Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17603 - RESOLUTIONS - 7/19/1991 RESOLUTION NO. 17603 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES AND WRITTEN FINDINGS TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CANYON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, ` AND MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING THE CITY' S GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, on June 19, 1991, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs held a noticed public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Canyon Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Plan" ) ; and r WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Sections 33363 and 33364 ' requires that the City Council must prepare written responses and written findings to written objections received from an affected property owner or affected taxing entity and may adopt the Redevelopment Plan only after consideration of such objections and adoption of written responses to such written objections; and WHEREAS, prior to or at the time of the June 19, 1991 public hearing, written objections to the Redevelopment Plan were received by the City Clerk from the following persons and entities: A. Barish & Hill for Jeremy Crocker B. Bein & Robinson C. Best, Best & Kreiger for Steptall, Inc. D. Best, Best & Kreiger for Smoke Tree, Inc. E. Kane, Ballmer & Berkman for Smoke Tree, Inc. F. Kipp Ian Lyons G. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians H. Riverside County I. Riverside County Flood Control District J. Palm Springs Unified School District K. Sierra Club L. Coalition for Canyon Park M. The Phoenix Group N. J. Welborne & R. Pond 0. H. Preeman and B. Preeman P. Robert Riccio Q. Jill Perry R. John Jackson WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the objections raised by these persons and entities; and WHEREAS, written responses and findings to written objections have been prepared as required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs as follows : Section 1. That the written objections to the Redevelopment Plan received from the above- listed persons and entities are without merit and are hereby overruled for the reasons detailed in the written responses and findings ' to each written objection attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. r -r Page 2 Section 2 . That the written responses and findings ' attached hereto as Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted as the written responses of the City Council in response to the written objections received in compliance with Health and Safety Code Sections 33363 and 33364. Section 3 . That the City Council finds and determines as follows: a. The Redevelopment Plan for the Canyon Redevelopment Project Area is consistent with the existing General Plan. The Planning Commission, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352 , issued its report and ' findings per Government Code Section 65402 and found, after reviewing the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan, that the Redevelopment Plan was consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission' s report is included in the Report to Council. on the Redevelopment Plan as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33352. The Redevelopment Plan .is " consistent with the existing General Plan in that ( i ) the overall density and land use character of the existing General Plan allows destination resorts in any residential designation provided the overall density set: forth in the General Plan is not exceeded and ` that the contemplated project includes densities and an intensity of use consistent with the existing General Plan; and ( ii ) that the Redevelopment: Plan is consistent with and assists the implementation of the General Plan goals with respect to the subject property, including the General Plan goals of (A) ensuring the economic viability of all sectors of the economy (commercial, land values, employment, etc. ) , (H) ensuring the future tourist economy, (C) development of recreational amenities (golf, tennis, horse trails, hiking trails, bike trails) , (D) creation of open space (visual and hillside retention) , (E) ensuring adequate flood control facilities, (F) development of a fire station for the vicinity, and (G) development of quality 'housing opportunities including on-site housing for hotel staff. b. That there is a :reasonable probability that the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with the proposed general plan on file with the State of California Office of Planning and Research in that ( .i) the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the overall density and land use character of the existing General Plan which allows destination resorts in any residential designation provided the overall density set Eorth in the General Plan is not exceeded, ( ii) the existing General Plan (A) predicts the need for a single collector street access through the project area into the Andreas Hills area and this is being accomplished via the designation of Acanto Road as a 60-foot collector street, and (S) references the neighborhood shopping center and neighborhood park as floating designations Page 3 • that are not site-specific; ( iii) both the existing General Plan and the proposed general plan identify the same uses for the for the subject property and the proposed general plan does not constitute a change from the overall land use character defined in the existing General Plan; and ( iv) the Redevelopment Plan has incorporated the concepts from the Jani- Jerde "Vision Report" citing the need for world-class