HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 91-52 and Ord 641 CZ 90-14 PP-CUP 90-27 TT 26562 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEF 'MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO NT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
approval of a precise plan, conditional use permit,
change of zone and tentative tract map for a 687
unit residential development 18 hole golf course and
225 suite hotel on 420 acres located east of Portola
Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive.
III. APPLICANT: Pacific Golf Resorts
41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 102
Palm Desert, CA 92260
IV. CASE NOS: C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90-27, TT 26562
V. DATE: April, 25, 1991
VI. CONTENTS:
A. Staff Re
commendation.
B. Discussion. 91-5?
C. Draft Resolution No. and Ordinance No. 641_
D. Planning Commission Minutes dated April 2, 1991.
E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1504.
F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 2, 1991.
G. Related maps and/or exhibits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Adopt Resolution No. 91-52 certifying an Environmental Impact
Report.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 91-52 approving PP/CUP 90-27 and TT 26562,
subject to conditions.
3. Waive further reading and pass C/Z 90-14 to second reading.
I. BACKGROUND:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The property consists of 420 acres of undeveloped sand dunes
and desert scrub straddling the Palm Springs sand ridge.
General plan designation is low density residential (3-5
CITY COUNCIL ciLIrg units per acre ) . Current zoning is PR-5 (planned
APPROVED residen$I.i_M dwelling units per acre) - 170 acres and R-1-M
RECEIVED OTHER adt,
wa `� CXZd�� cam Ct
DQ cck� PP(Ct%)P q0-a-) rT a lob loa1
MEETING DATE 51RVc0 ,_,It„LAA v� � -M¢4 AYES: Earn 71-\\N.1-k o g \.1\0 0/�6‘ Q), tlY C u,,o, . l014( c(41cry ,1
ABSENT: \i'NC ¢ ¢
ABSTAIN: (NONQ 44J\vvislAjai ,
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City Clerk's Office
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90 , TT 26562
APRIL 25, 1991
( single family mobile home residential district) - 250 acres.
The property is surrounded by similar low density residential
designations. The property abuts Portola Avenue on the west,
Frank Sinatra Drive on the south and Cook Street on the east.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1 . Change of Zone. The 250 acres of R-1-M zoning is
proposed to be changed to PR-5. The PR-5 zone provides
uniform zoning for the whole site, standards more
specific to country club development and permits hotels
as a conditional use. The change is consistent with the
General Plan.
2. Precise Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract
Map. The precise plan and tentative map describes a 687
unit residential country club with an 18 hole golf course
and 225 suite hotel .
The residential component will consist of 128 units in
two story attached villas, 169 single story duplexes, 261
single story patio homes and 129 custom homes. Building
heights will range from 16 feet for the duplex and patio
homes, to 22 feet for the custom homes and 30 feet for
the villas. The height limit for the zone is 30 feet.
With the exception of the two story villas, all units
will back onto the golf course.
The main hotel elevation will be 40 feet in height
tapering down to 30 feet for the units. The 225 suite
hotel will have 400 parking spaces of which 200 will be
subsurface.
Landscaped perimeter setbacks on Portola and Frank
Sinatra will average 30 feet ( 42 feet from curb) to
accommodate the potential additions of a third lane. The
Cook half street will be installed at three lanes
allowing somewhat narrower perimeters. The walls will
meander creating some setback areas of over 100 feet.
The closest residential units will be setback 120 feet.
Hotel units will be setback 110 feet with 250 feet for
the main 40 feet high building.
The residential component will have one main signalized
entry on Frank Sinatra and secondary entries on Cook and
2
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90 , TT 26562
APRIL 25, 1991
Portola. The hotel will have a separate access from
Frank Sinatra. Non-signalized entries will have median
controls to prevent left-turn exit.
PROJECT DATA
Project Ordinance
Total Area: Gross 420
Net 401
Residential Area: 385
Units 687
Density 1. 8 du/ac 5 du/ac
Height 16 - 30 ft. 30 ft.
Common Open Space 56% 50%
Hotel Area: 15.2 acres
Units 225 suites
Height
40 ft.
30 ft.*
Parking 400 spaces 248 min.
II. ANALYSIS:
With the exception of the height for the main hotel building, the
project complies with all PR standards. An Environmental Impact
Report has been prepared. The EIR has identified a whole range of
impacts typical of a residential project of this scale. Mitigation
measures are identified to mitigate all impacts to a level of
insignificance. Impacts and mitigation are summarized in the EIR
and the attached Environmental Summary Matrix.
In addition to previously described improvements, traffic
mitigation will include:
1 . Participation in the Cook Street interchange.
2. Deceleration/acceleration lanes at all entries.
3. Exclusive right turn lane from Frank Sinatra westbound to Cook
northbound.
4. Exclusive right turn lane from Cook southbound to Frank
Sinatra westbound.
5. Dedication of right-of-way on Cook, Frank Sinatra and Portola
for double left, exclusive right expanded intersections.
3
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90• _. , TT 26562
APRIL 25, 1991
6. Location of bus shelters and turnouts on Cook, Portola and
Frank Sinatra.
7. Ultimately a traffic signal will be required at Portola/Frank
Sinatra and Cook/Frank Sinatra when warrants are met. Pacific
Golf Resorts will contribute one-fourth of costs of these
signals.
8. In addition to those traffic facilities directly adjacent to
this project, the consultant studied five intersections in the
vicinity to determine both project and regional impacts
through 2010. Those intersections included were El
Dorado/Country Club, Cook/Country Club, Portola/Country Club,
Portola/Gerald Ford, Monterey/Frank Sinatra. ( See Table 3
page 11 of revised report ) . Portola/Gerald Ford continues
level C or better in 2010 without mitigation. For the
remaining four intersections, the following long-term
mitigation measures are recommended. In general they involve
intersection expansion with additional left turn, exclusive
rights, and through lanes.
a. Cook/Country Club - mitigation for LOS C
1. Third and possibly fourth eastbound lane ( tapering
back to two lanes) .
2. Second west to south left-turn pocket.
3. Third and fourth westbound through lanes.
4. Third and fourth northbound through lanes.
5. Alternative grade separation
Project Impact 3. 5%
b. Monterey/Frank Sinatra
1. Eastbound right turn only.
2. Second left turn west to south.
3. Westbound right turn only.
4. Third southbound through lane.
5. Southbound right turn only lane.
6. Second left turn pocket north to west
Project Impact 9 . 5%
c. Portola/Country Club
1 . Third northbound.
2. Third westbound.
Project Impact 5. 9%
4
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90- .., , TT 26562
APRIL 25, 1991
d. El Dorado/Country Club
1 . Second and third eastbound lanes.
2. Left turn pocket west to south.
3. Left turn pocket east to north.
4. Second westbound through lane.
5. South to east left turn lane.
6. North to west turn pocket.
Project Impact 5. 6%
Since project impacts at these intersections are small relative to
regional impacts, primary mitigation assigned to Pacific Golf
Resorts would be through payment of TUMF. If the council
determines that mitigation measures not anticipated by CVATS ( i.e.
flyovers) are warranted, then additional mitigation fees may be
required based upon the project' s relative impact at a particular
intersection.
The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the
project and certification of the EIR. The architectural commission
has granted conceptual approval . The landscape architect has been
directed to maximize use of drought tolerant landscaping and water
efficient irrigation technology.
The requested 10 foot exception to the 30 foot height limit for the
hotel is justified by the 250 foot setback.
The overall high quality standards of site planning and
architecture appears comparable to the best examples of country
clubs recently developed in the valley. Overall project intensity
is one third of that permitted by the General Plan and zoning.
Prepared by: et-----&-ILV-LA-9.-
Reviewed and Approved by:
PD/tm
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING MMISSION
APRIL 2, 1991
Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and
noted one change to public works condition #14. Staff
recommended approval .
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111, urged commission
to approve his proposal . He questioned the need for
public works condition #5 rearing a six foot wide
1 sidewalk, noting that adjacent<erea iad landscaping, not
sidewalk. 4: r,
.4 i
Mr. Folkers informed commission that th =- : ' - originally
in the county and stated that in the past .-; .e 1 s were not
required, but felt it would be necessary eve lly. Staff
indicated that this was something they could hek % o and
commission should authorize the director to deter. , - q/ it
were necessary. Mr. Ritter concurred. 4 , J0
Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR
or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the
public testimony was closed.
Commissioner Jonathan felt the proposal was consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Richards noted that it was council ' s policy to
require sidewalks, but agreed with Mr. Folkers because this
was an area that had been annexed into the city.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried
5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner
Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1503,
approving PP 91-2 subject to conditions as amended. Carried
5-0.
B. Case Nos. C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90-27, TT 26562 - PACIFIC
GOLF RESORTS, Applicant
Request for certification of an
Environmental Impact Report and approval
of a precise plan, conditional use permit,
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING 'MISSION
APRIL 2, 1991
change of zone and tentative tract map for
a 687 unit residential development, 18
hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on
420 acres located east of Portola Avenue
north of Frank Sinatra Drive.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report,
noting that the only exception was the 40 foot height on the
main hotel structure, which staff felt was warranted. Staff
recommended approval.
Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification as
to the two-story town houses proposed in comparison to other
developments.
Commission and staff discussed traffic issues and Mr. Folkers
requested amendment of public works condition #7 relating to
Cook Street to require paving at 55 feet up to 62 feet to be
determined by the director of public works.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the
applicant to address the commission.
MR. WILLIAM SWANK, a principal in Portola Development
Company and Pacific Golf Resorts, 41-865 Boardwalk, Suite
102 in Palm Desert, stated that he had been working on
this project for over one year and informed commission
that they own the land free and clear. He indicated that
their architectural team consisted of Corbin Yamafugi,
CYP; Urrutia Architects; Robert Bein/William Frost
Associates; and Tom Lagier was present to address
engineering questions. Mr. Maurice Johns was their
project manager. He indicated that the golf course was
designed by Fred Bliss, formerly with Ron Friem
Associates who did the Desert Falls golf course and
Temecula' s Red Hawk course. He felt the 40 foot height
would provide a more interesting building facade and
would not be a problem with the setbacks being provided.
He stated that they have an agreement with Kapinski to
manage the hotel and the hotel would be delayed until
Cook Street went to the freeway.
Commissioner Jonathan asked for and received clarification
regarding when the hotel would be constructed, when the
project would be built, and height.
Mr. Drell noted that the project had received conceptual
architectural commission approval for the design.
3
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING __MMISSION
APRIL 2, 1991
Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR
or OPPOSITION to the proposal .
MR. MAURICE JOHNS, project manager, stated that he was
present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Erwood noted that the letter from the South Coast
Air Quality Management District raised concerns and was
interested in the applicant' s response, particularly in regard
to page two of the letter attachment where they discussed the
emission factors and the EMFAC7C used in the draft EIR and
noted that some other quotient figures or method should have
been used.
MR. JOHN CRIST informed commission that the district has
a handbook which was still being updated that provides
procedures and methodology for assessing air quality
impacts of various project aspects ( i.e. traffic,
fugitive dust, construction, etc. ) and they had not
received this new update from the district. He stated
that they would be reassessing the impacts based on the
new methodology, but this was the first instance of any
environmental documents in the last six months that they
had asked for a new approach.
Commissioner Erwood commented on the issues of cumulative
impacts and transportation and the fact that SCAG' s general
complaint was that they didn' t think this draft EIR fully
addressed the issues they cited in their attachment.
Mr. Crist indicated that this was somewhat inconsistent
with the handbook which didn' t feel that the analysis
they did or the traffic study took into account the
cumulative impacts. There was some haggling within the
district regarding the methodology they want to be used
that were actually compounding the emissions, rather than
accurately accounting for all the emissions that were
generated from the project, or double counting. He
stated that they would be in touch with the district to
see if they have a fixed methodology on assessing the
cumulative impacts and the generation of traffic
associated with support services, induced growth and
issues like that. He confirmed that this would be
included in the final EIR whether that would effect any
of their recommendations.
4
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING KMISSION
APRIL 2, 1991
Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for
commission comments.
Commissioner Richards felt that it was a fine project and with
the lower density and amount of green area this project was
acceptable. He stated that he would move for approval .
Commissioner Erwood agreed and felt the draft EIR was very
well done. He felt this project would be a fine addition.
Commissioner Downs also concurred that they did a fine job.
He stated that he would second the motion.
Commissioner Jonathan asked staff if this project was
sensitive to the issue of water conservation. Mr. Drell
stated that it would be and this was an issue before the
architectural commission and was being conditioned that all
drought tolerant plants and irrigation technologies be used,
including the utilization of high-tech water recovery.
Chairperson Whitlock stated that she liked the project and was
impressed with the materials received.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner
Downs, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried
5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner
Downs, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1504,
recommending to council certification of the Environmental
Impact Report, PP/CUP 90-27, TT 26562, C/Z 90-14, and
conditions as amended. Carried 5-0.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
X. COMMENTS
Commissioner Downs informed commission and staff that he would
be hesitant to approve any additional projects on El Paseo
5
PLANN: COMMISSION RESOLUTION NC
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, PRECISE
PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 687 UNIT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE AND 225
SUITE HOTEL ON 420 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF PORTOLA
AVENUE NORTH OF FRANK SINATRA DRIVE.
CASE NOS. C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90-27, TT 26562
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 2nd day of April, 1991, hold a duly noticed
public hearing to consider the request by PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS for
certification of an environmental impact report and approval of a change
of zone, precise plan and tentative tract map for a 687 unit residential
development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420 acres
located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive; 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. 80-89, " and a Draft
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in compliance with CEQA
guidelines as amended; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said planning commission did find the following facts and
reasons to justify a recommendation of approval:
A. Environmental Impact Report.
1 . The Environmental Impact Report has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and adequately addresses the impacts and
mitigation measures for the proposed project.
2. These recommendations concerning the project are the result
of review and consideration of the information contained
within the Draft E. I .R. , in addition to written and oral
comments.
B. Change of Zone.
1 . The requested change of zone from R-1-M to PR-5 is consistent
with the North Sphere Specific Plan and the Palm Desert
General Plan.
C. Precise Plan.
1 . The proposed use and design of the precise plan is consistent
with the North Sphere Specific Plan, Palm Desert General Plan
and the Planned Residential District.
PLANNING COMMISSION I )LUTION NO.
2. The design of the precise plan will not substantially
depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use
or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants
thereof for lawful purposes.
4. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health,
safety or general welfare.
D. Tract Map.
( 1 ) That the proposed vesting map is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
( 2 ) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(3 ) That the site is physically suitable for the type of
development.
(4) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density
of development.
( 5 ) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat.
( 6 ) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
( 7 ) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the planning
commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the
housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs
against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm
Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental
resources.
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 commission in this case.
2. That Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH 90021029 on file
in the department of community development/planning is
recommended to city council for certification.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION F ILUTION NO.
3. That Change of Zone 90-14 Exhibit "A" , Precise
Plan/Conditional Use Permit 90-27 and TT 26562 on file in the
department of community development/planning is recommended
to city council for approval subject to attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission, held on this 2nd day of April, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson
ATTEST:
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary
PD/tm
3
PLANNING COMMISSION l )LUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NOS. PP/CUP 90-23, TT 26562
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with
exhibits on file with the department of community
development/planning, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Construction of portion of said project shall commence within two
years from the date of final approval unless an extension of time
is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of
no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes
now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
permits and/or clearance form the following agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall
be presented to the department of building and safety at the time
of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
5. Trash collection services and facilities shall be coordinated with
Palm Desert Disposal and shall incorporate residential and
commercial recycling where applicable.
6. Project landscaping shall emphasize drought tolerant plant
materials and irrigation technology to the greatest extent
feasible.
7. All mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental
Impact Report as being the responsibility of Pacific Golf Resorts
shall be considered a required condition of this approval.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION 1 )LUTION NO.
8. Project shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard
Mitigation Fee of $252, 000 payable prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
9 . The hotel use will be subject to the Resort Hotel Housing
mitigation fee of $225, 000.
10. Project shall be subject to the Art in Public Places Fee per
Ordinance No. 473.
Public Works
1 . The project shall be designed to retain drainage from a 100-year
storm on-site. Drainage fees for the construction of regional
drainage improvements which would be necessary regardless of the
on-site drainage retention shall be paid prior to the recordation
of the final map. The amount of these fees shall be based upon
the City of Palm Desert Master Drainage Plan prepared by NBS\Lowery
upon its adoption by the Palm Desert City Council .
