HomeMy WebLinkAboutANNEXATIONS N 42ND AVENUE/W EL DORADO DRIVE NO 23 FILE 2 1989 Zm p_. 2
O pZ o c
$83 ;tmpm m
Q'A3m 3 < 1
FL m r i
�m� m m O y
rL 6^- mw 3mm Z D H
m 3 m 0
S p r p m
�$ m•tEf � _ ERN
] y�
y w O d b<bZ6d�
3o O m
rt!� T
�21
n 0 D f
003rn
D z 0) N II
0 rn
� r ( l
o
s
m a
m
u Z
D
m y�
O ma
F un
8n
n
m
ILk_____________�___ ��_
� 6
� W
€ coo W
• U k G
• �c i '1\1 v v ¢ ? S
a�a •
F
p � �V S
v EEO Oo Q C❑
° Qb
m `L An
D79
C a o f�,
w O 0 D
u e m T
o F-❑ C a `o pj
• m
S ;-ill w
m e g+ N
O
3
N O uw er 4- 1= L.f1 •1
D.. 9 O • .F-1 ri
F Tmy04 C R -LO
U m D Y Y p E a) In 1
m N
Li C) Ql O NOl �
ei is va« c ++ C a
n o f L U m •�
c� p pL U
U $ 80
mE ZI �
Oejo .0
U O CT c C
SICM E❑ C i C, •.- m m €
S ac J -:I- CC N N O y
mi X 16 X r.: y
6
��11 m o�. Z
O11 1� i0 C 9mgv>50.ao. 4
OS1 m •o ::.0— 0 m
a nb
1 Z eo Z3.e oy»oZ O O
gg s<—Tc
11`` mmm.r' mwm� m T i
`V � 6b' Om�mbm 31 A >
R �� mo smm Z D H
9 m m., QQ6S C N N
w mm NFn C
_ °:s fin' !a IV "! m rr
O N
c 3 m o:; n n rZi1 7m0 ,
a
I
mo3
o a
mo0a ,
(7y CO N
m n
i
m v
m
m nn I
f Lim IDI III
$� r
D
y
� m
i 1C W
« m> U }p S
ma i & W ~ z
m a s m 2 2
Z_ F_
m J �? 6
c « e Om r) [I El
o � u
U wjQ`l Z 1 m Y wd if U`
m LL CY UaN q i0 Om vV
m U >OQN« ¢ � QQ ULL m � a �
m a wo 3 m ¢
> a O �F❑�u ¢ O ap
> f m
C WE~ 1> N
9 C N
9 O O OC
CJ ti O
n Z Y«p4Mn OONM � M
¢O
¢9•C U' M W p N 71 '�,
o Ly Dw
9
C E m o m t u N U c
a u� O C G O ps n
UO � 3 0 � N O N
�c _ 4 >
w mE oo ¢ N J N O pp
G O O M a m =G co 2) f+j
za,� mN rt m
W c T E u A > c
E
w w
N m a ❑ « L O O •r- m p
ri ui X fc X r a
04 Is NOSIO04
z i
1S N06a 3zU3r
W
a
o
z
N
tl' I
� I
3
t
IS NOIJNIHSVM
r
� as
IbvAvs _ Na
OOVa0013 ""- • as
/ OOVb010"13
w >-
` U_
w Is ( . X000
cr
o w
v10180d cr
J
/ ~ I
O
o �
/ 3AV A3a31NOW
cl
to W
I Q Q uj
i I �
o Ir• ar (619)348 2489
c �L We&
.1 N ELDORADO DRIVE� INDIAN WELLS,CALIFORNIA 92210
..
March 3, 1988
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Attention: Mrs. Jean Benson, Mayor
Dear Jean:
I wanted to express my opinion to you of what happened this week
at CVAG. I 'm not arguing your feelings in regard to SB 1719, but instead
the purpose of CVAG.
CVAG is a non political organization whose purpose is to address
solutions to regional issues. I don' t believe disagreements between
individual Cities should us CVAG as the forum. Those disagreements
should be discussed between the Cities privately and solutions sought
there.
By the way, you should be one of those leading the charge to see
SB 1719 is passed into law. What it says is, AFTER Indian Wells had
satisfied its regional Low and Moderate income housing requirements
WITHIN it 's City boundaries, it can then take it ' s EXCESS money ( if any)
and spend in the County to build Low and Very Low income homes.
Additionally, the City will pay the on going costs of service incurred
by the County. This bill and concept is being enthusiastically endorsed
by the County.
The alternative is, if the bill fails, the City then finds it
has not further housing requirement and we spend the money for other
C) redevelopment purposes.
It is hard to believe our fellow Cities would not endorse a possible
solution to our horrible demand for Low and Very Low income houses .
If you would like to discuss this further, please let me know.
Sincerely,
D
Richard R. Oliphant,
Mayor
RRO:paw
CC: Bob Presley
I
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 56841
!FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED:
56841. Factors to be considered In the review of a proposal shall include,but not be limited to,all of the following:
(a) Population,'population density; land area and land use; per capita assessed valuation;
topography,natural boundaries,and drainage basins;proximity to other populated areas;the likelihood
of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent Incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the
next 10 years.
(b) Need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy of governmental
services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those services and controls; probable
effect of the proposed Incorporation, formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses
of action on the cost and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
'Services,' as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or not the ser-
vices are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to this division, and Includes
the public facilities necessary to provide those services.
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on mutual
social and economic Interests, and on the local governmental structure of the county.
(d)The conformity of both the proposal and Its anticipated effects with both the adopted com-
mission policies on providing planned, orderly,efficient patterns of urban development,and the policies
and priorities set forth in Section 56377.
(e)The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic Integrity of agricultural
lands,as defined by Section 56016.
(f)The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory,the nonconformance of pro-
posed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the creation of Islands or corridors of unin-
corporated territory, and other similar matters affecting the proposed boundaries.
(g) Consistency with city or county general and specific plans.
(h) The sphere of Influence of any local agency which may be applicable to the proposal being
reviewed.
(1) The comments of any affected local agency.
_ COUNTRY CLUB DR. �� TS�1C1(L
0
P R-4-;5 P R-1-12000
h
EN k1T►L o
0
a
2
0
. o
J
W I
D A
P R- C. Sµb;
on pea
E a fR-1-12000 _
B I
FELLS 1514 C rr L1075
1-1-12000 Z
�o I R-1
rlo
00 O CD
CD
rj Co W
!e f2 n ; _• 0 � �� ,mil
CL
• Q
i
N
o G i
P 'A M 1)t' ^f--R I C; I f V i. 11f I
v w.o wna:. �-.•:.v cu ra ssactr ,. �.
C O U K'r Y O aj�b I. jd_>S I U f' '• 1.,' N .,
D tea- p
w
�
ry
0
cp
•`
Q Cl
1rF
ti
hY�'
t
4
y/—
: � b,
,lnc � I
I � � I �� �/ r '06 S•
70
7 =fl
»;». •���' '.� �I�i �*ram,. `- ,� 3" / _ ..
e
3 VJ
t
Ii w
I
I '
-----J Porto I
I. A♦ ,
I /
cool St
I a
-----Lc�
Oel Safari Or Is ../
� 1
rn
I I rn
Dl6
—
I � � i ■ o s -i r—
i Ya Shia loft 71 O G _
L----- sr I E � e, • n v
r ^ • � E ■ a
■
K 7 �i K • O
a_ ^_ 1
•
C
r
O
v
r
z
Q
CD
N
m
0
v
Q
m
S
S
m
h
Q
N
S
N
O
S
(J
� . _
Er
p co
4 rp dE» W
a,us -.fl.9 m
X.
� ` 1 0
co
- Q m Q ccm
J lu �• o
ti
. MILLER _ cVELOPMENTCO .
.O. BOX 4682, DIAMOND BAR, CALIF. 91765 (714) 594-6966
MAR 311988
March 28 , 1988 COMMUNITY DEVUUFNW UEPgNIMtN7
CIJY OpPq�M DESERJ
City Of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
ATTN: Ramon A. Diaz
Assistant City Manager
Director Of Community Development
Dear Mr. Diaz,
Enclosed you will find the annexation petition form. If I
can be of further assistance please feel free to contact me. It
would be helpful if you would inform us of your anticipated time
schedule in processing the annexation. At present we are approved
by the County for 300 units, and we would like to start our
Development & Design Drawings . I feel it would be a waste of time
and effort to start our process through the county then have to
re-submit to Plam Desert, thus we have elected to wait till you
are closer to the annexation date, then submit directly to Palm
Desert. Again if I can be of further assistance please contact me.
Sincerely,
G?rd Miller
GM/sp
Enclosure
` 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
May 17, 1988
Mr. Ken Mohr, Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501-3651
Re: LAFOD No. 88-22-4
Annexation #23 to City of Palm Desert
Dear Mr. Mhr:
This letter is pursuant to your inquiry concerning the possible closure or
diversion of Hovley Lane.
It was very disconcerting to receive Mr. Studor's memo of May 3, 1988 which
apparently is based on the actions of the Board of Supervisors on January 12,
1988. In April, 1988 representatives of the City of Palm Desert met with
Supervisor Larson and Warren Stallard, Indio Office Branch Manager of the Road
Department, several times and it was felt that the matter had been resolved and
it would not be an issue regarding the above noted annexation.
Notwithstanding this apparent misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Studor, the
City Council of the City of Palm Desert in a spirit of cooperation and as a
result of your request "tabled" the matter of the possible closure or diversion
of Hovley Lane at its May 12, 1988 meeting. We trust that this action on the
part of the city will allow you to set this matter for hearing at your June
1988 meeting.
We look forward to reviewing Mr. Studor's oaments ooncenling Annexation #11 to
the City of Indian Wells (LAFOD #88-23-4) in that that request includes a city
approved development plan calling for the elimination of Eldorado Drive which
to quote Mr. Studor's May 3, 1988 memo, ". . .both El Dorado and 42nd Avenue are
currently designated on the County General Plan as Arterial/Major Highways, and
have been so designated for many years. In fact, when the Lakes Country Club
was developed, just northerly of this annexation, half. width improvements to El
Dorado in accordance with Arterial standards were required of the developer.
We believe that these roads are essential elements of the regional circulation
network, and are opposed to the pre-annexation plan to terminate them at the
annexation boundary."
MR. err M HR
LAFOD NO. 88-22-4
MAY 17, 1988
Can you please forward to us any comments that Mr. Studor may make to your
agency regarding the Indian Wells annexation (LAFCO #88-23-4).
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and if you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact Steve Smith of my staff.
ly dDF Y
OIRCR OA
,
ITY DEVECAR=/PLANNING
RAD/SRS/tm
2
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
May 17, 1988
Mr. Ken Mohr, Executive Officer
Local Agency Formation Cbm fission
4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501-3651
Re: LAFCO No. 88-23-4
Annexation #11 to City of Indian Wells
Dear Mr. Ibhr:
Thank you for the opportunity to comient on the above noted annexation request.
The City of Palm Desert opposes the proposed annexation. The application
highlights the general nature of proposed development, however, it fails to
delineate that Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue has
been unilaterally eliminated by the City of Indian Wells. This is a designated
"arterial street" on the circulation element to the county general plan.
Eldorado would be the only north-south street from Fred Waring Drive between
Cook Street and Washington Street, a distance of three miles.
The Superior Court in Indio, Judge Jamin, recently determined that the Indian
Wells general plan was invalid. The prezoning of the subject property and the
actions taken to delete Eldorado Drive from the county circulation plan then
were not based on a valid general plan. This whole action then becomes
suspect. Can the findings necessary to delete an arterial street from the
county circulation element be made when the general plan of the city taking the
action has been determined to be invalid?
On this basis it is the position of the City of Palm Desert that this matter
should not be processed nor scheduled for hearing until County Counsel has done
a complete investigation to determine the validity of the actions taken by the
City of Indian Wells (ie: the prezoning and the amendments to the various
circulation plans deleting Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd
Avenue).
Paragraph 'F' of the attachment to the application in a very confusing manner
discusses on-site circulation and access. For clarification you should be
aware that this total 638 acre development as described in paragraph 'B' of the
application attachment is to take access from only one street (42nd Avenue)
where it intersects with the northerly leg of Eldorado Drive. No vehicular
access is provided from the east, west or south.
• MR. KEN V]
LAFCD NO. 88-23-4
MAY 17, 1988
As you are aware the City of Palm Desert was considering closing Hovley Lane
where it connects with 42nd Avenue. The reason was to prevent the movement of
Sunterra traffic directly to Cook Street. We have had several meetings with
Supervisor Larson with Road Branch Office Manager Warren Stallard in
attendance. Mr. Stallard's position was that the future Hovley Lane connection
to 42nd Avenue is critical to the east-west regional circulation. As a result
this city in a spirit of cooperation has tabled the proposed action. We very
much look forward to reviewing Mr. Stallard's analysis of the potential impact
on regional circulation that the elimination of Eldorado Drive between Fred
Waring and 42nd Avenue would create.
We trust that you will request a detailed analysis of this potential impact
from Mr. Stallard prior to setting the matter for hearing.
In smmmary, it is the position of the City of Palm Desert that this matter
should not be set for hearing until the City of Indian Wells adopts a prezoning
ordinance and resolutions to amend the general plan that are based on an
adapted city general plan that meets all of the requirements of state law.
Secondly, under no circumstances should the county permit the elimination of
Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue. If, by approving an
annexation request LAFCO would facilitate the deletion of this street, then the
annexation must be denied.
We would also point out that on the map attached to your request for comments
the wedge-shaped parcel of land immediately west of the subject site should
reflect that the city limit of Palm Desert abuts the subject site south of the
storm channel (Palm Desert Annexation #21, LAFCO No. 87-07-4).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. For the record we request that you
send this city a notice of hearing and copy of the staff report as soon as they
are available.
Yours j
RAMON A. D/J;IIIIAZ
DIRECTOR OF Ca44JNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
RAD/SRS/tm
cc: Supervisor Patricia Larson
Supervisor Norton Younglove, LAFOD Member
Supervisor Walter Abraham, LAFCO Member
Mfrs. Pat Murphy, LAFCO Member
Mr. Warren Stallard, Road Branch Office Manager
Mr. LeRoy Smoot, Road Commissioner
2
I
HIRSCHI & CLPQk
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JEAN ANN HIRSCHI 74-01. EL PASEO 41EHUE SUITE A-5
WALTER T. CLARH P. O. OAAWER 1703
NATHAN L. R05ENBERG PALM DESERT, CALlfOR01A 92261
March 10, 1988 I6I9I 568-566I
Mr. Ray Diaz BAR 1 4 1968
Director of Planning
CITY OF PALM DESERT Co1l9euf irr vfyttu.Alml 9j"NfLkhJ
73510 Fred Waring Drive C'TY of PALM CESERT
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Mr. Steve Smith
Associate Planner
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: DEMPSEY HAHN CORP. PROPERTY, HOVLEY LANE Y
Gentlemen:
My client, owner of 10 acres on the corner of Hovley Lane and
Carlotta Drive, propose that it will agree to the annexation of
its subject property to the City of Palm Desert, and will forego
any legal action opposing the condemnation regarding re-routing
Hovley Lane, in consideration for the City's agreement to the
following:
1 . The zoning of the subject property be changed PR5 to PR8.
2. The City assumes the balance of the road assessment bond on
the existing Hovley Lane.
3 . The City will not impose any additional street assessment on
the subject property for change in the route of HoVley Lane.
4 . The City will abandon the 50-foot easement presently existing
along HoVley Lane and Carlotta, except for the 15-foot utility
easement along the outer line of the property bordering on Hovley
and Carlotta.
5 . My client will have use of said 15-foot utility easement so
long as the use does not interfere with the easement.
6 . The City removes the existing blacktop road along Hovley and
Carlotta within three months after the final decision to re-route
Hovley Lane.
I —_
Mr. Ray Diaz
Mr. Steve Smith
March 10 , 1988
Page Two
7 . The City takes 25 feet along the boundary lines of the subject
property for the new extension of Hovley Lane, not 50 feet; OR if
the City takes 50 feet, it compensates my client for the 15 feet
of utility easement on the south boundary of the subject property
at the rate of $1 .25 per square foot.
8. If Hovley Lane is not changed, for whatsoever reason, the City
assumes the balance of the road bond assessment.
Taxes on the Dempsey Hahn property rose from $1 ,540 .00 in 1984 to
$10 ,704 .00 in the 1986-87 tax year. This tax burden for
installation of a road is unconscionable. There was no protest
made at the time the assessment district was formed only because
my client is headquartered in Illinois and did not realize the
consequences of this tax burden. I am enclosing herewith copies
of the two sets of tax bills.
I would be happy to discuss this matter with you further at your
convenience. I would appreciate your signing a copy of your
letter as your acceptance of this proposal.
Thank you for your help and services.
Yours very truly,
SCHI & CLARR
J N ANN HIRSCHI
JAH/kb
MAR 14 1988
., r 1 n Y.OEVELOPA.01 MPARTMEN11
COUNTY OF RIVERS Bi ITY DE PALM DESEHr
SECURED PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-1987
R. WAYNE WATTS, TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 LEMON STREET — 4TH FLOOR
RIVERS IDE,'CALIFORNIA 92501-3660
VALUES (714) 787-6331 TAXES(714) 787-2821 EXEMPTIONS(714) 7HTM6
BILL NUMBER
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION (SEE ITEM k5 ON REVERSE SIDEI
® 3.19 ACRES NET IN PAR 2 PM 101/007 PM 17951
OWNER OF RECORD,MARCH 1,1986. DEMPSEY HAHN CORP
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
TAXES.SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.FIXED CHARGES(SEE ITEMa2 ON REVERSE SIDEI RATE AMOUNT 075-036 632030006-8
GENERAL PURPOSE 1.00000 663.77 TAX RATE UNIFIED SCHOOL DEBT SV .00519 3.44 AREA ASSESSMENT NUMBER
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEBT SV .00175 1.16 -
COACHELLA VAL WATER DEBT SERV .06300 41.61 PARCEL NUMBER
RIV CO ADt#145 A 3362.98
TAX DEFAULTED
YEAR '.
An
2 NUMBER ISEE ITEM IS ON REVERSE SIDEI
-J FULL VALUE $ 669377
LAND $ bb f 377
G STRUCTURES
FIXTURES
� TREES AND VINES
CITRUS PEST VALUE
9003
TAX BILL REQUESTING AGENCY LOAN IDENTIFICATION BILLING SERVICE NUMBER
11194 PERSONAL PROPERTY
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Torsi AssEsscD vuult 66f
B 09/2B/86 LESS EXEMPTIBNSRPFt
DEMPSEY HAHN CORP
140 1ST ST NET VALUE $ 661.11V
BATAVIAf IL 60510
COMBINED TAX RAZE
CASHIER'S RECEIPT-1ST INSTALLMENT CASHIER'S RfCEIPT2ND INSTALLMENT PER 1100VAWE 1 06994
YOUR CANCELLED CHECK
IS YOUR BEST RECEIPT TAXES �$ 710.18
2Y036.58 2f036.58 FIXED ANO
(IF YOU NEED A RECEIPT. ADO 10%PENALTY ADD 10%PENALTY SPECIAL 3 t 362.98
AFTER ANO F 10.00 COST ASSESSMENTS
YOU MUST SEND ENTIRE DECEMBER 10,1986 AFTER APRIL 10.1987 TOTAL
BILL WITH YOUR PAYMENT) AMOUNT
$ 21,036.58 $ 2036.58 DUE S 49073.16
I
.-P COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SECURED PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-1987
R. WAYNE WATTS, TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 LEMON STREET - 4TH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3660
VALUES (714) 787-6331 TAXES(714) 787-2821 EXEMPTIONS(714) 7$3726 77
BILL NUMBER
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION ISEE ITEM 95 ON REVERSE SIDE)
® 4 ,ACRESA/L IN POR PAR 1 PM 301/007 PM 17951
OWNER OF RECORD,MARCH 1,1986: DEMPSEY HAHN CORP
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
TAXES.SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS,FIXED CHARGESISEE ITEM#2 ON REVERSE SIDE) RATE AMOUNT 075-036 �3703�0012i-3
GENERAL PURPOSE 1000000 647.33 `"" "-'" -
UNIFIED SCHOOL DEBT SV 000519 3.35 TAX RATE ASSESSMENT NUMBER
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEBT SV .00175 1.13 AREA 6 -O -3
COACHELLA VAL WATER DEBT SERV •06300 40.77 PARCEL NUMBER
RIV CO AD#145 A 4664,28
`. TAX DEFAULTED
TEAR
Q AND
NUMBER (SEE ITEM 98 ON REVERSE SIDEI
FULL VALUE $ 64r733
LAND $ 649733
STRUCTURES
FIXTURES
TREES AND VINES
CITRUS PEST VALUE
TAX BILL REQUESTING AGENCY LOAN IDENTIFICATION BILLING SERVICE NUMBER PERSONAL PROPERTY
900311194
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION TOTAL ASSESSED VALUES b4f E-i3
B 09/28/86 LESS EXEMPTIONS(TTPD.
DEMPSEY HAHN CORP
140 FIRST ST NET VALUE $ 64 f 7.33
BOTAVIAr IL 60510
COMMED TA[RATE
CASHIER'S RECEIPT4ST INSTALLMENT CASHIER'S RECEIPT-2ND INSTALLMENT PER$100 VALUE 1•0699 4
YOUR CANCELLED CHECK
IS YOUR BEST RECEIPT TAXES TAXES S 692.60
r¢T8
(IF YOU NEED A RECEIPT, ADD 10%PENALTY 29678.44 ADD 10%PENALTY - - . _44'. FMEOANO l SPECML 4 r 66 4.2 8
AFTER AND F 10.00 COST ASSESSMENTS
YOU MUST SEND ENTIRE DECEMBER 10. 1886 AFTER APRIL 10,1987 TOTAL
BILL WITH YOUR PAYMENT) AMOUNT
$ 21678.44 $ 29678.44 DUE S 5,r356.88
- COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
SECURED PROPERTY TAX BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986-1987
R. WAYNE WATTS, TREASURER AND TAX COLLECTOR
COUNTY ADMINISTR TSIDE, CALIFO 080 LEM N STREET — 4TH FLOOR
RIVIA660
7��g yy77
VALUES (714) 787-6331 TAXES(714) 787-2821 EXEMPTIONS(714) %—f6g48
BILL(NUMBER
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION (SEE ITEM F5 ON REVERSL SIDE(
® D2`€ACRES M/L IN POR PAR 1 PM 101/007 PM 17951
OWNER OF RECORD,MARCH 1,1986: DEMPSEY HAHN CORP
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
TAXES.SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.FIXED CHARGES(SEE ITEM 02 ON REVERSE SIDEI RATE AMOUNT 075-036 0A0013—.4
GENERAL PURPOSE 1:00000 187.27 TAX RATE
00519 •97 5ME(�NUMBER
UNIFIED SCHOOL DEBT SV .00175 •32 AREA _
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEBT SV - -
COACHELLA VAL WATER DEBT SERV .OA6300 1011.79 PARCEL NUMBER
RIV CO AD${145 32
TAX DEFAULTED
YEAR' ..AND
NUMBER (SEE ITEM 86 ON REVERSE SLIDE)
a'1\�3� FULL VALUE $ 18+727
'fir % LAND $ 18f727
a�1y'� a STRUCTURES
FIXTURES
TREES AND VINES VAL
CITRUS PEST VALUE
TAX BILL REQUESTING AGENCY LOAN IDENTIFICATION 9BIILLLIINNG11R,V19CF NUMBER PERSONAL PROPERTY
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION TOTAL ASBFSRED VALUO +
B 09/28/86 I=EX[MPTXINSRTPD
DEMPSEY HAHN CORP
140 1ST ST NET VALUE $ +
BATAVIA+ IL 60510
COMBINED TAX RAZE 06994
CASHIER'S RECEIPT-1 ST INSTALLMENT CASHIER'S RECEIPT.2ND INSTALLMENT PER SIDE VAWE 1
YOUR CANCELLED CHECK i 200.36
IS YOUR BEST RECEIPT 637 8 4 ;,. 37.84 F'rn"H° l $
ADD 10%PENALTY ADD 10%PENALTY SPECML
1+075 32
(IF YOU NEED A RECEIPT. AFTER AND E/0.00 COST ASSESBM(NTSJ
YOU MUST SEND ENTIRE DECEMBER 10.1986 AFTER APRIL 10.1987 TOTAL
BILL WITH YOUR PAYMENT) 637.84 AMOUNT $ 1„2.15.68
$ 637.84 $
I
�noo..vll�
rs a G� � m bi�Gon�!`�.1•(�.d),� Vr��(f&TIl`!10 � '.r'i
. - 7— O 2 EIT :vfT1f 0 o;
4LID 0
,•,1 'Zp:OA N N a Z Y!A1M'vi, lfi�rl DfpF�.'ZItf
AQ� m r v o �pCIiY OPPAL�� cHVPn-I<R! y
kiry ca G vzi9 p `) �N -1 0 'a
r vOZmW w D a � a t7 � N� N °zI z
'^ mom no Oo _' f'7Jm < a A'
,f1/1 N� � y O ° � CD � '4'I � m V
Ll
�r+0000 m�
ONOO
m
..1. P riWOO
O O Q m 01~`t�1100 X mo
1
CD
owmro
cwO _ pZ �Ol
LA
y
• yy77 n $O .w 6 u o S () o �igeDo '• t t
Z ZO a '° oz fcF �r
•1 p I o s 7 L, Z Oa CD (((N���
D
N yp m C
a D o � OG m
O
- _ N
° v>
J ow � :• I
>n D n d `OO 4j4`rF`
N � rr � a• • • V I �1�i
O O
'j 2— •O y O)r O ' � m .trial
nr m
tA
{'; AVA .. y ►.N m O z F mQ. p ;LF1�4
ol
C O a �. m r � CD
CO, OD . .J -C \ D P< Jai
r � ,�„ mf H� D j. zao _�,. :nY
mxm W W x Z O Z Z n z
' C rn -e Z
AG= O O '^ � A '� m � f'1 � Z
x^• O O
YO'Dm0 O Y o m N �.'.
0 co co Z,
OE
7+fty N W yy a m N O g O0 0 3 p .. `
O "I > O 3' Arn n C. x. z
SM1uti �O'4�WX D ~ . •� gilz ,.g.- = m v v "'�v�,Hg:. E O R ' -5 .
�7ifT��CCfp 0�
't 1 G rm O Zp
m v m .
.. I yr c m J O ..
D D Z
O c s
O m
.0 �� a = Z P .Ti O� �q
nco
ON p J rn 1
.. T A IY
Pi
o g m it
�A c� 2 0 y
7 c -
T
Z
m
' ^
N
1 al-MI:
gi
z r-IuprVI D <C12.0 1 1
1. # ... oUIDD
rro<oa rrmN0
Em 1_00x, ? @
Tj
M.
mOG N NN N Nb 7A0-im F 9 6 '<•. 1.': _ ".1
Aoo Z m 6 y
COD 1, A o O CA N p r�", p g .v '' ! +,
/. m x Z m w w y N a
i/. 9P`mo o V rti N< N i z a nm •�: ",;'o co `!fit 'h
IJ .O ,D y~ m = MTV p 2 c O .•y bd
n n W 8 ,p o n- •.'� . . . . .
�m
mO m �' !' `� JN�OOp^�
Q 04,000
OP O 0O JYi
ID C
;... .L,
J 10
N 7�. w Z .?4
5Dnw vW j`I-+N�
D IVmN (DW�1mp
.A NO
ZO pv S ~ o Ox x _ r.�Z y �• , ..
m 1 3 N A D o N F C F m O e'e
n pW N n p 3: n o N > m p0 tI_. ' '•�•t.i
� A " z
m <
OA p u Z N N G -Z-i F' w O O
Zu0 DS CO 2 ':'.j::'�.i.:
HT ca to D
Z S + r- .p ,D n m
t� •O .� Z
C) f m � � <n o .r A clb
1 .;
fI d
i U •Z"1 "s S z o �c I+IC 'I;y,•,,
O N 4 t y111 I
£ 71
fn mi ro• H ��� •, f4
N (
10 O O _
10
W.. co 4,
Z— CON p CD
m .:. i.
A 9 A Z m n V O OV'
<0 o o b <T w 0 N ��
N CD D m m N .Z1 { l/1 2
ro ryv U N Z3 0 m' rN S r Nm ZS
ryP mU O r'n � .mu� C yZ ti Z O V p •,
D D o a
fl O D _ m O �y C7 _Z %i�_•
N 7C m du o o O F
05
O X D 7 p � p .vl C O W p 0 -[�_.A10
r- O x' D z 3 7_N
(f Z S
m O A -� 3 . . 0N 2
1 1 #
' D P m A 3 N b 4..
y + . _y ..
sg
i o v " ? Z r0" y 9 R o < i-< Gl a C
ZNO 41 O A "'I Z 0 nG OZAO y A
I D £ € s >>
O
2 T 1 1 yl
<3 Do AID` Z
{y t F m`p�
y
Fdr..at.f J+.I•. ..4�r.;•,<`•s1cµ-fCa-z�'1::'i r:.G.+lI':t;:¢iy�j:o.'�:�.y.s^Y,�_,'�a.,'.0..',:`i,O!�r y Vns r AS�S=A D o y mv-_uiO�s?xS=OO
yI+•m oam,• _-�_m_ OH<70.•U�c m3m z a_at0w2DON L py o+'>vN XR�_F;_;•:•Or�:a-,.' ?2oN'^9n SS nC'n I I I I�I rr�
>+Y' DDzallo\0�vo
r01FrG�<
z— nz r
�; Sm X
>oDtx7AWA
-lrnm"
m wo
O m
ncn~2gD
yagRr•
co i m°'<O
OT fAma Ccmw�Nf<rp6�Q3zQ n x
^.
,lo
m i Fu
�^xm y W
W ..I -1
C 0 ;IJZoAAArT_.+cx jm s
vpeAy
�D muymAopSpmI
,
`r
v xm
D
:k":1`.:_•iM:••.yi.�t�~�'ri,.".1'....r
_�a�,•..•,?�•Y'i..'.',
��..
.i
.�
�•.::'-�
�•:i:
,
1�
.�-
S
.t
4
3.O NN z
P mO O
(7.0 zD
O O A
C PL Or_
O• m M .ONOO;j
m O
N co <
w Ol ti> '
OWODOO
mm Z
W -4 Z !
A D �ODZ C
N•y N ?.0
co
co I
Z OD 0
100
O
N NO, VO
D P 47' L.) W
0 '0 OD wrN /
z D
m
O OT V +N rn Om Z9 < to O .
�'4 {1ZmXm
.pn It, Z- Z
A OO
N z a
O O ;r m mU A n
> Za O O "4 O
`O (I Cp —� _. O
P0 DnAm SJ�zi
mO
m PIP
P ►
yO R On0 Z
z O o 00 w I ;
O 9 H
P rt W m
O
m Oim
if
N-7O
cz .:
f
"
I
o
OcZ �` c
o ion A� oZQo = • _ ,
inns ♦V "' Na mZ O ..+
m iS n
GZi�^ D£ - W` Z m • �� �oD ors" ^•
! i a •ti 5¢ Y
oN ms m O
_ iI
CITY OF PALM DESERT
I WE OFFICE D1143RANUM
TO: Candy Allen, City Attorney's Office
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 4, 1988
SUBJBCr: Cook Street Improvements (interchange)
As you indicated the Sunterra EIR, relative to traffic, oammits them to a LOS
"C" on Cook Street, whatever that means, and then in the cumulative impacts
section states that in reviewing 17 projects within one mile of Sunterra that
this LOS can be achieved.
We very seriously doubt that an LOS "C" could be maintained for the following
reasons:
1) The traffic study commissioned by the city confirms that the traffic
levels created by Sunterra have been understated (ie: trips per
occupied roan 6.5 vs 10.5; 70% plus arrivals to Sunterra via airport
shuttle, etc).
2) The cumulative impacts section took into account 17 projects within
one mile. This, therefore, does not include any of the vacant land
in the north Palm Desert area which would be expected to pay for Cook
Street interchange yet they may not be able to develop if their
densities would increase traffic LOS over the city's stated goal.
3) The city is in receipt of EIR's on projects north of I-10 (Center
Pointe and North Star).
Center Pointe - 26.4 acres/cmr ercial (319,000 square foot building)
40.5 acres/business park (579,000 square foot bldg)
132 acres/residential (528 units)
North Star - 1522 residential units
22 acres commercial
The traffic analysis section shows Cook Street at service level "F" using
volume to capacity levels (table 23 attached) and this is based on an
assumption that only 20% of traffic from those developments will use Cook
Street (see page 115 attached).
Basically, if developed these two projects would create 16,900 average daily
vehicle trips. The EIR also indicates in it's growth inducing impacts section
that these developments can be expected to lead to further development
proposals in the area north of the freeway.
ODOK STREET IMPRUVE14ENTS
OONCUSION:
The Sunterra EIR did not include our undeveloped area, the Sunterra EIR
understated traffic to be generated and development north of the freeway wants
to connect to the south but yet it only projects 20% of the traffic movements
onto Oook Street. All in all might we expect service level "F" on Cook Street
before the Palm Desert north area is developed? I don't think that we can
preclude that possibility at this time. Therefore, why does Palm Desert want
the Cook Street interchange? Would the city not benefit more from improvements
at Monterey Avenue?
SRS/dig
2
4
t�l n
if fit TABLE 23
, r- VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
1998 1998
?w Existing Without With
Roadway/Location Conditions Projects* Projects*
Varner Road
East of Chase School Road 0.09 (A) 1.2(F)/0.60(B) 1.71(F)/0.86(D)
West of Chase School Road 0.09 (A) 1.2(F)/0.60(B) 1.46(F)/0.73(C)
01,1� North of Ramon Road 0. 15 (A) 0.87(D)/0.43(A) 0.99(E)/0.50(A)
'r''' West of Washington Street 0.08 (A) 1.20(F)/0.60(B) 1.33(F)/0.66(B)
Zit`
c `. Monterey Avenue
North of Varner Road 0.07 (A) 0.33(A)/0.17(A) 0.33(A)/0.17(A)
South of Interstate 10 0.08 (D) 1.87(F)/0.62(B) 1.99(F)/0.66(B)
3 Yee
L Washington Street
+ >? North of Varner Road 0.04 (A) 0.33(A)/0.17(A) 0.33(A)/0.17(A)
South of Interstate 10 0.47 (A) 1.87(F)/0.93(E) 1.99(F)/0.99(E)
Ramon Road
East of Monterey Avenue 0.26 (A) 0.93(E)/0.47(A) 1.19(F)/0.59(A)
West of Interstate 10 0.93 (E) 1.87(F)/0.93(E) 2.38(F)/1.19(F)
--.
