HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATIONS COUNRTY CLUB DRIVE NO 8 FILE 2 1979 PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
Mayor Mullins declared the the Public Hearing open and asked
for input in FAVOR of the Zone Change . None was offered.
'.4ayor Mullins asked for input in OPPOSITION. None was offered.
He declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilman McPherson moved to waive further reading and pass
Ordinance No . 206 to second reading, approving a Change of Zone from
' S ' Study to RM, (U.A. ) . Councilman Brush seconded . Motion carried
on a 3-1-1 vote, with Councilman Newbrander voting No .
C. ANNEXATION NO. 8 - IR14IN SIEGEL, APPLICANT: Consideration of Any
and All Protests Regarding The Proposed Annexation To The City Of
Palm Desert .
Paul Williams reviewed this matter for Council , stating that it
was considered by LAFCO on March 8 , 1979. The City was directed
to hold a Public Hearing for the sole purpose of allowing property
owners within the area to be annexed to be heard. Application was
filed with LAFCO by Resolution No . 78-173 , adopted on December 28 ,
1978 . He stated no verbal or written communication has been re-
ceived from property owners , and therefore Staff recommended
adoption of Resolution 79-46 .
Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing OPEN and asked for
input in FAVOR of the Annexation.
IR[JIN SIEGEL addressed Council , stating that their application
had not been altered in any way; they have agreed to all re-
quirements placed upon them, and are in favor. He thanked
the Council for their consideration.
Mayor Mullins asked for input in OPPOSITION.
VICE MAYOR RICHARD H. BUSS , Indian Wells , addressed Council
with a prepared statement in opposition, attached as Exhibit "A" ,
and hereby made a part of these minutes .
ATTORNEY JAMES R. CARNES, 193 S . Civic Drive, Palm Springs ,
was of the opinion that under the present procedures , an
Ordinance was required to be filed and delivered to LAFCO.
Paul Williams responded that recent changes do not require
Ordinance.
Mayor Mullins asked for further input . There was none. He de-
clared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution
No . 79-46 , ordering the territory to be annexed. Councilman McPherson
seconded. Motion carried unanimously with the members present .
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 79-38 - A Resolution of the City Council Of
The City of Palm Desert, California, Adopting A Policy For
Reimbursement of Expenses For Conference Attendance By City
Representatives . (Continued from Meeting of April 8 , 1979)
Mr. Bouman stated that a question had been raised by Council
regarding reimbursement , requesting assurance that there were
no excesses in spending and also what was meant by social
expenses . He stated there were two major changes in the wording
of the Resolution, which he felt would be satisfactory to the
Council . One having to do with out-of-state travel and the
other to include expenses which are sponsored by or directly
associated with the business of conference attendance , or which
are for City-sponsored group meals producing beneficial results
for the City.
Councilman Brush moved to waive further reading and adopt
Resolution No . 79-38 . Councilman Newbrander seconded. Motion carried
unanimously with the members present.
April 26 , 1979 Page-4
(0 (,
VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
MR. IRVING LUBAY stated they were of the understanding that
the fee would be calculated and determined, excluding some
20-30 acres in the Wash. Cash would be put up or bond posted,
which could not be called upon before they get into the 4th
phase , or 18 months which would be about October 30, 1980.
Mr. Doty explained that they were in agreement with the im-
provement of the extension of Portola to Hovely and wanted
to clarify that the street would be two-traffic lane width
at their property boundary, grading would follow the existing
terrain and it would be a temporary type paving, to be main-
tained by them during the course of their construction.
Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION; there being none, he
declared the Public Hearing closed .
Councilman Brush said he had several questions of staff, either
before or after the meeting. He felt if this developer were
relieved of the Drainage fee in the wash, other developers should
receive the same consideration. He stated the same should apply
as to the timing of payment of fees . He questioned if Portola
would be improved to City Standards all the way to Hovely Lane.
Mr. Bouman explained that in some cases there will be develop-
ment in the form of golf courses . In this case there may be a
driving range, but it would be pretty much left in its natural
state .. As far as the timing of payment, the rationale is similar
to that of the Flood control project with Rancho Bella Vista.
The sum of $300 , 000 cash deposit would tie up the cash flow of
the developer while the acceptance of bond would guarantee the
City its money. He explained further that the City required
minimum standard on the road as this is being done only as an
emergency access and that the major storm drain may come down
this road and it would have to be torn up anyhow.
Councilman Newbrander questioned if the developer would not be
bound to contribute to the Portola improvement, and Mr . Williams
responded that they would fully improve Portola along their
frontage.
Mayor Mullins stated that developers should be exempt from the
drainage fee along the Wash, and that this project would establish
that.
Clyde Beebe explained that the exact acreage to be exempt would
be determined and done by deed.
Councilman McPherson moved to amend Special Condition No. 5 to
include , approximately 30 acres in the Wash to be exempt from Drainage Fees ,
and to adopt Resolution 79-45 , approving Tract No. 13881. Councilman Brush
seconded. Motion carried on a 3-1-1 vote with Councilman Newbrander voting
No .
Councilman Newbrander stated she felt a part of the Wash would be
used, as in other developments.
B. CASE NO. C/Z 02-79 , CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT: Consideration
of a Request For Pre-Annexation Zoning from S (Study) to RM (U.A.
(Mobile Home Park and :Mobile Home Subdivision Residential District,
(Upon Annexation) Zone, or other Zone Deemed Appropriate, For
Approximately 40 Acres Generally Located Between 42nd Avenue and
Merle Drive, East of Rebecca Road.
Mr. Williams stated that this would be Mobile homes , maximum 4 unit
per acre , of medium density and in conformance with the General
Plan. Staff recommended approval by Ordinance No . 206 .
Councilman McPherson asked if this was a continuation of Portola
Country Club. Mr. Williams responded that it was not .
April 26 , 1979 PAGE 3
l ,
E X H I B I T "A"
City Council
Minutes of April 26 , 1979
MESSAGE FROM INDIAN WELLS VICE MAYOR RICHARD H. BUSS ,
TO PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL, APRIL 26 , 1979
Mr. Mayor, Councilpersons, My name is Dick Buss , here at the
request of the Indian Wells City Council to express our city' s
position your proposed annexation of 160 acres , which lies in
our sphere of influence.
To recapitulate , we understand that LAFCO , the Local Agency
Formation body of seven appointed men, was recently approached
by former St?'te Assemblyman Tom Suitt , who had been retained
for this purpose by Irwin Seigal , part owner of the subject
property. The LAFCO Board then rebereed its decision on
Indian 'riells sphere- of last Yearand voted unanimously, to approve
Palm Desert ' s request for this annexation_. We regret that we
regard this as a capricious , weathervane kind of action which '
certainly cannot redound to the credit of this body.
j Specifically, the presiding individual .of LAFCO , who refers
Jto himself as Geller-hyphen-Boyd, denied our representatives
one word of presentation at this meeting. The decision was made
without debate being allowed. There are many succinct phrases
to describe this, but "process of _democracy" is not one of them.
This denial was delivered with what was described as quote "venom"
unquote. We have difficulty understanding wiry an attourney from
Palm Springs would concern himself with venomous emotion in t'e
affairs of a small city 15 miles away, which is simply attempting
to develop itself in a fiscally res-onsible and Orderly a,-; =.
_2-
Proceeding to the relations between our two cities , let me
present a chronology.
In February, 1978, the two present mayors and two present
city managers met and agreed on the present boundaries of our
two spheres and shook hands.
Our sphere boundary was then approved by your city council
by resolution.
At this time the 160 acres you are proposing to annex in our
sphere were owned by Inglewood Associates of Cathedral City. 1
Irwin Seigal purchased this property after the establishment of J
the sphere . It is now recorded in the name of his children
Terri and Richard Seigal.
We are informed that the entire 320 acre parcel in the
names of Irwin and Mrs. Seigal and the two children, purchased
at about S7500 per acre have been and are on the market at
1120,000 per acre, or a profit of 32 million. We don 't feel
financial hardship is a factor here .
The plan submitted to your city is a mirror image of the
Desert Horizons project with the density doubled. There is no
substantial planning involved, except by Desert Horizon.
Your own planning commission approved this plan only with
the proviso that it also be approved by our planners .
blembers of the council your own city manager has stated
that this project would be a financial liability to your city.
It would have to be supported out of your sales tax revenues
along with everything else. In addition you would be
acouiring 2 mile of maintenance responsibility along E1 Dorado
City Council Minutes April 26 , 1979
Page 8
drive, which we wish to extend to Interstate 10 so that there
will be another way to get into both of our Core Communities.
We are separate cities but we are really a social and
economic unit who should support each other.
I would like to tell you the exact words we used before the
county board of supervisors two weeks ago . We do make the
largest per capita tax contribution of any city in Riverside
County. In exchange, due to the retirement nature of our
community, we require only one—twentieth of the school services
of the average city. We think we are an asset to the county of
Riverside . We also think our proximity is an asset to the
Cove business community.
We feel that your actions on this annexation to this point
represent an egregious breach of faith which will preclude any
kind of normal cooperation between our two cities in the
forseeable future . This totally unnecessary controversy must
colt both of our cities legal fees over a period of years.
The contents of this packet will be disseminated to all
17 media of communication in the Coachella Valley. We ask you
to carry over this public hearing to a _future date so that
you may properly plumb the opinion of Palm Desert residents.
In closing I would like to leave you with this thought ,
When a public official delegates an excessive amount of his
vested authority he also frequently places his integrity in
rands which may not value it as much as he does.
Thank you and goodnight
City Council Minutes April 26 , 1979
Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 79-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS
TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 , WHICH PROCEEDINGS
ARE DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 8 .
WHEREAS , the City Council did, by Resolution No. 78-173 ,
adopted on December 28 , 1978, initiate annexation proceedings
for Annexation No . 8 ; and
WHEREAS , the Local Agency Formation Commission held a
Public Hearing relative to Annexation No. 8 on March 8 , 1979 , and
approved said annexation with the recommendation that the City
Council of the City of Palm Desert be authorized to proceed; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the
City Council at their regularly scheduled meeting of April 26 , 1979 ,
at which time all persons desiring to be heard did give input, and
no written protests were filed by any owners of land and improve-
ments within the territory to be annexed.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, California, as follows :
1. That the territory described in Exhibits "A" and "B"
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference , be, and the
same is hereby, by this Resolution, annexed to the City of Palm Desert.
2 . That the City Clerk is hereby instructed and directed to
transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to LAFCO along with any
other required submittals .
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of April 1,979,
by the following vote, to wit :
AYES : Brush, McPherson, Nawbrander, Mullins
NOES : None
ABSENT: Wilson
ABSTAIN: None
r .� /'9
/ED ARD D. M4 INS , Mayor
ATTEST: C
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Ci Clerk
ZZ—
City of Palm Desert , ifornia
/d
RESOLUTION NO. 79-46 EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly line of the City of Palm Desert, County
of Riverside, State of California, said point being the common Section corner
of Sections 3 and 4 and Sections 9 and 10, Township 5 South, Range 6 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, easterly along the aforementioned common Section line of Sections 3
and 10, a distance of. 51313.84 feet to a point, said point being the common
Section corner of Sections 2 and 3 and Sections 10 and 11 , Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, South 000 00' 36" West, a distance of 2,656.04 feet;
Thence, South 890 48' 31." West, 'a distance of 5,315.98 feet;
Thence, North 000 04' 58" East, a distance of 2,654.82 feet to the point
of beginning.
This parcel of land contains 323.94 acres more or less.
:�....•. - --.lY...-1 _. ._ .-..�.':'.:'.5.: ., ram✓ .. y -
IESOLiJTION N0, 79 46 EX11TTITT "R"
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
N
0
W
W
f
� b
W
6 W
W 7
F 2 .
. . -...- . ... .. .. S 44 1n• ¢ AVENUE ..
i a
J
F W
O >
a
LOCATION MAP I �
i NOT TO SCALE
H
a
W Q
� IN -
. P.O.B. _ -
COUNTY OF RIVER'SI DE v W
a - �
4 3 N. 8 9 - 4 4' 4 8 - E . 3 I 2
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
9 10 5313 . 84 I 10 II
I
PROPOSED . . PALM DESERT
CITY LIMIT
z
z - -
O
0
SECTION 10 c
44 T- 5-S , R-6- E , S-B.B.M. a
� o
n b'O
< 32 3. 94 A C R E S N a
O b
O
O �
b
Z m
N
' PROPOSED PALM
e 3 DESERT CITY LIMIT
S. 6 9 - 48 31" W. '
2657. 95 ' 1 __ 2658.03 '
I
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
L.A.F. C. 78 .
DATE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
DATE 12- 12 - 78 1"= 8000
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALE
IN SECTION 10 ,T-5-S , R- 6 - E , S . B. S. aM. STO. DRAWA'NGNO
-
CITY EVG:KEER^
j ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT L - 8 -A
STAFF "REPORT
TO : Honorable Mayor and City Council
REPORT ON:
Palm Desert Annexation No . 8
As required by LAFCO, a public hearing has been noticed
for City Annexation No. 8 for the Council meeting of April 26 , 1979 .
No written protests by propertyowners within said territory has
been filed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Order the territory to be annexed by waiving further reading
and adopting Resolution No . 79-46.
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
This will acknowledge receipt of two legal notices, one each addressed as
follows:
Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
City of Indian Wells, California
Mr. Prince Pierson, City Manager/City Clerk
City of Indian Wells, California
Said notices were received by the undersigned, and signature acknowledges
same.
SIGNpATUURE
C/ 61 TITLJE
DATE
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (T14) 346-0611
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before
the Palm Desert City Council to consider the proposed Annexation
No. 8 to the City of Palm Desert.
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday, April 26, 1979 , at
7 : 00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Palm Desert City Hall ,
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time
and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard.
• _ N
m
• � Z
J
s
COUNTRY CLUB LDR/vE ve9•a o+e"E
g
. �1NlVEX. N0.6 8
0
0 �
•. � w'e9'45'36'E 53/7.34'. I ti '
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN
City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California Publish PDP 4/5-4/12
1
J
t
Y
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 , 2015.5 CCP)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
LEGAL NOT.
I am a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid: I am over the
age of eighteen years♦ and not "
a party to or interested in the -- — _ - -
above entitled matter. I am the > ��
principal clerk of the printer
of PALM DESERT POSTS a newpaper of
general circulations printed
and published daily in the $
city of Riverside., County of rc; ` • a
Riverside, and which newspaper
has been adjudged a newspaper of wruaa�
general circulation by the o�o°L sne �,p�
Superior Court of the County of "� °..E` .
Riverside, State of California, a��an
a0aa C
under dale of October 59 1964,
Case number 83658; that the o�'oaoy
notice, of which the annexed is >d •J- d -
a printed copy, has been published ��au«tea W
in each regular and entire issue
wLUU— a� h
of said newspaper and not in any „wx, a
supplement thereof on the following ' p°�°a
dates, to-wit: oFoa m
�>
w
Jam=O9a� �� 'if 2
0415 ,12 ,1979 as C_�°
I Certify (or declare) under
penalty of perjury that the WZ0.0 o
foregoing is true and correct.
.Z>o
Dated April 129 1979 a o a u g
at Riverside, California „WfcEZ
O=Z 2vJ ° Z
amo--off E .^ '►I
CITY OF PALM OESER7 I F�0o— U`o
oaawz> r
Z O.LL=Vu i3� -
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION NO. 8 DATE: MARCH 28 , 1979
Note attached letter from Mr . Curren. Because the motion
by Mr . Boyd did not include "without notice and hearing" ,
it seems the LAFCO staff has the next to last laugh after all.
We will notice the public hearing for the Council meeting of
April 26 , .and proceed from there. It means we lost a month
in processing the annexation.
The appeal by Indian Wells for LAFCO to reconsider will be
on the LAFCO Agenda on Thursday, April 12 .
MARTIN J. OUMAN-'
CITY MANAGER
MJB/dc
Enclosure (1)
CC : City Clerk
Director of Environmental Services
aCOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER a 4000 LEMON STREET a 12TH FLOOR o RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 c (7141 787.2786
ROBERT J. FITCH WAYNE B. CURREN HOWARD L. POWELL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASS'T EXEC, OFFICER LAFCO PLANNER
March 27, 1979
ECEIVt � .
R
Mr. Martin J. Bouman M AR 2 $ 1979
City Manager
City of Palm Desert PALM DESERT CITY HALL
Post Office Box 1977 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Palm Desert, California 92260
RE: LAFCO #79-1-4--Annexation #8 to City of Palm Desert
Dear Mr. Bouman:
Resolution No. 79-31 relating to Annexation #8 to the City of Palm Desert and
the accompanying papers, are returned herewith in accordance with Government
Code Section 35350 (a) .
The City Of Palm Desert's Resolution No. 79-31, states that the City was
authorized to proceed without notice and hearing on this annexation. The
motion on this matter adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission, and
the subsequent resolution which conforms to the adopted motion, do not permit
proceeding without notice and hearing.
Should you have any questions on this matter please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Wayne / Curren
Assistant Executive Officer
cc: Siegel Enterprises
County Counsel
Enclosures
VII . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued)
E. (Continued)
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
waive further reading and pass Ordinance No . 204 to second reading ,
approving a Change of Zone from 'S ' Study to PR-5 , S .P . , U.A. Motion
carried unanimously with the members present. -
CASE NO. TT 14081 , DAVIS MOSS , APPLICANT: Consideration Of
A Request For Approval Of A Tentative Tract Map To Create A
28 Lot Subdivision, Containing 24 Residential Condominiums
on Approximately 5 Acres In The PR-5 Zone Located On The
South Side of Hovely Lane East of Monterey Avenue.
Mr. Williams stated that this was a request for a Tenta-
tive Tract in compliance with a Development Plan previously
approved by the Planning Commission for a 24 unit condominium
unit on small acreage. He stated that both the Staff and
the Planning Commission recommended approval.
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson declared the Public Hearing open and
invited input in FAVOR of the request .
MR. BILL FITCH, 74-075 El Paseo, of Wallach & Associates,
addressed Council on behalf of the applicant and stated
the concurrence with all conditions .
Mayor Pro-Tem McPherson invited input in OPPOSITION to the
request, and none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing
closed.
Councilman Wilson expressed concern about approving projects
without knowing what might or should take place in that
whole area . Mr. Williams responded that this was the
second Tentative Tract approved by the Council , and one
of the major concerns in developing of this area is what to
do with the homestead areas . Each is a little different,
and each is unique . This type of development seems best
suited for the area in view of the homesteaded land.
Councilman Wilson inquired about the overhead line, and
Mr . Williams advised that it was a 115 KV and could not
be undergrounded.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-25 , approving Tenta-
tive Tract 14081. Motion carried unanimously with the members present.
VIII. RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 79-30 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, . CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CON-
TIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 , WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE
DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 6 .
. Mr . Bouman reported that this was the final action of the
Council on Annexation #6 which was approved by LAFCO on
March 8th.
Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to
waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 79-30. Motion carried
unanimously with the members present .
RESOLUTION NO. 79-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
v THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CON-
TIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION ACT :OF 1977 , WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE
DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 8 .
MR. Bouman stated — "same speech, different annexation" .
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Wilson seconded to waive
further reading and adopt Resolution No . 79-31 . Motion carried unani-
mously with the members present.
March 22 , 1979 Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 79-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRI-
TORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL
ORGANIZATION ACT OF 1977 , WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIG-
NATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 8 .
WHEREAS, the City Council did, by Resolution No . 78-173 adopted
. on December 28 , 1978 , initiate annexation proceedings for Annexation
No. 8; and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission held a public
hearing relative to Annexation No . 8 on March 8 , 1979 , and approved
said annexation with the recommendation that the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert be authorized to proceed without Notice and Hearing
inasmuch as the owners have requested the annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows :
1 . That the territory described in Exhibits "A" and "B"
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference, be , and the same
is hereby by this Resolution, annexed to the City of Palm Desert .
2 . That the City Clerk is hereby instructed and directed to
transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to LAFCO along with any
other required submittals .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 22nd day of March
1979 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Brush, Newbrander, Wilson & McPherson
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mullins
ABSTAIN: None
JAMES McPHERSON, MAYOR PRO-TEM
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GIL IGAN, RJVTY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT�/CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 79-31 EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly line of the City of Palm Desert, County
of Riverside, State of California, said point being the common Section corner
of Sections 3 and 4 and Sections 9 and 10, Township 5 South, Range 6 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, easterly along the aforementioned common Section line of Sections 3
and 10, a distance of, 5,313.84 feet to a point, said point being the common
Section corner of Sections 2 and 3 and Sections 10 and 11 , Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, South 000 00' 36" West, a distance of 2,656.04 feet;
Thence, South 890 48' 31" West, a distance of 5,315.98 feet;
Thence, North 000 04' 58" East, a distance of 2,654.82 feet to the point
of beginning.
This parcel of land contains 323.94 acres more or less.
RESOLUTTON NO. 79-31 F "
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
N 0
0
¢
W
W
¢
f
T b
i W W
¢ J
W Z
~ W
Z.. ..,.�..- .... ...:..:...._.. .....:.: � 44 tA' <a AVENUE
a
0 Y W
I- OO
¢
O U ¢
_ LOCATION MAP - I '
NOT TO SCALE ¢ : ]
~ LL
W Y,
¢
N 1
J
P.0.S. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE < o
v
4 3 - N. 89e 44' 48 " E . 3 I
C O U N T R Y C LUB DRIVE —!—
9 10 5313 . 84' I IOI II
1 PROPOSED . PALM DESERT
CITY LIMIT 2
Y T
O _
O
C n
SECTION 10 O _
W o
44 T- 5-S , R -6- E , S.B.S.M.
m °
n b10
e 32 3 . 9 4 A C R E S n 0
O ,N
�m
e m
b
« PROPOSED PALM
DESERT CITY LIMIT
9 3
S . 89 - 48 31" W.
1 2657. 95 1 —— 2658.03 '
- 1
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
L.A.F. C. 78 —
A.J.D• PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8 le= aoo•
DATE 12- 12 - 78 . TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SCALE
G, � IN SECTION 10 ,T-5- S , R-6 - E , S . B. B. a M. STD. DRAWING NO.'
.yr _r—.-__:-- L - 8-A
CITY ENGINEER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT
1 Local Agency Formation Commission County of Riverside
2
3 RESOLUTION
4 APPROVING PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY # 8
5 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
6 BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED by the Local Agency
7 Formation Commission in regular session assembled on March 8, 1979,
8 that the annexation of 323.94 acres, as more particularly de-
9 scribed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and mcde part hereof, to the
10 City of Palm Desert is approved.
11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND FOUND that :
12 1. The distinctive short form designation of the
13 proposed annexation is City of Palm Desert LAFC 79-14 (Annexation
14 #p 8) .
151 2. An environmental assessment of the proposal was made
16 by the proponent City of Palm Desert as lead agency pursuant to
17 and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
18 and appropriate State Guidelines.
19 3. The boundaries of the territory as approved by the
20 County Surveyor are contiguous to the City and are approved.
21 4. The territory is uninhabited.
22 5. The annexation shall be subject to the terms and
23 conditions which are presently imposed on similar annexations to
24 the City.
25 6. The City of Palm Desert is designated conducting
26 authority.
27 7. The Executive Officer is directed to transmit a
28 certified copy of this Resolution to the above designated
JAMES H.ANGELL -
COUNTY COUNSEL
LAW LIBRARY BLOG. - 1 RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA
l l
CITY OF PALM DESERT, LAFC 79-1-4
v -
1 conducting authority, to the chief petitioners if different from
2 the conducting authority, and to each affected agency.
4
PHIL REED, Chairman '
5
6 I certify the above resolution was passed and adopted by the Local
Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County on March 8, 1979.
7
8 ROBERT J. FITCH
Executive Officer
10 By
WAYNE B0 CURREN
11 Assista t Executive Officer
12
13
14
151
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PPM: im 27
3/14/79
28
JAMES H.ANGELL
COUNTYCOUNSEL
LAW LIBRARY BLDG,
RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA
1
r
L.A. F.CO. 79-1-4
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly line of the City of Palm Desert, County
of Riverside, State of California, said point being the common Section corner
of Sections 3 and 4 and Sections 9 and 10, Township 5 South, Range 6 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, easterly along the aforementioned common Section line of Sections 3
and 10, a distance of 5,313.84 feet to a point, said point being the common
Section corner of Sections 2 and 3 and Sections 10 and 11 , Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
.Thence, South 000 00' 26" West, a distance of 2,656.04 feet;
n
Thence, South 890 48' 31" West, a distance of 5,315.98 feet;
Thence, North 000 04' 58" East, a distance of 2,654.82 feet to the point
of beginning.
This parcel of land contains 323.94 acres more or less.
"THT LECfl! APPRO17LD
CDU:1TY SURVZOR.
BY
l�
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 78-173
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS, "PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION NO. 8", PURSUANT TO SECTION 35140 OF THE STATE
GOVERNMENT CODE.
WHEREAS, one hundred percent of the property owners have requested,
by petition, within the area hereafter known as, "Palm Desert Annexation No. 8,°
and more particularly described in the attached map and legal description; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act has been complied
with, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 78-32, in that all responsible agencies
have been contacted and a Negative Declaration has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the proposed change of
organization is appropriated for the following reasons:
1 . The request is a logical expansion of the City boundaries.
2. The proposed annexation is consistent with the Municipal Organization
Act of 1977 which encourages limiting the number of annexations to
those areas considered logical growth areas.
3. The proposed area to be annexed is of satisfactory size to provide
municipal services without adversely affecting the rest of the
community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert,
California, as follows:
1 . The above recitations are hereby determined to be true and correct and
represent the findings of the Council in this matter.
2. The City Clerk is hereby instructed to file an official application
with the Local Agency Formation Commission for Palm Desert Annexation
No. 8, pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977 for uninhabited
territory since less than twelve registered voters reside in the area.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council , held on this 28th day of December , 1978, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Brush, McPherson, Wilson & Mullins
NOES: Newbrander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None i
/'EDWARD D. MULLINS , MAYOR
ATTEST: C
— SHEILA R. GILL CAN, CITY CLEW
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFb NIA
do
PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 8
TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
Beginning at a point in the easterly line of the City of Palm Desert, County
of Riverside, State of California, said point being the common Section corner
of Sections 3 and 4 and Sections 9 and 10, Township 5 South, Range 6 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, easterly along the aforementioned common Section line of Sections 3
and 10, a distance of, 5,313.84 feet to a point, said point being the common
Section corner of Sections 2 and 3 and Sections 10 and 11 , Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Thence, South 000 00' 36" West, a distance of 2,656.04 feet;
Thence, South 890 48' 31" West, a distance of 5,315.98 feet;
Thence, North 000 04' 58" East, a distance of 2,654.82 feet to the point
of beginning.
This parcel of land contains 323.94 acres more or less.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PLAN FOR SERVICES FOR PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 8
DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1978
I . INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Section 35102 of the State Government Code , the City is required to
file with any new annexations effective January 1 , 1978, a plan outlining the
method by which services will be provided in the area to be annexed. This report
represents the required Plan for Services for Proposed Annexation No. 8. The
City of Palm Desert, being a contract city, must rely on many other agencies to
provide for services both in the community and areas subsequently annexed. In
addition, many services provided such as water and sewer, electricity, and gas
are provided without regard to city limit lines. Therefore, the area proposed
to be annexed is presently served or has the capability of being served by many
of these agencies. The fact is substantiated by the letters received from
responsible agencies during the Environmental Review process.
The major emphasis of this report is to address those services provided directly
by the City, either through City staff or direct contract with the City by other
agencies. In addition, wherever possible, this report will address the methods
by which other service agencies would provide needed facilities in the area.
II. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
The utilities which would be extended into the area proposed to be annexed would
be as part of actual development, and they would consist of the services of the
Coachella Valley County Water District in the area of water and sewer, Imperial
Irrigation District in the area of electricity, Southern California Gas Company
in the area of gas, and Able Cable in the area of cable television. The services
provided by this City directly would be in planning and building, public works ,
parks , administration, and code enforcement services. By contract, the City
would also provide for trash disposal , police and fire services. Public trans-
portation would be provided by the Sunline Agency.
The major road improvements would include the widening and improving of Cook
Street, Country Club Drive, and the extension of Eldorado Drive .which form the
west, north and east boundaries of the area to be annexed. The creation of any
local streets would be on the basis of specific projects and would be the respon-
sibility of the developer. Ultimate development of the area to be annexed and
adjacent areas which are either in the process .of being annexed or will be
developed in other governmental jurisdictions , will necessitate a bridge crossing
at the Cook Street crossing of the Whitewater Stormwater Channel . This facility
would be constructed with a combination of Federal grants and local participation
very similar to existing bridges in the Valley.
Public park needs in the area to be annexed are minimal as the entire area will
be developed as a planned residential development which will offer residents
private recreational amentties. Residents whose recreational needs are not
satisfied exclusively by the private recreational amenities of the planned
residential development will be able to take advantage of the proposed 120-acre
Sand Dune Park to the west of the subject area.
III. LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES
" The level and range of services provided would include sufficient sized water
and sewer, gas , and electrical facilities to service development proposed for
the area. Planning and building, public works , and code enforcement services
as provided by the City directly, would be on the basis of need. Police and
fire services capability exist to meet the need of the area at its present stage
of development and are proposed to be expanded to meet the needs of subsequent
-1
PLAN FOR SERVICES FOR PALM DESERT ANNEXATION NO. 8
(Continued) December 28, 1978
III. LEVEL AND RANGE OF SERVICES (Continued)
development in the area. Public transportation would be provided by the expansion
of the existing system to serve the area. Subsequent development will result in
the need for the City to add an additional police vehicle and the need for an
additional fire station in the vicinity of Country Club Drive.
Since fire services are provided for on a volunteer basis in conjunction with
the County of Riverside and State Department of Forestry, the City would be
required to provide for a facility in the area which would be manned by these
agencies. A fire station has been planned for in the City's General Plan in
this area and will be provided at the time it is needed. A 1 .5 acre site has
been reserved for a fire station and library in the general development plan for
the planned residential development being proposed for the area to be annexed.
In addition, said area will be served by a proposed fire station at 44th Avenue
and San Pablo (Civic Center Complex) , which is tentatively proposed for con-
struction in 1980/81 budget year. In the meantime , the area would be served
by the existing Palm Desert Station at E1 Paseo and Highway 74 with backup
being provided by the Rancho Mirage, Thousand Palms and Bermuda Dunes stations.
The basic administration services of Planning, Building, Public Works , and
Code Enforcement would be provided by existing City staff.
IV. TIMING FOR SERVICE EXTENSIONS
Basic utility services would occur as a part of development. The City has on .
file letters from the various utilities assuring us that these services would
be available. The City services would be available immediately in the area of
planning, building and code enforcement, public works , and police and fire.
Road improvements would occur as a part of new development. The construction of
the new fire station near Country Club Drive would result from the City's new
construction tax which would be accrued from the new development in the area,
which would be 20t per square foot of new construction.
The proposed residential development contemplated for the area is planned
residential which would include the necessary recreational facilities to
serve the ultimate residents of the area.
V. REQUIREMENTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCING
New development would be required to improve roads within the area and to provide
for needed sites for fire and other related municipal facilities provided through
the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The New Construction Tax of 20t per square
foot would provide for construction and additional acquisition of these facilities.
The provision of planning and building services would be provided through the
fees generated from new development. On-going maintenance of roads , created
in the area, would be provided through State Gas Taxes generated as a result of
population within the area. Police services and parks maintenance would be
provided on the basis of Sales Tax generated from commercial facilities in the
area. Ultimately, Sales Tax will be generated from the planned district com-
mercial center proposed at the southeast corner of Cook Street and Country Club
Drive as a part of the overall development plan proposed for the area to be
annexed. In summary, it is felt that development of this area would result in
a balance between needed services and the revenues to provide said services.
APPLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDE 6VUNTY
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
Mail or bring to:
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, California 92501
FOR LAFC USE ONLY
INTRODUCTION: The questions in this form are designed to obtain enough data about the
proposed project and project site to allow the staff and LAFC to.assess the project. You
may include any additional information which you believe is pertinent. Use additional sheets
where necessary. Do not leave any blanks . If an item is not applicable , so indicate .
Submit this form in one copy.
Applicant C/T;r OF /' / DE-.-�; Telephone: (7/ 5r% 5 //
Address: y,�- J [ y� �>'_,,> _ — • J.; _:;,r
Name & title of person to contact regarding this application:
Address :/ '- i I/ /?o 'Telephone: r. :.) y
PROPOSED PROJECT OR ACTION: :�i'} r..�T/ '/✓ yo.
GENERAL LOCATION: (Area , cross streets, etc.)
A . OWNERSHIP
1. Is the applicant a property owner in the area of the pro/posed project: Yes r_/ No
2. Is the applicant sole owner of this property? Yes / No
B. AREA INFORMATION
1 . Land area in acres qa°?OI, .
2. Number of dwellings In the proposed area at present time O
3 . Expected increase in the number of dwellings in the proposed area which will result
from this proposal 11,20 . By what date? (state type of dwelling
units , e.g. , single family residences, mobile homes .)
4. Population in the proposed area at the present time O
5 . Expected change in the population in the proposed area which will result from this
proposal a. �%i/O By when
6. Amount of publicly-owned land in the proposed area (identify as federal, state or
local) O
7 . Assessed value at present time: Land- /Oy. 7/f -
Improvements O
8. Number of land parcels in the proposed area q
C. .YOTL'R INFORMATION
I . Number of registered voters in area at the present time O
2 . Does the proposed boundary cut across precinct boundaries ? /i
3 . Does the proposed boundary cut across tax rate areas?
D. LAND USE
1 . Current zoning_- / /, ;C;o
2. Pre-zoning (Assigned by cities only) f: ��/) •i-D v'a s7-,..:,-esc ,
3. Current land use
4 . County General Plan designation iu--'
5 . City General Plan designation
6. Is the proposal in consonance with the City & County General Plans yc-5
7. Probable or proposed land use for next five years -- include known or probable plans
for development (Submit any available plans) /
E. DETAILS OF YOUR PROPOSAL
1 . Describe the proposed project in as much detail as possible. Identify the project,
including annexations to, detachments from, or formation of new entities (use
additional sheets if necessary) ,ayi%Fx,- -." / No. '? uvu�� H.✓ ��a� r.+r� YF�v
TO 'T' c
(;/-v :�:;. :a^' J7- ✓.✓�f_-�? T/'� cr�JTd.77.^:�;% -'a^•//S/^.!< .7F TiIE
1977
a . The reasons which justify this proposal are as follows: (for example -- service
needs , health mandate, economic benefits , etc.)
j>� re: •'s,'r-L°Y.-+771_i'1
-r' J.
�U: - hi':_< _.� '<fi•� ! SFJo`,': t l,V,>S C' F^�Gi l YF
C ITY,
i1
b. Specific services to be added, changed, or eliminated: (SE �� :�c/✓Fn
(1) Without additional cost to residents/owners:
(2) With additional cost to residents/owners:
2 . Will the project be subject to existing bonded indebtedness ? NO
3 . What will be the approximate annual costs to accomplish the goals of this proposal?
4 . What are the specific sources of revenue to pay for the service(s) ? S4F _',
, Tax r`1•.a.I :�. -r,,. --�Y
(2)
i . vvuaL ib nnnuai cos, eacn resicent/property owne, 'specify which)? -
F. PROPERTY OWNERS' DESIRES
1 . How many property owners make up total ownership of project area ? (Include with thi:
application copies of all letters/correspondence you have relating to above items)
2 . How many property owners have been contacted regarding,project? /
3. How many property owners are in favor of project? /
4 . How many property owners are not in favor of project? O
G. FOR LIGHTING DISTRICTS AND ROAD MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS ONLY
1 . If street lights will be Installed, how many, what type (mercury or sodium) and what
intensity (e.g. , 70001umen)?
2 . Is approved plan by utility company for street lights submitted at this time?
(Approved plan must be submitted before energy charges will be assumed by Service
Area) .
3 . If road maintenance district, how many miles of road to maintain?
4 . Is it your intention to bring any roads to County standards for future acceptance into
the County Maintained Road System?
H. PLAN OF SERVICE (City Annexations only)
A plan for providing services within the affected territory must be submitted with this
application. Use separate sheets.
I. In your own words , how would your proposal benefit the community? -
,0.tf.:'rY...l n"y , _ a C,"6/c':).• .. .._ ..,_:?. ,;. T'.- C,;..:.- jJc nh-i
/
NOTICES AND COMMUNICATIONS -- List below the names and addresses of people to
whom notices and communications should be directed. (3 maximum)
Name Cn; ^� r.,, .rr•r,-,-�;' Telephone -
Address �IS
City & Zip. .
Name - Telephone
Address - City & Zip
Name Telephone
Address City & Zip
Signature of applicant or authorized
representative
Typed or printed name
Title
(3)
cz
�p� (714) 345-2831
45-300 CLUB DRIVE INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 92260
M LYVM-
December 19 , 1978
Mr. Paul Williams
Director Of Environmental Services
City Of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr . Williams :
on December 7 , 1978 the Indian Wells City Council re-
viewed Palm Desert' s Development Plan 20-78 and Change
Of Zone 13-78 (Allarco Development) . The Council
unanimously agreed that this project and the necessary
annexation within our Sphere Of Influence was acceptable.
Very truly yours ,
WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN
Community Development Director
WJS/tg
l
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
(Negative Declaration)
TO: Office of the County Clerk From: City of Palm Desert
County of Riverside 45-2-75 Prickly .Pear Lr.
4050 Main Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Riverside, Ca. 92501
( ) Secretary for Resources
1416 Ninth St. , Room 1311
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15083(f)
of the State EIR Guidelines.
Project Title/Common Name
Annexation Area No. 8 (Northgate Country Club)
State Clearinghouse Number if submitted to State Clearinghouse
Contact Person Telephone Number
Paul A. Williams, Director Area Code (714) 346-0611
Dept. of Environmental Services
Project Location
South side of Country Club Drive, east of Cook Street.
