HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 99-93 GPA 99-2 Portola Avenue Corridor Resolution No. 99-93
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: City Council
II. REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and
a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to
Office Professional for 26 properties located along the Portola
Avenue corridor, as illustrated on Exhibit "A".
III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
w
IV. CASE NO: GPA 99-2 MEETING DATE /b - 1 U-q ci
V. DATE: October 14, 1999 ®-CONTINUED TOR 7I m R=. DMC3 2T►ai�)`k-
0 PASSED TO 2ND READING
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Recommendation Tp Fo9_m Pt- FULL. Rpt- o
B. Background p--r, VAS
C. Discussion
D. Analysis
E. Draft Resolution No. 99-93
F. Legal Notice
G. Planning Commission Resolution No.1941
H. Planning Commission Staff Report / Minutes dated September 21 , 1999
Resident comments and Appeal
J. Exhibit A (General Plan Amendment Map)
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That City Council affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation of September
21 , 1999, approving GPA 98-2.
B. BACKGROUND:
On September 21 , 1999, Planning Commission held a public hearing to review a
General Plan Amendment for 26 properties located along Portola Avenue. The
properties being considered under the General Plan Amendment are illustrated in
Exhibit "A "and are generally described as follows:
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
1 . Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue between De Anza Way
and 360 feet north of Catalina Way.
2. Properties located on the east side of Portola Avenue, starting from the north
side of De Anza Way, extending 180 feet north.
3. Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue, starting 150 feet north of
Fred Waring, extending 450 feet north of Rancho Road.
The properties in question are currently designated Medium Density Residential in
the City's General Plan and are zoned R-1 , Single-Family Residential.
A. EXISTING / PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential, 5-7 dwelling units per acre / Office Professional
II. DISCUSSION
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Medium Density Res. to Office Professional)
With the direction from Planning Commission, staff analyzed the potential
land use impacts to the Portola Avenue corridor, based on the anticipated
roadway widening and existing traffic levels. The proposed General Plan
Amendment will modify the land use designation from Medium Density
Residential (5-7 d.u./acre) to Office Professional. In 1984, the City Council
approved the Palma Village Specific Plan, which designated the subject
properties as Medium Density Residential. Due to the present increased
volume of traffic experienced on Portola Avenue, a designated major
thoroughfare, and the future roadway widening, the subject residential
properties have become incompatible with residential use. At its current
condition between Fred Waring and Highway 1 1 1 , Portola Avenue is
currently 70 percent over capacity. The maximum volume which can be
carried by a two lane street with a Level of Service "C" (City's goal), is
10,000 trips. Portola Avenue currently experiences over 17,000 trips per
day.
Based on the General Plan Circulation Element, approved in 1980 and
amended in 1994, Portola Avenue is currently designated as a four-lane,
major thoroughfare with a 100 foot ultimate right-of-way. Initial widening
includes a 50 foot half-street right-of-way for northbound Portola Avenue
between San Marino Circle (south) and north of Catalina Way. Eventually,
widening on Portola Avenue will include a 50 foot right-of-way for both sides
of Portola or 100 foot total right-of-way (see Public Works Department memo
2
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
dated 9/8/99). Existing right-of-way on Portola, between Fred Waring Drive
and Highway 1 1 1 , ranges from 60 to 88 feet wide.
Impacts due to future widening:
Initial impacts due to widening of Portola Avenue as described by Public
Works Memorandum dated September 8, 1999, include acquisition of 20 feet
of frontage along four lots located on the east side of Portola between San
Marino Circle (south) and the south side of De Anza Way. The required right-
of-way acquisition will leave 40 foot wide parcels and potentially encroach
into the existing residential structure. These four properties were originally
included in the proposed General Plan Amendment and were indicated on the
legal notice. Staff has restudied these lots and will recommend that they be
omitted from the General Plan Amendment. These properties will have to be
acquired by the City to accomplish the widening and will have insufficient
depth to accommodate office uses (i.e. 40 feet in depth). The City
anticipates these properties being used as landscaped buffers to the adjacent
properties or being consolidated as part of the adjacent residential lots.
Other residential properties indicated on Exhibit "A" along Portola Avenue will
also be impacted by the future widening. The three properties highlighted in
yellow on the east side of Portola from De Anza Way to 180 feet north, will
also see a decrease in setback when the widening occurs. Future setbacks
for these residences will range from 9 to 13 feet from the future right-of-way
line.
Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue from De Anza Way to
360 feet north of Catalina Way will also experience a setback reduction from
as little as zero setback to 10 feet from existing structures to right-of-way.
The single-family properties fronting on the west side of Portola Avenue,
starting 150 feet north of Fred Waring Drive extending 450 feet north of
Rancho Road will also experience further noise and setback reductions.
Current right-of-way is 30 foot from centerline, similar to what existing on
Portola near San Marino Circle. Future right-of-way as indicated in the
General Plan will require a 50 foot half-street right-of-way. This will leave
these properties with virtually zero setback from future right-of-way to
existing structures.
Properties fronting Portola Avenue already experience high volumes of traffic
and noise. Those properties illustrated in Exhibit A have become less
desirable for residential use. The future impacts on these properties include
increase in noise due to traffic and decrease in setback due to widening.
Planning Commission Action:
3
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
On September 21 , 1999, Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1 941 ,
recommending to the City Council approval of GPA 99-2. Motion carried 5-0.
The Planning Commission also recommended to the City Council, that
residents, particularly those on Portola Avenue, be given the opportunity to
give input through a public hearing, not only on the General Plan Amendment,
but specifically on the widening of Portola and the environmental impacts
that the widening could have. Motion carried 5-0. Minutes of the September
21 , 1999 meeting are included in your report.
III. NEIGHBOORHOOD CONCERNS:
The following discussion addresses resident concerns raised at the September 21 ,
1999 Planning Commission meeting, issues outlined on an Appeal to the Planning
Commission's recommendation of approval (filed by several property owners
adjacent to Portola Avenue) and correspondence received prior to the Planning
Commission meeting. The appeal and opposition correspondence are attached to
your report.
Issues:
1 . The legal notice made no mention regarding the plan to widen Portola
Avenue.
Response:
The City's General Plan Circulation Element designated Portola Avenue as a major
thoroughfare, with an ultimate right-of-way of 100 feet. This designation has been
in place since 1980. There is no modification proposed to this designation, thus it
was not included in the legal notice. Although future widening of Portola Avenue
was a factor in the consideration to modify the General Plan for Portola Avenue, it
was one of many factors considered. The proposed land use modifications do not
affect the existing plan (i.e. Circulation Element) to widen Portola Avenue.
Widening will eventually occur with or without the land use amendments. Being
two separate projects, the legal notices for the General Plan Amendment sent to
residents on August 31 , 1999 was not required to make reference to the future
widening on Portola Avenue.
The Public Works Department will address future widening of Portola at a later date.
Although roadway widenings usually do not require a public hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that a public hearing be held to
examine any impacts which may occur due to future widening on Portola Avenue.
4
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
2. Inconsistency and inaccuracy in reports, maps and notices.
Response:
Initially when legal notices were sent out on August 31 , 1999, the text described
the areas generally being considered as part of the General Plan Amendment. A
map was also included in the legal notice, identifying those parcels being considered
in the General Plan Amendment. The map identified 30 properties being considered
for re-designation in the General Plan. During the time the notices were sent out
(August 31 , 1999) and the date of the public hearing (September 21 , 1999), further
analysis was made eliminating 7 properties from the General Plan re-designation and
adding three to the final map. The final map is illustrated in Exhibit "A", which
Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council. All property
owners directly impacted on Portola Avenue and within 300 feet were notified of
the September 21 , 1 999 public hearing.
All property owners have been re-notified of the City Council public hearing.
Attached in their notice, staff has included a map of the Planning Commission's
recommended General Plan modifications. The map highlights the 26 properties
being considered for re-designation from Residential to Office Professional.
3. Traffic Impact:
Response:
The California Environmental Quality Act requires staff to identify any and all
impacts which will potentially have a significant impact on the environment. One of
the resident's concerns identified at the Planning Commission meeting, via
correspondence and through the appeal, was traffic. Staff has conducted a study
on the potential traffic impacts of 26 single tenant office buildings vs. 26
residences. The lots under consideration range from 105' to 120' deep. With a 20
foot reduction for widening, the 105' deep lots become 85' deep and the 1 20' deep
lots become 100' deep. Due to parking and setback requirements, these lots could
only accommodate a single-story office building with a maximum of 1 ,800 to 2,000
square feet.
In terms of traffic generation, a 2,000 square foot office building generates an
average of 22 vehicle trips per day. With 22 vehicle trips per each of the possible
twenty-six, 2,000 square foot buildings, a total of 572 vehicle trips are generated.
This translates into 3.4 percent of the overall traffic on Portola Avenue (17,000
vehicle trips per day).
Twenty-six single-family homes generate 260 vehicle trips per day. The difference
between residential and office use would be a net increase of 312 vehicle trips or a
5
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
1.8 percent increase to the overall traffic. This translates to a less than significant
impact. (Figures taken from Institute of Transportation Engineers Manual, Trip
Generation, 6th Edition).
According to the City's Traffic Engineer, recent traffic counts on Portola have been
at least 17,000 trips per day since at least 1994. At its current condition between
Fred Waring and Highway 1 1 1 , Portola Avenue is currently 70 percent over
capacity. The maximum volume which can be carried by a two lane street with a
Level of Service "C" (City's goal), is 10,000 trips. Portola Avenue currently
experiences over 17,000 trips per day.
5. Desert Sands Unified School District notification:
Response:
Staff contacted Desert Sands Unified School District, via a request for comment
form and conversation on October 4, 1999. Their review and comments on the
proposed General Plan Amendment are in your report. They do not indicate
concerns regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment.
6. Planning Commission's reference to City purchasing properties along Portola:
Response:
A question was raised at the Planning Commission meeting as to what would
happen if the City widened Portola Avenue and left properties with virtually no
setback. The Planning Commission response was that the City would more than
likely purchase those properties significantly impacted by future widening and the
price would be negotiated based on fair market value. Fair market value would be
determined by an independent appraisal.
7. Public Works diagram included in file is meaningless:
Response:
In the Planning Commission report, City Council will find a Public Works Department
Memorandum dated September 8, 1999. This Memorandum includes a diagram
illustrating the proposed right-of-way for northbound Portola Avenue, between San
Marino Circle south and north of El Cortez. This diagram illustrates implementation
of the Circulation Element and future right-of-way for Portola Avenue designated a
major thoroughfare in the General Plan.
6
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
8. Encroachment into the R-1 zoning:
Response:
The future office professional use will not encroach into the residential zone. Office
use is being proposed along a heavily travel street (i.e. Portola Avenue), which
currently has significantly impacted residential properties. Office uses have been
successful in creating buffers between major thoroughfare streets and residential
properties. Examples of this technique are visible along Fred Waring Drive and
Monterey Avenue.
9. No market needs assessment made for office professional offices.
Response:
The purpose of the General Plan is to designate properties with the most appropriate
and compatible long-term land use. The General Plan does not dictate the need for
office use. The need for office use is typically dictated by the open market. If there
is a demand for office space, then developers will pursue the acquisition of the
subject properties. The City is not forcing property owners to convert their homes
to office use or these properties to be rezoned. The market will drive this issue. The
General Plan Amendment simply provides an alternative value for properties, which
have become less desirable as residential use, along Portola Avenue.
Other issues raised by citizens include the following.
Inadequacies in the Initial Study:
Response:
Various items on the Initial Study Checklist, which Staff indicated "no impact" were
questioned. These items are identified in the September 21 , Planning Commission
minutes, page 15. All the concerns regarding the "no impact" evaluation were
directly related to future widening or to future office buildings. The Initial Study
Checklist was prepared only for the re-designation of land use along Portola Avenue.
The right-of-way necessary for Portola Avenue, was approved as part of the General
Plan adopted in 1980. Any impacts due to future widening or individual office
buildings will be evaluated through the same CEQA requirements at the time
requests or applications are proposed.
Other concerns residents raised are noise impacts due future Portola widening,
parking, security and privacy due to future office professional use. Staff
acknowledges that Portola Avenue is currently a busy street, which creates vehicle
noise, but future professional office uses will create a buffer between the adjacent
7
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
OCTOBER 14, 1999
residential properties and Portola Avenue. Furthermore, the City has found office
uses to be compatible with adjacent residential properties, as currently exists on
Fred Waring Drive and Monterey Avenue.
Regarding parking, security and privacy, staff has found no significant negative
impacts to adjacent residential properties which either back up or are adjacent to
office use. Each one of the potential office developments will require approval of a
Precise Plan by the Planning Commission. This Precise Plan process will ensure
compatibility with the adjacent properties.
IV. ANALYSIS:
Due to the future widening and the volume of existing traffic on Portola Avenue, the
proposed General Plan Amendment will allow future uses (i.e. office professional)
which are compatible and appropriate along heavily traveled thoroughfares. Office
professional uses have been found to be more compatible along major thoroughfare
streets and serve as buffers between major thoroughfare, such as Portola Avenue
and adjacent residential properties. The amendment to the General Plan will be
compatible with the Palma Village Specific Plan.
A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
1 . The Portola Avenue area has recently been an area of transition. With
the future widening of Portola Avenue and the existing traffic volumes,
properties along this corridor have become less attractive and
incompatible for single-family residential use.
