HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-09-28MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
1. CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Crites convened the meeting at 5:35 p.m.
11. ROLL CALL
Present:
Member Jean M. Benson
Vice Chairman Buford A. Crites
Member Richard S. Kelly
Member Walter H. Snyder
Excused Absence:
Chairman S. Roy Wilson
Also Present:
Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/Director of Redevelopment Agency
Bruce A. Altman, City Manager
David J. Erwin, City Attorney
Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/P.1.0./Agency Secretary
Gregg Holtz, Senior Engineer
Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development/Planning
Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development
Frank Allen, Director of Code Compliance
Patrick Conlon, Director of Building & Safety
Paul Gibson, City Treasurer/Director of Finance
Member Kelly moved to adjourn to Closed Session pursuant to
Government Code Seetion 54956.9 (a), pending litigation (Palm Desert vs.
Indian Welis/SunTerra and related litigation, Indian Springs Trust vs.
Palm Desert). Motion was seconded by Snyder and carried by unanimous
vote of the Agency Board.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
SEPTEMBER 14, 1989.
Rec: Approve as presented.
Upon motion by Benson, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar
was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Agency Board.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
iV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
V. JOINT CiTY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC NEARING
Crites:
A. CONSIDERATION OF RE01/IST FOR CERTIFICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, APPROVAL Of GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE, AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 1, AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CiTY AND AHMANSON COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (s.A E NOS. GPA89-I. C/Z89-I. ZOA89-1).
The following is a verbatim transcript of the public hearing.
The fourth public hearing Is consideration of a request
for certification of Environmental Impact Report, Approval
of General Plan Amendment. Change of Zone. Amendment No. 5
to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1, and
Development Agreement between the City and Ahmanson
Commercial Development Company.
Let me take Just a moment and explain what the Counc i 1 ' s
intention is for the evening. That is, the first thing
that will occur is the City staff will provide for us and
the audience a presentation of details of the proposals
that are contained in this public hearing. The City
Council may then wish to ask for clarification or comments
from members of the staff. At that time, the public
hearing will be opened, and the first people who testify
at that hearing will be the applicant or the applicant's
representatives. Following that, those members of the
public who wish to make comments, to testify, to offer
information to the Council will then be invited to do
that. The public hearing will then be left open, and I
will ask each of the members of the Council at that point
to both the applicant and to staff to make whatever
comments, directions, additions, what have you, that they
wish to see in this matter, and then this matter is to be
left open and continued to a further meeting to give both
staff and the applicant time to address the questions that
come from this body and questions that come from the
public at large. So a final decision on this matter will
not be reached tonight. Tonight is a time to look for
information, to look for guidance, to look for points of
view and then allow for analysis of those points of view.
With that in mind, Mr. City Manager, the staff report.
2
a i I
rom
raN
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • •
Altman: Thank you. 1 believe Mr. Drell will make the presentation
tonight, is that correct, Mr. Diaz?
Diaz: That is correct.
Erwin: Mr. Mayor, I might note only for the record that your
Redevelopment Agency was convened at your afternoon
meeting and is still open.
Drell:
Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councllmembers. Before you
tonight is an Environmental Impact Report relating to and
also considering a General Plan Amendment to the
Commercial Core Specific Plan, a change of zone,
development agreement, a zoning ordinance change relating
to the ability to execute developments, and amendment to
Redevelopment Area No. 1, amendment No. 5, making all of
the aforementioned General Plan land use changes
consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.
The plan involves a proposal by the Ahmanson Commercial
Development Company Involving 132 acres within the CIty's
Highway III commercial core. Originally designated were
nine sites, which were subject to varying amendments to
the general plan and zoning described on page 3 of the
staff report. Those changes are basically of two types.
One is certain sites on 111 are being changed from a
resort commercial zone to a regional commercial zone.
Resort commercial zone is a very specific restrictive
commercial zone which requires that hotels and restaurants
be the primary land use. With that Primary land use
specialty retail uses are permitted. The regional
commercial zone is more of generalized, planned commercial
zone allowing general commercial uses such as department
stores as the major primary use.
The second type of change which will occur will be from a
medium density PR-6 zone, from a medium density general
Plan designation, on sites located either adjacent to
Highway 111 or surrounded by existing general or regional
commercial property, and that change from residential
would also be to regional commercial or general
commercial.
This was the first proposal submitted and which is the one
originally analyzed in the Environmental impact Report.
The staff report shows six sites. Here Is Site #1 shown
in the staff report which is presently designated PR-6 and
is a medium density residential. It Is proposed be
changed to a modified office professional zone permitting
80% development of offices and 20% development of
3
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • • •
ancillary retail and restaurants on Highway 111, and as
shown in the staff report would be designated with a total
of 100.000 square feet of development.
Site Area #2 which enclosed principally this area on the
north side of the Palm Valley Storm Channel. west of
Highway 111, presently designated resort commercial, would
be changed to regional commercial allowing a generalized
regional shopping center. Also to point out. as part of
this change, there is a piece of property not owned by the
applicant for which the City of Palm Desert is the
applicant to be changed to regional commercial.
Site Area #3. which Is the north side of the Town Center
presently zoned medium residential PR-6. would be changed
again to regional commercial. Then we have the area
currently on El Paseo currently occupied by vacation
rental resort units. which would be changed to general
commercial consistent with the other zoning on El Paseo.
And then we have the area principally in the hillside.
Those areas beyond the 10% slope line which would
dedicated open space.
The first option analyzed in the EiR called for an
alignment of traffic extending from Fred Waring,
realignment of Painters Path with a bridge across the Palm
Valley Storm Channel extending to El Paseo, and that is
the main option for traffic circulation system analyzed in
the Environmental Impact Report. As a result of response
to the original legal notice and raised at the Planning
Commission hearing, a second alternative was analyzed and
proposed for this area. The substance of the comments
mainly originating from residents and property owners from
the Sandpiper colony condominiums was objecting to the
increased traffic and noise being generated by this
extension of Painters Path. As a result an alternative
was examined which deleted that bridge and deleted the
extension of Painters Path. That alternative is also
included in the staff report. Without question. under the
original design, the traffic on the section of Painters
Path adjacent to the Sandpiper development would be
increased from approximately 1,800 trips per day to
approximately 10.000 trips per day. As part of the
original proposal. though, a Site Area 9 would be created
moving the alignment of Painters Path from 190 feet at the
Palm Valley Storm Channel, narrowing down to zero at El
Paseo to create a landscape and noise buffer between what
would be now a high traffic corridor and Sandpiper colony.
In this option 2, the configuration of the existing Site
Area #1 would remain as it is today and access and
4
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTENBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • •
Diaz:
Drell:
alignment of Painters Path would remain as it is today.
The developer has expressed a willingness to agree and
approve and implement either option, depending on the
City's preference. Staff had recommended at Planning
Commission that given the developer's feeling about the
lack of a need from a marketing standpoint of a bridge and
the opposition from Sandpiper relative to the existence of
e bridge, this second alternative was preferable and
acceptable to the staff.
In their deliberations, the Planning Commission felt that
the bridge and the circulation created by Option I was
important and came up with a different recommendation.
The Assistant City Manager Mr. Diaz can describe and
represent the Planning Commission recommendation regarding
the need and advantages of the continued Painters Path
circulation.
Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, the Planning
Commission felt that there might be a way to continue this
circulation system and mitigate some of the concerns
regarding the impact to the Sandpiper development by
creating a situation where Edgehill Drive would continue
to run north and south and run into Painters Path as close
to the bridge as possible, maintaining site distance
safety. And then the area that was originally designated
public park buffer zone Would then be given to the
Sandpiper development and landscaping or whatever other
mitigation they felt necessary would be done and you would
have a private entrance into Sandpiper from Painters Path.
it was the Commission's position that the need for this
additional circulation system was important, that the
taking off of some of the traffic from Highway 111 and
routing it through here was necessary in terms of future a
development and traffic circulation within the City and
that it was their hope that it could be mitigated to
everyone's satisfaction. That is basically the reasons
the Planning Commission recommended to you this particular
alternative.
Although at thls particular time this application only
involves a change of land use designations, In analyzing
the impacts of the proposal, the potential development
intensity was estimated at approximately 846.700 square
feet of varying types of commercial development. That is
on which the ElR analysis was based. The Issues before
the Council involve the philosophical zoning or land use
Issue of the advantages of the regional PC-4 zone and the
proposed more general PC-3 zone and it really grows out of
the original discussion of the Core Commercial Plan, where
5
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
• • • • • . . . • • • • • • OOOOOOO • • • • •
it was felt that a great deal more flexibility was
required to attract the types of commercial uses in this
area. Hotels are not longer particularly desirable or
advantageous in this particular area on Highway iII. We
are finding that the destination resorts which we are most
interested in attracting need larger acreages and are
locating elsewhere in. the City. Also, the zone has a
secondary function to create conglomerations of
restaurants, which we have one of directly north of this
site. end staff's view that the isolation of restaurants
away from your general retail environment is not desirable
and forces people to get in their car and drive away from
the retail area for lunch. It also does not permit the
sharing of parking during the off peak hours.
The change from residential to commercial on the El Paseo
site and the Town Center site is based on the conclusion
that these sites are substantially surrounded by
commercial development. The Sun Lodge site is in the
heart of El Paseo and has always been considered to be
important to develop as a major commercial anchor to
consolidate the two halves of El Paseo. And, therefore.
the development of a major retail project on the Sun Lodge
site will be beneficial to the El Paseo area in general.
The Town Center site is, again, surrounded substantially
by existing regional commercial and best serves the City
to continue that pattern.
The Environmental Impact Report analyzed, as described in
the staff report, a number of items. Those which were
found to be most significant included traffic and housing
and employment impacts. A good part of the report is made
up of an extensive traffic study which not only examines
the specific impacts of the projects but tried to
anticipate the regional growth of other projects on
Highway 11l and other projects throughout the Coachella
Valley and how those projects and developments and
regional growth will affect traffic throughout Palm
Desert. That projection was extended to the year 2000 in
making the analysis. The result of that study was
recommendation of an extensive list of mitigation measures
and traffic improvements on Highway 111 and the
intersections in the area. To a great extent those
mitigation measures involved implementation of the
regional Coachella Valley transportation plan, the
widening of Highway I11 to six lanes, major intersection
widening at most of the major intersections, including
Highway 111/Monterey, El Paseo/Highway 74, Town Center
May/Highway 111, Fred Waring/Monterey, etc. Again, most
of these improvements are improvements which were
6
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • •
recognized to be necessary resulting from regional growth
of traffic. The hastening of development which the
approvals fo'r the change of zone and general plan
amendment might create will eventually hasten the need for
those improvements. Most likely they are the same
improvements we would desire regardless.
The other major impact requiring an extensive mitigation
program is in the area of employment generation, which in
itself is not a negative impact. it becomes a negative
impact If the facilities, especially housing, are not
available. The EIR assumed, based upon our studies of
existing supplies of housing, there is virtually no
available low or very low income housing within the City
of Palm Desert that Is vacant and that any housing needs
generated by the project would require mitigation. It
estimated that the project would generate 1,075 employees
and would create 231 new low income households, 154
moderate income households, and 73 new very low income
households. These numbers are the result of using a
fairly complex analysis. taking the 1980 census data and
figuring out how low Income service employees end up In
households and how the income of those households
eventually fall into the income schedule or ranges. As
part of the EIR, a required mitigation will be that there
must be production of those 385 low and very low income
housing units. The proposed mitigation would be pert and
would be implemented as part of our new housing element
whereby housing would be built and subsidized through our
cooperative arrangement with the Riverside County Mousing
Authority and subsidized through our 20% housing set aside
from the Redevelopment Agency.
In conclusion. at this point in time, staff is
recommending approval of the various proposals, that they
will create the flexibility necessary to attract high
quality development and a balanced mix of complementary
uses In the Highway Ill commercial core. We have received
numerous correspondence (which are in your packet) from
residents of Sandpiper mostly concerned about and in
opposition to the extension of Painters Path and
construction of the bridge. We have also received, and I
believe you have received copies, a list of comments
relative to the Environmental Impact Report from the City
of Indian Wells. I have also received from the City of
Indian Wells more general comments about the City's
General Plan and how ft relates to the proposed project
and some thoughtful criticisms of our General Plan
relative to the application. We are preparing written
responses to the comments, along with more general
7
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crites:
Simon:
comments we have received from other agencies and will be
presenting a more complete detailed discussion of the
various points of contention within the Environmental
Impact Report on the meeting of October 12th. That
concludes the staff report.
