Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ord 837-838 Res 97-30 CZ 96-6 PP-CUP 96-10 DA 97-2 Wonder Palms
CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), precise plan of design/conditional use permit, master plan of development, and development agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. III. APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates for David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, CA 92262 IV. CASE NOS: C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 and DA 97-2 V. DATE: April 10, 1997 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No.837 and No. 838 D. Draft Resolution No. 97-30 E. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case Nos. C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 and DA 97-2 F. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 1 787, 1788 and G. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated December 17, 1996, February 4, March 4, March 18 and April 1 , 1997 H. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 837 to second reading approving Change of Zone 96-6 and Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center. STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 2. That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 838 to second reading approving the Development Agreement for Wonder Palms Commercial Center. 3. That the City Council waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 97-30 approving PP/CUP 96-10, a precise plan of design for development on Planning Area #1 of the Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, subject to conditions. B. DISCUSSION: BACKGROUND The applicant is the owner of 270 +/- acres located east and west of Cook Street south of Interstate 10 and wishes to establish a long term development plan in the form of this master plan. The property extends along the south side of 1-10 from Portola Avenue in the west to a point 3400 feet east of Cook Street. The Zoning Ordinance provides for this type of long term development plan through a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development). In order to obtain such a change of zone the applicant must have more than 100 acres of land and must prepare a master plan of development which contains and becomes the development criteria for the area which is then delineated as PCD on the zoning map. The applicant has prepared a master plan of development which establishes eight basic planning areas with a wide range of land uses. The master plan of development also contains a series of development criteria (conditions) which shall govern future development within the site. Future uses proposed in the master plan of development range from freeway oriented commercial businesses to planned service industrial to regional commercial to high density residential. PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The precise plan provides a detailed site plan for development on Planning Area #1 of the Development Plan (i.e., the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive). 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 The conditional use permit approval is required pursuant to the provisions of FCOZ for certain uses permitted in the FCOZ. CHANGE OF ZONE The request is to change the zone for the 270 +/- acres to Planned Community Development. In order to do this the City must have an acceptable development plan which then becomes the approved land use for the area. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant has had a development agreement prepared which if the ordinance is passed, will among other matters vest the applicant's development rights and establish a credit for drainage fees for contributing property for the mid valley channel. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE North: County/Railroad and I-10 South: PR-5/Future Cal State University Site and Rancho Portola Country Club East: R 1 M/Emerald Desert RV Park West: SI and PR-5/Vacant GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION The 270 +/- acres is designated several different land use categories in the General Plan. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive, east and west of Cook Street, is designated District Commercial. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive at the east end of the site is designated commercial-industrial. The area north and south of Gerald Ford Drive east of Portola was designated residential study zone in the North Sphere Specific Plan. Finally, the area south of Gerald Ford Drive and west of Cook Street is designated residential - low density. At the time of the preparation of the North Sphere Specific Plan the actual alignments of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, and Gerald Ford east of Cook Street were not established. As a result the land use designations were "general" as to their locations. 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 As well, the decision to set aside over 200 acres of land at the southeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford for a future Cal State campus impacts on the overall entry design/land use of the Cook Street corridor. The intent of the North Sphere Specific Plan was to establish commercial land use in the Cook Street-Gerald Ford corridors, commercial-industrial buffers adjacent to the freeway and higher density residential where railroad and freeway noise can be mitigated. Staff feels that this master plan as proposed implements the intent of the General Plan/North Sphere Specific Plan land use elements. EXISTING ZONING: The property contains two existing zone categories. The area around the Gerald Ford and Cook intersection is zoned PC(2) (District Commercial) and the rest of the site PR-5 (Planned Residential - five units per acre). C. ANALYSIS: MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT As noted above the master plan of development divides the property into eight planning areas. Specific locations are delineated on Figure 1 contained in the master plan. "Planning Area 1 - 21 .3 gross acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business. PA1 shall use the base provisions of the PC 4 (Planned Commercial Center - Resort Center) however, shall allow no more than one automobile service station including accessory convenience retail, and shall also allow drive through restaurants subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Standards for drive-through facilities are adopted herein and must also be consistent with requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone Ordinance. 4 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 Planning Area 2 - 50.7 gross acres west of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Regional Commercial. PA2 shall use the base provisions of the PC3 (Planned Commercial Center - Regional Center) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Drive through restaurants are allowed subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Planning Area 3 - 1 1 .2 gross acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business. PA3 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (Planned Commercial Center - District Commercial). Planning Area 4 - 30.2 acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Industrial/Business Park. PA4 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial Zone) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 5 - 25.9 acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Mixed-use Commercial/Residential. PA5 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (District Commercial Center Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail and residential under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 6 - 70.6 acres west of Cook Street and between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - industrial/business park. PA6 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. 5 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 Planning Area 7 - 44.3 acres north of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. PA7 shall use the base provisions of the O.P. (Office Professional) zone. Land use emphasis - business office. Planning Area 8 - 14.9 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential. PA8 shall use the provisions of PR 18 (Planned Residential District - up to 18 dwelling units per acre)." The applicant has prepared in chart form, Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the master plan, development program - Maximum Intensity Alternative and Development Program - Trend Alternative respectively. The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional review of the entitlements is 4,465,000 square feet and 470 residential units as depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate). The probable development intensity expected (Trend Alternate) is shown in Figure 3. The expected intensity is 2,145,000 square feet and 470 dwelling units. The applicant has verbally advised staff that ongoing planning has land use intensities which are actually lower than the trend alternative. The trend alternative is considerably less intense than the current General Plan would allow. Circulation - The master plan takes advantage of the existing approved City Circulation Plan and takes accesses from the future Gerald Ford Drive. The master plan proposes additional streets. One new street will divide PA7 from PA6 and provide access to the business/office area. This street runs from Portola north of Gerald Ford east and south to connect with Gerald Ford approximately 2100 feet east of Portola. The applicant has had a circulation impact study prepared by Endo Engineering which examines the future traffic impacts of the two development alternatives and compares these with the existing General Plan designation and the traffic 6 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 which could be generated under it. Traffic impacts were assessed for the nearby intersections for the years 2005 and 2010. Essentially, with proper mitigation either proposed development alternative can be supported from a circulation standpoint. The master plan of development as recommended by Planning Commission is acceptable with the following revision: That at page 6, item 7 (f) delete reference to permitting drive-through restaurants. This change was inadvertently omitted from the Planning Commission report. We have advised the applicants. CHANGE OF ZONE TO PCD Once the City is satisfied with the master plan of development for the property it is then appropriate for the City to process the ordinance to amend the zoning to Planned Community Development (PCD). The master plan of development becomes an attached exhibit to the ordinance. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT A draft development agreement has been prepared by the applicant. The agreement has an initial term of 15 years with extensions beyond that possible. The agreement at page 2, recital E outlines the benefits to the City as: "The benefits conferred on the City by Developer herein will (i) insure consistent, comprehensive planning which will result in aesthetically pleasing, environmentally harmonious, an economically viable development within the City; (ii) provide for the creation of high-quality, aesthetically pleasing entry statement for the City; (iii) provide for the construction of stormwater system improvements vital to the City; and (iv) further the development objectives of the City in an orderly manner, all of which will significantly promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City." 7 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 In return for these "benefits" the applicant seeks to: i) receive a credit against the required area drainage fees equal to the fair market value of the land dedicated for the Mid-Valley Channel (page 13, Section 5.1). ii) obtain vesting as provided at page 7, section 3.2 which states: "...the parties hereto acknowledge and expressly agree that Developer is hereby granted by the City the vested and guaranteed right to develop the Project in such manner and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole subjective business judgment." The Planning Commission reviewed the development agreement at its meetings of March 18 and April 1 , 1997. Substantial changes were made to the document to make it more acceptable. The Planning Commission at its April 1 , 1997 meeting recommended approval of the development agreement. PRECISE PLAN REVIEW As provided for in the master plan of development each planning area or part thereof must submit for approval a precise plan of design application. We now have such a plan as it relates to Planning Area #1 . The precise plan as submitted proposes a service station, convenience store and car wash on the corner with a food park (six restaurants) wrapped around the corner development. To the north of this food park is an oversize vehicle parking lot, RV storage, self storage facility and retail shops. This is all on 21 .3 gross acres at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street. All of these uses are provided for in the FCOZ (Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone). 1 . ACCESS: One access point is taken from Cook Street to the service station, one from Gerald Ford into the restaurant park and service station and from the new street, as shown on the circulation plan, which extends north from Gerald Ford 8 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 Drive. The RV and mini-storage facilities are served by a new cul-de-sac extending into this area. 2. CIRCULATION: The circulation around the food park and service station is acceptable. 3. ARCHITECTURE: The service station, convenience store and car wash architecture has been approved by the Architectural Review Commission (March 1 1 , 1997). The general consensus was that the design was more than acceptable. Members described it as "its nice because you can't even tell its a gas station", "I like the architecture of the building", "dynamite", "it is the look we were looking for". The commission granted preliminary architectural approval on a 5-0 vote (Commissioner Urrutia absent). 4. SETBACKS: The PC-2 zone prescribes a 32 foot setback from Cook Street and 25 foot setback from Gerald Ford Drive. The plan as submitted provides 70 feet from Cook Street and 32 feet from Gerald Ford Drive adjacent to the car wash. The restaurants to the east are shown at 36 and 22 from Gerald Ford Drive. The restaurant showing 22 feet will need to be moved to the north to provide a 25 foot setback. The other structures within the site are all acceptable as shown. 5. USER SIZES AND PARKING PROVIDED: a. Service station, convenience store and car wash The convenience store, car wash and service station will be 5275 square feet. This combined facility produces a parking requirement of 20 spaces. There are 26 spaces provided plus the 16 spaces at the pump islands and the 16 dry-off spaces at the car wash exit. 9 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 The parking complies with that prescribed in the FCOZ. b. Restaurants The restaurants vary in size from 2200 square feet to 4000 square feet and from typical drive-through to sit-down restaurants. Total restaurant area is 18,750 square feet. A total of 161 parking spaces are dispersed through-out the food park plus each of the drive-thrus has stacking for at least 7 cars per the development plan. As well, the applicant has shown an oversize vehicle parking lot for 15 trucks or RV type large vehicles. The 176 parking spaces are adequate to comply with the FCOZ. There is available space to expand parking should it be needed. The self storage area is 59,000 square feet and while we have no parking requirement 21 spaces are provided. The necessary parking for this use generally takes place at the entrance to the individual unit. Circulation in this area appears adequate. The retail building will be 18,100 square feet and has 63 parking spaces. This is consistent with the parking requirement of the ordinance. There is additional space available at the rear which could be made into parking. The RV storage area is parking and hence has no parking requirement. c. Landscaped Areas The FCOZ prescribes a minimum 30% landscape area for the food park and service station area. The landscape area requirement for the remainder can be less pursuant to action by Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the landscaping as shown on the proposed planting layout dated 2-25-97 on the north area of the site be approved as shown. Over the entire planning area the landscape area is 35.6 percent. In the south portion, the area of the food park and the service station, the landscape area is 48% which complies with the FCOZ requirement. 10 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 It may be of interest that around the service station/car wash in addition to 35 feet deep landscape setbacks the area along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive will be bermed to a height of 8 feet to screen buildings and the uses. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Justification: The design of the project meets all applicable City code requirements for this type of facility or can be revised to comply. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. Justification: The property around this site is currently vacant. Development of this property will set a tone for future development. The project's use and location is compatible with anticipated surrounding uses and owners in the vicinity will not be deprived of the use of their land or be negatively impacted by this development. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Justification: The project complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and its architectural design will set the standard for surrounding properties. D. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed change of zone and master plan for future development is essentially consistent with the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan which were adopted pursuant to a certified environmental impact report. As a result staff is comfortable with processing this application under the negative declaration provisions of CEQA. 11 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 The applicant did have a circulation impact study prepared, a hydrology study and a biological assessment and impact analysis. These three documents are specific to this 270 +/- acre site. As noted by the traffic engineer, any traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and in fact if the "Trend Alternate" is followed the expected traffic levels will be significantly lower than the present General Plan would allow. The hydrology study concludes that all such impacts can be mitigated. The biological assessment and impact analysis concludes that "this project, upon the completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within the region." The project is within the fee area established by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. It is also in the historical habitat of a number of other plant and animal species being considered for listing as threatened or endangered. To avoid their future listing, a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is being prepared through CVAG which will provide long term protection through the creation of preserves. Pending completion of the MSHCP an Interim Review Process has been established pursuant to an MOU with all the valley cities, County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. This application was reviewed at CVAG with the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant has been unable to resolve the matter. In this process the applicant offered to front fund some of the cost of the preparation of the MSHCP in return for assurance that it would not be subject to any fee the plan may establish. As of this time the parties have been unable to agree to such an arrangement. This failure to arrive at such an agreement does not preclude the city from proceeding. The applicant can continue to attempt to reach agreement. If one is not attained then if and when the MSHCP is approved and a fee is established, any land remaining to be developed will be subject to such fee. Staff will recommend that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be adopted. 12 . STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10 AND DA 97-2 APRIL 10, 1997 E. CONCLUSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed the master plan and recommended its approval. Staff concurs provided that the reference to drive-through restaurants in Planning Area 6 is deleted. This master plan of development will be attached as an exhibit to the zone change. The revision to the development plan can be carried out between first and second readings. The precise plan for PA1 implements the master plan. Once City Council has approved the master plan and change of zone then it can act on the precise plan. The master plan and precise plan propose a series of freeway oriented businesses including drive-through restaurants. These uses are to be permitted through the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) which is to be considered earlier on the City Council agenda. Any of the uses which are only permitted through the FCOZ (i.e., drive-through restaurants, RV storage and mini warehouses) are contingent upon passing of the FCOZ ordinance and being consistent with the provisions contained therein. Prepared by: eve Smith Reviewed and Approved by � Philip Drell /tm CITY COUNCIL ACTION: * Staff Recommendation No. 1 approved APPROVED X * DENIED.. a _-__z. subject to the deletion of the refer- RECEIVED OTHER__ ence to drive-through restaurants as MEETING DATE 4/ln/97 a_ L� applied to Planning Area No. 6 in the AYES° RFNCnN f`RTTFC C)JV1WD CUTA!'F7 * Development Plan attached to the Ord. ® '�' ��� Staff Recommendation No. 2 approved. NOES: NONE �_ � ABSENT: NONE Staff Recommendation No. 3 approved ABSTAIN: NONE with the addition of Department of VERIFIED BY: SRr/Rnr Community Development Condition No. 22. Original on File with City Clerk' s Office 13 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 18.3 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE FOR THE SITE KNOWN AS PLANNING AREA #1 IN THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th day of April, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan for the development of Planning Area #1 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed uses in PA1 include a service station, a convenience store with the sale of beer and wine, a restaurant park including drive-through facilities, a car wash, RV storage and mini warehouse facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25.108.020 of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone all of the above uses require approval of a conditional use permit and precise plan of design; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts to justify its actions, as described below: 1 . The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 3. The proposed precise plan/conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed precise plan/conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-10 is hereby granted subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, be certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICHARD S. KELLY, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. 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. 4. 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: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development. 6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. 7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 9. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. 10. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan. 11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. 12. No loitering shall be allowed on the premises. 13. No Distilled Spirits sales will be permitted on the premises. 14. No open alcoholic beverage containers or consumption shall be allowed on the premises. 15. Litter shall be removed twice daily from the premises, including adjacent public sidewalks, landscaped area and parking lots. Personnel shall be required to physically inspect the premises and adjacent sidewalks, landscaped areas and parking lots no less than twice daily. 16. Hours of operation for all uses on the site shall be 24 hours per day seven days a week. 17. That the architecture of the remaining buildings in PA1 (i.e., restaurants, mini storage and retail) shall take the flavor of the architecture shown for the service station/ convenience store/car wash. 18. That the east most restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive be setback a minimum of 25 feet. 19. That the parking for the restaurant uses shall be evaluated on an on-going basis as each restaurant is proposed and built. 20. That the open space area associated with the "food park" shall be completed with the opening of the first drive-through restaurant. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 21 . This approval is subject to approval by the City Council of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone Ordinance, subject to the PCD zone change being approved by City Council and that this approval is consistent with the approved Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone Ordinance. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map or issuance of grading permits. As provided for in Section 26.49.030 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code , the costs associated with the construction of master plan drainage facilities may be deducted from the project drainage fees. 2. Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project. Project design shall provide for the on-site retention of the 100 year storm event. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or the recordation of the parcel map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.08, Transportation Demand Management. 7. Complete parcel map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be 5 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 10. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 11 . In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a median island in Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street shall be provided. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 12. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above. 13. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 14. The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. 15. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation-related issues. 16. Waiver of access rights to Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the parcel map. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future undergrounding district. 18. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards and the city's Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. * Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the project entries. * Construction of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit Agency. Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the parcel map. 19. Applicant shall be responsible for the implantation of those traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the Wonder Palms Commercial Center Circulation Impact Study prepared by Endo Engineering and approved by the City of Palm Desert Public Works Depart. 20. Traffic safety striping shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 21 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 22. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 23. The proposed storm water retention areas shall be designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. 7 • RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1 500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 gpm for commercial structure b) 2500 gpm for multi-family structure c) 3000 gpm for commercial structure d) 4000 gpm for industrial structure 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4"x 2-1 /2"x 2- 1 /2"), located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200 feet from single family structure b) 165 feet from multi-family structure c) 150 feet from commercial structure Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") will be required, located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200 feet from single family structure b) 1 65 feet from multi-family structure c) 1 50 feet from commercial structure 8 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the require fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civic Engineer or may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 6. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies. 9. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 1 3. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 10. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 1 1 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the fire marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15.16.090. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 12. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)) 13. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 14. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 1 7, 1 7A) 15. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and California Fire Code Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 16. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 17. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall be: a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only. b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking. c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed on one side. d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 1 6' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 21 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 22. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the City of Palm Desert. 23. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 24. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal's office for submittal requirements. 25. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 97-30 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-10 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates For David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a fuel station, convenience store, car wash, restaurant park and retail outlets on 18.3 acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, known as Planning Area #1 in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1787 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE TO PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) AND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR 270 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10 EAST AND WEST OF COOK STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER. CASE NO. C/Z 96-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued from •.February 18, 1997, to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project as mitigated will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD maximizes the potential for high quality commercial, industrial and residential development with high visibility from Interstate 10. 2. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD maximizes the flexibility necessary to adapt the property to future conditions which are anticipated to affect the area; particularly the future university campus and the increased accessibility to the area north of Interstate 10. 3. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD provides a comprehensive planning framework which establishes guidelines for future land use applications for the property and eliminates the inconsistency associated with individual and unassociated development proposals. 4. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD provides for the completion of the street network adjacent to the site including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MtSOLUTION NO. 1787 5. The Master Plan and Change of Zone serves to implement the intentof th e p t o General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Change of Zone 96-6 which adopts as Exhibit "A" a master plan of development on file in the Department of Community Development, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "B". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, CAMPBELL, FERNANDEZ, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE it ABSTAIN: FERGUSON il AMES CA d FER USON, Chairperson ATTEST• • PHILIP DRELL, ecretary City of Palm D sert, California 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1787 EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 96-6 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates For David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a Change of Zone and Master plan of Development for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10 east and west of Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. s I ar ', 1997 PHILIP DRE L DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 18.3 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE FOR THE SITE KNOWN AS PLANNING AREA #1 IN THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued from February 18, 1997, to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR . DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan for the development of Planning Area #1 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed uses in PA1 include a service station, a convenience store with the sale of beer and wine, a restaurant park including drive-through facilities, a car wash, RV storage and mini warehouse facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25.108.020 of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone all of the above uses require approval of a conditional use permit and precise plan of design; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 3. The proposed precise plan/conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed precise plan/conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-10 is hereby granted subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, be certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, CAMPBELL, FERNANDEZ, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: FERGUSON JAME CA O RGUSON, Chairperson ES ./1A 0 t PHILIP DRELL, ecretary_._.- City of Palm Desert, California 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. 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. 4. 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: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development. 6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. 7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 9. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. 10. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan. 11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. 12. No loitering shall be allowed on the premises. 13. No Distilled Spirits sales will be permitted on the premises. 14. No open alcoholic beverage containers or consumption shall be allowed on the premises. 15. Litter shall be removed twice daily from the premises, including adjacent public sidewalks, landscaped area and parking lots. Personnel shall be required to physically inspect the premises and adjacent sidewalks, landscaped areas and parking lots no less than twice daily. 16. Hours of operation for all uses on the site shall be 24 hours per day seven days a week. 17. That the architecture of the remaining buildings in PA1 (i.e., restaurants, mini storage and retail) shall take the flavor of the architecture shown for the service station/ convenience store/car wash. 18. That the east most restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive be setback a minimum of 25 feet. 19. That the parking for the restaurant uses shall be evaluated on an on-going basis as each restaurant is proposed and built. 20. That the open space area associated with the "food park" shall be completed with the opening of the first drive-through restaurant. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 21 . This approval is subject to approval by the City Council of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone Ordinance, subject to the PCD zone change being approved by City Council and that this approval is consistent with the approved Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone Ordinance. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map or issuance of grading permits. As provided for in Section 26.49.030 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code , the costs associated with the construction of master plan drainage facilities may be deducted from the project drainage fees. 2. Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project. Project design shall provide for the on-site retention of the 100 year storm event. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or the recordation of the parcel map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.08, Transportation Demand Management. 7. Complete parcel map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 10. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 11 . In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a median island in Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street shall be provided. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 12. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above. 13. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12.1 2, Fugitive Dust Control. 14. The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. 15. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation-related issues. 16. Waiver of access rights to Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the parcel map. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future undergrounding district. 18. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards and the city's Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. * Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the project entries. * Construction of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit Agency. Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the parcel map. 19. Applicant shall be responsible for the implantation of those traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the Wonder Palms Commercial Center Circulation Impact Study prepared by Endo Engineering and approved by the City of Palm Desert Public Works Depart. 