2. The land use amendment to Office Professional is consistent with the
long-term land use of the area.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Community Development has determined that the project will
not have a significant negative effect on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
Prepared by:
artin Alvarez
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip Drell
8
RESOLUTION NO. 99-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL FOR 26
PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE
PORTOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR, AS ILLUSTRATED IN
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
14th day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request
by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; 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 negative 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 and reasons to exist to justify approval of the General
Plan Amendment:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
1 . The Portola Avenue area has recently been an area of transition. With
the future widening of Portola Avenue and the existing traffic volumes,
properties along this corridor have become less attractive and
incompatible for single-family residential use.
2. The land use amendment to Office Professional is consistent with the
long-term land use of the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the
findings of the City Council in this case.
2. That General Plan Amendment 99-2 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) is
hereby approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 99-93
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
2
1 ' W `n , R-1 90)0
;iii_ ,�� �v �\ HI- DESERT STAR BOULEVARD _ - ' __
r
KR A EN rE IIII, 00Q FiNN
-v--1 ;1111191111 \
D ,, v r
: 4,....i_v_iei lt � .� _19 0
Y �. V ) — I N STRI H'�'-
J '
�� r' RANCHO ROAD , _ �� :f•��� -- --- V-aE'�RI o DRI N
JHU± 7 Mt:- EN -1 9 00
�a �0 r • I a s UI
1 14
u,,,iicj::), r111X11 -., ,, ,. ' —- Z •-1rUIZIm 5 i , ..., -
mg'
FRED WARING DRIVE
ill_,, , R.11 SiP.
y
1 T -trr , 1 ( [ _GOI.F.TAA ESE --
__ RUS O. ' LR-b O i . I 1. - i LFT-11-
I --I Hil- I
1 �sAN 1, ■ 1■ 6°01: 2,‘ROSA-CIRCLE (
_ ,�_,,// rr innra7 r1
-2 S.O. a R-2, S.O. 'n`g � `'eOUld ���. nb m : ( /
z
IC
R 2, S.O. -- R'-iv vi- u
�� R-2, SPSO _ :44_,Litil
oO
rz.
CATALINA WAY R• -
R-2 0 - - 1 •R- .: .1:- ' RI p:z rd
_ t - rah
18000 i II
zr_ 7
, ILC j:LCQ
r -I] ,
e
�i 1 DEAN/AWAY DE AN/A
- 80_00/ t-------- ----7 1=1-71-----14iii. Ai_-_ 7 R / az
_2 - Proposed
sAN s:Ii •
iii p R-'
-:-,::. at _ a P.. ft _ . ,„ 11;.„
in
LEsiAND-zo DRWE g Medium Density
C-1, S.P. C-1, S.P. C-1, S. . C-1, S.P. Residential
C -- To
Office Professional
STATE HIGHWAY I I I
edy of Yam.7eLl Case No. CITY COUNCIL
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
EXHI II IT A Date:
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: GPA 99-2
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval of a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Office
Professional for properties described as follows:
1 . Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue between De Anza Way and
360 feet north of Catalina Way.
2. Properties located on the east side of Portola Avenue, starting on the north side of
De Anza Way, extending 180 feet north.
3. Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue, starting 150 feet north of
Fred Waring, extending 450 feet north.
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 is on file in the Department of
Community Development 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
4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and City Manager
FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
SUBJECT: PORTOLA AVENUE WIDENING — WHITEWATER CHANNEL TO
HIGHWAY 111
DATE: October 14, 1999
RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion, affirm staff recommendation for a reduced right-of-way and roadway
cross-section for Portola Avenue between the Whitewater Channel and Highway 1 1 1.
BACKGROUND:
In response to circulation issues raised regarding a proposed change of zone and General
Plan Amendment for a portion of the Portola Avenue corridor, Public Works staff have
undertaken an analysis on the impacts associated with the widening of Portola Avenue.
The City's Circulation Element designates Portola Avenue as a major thoroughfare. As
such, the right-of-way width is specified as 100 feet with 76 feet of roadway improvement
and 12-foot-wide parkways. The lane configuration within the 76 feet improvement width
includes four 12-foot-wide vehicle travel lanes, a 12-foot-wide center (painted) median
lane and two 8-foot-wide parking lanes. This cross section exists for the majority of Portola
Avenue north of the Whitewater Channel.
The segment of Portola Avenue between the Whitewater Channel and Highway 111
consists of a variety of right-of-way and improvement widths ranging from 44 feet of
improvements within 60 feet of right-of-way to 88 feet of improvements within 100 feet of
right-of-way. The roadway striping within this segment varies from a three-lane facility to
five-lane facility, all with no on-street parking and no provisions for bicycle or golf cart
lanes.
General Plan Circulation Element Policy 2.1 states that level of service (LOS) "C" is the
performance objective on the circulation system. For roadways with LOS worse than "C",
the objective is to maintain or improve the level of service. Table 2, "ADT Capacities", of
the Circulation Element indicates that the volume of traffic that can be accommodated at
LOS "C" is 10,000 vehicles per day on a two-lane roadway and 26,000 vehicles per day on
a four-lane roadway.
Page 2
October 14, 1999
SUBJECT: PORTOLA AVENUE WIDENING — WHITEWATER CHANNEL TO
HIGHWAY 111
Traffic volumes have exceeded 17,000 vehicles per day on Portola Avenue since at least
1994. This results in operation at LOS "F" during peak periods in the two-lane
configuration that currently exists. Portola Avenue is carrying all of the traffic that it can at
this time and some traffic may currently be diverting to other routes due to the congested
conditions.
A recent study of Fred Waring Drive found a traffic volume growth rate of approximately
three percent (3%) per year over the last several years. If Portola Avenue experiences a
three percent per year growth rate through 2010, traffic volumes would be approximately
22,000 vehicles per day. If Portola Avenue was widened to four lanes, this would result
in LOS "C" through 2010. If traffic volumes continued to grow at three percent per year,
level of service would drop to LOS "D" by 2017. Of course, traffic volumes do not
actually increase (or decrease) at a steady rate and they may reach these thresholds sooner
or not at all.
In analyzing the impact to existing development within the scenario, staff looked at two
possible scenarios. The first involved full implementation of the General Plan Circulation
Element criteria for Portola Avenue (100' RAN and 76' improvement width). Taking a
conservative, worse case, approach staff has determined that it would be necessary to fully
acquire approximately 19 properties with partial acquisitions involving 64 properties.
Acquisition costs have been estimated in the neighborhood of $3,785,000 plus an
additional $1,654,000 in construction-related costs for a total cost of $5,439,000.
In order to reduce the potential impacts the widening project would have, financial and
otherwise, staff evaluated a second scenario involving reduced right-of-way/improvement
width. As stated previously, a four-lane vehicle travel facility could provide for LOS "C"
beyond 2010. This four-lane facility could be accommodated through 68-feet of
improvement width and 88 feet of right-of-way. The lane configuration within the 68 feet
of roadway improvement would include two 12-foot-wide and two 11-foot-wide vehicle
lanes, a 10-foot-wide center (painted) median lane and two 6-foot-wide bicycle/golf cart
lanes as well as a 10-foot wide parkway area. Again, taking a conservative, worse case
approach, staff estimates that it would be necessary to fully acquire six properties with
partial acquisitions involving 27 properties. These costs have been estimated at
$1,400,000 with construction adding an additional $1,515,000 for a total cost of
$2,915,000.
Page 3
October 14, 199
SUBJECT: PORTOLA AVENUE WIDENING — WHITEWATER CHANNEL TO
HIGHWAY 111
With the ultimate goal being to provide an acceptable level of service in a safe, efficient
manner, staff feels that a reduced right-of-way and travel way width can accomplish that
goal while significantly reducing the project impact to existing development.
Staff recommends that the City Council, by minute motion, affirm the concept of reduced
right-of-way and roadway cross-section for Portola Avenue between the Whitewater
Channel and Highway 111.
RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. REVIEWED AND CONCUR
CITY MANAGER
RJF:JSG/ms
.........................
..
. .... CITY OF I Lffl DESERT
•
. ,
, :
, „tit .... ,,,? 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
�� :44,-111.1— yti. .: TEL: 760 346-061 1
te ` FAX: 76o 341-7098
:3 info@palm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: September 24, 1999
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Re: GPA 99-2
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken
the following action at its meeting of September 21 , 1999:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF
GPA 99-2 BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1941. MOTION CARRIED 5-
0.
PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
GIVE THE RESIDENTS, PARTICULARLY THOSE ON PORTOLA, AN
OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE INPUT NOT JUST ON THE GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, BUT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE WIDENING OF PORTOLA
AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT THE WIDENING WOULD HAVE.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
ILPHILI DRELL iLL" c
PALM DESERT ANNING COMMISSION
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
PL./ ING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1941
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL FOR 26 PROPERTIES GENERALLY
LOCATED ALONG THE PORTOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR AS
ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 21st
day of September 21 , 1999 hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by
CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; 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 negative 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 and reasons to exist to justify approval of the general plan amendment,
and precise plan:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1 . The Portola Avenue area has recently been an area of transition. With the
future widening of Portola Avenue and the existing traffic volumes, properties
along this corridor have become less attractive and incompatible for single-
family residential use.
2. The land use amendment to Office Professional is consistent with the long-
term land use of the area.
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 General Plan Amendment 99-2 (attached hereto as Exhibit A)
is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council for reasons subject to
the attached conditions.
PLANNING COMMISS1.14 RESOLUTION NO. 1941
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: GPA 99-2
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval of a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Office
Professional for properties-described as follows:
Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue between De Anza Way and 360 feet
north of Catalina Way.
Properties located on the east side of Portola Avenue, from De Anza Way, extending 180
feet north.
Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue, starting 150 feet north of Fred
Waring, extending 450 feet north.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
i e
L-)'u-0- 1 ,September 21 , 1999
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF CbMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3
................ CITY OF Illlill DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
.iel PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 260-2 5 7 8
� :_ ti. TEL: 760 346-061 1
n�:yf✓..•:'• FAX: 760 341-7098
=973,• info@palm-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Office Professional for 26 properties described as follows: (1 ) Properties
located on the east side of Portola Avenue, from the north side of De Anza Way extending
180 feet north, (2) Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue between the
north side of De Anza Way and 360 feet north of Catalina Way, (3) Properties located on
the west side of Portola Avenue, starting 150 feet north of Fred Waring Drive and
extending 450 feet north of Rancho Road.
See Map on Reverse
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 14, 1999, 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 (or city council)
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA GILLIGAN, City Clerk
September 27, 1999 Palm Desert City Council
1 i I I t I ' 1 ' :'_�►l _' _. ' I_-._'' is ' ; 4; },� ' Y'\ -
....' `iA-----1
vl Ilk iv \
soy -2 ,__— ,, • , .%. / .1
.01 111111111 IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII :FAA # .A '1•4 1
/ I � . �eV.-Q 2 R �I7 W r a -d ri-
-19000
�P a- a RANCHO ROAD 70
� .8
' - I. .� o_ Chi, [ 1
--t]-' rl R»1
itin • Liii
rm - .; No: • il rii r
so__
•nii Ill
FRED WARING DRIVE
R-1.S,P
a s - - roI ET vET JE
, . 6R-1 _ 1 , I _A_
= ,r . • ,.c a st14!! 007�
lagill *I A ROSA CIRCLE
``4= P,F2_5 N '.,:ie,n‘3%7Y.:IN:s
r_
P. 'C W�a- :au ea VI VI vg ut v
R 2 S.O '`r. R-2, SP93 ILA 4. RI
CATALINA W Y $I`(
.•o _ ,
0 \D VE U 0
R-1 Iv I
8000, Mir -1 1
lip•ar- . ' / 411E11
':( ../.: :_ji _
/ / s_____ -/1 i 1E1 ,4001
lip, // -... lrf -1 -1 , (R-f -' DE ANZA ,, . r<
IP ("-- all - � � l
2 SAr
r ;-r R-1 Iasi/ / , ; 1 _ , \
R"^i ,CIRCLE} _1• �'; Proposed
�. 1� Q. ta, . . - GPA
9 NO IFI-,:._-,...„, , ,.. ,,, ,n,
o r A
,z,........,.„ „ .__ I
_,,.. ..... , ..
t + s �
vr; • P • 11/
' Medium Density
, ilta i
' P-1, S.P. ^, ( C-1, S. .I C-1, S.P. rn' Residential
-... g.�•='•- DRIVE-N- -_. — To
STATE HIGHWAY I I 1 Office Professional
f TIP CFRT TIP IVF-S _ - — - _
eiiy cifYafm 17e,+ez! Case No. PLANNING COMMISSION
,• , . GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A Date:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: September 21 , 1999
CASE NO: GPA 99-2
REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a
General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Office
Professional for 26 properties located along the Portola Avenue
corridor as illustrated on Exhibit "A".
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 1999, Planning Commission directed Staff to initiate a General Plan
amendment for properties along Portola Avenue, which will be impacted by future
roadway widening.
Staff has analyzed the potential land use impacts to the Portola Avenue corridor,
based on the anticipated roadway widening and existing traffic levels. The
properties being considered under the General Plan amendment are illustrated in
Exhibit A and are generally described as follows:
1 . Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue between De Anza Way
and 360 feet north of Catalina Way.
2. Properties located on the east side of Portola Avenue, from De Anza Way,
extending 180 feet north.
3. Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue, starting 1 50 feet north of
Fred Waring, extending 450 feet north of Rancho Road.
The properties in question are currently designated Medium Density Residential in
the City's General Plan and are zoned R-1 , Single-Family Residential. With
exception to one parcel on the west side of Portola Avenue, all the properties in
question are developed.
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
SEPTEMBER, 21 1999
A. EXISTING / PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Medium Density Residential, 5-7 dwelling units per acre / Office Professional
II. DISCUSSION
A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Medium Density Res. to Office Professional)
The proposed General Plan amendment will modify the land use designation
from Medium Density Residential (5-7 d.u./acre) to Office Professional. In
1984, the City Council approved the Palma Village Specific Plan, which
designated the subject properties as Medium Density Residential. Due to the
existing volume of traffic experienced on Portola Avenue, a designated
arterial roadway, and the future roadway widening, the subject residential
properties have become less desirable for residential use.
Anticipated widening on Portola Avenue will initially include a 50 foot half-
street right-of-way for northbound Portola Avenue between San Marino Circle
(south) and north of Catalina Way. Eventually widening on Portola Avenue
will include a 50 foot right-of-way for both sides or 100 foot total right-of-
way (see Public Works Department memo dated 9/8/99).
Impacts:
Initial impacts due to widening of Portola Avenue as described by Public
Works Memorandum dated September 8, 1999, include acquisition of 20 feet
of frontage along four lots located on the east side of Portola between San
Marino Circle (south) and the south side of De Anza Way. The required right-
of-way acquisition will leave 40 foot wide parcels and potentially encroach
into the existing residential structure. These four properties were originally
included in the proposed General Plan amendment and were indicated on the
legal notice. Staff has restudied these lots and will recommend that they be
omitted from the General Plan amendment. These properties will have to be
acquired by the City to accomplish the widening and will have insufficient
depth to accommodate office uses (i.e. 40 feet in depth). The City
anticipates these properties being used as landscaped buffers to the adjacent
properties or being consolidated as part of the adjacent residential lots.
Other residential properties indicated on Exhibit "A" along Portola Avenue will
also be impacted by the future widening. The three properties highlighted in
yellow on the east side of Portola from De Anza Way to 180 feet north, will
also see a decrease in setback when the widening occurs. Future setbacks
2
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
SEPTEMBER, 21 1999
for these residences will range from 9 to 13 feet from future right-of-way
line.
Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue from De Anza Way to
360 feet north of Catalina Way will also experience a setback reduction from
as little as zero setback to 10 feet from existing structures to right-of-way.
The single-family properties fronting on the west side of Portola Avenue,
starting 150 feet north of Fred Waring Drive extending 450 feet north of
Rancho Road will also experience further noise and set back reductions.
Current right-of-way is 30 foot from centerline, similar to what existing on
Portola near San Marino Circle. Future right-of-way as indicated in the
General Plan will require a 50 foot half-street right-of-way. This will leave
these properties with virtually zero setback from future right-of-way to
existing structures.
Properties fronting Portola Avenue already experience high volume of traffic
and noise. Those properties illustrated in Exhibit A have become less
desirable for residential use. The future impacts on these properties include
increase in noise due to traffic and decrease in setback due to widening.
An aerial map will be available for your review at Tuesdays meeting,
illustrating the future right-of-way line and setback impacts to the subject
properties.
III. NEIGHBOORHOOD CONCERNS:
Since notifying property owners directly impacted and within 300 feet of Portola
Avenue on August 31 , 1999, staff has received two• letters commenting of the
General Plan amendment proposal. Letters commenting on the project are attached
to this report. Two property owners have expressed concerns regarding the
impacts to their properties due to the General Plan amendment.
Mr. Thomas Angle resides at 44-454 San Jose and backs up directly to property
fronting Portola Avenue. His concern is noise impacts due to Portola widening and
future office professional use. Staff acknowledges that Portola Avenue is currently
a busy arterial which creates vehicle noise, but future professional office uses will
create a buffer between the adjacent residential properties and Portola Avenue.
Furthermore, the City has found office uses to be compatible with adjacent
residential properties, as currently exists on Fred Waring Drive and Monterey
Avenue.
3
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
SEPTEMBER, 21 1999
Mr. Rodney MacDonald resides at 73-973 Olive Court and backs up directly to
Portola Avenue. Mr. MacDonald has expressed concerns regarding noise, parking
security and privacy. The project known as Portola Place backs up to Portola
Avenue, a designated arterial roadway in the City's General Plan. Necessary
roadway to 50 feet of right-of-way for Portola Place was dedicated to the City at
time of construction. The widening will not affect this property, as it is already built
to the desired future width. Regarding parking, security and privacy, Staff has
found no significant negative impacts to adjacent residential properties which either
back up or are adjacent to office use. Each one of the potential office developments
will require approval of a Precise Plan by the Planning Commission. This Precise
Plan process will ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties.
IV. ANALYSIS:
Due to the future widening and the volume of existing traffic on Portola Avenue, the
proposed General Plan amendment will allow future uses (i.e. office professional)
which are compatible and appropriate along heavily traveled artertial roadways.
Office professional uses have been found to be more compatible along arterials and
serve as buffers between arterials such as Portola Avenue and adjacent residential
properties. The amendment to the General Plan will be compatible with the Palma
Village Specific Plan.
A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT:
1 . The Portola Avenue area has recently been an area of transition. With the
future widening of Portola Avenue and the existing traffic volumes, properties
along this corridor have become less attractive and incompatible for single-
family residential use.
2. The land use amendment to Office Professional is consistent with the long-
term land use of the area.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Community Development has determined that the project will
not have a significant negative effect on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend approval of GPA 99-2 to the City
Council.
4
STAFF REPORT
GPA 99-2
SEPTEMBER, 21 1999
VI. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution/Negative Declaration
B. Exhibit A (GPA Map)
C. Legal notice
D. Initial Study
E. Comments from other departments and agencies
F. Resident letters
Prepared by: j.
Martin Alvarez
Reviewed and Approved by:
Philip rell
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE PROFESSIONAL FOR 26
PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE
PORTOLA AVENUE CORRIDOR AS ILLUSTRATED IN
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the
21st day of September 21 , 1999 hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a
request by CITY OF PALM DESERT for the above mentioned; 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 negative 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 and reasons to exist to justify approval of the general plan
amendment, and precise plan:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
1 . The Portola Avenue area has recently been an area of transition. With
the future widening of Portola Avenue and the existing traffic volumes,
properties along this corridor have become less attractive and
incompatible for single-family residential use.
2. The land use amendment to Office Professional is consistent with the
long-term land use of the area.
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 General Plan Amendment 99-2 (attached hereto as
Exhibit A) is hereby recommended for approval to the City Council for
reasons subject to the attached conditions.
1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this 21st day of September, 1999, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SABBY JONATHAN, Chairman
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
City of Palm Desert, California
2
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: GPA 99-2
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:
Approval of a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Office
Professional for properties described as follows:
1 . Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue between De Anza Way and
360 feet north of Catalina Way.
2. Properties located on the east side of Portola Avenue, from De Anza Way,
extending 180 feet north.
3. Properties located on the west side of Portola Avenue, starting 150 feet north of
Fred Waring, extending 450 feet north.
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
3
r /c_. t\ift., ,,,,__,, aimiy.,„ _ in L. , % -,
MEDIUM DE
tii is = • ► I I?! a '
MEDIUM DENS
_.,4 i
RAN O ROAD �'III 0- _ }LL 1iZt?i
IS " MEDIUM -
NSITY = :.;: MEDIUM DENS!
as�� MEDIUM MEDIUM- DENSITY
to DE
FRED WARING DRIVE
OFFICE PR ESSIONAL MEDIUM DEN
i
a
N);9
ii
1 I. 111111 SANTA ROSA CIRCLE
cn. ..e Frl 0 MEDIUM DENSITY
`- MEDIUM CATALINA WAY TON `\
I I I NSITY 1
f, - i
Mi
lt
< z a
tc..,> = a. , MEDIUM DENSITY
. i♦ FE COTI1 WAY ILL CORFLZ 14 \Y
MEDIUM F
111111�gm MEDIUM DENSITY DENSITY �Z.
MEDIUM DI
DILIM DENSITY F a r
DI NN/,\ WAY DI; AN/A \\1,,Y r,
j. i
MEDIUM DENSITY j1;- MEDIUM ,
�
MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY r ciTv •
cr crf ✓: >r MARING
MIDI ENSrr ' E.< r,t) Proposed
b _ a; y. s` 5 v� \1 vKL U 1 Y � GPA
_ r HIGH
Cr E' Cif ; ;' r/-�tf.T /�� .--,,
/47.
!' `. `.j �` C RC ---- s r--k- 7
-
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PROFESSIOC OFFICE PROFESSION
DIm1)PI\1.
` , Medium Density
COMMERCIAL CORE COMMERCIA = ORE COMMERCIAL Residential
,NI LE:S[.R I DRI\I_N i To
STATE HIGHWAY III Office Professional
zNA iWCFRT nu IMF C.
edya/9alin Alert Case No. PLANNING COMMISSION
''I.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A Date:
CITY OF RLffl DESERT
•• £..4. 10 FRED WARING DRIVE
�M • 73 5
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92 2 60-2 5 7 8
6-00 6 TEL:
� - -- � 7 34 61I
FAX: 76o 341-7098
Info@p.Im-deserr.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert
Planning Commission to consider a request by the CITY OF PALM DESERT for approval of
a negative declaration of environmental impact and an amendment to the general plan from
low density residential to office professional for properties generally fronting on both the
east and west sides of Portola Avenue between Fred Waring Drive and Alessandro Drive
and those properties fronting on the west side of Portola Avenue, up to 500 feet north of
Fred Waring Drive.
See map on reverse side
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 21 , 1999, 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 (or city council)
at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Philip Drell, Secretary
August 31 , 1999 Palm Desert Planning Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title:
Portola Avenue General Plan Amendment 99-2
2. Lead Agency and Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
3. Contact person and Phone Number:
Martin Alvarez, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
(760) 346-061 1 ext. 485
4. Project Location:
Generally those lots fronting on both east and west sides of Portola Avenue, from
Alessandro Drive to Fred Waring Drive and the west side of Portola Avenue up to
500 feet north of Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA,
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
6. Existing General Plan Designation:
Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-1
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
Approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact and an
amendment to the general plan from medium density residential to office
professional for those properties generally fronting on the east and west
sides of Portola Avenue, between Alessandro Drive and Fred Waring and
lots on the west side of Fred Waring Drive 500 feet north of Fred Waring
Drive.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings. Attach
additional sheet(s) if necessary.)
The lots in question are generally surrounded by low, medium density and high
density residential properties.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None
APPENDIX "G"
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environment factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Noise
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Recreation
Hazards&Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality
Air Quality Geology / Soils Transportation/Traffic
Land Use / Planning Public Population/Housing
Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this evaluation:
(X) 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 revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on an earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only those effects that remain to be addressed.
( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequaltely in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATI including revisions or mitigation measures that are proposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
4931f
Si ature G��G/ �jq/�t/ (� ate
4477,
Printed Name For
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1 ) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that
are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cities in the
parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if
the reference information sources shaow that the impact simply does not apply to the
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g., the projec will not expose senstative receptor to pollutants,
based on a project-specific screening analysis).
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as
on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well
as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact' to a 'Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,' may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above
checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with
Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which
were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
3 Final Text - October 26, 1998
SAMPLE QUESTION
Issues:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporation trnpact Impact
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? El
a
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic ❑ ❑ ❑
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or Ela
quality of the site and its surroundings? t,21
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Ela
area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would
the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shownU<I1
on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aEl
❑ ❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in 111
❑
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
4 Final Text - October 26, 1998
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute El
❑
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofEl
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or D ❑
through habitat modifications, on any species identified 111
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian D ❑ ❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native11:1
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5 Final Text - October 26, 1998
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances0 El El �-protecting biological resources, such as a tree �
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat IJ
LI
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation El 2:1
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in theEl El
[1]
significance of a historical resource as defined in CZ]
§15064.5? .
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in theEl CI El El
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 121
El ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
1:Z1
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred0 0 ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ❑ ❑
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death IZI
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on ❑ ❑ ❑
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning n
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ,'
R Ell El
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including El El �.
liquefaction?iv) Landslides? El 0 El J2:1
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 El Ell
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, El11 El
LI
or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 180 0 Eil n
-
1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
6 Final Text - October 26, 1998
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the useEl El 0of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems �J
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ED
Eil El
4
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 El ri] 4
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or0 El El I]acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to El 11] 21
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ nor, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El
❑
would the project result in a safety hazard for people El
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with El [I]
Elan adopted emergency response plan or emergency
IZI
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El 0 El g
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? Lull
LI
[I]
7 Final Text - October 26, 1998
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfereEl n ❑substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production
rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El
11111
site or area, including through the alteration of the 0
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the0 El LI
110
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed [II 0 Ell 1]
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El 0 El 1:Ei
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as El Elmapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
El Virl
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map? V
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures EllEl
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑
VI
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? El D a
0
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? El u El E6
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or El D El
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project El
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan El
n❑or natural community conservation plan? ill
8 Final Text - October 26, 1998
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ 0 El
2.41
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-importantEl Ell Elmineral resource recovery site delineated on a local VI
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Xl. NOISE —
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels inEl 0 111 GRI
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive0 El El 0
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise El ��
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without ID
the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in El
❑
V1
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan El
El El
(�
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two �J
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ 4
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
XII, POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, El 0 Ell
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ,
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 00
El El
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating El
El Vi.the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? El
9 Final Text - October 26, 1998
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse 11] 0 Ei
rvsl .
