Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Res 01-9 and 01-10 Ord 978 GPA 00-06 CZ 00-09 PP 00-21
Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY OF PALM DESERT Resolution No. 01-10 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (R-1 ) to District Commercial (PC-2) for approximately 12 acres and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed- use commercial complex including a 2,000 square foot gas station/convenience store, 8,200 square foot restaurant, 24,000 square foot office/retail, and a 40-lane bowling center on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, more particularly described as APN 624-241-008 through 019; 624-160-002, 004, and a portion of 624-160-001 . III. APPLICANT: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 IV. CASE NOS: GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 V. DATE: January 25, 2001 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Background VII. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution No. 01-9 , Draft Ordinance No. 978 , and Draft Resolution No. 01-10 B. Planning Commission Minutes involving this case C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040 D. Planning Commission Staff Reports dated November 7 and December 19, 2000 E. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 01-9 approving General Plan Amendment 00-06; 2. Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 978 for Change of Zone 00-09 to second reading; and 1 � Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 Resolution No. 01-10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 3. Adopt Resolution No. 01-10 approving PP 00-21 , subject to conditions. B. BACKGROUND: 1. ADJACENT ZONING / LAND USE: North: O.P. /Vacant R-3 (4) / Multi family residential South: O.S. /Whitewater storm channel East: S.I. / Industrial West: R-1 / Golf course 2. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project proposed on 7.87 acres of relatively flat land between Sheryl Avenue and the Whitewater channel, is currently in use as a golf driving range and nine vacant single family lots. The driving range is associated with a 9-hole par 3 golf course to the west. The applicant intends to continue operation and maintenance the golf course. One single family home on Sheryl Avenue and a 3.9 acre triangular parcel wedged between the subject property and the storm channel are not owned by the applicant and although included in the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, are not part of the precise plan. The applicant attempted but failed to gain control of these properties. Prior to use as a driving range, a portion of the site was owned by the Coachella Valley Water District and used for a construction dump. Significant soil engineering remediation and flood channel slope protection will be required before construction can occur on the site. 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low- Density Residential (R-1) to Planned District Commercial (PC-2) and the development of a mixed use commercial project including a gas station/convenience store, 8,200 square foot restaurant, 25,000 square foot office/retail use and a 40-lane bowling center. 2 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution NO. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 a. General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone: In older traditional cities, commercial uses providing a wide range of basic goods, services and entertainment were located on arterial streets directly adjacent and within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. As a reaction to inner city congestion and decay, new towns and suburbs were planned and developed with extensive single use residential areas served by large shopping centers accessible only by car. Trips became longer and the pedestrian was eliminated. There is a growing realization in the urban planning field that the absolute segregation of commercial retail services from residential areas is not good for neighborhoods or cities in general. With sensitive planning and design, commercial centers can contribute to a neighborhood quality of life without destroying residential values. The subject site provides an ideal opportunity for appropriate commercial use which can serve both the adjacent residential neighborhood and the Cook Street corridor. The property is already impacted by the concentration of industrial use and Cook Street traffic, while the adjacent residential neighborhoods lack convenient access to basic commercial services. There will be no impacts to the south due to the channel and high school. The single family area can be buffered from direct impacts by the golf course, Sheryl Avenue and the multi-family zone. With sensitive design, the site can be appropriate for the District Commercial land use designation and the PC-2 zone. The isolated single family home on Sheryl and the triangular parcel to the south, although not included in the precise plan would also be redesignated District Commercial (PC-2)allowing them to be incorporated into the project at a later date. It would be illogical to isolate them as residential fragments. Two vacant parcels at the corner of Sheryl and Christian which currently back onto the existing parking lot would be redesignated in the General Plan to District Commercial. Potential rezoning to PC-2 would be subject to an appropriate precise plan which protected the first adjacent single family home to the north. 3 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 b. Precise Plan: The project will include a reverse design gas station and 2,000 square foot convenience store at the Cook Street / Sheryl Avenue corner, an 8,200 square foot restaurant on Cook Street, two 5,000 square foot and one 3,000 square foot single-story office building on Sheryl Avenue, a 12,000 square foot two-story in the interior and a 40-lane, 40,000 square foot bowling center adjacent to the golf course parking lot. Access will be from a right turn in/out off Cook Street and from Sheryl Avenue, 230 feet west of Cook Street. If warranted, the Cook Street/Sheryl Avenue intersection would be signalized. The more intense uses will be located off Cook Street or in the interior. The perimeter buildings on Sheryl will be low rise offices bordered by a 6' masonry wall and a desert style landscape buffer ranging in width from 10 to 25 feet in addition to an 8-foot sidewalk. Architecture will be contemporary. Landscaping throughout the project will be "Desert Willow style". The reverse design for the gas station/convenience store will allow for extensive landscaping at the corner and screening of the gas canopy. The Architectural Commission granted preliminary approval of the architecture on October 12th. Although endorsing the landscape concept, there was insufficient detail to grant landscape preliminary approval. Although it is anticipated that the remaining single family home parcel will ultimately be integrated into the project, the architecture of the adjacent single story offices was modified to be as residential friendly as possible. PROJECT DATA Project PC-2 Ordinance Site Size 7.87 acres 5-acre minimum Building Area 77,480 sq. ft. Coverage 21% 50% maximum Building Height Single Story Building 23' 30' Two Story Building 26' 30' Bowling Center *29' from grade 30' 4 4 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 Project PC-2 Ordinance Setbacks - Sheryl 25' 25' Cook St. 33' 32' Interior 20' 20' Parking 335 spaces 326 spaces *Building is sunk four feet below grade 4. ANALYSIS: The project complies with all applicable PC-2 standards. It's design minimizes negative impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood by siting higher intensity uses on Cook Street and the interior. The bowling center will be setback 180 feet from Sheryl and will be four feet below street grade. Testimony before the Planning Commission from area residents focused on whether the proposed commercial project is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Can potentially negative impacts of commercial activities be mitigated or isolated within the property so that the overall impact on the neighborhood and surrounding community is neutral or positive? Or, does the project include uses which are so inherently destructive that the impacts cannot be contained or mitigated under any circumstances? The following issues strongly influence whether commercial and residential uses can co-exist. a. Location and direct proximity to potentially impacted residential properties b. Access and traffic control c. Operational characteristics of proposed commercial uses d. Project site design and architecture a. Location and Proximity: Whenever commercial uses are directly adjacent to residential uses, there is the greatest potential for conflict. Ideally, separation by a street or a less intensive use is desirable. Our experience with the office professional zone is that residential scale office buildings provide effective buffers between high intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. 5 .s Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 The proposed project's frontage on Cook Street (a commercial arterial), the Whitewater Channel, the golf course, and Sheryl Avenue minimizes direct impacts on residential properties. Impact to the substantially surrounded single family home on Sheryl can be partially mitigated by design, but will most likely lead to future integration into the project. The two vacant lots at the Sheryl/Christian corner which will back onto the commercial parking lot should ultimately be allowed office commercial use. A residential scale office building should be planned adjacent to the first home on Christian protecting it from the noise and lighting impacts of the parking lot. In designing boundaries between commercial and residential uses, it is the City's primary goal to preserve the integrity of the residential neighborhood. The City remains committed to preserving and enhancing the overall quality of the existing neighborhood. b. Access and Traffic Control: Insensitive location of project access and inadequate traffic control can result in significant commercial intrusion into adjacent residential areas. A detailed traffic study, supervised by the City's Transportation Engineer, was completed by WPA Traffic Engineering. Project access is planned from Cook Street with a right turn in/out only design and from Sheryl approximately 235 feet west of Cook. While the Cook Street access does not create intrusive impacts, only 15% of the entrances and 45% of the exits are likely to use it due to the right turn in/out restriction. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the entrances and 55% of the exits will use the Sheryl Street access. The Cook Street intersection. Currently, the Cook/Sheryl intersection is operating a service level F due to continuous high levels of traffic on Cook. While service levels would be dramatically improved by a signal, side street traffic does not meet signal warrants or justifications for a signal. The project is expected to generate a total of 5,970 daily trip ends (2,985 in and out trips) of which 420 (250 in, 170 out) would occur in the morning peak hours and 825 (295 in, 530 out) during the evening peak hours. With the addition of the project traffic to existing plus general growth, all intersections in the vicinity will continue to operate at Level C or better with 6 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 the exception of Cook/Sheryl which continues to operate at F. Without a signal at Cook/Sheryl, 15% of the existing traffic would turn right from the Sheryl access to Clifford to reach the Merle/Cook signalized intersection resulting in 450 additional daily trips into the neighborhood. With the signalization of Cook/Sheryl, intrusion drops to 5% and 150 daily trips. If the existing Merle signal is relocated to Sheryl and a median structure is designed at the Sheryl access which prohibits right turns, intentional intrusion is virtually eliminated. Accidental intrusion from commercial traffic overshooting the entrance should be minimized by adequate signage. To further facilitate exiting from Sheryl to Cook, Sheryl would be widened allowing for a left turn and through/right turn lanes. The study concluded that with proposed mitigation, on- and off-site circulation results in acceptable levels of service. With project traffic, the Cook/Sheryl intersection meets signal warrants. The service level at the Cook/Sheryl intersection, after addition of the project traffic plus existing and growth improves from the existing service level F to B with signalization. Since the recommendation is to relocate the Merle signal to Sheryl, overall operation of Cook Street will not be impaired. Left turn control at the Sheryl access eliminates the chances of intrusion and confines the commercial traffic activity to the 235 feet between the exit and Cook Street. c. Uses: The proposed uses include a gas station/convenience store, restaurant, offices, and a bowling center. The station/convenience store and restaurant front Cook Street. Similar facilities are located throughout the City without significant problems. They have not become attractive nuisances or magnets for criminal activity. Restricting hours of operation to no later than 11:00 p.m. will further minimize problems. Office buildings and related retail uses are also not typically associated with criminal or other behavior destruction to neighborhood values. These uses normally do not generate activity past 6:00 p.m. The bowling center has the greatest potential to generate late night impact in the form of noise, lights, and traffic. Although the building will effectually contain the direct impact of bowling and related entertainment, activity within the parking lot can be a source of problems. 7 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 The area is currently used as a night time golf driving range which operates to 8:00 p.m. While there is no evidence that bowlers as a group are more prone to criminal or other destructive behavior than golfers. The bowling center will have later hours and will attract a greater volume of business. The most significant potential for impact will result from bowlers arriving and leaving the facility in the late night hours. Since bowling is marketed as a family-oriented activity, it is in the operator's interest to provide sufficient security and control both inside and out, to ensure that customers feel comfortable and safe. It is also recommended that initially, hours of operation be limited to no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Ultimately, the degree in which a particular commercial use is intrusive to a neighborhood is a function of design and operation. e. Design: The project has been designed to insulate the neighborhood from potential intrusive effects to the greatest practical extent possible. The one controlled access on Sheryl is located as close to Cook as possible, the remaining frontage will be landscaped to resemble the perimeter of a walled residential community with sidewalks, landscaping, and a 6-foot block wall. The three office buildings on Sheryl will be residential in scale and setback 32 feet from the curb. All building access will be internal. The gas station will be a reverse design which provides for extensive landscaping at the corner and screening of the gas canopy. The bowling center is at the south side of the property, 250 feet from the nearest residence. Parking lot lighting will be held to residential standards with maximum 20-foot light standards and no more than a .25 foot candle trespass beyond the property line (approximately equivalent to the light from a full moon). Access design will minimize traffic intrusion and signalization will actually improve the level of services at the intersection. Commercial traffic will be confined to the 235 feet between Cook and the entrance. 8 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 f. Future long-range plans for the neighborhood: A question was raised concerning long-range plans for the neighborhood and golf course. As has been discussed earlier, the vacant property directly adjacent to the proposed project should be designated PC-2 allowing compatible commercial use creating a "defensible boundary" between commercial and residential uses. Future development would occur pursuant to a precise plan creating a buffer between the two uses. The vacant lots at the corner of Sheryl and Christian represent the furthest recommended limit of commercial development. For the golf course, staff is recommending re-designation from Low-density Residential (R-1) to open space (O.S.) encouraging preservation of the existing recreational use. Regardless of the outcome of the proposed application, it is the City's goal to protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhood. 5. CONCLUSION: The locational characteristics of the site, access design, and traffic control, use restrictions on perimeter buildings, and limitations on hours of operation and overall project design, substantially insulates the adjacent residential neighborhood from the potential negative effects of commercial use. The imposition of mitigation measures identified by the traffic study and conditions of approval reduce traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. The re-designation of the golf course from R-1 to open space will encourage the preservation of this important neighborhood amenity. Based on these conclusions, the Planning Commission voted 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained, Commissioner Finerty was absent) to recommend approval to the City Council. In evaluating the application, the Council has three options: 1 . Approval if the Council concurs with the Planning Commission conclusion that as designed, the proposal is acceptable. 9 Resolution No. 01-9 Ordinance No. 978 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Resolution No. 01-10 CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 JANUARY 25, 2001 2. If the Council believes that some form of commercial use is appropriate but the size of the commercial land use, the redesignation or a specific use is unacceptable then an amended request could be approved with additional conditions. 3. If the Council believes that any commercial use is unacceptable, then a denial is appropriate. Prepared by: Review and Concur: P LIP DRELL RIC ARD J. LKERS DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV. ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Review and Concur: CARLOS L. ORTEGA CITY MANAGER Am CITY COUNCIL ACTION: DENIED APPROVED OTHER ......Z.---. RECEIVED MEET IN UA'rE AYES: NOES:—...43 d—.., ABSENT ',1-41 t-'— ABSTAIN: /14-01^-` 9- VERIFIED BY: 04 La A"i) Original on File with Ci y gerk' s Office 10 D RESOLUTION NO. 01-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO DISTRICT COMMERCIAL FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LOCATED ON 12 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND SHERYL AVENUE. CASE NO. GPA 00-06 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of January, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of RICHARD HUGHES for approval of the above noted case; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval by adoption of its Resolution No. 2040; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project with mitigation measures and conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said general plan amendment: 1 . The site is suitable for the District Commercial General Plan designation. 2. The land use resulting from the general plan amendment would be compatible with adjacent existing land uses. 3. The density resulting from the general plan amendment would not be incompatible with densities permitted in the adjacent areas. 4. The proposed general plan amendment will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. (( RESOLUTION NO. 01-9 2. That General Plan Amendment 00-06 is hereby approved as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. 3. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached hereto, is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 I9-- RESOLUTION NO. 01-9 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 1 5070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street And Sheryl Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 13 e HP R) VIA ANTANA 1- ., J 1 . f\ P.R."`F, S.P. Ivy �BEFPMAN ''P �''o P.R-5 Q O.P. 9' 9 C• Boa�Aytiw � `r9c�s o°y� Tiy� F PL SN co, O 4y0 ,`HOVLEY LANE EAST -__ ,g o TRISTAN ' IIe� G IN I S.I. s <14' 4w4 �4# ~J P S.P. A`"T° e P a c �� P.R.-10 P R 1-17.5 O.S. LENNON PL u JAMES 3 J.I. r fiv Q�r\ I g` t rL v r (��1 i 1 i O� ! V S.I. .I: GO- ,tP �(L7 , V V.j 01 w $1 S.I. 0 (1 -. -_- T -- 4?NDAVF� __� __--._ DITERRANEAN O.I. �, A (� 1 1 . , l ME_I Il I I I I I I I I I I / 1 MAYFAIR.DR � �,��� -�,R-il-M, i H. y� __ VELIEWAY a Fr Y" j WAY I.,•I N x' -1 J � F = I 6 1 - - R-1- 1 Sit, 1 _ JONI DR 7 h a 1 _ P�R-1-M . I I 1 w MERLE DR x a I T. x (1 _1, j , . 4,,: , 1 y, ! J,0 R-3 (4) 'J s .- 1, - I --�- - O.S 11 , R-1 . . . . � I NI MAGNESIA a ` >,NE . ; ° S.I.i SANTOLI V,•Le Ib) :w ' I DR MIII/I 1[A�"'R.'S N , ! � _ n " _ CORAL BELLS FLOWER II11=�III. CIR CIR Li �i' ,) , /*PA .' IIIINI-% I O.S.�1 �t DAYLILYCIR j`I WATERLILY z / I 1 b CIR �¢�¢�¢ � r � P,N ._ � MOSS ROS 1 Cq1.4 c.3 .. °' ¢ ^ VIA CACHANILLA J � P,uS1 1 VI1 j P.R.-4 AMORMIO - COURT x P 'TT N 4AKg LI a 1V 1 p 4Ay CLAVEL P.R.-7 w CIEl7lSL Q I! 1 1 ALM 0 AN SICVAt J - : 0 W SANTAFETaRL Ai Proposed d YELLOW, RVFJAR 71R ' R-1 P _ y- P.R. A S CRStOVALi M ONUp IACRESTA DR W fc.its ,S GPA ASTER e w-9,000 V I dS.P. d n s , I ! I-hl ii1111 1 i1/1 i `1 _Ll ! ! _ $QJCI .1 l_ LA SIERRA DR 446. p. \\ I I I I 1 I I I I Ill I I I I ITCfI) � ���� a o o %'�k1� 1 �T l o oc R-1 111 1 1.J 11 1 1 It- Q I t o o 1 i- Low Density I - � - I - Residential W 7 z ~ V to _ z 7�a - 7��- O yY � �CORPU � O C7 � 77�� ' o�LN o P.R.-5�-N -t o� o o _ _? District Commercial ,� ����**W y2 --. HIDDEN '9L Td c7 /:. O U O ���� � Y,- CN"..) d O x t\- �r� ADS x A o P g9A — �= 1 1V1L � �I ('ij cif ..Ded Case No. GPA 00-06 CITY COUNCIL y;; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 01-9 - : Ir42 ri 1 It IT It Date: I'3- 1 ORDINANCE NO. 978 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO DISTRICT COMMERCIAL FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LOCATED ON 12 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND SHERYL AVENUE. CASE NO. C/Z 00-09 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of January, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of RICHARD HUGHES for approval of the above noted case; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval by adoption of its Resolution No. 2040; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project with mitigation measures and conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said change of zone: 1 . The zone change to PC-2 will be consistent with the general plan amendment. 2. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with adjacent proposed land uses. 3. The density resulting from the change of zone would not be incompatible with densities permitted in the adjacent areas. 4. The proposed change of zone will not depreciate property values, restrict the lawful use of adjacent properties or threaten the public health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. ORDINANCE NO. 978 2. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached hereto, and C/Z 00-09, Exhibit B attached hereto, are hereby approved. 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 15 ORDINANCE NO. 978 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street And Sheryl Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 �H P.R. a S"N. P.R.-4, VIA ANTANA 43. y A. ZBEEKMAN A ��. S.P. PL �a� k, RcRP.R-5 6 U47 CAjM'IYy O.P....,n.. p 44 4 OOA'.� T-!L' p�mN h,1 .3.. or o Q�og4 HOVLEY LANE EAST �v � ��, TR, AN P S.I. �*" FS.P. err ° ¢ ,t"r ma`s' 3 d ,r� �r P.R.-10 P.R.-17.5 0.S. S H NNON PL SMNrJAMFS C73� 5.+. r �y j S.I. 11 6g S.P.' ��+ -V �P 22 .�E V S.I. w �'i - il.-✓g�J MEDITERRANEAN S.I. i M 1 fYl n I i I II �_�`T`. -_�i� 7� _.. 42NDAVE _. I t , C„_I III C7 R-1L_M, MAYFAIR DR a—I. ' -S.17. VEI,IE WAY. N x dOd CAB ?N - Q GREEN S.I. p., (A--. —g � V,_ --1 . - ylI I, WAY Pd4 .. y R-1 �{ L _._ SEGO LN -1.21 'P" _y/F1-/ JONI DR W 1 P R-1-M ' a w ME F. i.;Vr-�- - �_._� MERLE DR Z u al■■■r.:'/111■■W.TMEG f ( ' d 1 -PA ■■a;riA t3U■■f R-3 S.I. w .-- x ,`' Fl■■■ ■■KO■■■ r— o• z > N ;1 a H- ''76 (4) 't .A GFAI ■ 11■■t�: R-3 5 - - 5 (4) -,0_.P SHERYL AVE i U V 1 O.S. MAGNESIA FALLS pR �N��\ \ �_W 9, w-' �LUnRMBINE ..... S.I. SAN nR SANTOIdNA DR F 7�- STRAW- \ .,j ? CORAL BELLS FLq P-ii a CIR CIR "i 1` O.S. '"� DAYLILY CIR WATER Y z 2 P N K MOSS ROSE AR y VIA O J CACHANILLA P'u24q0 -- P.R.-4 AMORMIO G COURT a P , N H Ll', _� ' GLAVEL ht P.R.-7 ERI\Sf - �I i ,. 1177 COURT 0 {� C! L R--1 V� IT',aCiaWMm T FETAL I sYwAw Proposed O A i PAIMIRA J P.R.-4, 4 � i~ `e ' A Inck �a ; i-t,S Zoning Change ASTER DRb- '� 9 OO V VIA v 1�T , .P� I,- t .>.0 �w N IIIT1Tl �I � � L- i I ■■■■■�"t z R-1 : o v� 7 o o CORFU zb ■■■ — </. R-1 a o r6 '6 b c'T 1I!II' ) P5N rt = _ o� a of I _ PC -(2Vg O r11�-�� �r=---.- .�� ;AA I��,`' h Y HIDDEN P1LtA3 I ..-a - \. eitY aiYaim.')exert Case No. C/Z 00-09 CITY COUNCIL /t a Chan, ' e of Zone ORDINANCE NO. 978 00' EXHI I> IT I Date: I6^ f RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LOCATED ON 12 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND SHERYL AVENUE. CASE NO. PP 00-21 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 25th day of January, 2001 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of RICHARD HUGHES for approval of the above noted case; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval by adoption of its Resolution No. 2040; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project with mitigation measures and conditions of approval will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said request: 1 . The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the district commercial zone. 2. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The precise plan of design 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 not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 1 I RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That Precise Plan 00-21 is hereby, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached hereto), is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2001 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JIM FERGUSON, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 19 RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PP 00-21 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement 3 RESOLUTION NO. ni-in shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 8. That all requested mitigation measures included in the WPA traffic study dated December 12, 2000 shall be conditions on this project. 9. Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be as follows: a. Gas station/convenience store: 5:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. b. Bowling Center: 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Friday and Saturday c. Restaurants: 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. After one full year of operation applicant may request modification of operational limits. 10. Project shall include onsite security per recommendation of the Palm Desert Police Department insuring that activity in the center does not threaten the public peace. 11 . This approval will be subject to submission of applications by owner changing designation of adjacent golf course from R-1 Single Family Residential to Open Space. 12. Applicant shall make a irrevocable offer of an access easement to out parcels on Sheryl Avenue for future inclusion into the project, including APN 624-241-015, 624- 241-008 and 624-241 -007. 13. Project shall include a bus stop and custom shelter in accordance with Sunline Transit recommendations. Department of Public Works: 1 . Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Costs associated with the installation of a traffic signal system may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought tolerant in nature. 8. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 11 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 12. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge 5 RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater discharges associated with construction. 13. Traffic safety striping on Cook Street and Sheryl Drive shall be provided to the specification of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 14. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the city's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Removal and reconstruction of concrete curb, gutter and paving at 43 feet from centerline on Cook Street and 22 feet on Sheryl Drive. Widening on Sheryl Drive shall begin approximately 100 feet westerly of the proposed project access point. * Installation of dedicated right turn pocket, approximately 80 feet in length with a 90 foot reverse curve, for the proposed Cook Street access. * Installation of a concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration on Sheryl Drive and Cook Street. * Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Sheryl Drive and the removal of existing traffic signal at Cook Street and Merle Drive. * Construction of raised landscaped median island in Cook Street between Merle Drive and the southerly project limits. The design of the median island at Merle Drive shall prohibit left turn movements from Merle Drive onto Cook Street. The cost of construction of the portion of the median between Merle Drive and Sheryl Drive shall be subject to reimbursement upon completion and acceptance of the improvement. * Existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground facilities in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code. * Installation of transit facilities in accordance with Sunline Transit Agency recommendations. 6 c-� RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 Street rights-of-way necessary to accommodate the required improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2- 1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelways. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A10BC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 7 d=� RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 10. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 11 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. Other: All turning radiuses around outside of parking lots must have a 31 ' inside and a 51 ' outside radius. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 01-10 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street And Sheryl Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 2-� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 AESTHETIC Project design includes perimeter landscaping and decorative walls to resemble residential development. Perimeter buildings are single story residential scale consistent with existing neighborhood. Overall quality of architecture and landscaping will be equal to or higher than surrounding area. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project is within the historical habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Pursuant to CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan and the recently approved MOU with the California Department of Fish and Game, a $600 per acre mitigation fee will be paid. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A portion of the site was created by unconsolidated fill in connection with the realignment of the Whitewater Storm Channel. Project will involve overexcavation and compaction of the site per soil engineer's recommendation. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER The project is adjacent to the earthen bank of the Whitewater Storm Channel which if left unprotected could fail during a major flood. Project mitigation includes completing the concrete lining of the channel from its current terminus .5 miles east of Portola to Cook Street. Xl. NOISE The project is located adjacent to Cook Street, an arterial highway which serves as a major access from an interchange at 1-10. Higher intensity uses are located on Cook Street with office use sites adjacent to Sheryl. The project will be bounded on the north by a six-foot block wall. Significant noise sources from commercial activity will be substantially contained within the buildings. Limitations of night time activities will further reduce noise impacts to a level of insignificance. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC See attached traffic study. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE With both physical and operational mitigation measures, all identified impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance. ENVIRONMENTAL, CH C'Ki ICT FORM 1. Project Title: 1 lr ��`� -elks Cx) `G'LA 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 13- (G r1`e cL 1,130tr t ur, \i/`. k (LA,A x 4✓- CAA- el, -)-t,0 3. Contact Person and Phone Number- lk-1 P t Ta LL._ ( 3 6, (0:, -Ott 4_ Project Location: :-OuLTtKA-��'��' t rr,r1-rtr" i LGC 4c .St Stta.eil t Ave- ,5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: (--) ' � [- cu:ut o . cfrl 6. General Plan Designation:1 Y"y tnt 7. Zoning: 1` t 8. Description of Project (Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary.) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) 1. 0 1..t(t; �u 4 � Sf4 � l.t--)e'.St:, fL u,+l"j` (-r-sCL'l-‘Y ("t�' S=t►t �L' �{'''"'<<�1"t_S c<�ca`([4, 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): CITY/R VPUB/1999/313785 FORM „J„ Page 1 of 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AI-r-ECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning O Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing ❑ Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impos upon the proposed project, nothing further is required )-/ 41/C) Date Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/1999r313785 FORM "1" EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation,or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts(e.g_ general plans,zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,lead agencies should normally address the questions form this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 37 85 FORM"T' Page 3 of 14 2� 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance_ SAMPLE QUESTION Less Than Significant Issues: Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ 'L ❑ ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 2 limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ 21/7 0 ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ 11( ❑ would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ 0 Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ � Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' 3 D Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imi Impact Incorporated Impact c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, D 0 ❑ due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 0 ❑ 0 ©. air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 0 0 0 �. to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ ❑ (`l' criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ people? IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "J" Page 5 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact Incorporated Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ ®/ other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 0 0 ❑ te wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 0 0 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 0 0 0 d biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 0 0 ❑ d Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ V historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 0 ❑ a archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ rd resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside 0 ❑ ❑ a of formal cemeteries? CITY/RVPUB/1999t313785 FORM "I" Ts___ ! _C i w Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imi Impact Incorporated Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 0 0 0 C, effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 0 0 ❑ ©. most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 Cr iii Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ 0 0 d iv Landslides? 0 0 0 Er b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 ❑ C/ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑ EV ❑ ❑ would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or of site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of ❑ ❑ 0 EY the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ 0 r2/ septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment D 0 ❑ V through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? CITY/RVP /19 UB 99/313785 FORM "1" IPage 7 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No[mpg Impact Incorporated Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ 0 ❑ ri/ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ l� hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ 0 ❑ Ef materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ (] 0 where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 0 ❑ ❑ the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ 0 0 requirements? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM"T' ■ Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No tm Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 ❑ 0 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ 0 area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 0 ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ [1:1, g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ 0 ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ (2 ❑ 0 injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ C]- CITY/RVPUB/1999l313785 FORM "T' ® Page 9 of 14 • Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im; Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 ❑ ra b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or 0 ❑ ❑ a regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ [Er natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 0 ❑ I:9, resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important 0 ❑ ❑ a mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 1 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in 0 0 l{ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ 0 Cf groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ V Cl ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ 0 g noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I" I _ _ _ - Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im Impact Incorporated Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ 0 the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either- ❑ ❑ ❑ ®, directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ 0 ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ 0 0 Police protection? 0 ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ 0 CITY/RVPUB/1 999/3 1 3 7 8 5 FORM "F' ® PaRe 11 of 14 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ImF Impact Incorporated Impact Parks? D 0 ❑ of Other public facilities? 0 0 0 fp' XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional D 0 0 Er parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require 0 0 0 0/ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation 0 L1 0 0 to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of D / 0 0 service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either D D D re an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature D 0 0 Ely (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 D 0 (� CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "T' ■ - Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imps Impact Incorporated Impact f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs ❑ D ❑ supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the 0 0 0 Ce applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ 0 0 Ee wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water . 0 0 0 ®/ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 0 D 0 [9/ project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Ie) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 0 0 CI LAY provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity El ❑ D Er- to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and ❑ D ❑ E/ regulations related to solid waste? CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I" IPaee 13 of 14 3i Less Than Issues: Signilunt Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Imp Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ ❑ D of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 l ❑ 0 limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? • CITY/RVPUB/1999/313785 FORM "I" 1 / ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 AESTHETIC Project design includes perimeter landscaping and decorative walls to resemble residential development. Perimeter buildings are single story residential scale consistent with existing neighborhood. Overall quality of architecture and landscaping will be equal to or higher than surrounding area. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project is within the historical habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard. Pursuant to CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan and the recently approved MOU with the California Department of Fish and Game, a $600 per acre mitigation fee will be paid. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A portion of the site was created by unconsolidated fill in connection with the realignment of the Whitewater Storm Channel. Project will involve overexcavation and compaction of the site per soil engineer's recommendation. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER The project is adjacent to the earthen bank of the Whitewater Storm Channel which if left unprotected could fail during a major flood. Project mitigation includes completing the concrete lining of the channel from its current terminus .5 miles east of Portola to Cook Street. XI. NOISE The project is located adjacent to Cook Street, an arterial highway which serves as a major access from an interchange at 1-10. Higher intensity uses are located on Cook Street with office use sites adjacent to Sheryl. The project will be bounded on the north by a six-foot block wall. Significant noise sources from commercial activity will be substantially contained within the buildings. Limitations of night time activities will further reduce noise impacts to a level of insignificance. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC See attached traffic study. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE With both physical and operational mitigation measures, all identified impacts have been reduced to a level of insignificance. ---i . .....• 101, . -'!:__, ! ,L-7 .• ..----:, .,-- \ ,----1 ‘ 1 1 ,i-- ' :-._. ••••-_, --.N P.R.-4, ,...•-- 1 ..1 \ \ 1 ,----"Er.oart&u, ,_....1-,--,.., ....„--,---,--., 1_,_____1.01:. ...-. ___L__. :10I .. i : •... •-''',....;,,, Cr% , r...`"*".• .1... , '....Z.- S.P. • • ,.. I., . --, _:.„-.---1---,----; ...4 .rt' •-4,-,.• ' • -,•'--\- ._, :,...„‘„12(N. tti,• ,....-:,.., . . _ L ..._ ___ .. .ro. --:---, I- • --) - :14."-- ,- ____; v . _.-.' -:,.:.•• . .--••:•.‘, '<ss. 4 .0 r _...` . e.' I ____LX.1...r/ -.0.4.-e..;74.4„..;;•9. .4k.... :54,??.., .• IBNTELLAST--- ---1 7 ' 1• ' : i i 1 ' . I i / :'.--`>. :,...-',. 41). ,- .-'',.---. .,--':--,:--' '-=---= :F.?.! i• 1, • -----iP ; SI --1 -----, uk:--: - ,,e ::,-..-•-•.0-.•-?.-•:•--,4. _•,-,i ; I : . ; - --• •--,4,- •-•--z;---5; 1 1 i ...-- .\ -:._._. :.;-.•....-RY•.''..-, - r•Tn ! PR -10 ... ..,-...-,,,, I i 1 . . t i .saitfiill---"; -----7,. ! JAMES • -,, 11.•••••••...i P.RJ-17.5 i g ; i j 1 l• 1 ; 7-M-, R i S.I. 7 . S 077' ! -------....' ." '. • Vstt^t, -•.. .— ; t. I 'S I t . ---• 4,,, , A„,. ..... _. - _ 1, i r.-78 ! • - - ; - --s--- . , s I --, . s i--1,191E4ERliowto-:-•••• S.I. '-- ':- -: ' Irriurim , _. ,, , . a „. ._, : LL___,_____::.R----1-M —4N . ' ---I :LI 1„:•- i. - ...---7 , , 1 . -.:.] • - • , 1 ; - • _, ---1 R T 1--'-' ., s , • dro..t.i, 1 -._..... i . _---= . -WAY • 1* ..• ra.---1 i g' S I i , 1 • ______ _ .' •-:':-•::j7. -i:-...-.:-.. —,,. R-1-M .-i ..r ...----<-:--* ...:;'" -4 i kJON1DR I I 1 i IRtglwr- ...,_ , -1 -1-----.6---" • .. 1 1 1 I 1 P . . ,--- . • : , 11. ...._. _-=.....--Atroi -L. . MERU DI !--1 5,7,..En1 ;-•- '--.-- .. .-- --.77-. --- ---rl_-- L- T. =:: . ----A---• M- --, • 4*7---z ti - ./1-n''..if,•: I I IU-1&3• ;I., 1 I I5iti -m, 1 • •••• --- 7- _,A-L-: - ' . '-.. ...,-;. 74„;(4)L ; f..• ...._L ;t___._ .,..._,.... -....•, -0; --. 13 ; . .• R . 1 ., ..,..........._ i _____ \ia --__ , • . ----..°R--•-------J .----cocratroc_ , t--I--w--7- ••••......„ ---* . •'--------....._, s.i. 9A29=* I ---,-.. ----__., ., ..,, ....... . , i ; . , •,...f.,pr:1 -1, : ---_,...--__ I: \ ---,„ -° -s- ' --,.....-1,,cetr 5. ------•-•,,,: I . • , __...' O.O.S. --''---. J----- --\---,..---cut— __Iz ,. - - :-... ...,z... P N • ._. . ......,- s __LL , ' . a . , . . • • . . v i . _ _ . r• -4.-..-- ., < l's s s I I i . • i . i .„...,... „ .•-... . - ,.... . .. .. -11 :83.. .1....rN,r"." !•',,, - R.R._4 i'; .-. :,. .....11 COURT P N ! ! • ! . • . I big P.R.-7 ---F7 - =t.;•.:,.....1.4- COURT 0 :•-,C;. - .-:... ----- . r•-- -- C • • , , , 4 lfat11139rAL:ii•.-"LIC:_aal...r. •-, ; i , , . . ,.,..., .,.. ..., . Proposed ''r- R-1 • '- . --J. itaiiiie,„4-..,..:44mon..3 igi, , .. • .• , * --,'' gq--,. .*" - . - •; 2-9000 :. . .'--i i,-r R_4 ‘''-i----.4•17 GPA s , .... --! 1'4 . ' Pt,'r, - '..8 •4-7: 2! ; .. . , • -----:-...)-- J.:,i * , : i Ili . r.!".'fltc tit:0'-::';. ! • . I - , . ,.... .. ..____ •. . . _ ._ : aumrE=D = ,--,,.,..--,,.,.--,1,,y>i,,,,-,--.--w.,,i-_,._____.- _!_ - ,-----._.--.. - ::-1-1, ii . Ili 1 . . . 1- .:.-•,. .)., . , .,, . . -.-- .-_,= 7" ---. .--. Low Density ---. 11,7_t____ F . , , au:-,. __;__ ..--- i----7----1 - 7_ - •.-_-• _ , --1--- .- = = _ ._ . __. -- _......-" _. Residential ..071F;7-- •.4 .___.r ----.--.\. ,--..Try' '''7".--'R•-•,;;.•••=s;..•• -- .---,---=•••=.,--1 -1---• --' -• -,.• - - - - • to R it • ,..--...__,•.:• • •.....,--,, :...,.-!_ •- • . ____,....... " --°- -112-1-- • 0 ---. •--,----- •-- -_. ..•- --- ---- - ------• District Commercial _, ---.--_-_-_-,-- . ___.- _r 1 C.3-- Z i4 .4...••• ' ••--..il: ---'7'• i_.. -___, f-.: .• "-:-2. :I.-- 17- -----:- - TanifiTOP444,- • -_-_- -..., ......_- , est*a i"atm.geoed Case No. GPA 00-06 PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. _ MI. , EXHIBIT B ii.': Date: 41. i 1 ` ° \ � }�� Iy • ;•'C f P.R.-4, �_.y 't t jam-_-- o.,: ire ��� P.R-5 S.P. '� r-�, i O O.P. 3 ��' a y1p A_ � 1 ,1 i ; ; ! .Y. � ' IjTJ I- �Pih .S P.R.-10 O.S. a L, 1 ,;' 11 P.R-17.5 I . 1e'"': 1 I ;S.11, ,� I� : ! x I , S.I. ; � ��'�f �'' �t� w am; > '• i S.I. 1�� • :--l` i AT .e` �" .`,,a: f S.I. azi3uav> I i ( ��— rrr--m rrrrr—Tn i R-1-M, I , ` I ; lI i 1 J O • _ ' CS. T WAY ......„__ # . - s1I R$" ILITi .i `-L 'I�� R 1- I .• I . ' 1 I . li , 1 ' 1 --ti i I • .77: --441.._ . MEWS DR= IIc lI , —s -- , — Lom a'_ LIi1i, (4) ; ,- � ` Lot i !� Ava f ,• ,. (4) .-r ,-- , .IO.S. _' i''_`___ — r. . _, I , . , __-_ � �R— it S :4StS :t ' I _ !I o�` I T— S.I. • `- •, i ! i s ': ' O.S. ''fir�Ll- �. I I , ;' L.ti N i I 1 ■�N P '` !!! `�� ' \� i. ra.+aa :'i =t.� - > . GFfIRL\ - = P - , ,_ s �T .R4 , � �no P N I T I %fi Cuv� !L P.R.-7 :› ! lam m ``" '' Proposed r R 1 P.R.-4 4- -� "- 1 a Zoning Change R 1 9 - i N . _ a pe 8! ` _ I : ' k _______ -1 1 7., *-, - J \, -- = - _ Tm : III I. IEEE_ R — _ R. —r '- ` — = _ P.0 (2) eity"lam` "iiir„),'\%,,TZ tea' Case No. C/Z 00-09 PLANNING COMMISSION a Change of Zone RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT,.,......„ :::„..., C Date: Nr/f W I LLD WPA Traffic Engineering A Division of Wi/ldan Serving Public Agencies 27042 Towne Centre Drive,Suite 270 Foothill Ranch,California 92610 949/470-8840 fax 949/770-9041 www.willdan.corn December 12, 2000 Mr. Richard Hughes The Hughes Company 71-890 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 SUBJECT: THE WELLS AT PALM DESERT - TRAFFIC STUDY Dear Mr.Hughes: This study presents a summary of traffic factors related to the proposed The Wells at Palm Desert development located on the west side of Cook Street south of Sheryl Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. The analyses contained in this study are based upon information provided by you, contact with City Staff, field studies conducted by our staff, and standard reference materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The total project which encompasses 83,879 square feet of gross floor area, consists of a service station with mini mart, a high turnover sit-down restaurant, a two-story building which will encompass both retail and office land uses, office buildings which will be located on three separate pads on site and a 40 lane bowling alley which will include a small restaurant/snack bar. Development of this project will take place in three(3)phases. A total of 335 parking spaces are being provided to serve the site. Table 1 provides a breakdown of each of the proposed land uses, by phase and the estimated square footage. In order to provide a comprehensive analyses of the project, the traffic study was completed assuming completion of all three phases. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City "Palm Desert __ -2- TABLE 1 PROJECT SUMMARY The Wells at Palm Desert LAND USE DESCRIPTION SIZE Phase I Service Station with Mini Mart 1,983 SF 12 Fueling Positions Restaurant 8,200 SF Two-Story Building - Office 6,000 SF -Retail 6,000 SF Office 3,000 SF Subtotal 25,183 SF Phase II Bowling Alley 40 Lanes (Includes Restaurant/Snack Bar) 48,696 SF Subtotal 48,696 SF Phase III Office 5,000 SF Office 5,000 SF • Subtotal 10,000 SF Total Phases I, II& III 83,879 SF WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert `-(S. -3- As mentioned previously,the proposed project is located on the south side Sheryl Avenue,west of Cook Street in the City of Palm Desert. Access to the site will be provided via Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. The proposed project will be located on vacant land, a portion of the existing golf facility, specifically the driving range, and assembled lots which will be rezoned PC-2. Figure 1 illustrates the project location in relationship to the surrounding street system. The project site plan is shown on Figure 2 and an artist rendering of the project on Figure 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS Cook Street is a north-south roadway,which provides four lanes of divided travel. At the northern terminus, Cook Street provides full access to the San Bernardino (I-10)Freeway. At the southern end, Cook Street terminates at Fairway Drive in the City of Indian Wells. No on-street parking is permitted on Cook Street within the study area. Both a bike lane and truck route is provided on Cook Street. Within the vicinity of the project,the speed limit on Cook Street ranges between 45 and 55 MPH. 42"d Avenue is a two lane roadway which is divided by a two-way left turn lane along portions of the roadway and is undivided along other portions. On-street parking is permitted along 42nd Avenue, which serves mostly an industrial/commercial area. The posted speed limit along 42nd Avenue ranges between 20 and 25 MPH. At the time this report was prepared, the intersection of 42nd/Cook was controlled by STOP signs; however, a signal is currently being installed. Merle Drive is an east-west roadway which runs between Mercury Circle to the west and Melanie Place to the east. West of Cook, Merle Drive is a two lane undivided roadway which serves a residential area. East of Cook,Merle Drive is a two lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane and serves an industrial/commercial area. On-street parking is permitted on Merle Drive. There is a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert 'C7� 1 No Scale COUNTRY CLUB DR. PALM PALM DESERT DESERT HOVLEY LANE EAST 4 Nt Ave ffflll //� H Co Z O 0H MERLE o, z cn INDIAN < SHE YLA' WELLS /A PROJECT SITE FRED WARING DR w w Q Q n Y O w Q O O O w H c z O O a 2 111 The Wells at Palm Desert PA 12855 jj jj 11hh�� ���i�lv �NCI�JJ- IIr,� Project FIGURE 1 Location Map 4.., A DIVISION OF WILLDAN SHERYL AVE _ — ° r................m.