20. Traffic safety striping shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 21 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 22. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 23. The proposed storm water retention areas shall be designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 gpm for commercial structure b) 2500 gpm for multi-family structure c) 3000 gpm for commercial structure d) 4000 gpm for industrial structure 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4"x 2-1/2"x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200 feet from single family structure b) 165 feet from multi-family structure c) 150 feet from commercial structure Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1 /2") will be required, located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200 feet from single family structure b) 1 65 feet from multi-family structure c) 1 50 feet from commercial structure 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the require fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civic Engineer or may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 8. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies. 9. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 10. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 1 1 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the fire marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15.16.090. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 12. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)) 13. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. . 14. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 1 7A) 15. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and California Fire Code Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 16. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 17. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall be: a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only. b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking. c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed on one side. d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use ofgates, barriers, P P Y 9 guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 21 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 22. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the City of Palm Desert. 23. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 24. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal's office for submittal requirements. 25. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1788 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-10 • APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates For David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a fuel station, convenience store, car wash, restaurant park and retail outlets on 18.3 acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, known as Planning Area #1 in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. 7412 hill-, 1997 PHILIP DR'LL - DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 96-43 - TERRA NOVA CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust existing golf course boundaries to convey portions of residential lots to golf course within Marrakesh Country Club. B. Case No. PMW 97-2 - TERRA NOVA CONSTRUCTION, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to adjust existing golf course boundaries to accommodate proposed residential units within Marrakesh Country Club. C. Case No. PMW 97-5 - ELIZABETH STEWART AND ROBERT DAU, Applicants Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to allow a lot line adjustment for Lot 32 Tract 4274 within Marrakesh Country Club. D. Case Nos. TT 26562 and PP/CUP 90-27 - SUN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Applicant Request for approval of a third (and last allowable) time extension for a 687 unit residential development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10, TPM 28448 and DA 97-2 - MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, Applicant Request for approval of a Change of Zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), precise plan of design, Master Plan of Development, Tentative Parcel Map and Development Agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 Mr. Smith stated that this proposal was back and was now in a form so that they could proceed. He noted that the case was most recently noticed for the Planning Commission meeting of February 18 and it was continued to this evening. He indicated that the applicant is the owner of 270 +/- acres of property located east and west of Cook Street south of Interstate 10. He noted that colored site plans of the development plan were on display. He indicated that a blueprint copy of the same plan was included in the commission's agenda packet. He stated that the development plan provided for the long-term development of the 270 acre area through designating eight planning areas (PAs 1-8). For the most part they were looking at proposals for commercial centers on the various planning areas, although PA8 was designated for a possible future residential development. That one site would be on the south side of Gerald Ford Drive just east of Portola. He showed on the map display the location of the freeway to the north, Cook at 1-10, PA1 which would be discussed later for a precise plan review, PA2 which was 50 +/- acres to the west of Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, and PA3 which would be another commercial parcel. He said that PA4 adjacent to the railroad was a future industrial area and PA5 which would be a mixed use area for industrial, commercial, and residential uses. PA6 would be industrial use along the railroad east of Portola as far as PA2. There was an office business park shown on the north side of Gerald Ford as PA7 and PA8, which was a linear strip of residential use on the south side of Gerald Ford. He noted that in the packet the commission received a copy of the draft development agreement with the terms and conditions under which the properties would be developed within this PCD zone (Planned Community Development) category. If the commission accepted the development plan, then the commission would recommend approval to the council the change of zone to PCD. The next step in the approval process for property within the area would be that they would file the precise plan of design and it would need to be consistent with the terms and conditions specified in the development plan. In the development plan there were two tables (figures 2 and 3) which showed likely development scenarios, intensity of use, number of units, and amount of square footage of commercial and/or industrial use that they could expect. The latter they described as a trend alternate; if the trend alternate was followed, as indicated in the traffic study, there would actually be a reduction in the intensity of development in the area and a consequent reduction in the traffic in the area relative to what the current General Plan would permit at its maximum. Mr. Smith said that the applicant advised him last week that the uses they are pursuing at this point were less than the trend alternative would have projected. Whether that would hold for the long term was not known, but there would be an actual reduction as it would apply on PA1 which comes under the precise plan review. Mr. Smith noted that on page 8 of the staff report it stated that the master plan of development was basically acceptable with the exception of a few changes that the city would like made if commission were to recommend approval of the PCD zoning. Staff would ask that the applicant make these changes to the development plan prior to it going to City Council for hearing. Those ten items were fairly minor; 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 staff would like those changes made before the case goes to council. Staff's recommendation for approval on the development plan and the recommendation was that commission recommend to council adoption of the PCD zoning contingent upon the changes being made to the development plan. As mentioned previously, part of the development plan process would require precise plan review on the various planning areas or portions of the planning areas. At this time staff has received a precise plan request as it applies to the entirety of PA1 , the commercial area east of Cook Street north of Gerald Ford Drive. The plans for it were also on display. He demonstrated on the map the location of the 21 acres in the precise plan and showed the landscape plan. He said that the precise plan proposes a service station, convenience store and car wash at the corner with one access point from Cook Street. He said a new street was proposed to serve the industrial area to the east as well as providing access into the remainder of the area. The food park with six restaurants showed two restaurants fronting onto Gerald Ford, three on the ring road fronting onto a fairly large food park area, and one restaurant on the corner of the two new streets. As well, the applicant was providing an oversize vehicle parking lot for R.V.s and big rig trucks. The Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone which the commission recommended approval to council two weeks ago provided, in addition to the drive-through restaurants, for RV storage which would typically be permitted in the base zoning of PC-2. He said that mini-self storage and a retail center were also proposed. He showed on the map how the access was provided to the food park. He said that a requirement of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone was a provision of at least 30% of the area to be landscaped. In the southerly portion of the proposal, the food park and service station area, was around 48%, and an overall 35.6%. Mr. Smith indicated that parking for the entire area was adequate and staff put in a condition of approval that since this would be developing over phases, if the city finds that parking is not adequate, they would require more on the later users that come through. He said that the reverse could also be true. If there is excess parking, they might want more landscaping and less asphalt. Mr. Smith stated that the architecture for the service station, car wash and convenience store was shown on the map. Landscaping adjacent to the car wash which would be right on the corner would have a very deep landscape buffer going to an eight foot wall, so they would berm up to an eight foot wall that would effectively screen off half of the building in that the building height would be 16 feet. They wouldn't be able to see the cars going through the driveway. He said there would be a triple-lane dry off area for the car wash vehicles. He also indicated that the convenience store would also serve as the point to pay for the car wash. He said that the service station, convenience store and car wash concept was shown to the Architectural Review Commission last Tuesday. While it was not on their agenda and they couldn't take action, they did review it and their comments were contained in the staff report on page 10 and he described the comments as being more than generally positive. "It's nice because you can't even tell it's even a gas station" and "It is the look we were looking for". Mr. Smith noted that they had seen the proposal on this corner some 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 time ago and it was not acceptable and was rejected. These were very positive comments and it would be on the next ARC agenda on March 1 1 . Staff anticipated that the applicant would receive the typical preliminary approval at that time. Mr. Smith stated that staff was recommending that Planning Commission recommend approval to the city council of the PCD zone change and approval of the precise plan of design for planning area #1 subject to the conditions contained therein. On the development agreement, staff was recommending that it be continued to March 18, the next meeting. For the tentative parcel map, the applicant originally requested a 60-day continuance; in talking with him earlier this evening he suggested 30 days. Staff did not have a problem with that, it was a matter that when the new precise plan came in on PA1 they would need to alter some of the proposed lot lines and whatever time frame it took them was fine with staff. Commissioner Campbell asked where the entrance to the gas station would be located. Mr. Smith replied that one access point was from Cook Street and a second access was a driveway that goes to the restaurant park, and a third access was the ring road that goes around the food/restaurant park and goes back to the service station. Commissioner Campbell said that when cars exit the car wash to the drying area, she asked which entrance the cars would use for the gas station pumps and if it would be the same driveway. Mr. Smith showed the circulation pattern on the map. He indicated that the landscaping extended up to provide the staging area for the dry off area and demonstrated how the cars would exit the restaurant park to north bound Cook and Gerald Ford. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be any congestion caused by the cars in the dry off area and cars leaving or entering the area or people using the gas pumps. Mr. Smith noted that they provided a triple staging area capable of handling 16 cars. If they only had one employee drying cars, things could back up, but staff didn't anticipate a traffic problem unless it became the most successful convenience store, service station and car wash all combined into one. He indicated that the access has been looked at by the engineering staff and he felt with the layout they gave the city that they could be reasonably confident that it would provide adequate service. Commissioner Campbell asked if the hours of operation for the convenience store and gas station pumps were 24 hours. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Commissioner Campbell asked if there would be a gas station attendant available 24 hours and if there would be adequate surveillance. Mr. Smith said that the facility would be staffed 24 hours, but it was probably only inside the convenience store and the applicant could address that more specifically. It was his understanding that a person would have to go inside to pay for gas, whether it was 12:00 noon or 1 2:00 midnight. Commissioner Campbell noted that the issue was raised for the gas station on Deep Canyon Road and the city only allowed the facility to be open until midnight or 2:00 a.m. because there wouldn't be anyone watching the pumps in the early hours of the morning. Mr. Smith clarified that when staff recommended the hour limitation for Cam's Corner, it was because they didn't want business activity in the residential neighborhood beyond those hours 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 and that was consistent with what they did with the Lucky's Center to the east. In this location there was no residential development around it and it is in the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone where they are creating freeway visible signage and they were trying to attract people here who are using the freeway, so he felt it would be consistent to allow them to be open 24 hours. Commissioner Campbell wanted it to be a safe area for people to use the facility. Mr. Drell said that he would like to alter the recommendation slightly relative to the precise plan. In that the precise plan would ultimately be contingent upon City Council approval of the development plan and the freeway commercial zoning and since this would be the very first project of the development plan and the freeway commercial zoning to be approved, he believed the recommendation should be a recommendation to council. In any case, it wouldn't be effective until those plans were approved anyway and sometimes council wanted to see more than half a proposal. They typically liked to see ordinance amendments, zone changes and associated development proposals at the same time. Chairperson Ferguson asked if that was discussed with the applicant. Mr. Drell said that it was. He stated that theoretically in the conditions of approval he believed it should say that this approval is subject to approval of the PCD zoning, the development plan and the freeway commercial change of zone, because if those didn't get approval, this could be contrary to the zoning. Commissioner Jonathan asked if the prior proposal that went to ARC for the gas station was submitted by the same applicant. Mr. Smith replied no and indicated that it was submitted by a proposed future developer of the service station, car wash and convenience store. Chairperson Ferguson indicated the public hearing was open and reminded anyone speaking in favor or opposition to please state clearly their name and address for the record so that it could be properly reflected in the minutes. Chairperson Ferguson asked the applicant to address the commission. MR. MARVIN ROOS, Director of Planning Services for Mainiero, Smith & Associates, 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon in Palm Springs, stated that they are the project planners and engineers for the case and they were also working with Frank Urrutia Architects on the gas station design and overall architectural concepts, they were working with Ron Gregory Associates on the landscaping, and they submitted a full traffic study by Endo Engineering for the entire 270 acres. Hydrology and biology studies were also completed so that they could talk about the significant issues with this land. He said that he appreciated the effort on the part of staff, commission and ARC for this project. He said they what they were trying to do was a little unique in terms of the kinds of pre-planning under the circumstances since 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 they didn't have a lot specific development proposals for the 270 acres of commercial, industrial, etc., although they believed the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Palm Desert General Plan. He said they were trying to forge a new concept for this area with the kind of land uses that they are familiar with. He indicated that they started this process before ZORC became "a household name" and with the idea that with a new off ramp theyhad a responsibility to the cityto come upwith P majorP Y something that was unique, special and a gateway project. With fast food restaurants and gas stations, that was not necessarily something they would typically put into a gateway statement, however, he thought they had created that with the help of ZORC. Their long term objective is to convince fast food people that this would be a really good item for them financially with the extra maintenance costs for the landscaping and park and those kinds of things. He said they were not used to that, they were used to five feet of landscaping and they would have to be shown a really nice picture and they were in the process of trying to put something together. Since they pre-saged ZORC they had a slightly different configuration of these uses in mind than the one that ultimately came out of ZORC. He said they might wish to seek a little bit of an alteration to the concept of their development plan versus what ZORC came up with in as much as the limitation of the Freeway Overlay Zone was strictly on the old commercial, which was 80 acres and part of which was on the campus site. They have 9750 feet of frontage on the freeway and to limit that just to one area might not be in the best interest of the project overall. Their development plan that was not mentioned as a change did say that they would have drive- throughs north of Gerald Ford and specifically they listed PA4 which they were showing as an industrial concept to the east. Staff indicated that they would be flexible in the long run and wouldn't prove difficult if they came in with a good idea. As an example, freeway oriented commercial for the Freeway Overlay Zone allows some additional signage for freeway oriented businesses. They might come into PA7, which was the hillside area overlooking the whole area, with a freeway oriented hotel that in all other ways matched up with the intent of the Freeway Overlay Zone to allow some additional signage for people to say there is a nice Hyatt Hotel for freeway travelers and they need to know about it. They needed to have some assurance that if they come in with that they might be able to present plans that would do that. In light of the recommendations, they had only a couple of areas they wanted to see specific changes to, keeping an open mind the issue of the freeway oriented businesses. One of the areas was a technical area and they have already talked with the Public Works Department. One of their development agreement areas and one of their development plan areas was that they would gain credit for the value of the land that they would be dedicating to the mid-valley channel. That was a master planned regional facility that ultimately provided them with no benefit 7 N MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 because they couldn't discharge any water into it and they would have to maintain all of their water onsite. They were not only dedicating over 11 acres for the mid-valley channel, they were also being deprived of the use of their 30 foot utility easement, which they normally could use for parking or something like that. The total was over 17 acres of land. He wasn't sure what the ultimate value of the land would be, but in addition to having to dedicate 18 acres of land, they were also being asked to pay $1 ,000 an acre for drainage fees. Across the street if they had 270 acres, they would have a $270,000 liability. They have not only the $270,000 liability, but 18 acres of land. They would be dealing with that in the development agreement which would be coming back to the commission and they would like to wrestle that issue out. As one of the wording changes, No. 9 on staff report page 8, recommending replacing "shall" with "may". That still allowed it to happen. They were just trying to point out the issue of equity so that they could be able to come back and plead that case. At this time they didn't want to delete reference to permitted drive-through restaurants in Planning Area 4, primarily because they haven't seen the development proposal yet and they feel the intent of this has always been to adjust as necessary the zoning ordinance as it applies to this property based on the fact that they were coming in with an overall master plan. They have asked for other things that don't comply specifically with the zoning ordinance here and there and they felt that in good planning they didn't want to preclude some of these things and could come back with a plan that Planning Commission would have total discretionary approval of if it didn't make sense. He thought it probably wouldn't be drive-through restaurants, but some other type of use that was a freeway oriented use that might take the need for additional signage. Most of the other changes that were on page 8 were okay with them. Again, there was the grading and drainage and the one issue of the drive-throughs. The matter of the development agreement would be coming back to the commission with what he felt was a very exciting long-range art in public places proposal. They have had meetings with John Nagus and met with him again today. They were on the agenda for the Art in Public Places Committee for March 19 and they were seeking a subcommittee to come up with some extraordinary concepts for art for people coming into the city on Cook Street. They would know there was a very unique geographical concept as people come down the freeway and head back up Cook Street. It was kind of a bowl shape but they thought as people come down that perhaps a very commanding art in public places installation, whether it was a ground form or a major water feature or something else, would create the major aspect of the gateway. The development agreement would attempt to put together a large master plan for this area and might even include the campus site and maybe even the residential site as they go through that with Art in Public Places to find out what could really happen as an exciting concept here. He said they were 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 seeking a continuance of the map so that they could match up with the changes that have happened since they submitted their application in October and that they would be back right after the development agreement. They didn't have any problem with the City Council looking at this and thought it was something they wanted to see and felt it was important for them to see. He didn't anticipate any particular problem with it. Regarding the questions that came up regarding the gas station, he said that they moved ahead with the design of this gas station because they were concerned that the look should be appropriate. The folks they were working with did some reasonable gas stations, but the first drawings they saw were nice, but not up to the quality they were looking for. That was why they moved ahead with the design as they have and this would set the standard for Planning Area 1 . Relative to the operational characteristics, they would anticipate a fairly typical 24 hour freeway orientation. He said there was generally people onsite that are not "locked up in a box", but at this point he couldn't guarantee that there couldn't in fact be a security area that the clerks could stay in and deal out of that area. He indicated that the design of this was oriented to be a walk-in store. It was not the typical small little cubicle. He anticipated that the people would be accessible and could monitor the whole facility. The car wash would only be open during typical 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. business hours. He felt there was plenty of storage and said they tried to integrate the design. Everyone comes into a common space and could then go to a gas station and didn't have to go back into the street to go to any of the other facilities. They felt the circulation worked quite well to get people in and out including people with trailers and large vehicles. He thought that besides the couple of concerns that they have, that they were in accordance with the staff recommendation. He said they would like to get the feeling from commission that if they came back with the right freeway oriented use in some areas other than the existing 88 acres of PC-2 zoning already out there that somewhere outside of that area may still be appropriate for freeway uses wherein particularly the signage might make some sense if they came back and still met the same criteria for the freeway overlay zone. He noted that Frank Urrutia and Bob Mainiero were also present to answer any questions. Chairperson Ferguson asked if anyone else wished to speak in FAVOR of the application. He asked if anyone who wished to speak in OPPOSITION. There was no one and he closed the public hearing opened up the discussion for the commission. He reminded the commission that he previously recused himself from this matter and would not be participating in this discussion as he has a client who is in discussion with the applicant and might have an interest one way or another in how this gets resolved. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 Commissioner Jonathan felt that they would really be talking about two parts--one was the change of zone and the other was the precise plan. His perception was that the change of zone was completely appropriate and in the direction their prior discussions have taken and consistent with what was happening in the area. The precise plan he also felt was consistent with that direction and he applauded the applicant for recognizing the responsibility to the city. He viewed this area with great interest because he thought the quality of the community was often judged by the appearance of its least desirable uses. When putting in drive-through restaurants, gas stations, etc., next to a freeway, it has the potential for either being a very destructive impact on a city's appearance or it really augmented its stature. He felt this project did the latter. They were creating something that for people coming into the city, hopefully their subconscious reaction would be that if this part of the city that has the potential to be the worst part looks this good, then they were in for something good. That was appropriate and necessary for this area and he appreciated that they approached the development with that kind of sensitivity. He was in favor. Commissioner Campbell concurred with Commissioner Jonathan and was in favor of the project. She felt it was very well done. She thought the food park with the garden would be a very attractive entrance to the city. Commissioner Fernandez stated that the applicant had done a great job and he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Beaty said that it was now obvious why there were all the continuances, because the applicants had done their homework and he was very impressed with the proposal and was in favor. Chairperson Ferguson noted that there were several different motions being requested, the change of zone, master plan and two continued items. Mr. Drell noted that the commission also had to address the staff recommended modifications and the applicant's response to those recommendations. They involved two items--one being the extension of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone to the PA6 and PA4 areas, which was in essence all along the freeway frontage. All he could say was that they just went through an exercise of establishing where that zone should go for better or worse and he thought there was a specific intent to at least at this time limit those to areas directly associated with the interchanges. ZORC made that decision and they could have recommended that they put the zone all along the freeway, but didn't. The applicant always has an ability to ask for the overlay in the future, and typically when they show us a wonderful development, that was when they could be granted that extension. He felt it was premature given the recommendation at the last meeting and the item going to council at its next meeting. If they did this, whoever owns the property from Portola to Monterey should have the expectation 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 that he will get it as well in that there is really nothing unique about this proposal. They haven't shown any detailed development which would justify it. That was staff's position. Regarding the grading issue, there was a representative from the Public Works Department to comment on whether or not the project warrants a credit for dedication of drainage right-of-way. Mr. Greenwood stated that the Public Works Department was recommending that the language be changed to the word "may" rather than "shall". This allowed them to continue negotiations on the issue while taking into account the interests of all, whereas if they allowed the word "shall" to be included at this point, the city's interests may not be protected. Chairperson Ferguson said that he assumed the commission heard the applicants concerns and noted them. He said there were essentially three motions recommended to the commission by staff and were open for alterations if commission chose to. He asked if anyone had a motion that was other than that which was recommended by staff. Commissioner Jonathan said that he would make a motion for approval as amended by staff because he concurred with the rationale that was presented. He would want the items to be amended as indicated. Chairperson Ferguson asked if he was talking about Mr. Drell's amendment that all of this be conditioned on final council approval. Commissioner Jonathan agreed and indicated that the freeway commercial overlay zone should not be expanded. Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting the findings as presented and amended by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1787, recommending to City Council approval of C/Z 96-6 and the Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting the findings as presented and amended by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1788, recommending to city council approval of PP/CUP 96-10, a precise plan of design for development on Planning Area #1 of the Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). Moved by Commissioner Campbell, .seconded by Commissioner Fernandez, by minute motion continuing DA 97-2 to March 18, 1997 and continuing TPM 28448 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 1997 to April 1 , 1997 to permit the applicant to adjust the parcel lines consistent with the approved precise plan and development plan. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Ferguson abstained). B. Case No. CUP 97-3 - JOHN AND GARY CRAIG, Applicant Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an outdoor seasonal fresh strawberry stand at 42-575 Washington Street. The proposed mobile stand will provide retail sales and will be operated during day light hours only. The stand will occupy a 10 foot by 20 foot lawn area in front of the Kerrigan Medical Building. Mr. Smith indicated that this is the first request other than the Street Fair at the College of the Desert to take advantage of the code provision allowing outdoor sales. The applicant wished to place a mobile strawberry stand on the lawn area in front of the Kerrigan medical office building on the west side of Washington Street at Dudley Avenue, which is south of Avenue of the States. He said that adjacent uses to the north was Don O's Restaurant, to the south apartments, to the east across Washington Street were apartments and a single family dwelling, and to the west there was the aforementioned medical office building. He noted commission had a proposed layout included with the staff report, as well as a sketch of the stand itself. The applicant wished to operate during daylight hours throughout March, April and May from the lawn area. The location shown on the sketch showed the unit to be seven feet back from the sidewalk on Washington Street. He said staff has a concern with that location in that Washington Street has heavy traffic. Dudley Road was a minor street that accesses to Washington Street and it was not signalized. Were there to be parking on the west side of Washington Street in this area, there was a potential for traffic conflicts in that area. Hence, staff was reluctant to approve the use in that location. He noted that commission received a letter from Mr. Gilmore expressing a similar concern with the traffic conflicts for people exiting onto Washington Street at Dudley. Staff recommended in favor of the application, but staff was requiring as one of the conditions of approval that the building be located a minimum of 40 feet back from Washington Street and that it be oriented towards the parking lot. In visiting the site on a few occasions, the easterly most row of parking in the medical office building parking lot (7 or 8 spaces) was always empty. If they could get the people who would be frequenting the strawberry stand to pull off of Washington Street and pull into the office building parking, then he didn't think there would be a conflict. Since the grass area in front of the building was 50 feet deep, hopefully by moving the structure back 40 feet would be enough of a deterrent to keep someone from running across to grab a box of strawberries. He said staff was also suggesting that the approval be valid for one year only and that the commission 12 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: April 1 , 1997 continued from March 4 and March 18, 1997 CASE NO: DA 97-2 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a development agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates for David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 BACKGROUND: March 4, 1997 the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a change of zone and master plan of development for 270 +/- acres generally located south of 1-10 east and west of Cook Street. The commission also recommended approval of a precise plan of design for planning area 1 of the development plan. All these cases will be presented to the City Council at its April 10, 1 997 meeting. The applicant's attorney prepared further revisions to the development agreement which was distributed to commission just prior to the March 18, 1 997 meeting. At that time commission continued the matter to April 1 , 1997 so that it could review in detail the revisions. II. ANALYSIS: Staff have had an opportunity to review the revised draft development agreement. The agreement has removed reference to freezing of art and exaction fees and added the language suggested by the Art Manager and the Public Works Department. We will insert the new pages in your report showing the strike-out sections and any new insertions. STAFF REPORT DA 97-2 APRIL 1 , 1997 III. RECOM MENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the Wonder Palms development agreement DA 97-2. IV. ATTACHMENT: Revised Development Agreement Prepared by Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR 270 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, EAST AND WEST OF COOK STREET. CASE NO. DA 97-2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of DAVID FREEDMAN & CO., INC. (WONDER PALMS) for approval of DA 97-2; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify recommending approval of said development agreement: 1 . The proposed development agreement is consistent with the intent and purpose of the development plan and the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That approval of DA 97-2 Exhibit "A" as revised is hereby recommended to City Council for approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th, day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 17, 1996 CASE NOS: C/Z 96-6 and TPM 284 (8 REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), master plan of development and tentative parcel map for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates for David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 BACKGROUND: The applicant is the owner of 270 +/- acres located east and west of Cook Street south of Interstate 10 and wishes to establish a long term development plan in the form of this master plan. The property extends along the south side of 1-10 from Portola Avenue in the west to a point 3400 feet east of Cook Street. The Zoning Ordinance provides for this type of long term development plan through a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development). In order to obtain such a change of zone the applicant must have more than 100 acres of land and must prepare a master plan of development which contains and becomes the development criteria for the area which is then delineated as PCD on the zoning map. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: County/Railroad and 1-10 South: PR-5/Future Cal State University Site and Rancho Portola Country Club East: R1 M/Emerald Desert RV Park West: SI and PR-5/Vacant STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: The 270 +/- acres is designated several different land use categories in the General Plan. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive, east and west of Cook Street, is designated District Commercial. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive at the east end of the site is designated commercial-industrial. The area north and south of Gerald Ford Drive east of Portola was designated residential study zone in the North Sphere Specific Plan. Finally, the area south of Gerald Ford Drive and west of Cook Street is designated residential - low density. At the time of the preparation of the North Sphere Specific Plan the actual alignments of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, and Gerald Ford east of Cook Street were not established. As a result the land use designations were "general" as to their locations. As well, the decision to set aside over 200 acres of land at the southeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford for a future Cal State campus impacts on the overall entry design/land use of the Cook Street corridor. Plan wasto establish commercial land of theNorth Sphere Specific The intent p p use in the Cook Street-Gerald Ford corridors, commercial-industrial buffers adjacent to the freeway and higher density residential where railroad and freeway noise can be mitigated. Staff feels that this master plan as proposed implements the intent of the General Plan/North Sphere Specific Plan land use elements. C. EXISTING ZONING: The property contains two existing zone categories. The area around the Gerald Ford and Cook intersection is zoned PC(2) (District Commercial) and the rest of the site PR-5 (Planned Residential - five units per acre). II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has prepared a master plan which establishes eight basic planning areas with a wide range of land uses. The master plan also contains a series of 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 h ' ions which shallgove rn future development within the development criteria (conditions) P site. Future uses proposed in the master plan range from freeway oriented commercial businesses to planned service industrial to regional commercial to high density residential. III. ANALYSIS: A. As noted above the master plan divides the property into eight planning areas. Specific locations are delineated on Figure 1 contained in the master plan. The following information is taken from the master plan prepared by the applicant. "Planning Area 1 - 21 .3 gross acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business. PA1 shall use the base provisions of the PC 4 (Planned Commercial Center - Resort Center) however, shall allow no more than one automobile service station including accessory convenience retail, and shall also allow drive through restaurants subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Standards for drive-through facilities are adopted herein. Planning Area 2 - 50.7 gross acres west of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Regional Commercial. PA2 shall use the base provisions of the PC3 (Planned Commercial Center - Regional Center) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Drive through restaurants are allowed subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional review of the entitlements is 3,600,000 square feet and 1300 residential units as depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate). Planning Area 3 - 1 1 .2 gross acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business. PA3 shall use the base provisions of the PC4 (Planned Commercial Center - Resort Center). r Planning Area 4 - 30.2 acres east of Cook Street between Gerald For d Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Industrial/Business Park. PA4 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial Zone) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Drive through restaurants are allowed subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Planning Area 5 - 25.9 acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Mixed-use Commercial/Residential. PA5 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (District Commercial Center Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail and residential under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 6 - 70.6 acres west of Cook Street and between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Office/business park. PA6 shall use the base provisions of the O-P (Office Professional Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 7 - 44.3 acres north of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential. Planning Area 8 - 14.9 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential. 4 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 Pas 7 and 8 shall use the provisions of PR 18 (Planned Residential District - up to 18 dwelling units per acre)." The applicant has prepared in chart form, Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the master plan, development program - Maximum Intensity Alternative and Development Program - Trend Alternative respectively. The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional review of the entitlements is 3,600,000 square feet and 1300 residential units as depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate). The probable development intensity expected (Trend Alternate) is shown in Figure 3. The expected intensity is 1 ,605,000 square feet and 1 100 dwelling units. B. CIRCULATION: The master plan takes advantage of the existing approved City Circulation Plan and takes accesses from the future Gerald Ford Drive. The master plan does propose additional streets. One new street will divide PA7 from PA6 and provide access to the business/office area. This street runs from Portola north of Gerald Ford east and south to connect with Gerald Ford approximately 2100 feet east of Portola. The applicant has had a circulation impact study prepared by Endo Engineering which examines the future traffic impacts of the two development alternatives and compares these with the existing General Plan designation and the traffic which could be generated under it. Traffic impacts were assessed for the nearby intersections for the years 2005 and 2010. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed this circulation impact study and his report is attached. Essentially, with proper mitigation either proposed development alternative can be supported from a circulation standpoint. 5 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed change of zone and master plan for future development is essentially consistent with the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan which were adopted pursuant to a certified environmental impact report. As a result staff is comfortable with processing this application under the negative declaration provisions of CEQA. The applicant did have a circulation impact study prepared, a hydrology study and a biological assessment and impact analysis. These three documents are specific to this 270 +/- acre site. As noted by the traffic engineer, any traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and in fact if the "Trend Alternate" is followed the expected traffic levels will be significantly lower than the present General Plan would allow. The hydrology study concludes that all impacts can be mitigated. The biological assessment and impact analysis concludes that "this project, upon the completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within the region." The project is within the fee area established by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. It is also in the historical habitat of a number of other plant and animal species being considered for listing as threatened or endangered. To avoid their future listing, a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is being prepared through CVAG which will provide long term protection through the creation of preserves. Pending completion of the MSHCP an Interim Review Process has been established pursuant to an MOU with all the valley cities, County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. This review by CVAG, the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet been completed. As a result we are unable to recommend that Planning Commission act on the application at this time. The IPRG (Interim Project Review Guidelines) provide that the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will respond within 30 days of the meeting held by CVAG. The CVAG meeting to review this will be held January 16, 1997. 6 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 Assuming that agreement is reached with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, then staff will be in a position to recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. STAFF CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN: The master plan proposes freeway oriented businesses including drive-through restaurants on several of the planning areas. The existing zoning prohibits drive- through restaurants. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee for the past several weeks has been drafting a Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) which if adopted by City Council would permit drive-through restaurants in this area. Any drive-through restaurant contemplated by this master plan would be contingent upon adoption of the FCOZ. PA3 at the southwest corner of Cook and Gerald Ford is shown to be developed pursuant to PC4 standards. The PA will only be 11 .2 acres. It would be better developed under PC2 (District Commercial) zoning. Staff is concerned that PA7 and PA8 are to be developed at densities up to 18 units per acre. Without seeing a plan it is difficult to recommend such high density. The trend alternate, Figure 3, in this instance is the same as the maximum intensity alternative. There is no lower intensity alternative. Staff would prefer a range be specified of between 10 and 18 units per acre. The General Provision No. 17 concerns art in public places. Staff discussed this with the AIPP manager. Mr. Nagus expressed support of the general concept and looked forward to working with the applicant when the art proposal is in a more concrete form. V. CONCLUSION: As is noted on page 2 of the master plan prepared by the applicant: "The development of the Project in a manner consistent with the provisions of this master plan including the Development Guidelines provides a number of benefits to both the City and the Owner: 7 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 1 . It maximizes the potential for high quality commercial, industrial, and residential development with high visibility from Interstate 10. 2. It maximizes the flexibility necessary to adapt the property to future conditions which are anticipated to affect the area; particularly the future university campus and the increased accessibility to the area north of Interstate 10. 3. It provides a comprehensive planning framework which establishes guidelines for future land use applications for the property and eliminates the inconsistency associated with individual and unassociated development proposals. 4. It provides for the construction of stormwater system improvements consistent with the master plans adopted by the City in conjunction with the Coachella Valley Water District. 5. It controls sensitive land uses associated with sites having excellent freeway access. 6. It provides for the completion of the street network adjacent to the site including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. 7. It provides for the planning and execution of a major entry statement potentially involving the Art in Public Places program." The plan serves to implement the intent of the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan. Condition No. 13 provides that prior to obtaining a building permit for any site within the master plan the applicant will require approval of a precise plan of design by the Planning Commission. Note: The applicant has filed a precise plan application for the food court and service station on PA 1 . At this time the plans are very conceptual. This part of the application will be noticed and heard in the future. 8 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 VI. RECOMMENDATION: - continued to January21 , 1997 in order That Case Nos. C/Z 96 6 and TPM 28488 be that the necessary environmental review may be processed through California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Legal notice B. Comments from city departments and other agencies C. Plans and exhibits Prepared by • Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm 9 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1 . EARTH a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. c. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. f. Not applicable. g. The area is an area susceptible to earthquakes as is the rest of the Coachella Valley. The level of geologic hazard is no greater than other developed areas of the Coachella Valley. Mitigation Measures The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 2. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposal includes future restaurant development. These uses will be required to comply with City CEQA requirements on an individual basis. Appropriate odor mitigation measures will be imposed. c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material. The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner. c. The hydrology study discusses at length flood water control and the channel to be installed south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of- way. d. There is no surface water feature on the site. 2 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 e. See (d) above. f. There is no ground water present on the site. g. See f. h. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. The area is subject to flooding. CVWD has a plan, as discussed in the hydrology study, to control flood waters. This plan will be implemented as part of the development of this area. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds, sagebrush and other plants as outlined in the biological assessment. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. This is supported by the biological assessment prepared by James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, revised November 8, 1996. c. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. d. As stated on the biological assessment, part of the east end of the site was formerly a vineyard. This use was allowed to die out many years ago. 3 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 5. ANIMAL LIFE a-c. The biological assessment prepared by James Cornett discusses at length impacts on animal life on the site. The study concludes that with mitigation in the form of payment of the fringe-toed lizard preserve fee that the project will not have an adverse impact on the animal life. Such conditions will be imposed on all individual projects and the fee will be collected prior to issuance of grading permit. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable long term habitat for wildlife. 6. NOISE ofcommercial, industrial n a. Construction and subsequent operationa d residential use may add to the ambient noise level. The noise level will not exceed the existing ambient level which is quite high due to the proximity to the Southern Pacific Railroad and the 1-10 freeway. Mitigation Measures Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operation noise will be required. b. The areas designated for future residential use are a substantial distance from the main noise generators in the area (i.e., 1-10 and railroad). Prior to development of these projects proponents will be required to prepare acoustical study showing compliance with Municipal Code and General Plan requirements for both indoor and outdoor activities. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spillover. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. 4 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 8. LAND USE The project will not alter the proposed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as commercial, industrial and residential; the project would develop land uses permitted in these land use designations. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. 10. RISK OF UPSET a. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. This conclusion is confirmed by the biological survey of the site conducted by James Cornett during June 1996. b. Approval and implementation of the master plan will help to complete the arterial street system in the area (i.e., Gerald Ford Drive) which will be an improvement to the emergency evacuation plan. 11 . POPULATION a. The project includes future commercial, industrial and residential development on vacant land and will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. The residential units were previously included in the General Plan. 12. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in item 1 1 . In addition this is currently being projected some 8,000 unsold housing units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being developed, over 600 in the city of Palm Desert alone. 5 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 As well, this project will provide up to 900 multi-family units which could be expected to be occupied by some employees from the commercial and industrial sections. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Additional traffic will be created. The circulation impact study determined that the maximum intensity alternate could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon build out in 2005. While the "Trend Alternate" would generate 54,930 trip ends, current General Plan would result in 85,420 trip ends. Mitigation Measures The study recommends various mitigation measures which will be implemented as the master plan projects are constructed. b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the individual projects on site. c. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. In addition, these systems have adequate capacity. d. Principal access to the project will be from the existing I-10, Cook Street and the future Gerald Ford Drive. e. Not applicable. f. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by item 13(a) in addition to the required sidewalks, the impact should be positive. There are problems currently existing in the north section of the city and the public improvements required of the applicant will alleviate some of them. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 14. PUBLIC SERVICE a-f. None. The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the General Plan and zoning maps designated the area for urban development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., storm channel, streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 15. ENERGY a-b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 16. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development. 17. HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 18. AESTHETICS The proposal will be developed consistent with the zoning and General Plan requirements for building locations and setbacks. As a result any scenic vista will not be impacted. 19. RECREATION The property is currently vacant. No recreational facilities were planned for this property. 7 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. As part of the biological assessment the biologist walked the site extensively and conducted research of past uses of the property. No cultural resources were noted. 21 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The biological assessment discusses this matter at length and concludes that there will be no adverse impact. b-d. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 8 l $. • 1'i? p j• I, ©U� 1/ Of I lH u D ° eu lS 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 INITIAL STUDY TAL CHECKLIST I. Backed 1. Date per, c7 / / "/`� 2. Case No. —t/? 9(^ -‘ , CP?6'--/o i- rp 3. Applicant ni211//✓iQ 5:���l, t,, sx i�?7�5 vN b'�l�l-j c FreeG,19 % v' CC , II. Environmental Impacts • (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No 1, Barth. 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? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? x g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? l� c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? x Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? k� d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms 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 migra- tion or movement of animals? ' d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate e of use of any natural resources? • 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Yes Maybe No b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, /\ or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental 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? X — f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? ,( _ Yes Maybe No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the Po ro p sal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health h27a rd or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health \ , hazards? , 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open ' to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially .reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Yes Maybe No important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? k/ 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 rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (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 /4 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X t-- III, Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect • on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. • c cdx4,J' C `'� Date Signature For 25.23.010 IChapter 25.23 C. Application.Any application for an overlay zone shall be accompanied by a master plan for the entire PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT area covered by the application. (PCD) OVERLAY ZONE D. Ownership.All land in a proposed overlay zone shall be held in one ownership or under unified control 111 Sections: or have the written consent or agreement of all owners 25.Z3.010 Purpose. of property proposed for inclusion in the overlay zone. 25.23.020 Criteria. E. Utilities. The existing utilities systems (water, I 2523.0:330 Application. sewer, drainage, electrical, gas and communications 25.23.040 Application fee. facilities) are adequate, or new systems shall be con- k 2523.050 Procedure• structed to adequately serve the development. (Ord. 25.23.060 Public hearing and appeal 277, 1981) procedure. L. 25.23.080 25.23.070 Termination of overlay zone. 25.23.030 Application. 25.23.080 Approval of a development Pam. An application for an overlay zone shall be submit- 1 25.23.090 Common open space.25.23100 Design criteria. red by the owner,his authorized agent,or the purchaser of the land with the consent of the owner.The applica- tion shall be accompanied by the following which application. should be prepared by a qualified professional team. 25.23.120 Public hearing and appeal A. Topographical maps of existing terrain drawn to 25.2 3.130 Application fee. a minimum five-foot contour, 25.23.140 Development standards for planned B. A generalized grading plan which indicates pro- community development zone. posed earth movement and the results of such move- I ment 25.23.010 Purpose. C. A utility map or statement reflecting a utility The purposes of this chapter shall be as follows: system which includes, but is not limited to, sewer, Li A. Provide the developer with greater flenbility in water, and gas capable of serving the entire develop- site design,density,and housing unit options in order went; to stimulate variety and innovation within the frame- D. A master plan which shall show work of a quality residential environment; 1. Location and boundaries of the proposed L B. Direct new community growth and development development, ! in the process of implementing the General Plan; 2 The general type, character, and heights of all C. Achieve more interest,individuality and charac-1 ter within and among neighborhoods; buildings or structures;e.g.,single-family houses,town D. Provide criteria for the inclusion of compatible houses,cluster houses or highrise structures, uses designed to service the residential developments 3. Proposed densities of all areas scheduled for res- within the community; idential development, E Encourage the most effective use of a site with a 4. Proposed uses of all land including residential, variety of residential environments providing nemary school sites, public and private recreational facilities, public faclities, ample open space and a functional, all common open space,and in the PCD zone,commer- ii well-balanced community.(Ord.277,1981) dal and professional centers,and industrial facilities, 5. Natural features that are to be retained; i.e., 25.23.020 Criteria stands of trees, rock outcroppings, canyons, natural tin The following general criteria are established for use sloPe5•etc., in the classification•for reclassification of land to the 6. The location and width of public and private planned community development. streets which shall be consistent with the master plan L A. General Plan. Compliance with the General of streets; Plan shall be established. E Proposed site development standards for all resi- B. Site Area. A minimum of one hundred acres dential,commercial and industrial uses; shall be required for a planned community develop- F. The location and width of public and private ment. streets; 377 I 1 2523.030 G. Site data, including acreage in total develop- 25.23.080 Approval of a development plan. • ment, total acreage in each density classification, A. After the establishment of an overlay zone and school sites,church sites,commercial sites and indus- prior to the termination date as specified in Section trial sites,total acreage devoted to common open space 2523.070 an application for approval of a development and minimum lot sizes.(Ord.277,1981) plan which is in substantial conformance with the ap- proved master plan shall be filed with the planning commission. A development plan may cover all or a ��.� Application fee. An application for an overlay zone shall be accom- portion of the district. No building permit shall be issued for any new building or structure unless a devel- panied by a filing fee as specified by the city.(Ord.277, opment plan covering the area has been approved. 1981) B. A development plan shall contain the material specified in this section and shall be prepared by a 25.23.050 Procedure. qualified professional team. A. Upon receipt of an application for an overlay 1. The development plan shall set forth the follow- zone,the planning commission shall hold a public hear- ing: - ing on such application.If it finds the criteria set forth a. The exact boundaries and legal description of the in this chapter have been met, it may establish the property to be developed, overlay zone subject to such conditions as it deems b. All proposed improvements that are to be con • - n�nccary.The planning commission may deny the ap- structed on the land and their precise locations includ- hcation if it finds ing,but not limited to,all residential facilities,walls and p any of the criteria have not been met, fences,trash areas,streets,and walk areas, or that the approval of the application would be detri- c. Common open space showing size, grades, and mental to the public peace,health,safety or welfare. function upon completion, B. Planned community development applications d The location and dimension of all off-street park- shall be forwarded along with the community master ing facilities,public and private, plan to the city council. The city council shall hold a e. The location and size of any public or quasipublic public hearing and either approve, conditionally ap- facilities such as schools,churches and parks, prove,or deny the community master plan.The deci- 1. A tabulation of the percentage of total building sion of the city council shall be final.(Ord.277,1981) coverage of the development, g. A tabulation of densities within each project area 25.23.060 Public hearing and appeal procedure, or sector, Public hearing and appeal procedure shall be gov- 2 Burld ng elevations of typical architectural styles erned by Section 25.86 of this code.(Ord.277,1981) to be constructed; 3. A schematic landscaping plan indicating the type and size of plant material to be used and method of 25.23.070 Termination of overlay zone. providing permanent maintenance to all planted areas A. The overlay zone and any master plan or other and open spaces; material approved as a part thereof,shall become null 4. Floor plans of typical dwelling units,the unit size and void if the physical development of the district is in square feet,and the amount of private open space in not commenced within two years from date of adoption square feet; of the resolution establishing the zone: 5. If applicable, a subdivision map showing land B. An extension of time, not to exceed one year, divisions;the tentative and final subdivision map shall may be granted by the planning cornmiccion or city comply with the city subdivision ordinance and the council when extenuating circumstances can be clearly state Subdivision Map Act; shown by the applicant.The request for an extension 6. `4 proposed construction schedule from ground breaking to occupancy;all common open space,as well of time shall be submitted to the planning(=mission as public and recreational facilities,shall be specifically in writing prior to the expiration date and shall clearly included in the construction schedule and be con- state the reasons why the physical development of the strutted and fully improved by the developer at an district has not been commenced and such overlay zone equivalent or greater rate than the construction of has not been urili7rsi (Ord.277,1981) residential structures.(Ord.277, 1981) 378 25.23.090 2523.090 Common open space. Lion would be detrimental to the public pence.health.safety. All common open space shall be preserved for that pur- or welfare.The decision of the planning commission shall pose as shown in the development plan. The developer be final unless appealed to the city council.(Ord Z77. 1981) shall choose one or a combination of the following three methods of administering common open space. 25.23.120 Public bearing and appeal. 1. Dedication of common open space to the city,which Public hearing and appeal procedure shall be governed is subject to formal acceptance; by Chapter 25.86. (Ord. 277. 1981) 2. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corpora- tion of all property owners cr corporations within the project 25.23.L30 Application fee. area to insure perpetual maintenance of all common open An application for a development plan shall be scorn- space: paned by a filing fee as specified by the city. (Ord. 277. 3. Retention of ownership.control and maintenance 1981) of all common open space by the developer: all privately owned common open space shall continue as such and shall 25.23.140 Development standards for planned only be used in accordance with the development plan: community development zone. appropriate land use restrictions shall be contained in all All development within the planned community develop- deeds to insure that the common open space is permanently meat zone shall meet the following minimum requirements: preserved according to the development plan: said deed A. Density.All densities shall conform to the approved restrictions shall run with the land and be for the benefit community master plan. of present as well as future property owners, and shall B. Building Coverage.The maximum building coverage contain a prohibition against partition of common open shall not exceed fifty percent of the area covered by the space. (Ord. 277. 1981) development plan exclusive of all dedicated public rights-of-way. In determining the coverage (ground area 25.23.100 Design criteria. of each dwelling) covered parking and garages shall be The following design criteria are established included. A. The overall plan shall achieve an integrated land C. Off-street Parking.Off-meet parking shall conform and building relationship. to the current city standards as specified in Chapter 2558. B. Open spaces,pedestrian and vehicular circulation D. Private Open space. A minimum of two hundred facilities,parking facilities,and other pertinent amenities square feet of private open space per dwelling unit shall shall be an integral part of the landscape and particular be provided on each individual lot.This requirement does attention shall be given to the retention of natural landscape not apply to structures three or more stones in height. features of the site. E. Utilities.All utilities shall be underground in accor- C. The layout of structures and other facilities shall dance with the city municipal code and approved by the affect a conservation in street and utility improvements. directors of public works and environmental services. D. Recreational arcs,active and passive,shall be goner' F. Signs. Sign provisions contained in the most ally dispersed throughout the development and shall be restrictive zone classification for each use allowed shall easily accessible from all dwelling units. apply. E. Architectural unit and harmony within the level- G. Other Standards. All other standards as specified opment and with the surrounding properties shall be at- by the approved community master plan and text and devel- tained. (Ord. 277. 1981) opment plan and text shall be strictly adhered to. (Ord. 277, 1981) 2513.110 Procedure for development plan application. The owner,his authorized agent,or the purchaser with the consent of the owner may submit an application for development plan approval to the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on such application. It may approve the development plan if it finds the criteria set forth in this chapter have been satisfied subject to such conditions as it deems necr -i y. The planning commission may deny the application if it finds the criteria are not being satisfied or that such applica- 379 'Palm Deer`7-P11 Development Program-Maximum Intensity Alternate Consistent with the General Plan, the maximum intensity alternate as shown in Figure 2 is set as the upper limit of development for the site. Figure 2 Planning Gross Est. Net Proposed Proposed FAR/ Max. Est. Area Area Area Zoning Uses Dens. Fl. Ar. Parking ' Equivalent PA 1 21.3 ac. 18.1 ac. PC-4 Freeway .50 395K 2175 Oriented Business PA 2 50.7 ac. 43.1 ac. PC-3 Regional .50 940K 5165 Commercial PA 3 11.2 ac. 9.5 ac PC-4 Freeway .50 210K 1155 Oriented Business PA 4 30.2 ac. 25.7 ac. PI Industrial/ .50 560K 3075 Business PA 5 25.9 ac. 22.0 ac. PC-2 Commercial .50/ 240K/ 960 /Residential 18/ac 200 du 400 PA 6 70.6 ac. 60.0 ac OP Office .50 1300K 6550 PA 7 44.3 ac. 37.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 675 du 1350 Residential du/ac PA 8 14.9 ac. 12.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 225 du 450 Residential du/ac TOTALS 269.1 ac 228.8 ac - - - 3645K 21280 1300du 8 I 1 Development Program -Trend Alternate 1 The Trend Alternate as shown in Figure 3 is set forth as the probable development intensity for the Project. IFigure 3 1 Planning Gross Est. Net Proposed Proposed FAR/ Est. Est. Area Area Area Zoning Uses Dens. FI. Ar. Parking Equivalent PA 1 21.3 ac. 18.1 ac. PC-4 Freeway .25 200K 800 I Oriented Business PA 2 50.7 ac. 43.1 ac. PC-3 Regional .20 375K 1775 ' Commercial PA 3 11.2 ac. 9.5 ac PC-4 Freeway .25 105K 400 Oriented Business PA 4 30.2 ac. 25.7 ac. PI Industrial/ .25 280K 1100 Business ' PA 5 25.9 ac. 22.0 ac. PC-2 Commercial .25/ 120K/ 800 /Residential 18/ac 200 du PA 6 70.6 ac. 60.0 ac OP Office .20 525K 2600 PA 7 44.3 ac. 37.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 675 du 1350 Residential du/ac PA 8 14.9 ac. 12.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 225 450 Residential du/ac I TOTALS 269.1 ac 228.8 ac - - - 1605K 9275 1100du 9 mot oyttimm witit !$tUt11O ' pisit August 1996 Endo Engineering J Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments August 16, 1996 Mr. Marvin Roos Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 SUBJECT: Wonder Palms Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Roos; Pursuant to your request, Endo Engineering has analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts associated with the 270-acre Wonder Palms Commercial Center, in the City of Palm Desert. It is our understanding that the project site is located south of the Interstate 10/Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, east of Portola Avenue, and on both sides of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Two project alternatives were evaluated in detail, based upon the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) model. Each conceptual land plan alternative included: freeway-oriented businesses, regional commercial uses, industriaUbusiness uses, commer- cial/residential uses, office uses, and multi-family residential uses. The development inten- sity was greater for Alternative 1 than it was for Alternative 2 (except with regard to the residential uses . 