,'Cook Street
South of Interstate 10 n/a n/a /0.27(A) - "" 1.04(F)/0.52(A) !
Interstate 10
West of Ramon Road 0.20 (A) 0.29(A)/0.29(A) 0.32(A)/0.32(A)
East of Monterey Avenue 0.20 (A) 0.38(A)/0.38(A) 0.44(A)/0.44(A)
West of Washington Street 0.20 (A) 0.37(A)/0.37(A) 0.43(A)/0.43(A)
East of Washington Street 0.21 (A) 0.32(A)/0.32(A) 0.38(A)/0.38(A)
*The two values represent the current number of lanes and the planned number
of lanes as designated in the Riverside County General Plan.
I�
Project Generated Traffic
1 The level of traffic expected to be generated by the
17
proposed development was determined in order to
estimate the impacts of the project on the study area
roadways. Table 22 summarizes the project's traffic
generation characteristics for daily and peak hour
conditions. The volume of traffic that will be
generated by each component of the project was
s estimated based on nationally accepted trip generation
rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(Trip Generation: An Informational Report, ITE,
1983) .
_ J Table 22 indicates that thertotal'y"ro edt is-7 timated
I to generate' T6;906�average..: daily vehicle trips' and
2 , 310 trips 'during the afternoon peak hour (1, 100 in
and 1, 210 out) . These numbers reflect a 20 percent
reduction to account for internal trips among the land
uses within the project. There would likely be an
additional reduction in the level of generated traffic
A as many of the dwelling units will be second homes or
Jbe occupied by retirees, who typically exhibit lower
than average traffic generation characteristics. To
1 remain conservative this possibility was not
considered in the analysis.
The project-generated traffic was distributed onto the
roadway network based on the following geographical
percentages:
Northwest on I-10 20%
Northwest on Varner Road 5%
West on Ramon Road 2 %
y_ i1��
South on Monterey.-Avenue 5� j�
I_ �SOuth on-'Cook'Street y
South on Washington Street 5%
Southeast on I-10 20% P��f� C�
Southeast on Varner Road 5$
Using these percentages, the 1998 roadway network, and
r the physical layout of the proposed development, the
IL volume of project-generated traffic expected to occur
on each roadway segment has been estimated as
f summarized in Table 20 for average daily traffic
volumes. Based on the distribution of the area's
population and employment centers it has been assumed
that the averaca distance for external trips is 9
miles.
J
1 175
$A UAkffAX
oPhone: 619/346-5420
OGOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE 41-505 Carlotta Drive • Palm Desert, Calffornia 92260
NOV 1 8 1987
November 16 , 1987 COaMUNM OEeE.COPNINI OEPARtf&IJI
CITY Of PAW OESE2r
Department of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring::Driye
Palm Desert , California 92260
ATTN : Mr . Steve Smith and Mr . Ramon A . Diaz
Dear Gentlemen :
This letter is in response to the suggestion that was
given at the Public Hearing on October 20, 1987 , regarding the
annexation of Good Samaritan Village lcoated at 41-505 Carlotta
Drive , Palm Desert , California .
Please refer to the petition enclosed which lists 132
residents living at Good Samaritan Village who are in favor
of the annexation to the City of Palm Desert . Please record
the timeliness of this petition .
Thankyou for your assistance in this matter .
Sincerely ,
j�
Dean Mertz
Administrator .
'nclosures .
in CHMSTY Iowa,
everyone is someone
i
WE , THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS LIVING AT GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE,
LOCATED AT 41-505 CARLOTTA DRIVE IN PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
HEREBY REQUEST ANNEXATION OF THIS FACILITY (WHICH CONSISTS OF
19.4 ACRES) TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT.
1 .��.i�%l ` tiv�/ , � r1 ,✓/ 24 .
25 .
3 . _ �26 .
( r,
5 . J7�r ,i. , :CZ�
28 .
6 . �.PG".�-, -� 29 . �OIC llir ✓� �oc
8: / ., /�,,-�_ �� 31 .
9 . ;_..� .. n 1Lnn 32 . � � Q
10 . 33 .
/ l7
11 . 1/% 34 . >>��II�.�p2.C��L.�c� .��7,
12 .
13 . 1 736 .
14 . 37 .
15 . 38 .
16 . 1 I ` ': . - �- 39 . i /✓4Lz�C —
17 . 'j C/i�,: r / U �w✓L 40 . .7ev/ L� ice( ceir/18 . 41 .
;
19 . ( (-.£rY. ' L �fh�r-c �T 42 .
�. i -�. J/ 43 .
21 . /il%; .. i tic, �cL'C-. A� �, 44 . c
22 .&7� �`C�:; c1i. ./�z,�'��it�ti1 45 . /t
23 . c �d.1/Z �'1- :�i_r� 46 . E /,
Page 1 of 3 .
47 . ( � �t4lhiGc. G[.`'oL�e.ar4<.�' 75 . 01
48 . �.aYLe-�_ 76 .
49. L 77� L - tug , . c•�ttQ� �i
50 . ��C.rl, L��e-�� °°�2,c/-JCL>"Lim_ 78 .
51 . C L n �.v yL ' J� - 79 .
52 . ct- -u c-a A�, 80 .
53 . 81 .54 .
*)G'T.l.•�) q-) . Y, iI,
82 .
16 . ylGz- w )tom ° G L � t , 8 4 . �,7/ 13 r
57 . lL,v /: k) 85 .
58 . c
60. E
61 .
/J 89 .
62 .
/ L 92 . Cat " • ^ �u/�+'_��
64 .
i��
65 . 93 . r
67 .
95 .
68. Y)l v C . Gau•2•� 96 .
70 . "[ 1LV 98 .
�>
72 .
100.
73 . � G �n 101 .
74 . l 102 .
Page 2 of 3 .
103 , '��� �L._�, /- 130 . '
131 . m �
105 . l e �4.. ` --9 ��a --�<; �y 132 .
106 . �JJ,/. JdC✓ :cp.L�� 133 .
107 . ��t a r z-tom - /� r� 134 .
108 . %2L1� L- v71nLY� 135 . V
log . _i .L ,� , ., .,� 136 .
137 .
LZ
111 .
138 .
112 . 139 .
11 Pa' " 140 .
114 .% in�'✓ 1' 141 .
115 .
(,' � _ 14 2 .
116 143 .
117 r�," 144 .
( Z!l �.;
118 . 145 .
119 . 146 .� ) � }
12 0 . t�j�4�iaun c�/pZ/) 147 ,
121 . //1tUv 148 .
122 . 149 .
,� �
150 .
123 .
124 . �j�(�, Lk-(�/'.�j�iv�� 151 .
125 . I 152 .
126 . t9��' C 153 .
12 .
154 .
128 . � 155 .
129 . G� 41 156 .
- - - - - -- - -
3-�-yam
- -- - --- - -- - - -- - - ----- - - - - -- -
1 u- Y7 - -
0
oy
-
� 7D A
�> -
%�-� V�3 may%
% C 7z- 2�5 _
6 „�
C/
4
16
PETITION
MAR 18 1988
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
GCIdL10t IfP 0[411Ul 0 1 DL 1 P.!1 fldLIII
CITY Of PALM DTS!RI
In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985
Code Section 56000,
owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached
hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm
:Desert.
Legal Description: APN 632-030-010
Petitioner " reserves the right to withdraw at @ny time prior to Its
finalization.
Date:
By: �'
Vllw
Address Pi. ca,
t70
PETITION
NIAR 17 1988
TO: , THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, OAfl'Ph�t 'A''f'`''''
IAW WSM
In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985
Code Section 56000,
owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached
hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to t P P Y he City of Palm
Desert.
Legal Description: APN 632-030-011
Petitioner ' reserves the right to withdraw at $ny time prior to Its
finalization. C/
Date:
By: IJ
Address
S�D1Anf LJEZ-I-.5 _ eRLIF qz /®
,s
A 92260
73-510 FRED WAKING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA92260 h.w.l•
r
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
COlUMl1NIIY UEVFEUPrvaryr utrq,�rv,kryi
C IY OF PALM DESERT
February 24, 1988
Ns. Bob Varner
75001 Vintage Drive West
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Dear Mr. Varner:
This letter is a follow up on the meeting held on Tuesday, February 2, 1988,
in our offices. We apologize for the delay in sending this letter.
As we indicated in the meeting, we would be pleased to review any development
proposal which you may wish to submit. Assuming that the Planning Commission
and the City Council concur then it would be possible for the City to enter
into a development agreement which would delineate the specifics of your
approval. In addition, we indicated that we would be going to our City
Council with a proposal that the City enter into an agreement with each
property owner. This agreement would limit the amount the City would charge
for building permit fees to an amount equal to what you would pay if your
project had remained in the unincorporated area.
Enclosed you will find an annexation petition form. As indicated on the
bottom any petition can be revoked at any time up to the LAFOD hearing or
conducting authority hearing if one is necessary. It would be helpful if you
would sign the petition and return it to us for inclusion in our application
package to LAFOD.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact our office.
/7
r�i
.i, A,UN A. DIAZ
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/
DIRECPOR OF CCM4JNITY DfiVELOIMNT
RAD/fr
FROA licharb �. �jnikers
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS EXT. 461
0TO;
e-x_ /✓c
9 �
73.51 FFRED WARING DRIVE 346-0611
PALM DESERT,CA 92260
C)1� ,e
11988
73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFOR�W8126Q_YEWrre1nl DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TELEPHONE(619)346.0611
J February 1, 1988
1
LeRoy D. Smoot
Road Commissioner and County Surveyor
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
RE: City of Palm Desert Pre-annexation Plan - Eldorado Drive at 42nd Avenue
Dear Mr. Smoot:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 20, 1988 wherein you
expressed concern with the proposal to terminate both Eldorado and 42nd Avenue
in the annexation area.
This city is challenging the e:mircruental impact report prepared on the
Sunterra project in Indian Wells. One of the issues involves traffic and the
fact that this development will only use 42nd Avenue for access. The city
felt that the traffic study in the EIR understated the impacts the development
would place on the area streets. Accordingly, the city ccmmissioued its own
traffic study (copy enclosed for your review). This traffic study dated
November 20, 1987 confirmed that the traffic impacts had been understated
(specifically the daily trip ends per occupied roan, 10.5 vs 6.5, among other
matters).
As was delineated in your February 11, 1987 comments to Roger Streeter
regarding the Sunterra EIR, the project will have a 'significant impact upon the
road system. Your comments also indicated that "the LOS on Cook Street will be
decreased to D or E due to project impacts on highway capacity" . This
statement was based on the lower trip generation factor. Accordingly, the LOS .
can be expected to deteriorate further.
We understand that our proposal to delete the connection of Hovley Lane to
42nd Avenue and the connection of Eldorado to 42nd Avenue represents a
departure from what had been expected, however, given the lack of any objection
to the interruption of Eldorado between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue on
the part of the county we were left to our own devices to limit the adverse
impacts created by this development.
1.
The prezoning ordinance for this area was adopted by city council January •28,
1988 and we will be filing with LAFUD immediately. The matter of the general
plan amendment over which you expressed concern was continued for 90 days.
i We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss our traffic concerns and to
` better understand your concerns.
Sincerely, _
A. DIAZ
DIRECPOR OF CU MMITy DEVEWPDEM
RAD/SRS/dig
cc: Supervisor Patricia Larson
Warren Stollard
I
nli*:nim county
R E C.E I VE-_ nanninc i)r:;)anmr:n;:
February 24, 1987 130,7 FEB 25 I-V S 1
MJM:989000
CITY Of INJ;it," v
Mr. Paul Kaneko
Planning Director
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210-7497
Re: Response to Draft EIR, Case No. 6-86-1 , Sunterra Master Plan (SCH No. 86062302)
Dear Mr. Kaneko:
Thank you for allowing our Department the opportunity to provide comments on the
Draft EIR for the proposed Sunterra project, a resort complex containing conference-
center, five hotels with a total of 4,500 rooms , retail villages and associated
recreational amenities including health club/spa, tennis center, golf course,
clubhouse , and 80 acre lake. The County Planning Department comments will be
focused on the project's impacts involving land use changes and compatibility
effects on adjacent residential development within the County, visual effects
of the proposed hotel development upon the views from adjacent developed and
undeveloped areas , water use and conservation concerns, impacts from proposed
grading operations including blowsand and noise impacts , and the project's growth
inducing impacts. In particular, the project's effects in terms of increased
employment generation and related demand for housing within the Coachella Valley
are a highlight. Further comments are offered on proposed parking facilities ,
internal circulation system and public street access as well as the Draft EIR' s
comparison of project alternatives. Reference is made throughout these comments
to observations offered in previous letters from our department on this project
proposal (June 24, 1986, and December 4, 1986) , which were submitted in response
to the Notices of Preparation (NOP's) for the Draft EIR.
Please note that the Sunterra Draft EIR has been referred to the County Road
Department for a detailed review and analysis of the project' s traffic generation
and circulation impacts as presented in the document. -Outside of expressing a
; concern over increased traffic and access near and within unincorporated communi
'ties like Palm Desert Country Club, the Planning Department's comments will not,
t include observations on the project' s anticipated impact upon capacities and,
service levels of roadways in the vicinity, nor any response regarding the
ladequacy of traffic and circulation mitigation measures that are proposed in
C.the EIR. Any specific questions regarding the County's concerns with the adequacy
of the traffic study included in the Draft EIR, or the sufficiency of mitigation
measures listed therein, should be referred to Mr. Ed Studor of the Transportation
Planning Division of the Road Department at (714) 787-2519.
4080 LEMON STREET.9T" FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501-3657 INDIO.CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787-6181 (619) 342.8277
t 4
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Two
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
The proposed convention center and resort hotel complex, due to its proposed
intensity and scale, obviously reflects a significant change in the planned
lower density residential land uses on the 640 acre property, as projected
in both Riverside County' s and the City of Indian Wells' presently adopted
general plan designations and existing zoning on the respective portions of
the site. The Department is particularly concerned about the impacts of such
an intensive use upon both existing and future residential developments or
adjacent County land to the east and north. Existing development includes the
Palm Desert Country Club and the Oasis Country Club, presently undergoing
development adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Sunterra project. Adjacent
unincorporated land to the north (and west) of the project site are designated
for residential development of two to five units per acre , and subject to
future land use compatibility impacts.
A short term impact related to project approval would be blowsand and noise
impacts upon existing County development located to the east (downwind) of the
project, that would result from grading, site preparation and construction of
the Sunterra development. Due to the massive scale of the proposed grading
operations as identified in Section 4.2 of the EIR (Geology, Soils and Seismicity) ,
it is imperative that enforceable blowsand and dust scatteration mitigation mea-
sures be incorporated into all site grading operations. In addition to site
irrigation on a continuous basis during excavation and grading, and revegetation
of distrubed but undeveloped areas , mitigation measure No. 54 listed on p. 167
of the draft, which calls for the erection of blowsand fences during construc-
tion , will be an effective physical mitigation provided a time schedule of
installation is indicated and enforcement methods are more clearly indicated.
We note that there has been no change in the proposed location of the roadway
along the project' s easterly boundary, which could have compatibility effects
upon the adjacent Palm Desert Country Club, as noted in the Department's NOP
response letter dated December 4, 1986. We wish to reiterate our concern for
noise or other undesirable impacts to nearby residences that could result from
significant traffic levels on this route. If the relocation of this roadway to
a more interior project location is not proposed, the Final EIR should identify
specific mitigation measures to assure compatibility such as an appropriate
set back, such as 50 feet, and a block wall heavily landscaped separation. The
need for an acoustical study to document the adequacy of proposed mitigation
measures should also be addressed.
VISUAL EFFECTS:
The Department concurs in the EIR' s finding that the project will have an
unavoidable adverse visual impact upon surrounding areas due to the height of
the proposed hotel structures. We note that the anticipated building heights
of between 60- feet to 100 feet will require a separate discretionary variance
i
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Three
approval by the City, based on specific findings as required by state planning
law. However, concern remains with regards to the EIR's discussion which
indicates that the project's skyline may be more intrusive to views presently
enjoyed from as-yet-undeveloped land areas located on the north side of the
project. This is due to the fact that the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains
to the south form the most dominant element in the natural environment visible
from the surrounding area, and that access to this undeveloped area will be
enhanced due to improvement of roadways in this vicinity to provide primary
access to the Sunterra project. The County recommends that such mitigation
measures as inclusion of visual buffers and reduction of building profiles,
identified in Section 4.6 of the EIR, be stringently applied throughout all
phases of project review and implementation. Avenue 42 is a County designated
scenic route and a raised landscaped median is anticipated to be included within
this portion of the route.
We do convey a particular concern regarding the wording of mitigation measure
No. 31 listed on page 66. This measure is not clear as to whether any potential
changes in building locations as identified in the EIR will actually be sub-
mitted to the City or any other agency for approval . We request that the EIR
document clearly specify that any substantial change in building locations (or
other revisiions in project design) be made subject to a future discretionary
review and approval by the City. Without a specific provision for such future
review and approval , it is not certain that affected agencies such as the County
or adjacent community organizations would be afforded an adequate opportunity for
review. If such a future redesign option is retained, the final EIR should con-
tain specific review criteria defining which changes would exceed substantial
conformance with initial project design.
HOUSING:
Approval of the Sunterra project will likely have an unavoidable adverse impact
in terms of the regional deficiency of affordable housing opportunities. The
project at its full development potential will exacerbate this impact if, in fact,
its employment needs exceed the projected available labor supply in the Coachella
Valley, thereby inducing net immigration into the region. Proposed mitigation
measure No. 36 implies that low and moderate housing needs for employees of the
proposed project will be built outside of the City of Indian Wells, based on an
intended transfer of funds allocated for low and moderate housing construction.
The EIR should more specifically detail the mechanisms which will be used to
facilitate this transfer of funds. Nonetheless, considering a regional "fair
share" standpoint, the City should accept responsibility for the location and
construction of at least a portion of the low and moderate income housing need
generated by the project within the City's jurisdiction itself. The location of
all or a part of this housing within neighboring jurisdictions, including the
unincorporated area, could burden such jurisdictions with impacts in terms of
public services costs, traffic impacts, and provision for school enrollments, to
name only a few.
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Four
INTERNAL SITE DESIGN AND ACCESS:
The department has several additional concerns regarding the specific internal
design of the Sunterra project. We are particularly concerned about the size
of the proposed lake (approximately 80 acres) intended primarily for aesthetic
purposes. The Draft EIR indicates a daily consumption of up to 11 .1 acre feet
of water per day for landscaping purposes, compared with 2.3 acre feet per day
for the hotels and other structures within the project. Even with the proposed
use of reclaimed wastewater for landscape irrigation purposes and the associated
reduction in the project's groundwater reduction rate, it appears that the
amount of water loss from the lake due to evaporation and the consequent need
for resupply is excessive in view of the region's arid climate. We also request
that several more specific measures be added to those listed on page 176 relating
to water conservation. These include the use of native, low-water consuming
plant species throughout the site, minimizing the use of grass areas except
where needed for recreational purposes, and the use of low-water volume irrigation
techniques. A definitive procedure for specific adequacy review of final project
landscaping, irrigation and development plan review by the City should be included
as a mitigation measure.
We note that on pages 128-129, where the number of offstreet parking spaces to be
provided within the project boundaries is described, no specific mention of parking
spaces reserved for project employees is made. An adequate discussion of parking
facility design should account for the number and location of spaces to be reserved
for employee usage (and therefore not available to project visitors and guests) .
Section 4.11 , pages 138 to 140, identify a number of deficiencies in the internal
circulation system design which may impede effective access to all portions of the
project by emergency vehicles. Among these shortcomings is the lack of an all
weather crossing of the Whitewater Channel along the southerly project boundary,
at the existing terminus of Eldorado Drive. Because of the size , intensity and
occupancy levels of the project, we feel that implementation of such an access to
the project in conjunction with phased anticipated development be seriously con-
sidered as an essential mitigation measure. Furthermore, attention should be
given in addition to mitigation measures listed on pages 140 and 141 , to providing
a more logical system for public access to the project rather than meeting a mini-
mum emergency access need, especially along Fred Waring Drive.
Please note that no mention is made in the emergency response section of the
Draft EIR (Section 4.11 ) of the possible use of an extension of New York Avenue
from the easterly project boundary as an access route for emergency services only.
This concern has been outlined in the County's initial response to the NOP dated
June 24, 1986. Although allowing direct through traffic access to the project
by means of this route is certainly inappropriate in view of the attendant impacts
upon the Palm Desert Country Club residents, the inclusion of this access point
within the scheme of an emergency access network should be addressed in the EIR
in view of the scale and intensity of the proposal .
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Five
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
Section 5.1 under Cumulative Impact states that no significant impacts to the
environment are anticipated because potential impacts have been mitigated to a
level of insignificance. Yet, many sections in the Draft EIR include cumulative
or incremental impacts under the unavoidable adverse impacts section. These
statements should be reviewed again in light of the need for making overriding
findings.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative 4, as described on page 211 , says that the site plan could be rearranged
to remove the major commercial uses from the area located in Indian Wells and con-
centrate them into the County portion of the property which would avoid discretionary
approval of a general plan amendment by the City of Indian Wells. However, what is
not said is that this alternative would, instead, require discretionary approval of
a general plan amendment by the County because the current general plan designation
of the property in question allows residential uses only at a density of two to five
dwelling units per acre. Such discretionary review by the County, which would also
include related changes of zones and use permits, would need to take into account
similar land use compatibility, visual , housing needs and traffic circulation impacts .
PY 9
presently being reviewed through this draft EIR process. Should consideration of
this alternative, or similar alternative, be actively proposed in the future, the
Department by these comments is not indicating a predisposition or narrowing of
reviewscope for portions of the project which remain within County land use
jurisdiction.
Please feel free to contact the Department should a need for clarification of the
above comments be needed. Prior to certification of the EIR, please forward to
the Indio Office of the Department a copy of the final EIR document, including all
responses to agency comments. Please also forward to the Indio Office notification
of all future public hearings within the City of Indian Wells , including hearings
before the City Council . We would appreciate notification of the final disposition
of this project and a copy of any conditions of approval .
Very truly yours ,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Paul F. Clark, Supervising Planner
PFC:br
cc: Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Cynthia J. Crotinger, Deputy Planning Director
Mark Balys, Deputy Planning Director
Kim Jarrell Johnson, Special Projects Section
Warren Stallard, Road Department Branch Manager, Indio
Ed Studor, Road Department Transportation Planning
Irec� m7
DRECEIVEDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Ria �.LINTY OF RIVERSIDE FEB I 'l 1987
nd Survey Department
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 11 , 1987
TO: Roger Streeter , Planning Director
ATTN: Kim Jarrell-Johnson Mq �CFiV,rn
FROM: John Johnson, Associate Planner eN,R10I9
8
�
SY RQV'4pMi
RE: EIR - Sunterra Master Plan (City of Indian Wells) "sa
This project will have a significant impact upon .the County
maintained road system which surrounds the proposed project area ,
and it will affect some streets as shown on the Comprehensive
General Plan Circulation Study Area 8 Map.
The project will interrupt the development of Eldorado
Drive . Presently , the plan is to develop Eldorado Drive as . an
arterial ( 110 , R/W) between Fred Waring Drive and Del Safari
Drive . lThe proposed project entrance would center on Eldorado
;'Drive at its intersection with Fred Waring Drive . :This would
require an amendment to the Comprehensive General Plan, to delete
the reach of Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Del
Safari Drive .
Frank Sinatra Drive , Portola Avenue , Cook Street, Hovley
Lane , Eldorado Drive (between Hovley Lane and Del Safari Drive ) ,
and Del Safari Drive all will need street improvements to
accommodate the Sunterra Master Plan . Cook Street must be
'improved during Phase I of the project development. <The LOS on-
:Cook Street will be decreased to D or E due to project impacts on
Chighway capacity.
The Study indicates that all other development will impact
highway capacity by 20 percent ; the project will impact that same
capacity by 19 percent . This is an overall increase of 39 percent
with the project impacting the circulation system as much as all
other types of development within the area . The mitigation for
this is to improve the circulation system serving the project
site .
A specific mechanism providing for the improvement of the
surrounding circulation system should be developed prior to the
approval of any development permits for any portion of the
project.
Indicated in the plan is an estimated three year
construction period which will impact the circulation system more
than in a minor way as stated therein. An encroachment permit
must be obtained prior to any construction being conducted
within the road right-of-way and all planned work therein must be
approved by the Road Commissioner .
Roger Streeter , Planning Director
ATTN: Kim Jarrell-Johnson
February 11 , 1987
Page 2
Airport passenger travel was addressed ' in the plan ; however ,
no specific plan for transportation, such as bus service , hotel
shuttle service , etc . , was proposed to and from either airport,
Palm Springs or Thermal . The project proponent should coordinate
the project design with the Sunline Transit Agency to assure
accessibility for future transit service .
The transportation study effort presently being conducted by
SCAC could revise the basic assumptions which underlay the
Sunterra Master Plan EIR. Further study could be necessary.
JJ :lg
L�r L
c u�rr �s�fi PATPICIA (CORKY) LARSON
o Supervisor. Fourth District
RIVVASI .. COUNTY OF RIVEDSIDE
April 6, 1988
ct, .lY C�J
ANtt
Mrs. Mary Drury
(pMMUNI DE PALM YLrnRIA1ERT
CI
Vice President CITY OF PALM DESERT
Sunrise Company
75-005 Country Club Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mary.
Thank you very much for your letter and map of March 15th in regard
to my telephone conversation of that morning. Although my secretary relayed
to me your suggestion that i read the letter prior to my meeting with the
folks from Palm Desert and Indian Wells, i was not able to. It was not until
rather late Friday night that I actually took more than just a glance at the
mop and noticed that the plan included the closing of 41nd Avenue and i then
read your letter.
I realize that because of lawsuits and some people who for various
reasons are vehemently opposed to the Sunterra project, it may be difficult
for Sunrise to risk early information to me as a County representative.
L;:C �arr,do
However, i must express a real frustration to see for the first time that
Sunrise was proposing to close off Avenue 42 and to realize that Indian Wells
officials were aware of that and yet it had not been discussed with the
County. I must also express my extreme frustration, which is a rather mild
word, over the fact that Indian Wells amended Senator Presley's Bill
supposedly without the knowledge of the .Mayor and City Council and the City
Manager. I find that incomprehensible and I find it not in a cooperative
spirit to have kept the County uninformed on both of these unanticipated
major shifts in direction.
I have always found that reasonable people working together with mutual
respect can solve almost any problem. It is when people or organizations or
governmental agencies or governments proceed to operate not with respect,
not with trust, not in a spirit of open communication, that people get pushed
into combative or confrontational positions. I think that we have some
matters of serious concern to the City of Palm Desert, to the City of Indian
Wells, to the County of Riverside and to Sunrise Company. If each of the
four of us goes off in different directions, lining up our chessmen and
playing power games, I think it is going to be very destructive.
1 write this as much to those to whom I am copying as 1 do to Sunrise.
It seems to me that we have so much more to gain by working with one
another rather than battling one another.
Dialect Office: 46209 Oaaia Slrecl. D.O. Dravcr 1330. Indio.California 92202.(619)342-8211.(619)345-1072
1 ;
PATPICIA (CORKY) =SON
e aNTY 8uperviaor. fourth Dialrict
RIVERS .. COUNTY OfRIVEI28mE
Again, I appreciate your getting back to me on the matter, and while my
words are somewhat strong, they at least leave no doubt as to what my
position is. That's all I think we can ask of one another -- just to know
where somebody truly is with no game playing.
Sincerely,
PATRICIA A. LARSON
cc: Mayor Dick Oliphant
City of Indian Wells
Mayor Jean Benson
City of Palm Desert
Members of the
Board of Supervisors
Steve Birbeck
County Redevelopment Agency
PALIc
Diatricl Office: 46209 Oasia Street. D.O. Draver 1330. Indio.California 92202.(60)342.8211.(619)349-1072
KPY S.CENICEROS
3id District Srpervisor,
�qunty of Riverside
elba Hoffman, Administrative Assistant
3rd District ( J9SS4e MyJrs, �d�mr�ini�trative Assistant
Ivan Grey)Secretary
March 2 , 1988
The Honorable Jean Benson, Mayor
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mayor Benson:
I am sorry that our Board ' s action on your pre-annexation
plan has put us at odds . I know that the negotiations among
the cities and the county on annexations are complex and difficult.
I assume that our County Road Department ' s recommendations
are strictly technically, and not politically, based.
In desert matters outside my jurisdiction, I rely heavily
on Mrs . Larson' s familiarity and expertise . The issues you
raise on a different matter, the termination of E1 Dorado Drive ,
is quite alarming. I will review these issues with Mrs . Larson
to improve my understanding and if you have any additional
material on either subject I will be happy to read it.
Sincerely,
Kay Ceniceros
Supervisor
Third Dsitrict
KC:vc
4080 Lemon Street, Fourteenth Floor. Riverside,California 92501 . 714-787-2630
PATPICIA (CORKY) LARSON
CUNT P Supervisor, fourth District
RIVERS .. COUNTY OF UlVED81DE
• March 9 , 198II '/L% �
iq�"''�.�• � aim` `
V
Mayor, Richard R. Oliphant
City of Indian Wells
44-950 El Dorado Drive
Indian Wells , California 92210
Dear Dick:
I met last Friday with representatives from the City of
Palm Desert to discuss County traffic concerns in the vicinity
of Sunterra. You may be aware that we have opposed their an-
nexatioa of certain lands because of their intention to close
Roverly .
Out of that discussion it became evident that much could
be gained by the City of Indian Wells , City of Palm Desert ,
and the County meeting to discuss the traffic pattern of that
area. I am certain the matter concerns you as well . It would
seem to me that the Sunterra people might need to be in that
discussiou .
I am sure you will agree with me that the traffic flow of
the area is of vital concern to all of us . I will ask my
Assistant , Sid Summers , to call to find a convenient time when
you , Mayor Benson , and I could meet, along with the appropriate
staff members , to find a common ground for agreement .
Yours very truly ,
PATRICIA A . LARSO14
cc : tlayor Jean Benson , Palm Desert
Warren Stallard , Riverside County
Road Department
PAL/c
District Office: 46709 Oasis Street.P.O. Drawer 1330. Indio.California 92202.(619)342-8211.(619)345-ton
r
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
l TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
February 9, 1988
Mrs. Patricia Larson
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Drawer 1330
Indio, CA 92202
Dear Supe sor`Larrson:
The City of Palm Desert is very concerned with the board's action of January
12, 1988, opposing Palm Desert's proposed circulation element revision as part
of a requested 160 acre annexation.
As a result of the board's concern as reflected in a letter from Mr. Smoot,
Riverside County Road Commissioner, the Palm Desert City Council continued the
proposed circulation element revision for ninety days. Attached is a copy of
a letter sent by Palm Desert's Community Development Director to Mr. Smoot.
I should take this opportunity to express our city's concern that the City of
Indian Wells has unilaterally terminated E1 Dorado Drive as a north/south major
arterial. This action was taken in conjunction with an approval of a project
containing a 4500 roan hotel, 400,000 square foot convention center, and
100,000 square feet of retail commercial area. E1 Dorado Drive, which would
serve as a major circulation arm, was terminated and all traffic was directed
to and from the development from the north; principally through the City of
Palm Desert.
El Dorado Drive and its connection to Fred Waring Drive is more important to
the region's circulation than Hovley Lane. Its elimination has left Palm
Desert in a position of singularly protecting the citizens and having to
adjust to the impacts of a major project.
i
1
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
February 9, 1988
In fact, Palm Desert was very surprised at the relative lack of reaction to
the proposed deletion of El Dorado Drive in relation to the board's reaction
to our proposed circulation element revision.
As stated in the camninication to Mr. Smoot, we look forward to discussing
these issues with your staff. Palm Desert would welcome an opportunity to
clarify its position to the members of the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors at your convenience.
As Mayor of Palm Desert, I must state that the Palm Desert City Council and its
staff is committed to the long range balanced and orderly development of the
Coachella Valley; and is doing its fair share to meet its regional commitments.
We only hope that other agencies and jurisdictions are similarly comati.tted.
Palm Desert has not and is ccmtdtted to never approving a project whose
positive benefits are given solely to our citizens, while its significant
adverse impacts are thrust upon neighboring caiTunities.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
�� v✓
Jean M. Benson, Mayor
City ,bf Palm Desert
JMBZRAD/tm
Attachment
cc: City Council
City Manager
2
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346.0611
February 1, 1988
LeRoy D. Smoot
Road Ccammissioner and County Surveyor
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
RE: City of Palm Desert Pre-annexation Plan - Eldorado Drive at 42nd Avenue
Dear Mr. Smoot:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 20, 1988 wherein you
expressed concern with the proposal to terminate both Eldorado and 42nd Avenue
in the annexation area.
This city is challenging the environmental impact report prepared on the
Sunterra project in Indian Wells. One of the issues involves traffic and the
fact that this development will only use 42nd Avenue for access. The city
felt that the traffic study in the EIR understated the impacts the development
would place on the area streets. Accordingly, the city commissioned its own
traffic study (copy enclosed for your review). This traffic study dated
November 20, 1987 confirmed that the traffic impacts had been understated
(specifically the daily trip ends per occupied roan, 10.5 vs 6.5, among other
matters).
As was delineated in your February 11; 1987 comments to Roger Streeter
regarding the Sunterra EIR, the project will have a significant impact upon the
mad system. Your comments also indicated that "the LOS on Cook Street will be
decreased to D or E due to project impacts on highway capacity" . This
statement was based on the lower trip generation factor. Accordingly, the LOS
can be expected to deteriorate further.
We understand that our proposal to delete the connection of Hovley Lane to
42nd Avenue and the connection of Eldorado to 42nd Avenue represents a
departure from what had been expected, however, given the lack of any objection
to the interruption of Eldorado between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue on
the part of the county we were left to our own devices to limit the adverse
impacts created by this development.
z
The prezoning ordinance for this area was adopted by city council January 28,
1988 and we will be filing with LAFCD immediately. The matter of the general
plan amendment over which you expressed concern was continued for 90 days.