Thank you, Mr. Drell. Are there initial questions from
this body? Thank you, sir. I will then open the public
hearing and ask for the applicant or representatives from
the applicant to address the Council.
Good evening, Mayor Pro-Tem and City Councilmembers. My
name is Greg Simon. I am the Director of Retail Centers
for Ahmanson Commercial Development. The address is 11111
Santa Monica 'Blvd., Suite 2127, Los Angeles, 90025.
Ahmanson CommercialDevelopment is very pleased to appear
before you tonight to receive your input relative to e
plan that to reality has started some over 18 months ago,
with an intense review and work efforts in cooperation
with the City staff. When Ahmanson by reason of other
land holdings that it has here within the City began to
focus its attention on the opportunity to bring together a
master plan of what they considered the very important
properties in the commercial area in order to provide
infrastructure, design, and ultimate tenant mix
merchandising decisions. We are not here before you
tonight, as Mr. Drell said, to request any approvals.
Those certainly will come at a later time. The analysis
that Mr. Drell has given you is a result of very complex
and very in-depth negotiations and work effort that has
gone on between the staff, and I must compliment the City
and staff over thfs past 18 months and the manner in which
they have dealt with us. There have been innumerable
meetings with the assistance of some members of the City
Council, with potential tenants in order to understand
some of the concerns and thoughts of who may or may not
wish to come in and serve Palm Desert. And we at Ahmanson
have found this to be a most beneficial and most positive
relationship. The degree of confidence, and I think it is
a mutual confidence, is very high.
Over the past year, we have been very intense in working
with a variety of not only the City committees but also
business organizations and have made presentations to the
Chamber of Commerce, the El Paseo Business Association,
the City's Economic Development Committee, and recently
the two meetings with the Planning Commission in which the
net result was that of unqualified support from each of
these bodies towards the basic plan before you tonight.
In fact I must add that the El Paseo Business Association
8
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
has set up a task force which we have yet to implement to
help in qualifying and discussing with potential major
tenants those particular issues that are relevant to Palm
Desert that only retailers wish to discuss among
themselves, which they seem to have a higher credibility.
And we are very encouraged with the degree of
sophistication and the calibre of the merchants that have
come forward to lend their help in this regard. i think
it is a tremendous vote for the City.
As Phil was explaining, our original outline that we have
come forward with some 18 months ago really was working
off the commitment of the Commercial Core Specific Plan
which envisioned an extension of Painters Path and the
completion of the linkage there. As sometimes happens as
you get through a program, and that is one of the great
benefits of time, you have the opportunity to finally go
out and when you can present a more comprehensive plan,
solicit the input of additional people in the community.
in that respect we found that there were mitigating
measures that we wanted to take into hand and present an
alternate #2, which 1 will do for you or just basically
talk about in one minute.
First of all, our plan brings together a very diverse
group of properties under very diverse ownerships. And 1
think it gives us the opportunity to provide into one
concise decision -making body the ability to bring forward
to you over the next several years whether it be three,
five, or ten years, each of the various specific proposals
as the market tells us the property is ready to be
developed, ready to be developed in a general format that
the City Council directed years before; ie, right now.
Our first effort that we first went Into and probably
where we have spent more time is on the 10 acres known as
the Sun Lodge Colony. This property is owned by a trust
here in Southern California not related to the Ahmanson
Company, and through our previous efforts with the City It
had come to our attention, and we are obviously well
recognized, that this was a property that was probably one
of the most crucial properties towards the long-term
stability of what is a fragile and delicate corridor, the
El Paseo corridor. With that to hand, we also expanded
our thoughts towards other properties that we had and have
basically been able to form for you this proposal tonight.
Some of the thoughts on Sun Lodge Colony involve also
Providing for the City an additional Z00 parking stalls
that go beyond that which the project itself will require.
And by September 30th after this season has passed. we
will be able to provide after demolition temporary parking
9
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • OOOOOOO • • • •
Crites:
Stave:
for the City along with the improvements fronting on El
Paseo which heretofore' have been pretty much a pedestrian
barrier between blocks. Our application also takes into
account the fact that we are taking 54 acres which are
currently zoned for hillside residential and dedicating
that back to open space to order to protect and ensure the
beauty of the Santa Rosa Mountains, especially In such a
position here within the City. We, again, are not here to
discuss any specific proposal on an site. We are here to
get the isaster plan comments and to hopefully move forward
in our next meeting with resolving whatever thoughts or
ideas come out of this meeting after we have had an
opportunity to study it.
i should address'very briefly the fact that alternate #1,
which we now call alternate #1 because it was the first
one, the bridge across the flood control channel and the
extension of Painters Path has now evolved into a two -
front effort, which includes alternate #l2 which is
basically deleting the bridge, the realignment of Painters
Path, the vacating the existing Painters Path north of the
flood control channel, and dealing with and mitigating the
concerns that we have heard not only through staff but
comments that were given to us by a variety of input. In
closing, I would like to say again that we're very pleased
to be here. We've enjoyed the relationship, the very
solid working basis that we've had now for over 18 months
on this particular project. My staff is here. Hopefully
we can address whatever issues or answer whatever
questions we can. If we can't, they are issues and
questions that we'll defer and answer for you next week,
or two weeks from now.
Thank you, sir. Are there initial questions from the
Council? Thank you. Are there others in the audience who
wish to offer testimony that is supportive of thls
proposal? If so, now is the time for such testimony to be
given.
Are there those in the audience who wish to offer
testimony that is in opposition to this proposal? If so,
when you come to the Podium, If you would be kind enough
to begin by giving your name and address for the record.
My name is Donald Lee Stage. 1 1 i ve at 1 3 1 3 Sandpiper,
and I own the Sandpiper Real Estate office. 1 would just
like to ask a question. Are we saying we're for or
against Plan 1 or Plan 2?
10
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • . • • • . • • . . . • • • • • • • •
Crites:
To be very honest, that's the formal procedure is to ask
people who are favorable to testify first and those who
are not to testify...
Stage: I understand that.
Crites:
Stage:
Pickell:
In reality, at this point you should offer the testimony
that you perceive to be correct, of which may be partially
favorable and partially not.
Thank you. Well, first of all, we've gone head to head
with Ahmanson before and Mervyn's. I'm sure you're all
aware of that. Somebody got up here and Simon says this,
Simon says that, and glad that Mr. Simon's back. But
we're not against Ahmanson. i think I speak for a lot of
the Sandpiper, but my remarks ere certainly my own. To
save a lot of time, if we approve proposition 2, 1 don't
think you will get much complaint from the Sandpiper. The
thing that concerns us is obviously taking traffic off of
Highway 111, which is a main street, it's Just been
widened and spent a lot of money, and have ten times as
much traffic going onto a residential street. I don't
think that's good planning. Secondly, we're concerned
about if they move that north there and this strip of land
whether it's a park or give it to the Sandpiper, I don't
the Sandpiper wants it. I think Ahmanson should keep it
and develop it and get taxes. We et that time could talk
about a wall or some landscaping to do something about
mitigating the noise to the Sandpiper. 1 essence, I guess
I'm in favor of Plan 2. That's all i want to say, and no
bridge. Thank you.
My name Is Ben Pickell. I guess 1 should have stepped up
here a little sooner. I'm not against anything that has
been said this evening. As a matter of fact, I applaud
Ahmanson for coming forth and making this general plan.
And es long as they are going to build quality buildings,
quality complexes, that will be in keeping with the
quality and environment of the City of Palm Desert. The
only specific parcel I'm interested in is the parcel that
is bounded by Town Center Way, Fred Waring Drive, end
Fairhaven. And i do and would like to see that developed
as soon as possible because every time the wind blows it
is a dust bowl for those of us who live in that
neighborhood behind. And by the way, my address is 72-814
Tampico Drive. l mentioned this to our Mayor Pro-Tem when
we were in discussion regarding the sidewalk that was Just
recently completed to give us pedestrian access from our
neighborhood over onto Monterey, adjacent to the Palm
Desert Town Center, that I want to avoid any problems like
it
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
that in the future when that particular property is
developed to making a pedestrian passage from Fairhaven to
Town Center Way so that we can get to the 111 Town Center
shopping center without going out of our way down to Fred
Waring and around about to get to it.
1 also would like to mention If It is et all possible. I
would love to see a market shopping center on the north
side of 111. We have three market shopping centers in the
City of Palm Desert. They are all on the south side of
Highway 111, and with Highway 111 being expanded to six
lanes, It's just like a freeway, and it will get worse in
the near future. And for young children, elderly people,
handicapped like myself with eyesight problems who cannot
drive, it would -certainly be more convenient so that we
don't have to cross that Highway 111 to get to a market.
The only other one, of course, on the north side is at
Monterey and Country Club, which is too far to walk for
us. It would Just make it more convenient, we would
eliminate a lot more car driving if something was on the
north side, and 1 would love to see that incorporated into
this plan. Thank you.
Crites:_ Thank you, sir.
Rieke:
Crites:
Rieke:
Crites:
Rieke:
My name Is Ray Rieke, 73-111 AJo Lane, and i am a new
resident of this area. I'm Just trying to understand
exactly what's going on here in more layman terms. if 1
understand this correctly, you're considering amending the
zoning of this area from what would be more a resort type
of requirement and going to a commercial type of
requirement. is that a correct statement?
The present zoning for most of the 111 area is resort
commercial, which would imply the use of hotels with
ancillary commercial facilities. The change that is being
requested by the applicant would simply leave it as
commercial as a base commercial kind of thing as versus
resort, yes, sir.
With no requirement for hotel or something like that.
Right.
And I gather, it's basic 1 guess to assume that this is
going to benefit the residents of Palm Desert simply by
increasing the taxes, the tax base? The commercial
activity will provide us some benefits simply because of
the increase in taxes and more business? i mean. that's
elementary. is that the assumption? Is that one of the
12
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crites:
Rieke:
Crites:
SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • •
main thrusts behind this, to promote the growth of Paim
Desert, and this would do it as opposed to going into the
hotel resort type of restriction?
I'm sure the applicant would be happy to give us a lengthy
affirmation of the economic value. This body then needs
to consider economic value, aesthetic values, traffic
issues, and the kinds of things that are best for the
existing residents and current commercial base of the
City. And so there's a balancing of those interests and
needs.
Well• I didn't want to belabor the thing and make it a
detailed event this evening. I'm Just trying to
understand what is, seeing as how you thought it was
important enough to send this certified mail to the
residents, l thought it was important enough for me to ask
some questions as to what Is going on here. And 1 guess
my concern, 1 am a fairly new resident, I'd like to see
Palm Desert grow, and certainly In an orderly,
progressive, tasteful manner, but I'd also like to see the
beauty of the Santa Rosa Mountains prevail. All of these
kinds of things which make this area presently and I'd
like to see it continue to be the type of place to live
that, you know, everyone would want to come to. So I
think those are my concerns. I'm Just trying to
understand what's going on. I assume this will go through
all of the various phases and as things come up we'il have
an opportunity to hear more about it and that if there are
any, if there is any Impact, negative impact, that weighs
negative more than positive, that we'll have an
opportunity to learn more about it. Is that correct?
Yes, sir, and 1 think those of us on the Council have
already spent considerable time looking at some of the
pros and cons, and this evening before we leave this item,
each of us will have the opportunity to both address the
applicant and the staff with what concerns we may have.
Rieke: Okay, thank you very much.
Crites: Thank you, sir.
Stage: I'm Joanne Stage. I'm at Sandpiper. When we moved here
15 years ago, 1 got In quite an argument with another
Sandpiper owner about the fact that it was developing.
And i said, gee, now that the Palm Desert area, now that
I'm here, surely we can let other people come too. and we
do need development, and 1 recommend that everyone come to
this area because 1 think it's wonderful. But I do think
13
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
that we love the small town atmosphere, and I love being
able to have the opportunity to come here and thank you
all for being here and listening to us. We appreciate
that.
I'm deeply concerned about the highway situation, Highway
111, El Paseo, the group of people that zip from TGI
Friday's across El Paseo, down Painters Path and then will
go across on the proposed bridge. I'm sympathetic of the
revenue for the City from all of the stores on El Paseo
and the wonderful restaurants and Moeller's Nursery, and
all of that really makes good sense to me. I understand
that. I'm not just prejudiced, and all of us understand
too at Sandpiper that we're not just prejudiced about
wanting our little community. But we were there first,
you know, we were there. We didn't, we weren't there and
then, it isn't like you're complaining because you've got
noise from an airport after you've built on the site where
the airport already existed. We didn't do that. We've
always been there for a lot of years. And we do have the
hope that we will have some sort of safety in the street.