'on-site proposed ) The pages which follow summarize in graphic and narrative form: • an analysis of existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity (including morning and evening peak hour counts and capacity evaluations of six existing intersections); • an assessment of project buildout conditions (year 2005) with and without two project development alternatives (including morning and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersections); • future cumulative conditions (year 2010) with and without two project development alternatives based upon the CVATS model (including morning and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersec- tions); and • mitigation measures designed to reduce any significant impacts identified with development Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 to acceptable levels. City staff input and assistance in the development of this report has been greatly appreci- ated. A well coordinated effort was essential to the execution of the work program, and the City's cooperation in providing necessary information and data in a timely fashion contributed in no small measure to the completion of this study. 95 Argonaut - Suite 115, AIiso Viejo, California 92656-1487 (714) 768-4333 FAX (714) 768-0718 We trust that the information provided herein will assist the City in their review of the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Should questions or comments arise regarding the findings and recommendations within this report, please do not hesitate to contact our offices at (714) 768-4333. Cordially, ENDO ENGINEERING �O Q RQ F ES S 104/4 093 LLg : it r ct° ��4 LEE ENS Fyc Vicki Lee Endo W Registered Professional g TR 1161 Traffic Engineer TR 1161 it /ai 3' I , , S'lgl TRAFk� fOFCALO' 2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Existing Circulation Conditions 1. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10, State Route 111, and State Route 74. 2. Direct site access is available from Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Portola Avenue. 3. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Drive currently exceeds the City of Palm Desert performance standard of LOS C by operating at LOS D during aduringevening peak hours. Westbound motorists hours and LOS C morning peak currently experience LOS E operation and significant delay during peak travel periods. This intersection appears to currently meet daily planning level signal warrants. Signalization of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue is included in the Palm Desert Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. 4. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive at Eldorado Drive is currently operating at LOS C during evening peak hours and LOS A during morning peak hours. 5. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive does not appear to currently meet signal warrants and is not expected to meet signal warrants except: (1) under future year 2005+Alternative 1 conditions; or (2) under future year 2010+Altemative 2 conditions. 6. All four of the key signalized intersections currently operate at Level of Service B during morning and evening peak hours. 1.2 Circulation Impacts 1. Alternative 1 could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon buildout in the year 2005, if all of the floor area is constructed and fully occupied. Of that total, 8,905 trip-ends (3,889 inbound and 5,016 outbound) would occur peakhour and 2 trip-ends would begenerated the duringthe evening3,80 P during morning peak hour (2,672 inbound and 1,130 outbound). 2. Alternative 2 (which includes similar but less intense land uses than Alternative 1) would generate 54,930 average weekday trip-ends (approximately 60 percent of the traffic associated with Alternative 1). 3. Alternative 3 (the existing General Plan designations on-site) could generate an estimated 85,420 average weekday trip-ends (94% of that of Alternative 1). 4. Five key intersections appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants, based upon year 2005 ambient (no-project) traffic volumes including: (1) Gerald Ford Drive @ Portola Avenue, (2) Gerald Ford Drive @ Cook Street, (3) Gerald Ford Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive, (4) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Eastbound Ramps, and (5) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Westbound Ramps. Gerald Ford Drive at Cook Street will be signalized approximately 6 months after the Cook Street 1-1 interchange is opened in 1997. Signals will be installed and operational at the inter- sections of the I-10 ramps with Cook Street when the Cook Street interchange is opened. 5. Future year 2005 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the following. • The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours under year 2005 ambient conditions (assuming existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005). • With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2005 ambient volumes, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak hour, and four intersections will have a drop in level of service during the PM peak hour. Year 2005+Alternative 1 volumes will require a third northbound through lane at the intersection of Cook Street and the Interstate 10 eastbound ramps as well as a second southbound right-turn lane and a third eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. • With Alternative 2, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak hour, and two intersections will have a drop in level of service during the PM peak hour. No additional intersection approach lanes (beyond existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005) will be required to accommodate year 2005+Alternative 2 volumes at LOS C. 6. Future year 2010 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the following. • The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours under year 2010 ambient conditions (assuming lane geometrics consistent with the master planned circulation system). • With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2010 ambient volumes, six-lane cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Additional approach lanes will also be necessary at the Cook Street/Inter- statel0 interchange under construction and at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street (beyond typical arterial intersection lane geometrics). • With Alternative 2, all required intersection approach lanes at key intersec- tions will be consistent with the master planned cross sections. Six-lane arterial cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive to accommodate year 2010 volumes at acceptable levels of service. 1.3 Recommended Mitigation 1. Figure 5-1 illustrates the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2005 conditions with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 2. Figure 5-2 shows the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2020 conditions with each project alternative. 1-2 3. Figure 5-3 summarizes the conditions under which traffic volumes appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants at the unsignalized key intersections. 4. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 1 indicate that the key intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach lane geometricssections, P that are consistent with Circulation Element cross except at three intersections. 5. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 2 indicate that the key intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections. 6. The project (Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) will contribute through participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to future improve- ments required along regional facilities (e.g. widening of: (1) Monterey Avenue through the intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra; and (2) Country Club Drive at the intersection of Cook Street to their master planned six-lane cross section). 7. Master planned streets bordering the project site shall be constructed to their ultimate half-sections in conjunction with adjacent development on-site. 8. Direct access to the site shall be designed to comply with City design standards and insure that adequate sight distance is provided for motorists. 9. Sight distances at access points and internal intersections shall be considered during the review of site plans, landscape plans, and project graphics. Landscape materi- als shall be selected to minimize interference with traffic sight distances. 10. The proposed cross-sections and internal roadway layout shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer during the development review process to insure compliance with City standards. 11. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the City of Palm Desert. 12. Non-motorized transportation facilities and corridors (golf cart paths, bike lanes, P bike paths, etc.) shall be considered both off site and on site and shall be consistent with City of Palm Desert and regional plans for the project vicinity. 13. The project shall accommodate public transit needs, as determined by the City of Palm Desert in conjunction with Sunline Transit Authority. 14. Section 5.1 includes circulation design guidelines for consideration in developing detailed plans for development of the project site. 15. Section 5.2 includes a discussion of various measures to alter traffic demand related to the project for consideration in developing detailed plans for the project site. 16. Project-specific mitigation shall be considered by the City of Palm Desert upon application for detailed precise plans. 1-3 f�•t-4�_L+_ -+-1- r \ � V•• + + + t + + + + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + +n 1 •••••••10•0••••••••® . R + f f f + 4- 4- + f+ + + + t + + + + + + + f f \ ,`�, f 4 + f + + f + + + f + + f r \ + + ♦ f + t f +�+ + ++♦ + + + + + z - , :„.:'-',,,' + •"'',..., ° o ma - ;•.••• :°°°c°°°°°°°°°°o°°°oc°CoOO° ` o-00000 ••i',, '''''''''''' ''':/!/%/'''''''.4'' ,/:/:1—j.14: 14..:'51;i:i..iF,1:, ' f.e.'IP:1•,t , ----- I --, r �\' . ;,gin w,� , ` I I P.R4- X, Ex I v 1/ V6 �Ji " °'/V I ,\ ••. • y `..... ` o t r� �.C- ?J� , ,` p ' cam\ ------ 3 1 3-- - thb. - - -•----—-... • --._ ___ .. } ''•. ! .. ... .... \ \ „, \\.,.. ,.. , ‘‘ ‘‘ \ ‘, ,.\\ ............N 6. ....... \ % ... ` •••�\ 'I iJ` THF •P.R.-5 \ \ _ .; . • \ , '� �MERALD�\ L_%ii 1)E S C R 1°,S, •••• — tttt `T;C(OONTf?Y ;`^ R-1—M`�� T FRANK � -�-, ,•�� SINATRA DRIr[ !_� -�__--�• 1 _� 1 , Iv. i, e, 7Y .____- \ „„A„, SINATRA DRIr[ �l 74 Y. /f1.CW1Mf16Tr'ii:4 I••.. — .. ).) i-..t.,:• • . RIVERSIDE COUNTY 0„,•••<;:LIFORNI4 ` `MEMT of FOR e.w.—. / FIRE DEPARTMENT QEQF FsgE PROiEOiEsr9y e � ? � U-. � � IN COOPERATION WITH THE 'I'. COUNTY ;ts CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY c r snr • RIVERSIDE�.. AND FIRE PROTECTION MIKE HARRIS Fii F • —ti FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE COVE FIRE MARSHAL PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 70-801 HWY 111 N 0 V 2 0 1996 TELEPHONE:(714)657-3183 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 ftitiirifftl4P20, 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT To: Steve Smith Ref: CZ 96-6, PP 96-10 The following conditions apply to the project: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized Fire Protection Standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401. 2 A fire flow of 1500 gpm for 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 1500 gpm for single family structure. b) 2500 gpm for mufti-family structure. c) 3000 gpm for commercial structure. d) 4000 gpm for industrial structure. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2- 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than: a) 200' from single family structure. a) 165' from multi-family structure. a) 150' from commercial and industrial Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") will be required, located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200' from single family structure. a) 165' from multi-family structure. a) 150'from commercial structure. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved printed on recycled paper * vehicular travel ways The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. 8. Please be advised that the proposed project may not be feasible since the feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flows. Please check with the water company prior to obtaining an approval from the Planning or Building Department. 9. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1, 1990, for all occupancies. 10. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 11. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15.16.090 2 13. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)) 14. Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A1OBC in rating. Fire extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A) 16. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and California Fire Code, Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 17. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55'in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 18. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall be: a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only. b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking. c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed on one side. d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides. 19. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 3 20. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 21. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 22. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 23. All new residences/dwelling are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the City of Palm Desert. 24. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 25. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements. 26. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 27. Other: All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Coves Fire Marshal's Office at (619) 346-1870, located at 70-801 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270. (Rancho Mirage Fire Station #1) Sincerely, Mike Hams Chief Ira - /, by Mike McConnell Coves Fire Marshal 4 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT 6�61-6 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA �� s Q�i CHANGE OF 653-260 003 , VACANT 9 ZONE MAP MI6 "..". ��''•• d Q�P \ • a •+T . 13 • i� BEING PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH HALF OF z . >„� ; �I SECTION 2Q 'THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION \�\ ' ,w A�. 4'.. '\ 33. AND THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 3a. PR-5 �— 'i F ,.+ +' �r . TOMNSHIP 4 SOUTH RANGE 6 EAST. S.B.M. +� a 6 A2.• r a; IA O `\`y1 { 4 y. �' L 1 yy}j f SY +:17 . a \ "` • 653-280-019 .� ..\ :'74; ,. 5 ` VACANT N v � r '� • 2® 27 27 20 0 -_ Y` .4 .No f 4: : ,b 34 33 \\ti• IN`+ ' � ., s r �1V 653-410-008 \ � .•% VACANT '4.- r. N- .,i=n-o-oi 1.. ; . .,, .4 VACAfR�• •`� a` .a a1+t ... �. Q` 0'2 Q5 5 6 1�h o�co ;� `, .....i'r > may;; 4 ."<SS'®� � l P < I P� Q.le1''►1 \.•\\� \\•' t� I VV��A.r,•�( i �l+,) Qf" \ .� s. t1 A -/='-'*, mo` 653- 10-007 \\\\ 2Z "41141�°i.77ii ..IPr. A `\ Aar.,, •..AAa>.w 00S % '�\ AGRI. TUBE 653-390-017 \ �. Y��!`.� °`i`: T ,,..2 M x yr \ VACANT W11� ' O \\\•.\` �•\\t. C ` ? PC-2 YOk \ ` , 111 � I \`\\\.\�\S\�:, �'.'\-+� / �`lq�j�.� �� N. 653-A20-002 6 653-A00-023 I \� \7 ,p"'�A VACANT- AGRICULTURE Z I I VACANT I PASS \.S N \\. ���` / �-vy. N. AGRICULTURE \\\ � I \\(N.'":", 6S3-A20-009 aC• ' '44 ,i•• �> p06 653-�00-02� �\\\ \� '�� � VACANT- h ��yi r — r NNW MM. b i I I__ _ _- _ Q r'�j9 VACANT \ {f\\�\ �.\1 \ AGRICULTURE ' 'I \ ,r� �*T h \ ,v - ' `'.\ PR-5 �. • '��' raa g•w• i> I I I L -,g)1 PARCEL 3 I. I I\ o i \ (' \ FUTURE 4 d,� tea&, nr AMP usoaa m.J e. Q'VPQd• I \ `\ is\�.n' t \ STATE UNIVERSITT 1 q,a IR_ '5 �...�. I I 653-VACANTT018 I 6� I '\y �. �•�SITE 1 PR-5 .�'•'. -1�,yg., \ PARCEL I b e J .\ .. \ .. N. !�+ _ I I PARCEL 1 I 09L I \'.� +\ 6RV PARK CO ,\ \ , 2 Qy �7 \ \ EFERALO OESERT I I I Q, `,12,`9- - _ 111I \ i I GOLF COURSE \\ 3J ( _ _ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ) 1 , T _ ss S 63 °�� -�TT'N 28 AN 620-19 .,�a��0 ��,i AN 626-31 �00190,9�0l�2-20~— 26-10 il r a ELDORADO DRIVE Pc, EXISTING GOLF COURSE Pc, pN y,0 gTw.Iad buzpp.IE p Jo aoupnssT at{; o; .Ioz.Id sN.IoM oTTgnd JO quawq.IpdaQ aqq 'Aq pano.Iddp pup 'oq paggzwqns aq TTpus '.zaauibua STTos paaa;szbaa p Aq pagonpuoo ' uoTgp5TgsaAuz sTTos zwTTa.Id agaTdwoo V (S) • aoupnsST gTwaad buTpTTnq Jo GILT; at{; qp aq TTpus saa; pips go quawkpd • (3L,iny) saaE uoTgp6TgTys w.zo;Tun uoTgpq.Iodsup.Iy o; goaCgns aq TTpus goaCoid aI{y (T7) dpw Taoapd aqq go uoTgppaooaa aIn .zo qoa CO.Id STIgq IpTM pa;L'TOOSSP S;TU.zad Aup Jo aoupnSST o; .IoTid pied aq TTpus ' SS-6L Pup LT-6L ' SON uoTgnTosag gaasaQ wTpd jO AgTJ IfTM aoupp.I000p uT 'SaaJ UOT;PZTTpu6TS (E) 3uana w.Io;s apaA 00T au; Jo uOT;ua;az a;Ts-u0 aog apTAoad 'Tugs ubzsap qoa Coad • qoa Coid sTuq gopdwT /Cal.{; Se SUOT TpUOD abpuzp.Ip wpaagsdn agq go sTsATpup apnTouT TTpus Apngs goaCgns Guy •uoTDonagsuoo Jo q.zpgs oq .IoT.zd s}{.IoM oTignd Jo quawq.IpdaQ aqq Aq pano.Iddp pup paMaTAa.I sT qPI{; .IaauTbua TTATO pa.zagsTba.z p Aq paapda.zd Apngs abpuTP p p uodn quabuTquoo aq TTPITs qoa Co.Id sTI13 aog paaTnbaa uoTgon.Igsuoo SaTTTIT P abpuTP.zp AuV (Z) ' saa3 abputp.zp ;oa Co.Id agq wo.Ij pa;onpap aq Apw saTgTTT PJ abpuTp.Ip upTd .Iagspw jO uoT;on.I;suoo Gun I4;TM pa;pToossp S;SOD auk ' apop TpdTOTunN gaasaQ wFpd Gun Jo 0E0 ' 617 ' 9Z uoTgoas uz .zo3 papTAo.zd sy sgTwaad buTppab go aoupnssT .zo dew Tao.Ipd atp go uoT3pp.Iooaa o� aoT.Id pied aq TTpus ES9 'oN aoupuTp1p pup 6T ' 9Z uoTgoaS apoD TpdTDTunY1 ;.IaSaQ UTpd IflTM aouPp.IO P UT SSG; ab2UTP1Q (I) : ;oaCo.Id paouaaa;aa-anogp aI{l aog TPAoaddp go suoTgTpuoo pa.IapTsuoo aq pTnogs buTMoTTog Guy 966T ' ET aagwaoaQ =.Nap 'IVI02ifwww SWIFId 2I CNOM i 9 0-9 6 Z/D "3 01-96 barld ESIDE2id '88178 Z dVN 'E3irad MAIIV1.Nas :sparans 1Ogoa.ITQ sNaoM oTTgnd/.zabpupN A TD ASS 's.IaNToE 2 paPLIoT2i :14011d 5{oaTda-P{uTM ;Jar :uoTquGTW buTuupTd/wawdoTaAaG A;TunwwoJ Jo quawgapdaQ :py wnativuowax HOI33OHEINI (6) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24 . 08 , Transportation tation Demand Management . (7) Complete parcel map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits . (8) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works . (9) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 . 28 , and in accordance with Sections 26 .40 and 26 . 44 , complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance . (10) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project . (11) In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a median island in Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street shall be provided. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards . Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. (12) Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above . (13) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12 . 12 , Fugitive Dust Control (14) The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works . f (15) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .44 , complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits . In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation- related issues . (16) Waiver of access rights to Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the parcel map. (17) As required under Sections 26 . 32 and 26 . 40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future undergrounding district . (18) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26 . 40 and 26 . 44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards and the city' s Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive . * Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the project entries . * Construction of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit Agency. Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the parcel map. (19) Applicant shall be responsible for the implantation of those traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the Wonder Palms Commercial Center Circulation Impact Study prepared by Endo Engineering and approved by the City of Palm Desert Public Works Depart . (20) Traffic safety striping shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works . A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings . (21) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (22) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. (23) The proposed storm water retention areas shall be designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs . undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. R I CHARD J. LKERS, P.E. (pmape\pm28448.cnd) CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 18, 1997 continued from March 4, 1997 CASE NO: DA 97-2 REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council of approval of a development agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates for David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 BACKGROUND: March 4, 1997 the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of a change of zone and master plan of development for 270 +/- acres generally located south of 1-10 east and west of Cook Street. The commission also recommended approval of a precise plan of design for planning area 1 of the development plan. All these cases will be presented to the City Council at its April 10, 1997 meeting. At the March 4, 1997 meeting the Planning Commission continued action on the development agreement. II. ANALYSIS: A revised draft development agreement has been received. The agreement has an initial term of 15 years with extensions beyond that possible. The agreement at page 2, recital E outlines the benefits to the City as: "The benefits conferred on the City by Developer herein will (I) insure consistent, comprehensive planning which will result in aesthetically pleasing, environmentally harmonious, an economically viable development within the City; (ii) provide for the creation of high-quality, aesthetically pleasing entry statement for the City; (iii) provide for the construction of stormwater system improvements vital to the City; and STAFF REPORT DA 97-1 MARCH 18, 1997 (iv) further the development objectives of the City in an orderly manner, all of which will significantly promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City." In return for these "benefits" the applicant seeks to: i) freeze the amount of "exactions" that the City may require on planning areas 1 , 2 and 3 to current levels (see page 10, Section 3.4). ii) freeze the art fees at current levels for all 8 planning areas for the term of the agreement (see Section 6, page 21 ). iii) receive a credit against the required area drainage fees equal to the fair market value of the land dedicated for the Mid-Valley Channel (page 18, Section 5.1 ). iv) obtain vesting as provided at page 8, section 3.2 which states: "...the parties hereto acknowledge and expressly agree that Developer is hereby granted by the City the vested and guaranteed right to develop the Project in such manner and at such rate and at such times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole subjective business judgment." With respect to item (iii) above the Public Works Department has prepared a report (attached) wherein it recommends that with a minor change in the language leading up to affirming the credit that the applicant receive credit for dedication of property for the Mid-Valley Channel. Relative to item (ii) above, the Public Art Manager has submitted a report which suggests some minor language changes and recommends that the art fees not be frozen for the term of the agreement. In the matter of items i and iv above Planning staff fails to see any visible benefit to the City which would allow staff to support freezing the "exactions" on planning areas 1 , 2 and 3 and grant vesting and guaranteed rights on this project. At this time this project is a gas station, convenience store and car wash. In the future planning area 1 will include a restaurant park (six restaurants) around a large 2 STAFF REPORT DA 97-1 MARCH 18, 1997 park area, RV storage, mini-warehouse and retail center. The timing on these uses becoming real is unknown. In earlier development agreements that the City has entered into we first had plans for the entire site and definite uses described. While the development agreement did not prescribe time limits for the applicant to perform, it also did not freeze any of the fees (Madison and Desert Crossing). The purpose of the Ahmanson development agreement was to establish basic minimum land use entitlements for various parcels which were consistent with the EIR which was prepared. This applicant has obtained the same privileges through the development plan and PCD zone change (assuming these items are approved by City Council). III. CONCLUSION: Staff cannot support approval of the development agreement at this time and in this form. IV. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission not approve the development agreement in its present form. Staff could support a development agreement which would vest the provisions of the development plan but we see no reason to freeze any fees or exactions. V. ATTACHMENT: Development Agreement Prepared by Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved b it Drell /tm 3 RECEIVED INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT MAR 13 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CRY OF PALM DESERT TO: Phil Drell, Community Development Director FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Public Works Director SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—WONDER PALMS DATE: March 13, 1997 As a result of our review of the above-referenced document, we are requesting changes in Section 5, relating to the Mid-Valley Storm Channel Dedication. In particular, Section 5.1 should read as follows: 5. DEDICATION. In order to facilitate development of the proposed Mid-Valley Channel, Developer shall dedicate to the City a right-of-way easement for the Mid-Valley Channel, in a form acceptable to the City and Developer, over a portion of the property consisting of approximately 17 acres along the northerly boundary of the property, which area is more particularly described on Exhibit"C"to this Agreement(the "Mid-Valley Channel Area"). The Mid-Valley Channel Area shall be dedicated on or before issuance by the City of he first building permit for any portion of the project. The City acknowledges that the developer, through significant on-site retention of project- generated storm waters and the dedication of rights-of-way necessary for the future construction of the proposed Mid-Valley Channel, has demonstrated a willingness to enable the future construction of the Mid-Valley Channel. The balance of Section 5.1, as proposed, as well as Sections 5.2 through 5.4, appear acceptable. tARD J. RS,P.E. RJF:JSG/ms cc: Joseph S. Gaugush CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 4, 1997 continued from February 18, 1997 CASE NOS: C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10, TPM 28448 and DA 97-2 REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), precise plan of design/conditional use permit, master plan of development , tentative parcel map and development agreement for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates for David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 BACKGROUND: The applicant is the owner of 270 +/- acres located east and west of Cook Street south of Interstate 10 and wishes to establish a long term development plan in the form of this master plan. The property extends along the south side of 1-10 from Portola Avenue in the west to a point 3400 feet east of Cook Street. The Zoning Ordinance provides for this type of long term development plan through a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development). In order to obtain such a change of zone the applicant must have more than 100 acres of land and must prepare a master plan of development which contains and becomes the development criteria for the area which is then delineated as PCD on the zoning map. A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: County/Railroad and 1-10 South: PR-5/Future Cal State University Site and Rancho Portola Country Club East: R1 M/Emerald Desert RV Park West: SI and PR-5/Vacant STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: The 270 +/- acres is designated several different land use categories in the General Plan. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive, east and west of Cook Street, is designated District Commercial. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive at the east end of the site is designated commercial-industrial. The area north and south of Gerald Ford Drive east of Portola was designated residential study zone in the North Sphere Specific Plan. Finally, the area south of Gerald Ford Drive and west of Cook Street is designated residential - low density. At the time of the preparation of the North Sphere Specific Plan the actual alignments of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street, Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, and Gerald Ford east of Cook Street were not established. As a result the land use designations were "general" as to their locations. As well, the decision to set aside over 200 acres of land at the southeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford for a future Cal State campus impacts on the overall entry design/land use of the Cook Street corridor. The intent of the North Sphere Specific Plan was to establish commercial land use in the Cook Street-Gerald Ford corridors, commercial-industrial buffers adjacent to the freeway and higher density residential where railroad and freeway noise can be mitigated. Staff feels that this master plan as proposed implements the intent of the General Plan/North Sphere Specific Plan land use elements. C. EXISTING ZONING: The property contains two existing zone categories. The area around the Gerald Ford and Cook intersection is zoned PC(2) (District Commercial) and the rest of the site PR-5 (Planned Residential - five units per acre). 2 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. MASTER PLAN: The applicant has prepared a master plan which establishes eight basic planning areas with a wide range of land uses. The master plan also contains a series of development criteria (conditions) which shall govern future development within the site. Future uses proposed in the master plan range from freeway oriented commercial businesses to planned service industrial to regional commercial to high density residential. B. PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The precise plan provides a detailed site plan for development on Planning Area #1 of the Development Plan (i.e., the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive). The conditional use permit approval is required pursuant to the provisions of FCOZ for certain uses permitted in the FCOZ. C. CHANGE OF ZONE: The request is to change the zone for the 270 +/- acres to Planned Community Development. In order to do this the City must have an acceptable development plan which then becomes the approved land use for the area. III. ANALYSIS: A. As noted above the master plan divides the property into eight planning areas. Specific locations are delineated on Figure 1 contained in the master plan. The following information is taken from the master plan prepared by the applicant. 3 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 "Planning Area 1 - 21 .3 gross acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business. PA1 shall use the base provisions of the PC 4 (Planned Commercial Center - Resort Center) however, shall allow no more than one automobile service station including accessory convenience retail, and shall also allow drive through restaurants subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Standards for drive-through facilities are adopted herein and must also be consistent with requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone Ordinance. Planning Area 2 - 50.7 gross acres west of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Regional Commercial. PA2 shall use the base provisions of the PC3 (Planned Commercial Center - Regional Center) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Drive through restaurants are allowed subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Planning Area 3 - 11 .2 gross acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business. PA3 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (Planned Commercial Center - District Commercial). Planning Area 4 - 30.2 acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Industrial/Business Park. PA4 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial Zone) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 5 - 25.9 acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Mixed-use Commercial/Residential. 4 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 PA5 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (District Commercial Center Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail and residential under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 6 - 70.6 acres west of Cook Street and between Gerald Ford Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/I-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - industrial/business park. PA6 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Area 7 - 44.3 acres north of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. PA7 shall use the base provisions of the O.P. (Office Professional) zone. Land use emphasis - business office. Planning Area 8 - 14.9 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential. PA8 shall use the provisions of PR 18 (Planned Residential District - up to 18 dwelling units per acre)." The applicant has prepared in chart form, Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the master plan, development program - Maximum Intensity Alternative and Development Program - Trend Alternative respectively. The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional review of the entitlements is 3,600,000 square feet and 1300 residential units as depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate). The probable development intensity expected (Trend Alternate) is shown in Figure 3. The expected intensity is 1 ,605,000 square feet and 1 100 dwelling units. The applicant has verbally advised staff that ongoing planning has land use intensities which are actually lower than the trend alternative. The trend alternative is considerably less intense than the current General Plan would allow. 5 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 B. CIRCULATION: The master plan takes advantage of the existing approved City Circulation Plan and takes accesses from the future Gerald Ford Drive. The master plan proposes additional streets. One new street will divide PA7 from PA6 and provide access to the business/office area. This street runs from Portola north of Gerald Ford east and south to connect with Gerald Ford approximately 2100 feet east of Portola. The applicant has had a circulation impact study prepared by Endo Engineering which examines the future traffic impacts of the two development alternatives and compares these with the existing General Plan designation and the traffic which could be generated under it. Traffic impacts were assessed for the nearby intersections for the years 2005 and 2010. Essentially, with proper mitigation either proposed development alternative can be supported from a circulation standpoint. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed change of zone and master plan for future development is essentially consistent with the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan which were adopted pursuant to a certified environmental impact report. As a result staff is comfortable with processing this application under the negative declaration provisions of CEQA. The applicant did have a circulation impact study prepared, a hydrology study and a biological assessment and impact analysis. These three documents are specific to this 270 +/- acre site. As noted by the traffic engineer, any traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and in_ fact if the "Trend Alternate" is followed the expected traffic levels will be significantly lower than the present General Plan would allow. The hydrology study concludes that all such impacts can be mitigated. 6 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 The biological assessment and impact analysis concludes that "this project, upon the completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within the region." The project is within the fee area established by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. It is also in the historical habitat of a number of other plant and animal species being considered for listing as threatened or endangered. To avoid their future listing, a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is being prepared through CVAG which will provide long term protection through the creation of preserves. Pending completion of the MSHCP an Interim Review Process has been established pursuant to an MOU with all the valley cities, County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. This application was reviewed at CVAG with the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant has been unable to resolve the matter. In this process the applicant offered to front fund some of the cost of the preparation of the MSHCP in return for assurance that it would not be subject to any fee the plan may establish. As of this time the parties have been unable to agree to such an arrangement. This failure to arrive at such an agreement does not preclude the city from proceeding. The applicant can continue to attempt to reach agreement. If one is not attained then if and when the MSHCP is approved and a fee is established, any land remaining to be developed will be subject to such fee. Staff will recommend that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be adopted. STAFF CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN: The master plan proposes freeway oriented businesses including drive-through restaurants on several of the planning areas. The existing zoning prohibits drive- through restaurants. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and the Planning Commission have recommended approval to the City Council of a Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) which if adopted by City Council would permit drive-through restaurants in this area. Any drive-through restaurant contemplated by this master plan would be contingent upon adoption of the FCOZ and the provisions contained therein. The General Provision No. 17 concerns art in public places. Staff discussed this with the AIPP manager. Mr. Nagus expressed support of the general concept and looked 7 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 forward to working with the applicant when the art proposal is in a more concrete form. The development agreement which will follow later will deal in more detail with art in this development plan. The master plan of development as submitted is basically acceptable with the following revisions: 1 ) Item 7(a) "and must also comply with requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone" should be added at the end. 2) Item 7(d) delete reference to permitted drive-through restaurants (this area is not in the overlay area of FCOZ). 3) Items 7(a) through 7(g) delete the word "general" as part of the phrase "general provisions". 4) Item 8 remove "shall" and replace it with "may" in the sentence which will read in part "the amount of parking may be reduced...". 5) In item 13 add "and other relevant city ordinances". 6) That item 14 be deleted. 7) Item 17 delete the "d" after the last word of the paragraph. 8) On figure 2, PA8 the number of units should read 270 dwelling units. 9) On page 14, Grading/Drainage, second paragraph, second line the word "shall" should be replaced with "may". 10) Under graphics fifth line refers to PAS 1 and 2 not 1 and 3 and add "and shall be consistent with the FCOZ ordinance" to the second to last sentence of the first paragraph. V. CONCLUSION: As is noted on page 2 of the master plan prepared by the applicant: 8 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 "The development of the Project in a manner consistent with the provisions of this master plan including the Development Guidelines provides a number of benefits to both the City and the Owner: 1 . It maximizes the potential for high quality commercial, industrial, and residential development with high visibility from Interstate 10. 2. It maximizes the flexibility necessary to adapt the property to future conditions which are anticipated to affect the area; particularly the future university campus and the increased accessibility to the area north of Interstate 10. 3. It provides a comprehensive planning framework which establishes guidelines for future land use applications for the property and eliminates the inconsistency associated with individual and unassociated development proposals. 4. It provides for the construction of stormwater system improvements consistent with the master plans adopted by the City in conjunction with the Coachella Valley Water District. 5. It controls sensitive land uses associated with sites having excellent freeway access. 6. It provides for the completion of the street network adjacent to the site including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. 7. It provides for the planning and execution of a major entry statement potentially involving the Art in Public Places program." The plan serves to implement the intent of the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan. Condition No._1.3 provides that prior to obtaining a building permit for any site within the master plan the applicant will require approval of a precise plan of design by the Planning Commission. 9 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 Note: The applicant has filed a precise plan application for the food court and service station, convenience store, self storage, RV storage and retail on PA1 . This precise plan will be reviewed later in this report. A. PRECISE PLAN REVIEW: As provided for in the development plan each planning area or part thereof must submit for approval a precise plan of design application. We now have such a plan as it relates to Planning Area #1 . The precise plan as submitted proposes a service station, convenience store and car wash on the corner with a food park (six restaurants) wrapped around the corner development. To the north of this food park is an oversize vehicle parking lot, RV storage, self storage facility and retail shops. This is all on 21 .3 gross acres at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street. All of these uses are provided for in the FCOZ. 1 . ACCESS: One access point is taken from Cook Street to the service station, one from Gerald Ford into the restaurant park and service station and from the new street, as shown on the circulation plan, which extends north from Gerald Ford Drive. The RV and mini-storage facilities are served by a new cul-de-sac extending into this area. 2. CIRCULATION: The circulation around the food park and service station is acceptable. 3. ARCHITECTURE: The service station, convenience store and car wash architecture has _ been seen by the Architectural Review Commission (February 25, 1997). At that time it was not formally on the agenda for action but the general consensus was that the design was more than acceptable. Members described it as "its nice because you can't even tell its a gas station", "I like the architecture of the building", "dynamite", "it is the look we were looking for". 10 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 The plans will be on the March 11 , 1997 ARC agenda for preliminary approval. 4. SETBACKS: The PC-2 zone prescribes a 32 foot setback from Cook Street and 25 foot setback from Gerald Ford Drive. The plan as submitted provides 70 feet from Cook Street and 32 feet from Gerald Ford Drive adjacent to the car wash. The restaurants to the east are shown at 36 and 22 from Gerald Ford Drive. The restaurant showing 22 feet will need to be moved to the north to provide a 25 foot setback. The other structures within the site are all acceptable as shown. 5. USER SIZES AND PARKING PROVIDED: a. Service station, convenience store and car wash The convenience store, car wash and service station will be 5275 square feet. This combined facility produces a parking requirement of 20 spaces. There are 26 spaces provided plus the 16 spaces at the pump islands and the 16 dry-off spaces at the car wash exit. The parking complies with that prescribed in the FCOZ. b. Restaurants The restaurants vary in size from 2200 square feet to 4000 square feet and from typical drive-through to sit-down restaurants. Total restaurant area is 18,750 square feet. A total of .161 parking spaces are dispersed through-out the food park plus each of the drive-thrus has stacking for at least 7 cars per the development plan. As well, the applicant has shown an oversize vehicle parking lot for 15 trucks or RV type large vehicles. The 176 parking spaces are adequate to comply with 11 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 the FCOZ. There is available space to expand parking should it be needed. The self storage area is 59,000 square feet and while we have no parking requirement 21 spaces are provided. The necessary parking for this use generally takes place at the entrance to the individual unit. Circulation in this area appears adequate. The retail building will be 18,100 square feet and has 63 parking spaces. This is consistent with the parking requirement of the ordinance. There is additional space available at the rear which could be made into parking. The RV storage area is parking and hence has no parking requirement. c. Landscaped Areas The FCOZ prescribes a minimum 30% landscape area for the food park and service station area. The landscape area requirement for the remainder can be less pursuant to action by Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the landscaping as shown on the proposed planting layout dated 2-25-97 on the north area of the site be approved as shown. Over the entire planning area the landscape area is 35.6 percent. In the south portion, the area of the food park and the service station, the landscape area is 48% which complies with the FCOZ requirement. It may be of interest that around the service station/car wash in addition to 35 feet deep landscape setbacks the area along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive will be bermed to a height of 8 feet to-screen buildings and the uses. d. Art in Public Places The applicant is working on the AIPP (art in public places) and a plan for the major art exhibit. The direction this will take and 12 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 how it will be funded will be determined in the development agreement. B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN: 1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Justification: The design of the project meets all applicable City code requirements for this type of facility or can be revised to comply. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. Justification: The property around this site is currently vacant. Development of this property will set a tone for future development. The project's use and location is compatible with anticipated surrounding uses and owners in the vicinity will not be deprived of the use of their land or be negatively impacted by this development. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. Justification: The project complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and its architectural design will set the standard for surrounding properties. C. CEQA REVIEW: See CEQA discussion under_the development plan section of this report. Staff recommends that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be adopted. 13 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 D. CONCLUSION: Subject to the changes noted in "staff concerns with the master plan" staff is prepared to recommend approval of the master plan of development to the Planning Commission. If commission concurs with staff it can recommend approval of the master plan of development to the City Council by recommending approval of the change of zone to the City Council. This master plan of development will be attached as an exhibit to the zone change. The revisions to the development plan can be carried out between the time of the Planing Commission hearing and the hearing at City Council. The precise plan for PA1 implements the master plan. Once Planning Commission has recommended approval of the master plan and change of zone then it can act on the precise plan and the tentative parcel map to implement same. Draft resolutions for these aspects of this application are attached along with conditions of approval on the precise plan. The matter of the development agreement needs to be continued to further address the art and how it will be funded and determine what parts of the plan can be vested. We expect to bring the development agreement to commission March 18, 1997. VI. RECOMMENDATION: A. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 96-6 and Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center. B. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. approving PP/CUP 96-10, a precise plan of design for development on Planning Area #1 of the Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, subject to conditions. 14 STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 MARCH 4, 1997 C. That the Development Agreement for Wonder Palms Commercial Center be continued to March 18, 1997. D. That the TPM 28448 be continued to May 6, 1997 to permit the applicant to adjust the parcel lines consistent with the approved Precise Plan and Development Plan. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolutions B. Legal notice C. Initial Study Checklist and Responses D. Comments from city departments and other agencies E. Development Plan F. Precise Plan and Elevations G. FCOZ H. Endo Traffic Engineering Report Prepared by //' G(y Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved b . Phil Drell /tm 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE TO PCD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) AND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR 270 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10 EAST AND WEST OF COOK STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER. CASE NO. C/Z 96-6 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued from February 18, 1997, to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project as mitigated will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD maximizes the potential for high quality commercial, industrial and residential development with high visibility from Interstate 10. 2. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD maximizes the flexibility necessary to adapt the property to future conditions which are anticipated to affect the area; particularly the future university campus and the increased accessibility to the area north of Interstate 10. 3. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD provides a comprehensive planning framework which establishes guidelines for future land use applications for the property and eliminates the inconsistency associated with individual and unassociated development proposals. 4. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD provides for the completion of the street network adjacent to the site including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5. The Master Plan and Change of Zone serves to implement the intent of the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City Council of Change of Zone 96-6 which adopts as Exhibit "A" a master plan of development on file in the Department of Community Development, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "B". PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary City of Palm Desert, California 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 96-6 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates For David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a Change of Zone and Master plan of Development for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10 east and west of Cook Street. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. March 4, 1997 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 18.3 ACRES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD FORD DRIVE FOR THE SITE KNOWN AS PLANNING AREA #1 IN THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN. CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 4th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued from February 18, 1997, to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan for the development of Planning Area #1 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed uses in PA1 include a service station, a convenience store with the sale of beer and wine, a restaurant park including drive-through facilities, a car wash, RV storage and mini warehouse facility; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25.108.020 of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone all of the above uses require approval of a conditional use permit and precise plan of design; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below: 1 . The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The proposed precise plan/conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed precise plan/conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-10 is hereby granted subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, be certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary City of Palm Desert, California 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. 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. 4. 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: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of community development. 6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone. 7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works prior to architectural review commission submittal. 9. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. 10. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan. 11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. 12. No loitering shall be allowed on the premises. 13. No Distilled Spirits sales will be permitted on the premises. 14. No open alcoholic beverage containers or consumption shall be allowed on the premises. 15. Litter shall be removed twice daily from the premises, including adjacent public sidewalks, landscaped area and parking lots. Personnel shall be required to physically inspect the premises and adjacent sidewalks, landscaped areas and parking lots no less than twice daily. 16. Hours of operation for all uses on the site shall be 24 hours per day seven days a week. 17. That the architecture of the remaining buildings in PA1 (i.e., restaurants, mini storage and retail) shall take the flavor of the architecture shown for the service station/ convenience store/car wash. 18. That the east most restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive be setback a minimum of 25 feet. 19. That the parking for the restaurant uses shall be evaluated on an on-going basis as each restaurant is proposed and built. 20. That the open space area associated with the "food park" shall be completed with the opening of the first drive-through restaurant. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Department of Public Works: 1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map or issuance of grading permits. As provided for in Section 26.49.030 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code , the costs associated with the construction of master plan drainage facilities may be deducted from the project drainage fees. 2. Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project. Project design shall provide for the on-site retention of the 100 year storm event. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or the recordation of the parcel map. 4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section '24.08, Transportation Demand Management. 7. Complete parcel map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. 11 . In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan, installation of a median island in Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street shall be provided. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and © the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. 1 2. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above. 13. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive Dust Control. 14. The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. 15. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation-related issues. 16. Waiver of access rights to Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive except at approved locations shall be granted on the parcel map. 17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility district recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to participate in any future undergrounding district. 6 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 18. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards and the city's Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. * Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the project entries. * Construction of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit Agency. Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public improvements shall be provided on the parcel map. 19. Applicant shall be responsible for the implantation of those traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the Wonder Palms Commercial Center Circulation Impact Study prepared by Endo Engineering and approved by the City of Palm Desert Public Works Depart. 20. Traffic safety striping shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 21 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 22. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water discharges associated with construction activity. 23. The proposed storm water retention areas shall be designed to retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm. 7 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC, and/or recognized fire protection standards. The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 . 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per minute flow of: a) 3000 gpm for commercial structure b) 2500 gpm for multi-family structure c) 3000 gpm for commercial structure d) 4000 gpm for industrial structure 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4"x 2-1/2"x 2- 1 /2"), located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200 feet from single family structure b) 165 feet from multi-family structure c) 150 feet from commercial structure Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type. 5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2") will be required, located not less than 25' or more than: a) 200 feet from single family structure b) 165 feet from multi-family structure c) 1 50 feet from commercial structure 8 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that hydrantls► will be installed and will produce the require fire flow, or arrange for a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection. 7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting authority. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civic Engineer or may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 6. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 , 1990, for all occupancies. 9. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 1 3. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 10. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and control valves for sprinkler systems. 1 1 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the fire marshal. Painted fire lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following: a) No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15.16.090. 9 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 12. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.103(a)) 13. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens. 14. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 1 7A) 15. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and California Fire Code Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes requiring dust collection. 16. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards may be more restrictive. 17. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall be: a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or garages allowed on one side only. b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking. c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed on one side. d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development. 21 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. 22. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer permitted in the City of Palm Desert. 23. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 24. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the fire marshal's office for submittal requirements. 25. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 11 I • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-10 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates For David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use permit to allow the construction and operation of a fuel station, convenience store, car wash, restaurant park and retail outlets on 18.3 acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive, known as Planning Area #1 in the Wonder Palms Master Plan of Development. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. March 4, 1997 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm 12 „ , I`� O • .;� ©U off di El) D esen .,� :c•' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10, TPM 28448 AND DA 97-2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES on behalf of David Freedman and Company for approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), precise plan of design, master plan of development, tentative parcel map and development agreement for the development of 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street, more particularly described as: APNs 653-390-003, 004, 007, 008, 012, 021, 023, 024, 026, 027 and 029 and APNs 653-280-004 and 016 \ a PR-5 -T'�'1 1 a o\ Ly \\ f \ N. n. ,. • I — 29 Y,���,,'yy\ _ham . 1 �,,,,., \N 20 27 -- _ -- 27 20 21 , � • t ob . "' \ / iy 1• \.\ ' 0I ii Iit-=--®' • = ' -- 1 ..._, \N‘N \s, \ ..,,, e.17 ‘\‘'.21 N'NN -,;,...„ NI • I————�r;� , r..a.7 \T” .♦ PR 5 .un.r 1 •,a' • f� AI ..�1 r a'r I I L#' —1_1` 1 \ ). I ~w"` \ 35 3 4 11r �f`— rr. n.so u w-1. 14 41 ..aw-n tors' �r2D i sw-1. —3''2—— 1. „.• [:cs.uc av.n.« .0' I , .- 1i—crs+scR SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 18, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary February 6, 1997 Palm Desert Planning Commission • CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN BERNARDINO 5500 University Parkway,San Bernardino,CA 92407-2397 January 16, 1997 Phil Drell Director of Community Development OFFICE City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive OF THE Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 VICE PRESIDENT F O R Dear Phil: ADMINISTRATION Thank you for the opportunity to review the Development Plan for Wonder Palms AND FINANCE Commercial Center. Several key university officials have reviewed the plan and found it to be compatible with facilities frequently surrounding university campuses. It was 909/880-5130 anticipated that lands adjacent to the university site and parallel to the freeway corridor would likely be used for such proposed purposes. The university would appreciate the opportunity to review specific plans as they are designed for each project. We support the design standards and criteria set forth by the City of Palm Desert and believe they will serve the best interests of the future faculty and staff of the Coachella Valley Center. Sincerely, /rat -�/ 0�2 David DeMauro Vice President for Administration and Finance The California State University Bakersfield•Chico•Dominguez Hills•Fullerton•Fresno•Hayward•Humboldt•Long Beach•Los Angeles•Maritime Academy•Monterey Bay•Northridge• Pomona•Sacramento•San Bernardino•San Diego•San Jose•San Luis Obispo•San Marcos•Sonoma•Stanislaus PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" FREEWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONE DISTRICT 25.108.010 Purpose. The purpose of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) is to provide optional standards and incentives for the development of a variety of commercial uses. Whenever the FCOZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant may choose whether to use the optional FCOZ standards or the standards of the base zone. In order to obtain approval of uses only permitted in the FCOZ the project must utilize FCOZ standards. 25.108.020 Conditional Uses. Uses permitted by approved Conditional Use Permit shall be as follows: I) restaurants general including drive-thru restaurants ii) automobile service stations without regard to the required separation distance provisions per M.C. Section 25.56.330 iii) convenience stores iv) car wash v) combinations of two or more of the above uses vi) hotels vii) commercial recreation and amusement establishments viii) mini warehouses ix) outdoor recreational vehicle and boat storage 25.108.030 Development ment Standards.P Projects proposed under this chapter shall be master planned and the master plan shall be approved by the planning commission prior to any construction activity. Development of individual projects within the approved master. plan shall be processed through the precise plan process. Property to be master planned shall be at least five (5) acres in size and shall have frontage on a designated arterial street. Drive-up lanes and window facilities shall be designed so as to not be visible from an arterial street. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Development standards shall generally be flexible to insure efficient site planning and i n of attractive developments. t o foster the Great o Automobile service stations shall comply with the requirements of M.C. Section 25.56.340 thru 25.56.410 in addition to the following: a) Required On-Site Parking: The required number of parking spaces for a combined development shall be cumulative for all proposed uses. Planning Commission may reduce the required parking where it is clearly demonstrated that a shared use will occur (i.e. a restaurant which serves a hotel) or with a showing of good cause the planning commission may increase the number of parking spaces required. Automobile Service Station (no service bays) 5 spaces Automobile Service Station (with service bays) 4 spaces/bay Convenience Store 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of GFA/Min. 10 spaces Car Wash 16 spaces Restaurant, general See M.C. Section 25.58.310 Restaurant, drive through See Restaurant, general plus at least 7 spaces in drive-through lane Hotel See M.C. Section 25.58.310 b) Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as prescribed in the base zone and/or Automobile Service Stations pursuant to M.C. Section 25.56.350 et al. c) Landscaping: All master planned projects approved through the FCOZ process shall provide a minimum of at least thirty percent (30%) landscaped open space, of which at least half of the common usable public space which can include picnic area, a dog park, a kids land, as well as landscaped setback areas. With a showing of good cause, the planning commission may increase the minimum landscaped open space requirement. 25.108.040 Freeway Visible Signage. Each developed commercial property within the Freeway Overlay Zone District and within 500 feet of Interstate 10 freeway may construct a freeway visible sign which complies with the following criteria: 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. I) Maximum number of freeway visible signs shall be one per development. ii) Minimum area of commercial development to be entitled to a freeway visible sign shall be 5 acres. Businesses identified on freeway visible signage shall be limited to traveler oriented users such as gas stations, restaurants and hotels. Other similar users may be approved by the Planning Commission. iii) The minimum distance between any two freeway visible signs shall be 750 feet. iv) The maximum height of any freeway visible sign shall be the minimum height necessary to allow the sign to be visible from the freeway and in no event shall the sign height exceed sixty (60) feet. Actual height to be determined by the Architectural Review Commission as part of the sign review process. Items to be considered in determining actual sign height shall be: a) any obstacles (such as buildings, trees, overpass structures) between the sign face and vehicles driving on the 1-10 freeway; b) design and size of the sign base; c) proportionality, color, texture. v) Maximum sign face area permitted shall be based on the size of the commercial development it serves. Site from 5.0 acres to 9.99 acres = 125 square feet Site from 10.0 acres to 24.99 acres = 150 square feet Site of 25.0 acres or greater = 175 square feet Maximum number of sign faces shall be two (2) which shall be oriented east/west toward freeway traffic. vi) Maximum number of businesses to be identified on any freeway visible sign face shall be six (6). The A.R.C. may reduce the maximum number of businesses to avoid clutter and/or lack of readability. vii) Illuminated signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 25.68.490. viii) In order to encourage recognition and legibility the maximum.number of sign colors as prescribed in Section 25.68.480 shall not apply. ix) The minimum size of any logo or individual sign copy shall be 16 inches. Signs or logos less than 16 inches may be approved by the A.R.C. if it is determined to be legible from vehicles traveling on the 1-10 freeway. 4 J. --- -- �. - .e, --_ ,i.,.,44. v14,...,....,-1/".:71 ; :;,,,,,i,:,... . . . fir" ,,i,,* ,si, •" 4 .t�,.< . • ~tip �c•. .:.. )17, :.... - i. r 1 h I .�� .. ...... --....______________,........„4 L .Lars4a ': • . M .w rH • ,• .,...*,. 4.44,.<13v, . :. . ,.... : iiiiii • ,f•t.S+wap 4--... (x.•.,..r- t ,,<, 1 �e;,e Z„ -ins. -• — — —— ——,d�.,...,, — •<f• • I 1 I 1 • — t li • p•l 12,000 / • • 11111111111141111/2.... �i J.�R��:--W '1 r T •r . ', Ikl R.-3• � T�� CITY OF PALM DESERT Case No. CITY COUNCIL ^ RESOLUTION NO . r.,. •, ,. ..,. ..-L' 4r .TL. o SITE STATISTICS WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER PA 1 Overall Site Area (including Mid Valley Channel & easements) 18.2 acres Net Site Area 15.9 acres Building Areas Service Station including car wash 5,275 s.f. Restaurants 18,750 s.f. Self Storage 58,950 s.f. RV Storage 800 s.f. Retail 18,100 s.f. Total Building Area 101,875 s.f. Parking Service Station/Car Wash 26 sp. Restaurants 146 sp. Large Vehicle Parking 15 sp. RV Storage 6 sp. Self Storage 11 sp. Retail 60 sp. Total Parking 264 sp. Open Space (not including storm channel/easement) 244,275 s.f. = 35.6% Open Space (including storm channel/easement) 349,955 s.f. = 44.0 % INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST) 1 . EARTH a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create unstable earth conditions. b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced, over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for the structural developments which will take place on the site. c. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better direction. d. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate directing of runoff from the site. f. Not applicable. g. The area is an area susceptible to earthquakes as is the rest of the Coachella Valley. The level of geologic hazard is no greater than other developed areas of the Coachella Valley. Mitigation Measures The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must be designed by UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and occupancies being developed. V • INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 2. AIR a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance. Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's vacant condition. b. The proposal includes future restaurant development. These uses will be required to comply with City CEQA requirements on an individual basis. Appropriate odor mitigation measures will be imposed. c. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This is due to its size and identified uses. 3. WATER a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed to accept the water from the site. b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however the landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material. The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining property as it is directed in a controlled manner. c. The hydrology study discusses at length flood water control and the channel to be installed south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of- way. d. There is no surface water feature on the site. 2 111 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 e. See (d) above. f. There is no ground water present on the site. g. See f. h. While any development results in the use of water and therefore reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development. The area is subject to flooding. CVWD has a plan, as discussed in the hydrology study, to control flood waters. This plan will be implemented as part of the development of this area. 4. PLANT LIFE a. Presently the site contains weeds, sagebrush and other plants as outlined in the biological assessment. The project when completed will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the desert. b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of plant life. This is supported by the biological assessment prepared by James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, revised November 8, 1996. c. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area. d. As stated on the biological assessment, part of the east end of the site was formerly a vineyard. This use was allowed to die out many years ago. 3 1110 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 5. ANIMAL LIFE a-c. The biological assessment prepared by James Cornett discusses at length impacts on animal life on the site. The study concludes that with mitigation in the form of payment of the fringe-toed lizard preserve fee that the project will not have an adverse impact on the animal life. Such conditions will be imposed on all individual projects and the fee will be collected prior to issuance of grading permit. d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable long term habitat for wildlife. 6. NOISE a. Construction and subsequent operation of commercial, industrial and residential use may add to the ambient noise level. The noise level will not exceed the existing ambient level which is quite high due to the proximity to the Southern Pacific Railroad and the 1-10 freeway. Mitigation Measures Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional measures to mitigate traffic and operation noise will be required. b. The areas designated for future residential use are a substantial distance from the main noise generators in the area (i.e., 1-10 and railroad). Prior to development of these projects proponents will be required to prepare acoustical study showing compliance with Municipal Code and General Plan requirements for both indoor and outdoor activities. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent lighting spillover. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled. 4 • INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 8. LAND USE The project will not alter the proposed land use in the area. The planned land use for the area is identified as commercial, industrial and residential; the project would develop land uses permitted in these land use designations. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase the rate of usage of these resources. 10. RISK OF UPSET a. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion or escape of hazardous materials. This conclusion is confirmed by the biological survey of the site conducted by James Cornett during June 1996. b. Approval and implementation of the master plan will help to complete the arterial street system in the area (i.e., Gerald Ford Drive) which will be an improvement to the emergency evacuation plan. 11 . POPULATION a. The project includes future commercial, industrial and residential development on vacant land and will not result in changes in location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. The residential units were previously included in the General Plan. 12. HOUSING a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or region. This is based on the conclusions reached in item 1 1 . In addition this is currently being projected some 8,000 unsold housing units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being developed, over 600 in the city of Palm Desert alone. 5 111, • INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 As well, this project will provide up to 900 multi-family units which could be expected to be occupied by some employees from the commercial and industrial sections. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION a. Additional traffic will be created. The circulation impact study determined that the maximum intensity alternate could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon build out in 2005. While the "Trend Alternate" would generate 54,930 trip ends, current General Plan would result in 85,420 trip ends. Mitigation Measures The study recommends various mitigation measures which will be implemented as the master plan projects are constructed. b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be supplied by the individual projects on site. c. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project should not generate additional demands on existing transportation systems. In addition, these systems have adequate capacity. d. Principal access to the project will be from the existing 1-10, Cook Street and the future Gerald Ford Drive. e. Not applicable. f. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by item 13(a) in addition to the required sidewalks, the impact should be positive. There are problems currently existing in the north section of the city and the public improvements required of the applicant will alleviate some of them. 6 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 14. PUBLIC SERVICE a-f. None. The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use. A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the study area has been developed, and the General Plan and zoning maps designated the area for urban development. Infrastructure improvements (i.e., storm channel, streets, utilities) have been made and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in terms of efficiency and greater economic return generated from these uses, versus the current state of the land. 15. ENERGY a-b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature. 16. UTILITIES All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development. 17. HUMAN HEALTH The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term nor will it impact the level of community health. 18. AESTHETICS The proposal will be developed consistent with the zoning and General Plan requirements for building locations and setbacks. As a result any scenic vista will not be impacted. 19. RECREATION The property is currently vacant. No recreational facilities were planned for this property. 7 INITIAL STUDY CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d. As part of the biological assessment the biologist walked the site extensively and conducted research of past uses of the property. No cultural resources were noted. 21 . MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. The biological assessment discusses this matter at length and concludes that there will be no adverse impact. b-d. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 8 I • 44/11 S7 •It, f ©01W 01 IalU l D o t° r61 d.' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRcumENTAL CHECKLIST I. Background 1. Date per, e7 1 f 9-g 2. Case No. / 9l-d , f'P2c-/o - 'rpm ,�,(9 6?"6 3. Applicant 11 //✓4(D £' t `re, t,45:5dc 141FS ON gel/(a F p fD Freecfoli4.4 . co . II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required 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? X_ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? — X 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? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or c , any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Yes Maybe No 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambie nt 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? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 2 _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or low of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe No b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or num- bers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms 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 migra- tion or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned • land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? /X` Yes Maybe No b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? )( _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov- ernmental 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? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X Yes Maybe No b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health ha7a rd or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? /X_ 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 4 20. C,ultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially ,reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Yes Maybe No important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 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 rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Toes the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (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? III, Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi11 be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 6 � / /%I(Daeepc Siam ure For STAFF REPORT C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488 DECEMBER 17, 1996 VI. RECOMMENDATION: That Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488 be continued to January 21 , 1997 in order that the necessary environmental review may be processed through California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Legal notice B. Comments from city departments and other agencies C. Plans and exhibits Prepared by Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved-by, Phil rell /tm 9 I 414114444*-44 • 4 pita 1 • . „ August 1996 Endo Engineering J Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments August 16, 1996 Mr. Marvin Roos Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 SUBJECT: Wonder Palms Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Roos; Pursuant to your request, Endo Engineering has analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts associated with the 270-acre Wonder Palms Commercial Center, in the City of Palm Desert. It is our understanding that the project site is located south of the Interstate 10/Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, east of Portola Avenue, and on both sides of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Two project alternatives were evaluated in detail, based upon the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) model. Each conceptual land plan alternative included: freeway-oriented businesses, regional commercial uses, industrial/business uses, commer- cial/residential uses, office uses, and multi-family residential uses. The development inten- sity was greater for Alternative 1 than it was for Alternative 2 (except with regard to the residential uses proposed on-site). • The pages which follow summarize in graphic and narrative form: • an analysis of existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity (including morning and evening peak hour counts and capacity evaluations of six existing intersections); • an assessment of project buildout conditions (year 2005) with and without two project development alternatives (including morning and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersections); • future cumulative conditions (year 2010) with and without two project development alternatives based upon the CVATS model (including morning and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersec- tions); and • mitigation measures designed to reduce any significant impacts identified with development Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 to acceptable levels. City staff input and assistance in the development of this report has been greatly appreci- ated. A well coordinated effort was essential to the execution of the work program, and the City's cooperation in providing necessary information and data in a timely fashion contributed in no small measure to the completion of this study. 95 Argonaut - Suite 115, Aliso Viejo, California 92656-1487 (714) 768-4333 FAX (714) 768-0718 We trust that the information provided herein will assist the City in their review of the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Should questions or comments arise regarding the findings and recommendations within this report, please do not hesitate to contact our offices at (714) 768-4333. Cordially, ENDO ENGINEERING QRpFESS104,q� t cat et -6 ric(.a Gt,\ LEE E4,, FOe Vicki Lee Endo Registered Professional TR 1161 Traffic Engineer TR 1161 98 .* TRAFFIC �IgTE OF CAL1F0� \ 2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Existing Circulation Conditions 1. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10, State Route 111, and State Route 74. 2. Direct site access is available from Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Portola Avenue. 3. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Drive currently exceeds the City of Palm Desert performance standard of LOS C by operating at LOS D during morning peak hours and LOS C during evening peak hours. Westbound motorists currently experience LOS E operation and significant delay during peak travel periods. This intersection appears to currently meet daily planning level signal warrants. Signalization of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue is included in the Palm Desert Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. 4. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive at Eldorado Drive is currently operating at LOS C during evening peak hours and LOS A during morning peak hours. 5. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive does not appear to currently meet signal warrants and is not expected to meet signal warrants except: (1) under future year 2005+Alternative 1 conditions; or (2) under future year 2010+Alternative 2 conditions. 6. All four of the key signalized intersections currently operate at Level of Service B during morning and evening peak hours. 1.2 Circulation Impacts 1. Alternative 1 could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon buildout in the year 2005, if all of the floor area is constructed and fully occupied. Of that total, 8,905 trip-ends (3,889 inbound and 5,016 outbound) would occur during the evening peak hour and 3,802 trip-ends would be generated during the morning peak hour (2,672 inbound and 1,130 outbound). 2. Alternative 2 (which includes similar but less intense land uses than Alternative 1) would generate 54,930 average weekday trip-ends (approximately 60 percent of the traffic associated with Alternative 1). 3. Alternative 3 (the existing General Plan designations on-site) could generate an estimated 85,420 average weekday trip-ends (94% of that of Alternative 1). 4. Five key intersections appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants, based upon year 2005 ambient (no-project) traffic volumes including: (1) Gerald Ford Drive @ Portola Avenue, (2) Gerald Ford Drive @ Cook Street, (3) Gerald Ford Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive, (4) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Eastbound Ramps, and (5) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Westbound Ramps. Gerald Ford Drive at Cook Street will be signalized approximately 6 months after the Cook Street 1-1 interchange is opened in 1997. Signals will be installed and operational at the inter- sections of the I-10 ramps with Cook Street when the Cook Street interchange is opened. 5. Future year 2005 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the following. • The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours under year 2005 ambient conditions (assuming existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005). • With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2005 ambient volumes, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak hour, and four intersections will have a drop in level of service during the PM peak hour. Year 2005+Alternative 1 volumes will require a third northbound through lane at the intersection of Cook Street and the Interstate 10 eastbound ramps as well as a second southbound right-turn lane and a third eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. • With Alternative 2, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak hour, and two intersections will have a drop in level of service during the PM peak hour. No additional intersection approach lanes (beyond existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005) will be required to accommodate year 2005+Alternative 2 volumes at LOS C. 6. Future year 2010 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the following. • The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours under year 2010 ambient conditions (assuming lane geometrics consistent with the master planned circulation system). • With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2010 ambient volumes, six-lane cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Additional approach lanes will also be necessary at the Cook Street/Inter- statel0 interchange under construction and at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street(beyond typical arterial intersection lane geometrics). • With Alternative 2, all required intersection approach lanes at key intersec- tions will be consistent with the master planned cross sections. Six-lane arterial cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive to accommodate year 2010 volumes at acceptable levels of service. 1.3 Recommended Mitigation 1. Figure 5-1 illustrates the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2005 conditions with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 2. Figure 5-2 shows the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2020 conditions with each project alternative. 1-2 3. Figure 5-3 summarizes the conditions under which traffic volumes appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants at the unsignalized key intersections. 4. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 1 indicate that the key intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections, except at three intersections. 5. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 2 indicate that the key intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections. 6. The project(Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) will contribute through participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to future improve- • ments required along regional facilities (e.g. widening of: (1) Monterey Avenue through the intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra; and (2) Country Club Drive at the intersection of Cook Street to their master planned six-lane cross section). 7. Master planned streets bordering the project site shall be constructed to their ultimate half-sections in conjunction with adjacent development on-site. 8. Direct access to the site shall be designed to comply with City design standards and insure that adequate sight distance is provided for motorists. 9. Sight distances at access points and internal intersections shall be considered during the review of site plans, landscape plans, and project graphics. Landscape materi- als shall be selected to minimize interference with traffic sight distances. 10. The proposed cross-sections and internal roadway layout shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer during the development review process to insure compliance with City standards. 11. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the City of Palm Desert. 12. Non-motorized transportation facilities and corridors (golf cart paths, bike lanes, bike paths, etc.) shall be considered both off site and on site and shall be consistent with City of Palm Desert and regional plans for the project vicinity. 13. The project shall accommodate public transit needs, as determined by the City of Palm Desert in conjunction with Sunline Transit Authority. 14. Section 5.1 includes circulation design guidelines for consideration in developing detailed plans for development of the project site. 15. Section 5.2 includes a discussion of various measures to alter traffic demand related to the project for consideration in developing detailed plans for the project site. 16. Project-specific mitigation shall be considered by the City of Palm Desert upon application for detailed precise plans. 1-3 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 4, 1997 continued from January 21 , 1997 and December 17, 1996 CASE NOS: C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28448 PP REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development), master plan of development and tentative parcel map for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street. APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates for David Freedman & Company 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 I. BACKGROUND: This matter was before commission December 17, 1996. At that time the matter was continued to allow the biological assessment to be reviewed through the CVAG process. This matter was discussed at a meeting at CVAG on Thursday, January 16, 1997. It was decided that the parties would meet again on Monday, February 3, 1997 to attempt to agree to a long term mitigation plan for the property. The applicant at the January 16, 1997 hearing requested that the public hearing be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting after February 3, 1997. Staff will give an oral report to commission on the results of the February 3, 1997 meeting at CVAG. II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff will make a recommendation based on the outcome of the February 3, 1997 meeting and present same to commission at the conclusion of our oral report. Prepared by _ Steve Smith Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell /tm BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and IMPACT ANALYSIS of the proposed HEINRICH COMMERCIAL PROJECT Located Within The CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: KATRINA HEINRICH 1345 North Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, California 92262 Field Study and Report Completed By: JAMES W. CORNETT Ecological Consultants P.O. Box 846 Palm Springs, California 92263 Revised November 8, 1996 CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map 5 Figure 2 - Project Site Map 6 Site and Project Descriptions 7 Research Methods 9 Plant Survey Results 11 Animal Survey Results 12 Findings, Requirements and Recommendations 14 References 17 Individuals Contacted 19 Definitions 20 Certification Statement 21 Appendix 22 Table 1 - Plant Species Recorded 23 Table 2 - Expected Vertebrates 26 Exhibit A - Resume of James W. Cornett 30 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted on a 270-acre site located within the city limits of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. With the exception of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, no officially listed plant or animal species was detected during the field surveys. No significant habitats were found. This project, upon the completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within the region. page 3 II. INTRODUCTION On May 6, 1996, James W. Cornett - Ecological Consultants was informed of the necessity of conducting a biological survey on 270 acres within the city limits of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California, and requested by Marvin Roos of Mainiero, Smith and Associates of Palm Springs to make a proposal to conduct such a survey . JWC was contracted to conduct the biological survey on June 7, 1996 by Mr. Roos. Specifically, the site included most of the southwest quarter of Section 28, most of the northern half of Section 33 and a portion of the western half of Section 34 (Range 6 East, Township 4 South; San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian). The location is shown in Figure 1 on page 5 and Figure 2 on page 6. This study was included as part of an environmental assessment mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and required by the City of Palm Desert. The biological survey and impact analysis were designed to ascertain the impacts of grading and clearing on the plant and animal resources of the Project Site and immediate vicinity. The following tasks were undertaken in the preparation of the biological report: 1. Conduct an inventory of the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species on, and immediately adjacent, the Project Site. 2. Determine the presence of any plant or animal species presently state or federally listed as threatened or endangered. 3. Determine the presence of any plant or animal species being formally considered for state or federal listing. 4. Determine the existence of any sensitive biotic elements or communities. 5. Develop measures to mitigate both direct and indirect adverse effects of the proposed project on any listed plant or animal species or unique biotic elements or communities. page 4 Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map. Low - i,, i � : ., �� ,. `i�, o ` .LL r.o�1 •n ' T YI I �' 0...A A6I, n mar ot r • ,▪ .• -Split Roche 6 =•�j._ .WIYI._ I ` IP AIM*. r :arc n•w 1 I a 161 A II` �..� r 1 �`a wows`. i' e• ' 4, won,- •WO*LU MM. \ r..Of.�s - l/fl, , i '' .",�' emu c �.n L ' '� o.Me. ; 62 . .,.I. 3 «�- - NOT SPAIN= °\' ` C' " O _°..r. W. 21 7... ,' " . +; gTREE \.sr....._ A. Eyp T, A y,,w ra/Ji n re. •" '1.. r.s ow 8 l+•►Z..�i� L. •r .�!; Laar Morro Mtn tiblopo, -,,.• 3 O. $3 �`t. "a`w a .Jg • 0 Y 4 Noll nnig w / • EPA ft01111 F j' - ''~ Mom,.. f ;..o K." ;.'�,.. ' NATIONAL s4's. •wn r.tY' 1 4_ 1 1^:PaS'lgek1r� := _ - - '- `i�, y�� • \ w. .�.� n.emuA/»�'ca \ ~ 1. so j'_�I� z_.. -• ``+.�5- -Di .1 't t' '_i .-' 4 O s.c1" ., Palm'= �. -� - \A .a ,' a ur Vgi:a v.', ti /I en•n � °'\Ill\ e w 1. sn a /' •• '11 Sky a 34� �; ,i8.\`„ +o\o coy �G 1 l_ p..ii\'rS 1. '�rA.sr•a °e�.,N 1 4, r ry�Y _- • �,./ l • ;� "---1.--, pass. \`yy . Avow 1 '• : fs - •r .�i I(' 41` ._ —. 4 -}-�Ca ;r�f. \� �`'•• r I cram rsx G• _/I`y Y'. ./ •'e ' a ..\' ' Imo_ Ln �,r,ol � 1 IR.2t'.c l.11.rri.n •� " ___ - 1. � "•' '- - \ ol AOYA II % 0Aa2�a Tz E¢ -21 1 ;q-_ ' _ 1 a '• am= ,17, I r. ,.r \\ { on , 4. - 4 ♦, •' IL I it I r LL 1 3EI LL C 1 LL' i0 , LI. ,,na _ Thousand Tow- ,, = bola %. _ �-_.N_i��,r JJ __ _ o� - A 1_- -- ` , - WNW Polma Uasitl• renaave Y ' 1' JACI\TO .:'.• L: i IL PALM u..,:i S I •m.• LL rocs , . . \l I/A�+,.r.n. - I 2! (r I •.wr , :. T rr: . _ .I=.` e .4 .Fe LL :AA!. a . E LL I I ••' 3 $.1ai; `m 1 .Y/ ,�_ C.�' ty N W 11 1 4 I 2 i- 1 ...C_ i 1 \ jr. !r•2 i 1 o Nf' �.ua__aP /I.L1 SANTA , `•po . a.r ao 7.." r -• _ 21 .`.• m( y.� •RDINO .i'r T LL 1 tL //1 CATNEDR�L ` « I ' _ ~r�� • : uwr.n rI \\ ) C-.L.- -n:col::-`.a p��?r L. ... ®�11?.•�: d )III14-'' = fd0°.� C -- • .Taiwan PA •yb j 1 LL `M,,.xeAa`' \. MIL Ih.• e R�..Low ... ., _ - \ of•of--'-. \-�/ \'� can L \�)/�:� i�•\I.L1 . 3! 1 PV--- 1 r tow 1 'o� �C:-�_ - -t — -- +wnmraua-- ...., how . \ II._ ,t Whirr ��fi�\� �� _ r �-T i"..tir-'tow' ._ ro, u' RANNOMMAi ' $- -2L•••.,o. 0, . sow \\ r L- r.Q .mrFL.i asaw•t.Sr. ...0 .III a C. r 1 •n• ra.r. z a _ t .. C.•13/C 4 A a/. lit �'i.LI 3I I •�V. ..w.'`..'1. �� ✓�� • `0\°. ryry I 1 1 '1♦ PALM 21 _I� m. r Q -•• ��' Phw1_"1�e-1--Tl.e ..��j ,.,•.— r7v9 ---a 7 DRIRT —-'NEUE ; 0 1..•.0 -_,\� 0.� _ ��`O /Eat gib\: a 91 I..`1 aua,A008 II S. NATIONAL SCENIC AREA 7 ,:" �� _ I 1 •1 INDIO c�'o s..*.a �•-+��4--f 1.LY \ �`' /,'r ,./ i, 4 _ • I-' glrm ., ,...Lc,„.. •• i t 91•1,.,•..la.4. • 1 - l __.r.•,;„,:,r4o, "ti.,re so/� \ .. . - Iki 4.• <.e•cow • APaViwK •__ ms _ _. •Ie _CO i • n ar•r i o .1 r.°A, y InJso.s, . .4i /4 A lA TO, • '• _ s e cone Pk. J. H,nrrn Ir1{ of- -, c an.a r`r ; For more aetadM IKreanon into..nos m:L. 6 i+'41yo ;�' A a 1 PO- 'Yr `-�i'''''..." \'' -s s K the area oothned,n orange.see the A.0 C.1 '�� .` i' ..pwe . ,.1 _ • _ . - 1 I I"Street Map of Palm Sprt JrlaM ka".. !II1„ la_ �4I:.re 'd ••oor•ol • jean ..w. MEC .'a es WO :r.'ilrI,..{ "EST �� •u�.,•uj., Ob+ Co C.J n...•s�ro. ?7 • Go ^ >� it...,. rr `` ?� • en-.s". I._ \.. -..i L_•••AM A.-A -' ...) ranur�.S •,,, - \ \ . ♦ I :w•rRMRne /r..r.l.trr. ! oo,AMMO i..., 12 wm OM* rw«rwr.w ../•••stow p D.P.r...sr 4 DAME REfYGE 4-0 . . I 1 I - - N. • :eu tr GAMIN.ova V / �� 111 Oi N;�.,glue at` j .V r;wlYrax�L ` g \ a'•/ 1 sl �� _ • �_ \C) N 1 • ♦ ,� 8r i.--mow, It; \•, tl ,4,.. sAr«;.r.. p j.._. .a ._b ; �irs snti,i�orJ '�C`. s S.r as e ,4.r• ��--" \� - __ ' `-\ eARA pOG I / ZAt \- e�Y .. \ tI • _— 6sr `•\�J`•_J' \�' uEcw " '74I .t� ...0. r �o0=N •1;`ono moor;cur SANER OOSA i gii.\ 0,_'r " �\••\.•\ 45 A -` s.:irsM„A'�'ga ..=rV AyiR� •a ;•c, I AC I� __ ..`\\a♦.,z` 11 men VillagA• � /'' AN*i.n ...11.4k., -� Ur��'j'i ., ••••... r. y r I is k • m a�.\_ �,lrr A,� J.♦ \ 100►r7°uo1 (�1 A • - ! :La p { ` ,o.•ar„Mya. `IA,/ ]1 A.Mel AIOIINTAMK !T 0NAl _• J 1► \\ v.,. J• ' ,- ® �.• o ♦ lII. .:r.,. ' . A. , - 11- I LL . _r.Zsri \ _ 1I .. It rewwure. • i,, • 1 j'I 1^',I..... 1 1 =/ Ty • aad UMW ...�(_9`' AREA 1 ry _ r1 r.. r l� 1 1 - �.�a. ,eta:, — l 1 ; _ a Tenn tiger 1.va _ ti I • low 1- l �. 'yi4 Reproductionnl of tors map or 1::\\ .. LL ••••,., i ^-�" �a dr, "•sa'._L r �'-'It(' '-• any portnln thereof constitutes \ ._ \ •r 11 u -TTW.ip. i�tR h i ' 1�., memo•e•• nMngenMnt of COgng{I1L �'.. i 2:L� ,1 a,ton�,,._ `4 r• • I (•Dry " I \ • A \4.\ ..I 8e.... L E � .- e, I `. I Corrnntrond ^Lis {samara Peek •� I s.\. ' i --.-=\ i .urn 'r4 I 1.. 44 -1 111- 1 ' J '.1'.- " Ce^_1: ' vMIIIIII MN")�s,. �-,) r-1 S.- a.6e.N. VP'..-- 'II .`-\°i"'x 1 h� I f I:. .nc-t Via,.. I /. , '-V low •ono 11 dd. a An ar / i% �� rr........ • -r..•1••.. 1 A.HZMBOREC(1 °' ft.SANT\DF1IER1'1 a•'ROSA STATE a, '1♦, PARK a.lk'.I it 1 SOl.000 '1 C '\ ' ass . I la{, 'et arm c slow �ar'-`S Ca Cat'%‘. .i, MOUNTAINS !b 1 �` page 5 Figure 2 - Project Site Map. _ N \- III II I ' III ' \� � •1I 1� II Y II 1 II II RAMON ROAD Y tl• \ • ` s a 'IC' S0 21 22 ' • m ,, 2: ao , . , ,n_., ... .. (\L.. , c\ j»t\ C \ • I /72 \ V203 r' V \� C..c O A _-C H �^� L 29 28 2.T �YI 26 o --/Bay r• 4,N i� i chase School ' \ 0 • oY I 40001.04, ,, , • /59 N. `\ (\i' .1,,..,.\. CID \ :> . 'N.,..,....,,NN \N 1 `• .\- ..4 s, \ , ,,‘, 32 =_'sass_ 35 , 1 N 30.. \\ NA if -• 't.k. '' I .. page 6 III. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Climate The project area lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado Desert as defined by Jaeger (1957). As is typical of this subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, annual rainfall averages less than four inches (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1951). Most precipitation falls during the winter and late spring with occasional summer storms accounting for approximately one-fourth of the annual total (Cornett, 1980). Winter days are mild, averaging 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter nights occasionally drop to near freezing. The month of July brings the hottest temperatures with daytime highs averaging 107 degrees F. Physical Features The elevation of the Project Site is approximately 200 feet above sea level. The land gently rises to the southwest. No relief exists except for scattered sand hummocks which rise approximately two to seven feet above their base. The hummocks have been formed by shrubs which interrupt the flow of sand-carrying wind coming from the west. The shrubs sufficiently reduce wind velocity to result in sand deposits or "hummocks." Loose, windblown sand from the west continues to be deposited over most of the site. There are no naturally occurring springs, permanent aquatic habitats or drainages on the Project Site. In addition no blue-line streams, as depicted on United States Geological Survey topographical maps, exist within the project boundaries. Surrounding Lands To the west and south and immediately adjacent the Project Site, lies open desert dominated by shrubs surrounded by loose, windblown sand. A Southern Pacific Railway and the Interstate 10 freeway together form the northern boundary of the site. Abandoned vineyards and agricultural lands form the site's eastern boundary. page 7 Existing Impacts The extreme southeastern portion of the site, in Section 34, has been graded and converted into a vineyard with a windbreak of tamarisk trees planted along the vineyard's western boundary. The vineyard has been abandoned for a number of years and the grape vines have been allowed to die. The vineyard covers approximately ten acres of the Project Site. A second disturbance involves Cook Street Interchange and the extensions of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive to the interchange. These road improvements have eliminated the natural vegetation on approximately fifteen acres of the Project Site. Illegal dumping has occurred on site, particularly to the east of Cook Street. Total land area impacted by dumping is estimated to be less than five percent of the site. Illegal dumping can destroy indigenous vegetation and otherwise alter the environment making it less suitable for native fauna. Off-road-vehicle impacts were noted but did not appear to impact more than five percent of the site. ORV use can destroy plant and animals outright, collapse burrows and compact soil making it unsuitable for plants and animals adapted to life on loose, windblown alluvium. Project Description As of May 6, 1996, the project proposal involves the ultimate construction of freeway- oriented businesses, industrial facilities, retail establishments, general commercial enterprises and possibly some residential structures. It is anticipated that the entire site will be graded. page 8 IV. RESEARCH METHODS Prior to the initiation of field work, a review of the literature and museum records was undertaken to determine the biological resources that might exist within the general area, and to determine the possible occurrence of officially-listed plant or animal species (see References section). Records, collections and staff of the University of California at Riverside Herbarium, the Living Desert and the Palm Springs Desert Museum were consulted for more specific information as to occurrence (see Section IX). In addition, a records check of the California Natural Diversity Data Base was performed. The Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish & Game, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service were contacted for information regarding the sensitive biological elements of the Project Site and vicinity and concerns regarding rare, candidate or listed species. The Project Site was surveyed by JWC Ecological Consultants. Formal surveys were conducted during the daylight hours of June 8, 9, 15, and 16, 1996, and at night on June 9 and 16, 1996. The survey days were warm and calm in the morning hours and windy and hot in the late afternoon. Evenings were warm and somewhat windy. The dates and times of the field surveys coincided with the blooming and/or fruiting period of sensitive plant species and maximum activity periods of sensitive animal species within the region, unless otherwise noted. Plant surveys were conducted by walking north-south transects at ten-meter-intervals through the Project Site and fifty meters beyond all site boundaries unless prevented from doing so by urban environments, thick vegetation or hazardous topography. Animal surveys were conducted simultaneously with plant surveys. In addition, one hundred Sherman live-animal traps (which capture animals unharmed) for large and small mammals were set within the Project Site. Both day and night live-trapping was conducted. Surveys were also done at night by driving slowly down paved and dirt roads in and adjacent the Project Site. Although scientific name changes occur as new discoveries are made in plant and animal taxonomy, the scientific names used in this report are taken from the standard and most available references describing the species found in Southern California--James A. Hickman's The Jepson Manual published in 1993; J. P. Smith's Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California published in 1994; R. A. Stebbins'A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians published in 1985; Peterson's Western Birds published in 1990; and E. W. Jameson and H. J. Peeters California mammals published in 1988. page 9 Plant common names used in this report are taken from Hickman (1994), Jaeger (1969), Munz (1961 and 1974) and Smith (1988). Animal common names are taken from Stebbins (1985), Peterson's Western Birds (1990) and Jameson and Peeter (1988). Field work and report preparation were completed by James W. Cornett. Mr. Cornett's resume can be found on pages 30 and 31 as Exhibit A in the Appendix. page 10 V. PLANT SURVEY RESULTS A single, native plant association or "community" was found on the site: the Sonoran creosote bush scrub community as defined by Holland (1986). Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and allscale (Atriplex polycarpa) dominate the vegetation of most of the Project Site and are common shrub species throughout much of the Colorado Desert of southeastern California. The creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the largest native perennial on the site and is relatively common. Like the two aforementioned shrubs, the creosote bush is found over much of the Colorado Desert. The southeastern 15% of the Project Site was converted to agriculture many years ago. Grape vines were planted at that time but have now died due to the halting of irrigation. All of the native vegetation had been removed when the vineyard was established. Today the site is dominated by weedy species including Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii) and mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus). A row of tamarisk trees (Tamarix aphylla) had been planted along the western border of the vineyard to protect it from windblown sand. The trees continue to survive without irrigation. Each of these introduced species is common throughout the California deserts wherever the natural vegetation has been removed. The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, published by the California Native Plant Society (1994), the CNDDB Special Plant List (1994) and the Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (1994) list a total of four plant species that are known to occur within the Coachella Valley and are normally found in sandy habitats. They are: the glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis clariana), ribbed cryptantha (Cryptantha costata), flat-seeded spurge (Chamaesyce platysperma) and Coachella Valley milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus coachellae). None of these species were found during the field surveys. However this does not mean that they do not occur on the Project Site. The paucity of winter rains prior to the surveys resulted in little or no germination of annuals and perennials and therefore the previously-mentioned plant species could be present as seed and therefore go undetected. A complete list of vascular plant species found within the project boundaries can be found in Table 1 of the Appendix. page 11 VI. ANIMAL SURVEY RESULTS The fauna of the Project Site and surrounding vicinity is comprised of species typical of the Colorado Desert subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. Common reptiles include the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), western shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis) and the federally listed Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inomata). Frequently seen birds within the project area were the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), common raven (Corvus corax), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Frequently detected mammals include the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus califomicus), Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys deserti) and coyote (Canis latrans). The California Department of Fish & Game Special Animals (1992) report lists four animal species that were found on site: the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inomata), burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) and Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus). Of these four species, only the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard is officially listed. Both the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and Palm Springs ground squirrel were detected several times on site and can be expected over most of the area surveyed. Four observations of the burrowing owl were made and one active den was found on site. The den was found approximately two hundred feet east of the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. This species is not officially listed or proposed to be listed. One observation of the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), formally a Category 2 Candidate species for listing by the federal government, was recorded. No nests were found but this species can be assumed to nest on or near the Project Site since it nests in similar habitat elsewhere in the Sonoran Desert and Coachella Valley (Cornett, 1987; Cameron Barrows, personal communication). A concerted effort was made to locate sign of the officially listed desert tortoise (Goperhus agassizi). However, no evidence of any kind was found and no direct observations were made. It is therefore concluded that this species does not currently occur within the Project Site and immediate vicinity. Although no individuals of the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) were page 12 located on the site, undisturbed portions of the Project Site should be considered habitat for this species since it is typically found on loose, sandy soils. The species has been proposed to be listed as a threatened species. No surveys for invertebrates were conducted. No officially listed species are known to occur in this region. A complete list of vertebrate species observed or detected on the Project Site can be found in Table 2 of the Appendix. page 13 VII. FINDINGS, REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The completed project can be expected to eliminate approximately 270 acres of desert Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat including the native plant and animal species that currently live on the Project Site. However, this habitat is widespread in the Southwest and therefore its loss on the Project Site cannot be said to constitute a significant negative impact to the continued existence of the plant community. Additionally, it cannot be said that this project will have a significant negative impact on any of the species of plants and animals recorded from the Project Site. Each of the species listed in Table 1 and Table 2 have ranges that extend far beyond the Project Site and therefore the loss of their habitat within the project boundaries must be said to constitute an insignificant loss. In the case of all listed or sensitive species, it is conservatively estimated that less than 1% of the total population occurs on the Project Site (see discussions of ranges in the appropriate references in Section VIII on page 26). As discussed earlier in this report, the biological survey detected one species, the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, that is officially-listed. Both the State of California and the federal government list this reptile as threatened. This project can be expected to eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project boundaries. The loss of individual fringe-toed lizards and their habitat can be officially mitigated by the payment of a $600 per acre fee for each acre developed. This mitigation structure has been established by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game. The fee is applied when lands within known or historical fringe-toed lizard habitat are developed. The Project lies within the fee area (see Figure S-1, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan) and thus the developer is required to pay $162,000 to the City of Palm Desert, the agency that receives the mitigation payments. These funds are then turned over to the Nature Conservancy to purchase fringe-toed lizard habitat in special preserves, named the Coachella Valley Preserves, for the purpose of maintaining suitable habitat for the lizard as well as other species. The Coachella Valley milk vetch, flat-seeded spurge, flat-tailed horned lizard, loggerhead shrike and Palm Springs ground squirrel are all sensitive species mentioned in this report. Each was either detected on site or known to occur in habitat similar to that found on the Project Site. Each of these species occurs along with the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard within the Coachella Valley Preserve system. Because the aforementioned species are not officially listed at this time and because the developer page 14 will be required to pay a fee to purchase habitat within the preserve which harbors populations of these five species, no additional mitigation is recommended for these species at this time. The Project will have negative indirect impacts on the surrounding biota. The Project Site will no longer serve as a source of emigration of native plant and animal species into the natural surrounding lands. This project can be expected to increase vehicular traffic in the area, noise levels, light pollution, human and domestic animal use of surrounding lands, introduction and dispersal of exotic plant species and development in the region. All of these occurrences can be expected to decrease the diversity and density of native plants and animals in the region surrounding the project. Although these impacts cannot be quantified, it is not expected that they will have a significant negative impact since the resident species have ranges that extend far beyond the area subjected to secondary impacts. Although the negative indirect impacts are not considered significant, two general recommendations are made to lessen the impact of this development on the surrounding biological communities. They are as follows: 1. Plant species native to the immediate region should be used in landscaped areas. The use of native plant species helps maintain a food and cover base for indigenous animal species, particularly birds, that cannot utilize exotic plants for cover or food. 2. The night lighting of streets, yards and recreation areas can be expected to penetrate beyond the Project Site boundaries and into adjacent natural areas. Unnatural lighting can interfere with the nocturnal activity of animals in these areas. To minimize this impact, it is recommended that all outdoor lighting be directed at the ground. Mitigation Summary Required 1. Pay $162,000 to the City of Palm Desert as part of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard mitigation plan and obtain necessary permits from the Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Recommended 1. Utilize native plants in landscaped areas. 2. Direct outdoor lighting towards ground. page 15 Interim Project Review It is recommended that this project have an Interim Project Review by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game. This review functions to coordinate land use proposals with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) presentlybeingdeveloped. Earlyidentification of potential P impacts will assist in identifying appropriate mitigation measures and avoiding conflicts with critical elements of the MSHCP. page 16 VIII. REFERENCES California Department of Fish & Game. 1992. Special animals. Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish & Game. 1994. Endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California. Natural Heritage Division, Endangered Plant Program, Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish & Game. 1994. Special plants list. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, California. Cornett, J. W. 1987. Wildlife of the North American deserts. Nature Trails Press, Palm Springs, California. Cornett, J. W. 1980. Coachella Valley nature guide. Nature Trails Press, Palm Springs, California. Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in jeopardy. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society, Los Angeles, California. Hickman, J. C. (editor). 1993. The Jepson manual. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, California. Jaeger, E. C. 1957. The North American deserts. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Jaeger, E. C. 1969. Desert wildflowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Munz, P. A. 1974. A flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. National Geographic Society. 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National Geographic Society, Washington D.C. Peterson, R. T. 1990. Western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York. page 17 Ryan, R. M. 1968. Mammals of Deep Canyon. Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm Springs, California. Smith, J. P., Jr. and R. York (editors). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, California. Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Stewart, J. M. 1993. Colorado desert wildflowers. Jon Stewart Photography, Palm Desert, California. Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. 1992. Natural environment study for proposed Cook Street Interchange, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. City of Palm Desert. United States Weather Bureau, 1951. Climatological summary for Indio U.S. Date Garden, Riverside County, California. San Francisco, California. Weathers, W. W. 1983. Birds of Southern California's Deep Canyon. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. Alfred A. Knoph, Inc., New York. page 18 IX. INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED The following individuals and institutions were contacted regarding biological resources of the proposed project. They are listed in alphabetical order. Katherine Barrows, La Quinta, June 25, 1996 Kevin Brennen, California Department of Fish & Game, June 18, 1996 Ken Corey, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, June 18, 1996 Bruce Love, CRM Tech, June 27, 1996 Patricia Lock-Dawson, Bureau of Land Management, June 19, 1996 Palm Springs Desert Museum (records check), June 19, 1996 Andy Sanders, Herbarium, University of California at Riverside, June 24, 1996 page 19 X. DEFINITIONS There are several federal classifications of plants and animals based upon the language of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The names of these classifications are used in the text of this report but, in the interest of readability, are defined here. The federal government classifies an endangered species as one in which the prospects for survival are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is one which may become endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and management efforts. The taking of officially listed species, in any form, is illegal. Consultations with the California Department of Fish & Game and/or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service can result in the issuing of permits to allow the taking of listed species under certain conditions. In the past, the federal government maintained a list of "candidate species." Candidate species were being considered for listing as threatened or endangered species. It is important to note that there have never been any legal requirements to protect or mitigate impacts to candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. At the present time the Fish & Wildlife Service has suspended the use of candidate categories. They are presented to provide continuity with past reports and studies. A Category 1 Candidate species is one that the United States Fish & Wildlife Service currently has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support the appropriateness of proposing to the list the taxa as an endangered or threatened species. In short, a Category 1 Candidate species can technically become listed at any time. A Category 2 Candidate species represents a taxa for which information now in the possession of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service indicates that proposing to list it as an endangered or threatened species is possibly appropriate, but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability and threats are not sufficiently known to support an immediate listing. A Category 3 Candidate species is one that has been a Candidate 2 species but no longer has candidate status. page 20 XI. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT I, James W. Cornett, hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Principal Investigator page 21 APPENDIX page 22 TABLE 1 PLANT SPECIES RECORDED HEINRICH COMMERCIAL PROJECT ANGIOSPERMAE - DICOTYLEDONES AMARANTHACEAE - AMARANTH FAMILY Amaranthus albus - White Tumbleweed Tidestromia oblongifolia - Honeysweet ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia dumosa - Burro-weed Baileya pauciradiata - Lax Flower Chaenactis fremontii - Desert Pincushion Conyza canadensis - Horseweed Dicoria canescens - Desert Dicoria Geraea canescens - Desert-sunflower Helianthus annuus - Common Sunflower Hymenoclea salsola - Cheesebush Palafoxia arida - Spanish Needle Psathyrotes ramosissima - Turtleback Sonchus oleraceus - Sow-thistle Stephanomeria exigua - Mitra BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia tessellata - Checker Fiddleneck Cryptantha angustifolia - Narrow-leafed Forget-me-not Cryptantha micrantha - Purple-rooted Forget-me-not Tiquilia plicata - Plicate Coldenia BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica tournefortii - Sahara Mustard Dithyrea californica - Spectacle-pod Sisymbrium irio - London Rocket page 23 CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY Atriplex canescens - Wingscale Atriplex polycarpa - Cattle Spinach Salsola tragus - Russian Thistle EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY Croton californicus - Desert Croton Chamaesyce polycarpa - Sand-mat FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY Prosopis glandulosa - Honeypod Mesquite Psorothamnus emoryi - Emory Dalea GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium cicutarium - Filaree LAMIACEAE - MINT FAMILY Salvia columbariae - Chia LOASACEAE - STICK-LEAF FAMILY Petalonyx thurberi - Thurber's Sandpaper Plant NYCTAGINACEAE - FOUR-O'CLOCK FAMILY Abronia villosa - Hairy Sand-Verbena Allionia incarnata - Windmills ONAGRACEAE - EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY Camissonia boothii - Bottle Washer Camissonia claviformis - Brown-eyed Primrose Oenothera deltoides - Dune Primrose PLANTAGINACEAE - PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago insularis - Plantain POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum inflatum - Desert Trumpet SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura metaloides - Jimson Weed page 24 TAMARICACEAE - TAMARISK FAMILY Tamarix aphylla - Athel Tree ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - CALTROP FAMILY Larrea tridentata - Creosote Bush Tribulus terrestris - Puncture Vine ANGIOSPERMAE - MONOCOTYLEDONES POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY Achnatherum speciosum - Desert Needlegrass Aristida adscensionis - Triple-awned Grass Bromus madritensis - Foxtail Grass Cynodon dacrylon - Bermuda Grass Leymus triticoides - Rye Grass Phalaris minor - Canary Grass Schismus barbatus - Abu-mashi page 25 TABLE 2 EXPECTED BREEDING OR OBSERVED VERTEBRATES HEINRICH COMMERCIAL PROJECT REPTILES GEKKONIDAE - GECKOS Coleonyx variegatus - Western Banded Gecko * IGUANIDAE - IGUANIDS Callisaurus draconoides - Zebra-tailed Lizard * Dipsosaurus dorsalis - Desert Iguana * Phrynosoma mcallii - Flat-tailed Horned Lizard ? Urosaurus graciosus - Long-Tailed Bush Lizard * Uma inornata - Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard * Uta stansburiana - Side-Blotched Lizard * TEIIDAE - WHIPTAILS Cnemidophorus tigris - Western Whiptail * LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE - BLIND SNAKES Leptotyphlops humilis - Western Blind Snake COLUBRIDAE - COLUBRIDS Arizona elegans - Glossy Snake * Chionactis occipitalis - Western Shovel-nosed Snake * Lampropeltis getulus - Common Kingsnake Masticophis flagellum - Coachwhip * Phyllorhynchus decurtatus - Spotted Leaf-nosed Snake * Pituophis melanoleucus - Gopher Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei - Long-nosed Snake VIPERIDAE - VIPERS Crotalus cerastes - Sidewinder * page 26 BIRDS ACCIPITRIDAE - OSPREY, HAWKS, EAGLES Buteo jamaicensis - Red-Tailed Hawk * FALCONIDAE CO DAE - FALCONS CO S Falco mexicanus - Prairie Falcon * Falco sparverius - American Kestrel * PHASIANIDAE - QUAIL Callipepla gambelii - Gambel's Quail * COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS AND DOVES Columba livia - Rock Dove * Zenaida macroura - Mourning Dove CUCULIDAE - CUCKOOS Geococcyx californianus - Greater Roadrunner * TYTONIDAE - BARN OWLS Tyto alba - Barn Owl * STRIGIDAE - TYPICAL OWLS Athene cunicularia - Burrowing Owl * CAPRIMULGIDAE - NIGHTJARS Chordeiles acutipennis - Lesser Nighthawk * Phalaenoptilus nuttallii - Common Poorwill TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte costae - Costa's Hummingbird * TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Sayomis saya - Say's Phoebe * CORVIDAE - CROWS AND JAYS Corvus corax - Common Raven * REMIZIDAE - VERDIN Auriparus flaviceps - Verdin * page 27 • • MIMIDAE - MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos - Northern Mockingbird * LANIIDAE - SHRIKES Lanius ludovicianus - Loggerhead Shrike * STURNIDAE - STARLINGS Sturnus vulgaris - European Starling * EMBERIZIDAE - WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS Amphispiza bilineata - Black-throated Sparrow * Euphagus cyanocephalus - Brewer's Blackbird * PLOCEIDAE - WEAVER FINCHES Passer domesticus - House Sparrow * FRINGILLIDAE - FINCHES Carpodacus mexicanus - House Finch * page 28 MAMMALS PHYLLOSTOMATIDAE - LEAF-NOSED BATS Macrotus californicus - California Leaf-nosed Bat * VESPERTILIONIDAE - EVENING BATS Antrozous pallidus - Pallid Bat Lasiurus cinereus - Hoary Bat ? Myotis californicus - California Myotis Pipistrellus hesperus - Western Pipistrelle * MOLOSSIDAE - FREE-TAILED BATS Tadarida brasiliensis - Brazilian Free-tailed Bat LEPORIDAE - HARES AND RABBITS Lepus californicus - Black-tailed Jackrabbit * SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS Spermophilus tereticaudus - Round-tailed Ground Squirrel * GEOMYIDAE - POCKET GOPHERS Thomomys bottae - Botta Pocket Gopher * HETEROMYIDAE - POCKET MICE, KANGAROO RATS Perognathus formosus - Long-tailed Pocket Mouse * Dipodomys deserti - Desert Kangaroo Rat * CRICETIDAE - DEER MICE AND WOODRATS Onychomys torridus - Southern Grasshopper Mouse Peromyscus eremicus - Cactus Mouse * Peromyscus maniculatus - Deer Mouse * MURIDAE - OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE Mus musculus - House Mouse * CANIDAE - FOXES, WOLVES, AND COYOTES Canis latrans - Coyote * * = sign or individual observed on site ? = possible occurrence on or near site; not detected during survey page 29 • • EXHIBIT A RESUME OF JAMES W. CORNETT EDUCATION B.A., Biology, University of California at Riverside, 1976 M.S., Biology, California State University at San Bernardino, 1980 Positions Held April, 1976 - Present Consulting Ecologist and owner, James W. Cornett - Ecological Consultants, P.O. Box 846, Palm Springs, California 92263. For the past nineteen years Mr. Cornett has been conducting biological studies focusing on rare plants and animals for both private and public agencies as part of the environmental review process required by the State of California. He established the herbarium at the Palm Springs Desert Museum and has had his research published in numerous journals including Madrono, Fremontia, Southwestern Naturalist, Natural History, Herpetological Review, Journal of Parasitology, San Bernardino Museum Quarterly, Western Birds and Principes. He has also written numerous books including Wildlife of The North American Deserts, Wildlife of The Western Mountains, Desert Palm Oasis, Saguaro and Scorpion. January, 1980 - Present Curator of Natural Science, Palm Springs Desert Museum, 101 Museum Drive, Palm Springs, California 92263. September, 1976 - December, 1979 Assistant Curator of Natural Science, Palm Springs Desert Museum September, 1975 - June, 1976 Natural Science Instructor, Palm Springs Desert Museum page 30 January, 1981 - Present Biology Instructor (part-time), University of California Extension, Riverside, California 92521, 714-787-4105. Courses taught: Desert Flora, Ecology of The Coachella Valley, Ecology of The Colorado Desert, Ecology of Desert Palm Oases, Ecology of The Joshua Tree, Mammals of The Colorado Desert and Desert Reptiles. October, 1975 - June, 1983 Biology and Natural Resources Instructor (part-time), College of The Desert, 43500 Monterey Road, Palm Desert, California 92260. January, 1973 - June, 1974 Assistant Naturalist (part-time), Living Desert Reserve, 47900 Portola Avenue, Palm Desert, California 92260, 619-346-5694. page 31 HYDROLOGY STUDY KATRINA HEINRICH PROPERTY COOK STREET SOUTH SIDE OF I-10 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA September 5, 1996 Prepared for Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. Prepared by Harold A. Vance, P.E. Consulting Civil Engineer t' TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Purpose of Study 1 B. Conclusions and Recommendations 1 II. OFFSITE HYDROLOGY 3 A. Tributary Drainage Area 3 B. Soils 3 C. Rainfall 3 D. Hydrograph Computation 4 E. 100-Year Discharge at Project Site 4 III. ONSITE HYDROLOGY 5 A. Onsite Rainfall 5 B. Proposed Development 5 C. Computation of 100-Year Runoff from Site 5 IV. INTERIM FLOOD PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES 6 A. Design Objectives 6 B. Alternative Interim Channel Configurations 6 V. RETENTION CONSIDERATIONS 8 A. Design Objectives - 8 B. Integration with Development Process 8 VI. FLOOD INSURANCE STATUS 9 -i- • VII. ATTACHMENT: Letter from Coachella Valley Water District VIII. CALCULATIONS A. Offsite Hydrology 1. Net Rain, West Boundary, Existing Conditions a. 3-hour storm b. 6-hour storm c. 24-hour storm 2. HEC-1 Analysis a. 3-hour storm b. 6-hour storm c. 24-hour storm B. Onsite Hydrology 1. Net Rain for Pervious Areas 2. Computation of Onsite Runoff Volume IX. FIGURE 1: HYDROLOGY MAP -ii- INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Study This study was requested to determine the flood protection and retention requirements for development of the 270-acre Katrina Heinrich property located on both sides of Cook Street just south of the I-10/Southern Pacific Railway Corridor in the City of Palm Desert. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is the regional flood control authority in this part of Riverside County, under authority of the California State Stormwater Act of 1909 and Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 348 and 460 (Please see letter from CVWD dated July 17, 1996 in Section VII). The project site is located within a watershed designated by the CVWD as the "Mid-Valley Area". The Mid-Valley Area is a watershed which extends northwesterly of the project site along the I-10 Freeway approximately 9.5 miles, and drains easterly. There is no adequate outlet for flows from this watershed, and no existing regional flood control facilities. The CVWD has developed a master plan Mid-Valley Channel and the cities in the watershed, including Palm Desert, are cooperating in its implementation. The proposed Mid-Valley Channel will be aligned along the south side of the Southern i nof h Pacific Railwayright of through the Heinrichproperty. Construct o the Pac cway g MMd-Valley Channel in the future will provide reliable public-agency flood protection for the entire region along the valley floor, including the Heinrich property. At the present time a funding source for the channel has not been established and there is no construction schedule. Within the Mid-Valley Channel watershed the CVWD and the cities require retention of 100 percent of the 100-year storm runoff from each development site, and dedication of a 50-foot right of way for the future Mid-Valley Channel adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way. Developments in the valley floor which proceed in advance of the Mid-Valley Channel construction must provide interim protection against the 100-year flood. This report presents discharges and retention volumes to satisfy the regional requirements. B. Conclusions and Recommendations 1. The project design will need to include interim flood protection facilities to safely convey through the site a 100-year discharge of 1,233 cfs. 2. The project design will need to include retention facilities for 86.6 acre-feet of on-site runoff. -1- 3. These requirements can be met by many facility configurations. Examples of interim flood protection facility configurations are presented herein. 4. It is recommended that further development of interim flood protection and retention facilities be done jointly with planning of the site, to maximize opportunities for joint use and properly balance hydraulic requirements with land requirements and cost. -2- II. OFFSITE HYDROLOGY A. Tributary Drainage Area Figure 1 shows the tributary drainage area of 5,142 acres. Of this area, 526 acres has been developed in recent years under the regional retention policy, and produces no runoff during the 100-year storm. Accordingly, the net tributary drainage area draining to the project site is 4,616 acres. Of this amount, 1,330 acres is developed as single family residential and the rest, 3,286 acres, is undeveloped desert land. The 100-year runoff from the 4,616 acres of residential and undeveloped land in its current condition could reach the project site now and should be accommodated. In the future, as the watershed develops under the retention policy, the runoff from most of the undeveloped land will be reduced or eliminated, and the 100-year Q reaching the project site will be smaller than at present. B. Soils Watershed soils are predominately the Myoma Series, consisting of somewhat excessively drained, rapidly permeable soils. Typically, they are light olive gray fine sands. The Myoma soils are hydrologic type A, characterized by high infiltration rates and low runoff rates. Locally there are patches of Coachella fine sands. The Coachella series is hydrologic soil type B, characterized as having relatively high infiltration rates and moderate runoff. The areal extent of the Coachella soils is insufficient to influence watershed runoff rates significantly. C. Rainfall The desert area is subject to general winter storms, general summer storms, and local thunderstorms. General storms may last several days and are usually analyzed using a 24-hour rainfall pattern. Thunderstorms are analyzed using 3-hour and 6-hour storm patterns based on historical flood-producing storms. Areal distribution of rainfall varies, based on topography, wind pattern, and distance from the ocean. Point rainfall for the project watershed can be estimated using rainfall maps prepared by the National Weather Service and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD). These maps express point rainfall as lines of equal precipitation, or isopluvial lines. The isopluvial lines for the 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour 100-year storms are shown on Figure 1. Average point rainfall over the tributary drainage area for these storms is as follows: 3-hour storm 2.10 inches 6-hour storm 2.50 inches 24-hour storm 3.87 inches -3- II. OFFSITE HYDROLOGY A. Tributary Drainage Area Figure 1 shows the tributary drainage area of 5,142 acres. Of this area, 526 a' been developed in recent years under the regional retention policy, and produc runoff during the 100-year storm. Accordingly, the net tributary drainage arei draining to the project site is 4,616 acres. Of this amount, 1,330 acres is deve as single family residential and the rest, 3,286 acres, is undeveloped desert lan 100-year runoff from the 4,616 acres of residential and undeveloped land in it current condition could reach the project site now and should be accommodat In the future, as the watershed develops under the retention policy, the runoff most of the undeveloped land will be reduced or eliminated, and the 100-year reaching the project site will be smaller than at present. B. Soils Watershed soils are predominately the Myoma Series, consisting of somewhat excessively drained, rapidly permeable soils. Typically, they are light olive gr sands. The Myoma soils are hydrologic type A, characterized by high infiltrat rates and low runoff rates. Locally there are patches of Coachella fine sands. Coachella series is hydrologic soil type B, characterized as having relatively hi infiltration rates and moderate runoff. The areal extent of the Coachella soils insufficient to influence watershed runoff rates significantly. C. Rainfall The desert area is subject to general winter storms, general summer storms, a: thunderstorms. General storms may last several days and are usually analyzec 24-hour rainfall pattern. Thunderstorms are analyzed using 3-hour and 6-hou patterns based on historical flood-producing storms. Areal distribution of rainfall varies, based on topography, wind pattern, and di from the ocean. Point rainfall for the project watershed can be estimated usin rainfall maps prepared by the National Weather Service and the Riverside Cot Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RCFCWCD). These maps e point rainfall as lines of equal precipitation, or isopluvial lines. The isopluvial the 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour 100-year storms are shown on Figure 1. Average point rainfall over the tributary drainage area for these storms is as fc 3-hour storm 2.10 inches 6-hour storm 2.50 inches 24-hour storm 3.87 inches -3- 3. These requirements can be met by many facility configurations. Examples of interim flood protection facility configurations are presented herein. 4. It is recommended that further development of interim flood protection and retention facilities be done jointly with planning of the site, to maximize opportunities for joint use and properly balance hydraulic requirements with land requirements and cost. -2- D. Hydrograph Computation Section VII contains the calculations of net rain and runoff hydrographs using the RCFCWCD procedure for determining net rain and tie Corps of Engineers HEC-1 procedure for determining the runoff hydrograph. The "Desert" unit hydrograph was used. Unit hydrograph variables of length of flow path, distance to center of the watershed, and elevations are shown on Figure 1 and in the calculations. E. 100-Year Discharge at Project Site Hydrographs were computed for three storm durations, with the results as follows: 3-hour storm 1,233 cfs 6-hour storm 1,001 cfs 24-hour storm 163 cfs The 3-hour peak of 1,233 cfs controls and will be used for the design of interim flood protection facilities. -4- III. ONSITE HYDROLOGY A. Onsite Rainfall 100-year rainfall at the project site is less than the average rainfall over the watershed, because of a trough in the isopluvial lines centered over the site. 100-year 24-hour rainfall on the site is 3.5 inches. For computing runoff from the impervious area, the 24-hour rainfall of 3.5 inches will be used. For computing runoff from pervious areas, the net rain from the 3-hour storm exceeds the net rain from the 6-hour and 24- hour storms, so the 3-hour net rain of 0.5 inch will be used. B. Proposed Development A variety of land uses including Freeway Oriented Business, Regional Commercial, IndustriaVBusiness, Commercial/Residential Office, and Multi-family Residential are being considered for the site. For planning purposes 90 percent impervious will be assumed. C. Computation of 100-year Runoff from Site Section VII contains calculations of the runoff from the site which must be accommodated in the retention facilities. Rainfall which falls on the future Mid- Valley Channel will drain from the site and cannot practically be retained. Rainfall which falls on the retention basins will be completely retained. Total runoff consists of 3.5 inches of runoff from the impervious area(90 percent of the net area outside the Mid-Valley Channel) and the retention area plus 0.5 inch of runoff from the pervious area. The required retention volume is 86.6 acre-feet, or 0.33 acre-feet per acre over the 258.7 acres of developable land (270 total less 11.3 Mid-Valley Channel right of way). This retention volume accounts for runoff from the street acreage within the site in addition to the base site acreage of 270 acres. -5- IV. INTERIM FLOOD PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES A. Design Objectives 1. General Full utilization of the property prior to the implementation of the Mid-Valley Channel will require some type of interim channel to safely convey offsite flood flows through the property; however, the southwestern portions of the site are not affected by the offsite flows and could be safely developed without a channel. If an interim channel is constructed, its design will be influenced by construction cost, land requirement, phasing of the planning polygons, and scheduling of the Mid-Valley Channel. In addition, the design will need to consider site conditions including collection of offsite flows, slope, and soils. 2. Inlet Inlet requirements will depend on development conditions at the west property line when the site is developed. Under existing conditions the water flowing in the bottom of the valley approaching the west boundary is spread across the natural swale south of the tracks. This water can be collected by wing levees. In addition, the lots south of the inlet can be elevated to guide sheet overflow into the inlet system and prevent it from entering the lots. 3. Interim Channel The property west of Cook Street has a natural ground slope of approximately 0.0035. At this slope velocities will generally be in the non-erosive range; however, in view of the fine sandy soil native to the area erosion is an important consideration and care should be taken in the channel design. The velocity can be controlled to some extent by adjusting the hydraulic radius of the interim channel (widening the base and flattening the side slope). Also, the interim channel can be turfed or otherwise armored to increase its resistance to erosion. East of Cook Street the property is essentially flat. One design objective is to keep the bottom of the channel above the ground elevation at the east property line so it will drain. Another objective is to allow the water to spread out to natural sheet flow and velocity conditions before discharging to the neighboring property. B. Alternative Interim Channel Configurations Selection of the channel configuration involves weighing hydraulic requirements against land requirements and cost of construction. Hydraulic requirements can be met by trapezoidal or rectangular channels. Trapezoidal channels can be unlined or lined with grass or concrete. Rectangular concrete -6- channels can be open or closed. In any case, because of the change in slope at Cook Street, the channel will be wider east of Cook Street. Approximate dimensions for some of the possible configurations are given below. West of Cook Street 1. Rectangular concrete 18.5 ft. wide by 7 ft. deep, including 2 ft. freeboard 2. Trapezoidal concrete, 1.5:1 side slopes 11 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 32 ft bank to bank, 52 to 80 ft. overall width, assuming 2 10-foot access roads on top of levees, 2:1 levee back slopes, and levees above surrounding grade at downstream end. 3. Trapezoidal grass-lined sand channel, 2:1 side slopes 31 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 59 ft. bank to bank, 79 to 107 ft. overall width, on same basis as above. 4. Trapezoidal unlined sand channel, 4:1 side slopes 30 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 86 ft. bank to bank, 106 to 134 ft. overall. East of Cook Street 1. Rectangular concrete 51 ft. wide by 7 ft. deep, including 2 ft. freeboard 2. Trapezoidal concrete, 1.5:1 side slopes 44 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 61 ft bank to bank, up to 109 ft. overall width. 3. Trapezoidal grass-lined sand channel, 2:1 side slopes 110 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 131 ft. bank to bank, up to 179 ft. overall width. 4. Trapezoidal unlined sand channel, 4:1 side slopes 100 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 156 ft. bank to bank, up to 204 ft. overall. The concrete lined alternatives will require adequate energy dissipators at the downstream end to restore the velocity to natural conditions. -7- V. RETENTION CONSIDERATIONS A. Design Objectives The overall design objective is to contain all the runoff from the site during the 100- year flood, as computed above. Another important objective is to incorporate the retention areas into site features such as parking lots or greenbelt areas. Another is to assure that the basins will drain, so as to be ready for another storm, and to minimize standing water on the site. The basins should not be draining during the flood, in accordance with CVWD retention policy, so there will be controllable outlets to drain the basins after the flood has passed. B. Integration with Development Process The retention facilities should be designed as integral features of the various planning polygons, so as to maximize opportunities for joint use and economy of land and construction cost. By accepting a retention burden of 0.33 acre-feet per acre of developable site, each site developer has the opportunity to proceed with his development on his own schedule. He also has the opportunity of entering cooperative arrangements with neighboring sites to develop joint facilities. -8 • - VI. FLOOD INSURANCE STATUS The site is located on Riverside County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)Panel No. 1625. The site is in a "C" Zone, defined as an area of minimal flooding. Flood insurance is not mandatory in a "C" Zone. -9- \NATE` ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY k%VI °/STRICT COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN W. McFADDEN July 17, 1996 OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH File: 0121.321 0126.2 Harold Vance 1552 Camino Del Mar, No. 409 Del Mar, California 92014 Dear Mr. Vance: Subject: Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel, Heinrich Project . This is in response to your letter dated July 2, 1996. In your letter you requested more information about the stormwater requirements for the Heinrich property. The Heinrich property consists of 270 acres of land lying adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and south of Interstate 10. This property lies within a watershed which the district has identified as the Mid-Valley Area. The majority of the Mid-Valley Area is currently a sandy desert basin which slopes gradually southeasterly along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Currently there are no regional stormwater facilities serving this area. On October 12, 1989, the district submitted a proposal for the Mid-Valley Stormwater project to Riverside County and the Cities of Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert and La Quinta. The county and cities have since cooperated with the district for the implementation of this project by establishing their own stormwater retention requirements and/or honoring the district's requirements for new developments. The district requires new developments in this area to retain 100 percent of the stormwater runoff from a 100-year storm. This is based on a feasibility study by Bechtel dated March 1990. This report is also the basis for a 50-foot channel right-of-way and the grade and size of the box culverts at Monterey Avenue and Cook Street. Funding for the Mid-Valley Channel has not been established at this time. The district is exercising its authority in these matters based on the California State Stormwater Act of 1909 and Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 460 and 348. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Harold Vance -2- July 17, 1996 The feasibility study for the Mid-Valley project is available for your review at the engineering counter at our Coachella facility. A copy of this study can be obtained from the district provided you pay the reproduction costs of 50 cents per sheet (approximately $54) . If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292. Yours very truly, J Tom Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer JEC:jl\sw\jullvance COACHELLA PALLET WATER DISTRICT VIII. CALCULATIONS A. Offsite Hydrology 1. Net Rain, West Boundary, Existing Conditions a. 3-hour storm b. 6-hour storm c. 24-hour storm 2. HEC-1 Analysis a. 3-hour storm b. 6-hour storm c. 24-hour storm B. Onsite Hydrology 1. Net Rain for Pervious Areas • 2. Computation of Onsite Runoff Volume HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY 3 Hour Storm 100 yr.frequency NET RAIN WEST BOUNDARY, EXISTING CONDITIONS THIS IS FILE: X3100.WK4 SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD s BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM PHYSICAL DATA [1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy [2] AREA DESIGNATION [3] AREA-SQ.INCHES 50.26 [4] AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.14 [5] AREA-SQ.MILES[(3)'(4)] 7.21 5142 acres overall [6] L-INCHES 21.85 developed [7] L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.38 sec 5 160 [8] L-MILES[(6)'(7)] 8.28 sec 9 600 [9] LCA-INCHES 12.60 sec 16 90 [10] LCA-MILES[(9)'(7)] 4.77 sec 15 480 [11] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 497 1330 [12] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 181 [13] H-FEET[(11)-(12)] 316 currently retained [14] S-FEET/MILE[(13)/(8)] 38.18 sec 4 160 [15] S^.5 6.18 sec 15 320 [16] L'LCA/S^.5[(8)'(10)/(15)] 6.39 Monterey 46 [17] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.031 526 [18] LAG TIME-HOURS[24*(17)*(16)^.38] 1.51 [19] LAG TIME-MINUTES[60*(18)] 90.69 4616 net [20] 25%OF LAG-MINUTES[.25'(19)] 22.67 [21] 40%OF LAG-MINUTES[.40'(19)] 36.28 [22] UNIT TIME-MINUTES[25-40%OF LAG] 30.00 RAINFALL DATA [1] SOURCE HYDRO.MAN. [2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100 [3] DURATION-HOURS 3 3 -HOUR [12] [13] [14] [15] PT. AREA (13)/ AV.PT. RAIN (AC.) SUM(13) RAIN 2.10 5142 1.00 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM 5142 2.10 [16] AREAL ADJ.FACTOR 0.990 [17] ADJUSTED RAINFALL 2.08 AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE [1] [2] [3] [4] 1 [51 [6] [7] [8] [9l [10] SOIL COVER RI Fp LAND USE DU/AC % F AREA [8]/ AVE. F TYPE TYPE in/hr IMPERV. in/hr. acres SUM[81 in/hr A Open brush 41 0.66!Natural 0.00 01 0.660 3286 0.712 0.470 A residential 32 0.74 Res 6.00 57 0.318 1330 0.288 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTALS AREA= 4616 Fave= 0.562 • X3100.WK4 Sheet 1 of 2 VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE(24-HOUR STORM ONLY) Fm=(Sum.Ave.F)/2=`""""---in/hr C=(F-Fm)/54= Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55+Fm UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM [1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy s [2] AREA DESIGNATION [3] DRAINAGE AREA-miles 7.21 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- 4651.30 [5] UNIT TIME-minutes 30.00 [6] LAG TIME-minutes 90.69 [7] UNIT TIME-%of lag 33.08 [8] S-CURVE Desert. [9] FREQUENCY(years) 100 DURATION(hours) 3 [10] SUM ADJ.ST.RAIN-in. 2.08 [11] VAR.LOSS RATE(Ft)-in/hr(@T=0)1-- [12] MIN.VAR.LOSS RATE(Fm)-in/hr • ` [13] CONST.LOSS RATE(F)-in/hr 0.56 [14] LOW LOSS RATE-% 90.00 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL [15] [20] [211 [221 [23] UNIT %OF RAIN IN RATE IN LOSS RATE RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT. TIME TOTAL PERIOD PERIOD in/hr inches RATE RAIN PERIOD RAIN inches in/hr calc'd. low used calc'd. low used in/hr inches 1 8.5 0.177 0.353 0.562 0.318 0.318 0.281 0.159 0.159 0.035 0.018 2 10.0 0.208 0.416 0.562 0.374 0.374 0.281 0.187 0.187 0.042 0.021 3 13.9 0.289 0.578 0.562 0.520 0.520 0.281 0.260 0.260 0.016 0.008 4 17.4 0.362 0.723 0.562 0.651 0.562 0.281 0.326 0.281 0.162 0.081 5 29.9 0.622 1.243 0.562 1.119 0.562 0.281 0.559 0.281 0.682 0.341 6 20.3 0.422 0.844 0.562 0.760 0.562 0.281 0.380 0.281 0.283 0.141 Total 1 100.0001 2.0791 [ 1.449 1 0.610 X3100.WK4 Sheet 2 of 2 HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY 6 Hour Storm 100 yr.frequency NET RAIN WEST BOUNDARY,EXISTING CONDITIONS THIS IS FILE: X6100.WK4 SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM P. PHYSICAL DATA [1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy [2] AREA DESIGNATION [3] AREA-SQ.INCHES 50.26 [4] AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.14 [5] AREA-SQ.MILES[(3)'(4)] 7.21 5142 acres overall [6] L-INCHES 21.85 developed [7] L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.38 sec 5 160 [8] L-MILES[(6)'(7)] 8.28 sec 9 600 [9] LCA-INCHES 12.60 sec 16 90 [10] LCA-MILES[(9)-(7)] 4.77 sec 15 480 [11] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 497 1330 [12] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 181 [13] H-FEET[(11H12)] 316 currently retained [14] S-FEET/MILE[(13)/(8)] 38.18 sec 4 160 [15] S^.5 6.18 sec 15 320 [16] L'LCA/S".5[(8)'(10)/(15)] 6.39 Monterey 46 [17] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.031 526 [18] LAG TIME-HOURS(24'(17)*(16)".38] 1.51 [19] LAG TIME-MINUTES[60'(18)] 90.69 4616 net [20] 25%OF LAG-MINUTES[.25'(19)] 22.67 [21] 40%OF LAG-MINUTES[.40'(19)] 36.28 122] UNIT TIME-MINUTES[25-40%OF LAG] 30.00 RAINFALL DATA [1] SOURCE HYDRO.MAN. [2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100 [3] DURATION-HOURS 6 6 -HOUR [12] [13] [14] [15] PT. AREA (13)/ AV.PT. RAIN (AC.) SUM(13) RAIN 2.50 5142 1.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SUM 5142 2.50 [16] AREAL ADJ.FACTOR 0.990 [17] ADJUSTED RAINFALL 2.48 AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE [1] [2] 131 [4] [5] [6] [7l [8] [9l [10] SOIL COVER RI Fp LAND USE DU/AC % F AREA [8]/ AVE.F TYPE TYPE in/hr IMPERV. in/hr acres SUM[8] in/hr A Open brush 41 0.66 Natural 0.00 0 0.660 3286 0.712 0.470 A residential 32 0.74 Res 6.00 57 0.318 1330 0.288 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTALS AREA= 4616 Fave= 0.562 X6100.WK4 Sheet 1 of 2 Z @ O) '-N N co ti N CD CO O.- C) UQto Nor� v v W C)O CD CD CD CD CD C CD CD CD C)C) IA LL C O O O O O O O O O O O O O LL W C7 W CD Yr'V(D O)'V Ct)CO — N N UF- N N N N N C)v CoCDN p '-'w CDOO C CD 0000 CDC N LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL 6 w L N li o Co ti C)co Coy- o Co 00 C) = op op CD CD CD CD NIA CA CD uo NNOCo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) 3 O CD h CA Co C).-O 00 . CT Co Cn 0 C)C CD N u7 CD Ul CCV INA O OJ C56 C7Ci Ci 6C7 O o 6O0 Z(L) • d v 'U CD CD N OD O CC)CA CO CO CO CO O �Ipp N N N N N N N N N N N N 3 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O J ZO NYC CO CD CO C) �NNCD -I C _ _ ¢ CD m M IA 0 0 Co CD (T LL NNNNO) V to Inul Z 666666666666 1 W W 3 CD N¢f Co(D CO C) F'-N Co(D F- OCOO .- C)U)OC r- v -C) F- - NNNN 07 V u) CD U 00000000 C7 CD Y-:O W WC LL CO'- LL fi W J J N. O a)CO O(DCD CDC -CINNNNNNNNNNNN Z N C') O CO O O 'Q In O U CO CD CO CD CD CD CO Co CD CO Co CO __ --��pp In 0C1 IA(A 0 IA In(A In In CA ~U/ CC7 CO CD O/ .= N Co0 C„)O O OC70007 6C7006 CC mj V u) O > 0 ^Z❑ OD co Co C")N f` f`Co'? co N O0 Ce Z o _ _ _ II C'7 V CO CO(7 V r- st ` N.�w NNNNNM`•f CAt` NN O OOOOO O CD 00Y-O W y E."." U z Nw C -LLi ZO NfT (D C)),e-�f CO C)h (D ,-O V) w �� aZ E� Q ^Z vFW wo ZO UCoC NC)'Q (D CV CO Ul CA CD N N M CDOCv or w u- Q O QQ 2 c a) e zZ w CC< W 1 W,c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N OZ �¢ WU c n oo zcew - Co vc F F- n LL F• I1 + ~ F- Cnww W W W ZZ .(n JO (n O LL J Z CO C7 CO O CO OD CO O CO V' �SI' O 2N N a? ww QF- 2 �2 > jo �O _JO "° F¢- �c'i444uiui066.- v (v o coLL ' UUaZ F F- Dp�¢JjcoJ eO o p >vo UQOc �-JZUQZUW»QZOp yr W ce E E - O jAF-W Or NC7'V IA CON- COOO �N NC-.17LLV } 4 Z _ O_ mN N = OF- � ¢ 11 LLV F w 00 QE 11 ° Z C .-NC) v LL 0 CO > LLULL D v- NMV IA (DEcOC7) F- X HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY 24 Hour Storm 100 yr.frequency NET RAIN WEST BOUNDARY, EXISTING CONDITIONS THIS IS FILE: X24100.WK4 SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD s BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM PHYSICAL DATA [1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy [2] AREA DESIGNATION [3] AREA-SQ.INCHES 50.26 [4] AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.14 [51 AREA-SQ.MILES[(3)'(4)] 7.21 5142 acres overall [6] L-INCHES 21.85 developed [7] L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.38 sec 5 160 [8] L-MILES[(6)'(7)] 8.28 sec 9 600 [9] LCA-INCHES 12.60 sec 16 90 [10] LCA-MILES[(9)-(7)] 4.77 sec 15 480 [11] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 497 1330 [12] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 181 [13] H-FEET[(11)-(12)] 316 currentlyretained [14] S-FEET/MILE[(13)/(8)] 38.18 sec 4 160 [151 SA.5 6.18 sec 15 320 [16] L*LCA/SA.5[(8)'(10)/(15)] 6.39 Monterey 46 [17] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.031 526 [18] LAG TIME-HOURS[24*(17)*(16)A.38] 1.51 [19] LAG TIME-MINUTES[60*(18)] 90.69 4616 net [20] 25%OF LAG-MINUTES[.25*(19)] 22.67 [21] 40%OF LAG-MINUTES[.40*(19)] 36.28 [22] UNIT TIME-MINUTES[25-40%OF LAG] 30.00 RAINFALL DATA [1] SOURCE HYDRO.MAN. [2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100 [31 DURATION-HOURS 24 24 -HOUR [12] [13] [14] [15] PT. AREA (13)/ AV.PT. RAIN (AC.) SUM(13) RAIN 4.25 2020 0.39 1.67 3.75 1515 0.29 1.10 3.50 1607 0.31 1.09 SUM 5142 3.87 [16] AREAL ADJ.FACTOR 0.985 [17] ADJUSTED RAINFALL 3.81 AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE [1] [2] [3l [4] [51 1 [61 I (7] [8] [9] [10] SOIL COVER RI Fp LAND USE DU/AC % F AREA [8]/ AVE. F TYPE TYPE in/hr IMPERV. in/hr acres SUM[8] in/hr A Open brush 41 0.66 Natural 0.00 0 0.660 3286- 0.712 0.470 A residential 32 0.74 Res 6.00 57 0.318 1330 0.288 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 TOTALS AREA= 4616 Fave= 0.562 X24100.WK4 Sheet 1 of 3 VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE(24-HOUR STORM ONLY) Fm=(Sum.Ave. F)/2= 0.2808 in/hr C=(F-Fm)/54= 0.0052 Ft=C(24-(T/60))^1.55+Fm UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN CALCULATION FORM [1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy s [2] AREA DESIGNATION [3] DRAINAGE AREA-miles 7.21 [4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- 4651.30 [5] UNIT TIME-minutes 30.00 [6] LAG TIME-minutes 90.69 m UNITTIME-%oflag 33.08 [8] S-CURVE Desert. [9] FREQUENCY(years) 100 DURATION(hours) 24 [10] SUM ADJ.ST.RAIN-in. 3.81 [11] VAR.LOSS RATE(Ft)-in/hr(@T=0) 1.00 [12] MIN.VAR.LOSS RATE(Fm)-in/hr 0.28 [13] CONST.LOSS RATE(F)-in/hr 0.56 j14] ,LOW LOSS RATE-% 90.00 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL [15] [20] [21] [22] [23] UNIT %OF RAIN IN RATE IN LOSS RATE RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT. TIME TOTAL PERIOD PERIOD in/hr inches RATE RAIN PERIOD RAIN inches in/hr calc'd. low used calc'd. low used in/hr inches 1 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.986 0.034 0.034 0.493 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 2 0.7 0.027 0.053 0.963 0.048 0.048 0.481 0.024 0.024 0.005 0.003 3 0.6 0.023 0.046 0.940 0.041 0.041 0.470 0.021 0.021 0.005 0.002 4 0.7 0.027 0.053 0.918 0.048 0.048 0.459 0.024 0.024 0.005 0.003 5 0.8 0.030 0.061 0.896 0.055 0.055 0.448 0.027 0.027 0.006 0.003 6 1.0 0.038 0.076 0.874 0.069 0.069 0.437 0.034 0.034 0.008 0.004 7 1.0 0.038 0.076 0.853 0.069 0.069 0.426 0.034 0.034 0.008 0.004 8 1.1 0.042 0.084 0.831 0.075 0.075 0.416 0.038 0.038 0.008 0.004 9 1.3 0.050 0.099 0.811 0.089 0.089 0.405 0.045 0.045 0.010 0.005 10 1.5 0.057 0.114 0.790 0.103 0.103 0.395 0.051 0.051 0.011 0.006 11 1.3 0.050 0.099 0.770 0.089 0.089 0.385 0.045 0.045 0.010 0.005 12 1.6 0.061 0.122 0.749 0.110 0.110 0.375 0.055 0.055 0.012 0.006 13 1.8 0.069 0.137 0.730 0.123 0.123 0.365 0.062 0.062 0.014 0.007 14 2.0 0.076 0.152 0.710 0.137 0.137 0.355 0.069 0.069 0.015 0.008 15 2.1 0.080 0.160 0.691 0.144 0.144 0.346 0.072 0.072 0.016 0.008 16 2.5 0.095 0.191 0.672 0.171 0.171 0.336 0.086 0.086 0.019 0.010 17 3.0 0.114 0.229 0.654 0.206 0.206 0.327 0.103 0.103 0.023 0.011 18 3.3 0.126 0.251 0.636 0.226 0.226 0.318 0.113 0.113 0.025 0.013 19 3.9 0.149 0.297 0.618 0.267 0.267 0.309 0.134 0.134 0.030 0.015 20 4.3 0.164 0.328 0.600 0.295 0.295 0.300 0.147 0.147 0.033 0.016 21 3.0 0.114 0.229 0.583 0.206 0.206 0.291 0.103 0.103 0.023 0.011 22 4.0 0.152 0.305 0.566 0.274 0.274 0.283 0.137 0.137 0.030 0.015 23 3.8 0.145 0.290 0.550 0.261 0.261 0.275 0.130 0.130 0.029 0.014 24 3.5 0.133 0.267 0.533 0.240 0.240 0.267 0.120 0.120 0.027 0.013 25 5.1 0.194 0.389 0.518 0.350 0.350 0.259 0.175 0.175 0.039 0.019 26 5.7 0.217 0.434 0.502 0.391 0.391 0.251 0.195 - 0.195 0.043 0.022 27 6.8 0.259 0.518 0.487 0.466 0.466 0.244 0.233 0.233 0.031 0.016 28 4.6 0.175 0.351 0.472 0.315 0.315 0.236 0.158 0.158 0.035 0.018 29 5.3 0.202 0.404 0.458 0.364 0.364 0.229 0.182 0.182 0.040 0.020 30 5.1 0.194 0.389 0.444 0.350 0.350 0.222 0.175 0.175 0.039 0.019 31 4.7 0.179 0.358 0.431 0.322 0.322 0.215 0.161 0.161 0.036 0.018 32 3.8 0.145 0.290 0.418 0.261 0.261 0.209 0.130 0.130 0.029 0.014 33 0.8 0.030 0.061 0.405 0.055 0.055 0.203 0.027 0.027 0.006 0.003 34 0.6 0.023 0.046 0.393 0.041 0.041 0.196 0.021 0.021 0.005 0.002 35 1.0 0.038 0.076 0.381 0.069 0.069 0.191 0.034 0.034 0.008 0.004 36 0.9 0.034 0.069 0.370 0.062 0.062 0.185 0.031 0.031 0.007 0.003 I I I X24100.WK4 Sheet 2 of 3 EFFECTIVE RAINFALL [15] [21] [22] [23] UNIT %OF RAIN IN RATE IN LOSS RATE RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT TIME TOTAL PERIOD PERIOD in/hr inches RATE RAI PERIOD RAIN inches in/hr calc'd. low used calc'd. low used in/hr inche 37 0.8 0.030 0.061 0.359 0.055 0.055 0.179 0.027 0.027 0.006 0.003 38 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.349 0.034 0.034 0.174 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 39 0.7 0.027 0.053 0.339 0.048 0.048 0.16a 0.024 0.024 0.005 0.003 40 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.330 0.034 0.034 0.165 . 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 41 0.6 0.023 0.046 0.321 0.041 0.041 0.161 0.021 0.021 0.005 0.002 42 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.313 0.034 0.034 0.157 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 43 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.306 0.034 0.034 0.153 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 44 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.299 0.034 0.034 0.150 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 45 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.293 0.034 0.034 0.147 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002 46 0.4 0.015 0.030 0.288 0.027 0.027 0.144 0.014 0.014 0.003 0.002 47 0.4 0.015 0.030 0.284 0.027 0.027 0.142 0.014 0.014 0.003 0.002 48 0.4 0.015 0.030 0.281 0.027 0.027 0.141 0.014 0.014 0.003 0.002 Total j 100.0001 3.810 1 3.429 I 0.371 acre-feet 158.827 X24100.WK4 Sheet 3 of 3 HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY HEC-1 ANALYSIS 100-YEAR 3-HOUR STORM FILE H3100.0 I ID WEST BOUNDARY 2 ID H3100.I 3 IT 30 0000 0000 18 4 10 1 2 5 KK WEST • 6 BA 7.21 7 PI .018 .021 .008 .081 .341 .141 8 LU 0 0 0 9 KM UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS) 10 UI 496. 1795. 2497. 1278. 753. 527. 407. 294. 236. 192. 11 UI 162. 135. 100. 81. 56. 56. 54. 32. 32. 32. 12 UI 31.9 31.9 23.3 13 ZZ IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 30 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL COMPUTATION INTERVAL .50 HOURS UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS) SUBBASIN RUNOFF DATA 6 BA SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS TAREA 7.21 SUBBASIN AREA PRECIPITATION DATA 6 PB STORM .61 BASIN TOTAL PRECIPITATION 6 PI INCREMENTAL PRECIPITATION PATTERN .02 .02 .01 .08 .34 .14 8 LU UNIFORM LOSS RATE STRTL .00 INITIAL LOSS CNSTL .00 UNIFORM LOSS RATE RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 8 UI INPUT UNITGRAPH, 23 ORDINATES, VOLUME=1.00 496.0 1795.0 2497.0 1278.0 753.0 527.0 407.0 294.0 236.0 192.0 162.0 135.0 100.0 81.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 31.9 31.9 23.3 HYDROGRAPH AT STATION WEST DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q * DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q • 1 0000 1 .00 .00 .00 0. • 1 0430 10 .00 .00 .00 493. 1 0030 2 .02 .00 .02 9. • 1 0500 11 .00 .00 .00 330. 1 0100 3 .02 .00 .02 43. • 1 0530 12 .00 .00 .00 246. - - 1 0130 4 .01 .00 .01 87. • 1 0600 13 .00 .00 .00 184. 1 0200 5 .08 .00 .08 130. • 1 0630 14 .00 .00 .00 143. 1 0230 6 .34 .00 .34 375. • 1 0700 15 .00 .00 .00 117. 1 0300 7 .14 .00 .14 920. • 1 0730 16 .00 .00 .00 97. 1 0330 8 .00 .00 .00 1233. • 1 0800 17 .00 .00 .00 80. 1 0400 9 .00 .00 .00 867. * 1 0830 18 .00 .00 .00 62. TOTAL RAINFALL- .61,TOTAL LOSS= .00,TOTAL EXCESS= .61 PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 8.50-HR + (CFS) (HR) (CFS) + 1233. 3.50 427. 317. 317. 317. (INCHES) .551 .578 .578 .578 (AC-FT) 212. 222. 222. 222. CUMULATIVE AREA- 7.21 SQ MI -1- STATION WEST (0)OUTFLOW 0. 200. 400. 600. 800. 1000. 1200. 1400. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. (L)PRECIP, (X)EXCESS .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .3 .2 .1 .0 DAHRMN PER 10000 10-. . . 10030 20 . . . . . . . . . . . XX. 10100 3.0 . . . XX 10130 4. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . X 10200 5. 0 . . . . . . . . . . O0OOOO X. 10230 6. . 0. . . . . . . 10300 7. . . . . 0 . . . . . 10330 8. . . . . . .0 . . . . 10400 9. . . . . 0 . . . . . . 10430 10. . 0 10500 11 0 10530 12. .0 . . . . . . . . 10600 13. O. . . . . 10630 14. 0 . . . . . . . . . 10700 15. 0 . . . . . . , . 10730 16. 0 . . . . . . . . . . 10800 17. 0 . . . . . 10830 18.-0-. . . . . . . . . . 1 1 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE + 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT + WEST 1233. 3.50 427. 317. 317. 7.21 •'•NORMAL END OF HEC-1*** -2- HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY HEC-1 ANALYSIS 100-YEAR 6-HOUR STORM FILE H6100.0 1 ID WEST BOUNDARY 2 ID H6100.I 3 IT 30 0000 0000 24 4 10 1 2 5 KK WEST 6 BA 7.21 7 PI .009 .011 .012 .012 .013 .014 .017 .022 .006 .075 8 PI .34 .011 9 LU 0 0 0 10 KM UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS) 11 UI 496. 1795. 2497. 1278. 753. 527. 407. 294. 236. 192. 12 UI 162. 135. 100. 81. 56. 56. 54. 32. 32. 32. 13 UI 31.9 31.9 23.3 14 ZZ IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 30 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL COMPUTATION INTERVAL .50 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 11.50 HOURS UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS) SUBBASIN RUNOFF DATA 6 BA SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS TAREA 7.21 SUBBASIN AREA PRECIPITATION DATA 6 PB STORM .54 BASIN TOTAL PRECIPITATION 6 PI INCREMENTAL PRECIPITATION PATTERN .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .08 .34 .01 9 LU UNIFORM LOSS RATE STRTL .00 INITIAL LOSS CNSTL .00 UNIFORM LOSS RATE RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 9 UI INPUT UNITGRAPH, 23 ORDINATES, VOLUME=1.00 496.0 1795.0 2497.0 1278.0 753.0 527.0 407.0 294.0 236.0 192.0 162.0 135.0 100.0 81.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 31.9 31.9 23.3 HYDROGRAPH AT STATION WEST DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q • DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q 1 0000 1 .00 .00 .00 0. • 1 0600 13 .01 .00 .01 854. 1 0030 2 .01 .00 .01 4. • 1 0630 14 .00 .00 .00 1001. 1 0100 3 .01 .00 .01 22. • 1 0700 15 .00 .00 .00 547. 1 0130 4 .01 .00 .01 48. • 1 0730 16 .00 .00 .00 332. 1 0200 5 .01 .00 .01 66. • 1 0800 17 .00 .00 .00 236. 1 0230 6 .01 .00 .01 79. • 1 0830 18 .00 .00 .00 181. 1 0300 7 .01 .00 .01 89. • 1 0900 19 .00 .00 .00 134. 1 0330 8 .02 .00 .02 100. • 1 0930 20 .00 .00 .00 107. 1 0400 9 .02 .00 .02 115. • 1 1000 21 .00 .00 .00 88. I 0430 10 .01 .00 .01 129. * 1 1030 22 .00 .00 .00 74. 1 0500 11 .08 .00 .08 155. • 1 1100 23 .00 .00 .00 60. 1 0530 12 .34 .00 .34 382. • 1 1130 24 .00 .00 .00 46. TOTAL RAINFALL= .54,TOTAL LOSS- .00,TOTAL EXCESS= .54 PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 11.50-HR + (CFS) (HR) (CFS) + 1001. 6.50 347. 210. 210. 210. (INCHES) .448 .518 .518 .518 (AC-FT) 172. 199. 199. 199. CUMULATIVE AREA= 7.21 SQ MI • -I- 1 STATION WEST (0)OUTFLOW 0. 200. 400. 600. 800. 1000. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. (L)PRECIP, (X)EXCESS .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .3 .2 .1 .0 DAHRMN PER 10000 10-. 10030 20 . . . . . . . . X 10100 3.0 . . . . . . . . . X 10130 4.0 . . . . . . . . . X 10200 5. 0 . . X 10230 6. 0 . . X 10300 7. 0 . . . . . . . X 10330 8. 0 . . . . . . . . . XX 10400 9. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . XX 10430 10. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . X 10500 11. 0 .?O00000C. 10530 12. . O. . . . . . 10600 13. . . . . 0 . . . . . . . X 10630 14. . . . . 0 . . . . . 10700 15. . . 0 . . . . , . . . . 10730 16. . 0 . . . . . 10800 17. .0 . . 10830 18. O. . 10900 19. 0 . . 10930 20. 0 . . 11000 21..0 11030 22. 0 . . 11100 23. 0 . 11130 24.-0-. . . . . . . . . . 1 1 RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAX STAGE + 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR HYDROGRAPH AT + WEST 1001. 6.50 347. 210. 210. 7.21 '•'NORMAL END OF HEC-1••• -2- 1 _ • HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY HEC-1 ANALYSYS 100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM FILE H24100.0 1 ID WEST BOUNDARY 2 ID H24100.I 3 IT 30 0000 0000 60 4 10 1 2 5 KK WEST 6 BA 7.21 7 PI 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005 8 PI 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.011 9 PI 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.019 0.022 0.011 0.018 0.02 0.019 0.018 10 PI 0.014 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 11 PI 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 12 LU 0 0 0 13 KM UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS) 14 UI 496. 1795. 2497. 1278. 753. 527. 407. 294. 236. 192. 15 UI 162. 135. 100. 81. 56. 56. 54. 32. 32. 32. 16 UI 31.9 31.9 23.3 17 ZZ IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA NMIN 30 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL COMPUTATION INTERVAL .50 HOURS TOTAL TIME BASE 29.50 HOURS SUBBASIN RUNOFF DATA 6 BA SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS TAREA 7.21 SUBBASIN AREA PRECIPITATION DATA 6 PB STORM .36 BASIN TOTAL PRECIPITATION 6 PI INCREMENTAL PRECIPITATION PATTERN .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 12 LU UNIFORM LOSS RATE STRTL .00 INITIAL LOSS CNSTL .00 UNIFORM LOSS RATE RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA 12 UI INPUT UNITGRAPH, 23 ORDINATES, VOLUME=1.00 496.0 1795.0 2497.0 1278.0 753.0 527.0 407.0 294.0 236.0 192.0 162.0 135.0 100.0 81.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 31.9 31.9 23.3 • -1- HYDROGRAPH AT STATION WEST DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q • DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q •1 0000 1 .00 .00 .00 0. * 1 1500 31 .02 .00 .02 163. 1 0030 2 .00 .00 .00 1. • I 1530 32 .01 .00 .01 162. s 1 0100 3 .00 .00 .00 5. • 1 1600 33 .00 .00 .00 149. 1 0130 4 .00 .00 .00 11. * 1 1630 34 .00 .00 .00 119. 1 0200 5 .00 .00 .00 15. • 1 1700 35 .00 .00 .00 86. 1 0230 6 .00 .00 .00 17. • 1 1730 36 .00 .00 .00 70. 1 0300 7 .00 .00 .00 21. • 1 1800 37 .00 .00 .00 62. 1 0330 8 .00 .00 .00 24. • 1 1830 38 .00 .00 .00 54. 1 0400 9 .00 .00 .00 28. • 1 1900 39 .00 .00 .00 47. 1 0430 10 .00 .00 .00 31. • 1 1930 40 .00 .00 .00 42. 1 0500 11 .00 .00 .00 34. • 1 2000 41 .00 .00 .00 38. 1 0530 12 .01 .00 .01 38. • 1 2030 42 .00 .00 .00 34. 1 0600 13 .01 .00 .01 43. • 1 2100 43 .00 .00 .00 30. 1 0630 14 .01 .00 .01 49. • 1 2130 44 .00 .00 .00 28. 1 0700 15 .01 .00 .01 55. * 1 2200 45 .00 .00 .00 26. 1 0730 16 .01 .00 .01 62. * 1 2230 46 .00 .00 .00 25. 1 0800 17 .01 .00 .01 69. • 1 2300 47 .00 .00 .00 24. 1 0830 18 .01 .00 .01 79. • 1 2330 48 .00 .00 .00 22. 1 0900 19 .02 .00 .02 90. • 2 0000 49 .00 .00 .00 17. 1 0930 20 .02 .00 .02 103. • 2 0030 50 .00 .00 .00 12. 1 1000 21 .01 .00 .01 113. • 2 0100 51 .00 .00 .00 9. 1 1030 22 .02 .00 .02 115. • 2 0130 52 .00 .00 .00 7. 1 1100 23 .01 .00 .01 115. • 2 0200 53 .00 .00 .00 5. 1 1130 24 .01 .00 .01 120. • 2 0230 54 .00 .00 .00 4. 1 1200 25 .02 .00 .02 123. • 2 0300 55 .00 .00 .00 3. 1 1230 26 .02 .00 .02 134. • 2 0330 56 .00 .00 .00 2. 1 1300 27 .01 .00 .01 149. • 2 0400 57 .00 .00 .00 2. 1 1330 28 .02 .00 .02 148. • 2 0430 58 .00 .00 .00 1. 1 1400 29 .02 .00 .02 143. • 2 0500 59 .00 .00 .00 1. 1 1430 30 .02 .00 .02 155. • 2 0530 60 .00 .00 .00 1. TOTAL RAINFALL- .36,TOTAL LOSS m .00,TOTAL EXCESS- .36 PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW 6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 29.50-HR + (CFS) (HR) (CFS) + 163. 15.00 140. 69. 57. 57. (INCHES) .180 .355 .358 .358 (AC-FT) 69. 137. 138. 138. CUMULATIVE AREA= 7.21 SQ MI 2 1 STATION WEST (0)OUTFLOW 0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100. 120. 140. 160. 180. 0. 0. 0. (L)PRECIP, (X)EXCESS s • .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 .02 .01 .00 DAHRMN PER 10000 10-. . . . 10030 20 . . . XX 10100 3. 0 . . . . . . . . . . XXX 10130 4. 0 . . . . . . . . . . XX. 10200 5. 0. . . . . . . . . XXX. 10230 6. O. . . . . . . . . . )OOC. 10300 7. 0 . . . . . . . . . A?O0(. 10330 8. .0 . . . . . . . . . XX0+x 10400 9. . 0 . . . . . . . . . Xa00L 10430 10. . 0 . . . . . . . . . X 00OC 10500 11 0 .)OOOC. 10530 12. . 0. . . . . . . . . JOOOO X. 10600 13. . .0 . . . . . . . . )0OOOOOC. 10630 14. . . 0 . . . . . . . . .}0OOOOOOC 10700 15. . . 0. . . . . . . . .X30CDOOOL 10730 16. . . .0 . . . . . . rocc000coc. 10800 17. . . . 0 . . . . . . 10830 18. . . . 0 . . . . 10900 19. . . . . 0 . . . . . 10930 20. . . . . .0 . . . . 11000 21 0 11030 22. . . . . . 0 . . . . 11100 23. . . . . 0 . . . . 11130 24. . . . . 0 . . . 11200 25. . . . . .0 . . 11230 26. . . . . . . 0 . . . 11300 27. . . . . . . . 0 . . . 11330 28. . . . . . . . 0 . . . 11400 29. . . . . . .0 . 11430 30. . . . . . . 0. 11500 31 0 11530 32. . . . . . . .0 . 11600 33. . . . . . . 0 . XXX 11630 34. . . . . O. . . . . . XX 11700 35. . . . . 0 . . . . . . . XXXX. 11730 36. . . . 0 . . . . . . . . )CO 11800 37. . . .0 . . . . . . . XXX. 11830 3 8. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . XX. 11900 39. . . 0 . . . . . . . . . XXX. 11930 40. . .0 . . . . . . . . XX. 12000 41 0 XX. 12030 42. . 0 . . . . . . . . . XX 12100 43. . 0 . . . . . . . . . XX 12130 44. . 0 . . . . . . . . . XX 12200 45. . 0 . . . . . . . . . XX _ 12230 46. .0 . . . . . . . . . XX 12300 47. .0 . . . . . XX. 12330 48. .0 . . . . 20000 49. O. . . . . . 20030 50. 0 . . . . . . 20100 51..0 20130 52. 0 . . . . . . . . . 20200 53.0 . . . . . 20230 54.0 . . . . . . 20300 55.0 . . . . . . . 20330 56.0 . . . . . . 20400 57.0 . . . . . . . . . . 20430 58.0 . . . . . . . . 20500 59.0 . . . . . . . . . . 20530 600-. . . RUNOFF SUMMARY FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND HYDROGRAPH AT + WEST 163. CFS •••NORMAL END OF HEC-1'•• -3- HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY COMPUTATION OF ONSITE RUNOFF VOLUME Gross area 333.3 acres (including streets) Mid-Valley Channel area 11.3 acres (drains off site) Net area 322.0 acres Retention area 27.0 acres Developed area 295.0 acres Impervious area (90 percent impervious) 265.5 acres Pervious area 29.5 acres Impervious area and retention area 292.5 acres Runoff from impervious area and retention area 85.3 a-f (3.5 inches of rain) Runoff from pervious area 1.2 a-f (net rain = 0.5 inch) Total runoff 86.6 a-f RUNOFFV.WK4 .y `.1 IX. FIGURE 1: HYDROLOGY MAP gdott 4700,444t4itti f4:1 chi • • 4 Aut August 1996 I � Endo Engineering % Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments August 16, 1996 Mr. Marvin Roos Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 Palm Springs, California 92262 SUBJECT: Wonder Palms Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Roos; Pursuant to your request, Endo Engineering has analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts associated with the 270-acre Wonder Palms Commercial Center, in the City of Palm Desert. It is our understanding that the project site is located south of the Interstate 10/Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, east of Portola Avenue, and on both sides of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. Two project alternatives were evaluated in detail, based upon the Coachella Valley Area Transportation System (CVATS) model. Each conceptual land plan alternative included: freeway-oriented businesses, regional commercial uses, industrial/business uses, commer- cial/residential uses, office uses, and multi-family residential uses. The development inten- sity was greater for Alternative 1 than it was for Alternative 2 (except with regard to the residential uses proposed on-site). . The pages which follow summarize in graphic and narrative form: • an analysis of existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity (including morning and evening peak hour counts and capacity evaluations of six existing intersections); • an assessment of project buildout conditions (year 2005) with and without two project development alternatives (including morning and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersections); • future cumulative conditions (year 2010) with and without two project development alternatives based upon the CVATS model (including morning and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersec- tions); and • mitigation measures designed to reduce any significant impacts identified with development Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 to acceptable levels. City staff input and assistance in the development of this report has been greatly appreci- ated. A well coordinated effort was essential to the execution of the work program, and the City's cooperation in providing necessary information and data in a timely fashion contributed in no small measure to the completion of this study. 95 Argonaut - Suite 115, AIiso Viejo, California 92656-1487 (714) 768-4333 FAX (714) 768-C We trust that the information provided herein will assist the City in their review of the impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Should questions or comments arise regarding the findings and recommendations within this report, please do not hesitate to contact our offices at (714)768-4333. Cordially, ENDO ENGINEERING 093 t,c�2.c, di Z nct° ritoEESS/04/ y,\ LEE E4,, Vicki Lee Endo Registered Professional TR 1161 Traffic Engineer TR 1161 * /al 3' 1 9: Sl TRAE � �� ATE OF CAL\E�� 2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Existing Circulation Conditions 1. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10, State Route 111, and State Route 74. 2. Direct site access is available from Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Portola Avenue. 3. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Drive currently exceeds the City of Palm Desert performance standard of LOS C by operating at LOS D during morning peak hours and LOS C during evening peak hours. Westbound motorists currently experience LOS E operation and significant delay during peak travel periods. This intersection appears to currently meet daily planning level signal warrants. Signalization of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue is included in the Palm Desert Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. 4. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive at Eldorado Drive is currently operating at LOS C during evening peak hours and LOS A during morning peak hours. 5. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive does not appear to currently meet signal warrants and is not expected to meet signal warrants except: (1) under future year 2005+Alternative 1 conditions; or (2) under future year 2010+Altemative 2 conditions. 6. All four of the key signalized intersections currently operate at Level of Service B during morning and evening peak hours. 1.2 Circulation Impacts 1. Alternative 1 could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon buildout in the year 2005, if all of the floor area is constructed and fully occupied. Of that total, 8,905 trip-ends (3,889 inbound and 5,016 outbound) would occur during the evening peak hour and 3,802 trip-ends would be generated during the morning peak hour (2,672 inbound and 1,130 outbound). 2. Alternative 2 (which includes similar but less intense land uses than Alternative 1) would generate 54,930 average weekday trip-ends (approximately 60 percent of the traffic associated with Alternative 1). 3. Alternative 3 (the existing General Plan designations on-site) could generate an estimated 85,420 average weekday trip-ends (94% of that of Alternative 1). 4. Five key intersections appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants, based upon year 2005 ambient (no-project) traffic volumes including: (1) Gerald Ford Drive @ Portola Avenue, (2) Gerald Ford Drive @ Cook Street, (3) Gerald Ford Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive, (4) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Eastbound Ramps, and (5) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Westbound Ramps. Gerald Ford Drive at Cook Street will be signalized approximately 6 months after the Cook Street 1-1 interchange is opened in 1997. Signals will be installed and operational at the inter- sections of the I-10 ramps with Cook Street when the Cook Street interchange is opened. 5. Future year 2005 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the following. • The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours under year 2005 ambient conditions (assuming existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005). • With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2005 ambient volumes, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak hour, and four intersections will have a drop in level of service during the PM peak hour. Year 2005+Alternative 1 volumes will require a third northbound through lane at the intersection of Cook Street and the Interstate 10 eastbound ramps as well as a second southbound right-turn lane and a third eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. • With Alternative 2, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak hour, and two intersections will have a drop in level of service during the PM peak hour. No additional intersection approach lanes (beyond existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005) will be required to accommodate year 2005+Alternative 2 volumes at LOS C. 6. Future year 2010 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the following. • The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during peak hours under year 2010 ambient conditions (assuming lane geometrics consistent with the master planned circulation system). • With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2010 ambient volumes, six-lane cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive. Additional approach lanes will also be necessary at the Cook Street/Inter- statel0 interchange under construction and at the intersection of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street(beyond typical arterial intersection lane geometrics). • With Alternative 2, all required intersection approach lanes at key intersec- tions will be consistent with the master planned cross sections. Six-lane arterial cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive to accommodate year 2010 volumes at acceptable levels of service. 1.3 Recommended Mitigation 1. Figure 5-1 illustrates the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2005 conditions with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. 2. Figure 5-2 shows the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2020 conditions with each project alternative. 1-2 3. Figure 5-3 summarizes the conditions under which traffic volumes appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants at the unsignalized key intersections. 4. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 1 indicate that the key intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections, except at three intersections. 5. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 2 indicate that the key intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections. 6. The project (Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) will contribute through participation in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to future improve- • ments required along regional facilities (e.g. widening of: (1) Monterey Avenue through the intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra; and (2) Country Club Drive at the intersection of Cook Street to their master planned six-lane cross section). 7. Master planned streets bordering the project site shall be constructed to their ultimate half-sections in conjunction with adjacent development on-site. 8. Direct access to the site shall be designed to comply with City design standards and insure that adequate sight distance is provided for motorists. 9. Sight distances at access points and internal intersections shall be considered during the review of site plans, landscape plans, and project graphics. Landscape materi- als shall be selected to minimize interference with traffic sight distances. 10. The proposed cross-sections and internal roadway layout shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer during the development review process to insure compliance with City standards. 11. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the City of Palm Desert. 12. Non-motorized transportation facilities and corridors (golf cart paths, bike lanes, bike paths, etc.) shall be considered both off site and on site and shall be consistent with City of Palm Desert and regional plans for the project vicinity. 13. The project shall accommodate public transit needs, as determined by the City of Palm Desert in conjunction with Sunline Transit Authority. 14. Section 5.1 includes circulation design guidelines for consideration in developing detailed plans for development of the project site. 15. Section 5.2 includes a discussion of various measures to alter traffic demand related to the project for consideration in developing detailed plans for the project site. 16. Project-specific mitigation shall be considered by the City of Palm Desert upon application for detailed precise plans. 1-3