destination projects in the Canyon "Luxury" Sphere, the site of the proposed project, which concepts are incorporated into the proposed general plan. C. That there is little or no probability the ` Redevelopment Plan will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the Redevelopment Plan is ultimately inconsistent with that future adopted general plan, in that due to the resort/residential character of the environs in and surrounding the subject property, there is no possibility that alternative land uses such as commercial or industrial could be considered for the subject property and the only possible alternative General Plan consideration for the subject property would be higher or lower density than that proposed; even in the event • of a differing density, there is little probability that the project would be detrimental to or interfere in any way with the future adopted General Plan. Section 4 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, including the written responses and findings attached hereto as Exhibit "A" , to the above-listed persons and entities that submitted the written objections referenced above. ' ADOPTED this 19th day of duly , 1991. AYES: Councilmembers Broich, Murawski Neel and Mayor Bono NOES: Councilmember Hodges ABSENT: None ATTEST: CITY OF P SP G 4CPLIFORMA By: - ,y Q�� -City ClerkC+,i,t�y anager REVIEWED & APPROVED M,(OK—) s- r 8/394/014084-0022/004 LETTERS RECEIVED REGARDING CANTON REDEVELOPMENT PLAN UPTO AND INCLUDING PUBLIC HEARINGS 014 JUNE 19, 1991 ID WRITER DATE A Barish & Hill 6/19/91 for Jeremy Crocker B Bein & Robinson 6/13/91 C Best, Best & Kreiger 6/1.9/91 for Steptall, Inc D Best, Best & Kreiger 6/19/91 for Smoke Tree, Inc. E Kane, Ba.11mer & Berkman 6/19/91 for Smoke Tree, Inc. includes letters of 4/24/91 and 5/29/91 F Kipp Ian Lyons 6/1.4/91 for Andreas 'Investment Associates ' G Ague Caliente Band of 6/17/91 Cahuilla Indians H Riverside County 6/1.7/91 includes Fiscal Review Committee report I Riverside County :Flood 6/1.9/91 Control District includes resolution electing to receive tax increases and letter to Fiscal Review ' Committee J Palm Springs Unified 6/1.9/91 School District K Sierra Club 6/1.8/91 - L Coalition FOR Canyon Park 6/1.9/91 N The Phoenix Group 6/19/91 for Canyon Heights N J. Welborne & R. Pond 6/18/91 O H. Preeman & B. Preeman 6/17/91 Canyon Letters ` page 2 ID WRITER DATE P Robert Riccio 6/18/91 ¢ Jill Perry 6/18/91 R John Jackson 6/5/91 s r e-Kh v- Letter A Response Response to comments from Jeremy Crocker by Barash & Hill, June 19, 1991. Page 2 , Paragraph 3 . "The project will according to the EIR on page 5-105 generate 16, 600 daily- trip ends". The letter provides a range up to 33, 320 daily trips which is incorrect. R_esp nse: AQMD provided their comments dated May 16, 1991, on the Draft EIR after the comment period had ended on May 11, 1991. The comments provided were responded to and the letter and responses to it were provided to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and are part of the administrative record. , Page 11, Paragraph 1. "The EIR lacks proper analysis of school capacity". , Response: A representative of the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) testified at the June 191, 1991, public hearing that impacts on the school district of the Canyon Project have been satisfactorily mitigated and that the PSUSD supports certification of the EIR. Page 11, Paragraph 2 . , "The EIR lacks any analysis of adverse impacts the project will cause to the State air quality standard for visibility. " , Res once: Visibility is a negative aesthetic impact, not a health- related impact. The state standard is a minimum hourly visibility less than 10 miles with relative humidity less 'than 70 percent. There are no known models to determine a development's impact on visibility. It: is logical to assume that a vacant: area versus a lake or a developed area would have a different: effect on humidity (a primary determinant of visibilityy) . However, a literature search has not revealed a model or assumptions that correlate development to humidity and/or visibility. Staff has contacted Ms. Connie Day, AQMD staff, regarding this issue and has been informed that the state visibility issue must be addressed on a regional basis and not on a land use project basis. The Air Quality Management Plan and local PM-10 Plan implementation measures will work: to increase visibility within the Coachella Valley. Additionally AQMD indicates that it does not require project: specific EIR's to address this issue. r Page 11, Paragraph 3 . "All feasible mitigatons have not been required of the development" . Response: The writer states that all feasible mitigation measures have not been required and then specifically references a City of Santa Monica retrofit of existing water users ordinance. The DWA, the local water agency, has been involved in review of the subject proposal and has not suggested that such a mitigation measure is necessary. The DWA indicates that use of reclaimed water will substantially reduce water consumption impacts and that asking a developer to retrofit other existing projects is unreasonable. Page 12, Paragraph 1. "Cumulative analysis is too limited". Response: The amount of development that is considered as a part of the cumulative development varies according to the potential area impacted by topic. Cumulative impacts for air quality are addressed in two ways in the EIR. First, they are included in the 1998 and 2010 CO projections for the Caline analysis. Second, the year 2000 Regional Emissions Inventory, Table 5-8 on page 5-116 compares project emissions with