HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 28488 PP CUP 96-10 DA 97-2 COOK STREET COMMERCIAL 1997 CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: March 4, 1997 continued from February 18, 1997
CASE NOS: C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10, TPM 28448 and DA 97-2
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community
Development), precise plan of design/conditional use permit, master
plan of development , tentative parcel map and development agreement
for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and
west of Cook Street.
APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates
for David Freedman & Company
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
1. BACKGROUND:
The applicant is the owner of 270 +/- acres located east and west of Cook Street
south of Interstate 10 and wishes to establish a long term development plan in the
form of this master plan. The property extends along the south side of 1-10 from
Portola Avenue in the west to a point 3400 feet east of Cook Street.
The Zoning Ordinance provides for this type of long term development plan through
a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development). In order to obtain such
a change of zone the applicant must have more than 100 acres of land and must
prepare a master plan of development which contains and becomes the development
criteria for the area which is then delineated as PCD on the zoning map.
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: County/Railroad and 1-10
South: PR-5/Future Cal State University Site and Rancho Portola Country
Club
East: R1 M/Emerald Desert RV Park
West: SI and PR-5/Vacant
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION:
The 270 +/- acres is designated several different land use categories in the
General Plan. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive, east and west of Cook
Street, is designated District Commercial. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive
at the east end of the site is designated commercial-industrial. The area north
and south of Gerald Ford Drive east of Portola was designated residential study
zone in the North Sphere Specific Plan. Finally, the area south of Gerald Ford
Drive and west of Cook Street is designated residential - low density.
At the time of the preparation of the North Sphere Specific Plan the actual
alignments of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street,
Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, and Gerald Ford east of Cook Street were
not established. As a result the land use designations were "general" as to
their locations.
As well, the decision to set aside over 200 acres of land at the southeast
corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford for a future Cal State campus impacts
on the overall entry design/land use of the Cook Street corridor.
The intent of the North Sphere Specific Plan was to establish commercial land
use in the Cook Street-Gerald Ford corridors, commercial-industrial buffers
adjacent to the freeway and higher density residential where railroad and
freeway noise can be mitigated.
Staff feels that this master plan as proposed implements the intent of the
General Plan/North Sphere Specific Plan land use elements.
C. EXISTING ZONING:
The property contains two existing zone categories. The area around the
Gerald Ford and Cook intersection is zoned PC(2) (District Commercial) and the
rest of the site PR-5 (Planned Residential - five units per acre).
2
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. MASTER PLAN:
The applicant has prepared a master plan which establishes eight basic
planning areas with a wide range of land uses. The master plan also contains
a series of development criteria (conditions) which shall govern future
development within the site.
Future uses proposed in the master plan range from freeway oriented
commercial businesses to planned service industrial to regional commercial to
high density residential.
B. PRECISE PLAN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The precise plan provides a detailed site plan for development on Planning Area
#1 of the Development Plan (i.e., the northeast corner of Cook Street and
Gerald Ford Drive).
The conditional use permit approval is required pursuant to the provisions of
FCOZ for certain uses permitted in the FCOZ.
C. CHANGE OF ZONE:
The request is to change the zone for the 270 +/- acres to. Planned
Community Development. In order to do this the City must have an
acceptable development plan which then becomes the approved land use for
the area.
III. ANALYSIS:
t
A. As noted above the master plan divides the property into eight planning areas.
Specific locations are delineated on Figure 1 contained in the master plan.
The following information is taken from the master plan prepared by the
applicant.
3
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
"Planning Area 1 - 21 .3 gross acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford
Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Freeway
Oriented Business.
PA1 shall use the base provisions of the PC 4 (Planned
Commercial Center - Resort Center) however, shall allow no more
than one automobile service station including accessory
convenience retail, and shall also allow drive through restaurants
subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Standards
for drive-through facilities are adopted herein and must also be
consistent with requirements of the Freeway Commercial Overlay
Zone Ordinance.
Planning Area 2 - 50.7 gross acres west of Cook Street between Gerald Ford
Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Regional
Commercial.
PA2 shall use the base provisions of the PC3 (Planned
Commercial Center Regional Center) but encourages mixed use
retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit.
Drive through restaurants are allowed subject to ARB and
Planning Commission approvals.
Planning Area 3 - 11 .2 gross acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald
Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business.
PA3 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (Planned
Commercial Center - District Commercial).
Planning Area 4 - 30.2 acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive
and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis -
Industrial/Business Park.
.PA4 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial
Zone) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses
under Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Area 5 - 25.9 acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford
Drive. Land use emphasis - Mixed-use Commercial/Residential.
4
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
PA5 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (District
Commercial Center Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail
and residential under Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Area 6 - 70.6 acres west of Cook Street and between Gerald Ford
Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis -
industrial/business park.
PA6 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial
Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail, office and residential
uses under Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Area 7 - 44.3 acres north of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola
Avenue. PA7 shall use the base provisions of the O.P. (Office Professional)
zone. Land use emphasis - business office.
Planning Area 8 - 14.9 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola
Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential.
PA8 shall use the provisions of PR 18 (Planned Residential
District - up to 18 dwelling units per acre)."
The applicant has prepared in chart form, Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the master
plan, development program - Maximum Intensity Alternative and Development
Program - Trend Alternative respectively.
The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional review
of the entitlements is 3,600,000 square feet and 1300 residential units as
depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate).
The probable development intensity expected (Trend Alternate) is shown in
Figure 3. The expected intensity is 1 ,605,000 square feet and 1100 dwelling
units. The applicant has verbally advised staff that ongoing planning has land
use intensities which are actually lower than the trend alternative. The trend
alternative is considerably less intense than the current General Plan would
allow.
5
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
B. CIRCULATION:
The master plan takes advantage of the existing approved City Circulation Plan
and takes accesses from the future Gerald Ford Drive.
The master plan proposes additional streets.
One new street will divide PA7 from PA6 and provide access to the
business/office area. This street runs from Portola north of Gerald Ford east
and south to connect with Gerald Ford approximately 2100 feet east of
Portola.
The applicant has had a circulation impact study prepared by Endo Engineering
which examines the future traffic impacts of the two development alternatives
and compares these with the existing General Plan designation and the traffic
which could be generated under it. Traffic impacts were assessed for the
nearby intersections for the years 2005 and 2010.
Essentially, with proper mitigation either proposed development alternative can
be supported from a circulation standpoint.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed change of zone and master plan for future development is essentially
consistent with the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan which were adopted
pursuant to a certified environmental impact report. As a'result staff is comfortable
with processing this application under the negative declaration provisions of CEOA.
The applicant did have a circulation impact study prepared, a hydrology study and a
biological assessment and impact analysis. These three documents are specific to
this 270 +/- acre site.
As noted by the traffic engineer, any traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance and in. fact if the "Trend Alternate" is followed the expected traffic
levels will be significantly lower than the present General Plan would allow.
The hydrology study concludes that all such impacts can be mitigated.
6
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
The biological assessment and impact analysis concludes that "this project, upon the
completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to have significant
negative impacts upon biological resources within the region."
The project is within the fee area established by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. It is also in the historical habitat of a.number of
other plant and animal species being considered for listing as threatened or
endangered. To avoid their future listing, a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) is being prepared through CVAG which will provide long term protection
through the creation of preserves. Pending completion of the MSHCP an Interim
Review Process has been established pursuant to an MOU with all the valley cities,
County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
This application was reviewed at CVAG with the California Department of Fish and
Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant has been unable to resolve
the matter. In this process the applicant offered to front fund some of the cost of
the preparation of the MSHCP in return for assurance that it would not be subject to
any fee the plan may establish. As of this time the parties have been unable to agree
to such an arrangement. This failure to arrive at such an agreement does not
preclude the city from proceeding. The applicant can continue to attempt to reach
agreement. If one is not attained then if and when the MSHCP is approved and a fee
is established, any land remaining to be developed will be subject to such fee.
Staff will recommend that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be
adopted.
STAFF CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN:
The master plan proposes freeway oriented businesses including drive-through
restaurants on several of the planning areas. The existing zoning prohibits drive-
through restaurants. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Review Committee and
the Planning Commission have recommended approval to the City Council of a
Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) which if adopted by City Council would
permit drive-through restaurants in this area. Any drive-through restaurant
contemplated by this master plan would be contingent upon adoption of the FCOZ
and the provisions contained therein.
The General Provision No. 17 concerns art in public places. Staff discussed this with
the AIPP manager. Mr. Nagus expressed support of the general concept and looked
7
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
forward to working with the applicant when the art proposal is in a more concrete
form. The development agreement which will follow later will deal in more detail
with art in this development plan.
The master plan of development as submitted is basically acceptable with the
following revisions:
1) Item 7(a) "and must also comply with requirements of the Freeway
Commercial Overlay Zone" should be added at the end.
2) Item 7(d) delete reference to permitted drive-through restaurants (this
area is not in the overlay area of FCOZ).
3) Items 7(a) through 7(g) delete the word "general" as part of the phrase
"general provisions".
4) Item 8 remove "shall" and replace it with "may" in the sentence which
will read in part "the amount of parking may be reduced...".
5) In item 13 add "and other relevant city ordinances".
6) That item 14 be deleted.
7) Item 17 delete the "d" after the last word of the paragraph.
8) On figure 2, PA8 the number of units should read 270 dwelling units.
9) On page 14, Grading/Drainage, second paragraph, second line the word
"shall" should be replaced with "may".
10) Under graohics fifth line refers to PAS 1 and 2 not 1 and 3 and add
.and shall be consistent with the FCOZ ordinance" to the second to last
sentence of the first paragraph.
V. CONCLUSION:
As is noted on page 2 of the master plan prepared by the applicant:
8
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
"The development of the Project in a manner consistent with the provisions of this
master plan including the Development Guidelines provides a number of benefits to
both the City and the Owner:
1 . It maximizes the potential for high quality commercial, industrial, and
residential development with high visibility from Interstate 10.
2. It maximizes the flexibility necessary to adapt the property to future
conditions which are anticipated to affect the area; particularly the
future university campus and the increased accessibility to the area
north of Interstate 10.
3. It provides a comprehensive planning framework which establishes
guidelines for future land use applications for the property and
eliminates the inconsistency associated with individual and unassociated
development proposals.
4. It provides for the construction of stormwater system improvements
consistent with the master plans adopted by the City in conjunction
with the Coachella Valley Water District.
5. It controls sensitive land uses associated with sites having excellent
freeway access.
6. It provides for the completion of the street network adjacent to the site
including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue.
7. It provides for the planning and execution of a. major entry statement
potentially involving the Art in Public Places program."
The plan serves to implement the intent of the General Plan and North Sphere
Specific Plan.
Condition No. 13 provides that prior to obtaining a building permit for any site within
the master plan the applicant will require approval of a precise plan of design by the
Planning Commission.
9
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
Note: The applicant has filed a precise plan application for the food court and service
station, convenience store, self storage, RV storage and retail on PA1 . This precise
plan will be reviewed later in this report.
A. PRECISE PLAN REVIEW:
As provided for in the development plan each planning area or part thereof
must submit for approval a precise plan of design application. We now have
such a plan as it relates to Planning Area #1 .
The precise plan as submitted proposes a service station, convenience store
and car wash on the corner with a food park (six restaurants) wrapped around
the corner development. To the north of this food park is an oversize vehicle
parking lot, RV storage, self storage facility and retail shops. This is all on
21 .3 gross acres at the northeast corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street.
All of these uses are provided for in the FCOZ.
1 . ACCESS:
One access point is taken from Cook Street to the service station, one
from Gerald Ford into the restaurant park and service station and from
the new street, as shown on the circulation plan, which extends north
from Gerald Ford .Drive. The RV and mini-storage facilities are served
by a new cul-de-sac extending into this area.
2. CIRCULATION:
The circulation around the food park and service station is acceptable.
3. ARCHITECTURE:
The service station, convenience store and car wash architecture has
been seen by the Architectural Review Commission (February 25,
1997). At that time it was not formally on the agenda for action but
the general consensus was that the design was more than acceptable.
Members described it as "its nice because you can't even tell its a gas
station", "I like the architecture of the building", "dynamite", "it is the
look we were looking for".
10
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
The plans will be on the March 11 , 1997 ARC agenda for preliminary
approval.
4. SETBACKS:
The PC-2 zone prescribes a 32 foot setback from Cook Street and 25
foot setback from Gerald Ford Drive. The plan as submitted provides
70 feet from Cook Street and 32 feet from Gerald Ford Drive adjacent
to the car wash. The restaurants to the east are shown at 36 and 22
from Gerald Ford Drive.
The restaurant showing 22 feet will need to be moved to the north to
provide a 25 foot setback.
The other structu
res within the site are all acceptable as shown.
5. USER SIZES AND PARKING PROVIDED:
a. Service station, convenience store and car wash
The convenience store, car wash and service station will be 5275
square feet. This combined facility produces a parking
requirement of 20 spaces. There are 26 spaces provided plus the
16 spaces at the pump islands and the 16 dry-off spaces at the
car wash exit.
The parking complies with that prescribed in the FCOZ.
b. Restaurants
The restaurants vary in size from 2200 square feet to 4000
square feet and from typical drive-through to sit-down
restaurants. Total restaurant area is 18,750 square feet. A total
of 161 parking spaces are dispersed through-out the food park
plus each of the drive-thrus has stacking for at least 7 cars per
the development plan. As well, the applicant has shown an
oversize vehicle parking lot for 15 trucks or RV type large
vehicles. The 176 parking spaces are adequate to comply with
11
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
the FCOZ. There is available space to expand parking should it
be needed.
The self storage area is 59,000 square feet and while we have
no parking requirement 21 spaces are provided. The necessary
parking for this use generally takes place at the entrance to the
individual unit. Circulation in this area appears adequate.
The retail building will be 18,100 square feet and has 63 parking
spaces. This is consistent with the parking requirement of the
ordinance. There is additional space available at the rear which
could be made into parking.
The RV storage area is parking and hence has no parking
'requirement.
C. Landscaped Areas
The FCOZ prescribes a minimum 30% landscape area for the
food park and service station area. The landscape area
requirement for the remainder can be less pursuant to action by
Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the landscaping as
shown on the proposed planting layout dated 2-25-97 on the
north area of the site be approved as shown.
Over the entire planning area the landscape area is 35.6 percent.
In the south portion, the area of the food park and the service
station, the landscape area is 48% which complies with the
FCOZ requirement.
It may be of interest that around the service station/car wash in
addition to 35 feet deep landscape setbacks the area along Cook
Street and Gerald Ford Drive will be bermed to a height of 8 feet
to screen buildings and the uses.
d. Art in Public Places
The applicant is working on the AIPP (art in public places) and a
plan for the major art exhibit. The direction this will take and
12
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
.how it will be funded will be determined in the development
agreement.
B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN:
1 . The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property
values nor be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
Justification:
The design of the project meets all applicable City code requirements for
this type of facility or can be revised to comply.
2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use and
enjoyment of the property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for
lawful purposes.
Justification:
The property around this site is currently vacant. Development of this
property will set a tone for future development. The project's use and
location is compatible with anticipated surrounding uses and owners in
the vicinity will not be deprived of the use of their land or be negatively
impacted by this development.
3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or
general welfare.
Justification:
The project complies with the Zoning Ordinance requirements and its
architectural design will set the standard for surrounding properties.
C. CEQA REVIEW:
See CEQA discussion under the development plan section of this report. Staff
recommends that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact be adopted.
13
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
D. CONCLUSION:
Subject to the changes noted in "staff concerns with the master plan" staff is
prepared to recommend approval of the master plan of development to the
Planning Commission.
If commission concurs with staff it can recommend approval of the master
plan of development to the City Council by recommending approval of the
change of zone to the City Council
This master plan of development will be attached as an exhibit to the zone
change. The revisions to the development plan can be carried out between the
time of the Planing Commission hearing and the hearing at City Council.
The precise plan for PA1 implements the master plan. Once Planning
Commission has recommended approval of the master plan and change of
zone then it can act on the precise plan and the tentative parcel map to
implement same.
Draft resolutions for these aspects of this application are attached along with
conditions of approval on the precise plan.
The matter of the development agreement needs to be continued to further
address the art and how it will be funded and determine what parts of the plan
can be vested. We expect to bring the development agreement to commission
March 18, 1997.
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
A. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. recommending to
the City Council approval of Change of Zone 96-6 and Master Plan of
Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center.
B. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. approving PP/CUP
96-10, a precise plan of design for development on Planning Area #1 of the
Master Plan of Development for Wonder Palms Commercial Center, subject to
conditions.
14
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
MARCH 4, 1997
C. That the Development Agreement for Wonder Palms Commercial Center be
continued to March 18, 1997.
D. That the TPM 28448 be continued to May 6, 1997 to permit the applicant to
adjust the parcel lines consistent with the approved Precise Plan and
Development Plan.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft resolutions
B. Legal notice
C. Initial Study Checklist and Responses
D. Comments from city departments and other agencies
E. Development Plan
F. Precise Plan and Elevations
G. FCOZ
H. Endo Traffic Engineering Report
Prepared by / ���
-S eve SmitK
Reviewed and Approved b
Phil Drell
/tm
15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN OF
DEVELOPMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE TO PCD (PLANNED
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT) AND CERTIFICATION OF A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT FOR 270 +/- ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
INTERSTATE 10 EAST AND WEST OF COOK STREET, ALSO
KNOWN AS WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER.
CASE NO. C/Z 96-6
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 4th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued from
February 18, 1997, to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR
DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of the above described project; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
as mitigated will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative
Declaration has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below:
1 . The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD maximizes the potential for high
quality commercial, industrial and residential development with high visibility
from Interstate 10.
2. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD maximizes the flexibility
necessary to adapt the property to future conditions which are anticipated to
affect the area; particularly the future university campus and the increased
accessibility to the area north of Interstate 10.
3. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD provides a comprehensive
planning framework which establishes guidelines for future land use
applications for the property and eliminates the inconsistency associated with
individual and unassociated development proposals.
4. The Master Plan and Change of Zone to PCD provides for the completion of
the street network adjacent to the site including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive
and Portola Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
5. The Master Plan and Change of Zone serves to implement the intent of the
General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to the City
Council of Change of Zone 96-6 which adopts as Exhibit "A" a master plan of
development on file in the Department of Community Development, and a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Exhibit "B".
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 4th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
City of Palm Desert, California
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT B
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: C/Z 96-6
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates
For David Freedman & Company
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a Change of Zone and Master plan of
Development for 270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10 east and west of
Cook Street.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially.significant
effects, may also be found attached.
March 4. 1997
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Am
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST BY
MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DAVID
FREEDMAN & COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN
OF DESIGN/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 18.3 ACRES AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COOK STREET AND GERALD
FORD DRIVE FOR THE SITE KNOWN AS PLANNING AREA #1 IN
THE WONDER PALMS MASTER PLAN.
CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 4th day of March, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued from
February 18, 1997, to consider the request of MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES FOR
DAVID FREEDMAN & COMPANY for approval of a conditional use permit/precise plan for
the development of Planning Area #1 of the Wonder Palms Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the proposed uses in PA1 include a service station, a convenience store
with the sale of beer and wine, a restaurant park including drive-through facilities, a car
wash, RV storage and mini warehouse facility; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25.108.020 of the Freeway Commercial Overlay
Zone all of the above uses require approval of a conditional use permit and precise plan of
design; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm
Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution
No. 97-18," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission
did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below:
1 . The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the
site is located.
2. The proposed location of the precise plan/conditional use and the conditions
under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
3. The proposed precise plan/conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or
adjustments.
4. The proposed precise plan/conditional use complies with the goals, objectives
and policies of the City's adopted General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Desert, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the commission in this case.
2. That approval of Precise Plan/Conditional Use Permit 96-10 is hereby granted
subject to the attached conditions.
3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, be
certified.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission, held on this 4th day of March, 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES CATO FERGUSON, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
City of Palm Desert, California
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. PP/CUP 96-10
Department of Community Development:
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with
the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the
date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval
shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever.
3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions
and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and
state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this
approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following
agencies:
Coachella Valley Water District
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Public Works Department
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to
the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for
the use contemplated herewith.
5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas.
Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and department of
community development.
6. All future occupants of the buildings shall comply with parking requirements of the
zoning ordinance and the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone.
7. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for
approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified
lighting engineer.
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
8. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the department of public works
prior to architectural review commission submittal.
9. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code
Chapter 4;10.
10. Final landscape plans shall comply with the parking lot tree planting master plan.
11 . Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to
these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping
for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement
shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and
agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns.
12. No loitering shall be allowed on the premises.
13. No Distilled Spirits sales will be permitted on the premises.
14. No open alcoholic beverage containers or consumption shall be allowed on the
premises.
15. Litter shall be removed twice daily from the premises, including adjacent public
sidewalks, landscaped area and parking lots. Personnel shall be required to physically
inspect the premises and adjacent sidewalks, landscaped areas and parking lots no
less than twice daily.
16. Hours of operation for all uses on the site shall be 24 hours per day seven days a
week.
17. That the architecture of the remaining buildings in PA1 (i.e., restaurants, mini storage
and retail) shall take the flavor of the architecture shown for the service station/
convenience store/car wash.
18. That the east most restaurant adjacent to Gerald Ford Drive be setback a minimum
of 25 feet.
19. That the parking for the restaurant uses shall be evaluated on an on-going basis as
each restaurant is proposed and built.
20. That the open space area associated with the "food park" shall be completed with
the opening of the first drive-through restaurant.
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _
Department of Public Works:
1 . Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.49 and
Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map or issuance
of grading permits. As provided for in Section 26.49.030 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code , the costs associated with the construction of master plan drainage
facilities may be deducted from the project drainage fees.
2. Any drainage facilities construction required for this project shall be contingent upon
a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. The subject study
shall include analysis of the upstream drainage conditions as they impact this project.
Project design shall provide for the on-site retention of the 100 year storm event.
3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and
79-55, shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this project or
the recordation of the parcel map.
4. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
5. A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a registered soils engineer,
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the
issuance of a grading permit.
6. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section '24.08,
Transportation Demand Management.
7. Complete parcel map shall be submitted as.required by ordinance to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
8. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the
issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works.
9. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with
Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be
submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans to be
approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the
installation of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
10. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public
Works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any permits
associated with this project.
11 . In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert General Plan,
installation of a median island in Gerald Ford Drive and Cook Street shall be provided.
Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with
the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Landscaping maintenance for
the required median island shall be provided through a property owners association.
Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants
and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and
recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant
shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property
owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and
® the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners
association.
12. Landscape installation on the property frontages shall be water efficient in nature and
maintenance shall be provided in the same manner specified above.
13. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Section 12.12, Fugitive
Dust Control.
14. The location and permitted movements of all project entry points shall be subject to
the review and approval of the Director of Public Works.
15. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.44, complete grading
plans/site improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. In addition
to all standard engineering design parameters, the plan shall address appropriate
circulation-related issues.
16. Waiver of access rights to Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive except at approved
locations shall be granted on the parcel map.
17. As required under Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, all
existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground per the respective utility
district recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant shall agree to
participate in any future undergrounding district.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
18. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable city standards
and the city's Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite
improvements shall include, but not be limited to the following:
* Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk in an appropriate
size and configuration along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive.
* Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the project entries.
* Construction of transit facilities as may be required by Sunline Transit Agency.
Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of required public
improvements shall be provided on the parcel map.
19. Applicant shall be responsible for the implantation of those traffic impact mitigation
measures identified in the Wonder Palms Commercial Center Circulation Impact Study
prepared by Endo Engineering and approved by the City of Palm Desert Public Works
Depart.
20. Traffic safety striping shall be provided to the specifications of the Director of Public
Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director
of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings.
21 . Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and modification in accordance
with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
22. Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the
Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for storm water
discharges associated with construction activity.
23. The proposed storm water retention areas shall be designed to retain stormwaters
associated with the increase in developed vs. undeveloped condition for a 100 year
storm.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
Riverside County Fire Department:
1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check,
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CBC,
and/or recognized fire protection standards.
The fire department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401 .
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure
must be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon
per minute flow of:
a) 3000 gpm for commercial structure
b) 2500 gpm for multi-family structure
c) 3000 gpm for commercial structure
d) 4000 gpm for industrial structure
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4"x 2-1/2"x 2-
1/2"), located not less than 25' or more than:
a) 200 feet from single family structure
b) 165 feet from multi-family structure
c) 150 feet from commercial structure
Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved
vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet
barrel" type.
5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2")
will be required, located not less than 25' or more than:
a) 200 feet from single family structure
b) 165 feet from multi-family structure
c) 150 feet from commercial structure
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _
Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved
vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction
that hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the require fire flow, or arrange for
a field inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection.
7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review.
No building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by
the County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will
be sent to the responsible inspecting authority.
Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall
meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civic Engineer
or may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I
certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements
prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department."
B. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1 ,
1990, for all occupancies.
9. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and
fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than
25' from the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to
all buildings with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building
footprint, including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building
area of additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted
are one and two family dwellings.
10. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803
for the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory (tamper) alarms on all supply and
control valves for sprinkler systems.
11 . Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be
clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the fire marshal. Painted fire
lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following:
a) No Parking Fire Lane - PDMC 15.16.090.
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
12. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire
Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per
NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored
systems and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec.
14.103(a))
13. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating.
Fire extinguishers must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 square feet of
floor area. In addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for
commercial kitchens.
14. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial
kitchen including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other
appliances which produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A)
15. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and
California Fire Code Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne
particles. A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial
processes requiring dust collection.
16. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is allowed, the roadway shall be 36' wide with parking on both sides, 32'
wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided
with a minimum 45' radius turn around (55' in industrial developments). Fountains
or garden islands placed in the middle of these turn-arounds shall not exceed a 5'
radius or 10` diameter. City standards may be more restrictive.
17. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes
shall be:
a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking,
carports or garages allowed on one side only.
b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or
garages allowed on both sides, no parallel parking.
c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is
allowed on one side.
d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _
18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers,
guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by
emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the fire department. All controlled
access devices that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system
capable of opening the gate when activated by a special key located in emergency
vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the
event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated
shall also be approved by the fire department. Minimum opening width shall be 16'
with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access,
sprinklers or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no
circumstances shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted.
20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points
from a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development.
21 . Contact the fire department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
22. All new residences/dwellings are required to have illuminated residential addresses
meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer
permitted in the City of Palm Desert.
23. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the city.
24. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should
contact the fire marshal's office for submittal requirements.
25. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _
EXHIBIT A
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the
California Code of Regulations.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO: PP/CUP 96-10
APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Mainiero, Smith and Associates
For David Freedman & Company
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Approval of a precise plan of design/conditional use
permit to allow the construction and operation of a fuel station, convenience store, car
wash, restaurant park and retail outlets on 18.3 acres at the northeast corner of Cook
Street and Gerald Ford Drive, known as Planning Area #1 in the Wonder Palms Master Plan
of Development.
The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California,
has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this
finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects, may also be found attached.
March 4. 1997
PHILIP DRELL DATE
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Am
12
ail li �
my off Pam pw@n
73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10, TPM 28448 AND DA 97-2
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Uesert Planning
Commission to consider a request by MAINIERO, SMITH &ASSOCIATES on behalf of David
Freedman and Company for approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community
Development), precise plan of design, master plan of development, tentative parcel map and
development agreement for the development of 270 +1- acres generally located south of
Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street, more particularly described as:
APNs 653-390-003, 004, 007, 008, 012, 021, 023, 024, 026, 027 and 029 and
APNs 653-280-004 and 016
O �\\
i
7 ram! � •�� \ \\`�
(:- cti�'
=� \
� rna
"o" 1
r.e
x m
,1— 2v_4a�,wn
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 18, 1997, at 7:00 p.m, in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard.
Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be-
accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or
negative declaration is available for review in the Department of Community Development
at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
Fol..n o... R 1007 0a1m rl=c e.. Pla�nin.. r,......,;...;....
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SAN BERNARDINO
5500 University Parkway,San Bernardino,CA 92407-2397
January 16, 1997
Phil Drell
Director of Community Development
OFFICE City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
OF THE Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
VICE PRESIDENT
FOR Dear Phil:
ADMINISTRATION
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Development Plan for Wonder Palms
AND FINANCE Commercial Center. Several key university officials have reviewed the plan and found
it to be compatible with facilities frequently surrounding university campuses. It was
909/880-5130 anticipated that lands adjacent to the university site and parallel to the freeway corridor
would likely be used for such proposed purposes.
The university would appreciate the opportunity to review specific plans as they are
designed for each project. We support the design standards and criteria set forth by
the City of Palm Desert and believe they will serve the best interests of the future
faculty and staff of the Coachella Valley Center.
Sincerely,
cp
David DeMauro
Vice President for
Administration and Finance
The California State University
Bakere field•Chico•Dominguez Hide•F U rton•pyaro•Hayward•Humboldt•long Beach•Los Angeles•Maritime Academy•MwdeM Bay•Northridge
Pbm •Sacramento•San Bernardino•San Diego•San Jose•San Isis Obispo•San Maros•Sonoma•Stanisla s _
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT "A"
FREEWAY COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
ZONE DISTRICT
25.108.010 Purpose.
The purpose of the Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ) is to provide optional
standards and incentives for the development of a variety of commercial uses.
Whenever the FCOZ has been added to a base zone, the owner/applicant may choose
whether to use the optional FCOZ standards or the standards of the base zone. In
order to obtain approval of uses only permitted in the FCOZ the project must utilize
FCOZ standards.
25.108.020 Conditional Uses.
Uses permitted by approved Conditional Use Permit shall be as follows:
I) restaurants general including drive-thru restaurants
ii) automobile service stations without regard to the required separation distance
provisions per M.C. Section 25.56.330
iii) convenience stores
'iv) car wash
v) combinations of two or more of the above uses
vi) hotels
vii) commercial recreation and amusement establishments
viii) mini warehouses
ix) outdoor recreational vehicle and boat storage
25.108.030 Development Standards.
Projects proposed under this chapter shall be master planned and the master plan
shall be approved by the planning commission prior to any construction activity.
er
Development of individual projects within the approved master., plan shall be
processed through the precise plan process.