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
• ,objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? (� ElMI protection? ��❑l1 [1 ❑
6 Schools? [1] 1111 ElParks? El n u
Other public facilities? El El El 0
XIV. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing El El El
1:21
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
• facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or El
❑ Elrequire the construction or expansion of recreational CO
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ ❑
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the1-1: 0
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of [11 El Elservice standard established by the county congestion
gi
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ CI El
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location 15�X'�I�7'�
that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature Eil - ❑ El 14
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [I] LIII LI
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 LI [II]
1 0 Final Text - October 26, 1998
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs • ri 0
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, —
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the1711 11
El W
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water orEl El Fl
Y4
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm El El 0 ili
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the El D El
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatmentEl ❑
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has 0 1:21
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ID ❑ D
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste J�J
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and El
0 El 14
regulations related to solid waste?
11 Final Text - October 26, 1998
Less than
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant With Significant No
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Impact Mitigation Impact Impact
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, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑
will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, 14_
either directly or indirectly?
12 Final Text - October 26, 1998
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. As a result of the general plan amendment from medium density residential to
office professional, additional vehicular movements will be created along Portola
Avenue. Portola Avenue is currently designated as an arterial street. An arterial
street is defined in the City of Palm Desert's General Plan as a minimum four lane
street, designated to move people from one part of the community to another,
containing few cross streets.
Portola Avenue between Alessandro Drive and Fred Waring is currently only two
lanes. The City General Plan the anticipates the widening of Portola Avenue to
four lanes. Existing residential properties will be impacted by traffic and noise. A
four lane arterial with a level of service "C" will accommodate 26,000 vehicle
trips per day, sufficient to adequately handle any future traffic loads occurring as a
result of the Office Professional designation.
The proposed project will not cause a substantial increase in traffic in relation to
the existing and future traffic load and capacity of the street system. The project
will not substantially increase the volume to capacity ratio on Portola Avenue or
congestion at intersections.
INITIAL STUDY
GPA 99-2
LEGEND OF SOURCES
1 . City of Palm Desert General Plan
2. City of Palm Desert Zoning Ordinance
3. City of Palm Desert Director of Community Development
4. Visual inspection by City of Palm Desert Community Development staff
5. Coachella Valley Water District
6. Riverside County Fire Department
7. Sheriff's Department/Palm Desert Branch
... J EROFFICE MEMORANI VI
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY FOR NORTHBOUND PORTOLA AVENUE
BETWEEN SAN MARINO CIRCLE SOUTH AND NORTH OF EL
CORTEZ WAY
DATE: 9/8/99
Attached is a plan for the proposed street widening and proposed right of way shown
with the existing street width and right of way. If you have any questions, please
contact me.
RI HARD J. OLKERS, P.E.
RJF/sd
Attachment
cc: Joseph S. Gaugush, Engineering Manager
Gregg Holtz, Engineering Manager
Mark Greenwood, Transportation Engineer
Mike Errante, Senior Engineer
Page Garner, Associate Engineer
Re,sea 37;29,99 9 03 AM
h,temo o P Cei re ROW-sd
PORTOLA AVENUE - NORTHBOUND
NORTH OF EL CORTEZ WAY TO THE SOUTH LEG OF
SAN MARINO CIRCLE
FUTURE CONDITION
FUTURE RNV \_
50'
f 12'
38'
EXISTING CONDITION
EXISTING RNV
30'
8'
NO SCALE 22'
9/7/99
RIVERSIDE COUNTY sh .11,
LARRY D. SMITH, SHERIFF 1/ 4
b.P i
^ 9S/OE c. k
� 73-520 FRED WARING DRIVE • PALM DESERT, CA 92260 • (760) 836-1600
PROUDLY SERVING AS THE PALM DESERT POLICE DEPARTMENT
August 18, 1999
FlECEIVED
City of Palm Desert AUG 2 1999
Planning Department c4MUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPA
73-510 Fred Waring Drive c roFPALMDEsT ANENT
Palm Desert, Cal. 92260
Attention: Martin Alvarez
Re: GPA 99-2
Portola Corridor General Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Alvarez
The Sheriff's Department has no objections to the proposed general plan
amendment, however, one concern is the possibility of increased traffic flow in the
Rutledge school zone area.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the project from a law enforcement
point of view.
Sincerely,
ia/7'
an filler
Captain
Station Commander
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
LIV '12 FIRE DEPARTMENT o�a�PF,PE PR07�NT of ���y
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
C UNTY );_ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
or _ i� ._ AND FIRE PROTECTION CD "7RES7re'
RIVERSIDE r..r.nu
Clli
DAMES M.WRIGHT �\
111111. FIRE CHIEF (FIRE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE
COVE FIRE MARSHAL 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE
70-801 HWY 111 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570
RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900
TELEPHONE: (760) 346-1870
FAX: (760) 328-1071
TO: Martin Alvarez 8-24-99
Associate Planner
FROM: Mike Mc Connell
Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: GPA 99-2
There will be no immediate fire department requirements for this GPA. However, in the
future should commercial development occur there will be fire flow requirements that
may necessitate additional fire hydrants and larger underground hydrant supply lines.
SpelY. co.,
VIc Connell
Fire Marshal
printed on recycled paper*
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal.
There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Jonathan said that before the commission got into discussion, he
had a question that impacted the litigation aspect of this item. He asked if it
would be appropriate to convene into closed session briefly. Mr. Hargreaves
requested that Chairperson Jonathan ask him the question in "side bar" and
then they could decide if they needed to go into closed session. They did so.
Chairperson Jonathan said that it appeared that the issue before the
commission did in fact have a potential impact on the prior litigation that has
occurred and, therefore, the commission would need to go into closed session.
It would only take a brief time, but in consideration of the people present for
other items, the commission would table this item until the end of the agenda
if that was acceptable to the commission. Commission concurred.
E. Case No. GPA 99-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact and a general plan amendment from medium density
residential to office professional for 26 properties located along
the Portola Avenue corridor as illustrated on Exhibit "A".
Mr. Alvarez stated that on July 6, 1999 Planning Commission directed staff
to initiate a general plan amendment along the Portola Corridor which initially
ranged from Fred Waring to Alessandro, or near Alessandro to the south.
There was a modification before the commission now as illustrated on Exhibit
A. Staff analyzed impacts to the Portola Avenue Corridor based on anticipated
widening and existing traffic levels. These properties were designated medium
density residential in the city's general plan. The proposed modified general
plan designation would modify these properties to an office professional
designation in the general plan. Staff analyzed not only the roadway
widening, which was described in detail in the staff report, but they've looked
at the potential impacts to these properties which have become less desirable
as residential uses based on noise, traffic, and now the anticipated widening
of Portola Avenue. Specific impacts to these properties were illustrated in the
staff report. He indicated he would talk about a couple of them. Reduction
in setbacks due to the ultimate 100 foot right-of-way along Portola which
includes a 50 foot half street right-of-way. Increase in noise and the
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
undesirability for use as a residential use. Staff noticed property owners which
were immediately impacted and those within 300 feet. Staff received
numerous phone calls and some letters in opposition which had been
distributed to commission with their staff report. He believed there were a
couple of new letters which should be in front of the commission.
Neighborhood concerns primarily focused on the noise impacts to Portola
properties and future office use along this corridor. Staff responded to those
concerns under section three, neighborhood concerns, primarily focusing on
the future land use which would allow office professional use. They had
experienced in the past that these types of properties along heavily traveled
arterials were compatible, produced a buffer against the adjacent residential
properties, and were acceptable uses. Regarding parking, security and privacy,
those were issues that would come up when the public hearing was opened.
Staff reviewed these issues and has experienced this along the Fred Waring
corridor and along Monterey corridor where these office professional uses are
compatible. Their primary use was Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. and no use on the weekends. Based on those concerns, staff concluded
that this would be a compatible land use plan and redesignations for these
properties. He recommended approval to the Planning Commission which
should then make a recommendation to the City Council for approval. For
purposes of CEQA, staff determined that the project would not have a
significant negative impact on the environment and a negative declaration was
prepared. He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Campbell asked how come the corner on Portola and El Cortez
Way was not included. Mr. Alvarez said that first staff looked at those
properties immediately impacted by the widening. Secondly, that property did
not front on Portola, so the setback reduction for that property would not be
significant. It would still have a wide enough setback normally found in
residential areas. Commissioner Campbell asked about the vacant lot on the
north corner of El Cortez and Portola. Mr. Alvarez said those two properties
were currently vacant and were owned by CVWD. Staff's view on those two
lots was that once the widening occurred, 20 feet would be taken from the
front property leaving a pretty reasonable sized lot for residential use and also
it would front on El Cortez. It would also face a residential property which
staff had not included across the street. Commissioner Campbell asked if that
was no longer residential on El Cortez on the south side, they could go ahead
and recommend to council to make that also office professional to make it a
clean sweep because then they would have the wall that has the other project.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
This way if they had the office professional straight from De Anza. Mr.
Alvarez said if commission wished to make that recommendation to the
council, staff would be happy to look at that. Commissioner Campbell pointed
out that they wouldn't have just the three buildings, then a grassy area, and
then another grassy area on the other side. It would be a clean sweep.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was any reason in Mr. Alvarez's mind not
to do that. Mr. Alvarez said no, then deferred the question to Mr. Drell. Mr.
Drell said that there is an existing house on the south side of El Cortez in fairly
good condition. The motivation for this is the widening of the street which
would make houses that front on Portola physically impossible to continue to
be residential because the property line would be right at their front door, or
with such a short setback that it would be unacceptable for residential use.
That didn't apply to those lots on El Cortez in that they don't front on Portola
and all they were doing was shortening the side yard. The down side was that
they would be kind of forcing the hand of the property owner on the south
side of El Cortez if an office building was built across the street from them.
Normally he would say it wouldn't matter and that they could designate it and
let it be the property owners choice as to whether it stays residential or goes
office professional. If they were to do that he was sure the property on the
north side of El Cortez would go to office and then that kind of forced the
hand of the guy on the south side. It diminished the residential value of his
property and forces him to go office. That was staff's concern. Compelling
reasons didn't exist on El Cortez that existed everywhere else.
Commissioner Campbell indicated that on the last office building that would
be built there, since they couldn't have any windows in the back looking into
people's yards, this building couldn't have any windows on the north side. Mr.
Drell clarified that they could have windows, it just couldn't be a two story
building. If it was single story, they could have windows. If that was a
constraint, most of the development on the small lots on the east side of
Monterey had been single story because on the small lots they didn't have
enough room for parking so they had been limited to the small buildings. They
were also partially influenced by the property owner on the south side of
Catalina who has invested in his property and has one of the nicer houses in
the area. He didn't want to be forced into making that decision to become
office. It was something they could decide later. Staff felt at this point in
time that there were no compelling reasons to redesignate it like in the other
instances.
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Commissioner Beaty asked what the time frame was for widening Portola. Mr.
Greenwood said the widening on Portola would be done in several different
phases. They have a small project scheduled this year in the area of El Cortez.
The overall widening of the entire length from Highway 1 1 1 to Fred Waring
would be 3-5 years. Mr. Drell noted that the widening of Fred Waring was
also on that 3-5 year schedule then suddenly council said it had to be done
this year or as soon as possible, so depending on the level of traffic that starts
being generated on these streets. The increase in traffic wasn't going to be
generated from the small office buildings. They might contribute one percent.
Basically these streets were being widened because of the general through
traffic that was going on here and these were major arterials that were
necessary to carry the traffic in the city. As traffic increases, it could be
jumped up in priority very quickly.
Chairperson Jonathan opened the public hearing and since the city was the
applicant, asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the
proposal. Chairperson Jonathan noted that generally there is a five minute
limitation and he would address this in regard to this matter as well as
subsequent matters. There were a lot of people present and the commission
wanted to hear everything pertinent everyone wanted to say regarding the
application, but he asked that they not be redundant with things that have
been said before and to try and remain on point with regard to the application
itself, rather than any peripheral type issues.
MR. DON THOMPSON, 43-845 Portola, stated that he lived in a nice
section of houses which was to be his retirement home. It was a little
annoying to find out that his house was going to be torn down. Not to
fight city hall or anything, he just wanted to know what happens if the
time came that they started to build the street and he didn't move or
several didn't move, if this would become an eminent domain problem.
Would the city buy the property, how would they pay for it, because as
of right now, his house was unsaleable.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Thompson's house was scheduled to be
torn down.
Mr. Thompson said that if they going to put a commercial building on
top of it would have to go. He went to the map on display and pointed
out the location of his house. He had no objection to moving, but he
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
would like to know how he was going to be paid for his property. He
moved to Palm Desert because he feels it's a great city. If it came
down to push and shove, he wanted to know who was going to pay for
this property if he couldn't sell it. He wouldn't walk away from it
without a fight.