projected basin wide emissions (which include cumulative emissions) . Therefore, the air quality impact section of the E. I.R. does address cumulative air quality impacts. Cumulative traffic impacts were addressed as follows. All of the developable land in the canyon area, which is .relatively isolated, was allocated residential units from which the number of trips generated were estimated. It is expected that traffic in the project vicinity will be related to these projects and the proposed project. Then, the number of trips estimated to come from the proposed project was added to the trips generated by all potential surrounding development. Traffic growth on East Palm Canyon Drive was calculated using a growth rate which is consistent with historical traffic increases. This constitutes a cumulative analysis which has been provided in the EIR traffic study. The noise contours and analysis provided in the EIR are related to traffic the noise analysis also includes a cumulative analysis as required by CEQA. The cumulative impact for the other topics were addressed in the same manner as the cumulative traffic impacts. C./l,� 'U Letter C Response Response to comments for Steptall Inc. by Best, Best, and Kreiger, June 19, 1991. The proposed extension of Acanto Drive across the wash will result in short term construction noise as the proposed bridge and road improvements are constructed.. Short term construction noise impacts are detailed in the FEIR, Volume A, pages 5-130 and 5-131. There are no sensitive noise receptors (residences) currently located adjacent to this proposed ,alignment, as the adjacent subdivision is vacant, and the nearest homes are located in Parc Andreas. Due to the temporary nature of this construction activity the short term noise impacts of this alternative were not considered to be significant. Given the traffic volumes that would be projected on Avenida Sevilla, the 65 CNEL contour would be within the public right-of-way of Acanto Drive. Traffic volumes are discussed below. Noise impacts are not considered significant. Air quality impacts of the proposed construction including activity required to extend this road are included in the emissions calculated for construction for, this ,project on page 5-114 of the Final EIR, Volume A. The precise design of the Acanto Drive extension, the intersection geometrics, design speed, road widths, and alignments were not , required by the City to process a Specific Plan. This detailed design information will be evaluated at the Planned Development District stage. However, the precise location of this alignment will have to be designed and constructed according to the standards of the City of Palm Springs and will be subject to the review and approval of the City of Palm Springs. The extension of Acanto Drive across the wash and the alternative of connecting Bogert Trail to Acanto Drive were evaluated by the traffic, noise and air quality consultant. No significant traffic, noise, or air quality impacts were identified and therefore no , mitigation measures are provided. Circulation alternatives were included in the FEIR on pages 5-102 and 5-103 . Cumulative impacts for air quality are addressed in two ways in the EIR< First, they are included in the 1998 and 2010 CO projections for the Caline analysis. Second, the year 2000 Regional Emissions Inventory, Table 5-8 on page 5-116 compares project: emissions with projected basin wide emissions (which include cumulative emissions) . Therefore, the air quality section of the EIR. does address cumulative air quality impacts. Cumulative traffic impacts were addressed as follows. All of the developable land in the canyon area, which is relatively isolated, was allocated residential units from which the number of trips generated were estimated. It is expected that traffic in the project vicinity will be related to these projects and the proposed project. Then, the number of trips estimated to come from the proposed project was added to the trips generated by all potential surrounding development. This constitutes a cumulative analysis which has been provided in the EIR traffic study. Since the noise contours provided in the EIR are related to traffic, the noise analysis also includes a cumulative analysis as required by CEQA. The traffic expected on the realigned and extended Acanto Drive will be relatively light for a two lane street (i.e. , 2,790 trips) . Given designs which meet city standards and which are subject to city review no significant safety issue related to traffic or traffic noise would arise. The intersection geometries which were identified as a potential problem were evaluated and found to be insignificant. These specific design issues will. be considered during design of the bridge. -r Regarding visual and aesthetic issues, the letter states that, "the final EIR fails to address the aesthetic impacts of the realignment and extension of Acanto across the wash. Views of the surrounding P desert, wash and mountains from all of my client's lots will be directly impacted, both in the short and long term, by the construction of the proposed bridge. Further, there is no discussion or analysis as to what is to occur with the existing Bogert Trail bridge across the wash. Presumable the bridge will be abandoned. However, there is no analysis as to the aesthetic or safety consequences of leaving an abandoned bridge across the Wash or what steps might be taken to mitigate those consequences. " Nine lots within the Andreas Pointe Development have frontages on ` the Palm Canyon Wash. Residential structures designed for these lots will presumably be sited to take