And that is a real concern to us. I'm decorating now on
the corner of Painters Path and Edgehill. and the workmen
that I've been working with and i have had a number of
really close calls. I can't tell you how much 1 wish all
of you could just pull in in that one intersection, and
you would know that It is terribly, terribly serious. You
cannot see well, it always is a pool of water. I don't
know where that comes from. It's filthy. There is a real
problem on that corner. And 1 live two blocks away, three
blocks away. and i hear screeching brakes constantly. much
more than 1 do from Highway 111. 1 really think we have a
threat there. My thought is that It would be nice if
there was a service road of some sort going down Edgehill
for the people who have lived there for years, long before
this was planned. Because what we're considering now is
rezoning an area that was zoned when we bought there for a
residential area. We're considering rezoning that for a
commercial area. And as I understand it. that's our big
concern, and that's the talking point that we do have.
Thank you.
Crites: Thank you, ma'am.
Hoover:
Thank you. I'm John C. Hoover. and 1 live at 1715
Sandpiper. And with your permission. Mr. Crites. I'd like
to stand over here and kind of point out on the map while
I talk. Do you mind?
14
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crites: There is a portable microphone. You can just take that
with you.
Hoover: Thank you very much. I'II only take a couple minutes of
your time. 1 think it's a little bit easier here.
Actually, this is where we live, right here, and this is
Sandpiper, and the Sandpiper development Is all through
here, and it's on both of these maps. Now as Mrs. Stage
has said, we have very busy condition where Edgehill and
Painters Path come together. At this time, there is no
question that there fs a busy condition because quite a
few more homes have built up on Edgehill. And people have
a tendency to think Edgehill is a speedway and they come
down and they hit this point and then they turn fast.
There's water here, and then they zip through Painters
Path. So it has changed a lot in the last two or three
years, believe me. All we want is to be cooperative with
the City, we really do. We're not anxious to act like
apparently the group did some years ago when Mervyn's came
in and everyone yelled and screamed. We're I think
logical enough to know that this has to be developed, and
that the City has gone to a lot of trouble and effort on
it and the Ahmanson people are certainly decent and
they're anxious to do it right. And we want to cooperate
with them. All we want is privacy, a little bit of
quietness, and really we would prefer no bridge. Now the
reason Is that this is going to be a very large
development on the other side. it'll be your second
largest commercial development In Palm Desert. and we
don't think it's fair to take an existing residential area
and funnel thousands of cars every day right by our door.
even If you're going to put a little berm here or a wall
or whatever else might be done. We Just don't think it's
fair. We're wi 11 ing to let you take this area which is
now a residential area, and we're will to say yes, you
should have it. The Ahmanson people have a good plan,
they're going to put in stores and office buildings and
stuff, and we want to cooperate. But at the same time we
Just want to be protected so that we can live. I'm 64
years old, i want to retire in a year or two. I like Palm
Desert. 1 like Sandpiper. I'd like to stay here, but 1
want to be able to sleep at night. too. And 1 don't think
it's fair, I really don't think it's fair, to take a
commercial area. put it exactly next to a residential
area, and then put a major street next to us. And i came
to each one of the Planning Commission meetings. and 1
know the reasons that the people would like the road to go
through. but i just think it's very unfair. And certainly
the traffic people have indicated how much traffic there
will be, and i think it could easily be ten times what it
15
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
is now. And that's a lot. So I'm urging you to seriously
consider this plan. Thank you very much.
Crites: Thank you, sir. Are there others in the audience who...
Yes, sir.
Flynn: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name
is John Flynn, an attorney. I represent Sunrise Company.
My address is 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1250, in the
City of Costa Mesa. Earlier today we submitted a letter
to Mr. Diaz (attached hereto and made a part hereof as
Exhibit "A"), which details my client's comments on the
project environmental impact report and relevant portions
of the general plan. Prior to beginning this session of
the City Council meeting, I provided to your Clerk enough
copies of our letter for each of the members of the
Council. It's a very detailed letter, and I'm not going
to repeat the details tonight, but there are a couple of
main points that I want to state while 1 have the
opportunity.
Crites:
Flynn:
Your general plan, and my guess is you're already aware of
this, is badly in need of revision. Environmental impact
report for the project really consists almost entirely of
unsupported conclusions. It doesn't really even come
close to the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act. The defects in the general plan are so
pervasive that it isn't enough to support a legal approval
of this project. Nor is it enough to support the approval
of any other project in the City or the issuance of
certain types of permits. The responses to comments I
don't believe have yet been made available to the public,
I'm not sure that they've even been printed at this point.
The Planning Commission, as 1 understand it, has already
taken action on the environmental impact report. But if
the Planning Commission has not yet had the fourth, the
final environmental impact report, which includes the
responses to comments, then it hasn't validly acted on the
environmental impact report. i don't believe, as things
stand now, you're in a position to approve this project,
and just for clarification, it is my understanding that
the plan is to take action on the project at the meeting
of October 12th? is that correct?
The plan is to continue this matter until the meeting of
October 12th.
I see. And there isn't presently a plan to take action at
that time?
16
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• . . • • • . . • • • • • • • • • . • . . • • • •
Crites: That's a future issue that we'll have to consider.
Flynn: 1 see. 1 any'event, 1 think I've summarized very briefly
the main points of the several points that we have stated
In the letter, and 1 do appreciate the opportunity to
address the City Council tonight. Thank you.
Crites: We thank you for your testimony.
Wood: Good evening, Mr. Mayor Pro-Tem and members of the
Council. My name is Tom Wood. I'm with the law firm of
McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown, and Anderson. We have submitted
a letter with some comments as Mr. Drell as indicated
(attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B").
i would simply ask that the letter made part of the
record, and I have nothing further to add.
Crites: So ordered. Thank you, sir. Are there others in the
audience? Yes, sir.
Coop: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mike Coop.
I'm a resident of El Paseo Village, that's 73-484 Shadow
Mountain Drive. it's been a couple years since I've been
to a Council meeting, and I'm sorry to say I guess I
missed what's been going on. I thought that a couple
years ago we decided that Zone #5 as I see in my latest
communication, they're talking about core commercial. And
1 thought it was decided that it was going to be some sort
of a frontage like El Paseo, a continuation of what El
Paseo is, with a park in the back section. Now 1 see It
on the map as a whole commercial area. Is that correct?
The whole Sun Lodge Is going to be one giant, 1 mean the
whole thing will be commercial. in other words, it can be
developed commercial.
Diaz:
Coop:
The propose) will be for the Sun Lodge to be developed
commercial. A separate precise plan of design and series
of public hearings on the ultimate design of that
commercial will have to be conducted ff the zoning is
approved at a later date. And at that particular point in
time. we would be addressing exactly where the commercial
would go. where the parking would go, and the type of
landscaping.
i question because i go back to meetings were It was
questionable whether we were going to have underground
parking, If Nordstrom's was going to be an anchor store.
I guess I'm missing all these things now. This is new
information to me. i've been away, and now I come back
and this information makes me want to ask several
17
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crites:
Coop:
Crites:
Stevnina:
questions, of which I'd like to start right now by saying
how would changing this zone affect the properties in that
nearby area of El Paseo? 1 know, this is impact stuff
that 1 haven't seen yet, and 1 want to know how it's going
to affect traffic, loitering, noise, breaking and entry,
threats and safety to property, I want to know how it will
infringe on our residential area there because ft is right
in the heart of El Paseo. And this Is the question which
I think that the people and my neighbors, who I'm sorry
couldn't be here tonight but 1'd like to speak on their
behalf if i could and say 1'd like to have some answers to
those simple questions.
i might also suggest that it might be beneficial for you
at another time to sit down with staff and look through
the portion of the proposed environmental impact report
that deals with traffic circulation and those issues
concerning the Sun Lodge Colony. There is semi -voluminous
data.
I'm here tonight because i thought it was decided some
time ago what they were going to do to that property. I
thought that all the residents would be removed from Sun
Lodge so that they could start development this month, and
this month's over. I just wondered, this other
development here now is being brought up, i wonder why,
and this is unimportant because it doesn't really relate
to this meeting, but if Palm Desert is one of the
essential golf capitals of the world, how come the City
doesn't have a municipal golf course? Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Are there others in the audience who wish
to offer further testimony at this point?
Mr. Mayor, I'm Vyonne Stevning, and I've lived here for 18
years. 1 live at 1710 Sandpiper, 1 should say Painters
Path. And I'd like to address my comments primarily to
the Planning Commission. They approved the bridge and
also giving us that little space of land there. Number
one, we pay $430 month for the maintenance on our property
at the present time. We would have to assume the
additional expense of maintaining that, and 1 don't feel
that any of the people living there want to assume that
responsibility. 1 think that's something that you should
think about when you say that they need that bridge, and
they really don't need it to develop this plan. And i
agree with the gentleman that preceded me saying that you
have to think about if they use Plan 8 it should be very
important not to have any openings onto Painters Path from
that plan. Because if you notice that at Fred Waring,
18
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • OOOOOOO • • • •
Crites:
Daly:
Crites:
Daly:
Diaz:
Drelir
Daly:,
Drell:
Daly:
Diaz:
where all the restaurants are and that huge parking lot,
they still park up and down the street. I think you all
are aware of that, during the season especially. So I for
one would be very, very conscious of the fact that that
would not have any openings from that commercial section
onto Painters Path. And, of course, no bridge. How would
you like to have to turn into that one driveway on a left
hand turn on a street with 10,000 cars a day or a right
hand coming out of there. It would be not a practical
solution. Thank you.
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? Yes, ma'am.
I'm Maureen Daly, 73-305 Ironwood. Just a question, what
do these limitations mean? We're not rezoning everything,
are we?
No. ma'am.
Well. whet is this (unclear) boundary?
mean, why does it go just this far and not?
i believe that that is a boundary map of the
project area 1. That's the map...
Why does that
redevelopment
No, this area, again the areas being rezoned are the areas
shown on the map. The other areas are Just to orient you
towards this, showing you it's within the City and its
relationship to Highway 111 and the Town Center and other
things.
And you wanted us to come here because this is kind of
worrisome to us.
Why everyone was notified was that these occur within the
redevelopment area, you are within the redevelopment area
and. therefore, all property owners within the
redevelopment area had to be notified.
Did 1 know this before this letter came to me?
That you were within the redevelopment area? 1 don't know
if you knew that or not. The redevelopment project area
was established years ago, so yes, 1975. And by State
law, when you amend the redevelopment plan. we are
required to send to all persons in the redevelopment
project area, by registered mail. a letter. So that's why
some of you had to go to the Post Office to pick it up.
Daly: I don't remember that happening.
19
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • . • • • •
Crites: Is there anyone else who wishes to offer comments? if
not, et this time...
Diaz: Mr. Mayor, if you would for the record, ask if anyone
wishes to make a specific comment on the environmental
impact report for one last time, and if not, then we would
conclude the public testimony portion of the hearing. just
for the record. please.
Erwin: You mean on the environmental impact report only?
Diaz: Yes.
grwin: Okay.
Crites: is there a reason to close the public testimony on that?
Erwin: So that staff can have an opportunity to respond to the
comments with regard to that and you can hopefully put
together your final environmental impact report.
Diaz: Right. on the I2th.
Benson:
Going back to the other general comments. My name is
Edward Benson, and I live at 1106 Sandpiper. And I think,
and i've been there 18 years. 1 think as I'm sure all of
you people know, when you talk about the Sandpipers,
you're talking about the residential development lying
west of the corner of El Paseo and Highway 74. There are
nine different associations, and there is a grand total of
308 units. Unit #I7 is the one that's getting the brunt
of this because they are the one directly across the
street. But nevertheless think of not just as the
Sandpipers Unit #17 but the entire residential
development. I don't know what the assessed valuation is
of those 308 units, but there Is an awful lot of them.
But it is the entire residential development lying on the
south side of El Paseo. I think the thing that is going
to really, the piece of property that's really going to be
hurt here is Highway 74, 1 mean excuse me Highway 1 1 1 .