Project Description Annexation of vacant unincorporated County territory to the
City of Palm Desert; which would facilitate development of a 1 ,120 unit golf
and 1 . 5 acre public use parcel .
This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1. The project has been approved by the City;
x 2. The project ( ) will ( x) will not have a significant effect on the environment;
3. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project;
and
x 4. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions
of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above City
Hall address .
Date Received for Filing
Dated: Vq'1 !�%
l �
i
_7 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-06II
*** DRAFT ***
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(Pursuant to Title 14,
Div. 6, Article 7 ,
Sec. 15083, of the
California Administra-
tive Code)
Case No. : Annexation Area No. 8 (Common Project Northgate Country Club
Name, if any)
Applicant/Project Sponsor : City of Palm Desert, California, 45-275 Prickly
Pear Lane, Palm Desert, CA 92260
Project Description/Location: Annexation of vacant unincorporated County
territory to the City of Palm Desert• which would facilitate development of a
1 ,120 unit golf course residential condominium project 9 acre neighborhood
shopping center, and 1 .5 acre public use parcel
The Director of the Dept . of Environmental Services, 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 poten-
tially significant effects, may also be found attached.
aul A. Williams, AIP / Date
Dir . of Environmental Services
l CASE N0. Annex. #8
• • � •
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.
Please submit this form with our com leted application to the Information
and Permit Center Building Division .
GENERAL INFORMATION:
1 . Name, address, and telephone number of owner, applicant or project
sponsor: City of Palm Desert CA (714-346-0611 )
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert CA 92260
2. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted con-
cerning the project (such as architect, engineer, or other' repre-
sentative) : Dir. of Environmental Services,
Paul A. Williams
3. Common name of project (if any) : Annexation Area No. 8
(Northgate Country Club)
4. Project location (street address or general location) : On the south
side of Country Club Dr. , east of Cook Street.
5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or
meets & bounds) : A portion of the north ' of Sertinn In
5S Range 6E 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): Annexation of varant unincorporated County
territory to the City of Palm Desert; which would facilitate
development of a 1 ,120 unit golf course residential condominium
project, 9 acre neighborhood shopping center, and public use parcel
7. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects (describe
how this project relates to other activities, hp ases, and develop-
ments planned, or now underway) : Project relates to pre-annexation
zoning and Development Plan request (C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78, City of Palm Desert).
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) :
LAFCO of Riverside County - Annexation
City of Palm Desert - Zoning & Development Approval
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
9. Project site area: Approx. 320 gross acres
(Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage)
10. Present zoning: R-1-12,000 (Proposed zoning) : PR-4, S.P. (U.A. ) ; PC(2) SP(U.A
iversi e Cty and r kU.A. )-
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. ).
North - Vacant: South - Vacant (Proposed res. development) ; East - Vacant;
West - Vacant
14. Site topography (describe) :
15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or
adjacent to the property? NO X YES
16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) :
Projected grading to be balanced
17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: none
18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scehic aspects of the project
site: No known recorded historic sites, present scenic value
as open, vacant, desert land.
19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer)
A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) :
1 ,120 condominium units in 280 fourplex buildings
B. Schedule of unit sizes: Plan A to E (1275 sq. ft. to 1950
sq. ft. )
C. Number of stories 1 Height 13-18 feet.
D. Largest single building (sq. ft. )+ 7,150 (h9t, ) 1 story
E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the
project) : 2 person per unit = 2,240 (Units, expected to ha iiserl .
partially as 2nd homes.
F. Describe the number and type of recreational facilities :
18 hole golf course, 15,000 sq. ft. clubhouse, 15 tennis
courts, and 27 swimming pools.
G. Is there any night lighting of the project: Potentially
parking areas, tennis courts, and ornamental
H. Range of sales prices or rents: $ to $ 100,000 plus
I. Percent of total project devoted to:
Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 %
Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . 13.44 %
Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . 72.56 %
( l
I
20. Co_mmercial Industrial , Institutional or Other Project:
A Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices, specify
type & number) : District shopping center market drug store_
financial institution and general retail sales & service
establishments
B. Number of square feet in total building area : Max. possible
196,020 sq. ft.
C. Number of stories 1 Height ± 20-30 feet.
D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) 40,000 (H9t. ) 1 story
E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: None
F. Total number of required parking spaces max. 1095 ,
G. Hours of operation: 8 am to 11 pm (typical hours)
H. Maximum number of clients, patrons , shoppers , etc. , at one time:
1 ,000 to 1 ,500 (more typically ± 500)
I. Maximum number of employees at one time:
J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: Unknown
Depends if restaurant is provided
K. Is there any night lighting of the project: Yes X No
Parking lot and security lighting
L. Percent of total project devoted to:
Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 %
Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . 35 %
Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation) . . 15 %
� l
20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project:
A. Type of use(s) and major function(s) (if offices , specify
type & number) : Public use (potentially fire station and
branch library)
B. Number of square feet in total building area: + 21 ,000 to
26,000 sq. ft.
C. Number of stories 1 Height ± 20 feet.
D. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) ± 26,000 (Hgt, ) 1 story
E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: None
F. Total number of required parking spaces
number provided N/A
G. Hours of operation: 24 hour fire station - library 9 am. to 6 pm
H. Maximum number of clients, patrons , shoppers, etc. , at one time:
+ 15
I . Maximum number of employees at one time: 4-6
J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: N/A
K. Is there any night lighting of the project' Yes XX No
Parking area & security lighting
L. Percent of total project devoted to:
Building
+ 40 %
—
Paving, including streets. + 30 %—
Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation). ± 30 %
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects:
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as
necessary).
YES NO
21 . Change in existing features of hillsides ,
or substantial alteration of ground contours.
22. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors XX
in the project vicinity.
23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind
or flooding. XX
24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or
alteration of existing drainage patterns. XX
25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in
the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport XX
noise (has the required acoustical report been
submitted?)
26. Involves the use or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, XX
flammables or explosives.
27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy. XX
28. Changes the demand for municipal services
(police, fire, sewage, etc. ) XX
29. Changes the demand for utility services , beyond
those presently available or planned in the
near future. XX
30. Significantly affects any unique or natural
features, including mature trees. XX
31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing
residential areas or public land or public roads. XX
32. Results in the dislocation of people. XX
( i
YES NO
33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or
other features of the project. XX
[ XX] 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.
PAUL A. WILLIAMS CITY OF PA M DESERT
Name Print or Type For
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
Annexation Area No. 8
Explanation of "Yes" answers
24. The project will alter existing drainage patterns by redirecting
sheet flows, through development grading scheme. Golf course
fairways will be used to collect and hold project waters.
28. The project will pose an incremental increase in the demand for
municipal services (refer to municipal services plan)
33. The project generates controversy relative to the Sphere of In-
fluence boundary between the cities of Palm Desert and Indian
Wells.
l
CASE NO. Annex. No. 8
*** DRAFT ***
y
Ei rAOIPMENTAL SERVICES DEPT.
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed
below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the
application is considered complete for purposes of environmental
assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation
measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) .
Yes Maybe No
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: -
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in _ XX
geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions , displacements, compaction, or — _ XX
overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? XX
— — j
d. The destruction, covering,, or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features? — _ XX
* e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? — XX
* 2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? — — XX
b. The creation of objectionable odors? — — XX
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally? — _ XX
* See Comment
z.
Yes Maybe No
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements? XX
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water runoff? XX
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters? XX
d. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters? XX
e. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? XX
f. Reduction in the amount of water other-
wise available for public water supplies? XX
* 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass , and
crops)? XX
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare,
or endangered species of plants? _ _ XX
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? _ _ XX
* 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, or
insects)? XX
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare, or endangered species of animals? XX —
c. Introduction of new species of animals
-into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? XX
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat? XX
1
\ 3.
Yes_ M�be No
* 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? XX
b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural
resource? XX
7. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — XX
b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re-
quire the development of new sources of XX
energy. _
8. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in XX
the event of an accident or upset conditions?
* 9. Economic Loss. Will the proposal result in:
a. A change in the value of property and
improvements endangered by flooding? _ _ XX
b. A change in the value of property and
improvements exposed to geologic hazards XX
beyond accepted community risk standards? _
*10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing
noise levels to the point at which accepted
community noise and vibration levels are
exceeded? XX
*11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
a teration of the present developed or
planned land use of an area? _ _ XX
*12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a
decrease in the amount of designated open
space? _ _ XX
*13. Population. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human
population of the City? _ _ XX
b. Change in the population distribution by
age, income, religion, racial , or ethnic
group, occupational class , household type? _ XX
l
4.
Yes Maybe No
14. Emplovment. Will the proposal result in
additional new long-term jobs provided, or a
change in the number and per cent employed,
unemployed, and underemployed? XX
15. Housinq. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in number and per cent of housing
units by type (price or rent range,
zoning category, owner-occupied and rental ,
etc. ) relative to demand or to number of
families in various income classes in the City? XX —
b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a
demand for additional housing? _ XX
16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? XX
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? — — XX
c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? — _ XX
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and/or goods? _ XX —
e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, XX
bicyclists , or pedestrians?
* 17. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for, new or altered
governmental 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? — _
,
5.
Yes Maybe No
* 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal
result in a net change in government fiscal
flow (revenues less operating expenditures
and annualized capital expenditures)?
* 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems , or alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? XX
b. Communications system? XX
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? XX
e. Storm water drainage? XX
f. Solid waste and disposal? XX
*20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? XX
b. A change in the level of community health
care provided? _ _ XX
*21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in
an increased denand for provision of general
social services?
*22. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public? _ XX
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view? — _ XX
c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood
(or area) attractiveness, pleasantness,
and uniqueness? XX
*23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare? XX
* 24. Archeological/Historical . Will the proposal
result in an alteration— of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object, or building? XX
5
Yes �IaLbe No
25. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment or to curtail
the diversity in the environment? _ — XX
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
relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into XX
the future. )
c. Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(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. ) — — XX
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — — XX
Initial Study Prepared By: Murrel Crump, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, California
c �
CAnnexation No. 8
Environmental Evaluation Checklist
Explanation of "Yes" and "Maybe" answers
and comments on evaluation subjects.
1 . EARTH
c. The proposal will result in a change in the natural topography by
virtue of grading activities associated with development.
* e. The proposal may result in temporary construction impacts related
to wind errosion of soils, but City requirements for watering
during grading activities should reduce any impact to an insignif-
icant level . Development of the site would tend to stabilize soils
to eliminate future wind errosion on blowing sand.
* 2. AIR
The proposal will involve the use of motor vehicles by project residents,
but the proposal will not, of itself, breach any State or Federal Air
Quality Standards, or significantly damage valley air quality.
* 3. WATER
The proposal will pose an incremental increase for domestic water supply,
but will not result in an over-draft condition.
b. The proposal will result in a change in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff by virtue
of development. Project waters are proposed to be contained within
the site by directing sheet flow to the fairways.
* 4. PLANT LIFE
The proposal will replace the existing natural vegetative cover with
ornamental landscaping and ground covers. No preceived adverse environ-
mental effect will occur.
* 5. ANIMAL LIFE
The proposal may involve maintaining domestic animals by project occupants.
Existing mammals and rodents and reptiles on the site will probably be
displaced. Landscaping on the site will probably provide a new habitat
for birds and insects.
b. & d. The proposal is within the habitat range of the Fringe-Toed
Lizard (a potentially threatened species). Over 200 sq. miles
of habitat range would continue to exist after implementation
of this proposal . The Palm Desert General Plan makes specific
provision for maintanance of a defined natural habitat area
(Sand Dunes Park) as a partial mitigation of the impact of
urbanized uses.
* 6. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposal will use natural resources in the construction of the project,
some of which may not be renewable. The proposal will also involve the
continued use of petrolem products by project occupants. Provision of
commercial services within the project will reduce some travel fuel con-
sumption. The demands of this project are considered to be incremental
and are not considered to present a signficant adverse impact.
* 7. ENERGY
Energy efficient standards within the Palm Desert Building Code (adopted
version of the Uniform Bulding Code) will be applied to this project.
Motor fuel considerations are discussed in 6, above.
* 8. RISK OF UPSET
The proposal will not involve the use of hazardous substances.
* 9. ECONOMIC LOSS
a & b The proposal site is not endangered by flooding, but will be subject
to strong round motion in the event of an earthquake. Palm Desert
Building Codes provide for lateral seismic loading to mitigate
damage from ground motion.
* 10. NOISE
The proposal itself will not involve new adverse noise other than that assoc-
iated with urban uses. The residential development will be enclosed by a
solid masonry wall to act as a sound barrier to perimeter street noises.
* 11 . LAND USE
The proposal is consistent with the planned land use of the area.
12. OPEN SPACE
The proposal does not involve the use of a designated open space area.
Over 50% of the project site will be used for private open space.
13. POPULATION
a & b The proposal will result in approximately 2,240 more persons in the
immediate area (based on 2 persons per household) . The population
increase is planned as a part of the Palm Desert General Plan, but
if rapidly implemented it could be considered a temporary increase
in the general area of human population density. The proposal will
probably be owner-occupied, upper middle to high income households.
14. EMPLOYMENT
The commercial portion of the proposal will result in a substantial number
of new long term jobs; the precise number is undetermined, but it would be
equivalent to other neighborhood shopping centers. Other employment op-
portunities may be provided on the public use parcel (firemen and librarians)
and at the golf course/tennis facilities.
15. HOUSING
The proposal will result in 1 ,120 condominium units in 280 fourplex buildings.
Units will probably be owner-occupied (partially on a seasonal basis) , and
may serve as a second house, or short term rental in some instances. Units
would probably be offered at prevailing market rates for upper-high income
consumers.
16. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
a. The proposal will result in the generation of additional vehicular move-
ments as follows:
Residential Development:
4,480 vehicle trips per day depending on seasonal occupancy fluctuations
and resident characteristics, plus non-resident recreation users. (factor
of 4 trips/du)
Commercial Development (Average) :
1 ,122 weekdays; and, 1 ,292 trips on Saturday (based on approx. 68,000
sq. ft. of leasable area).
Public Use Area:
15-30 trips (not related to commercial site)
The proposal site is served by arterial and major highways (thoroughfares)
which are adequate in design capacity to handle the anticipated traffic
volumes.
17. PUBLIC SERVICE (See Public Services Plan)
18. PUBLIC FISCAL BALANCE (See Public Services Plan)
19. UTILITIES
The proposal site is within the planned service area of all utility companies
and will not require new systems to be established. The proposal will place
a minor incremental demand on the provision of public utilities.
20. HUMAN HEALTH
The proposal will not pose any specific health hazards or effect the level of
community health care. Project occupants will become health care consumers,
but it is noted that the doctor to patient ratio within the area is more
than adequate to accommodate population increases.
21 . SOCIAL SERVICES
The proposal is not anticipated to place significant demands for social
services, based on projected occupant profile.
22. AESTHETICS
The proposal does not involve obstruction of scenic vistas, or creation of
an aesthetically offensive site; it will establish a neighborhood character
of its own whose attractiveness, pleasantness, and uniqueness will be the
subject of the City Design Review process.
23. LIGHT AND GLARE
The proposal will not involve the significant use of night lighting. Lighting
that is to be established for parking areas will be maintained at low levels
and other lighting for facilities such as tennis courts will be closely re-
viewed to minimize light "spillage" and glare.
24. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL
The proposal will not effect any known or recorded archeological or historic
resources.
25. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposal is not found to have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment. The proposal will not impare archievement of long term environ-
mental goals. The proposal involves minor incremental impacts which are not
considered to be cumulatively considerable when viewed in the planned per-
psective of City development. The proposal does not pose any adverse
environmental impacts on human beings.
SGUMERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
y. 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, California
February 7, 1979
The bi-weekly Clearinghouse Listing is distributed to inform your agency of all applications
for federal assistance from our region, in accordance with OMB Circular A-95. Also, the
listing includes state-sponsored plans and projects, environmental documents, and local plans.
The listing is organized by counties. Projects in each county are grouped by type of review
(A-95's; Environmental Documents; State Plans; Local Plans; State-Funded Projects) and fund-
ing sources. Projects which have multi-county impacts that have been identified during the
initial processing of applications have been cross-referenced by county. State plans and other
multi-county plans, projects and proposals are grouped under the Multi-County heading at the
beginning of the listing. Notices of Preparation of Draft Environmental Documents are at the
end of the listing.
Should you wish to indicate the interest of your jurisdiction or comment an a pr000sed project's
relationship to comprehensive planning, areawide coordination or environmental impacts, please
contact Geraldine L. Lazarus, (213) 385-1000, Extension 378, prior to:
February 21, 1979
11ULTI-COUNTY
California - Sponsored Project (oroaram)
Department of Education SCAG File No.. MC-9338-CAL
State Plan For Summer Food Service Program For Children,
Summer, 1979
The overall goal of the Child Nutrition Services Bureau is to provide technical
leadership to public and private institutions in their efforts to plan, imple-
ment, expand, and improve operational procedures related to federal and state
child nutrition programs. Activities will include: outreach program to identify q
needy children, ir..provement of internal operation of the program, Provision of tech-
nical training, development of specifications/quality control standards/menu plan,
ning for use by project sponsors.
IMPERIAL COUNTY
A-95: Housing and Community Development - 4U0 ON t�t`h pE ERT
City of 'Westmorland IM-9546-HCO SIV OF P�
Housing Rehabilitation Program for the City of 'Westmorland C
M,^00 (total cost) / S300,000 (orant request) / S26,000 (State)
Di;c re tidna ry CDBG funds requested to rehabilitate 150 houses within the City
of Westmorland.
City of Brawley IM-9562-HCO
Rehabilitation and Oeveldpment Project.
S1,5001000 / S115001 000
Discretionary COBG funds requested to rehabilita 2 eligible housing units in
the designated rehabilitation area and to Provide streets, curbs, gutters, water
and sewer cc an imooverished area.
City of Calexico IM-9574-HCO
Comprehensive Plan - .Multi year
52,440,000 / 51,500,000
Discretionary COBG funds requested for neighborhood stabilization and revitali-
zation of planning areas 1 , 2, 3, to consist of housing rehabilitation, land
write-downs for low and :aoderate intone families, economic development, storm
drain and removai of bar-iers for the handicaoped.
0S :NGE: r0UNTY
.A-?E: :Zmmunity Action - aA
?3sadena Community Services Comnissicn LA-?E47-CA
?asadena immunity Acz1on ?roaram
SOU2,E00 / 3514,000
Reiues: P:nainq for administraticn and provis`,on of multioia social services for
resioents in Pasadena, Ai.aaena, and Sierra 9acre. Services include comnu ity
dutreacn and child-car= for low-income residents and -ransoortaEien, nedical
and iucr'.tional ser,iicas 'or senior z.tizans.
February 7, 1979
Page 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
A-95: Housing - HUD (Cont'd.)
City of Indio RI-9559-H
Desert Pride Homes
40 homes on approximately 9 acres
$50,000 - 560,000
TRACT 13388
ASP 1404
County of Riverside, Sunnymead area RI-9561-H
The New California
South west corner - JFK Drive and Indian Avenue
Initial 55 hones with 271 lots on approximately 78 acres
$45,000 - $55,000
TRACT 12497 -
ASP 1401
Countv of Riverside, Sunnymead area RI-9568-H
Tierra Verde Homes
37 homes on approximately 9 acres with 50 adjacent acres under sponsor's control
S53,000 - $66,000
TRACT 8877-2
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
City of Palm Desert RI-9422-ED
Northgate Country Club
Negative Declaration has been submitted for the annexation of vacant unincorporated
County territory to the City of Palm Desert. This would facilitate develooment of
a 1,120 unit golf course residential condominium project, 9 acre neighborhood shopping
center, and 1.5 acre public use parcel.
Riverside County RI-9555-ED
Fred Cunningham Mobile Home Subdivision
A draft EIR has been submitted for a zone change of 76 acres in the communities of
San Jacinto and Hemet. The presently. irrigated crop land designated single-family re-
sidential would be redesignated for Mobile Home Subdivisions. The site is bounded by
Mountain Avenue to the west, 'Aashinaton Avenue to the south, the proposed Ramona ex-
pressway to the east and Commonwealth .Avenue as the approximate northern boundary.
7
c c
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/LEAD AGENCY SITUATION
PROJECT TITLE: LAFCO 79-1-4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of 320 acres Environmental
to the City of Palm Desert Assessment No. 10428
PROJECT LOCATION: City of Palm Desert APPROVING AGENCY:
County of Riverside
Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
PROJECT SPONSOR: CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside, California 92501
P 0 BOX 1977
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CA 92260 []Board of Supervisors
❑ Planning Commission
❑East Area Planning Council
The Planning Department has reviewed the above referenced project and found that:
The project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA
The project is exempt from CEQA as it has previously complied with the provisions
of CEQA, and there has been no substantial change in either the project as originally
reviewed or the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken.
a. Negative Declaration was filed in connection with
EA No. , on
b. An Environmental Impact Report was filed in connection with ,
EA No. , on ,EIR No. ,
considered by the Board of Supervisors on
0 A "Lead Agency" situation exists in that the County officer or body involved in
approving or supporting the project is not the lead agency and that the lead
agency has complied with CEQA and all appropriate State Guidelines.
Section 4.03 (b) (2) of LAFCO Rules to Implement CEQA.
Patricia Nemeth,A.I.P.
�/j Planning Director
By: Joseph A. Richards lA, .-,
i
Title: Senior Planner V'V
White - Applicant
Canary - Case File
Pink - Clerk of Board
ro Goldend - EA File
Go ii-22
ro J
aiaisp County Use Only
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 99260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF A
"DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the following
listed projects will not have a significant adverse impact on the environ-
ment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted:
CASE NOS. C/Z 17-78 & DP 21-78
Request for Change of Zone from R-1 , 9,000 to PR-4 and
approval of a Development Plan consisting of 20 duplexes
(40 dwelling units) on approximately 8 acres generally
located near 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon Road.
----------------------
CASE NO. C/Z 14-78
Request for a Change of Zone from PR-4 to R 2-8,000
for approximately 80 acres at the southeast corner of
Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive.
-----------------------
CASE NO. TT 14032
Request for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to .allow
238 detached residences and a park site on approximately
80 acres at the southeast corner of Portola Avenue and
Country Club Drive.
-----------------------
CASE NO. CUP 16-78
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
operate a restaurant in the El Paseo Village project on
El Paseo, between Sunlodge Lane and Lupine Lane, within
the C-1 , S.P. zone.
-----------------------
ANNEXATION NO. 8
Annexation of approximately 320 acres at the southeast
corner of Cook Street and Country Club Drive.
"DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS (Cont. ) Page Two
CASE NO. CUP 17-78
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow con-
struction of a fire station on approximately 1 .10
acres located near the corner of Silver Spur Trail
and proposed intersection of Mesa View Drive.
----------------------
An appeal from this determination may be made to the Planning Commission within
eight (8) days .of the date of posting of this public notice by filing an appeal
in accordance with Resolution No. 78-32, with the Dept. of Environmental Ser-
vices located at 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California. If no appeal
is filed within the said time, this determination shall become final .
PAUL. A. WILLIAMS, AIP
Dir. of Environmental Services
Date of Public Notice A0
Date Appeal Period Expires
METHOD OF NOTICING:
Posting '
Mailing to owners of property within 300'
Publication in newspaper
/Z / Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice)
CIRCULATION LIST FOR ALL CASES
P�
Circulation of Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps, CUP'S, GPA's, etc:
REVIEW COMMITTEE:
✓/1. Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams
J 2. Palm Desert Director of Building & Safety - Jim Hill
J3. Palm Desert Director of Public Works - L. Clyde Beebe
�. Palm Desert Fire Marshall -
Dave Ortegel i
5. Robert P. Brock
Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor
Administration Office Building, Room 313
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext 267)
6 M / A. Ferguson
YImperial Irrigation Dist. Power Div.
P. 0. Box 248
Coachella, CA 92236 398-2211
7. Lowell 0. Weeks
General Manager - Chief Engineer
J Coachella Valley County Water District (C.V.C.W.D. )
P. 0. Box 1058
Coachella, California 92236 (Phone: (714) 398-2651)
8. R. J. Lowry
Project Development Services
California Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 231
San Bernardino, California 92403 (Phone: (714) 383-4671 )
9. _
Director of Planning and Building
J City of Indian Wells
45-300 Club Drive
Indian Wells, California 92260 (Phone: 345-2831)
10.
Director of Planning
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270 (Phone: 328-8871)
11. Kermit Martin
Southern California Edison Company
P. 0. Box 203
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8660)
12. Chuck Morris
General Telephone Company
/ 62-147 Desertaire Road
v/ Joshua Tree, California 92252 (Phone: 366-8389)
13. R. W. Riddell
/Engineering Department
..// Southern California Gas Company
P. 0. Box 2200
Riverside, California 92506 (Phone: 327-8531, ask for Riverside
extension 214)
ISO ,9Z
Circulation List for All Cases
Page Two
14. Roger Harlow
Director - Pupil Personnel Service
Desert Sands Unified School District
83-049 Avenue 46
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-4071)
15. Jim Langdon
Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc.
36-711 Cathedral Canyon Drive
P. 0. Drawer LL
Cathedral City, California 92234 (Phone: 328-2585 or 328-4687).
16. Stanley Sayles
President, Palm Desert Community Services District
44-500 Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6338)
17.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
73-271 Highway 111 , Suite 21
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
(Phone: )
18. Harold Horsley
Foreman/Mails
U. S. Post Office
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-3864)
19. Joe Benes
Vice President & General Manager
Coachella Valley Television
P. 0. Box 368
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8157)
20. Don McNeely
President - Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
P. 0. Box 908
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6111)
21. Kevin Manning
Senior Planner
J Riverside County Planning Commission
County Administration Building, Room 304
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext. 277, 278, & 279)
22. James Whitehead
Superintendent - District 6
State Parks and Recreation
1350 Front Street, Room 6054
San Diego, California 92101 (Phone: (714) 2"36-7411)
23. Les Pricer
Redevelopment Agency
73-677 Highway Ill
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (Phone: 346-6920
24. Robert I. Pitchford, Chairman
Architectural Committee of the
Palm Desert Property Owners Assoc.
73-833 E1 Paseo
cPalm Desert, Ca. 92260
l l
SIEGEL
BUILDERS • DEVELOPERS
ENTERPRISES
P. O. BOX 1746, ENCINO, CALIF. 91316 • 783-1590
September 25, 1978
To: Honorable City Council
Palm Desert, California
PETITION OF ANNEXATION
Pursuant to the Municipal Organization Act of 1977, the
undersigned do hereby petition the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, for annexation of the hereinafter
described property to the City of Palm Desert and, in furtherance
thereof, do hereby state the following:
1 . The legal description of the property is :
The north one-half of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 6 East,
San Bernardino Base and Meridian;
Excepting therefrom the northerly 44 feet thereof, included in
County Road;
Also excepting therefrom the westerly rectangular 44 feet thereof,
excepting therefrom the northerly 44 feet thereof, included in
County Road.
2. The number of inhabitants of the subject property is :
NONE.
3. The owners of the subject property are the following:
Irwin Siegel and Lillyan S. Siegel , husband and wife.
Terri Ann Siegel , a single woman.
Richard J. Siegel , a single man.
Business address for all of the above owners is : �
17000 Ventura Blvd. Suite 203 OCT
P . O. Box 1746 ENMO. I,%ILNTAL SERVICES
Encino, California 91316 CITY OF PAL:-1 DESERT
- Page 1
Siegel , 9/25/78
This "Petition of Annexation" is submitted contingent upon
agreement by and between the City Council and the Owners on the
following conditions :
A. That the annexation and zoning procedures, and development
plan/tract map procedures be initiated concurrently.
B. That the entire property, except the northwesterly nine (9)
acres (see map submitted herewith) , be designated for Residential
Use, Medium Density, six (6) Dwelling Units per acre on an overall
average basis .
C. That the northwesterly nine (9) acres of the property
be designated for Neighborhood Commercial zoning, as shown on
the accompanying map.
Signed this 25th day of September 1978 by:
IRWIN SIEGEL
LILLYAN S. SIEGEL �
\%
TERR 1 ANN SIEGEL
/JZ/2iL SSG
RICHARD J . SIEGEL < L��
JR IECEIY -ED
OCT �.
ENVINU NIVILIMAL SERVICES
CITY OF PAW DESERT,
Page 2 .
l ,
He stated that he believed that after some discussion with
Mr. Williams and with the City Attorney, Mr. Erwin , that
there may be a way that we can still assure that we will
get every condition complied with through a procedure
whereby the developer may not have to do all this work
right up front . Perhaps some of it could be done as the
construction of the development progresses . We are not
sure about that and there are a lot of "ifs". He assured
the Council and anyone in the audience that there was no
intention whatsoever here to reconsider the zoning , the
development plan, or the density. It ' s a matter of ade-
quately handling the drainage in such a way that the City
will get all the benefits it needs from the protection
. described at the last meeting of the 100 year storm, the It
related flood insurance protection, and yet make it possi-
ble for the applicant perhaps to proceed with the project .
On that basis , since Staff will need some extra time to
talk to the Water District , our own flood control advisor ,
and the applicant , he urged a two-week' s continuance of this
matter to the next scheduled meeting of December 28 , 1978 .
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
continue the matter to the meeting of December 28 , 1978 . ?Motion carried
unanimously.
C . ORDINANCE NO. 199 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107
THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP , BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM ' S ' TO
PR-4, S.P . (U.A. ) , P . C . (2) , S .P . (U.A. ) AND P (U.A. ) AND A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1 , 120 DWELLING UNITS , A COMMERCIAL
SHOPPING CENTER AND A PUBLIC USE AREA ON APPROXIMATELY
320 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE ,
EAST OF COOK STREET. CASE NOS . C/Z 12-78 AND DP 16-78.
Mr. Bouman advised that this was the second reading of
the ordinance, and there had been no further input
received. [
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive t
further reading and adopt. Motion carried on a 4-1 vote, with Councilman Newbrander
voting NOE.
X. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER
None
XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS
None
XII. NEW BUSINESS
None
XIII. OLD BUSINESS
None
XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS L
A. CITY MANAGER
1. RESOLUTION NO. 78-165 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE
1978/79 BUDGET AND AUTHORIZING ADVANCES IN CONNECTION
WITH THE MONTEREY WASH RESTORATION PROJECT.
Mr. Leon Beebe , Director of Public Works , reported that
the State would not make payment of its monies to the
City until the project ,was completed. This resolution
authorizes the advance- of said monies from the Unallocated
Reserve which will be repaid when State monies are
received.
� l
ORDINANCE NO. 199
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 107 , THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING
THE ZONE FROM ' S' TO PR-4 , S.P. (U.A. ) , P.C. (2 ) ,
S.P. (U. A. ) AND P(U.A. ) AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR 1 , 120 DWELLING UNITS, A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING
CENTER AND A PUBLIC USE AREA ON APPROXIMATELY
320 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTRY
CLUB DRIVE, EAST OF COOK STREET.
CASE NOS. C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert , California, DOES
9EREBY ORDAIN, as follows:
SECTION 1 : That a portion of Ordinance No . 107 referencing Sec-
tion 25.46-1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 25.46 of
the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on
the attached exhibit , labeled Exhibit 'A' .
SECTION 2 : The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert , California,
is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance in the Palm Desert Post ,
a newspaper of general ciruclation , published and circulated in the City
of Palm Desert , California, and shall certify to the passage and adop-
tion of this Ordinance and the same shall be in full force and effect
thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 3 : That a Development Plan for 1 , 120 dwelling units, a
Commercial Shopping Center and a Public Use Area on a 320 acre site is
hereby granted to SIEGEL ENTERPRISES subject to compliance with condi-
tions attached hereto, labeled Exhibit 'B' .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council
this 14th day of December 1978 , by the following vote, to
wit :
AYES : Brush, McPherson , Wilson & Mullins
NOES : Newbrander
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
EBN RD D . M LINS, Mayor
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Cityi Jerk
City of Palm Desert , California
/ks
I
FF
GY.'S2'GYJ7> >Z'nln� i
SOS wn-lz;
d
o " /
w . N o /
P C
U L.
Z O
u)0 06
p N m t
1 /
--
.099
t
� r
r
� I
0 Q°
J /
I
os I C
'Gln
S?Nn•7 NlSln I � � .
CITY OF PALM DESERT
_ _ � ORDI�dAhCE 199
o c C
� o C5-a DATE December 14, 197'
-------
(ORDINANCE NO. 199 `
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Page Three
CASE NO. DP 16-78
Standard Conditions :
I . The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibits A-F (Case No . DP 16-7S ) on file with the Department of
Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant. shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to Design Review, Subdivision process, and: building
permit procedures.
3 . .. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever , each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project .
4 . Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval otherwise said approval
shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever . Further ,
the total project shall be completed by January 1 , 1985. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property and the
City Council may initiate rezoning procedures to revert said un-
developed areas to an S (Study) Zone Designation .
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement
of construction on said project , the applicant shall agree in
writing to these Conditions of Approval .
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
l to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
1 addition to all the requirements , limitations, and restrictions
of all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in
force , or which hereafter may be in force.
7 . All existing electrical distribution lines , telephone, cable antenna
television , and similar service wires or cables, which are adja-
cent to the property being developed shall be installed underground
as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the
property being developed.
e
8 . All requirements of the City Fire Marshall shall be met as a part
of the development of this project per attached letter dated
October 23 , 1978.
r
l
l
ORDINANCE NO. 199- Page Four
Special Conditions : - Exhibit B (Case No. DP 16-75 )
Development Plan
1 . The maximum number of dwelling units shall be limited to 1 , 120.
2 . Each phase of construction shall conform to all requirements
of Chapters 25. 24 and 25. 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
3. All residential buildings shall conform to a unifying architec-
tural theme.
4. _ All 'landscaping shall conform to an overall landscape master
plan with particular emphasis on abuttin.- public streets . :
5. All landscaping installed within the required parkway area along
all public streets shall thereafter be maintained by the owners
and/or occupants of the total development .
_ 6. All uses within the club house shall be specified , and parking
shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 25. 58 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, as approved by the Planning Commission
in Design Review.
7 . A Design Review application shall be submitted for the residential
area in accordance with Chapter 25. 70 of the Municipal Code, and
providing for the .following specific items :
a. Setback variation and/or unit reorientation to enhance pri-
vate street scene along straight road segments.
b. Restudy and detail tennis court design with regard to im-
pact on adjacent dwelling units.
c. Detail golf cart crossings of private streets.
. 1
d. Detail median island in private road entrance from Country
Club, showing breaks and turn pockets to serve dwelling units
on the east side.
e. Consider looping longer cul-de-sac streets, back into other
streets (such as cul-de-sac streets between the 7th and Sth
fairway, and cul-de-sac illustrated between the 13th and
15th fairway) and/or provilae emergency vehicle ingress and
egress at the ends of long cul-de-sac streets by means of
"Turf Block" driveways, or other method acceptable to the .
City.
f. Restudy commercial/residential boundary interface to unify
= design .
8 . Prior to any development of the proposed P.C . (2 ) , S .P. zoning areas,
an amended Development Plan shall be submitted concerning development of the can
mercial area, with the following design features:
a. A residential style of architecture, similar to the pro-
posed dwelling units, with a max. height of 20' .
b. Buildings should be arranged on the site in a "village"
style, linked together by pedestrian ways and landscaped
areas, rather than scattered individual buildings separated
by parking lots, or long opposing blocks of buildings .
c . Minimum setback from Cook Street should be 50 ' , with not
more than 50% of the street frontage paralleled by buildings
closer than 100' .
ORDINANCE NO. 199
Page Five
Special Conditions : - Exhibit B (Cont . )
8 . d . Cook and Country Club street frontages should be screened
by large mounded/landscaped areas (except where corner
sight restriction is a problem) , and all vehicle parking
should be hidden from view by such mounding and lancscaping .
e. The interior of the center should use an extensive number of
trees in the parking areas to provide a shade canopy for
vehicles.
f. All necessary loading docks should be recessed and enclosed .
g. The transition from commercial to residential should be by
means of high landscaped berm areas ( in addition to
the proposed walls) . The treatment on the .commercial
side of the property should be carried over and unified with
perimeter treatment on the residential development .
9. This development shall make a contribution to the Park Fund of
the City of Palm Desert .
10. The residential area shall contribute to the Signalization Fund
in the amount of $50. 00 per residential unit .
11 . The shopping center shall contribute to the Signalization Fund
in the amount of $50. 00 per parking space.
12 . Safety street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the
approval of the Director of Public Works. '
13. All drainage concerns for this tract shall meet the approval of
the Director of Public Works.
1 14. The necessary right-of-ways on Cook, Country Club, and Eldorado
J Drive will be deeded to the City in accordance with the City
Street Widening Program.
. c
J
ORDINANCE NO. 199 Page Six
EXHIBIT B
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Y<
FIRE DEPARTMENT
:Y`•�,',+•�,.- (. CI)C.\'T 1 _.�}_i'� IN COOPERATION WITH ?HE
I4 7,
'y'_I;:;_: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
DAVID L. FLAKE
-� COUNTY FIRE WARDEN 210 WE5T SAN JACINTO STREET
1 PERRIS• CALIFORNIA 92310
TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183
i
October 23, 1978
I
Mr. Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. DP 16-78 (Residential only)
I
Dear Mr. Williams:
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GFTM fire flow for a (2) hour
duration in, addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside Cotvnty super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet.
I
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. 'Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Buildig Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
I
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and ap-
proved by the water company, with the following certification "I certify that
the design of the water system in Case Number DF 16-78 is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Fir=_ Marshai. 11
5. Fire Protection requirements for the shopping center will be established
as plans are received.
I
I
Sincerely,
i
DAVID L. FLAKE
ire Chief
\ C
I
David J. Ortegel
Fire Marshal
I
vld
I
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: �) Office of the County Clerk From: City of Palm Desert
County of Riverside 45-275 Prickly Pear Ln.
4050 Main Street Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
Riverside, Ca. 92501
( ) Secretary for Resources
1416 Ninth St. , Room 1311 .
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15083(f)
of the State EIR Guidelines .