2. Any drainage/retention area facilities construction required for
this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by
a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
3. Rights-of-way/easements as may be necessary for the construction
of local/regional flood control facilities shall be provided on
the final map.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert
Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to approval
and recordation of the tract map. Applicant shall provide for the
installation of a traffic signal on Frank Sinatra Drive at the main
project entry and pay one-fourth the cost of traffic signal
installation at the intersections of Frank Sinatra Drive and
Portola Avenue and Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street.
5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26. 28, and in
accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced.
Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works
Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of
required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final
map.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION OLUTION NO.
6. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the
Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall be
paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
7 . Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44
of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance
with applicable City standards. Minimum improvements shall
include, but not be limited to the following:
Frank Sinatra Drive: * Construction of a deceleration/
acceleration lane for all project entry
points.
* Construction of a right turn lane for west
bound to north bound traffic.
* Construction of an 8 foot wide meandering
sidewalk.
* Modification of the existing median island
to prohibit left turn egress from the
hotel entry. Left turn ingress shall be
permitted.
* Installation of perimeter landscaping and
median landscaping as approved by the City
of Palm Desert.
* Construction of transit facilities as
recommended by Sunline Transit and
approved by the City of Palm Desert.
Portola Avenue: * Construction of a deceleration/
acceleration lane for project entry.
* Construction of an 8 foot wide meandering
sidewalk.
* Construction of a center median island in
Portola Avenue at the project entry to
prohibit left turn egress. Left turn
ingress shall be permitted.
* Installation of perimeter landscaping as
approved by the City of Palm Desert.
* Construction of transit facilities as
recommended by Sunline Transit and
approved by The City of Palm Desert.
Cook Street: * Construction of curb and gutter and AC
paving at 55 feet from centerline.
* Construction of a deceleration/
acceleration lane at project entry.
* Construction of a right turn lane for
south bound to west bound traffic.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION 1 1LUTION NO.
* Construction of one-half of a raised,
landscaped median island.
* Construction of an 8 foot wide meandering
sidewalk.
* Installation of perimeter landscaping as
approved by the City of Palm Desert.
* Construction of transit facilities as
recommended by Sunline Transit and
approved by the City of Palm Desert.
Interior Streets: * Improvements as shown on the tentative
map.
In addition to the above noted items, those traffic mitigation
measures identified in the project Traffic Impact Analysis prepared
by Circulation Systems Associates and discussed within the project
E. I .R. shall be provided. The subject report and proposed
mitigation measures shall be approved by the Public Works
Department.
8. Traffic safety striping on Frank Sinatra Drive, Portola Avenue,
Cook Street and all interior streets shall be provided to the
specifications of the Director of Public Works and shall include
the use of approved thermoplastic paint and raised pavement
markers. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved
by, the Director of Public Works prior to the issuance of any
permits associated with this project or placement of any pavement
markings.
9 . Developer shall agree to participate in the proposed City of Palm
Desert Cook Street Improvement Assessment District to the extent
determined by proceedings of the City of Palm Desert.
10. Landscaping maintenance on the property frontages shall be provided
by the property owner and/or property owners association.
11 . In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44,
complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to
the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to
issuance of any permits. The subject grading plan shall include
detailed erosion control plans.
12. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to
the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
issuance of any permits.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION F ILUTION NO.
13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval
of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works.
14. Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code.
15. Waiver of access to Frank Sinatra Drive, Portola Avenue and Cook
Street, except at approved locations, shall be granted on the final
map.
16. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) associated with this
project shall be paid as required by ordinance.
17. Half street right-of-way at sixty-seven feet on Cook Street fifty-
five feet on Frank Sinatra Drive and fifty feet on Portola Avenue
as well as any additional right-of-way necessary for the
construction of the required turn lanes shall be offered for
dedicated on the final map.
18. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by
the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted
to the Department of Public Works prior to project final.
19 . As required by the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all existing
overhead utilities shall be placed underground per each utility
district ' s recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, the
applicant shall submit to the city, in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, surety in an amount equal to the estimated
construction cost for the subject undergrounding.
20. A complete preliminary soils investigation, prepared by a
registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by
the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permits.
PD/tm
8
ogrfa 1 )
,.,,,77,,•. -i-, )
I;
LFr II '.
14
•!.:
I • 4
M 0
r I _ F
r
t KI
•
I> !
P CD
_�� i . � I l l l l ! i I I �i 33
Z 1'
C \\\\\\\\\\\ \\"\\"y
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
N \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\y
IoI \\\\\\\\.\\\\.\.\\\y
���\\\\ \\'\\\\\\\\'
I i \\\\\\\\-a\\..\\\\\\\\
a.\\\\«t \\ \ �,,\\t
0 73 13 .\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\
rn r— •\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\. 0
el:
an
Z I--;'' / a R.,,/ 7/
•
• (A
CD
O
Z
V/� ;1 iI�tr rr'l I• �II'I 11 I' .
(4'n a.�.1'/,4A CU15i VU U�`l�lUl1UL1 i �xaa ku i
'"' ��"`�♦ 73 51U HIED WAILING DRIVE,PALM UESE(i I,CALIFORNIA 92260
—
-I ELEPI LONE(G 19)346-061 1—
March 6, 1991
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. PP 90-27, C/Z 90-14, TT 26562
NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm
Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS for
certification of an Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Precise
Plan, Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map for a 687 dwelling unit
residential development, 18 hole golf course and 225 suite hotel on 420
•
acres located east of Portola Avenue north of Frank Sinatra Drive, also
particularly described as:
• A.P.N. 653-400-016, 018, 019 and portion of 617
653-390-017 and portion of 616
...�
NN
, . L .
• • GERALD FORD DR. N.
�. -.. .0..
i I O•• ••••••••M•♦. . •••••••• ,
•
VANNWAVO-
•
i•.m.
♦••••••••••••••••••••�,1•••♦••••0:.
••
♦•••••••••• ♦....•...•
I ..
umazo',
wemem.
iliMI , _ _,1.,
__ ",•'°-'
♦•••••••••♦ .••♦♦...... 1. ..
.....•.... ...........4 ;�
.1
,::ram —
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
i ,
•• SAiD public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 2, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in
the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 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/planning at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions In
•
• court, you may be limited to raising only those issues your 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 Post RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary '
March 13, 1991 Palm Desert Planning Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEP MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO: 1T
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: April 2, 1991
CASE NOS: C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90-27, TT 26562
REQUEST: Certification of an Environmental Impact Report and
approval of a precise plan, conditional use permit,
change of zone and tentative tract map for a 687 unit
residential development 18 hole golf course and 225 suite
hotel on 420 acres located east of Portola Avenue north
of Frank Sinatra Drive.
APPLICANT: Pacific Golf Resorts
41-865 Boardwalk, Suite 102
Palm Desert, CA 92260
I . BACKGROUND:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The property consists of 420 acres of undeveloped sand dunes
and desert scrub straddling the Palm Springs sand ridge.
General plan designation is low density residential (3-5
dwelling units per acre) . Current zoning is PR-5 (planned
residential 5 dwelling units per acre) - 170 acres and R-1-M
( single family mobile home residential district) - 250 acres.
The property is surrounded by similar low density residential
designations. The property abuts Portola Avenue on the west,
Frank Sinatra Drive on the south and Cook Street on the east.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1 . Change of Zone. The 250 acres of R-1-M zoning is
proposed to be changed to PR-5. The PR-5 zone provides
uniform zoning for the whole site, standards more
specific to country club development and permits hotels
as a conditional use. The change is consistent with the
General Plan.
2. Precise Plan and Tentative Tract Map. The precise plan
and tentative map describes a 687 unit residential
country club with an 18 hole golf course and 225 suite
hotel .
The residential component will consist of 128 units in
two story attached villas, 169 single story duplexes, 261
single story patio homes and 129 custom homes. Building
heights will range from 16 feet for the duplex and patio
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90-zi, TT 26562
APRIL 2, 1991
homes, to 22 feet for the custom homes and 30 feet for
the villas. The height limit for the zone is 30 feet.
With the exception of the two story villas, all units
will back onto the golf course.
The main hotel elevation will be 40 feet in height
tapering down to 30 feet for the units. The 225 suite
hotel will have 400 parking spaces of which 200 will be
subsurface.
Landscaped perimeter setbacks on Portola and Frank
Sinatra will average 30 feet (42 feet from curb) to
accommodate the potential additions of a third lane. The
Cook half street will be installed at three lanes
allowing somewhat narrower perimeters. The walls will
meander creating some setback areas of over 100 feet.
The closest residential units will be setback 120 feet.
Hotel units will be setback 110 feet with 250 feet for
the main 40 feet high building.
The residential component will have one main entry on
Frank Sinatra and secondary entries on Cook and Portola.
The hotel will have a separate access from Frank Sinatra.
Signals are proposed for the Portola/Frank Sinatra
intersection and the main entrance. Non-signalized
entries will have median controls to prevent left-turn
exit.
PROJECT DATA
Project Ordinance
Total Area: Gross 420
Net 401
Residential Area: 385
Units 687
Density 1 .8 du/ac 5 du/ac
Height 16 - 30 ft. 30 ft.
Common Open Space 56% 50%
Hotel Area: 15.2 acres
Units 225 suites
Height 40 ft. 30 ft.*
Parking 400 units 248 min.
2
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 90-14, PP/CUP 90 TT 26562
APRIL 2, 1991
II . ANALYSIS:
With the exception of the height for the main hotel building, the
project complies with all PR standards. An Environmental Impact
Report has been prepared. The EIR has identified a whole range of
impacts typical of a residential project of this scale. Mitigation
measures are identified to mitigate all impacts to a level of
insignificance. Impacts and mitigation are summarized in the EIR
and the attached Environmental Summary Matrix.
The requested 10 foot exception to the 30 foot height limit for the
hotel is justified by the 250 foot setback.
The overall high quality standards of site planning and
architecture appears comparable to the best examples of country
clubs recently developed in the valley. Overall project intensity
is one third of that permitted by the General Plan and zoning.
III . RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt findings and Planning Commission Resolution No.
recommending to city council certification of the Environmental
Impact Report - PP/CUP 90-27, TT 26562, C/Z 90-14.
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolution.
B. Legal notice.
C. EIR Matrix.
D. Public Agency Comments.
Prepared bys
Reviewed and Approved by
PD/tm
3
ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY/MATRIX
FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 26562
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL •
,SUMMARY/MATRI$
This Environmental Impact Report Significant Impacts: Are those which
(EIR) has been prepared to review the constitute a substantial or potentially
environmental constraints and substantial adverse change in the
opportunities associated with the environment.
approval of Tentative Tract Map
#26562 proposed on 420± acres. The Unavoidable Impacts: Those impacts
project is located immediately north of which occur as the result of project
Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Portola development whose adverse effects
Avenue, and west of Cook Street cannot be entirely eliminated.
(extended) in the northern
incorporated boundaries of the City of Insignificant Impacts: Those impacts
Palm Desert. The EIR assesses the which, by virtue of the environmental
environmental impacts which may conditions or the implementation of
result as a consequence of approval of mitigation measures, are reduced to
the proposed project. The following acceptable or "insignificant" levels.
discussion briefly summarizes each
category of analysis, including
existing conditions, anticipated
impacts and applicable mitigation
measures recommended to reduce
impacts to acceptable levels. Levels of
impacts include:
M-1
Land Use
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Subject property is vacant. Designated Project results in development of 420± Processed as a Precise Plan with a
Land Use is Low-Density Residential acres with a mix of residential change of zone from R-1-M to P.R. 5 to
(3-5 DU/AC) and Residential Study housing consisting of 128 single permit the hotel use. Site and orient
Zone. Site is currently zoned R-1-M Family custom homes, 269 single buildings away from future
(Conventional Single Family Mobile family patio homes, 162 attached surrounding development. A 30 foot
Home Residential District), P.R. 5 duplexes, 128 attached villas and a 225 wide landscape feature with a
(Planned Residential 5 DU/AC) and a room resort hotel integrated with an 18 meandering wall adjacent
very small portion zoned P.C. 2 hole championship golf course. arterials. Half width Stn..—
(Planned Commercial District). improvement to Cook Street (extended)
for the length of property.
Traffic/Circulation
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Analyzed major streets are Generates 9,321 ADT. There are three The Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra
substantially built out, and operate at access points planned for the project; intersection will require an additional
acceptable Levels of Service. (LOS-A). two located on Frank Sinatra Drive north bound left turn pocket to allow the
with exception of Country Club Drive and a minor access on Portola intersection to perform at LOS C for the
(LOS-C). Site is vacant but has Avenue. The proposed project and 1995 and 2010 project plus background
potential to generate 12,500 to 20,900 surrounding approved developments plus cumulative impacts. Inst
ADT at current General Plan will impact the Monterey traffic signals at the Frank Sinatra
designations. Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Drive/Portola intersections and at the
intersection,reducing operations tot main access drive/Frank Sinatra
LOS D in 1995& 2010. Drive intersection, and provide
controlled turning movements.
Participate in the development of Cook
Street/I-10 interchange. Payment of
TUMF fees.
M-2
•
Soils and Geology
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Soils composed of MaB, MaD and CpA Potential exists for seismic activity, Presoak & recompact soils.
fine sands and occurs on the Palm including sever groundshaking and Plan/Implement erosion control
Springs Sand Ridge. Site is located in seismically induced settling. Site also measures. Develop and secure
an Active Blowsand Hazard Area. No subject to wind erosion. Site not subject approval of wind erosion control
known active or potentially active to liquefaction or ground rupture plans. Design for 0.5g ground
faults present. Nearest fault three hazard. acceleration, and conform wi
miles to northeast. Area of potentially applicable UBC and other desi
high ground acceleration. parameters. Conduct additional
testing. Document conditions at site
before and during construction at prescribed
intervals or certain points i n
development & construction process.
Hydrology
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Site in the service area of CVWD Mid- The average runoff yield from the site Design project to retain/detain on site
Valley Stormwater Channel. No off- in the developed condition for a 10 year the complete 100 year storm volume per
site drainage tributary to the site. event will generate approximately 1.7 requirement of CVWD. Shall include
Perimeter roads along the boundary cfs/acre and approximately 3.1 strategies to handle all on-site and All
provide some water conveyance. cfs/acre during a 100 year event. off-site flows which pass through t
Undeveloped site will generate an subject property. Participate in the
average of 0.48 cfs/acre in a 10 year Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel
event and an average of 1.13 cfs/acre a program.
100 year event.
M-3
Water Resources/Quality
Existing Conditions Project Imoacta Mitigation Measures
Coachella Valley Water District Residential consumption projected at Provide well sites and wells for
provides domestic water. Water supply 108,809 gallons per day, max. hotel use enhanced production. Construct
from wells mining Whitewater projected at up to 91,575 gallons per day, additional distribution system. Use
subbasin. Quality is good to excellent. and golf course demand estimated at drought tolerant landscaping. Install
Existing 18" main in Frank Sinatra 1.3 million gallons. Total water efficient irrigation systems, drip
Drive along entire southern boundary. demand will be approximately 1.4 irrigation & low moisture detect
million gallons per day. Contributes to Install low-flush toilets & wai
on-going overdraft condition. conserving shower heads, faucets and
other conserving technologies.
Provide written materials in hotel to
encourage conservation by guests.
Biological Resources
Existing Condition* Project Imoacts Mitigation Measures
Creosote scrub plant community and Removes 420± acres from vacant Payment of required fees for 420±
associated species present at site. status, decrease wildlife habitat & acres designated as fee mitigation
Fauna comprised of typical species of desert vegetation. Will impact known area by the Fringe toed Lizard HI
the Colorado Desert floor. Possibility of habitat of federally listed Fringe-toed approximate fee is $252,000. Excli
invasive plants from landscaping
occurrence sensitive species, Lizard, and suspected sensitive or rare palette. Conduct spring survey for
including Coachella Valley milk plant and animal species. desert tortoise and other sensitive
vetch, Desert Tortoise, Flat tailed species. Encourage use of native and
Horned Lizard and Coachella Valley other habitat enhancing plant
Fringe-toed Lizard. materials.
M-4
Air Quality
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
1989 PM10 suspended particulates Impacts include: fugitive dust Develop and implement dust control
exceeded state standards 67.2% of time potential during construction of up to plan in conformance with applicable
sampled (Indio Station) and 28.3% 503.4 tons/month. Buildout related AQMD management plans. Provide
(Palm Springs Station). Ozone impacts could result in: CO - 422 site watering & downwind fences
exceeded federal standards on 37 lb./day; NO - 180 lb/day; ROG - 71 during construction. Designate truck
sample days; state standard exceeded lb./day. Stationary source emissions routes. Maintain on-site WE
108 days (Palm Springs), exceeded are from power plant(s) and sources. Halt construction during
federal standards on 16 sample days consumption of natural gas; moving and 2nd stage smog alerts. Provide
and state standards 76 days (Indio) emissions from vehicular traffic. van/shuttle service for guests.
when samples were taken. Threshold criteria exceeded for Implement carpooling program.
nitrogen oxides only. Encourage use of public transit.