And in terms of the traffic, nobody really knows how much
traffic Is going to occur as a result of building the
project in whatever form. But it certainly is going to
result In more traffic than we now have. And all of us 1
think that live here full time or part time have seen
what's happening to 74 despite the fact that you just
recently had it widened. So 1 would hope that
concurrently with whatever decision is made on this
property that you think about helping Highway 111, and we
20
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crites:
could start from the beginning of Highway 111 and El
Paseo, possibly an underpass/overpass situation, which
would allow people to get through, drivers to get through
faster on Highway 1l1 without the burden of more stop
signs. If we could have something there where people
traveling through on Highway 111 could have a gradual
upturn and downturn at the corner of El Paseo so that
there is no corner, together with an under/over operation
sort of thing. That could even be helped on some of the
other intersections further to the east of Highway 111. i
think we're getting too many lights there, and that in
itself is creating a traffic jam...Highway IiI has just
been widened. But with the magnitude of this project
coming along, we've got to think about Highway 111 and
helping It at the same time. And I also am very
respectful and appreciate the comments that the other
people in the Sandpiper have made. We're not just a bunch
of spoiled people that live there part time and go away
most of the time. There are 308 units, you figure out
what the real estate revenues are. But we're the
residential area on the north side between Highway 74 and
almost to Pitahaya. Thank you very much.
i have a question of the City Attorney, Mr. Erwin. Given
the fact that there will be a variety of comments by the
Council and given the fact that staff and the applicant
will be asked to do and to examine certain things, is it
not potentially possible• that the public may wish to
comment on those issues at the meeting of October 12th?
Erwin: That is possible.
Crites: Would that not then suggest leaving this portion of the
hearing open?
Erwin: Certainly you can do that if you wish. What it probably
would entail if there are comments, then there are going
to be further responses.
Crites: A project of this size seems to deserve that.
(Unable to hear question from the audience.)
Crites: That is a question that staff has asked. It is something
that I think we should ask for. i at least as one person
would not be supportive of that.
Kelly: i don't see any reason to rush.
Crites: The answer to that question then is no.
21
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Audience:
Qiaz:
I asked how does a resident (unclear).
We have copies of the environmental impact report
available in the City Planning Department. Just come on
in and you can peruse it at your leisure.
Audience: (unclear).
Diaz:
No, our intent was to get to the point, rather than bury
people in minutia, so it's not that thick and we can
explain what the impacts are and that.
Audience: (unclear).
Diaz: It is in the report. Just give us a call or come on in
and we will sit down with you.
Crites:
Snyder:
At this point, then, it may be appropriate to ask members
of the Council, then, to make whatever comments.
directions, that they would have to staff and to the
applicant for further Information or changes before the
next meeting on this issue. Mr. Snyder, would you care to
begin that process?
Well, I've been on the Council for a long time, and I've
gone through many problems such as this. I can remember
when some of you were with us when we were deciding
whether we wanted to have the Town Center in Palm Desert
or we didn't want them. the other problem we had in your
area next to the Sandpiper. I think it's always been our
philosophy that Palm Desert is the kind of city, and 1
hope we have the kind of City people working for you that
only want to do what the majority of the people want.
Sometimes it's a hard time to walk down the middle of
those who do and those who don't. But that's part of the
responsibility that we have to find a way to control
growth, to continue to have Palm Desert the most lovely
and beautiful city and some place we all want to live.
Our history 1 think. and 1 have been here since it was a
village, has been good. I think we have selected the kind
of growth that has been almost 100% proper. We've brought
the City along with open space, we still see our
mountains, we still can breathe our air and not eat It. I
think that what we have tried to do is come up with the
things that are proper for the City to give us a better
life, to give us the stores and the restaurants that we
need end want to have a true area where people like me who
are retired or resort people who want to come here and
live here and enjoy it. So that's the purpose that we're
22
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
trying to do now. i would have to say that there's no way
I could look at a bridge across there or increase the
traffic along El Paseo. And I'm not saying that to woo
you, I'm saying it because 1 have studied this plan, and
the Ahmanson people have been working on it for some time,
and they are most agreeable. They're not trying to throw
anything at us or force us into anything. They have said
also that they, too, want to work with you people and 1
think they've proven that by talking to you. 1 believe
that we can find a way to produce the kind of development
in this area that's going to come, we all know it, what's
best. This is the first opportunity we've had to have a
master plan instead of having something here, something
dissimilar here, something else here. We have some other
thoughts on this thing that's down the road. 1 don't
think I'm talking out of turn, that we're trying to find a
way to get people from here to there without using their
automobiles. it is an exciting plan if it comes about.
and we're working on that now with the Ahmanson people.
and It might be surprising. We may be, again, the leaders
in this valley, in finding a way to get from here to there
without having to run their automobiles and cross a busy
street. I think that together, that if we sit down
together as we have tonight, and I compliment you people.
You didn't come here to rabble -rouse, you came here to
Question, to listen to us, and to offer suggestions. And
that's what we want, that's what we ask you to do, and I'm
sure that we're going to work this program out to most
everybody's satisfaction. The way we're going to that is
to accept your Input, to work on it, come back to you.
This will not be the first meeting, nor will the next one
be the last one. We wi l l be working with you, we wi l l
finally get Into development plans that specify what's
going to happen. You will be aware of it. you will be
told of it, you will be having your opportunity to input
to it, and together we're going to come up with a program
that we're all going to love to live with. And that's
what I hope we do. Thank you.
Crites: Thank you, sir.
Kelly:
First, 1 received a letter from, the way it's stated here,
it would appear that 306 owners of homes. So, it was hand
delivered to me yesterday afternoon and I suppose i could
have had it distributed to you all before the meeting, but
i wanted to emphasize it because I agree with some of the
points that are made here. And it's from Clint Kelley,
President of Sandpiper Homeowners Association. Is that
the whole...
23
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Audience: (Unclear) ...Units 5 through 9
Kelly:
Diaz:
Kelly:
Okay. It is a section evidently, that is adjacent to El
Paseo and the main point that Is made in the letter is the
problem of cut -through traffic on El Paseo. And living on
another cut -through street in town, 1 know what kind of
problem that can produce. So one of the main points is
objection to the bridge and the road across to Painters
Path there. And of course, there is no way I would ever
support that either. In addition to that, it's pointed
out that there's already a problem with the cut -through
traffic on El Paseo, and they requested that we consider
three specific items that I think that regardless of what
we do here that staff should look into these three
suggestions. One would be to look into the possibility of
reducing the speed limit on El Paseo to 25 miles per hour,
and 1 have some information coming to me that would
indicate that we are, as a City, able to do that now.
Another one Is to install a blinking light for that stop
signal there so that people will be less apt to run the
signal and come screeching up to the signal. And also
post a weight limit. We don't have a weight limit on El
Paseo in that section where people cut through. it seems
to me that those are all three logical suggestions, and so
I will give this to the City Clerk so it can be put in the
record. And 1 certainly concur that we're not going to
rush into anything and that I certainly won't support a
bridge across the Palm Valley Channel. But i do have a
question about-- access into that area is going to be very
difficult to manage traffic -wise. Can it be a
consideration, since there is going to be an access on 111
to Project #2, if there couldn't be a bridge that Just
went through to 1 so that people that came in to Project
#1 would access across the bridge through #2 and out to
Highway 111. If that wouldn't solve our traffic problem
to access to 111 and still separate It from Sandpiper
project. Has that been a consideration at all and what
would be the problem with that consideration?
A bridge between the two projects has been discussed and
evaluated and we will come back on the 12th and address
that issue more clearly.
if you look at Project #1 and try to -figure out where you
would put the access. there is no place to put the access.
And to me, if we want to do some long-range planning, we
need to Insist on something in the master plan that woulc
assure us as those projects are developed that we would
have access where it wouldn't have to affect Sandpiper and
24
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Diaz:
we would have a proper kind of traffic entrance and egress
from Highway 111.
We will look at that and, of course, part of this entire
transportation people mover system that Councilman Snyder
alluded to is to help take care of some of that traffic
back and forth. We'll address that Issue of a bridge
between the two protects, within the project areas
themselves, on the 12th, as part of our response to
comments.
Crites: Thank you. Jean?
Benson:
Well, I have a few other concerns that haven't been
mentioned yet this evening. Sun Colony l'm not concerned
with because i know that we'll get that when the
development plan comes in and certainly the natural
continuation of El Paseo. Other than the fact that 1 see
no purpose in continuing Painters Path around and across
the bridge as well, I don't think that we're looking for
alternate routes of traffic through neighborhoods. That's
never been our intention and we certainly wouldn't bring
Painters Path around to Edgehill up through a whole entire
residential neighborhood. My other one main concern,
though, that has not been addressed tonight Is Site Area
4. It's been the contention of this Council so far that
along Fred Waring has been office professional. 1 would
not like to see commercial fronting going onto Fred Waring
in that block. I'd rather see at least maybe the lot
divided. and the first fronting on Fred Waring office
professional and maybe to the back some kind of commercial
with street access there. The fire house sits there,
there is certainly a need someplace behind the fire house
there as Town Center expands for additional parking and
perhaps those two could be worked out something In there
for that other than adding more commercial on the other
side of the street. My other main concern is the signal
in the middle of Highway 111 at the entrance to the
project since we just finished the widening of 111 and
have traffic flowing through there very nicely. i would
hate to see ft bogged down again there and especially
until we find out what kind of a people mover operation
we're going to have between those two projects. So I'd
like to see that expanded because to my knowledge the land
next to the Travelers is still resort commercial because
we've been wafting for a restaurant for about four years.
It was supposed to be built In six months and hasn't shown
up yet. And also I agree with Councilman Kelly, I would
like to see something In between those two units there
some way so that people could circulate In there without
25
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
coming across the Channel at Painters Path. i have one
other concern, and I think it's very admirable that Indian
Wells is concerned about 61 units that we'll be destroying
for our very low income people. I think it's commendable
that they're concerned about Palm Desert.
Crites: Thank you.
Benson:
Crites:
Also, i think that with the amount of people that this
project will generate. that it behooves the Ahmanson
Company to come up with some mitigating factors, fees, or
something to help with the housing for these people.
That's all for now.
Thank you. I'd feel deficient to not make a few comments.
The California Environmental Quality Act, which is the
idea of the environmental impact report, requires that a
City make a "best effort to find out and disclose all of
the effects and consequences of a project that it
reasonably can find." So I hope staff and the applicant
would accept my comments in that reasonable light.
First area: The environmental impact report gives us
alternates to the project. I think the alternates are
phoney alternates. One of the alternates. for example,
allows it says that let's just leave the El Paseo site as
residential. i don't think that's a realistic alternative
at all. The alternative, for example, says well let's
leave it all in the present zoning as resort commercial
and develop it to its maximum and, look, that's not so
good either. Instead I think we need to have staff and
the applicant come up with some realistic alternatives.
for example, commercial on El Paseo, Jean's comment of a
mixture of office professional and commercial on the Fred
Waring site, and let us look at the Highway Ill site as an
example with either 75 or perhaps 1/3 of the development
on it that it's proposed for. Maximum development is not
necessarily maximally beneficial to our City. It may be
to the company, it may not be to us. Let's look at what
happens 1f we yank 30% or 40% off the 111 site, especially
in light of the fact that at least this member of the
Council has zero intention of voting for another stop
light on Highway III.
In terms of traffic. in the environmental impact report.
there are a number of areas that 1 think need to be
cleaned up. For instance, the environmental impact report
talking about traffic demand management, which can be
found on page 48 of that report. Page 48 of that report
consists primarily of wonderful phrases like "encourage",
26
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • =• . • • • . . • • • •
"encourage", "work with", "evaluate", "investigate",
"investigate"; All of those to me are key words for not
doing anything. We need to see some exact, pinned down,
concrete, mandatory things that are going to be used in
order to decrease the traffic impacts of this protect In
terms of car pooling, van pooling, people movers and all
the rest of that. not maybe we wills and golly gee whiz it
would be nice.
Also In terms of traffic, on pages 45 and 46 of the
environmental impact report, problems that are listed on
page 45 of the environmental impact report as needing
mitigation are not the same as what you find on page 46 es
to what we're going to mitigate. So there are problems
that don't match the solutions that are proposed. in
addition to that, many of the solutions, for example, page
19 of the proposal, many of the traffic intersection
solutions instead along with solving part of a problem
create other problems. As an example, a number of cases,
the lanes that are now exclusively right -turn lanes are
instead both through and right -turn lanes, which is not
nearly -as good an option for people wanting to make a
right turn off the Highway. If one person in front of you
wants to go through, everything behind is stuck til the
light changes. And that's not necessarily a particularly
good improvement. 1 did not see anything in the traffic
analysis that gives us any issue about when Highway 11I
will be made three lanes all the way through the City in
both directions, which I think is what several people on
the Council have already commented on that needs to
happen.
Benson: On to Indio.