Mr. Drell explained what they were trying to accomplish here for those
properties which after the widening would still be substantial in terms of area,
they were trying to provide an alternative value other than residential. The
problem was that as these properties on Portola were probably unsaleable as
residential today, or very difficult to sell as residential today. If when the time
comes, then properties would then have to be acquired and the city buys
property and provides just compensation as the process dictates. What they
were trying to do here was in advance of that so they didn't have to wait for
the city to do something and the traffic got worse and worse, this gave them
the opportunity to find a potential office user who could use the remainder
parcel after the city buys that portion which is necessary. Now it might be
that they have to buy all of it, it would depend upon how each individual case
turns out. That's the problem when property fronts on a street that has to get
widened. There was a real estate transaction which occurs. It was the city's
preference to make it a voluntary negotiated real estate transaction.
Mr. Thompson asked how a fair price would be determined.
Mr. Drell said through a normal appraisal.
Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the sale of his home if that were to
occur would not be forced upon him unless the city chose to take steps of
eminent domain which historically has been an extreme rarity with regard to
residential property. He could only think of one instance in the history of the
city, so that was not a likely event and in fact, there were many areas within
the city where what they were discussing tonight has already occurred.
Namely, the transition of the Monterey Avenue Corridor between Fred Waring
and Highway 111 and then Fred Waring. Those were all part of the Palma
Village Plan where the idea was to buffer high traffic streets and residential by
placing quiet use office professional between the high traffic street and the
residential. Where that has occurred, some residents have chosen to keep
their homes and not sell their homes, so it could be a very gradual process that
property is converted on Portola from residential to office professional.
12
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. Thompson pointed out that they would have traffic closer to his
front door. He wouldn't be able to pull his car in the driveway and stop
and get the garage door open.
Chairperson Jonathan indicated he wasn't saying that Mr. Thompson's
wouldn't be as desirable as it was prior to the widening, he understood that,
but Mr. Thompson would have a choice at that point to remain in the home or
sell the home. If he chose to sell the home, then the city might wish to
engage in negotiations with him or others. Then there was the whole question
of if the change of zone from residential to office professional on such a busy
street diminish the value of his home, or elevate the value. He wasn't a realtor
so he didn't know the answer to that. But where the city acquires the
property, it is at an arm's length negotiable type of transaction the same as
Mr. Thompson would be doing it with an individual and he had an opportunity
to determine if the price offered is fair or not.
Mr. Thompson said he didn't want to be redundant, but again, no one
was going to buy his house now and no one with business sense would
buy his house knowing they have this thing two years ahead with
property all torn up in front of their place. If he was a commercial
purchaser, he would wait until the project was done and then buy the
property. So right now he was stuck where he was.
Commissioner Beaty pointed out what has happened on Deep Canyon which
didn't have the traffic problem, but in the last couple of years that has been
rezoned and a number of those residences have been converted to office
professional. He asked if there had been any litigation associated with those
transfers. Mr. Drell replied no, but pointed out that the conversion to office
didn't generate any need to purchase property. When the city had to widen
the street, the property would have to be acquired and if the acquisition of
that right of way was so substantial as to make residential use of the property
undesirable, then typically the whole property had to be acquired.
Commissioner Beaty said his whole point was that those residents who lived
right across from the proposed Lucky shopping center and didn't want to be
there were all in favor of having it changed and he assumed they benefited
financially when they sold their property. Mr. Drell said that was correct.
That was an after street widening situation and they were then provided with
a land use which was economical for them as opposed to having a residential
use which they knew they couldn't market.
13
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. Thompson said in conclusion that there were probably 26 families
that would agree with him. They don't want to lose their money.
Apparently they would lose their houses in the long run, but they didn't
want to lose any money on it. He thanked the commission.
DR. RODNEY MACDONALD, 73-973 Olive Court in Palm Desert, stated
that he has written several letters and presumed they were in the
commission's possession.
Chairperson Jonathan confirmed they were.
Dr. MacDonald said he wouldn't belabor some of the points he had
already made, except that he was very, very concerned about the
pollution from the construction trucks that fly up and down Portola.
The fumes come into his yard. Also, they had three schools located off
of Portola and those children must use the walkway along Portola, many
of them, to get home and they too were being subjected to those
noxious, toxic fumes and as a physician he felt very qualified to
comment on the fact that he truly believed, and he cut out an article
from the paper, that diesel exhaust fumes caused diseases. He believed
that very strongly and he felt that more and more it would come out in
the future. Furthermore, there were so many cars and trucks going up
and down Portola already that it was just a matter of time before there
was a major accident and he hoped it wouldn't happen, but the odds
were very much in favor of it happening and so he was very concerned.
He had spoken with some people who live on the south side of Highway
1 1 1 and they were telling him now that they have problems getting out
of their side streets because of the traffic and a week ago yesterday he
at 8:10 a.m. found himself backed up going south on Portola. The
traffic was backed up all the way to Catalina. He had been told in the
past that at one point there was no increase in traffic. At least he didn't
have to hear anyone telling him now that it isn't so and, of course, it
would increase in view of what is planned and he thought it was a very
poor choice to widen Portola and take away the homes, including his
perhaps, because his backyard wasn't far from the existing Portola
Avenue. He said he would stop there and thanked the commission for
their attention.
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
MS. RAMONA FLETCHER, 73-969 Olive Court, informed commission
that she wrote a letter and she was present to firmly oppose any
granting of the negative impact report that she was given. She would
keep her statement as brief as possible. She was a little bit perturbed
by what she had heard here tonight because according to the negative
impact report, they weren't going to have any impact on the aesthetics
and she would list number 1 a, c, and d, all of which their own
information would say that this is not so. Number 3 on air quality, they
had heard tonight verbally. Also, a, d, b and e she would question the
no impact. Somewhere along in the studies they said there would be
26,000 vehicles per day. She didn't understand how anybody could
say that wasn't going to be an impact. That was stated in the initial
study. Under number 4 biological resources she would say that "e"
definitely had an impact. One of those was they were told that they
would remove their greenbelt there at Portola Place in order to widen
the street. That was in the staff report and that definitely would have
an impact. Then under hazards and hazardous materials, number 7, a,
b, and c. They heard tonight about the trucks and they didn't know
what was in those trucks. They do get the noise and the emissions, but
she knew there were also trash trucks that go down there. Many of
them day after day. She didn't know what was in them and didn't
think city staff knew either. Under number 8 she would cite d and e as
definitely having an impact according to the city's own studies. The
Fire Department response mentioned needing extra runoff and different
kinds of works done in case they put in commercial buildings. Right
now they have a terrible runoff. Her yard has been almost up to the
doors of their houses been flooded, twice since she has lived there.
Public Works was aware of the last one because they called them in.
They knew there was a problem there already and that was with yards
that have ground that was able to be used as runoff in itself. She asked
what would happen when it was all phased over. She would say this
was definitely not a no impact item. Under noise, the commission had
heard a lot about that tonight, so she wouldn't go into it. Under
number 11 a, b, c and d all of those had impacts. The studies showed
it and the commission heard it from their own staff tonight. They have
a tremendous problem already and they weren't building anything or
enlarging any streets. Transportation and traffic under number 15 a, d,
and f. The city's own sheriff stated in their response that this could be
a problem for the school children. She thought the commission had
15
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
already found that in many of the letters from the residents that they
wholeheartedly agree. This was definitely not a "no impact" item.
Utilities under number 16 "c" she would definitely say needed to really
be looked at and the Fire Department responded already that this could
be a real problem. Number 17 mandatory findings "c" was potentially
significant. The reports, the letters of opposition and she was sure the
testimony the commission was going to hear tonight all had substantial
challenge to this and any other findings in the negative declaration.
That wasn't even to mention the unknown hazards and the adverse
effects this proposed project could have if it's okayed by this body and
implemented. She thanked the commission for listening and hoped they
would take seriously what was being said and at least give a chance for
a report on an environmental impact for all of the residents.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Alvarez or Mr. Drell would comment on the
environmental impact report. Mr. Drell said that all of the impacts that Ms.
Fletcher referred to related to the widening of the street. That was no before
the commission at this time, although the width of the street was something
that was contained in the general plan. There has always been a circulation
element that indicated Portola was always planned to be a four-lane street.
That project was not before the commission. All they were talking about was
the future land uses of the parcels which remain viable after, if an when that
widening occurs. Chairperson Jonathan felt that was an important distinction.
Tonight the commission was only voting on the change of zoning for those
particular parcels. Mr. Drell said it was a change in general plan designation.
Chairperson Jonathan indicated that at some point, if and when a widening
project is considered, he asked if the public would be given an opportunity for
input before that happened and if there was a public hearing process for the
widening. Mr. Drell indicated that there had to be a environmental process to
review it and he believed the public would be able to comment on that. He
stated that Mr. Greenwood could comment on the process. Mr. Greenwood
concurred that there would be an environmental process for that project
because it would potentially impact private properties.
Ms. Fletcher said that all the things she referred to were not strictly
because of the widening. The flooding was happening now and if it
was widened it would only get worse.
16
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan pointed out that the point Mr. Drell was making was
that the environmental impact report, the finding of negative declaration that
she was referring to, was based on the environmental impact of changing the
general land use designation from residential to office professional, not the
impact of widening Portola.
Ms. Fletcher said the lighting, flooding, the taking of their trees and the
resulting noise was not happening because of the widening. What she
was bringing out as a point was that when they do that building and do
take these houses, when they do turn them into concrete, all of these
problems would impact them. As is having them and the security and
lighting and all of the rest of it that go along with it, in their backyard.
That was her point. She would not like it to be dismissed as only the
widening.
MS. NORMA ROMINE, 74-015 San Marino Circle, said she was present
to try and get more information and learn how this would effect the
value of her property. She has lived there for 40 years and raised her
family there. She clarified that she was on the corner of Portola and
San Marino Circle. She was counting on her property to finance her
retirement so she was interested in how this would effect the value of
her property. She said she was going to mention the problem of noise,
but as pointed out this doesn't have to do with the widening of Portola,
however, she was sure the value of her property would be effected.
She just wanted to ask that the city fathers be aware of how these
plans are effecting so many people and hoped the commission would be
fair and generous in dealing with them.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Ms. Romine was directly on Portola and San
Marino Circle, or if her property was offset a little bit.
Ms. Romine said she was right on the corner and the noise was pretty
bad already.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that Ms. Romine's parcel was not being indicated
as part of the change of land use.
Ms. Romine said she understood that.
17
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan said in terms of how the value is effected, they weren't
real estate experts on the commission but he could tell her that they have
witnessed in some of these areas where residential property experienced an
increase in value and became more valuable as office professional. He didn't
even know if that would impact her since there wasn't a change of use
indicated there, but that wasn't to say that someone wouldn't come in and
request a change of zone, which they had also seen, particularly on Deep
Canyon. It was hard to tell, but he could tell her that this body and the city
council as well as staff had no intent or desire to negatively impact her
financial position or her ability to retire comfortably.
Ms. Romine said she understood that and knew that the commission
couldn't tell her how this would effect her property, but she was here
trying to get a better idea.
Chairperson Jonathan said that they hoped it would effect her in a positive
way and thanked her for coming tonight.
MS. BEE HOOVER, stated that she was present representing her 83
year old mother Emma Hall who lives at 44-250 San Jose. She
indicated that with the map that was mailed to the property owners in
the area, she had some questions because her mother lives at the end
of the cul-de-sac of San Jose and there were two properties on Portola
right behind that and if they were going to widen Portola, those lots
now were very shallow to begin with and asked if they still planned to
put professional offices on there. She pointed out that the map showed
the piece of property on the north side of Catalina and Portola Avenue
was not involved in this nor the other piece of property that kind of
buffers in there. She asked if that would be taken over. Once the
street is widened, she didn't think there would be enough room to put
a professional building there of any kind and if it did, if it would be
limited to single story because if it was double story, there was a whole
block of houses there that would have their backyards invaded. She
said this was one of her mother's concerns. She was speaking for her
mother because her mother was very hard of hearing.
Chairperson Jonathan said that with regards to privacy, there were severe
restrictions with regard to office professional that abuts residential use, in
particular two story. They look at that very critically. There were restrictions
18
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
about the ability to view from the second story into the residential, restrictions
about how much window space could be allowed, whether there could be
open corridor areas on the outside of that second story, how high the
windows had to be, whether they could be opaque or see through, so that was
an issue they deal with, with great care. As far as how shallow the lots were,
they were here for a change of plan. If and when the city chose to widen
Portola and it might need to acquire that property. If it took enough of that
property away from the street, she was right that there wouldn't be enough
for an office and it might end up being a greenbelt or something. He didn't
know. He asked if staff knew the exact size. Mr. Drell asked Mr. Alvarez if
he knew what the size of the remaining property would potentially be for that
parcel. Ms. Hoover said there was a property not marked at the corner of
Catalina and Portola. There were two pieces of property right in the middle of
the block between Santa Rosa and Catalina that were marked for this. The
properties on either side of those two lots were not marked. Mr. Alvarez
stated that the property owners all along Portola were notified, although the
plan has been modified to now include those properties because of further
analysis and impacts on those properties she was questioning. Ms. Hoover
asked for clarification that the map she was given is outdated. Mr. Alvarez
concurred that it had been modified. He showed the plan on display which
showed those two pieces of property included.
Ms. Hoover asked about the piece of property behind those two and
pointed out the location on the display map. She noted that the parcel
in question had another little parcel with it.
Mr. Alvarez said that would not be included as part of this general plan
amendment.
Ms. Hoover said that originally those parcels were all owned by the
same person.