Project Title/Common Name �Z12-78
Siegel Enterprises
State C earinghouse Number if submitted to State Clearinghouse
Contact Person Telephone Number
Murrel Crump Area Code (714) 346-0611
Project Location
South side of Country Club Drive, east of Cook Street
Project Description Development Plan for a 1, 120 d.u. golf course cond
project on approx. 309. 5 acres; a 9 acre district level shopping cen er ;
and , 1 . 5 acre reservation for public uses.
This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has made the following determinations
regarding the above described project:
1. The project has been approved by the City;
2. The project ( ) will ) will not have a significant effect on the environment;
3. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project;
and
4• The initial study disclosed sufficient environmental analysis was done, therefore,
further analysis was not deemed necessary((.
\\�
Date Received for Filing
Dated: 7
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to amend
Special Condition No. 11 to read as follows : Development adjacent to
Section 36 should have setbacks in a range from 50 ' to 200 ' . Flexi-
bility within the range is assigned to the Design Review Board Process
and should be adjusted to provide compatibility with the large lots
and low density development existing in the Cahuilla Hills . Motion
carried unanimously.
Councilman Wilson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to
waive further reading and pass Ordinance No . 198 , as amended , to second
reading . Motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to
certify as complete the Final Environmental Impact Report for Rancho
Bella Vista on file with the Department of Environmental Services ,
together with all comments received from other agencies , organizations ,
community groups and interested citizens , and the responses t6 such
comments prepared by the City Staff as the Certified Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Rancho Bella Vista Project . Motion carried
unanimously.
B. CASE NOS . C/Z 12-78 AND DP 16-78 - SIEGEL ENTERPRISES , APPLI-
CANT : Consideration of a Request for a Change of Zone from
TrStudy to PR-6 (U.A. ) , P. C . (2) (U.A. ) and P (U.A. ) and
Approval of a Related Development Plan to Allow a 1 , 120
Dwelling Unit Golf Course Condominium Project , a District
Level Shopping Center , and a Public Use Area on Approximately
320 Acres on the South Side of Country Club Drive , East of
Cook Street .
Mr . Williams presented a detailed staff report , stating
the major issues dealt with by the Planning Commission
and explaining their recommendations . He stated that the
City' s General Plan shows this area appropriate at a range
of 5-7 units to the acre, and the applicant ' s proposal is
for 3 . 61 units to the acre. The Planning Commission did
C recommend PR-4 to provide for the 3. 61 du/acre.
Mr . Williams pointed out that the Council had received a
letter from the City of Indian Wells that deals with some .
items that the Commission was concerned with and discussed
in their resolution. The Commission realized that this is
a somewhat violation of the two cities ' sphere of influence.
However, in reviewing the area from basically Interstate 10
south to the Whitewater Storm Channel , there .is a natural
division in terms of ownership .along the half-section line
with the exception of this parcel and the sewer treatment
plant complex. This is an instance where you have one
property owner owning basically 160 acres in each sphere
of influence . The applicant is trying to build an integrated
complex and therefore, it is very hard for him to conceivably
develop in the two cities . Thus , in Staff' s judgment , he
had two options — develop in the County or develop under
the City. He has chosen to request to be developing under the
- City of Palm Desert .
The other exception is the Water District 's acreage which
also violates the sphere of influence. It is unique in that
the Sewer Treatment Plant would be in Palm Desert , but the
spreading area or basically vacant land would be in Indian
Wells . With those two exceptions , there is a line of owner-
ship break right at the sphere of influence line. The Com-
mission encouraged Staff to contact the City of Indian Wells
before the Council considered the matter to get their opinion
as to what they thought of this possible violation of their '
sphere of influence . As a result of that contact , the letter
was submitted to the City Council in total opposition to the
1) annexation to the City of Palm Desert ; 2) the design of
the project ; and 3) the environmental review of the project.
Mr. Williams stated that the first time the Staff was con-
tacted by Mr. Siegel , the applicant , with regard to the pos-
sible project on this property , the consideration was for an
November 30 , 1978 Page 7
� r
18-hole golf course with a range of density from 5-7 du/acre
and a 15-acre commercial center. Staff then began to review
all the environmental analyses that had been done on this
property. That started with the applicant submitting the
environmental analysis done by the County for 234 acres and
a 600 unit mobile home park subidivision that was recently
denied on the easterly 234 acres of this property . The
County had issued a Negative Declaration on that request .
Staff then looked at the General Plan specifically with
regard to the District Commercial because that is really
a unique land use. There are only 5 places in the City of
Palm Desert that provide ultimately for District Commercial ,
so that was adequately, in Staff ' s judgment , analyzed in the !
General Plan. Staff also looked at the community facilities
aspect and felt that if a 40-acre community facility was
developed on a portion of this property which was What was
contemplated under the Environmental Impact Report , then
there was a substantially more adverse impact than what was
being contemplated. Then the Environmental Analysis of
Annexation No . 5 was reviewed which is the property between
Monterey and Cook Street , south of Country Club and which
-has a very similar land-use designation as the property
under consideration.
Staff then suggested to Mr . Siegle that he begin to scale
down the project , reduce the commercial center to 9 acres ,
reduce the density from the range he contemplated of 5-7
which would allow 1, 525 units to as high as 2 , 135 units .
In reaction to this environmental analysis , Mr. Siegle
began to finalize his plans and reduce impact of the
project . Staff also suggested that blowsand was perhaps
the biggest problem that dealt with the property beyond the
environmental considerations , and he needed to integrate
that into the design which he has done. After reviewing
all of the environmental documents and reviewing a scaled
down project , Staff concluded that the environmental con-
cerns of this project had been adequately addressed and
therefore did not require further environmental analysis .
The City of Indian Wells is objecting to that and feels
that the County first of all never considered this project
and believes that the City of Palm Desert is responsible for
performing additional environmental review. The second
concern is that the density of the project being contem-
plated is not compatible to the City of Indian Wells '
development standards and the unit sizes are considerably
smaller than acceptable to the City. The density is below
our General Plan designation , however, and the units are
in excess of our minimum 1 ,000 sq. ft.
Their last concern was that they would be strongly opposed
to a violation of their sphere of influence . They feel it
is an unacceptable encroachment . The sphere of influence ,
or the lines that are created, are proposed by State law
_ as a guide and they are just one element of consideration
by LAFCO when they consider annexations , and they are the
ones who will decide whether an annexation or a sphere of
influence line should be violated. They have to take into
consideration other concerns such as is it one ownership?
Do they want it to be in one city or two cities? Do they
want to annex it all to one city? Staff concluded , in
going through the various justifications , that if the
property owner wants to annex to Palm Desert , the fact that L
he owns the parcel as one entity seems an overriding con-
cern, particularly since Indian Wells ' present city limit
line is at the Whitewater Storm Channel which is at least
two miles away. Staff felt that it was a better way to
go than to tell Mr . Siegel to develop in the County .
While Staff understands Indian Wells ' protest , it is felt
that LAFCO should decide that this is an appropriate annexa-
tion to the City of Palm Desert .
November 30 , 1978 Page 8
In conclusion , Mr. Williams reported that Staff favored
the recommendation of the Planning Commission and recommended
to the City Council that by Ordinance No. 199 , Council approve
a Change of Zone , Upon Annexation, of PR-4 on 309 acres , PC-2
on 9 acres , and P on 12 acres of the subject property and
subsequently approve a development plan for 1 , 120 dwelling
units subject to conditions .
Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open and invited
input in FAVOR of the project .
MR. IRI4IN SIEGEL, 17501 Corinthian , Encino , California,
stated that they had worked long and hard with the Planning
Staff and have scaled the project down from the original
concept to as it has been presented. He stated his con-
currence with all the conditions , standard and special .
He called specific attention to the design of the shopping
center as shown and stated he completely agreed with the
Planning Commission that it should be redesigned subject
.to Commission and Design Review Board approval ..
Mayor Mullins invited input in OPPOSITION to the' project , and
none was offered. He declared the Public Hearing closed.
Councilman McPherson stated he would like to emphasize
Special Condition #7 (a) to ensure that the street would
not look like row after row of driveways .
Councilman Newbrander asked if Staff had responded to
Indian Wells ' letter , and Mr. Williams advised that he
had talked with their Planning Director prior to receipt
of their letter. Councilman Newbrander asked if the City
of Indian Wells had been consulted with regard to the
original presentation of this , and Mr . Williams advised
that Mr . Sullivan had been in his office on another matter ,
but they had discussed this issue . He felt that Indian
Wells might go along with it if they had adequate treatment
along Eldorado Drive and had indicated he would submit plans
on what Indian Wells wanted to do there . However, they
elected to oppose the project rather than give direction
on what to do on Eldorado Drive.
Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded to
waive further reading and pass Ordinance .No . 199 to second reading.
Motion carried on a 4-1 vote , with Councilman Newbrander voting NOE .
Councilman Newbrander explained that she didn' t like to see
that much disagreement between the cities . She felt that
this is in their sphere of influence and even though we have
lost some property to Rancho Mirage, she didn' t like to see
the two cities at odds . She would like to see us working
more closely with the City of Indian Wells to get their
cooperation. ,
C . CASE NO. TT 13008 - COVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY , APPLICANT :
Consideration of a Request for Approva of a Tentative Tract
Map to Create 161 Single-Family Residential Lots on Approxi-
mately 64. 4 Acres within the R-1-12 , 000 and R-1-12 , 000 S.P .
(Single-Family Residential , Min. 12 , 000 Sq . Ft . Lot Area,
Scenic Preservation Overlay) Zones Generally Located East
of Highway 74, South of Homestead.
Mr. Williams presented the Staff Report , indicating that
both the Planning Commission and Staff recommended approval
of the Tentative Tract Map by Resolution No . 78-145 .
Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open , and invited
input in FAVOR of the Tentative Tract Map .
MR. ED FIRIGHT, 78-106 Avenue 52 , LaQuinta , addressed Council
stating that this was intended to be a custom home lot project
for individual home sites . The lot sizes will vary from
12 , 000 sq . ft . and up . They had worked very hard with Staff
on the drainage which is unique to this area , and as a
result , have reduced the amount of water running off onto
Page ..9
November 30 , 1973
�-l` _� 1714) 345-2931
ON If
�yp1Ay,.��L�1 /-J
e/ e e11C
45-300 CLUB DRIVE INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 9226i
November 27 , 1978
Honorable Mayor & City Council
City of Palm Desert NOV f., j 1'
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane ENVIRGNvUNTAL SEiMCES
Palm Desert, CA 92260 CITY OF. PALM cESERT
Gentlemen:
The City Council and Planning Commission of Indian Wells have
reviewed the plans for Change of Zone 12-78 and development
Plan 16-78 (Northgate Project) . Three issues were discussed.
First, the annexation by Palm Desert; second, the design of
the project; and third, the environmental review process.
The City of Indian Wells believes that annexation by Palm
Desert of a 160 acre section of its sphere of influence is an
unacceptable encroachement. Indian Wells would strongly pro-
test this annexation.
The City believes that the density of this project is not com-
patible with Indian Wells development standards and the unit
sizes are considerably smaller than are acceptable to the City.
Palm Desert has not performed proper environmental review of
this project. A determination was made that the project has
previously complied with CEQA. According to the records of
Riverside County, this project has never been submitted for
environmental review. The City of Indian wells believes that
Palm Desert is responsible for performing an environmental
review that adequately assesses the potential impacts that
could result from the project.
Very truly yours,
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN
Planning Director
WJS/cv
C� C�
PROOF OF PU3LTC.A110N
( 2010 , 2015 . 5 UP)
PPCOF OF PUeL1CATJ0^; 0-
CAS_ 'NOS. C/7- 12-73 L OP lh-18
LULL NOT .
I gin a citizen of the United
States and a resident of the
County aforesaid , S am over the -r •� — — ^ � :''^ a
'CITY OF PALM DESERT - -
age Of Pighteen years , en: not !: .. .�,. LEGAL NOTICE
a r-art to Or interested in the REOUESTFORPREANNEXATIONZONINGFROMSTOPR-
Y 6(U.A.), PC(2)(U.A.) AND P(U.A ) AND APPROVAL OF AI
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTING OF: A.9 ACRE SHOP-
PING entitled matter . 1 3p the PING CENTER SITE: 1.5 ACRES OF PUBLIC/INSTITU-i
principal Cla.rc Of the nrintar TIONAL USE: AND )120 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM(
UNITS WITHGOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE ON 309.5:
' GROSS ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ONITHE SOUTH!
of PALM CCSrRT POS f, a newpaoer Of SIDE OF,COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, EAST OF COOK
Pneral C1rCula'iti Oh STREET
C. , printed CASE NOS.. and DP 16 78
NOTICE ISS HERE
BY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will he
Lnd Published daily In t}IP held before the Palm Desert CITY COUNCIL to consider the
from
request by SIPR E( ENTERPRISES for a Change of Zone from
city O f FZ 1 V C r s l d C , County. O { Study S' to PR�(U.A.)(Plonned Residential, max. 6 du/acre,
Upon Annexation), PC(2)M.A.) (Planned Commercial. District,
Riverside, and i5 h 1 C h n eF;s n a p e v Upon Annexation), and P(U.A.) (Public/Institutional, Upon An-
t�21 5been a d u d! C d 8 Il a v!;p a p e r C f vexation) and approval of a Development Plan consisting ar. a 9
] d acre 5h0pping.center site: 1.5 acres of P s with olf course
Use;
ana, 1120 Residential Condominium units with golf course od.
g e n�r a.l C l r r:u l a t l O n b y the clubhouse on 309.5 gross acres general IV located on the south side
S UI .?r lOr of Country Club Drive, east of.Cook Street, more particularly;
I Cotlrt of the Count / of describedas:
zE, A portion of the North �h of Section 70,'
k1VG'rsld�? , State Of t.elifornl: f TownshloSS Range 6E SBM g '
under date of l;ctober '.) , 1954 . 4
Case number 4 S t!)at the I t
notic•a, of which the annexed is
a printed copy , has been Du'.>lished C/Z 12-78
in each regular and ?ntirc issue rP 10-78
of said newspaDer and not in any
surplemp.nt thereof on the follo-,ing
dates , to—nit :
^, p
SAID Public Hearing will be held on Thursday. November 30.
1978, at 7,00 p.m. In the Council Cho moors inthe Palm Desert
f (e r t 1 f y (O r d P C 1 ar e ) U n d e r City Hall, 45•D5 Prickly Pear Lone. Palm Desert. California. at
which time and place all interested persons are in itetl to attend'
pYn lty Of neej Vry it7A the SjE q Rr GILLIGAN. City Clerk
foregoirg is true anti correct. U}tY of Palm Desert, California PDP_11/9f1
niit NovetPber 7s
at ^ iverrside , California
I - /-
CTTY OF PILYOF SFa.T
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
October 31 , 1978 Page Six
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
G. Case Nos. CUP 12-78 and 101C - PALM DESERT RACQUET
BALL AND HEALTH CLUB, INC. , Applicant
Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit
and related Design Review Case to construct and
operate a 19, 200 sq. ft . racquet ball and health
club facility on an approximate 1 . 2 acre parcel
of land , located at the northwest corner of Highway:
111 and Painters Path in the C-1 , S.P. (General
Commercial , Scenic Preservation Overlay) zone dis-
trict .
Mr . Williams reviewed the case and noted that the plan will
go before the Design Review Board again for approval of the land-
scape plan .
Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open and asked if
the applicant wished to speak at this time . The applicant not being
present , Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak
in FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project .
BERGET MOLLER, asked if there had been any decision
regarding the realignment of Painters Path.
Mr . Williams stated that there had been no decision made as
yet .
Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission .
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder , the Commission approved the case by Planning Commission Re
solution No. 420; carried unanimously (5-0) .
THERE WAS A BRIEF RECESS AT 11. THE MELTTING WAS RECONVENED AT 8:55 P.M.
H. Case Nos. C/Z 12-78 a DP 16-78 - SIEGEL ENTERPRISES ,
Applicant
Request for approval of preannexation zoning and
related Development Plan for property generally
located on the south side of Country Club Drive,
east of Cook Street , as follows:
C/Z 12-78 - A Change of Zone from ' S' Study to PR-6
(U.A. ) (Planned residential , max . 6 du/
acre, Upon Annexation) , P. C. (2) (U . A . )
(Planned Commercial, district level , Upon
Annexation) , and P (U.A. ) (Public/Institu-
tional , Upon Annexation , on approximately
320 acres of land.
DP 16-78 - A Development Plan to develope a 1 , 120
dwelling unit golf course condominium
project on approximately 309 . 5 acres;
preliminary schematics for a 9 acre dis-
trict level shopping center ;, and , 1 . 5
acre reservation for public uses.
Mr . Crump reviewed the cases and noted a letter received from
Mr . T. H. Taylor which objects to a commercial area being proposed
adjacent to his property. Mr . Crump then reviewed the Conditions of
Approval .
Mr . Williams noted that the City' s Sphere of Influence splits
this property. He also advised that the applicant had previously
submitted a request to the county for this property and this is a
scale down of that request .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
October 31 , 1978 Page Seven
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
H. Case Nos. C/Z 12-75 & DP 16-75 (Cont . )
Chairman Kelly asked if perhaps something should be put in the
Resolution regarding the Sphere of Inflence to bring it to the attention
( of the City Council when they review the Cases and request some response
from the City of Indian Wells.
Commissioner Berke asked what would be developed in the first
Y P
phase. Mr . Williams stated that that would be considered as part of
the Tract Map. Commissioner Berkey stated that he would like to know
the improvements that will be made in the first phase.
Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing open and asked if
the applicant wished to speak at this time.
ERWIN SIEGEL, Applicant , referred to the adjacent
zoning and noted that the General Plan recommends
PR-5 to 7 . He also noted that the adjacent pro-
perty that is zoned PR-5(U .A. ) could create a pro-
blem with financing as this plan is presented .
He then referred to the wall and noted that they
would like to keep the wall as it will allow privacy
and it gives continuity to the overall design.
TED ROBINSON, noted that underground crossings
create more problems than they solve (referring
to golf cart and pedestrian crossings in project ) .
He also noted that there is a need for a physical
barrier to keep out motorcycles not just mounding .
Mr . Crump noted that the concern is at the entrance and other
busy areas.
Commissioner Kryder noted that there will probably be a gate
house to control any traffic problems.
Mr. Robinson noted that he has done other projects
of this type and there has been no problem with this
type of crossing .
Mr . Siegel noted that there is no speed problem
in this type of project .
Commissioner Berkey asked about the phasing of the project .
Mr. Siegel noted that it has not been set as yet as far
as phasing goes, but that the tennis courts, club house,
and first 9 holes would be done concurrently with the
1st housing phase.
Chairman Kelly asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in .
FAVOR or in OPPOSITION to the project .
CLAIRE GRAHAM, 73-077 Goldflower , asked about the
width of the fairways, the setbacks and the garages,
and the size of the units .
Mr . Robinson noted that the fairways would be wider
than present courses in the area.
Chairman Kelly declared the Public Hearing closed and asked
for the pleasure of the Commission .
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
October 31 , 1978 Page Eight
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
H. Case Nos. C/Z 12-78 & DP 16-78 (Cont . )
Commissioner Berkey stated that he accepted the staff recom-
mendation of PR-4 and that the wall between the commercial area and
the residential area could be worked out . He also suggested a re-
vision be. made to Special Condition No . 8 . g.
Commissioner Kryder noted his agreement with Commissioner
Berkey and stated that he felt that the underground crossings were
not necessary and he agreed with the wall and the PR-4 zoning. He
also asked how the Commission can justify a Negative EIR when .a few
feet away they are worried about the Fringe Toed Lizard.
Commissioner Fleshman noted his concern with all the units
being the same and why they are all 4-plex units. He also noted that
backing onto Country Club is bad . He noted the following concerns :
1) Entry on Cook Street ; 2) would like to see variety in design &
he asked about a commercial project being on all four corners of
Country Club and Cook.
Sir . Williams noted that 3 corners are proposed for commercial ,
and they will be smaller centers as a larger one is not really needed .
Commissioner Snyder had no comments at this time.
Chairman Kelly noted her agreement with the comments made
and stated that she would like to see some variety in design and she
asked about the units along the 3rd fairway.
Mr . Robinson noted that the views are good with the
rise of the land in the area of the 3rd fairway.
Commissioner Fleshman asked how much of the site drains onto
E1 Dorado Drive and where will the water.- go until E1 Dorado is ex-
tended.
Mr . Robinson stated that vertually no water will
flow south and east .
BOB SIMS , stated that the fairways will be catch
basins.
There was some discussion about Indian Wells response to their
Sphere of Influence and the effect this project will have on it . Mr .
Williams suggested that a new WHEREAS be added after the first WHEREAS
of the Resolution to read as follows : WHEREAS, the proposed property,
which is under one ownership , does extend easterly beyond our adopted
Sphere of Influence, the Commission encourages the City Council to gain
written concurrence from the City of Indian Wells regarding their Sphere
of Influence.
Commissioner Snyder concurred with the comments made by Commis-
sioner Fleshman and noted that he would like the applicant to vary -
the plans. I
Mr. Siegel noted his agreement with Commissioners Snyder L
and Fleshman and stated he will instruct the architect
to give diversity to the plans. Mr . Siegel thanked the
staff and the Commission for their help and consideration .
Mr . Williams noted the following revisions to the Conditions :
Special Condition No. 7 . c . - Detail golf cart crossings
of private streets.
Special Condition No. 8 - Prior to any development of the
proposed P. C. (2 ) , S .P. zoning areas, an amended Develop-
ment Plan shall be submitted concerning development of
the commercial area , with the following design features:
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
October 31 , 1978 Page vine
VI . PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . )
H. Case Nos. C/Z 12-78 & DP 16-78 (Cont . )
Special Condition No. 8 . g. - The transition from- com-
mercial to residential should be by means of high land-
scaped berm areas ( in addition to the proposed walls) .
The treatment on the commercial side of the property
should be carried over and unified with perimeter treat-
ment on the residential development .
On a motion by Commissioner Berkey, seconded by Commissioner
Kryder , the Commission recommended approval of the Change of Zone
to the City Council from ' S ' Study to PR-4, S. P. (U.A) on 309. 5 acres,
and PC(2 ) , S.P. (U. A. ) on 9. 0 acres, and P (U.A. ) on 1 . 5 acres, and
a related Development Plan for 320 acres with the noted revisions
to the Resolution and the Conditions of Approval by Planning Commis-
sion Resolution No. 421 ; carried (4-1) AYES : Berkey, Kelly, Kryder ,
Snyder ; NOES : Fleshman
VII . OLD BUSINESS - None
VIII . NEW BUSINESS - None
IX. DESI V REVIEW BOARD ITEMS
A. Cons eration of Cases acted on by the Design Review Board
at the meeting of October 24 , 1978 .
Mr . Crump revi ed the cases and noted the revisions as suggested
by the Design Review Bo d for Case Nos. 150MF & 149MF. Commissioner
Fleshman commented that t e side elevations could be dressed up a little.
Regarding Case No. 131MF - here was some discussion about the wall re-
quired, and the oleanders to be placed in front of ft to help control
the sand problem. Case No. 1 MF was reviewed.
On a motion by Commission Kryder , seconded by Commissioner
Berkey, the Commission approved th actions of the Design Review Board
by Planning Commission Resolution N . 422 ; carried (4-1 ) AYES : Berkey,
Kelly, Kryder , Snyder ; NOES : Fleshma
X. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Mr . Williams noted a referral from t City Council on Case
No . C/Z 09-78 and DP 13-78 , LEWIS HOMES OF CA IFORNIA , Applicant . He
noted three alternatives that the Commission c uld take on the referral
at this time.
BETTY WILLIAMS, Rep. of Lewis Homes, s ke to the
( Commission and stated that some of the 1 is on the
north side could have their own pools. S e also
stated that Lewis Homes does not want to a ear to
be in constant conflict with the Planning C .mission ,
thev want to work with the Commission and th City .
Commissioner Berkey asked if she would agree with e third
option .
Mrs. Williams replied whatever is best , she will
agree.
Commissioner Snyder stated that the City worked very har on the
College of the Desert Specific Plan -and the area should remain P -4 .
He suggested that more land be given to the City and then the PR- would
be possible. He also stated the the applicant knew the problems o the
area, with regard to drainage , when the land was purchased.
Minutes
Palm Desert Planning Commission
October 31 , 1978 Page Ten
X. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Cont . )
Commissioner Fleshman asked if the Commission ' s comments could
be fori rded to the City Council at this time so that each time this
item com s before either body there is not a battle.
Mr. illiams stated it would be better to forward comments
after the ca is reviewed further by the Planning Commission . It
was suggested hat option three be taken and the case scheduled
for considerati on November 15, 1978 .
Commissione Kryder stated that the Council should know that
the Commission stil wants PR-4, but that it will still be discussed on
November 15 , 1978 .
Alternative C was nanimously accepted by the Commission.
XI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - ne
XII . COMMENTS
A. City Staff - None
B. City Attorney - None
C. Planning Commissioners
Commissioner Kryder asked if items lik the Lewis
Homes item, could not be discussed earlier i the meeting
so as to not keep people waiting. f
l
XIII . ADJOURNMENT
On a motion by Commissioner Snyder , seconded .by Commis ioner
Kryder, the meeting was adjourned at 11 : 25 p.m. ; carried unani usly
(5-0) .
PAUL A . WILLIAMS , Secretary
ATTEST :
GLORIA KELLY, Chairman
/ks
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report On: Change of Zone (preannexation) and related Development Plan
Applicant: SIEGEL ENTERPRISES
Case Nos: C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
Date: October 31 , 1978
I . REQUEST:
Request for approval of preannexation zoning and related Development
Plan for property generally located on the south side of Country
Club Drive, east of Cook Street, as follows:
C/Z 12-78 - A Change of Zone from 'S' Study to PR-6(U.A. ) (Planned
residential , max. 6 du/acre, Upon Annexation) , P.C. (2)
(U.A. ) (Planned Commercial , district level , Upon Annexa-
tion) , and P(U.A. ) (Public/Institutional , Upon Annexation),
on approximately 320 acres of land.
DP 16-78 - A Development Plan to develope a 1 ,120 dwelling unit golf
course condominium project on approximately 309.5 acres;
preliminary schematics for a 9 acre district level shop-
ping center; and, 1 .5 acre reservation for public uses.
II. BACKGROUND:
A. Use Locations: Golf Course Condominium Project -
South side of Country Club Drive, between
Cook Street and Eldorado Drive (proposed)
.Shopping Center Site -
Southeast corner of Country Club Drive
and Cook Street
Public Reservation
East side of Cook Street, approximately
670 feet south of Country Club Drive
B. Size of Areas: Total - 320 acres
Condominiums - 309.5 acres
Shopping Center - 9 acres
Public Use - 1 .5 acres
C. Zoning: Existing - Riverside County R-1-12,000
Proposed - PR-6(U.A. ), PC(2)(UA. ) , and P(U.A. )
Adjacent - North - Riverside County R-1 , 12,000 & R-5
South - R-1 , 12,000; City PR-5(U.A. )
East - R-1 , 12,000
West - Riverside County R-1 , 12,000; City PR-4(U.A. )
D. Unit Count and Analysis:
Existing County Zoning (320 acres, minus 20% for streets =
256 acre a 12,000 sq. ft. per
lot) = 929 du
Proposed Zoning (PR-6, on 309.5 acres) = 1857 du
Proposed Development
Plan (309.5 acre golf course condomin-
ium) = 1120 du
' Case Nos: C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
October 31 , 1978 Page Two
II. BACKGROUND: (Cont. )
E. Description of Design Elements:
1 . Overall Development Plan: -Extension of, or improvments to
Country Club Drive, Cook Street, and
Eldorado Drive (proposed alignment)
-1 .5 acre public use site (potential
fire station)
2. Residential Development:
Unit Sizes - Plan A 1275 sq. ft.
Plan B - 1380 sq. ft.
Plan C - 1575 sq. ft.
Plan D - 1625 sq. ft.
Plan E - 1950 sq. ft.
Dwelling configuration/number - 280 fourplex buildings, with
various Plan A to E groupings
Maintenance buildings (non-residential structure) - total of
4,400 sq. ft.
Recreational Amenities - 124.1 acre, 18 hole golf course
- 15 tennis courts
- 15,000 sq. ft. club house
- 27 swimming pools, distributed through-
out the development
Open Space Analysis: Required @ 50% net site. = 148 acres
Proposed 214.8 acres
Building Coverage: Maximum 40%
Calculated 14%
Parking Analysis: - Required, 2 covered spaces per unit, plus
0.5 guest spaces per unit
- Club house, tennis facility and golf course
(non-resident use)
- Golf course - 5 spaces per hole, plus spaces
required for additional uses on the site
- Tennis facility - 3 spaces per court, plus
spaces required for additional uses on the
site
- Proposed 2 covered spaces per unit, two
spaces in driveway, plus street parking as
design permits
- Club house parking is (not distinct) ap-
proximately 110 spaces
3. Commercial Development:
Summary of Described Uses: - Food market
- Drug Store
- Beauty/barber shops
- Clothing/sales, wearing apparel
- Offices
- Other general retail sales
Building arrangements: Schematic only, building parallel to Cook
Street, and building with parking lot
orientation.
III. DISCUSSION:
A. Change of Zone:
The effect of the requested Change of Zone is to: 1 ) interpret actual
application of the commercial land use allocation depicted in this
general area , and to spread that commercial use out to include the
l
Case Nos: C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
October 31 , 1978 Page Three
III. DISCUSSION: (Cont. )
A. Change of Zone: (Cont. )
described 9 acres; 2) scale down the public use designation and fix
it at 1 .5 acres.
The requested residential zoning is inconsistant with the minimum
zoning required to implement the proposed development plan. The
applicant advises that he intends to procede with the plan as pro-
posed, but if financing or market saturation problems occur he
would like the apportunity to resubmit a plan at the PR-6 density.
While the applicants' desire for flexibility is understood, it would
be procedurally inconsistant to grant preannexation zoning for a
density beyond what is supported by an adequate development plan.
Additionally, a development occuring at 3.61 units per acre (im-
plemented by PR-4 zoning) may be more reflective of the current
density considerations for the North Sphere Area.
B. Development Plan - Residential :
The residential development is designed as a golf course condominium
project. Design objectives for golf course developments usually
involve maximizing exposure to fairways; and, this is the pattern
noted in the proposed develpment. One design disadvantage occurs
when fairways are paralled, which results in long uninteresting
straight street sections. This is a design trade-off and may be
mitigated in part by varing dwelling unit setbacks and orientations
to the street.
Internal street circulation is achieved by a series of loops join-
ing to make one large perimeter loop street around the project.
Access points from Country Club and Cook Street provide entrance
"spine" streets to connect the internal private street system.
In the broad analysis the land plan appears to be well coordinated
and functional , satisfying its design intent. There are a few areas
of the project that will need additional consideration, these include:
- Design relationship/orientation to the commercial development
- Interface between unit group and tennis court/maintenance area
- Use of extremely long cul -de-sac streets
Typical dwelling unit rendering depicts a garage orientation to the
private streets. Materials are suggested in masonry and stucco build-
ing walls, with tile roofs.
As noted in the background section, recreation amenities consist of
the golf course, tennis facility, and disbursed pool areas. The
dominant and focal amenity, of course, is the golf course; other
amenities are not provided at the same ratio as development without
this golf course orientation. A 15,000 sq. ft. club house is being
proposed as an adjunct to the golf/tennis club. The golf/tennis
facility will probably be operated as a membership and/or commercial
country club. The club house architectural rendering also uses stucco
and tile, with masonry accents.
C. Development Plan - Commercial :
The Development Plan for the requested 9 acre shopping center is only
presented in schematic detail , showing a minimum of possible design
elements. This area is conceived as a subsequent phase of the overall
site development, as such, a definitive development plan would need
to procede design approval . Lacking a precise plan to take action on,
it would be appropriate to develope a criteria under which the shop-
ping center should be planned.: Considerations for the shopping center
would include:
- A residential style of architecture, similar to the proposed dwelling
units, with a max. height of 20' .
- Buildings should be arranged on the site in a "village" style, linked
together by pedestrian ways and landscaped areas, rather than scat-
] - tered individual buildings separated by parking lots, or long opposing
l blocks of buildings.
- Case Nos: C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
October 31 , 1978 Page Four
III. DISCUSSION: (Cont. )
C. Development Plan - Commercial : (Cont. )
- Minimum setback from Cook Street should be 50' , with not more than
50% of the street frontage paralleled by buildings closer than 100' .
- Cook and Country Club street frontages should be screened by large
mounded/landscaped areas (except where corner sight restriction is
a problem) , and all vehicle parking should be hidden from view by
such mounding and landscaping.
- The interior of the center should use an extensive number of trees
in the parking areas to provide a shade canopy for vehicles.
- All necessary loading docks should be recessed and enclosed.
- The transition from commercial to residential should be by means
of high landscaped berm areas (as opposed to abrupt walls and
linear screening). The treatment on the commercial side of the
property should be carried over and unified with perimeter treat-
ment on the residential development.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The two subjects discussed in this report concern zoning for the 320 acres
(with its General Plan interpretation) ; and, site development (with neces-
sary design criteria and standards) . The Staff recommendation, offered
here, is based on a set of conditions deemed necessary to address the con-
cerns for property development. The Staff recommendation for zoning re-
flects a procedural objective for consistancy between the Development Plan
and zoning designation, and also recognize the "Scenic" status of Cook St.
Conditions for the Development Plan implement/guide design considerations
to be refined in a subsequent review. It is noted that the later commer-
cial phase will require an amended Development Plan, and both commercial
and residential areas will be subject to Design Review of precise details.
Therefore, based on the justification provided in the Resolution, it is
RECOMMENDING THAT:
yPlanning— Commission Resolution No. 421, recommend to the City Council
approval of a Change of Zone from 'S' Study to PR-4, S.P. (U.A. ) (Planned
residential , max. 4 du/acre, Scenic Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation)
on 309.5 acres, and PC(2), S.P. (U.A. ) (Planned Commercial , district,
Scenic Preservation Overlay, Upon Annexation) on 9.0 acres, and P (U.A. )
(Public/Institutional , Upon Annexation) on 1 .5 acres. and a related Develop-
ment Plan for 320 acres, and overall conceptual Development Plan, containing
1 ,120 dwelling units on 309.5 acres, 9 acre shopping center site, and public
use reservation area.
t
r. 4 S. , R. s
I WONDER PALMS RD. \
_ 1
7755. R. 6 E. \
R-I
R-1
4 R-5
R-1 12,000
R-T R-1
R-1
CLUB COUNrRY cc de Oq/d6 D . 1Z-5
r
PR.-4 SITE
} J p PRto 5 to IQO 1 !
h S.P.(ua PR-5
5to (o.a
P.R. O.S• 5.1.E
W
SCu.a.
8 RO 0M0-
1 �
.- 9-l+0 S (u.a.)
-M g000ft
MERLE %i-9
................. Z
l% .................
jfI
1
J) O L
rl ..., .P`.....,
. . nC7 ❑ I�� -AVE.
_I oaQ�ooa�►ooa
o I
asEo JI
IF—
......:........
>:.;:<.;:.::.; ; :.:.
r C '� ,1• �{ail �
Et<' ` \ 1
PLANNING M. P.IISSION RESOLUTION NO. 421
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE
IN MODIFIED FORM, FROM ' S ' STUDY TO PR-4 , S.P.
(U. A. ) AND PC(2 ) , S.P. (U. A. ) , AND P (U.A. ) ; AND,
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 1 , 120 DWELLING UNITS
AND COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER, PUBLIC USE DEDI-
CATION AREA ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, EAST OF COOK
STREET.
CASE NOS . C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert ,
California, did on the 31st day of October , 1978 , hold a duly noticed
Public Hearing to consider a Change of Zone application from ' S ' Study
to PR-6 (U . A. ) (Planned Residential , max . 6 du/acre, Upon Annexation)
and, PC(2 ) (U .A . ) (Planned Commercial , district , Upon Annexation) , and
P (U .A. ) (Public/Institutional , Upon Annexation) ; and , a Development
Plan for a 1 , 120 dwelling unit golf course condominium project , a
concept plan for a district level shopping center , and a public use
reservation area, filed by SIEGEL ENTERPRISES on approximately 320 acres
generally located on the south side of Country Club Drive, east of Cook
Street , the site being more particularly described as follows:
A portion of the North z of Section 10, Township 5S, Range 6E, SBi
WHEREAS, the proposed property, which is under one ownership does extend easterly
beyond our adopted Sphere of Influence, the Commission encourages the CityCouncil to
gain written concurrence from the City of Indian Wells regarding their Sphere of Influence
and, _
Whereas, said application has complied with the requirenents of the "City of Palm
Desert Environmental Quality Procedure Resolution No. 78-32," in that it was found that
the site had previously been assessed for development by Riverside County and no new
assessment has been deemed necessary; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering the
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to
justify their recommendations and actions as described below:
1 . Change of Zone :
a. The land use resulting from the revised Change of Zone
would be more compatible with adjacent existing and
proposed land uses.
b. The density resulting from the revised Change of Zone
would be compatible with densities permitted in the
adjacent areas.
c . The proposed Change of Zone would be compatible with the
Adopted Palm Desert General Plan.
d. The proposed Change of Zone conforms to the intent and
purpose of the City ' s Zoning Ordinance.
2. Development Plan:
a. The proposed project conforms to the intent and purposes
of the PR Zone District .
b. The proposed project is well suited for the specific site .
and is compatible with existing and proposed development
in the area.
C. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, and general welfare of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of Palm Desert , California, as follows :
l
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 421 Page Two
1 . That the above recitations are true , correct , and consti-
tute the findings of the Commission in these cases;
2 . That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of a Change of Zone in modified form, from ' S '
Study to PR-4 , S.P. (U.A. ) , PC(2 ) S.P. (U.A. ) , and P (U .A. ) as shown
on the attached map labeled Exhibit ' A' .