We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss our traffic concerns and to
better understand your concerns.
Sincerely,
RAMON A. DIAZ
DIRECTOR OF OC MMITY DEVELOPmqT
RAD/SRS/dig
cc: Supervisor Patricia Larson
Warren Stollard
I
Letters also sent addressed to:
Mr. Walter Abraham, Chairman
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Mrs . Kay Ceniceros
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Mrs. Melba Dunlap
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street , 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
Mr. Norton Younglove
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
�o�W Off Pamo 0 0
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA92260
TELEPHONE(619)346.0611
February 1, 1988
LeRoy D. Smoot
Road Connissioner and County Surveyor
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
RE: City of Palm Desert Pre-annexation Plan - Eldorado Drive at 42nd Avenue
Dear Mr. Smoot:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 20, 1988 wherein you
expressed concern with the proposal to terminate both Eldorado and 42nd Avenue
in the annexation area.
This city is challenging the environmental impact report prepared on the
Sunterra project in Indian Wells. One of the issues involves traffic and the
fact that this development will only use 42nd Avenue for access. The city
felt that the traffic study in the EIR understated the impacts the development
would place on the area streets. Accordingly, the city conudssioned its own
traffic study (copy enclosed for your review). This traffic study dated
November 20, 1987 confirmed that the traffic impacts had been understated
(specifically the daily trip ends per occupied roan, 10.5 vs 6.5, among other
matters).
As was delineated in your February 11; 1987 comments to Roger Streeter
regarding the Sunterra EIR, the project will have a significant impact upon the
road system. Your comments also indicated that "the LOS on Cook Street will be
decreased to D or E due to project impacts on highway capacity" . This
statement was based on the lower trip generation factor. Accordingly, the LOS
can be expected to deteriorate further.
We understand that our proposal to delete the connection of Hovley Lane to
42nd Avenue and the connection of Eldorado to 42nd Avenue represents a
departure from what had been expected, however, given the lack of any objection
to the interruption of Eldorado between Fred Waring Drive and 42nd Avenue on
the part of the county .we were left to our own devices to limit the adverse
impacts created by this development.
l
The Prezoning ordinance for this area was adopted by city council January 28,
1988 and we will be filing with LAFCO immediately. The matter of the general
plan amendment over which you expressed concern was continued for 90 days.
We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss our traffic concerns and to
better understand your concerns.
Sincerely,
RAMON A. DIAZ
DIRECIOR OF OCMJNITY DEVELOP=
RAD/SRS/dig
cc: Supervisor Patricia Larson
Warren Stollard
' To
City Connell
OFFICE OF THE ROAD COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
LeRoy D. Smoot County Administrative Center
Road Commissioner and 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor
County Surveyor P.O. Box 1090
Riverside, CA 92502
(714) 787-6554
January 20, 1988
City Council
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert , CA 92260
RE: Proposed Pre-Annexation Plan-
El Dorado Drive at 42nd Avenue
Honorable Councilmembers :
This is to advise you that on January 12 , 1988 , the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors took action opposing the
proposed pre-annexation plan for the for the area near E1 Dorado
Drive at 42nd Avenue. Attached for your information is a copy of
the minutes describing the action taken by the Board.
We are particularly concerned with the element of the plan
which proposes to terminate both El Dorado and 42nd Avenue in the
annexation area. Both of these routes are currently shown on the
County General plan as arterial/major highways and have been so
designated for many years . With increasing land use densities and
accompanying traffic volumes , it would seem ill advised to delete
major components from the regional circulation network without
substantial analysis and discussion.
1
City Council
City of Palm Desert
Page 2
January 20, 1988
We would like the opportunity to review any studies that
have been prepared addressing the impacts of this proposal as
well as any alternatives that may have been considered. In
addition, we would appreciate an opportunity to meet with your
staff to discuss the rational supporting this proposal .
It is my hope that by working together we can come to a
mutually acceptable decision regarding this issue.
Sincerely,
�� �
LeR D. Smoot I
Road Commissioner
and County Surveyor
LDS:ES: lg
Attachment
cc: Supervisor Larson
Warren Stallard
'UBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPEr SORS
JUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. STATE OF CA, JRNIA
FROM: LeRoy D . Smoot SUBMITTALDATE: January 5 , 1998 °
Road Commissioner and County Surveyor
SUBJECT:
City of Palm Desert Pre-Annexation Plan
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
1 ) Oppose the proposed pre-annexation plan by the City of
Palm Desert , which would preclude the future extensions
of both 42nd Avenue and E1 Dorado Drive in the Palm
Desert/ Indian Wells area , pending further review and
consideration.
2) Authorize the Road Department to express our concerns
regarding the impacts of this proposal on regional
circulation to the appropriate public
officials/agencies .
JUSTIFICATION: It has recently come to our attention that the
city of Palm Desert is currently considering a plan for the
annexation of approximately 160 acres located just northerly of
Hovely Lane. As part of the City ' s pre-annexation plan, they are
proposing to block off the easterly end of Hovely Lane and shunt
traffic north and east in a circuitous pattern through proposed
residential developments . The plan would preclude the southerly
extension of E1 Dorado Drive as well as the westerly extension of
42nd Avenue to Hovely Lane. This is a dramatic departure from the
current General Plan for the area and may have serious
repercussions with regard to regional circulation.
We are particularly concerned that this action is
apparently being undertaken without any notification of or
consultation with affected agencies. The Road Department received
(CONTINUED)
LDS:ES: lg LeR E. Smoot
Road Commissioner
and County Surveyor
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On motion of Supervisor Dunlap, seconded by Supervisor Younglov
and duly carried by unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above
matter is approved as recommended.
Ayes: Dunlap, Ceniceros, Younglove and Abraham
Noes: None Gerald A. Maloney
Absent: Larson Clerk of the Board
Date: January 12 , 1988 By
xc: Rjad Deputy
Prev. Agn. ref. Depts. Comments Dist. AGENDA NO.
90AM 11 A 112821 OISTTRIRUTION: Studor 4th
4 e
1 '
Form 11A
January 5 , 1988
Page 2
no notice of the pending action and only became aware of the
proposal from a report in the local newspaper indicating that the
City ' s Planning Commission had already recommended approval of
the proposal . In checking with the County Planning Department ,
they indicated that they too had received no notice.
We understand that a traffic study evaluating this proposal
has been prepared , however , we have received no information to
support such a radical change in planning for area circulation .
It is, therefore , our recommendation that your Board oppose the
pre-annexation plan at this time , pending further review and
consideration.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: CITY MANAGER
i
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1987
SUBJECT: SUNRISE ANNEXATION
Attached is a letter from Sunrise concerning our pre-annexation agreement with
them. 1 'd recommend we take this to council for their approval and then
proceed with annexation.
-4�,t
RAMON A. DIAZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ELOPMENT/PLANNING
RAD/tm
ITY COUNCIL ACCICN:
APPROVED _ DENIED
RECEIVED
Lu-l .
MEETING
AYES:
NOES•
ABSENT - ------ --- - - -
ABSRAIN: - ---
VERIFIED BY
Original on File wit21 City Cleric l s O£tic
Adir
SUNRISE
COMPANY
February 11, 1987
Mr. Ray Diaz
Director of Community Development
CITY OF PALM DESERT
P. 0. Box 1977
Palm Desert, CA 92261
Re: City of Palm Desert' s Prospective Annexation of Palm
Valley Country Club
Dear Mr. Diaz:
Enclosed is a copy of the draft pre-annexation agreement that
you sent to me. I believe that additional language needs to
be included to more fully clarify our understanding. A new
section 2 should be inserted as follows:
"2 . The City shall impose none of its existing fees related
to land development or building permits that are not
already currently in force in the County of Riverside
for the Palm Valley Country Club project (Tract Map No.
18774 ) . Such fees include, but are not restricted to,
current City fees such as the City ' s Park Fee, Fire
Facility Fee, Fringe Toed Lizard Mitigation Fee, Art in
Public Places Fee and Drainage Fee.
Sunrise has an existing agreement with Desert Sands Unified
School District that required payment of a School Mitigation
Fee prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map and no
further fees will be required. Therefore, the City is
to neither collect nor require evidence of further payment
of School Fees to the Desert Sands Unified School District.
The City will impose no additional fees of any kind on
the project for the term of the project. "
Reference to the five year time frame (in the current
section No. 2) would be eliminated.
75-005 Country Club Drive Palm Desert,California 9226o.Telephone(6i9)568-2828
Builder of Americas Finest Country Club Communities
Page 2
A section regarding building standards also needs to be included,
as follows:
"3 . The building standards for residential construction at
Palm Valley Country Club will be the same as those currently
applicable in the County of Riverside for the Palm Valley
Country Club project (Tract Map No. 18774) for the duration
of the project. "
Very truly ours,
Jame Resney
Vice President
JLRlc
Encl .
r
AGREEMENT FOR ANNEXATION
This' Agreement is made this day of
1985, by and between the City of Palm Desert, California,
i
hereinafter referred to as "City" , and property owners in
Palm Desert Annex No. hereinafter referred to as
I
"Owners" .
WHEREAS, Owners have petitioned the Local Agency
Formation Commission cf the County of Riverside for a change
to be known as Palm Desert Annex No. , as outlined and
attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by reference.
WHEREAS, the Owners of all of the land within the above
described territory have consented, in writing, to such
annexation and consent is attached to this Agreement as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1 . City agrees that building permit fees for the
territory in Palm Desert Annex No . shall be tied to
the Riverside County fee structure and that building permit
fees collected by the City for the period of this Agreement
shall be that amount charged by the County oT Riverside.
-1-
DJEB/3
2 . Duration of this Agreement is five (5 ) years
commencing on 19_, and ending on
19 This Agreement is binding on the
City and Owners, their agents, heirs, successors, assigns or
transferees and shall inure to the mutual benefit of both
parties.
Executed this day of 19 at
California.
OWNERS: CITY:
-2-
7
D 07 s -7
Ecw�e� (yam '" I ��P'�• ---
Oil
ooS
Co
oil
D1�
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
February 5, 1988
Mr. Ron Ogle
Registrar of Voters
4175 Main Street
Riverside, CA 92501-9910
Dear Mr. Ogle:
Further to our telephone conversation of February 5, 1988 please find enclosed
a map delineating the Good Samaritan Village in Palm Desert. For purposes of
completing the annexation application we need to know the number of registered
voters.
We understand that 132 people reside in this retirement facility. The address
is 41-505 Carlotta Drive, Palm Desert.
Should you need any further information please do not hesitate to call me at
(619) 346-0611 extension 486. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours truly,
7 e-27,`G
STEVE SMITH
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SRS/dig
enclosure
INTEROWICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Ccmmurity Development/Planning
FROM: Stephen R. Smith, Associate Planner
DATE: January 27, 1988
SUBJECT: GPA 87-5 - Notice of Hearing to County
While Mr. Smoot is correct that we did not send then a legal notice, we did
amply with the noticing procedures prescribed in the Governnent Code and more
importantly they Sinew from very early in the process of our intentions. They
knew of the traffic study and were advised how it could be obtained and the
person to contact.
As this report will detail, the county staff chose not to avail themselves of
these opportunities to learn more of the proposal and the reasons for it
before taking the matter to the Board of Supervisors for action (without
advising the city that the matter had been placed on the agenda) . More
importantly the county took this action, they would have us believe, having
only the information garnered fran newspaper accounts.
Government Code 65353 indicates that before action can be taken on a general
plan amendment it must be noticed pursuant to section 65090. Section 65090
requires that the item be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation at
least 10 days prior to hearing. This matter was advertised in the Palm Desert
Post on December 4, 1987 and again on December 23, 1987. As well, the agendas
for the December 15, 1987 planning commission meeting and the January 14, 1988
city council meeting were published and the case was announced on the city
radio program. In addition property owners in the subject area, as well as
those within 300 feet of the area, were sent notices on two separate occasions
(ie: one for planning commission hearing and one for city council hearing).
A reasonable person would question, "But doesn't the county get a chance to
review and comment?" They certainly do. The LAF00 process typically takes a
minimum of four months. All proposed annexations, regardless of how minor,
are referred to the various county agencies for comment. It was not our
intent to preclude the Road Commissioner from having his say. What we did
want to avoid was having a four-month delay before we take action followed by
another four month delay while the various county agencies comment to LAFM.
In December we held meetings with representatives from the Lakes concerning
the additional nine holes of golf they wish to develop on property which is
in both jurisdictions. We agreed to contact the Supervisors' office to
determine which government should process the application. It was our position
that since we intended to file the annexation application early in 1988 and
that the property would be included in that request that it was appropriate
RAMON A. DIAZ
COUNTY GPA 87-5
JANUARY 27, 1988
that the city could process the request rather than them going through both
levels of government. We contacted the Supervisor's office hoping to talk to
Robyn and ended up leaving a message for Mr. Scmrers. The message indicated
the above information as well as the timing of our hearings on the general plan
and prezcning before planning commission and city council. Three days later we
attempted to contact Mr. Sommers who was unavailable. Since one message had
already been left another seemed unnecessary. Three weeks passed and still no
return call. Ms. Sass of our staff contacted Mr. Sommers and they met the next
day in her office.
Before Christmas Mr. Holtz of public works met with Mr. Stollard of county
staff regarding the wall problem at Palm Desert Greens. This meeting was held
in Mr. Stollard's office in Indio. The matter of case GPA 87-5 came up and
Mr. Stollard asked about our traffic study and its availability. He was
advised to contact planning staff as we were handling this matter. We have not
yet received any contact from Mr. Stollard or anyone on his staff. We have at
this time mailed copies of the study to Mr. Smoot and Mr. Stallard.
Conclusion:
We have complied with the noticing requirements for general plan amendments.
This has been a very publicized case in that it has been on the front page of
the papers since mid December. Mr. Stollard was advised who to contact to
request the traffic study.
Most importantly Mr. Smoot will be given his chance to comment to LAFOD if and
when we apply to annex the area. It would appear that he has for score unknown
reason "placed the cart in front of the horse" and has chosen to oppose our
plan for annexation before the city has taken any actions approving the plan,
which must occur before we file our application with LAFCO.
If it is Mr. Smoot's desire to change the LAFCO process and have the county
cannents before we adopt the plan for annexation, then this new process could
be worked out but only if LAFCD would assure us of a hearing within two weeks
of submittal (ie: the total processing time remains what it is now) and that
we don't place the city in double jeopardy of having to negotiate our position
before we adopt it and then negotiate it again when we file with LAFCO.
STEPHEN R. SMITH
ASSOCIATE PLANNER
/tm
2
�h
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
February 8, 1988
Mr. Philip S. Klatchko
Klatchko & Klatchko
Professional Park, Suite 3
177 South Civic Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
RE: Mountain View Falls Homeowner's Associaticn/Lakes County Club
Mr. Philip Klatchko:
This is further to your letter of January 14, 1988. The tentative map and
precise plan of design for the above noted development was approved by planning
coandssion by its resolution no. 926 on January 17, 1984.
In your letter you indicate that according to Mr. Caugush that the area has
Yon
not yet been mapped. For clarification purposes should be aware that the
I
tentative map which was approved did include this area.
We are presently in receipt of a parcel map request to split off this five
acre parcel (J shaped) from the 38 acre parcel. This is the property south of
Tristen Way if it were extended easterly. Mr. Smith of this office met on the
site with members of your homeowner's association and others on Tuesday,
February 2, 1988 and the perimeter fencing and walls were discussed and agreed
upon.
We understand your concern that there be no deletion of amenities. We have
been in contact with a builder who will develop this property if he can in
fact acquire it. He has indicated that it would be his intention to install a
new tennis court and pool facility on a portion of this five acre property.
We have indicated to this builder that he should discuss this with your
homeowner's association.
It is this department's position that we will, if at all possible, handle
these changes at the staff level without public hearing. However, if the
builder is unable to negotiate a satisfactory agreement with the Mountain View
Falls Homeowner's Association, then we will take the matter to planning
commission.
I trust that this clarifies the matter. Should you have �rW4questions please
do not hesitate to, contact me.
Sincerely,
i-&A. DIAZ
w •' ,
DIRE=M OF TY DEVELOMWr/PLANNING r
RAD/SRS/dig
r
r
i
KLATCHKO & KLATCHKO
LINDA STEARNS KLATCHKO ATTORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE
PHILIP 5. KLATCHKO PROFESSIONAL PARK, SUITE 3 1519) 320-7a7B
1]] SOUTH CIVIC DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92252
January 14 , 1988 �'�
Jq �
City ofRamon 1Palm Desert Or op
Fryi
Director of Community Development and Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Mountain View Falls Homeowners
Association/Lakes Country Club
Dear Mr. Diaz:
This correspondence is written to you at the suggestion of your
senior engineer Joe Gaugush and will generally confirm my
telephone conversation with him of December 4, 1987 .
This office represents Mountain View Falls Homeowner Association.
Imperial Bank, the successor to the developer of Mountain View
Falls, has recently consummated a sale of a 38 acre parcel of
undeveloped land adjacent to Mountain View Falls. This land was
sold to The Lakes Country Club Association with the understanding
that most of the property would be developed by The Lakes as an
addition to their golf course. The property sold had been
considered suitable for development as successive phases for
annexation with Mountain View Falls. one small portion, a five
acre parcel, of the property sold to The Lakes will not be
developed as a part of their golf course. This small portion,
may be resold to a third party developer who may intend to build
homes and may even attempt to annex this development as a part of
Mountain View Falls. My conversation with Mr. Gaugush related to
that potential development and desire to annex as a part of
Mountain View Falls.
The section was originally thought to contain some 50 homes and
to be considered Phase 6 of the overall development of Mountain
View Falls. With all of the remaining property becoming a part
of The Lakes for golf course purposes the development of addi-
tional homes would not, of course, be Phase 6 but would become
the actual second phase of development for Mountain View Falls.
This portion of the property-has not yet been mappedl(according
to Mr. Gaugush) and it is our understanding that a full evalua-
tion on the part of the City of Palm Desert would be required
before approval. The original plans for development of the
1
parcel call for improvements that are consistent with a six
phased development as opposed to a two phased development. The
homeowners association is, of course, concerned that if an
additional phase to their development is developed that there be
:no dilution of amenities and that the existing phase does not
have an increased and disproportionate burden placed on it with
regard to use of common facilities and sharing of common
expenses. Mr. Gaugush assured me that should any development be
considered in the future that individual owners would be notified
for their input. !This correspondence shall constitute a formal
demand and request that Mountain View Falls Homeowners -Associa-
tion also receive notice consideration by your department, the
planning commission, and/or the city council with regard to these
issues. Such notice may be directed care of this office at the
above address.
Please understand that by this correspondence the association
does not in any way authorize or sanction the development of the
property as an additional phase of Mountain View Falls. Such
development must be consistent with the current recorded Declara-
tion of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions affecting the
property with regard to annexation and the requirements for
obtaining owner approval if appropriate. I would request that a
copy of this correspondence remain in the file with regard to the
development and attention be given Mountain View Falls Homeowners
Association should the need arise.
Thanking you for your consideration, I am,
Sincerely yours,
KIJRCHKO & KLATCHKO
PHILIP S. KLATCHKO
PSK/jef
cc: Joe Gaugush
cc: Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association
A w
IIdl'EROFFICE PEMORANUM
CITY OF PALM DESERT
TO: Ramon Diaz
FR M: Steve Smith
DATE: January 22, 1988
SUBJECT: Letter from Sunrise attorney's regarding GPA 87-5
Pursuant to your request I have reviewed the January 4, 1988 letter from the
attorney representing Sunterra.
First, I 'll make a few general comments and then address the proposals
specifically.
It is difficult to see how any of these proposals respond to the city's
concerns as expressed in the lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the Sunterra
EIR or our concerns which resulted in the proposals contained in GPA 87-5 (ie:
closure of Eldorado Drive and Hovley Lane). It almost appears that Sunterra
is attempting to keep us on the line with a series of unimportant proposals to
keep us from proceeding and thereby buying them time to settle other matters
(ie: perhaps the Palm Springs suit). Could it (Palm Springs lawsuit) be the
real show-stopper? If this is the case it might explain their reluctance to
put anything substantial on the table or perhaps there's something else but
they definitely haven't said anything serious yet.
Specifically, this letter (January 4, 1988) offers an eight point program
which I think is in response to our plan to close the streets. After they
object to the closure of Hovley Lane they offer a series of points which would
result in Eldorado Drive becoming the main access to Sunterra.
Points 1 & 2
They want the city to require the developer to improve Eldorado Drive south of
the Lakes to 55' half street including 1/2 of the median. In return they
agree to do same on east 1/2 from Country Club Drive southerly 3/4 mile.
Our current proposal calls for only a 30 foot 1/2 street with no median. You
will recall that the median on Eldorado was an accommodation for the City of
Indian Wells when Eldorado was going to be their main access from I-10. It
hardly seems appropriate that this stretch of road would have a landscape
median now. If it is to have medians then the long term maintenance of same
should be determined prior to its installation. Based on our traffic
projections, a local level of street could be adequate to serve Palm Desert.
To require extra paving would only result in higher maintenance costs to the
city. Perhaps we should look at vacating back to the Lakes 25' of the 55'
half street (2640 feet of it southerly from Country Club Drive).
w
LErrER FROM SUNRISE ATiCUNEY'S
REGARDING GPA 87-5
Point 3
Proposes to slowly curve Eldorado Drive southeast near our E-W street and
transition into a private drive. Eldorado would be a thru street, center
divided to prohibit left turns from northbound Eldorado on to our E-W street
yet still permitting left turns from east bound onto northbound. The diagram
lacks any details showing how this can be done. In any event, making a left
turn from Palm Desert onto Eldorado northbound, given the projected traffic
volumes, would be next to impassible.
Point 4
Requires the city to require certain improvements of Gary Miller (ie:
landscaping, wall, curb, gutter, median improvement, irrigation, lighting and
planting). No mention is made of how his will be maintained.
Point 5
Sunrise agrees to do similar improvements on the east. No mention regarding
the maintenance.
Point 6
City is to acknowledge that Sunrise has paid to county 75$ of cost for signal
at Eldorado and Country Club. They offer to pay remainder if we agree to
expedite same at required time. Considering that Sunrise has developed two of
the four corners and owns the third corner it seems reasonable that they would
pay for it. If the city knows for a fact that Sunrise has deposited funds
with the county then I guess we could acknowledge same.
Public works should indicate whether they have any problem cooperating in the
design and approvals for this signal.
Point 7
Sunrise agrees to install center median on Del Safari Drive (one mile between
Frank Sinatra and Country Club Drive).
At this time none of this area is in the city so I'm not sure why we're being
offered this gem.
The critical feature of course canes back to maintenance and who will pay.
Frankly, I have my doubts that we could get cooperation from Avondale and Palm
Valley to pay for assessments. If it was installed and then we annex this
area I think we'd be taking over the long term maintenance of a median which
would mainly benefit a development in another city.
2
I
LEr ER FROM SUNRISE ATtORNEY'S
REGARDING GPA 87-5
Point 8
It is proposed that this city would cooperate in renaming Eldorado Drive and
Del Safari/Avondale Drive to Sunterra Drive.
I have two (2) concerns with this:
1. In the meetings with the Avondale people we agreed, as I recall, to
support their request to change Del Safari to Avondale. Annexation of
that area could become very difficult if we give the appearance that we
are reneging on previous commitments.
2. Renaming of Eldorado should not occur unless we receive concurrence of
Lakes Country Club and other adjacent owners (ie: Gary Miller and Bob
Varner).
Finally the letter indicates that in the "Summary of Settlement Principles" it
states:
"Petitioner has agreed to bring no other action,
claim or proceeding which has the purpose, or
will have the effect, of preventing or delaying
the building of Sunterra."
They then express concern that our street closure plan will adversely affect
the negotiations. My first response to this is that I recall reading a comment
by Jack Conlon that our street plan proposal would not effect or result in
changes to Sunterra yet their attorney's think it is a big deal.
Secondly, I hope the Summary of Settlement Principles have not been agreed to
or at least if it has been agreed to that the intent of this provision has
been defined in detail because obviously if this city decides not to proceed
with the Cook Street interchange then I'm sure they will point to this
provision and say we must do so otherwise we'll be in violation of this
agreement.
Conclusion
I feel this is merely a delay tactic and an effort to see how little we'll
settle for. They think they are dealing with the Western Center for Law and
Poverty who settled for peanuts.
I keep caning back to the question, Who Needs Who? I don't think it was the
city's goal in filing the lawsuit to get a mile and a half of landscaped
median strip in exchange for a billion dollar development plan.
3
{
1 ,
D .. Lit ., ra ,.: d • -. „� ,
OOOCA as ;, 7`' '
0 0 0 W
IT,
-IVr
V 3
m u No 37 Wednesday, December 23, 1987 Palm Desert, California
! n m
D A
.0
es may
w ff
M :are o ;
i ♦ r ` _ •]j3 4, ,
ovehrtraffic ;-
By,44 PASIK ;.'— ; i ' the commission, "is to
Rdst ytanwrflar - � •! : establish a street pattern. . .to
f serve a local (annexation) area
PALM DESERT— The-city only. . .and avoid the adverse
Planning. Commission ap= "(traffic) impact created by
parently,has set the stage for a, another city(Indian Wells)."
major -confrontation with the, Smith said the city feels that * '
Sunrise Co. and Indian Wells the street pattern provided in
by endorsing a traffic cir- the past"no longer needs to be
culation ,plan that would looked at."
niatjtically. affect the proposed He said a traffic study by
access route to the Sunterra city consultants indicated that > Y
project. the level of traffic that would
in a letter received by the be generated by Sunterra along
commission just before it Hovley and El Dorado had
voted unanimously on Dec. 15 been "drastically understated"
to recommend approval by the in the environmental impact
City,Council of the,circulation report on Sunterra.
plan as part of.a general plan Smith's report said Palm
amendment, an attorney Desert"has no commitment to
representing the Sunrise: Co. any street pattern in the ,.
said the move "would be a eastern sphere of influence,nor
major problem for the Sunterra does Palm Desert have any
Project." obligation to provide vehicular
The action taken by the access to a property (Sunterra) LjpflY OL W — Both sides of El Paseo from ighw<
_ _cwturiiasion.was-related to the_..AgAnother city(Indian Wells)." �=ara -0lecorated with, luminaries throug .Wits
proposed annexation to Palm James E. Erickson, the ev#Aiiga,,,j njoying the paper-bag-candle arrangements a
Desert — and pre-annexation. attorney representing Sunrise,
zoning — of 160 acres of asserted "that...comment
unincorporated county seriously needs to be Jan. 21 in Indio
territory just north of the reevaluated in the more
Sunterra site in Palm Des. responsible contest of First public hea
eastern sphere of influence. established planning by local
It would block off the governments and the patently
easterly end of Hovley Lane regional nature of the traffic
and shunt traffic north and circulation system serving not B HERB PASIK Steerir. Committee
east in a circuitous pattern to .only adjacent cities and y g e
provide local traffic circulation unincorporated county Post staff writer filed a notice of inu
for future residential territory, but also the city of culate petitions E �s
development in the proposed Palm Desert." The Riverside County Office placing the new L
annexation area. Erickson also took issue with of Education on Oasis Street in proposal on the b
t ,c
That ' would prevent the the Palm Desert consultant's Indio rigs beef tentetrvety requested►'606e hear
proposed extension of Avenue traffic study and said further selected as the site of a Jan.21 scheduled f' Ji n.-21.-
42 along the north side of the analysis was needed "before `"ps bhe h 6vn4ha per*` 'As• 4e pervisors'
Sunterra site from linking up jumping to the wholly un- formation of a new county in Maloney Na• responsib
with Hovley and Cook Street supported conclusion that the the eastern two-thirds of arranging the hearing's
as envisioned by Indian Wells data of the Palm Desert study Riverside County. serving as moderator.
and the Sunrise Co., which is. sound, while that of the Jerry Maloney, clerk of the "Basicall ;" -'ire said
plans to build the $1 billion Indian Wells study is to be Riverside County Board of just an'ereaAoublicmee
resort and convention center. ignored." Supervisors, said Monday:he' give the comn*te a ch
If approved by the Palm Indian Wells Mayor Richard had not yet confirmed the say why they wain to
Desert council, the action Oliphant, informed of the availability of the facility on new-county'arid•'to g
com
taken by the commission on commission's remendation that date,although the hearing public an ..opportune
the recommendation of the city that Hovley be blocked off tentatively has been scheduled, speak."
planning staff also would between the Sunterra site and to be held thereat?p.m. • 'The notice-of intent
prevent the previously , Cook Street, said, "I see that The Cah'uala County culate petitions was I
proposed extension of El as a detriment. Any time that Wfled_�as
Dorado Drive north of Avenue we take a major collectorstreetVos$ er
42. t . and discontinue it, then I findAssociate City plainer Steve ' that detrimental not only to
Smith noted that'at lone"thne, Sunterra; but to the whole
El Dorado was to be the main region. BEAUMONT — Ernie Lee wile to be in Coachella
access from Interstate A0,to!,, "And I-don't think that's in Voeeler• 33, of Rancho Mirage, Cemstety. In lieu.of
Indian Wells.s He, aeiil �'O -_ faith with what's going a Landmark Land'Co. I
however, that Indian Wells, in on in cooperation with all of the was killed here:Moad i wen +
approving the ' ' .un`terra cities is trying to improve our his car was crushed by a bale of
project, "saw ,fit to eliminate: movement • of traffic bey that fell from a;'fresway
El Dorado between,% fired; •throughout •the desert," he Overpass. �-:• y ' r.; '
Waring Drive and Avenue 42, said The California +-Highway
„The goal tonight."`he toldx,.` Patrol said Voesler;..whose
Last May, Palm.Desert and - fathei. Ernie Voablsr.of,d a.
'Rancho Mirage sued Indian Quints, ,lie..•a y4senior vice b "
v. s Wells and 'Sumrise over the t with Lsadmarlt Land t
fu ■ M envir�entel' impact report CO., -'.eesthorina r oh
r -on the•Sunterra project. The
Business. . . A4t �teratatel0ettboat8;8Q•pet
a»it, -in =•which , settlement when the"BO-'poudd bale cf hay,; i
r Clessifled8 . B3 negotist wog 3
Entertainer . Dona are"
` can, -fell bO feet frodl',t WILghway' �
ducted claims, there;are "in- . `.
Happenings ' ° �' B2 r 60 overpass, crushing the hood S ,
. ;sufficjent - mitigation aadwlndehielddihiseee Legal Notices . . l. . : _.A8 .. , t , -. «•-• �'
'in' the EIft' to :trnie=Lae vomllea!wa-e-s v18e°
4 Our Town . . ` Bi adequately lessen the project's • dsnt;4or Landmark is id
School. . . . . A3- pry
Sports. . . . . ��"^ gru impact.,on' Peha� sand prM hamager "at 'teeicom 'I
l r r A i.Ks �II O"Mirage ' p n sMraaren VallSy`�tlOalt
rt" traf$c,..dreulation;.and Ira • : -"t
t, artier sportation, '►fusing, am'- CHP..officere said=the';heled i.
A high wind :advisory has ployment and fiscal impacts. was ed yy a,
been Issued for Wednesday being
and Thursday. The Coachella Citing 'traffic as "probebly semi-truck and trbiler.thatwae'
one of .the issues we are westbound on.'IatsteAte 10; *-
Valley is expected to •ex- focusing on most heavily., in when-the driver.lost control
parlance blowing dust and � settlement talks Oliphant 'and swerved, spilling part of
sand. Variable .cloudiness ,
Wednesday and Thursday said •If the(Palm Desert)City c hisload.
with a chance of showers. ware to take action(on A'-4IIdmark spo ..
_i at
Tetnperatures,are. dropping.,; the .�teulation pled) prior-.tosaid tauvioss welw pemr
the:t^'conclusion of your 8t I?ttlnde of Aettird Gtholic-
Highs Wedheaday4will tie In ��� I `.would +thinks C urcli�u :p�i *+i sti 't`
the 55fi5 geproe range, and, : ythat;woffid bs taken in bafl z pitslieeuy'�iI l cros t ;BIG TOP WNEa -
45 S degress on Thursday.
faith'." i « ` cluitge`oiarranglementi'3# ull`
structure-,tor the:tent
..--�-^—+•.+-...•,+.--..,.....r.—........�...J�.�f i Sc aS r-..r -. ..., , - s3,.....a ..fSw - ..
4
a ►�-1 .
LAW orncaa n
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNER, KNOX S ELLIOTT _)' :r
ANOLLES CENTER TOWER l��- Wei MIM+dCO^N"O.C.
TNIRTT•!IR{ O HT ILDDR 600 TOWN CENTER ORIVE {IRT. ILOOR
4A{ {OUTM IIDUERA RSST r BAD 1RM1 STRLLI, M. W.
LOS ANGELES. CA 00071-I602 SUITE ISSO WASMINOTON, D,C. 1001E-9ORE
(2131 S18411100 [[
COSTA MESAr CA 01844M,1661 M�J ItOtl ttPSIpO
n1u R3r{Ooo
EIAN IRAM CI{CO T[L[CO nCR 0141 {�E-01{R SACRAMENTO
iMIRD FLOOR �l SUIT[ 300
100 THE LMRARCAOERO y `�,p.. 1010 nL STREET
DAN INANCISCO, CA O.IGS-ISO► I ry ' SACRAMENTO, GA {SR14
14101 943.1700 'r ISISI MS-013S
January 4 , 1988
WNITLR'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
REIER TO FILE NUMSER
SO474-004
Via Telecooy
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
City of Palm Desert
Best, Best & Krieger
39700 BAb Hope Drive, Suite 312
Rancho Mirage, California 92270
Re: City of Palm peaert aoe 87-9 and C/2 87-11
Dear Dave:
I am writing to express certain concerns that my client,
Sunrise Company, has about the referenced actions planned by
the City of Palm Desert . Those actions necessarily affect the
litigation now ongoing among the City of Palm Desert, the City
of Indian Wells and Sunrise Company,
As you know, the planning commission for the City of Palm
Desert recently took action on the general plan amendment and
zone change referred to above, the effect of which is the
deletion of El Dorado Drive north of Avenue 42 and deletion of
Avenue 42 as a major east/west collector street, an action that
contradicts the existing general plan circulation elements of
the City of Indian wells, City of Palm Desert and County of
Riverside, as well as the SCAG transportation model . Not
surprisingly, such deletion would be a major problem for the
Sunterra project . on December 15, 1987 this office,
representing Sunrise Company, delivered a letter to the
planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, detailing our
client ' s objections to the City' s proposed action. I am
enclosing a copy of that letter for your reference.