Mr. Alvarez said that anything indicated on the map in yellow on Portola would
be included and was revised. Regarding the depth of these lots, particularly
at this corner, the depth was approximately 121 feet with the taking of an
additional 20, which left 100 feet. Mr. Drell said that 100 feet would probably
still allow a professional building, but probably not two story because the city
required a 65 foot setback in the rear for a two story building and a 15 foot
19
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
setback in the front which would only leave 20 feet left for a two story
building, so it would have to be limited to a one story building.
Ms. Hoover asked what the restrictions would be on a one story
building and how far it would have to be setback from Portola Avenue
after it was widened.
Mr. Drell said it would have to be 15 feet from the street right-of-way and
setback 20 feet from the rear property line, just like a single family home, and
it would be basically the same development standards as would be applied to
a single family home on the property.
Ms. Hoover thanked commission.
MRS. KATHLEEN KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, stated that she was speaking
on behalf of herself and her husband, who was unable to attend. They
objected to the approval of the proposal tonight for the following
reasons: 1 ) the legal notice and the fact that they were separating the
widening of Portola with this proposal. It all came together. It was tied
together and widening Portola was an integral part of the proposal.
That should have been in the legal notice. 2) The Negative Declaration
for the Environmental Impact Report was not done and was not
available for review on the 31st of August. She knew that because she
asked for it on the 2nd of September and it still wasn't done. She
found that inexcusable and unacceptable. She called City Hall and was
seeking information about this and she was told that the only thing staff
had was a map. She pointed out that staff had declared a Negative
Declaration. She was told it wasn't ready yet, they were working on
it, and it would be finished in two or three days.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp's ability to evaluate this matter was
impaired in any way.
Mrs. Kopp said the ability to get something done was because that was
a long weekend and they might have been able to go to the various
neighbors better because of that long weekend. They missed a week.
Plus, that just wasn't the system and the way it works.
20
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp was able to evaluate the project to
her satisfaction.
Mrs. Kopp said no. She didn't think the project was evaluated.
Chairperson Jonathan said he meant her ability to evaluate this project.
Mrs. Kopp said no, she said there were a lot of questions.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the deficiencies Mrs. Kopp cited in some way
caused her to be unable to evaluate this project.
Mrs. Kopp said that the fact that this material was not ready led her to
believe that it was done in great haste and after she did pick up the
Negative Declaration, she concluded it was done in great haste. She
said she could make further comments about that, but wouldn't at this
time. All of those findings of no impact with one of less than
insignificance was very alarming and she felt the people who had
already spoken brought up those facts and she wouldn't go into them
again, but she thought this whole neighborhood was easily being
written off. This was a casual dismissal of the impacts on these
neighborhoods and these people. She noticed in the Negative
Declaration that there was no contact with Desert Sands Unified School
District as one of the responsible agencies. Perhaps they wouldn't have
any effect on the school site and their buildings, but the corridors
leading into those schools, the main one was Portola. As the previous
speaker said, the Sheriff's Department mentioned that also. She asked
what mitigation measures were going to taken to provide safe routes to
school for children. Especially when it was wider and busier. Housing
was not addressed and she was wondering if they were to believe that
the replacement of housing and the displacement of 28 homes was of
no impact. Were they supposed to believe that? The less than
significance on traffic was a great, too. She wondered if there were
stats and facts that would back up what the traffic was like on Portola
at the present time. What was it like now, was there anything to back
it up to support the comment that it would be less than significant and
how the 26,000 compared to what it is now. She asked if there was
any information available. Another thing that wasn't addressed was the
cumulative effects. Either direct or indirect cumulative effects. She
21
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
considered her street one of the cumulative effects. In fact, someone
said something about a major accident and there was one yesterday at
El Cortez and Portola. It had such an impact that the vehicle was
turned over. They had bumper to bumper traffic on Cabrillo from people
being diverted from that accident. She felt that cumulative effects
should have been addressed also.
Chairperson Jonathan noted that the traffic engineer was present and they
could see if there was a response to some of those concerns. Mr. Greenwood
said that having reviewed the traffic on Portola Avenue recently, traffic
volumes on Portola have been at least 17,000 vehicles per day since at least
1994. Their latest count in January of 1999 was again 17,000 vehicles per
day. The General Plan states that it is our performance objective for arterial
streets, which Portola is, to maintain a level of service "C". The maximum
volume that can be carried at a level of service "C" on a two lane road, which
is Portola's configuration now, was 10,000 vehicles per day. They were 70%
over the needed capacity on that street today. A four lane road could carry up
to 26,000 vehicles per day at level of service "c", so it was pretty obvious
that there is some latent need to improve this road. The current impacts that
residents were experiencing were not surprising since they were well above
the level of service performance goal. The future widening of that road should
actually improve these conditions because the level of service would be
brought back into our goal, which is what they tried to do city wide.
Mrs. Kopp said that was another thing with the report. No reference
was made to any documents that were used as sources and if they read
that, there was nothing there. She felt the public had a right to know
these things.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp called the city.
Mrs. Kopp said she did and she was at City Hall more than once.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mrs. Kopp requested references.
Mrs. Kopp said she didn't, but felt they should be made part of the
report. Did they have to dig out everything themselves or should it be
made available? Especially something like this.
22
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Chairperson Jonathan thought she would find that information available. He
would hope so.
Mrs. Kopp said she was particularly interested in the zoning and the
changing or whatever thereof. She was kind of confused after looking
at the various maps and reading the report. She didn't even know what
kind of zone she lives in now. She asked if she was LDR, LDM, or
LDH? She didn't know any more.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if her property was on Cabrillo.
Mrs. Kopp said yes.
Chairperson Jonathan said that was actually quite a ways off of Portola.
Mrs. Kopp said it was one street over. She thought the legal notice said
it was an LDR. Then some maps said LDM. The Palma Village Map
said LDR. The staff report said something else. She asked what it was.
In closing, she said that as thoughtful and responsible commissioners,
she would hope that they would insist that the process be thorough and
complete. She thought they had the right to know all of the
ramifications and because the complete scope of this has been ignored,
she would suggest that it needed to be renoticed for review and that
compliance with CEQA needed to be observed. She thanked the
commission for listening.
MR. ED LOWELL, 44-525 San Jose, informed commission that he
wanted to be on record to say that he opposed this for the future
because he couldn't help but think that with offices along Portola, there
were a certain amount of parking spaces that would have to be
permitted for an office building, whether there was handicapped
required and if there was bad traffic now for the people who live right
on the street, there was going to be horrendous traffic for people trying
to get in there for an appointment or to do whatever. It would be even
worse. He envisioned on his street people trying to find the address,
not making it and having to turn around and go down a side street. His
street right now was very quiet and he didn't want to see what 26,000
cars coming down San Jose to make a u-turn. There were other little
streets there as well. San Marino Circle would be the same. There
23
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
were a lot of children and they already knew that from the schools. He
wanted to be on record as opposed.
Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked the commission for
comments.
Commissioner Finerty stated that based on Mr. Greenwood's comments
regarding the Level of Service we would like to keep at "C" and there being
17,000 vehicles on Portola each day, they were 70% over that and it seemed
to her that the street definitely needed to be widened. It was her
understanding that another public hearing would be held and another
environmental impact report prepared which would specifically address the
widening of the street. She asked if that was correct. Mr. Greenwood said
there would be an environmental process. He was not certain it would involve
a public hearing, but it would involve input from residents from the area. He
said Mr. Drell could probably help with that. Mr. Drell said there wasn't a
requirement for a public hearing on road widening. The contract to do it would
probably be agendized before the council. As part of that contract would be
the environmental process, but technically the specification for Portola as a
four lane highway was contained in the General Plan which was subject to an
EIR back when it was originally put together in 1980, so it was always
envisioned that sooner or later and technically when the Circulation Element
of the General Plan was approved back in 1980 and modified again in 1994,
that arterial streets would be four lanes. The traffic and the impacts exist not
because they are proposing a land use change and conversion of some houses
to some small offices, but Portola was an arterial which people required to get
from the north side of Palm Desert to the south side of Palm Desert. Nothing
they did or didn't do was going to change the necessity to widen that
highway. Commissioner Finerty said that tonight they were addressing a
change in the general plan. Mr. Drell said it was relative to the land use on
Portola. Commissioner Finerty agreed and that was to make it Office
Professional. Then they had some speakers address the fact that they felt the
report wasn't prepared adequately because of the number of no impacts. She
asked at what point would the residents receive some sort of satisfaction or
answers as to why it wasn't an impact or if his answer was that several years
ago when it was proposed that Portola would become four lanes, that that had
already taken place. Mr. Drell said that one could argue that when a
circulation element was approved with Portola as an arterial which would be
four lanes, then that approval as far as the General Plan was concerned had
24
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
occurred. They've widened streets all over the city frequently. It didn't occur
necessarily immediately when the General Plan designation called it to be an
arterial, but when traffic impacts not created by the widening, but by the need
to get from one part of the city to another, dictated that it had to be widened.
That was part of what happened when the city changed and grew.
Chairperson Jonathan asked if the commission could require public noticing of
the widening as a condition of approval for the change in land use designation.
Mr. Drell said a general plan amendment was not conditioned. What they
could do was require an amendment to the Circulation Element to the General
Plan text. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there was a mechanism so that
before they said yes to this application that they could mandate a public notice
regarding the widening. Mr. Hargreaves pointed out that this was going to be
a recommendation to the city council in any case and the recommendation
could go forward to the city council with the recommendation that some
process be put into place so that the neighbors would get noticed and be given
an opportunity to have the whole process, including the buying of property and
widening and total environmental review, put into place as part of this process.
He imagined that the City Council would look favorably on that kind of
recommendation.
Commissioner Finerty said that having addressed that, she would be in favor
of the project in recommending it to the Council as long as the mechanism that
the City Attorney described was in place. Mr. Greenwood asked if that
condition could be for future projects. The Public Works Department did have
a small project this year to do minor widening at El Cortez. It was already in
the design process and the property owner there was not concerned and
unaffected and he didn't want to hinder that project. Commissioner Finerty
concurred.
Commissioner Beaty didn't think that the intent of the city was to degrade the
quality of life for those people who already live on Portola. He thought that
was probably happening and he didn't know if there was much they could do
about it. As they had heard, traffic was already beyond acceptable and it was
probably going to get worse and instead of those diesel trucks driving past,
they would be sitting there maybe impacting them more. He thought the
intent was to give these property owners who are already impacted and who
were probably going to be more impacted in the future an alternative or a way
to get out of their property, hopefully making it a desirable, saleable site if it
25
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
was office professional. He believed that was what they were trying to do.
He didn't think there was anything they could do to stop the impact. It was
going to get worse.
Commissioner Campbell noted that on Monterey Avenue when they did the
same thing and changed it from residential to office professional and widened
that street, it seemed like they did have some say so from the neighbors
behind those office professional buildings, but now it seemed like it was a
smooth riding street on Monterey and the same thing could be done for
Portola. It is needed. She also noted that it was also done on Deep Canyon.
It was something that was needed in the city and in the way the city would
be doing this and everyone had been very happy.
Commissioner Lopez said he has lived here 20 years and watched how the
community has grown, not just Palm Desert, but all the communities around
us. He thought the process that they tried to go through was one where they
can make the environment a better place to live, taking into consideration the
traffic flow that we have going down Portola. He has watched these numbers
grow and could appreciate what they were talking about, so he thought the
end all was that they just want to make this a better place and positively
impact how everyone gets around in their own community, whether it be in
the middle of August or the middle of February.
Chairperson Jonathan added that this was basically an application for a general
plan amendment and it is intended to take another step forward with the
Palma Village Plan. The Palma Village Plan had proven itself to be a very
effective means of creating a buffer between high traffic streets and residential
properties. Some of the problems they heard about tonight from the public
testimony was the inconveniences and the negative aspects of living adjacent
to a high traffic street. The Palma Village Plan by creating this buffer of light
use office professional between high volume high traffic streets and residential
uses has been a very effective method to ameliorate some of those problems,
so he believed in the Palma Village Plan and this was yet another step in its
implementation and he thought it was appropriate for the greater good of the
city and of the residents in that area. He thought it was a proven, effective
technique to solve the problems associated with high traffic streets next to
residential areas. When he moved here 20 years ago he added to the traffic.
When his kid got a car he added to the traffic. When everyone moved here
they added to the traffic. Unfortunately they couldn't propose gates on 1-10
26
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
saying no more allowed into the city of Palm Desert. They read the same
newspaper articles and projections that he did and there were going to be
more people coming here. They like what we've got and what we have is a
good thing. Their struggle is to try and keep that a good thing and try in some
cases make the best of tough situations. They only have three major north-
south arteries in this city: Monterey, Portola and Cook Street. They have to
accommodate greater traffic flow and eventually they would. Without that all
of their qualities of lives would deteriorate. If they thought it was bad now on
Portola, Monterey and Cook, wait ten years from now if they didn't widen
those streets. If they had better solutions then people have already come up
with, then they should step forward because there are various city
committees, advisory committees and plenty of opportunity for public
testimony that anyone that lives in this city wants to hear better ideas if they
are out there for solving problems they were all struggling with. He felt that
this was the most effective way they have come up with so far. He did hear
them and felt they should have, particularly the residents near Portola, should
have an opportunity to give input not just about the general plan amendment,
but specifically about the widening of Portola and the environmental impact
that the widening would have. With the added recommendation to council, he
would also be in favor. He asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1 941 , recommending to City
Council approval of GPA 99-2. Motion carried 5-0.