‘1,. 1 � - :A PHA InN{ ; �► � . —Ti\:114 — �J:J:1LLLl:LI ' 'L _ MI o1110111.101111012111 4•a 1 ___ __i__ Ili ,.., _ W, 1_. _ PHASE 2 \1_ R }' ' —-• —� —o Y _ t .�e, a g c — • _ l iiII IIIIIi.•( _ _ kilt ii Hui __ I , \_ E. /'., PHASES o W= SHERYL AVE - c,-¢ Cc . Lie ' ilif Nill �r.... l sr ATM �►ii : : :q _ roan J Q �,TGL a °� .... Project Site 4 , ,_ _ ,_______ -_ . ,..,.. ,..,:.,„. „. , _ c2 ); ii1 III I I1 l l l l""� ITll T 111I II II \\ N ff., TABULATION: - -y I =. PHASE1 _ _ 169,0D twh PLOT—SITE PLAN o PHASE 2. 122,250 eq Ita PHASE 3 50.825,sq ItZ 4 Q J TOTAL SITE'342.775 sq It C. PARKING: i ..a.•, PHASE 1 OFFICE -3000 sq h 5 per 1000 1 PHASE 2 BOWLING ALLEY 40 LANES 0 2 per LANE 8o H ., GAS STATION 1983 sq It CPD reguIre min 10 1 RESTAURANT 1000 sq h 1st 3000 sq It-.l g cars per 1000 sq ft p 0 5 CARS LOADING--UNLOADING - S RESTAURANT 8200 sq h 1st 3000 sq It-10 cars per 1000 sq h 39m CT 2nd 5000 eq h 45 are per 1000 sq tt 78 PHASE 3 OFFICES 2 0 5000 sq h each-10000 sq h 5 per 1000 50 W • RETAIL-OFFICES 12000 sq ft 5 per 1000 80 REQUIRED PARKING 328 CARS-ACTUAL 335 CARS • F- S—y,..n. N „ - '.''‘,„7*.FC,7*.ii.:r.. :"..,.-',..;-,2'.,,';',-*..',' ''''.'',.--r,.p-.... . •-,i.,'-F.,!'..n..-Plc.,,for,fr;-,.. ,-...S.;-.:-',-,'.',,,,......t.--F:L‘'• ' -•'''.'..,...4 r‘7,,,',4,, . .:.``ii,f.,''.' ';t,.'', ,:7,,.....":"--4...--• ' :- '-'....,',",'-''. • ''' ..;.,. .----.4';',.,)- ',,. ..'4',.:..„.',...-....,.,Azi'.i.--',--z.-4;---r,;...,.. '-A,';'i,,,.W.''.i.'',4'?". .':,,v,''...,v,,,,'„, .,,Er',Kr,',:,i'ft'''''' 1,,V.,14'; :f.,P7i,,,,-,',,'•- ..1.'.a",.: .,:',',,';.'„,,,,, " '''-.•. .. 4''' "i''-',:.:... .. ' ;.;.;' ? -.,--____, -,. „, ... .. .- -'------.5":.,,, --- .kf -.*,, , .,-- .N.-. ---- ------' . ...'.4.0.#'-- ':' 4tit,'VE ----, .-- „...-----' , - --'-'- ',7.." -,,,....... "--.--: ,_-...... ..,,,.. -, -. „ ow-•14 .7"tf '.'1,5077..".;. ' -.,,,..-C•;-:.:-.•'"' -:-----.' '---' '--- fir, ''' ---------'----------„:.--.---!`" .------- . ,.-.._..... . . ,....-...,. , . . ,.,. ... -,.....___ -- ---,-....._-,..- -...----'.-' ,--__-,-..... - --',---.-____ -'41i2,-s':- 4•02,, ,.. *1'' . ,'4 '•-' ' 4g.'"."‘i;" --'4"4"...1 \ .'' ' '---. '' ' ''''" -.'..('4..''';-6 '''''''''''''t"•••_.**4'''''. .....,--. ..„.....;---- .- ----.-.--44.:._.,. 7"...,..... --.;.- - - -----.., -'-•-....,r..,,,, 4,,-.•v-;:•-•''`. '..S.;....46, .4.001604i,-*--:- ' -.--- - • '—.' 1 ---- "''t-1-,21-aitt" ...7.-..:,.T, - '.1111,11 ,At_--rrii 7 gIUM '''' :*-1-*;': ":7- . .'". VI6 -44.0";11'"71100111'''''''' ' . ""1"...'"1 '.,111- .'''''." 1 ''liFg.".1117. -MU., ' k .2" ..,c7r-i --' ''' '',•-• : AI'IOW'•A ^-, ^ .14.---,......'.i-',..t.,::•= .=- „.,,,,..4 »4.7— , ....t.,,........,gbk.7,--i,,-.4.- ''''!'''''-'..-.47.74., m i ... ' . .1-' -- ..1/44.5 • ' ' i et''.7., ' ,, e-. • ,',+. ,..• '. ..-. . -- • A . 'PO , • ' -4.--- r-.-.......,--. ......."4 '.-----;,' - .."7:.!.4.0- ik-'...i._-L.t. - ------7- '=',..-:-, iirgi'-'1-1-'4'''lii.....,- . 1 1 ......•L'IL. ** Y.---.."'-- . -'j-.6.4--a.a =-4*;'-`: ...--"'-:--- -'‘-'','.''-''r::: i ..,..-------'--,4f.71*,--..:',h,4,-,,,,..''TIT''..-:--z----'','•". tiro -.-'..-' - '. , - __--..' --' , "",,,, ------- ......„,. .,__..._,1154111:- ____....,,t_4118-14, is _r. ,_11..t-..,;,a..,., -.)41„.R..46--.1„ -- _- - __. -..._ __,,• ---7,_,___,.., „,. „..,,,...,..,-,,,4.i :•„.... •.--7----- ..ii.- -.,,,,,,, . _ . ,,.1.,i or••,, - , v...t. • • ..••4,.....---- 41.;,-..,-,,,, -; ,,a,.1,-,„.::•i#%^* - -•-iv " •.,-",7"7",44,,-':',7,7'1F r.'--1 .,-..V''''-,' - .---- - '''''' - ,:t.,.7.,;-:-1.',,;,,,...-,. .,!:-..ei-,.4.,' :,,r,....4,4i4.4...r.,-/-44,.,,,F... ..va.:;---:':,---.:.:.:'1/2•••10P" - • - im... ._ , 1414,.....„,thr•• .4. ,i, v,,....,.: -;;;,..* T....4'; ...- -,;- e,-.,-,:.7----. ,:-1..:' -... , -,, "••••,., ,,-.:;-:7---;:%,,7: ;,---,,-,- . - '''61;:ii,":-'1:.3M:.:''''rt. -"' .'''•-i",-W.-'••••' .1.--. .,...r6a1-''.' fl/C....' ,i....14 r41"41c- ,. ,- --=-'.-.1,-.1.1-2.,..:41,14.7..Lr --,. .' --• - ---- . ' ''' ."''''''AiliV,I'' ''''.42dt......''2."'6'''''''.° ' "•''''."77-- ' ^„,..... . ,,.. The Wells at Palm Desert FIGURE 3 JOB#12855 Artist Rendering of 11"A ifRAFFIC 7_,N,'11\1-11_,-]1_,-iIN,1 Project Site t A DIVISION OF WILLDAN LI -4— Sheryl Avenue provides east-west travel between Christian Street and Melanie Place. Similar to Merle Drive, Sheryl Avenue provides two lanes of undivided travel west of Cook Street and serve a residential area. East of Cook,Sheryl Avenue is a two lane roadway divided by a two-way left turn lane and serves a commercial/industrial area. The curb-to-curb width of Sheryl is also wider on the east side of Cook. On-street parking is permitted along Sheryl Avenue. There is a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. Currently Sheryl Avenue is STOP sign controlled at Cook Street. Clifford Street is a two lane residential street which runs between Sheryl Avenue and Merle Drive. Fred Waring Drive is an east-west roadway which runs between Highway 111 to the west and Indio Boulevard, in the City of Indio, to the east. This four lane roadway is divided by both a two-way left turn lane in sections and a raised median. No on-street parking is permitted along Fred Waring Drive, within the study area. The speed limit along Fred Waring Drive ranges between 40 and 50 MPH. Contact was made with the City of Palm Desert Engineering Department to review the scope of the project. It was determined that AM and PM peak hour traffic counts would be conducted at the four study intersections of 42nd/Cook, Merle/Cook, Sheryl/Cook and Fred Waring/Cook. Both of the study intersections of Merle/Cook and Fred Waring/Cook are signalized,while the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook is controlled by STOP signs on Sheryl Avenue. Although the study intersection of 42nd/Cook is presently STOP signed controlled, a signal is currently being constructed and will be in operation in the near future. Due to the close proximity of the project to the adjacent residential area and the potential for cut-through traffic within this residential area,24-hour daily traffic counts were conducted on Clifford Street so the impacts could be examined. In order to provide data on the current operations of the study intersections, existing counts were conducted during the AM (7-9) and PM (4-6) peak hours by Counts Unlimited, a traffic counting firm. The existing count data is illustrated on Figure 4 and can be found in Appendix C. Existing geometries at the study intersections were also collected for use in the intersection analyses and are illustrated on Figure 5. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert i I _400 _ No Scale in \ \ HOVLEY LN.E LN.cn-,..NN. o N O N 25/53 N g f 18/10 °° o 4( 66/85 N 71/95 42ND AVE • N/ao { 1/1 /� 1 41/85 40//5 17/5—>-- t 91/136-\ 70/321 ''''rt(r. coo^M 0/1 st 24/12 \ NnN _,,\n.,w r. N MERLE DR �. N (---c° O I Nr cop J CC wLESLIE AV nr =m 8/21 N{ O/Sz GARY AV N (() 1 11/50 U SHERYLAV 4/15 �• / 51/59-\ v)^\ /PROJECT/ �V;� SITE CU m NIN. ty)VI M 1/40 CO" m N. 368/174 ��� f 1116/816 / 83/44 FRED WARING DR • 295/2501 if 536/1100—).- it- o m 83/71 ON.N NI- N C ""N M W I- > co a g 0 0 0 I- U ly U d Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes w 334 Daily Volume JOB#12855 �1 1j rII_ A TRAFFIC 7ligli �l1NU FIGURE 4 A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Existing Volumes ..51 No Scale W o HOVLEY LN.E 42ND AVE '` 'V o MERLE DR o :0) a 6 a U W a. m LESLIE AV V~1 GARY AV SHERYL AV • /PROJECT% / SITE //A FRED WARING DR `QQ -ci-ffi- I ��Q I Legend U) Existing Lane o '4k Not Stripped But 0 0 Utilized as a Lane a Signalized STOP Stop Sign Control 0 Signal Under Construction The Wells at Palm Desert JOB#12855 FIGURE 5 IPA TRAFFIC jNGINji_ING Existing Geometrics A DIVISION OF WILLDAN & Signal Control -5- The unsignalized study intersection of Sheryl/Cook was analyzed utilizing the 1998 Highway Capacity Software which is based upon the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM), Third Edition'. The procedures contained in this 1998 publication,from the Transportation Research Board(TRB), are based upon determining the average total delay for drivers at the intersection. The signalized intersections were analyzed utilizing CAPSSI software, which is also based upon the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. In these intersection analysis procedures,the operating conditions are defined in terms of Level of Service (LOS). The Levels of Service are described as letter "grades",which are associated with vehicle delay times,where"A"is considered the best and"F" is the worst(over capacity). It is generally recognized that LOS A through D represent acceptable intersection operations, while LOS E and F indicate a near capacity to over capacity situation. A detailed description of LOS and associated delay ranges,which relate to each LOS,are contained in Appendix A. Table 2 summarizes the results of the intersection analyses under existing conditions. As shown in Table 2, all of the study intersections are operating at acceptable Levels of Service, except for the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook which is operating at an unacceptable LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The supporting intersection analyses worksheets are provided in Appendix B of this study. Signal Warrants The justification for the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection is based upon the warrants found in the Caltrans Tragic Manual2. The installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the warrants are met. It should be noted that the m decision to install a signal should not be based solely upon the warrants. Highway Capacity Manual, Third Edition;Transportation Research Board(TRB); 1998. 2 Tragic Manual; California Department of Transportation(Caltrans); Chapter 9 "Traffic Signals and Lighting",Warrant 11; July, 1996. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert 3 TABLE 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUMMARY The Wells at Palm Desert LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS) EXISTING+OTHER INTERSECTION EXISTING CONDITIONS EXISTING+OTHER EXISTING+OTHER +PROJECT CONDITIONS CONDITIONS +PROJECT CONDITIONS W/MITIGATIONS AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR AM PK HR PM PK HR Signalized Intersections 42nd Ave. /Cook Street B B B B B B - - Merle Dr. /Cook Street - (Sheryl Unsignalized) B B B B B B -- (Sheryl Signalized) - - - - B B - - Fred Waring/Cook St. C D D D D D - - Proposed Signalized Intersection Sheryl Ave. /Cook St. - - - - C C - - -Proposed Signal Sheryl Ave./Cook St. - - - - C C - - -Alternative Design Unsignalized Intersections Sheryl Ave./Cook St. F F F F F F (1) (1) Merle Dr. /Cook St. - - - - B B (2) (2) -Alternative Design (1) Signalize Intersection (2) Remove Signal; Merle STOP Control WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert i ch 1 -7- As shown in Table 2,the intersection of Sheryl/Cook is currently operating at an unacceptable Level of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. A signal warrant analysis was performed at the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook to ascertain if the study intersection currently satisfies the Caltrans signal warrant. Warrants for the installation of traffic signals have been developed by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans. These warrants are based upon various factors including volumes and time periods. The Caltrans "Peak Hour Volume"warrant (Warrant 11) was applied to the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook. Based upon the guidelines for determining the applicable warrant,Figure 9-9 (Rural Areas)was utilized in these analyses as indicated in the cManual whereby;Tra i the"rural"warrant _� is specified when the major street has a speed limit over 64 km/h(40 MPH). Appendix D contains Figure 9-9 and the warrant for the unsignalized intersection. As shown in Appendix D, the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook currently does not meet the warrant for signalization under existing conditions as the minimum volume threshold on the minor street is not met. PRE-PROJECT CONDITIONS Other Area Projects The City of Palm Desert Planning Department was contacted to determine if there were any approved but not yet constructed projects in the area of the proposed project location to be included in these analyses. Based upon discussions with the City staff,there were eight non-residential and four residential "other area"projects to be included in these analyses. The locations of the "other area"projects are depicted on Figure 6. The City of Indian Wells was also contacted to obtain any approved but not yet constructed projects which may add traffic to the study intersections. There is one project,located north of Fred Waring Drive, south of Hovley Lane and east of Cook Street which is located within the vicinity of the proposed project. This project, however,has not been approved by the City and the City indicated that it is unknown at this time when this project may get approval. Therefore, it was not included in these analyses. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert 55 I -� - No Scale COUNTRY CLUB DR. HOVLEY LANE WEST HOVLEY LANE EAST 2000-054 2000-060 2000-002 2000-046 • 2000-071 42ND AVE 2000-058 2000-061 MERLE DR SHERYLAV 2000-020 / A 2000-038 2000-033 \- PROJECT �� SITE FRED WARING DR \...........1 wfl co >- gz 0 0 0 ° O Z U o o O a _ -2000-072 2000-059 lib Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes JOB#12855 FIGURE 6 VA Mfg ITNINTRINGUII...bDistribution A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Other Area Projects)5° -8- A trip generation analysis was performed so the impacts of the "other area" projects on the study intersections could be evaluated. Trip generation rates applicable to the"other area"projects were referenced from Trip Generation3 and are shown on Table 3. These rates were applied to the"other area"project's proposed land uses. Table 4 indicates that the"other area"projects are estimated to generate a total of 6,960 daily trip ends of which 570(185 In, 385 Out)would occur during the AM peak hour and 765 (405 In, 360 Out) would occur during the PM peak hour. These trips were assigned to the surrounding street system. Ambient Growth Another factor to take into consideration within the traffic analysis is growth from outside the area, which may impact the study area. In order to account for traffic from outside the City limits, a growth rate was applied to the existing traffic volumes and projected to the project opening day. As stated earlier in this report, the proposed project is expected to be built in three phases. The final phase of the proposed project is anticipated to be complete and occupied by the end of the Year 2003. The existing peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections were then projected to the future Year 2003. Based upon discussions with City of Palm Desert staff,a growth rate of 5 percent per year was utilized. Figure 7 illustrates the other area volumes and ambient growth volumes utilized in this study,based upon the parameters discussed above. Existing plus "Other Area"Projects plus Ambient Growth Analysis Intersection Analyses Trips generated by other area projects and ambient growth were combined with existing volumes, resulting in pre-project conditions. Figure 8 illustrates these volumes. Intersection analyses were re-calculated under existing plus other conditions. 3 Trip Generation, 6th Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE); 1997. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan) #12855 City of Palm Desert 5'1 TABLE 3 -9- TRIP GENERATION RATES The Wells at Palm Desert TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR" LAND USE DESCRIPTOR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT Proposed Project Service Station Vehicle with Convenience Market Fueling Positions 162.78 5.03 5.03 6.69 6.69 Passby Reduction Percentage(2) - 62% 62% 56% 56% Restaurant- (High Turnover Sit-Down) Per 1,000 SF 130.34 4.82 4.45 6.52 4.34 Passby Reduction Percentage(2) - - - 43% 43% Bowling Alley Per Lanes 33.33 1.88 1.25 1.24 2.30 General Office Per 1,000 SF Daily: Ln(T) =0.768 Ln(x)+3.654 AM Peak Hour: Ln(T)=0.797 Ln(x)+ 1.558 (88% In/12 % Out) PM Peak Hour: T= 1.121(x)+ 79.295 (17%In/83% Out) Retail Per 1,000 SF Daily: Ln(T)=0.643 Ln(x)+5.866 AM Peak Hour: Ln(T)=0.596 Ln(x)+2.329 (61%In/39% Out) PM Peak Hour: Ln(T)=0.660 Ln(x)+ 3.403 (48% In/52%Out) Other Area Projects General Light Industrial Per 1,000 SF 6.97 0.81 0.11 0.12 0.86 Medical Office Per 1,000 SF 36.13 1.94 0.49 0.99 2.67 Single Family Residential Per Dwelling Unit 9.57 0.19 0.56 0.65 0.36 Apa'Intents Per Dwelling Unit 6.63 0.08 0.43 0.42 0.20 (1)Trip Generation, 6`"Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE); 1997. (2) "Trip Generation Handbook", Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE); October 1998. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert TABLE 4 TRIP GENERATION- OTHER AREA PROJECTS The Wells at Palm Desert TRIP ENDS PROJECT# LOCATION LAND USE SIZE AM PEAK HOUR PMPEAKHOUR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT Non-Residential Projects 2000-060 -No Permits 75-145 St. Charles Place Industrial Bldg. 9,260 SF 60 10 Nom Nom 10 2000-002 -No Permits 75-130 St. Charles Place Industrial Bldg. 16,427 SF 110 15 Nom Nom 1 2000-054-No Permits 75-180 St. Charles Place Industrial Bldg. 8,800 SF 60 5 Nom Nom 10 2000-071 -Under Construction 42-100 Beacon Hill Industrial Bldg. 12,766 SF 90 10 Nom Nom 10 Industrial Bldg. 5,000 SF 30 5 Nom Nom 5 2000-058 -Under Construction 75-200 Merle Dr. Industrial Bldg. 14,832 SF 100 10 Nom Nom 15 2000-061 -Under Construction 75-175 Merle Dr. Industrial Bldg. 12,768 SF 90 10 Nom Nom 10 2000-072-No Permits 10 Village Court Medical Office 7,430 SF 270 15 5 5 20 2000-059-No Permits 2 Village Court Office Bldg. 4,706 SF 130 15 Nom 15 70 Subtotal-Non-Residential Projects 940 95 5 0 _ 165 Residential Projects 2000-046-No Permits Cook - Hovley Street Apartments 612 DU 4,100 50 265 255 120 2000-038 -Under Construction Canyon Crest Single Family 68 DU 650 15 40 45 25 2000-020-Under Construction 76-400 Moss Rose Rd. Single Family 64 DU 610 10 35 40 25 2000-033 -Under Construction 43-920 Deep Canyon Single Family 69 DU 660 15 40 45 25 Subtotal-Residential Projects 6,020 90 380 385 195 TOTAL 6,960 185 385 405 360 WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert '—' 0 r l —� — No Scale o w U') HOVLEY LN.E ~ \o N 10/15 °a in/N In 5/0 in ono $ /� �� 15/10 NM i 5/25 42ND AVE • �,N 110/30 55/0� ��f 15/20 u� \.-.o In\ 10/5} � �- N2 5/0--\ I\n�o \N in N MERLE DR c o O U O w N LESLIE AV LL \ice �0/5 N o.-" In -4(-- 0/0 GARY AV 4')io / 0/10 0 0 SHERYL AV • .,7-- 0/0} `N'1' / /////// loiio� c.,, 7 PROJECT% �' SITE ///////// co^ In 70/50 l f 185/175 l�N 120/15 FRED WARING DR • 65/651 *.TT(r- 125/195—>-- o00 20/15 N1.a CUln� W ' I- > cn Q y 0 0 0 I-- U x O a Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes JOB#12855 PAFIGURE 7 TRAFFIC JNGIEING Other Area Projects + A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Ambient Growth Volumes I —406 — No Scale in ko RI (.77- ,,,.s.,.... o c0 E:N 35/68 HOVLEY LN.E N'"M 23/10 o o m 8 1 71/95 0� 76/120 42ND AVE 11 • ..tiif 1 51/115 45/1031 --T, t(r- 22/5—>,- 106/156 o v.-, � c�p\ 80/37 1 '1'1' N'il 0/1� (') h. 29/12 N v•ri '� v c � N o as 0+ MERLE DR 0 N m 0 °."° 0 W �. w LESLIE AV it Q N m V 8/26 ce I in { 0/1 GARY AV A2 if I 11/60 I I SHERYL AV 4/51 ��� / 3/1�- j ////�//j 61/69� NNE PROJECT/ Nr o o / SITE / �ii//////� NmN v v N 438/224 / f 1301/991 /L i� 1 103/59 FRED WARING DR • 360/3151 ..Nr Af(19- 661/1295—>- 103/86 v NnJQs L,r2 M(0) W I— > U) Q 0 0 0 I- U w 0 a Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes JOB#12855 j (� FIGURE 8 'A TRAFFIC 1NGINJJAc Existing + Ambient Growth + A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Other Area Project Volumes y\, -11- As shown in Table 2,under existing plus other conditions all of the study intersections continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service, except for the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook, which continues to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service F during both the AM and PM peak hours. Signal Warrants As shown in Table 2,the intersection of Sheryl/Cook continues to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service during both the AM and PM peak hour. A signal warrant analysis was performed at the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook to ascertain if the study intersection would satisfy the Caltrans signal warrant. Again,the Caltrans"Peak Hour Volume"warrant(Warrant 11)was applied to the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook. As shown in Appendix D,the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook would not meet the warrant for signalization under existing plus other conditions as the minimum volume threshold on the minor street is still not met. PROJECT CONDITIONS Trip Generation In order to analyze the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development, it is necessary to estimate the trip generation. Trip generation rates for specified land uses within the development were referenced from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)publication,Trip Generation'', and are presented in Table 3. These trip generation rates were then applied to the land uses within the project and the resulting project trip generation is shown in Table 5. The proposed development is estimated to generate a total of 5,970 daily trip ends, of which 420 (250 In, 170 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour and 825 (295 In, 530 Out)trip ends would occur during the PM peak hour. It is important to note that the ITE Trip Generations manual recognizes a"passby" occurrence at service stations and restaurants. This means that many patrons of these two uses stop on their way to other locations(i.e.on their way home or on their way to work). It can be seen that this"passby" 4 Trip Generation,Sixth Edition; Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE); 1997. 5 Trip Generation Handbook; Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE); October 1998. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert TABLE 5 -12 TRIP GENERATION-PROPOSED PROJECT The Wells at Palm Desert TRIP ENDS LAND USE SIZE AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT Phase I Service Station w/Mini Mart 12 Fueling Positions 1,950 60 60 80 80 Passby Reduction = (35) (35) (45) (45) Subtotal (Service Station) 1,950 25 25 35 35 High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 8,200 SF 1,070 40 35 55 35 Passby Reduction = _ _ (25) (15) Subtotal (Restaurant) 1,070 40 35 30 20 Office (Two Story Building) 6,000 SF 150 15 5 15 70 Retail (Two Story Building) 6,000 SF 1,120 20 10 50 50 Office 3,000 SF 90 10 Nom 15 65 Subtotal-Phase I(without passby) 4,380 145 110 215 300 Subtotal-Phase I(with passby) - 110 75 145 240 Phase II Bowling Alley 40 Lanes 1,330 75 50 50 90 Subtotal-Phase II 1,330 75 50 50 90 Phase III Office 5,000 SF 130 15 5 15 70 Office 5,000 SF 130 15 5 15 70 Subtotal-Phase III 260 30 10 30 140 TOTAL PHASES I,II&III(Without Passby) 5,970 250 170 295 530 TOTAL PHASES I,II&III(With Passby) - 215 135 225 470 WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert C3 -13-- factor reduces potential impacts on the adjacent roadway,since the traffic is already on the street for another purpose. The "passby"reduction can not be applied to the driveway volumes or adjacent intersections, such as Sheryl/Cook. With the"passby"reduction, the proposed project is estimated to generate 5,970 daily trip ends, of which 350 (215 In, 135 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour and 695 (225 In, 470 Out) trip ends would occur during the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution and Assignment Distribution percentages were developed for the proposed project based upon a review of regional land uses,the type of land use proposed,the surrounding street system,and the proximity of freeway access. Due to the fact that the intersection of Sheryl/Cook is presently unsignalized, there could be a potential for project traffic to utilize Clifford Street as a cut-through to the intersection of Merle/Cook where it may be easier to access Cook Street and travel northbound. Two scenarios were included in these analyses; (1) Sheryl/Cook unsignalized and (2) Sheryl/Cook signalized. Figures 9A and 9B illustrates the project distribution percentages utilized in these analyses for the unsignalized and signalized scenarios,respectively. The project generated trip ends for the proposed project,were then assigned to the surrounding street system and the project access points based upon the distribution percentages. The resulting project trip assignment volumes at the study intersections are illustrated on Figures 10A and 10B for the unsignalized and signalized scenarios,respectively. The project volumes at the access locations are illustrated on Figures 11 A and 11 B, for the unsignalized and signalized scenarios, respectively. Analyses The proposed project volumes were then added to the existing plus other plus ambient growth volumes, so that the project impacts upon the study intersections could be evaluated. Figures 12A and 12B illustrate the volumes under existing plus other plus project coniditions. HCM analyses were again recalculated for the existing plus other plus project conditions and the results are provided in Table 2,which was presented earlier. The supporting intersection analyses worksheets are contained in Appendix B. As shown in Table 2,all of the study intersections continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours, except for the study WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert 0 MERLE DR I (r5% 15 \ ® O 10% 111 No Scale LESLIE AV w ( ) 0 co 0 GARY AV I U = HOVLEY LN.E U In„ 5;A)•� SHERYLAV • � 4 • 42ND AVE / 15%/ 2< PROJECT /////// MERLE DR • o U U � LESLIE AV y Z GARY AV N x SHERYLAV • PROJECT / SITE //A o in inin cu FRED WARING DR 1 25% • 30% a 30%} 25% 5 o I- 0 0_ F- U) 0 0 U Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert JOB#12855 (� �j j�j(� FIGURE 9A tl 1AFFIC -IGI 1JJ1llll� Project Distrubution A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Unsignalized) (() MERLE DR �/ i• _CT` r 5% 5 '� �� In N 10% No Scale LESLIE AV I- w f) H 0 J (n O Q Z LL. Q LL. GARY AV � U o' HOVLEY LN.E I in' Ino M �/ 85 SHERYLAV � • if 5%\�25X �p • 42ND AVE 50%25%� 1 12V/ Y coE MERLE DR N • ce a U U LJ a LESLIE AV J 4 w � ti) U Z GARY AV F. Y2 cc SHERYLAV • j //////// PROJECT/ � SITE //////// o in in ., FRED WAKING DR _25% —0(---).— • Q 30% �� s0%} 25% a o in H cC 0 a H 0) 0 0 0 t :-•=', to Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert JOB#12855 FIGURE 9B �?A 1iiIC 1N�IN_l_J�IN� Project Distrubution A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Signalized) I _el '11®1 _ No Scale o LiE IN N. HOVLEY LN.E o N n N 0/0 0 1/40 0 ,,3,� f o / 0/0/00 0 N o i) c) 0/0 42ND AVE ( • ,° --0(--- 0/0 0/0_7 �t� //i ,1, / 0/0 0/0—)P- 0/0-\ N. o00 2ono ....T\'i'1/4(7.- 0/0 o 0 0 0/0 o N..o 0 N MERLE DR o a 0 K I!') u 2 7„/"....-1-------n V'7 m LESLIE AV LL 4 0 0 N. 0/0 ct 0 �� �/ 0/0 GARY AV F 0/0 Cott I SHERYLAV 25/80} ....T #1'(-7°- / 45/130 \ Noo PROJECT / SITE N. ////////// 0 in NNN o o M 55/55 NI- OJf 0/0 /ii � 1- 0/0 FRED WARING DR • 65/70} ....0 'lk(V' 0/0-->- o tr)o 0/0-.\ o ro o 0 C) Lu {- > u) Q Y O 0 O H U CC 0 d Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes JOB#12855 � n L 7 7 FIGURE 10A _ A _ _ _IjI�ii J Project Volumes A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Unsignalized) 1 _ 414011Lik ____ No Scale o HOVLEY LN.E o �inN.N �0/0 0 o1DO 0/0 ,1.),N f 0 1 o/o II Inn 0/0 42ND AVE • �i� io,o o/o� ��� o/o-\ -" ��� 5/25 o v 0/0 —>.-- olno i 0/0 o;o N. In ro MERLE DR o cc 0 (-----nVl w2\ O 2 LESLIE AV aN n \ 0/0 22 ° M -� O/O 0/0 GARY AV_F cc SHERYLAV - — •45/135 �t� ' ���/////00 Noo40/130 ØPROJECT7 0 SITE co 0 In v a � 55/55 f_ 0/0 ,A)NN 1 0/0 FRED WARING DR • 65/701 'Nr.. i.'(-7". 0/0 0 in o 0/0 \co o\o 0 M w H > v> a J 0 0 U 1 U fx 0 d Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes JOB#12855 n n FIGURE 10B IPA 1AFIC �NjIN�i�II\j Project Volumes A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Signalized) 401 No Scale GARY AV F - z w 0 U F J 2 U U 0 In 215/250 SHERYL AV- • 25/80 70/210 )5/45 PROJECT 75/240 SITE co co o Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Palm Desert *100 Daily Volumes JOB4IN55 FIGURE 11A IA Project Volumes at Access Points A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Unsignalized) tE1)11 No Scale GARY AV H H U >- Z o w J O F- c c = U 1 U 0 215/250 SHERYLAVj • 10/25 85/265 // .4) 35/45 PROJECT 75/240-\ SITE F- U) o Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Palm Desert c00 Daily Volumes JOB#12855 FIGURE 11B �7t1 TikF7IC ���I����IN� Project Volumes at Access Points A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Signalized) l _Ii®LN _ Ur No Scale in co N HOVLEY LN.E o cooN 35/68 0 0 0 �`" -� 23/10 o\ o, / 71/95 `\°N m 42ND AVE Tro T 76/120 • ,_.)1 ',qr., Alk(7.- /1 1 51/115 4522/5/3 —>—I ov-.-, 106/156 v crs(-0 100/107 a ��� —Ln 0/1 in a r 29/12 cu Q\MN. (UNO, T MERLE DR o 1 o M a N coU o ,I wLESLIE AV = 4 cv a v 8/26 0/1 GARYAV r 1 ,A}i, 1 11/60 I 0 SHERYLAV 29/85 '-O•cN-u'.S.•ccN'rir,k,. • 3/1 / ///////� cis 106/199 \ M jPROJECT / M o SITE No� ////////// co n � � inNI- in v v ‘,0 493/279 cu —4E _ 1301/991 ..46)ic1, 1103/59 FRED WARING DR • 425/385} �'Ikr7.- 661/1295 103/86� ---° v Lu H > co a O 0 U I U ct d Legend • Study Intersections The Wells at 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Palm Desert FIGURE 12A JOBS 12855 7 7 Existing + Ambient Growth + pi li_tit_ilv �ndjy�_i_tild Other + Project Volumes A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Unsignalized) 1 - - No Scale In m M i a HOVLEY LN.E o co o N 35/68 c 0 cu ,CIl. 23/10 o-. o o /� �� 171/95 a m 76/120 42ND AVE _ • A')if� 151/115 45/103_, --T, is(T., 2/5 106/156 CA o 85/62} �t(1".. It) 0/1—›- If)n Tr r. 29/12-\ a m el Nmm m MERLE DR o N c o El � v as in WLESLIEAVLL 8/2616 � 0/1 GARY AV F 11/60 E I I SHERYLAV 49/1501 • • 101/199 \ air, / F. (0/J/E/C/Tt0 SITE / CO cu In sr N v v N 493/279 Al f 1301/991 1 103/59 FRED WARING DR • 425/385] ..4‘ t(ve 661/1295- - in r,co 103/86 .,- NNE M w I- Q (I) Q 0 O O I- U i O a Legend • Study Intersections The Wells at 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Palm Desert FIGURE 12B JOB#12855 -I-� Existing + Ambient Growth + 1AFFICPA i-�nGINii_ING Other + Project Volumes A DIVISION OF WILLDAN (Sheryl / Cook Signalized) -14- intersection of Sheryl/Cook,which is operating at an unacceptable LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. Signal Warrants A signal warrant analysis was performed at the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook to ascertain if the study intersection would satisfy the Caltrans signal warrant under existing plus other plus project conditions. As shown in AppendixD,the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook would meet the warrant for signalization under existing plus other plus project conditions. Intersection analyses were again preformed with the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook signalized under existing plus other plus project conditions. As shown in Table 2, with signalization and an added eastbound left turn lane, the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. As a part of the signalization, the south side of Sheryl Avenue westerly of Cook Street should be widened to align with the south side, east of Cook. This would allow for the provisions of a left and through/right lane on the eastbound approach. In addition,the northbound left turn pocket on Cook Street at Sheryl Avenue would need to be extended to provide a 300 foot pocket. Signalization would also make this intersection more attractive to project traffic and reduce the propensity to utilize local streets to reach the traffic signal on Cook Street at Merle. It is estimated that an additional 450 daily trips would use Clifford Street without the signal and 150 daily trips with the signal. These volumes are well within the range for the capacity of a residential street. Alternative Design An alternative design would be to signalize the intersection of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue and remove the existing signal at Cook Street and Merle Drive, and install a raised median on Cook Street from Merle Drive to the southern boundary of the proposed project with a break at the intersection of Cook/Sheryl. This design would allow left turns from Cook Street onto Merle Drive, but would not provide for left turn from Merle Drive to Cook or through movements on Merle Drive. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert _15- In addition, the driveway located on Sheryl Avenue, which will serve the project site, should be designed and constructed with no restrictions for ingress but egress should be restricted to right turn only. This design should help prevent project traffic from intruding into the residential neighborhood to the north. Due to the proposed lane/intersection configuration at Merle/Cook and Sheryl/Cook, existing and future volumes would be re-routed from the Merle/Cook intersection to the Sheryl/Cook intersection. These re-routed volumes are illustrated in Appendix 1. In addition,the proposed project distribution was revised and can be found in Figure 13A. The proposed project volumes at the study intersections under this alternative design are illustrated on Figure 13B, with the project volumes at the proposed driveways illustrated on Figure 13C. The project volumes were added to existing plus other conditions with the re-routed volumes. These volumes are illustrated on Figure 13D. The study intersections of 42nd/Cook and Fred Waring/Cook were not affected by the alternative design and therefore were not re-analyzed. As stated earlier,this alternative design would remove the signal at Merle/Cook,providing a raised median along Cook at Merle which would incorporate northbound and southbound left turn movement. Merle Drive would be controlled by a STOP sign, for the eastbound and westbound right turn movements. Based upon the low volumes which were re-routed to Sheryl Avenue, the impact of removing the signal and constructing a raised median along Cook would be minimal. HCM analyses were calculated for the intersection of Merle/Cook under existing plus other plus project conditions. As shown in Table 2, the study intersection of Merle/Cook with the alternative design, would operate at acceptable Levels of Service as a unsignalized intersection. The re-routed traffic from the Merle/Cook intersection was added to the Sheryl/Cook intersection along with the distributed project traffic. Intersection analysis under the alternative design was performed at the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook as a signalized intersection under existing plus other plus project conditions. As shown in Table 2, the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook would operate at acceptable Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak hours. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert M MERLE DR PA i• _ TIN T t;C..; m 10% No Scale LESLIE AV � w f).-- CD J CO 0 Q Z 0 Q GARY AV P 11 u) 0 Ct HOVLEY LN.E I 0 ,...: T .12 L° o M SHERYL AV 185 /� if 42ND AVE 55%�30%J' 70 • •/ // 25%� 1 r /// I` IS/./ o PROJECT SITE 45?t ////// MERLE DR o N • c, a o U 0 W U LL m LESLIE AV J N U Z GARY AV H y g x 0 SHERYL AV • 7ROJECT/ SITE / oinin el.�i N FRED WARING DR I �25% f9-- •• f� 30% a 30%} f 25% o In 1- ix 0 a I- 0) Y 0 0 0 t .,?..; Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert FIGURE 13A JOB#12855 UA 1iAI'F'IC iii,NGINTrili- ING Project Distrubution rYI / Cook Signalized & A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Merle / Cook Unsignalized) 5 -k 65/70 I MERLE DR (4111 �• _ 0 No Scale LESLIE AV w 0 J Q J 0 Z LL LL GARY AV U HOVLEY LN.E In in U a � m m In SHERYL AV I, • 55/160} • 42ND AVE r 40/130` in co PROJECT SITE MERLE DR • V LESLIE AV K N U GARY AV to SHERYLAV • PROJECT/ SITi/////E // oo � po In aNf`7 FRED WARING DR A,)�� N_55/55 65/701 In 0 c) c O d I- Y 0 0 U Legend The Wells at • Study Intersections Palm Desert FIGURE 13B JOB#12855 �^ NAFFIC � r � r Project Volumes _ ri ��U��JJ���U / Cook Signalized & (Sheryl A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Merle / Cook Unsignalized) —� — No Scale GARY AV F I- } o w LL Q 0 J LL � J = U U 215/250 SHERYLAy • 95/290 5/45 PROJECT 75/240 SITE I- / O Legend • Study Intersections 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Wells at *100 Daily Volumes Palm Desert FIGURE 13C JOB#12855 -�-� Project Volumes at Access Points ?LA 1RAIi'IC PliNGINOING (Sheryl / Cook Signalized & A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Merle / Cook Unsignalized) I —� — No Scale co r, ch HOVLEY LN.E o co O cu 35/68 0 co o a'" 23/10 00 0 ' . f o\ m /� � 71/95 N m 42ND AVE _ 76/120 • .,o sr 3_, ..r, is ,7,-- �� I0/0 45 22//5—).— 106/156 O sr.--. �os. 0/0 j -Nvf(7- FA 0/0�- u�N� N 29/12 c\ucoc Nvp�i co MERLE DR o x m 0 co N c.) 0 0 Z ill LESLIE LL s m v 8/26 ..,:r, � -� 10/11 cARVAV 0, �/ 62/175 0 SHERYLAV 139/202 1 • / 13/11-->— .; � ///////� 101/199 co c1/40 SITE m v v N 493/279 / —.lc— 1301/991 A1 103/59 FRED WARING DR • 425/385 1 661/1295-->— U),y 03 103/86 to (moo cu co Lo.M W H 0) Q o 0 0 F U w 0 Legend • Study Intersections 83/71 AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes The Wells at FIGURE 13D Palm Desert Existing + Ambient Growth + JOB#12855 - �� Other + Project Volumes IPATRAfjIC \d/�INJ�-iING (Sheryl / Cook Signalized & A DIVISION OF WILLDAN Merle / Cook Unsignalized) ,1. -16- This design alternative is the preferred alternative for the following reasons. Based upon comments from City staff, the signals along Cook Street are a part of a coordinated system. By removing the signal at Merle/Cook and signalizing Sheryl/Cook the signal coordination could remain and provide a better system based upon the intersection spacing. Providing a signal at Sheryl/Cook would provide improved intersection operations from the projected unsignalized unacceptable operations. The added recommendation that the project driveway located on Sheryl Avenue provide restrictions for outbound traffic would further prevent project traffic from intruding into the residential neighborhood to the north. ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION Access to the site will be provided via Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. The access on Cook Street is located approximately 240 feet south of Sheryl Avenue. This access would be limited to right turn in and out only due to the proximity to Sheryl Avenue. It recommended that a raised median be installed on Cook Street to prevent left turns in or out of this access point. In addition, the raised median would provide additional storage for the northbound left turn pocket at Sheryl/Cook. (It should be noted that the raised median design is a part of the alternative design discussed earlier.) The site plan indicates a deceleration and acceleration lane for this driveway. These lanes will assist drivers entering and exiting the site and reduce the potential impacts upon traffic operations and safety on Cook Street. Another access point is located on Sheryl Avenue approximately 230 feet west of Cook Street. Full access will be provide at this access point;however, as a part of the alternative design scenario,the access located on Sheryl Avenue will provide full ingress but would limit egress to right turns only. The overall on-site circulation was reviewed and found to be adequate. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert -17- SUMMARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the proposed development know as "The Wells at Palm Desert"to be located on the west side of Cook Street and south of Sheryl Avenue. Existing conditions were reviewed and quantified. Pre-project traffic conditions were considered in the analyses. Trip generation and assignment analyses were completed for the proposed project,in order to evaluate the project impacts upon the study intersections. This study also addressed the access and the on-site circulation for the proposed project. The following are the principal findings of this study. 1) Under existing conditions,all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service,except for the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook which would operate at a LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. 2) A signal warrant was applied to the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook,the warrant was not met. 3) The City of Palm Desert was contacted regarding related projects in the area to include in the analyses. Based upon discussions with the Planning Department there were 12"other area" projects to include. In addition,a five percent per year ambient growth rate was applied to the existing volumes to account for traffic outside of the City. Under existing plus other area projects plus ambient growth conditions,the same findings under existing conditions were achieved. Sheryl/Cook continues to operate at an unacceptable Level el of Service,while the remaining study intersections operate at acceptable Levels of Service. 4) Under existing plus other conditions, the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook does not meet a warrant for a signal,the minimum thresholds are not met WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert 80 -18- 5) The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 5,970 daily trip ends, of which 420 (250 In, 170 Out)trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour and 825(295 In,530 Out) trip ends would occur during the PM peak hour. With the"passby"reduction,the proposed project is estimated to generate 5,970 daily trip ends, of which 350 (215 In, 135 Out) trip ends would occur during the AM peak hour and 695 (225 In, 470 Out)trip ends would occur during the PM peak hour. 6) With the proposed project traffic added to the existing plus other volumes, all of the study intersections continue to operate at acceptable Levels of Service except for the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook,which continues to operate at a LOS F. 7) Under existing plus other plus project conditions, a warrant for signalization is met at the study intersection of Sheryl/Cook. 8) As a part of the signalization, the south side of Sheryl Avenue westerly of Cook Street should be widened to align with the south side, east of Cook. This would allow for the provisions of a left and through/right lane on the eastbound approach. In addition, the northbound left turn pocket on Cook Street at Sheryl Avenue would need to be extended to provide a 300 foot pocket. 9) Signalization of Sheryl/Cook would also make this intersection more attractive to project traffic and reduce the need to use the local streets to reach the traffic signal on Cook Street at Merle. 10) An alternative design was also consider,removing the signal at Merle/Cook and signalizing the intersection of Sheryl/Cook;providing a raised median on Cook Street from Merle Drive to the southern boundary of the proposed project. Left turn access would be allowed from Cook Street onto Merle Drive. Left turn access from Merle Drive onto Cook and through WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert g� -19- movements on Merle Drive at Cook would not be allowed due to the raised median. Intersection analyses indicates that under the alternative design at project buildout,both all of the study intersections would operate at acceptable Levels of Service. In conjunction with this alternative design, the driveway located on Sheryl Avenue would provide full ingress but would limit egress to right turns only. This alternative design is the preferred alternative based upon the discussion provided in this report. 11) The proposed access and the on-site circulation were reviewed and the following findings were made: ♦ The access located on Cook Street would be limited to right turn in and out only due to the proximity to Sheryl Avenue. It recommended that a raised median be installed on Cook Street to prevent left turns in or out of this access point. (This is also a part of the alternative design.) The raised median would provide additional storage for the northbound left turn pocket at Sheryl/Cook. The deceleration and acceleration lane for this driveway will assist drivers entering and exiting the site and reduce the potential impacts upon traffic operations and safety on Cook Street. ♦ Another access point is located on Sheryl Avenue approximately 230 feet west of Cook Street. Full access was analyzed; however, the preferred alternative would allow both left turn and right turn ingress but would limit egress to right turns only. ♦ On-site circulation was reviewed and found to be adequate. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert -20- MITIGATION MEASURES 1) Signalization of Sheryl/Cook and remove the signal at Merle/Cook and provide a raised median on Cook from Merle Drive to the southern boundary of the proposed project. The raised median at Merle would provide left turn movement on Cook but would prohibit left turn and through movement on Merle at Cook. The raised median on Cook would also prevent left turns in or out of the project access point on Cook. 2) The south side of Sheryl Avenue westerly of Cook Street should be widened to align with the south side, east of Cook. 3) Provide a left and through/right lane on the eastbound approach of Sheryl Avenue at Cook Street. 4) The northbound left turn pocket on Cook Street at Sheryl Avenue would need to be extended to provide a 300 foot pocket. 5) It recommended that the driveway located on Sheryl Avenue be designed and constructed to allow both left turn and right turn ingress but would limit egress to right turns only. WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert $3 -21- We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Palm Desert. If you have any questions or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, WPA TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Oltire #4Z Weston S. Pringle,P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 &TR565 WSP:HN #12855 WPA Traffic Engineering,Inc. The Wells at Palm Desert (A Division of Willdan)#12855 City of Palm Desert APPENDIX A 1998 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL (98HCM) EXPLANATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOPPED DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 5.0 B 5.1 TO 15.0 C 15.1 TO 25.0 D 25.1 TO 40.0 E 40.1 TO 60.0 F > 60.0 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION STOPPED DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE PER VEHICLE (SEC) A < 5.0 B 5.1 TO 10.0 C 10.0 TO 20.0 D 20.0 TO 30.0 E 30.0 TO 45.0 F > 45.0 APPENDIX A - 98HCM LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal A cycles clear with no vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; between one and ten B percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other traffic; C between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have one or D more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection can accommodate; E restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; traffic volume F and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. 8-1 APPENDIX B INTERSECTION ANALYSES WORKSHEETS SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 42ND / COOK ; APSS I 1 D0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 42ND & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 5 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 57 secs . . . X X . . . X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 17 40 91 811 27 23 18 66 25 615 106 64 Saturation -vph 2000 1400 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.20 0.10 - 0.39 0.12 - 0.08 0.17 - 0.31 0.46 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 55 13 - 28 30 - 55 13 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 57 15 - 30 30 - 57 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 22 20 - 10 30 - 21 20 - 10 32 - Level of Service C- C+ - B- D+ - C- C- - B+ D - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 2 1 - 5 1 - 1 1 - 4 3 - Veh Stopping % 77 73 - 58 89 - 74 74 - 55 93 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.34 Required Cycle Length is 102 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual J , CAPSSI 12-12-00 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 42ND & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 6 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 50 secs . X X X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . Phase 6 0 secs . . 1 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 88 136 665 18 16 10 85 53 704 80 36 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1200 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.25 0.21 - 0.34 0.07 - 0.11 0.22 - 0.37 0.32 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 48 13 - 28 30 - 48 13 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 50 15 - 30 30 - 50 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 19 18 - 11 27 - 19 18 - 11 28 - Level of Service C+ C+ - B- D+ - C+ C+ - B- D+ - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 3 2 - 4 0 - 1 2 - 5 2 - Veh Stopping % 76 73 - 60 87 - 73 74 - 61 90 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.32 Required Cycle Length is 95 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual CAPSSI 12-12-00 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 42ND & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 9 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 61 secs . X X X X Phase 4 0 secs . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . Phase 6 0 secs . . 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 22 45 106 1011 32 28 23 71 35 735 121 74 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.24 0.12 - 0.47 0.14 - 0.11 0.19 - 0.36 0.55 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 59 13 - 28 30 - 59 13 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 61 15 - 30 30 - 61 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 23 21 - 11 32 - 22 22 - 10 35 - Level of Service C- C- - B- D - C- C- - B+ D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 3 1 - 7 1 - 1 1 - 5 3 - Veh Stopping % 79 74 - 60 89 - 76 76 - 56 94 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.41 Required Cycle Length is 106 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual APSSI 12 )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 42ND & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 10 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs X X Phase 3 57 secs X X . . X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 103 156 715 23 16 10 95 68 894 90 41 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1200 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.30 0.27 - 0.34 0.10 - 0.14 0.27 - 0.43 0.39 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 55 13 - 28 30 - 55 13 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 57 15 - 30 30 - 57 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 22 21 - 10 30 - 21 21 - 11 32 - Level of Service C- C- - B- D+ - C- C- - B- D - Av.'a'/ lane veh 3 2 - 5 1 - 2 2 - 6 2 - Veh Stopping % 79 77 - 56 88 - 75 77 - 60 92 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- .. " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.39 Required Cycle Length is 102 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual : APSS I 1; 30 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 42ND & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 15 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X . Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 64 secs . X X X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . 1 1 - 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 22 45 106 1076 32 28 23 71 35 775 121 74 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.25 0.13 - 0.49 0.15 - 0.11 0.20 - 0.37 0.56 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 62 13 - 28 30 - 62 13 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 64 15 - 30 30 - 64 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 24 23 - 11 33 - 24 23 - 10 37 - Level of Service C- C- - B- D - C- C- - B+ D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 3 1 - 7 1 - 1 2 - 6 3 - Veh Stopping % 79 75 - 60 90 - 77 77 - 55 94 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.43 Required Cycle Length is 109 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual ; APSS I 1; 10 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 42ND & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 16 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X . Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 66 secs . X X X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . Phase 5 0 secs . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 103 156 785 23 16 10 95 68 1034 90 41 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1200 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.33 0.29 - 0.35 0.11 - 0.15 0.29 - 0.47 0.43 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 64 13 - 28 30 - 64 13 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 66 15 - 30 30 - 66 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 26 25 - 9 33 - 25 25 - 10 35 - Level of Service D+ C- - B+ D - C- C- - B- D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 4 2 - 5 1 - 2 2 - 7 2 - Veh Stopping % 82 79 - 53 89 - 78 79 - 58 93 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.42 Required Cycle Length is 111 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual MERLE / COOK _a , APSSI 12 0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 7 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 54 secs X X X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . Phase 5 0 secs . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 70 24 825 134 21 10 41 71 778 18 74 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.06 0.18 - 0.40 0.57 - 0.02 0.10 0.14 0.37 0.08 0.08 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 52 13 - 28 30 28 52 13 52 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 54 15 - 30 30 30 54 15 54 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 20 19 - 11 33 - 19 19 20 11 29 9 Level of Service C+ C+ - B- D - C+ C+ C- B- D+ B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 1 - 6 3 - 0 1 1 5 0 1 Veh Stopping % 73 74 - 60 94 - 72 72 75 59 88 50 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.35 Required Cycle Length is 99 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual CAPSSI 12-12-00 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 8 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X . Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 3 80 secs . X X . X X Phase 4 0 secs . Phase 5 0 secs . . Phase 6 0 secs . . 1 1 1 1_ 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 32 12 885 80 50 10 85 95 717 20 29 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.05 0.10 - 0.37 0.43 - 0.02 0.25 0.24 0.29 0.11 0.03 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 78 13 - 28 30 28 78 13 78 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 80 15 - 30 30 30 80 15 80 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 29 28 - 9 41 - 29 29 30 8 39 7 Level of Service D+ D+ - B+ E+ - D+ D+ D B+ D- B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 1 - 6 2 - 0 2 3 5 1 0 Veh Stopping % 78 78 - 49 94 - 78 81 82 46 91 38 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.35 Required Cycle Length is 125 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual APSSI 12 0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 11 1 1 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 54 secs . . X X . . . X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 80 29 960 149 41 10 51 76 903 23 94 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.07 0.20 - 0.48 0.63 - 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.43 0.10 0.10 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 52 13 - 28 30 28 52 13 52 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 54 15 - 30 30 30 54 15 54 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 20 20 - 11 35 - 19 19 20 11 29 9 Level of Service C+ C+ - B- D - C+ C+ C- B- D+ B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 7 4 - 0 1 1 6 1 1 Veh Stopping % 73 74 - 63 95 - 72 72 75 61 88 50 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 15 Level of Service = B- " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.41 Required Cycle Length is 99 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual J APSSI 12 0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 12 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 77 secs . . . X X . . . X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . . 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 37 12 1030 90 60 10 115 120 842 25 34 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.05 0.12 - 0.44 0.47 - 0.02 0.33 0.29 0.34 0.13 0.03 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 75 13 - 28 30 28 75 13 75 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 77 15 - 30 30 30 77 15 77 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 28 27 - 10 40 - 28 29 30 9 38 7 Level of Service D+ D+ - B+ E+ - D+ D+ D+ B+ D- B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 1 - 7 3 - 0 3 3 5 1 0 Veh Stopping % 78 78 - 53 94 - 77 82 83 49 91 39 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.42 Required Cycle Length is 122 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual APSSI 12 D COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (W/0 SIG.) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 17 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 55 secs X X . . . X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . Phase 6 0 secs . . 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** 1 Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 100 29 1025 149 41 10 51 76 923 23 94 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.07 0.26 - 0.50 0.64 - 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.44 0.10 0.10 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 53 13 - 28 30 28 53 13 53 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 55 15 - 30 30 30 55 15 55 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 20 20 - 12 35 - 20 19 21 11 29 9 Level of Service C- C- - B- D- - C+ C+ C- B- D+ B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 7 4 - 0 1 2 6 1 1 Veh Stopping % 73 76 - 64 95 - 72 73 75 61 88 50 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 15 Level of Service = B- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.44 Required Cycle Length is 100 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual \0 APSSI 12 0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (W/0 SIG.) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 18 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 - 84 secs . X X X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . Phase 5 0 secs . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . 1 1 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 107 12 1100 90 60 10 115 120 912 25 34 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.05 0.35 - 0.46 0.50 - 0.02 0.35 0.31 0.36 0.14 0.03 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 82 13 - 28 30 28 82 13 82 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 84 15 - 30 30 30 84 15 84 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDetay/veh -sec 30 32 - 9 44 - 30 32 32 8 40 7 Levet of Service D D - B+ E+ - D D D B+ E+ B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 3 - 8 3 - 0 3 3 6 1 0 Veh Stopping % 79 84 - 51 95 - 79 84 84 47 91 37 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = 8- 'I - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.44 Required Cycle Length is 129 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual APSSI 12 4) COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (W/SIG.) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST A.M Peak Hour Scenario 19 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X . X Phase 3 56 secs X X . X X Phase 4 0 secs . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . I I I I I I I I Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 85 29 1025 149 41 10 51 76 938 23 94 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.07 0.22 - 0.50 0.64 - 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.44 0.10 0.10 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 54 13 - 28 30 28 54 13 54 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 56 15 - 30 30 30 56 15 56 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 20 20 - 11 36 - 20 20 21 11 30 9 Level of Service C- C- - B- D- - C- C+ C- B- D+ B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 7 4 - 0 1 2 6 1 1 Veh Stopping % 74 75 - 63 95 - 73 73 75 61 88 49 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES I I I I Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 14 Level of Service = B- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 15 Level of Service = B- - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.43 Required Cycle Length is 101 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual \DA APSSI 12 0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS (W/SIG.) SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 MERLE DR & COOK ST P.M Peak Hour Scenario 20 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 15 secs . X X Phase 3 82 secs . X X X X Phase 4 0 secs . . Phase 5 0 secs . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 62 12 1100 90 60 10 115 120 957 25 34 Saturation -vph 2000 1300 Shrd 4000 1800 Shrd 2000 1400 1800 4000 1800 1800 Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Relative Sat 'X' 0.05 0.20 - 0.46 0.49 - 0.02 0.35 0.30 0.38 0.14 0.03 Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 80 13 - 28 30 28 80 13 80 Move Time -sec 30 30 - 82 15 - 30 30 30 82 15 82 Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 30 Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AvDelay/veh -sec 30 30 - 9 43 - 29 31 32 9 39 7 Level of Service D+ D+ - B+ E+ - D+ D D B+ D- B+ Av.'Q'/ lane veh 1 2 - 8 3 - 0 3 3 6 1 0 Veh Stopping % 79 80 - 52 94 - 78 83 84 49 91 38 Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES YES 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = 8- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 13 Level of Service = B- .1 " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.44 Required Cycle Length is 127 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual FRED WARING / COOK APSSI 12 0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 COOK ST & FRED WARING DR A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 2 - 0 secs X X X . . Phase 3 - 38 secs X X X X Phase 4 - 15 secs . X X Phase 5 - 0 secs . X X X . Phase 6 30 secs . X X . X X 1 1 1- _1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 536 295 83 382 170 365 1116 83 368 327 127 34 Saturation -vph 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.36 0.62 0.13 0.33 0.36 0.71 0.76 0.17 0.56 0.32 0.53 - Effective Gr-sec 36 13 36 28 13 28 36 13 36 28 13 - Move Time -sec 38 15 38 30 15 30 38 15 38 30 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 17 32 16 21 30 27 22 29 20 21 32 - Level of Service C+ D C+ C- D+ D+ C- D+ C+ C- D - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 5 3 1 4 2 7 10 1 6 4 3 - Veh Stopping % 73 94 66 79 91 90 88 89 80 79 93 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 23 Level of Service = C- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 25 Level of Service = D+ " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.69 Required Cycle Length is 98 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual \ D \ CAPSSI 12-12-00 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 COOK ST & FRED WARING DR P.M Peak Hour Scenario 2 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 2 - 13 secs X X X . . . . . Phase 3 - 44 secs X X X X Phase 4 - 15 secs . X X Phase 5 - 7 secs . X X X . Phase 6 - 30 secs . X X X X Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1100 250 71 338 327 302 816 44 174 346 95 78 Saturation -vph 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.62 0.33 0.09 0.30 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.12 0.29 0.47 0.50 - Effective Gr-sec 55 26 55 35 20 35 42 13 42 28 13 - Move Time -sec 57 28 57 37 22 37 44 15 44 30 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 21 32 15 27 37 31 26 38 23 32 42 - Level of Service C- D C+ D+ D- D D+ D- C- D E+ - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 11 3 1 4 5 7 9 1 4 6 3 - Veh Stopping % 77 85 58 78 92 86 83 91 73 87 95 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 27 Level of Service = D+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 24 Level of Service = C- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.54 Required Cycle Length is 124 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual APSS I 1; )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 COOK ST & FRED WARING DR A.M Peak Hour Scenario 3 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 2 - 0 secs X X X . . . . Phase 3 - 40 secs X X . . X . X . Phase 4 - 15 secs . . X . . X . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . X X X . . Phase 6 - 30 secs . . . X X . . . X . X 1 1 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 661 360 103 452 225 450 1301 103 438 382 152 39 Saturation -vph 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.43 0.77 0.15 0.40 0.48 0.89 0.86 0.22 0.64 0.38 0.65 - Effective Gr-sec 38 13 38 28 13 28 38 13 38 28 13 - Move Time -sec 40 15 40 30 15 30 40 15 40 30 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 18 37 16 22 31 39 25 30 21 22 36 - Level of Service C+ D- C+ C- D D- D+ D+ C- C- D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 6 4 2 5 3 9 11 1 8 4 4 - Veh Stopping % 74 97 66 81 93 96 92 90 82 80 95 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 26 Level of Service = D+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 31 Level of Service = D " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.83 Required Cycle Length is 100 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual A P S S I 1; J O COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 COOK ST & FRED WARING DR P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 2 - 10 secs X X X . . . . Phase 3 - 30 secs X X . X . X . Phase 4 - 15 secs . . . X . . X . Phase 5 - 7 secs . . . X X X . . Phase 6 - 30 secs . . . X X . . . X . X 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1295 315 86 398 397 377 991 59 224 416 115 118 Saturation -vph 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.91 0.41 0.13 0.30 0.59 0.64 0.95 0.13 0.48 0.51 0.53 - Effective Gr-sec 38 23 38 35 20 35 28 13 28 28 13 - Move Time -sec 40 25 40 37 22 37 30 15 30 30 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 32 28 18 20 31 25 42 32 26 26 35 - Level of Service D D+ C+ C- D C- E+ D D+ D+ D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 12 4 2 4 5 8 11 1 5 6 3 - Veh Stopping % 95 86 68 75 91 85 98 89 84 85 94 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 31 Level of Service = D Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 31 Level of Service = D " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.66 Required Cycle Length is 107 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual APSS I 12 10 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 COOK ST & FRED WARING DR A.M Peak Hour Scenario 13 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 2 - 0 secs X X X . . . . Phase 3 - 37 secs X X X X Phase 4 - 15 secs . X X Phase 5 - 0 secs . X X X . Phase 6 30 secs . X X . X X 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 661 425 103 472 260 490 1301 103 493 412 152 39 Saturation -vph 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.46 0.88 0.16 0.41 0.54 0.94 0.90 0.21 0.76 0.39 0.63 - Effective Gr-sec 35 13 35 28 13 28 35 13 35 28 13 - Move Time -sec 37 15 37 30 15 30 37 15 37 30 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 18 43 16 21 31 45 28 28 24 21 34 - Level of Service C+ E+ C+ C- D E+ D+ D+ C- C- D - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 6 5 2 5 3 10 11 1 8 4 4 - Veh Stopping % 77 98 68 81 93 98 95 89 88 80 95 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 28 Level of Service = D+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 35 Level of Service = D " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.87 Required Cycle Length is 97 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual \\\ : APSS I 1. )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 COOK ST & FRED WARING DR P.M Peak Hour Scenario 14 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 15 secs . X X . Phase 2 - 1 secs X X X . . . . Phase 3 - 34 secs X X . . X . X . . Phase 4 - 15 secs . . X . . X . Phase 5 - 11 secs . . X X X . . . Phase 6 - 30 secs . . . X X . . . X . X 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 1295 385 86 468 512 517 991 59 279 451 115 118 Saturation -vph 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 3600 1800 4000 1800 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 1.04 0.81 0.15 0.32 0.63 0.78 0.82 0.13 0.51 0.54 0.52 - Effective Gr-sec 33 14 33 39 24 39 32 13 32 28 13 - Move Time -sec 35 16 35 41 26 41 34 15 34 30 15 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 59 41 20 18 29 27 29 32 24 26 35 - Level of Service E- E+ C- C+ D+ D+ D+ D C- D+ D - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 14 5 2 4 6 10 10 1 6 6 3 - Veh Stopping % 100 97 72 72 90 89 93 89 83 86 94 - Do Veh Clear ? NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES - 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 35 Level of Service = D- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 31 Level of Service = D " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.76 Required Cycle Length is 106 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual SHER YL / COOK : APSS I 1; )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855a SHERYL & COOK ST. A.M Peak Hour Scenario 1 1 1 1 1 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X . . . X X X . Phase 2 - 17 secs . . . . X . . . . X . Phase 3 - 42 secs . . . X . X . . . X . X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 49 101 991 47 54 10 11 10 1032 224 106 Saturation -vph 1800 1400 Shrd 3600 1700 Shrd 1800 1300 1800 3600 1700 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.20 0.10 - 0.65 0.16 - 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.70 0.78 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 40 15 - 28 30 28 40 15 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 42 17 - 30 30 30 42 17 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 17 15 - 15 24 - 16 15 16 16 36 - Level of Service C+ C+ - C+ C- - C+ B- C+ C+ D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 2 1 - 7 1 - 0 0 0 8 5 - Veh Stopping % 73 69 - 78 86 - 69 67 69 81 96 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 17 Level of Service = C+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 19 Level of Service = C+ " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.55 Required Cycle Length is 89 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual \\A APSSI 12 )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855 SHERYL & COOK ST. P.M Peak Hour Scenario 29 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X Phase 2 - 22 secs . X X Phase 3 - 48 secs . . . X X . . X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 10 150 199 1233 13 58 10 60 26 959 281 39 Saturation -vph 1800 1400 Shrd 3600 1700 Shrd 1800 1200 1800 3600 1700 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.41 0.36 - 0.78 0.04 - 0.02 0.17 0.05 0.60 0.83 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 46 20 - 28 30 28 46 20 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 48 22 - 30 30 30 48 22 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 23 21 - 19 25 - 20 20 20 16 40 - Level of Service C- C- - C+ C- - C+ C+ C+ C+ D- - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 4 3 - 10 0 - 0 1 1 7 6 - Veh Stopping % 81 78 - 84 81 - 72 74 73 75 96 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 20 Level of Service = C- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 23 Level of Service = C- I' " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.68 Required Cycle Length is 100 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual A P S S I 12 )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS - ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855A SHERYL & COOK ST. A.M Peak Hour Scenario 3 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X X X X . Phase 2 - 19 secs . X X Phase 3 - 47 secs . X X X X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . Phase 6 0 secs . . 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 13 139 101 991 54 47 10 62 10 1032 224 106 Saturation -vph 1800 1400 Shrd 3600 1700 Shrd 1800 1300 1800 3600 1700 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.22 0.32 - 0.62 0.18 - 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.67 0.74 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 45 17 - 28 30 28 45 17 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 47 19 - 30 30 30 47 19 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 20 19 - 15 26 - 18 18 18 16 35 - Level of Service C+ C+ - B- D+ - C+ C+ C+ C+ D - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 2 3 - 7 1 - 0 1 0 8 5 - Veh Stopping % 76 76 - 75 85 - 71 72 71 78 95 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES - 1 1 1 1 Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 18 Level of Service = C+ Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 19 Level of Service = C+ " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.57 Required Cycle Length is 96 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual , 62 : APSS I 1, )0 COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS PROGRAM FOR A SINGLE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION * PALM DESERT EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS - ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION USING REQUIRED CYCLE TIME FLN:12855A SHERYL & COOK ST. P.M Peak Hour Scenario 4 Movement EBT EBL EBR SBT SBL SBR WBT WBL WBR NBT NBL NBR Phase 1 - 30 secs X X X . . . X X X Phase 2 - 23 secs . . . . X . . . . . X Phase 3 - 52 secs . . . X . X . . . X . X Phase 4 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 5 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . Phase 6 - 0 secs . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 Critical Mvmt-** **** **** **** Peak 15 Vol -vph 11 202 199 1233 13 58 11 175 26 959 281 39 Saturation -vph 1800 1400 Shrd 3600 1700 Shrd 1800 1200 1800 3600 1700 Shrd Lost time -sec 2.00 0.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 - Relative Sat 'X' 0.44 0.50 - 0.75 0.04 - 0.02 0.51 0.05 0.58 0.83 - Effective Gr-sec 28 30 - 50 21 - 28 30 28 50 21 - Move Time -sec 30 30 - 52 23 - 30 30 30 52 23 - Min/Ped Time-sec 30 15 - 30 15 - 30 15 30 30 15 - Prog Factor PAF 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - AvDelay/veh -sec 25 25 - 18 26 - 22 25 22 16 41 - Level of Service C- C- - C+ D+ - C- C- C- C+ E+ - Av.'Q'/ lane veh 4 4 - 10 0 - 0 4 1 8 7 - Veh Stopping % 83 83 - 82 81 - 74 84 74 72 96 - Do Veh Clear ? YES YES - YES YES - YES YES YES YES YES - Whole Intersection - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 21 Level of Service = C- Critical Movements - Weighted Av Delay (sec) = 23 Level of Service = C- " " - Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) = 0.70 Required Cycle Length is 105 seconds (All Minimum times are satisfied) * CAPSSI (Release 11) - Based on Delay Methodology Per 1985 Highway Capacity Manual UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SHERYL / COOK HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SHERYL / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (AM PEAK HOUR) Date: 11/7/00 East/West Street: SHERYL AVE. North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 39 862 91 49 771 12 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 907 95 51 811 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 11 0 8 4 3 51 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 8 4 3 53 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L L 1 L T R 1 LTR 1 v (vph) 41 51 11 0 8 60 C(m) (vph) 809 693 63 55 518 309 v/c 0.05 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.19 95% queue length 0.00 0.15 0.61 0.00 0.00 0 .80 Control Delay 9.7 10.6 74.1 70.5 12 .1 19.5 LOS A B F F B C Approach Delay 48.0 19.5 Approach LOS E C \r-6/19 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SHERYL / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (PM PEAK HOUR) Date: 11/7/00 East/West Street: SHERYL AVE. North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 66 769 24 13 978 13 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 69 809 25 13 1029 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 50 1 21 15 1 59 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 52 1 22 15 1 62 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R LTR Delay, g Queue Length, and Level of Service S Approach NB B Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I L T R I LTR v (vph) 69 13 52 1 22 78 C(m) (vph) 669 801 67 51 587 203 v/c 0.10 0.02 0.78 0.02 0.04 0.38 95% queue length 0.31 0.00 5.25 0.00 0.00 1.97 Control Delay 11.0 9.6 197.3 77.0 11.4 33 .7 LOS B A F F B D Approach Delay 141.2 33 .7 Approach LOS F D * HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SHERYL / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING+OTHER CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (AM PEAK HOUR) Date: 11/7/00 East/West Street: SHERYL AVE. North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 44 1032 106 54 956 12 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 46 1086 111 56 1006 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 11 0 8 4 3 61 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 8 4 3 64 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No 1 Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I L T R I LTR v (vph) 46 56 11 0 8 71 C(m) (vph) 683 585 33 30 448 226 v/c 0.07 0.10 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.31 95% queue length 0.11 0.27 1.22 0.00 0.00 1.49 Control Delay 10.7 11.8 166.4 125.0 13 .2 28.2 LOS B B F F B D Approach Delay 101.9 28.2 Approach LOS F D HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SHERYL / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING + OTHER CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (PM PEAK HOUR) Date: 11/7/00 East/West Street: SHERYL AVE. North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 76 959 29 13 1188 13 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 80 1009 30 13 1250 13 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 60 1 26 15 1 69 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 63 1 27 15 1 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I L T R I LTR v (vph) 80 13 63 1 27 88 C(m) (vph) 552 671 34 25 504 130 v/c 0.14 0.02 1.85 0.04 0.05 0.68 95% queue length 0.54 0.00 17.09 0.00 0.02 4 .90 Control Delay 12.6 10.5 155 .0 12 .5 85.9 LOS B B F B F Approach Delay 85.9 Approach LOS F \e HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SHERYL / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (AM PEAK HOUR) Date: 11/7/00 East/West Street: SHERYL AVE. North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 249 1032 106 54 996 52 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 262 1086 111 56 1048 54 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 11 0 8 29 3 106 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 0 8 30 3 111 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I L T R I LTR v (vph) 262 56 11 0 8 144 C(m) (vph) 635 585 7 8 448 52 v/c 0.41 0.10 1.57 0.00 0.02 2 .77 95% queue length 2.32 0.27 3 .66 0.00 0.00 47.56 Control Delay 14.6 11.8 455.0 13.2 LOS B B F B Approach Delay Approach LOS 'd HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: SHERYL / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (PM PEAK HOUR) Date: 11/7/00 East/West Street: SHERYL AVE. North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 281 959 39 13 1233 58 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 295 1009 41 13 1297 61 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 60 1 26 85 1 199 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 63 1 27 89 1 209 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration L T R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I L T R I LTR v (vph) 295 13 63 1 27 299 C(m) (vph) 508 665 5 6 500 22 v/c 0.58 0.02 12.60 0.17 0.05 13 .59 95% queue length 4.23 0.00 29.24 0.23 0.03 138.73 Control Delay 21.8 10.5 716.7 12 .6 LOS C B F B Approach Delay Approach LOS f MERLE / COOK x HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: MERLE / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (AM PEAK HOUR) - ALTERNATIVE Date: 12/12/00 East/West Street: MERLE DRIVE North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 23 943 94 149 1025 41 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 24 992 98 156 1078 43 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration L T R L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 76 29 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 80 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 9 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No No Lanes 1 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L L 1 R 1 R v (vph) 24 156 80 30 C(m) (vph) 631 648 525 477 v/c 0.04 0.24 0.15 0.06 95% queue length 0.00 1.08 0.58 0.08 Control Delay 10. 9 12 .3 13 .1 13 .1 LOS B B B B Approach Delay 13 .1 13 .1 Approach LOS B B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3 .2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: MERLE / COOK Analyst: HN EXISTING+OTHER+PROJECT CONDITIONS Project No. : 12855 (PM PEAK HOUR) - ALTERNATIVE Date: 12/12/00 East/West Street: MERLE DRIVE North/South Street: COOK STREET Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs) : 1.00 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 25 982 34 90 1100 60 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 26 1033 35 94 1157 63 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized? No Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 0 Configuration L T R L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 120 12 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 126 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 9 Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? No No Lanes 1 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I R I R v (vph) 26 94 126 12 C(m) (vph) 579 660 509 442 v/c 0.04 0.14 0.25 0.03 95% queue length 0.00 0.53 1.12 0.00 Control Delay 11.5 11.4 14.4 13.4 LOS B B B B Approach Delay 14.4 13 .4 Approach LOS B B APPENDIX C COUNT DATA 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 03 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322901 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 8/W: 42ND AVENUE 909-247-6716 File I.D. PDC042AM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOS STREET 42ND AVENUE C00K STREET 42ND AVENUE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 07:00 5 171 3 26 2 8 23 95 9 10 6 13 371 07:15 7 192 4 35 1 9 29 91 7 12 6 14 407 07:30 5 221 4 15 5 9 27 131 14 7 3 21 462 07:45 10 216 8 23 5 3 20 153 19 7 7 30 521 Hr Total 27 820 19 99 13 29 99 470 49 36 22 78 1761 08:00 6 182 8 14 5 5 39 172 18 7 4 21 481 08:15 6 172 3 14 3 B 20 159 13 19 3 19 439 08:30 4 161 7 16 2 6 22 127 15 10 5 19 394 08.45 5 157 9 24 3 11 19 131 15 14 4 16 . 408 Hr Total 21 672 27 68 13 30 100 589 61 50 16 75 1722 *TOTAL* 48 1492 46 I 167 26 59 I 199 1059 110 86 38 153 3483 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:15 07:00 07:30 07:45 Volume 28 831 24 99 13 29 106 615 64 43 19 89 Percent 31 944 3% 70% 9% 21% 14% 78i 84 28% 13% 59% Pk total 883 141 785 151 Highest 07:45 07:15 08:00 07:45 Volume 10 236 8 35 1 9 39 172 18 7 7 30 Hi total 254 45 229 44 PHF .87 .78 .86 .86 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:30 07:30 07:30 07:30 Volume 27 811 23 66 18 25 106 615 64 40 17 91 Percent 3% 944 31 61% 17% 23% 14% 784 8% 27% 111 61% Pk total 861 109 785 148 Highest 07:45 07:45 08:00 07:45 Volume 10 236 8 23 5 3 39 172 18 7 7 30 Hi total 254 31 229 44 PHF .85 .88 .86 .84 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 02 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322901 N/S: COON STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 E/W: 42ND AVENUE 909.247-6716 File I.D. : PDC042AM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COON STREET 42ND AVENUE COON STREET 42ND AVENUE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 Peak Hour Analysis Hy Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:30 07:30 07:30 07:30 Volume 27 811 23 66 18 25 106 615 64 40 17 91 Percent 3% 94% 3% 611 171 23% 141 784 84 271 111 611 Pk total 861 109 785 148 Highest 07:45 07:45 08:00 07:45 Volume 10 236 8 23 5 3 39 172 18 7 7 30 Hi total 254 31 229 44 PHF .85 .88 .86 .84 COOK STREET 0 • 23 • 811 • 27 40 615 25 L 0 23 811 27 680 limomml L--- 861 ' 1.541 A • 25 42ND AVENUE 25 106 - TOTAL VOLUME 18 147 • 18 23 109 18 • 40 40 66 295 217 66 • 17 - 17 148 Intersection Total 27 1.903 108 17 64 91 91 I 42ND AVENUE r____+ 1 . 7855 immommummimm 11.11111".11 0 66 106 • 615 64 • 1 811 91 968 106 615 64 1 COOK STREET \i l 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 05 CITY OP PALM DESERT Counts Unlimited, Inc N/S: 25424 Jaclyn Avenue COOK STREET Site Code : 00322901 E/ COOK AVENUE Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 WEATHER; SUNNY 909.247-6716 File I.D. : PDC042PM Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET 42ND AVENUE COOK STREET 42ND AVENUE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 15:45 5 170 8 23 6 9 20 192 9 25 0 29 496 16:00 2 130 9 26 0 13 14 170 11 21 1 28 425 16:15 9 173 3 18 1 12 16 184 14 16 1 28 475 1jj 0 5 157 8 27 3 20 22 175 9 26 1 34 417 Er Total 21 630 28 94 10 54 72 721 43 88 3 119 1883 16:45 2 165 5 19 3 10 23 157 10 24 2 43 463 17:00 2 170 0 21 3 11 19 188 3 22 1 31 471 17:15 2 177 5 14 0 2 17 173 4 26 0 29 449 17:30 1 139 2 9 0 4 18 134 2 14 0 28 351 Hr Total 7 651 12 63 6 27 77 652 19 86 3 131 1734 *TOTAL* 28 1281 40 157 16 81 149 1373 62 I 174 6 250 1 3617 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 15:45 to 17:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 16:15 15:45 15:45 16:30 Volume 18 665 16 94 10 54 72 721 43 98 4 137 Percent 31 95% 2% 59% 6% 34% 9% 86% 5% 41% 2% 57% Pk total 699 158 836 239 Highest 16:15 16:30 15:45 16:45 Volume 9 173 3 27 3 20 20 192 9 24 2 43 Hi total 185 50 221 69 PHF .94 .79 .95 .87 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 15:45 to 17:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 Volume 18 665 16 85 10 53 80 704 36 88 5 136 Percent 3% 95% 21 574 7% 36% 10% 86% 4% 38% 2% 591 Pk total 699 148 820 229 Highest 16:15 16:30 16:15 16:45 Volume 9 173 3 27 3 20 16 184 14 24 2 43 Hi total 185 50 214 69 PHP .94 .74 .96 .83 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 04 CITY OF PALM DESERT Counts Unlimited, Inc NIT: OF STREET 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322901 /S: CONK AVENUE Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 WEATHER: SUNNY 909.297-6716 File T.D. PDC042PM Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET 42ND AVENUE COO! STREET 42ND AVENUE Southbound westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 15:45 to 17:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 Volume 18 665 16 85 10 53 80 704 36 88 5 136 Percent 3% 95t 2% 571 7% 36t 10% 86t 4t 38% 2t 59% Pk total 699 148 820 229 Highest 16:15 16:30 16:15 16:45 Volume 9 173 3 27 3 20 16 184 14 24 2 43 Hi total 185 50 214 69 PHF .94 .74 .96 .83 COOK STREET 0 •• 16 - 665 • 18 88 704 53 slimiiiim L 0 16 665 18 845 L-- 699 ' L 1.544 ' 53 42ND AVENUE 53 80 • TOTAL VOLUME 110 6 106 10 148 10 • 88 [ 88 - 85 1 335 207 85 5 5 229 Intersection Total 18 1,896 59 5 36 • 136 136 1 42ND AVENUE r- 1,706 r-- 820 ----i imommIrmommomm0 85 • 80 704 • 36 • 0 665 136 886 80 704 36 0 COOK STREET 3� 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 07 Counts Unlimited, Inc Site Code 00322903 CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Starte Date: 00322903 H/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92551 File I.D. : 10/26/00 E/W: MERLE DRIVE 909-247.6716 Page : 1 WEATHER: SUNNYTOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET MERLE DRIVE COOK STREET 'MERLE DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/26/00 07:00 28 212 5 9 0 11 1 129 10 8 0 2 415 01:15 32 223 6 7 0 10 1 135 13 7 0 1 435 07:30 35 223 7 11 1 12 3 197 10 11 0 7 517 Br Total 131 882 22 41 1 53 12 651 63 51 0 15 1922 08:00 36 199 4 3 0 22 7 231 12 18 0 3 ' 535 08:15 27 179 6 13 0 17 1 160 22 16 0 9 450 08:30 29 158 7 15 0 20 0 162 12 4 0 4 411 08:45 18 _194 11 1 11 3 189 9 9 0 3 451 Hr Total 110 730 20 42 1 70 11 742 55 47 0 19 1847 $TOTAL* 241 1612 42 1 83 2 123 1 23 1393 118 98 0 34 1 3769 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 07:00 07:45 07:30 07:30 Volume 131 882 22 45 0 79 18 778 74 70 0 24 Percent 13% 851 21 36t 01 64% 21 89% 9% 741 0t 26% Pk total 1035 124 870 94 Highest 07:30 08:30 08:00 07:45 Volume 35 223 7 15 0 20 7 231 12 25 0 5 Ili total 265 35 250 30 PBF .98 .89 .87 .78 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 07:30 07:30 07:30 07:30 Volume 134 825 21 41 1 71 18 778 74 70 0 24 Percent 141 84% 21 361 11 631 21 891 9t 741 0t 261 Pk total 980 113 870 94 Highest 07:30 07:45 08:00 07:45 Volume 35 223 7 14 0 20 7 231 12 25 0 5 Hi total 265 34 250 30 PIN .92 .83 .87 .78 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 06 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322903 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/26/00 E/W: MERLE DRIVE 909-247-6716 Pile I,D. : PDCOMEAM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET MERLE DRIVE COOK STREET MERLE DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/26/00 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 07:30 07:30 07:30 07:30 Volume 134 825 21 41 1 71 18 118 74 70 0 24 Percent 14% 841 2% 36% 14 631 24 89% 9% 741 01 26% Pk total 980 113 870 94 Highest 07:30 07:45 08:00 07:45 Volume 35 223 7 14 0 20 7 231 12 25 0 5 Hi total 265 34 250 30 PIP .92 .83 .87 .78 COOK STREET 2 •• 21 • 825 • 134 70 778 =Iimmomi 71L221 825 134 919 ! 980 1,899 1 • 71 MERLE DRIVE 71 • TOTAL VOLUME 181 40 1 21 113 1 • 70 41 70 134 321 41 0 134W 0 94 Intersection Total 208 2,057 0 74 • 24 24 1 MERLE DRIVE r---- 1,760 -- r— 870 1 illimillimill 1 41 • 18 . 778 • 7 • 4 825 24 890 18 778 74 4 COOK TREET ,r,5 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 09 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322903 N/S: COOK Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/26/00 E/W: MERLE DRIVE 909-247-6716 Pile I.D. : PDCOMEPM WEATHER: PARTLY SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK MERLE DRIVE COO! MERLE DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/26/00 16:00 17 182 8 16 0 21 2 168 5 8 0 1 428 16:15 16 185 7 20 0 26 5 170 5 7 0 1 442 16:30 26 223 10 18 1 25 4 173 10 3 1 4 498 ,6:45 13 241 21 17 0 27 5 189 8 .9 0 3_, 533 Er Total 72 831 46 71 1 99 16 700 28 27 1 9 1901 17:00 25 236 12 30 0 17 6 185 6 13 0 4 534 17:15 9 200 15 4 0 21 1 147 4 6 0 6 413 17:30 12 174 11 14 0 16 2 141 9 11 2 7 39.9 17:45 17 110 9 7 0 15 3 137 19 12 0 4 403 Hr Total 63 790 47 55 0 69 12 610 38 42 2 21 1749 *TOTAL* 135 1621 93 126 1 168 I 28 1310 66 j 69 3 30 3650 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 16:30 16:15 16:15 17:00 Volume 73 900 58 85 1 95 20 717 29 42 2 21 Percent 7i 87% 0 47% 1% 52% 3% 94% 46 65% 3% 321 Pk total 1031 181 766 65 Highest 16:45 17:00 16:45 17:30 Volume 13 241 21 30 0 17 5 189 8 11 2 7 Hi total 275 47 202 20 PEP .94 .96 .95 .81 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 Volume 80 885 50 85 1 95 20 717 29 32 1 12 Percent 8% 871 51 471 11 52% 31 94% 41 711 2% 27% Pk total 1015 181 766 45 Highest 16:45 17:00 16:45 17:00 Volume 13 241 21 30 0 17 5 189 8 13 0 4 Hi total 275 47 202 17 PHF .92 .96 .95 .66 \3(e 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 08 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322903 N/S: COOK Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/26/00 E/W: MERLE DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOMEPM WEATHER: PARTLY SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK MERLE DRIVE COOK MERLE DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/26/00 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 Volume 80 885 50 85 1 95 20 717 29 32 1 12 Percent 8% 87% 51 471 1% 521 31 941 41 711 2% 271 Pk total 1015 181 766 45 Highest 16:45 17:00 16:45 17:00 Volume 13 241 21 30 0 17 5 189 8 13 0 4 Hi total 275 47 202 17 PHP .92 .96 .95 .66 COOK • 0 •• 50 • 885 - 80 32 717 siminim 95 L 0 50 885 80 844 ' 1,015 ' ' 1.859 ' • 95 MERLE DRIVE 95 20 . TOTAL VOLUME 1 71 • 1 50 181 1 • 32 32 1 - 85 116 291 85 1 45 Intersection Total 80 2,007 110 1 29 • 12 12 1 MERLE DRIVE I 1,748 --1 r---- 766 -� 0 85 • 20 • 717 29 • 0 885 12 982 20 717 29 0 C OK 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 11 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code ; 00322903 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 E/W: SHERYL AVENUE 909-247-6716 File I.D. ; PDCOSHAM WEATHER: SUNNY Page ; 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 06:45 6 168 2 1 0 0 6 188 13 1 0 6 391 07:00 1 202 1 2 0 2 7 159 7 0 0 12 393 07:15 4 219 0 1 0 1 11 195 7 0 0 14 452 07:30 11 222 1 3 0 3 13 227 28 1 0 16 5.25 Hr Total 22 811 4 7 0 6 37 769 55 2 0 48 1761 07:45 18 178 6 4 0 4 8 242 37 0 2 11 510 08:00 16 152 5 3 0 0 7 198 19 3 1 10 414 08:15 11 177 8 4 0 12 7 184 8 1 0 4 416 D8:30 10 177 4 4 0 13 7 192 15 1 1 9 433 Er Total 55 684 23 15 0 29 29 816 79 5 4 34 1773 *TOTAL+ 77 1495 27 I 22 0 35 66 1585 134 1 7 4 82 3534 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 06:45 to 08:45 on 10/31/DO Peak start 07:00 07:45 07:15 07:15 Volume 34 821 8 15 0 29 39 862 91 4 3 51 Percent 4% 954 14 34t 04 664 44 87% 9% 7% 54 884 Pk total 863 44 992 58 Highest 07:30 08:30 07:45 07:30 Volume 11 222 1 4 0 13 8 242 37 1 0 16 Hi total 234 17 287 17 PIF .92 .65 .86 .85 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 06:45 to 08:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:15 07:15 07:15 07:15 Volume 49 771 12 11 0 8 39 862 91 4 3 51 Percent 6% 934 It 581 04 42% 4t 87% 94 74 5t 884 Pk total 832 19 992 58 Highest 07:30 07:45 07:45 07:30 Volume 11 222 1 4 0 4 8 242 37 1 0 16 Hi total 234 8 287 17 PEE .89 .59 .86 .85 11/03/2000 08:21 9099248604 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC PAGE 10 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322903 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 E/W: SHERYL AVENUE 909.247-6716 Pile I.D. : PDCOSHAM WEATHER: SUNNY Page 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET SEERYL AVENUE COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 06:45 to 08:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:15 07:15 07:15 07:15 Volume 49 771 12 11 0 8 39 862 91 4 3 51 Percent 6% 93% 14 58% 0% 42% 4% 87% 9% 7% 5% 88% Pk total 832 19 992 58 Highest 07:30 07:45 07:45 07:30 Volume 11 222 1 4 0 4 8 242 37 1 0 16 Hi total 234 8 287 17 PEP .89 .59 .86 .85 COOK STREET - 8 - 12 • 771 • 49 862 8L812 771 49 874 immommommommimmil 832 — 1,706 —' - 8 SHERYL AVENUE 8 TOTAL VOLUME 30 51 0 12 19 0 • 4 4 1 • 11 1. 109 162 11 • 3 49 3 58 Intersection Total 3 1,901 143 91 51 SHERYL AVENUE 51 r 1,825 99— 2 r--- 1."111.111 0 11 • 39 • 862 • 91 ' 0 771 51 833 39 862 91 0 COOK STREET Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322903 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 E/W: SHERYL AVEIIUR 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOSHPM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 15:45 10 211 3 8 1 9 18 228 9 2 0 15 514 16:00 3 223 3 9 1 12 13 201 7 2 0 11 485 16:15 4 235 4 11 0 5 16 225 10 1 0 18 529 26:30 4 214 2 7 1 1 17 1 6 8 5 0 13_ 478 Er Total 21 903 12 35 3 27 64 840 34 10 0 57 2006 16:45 3 242 5 8 0 4 14 162 6 5 1 16 466 17:00 2 267 2 24 0 11 19 196 0 4 0 12 537 17:15 3 245 2 12 0 10 9 178 1 0 0 15 475 17:3 0 1 179 2 9 0 5 _ 9 127 5 0 0 14_ 351 Br Total 9 933 11 53 0 30 51 663 12 9 1 57 1829 *TOTAL* 30 1836 23 I 88 3 51 I 115 1503 46 19 1 114 383S Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 15:45 to 17:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 16:30 16:45 15:45 16:15 Volume 12 988 11 53 0 30 64 840 34 15 1 59 Percent 19 981 1% 641 04 36% 74 90% 4% 201 1% 79% Pk total 1011 83 938 75 Highest 17:00 17:00 15:45 16:45 volume 2 267 2 24 0 11 18 228 9 5 1 16 Hi total 271 35 255 22 PRP .93 .59 .92 .85 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 15:45 to 17:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 Volume 13 978 13 50 1 21 66 769 24 15 1 59 Percent 11 971 11 691 11 29% 8% 90% 31 EA l% 79% Pk total 1004 72 859 75 Highest 17:00 17:00 16:15 16:45 Volume 2 267 2 24 0 11 16 225 10 5 1 16 Hi total 271 35 251 22 PEP .93 .51 .86 .85 40 £I 39Vd DNI Q3lIWIiNf1 S1Nl00 1709817Z6606 7:80 000Z/60/TT Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322903 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 E/W: SHERYL AVENUE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOSHPM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE COOK STREET SHERYL AVENUE Southbound Restbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 15:45 to 17:45 on 10/31/00 Peak start 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 volume 13 978 13 50 1 21 66 769 24 15 1 59 Percent 11 97t 1% 691 1% 29% 8% 90% 3% 20% 14 79t Pk total 1004 72 859 75 Highest 17:00 17:00 16:15 16:45 Volume 2 267 2 24 0 11 16 225 10 5 1 16 Hi total 271 35 251 22 PHF .93 .51 .86 .85 COOK STREET • 6 •• 13 • 978 • 13 15 769 imilimmilliMi 21 Li_ 613 978 13 805 I 1,004 ' 1,809 ' - 21 SHERYL AVENUE 21 66 • TOTAL VOLUME 1 80 - 1 13 72 1 15 15 50 155 110 50 • 1 1 75 Intersection Total 13 2,010 38 1 24 • 59 59 1 SHERYL AVENUE r------ 1.946 1 859 ilillimil.7111 50 • 66 • 769 • 24 • 1 978 59 1,087 66 769 24 1 COOK STREET ZI 39tid ONI Q3LIWI1Nf1 SINf10O V0980Z6606 TZ:80 000Z/60/II Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OF PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322911 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 B/W: FRED WARING DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOFWAM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET FRED WARING DR COOK STREET FRED WARING DR Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/31/00 07:00 22 81 68 18 152 80 13 60 3 55 67 7 626 07:15 33 80 84 14 200 71 21 60 5 38 75 11 692 07:30 48 84 111 12 312 83 52 75 11 62 109 22 981 D7:45 52 125 122 27 325 107 31 91 2 85 147 19 111i Ar Total 155 370 385 71 989 341 117 288 21 240 398 59 3434 08:00 28 108 77 22 271 110 27 80 13 70 152 30 988 08:15 42 65 55 22 208 68 17 79 8 78 128 12 782 08:30 35 104 50 32 193 59 13 97 7 51 85 11 737 08:45 41 99 79 17 201 79 18 75 5 42 103 12 771 Br Total 146 376 261 93 873 316 75 331 33 241 468 65 3278 *TOTAL* 301 746 646 164 1862 657 192 619 54 481 866 124 6712 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:15 07:30 07:30 07:30 Volume 161 397 394 83 1116 368 127 327 34 295 536 83 Percent 171 421 41% 5% 711 23% 20 67% 74 324 591 9% Pk total 952 1567 488 914 Righest 07:45 07:45 07:30 08:00 Volume 52 125 122 27 325 107 52 75 11 70 152 30 3i total 299 459 138 252 PHF .80 .85 .88 .91 ?eak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/31/00 ?eak start 07:30 07:30 07:30 07:30 Volume 170 382 365 83 1116 368 127 327 34 295 536 83 percent 191 42% 404 54 71% 23% 26% 671 71 32% 59% 9% 'k total 917 1567 488 914 lighest 07:45 07:45 07:30 08:00 'olume 52 125 122 27 325 107 52 75 11 70 152 30 li total 299 459 138 252 'HF .77 .85 .BB .91 ST 39Vd ONI Q3LINI1Nf1 S.Nf10O b098bZ6606 TZ:80 000Z/E0/T1 Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OP PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322911 N/S: COOK STREET Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/31/00 B/W: FRED WARING DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOFWAM WEATHER: SUNNY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK STREET FRED WARING DR COOK STREET FRED WARING DR Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right , Total Date 10/31/00 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 07:00 to 09:00 on 10/31/00 Peak start 07:30 07:3D 07:30 07:30 Volume 170 382 365 83 1116 368 127 327 34 295 536 83 Percent 19% 424 40% 54 71% 231 26% 671 7% 32% 59% 94 Pk total 917 1567 488 914 Highest 07:45 07:45 07:30 08:00 Volume 52 125 122 27 325 107 52 75 11 70 152 30 Hi total 299 459 138 252 PHF ,77 .85 .88 .91 COOK STREET • 0 •• 365 - 382 • 170 295 327 miimiammo 368 0 0 365 382 170 990 L ' 917 1,907 ' • 368 FRED WARING DR 368 127 - . TOTAL VOLUME 1,116 1,608 • 1,116 365 1.567 1,116 • 295 295 1 • 83 2,522 2,307 83 • 536 536 914 Intersection Total 170 3,886 740 536 . 