Provide bus shelter & turnout.
Noise
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Existing noise environment relatively Impacts are: construction-related Provide mufflers on construction
quiet. Ambient or average noise levels noise (70-95 dB(A) @ 50 feet); noise equipment; restrict hours of operation.
ranged from 51.4 dB(A) to 60.6 dB (A). from mechanical equipment (70-75 Construct 6-7 foot masonry walls along
Vehicular traffic is the major noise dB(A), outdoor recreation noise and project boundaries. Design, select
generator with some impact from traffic noise on adjacent streets (0.4- place mechanical equipment Lo
railroad operations. 2.2 dB(A) contribution. minimize impact; equip w/silencers
or barriers. Utilize recommended
building materials. Enforce Title 25
construction standards.
M-5
Public Services and Facilities
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Domestic water and sewage disposal Larger sewage collection system Sewage disposal: Extend sewer line
provided by Coachella Valley Water required. On-site retention required approximately 11,000 to 12,000 feet.
District; natural gas by Southern (see Hydrology). Trunk line Provide six well sites on the project
California Gas; electrical by Southern extension for telephone service site. Natural gas: Use efficient water
California Edison; telephone by required. Impact on protective services heaters, furnaces, etc. Enforce Title
General Telephone Company; police (police, fire, medical) is cumulative. 24. Electrical service: Enforce T'`'-
and fire by Riverside County; medical 24. Use energy efficient desi
by Eisenhower Medical Center. Install only necessary outdoor
lighting and efficient mechanical
equipment. Fire protection: Equip
structures with sprinklers. Install fire
alarm system in hotel complex.
Enforce Uniform Building, Fire and
other applicable codes. Provide
operational fire hydrants within 250'
of all construction; determine &
document fire flows. Any area more
than 150' from hydrant must have
Class 3 stand pipes. Operational '--
brigade required.
M-7
Scenic Resources
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Site 12± miles from eastern toe of San Two storey structures are the suite hotel Viewshed analysis indicates that
Jacinto Mountains, 4 miles from Santa and the attached villas, neither development impacts mitigated by pad
Rosa Mountains. Good viewsheds to exceeding forty feet in height. Hotel elevations, setbacks and landscape
northeast, west and south. facility planned at corner of Cook treatment. Review during design &
Street and Sinatra Drive. construction.
Socio-Economic Resources
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Palm Desert current population Property tax generated for City - Project will result in a net positive
estimated at 20,650. Employment has a $693,937.30. Sales tax generated for benefit of approximately $672,000
major emphasis on the service City - $331,763. Sales Tax for Roadway annually, or a benefit to cost ratio of
occupation. Median household income Improvements $66,352. Transient about 1.49 to 1.
in 1988 was $28,652. Housing stock has occupancy tax generated for City -
grown on average about 5% a year. $582,064. Costs: General government
Strong growth pattern and revenue cost- $709,090. Cost of police protection -
generation. $221,000. Cost of fire protection -
$71,910.
M-6
Public Services and Facilities
Existing Conditions Project Impacts Mitigation Measures
Domestic water and sewage disposal Larger sewage collection system Sewage disposal: Extend sewer line
provided by Coachella Valley Water required. On-site retention required approximately 11,000 to 12,000 feet.
District; natural gas by Southern (see Hydrology). Trunk line Provide six well sites on the project
California Gas; electrical by Southern extension for telephone service site. Natural gas: Use efficient water
California Edison; telephone by required. Impact on protective services heaters, furnaces, etc. Enforce Title
General Telephone Company; police (police, fire, medical) is cumulative. 24. Electrical service: Enforce "'"'e
and fire by Riverside County; medical 24. Use energy efficient di L.
by Eisenhower Medical Center. Install only necessary outdoor
lighting and efficient mechanical
equipment. Fire protection: Equip
structures with sprinklers. Install fire
alarm system in hotel complex.
Enforce Uniform Building, Fire and
other applicable codes. Provide
operational fire hydrants within 250'
of all construction; determine &
document fire flows. Any area more
than 150' from hydrant must have
Class 3 stand pipes. Operations' r-e
brigade required.
M-7
'*ATE'?
kV/ ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
%%STRICT
COACIIELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236• TELEPHONE(619)398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS,PRESIDENT TIIOMAS E LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY
JOHN W.McFADDEN OWEN McCOOK,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M.NICHOLS March 21, 1991 REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J.FISH
File: 0126.1
0421.1
Philip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Pacific Golf
Resorts, Tentative Tract 26562 (SCE 90021029)
This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Pacific Golf Resorts. The Coachella Valley Water District appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this document.
A collection of the Coachella Valley Water District 's comments will be addressed
in Attachment "A," enclosed.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact
Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292 .
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engineer
JEC:cb/e3
Enclosure/
as
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
8. Page III-24, Distribution Facilities under the subheading "Project
Impacts," first and second paragraphs to read as follows:
With the proposed 557 single family dwelling units having an estimated
maximum peak demand of 4.0 gallons per minute per dwelling unit, the
maximum peak water demand consumption would be 3,208,320 gallons per day.
The proposed 128 villas will also generate a maximum peak demand of 5,760
gallons per day, per unit, or approximately 737,280 gallons per day.
For purposes of this analysis, the hotel unit maximum peak demand has been
applied; 504 gallons per room. All ancillary hotels uses including
laundry, restaurants, general operations and landscape maintenance, are
included in this range. The proposed 225 hotel rooms and auxiliary uses
will generate a maximum peak demand of approximately 113,400 gallons per
day.
(Exclude Footnotes Nos. 22 and 23.)
9. Page III-25, Mitigation Measures, third paragraph, third and fourth
sentences to read as follows:
Due to the fire flow requirement of 5,000 gpm for the hotel, a looped
18-inch main line will be required to serve this facility. The hotel site
will be developed with a two-feed system.
(Footnote No. 26 shall be omitted.)
10. Page III-39, Item No. 1
This section shall emphasize water saving methods for dust control. These
methods may include soil stabilizers or other means to reduce continuous
site watering. Also see Item No. 6 in this appendix.
11. Page III-64, Project Impacts under the subheading "Domestic Water
Services", second sentence to read as follows:
The developer has also planned to provide sir well sites and will be
fully equipping two sites to serve the proposed development.
-9--
File: 0126.1
0421. 1
ATTACHMENT A
1 . Page M-4, Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Project Impacts" to
read as follows:
Residential maximum peak demand is projected at 3,945,600 gallons per day.
Hotel maximum peak demand is projected at 113,400 gallons per day and golf
course demand estimated at 1.3 million gallons. Accumulative peak water
demand will be approximately 5.4 million gallons per day which contributes
to the on-going overdraft condition.
2. Page M-4, Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Mitigation
Measures" first and third sentences to read as follows:
Provide six well sites and two fully equipped wells for demand production.
Use low water use landscaping.
3. Page M-5, Air Quality under the subheading "Mitigation Measures" after
second sentence to include as follows:
Apply soil stabilizers when possible in order to reduce the water spent for
dust control.
4. Page M-7, Public Services and Facilities under the subheading "Project
Impacts," second sentence to read as follows:
On-site retention of stormwater runoff is required. (See hydrology.)
5. Page I-4, under the heading "Hydrology," last sentence to read as follows:
These shall be reviewed and approved by the Coachella Valley Water District
and the city engineer.
6. Page III-18, Mitigation Measures under the subheading "Wind Erosion", Item
No. 2 to address the following:
This section describes and discusses maintaining moist surface soils. This
method is prescribed by CEQA as a means to control soil erosion and reduce
PM-10. It is the concern of the Coachella Valley Water District that this
practice will expend a great deal of water. No estimate has been provided in
this report to address the amount of water required to keep the ground surface
moist in this desert environment. The District will require that this report be
augmented to emphasize and give more detail to dust controllmeasures which will
serve to reduce the amount of water used for dust control.
7. Page III-20, Hydrology under subheading "Existing Conditions," third
paragraph after the second sentence to include the following:
The implementation of the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel is subject to and
dependent on the participation of the affected communities of the
Mid-Valley area.
-1-
41)11mtii)
South Coast
AIR % ALI I Y MANAGEMEN r DISTRICT
9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818) 572-6200
Match 1, 1991
Mr. Phillip Drell
Department of Planning
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Draft EIR: Pacific Golf Resorts Tentative Tract # 26562
SCQAMD#RC910131-02
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Pacific Golf Resorts
Tentative Tract #26562 Project. The project has the potential to generate
significant short-term and long-term air quality impacts. Based on District staffs
review of the project, these impacts and potentiall mitigation measures have not
been fully assessed in the Draft EIR.
The District is responsible for adopting, implementing, and enforcing air quality
regulations in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) which includes Riverside County.
As a responsible agency, the District reviews and analyzes El Rs for projects (within
the jurisdiction of the District) that may generate significant adverse air quality
impacts. The District's role is advisory to the lead agency.
The District's review of the project indicates that there are significant air quality
issues relative to the size, scale, and location of the proposed project that need to be
further clarified and included in the Final EIR. The attached staff assessment
presents a detailed discussion of the District's analysis of the Draft EIR.
The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Pacific Golf Resorts
Project. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Connie
Day, Program Supervisor, at (818) 307-4507.
Sincerely,
6_,4)
Jack P. Broadbent
Planning Manager
JPB:CAD:KU:PF:
Attachment
ATIACI I MIENT
SCAQMD ASSESSMENT
OF
PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS TENTATIVE TRACT # 26562
Project Description
The proposed Pacific Golf Resorts Tentative Tract # 26562 Project encompasses
the development of 420 acres for a mixed use development with 687 residential
dwelling units, a 225 suite-hotel and restaurant, and an 18-hole golf course.
Air Quality Setting
The Draft EIR accurately characterizes the air quality setting relative to the project.
According to air quality monitoring conducted in 1989 at the District's Palm Springs
monitoring station, the closest station to the study area, ozone levels exceeded
federal standards on 37 days; and oxides of nitrogen levels did not exceed federal
standards.
The Coachella Valley also exceeded the federal standards for PM10. The
measurements at Palm Springs exceeded the federal 24-hour standards on 3.3
percent of the days in 1989 based on a 60-day sample. The Coachella Valley has
been designated as a Group I area for PM to. Group I is defined as having a 95-
percent of probability of violating the standards. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air
Act, Group I "Moderate" nonattainment areas are required to meet federal PM10
standards within three years of an EPA-approved State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The Draft Final State Implementation Plan for PM10 in the Coachella Valley was
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on November
30, 1990.
Short-Perm Air Quality Impacts
Short-term air quality impacts from this project are mainly due to grading,
excavation, and construction activities. Construction emissions would result from
fugitive dust, heavy-duty construction equipment, building equipment and necessary
vehicular trips (truck and personnel). The predicted PMI0 emission levels due to
construction-related work is approximately 2.1 tons/day.
The Draft EIR does not analyze emissions caused by the construction equipment,
vehicles used by construction personnel, and other construction-related activities
such as lane closures, detours, etc. The Final EIR should analyze emissions from all
sources and propose measures to mitigate short-term construction impacts. See
Table 1 for potential mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures for
reduction of PMIo are included in Attachment 1
2
Long-Term Air Quality Impacts
Long-term air quality impacts arising from the project are primarily due to
approximately 9,300 average daily trips. There will also be impacts due to the
growth-inducing nature of the project which have not been fully analyzed. The
following analyses are recommended for inclusion in the Final EIR:
Emission Factors
EMFAC7C was used in the Draft EIR for calculating vehicle emissions.
EMFAC7D, which was available at the time of the preparation of the DEIR, or
EMFAC7E, which may be presently available, should be used in the Final EIR to
calculate the emissions.
Transportation Demand Management
The Draft EIR recommends Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
programs as effective measures to mitigate the impacts of additional traffic
generated by the project. The DEIR recommends Transportation Management
Associations (TMAs) as a mitigation measure; however, no specific information
regarding the method of funding is provided. The Final EIR should analyze the
TMAs in detail, discussing how and when the TMAs will be formed. District staff
recommends that TMAs should be operational at the beginning of the project.
The potential for transit improvements such as planned improvements to transit
services, and plans to incorporate car-pools and vanpools at the beginning of the
project should also he considered. Implementing a trip reduction plan at the
inception of the project would help reduce vehicular emissions. These measures
should be included in the Final EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The DEIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts of the projects within the
project area. There is no analysis of the additional vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
that could generate significant cumulative impacts. "I he cumulative impacts of this
project and the projects within the area should he included in the analysis of the
growth-inducing impacts. The Final EIR should analyze the potential for additional
trips resulting from the use of the hotel and the golf club.
Additional Mitigation Measures
Additional mitigation measures which are recommended by the District should be
incorporated into the Final EIR. The need to reduce indirect emissions through
energy-efficient construction methods, and use of landscaping with native drought-
resistant plant species should be analyzed in the Final Elk. See attached Table 1
for a list of potential mitigation measures.
•
TABLE I
POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS TENTATIVE TRACT# 26562 PROJECT
1. Minimize Construction Activity Emissions
o Water construction site morning and evening.
o Remove dirt from paved roads adjacent to site every work-day.
o Cover dirt in trucks during on-road hauling.
o Cease construction during periods of high winds or during Stage 1 and 2
episodes.
o Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas.
o Reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and
watering.
2. Reduce Construction Equipment Emissions
o Wash off trucks and their wheels when leaving site.
o Properly tune and maintain construction equipment.
o Use low-sulfur fuel for construction equipment.
o Avoid use of on-site temporary electric power generation by using less-
polluting power from the grid.
3. Reduce Construction-Related Magic Congestion
o Provide rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
o Provide transit incentives for construction personnel.
o Provide a flagperson as needed to ensure safety at the construction site.
4. Limit Long-Tenn Emissions
o Install automated traffic signals as appropriate.
o Ensure traffic flow management at key intersections.
5. Limit Emissions From Vehicle Trips and VAST
o Expand the EIR Transportation Demand Management Plan, as
appropriate, in accordance with District Regulation XV.
o Provide worker rideshare incentives.
o Provide worker transit incentives and assistance to the site.
o Encourage alternative work schedules.
o Encourage telecommuting programs.
o Encourage scheduling the movement of goods for off-peak traffic hours.
o Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate.
6. Minimize Indirect-Source Emissions
o Implement energy conservation measures more stringent than State
requirements.
o Require the installation of solar water heaters.
o Install energy-efficient lightin
o Include energy costs in capital expenditur c analyses.
o Landscape with native drought-resistant plant species to reduce water
consumption and to provide passive solar benefits.
ii
111 Mlle I 'Atrt
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta E� � V)�
Palm Desert wary 20 , 1991
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage FE `� 61991
Riverside County
fgMMUYiIY DEv/)pi MITT!DEN
CITYR)III,IE
pI INIM°ISM
Mr. Phillip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Rancho Portola
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact
Report on the Rancho Portola project. On page III-13 the
consultant has summarized SunLine ' s concerns as it regards to
transit. However, the language concerns us in that a commitment
to provide the transit amenities has not been stated. We request
your assistance in insuring that transit mitigation measures are
included as a condition to the project. If I can be of further
assistance on this project, please feel free to give me a call .
Yours very truly,
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
�11_ C{c:
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
DA/n
cc: City of Palm Desert File
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail •Thousand Palms, CA 92276 .(619) 343-3456 • FAX (619) 343-3845
A Prlhlir Annnry
SunLine Transit
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs March 27 , 1991
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Mr. Phillip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Rancho Portola
Dear Mr. Drell:
I recently had an occasion to look at the environmental impact
report on the Rancho Portola project again. Previously, I had
replied and asked that bus turnouts and passenger waiting
shelters be included on Frank Sinatra and Portola Avenue. After
re-reviewing the plans, we also note that the project will extend
to Cook Street. Because Cook Street is an arterial and will
serve this project in addition to other projects in the
surrounding area, we ask that a bus turnout and a passenger
waiting shelter also be included on Cook Street. We suggest that
this turnout be located on the west side of Cook Street just
south of the northern property line, far side of the entrance to
the maintenance yard.
I realize that you are receiving this information rather late in
the process. However, I hope that you will still be able to
accommodate our request.