It was moved by Commissioner Finerty, seconded by Commissioner Lopez,
recommending to City Council that the residents, particularly those on Portola,
be given an opportunity to give input, not just on the general plan amendment,
but specifically on the widening of Portola and the environmental impact that
the widening would have. Motion carried 5-0.
CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN CALLED A TWO MINUTE RECESS AT 8:32 P.M.
27
Sunday, September 19, 1999 Re. Legal Notice
Case No. GPA 99-2
Negative Environmental Impact
Gentlemen.
We reside at 43 845 Portola Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 and have been there nearly
three years. This home was intended to be our retirement home; however after experiencing the
heavy traffic along Portola we asked several Real Estate agents to tell us what it should be listed
for in the event we were to sell.
All agreed the home should sell for $110,000.00 or thereabout. After staying one year we
decided the traffic wasn't too bad to tolerate and immediately set about to remodel the complete
house.
The first large cost was about $2000.00 to remove the septic tank and connect to the
sewer.
The second large expense was slightly more than $2000.00 to completely rewire the
house.
After that, for over the next two years, we proceeded to tear out and reconstruct various
parts of the house.
We added a complete new bath.
We remodeled the kitchen, including ceramic tile flooring, sink top and new cabinets.
We redid all the hardwood floors in the living room and hall.
We removed all the "popcorn" ceilings in every room, replastered and repainted every
room in the house.
We then reworked the entire den. New flooring, new carpets, new windows, a 25,000
BTU air conditioner and divided one end of the den into another bedroom.
We landscaped the front yard, including a new tree, and completely redid the backyard.
In other words we did what was necessary to make it comfortable for years to come.
By the way, I have copies of all the expenses we incurred to fix up the house the way we
wanted it.
By doing the above project you have made it impossible for us to sell the house at the
present time when we could possibly afford another home. No one will buy now.
No commercial company will buy until the reconstruction work is finished.
We have no desire to try to block the progress of the city but it is certainly our intention to
get what we consider a fair and reasonable price for our property when the city ultimately takes
over, which we understand will be in the near future, or about the year 2002.
The intention of this letter is to post notice, as mentioned in your Notice, So that we may
be in a position to challenge an unreasonable bid for our property.
For your information our house may be inspected to verify what I have written is the truth.
I will also have a complete video record and still photos to back up my claim, if necessary.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED Don&Dorothy Thompson
cc file
r
cc LKT S E P 21 1999
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �r
CITY OF PALM DESERT n-t � ///t— ' 'L ""
�lm� /7, /999
640i/R4,,_ Av_mAi-
9 ar,„„,z; ( J ho , GP1 99;Z
79s/Ov (1 ny ,a OPf osE
r
ak-1/041.i4a., ;?_.,24.0- 5?(F
til,sez,,g,„ez;x y 6-7-.?,,,z-eas(;„-& 47 ii.e.Asd.,,
C 4 ep-z -xP.a/ v( - e L,,A;2i7
-hd . ? J-c- 4e4 ve ..r
•
, ,fi ,7rive., „ ) 0,1-z& c2- , itej-Ade -e, ided,c x A ed.-5,,-: el
4,21-' lelv-Gfe,mne--se - / --<,73eze-tAped V-0-ir/7;6-1 /4-edulte
6 /1/tet16 c
/- 0'7!/l/ 4,,,,,i, dr,d, L?1f' ,G ,r_t-,1_,...4
27,:t. ...„a,a71 xxe.14,jr/Azed-,./a) ez,Lei. x..0-7z..<2.1e-oew
,2 / U'i -41 p'a,4,-a. iiie,cJ .tix.) 2t. a/1.eoe
• eLl/6t.T.. `7[2 G�`'e�'%��IJL9 0-izi a. - L
�U�Z e_ a C' r
' .4 7v
• 40a/CLZ:el-a) "el. ' 4e,e27:01/1alad e.z< .e:,,,,e,al .,4cou-a),
6 ,e0 -01 Y-art . ? 7`.5 ,o.if6 p40 7,z-, „ado e,-e.,
Z -etzel e ' i[Q,P;n
/L✓ ,t.r✓�GMc, 0a c,n-2- r iC'6-7'►e 2/il2GQ.0 11t?z_- JAv /, ?r.s c
6i'l - , 02� /j / eL� , -y9GZ- iQ6Z4I1 aY ��
a -1- 6 fie 9 -.2. ,
RECEIVED . f?, ;
SEP 1 7 1999 -a-K4 6P74e
COAMAUM Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 149 C Co-ia l 1
CRY OF PALM DESERT
Jean Martin 1 760 346 8530 P. 01
JEAN H. MARTIN
44-276 SAN JOSE AVENUE
PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
760/346-1519 -FAX 760/346-8530
September 16, 1999
City of Palm Desert
Philip Drell, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert,California 92260-2578
BY FAX 341-7098
Re: Case No. GPA 99-2
Dear Mr. Drell:
With regard to the above captioned case, please be advised that I am ABSOLUTELY
APPOSED to the concept of this proposal as it would directly impact my property which backs
up to the properties on Portola Avenue.
Portola Avenue has already become a raceway for traffic and I can not conceive adding further
problems with more commercial property. Can you possibly imagine cars slowing to enter drive
ways to these offices? And what about parking? I, and the other residences,would have cars
parking at our back doors_ NO,NO, NO . Please put the"office professional properties"where
they belong.
Do you not see the empty buildings that can house these business in Palm Desert? Lets let Palm
Desert grow in an orderly manner and let this 47 year resident enjoy her home with out more gas
fumes creeping into her domain.
ly submitted,
e)..., 4°-
JEAN H. MARTIN
I .� .
i. ,
• • ; .
1
RECEIVED
S E P 14 1999
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CRY OF PALM DESERT
September 8, 1999
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Philip Drell, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Drell:
This letter is sent in response to the recently received LEGAL NOTICE,
CASE NO. GPA 99-2
I am both appalled and bemused by the document. It includes an exhibit map
which does not indicate that my development namely Portola Place even
exists. I am referring specifically to the rectangular area labeled P.R.-5 ,N.
How can a city as sophisticated,enlightened,and enriched as Palm Desert
overlook or not acknowledge a residential area which will be greatly effected
by the cities plans.
The statement that changing low density residential to office professional for
properties generally fronting both the east and west sides of Portola Avenue
between Fred Waring Drive and Alessandro Drive not having a negative
environmental impact is absurd.First the construction will definitely effect
me and my neighbors. Furthermore,what about parking,security, and our
privacy?
One of my neighbors, Ramona Fletcher,spoke to you yesterday and learned
that you are planning to widen Portola. Our back yards face Portola,and I
must tell you that the noise and exhaust pollution is terrible. I wrote a letter
to the city manager about this problem including increased traffic flow and
was assured that the amount of traffic had not increased. I did not accept
that statement then nor do I accept it now.Why is the city so determined to
have Portola remain a very busy Avenue when it does not connect directly to
I-10. Cook street does. Furthermore, I am puzzled by the truck traffic
restrictions placed on Deep Canyon. Why?
When I bought my home in the development which has existed
approximately 4 years and having lived in my home for 3 years, I had no
knowledge whatsoever of what adverse conditions would evolve on a gradual
basis. The value of my home has already been adversely effected.
Page 2.
What further damage to property and health lies ahead,and what if
anything does the city plan to do to relieve our present as well as probable
forthcoming problems.
Sincerely,
Rodney I. MacDonald M.D.
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert,California 92260
Ph. (760)779-9647
P.S. I have been paying taxes on the green belt between my property and
Portola Avenue. I plan to attend the council meeting on September 2e.
f CITY O PlUM OESERJ
" ' "cewog NE
t
:v P...!.ht DI..s, rt7, CA 1 GI:.N1, 9. s60-2 ?8
� ��� ` T•X hc. ,,4O-c':'74
OFFICE OF l'HII N1,#Yf1R
November 10. 1998
Dr. Rodney I. MacDonald
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Dr. MacDonald:
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the noise and pollution
caused by the increase in commercial traffic on Portola Avenue between Fred
Waring Drive and Highway ill.
I have taken the liberty of referring your correspondence to Palm Desert's City
Manager Ray Diaz for his rev;ew and action. After he has had an opportunity to
investigate this issue, he will contact \ou directly with his findings.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact my office. Issues affecting our
constituents and visitors are of great interest to all the members of the Palm
Desert City Council.
din erely, ,�,
..„,, � �/ ,„0 /
IV M. BENSON
i' OR
IMB:wjrn
cc: Ray Diaz, City Manager
..
►.S rea p:ex 1P..r LU oir,e
CITY OF nnii DESERT
{
s; ��, _ ;;_5 r� I i:r_1`. �X��R.*:(, Lax;V r
s
PALM D ERT, (.:(1:FF U .N?A .)22t�O-25 7 8
t. k::t;_i y r • 7EL: 76U :j:t6—c�JI 1
Sr _ ...,,ti 1'A.. - 6'; ;4. 7 J9?'i
December 8, 1998
Dr. Rodney I. MacDonald
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert, CA 922'60-2578
Dear Dr. MacDonald:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 3, 1998. We appreciate your
concerns raised in previous correspondence as well as the suggestions in your most recent
letter.
The existing block wall is the property of your complex. The City's Building and Safety
Department has responsibility of inspecting new block walls as well as modification Many
block wails do not have adequate structural strength to add additional height. If you or your
association decides that they want to increase the height, then contact needs to be made with
the Building and Safety Department Pat Conlon is the Director of Building and Safety, and
he can explain the process for you.
With regard to your second suggestion about using Deep Canyon Road to allow trucks
to use that street, that matter will be reviewed by the Public Works staff and presented to the
City's Technical Traffic Committee at their next meeting. Your third suggestion that more
trucks use Monterey Avenue is a very challenging one Many trucks de use Monterey Avenue
and Cook Street since the two interchanges at l-10 have been completed. Many of the noisier
commercial vehicles are not large trucks. In the past. the City has contacted some local
trucking companies to suggest they use approved truck routes; that has met with very limited
success.
The California Vehicle mode ailows trucks to use the most direct route to make their
deliveries even though it may be a non-truck route Tne traffic volumes on all of our streets
are increasing as the tourist season starts. Also. the additional shopping arid business
development is increasing overall traffic in cur wonderful city.
We w,ii be contacting you regarding the acton to be taken regarding the dispersing of
truck traffic.
Srely,
r � I
6::-..
MON A. DIAZ / J
ITY MANAGER \. V-P-* nl,ri' '
RAD:RJF/rh
cc: Richard J. Folkers. ACM/Director of Public Works
Joseph S. Gaugush Engineering Manager
Mark Greenwood. Transportation Engineer
•
S CITY OF fl DESERT
„.
Q {r : , 7.,-,• 10 Ft 1? t\1:i±i1NG URIVIi
r)1..N :>�i�a1, CAA i.11`Cailla t.l.' �)C -iS-'t`.
/_. ;EL 760 34C�—OOZ I
��-_ ; ti.r`� 1:,,. -f,� 7d:''-.) '4
tea; ,.
u::i,v palm-gt e:t '.'$
December 1, 1998
Rodney I. MacDonald, M.D.
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Deser, CA 92260
Dear Dr. MacDonald:
Thank you for taking the time to axpress your concerns relating to noise and air quality
on Portola Avenue.
Traffic on Portola has increased since 1987, however, there was a decrease between
1996 and 1997 which saw levels similar to voLrnes in 1994 and 1995.
Portola Avenue is a designated commercial street and truck route, and has been so
designated since '1986. We are currently studying various streets throughout the City,
Portola Avenue being one of them, to study how noise may be mitigated.
Again, thank you for addressing your concerns.
Sincerely,
/. 4
Damon A. Diaz
City Manager
RAD:db
A4 Saturday, Septem 11, 1
•
Nt-
f
Diesel
r # pollution
f c attacked
. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DIAMOND BAR — Air regulators on
Friday voted to spend $25 million to
..rr get more than 800 high-polluting
• diesel trucks off the roads and in a
separate action authorized a study
that could lead to tighter controls for
businesses that operate fleets of
diesel-powered vehicles.
The South Coast Air Quality Man-
• agement District's attempt to crack
• down on diesel follows a conclusion
by the state's Air Resources Board
that the particles emitted from diesel
engines increase the risk of cancer for
those who breathe them.
The $25 million will be used to
replace more than 800 heavy-duty
diesel trucks,buses and tugboats with
vehicles that use cleaner-burning fu-
els, such as propane, natural gas or
electricity.
In a separate program, the air-
quality district's staff will study ways
to reduce diesel emissions and other
sources of toxic pollutants, said Jack
Broadbent, the agency's deputy ex-
ecutive officer.
Possible actions could include using
the agency's regulatory power to
pressure business to replace thou-
sands of diesel-powered vehicles at
their own expense.
That possibility has angered the
California Trucking Association,
which represents 2,500 trucking
companies ranging from small family
operations to large international car-
riers.
Health studies that state regulators
have relied on to link diesel emission
to have not been endorsed by the
federal Environmental Protection
Agency,said Stephanie Williams,en-
vironmental director for the trucking
association. Any attempt to impose
tighter regulations on diesel engines
will be challenged in court and in the
Legislature, she said.
"It's politically driven, bad science
and the .courts are going to get it
soon,"she said."We're going to be in
the Legislature real heavy this year."