In accordance with the general plan amendment, the City of
Palm Desert has proposed the creation of a circuitous Collector
level (60 foot right-of-way) street system designed to serve
the 160-acre area which is the subject of amendment, with
connection to Hovley Lane west of its present easterly terminus
XEROX TELECOFIER 295 i- q-oo, d- fa rn,
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNER, KNO% ELLIOTT
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
January 4, 1988
Page 2
and with connection to E1 Dorado at its southerly terminus,
using this proposed street plan. Further, Hovley Lane and E1
Dorado would not connect with 42nd Avenue.
As you also know, the circulation system for Sunterra
provides for its main entrance by way of extension of El Dorado
at 42nd Avenue and by connection of 42nd Avenue with Hovley
Lane to the west .
Sunrise Company is therefore opposed to the change in the
circulation element of the general plan proposed by the City of
Palm Desert . It is difficult to understand how the City could
be proposing such a change at a time when the parties are so
close to resolving their differences in the lawsuit known as
City of Palm Deaar* - at al. v City of Indian Well■ at al ,
case no. Indio 50331. Notwithstanding my client ' s objections
to thr * Palm Desert proposal, it is genuinely interested in
settling the pending lawsuit . After much consideration, in an
effort to resolve Palm Desert 's concerns and to avoid further
litigation, we propose the following:
1. E1 Dorado will be extended in a southerly
direction as a 55 foot right-of-way to the center of the street
(which is the same street section as now exists south of
Country Club Drive) , approximately 1320 feet, to the point
where Palm Desert proposed to turn E1 Dorado to the west.
2. From this new southerly extension point north to
Country Club Drive, El Dorado will be a center-divided median
street, with travel lanes on the Palm Desert aide of the street
34 feet wide and a nine-foot half median. Traffic on the Palm
Desert side of the median will be one-way, from north to
south.
On the easterly side will be the other, nine-foot half
of the center median and a right-of-way of 55 feet from center
line with travel lanes 34 feet wide or more. Traffic on the
easterly side of the median will be one way, from south to
north.
3 . As the extension of E1 Dorado to the south
approaches the intersection where Palm Desert proposes the
westerly connection, E1 Dorado will swing to the southeast to
promote a smooth flow of traffic onto a private entrance street
for Sunterra, on property owned by Sunrise. At this point of
intersection, the proposed westerly connection to E1 Dorado
will awing slightly to the northeast, to permit a right-angle
intersection.
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNEP, KNOX ELUOTT
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
January 4, 1988
Page 3
A stop sign will be placed at this intersection, which will
stop traffic moving from west to east. A break in the median
island will permit this traffic to go north on E1 Dorado. The
median island will be designed so as to prohibit the traffic
from Sunterra from turning left (west) into Palm Desert. This
proposed street configuration is shown on the attached plan,
Exhibit A.
4 . The City of Palm Desert will require the
developers of the currently unimproved property adjacent to the
approximately 1320 foot future southerly extension of E1 Dorado
to landscape the parkway and construct a six foot masonry wall
to standards equal to that wall adjacent to The Lakes Country
Club parkway, along existing E1 Dorado. The City will also
require contribution to the construction, lighting, landscaping
and ierlgation of half of the median along this same 1320 feet
to standards equal to those of the medians on Country Club
Drive adjacent to The Lakes Country Club.
S. Sunrise Company will agree to the same standards
of improvements on the easterly half of the median and the
parkway from the southerly extension of E1 Dorado to Country
Club Drive.
6. The City acknowledges that Sunrise has deposited
funds with Riverside County for 75% of the cost of the traffic
signal at the intersection of Country Club Drive and El
Dorado. Sunrise agrees to contribute the remaining 25% and the
City agrees to cooperate in the design of and necessary
approvals for installation and operation of this signal
simultaneously with the opening of Phase I of Sunterra.
7. Sunrise agrees to construct at its sole expense a
center median on Del Safari (Avondale) Drive from the
intersection of Country Club Drive to the intersection of Frank
Sinatra Drive to standards equal to the median on Country Club
Drive adjacent to The Lakes Country Club, completion of these
improvements will coincide with the opening of Phase I of
Sunterra. j
I
8 . The City of Palm Desert will cooperate with
Sunrise in renaming E1 Dorado Drive (and Del Safari/Avondale
Drive) from the southerly end of E1 Dorado to Frank Sinatra
Drive to "Sunterra Drive. "
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNER, KNOX LUOTT
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
January 4, 1988
Page 4
Settlement negotiations have been ongoing in the
litigation referred to above for several months . All of the
drafts of the "Summary of Settlement Principles" currently
under discussion in connection with that litigation have
contained a provision which reads as follows:
"Petitioner has agreed to bring no other
action, claim or proceeding which has the
purpose, or will have the effect, of
preventing or delaying the building of
Sunterra . "
Certainly, no one has ezpressed any objection to such
a provision in all the discussion that has taken place about
settlement . You can, therefore, understand our concern about
the Cit ' a proposed general plan amendment and you must also
understand our insistence upon resolving this new issue in the
course of resolving all other differences directly raised in
the pending litigation.
We look forward to your response and to an amicable
settlement of the few remaining differences between the parties.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ve t 1 your
hn J Fl I
of NOS , GUTHNER, KNOX
& ELLIOTT
JJF: ls
Enclosure
cc: James E. Erickson, Esq.
0939F/8/010488
VON LAW
e
w�uiueAen� �, L r
i
reenerr � , y
i
I
I
i
i
I
w
T •,
VARMIs pile►/RTr
_ t
1
i
s
i
Y
LAW O►►ICCS
NOSSAMAN. CUTHNER, KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Los ANp{L[t CINrea TOW{A WA{NIMOfOY. e.L
TMINTT•II{{T FLOO[ OOO TOWN C{NTC\ CNIV{ {l[TN FLOON
M{ A11419 IIO VCITOA W-10STFIC0T IIAO 1{O {T[ttT, N. W.LOs AMO 13) G CA {00T1•I{Os {ulTs 1{{O WA[MINGrON. O.C. s00i{•N{{
itgl {••TOSS COSTA NCSA, CA O[taM16&1 11661 Ut•{100
BAN /[ANCIOSO Ow gt•OOOo
TiL[CONIa[ 1T141 NMO[a{ {ACNAN{NTC
1MI�O FLOC{ {VITt i00
ISO TN I tr{AA OMO O 4010 IlU OTII[[T
{AM I[AN 101 114 CA {AIO[-I[{{ SACNAN{NTO. CA{{{IA
la{I Mi•q 00 DI{I AAs•Oq{
December 15, 1987 W[ITC{'{ OIO{CT OIAL NNNR[
[tFL{TO FIL{ NVM594
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
73310 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92660
Re: GPA 87-5 and C/Z 87-11;
Planning Commission Agenda
for December 15, 1987
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission;
This •office represents the sunrise Company, owner of
the 640 acres collectively referred to as the N6unterre
Project, " located within the City of Indian wells and its
Sphere of Influence adjacent to the territory proposed for the
above general plan amendment and pre-zoning.
We ,are concerned about the proposed amendment of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan of your city. The main
entrance to the sunterra Project is at the intersection of
Eldorado and Avenue 42. The effect of deletion of Eldorado
north of Avenue 42 and deletion of Avenue 42 as a major
east/west collector street as now provided in the existing
General Plan Circulation Elements of the City of Indian wells,
City of Palm Desert, and County of Riverside as well as in the
sCAG transportation model, would be a major problem for the
sunterra Project.
The implementing pre-zoning for this General Plan
Amendment is subject to similar concerns.
Neither the amendment to the General Plan nor the
pre-zoning have had the benefit of a full. Environmental Impact
Report, as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act, but rather have been given only the summary analysis
accorded a Negative Declaration. Were a full environmental
analysis provided in an Environmental Impact Report, we believe
that the problems inherent in this proposed amendment and
pre-zoning would become apparent.
NOSSAMAN. CUTHNER, KNOX . LUOTT
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
December 15, 1987
Page T
The problems are summarily dismissed by the simple
unsupported conclusions that the traffic study done by Palm
Desert is not consistent with that done by the City of .Indian
wells, and therefore the City of Indian Wells traffic study is
wrong. We think that this is a superficial analysis that can
only be a presage to the inevitable problems created by poor
planning.
The conflicting conclusions based upon traffic date
from the Palm Desert and Indian Wells studies of the same
subject warrant further analysis before jumping to the wholly
unsupported conclusion that the data of the Palm Desert study
is sound, while that of the Indian Wells study is to be
ignored. The Palm Desert Capacity Calculations, based on
average daily volumes, rather than peak hour volumes, are not
only highly unusual, but also logically suspect. The resultant
unrealistic LOB levels are readily apparent from any inspection
of Monterey Avenue south of I-10, which according to the Palm
Desert study now is at LOS level "F. • Further, traffic
generation figures are based upon non-comparable conditions
which also produce unrealistic results.
We think that the following staff report comment
seriously needs to be re-evaluated in the more responsible
context of established planning by local governments and the
patently regional nature of the traffic circulation system
serving not only adjacent cities and unincorporated county
territory but also the City of Palm Desert:
•Palm Desert has no commitment to any street
pattern in the eastern sphere of influence nor
does Palm Desert have any obligation to provide
vehicular access to a property in another city. "
Finally, since these actions by the City of Palm
Desert are but a preliminary step in the annexation of the Good
Samaritan Village, Lakes Country Club golf course expansion
property and adjacent 100 undeveloped and uninhabited acres, we
believe that further analysis of the annexation procedure
initiated by the City of Palm Desert would be appropriate, even
though ostensibly initiated by some of the presumably
registered voter residents of the Good Samaritan Retirement
Village.
1
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNE& KNOX a ELLIOTT
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
December 15, 1967
Page 3
We urge the Planning Commission to consider carefully
the issues stated in this letter. In the event that they are
not addressed appropriately in any action by the Planning
Commission on these matters, we will address these issues again
before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert.
Very truly yours, ,
J a E. Erickson J��
of NOSSAMAN, GUTHHER, XNOX & ELLIOTT
JEE/lmb
1348E
SANDPIPER HOMES, LTD.
Great American BuNting
600 B Street
Suite 1950 OD
a
San Diego,CA 92101 c_
(619)239-1574
� Z �
r r-
m r rn
� G
F-�
O
January 13, 1988
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mayor and City Council :
We are the owners of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 22646, located at
the northeast corner of Hovley Lane and Carlotta Drive.
It is our understanding that the proposed annexation hearing
regarding our property (Case No. GPA 87-5 6 C/Z 87-11 )
has been continued two weeks until January 28, 1988.
We wish to reserve our right to comment on the proposed
annexation at that city council meeting.
Than You.
Sin er ly�
Thomas F. Schmidt
President
Sandpiper Homes, Ltd.
TFS/dg
✓cc Steve Smith, Planning Department
73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE(619)346-0611
February 8, 1988
Mr. J. Scott Zundel
Guralnick, McClanahan & Zundel
74-399 Highway 111, Ste. M
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: George Marzicola and Larkspur Enterprises Inc./Howley Lane
Mr. Zundel:
We acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 28, 1988. The overall
information that you outlined was essentially correct.
We would like to bring the following to your attention.
The remainder parcel of land may be less than one acre in that the proposed
street alignment and configuration has not yet been designed. whether or not
the remainder parcel would be developable on its own is unknown given that we
do not know what its ultimate size will be.
Pursuant to your four (4) points on page 2, we wish to clarify that we
indicated that we had no objection to the remainder parcel being zoned the
same as the nine acre parcel adjacent to the east. 'Phis adjacent parcel is
presently zoned PR-5. Our in this Pre be that this reminder parcel
Y ��x3 �9 P
likely will not be large enough to develop by itself and will probably end up
merged with the adjacent property to the east.
Regarding item three it may not be possible for the city to vacate the entire
portion of Hovley Lane to Larkspur in as..much as the southerly half of any
Portion that would be vacated would have to be offered to the property owner
to the south.
I trust that this clarifies the issues. Should you have any questions please
do not hesitate to contact me.
ly,
A. DIAZ�
IREGTOR OF CCNNAINITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
RAD/SRS/dig
GURALNICK, McCLANAHAN & ZUNDEL
A PARTNERSHIP CONSISTING OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
WAYNE S.GURALNCK• 74399 HIGHWAY 111
L.SCOTT MCCLANAHAN•
SURE M
J.SCOTT ZUNDEL•
• PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 82280
CRAIG E.ZUNDEL
SIMON A.HOUSMAN 5191340-1515
.MI TECQ�p�T 5gip.IgL PLEASE REFER TO FILE N
January 28 , 1988 85-198
Mr . Ray Diaz
Director of Planning
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260 198�
Mr . Steve Smith �02 5"?N vd
Associate Planner �MM�µ1L„DOLU)0 p"SEIA
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
RE: E. George Marzicola and Larkspur
Enterprises Inc./Hovely Lane
Gentlemen:
As you are aware, my client, Larkspur Enterprises, Inc. ,
a California corporation, has an option to purchase that real
property, the legal description of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof , and consists of approximately
6 . 47 acres . Mr. Marzicola, the president of said corporation
intends to exercise his option and purchase said property, and
convey a portion of that property to a developer builder and to
retain a portion of that property.
It is my further understanding that you have had some
conversations with Mr . John Douglass, who is the builder deve-
loper who my client is considering selling a portion of this
property to. I understand that in your discussions with
Mr . Douglass , you have indicated to him verbally and in writing
that the City would approve a modification of a tentative tract
map which would allow him to construct his forty (40) dwelling
units on approximately 5 .3 acres of the above property. The pro-
posed modification and extension of Hovely Lane would operate as
the southeasterly boundary of that property. This would leave a
remaining parcel of approximately one (1) .acre. Mr . Douglass has
indicated that in connection with his conversations with you,
that this one (1 ) acre piece, after your approval of his modified
tentative tract map, would constitute a legal lot and my client,
Larkspur Enterprises, Inc. ,t..woul'd own same. -
GURALNICK, MCCLANA._..N & ZUNDEL
A LAW PARTNERSHIP
Mr. Ray Diaz January 28 , 1988
Mr . Steve Smith
CITY OF PALM DESERT
-2-
Further, it is my understanding that your proposed modi-
fication and/or extension of Hovely Lane would be over that
remaining approximate one (1) piece of property. Once that road
is extended, if it is, you would then vacate the existing Hovely
Lane .
Based upon the above, as a proposed settlement of any
lawsuit with regards to the condemnation of that modified and/or
extended Hovely Lane over my client' s property, he has proposed
to you and it is my understanding that you haververbally agreed -
to the following:
1. That remaining one (1 ) acre piece of property would
the zoned PR8 . -�
2 . The City would approve any and all documentation
required to revise Tract Map No. 19 ,847-6 phase 3 , to show the
modified boundary of that Tract to be the boundary line of the
proposed new Hovely Lane.
3 . Larkspur would be conveyed the entire vacated .por-
tion of the old Hovely Lane along its property.
4. My client would convey to you by gift deed that
portion of his remaining one ( 1) acre necessary for you to extend
Hovely Lane along its proposed boundaries .
This letter, and my client' s discussions with you, are
contemplated only as an attempt to settle any potential dispute
with regards to the City, specifically relating to a proposed
condemnation action, and are not intended to, nor shall it be
used in any subsequent legal proceeding between the parties with
respect to the subject property.
GURALNICK, MCCLANA,.,i.N & ZUNDEL
A LAW PARTNERS IP
Mr. Ray Diaz January 28, 1988
Mr. Steve Smith
CITY OF PALM DESERT
-3-
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions regarding this letter . You should note that below, I
have a signature line Ray Diaz to sign, indicating his acceptance
of this proposal .
Sincerely,
GURALNICK, McCLANAHAN & ZUNDEL
A Law Partnership
��Q�
By: 6
J. SCOTT ZU DEL
JSZ:mh
I have reviewed the above letter and approve same.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
BY:
Ray Diaz
Director of Planning
m
x
s
a
.rt
That portion of Parcel 2, Parcel Map No. 13 , 406 as recorded in
Book 64 of Parcel Maps, Pages 66, 67 and 68, in the County of.
Riverside, State of California, being a portion of the Southwest
one-quarter of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San
Bernardino Meridian , described as follows :
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Parcel 2 ; thence
S 01 04 ' 21" W ,along the Easterly line of said Parcel 2 a distance of
1377. 19 feet to the True Point of Beginning ; thence continuing
along said Easterly line S 0° 04 ' 21" W 1228. 37 feet to the
Northerly line of Hovely Lane as shown •on said map ; thence along
said Northerly line S 890 46 ' 05" W 0. 27 feet to the beginning
of a tangent curve , concave to the North and having a radius of
1150. 00 feet ; thence Westerly along said curve through a central
angle of 37` 16 ' 20" an arc distance of 748. 10 feet to the most
Southerly corner of Tract No . 19 , 847-1 as recorded in Book 139
of Maps , Pages 1 through 5 inclusive, records of said County ;
thence along the various courses and curves of the boundary of
said Tract No . 19 , 847-1 as follows ;
thence Northerly along a curve, concave to the East , having
a radius of 24 . 50 feet , with an initial radial bearing of
S 82° 39 ' 16" W, through a central angle of 47° 32 ' 58"
an arc distance of 20. 33 feet to a tangent line; thence
N 400 12 ' 14" E 108. 30 feet to a tangent curve , concave to
the South and having a radius of 24. 50 feet; thence Easterly
along said curve through a central angle of 85° 31 ` 25" an
arc distance of 36. 57 feet to the beginning of a curve ,
concave to the Northeast and having a radius of 1000.50 feet ;
thence Southeasterly along said curve through a central
angle of 8°52' 33" an arc distance of 154 . 99 feet to the
beginning of a curve , concave to the North and having a
radius of 218 . 50 feet ; thence Easterly and Northerly along
said curve through a central angle of 117° 53 ' 20" an arc
distance of 449.58 feet to a tangent line ; thence.
N 1° 02 ' 14" W 447.88 feet to a tangent curve , concave
to the East and having a radius of 981 .50 feet ; thence
Northerly along said curve through a central angle of
2° 51 ' 18" an arc distance of 48. 91 feet to a tangent line ;
thence N 1" 49 ' 04" E 208. 49 feet to an angle point in said
boundary of Tract No. 19,847-1 ;
thence leaving said boundary N 1 ° 49 ' 04" E 71 .50 feet ; thence
S 880 10 ' 56" E 140 . 19 feet to the True Point of Beginning .
R � >; 4
gtc �tlq4m' g, g � Y8fi8e � ..� a
eT g IL t s
8Yk8s � � Y2 � � kkaR v
YaCM, ---
4qR_ M l6kx. gkv 2a
? 0 k g � 3h eg9q > d aft x
�p
9
�,. tfiiij, �.•F- s
t
6. n x Nam > ICI
IJO2 Dz
t C, N Tso
� Zm O
1 {y�
= V i; l J
mzq
ZD
t{ �p �,t f I Y 1 -•, CD O m
Olt C..
JJ Ny
I r
t sue.,. i��i' keel ..... . •� � '.
O s^ ^
Yr
M
u! r 'Pi m-yii m kris tyrr ^L t+C
8 I "1 S°' m " ax t6• ,p` p°
5• ? Nam. g u•e !'+ e"
Y m /no
0 O FBI ay we
��4
' � Ml'Ol/1"M III JAB �a i -N/ ♦ O(E � FpF v� 9a}T
i t . no•.i el•w/n� A a
` 3�p�ti o4 R
l�yiAa !44 qN@
INTEROFFICE MEMDRANDM
City of Palm Desert
TO: Ramon A. Diaz, Director of Camnunity Development/Planning
FROM: Stephen R. Smith, Associate Planner
DATE: January 27, 1988
SUBJECT: GPA 87-5 - Notice of Hearing to County
While Mr. Smoot is correct that we did not send then a legal notice, we did
comply with the noticing procedures prescribed in the Government Code and more
importantly they knew from very early in the process of our intentions. They
knew of the traffic study and were advised how it could be obtained and the
person to contact.
As this report will detail, the county staff chose not to avail themselves of
these opportunities to learn more of the proposal and the reasons for it
before taking the matter to the Board of Supervisors for action (without
advising the city that the matter had been placed on the agenda) . More
importantly the county took this action, they would have us believe, having
only the information garnered from newspaper accounts.
Government Code 65353 indicates that before action can be taken on a general
plan amendment it must be noticed pursuant to section 65090. Section 65090
requires that the item be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation at
least 10 days prior to hearing. This matter was advertised in the Palm Desert
Post on December 4, 1987 and again on December 23, 1987. As well, the agendas
for the December 15, 1987 planning caumission meeting and the January 14, 1988
city council meeting were published and the case was announced nced on the city
radio program. In addition property owners in the subject area, as well as
those within 300 feet of the area, were sent notices on two separate occasions
(ie: one for planning cammission hearing and one for city council hearing).
A reasonable parson would question, "But doesn't the county get a chance to
review and comment?" They certainly do. The LAFOD process typically takes a
nurammn of four months. All proposed annexations, regardless of how minor,
are referred to the various county agencies for comment. It was not our
intent to preclude the Road Commissioner from having his say. What we did
want to avoid was having a for-month delay before we take action followed by
another four month delay while the various county agencies camuent to LAF00.
In December we held meetings with representatives from the Lakes concerning
the additional nine holes of golf they wish to develop on properly which is
in both jurisdictions. We agreed to contact the Supervisors' office to
determine which goverrnment should process the application. It was our position
that since we intended to file the annexation application early in 1988 and
that the property would be included in that request that it was appropriate
RAMON A. DIAZ
COUNTY CPA 87-5
JANUARY 27, 1988
that the city could process the request rather than them going through both
levels of government. We contacted the Supervisor's office hoping to talk to
Robyn and ended up leaving a message for Mr. Sommers. The message indicated.
the above information as well as the timing of our hearings on the general plan
and prezoning before planning commission and city council. Three days later we
attested to contact Mr. Sommers who was unavailable. Since one message had
already been left another seemed unnecessary. Three weeks passed and still no
return call. M. Sass of our staff contacted Mr. Sommers and they met the next
day in her office.
Before Christmas Mr. Holtz of public works met with Mr. Stollard of county
staff regarding the wall problem at Palm Desert Greens. This meeting was held
in Mr. Stollard's office in Indio. The matter of case GPA 87-5 came up and
Mr. Stollard asked about our traffic study and its availability. He was
advised to contact planning staff as we were handling this matter. We have not
yet received any contact from Mr. Stollard or anyone on his staff. We have at
this time mailed copies of the study to Mr. Smoot and Mr. Stallard.
Conclusion:
We have complied with the noticing requirements for general plan amendments.
This has been a very publicized case in that it has been on the front page of
the papers since mid December. Mr. Stollard was advised who to contact to
request the traffic study.
Most importantly Mr. Smoot will be given his chance to comment to LAFCO if and
when we apply to annex the area. It would appear that he has for some unknown
reason "placed the cart in front of the horse" and has chosen to oppose our
plan for annexation before the city has taken any actions approving the plan,
which must occur before we file our application with LAFCO.
If it is Mr. Smoot's desire to change the LAFCO process and have the county
comments before we adopt the plan for annexation, then this new process could
be worked out but only if LAFCO would assure us of a hearing within two weeks
of submittal (ie: the total processing time remains what it is now) and that
we don't place the city in double jeopardy of having to negotiate our position
before we adopt it and then negotiate it again when we file with LAFCO.
STEPHEN . SMITH
ASSCCIA PLANNER
/tm
2
r
DEFAPSEY HAItN C0 ftPttr
CORPORATION
January 13 , 1988
G >'
Honorable Mayor. "a,id,' City 'Council
Cit'y of 'Palm D,es,ert
73510 Fred Waring Drive,
Palm. Des.ert, , CA 92260
Dear Mayor and City Council:
s "WeVare the owners of Parcel one of parcel map 22646
located in the northwest corner of Iiovely Lane arci
:+ Carlbtta'Drive: tax paru-�l numbArs 632030006-8,
63"2030012-3, and 632030013-4 .
itlfis our understanding that the proposed annexaLiuu
hearing regarding our parcel (case #GPA 87-5 and
C/Z 87-11) is ,being continued two weeks until. J'einn,i , y
28,'' 1988 :
t We,:wish to reserve our right to comment on the r, "
annexation at that City Council. meeting ,
Sincerely,,
t v ' l� .• ��� 'i
Lawrence=Et ;Dempsey
/pt
t+` " cc.., 'Mr.. Steve Smith, Planning Department: •�
Attorney_"Jean Ann Hi.rschi _
. -3..n
i
e • 1 1' r
i
140 FIRST STREET BATAVIA, ILLINOIS 60510 4R?';6-M35
�3Z-bsb aio 17
&Yz--cao- (hit 1�5
k3z-030-
I;Z 6
j-
GSZ -oaa. o Z - / b V 733
9) 7
scwo
6� �� 71Y � �� 6� 7 .
PETITION
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985
Code Section 56000, The Lakes Country Club Association, Inc.
owners of all subject property legally described below (see map attached
hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm
Desert.
Leaal Description:
Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 17951, as shown by Map on file in
Book 101, Page 7 and 8, of Parcel Maps, Records of
Riverside County, California
(see attached map)
Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its
finalization.
Date: 12/2/87
EDWARD 0. ETHELL, P esident
Address: 161 Old Ranch load
Palm Desert, CA 92260
I __
W O c
' 1 tr e.•. i•.;mien �I� Ip
1
l'
1�o I
I M
~ I O 8Y 0
tr
�r
a0 I
Y : OY
k O zv-uorrl M�NI
p � ora'evrei ua., ua�s.o;it%cv •inro — ��_ �
h `
'+ a
4
r b y
r
< 1 O
a
1 r
oe + ,
M Y
O
t .. .
T �
q b
b
1
b DEC 1 1 1987
COhfMUNtC IY OEELOPMLNi OLVANIMENi
PALM WiCOUNTRY
ERT
akes December 9, 1987
CLUB
Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Case No. GPA 87-s + Cz 87-11
Dear Mr. Diaz:
This is to state that, in general, The Lakes Country Club Association
Inc. , approves the proposed pre-zoning of "The Southeast quarter of
Section 10".
As you know The Lakes has purchased the approximately 31 acres desig-
nated P.R. 4. We intend to apply for a Use Permit for a nine-hole
golf course on that parcel and the acreage immediately to the west.
There will be no homes on that land. We have filed notice of intent
to annex to Palm Desert.
We continue to have concerns over the 40 acres designated PR-5, S.O.
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the County dated November 12, 1987.
Please include it in your records.
Sincerely,
Edward 0. hell President
The Lakes 6ountry Club
EOE/jmp
enclosure
161 Old Ranch Road, Palm Desert, California 92260, Telephone (619) 568-4321
F
tau viV z
- - X COUNTRY CLUB
November 12, 1987
Riverside County Planning Department
46-209 Oasis Street, Room 304
Indio, Ca. 92201
Attn: John Guerin
Re: CUP 952, EA 32056
As your records will show, The Lakes Country Club Association has
requested consistently that the area south of the club boundaries
remain zoned for single story, single family residences to pre-
serve the value and security of our homes. We repeat that request.
We also again question the specific location for the establishment
of a senior citizens complex away from public transportation and
from stores, shops and other public conveniences.
However, should the Planning Department, Planning Commission, or
the Board of Supervisors decide that a "congregate care apartment
complex" be in the best interests of the county, we would like to
offer these comments:
1. Current zoning is one dwelling per 12,000 square feet, or
approximately four dwellings per acre. As we understand exemptions
for congregate care, an allowance of 50 percent additional dwellings
may be granted. That would be a ratio of perhaps six per acre, not
the eight units per acre requested.
2. In considering the number of acres available for housing, the
developer does not take into account the more than one acre planned
for common buildings and maintenance. This would mandate a further
reduction in dwelling units.
3. We appreciate the effort of the engineers to lay out an attractive
complex and to consider a buffer zone of 100 feet along the south wall.
We do believe for privacy that any two story buildings should be set
back further, perhaps 300 feet and replaced with one story units along
the buffer zone.
161 Old Ranch Road, Palm Desert, California 92260, Telephone (619)568-1321
Y
/ November 12, 17 _ 2 _
Re: CUP 1152, EA 12051
4. If apartments are to be built in this area, certainly those
for seniors should provide residents of The Lakes along Running
Springs with the least problems with noise and security. We
would hope that the congregate care requirement that they be
restricted in perpetuity to the use of seniors would be enforced.
We thank you for this opportunity to comment and request that you
notify us of any further action on this matter.
Since y,
E ward 0, thell
President
cc: Supervisor Larson Directors, Mr. Radoff
EOE:mw
12/15:1987 12:20 NOSSAMANIGUTHNERIKNOX&ELT 7145453270 P.02
LAW o►rlcca
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNER, KNOX b ELU07T '
Los ANOELL\ DswTew rp wR� WAAtNmpreN. me
1 nrRTT-IIR\T ,lOpA pp0 TOMM OCNTiw DRIVE \Ili" IIDOR
•.\ \DVTN IID UEROA STREET IIW 19SI STRClT N, W.
LOS ANGELES, CA 900,"loot pulre A.0 WAQnIN 12021III Ill
D. \DOA•!!9D
1!1\I 4f-rROO DOSTA A.EQJ. Ca 02a2a•lial coal !P]-0IOe
nlu RaaAODO n�cwfna.wD
SAN FRAu[IEDa
TI.IR .010
9DD
p FLOOR *[LCGOfIu In AI \�\-DUE 1 II"STREET
Ioft-nf ....wOA\\\D ......!910).r9� 1 •u+•
B I.N 1'wAJ GIB CO. .A 94I06-II95 19Ip1 wt-D!]\
NIQI 04]•1)00
DeCember 151 1987 WRIILA'\ DIRECT DIAI Nuup[R
Planning Commission r� cl
Ill To I.I.E MUMMER
City of Palm Desert DEC S
pj
almgsDe rt, CAFreng Drive
P 92660 COMA "noc� 1
Re: dPA 87-5 and C/Z 87-111 c/rr�FA"DEsg7°4�MN�
Planning Commission Agenda
for December 15, 2987
Honorable Members of the Planning Commissions
This office represents the Sunrise Company* owner of
the 640 acres collectively referred to as the RSunterra
Project," located within the City of Indian Wells and its
Sphere of Influence adjacent to the territory proposed for the
above general plan amendment and pre-zoning.
We are concerned about the proposed amendment of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan of your city. The main
entrance to the Sunterra Project is at the intersection of
Eldorado and Avenue 42. The affect of deletion of Eldorado
north of Avenue 42 and deletion of Avenue 42 as a major
east/west collector street as now provided in the existing
General Plan Circulation Elements of the City of Indian Wells,
City of palm Desert, and County of Riverside as well as in the
SCAG transportation model, would be a major problem for the
eunterra Project.
The implementing pre-coning for this General plan
Amendment is subject to similar concerns.
Neither the amendment to the General Plan nor the
pre-zoning have had the benefit of a full Environmental impact
Report, as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act, but rather have been given only the summary analysis
accorded a Negative Declaration. Were a full environmental
analysis provided in an Environmental impact Report, we believe
that the problems inherent in this proposed amendment and
pre-coning would become apparent.
12/15/1987 12:21 NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER,KNOX&ELT 7145453270 P.03
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT
Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
December 15, 19a7
Page 2
The problems are summarily dismissed by the simple
unsupported conclusions that the traffic study done by Palm
Desert is not Consistent with that done by the City of Indian
wells, and therefore the City of Indian wells traffic study is
wrong. We think that this is a superficial analysis that can
only be a presage to the inevitable problems created by poor
planning.
The conflicting conclusions based upon traffic data
from the Palm Desert and Indian Wells studies of the same
subject warrant further analysis before jumping to the wholly
unsupported conclusion that the data of the Palm Desert study
is sound, while that of the Indian Wells study is to be a
ignored. The Palm Desert Capacity Calculations, based on
average daily volumes, rather than peak hour volumes, are not
only highly unusual, but also logically suspect. The resultant
unrealistic LOS levels are readily apparent from any inspection
of Monterey avenue south of 1-10, which according to the Palm
Desert study now is at LOS level "F." Further, traffic
generation figures are based upon non-comparable conditions
which also produce unrealistic results.
we think that the following staff report comment
seriously needs to be re-evaluated in the more responsible
context of established planning by local governments and the
patently regional nature of the traffic circulation system
serving not only adjacent cities and unincorporated county
territory but also the City of Palm Desert:
"Palm Desert has no commitment to any street
pattern in the eastern sphere of influence nor
does Palm Desert have any obligation to provide
vehicular access to a property in another city. "
Finally, since these actions by the City of Palm
Desert are but a preliminary step in the annexation of the Good
Samaritan Village, Lakes Country Club golf course expansion
property and adjacent 100 undeveloped and uninhabited acres, we
believe that further analysis of the annexation procedure
initiated by the City of Palm Desert would be appropriate, even
though ostensibly initiated by some of the presumably
registered voter residents of the Good Samaritan Retirement
Village.
12/15/1987 12:21 NOSSRMRN,GUTHNER,KNOX&ELT 7145453270 P.04
1 NOSSAMAN, CUTHNER, KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Planning commission
City of palm Desert
December 15, 1907
Page 3
We urge the Planning Commission to consider carefully
the issues stated in this letter. In the event that they are
not addressed appropriately in any action by the Planning
Commission on these matters, we will address these issues again
before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert.
Very truly yours, ,
,
J as E. Erickson
of NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, XHOX & ELLIOTT
JEE/lmb
1348E
TOTRL P.04
SUMSE
October 20 , 1987 COMPANY
r 9
Planning Commission cry °F``<� �f Bj
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260 e42
Re: Case #GPA 87-5 and C/Z 87-11
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
We have reviewed the Staff- Report on the above-referenced cases
which relate to 160 acres at the northwest corner of the
extensions of 42nd Avenue and Eldorado Drive (the "Subject
Property" ) . As developer of The Lakes Country Club immediately
north of the Subject Property, and SUNTERRA immediately to the
south, we are vitally concerned with this matter.
