Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1104 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1976 7 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER A specially scheduled meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilson at 7:00 p.m. in the Council ••. Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall . II. PLEDGE - Commissioner Kelly III. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioner KELLY Commissioner MILLS Commissioner VAN DE MARK Chairman WILSON Absent: Commissioner BERKEY Also Present: Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Hunter Cook - City Engineer Steve Fleshman - Associate Planner IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. MINUTES of the meeting of October 19, 1976. Mr. Fleshman asked that the following additions be made to the above-mentioned minutes: Page 2, 7th paragraph, add the following after the word "ac- ceptable" : provided that an acceptable design was presented. Page 4, 8th paragraph, add "and access" after "area" in the last line. Also, add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: The Commission felt that perhaps some further analysis is necessary to determine if the storage type use itself would be within the intent and purpose of the zone. Page 5, reword the ninth paragraph as follows: Mr. Williams stated that staff would prepare another report for the Commission on a way to distinguish between institutional and family-type foster home situations. Page 6, add the following sentence under the Planning Com- missioner's comments: Chairman Wilson also felt that a dialogue between the Commissioners and the Council discussing the various items reviewed on the trip would be very beneficial and should be considered as part of subsequent agendas. A motion of Commissioner Van de Mark, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1976 meeting, as amended, was unanimously carried. November 4, 1976 Page One B. MINUTES of the Special Meeting of November 1, 1976. A motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Van de Mark, to approve the above-mentioned minutes, as written, was unanimously carried. V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilson explained that the Commission had met in a Study Session prior to the meeting for the purpose of answering questions concerning staff reports and that no decisions were made during the Study Session. Chairman Wilson then explained the Public Hearing procedures. A. VARIANCE 04-76, CAROUSEL RESORT HOTEL, APPLICANT Request for a Variance to allow an accessory use to a use allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the R-3 Zone District. More specifically, a Variance to allow a restaurant opera- tion in the R-3 Zone District as an accessory use to an existing hotel operation. Mr. Williams reviewed the applicant's request with the Com- mission and showed drawings depicting the proposed design, floor plan, elevations, and plot plan. Mr. Williams then reviewed the background of the proposed project which in- cluded size, zoning, parking requirements, etc. Mr. Williams explained to the Commission that in analyzing the Zoning Ordinance, they would be confronted with a policy decision that may preclude the ability of the existing hotel to ever expand. He explained that this assumes that the Com- mission agrees with the staff in the philosophy of not allow- ing any density considerations for any property allocated to other uses. In this instance, this means that if the area al- located to the restaurant and related parking is subtracted from the property and the remainder is multiplied by the maxi- mum hotel unit density of the zone, which is 18 units; the maximum additional units would be -0-. Mr. Williams further explained that under this determination, the hotel may never substantially expand and, therefore, recommended that the con- ditions of approval require that all proposed parking lot im- provements be permanent. Mr. Williams also stated that the first determination the Com- mission must decide was if this was an accessory use to an existing facility and, if so, was there justification for a Variance due to unique circumstances. He then stated that staff felt the property was unique due to its existing shape and location; therefore, staff was recommending approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 189, with the attached con- ditions. Mr. Williams then presented three telegrams to the Commission. The telegrams were from owners of residential property adjacent .. to the proposed project that were protesting the granting of the Variance as being detrimental to the adjacent residences. The telegrams were from Alfred C. Buxton, Frank H. Davis, and Charlotte B. Duba. Mr. Williams also presented a note from Miriam Carver (Sandpiper 31B) , which stated that she would consider it desirable to have a fine restaurant nearby. ni .. n 1o7c PAna Tian Mr. Williams then stated that staff was suggesting some re- visions to