advantage of long range westerly views across the Palm Canyon Wash and toward the San Jacinto Mountains. From an aesthetic analysis point of view, these lots can be divided into two categories based on their geographic relationship to the existing surroundings and to the proposed project site. Four of these lots, including Lots 2 and 3, owned by Steptall Inc. , are located within 500 feet of the existing Bogert Trail bridge and are additionally located directly easterly of the existing residential subdivision commonly known as Andreas Palms. The remaining five lots, , including Lots 5 and 7, owned by Steptall Inc. , are located at distances of greater than 500 feet from the existing Bogert Trail bridge and are south of currently undeveloped land within the proposed project boundary. The aesthetic effect of the project as proposed on exposed lots within the Andreas Pointe Development will be to extend the aesthetic conditions experienced by the northerly lots to the southerly lots as well. The northerly lots are currently exposed to views of the Bogert Trail bridge and the residential development ` within Andreas Palms. The proposed Acanto extension and bridge will create nearly precisely the same aesthetic circumstances for west facing lots in the southern portion of the Andreas Pointe ( ' RA - 13 - 7 gl2A - - � development as now experienced in the north. An examination of aesthetic conditions from the area east of the Palm Canyon Wash and near the Bogert Trail bridge yields the following conclusions. views tend to be strongly oriented in a westerly direction; the rugged mountain backdroop is a strong visual attractant. The 400 foot wide open expanse of the Palm Canyon Wash serves as a setback more than sufficient to prevent residential development on the west bank of the wash from obstructing views of the mountains„ The existing bridge, with its east-west alignment across the. wash, has little impact on vistas or long range views of the surrounding desert visual setting even from closely adjacent viewpoints; the alignment has the effect of causing the bridge to recede away from 'these viewpoints, rather than crossing in front of 'them. The bridge will affect the remaining 1°natural" aspect of 'the wash's appearance; the bridge reinforces and provides visible evidence for the channelized character of the wash. Construction activity during bridge construction will impact views from the immediately adjacent , properties, but will be of reasonably short duration. None of these findings; however, constitute significant adverse impacts. ' specific information is not available concerning the disposition of the existing Bogert Trail bridge, following construction of an alternate bridge. The City has not determined the ultimate disposition of the existing bridge and will review this issue as detailed circulation plans are submitted during the preparation of r development permit applications. r Letter G Response Comments from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians June 17, 1991. Barona Road Extension. The Tribal Council has expressed concern about the extension of Barona Road, from its current terminus at South Palm Canyon Wash near Smoke Tree Ranch through the subject property in accordance with the General Plan. The Tribal Council expressed this concern during the. Notice of Preparation and Draft EIR review periods. A written response regarding this issue is included in the Final EIR (response of letter M) . The Tribal Council requests that this roadway extension should be evaluated as to its alignment, right- of-way needs and impact on the proposed Specific Plan. The Tribal • Council recommends that a detailed alignment study be initiated and that no further project approvals (planned development district or tentative tract maps) be granted until such a study is completed. Barona Road is proposed as an 80 foot wide right-of-way with a 64 foot curb to curb roadway. The impacts of constructing this roadway are discussed on page 5-100 of the Final EIR, Volume A. Figure 5.28 shows a typical. worst case construction impact ' resulting from constructing this roadway. This section shows that an 80 foot roadway right-of-way can be accommodated if, in the future, it is determined that Barona Road is necessary. If the right-of-way were reduced the resulting construction related impacts could be reduced. The Tribal Council comments raise two issues regarding the need for Barona Road with the first being the need of a second ingress and egress into the Palm Canyon area. The traffic study included a detailed analysis of full build-out of the South Palm Canyon area. All developable land including Andreas Cove Country Club and Tribal Lands were considered in this analysis. The traffic analysis concluded that a second access into Palm Canyon was not necessary to accommodate full build-out. The study also indicated that the extension of Murray Canyon Drive was not necessary to handle growth projected in the Palm Canyon area. This is consistent with three previous traffic studies for the area (JHK, ASL & ACCC) . The Barona Road extension south of the Palm Canyon Wash was placed on the General Plan during the Palm Hills planning process. This roadway is intended to serve as a second access into Palm Hills. Currently the extension of Barona Road south of the existing Bogert Trail bridge will be difficult. Most of this area is developed and includes Point Andreas, Andreas Palms, Parc Andreas subdivision and the Pond Estate. These developments will obstruct most access routes southerly into the Palm Hills area. In addition, Riverside County removed a roadway in this area from