We believe that Hovley Lane/42nd Avenue from Cook Street to
Washington Street and Eldorado Drive from 42nd Avenue to Country
Club Drive should both be designated as major thoroughfares.
We understand that this is the recommendation of your consultants.
Staff has suggested that the Commission consider a plan which
would not complete either Hovley Lane/42nd Avenue or Eldorado
Drive; i.e. , Hovley Lane would terminate at its present limit
and Eldorado Drive would terminate at its present southerly
limit (one-half mile south of Country Club Drive) . This
alternative would have major adverse effects on circulation
in the region. We strenuously oppose this alternative and
suggest that it should not be considered without an environmental
impact report.
We object to the designation of Parcel F of the Subject Property
as "high density residential" (7-18 DU/acre) . High density
development is not consistent with other existing and planned
uses in the area. The Good Samaritan development on Parcel
E, which is a very specialized use, is at about 10 units per
acre. A designation which would permit a density on Parcel
F of almost twice the Good Samaritan density is inappropriate ,
especially in light of the proximity to The Lakes Country Club
with a density of less than 3 units to the acre.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Ve ruly yours,
Phillip K. SrQrith, Jr.
Executive Vice President
PKSgg
cc: Nossman, Guthner Knox & Elliott
75-005 Country Club drive,Palm Desert,California 9226o,Telephone(679)568-2828
Builder of America's Finest Country Club Communities
' .rl
OW 9110
O,.�I Y II[I[f111r 1011E�YZA Y fl 11[IR7Gi PAW FIR
m-a %
Kw,low K• ro1
MSES1[. 11101!%• K[PIPTIP Iv 1% .RRi NO LIYR STP r v RA PIeT [11[1RIIdf KI 101
.nes• ql nL1[z .!to real.1w�[aL z1n aY-oloao5e qMP PrcNRrs L[.
g"Ow YIr.J.
`,"�, s� m ora_ga arrow-xra rm rm� ws�l�MINN s
]� r�w�•, n aosw SQzr�'o'
11�WT 01 01•[�1 STi ~~ w(Ky TO
IN
,tP. 3.Af K,ff 1[l Iw MII r 111 101,ao,1� 1M, La
aOr
wY1a31 wrtax. o[ ] Is'nn o a.�s aYo3000*s YI15n 1ss3om 1EP s.nn n
yio Ns r
.q K1C5 KT f:2w.M°ia IOR00]hr NA I 1 5 lfa'f 6Yd,Of?0
65%v10 �(q�w(K C" rasa)
rfl flr�fE�p��y i9 iA(Aa% DIN",
031Af[��jq) f I-
A i IM1�0[33f1[p(�I)1 IrM1Q. Ste{ 2i]SM[0 a_QE 6Y-010�00[�0 2r20[ I. • S � ) 2]S20[ IQI��jM�fM��gl(W�I�
SQDY�TEES 1CN3-61 o0.v01 f�". '
VVSS,p1M[ 10Ari 6
A.SSY.LICSSAIEi In]M v M 1011001 PF OK ri%m, Sa5 61P ry
'SSV •��53 ��r L 1 7 r� ,OlV �P�1^11 r I'll
w r w [pY. ,3]1—] 61'C O3o_0o012 cY-olO-oro-1 6"}]91 6Yp91 W.PLW �aALYIt.1MME. CA aPx H Q fty
v
(pw[r t)1 iz. 1 ITT w[Em T460
q.00 AMS Iw qr 1 ry OF 9y 1510R5 MS TR TOTAL I IP ER .SSE
Nry1 L 1 K. 1P007 tPri}q) n1611
IIr2�A1ty (INNm I, APR Sb SS OD-012 6Y.O"-Orl-2 331R 531" IE
Nf r11 fU tlRR,LF LIYI% iC 0-00
1Wltq, w 1P
!pK,LH00231I of r Tpl v1 3
"'m. S IN IR:i 1M R'SEC 10 TSS W
LIO
P&T F,Y[ o)01.56 -K,63
n].o1.r
Ml IOwi KT rm KSESSEE• .OPE55. {(SCPIPr[P h iPR g51N1 q LNO IT. ,•v RK wOP C7&rAPi1Q5 K• m Y.59E5SEE, %ass,
OEXIIiP,I
MN T 1MR COT 64133 O U-W M-OW 012 3 6v]]l H)3l
n I WT... 51 ( 2f�' '
w1o1%] PPOY[KT N
lOrw'fv o%In, ow S� YP!] 11 !a 1X
NMSNIL 1.POr/M 1 N• 1011m,pl *1220 YI iP[rUp
♦ PKn R RLF) r�
,SSv CLO�iMA p 12 A93ms IM7Mtanr
rETSY HANK CPw TER)0 0_o0E 6Y'o30'013 v 1012, 16R• COlaa .5
1(ggN[pO
v,wlb IL �1_ 10510
•.h+M,}[51 NIL IN IP M 1 Fra101•CO,Pr MLA [ G �l[E !?T
NI
I1P[P 1 1 10T65Y 01a-O6o 6Y-010-01.-5 5%IY 20YD, �v.1'°�" slmj[au R n 21�` M �p y
yyn r,��5 <IO[4Y Rr %J01 C 0-w 1AIIwr .}Ip,.1 a P
Hy 33)N 0,:�r
llar511 1daRTpT1Y[A PL'Mo[ Iw pqR%1 31%10 0 0.00102 6Y M 016 ) 3156.0 ` _ -_31%,0 2�9"
1q OQYIrSIR• A LroSY ) 'E. 1 APR •SYpa[2rP fjp]M�lw
N Z 1 r P SCC 10 AS R[c �P i01a M[wL
W"IPTIP w,vSXS». NAPS
1asY N Nltm kfm 107� 01a:w 6Y-OX Ol,.z 1omx lolw wA%LLC•ii1•_ •�Y.tp
w r CIs1[r��115M n N 3 IT,
t 1 ipej2•Ir1}'p]»[rP
2 r�PG[""S n■�UW1 1 ON 06Y.066 n
1?yr15
010
nr l
-tit v CMIJIlic LUUM_'
June 24, 1986 IVfD Mannint Dc?a ' rr
PFC:9757DO JU_ .:
fhViq� /v Ob
Mr. Paul T. Kaneko, Planning Director I Y
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
RE: Notice of Preparation for Indian Wells Resort and Convention
Center.
Dear Sirs:
Thank you fob affording the County Planning Department the opportunity
to comment on the notice of preparation for the proposed Indian Wells
Resort and Convention Center. The Department's concerns at this time
I • i center primarily on the issues of land use compatibility and increased
I; traffic impacts. Overall, the description of probable environmental
effects contained within the notice appear to be adequate. The balance
of this letter will detail the issues of special concern of the County.
First, our Department would like to point out that it is understood that
f an application for annexation will be initiated for that portion of the
I project site which presently lies within the unincorporated portion of
Riverside County.. , Our Department by these comments is not indicating a
predisposition or :narrowing of reviewscope for portions of the project
proposal which remain within County land use jurisdiction. Any approval ;
sought by the project developer for a portion of the project prior to its
annexation into the .City of Indian Wells would be subject to filing such .
application(s) under existing Riverside County ordinances , policies and
General Plan standards as would be necessary.
The area encompassing the Iproject currently under County jurisdiction lies
within the Western Coachella Valley Community Plan and is designated Resi-
dential Category 26 (2-5 dwelling units per,acre) by the Plan's land .use ;
allocation map.,-n Zoning of the property, under. Ordinance No. 348 (Land Use) ,
p is R-1-9000 southerly of the midsection line of Section 15 and R-1-12000
northerly of the same midsection line. I have attached a copy of the 'per-
,> mitted uses 'and development standards of the R-1 zone for your information.
Inasmuch as ,site grading will be required. in order to construct a golf course,
' Ordinance No.r457 (Building/Grading, Code).will) apply to any grading outside
of,,public road, rights-of-Way.,I,,Grading in` excess of quantities indicated in
f m Ordinance No. 457 will require' environmental assessment review by the Planning
lye, . Department prior to acceptance of plans by the Building and Safety Department.
In order to expedite such a review, the EIR should provide a preliminary
r grading plan with earth movement quantities tabulated separately for areas
I under County jurisdiction.
14080 LEMON STREET,9T" FLOOR 46.209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501-365➢' INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
(714)787.6181
t: B-10
(619) 342.827i
Letter to City of I in Wells
Re: Notice of Prepa, dtion for Indian Wells Re
Convention Center sort and
Date: June 24, 1986
Pg. 2.
i
Previous correspondence from this office regarding prior development
proposals on this land brought up a number of concerns for project
compatibility with the Palm Desert Country Club community to the east.
In addition, the Oasis Country Club located southerly of Avenue 42 is
currently undergoing a phased development plan under County jurisdiction.
During grading and other project development operations caused by the
proposed Indian Wells Resort and Convention Center, efforts should be
made to control blowsand and dust from intruding into these downwind.
. residential areas. The EIR should analyse this issue and provide for
appropriate mitigation.
The extension of New York Avenue as an emergency escape and access
route through this project should also be discussed. Approximately
h 100 single family lots are within one-quarter mile of the end of. New
I York Avenue with only Fred Waring Drive and, at much greater distance,
Washington Street providing ingress and egress . Given the magnitude of
the Indian Wells Resort and Convention Center project, direct through
traffic from the project to Palm Desert Country Club would be opposed
as conflicting with the residential character of the community. None-
theless, the EIR should address some kind of limited extension of New
York Avenue for the public safety reasons indicated above. i
The development of 3,000 hotel rooms and a 200,000 square foot convention
center, as well as other substantial commercial and recreational uses, "will obviously create greatly increased traffic demands impacting the Coachella Valley regional transportation system. The Department urges I` that the EIR adopt a regional perspective for its traffic analysis.
Special efforts should be made to coordinate the EIR's traffic report
with the ongoing SCAG Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study. A copy
of the city's notice of preparation has been. forwarded to the County Road
extend Department endadditi their review
onalcommentslater and cu derta separate eletter. Ityis�recom-
mended that the developer, or the City of Indian Wells .as the lead agency,
II contact Mr. Warren Stallard, Road Department Indio Office Manager, at
(619) 342-8267 and Mr. Ed Studor, Road Department Transportation Planner
at (714) 787-2519 in order to coordinate the EIR's traffic section with
County Road Department planning efforts.
i
B-11
Letter to City of Ino ,an Wells
Re: Notice of Preparation for Indian Wells Resort and
Convention Center
Date: June 24, 1986
Pg. 3.
IPlease do not hesitate to contact the Department's Indio Office
should you need any clarification of these comments or have need
for additional information regarding planning matters in the unin-
corporated areas adjacent to this
project.
oe number P J ct. The
is (619) 342-8277. office telephone � k
Very trulyFe ir,
yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Pau F. arks Su ervising P anner
CC: Supervisor Patricia Larson
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Cynthia J. Crotinger, Deputy Director ilk
Marshall Lee, Supervising Planner
Richard MacHott, Supervising Planner
Warren Stallard, Road Department
Ed Studor, Road Department
t e
I
1
PFC:ajp
B-12
�annirre i)�?a�- `
. December 4, 1986 �n�nr
PFC:9849D0
I Mr. Paul T. Kaneko, Planning Director
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA. 92210
RE: Second Notice of Preparation for Indian Wells Resort and
Convention Center.
i Dear Mr. Kaneko: r
.' Thank you for affording.the Riverside County Planning Department an opportu-
nity to comment on the second notice of preparation for the proposed Indian
Wells Resort and Convention Center. , I refer you to the Department's previous
letter dated June 24, 1986 regarding this project which I have attached and
incorporate herein by this reference. The previous letter's comments continue
to remain the same.
I note that the new project design proposes to locate a roadway along the
: property's easterly boundary opposite the existing Palm Desert Country Club
single family subdivision. This new location should be reviewed with care.
( Traffic along this way could occasion increased noise and other undesirable
rimpacts to the nearby homes. The roadways should be relocated more to the
, interior of the development (a more logical circulation pattern) or provided
with increased landscaped setbacks (e.g. ,. fifty feet) and block wall treat-
:ments. An acoustical study should also be" required to better define these
mitigation measures. .t.. .. ,
( Again, please do' not hesitate to contact the Department should you need .
additional information or have questions. The Indio Office maybe reached
lat (619) 342-8277
k. 'r vsi L { i, .1� i . ' �.. )141 M• rii�. FJ{J{. .t i- }.t
:Very truly yours,' t,F ac, :,r
E. , a-t ,. I ., tit}da�1• •_` (. ..•.I i .
tRIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT +, + ifov oI ? .
1 Roger. S. Streeter, Planning Director t:
of the R-1 cu,., r. „ { •L .,.
Jf' ,e } L ' •"it' 1rQ4Stmg! In orld,.f rQ
. n. e? Ri 7 uL' >'� J 1.lI fIN, }•tall ai)ll j' I^
•P�. (1 C�.�—�.�t'ld .(d a .. I ..,., .i„
l CPau F. C ark, Supervising Planner _,tal :r:jnt re`ri<w ,• ?:!: r 1 .,•>: .,;,,
Ir' .. :••, d Ft , I,at L . JY. �=. 'W,,. fl} trl �i 11,,1':;} ',. .!tr ;, �� t ., .{.i. .
Encl • ,
.t7
i
wrp„ PFC:aJP
-. rt Ut+i'•(F Ali'h' Cl RF F }, N•" FLC10R.,, • m i,� c1 Fit,
4(•.,:( Ot,SI F} F;:a"t L' ;1(,: _
t NIVF R;:I111(Al II 11HNlA 9;'!,01 3667. - INDIC.,,CAI IF OFtNIA U?'UI
• 1714) 781-61H1 '
1619) 342-8277
B-43
Riverside County Planning Department; Paul F. Clark,
Supervi'ng Planner. Letter dated Fe ruary 2�1987
Comment
014: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
The proposed convention center and resort hotel
complex, due to its proposed intensity and scale,
obviously reflects a significant change in the planned
lower density residential land uses on the 640 acre
property, as projected in both Riverside County' s and
the City of Indian Wells' presently adopted general
plan designations and existing zoning on the respec-
tive portions of the site. The Department is particu-
larly concerned about the impacts of such an intensive
use upon both existing and future residential develop-
ments or adjacent County land to the east and north.
Existing development includes the Palm Desert Country
club and the Oasis Country Club, presently undergoing
development adjacent to the eastern boundary of the
Sunterra project. Adjacent unincorporated land to the
north (and west) of the project site are designated
for residential development of two to five units per
acre, and subject to future land use compatibility
impacts.
Response
014: The Draft EIR reviews existing and planned land uses
surrounding the site and acknowledges the potential
for land use compatibility impacts. Mitigation
Measures are recommended (pp 21, 22) to ameliorate
these potential effects on adjacent residences.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will
reduce any potential land use impacts to a level of
non-significance.
Comment
015: A short term impact related to project approval would
be blowsand and noise impacts upon existing County
development located to the east (downwind) of the
project, that would result from grading, site prepara-
tion and construction of the Sunterra development.
Due to the massive scale of the proposed grading
operations as identified in Section 4.2 of the EIR
(Geology, Soils and Seismicity) , it is imperative that
enforceable blowsand and dust scatteration mitigation
measures be incorporated into all site grading opera-
tions. In addition to site irrigation on a continuous
basis during excavation and grading, and revegetation
of distrubed [sic] but undeveloped areas, mitigation
measure No. 54 listed on p. 167 of the draft, which
calls for the erection of blowsand fences during
construction, will be an effective physical mitigation
provided a time schedule of installation is indicated
and enforcement methods are more clearly indicated.
27
I
Riverside County Planning Department, Continued
Response
015: As stated, the draft EIR reviews blowsand and dust
impacts anticipated to occur during grading (p 158) .
Mitigation Measures Nos. 53, 54 and 55 reflect methods
for reducing these impacts which are provided in City
Code Section 8.24.010 (Blowsand and Dirt) and enforced
by requiring submittal of a plan for containment (Sec.
8.24.020) . Violations are subject to prosecution as a
misdemeanor (Sec. 8.24.030).
Comment
016: We note that there has been no change in the proposed
location of the roadway along the project's easterly
boundary, which could have compatibility effects upon
the adjacent Palm Desert Country Club, as noted in the
Department' s NOP response letter dated December 4,
1986. We wish to reiterate our concern for noise or
other undesirable impacts to nearby residences that
could result from significant traffic levels on this
route. If the relocation of this roadway to a more
interior project location is not proposed, the Final
EIR should identify specific mitigation measures to
assure compatibility such as an appropriate set back,
such as 50 feet, and a block wall heavily landscaped
separation. The need for an acoustical study to
document the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures
should also be addressed.
Response
016: To assess the noise impacts of internal traffic along
the subject roadway, an analysis was completed utiliz-
ing the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(Draft EIR, pp 150, 151) using a receptor distance of
100 feet from the roadway centerline to the property-
line of adjacent homes the maximum unattenuated noise
level at residential property lines would be 58.8
CNEL. Implementation of masonry wall and landscaping
screen in mitigation measures No. 52 as required in
City Code Section 21.26.040 will reduce this noise
level a minimum of 8 dB. The resulting noise levels
of between 50-60 dBA are well within the community
noise standard as provided in the General Plan. The
required wall will be designed for appropriate size so
that the noise environment for receptors east of the
project will be in compliance with the adopted commun-
ity noise standard.
28
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
Comment
017: VISUAL EFFECTS:
The Department concurs in the EIR' s finding that the
project will have an unavoidable adverse visual impact
upon surrounding areas due to the height of the
proposed hotel structures. We note that the antici-
pated building heights of between 60 feet to 100 feet
will require a separate discretionary variance approv-
al by the City, based on specific findings as required
by state planning law. However, concern remains with
regards to the EIR's discussion which indicates that
the project's skyline may be more intrusive to views
presently enjoyed from as-yet-undeveloped land areas
located on the north side of the project. This is due
to the fact that the foothills of the Santa Rosa
Mountains to the south form the most dominant element
in the natural environmental visible from the sur-
rounding area, and that access to this undeveloped
area will be enhanced due to improvement of roadways
in this vicinity to provide primary access to the
Sunterra project. The County recommends that such
mitigation measures as inclusion of visual buffers and
reduction of building profiles , identified in Section
4.6 of the EIR, be stringently applied throughout all
phases of project review and implementation. Avenue
42 is a county designated scenic route and a raised
landscaped median is anticipated to be included within
this portion of the route.
Response
017: The draft EIR found that 'The visual character of the
site will be altered, ' and that 'Some structures will
be seen from selected locations. ' (p. 66) while this
is an unavoidable change which would occur with this
development, the draft EIR leaves the decision as to
whether this change is positive or negative to the
discretion of the reader. The draft EIR found that
the resulting views would be similar to other devel-
oped areas in Indian Wells and surrounding communi-
ties.
The draft EIR did consider the views of the Santa Rosa
Mountains from as-yet-undeveloped properties, and
projected the Sunterra hotels as seen from northern
properties (Figure 14, p. 61) . It is intended that
the Mitigation Measures Nos. 29-31 in the draft EIR
for visual impacts be adopted as conditions of ap-
proval for the project. The developer will be re-
quired to coordinate with the County of Riverside for
appropriate roadway improvements (See Response No.
061) .
29
h • t ms
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
Comment
018: We do convey a particular concern regarding the
wording of mitigation measure No. 31 listed on page
66. This measure is not clear as to whether any
potential changes in building locations as identified
in the EIR will actually be submitted to the City or
any other agency for approval . We request that the
EIR document clearly specify that any substantial
change in building locations (or other revisions in
project design) be made subject to a future discre-
tionary review and approval by the City. Without a
specific provision for such future review and approv-
al , it is not certain that affected agencies such as
the County or adjacent community organizations would
be afforded an adequate opportunity for review. If
such a future redesign option is retained, the final
EIR should contain specific review criteria defining
which changes would exceed substantial conformance
with initial project design.
Response
018: Mitigation Measure No. 31 does require that any
changes in building location be approved by the City.
If these changes could significantly alter the views
evaluated in the EIR the City may require additional
environmental evaluation. Such evaluation may take
the form of an Addendum to the EIR.
Comment
019: HOUSING:
Approval of the Sunterra project will likely have an
unavoidable adverse impact in terms of the regional
deficiency of affordable housing opportunities. The
project at its full development potential will exacer-
bate this impact if, in fact, its employment needs
exceed the projected available labor supply in the
Coachella Valley, thereby inducing net immigration
into the region. Proposed mitigation measure No. 36
implies that low and moderate housing needs for
employees of the proposed project will be built
outside of the City of Indian Wells, based on an
intended transfer of funds allocated for low and
moderate housing construction. The EIR should more
specifically detail the mechanisms which will be used
to facilitate this transfer of funds. Nonetheless,
considering a regional "fair share" standpoint, the
City should accept responsibility for the location and
construction of at least a portion of the low and
moderate income housing need generated by the project
within the City' s jurisdiction itself. The location
30
If •S! Ins
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
of all or part of this housing within neighboring
jurisdictions, including the unincorporated area,
could burden such jurisdictions with impacts in terms
of public services costs, traffic impacts, and pro-
vision for school enrollments, to name only a few.
Response
019: Please refer to the Preface to (Section 3.0) regarding
employment and immigration. The City' s Housing
Element, which is currently being revised as part of a
separate General Plan update process, reviews SCAG
fair share allocations' designed to meet present and
future housing needs. Indian Wells current fair share
allocation is 39 units. Mitigation Measure No. 36 was
suggested as a method of utilizing the City's rede-
velopment funds to assist in the local deficiency of
affordable housing. If this method is selected by
City Council , its feasibility will need to be deter-
mined and coordinated with the appropriate jurisdic-
tion(s).
Comment
020: INTERNAL SITE DESIGN AND ACCESS:
The department has several additional concerns regard-
ing the specific internal design of the Sunterra
project. We are particularly concerned about the size
of the proposed lake (approximately 80 acres) intended
primarily for aesthetic purposes. The draft EIR
indicates a daily consumption of up to 11.1 acre feet
of water per day for landscaping purposes , compared
with 2.3 acre feet per day for the hotels and other
structures within the project. Even with the proposed
use of reclaimed wastewater for landscape irrigation
purposes and the associated reduction in the project' s
groundwater reduction rate, it appears that the amount
of water loss from the lake due to evaporation and the
consequent need for resupply is excessive in view of
the region's arid climate. We also request that
several more specific measures be added to those
listed on page 176 relating to water conservation.
These include the use of native, low-water consuming
plant species throughout the site, minimizing the use
of grass areas except where needed for recreational
purposes, and the use of low-water volume irrigation
techniques. A definitive procedure for specific
adequacy review of final project landscaping, irriga-
tion and development plan review by the City should be
included as a mitigation measure.
31
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
Response
020: According to the Coachella Valley Water District
(CVWD) evaporation from a water surface is less than
or equal to the amount of water lost from evaporation
and transpiration of landscaped areas covered by
grass. With respect to this information, the draft
EIR recommends the use of reclaimed wastewater for all
project landscaping. The size of the lake is there-
fore not considered any more excessive than an addi-
tional golf course. The suggested water mitigation
measures are noted and have previously been suggested
by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). It is
intended that numerous water conservation measures be
employed as suggested by DWR (Mitigation Measure No.
71). The CVWD has requested that the following be
included as mitigation: "Developer shall submit
grading, landscape and irrigation plans to CVWD for
review to ensure efficient water management" (see
Comment/Response No. 033) .
Comment
021: We note that on pages 128-129, where the number of
offstreet parking spaces to be provided within the
project boundaries is described, no specific mention
of parking spaces reserved for project employees is
made. An adequate discussion of parking facility
design should account for the number and location of
spaces to be reserved for employee usage (and there-
fore not available to project visitors and guests) .
Section 4.11, pages 138 to 140, identify a number of
deficiencies in the internal circulation system design
which may impede effective access to all portions of
the project by emergency vehicles. Among these
shortcomings is the lack of an all weather crossing of
the Whitewater Channel along the southerly project
boundary, at the existing terminus of Eldorado Drive.
Because of the size, intensity and occupancy levels of
the project, we feel that implementation of such an
access to the project in conjunctions with phased
anticipated development be seriously considered as an
essential mitigation measure. Furthermore, attention
should be given in addition to mitigation measures
listed on pages 140 and 141 , to providing a more
logical system for public access to the project rather
than meeting a minimum emergency access need, espe-
cially along Fred Waring Drive.
32
I
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
Response
021: The preliminary parking evaluation for Sunterra was
based upon criteria which included spaces for guests/
visitors at the hotels, conference center, shopping
villages and recreational facilities, and for employ-
ees at each of these land uses. About 25% of project
parking is planned for employees. Specific details of
reserved/nonreserved parking cannot be determined
until such facilities are designed. Adequate employee
and guest parking will be provided as determined by
the City.
While an all-weather crossing of the Whitewater
Channel at Eldorado Drive would be a desireable im-
provement for the City, it is not essential for
Sunterra traffic, or for adequate emergency response.
The draft EIR reviewed emergency response (Section
4.11) and fire protection (Section 4.14) for access
and response time. With the planned improvements to
Avenue 42, and Sunterra Drive (Eldorado Drive). Both
Fire Station 55 (located on Eldorado Drive) and Fire
Station 71 (located on Country Club Drive) will be
able to respond to the site within 5 minutes. All of
the on-site uses can be reached by emergency vehicles
from either the north or south project entrance.
Since stormflows along the Channel would be infrequent
short-term occurances, it was found that Station 71
could respond from the north during this time. It is
therefore not essential to Sunterra that the White-
water Channel all-weather crossing be constructed.
The project does provide for public access along Fred
Waring Drive. This access will be available to
trams/busses which will transport a large portion of
Sunterra guests.
Comment
022: Please note that no mention is made in the emergency
response section of the draft EIR (Section 4.11 ) of
the possible use of an extension of New York Avenue
from the easterly project boundary as an access route
for emergency services only. This concern has been
outlined in the County's initial response to the NOP
dated June 24, 1986. Although allowing direct through
traffic access to the project by means of this route
is certainly inappropriate in view of the attendant
impacts upon the Palm Desert Country Club residents,
the inclusion of this access point within the scheme
of an emergency access network should be addressed in
the EIR in view of the scale and intensity of the
proposal .
33
•t /AS
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
Response
022: A gated emergency access point at New York Avenue was
considered in the preparation of emergency response
section of the Draft EIR. It was felt that such an
access would be inappropriate for the following
reasons:
1) The project should provide adequate ingress and
egress access to major roadways for emergency use
without relying upon residential streets of Palm
Desert Country Club.
2) Since the access (if provided for egress from
Palm Desert Country Club) were provided, a locked
gate would be necessary to restrict its use.
Emergency vehicles responding to Palm Desert
Country Club could suffer time delays using a
locked egress and would likely prefer to exit the
area as they had entered.
3) An open access area would prevent construction of
required walls and landscaping to mitigate noise
impacts of the internal roadway upon adjacent
residents (as noted in your above Comment
#016).
However, the Draft EIR recommends that detailed
emergency access plan be submitted for approval of the
City and Fire Department (Mitigation Measure No. 49).
Upon review of this plan, the City and Fire Department
may again consider provision of an emergency access
point at New York Avenue. The need for an adequate
emergency access network is recognized.
Comment
023: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
Section 5.1 under Cumulative Impact states that no
significant impacts to the environment are anticipated
because potential impacts have been mitigated to a
level of insignificance. Yet, many sections in the
Draft EIR include cumulative or incremental impacts
under the unavoidable adverse impacts section. These
statements should be reviewed again in light of the
need for making overriding findings.
Response
023: Mitigation measures were provided for all significant
impacts identified to reduce any environmental effects
to levels of non-significance. None of the net
34
J t /AS
Riverside County Planning Department (Continued)
unavoidable adverse impacts are considered signifi-
cant. In considering the cumulative impact of Sun-
terra, all net unavoidable adverse impacts were
reviewed.
Comment
024: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative 4, as described on page 211 , says that the
site plan could be rearranged to remove the major
commercial uses from the area located in Indian Wells
and concentrate them into the County portion of the
property which would avoid discretionary approval of a
general plan amendment by the City of Indian Wells.
However, what is not said is that this alternative
would, instead, require discretionary approval of a
general plan amendment by the County because the
current general plan designation of the property in
questions allows residential uses only at a density of
two to five dwelling units per acre. Such discre-
tionary review by the County, which would also include
related changes of zones and use permits, would need
to take into account similar land use compatibility,
visual , housing needs and traffic circulation impacts
presently being reviewed through this draft EIR
process. Should consideration of this alternative, or
similar alternative, be actively proposed in the
future, the Department by these comments is not
indicating a predisposition or narrowing of review-
scope for portions of the project which remain within
County land use jurisdiction.
Response
024: Comment acknowledged. It is recognized that should
Alternative 4 be adopted, the City of Indian Wells
would only be responsible for discretionary uses
located within the City such as the golf courses and
other recreational uses. The applicant would need to
seek approval of all other land uses through the
County of Riverside. Approvals for a General Plan
Amendment, Change of Zone, Height Variance and other
actions would be subject to the discretion of the
County of Riverside and may require separate environ-
mental review as deemed appropriate by the County.
35
F •717
County of Riverside Road and Survey Department; John
Johnson, Associate Planner. Inter-Department Memor-
andum dated February 11 , 19 .
Comment
025: This project will have a significant impact upon the
County maintained road system which surrounds the
proposed project area, and it will affect some streets
as shown on the Comprehensive General Plan Circulation
Study Area 8 Map.
The project will interrupt the development of Eldorado
Drive. Presently, the plan is to develop Eldorado
Drive as an arterial (110' R/W) between Fred Waring
Drive and Del Safari Drive. The proposed project
entrance would center on Eldorado Drive at its inter-
section with Fred Waring Drive. This would require an
amendment to the Comprehensive General Plan, to delete
the reach of Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive
and Del Safari Drive.
Frank Sinatra Drive, Portola Avenue, Cook Street,
Hovely Lane, Eldorado Drive (between Hovely Lane and
Del Safari Drive) , and Del Safari Drive all will need
street improvements to accommodate the Sunterra Master
Plan. Cook Street must be improved during Phase I of
the project development. The LOS on Cook Street will
be decreased to 0 or E due to project impacts on
highway capacity.
Response
025: The draft EIR traffic analysis found that the project
will not have a significant impact on local roadways
since acceptable levels of service will be maintained.
A general plan amendment for the reconfiguration of
Eldorado Drive is being requested by the applicant.
The applicant will be required to coordinate with the
County of Riverside to contribute to any appropriate
street improvements within the County jurisdiction.
Comment
026: The study indicates that all other development will
impact highway capacity by 20 percent; the project
will impact that same capacity by 19 percent. This is
an overall increase of 39 percent with the project
impacting the circulation system as much as all other
types of development within the area. The mitigation
for this is to improve the circulation system serving
the project site.
36
Riverside County Road and Survey Department (Continued)
A specific mechanism providing for the improvement of
the surrounding circulation system should be developed
prior to the approval of any development permits for
any portion of the project.
Indicated in the plan is an estimated three year
construction period which will impact the circulation
system more than in a minor way as stated therein. An
encroachment permit must be obtained prior to any
construction being conducted within the road right-
of-way and all planned work therein must be approved
by the Road Commissioner.
Response
026: Comments noted. The effects of such construction are
reviewed in the draft EIR as short-term impacts.
While the draft EIR identified the necessary improve-
ments for circulation, methods for implementation of
these improvements will be developed by the City if
and when the project is approved. It is recognized
that the applicant must obtain encroachment permits
for construction within rights-of-way.
Comment
027: Airport passenger travel was addressed in the plan;
however, no specific plan for transportation, such as
bus service, hotel shuttle service, etc. , was proposed
to and from either airport, Palm Springs or Thermal .
The project proponent should coordinate the project
design with the Sunline Transit Agency to assure
accessibility for future transit service.
The transportation study effort presently being
conducted by SCAG could revise the basic assumptions
which underlay the Sunterra Master Plan EIR: Further
study could be necessary.
Response
027: A specific plan for transportation will be developed
as project design and operations are finalized. The
draft EIR recommended the applicant be required to
develop a Transportation System Management plan (TSM)
for the project (Mitigation Measure No. 56). It is
anticipated that the project would provide it' s own
airport shuttle service. Since the referenced SCAG
study was used as the basis for evaluating areawide
impacts, no further study should be necessary.
37
RiAsmi*c coun%y
RECEIVE" atanninc i)E?a�%mFn%
February 24, 1987 13607 FEB 25
MJM:9890DO
Cl'y OF
Mr. Paul Kaneko
Planning Director
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210-7497
Re: Response to Draft EIR, Case No. 6-86-1 , Sunterra Master Plan (SCH No. 86062302)
Dear Mr. Kaneko:
Thank you for allowing our Department the opportunity to provide comments on the
Draft EIR for the proposed Sunterra project, a resort complex containing conference
center, five hotels with a total of 4,500 rooms, retail villages and associated
recreational amenities including health club/spa, tennis center, golf course ,
clubhouse, and 80 acre take. The County Planning Department comments will be
focused on the project's impacts involving land use changes and compatibility
effects on adjacent residential development within the County, visual effects
of the proposed hotel development upon the views from adjacent developed and
undeveloped areas , water use and conservation concerns, impacts from proposed
grading operations including blowsand and noise impacts, and the project's growth
inducing impacts. In particular, the project's effects in terms of increased
employment generation and related demand for housing within the Coachella Valley
are a highlight. Further comments are offered on proposed parking facilities,
internal circulation system and public street access as well as the Draft EIR's
comparison of project alternatives . Reference is made throughout these comments
to observations offered in previous letters from our department on this project
proposal (June 24, 1986, and December 4, 1986) , which were submitted in response
to the Notices of Preparation (NOP's) for the Draft EIR.
Please note that the Sunterra Draft EIR has been referred to the County Road
Department for a detailed review and analysis of the project's traffic generation
and circulation impacts as presented in the document. Outside of expressing a
concern over increased traffic and access near and within unincorporated communi-
ties like Palm Desert Country Club, the Planning Department's comments will not
include observations on the project's anticipated impact upon capacities and
service levels of roadways in the vicinity, nor any response regarding the
adequacy of traffic and circulation mitigation measures that are proposed in
the EIR. Any specific questions regarding the County's concerns with the adequacy
of the traffic study included in the Draft EIR, or the sufficiency of mitigation
measures listed therein, should be referred to Mr. Ed Studor of the Transportation
Planning Division of the Road Department at (714) 787-2519.