the Special Conditions as attached to the Resolu- tion. These revisions are as follows: Addition to Special Condition No. 4: including tie-in paving. Addition to Special Condition No. 5: including curb returns at Pitahaya and transition paving to the sa- tisfaction of the City Engineer. Addition to Special Condition No. 7: and along the east side of the Frontage Road, as determined by the City En- gineer. Being no questions of staff at this time, Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. GEORGE RITTER, 73-899 Highway 111, Architect for the project, spoke to the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Ritter explained that they had tried to mitigate any problems regarding the neighborhood. Mr. Ritter then spoke regarding any future expansion of the hotel , stating that it was the applicant's in- tention to possibly add additional units at a later date. Mr. Ritter further stated that the applicant did not intend to de- velop the Ocotillo side of the property. Commissioner Berkey arrived at 7:23 p.m. Chairman Wilson welcomed Commissioner Berkey. Commissioner Berkey apologized for being late and proposed to abstain from the discussion on the Variance due to the fact he had not been present for all of the testimony. Mr. Ritter then explained that it was the applicant's intent to request a Variance to put a restaurant into an existing building. He explained that the existing structure had too much value to be torn down; but also had too little value for a residence. Mr. Ritter then stated that the east side of the Frontage Road already had curb and gutter and tie-in paving. Further, Mr. Ritter stated that the applicant was aware that the existing sign would possibly not conform to the proposed Sign Ordinance; but that he would like to wait and complete the signage program. He stated that he assumed that if the applicant agreed to this Condition (Special Condition No. 6) that the sign must be removed immediately. He stated that the applicant would like to come back on a separate variance application for signs. Mr. Ritter then spoke regarding the existing walls at the location and stated that the applicant did not feel that there was a need for a wall on the Ocotillo side of the property. There was a discussion among staff, the Commission, and the architect regarding the walls, the curb and gutter requirements for the Frontage Road, and the signage program. Chairman Wilson then asked if anyone else was present who wished to speak to the Commission in favor of the proposed project. Being no one, he then asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed project. Being no one, Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing and asked the Commission to take the matter under consideration. Chairman Wilson explained that the first issue was to determine if this is an accessory use to the existing hotel. He then explained that if the Commission decided that this was an accessory use; they must then decide if unique circumstances existed to grant the Vari- ance. There was a discussion among the Commissioners regarding the ac- cessory use determination with the consensus of the Commission being that the proposed restaurant should be considered as an ac- cessory use to the existing hotel . November 4, 1976 Page Three The Commission then discussed the traffic and parking problems re- garding the proposed restaurant. Commissioner Kelly felt that the traffic and parking problems would be the same as the existing facility down the street. Commissioner Mills stated he felt that unique circumstances did exist and he would approve the granting of the Variance. Commissioner Van de Mark felt that unusual circumstances did exist here and she referred to the similar hotel and restaurant facility which was located down the street. She stated that she felt it would not be fair to the applicant to deprive him of the same privi- w leges which the nearby property enjoyed. Therefore, she stated she felt there were unusual circumstances present to warrant granting the Variance. Chairman Wilson then asked the Commission to look at the basic disa- greements that had arisen. The first disagreement was regarding the future development situation and the Commissioners agreed that it was unfortunate, but that they supported the staff's recommendation that future development should not be allowed. Chairman Wilson then re-opened the Public Hearing to obtain additional input from the applicant. Mr. Ritter stated that land was a natural resource and should be developed to its fullest use; but that the applicant would agree to accept whatever conditions the Commission decided on. Chairman Wilson then asked staff for a possible rewording on the Condition regarding the signage program. Mr. Williams gave the following rewording: Special Condition No. 6: All existing signs shall not remain and as a part of the development of the restau- rant, the sign program shall be developed and approved by the City and said sign program shall be implemented as a part of the creation of the restaurant. The Commission agreed with staff's rewording for Special Condition No. 6. Chairman Wilson then closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 189, granting the Variance for the restaurant, with the revised Condition of Approval No. 6 pertaining to the signage program, and staff' s revisions to Special Conditions No. 4, No. 5, and No. 7. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Chairman Wilson asked if there was any further discussion. Commissioner Kelly stated that she was still concerned with the traffic and access problems in relation to the Scenic Highway. Chairman Wilson then asked Mr. Williams if there had been any special study made regarding the traffic congestion and the impacts of the proposed project on Highway 74. Mr. Williams stated that there had not been a study; but ex- `mo o plained the value of the Frontage Road and stated there was no indication that a special study was needed. Chairman Wilson then asked for a vote on Commissioner Van de Mark's motion. The motion carried with the following vote: AYES: MILLS, VAN DE MARK, WILSON NOES: KELLY ABSTAIN: BERKEY November 4, 1976 Page Four B. C/Z 04-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated proposal to re-zone 225 acres, generally located north of 44th Avenue, between Monterey Ave- nue and Portola Avenue, from 'S' (Study) to PR-1, S.P. (Plan- ned Residential-one unit per acre, Scenic Preservation Over- lay) , or other appropriate zones . Mr. Williams presented the staff report which included a background of the area and a discussion of the project element. Mr. Williams explained that staff was aware that the C.O.D. Specific Plan was still unfinished at this time and that the development of the Plan was the original reason %WV for designating the property Study District. He explained that since the Zoning Ordinance provides that the Study Dis- trict expires in 12 months, after its adoption, the City must re-zone the property or it would automatically revert to the zones in effect prior to its being re-zoned Study. He then explained that automatic reversion at this time could permit development which the staff believed would be in conflict with the future C.O.D. Specific Plan. Further, to prevent this occurrence, the staff was recommending adoption of a zone which would cover the property during the interim peri- od. Therefore, staff was recommending a PR-1, S.P. designa- tion due to the fact that it would not create unrealistic time constraints for the staff and could be modified any time the Planning Commission desired to initiate a Change of Zone. Mr. Williams then explained that two written comments had been received on the proposed re-zoning for this parcel . The first comment was from the Regents of the University of California and Mr. Williams informed the Commission that staff had sent a letter in response. Following staff's response, a telegram was then received from Jack N. Schappell , Assistant Treasurer of Real Estate, University of California, stating that the Re- gents of the University of California opposed the re-zoning and that the zoning of the Regent's property must be consistent •► with the highest and best use. Mr. Williams also presented a letter from the State Department of Transportation regarding the re-zoning of this parcel . Mr. Williams then stated that staff felt that the re-zoning to a PR-1, S.P. designation was appropriate in that it does conform to the Palm Desert General Plan and; therefore, staff was recom- mending approval by Planning Commission Resolution. Chairman Wilson then opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the Commission in favor of the proposed re-zoning. JIM DALE, 71-973 San Jacinto, Rancho Mirage, spoke to the Com- mission representing the owner of the property in question and stated that the owner had not had appropriate time to respond to this re-zoning. Chairman Wilson asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the Commission in opposition to the proposed re-zoning. KEN CALKINS, 43-301 Portola, spoke to the Commission as the owner of the property on the Portola side of the parcel . He questioned the location of the University of California property. Mr. Williams pointed out the location on the map. Mr. Calkins then stated that he had no objections. Chairman Wilson closed the Public Hearing. November 4, 1976 Page Five There was a discussion among the members of the Commission re- garding the proposed re-zoning and the complications due to the C.O.D. Specific Plan and the fact that it would be a minimum of nine months before the Plan was completed. Mr. Williams explained that there was a February deadline for the proposed re-zoning and in order for it to go to the City Council , the Commission would have to make a decision. The general consensus of the Commission seemed to be that the mat- ter should be continued to allow more time for additional public input into