Crites:
There are perhaps some neighbors of ours who might be
enlightened with this issue as well. San Pablo/111, the
primary issue that the report talks about has to do with
an intersection. What it does not address is the fact
that an intersection may be neat, but as small as San
Pablo is south of Highway 111, If there's much traffic it
can't get to the intersection. And 1 don't think this
report adequately addresses the roadway that connects El
Paseo to Highway 111.
Page 13 of the traffic analysis --This traffic analysis
assumes a 4% growth In traffic per year In this area. l
am modestly skeptical of that estimate. 1 think we need
considerable more backing as to where it comes from and if
everything I've learned out of my contact with the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments is correct,
27
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
every one those estimates ends up being too conservative.
i want to know why we should believe that one end why we
should accept that as the project estimate as versus 5% or
6%. If you take a look, also, at one of the charts which
is Chart 12 of the traffic analysis, you'll notice that
while the report attempts to move intersections up to
Grade C, after you're done with this, many of the lengths
of the road between the intersections are at Level E or
Level F, and Level F in traffic Is like Level F in school.
1 don't think that needs a lot of explaining, and 1 don't
care if you can get through intersections zippity-do, if
you get through it and sit in Level F to the next
intersection, we have accomplished next to nothing.
0n page 47 of the traffic analysis, the suggestion is
where possible maybe let's do bus shelters and pull -offs
for bus stops, and that needs to be mandatory, not where
possible and we sure would like to. Also in traffic
analysis, one thing 1 don't see considered here, if we're
not going to have an automobile path across the Channel,
one of the things we ought to consider is a foot and bike
path. It's foolish to have pedestrians have to walk all
they way up to Highway 111, walk down Highway 111, and
then walk back across that development. At a minimum, we
need to consider bicycle/pedestrian access across that
area. It also does not tell us when the traffic
improvements go on line --before, during, or after project
completion, and If it's going to be years after project
completion, we live with issues that i don't think are
palatable for this City in the tiniest bit.
In terms of parking, in the 1l1 Center, which 1 assume is
going to at least in part model the Town Center, if the
parking requirements per square foot are the same as the
Town Center, they're wrong. They're inadequate. Town
Center parking is inadequate. We need to analyze parking
requirements, and I know that we're going to say well
we' 1 I do that when we get around to spec 1 f I c buildings.
No, before we rezone something, we ought to look at It.
The same issue is true on El Paseo. I would like to make
sure that we both have sufficient provisions for parking
for the project on El Paseo and also an agreement with the
applicant for provision of extra parking for other El
Paseo merchants, because we now have a deficit in that
area.
In terms of the environmental impact report on housing,
they have suggested to us that on housing, we estimate the
housing need for this project at somewhere between their
center on Highway Ill and the Town Center, about halfway
28
1
MINUTES
REGULAR PAIN DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • IF • • • • • • OOOOOOO • • • •
in between. They suggested the Town Center as one
employee per 400 square foot and they, in their center, at
the 111 Town Center, have one employee per 1,300 square
foot; well, let's split the difference and say that this
project's going to generate one employee per 800. How in
the heck can we possibly know that when we have no idea so
far what's going in there, and that estimate forms the
basis of how much affordable housing the project needs to
generate. I think that we need to generate on a worst
case scenario, which would be one employee per 400 square
foot and look at that amount of housing generation, and
then if that isn't as it turns out, we can adjust from
there. But what we're doing right now is not adequate.
In the same way, we'll note that Ahmanson itself, as Jean
points out, is not doing anything in terms of providing
housing. Part of our monies, through redevelopment, will
be used for that. But I'm curious, as you are, to what
Ahmanson itself is going to do, specifically in context of
something that was mentioned two weeks ago at one of our
meetings, and that Is that present low income housing
project, because of the ability to raise rents due to
income changes in the County, have ended up making over a
five- to ten-year period have ended up making our
affordable housing unaffordable. That can't happen in
this project or we haven't done what our citizens need to
do. And so we need a process by which affordable housing
will stay affordable.
We also have comments from the City of Rancho Mirage in
terms of traffic impacts that are possible In their city,
and one of the things that the environmental impact
statement can do and that CEQA can do is can look at
traffic impacts outside city boundaries and can also ask
that monies and funds and so on be set aside to deal with
those. And 1 don't see that issue being adequately
addressed in the EIR. I think we need to do that. 1 also
think that certainly we need to respond to the comments
that have been made tonight by the Sunrise Corporation and
certainly their close familiarity with unsupported EIR's
have helped them in analyzing other kinds of things.
And finally, you should end on a positive note. i think
Ahmanson and company should be warmly thanked for their
willingness to contribute to the hillside preservation
program that this city very strongly has an attachment to,
and 1 personally wish to offer my thanks for that. And
these are issues that overall then I think need to be
addressed so that when we move on this project we may do
so knowing, as I began my comments with, that we have done
29
OE
auoN
AON39V 3H1 JO 8838W3W ONY NYWdIYHO 'O
;uasgy
13SN000 AON39V '8
auoN
80133810 3AI1f33X3 'V
N0110Y 9NIdI8038 SM311 0dV08 A3N39Y ONY 'S)IdYM3d 'Sl110d3d 'IX
auoN
SS]NISfl9 0l0 •X
auoN
SS3N 1 Sl9 0388111103 ' X I
auoN
SS]NISl9 M3M ' 111A
auoN
113AO 0132 SM31I 1N3SN00 ' 1 fA
auoN
SN011M1OS3a 'IA
•a;on snowlueun iq salluea uol;ow a41 :ueollll9
•a;on aseald 'puO30s a pUR .UOI;Ow a ane4 am :sa;Iu3
•puooaS :uosua8
Zpuooas a aua4; sl :sa;lJO
'aAOW OS I :AIIaH
.44Z1 .sego;30 I l;un .ia;;ew
sly; 6ulnul;uoa Jo3 uol;ow a ulo;Ja;ua pinos 1 '4e4; 43IM
.nods :Iue41 *A41.413a4u1 441M pug a3uapl;uoa 441M pea4e
arrow am Ivy} pue ane4 pino3 Xa11gn SIy; uI d;IO Cue 4e4;
;3aroJd sly; ;noge sanssi a4; 3o AJanooslp 40 go(' ;saq 844
6861 '8Z 8391131d3S 9N113361 A3N39V 1N3MdO13A30321 1a3S30 M1Vd aY1l93d
S31ONIW
r1
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • . • • • •
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Member Snyder moved to adjourn to Closed Session at 8:58 p.m.
to continue discussions not completed prior to the dinner recess. Motion
was seconded by Benson and carried by unanimous vote of the Agency Board.
Vice Chairman Crites reconvened the meeting at 9:45 p.m. and
immediately adjourned with no action announced from Closed
Session.
SHEILA R. GILLI1tAN, SECRE�iRY TO THE
PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
8UF
. CRITES, VICE CHAIRMAN
31
Z£
a/n3n; pasodosd pug guesasd 'gsed ggTm uot40un[uoa ut 40eto/d
eq3 ;o s;oedulT eAt;e/nwno ezd/sue 04 sits; 4I '43eCo/d aq; 04
santggu/ag/e sassnostp pug sagtsasap £taaenbapeut gI '(.YOSOM)
goy d;t/en0 /e4uewuo1TAu3 etu/o3t/80 eq; ;o s;uswestnbes
eqg :aaw og /ap/o uT pastna/ ATIgt;uegsgns aq p/Hogs
pug a;enbepeut dtssos6 st ;oe[osd eq; so; gig eqy
hie-ubt-u+a T'T
XXIY141411S ' t
'6861 '8Z segwe3des pegep nod
o; sa;ge1 s u! q;so; ;as 'uetd /e/aue° eq; uo squaw/goo ,sTTaM
uetpul ;o d.T0 aqg u! pug sense! mugs eq3 6uTesnostp '686t 'ET
segme;des ps;ep nod o; /eggs/ e uT sTTaM uelpui ;o d;t0 aq; dq
pe;;lwgns squawmoo aq; uT uloC og gsTM OM 'uotgtppe uI
•;oaCosd egg ;o TgAo/ddg pasodosd eq; uo bu!/eaq ;oeitp
g ate; gotgm uetd Teague° 2,41;13 eq; u! setognbepeut ;o sagwnu
e sazt/ewmns osig /eggs/ stgy •(.;aaCoad.) us/d ;uawdo/anew
Tgt3/aewo0 uosuewgW egg so; (.gig,) ;sodeg goedwl Te411awuostnu3
;e/a egg uo s;uawmoa s;twgns se;;a/ stq; 'sTTaM ueTpui ;o .&;t0
gueaiCpe egg u! pus (.A4T0.) gsasea w1ed ;o d;t0 aq; utq;pt
d;ssdoad ;o =sumo eqg 'duedwo0 •/!sung ;o ;tegaq uo
400-4L606T
•)•.fl. 311. Ol
wilL4 L v i
doenbepeuI fUI3 pus
:ugtd guawdo/anew
{M•-)w IM4
.0Lb.1M{ .D •01.1.mY04M
L))•L• ISM
1 1..1 0•{
001.4{1 1'00
w•••{e001 •D •a '.010.1...M
M 'M Y77Y4{ y1 O..
.0014 MLt11
a O .DLO.IM..M
1)•.1103 40
y01112 0•7W.84
6861 '8Z 21381431d3S
u Wlwa to 4+4iJ 3u
'1-68 Z/0 'T-68 Yd0
/gt0/awg103 uosueIDg'
: 2gta .214 a2QQ
:eg
09ZZ6 8111/03TT20 ';iasaa wTgd
aAt1Q butsnM Pas; OTS-EL
gsesaa milk/ 3o dgt0
6utuugtd/;uewdoTanaa
d;tunwwo0 ;o guaw;/edam
sogoaatQ 'zeta puowdeg
6861 '8Z /egwa;des
0u0•0.0 LIN 1111.•1•2••
OOOHf 1.111 1.0.•111♦
1001-00080 Y'% '4736,1 b15O2
O{1) 7Llfl{
)wI.O .MOL 0{•
.1MOL
•.014.100•.03 1Vw01••3•0•• •.MM3.I •I.N131333 •
.LLOI113 B XONX '113NH1f10 'NVWVSSON
szos..O My1
lam 1181HX3
•1•Per. . 1.IO L114,1•
OOL)K.• HM
••11•10I.• .% • 0311.1M.YI M.
04130.033331 )ML 00.
.001. OMIN/
01113....0.14 M.1
00•L••1. 1.1.1
l0 01-11000 .) '
lases• .0.11101• M10011 Sire
•DD11 L1.1••LL•IML
{)1) MI
M.M.{(O. '1 18111.0A
9N1133N A3N39V 1N38d013A3838 1213S30 N1Vd avinom
S319IN
,
n
n
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • . • • • . . • • • . • • • • . * • • •
EXHIBIT "A"
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER. KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 2
projects in the region and entirely fails to examine the
significant regional impacts of the Project. It is conclusory
and fails to describe adequately the impacts of the Project or
to support its discussion with data. Conclusions regarding the
significance of impacts are not supported by the text of the
EIR, or, in some cases, are flatly contradicted by the text of
the EIR.
The City Council should not certify the EIR at this
time because the Planning Commission did not review the Final
EIR, which still has not been prepared, and recommended
certification of the EIR without reviewing the comments,
received on the EIR. In addition, the Planning Commission
failed to make findings regarding each significant impact of
the Project and alternative to the Project, or to make a
statement of overriding considerations as required by CEQA.
The City Council should resubmit the EIR and Project appprovals
to the Planning Commission and should postpone its decision on
the certification of the EIR until the responses to comments
have been completed and the public has had an opportunity to
review the responses and submit testimony to the City Council.
1.2 Inadeauacv of . -i v .enara Plan
Every element of the general plan'contains serious
deficiencies which relate directly to the approval of the
Project. These deficiencies are so pervasive that the City
should refrain from adopting further approvals for all projects
until a new general plan has been prepared. If the City
determined to approve the Project under the current general
plan, these approvals will be invalid because the City does not
have an adequate general plan.
2. COMMENTS ON THE EIg
2.1 Froiect Description
The Project description includes pip mao whatsoever.
The reviewer of the EIR cannot determine the location of the
Project within the region or within the City. Furthermore, no
site plan is included which would permit the public to
determine the extent of development which would be permitted on
the Project site. Contrary to the statement in the EIR that no
specific proposals have been submitted to the City, a
Development Agreement for the Project has been prepared. The
Development Agreement does include information regarding
height, density and intensity of use. This information permits
the City to describe in greater detail the development that the
approvals would permit on the Project site.