Truckers already pay more for re-
formulated diesel fuel required by
California regulations. A gallon of
diesel in California costs as much as
$1.47, while fuel sold in other states
costs as little as QQ rentc el-1a c.:rl
8 November, 1998
Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
Administrative Offices
73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Honorable 1layar and distinguished Council members:
Todays edition of the Desert Sun includes a letter to the Editor submitted by a
fellow resident of Palm Desert, Ms. Pat Horton. She expresses deep concern about
The potential hazard created by the many vehicles exceeding the posted speed limit
on Highway 74.
My concern, and the reason for submitting this letter is the situation existing on
Portola between Fred Waring and Highway 111. it is not just that so many vehicles
exceed the posted speed limit, but also the fact that Portola has become a major
artery for commercial vehicles.
My backyard faces Portola, and the noise factor and air pollution from diesel
exhausts is incredible.
Monday through Saturday from early morning to late afternoon, a plethora of
trucks towing two trailers and cement trucks ply up and down behind our housing
development emitting black foul smelling exhaust, and the noise can be deafening.
The construction truck traffic is mostly related to the development of yet another
golf course. In addition to cement, the trucks are also hauling sand, gravel,sod, and
boulders..
When I purchased my home approximately 3 years ago, and following my
retirement in April 1997 at which time 1 begs a to live full time in Palm Desert, the
traffic on Portola was much less than it is now. As I recall the problem really
mushroomed last spring. Now it has become almost unbearable. I cannot at certain
times sit outside without choking on nasty diesel fumes. When my patio door is open
the fumes float into my dining room. Sunday is truly a day of bliss.
Please try to find a solution to this serious problem, and respo�rnd to me and my
neighbors before the situation deteriorates further.We would lake to avoid taking
legal action. _ v___
Sint rely.•
1
Rodney L. MacDonald ?A.D.
73-973 Olive Court Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Ph. 779-9647
8 November, 1998
Letters to the Editor
Desert Sun
P.0> Box 2734
Palm Springs,Ca. 92260
Dear Ms. Smithy
Portola street between Fred Waring and Highway i t l has become a speedway
and a major artery for commercial vehicles.
Monday through Saturday from early morning to late afternoon, a plethora of
huge trucks pulling two trailers loaded with so& gravel sand,and boulders ply up
and down Portola on their way to the latest golf course development. 1 assume that
the cement trucks have the same destination. The noise is deafening, and the
choking exhaust fumes float into my backyard and into my home if the patio door is
open.
1 have requested help from the Mayor and city council in the form of a letter
which is included with this one.
Thankyou for acknowledging my letter and my neighbors thankyou as well.
Sincerely,
.\\9•
Rodney I. MacDonald M.D.
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Ph. '779-9647
r1P1(1t11M1(2rC fN+tf.rP the Cit.I S.ttesr# tks.tPr.'1,.•,ott., t..rrr..r. Wt.s ..,.....e. x,..,.. ... -. .-...,
3 December, 1998
Ramon A. Diaz City Manager
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Diaz:
'fhankyou for acknowledging my problem and It is my fervent hope and desire that
you will find ways to alleviate it.
May I suggest the following possibilities:
1. Raise the existing block wall.
2. Route some of the traffic to Deep Canyon which is presently closed as you
know to through truck traffic. It appears to be well suited to accomodate
commercial vehicles.
3. Find some way to encourage the. trucks to use Monterey which is even
wider than Portola. I notice that homes are set further back form the street
and in fact the barrier block walls are higher.
Thankyou again for your ongoing efforts to resolve this distressing problem.
Sincerely,
11\
Rodney 1. MacDonald MD
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Ph># 779-9647
RECEIVED
SEP 21 1999
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
September 21, 1999
Phillip Drell, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission.
Dear Mr. Drell:
I have added additional documents submitted by the city in response to a
letter submitted by me, dated December 3, 1998. Please add them to my file
in that I think they are quite pertinent and should be made part of the
record.
In reference to the anticipated topics to be discussed at this evenings Council
meeting, I would like to inform you as a Medical Doctor, that Diesel exhaust
fumes are now incriminated as causing disease. The many diesel trucks
plying up and down Portola are truly polluting the air for those of us who
live close to Portola. When I am in my backyard, the exhaust fumes
permeate the air which I breath. That being the case, does the City have any
concern for the children who walk up and down Portola during peak traffic
hours. Perhaps you would like to issue gas masks to protect them.
Noise pollution is yet another consideration. My five foot high wall does not
do anything to reduce the decibel level. I have even invested in a metal
shutter, but it does little to screen out heavy truck noise, or motorcycles.
Without blinds being closed or the shutter down, even the headlights from
some vehicles invades my home.
Finally, neither the city nor the developer notified us of the city's intent to
widen Portola and to convert private dwellings to commercial. The plan to
widen Portola is noted in our title insurance, but this was not made available
to us before we purchased our homes.
Sincerely,
Rodney I. MacDonald M.D.
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
CASE NO. GPA 99-1
Mr. Thomas Angle
44-454 San Jose
Called on September 2 and 3, 1999. He is opposed to the proposed general plan
amendment. The GPA will decrease property values due to noise impacts.
Home was built in 1946 with the bedroom close to the east property line.
Mr. Angle asked that we put these comments on the record.
Steve it
.
••••••���.:......•••�y
3/91
►► � N ITY OF PALM DESERT CA�� RIA
t C ,t � _99 '99 SEP 30 Ail 11 33 •
*41tri , k
:- _ =- APPLICATION TO APPE4Ls OFFICE
"" DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(Name of Committee/Commission)
Case No. GPA 99-2 Meeting Date: 9/21/99
Name of Appellant SEE ATTACHED
Address sKJ.: ATTACHED Phone: ( ) SEE ATTACHED
Description of Application: SEE ATTACHED
Reason for Appeal: s1 ATTACHED
Signature of Appellant SEE ATTACHED Date 9/28/99
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: q0006, Fee Received: 450 , 00
Treasurer's Receipt #: 10 I o Received by:
Public Hearing Set For:
Action taken by the City Council:
Date:
Sheila R. Gilligan, City.Clerk
September 28, 1999
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION TO APPEAL:
GPA 99-2
DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION: Approval of negative declaration,
and amendment to general plan from low density residential to office
professional.
REASON FOR APPEAL:
1. The legal notice made no mention regarding the plan to widen Portola
Avenue. It is our opinion that this cannot and should not be separated
from GPA 99-2.
2. Inconsistencies and inaccuracy in reference to reports, maps, and
notices.
3. No indication of traffic impact. This should require an in depth study
4. Negative declaration unavailable for review on date of notice 8/31/99
5. Careless errors in negative declaration-indicates that school district
not contacted as a responsible agency-on checklist-negative
declaration.
6. Casual comments at Planning Commission meeting in reference to the
city buying certain properties. Some members of the commission gave
the impression that the homeowners would have to seek out a buyer,
and if they had to sell their property for less than true value, that was
just an unfortunate burden they would have to bear.
7. Public Works " diagram" included in file regarding the widening of
Portola Avenue are meaningless!
8. There will be an encroachment into R-1 zoning.
9. Full scope of the proposal ignored.
10. Staff reference to "PALMA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN:" There is
no reference to Portola Avenue North and South R-1 in that document.
11. "Full scope of proposal" made by City Attorney and moved by
Planning Commission was ignored.
12. No "MARKET NEEDS" assessment has been made for additional
professional offices.
13. During"oral communications," testimony indicated that the Fred
Waring project is incomplete, and is causing residents in that area
much inconvenience and hardship.
CASE NO. GPA 99-2 •
ATTACHMENT TO APPLIATION TO APPEAL
SIGNATURES OF APPELLANTS
SIGNATURE 1-J ,a - z. 3' o s 1-3 ,v Gr° $ ' 3DATE �, y
ii-
o � ��3Co0 (�'
ty
'---- / 2 I/Y7'2.-4' -. --)4171'A-j t V ,-
6---,,,,,,at.?f_,7L,,_47e.<, " Cov41:1 T eec,
'.---) '17-2-A. 9
7 3 - 9 7 3 0 ►-A V - C.7 V J- -)14 7 -7 1 J 6 `1 -7
'4 V7
m-1 Apt S,14:17 ) ( 1
y 5 5 5)4 nt yo7)-'t 3 1 e b `1
aZt -4,_ 12 it.)• (i)"").. 2.(.,., ?/20,/c ,
y H 8 7 c (t d,3f,e4) >-. i)v T p o _ t- -3 H -1 '- 7
`! --) - e ► _Sr J crvs£ p)4_ 3 2.3 0 _0 a 1
r, o z
-�._t .r� ci_-,c ,& .6ty _ gip -F,
RECEIVED
'99 SEP 30 All 11 33
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 29, 1999
Dear Mayor and other members of the Palm Desert City Council:
While driving down Portola Avenue along the stretch between Highway 111
and Fred Waring heading North, I thought my eyes were deceiving me when
I noticed a speed limit sign indicating a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. I am
sure that the city is aware of the speeding which occurred when the limit was
35 miles per hour. What is the rationale and thinking regarding this matter?
Is the increase to enable the construction and other trucks to get to their
destination sooner or to lessen the impact and fine for the cited speeding
driver? Experience would indicate that many drivers will exceed the posted
speed limit by at least 5 to 10 miles per hour. Portola is a hazardous street
under any circumstances and the new speed limit only adds to the danger.
Sincerely,
Rodney I. MacDonald M.D.
73-973 Olive Court
Palm Desert,Ca. 92260
G yD)
RECEIVED
'99 OCT 12 PM 1 19 October 11, 1999
City of Palm Desert CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Council
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California J22 -
CASE #GPA 99-2
OPPOSED
Honorable Mayor Spiegel and Council Members,
As property owners affected by the proposed changes to the
General Plan from residential to office/professional we are
appealing the decision to go forward with City Staff' s
recommendation. GPA 99-2 would relieve the city from providing
"due process of law", "just compensation", and other private
property safeguards provided for in the Eminent Domain process by
placing the burden on the property owner to sell his own damaged
real estate during the "public good" Portola Avenue widening !
In addition to the previous letters and testimony before the
Planning Commission, please allow us to address the Staff 's
report dated October 14, 1999. The recommendation by the
Planning Commission to you was as follows:
"Recommend that some process be put into place so that
neighbors will get notice and the opportunity to have
the whole process, including the BUYING OF PROPERTY,
widening and TOTAL environmental review, be put into
place as part of this process. " (per tape and minutes) .
This MOTION was made, discussed and passed unanimously by the
planning commission but the staff omitted and changed parts on
page 4 and in the "notice of action" . I was told it was "a
matter of interpretation".
At the Planning Commission meeting of September 21, 1999 I was
dismayed to hear the following public quotes by Staff. . . (tapes)
1 . "EIR was made and approved in 1980. "
2 . "Forces the hand of property owner. . diminishes
the residential value of this property. "
3 . "City's preference is voluntary sale. "
4 . "Eminent Domain is extremely rare in the city. "
5. "I understand your home will not be as valuable
as before the process. "
6. "Impact is going to get worse. "
7 . "Properties on Portola are unsaleable today. "
Perhaps now you can understand why your constituents are becoming
suspicious and frightened of the staff 's misleading and rushed
handling of this project. The above quotes 1 through 7 plus other
comments, along with misinformation and/or mistakes, stalls and
repeated insistance that the Portola street widening is not a
factor (not to be addressed by us) have created an adversarial
atmosphere.
V3
A
In fact, one could argue that GPA 99-2 is being proposed as a way
to circumvent the United States Constitution (Amendment 5,
Section 1) and the California State Constitution (Article 1,
Section 19) 1 !
We are asking you to please delay any action until our questions
have been answered, the "whole process" has been studied, and the
best solution can be found for all those concerned. We 're very
sure a better proposal is possible if we all work together for
the good of our beautiful city, its tourists, residents and home-
owners.
Sincerely,
CPci''''‘'—'-z".
,a.,..„ :( ' ,
Ramr�g a and Gary Fletcher
73969 Olive Court
Palm Desert, California 92260
(760) 776-1915
DIANNE DORROUGH RECEIVED
43-915 PORTOLA
PALM DESERT, CA 92260 '99 OCT 13 P11 2 15
To whom it may concern: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Oct. 9, 1999
Re: Legal Notice GPA 99-2
I have received in the mail your notice of scheduled hearing regarding
the Portola Ave widening. I was out of town at the time of the first meeting.
As you can see by the above address I live at one of the 26 residences in your
notice.
1 bought this home in 1979 when Portola went no farther than the wash. I have
had ample opportunity to see first hand the growth of this area and the need for such
development.
Your notice states NO IMPACT-- but that is only relative to which side of the
question you are sitting(or living) on.
I have often been asked why I chose this location to buy. I did so because as a
single working mother 1 needed my children to be able to get to school easily. My
location is ideal for that purpose but with your proposal and acquisition of most of my
front yard you will be rendering my property virtually unsaleable if I were to choose to
do so. By your proposal you have taken that option from me.
My concern is if the city needs/wants our properties for road expansion/
commercial development is how long you will keep us waiting for decisions, specifically
"just compensation".
It would stand to reason the sooner an equitable decision can be made-those of us
being displaced can make future plans as where to live and the city can move forward
with it's plans.
I hope the meeting of the 14th will clarify some of the obvious concerns of those
involved
Sincerely,
Dianne Dorrough