the matter. Commissioner Berkey moved that the Planning Commission continue vow the matter of the re-zoning until the November 30, 1976 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion. Chairman Wilson reopened the Public Hearing so that the matter could be continued. Commissioner Kelly stated it was a shame that more people were not present for additional input. Chairman Wilson asked staff to make sure the continued Public Hearing would have a proper amount of publicity. The motion to continue the matter on C/Z 04-76, to the Planning Com- mission meeting of November 30, 1976, was unanimously carried. C. C/Z 05-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT Planning Commission initiated proposal to re-zone 9 acres, generally located on the northeast corner of Deep Canyon Road and Highway 111, from 'S' (Study) to C-1, S.P. (General Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) , or other appropriate zones and to re-zone 6 acres at the northwest corner of the Indian Wells City Limit Line and Highway 111 from 'S' (Study) taw to PC(4) (Planned Commercial-Resort) , or other more appropriate zones. Mr. Williams presented the staff report to the Commission. Said report included a description of the property and a discussion of the issues regarding the proposed re-zoning. Mr. Williams explained that the proposed re-zoning was in con- formance with the General Plan and does meet the intent of the existing Redevelopment Plan; therefore, staff was recommending approval by Planning Commission Resolution. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing. Being no one present who wished to speak to the Commission in favor of the proposed re-zoning, Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed re-zoning. CHARLES WALKER, 44-615 San Onofre, spoke to the Commission and objected to the proposed re-zoning as being too close to the residential property in the area. He objected to the commercial zoning. BILL HOBBS, 72-707 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and stated that he felt the parcel was unique in that the City had not yet established what the Redevelopment Agency was going to do. Chairman Wilson then closed the Public Hearing and asked the Com- mission to take the matter under consideration. There was a short discussion among the members of the Commission during which they decided that the matter should be continued to allow time for additional study of the matter. November 4, 1976 Page Six Commissioner Van de Mark moved that the matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 30, 1976. Chairman Wilson reopened the Public Hearing in order to allow the continuance. Commissioner Kelly stated strongly that she could not in any way support commercial zoning across the street from single family development. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. Now D. C/Z 06-76, CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT City Council initiated proposal to pre-zone approximately 121 acres of property, generally located west of Cook Street and north of the Sun King Mobilehome Park, from County R-1- 12,000 to (UA) O.S. (Open Space) and (UA) S.I. , S.P. (Service Industrial , Scenic Preservation) , or other more appropriate zones in the City of Palm Desert. Commissioner Berkey asked to be excused from the discussion on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest; and he subsequently left the Council Chambers. Mr. Williams presented the staff report which included a com- plete background of the area, including size, location, adja- cent zoning, and General Plan conformance. Mr. Williams then stated that staff recommended pre-zoning the front 60 acres with a (UA) S.I. , S.P. designation. He also stated that staff recommended pre-zoning the rear 60 acres as (UA) O.S. Mr. Williams further explained that once annexa- tion is completed on this property, the "UA" (Upon Annexation) prefix will be removed. Finally, Mr. Williams stated that staff recommended approval of the above pre-zoning and forwarding ,W of same to the City Council by Planning Commission Resolution No. 190. Chairman Wilson opened the Public Hearing on C/Z 06-76 and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak to the Commission in favor of the pre-zoning. CHARLES GIBBS, 70-673 Oroville Circle, Rancho Mirage, spoke to the Commission as the owner of the property in question. Mr. Gibbs stated that he would be glad to answer any questions that the Commission may have. He further stated that he had flown over the area in question several times and that the blow sand was diminishing. He then stated that he was definitely in agree- ment with staff's proposal for pre-zoning. Mr. Gibbs also stated that he would like to add that if the City of Palm Desert were to enter a request for the westerly 60 acres of the property, he would probably give it to the City. Mr. Gibbs then spoke of his present and proposed plans for develop- ment of the property. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the Commission in opposition to the proposed pre-zoning. GEORGE MARZICOLA, 73-743 Highway 111, spoke to the Commission and stated he wasn't sure whether he was in favor of or in opposition to the pre-zoning. However, he was concerned with what type of buffering or setback was proposed. Mr. Williams explained that the S. I. zone does provide for set- backs on all portions of the lots and provides for the widening of roads, installation of walls, and landscaping. He further explained that any development would have to meet the Conditional Use Permit requirements. Mr. Williams also explained that once the zoning was established, the Conditional Use Permit would have to be approved through the Planning Commission. November 4. 1976 Page Seven Mr. Marzicola stated that, for the record, he would not object to annexation or use of the property provided there would be some specific zoning set for the property. Chairman Wilson then closed the Public Hearing and asked the Com- mission to take the matter under consideration. Commissioner Kelly stated that through the public input that had been received and from the staff report, she could see no problem with the pre-zoning as proposed by staff. Commissioner Mills agreed with Commissioner Kelly, stating that there should be no problems and that he was in favor of the pre-zoning. Chairman Wilson stated that with the Scenic Preservation Overlay and the assumption that it was in conformance with the General Plan, he would have no objections to the pre-zoning. Commissioner Kelly moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 190, approving the pre-zoning and forwarding it to the City Council for approval . Commissioner Van de Mark seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following vote: AYES: KELLY, MILLS, VAN DE MARK, WILSON NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: BERKEY E. CUP 02-76, TRANSYLVANIA RESTAURANT, APPLICANT Request to amend CUP 02-76 to allow an addition of 630 square feet of floor area and a cocktail lounge to an existing res- taurant facility, located at the Palms-to-Pines Shopping Center. Mr. Williams presented the staff report, which included a back- ground of the project and the following justifications for Plan- ning Commission approval of same: 1. The addition to the restaurant would complement the existing retail shops and existing restaurant and would provide for more adequate and complete dining facilities. 2. The proposed addition would not be detrimental to other neighboring properties. Mr. Williams also stated that there had been no complaints re- ceived regarding the project, other than that the sign out front of the restaurant needed some modification. There was a short discussion regarding the parking standards with Mr. Williams assuring the Commission that the addition would be in con- formance with the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Wilson asked if the applicant was present. MARIA C. PALEAN, 73-200 E1 Paseo, spoke to the Commission and stated she was in agreement with the Conditions of Approval as recommended by staff. Chairman Wilson asked if anyone was present wishing to speak in favor of the project. Being no one, he then asked if anyone was present wishing to speak in opposition to the project. Being no one, Chair- man Wilson closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 191, subject to the attached conditions, approving the applicant's request for an amendment to CUP 02-76. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. November 4. 1976 Paaa Fiaht VII. OLD BUSINESS None VIII. NEW BUSINESS None IX. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS A. CASE NO. 17SA, WELLS FARGO BANK, APPLICANT Review of a Design Review Board approval of a sign program for the new Wells Fargo Bank, located at Portola Avenue and High- way 111. Mr. Fleshman presented the staff report which indicated that the Design Review Board had approved the sign program for the new Wells Fargo Bank, at their meeting of October 26, 1976. Commissioner Mills asked if the new signs were single faced. Mr. Fleshman answered that no, they were double faced. Commissioner Mills then stated, for the record, that this would be four signs as opposed to two since they were double faced. Chairman Wilson stated that even though this was not a Public Hearing, the Commission would take any testimony that was offered. WALLACE KEANE, 9000 Flair Drive, E1 Monte, spoke as a represen- tative of the bank, and stated that the bank had not planned on re-vamping the landscaping as recommended by the Design Re- view Board; that they wanted to keep the existing planting. He further stated that he had no objections to any of the other conditions of approval. Mr. Fleshman explained that the Design Review Board felt that upgrading the landscaping would soften the parking lot area and provide for shade trees. Commissioner Mills asked if the upgrading of the landscaping would change the traffic flow pattern. The applicant answered no. There was a short discussion regarding the traffic and parking situa- tion. Hunter Cook, City Engineer, stated that he felt the parking lot would function properly whether or not the trees were there; but that it would be better off with the trees. Commissioner Berkey moved to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 192, approving the Design Review Board approval of the sign program, with the attached conditions of approval. Commissioner Kelly seconded the motion; motion unanimously carried. X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None XI. COMMENTS A. City Staff None B. City Attorney None NnvPmhPr 4. 