Property to be master planned shall be at least five (5) acres in size and shall have
frontage on a designated arterial street.
Drive-up lanes and window facilities shall be designed so as to not be visible from an
arterial street.
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
Development standards shall generally be flexible to insure efficient site planning and
to foster the creation of attractive developments.
Automobile service stations shall comply with the requirements of M.C. Section
25.56.340 thru 25.56.410 in addition to the following:
a) Reguired On-Site Parking:
The required number of parking spaces for a combined development shall be
cumulative for all proposed uses. Planning Commission may reduce the required
parking where it is clearly demonstrated that a shared use will occur (i.e. a restaurant
which serves a hotel) or with a showing of good cause the planning commission may
increase the number of parking spaces required.
Automobile Service Station (no service bays) 5 spaces
Automobile Service Station (with service bays) 4 spaces/bay
Convenience Store 1 space per 250 sq. ft.
of GFA/Min. 10 spaces
Car Wash 16 s aces
Restaurant, general See M.C. Section 25.58.310
Restaurant, drive through See Restaurant, general plus at
least 7 spaces in drive-through
lane
Hotel See M.C. Section 25.58.310
b) Setbacks:
Setbacks shall be as prescribed in the base zone and/or Automobile Service Stations
pursuant to M.C. Section 25.56.350 at al.
c) Landscaping:
All master planned projects approved through the FCOZ process shall provide a
minimum of at least thirty percent (30%) landscaped open space, of which at least
half of the common usable public space which can include picnic area, a dog park,
a kids land, as well as landscaped setback areas. With a showing of.good cause, the
planning commission may increase the minimum landscaped open space requirement.
25.108.040 Freeway Visible Signage.
Each developed commercial property within the Freeway Overlay Zone District and within
500 feet of Interstate 10 freeway may construct a freeway visible sign which complies with
the following criteria:
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. _
I) Maximum number of freeway visible signs shall be one per development.
Minimum area of commercial development to be entitled to a freeway visible
sign shall be 5 acres. Businesses identified on freeway visible signage shall be
limited to traveler oriented users such as gas stations, restaurants and hotels.
Other similar users may be approved by the Planning Commission.
The minimum distance between any two freeway visible signs shall be 750
feet.
iv) The maximum height of any freeway visible sign shall be the minimum height
necessary to allow the sign to be visible from the freeway and in no event
shall the sign height exceed sixty (60) feet. Actual height to be determined by
the Architectural Review Commission as part of the sign review process.
Items to be considered in determining actual sign height shall be:
a) any obstacles (such as buildings, trees, overpass structures) between
the sign face and vehicles driving on the 1-10 freeway;
b) design and size of the sign base;
c) proportionality, color, texture.
v) Maximum sign face area permitted shall be based on the size of the
commercial development it serves.
Site from 5.0 acres to 9.99 acres = 125 square feet
Site from 10.0 acres to 24.99 acres = 150 square feet
Site of 25.0 acres or greater = 175 square feet
Maximum number of sign faces shall be two (2) which shall be oriented
east/west toward freeway traffic.
vi) Maximum number of businesses to be identified on any freeway visible sign
face shall be six (6). The A.R.C. may reduce the maximum number of
businesses to avoid clutter and/or lack of readability.
vii) Illuminated signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 25.68.490.
viii) In order to encourage recognition and legibility the maximum number of sign
colors as prescribed in Section 25.68.480 shall not apply.
ix) The minimum size of any logo or individual sign copy shall be 16 inches. Signs
or logos less than 16 inches may be approved by the A.R.C. if it is determined
to be legible from vehicles traveling on the 1-10 freeway.
4
,
4 _��:
s ^8
^eT
g+a, Joe
F
SITE STATISTICS
WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER
PA 1
Overall Site Area (including Mid Valley Channel & easements) 18.2 acres
Net Site Area 15.9 acres
Building Areas
Service Station including car wash 5,275 s.f.
Restaurants 18,750 s.f.
Self Storage 58,950 s.f.
RV Storage 800 s.f.
Retail 18,100 s.f.
Total Building Area 101,875 s.f.
Parking
Service Station/Car Wash 26 sp.
Restaurants 146 sp.
Large Vehicle Parking 15 sp.
RV Storage 6 sp.
Self Storage 11 sp.
Retail 60 sp.
Total Parking 264 sp.
Open Space (not including storm channel/easement) 244,275 s.f. = 35.6%
Open Space (including storm channel/easement) 349,955 s.f. = 44.0 %
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
1. EARTH
a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet. .
Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic
substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create
unstable earth conditions.
b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced,
over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and
approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for
the structural developments which will take place on the site.
C. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief
will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to
adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in
less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better
direction.
d. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water
damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate
directing of runoff from the site.
f. Not applicable.
g. The area is an area susceptible to earthquakes as is the rest of the
Coachella Valley. The level of geologic hazard is no greater than other
developed areas of the Coachella Valley.
Mitigation Measures
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must
be designed by UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed
within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and
occupancies being developed.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
2. AIR
a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a
short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during
days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is
required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will
not result in ,an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This
conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality
contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the
City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park
View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will
result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's
vacant condition.
b. The proposal includes future restaurant development. These uses will
be required to comply with City CEQA requirements on an individual
basis. Appropriate odor mitigation measures will be imposed.
C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This
is due to its size and identified uses.
3. WATER
a. Water.will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed
to accept the water from the site.
b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however the
landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material.
The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit to adjoining
property as it is directed in a controlled manner.
c. The hydrology study discusses at length flood water control and the
channel to be installed south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-
way.
d. There is no surface water feature on the site.
2
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
e. See (d) above.
f. There is no ground water present on the site.
g. See f.
h. While any development results in the use of water and therefore
reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the
Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water
supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella
Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in
the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development.
I. The area is subject to flooding. CVWD has a plan, as discussed in the
hydrology study, to control flood waters. This plan will be
implemented as part of the development of this area.
4. PLANT LIFE
a. Presently the site contains weeds, sagebrush and other plants as
outlined in the biological assessment. The project when completed
will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be
introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the
desert.
b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of
plant life. This is supported by the biological assessment prepared by
James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, revised November 8, 1996.
C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species
into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the
agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants
being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area.
stated on the biological assessment
d. As sta g , part of the east end of the site
was formerly a vineyard. This use was allowed to die out many years
ago.
3
INITIAL STUDY -
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
5. ANIMAL LIFE
a-c.. The biological assessment,prepared by James Cornett discusses at
length impacts on animal life on the site. The study concludes that
with mitigation in the form of payment of the fringe-toed lizard
preserve fee that the project will not have an adverse impact on the
animal life. Such conditions will be imposed on all individual projects
and the fee will be collected prior to issuance of grading permit.
d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable long term habitat for
wildlife.
6. NOISE
a. Construction and subsequent operation of commercial, industrial and
residential use may add to the ambient noise level. The noise level will
not exceed the existing ambient level which is quite high due to the
proximity to the Southern Pacific Railroad and the 1-10 freeway.
Mitigation Measures
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional
measures to mitigate traffic and operation noise will be required.
b. The areas designated for future residential use are a substantial
distance from the main noise generators in the area (i.e., 1-10 and
railroad). Prior to development of these projects proponents will be
required to prepare acoustical study showing compliance with
Municipal Code and General Plan requirements for both indoor and
outdoor activities.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spillover. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting
plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
4
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
S. LAND USE
The project will not alter the proposed land use in the area. The planned land
use for the area is identified as commercial, industrial and residential; the
project would develop land uses permitted in these land use designations.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase
the rate of usage of these resources.
10. RISK OF UPSET
a. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion
or escape of hazardous materials. This conclusion is confirmed by the
biological survey of the site conducted by James Cornett during June
1996.
b. Approval and implementation of the master plan will help to complete
the arterial street system in the area (i.e., Gerald Ford Drive) which will
be an improvement to the emergency evacuation plan.
11 . POPULATION
a. The project includes future commercial, industrial and residential
development on vacant land and will not result in changes in location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. The
residential units were previously included in the General Plan.
12. HOUSING
a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or
region. This is based on the conclusions reached in item 11 . In
addition this is currently being projected some 8,000 unsold housing
units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being
developed, over 600 in the city of Palm Desert alone.
5
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
As well, this project will provide up to 900 multi-family units which
could be expected to be occupied by some employees from the
commercial and industrial sections.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. Additional traffic will be created. The circulation impact study
determined that the maximum intensity alternate could generate an
estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon build out in 2005.
While the "Trend Alternate" would generate 54,930 trip ends, current
General Plan would result in 85,420 trip ends.
Mitigation Measures
The study recommends various mitigation measures which will be
implemented as the master plan projects are constructed.
b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be
supplied by the individual projects on site.
C. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project
should not generate additional demands on existing transportation
systems. In addition, these systems have adequate capacity.
d. Principal access to the project will be from the existing 1-10, Cook
P P 1 9
Street and the future Gerald Ford Drive.
e. Not applicable.
f. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by item 13(a) in
addition to the required sidewalks, the impact should be positive.
There are problems currently existing in the north section of the city
and the public improvements required of the applicant will alleviate
some of them.
6
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. CIZ 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
14. PUBLIC SERVICE
a-f. None. The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use.
A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the
study area has been developed, and the General Plan and zoning maps
designated the area for urban development. Infrastructure
improvements (i.e., storm channel, streets, utilities) have been made
and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed
land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in
terms of efficiency and greater economic return generated from these
uses, versus the current state of the land.
15. ENERGY
a-b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be
required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy
usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature.
16. UTILITIES
All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short term
nor will it impact the level of community health.
18. AESTHETICS
The proposal will be developed consistent with the zoning and General Plan
requirements for building locations and setbacks. As a result any scenic
vista will not be impacted.
19. RECREATION
The property is currently vacant. No recreational facilities were planned for
this property.
7
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d. As part of the biological assessment the biologist walked the site
extensively and conducted research of past uses of the property. No
cultural resources were noted.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The biological assessment discusses this matter at length and
concludes that there will be no adverse impact.
b-d. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of
the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment.
8
Uwe C
00
73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346.0611
INITIAL STUDY FNVIPa44 NrAL C1anMIST
I. Background
1. Date per. /
2. Case No. _� �C f 0��—�C7 h T�/L9 2Q'li�r
3. Applicant %✓ Swtr'Il� t - socl�P71-
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Berth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or —
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? x
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground Pallure, or similar hazards?
Yes Maybe No
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of obJectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in: L�
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either marine
or fresh waters? —
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff? x
c. Alterations to the course or low of flood
waters? —
d. Change in the amount of surface water in G�
any water body? _ v
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any G�
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature, —
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. Change 'i.n the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe Ho
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ �{
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, — \ ,
rare or endangered species of animals? �(
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migra-
tion or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new —
light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? c`Y�
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or —
upset conditions?
Yes Maybe No
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan? — V
11. population. Will the proposal alter the location, h
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional ,
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or —
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion. or movement of people and/or goods? �(
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including —
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Yes Maybe No
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy? _ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the —
following utilities:
17. Human Health. Will the- proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)? x
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open —
to public vies?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or —
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or u
historic building, structure, or object? /
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact /
area? n
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
.reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate. a plant or animal community, re-
duce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
Yes Maybe No
important examples of the major periods of —
California history or .prehistory? !V,
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact .on
each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on
the environment is significant.) �(
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III, Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
O
UC 9 'l�C QQJ
Date Sighifture
For
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488 be continued to January 21 , 1997 in order
that the necessary environmental review may be processed through California
Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B. Comments from city departments and other agencies
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by tev�G�
e Smith
Reviewed and Approved-by
Phil rell
/tm
L. 9
m
o�
T
t
/:
ICI
so
a
,e
a
Ohio:
Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments
August 16, 1996
Mr. Marvin Roos
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
SUBJECT: Wonder Palms Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study
Dear Mr.Roos;
Pursuant to your request,Endo Engineering has analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts
associated with the 270-acre Wonder Palms Commercial Center, in the City of Palm
Desert. It is our understanding that the project site is located south of the Interstate
10/Southern Pacific Railroad corridor, east of Portola Avenue, and on both sides of Cook
Street and Gerald Ford Drive.
Two project alternatives were evaluated in detail, based upon the Coachella Valley Area
Transportation System(CVATS) model. Each conceptual land plan alternative included!
freeway-oriented businesses, regional commercial uses,industrial/business uses,commer-
cial/residential uses,office uses,and multi-family residential uses. The development inten-
sity was greater for Alternative 1 than it was for Alternative 2 (except with regard to the
residential uses proposed on-site). '
The pages which follow summarize in graphic and narrative form;
• an analysis of existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity (including
morning and evening peak hour counts and capacity evaluations of six
existing intersections);
• an assessment of project buildout conditions (year 2005) with and without
two project development alternatives (including morning and evening peak
hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersections);
• future cumulative conditions (year 2010) with and without 6v6 project
development alternatives based upon the CVATS model(including morning
and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersec-
tions);and
• mitigation measures designed to reduce any significant impacts identified
with development Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 to acceptable levels.
City staff input and assistance in the development of this report has been greatly appreci-
ated. A well coordinated effort was essential to the execution of the work program, and the
City's cooperation in providing necessary information and data in a timely fashion
contributed in no small measure to the completion of this study.
95 Argonaut - Suite 115,AIiso Viejo, California 92656-1487
(714) 768-4333 FAX(714) 768-071.8
We trust that the information provided herein will assist the City in their review of the
impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Should questions or
comments arise regarding the findings and recommendations within this report, please do
not hesitate to contact our offices at(714)768-4333.
Cordially,
ENDO ENGNEERING �o QRQFESSlON`
AF
�t<�zt. -ge< undo 4� �\G�11 LEE fy�o yc�
Vicki Lee Endo A
Registered Professional TR 1161
Traffic Engineer TR 1161
�t /ell 3, 1 98
�lgTE OF CAL FO��\�
2
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Existing Circulation Conditions
1. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10, State Route 111, and State
Route 74.
2. Direct site access is available from Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Portola
Avenue.
3. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Drive currently exceeds the City
of Palm Desert performance standard of LOS C by operating at LOS D during
morning peak hours and LOS C during evening peak hours. Westbound motorists
currently experience LOS E operation and significant delay during peak travel
periods. This intersection appears to currently meet daily planning level signal
warrants. Signalization of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola
Avenue is included in the Palm Desert Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal
Year 1997/1998.
4. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive at Eldorado Drive is currently operating at
LOS C during evening peak hours and LOS A during morning peak hours.
5. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive does not appear to
currently meet signal warrants and is not expected to meet signal warrants except:
(1) under future year 2005+Alternative 1 conditions; or (2) under future year
2010+Altemative 2 conditions.
6. All four of the key signalized intersections currently operate at Level of Service B
during morning and evening peak hours.
1.2 Circulation Impacts
1. Alternative 1 could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon
buildout in the year 2005, if all of the floor area is constructed and fully occupied.
Of that total, 8,905 trip-ends (3,889 inbound and 5,016 outbound) would occur
during the evening peak hour and 3,802 trip-ends would be generated during the
morning peak hour(2,672 inbound and 1,130 outbound).
2. Alternative 2 (which includes similar but less intense land uses than Alternative 1)
would generate 54,930 average weekday trip-ends (approximately 60 percent of the
traffic associated with Alternative 1).
3. Alternative 3 (the existing General Plan designations on-site) could generate an
estimated 85,420 average weekday trip-ends(94% of that of Alternative 1).
4. Five key intersections appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants, based
upon year 2005 ambient (no-project) traffic volumes including: (1) Gerald Ford
Drive @ Portola Avenue, (2) Gerald Ford Drive @ Cook Street, (3) Gerald Ford
Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive, (4) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Eastbound Ramps,
and (5) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Westbound Ramps. Gerald Ford Drive at
Cook Street will be signalized approximately 6 months after the Cook Street
1-1
interchange is opened in 1997. Signals will be installed and operational at the inter-
sections of the I-10 ramps with Cook Street when the Cook Street interchange is
opened.
5. Future year 2005 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the
following.
• The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) during peak hours under year 2005 ambient conditions (assuming
existing lane geometries except where improvements are anticipated to occur
prior to the year 2005).
• With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2005 ambient volumes, one
intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak
hour, and four intersections will have a drop in level of service during the
PM peak hour. Year 2005+Alternative 1 volumes will require a third
northbound through lane at the intersection of Cook Street and the Interstate
10 eastbound ramps as well as a second southbound right-turn lane and a
third eastbound left-tum lane at the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald
Ford Drive.
• With Alternative 2, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of
service in the AM peak hour, and two intersections will have a drop in level
of service during the PM peak hour. No additional intersection approach
lanes (beyond existing lane geometries except where improvements are
anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005)will be required to accommodate
year 2005+Alternative 2 volumes at LOS C.
6. Future year 2010 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the
following.
• The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) during peak hours under year 2010 ambient conditions (assuming
lane geometries consistent with the master planned circulation system).
• With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2010 ambient volumes, six-lane
cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive.
Additional approach lanes will also be necessary at the Cook Street/Inter-
statel0 interchange under construction and at the intersection of Gerald Ford
Drive and Cook Street(beyond typical arterial intersection lane geometries).
• With Alternative 2, all required intersection approach lanes at key intersec-
tions will be consistent with the master planned cross sections. Six-lane
arterial cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country
Club Drive to accommodate year 2010 volumes at acceptable levels of
service.
1.3 Recommended Mitigation
1. Figure 5-1 illustrates the required intersection lane geometries for year 2005
conditions with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
2. Figure 5-2 shows the required intersection lane geometries for year 2020 conditions
with each project alternative.
1-2
3. Figure 5-3 summarizes the conditions under which traffic volumes appear to meet
daily planning level signal warrants at the unsignalized key intersections.
4. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternativve 1 indicate that the key
intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach
lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections, except
at three intersections.
5. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 2 indicate that the key
intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach
lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections.
6. The project(Alternative 1 or Alternative 2) will contribute through participation in
the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to future improve-
ments required along regional facilities (e.g. widening of: (1) Monterey Avenue
through the intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra; and (2) Country
Club Drive at the intersection of Cook Street to their master planned six-lane cross
section).
7. Master planned streets bordering the project site shall be constructed to their
ultimate half-sections in conjunction with adjacent development on-site.
8. Direct access to the site shall be designed to comply with City design standards and
insure that adequate sight distance is provided for motorists.
9. Sight distances at access points and internal intersections shall be considered during
the review of site plans, landscape plans, and project graphics. Landscape materi-
als shall be selected to minimize interference with traffic sight distances.
10. The proposed cross-sections and internal roadway layout shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer during the development review process to
insure compliance with City standards.
11. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the City of Palm
Desert.'
12. Non-motorized transportation facilities and corridors (golf cart paths, bike lanes, -
bike paths, etc.) shall be considered both off site and on site and shall be consistent
with City of Palm Desert and regional plans for the project vicinity.
13. The project shall accommodate public transit needs, as determined by the City of
Palm Desert in conjunction with Sunline Transit Authority.
14. Section 5.1 includes circulation design guidelines for consideration in developing
detailed plans for development of the project site.
15. Section 5.2 includes a discussion of various measures to alter traffic demand related
to the project for consideration in developing detailed plans for the project site.
16. Project-specific mitigation shall be considered by the City of Palm Desert upon
application for detailed precise plans.
1-3
RECEIVED: 4- 1-97; 12:34; _> CITV Of PALM DESERT; M1
06/28/00 13:37 FAXJAME
(d701
13 80NDE&D8 3Sl�v—l9�o P•I1
PALMDESWCA9n66TrX
'?�q) -7c
COLEMAN SUPER QU�CE�N MODEL GENERATOR 7 SPECIFICATION
B&=as
CONTINUOUS 3 PRASE RATING . . . . . . . . . 15 RAP / 18.73 EVA
STANDBY 3 PRASE RATING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 KW / 22.25 EVA .
COWTINUOVS 1 PRASE RATING . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.5EN / 15.6RV1
VOLTAGE 3 PHASE (AMPS) . . . . . . . . . . 220 (BOA), 240 (45A) VAC
VOLTAGE 1 PHASE (AMPS) . . . . 120 (SODA) , 240 (BOA) VAC
9ILSxCB-LEPStiy bB=dtiA;4,50;FEET;-64TdbA-m'23`PBST,-&:76fak,6710.'FEE
ENGINE
MANUFACTURER (MODEL) KUBOTA (V1903)
ENGINE TYPE NATURALLY. , . ASPIRATED, IN-LINE 4 CYLINDER
COMBUSTION SYSTEM . . . . . INDIRECT INJBCTBD
BORE AND STROKE . . . . 3.35'•x *3.23 IN. (85 X 82 =)
PISTON DISPLACEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.57 du. in. (2661 ee)
COMPRESSION RATIO . . . . . 21s1
STARTER . . . . . 12 'VOLT, •POSITIVE ENGAGENBm
CHARGING SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . 12 VOLT, 14 AMP. DYNAMO
GOVERNOR • . . . . . . . . . . . . MECHANICAL 1306 - 59 DROOP)
j —COOLING (SYSTEM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . WATER (RADIATOR)
I Z=UST SYSTEM . CRITICAL GRADE SILENCER
SAFETY YEATUR96 . AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN ON LOW OIL PRESSURE & HIGH TEMP.
GENE&aOR
RATING . . . . . . . 15XW/16:75RV TERSE PHASE, .8 P.P.
TYPE • . . . . . RRUSHLESS, 4 POLE, SYNCHRONOUS, SINGLE BEARING
N INSULATIO . . • • CLASS ■Ro .
TEMPERATURE RATING . . . 105 DEGREE C RISE OVER 40 DEGREE C AMBIENT
VOLTAGE REGULATOR . . . . . . . . . EXTERNAL, SOLID STATE, ADJUSTABLE
VOLTAGE REGULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . +/- 1%
FREQUENCY (SPEED) . . . . . . . . . •66 HERTZ ('1800 RPM)
MOTOR STARTING ABILITY (ACROSS THE LINE) , 3 PRASE . 10 HP CODE EYE
GENERATOR INSTRUMENTS VOLTMETER, AMMETER, & DIAL TYPE HERTZ METER
FUEL SYSTEM
TYPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NUMBER 2 DIESEL
FUEL TANK CAPACITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 U.9. GALLONS
FUEL CONSUMPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.34 GPR ® FULL LOAD
RUNNING TIME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 HOURS 0 FULL LOAD
DISTRIBUTION
3 PHASE HOOK UP . . . . 4 LUG TERMINALS WITH MAINLINE CIRCUIT BREAKER
MISCELLANEOUS
ENCLOSURE . , . . . • , • • • . • • WEATHERPROOF WITH LOCKABLE DOORS
LIFTING SYSTEM • . . . . . . . . . . . . ROOF MOUNTED, SINGLE POINT
OPTIONAL TRAILER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CT3500, SINGLB AXLE
DRY WEIGHT (SKID_ MOYN1'ED), . . . . . 8s_5_00_tv98.
DD=SZONS,(SKID5MOUNTSD) . . . . . . . . t7e L x 36•:.W;-::i4■-; t
r^DRY WHTGRT (TRAILER MOUNTED) . H
. . . . . . . . . . 2,050 LSS.
DIMENSIONS (TRAILER MOUNTS13) . . . . . . . . 1169 L x 580 W x SOR B
1020 S.BELLEVUE,MEMPHIS.TN 38106 • PHONE(901)7-14.1234 • FAX(901)947.3418
7'.J I .!.cr„ s+.,..nnr>. mr+ .. .r awn ... i• ..�.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: December 17, 1996
CASE NOS: C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488
REQUEST: Approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community
Development), master plan of development and tentative parcel map for
270 +/- acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west
of Cook Street.
APPLICANT: Mainiero, Smith and Associates
for David Freedman & Company
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
I. BACKGROUND:
The applicant is the owner of 270 +/- acres located east and west of Cook Street
south of Interstate 10 and wishes to establish a long term development plan in the
form of this master plan. The property extends along the south side of 1-10 from
Portola Avenue in the west to a point 3400 feet east of Cook Street.
The Zoning Ordinance provides for this type of long term development plan through
a change of zone to PCD (Planned Community Development). In order to obtain such
a change of zone the applicant must have more than 100 acres of land and must
prepare a master plan of development which contains and becomes the development
criteria for the area which is then delineated as PCD on the zoning map.
A. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE:
North: County/Railroad and 1-10
South: PR-5/Future Cal State University Site and Rancho Portola Country
Club
East: R1 M/Emerald Desert RV Park
West: SI and PR-5/Vacant
+ it
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
B. GENERAL PLAN AND NORTH SPHERE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION:
The 270 +/- acres is designated several different land use categories in the
General Plan. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive, east and west of Cook
Street, is designated District Commercial. The area north of Gerald Ford Drive
at the east end of the site is designated commercial-industrial. The area north
and south of Gerald Ford Drive east of Portola was designated residential study
zone in the North Sphere Specific Plan. Finally, the area south of Gerald Ford
Drive and west of Cook Street is designated residential - low density.
At the time of the preparation of the North Sphere Specific Plan the actual
alignments of Gerald Ford Drive between Portola Avenue and Cook Street,
Cook Street north of Gerald Ford, and Gerald Ford east of Cook Street were
not established. As a result the land use designations were "general" as to
their locations.
As well, the decision to set aside over 200 acres of land at the southeast
corner of Cook Street and Gerald Ford for a future Cal State campus impacts
on the overall entry design/land use of the Cook Street corridor.
The intent of the North Sphere Specific Plan was to establish commercial land
use in the Cook Street-Gerald Ford corridors, commercial-industrial buffers
adjacent to the freeway and higher density residential where railroad and
freeway noise can be mitigated.
Staff feels that this master plan as proposed implements the intent of the
General Plan/North Sphere Specific Plan land use elements.
C. EXISTING ZONING:
The property contains two existing zone categories. The area around the
.Gerald Ford and Cook intersection is zoned PC(2) (District Commercial) and the
rest of the site PR-5 (Planned Residential - five units per acre).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant has prepared a master plan which establishes eight basic planning areas
with a wide range of land uses. The master plan also contains a series of
2
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
development criteria (conditions) which shall govern future development within the
site.
Future uses proposed in the master plan range from freeway oriented commercial
businesses to planned service industrial to regional commercial to high density
residential.
III. ANALYSIS:
A. As noted above the master plan divides the property into eight planning areas.
Specific locations are delineated on Figure 1 contained in the master plan.
The following information is taken from the master plan prepared by the
applicant.
"Planning Area 1 - 21 .3 gross acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford
Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Freeway
Oriented Business.
PA1 shall use the base provisions of the PC 4 (Planned
Commercial Center - Resort Center) however, shall allow no more
than one automobile service station including accessory
convenience retail, and shall also allow drive through restaurants
subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals. Standards
for drive-through facilities are adopted herein.
Planning Area 2 - 50.7 gross acres west of Cook Street between Gerald Ford
Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis - Regional
Commercial.
PA2 shall use the base provisions of the PC3 (Planned
Commercial Center - Regional Center) but encourages mixed use
retail, office and residential uses under Conditional Use Permit.
Drive through restaurants are allowed subject to ARB and
Planning Commission approvals.
3
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional
review of the entitlements is 3,600,000 square feet and 1300
residential units as depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate).
Planning Area 3 - 11 .2 gross acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald
Ford Drive. Land use emphasis - Freeway Oriented Business.
PA3 shall use the base provisions of the PC4 (Planned
Commercial Center - Resort Center).
Planning Area 4 - 30.2 acres east of Cook Street between Gerald Ford Drive
i Rail 1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis
and the Southern Pacific /
industrial/Business Park.
PA4 shall use the base provisions of the PI (Planned Industrial
Zone) but encourages mixed use retail, office and residential uses
under Conditional Use Permit. Drive through restaurants are
allowed subject to ARB and Planning Commission approvals.
Planning Area 5 - 25.9 acres west of Cook Street and south of Gerald Ford
Drive. Land use emphasis - Mixed-use Commercial/Residential.
PA5 shall use the base provisions of the PC2 (District
Commercial Center Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail
and residential under Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Area 6 - 70.6 acres west of Cook Street and between Gerald Ford
Drive and the Southern Pacific Rail/1-10 corridor. Land use emphasis
Office/business park.
PA6 shall use the base provisions of the O-P (Office Professional
Zone) and shall encourage mixed use retail and residential uses
under Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Area 7 - 44.3 acres north of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola
Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential.
Planning Area 8 - 14.9 acres south of Gerald Ford Drive and east of Portola
Avenue. Land use emphasis - Medium density residential.
4
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
Pas 7 and 8 shall use the provisions of PR 18 (Planned
Residential District - up to 18 dwelling units per acre)."
The applicant has prepared in chart form, Figure 2 and Figure 3 of the master
plan, development program - Maximum Intensity Alternative and Development
Program - Trend Alternative respectively.
The maximum aggregate allowable building density without additional review
of the entitlements is 3,600,000 square feet and 1300 residential units as
depicted in Figure 2 (Maximum Intensity Alternate).
The probable development intensity expected (Trend Alternate) is shown in
Figure 3. The expected intensity is 1,605,000 square feet and 1100 dwelling
units.
B. CIRCULATION:
The master plan takes advantage of the existing approved City Circulation Plan
and takes accesses from the future Gerald Ford Drive.
The master plan does propose additional streets.
One new street will divide PA7 from PA6 and provide access to the
business/office area. This street runs from Portola north of Gerald Ford east
and south to connect with Gerald Ford approximately 2100 feet east of
Portola.
The applicant has had a circulation impact study prepared by Endo Engineering "
which examines the future traffic impacts of the two development alternatives
and compares these with the existing General Plan designation and the traffic
which could be generated under it. Traffic impacts were assessed for the
nearby intersections for the years 2005 and 2010.
The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed this circulation impact study and his
report is attached.
Essentially, with proper mitigation either proposed development alternative can
be supported from a circulation standpoint.