Yours very truly,
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
alue-
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
DA/n
cc: Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
275 N. El Cielo, D-3
Palm Springs, CA 92262
File
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail •Thousand Palms, CA 92276 •(619) 343-3456 •FAX (619) 343-3845
A Public Agency
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: PHIL DRELL
FROM: BRENT CONLEY
SUBJECT: PP 90-27
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1990
The site of the proposed project could affect police response
time within the development . Manned entry gates or locator
boards at all entrances would assist arriving emergency vehicles.
The police department would like to reserve comment on the
proposed project until final plans are submitted as it relates to
dwelling units and proposed hotel .
If you have any questions please call me at Ext. 303 .
f BRENT CONLEY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF ' S
BC: la
Z T. •
. Palmer aibi suon
•
Date: � r`O /
To:
/ df/
•
92z d
Attention: �Aaz7., ,dw
Regarding :
6 (>2
Palmer has existing plant at this location to
jr4'1
serve this project .
II Palmer will serve this project , but a line
extension will be needed, the extent of which
will be determined at the time we receive plans.
LExisting plant is away . A major
line extension will be necessary to serve this
project.
t Out of our area, will be unable to serve project .
Sincerely,
Clara Sal sbury
Account Executive
CLS:blt
Ctyrsp
41.725 Cook Street, fox 368 Telephone: 1619)3111 1312 Palmer CableVision/Channel 10
Palm Desert,CA 92261 Telecopiur: 16191 310 23R1 Services of Palmer Communication,Inc.
'`' PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
333 SOUTH FARRELL DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 - 7994
ter-- _ (619) 327-1581
.�.zl / . a
BOARD OF EDUCATION: MEREDY SHOENBERGER,President—LESLIE DeMERSSEMAN,Clerk
RICHARD CROMWELL III,Member—MICHAEL McCABE,Member—MINNA MARYANOV,Member
March 15, 1991
City of Palm Desert
73- 510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Attn: Mr. Phil Drell
Re: Draft EIR - Pacific Gulf Resorts
Tentative Tract #265262
Dear Mr. Drell:
The District is in receipt of the Draft EIR for the references
project and offers the following comments:
• The number of employees generated, both directly
and indirectly, by the project should be estimated.
▪ If the project falls within a redevelopment project area, an
estimate should be given for numbers of low/medium housing
units which will be constructed with redevelopment monies set
aside for this purpose.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR.
Sincerely,
(f) k" '
David B. MacEwan
Director
Facilities Planning & Development
DBM: im
cc: Luke Christe, Terra Nova Planning & Research
•
CH Y 0( k 11'1°:1 Ir1II 1 GE
March 18, 1991 1_ 1
Mr. Phillip Drell
Senior Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Pacific Golf Resorts
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the EIR. Our comments
are limited to traffic impacts that affect Rancho Mirage
through additional traffic loads on Monterey Avenue.
The additional traffic will cause a need for dual left turn
lanes on Monterey Avenue. The need for the dual left turn
lanes would be greatly reduced if the Cook Street interchange
to Interstate 10 were constructed before the hotel is occupied.
May we recommend a mitigation measure be made a Condition that
requires the construction of the Interstate 10/Cook Street in-
terchange prior to occupancy of the hotel or before the project
is 50% built out. If this project will not construct the inter-
change, then significant impacts will occur at Frank Sinatra
Drive/Monterey Avenue. Overriding considerations should not be
considered when a viable mitigation measure like constructing
the interchange is available. An alternative "mitigation
measure" could be delayed construction of the project until in-
stallation of the circulation infrastructure can adequately
match the pace of development.
A less desirable but nevertheless helpful interim measure would
be for the developer to work with us in obtaining right-of-way
and provide for the construction of an additional left turn
lane southbound on Monterey Avenue at Frank Sinatra Drive.
This would be much more helpful in mitigating traffic impacts
of the project than dual northbound left turn lanes recommended
in the EIR.
Please forward to us a copy of the Final EIR when it becomes
available.
Sincerely,
/1 -067=4ek
Randal K. By er
Associate Planner
:cep\D\PLANNING\MISC\3-18-L1
69-825 HIGHWAY ill / PAI it I If r.11ft ,(11- CA (1-270-2898 /(r 19) 324-451 1 / FAX (619) 324-8830
9FAH801SfRViCF fOUTHERII CRUFOR01R
AJIOCIRTIOR OF GOVERRR1ERTf
818 West Seventh Street,l2th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 ❑ (213) 236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Interim President March 18, 1991
Representative,Ventura County
John Flynn,Supervisor
Second Vice President
Rep,City of Los Angeles
Robert h arrel 1,Caurtrihnemher
Past President Mr. Phillip Drell
Rep.,Cities of Los Angeles County City of Palm Desert
Christine E.Reed,Counrilntcmher
Santa Monica 73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Past President
Mike osonvic ,Su County
err RE: Draft EIR, Pacific Golf Resorts, Tentative Tract #26562
Mike Antonovich,Supervisor
Imperial County SCAG # RI-54633-EDR
Abe Seabolt,Supervisor
Los Angeles County
Deane Dana,Supervisor
Orange County Dear Mr. Drell :
Harriett Wie er,Supervi.sor
Ri
County
Melba
Dunlap,
Thank you for submitting the Draft EIR for Pacific Golf Resorts to
Melba Uunlap,.Superrisnr
San Bemardino County SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for
Jon Mikels,Supervisor regionally $1 significant f l c d n t
cities orlmperi:dcounty 9 projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and
Stella Mendoza,Masor other agencies to review projects and plans for consistency with the
Brawley Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RIINA) , the Regional Mobility
Cities of Orange County (RMP) , Growth Management (GMP) , and Air Quality Management (AQMP)
Irwin Fried,Coun ilmenrher
YorbaLinda Plans, all of which are included in the State Implementation Plan
Cities of Riverside County (SIP) .
Jack Clarke,Counrilnterrrher
Riverside
Cities of San Bernardino County The attached comments are meant to provide guidance for completing
John ongcille,Mgsrrr Rialto the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and
Rialto
Cities of Ventura County plans, which are based in part upon state and federal mandates.
John Melton,Counrilnn•mber While neither the project sponsor nor the lead agency is required to
Santa Paula
City of Los Angeles undertake the specific actions recommended by SCAG or other agencies
Tom Bradley,Mayor through the Inter-Governmental Review Process, there are requirements
Gloria Molina,Caunrilmemher in state and federal laws for consistency with regional goals and
City of Long Beach plans.
Clarence Smith,Counrilmemher
POLICY CHAIRS
If you have any questions about the attached comments, please
Judy ber
Claremont,Chair.CorTransportation contact Jim Birckhead, (213) 236-1915, or Paul Hatanaka,
and Communications
(213) 236-1809. They will be happy to work with you to address the
Robert Gentry,Councilniemher comments presented herein and, if necessary, develop a mitigation
Laguna Beach,Chair.Energy
and Environment plan which meets regional , state and federal requirements.
Robert Wagner,Vice Mayor
Lakewood,Chair.Community,
Economic,and Human Development Sincerely,
AT-LARGE DELEGATES j'
Robert Bartlett,Mayor (,)t/ /111/ _d C' `-
Monrovia
Vicky Howard,Couneilntemher A N N E BAKER
Simi Valley Director of Environmental Planning
Ruthelyn Plummer,Mayor
Newport Beach
ALTERNATES
Imperial County o Jeanne Vogel,Supervisor• Los Angeles County o Ed Edelman,Supervisor and Pete Schaharum,.Stprerrisnr • Orange County o Gaddi Vasquez,Supervisor • Riv-
erside County o (Vacant) • San Bernardino County o Larry Walker,Supervisor• Ventura(',,arty o James Dougherty,.Svc',no, • Cities of Imperial County o Victor Sanchez,Jr.,
Mayor.Westmorland • Cities of Los Angeles County o John Crossley,City DO error,Pasadena . Cities of(hant'c•County a John Kanel,Mayor,Cypress• Cities of Riverside County o
Richard Deininger,Jr.,Councihnernher.Corona• Cities of San Bernardino County o Larry Rhinehart.Mang.Montclair • Cities at Ventura County a Vicky Howard,Couneilmember,
Simi Valley• City of Los Angeles o Richard Alatorre,('nunnhne,nl,e, o Jay I'icus,(.,wn,rArremhrr a Michael 1%ou,('aura i/rruemhcr • Long Beach 2nd position o Jeffrey Kellogg,
Counrilrnenther• At Large o Judy Wright,C'num ibnenher,Claremont o Judy N'ieburger, rbm•nrher,Marcum Valley o ,John Erskine,Colt rrrilme,nher,Huntington Beach
i M3Fx,.n.ti
Mr. Phillip Drell
March 18, 1991
Page 2
SCAG Comments on Draft EIR for Pacific Golf Resorts
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Description:
The proposed project includes a 225 suite hotel complex and restaurant
facility, an 18-hole championship golf course with clubhouse facilities, and
approximately 687 dwelling units on a 420 acre site.
Findings:
The project will create 687 net new housing units and a 225 suite hotel
complex which should create approximately 203 net new jobs and is therefore
consistent with the GMP.
TECHNICAL NOTE:
The Regional Growth Management Plan' s Trend Projections for the Riverside
Desert Subregion indicate an increase of 88,900 jobs and 142,400 dwelling
units from 1984 to 2010. This is a ratio of .62 jobs per housing unit. The
policy forecasts for the subregion, which incorporate the jobs/housing balance
policy, increase the proportion of jobs to housing, resulting in a ratio of
.77 jobs per housing unit. This ratio is considered the jobs/housing balance
performance goal for the Riverside Desert Subregion.
The Pacific Golf Resorts project would create an additional 687 housing units.
The number of jobs associated with this number of dwelling units using the
Trend Projection ratio for the Riverside Desert Subregion is:
687 * .62 = 426
Under the jobs/housing balance forecast ratio, the number of jobs is:
687 * .77 = 529
The appropriate number of added jobs associated with the jobs/housing balance
. J / g
policy for the project is the difference between the adopted GMP Forecast,
p
which includes the implementation of the jobs/housing balance policy, and the
jobs production under the Trend Projection. This is 529 - 426 = 103 jobs
which should be associated with the project to reflect the regional
jobs/housing balance policy. The project should create 203 jobs and therefore
exceeds the requirement for consistency with the GMP.
Jr
rou n c.uroani■
nnoc,mon a wurnnwrw
818 W.Seventh Strert,121I, r Ire^r n I.os Alin^I , r,A nf)nt 7 ' , 11 (2t;e)23G-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825
Mr. Phillip Drell
March 18, 1991
Page 3
SIP CONFORMITY
A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) when it has satisfied the following three criteria:
1. It improves the subregion' s jobs/housing balance
performance ratio.
2. It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled
to the maximum extent feasible by implementing
transportation demand management strategies.
3. Its environmental document includes an air quality
analysis which demonstrates that the project will not
have a significant negative impact on air quality
in the long term.
Findings:
As described in the draft EIR, the Pacific Golf Resorts does conform to the
SIP at this time.
10011
818 W.Seventh Street,l2th Floor • Los Angl'l-s,CA 9001 '1135 ❑ (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236.1825
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 1991
M C C U L L O C H 8C WITT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
ROBERT L. McCULLOCH, C.P.A. SUITE 4 PROFESSIONAL PLAZA WEST P. O. BOX 2050
WESLEY A. WITT, C.P.A. 2145 EAST TAHOUITZ - McCALLUM WAY /4 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2050
MICHAEL R. McCULLOCH, C.P.A.
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-7070 TELEPHONE
ERIC W. MARTIN, C.P.A. 619/327-1417
March 27, 1991 FAX
619/322-6343
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Case Nos. PP 90-27
C/Z 90-14, TT 26562
Pacific Golf Resorts
Dear Commission:
As a property owner on Portola Avenue (Portola Properties) and
as a trustee for the nearby Hadley Trust properties, I endorse the
project enthusiastically.
Very truly yours,
/A)j-v 1,471
Certified Public Accountant
WAW:bf
REVISED
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26562
PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS
APRIL 9, 1991
Prepared for
City of Palm Desert
Public Works Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Prepared by
Circulation Systems Associates
P.O. Box 10783
Santa Ana, CA 92711
1.
PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
Background
This revised traffic impact study incorporates the responses to 35
comments received from Mr. Sayed Safavian, an Associate Traffic
Engineer with the City of Palm Desert. The intent of this revised
study is to document the study process, to document existing
traffic conditions in the vicinity of the planned Pacific Golf
Resorts mixed-use development, to document forecast traffic
conditions at year 1995 build out of this development, and to
forecast cumulative year 2010 traffic conditions.
The Study objectives are 1) to evaluate traffic conditions at seven
existing intersections and one future intersection during worse
case conditions, 2) to identify existing and cumulatively needed
traffic improvements to attain or maintain levels of service (LOS)
not worse than LOS C, and 3) to estimate equitable improvement cost
percentage participation by the Pacific Golf Resorts development.
Methodology
Consistent with the Transportation Project Priority Program,
prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG)
in April 1990, this Study uses the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) method. As indicated in the CVAG report, the ICU
method is commonly applied to traffic analyses throughout Southern
California, and has been used in traffic impact analyses in the
Coachella Valley. The ICU method is used to calculate volume to
capacity ratios for each lane group at the respective intersection
approaches, and to determine the percentage of intersection
capacity used by the critical conflicting movements during the peak
hour. This approach is entirely compatible with the direction
received from the City of Palm Desert's Associate Traffic Engineer
in a letter dated October 29, 1990 (i.e. , comment 1.b) . The use of
ICU methodology was subsequently confirmed in a telephone
conversation. In that conversation it was agreed that a more
conservative and uniform value of 1, 700 vehicles per hour per lane
(vphpl) would be used rather than the 1, 800 vphpl used for through
lanes in the CVAG report, and that a more conservative 10 percent
loss of capacity due to the clearance interval would be used rather
than the five percent used in the CVAG report.
It is emphasized that the ICU methodology implicitly assumes signal
installation, and that signal phasing and timing will be optimized.
This approach is judged as superior to the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual delay-based capacity planning analysis. That planning
Y P Y
analysis does not indicate a level of service; rather, one of three
results are possible.
-1-
.
Figure A
Vicinity Map
ers?$4e
IO
Gerald Ford Drive
; 1 ,
x
0 Subject
Sinatra Drive a \
Frank
a)
0
> ) a cQ
s.
as
.--
a)
0 Ca
o U W
Country Club Drive
Circulation Systems Associates
P.O. Box 10783
No Scale -3- Santa Ana, CA. 92711
Forecast Year 2010 Traffic Impacts and Mitigation Measures
With the addition of traffic forecast for the four related projects
identified for study by the City plus a conservatively high esti-
mate of cumulative traffic, improvement projects are forecast to be
needed at six of the eight locations studied. These are priority
listed below in terms of improvement phasing, together with
indication of the equitable percentage participation by the Pacific
Golf Resorts. Equitable participation is based on project assigned
traffic as a percent of the cumulatively added peak hour traffic.
1. Cook Street/Country Club Drive: As a condition of
approval for Pacific Golf Resorts and other area
development, gain a third eastbound through lane.
Additional improvements that may be necessary for year
2010 include Country Club Drive widening for a second
left turn pocket from westbound to southbound, fourth
eastbound through lane, third and fourth westbound
through lanes; widen Cook Street for third and fourth
northbound through lanes. An alternative improvement may
involve grade separation of this intersection by the year
2010. The Pacific Golf Resorts equitable participation
for improvements at this intersection is estimated at 3 . 5
percent.
2 . Pacific Golf Resorts main access/Frank Sinatra Drive: As
a condition of approval for the Pacific Golf Resorts and
other area development, provide main access driveway with
three outbound and two inbound lanes (project
responsibility) , one eastbound left turn pocket (project
responsibility) , a third eastbound through lane, and a
third westbound through lane. These added through lanes
are not forecast to be needed for the existing plus
background plus project forecast, but are needed with the
addition of related projects traffic. The third through
lanes on Frank Sinatra Drive may be provided for about
400-foot distances on each side of the main access
intersection, with tapers back to existing curbs. It is
also recommended that the project be conditioned to
participate with related projects to construct a
warranted traffic signal at the main access/Frank Sinatra
Drive, and to modify the existing raised median island
along Frank Sinatra Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook
Street. This raised median modification should provide
for a 300-foot long eastbound left turn pocket into the
main project access, and a 60-foot long eastbound left
turn pocket into the hotel access.The Pacific Golf
Resorts equitable participation is estimated at 17 . 9
percent.