33
V£
's;uammoo sma;sAsts;tp aq;
dq pe;ou se ';oaCosd aq; ;o potzad ;no-pTtnq eq; q;tM s;ott;uoo
oat, ;i •esu%s axem ;ou sop Aidmts gotgi 'uotsntouoo
sTq; 20; ;soddns ou st azagy • • • se;es asn;n; ueq;
aeg611/ aq o; pa;edtot;ue ese sso;oe; uoTsstma 066T. asneoeq
.;Uemasesse aseo-;sson. a sT 066t UT s;oedmt ;o sTsd/eue ;eq;
not;oes A;t/en8 1Ty aq; ;o L abed uo se;e;s 9I3 aqy
•e;enbepeut
.C/ast;ua si g13 aq; ut estou 3o u0tssnostp aqy •pa;eo0T
aq p/noM steno/ estou alga;deoosun asegn Mogs o; gi3 eq;
uT papteosd eau ssno;uoo sou oN •pa;enieme eaaf .s;oedmT.
eq; ;o Auem asap* /tea o; a/gTssodmT st ;T ';oe; uI •s;oedmt
estou teuoT6es (e;en/see sset gonm) not;uem o; uaea STIR; an
aq; ,u/a aq; uo s;uammoo sme;sdses;III aq; uT pe;ou s1t
tOH C•Z
•;oaCosd aq;
;o ;oedmT asienpe pe;e6T;Tmun ;ueoi;Tubas a sT sTgy .0 tamp/
eoTAsag peeoze ITTM suo;;oesaa;uT euTu 'seanseem uo14e51;1m
uot;oesse;ut 3133e=; ;oaCosd g;TM name ';eq; 21048;s ;/as;T
HI3 eq; 30 ;za; eq; 'aao;asagz .• • • • saanseam uoT4e6T;tw
uoT;oesza;u/ oT;;esy ;oaCosd sntd esT;etmmn0/q;Mos0 ;uatgmy
sntd suoT;Tpuoo but;size o; uoT;tppe q;ti 0 taAe/ savage
pesoza o; pa;oaCosd sae suoT;oassa;uT euTu. ;eq; sa;e;s gig
eq; 'ZE abed 90 •21I3 eq; uT e;ep eq; Aq pe;otpea;uoo At;et; st
eouto;;tu6Tsut ;o TOAST a o; pa;ebT;Tm aq ITTM s;oedmt oT;;es;
;sq; uotzn/ouoo s,A;TO •g; ;sq; sT 1e9I0 8T ;eqM
yp•;uometdmT eq sasnsesm uoT4e6T;Tm ttTM uegM .Lsuot;epu•ewooes
oT;Toads ;aeCoad. atm ttuo 20 .'suoT;oesaa;ut
sere bay o; a;oedesT 4oecom, dtu0 20 .'s;uemeitoadmt
not;ebt;Tm not;aessa;uT apTM-sass. ;ueweidmT o; pa/Tubes
aq';oaCosd eq; ttTM •s;oedwT omits; a;e6T;Tm o; pepuemmooes
'se saanseam uoT;sbT;Tm ;upi auTmae;•p o; etgTssodwT
sT ;T ';tnses a sy •pesTue6soun pule pa;ipaun 'iII3 eq; o;uT
;T punoq pus s;ue;/nsuoo s;T mos; ;sodas a ueKe; .:taiem sin(
S410 aq; 'sasnsesm UOT;ebT;Tm pue s;oedmT 'suot;TpuOO DT33es;
;o uotssnosip •/gTsu•gesdmoa a 6UTsed•ad uvq; 2aq;e9
3T3;szZ Z•Z
•uetd tezeue6 eq; UT p•uie;uoo 21113Ttod put s•AT;oaCgo 'sten6
eq; q;TM sO saaoosd 6UTUUetd ;u•mdot•Aap•s s,d4t0 •q; q;TM
daUa;sisuoa s,;oaCosd aq; ssnosTp ;ou saop fIa agZ
.v. 110111)13
E abed
6461 'eZ zagma;dee
sera puomAeg -spa
1JACll3 a XOPtx `ii3NH1l17 INIVNIVSSON
6861 ' 8Z d38931d3S
991133M A3N3919 1113Nd0139303d 1113S30 MIVd d311193H
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • it • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
EXHIBIT 'A'
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER, KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 4
2.4 Air Ouality
On page 2 of the Air Quality section of the EIR, the
Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP") for the region is
discussed. This section acknowledges that the land use
strategies contained in the AQMP focus on land use measures
that would help reduce the number and length of automobile
trips. The EIR does not discuss consistency between the
Project and these land use strategies.
without support, the air quality discussion concludes
that "no long term adverse impacts have been identified,'
despite the fact that the Project will result in an increase in
ozone. The EIR also states that State ozone standards have
been exceeded in the Project area. The EIR should conclude
that the Project will have a significant cumulative impact on
air quality.
2.5 Drainaae
The EIR does not identify impacts. It merely states
that drainage improvements will be constructed according to
City requirements (a mitigation measure) and will be
'beneficial" (an unsupported conclusion about the significance
of impacts). Therefore, it is impossible to determine what
mitigation measures are necessary or whether impacts have
mitigated.
2.6 esthetics/Licht and rliviryt
With no maps, renderings or any other visual
representation of the Project, it is absolutely impossible to
determine the extent of the aesthetic impact of the Project.
The discussion of impacts should show clearly the massing of
buildings on the site (as permitted by the Development
Agreement) and should include view studies from various points
around the Project site. The absence of information regarding
the visual impacts of the Project makes it impossible to
determine whether the Project is consistent with the urban
design element of the general plan.
2.7 public Services
The "Public Services' section provides no information
or analysis at all. It does not state how much water will be
consumed by the Project, it does not discuss the availability
of and demand upon police, fire, paramedic and schools, and
does not describe the sewage capacity necessary for the
Project. Therefore, it is impossible to tell what mitigation
is necessary or whether the impacts on the services can be
35
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • . . • * • • • • • . • • • • • • •
EXHIBIT 'A'
NOSSAMAN, GUTHNER. KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 5
mitigated. The absence of this information makes it impossible
to tell whether the Project is consistent with the public
facilities element of the general plan.
2.8 Employment end Housing
The discussion of "mitigation' for the housing impacts
of the Project does not state how the bond fund will translate
into the production of housing. Where will the units be
located? Will they be rental units? How will the City ensure
that the units remain available to persons of very low, low and
moderate incomes? When will these units be constructed?
2.9 Archaeological Assessment
This section of the RIR• does not include any
mitigation measures. It merely includes a statement on
"results and recommendations." Therefore, it is impossible to
tell what mitigation measures would be adopted for the Project
or whether impacts would be mitigated.
2.10 Analvsis of Alternatives
The "no project" alternative is incorrectly defined.
CEQA requires the no project alternative to consist of existing
conditions without development. The alternative currently
described as the "no project" alternative should be referred to
as "development under the existing general plan."
The discussion of the so-called 'no project"
alternative does not support a number of the conclusions
reached. For example, the statement that 'residents of areas
1, 6 and 7 are likely to be subject to excessive noise impacts
in excess of 65 DHA" is not supported. Why would it not be
possible to mitigate these impacts? The statement that
aesthetic impacts would "remain the same" lacks credibility,
since much less commercial development would be allowed on the
site. The discussion of this alternative also should
specifically acknowledge that significant impacts of the
proposed Project, such as traffic impacts and impacts on air
quality, would be reduced by the implementation of this
alternative.
The so-called 'no development" alternative should be
retitled the 'no project" alternative. The no project
alternative is required to evaluate impacts at the present
time, not to assume that impacts would get worse in the future
because there would not be any, or adequate, mitigation.
Therefore, the EIR does not include an adequate "no project"
analysis.
36
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • •
EXHIBIT "A"
NO55AMAN. GUTHNER, KNOX & ELLIOTT
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 6
As discussed in the letter from the City of Indian
wells and Ultrasystems, the analysis of alternatives is also
inadequate because it fails to discuss an adequate range of
alternatives. In addition to a lower density alternative, the
EIR should include an analysis of (1) a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternative sites, and (2) a discussion of
why sites that were apparently or ostensibly feasible were
rejected as infeasible, =emote or speculative. (Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, D.A.R. Sept. 27, 1989,
11920, 11921.) The fact that the Project proponent does not
own land in any other areas of the region does not mean that
the City is not required to analyze an alternative site for•the
proposed development. (See Citizens _of Goleta valley v. Board
of Supervisors (1988) 197 Ca1.App.3rd 1167.)
2.11 Failure of Plannina Commission to Review the Final
SIR: Failure of Planning, Commission to Make CEQA
Einm.nas
The Planning Commisaion made its recommendation to
certify the EIR and approve the Project based on the draft
EIR. The draft EIR is an overtly self-serving document,
intended to justify the approval of the Project rather than to
set forth information regarding the adverse environmental
effects of the Project in an unbiased fashion that would permit
decisionmakers to conduct •.rational review of the Project.
The final EIR will include a number of comments on the
inadequacies of the EIR. Before the Planning Commission can
act to recommend the Certification of the EIR and the approval
of the Project, it moist review the comments and responses to
comments.
The Planning Commission's actions further conflict
with CEQA because the Planning Commission failed to make
findings regarding each significant effect of the Project, as
required by CEQA. It did not analyze the impacts of
alternatives, nor did it adopt a finding of overriding
considerations. Before the City Council may act to certify the
EIR or approve the Project, the Planning Commission must
reconsider the matter and take actions that meet the
requirements of CEQA.
2.12 Failure to Allow Public Comment on the Final E1
The City should hold an additional public hearing
which allows the public to comment on the adequacy of responses
to comments on the EIR. The September 29, 1989 hearing is the
only scheduled public hearing on the Project; the final EIR is
not currently available. If the public hearing is closed, the
37
spaai, butsnoH Teuotbax Mau e patisst bT;uazai (.JVJS.)
s;uawuianop ;o uot;eToossy etuso;tTez useq nog eqy
4u4mu L'4 Ju y;a,itri S' E
';uaweja sat;tTToe; oTTgnd aq; q;pt ;ua;stsuon st ;naCosd aq;
saq;aqt eutmsa;ap o; eigtssodmt st ;t 'aso;asagy •sat;titoe;
ntignd butuseouoa paptnosd sem not;ewso;ut a;anbapeut asneoaq
epem aq ueo ueid Teseua6 eq; q;Tm doua;stsuoo ;o butput;
ou 'gig aq; ;o uotssnostp aq; uT anoge pa;ou sy
.udWdLal 'ad4{4L}:11l4 :JHL4'id tr'£
'HI3 aq; uT paute;uon
uot;dtsosap ;oa[osd aq; ;o doenbapeut aqa ;o asneoaq setT;oacgo
pue sTeob aq; ;o ssaputewas eq; q;ti ;ua;stsuoo sT loscosd all;
iaq;aqu TTa; o; aTgTssodwT et ;i ..saptsiitq 6uTpuno2.zns egg
;o set;TTenb Tesn;eu eq; Aq pa;euTwop d;Tunwmoa ;sasep uegsngns
d;fsua;uT Mot 'pauta;utew TTaM s se ;sesa( wild ;o abewt
aq;. butousqu* ;o Teob eq; butpntout ';uewaie ubTsap uegsn aq;
;o sieob aq; ;o awos q;pt ;ua;sTsuoouT sT ;oacosd eta
4u4w4 L'a 'slasiAmu }ri E' E
';aaCosd eq; ;o Taeosdds aq; so; ](soMamss; buTuulTd
a;enb*pe us ;o enueags eq; ;o aTdmeza seq;o us st ;uawata
uot;einniTo aq; ut pauT93u00 e;ep pa;ep;no aq/ •sTTaM uetpuT
;o d;t3 eq; lq pa;;Twgns a;uammoo eq; q;TM snouoa am
.4" ' Ia
'ueTd
T•saue6 sat but;epdn ;noq;TM ;oecosd aq; se Roos ;nawdoTanap
Tetosawwoo sorsw • enozdds ;ou pTnogs AgT0 aqy 'ueTd
;uszegoa * gsttgs;se o; site; ;sq; ;sq; gososdde TeawazeId
a 's;oeCosd TenpTeTpuT snosawnu so; maid Tesau*p aq; mum'
didwts seq ST;uasedde S;t0 eq; '*p•oep ;sad eq; ;o assnon eq;
saep •;uawdoTanap so; yaonemes; a buTgsttq•;se .;uawdoTaeap
;o not;n;T;suoo. eq; ae ens*s ;on aeop ueid Taseuab
eq; ';Tnse2 a sy •e;etosgo pus pe;ep;no sT ueid Tesaueb
OR; ut paute;uoo sus*;;sd asn pu*T ;o uoT;dtsos*p aqt
46t'ds'd La osu V"eL T' £
Nt is itaaiaJ and. aU nJQ11Ua4QAi ' E
•s;ue no3 o; sesuodses
s,d4T0 eq; put a;u*wmoo ;o pson*s Tin; eq; ;o M*te*s s uo pester(
R12 eq; ;o Aoinb*p* aqa pus ;oetosd eq; ;o eous;sgns eg; g;oq
;noge sus*ouon s;t butssasdz* mos; pesoTo*so; eq TTTA 3TTgnd
L abed
6861 '9Z sagwa;deS
zeta puowdag •sw
11OI113 8 XON)1 'NVPIVSSON
.y. 1IaIHX3
6861 '9Z 21391131d3S 9N1133M A3N39V 1N3Nd013A303H 183S30 N1yd MV1(193H
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
NO55AMAN, GUTHNER. KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 8
EXHIBIT "A'
SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
• • • •
Allocation ("BBIU "). Until the TOM figures are incorporated
into the housing element, it is impossible to judge the impact
of the Project on the City's obligation to provide for its
regional fair share of housing needs. Therefore, the City
should not approve the Project before a revised housing element
has been adopted.