5
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The proposed change of zone and master plan for future development is essentially
consistent with the General Plan and North Sphere Specific Plan which were adopted
pursuant to a certified environmental impact report. As a result staff is comfortable
with processing this application under the negative declaration provisions of CEQA.
The applicant did have a circulation impact study prepared, a hydrology study and a
biological assessment and impact analysis. These three documents are specific to
this 270 +/- acre site.
As noted by the traffic engineer, any traffic impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance and in fact if the 'Trend Alternate" is followed the expected traffic
levels will be significantly lower than the present General Plan would allow.
The hydrology study concludes that all impacts can be mitigated.
The biological assessment and impact analysis concludes that "this project, upon the
completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to have significant
negative impacts upon biological resources within the region."
The project is within the fee area established by the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed
Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. It is also in the historical habitat of a number of
other plant and animal species being considered for listing as threatened or
endangered. To avoid their future listing, a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP) is being prepared through CVAG which will provide long term protection
through the creation of preserves. Pending completion of the MSHCP an Interim
Review Process has been established pursuant to an MOU with all the valley cities,
County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
This review by CVAG, the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has not yet been completed. As a result we are unable to
recommend that Planning Commission act on the application at this time.
The IPRG (Interim Project Review Guidelines) provide that the California Department
of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will respond within 30 days
of the meeting held by CVAG. The CVAG meeting to review this will be held January
16, 1997.
6
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
Assuming that agreement is reached with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish and Game,. then staff will be in a position to
recommend adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
STAFF CONCERNS WITH PROPOSED MASTER PLAN:
The master plan proposes freeway oriented businesses including drive-through
restaurants on several of the planning areas. The existing zoning prohibits drive-
through restaurants. The Comprehensive'Zoning Ordinance Review Committee for
the past several weeks has been drafting a Freeway Commercial Overlay Zone (FCOZ)
which if adopted by City Council would permit drive-through restaurants in this area.
Any drive-through restaurant contemplated by this master plan would be contingent
upon adoption of the FCOZ.
PA3 at the southwest corner of Cook and Gerald Ford is shown to be developed
pursuant to PC4 standards. The PA will only be 11 .2 acres. It would be better
developed under PC2 (District Commercial) zoning.
Staff is concerned that PA7 and PA8 are to be developed at densities up to 18 units
per acre. Without seeing a plan it is difficult to recommend such high density. The
trend alternate, Figure 3, in this instance is the same as the maximum intensity
alternative. There is no lower intensity alternative. Staff would prefer a range be
specified of between 10 and 18 units per acre.
The General Provision No. 17 concerns art in public places. Staff discussed this with
the AIPP manager. Mr. Nagus expressed support of the general concept and looked
forward to working with the applicant when the art proposal is in a more concrete
form.
V. CONCLUSION:
As is noted on page 2 of the master plan prepared by the applicant.
"The development of the Project in a manner consistent with the provisions of this
master plan including the Development Guidelines provides a number of benefits to
both the City and the Owner:
7
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
1 . It maximizes the potential for high quality commercial, industrial, and
residential development with high visibility from Interstate 10.
2. It maximizes the flexibility necessary to adapt the property to future
conditions which are anticipated to affect the area; particularly the
future university campus and the increased accessibility to the area
north of Interstate 10.
3. It provides a comprehensive planning framework which establishes
guidelines for future land use applications for the property and
eliminates the inconsistency associated with individual and unassociated
development proposals.
4. It provides for the construction of stormwater system improvements
consistent with the master plans adopted by the City in conjunction
with the Coachella Valley Water District.
5. It controls sensitive land uses associated with sites having excellent
freeway access.
6. It provides for the completion of the street network adjacent to the site
including Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Portola Avenue.
7. It provides for the planning and execution of a major entry statement
potentially involving the Art in Public Places program."
The plan serves to implement the intent of the General Plan and North Sphere
Specific Plan.
Condition No. 13 provides that prior to obtaining a building permit for any site within
the master plan the applicant will require approval of a precise plan of design by the
Planning Commission.
Note: The applicant has filed a precise plan application for the food court and service
station on PA1 . At this time the plans are very conceptual. This part of the
application will be noticed and heard in the future.
8
STAFF REPORT
C/Z 96-6 AND TPM 28488
DECEMBER 17, 1996
VI. RECOMMENDATION:
That Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488 be continued to January 21 , 1997 in order
that the necessary environmental review may be processed through California
Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
VII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B. Comments from city departments and other agencies
C. Plans and exhibits
Prepared by -C��
Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved by
Phil Drell
/tm
9
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST COMMENTS AND POSSIBLE
MITIGATION MEASURES (CATEGORIES PERTAIN TO ATTACHED CHECKLIST)
1. EARTH
a. The project will result in grading to a maximum depth of five feet.
Such grading will not result in any alterations to geologic
substructures. The site is relatively flat so that grading will not create
unstable earth conditions.
b. As part of the normal grading activity soil will be moved, displaced,
over-covered and compacted. This activity will be done per permit and
approved grading plans to assure that the site is properly prepared for
the structural developments which will take place on the site.
C. The site is relatively flat and changes in topography and surface relief
will be required to assure proper drainage and avoid increased runoff to
adjoining properties. The after condition of the property will result in
less water runoff from the property to adjoining properties and better
direction.
d. The project as stated previously will result in less potential water
damage to the site through proper grading, resulting in the appropriate
directing of runoff from the site.
f. Not applicable.
g. The area is an area susceptible to earthquakes as is the rest of the
Coachella Valley. The level of geologic hazard is no greater than other
developed areas of the Coachella Valley.
Mitigation Measures
The City of Palm Desert grading and building permits procedures required
detailed geotechnical reports addressing grading specifications and the
settlement and expansive characteristics of onsite soils. All structures must
be designed by UBC requirements to insure that buildings are constructed
within the acceptable level of risk set forth herein for the type of building and
occupancies being developed.
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
2. AIR
a. During construction, particularly grading, a potential dust problem is a
short-term impact. Requiring that the ground be moistened during
days in which grading occurs will mitigate this problem. This is
required by City of Palm Desert Grading Ordinance.
Because the site is already an urbanized setting its development will
not result in an overall deterioration of ambient air quality. This
conclusion is supported by the discussions relating to air quality
contained in a 1985 draft environmental impact report prepared for the
City of Rancho Mirage by Michael Brandman Associates entitled Park
View Drive Land Use Study. Completed development of the site will
result in less dust leaving the site then currently occurs with the site's
vacant condition.
b. The proposal includes future restaurant development. These uses will
be required to comply with City CEQA requirements on an individual
basis. Appropriate odor mitigation measures will be imposed.
C. Development of this site will not result in any climatic changes. This
is due to its size and identified uses.
3. WATER
a. Water will be redirected to drainage facilities designed and constructed
to accept the water from the site.
b. The site will absorb less water due to ground coverage, however the
landscaped areas will absorb more water because of the plant material.
The alterations in drainage patterns will result in a benefit fo adjoining
property as it is directed in a controlled manner.
C. The hydrology study discusses at length flood water control and the
channel to be installed south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-
way.
d. There is no surface water feature on the site.
2
I T INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
e. See (d) above.
f. There is no ground water present on the site.
g. See f.
h. While any development results in the use of water and therefore
reduces the amount otherwise available for public water supplies, the
Coachella Valley Water District assures that there is sufficient water
supplies to accommodate this growth. In addition, the Coachella
Valley Water District plans to construct additional water facilities in
the Palm Desert area to accommodate current and future development.
I. The area is subject to flooding. CVWD has a plan, as discussed in the
hydrology study, to control flood waters. This plan will be
implemented as part of the development of this area.
4. PLANT LIFE
a. Presently the site contains weeds, sagebrush and other plants as
outlined in the biological assessment. The project when completed
will introduce a diversity of species to the site. The plants that will be
introduced to the site will, however, be material previously used in the
desert.
b. The site does not contain any unique, rare or endangered species of
plant life. This is supported by the biological assessment prepared by
James W. Cornett, Ecological Consultants, revised November 8, 1996.
C. It is extremely doubtful that the project will introduce any new species
into the area. In any event the landscape plan will be reviewed by the
agricultural inspector of Riverside County to assure that the plants
being used do not pose a hazard to agricultural production in the area.
d. As stated on the biological assessment, part of the east end of the site
was formerly a vineyard. This use was allowed to die out many years
ago.
3
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
5. ANIMAL LIFE
a-c. The biological assessment prepared by James Cornett discusses at
length impacts on animal life on the site. The study concludes that
with mitigation in the form of payment of the fringe-toed lizard
preserve fee that the project will not have an adverse impact on the
animal life. Such conditions will be imposed on all individual projects
and the fee will be collected prior to issuance of grading permit.
d. The project site is an infill site and not suitable long term habitat for
wildlife.
6. NOISE
a. Construction and subsequent operation of commercial, industrial and
residential use may add to the ambient noise level. The noise level will
not exceed the existing ambient level which is quite high due to the
proximity to the Southern Pacific Railroad and the 1-10 freeway.
Mitigation Measures
Strict adherence to construction hours and days will be required. Additional
measures to mitigate traffic and operation noise will be required.
b. The areas designated for future residential use are a substantial
distance from the main noise generators in the area (i.e., 1-10 and
railroad). Prior to development of these projects proponents will be
required to prepare acoustical study showing compliance with
Municipal Code and General Plan requirements for both indoor and
outdoor activities.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. New light will be produced but the project will be required to prevent
lighting spillover. In addition the requirement for a engineered lighting
plan will assure that this condition is fulfilled.
4
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
8. LAND USE
The project will not alter the proposed land use in the area. The planned land
use for the area is identified as commercial, industrial and residential; the
project would develop land uses permitted in these land use designations.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
a. The project will obviously use natural resources, but will not increase
the rate of usage of these resources.
10. RISK OF UPSET
a. The site does not contain any substances that could result in explosion
or escape of hazardous materials. This conclusion is confirmed by the
biological survey of the site conducted by James Cornett during June
1996.
b. Approval and implementation of the master plan will help to complete
the arterial street system in the area (i.e., Gerald Ford Drivel which will
be an improvement to the emergency evacuation plan.
11 . POPULATION
a. The project includes future commercial, industrial and residential
development on vacant land and will not result in changes in location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the city's population. The
residential units were previously included in the General Plan.
12. HOUSING
a. The project will not change the housing picture in the community or
region. This is based on the conclusions reached in item 11 . In
addition this is currently being projected some 8,000 unsold housing
units in the valley; in addition to the number of rental units being
developed, over 600 in the city of Palm Desert alone.
5
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
As well, this project will provide up to 900 multi-family units which
could be expected to be occupied by some employees from the
commercial and industrial sections.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. Additional traffic will be created. The circulation impact study
determined that the maximum intensity alternate could generate an
estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon build out in 2005.
While the "Trend Alternate" would generate 54,930 trip ends, current
General Plan would result in 85,420 trip ends.
Mitigation Measures
The study recommends various mitigation measures which will be
implemented as the master plan projects are constructed.
b. There will be a demand for additional parking facilities which will be
supplied by the individual projects on site.
C. Except for additional vehicular movements discussed above the project
should not generate additional demands on existing transportation
systems. In addition, these systems have adequate capacity.
d. Principal access to the project will be from the existing 1-10, Cook
Street and the future Gerald Ford Drive.
e. Not applicable.
f. Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth by item 13(a) in
addition to the required sidewalks, the impact should be positive.
There are problems currently existing in the north section of the city
and the public improvements required of the applicant will alleviate
some of them.
6
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
14. PUBLIC SERVICE
a-f. None. The property is presently vacant and serves no productive use.
A commitment to urban uses was made as the area surrounding the
study area has been developed, and the General Plan and zoning maps
designated the area for urban development. Infrastructure
improvements (i.e., storm channel, streets, utilities) have been made
and are adequate to serve the proposed development. The proposed
land uses would increase the economic productivity of the land in
terms of efficiency and greater economic return generated from these
uses, versus the current state of the land.
15. ENERGY
a-b. No more than normal usage. In addition, since the project will be
required to comply with the most current state energy codes energy
usage will be less than on previous projects of a similar nature.
16. UTILITIES
All utilities have indicated an ability to serve the proposed development.
17. HUMAN HEALTH
The project will not create hazard to human health in the long or short.term
nor will it impact the level of community health.
18. AESTHETICS
The proposal will be developed consistent with the zoning and General Plan
requirements for building locations and setbacks. As a result any scenic
vista will not be impacted.
19. RECREATION
The property is currently vacant. No recreational facilities were planned for
this property.
7
INITIAL STUDY
CASE NOS. C/Z 96-6, PP 96-10 AND TPM 28488
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-d. As part of the biological assessment the biologist walked the site
extensively and conducted research of past uses of the property. No
cultural resources were noted.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The biological assessment discusses this matter at length and
concludes that there will be no adverse impact.
b-d. Because of the mitigation measures identified herein and required of
the project, the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on
the environment.
8
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346.0611
INITIAL, STUDY ENVILLQj4ENrAL, CELOQQ.IST
I. Background
1. Date
2. Case No. _ -I- T�/LirG�i�rd _
3. Applicant l✓ C LULL F- D/�Vn)
Fi�ecGO,vaN' Cc
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached
sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1.. Barth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or —
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface —
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands, or changes In siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inlet or lake? x
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, —
mudslides, ground fallnre, or similar hazards?
Yes Maybe No
2. Air. Will the proposal result in
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality? — \/
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or L�
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in: •L�
a. Ganges in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either marine
or fresh waters? 1 —
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or low of flood
waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water in L�
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters? —
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? 1/
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies? _ x
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
ber of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X
Yes Maybe No
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants? —
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an
area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish-
ment of existing species? �(
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or num-
bers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migra-
tion or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife /
habitat? n
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? x
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural —
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or —
upset conditions?
Yes . Maybe No
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area? _ x
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional /
vehicular movement? x
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered gov-
ernmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? x
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parke or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? y
L _
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Yes Maybe No
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources or energy, or require the development —
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the —
following utilities:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential V
health hazard (excluding mental health)? /\
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view? �
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact —
area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
.reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, re-
duce the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
Yes Maybe No
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-teen,
environmental goals? (A short-term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact .on
each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of those impacts on
the environment is significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental effects ,4
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
III, Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect.
on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in
this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature '
For
25.23.010
Chapter 25.33 C. Application.Any application for an overlay zone
shall be accompanied by a master plan for the entire
PLANNED COMMIINTIY DEVELA UM area covered by the application.
(PCD) OVERLAY ZONE D. Ownership.All land in a proposed overlay zone
shall be held in one ownership or under unified control
Sections or ban the written consent or agreement of all owners
23A10 Purpose of property proposed for inclusion in the overlay zone.
25
25M.010 Criteria. E Utilities. The existing utilities systems (water,
ge,
25M.030 Application sewer, draina electrical, gas and communications
25MAO Application fee. facilities) are adequate, or new systems shall be con-
2523A50 Procedxuvw suueted to adequately serve the development (Ord.
25.23AN Public hearing and appeal 277,1981)
procedwv-
` 25M.070 Termination of overlay zone. 25M.030 Application.
25.2i.080 Approval of a development phut An application for an overlay zone shall be submit-
25.29.090 Common open space tedby the owner,his authorized agent,or the purchaser
25.23.100 Design criteria. of the land with the consent of the owner.The applica-
25.29.110 Procedure for development plan tion shall be accompanied by the following which
- application. should be prepared by a qualified professional team.
25.23.120 Public hearing and appeal A. Topographical maps of existing terrain drawn to
�. 25.2i.130 Application fee. a minimum five-foot contour,
- 25.Zi140 Development standards for planned B. A generalized grading plan which indicates pro-
community development zone. posed earth movement and the results of such move-
ment;
25.29.010 Purpose. C. A utility rasp or statement reflecting a utility
The purposes of this chapter shall be as follows: system which includes, but is not limited to, sewer,
A. Provide the developer with greater fleabtlity in water, and gas capable of serving the entire develop-
ime design,density,and housing unit options in order meat;
to stimulate variety and innovation within the frame- D. A master plan which shall show:
work of a quality residential environment; 1. Location and boundaries of the proposed
B. Direct new community growth and development development,
in the process of implementing the General Plan; 2 The genet type, character, and heights of all
C. Achieve more interest,individuality and charac- buildings or structures;e.g,single-family houses,town
ter within and among neighborhoods; houses,duster houses or bighrise structures,
D. Provide criteria for the inclusion of compatible 3 imposed densities of all areas scheduled for res-
uses designed to service the residential developments idential development,
within the community, 4. Proposed uses of all land including residential,
E. Encourage the most effective use of a site with a
variety of residential emironments providing necessary ,drool sites,public and private ePMrecreationenal commes,
public facilities, ample open space and a functional allcommoaopeaspace,andiathePCDzon0.cotnmer-
well-balanced community.(Ord 277,1981) dal and professional centers,and industrial facilities
5. Natural features that a to be retai
re ned; Le.,
25.73.020 Criteria. stands of trees, rock outcroppings, canyons, natural
L The followinggeneral criteria are established foruse slopes,etc,
in the dassification•for reclassification of land to the 6. The location and width of public and private
planned community development streets which shall be consistent with the master plan
A. General Plan. Compliance with the General of streets;
Plan shall be established E. Proposed site development standards for all resi-
B. Site Area A minimum of one hundred acres denial,commercial and industrial uses;
shall be required for a planned community develop. F. The location and width of public and private
meat streets;
377
t
•1
25M.030
R
G. Site data, including acreage in total develop- 25.23.080 Approval of a development plan.
ment, total acreage in each density classification, A. After the establishment of an overlay zone and
school sites,church sites,commercial sites and indus- prior to the termination date as specified in Section
trialsites,total acreage devoted tocommonopenspace 25M.070an application for approval ofadevelopment
and minimum lot sitter Ord 277 1981 plan which is in substantial conformance with the ap.
proved master plan shall be filed with the planning
2523.040 Applicationfeee commiWon. A development plan may cover all or a
An application for an oehty zone shall be aceom- portion of the district No building permit shall be
panied by a filing fee as specified by the city.(Ord.277, issued for any new building structure unless a devel-
opment plan covering the area has been approved.
1981)
B. A development plan shall contain the material
251i.050 Procedure specified in this section and shall be prepared by a
qualified professional team.
A. Upon receipt of an application for an overlay 1. The development plan shall set forth the follow-
zone,theplanningcommissionshallholdapublichear- ing: -
ing on such application.If it finds the criteria set forth a The exact boundaries and legal description of the
in this chapter have been met, it may establish the property to be developed,
overlay zone subject to such conditions as it deems b. All proposed improvements that are to be con-
necessary.The planning commission may deny the ap- strutted on the land and their precise locations includ-
plication if it finds any of the criteria have not been met, mg,but not limited to,all residential facilities,walls and
or that the approval of the application would be detri-
fences,trash areas streets,and walls areas,
mental to the public peace,he safety or welfare. t. Common open space showing size, grades, and
alth,
function upon completion,
B. Planned community development applications d The location and dimension of all off-street park-
shall be forwarded along with the community master ing facilities,public and private,
plan to the city council The city council shall hold a e. The location and size of any public or quasipublit
public heating and either approve, conditionally ap- facilities such as schools,churches and parts,
prove,or deny the community master plan.The deci- L A tabulation of the percentage of total building
sion of the city council shall be final.(Ord 277,1981) coverage of the development,
g. A tabulation of densities within each project area
25.23.060 Public hearing and appeal procedure. or sector,
Public hearing and appeal procedure shall be gov- 2. Building elevations of typical architectural styles
erred by Section 25.86 of this code.(Ord 277,1981) to be constructed;
3. A schematic landscaping plan indicating the type
and size of plant material to be used and method of
2SM.070 Termination of overlay zone. providing permanent maintenance to all planted areas
A. The overlay zone and any master plan or other and open spaces;
material approved as a part thereof,shall become null 4. Floor plans of typical dwelling units,the unit size
and void if the physical development of the district is in square feet,and the amount of private open space in
not commenced within two years from date of adoption square feet;
of the resolution establishing the zone: 5. If applicable, a subdivision map showing land
B. An extension of time, not to exceed one year, divisions;the tentative and final subdivision map shall
may be granted by the planning commission or city comply with the city subdivision ordinance and the
council when extenuating circumstances can be clearly state Subdivision Map Act;
shown by the applicant The request for an extension 6 A proposed construction schedule from ground
of time shall be submitted to the planning caT+*icaon breabng to occupancy;all common open space,as well
as public and recreational facilities,shall be specifically
in writing prior to the expiration date and shall clearly included in the construction schedule and be con-
state the reasons why the physical development of the wed and fully improved by the developer at an
districthas not been commenced andsuchoverlayzone equivalent or greater rate than the construction of
has not been utilized(Ord 277,1981) residential structures(Ord 277,1981)
378
25.23.090
25.21M Common open spam tion would be detrimental to the public po=health.safety.
All common open space shall be preserved for that pur- or welfare:.The decision of the planning commission shall
pose as shown in the development plat. The developer be final unless appealed to the city council.(Ord.277. 1981)
shad,choose one or a combination of the following three 25M.120 public hearing and
appeal.
methods of administering common open space shall be governed
1. Dedication of common open space to the nets,which public hearing and appeal procedure
is subject to formal accepror= by Chapter 25.86. (Ord.277. 1981)
2. Establishment of an association or nonprofit cmpwA-
non of all property owners or norporatiots within the project 25.23MV Application fee.
area to ittsme perpetual maintenance of all common open An application for a development plan shall be accom-
space. panned by a filing fee as specified by the city. (Ord 277,
3. Retention of ownership.control and maintenance 1981)
of all common open space by the developer,all privately
owned common open space shall continue as mch and shalt 25.23.140 Development standards for planned
only be used in accordance with the development plan: emansunity development zone.
appropriate land use restrictions shall be contained in all All development within the planed community develop-
deeds to insure that the common open space is permamentlY mein zone shall meet the following minimum requirements:
preserved according to the development plan: said deed A. Density.All densities shall conform to the approved
restrictions shall run with the Lad and be for the benefit community maser plan.
ofpresent as well as future property owners, and shall B. BtW&g CovaagL M e rnaximman NUding coverage
contain a prohibition against partition of common open shall not exceed fifty percent of the area covered by the
space. (Ord.277. 1991) development plat exclusive of all dedicated public
rightsof--way.ln determining the coverage (ground area
25MA00 Design criteria. of each dwelling) covered parking and garages shall be
The following design criteria we established: included
A. The overall plan shall achieve an integrated land C. Off-meet Paddng.Off-sleet parking shall conform
and building relationship. to the current city.standards as specified in Chapter 25.59.
B. Open spaces.pedestrian and vehicular circulation D. Private Open space A minimum of two hundred
[anilines,parking facilities,and other pertinent amenities square feet of private open spice per dwelling unit shall
shall be an integral part of the landscape and particular be provided on each individual lot.This requirement does
ammdonn shall be given to time retention of natural landscape not apply to structures three or more stories in height.
features of the site. E. Utilities.All utilities shall be underground in accor-
C. The layout of structures and other facilities shall dame with the city municipal code and approved by the
affect a conservation in strew and utility improvemen& directors of public works and environmental services.
D. Recreational arcs,active and passive,shall be goner_ F. Signs. Sign provisions contained in the most
ally dispersed throughout the development and shall be restrictive zone classification for each use allowed shall
easily accessible from all dwelling units. apply.
E. Architectural unit and harmony within the devel- G. Other Standards. All other standards as specified
opment and with the surrounding properties shall be at- by the approved community masts plan and text and devel-
tained (Ord. 277. 1981) opment plan and text shall be strictly adhered to. (Ord
277. 1981)
25.23.110 Procedure for development plan
application.
The owner,his authorized agent,or the purchaser with
the consent of the owner may submit an application for
development plan approval to the planning commission.
The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on
such application. it may approve the development plan
if it finds the criteria set forth in this chapter have been
satisfied subject to such conditions as it deems necessary.
The planning commission may deny the application if it
finds the criteria are not being satisfied or that such appfict-
379 v'L"De 7.921
Development Program-Maximum Intensity Alternate
Consistent with the General Plan, the maximum intensity alternate as shown in Figure 2 is
set as the upper limit of development for the site.
Figure 2
Planning Gross Est. Net Proposed Proposed FAR/ _ Max. Est.
Area Area Area Zoning Uses Dens. FI. Ar. Parking
1 Equivalent
PA 1 21.3 ac. 18.1 ac. PC-4 Freeway .50 395K 2175
Oriented
Business
PA 2 50.7 ac. 43.1 ac. PC-3 Regional .50 940K 5165
Commercial
PA 3 11.2 ac. 9.5 ac PC-4 Freeway .50 210K 1155
Oriented
Business
PA 4 30.2 ac. 25.7 ac. PI Industrial/ .50 560K 3075
Business
PA 5 25.9 ac. 22.0 ac. PC-2 Commercial .50/ 240K/ 960
i /Residential 18/ac 200 du 400
1 PA 6 70.6 ac. 60.0 ac OP Office .50 1300K 6550
PA 7 44.3 ac. 37.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 675 du 1350
Residential du/ac
' PA 8 14.9 ac. 12.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 225 du 450
i Residential du/ac
l TOTALS 269.1 ac 228.8 ac - - - 3645K 21280
1300du
8
' Development Program -Trend Alternate
The Trend Alternate as shown in Figure 3 is set forth as the probable development
intensity for the Project.
Figure 3
1 Planning Gross Est Net Proposed Proposed FAR/ Est. Est.
Area Area Area Zoning Uses Dens. FI. Ar. Parking
Equivalent
PA 1 21.3 ac. 18.1 ac. PC-4 Freeway .25 200K 800
1 Oriented
Business
PA 2 50.7 ac. 43.1 ac. PC-3 Regional .20 375K 1775
Commercial
PA 3 11.2 ac. 9.5 ac PC-4 Freeway .25 105K 400
Oriented
Business
' PA 4 30.2 ac. 25.7 ac. PI Industrial .25 280K 1100
Business
' PA 6 25.9 ac. 22.0 ac. PC-2 Commercial 25/ 120K/ 800
/Residential 18/ac 200 du
1 PA 6 70.6 ac. 60.0 ac OP Office .20 525K 2600
PA 7 44.3 ac. 37.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 675 du 1350
1 Residential du/ac
PA 8 14.9 ac. 12.7 ac. PR-18 Multi-family 18 225 450
Residential du/ac
TOTALS 269.1 ac 228.8 ac - - - 1605K 9275
1100du
9
m
o�
T
N
7
�1
7
Q
1
1
1 � m
r
1 �
W
W
s
Endo Engineering Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments
August 16, 1996
Mr. Marvin Roos
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301
Palm Springs, California 92262
SUBJECT. Wonder Palms Commercial Center Traffic Impact Study
Dear Mr. Roos;
Pursuant to your request, Endo Engineering has analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts
associated with the 270-acre Wonder Palms Commercial Center, in the City of Palm
Desert. It is our understanding that the project site is located south of the Interstate
10/Southem Pacific Railroad corridor, east of Portola Avenue, and on both sides of Cook
Street and Gerald Ford Drive.
Two project alternatives were evaluated in detail, based upon the Coachella Valley Area
Transportation System (CVATS) model. Each conceptual land plan alternative included:
freeway-oriented businesses,regional commercial uses,industrial/business uses, commer-
cial/residential uses,office uses, and multi-family residential uses. The development inten-
sity was greater for Alternative 1 than it was for Alternative 2 (except with regard to the
residential uses proposed on-site). '
The pages which follow summarize in graphic and narrative form:
• an analysis of existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity (including
morning and evening peak hour counts and capacity evaluations of six
existing intersections);
• an assessment of project buildout conditions (year 2005) with and without
two project development alternatives (including morning and evening peak
hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersections);
• future cumulative conditions (year 2010) with and without two project
development alternatives based upon the CVATS model(including morning
and evening peak hour intersection capacity evaluations of eleven intersec-
tions); and
• mitigation measures designed to reduce any significant impacts identified
with development Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 to acceptable levels.
City staff input and assistance in the development of this report has been greatly appreci-
ated. A well coordinated effort was essential to the execution of the work program,and the
City's cooperation in providing necessary information and data in a timely fashion
contributed in no small measure to the completion of this study.
95 Argonaut - Suite 115,Aliso Viejo, California 92656-1487
(714) 768-4333 FAX(714) 768-0718
We trust that the information provided herein will assist the City in their review of the
impacts and mitigation measures associated with the proposed project. Should questions or
comments arise regarding the findings and recommendations within this report, please do
not hesitate to contact our offices at(714) 768-4333. s
Cordially,
ENDO ENGINEERING �o QRQf ESSION
of
�tc>ht �cc -tndLo �4Q ��\U LEE ENS yc
J O y
Vicki Lee Endo
Registered Professional TR 1161
Traffic Engineer TR 1161
* /aJ3I 198
Jl TRA M
qTf OF CALIE���
2
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
s
1.1 Existing Circulation Conditions
1. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10, State Route 111, and State
Route 74.
2. Direct site access is available from Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive, and Portola
Avenue.
3. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Drive currently exceeds the City
of Palm Desert performance standard of LOS C by operating at LOS D during
morning peak hours and LOS C during evening peak hours. Westbound motorists
currently experience LOS E operation and significant delay during peak travel
periods. This intersection appears to currently meet daily planning level signal
warrants. Signalization of the intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola
Avenue is included in the Palm Desert Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal
Year 1997/1998.
4. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive at Eldorado Drive is currently operating at
LOS C during evening peak hours and LOS A during morning peak hours.
5. The intersection of Frank Sinatra Drive and Eldorado Drive does not appear to
currently meet signal warrants and is not expected to meet signal warrants except:
(1) under future year 2005+Altemative 1 conditions; or (2) under future year
2010+Altemative 2 conditions.
6. All four of the key signalized intersections currently operate at Level of Service B
during morning and evening peak hours.
1.2 Circulation Impacts
1. Alternative 1 could generate an estimated 90,360 average weekday trip-ends upon
buildout in the year 2005, if all of the floor area is constructed and fully occupied.