-5-
We concur with the recommendation in the Traffic Impact Analysis
Report prepared for Project Area Number 3 by DKS Associates, that
a traffic model be conducted to more accurately forecast the new
distribution due to the new interchange.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Pacific Golf Resort, as noted in the Summary, is proposed for
development on 419 . 5 acres bounded by Portola Avenue on the west,
Cook Street on the east and Frank Sinatra Drive on the south. The
development plan is for an 18-hole championship public golf course
integrated with 397 single family homes, 162 attached duplexes, 128
attached villas, and a 225 room suite hotel. For the purpose of
this traffic study, the project was estimated to be completed in
1995 . Trip generation factors applied in this Study were extracted
from the Institute of Transportation Engineer ' s (ITE) Trip
Generation Handbook, Fourth Edition. Project trip generation
forecasts are presented in Table 1 for average daily, A.M. peak
hour of adjacent street traffic, and P.M. peak hour of adjacent
street traffic.
Table 1
Pacific Golf Resorts Trip Generation Rates
ITE Land Use Average Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Golf per acre 8 . 33 0 . 266 0 . 386
(#430; p. 643)
Single Family 10 . 062 0 . 754 1. 005
(#210; p. 257)
Duplexes/Apts. 6 . 103 0. 532 0. 673
(#220 ; p. 294)
Villas/Condos 5 . 86 0 . 446 0 . 561
(#230; p. 348)
Hotel Suite 8 . 7 0. 502 0 . 432
(#311; p. 487
Project Trips Generated
Land Use Average Daily A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
18 Hole Golf 1, 615 52 76
397 SFD 4 , 010 298 397
162 Duplexes 988 86 110
128 Villas 750 58 73
225 Hotel Ste. 1, 958 112 97
Totals: 9 , 321 606 753
-7-
Table 2
ADT Information
Arterial Segment 1984 ADT 1990 ADT 2010 ADT Annual %
Country Monterey 12 , 000 N/A
Club Dr. to Portola 18 , 100 + 1.95
Country Portola to 10, 200 25, 610 +25. 17
Club Dr. Cook 10, 500 + 0. 11
Country @ Cook 8 , 800 24 , 230 +29 . 20
Club Dr. 27 , 200 + 8 . 04
Portola @ Frank 5, 100 2 , 510 - 8 . 46
Avenue Sinatra 13 , 500 + 6. 33
Cook @ Frank 4, 200 11, 040 +27 . 14
Street Sinatra 7 , 500 + 3 . 02
Source: Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study, March 1987 .
The City of Palm Desert' s Associate Traffic Engineer, in a letter
dated February 22, 1991, requested that the source of data shown on
Table 2 for 1984 counts be identified. As previously discussed
with the Associate Traffic Engineer, the source of this data was
the Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study (CVATS) . The source
exhibit is included in Appendix B to document that the study did
show the subject locations. Also included in Appendix B is the
Year 2010 projected peak hour volumes forecast in CVATS. The
Project Manager for that study is no longer with the Southern
California Association of Governments, and the specifics of traffic
decreases on Country Club Drive and Cook Street between 1990 and
2010 are not certain.
Table 3 presents a summary of intersection V/C ratios and LOS for
existing peak hour, with the addition of Pacific Golf Resort
forecast traffic, with the addition of related projects traffic
(detailed in Table 4) , and with the addition of cumulative traffic
and mitigations.
PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACT AND MITIGATION
Project Impacts
The Pacific Golf Resort project traffic impact was forecast based
on trip distribution patterns confirmed with the City of Palm
Desert' s Associate Traffic Engineer. This entailed 29 percent
to/from the north; 16 percent to/from the east; 30 percent to/from
the south; and 25 percent to/from the west. The P.M. peak hour
project traffic assignment is illustrated in Figure B. At the
specific direction of the City of Palm Desert' s Associate Traffic
Engineer, the Pacific Golf Resort' s Portola Avenue access was
assigned a 15 percent utilization.
-9-
In response to the subsequentwritten request from the same City of
Palm Desert Associate Traffic Engineer to explain the basis for 15
percent utilization of the Portola Avenue access, it is noted that
the earlier specific direction given by the City of Palm Desert's
Associate Traffic Engineer is the basis for the assignment.
Table 3
Intersection Service Levels Summary apvp
Intersection Existing 1995 Plus Plus Cum- With
V/C/ Back- Project Related ula- Mit.
LOS ground Projects tive
El Dorado/ 0.46 0. 52 0. 55 0. 67 0.92 0. 80
Country Club A A A B E C
Cook Street/ 0. 74 0. 85 0. 87 0. 93 1. 38 0.74
Country Club C D D E F C
Portola/ 0. 54 0. 62 0. 65 0.71 1. 03 0.75
Country Club A B B C F C
Cook Street/ 0. 35 0. 39 0.43 0. 55 0.73 N/A
Frk Sinatra A A A A C
Main Access/ N/A N/A 0. 61 0. 95 1. 07 0.77
Frk Sinatra B E F C
Portola/ 0. 26 0. 28 0. 32 0.40 0. 51 N/A
Gerald Ford A A A A A
Portola/ 0.43 0. 48 0. 56 0.73 0.94 0.78
Frk Sinatra A A A C E C
Monterey/ 0. 61 0.70 0.73 0. 92 1.27 0. 78
Frk Sinatra B B C E F C
Project Mitigations
As seen in Table 3 , project mitigation may involve equitable
participation in cumulatively needed improvement projects at six of
the eight intersections studied. These are priority listed below,
together with indication of the equitable percentage participation
by the Pacific Golf Resorts. Equitable participation is based on
project assigned traffic as a percent of the cumulatively added
peak hour traffic. The basis of these calculations was data from
the ICU calculation sheets included in Appendix A.
1. Cook Street/Country Club Drive: As a condition of
approval for Pacific Golf Resorts and other area
development, gain a third eastbound through lane.
-11-
I 132' .
I
• . r, r 3
14' 12' 12' 14.'
I j,, A
-- -- --- 1 11 12 , ' r� .. . 6° .....
1 1 1 2' 1 3 l ,j 13' 1 1 2' 1 1'
CROSS SECTION
I
I1 1
I � I
1 ro
¢ ' I I
1 Lu
J
O i I
I m
-, I
L� • I pi
I �i '1
1 I -
CROSS --�` � —
1 - F.
' 51 ---- -- ) -.
. STREET
1 . 1 ---. e
I cl
I
I lg
I
U I
w
m I i ► •r
.1 i
1 I I I 1 • ,
I
PLAN VIEW
I Figure c
TYPICAL FLYOVER
11 13_
• At the request of Caltrans, project ADT impacts were forecast for
I-10. Based on 20 percent of project traffic assigned to/from the
northwest on I-10, the project would add 1, 864 ADT to I-10 at
Monterey Avenue. During the P.M. peak hour 145 trips would be
added, of which 85 would be inbound and 60 would be outbound. Thus
the project will add little more than one vehicle per minute in
each direction during the peak hour. Although this is of no
impact, the Monterey Avenue interchange existing deficiency will be
addressed through project participation in the Cook Street project.
RELATED PROJECTS TRAFFIC IMPACT AND MITIGATION
Build out of four related projects was included in the forecast of
traffic conditions for 1995, the estimated year of completion for
the Pacific Golf Resort. The related projects, obtained from the
City of Palm Desert' s Associate Traffic Engineer, were distributed
via the same percentages directed by the Associate Traffic Engineer
for use for the project. Trip generation for these projects is
shown in Table 4 . The resulting traffic assignments are
illustrated in Figure D for the 327, 900 square feet of retail
approved in the vicinity of the Monterey Avenue/I-10 interchange;
in Figure E for the Baron Development; in Figure F for the Roberts
Development; and in Figure G for the Temple Development.
Table 4
Related Projects Trip Generation Rates
ITE Land Use Average Daily P.M. Peak Hour
Discount Retail 71. 16 6. 109
(#815; p. 1087)
Single Family 10. 062 1. 005
(#210; p. 257)
Condominiums 5. 86 0. 561
(#230; p. 348)
Mobile Homes 4 .81 0. 559
(#240; p. 390)
Related Projects Trips Generated
Developer Land Use P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Price Club, Home 327, 900 square feet 2 , 000
Club, Other retail discount retail
Baron' s (#60) 277 Single Family 278
Roberts (#32) 723 Mobile Homes 405
Temple (#29) 89 Single Family 89
Temple Cont. 1, 187 Condominiums 666
Totals: 3 , 438
-15-
• Figure E
PM Peak Traffic Assignments
for Barons Development
Frank Sinatra Drive Access
Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive/Portola Avenue Frank Sinatra Drive/Cook Street
i 1 26 1 j I [51
_J+ + 15 4 5 Al__
44_ --426 70 =,- _;�4--41 8 4--14
lirr 1 1 D
53 75421 I [14r
Portola Avenue/Country Club Drive El Dorado Drive/Country Club Drive Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive
15
8
14
—, 4.— __> 4— 14 =-1,
15
53 r iir ---1
Country Club Drive/Cook Street Baron's Acce an Sinatra Drive
16
41/ [>_5 4, 14 53+95 —+ -52+28
—D 4
7
r 1 r71 32
175 In
5 103 Out
CIRCULATION SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 10783
-1 - SANTA ANA, CA 92711
..........--
Figure G
PM Peak Traffic Assignments
, for Temple Development at
Frank Sinatra Drive Access
Monterey Avenue/Frank Sinatra Drive Frank Sinatra Drive/Portola Avenue Frank Sinatra Drive/Cook Street
JilL
I lid 111
5 4._ —___4 Q, 73 t___
125 -D .4--64 271—y 64 5o —;. 4--26+137
--V *-- 64 --if t-25
[5r
Portola Avenue/Country Club Drive El Dorado Drive/Country Club Drive Portola Avenue/Gerald Ford Drive
25 26
/R. j I 25
‘—.".'.."'n
73
50 40
Country Club Drive/Cook Street Temple's Access/Frank Sinatra Drive
25 1
JIL ______,,.
_____,› ,
_____,. ,__ __, „..._
___> 4_
_____+ ,_____ 7111F
71IrF
502 In
253 Out
CIRCULATION SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES
P. O. BOX 10783
-19- SANTA ANA, CA 92711
APPENDIX A
INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
/ 3
COOK STREET/COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE (Count source: DKS February 7, 1991 report)
1995 RELATED
EXISTING BACKGROUND PROJECT PROJECT(S) CUMULATIVE TOTAL
LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL CUMULATIVE V/C CRITICAL MITIGATIONS
NL 1 1,700 82 0.05 14 0.06 0 0.06 0 0.06 57 0.09 154 0.09
NT 2 3,400 830 0.24 0.24 145 0.29 0.29 67 0.31 0.31 137 0.35 0.35 581 0.52 0.52 1760 0.26 0.26 3RD + 4TH THRU
NR 1 1,700 65 0.04 11 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 46 0.07 122 0.07
SL 1 1,700 120 0.07 0.07 21 0.08 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 8 0.09 0.09 84 0.14 0.14 233 0.07 0.07 2ND LEFT
ST 2 3,400 210 0.07 37 0.08 38 0.09 61 0.11 147 0.16 493 0.16
SR 0 0 31 0.00 5 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22 0.00 58 0.00
EL 1 1,700 65 0.04 11 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 46 0.07 122 0.07
ET 2 3,400 881 0.26 0.26 154 0.30 0.30 7 0.31 0.31 48 0.32 0.32 617 0.50 0.50 1707 0.25 0.25 3RD + 4TH THRU
ER 1 1,700 213 0.13 37 0.15 0 0.15 0 0.15 149 0.23 399 0.23
WL 1 1,700 110 0.06 0.06 19 0.08 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 77 0.12 0.12 206 0.06 0.06 2ND LEFT
IIT 2 3,400 743 0.22 130 0.26 10 0.26 52 0.28 520 0.43 1455 0.29 3RD THRU
WR 1 1,700 70 0.04 12 0.05 0 0.05 14 0.06 49 0.09 145 0.09
LOSS TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V/C RATIO: 0.74 0.85 0.87 0.93 1.38 0.74
LOS: C D D E F C
,,,I.\
. ' 7
MONTEREY AVENUE/FRANK SINATRA DRIVE (Count source: Inland Traffic Counts, March 5, 1991)
1995 RELATED
EXISTING BACKGROUND PROJECT PROJECT(S) CUMULATIVE TOTAL
LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL CUMULATIVE V/C CRITICAL MITIGATIONS
NL 1 1,700 207 0.12 0.12 36 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 0.14 145 0.23 0.23 388 0.11 0.11 2ND LEFT
NT 2 3,400 485 0.14 85 0.17 0 0.17 364 0.27 340 0.37 1273 0.37
NR 1 1,700 54 0.03 9 0.04 0 0.04 0 0.04 38 0.06 101 0.06
SL 2 3,400 60 0.02 11 0.02 116 0.05 282 0.14 42 0.15 511 0.15
ST 2 3,400 572 0.21 0.21 100 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 336 0.36 0.36 400 0.50 0.50 1409 0.28 0.28 3RD THRU
SR 0 0 138 0.00 24 0.00 0 0.00 48 0.00 97 0.00 307 0.18 RIGHT TURN LANE
EL 1 1,700 64 0.04 11 0.04 0 0.04 52 0.07 45 0.10 172 0.05 2ND LEFT
ET 2 3,400 259 0.13 0.13 45 0.15 0.15 117 0.18 0.18 232 0.25 0.25 181 0.34 0.34 835 0.25 0.25
ER 0 0 175 0.00 31 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 123 0.00 328 0.19 RIGHT TURN LANE
WL 1 1,700 89 0.05 0.05 16 0.06 0.06 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.06 0.06 62 0.10 0.10 167 0.05 0.05 2ND LEFT
WT 2 3,400 355 0.12 62 0.15 89 0.19 128 0.25 249 0.33 883 0.26
WR 0 0 65 0.00 11 0.00 66 0.00 67 0.00 46 0.00 255 0.15 RIGHT TURN LANE
LOSS TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V/C RATIO: 0.61 0.70 0.73 0.92 1.27 0.78
LOS: B B C E F C
A
MAIN ACCESS/FRANK SINATRA DRIVE
1995 RELATED
EXISTING BACKGROUND PROJECT PROJECT(S) CUMULATIVE TOTAL
LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL CUMULATIVE V/C CRITICAL MITIGATIONS
NL 1 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 71 0.04 0.04 0 0.04 0.04 71 0.04 0.04
NT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
NR 1 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 32 0.02 0 0.02 32 0.02
SL 1 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 79 0.05 79 0.09 0 0.09 158 0.09
ST 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.10 SHARED LANE
SR 1 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 175 0.10 0.10 175 0.21 0.21 0 0.21 0.21 350 0.10 0.10
EL 1 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 248 0.15 0.15 248 0.29 0.29 0 0.29 0.29 496 0.15 0.15 2ND LEFT
ET 2 3,400 283 0.08 50 0.10 30 0.11 922 0.42 198 0.48 1483 0.32 3RD THRU
ER 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 148 0.00 0 0.00 148 0.00
WL 1 1,700 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 0.01 89 0.06 0 0.06 98 0.06
WT 2 3,400 608 0.18 0.18 106 0.21 0.21 46 0.26 0.26 537 0.45 0.45 426 0.57 0.57 1723 0.38 0.38 3RD THRU
WR 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 111 0.00 111 0.00 0 0.00 222 0.00
LOSS TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V/C RATIO: 0.28 0.31 0.61 1.09 1.21 0.77
LOS: A A B F F C
1
PORTOLA AVENUE/GERALD FORD DRIVE (Count source: Inland Traffic Counts, March 7, 1991)
1995 RELATED
EXISTING BACKGROUND PROJECT PROJECT(S) CUMULATIVE TOTAL
LANES CAPACITY VOLUME V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL ADDED V/C CRITICAL CUMULATIVE V/C CRITICAL
NL 2 3,400 250 0.07 0.07 44 0.09 0.09 75 0.11 0.11 185 0.16 0.16 175 0.21 0.21 729 0.21 0.21
NT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
NR 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
SL 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
ST 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
SR 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
EL 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
ET 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
ER 2 3,400 280 0.08 0.08 49 0.10 0.10 53 0.11 0.11 73 0.13 0.13 196 0.19 0.19 651 0.19 0.19
WL 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
WT 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
WR 0 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
LOSS TIME: 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V/C RATIO: 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.40 0.51 0.51
LOS: A A A A A A
f
f
Figure 2-2
`q
1984 Highway System Usage
.. (In Average Daily Traffic Volumes During the Peak Months of 1984)
Art-
r_
•
....,..:
T
41)jo,Wil iii,.