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of the overall conceptual Development Plan
(Exhibit B) as part of their consideration of the related Change of
Zone, subject to those conditions labeled Exhibit ' C' , attached hereto .
PASSED , APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm
Desert Planning Commission , held on this 31st day of October, 1978 ,
by the following vote, to wit :
AYES: Berkey, Kelly , Kryder, Snyder
NOES : Fleshman
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
GLORIA KELLY, Chairman
ATTEST:
PAUL A. WILLIAMS , Secretary
/ks
OC VZLOC79
SP9 Wn-10D —
i
7
yy j
� W
W
n cg Y 'SLL £d'1Y!/
--
/
r /
r / ,
� r
1 �1
i
I
I L'�
O
I
J I
2 i oc N
06
'OIn
S3Nl1/1 VLSIn
CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
�'�7 T00
RESOLUTION NO. 421
DATE October 31 , 1978
1 , t
PLANNING COMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 421 Exhibit C
Page Three
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. DP 16-78
Standard Conditions :
1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with
Exhibits A-F (Case No. DP 16-78 ) on file with the Department of
Environmental Services, as modified by the following conditions.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of
any uses contemplated by this approval , the applicant shall first
complete all the procedural requirements of the City which includes,
but not limited to Design Review, Subdivision process, and building
permit procedures. -
3. Construction of the total development may be done in phases; how-
ever , each individual phase shall meet or exceed all Municipal
Code requirements to the degree that the City could consider each
phase as a single project .
4. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within
one year from the date of final approval otherwise said approval
shall become null , void and of no effect whatsoever . Further,
the total project shall be completed by January 1 , 1985. After
said date, this approval shall automatically expire for those
remaining undeveloped portions of the subject property and the
City Council may initiate rezoning procedures to revert said un-
developed areas to an S (Study) Zone Designation .
5. Prior to the issuance of any City permits for the commencement
of construction on said project , the applicant shall agree in
( writing to these Conditions of Approval .
6. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
111 to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions
of all municipal ordinances and State and Federal Statutes now in
force, or which hereafter may be in force.
7. All existing electrical distribution lines , telephone, cable antenna
television , and similar service wires or cables, which are adja-
cent to the property being developed shall be installed underground
as a part of development from the nearest existing pole not on the
property being developed .
8 . All requirements of the City Fire Marshall shall be met as a part
of the development of this project per attached letter dated
October 23, 1978 .
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 421 Page Four
Special Conditions : - Exhibit C (Case No. DP 16-75 )
Development Plan
1 . The maximum number of dwelling units shall be limited to 1, 120.
2 . Each phase of construction shall conform to all requirements
of Chapters 25 . 24 and 25. 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code .
3 . All residential buildings shall conform to a unifying architec-
tural theme.
4. All landscaping shall conform to an overall landscape master
plan with particular emphasis on abutting public streets.
5. All landscaping installed within the required parkway area along
all public streets shall thereafter be maintained by the owners
and/or occupants of the total development .
6. All uses within the club house shall be specified, and parking
shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 25. 58 of the Palm
Desert Municipal Code, as approved by the Planning Commission
in Design Review.
7. A Design Review application shall be submitted for the residential
area in accordance with Chapter 25. 70 of the Municipal Code, and
providing for the following specific items :
a. Setback variation and/or unit reorientation to enhance pri-
vate street scene along straight road segments.
b. Restudy and detail tennis court design with regard to im-
pact on adjacent dwelling units.
C. Detail golf cart crossings of private streets.
d. Detail median island in private road entrance from Country
Club, showing breaks and turn pockets to serve dwelling units
on the east side.
e. Consider looping longer cul-de-sac streets, back into other
streets (such as cul-de-sac streets between the 7th and Sth
fairway , and cul-de-sac illustrated between the 13th and
15th fairway) and/or provide emergency vehicle ingress and
egress at the ends of long cul-de-sac streets by means of
"Turf Block" driveways, or other method acceptable to the
City.
f . Restudy commercial/residential boundary interface to unify
design.
8 . Prior to any development of the proposed P. C . (2) , S .P. zoning areas,
an amended Development Plan shall be submitted concerning development of the can
mercial area, with the following design features:
a. A residential style of architecture, similar to the pro-
posed dwelling units, with a max. height of 201 .
b. Buildings should be arranged on the site in a "village"
style, linked together by pedestrian ways and landscaped
areas, rather than scattered individual buildings separated
by parking lots, or long opposing blocks of buildings.
c. Minimum setback from Cook Street should be 50' , with not
more than 500 of the street frontage paralleled by buildings
closer than 100 ' .
PLANNING C0MISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 421 Page Five
Special Conditions: - Exhibit C (Cont . )
8 . d. Cook and Country Club street frontages should be screened
by large mounded/landscaped areas (except where corner
sight restriction is a problem) , and all vehicle parking
should be hidden from view by such mounding and lancscaping.
e. The interior of the center should use an extensive number of
trees in the parking areas to provide a shade canopy for
vehicles.
f . . All necessary loading docks should be recessed and enclosed.
g. The transition from commercial to residential should be by
means of high landscaped berm areas ( in addition to
the proposed walls) . The treatment on the . commercial
side of the property should be carried over and unified with
perimeter treatment on the residential development .
9. This development shall make a contribution to the Park Fund of
the City of Palm Desert .
10. The residential area shall contribute to the Signalization Fund
in the amount of $50. 00 per residential unit .
11 . The shopping center shall contribute to the Signalization Fund
in the amount of $50. 00 per parking space.
12. Safety street lighting shall be installed in accordance with the
approval of the Director of Public Works.
13 . All drainage concerns for this tract shall meet the approval of
the Director of Public Works.
� . 14 . The necessary right-of-ways on Cook, Country Club, and Eldorado
Drive will be deeded to the City in accordance with the City
Street Widening Program.
'PLANNING COIBIISSION
RESOLUTION •NO. 421 Page Sit
e. _ I RIVERSIDE COUNTY
i lE s FIRE DEPARTMENT
1N COOPERATION WITH THE
- -.+ J . - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
°'• R11 E1?S1Df. .a: .:,; DAVID L. FLAKE
:-- COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
PERRIS, CALIIFORNIAT92370 fI
TELEPHONE (714) 657-3163
October 23, 1976
i
Mr. Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Case No. DP 16-78 (Residential only)
Dear Mr. Williams:
Prior to construction of any of the proposed buildings, the following conditions
must be met:
1. Install a water system capable of delivering 2500 GPM fire flow for a (2) hour
duration in addition to domestic or other supply. The computation shall be
based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main
from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement.
2. Install Riverside County super fire hydrants so that no point of any building
is more than 250 feet from a fire hydrant measured along approved vehicular
travel ways. Hydrant spacing shall not exceed 500 feet.
I
I
A. Hydrants shall not be located closer than 25 feet to any building.
B. Exterior surfaces of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome
yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall furnish the original
and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review.
Upon approval, one copy will be sent to the Building Department, and the original
will be returned to the developer.
4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and ap-
proved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that
the design of the water system in Case Number DP 16-78 is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal."
i
5. Fire Protection requirements for the shopping center will be established
as plans are received.
Sincerely,
DAVID L. FLAKE j
ire Chief
v'cc,�e �.Cn •�� i"ti Cc�..�
David J. OrtePel
Fire Marshal
vl d
I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Planning Director
FROM: Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Zone Change 12-78 & Development Plan 16-78 DATE: October 18, 1478
1 . This development shall make a contribution to the Park Fund of the City
of Palm Desert.
2. The residential area shall contribute to the Signalization Fund in the
amount of $50.00 per residential unit.
3. The Shopping Center shall contribute to the Signalization Fund in the
amount of $50.00 per parking space.
4. Safety Street Lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approval
of the Director of Public Works.
5. All drainage concerns for this tract shall meet the approval of the Director
of Public Works,
6. The necessary right of ways on Cook, Country Club and Eldorado Drive will
be deeded to the City in accordance with the City Street Widening Program.
t �
fc11 0�p TL• lj 'J
- - 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA92260
TELEPHONE (714) 34fi-0611
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF A
"DRAFT" NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Director of Environmental Services has determined that the follow-
ing listed project(s) will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and that a Negative Declaration should be adopted:
CASE NOS. C/Z 13-78 & DP 20-78
Request for approval of a Change of Zone from 'S'
Study to PR-3 (U.A. ) and Preliminary
Plan on 405 Cook Street northeast corner of
gross acres at the
the
ssion
within
appeal from this determination oftate ofy be postingeofothis publicnnoticeiby
8 days of the -32 with theDept.
within eight ( ) ordance with Resolution No. 73 >
in acc ne Palm Desert,
1 La ,
filing an appeal _ 5 Prickly Pear
9
of Environmental Services located at 45 2
California, If no appeal is filed within the said time, this determination
shall become final . :2� ^
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, AIP
Director of Environmental Services
Date of Public Notice
Date Appeal Period Expires oz Z
METHOD OF NOTICING:
posting
/Mailing to owners of property within 300'
/j Publication in newspaper
/,Other mailing (agencies and other persons requesting notice)
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIAt ss.
County of Riverside
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over The age of eighteen
years, and not a party to or interested in the above Proof of Publication of
entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer
of PALM DESERT POST, a newspaper of general circu-
lation, published weekly, in Palm Desert, County of
__CITY-_OF PA A...
Riverside, and which newspaper has been adjudged
a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior
Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, "'-C15E-"'1as-�` --'1'2-7-8—a-xu3---DP--4C---Z8
under date of October 5, 1964, Case Number 83658;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy,
has been published in each regular and entire issue of CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on a REEfQUAEST PFORI PU AANNEXATI) ANDUON.A. ANID A PP ROVAL OF - I
DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTING OF: A 9 ACRE SHOP- j
the following dates to-wit: t! !'PING CENTER SITE; 1.5 ACRES OF PUBLIC/INSTITU-
TIONAL USE; AND 1120 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM j
'• UNITS WITH GOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE ON 009.5
GROSS ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
v SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, EAST OF COOK
STREET. '
3 "' CASE NOS. C/Z 12-70 and DP 16-78 -NOTICE befor IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hemring will er i
n f,,a before the Pglm Dasert Plgnoinp Commission g can seder j
m rcques by SIgGEI ENTERPRISES fora Change of Zone!
___-.____-_l.♦)!_1-9{ g___.__-._- „from StudyUpon Annexation),.
to PRon),.P) (Planned Residential, max. 6 du/ j
--=Dice. Upon An Annexation).
IU.AJ (Planned Commercial,
'' Upon A exUpon t Annexaflppr and f a De ) (Public/Platitconsis.
Upon: a 9 acre
shopping
and approval it ;Development Plan consist- j
k Ing o/: a e acre shopping center site; 1.5 mires of Public/I nstR if j
Yianal Use; and, use Residential Condominium units with golf
i1`the SO th s Clubhouse on 309.5 grove acres generally located on
re
—_ — __ -- — — — ,-the south ly d s Country Club Drive, emst.of Cook Street, more
- - ------- parbculafly described as: -
} ..-.A portion of the North Section 10,
To
' Township Ss, Ranee 6E'6E, SUM
Kr f
I certify (or declare) under penalty or perjury that the
r
foregoing is true and correct.
/ t
DP 1G 78
'S, -'�,,.,,.-T'lr.:Gx—
S'Igriature — I J J'
Date--------
Oct- 19
— -- — — 1 197E
SAID Public Hearing will be held er Tuesday October 7L 1978.1
at Palm Desert, California at Hall,
4 P.m. in the kl Council Chambers in the Desert,
California,Desert City,
Hall, time Prickly Pear Lone, Palm Desert, icd t at.
which he and place all Interested persons are invited to attend'
and L heard. ,
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, ecretary
Palm Desertrt Planning Commission -- -`
. . 1-PDP-10/19f1
1y .
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case No. : C/Z 12-78 and DP 16-78
Project: Zone Change & Development Plan for Golf Course/Condo
project with acre shopping center
Applicant: SIEGEL ENTERPRISES
Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the
following is being requested:
Change of Zone from Study 'S' to PR-6(U.A. ) , PC(2)(U.A.) and
P(U.A. ) and approval of a Development Plan consisting of: a
9 acre shopping center site; 1 .5 acres of public/institutional
use; and 1120 residential condominium units with golf course
and clubhouse on 309.5 gross acres generally located on the
south side of Country Club Drive, east of Cook Street.
The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded
to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City
is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g.
water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for
schools , hospitals , parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc. )
Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received
by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. Oct. 24th , 1978, in order to be
discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of Oct. 25th .
The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental
Services, City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a
representative of CVCWD) will discuss the comments and recommended
conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission
through the staff report. Any information received by this office after
the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Com-
mittee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consid-
eration.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
PAW/ks
PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS
CIRCULATION LIST FOR ALL CASES
Circulation of Tentative Maps, Parcel Maps , CUP' S , GPA's , etc:
REVIEW COMMITTEE:
1. Palm Desert Director of Environmental Services - Paul Williams
-'%v2. Palm Desert Director of Building & Safety - Jim Hill
--.43. Palm Desert Director of Public Works - L. Clyde Beebe
\14. Palm Desert Fire Marshall - Dave Ortegel
�5. Robert P. Brock
Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor
Administration Office Building, Room 313
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext 267)
6.
7. Lowell 0. Weeks
General Manager - Chief Engineer
Coachella Valley County Water District (C.V.C.'W.D. )
P. 0. Box 1058
Coachella, California 92236 (Phone: (714) 398-2651)
8. R. J. Lowry
Project Development Services
California Uepartment of Transportation
P. 0. Box 231
San Bernardino, California 92403 (Phone: (714) 383-4671 )
9• -
Director of Planning and Building
City of Indian Wells
45-300 Club Drive
Indian Wells, California 92260 (Phone: 345-2831)
10.
Director of Planning
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California 92270. (Phone: 328-8871)
\...11. 'Kermit Martin
Southern California Edison Company
P. 0. Box 203
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8660)
'*,12• Chuck Morris
General Telephone Company
62-147 Desertaire Road
Joshua Tree, California 92252 (Phone: 366-8389)
�13. R. W. Riddell
Engineering Department
Southern California Gas Company
P. 0. Box 2200
Riverside, California 92506 (Phone: 327-8531, ask for Riverside
extension 214)
l
Circulation List for All Cases
Page Two
�- 14. Roger Harlow
Director - Pupil Personnel Service
Desert Sands Unified School District
83-049 Avenue 46
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-4071)
Jim Langdon
Palm Desert Disposal Services , Inc.
36-711 Cathedral Canyon Drive
P. 0. Drawer LL
Cathedral City, California 92234 (Phone: 328-2585 or 328-4687)
16. Stanley Sayles
President, Palm Desert Community Services District
44-500 Portola Avenue
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6338)
17.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
73-271 Highway 111 , Suite 21
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
(Phone: )
�18. Harold Horsley
Foreman/Mails
U. S. Post Office
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-3864)
'N�19. Joe Benes
Vice President & General Manager
Coachella Valley Television
P. 0. Box 368 '
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-8157)
20. Don McNeely
President - Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
P. 0. Box 908
'**NV
Palm Desert, California 92260 (Phone: 346-6111)
V 21. .6eet�MeG�le=Derr, � 1 IMAuF4iiy41
5enlrr-Pianner
Riverside County Planning Commission
County Administration Building, Room 304
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201 (Phone: 347-8511, ext. 277, 278, & 279)
22. James Whitehead
Superintendent - District 6
- - State Parks and Recreation
1350 Front Street, Room 6054
San Diego, California 92101 (Phone: (714) 236-7411)
23. Les Pricer
Redevelopment Agency
73-677 Highway Ill
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 (Phone : 346-6920
24. Robert I. Pitchford, Chairman
Architectural Committee of the
Palm Desert Property Owners Assoc.
73-833 El Paseo
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
a -
05;t:a�J�F (DO :Pain ,=
-��
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR r LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
October 5, 1978
Siegel Enterprises
P. 0. Box 1746
1770 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 203
Encino, California 91316
Re: Applications for Southeast Corner of Country Club Drive and
Cook Street Known As Case Nos. C/Z 12/78, DP 16/78, 153MF,
and 99C.
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the referenced applications , filed on October 2 , 1978,
have been found to be incomplete. The applications will be held, and further
processing suspended , until all of the exhibits required or directed by the
Municipal Code have been received. Your attention to the precise exhibit
requirements , in a supplemental submittal , will be appreciated. Please
note the attached materials in which I have checked the apparent deficiencies .
For further information regarding this matter, you may contact the Principal
Planner, Mr. Murrel Crump.
Very truly yours ,
PAUL A. WILLIAMS, A. I .P.
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PAW/srg
Enclosures (as noted)
cc: Mr. Bob Sims
E.S.C.O.
4676 Admiralty day, Suite 933
Marina Del Rey, California 90291
C �
September 29, 1978
Planning Dept.
City of Palm Desert, California
Attention: Mr. Paul Williams
Dear Mr. Williams :
I am one of the owners of the following described property:
North one-half of Section 10, Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, SBB&M
and I hereby authorize Irwin Siegel to sign on my behalf all
applications required b the City of Palm Desert, or any other
9 Y Y
regulatory agency, in connection with the development, zoning,
annexation, or any other matter pertaining to said development
of the above-described real property.
Very truly yours ,
RICHARD J . S EGEL z
RFCEIV - D
COT r, 19,3
_ ENVIRONNILNIFAL SERVICES
CITY OF PALM DESERT,
I
September 29, 1978
Planning Dept.
City of Palm Desert, California
Attention: Mr. Paul Williams
Dear Mr. Williams :
I am one of the owners of the following described property:
North one-half of Section 10, Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, SBB&M
and I hereby authorize Irwin Siegel to sign on my behalf all
applications required by the City of Palm Desert, or any other
regulatory agency, in connection with the development, zoning,
annexation, or any other matter pertaining to said development
of the above-described real property.
Very truly yours,
-TERR1 ANN SIEGEL
F C ,Fi ' ED
OCT
ENMUiNIOLNIAL SciMCES
- CITY OF FAU-1 DESERT
c
c �
September 29, 1978
Planning Dept.
City of Palm Desert, California
Attention: Mr. Paul Williams
Dear Mr. Williams :
am one of the owners of the following described property:
North one-half of Section 10, Township 5 South,
Range 6 East, SBB&M
and I hereby authorize Irwin Siegel to sign on my behalf all
applications required by the City of Palm Desert, or any other
regulatory agency, in connection with the development, zoning,
annexation, or any other matter pertaining to said development
of the above-described real property.
Very truly yours,
LILL AN S. SIEGEL
R F C E I , � 0
OCT
ENVIRON:vitIYfAL Sc:.V u;ES
CITY OF PALM DESERT
r 1
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260
***CHANGE OF ZONE***
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
Siegel Enterori_es
Applicant (please wim)
P. 0. Box 1746 (213) 283-1590
Moiling Address Telephone
Encino, CA 91316
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested)
Change zones from S to PR (6)(U.A), PC (2) (U. A. ) and P (U. A. )
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION :
North half of Section 10, Township 5S, Range 6E, SBM per accompanying map.
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. Book 619, Page 6, Parcels 1 , 2, 3, and 4.
EXISTING ZONING S
Ap,e,ty trliZa li(1n THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(S)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
RATION FOR T11E FIF TIj15 APPUCAT( N.
/ s
(,SIGNATURE —� DATE
RE EM EY.T Ae50LVIDG THE CITY OF PALM CESERT CF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO Af1Y DEED REJTRICTIONS,
I DO BY PAY IGNATWE�f011 THIS AGRE IiIENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
r - C "<� 5 RICTIONS THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
U SIG'4'KfURE e7 DATE
Applicont's Signature S I EL ENTERP I SES
9- 7 �
�— SIGNAf URE DATE
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED Y
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A. No.❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CAS NO. — O
(❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION
U OF-ER pccc�c NCE CASE f:0.
Supporting Data :
1. Name of Applicant Siegel Enterprises
2. This request is made for property described as:
Exact legal description
North half of Section 10, Township 5S Range 6E, SBM.
3. Total area of site: 3Z0 acres
if more than 1 zone requested, give subtotal for each
4. Existing Zoning : S
describe here or attach map
5. Proposed Zoning: PR(6)(U.A) , PC (Z) (U. A. ) and P(U. A. )
describe here or attach map
6. Assessor's Parcel No. : Book 619, Page 6, Parcels 1 , 2, 3 and 4.
7. The property is located at Country Clubive
Dr
street address
between Cook Street and future El Dorado Drive
street street
8. The present use of the property is Vacant
9. General Plan Designation: Residential Development
10. The applicant offers the following reasons to justify the request for a Change of Zone:
Land is presently in a study catagory and its best use is a Residential zone
with accompanying recreational facilities and commercial center to
serve the future residential population.
I I
11. The applicant shall submit a minimum of t-.1elve (12) accurate scale drawings of the
site (one colored) and the surrounding area showing:
- existing streets and property lines
- existing structures
- access and utility easements
- topographic contours at intervals of not more than two (2) feet.
12. The applicant shall submit a list of all owners of property located within
300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property. The list shall
be keyed to a map showing the location of these properties and shall include
the name and address as shown on the latest available assessment role of the
Riverside County Assessor's Office.
13. The applicant shall submit a completed Environmental Assessment form.
14. The applicant shall provide such additional information as the Director of
Environmental Services may require to determine whether the granting of a
Change of Zone would endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare.
The application may be filed only by the owner of said property and shall be signed
by the owner or by a person with a Power of Attorney, in writing (attached) from the
owner authorizing the application or by the Attorney-at-Law for the owner. Indicate
your authority below:
XXXX I am the owner of said property.
I am the agent for the owner of said property
(attach written authorization) .
I have a Power of Attorney from the owner
authorizing the application
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Los Angeles, California this 29thday of September 19 78 ,
IRWIN IE L TERRI ANN SIEGE
LILLYAN S. SIEGEL RICHARD r. SIEGEL
• 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT CA. 92260
s�Q�s �1������2S�J �OO 25L�L4✓LS **DEVELOPMENT PLAN**
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING DIVISION
Sieeel Enterprises
Applicant (Please Pi-0
P. O. Box 1746 (213) 283-1590
Mailing Address Te!e-hcr.e
Encino, CA 91316
City State Zip-Code
REQUEST: (Describe specific nature of approval requested
Golf and Tennis Club, Condominium walled communit)r.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
North half of Section 10, Township 5 S Range 6 E, SBM, except the North-
westerly 9 acres per accompanying map.
Total area is 310 acres on the Sou.thside of Country Club Drive between Cook
Street and future El Dorado Road.
ASSESSOR IS PARCEL NO. " Book 619, Page 6. Parcels 1 , 2, 3 and 4.
EXISTING ZONING S to PR - 6 (U. A. 1
Property Owner Auth riZption THE UNDERSIGNED STATES THAT THEY ARE THE OWNER(S)OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND HEREBY GIVE AUTHOR-
IZATION FOR THE FILING OF THIS APPLIt ATiON.
U— CF+MNATURE DATE
AGREEMENT ABSOLVING THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES RELATIVE TO ANY DEED RESTRICTIONS.
I, DO BY MY IGNATU E ON THIS AGREEMENT, ABSOLVE THE CITY OF PALM DESERT OF ALL LIABILITIES REGARDING ANY DEED RES-
T
TRICTION THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN.
(� SIGNA URE DATE
4pplkcnt'S Signatura S I EGEL ENTERPR I ES
7Lr
SIGNATURE DATE
(FOR STAFF USE ONLY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS ACCEPTED
❑ MINISTERIAL ACT E.A.No.
❑ CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Cl NEGATIVE OECLARATNS �.--` A •'✓• �/ (�
i ❑ OTHER REFERENCE CASE NO.
45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611
July 14th, 1978
Mr. Robert Siegel
Siegel Enterprises
P.O. Box 746
Encino, California 91316
Subject: Preliminary ,review of Country Club Property
Dear Mr. Siegel :
As I indicated on last Thursday, I have reviewed the preliminary
concept for your property on Country Club Drive and have the follow-
ing comments:
1. I do not believe the proposed commercial center is appro-
priate for the project as it is presently designed. I would
suggest that the commercial center be deleted and replaced
with condominiums or apartments integrated into the overall
project. As an alternative you might want to consider a four
to six acre commercial facility integrated into the design
of the Country Club.
2. I would agree that a PR-6 designation would be appropriate
for the total property with a mix of residential types spread
throughout the project.
3. I would not agree that the level of detail of this plan is
sufficient to file for the Change of Zone request. I would
suggest that further planning be done in terms of housing
type mix, actual layout of the project be developed prior
to filing of the Change of Zone request. I believe this
would be a benefit to you in terms of a more firm commitment
on the part of the City as to approval of a project as a whole.
4. As I indicated in our conversation I think it' s appropriate
for you to consider a secondary entrance to the project to
provide for the convenience of the ultimate occupants. Please
note my suggestion on the attached, marked-up copy of your
skematic concept.
5. The major comment I have on this development is the matter of
the fact that the General Plan shows a potential park site
as a part of this project. To accomplish the project you have
Page Two
Robert Siegel
Encino, California
in mind & also provide for such facility I have indicated
on the attached marked-up drawing, the location I feel
appropriate for said facility which would be the southwest
corner of the property. This would allow us to add to the
facility as a part of development of the property to the
south. To accomplish and provide for an appropriate access
to the property we are suggesting that as a part of the access
to Cook street to your project, that an access road be ex-
tended to the facility.
6. Lastly, the matter of environmental impacts , we have been in
discussion with a much larger property, both south and north
of you that are proposing to annex. We are considering de-
veloping an environmental impact report on the total land area
to be annexed. This week I will be contacting you as to setting
up a meeting to review the comments on this project, and also
review the possibility of this combined, environmental impact
report.
I hope you take these comments constructively and consider them in your
subsequent redesign of your project.
kt' Nx�
uly yours,
Z' �
Paul A. Williams, A. I .P.
Department of Environmental Services
paw/tb
Enclosure
Q
Case *.o . and/or
Related Case No.
INITIAL S?_'D'_' FOR
ANNEXATION NO. 5
CITY OF PTM DESERT
C APRIL 1978
Prepared b,,:
DIVISIO 0? E'NVIRCM1I"IT TAL SERVICES
CITY OF PRIM DESERT
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
P. 0. Eox 1977
Palm Desert, Ca. 92250
( 714 ) ;46-0511
r
l (
TA='L3 05 COMTI.;TS
C
Section pa a so .
I 11TTROD�=IO T
Project Descri tion. . . . . . . . . .
Project Location.
Project Proponent and/or Lead•,11Gency .
II EXVIRO"MENTAL CONSIDE'IdT^TCP:S
Existing, Setting . . . . . . . . . .
Yatural environment . . . . . .
M-an-made envirorment . . . . . . .
Proposed Setting . . . . . . . . .
Natural environment . . . . . .
Mar.-made environment . . . . . . .
III EN;VIFO`,M-" ^lAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
SiEnificant Environmental Effects. . .
Adverse . . . . . . . . . . .
beneficial . . . . . . . . . . . .
L•11 t�.jG bi.7n Measures .
1✓ FIiiDI?(GS
*?eative Declaration . . . . .
environmental Im-act ReFort . .
V COMMENTS AND ;kP? ALS
Public Review . . . . . . . . . .
Resronsible A-erc„ Revle-s
Arpeals to Iritial St:..,4y Determination.
VI AppzS rDICcS
A. Informal consultation materials and comments
B. Notice of Negative Declaration
I
LISP
C FYhibit 'i +I
1 Project Regional Location
2 Project Vicinity Location
3 Photos of Project Site
4 Topographic Map
5 Transportation Facility Map
6 Existing Public Services
7 Existing Public Utilities
8 Proposed Zoning Map
9 Summary Table of Proposed Zoning .
Acreages and Dwelling Unit and
Population Densities
10 General Land Use Plan
C
I;:°'UaDTTI'^To.rr
C
'.his report shall sP.r7e as the basis for ccmolianCe
with the California J rviro- merrnI ':unlit Act of 1970 and
Resolution No. 78-32of the City e'_' Palm Desert. It is
intended hereir t0 . r0'lide the - eader ':iith fact'.lal ervir-
ormen.tal irformation. rocardin' the sutje^,t project and
therein substantiate the need for the preparation of an
Ervironmer.tal Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND) .
Project Description : (::rie`ly describe the project and
the action proposed. )
The project to be considered herein is , and shall herein-
after be referred to as , "Annexation No. 5" . The proposed
project would annex approximately 1050 acres of undeveloped
land lying north of and adjacent to the existing Palm Desert
City Limits.
C Project Location : - (Describe the re,=ioral and vicinity
location of the project and show on exhibits 1 and 2
Also include legal description of prnperty or ti properes
irvloved in . the project. )
The project site is situated in Southern California in the
upper Coachella Valley near the center of Riverside County
as shown on Exhibit 1 . The specific site to be considered
in this initial study, as shown on Exhibit 2 , is legally
described as follows :
Beginning at a point in the northerly boundary line of the
City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, State of California,
. said point being the .common $ Section corner of Section 7 and 8 ,
Township 5 south , Range 6 east , San Bernardino base and meridian .
Said point also being in the boundary line of the City of Rancho
Mirage of said Riverside County.
Thence northerly along the aforementioned common Section line
of Sections 7 and 8 and along the easterly boundary line of the
City of Rancho Mirage , a distance of 2 , 652 . 82 feet to the common
section corner of Sections 7 and 8 and Sections 5 and 6 .
Thence north 89 33 ' 48" east along the northerly line of the
aforementioned Section 8 , a distance of 2, 629 . 98 feet to a point .
Thence north 8:) 42 ' 03" east , along the northerly line of the
aforementioned Section 8 , a distance of 2 , 670 . 86 feet to the north-
easterly corner of said Section 8 said point being the common
corner of Sections 8 and 9, said point also bei the centerline
intersection of Portola Avenue and Country Club Drive.
C EI VIRONYEN^_r.L CONSIDERATIONS
The purpose of this section is to briefly describe
the existing environment wit' resrect to the subject project
and to consider the changes that will occur if the project
is approved . Environment is defined as "the physical con-
ditions which exist within the area which will be affected
by a proposed project includin_, land, air, water, minerals,
flora, fauna, ambient noise , objects of historic or aesthetic
significance, °
Existing Setting: In the following sections describe the
phvsical conditions existing at and adjacent to the project
site.
Natural ervironment : (Include information on land, water,
air, and flora and fauna. Attach as exhibits an aerial
photograph and/or photos of the project site and a
topographic map, )
The existing project site is shown in the photos attached
hereto or Exhibit 3. It can be noted from these photos
that the site is largely undeveloped. There is no surface
water exposed on the site. The land is composed of sandy
�. type soils supporting only natural desert flora such as
the creosote shrub. Wildlife common to this area , include
the kit fox and Coachella Valley Fringed Toed Lizard.
The project site is located on the floor of the valley a
short distance east of an alluvial fan formed by outwash
from the mountains through the ravines of Magnesia Canyon .
The site slopes gently to the southwest draining to the
Whitewater River Storm Channel . The elevations of the site ,
as shown on the topographic map , labeled Exhibit 4 , range
from approximately 200 ' msl along the site ' s southern border
to about 260 ' msl at the site.' s norhtern border . Slopes
on the site generally range from 0 to 5 percent except in
the sand dunes area located in the southeast corner of the
subject site.
l
Project Location : (Continued
CThence continuing north 89 42 ' 00" east along the northerly
line of said Section 9, a distance of 5 , 307. 00 feet to a
point . Said point being the northeasterly corner of said
Section 9, said point alos being the centerline intersection
of Cook Street and said Country Club Drive.
Thence south 00 06 ' 00" west along the easterly line of the
aforementioned Section 9 , a distance of 3, 979. 72 feet to a
point . Said point also being the most northeasterly corner
in the boundary line of the City of Palm Desert .
Thence continuing along the boundary line of the City of
Palm Desert the following courses and distances. Thence
south 89 46' 32" west , a distance of 3,981 . 26 feet .
Thence south 00 0.7' 20" west , a distance of 1 , 325 . 52 feet .
Thence south 89 48 ' 00" west , a distance of 1 , 327.45 feet .
Thence south 00 01 ' 50" west , a distance of 1 ,592 . 03 feet .
Thence north 76 32 ' 56" west, a distance of 3 , 166. 84 feet .
Thence north 00 09 ' 12" east , a distance of 2 , 168 . 56 feet .
Thence north 89 45' 08" east , a distance of 3, 052 . 69 feet .
Thence north 00 06 ' 40" east , a distance of 660. 00 feet .
Thence south 89 45 ' 08" west , a distance of 1 , 325 . 00 feet .
Thence north 00 06 ' 40" east , a distance of 664. 68 feet .
Thence south 89 44 ' 27" west a distance of 3 , 977 .43 feet to
the point of beginning.
This parcel of land contains 1 , 046. 67 acres more or less.
The project site may generally be described as lying north of
and adjancet to the existing City limits bounded on the north
by Country Club Drive , on the east by Cook Street , on the south
by the existing City limits , and on the west by Monterey Avenue.
Project Proponent and/or Lead Agency :
The proposed project has been initiated by the City of Palm
Desert , also the Lead Agency for the project , at the request
of property owners within the annexation area .
• �xxz�l� �
Project Regional Location
S,q
I
'v -
9 �C.) � .
r
s _BALM \,�L �./y" .-
S�qti STRING-
—• MIR_ AGE:.•
e ..
E"Ni
' S - CESERT.
CINLjIAN IN
WELLS
COACH
ELL •� \�
— \THE" f1TAL
a � i
60 � �
X
� c
EXH?P,IT 2
Project Vicinity location
. r0U^IiPY $LV9 ORIV� II
L7
ff
W
•_ ���� I � I- �; i, -, , ice I � --
r
=T�m
l 1
1q � •y r,
fl
. �Il � I ��f-H•ATS.i1 C1�=ROAD-----=�-_�-�. ,
17
'!v
_i �
� l
EXHIB= 3
Aerial Photograph anal/or Photos of Project Site
C
r
EXL'IL ir_P
I
Rirrrl
dam•^—� �� _ IJi wM` li ��\�ll�.��,� I�� lS� _ I
! '�i�, RAJ. v-` ��i) � -'-.x- 1�.: .... I r\�.?¢•,` e. '
vl�
K rt
1 $
,p - ..n3
. .. , , :,�. .�:---•-•• N
JL U1
EXHIZ-IT
Transportation Facility Trap
C
19rER5tAtE 10`,:.
■ �'A♦.` fpvyt
i t oOdi, r
ff[JM\SI`IATR♦ \��
err'/•\aa '
•
COUNTRY C416 116 , -___
■ 2
Hir ■ ■ .�
■ Z
I� ■( ■
■
.. ...... ........., ......... ...
al-
- ♦ PI
• 1
• 1
FIGURE iJ
i HIGHWAY NETWORK
__..._,.. ..._._.._._, 'anon Freeway
. �.,, .. \laicr Highway
¢� __—_Secondary Highway
_-_---Cullcctor
i: Indicates E.l`ting Road
Indicate- Prvpoied Road
® Exi>tin;g Interrh.tnge
i Q Prupoxd Inonchange
:-H-Fff Railroad
] ..........Whitewater Flood
Control Ch.utnel
Bridge
/
�J
i
'
NORTH
0 1 2 Mlles 3
EYHIEI
Existing Public Services
Ap
1 !
_
_ I _
I u�
11 /�
• �. ��l _ I��aH•4YSTSCR--A°FO�^
}�IT 1=1'° /
/ Existing Public Utilities
1 crnrn�r4 ngrvE '� '
11
1 I L J I x x 'f• K X % K X X ><
Z
If
NI
T � �
ti
l
Proposed Settin7. : In the following sections describe the
proposed changes to the subject site if the project is ap-
proved. Relate the changes to the existing se+.tin.7 and to
other projects, both public and private, for the purpose of
examining cumulative effects.
Natural ervirorr.ent:
No change in the natural environment is anticipated as
a result of the annexation; however , debelopment may
occur as effected by such action . Such development
will be considered in the following sections . It
should be noted that while much of the land surrounding
the project site is still in its natural state a
mobile home park has developed adjacent to the northern
boundary of the annexation area.
Proposed Setting: (Continued)
CPear.-made environment :
The proposed land use for the subject site can best be
explained in terms of the completed pre-zoning study .
Attached as Exhibit 8 is a copy of the proposed zoning
for the subject annexation . The approximate,.acreages
and number of units which may be provided are set forth
in Exhibit 9. It can be noted from a comparison of
this table and the General Land Use Plan attached as
Exhibit 10, that the pre-zoning is compatible with this
City' s adopted General Plan .
Further comparisons of the Land Use Plan with the proposed
zoning indicates that the overall density of the area will
be reduced if the proposed zoning is approved. Con-
sequently it may be concluded that the adverse significant
effects associated with growth inducement would be dimineshed.
-
E
e o
C E _
E E E v v
¢ Ev -
n
- - I
W N.Y III+
._
n W n O
0 c
C ¢
Zi
-
2
7 u co -_ E
c
•� o
2 _ _ S O J O y w y W - J J O J
Z ¢ $ $ > Z J J 3 Q 0 F -O `n _ V$ W 2 2 N p� ¢ I _ n0
a ¢ N Q Z Q W ¢ Q m ] >
J O D
- Z.
N 1 LL N I O N 2 S N QI ,^
a LJ��.J� Y (L Y �an 6 N p IIIII��II p c
15 F`f a u'
f f
IJ ,b,Sb,.,b )o .)•ff o I
111.•
W Cn
W
Z
x _ CE
L c
zo
O a
XG
V^'O
« Y
C W 0 Nu
V
N
C U
O 6
N Y C G O l` O m G N ti
n p \ \
U.' W X M m N m
G C L
a°n°'a
Y U
+y<
C
as a a
U .E-� 3v oci
¢ Z Oa y
O W
z A C
O O Qc
N t p C
F v
ti
O A 6 Y Y L
C � ¢
H
F
W H 9
a z ow
6 a F ayi 9 •�
V= W
0. U
i h
N
� M M
♦' O p
E C'
m v6
G � a
< y N
C c
N U
U U
c
Y a u p c e c c A c U U
O
�-
6� tl T
ti
� C C
W O 9 C 9
0.N N A C CC C C � K O A Z q •
(
w
a COMMCN SECTION N
OF RIVERSIDE - _ �IVCOINER
cnuvr �aiv - 4 3---
OS>fD' PALM DESERT CITY L MIT 7a07 oo ID
F - `-9 -
t rOUv-PY CLUB GAVE
i
''clANcr
r A
L.LVE
I w
SECTION 9. . I .S ..
i
T-5-S, R-6-E S,B.B.M. - Y 44 t'b "a AVENUE "V �
j a
b
W
NI6HW4Y
O
PROPOSED PALM DESERT CITYLIMIT
1 A
W LOCATION MAP r
NOT TO-SCALE
k.
t
O
w 3981 .26� s
w.
a i
PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT .
10
�COUNT.Y OF .R IVERSIOE
MIT
y
K
�.--�+-..i..a-_.+.-._.-r .e-mow:--tea_..._ -._�+ • i::� H3.'s=r�1y.�a.v+ -��,.+z..-�} _
DATE z - 14 - 7s PROPOSED.A\INEXATION- -WO. :--:5* r.
;If) .THE
••Y •.zvsL':y :J', :- �- ii STa DRAW IM43 *G
CZ7'Y Ew6tN E4 _ _ENBINEElg1M8 IRcP T3Et f ^ C L�
O S
� CGswtON SECTION .. i COMMON SEC
CORNER COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE -
COUNTRY CLUB VAIVE S
7 Sa9�ss�a`c 6� e I
tE9 42 OB'E 2610 06 ="t 8, 9 N89'
.
y a .
m ✓�! Y• Ss� l 'y � �
Z Ayllo k
t
• �,y�,'p,r .air I .�
CE RT C
u 3
H W
SECTION Lt 8 -
J o T, - S �-I .-6 -ES. B.B.1 - - '
r ° I
\.
I I O4 ,67 ACRE3
5 69 ♦I 27'yy .� 16 3977.113r luma
NERP.0.8 PARCEL MAP 9376 1323.005 99°.4i 08 wBOOK 36 PAGES 83-85
PALM DESERT CITY '� b
C m
x
3032 69 "
x
'i PALM DESERT CITY LIMIT r r
V N
CORMMCN SECTI e
7 8
-- -
- B
SECTION 17
b .. T-5-S , R-6- E S.8 8 M
J o _
PALM C
WNIT
Vfq
W .-P6LY OESE RT CITY LIMIT r• „ C V ,. 3t6d•e� , $ :c
CH
•, ... '".�^a!�so`�.'�bavRnmseaz�Cz�lSa�. —_—�co.iesf
Proposed Setting : (Continued)
Man-made environment : (Continued)
It should be noted that this analysis will not include
environmental information previously addressed in the
EIR for the General Plan.
Open space has been preserved on the site in accordance
with the General Plan . The site containing the sand
dunes described previously is designated on the prezoning
map as O.S.
The public utilities and services were contacted concern-
ing this annexation. The correspondence received regard-
ing the annexation is located in Appendix A. The only
critical concern raised as a result of this survey was
the need for an additional fire station to service the
area; however, it can be noted that such a fire station is
proposed in the General Plan.
ENVIP.C;;hiET ^AL IMPACT A ,;" YSIS
aL-�
C
A significant effect on the environment will occur,
as defined by CEQA guidelines , if a "substantial , or potentiaii _,
substantial , adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area are affected by the activity, including: land ;
air; water; minerals ; flora; fauna ; ambient noise ; and, objects
of historic or aesthetic significance. " ccordinglv, the
plirpoZe of this section is to analyze the foregoinn lF'rOr^a t; o^
to determine _ what, if any, changes to the �environmer"t will
occur and then to determine if the said changes may be ccn-
sidered significant.
Significant Environmental Effects : List below the adverse
and beneficial impacts occurring as a result of the pros^sed
project .
Adverse :
While minor environmental effects may occur as a result of
the proposed action, as noted in the previous sections of
this initial study, none are considered substantial enough
to warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report .
In addition mitigation measure can be provided to reduce or
eliminate the minor effects.
Additional environmental documentation will be required as
development occurs within the project area .
Annexation will provide control over timeliness of development
and coordination and management for the provision of municipal
services.
c. -
. ` l
C b:itiEation Yeasures : ()iscass ways in which a--! ad-ierse
environmental imracts may be reduced or eliminated . )
Mitigation measures, as listed on environmental check
list attached as Appendix A, and plans for municipal
services appear to eliminate two environmental concerns
considered in initial study.
l "
CThe purpose of this section is to -ro':i.'e- a written .
Statement settin.F forty: the j'.:s`.ificaticn. for findi-F. that
an -Invironre^tal Im_P.act Report or Ne.-ati•✓e Declaration shall
be nre-ared for the subject Project �.n rTi means a detailed
statement Prese:'tinE the envi-or-mental of feces^ and cnrsi er-
ations pertainins to a project A ND is a st.aterent descritin
the reaSors wfy a prOP.osed pro• ect will not have 4a S4 rifiCaT!a
effect on the en'✓ironment and, therefore, does nOt r?n_uir-_
the pre^aration of an 3IF. Accordinc:l", this initial study
may be used as the basis for t"�e preparation of a more de-
tailed environmental document or the written justification
for the preparation of a ";D.
Ne�atiVe DPclaration : (';riefl" describe the justification
for the preparation of a ?;D. )
Based on the findings of this initial study there will
be no substantial significant environmental effects occur-
ring as a result of the action proposed by the subject
project . See copy of Negative Declaration in Appendix B.
Invirc=ental - act F.e7art : (' Plain 'r; r an be
prepared and list the si -n i effects e`f_cts of the~p-C C?Pd
project which are to be consiered .inrore detail
1'0'.P. : T_f on 're ba-i:-z of t-e initial ^.•tufty it it ;_?�tarni :A
ZTI iC ..�..n;1 rPi'! t� f. ..P inc +...T!i n.. "i•' CP 1' r�
_n': P' H^.'�Ec'� fulfi1I the _n P.`7':i-eT'- .rti for _ . :�..,P...
ervi rormer tal d^Cl n
..-etation . `I'P a_ :Ji` on o_ sections or,' _ . .
( _
1:—reve^S '.bl� ir0^": ... ?1. Ir-'art^ ; Unavoida' l 1-nacts ; .._
T.•?..V- - Tn�an'^,. ; ^?ro�_C : rlterna:.VeS,' to th'. >:;:4�•
Will -.. nod . ^.eq� :;ai-A
l
COT- rM ,"`S MLD AP31, ALS
C
� ollo.tiirzs de+ermin.tion o` the n--d for +lp
of
an LnVlry..,^..P.r tal I*1^�`',.,^.? Re^Crt OT i.p�atiVe
Dllrsnant to the CallfOrr.i7. En JirOrm.-It l 7ual i+-, .ct of 1970
and lescluti0n :l0. 7a_32 o_ +: Oiv_ C` �3? T
pro-
cedures DTO-
ceureS Te:�ilire` eltt:e_^ the notice 0.` pre--aratlon of� ?_n SIR
r a ` bli re _e., Brio
o Da c _ v� n d or he [•FD DT, or to rr^j ect urnro�ra�
An apDe3l Deriod is 1iSO provided by la4l foll0`::iry the
c0::lpletion Of any ervironmental doc,Amenta+ion ircludin an
initial study determination. :his section , trierefore , has
been reserved for comments received during the presecrinpf!
review Deriods and for the consideration of appeals.
Public Reyie•.%r: (Eriefly describe collm:ents received and
resDorses and place corresno^deuce in Appendix, )
CResponsible Agency Review: (Describe com—en`.s re.^.eive and
. Tesperses any place ccrresuor,derce in Appendix, )
ftpppals : (Decnribe and _refer to Appp.nd L:G.
-ry 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226O
TELEPHONE (714) 346-C611
March 22 , 1978
Dear Sir:
This is to advise you that the City of Palm Desert is conducting an
initial study to determine potential environmental effects of a pro-
poseFannexation of approximately 1 ,050 acres of land located generally
adjacent to and north of the existing City limits.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and
Resolution No. 77-7 of the City of Palm Desert, the City, as the Lead
Agency for this project, herewith requests your comments and recommenda-
tions prior to determining whether a negative declaration or environmental
impact report will be prepared.
Enclosed for your review of the proposed project are: a project location
map; a proposed zoning map; and, a copy of the City's initial study check-
list.
Since it is intended herein only to provide for informal consultation
with responsible agencies, as prescribed by CEQA, regarding the proposed
annexation, we would appreciate receiving any comments or recommendations
you may have by April 1 , 1978.
We trust the enclosed information will be satisfactory for your review.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter or need additional
information, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Ronald R. Knippel of
our staff at (714) 346-0611 ext. 53.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Williams, A. I .P.
Director of Environmental Services
rk/pw/ks
Enc.
Mailed to : Lt . Froemming, Sheriff ' s Dept . , Indio
D. M. Pinkstaff , GTE , Indio
Stanley Sayles, P. D. Comm. Svcs . P .D.
t/Kermit Martin, SO. CALIF. Edison , P.D.
R. W. Riddel , So. Calif. Gas, Riverside
t:-Lowell Weeks, C.V. C.W.D. , Coachella
LAFCO, Riverside, CA 92501
County of Riverside Planning Commission, Indio
Riverside County Planning Dept . , Riverside
C
C 'j
I
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
i
i
i
e
�I
oa 0
a uuu1JCJ
J
'�"-_'�0 0 is]�:-•,�`�l`,�:� �i
:o
E _ °
E eo
N ^ E a
rc „ E
N sWs � ¢•E EO _3
Y O w0 _ _
¢
-
.
F• 6 J 2 F Y 2 ¢ ¢ Q U 2 ¢ � ¢ � ml _ Y S- G
W ¢
N ¢ J J J J W W O O W C W I- -
_
O J 2 2 2 2 S W Q W N W W ? Q J W d > Y p
W V O O O J 2 ¢ Z O 2 U )_ J G V a V F _ �O _
V ¢ N 1(1 N N 0 2 W 2 S > 2 J 0 2 `� ¢ 1/1
a 6 Z a W ¢ Q m 7 W Q N F J W '•P -¢
U W W W W O _
V - - '/�
ooaooaooaoobao oaao N O c G C S C � Y/
W N E Q U N
.—_3V j�a J_ 3EiSul Mtl 10 .IME .
Ill.1• -J
NI—
`"
W ((%
fY I Z W
CL
\ I Z o
' E �
x J
CD
ir I� Z O
- ._ . •-Q. - -a-- a I T Z
_ O }
i O U
(%j( W
IL
1 � - O 2
., th 0O
CL
s� N
CL
�` • G-
CITY OF PALM DESERT
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
A. PROJECT REFERENCE
1. Case No. Annexation No. 5
2. Project Sponsor City of Palm Desert
3. Project Description (In Brief) Proposed annexation of approximately
1 ,050 acres of land located generally adjacent to and north of the
existing City limits.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are provided on attached sheets. )
1. Land (topography, soils, geology) YES or MAYBE NO
(a) Does the project site involve a unique
- —' landform or biological area, such as
beaches, sand dunes, marshes, etc.? X
(b) Will there be construction on slopes
— — of 25% or greater? X
(c) Will the project result in the removal
of natural resources for commercial
--- purposes, such as rock, sand, gravel,
oil, plants, or minerals? X
(d) Will the project involve grading in excess
of 300 cubic yards? X
(e) Is the project site located on or adjacent to a
known earthquake fault or an area of soil in-
stability (subsidence, landslide, or severe
— blowsand)?. X
2. Water
- (a) Is the project located within a flood plain,
--- a natural drainage channel, or streambed? X
— (b) Will the project significantly increase the
rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
(c) Will the project result in the contamina-
tion or deterioration in quality of ground
water? X
3. Flora and Fauna
(a) Are there any rare or endangered species of
plant life in or near the project area? X
(b) Will any nature trees be removed? X
(c) Is the project site adjacent to, or does it
include a habitat, food source, water source,
_ nesting place or breeding place for a rare
or endangered wildlife species? X
-- (d) Is the project located inside or within
_ 200 feet of a wildlife refuge or reserve? _V- X
City of Palm Desert
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Page Two
YES or MAYBE NO
4. Pollution (Air, Water, Noise, Land)
(a) Will the project create dust, fumes, smoke,
or odors? X
(b) Will the project result in the generation
of noise levels in excess of those currently
existing in the area or in the exposure of
people to noise levels above 65dBA? X
(6) Will the project involve potentially hazardous
materials, including pesticides, herbicides,
other toxic substances, or radio-active material? X
(d) Will the proposed project produce light or glare? X
(e) Does the project require variance from estab-
lished environmental standards (e.g. air quality,
noise, water quality)? X
5. Circulation
(a) Is the project expected to cause an increase in
motor vehicle traffic patterns or volumes? X
(b) Will the project involve the use of off-the-
road vehicles? X
(c) Will the project overload existing parking
facilities? X
6. Public Services and Utility Facilities
(a) Will septic tanks be utilized for sewage
-- disposal? X
(b) Will the project overload any of the fol-
lowing:
(1) Fire Protection? X
(2) Police Protection? �-
(3) Schools? �-
(4) Parks or Other Recreational Facilities?
(5) Electric Power or Natural Cas _T-
(6) Communication Systems? -X-
- (7) Water Supply?
(8) Sewer System? �-
(9) Stormwater Drainage System? . �(-
(10) Solid Waste and Disposal?
(c) Will the project require the extension of
- existing public utility lines? X
-- (d) Will the project employ equipment which could
interfere with existing communication and/or
defense systems? X
(e) Is the project located within the flight path
or noise impact area of an airport? X
(f) Does the project incorporate measures for the
efficient use or conservation of energy and
water? X
City of Palm Desert
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Page Three
YES or `1AYBE NO
7. Land Use
(a) Is the proposed project expected to result in
other changes in the land use, either on or off
the project site? X
(b) Could the project serve to encourage development
of presently undeveloped areas, or increase de-
_ velopment intensity of already developed areas? X
(c) Is the project inconsistent with any adopted
General Plan, Specific Plan, or present zoning? X
- (d) Does the project involve lands currently pro-
tected under the Williamson Act or an Open Space
Easement? X
- - (e) Is the site for the proposed project within the
Scenic Preservation Overlay District or will the
—' project obstruct any scenic view from existing
residential areas, public lands, or public roads? X
(f) Will the proposed project displace a large number
---— or people from an established area or create a de-
mand for additional housing? X
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, reduce the number or
_— restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or pre-history? X
(b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term en-
_ _ vironmental goals? X
(c) Does the project have impacts which are indi-
vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? X
(d) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either direcly or indirectly? X
-- ---- — --- — ----
City of Palm Desert
Initial Study of Environmental Impact
Page Four
C. Discussion of Impacts,
Please briefly explain your answer to question 6(f) and, if you have answered
yes to any of the questions in Section II, why you believe that that aspect
of the project will have no significant adverse environmental effect.
1 (a) - Proposed O.S. zoning would protect unique land forms contained
within the project area.
1 (e) - Mitigation measures would be required to minimize effects of blow-
sand within project boundary.
3 (c) - Proposed O.S. zoning would preserve the habitat of the fringe-toed
lizard located in the project area.
7 (a&b) - Land proposed to be annexed is presently undeveloped, although a
development plan has been submitted for a 40-acre parcel located in the
northwest corner of the project area. Proposed zoning of site would
encourage" further development of the area , however, individual pro-
jects would be subject to further review by the City when submitted.
The area proposed to be annexed lies within the City's sphere of
influence and is compatible with the City's General Plan for which
an EIR was prepared. The zoning as proposed would reduce the overall
density of the project area from that originally proposed by the
General Plan.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TH ABOVE IZF RATION IS TRUE AND COMPLETE.
(Date) (Project Sponsor)
Zoning District: Cathedral City-Palm Desert Cl-AW OF %M WE
Fourth Superviscrial District Planning Corrn0sion: 3-3-73
Agenda ItcmV0
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPART?iENT
STAFF REPORT
FACTS:
1) Applicant: Irwin Siegel
2 Type of Request: Change of zone fro^i R-1-12,000 to R-T-12,000
3; Location: South of Covntry Club Drive, east of Cook Street.
4 Parcel Size: 234.5 acres
5 Existing Roads: Cool; Street & Ccant)�y Club Drive - County roads FEB 2 5 1978
6 Existing Lard Use: Vacant
7 Surrounding Land Use: Vacant, except for a golf course and ra_i'd2ntial dsvaWpman
to the northeast
£) Existing Zoning4 R-1-12,OvW
9) Surrcunding Zoning: R-1-12,000 and R-1
10) General Plan. Elements: Land Use: Very Lair Density Residential , 0-3 Wf
Cove Communities ten—Space/Conservation: Urban
CirCUl14tion Coti{: Streit A Country Club Drive •- Ai""izrialn
—� 110 ft. RjH
11) Agency Recommendations: Fire: No comment
12) Letters: lone cppos'ingisupportinS as of this writing
I13) Envirunnn_ntaI Eli Ho. 72.79 was subr;•itteJ and a np2atiwe declaration yes film-'
Assessment; on, 140178 No appeal :',as filed within the srecified ,;1ma
period.
WALYSIS:
31anning Oopsidarations:
The applicant is requesting a change of zope from R-•l-l%.,GuO to R-T_.12,003 for 230 ^__.ns K
)rder to develop the property for a mobilehons subdivision and related recreational facilitlo .
lonsistencu:
;ecaNmended and proposed zoning would be consistent with the General Plan designal`W o
!ery Low Density Residential , 0-3 dwelling vnIM per acre.
pp R /,
1PPROVAL of Change of Zone 23H from - 1- 2,000 to R-1412,017 in - ^,Crd nan mith Exhibit -,
:aced on the following:
The proposed zoning is consistent :?th Jti: e " `j 12s o projects 1GP. ) ; ; i C' a' ::_.
f. The proposed zoning Would be consistent with the General Plan .
"f 22i73
ACCOXPANY APPLICATION FOR Chang of Zone
rr Tyq a of Permit STAFF G:+ Y
)DRESS/LOCATION OF PROPERTYSE cOrn6 Coo K St. & Country Clu IIE ,.
Purchaser Iease P int) Dr.
1OFERTY MIX Mr. Yrwln §legel P1cEIrTlb.
Name PtcElveo M
P. 0. Box 1746 , Encino , Ca. 9131b EXISTING C. P.
Address Zip Tele No. EXISTIM ZCUE
JTNORIZED REPRESENTATIVEHgrry E Schmitz F, Associates
Name Z1T1IaG rnEl/�I Sf
43-900 Primrose Dr. Palm Desert 346- 2022 0
Address Ca. 92260 Zip Tale No.
I. Background Information
A. Briefly describe the nature of the project or activity.
Change of Zone from R- 1- 12 ,000 to R-T- 12 , 000 to eventually develop
the subject property as a subdivision with an 18 hole golf course . '
B. Specific location and Assessor's parcel number and legal description.
619-060-001 , 002 , 003, 004
Southeast corner of the intersection of . Cook St. $ Country Club Dr.
C. Describe the project area, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics.
' Vacant desert with no permanent manmade characteristics .
D. Is the project a phase or a portion of a larger project, or adjacent land holding? Yes X No
If yes, identify.
Also purchasing the east half of 619-060-004.
E. Has an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Report previously been prepared that includes the
project? Yes No X If yes, give E.A. or EIR No.
F. List every public agency from whom a lease, permit, license, certificate, or.otber entitlements for uae is'
necessary before completion of the project.
A tract map must be recorded which requires clearances from numerous
public agencies. .
II. Proiect Description -
A. Site size (Acreage or square footage, including dimensions). . _
240 acres +. 2655' X 3986 '
Be Will the project involve a variance, conditional use or rezoning application? Yee X ! No
Project is a rezoning application to be followed by the filing of i
a tentative tract map.
C. Is the project part of a larger project involving a series of cumulative effects? Yes X 'No _
If yes, briefly describe the overall project.
Mobilehome subdivision with approximately 600
mobilehome lots and an 18 hole golf course. a4
D. If residential, include the number of dwelling units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents,
and type of household size expected. Will the residential development utilize federal subsidy programs
such as 235, 236, 221(d)3, Section 8, etc.?
Approximately 600 mobilehome lots for the larger mobilehomes. No
range of sales prices has been projected.
E. If commercial, indicate the type, square footage of retail sales.area, type and areas of storage, loading
facilities, and whether it is neighborhood, community or regionally complex.
N/A
F. If industrial, indicate type (whether primarily manufacturing or warehousing, etc.), estimated employment
per shift, number of shifts/day, and loading facilities.
N/A
C. If agricultural, is the principal use of this property the propogation, care, and maintenance of viable
plant and/or animal products for commercial purposes? Yes No If yes, is this project
located within or adjacent to an existing or proposed Agricultural Preserve?
N/A
H. Amount of off-street parking proposed (if commercial, Industrial or high-density residential).
N/A
I. Will the project fequire expenditure of public funds in excess of public revenues generated by the project?
Yea No__::.._.. If yes, state the amount of difference.
III. Environmental Setting
A. Deacribe the project site as is exists before the project, including Information on topography, soil
stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, archaeological or scenic aspects. Describe
any existing structures on the site, and the past and present us of the structures. (Use additional sheets
If necessary.)
Vacant desert habitat , with a. gradual slope to the east .
B. . Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural,
historical, archaeological, or scenic aspects. Indicate the predominant type of land use (residential,
cowo ercia 1, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.),
and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). (Use additional sheets if necessary).
Del Safari Country Club exists to the northeast of the subject
property.
C. Identify service districts (sever/water, school, special districts, etc.) serving the project area, and .
specific services currently available through those districts to the project site.
Coachella Valley County Water District, Desert Sands Unified
School District, College of the Desert Community College District.
D. Io.the.project'alte located wihtin.a known,flood or dam inundation area? Yee No X .If Yee,
1.apecVy. the. extent of. area-of the,prof act.aubj act to inundation, and proposed mitigation measures.
.tbe sits.eubject.to fire>Lazard,from<fla�able brush, grass or trees? Yea No X If yea,
:;what mitigation•measures,ara;proposed.
Is the_afte subject to,hlgh_.wind/blowsand hazard? Yes X No-. If yea, specify the range, peak
veloclty,•directian -of.high winds. and -the relative level of risk to structures, trees, overhead utility
-lines and similar features.
Winds travel from the northwest. No specific data exists as to range
and velocity. yA(n''�� existinpg 220 ' high Oleander hedge borders the north
C. Is the sitfe subject to, ge2gic. hazards Yesd] O1ri lI�,� 2 } ,�e;.specify type of hazard end. if
.possible, magnitude.
H. Describe the ambient noise characteristics that are associated with the proposed project.
The Change of Zone will create no noise on the subject property.
I. Is there a private water.source on site? Yes .No X If -yes, specify the location of such water
supply.aource, its eve rage;gallon.per minute flow.and'whether it is the.present primary or secondary water
supply'to the site. .
Iv. Comunity Concerns
A. Is or has the site been the subject. of any serious pub11S controversy resulting'fram environmental concerns
- as set focth.in the foregoing factors? Yes No X . If yes, specify which factorss the nature and
extent of the.controvecay_.end .the present state of the controversy.
V. Additional Cocmente
Of major concern to the applicant is the impact of blowsand on the
site. A Blowsand Mitigation Plan will be proposed and implemented
when the Tentative Tract is filed, pursuant to Ordinance 460. 28,
Article 14.
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, state-
cents, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
'Dace 3 November 1977 . .y ? 1114.--� /
ark c my z Associates
Ear Irwin Shea 1
PD 77-21 '-
Puw:ac '
4-22-71
Zoning District: Eermcda Dunes APPEAL OF E1JV-.P0!NS!4TAI AS;Z5S! tl FOR:
Fourth Suparvisorial District Conditional Use 2104-E - F,A No. 8016
Affiliated Properties, In=, Appellant
East Area Pl-anring Council: 6-29- 198
AgeDda Item: .
R117ERSIDE COTNTY FI.A ;-,i114G DZpP.n'Ti�
STAFF REFORT
1. aro act Dascris:t3.rrn: 320 acres to be fully developed into .a planned residential
development to include 960 units, country club. IS--hole
championship golf course, tennis courts and clubhousa.
2. Loertl=: The south side of Ceue try Club Pri.ve, hest of Wssbia tcn
Street in the Bermuda Dunes District. A ;portion of the
Weei 112 of Secti_n! 12, T.c,S, RSS, S33WI.
3. Environmental The project was assessed and found to have a significmt
Assessment: effect on the environment May 24, 19.78. An apy!sal was Riled
on May 30, 1978.
4. Basis ForAA Deal; The applicant felt ary adversa effcctz were end€iciently
addres9ed in the. infOr,29tiotl supplied to com-elcte the
Initial study.
5. :i^.dings: Based on the initial study :And .an accordance with Saction 15082
o` the State EIR Guidelines, nandatory findings of oigalfficance,
the Planning D2partment concludes that the project cot.-.'A
have the following significant adverse imprcta an tea
environment:
a. The project could degrade the quality of the envlrornxat
and reduce the habitat of wildlife apecies and el:inUmate
examples of major periods of California blazorg.
b. The project has the po:,ztial to 1IzcreaPs traffiz aa:u3tan-
tirlly in relation to existing voluzaaa.
c. The project will induca uubatantial growth or concantration
of population.
d. The project can anerd a sewer tr=k Urs wit:h ca;se ty
to serve new development.
e_ Encourage activities which result is the esm of 1=3e
$counts cf fuel or energy.
In an effort to focus the discussion of impactol, mteft ee--
te=inod that the follw: ing topics sbzu!A be h sixtd
an EIR:
a. Effects of blowuand dad blo:;rswad ad.tigatloa mrautee.
b. Growth induclgg impazte.
c.. Capability of services to handle the project fac3.t7
and cost-revenue considarationsj.
A. Impacts on transportation systew,
e. -Effects on flora and fauna.
. ... . - -... E;r".coca un archaQalcgicalr2$ourta-.
p. Hydrological effects.
h. Euergy consumption-
I. A.ir duality. impact.
j. Amount of grading cold disturbance to the cmisting land
$cape.
k. Harket-study juatifyina tha project at this ti".
Page 2 APPEAL OF EtI'JZP.O;?-NmrSAL ASSrSSl9m, YoRt
Conditiocal Uae 21.6/4-F, LAG :do. 9015
Discuseion:
The applicant contends that the concerns outlined above were discussed in the infoPm&ticat
suLadtted for the rrepar=tion of the initial atLdy. Staff commends the prol;ct apaasor.
for providing the additiO al data at the initial review stage. PkWtVer, the informatim
Is not if sufficient detail to properly acee ; the potential it^pact of 960 mits.
Staff believes this in a significant pro act in a senstive area and an should bm
required.
K?/psp
b-1^,-78
3k j 3 ii�9� a F Ash{ � �Y �s '� •�
Paib•saeii 27, 1978
Coy=ty of Riverside
P1,aaai^at itiMrsrt�sat
Yfi v3r:ox antal A sees.ment Jivisirn
IB:,vmrz1.&,, California 9250S.
Re, PaUIDesert 'Renorter — 320 Acres South side of Country Club Drive,
2,500 feet "nest of Washington Street, ralm Dos, *rt,
California 92260
D veloper: Affiliated Construction Company T.nc.
Gentl :
VP. vould 131a to address c*urselves herewith to mitigating the potential adverve
affects as a1terfn on the Riverside County Plannit•g Developrent M'--vironmentsl
jdtiml Stud-) in ecccz&uce with Title 14 of the California .Rdmluistrative Code,
iStic,;xwtiniq -he California Environmental Quality Act, Article 7, Section
1 nOS:2 Edk C2?
YT. eTssracv.. i'etsca of the Haturzl Fnvir3n ertt
D. Pote:tt1AI Alterrt_on to Natural Features
2. I,tcdin„ will be iu excess of 1.000 cu. yards.
y=S'.?YL13 CfiPt731S.e3i3:
T?:e tressnt site is open desert eloping slightly frem thnz Southwtat to
the 4orthezat. It is spareley vegetated with natural desert vegetation.
lq;riwt the course of cornrstruction Oh"L?, there td.11 bz grading taking place
In egress of 1,OGO cubic yards. nis vi11 include t:ae installation of
streets, eessers, aster, u'ndargrouvd electricity, building ;cads and the:
EXECUTIVE OFFICLS:77-S-00= :E:'aE3E?F THE STATES PALM DES-ERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 FHOME: ( 14) 345.2626
CMAWWm MV ' Am �-. 14......4 ia"=G OInLlq nn n• mu.u� ...__ .�__:___.
c -
�„bl V.�{ I Lr •4 Yn '.l .�� 'J ij 1.,�1 •\i..• -, � (�
construction of the Qoif course. It is not anticipated tnzt t'nere will
ba any Import or export a.s all grading vile be confined to the site.
P�TIGiAT'ltii:
c,ccort;ance vit3t Liveraide county Ordinances, anyone mooing, grading, :Ls
re-qu:red, both from a practical standpoint and a legal standpoint, to 'have
vatei^ trucks along with the grading ec,:;ipoert. `.shis a.hievee three purpoaes:-•
1. It allmys equipmzrt to work on the sand and,
2. It mikes the sand pos:tible to rove, and
3, It keeps any dust from rising.
Therefore, we l:elieve the impact on the surraurding areas to be of nc conse-
quer-Ce AatAoevcr.
Is mddltion, as a coaditicn to obt_iring the necessary per.its, a g_sding
part: will be required and a grading plan will be presented to the proper
RivarsNde.ioty authorities for their approval prior to arty grading taking
place.
III. WatFs:t'ial Director impact. of Proms^.._
A. Za-psct an Exiatizg F.zyzical Surretutdings
1. Pollution (Air, water, taoise, lard)
(a) Will the project create dust, fumes, moke or odors?
M-STIM CONMITIM.
Pre$ently miss the wind blcrwa, dasat is created as a result of tine open
'd"P-rt. CtX11t3.itizf'A.
MXACT:
burins the ccn4tructios phase, there is the possibility that euet say be
creaesti during construction. 01r.Y.
- 2
EXECUMF. OFFICES: 77•9CO AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 3:250 PHONE: U 141 .MrC 2.5215
FRANK R. GOODOAM,Fr...sidsnr Contrwnoi s License Ho. i66S83 RjCnARD OUPHANT 'v%n Fnrsdcn
'``g vntt{{3`����`';'•ii�,ir..,{g� .+,'�f f4 4 ?;ar� :'j{�Y9.9�'� 'r':F i Cl1 � �I.°i �•: �-
�wv F aa�V J,�v7�YmV'L.,tasQ.�tlti.Ll.l'I4 ��1.. �3 •�� V �.'r. f¢z
.wemr�y 9�esunxm�Yw•�R9v�r[ShAs2rA��CncL'x�'fMp:� �'��S�^^u`:cefi.n�� S2� �.,:wi'a .[R:���'JiS"�.s'.�xw�'t�:i`- .
MITIGATION.
Because of SI (d) (2) above, it is not anticipated that any dust viJ.l �e
created during the construction and when the project +a ccc:p<.etnd; 9..t
have a significant effect. on the stopping of b1c6ing sand to;:ar:is the
Palm Desert Country Club to the South of this project. i:-,:'_s project will
have a significant effect on the eftorts of the Count} of Riverni.e Lover=s
tying down blow sand in every a-ea.
(b) Tbare trill be no construction burning of any nature includ,xs, brush,
trees, or construction uaterial.
(c) MSTM-CONDIT.IGNt
Cbviokisly because the present area is open desert, there is cur_va._tly no
noiap. Seneraten.
I21J?ACT:
During the coarse of roastruction theca definitely w11.1 he noi:s:= 'cezerznt:...
during the daylight hours and upon, completion of the project, the;.e will
be a normal amount of nai>e generated by any residential dev_L'#.apn"..t.
113TIG.+TTON:
Decauue there is no development of any nature on 3 aids rf the project;
(East, West, and North) , and "because to the South, Palm tDzsert Corn'.-r
Sa buffered with 'Tamarisk creel, there will be no distrnctive rani_: levell;
After the project is completed, the residential noises rM 'ravcno icn;ac
on suyone.
2. Applicable Pollution Controls and Standards.
(a) The entire project will be controlled by all of tha uoryal
— 3 —
EXECUTIVE OFFICES: ]?;00 AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM OESERT.CALIFORNIA 82280 FH0Nr: f'i I 5.2323
FRANK N_ GOODMAN.Pn--jdant Contractor's License No. 186863 RICHARL Cii-014,T, i:i.a A :•. le.-
� c
(,� i�±��'L�,LI•,.�(.t5ah ��`��:.ii.;��,t4.�i,s:iJ�i �.1i�w � si�..
Riveroidn County regulatory agencies, such az the Vclanty ii::alt O f:_c
Planning Co:maissicna, Pollution Control and all of the
ouch as Coachel',.a Valley County Water District, Taperi I lrr:.zat!.Z
BIstriet and the General Telephone Company.
13. . I[ ,act cf Bxiasing Facilities and Servies
1. Circulation
(b) The project fronts on Country Club Drive, which is
paved to 40 feet. Country Club begins at Highway 1.11 going -a:i`., 3t
ps.sses 1'bunderbiru Country Club, Sunrise Country,; Club,
The. Sprints Country Club, Palm Desert Greens, and Del S.: fari -CeLct'y
Club, terminating =x mile from this project at the Washington >tr«t
o e--pass to Interatate 10.
The Latest Information on traffic count, dated 1974, %, tdeen
Streatt and Mashinglca, shows that a 24 hour co:wt va= 4,23 4--nc
4,Gx of 4,170. Thera is no question that sines. 1974, t e cou^.t %as
risen. Washington Street, for the benefit of thiss£3'_.,dy, rLma 6•a:i:l1.
and South from Highway 111 on the South to the Intervt_ate 3.0 •a.va:., sso
to thn North. This street handles the La Quinta a_'es as aaell as
Pala Desert Country Club. It is presently paved to a width -f £•G feet._
except i:- the areas Where there has bnea eval ipmznt. Tlhe-_e '_ :3 .t.Lr.et
has been extended per the `requirements of a 11-0 fret right of a ;.
As of December 31, 1975, on Washington Street between R g r,e'.- as? i
Interstate 10, the 24 hour count was :3,522 and the ��es:sg • :.:';.; car`Y
was 2,570.
- 4 -
EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77•SW AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT. CAL:t'ORNIA 92260 _ PNC NE: 1714) S 1N75
FRANK.4. GOOLWAN.Pr--s(dent Contractor's License No. I20853 R C r.SfiD(L:•'nt';f- %c?% e.,.
It should be noted that the traffic count takes into con,sir`. =. c' �n.
the pvp=sla'tim of Palm Desert Courtrr Club, =.abic=;
family residences. 400 apartments, a 64 unit motel, a _7 'sr.i�
course and the Palm Desert Country Clan Shorping ::eutc',
�iPt?C
31--e 'Palm Desert Resorter has been planned and :;ill be cam.ci;d ov.: _...
Adult Destination resort. This means that the facilities -:Ia,
provide all of the amenities necessary to kLep the reside_v; on site, tt:
wit:- Clubhouse, Tennia Courts, Golf Course, Delicates etu, ?Uquo'_ Ltur;,
aard Beaut7 Shop. (See floor plans attached) Ottr buildings ara ;.jibe mteiy
designed to accot-modate adults, either one couple i:. the or: 'ned.r.ora _-,_ts
or a maximum of two Couples in the two bedroom units.
Because of size, layout and facilities, the units are not
permanent Eesi.lents in eind. it is anticipated that tile_
our owners will be second home or vacation, residents.
We look to the Los Angeles area as our great. market, `bera:for::, t.;a bu
of thi traffic coming and going to the project would tzOke ;.:a lrint! ;fate
turnoff and traval the 'i mile on Country Club Drive to r`a
It is certainly understandable that people might shop .s%t thv Shor 1.%g ::enrer
of Pala; DeoerC Country Club, which seam a 11 wile trip or. iV-ounts-; `.'u'
Drive and a l mile trip on Washington Street, or that they r,,tight
the restaurants of Palm Desert and Rancho i'Mira.ge, which wolii.ki 3-!1.:?.l:.fl'.^ -cOuuu.
traval, on Country Club to Cock Street as access to Palm Pesert or
as access to Rancho 'Mirage. He also concede that tn:: %"O'l ie ::::_c•. r r
- 5 -
EXECUTNE OFFICES: 77-906 AVENUE GF 'fNE STATES PALM DESERT.CA!_IKRwtA ?223i= it i
ir8 y
G..t•`{�T�•'{,�..�u, Vi 9��a�ya,i,.'.rii�>.i�.13`l iJ•N �. s!' : 11,i<
normal delivery traffic.
A great deal of the traffic within the project as expezicnael by other
country clubs would be golf cart traffic.
MITICAT1011.
An of thin date, this }project, The Palm Desert Resorter, would be required
to dedicate and to impreve Country Club Drive to the requiramr-nts of a
street nr 55 feet right of way; and to the East, there is a project on the
boards, uahich would require the r-mninino k mile between this project and
Washington Street to be widened. also. This project at the Northeast quarter
of Section .12, *mould require the widening, of Washington to a 55 root k street
right of Bray and in addition another project on the Southeast quarter of
Section 12 vould require that the reu_ining distance between the corner of
Country Club Drive and Washingtcr Street to Palm Desert Country Cluh be
extended to the requirements of 55 feet 1 straet. Pala Desert Country Club
haeiug already beer. extended to the requirements of 110 feet right of Bray,
Us 63 feet of paving.
Marefora, it is almost assurad. that within a very short period of time, the
one tribe tset-oyeen this project aid Washington Street would be cozrpletely
widaund and the one mile between Country Club Drive and the Palm Desert
Country CL-ub 5'hepping Center vould be widened.