Of that total, 8,905 trip-ends (3,889 inbound and 5,016 outbound) would occur
during the evening peak hour and 3,802 trip-ends would be generated during the
morning peak hour(2,672 inbound and 1,130 outbound).
2. Alternative 2 (which includes similar but less intense land uses than Alternative 1)
would generate 54,930 average weekday trip-ends(approximately 60 percent of the
traffic associated with Alternative 1).
3. Alternative 3 (the existing General Plan designations on-site) could generate an
estimated 85,420 average weekday trip-ends (94% of that of Alternative 1).
4. Five key intersections appear to meet daily planning level signal warrants, based
upon year 2005 ambient (no-project) traffic volumes including: (1) Gerald Ford
Drive @ Portola Avenue, (2) Gerald Ford Drive @ Cook Street, (3) Gerald Ford
Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive, (4) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Eastbound Ramps,
and (5) Cook Street @ Interstate 10 Westbound Ramps. Gerald Ford Drive at
Cook Street will be signalized approximately 6 months after the Cook Street
1-1
interchange is opened in 1997. Signals will be installed and operational at the inter-
sections of the I-10 ramps with Cook Street when the Cook Street interchange is
opened.
s
5. Future year 2005 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the
following.
• The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) during peak hours under year 2005 ambient conditions (assuming
existing lane geometrics except where improvements are anticipated to occur
prior to the year 2005).
• With Alternative 1 traffic added to year 2005 ambient volumes, one
intersection is projected to have a drop in level of service in the AM peak
hour, and four intersections will have a drop in level of service during the
PM peak hour. Year 2005+Alternative 1 volumes will require a third
northbound through lane at the intersection of Cook Street and the Interstate
10 eastbound ramps as well as a second southbound right-turn lane and a
third eastbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Cook Street and Gerald
Ford Drive.
• With Alternative 2, one intersection is projected to have a drop in level of
service in the AM peak hour, and two intersections will have a drop in level
of service during the PM peak hour. No additional intersection approach
lanes (beyond existing lane geometrics except where improvements are
anticipated to occur prior to the year 2005) will be required to accommodate
year 2005+Altematve 2 volumes at LOS C.
6. Future year 2010 conditions at the key signalized intersections will include the
following.
• The key intersections will provide acceptable levels of service (LOS C or
better) during peak hours under year 2010 ambient conditions (assuming
lane geometrics consistent with the master planned circulation system).
• With Alternative i traffic added to year 2010 ambient volumes, six-lane
cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country Club Drive.
Additional approach lanes will also be necessary at the Cook Street/Inter-
statel0 interchange under construction and at the intersection of Gerald Ford
Drive and Cook Street(beyond typical arterial intersection lane geometrics).
• With Alternative 2, all required intersection approach lanes at key intersec-
tions will be consistent with the master planned cross sections. Six-lane
arterial cross sections will be needed on Monterey Avenue and Country
Club Drive to accommodate year 2010 volumes at acceptable levels of
service.
1.3 Recommended Mitigation
1. Figure 5-1 illustrates the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2005
conditions with Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.
2. Figure 5-2 shows the required intersection lane geometrics for year 2020 conditions
with each project alternative.
1-2
3. Figure 5-3 summarizes the conditions under which traffic volumes appear to meet
daily planning level signal wan-ants at the unsignalized key intersections.
4. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 1 indicate that the key
intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach
lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections, except
at three intersections.
5. The year 2010 minimum lane geometrics for Alternative 2 indicate that the key
intersections in the study area provide acceptable levels of service with approach
lane geometrics that are consistent with Circulation Element cross sections.
6. The project(Alternative 1 or Alternative 2)will contribute through participation in
the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program to future improve-
ments required along regional facilities (e.g. widening of: (1) Monterey Avenue
through the intersections of Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra; and (2) Country
Club Drive at the intersection of Cook Street to their master planned six-lane cross
section).
7. Master planned streets bordering the project site shall be constructed to their
ultimate half-sections in conjunction with adjacent development on-site.
8. Direct access to the site shall be designed to comply with City design standards.and
insure that adequate sight distance is provided for motorists.
9. Sight distances at access points and internal intersections shall be considered during
the review of site plans, landscape plans, and project graphics. Landscape materi-
als shall be selected to minimize interference with traffic sight distances.
10. The proposed cross-sections and internal roadway layout shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Engineer during the development review process to
insure compliance with City standards.
11. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on-site as specified by the City of Palm
Desert.
12. Non-motorized transportation facilities and corridors (golf cart paths, bike lanes,
bike paths, etc.) shall be considered both off site and on site and shall be consistent
with City of Palm Desert and regional plans for the project vicinity.
13. The project shall accommodate public transit needs, as determined by.the City of
Palm Desert in conjunction with Sunline Transit Authority.
14. Section 5.1 includes circulation design guidelines for consideration in developing
detailed plans for development of the project site.
15. Section 5.2 includes a discussion of various measures to alter traffic demand related
to the project for consideration in developing detailed plans for the project site.
16. Project-specific mitigation shall be considered by the City of Palm Desert upon
application for detailed precise plans.
1-3
,:: •,'\
°
SgOg�g�o0;a;0
..O°o°ogO°°°p°°0°0°0
000000°0°0°0o00000
0°0°0°00°°0°00°00°0°oo
0_000°0°a0000o
� .♦ ♦ ♦
f♦.ff ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 .. 1 . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . . ♦
. . 1 ♦ . ♦ 1 . 1 f ♦ ♦ 1 . . .
♦ 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦.f♦ . 1 11
♦ ♦ 1 . 1 ♦�. ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ { . ♦ ♦ ♦ . 1
. . . f�♦ 1 . 1'. ♦ ♦ . . . . . . . . .
f 1 1 . ♦ ♦ 1 . f 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ .
♦ ♦ 11 . ♦H1 ♦C♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ f ♦ . .
1 ♦ 1 1 . 1 1 1 f . 1 ♦ 1 <�+�
♦ ♦ . . . . 1 1 . . . 1 1 . 1 1 . . ♦ 1 f . 1 \
`. . . . . . . . . . . ♦ . . 1 . . . . . . .
i. f . a ♦ . . . .T
1 1 . 1 1
. . 1 1 . 1 i i-. . . . i
♦ a 1
♦
♦
1`O
r.♦
41
P.R.-5
� �,`�rCQUNTFtY` r
SINATRA
FRAM[ SIxAr[A 0[Irs r.�..
RIVERSIDE COUNTY c�uronMu
% T Of FOR
e. 1,t FIRE DEPARTMENT Ott"*pE PROTE1,04k
IN COOPERATION WITH THE C r
_ COUNTS- ,xr_ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
RIVERSIDE:...,.:. AND FIRE PROTECTION D
MIKE HARRIS Ai F
- FIRE CHIEF
RECEIVED
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE 210 WEST SAN JACINTCO AVENUE
COVE FIRE MARSHAL PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370
70-801 HWY 111 - NOV 2 0 1996 TELEPHONE:(714)657-3183
RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270
tlbOWN 13WR20, 1996 COMMUNIYYMWLOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CRYOF PALM DESERT
To: Steve Smith
Ref: CZ 96-6, PP 96.10
The fallowing conditions apply to the project:
1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check,
Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, CIBC, and/or
recognized Fire Protection Standards.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per California Fire Code Sec. 10.401.
2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must
be available before any combustible materials are placed on the job site.
3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a potential gallon per
minute flow of:
a) 1500 gpm for single family structure.
b) 2500 gpm for mufti-family structure.
c) 3000 gpm for commercial structure.
d) 4000 gpm for industrial structure.
4. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4"x 2-1/2"x 2-
1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than:
a) 200'from single family structure.
a) 165' from multi-family structure.
a) 150'from commercial and industrial
Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s) as measured along approved
vehicular travel ways. Hydrants installed below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet
barrel"type.
5. A combination of on-site and off-site Super fire hydrants (6"x 4"x 2-1/2"x 2-1/2") will be
required, located not less than 25' or more than:
a) 200' from single family structure.
a) 165'from mufti-family structure.
a) 150'from commercial structure.
Distances shall cover all portions of the building(s)as measured along approved
pnnred on recKled P+Pa' W
vehicular travel ways The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
6. Provide written certification from the appropriate water company having jurisdiction that
hydrant(s) will be installed and will produce the required fire flow, or arrange for a field
inspection by the Fire Department prior to scheduling for a final inspection.
7. Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original and
two copies of the water system plan to the County Fire Department for review. No
building permit shall be issued until the water system plan has been approved by the
County Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One copy will be sent to
the responsible inspecting authority.
Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall
meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
may be signed by the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department.
8. Please be advised that the proposed project may not be feasible since the feasible since
the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flows. Please check with the
water company prior to obtaining an approval from the Planning or Building Department.
9. Comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, adopted January 1, 1990, for
all occupancies.
10. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, not less than 25' from
the building and within 50' of an approved Super hydrant. This applies to all buildings
with 3000 square feet or more building area as measured by the building footprint,
including overhangs which are sprinklered as per NFPA 13. The building area of
additional floors is added in for a cumulative total square footage. Exempted are one
and two family dwellings.
11. Install a fire alarm (water flow) as required by the Uniform Building Code Sec. 3803 for
the fire sprinkler system(s). Install supervisory(tamper) alarms on all supply and control
valves for sprinkler systems.
12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes and shall be
clearly marked by painting and/or signs as approved by the Fire Marshal. Painted fire
lanes and/or signs shall be stenciled or posted every 30' with the following:
a) No Parking Fire Lane- PDMC 15.16.090
2
13. Install a fire alarm as required by the California Building Code and/or California Fire
Code. Minimum requirement is UL central station monitoring of sprinkler systems per
NFPA 71 and 72. Alarm plans are required for all UL central station monitored systems
and systems where any interior devices are required or used. (CFC Sec. 14.f03(a))
14. Install portable fire extinguishes per NFPA 10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Fire
extinguishes must not be over 75' walking distance and/or 3000 sq. ft. of floor area. In
addition to the above, a 40BC fire extinguisher is required for commercial kitchens.
15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system if operating a commercial kitchen
including, but not limited to, deep fat fryers, grills, charbroilers or other appliances which
produce grease laden vapors or smoke. (NFPA 96, 17, 17A)
16. Install a dust collecting system as per the California Building Code, Sec. 910 and
California Fire Code, Art. 76, if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles.
A carpenter or woodworking shop is considered one of several industrial processes
requiring dust collection.
17. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of
unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is allowed,
the roadway shall be 36 wide with parking on both sides, 32' wide with parking on one
side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn
around (55'in industrial developments). Fountains or garden islands placed in the
middle of these tum-arounds shall not exceed a 5' radius or 10' diameter. City standards
may be more restrictive.
18. The minimum width of interior driveways for multi-family or apartment complexes shall
be:
a) 24 feet wide when serving less than 100 units, no parallel parking, carports or
garages allowed on one side only.
b) 28 feet wide when serving between 100 and 300 units; carports or garages
allowed on both sides, no parallel parking.
c) 32 feet wide when serving over 300 units or when parallel parking is allowed
on one side.
d) 36 feet wide when parallel parking is allowed on both sides.
19. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard
houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency
vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices
that are power operated shall have a Knox Box over-ride system capable of opening the
gate when activated by a special key located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be
equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All
controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the
Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 16' wth a minimum vertical clearance
of 13'6".
3
20. A dead end single access over 500' in length will require a secondary access, sprinklers
or other mitigative measure approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstances
shall a single dead end access over 1300 feet be accepted.
21. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from
a main roadway or an emergency gated access into an adjoining development.
22. Contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
23. All new residences/dwelling are required to have illuminated residential addresses
meeting both City and Fire Department approval. Shake shingle roofs are no longer
permitted in the City of Palm Desert.
24. Commercial buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City.
25. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact
the Fire Marshal's office for submittal requirements.
26. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months.
27. Other:
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Coves Fire
Marshal's Office at (619) 346-1870, located at 70-801 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270.
(Rancho Mirage Fire Station#1)
Sincerely,
Mike Hams
Ci,%, % ,
by Mike McConnell
Coves Fire Marshal
4
\ SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
THE CITY OF 6A
\�,• \ �6�62 M DESERT
COINTT Of RIVERSIOE, STATE OOFF CALIFORNIA
653-260-005 \ \ Qa CHANGE OF
YICAIR ZONE MAP
SEIM PDATI06 6 THE 6011W NAU OF
3336 AND THE WM�OF SECTIN SECTION
•Er TOWNSHIP. SOUTH. RANGE 6 EAST. S.B.N.
PR-5 T \
A
r• tom'
653-200-012
PR VACANT
Y1GNf �
.,r1OIS
lip-a \�;:\.� F\'.. ��—' a�` ;•- ,_.�1 �!' . 653-110-007
VA IT-
633-370-01] \�� m1""".�\ Y �m •yb \ AGRi TUE
VACANT
x PC
t 6S�� 0( V�{ \ 3-420-002 1
1
•y I 653-400-023 \ \ \ / VACANT-
VACANT I PR-5-5 •' �.• t \�
AGRIMTFIE
t
m Jgp03 653-400-024 �t\\ 1\\ \ fiS -420-009
VACANT- \\
VACANT � 1\\'\\\ t t\ AGRIMTUAE
F01�y1g6.9 Pu10EL 3 1. \� �o' f\ PRI,rJ FVfURE \
_ \T 1
Auerulr.FICAAA aineAnFJse QA•Q'A I S ATE UN[YERSiTV
653-400-QIB• I by I . 4\� '•�s[rE PR-5
VACANT PARCEL I 6a1 \� \ \ 653-420-010
- PARCEL 1 i 2 4b.'sp b Py— I �\ \ I ., ARV PARK iRALD RT \
L 9 GOLF \
i�
el 4 Py 6T10 TIM LS A 620-19 bl i 626-31 � 9 -ZO AN�626-10 — , r2—IODOR—lDO DRIVE
EXISTING YH0N �
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Department of Community Development/Planning
Attention: Jeff Winklepleck
FROM: Richard J. Folkers, Asst . City Manager/Public Works
Director
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28488, PRECISE PLAN 96-10 &
C/Z 96-06; WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER
DATE: December 13 , 1996
The following should be considered conditions of approval for the
above-referenced project :
(1) Drainage fees in accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 26 .49 and Ordinance No. 653 shall be paid prior to
recordation of the parcel map or issuance of grading permits .
As provided for in Section 26 .49 . 030 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code , the costs associated with the construction of
master plan drainage facilities may be deducted from the
project drainage fees .
(2) Any drainage facilities construction required for this project
shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a
registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
The subject study shall include analysis of the upstream
drainage conditions as they impact this project . Project
design shall provide for the on-site retention of the 100 year
storm event .
(3) Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert
Resolution Nos . 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to
issuance of any permits associated with this project or the
recordation of the parcel map.
(4) The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform
Mitigation Fees (TUMF) . Payment of said fees shall be at the
time of building permit issuance.
(5) A complete preliminary soils investigation , conducted by a
registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a
grading permit .
• (6) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code
Section 24 . 08, Transportation Demand Management.
(7) Complete parcel map shall be submitted as required by
ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and
approval prior to the issuance of any permits.
(8) Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the
approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment
permits by the Department of Public Works.
(9) . As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .28,
and in accordance with Sections 26 .40 and 26 .44 , complete
improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works for checking and approval before
construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite
improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works
Department and a surety posted to guarantee the installation
of required offsite improvements prior to permit issuance.
(10) All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the
Department of Public Works and a standard inspection fee shall
be paid prior to issuance of any permits associated with this
project .
(11) In accordance with the Circulation Network of the Palm Desert
General Plan, installation of a median island in Gerald Ford
Drive and Cook Street shall be provided. Landscape treatment
shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance
with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards.
Landscaping maintenance for the required median island shall
be provided through a property owners association. Applicant
shall be responsible for executing a declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration
shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded
with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a)
the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property
owners association; (b) the property owners association shall
be formed prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map; and (c)
the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of
the property owners association.
(12) Landscape installation on the property frontages' shall be
water efficient in nature and maintenance shall be provided
in the same manner specified above.
(13) Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Code
Section 12 . 12, Fugitive Dust Control
(14) The location and permitted movements of all project entry
points shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Director of Public Works .
(15) In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26 .44 ,
complete grading plans/site improvement plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public
Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any
permits. In addition to all standard engineering design
parameters, the plan shall address appropriate circulation-
related issues .
(16) Waiver of access rights to Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive
except at approved locations shall be granted on the parcel
map.
(17) As required under Sections 26 .32 and 26 .40 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, all existing overhead utilities shall be
placed underground per the respective utility district
recommendation. If determined to be unfeasible, applicant
shall agree to participate in any future undergrounding
district .
(18) Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26 .40 and
26 . 44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in
accordance with applicable city standards and the city' s
Circulation Network. Specific project related offsite/onsite
improvements shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
* Construction of curb, gutter and paving as well as sidewalk
in an appropriate size and configuration along Cook Street
and Gerald Ford Drive.
* Construction of acceleration/deceleration lanes for the
project entries .
* Construction of transit facilities as may be required by
Sunline Transit Agency.
Rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction of
required public improvements shall be provided on the parcel
map.
(19) Applicant shall be responsible for the implantation of those
traffic impact mitigation measures identified in the Wonder
Palms Commercial Center Circulation Impact Study prepared by
Endo Engineering and approved by the City of Palm Desert
Public Works Depart .
(20) Traffic safety striping shall be provided to the
specifications of the Director of Public Works . A traffic
control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any
pavement markings .
(21) Proposed building pad elevations are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code.
(22) Prior to start of construction, the applicant shall submit
satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of
intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination (NPDES) General Permit (Permit # CAS000002) for
storm water discharges associated with construction activity.
(23) The proposed storm water retention areas shall be designed to
retain stormwaters associated with the increase in developed
vs . undeveloped condition for a 100 year storm.
RICHARD J. 1, S, P.E. (wava\P�844S..a)
s
HYDROLOGYSTUDY
KATRINA HEINRICH PROPERTY
COOK STREET SOUTH SIDE OF I-10
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
September 5, 1996
Prepared for -
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
Prepared by
Harold A. Vance, P.E.
Consulting Civil Engineer
s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
B. Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
II. OFFSITE HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Tributary Drainage Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
C. Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
D. Hydrograph Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
E. 100-Year Discharge at Project Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. ONSITE HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Onsite Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
B. Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Computation of 100-Year Runoff from Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV. INTERIM FLOOD PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
B. Alternative Interim Channel Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
V. RETENTION CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Design Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Integration with Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
VI. FLOOD INSURANCE STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
_L_
s
VII. ATTACHMENT: Letter from Coachella Valley Water District
VIII. CALCULATIONS
A. Offsite Hydrology
1. Net Rain, West Boundary, Existing Conditions
a. 3-hour storm
b. 6-hour storm
C. 24-hour storm
2. HEC-1 Analysis
a. 3-hour storm
b. 6-hour storm
C. 24-hour storm
B. Onsite Hydrology
1. Net Rain for Pervious Areas
2. Computation of Onsite Runoff Volume
IX. FIGURE 1: HYDROLOGY MAP
-ii-
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of Study
s
This study was requested to determine the flood protection and retention
requirements for development of the 270-acre Katrina Heinrich property located
on both sides of Cook Street just south of the 1-10/Southern Pacific Railway
Corridor in the City of Palm Desert.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is the regional flood control
authority in this part of Riverside County, under authority of the California State
Stormwater Act of 1909 and Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 348 and 460
(Please see letter from CVWD dated July 17, 1996 in Section VII). The project
site is located within a watershed designated by the CVWD as the "Mid-Valley
Area". The Mid-Valley Area is a watershed which extends northwesterly of the
project site along the I-10 Freeway approximately 9.5 miles, and drains easterly.
There is no adequate outlet for flows from this watershed, and no existing regional
flood control facilities.
The CVWD has developed a master plan Mid-Valley Channel and the cities in the
watershed, including Palm Desert, are cooperating in its implementation. The
proposed Mid-Valley Channel will be aligned along the south side of the Southern
Pacific Railway right of way through the Heinrich property. Construction of the
Mid-Valley Channel in the future will provide reliable public-agency flood
protection for the entire region along the valley floor, including the Heinrich
property. At the present time a funding source for the channel has not been -.
established and there is no construction schedule.
Within the Mid-Valley Channel watershed the CVWD and the cities require
retention of 100 percent of the 100-year storm runoff from each development
site, and dedication of a 50-foot right of way for the future Mid-Valley
Channel adjacent to the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way.
Developments in the valley floor which proceed in advance of the Mid-Valley
Channel construction must provide interim protection against the 100-year
flood.
This report presents discharges and retention volumes to satisfy the regional
requirements.
B. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. The project design will need to include interim flood protection facilities to
safely convey through the site a 100-year discharge of 1,233 cfs.
2. The project design will need to include retention facilities for 86.6 acre-feet
of on-site runoff.
I-
3. These requirements can be met by many facility configurations.
Examples of interim flood protection facility configurations are
presented herein.
s
4. It is recommended that further development of interim flood
protection and retention facilities be done jointly with planning of the
site, to maximize opportunities for joint use and properly balance
hydraulic requirements with land requirements and cost.
-2-
II. OFFSITE HYDROLOGY
A. Tributary Drainage Area
s
Figure 1 shows the tributary drainage area of 5,142 acres. Of this area, 526 acres has
been developed in recent years under the regional retention policy, and produces no
runoff during the 100-year storm. Accordingly, the net tributary drainage area
draining to the project site is 4,616 acres. Of this amount, 1,330 acres is developed
as single family residential and the rest, 3,286 acres, is undeveloped desert land. The
100-year runoff from the 4,616 acres of residential and undeveloped land in its
current condition could reach the project site now and should be accommodated.
In the future, as the watershed develops under the retention policy, the runoff from
most of the undeveloped land will be reduced or eliminated, and the 100-year Q
reaching the project site will be smaller than at present.
B. Soils
Watershed soils are predominately the Myoma Series, consisting of somewhat
excessively drained, rapidly permeable soils. Typically, they are light olive gray fine
sands. The Myoma soils are hydrologic type A, characterized by high infiltration
rates and low runoff rates. Locally there are patches of Coachella fine sands. The
Coachella series is hydrologic soil type B, characterized as having relatively high
infiltration rates and moderate runoff. The areal extent of the Coachella soils is
insufficient to influence watershed runoff rates significantly.
C. Rainfall
The desert area is subject to general winter storms, general summer storms, and local
thunderstorms. General storms may last several days and are usually analyzed using a
24-hour rainfall pattern. Thunderstorms are analyzed using 3-hour and 6-hour storm
patterns based on historical flood-producing storms.
Areal distribution of rainfall varies, based on topography, wind pattern, and distance
from the ocean. Point rainfall for the project watershed can be estimated using
rainfall maps prepared by the National Weather Service and the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD). These maps express
point rainfall as lines of equal precipitation, or isopluvial lines. The isopluvial lines for
the 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour 100-year storms are shown on Figure 1.
Average point rainfall over the tributary drainage area for these storms is as follows:
3-hour storm 2.10 inches
6-hour storm 2.50 inches
24-hour storm 3.87 inches
-3-
D. Hydrograph Computation
Section VII contains the calculations of net rain and runoff hydrographs using the
RCFCWCD procedure for determining net rain and&Corps of Engineers HEC-1
procedure for determining the runoff hydrograph. The "Desert" unit hydrograph was
used. Unit hydrograph variables of length of flow path, distance to center of the
watershed, and elevations are shown on Figure 1 and in the calculations.
E. 100-Year Discharge at Project Site
Hydrographs were computed for three storm durations, with the results as follows:
3-hour storm 1,233 cfs
6-hour storm 1,001 cfs
24-hour storm 163 cfs
The 3-hour peak of 1,233 cfs controls and will be used for the design of interim flood
protection facilities.
-4-
III. ONSITE HYDROLOGY
A. Onsite Rainfall
s
100-year rainfall at the project site is less than the average rainfall over the watershed,
because of a trough in the isopluvial lines centered over the site. 100-year 24-hour
rainfall on the site is 3.5 inches. For computing runoff from the impervious area, the
24-hour rainfall of 3.5 inches will be used. For computing runoff from pervious
areas, the net rain from the 3-hour storm exceeds the net rain from the 6-hour and 24-
hour storms, so the 3-hour net rain of 0.5 inch will be used.
B. Proposed Development
A variety of land uses including Freeway Oriented Business, Regional Commercial,
Industrial/Business, Commercial/Residential Office, and Multi-family Residential are
being considered for the site. For planning purposes 90 percent impervious will be
assumed.
C. Computation of 100-year Runoff from Site
Section VII contains calculations of the runoff from the site which must be
accommodated in the retention facilities. Rainfall which falls on the future Mid-
Valley Channel will drain from the site and cannot practically be retained. Rainfall
which falls on the retention basins will be completely retained. Total runoff consists
of 3.5 inches of runoff from the impervious area(90 percent of the net area outside
the Mid-Valley Channel) and the retention area plus 0.5 inch of runoff from the
pervious area.
The required retention volume is 86.6 acre-feet, or 0.33 acre-feet per acre over the
258.7 acres of developable land (270 total less 11.3 Mid-Valley Channel right of
way). This retention volume accounts for runoff from the street acreage within the
site in addition to the base site acreage of 270 acres.
-5-
IV. INTERIM FLOOD PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES
A. Design Objectives
s
1. General
Full utilization of the property prior to the implementation of the Mid-Valley
Channel will require some type of interim channel to safely convey offsite flood
flows through the property; however, the southwestern portions of the site are
not affected by the offsite flows and could be safely developed without a
channel. If an interim channel is constructed, its design will be influenced by
construction cost, land requirement, phasing of the planning polygons, and
scheduling of the Mid-Valley Channel. In addition, the design will need to
consider site conditions including collection of offsite flows, slope, and soils.
2. Inlet
Inlet requirements will depend on development conditions at the west property
line when the site is developed. Under existing conditions the water flowing in
the bottom of the valley approaching the west boundary is spread across the
natural swale south of the tracks. This water can be collected by wing levees. In
addition, the lots south of the inlet can be elevated to guide sheet overflow into
the inlet system and prevent it from entering the lots.
3. Interim Channel
The property west of Cook Street has a natural ground slope of approximately
0.0035. At this slope velocities will generally be in the non-erosive range;
however, in view of the fine sandy soil native to the area erosion is an important
consideration and care should be taken in the channel design. The velocity can
be controlled to some extent by adjusting the hydraulic radius of the interim
channel (widening the base and flattening the side slope). Also, the interim
channel can be turfed or otherwise armored to increase its resistance to erosion.
East of Cook Street the property is essentially flat. One design objective is to
keep the bottom of the channel above the ground elevation at the east property
line so it will drain. Another objective is to allow the water to spread out to
natural sheet flow and velocity conditions before discharging to the neighboring
property.
B. Alternative Interim Channel Configurations
Selection of the channel configuration involves weighing hydraulic
requirements against land requirements and cost of construction. Hydraulic
requirements can be met by trapezoidal or rectangular channels. Trapezoidal
channels can be unlined or lined with grass or concrete. Rectangular concrete
6
channels can be open or closed. In any case, because of the change in slope at Cook
Street, the channel will be wider east of Cook Street. Approximate dimensions for
some of the possible configurations are given below. e
West of Cook Street
1. Rectangular concrete 18.5 ft. wide by 7 ft. deep, including 2 ft. freeboard
2. Trapezoidal concrete, 1.5:1 side slopes
11 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 32 ft bank to bank, 52 to 80 ft. overall width,
assuming 2 10-foot access roads on top of levees, 2:1 levee back slopes, and
levees above surrounding grade at downstream end.
3. Trapezoidal grass-lined sand channel, 2:1 side slopes
31 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 59 ft. bank to bank, 79 to 107 ft. overall width, on
same basis as above.
4. Trapezoidal unlined sand channel, 4:1 side slopes
30 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 86 ft. bank to bank, 106 to 134 ft. overall.
East of Cook Street
1. Rectangular concrete 51 ft. wide by 7 ft. deep, including 2 ft. freeboard
2. Trapezoidal concrete, 1.5:1 side slopes
44 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 61 ft bank to bank, up to 109 ft. overall width.
3. Trapezoidal grass-lined sand channel, 2:1 side slopes
110 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 131 ft. bank to bank, up to 179 ft. overall width.
4. Trapezoidal unlined sand channel, 4:1 side slopes
100 ft. base, 7 ft. high levees, 156 ft. bank to bank, up to 204 ft. overall.
The concrete lined alternatives will require adequate energy dissipators at the
downstream end to restore the velocity to natural conditions.
-7-
V. RETENTION CONSIDERATIONS
A. Design Objectives s
The overall design objective is to contain all the runoff from the site during the 100-
year flood, as computed above. Another important objective is to incorporate the
retention areas into site features such as parking lots or greenbelt areas.
Another is to assure that the basins will drain, so as to be ready for another storm,
and to minimize standing water on the site. The basins should not be draining during
the flood, in accordance with CVWD retention policy, so there will be controllable
outlets to drain the basins after the flood has passed.
B. Integration with Development Process
The retention facilities should be designed as integral features of the various
planning polygons, so as to maximize opportunities for joint use and economy of
land and construction cost. By accepting a retention burden of 0.33 acre-feet per
acre of developable site, each site developer has the opportunity to proceed with his
development on his own schedule. He also has the opportunity of entering
cooperative arrangements with neighboring sites to develop joint facilities.
8
VI. FLOOD INSURANCE STATUS
The site is located on Riverside County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)Panel No.
1625. The site is in a "C" Zone, defined as an area of minimal flooding. Flood insurance
is not mandatory in a "C" Zone.
9-
VII. ATTACHMENT: Letter from Coachella Valley Water District
s
�t ATEq
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
��S7RICS
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)39B.2651
s
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E.LEVY,GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY
JOHN W.McFADDEN July 17, 1996 OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHY M. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
THEODORE 1. FISH
File: 0121.321
0126.2
Harold Vance
1552 Camino Del Mar, No. 409
Del Mar, California 92014
Dear Mr. Vance:
Subject: Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel, Heinrich Project .
This is in response to your letter dated July 2, 1996. In your letter you
requested more information about the stormwater requirements for the Heinrich
property.