O.S Va.But.
.Ia..0 N a F <
' ��1 AP w e.-te j ...anew
O
I.
I/ im JNg lwn
1 1.7 +7 1.9
r.
V w<y.n0.a
/ i"
_. F
7 .. .t
Sli
IIkY
r.
o 4 Pena.
l EV t l '�\r/ Va1MW
Bee New ;
r IIJ y5 •,.
I `".
N W a ��
J4
' O
OM* ae.
Tr"
,�Y 74.
VI'
• e PIM I N _ ..
a 1 ,5
nM a w"
•
cr. rF: •
o AM
offs R�[�7 c-a
„Nilsandim
��
•
N
00.0:Average Daily Traffic
- �:� 2-Way Volume During the
.�� 4 Peak Months of 1984
(In Thousands)
4
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT
FRANK SINATRA DRIVE/MAIN ACCESS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS
Tentative Tract No.26562
State Clearinghouse No.90021029
AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for the Pacific Golf Resorts Tentative Tract
No. 26562 has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the State
CEQA Guidelines. The following agencies and public interest groups have commented on
the Draft EIR. Please note that Section I contains agency comments and subsequent
responses. Section II contains the full text of commenting agency correspondence. These
responses to comments, together with the Draft EIR document, constitute the Final EIR as
required by CEQA.
SECTION I
AGENCIES PAGE
A. California Department of Transportation, District 11 4
B. South Coast Air Quality Management District 5
C. Coachella Valley Water District 11
D. Sunline Transit (2/20/91 & 3/27/91 Comments) 14
E. Riverside County Sheriffs Department 15
F. City of Rancho Mirage 16
SECTION II
A. California Department of Transportation, District 11 18
B. South Coast Air Quality management District 19
C. Coachella Valley Water District 23
D. Sunline Transit (2/20/91 & 3/27/91 Comments) 26
E. Riverside County Sheriffs Department 28
F. City of Rancho Mirage 29
G. Palmer CableVision 30
H. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 31
I. California Office of Planning & Research/State Clearinghouse 34
2
SECTION I
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
A. Introduction
The following comments were received concerning the adequacy of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Golf Resorts Project. Some comments related
to potential impacts resulting from the proposed project's development. Responses have
been prepared to address concerns raised in these comments.
Comments are quoted verbatim from the agency correspondence. Each is followed by a
response and any additional technical information which may have been necessary to
clarify issues or to augment information provided in the Draft EIR.
3
A. STATE OF CALIFORNIA.TRANSPORTATION DEPT.DIST. 11
1. Comment: The construction of the proposed development needs to be timed with local
street and interchange improvement project. This will help to insure that
adequate transportation facilities are operational at the time the proposed
development is completed.
1. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
2. Comment: A Project Study Report (PSR) for the construction of a new interchange on
I-10 at the proposed extension of Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert is
currently in progress. The City has identified a need for this interchange
to accommodate development and to relieve traffic congestion at the
adjacent interchanges at Monterey Avenue and Washington Street. The
proposed interchange at Cook Street will be 100%funded by the City.
2. Response: Comment noted and information hereby incorporated into the EIR.
3. Comment: Two separate feasibility studies for improvements to the existing
interchanges on I-10 at Monterey Avenue and Washington Street have
been requested by the County of Riverside. A PSR is currently underway
for Monterey Avenue and the County is preparing the necessary technical
data that will initiate studies for Washington Street. The interchange
improvements will be 100%funded by the County.
3. Response: Comment noted and information hereby incorporated into the EIR.
4. Comment: We recommend that the land development decisions for Pacific Golf
Estates be coordinated with the aforementioned feasibility studies. Our
contact person is Mike McManus, Project Manager, Local Funded
Projects,(619)688-3392.
4. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
4
B. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
1. Comment: The Draft EIR does not analyse emissions caused by the construction
equipment, vehicles used by construction personnel, and other
construction-related activities such as lane closures, detours, etc. The
Final EIR should analyze emissions from all sources and propose
measures to mitigate short-term construction impacts.
1. Response: Methodologies modelling direct and indirect emissions related to the
operation of construction equipment over the life of the construction phase
of the project provide only gross indications of the emissions potential from
this source. Furthermore, the phasing efficiencies of site development will
be effected by numerous uncontrollable factors. Fugitive dust potential
associated with development of the site was assessed in the Draft EIR and
will be the most significant construction-related impact to air quality.
At the request of District staff, a methodology utilizing the construction
equipment emissions tables in the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbookl has
been used to provide some measure of the level of impacts that may be
expected from construction equipment emissions.
1 Mr Quality Handbook For Preparing Environmental Impact Reports ,South Coast Air Qimlity
Management District.Revised April 1987.
5
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ENIISSIONS
DIESEL-POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
POLLUTANTS in lbs/8hr. day
Type of Equipment Carbon Exhaust Nitrogen Sulfur Parti-
Monoxide Hydro- Oxides Oxides culates
carbons
Tracktype Tractor 3.78 1.29 13.6 1.51 1.18
Whelled Tractor 38.65 2.02 13.71 0.97 1.45
Whelled Dozer - - - - - - 3.76 1.78
Scraper 13.52 3.05 40.72 4.99 4.38
Motor Grader 1.63 0.42 0.58 0.93 0.66
Wheeled Loader 6.18 2.7 20.43 1.971 1.84
Tracktype Loader 2.17 1.06 8.9 0.82 0.63
Off-Highway Truck 19.45 2.06 44.98 4.9 2.76
Roller 3.28 0.79 9.3 0.72 0.054
Miscellaneous 7.29 1.65 18.27 1.53 1.5
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ENIISSIONS
GASOLINE-POWERED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
POLLUTANTS in lbs/8hr. day
Type of Equipment Carbon Exhaust Evapo Crank Nitrogen Sulfur Part
Mono Hydro rative Case Oxides Dioxides icu
xide carbons Hydro Hydro- lates
carbons carbons
Whelled Tractor 102.87 3.9 0.74 0.78 4.64 0.16 0.25
Motor Grader 130.73 4.42 0.71 0.88 3.45 0.17 0.22
Wheeled Loader 168.12 5.73 0.72 1.14 5.6 0.25 0.32
Roller 144.78 6.6 0.67 1.32 0.2 0.2 0.28
Miscellaneous 183.84 6.04 0.6 1.2 0.25 0.25 0.28
Source:"Air Quality Hanbook for EIRs",
Appen.K.South Coast Air Quality Managment District,Revised
Apri11987.
6.
2. Comment: EMFAC7C was used in the Draft EIR for calculating vehicle emissions.
EMFAC7D, which was available at the time of the preparation of the DEIR,
or EMFAC7E, which may be presently available, should be used in the
Final EIR to calculate the emissions.
2. Response: In its response to the Notice of Preparation on the subject EIR,no referenced
was made nor materials provided by the SCAQMD on the above referenced
alternative methodologies. Consultations with SCAQMD staff 2 indicate
that the above referenced methodologies (EMFAC7D & EMFAC7E) have
been provided by the California Air Resources Board in a "raw" form, and
are still being appropriately modified for use in the AQMD handbook.
District staff also indicated that the results of the EMFAC7C methodology
are generally considered more conservative than the forthcoming
methodologies mentioned in the District's comments and that the
methodology and analysis included in the Draft EIR is acceptable.
3. Comment: The Draft EIR recommends Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
programs as effective measures to mitigate the impacts of additional
traffic generated by the project. The DEIR recommends Transportation
Management Associations (TMAs) as a mitigation measure; however, no
specific information regarding the method of funding is provided. The
Final EIR should analyze the TMAs in detail, discussion how and when
the TMAs will be formed. District staff recommends that TMAs should be
operational at the beginning of the project.
3. Response: Comment noted. The establishment of a Transportation Management
Association (TMA) should be required of the developer for the country club
or hotel facilities, to the extent that employment generation requires that a
TMA be formed. Efforts are underway to coordinate the establishment of
car pooling and other alternative travel modes to reduce traffic congestion.
4. Comment: The potential for transit improvements such as planned improvements to
transit services, and plans to incorporate car-pools and van-pools at the
beginning of the project should also be considered. Implementing a trip
reduction plan at the inception of the project would help reduce vehicular
emissions. These measures should be included in the Final EIR.
4. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the Final EIR. Mitigation
measures set forth in Section III-G of the Draft EIR provide for transit
services and facilities and the provision of car pooling programs at the
hotel complex. Section III-B of the Draft EIR provides a detailed discussion
of transit services and facilities.
2 Fernando,Philip,Air Quality Specifialist,South Coast Air Quality management District.
Personel telecommunication.April 9, 1991.
7
5. Comment: The DEIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts of the project area.
There is no analysis of the additional vehicle miles travelled (VMT) that
could generate significant cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts
of this project and the projects within the area should be included in the
analysis of the growth-inducing impacts. The Final EIR should analyze
the potential for additional trips resulting from the use of the hotel and golf
club.
5. Response: The trip generation calculations carried out on the proposed development
and subsequently applied in the air quality analysis are considered to be
conservative. They include calculations for the golf course which do not
take into account resident members and hotel guests who will absorb and
preclude a major portion of the estimated 1,615 average daily trips (ADT).
Hotel trip generation rates include trips by service and other indirect trips
expected to be generated by the hotel use.
In an effort to respond to this comment, an analysis was prepared of the
aggregate moving emissions associated with the various components of the
proposed development, the maximum potential for off-site employee
housing demand (assumed to be single family) and nearby projects under
construction or planned for near-term development.
8
Table III-15 A
Moving Exhaust Emission Rates
(Calendar Year 1994)
(pounds/day)
Miles Travelled in one day: 35,940*
SPEED PARTICULATES
(MPH) CO TOG ROG NO TIRE WEAR EXHAUST
5 1,783 153 136 135 17 6
10 1,272 109 97 120 17 6
15 967 83 74 109 17 6
20 757 65 58 102 17 6
25 603 52 47 97 17 6
30 488 44 39 96 17 6
35 401 36 32 95 17 6
40 337 32 28 97 17 6
45 291 28 25 101 17 6
50 260 25 23 106 17 6
55 239 24 21 116 17 6
Crankcase Blowby 0 0
(Pounds/mile)
Diurnal Emissions
(TOG or ROG) 103
Hot Soak
(TOG or ROG) 85
* Assumptions include: (1) 1,958 ADT for hotel ; (2) 4,010 ADT for SFD; (3) 1,738 ADT for
attached dwelling units; (4)1,615 ADT for Golf Course; (5) Total of 9,321 ADT. The
maximum potential for off-site employee housing demand (assumed to be single family)
and nearby projects under construction or planned for near-term development were also
factored into this analysis.
6. Comment: The need to reduce indirect emissions through energy-efficient
construction methods, and use of landscaping with native drought-
resistant plant species should be analysed in the Final EIR.
6. Response : Section III-K of the Draft EIR discusses projects impacts on energy
resources and public services and facilities. Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code is referenced, and the use of alternative energy
systems is encouraged. Domestic and commercial energy-efficient
appliances have been recommended. Efficient and thoughtful design of
structures is recommended. Participation in load management programs
and cooperation with SCE is also required.
9
Section III-E of the Draft EIR assesses the projects impacts on the area
groundwater resource and recommends that the developer integrate
drought resistant desert landscaping in the project to the greatest extent
possible. Efficient irrigation practices and technology are also encouraged
and are regulated by the City and the Coachella Valley Water District. The
developer shall also be required to comply with Section 17921.3 of the Health
and Safety Code, Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1601 (b),
and portions of Title 24 of the State Code applicable to water conservation.
10
C. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
1. Comment: Page M-4, Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Project
Impacts" to read as follows;
Residential maximum peak demand is projected at 3,945,600 gallons per
day. Hotel maximum peak demand is projected at 113, 400 gallons per day
and golf course demand estimated at 1.3 million gallons. Accumulative
peak water demand will be approximately 5.4 million gallons per day
which contributes to the on-going overdraft condition.
1. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR. The Draft EIR
applied a national average daily per capita use rate which was
substantially lower than rates typical for the proposed type of uses in the
project. The District's use rate for this type of development is estimated a
4.0 gallons per minute per unit3. This equates to an average daily
consumption rate of about 1,950 gallons per person per day.
2. Comment: Page M-4. Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Mitigation
Measures" first and third sentence to read as follows;
Provide six well sites and two fully equipped wells for demand production.
Use low water use landscaping.
2. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
3. Comment: Page M-5. Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Mitigation
Measures" after second sentence to include as follows;
Apply soil stabilizers when possible in order to reduce the water spent for
dust control.
3. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
4. Comment: Page M-7. Public Services and Facilities under the subheading "Project
Impacts." second sentence to read as follows;
On-site retention of stormwater runoff is required. (See hydrology.)
3 John Corella,Domestic Water Engineer,Coachella Valley Water District.Personel
telecommunication.April 19,1991.
11
4. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
5. Comment: Page I-4. under the heading "Hydrology." last sentence to read as follows;
These shall be reviewed and approved by the Coachella Valley Water
District and the city engineer.
5. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
6. Comment: Page III-18. Mitigation Measures under the subheading "Wind Erosion",
Item No. 2 to address the following;
This section describes and discusses maintaining moist surface soils.
This method is prescribed by CEQA as a means to control soil erosion and
reduce PM-10. It is the concern of the Coachella Valley Water District that
this practice will expend a great deal of water. No estimate has been
provided in this report to address the amount of water required to keep the
ground surface moist in this desert environment. The District will require
that this report be augmented to emphasize and give more detail to dust
control measures, which will serve to reduce the amount of water used for
dust control.
6. Response: The District's concern regarding the use of extensive amounts of water for
erosion and dust control is understood. It should be kept in mind that the
impacts associated with these control measures are of a relatively short
duration and are considered insignificant when compared to the potential
average annual water consumption associated with the project's buildout
and operation. Nonetheless, the City may wish to coordinate the review of
the grading plan and related soil erosion/dust control plan with CVWD to
assure the optimal efficiency of water use for this purpose.
7. Comment: Page III-20, Hydrology under subheading "Existing Conditions." third
paragraph after the second sentence to include the following:
The implementation of the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel is subject to
and dependent on the participation of the affected communities of the Mid-
Valley area.
7. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
8. Comment: Page III-24. Distribution Facilities under the subheading "Project
Impacts" first and second paragraphs to read as follows;
12
With the proposed 557 single family dwelling units having an estimated
maximum peak demand of 4.0 gallons per minute per dwelling unit, the
maximum peak water demand consumption would be 3,208,320 gallons per
day. The proposed 128 villas will also generate a maximum peak demand
of 5,760 gallons per day, per unit, or approximately 737,280 gallons per day.
For purposes of this analysis, the hotel unit maximum peak demand has
• been applied; 504 gallons per room. All ancillary hotels uses including
laundry, restaurants, general operations and landscape maintenance, are
included in this range. The proposed 225 hotel rooms and auxiliary uses
will generate a maximum peak demand of approximately 113,400 gallons
per day.
8. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR. Also see response to
CVWD Comment No. 1. The District does not feel that project consumption
rates, in and of themselves, constitute a significant impact to the
groundwater resource. However, the District does note that the development
will contribute to the continued overdraft status of the water basin.
9. Comment: Page III-25. Mitigation Measures. third paragraph. third and fourth
sentences to read as follows
Due to the fire flow requirement of 5,000 gpm for the hotel, a looped 18-inch
main line will be required to serve this facility. The hotel site will be
developed with a two-feed system.
9. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
10. Comment: Page III-39.Item No 1
This section shall emphasize water saving methods for dust control.
These methods may include soil stabilizers or other means to reduce
continuous site watering. Also see Item No. 6 in this appendix.
10. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
11. Comment: Page III-64. Project Impacts under the subheading "Domestic Water
Services". second sentence to read as follows:
The developer has also planned to provide six will sites and will be fully
equipping two sites to serve the proposed development.
11. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
13
D. SUNLINE TRANSIT 2/20/91
1. Comments: On page III-13, the consultant has summarized SunLine's concerns as it
regards to transit. However, the language concerns us in that a
commitment to provide the transit amenities has not been stated. We
request your assistance in insuring that transit mitigation measures are
included as a condition to the project.
1. Response: Comment noted. The City has indicated that it will work and coordinate
with Sunline Transit in the location of requested transit facilities, and
will condition the applicant to provide said facilities.