1A76 Paoe Nine C. Planning Commissioners Commissioner Van de Mark stated that she needed some clarification on the parking requirements. Chairman Wilson explained that the parking requirements had been adequately reviewed recently in the amendments to the Zoning Or- dinance. XII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Van de Mark moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mills seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. r, PAUL A. WILLIA SECRETARY ATTEST: ROY WILS , CHAIRMAN A M DESER PLANNING C MISSION vow November 4, 1976 Page Ten C C 2 :3 In � Ln cu ,Xo:n�� 5^, 79?:4 C9> 'S 436)7E 1715 ,..P 1 1-74 0515P rs'T \ Pv"o CITY OF PAL"i D''SZRT A PAf�v'_(1. A 4'TL�IQn/C CGrCFTr�v' ti-ti1T11!` �. M CC lA ,c� r, , PL�:1.,� . -. CC:1 ,! SSIOM , DU C OF rPI� ";TIp.L PRCPRY pD,16C7!'T I^JTrSECTIO" }iIrH'v;4Y 74 O G r PTTn Ht.Y6, TFrFT I PPOM7T 04-75 FOR RIESTPURA'iT c r h� '�_ ^": _.T_^ PY C4'':ULOT `�LDI '' r.CRO ATIO'1 PS 3F '!0 DETRIh'EMTAL. TO An J C'- T R I7 E\'CL ALr P.rn v UYT0,1I L«r -71-y) (?_��/', 7?54 7r)?)?D 11 /�,4/7', 171 ? rr. ,y'n, my 77 c ��ti cAF� ! !� r:IE'L T;, r� 3? 11 _0/� !151 ?? E";T x ... `m P-�c CTTtii CY PAL T--,u^7- T Ln P8U, 6 'ILL.Tc'' r rr. Co�Tn* v � IrFTTn� PL F PALS, TJc r T rn• nh ? '1T ? ?. � ���,TY �,PJAC` ,•�T S��T�Pr7OT10 VIGHiAY 74 , �nt � PST t, v �Ti E-T . T ;::CTcrT r�r 11'rT11r` VARIAn±CF 01'-76 F-OP RC"TAURA 1T nT 1..rLr,I �,r, r�CPPruRnTIC"! Gc �,EI, DETFIt':EPTAl, TO .-" T .- ig INC` Tr c2 . 09)PD I /04/7 1716�, 3 ? , Ln lu I C I P';F„1 Cz ; P y 132Z'?721 TDi;" "AP? CA.31 Ire C" ?. 11-CA '?51SP EST ' Ff"F CITY OF PfL" DZ EE;�T Pp`L n ,.TIL�.T A C c'�'CF, T8;Y , pLc�,»Ir'` CO , IS"cIC"! DLR � p41 nc�..:T C� nrjnc'r� EF fir17TD' �'TIA.L PFnF7RTY ADJACE' 'T I ":TER SE CT ION 141GEW Y 74 PIT '?AY^ rT FT T PFCT'_FT ^-R1,NTI "'r VAR 1-4011-76 FOP. PEST AUPANT 13 r Z" nY C6 FL^T F0LD1'?C C0RPCRATI.0N AS 3EI^'C DETRIMEMTAL TO E 7 RE". TD, CE _ CFtC ;i CTTE r. DUI- A n - _ %NOW Miriam Carver ,, , Sandp'pe 31 B • Palm Desert' California 92260 5 4e � s �r.r � nzD 1Rid. �_�zzn � zn�)nr 11 /9 !/7S 1 :ham Tin T?-Fp,,n-7 CrF ° :DR ^E:PEv �Y C 1-04 0943P EST LL ,Tr �c 'cn;,rTn.;;,, Pj C,T1� jn,r ^r��nIcSIC1rt CITY OF PAID! � , m in ,Jri I.'ERET' PFTOR TO ikon, TODAY , DLR ei ,75• P„ I ,.. err PALM VE7 -°T rt n�nr. O F R77O'l1,Ti'C Ce.CF /Z 04-76 FOR THE RE COi;D ,T:aE REGENTS CF THE ITY OF ^nLIFO1,�7IA 0PP0`_ES FFZONINC APtd 621 -36r)—01 AND 04T0 Pn- 1 , - :" op. CR 0,IrFrR Z10 11'C . ?C 'I""! CF TFE E;EC- NT 'S PROPERTY MUST R7 �74117T TE"'T l:'1TF F`ICXEI 7T ru' rr`'T U`'E . . DTTPILrD LFTTrP FOLLOYS cC!'CPPELL , ^SSI :CT4 T TRr^F URFR RC'AL ESTATE i`:TTY OF' CAL1F0 „?e, r r STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _ DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92403 October 27, 1976 Project Review 08-Riv-111-38.6/39.6 Mr. Paul A. Williams Director, Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane 11 I Palm Desert, CA 92260 CCI 2919r Dear Mr. Williams : ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Thank you for the opportunity to review 'M91Fg&AL0PEtWe request, Case No. C/Z 04-76 (from 'S ' Study to PR-1 and SP), located north of 44th Avenue between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue in the City of Palm Desert. �.• This proposal is removed from any existing or proposed State high- way. However, we would like to note that State Highway Route 111 is the major transportation facility providing access to the Palm Desert area. Highway 111 is now carrying volumes in the 30,000 per day range during the peak months. Traffic volumes of this magnitude are in the proper range of those which can be accommo- dated on a 4-lane facility and still provide a fairly reasonable level of traffic service. Improvement of the highway to significantly increase its capacity would be very expensive and disruptive because of the extensive development along much of the route. A review of the source of future funds for which State Highway Ill might be eligible indicates that our agency will not be able to provide any major improvement for this State highway within the foreseeable future. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. George Boon at (714) 383-4671. Very truly yours, J. E. PEDDY District Director By Proje YtDevelopment Services Engineer