83 34 83 FRED WARING DR r-- 1,036 ---------1 r____— 488 ---i immmormommol 83 127 • 327 3 0 382 83 548 127 327 3 0 COOK STREET VT 39Vd ONI GaLIWI1Nf1 SINf10O V098IZ6606 TZ:80 000Z/60/TT Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OP PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322901 N/S: COOK Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/26/00 E/N: FRED WARING DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOFWPM WEATHER: PARTLY CLOUDY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK FRED RARING DRIVE COOK FRED WARING DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/26/00 16:00 61 90 54 11 152 45 10 65 14 60 206 12 780 16:15 60 92 51 14 149 44 5 68 13 70 200 12 778 16:30 74 102 55 7 197 46 21 98 18 59 221 11 909 16:45 ;03 100 70 14 201 36 23 93 16 64 239 14 973 Hr Total 298 384 230 46 699 171 59 324 61 253 866 49 3440 17:00 85 92 86 11 192 57 20 104 25 73 329 12 1086 17:15 69 72 84 12 238 32 21 74 12 55 276 19 964 17:30 70 74 62 7 185 49 31 75 25 58 256 26 918 17:45 44 83 64 7 .213 45 10 76 14 59 225 12 864 Hr Total 268 323 296 37 828 183 92 329 76 245 1086 69 3832 'TOTAL' 566 707 526 I 83 1527 354 151 653 137 I 498 1952 118 7272 Peak Hour Analysis By Individual Approach for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 16:30 17:00 16:30 16:45 Volume 331 366 295 37 828 183 85 369 71 250 1100 71 Percent 33t 371 30t 4t 79t 17t 16% 70t 14t 18t 77% 5t Pk total 992 1048 525 1421 Highest 16:45 17:15 17:00 17:00 Volume 103 100 70 12 238 32 20 104 25 73 329 12 Ai total 273 282 149 414 PAP .91 .93 .88 .86 Peak Hour Analysis By Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/26/00 Peak start 16:45 16:45 16:45 16:95 Volume 327 338 302 44 816 174 95 346 78 250 1100 71 Percent 341 351 311 4t 794 17% 18% 61 151 181 77% 5% Pk total 967 1034 519 1421 Highest 16:45 17:15 17:00 17:00 Volume 103 100 70 12 238 32 20 104 25 73 329 12 Hi total 273 282 149 414 PEP .89 .92 .87 .86 LT 39dd ONI Q31IWI1NO SIN000 b098tZ6606 7:80 000Z/60/II Counts Unlimited, Inc CITY OP PALM DESERT 25424 Jaclyn Avenue Site Code : 00322901 N/S: COOK Moreno Valley, CA 92557 Start Date: 10/26/00 K/W: FRED WARING DRIVE 909-247-6716 File I.D. : PDCOFWPM MEATIER: PARTLY CLOUDY Page : 1 TOTAL VOLUME COOK FRED WARING DRIVE COOK FRED WARING DRIVE Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Left Thru light Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Total Date 10/26/00 Peak Hour Analylil Dy Entire Intersection for the Period: 16:00 to 18:00 on 10/26/00 Peak 'tart 16:45 16:45 16:45 16:45 Volume 327 331 302 44 816 174 95 346 78 250 1100 71 Percent 341 351 311 41 791 17t 181 611 151 18t 771 51 Pk total 967 1034 519 1421 Highest 16:45 17:15 17:00 17:00 Volume 103 100 70 12 238 32 20 104 25 73 329 12 Hi total 273 282 149 414 PIP .89 .92 .87 .86 COOK 0 • 302 • 338 - 327 250 miiiiim 346 174 L 0 302 338 327 770 ' 967 ' iii 1,737 174 FRED WARING DRIVE 174 95 • TOTAL VOLUME 816 1,213 • 816 302 1,034 816 250 _ 250 2,634 2,539 44 44 - • 1.100 1.100 1,421 Intersection Total 327Y 3,941 1,505 1,100 • 71 78 71 r---- 972 �`� FRED WARING DRIVE 519 0 j 4 ' 95 •38 346 • 7 0 71 453 ---`95 ---346 ------ -----_ 0 C OK l 9T 391/d ONI amiwiiNn SINf10O 170981:Z6606 TZ:80 000Z/E0/TT COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. CITY OF PALM DESERT 909-247-6716 Site Code : 3229 CLIFFORD ST/N/0 SHERYL AVSAOS Start Date: 11/07/2000 24 ER DIRECTIONAL VOLUME COUNT Pile I.D. : PDCLNSE NORTH/SOUTH Page : 1 Begin c NBND >c SEND >c Combined > Tuesday Time A.K. PA. 1.M._ P.M. A.M. P.M. 12:00 11/07 1 3 4 12:15 2 6 8 12:30 2 7 9 12:45 4 2 7 3 0 16 7 2 23 ' 01:00 0 2 2 01:15 2 4 6 01:30 1 2 3 01:45 * 0 3 1 1 9 1 1 12 02:00 2 4 6 02:15 1 5 6 02:30 2 1 3 02:45 1 3 8 1 9 19 2 12 27 03:00 2 8 10 03:15 2 6 8 03:30 1 4 5 03:45 1 3 8 * 3 21 1 6 29 04:00 3 6 9 04:15 2 4 6 04:30 2 3 5 04:45 ' 2 9 1 6 19 1 8 28 05:00 3 4 7 05:15 5 6 11 05:30 2 6 8 05:45 ' 2 12 2 6 22 2 8 34 06:00 0 1 1 06:15 0 6 6 06:30 1 3 4 06:45 5 2 3 12 3 13 17 5 16 07:00 2 4 6 07:15 1 0 1 07:30 3 2 5 07:45 7 1 7 18 1 7 25 2 14 08:00 1 3 4 08:15 0 0 0 08:30 4 1 5 08:45 4 0 5 14 2 6 18 2 11 09:00 0 1 1 1 1 09:15 0 0 0 09:30 2 1 3 09:45 9 0 2 20 2 4 29 2 6 10:00 0 1 1 10:15 0 2 2 10:30 0 1 1 10:45 6 1 1 12 0 4 18 1 5 11:00 0 0 0 11:15 1 0 1 11:30 0 0 0 11:45 1 1 2 5 0 ' , 6 1 2 Totals 3 67 89 140 12 207 Day Totals 105 229 334 Split % Hi 32.31 11Jt 67.6% Peak Hour 06:4 04:30 08:30 02:45 08:30 02:45 Volume 12 22 27 29 35 P.H.F. .1 .6 .55 .75 .55 .72 Z0 39tid DNI Q31IWI1Nn SINf10D b098VZ6606 ET:TT 000Z/80/TT APPENDIX D TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT DATA 9-8 T 'RC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO El REQUIREMENT WARRANT ./ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO El 2 or Approach Lanes One more / / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL:AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO El (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO El 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES El NO El 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume EwS1-CCoNbl fidni SATISFIED YES ❑ NO M Sh try/ I Cook 2 or Pm PEAK Approach Lanes One more / / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street X /g,3 Highest Approaches - Minor Street k' 72- * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 I I I I I l 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) Q OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) • Z 300 cc cca N a a CC uJ Z 200 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 C5 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) 0 (7l,1 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing Conditions Intersection:Sheryl/Cook (PM Peak Hour) Volume Major Street= 1,863 Minor Street= 72* *Note: The minor street does not meet the minimum threshold(100 vph)for a minor street approach with two or more lanes. 9-8 TI 'FIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO El REQUIREMENT WARRANT ./ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO ❑ 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 or / Approach Lanes One more l / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURALAREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO Cl 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES El NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume EX/Shn +-anise SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Q Shtr9! )Cook C Df 7oNS 2 or Pm i K Approach Lanes One more / / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street )( .Trig Highest Approaches - Minor Street 87 * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. c 0 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 I I I I I 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 2 > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) Q OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) LUZ 300 Na a CC w Z2200 � J 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing+ Other Conditions Intersection:Sheryl/Cook (PM Peak Hour) Volume Major Street=2,278 Minor Street=87* *Note: The minor street does not meet the minimum threshold(100 vph)for a minor street approach with two or more lanes. 9-8 TI FtC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO El REQUIREMENT WARRANT ./ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO El 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more / / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL:AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES El NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES El NO El 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ • WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume EX/ST tall-OT EQ-t TKO T SATISFIED* YES NO ElSher j1 /Cook 2or Pm Ps1 C Approach Lanes One more / / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street X 2573 Highest Approaches - Minor Street X 32-5 * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 7-1996 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)& 1 LANE(MINOR) UQ OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) w 411114iiimbs... ¢ 300 I- °- (32S�S a CC w Z 200 � J C0 100 2 * 1 LANE(MAJOR)& 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Existing + Other+Project Conditions Intersection:Sheryl/Cook (PM Peak Hour) Volume Major Street=2,573 Minor Street=325 APPENDIX 1 Alternative Design Re-Routed Volumes fl 10/ - ' I70/321� 1 41/ MERLE DR 110/10 I o 0H • 51/95 cc a o U U O } UJ LL J CO LESLIE AV U a r o a GARY AV 0 EE in I pi U N N u7 coN —.<-- 10/10 SHERYL AV 1 41/85 70/32_ • 10/10 r /• PROJECT SITE / / / ° Existing 11o/Sti _.<_I0/01 MERLE DR I0/01 f I10/30 I o H • Q) a a U 0 U o w W U- co _I LESLIE AV o a H CD z a p GARY AV : E o I M U oo If) N f 0/0 SHERYLAV 1" 10/30 10/51 • 0/0—)- / PROJECT SITE H / 0 Other Area Projects + Ambient Growth Volumes 1 The Wells at Legend _ _ Palm Desert %SI • Study Intersections JOB#12855 --<---1751 Volumes to be Rerouted No Scale PA fliIu 31,1\JJ E f8/7 Volumes New Route Appendix 1 Rerouted Volumes A DIVISION OF WILLDAN I � IIY Of HUM DES - - I fy.. r 73-5IO FRED WARING DRIVE r %• PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 t..'�. 1 TEL: 16o 346-061 I � FAX: 0 I- O 8 .,E''' .I0 34m-desert o 9 iefo0pd . rd CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by RICHARD M. HUGHES for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact,General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low- Density Residential(R-1)to District Commercial(PC-2)for approximately 12 acres and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed-use commercial complex including a 2,000 sq.ft. gas station/convenience store, 8,200 sq.ft. restaurant, 24,000 sq.ft. office/retail, and a 40-lane bowling center on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, more particularly described as APN 624-241-008 through-019; 624-160-002,-004,and a portion of 624-160-001. _- _utaar�R:PM.-...-. �_ -4 ,.. sil j ,1--=__----_L;: !I 5.1. ;: GOUNT#iY 1:1 UH'.to.„ ;! R-1—M - I }311 I - I--- :_ • N, t' 14 °..” -.,. i'__„ `- ; � Icy_-;-y;"is: .�/I 1 �I I VI In of I- s; `tea I l;l — ii w d - ,� :R1;>'f�y :' .' ■o:cd ■■■■■■�ins.iR-314 c o :I��' =� -- .see l t;* -� O.S. w,. • •• -- 4. P.R.-7 ���_.__` I S 1. ..t— --- ,. ._ . -- i SITE :_► 41 mi. �■ 9i fir.-c.1 . - �_� P . ;fie '!1[1fiet : P.R.-_5 ,N `�'=�. �-� .�4� �1111111111 ,� �tiThlr i .E;:1tiI1r! •'1..th : :I , „, P INI , ���t, I U . oa 1 '�k iI40IVY? P.R.-7 SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, January 25, 2001, before the Palm Desert City Council at 4:00 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 date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at,or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk lCP January 3, 2001 City of Palm Desert, California MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION `� DECEMBER 19, 2000 i REVISION B. Case Nos. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21- Richard Hughes, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low Density Residential (R-1)to District Commercial and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Drell said that this item was continued in part to allow for the completion of the traffic study, which was completed, reviewed, modified, and amended. It now complied with the Transportation Engineer's requirements. To summarize the conclusions of the traffic study, Mr. Drell indicated that the project would generate 5,970 daily trips. That was 2,985 comings and goings of which approximately 420 would occur in the morning peak hour and 825 in the evening peak hour. With the addition of all the projected traffic, all the existing intersections in the vicinity would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service of "C" or better with the exception of the Sheryl/Cook intersection which currently operates at service level "F". Because of the rather continuous traffic on Cook Street, the delays from people on Sheryl trying to make left turns out or people on Cook Street trying to make a left turn in, it was such that according to the standards of traffic rating it was currently level "F". That service level could be approved to an acceptable level with the addition of a traffic signal. To add a traffic signal, there had to be a sufficient number of movements going in both directions at the intersection. Currently there weren't enough trips/cars trying to make that exit on Sheryl to meet "warrants". That was a specific number of a ratio between trips in one direction and trips in another direction which justify the addition of a signal. Currently there weren't enough trips on Sheryl to justify a signal. With the addition of the trips from the project, there would be enough to justify a signal. With the addition of the signal the service level would improve to service level "B," which was very good. There would be a lot more activity and traffic in that section of the project between Cook Street and the entrance onto Sheryl. The majority of entrances would be on Sheryl, not at the Cook Street access because the Cook Street access was limited to right-turn in and right-turn out and most of the north bound access on Cook would have to make a left turn on Sheryl to get into the project. The majority of the south bound traffic would also make the right turn onto Sheryl to get into the project because that would be the first opportunity. About 15% of the entrances were predicted to come down past Sheryl and enter on Cook, especially if they were going to the restaurant, that would be the most direct way. There was also 4 , S/ MINUTESt, SUBJECT lib PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION t d REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 discussion of without a signal, the current potential of traffic upon exiting to go down Clifford to get to Merle to access the signal at Merle. Some 450 trips per day would be predicted to go that way to get the signal to avoid the inconvenience of making the left turn at Cook Street. So, a few things were analyzed. It had always been to a certain degree the city's Traffic Engineer's preference that a signal would be at Sheryl instead of Merle, so it was suggested that the existing signal be moved from Merle to Sheryl which creates greater separation between the existing signals on Cook Street. To further discourage left turns out of the project onto Sheryl which then could wind their way back into the neighborhood, a median control could be constructed which would allow left turns in, but would only allow right turns out. This would prohibit customers exiting the center from traveling into the neighborhood. The bad news was that it would make it very difficult for residents of the neighborhood who use the center to get back onto Sheryl. They would have to exit and make a U-turn on Sheryl which couldn't be done until the project on the north side of Sheryl was built and added enough street width or they could go down to Merle and there would be a left turn access from Cook to Merle. Creating that control would solve the intrusion problem, but would create that inconvenience for the locals using the center. From a functional point of view, which was what the traffic study analyzed, the existing road system could handle the increased traffic from the project and would substantially confine the extra activity and extra traffic to that 235 feet between Cook Street and the entrance on Sheryl. Addressing the question of whether this was an appropriate project for the site, Mr. Drell said the decision was based on weighing the potential benefits against the potential burdens of this project to the neighborhood. Seeing the streetscape that would be created, there were some visual benefits that would accrue. Clearly the perimeter single story office uses would be residential in character and the nature of offices was that the shut down at 6:00 p.m. and were quiet in the evenings and on weekends. The more intensive uses, the gas station, convenience store and restaurant located on Cook Street were as far away from the residential area as possible. Cook Street was clearly not a residential street. It was a commercial/industrial street. Having commercial uses on Cook Street was not inappropriate. Staff was suggesting that hours of operation limitations be placed on the gas station, convenience store and restaurant of 11:00 p.m. Regarding the bowling alley, it would be located toward the southwest portion of the property and had the greatest potential of creating intrusive impacts. All the access to the project was on Sheryl and Cook. None of the commercial uses on Sheryl had direct access to Sheryl. All the access was internal, both pedestrian and vehicular. Staff had concern about the late night activity of the bowling alley, bowling. Staff rejected the inference that inherently people who go to bowling 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSIONP SUBJECT TO DECEMBER 19, 2000 D � tit Ff. REVISION centers are more prone to criminal activity or other destructive behavior than for instance the golfers who now use the driving range. The difference was that the current hours of the driving range were until 8:00 p.m. and the bowling center to be successful would have to be open later than 8:00 p.m. The same could be said for gas stations and convenience stores. They have approved a number of gas stations and convenience stores in the city, some right adjacent to residential areas and through that approval process there was fear that they would be magnets for criminal activity and have turned out not to be. Neither were the Circle K's in town had been in the city some 30 or 40 years. One was on El Paseo and one was adjacent to a residential area and it was patronized heavily by folks in the neighborhood. The likelihood of them becoming magnets of destructive behavior was more of an internal management operation issue, not one that was inherent in commercial use. One could have criminal activity coming out of residences. Staff had concern especially for the two empty lots since they back onto the parking lot. They had through their experience with Ruth's Chris that long term night uses with parking lots backing up onto residences was not a good thing unless people living in those houses stayed up late. Therefore, if this project were to proceed, those two lots should be included in the general plan amendment to allow a future request by those property owners for commercial development. Ideally if they were developed there would be a parking lot and another one story office adjacent to the single family home. The best buffer of high intensity uses was a building and a building of similar scale to the adjacent residential. A question was asked about the city's long-term goals or plans for that whole neighborhood. The city has as a matter of policy the highest commitment to the preservation of residential neighborhoods. That commitment applied to this neighborhood as well. The goal was to create at the boundary of high intensity uses, in this case Cook Street and the neighborhood, a defensible boundary where they could have successful, attractive uses that were appropriate on the arterial and then successful residential uses adjacent to them. Through design that created a boundary that allowed both uses to be successful. There was also some fear that this project/commercial use would extent back into the golf course. The applicant had no plans to do that. They tried to avoid having commercial uses directly adjacent to residential uses and the whole golf course property was backed by single family homes that would be appropriate. Staff was suggesting as part of this approval as a condition that the applicant agree to the redesignation of the golf course from the current residential zone to an open space designation. That would reinforce the commitment to maintain the current open space/ recreational use. The city through the zoning policies and housing policies relative to rehabilitation, this was a unique neighborhood providing quality housing in a 6 MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Dir w REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 very well planned neighborhood and hopefully it would prosper and improve as time goes by. That was what the city was committed to. Staff had concern about the night time activity of the bowling alley. He said it would be nice to move the bowling alley further to the east and perhaps put an office building toward the west. He wasn't sure that was possible because there needed to be a large parking field that would serve the bowling alley and restaurant. That was something they could consider. Staff was also suggesting hours of operation limitations on the bowling alley of 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Those would be in effect until they had a good idea of how the bowling alley operates. There would be an opportunity for the applicant to come back and request an amendment. When it was all said and done, it came down to how well the design could create that defensible boundary between the commercial and residential uses in a center that hopefully would provide some service to the neighborhood, whether the neighborhood was willing to make those trade offs. That was what the public hearing was for. To hear how the neighborhood felt about the various trade offs. A general issue was whether some form of commercial was appropriate in this general location and the more specific issue of whether this particular plan and this particular arrangement of uses appropriate. Staff believed that the applicant had made a reasonable attempt at insulating the neighborhood from the potential negative impacts of this activity by concentrating the access toward Cook Street and by creating the low intensity uses along Sheryl. Staff therefore recommended that the commission make a recommendation to city council of approval based on the various limitations on the operation and mitigation measures on traffic. Mr. Greenwood said he was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Campbell noted that the property at the northwest corner of Cook and Sheryl was vacant and asked what was proposed for that area. Mr. Drell said that the zoning was currently office professional. There was an approval at one time for an office building which had expired. There were some inquiries but no applications had been received. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on the access of the project for area residents. Mr. Greenwood said it would be difficult with the way it was laid out now to prohibit traffic from intruding into the neighborhood. They recommended prohibiting left turns out onto Sheryl. It would be difficult or impossible for neighbors to utilize the site and get back out. If the neighborhood wanted that access to be allowed, they could certainly allow it. He personally didn't feel that 7 ( MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 :r > .� SUBJECT TO st AFT. REVISION the traffic would intrude in the neighborhood, especially given the recommendation on the signalization at Merle and Sheryl. Chairperson Beaty asked if they would exit onto Cook Street and make a left turn. He asked if they could access Merle from Cook Street. Mr. Greenwood said yes, but it would be kind of a circuitous route. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was open and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. Chairperson Beaty asked the applicant to describe his submittal package for the audience. MR. RICHARD HUGHES, the applicant, addressed the commission. He said the submitted included a compilation of items that were submitted to them by their neighbors, including letters of support by the condominium project immediately to the north, which has 56 condominiums. The ladies on the board interfaced with them a year and a half ago and they had been in contact with them throughout. With this product design, they had approved it and given their unconditional support. They were the project's primary neighbor in terms of impact of the project. There were letters of support from Belmonte Estates off of Cook, from the industrial section condo owners association which represented 75 different businesses north of Merle, letters of support from a petition passed around by a neighbor among neighbors which represents about 32 property owners within this residential area and letters of support from various businesses throughout the community. Regarding Simons Enterprises, the Golf Center and this project, they had been at this about a year and a half and there were two objectives they had in terms of processing this design. One was to take into consideration the input of their neighbors. What they did initially was contact the neighbors. They asked them to their clubhouse about a year and a half ago and they floated a lot of ideas about what could be done. In interviewing the neighbors they found certain issues. Traffic, potential crime, liquor license, hours of business, uses, aesthetics and value of the neighborhood and whether it was added to or detracted from. Throughout the process they had taken the posture of having had five years of business in the neighborhood providing a golf facility for not only immediate residents but people throughout the community through their junior golf program and Simons had a mobile golf program that visited dozens of schools to teach kids golf and brings them to the facility to learn it, kids who would otherwise not have access to the game. There was a foundation involved with the golf center that underwrites kids and families that don't have the financial 8 MINUTES Fr an SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION tPp REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 capacity to enjoy golf, so their theme historically has been one of involvement in the community through family, seniors and children. When they designed this product, they thought in terms of the community and their neighbors. In addressing the issues that came forward, a lot got lost in the emotion. The traffic issue was the primary concern tonight. It had been addressed pretty exhaustively in the report. Bottom line in that issue was the neighbors were concerned about traffic. If they looked at the map, they had high density rental apartments across from them, high density modest income apartments, and high density condos. The residential area ran along the golf course and back toward Merle. The neighborhood was around 35 years old in a terrific location. Some people have been there 35 years and some just moved in. There was a high propensity of rentals in this area, which was mostly affected by the project, but their concern when they started this was that people leaving their project would go up the street to get to Merle to get to the signal to go north. Going north on Cook was dangerous from the exit on Sheryl. They tried to devise a plan where that could be overcome. The issue Mr. Lopez was addressing was that in order to prevent absolutely anyone transgressing the neighborhood in their car would be to prevent them from going left out of the project onto Sheryl. The contrariness of that was that residents coming to the project could enter on Sheryl, but when they left, in order to prevent others from entering their neighborhood, they would then have to then go right and up Cook and left on Merle to get back to their homes. Or they could walk because there would be a great sidewalk along their frontage. He pointed out the location of the two lots Mr. Drell talked about earlier. They were currently vacant. If they were to incorporate them into the project, they would take the same attitude that they took on the office building up toward Phyleen Miller's house. They wanted to be able to meet this demand if they didn't build this but built houses and what impact there would be on her home. The office buildings on either side took on residential characteristics with roof lines plus there were larger setbacks. He felt they gave her the value of the zone change without imposing on her any more than if they were building residences and they would do the same thing with the end lots. Those were the issues they dealt with aesthetically in taking the input from the neighbors. They eliminated the traffic issue. He tended to agree with.Mr. Greenwood that the no left turns out of their project into the neighborhood was overkill and the likelihood of there being any huge numbers of traffic given the signalization at Sheryl was just about nil, but they would make that concession to make the neighbors happy. That could be reviewed as 9 CorV r) SUBJECT T© MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 far as they were concerned, but they had no resistance to doing that mechanical work. Regarding crime, he felt the neighborhood was very 99 dark. There weren't any street lights. At night time they would find mischief and misbehavior where there were no people and no light. By virtue of this project being allowed to happen, the lighting (which would be down lighting and wouldn't be intrusive)would add a sense of security to the site because people would be there, the people that are there could be seen, and given the nature of the project they would have security not only because it would demand more trips from the Sheriff who patrol Palm Desert any way, but because they would have security on site both foot and car patrol. The issue of this creating criminal activity was almost opposite. He felt they would prohibit that element from showing up in that neighborhood. Regarding liquor licensing, they have had in the past licenses to serve alcoholic beverages and in order to do that they had to meet requirements of ABC which was a distance from municipal or institutional buildings like schools and churches and that was 500 to 1,000 feet so that requirement was a moot issue and was relative to city ordinances by virtue of the fact that they had it they know that it is doable. The same issue with criminal element was responded to with the same argument. The more people, the more lighting, the more security the less intent there would be for criminal people to have their way. He felt they would be contributing to the neighborhood from that perspective. With regard to the uses, there wasn't a service station within three miles and there was a huge need for one. He felt it was really appropriate in this area of all these people needing it. In terms of the restaurant and office spaces, they had incubated the whole neighborhood in excess of 200 feet with a 25-foot setback on Sheryl which was currently just dirt and dust and a six-foot wall. It would have a sidewalk, down lighting, and the entrance from Sheryl he felt would be a country club entrance to the neighborhood which currently was simply just dirt and dust. They had taken the concerns of the neighbors to heart. He knew their positions were sincere and he felt they had mitigated them and added value by virtue of their design. They did it with the intent of placating the needs and considerations of the neighbors. In that sense the aesthetics of the design and the improvement of Sheryl he felt would certainly not diminish the value of the neighborhood. The other issue was bowling. There was a stereotype on bowling. He was going to leave that issue to be addressed by an associate of his, Mr. William Blue. He has a history of involvement in issues relating to recreation (i.e., he was a commissioner of Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA) and he was 10 MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION fj ' ,A - REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 the CEO of Proprietor's Bowling Association of America). He was currently the Chief Financial Officer of Simon's Enterprises. He wanted him to address specifically the issue of bowling and how it fits. He thought that perhaps that shared knowledge would give everyone a comfort level that heretofore didn't exist. Commissioner Lopez asked Mr. Hughes to expand on the relationship of the golf facility and what would be left of it since this would take over part of the driving range. Mr. Hughes said that was correct. He described the current layout and 9 Y indicated that when they were done, the golf facility (which was 9 three pars to the west) would remain the same. The same function, the same faculty, the same programs, the same personnel. Virtually nothing would change except perhaps the location of the clubhouse where they intended to put it in a portion of one of the buildings. They maintained the landscape plateau for all the neighbors that live in these homes. All the backyards of the homes along there faced the golf course. It was pretty nice and that wouldn't change at all. Mr. Drell's recommendation of the change to open space was fine with him since they had no intention of doing anything else with it for two reasons. One, it functioned well for their purposes. Two, the configuration of that piece of dirt and the condition of soil in terms of compaction didn't allow for anything to be done there. They had no resistance to that condition whatever. Being maintained as that vista he thought was terrific for those homeowners. Nothing would change except the function of the driving range itself. And that would be a positive because currently there were 40 foot lights out there for night driving in the evening. Those would be gone. With this project those lights would come down and there would be ground lighting. There would be an improvement in terms of things that would impose on a residential line-of-sight or view. (Someone spoke from the audience and said that the driving range lighting was approved until 10:00 p.m. but they were currently only providing lighting until 8:00 p.m.) Regarding the hours of business, it had been proven that the hours talked about could allow success. They were comfortable with that and if they had no issues whatsoever, the neighbors would probably become their biggest patrons and if after a year or so everyone thought another hour at night was acceptable he would be open to that. He had no problem with the conditions. They could argue with the effectiveness of them, but to keep everyone happy they would comply with 11 \CA SUBJEgroT MINUTES o �' REVISIN PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 all the recommendations. He felt they had done just about everything possible to mitigate to zero when in most cases they could never get that close. They felt they had operated as good neighbors and in that mode designed the site. Commissioner Lopez noted that in a letter received there was a reference to batting cages. Mr. Hughes explained that at the beginning of this process they invited the neighbors in to float a lot of ideas. A couple of ideas that were suggested that didn't make it to the final cut were batting cages and day care and a few others. That was old information that was now obsolete, but the communication with those particular individuals had become nil, they were operating on old data. MR. WILLIAM BLUE, 73-429 Fox Tail in Palm Desert, said he has been a resident since 1984. He indicated that he would present his view of the modern bowling center. Back in 1985 and for a period of 40 years before that bowling occupied the most populous sport in the United States. It occupied a wonderful position. There were over 5,500 bowling centers operating and everything was going along fine. Then lots of competition came along. In addition, bowling centers (they are not called alleys any more but centers and lanes), began a program of modernization. Many of them found that the land value was too great and didn't have enough money to spend so those centers have closed. The ones that had opened up since that time were now more focused on family and recreation versus traditional league play because people were no longer willing to commit to 8, 16, 32 or 64 weeks of continuous league bowling. It was just not part of the scheme in today's society. Centers developed the opportunity to become spacious, clean, neat, well lit with full service food and beverage and a very safe haven. They in fact became indoor destinations for communities. They opened up children's centers, availability to place kids while mothers or single parents were bowling during daytime activities. In answer to the fact that one third of the population was now 25 years of age and younger, centers wondered what they were going to do to compete with computers and other games to get people back to bowling which was very popular for many years. They have changed and adapted several new things including bumpers, lasers, black lights and glow bowling and they had lock in nights for children's groups including church groups. That was 12 P =� SggLm MINUTES R PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 fine for the kids but adults said they wanted to use the bumpers, too. They found out that over the years that adults had adapted to many of the new things centers were offering and were having a good time. They also had daytime activity for women, high school interscholastic programs. Six states now had full sports activity for bowling throughout their high schools (not in California), but it was a club activity and on the way he believed. He thought that many more schools were looking into it seriously because more colleges through Title 9 and other programs were offering scholarships and had bowling teams that were participating on the NCAA level and Level 2 as well. Junior instruction was a physical education alternative for high school and middle school students. Elementary school field trips were very much in vogue. Senior center day trips and centers had adapted not withstanding the ADA requirements, to the fact that they were open to having blind people, those in wheel chairs, and other physical disabilities had the opportunity to bowl just like everyone else. There was paraphernalia available and they made that available on an ongoing basis. Specifically in this valley they could look forward to business meetings and staff activities being conducted there. There were clean, spacious, modern meeting rooms. The Planning Commission could hold their meetings at the bowling center if the council chamber was remodeled again. Lots of room, clean, open and very safe. Civic meetings and activities, Chamber of Commerce meetings, birthday parties for all ages, inter-community leagues, residential and business involved, summer recreation especially here in the valley would be open for all age groups. They were proposing a split house right now. That meant there would be 24 lanes on one side and 16 lanes on the other. That was to give groups large and small an opportunity to have private parties, meetings and bowling going on at the same time without having to bother with the rest of the people on the 24 or opposite side. He believed that the center was relevant to today's community offerings for recreation and entertainment. It added to the opportunities available to both residents and visitors to Palm Desert. They had a menu of amenities they felt would rival the very latest in furnishings, safety, comfort, safety, technology, safety, and wholesome family fun in a secure environment. That was what today's modern bowling center looked like. It was a focus for families and communities and all age groups. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. 13 MINUTES _. TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AFT- �i/ 1ECT REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 MS. DIANA TYCE, 42-511 Stephanie Circle, addressed the commission. She said that they own their home and had been there since 1967. She said she spoke at the last meeting. She had many things to say then and left a lot of them out. She understood why it was so popular for the city that would approve this and understood the tax money that would be coming in also, but she also understood that many things that she has seen in all the years they have lived at this location they have seen through the valley had been so detrimental when things like this had happened near an established neighborhood. She said that they had a very low impact on criminal activity and that the neighbors have been very close knit, maybe not always knowing names but who belonged there. She got the petition list and knew some of the people, especially the Sanchers who owned seven homes in there of which they rented out. A lot of the names were of peole she didn't know. She knew a lot of people were renters. She asked the two gentlemen who presented the case if this was to happen next to their homes in their neighborhood if they would approve the project. MS. PATRICIA ROEDER, 42-671 Susan Circle, said that she was a renter in this neighborhood for six years and she has an adult disabled daughter, full time college student and uses the Sun Dial transportation. They also had a number of school buses in and out of this neighborhood that require special needs children to be transported. If in an emergency, whether it was an ambulance responding to an older resident that needed fast service to get to the hospital to live, they weren't going to get there if they couldn't turn left on Cook Street. She didn't understand why they would take out the light at Merle and move it to Sheryl and limit their ability to get out onto a very crowded street. They added two more lights on Cook Street. They were forgetting that people were speeding from 1-10 at 55 and 60 mph. They did not decelerate fast enough when they hit their neighborhood. They were moving into a school zone of 25 mph that was supposed to be enforced. She said she was also guilty of speeding in this area. They also go the other way from the 25-mph speed limit in a school zone and start accelerating from Hovley on. She said that one third of the neighborhood was invited by the applicant to give input. The majority of these people were on Gary and faced the golf course. Those of them that lived in the center core of this area, herself included, knew the difficulty of getting in and out of this neighborhood. They didn't invite them to their early meetings for their input. She said there must have been a reason for that. She only learned of this a few days when it was put in her mail box of the very first 14 \LD MINUTESLI)PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AFT- RSUE/8JEC7 TO DECEMBER 19, 2000 ISION hearing concerning this whole project. She actually thought it was opposite Harv's Car Wash. She couldn't believe that they would put this much activity in their small neighborhood. She really felt they didn't have a total representation from the neighborhood. They had one third of the core which they thought would like what they were presenting, but even the people who did sign the petition, it was not all of them. They didn't have the input from all of them. She wanted to know the beginning hours of the gas station/mini mart. She wanted to know what family restaurant they were proposing. She wanted to know if the 100 employees were included in the traffic report. She said they were also relying on a high school population on minimum wage and if they really thought that would bring in enough business to pay the bills. She asked about the noise from the bowling alley. No one had discussed the impact of the noise. She said she could bring up the noise because they had been in the Michigan bowling lane business for 50 years and they couldn't tell her that there wouldn't be some noise from that. People had discussed the high school football stadium, the lights, the noise and none of that was supposed to be seen or heard in the neighborhood. She was in the middle of this neighborhood and heard the high school football games, she saw the impact of the lights on her backyard in the middle of this neighborhood. At the first meeting they were saying that the Marriott needed a place for their families to go bowling. She asked about the college. They needed another activity, another P.E. requirement. She asked if anyone had considered moving this project toward to the college and toward the Marriott and toward all this new development on Country Club, Desert Willow one, two and maybe three. She didn't think their neighborhood was going to survive this easily. If this project failed after two or three years and they couldn't pay the bills and the whole complex got sold to a new owner and it wasn't a family run type of business and she asked if the neighborhood was back to wondering who was in one house and who was in another. She said that she rented. She now owned and had been an owner for over a year for two reasons. Because she was located between the College of the Desert and the new Cal State. It was affordable housing for some of them. If they were forced to move because they couldn't exist in this neighborhood, they didn't have a place to move to with the average price of a new home in this area. MS. MARGARET LONG, 74-795 Gary Avenue, stated that a year and a half ago she was not asked about this project. A piece of paper was left on her driveway. When the golf course came in it was after she moved into 15 r) ! 4 MINUTES SUBJECTTO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION �' �r REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 the neighborhood and they promised that her daughter who was in second grade would have a way to get to school because they lived too close for kids to have busing at the time. Her son went to the middle school and he had to walk and he was beaten up in the wash a couple of times. They never had a way to go to school and she was always fearing for her children. They said the golf course would be better and yet she, her son, and daughter had witnessed golfers urinating on their fence. They urinated a lot on the fence. They came right down to the corner because her house was at one end where there were probably no restrooms. They lost their balls and came into her yard. They knocked the fence down. The fence had been down for many years. She was a single mom and couldn't afford to get a new fence, but the golfers would climb into her yard. When she wasn't at work and they thought she was gone they were in the yard. Her son's bicycle was stolen. She didn't think it was from their neighbors. The gardeners shot her dog. The fence was knocked down and she didn't have a fence and had no one to repair it. Her father was 84 years old and couldn't help. Her father propped it up and golfers jump over it and knock it down. Her dog got loose, he was a puppy, and when she got home from work he had been shot in the side with a pellet gun. The gardeners crossed their yards because these gardeners, some of them live in their neighborhood, and the gardeners would come across her yard and go through her fence. If her fence was locked, they broke the lock. They broke the fence. They broke things because they wanted to get home. They dropped beer cans in their yards. It was not the kind of place where she wanted to have a bowling alley because they would be people in this parking lot urinating against the fences. She still didn't have a very good fence and even if they built a good fence for her they would be hurtling over it. The golf balls had broken her windows. She put up $2,300 worth of shutters so that she could keep balls out and so people wouldn't break in. She was just saying that this wasn't a good thing for them. It wasn't making any of them happy and it seemed like the people on Gary Avenue were tricked. She had people coming to her house asking her to sign the petition saying that this would be great for their property. She didn't know these people. She didn't even know if they lived in the neighborhood. And people were dropping things in her driveway. They sign it "your neighbors". If they were really her neighbors, she thought they would tell her who they were or show their face. She was just telling the commission that this just didn't feel right. 16 MINUTES in _ SUBJECT Tp PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 MS. CAROL CUNNINGHAM, 74-800 Sheryl Avenue, stated that she lived directly across what was now a vacant lot. She informed commission that Mr. Hughes came to their Board of Directors meeting on December 12 and presented the project as it is now envisioned. She read a letter into the record a letter dated December 12, 2000 addressed to R.N. Hughes, President, HCO, "Dear Mr. Hughes, We would like to inform you that we support the project which you envision for the southwest Sheryl/Cook Street area as you presented it to us on December 11, 2000. We feel confident that you have been careful to consider the existing homes in the area in your planning and that you will be willing to work with us as questions might arise. Thank you for presenting the project to us. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Vista Palm Desert Homeowners Association." MR. JERRY HARRIS, 42-841 Christian Street, stated that he lived right at the corner of Sheryl and Christian. He said that he was most affected by this project, probably more than anyone here. From his house there was nothing but sand and dirt. His only concern was how many entrances there would be on Sheryl. Mr. Drell said there was one. The existing one would be moved one lot to the east toward Cook Street. It would be about 100 feet closer to Cook Street. Mr. Harris said he would love to see this property developed because he spends Saturdays and Sundays listening to people ride motorcycles and three wheeled vehicles through this sand all day for two days a week. The rest of the people didn't have to listen to that. They were back in the circle where they didn't see that. They had a wonderful view right now with the golf course and he didn't believe that would change and would stay the same. One question was where the maintenance shops would be for the equipment and that hadn't been answered. He thought the golf course was going to be run out of the bowling alley, which didn't matter if it was a bowling alley or a building adjacent to it. The way the property sets now, it was a very big eyesore and he would love to have a nice six-foot wall down Sheryl Street with landscaping on the other side. He would love to have a wall down his property. He said that the bowling alley did not bother him at all. They were all adults. People do certain things. If they couldn't accept what people were going to do, then they needed to go somewhere else. But the bowling alley was not a negative thing. The golf course was the main thing they had in that neighborhood. As long as the golf course 17 ,t7 MINUTES DFZA PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SUBIECT TO DECEMBER 19, 2000 FT. REVISION existed the way it is now, he couldn't understand why there was an objection to it. (Someone from the audience said that the golf course was going to be gone.) Chairperson Beaty called a point of order and instructed the speaker that Mr. Harris had the floor and if the speaker wished to make comments, he would be given an opportunity. Mr. Harris said that he would go ahead and ask that question. Would the golf course exist like it does now? Mr. Hughes said yes. Mr. Drell explained that the driving range was what was being developed. Mr. Harris reiterated that the driving range would be developed, but the golf course itself would remain as is. There would be nothing behind their homes. Mr. Drell concurred and explained that staff was recommending that the zone be changed to require open space, but they couldn't force someone to continue to run a golf course. Mr. Harris asked if the golf course behind their homes would remain the same. Mr. Drell said it was the property owner's intent to do that, but the city could not force someone to continue to operate a golf course. He actually lives backing onto a piece of property that used to be a golf course. The owner couldn't make money at it and he stopped watering the lawn and it had reverted back to a natural state. It eventually got purchased by a public agency. The property behind their homes would not become commercial and if they proceeded with the change of zone to open space it would not become housing either. It would either be a golf course or some form of open space. Mr. Harris said his main concern was that there could be double story rental property built on that property all along Sheryl if this project didn't go through. 18 MINUTES DRA SWUM To PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Mr. Drell said that currently that was not the case. The property was zoned R-1 single family. There could be homes built there but they would be single story homes. Mr. Harris asked if there could be single story condos. Mr. Drell said they would have to get a conditional use permit, but as a matter of right they would be building single story homes in those existing lots. For whatever reason over the last 35 years not one person had chosen to do so. Mr. Harris felt that this project would increase the value of their entire area. He didn't know why the objection of all the people that weren't concerned as much as he is because he was adjacent to what was going on. His only concern was if there was a block wall built around that facility then he didn't have any concern. MR. DAVE HART, 74-657 Gary Avenue, stated that he has addressed the commission before and he just wanted to reiterate. He wanted to characterize both the opposition and those in favor. He thought they were ready to go on to City Council right now and if need be to the courts. He thought all the key issues had been addressed in a very good manner and this public hearing had been a good forum for that. The opposition he thought had laid out a very principled argument. It had been supported by existing codes and laws and going back to similar cases, as they talked about initially, the situation with Sagewood versus Wal-Mart and Chaparral when the Field of Dreams was going to locate in that area and they knew they didn't have the softball field there and there was no Wal-Mart on Country Club. Those in favor of it, he thought the central ideas revolved around convenience and recreation which were not bad things. That was the central part of their argument. The opposition had focused on the issue of encroachment of commercial property and how this affects the quality of life of the people in residential lives. He said it was just brought up a couple of seconds ago that central to the oppositions argument was this issue of the zoning change. That would impact them. As Mr. Drell said, it is zoned for low density residential. If that was developed in that way, they would be talking about families with a couple of cars at best. He listened to the traffic report and probably needed to listen to it on tape a few times to understand all of it and he needed to know what an "F" was and things like that. He couldn't help but think that there was going to be more traffic 19 MINUTES fl SU BJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION '' REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 there. He said they live in a recreational Mecca here in the desert, especially in relation to other cities around the world. He asked if we know when to say when to development of these kinds of projects. Casinos, restaurants, movie theaters. Maybe they needed another movie theater over on their corner there. He asked how much was enough here. He thought that the opposition has considered the safety of Palm Desert residents, especially the youth. He really thought that was a central concern of the people. Whereas the people in favor he thought consider first economic well being possibly at the expense of safety. Not that they haven't addressed those safety concerns because he thought they had. He also said that Mr. Hughes has some to the neighborhood and opened things up at the beginning of all this so there had been an effort made. The opposition he thought reflected the vision of Palm Desert and the people that have been in favor of this, he thought their vision was misplaced and really reflected the vision of Cathedral City. He asked if they wanted Cook Street take on the glamour and traffic congestion of Date Palm. He works in that area and it was very hard to get around on Date Palm. He knew that Cook would be a big thoroughfare and he realized that. He asked if they could mix it up. This was the holiday season and little kids were asking what they were getting for Christmas and all the wants. He said there was a difference between wants and needs. He thought the opposition spoke to the needs of the community, not necessarily just the wants. He said that yes, it would be nice to have a bowling alley. He wasn't opposed to bowling and he wasn't opposed to eating and maybe it would be nice to walk over to have that, but he thought that was about wants and not things that they necessarily need. He thanked the city for this forum and felt this discussion prepared them for consideration by the City Council and the courts. He thanked the commission. MR. BILL BORDEN, 255 Via Picon in Palm Desert stated that he also works at 75-153 Merle Drive, Suite H. He informed commission that he has spoken before and wouldn't retouch on those issues. His office was close by and in talking with a number of real estate agents, these were not concrete plans. He knew that the owners of the property to the north at the corner of Sheryl and Cook were looking at office/commercial/showroom type uses. The point was that at some point in time that was going to get built as an office or some sort of commercial type use which was going to create more traffic at an already impacted intersection. Cook Street is what it is. Once the freeway connection was put in it was going to become a 20 MINUTES n. . .rittFT SUBJECT To PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION ek ® REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 major thoroughfare. It was something the City of Palm Desert could make a show case for the city. This project would add aesthetic value to that. Second, he has lived in a number of places and had been in Palm Desert about five years. Inherently, the comments were always that something was a great project as long as it wasn't built next to "my" house. That was the same everywhere. If that was the case, nothing would ever get built. He encouraged the commission to look at the pros and cons and make a judgement based on that. MRS. LOU ANNE HART said her husband already addressed the commission and they live on Gary Avenue with their two children ages 12 and eight. She said that she was once a teenager and knew the value of a hangout. It was once her style to frequent them and now that she was on the other side of the window and was a parent, she was a little leery to have a bowling alley so near the high school. When her children were young and they would have a friend come over, she would tell her children to put their money away and not leave it out. Don't leave it sitting out because that was putting temptation in the way of their friends and they didn't want to do that to their friends. That was not a nice thing to do. She thought that might be what they would be doing with a bowling alley and actually a place that sells alcohol and liquor that stays open late. She thought they might be putting temptation on the doorstep of their teenager and in this world that was a pretty evil thing to do. They were faced with a lot of temptation as it is from the media, from their friends, from their peer groups and she didn't think they needed this. It was an unkind thing. She knew that they want it and when she was a teenager she wanted it, but now that she was on the other side, she had to look out for their best interests and sometimes they didn't like it a lot but it was her job as a parent to do and she intended to continue to do that. MS. KARIN TINEN, 74-622 Gary Avenue, stated that she listened to Mr. Drell and what she was hearing, and asked to be corrected if she was wrong, but what she was hearing was that surprisingly this seemed like something that was very close to a done deal. Mr. Drell said she was wrong. Ms. Tinen asked why he sounded so confident and supportive. 21 •r MINUTES iiRAFT.. SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Mr. Drell explained that he is a staff member. He does not vote. He provides information and analysis per his background. The commission and council have very independent minds and review the information and make their own decisions. Ms. Tinen said that the gentleman who spoke in favor of the bowling alley who is involved business wise in the enterprise made it sound like a blessing upon humanity. Realistically she didn't see it that way. Her grandson attends COD and lives with them and he was a very good student and very good person. He said he believed a bowling alley was a magnet to those who want to hang out and she thought it was rather disingenuous to point out that it would receive church members and seniors and little kiddies. The gentleman spoke of a day care center. They have day care centers for children in the Vegas casinos, too. In the gambling casinos. So one had to be wary of presenting such an argument in support of a bowling alley. The fact that it is in such close proximity to the high school and would be open late and would serve alcoholic beverages and would attract people who hang out it was an abomination and anyone who spoke in favor of developing that area, changing the zoning to PC-2 rather than having to look at vacant land was coming from somewhere where most of the residents don't come from. She happened to be an environmentalist and it didn't hurt her eyes to look at nature and undeveloped land. Bowling alleys, find someone who wants to build a bowling alley somewhere else. Not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It was just so wrong. She didn't think the zoning should be changed. Many of them have lived there many years and like it the way it is. They liked the peace and the quiet. She stated that she attended the first informal gathering of residents and promoters of this business enterprise and it was the supporters and business people for the bowling alley who pointed out to the residents that there wasn't a bowling alley for miles around and people who come from all over. It would attract people from the entire Coachella Valley. To present that as a selling point was unbelievable, but he actually said that to them at what she believed was the first meeting of businessmen and residents of that housing tract. If that wasn't a huge negative and stupendous turnoff for such a project, she didn't know what was. MS. MEGAN LONG, 74-795 Gary Avenue, said that speaking as a teenager she wanted to say that a bowling alley near the high school wouldn't be very reassuring because knowing some of her friends and knowing what they do over the weekends and knowing that there are types 22 DRAFT MINUTES SUB,lECT To PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 of things that could be happening that they would be giving them a chance to do and they would be giving them more opportunities and more things to go to and basically that wasn't the right idea. She thought that the alcohol thing was a big problem and knowing most of the teenagers at the high school, they usually wouldn't pass up an opportunity if they had it. When she was a child going to the golf course, she would go to the golf course with her friends without permission and usually that is what kids do, so they did it any way and usually the people working at the golf course weren't the nicest they could have been to them and they usually didn't want kids around that often but they acted like the golf course was something that kids belong to which she didn't know any kids that went there. She was just saying that she didn't think this would be a good opportunity for the kids or for the kids in the neighborhood because there were more and more kids coming around. She didn't think it would be very helpful. MS. TERA VORCE, 74-861 Merle Drive, said that she had gotten a chance to look over the petitions and had a question about the circulated by neighbors among neighbors representing 32 plus property owners. She asked if they were saying that it was 32 plus property owners that signed this petition or if that was 32 property owners who signed it over and over again. Because she counted 18 property owners and 19 property owners which were the same property owners on both October 28 and January 14 and October 28 page 5 it looked like the same person just wrote it in. She wanted to know where the 32 plus came from because she only counted 19. Also, Sunday she took her six-year old to the golfing range which she really loved and thought was very nice, but she talked to a gentleman about the project and what would happen to the course and he said there would be a change in the effect of either moving the range else where on the course or taking it out completely, so when Mr. Hughes said affirmatively that there would not be any change to the golf course she was a little confused. She asked if there was or was not going to be a change to the golf course. In regards to the traffic, the new college was going down Cook Street and she was thinking in long term effect the students from the college would want to go and get stuff to eat or relax with their friends so they would be getting a lot more traffic coming from the college where they would normally be just going on their own way to other parts of the city they would end up in their neighborhood. In long term effect she felt that would cause more traffic in their area. She kind of wanted to know if they thought 23 fl DRAFT MINUTES SUB1fCT T° PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISi+ON DECEMBER 19, 2000 traffic wise if they were considering traffic from the college going in there by the 1-10 freeway. Also, development and growth have been moving fast in our valley but we seem to forget that there are people out there who can't afford to buy a new home and can't afford to pay $2,000 for a two-bedroom apartment which is where their rent seems to be going. She would rather see a more affordable housing of one story homes or something that would enlighten their neighborhood, not take away from it. She would rather see homes there and they could make money off the homes rather than just come in and destroy what they have. All of their neighbors were family and she looked at her neighbors as her family and she would love to have more in her family if they put homes there. MR. JEFF RUNYON stated that he lives at the corner of Clifford and Sheryl and he thought a lot of their passions were directly proportionate to possibly their position in the community physically to the project and there were several who were much more impacted than others. He and his wife were probably the second most impacted and Phyleen Miller was the most and it actually looked like her home would be inside the project. He lives in the house directly across from what is now the entry to the golf club facility. He was concerned because he has an alley behind his house also. The traffic was a major concern to him. He thought Mr. Hughes had done a beautiful job in designing the project, but he didn't think it belonged in their neighborhood. He thought someone mentioned possibly considering relocation to another area, perhaps out by the college. He knew there was a lot of land out there. He said he has been a resident of Palm Desert for 30 years and he thought a lot of them live in that area because there aren't a lot of lights. He moved out there because he enjoyed the fact that 20 years ago it was actually in the county and he enjoyed that little bit of country before they built the industrial area. He was certainly not opposed to the project if it was somewhere else and he thought Mr. Hughes did a good job of designing it. He was very concerned as he was sure the individuals were at the end of Sheryl and anyone who might be affected by the amount of traffic that would come through there. He would like to have been at more of the meetings as far as someone who would be opposed to its location. He was certainly not opposed to bowling and loved the golf center. His father is a golf professional and was now giving lessons over there. He appreciated everyone at the golf facility for taking care of him, but that part of it would disappear and he was sorry for that. That might be selfish on his part, but he did enjoy having that facility directly across the 24 MINUTES ` _ PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION Sic ° BJCT A RON DECEMBER 19, 2000 street from his house even though in its present state it has extra traffic because that entrance was directly across from his kitchen. He would be sorry to see that go although he understood there would be some limited some practice and short game practice facility and he thought the golf course was beautiful. He grew up in the business and loved golf courses. He wished that was going to stay. He felt he should say something about it. He liked the project but not in this location and he was sure he voiced that opinion for many others in the neighborhood, especially those in close juxtaposition to the project. He was sure people out on Gary or Merle were certainly not as impacted by it. Chairperson Beaty asked if he understood that they would move the entrance closer to Cook Street. Mr. Runyon said it looked like at this point it would almost be in alignment with the alley. Mr. Drell said it would be moved slightly east of the alley. Mr. Runyon said he understood that and wasn't sure what that was all about that they wouldn't be able to turn left to go back into the Sheryl Street area. Chairperson Beaty explained that it was being proposed that the people leaving the facility leaving the facility onto Sheryl not be allowed to turn left. He asked if they could access the alley. Mr. Greenwood said that the traffic study showed the access on Sheryl between Clifford and the alley consistently. The way it was shown in the traffic study they could use the alley. Mr. Runyon thanked the commission for their time and requested to be a little more informed possibly about further meetings, either pro or con. Chairperson Beaty noted there had been three meetings and asked if he had been notified. Mr. Runyon said they had found things in the yard occasionally. Chairperson Beaty asked if he was notified through the U.S. mail. 25 LJRAFT SUBJECT TO MINUTES RSV PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Mr. Runyon said no. Mr. Drell explained that the city sent out 200-300 notices and everyone within 300 feet. He would have to check through the file to see why he might not have received one. Mr. Runyon said he originally got notices on the first meetings that they had across the street, the very early meetings they actually had on the project, but since then had not received any mail. Mr. Drell said that only one notice was mailed. The continued hearings were not renoticed. Mr. Runyon thanked the commission for their time. MR. JOHN TINEN, 74-622 Gary, asked if Rebecca at the end of Gary would be extended north. He asked if that was still a viable consideration or if he missed something at the very beginning of the meeting. Mr. Drell said that as far as this project was concerned it had not been proposed. He pointed out the location of city owned property in the area they would be building housing there. The goal of that was to make this new neighborhood part of the existing neighborhood with an access to it or through it from Rebecca. That was something that was in the initial planning stages and there would be hearings. If there was no desire from this neighborhood to have a link to that, then it wouldn't happen, but that had nothing to do with this project. Mr. Tinen replied, not directly. Mr. Drell said it didn't indirectly either. Mr. Tinen said that if Rebecca was extended north it would have a direct effect on the neighborhood and the street he lives on. Chairperson Beaty clarified that Mr. Drell was saying that it wouldn't have any impact on the project that was under discussion now. Mr. Drell agreed that if it is extended it will have an impact on the neighborhood and that would be the subject for discussion if and when it is proposed. He confirmed that it was a possibility. 26 n P`\ MINUTES URA FT, SWIM To PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 MR. STAN ASARO, 74-607 Gary Avenue, stated that he was in support of the project. There were other people in support of the project. He pointed out that usually supporters didn't come out for things like this. It was usually just the opposition. He said he has been there 12 years. He has attended all the meetings and listened to all the opposition. Projects have been going in and the neighborhood was just getting better. The neighborhood has never been any better than it is right now and any time a new project goes in the neighborhood just gets better. MR. LEON BENNETT, 48-350 Crest View Drive said that his second residence was in the Cook Street Business Park area and he probably spent more time there than at home. He spoke in favor of the project last time. He wanted to add two things. Now that Cook Street has been completed, and he complimented the Mr. Greenwood and the City for things working much better than he thought they would work, so he had a lot of confidence that what the Planning Commission and what the City did in terms of traffic studies would favorably impact the area. The second thing was that since the last meeting he has talked with both Cardiff Transportation and West Coast Transportation and they were very much in favor because of the service station that would keep them from having to travel a farther distance to get fuel for their vehicles. MRS. MOREEN HEIMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie, said she had some more issues. When the industrial park came in, they put in a wall and told them there would be no access from the industrial park into their neighborhood. They did fulfill that. They put in the wall and the industrial park couldn't get into their neighborhood whatsoever. If they moved the signal that meant all the school buses had to come out. She wasn't sure what they meant about one way exits and having to turn around. She agreed that it was a beautiful project and that bowling alleys are great and had nothing against it. When her youngest son was ill and before he passed away, they had shut down nine holes of their golf course. It was an 18-hole course and they couldn't make a go of it. They actually sold her son the golf carts and her little entrepreneur rebuilt them and sold them, so she had nothing against the golf course whatsoever. She said they were really sweet to her son. But if this project came in, the only thing she could say was ask if they could keep it out of the neighborhood. They had done this traffic study, why couldn't they put the brick wall completely across Sheryl and leave their neighborhood alone. She thought they should leave the signal alone 27 _ A JECy W MINUTES _. - B PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION! DECEMBER 19, 2000 and put in another one at their entrance. She said that way the traffic could go in and out of the development without impacting their area. They would still have their exit in and out and it wouldn't disturb any of their school buses and it would give them their access and they wouldn't have to bother their neighborhood. As far as she could see, if they could completely wall them off and leave their homes alone and if thought this was something that had to be approved that they couldn't live without, that would be another alternative to keep traffic out of the neighborhood. She asked if there was any opportunity to leave their signal alone and moving their signal so they could get in and out of their development. Mr. Greenwood explained that traffic volumes in Palm Desert have increased 60% in three years on Monterey, Cook Street and Washington. He said it was time for Palm Desert to get serious about traffic. Traffic signals didn't do anything to move traffic. They stopped traffic. It was important that they not put in any impedances on Cook Street that they didn't absolutely have to have. Someone earlier mentioned Date Palm as an example. If they were to signalize each or any private driveway on Cook Street, they would be repeating the Date Palm experience. He didn't think anyone thought that was a successful example. For those reasons staff would recommend against signalizing any individual private driveway except in the case where those driveways oppose each other across the street and it serves more than one property. That was partly the reason for the recommendation to remove the one signal at Merle and move it to Sheryl. Chairperson Beaty asked if the entry off of Cook Street lined up with the entrance to the reclamation plant. Mr. Greenwood said not necessarily. Chairperson Beaty asked if it could. Mr. Greenwood said with some adjustments probably. Mr. Drell pointed out that there wasn't a whole lot of traffic going into the reclamation plant. Ms. Heimstra asked for clarification on having to make a U-turn. Mr. Drell explained that it would be similar to turning into Trader Joe's from Fred Waring. They could make a left turn into it, but they couldn't make a left turn out. It would force people exiting to make a right turn. Also, there would be the same situation at Merle. People could make left turns onto Merle. He said it was easier to make a left turn in because they only had to worry about traffic coming in one direction. When making a left turn out they had to worry about four lanes of traffic. Typically they have created structures to allow left turns in but not out. 28 MINUTESDRAFT so 91ECT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REUlS10N DECEMBER 19, 2000 Ms. Heimstra asked if the project were approved if there was any way to make their access solely on Cook and leaving them alone. Mr. Drell said it would be difficult. Mr. Greenwood said it was possible, but it would require the project to have only a right turn in and right turn out access only. Ms. Heimstra said it wouldn't if there was a signal. Mr. Greenwood stated that staff would not recommend signalizing one private driveway. Maintaining flow on Cook Street was much more important than providing access to one property. MR. SID HEIMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the project. He has lived there 30years and when theystarted to put this apartment project in he lived just to the north of that and they were going to put in 90 bachelor apartments, no fence, one pool. Thanks to Corky Larson they went through about six meetings in Riverside. They cut it in half, they lowered it from two stories to one story, they put in two pools and a fence around it. He believed that this project was the same thing they were running up against. It was a nice project. No matter what they tried to do around Sheryl it would add congestion to their area. It didn't belong there and would make it harder to get out if they moved the signal and put a barrier up. He said they didn't need it. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant wished to offer any rebuttal comments. Mr. Hughes readdressed the commission. He thought that consistently it was the intent of everyone here to be sincere. He thought that understanding traffic patterns and designs to mitigate issues was complicated to those that do it for a living so it was probably overwhelming to those don't. Bottom line was that there was no negative impact to the neighborhood relative to traffic created by the project. It had been mitigated to an insignificant degree. There were alternatives. Leaving it to the engineers who do it for a livingand between citystaff, cityengineer and g 9 engineers hired bythem, he was sure this was as well thought out as it 9 9 could be. He appreciated very much the people's response to the project as a design item and as a use item and they seemed to have a positive regard for it and that was encouraging. Regarding the "not in my neighborhood" issue, that would never stop. With regards to this being 29 Fr pro — SUBJECT TO MINUTES REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 houses as opposed to their project, it would never happen. The property was not suitable for housing because of the configuration of the land in total, the costs imposed by CVWD for lining the wash which created land costs which would not provide a house that could be absorbed at $150,000, and the soils wouldn't support it. They wouldn't be able to put in the roads in and have enough left over for lots. He didn't think it would ever be homes and never should have been zoned R-1 to begin with. Notwithstanding what anyone says, that golf course would remain open space. Any hysteria to the contrary was wrong and false. He encouraged the commission to support the project and send this project up to the City Council. They would probably find themselves loved by the neighborhood once the project was built and in operation. He pointed out the project in favor that represented about 75 people and 56 properties right on top of them. A gentleman who lives right next door spoke in favor. Regarding the traffic study, they may access the alley, but they designed it the way they wanted, there wouldn't be any access to it. The bottom line was there was nothing on this property and this project that couldn't be mitigated and hadn't been mitigated. He appreciated the sincerity of some of the positions but he felt they were based on faulty assumptions and misinformation. He thanked the commission for their time. Chairperson Beaty closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. He noted that Commissioner Jonathan would be abstaining. Mr. Drell noted that Commissioner Finerty spoke to him on the phone and wanted him to convey her reservations about the bowling alley part of the project and would like to see alternative designs without the bowling alley. Commissioner Campbell thanked everyone for attending and providing testimony the three times the item was before the commission. There were many pros and cons expressed. There were more cons than there were pros. She belongs to many associations and it was difficult to get people to speak in favor. It was usually those in opposition. As far as the property values were concerned, she travels Cook Street and this project would be heaven to look at compared to the current eyesore. This project would actually upgrade this property because it would be a nice project to look at. It would have many facilities they usually didn't have here on Cook Street including a gas station. With the connection to 1-10, people who take that turn off need a gas station. They might have a restaurant at the corner of Cook and Frank Sinatra, but otherwise right now there weren't any. 30 DilArr MINUTES SUBJECT TO PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION REVISION DECEMBER 19, 2000 Also, the people exiting onto Cook would be looking for a place to eat. They didn't allow drive throughs so she was sure this restaurant would be similar to a Denney's or Coco's. She understood that there were some smaller restaurants in the industrial center, but only the people in that area know about them. Not the driver who doesn't live in town that would want to be able to find something or might not be open until 11:00 p.m. As far as bowling alleys are concerned, which Mr. Blue explained are "centers" and not "alleys," in her opinion the bowling alleys were not a source of disturbance. She heard the testimony about it being a bad influence on high school teenagers, but she didn't agree. If they wanted to get drunk, they didn't have to go to a bowling alley to do it. She also felt the bowling alley would encourage family outings and the benefits for the bowling center out weighed any detraction they might have. She was in favor of the project. Commissioner Lopez also thanked everyone for taking the time to be at the last three meetings on this item. In reviewing it, he agreed that it would be nice to have a gas station and another restaurant in this part of town. The traffic study did a good job in identifying and mitigating any problems he had with intrusion into the neighborhood. Cook Street over the years has been improved dramatically. Over the last couple of months there have been even more improvements. It was now actually a pleasure to drive down Cook Street in the evenings when there wasn't a lot of traffic coming out of those businesses and traffic flowed much faster than they used to be able to. His house was right on Cook Street so it was much more convenient. The stigma on the world of bowling was an old stigma. He was a bowling brat and his parents both did a lot of bowling when he was growing up and it was different then than it is now. Now there were bowling centers. Places where families go and schools could be involved in. He has two teenagers and he was always looking for more things for them to do other than hanging out at the mall or finding a place where they can hang out with their buddies. He was looking for things for kids to do and he felt this was an opportunity knowing the way these facilities now run and operate. If they had ever gone to see how the newest bowling alleys were being run it was a hoot to go laser bowling and it was a lot of fun. He thought that in the long run this project which started out for him being a little difficult to accept, in lieu of what could be there in the future he felt this was a great opportunity. It would help to improve the area and he has spent a lot of time driving through the neighborhood and it was a great neighborhood. He didn't think there would be an impact on the neighborhood. He thought it would improve the entrance to the area and as stated earlier, with everything that has gone on in and around that neighborhood, both good and bad, the neighborhood kept getting better. He has watched it since he has lived here 19 years and it continued to get 31 MINUTES g r gmSUBJECT 11) REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2000 better. He was in favor of the project. It has a lot of pluses and in the long run he felt the residents would be in favor too. Chairperson Beaty noted that someone earlier indicated that a decision was already made some time in the past and that offended him. He stated that it wasn't easy to sit there with a room full of people who are not happy with something being proposed. It didn't happen too often, but he had been trying to find out why the neighborhood was so concerned. He really thought it came down to some misinformation or fears that he didn't think would be realized if the project is built. He felt the traffic issue was taken care of. He would like to see a restriction to the alley because he felt that could be a potential problem. If the bowling center was properly managed and run, he didn't think there would be a problem. They heard very few comments about the service station and restaurant and they usually received lots of opposition to those. This came down to bowling and he used to bowl. They used to load up the play pen and take the kids and they even had a day care center. His kids turned out okay. He really felt their fears were unfounded. Obviously he was in support of the project and it looked like the project was going to pass this body. It was important for the residents to realize that if the project passed tonight there would be another level of hearings before the City Council and there was an opportunity for appeal and there would be more hearings and he urged everyone to voice their opinions there. He called for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2040, recommending to City Council approval of GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, and PP 00-21 , subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 had an expectation of a little bit of noise because people had parties in their own homes. Chairperson Beaty called for the vote. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2032, approving CUP 96-15, subject to conditions as amended. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21- Richard Hughes, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to District Commercial and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. Mr. Drell explained that a draft traffic study was completed. There were some corrections that needed to be made as a result of staff review. They had not been completed and he was confident it would be ready for December 19. He was assured by the Traffic Engineer that the corrections should be forthcoming. Chairperson Beaty noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wished to address the commission in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. He asked if the applicant wished to address the commission first. Mr. Hughes said he would reserve his statements until December 19. MR. DAVE HART, 74-657 Gary Avenue, thanked the commission for the opportunity to speak. He said he spoke last time and would be brief as possible. He pointed out that this area is zoned for low density residential and not commercial. His question was why they were changing the original plan. Over at Sagewood when the neighbors thought there was going to be a Wal-Mart going in, they raised the same kinds of issues. As Commissioner Jonathan put it, they had an issue of encroachment of commercial in a residential area. He asked what the current availability 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 was for commercial property in Palm Desert. He said that if there was plenty of available property, he asked why they would build a bowling alley and complex like this next to a high school. He asked if the commission had an opportunity to look at the educational code to find out how many feet a school building should be away from a place with a liquor license. He asked about the environmental impact issues. He said there were a lot of rumors flying around about this project and the neighbors in this area wanted to know if this was the beginning of the end of their neighborhood. They wanted the commission to share their five-year plan and their 10-year plan. There were rumors such as the high school being changed to a middle school. He knew that didn't necessarily affect the project. A lot of school people didn't want to speak to the commission because they had a lot of other things coming down the road to talk to the commission about. There was a rumor that if the developer didn't get this project then there would be commercial property going in behind Gary Avenue. He asked what the plan was for the future. MS. DIANE TYCE, a resident of 42-511 Stephanie Circle since September 27, 1967. She said she has seen a lot of things come and go and a lot of things that had been promised and a lot of promises that had never been kept. She was not here to come on November 7 which was an election day, but then that was what was usually done with meetings. All the time there were postponements and postponements and she asked if they were going to postpone and postpone until they could have a quick meeting the homeowners didn't know about and this project could be ram rodded through or if the decision was already made. She said her children were grown, but she saw children now that always had to march by a complex like this coming home into their neighborhood. They had commercial area just above them and there was a lot of property still open there that wasn't being built on yet. She suggested building up there. With cigarettes and things like that, children liked to hang around convenience stores, bowling alleys and all. A lot of times they had money and could get someone older to go in and buy them some of the booze out of it or cigarettes out of the stores. She looked at this with the lights, noise and criminal potential, the late hours, and said that people that had homes located closest to it would start selling out and guess who would come along and pick them up cheat. She implored the commission to not change the zoning and keep it residential and let the project go elsewhere. While she was sitting here this evening, she noticed that Mr. Drell commented on constant noise being 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 harder to take in an area. She asked if they could imagine what it would be with a bowling alley, a restaurant, a cocktail lounge, open until 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., all the lights and those that came out that have had a few too many maybe getting turned around coming through their neighborhood and all. Apparently Mr. Drell lived close enough to hear music. She lived at the end of this neighborhood and people that have had parties clear at the front closest to Cook Street could be heard, but they didn't have parties that often. Usually it was a birthday party. She had been very fortunate to live in this area and have wonderful neighbors. Yes, they had renters in there, but she was sure they could check throughout the years that they have had very little police activity with criminals in there and really hated to see it go the way so many areas have gone by people that wanted to get in cheap when there were industrial areas and places for restaurants and thinks like that which were already zoned for it. MS. JONNIE LANE, 42-570 Christian Street, informed commission that she goes home from Cook Street, to Sheryl, and to Christian. This had been empty for quite a while and now knew what was going on. She didn't see why they should have a commercial area in a residential area. They had been there a long time and if people were waiting to get into the bowling alley to wait for lanes to be open, they would be wandering outside and wouldn't just be standing there. They would walk into the neighborhood and the neighborhood didn't have street lights, so no one knew what house they would break into or whatever they were going to do. She was against it. MS. TARA VORCE, 74-861 Merle Drive, stated that she grew up in this neighborhood. She moved there when she was 11 years old and was now 28. She has a six-year old daughter and it had been the best neighborhood she could ever have dreamed of to grow up in. With the high school across the street and the quietness, there was no crime per se like around in Cathedral City where they have a bowling alley or in Indio where they have their bowling alley. It made it a dump. She was afraid that their neighborhood would become what those neighborhoods became and she begged them for future generations growing up in her neighborhood that they have the same opportunity that she had in knowing everyone in the neighborhood and not criminals and houses looking bad because they were selling so cheap. 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 MS. MEGAN LONG, 74-795 Gary Avenue, said that she had lived in that neighborhood since she was four and she was now 14. She thought that 9 9 was probably the best neighborhood she could have lived in. She has been to a lot of friends' houses and they had nice neighborhoods. She said hers might not be that nice, but it was safe and didn't have many robberies and knew that most people didn't want their neighborhood to be taken away or something bad happening to it. It had been a good neighborhood. She started going to the high school this year and didn't want to have to move or have something happen to their house because they had just built on. It meant a lot to her mom and family that their house was still there and in one piece. MR. JERRY VAN COOk, 74-547 Merle, stated that he has been there the last 20 years and his oldest daughter just moved out. His youngest daughter was 13 and was going to graduate middle school. He agreed with comments already made, but hadn't heard comments about the gas station. That would bring more trouble to the neighborhood and would be open 24 hours eventually, although he didn't know what it was scheduled for right now. That would mean more traffic. He was against the project and commented that it had been a peaceful neighborhood for years and was very proud to live there. It was just recently fixed up by the city and they had done a wonderful job. He hated for it to go down the tubes with this project and plan. MS. MOREEN HEIMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie, said they had many concerns about this project. At the last meeting a little lady that lived in the complex apartment condos right in the center said something about them not want'ng to lose their view. She got a chuckle out of that one because when they put their development in they all said the same thing. They were told they were all low profile, the two story units were going in the center, there would be a three-foot berm out front and they would not lose their view of any of the mountains. She said they had not seen the mountains since. They were completely gone for everyone on Christian, Clifford and Leslie. One thing that concerned a lot of them was Rebecca, the back entrance into the village. They were told by the council years ago when the industrial park came in that that street would not be put through to the industrial park so th^re wouldn't be any access. They were crossing their fingers that they wouldn't allow that street be opened. They didn't need back people coming in. Tot just added to the crime and everything else. She didn't know how 13 A MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 each of the commissioners would feel about havinga bowlingalleyright 9 across the street their houses. Most would not care to have that to people look at, a brick wall to look at, and the noise from it. One thing that was hard for her was the fact that these people would be leavingat midnight, p p 1:00 a.m., and they had teenagers in the neighborhood. She had lost both of her sons in the past four years and she thought of these kids that would be goingout on dates and cominghome at midnight and what if someone 9 was coming out of the bar drinking out into a residential neighborhood. They didn't need that and she said she was terrified of that. If they put a complete wall up on Sheryl and had no access whatever to Sheryl and they kept the neighborhood a neighborhood that would be one thing. But she really did not care to see anyone leaving that bowling alley late at night with their children and their neighborhood. The golf course was beautiful, it was green, it was pleasant and even they had a shortage of parking. Many days they would find them parked out on the dirt so there wasn't parking for them. She asked how many lanes the bowling alley would be. There were usua:'y four people per lane. If they had a league going, she asked many lanes times 20 times four. She asked how much parking would be there. They didn't have enough parking for the facility there now. She was against the project in a residential neighborhood. Up on Hovley, in the industrial park, this was a perfect place for this. She talked to a couple of kids from the high school that said it would be neat to have a restaurant and e sked them how many went to the restaurants in the neighborhood. They said they didn't go over there and when she asked them why they wanted another one and they said they might want to go sometime. Might didn't constitute having a restaurant in a neighborhood that was a residential area. They really would like to keep it zoned residential. MS. KARIN TINEN, 74-622 Gary Avenue, said this has been her property for a treat many years. It was a good community. There was a sense of comn unity among the residents, even people who were tenants. She thour`it it was unspeakable to consider putting in commercial zoning in a resid .ntial community. Why in their front yard? They weren't Indian Wells people so they couldn't hire legal counsel to about this business for them. The very idea of a bowling alley in that location was a horror. She said she knew this would be the big money maker for the developers but it was so nega` ve, so wrong to do it in the middle of an old residential community. She couldn't imagine that anyone could go ahead and do that, not in their front yard. Why theirs? There was no shortage of available land in the 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 desert. It was an abomination when they considered it was just up the street from a public high school. They had relatives in San Bernardino who went through that and it wasn't even near their schools. A business interest put in a bowling alley and there was a terrible situation with drug trafficking there. The young people in their family were warned and an effort was made to keep them away from the kids who frequented that place and this was almost predictable. No. Not in an old residential community with so many people and so many children and retired people. This was not the thing to do. It was absolutely very wrong and very, very negative. MR. SEAN HANSEN, 42-741 Christian, stated that just before the meeting today at 5:00 p.m. he was outside with his children, a one and two year old and they were on the sidewalk riding their bicycles and tricycles and the traffic coming through there was so bad he had to go out into the street to tell people to slow down because it was scaring him. Right across the street from his house and down the street from this development. He didn't want this to go in. He didn't like it and there was already too much light from the golf course and they had nothing to say about that. They just did it. It scared him because his kids were growing up and the cars going through there and the traffic was speeding through there. Last week there was an officer at the corner and a motorcycle screaming through their neighborhood and the only thing he did was tell him to slow down. He didn't do anything about it and he said it really affected him. He was a kid once, but the officers always told them to take it somewhere else and out of the neighborhood. The only thing that really affected him was his children growing up and the traffic that came into their neighborhood from the golf course, it turned around because they didn't know where they were going, and the traffic was his main concern. That went along with the gas station as well. Commissioner Finerty stated that she appreciated everyone coming out. The commission heard testimony on two different nights and from her perspective the testimony and concerns were very compelling. Chairperson Beaty assured the audience that no decision had been made and there was no plan to ruin the neighborhood. Chairperson Beaty asked for a motion to continue this case to December 19. Action: 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2000 It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, by minute motion continuing Case Nos. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09 and PP 00-21 to December 19, 2000. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Chairperson Beaty said that it sounded to him like there was some confusion about the proposed plan and he encouraged the developer to try and schedule a meeting with these residents to give them his exact proposal. That was up to the developer if he wished to do that. C. Case No. CUP 00-19 - Christopher M. and Michelle M. Jefferies, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow short-term rental of a single family dwelling located at 47-825 Sun Coral Trail for periods of not less than one week and not to exceed 12 weeks total in any calendar year. Mr. Smith noted that the city recently amended the R-1 code section to regulate through a conditional use permit the rental of single family dwellings for periods of less than 30 days. The property was located at 47-825 Sun Coral Trail. The applicants for the past several years have rented their home in one-week increments and longer. In order to continue to do this the applicant required the approval of the requested conditional use permit. It was their proposal to limit their application to a maximum of 12 weeks in any calendar year and for periods of not less than one week. There was a letter included in the packet dated November 18 which outlined people they have rented to in the past and the typical length of stay. They were dealing with a transient occupancy. As indicated previously, he noted that the applicants have operated for some five years and in their letter they outlined the rental terms. The applicant was also concerned that they were providing an enjoyable stay for their tenants while maintaining the peace and privacy of their neighbors. Staff discussed this matter with Code Compliance staff and they had not received any complaints relative to this operation. Findings for the approval of the conditional use permit were outlined on page two of the staff report. Mr. Smith felt they could be made and it was a Class 3 categorical exemption fir purposes of CEQA. The recommendation was for commission to approval the conditional use permit subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution vv';ich ranged from requiring that the appropriate conditions be imposed by the appl;:.ants to assure the continued peace and privacy of the neighbor, that 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 until it was brought up later on or she could speak now, whichever the commission preferred. Chairperson Beaty stated that the commission would rather address it later. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Case No. PMW 00-18 - MESQUITE, LLC, Applicant Request for approval of a parcel map waiver merging lots 32 and 33 of Tract No. 25296-1 to accommodate a single-family residence. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the Consent Calendar by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he or she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C%Z 00-9, PP 00-21 - RICHARD M. HUGHES, Applicant Request for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1 ) to District Commercial (PC-2) and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed-use commercial complex including a 2,000 sq. ft. gas station/convenience store, 8,200 sq. ft. restaurant, 25,000 sq. ft. office/retail, and a 40- lane bowling center on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, more particularly described as APN 624-241-010 through -019; 624-160-003, -005, -012, and a portion of 624-160-002. Mr. Drell explained that the project involves development of what was now a driving range at the southwest corner of Sheryl and Cook Street. The project was associated with a nine-hole golf course to the west and a number of 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 vacant single family lots on Sheryl. The proposal was a mixed use commercial retail office project with an entertainment component that included a gas station/convenience store at the corner, a restaurant on Cook Street, interior mixed office/retail buildings and a 40-lane bowling center. The property is currently zoned R-1 single family residential and it is a 7.87 acre parcel. Directly to the south of the property was a wedge shaped triangle that the applicant didn't own or control which was also subject to the general plan amendment and change of zone. The site plan also showed a gap on Sheryl occupied by a single family home. Although not part of the precise plan, it was also a part of the change of zone and general plan amendment. The change would be from R-1 single family residential to District Commercial PC- 2. He noted that there was a time 100 years ago when cities were developed where on every street corner there was a commercial development or basically neighborhoods were surrounded by arterials which were surrounded by commercial services and retail establishments. Over the last 40-50 years there was a reaction against what was happening in traditional cities and they got into very segregated large expansive single family zones and they were serviced by fairly distant commercial centers which they could only drive to in the old days. In the old days they had the corner store. The "mom and pop" traditional store was kind of gone, but it had been replaced by the convenience store. It provided that sort of convenience retail that the old corner store did in traditional cities. Over the last 10-15 years there had been a reexamination of those large expansive single use ways to arrange cities back to a realization that having convenient retail services and entertainment in proximity to residential districts could be both beneficial to the city in general and beneficial to the adjacent single family area in that it brought back convenient access. Children could get there on bicycles, people could walk and they wouldn't have to cross major arterials or drive through major intersections for service. In areas where it was appropriate and where designs were appropriate, there was a realization that commercial centers could be brought back into neighborhoods. This was what this proposal to a certain degree was. From a matter of land use and zoning given an appropriate design, this particular site was compatible with commercial uses. It had limited direct conflicts with the residential neighborhood to the northwest. It abutted the channel to the south, was on a major arterial, the use directly north was multifamily and it was not on a through street. It was staff's conclusion from a basic land use perspective that this is an appropriate site to consider for commercial use. Regarding the precise plan, the applicant was utilizing a reverse site plan for the gas station/convenience store. It faced the convenience store at the 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 corner and put the canopies inside and not at the corner. It allowed the opportunity for extensive landscaping and screening of the gas station canopy. The other high intensity use was a restaurant which was also on Cook Street. As they go west and down Sheryl there would be less intense uses. The buildings on Sheryl were single story office buildings. In the center of the site was a mixed use, potentially a two-story office retail building and then toward the golf course and the golf course parking lot was the proposed bowling center. From a perspective of the basic standards of the PC-2 zone, the project was in compliance. In the staff report in terms of height there was some mention of the bowling alley being 33 feet. The architect could clarify this, but it was his understanding that if they looked at the section for the bowling center, 33 feet was measured from finished floor to the highest point of the roof. The building was sunk into the ground, so it had an equivalent height (relative to the grade) of 29 feet. That would put it into compliance with the 30-foot height limit for the PC-2 zone. As the project data section of the report indicated, the proposal was within compliance with all the specific standards of the zone. He said there were some anomalous features in the plan in that there were two parcels significantly impacted by the precise plan that were not included in it. The wedge-shaped parcel to the south was significantly elevated above Cook Street going down toward the wash and it would have a very difficult access other than through the subject property. It also had a sewer line going down the center of it which made development difficult. Logically it would not make any sense for it to remain R-1 since it would be isolated at the end of the channel by this commercial project. Logically it would have to be rezoned or redesignated as well. Although the commission had not yet been presented with conditions of approval since staff was ultimately recommending continuance, there would be a condition that the applicant agree to offer an easement through his project if and when his property were ever to develop provided that when it developed it would share in the common area development and maintenance costs since they would be using the facilities built by the applicant and benefiting significantly from this process. The other was the single family home on Sheryl. This was one of the oldest single family neighborhoods in the city. For whatever reason this was the only parcel in this length of street where someone built a home. The applicant in essence would be making the same offer to this proper owner. If and when it were to develop, it could be integrated into the project and receive an easement through the project. The resident of the home could continue to live in it if they wanted, but if some day they wanted to sell it and redevelop it as part of the center, they had that opportunity. The applicant would be 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 required to cooperate. When it went to ARC, there was an attempt to make the project as friendly to the continued residents as possible. Looking at the site plan, there were rather deep landscape areas on Sheryl on both sides. The development would be walled off of Sheryl and there would be no access on Sheryl to the west from the access to the gas station. The landscaping in front of the buildings and wall would be similar to that which would surround a residential project or a country club. The landscape theme would be similar to Desert Willow or other residential resorts in the city. With those two anomalies which would be conditioned as part of the precise plan and the general conclusion that the project as designed would provide a fresh new face to this neighborhood on Cook Street and provide a variety of convenience commercial services to the neighborhood plus to other residents and businesses on the Cook Street corridor with relatively insignificant impacts on that neighborhood, staff would be recommending approval. There were some unresolved issues. A traffic study was requested to more clearly assess the traffic impact on the neighborhood and the need for a signal at that intersection which had not been received. Staff wasn't in a position to finalize the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact without the traffic study so staff would be recommending continuance. He wanted to also discuss the issue of future development with the owners of all the out parcels as well. With those exceptions, staff felt the project was worthy of consideration. The applicant was committing to continue operation and maintenance of the golf course. With those unresolved issues, he said that concluded the staff report and asked for any questions. Commissioner Jonathan informed the commission that he had a potential conflict of interest and would be abstaining from discussion and voting. Chairperson Beaty noted that the commission would probably be continuing this item to a future date because the traffic study was not done, but wanted to give everyone an opportunity to speak this evening and opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if he wished to address the commission. MR. RICK HUGHES, the developer of the site, noted that he was before the commission about eight months ago to review the uses, zone change and neighborhood concerns. At that time they had a general overview of the development plan, the architectural concept and they wanted to test the waters to see what kind of a reception they might receive. Subsequent to that positive reception, they finalized the 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 process and were applying for approval. They did what they could to mitigate all issues as close to zero as possible. He said it wasn't possible in all cases. The short cutting on the traffic was an unresolved issue by argumentation alone and the traffic should probably provide a resolution to that argument. As far as the conditions and exceptions as outlined by Mr. Drell, they were in total concurrence in regards to making it easy for the people that were there to survive it with some type of an equity. They would like approval and to move onto City Council. He asked for questions. Commissioner Finerty asked what type of restaurant the applicant was anticipating. Mr. Hughes said if it was an ideal situation they would have a three- meal family restaurant that would fall into the category of a Coco's, Carrows, or Bakers Square. Chairperson Beaty asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MS. PATRICIA ROEDER, 42-671 Susan Circle, stated that she has rented for six years and owned for one. She said she had so many questions she would like answered or at least food for thought for people to think about. They as residents live there because that is what they can afford. She asked if this was the beginning of the end of their residential neighborhood for a commercial venture to get in the back door and keep pushing them out. She didn't think people realized that this was a quiet neighborhood. There were children, cul-de-sacs, swimming pools and it was a long standing neighborhood. Most houses were built in 1961 or newer. Most of them were in that vintage. They had school buses, special school buses that had to come in. They could not get in and out of their own neighborhood now because of the traffic on Cook Street. If they thought about it, they go from a traffic light at Fred Waring, to Hovley, Country Club and the freeway. Now they were looking at two more lights on Cook Street. This would bring yet another. She said that they were doubling the number of stops/starts with traffic lights. Furthermore, they already have a convenience store only a couple of blocks from them. They have several restaurants within walking distance. She said she had 50 years of bowling 7 \q1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 experience in Michigan and not being able to amortize it without the addition of food and liquor. She pointed out that the golf course was a green space. They had lost the date palm groves to residential. Their green space was rapidly disappearing in this residential section that they still hang onto. They would lose more of it if this went in. The high school is opposite this development and wash. She asked if they had forgotten what had happened to the wash ten years ago. What happened to the commercial venture there now. She asked how stable this wash was that they proposed to build a 40 lane bowling alley on. That they proposed to put in underground fuel tanks on. She asked what this would do to the stability of this building site. She asked if there was a contamination issue. She asked about the water supply. The neighborhood had really turned around in the last three years. Regarding the criminal element. If they had to amortize 40 bowling lanes they might have to consider liquor and food to pay the bills. So they were reintroducing an element that they fought hard to clean up. The increased traffic was terrible. She couldn't imagine anyone going for this that lived there. They couldn't even get onto Cook Street from Sheryl now without nearly killing themselves. The access was terrible. She didn't understand. She asked if there was going to be one entrance from Cook Street into this or if there was also going to be one from Sheryl. She was concerned about two story height also. The high school wasn't two stories. It was a closed campus for a reason. To keep the kids in school and get them educated, not to be out in the neighborhood. They would be giving the kids very close access to leave a closed campus and lots of reasons to leave including food, recreation, entertainment, or the negative side she didn't want to get into. She said she was a school teacher for 13 years, so she knew what the other element was. She didn't teach any more for that reason. She didn't see it as being acceptable to them that live in the neighborhood. She said there were so many other things that she could also address. Once they were commercial, they would keep going that way. She pointed out Fred Waring as an example. They were pushing in the neighborhoods there, too. People were losing places to live. For them, they could possibly lose an affordable place to live. MR. DAVE HART, 74-657 Gary in Palm Desert, said he would continue with the list of questions, some of which they had already heard. His main question was one of the Planning Commission's vision which he 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 thought had been a good one in this valley. He asked if the request by Mr. Hughes was in keeping with the vision that they all share in Palm Desert. That was one of having a good, safe family community. He felt the Civic Center park was an outstanding example of the vision the city has. People could go there and enjoy it. His son really enjoyed the skate park over there and they have spent many hours there. The issue here was one the commission dealt with all the time and that was location, location, location. He asked where bowling alleys were located in this valley. He said that with all due respect to Indio and Cathedral City, those bowling alleys were located in areas that were troubled areas and not as aesthetically pleasing. Another question about location which had already been brought up was if they should place a bowling alley with a liquor license and video games next to a high school and within walking distance of the middle school. He asked if they should maintain residential zoning around schools. He felt that was in keeping with Palm Desert's family vision. His wife had been in touch with the high school principal and he hoped this evening that there would be some school board representatives present because he felt they really needed to know what is going on. When his wife spoke with the principal, he wasn't aware of this going on. He asked if they should place another convenience store next to a high school and family neighborhood. Already on Merle Street people tell him that it is occasionally littered with beer bottles and cans from the first convenient food mart there already. He asked if it was a good idea to increase the traffic flow down streets where mothers currently push babies in strollers and children ride their bikes, there are joggers and roller bladers that enjoy going down that street. He said it was paved within the last five years and thanked the city. He asked if it was a prudent idea to increase the traffic flow on an already busy Cook Street where high school students cross the street with only a painted cross walk for protection. This morning he was watching that cross walk and those students were really taking their lives into their hands to cross that street in the morning. No traffic lights were there and there were no crossing guards at this time. He asked if income level was a factor in this decision. When the people at Chaparral Country Club spoke against the proposed soft ball stadium, he believed the city listened. The soft ball stadium was now in Cathedral City, which was part of their vision. He didn't believe it was Palm Desert's. He asked if the Palm Desert government would listen to the people of a little neighborhood which 9 "1 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 they were trying to redevelop and had been successful. Their neighborhood had aesthetically improved during the past three years. He reiterated that they wanted to make sure that all the people were represented and knew about it. He was talking about the school board and the schools which would be impacted by this. As they worked together to reach a decision about this issue, they should be true to the city's vision for a safe community that cares about people. They had done an excellent job on the commission. They developed with integrity and recommended that the commission make a decision that reflected that integrity, an integrity that placed the quality of the lives of its residents before the quality of a developer's life and pocket book. He said that his son couldn't be present tonight, but his children attended a meeting with Mr. Hughes and he never sent the letter to Mr. Hughes and was a fifth grader's point of view. "Dear Mr. Hughes: thank you for talking with us tonight. I am not a bowler but maybe I would bowl once in a while. How expensive would it be to bowl? I am still in favor of the project." Mr. Hart said he was opposed and thought his son's opinion had changed in the last year and they had been working on him. "I am interested in seeing what will go into the extra spaces that are now undecided. Maybe you could consider putting in a card shop. I like the idea of the kid's country club. Would it be affordable? Presently I earn $2.00 each week as an allowance. If you are going to have a kid's country club I think it should also include shops that would interest kids like a card shop." Mr. Hart wanted the commission to know that a year has gone by and his son was now into skate boards and he could do that for free at the park, so he thought his son was now opposed to this project like the rest of the family. His son said that, "if at least part of this is truly for kids, then you have my vote. Eric Hart." Mr. Hart said that the project didn't have his vote. MR. LEON BENNETT, 48-350 Crest View Drive in Palm Desert, said he was in favor of the project. He has been a commercial resident in the Cook Street area for almost 12 years. Classic Party Rentals formerly A Star Rents. He commended the council and commission on the great improvements on Cook Street. They were now able to get their trucks out onto Cook Street without jeopardizing their lives with the new light going in at 42nd and Green Way. He thought the council had made great progress. One thing they would never be able to do was decrease traffic on Cook Street now that there was an entrance at the freeway 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 and were building a university. So they would have to deal with the future and traffic as best they could. Currently they get their diesel fuel for their business at Deep Canyon and Highway 111 . Prior to that station they would go all the way down to Chevron. A station in this neighborhood would certainly be advantageous to their business and to many other businesses that have to get diesel. That would keep vehicles off the road, create less smog and a lot of other kinds of things. There were a lot of businesses he talked to that would be much in favor of a gas station in the neighborhood. Secondly, he wanted to talk about the bowling alley itself. Several years ago when the Marriott Vacation Resorts were proposing their project out on Frank Sinatra and one of the things he told council at that point was that as they get more and more vacation resorts, Intrawest and the Marriott, there would be more and more families here for a full week and the families could not golf all the time so the families that come to the valley would be looking for things to do. He thought it would be very advantageous for them to have a bowling alley in this vicinity in order to offer to the short time residents from outside the valley to here. He thought that Cook Street was becoming a real entry point to Palm Desert with the Cook Street entrance at the freeway. He knew that the roadway they were just completing now was helping to upgrade that and he thought this project would continue to upgrade the area tremendously and he knew that there was more work that needed to be done on some of the buildings on the west side near Joni, but this would be a good start to make this entrance to Palm Desert a much more beautiful entrance. MR. JIM SERVIN, a teacher at Palm Desert High School, stated that he has discussed this project at length with some government classes and there were a few students here that wanted to address the commission. He heard the universal lament that there was nothing to do and it seemed to him, and he has been a teacher there for eight years, that the city of Palm Desert has addressed the situation with things like the skate park, the Civic Center park and the soccer park. He felt this would just add to the value of the city for something for the teenagers and even young adults. He is a father of two kids that play youth soccer, baseball and basketball, and they were always looking for a community get together spot, dinners, and something to do. He thought this would be a perfect opportunity to help the city and the students and families in the area. He was in support and knew that 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 after talking to the high school students, they were very supportive of it and were looking for things to do. This would just add to those activities. MR. BILL BORDEN, 255 Via Picone said he had an office off of Merle Street. He concurred with the speaker before him. He thought this would be an addition to a great entry way to the city. Once they have some things built like the university and businesses leading off of the freeway. As they continue down Cook everything that keeps getting built will be a nice show case to the city and a wonderful sight to come into the city with. This site with the golf course and driving range has been a family entertainment center already. They really stressed junior golf and had a lot of junior programs there. Because it is a par three golf course, a very short one, they got both parents and children probably all the way down to the age of four playing this golf course. He had three kids age 13, 9 and 7. They enjoy playing golf. The bowling alley would be a wonderful addition as a family entertainment area. There were a lot of new communities that were putting bowling alleys in and they weren't going in on the outskirts any more. Bowling alleys had a tough time because they had to go where the land was cheap to pencil out. If they went to the city of Murrietta, there was a bowling alley there right next to a middle school, next to a commercial center, next to a large neighborhood. Bowling alleys, afternoons, weekends, with bumper bowling, strobe lights and lot of different colors which provided a lot of entertainment for children. It was clean entertainment and even though these bowling alleys would typically have a bar, it was separated and kept away from the children. There were two different elements. During the day there were families there and at night there might be a bar situation. There were things they could do to mitigate any ill effects of that. But the bowling alley would be a very nice alternative to the golf and they could end up spending a fair amount of the day there with the golf and bowling. He wasn't sure how many people were aware of this, but the owners of the site were a family that live here in the desert. The golf center was a family run business. Although there were no guarantees that whatever was built would be run as a family business, he knew that was the intent. They had a family in mind and had a lot of things that were good for the area in mind. The family members were involved in charities here in the community. They had done a lot of good work in the community and 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 wanted to see the community succeed and be good for a family environment. He didn't know them when they moved down here, but come to know them verywell. He wanted to be here to speak had p highly of them. MR. BILL BRUNSKILL, 76-430 Fairway Drive, said he was in favor of the project and would encourage the commission to approve the zone because when he travels Cook Street almost daily, he didn't think of it was residential, but commercial. They needed food and services on Cook Street. Bowling centers weren't seedy, smoky places like they used to be. They were family entertainment now and he thought it would be great for the kids and seniors and the people that could use the bowling facility. This would provide close to 100 jobs for the area and they had a lot of people that need jobs and he encouraged the commission to approve this project. MR. TOM CULINEN, 74-226 Desert Tenaha Trail in Indian Wells, said that up until a few months ago he would have given his Palm Desert address. He had been a resident of Palm Desert and Indian Wells for the last 15 years and had been fortunate to know the owners Ken and Sally Simons for the past nine. He found them to be really forward thinking proponents of this community. In the business dealings he has had with them he found them to be up front, fair and most importantly they did what they said. They were wonderful parents and grandparents and as one speaker already said, they were a wonderful asset to our community. He was a bowler, not a good one, but he did feel they had a real need for entertainment for their children. He has two young children and in the summer time they look around for things to do and there wasn't a whole lot to do. He thought their commitment to junior golf was unquestioned. They provided an access for a lot of young people to participate in the game, provided lessons and gave an outlet for those that didn't have access to country clubs and private communities. He encouraged the commission to approve the development proposal. He felt it was an asset to both the Cook Street business corridor and for families in both Palm Desert and surrounding communities. MR. ROBERT MEDLER, a senior at Palm Desert High School, 77-648 Mario Court, stated that he was strongly in favor of this area being built 13 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 as proposed. Palm Desert had been designed as a resort community with golf courses and tennis clubs. He believed that the teen-aged group lacked things to do. They resulted to on Friday and Saturday nights going to parties which were always broken up by the police department and he felt that was a waste of the police department's time and money. Kids needed something to do. He participated in ASB at his school. He was also an athlete and in many different clubs. Not everyone was like him. Some kids didn't have the money to play in sports and had to go find jobs after school to support their families. He believed that this project with 100 jobs could help those kids out. The relative closeness to the school would give these kids an opportunity to find jobs much easier. He looked for three months for a summer job and ended up painting houses outside in the 120-degree heat. It wasn't a fun job. He agreed that the skate park was great but it only pertained to a certain group of kids. Mainly skaters. The movies were getting expensive. He also worked there two summers ago. The price for a ticket was $7.75 and popcorn and a drink is $6.25. That added up very quickly. The closest place to eat after school was Del Taco, which was recently built, and they were doing very well. He felt a restaurant in the proposed area would be helpful and would be very good for the community. Also with the work experience program at the high school with the jobs offered, this could help with that. The work experience program was great for kids that weren't athletic that needed extra classes and that needed the money. It was a good compromise the school district had come up with. He hoped the commission considered his views, which was the view of the students at Palm Desert High School, and asked the commission to vote in favor of the project. MR. DICK BAXLEY, 38-395 Nasturium in Palm Desert, said he wasn't speaking for or against the project. He was representing clients who own the parcel that was cut out of the rezoning. It was a vacant residentially zoned property. If this property were to be rezoned commercial and theirs was left out, it would never be used for anything. If that was approved, they would also like to apply, and at least retain some property value. Otherwise, no one would build a residential house next to a parking lot or bowling alley. MS. MOREEN HIEMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie, stated that most of the people talking didn't even live in their neighborhood. She has lived there 30 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 years. She asked if the commission knew what this project would do to a residential neighborhood. This project would be great up on Hovley. Some place where the industrial park is. They were residential and the property was zoned residential. It was true that kids need places to go and need jobs. The bowling alley would be a great place. But why in a residential neighborhood. She said that this was a land fill where the gas station was going and restaurant was going. It was all the original wash. They watched them fill it in a few years back. Land was sinking. They were building houses and the land was sinking. She asked what would happen on a land fill wash. It would do the same thing. This project would be great on Hovley. She said that as it is now, they put that entrance on Cook Street and no one would ever use it. Coming up from the wash, they couldn't make a left turn into it. Coming down the wash they would get rear ended going into it. Sheryl would be the only entrance. As it is now, they didn't know how many people come to their house and say, "where's the entrance to the bowling alley and how do we get in there?" They were going straight past the entrance through the whole neighborhood driving around and they had cars all over the place and they were right, there are a lot of children in this neighborhood. Mothers walking babies in their carriages. They don't have sidewalks so they walk in the street. This traffic was horrendous. They were suggesting putting a wall up. If anyone had been past the corner of Sheryl and Cook, there was a bakery there and a big dumpster there and all the trash was thrown on Sheryl Street. They threw stuff in the dumpster and it fell right over the wall. People were constantly going by, stopping, and throwing the trash back up over the dumpster. If they had a wall there, what good was it? Nothing much. She felt this was the worst place they could ever put this type of a project. The golf course was quiet and nice. It brought in traffic, but nothing like this would bring in. The people coming to the signal on Merle was one of the only main entrances in there. They could turn at the signal and still they came straight through the neighborhood. The school bus driver was standing with a stop sign and people were driving right past her. And this project wasn't even in yet. It was a beautiful project. She thought it was a fantastic project, but it didn't belong in a residential neighborhood no matter how they looked at it. There wasn't a correct access. It just didn't fit. They had Mamacita's up the street, Casey's, Harvey's across the street and there were plenty of places they could go get food. Anything they need. This project 15 �05 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 would be great some place else. All the people talking didn't live in this neighborhood. They weren't even close to this neighborhood. Sure it would be great. What were the kids going to do that didn't want to go to school. They walked straight through this property every day. Lots of children did and it would just be a place to hide out. It was a beautiful project in the wrong location. It was a residential neighborhood and she felt it should stay residential and even through there were only 100-120 houses, they would get all the petitions the city wanted to keep it a residential zone. This project did not need to be in a residential neighborhood. MR. DOUG VELING, 72-395 Rolling Knoll in Palm Desert, stated that with all due respect to all the homeowners that live in that community, he has lived here since 1970 and has owned his own business since 1972. He had not known anybody that has been willing to go in and take that property up to now which seemed to be undevelopable, except the Simons who put in a green belt there with the possibility of improving the community. He said he came here originally tonight to support the project due to the retail space. As he heard both sides and looked at both sides, he thought the only way this would get improved, if the community improves with the access and the way they were growing, was to develop in a manner such as this. MR. STANLEY ASARO, 74-607 Gary in the neighborhood, stated that he was in support of the project. He was the only person that he knew of that lived in the neighborhood that went door to door talking to several other residents about this project. He hadn't seen anyone else doing that. He spent quite a long time going to several houses talking to a lot of people about this project. He could honestly say that more people supported it than were against it. He lives on Gary Avenue and has lived there 12 years. He wasn't sure what all of this hysterical traffic running down kids was about. He hadn't seen this in 12 years and wasn't sure what that was all about. Maybe he was back in too far on Gary. Of the people who did oppose the project, they had two main reasons. They were traffic and the criminal element. That neighborhood was a small quiet neighborhood for one reason. There was only one way in and out to the east. They couldn't go north, west or south. They either went in and out from the east or they didn't get in there. People that get back in there realize that and don't come back 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 and try to drive there to somewhere else. If an issue was traffic, a couple of signs telling people not to go back in there should be installed. People using this project would just go back out on Cook and go home. There were a lot of businesses planned here too. He wasn't sure where all the criminal element was going to come from and all the kids that would be hanging out when there were all of these businesses in there. He wasn't sure how that computed and hadn't seen that happen. He felt this was a great project and great for the area. Gary Avenue had never looked better. One of the reasons was because the golf course went in. He was here when the golf course was being proposed and the commission heard all the same problems and same complaints about traffic, kids, crime, etc. None of that ever happened. He left his house for work reasons and went back east for 26 months. He tried to lease his house and the guy didn't work out and quit paying. For 16 months his house sat vacant on Gary and he didn't even lose a water hose from his backyard. No one tried to break in the house. Everyone said that the golf course would bring in all this criminal element and kids and they were terrorizing things and breaking things and he had never witnessed that in 12 years. He felt the traffic was still pretty quiet. He didn't see where people coming in and out of this project would go up and down these neighborhoods. They might one time, but they wouldn't do it again because there was no way in and out. That was why it was a quiet neighborhood. Because there was no way to go in and out of it. That would still remain. If that was a concern, they should install some signs and have the developer propose a way to put up some signs that told people not to go back there. The criminal element was brought up. He wasn't sure what the plan was for police patrol or how that worked, but that could be increased and something done there because there wasn't a history of that and didn't see where this kind of a project would bring in something that wasn't already there. MR. BOB ARMOUR, 74-656 Gary, said that he has been there since 1966. His curiosity was whether there had been a report with no negative impact for this project and how that worked. If it was only within the 300-foot radius of this project or if it involved the whole neighborhood. Contrary to what the one gentleman said, he didn't know about the meeting and wasn't mailed anything. Everyone he talked to either didn't know about it or was not in favor of it. He just wondered if the whole neighborhood got to take part. 17 y' \ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Mr. Drell said that they noticed 500 feet and went all the way down the golf course, so they didn't notice the entire neighborhood, but probably twice the normal area. Mr. Armour said his neighbor received one but he didn't and understood how that worked. He was familiar with that process. He asked if the neighborhood would be involved in the decision or if it was only those living within that radius. Mr. Drell explained that anyone interested could come to the hearing. The hearing was to take testimony and the traffic study would analyze impacts to the whole neighborhood, not just those within 300 feet. In terms of the traffic study, which was a potential major impact, it would be looking at it. He confirmed that there would be another meeting. MS. STEPHANIE WILLIS, 44-630 San Diego Avenue, stated that she was a senior at Palm Desert High School and she believed this was a very good proposal. There weren't very many activities in Palm Desert for kids to do except for going to movies or parties. She thought the bowling alley was a good possibility. She had been to both of the other bowling alleys and even though they were in maybe not so great parts of the neighborhood, she had never had any problems at them. She thought that one in Palm Desert would be a safe place especially since it was a public place. It wouldn't necessarily bring in a lot of violence to the area because it would be well lit. The problem of being close to the school she thought was a good thing. School started at 7:45 a.m. and the businesses wouldn't be open then. It was hard to get off of their school campus. The north end of the school was gated so they couldn't easily walk off the campus. They had to get an off campus pass and it wasn't that easy. Kids going there would be after school, which would be a good thing because they needed places to go to eat dinner if they were involved in after school activities. It would be a positive thing for kids for entertainment and jobs and would be something good for the community. MR. ALAN MASSEY, 74-773 Gary Avenue in Palm Desert, stated that he was very much in favor of this project. He was speaking as a resident of the area and lived four doors down Gary Avenue from Christian. He didn't recognize a traffic problem now or one resulting 18 '20/ MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 from this project. He believed as Mr. Asaro stated that the setup of the neighborhood was such that there would not be additional traffic in the actual residential portion of the neighborhood. He was delighted with the idea of a recreation center including a bowling alley, restaurant and gas station all of which he would happily frequent. He believed it was the separation and mitigating plans keeping the commercial aspect on Cook Avenue and wouldn't have a negative impact on the residents. On the contrary, he felt it would be to their advantage. MS. JANET ASTON stated that she wasn't a resident of Palm Desert, but did frequent Palm Desert quite a bit. She lived at 73 Marbella in Rancho Mirage. She said she was speaking as a parent and child advocate. She saw this project very much as benefiting the widest range of people so she saw this as a very inclusive project and that was what she liked about it. One aspect was that one of her children had down syndrome and he was welcomed at the golf center in the most wonderful way. She believed that inclusion brought a quality to the community that one was really looking for in a small town that they couldn't really get because everyone was pocketed in their exclusive areas. Golf used to be one of those, although the element of being a gentleman's sport could benefit a lot of their children. This is what this project had already begun to do in including children in this gentleman's and gentlewoman's sport. The children could learn that degree of courtesy. Her son won a gold metal in the special olympics and that was his special talent, but she felt the inclusive element was wonderful because of the age range and ability range that would be made welcome at this community center. She felt it would be a wonderful thing for the community. MS. AMANDA LEVIN, a senior at Palm Desert High School, 44-557 San Pablo Avenue, stated that she has lived here about two years. She moved here from the mid west where recreation and a focus on youth recreation was a lot higher. She felt that Palm Desert needed to have a higher focus on youth recreation. A lot of people had worries about crime caused by youth in the community. A majority of people that live in Palm Desert are older and she didn't think the youth were appreciated as much as they could be. She thought that if they used this opportunity to try a recreational facility that they would have a great success with it. She thought a lot of the team sports and groups at the 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 school could use this facility as a place to prove to the community that they are responsible and the facility could add fullness to the community. MS. CAROL CUNNINGHAM, 74-800 Sheryl in Palm Desert, which was a little condo complex right across the street from the proposed development. She said that she wouldn't tell the commission that she was in favor or against the project. When she first saw the possibilities and looked at some of the preliminary plans, she was all in favor of it. She did have two concerns though. One was the fact that she saw some two story buildings being proposed and in this little complex, they had only two stories. Most of the buildings were only one story. If they lost the view of the mountains, all they had left was the parking lot so it would be detrimental to the people along that side of Sheryl Avenue. Security was also a concern. They have a problem with kids jumping their fence and coming in and swimming or stealing things from cars. While it wasn't frequent, it was a concern. They had to hire a security firm to police the grounds three times a night. She wanted to be assured that if this project was approved, that there would be coverage for security. It was a real concern to her. When the kids jump the fence they go into the swimming pool. That was a concern for their safety. Some didn't mean any harm by it and she understood that, but they were responsible for the safety of the swimmers, but she didn't think they should be. The view and security were her concerns. MR. SID HIEMSTRA, 74-862 Leslie Avenue, informed commission that there were only two streets that led into this residential area. One was Merle and one was Sheryl. For this project the major street would have to be Sheryl because the ingress/egress they have on Cook Street was where it descended down into the wash. He couldn't see how they could put a project such as this in a residential area like theirs. He had his own residence and a rental. His daughter-in-law lived there and his daughter lived there and none of them were notified of this project. He was opposed to it. MR. HUGH HOARD stated that he didn't live in this area, but did work in the area. He lived at 123 Don Quixote. He listened to the people and heard their valid concerns, and he had complete faith in the city for traffic control. They had it almost whipped. He worked right off of 20 0 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 Cook Street and what they had done was for the future. If they had 110 people living in that area, he thought there would be 110 votes no. That wasn't the case and he heard a "mixed bag." If they had 110 votes no, he thought their duty was still for the future of Palm Desert and this project would be hands down better and more serving for all the people. The lady that talked about the bakery and the trash coming over the fence. He worked in that building and they find the trash comes from that side of the fence to their side of the property because they had the commercial dumpster so they received their beds, their sofas, and they had to take them away. The traffic control was a main concern and he was sure the signal would solve that. He thought that the commission had a duty to the city and wanted them to keep up the good work. MR. TODD WHELCHEL, 74-659 Gary in Palm Desert, stated that he recently purchased a house on Gary four months ago for the fact that it is an older neighborhood. It was a quieter, established neighborhood. They have enjoyed living there and were currently improving their property and he had gone through this same scenario in another state and he was opposed to this project. The bowling alley that was built in a neighborhood near where he used to live basically had the police parked out front every night making sure that the kids weren't loitering and