Recauue the: Paine Desert Re9orter is anticipated to be a Destination Raeort
with complete facilities for the residents withi.a the project, and Se:9use
there .are no facilities for children, nor for permanent residents with
children, there will be no school buses a.ndbecause these units are not
- 6 -
EXECUTIVE OFF;CSS: 37•S,W AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESEP.T,CAL!FORNIA 92260 PHONE: 014)345.2526
CU4u✓ O Lf1J,/1�I�,. IA...IJ.... � . .._ • . . ,._ .r�n..� —...... ... ..� ...
( l
,{� 5
.� '�.. tV Ua utS*t .'t c"OiAi
anticipated to be permanent homes, the number of delivery type vehicles
would be gratly reduced, The nor-mal traffic counts associated Vi,th a
norwal residential development would be greatly reduced and because the
present traffic situation or the existing thorough-fares is not nearly
full to capacity, there can be no doubt of the ability of the existing
.facility to handle the minimum of traffic generated by thin project.
It should be further noted that this project complies with all of the
requirJ-ents of: both the General Fran and Zoning; therefore, this project
under any circua:,tance would not be adding any more traffic than must have
been anticipated by the County of Riverside when they assigned this zoning
to this area.
2. $later Supply and Sewage Disposal
a. Will the project entail the acquisition of eater from walls for
ucn-domestic use?
MMSTING CONBITIONS.
A11 .golf course projects in the Coachella Valley make use of wells for
the sole pa.lose of golf courses and landscape irrigation and because
the area of Palm Desert is over a very large underground lake, there
is a very ample supply of water at a very reasonable depth.
MP CT:
Because of the extensive amount of water available and bec"-se of a
great deal of the irrigation water is returned to the water table,
virtually no impact is expected.
EXECUTIVE OHICL-S: 77.9WAVENUEOF THE STATES PALM DESERT.CALIFORWA92260 PHONE: (7141345.2c26
Tt15JiF-
Beeauae thLrA is no impact, no mitigation is necessary.
3. Ds^�.snd for Service from Special District. and/or County.
a. Will the project require the extension of existing public
utility lines?
MSTING CONDITIo:TS:
At the present time, the Coachella Valley County Water District
has service lines to the project. (Tgater)
The Coachella Valley County Water 1)13trict has exist:ieng facilities
at the Southern bnandary of the project. (5ewcr)
The ':=-eriel Irrigation District has electri.2rai lines to the
Southern boundary of the project.
1MTACT:
The Coachella Valley County 'Water District o-i.11 not need to extend
wxiter mains in order to service this project *with water other than
on-site. There will need to he tha extension of sewwers made by the
Coachella Valley Country Water District, both on-site and off-site to
facilitate sewers to this property. Imperial Irrigation Dintrict vi.11
not need to extend any lines in order to service this property.
MITIGATION:
There: is no need for mitigation for water and electricity. The
Coachella Valle} County Water District has 1ndlcated their desire to
extend their sewer lines in order to sarvi.ce this project.
- 8 -
EXECUTIVE OFFICES:77•S00 AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: (714)345-2625
C��M✓ u .+fNn�I��1 6..fJ_�. L���.�ti J. . :----M_ i9CCC9 01, wJ on ^1 .&".ul .,:.. n—. .1.
1 'I e 'iA^ t'ri AT
4e B� � f � A I � if �+•
• ,�;�����; _ �'"'*'��TM�" , ram. - AG9,MCn,V.,,,,,
b. will the project require public services, from a public
utility Nfin ch is currently operating at or near capacity?
MISTYiG COPMITICTI5:
The Coachella Valley County Water district seriices this area witC
both water and sewer. The. Coachella valley CouGty '.eater District
in 1977 completed an 8 million dollar sanitation facility in the
Pahl Desert area which is in operation and which is operating with
virtually no customers. It is in "NErB of customers and is desirous
of obtaining the sewage from this project. The Coachella Valley
Water District has ample water to supply this project and is desirous
i
of $c doing.
The ifapae:t on the sewage would be to help the Coachella Valley r0lint7
Water District to achieve a flow of sewage and a cash flag that would
be most beneficial to them. The use of domestic water from the Coachella
Valley Bounty Water District would have no •:mpact on the water supply.
They have ample water.
XTITTGLT M:
The Coachella Valley Count, Water District issued e. 12tter dated
Feb ruuxy 22, 1978, (See attached) indicating their ability to fuLulsh
facilities to this area.
9
EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 77-Ml AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT. CAL;FORN;A 92260 PHONE: (714) 3:5.2626
I-P a 41V0 PIIII(IAIAAI 1 :n _N._ 109091 011LU A Pn n I ICU A.1111:-- D
J...
c c
�A� 1 r"ti
IV. Potential IndirecImnact of Project
A. Land ?Jss,
2. Could the projcr-t serve to encourage developMent of present1
undeveloped areas, or to increase the development intensity of
already developed areas.
MISTING CCNMIiIONS;
T . the Vorti2jEast and West of this project, there is c-Pza deser-1. To
the South is Palm Desert Country Club, a completely integrated co=unity
containing over 1,500 hones, 400 apartments, a motel, a restaurant, a
shopping center, a 27 hole golf course, and a tennis cocple .. At the
present time, there is construction activity of approximately 200 homes
in the Palm Desert Country Club area and there will be in the nature of
an additional 300 homes over the next few years.
' TAC"f
7,11ere is already a project in the preparatzcn stage for the 320 acres
directly to the East of this project. To the West of this project, therm
have been many property ownership changes although no particular projects
have been proposed. It would only seem ratura.l that the present rate of
real estate acti+city wall result in projects bein3 developed along Cotuntry
Club Drive. Fortunately, for the most part, the garcels are large enough
mo that all c?` the projects will be in the nature of planned eavelopmerts
,end the County Planning Covmr.ission will have .he oprportun.ity of regulating
the grawth ir. a manner which will unquestionably upgrade the entire area.
10
cXECUTiVE OFE.CeS:77-n`00 AVEAJUE OF THE STATES PALM DESERT.CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: i7141 345-2626
to present zoning of this area and th- General Plan calls for
a minim,::. of 12,000 sq. ft. lots for approximately 3 units to the
acre. Should the County hold to that limitation, the grc.&th will
be of a very high calibre.
MITTCA T ICY:
Because of the existing real estate activity in the entire Coachella
Valley, this project will have no effect on the encouragement of other
develop�zeats over and above that which presently exists.
The OaN.fornia R.dministratiou Code implements the Environmental Quality Standard
and ceaaistently refers to the need for an EIE here and where there ray be aspects
of a project which might cause a significant effect on the enviropment. The
develo-.ers of this project feel ti-�at because of the m3ti-gations as presented above,
that ro significant negative effects on the environment will be caused by this
'prove::t. To the contrary, all indications point to a positive effect on the
eu rir.anuent, as a result of this project.
'f0&^ 0? . he request that a negative declaration be filed for the Palm: Desert
Resorfer and it is our request that we be invited to the weetinS at which the
final determination be made so that we may answer any questions that may arise
duri.�z the discussion.
Respecf.iully submitted
Prrs ek A..vryG�oo'4taa, Pr+esident
ipY{C�u CY�yR:/viCT 1011 CO. , IN IC.
WRG;mr,L
EXECUTIVE OFF,C:S:77-9W AVENUE OF THE STATES PALM OESE4T, CALIFORNIA 92260 PHONE: (714) 345-2626
i
}Uylr t
EST/tr..l$M"cO :t '.91P,A§A P;;C•CIG AiFl1C>'
eRrS.x,tz CDIAC FELLA VALLEY COUNT VMTER ;-i��T�'f' JC '
Ia
POST OPFIC? BOX !058 • COACHELLA, CAUFOiNIA ?22'af, s Tx�£Na:G:.E is~7 ae 5'?B id51
p,�(iCas f)sl^3ti
pai4rpr;p v oUUMGVpS, avEStlMt L:++1-L 6. N'ft<g CUL=a}L Gus+zeah•b L\d.\:(A
f.ZCAGC p Lf nC!",mCk pttowr ;1'^
Q1 raosr L? } J.
W. �'y?pY.•:U, uCII cqi
L �.i, 75n A. r'src,rr. nairtt
1f1LIS C^_L•ECA$ Qscwll ANv 5 iv!:LL. .c:na::-A
w,LL:AM Y, fi ApVfi
Affiliated Constructior. lifla•='o.: Ot.21 -_
72900 Ave or the States t721 _2
Palm Desert, California 92270
ite: Damesti: Water ard�U San!-tati-r. Servica
For area described as . Wester _
Gentlemen: Located In Sec.�y, T is ; _E, 5.�._ •
The rr.iormation contained in the paragraph(s) checked betna Ware
applicable to the AL•uve described area.
X 1. The Cnarhelia Valley County dater District, in accordance with the Distrl%tfs
eurrcn:iy prevailing regulations will furnish these services to this area:
El Water rw---,Sanitation
2. T." area mist be anr•.ered to these improvement Districts to obtain services:
01.1ater I .D. No. 0Sanitation I .D. No.
3. Financial arr•.ng:m 'nts have been Pinde wit!.___ -- --- ---
for th-- f ::n9 :ction of ts•r`se Facl l itie= r�
'-)tar L Saritatlan
lt. In accordance Yl' th the standira sp?Cificn'ian:: of the district, con>trvctlOn
V~ has Lc n C<:E•h1C i::=;1 Pr)r the required fi;Ci l itln5 to fCrMS$ ! the f01101•41tp,
servict•(5) to This area:
;Water F-1 Sani tatior,
Sarvice(s1 Lsirl be suppl led in accordance with the District's currently
preval ling regulations governing such service(s) .
_ _5. Ths mona'hly sew-:r service_ charge wi I l be $_ pe<• lot.
G. Other _ ---
Very truly yours,
Jr
Lo.:r.11 U. l,'eekb
General Manager-Cilef EnGir,eer
BC: lk
Cc; Department of Public Health
46-209 Oasis Street
Indio, California 92201
Artn: Mr. Lloyd 0. Rogers
AIR QUALITY M
C%STRICT HF_ADOUAPTER'_s
21420 rELSTAA AVENUL EL MONM CALIPONNIA 9I131 1213144}.3Dat
Pete 6J9/78
'i.le A:o.�S050?E
Mr. k' Nemeth, A.I .P .
Planning Director
Riverside County Planning Department
4€ 80 Lemon Street, Ninth Floor
Riverside, California 92501
CUMEI1TS Ci;: Environmental Assessment No. 301i;, CC.'ia Z104•-E
Residential Development (960 uni
Subject project warrants. the following type of t:nvironn*ental
document :
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - This rir:ijai.:t will have a
signifioan:: impact on air
�} negative Declaration quality.
U Negative Declaration with the following irit_fiation
measures:
The contact person for our agency is Thcmas Mullins
whose telephone number is (213) 443-3537 ,,h7M
The scope and content of the air quality analysis in an EIR for a
project of this size and description is as foll tqs-
ihar2 should be a complete air quality analysis ;ahich documents
existing air quality, projected mcile and stationary emissions
from the project, and impact of the project on air quality. A
full list of implemantable mitigation measures to reduce. emissions
should be includ:d .
Very truly your;s,
J .x . Stuart
1 , Executive Officer
/John Danielson
i ce..� . tin (�i+..� `Fy �i.ana �.�icr
� ` �_�._
EIR Form 3 5i !• S
RESOLUTION NO. 78- 32
c
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALI-
FORNIA , ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES TO IMPLEMENT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970.
WHEREAS , Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087 grants
authority to the Secretary for Resources to prescribe regulations to
be followed by all State agencies , counties , cities , redevelopment
agencies, and public districts , and all other political subdivisions
of the State in the implementation of the Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, dealing with environmental quality, the evaluation of projects ,
and the preparation of environmental impact reports; and,
WHEREAS , the Secretary for Resources has filed revised guidelines ,
effective March 4, 1978, for implementation of the Environmental Quality
Act , as found in the regulations in the California Administrative Code ,
Title 14, Div. 6.
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 77-7 adopted
by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert , California, on February
10, 1977, is hereby repealed and the said State Guidelines with amend-
ments through March 4, 1978, as augmented by the following local im-
plementation procedures prescribed by Article 5, Section 15050, et , seq. ,
are hereby adopted.
SECTION I . - Applicability - The City, its officer , agents ,
boards, commissions, agencies , and employees are subject to , and shall
comply with, the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, (CEQA) adopted by the State Secretary
for Resources pursuant to Section 21083 and 21087 of the Public Resources
Code , or other law. The following supplemental local procedures , adopted
pursuant to Section 15050 of the said State Guidelines, shall also be
applied, but only to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the
aforesaid State Guidelines.
These City procedures are intended to locally implement the pro-
visions of CEQA and to follow the applicable provisions of the State
Guidelines in their specific operation . Local government authority
established in the State Guidelines, but not restated in these proce-
dures is hereby incorporated by reference and the provisions of both
documents shall operate in concert . These City procedures shall be
amended from time to time when the State mandates amendments to be made
and also when in the judgement of the City, changes are required to carry
out the goals and purposes of applicable laws .
SECTION II . .- Authority - General authority for implementation
of these local procedures shall be vested in the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert . The City Council may for purposes of efficient
administration , delegate specific authority and assign responsibility
for implementation actions to its boards, commissions , and officers.
The Director of Environmental Services , or appropriate staff
member(s) to whom he may have delegated this responsibility, shall assist
the Council , Boards , and Commissions of the City in the performance of
their duties and responsibilities under CEQA , the State Guidelines and
these local procedures.
i
SECTION III . - Prior to Formal Review - All persons intending to
apply for Zone Changes , approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps , Var-
iances, Planned Development Districts, Conditional Use Permits , Archi-
tectural Approval , and Grading Permits or any other entitlements which
come under the jurisdiction of any department , agency , body , commission ,
board, or the City Council , shall be afforded an opportunity to discuss
the requirements for environmental evaluation and reporting.
All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to review the State
Guidelines (copies of which are available for purchase from the Cali-
fornia Department of General Services) and these procedures.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-32 Page Two
C
SECTION IV. - Formal Review -
A. Exemption Review:
The Director of Environmental Services or appropriate
Staff member(s) to whom he may have delegated this re-
sponsibility, shall make the initial determination where
a proposed activity is found to be exempt by law, is
not a "project" , or is "ministerial" or "emergency" in
nature , or is otherwise catergorically exempt .
1. If the finding is that the project or entitlement is
exempt , the project or entitlement shall be processed
in the usual manner, without need for further environ-
mental consideration under the State Guidelines and
this document .
2 . If the finding is that the project or entitlement is not
exempt from the operation of CERA, an Initial Study shall
be prepared as provided in the Sections below.
B. Ministerial Projects :
Ministerial projects identified by the City pursuant to
Section 15073 of the State Guidelines, shall be exempt
from the requirements of CEQA, and no environmental documents
shall be required.
In the absence of any discretionary provision contained in
the relevant City ordinances, the following actions shall
be deemed to be ministerial :
1 . Issuance of building permits in compliance with exist-
ing zoning and building regulations ;
2. Issuance of City Business Tax Licenses ;
3 . Approval of Final subdivision maps ;
4 . Approval of individual utility service connections and
disconnections , but not to include installation of new
sewer mains ;
5. Grading permits issued for removal of fifty (50) cubic
yards, or less ;
6 . Permit for removal of trees in public rights-of-way ;
7. Franchises;
C8 . Plumbing permits;
9. Structural demolition permits ;
10. Temporary use permits;
11 . Parade and special event permits;
12 . Home occupation permits ;
13. Issuance of animal licenses ;
14. Adjustments granted pursuant to the Palm Desert Munici-
pal Code;
15. Other such actions of the City which do not contain
elements of discretion within the meaning described
by Section 15032 of the State Guidelines.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-32 Page Three
SECTION IV. (Cont . )
C. Catergorical Exemptions :
Pursuant to Section 15100 et seq. , of the State Guidelines,
it is noted that categories provided in these sections are
board and are found to comprehensively include the discre-
tionary activities of the City. The rule for local appli-
cation to a specific project or entitlement shall be based
on the criteria that the activity is : not otherwise mini-
sterial ; within the preview of the City ; not on environ-
mental sensitive lands; and not found to have a cumulative
adverse effect in the urban setting . Projects and entitle-
ments shall be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis to determine
the applicability under the categories provided by the State
Guidelines and this local criteria.
D. Initial Study - Non-exempt Projects :
The Director of Environmental Services shall make or cause
to be made an Initial Study of any project or activity not
otherwise exempt from the provisions of this resolution
prior to the approval by the City or final approval by a
duly authorized commission or board of said City.
The Initial Study shall form the basis of the determination
as to whether the project qualifies for a Negative Declara-
tion of Environmental Impact or whether an EIR is required.
E. Negative Declaration :
In all cases where an Initial Study has become final , and
(((( such decision is that a project will not have a significant
I . effect on the environment , a Negative Declaration shall be
ll prepared by the Director of Environmental Services . Before
completing a Negative Declaration , the Director of Environ-
mental Services shall consult with all Responsible Agencies.
A copy of the Negative Declaration shall be given to the
appropriate decision-making body prior to review of the pro-
ject , to all organizations and individuals who have pre-
viously requested such notice and shall also be given by at
least one of the following ways :
1 . Publication at least once in a newspaper of general
circulation in Palm Desert ;
2. Posting notices on and off-site in the area where the
project is to be located;
C3. Direct mailing to owners of property within three hund-
red feet (3001 ) of the boundary of the project site .
Said notice shall be provided not less than ten ( 10) days
prior to the review of the project by the City.
F. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) :
In any case where an EIR is to be prepared, either as a
result of an Initial Study or the decision on an appeal of
an Initial Study, the Director of Environmental Services
shall prepare or cause to be prepared an EIR on said project
or activity .
A draft EIR shall be distributed for public and agency re-
view, a minimum of forty-five days (45) prior to the meet-
ing at which the reviewing body takes action on the project .
Notice to the public of the preparation of a draft EIR shall
be published at the beginning of the review period .
RESOLUTION NO. 78- Page Four
c1 _
SECTION IV. (Cont . )
During the said forty-five (45) day period, the public
shall be allowed to view the documents prepared for the
project and to comment in writing on the findings , to
the reviewing body.
The reviewing body shall consider the public and agency 1r
comments, prior to taking their action on the project .
G. Project Approval :
The City body with final approval authority over the
project shall :
1 . Review all public and agency comments on the environ-
mental documents prepared and authorize responses .
2 . Make written findings (pursuant to Section 15088) for
projects they intend to approve which have one or more
significant effects identified in an EIR.
3. . Certify that the final EIR ( if required) has been com-
pleted in complaince with CEQA and the State Guidelines
Cand that they have reviewed and considered the infor-.
mation contained in the EIR prior to approval of the
project .
H. Denial or Conditioning of Permits and Entitlements :
In passing upon applications for permits or other entitle-
ments in connection with proposed projects for which EIR' s
are required, the Council and officers , boards, commissions , j
and agenices of the City , shall consider said reports and t
all other evidence submitted and shall make findings as l
to whether any such project has significant and substantial
adverse environmental effects . If such findings are in the
affirmative, the application may, in the exercise of sound
and reasonable discretion , be denied, or conditions may be
imposed that the project be modified in specified respects
so as to measurably reduce or eliminate such adverse environ-
mental effects as are found to exist in connection with
the proposed project .
SECTION V.
In addition to the points required to be in an EIR by Article 9
of the State Guidelines , each such report prepared for use by the
�\ City of Palm Desert shall further include discussions of the follow-
ing:
A. Statement of other relevant planning . This statement should
describe how the project fits in with the adopted policies ,
standards and general plans of all involved jurisdictions .
Does the project represent a significant advance toward the
implementation of these policies, standards , and plans?
Does it conflict with other plans or suggest that some mod-
ifications of the project or other planning is needed?
B. Statement of the project viewed from the broad perspective
of public interest . This section should consist of a state-
ment detailing how the project will achieve a balance be-
tween environmental , economic , social and technical con-
siderations in the light of the total public interest , in-
eluding the effect of the proposal on the economy.
RESOLUTION NO. 78-32 Page Five
SECTION VI . - Preparation of Reports, Responses , Recommendations ,
Documents , and Notices -
In addition to the duties described in Section II of these City
Procedures, the Director of Environmental Services, or appropriate
Staff member( s) to whom he may have delegated this responsibility ,
shall prepare and file all notices and documents required or authorized
by CEQA, the State Guidelines, and these City Procedures .
k SECTION VII . - Fees -
All private project applicants shall be advised that fees will be
charged for tasks required by the State Guidelines to be performed by
City personnel and by the consultants selected by the City and for cost
of materials used. Applicants shall also be informed of the fees which
will be imposed or the basis on which fees will be predicated. The
Director of Environmental Services is authorized to collect any and
all fees established by Resolution of the City of Palm Desert which
pertain to the implementation of this resolution .
SECTION VIII . - Appeals -
CAny person aggrieved or affected by a decision of any commission ,
board, department , division or officer of the City in administering
or interpreting the regulations contained or referred to herein , may
appeal to the City Council from such decision at any time within ten
(10) days after the date upon which the decision is announced. Any
appeal filed shall be made by filing a letter of appeal with ' the City
Clerk and by concurrently paying any applicable appeal fee which has
been established by Resolution of the City Council. Said letter of
appeal shall set forth the grounds upon which the appeal is based, and
the relief requested. Within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a
letter of appeal to the City Council , or at its . next regular meeting
after such period , and provided any applicable filing fee has been
paid, the City Council shall consider the matter and may, thereafter,
affirm, reverse , or modify the decision appealed.
SECTION IX. - Institution of Actions -
Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside , void, or
annul the acts or decisions made by the City or any of its agencies,
bodies, officers, or employees pursuant to the provisions of these
City procedures or any action or proceeding complaining of prejudicial
abuse of discretion for failing to proceed in the manner prescribed by
law, or for making determinations or decisions not supported by sub-
stantial evidence, shall be governed by the provisions of Section
C 21167, 21167. 5, 21168, and 21168. 5 of the California Public Resources
Code .
SECTION X. - Institution of Actions -
No technical non-compliance by the City or its officers or
employees with any provision of these local guidelines shall be deemed
to invalidate any action taken by any officer , board, commission , or
by this City Council in connection with implementation of the Environ-
mental Quality Act or any other law or procedure .
SECTION XI . - Interpretation - Conflict of Provisions -
In interpreting and applying the provisions of this resolution,
they shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of
the public health, safety, comfort , convenience and general welfare .
It is intended by this resolution to require that in those matters
in which an environmental impact report is filed, and where the Plan-
ning Commission and City Council hold Public Hearings , the require-
ments of all other resolutions and ordinances of the City of Palm
Desert governing those actions or projects subject to the provisions
of this resolution which are inconsistent herewith, are to that extent
_ superseded.
1
RESOLUTION NO . 78-32 Page Six
SECTION XII. - Severability of Provisions -
If any section, subsection , sentence , clause or phrase of
this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or uncon-
stitutional , such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions .
of this resolution , it being expressly declared that this resolu-
tion and each section , subsection , sentence , clause and phase here-
of would have been prepared, proposed, adopted, approved, and
ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sec-
tions, subsections , sentences , clauses or phrases be declared invalid
or unconstitutional .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Palm Desert , California, held on this
day of 1978, by the following vote , to wit :
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT: .
Cl ABSTAIN:
EDWARD D. MULLINS , Mayor 4(
1.
ATTEST:
SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk
1 I
C_
1
rill"
1 ...x
+f )f_r t� '✓, r t n, a Y r x .t }1�n"�J». � Y'�d#M rt.T 9'- Y- Q r a!J'.°
..r,a n we t tt.,T dw iv 1 r t7 Iw +r4 yzKi t}r+ .Y♦Yt.(ly s
4 �! t1 sd 1 xs LLB .�i t ten i AY '�1 fY nYn YSY + y k i't A ..k4 �dx�x ylgt
(1 l 9♦ {l Y. a f iY t 1, - 1 Y� t ♦y a#. 3 W.
1� .
If y'�
V.
[! <£
r
eg
y-+Yr f it k "y �r ;..
[ w �.,ir0 ,a .+ f 4k . •.y All.
< •ra " L w < s•m, k',d ,,.r i; _
#.(ab'A. a ri rY ,y}�w'��l"C•f�. 4 r + i4 � t y'•, ,� '� '_ ii ('* # r.ati � ,� ��' f,Q�
", 1 r 3 H ♦ fn ya r7�
ti'K.a .L t' ie.. >." rat Y r '- ?aky Y L r Y e s - * c°{ t,''.` �♦'<9�1 4yy4s (!, % °Y^ ',ta'1
` G rA, i 'id l s kx f rf r e a{ d Ft -rI t ur
yn'w
����{c!�yra xKr� �h (;'��a y h;:�wj. � � y ct{�y,�(�� �1 � Jy'� a � �`7' ,a• i>i .�-r Y,� a Y'�,ff d� i+ •'�
.I...Yn m r ,1, 'iY s-' RY4 s} y4 1' YL y i•'F,F♦ i S s ` lw. .x
4 ;0 "�' Id rY. ? i tal F 6 yY•L ( 'fin
i A:. :^
is+ s AX.Sff,yyq r�' i r �� r W _ '"' t r• SF !fi t"t#4E " a° :�k. E & f 3 .0 r a T .4<t r~ L:. 5 a i,+
di�;4 A k€7 IR< C r'h �,� r f ♦ K'rd '`•
} t
,'„�F � '�� :f CRY' ':3 1n'..'. «yhr>A..,;S�rf-;:,t yit 4.a, a;+ � �• � 4t' i � e �F4 j�''"9;'` ; $rF :Y..j
JP
y y�
oYtx .r2. E t ci(a iSb '"� ft ry ^' 1 4 ,i .y `� 1 r. .•Y 1 i:�,.
}' 't1�. M4' .r a w ♦. +C-`. 'j rw! a r 1.`:^§2t. ..t ,•a'�
ti, < y_rt
L t r z t ♦+ T v 1 •Aq`
it
aaf; e�y5 ;+ f k s3fIV
t,• Y r .Y. 'oa .,,F. i [ y'rT `. a if.+ ! ''y c aT rr' Pr r �. .. vT y,.
i x
� t w�. ♦ Y s i ,tl� ] �.p k fib 1�;xL.{p Y J' .''f.h� � ..}i.. - fix. i � �Y:.�+¢ �. ..'�-Y i ri 4�^ ix �[ ' �
F.>
;9.pEnvi,ronmen6i ;.
y-
e@rt.,�
mA
r : 1m r act Re ort
# .l,x b°d sa�Y♦t�' ' v ai, "4` < t 1 r Yr i't4 ,xn .� t t : n a�"k�'.+.L .•
F G v i
ky'�" F.�y.
i P
3 i" +7♦.na 'I' F * ram' �'"' r_ }}
TAx Y .tir� � Y � •� a�� `, yt ,� n 1i x � .f ,A
E �.S 1 ei':e ! tY x tK/, 1� j J ♦ b"'ae. j.. er .. ` � •y:,F.yx.•.y'��t r�x+r r 'Y, « ',_s
y Y A rl .�' T Y p '_{ Y '"'j-"• „2� 'p r {� { .'1 1 f! f ! Y f. '.^^jl Y xKW.�i k„VE.
,i�'♦4
.v4 r 3' -YY J`a..1 .t S.' '� � -F Y�. ?. i� i �:". A A' >•i .Y✓ .i a g. .fiVa d Y w + 4t.
f FF .n r ti u r N 'L i4 p ha � � ti'•"c« tV%
Desert General Plan
w
� x� .Cv.ti +."" 'r is " r-: rx. e ..� 1N v ,.< .•.ia.+ . rt ,{„i -7a ;.,.�.-n, :t--xr 'KY" � � i
.,♦ �'ra rry �1 Gt w e 'F>'fA'i,fad i� ?•tr s X 3 r,�� �s�. p'ai.' r{ � a `� i ,7' r� ,e, w'�ix,e° ?.y�* r ,�,r�',f�` * ^�.
l 'li-T sa. 7r inR ,.` �, x s -� w ..n Sy3 3+1.. r'n �+" r ..r w + •u it�'� ♦a x.. x"rY"a'
7 �iY'S Tj "x la r. m� Y S #+rYy y,'1@a �i 3 Y 9 Y 4 r ak �3 1 1.- t �F' r`r"" x �• iF a 4 . -r
:� "Q 4 .�an
A Y
d..R t Vim.^„ �; '"pG64 �7 .Ygd.:� A '�'4r`.-1 N �"r s if`'r''c 3 ';r i ! ;: T' Y� • vrt i 55_ L y. � '.yyy I..
�� �« A,A. !: ';r•,�` a Y � v^:ss x�-,�aa ♦ �s :; � a� .,� x ♦ s+ �. v.+r,..�}•��' ���� � � ,-
_
1f DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND SUMMARY OF
( FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
t
( / TABLE OF CONTENTS
I . INTRODUCTION E• 1
It . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT E.3
111 . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING E.4
A. Natural Environment
1 . Climate
S 2. Air Quality
1_ 3. Hydrology
4. Mineral Resources
B. Man-Made Environment
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS E.7
A. Natural Environment E.7
1 . Topography
2. Seismic and Non-Seismic Geology
3. Vegetation and Wildlife
4. Open Space
5. Air Quality
6. Climate
B. Man-Made Environment E. 10
1 . Social Impact
2. Economic Impacts
3. Transportation
{ 4. Aesthetic Impact
5. Urban Infrastructure
(water, power, waste)
6. Noise
7. Archaeologic Sites
V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED E. 14
VI . MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE
r ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT E. 15
VII . ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERAL PLAN E. 16
( VIII . THE BALANCE BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM
EFFECTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN E. 17
IX. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES E. 18
d,.
X. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE GENERAL PLAN E. 19
�f APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL A-1
IMPACT REPORT
I
1
5 '
L_
l a
i
I . INTRODUCTION
This report is designed to fulfill the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which calls for
Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) for general plans and/or
their elements. The purpose of this EIR is to aid the Palm
Desert City Council and Planning Commission in making policy
{ decisions regarding the adoption of a long-range General Plan for
!. the City. In contrast, the state guidelines for the content of an
EIR are directed toward specific projects at a level of detail far
greater than that of a general plan.
1._
r
cent amendments to the CEQA allow for a general plan EIR to
cus on secondary effects rather than attempt to address primary
pacts required for EIR's on specific developments. Consequently,
is EIR will provide a generalized overall analysis of potential
vironmental impacts as a result of the adoption of the General
an. Supplementary detailed EIR's will be required atlater
ages as implementation of the General Plan takes place; e.g. ,
the adoption of site plans for specific projects within
( developable areas.
This EIR is not intended to be used as a justification for a
categorical exemption and/or negative declaration for any project
1 undertaken within the parameters of the General Plan. The
l I generalized approach of this EIR is not a sufficient replacement
for the specific environmental review inherent in the impact
analysis procedure.
The Palm Desert General Plan consists of the following elements,
all of which are considered in this EIR.
1 . Land Use
(. 2. Urban Design
3. Population/Economics
(-- 4. Housing
5. Circulation
6. Environmental
6. 1 Transportation Noise
6.2 Public Safety
6.3 Waste Management
6.4 Seismic
6.5 Conservation and Open Space
6.6 Scenic Highways
I 7. Public Facilities
8. Implementation
i
E.1
; t
f..
It is important to emphasize that the development of a General
i Plan is an extension of the EIR process, Consideration of environ-
mental factors was a major part of the General Plan's development.
An attempt to minimize potentially adverse environmental effects
within the planning area was a primary concern of the General
Plan.
The materials that follow, up to Appendix A, plus the General Plan
Elements constitute the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
Appendix A is a Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Q.
4
1
f_
f
4 E.2
1_
f i
f
I
II . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The project on which this evaluation is being conducted involves
the development of the first General Plan for the recently incor-
porated City of Palm Desert. The overall planning area , of
approximately 82 square miles, includes the existing City limits
and the proposed Sphere of Influence of Palm Desert .
JA detailed description of the Plan's purpose is found in its
introduction. In the Land Use Element a summary of the concepts
presented throughout the rest of the Plan is found. Described in
�. , general terms, the Plan is:
• A definition of City policies to assist public and
private decision making;
• A description of the Palm Desert citizens ' view as
fl to the future character of their City; and
< . A documentation of the processes, assumptions and
(' data leading to the realization of future plans.
1
S
t
1
E.3
l
}
III . EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Natural Environment
lThe primary features of the physical environment are described
in various sections throughout the General Plan document. In
r Section 6, Environmental Elements, the various physical char-
acteristics of the planning area's natural environment are
detailed. Included is a discussion of the following:
topography and geography
1 geology and soils
seismic and non-seismic geologic hazards
flooding
vegetation and wildlife
Those features of the physical environment not specifically
dealt with by the General Plan are described in more detail
below:
1 . Climate
c The Coachella Valley has an arid desert climate. Water
f laden marine storms deposit most of their precipitation
11 in the San Jacinto, San Gorgonio and Santa Rosa Mountains,
Frequently the annual rainfall in the mountains exceeds
40 inches while on the Valley floor less than 5 inches is
{ normal , Most rain falls as a result of infrequent and
(.. short winter storms. On rare occasions there are high
intensity summer storms which can create runoff problems
in the form of flash flooding. Street flooding is also
common under these conditions,
/ The climatic attractions of the Coachella Valley are its
normally clear skies and pleasant winter temperatures,
111 The area within the Palm Desert City Limits and that por-
tion of the Sphere of Influence south of the City experi-
ences temperatures similar to those at Palm Springs, In
4 Palm Springs the annual average maximum is 880 F• and the
annual average minimum is 561 F• Summer highs commonly
exceed 100' F• and occasionally exceed 1200 F• Winter
lows are in the 40' s but sometimes dip below 200 F• At
higher elevations, in the northern portion of the planning
area, the temperatures are lower and precipitation greater•
IThe daytime temperature difference between the 950-foot
Slevel and the 2,750-foot level averages 9.8 degrees .
i.
E•4
1 '
2. Air Quality
The air quality of the Coachella Valley has been steadily
deteriorating during the past few years. The problem is
two-fold: dust and oxidants. The dust problem is most
( acute in the lower Valley and results from human activity;
(_ e.g. , burning dumps, vehicle movement on unpaved roads,
sand and gravel operations, and agricultural burns.
Figure 9-1 summarizes air quality in the Southeast
Desert Air Basin. The high oxidant levels are believed
to be the result of pollutants from the Los Angeles Basin
which have been carried through the San Gorgonio Pass.
Local automobile sources undoubtedly contribute to the
problem, but to what degree is unknown. Findings by the
Riverside County Air Pollution Control District indicate
that local vehicular emissions are not of sufficient
amounts to explain the existing high levels of Valley
pollutants.
iThe pollution problem is accentuated by the Valley
t ..
physiography. With mountains to the north, south, and
west, air commonly becomes trapped and moves up and down
the long narrow depression of the Valley. In addition,
stable air masses often confine pollutants closer to
ground elevation than usual .
3. Hydrology
A groundwater level of between 80 to 200 or more feet
below the surface is the normal condition for the City
and Valley floor. The water level in this region of the
Coachella Valley is dropping 2 to 3 feet per year. How-
ever, the CVCWD (Coachella Valley County Water District)
is currently involved in a program to recharge the ground-
water basin. Using water from the Colorado River the
CVCWD expects to raise the groundwater to its 1945 level
by the year 2000.
The quality of groundwater in the Valley is considered to
be quite good and is used for domestic as well as agri-
cultural purposes. Total dissolved solids average 175 ppm
although this figure varies greatly. In the southern
{ portion of the planning area the water is rather hard
( while in the northern area it is very soft. Well water is
generally not used directly from individual wells, but is
piped to holding tanks in the northern portion of the City.
I This creates a blending of water from various areas having
a wide range of dissolved solids. The following table
jsummarizes the water quality of the planning area.
1.
E.5
L
( Figure 9-1
i AIR MONITORING DATA
SOUTHEAST DESERT AIR BASIN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PORTION - 1970- ,-,
Number of Days
California State Standards Maximum Average
( Contaminant State Standard Exceeded Concentration
Oxidant 0. 10 ppm, ]-hour 49 0.48 ppm
1 Carbon 40 ppm, 1-hour or Monoxide 10 ppm, 12-hours 0 0 ppm
Sulfur 0.5 ppm, 1-hour or 0 0 ppm
Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24-hours
Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, 1-hour 0 0 ppm
Dioxide
Particulate 100 P g/m3, 24-hours or 35* 4j1:;
I Matter 60 µ g/m , annual
geometric mean
Hydrocarbons None NO NO
�• Visibility Sufficient to reduce NO NO
Reducing prevailing visibility
Particles to 10 miles when relative
humidity is less than 70%
Lead 1 .5 V 9/m3, 30-days ND NO
(Particulate)
Hydrogen 0.03 ppm, 1-hour NO NO
f Sulfide
ND = No Data
�... Random high-volume sampling every 6 days
-, AISI tape sampling in COH units
Source: Southeast Desert Basin Implementation Plan, 1971 .
1_
E.Sa
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY
FACTOR AVERAGE RANGE
Total Dissolved Solids 175 ppm 100 - 250 ppm
Hardness 110 ppm 100 - 250 ppm
Fluorides 0.4 ppm 0.2 - 0.8 ppm
4. Mineral Resources
I There are no mineral resources of economic value within
the planning area.
B. Man-Made Environment
..
The analysis of the existing man-made environment is dealt
with in some detail throughout a number of the General Plan
jElements. A discussion of existing land uses is presented in
l Section 1 , population and economics data in Section 3, housing
conditions in Section 4, the circulation system in Section 5,
and public facilities in Section 7. An evaluation of archaeology
is found in Section 6.4.
t'
I.
{
1
C
3 _
E.6
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Environmental impact is not limited to the effects on plants and
ranimals but includes the effects that the General Plan may have on
t _ a wide range of physical , biological , economic and social issues.
The General Plan considers the effect of various development alter-
natives on the physical and social environment during the Plan' s
\j formation stages. Because of this the following sections will
deal with secondary effects only and be of a generalized nature.
Only those impacts which the General Plan itself does not detail
are elaborated on in the following analysis.