The Heinrich property consists of 270 acres of land lying adjacent to the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and south of Interstate 10. This property lies
within a watershed which the district has identified as the Mid-Valley Area.
The majority of the Mid-Valley Area is currently a sandy desert basin which
slopes gradually southeasterly along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.
Currently there are no regional stormwater facilities serving this area.
On October 12, 1989, the district submitted a proposal for the Mid-Valley
Stormwater project to Riverside County and the Cities of Cathedral City, Rancho
Mirage, Palm Desert and La Quirta. The county and cities have since cooperated
with the district for the implementation of this project by establishing their
own stormwater retention requirements and/or honoring the district's
requirements for new developments.
The district requires new developments in this area to retain 100 percent of the
stormwater runoff from a 100-year storm. This is based on a feasibility study
by Bechtel dated March 1990. This report is also the basis for a 50-foot
channel right-of-way and the grade and size of the box culverts at Monterey
Avenue and Cook Street. Funding for the Mid-Valley Channel has not been
established at this time.
The district is exercising its authority in these matters based on the
California State Stormwater Act of 1909 and Riverside County Ordinances Nos. 460
and 348.
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Harold Vance -2- July 17, 1996
The feasibility study for the Mid-Valley project is available for your review at
the engineering counter at our Coachella facility. A copy of this study can be
obtained from the district provided you pay the reproduction costs of 50 cents
per sheet (approximately $54) .
If you have any questions please call Joe. Cook, planning engineer,
extension 292.
Yours very truly,
Tom Levy
General Manager-Chief Engineer
JEC:jl\swljul\vance
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
VIII. CALCULATIONS
A. Offsite Hydrology e
1. Net Rain, West Boundary, Existing Conditions
a. 3-hour storm
b. 6-hour storm
c. 24-hour storm
2. HEC-1 Analysis
a. 3-hour storm
b. 6-hour storm
c. 24-hour storm
B. Onsite Hydrology
1. Net Rain for Pervious Areas
2. Computation of Onsite Runoff Volume
HEINRICH PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY 3 Hour Stonn 100 yr.frequency
NET RAIN WEST BOUNDARY, EXISTING CONDITIONS
THIS IS FILE: X3100.WK4
SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD w
BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM
PHYSICAL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy
[2] AREA DESIGNATION
[3] AREA-SQANCHES 50.26
[4] AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.14
[5] AREA-SO.MILES[(3)-(4)] 7.21 5142 acres overall
[6] L-INCHES 21.85 developed
[7] L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.38 sec 5 160
[8] L-MILES[(6)-(7)] 8.28 sac 9 600
[9] LCA-INCHES 12.60 sec16 90
[10] LCA-MILES[(9)-(7)] 4.77 sac 15 480
[11] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 497 1330
[12] ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 181
[13] H-FEET[(11)-(12)] 316 currently retained
[14] S-FEET/MILE[(13)/(8)] + 38.18 sec 4 160
[15] SA.S 6.18 sec 15 320
[16] L-LCAISA.5[(8)-(10)/(15)] 6.39 Monterey 46
[17] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.031 526
[18] LAG TIME-HOURS[24'(17)-(16)A.381 1.51 j
[19] LAG TIME-MINUTES.[60•(18)] 90.69 4616net
[20] 25%OF LAG-MINUTES[.25-(19)] 22.67
[21] 40%OF LAG-MINUTES[.40-(19)] 36.28
22 UNIT TIME-MINUTES 25-40%OF LAG 30.00
RAINFALL DATA
[t] SOURCE HYDRO.MAN.
[2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100
3 DURATION-HOURS 3
3 -HOUR
[12) (13] [14] (15]
PT. AREA (13)/ AV.PT.
RAIN AC. SUM 13 RAIN
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
SUM 5142 2.10 -
[16] AREAL ADJ.FACTOR 0.990
1 ADJUSTED RAINFALL 2.08
AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 -9 10
SOIL COVER RI Fp LAND USE DU/AC °k F AREA [By AVE.F
TYPE TYPE in/hr IMPERV. in/hc acres SUM 8 in/hr
o en brush
A 4Ratua 00 .7 7
5 0.residential 32 316
1330 0.2881 0.092
0.0001 1 0.0001 0.000
TOTALS AREA= 4616 Fave= 0.562
X3100.WK4 Sheet I of 2
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE 24-HOUR STORM ONLY)
Fm=(Sum.Ave.F)/2=""""""""inthr
C=(F-Fm)/54=
Ft=C 24 /60 "1.55+Fm
UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN
CALCULATION FORM
(1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy s
[2] AREA DESIGNATION
[3] DRAINAGE AREA.miles 7.21
(4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- 4651.30
[5] UNITTIME-minutes 30.00
[6] LAG TIME-minutes 90.69
[7] UNIT TIME-%oflag 33.08
[8] S-CURVE Desert.
[9] FREQUENCY(years) 100
DURATION(hours) 3
[10] SUM ADJ.ST.RAIN-in. 2.08
[11] VAR.LOSS RATE(Ft)-irdhr(@T=0)
[12] MIN.VAR.LOSS RATE(Fm)-inrnr
(13] CONST.LOSS RATE(F)-irJhr 0.56
1[141 ILOW LOSS RATE-% 90.00
.EFFECTIVE RAINFALL
[15 [20] 121 ,
UNI %OF RAIN IN RATE I LOSS RATE [22 RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT
TIM TOTAL PERIOD PERIO inrhr inches RATE RAIN
PERIO RAIN inches Whi calc'd. low Usk calc'd. low in/hr inches
11 .5 0.177 0.353 .562 0.3`18 0.318 0.281 0.159 0.159 0.035 0.018
2 10.0 0.208 0.416 0.562 0.374 0.374 0.281 0.187 0.187 0.042 0.021
3 13.9 0.289 0.578 0.562 0.520 0.520 0.281 0.260 0.260 0.016 0.008
4 17.4 0.362 0.723 0.562 0.651 0.562 0.281 0.326 0.281 0.162 0.081
5 29.9 0.622 1.243 0.562 1.119 0.562 0.281 0.559 0.281 0.682 0.341
6 20.3 0.422 0.844 0.562 0.760 0.562 0.281 0.380 0.281 0.283 0.141
Total 1 100.0001 2.079 1.449 0.610
X3100.WK4 Sheet 2 of 2
HEINRICH PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY 6 Hour Storm 100 yr.frequency
NET RAIN WEST BOUNDARY,EXISTING CONDITIONS
THIS IS FILE: X6100.WK4
SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD
BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM s
PHYSICAL DATA
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy
[2] AREA DESIGNATION
[31 AREA-SO.INCHES 50.26
[41 AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.14
151 AREA-SO.MILES[(3)'(4)] 7.21 5142 acres overall
[61 L-INCHES 21.85 developed
[71 L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.38 sac 5 160
(81 L-MILES 1(6)'(7)] 8.28 sac 9 600
191 LCA-INCHES 12.60 sec 16 90
1101 LCA-MILES 1(9)-(7)) 4.77 sac 15 480
[11) ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 497 1330
1121 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 181
113] H-FEET[(11)-(12)] 316 currently retained
1141 S-FEET/MILE[(13)/(8)] 38A8 sac 4 16O
[151 SA.S 6.18 sec 15 320
1161 L-LCAISA.S[(8)-(10)I(15)] 6.39 Monterey 46
[17] AVERAGE MANNINGS TC 0.031 526
1181 LAG TIME-HOURS[24'(17)'(16)A.38] 1.51
1191 LAG TIME-MINUTES[60-(18)] 90.69 4616 net
[201 250A OF LAG-MINUTES[.25'(19)] 22.67
[211 40%OF LAG-MINUTES[.40'(19)] 36.28
[221 UNIT TIME-MINUTES 25.40%OF LAG 30.00
RAINFALL DATA
[1J SOURCE HYDRO.MAN.
[2J FREQUENCY-YEARS 100
3 DURATION-HOURS 1 6
6 -HOUR
[121 [13] 1141 [151
PT. AREA (13)/ AV.PT.
RAIN AC. SUM 13 RAIN 1
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
SUM 5142 2.50
[16) AREAL ADJ.FACTOR 0i W
1 ADJUSTED RAINFALL .48
AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE
1 2 31 1 [41 1 1516 8 9 10
SOIL COVER RI Fp LAND USE DU/AC % F AREA jay AVE.F
TYPE TYPE In/hr IMPERV. in/hr acres SUM 8 iNhr
Open bosh aura 10.470
A residential 321 0.74 Res 6.001 571 0.3181 1330 0.288 - 0.092
O.ODO I I 0.000 I 0.000
TOTALS AREA= 4616 Fave= 0.562
X6109.WK4 Sheet 1 of 2
VARIABLE LOSS RATE CURVE 24-HOUR STORM ONLY)
Fm=(Sum.Ave.F)/2="""""""in/hr
C=(F-Fm)/54=
Ft=C 24- /60 "1.55+Fm
UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN
CALCULATION FORM
[1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy s
[2] AREA DESIGNATION
[3] DRAINAGE AREA-miles 7.21
[4) ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- 4651.30
[5] UNITTIME-minutes 30.00
[6] LAGTIME-minutes 90.69
[7] UNITTIME-%of lag 33.08
(e] S-CURVE Desert-
(9] FREQUENCY(years) 100
DURATION(hours) 6
(10] SUM ADJ.ST.RAIN-in. 2.48
[11] VAR.LOSS RATE(Ft)-in/hr(@1T=0)
[12] MIN.VAR.LOSS RATE(Fm)4n/hr
[13) CONST.LOSS RATE(F)-in/hr 0.56 -
1[141 ILOW LOSS RATE-% 90.00
EFFECTIVE RAINFALL
[15 [20] (21 i ]22 (23]
UNIJ %OF RAIN IN RATE I LOSS RATE RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT
TIM TOTAL PERIOD PERIO iNhr inches - RATE RAIN
PE RIO RAIN inches irt/h calc'd. Iow u calc'd. low u ir✓hr inches
2 4.3 0.106 0.213 0.562 0.192- 0.192 0.281 0.096 0.096 0.021 0.011
3 4.8 0.119 0.238 0.562 0.214 0.214 0.281 0.107 0.107 0.024 0.012
4 4.9 0.121 0.243 0.562 0.218 0.218 0.281 0.109 0.109 0.024 0.012
5 5.3 0.131 0.262 0.562 0.236 0.236 0.281 0.118 0.118 0.026 0.013
6 5.8 0.144 0.287 0.562 0.258 0.258 0.281 0.129 0.129 0.029 0.014
7 6.8 0.168 0.337 0.562 0.303 0.303 0.281 0.151 0.151 0.034 0.017
8 9.0 0.223 0.446 0.562 0.401 0.401 0.281 0.200 0.200 0.045 0.022
9 11.6 0.287 0.574 0.562 0.517 0.517 0.281 0.258 0.258 0.013 0.006
10 14.4 0.356 0.713 0.562 0.642 0.562 0.281 0.321 0.281 0.151 0.076
11 25.1 0.621 1.242 0.562 1.118 0.562 0.281 0.559 0.281 0.681 0.340
12 4.4 0.109 0.218 0.562 0.196 0.196 0.281 0.098 0.098 0.022 0.011
Total 100.000 2.475 1.909 0.543
X6100.WK4 Sheet 2 of 2
HEINRICH PROJECT
HYDROLOGY STUDY 24 Hour Story 100 yr.frequency
NET RAIN WEST BOUNDARY. EXISTING CONDITIONS
THIS IS FILE: X24100.WK4
SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD w
BASIC DATA CALCULATION FORM
PHYSICAL DATA
(1] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy
121 AREA DESIGNATION
131 AREA-SQ.INCHES 50.26
141 AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.14
A AREA-SO.MILES[(3)-(4)) 7.21 5142 acres overall
[6) L-INCHES 21.85 developed
[71 L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.38 secs 160
181 L-MILES[(6)-(7)] 8.28 sac 9 600
191 LCA-INCHES 12.60 sac16 90
[101 LCA-MILES[(9)`(7)] 4.77 sec 15 480
[11] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER 497 1330
[121 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT 181
[13] H-FEET[(11)-(12)1 316 currentlyretained
(14] S-FEET/MILE[(13)/(8)] 38.18 sec 4 160
1151 SA.5 6.18 sec 15 320
[16] L-LCA/SA.5[(8)-(10)/(15)] 6.39 Monterey 46
117] AVERAGE MANNINGS'N' 0.031 526
1181 LAG TIME-HOURS[24-(17)-(16)A.38] 1.51
[79] LAG TIME-MINUTES[60-(18)] 90.69 4616net
[201 25%OF LAG-MINUTES[.25'(19)] 21'7
121] 40%OF LAG-MINUTES[.40-(19)] 36.28
11[221 IUNITTIME-MINUTES 25-40%OF LAG 30.00
RAINFALL DATA
[1] SOURCE HYDRO.MAN.
[2] FREQUENCY-YEARS 100
[31 DURATION-HOURS 7 24
24 -HOUR
[121 [13] [14] [15]
PT. AREA (13)/ AV.PT. j
RAIN AC. SUM 13 RAIN
3.75 1515 0.29 1.10
3.50 1607 0.31 1.09
SUM 5142 3.87
1161 AREAL ADJ.FACTOR 0.985
1 ADJUSTED RAINFALL 3.81
AVERAGE ADJUSTED LOSS RATE
1 2 3 4 5 61 1 M 1 [81 19110
SOIL I COVER I RI I Fp LAND USE DU/AC % F AR FA [8]I AVE.F
TYPE TYPE inlhr IMPERV. in/hr acres SUM 8 inRv
• open brush atura 7
A residential 3ZI 0.74 Res 6.001 571 0.3181 1330 0.288 0.092
0.0001 1 0.0001 0.000
TOTALS AREA= 4616 Fave= 0.562
X24100.WK4 Sheet 1 of 3
VAR ABLE LOSS RATE CURVE 24-HOUR STORM ONLY)
Fm=(Sum.Ave.F)/2= 0.2808 Whr
C=(F-Fm)/54= 0.0052
Ft=C 24 /60 "1.55+Fm
UNIT HYDROGRAPH AND EFFECTIVE RAIN
CALCULATION FORM
11] CONCENTRATION POINT W.Bdy s
2) AREA DESIGNATION
3] DRAINAGE AREA-miles 7.21
4] ULTIMATE DISCHARGE- 4651.30
[5] UNITTIME-minutes 30.00
[6] LAGTIME-minutes 90.69
[7] UNITTIME-%of lag 33.08
181 S-CURVE Desert.
191 FREQUENCY(years) 100
DURATION(hours) 24
(10] SUM ADJ.ST.RAIN-in. 3.81
[11] VAR.LOSS RATE(Ft)-inRv(@T=0 1.00
1121 MIN.VAR.LOSS RATE(Fm)4n/hr 0.28
[13] CONST.LOSS RATE(F)-in/hr 0.56
11141 ILOW LOSS RATE-% 90.00
EFFECTIVE RAINFALL
[1 [20] [21 [22 [23]
UN I %OF RAIN IN RATE Its LOSS RATE RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT
TIN
TOTAL PERIOD PERIO in/hr inches RATE RAIN
PE RIO RAIN inches irLrni calc'd. low used calc'd. low usec in/hr inches
5
2 0.7 0.027 0.053 0.963 0.048 0.048 0.481 0.024 0.024 0.005 0.003
3 0.6 0.023 0.046 0.940 0.041 0.041 0.470 0.021 0.021 0.005 0.002
4 0.7 0.027 0.653 0.918 0.048 0.048 0.459 0.024 0.024 0.005 0.003
5 0.8 0.030 0.061 0.896 0.055 0.055 0.448 0.027 0.027 0.006 0.003
6 1.0 0.038 0.076 0.874 0.069 0.069 0.437 0.034 0.034 0.008 0.004
7 1.0 0.038 0.076 0.853 0.069 0.069 0.426 0.034 0.034 0.008 0.004
8 1.1 0.042 0.084 0.831 0.075 0.075 0.416 0.038 0.038 0.008 0.004
9 1.3 0.050 0.099 0.811 0.089 0.089 0.405 0.045 0.045 0.010 0.005
10 1.5 0.057 0.114 0.790 0.103 0.103 0.395 0.051 0.051 0.011 0.006
11 1.3 0.050 0.099 0.770 0.089 0.089 0.385 0.045 0.045 0.010 0.005
12 1.6 0.061 0.122 0.749 0.110 0.110 ' 0.375 0.055 0.055 0.012 0.006
13 1.8 0.069 0.137 0.730 0.123 0.123 0.365 0.062 0.062 0.014 0.007
14 2.0 0.076 0.152 0.710 0.137 0.137 0.355 0.069 0.069 0.015 0.008
15 2.1 0.080 0.160 0.691 0.144 0.144 0.346 0.072 0.072 0.016 0.008
16 2.5 0.095 0.191 0.672 0.171 0.171 0.336 0.086 0.086 0.019 0.010
17 3.0 0.114 0.229 0.654 0.206 0.206 0.327 0.103 0.103 0.023 0.011
18 3.3 0.126 0.251 0.636 0.226 0.226 0.318 0.113 0.113 0.025 0.013
19 3.9 0.149 0.297 0.618 0.267 0.267 0.309 0.134 0.134 0.030 0.015 '.
20 4.3 0.164 0.328 0.600 0.295 0.295 0.300 0.147 0.147 0.033 0.016
21 3.0 0.114 0.229 0.583 0.206 0.206 0.291 0.103 0.103 0.023 0.011
22 4.0 0.152 0.305 0.566 0.274 0.274 0.283 0.137 0.137 0.030 0.015
23 3.8 0.145 0.290 0.550 0.261 0.261 0.275 0.130 0.130 0.029 0.014
24 3.5 0.133 0.267 0.533 0.240 0.240 0.267 0.120 0.120 0.027 0.013
25 5.1 0.194 0.389 0.518 0.350 0.350 0.259 0.175 0.175 0.039 0.019
26 5.7 0.217 0.434 0.502 0.391 0.391 0.251 0.195 --- 0.195 0.043 0.022
27 6.8 0.259 0.518 - 0.487 0.466 0.466 0.244 0.233 0.233 0.031 0.016
28 4.6 0.175 0.351 0.472 0.315 0.315 0236 0.158 0.158 0.035 0.018
29 5.3 0.202 0.404 0.458 0.364 0.364 0.229 0.182 0.182 0.040 0.020
30 5.1 0.194 0.389 0.444 0.350 0.350 0.222 0.175 0.175 0.039 0.019
31 4.7 0.179 0.358 0.431 0.322 0.322 0.215 0.161 0.161 0.036 0.018
32 3.8 0.145 0.290 0.418 0.261 0.261 0.209 0.130 0.130 0.029 0.014
33 0.8 0.030 0.061 0.405 0.055 0.055 0.203, 0.027 0.027 0.006 0.003
34 0.6 0.023 0.046 0.393 0.041 0.041 0.196 0.021 0.021 0.005 0.002
35 1.0 0.038 0.076 0.381 0.069 0.069 0.191 0.034 0.034 0.008 0.004
36 0.9 0.034 0.069 0.370 0.062 0.062 0.185 0.031 0.031 0.007 0.003
X24100.WK4 Sheet 2 of 3
EFFECTIVE RAINFALL
[15 121 [22 1231
UNI %OF RAIN IN RATE I LOSS RATE RAIN LOSS EFFECT. EFFECT
TIM TOTAL PERIOD PERIO inthr inches RATE RAIN
PERIO RAIN inches in/h calc'd. low u calc'd. low us inAv inch
0.359 0.055 0.055 0.179
38 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.349 0.034 0.034 0.174 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002
39 0.7 0.027 0.053 0.339 0.048 0.048 0.16a 0.024 0.024 0.005 0.003
40 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.330 0.034 0.034 0.165 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002
41 0.6 0.023 0.046 0.321 - 0.041 0.041 0.161 0.021 0.021 0.005 0.002
42 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.313 0.034 0.034 0.157 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002
43 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.306 0.034 0.034 0.153 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002
44 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.299 0.034 0.034 0.150 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002
45 0.5 0.019 0.038 0.293 0.034 0.034 0.147 0.017 0.017 0.004 0.002
46 0.4 0.015 0.030 0.288 0.027 0.027 0.144 0.014 0.014 0.003 0.002
47 0.4 0.015 0.030 0.284 0.027 0.027 0.142 0.014 0.014 0.003 0.002
48 0.4 0.015 0.030 0.281 0.027 0.027 0.141 0.014 0.014 0.003 0.002
Total 100.000 3.810 3.429 0.371
acre-feet 158.827
X24100.WK4 Sheet 3 of 3
HEEMCH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY
HEC-1 ANALYSIS
100-YEAR 3-HOUR STORM
FILE H3100.0
1 ID WEST BOUNDARY
2 ID H3100.I
3 IT 30 0000 0000 18
4 10 1 2
5 KK WEST
6 BA 7.21
7 PI .018 .021 .008 .081 .341 .141
8 LU 0 0 0
9 KM UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF S-GRAPHS)
10 UI 496. 1795. 2497. 1278. 753. 527. 407. 294. 236. 192.
11 UI 162. 135. 100. 81. 56. 56. 54. 32. 32. 32.
12 UI 31.9 31.9 233
13 zz
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 30 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
COMPUTATION INTERVAL .50 HOURS
UHG FROM WHTTEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS)
SUBBASIN RUNOFF DATA -
6 BA SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS
TAREA 7.21 SUBBASIN AREA
PRECIPITATION DATA
6 PB STORM .61 BASIN TOTAL PRECIPITATION
6 PI INCREMENTAL PRECIPITATION PATTERN
.02 .02 .01 .09 .34 .14
8 LU UNIFORM LOSS RATE
STRTL .00 INITIAL.LOSS
CNSTL .00 UNIFORM LOSS RATE
RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA
8 UI INPUT UNITGRAPH, 23 ORDINATES, VOLUME-1.00
496.0 1795.0 2497.0 1278.0 753.0 527.0 407.0 294.0 236.0 192.0
162.0 135.0 100.0 $1.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
31.9 31.9 23.3
HYDROGRAPH AT STATION WEST
DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS .COMP Q • DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q
r
1 0000 1 .00 .00 .00 0. r 1 0430 10 .00 .00 .00 493.
1 0030 2 .02 .00 .02 9. • I 0500 11 .00 .00 .00 330.
1 0100 3 .02 .00 .02 43. • 1 0530 12 .00 .00 .00 246.
1 0130 4 .01 .00 .01 87. • 1 0600 13 .00 .00 .00 184.
1 0200 5 .08 .00 .08 130. • 1 0630 14 .00 .00 .00 143.
1 0230 6 .34 .00 .34 375. • 1 0700 15 .00 .00 .00 111.
1 0300 7 .14 .00 .14 920. • 1 0730 16 .00 .00 .00 97.
1 0330 8 .00 .00 .00 1233. • 1 0800 17 .00 .00 .00 80.
1 0400 9 .00 .00 .00 867. • 1 0830 18 .00 .00 .00 62.
TOTAL RAINFALL= .61,TOTAL LOSS- .00.TOTAL EXCESS- .61
PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW
6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 8.50-HR
+ (CFS) (HR)
(CFS)
+ 1233. 3.50 427. 317. 317. 317.
(INCHES) .551 .578 .578 .578
(AC-FT) 212. 222. 222. 222.
CUMULATIVE AREA= . 7.21 SQ MI
1-
1 STATION WEST
(0)OUTFLOW
0. 200. 400. 600. 800. 1000. I200. 1400. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
(L)PRECIP, (X)EXCESS
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .3 .2 .1 .0
DAHRMN PER
10000 ]O-.
I0030 20 XX.
10100 3.0 XX.
10130 4. 0 X.
10200 5. O .XXXXX XX.
10230 6. 0.
10300 7. . 0 . )DOOOCCOOOOOOX
10330 8. .0
10400 9. . 0
10430 10. O
10500 11........0.................................................... .
10530 12. .0
10600 13. 0.
10630 14. O .
10700 15. O .
10800 17. O
10830
I
I
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAMMUM PERIOD BASIN MAMMUM TIME OF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAXSTAGE
+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ WEST 1233. 3.50 427. 317. 317. 7.21
•"NORMAL END OF HEC-1'•'
-2-
HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY
HEC-1 ANALYSIS
100-YEAR 6-HOUR STORM
FILE H6100.0
1 ID WEST BOUNDARY
2 ID H6100.1
3 IT 30 0000 00,00 24
4 10 I 2
5 KK WEST
6 BA 7.21
7 PI .009 .011 .012 .012 .013 .014 .017 .022 .006 .075
8 PI .34 .011
9 LU 0 0 0
10 KM UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF S-GRAPHS)
11 UL 496. 1795. 2497. 1278. 753. 527. 407. 294. 236. 192..
12 UI 162. 135. 100. 81. 56. 56. 54. 32. 32. 32.
13 UI 31.9 31.9 23.3
14 zz
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 30 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
COMPUTATION INTERVAL .50 HOURS
_ TOTAL TAME BASE 11.50 HOURS
UHG FROM WHTTEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9 S-GRAPHS)
SUBBASIN RUNOFF DATA
6 BA SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS
TAREA 7.21 SUBBASIN AREA
PRECIPITATION DATA -
6 PB STORM .54 BASIN TOTAL PRECIPITATION
6 Pi INCREMENTAL PRECIPITATION PATTERN
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .09
.34 .01
9 LU UNIFORM LOSS RATE
STRTL .00 INITIAL LOSS
CNSTL .00 UNIFORM LASS RATE
RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA
9UI INPUT UNITGRAPH, 23 ORDINATES, VOLUME-1.00
496.0 1795.0 2497.0 1278.0 753.0 527.0 407.0 294.0 236.0 192.0
162.0 135.0 100.0 81.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
31.9 31.9 233
HYDROGRAPH AT STATION WEST
DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q • DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LASS EXCESS COMP Q
1 0000 I .00 .00 .00 • 0. • 1 0600 13 .01 .00 .01 854.
1 0030 2 .01 .00 .01 4. • 1 0630 14 .00 .00 .00 1001.
1 0100 3 .01 .00 .01 22. • 1 0700 15 .00 .00 .00 547.
1 0130 4 .01 .00 .01 48. • 1 0730 16 .00 .00 .00 332.
1 0200 5 .01 .00 .01 66. • 1 0800 17 .00 .00 .00 236.
1 0230 6 .01 .00 .01 79. * 1 0830 18 .00 .00 .00 181.
I 0300 7 .01 .00 .01 89. • 1 0900 19 .00 .00 .00 134.
1 0330 8 .02 .00 .02 100. • I 0930 20 .00 .00 .00 107.
1 0400 9 .02 .00 .02 115. • 1 1000 21 .00 .00 .00 89.
1 0430 10 .01 .00 .01 129. • 1 1030 22 .00 .00 .00 74.
1 0500 11 .08 .00 .08 155. • 1 1100 23 .00 .00 .00 60.
1 0530 12 .34 .00 .34 382. - 1 1130 24 .00 .06 .00 46.
TOTAL RAINFALL- .54.TOTAL LOSS= .00,TOTAL EXCESS- .54
PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLAW
6-11R 24-HR 72-HR 11.50-HR
+ (CFS) (HR)
(CFS)
+ 1001. 6.50 347. 210. 210. 210.
(INCHES) .448 .518 .519 .518
(AC-FT) 172. 199. 199. 199.
CUMULATIVE AREA= 7.21 SQ MI
I
I STATION WEST
(0)OUTFLOW
0. 200. 400. 600. 800. 1000. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. w
(L)PRECIP, (X)EXCESS
.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .3 .2 .1 .0
DAHRMN PER
10000 10-.-.-.--.
10030 20 X.
10100 3.0 X.
10130 4.0 X.
10200 5. O X.
10230 6. O X.
10300 7. O X.
10330 8. 0 XX
10400 9. 0 XX
10430 10. 0 X.
10500 11....0....................................................XXXXXXX.
10530 12. 0.
10600 13. . O X.
10630 14. 0
10700 15. 0 . .
10730 16. O .
10800 17. .0
10830 19. 0.
10900 19. 0 . .
10930 20. O
11000 21..0..........................................................
11030 22. O
11100 23. O
11130 24.-0-. .-.
1
1
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLAW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MILES
PEAK TIMEOF AVERAGE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD BASIN MAXIMUM TIMEOF
OPERATION STATION FLOW PEAK AREA STAGE MAXSTAGE
+ 6-HOUR 24-HOUR 72-HOUR
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ WEST 1001. 6.50 347. 210. 210. 7.21
•••NORMAL END OF HEGI•••
-2-
HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY
HEC-I ANALYSYS
100-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM
FILE H24100.0
1 ID WEST BOUNDARY
2 ID H24100.I
3 IT 30 0000 0000 60
4 10 1 2
5 KK WEST
6 BA 7.21
7 PI 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.005
8 PI 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.008 . 0.01 0.011 0.013 0.015 0.016 0.011
9 PI 0.015 0.014 0.013 0.019 0.022 0.011 0.018 0.02 0.019 0.018
10 PI 0.014 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002
11 PI 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
12 LU 0 0 0
13 KM UHG FROM WHITEWATER RIVER(AVERAGE OF 9&GRAPHS)
14 UI 496. 1795. 2497. 1279. 753. 527. 407. 294. 236. 192.
15 UI 162. 135, 100. 81. 56. 56. 54. 32. 32. 32.
16 UI 31.9 31.9 23.3
17 7Z
IT HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 30 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
COMPUTATION INTERVAL .50 HOURS
TOTAL TAME BASE 29.50 HOURS
SUBBASIN RUNOFF DATA
6 BA SUBBASIN CHARACTERISTICS
TAREA 7.21 SUBBASIN AREA
PRECIPITATION DATA
6 PB STORM .36 BASIN TOTAL PRECIPITATION
6 PI INCREMENTAL PRECIPITATION PATTERN
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01
.02 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 .02 .02 .02 .02
.01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
12 LU UNIFORM LOSS RATE
STRTL .00 INITIAL LOSS
CNSTL .00 UNIFORM LASS RATE
RTIMP .00 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA
12 UI INPUT UNITGRAPH, 23 ORDINATES, VOLUME-1.00
496.0 1795.0 2497.0 1278.0 753.0 527.0 407.0 294.0 236.0 192.0
162.0 135.0 100.0 81.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
31.9 31.9 23.3
1-
HYDROGRAPH AT STATION WEST
DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q • DA MON HRMN ORD RAIN LOSS EXCESS COMP Q
1 0000 1 .00 .00 .00 , 0. • 1 1500 31 .02 .00 .02 163.