hanging out and causing problems. He had seen it. He agreed that this project was good for Palm Desert and he has three kids and they were always wanting something else to do, but this location was bad. MS. ETHEL BARKELEW, 74-800 Sheryl Avenue, stated that she was a resident of the condo complex. She said she was a former school teacher and loved kids. She also liked to see kids having things to do. One concern was that the restaurant and bowling alley would serve some kind of liquor. If this was designed for kids, she wasn't sure that was the greatest thing. As far as traffic was concerned, if people were there late at night, it was probably going to be a little different scene than normal traffic. She thought that police probably would have to park there at night. Their complex had to have police cars around it quite often. Along with some of the vandalism mentioned by Ms. Cunningham, something not mentioned was pool furniture thrown into the pool, drugs being done, the lights being removed off of the building and around the building so that no one could see who was in there 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 doing whatever they were doing. It turned out to be drugs. Some people were sleeping in the bathrooms because they were drugged out and didn't want to go home. Various things like that were going on and that was why they had to do the security thing. Things were better now, but she thought the security issue was important and issuing liquor licenses was something she didn't think the commission would want to do to encourage kids to do. She thought that teenagers especially had to have places they could go and have a good time and do a great thing. When she was a teenager she went to the bowling alley often and there were pool tables there too. She never had a problem with it and her parents didn't have a problem with it either. She could see where it was a wonderful idea. She understood at the time that the first plans had everything along Sheryl being professional buildings. She didn't know if that was still true or not and if they were professional buildings, they were going to be one-story. She could see if they were going to put in doctors or dentists or lawyers they would do their regular offices and would be gone during the night. They were also assured of plenty of parking within that complex so there wouldn't be a lot of parking on the street. She didn't know if that was still part of the plan or not. The other thing was the school bus. Because she is a former teacher, she had been very involved with the school bus. They pick up children on all four parts of their particular complex and those children have a lot of fun riding on the gates, climbing on the palm trees and doing all kinds of things before the bus arrives. She didn't know if they had driven in the area, but there were some quite tall palm trees at the corner of Sheryl and Clifford. That was a favorite thing to see who could climb the palm tree. They were little kids and all of a sudden she realized they had a problem because they were responsible for kids on their property. She called the school district and got them to change the bus and it took three or four times because they had two gates they could swing on. They had to get them away from the two gates, away from the palm trees and they were now on Merle. That seemed to be working okay. There were a few people there complaining a little bit about the bus arriving early disturbing their sleep, but basically it seemed to be working on Merle. As far as a lot of traffic, she has lived there 10 years and hadn't seen a lot of traffic. There was a group of kids waiting for the bus who used to play ball in the street and dared cars to come down the street on Clifford. That was the came. She supposed that everything had a solution to it. She 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 thought the residents at the condo would be a little upset with the two story structures looking right at them. She thought other things could have gone in there that would have been less helpful. Since it is residential, it possibly might end up with a whole bunch of apartments all of which would be two story and maybe more traffic coming and going all day and night. She could see where the traffic might subside toward evening with the proposed project, but those were her views. She felt that some of them were important. MR. BRUCE POYNTER, 73-390 Caliandra Street in Palm Desert, stated that he was one of the property owners of the associated property being talked about. Part of the original Jude E. Poynter Estate. The current piece of property was a bare dirt lot. He knew a number of times over the year he has been the one to clean the tumble weeds off of that lot and they have had a lot of weed abatement notices over the years and normally that lot wasn't a great asset in his opinion. There was an entertainment zone proposed for it. They had a safe, healthy place for seniors and children. One big plus was that there weren't any bighorn sheep or fringe-toed lizards on the property. They had a good community and it would benefit girl scouts, boy scouts, senior leagues, junior and senior golf. He said his uncle was very pro recreational facilities for young people and some of them may have known him. He was a big advocate of junior golf and he donated a large sum of money for the Jude E. Poynter Golf Museum at College of the Desert. They would both be proud to see this project go forward. MR. THOMAS MANDIC, 74-619 Gary Avenue in Palm Desert, stated he had some questions for Mr. Hughes. Originally when they met at the golf center there was going to be a day care center there. He didn't now if it was still planned. He informed commission that he has lived in that neighborhood approximately 30 years. None of them had seen the traffic that this would bring. He was against the project and Mr. Hughes was aware of that. Right now they didn't have the traffic. They had traffic in the mornings and for the golf center maybe 200 yards. People would hang a left off of Cook and Sheryl going to the golf center and come back out, but if he remembered right, one building was designed for day care and that would bring traffic in there between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on that one street. His question to him was how long the gas station would stay 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 open. Would it be a 24-hour station? Was the restaurant going to be 24 hours? He imagined the bowling alley would close around 2:00 a.m. Right now they didn't have any problems there but when they got out of the establishments, people would have a tendency to wander through the neighborhood. There were only two ways in and out. Sheryl and Merle. He also wondered if the city found out there was a traffic problem if they might need to make a cut from Rebecca up to the industrial park. He didn't know if that was an option, too, or what they might do in the future, but he wanted to put it on record that these were questions he had. He said it was a great project. For them living out there the gas station would be fantastic. It would be very convenient. But like the rest of his neighbors said, he didn't think it belonged in their neighborhood because they had been there since 19C0. This would have a negative impact on their community. One speaker readdressed the commission and pointed out that when the condo project was proposed people were concerned about it being low income and bringing in seedy people. They have heard what kind of people it brought in and the positive thing it is. Chairperson Beaty asked the applicant if he had any rebuttal comments. Mr. Hughes thanked everyone for showing up, not just the people in support, but the ones that sincerely had negative input as well. He said that there were no two story buildings on the perimeter at all. It was designed primarily for the people in the condos. All the issues brought up he felt had been addressed. They couldn't create zero mitigation, but they could take it as low as possible and they tried to do that. He thought they had done a good job of that. Regarding the neighborhood, he had a list of 30 neighbors who signed a petition in support of the project that were unable or uncomfortable coming to any meetings and he wanted to submit that to the commission. With regard to all the issues addressed, they were more than willing to take the extra step to solve whatever issues there were and they were looking forward to a green light to proceed to council and thanked the commission for listening. Chairperson Beaty noted that one of the major issues brought up had to do with traffic impacts to the neighborhood and they would be receiving a traffic 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 2000 study. He asked if the commission wished to make any comments before moving on. Commissioner Lopez informed the audience that the commission really appreciated everyone taking the time to come out and speak to them, especially on election night. The commission cherished and appreciated the input and as mentioned, this item would be continued and everyone was welcome to come back and speak again. Commissioner Finerty also stated that she appreciated everyone taking the time to come out and express their views. This was a really tough decision because there were two competing interests. Obviously the neighborhood concerns were valid and improving the neighborhood was also a valid concern. They would wait for the traffic study and review the testimony and she looked forward to seeing them again. Chairperson Beaty asked when staff expected to receive the traffic study. Mr. Drell said within a week, which is why staff was recommending a continuance to December 5, 2000. Chairperson Beaty left the public hearing open and asked for a motion. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, continuing Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9 and PP 00-21 to December 5, 2000. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Jonathan abstained). Chairperson Beaty advised that this item would be readdressed on December 5. The traffic study would be available for everyone to review and he welcomed everyone to come back. He also suggested that they spread the word around the neighborhood. The commission wanted to hear from them also if they had something they wanted to tell the commission. B. Case No. CUP 00-15 - MIKE AND BRENDA SCARCELLA, Applicants Request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an 1 ,800 square foot, 14 foot high, detached accessory building in the required rear yard of the property at 77-576 Delaware Place, APN 637-160-022. 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO DISTRICT COMMERCIAL AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LOCATED ON 12 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND SHERYL AVENUE. CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of November, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 5 and December 19, 2000, to consider the request of RICHARD HUGHES for approval of the above noted cases; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the District Commercial General Plan designation. 2. The zone change to PC-2 will be consistent with the general plan amendment. 3. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with adjacent proposed land uses. 4. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the district commercial zone. 5. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 7. The precise plan not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 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 approval of General Plan Amendment 00-06 (Exhibit B attached hereto), Change of Zone 00-09 (Exhibit C attached hereto) and Precise Plan 00-21 are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached hereto), is recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1 9th day of December, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: FINERTY ABSTAIN: JONATHAN Ka-,-C /2- PAUL R. BEATY, Chairpersor1" ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL` Secretary Palm Desert P anning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. portion of said project shall commence within one year from the 2. Construction of a date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate ro riate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 8. That all requested mitigation measures included in the WPA traffic study dated December 12, 2000 shall be conditions on this project. 9. Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be as follows: a. Gas station/convenience store: 5:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. b. Bowling Center: 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 1 1 :00 p.m. Friday and Saturday c. Restaurants: 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. After one full year of operation applicant may request modification of operational limits. 10. Project shall include onsite security per recommendation of the Palm Desert Police Department insuring that activity in the center does not threaten the public peace. 11 . This approval will be subject to submission of applications by owner changing designation of adjacent golf course from R-1 Single Family Residential to Open Space. Department of Public Works: p t 1 . Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Costs associated with the installation of a traffic may signal systembe used as a 9 credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought tolerant in nature. 8. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. 9. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 1 1 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 1 2. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction. 13. Traffic safety striping on Cook Street and Sheryl Drive shall be provided to the specification of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 14. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the city's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Removal and reconstruction of concrete curb, gutter and paving at 43 feet from centerline on Cook Street and 22 feet on Sheryl Drive. Widening on Sheryl Drive shall begin approximately 100 feet westerly of the proposed project access point. * Installation of dedicated right turn pocket, approximately 80 feet in length with a 90 foot reverse curve, for the proposed Cook Street access. * Installation of a concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration on Sheryl Drive and Cook Street. * Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Sheryl Drive and the removal of existing traffic signal at Cook Street and Merle Drive. * Construction of raised landscaped median island in Cook Street between Merle Drive and the southerly project limits. The design of the median island at Merle Drive shall prohibit left turn movements from Merle Drive onto Cook Street. The cost of construction of the portion of the median between Merle Drive and Sheryl Drive shall be subject to reimbursement upon completion and acceptance of the improvement. * Existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground facilities in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code. * Installation of transit facilities in accordance with Sunline Transit Agency recommendations. Street rights-of-way necessary to accommodate the required improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 Riverside County Department: De artment: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2- 1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 1 1 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 1 50' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 12. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. Other: All turning radiuses around outside of parking lots must have a 31 ' inside and a 51 ' outside radius. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2040 EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street And Sheryl Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. � ember 19, 2000 �PHILIP DR t— TE DIRECTOFt OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 je --TTR 7 �..� _- 1, 1 i .`5 } P.R.-4 ,--- • : IIBEEn.N :, ,' S.P. L —I O.P. 'co, : �RP.R.-5 ; Q \ • 7 fit. o°Y� r'°a L jt. ,_ i ,,,..,. . , !$ P_ I i sn�c .,�e: sr ,-•.• 0 a` ,, - .,� - �: P.R.-10 O.S. mot w- " S r aP.R-17.5 A ;, I. J _ ! S.L •• O - • —8 , IOgqIII :.YLLD�TiIfaNF-0--- S.I. � 1 l I I t I , ; I ; 1 r_____ . • ;• I 1 _ 'ice! ' -1-- R-1-M, ►i ' �g ' _ -- H. S. -- -r EUT • I . I zw,,@e '"2 ; ! I I I . ! $� SI sI ! ; . .g i I , R-1-Y \ tN ! r g ,i I : 1-M . -.... -.emu ; l I , p —,I - ; S.I. ! - mil` - nisa■■ . ■ R-3 1 1x _ III.. ®I■lluU_ n�V! _- O.rS. __ R-1 $cso sescs riT , CDR-..mAmaistA ' `\\\H-' \\ ?\Th(` � 1 T S.I. � x P, N - -- \ O.S. i 6 >— VIA ucNeNtua \` -=> P.R.-4 COURT t ' ( < CLAM R P' NNd= - - _ 4 P.R.-7 ��?? -T- COURT - III ``� ��� r•- r��C • • . - `!a Proposed -•a_i_ -P�>• R-1 P.R.-4,i ,casrev`3d., A' ` 5! n/A,. �� GPA -sit- ,_L��■ — -9,OOQ '^ N •, • S• ..3 • • N. , ' _ :{ f i f TT1 TT L�1_ t l r , - gth, r: _ _ - _ Low Density r,. ,•,,--•- '_ I _ — _ _ Residential _ cN — _ = _: .R. - ! _ . - — _-- = District Commercial ell"a1IYaba 17ever1 Case No. GPA 00-06 PLANNING COMMISSION L.,1� GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2040 ' E T-IIIIIT 11 Date: r)ECFMBFR 19, 2000 ., . _..\.•-•:. 1 ;, ;. ;R- „I:7 •----c 1 • ,...--,..-- i \-- -- -- 1 , I.- , 1 `1 . 0. / :;•:.:_4vIA-4-airAttc____ ,••• • • \.•(' I ' ' --, ...-- \ ; )',1 • . _...---ir.:,._,..._ ..----- . 1 .. • '4•11 ; 1 ' .-''.- .' -i -........, .., ,....___.--- . Go-.:-.--- :____i , GE 4,--. ,. I , 1 0 p 11--1-11F•• 4'.. :ritkt.,&;`---: cb,P.R.-5 3 P.R.-4 L- S.P. , .• s , , o.," ,,,,,.•,., „-- 0 • • •- • --- :•!-;-"•4-F ,-•-.-- , .. •• ....-: .- ., . „ !:----„-- - :, -....,‘,.).,.:::-- ,.......; -14 .%. 1-; -••••:..,.0,.;••= \ ; ' --L.171.,8/-•, •;':-.1;.1-'.•;1--Q, :‹3'.•:".•,0 ) - •._ %-...,..„. ...____---4-I c' - - --,r-• -',-7?-'''',---,?- TRISTAN -'---__, I j • I. i I • 1 ' I : I 1-.7', -. '7?.._ :-:''..,7--...N''• .•:''.'''''...I''..,••lit I'''1 : I _; i : i • i• I ' _1.._! ,` i''',-. .1. .'sf..;: -':/•:•-•-• . . H . !P ! — rIttak''.-. -e- •-,.-,-...:.0-:,;--- ..,4. ---. -__----.--I i • ,-qc‘ -:•:, --•-,•••.- -•;•ii-,:-.g-= : P.R.-10 ; ; • 1...___„,?,,.. ; : , I IL, 1 I 11----41-1-- -. -''''-; 7.-1 O.S. I,-___ 1,,,,,„0„In_I I. 1 •semn_.;; S II L--.-----.•• -• , 7.•..: ,.,. ;., f+ii'07,21i. • -----:. P.R.-17.5 , g. . I ; .g. 1 1 I JANES • 4, :.--"--, ; ' -FL--' • . 1 , 1 I S I I ' ! S P177 --; •e AI. '.. .'' .!.. ...._, . , . z 10 I S.I. I Ifm i'_____I r ! ,-1-',4, , . ,,__T__:, : i ; i-10.T*Iimi,-'7; s 1 --...'-'--:.-:-'•L'-'ij : =Ii11 . • ! ; I 3 , 11 III I ' ; I . • • ...„....., --___; _ • __._, i • I. I I l• I j 1--1 ---•aimimvcciiricl -FTT-rj-111 _.--z-.R4-M - I i • ; ; ,•,,,,,;,mulak : .----7----..... •-•::00,- :S.H. ;--/ van WAY • I : I . -,::.-----.---'.•::FIRCON.:- - 1.T-ibt, :---: - 'I : I I ' I ' ' • I ' I • 0 • 1 I I I. S I HS-j° I 1 I li ' I REE''Il: I • •t ' 0-1 , R-1-M ' i-: I S Ii 1 , 'J-L--1 __I----- I .)--..;;;::g-,::-..."': - •4••• .- •:::''..1) '7--..,. JONI DR 1 . "%,..,--,X.,..i,42-''•-, . 1-•''.. .•-...:";..-. I I f 1 , " ! ' I I I - Hi - .-. .-R_i_m. ..-..•:::......::::::.•,----- ...:4 : . 1 1 , ,i„ ! , .,:,ft,--- ,- ----r.)---o-- --7 1 _ _ -•=- .---.4—ii.Ekr. . . - motime i 1 , 1 i _ -1I .)...L.Lz..i . •:----:!. -- -7-___I.••1_,.- ),.. , „ -AE=ri r,_ .,, • • ' IR 1"' S I s.,L—I . .., : : i 1,.-•7.i I I r I__ /I I __* '4: . • ! - ,• ....:. - I----T,. .; 4)'.. ,.• 7...._,_--4_,__•-r_ 1 - .__.--.. -•___4. ., - :„_..-z-g-...:7,q-._„it. ----14 -----• i • - = , ..-- . • R 3 'im• ''• --____ .-,.....-._-_. .•-- - --r-r. -7X-.; . , '4''' ' .' ! - ' ; . . '-----7------;'1-2 . ; 11 1111 '. 1 11_1 ; (4) • ; . ;i ----SNIRTI AWE }.. I , , ..-''''' I I I I `• , ____ - - ---' -------,... R-1 ' SRSRSZ'SgSZ . -- N't ' 1 _,._ • 7 ; ; 1 ;"----• 1 ----- Nk. mAGNaraptiti-D-_ • • . ,-- ; i---i---t.--•-• ---:'-.--.;• -'4 r-r7cciii144•910*-- S.I. ; --1 - 111-r------ -...., ,. . r `-... ' '.' ' . . ‘ :1.1 • • . !f:51 I NT 1•• ' ------,_ • • ---... i ... ..'........,1 I, \ '..''...., 1 ......I , , \ -• .....-',-.... 17 * .- ---; ' " :--- - ,3 --.-...-:-.%--,..':‘, 1 I ! • :_J.: ' 1 1-7 i ' ' ' 1, '---S , , ' , ;a P ,N • -.......-:„. i -,_ . . . ._..... -,_....," _ • I II i •'. -- ^.., I ''" ""---. . , I' • . r 1 PA/41.tut -•••:.„---A, .. ,..--....„ I .D D 4 i. . •.,.,„ : COURT I 1". •, A .1%. P N ;(.4 1-•-4.- ----,•-!•••...,, ., ; -, ib. 11; „.. , I I, _----- . • •- , 1 hi P.R.-7 ... . I;iii-pj-Km cuvra. ; I -., '''''-9T:*---'.-r-7••"('''' i , 1 : L, 0-I . r , -• 10, i --..F.,Aticatar-;Icaisicr-:mi l' -• "'- . -1--,-,- ---•-•-prs,-, Proposed -1 : 7.—• .I.N. 1 ' ,__,:.f.......,... , --4 p R.4 4 ,.-!, :;.,id-m-8 El: Nr:n .,.,_,,, pfimp ....... _.,..... ..,.....4iv-- Zoning Change TR--71-- • , .':-.•.-..ik-f:-. -. s-2-9,000 !-: : r! !'--IHI iv. '11 ,.ioriLrii,„,__cs.v„,g 1 ::-- . _ • . • I 1 N N..._-•-,---:---..,-, ' :.Ilia"1 -r. ;;::f.'ACtIOMPs. ;•-• ' Mil'alliaM _ & TFITIT' 7.-T-F ',,,,..;::\,(f; ',-,7*.!:1 1"."....N/...7 ,---.=L__,- :--:----•,-----•-- : --jr11----- ' I -- k-4----t--.-T-F-T.--71-7-1- • r.,_,,,,,; ,t,-___,_ •,- -: :.--- .___. ----- R1 .__- ., . _ ,.. ..... _ . _ - • -- -caft. ,-,zFly-A_ --...• .___ 1 1 - . _L,_.7. ........._., -_-..1 ,.., .-_-.-,:--_._ . . • ..,... -, - ._--- to -, •-_-_z_R . 5-. ... ..,• .A.,...,,..____ , ______ _. I --- --- -___. ----- -- - _ --_____-- PC.(2) -• :: --/-7 . (Ala- — - :4-- • •;- -./,__ __, -1 ! --=-_-_=_:--7-7----- _ ,......--- = - ------- -- ___-:- , eity Of Yaim_Pei ezi Case No. C/Z 00-09 PLANNING COMMISSION Change of Zone RESOLUTION NO. 20/10 ..;,..-47 EXHI It IT C Date: DECEMBEP. 19, 200n riP CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 19, 2000 CASE NOS: GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to District Commercial and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. APPLICANT: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 DISCUSSION: Testimony before the Commission from area residents has focused on whether the proposed commercial project is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood. Can potentially negative impacts of commercial activities be mitigated or isolated within the property so that the overall impact on the neighborhood and surrounding community is neutral or positive? Or, does the project include uses which are so inherently destructive that the impacts cannot be contained or mitigated under any circumstances? The following issues strongly influence whether commercial and residential uses can co- exist. 1. Location and direct proximity to potentially impacted residential properties 2. Access and traffic control 3. Operational characteristics of proposed commercial uses 4. Project site design and architecture Location and Proximity: Whenever commercial uses are directly adjacent to residential uses, there is the greatest potential for conflict. Ideally, separation by a street or a less intensive use is desirable. Our experience with the office professional zone is that residential scale office buildings provide effective buffers between high intensity uses and residential neighborhoods. STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 DECEMBER 19, 2000 The proposed project's frontage on Cook Street (a commercial arterial), the Whitewater Channel, the golf course, and Sheryl Avenue minimizes direct impacts on residential properties. Impact to the substantially surrounded single family home on Sheryl can be partially mitigated by design, but will most likely lead to future integration into the project. The two vacant lots at the Sheryl/Christian corner which will back onto the commercial parking lot should ultimately be allowed office commercial use. A residential scale office building should be planned adjacent to the first home on Christian protecting it from the noise and lighting impacts of the parking lot. In designing boundaries between commercial and residential uses, it is the City's primary goal to preserve the integrity of the residential neighborhood. The City remains committed to preserving and enhancing the overall quality of the existing neighborhood. Access and Traffic Control: Insensitive location of project access and inadequate traffic control can result in significant commercial intrusion into adjacent residential areas. A detailed traffic study, supervised by the City's Transportation Engineer, was completed by WPA Traffic Engineering. Project access is planned from Cook Street with a right turn in/out only design and from Sheryl approximately 235 feet west of Cook. While the Cook Street access does not create intrusive impacts, only 15% of the entrances and 45% of the exits are likely to use it due to the right turn in/out restriction. Eighty-five percent (85%) of the entrances and 55% of the exits will use the Sheryl Street access. The Cook Street intersection. Currently, the Cook/Sheryl intersection is operating a service level F due to continuous high levels of traffic on Cook. While service levels would be dramatically improved by a signal, side street traffic does not meet signal warrants or justifications for a signal. The project is expected to generate a total of 5,970 daily trip ends (2,985 in and out trips) of which 420 (250 in, 170 out) would occur in the morning peak hours and 825 (295 in, 530 out) during the evening peak hours. With the addition of the project traffic to existing plus general growth, all intersections in the vicinity will continue to operate at Level C or better with the exception of Cook/Sheryl which continues to operate at F. Without a signal at Cook/Sheryi, 15°i° of the existing traffic would turn right from the Sheryl access to Clifford to reach the Merle/Cook signalized intersection resulting in 450 additional daily trips into the neighborhood. With the signalization of Cook/Sheryl, intrusion drops to 5% and 150 daily trips. If the existing Merle signal is relocated to Sheryl and a median structure is designed at the Sheryl access which prohibits right turns, intentional intrusion 2 STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 DECEMBER 19, 2000 is virtually eliminated. Accidental intrusion from commercial traffic overshooting the entrance should be minimized by adequate signage. To further facilitate exiting from Sheryl to Cook, Sheryl would be widened allowing for a left turn and through/right turn lanes. The study concluded that with proposed mitigation, on- and off-site circulation results in acceptable levels of service. With project traffic, the Cook/Sheryl intersection meets signal warrants. The service level at the Cook/Sheryl intersection, after addition of the project traffic plus existing and growth improves from the existing service level F to B with signalization. Since the recommendation is to relocate the Merle signal to Sheryl, overall operation of Cook Street will not be impaired. Left turn control at the Sheryl access eliminates the chances of intrusion and confines the commercial traffic activity to the 235 feet between the exit and Cook Street. Uses The proposed uses include a gas station/convenience store, restaurant, offices, and a bowling center. The station/convenience store and restaurant front Cook Street. Similar facilities are located throughout the City without significant problems. They have not become attractive nuisances or magnets for criminal activity. Restricting hours of operation to no later than 11:00 p.m. will further minimize problems. Office buildings and related retail uses are also not typically associated with criminal or other behavior destruction to neighborhood values. These uses normally do not generate activity past 6:00 p.m. The bowling center has the greatest potential to generate late night impact in the form of noise, lights, and traffic. Although the building will effectually contain the direct impact of bowling and related entertainment, activity within the parking lot can be a source of problems. The area is currently used as a night time golf driving range which operates to 8:00 p.m. While there is no evidence that bowlers as a group are more prone to criminal or other destructive behavior than golfers. The bowling center will have later hours and will attract a greater volume of business. The most significant potential for impact will result from bowlers arriving and leaving the facility in the late night hours. Since bowling is marketed as a family-oriented activity, it is in the operator's interest to provide sufficient security and control both inside and out, to ensure that customers feel comfortable and safe. It is also recommended that initially, hours of operation be limited to no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. 3 tea \ STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 DECEMBER 19, 2000 Ultimately, the degree in which a particular commercial use is intrusive to a neighborhood is a function of design and operation. Design The project has been designed to insulate the neighborhood from potential intrusive effects to the greatest practical extent possible. The one controlled access on Sheryl is located as close to Cook as possible, the remaining frontage will be landscaped to resemble the perimeter of a walled residential community with sidewalks, landscaping, and a 6-foot block wall. The three office buildings on Sheryl will be residential in scale and setback 32 feet from the curb. All building access will be internal. The gas station will be a reverse design which provides for extensive landscaping at the corner and screening of the gas canopy. The bowling center is at the south side of the property, 250 feet from the nearest residence. Parking lot lighting will be held to residential standards with maximum 20-foot light standards and no more than a .25 foot candle trespass beyond the property line (approximately equivalent to the light from a full moon). Access design will minimize traffic intrusion and signalization will actually improve the level of services at the intersection. Commercial traffic will be confined to the 235 feet between Cook and the entrance. Future long-range plans for the neighborhood. A question was raised concerning long-range plans for the neighborhood and golf course. As has been discussed earlier, the vacant property directly adjacent to the proposed project should be designated PC-2 allowing compatible commercial use creating a "defensible boundary" between commercial and residential uses. Future development would occur pursuant to a precise plan creating a buffer between the two uses. The vacant lots at the corner of Sheryl and Christian represent the furthest recommended limit of commercial development. For the golf course, staff is recommending re-designation from Low-density Residential (R-1) to open space (O.S.) encouraging preservation of the existing recreational use. Regardless of the outcome of the proposed application, it is the City's goal to protect and enhance the existing residential neighborhood. 4 3� STAFF REPORT CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 DECEMBER 19, 2000 II. CONCLUSION: The locational characteristics of the site, access design, and traffic control, use restrictions on perimeter buildings, and limitations on hours of operation and overall project design, substantially insulates the adjacent residential neighborhood from the potential negative effects of commercial use. The imposition of mitigation measures identified by the traffic study and conditions of approval reduce traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. The re-designation of the golf course from R-1 to open space will encourage the preservation of this important neighborhood amenity. Based on these findings, the application warrants a recommendation of approval to the City Council. If the Commission believes that some form of commercial use is appropriate given the location, but that a specific use is unacceptable, then the recommendation could be conditioned on elimination of that use. III. RECOMMENDATION: Approve findings and adopt P.C. Resolution No. approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact, General Plan, Amendment GPA 00-06, Change of Zone C/Z 00-09, and Precise Plan PP 00-21, subject to conditions. Prepare -�---- Phil Drell /gs wpdocs\sr\gpa00-06.pc2 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) TO DISTRICT COMMERCIAL AND A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX LOCATED ON 12 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND SHERYL AVENUE. CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of November, 2000, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to December 5 and December 19, 2000, to consider the request of RICHARD HUGHES for approval of the above noted cases; 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. 00-24," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been prepared; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending to City Council approval of said request: 1 . The site is suitable for the District Commercial General Plan designation. 2. The zone change to PC-2 will be consistent with the general plan amendment. 3. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with adjacent proposed land uses. 4. The precise plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the district commercial zone. 5. The design of the precise plan and the manner in which it will be operated will not substantially depreciate property values, nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The precise plan of design will not unreasonably interfere with the use or enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 7. The precise plan not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. 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 approval of General Plan Amendment 00-06 (Exhibit B attached hereto), Change of Zone 00-09 (Exhibit C attached hereto) and Precise Plan 00-21 are hereby recommended to City Council, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (Exhibit A attached hereto), is recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of December, 2000, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL R. BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801 ) and the approved landscape plan. 8. That all requested mitigation measures included in the WPA traffic study dated December 12, 2000 shall be conditions on this project. 9. Hours of operation for commercial uses shall be as follows: a. Gas station/convenience store: 5:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. b. Bowling Center: 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Friday and Saturday c. Restaurants: 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. After one full year of operation applicant may request modification of operational limits. 10. Project shall include onsite security per recommendation of the Palm Desert Police Department insuring that activity in the center does not threaten the public peace. 11 . This approval will be subject to submission of applications by owner changing designation of adjacent golf course from R-1 Single Family Residential to Open Space. Department of Public Works: 1 . Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm. 2. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-1 7 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Costs associated with the installation of a traffic signal system may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 4. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought tolerant in nature. 8. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. q 0pplicant shall cnmply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12 Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. 10. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 1 1 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 1 2. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction. 13. Traffic safety striping on Cook Street and Sheryl Drive shall be provided to the specification of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be 5 ra.3ce PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 14. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the city's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Removal and reconstruction of concrete curb, gutter and paving at 43 feet from centerline on Cook Street and 22 feet on Sheryl Drive. Widening on Sheryl Drive shall begin approximately 100 feet westerly of the proposed project access point. * Installation of dedicated right turn pocket, approximately 80 feet in length with a 90 foot reverse curve, for the proposed Cook Street access. * Installation of a concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration on Sheryl Drive and Cook Street. * Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Sheryl Drive and the removal of existing traffic signal at Cook Street and Merle Drive. * Construction of raised landscaped median island in Cook Street between Merle Drive and the southerly project limits. The design of the median island at Merle Drive shall prohibit left turn movements from Merle Drive onto Cook Street. The cost of construction of the portion of the median between Merle Drive and Sheryl Drive shall be subject to reimbursement upon completion and acceptance of the improvement. * Existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground facilities in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code. * Installation of transit facilities in accordance with Sunline Transit Agency recommendations. Street rights-of-way necessary to accommodate the required improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, NFPA, UFC, and UBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site. 3. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3000 gpm for commercial buildings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4" x 2- 1/2" x 2-1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3,000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the shall locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. 7. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and water- flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 8. Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1OBC extinguisher per 3,000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 10. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1 1 . All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 1 50' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around (55' in industrial developments). 1 2. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. 13. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. 14. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. Other: All turning radiuses around outside of parking lots must have a 31 ' inside and a 51 ' outside radius. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: GPA 00-06, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street And Sheryl Avenue. The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. December 19, 2000 PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Department of Community Development/Planning Attention: Phil Drell FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager for Development Services SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN 00-21; THE WELLS AT PALM DESERT DATE: November 29, 2000 The following should be considered conditions of approval for the above-referenced project: (1) Any drainage facility construction required for this project shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The project shall be designed to retain storm waters associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 25 year storm. (2) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project. Costs associated with the installation of a traffic signal system may be used as a credit against the subject signalization fees. Such a credit would be subject to approval by the Palm Desert City Council. (3) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. (4) A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. (5) 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. (6) 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. (7) Landscape installation on the property frontages as well as on-site shall be drought tolerant in nature. (8) As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance. (9) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control and Section 24.20, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control. (10) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. (11) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. (12) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction. (13) Traffic safety striping on Cook Street and Sheryl Drive shall be provided to the specification of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. (14) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards and the city's Circulation Network. Those improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following: * Removal and reconstruction of concrete curb, gutter and paving at 43 feet from centerline on Cook Street and 22 feet on Sheryl Drive. Widening on Sheryl Drive shall begin approximately 100 feet westerly of the proposed project access point. * Installation of dedicated right turn pocket , approximately 80 feet in length with a 90 foot reverse curve, for the proposed Cook Street access. d" * Installation of a concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration on Sheryl Drive and Cook Street. * Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of Cook Street and Sheryl Drive and the removal of existing traffic signal at Cook Street and Merle Drive. * Construction of raised landscaped median island in Cook Street between Merle Drive and the southerly project limits. The design of the median island at Merle Drive shall prohibit left turn movements from Merle Drive onto Cook Street. The cost of construction of the portion of the median between Merle Drive and Sheryl Drive shall be subject to reimbursement upon completion and acceptance of the improvement. * Existing overhead utilities shall be converted to underground facilities in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code. * Installation of transit facilities in accordance with Sunline Transit Agency recommendations. Street rights-of-way necessary to accommodate the required improvements shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits associated with this project. RICHARD J. FOLKERS, P.E. (Pplans\pp0021pd.cnd) �a� RIVERSIDE COUNTY cALIFORNLI e.w-•. I FIRE DEPARTMENT o'cD„FIRENT PRO'TEC N IN COOPERATION WITH THE UNTY is CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY o. �' - AND FIRE PROTECTION iREsni RIVERSID-rr.r i:�i AFIRE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE r 1 J _ � Air. r- COVE FIRE MARSHAL i : l 70-801 HWY 111 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92570 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270 TELEPHONE: (909) 940-6900 TELEPHONE: (760) 346-1870 FAX: (760) 328-1071 TO: i0 REF: p I`circled, conditions apply to project With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code,NFPA, UFC, and UBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all buildings per UFC article 87. a L� A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 3. 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings 5) 3000 gpm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) 4"x2-1/2"x2-1/2", located not less than 25' nor more than: 6. 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 7_., 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway (8, 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via vehicular travelway Water Plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 10. Please be advised the proposed project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. I, 11.; Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings. n,.,,t,l nn rnr.rbA nnnr 'lr] -12.) All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per UBC Chapter 9. 13./ Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3. 14. E Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less that one 2A1OBC J extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A"K"type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens. 15.,. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage. 16. Install a dust collecting system per UFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. 17. ) All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial developments. 18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates,barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a"Knox Box"key over-ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type. 22. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city. ,23. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to construction. IA5 24. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws , or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal Office at 760-346-1870; 70-801 Hwy. 111, Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 Other: ifv(virr h4vc Attidif 5i Sincerely, Mike Mc Connell Coves Fire Marshal aaCP .0164,1 ATE'? ESTABLISHED IN 1918 A5 A PUBLIC ACENCY O�STRIC� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE Box lose-COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92296•TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS C00ENAS,PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RUSSELL KITAHARA,VICE PRESIOENT BERNAROINE suTTON,SECRETARY JOHN W.McFAODEN OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER JOHN P.POwEII.Jr. October 11, 2000 REDWINE AND 3HCRRIL_,ATTORNEYS PETER NELSON File: 0163.1 050616-1 050616-4 Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert (, t 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 • COiAiUNITYefiVELCiPL74!„tPx Id,'_tiT CITY Cri PAik DE:SE 1 Gentlemen: Subject: Precise Plan 00-21 This area is protected from regional stormwater flows by the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from regional stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. • There may be erosion of the banks of the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel during periods of unusual rainfall and discharge. The developer shall construct concrete slope protection on the bank(s) of the stormwater channel to prevent erosion_ Plans for concrete slope protection shall be submitted to the district for review, Stormwater runoff from this area may be diverted to the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel_ Nuisance flows or other nonstormwater generated runoff may not be discharged into the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the district for review. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this arca in accordance with the=loot regulations of this district_ These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 53 and 80 of the district for sanitation service. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Received Oct-11-2000 01 ;39pm From-7603983711 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert -2- October 11. 2000 The district requires restaurants to install a grease interceptor, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the grease interceptor will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the district. Installation of the interceptor will be inspected by the district. The district requires detail,repair and lubc auto shops and car washes to install an oil and sand separator, including a sample box, sanitary tee and running trap with cleanout, prior to any discharge to its sanitation facilities. The size of the oil and sand separator will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the district. Installation of the oil and sand separator will be inspected by the district. The district requires laundrnmats and commercial establishments with laundry facilities to install a lint trap. The size of the lint trap will be determined by the Riverside County Environmental Health Department and approved by the district. Installation of the lint trap will be inspected by the district. There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans. There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request that the appropriate public agency withhold the approval of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the district regarding these facilities/tract map or until utility clearances have been completed with the district, If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292. Yours very trul Tom Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 82-675 Highway 111, Second Floor Indio, California 92201 PS:j l\eng\.sw\oct\pp00-21 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Received Oct-11-2000 01 .39pm From-7609989711 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: December 5, 2000 CASE NOS: GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to District Commercial and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. APPLICANT: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 I. BACKGROUND: The public hearing on the item was continued from November 7, 2000, to allow completion of a traffic study. The draft study was submitted on November 14th and a review by the City's Transportation Engineer was completed on November 27`h. Although the report did not identify significant impacts which cannot be mitigated, the City review required some technical corrections which will not be completed in time for the hearing on December 5, 2000. II. RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, continue the public hearing to December 19, 2000. Prepare by Phi Drell c Reviewed and Approv y Phil Drell /gs CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: November 7, 2000 CASE NOS: GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-09, PP 00-21 REQUEST: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to District Commercial and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed use commercial complex located on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue. APPLICANT: Richard Hughes 73-550 Alessandro Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 BACKGROUND: A. Adjacent Zoning / Land use North: O.P. / Vacant R-3 (4) / Multi family residential South: O.S. / Whitewater storm channel East: S.I. / Industrial West: R-1 / Golf course B. Site Description The project proposed on 7.87 acres of relatively flat land between Sheryl Avenue and the Whitewater channel, is currently in use as a golf driving range and nine vacant single family lots. The driving range is associated with a 9-hole par 3 golf course to the west. The applicant intends to continue operation and maintenance the golf course. One single family home on Sheryl Avenue and a 3.9 acre triangular parcel wedged between the subject property and the storm channel are not owned by the applicant and although included in the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, are not part of the precise plan. The applicant attempted but failed to gain control of these properties. Prior to use as a driving range, a portion of the site was owned by the Coachella Valley Water District and used for a construction ')6o dump. Significant soil engineering remediation and flood channel slope protection will be required before construction can occur on the site. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project involves a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential (R-1)to Planned District Commercial (PC-2) and the development of a mixed use commercial project including a gas station/convenience store, 8,200 square foot restaurant, 25,000 square foot office/retail use and a 40-lane bowling center. A. General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone In older traditional cities, commercial uses providing a wide range of basic goods, services and entertainment were located on arterial streets directly adjacent and within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. As a reaction to inner city congestion and decay, new towns and suburbs were planned and developed with extensive single use residential areas served by large shopping centers accessible only by car. Trips became longer and the pedestrian was eliminated. There is a growing realization in the urban planning field that the absolute segregation of commercial retail services from residential areas is not good for neighborhoods or cities in general. With sensitive planning and design, commercial centers can contribute to a neighborhood quality of life without destroying residential values. The subject site provides an ideal opportunity for appropriate commercial use which can serve both the adjacent residential neighborhood and the Cook Street corridor. The property is already impacted by the concentration of industrial use and Cook Street traffic, while the adjacent residential neighborhoods lack convenient access to basic commercial services. There will be no impacts to the south due to the channel and high school. The single family area will be buffered from direct impacts by the golf course, Sheryl Avenue and the multi-family zone. With sensitive design, the site can be appropriate for the District Commercial land use designation and the PC-2 zone. The isolated single family home on Sheryl and the triangular parcel to the south, although not included in the precise plan would also be redesignated District Commercial (PC-2) allowing them to be incorporated into the project at a later date. It would be illogical to isolate them as residential fragments. III. PRECISE PLAN: The project will include a reverse design gas station and 2,000 square foot convenience store at the Cook Street/ Sheryl Avenue corner, an 8,200 square foot restaurant on Cook 2 Street, two 5,000 square foot and one 3,000 square foot single-story office building on Sheryl Avenue, a 12,000 square foot two-story in the interior and a 40-lane, 40,000 square foot bowling center adjacent to the golf course parking lot. Access will be from a right turn in/out off Cook Street and from Sheryl Avenue, 230 feet west of Cook Street. If warranted, the Cook Street/Sheryl Avenue intersection would be signalized. The more intense uses will be located off Cook Street or in the interior. The perimeter buildings on Sheryl will be low rise offices bordered by a 6' masonry wall and a desert style landscape buffer ranging in width from 10 to 25 feet in addition to an 8-foot sidewalk. Architecture will be contemporary. Landscaping throughout the project will be "Desert Willow style". The reverse design for the gas station/convenience store will allow for extensive landscaping at the corner and screening of the gas canopy. The Architectural Commission granted preliminary approval of the architecture on October 12th. Although endorsing the landscape concept, there was insufficient detail to grant landscape preliminary approval. Although it is anticipated that the remaining single family home parcel will ultimately be integrated into the project, the architecture of the adjacent single story offices was modified to be as residential friendly as possible. Project Data Project PC-2 Ordinance Site Size 7.87 acres 5-acre minimum Building Area 77,480 sq. ft. Coverage 21% 50% maximum Building Height Single Story Building 23' 30' Two Story Building 26' 30' Bowling Center 33' 30' Setbacks - Sheryl 25' 25' Cook St. 33' 32' Interior 20' 20' Parking 335 spaces 326 spaces IV. ANALYSIS: With the exception of the bowling center building, the project complies with all applicable PC-2 standards. It's design minimizes negative impacts on the adjacent residential neighborhood by siting higher intensity uses on Cook Street and the interior. The bowling center will be setback 180 feet from Sheryl and will be four feet below street grade. Less 3 than 10% of the roof area will exceed the 30' limit. Buildings on Sheryl will be setback at least 32' from curb consistent with the one to one goal. In general, the project represents a carefully conceived design which provides the opportunity for convenient access to commercial services without significant intrusion and into the peace of the residential neighborhood. ISSUES: A. Noise and light Due to high ambient noise levels generated by Cook Street traffic, it is unlikely that significant daytime nose impacts will result from the project. As a golf driving range, the site is currently subject to nighttime recreational activity and lighting. The restaurant and bowling center will attract a higher level of nighttime activity which will extend later into the evening. Proposed hours of operation for the bowling center are 11:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 1:00 a.m. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Strict adherence to the city's parking lot lighting ordinance will limit off-site light trespass to .25 foot candles (equivalent to the full moon). Since all nighttime activities will be indoors, late night noise impacts should be limited to auto traffic exiting the site. B. Traffic The project will attract additional traffic to the Sheryl/Cook intersection and down Sheryl 223 feet to the entrance. A traffic study is being completed to assess the impacts on the intersection, the need for a signal and potential intrusive impacts on the neighborhood. Since the study is in process and a continuance is recommended pending its completion and review by the city's transportation engineer. Although there should be no reason for late night patrons of the center to be wandering back into the residential area, the city needs to reserve a mechanism within the conditions of approval to address unforseen impacts of late night activities. C. The "Out Parcels" The single family home parcel and the wedge at the south are included in the general plan and zoning action but are not controlled by the applicant or included in the precise plan. The applicant has agreed to offer these property owners an easement through his project to facilitate their logical integration into the precise plan provided that they pay for their fair share of common area costs and ongoing maintenance expenses. In the case of the wedge parcel, the common area costs will be substantial since CVWD is requiring the developer to concrete line the bank as a condition for any development within 300 feet of the channel including the bank adjacent to the golf course. A substantial portion of this work will occur adjacent to the wedge parcel and would be a requirement of its future development. 4 ^�3 V. RECOMMENDATION: Continue public hearing until December 7 allowing for completion and review of traffic study and resolution of remaining issues. Prepared by �- (11----A-Q - Phil Drell Reviewed and Approved by (LQ‘22Q Phil Drell /sm 5 • CITY Of PflLfO DESERT 7I _ • 73-5I0 FRED WARING DRIVE '; ' /•r 4 1: PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2S78 ,. - 4* TEL: 760 346-061 I ��•_ � FAX: 760 341-7098 ��',.,-, infoip■Im-desert.ors CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by RICHARD M. HUGHES for approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone from Low-Density Residential(R-1)to District Commercial(PC-2)and a Precise Plan of Design for a mixed-use commercial complex including a 2,000 sq.ft. gas station/convenience store, 8,200 sq.ft. restaurant,24,000 sq.ft.office/retail, and a 40-lane bowling center on 7.87 acres at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue, more particularly described as APN 624-241-010 through-019; 624-160-003, -005, -012, and a portion of 624-160-002. =uu rnp_ae=n _._ s 1- 1 -� il i;OUN11-Y UlUti`;.rye,, R-1-M D1. is —J1- '� • , _ i • N'R-/-MV I I S1. 7 • --v--•_-\', '. ..: r� -. . 1.1 uis=I 1� ��I-\o�1l1iiiiy i�' —,.- --�, lr wy ssms U•s_O�: ■/try me s.i. WEN 1 ate='�r iunwi :+rn= 7 �_o =��' TPR7OSI 'I .- , I 8-1. ....,...,.. .������� :���... \ ' '' SITE Vie:<:i: i ': 0.,,,Mann. mis I "inn nu1 L.d'f'-, • �. Anil 1 /dil in A11 : 41 $ •I Wirt � ■. ry P.R--4 r 'p} n f PR-7 I , J, SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 7,2000, before the Palm Desert Planning Commission 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 date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the planning commission at, or prior to,the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary October 17, 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission 'O'55 The Hughes Company Real Estate Development 71-890 Eleanore Lane Rancho Mirage, Calif. 92270 (780)778-6166 12-14-00 Phil Drell City of Palm Desert Economic Development Re: "The Wells" © Palm Desert Mr. Drell; Please include this data in the package for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for the 19th of Dec. 1. Letter of Support- dated 12-12-2000 Vista Palm Desert 1l011 Board of Directors 62 unit condo project itnmediatelg across Sheryl from the proposed project 2. Letters of Support - Directors of Board Carol Cunningham Esther Batkelow 3. Letter of Support- President Board of Directors , Richard Spence Belmonte Estates HEIR 4. Letter of Support - Director NOR Board , Michael March Belmonte Estates HEIR 5. Letter of Support- Board of Directors Major Industrial Condo Owners Rssoc. S. R. hoard Secretary for Boardof Directors Industrial Park adjacent to and North of the proposed project 6. Petitions in Support of Proposed Project Dated Nou. of 2000 and Feb. of 2000 Circulated by neighbors among neighbors representing 32+ property owners 7. Letters of Support various business principals Palm -Desert, Calif. Rick Hughes �5CP 12/13/2000 14:17 7605E-- 70 CARD. A CI,NNINC PAGE 01 VISTA PALM DESERT HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION 74-800 Sheryl Avenue Palm Desert,California 92260 December 12,2000 Mr. R. M. Hughes,President HCO,LLC 71890 Elcariora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes: We would like to inform you that we support the project which you envision for the Southwest Sheryl -Cook Street area,as you presented it to us on December 11, 2000. We feel confident that you have been careful to consider the existing homes in the area in your planning,and that you will be willing to work with us as questions might arise. Thank you for presenting the project to us. Sincerely, Board of Directors Vista Palm Desert Homeowners Association 'if 5/\ A ---(''9-Tv, ,V- . . c1P7- --ve- 27:7. 77 , ,...„,. e._m„. ,, ,--- ,, , •e- '-77/ey_ "2 p-Tp,—)7/.-r-r- G-477' ----r -l"-I'W 4):7-7,-,-*-r-7" 7)**-fi ' 7S .1 -•7 • ' --"-'4--1-104Z:, "-)-77- /-.2-"--P-1•1'" 77-71-0--Y"'7 01-) -47.7-4-7.,-/ e7)17- 4 Ce-v4-7-v--1471.- .--772. .---,. .„-,74.- ----/-7-7-7,1..- /72--P---pys-7 cin.L-S ---77P77:2" 71?-7,r -. .7-4-7.1-e7,0,-yr-72/ 7_- 72 ,_,_v-y- -7 i r . 2 77 7 .-24-72 -",--+1,- ,-1-0- r r7-777/z1 , 7-Prvi ,- irl Z. /-7, )-rt .7-p,77 --347 , .) ---74 4, / 0 r >.--=-4-77 -4-- -rn/ 72,:v virp ; • 1-.717 477 477- , ---.27 ' 7 ...), -7,-.. ..-10:7-7/?-72/ de-v1, 77/7P ?-r) / 1 e7,?......7. _.p.._.o, ,- ,.0,. .7,.? ,77 „ „....;?. *.,,,,7 ,...wo ....„../4„., ,(2„,4-0-22 ,,_14.0 ,. ..,,-,--,4,-,?2,0-7-2,.• p-p 1 V,-Pryp- 714-P riiy---7 2 I C ''--7/711'"? (ZY? . • - - . , , ,, .,,,,,,,„,,.,, '17,r - 7-- ix •0rr -/-77- --74-11 /-4-2;z----e7 -0., rriti_ :.--,-pr--4---77 _ fif .---77/1,704 0-14-07Z ,' 4 -,--et7 ry----7- 0 /- I-414 ' _, , v4''' 4‘ 71-34-zg ,---7-7----7 -- -7----,---- --?,?-,- 0.4 s iz_ 41P 427-77 7-727'.' ' 'P . -7-ill ,,,,,,, . - cti,(, ,r/7-0/ cr c 2 -r"-- E/ -e-Y-,-p' igial, 0 o 8/7/ , -rw..?? en-nil-3v ----r-,c_Y r (7-__" .7>er !--1-417-7b/ r P.41,714 :7W7Y-/ • J ii I h.1,/ / .(111-19'7/ 11/01/1999 02: 28 76051 L77 CAROL a CLNNINg PAGE 01 • Card A. Cunningham . 74-800'Sheryl Avenue, Unit 9-2 Palm Deaet. CA 922604018 760-568.1046 November 1. 1999 Mr. Rick Hughes HCO,LLC 71-89O Eleanore Lane Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes I appreciate the time you spent explaining your planned use for the land across from 74-800 Sheryl Avenue. I would welcome the plan which you outlined, which would include a gas station on the corner, office buildings, day care facility, restaurants, and a bowling alley. There is a need for community oriented recreational facilities and a gas station in this area, especially. I do have some reservations regarding the possibility of problems regarding closing times,the impact of liquor licenses, bright , lighting,et cetera. This is especially true for me,individually, as my windows look out over Sheryl Avenue. However, I have always found you to be cooperative in the past. I once called because the music at the Golf Course was too loud, and you were unaware that the outside speakers*ere on, and turned then off immediately. Also,we nearby residents really appreciated the open invitation for people to view the Fourth of July fireworks from the Desert Golf Center. Therefore, I am sure that we can work out any problems which might negatively impact the lives of nearby residents with this new venture. I would adamantly oppose any two-story buildings directly across from our condominium complex.as it would block any view which residents now have. However, as long as the uses are as you outlined, I would support rezoning as necessary to accomplish the project. S rely yours, &-- --------------" Carol A. Cunningham Pax Trattiamisaion: 760-568-6117 eemaiL•cacyl@compaq.aet Richard M. Hughes Hughes&Associates 71890 Eleanora Ln. Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 Nov. 2nd 1999 Dear Mr. Hughes, Congratulations on your new project"The Wells"at the southwest corner of Sheryl&Cook. We have long needed a gas station convenience store in this area and it seems a compatible location near the industrial tenants and business owners near the cook corridor. We have been strong supporters of sports facilities for our young people in our community. Your plans for a family lanes recreational facility next to the junior golf facility is a good idea. I think that the city operated youth golf facility is an excellent idea. B -sh=. oc . project, I • Ric,and&Yoland, Spence 27 Belmonte ... Palm Desert, Ca. 92211-9075 Michael March 28 Belmonte Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 November 30, 1999 Richard M. Hughes 71-898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes, I would hie to thank you for bringing to my attention your project (The Wells) in Palm Desert. The project that you are projecting to be built in the corner of Sheryl and Cook has been long time overdue. I fully support the zone change from B-1 to PC-2, this is what our community needs, a place for family entertainment. The gas station and c-store within a close proximity to all of the neighboring developments and industrial parks will be a great asset to the community. I am always in support of allowing our young citizens to take advantage of a junior golf program and bowling lanes facility. This project will allow our youth the opportunity to be involved in two great sports. Palm Desert needs this type of planing and community involvement. ' I wish you a great success in your project and you have all my support. Sincerely, .fib- Michael March Belmonte Estates Board Member MM/ry ... �Kk WW:k-�.ie, .. - ,r. :cap xg::: .. r - - r..P•'... �•:•.. MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CONDO OWNERS ASSOCIATION 74-991 Joni Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 HCO, LLC Mr. Richard Hughes 71890 Eleanor Lane Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes, Thank you for the presentation you made on the project called the "Wells" at our Board Meeting on January 25, 2000. We are in agreement with a zone change and are most excited with your plans for a gas station/convenience store close to our businesses. Residents of our community should be ecstatic with the projected junior golf facility and bowling lanes. This is the perfect location for this use. • On behalf of the entire board and the businesses we each operate in the City of Palm Desert we wish you success with the "Wells" and we will enthusiastically support the project. Sincer� %-jA//1 (::::›Ar .oca- __--- S.R. Hoard Secretary P.O. Box 11744 Palm Desert, CA 92255 October 28, 2000 • • City Council And Staff/Planning Commission And Staff City Of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California 92260 To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed mixed-use commercial complex(The Wells At Palm Desert- Case Numbers GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9 &PP 00-21)planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Avenue and The Palm Desert High School in Palm Desert, CA. We are by virtue of signing our names below showing,our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard M. Hughes of HCO Development Co. LLC, which is to contain a 40-lane bowling facility, a gas station/convenience store, a restaurant and approximately 24,000 square feet of office/retail space. In reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a-positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives., NAME ADDRESS 1. /� 3 r--a `7 4 (aO 1 Co tkrzNr AvE 2. ry 7- 14S9 -- C,aR Ave_ , 3. c Ai s -4+ 7c/607 4. 7f5R76zin 7,f 5/4 t}rz-y 7. \ „2„, =2,„)A 4-vr 9. r-)t„ ,. �, 7Y /y retry 4vc 4 t- 10. October 28, 2000 • • City Council And Staff/Planning Commission & Staff City Of Palm Desert- Palm Desert, California 92260 To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed mixed-use commercial complex(The Wells At Palm Desert -Case Numbers GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9 &PP 00-21)planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Avenue and The Palm Desert High School in Palm Desert, CA. We are by virtue of signing our names below showing our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard M. Hughes of HCO Development Co. LLC, which is to contain a 40-lane bowling facility, a gas station/convenience store, a restaurant and approximately 24,000 square feet of office/retail space. In reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives. NAME ADDRESS n o E> �^ 21. X u�4C�.� �d —7 4_� °7 �J� �o,Chm P--PAA-4-/- 22.Ou L0. \1� Y�a.�r V ,a y }�_ Di CLLF1,1 P, 23. 0 `-� -2. a l2..t.4- 24. Q4 _ � / ' Kx-L1 p�.o 25. ' (Z,U.,Ct,) o)---. S (13(4A--L1- .trn Q-Q-0 - 27. [ , — r7L 28. A2 ; SC 0 T' �� S_ � Z (�/L �! A c.}(r- ` 29. 30. October 28, 200 0 • City Council And Staff/Planning Commission & Staff City Of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California 92260 To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed mixed-use commercial complex(The Wells At Palm Desert - Case Numbers GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9 & PP 00-21)planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Avenue and The Palm Desert High School in Palm Desert, CA. We are by virtue of signing our names below showing our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard M. Hughes of HCO Development Co. LLC, which is to contain a 40-lane bowling facility, a gas station/convenience store, a restaurant and approximately 24,000 square feet of office/retail space. In reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives. , NAME ADDRESS 11. `i ! "'` q/U 12. 7 G( 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. • 19. 20. 945 January 14, 2000 ' • City Council And Staff City Of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed commercial center planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Street and The Palm Desert High School We are by virtue of signing our names below showing our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard Hughes of HCO Development Co., which is to contain a bowling facility, gas station/convenience store, restaurant, day care center, commercial spaces and other youth oriented facilities. In reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives. • NAME ADDRESS 1. - _ —14Cvoi G /\2-Y A V c= . 2p c' 61_,•,5 --t/-o -7`16,a ci / __L ZY-f,rAil 60/1C--s--- ------) L7.11 Vi ,J/rno of_1 4. S , 4z?4-0 TThifevcv-Ay C�c 5. 7_ .7�& L�,, , 6-,/ert, 7/i-S5 a V ik' P - c,445eAt . ' 7. d A z,... ci� -7 J 7 3 ,Q ry f9v . 4 -.v` �.... , , 8. , 7 A gc04,IL-I 1 9. 1.�p,2f--O 5 0 A ecje-i=S y2-Ca / 7 ! , i.,,,, J %f1 Y C(it, 10. 5��v r,4 C•ACc�2,-F S -741-7 I ./--c S L-1 C ' I i -L January 14, 2000 • City Council And Staff City Of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed commercial center planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Street and The Palm Desert High School We are by virtue of signing our names below showing our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard Hughes of HCO Development Co., which is to contain a bowling facility, gas station/convenience store,restaurant, day care center, commercial spaces and other youth oriented facilities. hi reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives. NAME / ADDRESS 040e41 _cm/a/ id A24 11. - C7- �i . z‘0o� 12. 4 -(v0/ d _v �� 13. 1-7 17C0)--1 frk /C clA • 1) 9. 27-LtA)- 14. %>1 GZ -7i 7 7 . ��►'Y� Q-r 15. L(I' � L�/� I n /K�clAcd(d,:49 1,41 re Z, 'l Z-59g ,l ta`�a_-st — -�. DCs ffr -��-(4 7 `y ,3 3 /Y�.L pie, e_ ykr re51-- .61- AO 72--2- 0(:) 18. / L• = 7"/—7 3 y C2An7". /vL / �j22.GD 19. 20. • THe ■ 1 ■ MO January 25, 2000 Mr. Richard Hughes The Hughes Company 71890 Eleanor Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Re: "The Wells" at Palm Desert Dear Rick: I am impressed with the plans for your project on Cook Street on the north shore of the Whitewater wash. You are addressing some very timely and well located elements to your project with a top quality bowling alley, Junior Golf program and a service station. I wish you well. You may use my commendation of your project in any way that will help you accomplish your objectives. Cordially, . Paul Ames 73330 Pinyon Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ii i 7 I 1 Hit,Hi,"J/,V H .i, r 1:c i. .lr': . • . :,r,, 4 Ai. !'/a!)3/12.L}tl?,, 111 AMES REAL ESTATE INC. ■ AMES MANAGEMENT SERVICE INC. X GREEN END DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. ■ MECCA FARMS■ Giassi Le cihriqueauralCicala, CaSig/t9 ur ' .�rl cud await Fabrication • Installation * Furniture * Specialty Items December 15, 1999 Richard Hughes " HCO,LLC 71898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, Calif. 92278 Dear Rick, I want to thank you for your presentation on the Wells at Palm Desert. I am pleased and excited for the Project to become a reality. In particular the Junior Golf and Family Lanes Recreational Facility strikes me as an excellent program benefiting the entire community especially the young children of our communities. I would fully. encourage the City to support this use and location. Rs an area business man for many years on the Cook St. corridor I am elated with the prospect of a gas facility and Nnuenience store within close proximity to all of our businesses. This has been a seruice long needed by all of us. I can't imagine a more appropriate location for this use. The total projected complex fills many important seruice needs in our community. I wish you the best and will gladly speak for the project at any process meetings. Let me know it you need my input. • Sincerely, • Mark Mos rop Owner 74-780 42nd Avenue * Palm Desert, CA 92260 * (760) 836-3871 FAX (760) 836-3875 (a(e 1 • .,,.!,IgT-21-99 TRU 8:44 AM AIR .CONDITIONING - • . P. 1. /o f Hugh Hoard Air Conditioning • Heating INC. Retrigeratbbn Sates - Service Uc.0510566 (760)340-3088 FAX(760)341.2785 _ . OCPOOF R 22, 1999 RICI(ARID M. HiXKIFS HOD, LLC 71-898 ELEAMRA LANE RANCID MIRAGE, CALIFC 1NIA 92270 MR. HUGHES, THAW YOU FOR YOUR PREESPNTATICN OF THE PROJECT IN PALM INERT '"I11E WELLS" AT THE murmur CAR CF SAERYL AND 000K. WE FUILY SUPPORT THE ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 7O PC-2. THE USES YOU HAVE DESIGNATED ARE FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH T(IE NEEDS AND WANTS OF THE NEIGHBORS BOTH RESIDENTIAL ARID INDWTRIAL. WE HAVE LONG NEEDED A GAS STATION CONWIENCE STORE WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ALL or THE IIES'IRIAL TENANTS ANTS AND BUSINESS C7R'I+TER.S UN . THE COCK STREET CORRIDOR. WE SE2 TIiIS IACATICN AS THE PERFECT SPOT FOR SUCH A USE. • WE HAVE LaI BEE2I SUPPORTERS OF CUR COMMUNITY. WE FIND TEE ,NNICh2 OOLF FACILITY AS A CITY CVERAT D F14TITOIA VEHRIFIC PLAN. AS YIFLL THE INURCCEtTION OF A FAMILY LANES RECREATIONAL FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE JUNIOR GOLF FACILITY WILL BE H.e..C1IVF.D BY ALI, Itit ONMUNITY AS AN EXCEPTIONAL ASSET. . WE WISH YOU SUCCESS AND WILL ATTEND ALL THE NECESSARY PUBLIC ' uEETINGS IN OWN' TO SHOW OUR DITHUSIASTIC SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. SIB , c:442.4e( • • HUM HC>, HH.cd v Y • 74-991 Joni Drive*20/Palm Dasert,CA 92260-2049 NOV.15.1999 1:29PM No.335 P.1 0045 79-708 Hwy 1 Palm Deice,CA 9226 (760)568-0011 November 13, 1999 Richard Hughes HCO, LLC 71.890 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, Ca,92270 Dear Rick, • Thanks for showing me your new development project. It certainly makes a lot of sense to have it at that location. I certainly hope that the City of Palm Desert will grant you your request of having a zone change from R-1 to PC-2. It is my belief that that is its highest and best use of the property. I have known you for many years and I am convinced that you will put up an excellent project that will be good for The City and Its citizens. As a business owner in Palm Desert, I believe that having/he Junior Golf Facility, Bowling Alley Batting Cages and various other businesses will be a terrific draw to bring more business to PPIm Desert. I wish you success and if you need me to attend City Meeting to express my 100% support of this project, please don't hesitate to ask. Sincerely, • Joaquin Delgado Owner Casuelas Cafe 1 O?IJPHANT eNTERP RISES,INC. Management Consultants A Richard R. Oliphant Company • December 17, 1999 • Richard Hughes HCO, LLC. 71-898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 • Re: The Wells project, Palm Desert Dear Rick: • Thank you for showing me the plans for your project located on CookStieet.`. It would appear to be the kind of development we are lacking in the central valley area. I am particularly impressed with the concept having a golf course dedicated to junior golf If it is run as you described, it will be a benefit to many youngsters who could not otherwise afford to learn the game. We are also in need of a bowling alley of top quality in central valley. Your project, obviously, solves that need. The commercial aspects and the possibility of having a service station on Cook Street seems a reasonable and proper use of the land as well. Mood luck in your venture, I would hope you will be well received by the City and get your necessary approvals. Sin rely, um Q._ )6. r Ric and R. Oliphant President • EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-900 Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, California 92211 ■ (619) 345-2626 FAX ■ (619) 345-5501 e Co111 4. �o n \ \ f 1/11/00 Richard Hughes - HCO, LLC 71-890 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 • • Dear Rick: • I was very excited after reviewing the plans for the wells project. The complex offers fun activities for youth i.e. the most underserved member of our community. - Golf, Bowling, Childcare, fun restaurants all bring a family theme to this property adjacent to-Palm Desert High School. I support your efforts, and the City of Palm Desert will benefit, plus become an ally in bringiNg more healthy youth oriented activities to our community. Sincerely, Via. Dr. Jerry Memts Director Village Counseling • • 73-302 Highway III • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (760) 773-0669 • FAX (760) 773-0569 c, '. ' „FWt'43. ar. 11 1999 12:18PM Pi Artificial Nature Makers .- — _ 4 � - , '3-+-a .-� 1'.". 2.�J _ Wo Bring Nature) s Art Into Ycaur Home To Whom It may concern: We are very pleased to hear that a new facility is coming to the Cook area . The fact that we do not even have a gas station in our proximity has impacted our work schedule and add to that that we might have more offices and shops, including recreation is a win fall. We whole heartedly indorse this project. The owners and staff of Artificial Nature Makers fa , 49, 202 41-801 Corporate Dr. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 FROM,: NCO,LLC FAX NO. : 7605696533 Deo. 13 2000 04:13PM P2 CURRICULUM VITAE SEPTEMBER, 2000 WILLIAM ALAN BLUE 73-429 FOXTAIL LANE PALM DESERT, CA, 92260 TELEPHONE: (760) 346-6/12 E-MAIL: CYNBLUPD@EARTHLINK.NET EXPERIENCE SUMMARY July 1995 - Present: SIMONDS ENTERPRISES Palm Desert, Calif. GENERAL MANAGER & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER May 1991 -Jan. 1995: BOWLING PROPRIETORS'ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Arlington, Tex. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER • Dec. 1988 - Oct. 1990: LADIES PROFESSIONAL GOLF ASSOCIATION Daytona Beach, Fla. & Houston, Tex. COMMISSIONER May 1987- Nov. 1988: ALLIED LYONS, LTD-THE KAHLUA.GROUP Universal City, Calif. VICE PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL Oct. 1979 - April 1987: BROWN-FORMAN iNTFFtNATIONAL.INC, Louisville, Ky. SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT & DIRECTOR OF MARKETING Sept. 1972 - Sept. 1979: IROQUOIS$RANDS lac wired ARCHON, INC). Los Angeles, Ca.if.PRESIDENT OF TWO DIVISIONS Dec. 1968 - Aug. 1972: RIVIANA FOODS. INC. Houston, Tex. AREA MANAGER, EUROPE; GROUP PRODUCT MANAGER 8t ASS'T TO V.P. INTERNATIONAL JULY 1967- NOV. 1968: MEN JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICALS Evansville, Ind. MARKETING ASSOCIATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPERIENCE Present PRO SHOP EXCHANGE- CHAIRMAN JR. GOLF FOUNDATION OF THE DESERT - CO-CHAIRMAN SIMONDS ENTERPRISES- MEMBER 1991 - 1995: CARBON FIBER PRQ.DUCTS -CHAIRMAN & MEMBER DOWLING PROPRIETORS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA- MEMBER 1987 - 1988: THE KAHLUA GROUP - MEMBER 1979 - 1987: BROWN - FORMAN INTERNATIONAL- MEMBER continued Received Dec-13-2000 03:12pm From-760E080588 To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 January 14, 2000 •City Council And Staff City Of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed commercial center planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Street and The Palm Desert High School We are by virtue of signing our names below showing our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard Hughes of HCO Development Co.,which is to contain a bowling facility, gas station/convenience store, restaurant, day care center, commercial spaces and other youth oriented facilities. In reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives. NAME ADDRESS —74Co0 G /\2Y AV c . cam„-t,L, y;..1„,/ 3. / ze.f.tu.(6():1,6gi 4/11'-/, // Lv 4. , y C-ci)c 5. -7 6 6.// 7. a‘u .�74LtaZ/4 7 ) 7 3 ‘a 8. } 1 /C 9. y2--c 7 T 0 Try y C. 10. S�� v �.4 (ACc7Z� S -7' / I 4„..- •L January 14, 2000 • City Council And Staff City Of Palm Desert Palm Desert, California To Whom It May Concern: We the undersigned are homeowners and residents in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the proposed commercial center planned on the property which is the currently a golf driving range along Cook Street between Sheryl Street and The Palm Desert High SchooL We are by virtue of signing our names below showing our support for the proposed facility as it was presented to us by Richard Hughes of HCO Development Co., which is to contain a bowling facility, gas station/convenience store, restaurant, day care center, commercial spaces and other youth oriented facilities. In reviewing the proposed project we feel it will be a positive addition to our area and although there can be potential problems with new facilities built near a residential neighborhood we feel the positives will definitely out weigh the negatives. NAME / ADDRESS 1, C`,' 4041 .1-_<;,),/ja/ z, 11. / 9-.5�J /7k di-. m 06i/ 12. �� / �f/ -V � ram- 9 ; 13. 14' � �--1 � 1Q Ck. ( . P 9' 2z 14. S.1 `c=� �� -7 - Wec' - 1"�%t►'Yt o-r c. I . 15. 116/ 'AvrLi� �4—re v �1/Z"`J-i8 (.itnk at - -taw UCS - q 2•4 , 16. v-7-e_.., _��—e 7 f S>3 3 /) �,C L E � �. �A c r,� /��1�- � 9 � 18. /4/- = 7`1 7 3 y GG1 n 7' /�'vc__ / 1 22_6� 19. W. Richard M. Hughes Hughes&Associates 71890 Eleanora Ln. Rancho Mirage, Ca. 92270 Nov. 21'd 1999 Dear Mr.Hughes, Congratulations on your new project"The Wells"at the southwest corner of Sheryl&Cook.We have long needed a gas station convenience store in this area and it seems a compatible location near the industrial tenants and business owners near the cook corridor. We have been strong supporters of sports facilities for our young people in our community. Your plans for a family lanes recreational facility next to the junior golf facility is a good idea. I think that the city operated youth golf facility is an excellent idea. Bes I•sh,. o, . , project, /' id Ric i ard&Yoland Spence 27 Belmonte r r. Palm Desert, Ca. 922 1 1-9075 646stie cliepe asd ate* 61494119 gi0114 94 and Nam Fabrication * Installation * Furniture * Specialty Items December 15, 1999 • Richard Hughes HCO,LLC 71898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, Calif. 92278 Dear Rick, • I want to thank you for your presentation on the Wells at Palm Desert. I am pleased and excited for the Project to become a reality. In particular the Junior Golf and Family Lanes Recreational Facility strikes me as an excellent program benefiting the entire community especially the young children of our communities. I would fully. encourage the City to support this use and location. Rs an area business man for many years on the Cook St. corridor I am elated with the prospect of a gas facility and c?bnuenience store within close proximity to all of our businesses. This has been a service long needed by all of us. I can't imagine a more appropriate location for this use. The total projected complex fills many important service needs in our community. I wish you the best and will gladly speak for the project at any process meetings. Let me know it you need my input. Sincerely, • Mark Mos rop Owner 74-780 42nd Avenue * Palm Desert, CA 92260 * (760) 836-3871 FAX (760) 836-3875 Michael March 28 Belmonte Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 November 30, 1999 Richard M. Hughes 71-898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes, I would like to thank you for bringing to my attention your project(The Wells) in Palm Desert. The project that you are projecting to be built in the corner of Sheryl and Cook has been long time overdue. I fully support the zone change from B-1 to PC-2,this is what our community needs, a place for family entertainment. The gas station and c-store within a close proximity to all of the neighboring developments and industrial parks will be a great asset to the community. I am always in support of allowing our young citizens to take advantage of a junior golf program and bowling lanes facility. This project will allow our youth the opportunity to be involved in two great sports. Palm Desert needs this type of planing and community involvement. I wish you a great success in your project and you have all my support. Sincerely, o a re..e/z, Michael March Belmonte Estates Board Member MM/ry • OCT-2i-99 THU 8: 44 AN CH AIR CONDITIONING P. 1 ,i it Hugh Hoard Air Conditioning • Heating INC. Refrigeratl'bn Pr P Sales- Service Uc. u 510566 (760)340-3088 FAX(760)341.2785 OCTOOFJt 22, 1999 RICI{ARD M. RUCKS R , LLC 71-898 ELEANI] A LANE RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFt✓t IA 92270 U R. HUGHE.S, THANK YOU FOR YCURPRESENTAITCN OF THE PRfJJF.GT IN PALM DESERT "TUE VEILS" AT THE SCUMWEST CORNER OF SH RYL AND COCK. WE FUILY SUPPORT THE ZONES CHANCE FROM R-1 TO PC-2. THE USES YOU HAVE DESIGNATED ARE FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH TUE NEEDS AND WANTS OF THE NEIGHBORS BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. KE HAVE LONG NEEDED A GAS STATION CONVENIENCE SPIT* WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ALL OF TUE INDuS'IRIAL TENANT'S AND BUSINESS CWNERS ON . THE COX STREET CORRIDOR. WE SEE THIS-LOCATION AS TEE PERFECT SPOT FOR SUCH A USE. WE HAVE LONG'BEEN SUPPORTERS OF CUR COMMUNITY. WE Fes) THE )JUNIOR GOLF FACILITY AS A CITY CVERATED ENTITATERHItIC PLAN. AS WELL THE INIl lJCTICN OF A FAMILY LANES RECREATIONAL FACILITY ADJACENT TO THE JUNIOR GOLF FACILITY WILL BE H.EtEIVFD BY ALL TIE 034MUNITY AS AN EXCEPTIONAL ASSET. WE WISH YOU SUCCESS AND WILL A;'I'13.') ALL THE NJOKSSARY PUBLIC MEETINGS IN swEr TO SHOW CUR ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT. SII� , HUJII EEO, HH.cd • v Y • • 1 74,991 Joni Drive u 20/Palm Desert,CA 92260-2043 NOV.15.1999 1129PM NO.335 P.1 045 78-708 Hwy 11 ,Palm Desert.,CA 9226 (760)568-0011 • November 13, 1999 Richard Hughes HCO, LLC 71.890 Eleanore Lane Rancho Mirage, Ca.92270 Dear Rick, • Thanks for showing me your new development project. It certainly makes a lot of sense to have it at that location. I certainly hope that the City of Palm Desert will grant you your request of having a zone change from R-1 to PC-2. It Is my belief that that is its highest and best use of the property. I have known you for many years and I am convinced that you will put up an excellent project that will be good for The City and its citizens. As a business owner in Palm Desert, I believe that having/he Junior Golf Facility, Bowling Alley, Batting Cages and various other businesses will be a terrific draw to bring more business to P*lm Desert. I wish you success and if you need me to attend City Meeting to express my 100% support of this project, please don't hesitate to ask. Sincerely, ti Joaquin Delgado Owner Casuelas Cafe 9LIPHANT NTERP RASES,INC.' Management Consultants A Richard R. Oliphant Company December 17, 1999 • Richard Hughes HCO, LLC. 71-898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270 • Re: The Wells project, Palm Desert Dear Rick: i Thank you for showing me the plans for your project located on Cook Street. It would appear to be the kind of development we are lacking in the central valley area. , I am particularly impressed with the concept having a golf course dedicated to junior golf. If it is run as you described, it will be a benefit to many youngsters who could not otherwise afford to learn the game. We are also in need of a bowling alley of top quality in central valley. Your project, obviously, solves that need. The commercial aspects and the possibility of having a service station on Cook Street seems a reasonable and proper use of the land as well. 000d luck in your venture, I would hope you will be well received by the City and get your necessary approvals. Sin rely, Lilo( Q. 1, 1--- Ric and R. Oliphant President EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-900 Avenue of the States, Palm Desert, California 92211 ■ (619) 345-2626 FAX ■ (619) 345-5501 e Cowls e r * n ono o . 1/I1/00 Richard Hughes - HCO, LLC 71-890 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 • • Dear Rick: I was very excited after reviewing the plans for the wells project. The complex offers fun activities for youth i.e. the most underserved member of our community. - Golf, Bowling, Childcare, fun restaurants all bring a family theme to this property adjacent to•Palm Desert High School. I support your efforts, and the City of Palm Desert will benefit, plus become an ally in bringing more healthy youth oriented activities to our community. Sincerely, -C)17 Dr. Jerry Meints Director Village Counseling • • • 73-302 Highway 111 • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • (760) 773-0669 • FAX (760) 773-0569 FROM : FA}f NJ. : Mar. 11 1999 12:1@PM P1 Artificial Nature Makers V E Bring Nature)* Art into Your 1-1omt3 To Whom It may concern: We are very pleased to hear that a new facility is coming to the Cook area . The fact that we do not even have a gas station in our proximity has impacted our work schedule and add to that that we might have more offices and shops, including recreation is a win fall. We whole heartedly indorse this project. The owners and staff of Artificial Nature Makers 5aaa7, / 2,00 41-801 Corporate Dr. Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 �5 Paul Beatty Palm Desert Planning Commission E(7,•FWEr 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Nov ti 0 2000 Palm Desert, CA 92260 CE1'�12.i t,,_V': UEPAffiMENT Dear Mr. Beatty: cf'YOFPALMDESERT Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to Richard M. Hughes' proposal to rezone and develop the property at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue during the public hearing on November 7, 2000. Thank you for listening to the concerns and questions from people that live in our neighborhood. Please note that the majority of people who spoke before the Commission that were residents of our neighborhood were opposed to the proposal. By my count: 8 residents spoke in opposition, and 2 residents spoke in favor. I believe it is your responsibility as a member of the Planning Commission to share your plans to develop our neighborhood clearly and honestly. I am opposed to the commercial development of property that is currently zoned as low-density residential. I am a supporter of the City's vision for development as it is reflected in the current zoning policies and practices. I look forward to a continuing open dialogue concerning the development of Palm Desert and specifically Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 . Si rely ve Ha Resident of 74-657 Gary Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 MAJOR INDUSTRIAL CONDO OWNERS ASSOCIATION 74-991 Joni Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 HCO, LLC Mr. Richard Hughes 71890 Eleanor Lane Rancho Mirage, California 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes, Thank you for the presentation you made on the project called the "Wells" at our Board Meeting on January 25, 2000. We are in agreement with a zone change and are most excited with your plans for a gas station/convenience store close to our businesses. Residents of our community should be ecstatic with the projected junior golf facility and bowling lanes. This is the perfect location for this use. On behalf of the entire board and the businesses we each operate in the City of Palm Desert we wish you success with the "Wells" and we will enthusiastically support the project. Sincerely, %-JA//7 ga '. 2v .cait S.R. Hoard Secretary P.O. Box 11744 Palm Desert, CA 92255 RECEIVED Sandy Jonathan Palm Desert Planning Commission Nov 1 7 2000 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ;,, ur�mcElELOr'i,-'�1EEPARin-r+ l. Cfry 0, pALA!DESERT Dear Sandy: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to Richard M. Hughes' proposal to rezone and develop the property at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue during the public hearing on November 7, 2000. Thank you for listening to the concerns and questions from people that live in our neighborhood. Please note that the majority of people who spoke before the Commission that were residents of our neighborhood were opposed to the proposal. By my count: 8 residents spoke in opposition, and 2 residents spoke in favor. I believe it is your responsibility as a member of the Planning Commission to share your plans to develop our neighborhood clearly and honestly. I am opposed to the commercial development of property that is currently zoned as low-density residential. I am a supporter of the City's vision for development as it is reflected in the current zoning policies and practices. I look forward to a continuing open dialogue concerning the development of Palm Desert and specifically Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 . z. j ncerely, ave rt Resid nt of 74-657 Gary Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Cindy Finerty R CEIVFID Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ''J'' 1 7 2000 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mrs. Finerty: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to Richard M. Hughes' proposal to rezone and develop the property at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue during the public hearing on November 7, 2000. Thank you for listening to the concerns and questions from people that live in our neighborhood. Please note that the majority of people who spoke before the Commission that were residents of our neighborhood were opposed to the proposal. By my count: 8 residents spoke in opposition, and 2 residents spoke in favor. I believe it is your responsibility as a member of the Planning Commission to share your plans to develop our neighborhood clearly and honestly. I am opposed to the commercial development of property that is currently zoned as low-density residential. I am a supporter of the City's vision for development as it is reflected in the current zoning policies and practices. I look forward to a continuing open dialogue concerning the development of Palm Desert and specifically Case Nos. GPA 00-6, /);(Z 00-9, PP 00-21 . cerely, Ak veH rt Resident of 74-657 Gary Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sonia Campbell RECEIVED Palm Desert Planning Commission Nov73-510 Fred Waring Drive � 1 7 2000 Palm Desert, CA 92260 COMMITY CC\'CL:r!•.=dT D FARTMENT CITY Or PALM DESERT Dear Sonia: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to Richard M. Hughes' proposal to rezone and develop the property at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue during the public hearing on November 7, 2000. Thank you for listening to the concerns and questions from people that live in our neighborhood. Please note that the majority of people who spoke before the Commission that were residents of our neighborhood were opposed to the proposal. By my count: 8 residents spoke in opposition, and 2 residents spoke in favor. I believe it is your responsibility as a member of the Planning Commission to share your plans to develop our neighborhood clearly and honestly. I am opposed to the commercial development of property that is currently zoned as low-density residential. I am a supporter of the City's vision for development as it is reflected in the current zoning policies and practices. I look forward to a continuing open dialogue concerning the development of Palm Desert and specifically Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 . Sincerely, cvi AL /- ' ave H Resident of 74-657 Gary Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 pO Jim Lopez 1 7 2000 Palm Desert Planning Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ....,t41ufstTYCEVE ;;;:ki:;f:rDEPARre= Palm Desert, CA 92260 Call Or P4LM DESERT Dear Mr Lopez: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to Richard M. Hughes' proposal to rezone and develop the property at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Sheryl Avenue during the public hearing on November 7, 2000. Thank you for listening to the concerns and questions from people that live in our neighborhood. Please note that the majority of people who spoke before the Commission that were residents of our neighborhood were opposed to the proposal. By my count: 8 residents spoke in opposition, and 2 residents spoke in favor. I believe it is your responsibility as a member of the Planning Commission to share your plans to develop our neighborhood clearly and honestly. I am opposed to the commercial development of property that is currently zoned as low-density residential. I am a supporter of the City's vision for development as it is reflected in the current zoning policies and practices. I look forward to a continuing open dialogue concerning the development of Palm Desert and specifically Case Nos. GPA 00-6, C/Z 00-9, PP 00-21 . Si cerely, '44'6( Dave Ha 4'1 )----- - Resident of 74-657 Gary Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 Michael March 28 Belmonte Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 November 30, 1999 Richard M. Hughes 71-898 Eleanora Lane Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Dear Mr. Hughes, I would kite to thank you for bringing to my attention your project (The Wells) in Palm Desert. The project that you are projecting to be built in the corner of Sheryl and Cook has been long time overdue. I fully support the zone change from B-1 to PC-2,this is what our community needs, a place for family entertainment. The gas station and c-store within a close proximity to all of the neighboring developments and industrial parks will be a great asset to the community. I am always in support of allowing our young citizens to take advantage of a junior golf program and bowling lanes facility. This project will allow our youth the opportunity to be involved in two great sports. Palm Desert needs this type of planing and community involvement. I wish you a great success in your project and you have all my support. Sincerely, /2y6C-Z' a Michael March Belmonte Estates Board Member MM/ry . , _., . . _ _ , . . . 41/4,.„,,AA.,„, ii RgLecE-426v DEC 12 age CCI IUNTTYCEVEtOPMENTutONTYtNT 1I — CF UAD G�- i b t4 1"-ri-- 4r44 - Atc_______• - --- r �to--1.,. c"1, 7f r . _ __ ,„31._____ rajt7- __ ____ _ k _ //_: .e..., L- cvfrtJEZT-t'fLt2 -ri/twx:-/e-LkrA/v\--cdf2-- ' ,.. i 7E0 ir_e_.&,i, l(r_v_e_c„,r,..:i fliect-,;-L. ,/).. t vir___ L„kAr_r.L.,4__. D 1�- ic_61/44._, /, L ..,--(Pr A---t-A.-rt-t-k `.-v ct- -'71 ' ''-'11.L' -.1vIe'rW"--- .. kr(4_,4- a iv.-e.vkj2____ 014,t10.- l'Vla.i. ". 74- -Ir'" --)r-.. 1-<.--kt:-fro -•- t u Cit-tQc 1/.15.1.,tt_i-t -it..._- , -t--- - ) 71: ___11-_ P--e-7-1, ___ rtA-e Vet2/411.\ --i-t- i / C- - CCam_ C -Y2c - _ ic_v _ ,. 1,' -k___(4.4-r- .‘k. l'--k-cCP,____Sio-r i . _, ______ f1T .9. 'w(lL 4"-o- ..t- igA. --L____ Li f. i„,.A..,4.._, (4)--L-t-txL0-1.,t)--a- ic_L, c.... -1,2.( p , , 1 i . . c.._. . iA.D., /1 /.(_ x-7-A.A.., :q-7.--e__ 74. --7-1-vz, 7_-- . /111--17e C- c� & i CIto - \-v-4.4 2 , ",.-..,4_,--✓ rl .2-� _G�L'� .L____, /y- -3. ./.,_ta. ,- - /T ram_ i f c.,_,_ r_-_ ct�,,L CA.,' _ �_ -_•- > .-J ,,,1-��,� c; 0 -- ."-4_0(45_1,,4".r.- (xx,evtfr , 7v4-.4-t-oe_-A. _ ` . - . cam_ , ir _ • • owl 600Z-09ZZ6 VD lazsga Tam 1203IS 109Zt mnuaffill S 1111 /14 ' 6)1, . • • p 1 ;70,14 t),P • - - -- e -71 " -0 --ve •