A. Natural Environment
i1 . Topography
r The implementation of the General Plan will necessarily
r alter the topography. Development of golf courses,
` grading for structures, etc. will change existing land
contours. This is not seen as detrimental , as most of the
existing topography in proposed development areas is of
1 little intrinsic value to man.
Provisions have been made in the General Plan to preserve
the two significant topographic portions of the project
area; i .e. , the sand dunes and mountain areas.
2. Seismic and Non-Seismic Geology
The probability of a severe earthquake being experienced
in the planning area is not high but the possibility
�. always exists. All that can be done is to minimize seismic
hazard through development controls in earthquake zones ;
e.g. , zoning ordinances and building code regulations.
Background data necessary for the evaluation of various
strategies with which to minimize seismic hazards is
provided in the Seismic Element 6.4.
The same basic type of information required in seismic
safety evaluations is needed for other types of geologic
hazards. Data on non-seismic hazards is presented in the
Public Safety Element , 6.2. This includes identification
( of blowsand, severe slope, and flood hazard areas .
t Wind erosion is one of the major problems in areas where
4 future development is proposed. Double rows of tamarisk
trees should aid in abating the problem once they are full
} grown. However, during development stages and until the
' E. 7
I
tamarisks take hold, sand storms and extensive sand
accumulation on roads can be expected to occur. The
chances for sandblow are highest once vegetation has been
removed during construction projects. Riverside County
Ordinance 484. 1 or future ordinances developed by the
City will have to be adhered to in order to minimize the
hazard.
3. Vegetation and Wildlife
Detailed descriptions of the vegetation and various
1 wildlife habitats are presented in Element 6.5. Provisions
in the General Plan protect all rare and endangered species
in the planning area, as well as provide suitable environ-
ments for more common flora and fauna types.
As development of the Valley floor takes place, most of
the native plant and animal habitats will be destroyed.
However, some species including most rodents and birds
can be expected to increase their existing population as
a result of landscaping.
1 Severe topographic conditions coupled with existing
wildlife reserves will prevent development in mountain
areas. Flora and fauna will be preserved in its native
state in these areas.
4. Open Space
�- As vacant land continues to be developed, its use as open
space is obviated. Retention of desired open space
necessitates action prior to the development of the land
for other uses. The Open Space and Conservation Element
6.4 in conjunction with the other components of the
Environmental Element 6 outlines various reasons why
specific areas should be preserved as open space.
5. Air Quality
The issue of air quality is a major concern throughout
the nation and particularly in the Southern California
region. While it is possible to determine the amounts and
types of pollutants by source type, their effect on overall
air quality is difficult to measure. Such a determination
would involve a regional air pollution study, a task
1 beyond the scope of this report.
1 Figure 9-2 shows the projected tons per day of various
air pollutants for mobile sources. The analysis is broken
I \
E.8
1
W
i4 N
d' �D co O0 - O N MHO LAm m-tLnO LO O NCO 0 00 O O
0
O W ^ OM OIOON N � �' N N ^ N MM ON 0 - 0 Ho LO
U F. O O O O O O O C I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O M?
H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e
c
Q
t O_
J N
QI^ t\ t\nn n�D LrAO ^ nN Ol-t 61Moo Nm O M O�DN m
O W O O �-- O M O O O M MLA LAN N N M� O ^ N ^ O MM
W O O O . 0 0 0 . C I ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . l.f.
� X
(1 N O
t.. N
W W t\ N OlN OILA^ M N O 1 MLA O r, MO t -t ul0 IIIN M nLA
O O 1�m N MMLA� O LA MO Ol^ O ? 1\ n NLO LA-t �O O I O n n
{ X M N ^ M^ ISO 1 a • e111 tom 0 L -:T I M� I-.W ^ Nam'
O ^ . . . . . N ^ ^ 1 . . . . . . . ^
Z
W
} U LAM-T �O LAOmLA n^ LO M-t ML -f 0 ID m Mom' L 00 n00 MNN 01
Q O CON LAO N ?-' 0 -t 0 %0 - u1 -- Old Ol ^gyp ^ u1 ^ N ^CO�D O1M
0 Of LAN MN LAN ^ O 1 MN ^ O1m 1-,.Om 1 1 � n-- mN MI, M-' N M 1,
F- > . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
z d
Z
O N
- Z M ^ O nONN NrM 0 O1O N CJ 0ON ON LALO OIO L.An
` N O W W ^ o (DO �0 ^ ON - mom t MN ^ N Ol Ol1oN L0.�' o00 �0
N F-- O D LD O N O M 1� 0 1 ^ Q\M LA M N M 1 Il�D m N m m Lfl M f�
f X f M ^ N M^%0 Ol^ ALA LA O1 LAB 4-4 N ^ N n
OI�O U' m%O �' O LA MHO - 0 0 M� mOl a' O ^ LA ^ OlN MM
N
Z N O - M m^ N LA � n m " M N %O moo O) LA^ 1T M N N
� U O j �O N O M O1 1�0 O 1 01NN �' N M M 1 Imo^ ^ NN �D NCO �' O ^
3 < M
OC U M NLANM 1�N ^ OOON ON mMy N MNM MN O
1.. d) > ^ ^ ^ N O1
7
fT}
•- J
( LL Lai! W O M M O m N _:r -t a% M N N L 00 M m N N M N MI D O LO co N O
1 Q N G M \O Lfl Ol n L O N -' N 00 O ^ OI�O -Zf -t m w 1 00 M G M LA O �O -f
( to W O N N ^ M^ N O 1 .t ^ %D nM^ �O Ln 1 -t LAN Ol•- N LAN MN Ol?
Z V1 F
F- O Q 1 N ^ ^ e e . Ol N
N Q U
O U - M m LA nm%D LAkO 0 �O N LA LA N MOO nM^ N Old' %
O Z 1� n�o nO1^ ^ O N ♦O N ^ �0 .7' Moo 1 N -tMM0 NEON MLA
cc 0 < > nMt "�O ML 0 1 NNN Ol NM^ ^ 1 nOlN n� .�r Ml t oMNN
J } U . . . . . ^. . ^ ^ N N ^ ^. . . . . .
aQ O •^ N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O
.ztnnC�o n00 ^ OO -tmNLr\wN 0000000000nm
IN LA MN ^m 0 .t\ 1 MLA LAB' N nN N O N N MAD DLO 1�N m -T
J ft
=: L ^ ^ ODD u N m0\-T -t Ol m�O 0m 1 i�L(1ON 1� .00 m M M
> 00 LA MnM�o co N N M MN N M O m O m Mom' 0-7 MLD LA
N
I }
N Mf`0000 OO ^ 00�' m N LA SON OOOOOOOOOOnN
0 d LA Mac) m ^ m _:r M LII Ln_:I- N 00 N O N N M♦0 �' � n N N M
\ lfl O\0 LA m 1 Ql Ol� � 6. 61 0�O N 1 I�Ln O N n Lp O Ql M M
2- N
F- d m l.fI MI�M�O m N NM MLA MMO m p I� O1M Off' I�M�O LA
N
0
+4f J O
♦• K ate+ N
N
W m ^ N M LA w t N ^ 1 N Ol O ^ N M-:r N�D 1 co m O ^ N M LA y
O = ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ N N N N N
en 7 O
z S11WIl A110 30N3nlJNI d0 31U HdS � ~
E. 8a
W �
•C
J d' M m M 00 M LrN lf) O M L
=D w O O M ^ �o �o O\�O 00 O
U F- OOOOO
F-N K ON^ 0 00 LLLom
U-cm
m ^
CJ W 0 ^ M" 1- 'D M T O N
W 0 00000 �o N00 lfl U
J
N 0
N N
W W � O to M M 0 00 00 �o 0 O I�NOO ^ O\ OOIOI 0 00 a) �
O N �-t -:T M LIB W 07 Cif aJ C
1 O 1 -1' I� O Q
11 1� M L
Z N W J 0
L
} C7 �0 N �0 O� �O 1� M �D
n K N M N �o M �O N ^ ) .n
OC 1- U • N O r- n N
W Z N N
w a E m
z
CD
L m
Z \0 Ol CO ^ O\ N W E
N O W W Ir m O M O �O ^ I�
F- 0 0 �O O\^ O\
0 • Q1 N
X --• 1� M M O •- M C N
t v Z N m m
ll y w C) a� N
QQ
.700N N O
O O Z Lf1 M L 0 ID N �'
U U O N moo
�W LP Ol L v 6] >
W Q U O O ^
^ MM I\N MOO
44 1 U N M lf� U 0
p� m O
} w
( L < tb W cO N L O In 00 M I- C C
I 7Q N 0 M M O ISO 01,0000 N O a)
( m0 to W O O N M�
oZ to I N a
W F- ® 0 r ^ LO N M N u
1 w O E
w
I W U V M" MID �O SON M m
{ 0 O Z ^ L O —t �o �O N Ol m
K Q to _:r �o000 N -t �O mCD • 'D
J } U • ^ • ro
M 1�O\IO C O
Q S O N M a) L
a a)
O L
MN�o :' N 000 0 a)
(11 N M Ol M�o L!� N 00 M M > C
1 W F a) 0
J f �o mn MOO �oN m •O
7 ^ ^O\ M LIB In aJ
O co
U
a) L
N Q 1 00 O 00 m
d 0 ^ O ^ N MO N N
M 00 Ma) a)a) U
K N N L O
m U 3 a
_:r u O_ �+ L
U 1 o u
L m m 0
m O +�i .O
4-
c� cr m w E m 0
K Q C m rn F- L5 U 0 L = w
w _O •- m ^ In • —1 m a) i E
L •Cn a) i� N l !� F E Q m V1
f
L E•8b
down by residential neighborhood, commercial type and industrial
1 use. It was developed from the following assumptions.
Using figures collected by the California Division
( of Highways and making adjustments based on the
S. proposed circulation system for Palm Desert, the
number of vehicle trips per day by gross land use
itype was determined,
(_
VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY
1 Development Type Trips/Day
!! Residential - Trips/Day/DU
Very low density 10
Low density 10
Medium density 7
SS High density 7
l.,
Commercial - Trips/Day/Net Acre
jAll types 85
Industrial - Trips/Day/Net Acre
Research and Development 127
Service 200
1
Using figures developed by the Southern California
Association of Governments the average trip length
for major development types was determined,
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH
Residential 10 miles
Commercial 8 miles
Industrial 20 miles
( Figure 9-2 represents a "worst case" situation. Emission
factors for 1974 were used rather than 1990 factors which
assume that all vehicles will meet state and federal
standards currently proposed for that year. Assuming
proposed emission standards are met in the future, an
adjustment of total emissions shown in Figure 9-2 could
easily be made.
1 Total emissions are presented by proposed neighborhood so that
as development of individual neighborhoods occurs and phasing
for future neighborhood development is established estimates
of daily vehicular emissions can be determined,
r
E,9
I
The air pollution analysis is limited to mobile sources since
the impact created by stationary sources (industry, power
�. plants, etc.) is expected to be minimal . There are no
areas of heavy industry proposed for the planning area.
( 6. Climate
The major concern with the planning area's climate is
humidity. New golf courses and extensive landscaping,
which has characterized the increased urbanization of the
Coachella Valley, is resulting in a marked increase in
humidity levels. The maintenance of low humidity is
�. important in Palm Desert. High humidity can make high
summer temperatures extremely uncomfortable and deter
people moving into the area for health reasons.
B. Man-Made Environment
J 1 . Social Impact
1 Changes in the social makeup of Palm Desert will be
{ extreme as a result of the General Plan, The impact on
( the stability and characteristics of the existing popula-
tion as well as data on projected populations is presented
in the Population and Economics Element 3. Analysis of
population density, distribution, age and income is also
included in this element.
( The changes created by urbanization of the planning area
1 will doubtlessly be viewed as detrimental by some of the
current residents of Palm Desert. This will be particularly
l true with individuals who moved to the desert to get away
from built-up areas. However, one of the primary goals of
the General Plan is to create an organized social environ-
ment which will meet the needs of different family types
.� and incomes. The implementation of policies presented in
the Urban Design Element 2, Population and Economics
Element 3, and Housing Element 4 should produce beneficial
effects on the social fabric of the City.
2, Economic Impacts
As with social impacts, the economic impact of the General
Plan will be extensive. Before land use planning was
undertaken it was necessary to collect and generate a
large amount of data on the planning area 's economic
aspects. An assessment of a wide range of current and
projected economic factors was made. The data gathered
I' provided a general background for the preparation of those
L._
`` E. 10
I
General Plan elements which deal with urban design. This
data is included in the Population and Economics Element 3.
The intent of this element is to ensure a stable economic
base for the planning area. It proposes to achieve this
goal through a variety of housing, commercial , and indus-
trial types. The establishment of balanced land uses
that ensure the City of its ability to provide necessary
municipal services was a major objective of the Population/
Economics Element. Results of the economic analysis show this
objective to be feasible under the proposed Land Use Plan.
1 Marked changes in property values and tax rates over the
present situation will also result from the Ceneral Plan.
These changes are itemized and discussed in detail in the
Population/Economics Element.. This study shows that City
revenues will be able to meet expenditures and provide a
high level of services without a burdensome level of taxation.
�. A major problem in the development pattern of many areas
is the expenditure of large amounts of public funds for
jurban renewal . The Population/Economics Element shows how
t the economy of Palm Desert can be maintained at a high level
so as to prevent this from happening.
3. Transportation
Composed of various methods for moving goods and people,
the proposed circulation systems in Element 5 form ai
framework upon which other elements of the General Plan
are constructed. During the development of the General
f Plan various alternative circulation systems were designed
l and refined until the systems presented in the Circulation
Element were finalized.
Element 5 discusses existing air and ground systems and
establishes plans and criteria for the development of
future circulation systems which will effectively serve
future development .
4. Aesthetic Impact
Increased development will have a marked effect on the
aesthetic quality of the planning area. An attempt to
minimize any adverse impacts to the visual quality of the
area was a primary concern in the development of the
General Plan.
E. 11
I �
The planting of extensive tamarisk windrows will tend
to block views of the mountains and lessen the contrast
between valley and mountain areas. The Plan has considered
this problem and it will be partially eliminated by the
proposed sand dune park and desert corridors.
Another problem with increased urbanization in the planning
area will be the effect of City lighting on views of the
nighttime sky.
While the planned and controlled urbanization of the
planning area will certainly not blight the environment,
whether or not it is a positive or a negative impact is a
( personal and aesthetic judgement , not a technical assessment.
1.
5. Urban Infrastructure
(_ The implementation of the General Plan will require a
variety of supporting infrastructure. Elements 7 and 3
discuss the amounts and distribution of various public
facilities as well as the estimated total population for
each proposed neighborhood at full development. From this
data Figure 9-3 was developed. It illustrates the break-
down of demand for water, electricity, and gas as well as
L. showing projected amounts of sewage and solid waste.
Through meetings and telephone conversations the various
public utilities expressed their ability to meet increased
demands. However, there is a potential problem in supply-
ing the extensive amount of water which will be needed at
full development. As much as 31 .0 acre feet per day of
water over existing demand will have to be provided if
total development is realized. In order to meet this
increase it may be necessary to develop new sources of
l water.
As the General Plan is implemented and updated, it will be
i important for public utilities to review future needs and
specifically for the CVCWD to make a determination of the
possible establishment of new water sources.
The economic analysis in Element 3 presents a series of
tables which show how funds created by future revenue
sources will be sufficient for the development of both
l new infrastructure and public facility needs at complete
development.
The Desert Sands Unified School District has indicated
that, through a program of .continued coordination with the
City, adequate education facilities will be provided.
E. 12
,L
i
0
/// 0 T Lf\ 1 L m O O N N t, �O N al�D �N ^ �' O W W ^ t� W Ol�D D
N L N O W N r�-t I - M 0\ M N �O 1� O 1 M Lf\ M Lf\ 1� O n g M ll1 O
_-
7 L •D MN N NNCD w Ql O OI LfI OIN M 00 Ol^ -t N 1-00 Y
M ^ ^ C
O J ^ D
> U
'D m mI o D m m_ �O M^ U M-T N M -- M Old N O ^ O O - N 00
. . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .
N L ,Y -' \D00 NN L 00 O 1 N MN N MM � ^ 00 1 n�o 00 ^ M-' M-tS o M-T �O
u rnm y' �
Ol N 1,�O-zt M t l Ol O -:r M�0 I, O M L -T �D - Ib coo I l -T
L L �p M M N L� N CO I O O O Q7 Lf\ 0�00 M 1� W 01^ -7 N 1�Cl
0
U tp
11 Q U O_
M O ^�D _:r M M N �O - 00 O M O OD O O LO O-:T
T N • Ol I�n^ O 1�N 1 (-� L�W Lf1 O I-� I 01 Q' In Ol Ol O Ol O Lf\ 1�
tp 10 MOD MML �O M O Ol ^ MOD w MOl MM -:r � -:r -T N N M M
O 'O LO M^ N ^ M ^ tt1 O LO BO O Ln_:T N M LIP ID ^ M^ N ^ 10 �D
w ^ ^ w w
O N r\al
af
� V
H 'OI y Ol Ol O CO M. Ol O W \D Ol
O ^ M ^ 0 M♦p 00 Nf1 L
... K O -a O N �D N NE' N ^ N 00
F O o 3 N N
N O
1 MKJ ^
I W Q
Cn Z -
Ol Z Wes' ? O " -t -tw -T �O NOD �01 O Nam' m O 0000 N -tID 000000 N
Q O N a+ O I� t`N 9^ Ln Ol 1 fn. O O ^ 00 Lf L( z 1 O O N O N N 41 N Ol OD
mm 'O U ^ N MO MOLE\ 1� -t MQ\W N ^ �D N 1� 00 M u"100 L.fIW � _r N
C N \ N f�OJ O�O Lf� I�M n M l0 I�^ 1 \O N �' M�D L •D �' ID Ol tf\ Lf� M
W 7 W w .. ., .. w w w
d' Y W N 00 N N Lr �' N N ^ N N M 1
Z 1
O
( U \
Q I�tf1 O I,N -T �O I- O O W � CO d>W Ql I--n Lh O lf1 ^ M L!\
01 01 O 1 -t 01 ^ 10 OlO 01\.DNc 'D
T 10 0 0N �00 00 %D �O AN mM 0 " Ol 107 O O �D O l M
0 N M M•DMN N N M�
1I \
1 ^ M OQ W N Lf N M N T O M O I- N 0l O 00 M ^ M
\\\l T 0) M^ IlMMO MN 1 00 ^ ^ OD mOoo ^ I N ^ OM L 10 �0 �01O ^ CO M
10 M-T I O %D N %O �O 01 00 1-OD ^-' ^ Ol 1 -T M M Ltl N
O -o N N ^ ^ ^ N -- L h O -zr 00 COS' M N M Lf D M N ^ O M
1 O 3 lO 00
Il J
Q i
Z O
W O
O O
S 0 0
cc:
u a
O N M f\CQ - Q �N Ql O ^ N M- - - n co- O N M L!� p ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^- ^ N N N N N N +-� tp
= 1] 0
N w SllWll Al10 ^ 30N3n-IJNI 30 323HdS ^ F-
o z
n.
0
a
E.12a
t..
M ^ V\�O M N
O N N w T 01
u1 m Ql O Ol V� N
N 0 -0 M-t fp 0 -0 1
C� O 00
1. Y
N C T C T f0 m C T
N O (aOl O a — CO 0 m N �D
3 •— v .— .a N 0.0 3 •— v m o .o
- \ N -T O f\ ^ \ NON ^ \ N O
NE ^ N E — N E ^
( T T
C C !0 C 0
• 0 "0 n�DNOV\ O 'O NM Ov MV� M
Y \ • e • • • .- \ • • Y .- \
U — N 00 V\ ^ 00((II U N M M 01 00 07 ^ 1-f N Ql�' moo 0) Y N n CO W
3 E 3 W E 3
(_ w
C
O O1•- (0 V1 �O moo O f0 0) O f0 01
1 D 3 ^ \ M� mOM ^ \ .O N N •- WAN c
•E N • • • ^ tV _ T M Q\ to Lh N 01 (\ 'O
c Q
O cc ^ >
W n
{1 Z
I m
lL Ol Q f0 •L
m
0) CC L \ 00 06100 C T co
O C T MnO O u�
L • • e . e . . e • . . s
3 a+ f0 �O IO N m� m Ql a) m 00 ^ Ol m —
61 Z mm 00 V1 ^ f\M \ N N Y ^ \ N M C f0
f0 •- •_
- E M 3 E rn u- i
oo
IfrI ¢ O E
I a O E
1 E N O
N
L
1 Vi Ol LA I, 1�co �D of co CO M m Gl O
(I` L . • N y
M Ia n n O 00 O 1-�fb 00 N
V N M L U M Ol-:1, W L U
0 Q O SS Ol >
^ N M C f0 ^
0 w >
. a) >
Z
w m
d N L L
�.. O D O
Q Q j 0) Q Up
W - w
U K > p Y O
w VI p O .- 0 0
^•-
O f0 T Z to ¢ J J O1 O Y
0 F Q Q N m L
L 0 0 U O
O ¢ C f0 Q7 p L U W K F- N Ol C
t0 •- 7
V1 0) •- U f0 N 0) > fD - E Q ^ :3 Ol
d O 0 am^ Y Of
O N L Y J 1I> F p f U Vi
- Q Z
1 2 F- N M
l
E• 12b
Y In N .-
a' W N a
m J u N 1 1
( 0 L
O
O.
YYY = O N
X O C n
m cc 0
= d u L
f� U N
11 Q o-
W
Z
Y
1- O O c
Z Y O O O
D d' N 1 1
r L N
11(S f d U 4
O Q O-
U
L L
N U) N N
In O)\ E O Q1M E 00
m M O T N 1 ry \ O T tf1 U�
CU 00
N
Q V
O
Z W T
W O Q O)\ Ql IU
p H �i L N N T 4- O L U ID ^^
Ol K IQi p > \ > N O > \
O J Q N Q -0 O Q N
N - Z O
L U O N
CD
7 � ^
N N
LL Q W ~ U1 N u N a+
LL W U N V N \ 10 \ 1�
I Z LD L \ ^ L N 000 L VI O M
U > � > a.+ > u M
Q Q 3 Q 3
w
U T
N D N N N 0
w QI\ O)\ M1 O O
U' t0 T O O O O tp T �n tf� m \ O O
Q L M O O \O ID L fp U
( W > \ N N ^ ^ > \ N > \ O
N N 10
Q1 O1 07
N
GI 'D N 4- U1
00
w m T lA u'� O O t0 T 00 m � 0 0
F- L Ip M M M M L Ip OD O L U 0 0
3 Ulm MMN N N 'O O M N m
r > \ > \ > \
! Q ^ Q ^ Q ^ ^
Ol 01 O)
T
L I
T
l } J N T c i+ .. •• y
C •- J J W E
¢ ¢ CL
L O
N_ Z O C a1 U ^ L y U
p ^ � 7 � W L O N (0 > •-
p — T - L F N •- W UI >
Z N L ; "O Ol E C Gl p Vi p i
W d 0 N •- O N N Z W GJ
E. 12c
Proposed parks shown in the Conservation and Open Space
Element more than adequately meet demand indicated in
r_ Figure 9-3.
6. Noise
Element 6. 1 , Transportation Noise, evaluates the impacts
created by highway and railroad noise. Figures presented
in Element 6. 1 define noise zones in terms of the noise
r environment and its impact on residential uses as well as
1l illustrating the effect of changing traffic speed and
volume on noise impacts.
7. Archaeologic Sites
Element 6.4, Conservation and Open Space, presents a
general description of the archaeologic significance of
j the planning area and the impact of urban development on
archaeologic material . Background information was obtained
�. from the University of California, Riverside; their report
is on file with the City of Palm Desert.
1. .
I .
l
l
l_
1
l
E. 13
L
V. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
` The conversion of open areas to urban uses .in those portions of
the planning area designated for urban expansion will create
adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided. The impacts
will be the direct result of population increases. The following
,l is a summary of unavoidable adverse impacts to the environment of
11 Palm Desert,
Increased traffic will create higher air and noise
pollution levels.
Increased utility needs, especially water, which will create
a burden on the CVCWD to meet demands at full development.
Tamarisk rows planted to control blowsand will tend to
eliminate views from the Valley floor,
Humidity levels will rise as landscaping associated with
increased development becomes more pronounced.
Development will remove large amounts of open space
r between the Whitewater Flood Control Channel and the
Inorthern boundary of the City's Sphere of Influence.
( Views of the night sky will be reduced.
1.
L
1.
l
L
L
E.14
J
i VI . MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE
THE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The nature of the General Plan and its associated elements
establishes as a principal criteria the mitigation of detrimental
environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are outlined for each
' element in the various elements' policy statements.
The degree to which mitigation measures reduce adverse impacts is
partially dependent upon policy statements in the General Plan
and further by specific actions taken at the time of the Plan 's
implementation• The mitigation measures are not clearly identified
at this time other than to say that it is the basic formative
(( procedure of the General Plan to accomplish this task.
1
l
l
l
i
l .
E• 15
I
j
VII , ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERAL PLAN
No Project Alternative
This alternative is not viable in that the City of Palm Desert
has no choice as to whether to do a General Plan or not. State
law requires the development of a General Plan and the City could,
therefore, be subject to suit if one is not completed,
Status Quo Alternative
_ The possibility of developing the planning area in its present
' configuration is one alternative. However, the policies of the
major land owners and the City, as illustrated in the General Plan,
tend to preclude this alternative.
Other Alternatives
In the course of developing the General Plan, a number of alterna-
tives were considered before the final urbanization plan was
delineated. Most of these alternatives were simple variations in
organizational concepts. They dealt with the structure and detail-
ing of varied land uses throughout the planning area ,
t
The alternatives mentioned above were all variations of a maximum
i development strategy. It was felt necessary to apply this
development plan in order to provide all necessary community
services without creating detrimental tax levels in the long term.
Proposed industrial development is far from existing urbanized
areas . The cost/revenue study indicates that development of
these areas is probably necessary to provide a sufficient tax
base for future development.
l it
L II
I
I
f E. 16
VIII . THE BALANCE BETWEEN SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM
EFFECTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
It is inevitable that as the General Plan is implemented there
will be a number of impacts on the City's environment. These
I� impacts can be considered short-term since they are felt at the
first stages of the Plan 's implementation, even though some por-
tions of the Plan will not be implemented for many years. Adverse
f impact will be most apparent during the short term.
In the long-term the Plan's positive effects will become more
Ir ., evident. The development of a well-planned community will create
an attractive and desirable environment in the planning area.
� . The Plan, as it is proposed, maintains a balance between short-
term effects and long-term uses.
l
I
1
1
1.
E. 17
L
IIX. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
I It is generally considered that urbanization of those portions of
the planning area designated for urban expansion is an irreversible
_ environmental change. The acquisition, development , and/or
maintenance of parks and open space areas along with provisions
I of adequate levels of public services will help to minimize
adverse changes. They will also provide the opportunity for
( offsetting social benefits ,
t
' i
1
t
i-
I_
E. 18
L
r
X. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Implementation of any of the options of the General Plan will have
_ considerable growth-inducing impact, although most of the factors
which encourage growth are already present. Implementation of the
(. Plan will tend to expand on and organize many of the existing
factors which will result in increased development.
The rate of development is the key factor to the General Plan's
effect as a growth-inducing agent. The background for this is
found in the Population and Economics Element, and the final result
is seen in the Land Use Element.
1 .
i
i_
i
i_
L E.19
L
i
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED DURING
PREPARATION OF THE E. I .R.
Living Desert Museum, Ms. Karen Fowler
f Deep Canyon Research Center
University of California, Riverside, Mr. Pat Barker
Bureau of Land Management
1 . Coachella Valley Water District, Mr, Warner Norried
Coachella Valley Association of Governments
Southern Pacific Railroad
ICALTRANS, Mr. Don Weaver
Riverside County Fire Marshall
` Desert Sand Unified School District, Mr. Harlow
i
Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service,
Mr. Norman Elam
City of Palm Desert, Mr. Paul Williams
Riverside County Planning Department
City of Palm Springs, Mr. Richard Service
LCollege of the Desert, Dr. F. D. Stout
L�
! r II
1,
L
L
L.
r
INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND
Solid Waste: Salvato, E. , Environmental Engineering &
Sanitation - 2nd Edition, Wiley, N.Y. , N.Y. , 1972.
California State Department of Public Health,
Status of Solid Waste Management in California,
Berkeley, California, 1966.
Electrical : McGuinness, Stein, Gay, Fawcett , Mechanical &
Electrical Equipment for Building - 4th Edition,
Wiley, 1964.
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
i HUD Research Bulletin February, 1974, No. 1 ,
(Housing, Urban Development and the Energy Crisis) ,
i Washington, D. C. , 1974.
I Gas: American Gas Association - Department of
Statistics, Gas Facts : 1971 Data, Arlington,
Virginia, 1972, HUD Research Bulletin.
I- Water: Public Works Journal Corporation, Public Works :
February 1972, (Countywide Study Forecasts Water
Use) , E. Strasberg, Pennsylvania, 1972.
1..
Clark & Viessman, Water Supply & Pollution Control ,
Intl Textbook Co. , Scranton, Pennsylvania , 1969.
1
Sewer: Clark & Viessman, U. S. Public Health Service,
Manual of Septic Tank Practice,
Water Pollution Control Federation, Manual No. 9:
Design and Construction of Sanitary & Storm
Sewers.
i�
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The final Environmental Impact Report on this project includes:
1 . The Draft E. I .R. including the General Plan elements.
2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft E. I .R.
in writing or as a part of the public hearings before the
Planning Commission on December 9, 1974, and City Council
on January 6 and 20, 1975•
3• The original and supplemental Staff reports prepared on the
J E. I .R.
t 4. The comments received from Mr. Burrell dated December 16,
1974 and the Staff's response to these comments.
l 5• Report entitled "Floristic List for Deep Canyon Watershed
Oct. 1973'' adopted by reference.
6. Report entitled, "Bird List for Boyd Center and Deep Canyon '
Transect Aug. 1974'' adopted by reference.
7. Report entitled "Annual Report 1973-1974 - Philip L. Boyd
Deep Canyon Desert Research Center" included by reference.
t 8. Report entitled "Supplement to the Palm Desert Sphere of
Influence Study" including economic analysis prepared by
Wilsey & Ham.
1 9• Report entitled "Supplemental #2, including Economic Analysis
I on the Sphere of Influence and adopted by reference.
l ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Just as State law (Government Code Section 65000 et. seq. ) mandates
that all municipalities prepare and adopt a General Plan , so too does
it require that reports on the environmental impact of the plan
(EIR' s) be prepared (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq:) .
These reports are designed to provide the official decision-making
bodies of the City and the general public with sufficient pertinent
f information on the expected environmental , social , and economic
impacts of the proposed long-range General Plan for the City.
Because of the non-specific nature of the Plan and the extensive
research which went into the preparation of its twelve elements,
much of the data that would normally be included in a separate
l. '
�I
A-1
environmental document is found in the General Plan itself. Therefore,
a summary of the EIR process as it relates to this project should begin
on October 3, 1974, when the City received the Preliminary Draft of
the General Plan from its planning consultants. This first draft was
studied by City administrative personnel and members of the Citizen's
Advisory Committee (CAC) during an intensive 3-week review period. At
�. the end of this time, the Preliminary Draft was returned to the con-
sultants so that the modifications recommended by the CAC could be
incorporated into the Plan.
The resulting document was the Public Hearing Draft of November 12,
1974, which, in addition to the twelve General Plan elements, also
contained a specific section dealing with the Plan's environmental
impacts. However, as in the previous draft, much of the environmental
information was scattered throughout the General Plan elements. This
document not only included the City-related input, but also included
the input from all the other affected public agencies.
p AGENCIES RECEIVING COPIES
As soon as the Public Hearing Draft was received, a Notice of Completion
was sent to the Secretary of the State Resources Agency in Sacramento
indicating that the City was preparing to circulate the General Plan/
EIR document to other agencies for their review and comments . The
following have received copies:
1 . Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
2. Riverside County Office of Road Commissioner and County Surveyor -
3. Riverside County Planning Commission, Indio and Riverside offices
4. Riverside County Sheriff's Office
5• Riverside County Airports Director
6. Riverside County Health Department
1 7. Riverside County Fire Protection Planning and Engineering Officer -
{. 8. Coachella Valley County Water District
9. California Department of Transportation
10. California Department of Parks and Recreation
11 . University of California at Riverside
12. California History Preservation Department
13. U.S. Post Office .
14. Bureau of Land Management -
-' 15. Coachella Valley Television
16. Coachella Valley Soil Conservation District
17. Coachella Valley Association of Governments
f 18. Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
19. Desert Sands Unified School District -
20. Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
21 . College of the Desert
22. Riverside Museum Associates .
1 A-2
i
1 ,
23• City of Palm Springs
24. City of Indio
25• City of Rancho Mirage
26. City of Indian Wells
27. Southern California Gas
28. Palm Desert Disposal Services, Inc. -
29• Palm Desert Community Service District
F 30. Southern California Edison .
1 , 31 . General Telephone
32• Living Desert Reserve
� - 33• Regional Water Quality Control Board, Colorado River Basin Region
The draft EIR, comments from other agencies, private individuals, and
organizations who have reviewed the draft, the Staff' s responses to
those comments, and any input from local citizens at public hearings
are then combined into a single document which is called the Final
E. I .R. It is this final report which must be certified as complete
1 by the Planning Commission and City Council .
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE E. I .R.
f The heart of any EIR is determined by its substantive aspects. Sending
I_ . out the proper notices and forms will not help an EIR if its authors
have overlooked a serious, adverse impact or have recommended ineffective
mitigation measures. Because of its generalized content, the EIR for the
Palm Desert General Plan provides for an overall analysis of long-range
effects that would result from the adoption of the General Plan rather
than those short-range impacts created by the plan ' s more specific
proposals. These impacts will be assessed in future EIR's as imple-
mentation takes place.
SUMMARY OF E. I .R.
The early sections of the report outline the planning area and describe
the primary features of the physical environment. Section 6 of the
General Plan contains data on topography, geography, soils, seismic
and other geologic hazards, flooding, vegetation, and wildlife. This
is supplemented with discussions on the climate, air quality, hydrology,
and mineral resources found in the planning area. The existing man-
made physical environment is dealt with in detail in the General Plan
elements on population and economics, housing conditions, circulation
I' systems, public facilities and archaeology.
iThe next section describes how the implementation of the General Plan
would affect the previously-described environment and what has been
proposed to minimize negative impacts .
L.
i
l.. A-3
a
although topography would be altered as development occurs ,
most land is of little intrinsic value to man, except for
those significant topographic areas such as the sand dunes
and mountain areas which would be preserved.
- exposure to earthquake, blowsand, and flood hazard areas can
be minimized through the proper use of zoning ordinances and
f development controls.
l - loss of most of the native plant and animal habitats due to
development of the valley floor is minimized by provisions
in the General Plan which protect all rare and endangered
species in the planning area, as well as provide a suitable
environment for more common flora and fauna types.
provisions for the conservation of unique natural areas in
-. the Conservation and Open Space Element, the preservation of
scenic vistas in the Scenic Highways Element, and the increased
acquisition of public parks in the Public Facilities Element
all serve to offset the loss of existing open space as vacant
land is developed.
- as development occurs , air quality is expected to decline -
primarily as a result of the increased number and distance
of automobile trips. Although emission control standards
are not in local hands, implementation policies in the Land
1 Use and Urban Design Elements could reduce the amount of
increase of pollutants by encouraging cluster rather than
sprawl development, thus enabling the eventual use of circu-
lation systems other than the private car.
1 - controls on future growth will help to minimize the increase
in humidity caused by additional development.
J
although an increase in population is expected to alter the
social stability and characteristics of the present
popula-tion of Palm Desert, implementation of policies presented in
the Urban Design Element, Population and Economics Element,
and Housing Element should produce beneficial effects on the
social fabric of the City.
- the overall economic impact of the Plan should have desirable
consequences for Palm Desert by insuring a stable economic
i base, thus allowing the City to meet expenditures and provide
a high level of services without a burdensome level of taxa-
tion.
- transportation will be affected by the Circulation Element
f which contains recommendations for improving existing modes
of travel and for the creation of alternative systems.
i
{' A-4
L
{ - developmental and architectural controls should greatly
improve the aesthetic quality of the planning area.
the General Plan will require an extensive increase in new
urban infrastructure and public facility needs at complete
development. Funds for these improvements can be generated
by a variety of revenue sources and without placing a burden-
some tax load on the existing residents.
additional highway and railroad noise is anticipated. Correct-
ive and mitigating measures have been recommended in the Urban
Design Element and Transportation Noise Element.
- impacts on existing and potential archaeological sites have
been evaluated in the Conservation and Open Space Element.
The next section of the EIR Element lists those adverse environmental
effects which cannot be avoided. These include:
- increased traffic which will create higher air and noise
1 pollution levels.
1 - increased utility needs, especially water, which will create
a burden on the Coachella Valley County Water District to meet
demands at full development.
Tamarisk rows planted to control blowsand will tend to eliminate
views from the valley floor.
5 -'
- humidity levels will rise as landscaping associated with
increased development becomes more pronounced.
- development will remove large amounts of open space between
the Whitewater Flood Control Channel and the northern boundary
of the City's Sphere of Influence.
- views of the night sky will be eliminated.
The following section addresses itself to mitigation measures which
have been proposed to minimize adverse environmental impact. In this
( case, the elements of the General Plan have been prepared with mitiga-
tion measures as one of their principal design criterions.
Alternatives to the General Plan proposal are examined in the EIR
Element and will be further discussed in the section on Staff response
to EIR comments. In addition, as a part of the development of the
City' s Sphere of Influence, seven alternative planning areas were analyzed
with input from the public, Citizen's Advisory Committee, Planning
Commission and City Council . The approved planning area was established
on the basis of Environmental Impacts, ability to serve, etc. Subse-
quently as a part of the preliminary General Plan analysis, at least
Ii -
1 I
A-5
t three alternatives were developed and evaluated. Therefore, a number
of alternatives were developed and evaluated. Therefore, a number of
alternatives were analyzed before the proposed General Plan was
presented.