1 0030 2 .00 .00 .00 1. • 1 1530 32 .01 .00 .01 162.
1 0100 3 .00 .00 .00 5. • 1 1600 33 .00 .00 .00 149.
1 0130 4 .00 .00 .00 IL • 1 1630 34 .00 .00 .00 119.
1 0200 5 .00 .00 .00 15. • 1 1700 35 .00 .00 .00 86.
1 0230 6 .00 .00 .00 17. ' 1 1730 36 .00 .00 .00 70.
1 0300 7 .00 .00 .00 21. • 1 1800 37 .00 .00 .00 62.
1 0330 8 .00 .00 .00. 24. • 1 1830 38 .00 .00 .00 54.
1 0400 9 .00 .00 .00 28. • 1 1900 39 .00 .00 .00 47.
1 0430 10 .00 .00 .00 31. • 1 1930 40 .00 .00 .00 42.
1 0500 11 .00 .00 .00 34. ' 1 2000 41 .00 .00 .00 38.
1 0530 12 .01 .00 .01 38. • 1 2030 42 .00 .00 .00 34.
1 0600 13 .01 .00 .01 43. • 1 2100 43 .00 .00 .00 30.
1 0630 14 .01 .00 .01 49. • 1 2130 44 .00 .00 .00 28.
1 0700 15 .01 .00 .01 55. • 1 2200 45 .00 .00 .00 26.
1 0730 16 .01 .00 .01 62. ' 1 2230 46 .00 .00 .00 25.
1 0800 17 .01 .00 .01 69. • 1 2300 47 .00 .00 .00 24.
1 0830 18 .01 .00 .01 79. ' 1 2330 48 .00 .00 .00 22.
1 0900 19 .02 .00 .02 90. • ; 2 0000 49 .00 .00 .00 17.
1 0930 20 .02 .00 .02 103. • 2 0030 50 .00 .00 .00 12.
1 1000 21 .01 .00 .01 113. • 2 0100 51 .00 .00 .00 9.
1 1030 22 .02 .00 .02 115. • 2 0130 52 .00 .00 .00 7.
1 I100 23 .01 .00 .01 115. • 2 0200 53 .00 .00 .00 5.
1 1130 24 .01 .00 .01 120. • 2 0230 54 .00 .00 .00 4.
1 1200 25 .02 .00 .02 123. • 2 0300 55 .00 .00 .00 3.
1 1230 26 .02 .00 .02 134. • 2 0330 56 .00 .00 .00 2.
1 1300 27 .01 .00 .01 149. • 2 0400 57 .00 .00 .00 2.
1 1330 28 .02 .00 .02 148. 2 0430 58 .00 .00 .00 1.
1 1400 29 .02 .00 .02 143. • 2 0500 59 .00 .00 .00 1.
1 1430 30 .02 .00 .02 155. • 2 0530 60 .00 .00 .00 1.
TOTAL RAINFALL- 36,TOTAL LOSS= .00,TOTAL EXCESS- .36
PEAK FLOW TIME MAXIMUM AVERAGE FLOW
6-HR 24-HR 72-HR 29.50-HR
+ (CFS) (HR)
(CFS)
+ 163. 15.00 140. 69. 57. 57.
(INCHES) .180 .355 358 .358
(AGFn 69. 137. 138. 138.
CUMULATIVEAREA= 7.21SQMI
.y.
1 STATION WEST
(0)OUTFLOW
0. 20. 40. 60. 80. 100. 120. 140. 160. 180. 0. 0. 0.
(L)PRECIP, (X)EXCESS
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .03 .02 .01 .00
DAHRMN PER
10000 10-.-.-.--. .-.-.
10030 20 XX
10100 3. O XXX
10130 4. O XX
10200 5. O. XXX.
10230 6. 0. XXX
10300 7. 0 XXX1
10330 8. .O \'SIX.
10400 9. 0 XXXX
1043010. 0 X700IX.
10500 I1.........0.................................................X)=0
10530 12. 0. XXX=
10600 13. .O . ==Xx
10630 14. 0 .)000000IX.
10700 15. 0. .XX)OD'C
10730 16. .O )OOOOOOCO01-
10800 17. . 0 - X)0O00DD=
10830 19. 0 X)00000000cXxx
10900 19. . 0 . . XX)Oa0000000Q0OL
10930 20. .0 XXX3X)00000O0=
11000 21.............................0..........................X)0000a700OC.
11030 22. . 0 . . X)00000000000DOC.
11100 23. . 0 . . )COOD0 XXXX) 0OC•
11130 24. 0 X7000000000O x
11200 25. .O XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
11230 26. . 0 .
11300 27. . 0 . X)000000=
11330 28. . 0 .
11400 29. .O
11430 30. 0.
11500 31.........................................0..........
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXVa
11530 32. .0 XX)00000IX)OOOIX.
11600 33. . 0 . XXX
11630 34. 0. XX
11700 35. . 0 XXXX
11730 36. 0 XXX
11800 37. .0 XXX 'I
11830 38. 0 . XX
11900 39. 0 XXX.
11930 40. .O XX
12000 41..........0.................................................XX.
12030 42. 0 . XX
12100 43. 0 . XX
12130 44. O . XX
12200 45. . 0 . XY- _
12230 46. .0 XX
12300 47. .0 XX
12330 48. .0
20000 49. 0. .
20030 50. O . .
20100 5L.0..........................................................
20130 52. 0 . .
20200 53.0 .
20230 54.0 .
20300 55.0 .
20330 56.0 .
20400 57.0 .
20430 58.0 .
20500 59.0 .
20530 600-.-,- .--,-, --,
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
HYDROGRAPH AT
+ WEST 163. CPS
•••NORMAL END OF HEGI•••
-3-
HEINRICH PROJECT HYDROLOGY STUDY
COMPUTATION OF ONSITE RUNOFF VOLUME
s
Gross area 333.3 acres (including streets)
Mid-Valley Channel area 11.3 acres (drains off site)
Net area 322.0 acres
Retention area 27.0 acres
Developed area 295.0 acres
Impervious area (90 percent impervious) 265.5 acres
Pervious area 29.5 acres
Impervious area and retention area 292.5 acres
Runoff from impervious area and retention area 85.3 a-f (3.5 inches of rain)
Runoff from pervious area 1.2 a-f (net rain = 0.5 inch)
Total runoff 86.6 a-f
RUNOFFV.WK4
IX. FIGURE 1: HYDROLOGY MAP
4
V
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
and
IMPACT ANALYSIS
of the proposed
HEINRICH COMMERCIAL PROJECT
Located Within The
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For:
KATRINA HEINRICH
1345 North Palm Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, California 92262
Field Study and Report Completed By:
JAMES W. CORNETT
Ecological Consultants
P.O. Box 846
Palm Springs, California 92263
Revised November 8, 1996
I
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 4
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map 5
Figure 2 - Project Site Map 6
Site and Project Descriptions 7
Research Methods 9
Plant Survey Results 11
Animal Survey Results 12
Findings, Requirements and Recommendations 14
References 17
Individuals Contacted 19
Definitions 20 _-
Certification Statement 21
Appendix 22
Table 1 - Plant Species Recorded 23
Table 2 - Expected Vertebrates 26
Exhibit A - Resume of James W. Cornett 30
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted on a 270-acre site located within the
city limits of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. With the exception of the
Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, no officially listed plant or animal species was
detected during the field surveys. No significant habitats were found.
This project, upon the completion of the recommended mitigation, is not expected to
have significant negative impacts upon biological resources within the region.
page 3
II. INTRODUCTION
On May 6, 1996, James W. Cornett - Ecological Consultants was informed of the
necessity of conducting a biological survey on 270 acres within the city limits of Palm
Desert, Riverside County, California, and requested by Marvin Roos of Mainiero, Smith
and Associates of Palm Springs to make a proposal to conduct such a survey . JWC was
contracted to conduct the biological survey on June 7, 1996 by Mr. Roos.
Specifically, the site included most of the southwest quarter of Section 28, most of the
northern half of Section 33 and a portion of the western half of Section 34 (Range 6
East, Township 4 South; San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian). The location is shown
in Figure l.on page 5 and Figure 2 on page 6.
This study was included as part of an environmental assessment mandated by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, and required by the City of Palm
Desert. The biological survey and impact analysis were designed to ascertain the impacts
of grading and clearing on the plant and animal resources of the Project Site and
immediate vicinity.
The following tasks were undertaken in the preparation of the biological report:
1. Conduct an inventory of the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species on, and
immediately adjacent, the Project Site.
2. Determine the presence of any plant or animal species presently state or federally
listed as threatened or endangered.
3. Determine the presence of any plant or animal species being formally considered
for state or federal listing.
4. Determine the existence of any sensitive biotic elements or communities.
5. Develop measures to mitigate both direct and indirect adverse effects of the
proposed project on any listed plant or animal species or unique biotic elements
or communities.
page 4
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map.
\ ' I CWoA Mm .,,na n. •, :4 Spb Rw
'•,. °, „)--t' >, JOSHUA i�.�d _'1. so. ,e a.[x •,K-s`a
F 1P
All
OT SPRINGS
`TREE - o w.�
f- s v`3e J " IV wliw'[n"M!n .wbcm
' <_ s .Pop
�fO
34,
!n u0 }ull ixti.. 1 v011 t. iu.i ry.e m (`�• J_/' - :,S �` I/
-= n L Sx•Ieu�� 1 cul>axv �ilu I tA• �LA a Tha d
NWSY1'v Pal (1
J �-my tI �.0 PALM SPRINGS ns 0 ul 'rusk= n
."rY72
cd"
oJ,
Ln.I SANi�PCSA t..j � 4- ..nlm - _ ...`i z5 -, .l., m(\ �(
RDINO I - = CTKEON171An S �L 0 ✓
r I"rm""n Pr J,y I '.�_n n r.n' I,:/.r ".R ...A. ! .�.
.�
.✓' V Ai1..� NSN OM!RAOEG z.::
-L- ra4 `t"n 'tl' '3 �'
.1� se: \ ��..x [' _." ,r s �".
• -
J 1 _1 OES�RT ._ mlSv �`I o•[
J' i. 1 NATromu smileANZA o
s�N + ��-T Y � it^ ,( / § .r.w Is' •=tllxo .coo 2
!--I
1.
- Z rWn ,,.III -T• [` > Imlro Mm. ._ N .,' r - t "COAORFIIY„`'• ^
II a_ xn ... n
♦'wC. [ ,u '• O�mm[O[Ii leO e[!� R[ilm nlgm[Ilpn�n I _ .�iFNm°L/
lPy .,xr.IF •'x L_ \ -J'tr IM MN WNIIN nOmW m IN r1CSC.I '.d
••y 1 - "r" I-SIIMmi Mrtlo, Il
Mv
EST ,.. ,4.I4.. Vie, co:v iu::«.,.Ix - i'i°.
r r .l
GAMF.[fUGF 1-O �. w.,u. � /' _ - `•p .v _ \ .
o Mo.¢. •,v: (e a L4L'esn\ a � �% I 1 _ ', I .
• "''W nip/ _ i`l sr�.x.i S � t scan `I' 9 .n i �- I <
tl. s !mMll±" ._ sx:n Mn. Q./
1 / 241 T.m `/L i.J°n i �.Cf: Fri. ` [EC
Alr.i'°M ,.,`.aa..Mv...[ sANTA1 MSA �,' �\ zp r s _ !. . x;_ �\ <E AT
SrnNS fNNp; - _ L°? '1
�.... . ,- vAu[r�LM.x mi
vYl[Y ,v�' '\� ! A I 4•Mrxp� �' 7 'MCHPN1.$
e . ♦ecf 17 [Pm ~Y,,I' Ala
i Ilv.� \.T
I
� i ..d _ _ saNc�...��vn' Aw IT.
—..,.. , "' - A-Y 1p_J 1 .i71.2.1-ry 3 _ J ^b..•,,: 1R. I - a.vr
,.eSx �? IMrmlfmmAm6 .•
T-4, ♦ A'�. /O` r � _i`. .°u IInnR"Mnz Ol aaWntlp. '�'.\.a
?r . LJ Dro P°r_ Y o o ' ` r�.:Mn
y
I i i c��,
J
'x'E'Zor1 COL1Nff�NZA.RO:f.11' h SANTA OExKSR'I i�.,, A SI'ATR f' PARK
cwN ( •a�a.1$�r4'=\ \(a rw+ 1[11 mmmNTMNO
page 5
Figure 2 - Project Site Map.
n
• II
II RAMON ROAD
u
II
II
„I II
� II II
II A
ao 211 221". \ e 2
O \
n
� I
� A I
�I
1el
o�
zoo
II
I
CA O A cC H L
29 28 �. .. 27' Ir\ 26
1.o c I
rChw School
v.vvvveO vvvvvv.cv=
�� • n Y
159
• i
� N
4 � O 35
L L
page 6
III. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Climate
The project area lies within the confines of a geographical region known as the Colorado
Desert as defined by Jaeger (1957). As is typical of this subdivision of the Sonoran
Desert, annual rainfall averages less than four inches (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1951).
Most precipitation falls during the winter and late spring with occasional summer storms
accounting for approximately one-fourth of the annual total (Cornett, 1980). Winter days
are mild, averaging 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter nights occasionally drop to near
freezing. The month of July brings the hottest temperatures with daytime highs
averaging 107 degrees F.
Physical Features
The elevation of the Project Site is approximately 200 feet above sea level. The land
gently rises to the southwest. No relief exists except for scattered sand hummocks which
rise approximately two to seven feet above their base. The hummocks have been formed
by shrubs which interrupt the flow of sand-carrying wind coming from the west. The
shrubs sufficiently reduce wind velocity to result in sand deposits or "hummocks."
Loose, windblown sand from the west continues to be deposited over most of the site.
There are no naturally occurring springs, permanent aquatic habitats or drainages on the
Project Site. In addition no blue-line streams, as depicted on United States Geological
Survey topographical maps, exist within the project boundaries.
Surrounding Lands
To the west and south and immediately adjacent the Project Site, lies open desert
dominated by shrubs surrounded by loose, windblown sand. A Southern Pacific Railway
and the Interstate 10 freeway together form the northern boundary of the site.
Abandoned vineyards and agricultural lands form the site's eastern boundary.
page 7
Existing Impacts
The extreme southeastern portion of the site, in Section 34, has been graded and
converted into a vineyard with a windbreak of tamarisk trees planted along the
vineyard's western boundary. The vineyard has been abandoned for a number of years
and the grape vines have been allowed to die. The vineyard covers approximately ten
acres of the Project Site.
A second disturbance involves Cook Street Interchange and the extensions of Cook
Street and Gerald Ford Drive to the interchange. These road improvements have
eliminated the natural vegetation on approximately fifteen acres of the Project Site.
Illegal dumping has occurred on site, particularly to the east of Cook Street. Total land
area impacted by dumping is estimated to be less than five percent of the site. Illegal
dumping can destroy indigenous vegetation and otherwise alter the environment making
it less suitable for native fauna.
Off-road-vehicle impacts were noted but did not appear to impact more than five percent
of the site. ORV use can destroy plant and animals outright, collapse burrows and
compact soil making it unsuitable for plants and animals adapted to life on loose,
windblown alluvium.
Project Description
As of May 6, 1996, the project proposal involves the ultimate construction of freeway-
oriented businesses, industrial facilities, retail establishments, general commercial
enterprises and possibly some residential structures. It is anticipated that the entire site
will be graded.
page 8
IV. RESEARCH METHODS
Prior to the initiation of field work, a review of the literature and museum records was
undertaken to determine the biological resources that might exist within the general
area, and to determine the possible occurrence of officially-listed plant or animal species
(see References section). Records, collections and staff of the University of California at
Riverside Herbarium, the Living Desert and the Palm Springs Desert Museum were
consulted for more specific information as to occurrence (see Section IX). In addition, a
records check of the California Natural Diversity Data Base was performed.
The Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish & Game, and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service were contacted for information regarding the sensitive biological
elements of the Project Site and vicinity and concerns regarding rare, candidate or listed
species.
The Project Site was surveyed by JWC Ecological Consultants. Formal surveys were
conducted during the daylight hours of June 8, 9, 15, and 16, 1996, and at night on June
9 and 16, 1996. The survey days were warm and calm in the morning hours and windy
and hot in the late afternoon. Evenings were warm and somewhat windy. The dates and
times of the field surveys coincided with the blooming and/or fruiting period of sensitive
plant species and maximum activity periods of sensitive animal species within the region,
unless otherwise noted.
Plant surveys were conducted by walking north-south transects at ten-meter-intervals
through the Project Site and fifty meters beyond all site boundaries unless prevented
from doing so by urban environments, thick vegetation or hazardous topography.
Animal surveys were conducted simultaneously with plant surveys. In addition, one
hundred Sherman live-animal traps (which capture animals unharmed) for large and
small mammals were set within the Project Site. Both day and night live-trapping was
conducted. Surveys were also done at night by driving slowly down paved and dirt roads
in and adjacent the Project Site.
Although scientific name changes occur as new discoveries are made in plant and animal
taxonomy, the scientific names used in this report are taken from the standard and most
available references describing the species found in Southern California--James A.
Hickman's The Jepson Manual published in 1993; J. P. Smith's Inventory of rare and
endangered vascular plants of California published in 1994; R. A. Stebbins'A field guide to
western reptiles and amphibians published in 1985; Peterson's Wester: Birds published in
1990; and E. W. Jameson and H. J. Peeters California mammals published in 1988.
page 9
Plant common names used in this report are taken from Hickman (1994), Jaeger (1969),
Munz (1961 and 1974) and Smith (1988). Animal common names are taken from
Stebbins (1985), Peterson's Western Birds (1990) and Jameson and Peeter (1988).
Field work and report preparation were completed by James W. Cornett. Mr. Cornett's
resume can be found on pages 30 and 31 as Exhibit A in the Appendix.
page 10
V. PLANT SURVEY RESULTS
A single, native plant association or "community" was found on the site: the Sonoran
creosote bush scrub community as defined by Holland (1986).
Fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and allscale (Atriplex polycarpa) dominate the
vegetation of most of the Project Site and are common shrub species throughout much of
the Colorado Desert of southeastern California.
The creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the largest native perennial on the site and is
relatively common. Like the two aforementioned shrubs, the creosote bush is found over
much of the Colorado Desert.
The southeastern 15% of the Project Site was converted to agriculture many years ago.
Grape vines were planted at that time but have now died due to the halting of irrigation.
All of the native vegetation had been removed when the vineyard was established. Today
the site is dominated by weedy species including Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii)
and mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus). A row of tamarisk trees (Tamarix aphylla)
had been planted along the western border of the vineyard to protect it from windblown
sand. The trees continue to survive without irrigation. Each of these introduced species is
common throughout the California deserts wherever the natural vegetation has been
removed.
The Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, published by the
California Native Plant Society (1994), the CNDDB Special Plant List (1994) and the
Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (1994) list a total of four plant
species that are known to occur within the Coachella Valley and are normally found in
sandy habitats. They are: the glandular ditaxis (Dttaxis clariana), ribbed cryptantha
(Cryptantha costata), flat-seeded spurge (Chamaesyce platysperma) and Coachella Valley
milk vetch (Astragalus lentiginosus coachellae). None of these species were found during
the field surveys. However this does not mean that they do not occur on the Project Site.
The paucity of winter rains prior to the surveys resulted in little or no germination of
annuals and perennials and therefore the previously-mentioned plant species could be
present as seed and therefore go undetected.
A complete list of vascular plant species found within the project boundaries can be
found in Table 1 of the Appendix.
page 11
VI. ANIMAL SURVEY RESULTS
The fauna of the Project Site and surrounding vicinity is comprised of species typical of
the Colorado Desert subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. Common reptiles include the
side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert
iguana (Dipsosaunis dorsalis), coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), western shovel-nosed
snake (Chionactis occipitalis) and the federally listed Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard
(Uma inornata). Frequently seen birds within the project area were the mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), common raven (Con us corax),
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). Frequently
detected mammals include the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Palm Springs
ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), desert kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
deseni) and coyote (Canis latrans).
The California Department of Fish & Game Special Animals (1992) report lists four
animal species that were found on site: the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma
inornata), burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanus ludovicianus)
and Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spenmophilus tereticaudus chlorus). Of these four
species, only the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard is officially listed.
Both the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard and Palm Springs ground squirrel were
detected several times on site and can be expected over most of the area surveyed.
Four observations of the burrowing owl were made and one active den was found on
site. The den was found approximately two hundred feet east of the intersection of Cook
Street and Gerald Ford Drive. This species is not officially listed or proposed to be
listed.
One observation of the Loggerhead Shrike (Lanus ludovicianus), formally a Category 2
Candidate species for listing by the federal government, was recorded. No nests were
found but this species can be assumed to nest on or near the Project Site since it nests in
similar habitat elsewhere in the Sonoran Desert and Coachella Valley (Cornett, 1987;
Cameron Barrows, personal communication).
A concerted effort was made to locate sign of the officially listed desert tortoise
(Goperhus agassizi). However, no evidence of any kind was found and no direct
observations were made. It is therefore concluded that this species does not currently
occur within the Project Site and immediate vicinity.
Although no individuals of the flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii) were
page 12
located on the site, undisturbed portions of the Project Site should be considered habitat
for this species since it is typically found on loose, sandy soils. The species has been
proposed to be listed as a threatened species.
No surveys for invertebrates were conducted. No officially listed species are known to
occur in this region.
A complete list of vertebrate species observed or detected on the Project Site can be
found in Table 2 of the Appendix.
page 13
VII. FINDINGS, REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The completed project can be expected to eliminate approximately 270 acres of desert
Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat including the native plant and animal species that
currently live on the Project Site. However, this habitat is widespread in the Southwest
and therefore its loss on the Project Site cannot be said to constitute a significant
negative impact to the continued existence of the plant community.
Additionally, it cannot be said that this project will have a significant negative impact on
any of the species of plants and animals recorded from the Project Site. Each of the
species listed in Table 1 and Table 2 have ranges that extend far beyond the Project Site
and therefore the loss of their habitat within the project boundaries must be said to
constitute an insignificant loss. In the case of all listed or sensitive species, it is
conservatively estimated that less than 1% of the total population occurs on the Project
Site (see discussions of ranges in the appropriate references in Section VIII on page 26).
As discussed earlier in this report, the biological survey detected one species, the
Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, that is officially-listed. Both the State of California
and the federal government list this reptile as threatened. This project can be expected
to eliminate all fringe-toed lizards within the project boundaries.
The loss of individual fringe-toed lizards and their habitat can be officially mitigated by
the payment of a $600 per acre fee for each acre developed. This mitigation structure
has been established by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish & Game. The fee is applied when lands within known or historical
fringe-toed lizard habitat are developed. The Project.lies within the fee area (see Figure
S-1, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan) and thus the
developer is required to pay $162,000 to the City of Palm Desert, the agency that
receives the mitigation payments. These funds are then turned over to the Nature
Conservancy to purchase fringe-toed lizard habitat in special preserves, named the
Coachella Valley Preserves, for the purpose of maintaining suitable habitat for the lizard
as well as other species.
The Coachella Valley milk vetch, flat-seeded spurge, flat-tailed horned lizard, loggerhead
shrike and Palm Springs ground squirrel are all sensitive species mentioned in this
report. Each was either detected on site or known to occur in habitat similar to that
found on the Project Site. Each of these species occurs along with the Coachella Valley
fringe-toed lizard within the Coachella Valley Preserve system. Because the
aforementioned species are not officially listed at this time and because the developer
page 14
will be required to pay a fee to purchase habitat within the preserve which harbors
populations of these five species, no additional mitigation is recommended for these
species at this time.
The Project will have negative indirect impacts on the surrounding biota. The Project
Site will no longer serve as a source of emigration of native plant and animal species
into the natural surrounding lands. This project can be expected to increase vehicular
traffic in the area, noise levels, light pollution, human and domestic animal use of
surrounding lands, introduction and dispersal of exotic plant species and development in
the region. All of these occurrences can be expected to decrease the diversity and
density of native plants and animals in the region surrounding the project. Although
these impacts cannot be quantified, it is not expected that they will have a significant
negative impact since the resident species have ranges that extend far beyond the area
subjected to secondary impacts.
Although the negative indirect impacts are not considered significant, two general
recommendations are made to lessen the impact of this development on the surrounding
biological communities. They are as follows:
1. Plant species native to the immediate region should be used in landscaped areas.
The use of native plant species helps maintain a food and cover base for indigenous
animal species, particularly birds, that cannot utilize exotic plants for cover or food.
2. The night lighting of streets, yards and recreation areas can be expected to
penetrate beyond the Project Site boundaries and into adjacent natural areas. Unnatural
lighting can interfere with the nocturnal activity of animals in these areas. To minimize
this impact, it is recommended that all outdoor lighting be directed at the ground.
Mitigation Summary
Required
1. Pay $162,000 to the City of Palm Desert as part of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed
lizard mitigation plan and obtain necessary permits from the Department of Fish &
Game and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Recommended
1. Utilize native plants in landscaped areas.
2. Direct outdoor lighting towards ground.
page 15
Interim Project Review
It is recommended that this project have an Interim Project Review by the United States
Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Game. This review
functions to coordinate land use proposals with the Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) presently being developed. Early identification of potential
impacts will assist in identifying appropriate mitigation measures and avoiding conflicts
with critical elements of the MSHCP.
page 16
VM. REFERENCES
California Department of Fish & Game. 1992. Special animals. Natural Diversity Data
Base, Sacramento, California.
California Department of Fish & Game. 1994. Endangered, threatened, and rare plants
of California. Natural Heritage Division, Endangered Plant Program, Sacramento,
California.
California Department of Fish & Game. 1994. Special plants list. Natural Heritage
Division, Natural Diversity Data Base, Sacramento, California.
Cornett, J. W. 1987. Wildlife of the North American deserts. Nature Trails Press, Palm
Springs, California.
Cornett, J. W. 1980. Coachella Valley nature guide. Nature Trails Press, Palm Springs,
California.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in jeopardy. Stanford
University Press, Stanford, California.
Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon
Society, Los Angeles, California.
Hickman, J. C. (editor). 1993. The Jepson manual. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California. California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, California.
Jaeger, E. C. 1957. The North American deserts. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California.
Jaeger, E. C. 1969. Desert wildflowers. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Munz, P. A. 1974. A flora of Southern California. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California.
National Geographic Society. 1983. Field guide to the birds of North America. National
Geographic Society, Washington D.C.
Peterson, R. T. 1990. Western birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New
York.
page 17
Ryan, R. M. 1968. Mammals of Deep Canyon. Palm Springs Desert Museum, Palm
Springs, California.
Smith, J. P., Jr. and R. York (editors). 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of
California. California Native Plant Society, Berkeley, California.
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston.
Stewart, J. M. 1993. Colorado desert wildflowers. Jon Stewart Photography, Palm
Desert, California.
Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. 1992. Natural environment study for proposed Cook
Street Interchange, Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. City of Palm Desert.
United States Weather Bureau, 1951. Climatological summary for Indio U.S. Date
Garden, Riverside County, California. San Francisco, California.
Weathers, W. W. 1983. Birds of Southern California's Deep Canyon. University of .
California Press, Berkeley, California.
Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals.
Alfred A. Knoph, Inc., New York.
page 18
r
IX. INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
The following individuals and institutions were contacted regarding biological resources
of the proposed project. They are listed in alphabetical order.
Katherine Barrows, La Quinta, June 25, 1996
Kevin Brennen, California Department of Fish & Game, June 18, 1996
Ken Corey, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, June 18, 1996
Bruce Love, CRM Tech, June 27, 1996
Patricia Lock-Dawson, Bureau of Land Management, June 19, 1996
Palm Springs Desert Museum (records check), June 19, 1996
Andy Sanders, Herbarium, University of California at Riverside, June 24, 1996
page 19
X. DEFINITIONS
There are several federal classifications of plants and animals based upon the language
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The names of these classifications are used in
the text of this report but, in the interest of readability, are defined here.
The federal government classifies an endangered species as one in which the prospects
for survival are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is one which may become
endangered in the foreseeable future in the absence of special protection and
management efforts.
The taking of officially listed species, in any form, is illegal. Consultations with the
California Department of Fish & Game and/or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service can
result in the issuing of permits to allow the taking of listed species under certain
conditions.
In the past, the federal government maintained a list of "candidate species." Candidate
species were being considered for listing as threatened or endangered species. It is
important to note that there have never been any legal requirements to protect or
mitigate impacts to candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. At the present
time the Fish & Wildlife Service has suspended the use of candidate categories. They are
presented to provide continuity with past reports and studies.
A Category 1 Candidate species is one that the United States Fish & Wildlife Service
currently has sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support the
appropriateness of proposing to the list the taxa as an endangered or threatened species.
In short, a Category 1 Candidate species can technically become listed at any time.
A Category 2 Candidate species represents a taxa for which information now in the
possession of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service indicates that proposing to list it as an
endangered or threatened species is possibly appropriate, but for which substantial data
on biological vulnerability and threats are not sufficiently known to support an
immediate listing.
A Category 3 Candidate species is one that has been a Candidate 2 species but no longer
has candidate status.
page 20
XI. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I, James W. Cornett, hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the
attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation,
and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge and belief.
