 D P Delancy 72420 S. Rolling Knoll
Z711 E. Coast Hwy., Ste.206 Palm Desert, CA 92260
;orona Del Mar, CA 92625 631-452-054
531-452-038,039,040,043,050
) & B Development Co.
18392 Vista Del Lago
forba Linda, CA 92686
531-452-041
) & B Develoment Co.
1010 Laguna Rd.
Pasadena City, CA 91105
531-452-042
) & B Development Co.
22682 Baltar
Mission Viejo, CA 92675
531-452-044
) & B Development Co.
Z7201 Via Aurora
4ission Viejo, CA 92675
531-452-045
Aldeen C. Burkitt
72410 S Rolling Knoll
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-055
Peter R. Blair
1792 Skyline Drive
Santa. -Ana, CA 92705
631-452-056
D & B Development Co.
5421 W. Slauson Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90056
631-452-024
D & B Development Co
Box 1167
Redlands, CA 92373
631-452-025
D & B Development Co.
10231 Club P1.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
631-452-032
D & B Development Co.
19592 Parkside Drive
Yorba Linda, CA 92686
631-452-033
D & B Development Co.
c/o R W Burns Inv. Co.
1801 Ave. Of The Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
631-452-034
D & B Development Co.
1501 Westcliff Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92663
631-452-035
D & B Developemnt Co.
48960 Desert Flower
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-036
) & B Develpment Co. D & B Development Co. D & B Development Co.
L6533 Harbor Lane 1538 Rodeo Rd. c/o D P Delancy
luntington Beach, CA 92649 Arcadia, CA 91006 2711 E. Coast Hwy., Ste 20(
531-452-046 631-452-026 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
- 631-452-012 , 013,017.Wi,OW�OM
) & B Development Co.
51 Jasmine Creek Drive
,orona Del Mar, CA 92625
31-452-047
) & B Development Co.
17239 Buttonwood
,ountain Valley, CA 92708
531-452-048
D & B Development Co.
1601 Sandalwood
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
631-452-027
D & B Development Co
2025 E Balboa Blvd.
Balboa, CA 92661
631-452-028
D & B Development Co.
1632 Augusta Plaza
Palm Springs, CA 92262
631-452-014
D & B Development Co.
72545 Rolling --Knoll
Palm Desert, CA 92260
631-452-015
D44&11B Development Co. D & B Development Co. D & B Development Co.
Zi5ToroortR C§2gJt6. 48982DCanyon CAest22nG0 9592 Juanita St.
Palm 9 Cypress, CA 90630
531-452-049 631-452-029 Kam, ,C� �,.