SUNLINE TRANSIT 3/27/91
2. Comment: After re-reviewing the plans, we also note that the project will extend to
Cook Street. Because Cook Street is an arterial and will serve this project
in addition to other projects in the surrounding area, we ask that a bus
turnout and a passenger waiting shelter also be included on Cook Street.
We suggest that this turnout be located on the west side of Cook Street just
south of the northern property line, far side of the entrance to the
maintenance yard.
2. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR. Also see response to
Comment No. 1 above.
14
E. RNERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
1. Comment: The site of proposed project could affect police response time within the
development. Manned entry gates or locator boards at all entrances would
assist arriving emergency vehicles.
1. Response: Comment noted. The City shall review detailed plans for the various
entrys planned for this project. It is therefore recommended that during the
review of these access facilities that plans be transmitted to the Sheriff for
review and comment.
2. Comment: The police department would like to reserve comment on the proposed
project until final plans are submitted as it relates to dwelling units and
proposed hotel.
2. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated into the EIR.
15
F. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
1. Comment: The additional traffic will cause a need for dual left turn lanes on
Monterey Avenue. The need for the dual left turn lanes would be greatly
reduced if the Cook Street interchange to Interstate 10 were constructed
before the hotel is occupied. May we recommend a mitigation measure be
made a Condition that requires the construction of the Interstate 10/Cook
Street interchange prior to occupancy of the hotel or before the project is 50%
built out. If this project will not construct the interchange, then significant
impacts will occur at Frank Sinatra Drive/Monterey Avenue. Overriding
considerations should not be considered when a viable mitigation measure
like constructing the interchange is available. An alternative "mitigation
measure" could be delayed construction of the project until installation of
the circulation infrastructure can adequately match the pace of
development.
1. Response: Comment noted. To clarify, impacts to the Monterey Avenue/Frank
Sinatra Drive intersection are considered to be insignificant; in the worst
case, the project absorbs approximately 3% of capacity on the Sinatra
eastbound leg of the intersection. The comment provided is appropriately
directed at the anticipated cumulative impacts from anticipated
background traffic and approved projects. Neither have project impacts
been determined significant with regard to the future construction of the
Cook Street/I-10 interchange. The development of these facilities are not a
pre-requisite to the full development of the proposed project, including the
resort hotel.
2. Comments: A less desirable but nevertheless helpful interim measure would be for the
developer to work with us in obtaining right-of way and provide for the
construction of a additional left turn lane southbound on Monterey Avenue
at Frank Sinatra Drive. This would be much more helpful in mitigating
traffic impacts of the project than dual northbound left turn lanes
recommended in the EIR.
2. Response: As noted above, the proposed development will not have a significant
impact, in and of itself, on the Monterey/Sinatra intersection. However,
comment is hereby noted and should be considered with other interim
measures, which will be necessary to assure acceptable operating
conditions at this intersection as future development comes on line.
16
SECTION II
CORRESPONDENCE
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
17
MAR-'1-1991 13:34 FROM RADIO ROOM TO 84733018 P.03
State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To 1 State Clearinghouse Dote : March 20, 1991
Attention R. Colliau File No.: ii-RIV-010
P.M. 46.6/47.2
District 11
From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Subject: DEIR For Pacific Golf Resorts - SCH 90021029
The construction of the proposed development needs to be
timed with local street and interchange improvement projects. A.-1
This will help to insure that adequate transportation facilities •
are operational at the time the proposed development is complet-
ed.
A Project Study Report (PSR) for the construction of a new
interchange on I-10 at the proposed extension of Cook Street in
the City of Palm Desert is currently in progress. The City has
identified a need for this interchange to accommodate development A.-2
and to relieve traffic congestion at the adjacent interchanges at
Monterey Avenue and Washington Street. The proposed interchange
at Cook Street will be 100% funded by the City.
Two separate feasibility studies for improvements to the
existing interchanges on I-10 at Monterey Avenue and Washington
. Street have been requested by the County of Riverside. A PSR is A-3
'"currently underway' for Monterey Avenue and the County is prepar-
ing the necessary technical data that will initiate studies for
Washington Street. The interchange improvements will be 100%
funded by the County. •
We recommend that the land development decisions for Pacific A-4
Golf Estates be coordinated with the aforementioned feasibility
studies. Our contact person is Mike McManus, Project Manager,
Local Funded Projects, (619) 688-3392 .
i— 4 .- ,--
dAMES T. CHESHIRE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
18.
0 South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
9150 FLAIR DRIVE, EL MONTE, CA 91731 (818) 572-6200
March 1, 1991
Mr. Phillip Drell
Department of Planning
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Draft EIR: Pacific Golf Resorts Tentative Tract # 26562
SCQAMD#RC910131-02
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Pacific Golf Resorts
Tentative Tract #26562 Project. The project has the potential to generate .
significant short-term and long-term air quality impacts. Based on District staffs
review of the project, these impacts and potential mitigation measures have not
been fully assessed in the Draft EIR.
The District is responsible for adopting, implementing, and enforcing air quality
regulations in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) which includes Riverside County.
As a responsible agency, the District reviews and analyzes EIRs for projects (within
the jurisdiction of the District) that may generate significant adverse air quality
impacts. The District's role is advisory to the lead agency.
The District's review of the project indicates that there are significant air quality
issues relati
ve to the size, scale, and location of the proposed project that need to be
further clarified and included in the Final EIR. The attached staff assessment
presents a detailed discussion of the District's analysis of the Draft EIR.
The District appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Pacific Golf Resorts
Project. Ifan have you
questions regarding these comments please contact Connie
Y g g
Day,Program Supervisor, at (818) 307-4507.
Sincerely,
P 674_,I.,(ti
Jack P. Broadbent
Planning Manager
JPB:CAD:KU:PF:
Attachment
19.
ATTACHMENT
SCAQMD ASSESSMENT
OF
PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS TENTATIVE TRACT# 26562
Project Description
The proposed Pacific Golf Resorts Tentative Tract # 26562 Project encompasses
the development of 420 acres for a mixed use development with 687 residential
dwelling units, a 225 suite-hotel and restaurant, and an 18-hole golf course.
Air Quality Setting
The Draft EIR accurately characterizes in 198alit9 at thesettin District's relative to the project.
Palm Springs
According to air quality monitoring conducted
monitoring station, the closest station to the study area, ozone levels exceeded
federal standards on 37 days; and oxides of nitrogen levels did not exceed federal
standards.
The Coachella Valley also exceeded the federal standards for PMio. The
measurements at Palm Springs exceeded the federal 24-hour standards on 3.3
percent of the days in 1989 based on a 60-day sample. The Coachella Valley has
been designated as a Group I area for PMIo. Group I is defined as having a 95-
percent of probability of violating the standards. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air
Act, Group I "Moderate" nonattainment areas are required to meet federal PM10
standards within three years of an EPA-approved State Impplementation Plan (SIP).
The Draft Final State Implementation Plan for PM10 in it e Coachella Valley was
adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board on November
30, 1990.
Short-Term Air Quality Impacts
Short-term air quality impacts from this project are mainly due to grading,
excavation, and construction activities. Construction emissions would result from
fugitiveheavy-duty dust, hea -dut construction equipment, building equipment and necessary
vehicular trips (truck and personnel). The predicted PMIo emission levels due to
construction-related work is approximately 2.1 tons/day.
The Draft EIR does not analyze emissions caused by the construction equipment,
vehicles used by construction personnel, and other construction-related activities B.-1
such as lane closures, detours, etc. The Final EIR should analyze emissions from all
sources and propose measures to mitigate short-term construction impacts. See
Table 1 for potential mitigation measures.i Additional mitigation measures for
reduction of PMIo are included in Attachment 1
20.
2
Long-Term Air Quality Impacts
Long-term air quality impacts arising from the project are primarily due to
approximately 9,300 average daily trips. There will also be impacts due to the
growth-inducing nature of the project which have not been fully analyzed. The
following analyses are recommended for inclusion in the Final EIR:
Emission Factors
EMFAC7C was used in the Draft EIR for calculating vehicle emissions. B 2
EMFAC7D, which was available at the time of the preparation of the DEIR, or
EMFAC7E, which may be presently available, should be used in the Final EIR to
calculate the emissions.
Transportation Demand Management
The Draft EIR recommends Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
programs as effective measures to mitigate the impacts of additional traffic B.3
generated by the project. The DEIR recommends Transportation Management
Associations (TMAs) as a mitigation measure; however, no specific information
regarding the method of funding is provided. The Final EIR should analyze the
TMAs in detail, discussing how and when the TMAs will be formed. District staff
recommends that TMAs should be operational at the beginning of the project.
The potential for transit improvements such as planned improvements to transit
services, and plans to incorporate car-pools and vanpools at the beginning of the . B.-4
project should also be considered. Implementing a trip reduction plan at the
inception of the project would help reduce vehicular emissions. These measures
should be included in the Final EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The DEIR does not analyze the cumulative impacts of the projects within the B:5
project area. There is no analysis of the additional vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
that could generate significant cumulative impacts. The cumulative impacts of this
project and the projects within the area should be included in the analysis of the
growth-inducing impacts. The Final EIR should analyze the potential for additional
trips resulting from the use of the hotel and the golf club.
Additional Mitigation Measures
Additional mitigation measures which are recommended by the District should be B._6
incorporated into the Final EIR. The need to reduce indirect emissions through
energy-efficient construction methods, and use of landscaping with native drought-
resistant plant species should be analyzed in the Final EIR. See attached Table 1
for a list of potential mitigation measures.
21 .
TABLE 1
POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
FOR THE PACIFIC GOLF RESORTS TENTATIVE TRACT#26562 PROJECT
Minimize Construction Activity Emissions
o Water construction site morning and evening.
o Remove dirt from paved roads adjacent to site every work-day.
o Cover dirt in trucks during on-road hauling.
o Cease construction during periods of high winds or during Stage 1 and 2
episodes.
o Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and parking areas.
o Reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and
watering.
2. Reduce Construction Equipment Emissions
o Wash off trucks and their wheels when leaving site.
o Properly tune and maintain construction equipment.
o Use low-sulfur fuel for construction equipment.
o Avoid use of on-site temporary electric power generation by using less-
polluting power from the grid.
3. Reduce Construction-Related Traffic Congestion
o Provide rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
o Provide transit incentives for construction personnel.
o Provide a flagperson as needed to ensure safety at the construction site.
4. Limit Long-Term Emissions
o Install automated traffic signals as appropriate.
o Ensure traffic flow management at key intersections.
5. Limit Emissions From Vehicle Trips and VMT
o Expand the EIR Transportation Demand Management Plan, as
appropriate, in accordance with District Regulation XV.
o Provide worker rideshare incentives.
o Provide worker transit incentives and assistance to the site.
o Encourage alternative work schedules.
o Encourage telecommuting programs.
o Encourage scheduling the movement of goods for off-peak traffic hours.
o Provide dedicated turn lanes as appropriate.
6. Minimize Indirect-Source Emissions
o Implement energy conservation measures more stringent than State
requirements.
o Require the installation of solar water heaters.
o Install energy-efficient lighting.
o Include energy costs in capital expenditure analyses.
o Landscape with native drought-resistant plant species to reduce water
consumption and to provide passive solar benefits.
22.
*ATER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
kVO
OISTRICt
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398.2651
OFFICERS
DIRECTORS THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND N R.RU,PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY
W. R.RUMMONDS,VICE PRESIDENT OWEN McCOOK,ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
JOHN M.NICHOLS March 21, 1991 REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
DOROTHY M.
THEODORE J.FISH
File: 0126.1
0421.1
Philip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Pacific Golf
Resorts, Tentative Tract 26562 (SCH 90021029)
This letter is in response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Pacific Golf Resorts. The Coachella Valley Water District appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this document.
A collection of the Coachella Valley Water District's comments will be addressed
in Attachment "A," enclosed.
If you have any questions or require additional information please contact
Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engineer
JEC:cb/e3
Enclosure/as
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
23.
File: 0126.1
0421.1
ATTACHMENT A
1 . Page M-4, Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Project Impacts" to
read as follows:
Residential maximum peak demand is projected at 3,945,600 gallons per day. CA
Hotel maximum peak demand is projected at 113,400 gallons per day and golf
course demand estimated at 1.3 million gallons. Accumulative peak water
demand will be approximately 5.4 million gallons per day which contributes
to the on-going overdraft condition.
2. Page M-4, Water Resources/Quality under the subheading "Mitigation
Measures" first and third sentences to read as follows: C:2
Provide six well sites and two fully equipped wells for demand production.
Use low water use landscaping.
3. Page M-5, Air Quality under the subheading "Mitigation Measures" after
second sentence to include as foll
ows:: C.-3
Apply soil stabilizers when possible in order to reduce the water spent for
dust control.
4. Page M-7, Public Services and Facilities under the subheading "Project C
Impacts," second sentence to read as follows:
On-site retention of stormwater runoff is required. (See hydrology.)
"Hydrology," sentence to read as follows:
5. Page 1-4, under the headinglast C.-5
These shall be reviewed and approved by the Coachella Valley Water District
and the city engineer.
6. Page II1-18, Mitigation Measures under the subheading "Wind Erosion", Item
No. 2 to address the following:
This section describes and discusses maintaining moist surface soils. This C.-6
method is prescribed by CEQA as a means to control soil erosion and reduce
PM-10. It is the concern of the Coachella Valley Water District that this
practice will expend a great deal of water. No estimate has been provided in
this report to address the amount of water required to keep the ground surface
moist in this desert environment. The District will requir9 that this report be
augmented to emphasize and give more detail to dust controllmeasures which will
serve to reduce the amount of water used for dust control.
7. Page 11I-20, Hydrology under subheading "Existing Conditions," third
paragraph after the second sentence to include the following:
The implementation of the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel is subject to and C.7
dependent on the participation of the affected communities of the
Mid-Valley area.
24.
8. Page III-24, Distribution Facilities under the subheading "Project
Impacts," first and second paragraphs to read as follows:
With the proposed 557 single family dwelling units having an estimated
maximum peak demand of 4.0 gallons per minute per dwelling unit, the C$
maximum peak water demand consumption would be 3,208,320 gallons per day.
The proposed 128 villas will also generate a maximum peak demand of 5,760
gallons per day, per unit, or approximately 737,280 gallons per day.
For purposes of this analysis, the hotel unit maximum peak demand has been
applied; 504 gallons per room. All ancillary hotels uses including
laundry, restaurants, general operations and landscape maintenance, are
included in this range. The proposed 225 hotel rooms and auxiliary uses
will generate a maximum peak demand of approximately 113,400 gallons per
day.
(Exclude Footnotes Nos. 22 and 23.)
9. Page III-25, Mitigation Measures, third paragraph, third and fourth
sentences to read as follows:
C.-9
Due to the fire flow requirement of 5,000 gpm for the hotel, a looped
18-inch main line will be required to serve this facility. The hotel site
will be developed with a two-feed system.
(Footnote No. 26 shall be omitted.)
10. Page III-39, Item No.1 C;-10
This section shall emphasize water saving methods for dust control. These
methods may include soil stabilizers or other means to reduce continuous
site watering. Also see Item No. 6 in this appendix.
11. Page III-64, Project Impacts under the subheading "Domestic Water
Services", second sentence to read as follows:
C.-11
The developer has also planned to provide six well sites and will be
fully equipping two sites to serve the proposed development.
25 .
SunLine Transit
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio La Quinta REEEIXA=m- ary 20, 1991
Palm Desert
Palm Springs FEB2 6 1991
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
MAMMY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Mr. Phillip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Rancho Portola
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Impact
Report on the Rancho Portola project. On page II1-13 the
consultant has summarized SunLine's concerns as it regards to
transit. However, the language concerns us in that a commitment D:1
to provide the transit amenities has not been stated. We request
your assistance in insuring that transit mitigation measures are
included as a condition to the project. If I can be of further
assistance on this project, please feel free to give me a call.
Yours very truly,
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
DA/n
cc: City of Palm Desert File
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail •Thousand Palms, CA 92276 •(619) 343.3456 •FAX (619)343-3845
A Public Agency
SunLine Transit
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella March 27, 1991
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quints
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Mr. Phillip Drell
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Rancho Portola
Dear Mr. Drell:
I recently had an occasion to look at the environmental impact
report on the Rancho Portola project again. Previously, I had
replied and asked that bus turnouts and passenger waiting
shelters be included on Frank Sinatra and Portola Avenue. After
re-reviewing the plans, we also note that the project will extend
to Cook Street. Because Cook Street is an arterial and will
serve this project in addition to other projects in the
surrounding area, we ask that a bus turnout and a passenger D.-2
waiting shelter also be included on Cook Street. We suggest that
this turnout be located on the west side of Cook Street just
south of the northern property line, far side of the entrance to
the maintenance yard.