Date Principal Investigator
page 21
APPENDIX
page 22
TABLE 1
PLANT SPECIES RECORDED
HEINRICH COMMERCIAL PROJECT
ANGIOSPERMAE - DICOTYLEDONES
AMARANTHACEAE - AMARANTH FAMILY
Amaranthus albus - White Tumbleweed
Tidestromia oblongifolia - Honeysweet
ASTERACEAE - SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia dumosa - Burro-weed
Baileya pauciradiata - Lax Flower
Chaenactis fremontii - Desert Pincushion
Conyza canadensis - Horseweed
Dicoria canescens - Desert Dicoria
Geraea canescens - Desert-sunflower
Helianthus annuus - Common Sunflower
Hymenoclea salsola - Cheesebush
Palafoxia arida - Spanish Needle
Psathyrotes ramosissima - Turtleback
Sonchus oleraceus - Sow-thistle
Stephanomeria ezigua - Mitra
BORAGINACEAE - BORAGE FAMILY
Amsinckia tessellata - Checker Fiddleneck
Cryptantha angustifolia - Narrow-leafed Forget-me-not
Cryptantha micrantha - Purple-rooted Forget-me-not
Tiquilia plicata - Plicate Coldenia
BRASSICACEAE - MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica tournefortii - Sahara Mustard
Dithyrea califomica - Spectacle-pod
Sisymbrium irio - London Rocket
page 23
CHENOPODIACEAE - GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Atriplex canescens - Wingscale
Atriplex polycarpa - Cattle Spinach
Salsola tragus - Russian Thistle
EUPHORBIACEAE - SPURGE FAMILY
Croton califomicus - Desert Croton
Chamaesyce polycarpa - Sand-mat
FABACEAE - PEA FAMILY
Prosopis glandulosa - Honeypod Mesquite
Psorothamnus emoryi - Emory Dalea
GERANIACEAE - GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium cicutarium - Filaree
LAMIACEAE - MINT FAMILY
Salvia columbariae - Chia
LOASACEAE - STICK-LEAF FAMILY
Petalonyx thurberi - Thurber's Sandpaper Plant
NYCTAGINACEAE - FOUR-O'CLOCK FAMILY
Abronia villosa - Hairy Sand-Verbena
Allionia incamata - Windmills
ONAGRACEAE - EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissonia boothii - Bottle Washer
Camissonia claviformis - Brown-eyed Primrose
Oenothera deltoides - Dune Primrose
PLANTAGINACEAE - PLANTAIN FAMILY
Plantago insularis - Plantain
POLYGONACEAE - BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum inflatum - Desert Trumpet
SOLANACEAE - NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura metaloides - Jimson Weed
page 24
TAMARICACEAE - TAMARISK FAMILY
Tamarix aphylla - Athel Tree
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE - CALTROP FAMILY
Larrea tridentata - Creosote Bush
Tribulus terrestris - Puncture Vine
ANGIOSPERMAE - MONOCOTYLEDONES
POACEAE - GRASS FAMILY
Achnathenim speciosum - Desert Needlegrass
Aristida adscensionis - Triple-awned Grass
Bromus madritensis - Foxtail Grass
Cynodon dactylon - Bermuda Grass
Leymus triticoides - Rye Grass
Phalaris minor - Canary Grass
Schismus barbatus - Abu-mashi
page 25
TABLE 2
EXPECTED BREEDING OR OBSERVED VERTEBRATES
HEINRICH COMMERCIAL PROJECT
REPTILES
GEKKONIDAE - GECKOS
Coleonyx variegates - Western Banded Gecko
IGUANIDAE - IGUANIDS
Callisaurus draconoides - Zebra-tailed Lizard
Dipsosaurus dorsalis - Desert Iguana
Phrynosoma mcallii - Flat-tailed Horned Lizard ?
Urosaurus graciosus - Long-Tailed Bush Lizard *
Uma inomata - Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard
Uta stansburiana - Side-Blotched Lizard
TEIIDAE - WHIPTAILS
Cnemidophorus tigris - Western Whiptail
LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE - BLIND SNAKES
Leptotyphlops humilis - Western Blind Snake
COLUBRIDAE - COLUBRIDS
Arizona elegans - Glossy Snake
Chionactis occipitalis - Western Shovel-nosed Snake
Lampropeltis getulus - Common Kingsnake
Masticophis flagellum - Coachwhip *
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus - Spotted Leaf-nosed Snake
Pituophis melanoleucus - Gopher Snake
Rhinocheilus lecontei - Long-nosed Snake
VIPERIDAE -VIPERS
Crotalus cerastes - Sidewinder
page 26
BIRDS
ACCIPTTRIDAE - OSPREY, HAWKS, EAGLES
Buteo jamaicensis - Red-Tailed Hawk *
FALCONIDAE - FALCONS
Falco mezicanus - Prairie Falcon
Falco sparverius - American Kestrel *
PHASIANIDAE - QUAIL
Callipepla gambelh - Gambel's Quail
COLUMBIDAE - PIGEONS AND DOVES
Columba livia - Rock Dove
Zenaida macroura - Mourning Dove
CUCULIDAE - CUCKOOS
Geococcyx califomianus - Greater Roadrunner
TYTONIDAE - BARN OWLS
Tyto alba - Barn Owl
STRIGIDAE - TYPICAL OWLS
Athene cunicularia - Burrowing Owl
CAPRIMULGIDAE - NIGHTJARS
Chordeiles acutipennis - Lesser Nighthawk
Phalaenoptilus nuttallii - Common Poorwill
TROCHILIDAE - HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte costae - Costa's Hummingbird
TYRANNIDAE - TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayomis saya - Say's Phoebe *
CORVIDAE - CROWS AND JAYS
Corvus coraz - Common Raven
REMIZIDAE - VERDIN
Auriparus flaviceps - Verdin
page 27
MIMIDAE - MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos - Northern Mockingbird
LANIIDAE - SHRIKES
Lanus ludovicianus - Loggerhead Shrike
STURNIDAE - STARLINGS
Stumus vulgaris - European Starling
EMBERIZIDAE - WOOD WARBLERS, TANAGERS
Amphispiza bilineata - Black-throated Sparrow
Euphagus cyanocephalus - Brewer's Blackbird
PLOCEIDAE - WEAVER FINCHES
Passer domesticus - House Sparrow
FRINGILLIDAE - FINCHES
Carpodacus mexicanus - House Finch
page 28
MAMMALS
PHYLLOSTOMATIDAE - LEAF-NOSED BATS
Macrotus californicus - California Leaf-nosed Bat
VESPERTILIONIDAE - EVENING BATS
Antrozous pallidus - Pallid Bat
Lasiums cinereus - Hoary Bat ?
Myods californicus - California Myotis
Pipistrellus hesperus - Western Pipistrelle
MOLOSSIDAE - FREE-TAILED BATS
Tadarida brasiliensis - Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
LEPORIDAE - HARES AND RABBITS
Lepus californicus - Black-tailed Jackrabbit
SCIURIDAE - SQUIRRELS
Spermophilus tereticaudus - Round-tailed Ground Squirrel
GEOMYIDAE - POCKET GOPHERS
Thomomys bottae - Botta Pocket Gopher
HETEROMYIDAE - POCKET MICE, KANGAROO RATS
Perognathus fonnosus - Long-tailed Pocket Mouse
Dipodomys deseni - Desert Kangaroo Rat *
CRICETIDAE - DEER MICE AND WOODRATS
Onychomys torridus - Southern Grasshopper Mouse
Peromyscus eremicus - Cactus Mouse *
Peromyscus maniculatus - Deer Mouse
MURIDAE - OLD WORLD RATS AND MICE
Mus musculus - House Mouse *
CANIDAE - FOXES, WOLVES, AND COYOTES
Canis latrans - Coyote *
* = sign or individual observed on site
? = possible occurrence on or near site; not detected during survey
page 29
EXHIBIT A
RESUME OF JAMES W. CORNETT
EDUCATION
B.A., Biology, University of California at Riverside, 1976
M.S., Biology, California State University at San Bernardino, 1980
Positions Held
April, 1976 - Present
Consulting Ecologist and owner, James W. Cornett - Ecological Consultants, P.O. Box
846, Palm Springs, California 92263.
For the past nineteen years Mr. Cornett has been conducting biological studies focusing
on rare plants and animals for both private and public agencies as part of the
environmental review process required by the State of California. He established the
herbarium at the Palm Springs Desert Museum and has had his research published in
numerous journals including Madrono, Fremontia, Southwestern Naturalist, Natural
History, Herpetological Review, Journal of Parasitology, San Bernardino Museum
Quarterly, Western Birds and Principes. He has also written numerous books including
Wildlife of The North American Deserts, Wildlife of The Westem Mountains, Desert Palm
Oasis, Saguaro and Scorpion.
January, 1980 - Present
Curator of Natural Science, Palm Springs Desert Museum, 101 Museum Drive, Palm
Springs, California 92263.
September, 1976 - December, 1979
Assistant Curator of Natural Science, Palm Springs Desert Museum
September, 1975 - June, 1976
Natural Science Instructor, Palm Springs Desert Museum
page 30
January, 1981 - Present
Biology Instructor (part-time), University of California Extension, Riverside, California
92521, 714-787-4105. Courses taught: Desert Flora, Ecology of The Coachella Valley,
Ecology of The Colorado Desert, Ecology of Desert Palm Oases, Ecology of The Joshua
Tree, Mammals of The Colorado Desert and Desert Reptiles.
October, 1975 - June, 1983
Biology and Natural Resources Instructor (part-time), College of The Desert, 43500
Monterey Road, Palm Desert, California 92260.
January, 1973 - June, 1974
Assistant Naturalist (part-time), Living Desert Reserve, 47900 Portola Avenue, Palm
Desert, California 92260, 619-346-5694.
page 31
\ \ SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
M
F�ITAMANTY O RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA
653-260-005 \ \ Q TENTATIVE PARCEL
VACANT MAP NO. 28448
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF POIITIONS OF THE HE 1/A
p C�\ of BECTION 33. AIO THE MM f/A OF SECTION 34.
J TOMMSMIP A SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.M.
toll
\\' \
S"Alt lip,
2 _pk r,n o:ao 9 •����\�\ \• �N�S I \\ 653-2
VACANT
321 33 "\\\'\ .\ <� ye I d `�'=�\ � 38 es3-ua-ooe — — — 3b 36
VACANT
veanrlp
\
873-110-007
,'\\••`• .:'•�•\\. 4Cy�M-\ ` �, TAi \ \ Atli[ µTOPE
67 VACANT `�.
�,A `Y
p5 Z�I I I 87 VACANT-
VACANT-023 \ . �1^� YIIY \ \ �Y• \ \ 86}I20-002
\ \\ \ AGRICULTURE 1
{ \
873-Moo-02A \ \'\.,v \ VACANT- \, \
AGRIQB.TUIE
PARCEL 3 i I.Y�o:i.\\
y y^M \C 97 I\VE\ ATE UNIVERSITY
673-A00-OfB SITE
VACANT \ -
I PARCEL
653-AN-010
PARCEL f I I pye I �\\.. \, ._. I ~ EMERALD DESERT \
I flY
� =-4 -o�•>�-_- =—I 1III \ _\Y —___—___7'
'. I PAW
6 CRSE�29 —Q
L 3 — \as a3� — �
4 re6�IO9 EXISTING GOLFSCOURSE AM 620-f9 p0.i6h'O �I i AM 626-31 PM SaDI 0-1'6I S2'20 AM 626-10 r2 Z=RADO DONS
SHEET1 2 SHEETS
IN THE CITY OF PALMALM O SE
EASEMENT NOTES
\. \�\ 0 w fA+Odr, s•M a=IN M,AYMI V aPrrrFIM CALIrMNIA �� W RlVER6I0E STATE OFF CAL CALIFONZA
TENTATIVE PARCEL
1 sS \\ A m FM1M�w I l dI OI YB,ECtAa"l=M M,.M MAP NO. 28448
♦ >r.crrtc naenae Aa r¢r!wr"maAa. ,a ruu ua
\ \\ 9♦ nn :¢roo`n="AroacA rrn MI.xc.vwr=M,ou arr. BEING A SUBDIVISION OF P011TI016 OF THE ME 1/4
A mrr0.M s w Mlldr t•HQ• =MIPrµ I"IA— 6 SECTION 33. AIU THE Nr 1/4 OF SECTI011 3c,
0♦ \ ih a Mcrae rr A.Aa rertaunr nrTra. ra natc TIAIMSHIP A S0JrK RANGE S EAST. S.O.M.
0•t� \, ,O�O ♦ i"aiooi`XGpA.='�='m o.n Awn mr.ree. U3LIT SEPTE7BE71 1996
\ \ \ \ A w rAmi"r m•M r m M,Av="w=NaatA rwn DIRER/DEVELOPER
=uMkcr, row naa c.=omm Aro Pcruxrn r.rW4i
rM _— a... DAVID FREEDMAN S CO.. INC.
\\ \ ♦ \ HEST WORLD PROPERTIES. INC.
N.
Q� �\ SEE SHEET 2 FOR PLOT OF 1345 N. PALM
CANYON DRIVE
ZN ♦ \ CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA 92262
``CC`` ., \ \ SEE SE 2 FOR TYPICAL
� STREETET SECTIONS ENGINEER
�4 ' \.;: \ �\ ` \\ MAINIERO. SMITH 6 ASSOCIATES. INC.
I�� 5 390-021 %•;r�0 `\� � 777 EAST TAHOIIITZ CANYON MAY. STE. 301
AN 3%``' �7 \ , \ PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 92262-6748
(�[�`• �!'�!p 1 /r/ \ \ j \ (519) 320-96f1
/�� q \ RD6EgT J. MAINIEi10 RCE 25656
E%ISTING ZONING: PC-2
\�� \ PROPOSED STRING:
th SCHOOL OISTIICT: MEAT
S AWS UN IFIED
PARCEL 6 SCHOOL DISTRICT\ A' 20.04 GROSS
AES� 8.60 ACRES
PARC L 6 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL M)BERS 653-390-02 3
653-390-026 653-390-027 653-410-006
\ UTILITIES
a• IIII / AA AI \ mr mueuA vru..ns="R oil
seal
i1533— 90-0 4 A PARCEL 7 �` r9 Y A \ 'uAMrnar or wu mia"m i
V CANT �I` i 3.NAC. \\ t q • \ \ tucM= aaur wv� wa,aa . aruu
�•, �I1 j'I \ \\ �O C Wa.MB . M . v�tTmMn
PARCEL 4 7HOMAS BROTHERS mTHERS uu rM w-uu
REFERENCE: PAGE 193 Ei
�rU II — — e PAIIC L 9 0 :a ""Ec' `O� f S \• \\ i Pub ^rc...m°
653-390-029 .l°e J S�OF9 \f��\♦Ql0 WIN
VACANT ♦PARCEL 1 ° � �lY\\ 003 Pwcw
n• rrl is Ac. PARCEL 2 A Q' 653-410-006
VACANT
PALM I
�\M e_ —_GERAL-D —FORD w�\
h l 400 aI�C�J.,y\��\ r r r� .L � •�® � II � 653- 00-026 653-420-009 \\ \\
NOT A VACANT VACANT \�,�� A AP.DIOTVA"A13BC MXJAG
('PART FUTURE STATE UNIVERSITY SITE
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 /Palm Springs,California 92262-6784
Telephone (619)320.9811 /FAX (619) 323-7893
Letter of Transmittal
Date: March 20, 1997 Via: HAND DELIVERED
Job#: 1067 RECEIVED
To: Steve Smith MAR 2 0 1997
CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEvELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
From: Marvin D. Roos,AICP
Re: Revised Text-Development Plan
Project: Wonder Palms
CC: Katrina Heinrich w/2 copies
Dan Olivier, Best, Best&Krieger w/1 copy
❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment
QTY. ITEM
8 Revised Development Plan
• Comments:
r
IDMainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 301 /Palm Springs,California 92262-6784
Telephone (619) 320-9811 /FAX (619) 323.7893
March 20, 1997
Mr. Phil Drell
CITY OF PALM DESERT
,73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 28448
David Freedman & Co., Inc.
Gerald Ford Drive / Cook Street - 270 Acres
Wonder Palms Commercial Center
C/Z 96-6, PP/CUP 96-10, and DA 97-2
Dear Phil:
We have revised the previously submitted Tentative Parcel Map to include the
entire 270 acres of land included in the project, as discussed with staff. Also, we
have proposed lots for each restaurant site with a common lot for circulation,
landscaping, and stormwater retention. Enclosed are eight (8) copies as
requested.
It is our intent that the Final Parcel Maps will be phased.
It is our understanding that this revised map will be reviewed by the Planning
Commission at their meeting on April 1, 1997. If this is not correct, please advise
us as soon as possible.
We thank you for your cooperation and if you have any questions in regard to the
above, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
Z
Robert J. Mainiero, P.E.
RJM:ssf
cc: David Freedman & Co., Inc. w/enclosures
Katrina Heinrich
Dan Olivier w/enclosure
City of Palm Desert
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098
March 13, 199
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO.: TT 28488
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MARUERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC. for DAVID
FREEDMAN& COMPANY for WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER, 777 E. Tahquitz
Canyon Way, Suite 301, Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary architectural and
landscaping plans for a freeway oriented service station/food park
LOCATION: 270±acres generally,located south of Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street
ZONE: P.C. (2)
Upon reviewing the submitted plans and presentations by staff and by the applicant,the architectural
commission approved the preliminary plans, as submitted, for the freeway oriented service
station/food park.
Date of Action: March 11, 1997
Vote: Carried 4-0-1, Commissioner Gregory Abstaining, Commissioner
Urrutia Absent
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert
within ten (10) days of the date of the decision. Any amendments to this approved plan would need
to be resubmitted to commission for approval.)
------------------------__---------------------------------------- -----------------------------
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved by the
architectural commission to the department of building and safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meetings agenda, new or revised
plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the Monday eight
days prior to the next meeting.
RPay r
eper
_ e
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1997
3. CASE NO.: PP 84-39 Amendment#1
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): LEEDS & STRAUSS for VACATION INN,
11975 El Camino Real#103, San Diego, CA 92103
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary
architectural and landscaping plans for hotel remodel/addition
LOCATION: 74-695 & 74-715 Highway 111
ZONE: P.C. (4)
Mr. Smith outlined the site plan showing the former Pasta House restaurant to the
west of the existing hotel. They will be converting the restaurant to a conference
center/meeting area. As well,they are looking at 22 additional suites to the rear. Mr.
Smith noted that the landscape plan was conceptual.
Action
It was moved by Commissioner O'Donnell, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet,
to approve the preliminary architectural and landscaping plans as submitted. Motion
carried 2-0-2, Commissioners Gregory and Holden Abstaining, Commissioner
Urrutia Absent.
4. CASE NO.:
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): MAINIERO, SMITH &ASSOCIATES, INC.
for DAVID FREEDMAN&COMPANY for�O MR`PAZMS.CW ERCI L-7
ER;- 7 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301,Palm Springs, CA 92262
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary
architectural and landscaping plans for a freeway oriented service station/food park
LOCATION: 270±acres generally located south of Interstate 10, east and west of
Cook Street
ZONE: P.C. (2)
Mr. Smith presented the preliminary plans indicating that it will go before the city
council for approval on April loth. The representative for the applicant, Bert
7
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1997
Bitanga,was present to answer any questions and displayed colored renderings and
sample color board.
Action
It was moved by Commissioner Holden, seconded by Commissioner Connor, to
approve the preliminary architectural and landscape plans as submitted. Motion
carried 4-0-1, Commissioner Gregory Abstaining, Commissioner Urrutia Absent.
5. CASE NO.: 97-1 C
APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ST. MARGARET'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
47-535 Highway 74, Palm Desert, CA'92260
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of preliminary
architectural plans for 2400 square foot addition
LOCATION: 47-535 Highway 74
ZONE: P S.P. R-1
Mr. Winklepleck presented the proposed plans for an addition to the rectory noting
that it is a mirror image of the existing building. The roof lines will be the same as
the church and school. Mr. Winklepleck noted that if the commission decided to
grant preliminary approval of the addition they will need to condition it that no
permits be issued until the improvements along Highway 74 are completed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. He added that they
indicated that they are completing a fair portion of the landscaping now.
Commissioner O'Donnell asked if they were approving the architecture only or if the
landscaping was also being reviewed. Commissioner Connor felt that they needed
to see a more realistic landscaping plan.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Gregory, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell, to
grant preliminary approval of the architectural plans only. The landscaping plans
were not addressed as the commission felt the plans were too conceptual. The
commission also directed staff to not issue any permits until the previous
commitments regarding the landscaping at the front, adjacent to Highway 74,were
fulfilled. Motion carried 5-0, Commissioner Urrutia Absent.
8
i`-
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
of the back yards at Merano.
Mr. Bernheimer stated that he would need a ten day notice before the issue could be
addressed again at this commission as he would need to meet with his engineers and
property owners. He added that he still did not know what Jascorp was asking for.
The representatives for Jascorp,Mr. Rily Robinson and Mr. Jeff Otterman, indicated
that it was the same request that they asked for in October 1996.
Commissioner Holden stated that there are provisions in the city's ordinance for yard
walls to be plaster finish or block wall. It does not allow for wrought iron on
perimeter walls. Mr.Drell added that the ordinance specifies that the property owner
who is not building the wall should not be looking at more than six feet of wall.
Commissioner Holden stated that it would be a lot clearer if they could see an
elevation showing the change in heights and the varying amounts of block wall. He
added that they needed to see a section showing the stepping. Commissioner Holden
indicated that it would be difficult for him to approve an open fence on an exterior
wall.
Commission determined that the plans as presented did not allow them to respond
adequately to the concerns noted. They suggested that the applicant provide a
complete plan along the north property line.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Connor, seconded by Commissioner Holden, to
continue the request until an accurate elevation is provided showing the change in
heights, the varying amounts of block wall, and the stepping of the wall. Motion
carried 4-0, Commissioners O'Donnell and Urrutia Absent.
2. Mr. Smith presented preliminary colored elevations and material samples for a
pr„po_�g^as st-atan�fo-ad�aurt at-the-morthe`ast comer of'Cook—Street`anand-G d
Ford Drive noting that the item was not on the agenda,hence no action can be taken.
He noted that the request would be going before the planning commission the
following week and he would like to take this commissions input to that meeting.
Mr. Smith noted that the `freeway overlay commercial zone' would be going before
the city council at their March 13th meeting. The service station would be on the
corner and would include a car wash and convenience store. The maximum height
of the car wash structure is about 16 feet. Mr. Bert Bitanga of Frank Urrutia's office
was present to answer questions on the architecture. Commissioner Connor noted
that you can't even tell it is a gas station and thought it was an interesting concept.
Commissioner Van Vliet liked the architecture of the building and asked how many
13
v �
A .
..i
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
lanes would be available from the car wash to dry off the cars. Mr.Bitanga indicated
that there would be three lanes. The applicant,Katrina Heimrich, stated that the area
is approximately 70,000 square feet which is much more than any other gas station.
Commissioner Van Vliet stated that he thought it looked dynamite. Ms. Heimrich
indicated that the architecture of the food court would tie-in with the architecture of
the service station. Commissioner Holden stated that he thought it was the kind of
thing the commission is looking for in the way of service stations.
3. Mr. Smith reported that Mr. Curtis Shupe is working on a minor remodel at the
Pinard Building located on the south side of Highway I11, just east of Portola
Avenue. The redesign consists of adding six column features and painting. Mr.
Smith asked if the commission wanted to see the remodel plans of if they wanted
staff to handle it. Commissioner Holden noted that they are simply enhancing the
existing building. Commission felt that the remodel could be handled at staff level.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Z&
STEVt,SMITR
PLANNING MANAGER
SS/db
14
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 4, 1997
Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPA MAINIERO, SMITH AND
ASSOCIATES, Applicant
Request for approval of a Change of Zone to PCD (Planned
Community Development), Master Plan of Development and
Tentative Parcel Map for 270 +/- acres generally located south of
Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street.
Mr. Dell explained that another continuance was being requested. The applicant
was preparing a more detailed master plan of the site directly east of the
interchange and hopefully staff would have all that information available for the
next meeting.
Chairperson Ferguson noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if
anyone wished to address the commission on this matter. There was no one.
Chairperson Ferguson left the public hearing open and asked for a motion.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Beaty, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, continuing
C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28448 to February 18, 1997 by minute motion. Carried 5-0.
B. Case No. RV 97-1 - DWAINE HOWARD, Applicant
Request for approval of a permit to allow the parking and storage
of a 12 foot high by 40 foot long recreational vehicle in the front
yard of the property located at 73-493 Joshua Tree Street.
Mr. Drell stated that this was a request pursuant to the city ordinance regarding
the storage of recreational vehicles in front yards. He distributed some pictures
of the vehicle. He explained that the goal of the ordinance is to allow storage if
it can be adequately/appropriately screened. Screening in the ordinance is defined
as at least a wall or hedge at least six feet in height and allows vehicles up to 12
feet high and 40 feet long. He noted that in the pictures all the screening is in
place except for a proposed gate which would be in the front which would
provide screening from the street, Joshua Tree. The staff report indicated that
this application meets all the requirements of the ordinance and practically
speaking, for a vehicle this large they would probably never see more extensive
screening. In the comments from the Palm Desert Homeowners Association the
only issue was the height of the hedge. He noted that this hearing was pursuant
to an objection from an adjacent property owner and his objection seemed to be
that the size of the vehicle made any screening inadequate. The options open to
the Planning Commission were to either approve the request pursuant to the
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1996
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1776, approving TT 28450,
subject to conditions. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1777, approving PP/CUP 96-28
and TT 28451 , subject to conditions. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, by
minute motion, sending the development agreement to the City Council
without comment because the commission was not supplied with the
documentation necessary to form an opinion, however, should council wish
the Planning Commission to review the financial aspects of the application, the
commission would be like to do so. Motion carried 5-0.
;2��y�
C. Case Nos. C/Z 96-6 and TPM 2841}8� MAINIERO, SMITH AND
ASSOCIATES, Applicant
Request for approval of a change of zone to PCD (Planned
Community Development), master plan of development and
tentative parcel map for 270 +/- acres generally located south of
Interstate 10, east and west of Cook Street.
Chairperson Beaty noted that the commission has had a brief staff report on
this item at a prior presentation and staff was requesting a continuance. Mr.
Drell concurred. He asked if the commission had any questions. Chairperson
Beaty asked if there were members of the audience that couldn't come to the
continuation of the hearing which would tentatively be January 21 , 1997. Mr.
Smith said that staff was optimistic for January 21 . It goes to CVAG on
January 16. Fish and Game might not necessarily have concluded their review
at that point, but staff optimistically planned for the 21 st of January.
Chairperson Beaty asked if staff would seek an action from commission this
evening. Mr. Smith replied no, that staff was not in a position to seek that but
suggested that perhaps the commission should hear from members of the
public. Chairperson Beaty felt that was a good solution.
32
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1996
Chairperson Beaty opened the public hearing and asked if anyone had specific
questions that could be answered right now.
MR. MARVIN ROOS, Mainiero, Smith & Associates, stated that he
appeared before commission before and went over the land use plan
and received some good comments back. They've submitted a change
of zone with a development plan that would lead to a development
agreement on this property and were looking for an exciting north entry
to the community on Cook Street. Understanding that some of the
freeway oriented business issues were unresolved with ZORC at this
time, they understood that aspect of some of the hesitation of staff to
move ahead, however he disagreed with the issue with ,the multi-
species habitat. He said that at this time the CVAG process is totally
advisory and not mandatory at all. This is a fringe-toed lizard fee area
and they would be paying the fee on this property. They may or may
not have other issues that would come up at a later time, but there was
nothing relative to the CVAG process that was binding on the City or
the applicant. It was an advisory process looking at the overall picture.
In that regard they do have some timing issues they are trying to move
ahead with and he didn't think staff was ready to move ahead tonight,
but they would prefer a two-week delay if they could get it and they
would like to move ahead as quickly as possible. The overall issue was
realizing that some of the precise plan issues with the freeway-oriented
business. They would probably have to wait until those issues went
through the Zoning Ordinance Review Committee. He said they would
like to move at least concurrently with those items as they come
through the commission as well so that they could see what the real
project would look like with those standards. He said that he realized
this would be something new to everyone, including the Planning
Commission. They were trying to move ahead as quickly as possible
and realized that there were some issues that might be unresolved, even
on January 21 , but they would like to move ahead regardless of the
CVAG multi-species issues and he wanted commission to let them deal
with this separately.
MRS. KATRINA HEINRICH STEINBERG, the applicant, stated that she,
together with her husband, represent the ownership of the property in
question. She indicated that she would like to ask the commission's
indulgence in at least seeing a speedier process of this because of just
two simple facts. For the past 11 years they have been paying for their
33
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1996
Palm Desert properties which primarily consist of evaluations of the 290
gross acres located in that sphere and they have been paying almost
$11 million in taxes and bond issues. They are finally at the point
where this property is developable and becoming part of the newly
created freeway-commercial zone, hopefully to be finalized very quickly,
but they have a very small item. A gas station site at the northeast
corner of Gerald Ford and Cook which is a very high profile site and it
is much needed for when the overpass is opened at the end of January
or February as presently projected. This site has been burdened with a
temporary deed restriction by staff because that is the way the city
functions -and the way the ordinance is written, that a minimum of five
acres has to be planned out and a specific plan approved before the
development of the potential gas station can get a building permit. She
felt this holding them up again and their possibly losing a buyer of the
site by this delay, which was scheduled to close August 30, then
November 30, then December 30, and now they were looking at a
hearing at the end of January, and she felt it was very unacceptable to
them. She asked that commission make an exception and at least free
up the gas station site from the temporary deed restriction so that they
can move ahead with that particular development and following up with
the City until the rest of the five-acre minimum development is done and
follow up simultaneously with that.
Mr. Drell stated that the problem was that right now there are many aspects
of their gas station project that are not permitted by current ordinances and
until that is resolved, that is what is holding up the gas station project. It has
nothing to do with anything else.
Commissioner Ferguson asked if ZORC would be addressing that the next day.
Mr. Smith stated that the next meeting would be January 8, 1997. Mr. Drell
noted that this application was only filed about a month ago, so to say that
they have delayed by not acting in a month on a project of this magnitude is
unfair criticism. There are fundamental problems regardless of environmental
ones since the nature of the development they really want is still something
the City hasn't developed standards for and until we do, he didn't feel that the
City could proceed with approval until those standards have been developed.