4080 LEMON STREET,9T" FLOOR 46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM 304
RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA 92501.3657 INDIO.CALIFORNIA 92201
(714) 787-6181 (619) 342-8277
--t
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Two
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS:
The proposed convention center and resort hotel complex, due to its proposed
intensity and scale, obviously reflects a significant change in the planned
lower density residential land uses on the 640 acre property, as projected
in both Riverside County' s and the City of Indian Welts' presently adopted
general plan designations and existing zoning on the respective portions of
the site. The Department is particularly concerned about the impacts of such
an intensive use upon both existing and future residential developments or
adjacent County land to the east and north. Existing development includes the
Palm Desert Country Club and the Oasis Country Club, presently undergoing
development adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Sunterra project. Adjacent
unincorporated land to the north (and west) of the project site are designated
for residential development of two to five units per acre, and subject to
future land use compatibility impacts.
A short term impact related to project approval would be blowsand and noise
impacts upon existing County development located to the east (downwind) of the
project, that would result from grading, site preparation and construction of
the Sunterra development. Due to the massive scale of the proposed grading
operations as identified in Section 4.2 of the EIR (Geology, Soils and Seismicity) ,
it is imperative that enforceable blowsand and dust scatteration mitigation mea-
sures be incorporated into all site grading operations. In addition to site
irrigation on a continuous basis during excavation and grading, and revegetation
of distrubed but undeveloped areas, mitigation measure No. 54 listed on p. 167
of the draft, which calls for the erection of blowsand fences during construc-
tion, will be an effective physical mitigation provided a time schedule of
installation is indicated and enforcement methods are more clearly indicated.
We note that there has been no change in the proposed location of the roadway
along the projectes easterly boundary, which could have compatibility effects
upon the adjacent Palm Desert Country Club, as noted in the Department's NOP
response letter dated December 4, 1986. We wish to reiterate our concern for
noise or other undesirable impacts to nearby residences that could result from
significant traffic levels on this route. If the relocation of this roadway to
a more interior project location is not proposed, the Final EIR should identify
specific mitigation measures to assure compatibility such as an appropriate
set back, such as 50 feet, and a block wall heavily landscaped separation. The
need for an acoustical study to document the adequacy of proposed mitigation
measures should also be addressed.
VISUAL EFFECTS:
The Department concurs in the EIR's finding that the project will have an
unavoidable adverse visual impact upon surrounding areas due to the height of
the proposed hotel structures. We note that the anticipated building heights
of between 60- feet to 100 feet will require a separate discretionary variance
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Three
approval by the City, based on specific findings as required by state planning
law. However, concern remains with regards to the EIR's discussion which
indicates that the project' s skyline may be more intrusive to views presently
enjoyed from as-yet-undeveloped land areas located on the north side of the
project. This is due to the fact that the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains
to the south form the most dominant element in the natural environment visible
from the surrounding area, and that access to this undeveloped area will be
enhanced due to improvement of roadways in this vicinity to provide primary
access to the Sunterra project. The County recommends that such mitigation
measures as inclusion of visual buffers and reduction of building profiles ,
identified in Section 4.6 of the EIR, be stringently applied throughout all ,
phases of project review and implementation. Avenue 42 is a County designated
scenic route and a raised landscaped median is anticipated to be included within
this portion of the route.
We do convey a particular concern regarding the wording of mitigation measure
No. 31 listed on page 66. This measure is not clear as to whether any potential
changes in building locations as identified in the EIR will actually be sub-
mitted to the City or any other agency for approval . We request that the EIR
document clearly specify that any substantial change in building locations (or
other revisiions in project design) be made subject to a future discretionary
review and approval by the City. Without a specific provision for such future
review and approval , it is not certain that affected agencies such as the County
or adjacent community organizations would be afforded an adequate opportunity for
review. If such a future redesign option is retained, the final EIR should con-
tain specific review criteria defining which changes would exceed substantial
conformance with initial project design.
HOUSING:
Approval of the Sunterra project will likely have an unavoidable adverse impact
in terms of the regional deficiency of affordable housing opportunities. The
project at its full development potential will exacerbate this impact if, in fact,
its employment needs exceed the projected available labor supply in the Coachella
Valley, thereby inducing net immigration into the region. Proposed mitigation
measure No. 36 implies that low and moderate housing needs for employees of the
proposed project will be built outside of the City of Indian Wells, based on an
intended transfer of funds allocated for low and moderate housing construction.
The EIR should more specifically detail the mechanisms which will be used to
facilitate this transfer of funds. Nonetheless, considering a regional "fai.r
share" standpoint, the City should accept responsibility for the location and
construction of at least a portion of the low and moderate income housing need
generated by the project within the City's jurisdiction itself. The location of
all or a part of this housing within neighboring jurisdictions, including the
unincorporated area, could burden such jurisdictions with impacts in terms of
public services costs, traffic impacts, and provision for school enrollments, to
name only a few.
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Four
INTERNAL SITE DESIGN AND ACCESS:
The department has several additional concerns regarding the specific internal
design of the Sunterra project. We are particularly concerned about the size
of the proposed lake (approximately 80 acres) intended primarily for aesthetic
purposes. The Draft EIR indicates a daily consumption of up to 11 .1 acre feet
of water per day for landscaping purposes, compared with 2.3 acre feet per day
for the hotels and other structures within the project. Even with the proposed
use of reclaimed wastewater for landscape irrigation purposes and the associated
reduction in the project's groundwater reduction rate, it appears that the
amount of water loss from the lake due to evaporation and the consequent need
for resupply is excessive in view of the region's arid climate. We also request
that several more specific measures be added to those listed on page 176 relating
to water conservation. These include the use of native, low-water consuming
plant species throughout the site, minimizing the use of grass areas except
where needed for recreational purposes, and the use of low-water volume irrigation
techniques. A definitive procedure for specific adequacy review of final project
landscaping, irrigation and development plan review by the City should be included
as a mitigation measure.
We note that on pages 128-129, where the number of offstreet parking spaces to be
provided within the project boundaries is described, no specific mention of parking
spaces reserved for project employees is made. An adequate discussion of parking
facility design should account for the number and location of spaces to be reserved
for employee usage (and therefore not available to project visitors and guests) .
Section 4.11 , pages 138 to 140, identify a number of deficiencies in the internal
circulation system design which may impede effective access to all portions of the
project by emergency vehicles. Among these shortcomings is the lack of an all
weather crossing of the Whitewater Channel along the southerly project boundary,
at the existing terminus of Eldorado Drive. Because of the size, intensity and
occupancy levels of the project, we feel that implementation of such an access to
the project in conjunction with phased anticipated development be seriously con-
sidered as an essential mitigation measure. Furthermore, attention should be
given in addition to mitigation measures listed on pages 140 and 141 , to providing
a more logical system for public access to the project rather than meeting a mini-
mum emergency access need, especially along Fred Waring Drive.
Please note that no mention is made in the emergency response section of the
Draft EIR (Section 4.11 ) of the possible use of an extension of New York Avenue
from the easterly project boundary as an access route for emergency services only.
This concern has been outlined in the County's initial response to the NOP dated
June 24, 1986. Although allowing direct through traffic access to the project
by means of this route is certainly inappropriate in view of the attendant impacts
upon the Palm Desert Country Club residents, the inclusion of this access point
within the scheme of an emergency access network should be addressed in the EIR
in view of the scale and intensity of the proposal .
r
Mr. Paul Kaneko
February 24, 1987
Page Five
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
Section 5.1 under Cumulative Impact states that no significant impacts to the
environment are anticipated because potential impacts have been mitigated to a
level of insignificance. Yet, many sections in the Draft EIR include cumulative
or incremental impacts under the unavoidable adverse impacts section. These
statements should be reviewed again in light of the need for making overriding
findings.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative 4, as described on page 211 , says that the site plan could be rearranged
to remove the major commercial uses from the area located in Indian Wells and con-
centrate them into the County portion of the property which would avoid discretionary
approval of a general plan amendment by the City of Indian Wells. However, what is
not said is that this alternative would, instead, require discretionary approval of
a general plan amendment by the County because the current general plan designation
of the property in question allows residential uses only at a density of two to five
dwelling units per acre. Such discretionary review by the County, which would also
include related changes of zones and use permits, would need to take into account
similar land use compatibility, visual , housing needs and traffic circulation impacts .
presently being reviewed through this draft EIR process. Should consideration of
this alternative, or similar alternative, be actively proposed in the future , the
Department by these comments is not indicating a predisposition or narrowing of
reviewscope for portions of the project which remain within County land use
jurisdiction.
Please feel free to contact the Department should a need for clarification of the
above comments be needed. Prior to certification of the EIR, please forward to
the Indio Office of the Department a copy of the final EIR document, including all
responses to agency comments. Please also forward to the Indio Office notification
of all future public hearings within the City of Indian Wells , including hearings
before the City Council . We would appreciate notification of the final disposition
of this project and a copy of any conditions of approval .
Very truly yours ,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Paul F. Clark, Supervising Planner
PFC:br
cc: Roger S. Streeter, Planning Director
Cynthia J. Crotinger, Deputy Planning Director
Mark Balys, Deputy Planning Director
Kim Jarrell Johnson, Special Projects Section
Warren Stallard, Road Department Branch Manager, Indio
Ed Studor, Road Department Transportation Planning
�,RE7t�e'1� �tFT. Gl�3EuF
RECEIVED INTER DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
1987 W -3 PH 0 N UNTY OF RIVERSIDE L. FEB 17 1987
CITY OF INOIAN WELLS Ro and Survey Department
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 119 1987
TO: Roger Streeter , Planning Director IQ
ATTN: Kim Jarrell-Johnson M fCFivFjl
FROM: John Johnson, Associate Planner AR1019
SYy�MtyFMlq
RE: 'EIR - Sunterra Master Plan (City of Indian Yells) Sa `
This project will have a significant impact upon .the County
maintained road system which surrounds the proposed project area,
and it will affect some streets as shown on the Comprehensive
General Plan Circulation Study Area 8 Map.
The project will interrupt the development of Eldorado
Drive . Presently, the plan is to develop Eldorado Drive as . an
arterial ( 110 , R/W) between Fred Waring Drive and Del Safari
Drive . The proposed project entrance would center on Eldorado
Drive at its intersection with Fred Waring Drive . This would
require an amendment to the Comprehensive General Plan, to delete
the reach of Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Del
Safari Drive .
Frank Sinatra Drive , Portola Avenue , Cook Street, Hovley
Lane , Eldorado Drive (between Hovley Lane and Del Safari Drive ) ,
and Del Safari Drive all will need street improvements to
accommodate the Sunterra Master Plan . Cook Street must be
improved during Phase I of the project development. The LOS on
Cook Street will be decreased to D or E due to project impacts on
highway capacity.
The Study indicates that all other development will impact
highway capacity by 20 percent ; the project will impact that same
capacity by 19 percent. This is an overall increase of 39 percent
with the project impacting the circulation system as much as all
other types of development within the area . The mitigation for
this is to improve the circulation system serving the project
site .
A specific mechanism providing for the improvement of the
surrounding circulation system should be developed prior to the
approval of any development permits for any portion of the
project.
Indicated in the plan is an estimated three year
construction period which will impact the circulation system more
than in a minor way as stated therein. An encroachment permit
must be obtained prior to any construction being conducted
within the road right-of-way and all planned work therein must be
approved by the Road Commissioner .
Roger Streeter , Planning Director
ATTN: Kim Jarrell-Johnson
February 11 , 1987
Page 2
Airport passenger travel was addressed' in the plan ; however ,
no specific plan for transportation, such as bus service , hotel
shuttle service , etc. , was proposed to and from either airport,
Palm Springs or Thermal . The project proponent should coordinate
the project design with the Sunline Transit Agency to assure
accessibility for future transit service .
The transportation study effort presently being conducted by
SCAG could revise the basic assumptions which underlay the
Sunterra Master Plan EIR. Further study could be necessary.
JJ :lg
i -
LAW OFFICES
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER. KNOX A ELLIOTT
Los Ax•t1211 COMftw Tewtw WAtwlueTOx. nL
ImA7Y•Ilttf r1p0,1 tt0 TOW. CEWT i1. OtVt ■Il1w ROGx
C. m
A•t Scull. MEuttOA tittlT IIW 1t11 D.C.
x. .t
:Ot Ax0[L[{, CA 90071.100E tuns Ut wAtu�waTOx, D D.C. eoat•tttt
troll 1113•0100
(mv V,•faae C601A MESA. CJ 0262s-I991
Liu lawteea OAe,IA"%M
It" lAA.CItfA
Txl,O IlOOA ♦4LG0 FI,, Lw Mt-Out 000
Io0�M a.,AwAAAUt IDI0 -t-e1•tf•t[T
64. rwA xC AGO, :A t•l05•1296 mot uc• 6. ,-Dt]t
to•,ti.
14I91 tl]•t700 :tltl
December 15, 1967 WA1/LR/ DlttCT 0141 .u....
n1.0 xuMtU
Planning Commission �1
City of Pals Desert DEC, 6�*`v
73510nFr d Waring9Driv °o•Mr� :m,, 5IgoPalm J
ne: CPA 67-5 and C/Z 87-11:
Planning Commission Agenda
for December 15, 2987
sonorable Members of the Planning Commission:
This office represents the Sunrise COmpanT, owner of
the 640 acres collectively referred to as the •6unterra
Project," located within the City of Indian Wells and its
Sphere of influence adjacent to the territory proposed for the
above general plan amendment and pre-zoning.
We are concerned about the proposed amendment of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan of your city. The main
entrance to the 8unterra Project is at the intersection of
Eldorado and Avenue 42. The effect of deletion of 8ldorado
north of Avenue 42 and deletion of Avenue 42 as a major
oast/west collector street as now provided in the existing
General Plan Circulation Sloments of the City of Indian Wells,
City of Palm Desert, and County of Riverside as well as in the
6CAG transportation model, would be a major problem for the
6unterra Project.
The implementing pre-zoning for this General Plan
Amendment is subject to similar concerns.
Neither the amendment to the General Plan nor the
pre-zoning have had the benefit of a full Environmental rmpact
Report, as required by the California Environmental Quality
Act, but rather have been given only the summary analysis
accorded a Negative Declaration. Were a full environmental
analysis provided in an Environmental Impact Report, we believe
that the problems inherent in this proposed amendment and
pre-zoning would become apparent.
4-- G
NOSSAMAN, CUTHNER, Ki.JX a ELLIOTT _ x� �,�(-� 4,c
lw>lk""^ - ry
Planning Commission — �, ,'F;ccc�.M ✓t �t'n`°
City of Palm Desert
December 15, 1907
Page 1 Z
The problems are summarily dismissed by the aimp e
unsupported conclusions that the traffic study done by rem,
Desert In not consistent with that done by the City of Indian
wells, and therefore the City of Indian wells traffic study is
wrong, we think that this is a superficial analysis that Can
only be a presage to the inevitable problems created by poor
planning.
The Conflicting conclusions based upon traffic data
from the Palm Desert end Indian wails studies of the same
Subject warrant further analysis before jumping to the wholly
unsupported conclusion that the data of the Palm Desert study
is sound, while that of the Indian wells study is to be
ignored. The Palm Desert Capacity Calculations, based on
average daily volumes, rather than peak hour volumes, are not
only highly unusual, but also logically suspect. The resultant
unrealistic LOS levels are readily apparent from any inspection
of Monterey Avenue south of 1-10, which according to the Palm
Desert study now is at LOB level "F.` Further, traffic
generation figures are based upon non-comparable conditions
which also produce unrealistic results.
we think that the following staff report comment
seriously needs to be re-evaluated in the more responsible
context of established planning by local governments and the
patently regional nature of the traffic Circulation system
l� serving not only adjacent cities and unincorporated county
u� territory but also the City of Palm Desert:
C*,Pelm Desert has no commitment to any street
tern in the eastern sphere of influence nor
s Palm Desert have any obligation to provide
icular access to a property in another city. "
Finally, since these actions by the City of Palm
Desert are but a preliminary stay in the annexation of the Good
Samaritan Village, Lakes Country Club golf course expansion
property and adjacent 100 undeveloped and uninhabited acres, we
believe that further analysis of the annezation procedure
initiated by the City of Palm Desert would be appropriate, even
though ostensibly initiated by some of the presumably
registered voter residents of the Good Samaritan Retirement
Village.
N053AMAN, GUTHNEA, A 8 ELLIOTT
Planning commission
City of Palm Desert
December 15, 1907
Page 3
We urge the Planning Commission to consider caretuily
the issues stated in this letter. In the event that they are
not addressed appropriately in any action by the Planning
Commission on these matters, we will address these issues again
before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert.
Ver truly yours,
J as E. Erickson
of NO88AMAN, GUTHUR, KNOX fi ELLIOTT
JEE/lmb -
1348E
TOTAL P.04
f
e wl
O Le'9C OL, -�.Lf•,Lo OrY �I
D
, I i
Lj
sl
i
Of to LI 3 1
ate
I
IYM`•d �� �° J
}� y
IrS N �
I o
�o �o
" • ... ;..i. .: ' N ...�...�..�...��?/0 ...��V211
IU Til
Y1
7'S SL 7t
'Ow d 090-910 lV H1 S1/lH7 AIl9 Ib!7S�17 /5'7F41 u
� O 8i 4 _
so so
_ •Y� Mi,
Y ,y.
Yti I �t v
V 4
I Y '
M.LLr`v�Ilyi�fyl{l'Ic,y" ♦ ••, .. Y IVOIIM I, IN,IM
Vw � 'f1'w' �FtwM1�•�Or�w 1i�Iii 1121+' M
n h I U0 M1 M1�r
I./r!�![IIl(�rlttits ip I 2 f0E OT OIa 64!OYI MM 0 2NME lm�
11 I`�X�6�EQ�'rR�''I). II(IWW n r 1(AP1 Ci M �
n 11� 1MC� �11 E ! —
1`n y10[D �S e I 1I' 6Y
Nfl�fYl IMi/iI CI M♦Iw Nr 1MY I'1 AYI
♦ 1 1 )1� 101 O6 I M
T� fICNS
'nnNp nz 613�/�1 75 Q12{Y-Op 010 1 G.N)" 6V YN1
/D(pV 1)1(}� u ( Il p JJ Mt 1``11((11((M II
19. YM•N 111111101'.. (/M= IM ^.2TIr1'I�N'OOM
3
1 p1n + ftt(T �[� (♦ 9 ICy Inn rilr 92261
If/rl,{I'AL E(](FIIOI SR aSXM1�IIVMI• ••M[• 2w[♦
IN 1
M1P N N OI+YD 'I •Y
Y�I1�e [�l/� 1 rTMw'MIH
PIS Eb1IP%krK(lam►" INI tIllm ITV lf�1V Jh p12 6Y OIl10n t M1VSS Vlr•':
v l py �1CM N n 00
"YIN/NI 4& V N YC 10 !Is w '.
•T"" ff"IIIIPI WE W'S MINIS '.
D6d (,11ND I,G'1 % i4591F(�f6i FdFTiFKY F6'3T ''MIM2A1• fI22 b•167 , IN
/F} ERIPrINR N1101 KSCDI•IIG KXSXC ID0055� CV rM 99N+1(1 IYU s)e lr IEVS MCO FRRlllt5 K' Ol KXSXE /ClESs-
r}IDSV XRX, IYIEV CORP G133 OT-O%M-030-012 3 "733 y131 .yr 10CFN' I
n ♦ y411151 sl )C 0 W GW. ILONIKE 1
pIOVIq. 1L 60510 n ' 1%l qlr IME eF
cMVfrp501n 0312�1X1 c RMRI <OOI.
rnES n t In/qINN I M 101•00)IN `12Y VI51I'albs
.II Ilan xs[v1 9226"
fi� .v1 rO , O 12 IS D3
LOT O]
nEvSfr M C6I 01016 6Y-0)-013 BR) .I72, CTUIyK
15) s 0
WIr11. 11 60110
PM01202b1 ^I T IIWSTI w C R1F0 IROMIEE/.,
D2 I(Ks NIL IN IL•M I In 101 M,In iEiCIII ylm( _
'951 Min IMMI.
iH:C1)NG N9
IRCIIN wvsfF3dt INC 1016112 01E-060 6Y-030 01V-� S%IY M'•1O :••I61Y OM'Er IO M 0!Y'S1
n i•YO 5 G a Wl lY IC 0-00 LOT IW M 103.066 +I •Y
INCLEYOOD. C. WWI 'V•d NWIS
o MSE I%
16053G 074�Ds sil
3 .N`I:wES n'L IN Ip IM 2 In OP11066 M GVE•IV'LIMLD
13VW n 1 JD 1pIwNPr [•
1C6S(1NK`q"WS' r'
3111W IyINS+iM�pyLNID a I.GIMP%I 31%10 O)1012 6Y-OX OI6 1 31%'0 3116•+ Mtn 4", 522E('
1 0CFEFS".1. WDSV iC 0 00 13N31MKt t5 M 2!M
I)5E YY �5[19 C2 NLt q, III N 'T7^6C +I T
W SE 1 Y aSEC 10 r55 116C OI I014L
OCXIIIi IOII SR KSESWNS MIS 5S
l n R'iENS(p 1MC 10A36 ON-C60 6Y 030-01I 2 '07S Y IC19fib 1O) ar.
^'♦ C'0 JNES IEiEF. !C 0.00 INn DET* V226u
OOIE Sr STE '%
rA&' Cn 92660 ',NN,r 2if2V' 2 ♦ S+
rblVEv 1 ISwT 06N3DSSE d W M L01 1021� 1nl 16D 'Z •T
Va WIS
22.M%I Es IN ID~ 1 IN%,,W NI
NII
FYI 941" '1101-% F7 L�fNTTIM-BT - IAIR7vl INIM NPI 6, ♦ K
T,1 CHR111M5 R1 !Ol rrsS[IS[!• IDOR%• OESCIIIr10N IV NI .yM) M LAND S)D i.V MONS I111 ERMIIM Nl 1O' SpISSE S - y 5$- I
+aNI 0 .IMi�I 11Dv„I) 1TC 010:�6Y-N11 001-1 31!g0 T000 11000
I�i1a 51Yir�pw�1 fr
n 2110 - s N "M OII. '1lD Csyy I]
n
N all 52210
I�I� 152I60p$ 147
��1I(II M a1 N(
1: r 1Y11n 01 I. D(r1)'1 a INI ON 2bDOI 110]
R
NYI WAS i
Mr IIFM• CON 1'I�000 o1o:Mt aY wl.00r n ]IOR' ]f00:1 11b00 Mai aF NIL11w
4 1 /K I G lOTM1 DO N r IT I YIFa IbS
1RiO
I 122f0
Nn nYl') M3W' �E.p] MIST 1 aE{� F[.y<�`
1. I No?0]•OaE II MIT 1 a IN1 bl rblpl a���6�+a .t,V
O]0fI SpE1 I�QAS
NII l i))Na 01�OO EY-MI 00]-I PINK) V1.V ']� Elm p M. 11
I lM[
Nlrryryryry LlE([y S / OD 1 1wC i FD
N 1 1�LOIC lEf. C }TT N
Pay
ry.wwd ilM.
`.I i • h • w �I • �w �_ rr
. #Ir
�
Ali,
Ilan. eY •- I• r �'Mn' 1.1 V`4�i1 4nn
mr M 'OPw�'•� Y+"wlPr law xli+aSi+11w� +ww Ir r' wa
_M 1
r1 OF�I 1. � .y n; ^Y r . � i,..r .. w rS r •
I'IT NIMI r '1 • I.•Ir
Nr +w
F' ML .v S M YI/'II un
' P• VR'Ix rW r /Ir q,r w. A Iwr ln\
f±F PwY Frlr• ._ 'Af FJR
v 415 A'Jr [vlTr:.Mt r(' •n• nVVr Kf. Naw%. r•e s 1 dyyi^r I1M fl +9F• T ,MO 51• u 4• rwc L'f Tl;nR T' '
r J.�r '•' °;' It WE VPI '+WU •OLL •' AM SY Or Mr e
rP•'r•' hp,• f
rla.'w IS"�
nt c ' I.hlr LOF 663ry `lox 6J2'Or 1.1�v y6J\• yp,.. n •T• 1 Ila
lagvlP. q 60a'n v16'� 'llffi
5[ T YR rlf S• �qIr P.Tr
na a D'202'l 01 h SIJ 'I
•..fl Yrx
[r i000 JMI'fx 9Y.ffh IAI9)nA O% 6Y.np nC)• rnan iwr yp ,w�•.�
w ' 'w 000 wSl MTNf r lr O.M
6FMI)w f sJ. 5D 6YOJ(UJ'
PI1+
SOLD IC 1E5. .^:M +6•'^ IaYllr -Ms
YY CARIy.I, IM05.
roLll f2160 xi5i0a.r�5'^�'YJr
15F .R6 K.M z N dS[ ry T w1
✓ Ir w)A. In• M]A °'qwF r' Prrtr
:4•g1i"IEMIIISE `ro tKhM nn.OJ6 IV OM-aN ' rrM T. vww PRE
1 0 E MU YP IL 1%. C.M
O p v)
DL M.I dYP1. CP 92261 nPr hiP:P
�- y�Iqq rlSt+ rpLw
'N 5•vr,6M. I0'n sr
�wir PPr.:'
iVd IIN am,Ems' 6Y}MI J3'012 6Y of 01. 1 5VMa' SYJM'
w r Ir wlJ _ e a2Ar. rC 0'00 I•. rIL IrM
;� rr Rn6 v qp. aPrrr,fLu I
V^.M '0'- M IO lI I,V d 4t 'o 155 Id wtn Tq.r .
r(➢ rOra. dgllllllrM WE
P54<5015 mK _R n
'IfrFM I LF01MV0 f. . SJ15a.1f 012 AY OY 01. a 511ar .n•-
n r FM p O/11511Mr llvllrf• rr n M
IwI lI'6. M 12Y.Y
Th[r 002J)1 rr n
T M.1&S 1. 'W 4,1 I,n d Y f 'O 111 i6f
rm rn.M ttYMIP+Iw q[ 1/iY556^ MK
IN P.7 hIW. nr'Ir M A. [AI 1*L FM fK 40 W V IFp421A, M'L N16J R
fIEW':ry K• 'g, p5g " nDLR'15. dgll/)IPr fV tM 11 ' Y' Li Sr• I Y IFI1 AL.' ITKI:I Y' 10,
Pao vt W
r„°Y' dlwK• Iww 1w V)JJ Or OM fiv OJC-nlr 6r133 6r131
f'M NPFS 11'f•IF I1��I Tlln� M)A •a2.� Y I� :ROII,
•yx d yM.
015� dAYr NYM f/.1• 11)2) ) n
O.OIb{YOYI-nl J'r 'I12• •tr2- ."r.Iw Mf l{I N w
F IM; I?I 11 • Ofl
'UD PYp.P. II T N In
.: I rPF61JrixOrV w A Im rn,A �EZ I e P
Ilfl�I .wwq I,1 IOIZSY OIt.pO tY 010.OIr. 1MIY tA"'11` •.•I5Y lt' III �^Y
YIFS P IMJPS M l T Mr M6 dl ryF JO
I AISV IIIIIIIrI LIMN IM'0 p IV or 0" . JIwO \ISw'.•
11 I I'•'l� e M rvs
'IV IM. n MAv � I
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611
July 7, 1987
Dempsey Hahn Corp.
140 1st Street
Batavia, 1L 60510
Re: Annexation of property to City of Palm Desert
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that the City of Palm Desert is in receipt of a petition for
annexation from Good Samaritan Society for its 20 acre site immediately north
of your property known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 632-030-006 through 008,
632-030-012 & .013, and 632-030-013 and 014.
Before we process that annexation request the City of Palm Desert would be
interested in talking with you regarding whether you might be interested in
becoming a part of this annexation.
If you have any questions or would be interested in meeting to discuss this
matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Steve Smith of this office or
myself.
Very truly yours,
,RA ON A D I AZ�(/
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DE
RAD/SRS/tm
�Gcu
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development/Planning
DATE: July 1 , 1987
SUBJECT: Good Samaritan Annexation
In order to bring Good Samaritan into the city it will be necessary to include
some adjoining properties. One of which is owned by a person in Illinois.
Before leaving on vacation Steve Smith sent him a letter expressing our
interest in including his parcel as part of that annexation. We will follow
up on this when he returns.
It appears that this annexation will be completed prior to Avondale/Palm
Valley.
i �`
RA A. DIAZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUlITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
l
RAD/tm
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Community Development/Planning
DATE: July 1 , 1987
SUBJECT: Avondale/Palm Valley Annexations
To date we have received very few annexation petitions from either group. I
met with Avondale Board about two weeks ago concerning our position on privacy
planting.
Avondale people indicated they were continuing to gather petitions, but had
difficulty in summer. We are cooperating with them to resolve their previous
problems with Desert Falls. This is being done as part of Jim Temple's
application to revamp Desert Falls. This should assist us in eventually
bringing them into the city.
Palm Valley is another issue, with Sunrise still owning the vast majority of
the club. We have received about 20 petitions.
Steve Smith is currently on vacation and we' ll make contact with both groups
again when he returns.
RAMON A. DIAZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY 0 VELOPMENT/PLANNING
RAD/tm
�Nlf_IIUI I !!L Mi MWANUUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING
DATE: MAY 14, 1987
SUBJECT: ATTACHED PETITION
Attached Is a requested annexation petition frorn Good Samaritan Village
located on the north tide of HovleY Lane (Avenue 42) .
Staff would recommend that it he instructed to proceed with this: annexation as
soon as possible.
don
RAMON A. DIAZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY VELOPMENT/PLANNING
RAD/tm
SAMAUtTAN
® n' Phone: 619/346-5420
® GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE 41-505 Carlotta Drive • Palm Desert, California 92260
ter/
April 28, 1987,11 .
To: The Honorable City Council
Ui,i;Ilisquiic!li City of Palm Desert larr u;
Enclosed find a completed petition for annexation of the property
of Good Samaritan Village to the city of Palm Desert.
We respectfully request that the petition be placed on the agenda
of the City Council for its May 14th meeting.
If you need additional information or have any questions,. please
contact me at the above number.
Sincerely,
/f <
0
Charles Dingler
Administrator
t
P E T I T I O N
TO: THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
In Accordance with the Municipal Organization Act as amended, Government
Sections 35000 to 35400,
The Fv I iithpr�n f' nd--1,am Gila --So iet do=nn h D ' n t f ' -fornia
as Good Samaritan V-..11age
owners of all subject property legally desr-ribed below (see map attached
hereto) respectfully request said property be annexed to the City of Palm
Desert.
Legal Description:
Parcel #3 and Lettered Lot D of Parcel Map #17951 as shoran by Map on
file in Book 101, Pages 7 and 8 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County,
California.
Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw at any time prior to its
finalization.
Dated this 21.st day of April , 1987.
T�LUTHERA�ARITP�—SOCIETY
By: e
treasurer
Address: The Ev. Lutheran Good Samaritan Society
1000 West Avenue North
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57104
Telephone: (605) 336-2498
i
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: MARCH 7, 1986
SUBJECT: PREZONING IN NORTH SPHERE AREA
At the last meeting staff was instructed to review the problems of prezonino
areas in our north sphere for annexation prior to the adoption of the north
Sphere area plan. The annexation process after a pre-one takes 6 to 8 months
For completion. Prezoning for annexation usually requires 2 to 2 1/2 months.
The property which is generating this discussion belongs to Mr. Lionel
Steinberg, located on Frank Sinatra, east of Monterey, and has been considered
for annexation for over a year. In Mr. Steinberg's case he is proposing a
hotel development on a portion of his acres. As we have discovered in the
Past, hotel financing is tricky at best. Of course, there Is a problem in
evaluating any proposal in an area where a specific plan is under study and it
is natural that there be a hesitancy to prezone any parcels prior to having
the specific plan adopted. However, on the other hand is the possibility of
losing a desired development which would have been approved if the plan had
been in place. Perhaps a review method which would allow the consultant
that would be written in the north sphere area to evaluate a proposal for its
consistency with their ultimate recommendations might be a way to solve this
problem.
Basically, the options before us are two: 1 ) to process proposed annexations
and development plans with review Dy the consultant and specific plan review 111
committee rior to the adop ion of the_p1aA,or. 2) withholding all processing
until the plan has been completely adopted or a otefacto moratorium.
RECOMMENDATION:
I would recommend that council instruct staff to establish a method of
implementing option I . It now appears that the land use planning consultants
can be under contract by April , at which time it can be determined from
discussion with that firm as to how long it will be before an intelligent
evaluation can be obtained regarding prezone problems. If staff' s
recommendation for implementation is acceptable, we would com back with
something for the council in late April or early May, establishi the method
Of implementing option I . If option 2 is selected, we will processing
all applications for prezoning or development approvals in colorth sphere
area until the specifi Ian is formally adopted.
RAMON A. DIAZ 9 (�
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J�
/r
C - �
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert
TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING,
DATE: MARCH 7. 1986
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC COMMITTEE
At this juncture it appears that there are many qualified citizens available
to serve on the proposed economic committee. It is suggested, however, that
prior to formally establishing the committee that the role and responsibilities
of this committee and its relationship to other city boards and commissions be
written.
The formalizing of this group in a resolution or other document will alleviate
future problems, and enable us to clearly set forth the role and responsibility
of this group to those who may wish to serve.
It is recommended that the three staff members (city manager, assistant city
manager, director of community development) and the councilmembers (Councilmen
Snyder and Wilson) , who were part of the original core area task force,
.establish the above. By doing so, potential confusion and misunderstanding
would be eliminated. The first principal task of the committee would be to
evaluate the Williams 8 Kuebelbeck report of the north area.
R N A. DiAZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
/tm
r
S .