its General Plan in the 1970's. This would hamper the ability to get right-of-way across unincorporated areas. r In response to the Tribal Council concerns staff will meet: with the Tribal Planning Consultant to discuss this issue. The Planning Commission found that the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan and that the Barona Road extension is not necessary at this time. Acanto Road Tribal Access. Tribal Council expressed concern about the option to make Acanto Road a private street. The Tribal Council is considering re- routing Indian Canyon access roadway to Acanto Road. This is the first time this roadway :re-routing program has been discussed with the City. Staff has had several meetings with the BIA, one meeting with the Tribal Council and several discussions with Tribal Planning Consultant and no mention was made of this circulation change. Evidently this is a new proposal. In discussing this issue with John Adams, Tribal Planning Consultant, he indicates the Tribal Council intent is to bring an Indian Canyons access roadway in westerly of Bella Monte. This location would not cause any problems with potential gate: locations and vacation of this roadway. Equestrian Trails. The Tribal Council questions placement of an equestrian trail along •f South Palm Canyon Drive. The Planning Commission recommended that the Specific Plan include a trail along South Palm Canyon Drive and Acanto Road. The Commission reserved the right to evaluate the need, location and design of Taoth of these trails during the review of planned development district er tentative tract map. Canyon Development and Desert Riders have: since agreed that if an Acanto Road trail is provided the South Palm Canyon trail can be deleted. Staff would have no objections to this proposed trail deletion. Traffic Study Adequacy_ The letter expresses concern about the adequacy of the traffic analysis contained in 'the Final EIR. The consulting traffic engineer, Endo Engineering, evaluated all roadway linkages and intersections within reasonable proximity to the subject property. The traffic study specifically addressed the issues raised in the letter. The analysis evaluated intersection capacity utilization and level of service for the years 1990, 1998 and 2010, both with and without project related traffic. In addition„ the need for traffic signal warrants was evaluated. Traffic mitigation measures are included on pages 5-105 through 5-107 of the Final EIR, Volume A. Processing Specific Plan Without Lease/Purchase of Indian :Land. The Tribal Council is concerned about 'the processing of the Specific Plan without having the developer obtain a fee or lease hold interest in Indian land. The Tribal Council further recommends that no further action be taken beyond approval of the Specific Plan until land acquisition has been completed. Staff r I agrees that a planned development district or a tentative tract map requires acquisiton of land or at least property owners written authorization to file an applicaiton. This issue does not appear to be a problem at this time. Communication. h The Tribal Council has questioned how this project has been processed and has claimed that it has not been properly informed. The Tribal Council received all reports at the same time they were provided to the City Planning Commission. All reports were hand delivered to the Tribal Council. During the Tribal Council meeting, staff offered its services and advised the Tribal Council about the fast track processing of this project. In addition, staff discussed the processing with the Tribal Council Consultant _ and offered to meet with the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Council at any time. The Tribal Council also received notice of all Planning Commission meetings, including workshops and study sessions. Aside from 'the timing of the Planning Commission staff report and some redevelopment documents, every effort was made to keep the local Indian community informed on this project. Redevelopment Issues. Comments are noted and have been previously incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan. A- U-- 1/ e Letter E Response Response to comments• from the Sierra Club-San Gorgonio Chapter, June 18, 1991. This letter outlines the opinion of the Sierra Club. The Final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and was circulated for public review. A 30-dap Notice of Preparation period and 45-day Draft EIR review period was provided. The project biologist has consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding desert tortoise survey protocol and mitigation. rr Letter L Response Response to comments from the Coalition FOR Canyon Park Redevelopment, June 19, 1991. The Coalition FOR Canyon Park Redevelopment has submitted an extensive list of issues regarding the Specific Plan. The list outline indicates which issues have been agreed upon and/or issues which need further resolution. Most of the issues are relatively detailed and should be evaluated during the review of future development permits (Planned Development District or Tentative Tract Map) . Several issues have been resolved and the Specific Plan has been revised. The letter requests that these issues be resolved now or be + incorporated into conditions of approval. Staff recommends that • these and many other detailed design and specific operational issues be addressed during the development permit stage. The concerns of the Coalition are known and staff will work to see that reasonable solutions are considered. Staff does not recommend that conditions be placed on the Specific Plan as suggested by the Coalition. r r 13