Mr. Drell said there were many issues which were critical to this development
which are a radical departure from the way the City has looked at
developments for gas stations, restaurants, fast food and signage. Therefore,
34
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1996
they would not be able to proceed until staff is prepared to bring a
recommendation to the commission for all of those issues.
Commissioner Jonathan clarified that it wouldn't happen by January 7. Mr.
Drell said it wouldn't happen by January 7 without question. Maybe by
January 21 staff would, at least on a discussion basis, be able to have before
Planning Commission discussion of some of these ideas that the Zoning
Ordinance Review Committee is coming forth with, which will ultimately lead
to an ordinance revision and it would be something included in their
development guidelines. Commissioner Jonathan asked if he was
understanding correctly that there was an application before the City on City
land and they can't process the application because our zoning standards have
not been clarified for that area. Mr. Drell replied no, that they are attempting
to create a new set of standards for areas. around the freeway offramps with
different sorts of commercial development standards that might allow more
than one gas station or allow signage which is significantly different from
those the City allows now which would be visible from the freeway and would
allow drive-through restaurants and provide alternate standards specifically
designed to take advantage of freeway offramps. Commissioner Jonathan
asked if the proposed gas station was not in compliance with present zoning
standards, and if it would be in compliance with the modified standards. Mr.
Drell explained that the proposal is in the Planned Commercial zone and that
Planned Commercial zone requires that any project, whether a gas station or .
any development, to have at least a five acre planning module. You can't take
one acre in the PC zone and develop it without a larger master plan. That is
what prevents them--there is a deed restriction. The City allowed them to
create through a parcel map waiver a pad for that gas station, but he attached
to it a deed restriction that said that they couldn't build on that pad unless it
is developed in conjunction with at least a five-acre parcel per the PC-2
ordinance. The existing ordinance doesn't just let them build a gas station.
The applicant is proposing a five acre plus project, but it involves aspects
which aren't permitted in the PC-2 zone either, so they were trying to create
a special zone to allow them to do what they want. As a city they are
working very hard to accommodate the desires of the applicant and the special
circumstances. Commissioner Ferguson felt they have gone beyond that. He
noted they were considering a commercial overlay zone from Monterey to
Washington that allowed drive-through restaurants along the freeway, which
has never been done, and a whole host of land uses that the City has never
previously considered, but is finally saying that maybe they should get some
and get people off of the freeway. Mrs. Steinberg has a proposed project that
35
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 1996
they've actually been meeting with her on at the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance Review Committee meetings and they have been using her
particular project as a model to build the ordinance around. That was why he
was.surprised at the criticism.
Mrs.. Steinberg said that if it sounded like criticism she apologized, it
wasn't meant to be. It was meant to be a plea for the Planning
Commission to possibly put them at an earlier meeting than January 21 .
Mr. Drell said that during the next two weeks there were a lot of holidays and
he didn't think there would be.a tremendous amount of additional information
that staff would be able to bring to the commission and staff didn't like to
schedule public hearings and invite people back again and again and still not
make decisions. The issue of the environmental review is significant in that
with many of the species that are being reviewed, they are operating with an
understanding with the resource agencies that they will cooperate with us if
we go through these reviews and prepare plans to protect a lot of these
species which are on the verge of being endangered and having a lot of
significant detrimental impact on the development community if they become
listed as endangered, so they have a sort of gentleman's agreement that says
we won't proceed without some sort of consultation. He noted that this is a
major project and they are asking for entitlements of some sort on more than
200 acres in the area that is under question. This is not a simple request to
build a gas station on a corner.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if January 21 was sufficient time. Mr. Drell felt
staff would have more information, both relative to potential environmental
problems and hopefully on the direction that the freeway commercial is going.
Chairperson Beaty called for a motion.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Fernandez,
continuing C/Z 96-6 and TPM 28488 to January 21 , 1997 by minute. Carried
5-0.
36
a_�\
wv
%%_
6 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260
9q DO M 99 ***TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP**
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
Applicant 1 Reese poor 1
777 E Tahauitz Canyon Way Ste 301 (619) 320-9811
Mailing Address Telephone
Palm Springs CA 92262
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Tentative Tract Map to reconfigure multiple existing parcels into 7
commercial parcels and a remainder for 20 . 04 gross acres.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
A portion of the NE 1/4 of Section 33 and a portion of the NW 1/4 of
Section 34 T4S, R6E S.B.M.
ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. 653-390-023 653-390-026 , 653-390-027 , 653-410-006
EXISTING ZONING PC-2 (PCD Overlay Proposed)
Property Owner Authorization THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER IS)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION.
SIGNATURE DATE
AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
1 00 BY MY SIGNATURE ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM OESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
TRICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
SIGNATURE DATE
Applicant's Signature
SIGNATURE DATE
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED BY
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A.No.
❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CASE NO 7 Q
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION vl"s 1 Ll
"` CASE NO.
C
Environmental Assessment Form
TO THE APPLICANT:
Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information
requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required to
make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises
discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be
considered complete until all information necessary to make the
environmental assessment is complete.
GENERAL INFOR14ATION:
1 . Name, address, and telephone number of owner, applicant or project
sponsor: Lionel Steinberq and Katrina Heinrich
West World Properties, Inc.
1345 N Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs CA 92262. (619) 778-8811
2. Name, address and telephone number of person t.; be contacted con-
cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other repre-
sentati ve) :Marvin D. Roos
Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Ste 301 Palm Springs CA 92262
(619).320-9811
3. Common name of project (if any): Wonder Palms Commercial Center
TTM 28448
4. Project location (street address or general location) : Cook street
and Gerald Ford Drive
5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or
meets & bounds): Portions of Section 33 and 34 T4S 16E SBM
6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed;
describe the total undertaking, not just the current application
approval being sought): Mixed Use Commercial, Industrial, and
Residential Development
� I
• 7. Relationship t larger project or series of jects (describe
how this proje,-, relates to other activities , eases, and develop-
ments planned, or now underway): Map represents 1st phase
of 220 Master Planned Development
8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals
required for this project, to go forward, including those required
by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub-
sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required) :
Precise Plan, Tentative Tract Map and Development Agreement (City)
Drainage (CVWD)
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
9. Project site area: 220 acres overall (20 acres Phase 1)
(Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage - -
10. Present zoning: PC-2 PRS (Proposed zoning) : PCD overlay
11 . General Plan land use designation:
12. Existing use of the project site: Vacant
13. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center;
South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ).
ONorth - Freeway & Railroad East - Mobile Home Subdivision
West - Vacant - South - Vacant
14. Site topography (describe): Mostly level with rise in elevation
in S.W. portion of site of 60 feet .
15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or
adjacent to the property? NO YES x (Mid Valley Channel)
16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved):
200, 000 (Balanced)
17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed:
None
18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project
site: No cultural or historic aspects known to exist.
Site is visible from Interstate 10 and will be a major entry
to City.
C;
19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer)
A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) :
Maximum units proposed 1345
B. Schedule of unit sizes : unknown
C. Number of stories 2 Height 30 feet. .
D. Largest single building. (sq. ft. ) N/A (hgt. ) N/A
E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the
project) : 2 . 2 .
F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities:
Unknown
G. Is there any night lighting of the project: Unknown
H. Range of sales prices or rents: $ N/A to $ N/A
I. Percent of total project devoted to:
Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 est. %
Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . 25 est. Y-
Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . 50 est. %
�Y
C
20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project:
A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices, specify
type & number): Phase 1 will be Freeway oriented retail
and industrial. Automobile service stations, restaurants ,
hotels, distribution centers expected.
B. Number of square feet in total building area: Phase 1 estimate
200 , 000 s. f. / overall Development estimated 1 , 605 , 000 s. f.
C. Number of stories 1/2/3 Height 35 feet.
D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) 50 , 000 est({lgt, ) 35
E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: unknown
F. Total number of required parking spaces unknown
number provided
G. Hours of operation: Some 24 hour operations expected
H. Maximum number o' clients, patrons, shoppers, etc. , at one time:
unknown
I. Maximum number of employees at one time: unknown
J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: unknown
K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes x No
Parking areas , building lighting
L. Percent of total project devoted to:
Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 est. %
Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . 55 est. %
Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation) . . 20 est. %
Ct
Are the following items applicable to the projec._ or its effects:
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as
necessary). See attached.
YES NO
21 . Change in existing features of hillsides ,
or substantial alteration of ground contours. X
22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors
in the project vicinity. X
23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind
or flooding. X
24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing; drainage patterns. X
25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in
the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport
noise (has the required acoustical report been
submitted?) X
O26. Involves the uza or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,
flammables or explosives. X
27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy. X
28. Changes the demand for municipal services
(police, fire, sewage, etc. ) X
29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond
those presently available or planned in the X
near future.
30. Significantly affects any unique or natural
features, including mature trees. X
31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
residential areas or public land or public roads. X
X
32. Results in the dislocation of people.
i
YES NO
33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or X
other features of the project.
[X ] Additional explanation of 'yes" answers attached.
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above
and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the
facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the
best of my,knowledge and belief.
�e�,tlE� 1. MArNtctw p. �.. �A�i•l F�.et�l�vav C+., .�Mc,
Name Print or Type /For
0w1a). A"
Signature Date
INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00
(Make check payable to the
City of Palm Desert and sub—
mit with this form. )
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
APPLICATION BY
MAINIERO, SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR LIONEL STEINBERG/KATRINA HEINRICH
WONDER PALMS COMMERCIAL CENTER
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
Discussion of"Yes" answers
22. Development of up to 270 acres of mixed use commercial, industrial and residential
land uses adjacent to Interstate 10 and the Southern Pacific Railroad will result in
traffic generation which could include fumes and odors. These impacts are
discussed in the project's traffic study prepared by Endo Engineering. Mitigation
measures are proposed for traffic based impacts.
23. Soil erosion by wind or flooding is currently an impact of the site due to its proximity
to the Mid-Valley Storm Channel adjacent to the SPRR r.o.w. and the occasional
high winds in the center of the Coachella Valley. During construction, there is the
possibility of wind and water caused soil erosion until the development is completed.
Compliance with NPDES and PM 10 regulations will mitigate these impacts.
26. Development of the subject property may include automotive uses including a
service station and possibly other auto oriented uses. The storage and handling of
petroleum based products will be in compliance with State and Federal regulations.
27. Development of the subject property may result in substantial use of fuel or energy
due to the creation of new commercial, industrial and residential opportunities in the
area. To some degree, the development of Freeway-Oriented Businesses will
improve vehicular access to needed businesses and services. The design of the
overall development is intended to promote alternative transportation such as golf
carts, bicycles, and pedestrian access to reduce the ultimate impacts.
28. Development of the subject property will increase the need for public services such
as police and fire. The development is consistent with the City's General Plan and
the extension of services has been anticipated.
30/31. The site has a unique visual access from and across Interstate 10 due to the
lack of a Tamarisk tree windbreak which is commonly present in this part of the
Coachella Valley combined with a rising topography of the property. As a result, the
development of this site will be seen from these vantage points. In addition, the
completion of the Cook Street/]nterstate 10 Interchange will induce motorists to
access the City of Palm Desert at this point and this property will be the first
introduction to the City. The site is currently a stable sand dune formation which will
be transformed into an urban design pattern over the next 15 years.
IDMainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc.
777 East Tahquirz Canyon Way,Snite 301 /Palm Springs,California 92262-6784/Telephone(619)320-9811 /FAX(619) 323-7893
ADMainiero, .Smith and Associates, Inc.
Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 301 /Palm Springs,California 92262-6784
Telephone (619)320-9811/FAX (619) 323-7893
October 7, 1996
Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73 510 g Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 28448 RECEIVED
Cook Street / Gerald Ford Drive
David Freedman Co., Inc. OCT - 7 1996
Dear Phil: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Submitted herewith for your review related to the above referenced map are the following:
1. Twelve copies of the Tentative Parcel Map (two rolled, ten.folded).
2. Reduced-size copy of the Map.
3. Completed application form.
4. Check for $375.
As you know, this Tentative Parcel Map includes only a portion of the property owned by
the David Freedman Co. and is related to our application for a Precise Plan for the entire
site which will be submitted by October 11.
If you have any questions in regard to the above, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
lII�
Robert J. Mainiero, P.E.
RJM:ss
cc: David Freedman Co., Inc.
Katrina Heinrich
C:\wpdomVtrs\1067pd.wpd
\ \ \ SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS
R/w soo R/w R/w soon R/w
/V 50. C/L 50' 50 C/L 50*
7' 34' 9' 9' 34' 7• 7' 34' 9' 9' � IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
34' ,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
653-260 005 `� `01 � \ TENTATIVE2.ox x a.ox ox
VACANT
0` C,14 \ PROPOSED PROPOSED CURB PROPOSED PROPOSED CURB
�' CURB (TYP.) AND GUTTER (TYP.) CURB (TYP.) AND GUTTER (TYP.) BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF THE NE 114
PROPOSED 5d' `` \
R/W DEDICATION `'�< , '�' \ TYP I CAL SECTION 'A—A' TYPICAL SECTION 'B—B
GERALD FORD DRIVE PORTOLA AVENUEOF SECTION 33, AND THE NW 114 OF SECTION 34,
TOWNSHIP 4 SO THRANGE
NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE U , 6 EAST, S . B . M .
50 ' MARCH 1997
39 i 8'00- ----------- --- o �. "I,. , 9-" R/w 72' R/W
w - N PROPOSED 72'
o Q` - R/W DEDICATION gseo 0 \ 36' C/L 36'
�I OWNER/DEVELOPER
(U `� \
Z f
4' � B \ 3' 5' 28' 28' 5' 3'
gyp, - \ s/w s w DAV I D FREEDMAN
96.. = \ \ RE CO . , INC .
coNTlGuous \ \ WEST WORLD PROPERTIES, INC .
OWNERSHIP C, _2_._0% 2.Ox
, \ ------ 1345 N . PALM CANYON DRIVE
653�280— ~`� ��( \ SPROPOSED IDEWALK (TYP.) PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA 92262
\ 619 778-8811
VAGANT )
co
\ PROPOSED CURB
[ .N-4 ``� w �8 \ \ AND GUTTER (TYP.)
\t
PARC .L � 6 p\p1 \ \ 653-280-0 19 TYPICAL SECTION 'C-�' ENGINEER
W _ <„ CHANNEL%u®ILITY c` VACANT INTERIOR STREETS
PMta 39 DEDICATION \ °< \ \ NOT TO SALE MA I N I ERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC .
Z49 \ \ . 0 777 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY, STE . 301
O REC . 4/27/9 �g CS o—oo� 9% 27
VACANT \ \ \ PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-6748
GEF" ' (619) 320-981. 1
706' 4565'�- --- HT - PARCEL 1 \ \c/w 9� _ _m
\ \ < \ ROBERT J . MAINIERO RCE 25658
m �� .PARCEL, 17 -< ,� � . �� moo- \ \ �3 t - -
\ 4.. \,'s,; \ \ 653 410 008
PROPOSED 10• ( 2609 � , � �\ 9, VACANT
EXISTING ZONING: PC-2
R/W DEDICATION " \
PROPOSED ZONING: PC-D
50 ' EXIST. R/W
f ao EXIST. R/w X � \ SCHOOL DISTRICT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED
J .6W339g�0o 08 �. -CAIVT I \ Q� Z SCHOOL DISTRICT
m I 3-39o-�-oo \. 9,
1 z _ VACANT
I R=s 2 ` \9�" AREA: 306 . 58 GROSS ACRES
°' L=562'\ 'c..4 \ 80 HANNEL/SCE
2� p � Lo � PARCEL 1 � ' �� -\ ►sE qTs - -
- J--
�O ' ��° V PAR. to p \ �%AR. \ ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 653 390 023
- - -- �1 \ 653-390-026 653-390-027 653-410-006
- ' • '' � \ 6 5 3-410-0 0 7 653-280-016 1653-280-004 653-390-�003
PAR. 1�2 ` 9��. \ — — — — —
I
G . N 'CANT 2�q �; � VACANT ...; - 653 390-02i
\ 653 390 012 653 390 004
. . 653-390-007 653-390-024 653-390-�008
% ( --- --. -- AGRICULTURE -,
R E G
a r — — — — —
� A RICUL
a !35 1 7 h\ 6 �� 653 390 029 653-420 011 653 390 �009
rn
0 -_.. �..... 55. - SEE SHEET 2
_ _ V:A I' T I .Q _\ PAR. , 1p
653 390 017 122• .pUTILITIES:
�1 W V
- t.
1 \
V d. _ 3 .^ 03 \ SEWER COACFELLA ALLEY WATER DISTRICT (619) 396-2651
VACANT A N T E -- -- p 9� COACOELL A VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (619) 398 2651
m �'� 0 �� PO EL AND
1 g A m 7 . -�4g` r� ��6�9, UT TYDDEDICATIONELECTRIC SOUTF�RN CALIFORNIALOR�lIA EDISON CO (619) 202-4254
xi 5 �c ELECTRIC IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT (619) 398-5811
Ln
tt� !35' \ < I GAS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. (909) 335-7756
` 48' ` ` \ TELEPHONE GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (619) 342-0532
= A \ CABLE TV CONTXNENTAL CABLE 6 9 -
6�3-3��-0� � R l000 ( i ) 340 1312
PA CEL
t ACANT z � L=598'
j
THOMAS BROTHERS REFERENCE: PAGE 193 E 5
/-- --R/M -R/N -R/M -R/W lOJET- -
i
I L \ 653 420 002
— —
•
2 I 653 400 023 VACANT—
I I \ .:
VACANT I � d \ \ " AGRICULTURE
I \
00 I I I 3 — — I 653 420 009 \\,�
m O 653 400 024 _
� z I �� VACANT � - VACANT �
cn I ^ I i , AGRICULTURE \ - \'
o• 400• eoo• 1200' isoo• Q
(n L___ loe , o \� \
[
oj
SCALE i =400 ' > Gj� PARCEL 3 o z,. .\3`q� � \
I I Q.- FUTURE ,�p
ti I
MAINIERO,SMITH AND ASSOCIATES,INC. STATE UNIVERSITY \ '�9c`OS
PLANNING CIVIL ZNGINZB'RLWG UN SUIii'ZYING I _ Q Q I ' I [ SITE `
/ 653 400-018 �O
777 Z. TAEQUITZ CANYON WAY, SUITS 301 ( \\ < \ \��\
PAL1f SPRINGS, CALIPOMU 92262-7066 a /('� \
i TZLaPHONN (619) 320-9811 / PAX 323-7899 VACANT PARCEL
R C E L
II 3_4 — `
I Gj I I I 65 20 010
2 Q. \ \
I PARCEL 1 p°� ,, EMERALD DESERT �\ 9
�67' l V P
°� p2� ��° 67 ' , R ARK ..
j --- — ---p,� -- ---------- ------------ ------- `� I �, GOLF COURSE
\\
I I E
( I I I
�J5
. -R/W _R/W -R/M -R/M it� -R/M -R/M -R/XikT -A/M
-C/L -C/L - -CA -- - -C/L - --C/L - - --C/L - -C/L jR.ANK-C/L -C/L - -C/L r -
` R/W- R/ R/M- "A/Y1- R/M- M- _ ------ /M R/*- 1
1 1 q� a� ,g2 2p
AR °� TTM 28450 _ �3 ( � _ g0 2� 2
� � 'I AM 620 19 D� I AM 626 31 0 1 AM 626- 10
EXISTING GOLF COURSE i 1� 13� i ELDORADO DRIVE
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PLOT - SHEET 1 - 1625 [0. 211) PF: 1067 3311 21-Mar-97 05: 02 PM / 1067-1
SHEET 2 OF 4 SHEETS
\\ \ EASEMENT NOTES: I N THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
\ \
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AN EASEMENT, 30 ' IN WIDTH, IN FAVOR OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY, FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL
PURPOSES, PER INST . NO . 132635, REC . 7/1/83, O . R .
TENrl'10ATIVE
1 \\ \ 6 \ \ 02 CENTERLINE OF AN EASEMENT OF UNSPECIFIED WIDTH, IN FAVORMAP CI IC TELEPHONE 28448
F PA F T PH N
0 E AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, FOR POLES AND •
\ 9\ \ \ INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, PER INST . REC . 9/26/10 IN BOOK 311,
\\ \ \9 PAGE 191, O . R . BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF THE NE 114
CENTERLINE OF AN EASEMENT OF UNSPECIFIED WIDTH IN FAVOR OF SECTION 33, AND THE NW 114 OF SECTION 34,
OF PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, FOR PUBLIC TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S . B . M .
UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, PER INST . REC . 1/23/12
\ \ \ IN BOOK 344 PAGE 227 O . R .
® AN EASEMENT, 50 ' IN WIDTH, IN FAVOR OF COACHELLA VALLEY
1 \ WATER DISTRICT FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES
�9 PER INST . NO . . REC . 0 . R .
\ SEE SHEET l FOR PLOT OF
CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP
SEE SHEET i F\ OR TYPICAL
>sa ' STREET SECTIONS
100
!D ' *-7390 - 021
as \ \ \
A ANT
9 \
LIP
110
f69 '
w \� W PARCEL 10 f�9 • � ,�` ��
cn PARCEL\1 4 \
� 4 . 7o Ac .
w 50 . 70 Ac . s VACD
\ \\ \ 64\ \
� 1
to
PARC Lto
1 . 96 AC . 4
i 4 VI
hil PARCEL 9 �'�. `� \ \�
1 1.09 AC. o cc
3 — 90 4 \ PARCEL 12
" 301 ' sn 3 . 19 AC . \ S
V CANT �e ,
\ µ Q PARCEL 8 COMMON AREA
30 145 ' 90 , 0�� ~
\ ti
48p. A=300 '
1 c� 0� v I �A11
tt� ti tU O �C \\
1 PARCEL 3
n PARCEL 2 0.60 AC.
N 0.46 AC. 51 \
O CD64' 180 ' I 1 5Ln
'� S• ON\\ \ o�� \\
1a `o `o FMOEL 8 4 o R 52 (�i�\\ \ °° 20 \ _p NAH THOUSAND �CINIT ' MAP
COMMON AREA 2:88 AC. P CEL L=2� \FS \' SHORE DR R. NOT TO SCALE
86 - 0.5 AC.
"T�` 6 S� j�T PALMS
1 0 . O
254' 01 0
`� 0 125' cc� COMMON C �O
653 - 390 -- 02 o `" AREA 3•� PARCEL 13 \ \, �0`�[ it
\ m PARCEL 7 A �' 31 . 10 AC . loo�
\~`
�_
0.39 AC. 58, ti8 , 6SI• \�� O\ GERALD FORD DRIVE \
VACANT < \ w
S - c ( \� 0 D w,
_ PARCEL 1 �• 6 9 ��� \
- 89, 9 e , o) - \\� RANCHO w Z'
, c�u 1 . 58 AC . �`�' o o \�� � MIRAGE Q w
\ 75 67 - tr � 653 - 410 - 006 Q ,
1 Ln PARCEL 5 \
J r PARCEL 6 L o
0.46 AC. r' 0.66 AC. o \\\
o VACANT ti\ \ems hh �/ p�• \ FRANK SINATRA DRIVE w
Q 122' 165 66. in
1
SMH INV. _ 30 ' 61 25' 116' 5' M `l a PALM w o
SMH INV. EXISTING a�
_ MH INV. � 135 =i 7 ''` J �
155.44 _ w o
_ �n
to R f-
� 154.93 I� n SMH INV F— � �- � DESERT N 0
c0—
= lt� Z �
—se .:R — -153.33 Y
—SEWER._... Dl—_ � cc
Q
c/L _ a 0 0
--
cU -- SEAR` U J
1 (p to �cto T — --WATER ;-M,
y —FORDATER— uj
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE w
-R/W '" w
135 ' I I ~ `
\ \ \
Q�• �_ � EXISTING -. p .
18 WATER \ ,q 0' !00' 200, 300' 400'
� PA ," C E L\f 19 � 11 _ _ w, �
1 . 20 A6 67' 1 65 � 400 026 _ _ \► �5' 65 � 420 00 � � \ SCALE 1 =100 '
( I VACANT
I 11 NOT A VACANT \ �9}t MAINIERO SMITH AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
PLANNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING / LAND SURVEYING
\P BA RFUTURESTATE \ 777 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, SUITE 301 SITE \ �, 4
I \ PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNL4 92262-7066
TELEPHONE (619) 320-9811 / FAX 323-7893
TENT. PAR. MAP PLOT - SHEET 2 OF 4 - 1625 [0. 211] PF: 1067 3301 21-Mar-97 04: 45 PM / 1067-1
SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS
IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
S \ \ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
653-410-008 TENr�'koATTVE
VACANT
MAP NO * 28448
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF THE NE 114
164 \� "� \ OF SECTION 33, AND THE NW 114 OF SECTION 34,
R=93e I I \ \ \ TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S . B . M .
=823 t6v \ \
RL 394 I \ \ \ 1
1
n.
\9 si
IN A
65 -390-004
's9 R=136
f L-737
s
d Cm
VACANT PA EL 14
R-1520
50 AC . L-481
G° rsv
PAR . 10
I o
s4 I PAR . 11
\J' a PAR . 9 c� PAR . 12 653-410-007
J
N 9° e 53 39 -007 I R-267\ L=351 VACANT-
0
\ ,
AGRICULTURE
J A T
R-93e PAR . PAR . 3
PROPOSED 72 PAR . 4 a R-52
16 N DEDICATIO I I R-25 L-21 i �•
\653- 90- 8 L-2sPAR . 7
J9 \ V CANT �y PAR . 1 �=i90 6S
PAR . PAR .165 6 5 L.55 C� T
R-35 �0
\ — 1
444 9 ! 5 L=631
R-1655 r \gyp
Jae 122 151 2 ' � ��
I s `�°° \ R= CAL - _ +�, 38 —SEWER
7
1t,-452 5 I w.aTER-549 R ._
`Sovz
�. iU
32 "'-HATER
Q 2 —r- r�9
R-1000
P A'R C 8 1g0 r ;( CAD I I L=598
>a 29 . 0 C . Cu
OI
5 39\0. 009\ \ R�E 19 Q �\ t; ,
I 6 \ \ �° �, �Je � ld � � PARCEL 13 F\ `�� ` \ 964 \�, �.
VA AN -, s�\ a rev AC . IS ��` s \ ``� 31 . 1 AC . �\ v - ` �� \
\ 1
— 93
R/W -- R/W 6 —111w
\ I I c4 Cq 0\
T!,
EXISTING
55 R/W \ \
I-,
�• I 1?6 ''i � srn 9i"\
}h
\ 13N R-1055
L-666
\ \ '� � Jae `•I — —653 420 009 R=100 — ;
160 \ \r L-63i
VACANT-
653-400-024
AGRICULTURE
VACANT I \
{
Cr
u
I � I I 0. 200' 400' 600 800'
PARCEL 3
t FUTURE
SCALE i =200 '
.
F— , �-
z \ ST�TE UNIVERSITY ;
III Q \ �� \, ,
\ .� \ ,SITE
I \ \ MA,INIERO,SMITH AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
\\ '� \ \ ` PLANNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING / LAND SURVEYING
lea
I
> 777 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON MAY, SUITE 301
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262-7066
TELEPHONE (619) 320-9811 / FAX 323-7893
Tentative Map, 200 scale sheet 3 - 1980 (0. 211) PF: 1067 3331 21-Mar-97 04: 34 PM / 1067-1
�\ \ SHEET 4 OF 4 SHEETS
IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
\ \ COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TENTATIVJ'Ci PA'" ,CEL I
�\ s
2
s
MAP NO . 28448
\°1
BEING G A SUBDIVISION\ \ \ \ N DIVISION OF PORTIONS OF THE NE 114
/
OF SECTION 33, AND THE NW 114 OF SECTION 34,
O
TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S . B . M .
\< \ Y V
Im
N
10 \
PROPOSED 50 Fes\ \ \
R/W DEDICATION
\ \ \
\ \= PROPOSED 72'
\ \ R=55`r�9 \ R/W DEDICATION
\ \
Cu R—1236
Ki L 766P.
S
900
014 IN
\� " d Ly-55 \ is L-7224 p \ PAGPOSED \
W K \ \ DEO TION
CHANNE AND U ITIES
\ 653-286 16
VACA
R-536
CU Q Cu \ \ \ o L-570
\ \ \ \
i
\�Q \ \ \ \� rn J L-493 ~ \ \ — —
�, �� \ ARCtL 16 653 280 019
~ �` �0� �\\ a° ��`�-, ~ \\ 7 . 5 A 1 \ \ \ \9/� VACANT
LD
15
57 . k AC .
R-35
L-53 I �\
' in ru a 653-280-004
2QL?' 2 O =35\ \ r �'\ ` L=50 R=35
L-53 VACANT
cQv N \.1964
39
PROW
\ \
o> — — —ESMT— ` *_1 \
ESMT-- �\ ESMT—
A R-1062 ` \
\ 1963 \ ` \
m _ \ }� e \ \ y y
• I L=55 P AR C�'L \. �.u7 `\\ R-938
PROPOSED 10 �� \ \ L=651
DEDICATION cu N 1� A C • \ `\
FOR R/W I a N 9
cc
0 \ ` 4� \ �
� � � \, ,,fir \ ,\ ,\ �..\\ .\ �
�o°
18
EXIST. 40' R/W
\ \
R=1062 �EE SHEET 3 r §�
6 5 3\ 9 0- 8 ;� I Co �� L=394 - I c '
\�
\ VACANT \ r. \ I C3\
a \ �\
\� � �\� 65 -350- 004 \
Q C\I00 CD Cu
VACANT
0' 200' 400' 600, Boo
Q SCALE i 200
MAINIERO,SMITH AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
PLANNING / CIVIL ENGINEERING / LAND SURVEYING
777 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON MAY, SUITE 301
ti PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNL4 92262-7066
TELEPHONE (619) 320-9811 / FAX 323-7893
Tentative Map. 200 scale sheet 4 - 1980 (0. 211) PF: 1067 3341 21-Mar-97 04: 35 PM / 1067-1