C71
v
61
COACHELLA VALLEY RESORT HOTEL
TRAFFIC STUDY
Prepared for
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Prepared by
DKS ASSOCIATES
411 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles. CA 90013
November 20. 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
1 .1 STUDY PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 SUMMARY OF COACHELLA VALLEY AREA VISITORS . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 ITE "TRIP GENERATION. AN INFORMATIONAL REPORT•,
THIRD EDITION • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
2.2 SAN DIEGO TRAFFIC GENERATORS 4
2.3 AUSTIN FOUST ASSOCIATES "RESORT HOTEL TRAFFIC STUDY• . . . . 4
2.4 COACHELLA VALLEY RESORT HOTEL INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . 5
3.0 SUNTERRA PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS . . . . . 13
3.1 WESTON PRINGLE AND ASSOCIATES "SUNTERRA TRAFFIC* STUDY" . . 13
4.0 UPDATED SUNTERRA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 INTERIM CONDITIONS WITH SUNTERRA PHASE I AND
NO COOK STREET INTERCHANGE . . . 21
4.3 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH ONE SUNTERRA ACCESS 25
4.4 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH TWO SUNTERRA ACCESSES . . . . . . 29
5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES . . . . . . . 33
__ I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY PURPOSE
This Coachella Valley Resort Hotel Traffic Study was initiated by the City
of Palm Desert. Basic objectives of the study were identified as follows:
1. Establish a trip generation rate for Coachella Valley resort
hotels based or. the number of occupied rooms.
2. Determine the percentage of people driving their own cars as
opposed to riding buses or limousine/van shuttles to/from resort
hotels.
3. Identify the average vehicle occupancy for hotel guests. for
hotel employees. and for other visitors.
4. Estimate the percentage of trip origins by city and direction to
derive the distribution of resort hotel trips.
5. Apply the locally collected traffic data to the proposed Sunterra
Resort Hotel and forecast traffic impacts.
6. Develop a traffic impact mitigation plan to enable acceptable
traffic service levels upon completion of the Sunterra project
and build-out of Palm Desert. Indian Wells, La Quinta and Rancho
Mirage.
The services of DKS Associates were retained to provide an independent
study to accomplish the six objectives listed above. DKS staff are in-
timately familiar with the Coachella Valley. having completed many projects
related to circulation for the communities of Palm Desert. La Quinta, and
Rancho Mirage. Relevant projects include the Palm Desert Northern Sphere
Area Traffic Study and the Cook Street Extension Traffic Study for the
City of Palm Desert. the Washington Street Corridor Study and the General
Plan Traffic Study for the City of La Quinta. and the General Plan Circu=
ato Element U 1 i n date for the City of Rancho Mirage. . he analysis of
p r
traffic issues is preceded by a summary of the Palm Springs Convention and
Visitors Bureau research on Coachella Valley area visitors.
1.2 SUMMARY OF COACHELLA VALLEY AREA VISITORS
The Coachella Valley communities offer many attractions for visitors and
convention delegates. The Palir Springs Convention. and Visitors Bureau has
conducted research on both visitor: and convention delegates. The major
findings of "Analysis of the Palm Springs Area Visitor in Palir. Springs".
- i -
1985 and "A Comparative Analys, s of the Palm Springs Convention Delegate".
1985, are noted below.
1. Over 43% of Palm Springs area visitors reside in Southern Cali-
fornia.
2. Nearly 80% of the visitors were in the area for the purpose of
pleasure or vacation.
3. Only about 5% of Palm Springs area visitors were in the area for
a convention/business meeting. The average size of a convention
delegate party was 2.4 persons in 1985.
4. 34% of convention delegates were from Southern California in
1985. This is a decrease from the 60% of convention delegates
from Southern California in 1976.
5. 52.4% of convention delegates traveled to the Palm Springs area
by automobile in 1985. 46.6% arrived via airplane, and 1% arrived
by bus. Those that. arrived by plane and rented cars equaled
13.600 of the convention delegates. Thus 66% of convention dele-
gates used automobiles as their primary means of transportation
while in the Palm Springs area.
6. Only 2.9% of the 1985 convention delegates traveled by airplane
and were shuttled to/from the airport by bus. This is slightly
more than three times the 0.8% shuttled by bus in 1976.
In summary, for every 20 visitors to the Palm Springs area 16 are vacation-
ing and/or seeking pleasure. and one is a convention delegate. Although 43%
of area visitors reside in Southern California. only 340Z of convention
delegates are from Southern California. Further, the percentage of conven-
tion delegates from Southern California indicates a decreasing trend.
Increased airplane travel is associated with the reduced number of conven-
tion delegates from Southern California. However, many of the airplane
travelers use cars while in the area. Nearly 2 out of every 2 convention
delegates travel by automobile in the Coachella Palley, while less than 3
of every 100 :onvention delegates used bus shuttles to/from the Palm Springs
Airport.
- L -
r
2.0 .RESORT HOTEL TRIP GENERATION INFORMATION
A literature search was conducted to gather sources of resort hotel trip
generation information. Three existing sources were reviewed for applica-
bility in the Coachella Valley. The Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) "Trip Generation. An Informational Report". Third Edition. 1983. the
"San Diego Traffic Generators". first oublished in 1979 by the San Diego
Association of Governments and updated annually, and "Resort Hotel Traffic
Study". 1986. by Austin-Foust Associates are reviewed in the following
subsections. A final subsection it this chapter documents Coachella Valley
resort hotel trip generation information collected by DKS Associates.
2.1 ITE "TRIP GENERATION. AN INFORMATIONAL REPORT". THIRD EDITION
"Trip Generation, An Informational Report" was first published in 1976 by
the ITE. Now in its third edition, it is the major reference source of
vehicle trip generation rates. Data collection procedures require all
data to be summarized in vehicle trip generation rather than person trip
generation. The trip rate tables include average rates. maximum rates and
minimum rates. ITE recommends that the average rate be used if the gener-
ator is most likely to be average in nature. ITE further recommends,
however, that if there is evidence such as a market analysis, that the
generator may be better or worse than average. the average trip rate should
be adjusted accordingly.
ITE defines resort hotels as "similar to hotels in that they provide guest
rooms. restaurants. cocktail lounges. retail shoes, guest services and
sports facilities." The major difference between a typical hotel and a
resort hotel is that resort hotels cater t.e the tourist and vacation busi-
ness more than to convention business. Only one resort hotel has been
studied by ITE. The resort hotel is in Hilo. Hawaii . During collection
of the cata 273 rooms were occupied. The average trip generation rates
per occupied room were estimated at 10.2 average weekday trip ends. and
13.4 average Saturday vehicle trip ends.
The ITE description of a hotel is more appropriate for Coachella Valley
hotels. The 1TE hotel description, for the purposes of trip generation,
is "a place of lodging providing sleeping accommodations, restaurants.
cocktail lounges. meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities and
other retail and service shops." As noted by ITE. the five "hotels surveyed
were all located outside the central business districts and usually in
suburban areas." On average, hotels were found to employ 0.90 employees
per room. The weekday trip generation rates per occupied room were IC.S
trip ends .for average daily. 13.4 maximum daily. and 9.1 minimum daily
trip ends. The trip gener� J on ates per room include trips generated by
ancillary uses to the hotel and trips generated by employees.
- 3 -
j
2.2 SAN DIEGO TRAFFIC GENERATORS
This trip generation information source documents trir generation at land
uses existing in the San Diego area. It is updated annually by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SAZAG). For the five hotel areas
studied. an average daily trip end rate of 17.4 per occupied room was
established. The range in average daily trip ends was a minimum of 13.0
and a maximum of =3.2 per occupied room.
Of the five hotel areas studied. Vacation Isle is most similar to the
proposed Sunterra project. It is the site of numerous conventions. art
festivals. and specialty shows such as the annual Mission Bay Photo
Festival . A nine-hole golf cou^se is also available for play. The average
daily trip rate for this area is 13.0 per occupied room.
2.3 AUSTIN FOUST ASSOCIATES "RESORT HOTEL TRAFFIC STUDY"
This study was completed in 1986 to establish representative trip generation
rates and parking demand for resort hotels. Resort hotels were defined as
"a primary attraction in itself Decause of the attractiveness of the accom-
modation facility and the on-site amenities that are available. The result
is considerably lower trip generation than would be experienced at a more
traditional hotel where daily activities require using a vehicle to travel
to and from the hotel ." Of the four hotels surveyed. two were in San
Diego County. California. one was in Orange County. California. and one
was in Hilton Head. South Carolina.
The four hotels surveyed in the subject study were all noted to share the
following characteristics.
1. Luxury accommodation with "in-house" restaurants. shops. etc.
2. On-site or adjacent amenities such as spa, golf course. tennis
courts. beach, and/or other recreational attractions.
3. Various forms of guest transportation services. particularly to
and from the nearest major airport.
The study developed trip generation rates for an average occupancy of 85
percent. This differs from the "per occupied room" basis of ITE. The
trip generation rates adjustec to reflect 85% occupancy were found to vary
from 5.0 trips per day to 6.4 trips per day. The study recommended an
average daily trip generation rate of 6.0 trips per roofs, which was the
rate utilized in the Weston F•i -gle Sunterra Traffic Study. The Sunterra
Study therefore was based on the presumption that the hovels would be only
85% occupied.
4 _
Table 1 shows a comparison of ITE hotel rates and rates for the four resort
hotels cited in the Austin-Foust Study. Trip generation rates are shown
on a caper occupies room" basis for cons ; stency. Alsc noted. where avail -
able, are the number of employees Der room and the number of parking spaces
per room. The parking space per room information for ITE maximum, minimum
and average conditions was taken from "Parking Generation, an interim
Report", published by ITE in 1985. These ITE parking rates are in terms
of total parking spaces utilized per room. It was necessary to convert data
from the Austin-Foust Study into factors consistent with ITE.
Analysis of the information in Table 1 indicates the following key findings:
1 . -Average daily trip ends vary significantly, with the. 6.5 docu-
�;mented in the Austin-Foust Resort Hotel-Traffic Study representing
'only 62% of the 10.5 average daily trip ends documented by ITE
-.and only 50%---of the 13.0 average daily trip ends documented for
a convention-oriented hotel in the San Diego Traffic Generators.
2. The average number of employees per room in the resort hotels
studied by Austin-Foust is more than twice the average number in
hotels studied by ITE.
3. The average number of parking stalls utilized per room during
peak demand is higher for the hotels studied by Austin-Foust
than for the hotels studied by ITE.
In comparison with the -hotels studied by ITE. on a per room basis the
hotels studied by Austin-Foust generate about 38% fewer average daily trip
ends; have more than twice as many employees, and require about 20% more
parking. The higher parking occupancy rate may be at least partially
accounted for by employee parking demand.
2.4 COACHELLA VALLEY RESORT HOTEL INFORMATION
The Coachella Valley is home tc many resort hotels. The largest of these
is Marriott ' s Desert Springs Resort/Spa. Figure 1 illustrates the close
proximity of the Marriott' s Desert Springs Resort Hotel to the proposed
Sunterra Project. The street system snown in Figure 1 represents the
proposed Palm Desert Northern Sphere Area Circulation Plan. Marriott ' s
Desert Springs has 891 sleeping rooms and 53.000 gross square feet (GSF)
of conference space. This is a ratio of one roorr to 60 GSF of conference
space. Marriott 's Desert Springs also has "in-house" luxury accommodations
with four restaurants, and a lounge. 0n-site amenities include a health
spa. an 18-hole champicrship golf course, two swimming pools. 16 tennis
courts and a 27.000 GSF health spa. .
The total number of Marriott ' : Desert Springs employees is 1,450, or 1.63
per roorr. The 1.63 employees per room is in between the averages for ITE
- 5 -
TABLE 1
TRIP GENERATION. EMPLOYEE. AND PARKING DATA
Daily Trip Ends Employees Parking Spaces
Facility Per Occupied Room Per Room Per Room
ITE maximum 13.4 1.38 1.58
ITE minimum 9. 1 0.46 0.39
ITE average 10.5 0.90 0.84
Del Coronado 6.2 1.74 1.02
La Costa 7.0 3.46 1.67
Newport Marriott 5.9 1.25 0.77
Hilton Head Hyatt 7.5 N/A 0.74
Austin-Foust average 6.5 2.05 1.04
O N =
12
a0
C f'
U � W
c O
LU
U)
e a • O - R
6LU
U a Z e s. CI...
• m Z
a + Y O • It ."I .IN$" ` m
ca
• O a •
>, a a
Q tl1 • ► . c Not : F e • • gous -E •
. c u No o
f
G N e 0 • ; ; e i
W i `• O Cc 8 a {
Gi ti
Z
Zi
cc
W
Z W
g
a
y
e
J
t
d ss pert
3�
is
= �IOIJOL I
Y �L
40 00N aop
O
(0.90) and Austin-Foust (2.05) . Off-street parking spaces total 1.450
stalls. This is a rate of 1.47 parking spaces per room, whi& is higher
than the averages for both ITE and Austin-Foust hotels studied. In fact,
the 1.47 parking spaces per room approaches the ITE maximum rate of 1 .58.
Even with this relatively high parking supply at Marriott 's Desert Springs,
however, demand sometimes exceeds supply during special events.
The Marriott Desert Springs is served by American Limousine. Inc. Airport
shuttles are provided for every Palm Springs Airport flight between 5 AM
and 8 PM. The shuttle service serves both the Rancho Mirage Marriott and
the Marriott 's Desert Springs. Sunbus, the local transit agency maintains
a bus stop at Marriott ' s Desert Springs. A total of 17 stops are made
daily by Sunbus at the Marriott. Forty minute headways are provided. with
direct service to the College of the Desert and Palm Desert lown Center
regional shopping center. Also. rental car service is provided at a Hertz
office within the Marriott Desert Springs. During peak season it is
estimated by Hertz that about 10 to 15 cars are rented per day at the
hotel .
Trip generation data was collected for a seven day period between Thursday
September 17 and Wednesday September 23. 1987. This third week in September
represents the beginning of the "shoulder" season in between the summer
off-season and winter peak season. The peak season typically runs between
December 20 and Memorial Day. The average daily traffic count data was
collected by Newport Traffic Studies. The number of occupied rooms was
provided by Jim Lopez. Director of Marketing for Marriott Desert Springs.
The results are summarized in Table 2. In an attempt to obtain more data
for "Trip Generation, An Informational Report". ITE routinely requests
that public agencies and/or consultants provide trip generation data to
ITE when such data is collected. =igure 2 shows the Trip Generation Data
Form submitted to the Institute of Transportation Engineers for the
Marriott' s Desert Springs Resort Hotel by DKS.
Review of Table 2 shows the nunber of trip ends per occupied room to be
relatively consistent, with the exception of Wednesday September 23. 1981.
When the one inconsistent day is removed from calculations, an average
weekday trip end rate o` 11.2 per occupied room results. This is slightly
higher than the ITE average rate of 10.5 per occupied room.
Field surveys were also conducted at Marriott Desert Springs on Saturday.
August 22. 1987. The purposes of the survey were to identify average
vehicle occupancy, and to estimate the percentage of trip origins by direc-
tion to derive the distribution of the resort hotel trips. A total of 18E
vehicles entering Marriott ' s Desert Springs were surveyed between 9:00 AM
and E :00 PM. Vehic'e classification anc occupancy data were noted as the
vehic ; es approaches the survey station. The driver was then surveyed to
determine the folloiOng:
- s -
TABLE 2
MARRIOTT DESERT SPRINGS TRIP GENERATION DATA
Average Number of Trip Ends Per
Day Date Daily Traffic Occupied Rooms Occupied Room
Saturday 9/19/87 7.483 755 9.9
Sunday 9/20/87 6.911 566 12.2
Average Weekend Total 14.394 1.321 10.9
Thursday 9/17/87 5.930 489 12.1
Friday 9/18/87 7.487 645 11.6
Monday 9/21/87 6.236 568 11.0
Tuesday 9/22/87 4.569 438 10.4
Wednesday 9/23/87 6.135 218 28.1
Average Weekday Total 30.357 2.358 12.9
INSTITUTE OF TRANS"ORTATION ENGINEERS
TRIP GENERATION DATA FORM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS
Land UselBuiidirg Type Rpcnrt HntPl rTE CodeM—
Souros Marriott Desert Springs Date 10/5/87
Location Palm Desert California SMSA6780
Location within SMSA city of Palm Desert
Independent Variable: (4) occupied units
(1) Employees ( 6) Parking Spaces
(2) Persons ( 9) Beds
(3) Units __ (10) Seats
(4) Occupied Unite __ (i i) Vechicie Occupancy
(5) G.S.F. Bldg.Area (12) Percent Occupied
(6) Gr. Leasable Area __ (13) Percent Transit Usage
(7) Acres . (14) Other
Summary of Driveway Volumes
Volume Volume
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 12.9 Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends
Peak A.M. Enter 0.45 Peak Enter
Hour Between Exit 0.22 Hour of Exit
Of 7 and 9 Total 0"67 Generator Total 10.76
Adjaceot P.M. Enter Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends 12.2
Street
Between Exit Peat Enter 10.38
Traft 4 and 6 Total 7 I Hour of Exit 0.68
Peat A.M. i Enter 0. 19 I I Generator Total ' 1 .06
Hour Exit 0.31
of Total 0.70
Generator P.M. Enter O.45
Exit 0. 55
Total 1 .00
*Daly Trip Ends are a two-way votww or total of ardodN and Wing traffic.
Return to: Carl H. Buttke; Chairman•ITE Trip Generation Committee
P.O.Box 636
Portland,OR 97207
Rev. 1982
Figure 2
COACHELLA VALLEY RESORT HOTEL
TRIP GENERATION DATA
1, Trip purpose (e .g. , for employment. for restaurant/lounge,
returning/arriving registered guest for business or pleasure):
2. Trip origins: and
3. Major routes taken to complete trip.
This information was gathered by subgroups of hotel guests. employees, and
visitors. Registered guests comprised 35% of the survey sample. Employees
consisted of 23%. and visitors accounted for 42% of the daytime survey
sample. The hotel guests averaged 2.38 persons per vehicle. employees
averaged 1 .62 persons per vehicle, and visitors averaged 2.73 persons per
vehicle. The average vehicle occupancy totaled 2.35 persons per vehicle.
Trip origin information was obtained to determine traveler's prior most
immediate location to their arrival at Marriott's Desert Springs (i.e.,
the local trip). This information identified that about 27% of trip ends
were from Palm Desert: about 28% from the cities of Palm Springs. Cathedral
City and Rancho Mirage west of the site: about 12% from the cities of
Indian Wells. La Quinta. and Indio south and east of the site: and about
33% from other California cities. All trips used Country Club Drive to
access the hotel driveway. About 70% of the trips came from the west on
Country Club Drive. and about 30% from the east.
American Limousine. Inc. has five 15 passenger vans and 12 limousines.
These vehicles provide airport shuttle service for the Rancho Las Palmas
Marriott (456 rooms) and the Marriott 's Desert Springs (891 rooms). No
data was available on the ridership to/from Marriott' s Desert Springs and
the Palm Springs Airport. The following analysis was therefore conducted
tc determine the number of hotel guests which could potentially be shuttled
to/from the airpurt. If the existing vehicles were 100% occupied, they
would have the capacity to transport. 136 passengers from the airport.
Assuming an average on one shuttle per hour by each vehicle during the 1E
hours of operation each day, as many as 2.205 people could be shuttled.
The 891 rooms at Marriott ' s Desert Springs represent 66% of the total of
Marriott ' s Desert Springs plus the Rancho Las Palmas Marriott. Assuming
that 66% of the potential 2.205 daily persons shuttled were trave ling
to/from the Desert Springs Resort. means that 1.4E5 persons could be
shuttled to the Marriott ' s Desert Springs. This equals 9.7% of the average
daily traffic generated by Marriott' s Desert Springs during the shoulder
season (i .e. . 1.455 persons divided by 15.024 person trips per average
day. with the latter based on the. documented, 2.35 average vehicle. occu-
pancy) . 'In summary. if all of the shuttles were 100% occupied all day
long, approximately 1DY: of the total daily trips generated by Marriott' s .
Desert Springs Resort would be made via shuttle buses. It should be noted
that. two 47 passenger Doses nave been ordered b3 American Limousine to
augment service during future peak periods.
- li -
i
In conclusion. Marriott Is Desert. Springs is a local resort hotel w h
amenities and convention facilities similar to thc- planned for Sunterra.
The trip generation rate documented during the sr,oulder season at this
local facility was found to be closest to the ITE rate. Also, the locally
collected trip generation rate was found to be closer to the SANDAG rate
than the Austin- oust rate. In subsequent sections of this report. the
ITE rate is therefore utilized to quantify the potential impacts of the
Sunterra project.
3.0 SUNTERRA PROJECT TRAFFIC IMPACTS
3.1 WESTON PRINGLE ANC ASSOCIATES "SUNTERRA TRAFFIC STUDY"
The Sunterra Project is proposed for 4.500 hotel rooms, 400.000 GSF con-
ference center, 150.000 GSF retail , c 50.000 GSF health club. 50 tennis
courts and two iE-hole golf courses. The ratio of rooms to conference
center space is 1 room to about 90 GSF of conference space. This compares
to the Marriott Desert Springs ratio of 1 room to 60 GSF conference space.
The "Sunterra Traffic Study" was completed by Weston Pringle and Associates
in December of 1986. That Study documents the number of off-street parking
stalls planned for Sunterra at 6.000. This is a rate of 1.33 off-street
parking spaces per room, which is more than the average rates identified
for hotels studied by ITE and by Austin-Foust, but less than the 1 .47
provided at Marriott's Desert Springs. With the addition of 1.392 parking
spaces that could be accommodated on the internal roadway. the parking
rate is potentially 1.64 spaces per room. This rate exceeds the ITE maximum
rate for hotels.
The Weston Pringle Study used the following trip generation rates contained
in the Austin-Foust "Resort Hotel Traffic Study": 6.0 average weekday trips
per room. AM peak hour rates of 0.20 inbound 'and 0.10_outbound._and PM
peak hour rates of 0.19 inbound and 0.26 outbound. 'These rates assume,,H_%
room occupancy. This was forecast to 'generate 27;000 average daily trip
ends. Also. the proposed convention center was analyzed for some additional
traffic generation. Specifically. the report notes that "'convention center--
off-site generation was assumed to equal 20% of the on-site generation."
This was estimated by Weston Pringle to be 2.080 average daily trip ends.
The basis for this 20% off-site convention center trip generation was not
clearly stated. This rate could increase significantly if a convention
was held that attracted delegates from within driving distance of Sunterra.
[Although the conference center has an expected average attendance of 3.000
tpeople, off-site trip generation was calculated based on 4:500 hotel guests ,
,using the center. In addition. conference center employees were accounted
via a convention center employment estimate of 168. It is unclear in the
Weston Pringle-Study how many trips were estimated for employees. However,
the 26% of on-site trips which was used would equal about three average
daily trips per estimated convention center employee.
The 3,000 person average conference center group size is estimated in the
Draft Environmental Impac' Report to occur 42 times per year. The DEIR
estimates that between 5C" and 80% of Sunterra visitors may arrive via
Palm Springs Municipal'. F,irport (page 134) . Also. the .DEIF indicates a'
plan to bus these visit ,- between the Airport and Sunterra.' The estimated
:range-of. 50% to 80% i <_ s,,cificant":y higher thar, ;he 2.9% existing Palm
Springs area-wide convention delegates shuttled ,o/from the airport by
bus, or the maximum potential 10% of Marriott ' s Desert Springs guests
shuttled.
Traffic assignment was based on a single acce:: to the Project at 42nd
Avenue and El Dorado Drive. The Project traffic was assigned as illu::rated
in Figure 3. As shown, traffic is estimated to disperse along arterials
north of the project site. This assignment is generally consistent with
the directional orientations of traffic surveyed by DKS at Marriott ' s
Desert Springs. For example. the 33R assigned to/from the east correlates
closely with the 30% of Marriott 's Desert Springs survey traffic to/from
the east. The 26% of traffic assigned to/from the south compares with 24%
estimated from the DKS survey of Marriott' s Desert Springs traffic. The
48% assigned to the I-10 freeway is more than two and one-half tines the 19%
freeway traffic documented during the Marriott 's Desert Springs survey.
Although freeway traffic may be expected to increase with the construction
of a Cook Street interchange and development in the Palm Desert Northern
Sphere area. the Pringle assignment assumed the majority of airport traffic
would use the freeway. Trip distribution in the Weston Pringle Study
considered the projected roadway system assuming that all planned facilities
would be built. The study notes that the Cook Street/I-10 interchange is
planned to be completed- in about 1989-1990. In actuality, it could not be
completed until 1991-1993 if the City decided to begin irmediately.
Construction funding, and therefore the construction completion date. are
unresolved issues.
The Weston Pringle Study also assigned cumulative development, which in-
volved 17 projects within a one-mile -adius of the Project site. The
forecast cumulative traffic was 44.720 average daily trip ends. The study
forecast the following roadway sections as being the only locations where
service levels may deteriorate to LOS D.
1. State Route 111 (as a 4 lane facility) east of Cook Street.
2. Cook Street (as a 4 lane facility) south of the I-iC Freeway.
3. Washington Street (as a 2 lane facility) south of Avenue 42..
The Weston Pringle Study also updated a year 2010 forecast in 'the "Coachella
Valley Area Transportation Study" conducted by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SZZA�) . This analysis was undertaken to deter-
mine the future roadway system. The Weston. Pringle Study notes that the
SCAG forecast of peak hou- trip ends generated by the Sunterra project
site is only 45 more than forecast for Sunterra via the Austin-Foust rates.
and that the Coachella Valley Study' s results are therefore still valid.
No further analysis or upcate was conducted. and reference is r.ade to the
conclusions and recommenda' lons regarding mitigation of year 2Ci0 traffic
in the "Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study" . These recommendations
include widening of State Highway : !1 from four to six lanes through the
City of 1nd-,an Wells.
14 -
m C Z
C W
7
y Z
C Z
ccn N N
N
p LLI
JQ
at C7 V
—JJ Z
7 * LL
L)cc Z
aQ
o
v ; Z
= 0 0
0 . > a< G
W J • : e >A ' m N
Ncc
• u • to W
R
Q s `e • < U
W � e •
ccc `u • ` d
3
WQ < M V t U
8 U.
♦ >t vi
cc cc
�r o) t O W
x f
M NoIK 1�0 t0 nrtsl3 � r =
7
Z ^ N � NLU i
L 0
it
a a j m 7
d r
1
06
,r ri
AT
1= j.
3 a• —
1 a! ae ^ I
.8--tn
trtrt rn• N 1
ae
Al
ae e
0
4.0 UPDATED SUNTERRA ANALYSIS
DKS Associates nas reevaluated the Sunterra project using alternative
assumptions to test the sensitivity of the re ults. The ITE average trip
generation rate of 1C.5 daily trip ends per occupied hotel roor, wa! used.
This rate includes consideration of ancillary uses, so no added trips were
included for the convention center. Similarly. the ITE average rate was
employed to forecast traffic impacts of the 2.700 hotel rooms planned in
the Palm Desert Northern Sphere area. In this way, new large-scale resort
hotels in Palm Desert are evaluated consistently. in terms of trip genera-
tion, with the Sunterra project.
No trip reductions were applied for mode split. Sunbus. the local transit
agency. indicates that the closest existing transit stop to Sunterra is on
Fred Waring Drive. Sunbus staff indicated that it would be difficult to
provide internal access. based upon their preliminary review of the planned
internal roadway. Sunterra would consider provision of, transit access
onto the site via Fred Waring Drive. If pedestrian access only were
provided at Fred Waring Drive. a minimum one-half mile walk would be
required to get to the hotel area from the closest bus stop.
The updated analysis of Sunterra in this section includes three scenarios.
The first scenario. detailed in Section 4.2. forecasts traffic impacts-of
Sunterra Phase I development without the Cook Street extension or I-10
interchange. The second scenario. in Section 4.3. involves buildout of
Sunterra plus cumulative development. and assumes one Sunterra access
point on the northern perimeter of the site, as proposed. The third
scenario. in Section 4.4. looks at cumulative buildout conditions with two
Sunterra accesses. one on the north and one on the southern perimeter of
the site on Fred Waring Drive. A second access point was evaluated in
this study because of the following reasons:
1. The project is entirely in Indian Wells. and should therefore
have access in Indian Wells.
2. Safety considerations. such as access for the Indian Wells fire
station located southeast of the project.
3. One out of every four trips generated by the project are oriented
to/from the south. thus a more direct route should be provided.
4. Experience at Marriott 's Desert Springs indicate that one access
is not adequate from t.ne perspective of capacity or level of
service.
Traffic assionment assumptions were based upon the original asv nment
assumptions in the Weston Pringle Study. These original traffic assi--nmen;.
assumptions. previously illustrated in Figure 3. were modified at some
1E -
- I
locations. Major modifications were made for -rips to/from the west,
largely in, view of access for the Palm Springs Airport. 4Th- Weston Pr•ncle
/Stuov -assumed 40% _of Sunterra traffic to/from the west on I-IC and OA on
;Ramon Road! It i� unclear from the Weston Pringle Study what Dercent of
tra`fic is destine:. tc the airport. or how they wcole get there. Figure 4
shows the airport acce_> anc approximate miles for alternative route: from
the Palm Desert and '.nd�an. Wells vicinity. As m-asured fron the 1-10
interchange a' Ramon koad to the Airport access. the I-10 route via the
Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail interchange is 13.5 miles. The I-10 route via
the Date Palm Drive interchange/Vista Chino route is c.5 miles. These are
longer than the 7.5 mile route via Ramon Road and E' Cielo. As detailed
later. DKS modified the trip distribution assumptions to reflect the prob-
able utilization of Ramon Road by Sunterra traf;ic bound for the Airport
and/or Palm Springs area.
4.1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CIRCULATION CONDITIONS
The circulation system existing in the vicinity of the proposed Sunterra
project is illustrated in Figure 5. As shown. the circulation system is
..
generally bounded by the
regional facilities on Interstate 10 and State
Highway in. Between these regional facilities. a grid network of arterials
is planned, but has only been partially developed. Interchanges exist
with 1-10 at Ramon Road. Monterey Avenue and Washington Street. They are
generally "diamond ramp" in configuration. with Stop sign -ontrols at the
ends of the ramps. A high-design interchange is planned at -Cook Street.
with a loop on-ramp for northbound Cook Street to westbound I-10 traffic.
Table 3 indicates the existing average daily traffic (ADT) along the respec-
tive arterial segments. Also. Table 3 shows the existing capacities.
volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios, and levels of service (LOS) .
The V/C ratios are converted to service levels (LC1' via the following
criteria: V/C greater than 1 .00 equals LOS F; V/C between C.90 and 0.99
equals LOS E. V/C between 0.80 and 0.89 equals LOS P; V/C between 0.70 and
0.79 equals LOS C; V/C Detween 0.60 and C.69 equals LOS B; and V/C ratio
lower than C.60 equals LOS A.
Volume to capacity (V/C) ratios are simply the product of average daily
traffic divided by available capacity. As the ratio approaches 1 .00 the
roadway approaches theoretical capacity. The capacity values were assigned
on the basis of number of travel lanes. presence of median dividers. and
other considerations which affect the number of vehicles that may pass
over a section of roadway during an average day. The capacity values
utilized hereir are those that have beer adopted by the Cities of Rancho
Mirage and Palm Desert ir. the Rancho Mirage General Plan Update and Palm
Desert Northern Sphere Area studies, respectively. The actual capacity of.
an existing roadwa} must e' ' east equal the existing' traffic demand, as
the roadway does manage to carry the existing volume.
17 -
DKS Associates
R,
�••,� APPROX. 113.5 Mt. BETWEEN AIRPORT
/ ••, ENTRY AND RAMON ROAD/1-10
'o ••p, INTERCHANGE VIA
10, GENE AUTRY TRAIL
0
T : ••,,
C : / ••
d ��(% •i,
r ' 0 APPROX. 9.5 MI. BETWEEN ••p•
AIRPORT ENTRY AND y••.
RAMON ROAD/1-10 mow, A•
INTERCHANGE VIA
VISTA CHINO Aj
Vista
C Chino
qo
�lUnuuuuuuttpu u��uuuuuunuttttttttttttuuttuattt i
:
: m
r G Palm Springs
m :4nicipa Q
3 E
a°'
Tanqui elo Road .+To I-10
�nuuuututtntuuu tnuntnununounuuuutt►
N APPROX. 7.5 Mt. BETWEEN
AIRPORT ENTRY AND
u) `� RAMON ROAD/ 1-10 INTERCHANGE
VIA RAMON ROAD t EL CIELO
SR-111 T
d I
� I
Sq'»>
Figure a
PALM SPRINGS AIRPORT ACCESS
e �
= O
• � F
O
s t�
�CC
V �
Zd � Y
< ( ~
a
Z N r
3
J
W W W W
< < < < l <
J J J J J J
=I H i
� Ialllll • ` � I -
a
N�
p 11,12% lNG CPIJWL3a l3
W
h_
a
`� 1.N1t .••7
Y
s � �
/ .r tNI1.g1
lNi
C
v
O
TAB'E 3
EXISTING VOLUME-TO-CAPACIT`" RATIOS
Existing
ADT Existing
Arterial Segment Existing Capacity V/C LOS
Ramon E/O Bob Hope 21.200 15.000 1.41 F
Monterey S/0 I-10 13.000 15.000 0.87 D
Monterey S/O Dinah Shore 13.000 15.000 0.87 D
Monterey S/O F. Sinatra 11.600 15.000 0.77 C
Cook S/0 Frank Sinatra 12.200 36.000 0.34 A
Cook S/O Country Club 12.200 36.000 0.34 A
Cook N/0 Hovley Ln. 12.200 15.000 C.81 D
Eldorado S/0 Ctry Club 1.000 15.000 0.07 A
Del Safari S/O F. Sinatra 1.000 15.000 0.07 A
Washington S/0 I-10 9.100 15.000 0.61 B
Washington S/0 42nd Ave. 9.100 15.000 0.61 B
Highway ill E/O Cook 26.500 36.000 C.74 C
Hovley Ln. E/0 Cook 200 15.000 C.01 A
Hovley Ln. W/0 Cook 200 15.000 0.01 A
42nd Ave. E/0 Eldorado 1.000 15.000 0.01 A
Country Club E/O Cook 14.000 36.000 0.39 A
Country Club W/0 Cook 14.000 36.000 0.39 A
Frank Sinatra E/0 Cook 1.000 15.000 C.07 A
Frank Sinatra W/O Cook 5.300 36.000 0.15 A
Fred Waring W/O Cook :7.000 15.000 1 .13 F
St. Highway 111 W/O Cook 26.500 36.000 0.74 C
However, the key findings of Table 3 are that five roadway segments provide
defici-ent service. levels (worse than level C) on an average daily basis.