The balance between short-term and long-term effects of the General
Plan are also discussed. In the long term, the Plan' s positive
effects will become more evident as an attractive and desirable environ-
ment is created.
Finally, the EIR summarizes the irreversible or irretrievable environ-
mental changes. For this project, urbanization and urban expansion are
reviewed as the major irreversible changes.
RESPONSE TO EIR COMMENTS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palm Desert General
Plan has been circulated to various public agencies that may be affected
by the proposed plan as it is implemented. The following responses
to the comments of the reviewing agencies are included as information
that should be considered in conjunction with the Draft EIR and the
comments of the public agencies.
Comments on the Draft EIR have been received from the following agencies :
1 . Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) - informal
staff comments
2. Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
3. Coachella Valley County Water District
4. Palm Desert Property Owners Association
5• United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management
t 6. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and
Recreation
7. Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
i8. Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
`- 9. Southern California Gas Company
Responses to the comments relative to the content of the Draft EIR
iare as follows:
t
� A-6
l .
f1 . C-VAG: C-VAG comments were presented at an informal staff meeting
on November 27, 1974 and related to the need to include additional
information on the growth-inducing impacts of the Plan, alternatives
to the Plan, and economic analysis.
Response: In general , C-VAG comments relate to the need to docu-
ment the planning process utilized in development of t e General
`PTa`5. It is recommended—that the following be incorporated into
the final EIR.
A. Growth Inducing Impact of the General Plan
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will have a
( considerable growth-inducing impact on the City of Palm Desert.
However, it should be noted that the land use proposals includ-
ed in the Plan are based on regional and local market factors
l as well as economic base studies for the City and its sphere
t of influence. (See Section 3 of the General Plan Public Hearing
Draft.) Population in the City and the sphere of influence
is projected to increase from approximately 19,510 in 1974
to approximately 45,800 in 1995• This represents an annual
average growth rate of 4. 15 percent. As this growth occurs,
Palm Desert will increase from approximately 18.4 percent of
( the Coachella Valley population to approximately 25.8 percent
i of the Coachella Valley population.
The growth projected in the City and the sphere of influence
is growth that can be anticipated due to planned developments
in the near future (1975-1980) and regional trends . Thus,
while the Plan projects a substantial growth in population,
( the growth that is planned is a result of on-going regional
J trends. The proposed plan will provide the City with the
opportunity to control the manner in which the anticipated
growth will occur.
Impacts on Growth Policy_
Population growth within the Coachella Valley has been rapid
(100 percent increase 1950-1960; and 61 . 1 percent increase
1960-1970) . While individual cities have been able to control
' growth and the manner in which growth occurs, this has resulted
in a shift in development to unincorpohated areas and other
cities within the Valley and the net increase in population
has remained at a high level . Thus, it appears that any
alteration to the rate at which growth occurs must come through
the efforts and growth policies of regional agencies rather
than individual cities.
B. Alternatives to the General Plan
In addition to the alternatives to the Plan discussed on page 16
of the Draft EIR, several plan alternatives were discussed at
various stages in the planning process. These included:
r
A-7
1 . 1
1 . Development of the residential areas at different densities
than those recommended in the proposed plan: Alternatives
included discussions regarding both higher and lower densi-
ties in portions of the planning area, and the current
!!! recommendations were arrived at through a series of staff,
town forum and citizen meetings.
2. Development of different land use structures: Alternatives
included variations on the location, intensity and types of
use indicated in the proposed plan. The recommended plan
1 represents a refinement of all previous alternatives as well
as a land use pattern that balances the various fiscal and
service impacts of the plan.
3. Alternative to the circulation network: Alternatives
considered related to development of a section line grid
system. This alternative was rejected due to current travel
desire lines, and the desire of the community to develop a
circulation network that would strengthen its unique identity.
1 The recommended plan is a synthesis of the various alternatives
1 and provides a balance of fiscal factors and community objectives .
(For details of the fiscal aspects of the plan, see the Palm
1 Desert Sphere of Influence Study.)
J C. SB 938 requires general plans to consider energy conservation
in their development
The policies of the proposed general plan recommend the examina-
tion of all development in light of energy needs. (see page
i l .P. l in the Land Use Element.)
2. Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District: Comments related to
the need to reference various community facilities in the proposed
general plan.
Response: The major recreational , institutional , and public facili-
ties are referenced on the land use map and the open space and
conservation map.
( 3. Coachella Valley County Water District: Comments from the Coachella
Valley County Water District concern recommended changes to Figure
9-4, Infrastructure Demand and Generation Factors, on page E. 12c.
They offer this data:
jResponse: Changes noted and recommendation for inclusion
I Final EIR.
i
A-8
1 Residential People/DU Water Sewage
r Very low density 2.6 700 340
1 Low density 2.6 700 340
!! Medium density 2.6 700 340
High density 1 .9 510 250
1/ Figure 4-5, page 4.B.2.b.
2/ Based on 270 gpcd, Table IV-1 Riverside County Compre-
hensive Water and Sewerage Plan, December 1972.
1 / Based on 130 gpcd, Table IV-2 Riverside County Compre-
hensive Water and Sewerage Plan, December 1972.
i
i
1
i �
i
I (
i
A-8a
{
4. Palm Desert Property Owners Association: Comments from the
{' Association concern: (a) The EIR will not withstand future attack
by developers , land owners or other groups seeking changes or
r� relief; (b) data used throughout the EIR is out of date and that
jprojections based on this data are understated; (c) disagreement
over the future availability of sufficient water supplies; (d)
relationship between increased density and increased air pollu-
tion and humidity; (e) social changes in the population of Palm
Desert; (f) high density promotes the uncontrolled increase of
property values , resulting in demands for even higher density;
j (g) adverse impacts from solid waste, noise, and light pollution.
( Response: (a) the EIR is an informational document only. It cannot
be used to approve or deny a project, which in this case is the
General Plan. The General Plan is only one of a series of regula-
tory devices, along with specific plans, the Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision Regulations, etc. , that will be used to evaluate future
development requests. Simply conforming to the land-use designa-
tion does not guarantee that the development will be permitted.
In no case should the General Plan be interpreted as being so
inflexible as to prevent equitable relief for members of the
j community.
} (b) Every attempt has been made to use the most current
]I information available for this EIR. In some cases, the figures
have been adjusted to reflect change in the method of data collec-
tion. Data which cannot be revised is presented in the form in
which it has been received and clearly labeled as such. To insure
_ that more current information has not been overlooked, the Draft
EIR is circulated to all agencies which may be affected, request-
ing their review and comments. Finally, the General Plan is not
a static document; it is updated each year and undergoes a major
revision every five years.
(c) The Draft EIR makes no attempt to ignore the poten-
tial problem of adequate future water supplies. Page E. 12 addres-
ses this issue and provides that "as the General Plan is imple-
mented and updated, it will be important for public utilities to
review future needs and specifically for the Coachella Valley
County Water District to make a determination of the possible
establishment of new water sources."
f
(d) The statement that higher density will lead to higher
levels of air pollution and humidity is misleading and incorrect.
{ Numerous studies have shown that urban areas with high to moderate
l densities have lower per capita service costs than equivalent size
cities developed at very low densities. Figure 9-4 on page E. 12c
points out that water consumption and sewage output are lower per
dwelling unit for medium and high density than for low or very low
density. Cluster development enables the use of alternatives to
the automobile which would not be feasible in an area developed
1 exclusively at a low density level .
l
A-9
�I
I
{
(e) As stated in the report, "the changes created by
urbanization of the planning area will doubtlessly be viewed as
deterimental by some of the current residents of Palm Desert."
The Plan recommends changes that would improve the social environ-
ment of the City for many family types and income levels.
(f) As the cost of land, construction labor, and
materials continues to climb, developers have been forced to build
more units per acre so that the cost of the individual new dwell-
ing unit does not rise beyond the means of the average family.
(g) Environmental impacts regarding solid waste, noise,
and light pollution have been adequately addressed throughout the
elements of the General Plan.
5• United States Department of Interior (BLM)
(comments) : The Bureau of Land Management commented favorably
on the EIR, indicated some of their current plans and activities,
and made some clarifications regarding BLM property as it relates
to the General Plan.
Response: No response requested or required.
6. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
{ (comments) : The Department expressed appreciation for having the
1 opportunity to review the EIR and indicated that the General Plan
` will have no detrimental affects on the State Park System.
1 Response: No response requested or required.
(L 7. Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
(comments) : The District commented in general on pollution problems
and indicated their inability to conduct any studies on ambient air
quality at this time.
j Response: No response requested or required.
8. Southern California Gas Company
(comments) : The Firm stated its willingness to continue to provide
r utility services to the best of its ability to meet all existing and
ifuture requirements of the City.
Response: No response requested or required.
I..
i A-10
1_.
1 _
RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN
A. BACKGROUND
At the public hearing on the General Plan on January 6, a response
was received from Mr. Tim Burrell of the firm of Young, Henry b
McCarthy, Attorneys, with regards to the content of the Environ-
mental Impact Report for the Palm Desert General Plan. This report
is being prepared to respond to the comments received and to elab-
orate on any areas that merit additional data, as a result of
t- these comments. The appropriate action if these comments are
considered adequate, would be to incorporate them into the final
E. I .R. to be certified by the City Council . These comments are
the accumulation of the responses of the representatives of the
firm of Wilsey S Ham and the City Staff.
B. RESPONSES
1 . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
�. Mr. Burrell indicates that the State Guidelines require
certain summary information to be provided as a part of the
E. I .R. In addition, the report should summarize the environ-
mental characteristics and engineering proposals that are in
the General Plan. He states that the report must indicate
the effect this plan would have on public services. In
1 addition, he indicates that the E. I .R. for the General Plan
1 does not contain a thorough economic analysis of the effects
that should occur if the plan is implemented. Finally, he
{ indicates that there should be some reference for precise
location and boundaries of the General Plan planning area.
1 COMMENT
Mr. Burrell ' s comments, in this section and in subsequent
sections of his letter regarding the E. I .R. on the General
I Plan, deal in a large part, with the estimation on the part
of the City Staff and City' s Consultant firm to the amount
of specificity that should be included in the General Plan.
/ The ruling section with regard to specificity in the State
fGuidelines is Section 15147. It states that the degree of
specificity required in any E. I .R. will correspond to the
degree of specificity involved in any underlining activity
1 which is described in the E. I .R. In that section under
l subpoint B, it indicates that the adoption or amendment
of a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance or a local General
{ Plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be
expected to follow from the adoption, but the E. I .R. need
not be as detailed as an E. I .R. on the specific construc-
tion project that must follow. Under subsection C of the
same section, it indicates that the requirements for an
E. I .R. on the local General Plan or element thereof will
A-11
1
l
be satisfied by the General Plan element document -- i .e. ,
no separate E. I .R. is required if, (1 ) , the General Plan
- addressess all the points required in an E. I .R. , Article 9
of these guidelines, and (2) , the document contains a special
summary Section or coversheet identifying where the General
Plan addressed each point required. The former has been
the format utilized in the E. I .R. and the General Plan
l addressing each point required. In .Staff' s opinion this
General Plan E. I .R. cannot be evaluated in terms of its rela-
tionship to an Environmental Impact Report on the specific
development project as proposed by Mr. Burrell .
( The purpose of this section on the description of the project
t as is implied , is an attempt to require an E. I .R. to begin
1 with the full description of the project involved, in terms
of setting the stage for the subsequent environmental evalua-
tion of said project. The State Guidelines in setting up
criteria for establishing the description of the project
attempts to require certain precise information to be
provided so the project can be accurately described. To
describe a planning document as extensive as the General
Plan can be done in a number of ways. The Consultant has
chosen to use the route of referencing the various sections
of the General Plan that fully describe the parameters
under which a project is established . Another alternative
would have been to summarize each element in terms of what
( is attempted to be done by the elements and to describe
l their relationship to each other. However, in the Staff's
opinion the methodology used is in conformance with the
State Guidelines in terms of providing an adequate descrip-
tion of the project. This is particularly true since the
Guidelines under Section 15141 indicate that the information
should be limited to the amount needed for the evaluation
' and review of the Environmental Impacts.
Mr. Burrell 's statement with regards to the fact that the
report must indicate the effect of the plan on public
i services does not correspond with the requirements of the
State Guidelines. However, it should be noted that through-
out the General Plan the emphasis was placed upon the rami-
fications as to the policies , goals and implementations in
relationship to their effect upon the public services. It
is stressed throughout, that the General Plan was created
upon the basis of providing adequate public service without
a requirement of a property tax. To achieve this ideal , it
was necessary, therefor, to construct the General Plan with
a considerable concern for the ramifications on public
( services. It should be noted that the E. I .R. on Page E. 12
does describe the impact of the General Plan in terms of
public services in figure 9-3, which is entitled "Impact on
Url.jn Infrastructure".
A-12
i
Mr. Burrell 's comment with regard to the E. I .R. having no
thorough economic analysis as to the effects would not
seem to be appropriate in the description of the project.
To make this statement with regards to the description of
the project seems to be totally unappropriate. In addition,
to the thorough economic analysis not being required by
the State Guidelines, it should be noted that Assembly
Bill No. 938 which would require such analysis was vetoed
by Governor Reagon on September 27, 1974. Also, an economic
analysis was prepared by the Consultant in conjunction with
( the General Plan and is referred to in the E. I .R. on page
(, E.10. Finally, Mr. Burrell 's comment with regards to lack
of some reference to the precise location and boundaries
of the General Planning area seem to be totally incorrect
since the E. I .R. document clearly states that a detailed
description of the plans ' purpose is in the introduction
and the land use element describes the planning area.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Mr. Burrell indicates that this section is in violation of the
State Guidelines and cites as an example the information pre-
sented on the air quality. He states that this City's con-
tribution to such problems as air pollution should be stated.
COMMENT
That State Guidelines establishes this section so that the
setting in which the project is proposed can be described
as a starting point for the evaluation of the environmental
effects of the project, in relationship to the previous
description of the actual project. Further, the descrip-
tion of the existing environment is an attempt to describe
the regional environment and the specific site environment
in a reasonably comprehensive manner, in order to give the
reader of the E. I .R. a broader perspective in which to view
the proposed project. The information provided in the E. I .R.
{ with regards to the description of the environmental setting
is in relationship to all the elements of the General Plan,
and in the Staff's opinion is an adequate description.
3• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Mr. Burrell indicates in his letter a concern with regards to
the description of the Environmental Impact of the proposed
project with regards to the lack of specific facts and figures
used to describe the Environmental Impacts. He uses as an
example the statement with regards to the increase in
humidity in relationship to population, and the fact that
the Consultants failed to designate an exact figure, such
( as a range of humidity levels in relationship to the popula-
tion base--in terms of a rise in humidity. Secondly, Mr.
Burrell indicates that the report fails to state the amount
of animal and plant life that exists in the various areas
A-13
l
I
f .
of the City of Palm Desert and its sphere of influence. He
states that the information with regards to the amount
of animal and plant life that will be displaced or destroyed
due to the implementation of the General Plan should be stated.
Thirdly, he comments with regards to the levels of air pollu-
tants that are expected with regards to implementations of the
General Plan. He indicates a concern that this amount is not
fstated in the General Plan.
In addition, Mr. Burrell , indicates a concern with regards
to the relationship of the General Plan with population
concentrations and distribution. He indicates that an
assumption could be gained that the General Plan has no
effect on population. He indicates that the population
calculations made seem to be without any regard to the
General Plan of the City. He states a concern with regards
to the lack or the effect of the plan with regards to con-
trolling or channeling growth either away from or into the
City of Palm Desert, and states that such figures should be
contained in the E. I .R.
CHe also indicates a concern with regards to noise levels;
and the fact that there is no statement made with regards
to the increases of noise that would occur because of the
implementation of the General Plan. Finally, he indicates
that the most serious deficiency of the E. I .R. is the lack
of economic data. He illustrates this concern with regards
( to the lack of economics data in terms of a lack of know-
]edge with regards to the cost of various land uses
proposed in proportion to their economic benefit. He uses
as an example, industrial development adjacent to the
freeway, and questions the cost for this industrial develop-
ment in relation to the taxes returned to Palm Desert. He
goes on to illustrate potential , premature extension of
service provided for this industrial development which would
result in a burden on the City versus a benefit.
f COMMENT
l_
Mr. Burrell ' s statement on the E. I .R. with regards to the
lack of reference to specific facts and figures simply is not
true. An example would be section 4, pages E8A, E86, E9,
E12A, and E12B. With regards to his example as to humidity
1 levels and ranges as they relate to population increases,
such data simply is not available and could not be given under
the existing facts. It could be truthfully stated that such
evaluation could not be qualified scientifically. Such an
exercise would be beyond the scope of an E. I .R.
In regards to Mr. Burrell 's comment as to the statement of
( the amount of animal and plant life existing which would be
displaced, as a result of the implementation of the General
` Plan; the plant and animal life were analysed in some detail
1 A-14
t. in the impacts of development with regards to the form of
the Plan and was given careful consideration throughout the
preparation of the General Plan. The E. I .R. in section 4A.3
page E.8 references the description of vegetation and wild-
life that appear in the appropriate sections of the General
Plan. In relationship to the State Guidelines , it appears
Ithat the Flora and Fauna was adequately addressed in the
General Plan and the related E. I .R. However, the City has
_ been provided with three documents on the Philip L. Boyd
S Deep Canyon Research Center which deal extensively with the
(_ Flora and Fauna of the area. They are the annual report
1973-1974, "Bird List for Boyd Center and Deep Canyon
( Transect", and "Floristic List for Deep Canyon Watershed,
1L Oct. 1973". Staff recommends that these documents be
included in this final E. I .R. With regards to Mr. Burrell 's
concern with regards to air pollutants, the E. I .R. addresses
air pollutants in as complete and detailed manner as poss-
ible on the basis of studies that have been conducted in
the valley. The E. I .R. on page E.8 clearly indicates that
there is a need for a regional air pollutant study, and the
I letter received from the air pollution control district
clearly illustrates the need for this study. A more com-
plete analysis of the air pollution problem is a study that
)l would require analysis on the regional basis which was beyond
the General Plan.
Mr. Burrell ' s concern with regards to the lack of a strong
relationship between population projections and the General
Plan is not true. The General Plan does have a strong rela-
tionship with the population projections that exist in the
General Plan. For example, if the various densities were
modified in the General Plan, the effect would be a sub-
stantial change to the population projections. The Environ-
mental Impact Report clearly states that there will be a
change in regards to the social makeup of Palm Desert as a
result of the implementation of the General Plan which
{ results indirectly from the increase in population. The
L E. I .R. states that the population and economics element
does have the amount of population and the effects from that
population.
With regards to Mr. Burrell 's reference to effect on noise
levels resulting in the implementation of the General Plan,
the General Plan and the E. I .R. both discuss noise and
indicates the existing noise levels and the relationship of
noise to the land use patterns. The statement by Mr. Burrell
with regards to quantifying future noise levels which would
result from the implementation of the General Plan simply is
not possible. This would require a detail analysis of traffic
III volumes and knowledge of facts which relate to the future that
would have to come from a crystal ball ; and is not possible
( in terms of a quantifiable item to the Consultants or the
L A-15
l_ /
I Staff. To provide Mr. Burrell 's request to establish the noise
levels that will result from the implementation of the
General Plan simply is not possible. However, the Consult-
ants preparation of the plan does indicate measures to be
used in the development of the General Plan as subsequent
implementation tools to be utilized to reduce the impact of
noise levels. These techniques are accepted techniques
f throughout the State and the Nation, and are to be imple-
mented only for the purpose of reducing the noise levels
which would result from the increase in traffic and popu-
lation that is proposed in the General Plan. His reference
(I to both population and noise again deal with the level of
specifics that exist in the General Plan. To get to the
level of detail Mr. Burrell has requested is not possible
j �. in an E. I .R. on a General Plan and indeed, is not required
by State Guidelines.
With regards to Mr. Burrell ' s concern to the lack of econ-
omic data in the E. I .R. , again it must be stated that the
State Guidelines do not acquire an economic analysis. It
ij should be stated, however, that the General Plan does include
a detailed economic analysis which is referenced on page E. 10.
Mr. Burrell 's concern with regards to premature development
of land specifically with regards to industrial development
along 1 10, it seems to Staff would be more appropriately
addressed in subsequent implementation tools to be adopted
by the City as a result of the General Plan. Therefore,
his concerns at this time are premature and do not relate
to the E. I .R. Mr. Burrell ' s desire to have the amount of
increases and certain adverse affects to be quantified
( simply is not possible. Both the General Plan and the E. I .R.
related to it, deal with secondary effects and cannot poss-
ibly quantify in detail the degree of increased adversity.
It should be stated that the completion and adoption of the
General Plan will not have a direct adverse impact upon
the environment, because these are simply studies, reports
and policy documents designed to guide the future decisions
of the City in matters concerning community development.
They will , however, stimulate many secondary impacts as a
result of the actions that are likely to follow the actual
adoption of the General Plan. These affects have been ade-
quately derived and described both in the General Plan and
Lrelated E. I .R.
4. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
( Mr. Burrell in his letter states that without facts or infor-
mation it is not possible for the City to be aware of the
level of various adverse environmental effects of the General
( Plan. He indicates that the state law requires that the
l reason for proceeding with the project despite its adverse
environmental effects must be stated in the E. I .R. He states
A-16
11
L
( that there seems to be no reasons why the General Plan has
1 been proposed despite its affect of eliminating the small
town character of Palm Desert, overburdening the supply of
water for the area, increasing the humidity, and providing a
great traffic problem for the highways. Finally, he states
the E. I .R. should indicate the effects on human health to
be expected from air pollution, high humidity, increases in
( noise, and seismic dangers.
{ COMMENT
J In so far as the General Plan itself is intended to inves-
tigate the impacts of urban development, it could be
argued that some of the elements of the General Plan could
contribute benefits in excess of the adverse impacts that
they promote. Mr. Burrell 's statement to the fact that
the state law requires reasons for proceeding with a
project despite adverse environmental effects is only an
j inference made by Mr. Burrell by reading the State Guide-
lines. The state law, Section 15143, subsection B indicates
a permissive description with regards to why the project
is proceeding even though there are adverse effects that
cannot be alleviated. It is Staff's and the Consultant' s
opinion that an E. I .R. should not be a justification for a
4 General Plan; and, in fact, it should state the impacts.
This is the attempt .under the adverse Environmental effects
that cannot be avoided addressed on page E1 As stated
f at the first public hearing before the Council in the
I} General Plan, the wording in this section seems to be some-
what strong, particularly with regards to the view of the
night skies. It is impossible to state that they would be
�. eliminated. However, it can be stated that views
of the night skies could be reduced as a result
of the implementation of the General Plan. Staff believes
that Mr. Burrell is overly reacting to the wording in the
E. I .R. In addition, Staff is of the opinion that the
statement made in the E. I .R. do comply with State Guidelines.
t Finally, Mr. Burrell ' s states that the E. I .R. doesn ' t indi -
cate the effects on human health to be expected from the
` adverse effects. This again, gets down to the basic
concern that Mr. Burrell has regarding the E. I .R with which
the Staff has an opposite opinion, that is the degree of
( specificity of the information provided. Staff must again
state that the E. I .R. for the General Plan must be as
general as the General Plan and in those terms this does
E. I .R. does comply with the State Guidelines.
5. MITIGATION MEASURES
Mr. Burrell in his letter states that the section on Mitiga-
tion measures has no mitigation measures that would lessen
the adverse environmental effects. He states that the report
should state and indicate the various tradeoffs that would
lessen the adverse consequences of implementing the General
A-17
L
( Plan. He states that the crucial portion of this section
of the E. I .R. in terms of the General Plan would be data
that indicates a level of the environmental impacts that are
acceptable. He again states that the City must have
1 information to show that a particular level of humidity,
air pollutions, seismic risks or other environmental
affects are acceptable for the residents in the City of
Palm Desert. He again stresses the fact that the E. I .R.
must provide noise levels that will be curbed as the plan
is implemented in various portions of the City. He states,
in addition, that the E. I .R. must provide information that
(. indicates that a particular level of noise is acceptable to
the citizens of Palm Desert and to the proposed land use.
COMMENT
Mr. Burrell 's statement to the effect that the Mitigation
measures had not been indicated in the E. I .R. on the General
Plan simply are not true. The E. I .R. clearly states that
one of the basic criteria for the General Plan and its
( associated elements is the Mitigation of detrimental environ-
mental impacts. Mitigation measures are stressed in each
element of the General Plan. The E. I .R. stresses that the
policies to be established by the Council and subsequent
implementation policies will have a drastic effect on
adverse effects in terms of their ultimate levels. As
stated previously, the estimated level with regards to noise,
with regards to air pollution and humidity, have been
indicated throughout the entire E. I .R. and the General Plan
to the degree of specifics as possible with this type of
planning document. Mr. Burrell 's statement as to the lack
of specific data does not relate to the document that he is
r reviewing.
I 6. ALTERNATIVES
ll Mr. Burrell in his letter indicates that the E. I .R. does not
{ analyze in detail the various alternatives to the General
l Plan. He states that the alternatives are absolutely
essential so that the citizens and the City may point out
the different proposals that may be more beneficial to the
City than the proposed plan .
( COMMENT
`- It should be noted that the Staff report prepared on the
Final E. I .R. indicates the several alternatives that were
( discussed which Mr. Burrell was not able to review as a
l part of the final environmental impact report. Therefore,
in this area he was not able to see the alternatives.
1 Under this section the possibility of a no project alternative
does not exist since the state requires a General Plan be
` adopted and the City has no alternative but to adopt a
III
�- A-18
( General Plan. Another alternative that is not available
to the City in this project is to delay the project. Since
the General Plan is mandated by state law, it is not
1 possible to delay the project beyond the specific deadlines
established by the state for this City. which is June 30,
1975. The third alternative, therefore,and the acceptable
one is to allow the project. The Staff report as indicated
above does address the various alternatives that were review-
ed in establishing the public hearing draft on the General
Plan and related E. I .R.
7. RELATIONSHIP TO SHORT TERM USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Burrell in his letter indicates a concern to the effect
that the guidelines in the state sections that established
the criteria for this section of an E. I .R. is longer than
the information provided within the E. I .R. on the General
Plan. He states that the E. I .R. should indicate the short-
term losses that will occur after the implementation of the
General Plan. In addition, this section should provide
facts and figures to justify the conclusion that the General
Plan will be a long-term benefit to the City of Palm Desert.
( COMMENT
Throughout the General Plan and the E. I .R. this relationship
was considered. It is Staff's opinion that the accumulative
l effect of all the General Plan Elements are that they regu-
late, eliminate, and shape the development of the community
( so as to promote the greatest efficiency with the least
1 amount of conflict. The role of the subject elements is to
furthur decrease conflicts between the City and the environ-
ment by officially making the various qualities specified
in the General Plan, a part of the required planning process.
If this is accomplished , then the short-term effects of the
implementation of the General Plan will be drastically
( reduced with the long-term effect of the General Plan being
l a positive effect. In the end there will be developed a
well-planned community which will create an attractive and
desirable environment within the area. It is, therefor,
the opinion of the Staff that the General Plan as it is
proposed maintains a balance of the short-term effects and
the long-term uses. It is on this basis, therefor, that
Mr. Burrell ' s statements with regards to this section do not
apply.
8. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Mr. Burrell in his letter indicates the irreversible envir-
onmental effects should be described in detail so that the
11 City is aware of how much each of the resources will be of
fected in implementing the General Plan.
L
A-19
r
i
COMMENT
The irreversible or irretrievable environmental changes are
indicated throughout the General Plan and Mr. Burrell ' s
statement is simply not true. On page E18 the E. I .R.
clearly indicates that these environmental changes are offset
through the acquisition, development and/or maintenance of
parks, open space, along with adequate levels of public
service which will minimize these adverse changes . The
specific analysis of these areas for changes would have to
be done on the project basis at which time the specific
quantified amounts can be evaluated with regards to each
project. An attempt to do this at this stage is not
possible; and, if the attempt was made, it would not be
of any value since the specific implementaticr tools such
as the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, etc. ,
f are the documents that will specify the specific environ-
mental changes that are irreversible or irretrievable. On
this basis, therefor, it could be stated that the adoption
of the General Plan would not have substantial irreversible
or irretrievable changes which are contrary to Mr. Burrell 's
statements.
9. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Mr. Burrell in his letter states that by providing improve-
ments of public services, the General Plan would encourage
growth within the City of Palm Desert. He states the effects
of this General Plan will be enticing additional develop-
ment within the City, and this should be described, but is
not in the General Plan.
COMMENT
Again it must be stated that the growth inducing impacts
are discussed in various sections of the General Plan. Mr.
Burrell ' s statement with regards to adoption of a General
Plan enticing development cannot be considered true in that
the present adopted General Plan known as the Cove Communi-
ties General Plan, in essence is doing the same thing; and
( it is hoped that the new General Plan as adopted would reduce
this element and is an improvement in terms of planned
growth with regards to the City of Palm Desert. In addi -
tion , the Staff report on the E. I .R. stresses that fact that
the General Plan will provide the City with an opportunity
to control the growth.
1
i A-20
L_
1 « a
l 10. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Mr. Burrell in his letter states that the City must consult
with an agency which would be responsible for providing
services within the area covered by the General Plan and he
questions why the various agencies that are affected by this
General Plan were not contacted.
It COMMENT
The list of those agencies contacted is in the E. I .R. In
addition, the City Staff upon receipt of the E. I .R. on the
General Plan did forward it to some 33 different agencies
and their response has been outlined in the Staff report
on the General Plan and the E. I .R. On this basis, therefor,
Mr. Burrell 's comments to this section do not have merit.
The reason that the City did not notify the State Planning
Agency was on the basis of the belief that the affects of
this General Plan was more localized it nature than the
statewide concerns . On that basis, therefor, the various
( cities in the valley and the local regional agencies ,
C-VAG, were the agencies to which the City circulated the
General Plan document. The State Department of Resources
did receive a notice of the completion of the General Plan
by the City and a copy of the actual General Plan.
C11 . A TIME FOR REVIEW
Mr. Burrell 's letter indicates that the period of review
for the City's E. I .R. on the General Plan was from
f November 12 to December 9. He states that state guidelines
indicate that there should be a 90 day review for the review
of the E. I .R. and that another 30 days should be allowed for
the review of the final E. I .R.
COMMENT
1_. Under section 15160 of the State Guidelines on environmental
impact reports, the State Guidelines state that the public
agencies may establish time periods for review in their imple-
menting procedures for reviewing agencies. The City Council
in their adoption of their Resolution No. 73-14 which is the
City's guidelines did establish specific review periods.
Under section 23 of this resolution the time for review of
i. the draft E. I .R. was established for 20 days. In that the
State Guidelines, with regards to review periods , only
suggests certain time periods, this time for review does
1 comply with these guidelines. Since the document was review-
ed by other agencies within the time specified by Resolution
( 73-14, it would appear that this E. I .R. does comply with
I City guidelines and therefor, State guidelines. Upon com-
pletion of the review period the Staff did prepare a final
l A-21
E. I .R. This was forwarded to the Planning Commission as a
part of their consideration of the General Plan and was
acted upon then as their part of their evaluation of the
General Plan.
Mr. Burrell 's statements do conform with the state guidelines
in that the permissive wording is utilized throughout the
guidelines. With regards to review periods, in Staff's
opinion the processing of this E. I .R. does comply with the
S_ City's' guidelines and the State' s Guidelines.
!. 12. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Burrell states that the E. I .R. must contain certain
basic information, the comments by governmental entities,
the public and the City' s replies to these comments. He
states that the Environmental Impact Report has no replies
l with regards to the environmental issues raised in the
ll process of the E. I .R. He further states, that while the
City held a public hearing on the plan that the members of
the public were limited to three minutes apiece.
1
COMMENT
Mr. Burrell ' s statement as to the requirement that the
E. I .R. must contain certain basic information is true and
the Staff's prepared Final E. I . R. does contain all this
information which was not available to Mr. Burrell in his
review of the draft E. I .R. This information as required
by the City's Environmental guidelines was available in
the City's offices prior to the hearing on the General
4 Plan. In addition, the report by the Staff on the Final
E. I .R. did include all the letters received on the E. I .R.
( responses to each letter.
` Mr. Burrell ' s statement that the public was limited to three
minutes with regards to the General Plan before the Planning
Commission was simply not true and should be noted that the
_ Chairman prior to the hearings on both the E. I .R. and on
the General Plan requested that statements be limited since
there was a great amount of detail with regards to both
the E. I .R. and the General Plan. Also, that specifically
on the General Plan, the public was to be allowed to speak
I on each element of the General Plan, which would have allowed
up to 27 minutes by each person on the General Plan. On
that basis , therefor, Mr. Burrell 's comments with regard to
the public hearing do not have merit.
�. 13. SUMMARY OF AN ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT
r Mr. Burrell in his letter completes the evaluation of the
1 E. I .R. with two sections. The first section deals with the
A-22
I L
summary of the E. I .R. He restates that the letter that he
has written is not intended to describe in detail each and
every deficiency of the E. I .R. It merely sites examples that
indicate the report violates each of the critical sections
contained in the State Guidelines. He states that since the
E. I .R. is considered inadequate by him that this would
open the General Plan to an act by any land developer who
is not entirely pleased with what the General Plan does to
` his property. He feels that the City should , therefor,
require the Consultants to revise the E. I .R. so that the
wishes of the citizens of Palm Desert cannot be affected
by a squawk of a land owner.
COMMENT
Mr. Burrell ' s statements do not seem to hold water with
regards to the E. I .R. and the General Plan. What Mr. Burrell
fails to realize is the real purpose of the State Guidelines
which is to establish criteria on which to evaluate the
environmental effects of any project that is being considered.
The purpose of the Guidelines is to provide public agencies
l with principals, objectives, criteria, and definitions for
the statewide application of the California Environmental
( Quality Act of 1970. Contrary to fir. Burrell ' s concern it is
(! not a collection of specific data that describes in every
detail the total environmental effects of a project that
eoncompasses 82 square miles; and, in fact, is a planning
document whose purpose is to improve the environmental
quality of development , that will inform the public decision-
makers , the Council , and the General Public of the effects
of the project that is proposed. An E. I .R. may not be
used as an instrument to rationalize an approval of a
project or to indicate adverse impacts and require that a
r project be dissapproved. While the guidelines require that
I major considerations be given to preventing environmental
damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obliga-
tions to balance other public objectives including economic
and social factors in determining whether and how a project
L should be approved.
Mr. Burrell 's approach as to reviewing this document has been
typical of a review of a specific, precise project that can
be quantifiably evaluated from the standpoint of its environ-
mental effects . Mr. Burrell in reviewing of this project
( has failed to consider that the General Plan is a planning
t document which tends to guide the orderly development of
the community with particular emphasis placed upon the pre-
servation of the environment, where possible. In addition ,
l_ the document attempts to evaluate the social and economic
factors in relationship to the environment with the result
being the optimum community possible under the present plan-
ning criteria available to the City. It is on this basis,
therefor, the Staff must reject a majority of Mr. Burrell ' s
comments as not factual and incorrect, with the reasons
stated above.
A-23
Ill
TT 1 APPENDIX B
ILSE♦�/
!( Y & HANNI Earl P_Wilsey(1892-1957)
1 1631 HUNTINGTON DRIVE • P.O. BOX 430 • SOUTH PASADENA.CALIF. 91030 •Telephone (213) 799-9181 • Cable "WHINT"
l November 7, 1974
i
r Mayor Henry Clark
+ Chairman C. Robert Hubbard
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
{ Palm Desert, California 92260
f Dear Mayor Clark and Chairman Hubbard:
Wilsey & Ham is pleased to transmit this Public Hearing Draft of the
Palm Desert General Plan. The Plan reflects the culmination of an
extensive effort by the Citizen 's Advisory Committee (CAC) , City
Council , Planning Commission, City staff, Citizens of Palm Desert ,
outside agencies and Wilsey & Ham.
( During the process it has been our intention to have the Plan re-
present the aspirations of Palm Desert citizens as expressed through
the Citizens Advisory Committee, by other citizens at the various
Town Forums and by Council and Commission at our various study sessions.
The Public Hearing Draft reflects the intensive review made by sub-
committees of the Citizens Advisory Committee and City Staff of the
L Preliminary Draft which was presented to the City on October 3rd. Most
of the CAC recommendations have been incorporated into this draft.
The purpose of the Preliminary Draft review was to obtain comments so
f that the Public Hearing Draft would come as close as possible to re-
flecting citizen, Staff and Wilsey & Ham consensus. Inasmuch as the
purpose of the public hearings is to obtain final citizen input regarding
the Plan we anticipate that a few changes to the Plan may still be re-
q�ired. All requests for changes by the CAC, City Staff or citizens at
this time should be addressed at the time of Commission and Council hear-
ings. The Commission and Council upon receipt of written or verbal
(_ requests for changes at the hearings should then ask for Staff and Wilsey
& Ham comments, discuss the merits of the proposed changes , and request
that Wilsey & Ham incorporate those changes they consider appropriate
into the adopted and printed document .
Commission recommendations for changes to the Public Hearing draft should
be made in the context of the resolution approving the Plan - subject to
the recommended additions , deletions or changes . Council should act on
( the Commission recommendations as part of their deliberations .
L_
L
planning • engineering • architecture • lantlscane archdectur.• • surveying mapping • systems
Mayor Henry Clark November 7, 1974
Chairman C. Robert Hubbard Page 2
City of Palm Desert
We wish to express our thanks to the Citizen's Advisory Committee
and Chairman George Berkey as well as City Manager Harvey Hurlburt,
Director of Environmental Services Paul Williams , Director of Finance
Bob Fleischman and planner Sam Freed, as well as the Council and Com-
mission for their help in preparing this Plan.
Sincerely,
WILSEY b HAM
( /
( Larry. , orrison, AIP
Progr Director
Hunter T. Cook
r V I v /"
Wi liam C. Reyno s
William H. Garrett, A
LPaul R. Secord
Enclosure
111 LBM: sjb
L
L
L