I realize thatyou
ou are receiving this information rathe
r late in
the process. However, I hope that you will still be able to
accommodate our request.
Yours very truly,
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
0
1 ji-c-e-- g7===:.___
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
DA/n
cc: Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc.
275 N. El Cielo, D-3
Palm Springs, CA 92262
File
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail •Thousand Palms, CA 92276 •(619)343-3456 •FAX (619)343-3845
A Public Agency
27.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: PHIL DRELL
FROM: BRENT CONLEY
SUBJECT: PP 90-27
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1990
The site of the proposed project could affect police response E_1
time within the development. Manned entry gates or locator
boards at all entrances would assist arriving emergency vehicles.
The police department would like to reserve comment on the
proposed project until final plans are submitted as it relates to E.-2dwelling units and proposed hotel.
If you have any questions please call me at Ext. 303.
//BRENT CONLEY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF' S
BC: la
28.
CITY OF R O MIRAGE
March 18, 1991
Mr. Phillip Drell
Senior Planner
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Pacific Golf Resorts
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for allowing us to comment on the EIR. Our comments
are limited to traffic impacts that affect Rancho Mirage
through additional traffic loads on Monterey Avenue.
The additional traffic will cause a need for dual left turn
lanes on Monterey Avenue. The need for the dual left turn
lanes would be greatly reduced if the Cook Street interchange
to Interstate 10 were constructed before the hotel is occupied. F:1
May we recommend a mitigation measure be made a Condition that
requires the construction of the Interstate 10/Cook Street in-
terchange prior to occupancy of the hotel or before the project
is 50% built out. If this project will not construct the inter-
change, then significant impacts will occur at Frank Sinatra
Drive/Monterey Avenue. Overriding considerations should not be
considered when a viable mitigation measure like constructing
the interchange is available. An alternative "mitigation
measure" could be delayed construction of the project until in-
stallation of the circulation infrastructure can adequately
match the pace of development.
A less desirable but nevertheless helpful interim measure would
be for the developer to work with us in obtaining right-of-way
and provide for the construction of an additional left turn
lane southbound on Monterey Avenue at Frank Sinatra Drive. F.-2
This would be much more helpful in mitigating traffic impacts
of the project than dual northbound left turn lanes recommended
in the EIR.
Please forward to us a copy of the Final EIR when it becomes
available.
Sincerely,
/ -S1k
Randal K. By er
Associate Planner
:cep\D\PLANNING\MISC\3-18-L1
69-825 HIGHWAY 111 I RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270-2898/(619) 324-4511 /FAX (619) 324-8830
29 .
Palmer CbV ision
(5%0/
Date:
To:
#(-/a/
922 6
Attention: Aae
S-2
Regarding: /
Palmer has existing plant at this location to
serve this project .
Palmer will serve this project , but a line
extension will be needed , the extent of which
will be determined at the time we receive plans.
Existing pl
ant is away. A major
line extension will be necessary to serve this
project .
Out of our area, will be unable to serve project.
I I
Sincerely,
Clara Sal sbury
Account Executive
CLS:blt
Ctyrsp
41-725 Cook Street, Box 368 Telephone: (619)340-1312 Palmer CableVision/Channel 10
Palm Desert,CA 92261 Telecopier: (619)340-2384 Services of Palmer Communication,Inc.
1 �
30.
sEAgs144117
VI lOUTBERR CPUFORRIR •
RIIOCIRTIOR OF GOWN RIERT!
818 West Seventh Street,l2th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 0 (213) 236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Interim President March 18, 1991
Representative,Ventura County
John Flynn,Supervisor
Second Vice President
Rep..Cit r of Los Angeles
Robert I'arrell,Cnuneifncmher Mr. Phillip Drell
Rep.,Citie o g y City of Palm Desert
Rep;,Cities of Los Angeles County
Santa Monica 73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Past President
M(ke LAsnlonoAngelehvtch,SuCountpervisor RE: Draft EIR, Pacific Golf Resorts, Tentative Tract #26562
Mike A
Imperial County SCAG # RI-54633-EDR
Abe Seabolt,Supervisor
Los Angeles County
Deane Dana,Supervisor
Orange Countyy Dear Mr. Drell :
Harrtett WieJer,Supervisor
Ri
Melba Dunlap,
Thank you for submitting the Draft EIR for Pacific Golf Resorts to
Melba Dunlap,Supervisor
San Bernardino County SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for
Jon Mikels,Supervisor regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and
Cities oflmpel CountyStella Mendoza, other agencies to review projects and plans for consistency with the
Brawley Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) , the Regional Mobility
Cities of Orange County (RMP) , Growth Management (GMP) , and Air Quality Management (AQMP)
Irwin Fried,Councilmenther
YorbaLinda Plans, all of which are included in the State Implementation Plan
Cities of Riverside County (SIP) .
Jack Clarke,Councilmemher
Riverside
Cities of San Bernardino County The attached comments are meant to provide guidance for completing
John Longville,Mayor the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and
Rialto
plans, which are based in part upon state and federal mandates.
Cities of Ventura County
John Melton,Councilmemher While neither the project sponsor nor the lead agency is required to
Santa Paula undertake the specific actions recommended by SCAG or other agencies
City of Los Angeles Tom Bradley,Mayor through the Inter-Governmental Review Process, there are requirements
Gloria Molina,Councilntemher in state and federal laws for consistency with regional goals and
City of Long Beach plans.
Clarence Smith,Council/timber
POLICY CHAIRS If you have any questions about the attached comments, please
Judy Wright,Conncilmember
Claremont,Chair.Transportalion contact Jim Birckhead, (213) 236-1915, or Paul Hatanaka,
and Communications (213) 236-1809. They will be happy to work with you to address the
Robert Gentry,Councilntember comments presented herein and, if necessary, develop a mitigation
Laguna Beach,Chair.Energy
and Environment plan which meets regional , state and federal requirements.
Robert Wagner,Vice Mayor
Lakewood,Chair.Community, Sincerely,
,
Economic,and Human Development y
AT-LARGE DELEGATES A
Robert Bartlett,Mayor /`�/'/J/Mt"grA-14e/L
Monrovia
Vicky Howard,Counciimember ANNE BAKER
Simi Valley Director of Environmental Planning
Ruthelyn Plummer,Mayor
Newport Beach
ALTERNATES
Imperial County o Jeanne Vogel,Supervisor• Los Angeles County o Ed Edelman,Supervisor and Pete Schabarum,Supervisor• Orange County o Gaddi Vasquez,Supervisor • Riv-
erside County o (Vacant)• San Bernardino County o Larry Walker,Supervisor• Ventura County o James Dougherty,Supervisor• Cities of Imperial County o Victor Sanchez,Jr.,
Mayor.Westmorland• Cities of Los Angeles County o John Crowley,City Director,Pasadena• Cities of Orange County o John Kanel,Mayor.Cypress• Cities of Riverside County o
Richard Deininger,Jr.,Counc•ilnremher.Corona• Cities of San Bernardino County o Larry Rhinehart,Mayor,Montclair• Cities of Ventura County o Vicky Howard,Councilmember,
Simi Valley• City of Los Angeles o Richard Alatorre,Conncilmemher o Joy l'icus,Councilntemher o Michael Woo,Councilntemher• Long Beach 2nd position o Jeffrey Kellogg,
Councilntemher• At Large o Judy Wright,Councilmemher,Claremont o Judy Nieburger,Councilmenuher,Moreno Valley o John Erskine,Councilmember,Huntington Beach
31 .
Mr. Phillip Drell
March 18, 1991
Page 2
SCAG Comments on Draft EIR for Pacific Golf Resorts
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Description:
The proposed project includes a 225 suite hotel complex and restaurant
facility, an 18-hole championship golf course with clubhouse facilities, and
approximately 687 dwelling units on a 420 acre site.
Findings:
The project will create 687 net new housing units and a 225 suite hotel
complex which should create approximately 203 net new jobs and is therefore
consistent with the GMP.
TECHNICAL NOTE:
The Regional Growth Management Plan' s Trend Projections for the Riverside
Desert Subregion indicate an increase of 88,900 jobs and 142,400 dwelling
units from 1984 to 2010. This is a ratio of .62 jobs per housing unit. The
policy forecasts for the subregion, which incorporate the jobs/housing balance
policy, increase the proportion of jobs to housing, resulting in a ratio of
.77 jobs per housing unit. This ratio is considered the jobs/housing balance
performance goal for the Riverside Desert Subregion.
The Pacific Golf Resorts project would create an additional 687 housing units.
The number of jobs associated with this number of dwelling units using the
Trend Projection ratio for the Riverside Desert Subregion is:
687 * .62 = 426
Under the jobs/housing balance forecast ratio, the number of jobs is:
687 * .77 = 529
The appropriate number of added jobs associated with the jobs/housing balance
policy for the project is the difference between the adopted GMP Forecast,
which includes the implementation of the jobs/housing balance policy, and the
jobs production under the Trend Projection. This is 529 - 426 = 103 jobs
which should be associated with the project to reflect the regional
jobs/housing balance policy. The project should create 203 jobs and therefore
exceeds the requirement for consistency with the GMP.
m.LL.,C.1110.111.
,aoc1000N o#.OV,i,mtau
818 W.Seventh Street,l2th Floor • Los Angeles,CA 90017-3435 ❑ (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825
32.
Mr. Phillip Drell
March 18, 1991
Page 3
SIP CONFORMITY
A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) when it has satisfied the following three criteria:
1. It improves the subregion' s jobs/housing balance
performance ratio.
2. It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled
to the maximum extent feasible by implementing
transportation demand management strategies.
3. Its environmental document includes an air quality
analysis which demonstrates that the project will not
have a significant negative impact on air quality
in the long term.
Findings:
As described in the draft EIR, the Pacific Golf Resorts does conform to the
SIP at this time.
33. ro....
818 W.Seventh Street,l2th Floor • Los Angeles,CA 90017-3435 0 (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH ;�;
1400 TENTH STREET
SAC ENI9,0tI :A .,
JOHN D. CRISTE AICP
CITY OF PALM DESERT C/O TERRA NOVA
275 N. EL CIELO SUITE D-3
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
Subject: RANCHO PORTOLA
SCH # 90021029
Dear JOHN D. CRISTE AICP:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review.
The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding
agency(ies ) is (are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form
you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have
commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your
comment package is complete . If the comment package is not in order,
please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to
the project' s eight-digit State--Clearinghouse_number so that we may
respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources
Code required that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or
which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. "
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support
their comments with specific documentation. These
comnentsmare are forwarded
for your use in preparing your final EIR. Y
information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency(ies ) .
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact
Russell Colliau at ( 916 ) 445-0613 if you have any questions
regarding the environmental review process .
Sincerely,
David C . Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance
Enclosures
Resources Agency
cc : 9 Y
34.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETS WILSON, Governor
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET r
4-:* )
SACRAMENTO,CA 95814
Mar 21, 1991
JOHN D. CRISTE AICP
CITY OF PALM DESERT C/O TERRA NOVA
275 N. EL CIELO SUITE D-3
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
Subject: RANCHO PORTOLA
SCH # 90021029
Dear JOHN D. CRISTE AICP:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is
closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This letter
acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review
requirements for draft environmental documents , pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act .
Please call Russell Colliau at ( 916 ) 445-0613 if you have
any questions regarding the environmental review process . When
contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit
State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Deputy Director, Permit Assistance
35 .
Sea
hail toe /tots Clmnimstmum, 1100 Tenth attest.hom 111.a.rtrrto,O. 9Se14-91V11S-0e12 Sal f 900Wt Woo
.{ 29
hoTlot or oo___A9m DN xaosarr/t mama a'"M°QiDd'Iaet
1 ►ml•ct Thiel Tentative Tract Map /26562
2. i.a,p.eye City of Pstlm flacrrt 3. omtsctPersune Phillip Drell
2. SU..t Mir..., 73-510 Fred Waring Drive m.Stye Palm ❑wart
Riverside 2d.rip, 92760 2..Meor.e 619-340-0611
'`'tb"ty` Palm Desert
r�Im2� 1 oantyl Riverside 1..ucy/�n1tY1
/n.A..raore■Paul)b.
a.section 33 Tvp. 4 South h.q. 6 Fact
fur Anal.Mart
s. c�o..Streets. Frank Sinatra/Portola/Cock s0. damn ltY.
Slats Air- eatr-Southern a W.I."1. Within 2 hurl I. i f 1 1 1/1-10 W.ports C.soya Pac i f is rye
7. I1X1212CLLOS
S. Wala0331.1MM 9. IDOiM1911.37aZ
DM 01._General Plan Update 01.XJI..tdriuo11 touts 687 , .. 420
01.___SOP
to._JCL 02.--Pm Llment 02.__Offices 9i.Pt.
02. Y
rill Om. 07._7t1C 03._Gemral Pim Mendeent Arras anplcy.r
.
01.-1..9 Dec OIL_KO
04._- 1.�
Abot•t Plan Oh hp.rt:
04.X-O[.ft Silt 05._,fn..etiCn Acrr hoploy.as
91pple..N/ 06. Specific Plan 04._Indention S9.Pt.
OS._subsequent[IA Acrr dPt%w
Rile.SOS M.e 01._Commits Plan t�
OS. eeti 5lO9 t OS._hater facilities. MS e,�(�
' 09.__Amon. 06._Tr.n.{urt.tione Type ;' r rUSF.
NSA
draft 10.XJred Division 07.Jtlnfn9e M1t.ra1 ,..
09.COI 11. _a
(aebdtvision, etcl 0e._.Pease►= Typs Wtte ;1�•..
10._lolSI 12._Jw M•P.'hue hop,,etc.)
11._um Penit 09.--W.te Treata.ntl Type
13.__lolrht tnaa..ht
12.-_)Irts h.DK PI.1 10._06 Misted
14.-final Oooaeet 13._fermi 9.9 Stemma 11._Oth.rl
Is._seer
11 x ot..r Precise Plan
10. la 7s1 U.19aL.,1cva0a'i1
IS._,Septic Symms 73.�sut Wtilty
12.
01. x Arthetic,Nls.r1 OS.%r1ooding' singe 16. 'I S'e.e f C.peitf 24.x 1met/Apply
02._Jq[Icults[al larhd
09. x Ceolegic/asimlc 17.Xaoctal 25. onla.d7Pi.rlan
03.X J•tr Cmlity 10._...-•Ion./tJ0 in9 Mime 1e..e-.oil W.ton 26.X W11Q1fe
04.Jrde.eolo9lcal/tllatotinl 11.-Wotal. 19.X_Solid Waste 27._.Cmvth Ird.clnp
OS._Oa.stal Is. y
12..X.Jhdoo ar
20._SOa1C/Wsrdaue 26. ®Dnt1We Lander
06. . ._rmm nle 11. x�tb X T
1lc Service. 21. ref tic/Circulation 29.JyO dative Effects
Ol.._Jlu hazard
14.�Tbo1s 22.X V.9etetlon 30.__.Other
11. roam(appeal) Pelletal S
State$ Total$
11 _, -.,.Q„m:rwM. Vacant land. General Plan Land Use designation-Low Density
Residential (3-5 DU/AC) 8 Residential Study Zone. Zoning designation - R-I-M
(Conventional Single Family/Mobile Home) 8 P-R-5 (5 DU/AC)
15. 1717037S7MIC=17.
Construct 397 detached Single Family units, 290 attached Duplexes/Villas, a 225
Suite Hotel Complex, and 18 hole Championship golf course with clubhouse, 5 tennis
courts and amenities on approximately 420 acres.
CLEARINGHOUSE CONTACT: Russ Collisu
(916) 445-0613
CHT SNT GiieTSNT
- (-4/ ��� _EResources
STATE REVIEW BEGAN: ?
DEPT REV TO AGENCY: ./ - b (-)/
AGENCY REV TO SCH : 3 - /1
/ _ �Pish L Came
SCH COMPLIANCE 3 -
PLEASE RETURN ROC WITH ALL COMMENTS L-'w motion 0 SWRCB:--Wtr Ri hts
_ Reg. WQCS /
• AQMDIAPCD: ? -) (Resources: 2 I C )
1('.( ( (,,,,,D-r
V /
rCaltrans i / / _
PUC
Q Housing & eves
aillIllIllMIMIIIIkg
36.
_ State Lands Comm
-- -- J