The existing housing element contains numerous
inadequacies. To the extent that the housing element discusses
existing and projected housing needs, the data which forms the
basis of the discussion is obsolete. There is no analysis of
employment trends, inventory of land suitable for residential
development (the housing element merely states how much land
was zoned for residential use in 1980); or analysis of families
and persons in need of emergency shelter.
Although the housing element includes a section
entitled "5 Year Program Summary." this section does not comply
with the requirements of state law. It is vague and general,
and does not show what specific actions the City intends to
take over the five-year period. It fails to identify adequate
sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning
and development standards and with public services and
facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development
of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes,
emergency shelter and transition housing. It does not show how
the City will assist in the development of adequate. housing to
meet the needs of low- and moderate -income families, address
and remove governmentai'constraints to housing development, or
conserve and improve the- condition of existing affordable
housing stock. It does not identify the agencies and official
responsible for the implementation of the various actions or
the means by which consistency will be achieved with other
general plan elements and community goals. Finally, while
"public participation" is mentioned, the housing element does
not describe any effa*ts by the City to involve all economic
segments of the community in the development of the housing
element.
The Project will have a major growth -inducing impact
in the region. The City's housing element does not provide an
adequate planning basis for determining the significance of
this impact or for the implementation of appropriate mitigation
measures for increased housing demands.
3.6 Safety and Seismic Safety Elements
The seismic element does not adequately discuss
seismically induced surface ruptures and ground shaking,
39
Op
stone/ estou 3t;;ea; uo uot;emao;ut aq; pus
otpui pue abeapp ogoueg ;o ;uamatg astoN pa;dope
.Ctauaoaa aqa pezttt;n ;uamate stq; smaigoad
astou iet;ua;od q;tt cease d;t;uapt o; aepao
uI •pa;epdn uaaq ;ou aneq deq; :;uamatg estoN
SL6t aq; io; sano;uoo sou padotawap melt PUe
dasttM su Od !.i1e0.4.44 M<✓�YJU4JUJY l
dy{ ut.44;.0% dal.Uu uuu.dJuUJ uU5.4W'u+AU3ul. AU
4 J1L 044 0a 4"d4' Ld 0.(4 jU LutirVJ{uUya AuLSW �r
:motto; iv '444•iY14VWut 4ud11.101.0 db.Uu 044 u. E/dulC4uUJ
040V dy; 404; addVdLt•1vu4-' ;uawata stq; ;0 lza; aq.
41A0w4La da.uN 8•£
•uotbei aq; ;o spaau not;ewaasuoa pue uot4e632301 'aoeds
uado aq; ;oa;;v AIluvot;tu6ts ;vs; s;aa;;a 6utonput-q;Mos6 aneq
tttM gotges pue aoeds uado ;o eeae abaci a ddn000 t/TM ';oaCoad
aq; uo di30a2;p agog satoenpeut asps' •sasnseam uot4ee1G2u03
;o not;dopy au; so; stseq s;vnbepe ue aptnoad ;ou saop pus
taseueb loan st saosnosei tean;eu sag3o Put a;Stptpt 6utpav6aa
egsa •A3a;es Put g3ieati oitgnd so; aoeds uado so semanosas
;o not;onpoad pabeuem aq; so; pasn aoeds uado 'seoanosaa
tean;su ;o not;ewaasesd aq; ao; aoeds uado ;o dso;uaeut
ou st slag. •pa/Ftgap £t;uat0t3;nsut put pa;ep;no st saosnosea
uot;tnsasuoo put spuds uado ;o .dap;uawut, aqy
•uotsstmo snotaas dtaetnot;aed e
st stq; '(iIZ3 eq; ut papntout 22M ;oedmt sill; uo not;emso;ut aII
'ewogs pe;ou sy) ;usot;Subic aq dtps;gnopun tttm gotq* ';oscosd
GIP 30 sputmep sa;eA aq; ;0 ;gbtt uI •esodsnd .Cue so; seseM
pewsesuoo 10 pattos;uoo 'camas, 'padotawep aneq gotgM satauabe
tit q;t. not;eutps000 ut pedotswap 'bozo, ottnespdq s;t pus
as;es ;o uotssnoatp s apntout o; s/Tv; ;usmets stg7•
;uwud L4 uU t;s's,+JdQ/.+J��y uoK.1,J/ .au }y�'u�a�..u.J L • £
•8I3 as; u; pa;entewa
.tia;enbape ;ou aaaA spaezeq quasxotq pus abeuTeap uo ;pa wed
eq; ;o s;oedmF tot;up;od ;eq; a;eotput '9 pue B•0•11I se6ed
uo ';uamsta d;a;ys eq; ;0 (q) Put (*)t•g suotstwosd
•a;enbepe
ass aqusptsas dgssau pus ;oscosd aq; ;o s;uuda000 ;o d;a;vs aq;
ao; suot;ssedasd pus suotstwoad s;j ;eq; Gangue ;gnu d;t0 eq;
'paeosdds eq asp ;oacosd aqq it sans ;ueudotswep 06aut a ago;ag
•spin;ono;s punose soot's/se/3 pus sq;pt* pool mnmtutm so
's;uOaestnb•s dtddns as;aM psotsved 'sG;nos not;unovAG steam
;ou troop ;asm-te Anus eqy r•samenbg3sei ;o s;aa;;s seq;o pug
not;om punosb o; pa;oGcgns. eq ptnom eels eq; ;yq; dtuo But;t;s
6861 '8d 1138M31d3S
6 a6ed
y 696t '8Z sagms;daS
seta puomdeg • am
11O1113 % XOtil 113NHifl 'NVWIVSSON
.Y. LISI14X3
9N1133M AD11139Y 1N3Mdo13A3a3d 1213S3a W1Yd S31f)N3M
r
e"ms,
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28. 1989
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . .
NOSSAMAN. CUTHNER. KNOX 8 ELLIOTT
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 10
EXHIBIT •A"
described in the Environmental Impact Report for
the Regional Shopping Center. Using the
conclusions reached by these studies potential
noise problem areas, although coniectnral in
nature, were identified for Palm Desert."
(General Plan, p. V.C.2, emphasis added.)
The noise element fails. to analyze and quantify
current and nroiected noise levels for highways and freeways,
primary arterials and major local streets, railroad
operations, aircrafts and airports, local industrial plants
and other ground stationary noise sources. It does not
include noise contours for all of these sources stated in
terms of community equivalent noise levels or day -night
average levels. As stated in the general plan, there was no
monitoring of noise. The absence of this information prevents
the City from establishing a pattern of land uses that
minimizes the exposure of commuity residents to excessive
noise.
The Project will be a significant source of noise in
the community. The City's inadequate noise element does not
provide a planning basis for determining the significance of
these impacts or of providing for adequate mitigation of noise
impacts.
Because of the significant flaws and errors in the
EIR and the inadequacies in the general plan, we respectfully
submit that the City Council should either correct the errors
and omissions as identified herein or deny the Project.
of NO SARAN, GUTHNER, KNOX
& ELLIOTT
JOM:1.b
MELIOUS:191
cc: Thomas C. Wood, Esq.
David J. Erwin, Esq.
City Council of Palm Desert
41
Zit
Tv;o; sq3 uavel no1C '3aeco3d pesodosd aq3 mot; OT;;vs; aril 0;
sa3Ts Agaeau mot; atgTssod 0T;;v2; an. 6uTppe ,Cg-.Cgaysu an000
uvo ;uamdotensp TvuoT;Tppv ;vqn euTmas;ap o; Xaysseusu sT 3T
'30aCozd 3vgt3 Aq pe4eaeue6 oT;;va3 eq; ;o 4.0vdmT arty ez/Ctvuv oL
-;es; aavnbs 00L'9f8 ;o ;nopTTnq mnmrxvm v ao; sTTvo 40ecoad
uosusugy egy •d4TuT3TA egg uT Alaedoad itgl pus 4oscoad ;eq;
Aq pesanoa A;asdoad eq; -tog s.t;Tsue;u1 buTpTTnq mnmtxvm sq;
sT uoT3vmao;uT 3uelaoddT ;som eg; A/gvgoad '30scoad uosuvmgy
pesodoad sty ;o ;ovdmT eq; s;vnisns o; sepao uI
•suoT;Ov pasodosd eq;
t;;Tn 6uTpesoosd sso;sq pesssappv aq oa peso tTTn 21eT3ueT0T;eP
aq; pensTlaq sT 41 *suoT4ma sseq; ao; gig pulp 4uemaa3by
;uemdotenaa aqm snosddv 0; pus 'usid oT;T0eds eq; 'uvTd Tvseuea
8113 pusmv o; suoT30v pssodoad sq; uo buTassq v snag 3vq;
;aessa mind ;o uew Tuasuso sq; uT seTau.TaT;ep smos buTuzsouoa
'as;;et sTti3 3Tmgns sA '.2s43et zeTizvs ano uT s;usmmoo
atm 03 uoT3TPPv uI 'sit*M uvTpul ;o A4To og4 ;usssadsz aA
'6861 'ET aegms;des ;o sa;;WT AR uT nod 03 p03848 I sY
'UR
uvtd 3usmdotansa tvToasmmo3
uosuvmgy aq; so; sae3;10w ps;vTsg ssq;p pus
'3usssssby ;usmdoTensa 't-68 Z/0 't-68 Yd0
.•w-.N (Ina)
iil 11 1. t 1.T4
121.40 UMW/ =WOO
tyr ,
7(5 ell
:zVTa 'IN svea
:sg
09LL6 Y3 '3asssa mTvd
enTza buT1vM Pea41 OTS-CL
buTuuvtd
/;usmdotsnsa d4Tunmmo3 ;0 3usm4zvdea
ao40saTa
zvTa puomdvg 'ag
686t 'SL asgms;dse
01101-... (VW 711010.1112L
IKON v..MOw1v, 'Valli v1.0J
OFI 24I.1111
1A1110 117111213 1414101 O/O
S3M01 Y�1.1>O au
1Mvi iv IMICAOSOIA00
N3Stl3N3 9 NMO1111 '31AOt] 'N31471113314
■gr 11g114X3
6061 60Z 03003143S
9N113314 A3N391/ 1N3Md013A30311 103630 M1Vd dV100311 931014114
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28.
• • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
EXHIBIT "B"
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 2
future traffic demand upon the streets in the vicinity and can
then evaluate if the streets and highways can handle that
volume. (Traffic from non -local sources also needs to be
considered.) The permissible building intensity for nearby
sites is also necessary for evaluating other impacts, such as
air pollution, noise, sewers, housing, etc. Without that
information one cannot weigh the' impact of the proposed
Ahmanson development. One of the major purposes of the General
Plan is to provide this kind of information.
State law requires that the Land Use Element of a
city's General Plan include "standards of population density
and building intensity recommended for the various districts
and other territory covered by the Plan." (Gov. Code
S 65302(a).) In searching the Land Use Element in your General
Plan it appears these intensity levels are missing. Without
these intensity levels there is no limit on the amount of
development that can occur on either the Ahmanson properties or
other parcels in the vicinity. One cannot determine whether
the impact of the Ahmanson project surpasses the capacity level
for the streets and other infrastructure and services presently
existing or planned by the city.