These existing deficiencies are discussed below. in order of priority:
1. Ramor Road east of Bob Hope Drive exists as a two-lane bridge
overcros:,ing of railroad tracks. Widening to a four-lane divided
arterial would result in LOS A operation for the existing average
daily traffic.
2. Fred Waring Drive west of Cook Street exists as a two-lane
roadway. The 17.000 ADT along this segment results in the most
congested traffic conditions of all segments analyzed. Widening
of Fred Waring Drive to a four-lane undivided arterial would
provide LOS C conditions for existing traffic. and widening to a
four-lane median-divided arterial would result in LOS A for
existing traffic.
3&4. Monterey Avenue exists as a two-lane roadway from Interstate 10
north of Fred Waring Drive. From the I-10 to south of Dinah
Shore Drive. the existing ADT results in LOS D conditions. The
existing ADT would operate at LOS A with widening to a four-lane
undivided roadway.
5. Cook Street south of Hovley Lane transitions from a two-lane
roadway to a four-lane divided facility. Along the two-lane
roadway sections. LOS D is provided to the existing ADT. A
section of the two-lane roadway crosses the Whitewater River.
4.2 INTERIM CONDITIONS WITH SUNTERRA PHASE I AND NO COOK STREET INTERCHAN3E
Phase I of the Sunterra project is proposed for 3.000 hotel rooms and
200.000 GSF of convention center space. Figure 6 shows the assur.red traffic
assignment percentages onto the existing circulation system. This existing
circulation system does not include a Cook Street intercr,ange with I-10.
Traffic that had been shown in the Weston Pringle Study to utilize Cook
Street was generally diverted to either Monterey Avenue via Frank Sinatra
Drive or along 42nd Avenue and Washington Street to Interstate 10.
Figure 7 shows existing average daily traffic. the added volumes from
Sunterra Phase I deveiooment , and the resulting totals. The forecast
average daily traffic vclumes with Sunterra Phase I are also indicated in
Table 4. In adcition. Table 4 indicates 'he existing average daily capacity
alono key arterials and the existing plus_ Sunterra Phase ? vo'. ume tc cote-
city _ratios. The calculations it Table 4 were based on 3.000 resort hotel
rooms each generEting 1C.5 average daily trips, for a total of 31.500
average daily tri; ends. No ^ther cumulative projects were added for this
analvsis.
- 21 -
� z N
4
o LLI
y 1
Q
- r �
b V
LLW
tcn
00
� -
bc
la= Yol lYf n1 Q
ul
.Y z
x
C f f Q � 1
r L ' -3R / a
Yo IIWS Igo
� N
� ye � l � • v je
a' N �C N
� OrJ uuo• Cgg4
vt
X
�r N
i r •r
ryoaYW
o Pl N o i11 i
el •r d lupuw yC
Je � N • � � Yr L�gY4
4 I! 21
•U Yo ggg„ Wl
o l
Q �
� I
• W
z N
m
U)
NW
3 > LU
.eibawaa LU
U.
a c g y c g
c4 s
=i
WIO t N
mlo $
LaiO p
n n
LU
1"J s I.0 N O Q
0 p p
Ir1 FI b 1D
1n n
ui 1ff O �"1 n n
O n erf
CD
B n n N N
`o V
j 1S
f
.+ N � q qei+ed
u c
r1 I
UO .p aeeM eei ,
� o 0
N .ti W
O
TABLE 4
EXISTING PLUS SUNTERRA PHASE I VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS
Existing +
Average Daily Traffic Sunterra I
Existing
Arterial Segment Existing Sunterra I Total Capacity V/C LOS
Ramon E/O Bob Hope 21 .200 3.150 24.350 15.000 1.62 F
Monterey S/O I-10 13.000 11.025 24.025 15.000 1.60 F
Monterey S/O Dinah Shore 13.300 10.710 23.710 15.000 1.58 F
Monterey S/C F. Sinatra 11.600 630 IL.230 15.000 0.82 D
Cook S/O Frank Sinatra 12.200 5.355 17.555 36.000 0.49 A
Cook S/O Country Club 12. 200 2.205 14.405 36.000 0.40 A
Cook N/O Hovley Ln. 12.200 2.205 14.405 15.000 0.96 E
Eldorado S/O Ctry Club 1.000 10.395 11.395 15.000 0.76 C
Del Safari S/O F. Sinatra 1.000 5.355 6.355 15.000 0.42 A
Washington S/0 I-10 9.100 5.040 14.140 15.000 0.94 E
Washington S/O 4.1nd Ave. 9.100 5.040 14.140 15.000 0.94 E
Highway ill E/0 Cook 26.500 640 27.130 36.000 0.75 C
Hovley Ln. E/O Cook 200 7,560 7.760 15.000 0.51 A
Hovley Ln. W/O Cook 200 2.520 2.720 15.000 0.18 A
42nd Ave. E/O Eldorado 1 .000 13.545 14.545 15.000 0.97 E
Country Club E/O Cook 14.000 3.780 17.780 36.000 0.49 A
Country Club W/O Cook 14.000 630 14.630 36.000 0.41 A
Frank Sinatra E/O Cook 1.030 5.355 6.355 15.000 0.42 A
Frank Sinatra W/O Cook 5.300 10.701 16.010 36.000 0.44 A
Fred Waring W/O Cook 17.000 1.575 18.575 18.000 1.03 F
St. Highway Ill W/0 Cook 26.500 1.250 27.750 36,000 0.77 , C
The key findings of Table 4 are that nine roadway segments are forecast to
operate at levels_ of service worse than level f with Phase I of Sunterra
on the existing circulation system. These deficient roadways are listed
below in order starting with the hichest V/C ratio value.
Roadway Segment V/C Ratio LOS
1 . Ramon Road east of Bob Hope Drive 1 .62 F
2. Monterey Avenue south of I-10 1.60 F
3. Monterey Avenue south of Dinah Shore Drive 1 .58 F
4. Fred Waring Drive west of Cook Street 1.03 F
5. 42nd Avenue east of Eldorado 0.97 E
6. Cook Street north of Hovley Lane. 0.96 E
7. Washington Street south of 1-10 0.94 E
8. Washington Street south of 42nd Avenue 0.94 E
9. Monterey Avenue south of Frank Sinatra Drive 0.82 D
4.3 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS WITH ONE SUNTERRA ACCESS
Cumulative traffic fi conditions were forecast for the area bordered by Bob
Hope Drive, I-10. Washington Street and Highway 111. Recent forecasts
completed for the Rancho Mirage City and Sphere of Influence build-out
estimate an additional 326.800 average daily trip ends. These forecasts
were added to forecasts in the Palm Desert Northern Sphere Area Circulation
Element, which was forecast to generate an additional 198.330 average
daily trip ends. This updated data resulted in higher ADT forecasts on
Monterey Avenue than had previously been forecast in the North Palm Desert
Sphere Area Circulation Element. Figure 8 shows these cumulative traffic
forecasts onto which the Sunterra traffic was- added. Along Monterey Avenue.
the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan build-out was forecast to add 24.500
average daily vehicles. The Palm Desert Northern Sphere area build-out
was forecast to add 1C.300 ADT south of Frank Sinatra -Drive. 12.300 ADT
north of Frank Sinatra Drive. and 13.500 ADT south of I-10. In addition.
traffic forecast for seven of the 17 cumulative developments included in
the Weston Pringle Study were added (the other 10 developments were included
as part of the Northern Sphere Area study) . Specifically. the Weston
Pringle Study cumulative development project numbers 8. 9. 10. 11. 12 and
13. all in the City of Indian Wells. were forecast 21.320 to generate
average daily trips. Twenty-five percent of this traffic (i .e. . 5.330
average daily trips) was assigned onto Cook Street with the remainder
bound for destinations outside the study area.
Table 5 depicts forecast average daily traffic for cumulative development
and for Sunterra build-out with one access. Also. Table 5 shows the planned
capacities and forecast volume to capacity ratios with Sunterra traffic.
Planned capacities were taken from the Palm Desert Northern Sphere area
Circulation Element. Sunterra traffic was assigned as illustrated in
Figure 9. This assignment makes use of the arterials planned in the Palm
�a v
2 Ix o
w
rt
W
• • z
n
j • O f
� • � • OSE'9Z OSC`9Z
• e
e • j ` • � � w1 •Nt•ll
• • • r V a r
r O C r • �
Il O a M •i t P 8 (�
r r N
O w • • L
v _
S = ! e -
• i i - • i d JR t = Q
O ~ _ J
J (W�
OQ"9 OSS49 a
.+0 N•I•S 1.1 -N 41na4U In W
8`Zi u+ N S it
N • O 0
• e N
`~OOf`8► a o(r 8► OOr if `st a
St V
OOY'Ei N
w 000'6i �OOf`9E
�•uw 00919Z
008'6t OOI'8► 00*h
5� 00►'9Y 008'gr OOY'9►
a
CO A OOs`9E 0042) L`1£ 00l`1£ ooL'►E oor
� I
g RR
Q � S
4IL
a _
N CJ
a N ! d N CDN C CO
O 1 N O
a i _ a. — d
Vl Q N Q V T ,a
O Q, 16 C O t a, .•+ T C O /C C O C
a, N L T 7 a L C C I C O L O , L
> V (O d. .•- t0 U m C ad -^ t0 V d to U
r 10 > ., ,o E > .+ > r c
v c •^ uvv ct d uvv c uvv c o
rp L a, o N •^ a' d o u > N - a d o N •- d a o u
G C ••- C i C � •� L O � C v -^ C ^ C T) •�
t..)
E N T a N a
C
.d.
a, N O N O d al l
N Q N Q
O a, 2' C O a, r+ A C O ,O C r- O
d ,•n L v C L C, C O L O I L
> ro u ,o i tp u is a E tD U > y a0 V
♦+ i 'v C V v v C L a, U V C C •r U 'c C C
Ip L d O N •� d a, O V > N •.• a d O N •r d a, 0
i C ,v O C C T7 — C L C 'O '•�
E Cl r N V > V Y N IO > U
p O d C d •^ a c E C d •^ d C d +- a,
G.� tn LN — LC1.0 r ^. icl , Lavin
Q c rn
p T)
•C v v v
Z c i _0 > > > A
Ln
n
W N
f\ L N a, d d d
O O C C C C
W L m 0ko
'.. ,..,
U
H O N
W + n
0 d T d T a T a,.
W I d N 2 3 ro 3 T 3 m 16 Ot
� � T L -crix � V
td iN m O L p L p O w d
i L d Ca. .- CT) C Z7 C > ^
a
L
d d C L N
O > p
C U
� U � v C C
r 1 1
W N C C C C '•-'
C
L •^ � O
N h
G
ar
C c
C �
5.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Traffic impacts of Sunterra and other cumulative development will require
arterial system improvements to provide acceptable traffic service levels.
The recommender improvement projects are listed by scenario in Table 7.
The scenarios indicate short-tern improvements required to mitigate the
impacts of Phase I of the Sunterrt project as well as longer-term improve-
ments required to accommodate build-out of Sunterra and other developments
in the study area. In addition to the arterial improvements listed in
Table 7. the interchanges on 1-10 at .Monterey and Washington will eventually
have to be upgraded and a new inte--hange constructed at Cook Street. At
the interchange locations, loop on-ramps are recommended for each northbound
arterial to westbound I-10 movement. These mitigations would eliminate
left-turn conflicts in areas of high traffic demand. It would be appro-
priate for Sunterra to participate in the construction costs of improvement
projects on facilities it significantly impacts. The participation may
be equitably based upon the percent of average daily traffic forecast at
the respective locations.
In summary of Table 7, many roadway segments will require cumulative miti-
gation projects in excess of planned improvements. The mitigation projects
needed to accommodate cumulative developments. including Sunterra with
either one or two access locations, are highlighted below:
o Bob Hope Drive south of Ramon Road to Dinah Shore Drive should be
widened from the p. anned four-lane cross-section to a six-lane
roadway.
o Intensive access restrictions. ideally limiting access to signalized
cross-streets. should be required along all of Monterey Avenue and
Cook Street. Also, these access restrictions should be required
along Washington Street Detween I-10 anc 42nd Avenue. - At 1-10
interchanges with these three arterials. provide loop on-ramps for
northbound arterial to westbound I-10.
o A raised median divider should be provided along Hovley Lane between
Cook Street and the Sunterra access. and along 42nd Avenue between
the Sunterra access and Washington Street.
o Washington Street . between 42nd Avenue and I-10, should be widened
from the planned four-lane cross-section to a six-lane roadway.
Only four arterial segments were forecast to differ in mitigation require-
ments with: the provision of a second access for Sunterra. Washington
Street south of 42nd Avenue ant Washingtor Street south of Fred Waring
Drive were forecast tc requ�-- 'less improvements with the dual access
scenario.
i N .
V• i I ;
G I U W W W W Lr W W wUQw UQUCOQOCG CO W Q a+
T
V
d
L
l U C, ma, C) CnG � U' C. LO LDO v ~
G� a 0 .+ .-+ O G O C .•+ O G O OO G O C _+ O >
u >
� C
+ LnG Ln LnG C. 00000 L� O Ln 0000000 O 6
ro NLnn Ntf � LnOG O u7 � O r� OO u7 � Ln0 Ln G >
Y C t!• .-• C r� lC"C Rc^ %Mfg O� CG tG to N LA Ol Q, III V
1^u N , C .+ On Ln I� NLO CO CD LO •--, O) LO m LO p
U Ln st Ln LL) N Ln to u7 Ln N �• ,--, M N M C ,--, ••-• .--, M N M Z
2
rE
E �
p N
L N
L LnO Ln Ln OO O C) CD OO L OOO C, C) CD OO C) CD L
C. N Ln N mW Ln CD CD Ln Ln O Ln 0 Ln CD O C)~ ... G a1MMtn N ••-, � MMNLL') NOCT Q MN U
G Q OHO Q O1 CT•-• N NOLO •R N .•. M OD .-+ ••-, Men,
J to •--, '-, ••-, .�
� C
CO p
N N A
O Uw W OUOO UOQ4O U4 U4xQCm0] WQ N
W ^+ J
' r
` � u
U
d _d
N Y �
F- •- U O M N 1p n M O1 to Ln ID N M LD O N N Ln '+ co
\p N .•+ v \ f O) O) N N CO n N N LV N A m 1 M M Q LG LO CT , , d
W U C O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O
ca C C ` i i
H U M
cr � C O O O O O Cl O O C O O O V7 Lc) O O O 0 0 0 0 I m
H " OOOO C O O = �) Cl Ln Ln N O Ln U) O Ln0Ln0
G O N C l M M , O) U7 M G M LO O O I N to LC>K) � >,
G . . . • . . . . . . . . I a
O Ki
OJ mLn < < C r V M N ••-, M ,--, M N M
Cl c) I N
W I I eo
r-- ✓, .-. C COOOOO 00 OOO OOOOO 0000 C C
G M G O O c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O C O 0 0 0 0 G 0 0
J , u u C, C O C C, O C) O O O C_- O C) O G O C CDG (:�0 0 f
a 2
L C < O c c c C v tf sf c tp l0 C r a r r Q to 10 LA co
U O m Ll") Un W ll') LI'% Ln LL'i In Ln NN MMUI Ln NNN Ln M M .� \
L U C
I
1 \
i co
CT L
a ti o m °
a y m a rn c
L •O L o M o c
c .LJ � a U � aL° a oL o � •�
v� OLC C O O L — UCL g
a, L O O O O O W
27 C G C W \ w 3 t i
E C �o C c � \ \ \ C3w3C Lo eo ( Ln
. � S C C G c rC = > G ✓% V) V \ .p L L O C
4 C \ \ \ t C \ ^• C. 0. w fie.) ... \
c C C • U C
N N
G
TCCCOC c
m 2 c c 3 ti T T G L fc
c O = � cc C C C
E c c c C C C 0 V Q Ct. > > C 0 2 ti -Ctic c c c p o a M 2 m L c o N o
C CO f � " •..: IJUU W C3Cw OC2 � Uwww w >
i
t
O 2 H
� z
` ' 0
U. IC
_ y W
c • V
V G o VC
N 9 x
20
v i i ° • +t sroo
a • � J
� . e u • u a O
icc
O L
OI I I��■, � F H ��I�
t7
N o S X
+ N �— f� N N ~ F •! �x
J
e X�= b
� I
CD $
at fn
3
at
x j
� n e
run.w
C
N
at
ri
9
I
O
ITE rates for peak hour of hotel traffic. the 4,500-roon Sunterra would
generate 4.050 trip ends during the AM peak hour, and 3,915 trio ends
during the PM peak hour. Also. a second access is general -y recommended
for emergency situations. For example. the City of Indian 'dells Fire
Station is locateC along State Highway III at Eldorado Drive direc:l %
south of a candidate second access location.
Traffic assignment estimates for Sunterra with a second access are indicated
in Figure 10. Table 6 shows the volume-to-capacity ratio analyses. These
calculations are also based on the 47.250 average daily trip ends forecast
with the ITE rate of 10.5 average daily trip ends per room.
Table 6 indicates that with two Sunterra access locations. 12 of the 22
roadway segments analyzed would forecast to have V/C ratios equal to or
greater than 0.79. This is an improvement when compared with a single
access for Sunterra. Specifically, six less roadway segments are forecast
to have deficient service levels. These are Del Safari between ..Frank
Sinatra Drive and the Sunterra access at 42nd Avenue: Eldorado Drive between
Frank Sinatra and Country Club Drives: Hovley Lane between Cook Street and
the Sunterra access at 42nd Avenue, Washington Street south of Avenue 42.
Washington Street south of Fred Waring Drive. and Frank Sinatra Drive east
of Cook Street. Also, Eldorado Drive between Fred Waring Drive and Highway
III is forecast at LOS A. with only 43% of available capacity used.
Although this V/C ratio calculation is based on existing Eldorado Drive
ADT. the existing ADT could more than double and still accommodate the
Sunterra forecast at an acceptable service level .
Those roadway segments forecast to be deficient are priority listed below.
together with the Sunterra percent of traffic.
Percent of Contribution
Roadway Segments Sunterra Rancho Palm
Project Mirage Desert
1 Cook Street S/O Frank Sinatra 19.0% Negligible 72.1%
2 Monterey Avenue S/0 1-10 6.2% 41 .2% 22.8%
3. Cook Street S/0 Dinah Shore 16.4% Negligible 74.4%
4. Cook Street S/O Hovley Lane 15.6% Negligible 47.6%
5. Monterey Avenue S/O Cinah Shore 4.5% 44.9% 22.6"
6. Washington Street S/O I-10 13.0% Neg" foible 36.00,:
7. Frank Sinatra Drive W/0 Portola 9.2% Negligible 65.4%,
8. Cook Street S/C Country Club 23.0% Negligible 39.5%
9 Monterey Avenue S/C Frank Sinatra 2.0% 47.9% 20.3%
1C. Cook Street S/0 I-10 16.6% Negligible 71.0%
11 . 42nd Avenue E/0 Eldorado 41.8% Negligible 5' .8%
12. Ramon Road E/C Bob Hope Drive il.l% 39.3% 20.5%
- 30 -
Desert Northern Sphere area to divert some Surt.erra traffic away frog. Cook
Street. The calculations were based on thf- average ITE daily trip rate of
10.5 trip onds per room. For the 4.500 rooms proposed at Sunterra. this
totals 47.500 average daily trip ends.
The major fir?ing of Table 5 is that 18 of the 22 roadway segments analyzed
are forecast to have V/C ratios o4 o• greater than 0.79 following completion
of the Sunterra project. in comparison to 9 segments operating at worse than
level C with cumulative development. but without Sunterra. This means
that Sunterra traffic c:ded onto the planned circulation system results in
average daily service levels less than LOS C over the majority of roadways
studied. The deficient roadway segments are priority listed below. The
percentage of traffic generated by the Sunterra project and cumulative
projects in Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert at the respective locations are
also noted.
Percent of Contribution
to Total Traffic
Roadwav Segments Sunterra Rancho Palm
Project Mirage Desert
1. 42nd Avenue E/O Eldorado 58.2% Negligible 37.2%
2. Monterey Avenue S/O I-10 15.9% 41.2% 22.8%
3. Cook Street 5/0 Frank Sinatra 16.7% Negligible 76.3%
4. Hovley Lane EiC Cook Street 63.9% Negligible 35.1%
5. Frank Sinatra Drive E/0 Cook St.
(E/O North Parkway) 36.8% Negligible 63.2%
6. Washington Street S/O I-10 13.0% Negligible 36.0%
7. Frank Sinatra Drive W/O Portola 9.2% Negligible 65.4%
S. Cook Street S/0 Dinah Shore Dr. 8.9% Negligible 81.0%
9. Monterey Avenue S/O Dinah Shore 4.5% 47.00. 23.6%
10. Cook Street S/O I-10 18.6% Negligible 70.1%
11. Washington Street S/O 42nd Ave. 22.3: Negligible 22.9%
12. Cook Street S/O Hoeley Lane 8.50' Necligible 51 .7%
13. Eldorado S/O Country Club 70.Od Negligible 29.5%
14. Cook Street S/O Country Club Dr. 16.4" Negligible 43.00"
15. Monterey Ave. S/O Frank Sinatra 2.0% 51.7% 21.80:
16. Washington Street S/0 Fred Warinc 13.9% Negligible 25.4%
17. Del Safari S/C crank Sinatra 69. 0% Negligible 25.5%
18. Ramon Road E/O Boc Hope Drive 11 . 1% 39.3%. 20.5%
4.z CUMULA-IVE CONDITIONS W'TF' TWO SUNTERRP. ACCESSES
A second access for Surter-a could be provided at the intersection of
Eldorado Drive and Fred Waring Drive on the south side of the project
site. A second access coin; `or Sunterra should be evaluated due to the
large volumes of traffic the' would be generated. For example , bases or.
- 29 -
o Z
o O
of( 76
0
N
W
� Vi Y e r
• O i � <
` n s W
CO i p C
° • i C
•
• ' a
i o • • c • p Q
W
— e e • • o J.
e e S ; 'ccIR H
u < � um � �
■ 0
AL < F
%6Z t- %£C e W W
• •N NUrt lot •C .N+wl] 0 ~
T.
41 0
cr
e
c %ol
. as� %u 4°3 %u j + %6
r
•r
rlouoi %8
N
%S4-1
U .c +o•i wr
1 at
Q
4 �
C U L.- W G W W la W W W G .- W O Q U La- Q 4 CC li La Q j N
J U
L
O
w
b P O M M c• 0 D C M M N M C:+ C u!lM O N C W N N M O C;
G. V . �-. Q. CC C tT . C) . tT DO . Q) . . . . . —. . . . .-• a
L. \ >
0 G C 0 , 0OOO , OOOO .•• G '+ G r .-. O •-
C �
M
E
+ Ln O O o 0 Ln On u1 OO 0 On O C Ln O O OO C CD CD O O
LC N U, On Ln LnN (VN On Ln On C C NIn ur) Ln O V. G to O u
N Q .-+ M OO M OM a, to On ON CD Ln co Ln N (3) I�
> O . 2 Ln O
r N lT N I: OMtp C) O N C3I M O •-• O Ln r. LO tC: N
♦+ c Ln Ln of on Ln Lna Ln tV N M M M N P•) N .•+ Nf'• MM
T
E
W
L LC
r L LnGOO CNJ Ln000Ln000LnoOOOOOO a,
t r L= N r N n L n Un N N N Ln O O N L n L n O -e to O o 0 0 0 L
r. T R OGNtD LnN C+CtO CD to O) nM U
O C-
J OQ 'tt PiN Ot V mCO aT Ln K• atn � r tDM LnrMM
= A
m C
d
C N N C
W p p U li) W o V O O V 0 0 0 o U V 4 V Q Q Q m m W Q W
r r J N
Z r
= u 4
Ln 1 V
a 6L
N
•� U O M N to I Ct Ct LO to tD CO en m to CDCO N < to CO 4-
GO nC) Cn CO I, Co CO n 00 N N CG 0, n M n M M rto to L--. d
GO V Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G C:) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G.
m Q 4 E
4 W V
bQ
r z O U C) O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln Ln O CD O O O O M
r OC CD000000 Ln O Ln Ln LnNO Ln LnO LnG LnO
.-.. W G C COO ArCMM .-• CA to C! to M M to O O P- N to on tD P- T
O Q 000 C' to .- CC CO �- Ln tD to r tO to C) CG Cn nr CMCV N
N J M 10 r C < W .1 Q r M N N .- M .-+ M N M O
O Q,
7
W a
L
O OOOC O COOOOOO CDCOo OCDC0oC
m •- cocccco = oo0Oo CDC coc CDC occ
Gcccccoococoopc00000cco �
a Lo n
L C, c •Lcccc .rccvccaccccctOLn I m
O LC In L^ In In In L.') L!') ln lnNN m m MLn InNNNIn MM r \
V LL U i �
r
\
i m
T
3 � �
L b C O d T +a-'
a = y Y C C
> U. O LC L G C a
I O
C G. LC V m > Lp O O G. L.
G. L.
O
J L C Q 3 U WE � m O L G. V
i C L L 6 c L L n p C C CD WE O O .- Z C 3 ^
a -CO C U LO �--� C C. \ O -) C O W
G C LC V) L -- J a C ) N L. 3 O V V -0 O C R G
j C C L T O O C W \ W 3 L Ln
a '-• G W LY N dV OCCC Z G. M :r. LC LC
GO La_ tr a
c C LC Cr- . \ \ \ \ C L6 W 3C
C,^ OCC .-•• C M > > O Ntn V) N \ t L L C •L
G o \ M. a a W � ... v) N 2
N NV) V: C � V � N •L. C C C C V)
L. 0 C G C .,
L-. LC LC . C..; C C Cm C
\ T T TCOOOC O o -- • .- L JJ a O C c m m
LC u a a a \ \ \ \ \ t Cn LC > >,V) CAM >
G. L V) V: VI On V) LC C a s C C 3 m LC C. c T C G. G. m
a I C � 1' YYYY O tL L L �-•• � C C O(L C N
E C C C G O G O O Z Q N N N a U. > > C 0 LC MD >: LC
L 4 C G C O G ^ -) G •- a R A m L ^ C O N O L. L - ;
-) C C - = f S = t % t% U t: WO 033 V 3 Lr O - - c L� W u-i
� 1 I
1
+ N
a o
a N N C a a a
N V a a r r q r a O • G r .-. r ti a
Q {J A N N IS N Q ✓ �' a N a N N Q
ro c - O O N O N N C • I O C a ✓ O a c
a N O r L L a L a 6 L - 4 D L A m C L a
> a %D u U ro U ro m u " o U .. mr. E U m ✓
a > ✓
✓ L V a T. C a C a C a C ✓ a C L a a C C
M L N •^ a c O _N O a o N C C C a o u O C o `
✓ N q > U to V O V a ra U - > U ✓ E ra U
z � a a c a
c _ _
Cl N ; a N •� •r d N
CD
C"
rr
.� a N O ✓ ✓ a t (u
N V a r-- a ! r Q 1 q O r . C r r+ O r . C I
T U U rp C to N
V) Q U ra N N Q N Q N a N a N N a, N
N O I O C a ✓ N O r O
y N O i O O a OL = a L , 1D L Ia Or C a L ^ %D L
> a •- W U u r0 u to r- U `-' O U ^. mE A V O u
M > ✓
N L — uaa c a c r c � a c ✓ a cr a � a c ✓ a c
IaL N •^ aao ao Go ao D ao ao
a C L C a ••- C ^' C •^ N C + CID — L 0 N C •r C a •^
3 ✓ a ✓ do > U ro C ✓ C ✓ a — ✓ a L. a •^ ✓
E a
C ✓ Nu ro U c to ro Ulm > u ✓ a amua > u
7 7 C a ^- •^ a a a a .- a••'- •^ C E a , a - - a
U N rv-r L Ga N d N d N Q G N f a o!/r " Q G,N ;a.N
Z
C C a a a
a ° a
F, v ✓ v a
a c �n > > >
� � c •� v v a
C W A r a a
N a a a1
✓ C d N a a C C C
C d. O
O
U d U ^ !
v ! Q •�
r•-r lD Q
n Q
W } r
Z Ea Ca
r I N m O o O w � O
O Td st L ✓ ✓ O > L
U V) a r0 ra ✓ .^ a
I''"I A O a 01a Ora a O a
. c EL .+ a — a •^ a vc .tea
^ L ✓ L ✓ L a 3
a ✓ a E D E c a a a a
✓ C a s C IS t C A a s
C n C O i a 3
.- N 3 O 2 3
c a v a v a
O a a a a a
rn.- v v v a a
Ic ✓ -
✓ a
NN a a a a a
X 1
X N a a a a a
W N C C C G
C ro rO ro ro
[, r i
N N N N N
O A
� ✓ ^ C C
N ^ T N C
L C U O C
C j ✓ O C C
V) ao T a„- �
to T A A L C ^ C N
✓ a ✓ Y L ✓ •^ L d'
ra y > C O C t N C)o + c a iv a o
J U = OL. W U 3 � 3 �
} N
a
U cn OI
N u ar 4) J 1 i
>� V V m C N - V m c N QMCO V m c N a
V1 Q V m N N V m N u m N V m N O
m C r O -v 4. Y JO C r O m G - O m C r C' C
a N O J L C MC G J L C L O . L
> a tO u m c a 4) •r tO V a •^ kO U a •r kO V Y
•r m > Y m E > ..+ > Y > C
r+ L V O a +- Ucmu C V 'vL C V � 'v C C
m L N •r a a 0 u > N •^ a 4) O N - a 4. O N •r a s O V
r a C L C •r L O C L C V r C L C '_' •� C L C •r
Y C.� Y C •r Y 4, L G. Y C •� Y G. .- c •- .••� a r C +-
E O. .. N m > u m > u
_ ar acE car 4) � 4J a � 41 4J
U N .•-� L G� N •.- L O.� N L G C N L Cl L N
a N N C O N G N C N C
Y a N O ti N O N O N O
N u a a a a l a a J a a J
a U V m V m C N V to C N
N Q V m N V m N V m N U m
m C r O •O a 0 Y m C r O m C r O m C r
a r O i L C O• C O L O J L O J L
> a •^ O V m C a a r O U a •r to u a •r l 0 U
E Y Y > Y > Y
Y L •r ury cs a uL' v c •r uvv c •r uvv c
m L N •r 4 a O V > N a a 0
r7 �G+ Ya YV+ Cm • a L r a a 0 r a 0
C GvL O C C •O — r C C C S. Co +
aY aY
> YC A to > u > N M >
U
7 7 C a r •^ a C E G a r •r a C a r a C a r a
U In r L G v N •r •r r L G v N 6 v N rr L 6 C N
Z
Q
J C
d o "a v v v
a a a a
r vY v v v v
o z a u --
a W C a > > T >
to N O v
_ W N
Y d a a
a a 0
C cx L m m m m
O
v dto
U r r r r
J
n C
W LAJ t
Z Y ai
Q W Va+ >>1 T C c
to O O
C N s Y v Y v
U d O a O (U .-� �••�
W V) Ca+ C Y m m
C m u u rnv rnv
•r L a L a i Y L Y �L
6Li aa+ 7 N E = E O
Y C N C N C (6 O'
.C+ N 4 u C u z L
C
C a M
r U L L > >
Y a « Y ^
N N
r J C C
X N O O a a
W N U V C C
O m
L Y Y
U O O �
2 Z of C
L
to m N r
L C U
N ✓>
Y C Y
m Y Y C Y G
V c C O O O O m 0 0
O O �
I J U N J U V] U W U U I
Two segments of Frank Sinatra Drive (Detween Mcnterey and P)rtola and
between Del Safari and the North Parkway) ware also forecast to operate
above level of service C with the planned four-lane divided cross-section.
Additional widening is not recommended, so as to -ncourage Sunterra traffic
to utilize 42nd Avenue and Washington Street tc, reach the freeway.
5905.pl68sunt. rpt
- 3E -
W
m C R C O 4
✓ ✓ ✓ C C
N U R 7 M 7 N Oy R I yR I N T O W
V, G ✓ Q v cr N Q yl N 0 , O L 1
C W .0 OL V O O C O O L .� U ✓
N N V R V R W L W «+ L V 3 R C W W
.r R N V N V G.r Ot✓
✓ L c^ c r c c c + L c m L C r c R R R R
W o co W o R a, W G •R W W oto
E _ m u R u m` L a i aui W O O c —
O
v 'o
W N W W O al
✓ W W '' '' c c
O y O
N G ✓ N • R N N 7 N c W 1
N W — N N Q N Q O E . N O. N N � ✓ ✓ N O
N O t O O W C W N N O T V ✓ p t
0l r. a1 L .r NO L L a L 0 0 0 0
V `-' U V R V R W ✓ L Q! ✓ L
R tCo O N V + U G•^ OI✓
✓ L C ✓ C C C 4 C L C L C C C R R R R
R L W O W O a, O W O R W N O L C C •r C U 7 L
W N C , C L . C r. C •^ L 9 C •r
7 �., C «' O > U C ✓ C ✓ R ✓ '> R ✓ C ✓ W N O a
C R U > V R U m u > i C _y 1 y R N O O C ✓
a� Ql N d N Cl U W R
Cl.
d N d N Q < N 6 V
Z
G C C y 'o 9 9 V
d a! C W al W W
L V •O
v z c W > >
> d N C C C a. W al
c o R ;d to m cc
�o v
n � T
W
C 1+•t W N R R R R C R
0 O O O C
O
i L � ✓
O N d v � v R R R
W 1 R O W O al OIL O N OIL OI
� E .L ✓ r ✓ v ar ✓ a �, L ,�
c > E
W +W+ N Nr E W •� E
✓ c r c r c o c r c o a o
,a
V) 3
c c r a r r v
o WOj o a
IM
Y u > > a > > >
rc
N N
X N a! W W N Q) W L
W N C tC R R R T O
O R
L r i y
ul
cc
I
rT �
✓ •� \ L Y -
L ✓ L
c 3
L Y Y W G J O ✓
C W R O m 0 G ti T O N O
U L L O C
U I N C 4. 0 m`CM
I