Another important kind of information that is required
to be in the Land Use Element is the identification of areas
which are subject to flooding. such information is necessary
to determine whether the intensity and kind of land use
proposed for an area is desirable in light of the potential for
flash flooding which is an occasional problem in the Cgachslla
Valley. Some of the Ahmanson property is located next to the
Palm Valley storm channel and at the base of the mountains to
the south and might be subject to flooding.
One of the policies in the Land Use Element suggests
that approval of such a major project as the Ahmanson plan
would be premature at this time. The policy calls for the city
to: "Revise and update this General Plan in the 1985 and 1986
fiscal year." Given the fact that the last major revision of
the General Plan was completed in October 1980, and since then
there has been considerable development activity, for example
the construction of the Pala Desert Town Center, One Eleven
Town Canter, the Marriott Desert Springs Hotel, and other
activities in the north sphere area, it would seem advisable
and necessary to include the Ahmanson project as part of the
next major revision of the General Plan called for by this
policy. The Land Use Element also calls for preparation of a
Development Monitoring System in order to identify areas at or
reaching buildout given the level of services provided and the
physical limits of the land. Thera is no indication this has
been done.
1989
43
•ustd
tmaauaD eq4 uT TOAST 40g4 .zo; sTsaq ou sT assti4 w'Jr ;0 SO'/
paspum4s v sesnssm 1113 eq4 gbnog4Ty •sAmwpmoa sq4 ao; e3TAaes
;o tenet Paspus4s s gsTIgvlse 4ou seop 4T 4mg4 sT auemat3
uoT4mtnoaT3 eq4 30 6uTsoo4aogs amtt4ouy •Aoue4sTsuo0 sAsq o4
OWN tszeuso eq4 o4 spitz sbusgo buTpuodseaaoo Aum snsq o4 spssu
osTV Tauumga wao4s AettVA stud sqa 20A0 g4md saeauTmd ;0 4ou
ao buTssoao 'mu •T-68 Yd9 ao; seanssea buT4v6T4Tm se peaTnbea
s4eea4s eq4 o4 uoTsusdxs sq4 wogs o4 Xaow4eN uoT412tno.TO
s,auamst3 ssn pug,/ sg4 o4 4uezpusze snosumaodze4uoo eq4 eaTnbma
ptnow T-68 YdO ;o Tmeoaddm aq4 4mg4 ssmeddm oste 41
•e4mnbepmuT pus e43p-;o-4n0 eq
o4 sameddm ;tas4T dew eqy *uses eq 4ouumo den eqa ;o stTm4ep
aq4 'buTAdoo 20 °XTS uT uoT4onpea o4 enp esmoeq ustd tmamue9
a44 uT des ago 4m bn
uTXoot Aq AauTm4aso g4Tw peuTsae4ep aq
40uu10 sTgy •sAmwpsoa but4sTxs sq4 o4 uoTsuidxs pesodoad swogs
ATgTssod 4ueseT3 eon PUll ego UT X20w4eN UOT4mtno.T3 aqa ;0 dew
tsn4o12 aq4 'suoTadmnsss eseg4 uo pesmg r'IPsoa TaT4ue4od pus
6uT4stxm ;o pmot oTiiss4 xssd pe4oedxer se gaps „suoT4dsnssm„
uTm4aso uodn pesmq sT xsow4eN uoT4sinoaT3 eq4 41244 seasoTpuT
4ueseTa uoT4vTnoaTO s,44esea stud i0 4x1v4 •gy
"meats uoT4mtnaaT3 e4mnbepm
us so; Asmsseosu sT uoT4msao;u1 sTgy •Aamsseoeu sT l(aow4su
uoT4sTnoaTo ego ;o uoTsumdxe aeti4egA 20 'sAswpsoa sq4 ;o
A4Tomdmo buT4sTxe ego A4 eq A4Tsue4uT unsTxaz
sq4 412 „4noPTTn4 ustd tsasue9r sq3 mos; oTi;sza pm4oecoad
Tmuot4Tppm ag4 asglsqw suTsas4sp umo suo usgy •oTiiss4
;o aantoA buTasTxs eq4 g4TA A4F0ads0 sqT eawdzoo pus xaow4su
uoT4vTnoaTo buT4sTxe ego OOTsaxs 04 ewe eq 04 snsq uat(4
non '4ussei3 men pus'I eqa uT pegsTt4sas, sT A4Tsus4uT buTPTTnq
znzTxas eqa soup •smznioA pus seT4Tomdmo 4sea4s pe4oecoad
Pus buTasTxs ;o buTwogs smeto m sT auezet3 uoT4vTn0.TO
eq4 zo.; &MISTS eq 04 sassdds 4sg4 uoTassao;uT asgg0
•spssu Amwpmoa sanan; snoA ustd a,umo no '(stsaamd pedotsnepma
uo psaonz4suoo so) punt 4um0mA buTuTessa eq4 uo 4iTnq eq umo
esn aeg4o so buTptTnq eoTi;O ;O use; eamnbs Ausz woq wouX 4,uop
non ;T 'etdzmxe aoi 'A4To eq4 uT attsadoteMp Aq pe4saeueb
spumwep oT;;v24 eq4 411rem 04 stem xsowasu uoTamtnaaTo m ao; umtd
o4 aspa0 uT peq:TT4s4se sq 04 peen stmA•t A4TsueluT buTPTTn4
cu Z ('(4)Zo£49 i spo3 *AO) r•4usustZ own pun ego g4TA
pe4steasoow Ott 4sns aueatt uoTastnoaTO sq4 AWE mamas aepun
•s3anbspsuT sq oa 4uept3 uoTlerrto.rT3 sg4 sewn= 4ttemsT3 awn
Pun 0114 UT stenst A4Tsue4uT buTPTTn4 is eoussem etyy
£ abed
686t '9Z ssgss4d.S
zeTa puoaAs)! ' aii
r8r 1I8IHX3
6861 48Z 8380131d3S
9NI133N Jl3N39V 1N3Md013A303S 1d3S30 MIVd SV1(ININ
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
EXHIBIT "B"
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 4
A further requirement for an adequate Circulation
Element is that there be discussion of the financial means to
pay for the needed street improvements and expansion of the
Circulation Network. The brief discussion of financial
resources in the Circulation Element reveals that available
dollars are scarce for street improvements, but the city will
address the situation by using a Capital Improvement Budget to
prioritize and allocate funds needed for capital improvements
over a five-year period. The discussion does not adequately
show that funding sources are available to pay for needed
circulation network improvements.
3. Housing Eiaaent
The Environmental Impact Report done for the Ahmanson
project indicates that the new development will generate the
need for 304 lower income and vary low income households
needing housing. It also points out that the private market is
totally unable to provide dwelling units for such households.
The Ahmanson project has a further negative impact on housing
which is discussed in the EIR. The tan acres of Site No. 1 are
to be changed from residential use to commercial and open
space; the eight acres of Site No. 6 aro to be changed from
residential to commercial; the existing 61 condominium units at
Sun Lodge (Site No. 7) are to be replaced by a commercial use;
and the SS acres of Site* No. 8 are to be changed from hillside
residential to open space. The EIR states that these changes
(not including Sits No. 8) could mean the loss of about 168
dwelling units (condominiumsj.
To fully analyze the benefits and detriments of such
conversions, it is nacussary to determine the status of the
city's efforts to meet its housing responsibilities. The
General Plan Housing Element is where the housing plan is to be
found. However, the present Housing Element is out-of-date, as
it was required to be updated by July 1, 1989. Until the
updated version of the Housing Element has been adopted, one
cannot fully evaluate the impact of the proposed Ahmanson
project on the housing situation in the city. A draft of the
updated Housing Element has been prepared and submitted to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development for its
review. It appears the updated Housing Element will soon be
presented to the Council for adoption and become available for
analyzing the Ahmanson plan.
4. Noise Element
One of the significant impacts of the Ahmanson project
is the noise that will be generated by the increase in
traffic. The EIR discusses the noise impacts on six streets:
45
9v
•;ustttasabq ;uasdotanaa stm butnoadds ao; peatnbea buTput;
Aousmstsuoo agm axing om •TgTssod ;ou sT mT 'e.o04 passnostp
uVTd tsaeu.Q ati4 uT sstoustoT;ep eq; ;o esnsoes
•TESII bud (AT.Zssixosdds) ;v t des '3(aon;ett
uoT;vtnaaTa sun puv :TzaA ebvd '9 santT; 's;ussuoaTAua asToN
A4tuntttso3 ao; ,A2TTTgT;vdtto00 esp pus'I eq3 : 6T3A abed ' 4 e,sntT;
'may metgoad asToN T.T;us;od pus 3ussano sg; :4TV/II *bed
;v des sari PUSeta :saw sstgoad stq; q;T* s;ussn op lusgsodmt
emoS •uoT;smaoiuT pepus;uT aTeq; spFAoad o; etgtbst Ate;vnbsps
;ou eau 'seta ;o etttos 'butAdoaomogd so ,..ZTs uT butonpsa.
;o sssooad eta o; stta •sdeu ae s-4.zsga ;o SUMPS Aq peAeeuoo
st usTd Isasuee sum ut uoTtemaoiuT ;usmaodzt eM1 Jo ssoS
•sdss pus saavtta urnaso ;o AITTsnb ram stusouoo Aovnbaps s;T
smoa;iv 411143 ssTd tvaeueo elm ;o 6utt0oo3aog11 astt3ouy
.�...�u� Ls..ur;IVtdt •5
•ustd tsasus■J sq3 uT sq o3 pssoddns
aav ;vgm spavpuvms gins Atdds 3ouus0 ;t ssnvosq elvnbspsut
sT 30scosd eq3 ao; ilia sq; 'aueseTz ',nos sq; uT ssToueToTisP
sawn io muumuu •pr3dops ussq snvq spaspus3s gone ;vqm
;ueseta asToN et{3 uT uoT3s0Tput ou sT exsq,L •sssn punt snoTavA
ao; estou ;o stsest stgsmdeoos ass Pus APf;s ',Tau 0n0=01I3
ematdsoa o; ;us;tnsuoo esTou v satq oz SSA A;Ta sty (Z9/1861
''137) aysA tvasTJ 3xeu eg; uT ;vq; moleaTp ssop ;%sera
asToN etty •suotstosp uoT3vTn01T0 3T;iva3 pus eon poet butxss
uT epTnb g se mass UVO ;sq; seen pus/ snoTas4 ao; stsnot esTou
etgs;deoav gsttgs;ss Sou seop outs womeIa esTou .tu
.•smeTgoad **Tau so; Tvtmuemod g;TA s;sea;s
TeTae;as access asg3o eau ssog% ss2Tuboasa ;twat aumta
asToN eqm gbnogm U.A. 111I2 sq3 uT pszATeuv s;esz;s wav; asgao
stn so; umogs sae 'sno3uoo esTou oM •buTav* psai puv 'snusAy
Asasmuoyt 'ITT AvnttbTR ' 'T 'miNa;s Nat/; Atuo ao; %wogs sae
sano;uoo stoat •4u.,aTsibl2 sigm 30 ;Jogs sits; ZUVflts o
sq; ut uojssnosTp at;, (• (;)ZO£S9 I 'Poo 'non) •ems esgN
mom; buTasasusb esTou ao; %wogs =now.= veto% SAsq om peatnbea
oats sT ;I s•smeesms redo/ laces pas 'st'Tae;sv AassTad
'sAswgbTp TT, so; STOAT OOTOU pe3aecozd pue ;ueszno. rAJT;u10b
pus GUAVAS'. cm PeaT ;T 'AtTvoTiToed8 •satgoad
esTou buTuaeouoa eou1PTub spTaosd o; ramp pus spavpuv;s
Aassssosu stm utv;uoo o; pexTnbea sT ;ueseta e*Tog stye
•utslunoI( moms pus 'amid sasmuTsd
'eased to 'eATac bujavll peas 'enusAY Aezeauom 'ITT AvAg6TH
abed
686t '88 asque;deS
zsTQ puosAsg •211
.50. l I9I NX3
6961 '9Z 830M31d3S 9NI133M A3M39V 1N3Md013A3038 IJ3S30 MlYd S31f93d
k
,
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1989
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
EXHIBIT *Bw
Mr. Raymond Diaz
September 28, 1989
Page 6
Based upon the above information, the General Plan
deficiencies should be resolved before proceeding with Council
action on the decisions concerning the Ahmanson project.
Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Wood
cc: City Council of Indian Wells
City Manager of Indian Wells
City Attorney for Indian Wells
Mr. Hardy Strozisr
Ultrasystsms, Inc.
City Council of Pala Desert
City Manager of Pals Desert
David Erwin, Esq.
72447/1tr92789
47